[Interview] A journey towards the next step of Korean game research, Prof. Tae-jin Yoon, the president of DiGRA-K

In March 2024, the South Korean regional chapter of the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) was established. DiGRA is one of the world's largest international associations for academics and professionals who research digital games and associated phenomena. Its Korean chapter, named “DiGRA-K”, is now the latest new regional hub followed by the ones in Europe, Asia, and North and South America. DiGRA-K aims to promote an interdisciplinary approach to game research, strengthen connections with industry and academia, and support the next generation through international collaborations. Notably, DiGRA-K aims to overcome the gap between academic disciplines in Korea when it comes to research games, while seeking to encompass both industry practitioners and academia. In this issue of GG, we had the opportunity to speak with Professor Yoon Tae-jin from Yonsei University, the co-founder and first president of DiGRA-K, to discuss their organisation’s core goals, key projects, and a critical assessment of Korean game culture.

Kang: Shin-kyu Kang, editor of GG

Yoon: Tae-jin Yoon, president of DiGRA-K

Kang: Thank you for taking part in this Game Generation interview. Since many of our readers are engaged in critical writing, it would be especially helpful if you could share, not only your own perspective on the development of game research in Korea, but also some of the initiatives that DiGRA-K is pursuing to enhance our understanding of games as both cultural and industrial phenomenon. First of all, could you share with us how you became a founding member of DiGRA-K? And perhaps your vision when you took on the role as its first president?

Yoon: Frankly speaking, being a procrastinator myself, I’ve never been the type of person to actively volunteer for major organisational roles. But with the case of the DiGRA-K in particular, somehow, I felt different. I’ve been considered that, compared to other academic disciplines, game research in Korea lack academic initiatives. Our situation is so dire, like a plain field with a vast open empty space. Our initial aim was that we should build at least a small hut—a small step at a time, and start populating that open space. Fortunately there were many who were eager to help out. Then what it turns out was that most of our founding members are still juniors in terms of their academic career, which made me suddenly the most senior members in the group. From there, I realized that it was my job to help this community to establish their first milestone. I thought “All I need to do is dig a little ground to settle the hut.” That was the mindset when I stepped in as the president of DiGRA-K.

Kang: I’m curious why you chose to register an academic association instead of other forms of social group for researchers. And from there, more specifically, why did you decide to form a Korean regional hub of DiGRA, rather than starting a completely new one from the scratch?

Yoon: That’s a bit of a chicken-or-egg question. At the time, while I was thinking about the necessity of academic initiatives for game researchers in Korea, international scholars from DiGRA approached me with an idea: how about settling DiGRA in Korea? As you might already know, Korea is a country with well-established video game industry and gaming culture. And not only with industrial maturity, but also when it comes to gaming policies. And yet, while DiGRA already had chapters in 16 countries there’s none in Korea and very few Korean scholars ever participated in their conferences. So I guess from the DiGRA’s perspective, they wanted Korea would take a more active role in advancing game research discipline. So they approached us and asked if we would be interested in establishing a Korean regional chapter, while also suggested hosting a regular DiGRA conference in Korea. That became our starting point.

Kang: There are already a few game-related academic associations in Korea, and some that were established just recently as well. So, compared with these existing organisations, how did you envision DiGRA-K’s unique position?

Yoon: I had attended some of the existing associations in the past. But I felt that their academic approaches were different from what I had envisioned about game research. So I never felt compelled to take an active role there. For instance, organisations that primarily focus on computer research or policy analysis felt very specialised and perhaps too specific, and distinct from my academic framework on games and game culture. That was one of the first reasons why I thought we needed a new game research community, DiGRA-K. Of course, I consulted with colleagues who were active in those other organisations, doing research on games in other disciplines. And matter in fact, some of them eventually became advisors to DiGRA-K.

