PHIL_OS

Funding programme

Horizon 2020 – European Research Council (ERC)

Project reference

101001145

Period

2021–2027

Coordinating organisation

Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany

Participating countries

Germany

Official project website

Visit official website

PHIL_OS (A Philosophy of Open Science for Diverse Research Environments) aims to develop an empirically grounded understanding of Open Science that recognises the diversity of research environments and examines the conditions under which openness can contribute to responsible and equitable scientific practice.

As part of its public engagement activities, the project developed The Research Game, an educational board game designed to raise awareness of structural inequalities, resource disparities and institutional dynamics within scientific research.

The game invites participants to experience how universities with different levels of funding, infrastructure and scientific prestige pursue research objectives within a competitive and collaborative environment.

Specific learning objectives

• Research inequality: Recognise that scientific institutions do not operate under equal conditions and that access to resources influences research opportunities.
• Open Science awareness: Explore the principles and challenges associated with scientific openness, collaboration and knowledge sharing.
• Epistemic justice: Understand how institutional, geographical and socioeconomic inequalities can affect whose knowledge is produced, recognised and valued.
• Research environments: Identify the importance of funding, infrastructure, personnel, scientific networks and institutional reputation in scientific activity.
• Resource management: Explore how research organisations allocate financial and material resources to pursue scientific objectives.
• Research planning: Consider how institutional capacities influence the feasibility of different research projects.
• Collaboration: Recognise opportunities and barriers to cooperation between institutions with different capabilities.
• Negotiation: Practise discussing agreements, exchanging resources and establishing scientific partnerships.
• Competition: Examine how institutional competition can influence scientific decisions and cooperation.
• Scientific uncertainty: Experience how unexpected events, funding changes and personnel movements can affect research projects.
• Perspective-taking: Understand the challenges experienced by researchers working in differently resourced institutions.
• Critical thinking: Question assumptions about merit, scientific success and institutional excellence.
• Systems thinking: Explore how scientific outcomes emerge from interactions between resources, institutions, policies and social relationships.
• Scientific communication: Encourage discussion about how research is organised and how scientific knowledge is produced.
• Reflective reasoning: Evaluate institutional achievements in relation to initial conditions rather than relying exclusively on final resources or prestige.
• Social responsibility: Encourage consideration of how scientific practices and institutions can support more equitable knowledge production.

Relationship with the project’s wider objectives

The Research Game translates the philosophical and empirical concerns of PHIL_OS into an interactive learning experience.

Rather than teaching scientific methodology through factual questions, the game represents the institutional conditions under which research is conducted.

The intended educational outcome is greater awareness and critical understanding of research inequalities, collaboration and scientific responsibility.

These objectives represent the game’s intended contribution. The available documentation does not establish independently measured improvements in participants’ knowledge, attitudes or competences.

PHIL_OS developed an original physical educational board game called The Research Game.

The game was created between 2023 and 2024 by the PHIL_OS research team, led by Sabina Leonelli, with contributions to its design, illustration and development from Michel and Leonardo Durinx.

Its purpose is to simulate the challenges and inequalities experienced by scientific institutions operating in different research environments.

1. The Research Game

Participants represent fictional universities or research institutions that must pursue scientific objectives while managing resources, responding to unexpected events and interacting with other institutions.

Each institution begins with different financial resources, scientific infrastructure and research capabilities.

These inequalities are intentional and constitute a central element of the game’s educational design.

Documented game characteristics

• Game type: Custom-designed educational board game.
• Format: Physical tabletop game with printable components.
• Players: 3–6 players, plus one narrator or mediator.
• Recommended age: Over 12 years.
• Playing time: Approximately 15–45 minutes.
• Educational theme: Structural inequalities, scientific research environments, institutional cooperation and Open Science.
• Game setting: Fictional research institutions with unequal financial, material and scientific resources.
• Research objectives: Scientific projects that players attempt to complete using available resources and institutional cooperation.
• Game development: 2023–2024.
• UK edition: Published in 2024.
• International edition: Published in 2025.
• Availability: Printable game components publicly available from the project website.

