Authors:
Arianna Boldi, Selina Cho, Yubo Kou, Amon Rapp, Max V. Birk
Imagine stepping into the digital battlegrounds of League of Legends to study teamwork. As you join a match, declare your research interest, and ask your teammates about their team behavior, they mock the legitimacy of your research, forcing you to mute them just to finish the game. Or picture this: You are embarking on your first Ph.D. study on gaming technologies. During participant recruitment, an anonymous male individual harshly criticizes your survey, escalating into personal accusations of attempting to steal data. If that were not enough, while researching Counter-Strike: Global Offensive cheating communities, one of your recruitment accounts meant to present your research objectives transparently is compromised and filled with explicit pornographic content.
These are real stories shared by researchers working in the field of video game research who have faced hostility and skepticism from the gaming community. The challenges not only risk disrupting their research initiatives but also pose threats at a personal level. How many similar stories remain untold? What effects do these experiences have on researchers, as well as on the quality and the nature of the research produced in the gaming domain? And who are the most vulnerable researchers?
Insights
→ Gaining access and trust in closed gaming communities requires insider knowledge and authentic engagement.
→ Researchers in video game studies face unique challenges, including harassment, skepticism, and personal attacks.
→ Addressing these challenges requires institutional support, ethical guidelines, and collaboration with the gaming industry and digital platforms.
The Ethical Landscape
Research ethics is traditionally focused on the safety of participants, but the increase in hostility when researching digital environments suggests that we should reflect on how we can improve the safety of scholars as well. Although digital environments offer valuable insights into human behavior, they also expose researchers to stigma, harassment, abuse, and even threats to physical safety [1,2,3]. This phenomenon is well known in "risky" real-world ethnographies [4], which involve research conducted in sensitive or hazardous environments. Unlike real-world ethnographies, however, where physical threats are more visible, online spaces obscure these dangers. Social actors are shielded by anonymity and the cues present in the physical environment are lacking, making it much easier to stumble into unexpected threatening situations. Female researchers, in particular, have highlighted the perils within male-dominated communities, known for their "toxic techno cultures" and gatekeeping behaviors that hinder access to data. These threats call more pressingly for a situated ethics, as well as careful navigation before, during, and after fieldwork.
The risks of doing video game research depend on various factors, such as the researcher's characteristics, position, experience, and familiarity with the game.
Our reflections and firsthand experiences, alongside discussions of the problem in academic literature, set the stage for a workshop at CHI PLAY in 2023 in Stratford, Ontario. The workshop aimed to create awareness around the ethical issues researchers encounter when conducting field research within online gaming spaces. We explored how these issues are shaped by the professional settings, methodologies, and dynamics arising when collecting data. It became evident that the risks of doing video game research depend on various factors, such as the researcher's characteristics, position, experience, and familiarity with the game. The approach—whether ethnographic, requiring deep interaction with people, or involving secondary data—and the studied topic play a significant role in increasing potential risk (e.g., direct interactions with young male players of first-person shooter games pose a different risk from that of an online study with predominantly middle-aged people playing the puzzle game Bejeweled). Solutions must consider these factors to ensure safe, ethical, and effective research in online gaming communities.
Challenges in Qualitative Research
Here, we present some of the insights discussed during the workshop, before outlining possible solutions to the challenges posed by game research.
Access and trust. A key theme in the workshop discussions was the relevance of the methodological approach adopted by researchers. When researchers move from controlled experimental settings to real-world online gaming environments, they find it increasingly difficult to gain access, which is crucial for interacting with potential participants and collecting data.
Online gaming communities often appear closed to outsiders. Researchers need preliminary insider knowledge of the community's norms, values, and language, and they have to work diligently to earn the trust and favor of its members. The challenge, however, does not end with initial access. Once accepted by a community, researchers must continue to immerse themselves in it over extended periods to deepen their understanding, which requires a continued, authentic engagement with the community's dynamics and rules. Such an approach is particularly crucial in ethnographic research, where sustained interaction is essential for gaining meaningful insights.
Downsides of immersion. While often seen as a beneficial approach in ethnographic research, immersion also poses risks. The presence of researchers can feel intrusive, exacerbating stigma and provoking defensive reactions. For example, in studies on problematic gaming and addiction, a workshop participant recounted how gamers resisted being involved because they did not want to be treated as experimental subjects. Therefore, while some researchers suggested integrating more deeply into gaming communities by adopting a more informal stance, others expressed concerns about the ethical implications of this approach.
