Project Birch
The Practice of Creation
A Phenomenological Investigation of Creativity within the Black Independent Game Developer Community in New York City
May 4, 2021
Introduction
Creativity & Black America
Practices of creativity in the United States are tightly intertwined with the history of race relations. Some of the earliest forms of mass entertainment in the 19th century were the minstrel shows and blackface, which depicted Black people as lazy, simple-minded, and incapable of creativity. These racist forms of entertainment reflected to the general fear of Black intelligence, Black freedom, and Black creativity. But of course, for the past 250 years, there has been a rich and beautiful heritage of Black excellence and creativity in fields such as literature, music, dance, the visual arts, theater, film, and sports [Toni Morrison, James Baldwin, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, John Coltrane, Kendrick Lamar, Jay-Z, Misty Copeland, Jean-Michel Basquiat, August Wilson, Spike Lee, Ava Duvernay, Voila Davis, Jackie Robinson, Michael Jordan, and Jack Johnson just to name a few].
Regardless, while the development and the use of technology in creative acts are fundamental to the human experience, in today’s highly digitized and globalized society, such practices are mediated through an increasing use of digital technologies and skillsets. For example, in the medium of visual storytelling, technological progress has made way for what is known as participatory media, wherein the masses now have access to the tools that were either too expensive or technically difficult, in order to create and distribute content across the world (Leadbeater, Miller, and Demos 2004). Furthermore, new interactive storytelling mediums like video games have not only shifted our patterns of media consumption [According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), as of 2018, video game sales exceeded $43.4 billion and over 164 million adults in the United States play video games (Entertainment Software Association 2019)], but the wider availability of tools for game development and distribution have created opportunities for more people to create games in smaller teams and outside the large corporate studio environments (Clarke 2020, 2).
As a medium, video games have proved to be a versatile and robust platform for storytelling, and its development runs parallel to the development of personal computers. To put it another way, games and game development require a special combination of skills in the arts and science and engineering. Similar to filmmaking, game development has also undergone the participatory or pro-am (professional amateurs) revolution, with tools for creation, development [Leading game engine companies Unity and Unreal have made their development tools free for students, educators, and small independent game developers with revenues of less than $100 thousand dollars (Unity) or $1 million dollars (Unreal) (Epic Games, Inc 2020; Unity Technologies 2020)], and distribution [Major games distribution platforms companies like Valve have made it possible to publish and distribute independent games without an intermediary publisher (Valve Corporation 2017)] becoming more accessible for more people to create games. But while Black Americans have made significant and critical contributions to the fields of science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (also referred to as STEAM fields), their path to education and achievement within such fields have been limited by the structures of racism, oppression, and inequities. In fact, according to the most recent industry survey conducted in 2016, of the 963 participant game developers, only 3% identified as Black, African American, or African (International Gamer Developers Association 2016).
Furthermore, to extend the perspective of the critical studies scholar bell hooks, gaming culture is another critical site of white supremacist capitalist patriarchies (Hooks 1989). In fact, according to the same survey, only 7% identified as Hispanic or Latino, 22% identified as female, 2.5% identified as transgender or “other,” and 81% identified themselves as heterosexual. Games and gaming culture not only needs a diverse and inclusive community of voices, but game development, especially independent or indie game development, highlights additional pathways for social mobility and equity. Furthermore, broadening access to such creative fields and careers may help address plights of Black narcissism in America, as conceptualized by Dr. Cornel West (1993), wherein the Black community suffers from a culture of superficiality and spectacle that is tied to society’s preference for symbolic representation over fundamental transformation.
Literature Review
Across a range of interdisciplinary fields, many scholars have examined the societal effects of games consumption and the inner workings of games production. In the studies of creative and social processes within games production, most are limited to the study of large studio development environments (e.g. Banks 2011; O’Donnell 2014; Panourgias, Nandhakumar, and Scarbrough 2014; Malaby 2009; Whitson 2020). However, with the emergence of independent (indie) games, scholars have also examined the indie developer community by analyzing the dynamics of power between developers and other social groups and institutions (e.g. Phillips 2015; Styhre 2020; Harvey and Fisher 2013; Parker, Whitson, and Simon 2018) and the sociomaterial nature of development (e.g. Clarke 2020, 123-39; Colby and Colby 2019; Juul 2019).
