BEATING A FAKE NORMALITY The phenomenon of e-athletes with special needs on Twitch.tv

Abstract

Well Played journal

Full text

BEATING A FAKE NORMALITY
The phenomenon of e-athletes with special needs on Twitch.tv
ENRICO GANDOLFI & RICHARD E. FERDIG
INTRODUCTION
Public competitions that are based on digital games—what we
know as eSports—are thriving all around the world. According
to NewZoo (see https://newzoo.com/resources/ for updated
data), the sector has generated almost $700 million in revenues
involving 194 million people in 2017. This phenomenon is not
only about people playing sports; it also impacts digital
entertainment as people watch eSporting events. This typically
happens through Twitch.tv, a popular live-streaming portal with
social media features counting over 10 million daily viewers
(Twitch.tv, 2018). The most popular streamers show their own
playing to thousand viewers, reshaping practices and expectations
related to eSports and the sporting mindset.
Such a claim is particularly relevant for streamers with special
needs. Indeed, this media platform has been working as a
crossroad where peculiar platform-native practices (e.g.,
streaming and interacting in real time with a larger audience,
absence of post-editing/production, etc.) are affecting the
definitions of disability and diversity, from promoting equality
and related discussions to normalizing alternative conditions by
just showing them. Moreover, several para e-athletes are
WELL PLAYED 63

streaming their own matches with the support of organizations
like The AbleGamers and Twitch.tv itself.
This article addresses a unique participant in the digital sporting
mindset—the rise of the eSports player with special needs (e.g.,
para e-athletes). It addresses the larger question of who might
get excluded in some sporting formats and how are they now
being included in eSports. The hypothesis driving this study is
that eSports and their competitive and entertainment dimension
on Twitch.tv can trigger affinity spaces able to overturn stigmas
against special needs, which are strongly affected by social
representations and metaphors (Edberg, 2012). The authors
directed an exploratory ethnography and then an empirical
investigation of six twitchers (i.e., streamers on Twitch.tv) with
special needs. The latter analysis targeted 24 hours of streaming
collecting in-game action, streamers’ behavior, and chat
discussions with a discourse analysis technique (Gee, 2012). The
key concepts leading the inquiry spanned performing style,
affinity space, and debating patterns and values. The article is
structured as follows: the first section addresses the relationship
between sports, digital games, and special needs; the research
design is then introduced; the final two sections present the
results and discussion of the outcomes. Findings provide an
overview of this phenomenon with best practices and reference
patterns of interaction and performance. Implications are
noteworthy for both practitioners and scholars, from harnessing
this practice for more inclusive processes to directing further
studies about the sporting mindset of non-traditional
participants.
SPECIAL NEEDS, (E)SPORTS, AND MEDIA AUDIENCES
Sports and special needs
Data provides evidence that individuals with special needs (e.g.,
physical, cognitive and even socio-cultural conditions than
64 JOHN SHARP

require specific interventions in everyday life routines, learning
activities, general accessibility, etc.) tend to benefit from sports.
For instance, such participation improves social inclusion and
psycho-physical status (Cottingham et al., 2014; Di Palma &
Tafuri, 2016). Sports have been found to increase autonomy and
self-confidence in students with disabilities (Beyer, Flores &
Vargas-Tonsing, 2009), improving the quality of their life (Groff,
Lundberg & Zabriskie, 2009) and supporting the development
of an athletic identity (Peers, 2012) which can have a significant
impact on their ability to deal with real life issues (Smith, Bundon
& Best, 2016). The increasing number of disciplines involved and
the establishment of Paralympic Games have strongly supported
such an intention, which is still growing (Shapiro et al., 2012) and
consolidating; indeed, one of the main current challenges is to
engage the public at large (Legg & Steadward, 2011).
In the last few decades, academia has dealt with the term disability
from a multitude of perspectives. However, three main
approaches have emerged and proliferated across disciplines and
specializations. The first and oldest is the medical/clinical one,
in which disability is addressed through a medical lens (Carlson,
2001). Special needs become a disease to cure, fix and keep under
control. The second is the social one, which is led by the so-
called social model (Bickenbacha et al., 1999). According to its
supporters, disabilities have a social dimension that must be
deepened and eventually changed. If people with disabilities
struggle with shared norms and conditions, it is up to
institutions to intervene for achieving more inclusive standards.
From this attention, Disability Studies originated and spread as
a broad disciplinary field (from Law to Humanities and Media
Studies) (Lennard, 2006). Finally, a third angle emerged with
a more cultural focus (e.g., Raphael, 2008; Shakespeare, 1994).
Instead of addressing the organizational issues concerning
disability, the spotlight switches to the shared representations
and boundaries through which normality and abnormality are
WELL PLAYED 65