On the one hand, setting aside formal roles might ensure that researchers are more accepted in the community and not perceived as patronizing or intrusive. Researchers can try to remain accessible to potential participants, avoiding excessive detachment. This is both a strategic choice and an ethical mandate to ensure participants' well-being. On the other hand, researchers' openness may in turn expose them to unpleasant situations. As several participants in the workshop recounted, it is not uncommon to encounter ridicule toward the research focus.
This situation highlights a broader issue of hostility and dismissal that scholars face when engaging with online communities. Workshop participants expressed discomfort with revealing their identities as academics, balancing the need for transparency with the desire to protect their personal and professional integrity. The difficulty of differentiating their personal identities from their professional roles also emerged, especially when the people they studied sought to find out details about their personal lives.
Researcher-participant relationship. Workshop participants also acknowledged the complex and ambiguous relationship between participants and researchers. Ethical guidelines prompt researchers to consider benefits for participants to be part of a study, leading to a deeper reflection on what researchers can offer in return (not necessarily in monetary form). In qualitative research, interviews and participatory methods can provide value to participants by allowing them to reflect, share their stories, and feel heard. When hostility or skepticism is expressed, however, this dynamic may become strained. Participants may offer socially desirable responses out of a sense of obligation, or, conversely, they may be resistant to engaging, interpreting the researcher's attempts to offer something in return as an effort to "buy" their cooperation.
The risks of using secondary data. The use of secondary data, such as social media posts or forum discussions, may potentially simplify the research process and shield researchers from the risks associated with the fieldwork, but it can also have unwanted consequences. As individuals become more aware that researchers might be monitoring public spaces, like Reddit or gaming forums, they may perceive these environments as no longer private. The awareness that their conversations or behaviors may be analyzed without their consent can foster mistrust of or resentment toward researchers. This shift in perception may lead to prejudices against researchers, who are increasingly seen as outsiders or intruders. As a result, players may become less inclined to collaborate, which not only complicates data collection, but also strains the already delicate researcher-participant relationship.
Furthermore, giving visibility to harmful behavior encountered in online posts through research poses another dilemma. Highlighting such behaviors in gaming communities risks reinforcing negative stereotypes about players, which can stigmatize participants and create a one-dimensional portrayal of the gaming community. This, in turn, may negatively influence public opinion, policymaking, and parental attitudes toward gaming. A narrow focus on gaming technologies often overlooks the benefits that gaming can offer, promoting a partial perspective and preventing broader recognition of its value.
Legitimization of the Discipline and Interdisciplinarity
Beyond the challenges already highlighted in other research domains, such as difficulties in gaining participants' trust and engagement, the obstacles faced by gaming researchers have deeper roots. These stem from a broader stigma surrounding the legitimacy of game research, with skepticism arising not only from the general public but also, surprisingly, from within the academic community itself, where scholars approach the study of games from different disciplinary perspectives. One illustrative case, presented by a workshop participant, highlighted the position of game AI research within the broader context of game studies, sparking a debate over whether it truly constitutes part of "game research." This conversation exposed interdisciplinary tensions and underscored the broader issue of acceptance and recognition of gaming research as a legitimate academic discipline where multiple and diverse perspectives may coexist.
These doubts and debates can be particularly damaging to young researchers, who are often at the forefront of fieldwork. Early-career researchers, struggling to navigate these interdisciplinary tensions and defend the legitimacy of their work, may have their confidence undermined, hindering their ability to establish a strong academic identity. In response, workshop participants stressed the importance of ethical considerations in how researchers engage with one another, advocating for a culture of respect and integrity across academic discourses, including speaker-audience interactions and peer review processes. The interdisciplinary nature of game research thus brings to light a common identity problem faced by researchers, one that calls for innovative solutions.
Addressing the Challenges and Looking for Support
The final discussions of the workshop highlighted a common understanding that researchers often face these challenges alone, navigating hostile environments with limited support. This isolation can be detrimental to both their well-being and the quality of their research, especially for junior researchers who encounter such situations at the start of their academic careers. Therefore, it is crucial to move beyond merely addressing the consequences and instead focus on proactive solutions to mitigate such issues. In the following section, we discuss some measures to address these problems, which may be used by virtual ethnographers in gaming environments.
