Looking forward to the keynote by @khornbaek “Implications for theory” at #NordiCHI2022
Reminds me of my PhD, which I had the pleasure to defend with Kasper in the jury in 2015.
@khornbaek’s keynote argument: 1. HCI engages in too limited ways with theory 2. This has negative consequences for our field 3. We can do something about it
What could we do with theory?
Theory is useful to:
- Predict: foresee outcomes of behaviors
- Understanding: explain the mechanisms or the processes involved in behaviors
For instance, at @NordiCHI2022, there are 98 papers, and only 9 occurrences of “theor*” in 5 papers. @khornbaek looked more systematically at @acm_chi 2017 best papers (N=25).
743 papers published, only 243 used some form of theory
Among 100 of those, 19 had some indications of “implications for theory” (example of what that means / is formulated on the picture)
According to @khornbaek (keynote #NordiCHI2022) a section “implications on theory” is one of the many ways theories can play a role in a paper.
From CHI 2021, we see the use of theory:
- as background
- for discussion
- as analysis tool
- as methodological tool
- for design
Some authors used keywords analysis to argue that HCI lack “motor themes” (which should be at the core of a discipline). There are no themes that people return to over and over again and these authors argue this is a big gap in HCI @khornbaek keynote #NordiCHI2022
Lack of replications
The repliCHI initiative (glad I was part of, kudos to @drmaxlwilson !) has highlighted the need.
But… we might think… we have theories on usability for instance?
Mostly taxonomies of dimensions actually, even after 40 years or work on the topic. That’s embarrassing to admit.
What about interaction?
We do have a definition yes, but what else do we actually know?
“The term interaction is field defining, yet surprisingly confused” @khornbaek keynote at #NordiCHI2022@NordiCHI2022
The lack of theories has negative consequences for our field. why don’t people do theory work? @khornbaek (keynote #NordiCHI2022)
There’s a belief that “all good things come to those who iterate” (“let’s get real” Landauer 1991). So why bother with theory when we can A/B test?
The inductive hamster wheel
- No generalization or discovery that we already know appli to new situations.
Theoretical power posing
- we use theory to show position and intellectual heritage
Putting a hat on a horse
- theory plays a minor role relative to data or is an afterthought in a discussion
The trouble with triangles
- people, tasks and tools are intertwined (@professorBodker 1987)
Thus we need to start from scratch if users, tasks or tech changes
Now that we saw some reasons why people do not use theory much, a few tips from @khornbaek#NordiCHI2022 about how to use theory more.
1️⃣ Reason with theory about new situations
2️⃣ Form expectations before analysis
3️⃣ focus on why’s and mechanisms
Test theory
Dubin (1978) argues that the job of researchers is to test theories.
> what is it that you test?
> casual or positioning use of theory is not the right focus
Impression that @khornbaek did not tell us how theories can actually play a role
> would be nice if theories would play a larger generative role. There is a role for an understanding of people in thinking about design.
What you didn’t say is that HCI steal or borrow/adapt from other fields, we get a lot from other traditions and try to apply them. The deeply you dig, one realizes it’s very hard. We’re not even part in the discussions in the original field.
So we use theories the way they were used in these fields 20 years ago or more. It’s indeed a lot of work to find out which are very relevant to us or less. Examples of self determination theory or activity theories.
There is a lot out there we can use, if we do the translation.
Question: People might use a lot of theories that are not labeled as theories. It would be interesting to formulate our own HCI theories.
Perhaps wrong to look at @acm_chi papers, rather looking at theories in the PhD theses.
Answer: explains the reasons why looking at #CHI2021 using a keyword based approach, agrees that one can look at journal or theses but if we can’t talk about theories at our flagship conference there is something wrong.
Comment: don’t think we’re stealing theories. In psychology what they use the theories for in this domain is very different than what we aim at. Would be interesting to see how to better use theories in HCI.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you are a scientist in #CS or #HCI, you probably have heard of @dagstuhl seminars at some point. Often through their proceedings.
If you're curious about what they are, and the experience of attending a Dagstuhl seminar, here is a thread for you 🧵
The mission of Schloss #Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics is to "further world-class research in CS by facilitating communication and interaction between researchers".
It is done through their famous seminars at the castle, open-access publishing and the dblp database.
Let's zoom in on the seminars, traditionally held at the Schloss #Dagstuhl (nowadays with a hybrid option).
The castle is located in a small village in Germany named Wadern, close to the borders with France and Luxembourg.
Petit thread pour expliquer pourquoi les « meilleures » #formations universitaires actuelles pour devenir #UX côté recherche utilisateur, sont les sciences humaines et sociales. Psychologie, sociologie, ethnographie, ergonomie. Suivies d’un Master UX / IHM / thématique liée. ⬇️
La recherche utilisateur consiste à investiguer et comprendre les besoins des utilisateurs, leurs motivations, attitudes, mais aussi le contexte d’usage afin d’informer la phase d’ideation. Elle est intimement liée à la compréhension de l’expérience humaine. ⬇️
En sciences humaines / sociales on apprend les techniques d’enquête et d’observation, l’analyse des données qualitatives et les statistiques. On apprend aussi les théories liées à la cognition, les émotions, l’expérience humaine. Et la déontologie pour travailler avec l’humain ⬇️