defined. Therefore, cultural models and archetypes become
central in understanding how disability and related biases are
constructed as factors of segregation. Aside from medical
impairments, disability is also a contextual tag that relies on
relative and dynamic ideas of normality, well-being and
acceptance.
Proposals such as ableism and the ones developed within
Feminist Media Studies can be listed in this broad perspective,
which is characterized by a deconstructive and critical attitude.
Ableism is interpreted as a social discrimination toward people
lacking specific abilities and, then, characterized by disabilities
(Wolbring, 2008). Campbell (2009) suggests the concept of ableist
normativity, whose rules enforce a counter-position between who
is compatible with the accepted norms and who is not. Involving
the whole society becomes a crucial step and the popularity of
sports represents one key step to support this strategy. However,
some special needs are not compatible with traditional sports
and there are several disabled groups that cannot be included
in this rising phenomenon. Digital entertainment can address
this issue with eSports, which provide customized interactions,
assistive features, and a remarkable visibility via streaming
platforms. The resulting representation of special needs can
foster the third lens mentioned above – the cultural one. Media
become an essential front to inhabit in order to detect and
potentially re-frame bias-relate stereotypes (Mulvey, 1975;
Silverman, 1988).
Video games and special needs
Digital entertainment implies multiple considerations involving
human computer interaction, technological accessibility, and
media engagement, which are fundamental fronts in dealing with
disabilities and related requirements. The medium has already
been exploited for helping individuals with special needs. For
instance, video games were harnessed to increase youth mental
66 JOHN SHARP

health (Huen et al., 2016), fight depression (Li et al., 2014), and
engage individuals with impaired sight (e.g., the games Blind
Legend by Dowino and Three Monkeys by Incus Games).
Supportive and communicative efforts of foundations like The
AbleGamers Charity and Special Effect are increasing all around
the world, and Game Studies are starting to develop a specific
attention to disabilities as core themes in shedding light on ludic
experiences (e.g., Champlin, 2014; Ledder, 2015). Research
studies have provided evidence that video games can facilitate
learning, well-being, and reflection in individuals with special
needs (e.g., Lim & Nardi, 2011, Tzanetakos at al., 2017).
Nevertheless, eSports are a still overlooked topic in game
research (for some exceptions, see Jenny et al., 2017; Keiper et
al., 2017), especially when they may engage special populations.
These competitions based on video games flourished with the
rise of internet in the Nineties. Since then, tournaments and
leagues have been thriving, from the Cyberathlete Professional
League to the World Cyber Games (Consalvo, Mitgutsch & Stein,
2013; Taylor, 2012).
The increasing importance of Twitch.tv has affected this trend
in a peculiar way, making it a public spectacle where millions of
viewers can attend and watch their favorite e-athletes. Twitch.tv
is the leading live-streaming platform with more than 10 million
daily users and over 2 million active streamers (Twitch.tv, 2018).
It was launched in 2011 as a section of another streaming portal
(Justin.tv), and Amazon purchased it in 2014 for 970 million
dollars. Its focus has mainly been on digital entertainment, but
other content categories are emerging, from talk shows to
creative videos. In essence, twitchers film themselves during the
performance they want to show and users can watch, comment
and even financially support them. Streamers can have their own
channels and be followed by their fans, mimicking Twitter’s
mechanics. In addition, Twitch.tv has many social features
including chat, preferences, and thematic sections.
WELL PLAYED 67

This portal has recently been the subject of some studies that
tried to shed light on its core trends and dynamics. Gandolfi
(2016, 2017) found that streamers are the key motivation for
someone to watch, and that related online debates are able to
deal with serious topics and issues rather than being mere
divertissement. Hu, Zhang and Wan (2017) observed that the
viewer exchange with the streamer can entail parasocial
interaction, actual and ideal self-congruity, and participation.
Therefore, engagement, involvement, and socialization are
particularly high among viewers (Gros et al., 2017; Sjöblom &
Hamari, 2017). Finally, twitchers are becoming celebrities who
are increasingly aware of their role (Bingham, 2017). The
community of streamers with disabilities is growing as well and
also due to the support of Twitch.tv itself, which has strongly
promoted it partnering with the The AbleGamers Charity
foundation in several events. Channels of disabled players’
groups are emerging (e.g., Deaf Gamers TV), and several of them
(e.g., theRealHandi, Lo0P, BrolyLegs, mackenseize,
NoHandsKen, Stacey Rebecca, Guldbrandsen, HalfCoordinated)
have thousands of followers.
This pro-active front is characterized by a more accessible sport
practice (and mindset) partially aligned to the tendency among
social media celebrities to interact with fans (Marwick & Boyd,
2011). Para e-athletes can show their skills but also interact with
their followers and normalize what it is seen as diverse. The chat
spaces of their shows can work as positive spaces, where video
games are just premises for discussing disability, acceptance, and
inclusion. The potential in terms of fairplay, positive
sportsmanship and collaboration may be significant in fostering
an special need-related sportiveness with an impact on society at
large (Kavussanu & Spray, 2006; Weiss, Smith & Stuntz, 2008).
68 JOHN SHARP