One key aspect involves personal protection strategies, as already recommended by Alice Marwick and colleagues [2], who emphasized the importance of researchers taking proactive steps to protect their personal information and manage their online presence. For example, practical measures that can reduce exposure to harassment include using public email aliases and securing social media accounts. Establishing clear boundaries between personal and professional identities is also crucial for safeguarding against potential harm. Another personal aspect relates to the in-game competence of the ethnographer. Online gaming environments are often highly competitive, whereby "competence" represents the main value driving the communities. For an ethnographer, being good at play—that is, showing skills only experienced players possess—may be a means to gain respect, avoid harassment, and prevent toxic behavior. Preliminary understanding of the field is essential in the real-world ethnographies, and in gaming environments an in-depth understanding of the game and well-developed in-game abilities may be essential prerequisites to face the challenges that the ethnography poses.
Institutions play a pivotal role in supporting researchers in adopting protective practices. They can offer mental health resources, training on how to handle online harassment, and clear protocols for reporting and addressing incidents. Such support, as highlighted by Marwick et al., would include proactive communication plans and dedicated personnel to assist researchers in managing online threats. It could take the form of safety advisory councils that offer specialized advice and support to researchers who encounter online risks [5].
Beyond individual and institutional efforts, building communities of practice is crucial for fostering a supportive research environment. Organizations like AnyKey, founded by Morgan Romine and T.L. Taylor [5], provide platforms where researchers can exchange experiences, seek support, and offer mutual assistance. Other online spaces can be found in the Rutgers Digital Ethnography Working Group (https://bit.ly/4cmiB3g) and the Ethnographic Café (https://bit.ly/4jirvkw). These networks may help mitigate the isolation that many researchers experience, creating a more resilient and connected research community. A problem communities of this kind face is that young game researchers may not be familiar with them. Publicizing such initiatives more widely and building new ones specifically targeted to the game domain can ensure that even researchers who have just begun their research journey can find a place where they feel heard.
Broader community engagement mitigates hostility and also reduces the risk of self-selection bias, which can lead to skewed data and compromised research integrity.
Grassroots approaches, including distributed moderation systems and community-led initiatives, such as those suggested by Taylor [5], can also play a vital role in enhancing safety and legitimacy within online communities. For example, live Q&A sessions where researchers transparently engage with the community can build trust and reduce hostility. In the gaming community, informal networks such as Slack channels for early-career researchers in HCI or Discord communities for CHI PLAY can be formalized into more-consistent support networks. A dedicated mentoring system, paired with access to mental health services and guidance on ethical best practices, would significantly reduce the isolation many researchers in this field feel.
Additionally, involving participants directly in the research process by offering them a stake in the outcomes, such as an explicit mention in the research publications in exchange for their support, can foster a more cooperative relationship. This broader community engagement mitigates hostility and also reduces the risk of self-selection bias, which can lead to skewed data and compromised research integrity.
Collaboration with the gaming industry further strengthens these efforts. Digital gaming platforms like Discord and Twitch are particularly important in this context, as they shape the environment in which research is conducted. They present unique challenges, however, such as fast-paced interactions in Twitch chat rooms and stringent moderation policies that can complicate data collection. To effectively collect data on these platforms, researchers must become familiar with the specific cultures and rules of each platform. By partnering with game developers, publishers, and community managers, researchers can promote positive behavioral norms and reduce toxicity within gaming spaces. Institutions and platform providers can support researchers by offering guidelines and tools for ethical research practices, ensuring that data collection respects user privacy and complies with platform policies.
Addressing ethical challenges in online game research requires a multifaceted approach that includes institutional support, collaboration with the gaming industry, conversation with scholars from other fields, and cooperation from digital platforms. This supportive and collaborative environment can help researchers share experiences and leverage resources that would not only alleviate their individual burden but also foster innovation and progress.
Conclusion
Despite years of discussions, the challenges faced by researchers in the gaming community remain persistent and troubling, potentially compromising scholars' work and well-being. These challenges include hostility from the gaming community expressed in the form of questioning researchers' credibility, personal attacks, and harassment. In this article, we have delved into personal stories shared by researchers in video game research, explored the effects of problematic experiences, and discussed the steps needed to address these issues. The stories shared during our workshop highlight a spectrum of toxic behaviors, including harassment, gatekeeping, and ridicule—issues that continue to affect the research process. While these behaviors are not new, they might be underestimated in online gaming research, where the environment is believed to be "lighter" and more "fun" than serious. The prevalence of such issues even in online games, however, underscores the urgent need for more concrete and proactive solutions. Different sources of harm significantly affect the research process, from participant recruitment to the integrity and acceptance of game research within and outside academic circles. It appears that researchers are particularly at risk during the recruitment phase, when they are exposed to personal attacks and privacy breaches, especially in situations that require them to disclose their identities. The situation becomes even more complex when we consider the academic stigma surrounding the study of games. The interdisciplinarity of game research, while often a strength, presents significant challenges for researchers attempting to find their footing. It is not only the members of the gaming community; academics in different fields question the legitimacy and value of academic interdisciplinary research on gaming. This may eventually lead to increased self-doubt among researchers, especially those early in their careers.