Kang: I also had a similar impression that many of the existing game-related organisations in Korea tend to be oriented toward business or engineering related academic disciplines, somewhat distant for game researchers. They are also quite specific and narrow in the sense that we would need a more inclusive venue to accommodate this multidisciplinary field of games. In contrary, in the case of DiGRA-K, some might argue that its founding board members are lean too much on media and cultural studies background. What’s your thought on this view?

Yoon: I believe the academic orientation of an ‘association’ will naturally take shape over time. Even if you try to set a specific direction from the beginning, it rarely stays the same along the course. When we founded DiGRA-K, I had two seemingly contradictory thoughts: On one hand, I thought it might be impactful to build a specialised association that narrowly accommodate game cultural studies, in the same way that some of the other associations focus on other game-related topics like law, policy, or engineering. On the other hand, because we are also a local chapter of DiGRA, which hosts international academic conferences while actively seeking collaboration with the game industry, I concerned the inclusivity of the topic would limit the venue’s true potential. So basically, it was about whether to build a group with a deep-focused unique identity or instead taking a more of a generalist approach.

But then when I supervise my students, I often use the term “funnel”. As in, you may start with a broad topic in the beginning, but gradually narrow down until you reach your own unique contribution to the academic field. We realized that we see the future pathway of DiGRA-K in the same manner. At this early stage, I believe we should maintain a broad and inclusive scope so that the venue is open to game researchers from various disciplines like programming, design, development, marketing, and beyond. But that doesn’t mean we aim to cover absolutely everything about games. Gradually, the areas where we have greater expertise or a stronger interest will emerge and thus clarifies the identity of DiGRA-K eventually. But for now, I want to maintain a sense of openness and flexibility of our organisation.

Kang: I’ve also had the impression recently that academic associations don’t really change much regardless of who becomes their leader. But as you said, if the organisation can broadly encompass a diverse range of people at the top – top of the “funnel” per se, and then gradually narrows down collectively by its members, then perhaps it could strike a balance between broadness and specificity. I can see where you’re visioning and personally also agree with that direction. Then, since its establishment in March 2024, DiGRA-K has been actively holding events and projects. Could you tell us more on those, and perhaps the one that you personally feel accomplished the most?

Yoon: From the very beginning, our founding members’ primary agenda was to do a foundational work for DiGRA-K. And there were two things I emphasised in doing that. One is to foster international academic exchange and facilitate an environment to nurture the next generation of game scholars. Secondly, I also wanted to ensure that DiGRA-K remained connected to the game development scene, constantly attempting to share knowledge and information with the game practitioners.

International collaboration is at heart of our organisation’s goal, as one of the regional chapter of the worldwide DiGRA network. But one of the concerns that I have in mind about the Korean academic scene is that the concept of “international collaboration (knowledge exchange)” is often misrepresented and very one-sided. For instance, Korean universities or associations tend to spend a lot of money to host a foreign scholar’s visit, to hear what these foreigners have to say, and then make a big fuss about it in the press. Honestly, the game development scene is no exception to these odd interpretations of “international collaboration”. What I would like to see is a more natural flow of knowledge sharing and exchange of insights. There are many people coming to Korea of their own will, either as tourists, international students, or researchers. Some researchers wish to come here as visiting scholars so they can do research in Korea. I want DiGRA-K to welcome as many of these willing individuals as possible. So that they are not excluded from the local community of scholars here in Korea, and to engaged in continuous efforts together, instead of situated as others. The recent two international talks we organised through DiGRA-K were meant for that exact idea. It was organised in a way that Korean students, industry professionals, and researchers would feel like visiting scholars from abroad is not just here to give a one-sided talk but should be welcomed and engaged in long-term discussion. So in a way, intercultural knowledge exchange in a natural and welcoming atmosphere.

In terms of nurturing the next generation of game scholars, I guess that’s a shared concern in every academic fields. But especially in game research, due to its short-history and still fragile ground of games in conventional academic landscape, I’ve seen many young game scholars eventually departure from this field of research. For example, sociologists or psychologists who begin by studying games often shift to other topics to seek research jobs or to align with funding requirements. To prevent this, I want DiGRA-K to become a communal space that can accommodate researchers of all levels interested in games, sending young scholars a message that there are people and a community who will continue to care about their work.