By contrast, studies of indie developers from marginalized classes (i.e. Black, women, and LGBTQ) have examined the representational qualities of games as forms of cultural text (Freeman and McNeese 2019; Srauy 2019; Ruberg 2020) and their experiences of the creative process (i.e. the motivations and inspirations behind their creative processes and challenges they face). However, such studies are often limited by its methods of brief interviews and case studies (e.g. Clarke 2020, 123-39; Harvey and Fisher 2015; Harvey and Fisher 2013; Ruberg 2020; Gray and Leonard 2018).
Despite the high volume of scholarly research, little is known about what intrinsic and extrinsic factors drive marginalized indie developers—in particular, Black developers—to make the switch from merely consuming games to creating them, and how their sociocultural contexts (i.e. individualist versus collectivist cultural environments, network of support, systemic racism) affect such creative practices (Sawyer 2012, 211-3, 265-79). Therefore, this study proposes to use phenomenological methods [Along with the methods of participant observation and ethnography, a commitment to cultural relativism and holism allows anthropological researchers to develop deeper insight into how people construct meaning from their local circumstances (Pertierra 2018, 10-4)] to examine Black indie developers in New York City—where a vibrant community of indie developers of color is emerging (Play NYC 2020 n.d.; “Game Devs of Color Expo” n.d.)—to create games. Additionally, this study seeks to understand how meaning is constructed from the act of creating games, how their sociocultural environments and their past and present experiences affect their creative processes, and what barriers (i.e. resource limitations, structural obstacles, technical skill and aptitude) stand in the way of achieving their desired outcomes.
Social Dynamics of Large Studio Game Production
In reviewing the breadth of interdisciplinary research on game production, many of the recent studies have examined the creative processes in the context of larger groups and organizations (e.g. Banks 2011; O’Donnell 2014; Panourgias, Nandhakumar, and Scarbrough 2014; Malaby 2009; Whitson 2020). For example, one major ethnographic study investigated the collaborative practices within American and Indian development teams and their relationship to larger market forces (i.e. media industries) (O’Donnell 2014). Likewise, several other studies have explored the effects of digitalization on the processes of creativity—in particular, how games are shaped by the development tools and through play testing (Panourgias, Nandhakumar, and Scarbrough 2014), and how the players are seen as being participants in the development process (known as co-creation) through play testing, feedback, and secondary media creation such as fan art (Banks 2011). While research in the social processes within game production is emerging alongside the growing popularity of gaming, larger ethnographic studies of independent developers are still scarce.
Materiality of Game Production
Alongside the investigations of the social processes in game production, other studies have taken the approach of centralizing the role material objects play in developing games. Such inquires have adopted certain theoretical perspectives from the field of science and technology studies (STS) [The idea that material objects can exert significant influence on an individual’s life trajectory has been explored by the STS scholar Sherry Turkle (2005; 2007; 2008)], where the relations of influence are equalized between humans and material objects [The Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is frequently referenced as a theoretical methodology (Clarke 2020, 123-39)]. For example, several studies have examined the ability for development tools—such as software, technical equipment, and other forms of media—to exert a high degree of influence within the development processes (e.g. Clarke 2020, 123-39; Whitson 2020; Banks 2011; Panourgias, Nandhakumar, and Scarbrough 2014). Likewise, in another study, the medium of communication within development teams were analyzed through the modalities of documentation—referred to as game design document (GDD)—during the development process (Colby and Colby 2019).
Other studies have looked into how the aesthetics of games are rooted in its technological history and how that has significantly influenced the creative processes of development (Clarke 2020, 123-39). For example, a 2019 study explored concepts of authenticity and anti-modernism within the aesthetics of independent video games by examining the resource constraints of independent game developers (Juul 2019). In short, while the aforementioned studies highlight the trend of incorporating the agency of material artifacts along with observed social processes—these types of studies only observe popular and commercially successful developers who are nearly always white men. As a result, these types of analyses are notably absent in the studies of developers from marginalized or underrepresented classes [Ruha Benjamin explored how racism and social inequities can be embedded into technology in what she refers to as the “New Jim Code” (Benjamin 2019)].