Main game components

The official resource repository identifies:

• One physical game board: A track containing spaces associated with research-related events and institutional changes.
• Six institution cards: Fictional universities with different locations, personnel, infrastructure, research capabilities and starting funds.
• Five research objective cards: Scientific goals that participants attempt to achieve.
• 52 asset cards: Resources representing scientific equipment, personnel, infrastructure and research capabilities.
• Six player tokens: Pieces representing the institutions on the board.
• Play money: Notes with values of 2K, 5K, 10K and 20K.
• One movement die: Used to determine progression along the board.
• Asset tracking sheet: An optional resource supporting changes in the value of assets during gameplay.

Asymmetric starting conditions

Players represent institutions with deliberately unequal resources.

For example, the UK edition includes institutions beginning with approximately 20,000, 30,000, 50,000, 70,000 or 120,000 units of game currency.

Higher-resourced institutions may have access to sophisticated laboratories, supercomputers, prestigious researchers, specialised datasets and extensive academic networks.

Lower-resourced institutions may have fewer financial resources and depend more heavily on specific local facilities, fieldworkers or collaborative opportunities.

These differences influence how each institution approaches its research objectives.

Research objectives

The research objective cards include scientific challenges such as:

• Developing and commercialising a new biofuel.
• Investigating antibiotic resistance and advancing towards clinical trials.
• Developing a drought-resistant crop.
• Investigating whale strandings and possible preventive measures.
• Developing solutions to protect coral reefs.

Players may choose whether to reveal their research objectives to other participants.

Main game mechanics

1. Asymmetric institutional roles: Participants represent universities with different financial resources, personnel, facilities and scientific capabilities.
2. Individual research objectives: Each institution pursues a scientific goal requiring particular resources or capabilities.
3. Hidden objectives: Players may choose not to disclose their research goals.
4. Dice-based movement: Participants advance along the board according to the result of a die roll.
5. Event resolution: Landing on different spaces triggers events that may affect one or more institutions.
6. Resource management: Players acquire, lose, exchange or otherwise manage scientific assets and financial resources.
7. Trading: Institutions can negotiate exchanges of research resources.
8. Alliance formation: Participants may establish partnerships to support their scientific objectives.
9. Alliance dissolution: Relationships between institutions can change as the game progresses.
10. Competition: Participants may pursue incompatible objectives or compete for opportunities and resources.
11. Random events: Changes in funding, personnel, scientific infrastructure and research policies introduce uncertainty.
12. Facilitator intervention: The mediator may influence how events and negotiations unfold.
13. Reflective evaluation: Participants explain and defend their achievements at the end of the game.

Examples of game events

The board includes situations such as obtaining a major research grant, losing scientific equipment, changes in research funding, the departure of a prestigious researcher, new scientific partnerships and modifications to research policy.

These events may strengthen or weaken an institution’s ability to pursue its objectives.

Winning condition

The game’s outcome is not determined exclusively by money or asset accumulation.

At the end, participants reflect on their achievements, institutional circumstances and progress towards their research objectives.

The winner is the player who most convincingly explains and defends the success of their institution in relation to its original resources and scientific and social objectives.

This introduces a reflective and argumentative dimension into the competitive structure.

Two game editions

The project developed two principal versions:

• UK Edition (2024): Fictional research institutions situated within the United Kingdom.
• Global Edition (2025): Research institutions representing different international environments.

The global edition extends the original game’s geographical perspective and provides opportunities to discuss international differences in scientific resources and opportunities.

Game availability

The project publishes printable files for the board, institutions, research objectives, assets, player tokens, money and optional tracking materials.

The Research Game – Official Description and Gameplay

The Research Game – Complete Printable Materials Repository

Game approach

The appropriate classification is Custom-Designed Educational Games.