Research Design
Following the aforementioned premises, the correlated research
questions leading this article are the following:
RQ1: What are the current trends in para-eSports channels in
terms of behavior, performance style, and interactions?
RQ2: How do para-eSports channels on Twitch.tv act as “affinity
spaces” (e.g., places where individuals share positive values
especially referring to sports and a sporting mindset)?
These research questions originated and were refined during
an exploratory investigation (Caliandro, 2018) of Twitch.tv live
streaming staged in Winter/Spring 2018 by the authors, who are
currently directing multiple studies about the platform (ranging
from sportiveness to well-being factors and leadership to
coping). This initial phase was inspired by the digital methods
approach (Rogers, 2013) that considers media environments as:
1) sources of novel practices; and, 2) crossroads through which
viewpoints and frames are reformulated beyond the difference
between on and off line with a self-critical attitude (Smith 1999)
that reflects researchers’ biases and preconceptions.
Discourse analyses of six para e-athletes’ Twitch.tv shows
(henceforth T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6) (n=4 hours each, gathered
from the saved videos on their profile) were conducted with
the intention of collecting streamer’s behaviors, in-game activity,
and chat comments (see Table 1 for the protocol adopted). Three
building tasks (Gee, 2012) were followed: 1) significance –
relevant actors, topics; 2) practice – what actions are under the
spotlight; and, 3) connection – what relations are occurring
between elements (e.g. streamer, game, viewers; Gee, 2012). The
unit of analysis for textual data was the stance or the clumps
of tone units that deal with a unitary topic or perspective, and
which appear (from various linguistic details) to have been
WELL PLAYED 69

planned together (e.g., a progressive and correlated exchange of
messages on the Twitch.tv chat).
The analysis follows a two-step cycle (Saldana, 2016) with the
support of NVivo Software Version 10. First, sentences were
labelled in great detail; then, broader reference categories were
adopted spanning the game itself, game expertise/ability,
streamer’s behavior, streamers’ prompts, digital entertainment,
streamer’s opponent, streamer’s special need, daily life, and game
accessibility. In addition, data were re-framed with a narrative
analysis (Bruner, 1991) toward understanding relations and
values of such an interplay, which can go beyond the gaming
activity itself.
Pursuing this line, two analytic fronts were addressed:
Interaction (user-user and twitcher-user) type – supporting (an
aligned and legitimizing mood), debating (a constructive and
proactive mood), and criticizing (a conflictual mood, which can
also entail banning; inspired by the encoding/decoding model by
Hall, 1973).
Interaction (user-user and twitcher-user) values – ludic (escapist
and entertaining values), critical (critic and problematizing
considerations), practical (pragmatic values, from ad hoc tips to
technical commentary), and utopian (existential and ethical
values); inspired by Floch (1995).
Twitchers’ behavior was also labelled according to the three
streaming styles suggested by Gandolfi (2016): the professional,
who is mainly focused on the game itself with no or marginal
interactions with his/her fans; the hedonist, who relies on his/
her personal skills for entertaining followers; and the
companion, who uses games as pretext for interacting with
viewers.
Sensitizing concepts driving data interpretation were stigma and
70 JOHN SHARP

affinity space. The former refers to a discriminatory metaphor
that could be reversed. According to Goffman (1963), stigmas
refer to constructed identities through which minorities (also
disabled) are labeled and framed by the majority. The stigma
entails a discriminatory status, which legitimates oppressions,
biases, and inequality. Moreover, it is based on metaphors that
associate the targeted person with negative traits and behaviors
(e.g., the evil Jew, the promiscuous homosexual), and then
motivate the negative attitude toward him/her (Douglas, 1966).
The second “is a place or set of places where people affiliate with
others based primarily on shared activities, interests, and goals,
not shared race, class culture, ethnicity, or gender” (Gee, 2004,
67). It is an environment where individuals learn from each other
aside from standardized labels and affiliations; online settings
are one possible venue for such a dynamic. As mentioned above,
the hypothesis leading this article is that eSports on Twitch.tv
can support a more inclusive perspective on special needs and
related perceptions.
Performing style and audience were interpreted also through a
sportiveness lens, reflecting on if and how ideal sport-related
norms were followed and respected. Regarding twitchers, fair
play worked as leading key concept; with this term, the reference
goes to a playful attitude characterized by respect (e.g., of rules,
teammates, opponents, etc.), interpersonal empathy, and
proactive and positive behaviors toward others at large (e.g.,
community, society, etc.) (Păunescu, Gagea, Păunescu, & Piţigoi,
2013; Lumer, 1995). More specifically, steamers were observed
in terms of: 1) respect of other players, from allies to enemies;
2) respect of game mechanics and presence of cheating/griefing
activities; and, 3) positive behavior toward their audience.
Viewers can be bearer of sportiveness as well. Sport participation
may entail significant outcomes for spectators, spanning social
cohesion, community feelings, and well-being (Zhou &
Kaplanidou, 2018; Gibson, Kaplanidou, & Kang, 2012). For this
WELL PLAYED 71