Moving forward, it is clear that steps need to be taken to address these issues, starting with the need to engage hostile audiences more effectively and explain the importance and potential of gaming research. This could include gaining players' respect by developing the ethnographer's in-game skills and creating clearer communication strategies to emphasize how gaming studies contribute to education, therapy, and social engagement, as well as involving gaming communities more directly in the research process. Additionally, establishing networks and forums can provide valuable support to early-career researchers, who may be unaware of the potential risks of their research and unprepared to face the challenges ahead. Researchers could exchange experiences and strategies and provide support to one another to address the complexities of their work. It is important for researchers to have a safe space to share personal stories, seek peer advice, and engage in broader conversations about adapting research methodologies to keep pace with evolving trends in the gaming field and its communities.
Finally, strengthening institutional support is crucial for protecting young researchers. Existing training programs, like the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative Program, often used at the start of Ph.D. programs [6], can be expanded to emphasize researcher protection and prevent researchers from feeling isolated. Training modules on handling harassment, online safety, and navigating hostile communities could be incorporated into graduate programs across different disciplines. Such comprehensive training frameworks would not only equip early-career researchers to face future challenges but also offer practical solutions for maintaining mental well-being. Additionally, institutions can offer more hands-on support, such as providing access to university cybersecurity teams to prevent trolls or hacks during online data collection, thereby safeguarding researchers' personal and professional identities.
By taking these steps, we can reduce the challenges researchers face and enhance the legitimacy, acceptance, and societal impact of game research.
References
1. Anti-Defamation League Center for Technology & Society. Online hate and harassment: The American experience 2023. Jun. 27, 2023; https://www.adl.org/resources/report/online-hate-and-harassment-american-experience-2023
2. Marwick, A.E., Blackwell, L., and Lo, K. Best practices for conducting risky research and protecting yourself from online harassment. Data & Society Research Institute, 2016.
3. Allison, K.R. Navigating negativity in research: Methodological and ethical considerations in the study of antisocial, subversive and toxic online communities and behaviours. Workshop Proc. of the 14th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. ACM, 2020, 1–8; https://doi.org/10.36190/2020.11
4. Koonings, K., Kruijt, D., and Rodgers, D., eds. Ethnography as Risky Business: Field Research in Violent and Sensitive Contexts. Lexington Books, 2019.
5. Zuckerman, E. It's about safety in gaming with T.L. Taylor. Reimagining the Internet. Mar. 23, 2022; https://publicinfrastructure.org/podcast/60-tl-taylor/
6. Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. The trusted standard in research, ethics, compliance, and safety training, 2024; https://about.citiprogram.org/
Authors
Arianna Boldi is a research fellow in the Computer Science Department at the University of Turin, where she obtained her Ph.D. in psychology. Her research focuses on the intersection of HCI and psychology. She explores various topics, including the potential of video games for understanding human behavior and enhancing mental health, as well as emotional experiences of esports players. [email protected]
Selina Cho obtained her Ph.D. from the Human Centred Computing group at the University of Oxford, where she investigated online game cheating communities. Her research interests lie at the intersection of game cheating, cybersecurity, and computer-supported cooperative work. [email protected]
Yubo Kou is an assistant professor in the College of Information Sciences and Technology at Pennsylvania State University. His research includes HCI, computer-supported cooperative work, and video games, with a focus on the intersection of governance and play. [email protected]
Amon Rapp is an associate professor in the Computer Science Department at the University of Turin. His main research areas are self-tracking and behavior change technologies, video games, and intelligent agents. He has organized several workshops at prestigious conferences, including UbiComp/ISWC, CHI Play, Hypertext, and UMAP. He is an associate editor of the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies and Human-Computer Interaction. [email protected]
Max V. Birk is an assistant professor in the Human-Technology Interaction group at Eindhoven University of Technology. Drawing from psychology, data science, and game design, his research focuses on motivation in games, game-based digital biomarkers of stress, and behavioral design strategies in commercial games. His work aims to contribute to a healthy society, improve entertainment experiences, and develop tools and methods for researching interactive experiences. [email protected]
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0.
The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2025 ACM, Inc.
Post Comment
No Comments Found