Kang: I get the impression that, for you, both international collaboration and nurturing younger scholars are not about creating something grand but more about laying a foundation to build a natural and inclusive atmosphere of co-learning. I also think this issue applies not only to early-career researchers but to established senior scholars as well. For example, there were a number of Korean media researchers who studied games in the early 2000s, but you may be the only one in Korea that still actively doing media studies on games to this date. Ensuring the long-lasting space for game research, therefore, appears to be a challenging task – junior or senior alike. Then let me turn the question towards you. You started your academic career researching Korean popular culture, coming from television studies, before shifting your attention to games. Then where do you position yourself as a researcher?

Yoon: I regard myself as a popular culture researcher. For instance, one might have read far fewer webcomics than younger people, but still can research webcomics. One who can’t immediately guess all those names of popular K-pop groups still can do research on K-pop phenomenon. By that same logic, I study games, but I don’t necessarily consider myself a researcher who is solely devoted to researching games. My research was heavily focused on games up until about 2010. After that, I spent several years researching the Korean Wave (hallyu). Since 2017–2018, I’ve returned to conducting more game research. As I’m about to retire in about ten years, I think at this state, my final years of academic career are likely to be devoted on game culture studies. So in that perspective, I see perhaps the title of “born-as” game researcher will become more common in the next generation.

Kang: Hearing you say that makes me wonder, who really counts as a “game researcher”? And what does it mean to be one? This might be something readers of GG are curious about as well. For instance, I sometimes feel that when I teach game-related courses at university. At some point I wish I could proudly say things like, “I play (this game) better than you,” to the students, so they can appreciate my expertise in teaching games. Because in gaming, people tend to think that “no one can talk about games better than the person who plays it best.” In which, creates sort of skepticism among gamers toward game researchers. In light of that, what is your message towards gamers on behalf of game researchers?

Yoon: I think that’s a very common dilemma among game researchers. I don’t think game researchers should try pretending that they are also good at playing games, or to confront to answer that question at all, just for the sake of justifying their legitimacy of doing research. The most common way to answer that question long has been, phrases like, “Just because you like games and play them well doesn’t make you a good scholar!” or “I may not be good at games, but I’ve had extensive scholarly training!” Unfortunately, I don’t think that would convince anyone at this state of time. I personally identify myself as a game researcher, as a kind of television (studies) researcher from the 1970s. Back when I was in university in the 1980s, many lecturers and professors taught their students about television and media despite they didn’t know much about how the television industry works. Some hardly even watched TVs. But were their research and lectures meaningless? They did. Their most significant contribution is that they seeded the idea that “we can research television. It is a legitimate object for scientific research”. That very idea is how they managed to train their students, who later in turn produced further advanced knowledge on television. So in a sense, I agree with Henry Jenkins—ultimately, it’s better when fans become scholars rather than scholars trying to become fans. That’s perhaps a more sustainable direction for the discipline. For me, personally, I think I’m too senior to start going that path. So when such questions about my gaming skill arise, I respond by saying: “You, the players, have much more potential to become a game researcher than I do. My job is to build a pathway for you.” I think of research organisation like DiGRA-K are, again, a ‘small hut’ in the plain field where, when the day comes that these young gamers can go and claim their ownership for it. And by that point, I believe the community of game researchers will mature academically in ways we can’t yet imagine.

Kang: There are also various collaborations between an academically established senior scholar and young gamers with an insightful mindset. In that sense, as a supervisor, do you enjoy interacting and co-working with students who genuinely love game? If so, did those engagements with students also provides you inspiration for future research in return?

Yoon: Absolutely. This might sound cliché, but I genuinely learn far more from my students. I often get bored when I have to approach my students’ papers simply as an instructor. Whereas I think about 70% of what I learn these days comes from reading my students’ dissertations and papers. When I come across something interesting in their work, I go on to explore it further myself. That’s how I learn these days, and how I’ve been conducting research alongside my students.