article, the presence of media toxicity (e.g., disruptive online
behaviors) worked as a core parameter for understanding if these
streamers’ followers showed anti-sportive instances, such as:
chat spamming, trolling, racial/minority harassment, and
cyberbullying (including negative comments about the
streaming) (Murnion Buchanan, Smales & Russell, 2018; Kwak,
Blackburn & Han, 2015).
Data were collected and analyzed in the spring of 2018. The
sample of streamers was picked according to popularity (over
1000 followers), eSport orientation (presence of games
associated with eSports), and different special needs (trying to
cover an heterogenous range of conditions) (see Table 2 for a
snapshot; all but T5 are males). N:4 hours were observed
studying at least 2 different clips for each twitcher. The videos
were selected by relevance (number of viewers) and length of
the shows (30 minutes or more). Names of users and performers
were anonymized for privacy concerns. This study was approved
and monitored by the authors’ university I.R.B. committee.
Table 1: Observation Protocol.
Table 2: Overview of the twitchers analyzed.
RESULTS
The first exploratory phase started within a broader research
initiative addressing game streaming. The lead author has been
72 JOHN SHARP

involved with online gaming as both player and spectator since
2015, noticing a significant rise of diverse populations of
streamers and yet a relevance disruptive and boyhood-related
attitudes (Burrill, 2008). Twenty streaming shows of variable
length (ranging from 20 minutes to one hour) of twitchers with
special needs were observed live in early 2018, following both
the performance and the chat activities. The first author kept
a partially passive profile examining general trends pointed by
the literature (Gandolfi, 2016), with sporadic comments about
the matches observed. The preliminary expectation was to find
special needs functioning as leading drivers during play and in
chat debates, even with conflictual elements considering general
trends in competitive gaming (Kwak, Blackburn & Han, 2015).
Therefore, a social model lens with political implications was
employed (e.g., Hall, 1973), anticipating these streaming shows to
work as battlegrounds between widespread toxicity and a counter-
empathy. On the contrary, this initial investigation pointed to
a widespread fairness between viewers and streamers and to
a marginal presence of disability-related discussions. In other
words, the authors’ presumption of staging a proactive
investigation was quickly confuted by an already alternative
phenomenon, echoing the cultural lens mentioned above. Para e-
athletes did not need to be saved – they already did with their
followers, also adopting an unusually interactive performing
style able to overturn game streaming standards (Gandolfi,
2016).
Addressing the consequent analysis of the six twitchers, almost
all of them show themselves (the only exception is T2) – and
therefore their condition – during their streaming (using the
combination of computer screen and web-camera). They all
followed a thinking aloud method (Eccles & Arsal, 2017) where
they commented on their performance (e.g., actions, emotions,
plans) in real time via voice and/or chat comments (although
T1 commented only before and after the match). For instance,
WELL PLAYED 73

T2 comments “we just learn that in Instinct, when you cancel
a shadow eclipse (…) so it is the best option. yes, you see (…)
there is a pause. It is good to know” after having learnt a trick;
T1 says “wow, that was rather disgusting (…) a terrible turn”
nodding his head after losing a race; T5 anticipates that “I am
pretty rusty, I am not going to play this game perfectly”. Their
shows were competitions (T 1, 2, 3, 5, 6), training (T 2, 4, 5), or
teaching (T4). The first refers to regular matches against other
people; the second to learning instances (e.g., tutorials, trying
new characters); the third is about teaching viewers how to play
a game. Four videos analyzed were characterized by interactions
between streamers and in-game mates (n=2) and streamers and
real-life friends present with them (n=2); it can be argued that
these exchanges strengthen streaming transparency and
familiarity, promoting the performer as a “normal” player. The
activity on screen was only focused on games for all the
streamers aside from the initial minutes, which worked as a sort
of “loading” screen.
Addressing the interaction, Table 3 shows results in terms of
stances collected and unique users involved, type and value of
the interaction, streamers’ style and participation, and highlights
in the debating topics with the related number of instances.
Although the performing styles were split between professional
and companion (this difference can be noticed in the different
prevalence of debating topics), the former instances showed a
high level of interaction between users and streamer overturning
the usual silence from this category of twitchers (Gandolfi, 2016).
The performers tended to be part of the online conversations
with secondary exceptions due to in-game urgencies (e.g.,
fighting an enemy just appeared).
Online conversations were supporting and debating, with no
criticizing instances (neither spam nor trolling/toxic users). The
leading values were ludic (e.g., jokes about playing and real life
events discussions) and pragmatic (suggestions and reflections
74 JOHN SHARP

