NZ Polo

We make decisions all the time, some small and some large, some with little impact beyond ourselves and some with substantial impact to others’ lives. It is possible that big decisions, made in situations of uncertainty, can be better understood through gaming. If multiple people need to be on board for a decision, gaming can help expose various positions: who is willing to compromise, what can he negotiated, or when consensus is viable. Ordinary citizens are called upon to participate in decision making as they serve on juries or planning and parole boards, The decisions they are called upon to make are serious and stressful. The Situations in which such decisions are made involve much interpersonal influence and argument.
Having now established the perspectives from which games are investigated, we move to a sharper focus on games themselves,

All the above thinking was done before I began my work investigating through CRIA the application of communication and information design processes in large organizations. When I began this later work, I was well primed to look for these shows implied readers and authors. I was also keenly conscious that as a designer I was already embedded as a part of the authoring process.
The work we were asked to undertake by both government and industry was to make their communication with the public more user friendly. Thus right at the heart of our work is a highly explicit construction of an implied reader. This is not new; large organizations are used to working with other implied readers. For example, many bureaucrats when drafting a form for public use ask themselves what a judge in court would make of a particular usage, what the internal information processing needs require, or what their superior’s point of view might be. But “the public,”“citizens,”“consumers,”“customers,” or “clients” are new implied readers requiring a new outlook. First, there is the political issue of a formerly unrepresented constituency having a voice at the table. Second, there is the equally political issue of whose notify of the implied reader is to prevail? Third, is how to demonstrate that the new implied reader is being catered to. To many in politics and the bureaucracy the third issue has been dealt with by introducing plain language. We are skeptical (Sless 1993—1996); the plain English style or writing genre, like any authoring process, contains an implied reader. In the case of plain English it is a simplified construction of the reader and the reading processes. But what constitutes evidence that plain English is an inadequate solution to a complex communication problem, and mote generally what kind of evidence is acceptable from the designer’s position within the communication landscape about the userfriendlines5 of a document?

So far, the logic that emerges has two components: an author/text with an implied reader, and a reader/text with an implied author. One of the basic characteristics of these two components is counterintuitive—their irreducibility. Even though we can talk as if authors, texts, and readers were separate entities, in the emerging logic the smallest units of analysis are the author/text/implied reader on the one hand, and the reader/text/implied author on the other hand. Claiming the irreducibility of these entities marks a radical departure from our normal way of talking about these things and conducting research into the nature of communication. In ordinary conversation we talk about authors, readers, and texts as separate entities. In research we traditionally distinguish between studies that focus on the creators of texts, such as biography; studies that focus on an analysis of texts, such as social semiotics; and studies that focus on readers of text, such as psychology. The logic of positions slices the cake in an altogether different manner and in many ways challenges the validity of these traditional discipline boundaries.
But the logic of positions goes further. As there are only two basic positions, and no outsider position, there is no scholarly position of neutrality or objectivity: one is either an author or a reader already embedded within the process. I have undertaken a number of studies to illustrate this as it has been applied across a range
modalities in the published communication studies literature (Sless 1980, 198 lb 1983a, 1983b, 1985, 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1988, 1994). Even when researchers claim to be studying text on its own the shadowy implied authors and readers’ always present pius a little old fashioned magic in which inanimate objects make people do things. For example Hodge and Kress make the following observation about a billboard: “The text itself is of a scale and kind which implies the use of significant material resources. The availability of such resources is understood by the reader to be a precondition of the production of uch a text and that gives the text a particular status . . . and places the reader in a particular position” (Hodge and Kress, 9, my italics).
Notice how Hodge and Kress make the text itself vaguely animated, as if capable of action—doing things to people. The text “implies,” and it “places the reader.” Hodge and Kress also tell us how the billboard is “understood by the reader.” This illustrates one of the common rhetorical devices that researchers use to imply their own neutrality; they introduce another shadowy persona into their study of texts: the implied other reader. This is a fascinating construction that appears to do the work of reading for them. Sometimes in social semiotics these implied entities take on the persona of an entire culture. Far from being scholarly and detached, such research is populated by fictional (implied) other readers and authors. It is easy to demonstrate that these are highly subjective works of fiction, more so than a personal account of one’s own reading of a text. Scholarship more subjective than personal accounts—a radical claim! But the question that we need to answer in any study of communication is not whether we are being more or less subjective—we have no choice but to be subjective, in a sense—rather, what position we are in and how explicitly and rigorously do we give an account of the implied readers and authors that inevitably populate our accounts.

The information designer reads the report from the other end of this long chain of invented entities, which may or may not in some respects correspond to the actual readers and authors. From the designer’s position in the landscape, most of these entities are invisible and it may be tempting to imagine that reading the report gives the designer direct access to the people who use the document. As this analysis shows, this is far from the case, and it makes no difference whether the data is qualitative or quantitative—a flowing set of narratives or a collection of mini narratives that have been classified and counted—the result is the same:fiction is built on top of fiction, construction and reconstruction occurring at every point. In the typical survey or focus group there are some five opportunities for such construction and reconstruction to occur between the reading of the document in the first instance by the public and the reading of the account of that reading by the information designer. Not much good data here from the point of view of the information designer.