Kang: Then what role can game research play for gamers? While DiGRA-K is currently aiming to foster dialogue between academia and industry, I feel that engaging with gamers could be something that should be achieved in the long run. If so, how can game researchers communicate meaningful dialogue with gamers?

Yoon: That question reminds me of Korea’s long vibrant history of Korean film fandom. There were many cinephiles (i.e., people who are fond of cinema), and some of them went on to become film directors, producers, or even studied abroad to become scholars. If the Korean film research scene had been more developed at the time, they might have been able to accommodate those passionate individuals to also become scholars. And perhaps that could have flourished the Korean film scene yet again, with energy and innovative thinking of cinephiles to bridge the gap between film academia, industry, and various other related fields.

I think a similar process is possible with games. Of course, the scale and characteristics of Korean game scenes and film scenes are different. But there are already people doing similar things for games. For example, I think the “GG Game Critic Award” is an excellent example as a venue for networking and knowledge exchange between game enthusiasts and game critics. It provides people with a message that anyone can provide and learn about new insights and perspectives on games, or get to learn about other countries’ game discourse, and etc, even if you’re not a trained game researcher. As long as you love games and have a good idea, then anyone could join the discourse. Such openness and accumulated energy will eventually synergy together to flourish both the game industry and game research discipline.

Kang: I sometimes feel that while it’s beneficial for those studying popular culture or film to naturally extend their work into games. But it also raises the question of the specificity of researching “games” – the unique elements that only apply to games. You’ve already described what you envision about DiGRA-K. But then, how could DiGRA-K contribute, and game research as a whole, to move forward in the absence of distinctly game-specific theories or methodologies? If anyone trained in popular culture studies can analyse games as a research object, then what is game research? Have you thought about this?

Yoon: I see things a bit differently. I’m not hinged on the idea that game research needs to establish a fully independent academic identity, and I also disagree that one research discipline must acquire distinct theories or methodologies to achieve its ground. Take qualitative research as an example. Every discipline has its own version of qualitative methods, but in practice, the differences primarily lie in research topics and interest. So I see the drive to create discipline-specific methods as more of a compulsion, per se, than a necessity. When we founded DiGRA-K, it was to initiate an academic venue. More of an institutional purpose. We didn’t find DiGRA-K to segregate game research as a stand-alone discipline away from other academic groups like in sociology or media studies. In fact, I think it’s perfectly okay if people see our organisation as a place to drop by to see about game research. It’s fine even if they are not solely devoted for this particular research discipline. For the same reason, we welcome amateur critics or industry practitioners to our organisation. They can come as they will and leave also as they will. They could contribute to our community for a while and then always can move on. A sort of natural flow of knowledge exchange.

Besides, I think the very definition of “games” is becoming blurred. Take a look at various media phenomena around us these days, like short-form video, the metaverse, virtual reality, and augmented reality and so forth. Some might argue that this is precisely why we must quickly solidify the ontological definition of games and thus the identity of game research as stand-alone discipline and institutionalise it, and lay down a strong footstep. On the other hand, some might counter argue that we should deliberately keep the game research scene fluid and inclusive, enabling a wide range of topics to be explored under its umbrella, and in turn, letting game research contribute outward to other areas as well. I lean overwhelmingly toward this second opinion.

Kang: Let me ask a bit more about the direction of DiGRA-K. Do you see ways in which the association could engage practically more or even intervene in societal issues surrounding the game industry and its culture? For instance, the interpretation and implementation of the WHO’s gaming disorder classification?

