The Value of Interactive Games

We first address the value of interactive games as a pedagogical tool, particularly for the subjects of political violence and revolution. Many students have preconceived notions about the motivations of dissidents, conflict processes, and government responses to social unrest. These notions are influenced by partisan media, and students often are not prepared for objective discussion. Moreover, public discussion of such phenomena—which tends to focus on anecdotal cases—is distinct from the complex theoretical concepts that scholars use to study and discuss them. Students expecting to focus on anecdotes are often at a loss when confronted with abstract theory (Siegel and Young Reference Siegel and Young2009).

Indeed, as with most concepts in political science, teaching undergraduate students about revolution requires relaying complex concepts, layered with a contextualized understanding of different levels of analysis, actors, and theories. For example, students should understand how structural factors contribute to rebel mobilization and success. However, acquiring a deep understanding of seminal studies such as Skocpol (Reference Skocpol1979) and Lichbach (Reference Lichbach1995) can be daunting for political science scholars as well as undergraduates. Games and other methods of active learning therefore allow instructors to address these problems, directly connecting abstract theory to in-class activity (Caruson Reference Caruson2005; Shellman and Turan Reference Shellman and Turan2006).

Games have been shown to be useful in teaching about various concepts related to revolution, including cases such as the Cyprus dispute (Hatipoglu, Müftüler-Baç, and Murphy Reference Hatipoglu, Müftüler-Baç and Murphy2014). One study examined quiz scores of students who participated in simulations, with highly encouraging results (Levin-Banchik Reference Levin-Banchik2018). Similarly, the Peasant Game allows students to understand the complex motivations of political actors and assists them in deconstructing the most nuanced aspects of theory.

That said, games and other active-learning techniques can encounter significant resistance. First, they take time away from traditional course content and often require substantial upfront preparation time (Christopher Reference Christopher1999; Ellington, Gordon, and Fowlie Reference Ellington, Gordon and Fowlie1998). Second, because games require participation, students must bring their own interest and motivation to the subject matter. Unmotivated students may result in a failed game and, ultimately, poor pedagogical outcomes. Third, the chosen game must match the goal of the course (Ellington, Gordon, and Fowlie Reference Ellington, Gordon and Fowlie1998). Fourth, many students dislike active learning and prefer traditional methods (Torney-Purta Reference Torney-Purta, Vosniadou, Corte, Glaser and Handl1996). Indeed, some scholars argued that games and other forms of student-driven learning are little more than a case of the “blind leading the blind,” with unknowledgeable students discussing politics with one another, wasting valuable classroom time (Raines Reference Raines2003; Rochester Reference Rochester2003).

Yet, a growing body of evidence suggests that simulations and other active-learning techniques enhance learning in comparative politics and IR by giving life and immediacy to the subject matter (Hess Reference Hess1999). Classroom simulations reinforce student acquisition of facts and analytical skills and aid in forming a more complex view of the world. Shellman and Turan (Reference Shellman and Turan2006) found empirical support that IR simulations improve substantive knowledge and analytical-thinking skills (see also Bonwell and Eison Reference Bonwell and Eison1991; Brown and King Reference Brown and King2000; Coffey, Miller, and Feuerstein Reference Coffey, Miller and Feuerstein2011; McCarthy and Anderson Reference McCarthy and Anderson2000; McKeachie Reference McKeachie2002; Smith and Boyer Reference Smith and Boyer1996).

Other empirical studies have shown that games are vital for teaching facts, analytical skills, and development of a more complex view of the world (Torney-Purta Reference Torney-Purta, Vosniadou, Corte, Glaser and Handl1996). In essence, participation in simulations allows students to become their own “guinea pigs, subjects for observation and inquiry” (Christopher Reference Christopher1999). In this way, games provide an added level of student motivation that other types of active learning lack (Ellington, Gordon, and Fowlie Reference Ellington, Gordon and Fowlie1998; Hess Reference Hess1999). The Peasant Game accomplishes this by allowing students to play as aggrieved “peasants” or repressive “lords,”Footnote ¹ seeing firsthand how rationality can militate against rebellion even in the presence of grievances, while also demonstrating how structural factors can shift the decision calculus in favor of rebellion. Although peasants in the game have agency, game rules prohibit coordination with one another, whereas lords can inhibit rebellion against their authority by distributing “patronage.” Only when structural conditions in the game change do peasants have an incentive to rebel.

Games also have important secondary benefits: they provide students the experience of taking the initiative and create an environment in which the instructor can observe how students interact with one another (e.g., natural leaders, those with potential but need coaxing, and those struggling in class). These are important qualities for any instructor when assessing student performance (Pettenger, West, and Young Reference Pettenger, West and Young2013). The Peasant Game accomplishes these aims by allowing students to volunteer as leaders within a small-group setting and allowing the instructor to identify which students are more enthusiastic than others.

Before proceeding, it is worthwhile to briefly discuss guidelines for student interactions with the instructor, the course material, and among themselves. Participation is the primary point for interaction (Pettenger, West, and Young Reference Pettenger, West and Young2013). Student participation in a game allows them to directly experience abstract theories, providing an understanding that lectures cannot. When playing a game, the instructor should be aware of its costs in terms of time spent and benefits reaped. Similarly, the instructor should be cognizant of potential moments to pause the game in order to analyze an event underway or a student’s sudden realization. These pauses in the game’s action give students a launching point for their own discussions and often produce interesting points for the debriefing (DeNeve and Heppner Reference DeNeve and Heppner1997).