on in-game best practices and heuristics). Utopian discussions
emerged with an emphasis on streamers’ virtuous examples and
game accessibility (see Table 4 for some examples). No critical
discussions emerged. All the twitchers analyzed replied to
questions about their in-game activity, daily routines, and
conditions in a proactive and accommodating way, and the
majority made fun of themselves (the only exception was T2);
moreover, they were also curious about their own viewers. For
instance:
User1: [hello emoji]
T1: hey [user1], what’s up man?
User1: Not too much and you? Waiting on the sister and
the niece to come over to take them to a couple museums
and the aquarium
T1: don’t you live in (…) I mean, on the West coast?
User 1: Chicago
T1: I thought you lived in the West Coast (…) Chicago, ah.
I am a Redskin super fan
User2: who makes your emotes? I paid this chick to make
some for me but I think she just stole my money LOL
User1: I need someone reliable
T2: I sent you the recommendation
User2: yes you did, wasn’t sure if thats who did it
User2: thanks man, I will hit her up
User1: how is your arm? Good?
T5: it is good dude, it is actually funny [she explained she
helped her friend and that she has the carpal tunnel]
User1: carpal tunnel? that [xx]cks.
Finally, it is interesting that the topic of special needs was present
but marginal, fostering the normality of these videos (see the
presence of daily life instances in Table 3). When present, it was
because of appreciation and practical reasons. For instance: “You
WELL PLAYED 75

may see me stop playing occasionally to chat w/ the viewers in
the chat so I won’t leave my deaf/hard of hearing friends out
of the loop ? #NoVoiceZone” by T3. In addition, it is a proof
of the closeness of these streamers’ fan-bases, which see them
as persons rather than stressing their special conditions. There
was often a strong group of followers that kept commenting,
sometimes even replying to users’ questions for the streamer
(e.g., about his/her gaming habits or personal information),
underlying a familiarity with him/her.
Addressing sportiveness, all the streamers showed a significant
fair play and respect toward teammates, opponents, and game
rules, it does not matter the specific genre or competition played.
In case of defeat, they sometimes express frustration targeting
themselves – e.g., “damn it, I should have [done a specific action]”
– and never against others, which were often complimented –
e.g., “he did right”; “good job, I never expected that”. In
collaborative oriented matches (e.g., Monster Hunter: Worlds,
Counterstrike: GO), communication and collaboration with
teammates were positive and coral, even when negative events
(e.g., losing) occurred. As observed above, such an approach was
reiterated with the viewers, who did not show any instance of
toxicity; even discourse types were either supportive or
debating-oriented with no conflictual elements
76 JOHN SHARP

Table 3: Results.
WELL PLAYED 77

Table 4: Exchanges (examples).
DISCUSSION
eSports and Twitch.tv represents a novel front for promoting
inclusion and self-confidence, helping us reconsider inclusion
and exclusion in sports. It can be argued that the group of
streamers analyzed provided an example of how game streaming
can enrich individuals with special needs and educate larger
audiences. Indeed, the prejudice against disabled people, what
Perlin has defined sanism (2000), is spread in common perception
(Hugenberg & Sacco, 2008) and even among new generations
78 JOHN SHARP

(Hamdy et al., 2011). Self-perception (Corrigan et al., 2003) and
families (Green, 2003) are affected as well by the stigma, which
often depends on a lack of adequate knowledge; stigmas inform
social identities, and then social expectations, criteria and
demands to follow and envision (Goffman, 1963). Twitchers with
special needs seem to overturn such a situation. They are
characterized by an interactive and open-minded approach,
dealing with their followers even when they are competing.
Moreover, they are available to answer questions about their
own situations, which are by the way marginal. Concerning
RQ1—and despite the fact that their style may vary—patterns
of interaction point to an ongoing listening to viewers by these
twitchers, replying to almost each comment and staging
transparent shows, where they stream themselves learning,
failing, improving. They avoid the typical silence of professional
streamers (Gandolfi, 2016), embracing a synergy between
expertise and closeness to their audience. They are not self-
centered but interactive and social (no hedonistic attitudes
emerged) with high chat participation. This highlight is even
more interesting considering that the video games streamed
were varied, from reaction-based competitions (e.g., fighting
games) to more strategic challenges (e.g., carding games). The
outcomes of these communication frequency and style by the
streamer are a proactive and supporting community, which
appreciates and motivates the streamer, and the absence of toxic
behaviors and comments. Such an environment sees competitive
gaming and video games at large as an equalizing/triggering
practice, which is accessible, customizable, and extremely
popular, and streaming as an amplifier. In addition, Twitch.tv
provides streamers ways to sustain themselves and charity
initiatives – an opportunity that the whole sample analyzed is
harnessing (especially T3 and T5). Finally, it can be argued that
the normality (e.g., secondary references to disability, relevant
presence of daily life discussions, etc.) characterizing these clips
WELL PLAYED 79

