Walkthroughs in Research: Cheating or Education?

The value of being a gamer in game studies research has been on my mind over the last year in various forms. Throughout my final research methods class this past semester, I was hoping to write about why being “native” is often seen as a requirement for game studies, while it is usually frowned upon in other fields (such as anthropology) for reasons of objective distance. Although I changed my topic for my final assignment, the question still lingers in the back of my mind. It was recently reawakened by a recent survey done by Julian Kucklich around the topic of cheating in games research. There was also a lengthy discussion on the gamesnetwork mailing list generated when Julian announced the survey, ranging from claims that walkthroughs are now part and parcel the game itself, and should no longer be considered “cheating” to philosophical banter surrounding the definitional boundaries and notion of cheating.

What does being a gamer first, researcher second have to do with cheating in games research? I know the two are linked, but the more I think about it the more I wonder. It is often said that being a gamer helps the researcher experience the games in the same way that they are by those who play the games – the insight gained by being “in” is invaluable; in order to truly understand what you are researching, to really get ‘it’ you must be ‘in it’. I must admit, I have often been heard stating many of these very statements. But I wonder how necessarily true it is. Don’t get me wrong – no matter how much I’ve described my experiences in EverQuest to non-gamers, they still never really ‘get it’. Even in my own research now, when I meet respondents, I am always adamant about stating my play history. I need them to understand that they don’t need to contextualize everything for me, that I ‘get it’ and so we can skip the introduction part.
It is in this way that all the arguements ‘for’ being a gamer who came to research instead of a researcher gaming because they had to collect field notes, data, experience, etc., make sense to me.

Yet lately, my mind has been questioning every other occupation and field of research that does not require one to be part of the community that they study or care for. How many teachers or day care workers have never had children of their own? How many therapists of marginalized communities do not belong to that community themselves? To be fair, I know two people who were once street kids who now work in the field, knowing the ins and outs of ‘being there’, who have always said it gives them an edge. Although an ‘expert’ via education is equally (and if not at times moreso) respected in many fields.

Coming to the idea of ‘cheating’ in games research by using the ‘tools’ available, FAQ’s, walkthroughs, saved games and add-ons. Maybe instead of viewing it as cheating, we can see it as an education from the books and not from the street.