Consumption of Games
Countless other studies have examined games as a cultural force that either reflects society or has the power to shape it (e.g. Boellstorff 2008; Embrick, Wright, and Lukács 2014; Wolf 2002; Taylor 2018). For example, T.L. Taylor has examined the topics of virtual worlds in online games (2006), the professionalization of gaming (2012), and the practice of live streaming games (2018). Furthermore, many studies show that the individuals who develop games are also avid consumers of games. For instance, several studies have described how developers were driven to produce certain games as a result of being directly inspired by other games from their youth (Clarke 2020, 123-39). This duality of the consumer and producer identities invariably affects the development process—such as in the co-creative processes (Banks 2011). The duality of the consumer/producer identity is a common theme in many of the studies, however, such topics are notably absent in studies that observe developers from the marginalized classes.
Independent Game Production
By contrast to the studies on larger development organizations, other studies have examined the indie community and their relationships to other social institutions. For example, Phillips (2015) investigated the role intellectual property rights, policy, and regulation play in independent game production. Likewise, a study by Parker et al. (2018) examined the power dynamics between industry groups who organize conferences and independent developers. Although the dynamics between indie developers and broader sociological forces are a critical piece of the puzzle, the lived experience of the individual is often difficult to locate.
A small handful of studies have attempted to describe the creative processes of independent developers—for example, one study observed how the internet had catalyzed a more distributed and participatory model for creativity within small independent development teams (Freeman and McNeese 2019), and similarly, another larger study examined the passion and meaning behind the work of independent developers as a part of a larger organizational study (Styhre 2020, 79-104). Regardless of the few studies that describe creative processes within the indie community, such studies are scarce and are often based on short interviews and are detailed as case studies (e.g. Clarke 2020). Furthermore, these studies often examine developers who are considered to be popular and commercially successful, and who are also overwhelmingly white, straight, cisgender men. Consequently, studies of creativity within indie developers often neglect those from marginalized classes, and as a result, more nuanced and insightful descriptions about how meaning and community are constructed through game development are limited.
Critical Perspectives of Independent Game Production
While the recent advancements have broadened opportunities for indie game development, game studies scholars argue that gender and racial inequalities are still widely present within the game development community (Gray and Leonard 2018, 66-7). In several studies of the marginalized indie developer community, researchers have examined the social dynamics of power and oppression through the perspective of LGBTQ and Black women developers (e.g. Ruberg 2020; Gray and Leonard 2018), and the structural challenges facing women developers in America and in Canada (e.g. Harvey and Fisher 2015; 2013; Harvey and Shepherd 2017). By contrast, studies of games show how the medium can act as a platform for cultural storytelling and expression of racial, gender, and sexual identities. For example, one study examined the racial and gendered social dynamics of Black hair culture in a game titled Hair Nah (Gray and Leonard 2018, 3-5), and similarly, another study analyzed how typical video game narratives of search and rescue were considered from the perspectives of two queer women of color in a game titled Queer Quest (Clarke 2020, 35-7).
In short, while research on the marginalized developer community exists, these studies are neither ethnographic nor phenomenological, and rather, are based on short-form interviews and case studies. Understanding the lived experiences of Black developers may provide deeper, more nuanced insight into how sociocultural and material forces shape the practices of creativity—which in turn may help illuminate barriers to more diversity and inclusivity within the Black developer community.
Purpose & Significance of the Study
While scholars have sought to understand certain aspects of games and game production (i.e. games as cultural text, dynamics of power, creative processes of organizations, sociomaterial nature of development, co-creative processes, distributed forms of creativity), a more holistic ethnographic study that centers on the lived experiences of developers and that also factors in the influence of sociocultural contexts is needed. Therefore, as anthropologist Hortense Powdermaker had accomplished with her ethnographic study of Hollywood filmmakers in 1950, the purpose of this study is to explore the sociocultural nature of creativity through a phenomenological study of the Black indie game developer community in New York City. As a result, having a deeper and more diverse understanding of developers may address critical issues of racism, prejudice, and misogyny that persist in the gaming community [The “Gamergate” controversy involved online harassment, doxing, and threats of violence primarily targeting female game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, along with other feminist media critics (VanDerWerff 2014)], and highlight additional pathways for equitable social mobility through creative practices and careers (Sawyer 2012, 5).