The Research Game is an original educational tabletop game, not an adaptation of an existing commercial board game.

PHIL_OS uses The Research Game as a participatory learning and science communication activity designed to make structural inequalities in scientific research visible through gameplay.

The methodology combines asymmetric starting conditions, institutional role-playing, resource management, negotiation, competition and facilitated reflection.

A distinctive feature is that inequality is not merely presented as educational information. It is incorporated into the initial distribution of resources and into the opportunities available to each participant.

Pedagogical foundations

• Experiential learning: Participants encounter differences in institutional opportunities through simulated decisions and events.
• Role-playing: Each player represents a fictional scientific institution with specific characteristics and capabilities.
• Simulation-based learning: The game represents selected aspects of how research institutions compete, cooperate and respond to uncertainty.
• Critical reflection: Participants consider the relationship between their results, initial resources and institutional circumstances.
• Perspective-taking: Players experience research from the standpoint of institutions with different levels of prestige and access to resources.
• Social learning: Negotiation, trading and alliance formation create opportunities to exchange perspectives.
• Facilitated discussion: A narrator or mediator connects gameplay with actual research practices and structural inequalities.
• Argumentation: Players justify their achievements and discuss the meaning of success within unequal institutional environments.

Documented gameplay sequence

1. Institution assignment: Each participant receives a fictional research institution with a specified location, resources and initial financial endowment.
2. Research objective assignment: Players receive scientific objectives that may be disclosed or kept secret.
3. Institutional presentation: Participants introduce their institution and describe its available resources.
4. Turn-based progression: Players roll a die and move along the game board.
5. Event resolution: Board spaces introduce changes affecting research resources, opportunities or institutional relationships.
6. Resource negotiation: Players may trade resources or negotiate agreements with other institutions.
7. Alliance formation and competition: Participants decide whether cooperation or competition best supports their research objectives.
8. Mediator intervention: The narrator introduces contextual considerations and encourages reflection on the realism of institutional interactions.
9. Final reflection: Participants review their results, available resources, completed objectives and institutional development.
10. Argumentative evaluation: Players explain why their institution should be considered successful, taking its initial circumstances into account.

Role of the narrator or mediator

The narrator performs a particularly important educational function.

According to the official game description, the mediator may influence the flow of gameplay, encourage particular interactions and introduce considerations about the social and economic context of scientific research.

The narrator may also question whether negotiations between institutions are realistic or explore the motivations behind decisions involving research staff, prestige, funding and collaboration.

This flexibility makes the game suitable for discussion-based learning, but it also means that the experience may vary depending on the mediator’s knowledge, decisions and facilitation style.

Reflection and debriefing

The official game description explicitly includes reflection at the end of gameplay.

Participants are encouraged to consider:

• How effectively they managed their institution.
• Which research objectives they pursued.
• Which objectives they achieved.
• How their institution changed in financial and material resources.
• What advantages or disadvantages influenced their decisions.
• How their final achievements should be interpreted in relation to initial opportunities.

Reflection is therefore directly related to the game’s central educational message: scientific success cannot always be interpreted independently of the resources and conditions under which research is conducted.

However, a separate standardised facilitator manual or validated debriefing instrument has not been identified in the public resource repository.

Educational transferability

The game is designed for scientific outreach events, public engagement activities, festivals, workshops and teaching.

Its short playing time and printable format make it potentially suitable for university education, researcher training and non-formal science communication.

Educational adaptation should preserve the relationship between institutional inequality, player decisions and structured reflection.

PHIL_OS began in September 2021 as a European Research Council project coordinated by the Technical University of Munich.

The project combines philosophical research, empirical studies of scientific practices, international research collaborations and public engagement activities addressing the diversity and inequalities of research environments.

The Research Game was developed as an additional science communication and educational output within this wider research programme.