Yoon: Let me answer this question in two parts. First, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the academic association itself to assert a rigid position on such contentious issues. In my view, the role of an academic group is to create a space where people with diverse views can come together and discuss. Whether it’s about supporting or opposing the classification of gaming disorder, or how to regulate loot boxes…I don’t see the compelling reasons why association like DiGRA-K would have to decide which side they are in – one side or the other. However, I do think we need to be agile in responding to specific issues. For example, we are already planning a seminar early next year, specifically on the issue of the WHO’s gaming disorder manual. The seminar is about exploring international cases and see how it is being codified into law or institutional actions, and what the potential problems are. Our aim here is to approach the issue openly in a way that could open up a new perspective of seeing things – to start a dialogue. In short, I oppose steering the association to a specific direction, either towards an overtly industry-friendly or policy-driven manner. I also consider that our organisation must be clear about that. But if there are particularly important issues related to the game industry, political discourse, society, or international relations, then yes, I do believe we should quickly act and create a space for experts to come together and discuss.

Kang: Good point. I hope your vision on DiGRA-K could reach to more people out there, so that people from various fields and disciplines can freely come and engage to research games.  

Yoon: Since this interview will be published to online readers of GG, I would also like to point out one additional thing although this might sound a bit of a sidetrack. I don’t know how many GG readers are game scholars or students, or amateur critics or gamers who love games and want to read articles about them. It is unfortunate that these days, many people tend to make a kind of “political judgment” whenever a new organisation is established, when a book is published, or a game-related event happens. And by “political”, it’s no longer conventional political discourse on left vs. right. More so, we’re seeing more and more cynical and polarised responses on every spectrum, such as “Oh, DiGRA-K. This is probably a pro-game industry organisation trying to make money,” or “That person’s a feminist, so articles from this person would be full of shit,” or “This book is obviously written with some hidden message” etc etc. We saw some of those reactions to articles at the GG Game Critic Award, in which readers were dismissing some of the submissions claiming that they are “wrong.” Perhaps, compared to other fields of popular culture, such as television or K-pop, reactions toward games are often more skeptical and cynical, with hardly ever a positive response. It can be challenging to find supportive or forward-thinking attitudes in the gaming world these days.

I do hope this culture will shift eventually. I know it won’t disappear entirely, and what we can hope for is to reduce the severity of its toxicity at most as it is coming from a larger gamer discourse worldwide not just in Korea. But I still want to say out loud here that we, who love games, should eventually have to move on from normalized habitual negativity. And perhaps start asking ourselves, “what can (we) contribute to make the game scene better?” Of course, game companies have made mistakes and wronged people. But ultimately, the industry also needs to exist and thrive so that ones can continue to make games that we love.

Despite I myself have little interest in game business, policy, or management, I still know in my heart that it would be devastating if the gaming scene were to collapse. The same goes for academia. People often react cynically towards academia, with comments like, “Oh, professors just published yet another book on whatever by making their students to write something.” But I still believe there is always something that can be seen and told positively if one looks for it.

Kang: We’ve covered a lot today. Thank you for providing valuable insight. And this is going to be the last question for today. Which, a question from editor-in-chief, who insisted that we should ask this question to you: As president of DiGRA-K, what’s your favorite game?

Yoon: Well, for some reason, I can’t really play games where I have to clash with strangers online. It’s just my personal preference, not wanting to show others how bad I am at games (laughs). So I tend to stick to games without Internet connections, like console games or single-play mobile games, which I can play by myself. And since I usually play games as a short break from work, I prefer ones that end quickly. Arcade games, for example. I also often play simple crosswords or match-3 puzzles. The game I’ve played the longest in my life is actually <Donkey Kong>, which I played when I was young while studying abroad. At that time, I wasn’t good at speaking their local language so got bored and lonely. So I played games to overcome that boredom. I eventually became quite good at it, to the point that when I walk into the arcade shop, people would step aside to give me more space. I also played <Crazy Arcade> and <Winning Eleven> with my kids. More recently, I’ve tried games like <Uncharted Waters> and <Uma Musume>, partially because everyone else around me was playing those games – more like social obligation rather than my personal interest in that game per se. Although I actually quite enjoyed <Uncharted Waters>. So I also try out games that seem worth trying out, even if that wouldn’t fit my personal preference. And I guess that’s about it.