To that end, this study proposes to examine factors that ultimately drive people to pursue creating games and how meaning is constructed through their creative practices. Moreover, the study aims to understand how the developers’ social relationships and cultural environments exert influence in the processes of creating their games, and what barriers stand in the way of achieving their desired goals. Ultimately, by contextualizing their motives and experiences of creating games within the lived experiences of individual Black developers, it may not only result in a deeper understanding of creativity, but it may also help realize every person’s creative potential.
Methodology & Research Design
An Interpretive Phenomenological Approach
Phenomenology as a research methodology is a systematic and reflective study of phenomena as experienced by the individual (Mills and Birks 2014, 181-2; Given 2008, 615). In other words, rather than understanding events based on how we conceptualize it a priori, the phenomenological approach helps to identify how certain events are directly experienced and interpreted by the individual.
Furthermore, phenomenology can be broadly categorized as being either descriptive or interpretive. On one hand, descriptive (i.e. transcendental) phenomenology aims to understand the true nature of experience through the methodological process of reduction or bracketing to set aside the researcher’s preconceived notions, biases, and values (Mills and Birks 2014, 184). On the other hand, interpretive (i.e. hermeneutic or existential) phenomenology argues that the observer or researcher are inseparable from phenomena, and the descriptions that result from observation are simply forms of interpretation—in particular with respect to the vital use of language (Given 2008, 616; Sloan and Bowe 2014, 1294). In other words, interpretive phenomenology argues that the researcher cannot actually bracket or transcend their own biases, and in fact, it is their holistic perspective (both etic and emic) that brings value to the entire enterprise.
For the proposed study, the interpretive approach to phenomenological research may help to uncover a broader, deeper, and more nuanced description of how the practices of creativity are individually experienced by Black indie developers and what meanings they construct in their particular social and cultural contexts. Moreover, the researcher’s outsider perspective and commitment to a holistic understanding of their social and cultural environments will help paint a more complete picture.
Participant, Site Selection & Sampling
Due to the lack of quantitative data on the racial and ethnic demographic of indie developers, it is difficult to know precisely how many Black indie developers are currently active in the United States. As previously noted, according to a 2016 industry survey, only 3% of the participant developers identified as being Black, African American, or African (International Game Developers Association 2016). Therefore it is fair to assume that the demographic of Black developers within the indie community are similarly low. Regardless of the low demographics, conferences for game developers such as the Game Devs of Color Expo and Play NYC have created forums to connect and highlight indie developers of marginalized communities, including Black developers. For example, the annual Graffiti Games initiative within Play NYC highlights Black indie game developers—some of whom reside in New York City (Play NYC 2020 n.d.). Due to its current and fledgling community of Black indie game developers, New York City is a viable candidate site for this research.
According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), the typical sample size of phenomenological research involves three to ten participants (210). This study will also employ a strategy of saturation to broaden the participant sample size until the essence of the creativity within the Black developer community are well understood. The aim is to recruit eight to ten Black indie developer participants for the current study, and after accounting for some participant attrition, ending up with five to six. The participants will be recruited through advertisements and face-to-face interactions at Game Devs of Color Expo and Play NYC, both of which are industry conferences that take place annually in New York City. The site of observation and other data collection will be in the developer’s working (i.e. home offices, co-working spaces, offices, etc.) and other social and professional environments.
Data Collection Strategies
To collect data, the researcher will conduct a standard form of participant observation by embedding themselves within the participant developer’s living and working environments for about a year—which falls within the typical length of ethnographic studies (e.g. Juul 2019; Clarke 2020; Styhre 2020). The year-long length should provide enough time to establish effective rapport and understand the technical aspects of game development. During observation, the researcher will take field notes on the behavior and activities of the participant developers primarily during their creative process of producing games (including their interactions with others in the game industry) and secondarily noting their social and cultural environments (i.e. social interactions with their friends and family). In addition to observational field note-taking, the researcher will conduct a series of unstructured face-to-face interviews with open-ended questions regarding their lived experiences of creating games and about the events in their lives that led wanting to create games (see appendix for sample questions). Finally, borrowing from the theoretical perspectives of STS and its recognition of the agency of material culture in creative practices, the artifacts of creativity used by Black developers (i.e. material and digital technological tools, audiovisual media, methods of communication and documentation, etc.) will also be observed and recorded. With the permission of the participant developers, the researcher will supplement the written field notes with visual data via photographs.
