False promises and false hopes: credentialization and games education

Many educational institutions now offer credentials in game development/design and game studies to meet perceived industry demands and cater to students’ employment aspirations. However, graduates have difficulty finding relevant employment. These programs differ fundamentally in their purpose and curricula, and their quality and worth are debated (Ashton, 2009; Keogh & Hardwick, 2024). We use credentialization and signaling theory to suggest that the value associated with games credentials may be abstracted from the skills required for successful games-related careers, rendering credentials unclear value signals to students and potential employers (Spence, 1973). To interrogate this proposition, this study examined the signaling strength and valuation of a games credential by triangulating interview data from three key stakeholder groups: graduates (n = 207), games program educators (n = 12) and games industry professionals (n = 42). Using a grounded theory approach to interview analysis, we identified three interrelated themes which collectively point to misperceptions and differential valuations of games credentials and a fourth theme that identifies challenges to change. This study is one of the first to problematize the credentialization of the games industry and to offer practical recommendations for partnership development between educators and industry professionals.