is an effective instrument against stigmas (Goffman, 1963)
because it makes them irrelevant.
Addressing RQ2, Twitch.tv can support affinity spaces, especially
if we consider that behind this trivial discussions (e.g., jokes,
everyday life) there are several examples of peer mentoring
(Bowman-Perrott et al., 2014) between users and between
streamers and users, where anyone learns from each other (e.g.,
picking the right card, finding the best setting, offering to play
together). Moreover, there was an ongoing fairplay among
viewers and performers. Regardless of the result or differences,
streamers’ opponents and other users are always treated fairly,
which is a crucial behavior in sport and physical education in
higher education (Keiper et al., 2017) and at large (Kavussanu &
Spray, 2006). Such an attitude is essential in feeding a positive
sportspersonship, which is linked to what we expect from others in
general and our empathic capacity toward human beings (Weiss,
Smith & Stuntz, 2008). Furthermore, it weakens the increasing
toxicity in online environments, where the so-called online
disinhibition effect is fostering discrimination and prejudice
(Phillips, 2015; Suler, 2004). Cyberbulling, trolling practices and
hate acts, which are even more frequent when disabled people
are involved were not present in the shows analyzed. These hints
are aligned with the potential of sports for promoting diversity
and mutual understanding against biases and differences (Tonts,
2005; Schulenkorf, Thomson & Schlenker, 2011). This specific
outcome has been advanced also involving competitive gaming
and esports (Heere, 2018), and this study aims to support such
a claim. Findings point to a proactive culture of sports, were
inequalities are marginal and counter-balanced by equity and
reciprocity good sportsmanship among athletes (Coakley, 1998).
Finally, all the twitchers analyzed do not hide their special needs
but rather they describe them in their front page and/or during
their streaming.
80 JOHN SHARP

This work is promising in its ability to support inclusion and
awareness toward individuals with different abilities in the game
sector and beyond. It has provided evidence of the ability to
examine the use of eSports and streaming by those who are
often excluded in sports. Future research should address three
next steps. First, future data collection should move beyond a
snapshot of the whole phenomenon, which is heterogeneous and
requires additional insight on different special needs,
performers, and games. Second, continued research should focus
on deeper and more extended investigations (e.g., surveys,
interviews with streamers) including working with streamers
beyond eSports (e.g., several streamers with disabilities do not
stream competitive gaming). Finally, eSports are a growing
phenomenon that is experienced in other venues than Twitch.tv
(e.g., YouTube Gaming, mainstream social media, official
competitions), which require proper attention to be explored.
REFERENCES
Bickenbacha, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E. M., & Üstün, T. B.
(1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the
international classification of impairments, disabilities and
handicaps. Social Science & Medicine, 48(9), 1173-1187.
Bingham, C. M. (2017). Talking about Twitch: Dropped Frames
and a normative theory of new media production. Convergence,
Epub ahead of print 15 November 2017. DOI: 10.1177/
1354856517736974
Bowman-Perrott, L. et al. (2014). Direct and Collateral Effects
of Peer Tutoring on Social and Behavioral Outcomes: A Meta-
Analysis of Single-Case Research. School Psychology Review, 43(3),
260-285.
Brewer, B., Van Raalte, J., & Linder, D. (1993). Athletic Identity:
Hercules’ muscles or achilles’ heel?. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 24, 237-254.
WELL PLAYED 81