Data Analysis Procedures
This study will first follow a more general procedure of qualitative data analysis and then proceed to a more advanced stage of phenomenology-specific analysis. The plan is to use the popular qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti (www.atlasti.com) to assist in the data analysis. Based on the suggestions from Creswell and Creswell (2018) the combined steps of data analysis is outlined below (268-270).
Step 1. Organization. This first step involves digitizing written field notes, transcribing interviews, cataloguing all of the audiovisual material, and sorting into logical categories.
Step 2. Reflexivity. This step involves taking all of the data and reflecting on its overall meaning. The researcher will also note their preconceived notions, values, and biases at this point to promote an honest and open approach.
Step 3. Codification. This next step is the process of organizing and grouping the textual and audiovisual data into logical chunks and labeling them with the appropriate terms or research themes. In phenomenological research, this process is also referred to as horizontalization.
Step 4. Description & Themes. This crucial next step involves creating thick descriptions, or detailed accounts of the practices of creativity Black developers experience (also known as textural description in phenomenological analyses) within their social and cultural contexts (i.e. structural description) and themes or the categorization of the findings. Themes in phenomenological research involves shaping themes into a general description or phenomenological meaning units or essence descriptions (Creswell and Creswell 2018, 269-272; Moustakas 1994).
Step 5. Representation. This step involves reviewing the description and themes and taking actions to represent them in the final research deliverable. For this study, the descriptions and themes will be listed out in a bulleted list.
Step 6. Interpretation. This final step involves summarizing the overall findings, comparing the results with relevant current literature, and noting the researcher’s personal viewpoints on the topic.
Validity Strategies
To maintain the reliability and accuracy of the findings, an assistant researcher will be present to aid in every step of analysis, including documenting all procedures and protocols. Additionally, the researchers will review field notes and recordings from interviews and any ambiguities will be reviewed with the informants to ensure accuracy and validity of data. Lastly, the researchers will use peer review and debriefing to ensure that the data is consistent with current literature.
Ethical Considerations
Prior to the start of the research, all participants in the study will be fully briefed on the scope and the purpose of the study. In addition, all informants will also be disclosed of the data collection devices and activities. Furthermore, prior to the start of the study, all participants will also be asked to read and sign relevant consent forms—reviewed and approved by the Harvard Institutional Review Board (The Committee on the Use of Human Subjects). If the participants are unwilling to agree to the consent forms, the researcher will not coerce them to sign and participate. More importantly, all participants will have the ability to withdraw from the study at any point.
The sensitivity of the subject matter—based on the issues of structural inequities and racism—has the potential to be an ethical concern. To mitigate such concerns, the researcher must be fully cognizant of that fact, and ensure that the participants are able and willing to discuss such issues. The researcher must also keep in mind that the study is about uncovering the experiences of developing games and not simply being of a minority class in the industry—therefore, the researcher will make efforts to prioritize the participant’s experiences of creating games. Additionally, due to the public nature of the work they are producing (i.e. publicly released games and marketing artifacts), preventing the collection of personally identifying information during participant observation and interviews may not be possible. The overall goal of the study is to help foster creativity within the marginalized communities, therefore, the hope is that more public exposure may be helpful to the participant developers. In sum, these conditions and procedures will be disclosed prior to the study and written in plain English on the consent forms. Lastly, all participants will be shared the results of the study.
Limitations
Considering the researcher’s limited experience with conducting such phenomenological and ethnographic research, a clear limitation is the potential lack of research-specific skills. For example, the researcher may not have the adequate observational and conversational skills to collect data. Similarly, the researcher may also be unexperienced with the process of data analysis—in particular with the steps of codification and description & themes. To mitigate all such limitations, the researcher will take proactive measures to learn the appropriate methodologies and consult more experienced faculty members and scholars in similar fields to ensure knowledge of proper protocols and procedures.