Project organisation

• Technical University of Munich (Germany): Formal project coordinator and principal beneficiary.
• University of Exeter (United Kingdom): Important institutional setting for the project’s early development and the original production of the game.
• Sabina Leonelli: Principal investigator, originator of the game concept and contributor to design, development and testing.
• PHIL_OS research team: Contributions to content development, design and pilot activities.
• Michel and Leonardo Durinx: Contributions to graphic design, illustration, development and production.

The project also conducts scientific collaborations in several countries, including Ghana, Italy, Greece, India and the United States. These international collaborations should not be confused with formally funded project beneficiaries.

Game development and implementation

1. Initial project research, 2021–2023: The team investigated research environments, Open Science practices and structural inequalities in global scientific activity.
2. Game conception, 2023: The project developed the idea of representing differences between research institutions through a physical tabletop game.
3. Participatory development, 2023–2024: The research team designed the institutions, scientific objectives, assets, board events and game interactions.
4. Exploratory testing: The consortium reported playing the game during its Exploratory Workshop.
5. Public engagement testing: The project reported additional trials at the British Science Engagement Festival.
6. Prototype feedback: The official credits acknowledge contributions from project colleagues, participants and the PHIL_OS advisory board, including feedback received in March 2023.
7. UK edition, 2024: The original British version was completed and published.
8. Munin Conference, November 2024: The game was included in the programme of the 19th Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing, with Sabina Leonelli and Stefano Rimini listed as mediators.
9. International edition, 2025: A global version was published, extending the original geographical setting.
10. Public resource dissemination: Printable materials were made available through the project website.

Evidence of implementation

The CORDIS periodic reporting explicitly confirms that the game was tested at an exploratory project workshop and at a British science engagement event.

The game’s inclusion in the Munin Conference programme and its associated conference publication provide additional evidence of dissemination and intended educational use.

The official website also confirms that the development process incorporated feedback from pilot participants.

Evaluation approach

The available documentation establishes that the game underwent exploratory testing and development-related feedback.

However, no formal educational effectiveness evaluation has been identified.

Specifically, the reviewed sources do not establish:

• A consolidated number of participants involved in the testing activities.
• A standardised assessment of participants’ knowledge before and after gameplay.
• Validated instruments measuring changes in attitudes towards Open Science or research inequality.
• Quantitative evaluation of negotiation, collaboration or critical thinking skills.
• A comparison group receiving alternative educational activities.
• Long-term follow-up of participants’ understanding or behaviour.
• A systematic assessment of differences between the UK and international editions.

Interpretation of the evidence

The project provides credible evidence that The Research Game was developed, tested and publicly disseminated.

The existence of two editions and a detailed printable resource repository also supports the conclusion that the game progressed beyond the initial prototype stage.

Nevertheless, there is insufficient empirical evidence to establish whether participants improved their understanding of research inequality, Open Science or scientific collaboration as a result of gameplay.

The game’s educational potential is supported by its design rationale and documented activities, but not by independently verified learning-outcome data.

Overall evaluation status

PHIL_OS provides documented game development, implementation, public engagement activities and accessible physical materials.

Its evaluation evidence remains formative and descriptive. Controlled or objectively measured educational effectiveness has not been established.

PHIL_OS provides publicly accessible educational resources supporting discussion about Open Science, inequalities in research environments and responsible scientific practice.

The principal Board Game-Based Learning resource is The Research Game, accompanied by printable components and an online description of its gameplay and facilitation approach.

1. The Research Game – Official Game Description

The main game page introduces its educational objectives, player requirements, duration, mechanics, mediator responsibilities and final reflective assessment.

The game is recommended for three to six players aged over twelve, accompanied by a narrator or mediator.

The Research Game – Official Description, Gameplay and Facilitation

2. The Research Game – Printable Materials Repository

The project maintains a dedicated resource page containing downloadable components for both the UK and international editions.

Available materials:

• Institution character cards.
• Research objective cards.
• Asset cards.
• Institutional player tokens.
• Printable money in four denominations.
• Physical game board.
• Optional asset tracking sheet.