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical
Inquiry, 18(1), 1-21.
Burrill, d. (2008). Die tryin’: videogames, masculinity, culture. New
York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Caliandro, A. (2018). Digital Methods for Ethnography:
Analytical Concepts for Ethnographers Exploring Social Media
Environments. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 47(5),
551-578
Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of Ableism: The Production of
Disability and Abledness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carlson, L. (2001). Cognitive ableism and disability studies:
Feminist reflections on the history of mental retardation.
Hypatia, 16(4), 124-146.
Champlin, A. (2014). Playing with Feelings: Porn, Emotion, and
Disability in Katawa Shoujo. Well Played, 3(2), 63-81.
Coakley, J. (1998). Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies (6th
edition). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Consalvo, M., Mitgutsch, K., & Stein, A. (Eds.) (2013). Sports
Videogames. London and New York: Routledge.
Corrigan, P., Thompson, V., Lambert, D., Sangster, Y., Noel, J.
G., & Campbell, J. (2003). Perceptions of Discrimination Among
Persons with Serious Mental Illness. Psychiatric Services, 54(8),
1105-1110.
Cottingham, M., Carroll, M.S., Phillips, D., Karadakis, K.,
Gearity, B.T., & Drane, D. (2014). Development and validation
of the motivation scale for disability sport consumption. Sport
Management Review, 17(1), 49-64.
82 JOHN SHARP

Di Palma, D., & Tafuri, D. (2016). Disability Management. Sport as
inclusive element. Naples: Idelson-Gnocchi.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: an analysis of concepts of
pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.
Edberg, M. (2012). Essentials of Health, Culture, and Diversity.
Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Eccles, D. W., & Arsal, G. (2017). The think aloud method: what
is it and how do I use it? Journal of Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 9(4), 514-531.
Floch, J. M. (1995). Identite’s Visuelles. Paris: Puf.
Gandolfi, E. (2016). To watch or to play, it is in the game: The
game culture on Twitch.tv among performers,nplays and
audiences. Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds ,8(1), 63-82.
Gandolfi, E. (2017). Enjoying death among gamers, viewers, and
users: A network visualization of Dark Soulsn3’s trends on
Twitch.tv and Steam platforms. Information Visualization. Epub
ahead of print 6 July 2017.nDOI: 10.1177/1473871617717075.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of
Traditional Schooling. New York: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled
identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Gibson, H. J., Kaplanidou, K., & Kang, S. J. (2012). Small-scale
event sport tourism: A case study in sustainable tourism. Sport
Management Review, 15(2), 160-170.
Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability Studies: Theorising disablism and
ableism. London and New York: Routledge.
Green, S. E. (2003). “What do you mean ‘what’s wrong with
WELL PLAYED 83

her?’”: stigma and the lives of families of children with
disabilities. Social Science & Medicine, 57(8), 1361-1374.
Groff, D. G., Lundberg, N. R., & Zabriskie, R. B. (2009). Influence
of adapted sport on quality of life: Perceptions of athletes with
cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31, 318-326.
Gros, D., Wanner, B., Hackenholt, A., Zawadzki, P., & Knautz,
K. (2017). World of Streaming. Motivation and Gratification on
Twitch. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.), Social Computing and Social Media.
Human Behavior (pp. 44-57). Berlin: Springer.
Hall, S. (1973). Encoding and Decoding in Television Discourse.
Birmingham: Center for ContemporarynCultural Studies.
Hamdy, N. N., Auter, P. J., Humphrey, V. F., & Attia, A. (2011).
A Cultural Perspective: A Survey of U.S. and Egyptian Students
Regarding Their Perceptions of People with Disabilities.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(5), 83-93.
Heere, R. (2018). Embracing the sportification of society:
Defining e-sports through a polymorphic view on sport. Sport
Management Review, 21, 21–24.
Hu, M., Zhang, M., & Wan, Y. (2017). Why do audiences choose
to keep watching on live video streaming platforms? An
explanation of dual identification framework. Computers in
Human Behavior, 75, 594-606.
Huen, J. M. Y., Lai, E. S. Y., Shum, A. K. Y., So, S. W. K., Chan, M.
K. Y., Wong, P. W. C., Law, Y. W., & Yip, P. S. F. (2016). Evaluation
of a Digital Game-Based Learning Program for Enhancing Youth
Mental Health: A Structural Equation Modeling of the Program
Effectiveness. JMIR Mental Health, 3(4), 1-46.
Hugenberg, K., & Sacco, D. (2008). Social Categorization and
Stereotyping: How Social Categorization Biases Person
84 JOHN SHARP

