A Most Useful Teaching Tool: Simulation
It is a well know fact that playing is a crucial activity for all animals in the process of learning. Humans are no exception and playing games helps children to acquire and master vital skills. Games, however, are as useful to adults, even though the latter are particularly uncomfortable to term their activity in the same way. Various names have, thus, been found: “serious games”, “simulations”, “role-playing” and the like.
The purposes of games and simulations are basically the same. They can be used (a) as teaching instrument to high-light the complexity of international affairs; (b) heuristically to test solutions to emerging crises and finally © as a forecasting aid. Broadly speaking, the first function is the most established one within the discipline of international relations. We can see the second function surfacing in war games played by officers in military schools. The third function has been abandoned after the 1970s, because its unmistakable failure to deliver.
It must be noted that such definitions refer to the most diverse enterprises in which games and formal models are used for game theory; simulations are what engineers do; role-playing can be used by real people to play characters from, films such as The Lord of the Rings. But not even the late Trevor Dupuy, a most authoritative figure in the field, could differentiate (precisely) game from model from simulation.
If we put aside game theory for a moment, then in contemporary political science, these terms can refer in some way to “role-playing”; that is, acting “as if” we were someone else, normally someone involved in a crisis. Role-playing can be computer-assisted or not but it is fundamentally the same undertaking.
Currently, at the International Studies Association (ISA) annual conference there are several panel dedicated to simulations and teaching. One of ISA’s journals, entitled International Studies Perspectives, with an extensive section on Pedagogy, regularly hosts articles on the benefits of using games and simulations in the classroom for the most diverse subjects. It has a substantial section on Simulations which are now considered to be well-established primary tools for teaching. Let us go through some of the ways we might use them.
Where It All Came From
The way in which role-playing and crisis simulations travelled to the discipline of political science was through war games. This development should not be surprising because, as we all know well, “war is an instrument of politics” as Machiavelli (and Clausewitz) taught us, and war gaming has been one crucial tool for preparing for war.
War games developed around the end of the 17th century from the chess game, first as “war chess” or “King’s games”, that is, as a stylized version of the battle, with rules and umpires. Then, as rules to replicate real conditions increased, they became known as Kriegsspiels, or “war games”, around the early 19th century. Since then, they have constantly accompanied military planning, from Prussia to the rest of the World. As a matter of fact, the Germans have remained (now with the Russians and the Americans) amongst the most avid employers of war games.
After an ambivalent start, the advantages for military planners quickly became evident. It was possible to replicate real life situations and test different responses to problems that could arise. Not all the circumstances of a battlefield could easily be reproduced: for example the actual fight has always been controversial. Logistical problems and the movements of troops were, on the other hand, situations that lend themselves to be accurately studied in a simulated environment.
War games slowly gained supporters from the military establishments of several countries and became an activity integrated in the curricula of military schools worldwide. With more accurate rules to reproduce combat results, war games allowed military staff to test different scenarios and project plausible outcomes of violent clashes. For example, the US Navy kept rehearsing potential fighting with the Royal Navy around the world well into the 1930s.
After WWII, with more competition between the superpowers, more and more civilian scholars began to be called upon by the military to join them in “military” exercise where, due to the presence of nuclear weapons, the political dimension was becoming dominant. The same scholars took part of the emerging discipline of International Relations in the United States (and the UK). Hence they thought to introduce the new trade (and methodology) they had learned into IR curricula and courses outside the strict realm of military affairs. Furthermore, with the behaviouralist revolution in full swing in the 1950s and 1960s, many of those professors had huge expectations on the validity of simulations as tool for predicting international behaviour and to “replicate” real-world events.
Reality slashed those hopes, because role-playing by students, or even practitioners, in crisis simulations was no experimental method for IR. But the power of simulations and role-playing as teaching tools emerged unscarred and actually benefited from such reduction.
Diplomacy, Games and Computers
From a broad perspective, we have available for the use in the classroom (a) board games, (b) computer games and © (human) role-playing. While I will focus on the latter in the last section of this essay, let me spend a few words about the former two choices.
In the area of board games the most used game is the “old” Diplomacy. Published in 1959 by the American company Avalon Hill, it has remained in production ever since, thanks to its great playability and realism. The game, set in early 20th century Europe, displays seven great powers that, alone or in temporary alliances, strive for supremacy in the Continent. While decisively skewed toward classical realism (it is a struggle for power as a resource), it allows students to better grasp some of the basic dynamics that led to WWI. As the name of the game implies, diplomatic activity is as important as military planning in order to win.
A number of similar games sprung from Diplomacy, more sophisticated and complex, like Machiavelli, set in Renaissance Italy, the Napoleonic Empire in Arms or WWI. Such games command a smaller audience in the classroom because of the level of details (economics, politics, diplomacy and military) required to play. They are more suitable for specialized graduate seminars.