The repository also provides recommendations for printing, assembling and aligning the physical components.

The Research Game – Official Printable Materials Repository

3. UK Edition – Character and Research Objective Cards

The UK edition includes six fictional institutions with different resources, personnel and research infrastructure.

The cards also present scientific objectives involving biotechnology, molecular biology, marine biology, plant science and animal behaviour.

The Research Game – UK Institution and Objective Cards (PDF)

4. Global Edition – Character and Research Objective Cards

The international edition uses institutions situated in different geographical environments.

This version extends the original geographical representation and supports discussion about research inequalities across international contexts.

The Research Game – Global Institution and Objective Cards (PDF)

5. The Research Game – Printable Board

The physical board is available in A2 and enlarged A2 formats.

Its spaces introduce research events such as funding changes, institutional cooperation, personnel movements, changes in research policies and unexpected losses of scientific equipment.

The Research Game – Printable Board (PDF)

6. The Research Game – Conference Publication

Leonelli, S., & Rimini, S. (2024). The Research Game. Septentrio Conference Series, 1.

This publication introduces the game and its purpose in the context of the 19th Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing.

The Research Game – Munin Conference Publication (2024)

7. PHIL_OS Research Publications

The project maintains an extensive collection of research publications addressing Open Science, research environments, epistemic justice, scientific collaboration and responsible research practices.

These resources provide theoretical background for educators and facilitators seeking to deepen discussion after gameplay.

PHIL_OS – Research Publications and Educational Outputs

Resource availability and licensing

The official game materials page identifies Sabina Leonelli as copyright holder and specifies a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence (CC BY-NC).

The materials can therefore be reused under the applicable attribution and non-commercial conditions, subject to the complete licence terms.

The downloadable files for the board, institution cards, research objectives and other printable components are publicly listed.

However, a separately downloadable, consolidated rulebook or facilitator manual has not been identified. The public game description provides the main overview of gameplay and mediation.

Replicability

The availability of printable game components supports practical reuse in educational and outreach settings.

Nevertheless, the narrator’s discretionary role means that consistent replication would benefit from additional guidance on event interpretation, facilitation, session management and reflection.

PHIL_OS is a valuable case for the European Board Game-Based Learning Observatory because it transforms structural inequalities in scientific research into an interactive tabletop experience.

The Research Game demonstrates how asymmetric starting conditions, resource constraints and institutional interactions can be used to explore complex social and organisational processes.

Its main methodological contribution lies in the direct integration of the educational theme into the structure of gameplay.

Methodological strengths

1. Authentic mechanical representation of inequality: Institutions begin with deliberately unequal resources, making the principal educational theme an operational feature of gameplay.
2. Asymmetric institutional roles: Players experience different constraints and opportunities according to their assigned institution.
3. Research-oriented simulation: Scientific objectives, infrastructure, personnel and financial resources provide a recognisable representation of research environments.
4. Interaction-dependent opportunities: Trading, negotiation and alliances allow players to explore how cooperation influences research possibilities.
5. Competition and collaboration: The game represents the coexistence of cooperative and competitive incentives in scientific research.
6. Uncertainty: Random events introduce unexpected changes in funding, personnel and research infrastructure.
7. Critical examination of merit: Final achievements are interpreted in relation to initial resources rather than through an exclusively numerical scoring system.
8. Facilitated reflection: The narrator encourages participants to compare in-game situations with actual scientific institutions and practices.
9. Argumentative evaluation: The final outcome requires participants to explain and justify their interpretation of institutional success.
10. International perspective: The global edition allows the activity to address inequalities between research environments in different geographical contexts.
11. Accessible format: Short sessions and printable components facilitate potential use in science communication events and educational workshops.
12. Public availability: The project provides materials for the physical game rather than limiting access to a description of its development.