Perception and Face Memory. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 2(2), 1052-1072.
Jenny, S. E., Manning, R. D., Keiper, C., & Olrich T. W. (2017).
Virtual(ly) Athletes: Where eSports Fit Within the Definition of
“Sport”. Quest, 69(1), 1-18.
Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C. M. (2006). Contextual influences on
moral functioning of male
youth footballers. The Sport Psychologist, 20(1), 1-23.
Keiper, C. M., Manning, R. D., Jenny, S., Olrich T., & Croft, C.
(2017). No reason to LoL at LoL: the addition of esports to
intercollegiate athletic departments. Journal for the Study of Sports
and Athletes in Education, 11(2), 143-160.
Kung, S. P., & Taylor, P. (2014). The use of public sports facilities
by the disabled in England. SportnManagement Review, 17(1), 8-22.
Kwak, H., Blackburn, J., & Han, S. (2015). Exploring
Cyberbullying and Other Toxic Behavior in Team Competition
Online Games. In Proceeding CHI ’15 Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.
3739-3748). New York: ACM.
Ledder, S. (2015) “Evolve today!”: Human Enhancement
Technologies in the BioShock universe. In L. Cuddy (Ed.),
BioShock and Philosophy (pp. 150-160). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Legg, D., & Steadward, R. (2011). The Paralympic Games and
60 years of change (1948–2008): Unificationnand restructuring
from a disability and medical model to sport-based competition.
Sport in Society, 14(9),n1099-1115.
Lennard, D. J. (Ed.) (2006). The Disability Studies Reader (2nd ed.).
London, New York: Routledge.
Li, J., Theng, Y. L., & Foo, S. (2014). Game-Based Digital
WELL PLAYED 85

Interventions for Depression Therapy: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,
17(8), 519-527.
Lim, T., & Nardi, B. (2011). A Study of Raiders with Disabilities
in World of Warcraft. In M. Cavazza (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (pp.
161-167). New York: ACM.
Lumer, C. (1995). Rules and Moral Norms in Sports. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 30, 263-281.
Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2011). To see and be seen: Celebrity
practice on Twitter. Convergence, 17(2), 139-58.
Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen,
16(3), 6-18.
Murnion, S., Buchanan, W. J., Smales, A., & Russell, G. (2018).
Machine learning and semantic analysis of in-game chat for
cyberbullying. Computers & Security, 76, 197–213.
Păunescu, M., Gagea, G., Păunescu, C., & Piţigoi, G. (2013). The
Moral Dimension of Fair Play in High-Performance Sport.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 692-696.
Peers, D. (2012). Interrogating disability: The (de)construction
of a recovering Paralympian. Qualitative Research in Sport and
Exercise, 4(2), 175-188.
Perlin, M. L. (2000). The hidden prejudice: Mental disability on trial.
The law and public policy: Psychology and the social sciences.
Washington: American Psychological Association.
Phillips, W. (2015). This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things:
Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream
Culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
86 JOHN SHARP

Raphael, R. (2008). Biblical Corpora: Representations of Disability in
Hebrew Biblical Literature. New York: T&T Clark.
Rogers, R. (2013). Digital Methods. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Saldana, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers
(3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Schulenkorf, N., Thomson, A., & Schlenker, K. (2011).
Intercommunity sport events: Vehicles and catalysts for social
capital in divided societies. Event Management, 15(2), 105-119.
Shakespeare, T. (1994). Cultural Representation of Disabled
People: Dustbins for Disavowal?. Disability & Society, 9(3),
283-299.
Shapiro, D. R., Pitts, B. G., Hums, M. A., & Calloway, J. (2012).
Infusing Disability Sport into the SportnManagement
Curriculum. Choregia, 8(1), 101-118.
Silverman, K. (1988). The Acoustic Mirror: The Female Voice in
Psychoanalysis and Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Sjöblom, M., & Hamari, J. (2017). Why do people watch others
play video games? An empirical study on the motivations of
Twitch users. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 985-996.
Smith, C. A. (1999). I Enjoy Being a Girl: Collective Self-Esteem,
Feminism, and Attitudes Toward Women. Sex Roles, 40(3),
281-293.
Smith B., Bundon, A., & Best, M. (2016). Disability sport and
activist identities: A qualitative study of narratives of activism
among elite athletes’ with impairment. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 26, 139-148
WELL PLAYED 87

Suler, J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology
& Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
Taylor T. L. (2012). Raising the Stakes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Tonts, M. (2005). Competitive sport and social capital in rural
Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(2), 137-149.
Twitch.tv (2018). Audience. Twitch.tv. Retrieved from
http://twitchadvertising.tv/audience/ (accessedn10 January
2018).
Tzanetakos, N., Papastergiou, M., Vernadakis, N., & Antoniou,
P. (2017). Utilizing physically interactive videogames for the
balance training of adolescents with deafness within a physical
education course. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 17(2),
614-623.
Weiss, M., Smith, A., & Stuntz, C. (2008). Moral Development in
Sport and Physical Activity. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in Sport
Psychology (pp. 239-267). Chicago: Human Kinetics.
Wolfbring, G. (2008). The Politics of Ableism. Development, 51,
252-258.
Zhou, R., & Kaplanidou, K. (2018). Building social capital from
sport event participation: An exploration of the social impacts of
participatory sport events on the community. Sport Management
Review, 21, 491-503.
88 JOHN SHARP