Design science research as utilized in this PhD study

42

43

TI `

Main paradigm: Functionalist. Main methodology: DSR Step 1 [Context and need]: Ascertain whether a serious game is a feasible teaching and learning resource for accountancy education. •Qualitative: Systematic literature reviews on serious game use in the teaching and learning environment. •Quantitative: Playtesting the Liike mock-up to gauge students’ receptiveness to the use of serious games in accountancy education. Step 1 [Plan]: First set of three-day workshops. TheLiike mock-up is scrutinised by multiple team members, such as game designers, lecturers, and program-leaders. The use of existing and or a newly developed serious game design framework, for the further development of Liike, is contemplated in accordancewith the SLR qualitative data.

First iteration •Problem awareness •Context and needs analysis Step 2 [Design and construct]: Second set of three-day workshops with the now established team members/role-players to develop the serious game Liike according to the serious games design framework (incorporation of curriculum, game elements, mechanics, and dynamics). Step 3 [Evaluate and test]: •Qualitative: Playtesting of Liike by Focus Group 1. The purpose is twofold: (i) heuristic evaluation and (ii) gap analysis of the incorporation of game elements, mechanics, and dynamics in accordance with the established framework. •Qualitative: Play-testing by 2nd focus group to evaluate quiz-cards and to make recommendations. Step 4 [Reflect, revisit, and explore]: Recommendations received from focus groups led to the exploration of digital components as additions to theLiike tabletop features.

Second iteration •Plan •Design •Construct •Evaluate •Reflect •Revisit •Explore Third iteration •Implementation •Evaluation

Step 1: Development and implementation of the Liike quiz app in combination with Liike tabletop game features.

DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH (DSR) AS UTILIZED IN THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF LIIKE Addressing secondary research question(s): Determination of how serious games are enabling accountancy education. Investigation of serious game design elements, mechanics, dynamics, curriculum outcomes, and workplace requirements.

Addressing research objectives: Systematic literature review(s). A locally bound case study (playtest). Addressing secondary research question(s): Reflection on the investigation of serious game design elements, mechanics, dynamics, curriculum outcomes, and workplace requirements. Exploration, planning, and design of tabletop game features and reflection on digital game components. Addressing primary research question: Development of a serious game design framework for educational tabletop games with digital components.Step 2: Evaluation of the serious game design framework and the Liike serious game.

Addressing research objectives: Presentation of the detail of the design process of a serious tabletop game as extracted from the systematic literature review(s). Design and construction of game features through the employment of DSR. Figure 2. The design science research process, including iterations and steps, as employed in the design and development of the serious game Liike

44

DSR is framed by various iteration or design steps (Baskerville et al., 2015). To develop the serious game design framework for educational tabletop games with digital components and the Liike digital tabletop game for accountancy, a combination of various DSR steps (Grenha Teixeira et al., 2017; Lapão et al., 2017; Peffers et al., 2007) presented in Figure 2 was followed. These iterations and steps are explained in the following sections.

2.2.1 Iteration 1 & Step 1: Problem awareness

Researchers in DSR have suggested that academics applying DSR should conduct end-user (people, participants, and target population) research not only to gain insights but also to discover the active and latent needs and values of the users. Thus, academics using DSR for their own research, research studies, and research projects should gain an understanding of what users think, why they do what they do or do not do, what they are supposed to do, what their attitudes toward the problem are, and what their belief systems are, as well as the cultural, political, legislative, and social contexts.

With reference to Figure 2, the aforementioned process is seen as problem awareness.

Specifically, this study sought to ascertain whether a serious game for educational use would be a feasible teaching and learning resource for accountancy education to develop skills required in the workplace. In Chapter 3, this process is elucidated from the literature reviews conducted and the context and content analysis.

2.2.2 Iteration 2 & Steps 1–4: Proposal and suggestions

DSR allows clear objectives and restrictions to be defined – for example, whether the solution needs to be a new physical object, label, or an intangible service or process according to which something is made easier. In this study, DSR was thus applied in the form of the first set of three-day workshops (Figure 2) to brainstorm and address the research problems and objectives.

The use of DSR was observed during these workshops when the Liike mock-up was scrutinized by different role-players, such as lecturers, pedagogical experts, serious game designers, and graphic designers, who participated and/or worked together with the PhD candidate in this study. The development of a serious game design framework for educational tabletop games with digital components was also born during these workshops. The further development of Liike in terms of this framework was also contemplated. This process is elucidated in Chapter 4.

2.2.3 Iteration 2 & Step 3: Construction, design, and development

DSR allows for the use of different techniques (e.g., brainstorming, experience sketching, and feature trees) to gather different ideas for solving a user problem, thus reaching a solution. In this study (and as presented in Figure 2), a second set of three-day workshops with the established team members/role-players was conducted to develop the serious

45 game Liike according to the serious game design framework for educational tabletop games with digital components (development of Liike game characteristics, such as the game elements, game mechanics, and game dynamics). This process is elucidated in Chapter 4.

2.2.4 Iteration 2 & Step 4: Evaluation through reflection, revisiting, and exploration

When employing DSR, an opportunity is provided to filter out the viable and feasible ideas for testing (i.e., evaluating the ideas). This in turn provided the opportunity to reflect, revisit, and explore the framework and Liike game. In this study, the recommendations received from role-players and focus groups led to the exploration of various digital components as additions to the Liike tabletop features. This process is elucidated in Chapters 4 and 5.

2.2.5 Iteration 2 & Step 5: Evaluation through testing

DSR suggests that the chosen ideas, solutions, or artifact should be tested on end-users (people, participants, and target groups – namely students and lecturers) to determine the optimal solution (Do the end-users understand the solution or not? Can they use it without extra instructions?). During the development of the framework as well as the Liike game, this process was referred to as “reflect, revisit, and explore.” Recommendations received from role-players and focus groups led to the exploration of digital components as additions to the Liike tabletop features. This process is elucidated in Chapters 4 and 5.

2.2.6 Iteration 3 & Step 6: Evaluation through revision and refining

Reviewing, refining, and retesting the solution to obtain the optimal solution that can be generalized is one of the processes (Figure 1) that allowed the role-players to refine the Liike tabletop game elements, features, and characteristics. This process also allowed them to develop digital components, such as the Liike quiz app (Chapter 5).

2.2.7 Iteration 3 & Step 7: Results, conclusions, and maintenance

DSR holds that the obtained solutions or designed artifacts can be compared with existing theories, and that the knowledge gained can be shared with existing DSR communities.

Moreover, further development of existing theories is possible. In this study, the evaluation of the serious game design framework for educational tabletop games with digital components and the Liike game was performed by publishing Articles I–V. Figure 3 presents a detailed narrative of the DSR steps.

46

Figure 3. Combining the design science research process with the PhD objectives Adapted from Coetzee (2019) and Gañán Jiménez (2015).

EnvironmentAwareness of problem Recommendation Development Evaluation

Restrictions

Proposal Tentative design Artifact Performance measures Results

Addition to knowledge base Scientific theories and methods

Design process or cycle

Knowledge Steps/Iterations Outputs A Outputs B

Design Science Research Framework Utilization of the Framework [PhD] Serious game design framework for educational tabletop games with digital components Tabletop game

47