Games today make up a large part of children's and young people's lives. The Domestic Players Barometer (Kinnunen et al, 2022) shows that 80,3% of Finns play digital games and the youngest participants are the group that plays the most. Both pedagogically and commercially developed games can offer the player the opportunity for learning and development (Barr, 2019). Competitive gaming presupposes, among other things, functioning cooperation and good communication skills (Rusk, Ståhl, Silseth, 2020; 2021; Rusk & Ståhl, 2020). However, there is a need to better understand commercial games from a pedagogical perspective (Barr, 2019; Gee, 2007). We suggest ethnographic research as one approach to gain such understanding from a participant’s perspective. Echoing contemporary ethnographic research, we see “a shift from away from ‘traditional’ single-sited anthropological ethnography of education, towards blended ethnography that encompasses research sites that are both physically and digitally constituted” (Tummons, 2022, p. 153). However, such a shift has methodological as well research ethical implications, which is the focus of this abstract with online gaming as the context.
Digital games, which enable new arenas for learning and identity practice, have often been studied through a normative or predominantly technical interest (Bennerstedt, 2013). This tendency comes in part from the lack of analytical approaches to understanding the direct and synchronous digital interaction, not to mention the methods for collecting data (Ståhl, 2021). Therefore, such research cannot describe how children and young people, situationally, interact through digital games, both inside and outside school. There is a need for an empirical scientific basis describing how the interaction actually is done, instead of relying on self-reported results, questionnaires or data on the interaction a posteriori (Meredith & Potter, 2014; Rusk & Ståhl, 2020). Consequently, for video ethnographic research and research on digital social interaction, the next step is to embrace the potential of data collected from the participants' point of view at the very moment of the event. 

The video game play data in the project comes from diverse multiplayer games from various offline and online spaces that are part of Finnish social and educational organizations, as well as players’ own gaming outside the activities of said organizations. The data includes screen recordings and other ethnographic data of both more and less competitive gaming from a player perspective. The aim of the current research project “EduGaming - playing together in- and outside of school” (2022-2025) to understand gaming in- and outside of school from a player perspective. The aim of this presentation is twofold: a) to present previous research endeavors on competitive gaming and educationfrom a player perspective as well as b) to discuss possible future directions for participant focused research on co-play in competitive gaming.

In terms of analysis, we employ an applied form of conversation analysis together with an ethnographic approach for collecting and analyzing data from a participant perspective. It includes techniques for documenting social actions and identifying what is characteristic of particular social activities and constructing a collection of situations for comparison between settings and over time (Schegloff, 2007). This approach provides analytical tools for treating different modalities as intertwined and constitutive of the actions performed by the participants. The analysis places social action, learning and identity construction in the temporality and sequentiality of the interaction, and recognizes that the organization of action can involve simultaneous and parallel flows of verbal, embodied, and digital (Goodwin, 2013). The project responds to the need for new and innovative ways to collect data on digital games. This requires not only the development of existing methods, but also the construction of new tools and processes as well as research ethics. Digital interaction requires methodologically creative and adaptable research, as well as continuous collaboration with the participants (Pink et al., 2016; Spilioti & Tagg, 2017). While it can be a risk and a loss of researcher control, we treat this unpredictability as an opportunity for innovation in our design as well as increased agency and integrity for the participants. Each participant has their own individual social practice in and through the games they play, so our data collection methods must be developed creatively and applied as the fieldwork develops. To operationalize ethnographic research relying on information and communication technologies results in new research ethical questions on different levels of the project. After all, research ethics is after all both “a discourse, as a body of practices, as a moral perspective, as researcher’s standpoint and as a commitment to doing no harm” (Tummons, 2022, p. 159). Both video and screen recordings are ethically sensitive and therefore require special care and respect. However, based on our previous experience of researching a player perspective in-game, not all practical ethical questions are covered by existing ethical guidelines (Ståhl & Rusk, 2022) and there is a need for in-situ ethical decisions during ethnographic fieldwork (Russell & Barley, 2020). We thereby argue, echoing Pink (2013), in a research project like this, a case-based and process-focused ethical framework can be considered optimal. Thereby, with participants performing screen recordings, they gain more control over data collection (Murphy and Dingwall 2001).

Based on the current academic discourse and previous empirical studies conducted within the project group, we see three themes that are particularly relevant to future player-centred research in a context of competitive gaming. The themes a) learning, communication and collaboration, b) research ethics and methodology in player-centred research and c) identity, community and diversity. Gaming can be a gateway to developing technological competence, learning and a sense of belonging. The norms of technology being a masculine form of competence continue to shape the gaming community. This will not only affect who has access to trajectories of technological expertise, but also their access to certain domains and careers. Additionally, these norms will also shape access points for research done within the communities and voices being heard as part of research endeavors such as ours (Rusk & Ståhl, 2023). The norm of the ideal esports player (male, white, heterosexual, and competitive) does not reflect actual player demography. Therefore, it limits which players feel included in the gaming culture, whether this gaming is done in or outside of educational contexts and settings. Therefore, employing games in an educational context is challenging, since many values, that are the norm in gaming culture, are in stark contrast to educational values such as democracy and inclusion. However, excluding commercial games from an educational setting is to refrain from improving skills such as communication and collaboration in a social learning platform that students find authentic and motivating. One could also see the problem through the following lens: what would be a better place to address issues with in-game culture than in educational safe spaces?

Barr, M. 2019. Graduate Skills and Game-based Learning: Using Video Games for Employability in Higher Education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Bennerstedt, U. (2013). Knowledge at play. Studies of games as members’ matters. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden). Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of pragmatics, 46(1), 8-23. Kinnunen, J., Taskinen, K., & Mäyrä, K. (2020). Pelaajabarometri 2020. Pelaamista koronan aikaan [Player barometer 2020. Playing at the time of corona].TRIM research reports, 29. Meredith, J., & Potter, J. (2014). Conversation analysis and electronic interactions: Methodological, analytic and technical considerations. Innovative methods and technologies for electronic discourse analysis, 370-393. Murphy, E., & Dingwall, R. (2001). The ethics of ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lofland, Handbook of ethnography (pp. 339–351). Sage publications. Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography. Principles and practice. Sage. Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography (3rd ed.). London. Russell, L. & Barley, R. (2019). Ethnography, ethics and ownership of data. Ethnography, 21 (1). DOI: 10.1177/1466138119859386 Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161-216. Spilioti, T., & Tagg, C. (2017). The ethics of online research methods in applied linguistics: Challenges, opportunities, and directions in ethical decision-making. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(2-3), 163-167. Tummons, J. (2022), "Ethics and Ethnographies of Education: Current Themes and New Directions", Russell, L., Barley, R. and Tummons, J. (Ed.) Ethics, Ethnography and Education (Studies in Educational Ethnography, Vol. 19), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 151-159. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-210X20220000019009