Abstract
Game Theory, Experimental Games and many other social theorists use games as an analytic device to understand non-game social processes, yet operate with a narrow conception of games restricted to the formal or codified rules. This formalist imagery of games provides an inadequate account of agency in games and fails to access the interpretive work by players in negotiating with game-structures. In contrast Garfinkel's ethnomethodological perspective on social processes provides the basis for identifying five interdependent dimensions of rule-following in games. This suggests that game processes are necessarily under-determined by formal rules, and that players can explore the essential insufficiency of the rules in pursuit of their interests in winning. This provides the basis for understanding changes to game-structures over time and has broader application to other social processes.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