In addition, due to the relatively small sample sizes of phenomenological research, the findings are often difficult to generalize to larger populations. However, while the overall descriptions and themes from phenomenological observations may only be relevant to the individual participants, it does not invalidate its utility. To mitigate such limitations and as noted in the sampling section, this study will employ a strategy of saturation to broaden the participant sample size until the essence of experience within the Black developer community are met.
References
Banks, John. 2011. Co-Creating Videogames. Co-Creating Video Games. London.
Benjamin, Ruha. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Boellstorff, Tom. 2008. Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bonnie Ruberg. 2020. The Queer Games Avant-Garde: How LGBTQ Game Makers Are Reimagining the Medium of Video Games. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478007302.
Clarke, M. J. 2020. Indie Games in the Digital Age. New York: Bloomsbury Academic & Professional.
Colby, Richard, and Rebekah Colby. 2019. “Game Design Documentation: Four Perspectives from Independent Game Studios.” Communication Design Quarterly Review 7 (3): 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3321388.3321389.
Creswell, John W., and J. David Creswell. 2018. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Fifth edition. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Embrick, David G, J. Talmadge Wright, and András Lukács. 2014. Social Exclusion, Power, and Video Game Play: New Research in Digital Media and Technology. First paperback edition. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Entertainment Software Association. 2019. “2019 Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry - Entertainment Software Association.” Entertainment Software Association. May 29, 2019. https://www.theesa.com/esa-research/2019-essential-facts-about-the-computer-and-video-game-industry/.
Epic Games, Inc. 2019. “Unreal Engine | Frequently Asked Questions.” Unrealengine.com. Unreal Engine. 2019. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/faq.
Freeman, Guo, and Nathan J McNeese. 2019. “Exploring Indie Game Development: Team Practices and Social Experiences in a Creativity-Centric Technology Community.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 28 (3): 723–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09348-x.
“Game Devs of Color Expo.” n.d. Game Devs of Color Expo. Accessed April 18, 2021. https://gamedevsofcolorexpo.com.
Geertz, Clifford, and Robert Darnton. (1973) 2017. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. 3rd edition. Basic Book-s. New York: Basic Books.
Gillespie, Tarleton, Pablo J Boczkowski, Kirsten A. Foot, and Pablo J. Boczkowski. 2014. Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Given, Lisa M., ed. 2008. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles, Calif: Sage Publications.
Gladstone, Neil. 2018. “Programming New York for Video Game Development (Published 2018).” The New York Times, August 2, 2018, sec. New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/nyregion/programming-new-york-for-video-game-development.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article.
Harvey, Alison, and Stephanie Fisher. 2013. “Making a Name in Games: Immaterial Labour, Indie Game Design, and Gendered Social Network Markets.” Information, Communication & Society 16 (3): 362–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.756048.
———. 2015. “‘Everyone Can Make Games!’: The Post-Feminist Context of Women in Digital Game Production.” Feminist Media Studies 15 (4): 576–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.958867.
Harvey, Alison, and Tamara Shepherd. 2017. “When Passion Isn’t Enough: Gender, Affect and Credibility in Digital Games Design.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 20 (5): 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877916636140.
Hooks, Bell. Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1984.
International Game Developers Association. 2016. “Diversity in the Game Industry Report [2016] – IGDA.” Igda.org. June 12, 2016. https://igda.org/resources-archive/diversity-in-the-game-industry-report-2016/.
Juul, Jesper. 2019. Handmade Pixels: Independent Video Games and the Quest for Authenticity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Kaufman, James C, and Robert J Sternberg. 2019. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity.
Lavie, Smadar, Kirin Narayan, and Renato Rosaldo. 1993. Creativity/Anthropology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Leadbeater, Charles., Paul Miller, and Demos. The Pro-am Revolution : How Enthusiasts Are Changing Our Society and Economy. London: Demos, 2004.
Malaby, Thomas M. 2009. Making Virtual Worlds : Linden Lab and Second Life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Mills, Jane, and Melanie Birks. 2014. Qualitative Methodology: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
Moustakas, Clark E. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994.