Methodological limitations and considerations

1. Limited educational evaluation: The available documentation does not demonstrate measured improvements in knowledge, attitudes or competences resulting from gameplay.
2. Dependence on the narrator: The mediator has considerable discretion to influence events, interactions and interpretations, potentially affecting consistency between sessions.
3. Subjective victory condition: Success depends partly on persuasive justification, making game outcomes sensitive to participants’ communication abilities and the judgement of others.
4. Unequal opportunities and perceived fairness: Players assigned disadvantaged institutions may experience reduced possibilities for achieving their objectives, which requires careful facilitation.
5. Randomness: Dice-based movement and unexpected events may obscure the distinction between structural inequality, strategic decisions and chance.
6. Simplified scientific environments: Complex research practices are represented through discrete assets, money and institutional events.
7. Limited standardisation: A complete formal rulebook and standardised debriefing protocol have not been independently identified.
8. Potential accessibility differences: Participants with limited knowledge of scientific institutions may require contextual explanations before gameplay.
9. No documented comparative testing: The educational differences between the UK and international editions have not been systematically evaluated.

Connection with modern Board Game-Based Learning

The Research Game belongs to the category of custom-designed educational games rather than the adaptation of existing commercial board games.

However, its design demonstrates an important principle that is equally relevant to the educational adaptation of modern board games: learning objectives can be represented through game mechanics rather than exclusively through educational content or questions.

For example, the unequal distribution of resources means that institutional disadvantage is experienced throughout gameplay.

Negotiation and resource exchange represent processes through which scientific institutions may attempt to overcome some of their limitations.

Competition for scientific resources and the possibility of forming alliances introduce further opportunities to examine relationships between institutional power, individual strategies and collective scientific progress.

Consequently, the educational theme is not merely attached to a conventional game structure. It is embedded in the conditions under which players make decisions.

Importance of the final evaluation

A particularly distinctive feature is the absence of a purely numerical victory condition.

The game asks participants to consider whether an institution with limited starting resources may have performed better than a prestigious institution with substantially greater initial advantages.

This approach encourages discussion about merit, opportunity and what constitutes meaningful scientific success.

However, its educational value depends partly on participants’ ability to justify their interpretation and on the quality of the resulting discussion.

A more structured evaluation protocol could help distinguish critical understanding of inequality from simple persuasive performance.

Implications for educational game design

The Research Game illustrates several methodological principles relevant to future BGBL initiatives:

• Represent social inequalities through starting conditions and access to resources rather than exclusively through explanatory content.
• Use differentiated roles to promote perspective-taking and understanding of structural constraints.
• Introduce interactions that reflect actual processes of cooperation, competition and negotiation.
• Encourage players to examine the relationship between their decisions and the conditions under which those decisions were made.
• Distinguish outcomes attributable to strategy, institutional advantages and random events.
• Use post-game reflection to question apparently objective measures of success.
• Provide facilitator guidance when game dynamics involve inequality, disadvantage or potentially sensitive social comparisons.
• Ensure that subjective evaluation procedures are transparent and aligned with the intended learning objectives.
• Develop assessment instruments capable of measuring critical understanding rather than only factual recall.
• Document whether game-based experiences influence participants’ attitudes towards institutional fairness, scientific collaboration and Open Science.

Overall assessment

PHIL_OS provides a compelling example of an educational tabletop game in which the principal learning theme is directly represented through asymmetric resources, institutional competition and social interaction.

The Research Game is especially valuable for examining how game mechanics can communicate complex structural inequalities that may be difficult to convey through conventional instruction alone.

The project provides verifiable evidence of game development, exploratory implementation and public access to printable materials.

Its principal methodological limitations concern the absence of rigorous learning-outcome evaluation and the potentially high influence of facilitator discretion.

For the European BGBL Observatory, PHIL_OS is particularly relevant as a case study of asymmetric game design, educational simulation, facilitated argumentation and critical reflection on fairness and institutional opportunity.