Output details

Skills for Creativity in Games Design

During the past decade Jeffries’ research findings have informed training for both creative industry professionals, postgraduate and undergraduate design education. The IT University of Copenhagen uses Jeffries (2011) as a key text for their Introduction to Games Design (E2011), specifically the paper is discussed in the first lecture, alongside Cross’ Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science.

Whilst Jeffries’ works are based on specific occupations within the creative industries (film directors, product and graphic designers), it is the perceived tensions between academia and industry that are at the core of his enquiry. Games design offered a polarised case study with implications for art and design higher education, and the design industry as a whole.

David Braben, the campaign spokesman for Games Up? (sponsored by the UK’s largest games development studios and trade bodies) claimed “95% of video gaming degrees are simply not fit for purpose…these degrees are a waste of time for all concerned” (Lipsett, 2008). In contrast, Professor Geoffrey Crossick (2006), in his speech to the RSA, highlighted that it was “…important not to assume that employers automatically know best what education their future employees need”.

Whilst, anecdotally, such differences appeared to be significant, quality empirical findings did not exist on which to base such claims: addressing this deficit was the purpose of this research. Jeffries proposed that the validity of both claims was dependant on the extent to which practitioners’ conception of skills for creativity differed from those of academics.

His key findings highlighted academics and practitioners could agree on key skills for creativity (previous work suggested this could not be taken for granted), but of fundamental importance, for the most part, they agreed on the same key skills. Thus, suggesting a commonality existed that was not prevalent within the academic or popular debate.