Postgame oral or written debriefing is another key component. The main goal of the debriefing is to have students analyze their experiences. Oral debriefings should focus on several questions, including describing details of the game’s proceedings from students’ perspectives, explaining what happened in the context of the course’s theoretical material, predicting what would happen if the game continued, and offering policy options based on those predictions (Christopher Reference Christopher1999). We recommend that instructors using the Peasant Game explicitly connect it to course readings, liberally pause the game to explain theory, and devote time to debriefing. An entire class period is ideal. Finally, learning also can occur during written examinations, which allow students to reflect on their experiences and more carefully apply the theories they learned. This practice encourages integration of experience gained from the game with lecture-based content. Instructors can easily include questions about the Peasant Game in preexisting exams.

Teaching about Exploitation and Revolution

The Peasant Game is designed to facilitate understanding of revolutions. Instructors may opt to run the game as a prelude to the material discussed in this section or as a capstone. One of the concepts that students often encounter first is the “grievance” oriented approach to dissent and rebellion (Gurr Reference Gurr1970). This perspective teaches that mass political unrest occurs when the goals of social groups are unjustly impeded. Over time, frustration mounts among aggrieved groups as a result of this injustice, ultimately exploding into violence and revolution. Moreover, aggrieved groups compare their status with others within the same society. If an aggrieved group is unable to achieve its collective goals, relative to a comparison group, then unrest and rebellion are likely.

However, grievances such as these are ubiquitous (Collier and Hoeffler Reference Collier and Hoeffler2004; Fearon and Laitin Reference Fearon and Laitin2003; Tilly Reference Tilly1978). Structural inequality, repression, discrimination, and a lack of democracy are commonly felt. The grievance perspective thus “overpredicts” rebellion by making the case that any sufficiently aggrieved group of people could revolt against authority. The clear absence of rebellion in most societies, despite the presence of grievances, gives rise to an important empirical puzzle. This is probably counterintuitive to students, who may believe that grievances are sufficient conditions for rebellion. The rational-choice perspective in revolution and rebellion argues that individuals are utility maximizers (Lichbach Reference Lichbach1995). In any given situation, citizens will choose a strategy that produces the best outcome at the least possible cost. Thus, if the military and policing apparatus of a repressive state is too strong, rebellion is unlikely (Collier and Hoeffler Reference Collier and Hoeffler2004; Fearon and Laitin Reference Fearon and Laitin2003; Kuran Reference Kuran1989; Lichbach Reference Lichbach1995; McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly Reference McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly2003; Olson Reference Olson1965; Skocpol Reference Skocpol1979; Tilly Reference Tilly1978).

Structural explanations also bear on dissident mobilization in important ways. Because grievance-oriented explanations overpredict rebellion, work on political opportunities emphasizes that structural conditions are important because they shift an individual’s decision making in favor of rebellion. Civil war literature, for example, emphasizes state weakness, whereby the diminishing ability of the state to deter rebellion is correlated with the onset of conflict (Fearon and Laitin Reference Fearon and Laitin2003). Skocpol (Reference Skocpol1979) merits special attention in this regard; her work examines some of the most well-known revolutions. Regime elites often must extract more resources from repressed subjects to maintain parity with rivals. In this scenario, the state and its aristocratic elites may find themselves in a pre-revolutionary situation vulnerable to sudden shocks (e.g., famines and defeat in war) that further alter dissident decision-making calculus.Footnote ²

It is interesting that although there are many simulations and games related to IR (Starkey and Blake Reference Starkey and Blake2001) and interstate conflict (e.g., Haynes Reference Haynes2015; Kanner Reference Kanner2007; McCarthy Reference McCarthy2014), there are relatively few related to comparative politics (e.g., Archer and Miller Reference Archer and Miller2011; Asal et al. Reference Asal, Fahrenkopf, Jadoon and Hwang2017; Asal et al. Reference Asal, Jahanbani, Lee and Ren2018; Shellman Reference Shellman2001). There are even fewer available games that focus on revolutions and why they start, although some explore civil war termination (Shaw Reference Shaw2006). The Peasant Game fills an underserved niche for instructors.

As in other games and active-learning techniques, students can place themselves in the role of disenfranchised actors and navigate decision making given limited resources and mobility (Ambrosio Reference Ambrosio2004). In this way, the game illustrates the collective-action problem, with additional understanding about the role of grievances and structural constraints. Some scholars note that the combination of a case study and a simulation provides students with the opportunity to gain in-depth knowledge and apply theories in a tangible way (Langfield Reference Langfield2016). By assuming the role of an aggrieved actor, students are faced with a makeshift case study in which to navigate and apply their own understanding.

Whereas the Peasant Game aligns well with comparative politics courses and theories, it also can be useful in IR courses. Specifically, this exercise ties directly into the Marxist meta-theoretical approach (Anievas Reference Anievas2010) found in some IR textbooks (e.g., Baylis Reference Baylis2020; Burchill et al. Reference Burchill, Linklater, Devetak, Donnelly, Nardin, Paterson, Reus-Smit and True2013). The game addresses the Marxist argument about the oppression of the poor and revolution and how these factors can change international dynamics (Wallerstein Reference Wallerstein1990).