Some of these games, first and foremost Diplomacy, have been “translated” for computers and they can be played on PCs via a Local Area Network (LAN) in computer rooms or laboratories, either in real time (that is, simultaneously) or in turns. The availability of computers have also eased the use of games in the classroom. In fact, computers may take care of the more tedious tasks of bookkeeping. Unfortunately, such circumstances have convinced game developers to further increase the level of details, in part cancelling out the above mentioned advantage.
Computers can also be the interface in role-playing, allowing for conditions that would otherwise be difficult to recreate. For example, for a graduate class studying the impact of armed conflicts on public health two years ago, I asked each student to play a computer game, Food Force, that requires players to act as emergency managers to respond to a famine crisis. Food Force, developed for and supported by the FAO, albeit quite easy, shows nonetheless the complexities of collecting and delivering aid to those in need. Students were then asked to write a report on their experience and to “grade” their performance.
Overall, computers are a tremendous help in this respect and, hopefully, it may increasingly become helpful to aspects, other than writing and researching, in which social scientists could benefit from them. The main disadvantage with computer games, however, remains the fact that they may interfere with other student activities, such as writing or researching, and this possibility must always be accounted for.
Role-playing in the UN, NATO and the EU
Role-playing in crisis simulation, that is pretending to be The US government or The EU European Council facing a serious political crisis has now become a primary tool for active learning in the IR classroom, much more that the games described in the previous section. Formats (type and topics of crises, number of participants, number of actors –governments or NGOs- length, etc) for the simulation can be varied, and tailored to the specific requirements of a class. Computers can be used too, for example, as modes of communication or bookkeeping. Indeed, teams from several different countries could participate in the same simulation via computers (I was part of the Control team in such a simulation about the Atlantic Council, with teams from 12 different countries). A “Control” team acts as umpires and much more (the weather, the rest of the world, global public opinion, “the enemy”, etc.).
There are three types of role-playing crisis simulation that have become common and popular enough to truly be considered as a “model”: (1) Model UN, (2) Model EU and (3) Model Nato. Participants in all these exercises can be from the same university, or from universities located in the same country, or from several countries gathering at some location for a so-called “model conference”. The latter are held once a year, mostly in the United States and Europe.
The model UN is the oldest and is so well tested that now teachers encourage high school students to participate. Participants play the role of countries represented in the UN Security Council (UNSC). Players are part of “national” teams made of at least two people, the ambassador (or foreign minister) and one or more political/legal advisors of a country member of the UNSC. They may have to solve a crisis or simply address an international problem deemed serious enough to require intervention by the UN. Because the UNSC has only 15 members, the model is relatively easy to manage.
The same is no longer true for the EU Council of the Union. The Council is, most of the time, General Affairs (EU GA), albeit other configurations, like ECOFIN or JHA/JLS can be used (a more “technical” Council, however, is more demanding for participants, as the cases discussed can be technically detailed). The patter of the EUGA is similar to the UNSC, with participants acting as ministers and their deputies. But with the last enlargement to 27 members, the Commission, the Presidency (which usually requires more players for all the administrative/bureaucratic work), the High Representative (if it is a GA Council) it is not uncommon for such a simulation to require 50/60 people, a large room and substantial time (this is for example my experience with the MA in International Relations at the University of Bologna). The number of member states may be reduced by “condensing” them, by having one team play, for example the Scandinavians or the Baltics. But given the EU emphasis on giving small member states enough visibility and clout (not to mention the cases in which the Qualified Majority Voting is authorized) such reductions conjure to make the simulation even less “real” that we might want. Although an executive body, the EU Council is now more akin to the UN General Assembly (with almost the same frustration too) and it may become less appealing for the average teacher and students and only be possible for groups with considerable resources.
The NATO model is the most recent one but it is nonetheless quite popular. Unlike the UNSC and even the EU Council (which is played in the United States, clearly not an EU member), the NATO model appears to be played mostly within countries who are actual members of the Organization (or aspiring to be, like Ukraine and Georgia). Delegations of NATO members can be from two to several people, usually, in the latter case accompanied by an experienced instructor and, if possible, actual legal and/military experts. As in the previous two examples, here as well, NATO representatives, navigating the agenda and the Organization’s procedures, must find a solution to an impending crisis facing the Alliance. Unlike the other two models, given the nature of the Alliance, there is usually more emphasis on “the military”, broadly speaking (although representatives are civilians). Such characteristics could put off potential users of the model.
In conclusion, role-playing simulations and, to a lesser extent, computer games are now routine tools of active learning in several universities, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world. Usually students who participate in them, give very positive feedback. Let’s hope that Italian universities will dispel the still prevalent scepticism and become more active producers of these useful teaching tools.
© 2010 Italian Society of Political Science - [Valid markup]