O’Donnell, Casey. 2014. Developer’s Dilemma: The Secret World of Videogame Creators. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Panourgias, Nikiforos S, Joe Nandhakumar, and Harry Scarbrough. 2014. “Entanglements of Creative Agency and Digital Technology: A Sociomaterial Study of Computer Game Development.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 83: 111–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.010.
Parker, Felan, Jennifer R Whitson, and Bart Simon. 2018. “Megabooth: The Cultural Intermediation of Indie Games.” New Media & Society 20 (5): 1953–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817711403.
Pertierra, Anna Cristina. 2018. Media Anthropology for the Digital Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Phillips, Tom. 2015. “‘Don’t Clone My Indie Game, Bro’: Informal Cultures of Videogame Regulation in the Independent Sector.” Cultural Trends 24 (2): 143–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2015.1031480.
Pitt, David. 2017. “Blood, Sweat, and Pixels: The Triumphant, Turbulent Stories Behind How Video Games Are Made.” Booklist 114 (1): 38.
Play NYC 2020. n.d. “Graffiti Games.” www.play-nyc.com. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://www.play-nyc.com/graffiti-games.
Powdermaker, Hortense. (1950) 2013. Hollywood the Dream Factory: An Anthropologist Looks at the Movie-Makers. Reprint of the edition published by Little, Brown and Company, Boston. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing.
Sawyer, R. Keith. 2012. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sloan, Art and Brian Bowe. "Phenomenology and Hermeneutic Phenomenology: The Philosophy, the Methodologies, and Using Hermeneutic Phenomenology to Investigate Lecturers’ Experiences of Curriculum Design." Quality & Quantity 48, no. 3 (2014): 1291-303.
Srauy, Sam. 2019. “Precarity and Why Indie Game Developers Can’t Save Us from Racism.” Television & New Media 20 (8): 802–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419851081.
Styhre, Alexander. 2020. Indie Video Game Development Work: Innovation in the Creative Economy. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Taylor, T. L. 2006. Play Between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
———. 2012. Raising the Stakes: E-Sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
———. 2018. Watch Me Play: Twitch and the Rise of Game Live Streaming. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Turkle, Sherry. 2005. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. 20th anniversary ed., 1st MIT Press ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
———. 2007. Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
———. 2008. Falling for Science: Objects in Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Unity Technologies. 2020. “Compare Unity Plans: Pro vs plus vs Free. Choose the Best 2D - 3D Engine for Your Project!” Unity Store. 2020. https://store.unity.com/compare-plans.
Valve Corporation. 2017. “Steam :: Steam Blog :: Closing Greenlight Today, Steam Direct Launches June 13.” Store.steampowered.com. June 6, 2017. https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1265922321514182595.
VanDerWerff, Emily Todd. 2014. “#Gamergate: Here’s Why Everybody in the Video Game World Is Fighting.” Vox. Vox. September 6, 2014. https://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting.
Wagner, Roy. (1981) 2016. The Invention of Culture. Second edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
West, Cornel. (1993) 2018. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press.
Whitson, Jennifer R. 2020. “What Can We Learn From Studio Studies Ethnographies?: A ‘Messy’ Account of Game Development Materiality, Learning, and Expertise.” Games and Culture 15 (3): 266–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412018783320.
Wolf, Mark J. P. 2002. The Medium of the Video Game. 1st ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Zaveri, Mihir, Meron Tekie Menghistab, Gray Beltran, and Alana Celii. 2019. “Fear, Anxiety and Hope: What It Means to Be a Minority in Gaming.” The New York Times, October 16, 2019, sec. Technology. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/16/technology/game-developers.html.
Appendix
Sample Interview Questions
Think back and tell me about your first experiences of video games?
What aspects of games and gaming culture drew you in?
What factors led you to switch from wanting to simply play games to wanting (or thinking you could) create them yourself?
Why and how did you decide to pursue developing games independently, outside the traditional large studio environments?
What were some of the things that were happening in your life? (Sociocultural contexts)
What were some of your concerns about the creative process behind game development?
What were some of the challenges you faced when starting to go down the path of developing you own games?
What were some of the things (social or material) that inspired you to develop certain types of games?
What type of support or obstacles did you face (i.e. technical or creative) during the process of learning how to create or develop games?
What are your thoughts on the roles models you have had (or not had) that affected your creative processes?