Reflections Towards More Thoughtful Engagement with Literature Reviews in HCI
Article No.: 2, Pages 1 - 4
Abstract
Literature reviews (or "lit reviews" for short) have become a popular way of knowing in HCI, yet there has been little reflection as to what we want from these reviews and how they can benefit the HCI design research community. Pushes toward more rigor and adopting standards within lit reviews often seem inappropriate and at odds with ways of knowing within the design research community. In this paper, we present critiques and associated risks of these viewpoints, and reflections towards a more thoughtful engagement with literature reviews in HCI design research. We open a discussion of how literature reviews currently inform research, and how we think they could better do so in the future.
References
[1]
Boyan Bontchev. 2016. Adaptation in affective video games: A literature review. Cybernetics and Information Technologies 16, 3 (2016), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/cait-2016-0032
[2]
Sarahanne M Field and Maarten Derksen. 2021. Experimenter as automaton; experimenter as human: exploring the position of the researcher in scientific research. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11, 1 (2021), 11.
[3]
William Gaver. 2012. What Should We Expect from Research through Design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 937–946. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538
[4]
K M Gilleade, A Dix, and J Allanson. 2005. Affective videogames and modes of affective gaming: Assist me, challenge me, emote me. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views - Worlds in Play. Computing Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, United Kingdom. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84873347260&partnerID=40&md5=abbb72e9a571d8c8dd9fbecb4b5d8205
[5]
S Gopalakrishnan and Ganeshkumar Parasuraman. 2013. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. Journal of family medicine and primary care 2 (3 2013), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934
[6]
Kasper Hornbæk and Effie Lai-Chong Law. 2007. Meta-analysis of correlations among usability measures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240722
[7]
Zaidat Ibrahim, Pegah Karimi, Aqueasha Martin-Hammond, Christina Harrington, and Katie A Siek. 2024. What Do We Do? Lessons Learned from Conducting Systematic Reviews to Improve HCI Dissemination. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8.
[8]
Annika Kaltenhauser, Evropi Stefanidi, and Johannes Schöning. 2024. Playing with Perspectives and Unveiling the Autoethnographic Kaleidoscope in HCI – A Literature Review of Autoethnographies. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642355
[9]
Vassilis Kostakos. 2015. The big hole in HCI research. interactions 22, 2 (2015), 48–51.
[10]
Neha Kumar and Naveena Karusala. 2021. Braving citational justice in human-computer interaction. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9.
[11]
Raúl Lara-Cabrera and David Camacho. 2019. A taxonomy and state of the art revision on affective games. Future Generation Computer Systems 92 (3 2019), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURE.2017.12.056
[12]
Effie L.C. Law, Florian Brühlmann, and Elisa D. Mekler. 2018. Systematic review and validation of the game experience questionnaire (GEQ) – Implications for citation and reporting practice. CHI PLAY 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (10 2018), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.3242683
[13]
Joe Marshall and Conor Linehan. 2017. Misrepresentation of Health Research in Exertion Games Literature. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4899–4910. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025691
[14]
Elisa D Mekler, Julia Ayumi Bopp, Alexandre N Tuch, and Klaus Opwis. 2014. A systematic review of quantitative studies on the enjoyment of digital entertainment games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 927–936.
[15]
Carman Neustaedter and P Sengers. 2012. Autobiographical Design: What You Can Learn from Designing for yourself. Interactions 19, 6 (2012), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/2377783.2377791
[16]
C Thi Nguyen. 2022. Transparency is surveillance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 105, 2 (2022), 331–361.
[17]
Bart Penders. 2022. Process and bureaucracy: Scientific reform as civilisation. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 42, 4 (2022), 107–116.
[18]
Sebastián Pizard, Fernando Acerenza, Ximena Otegui, Silvana Moreno, Diego Vallespir, and Barbara Kitchenham. 2021. Training students in evidence-based software engineering and systematic reviews: a systematic review and empirical study. Empirical Software Engineering 26, 3 (2021), 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-09953-9
[19]
Stuart Reeves and Jordan Beck. 2019. Talking about interaction*. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 131 (11 2019), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHCS.2019.05.010
[20]
Raquel Robinson, Katelyn Wiley, Amir Rezaeivahdati, Madison Klarkowski, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2020. "Let’s Get Physiological, Physiological!": A Systematic Review of Affective Gaming. In CHI PLAY 2020 - Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, Virtual, 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414227
[21]
Raquel B Robinson, Anya Osborne, Chen Ji, James Collin Fey, Ella Dagan, and Katherine Isbister. 2024. "That’s Not Good Science!": An Argument for the Thoughtful Use of Formative Situations in Research Through Design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3644063
[22]
Katja Rogers and Katie Seaborn. 2023. The Systematic Review-lution: A Manifesto to Promote Rigour and Inclusivity in Research Synthesis. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11.
[23]
Katie Seaborn. 2023. Super Synthesis Pros., or Why CHI PLAY Needs Research Synthesis. In Companion Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play(CHI PLAY Companion ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 235–237. https://doi.org/10.1145/3573382.3616051
[24]
Evropi Stefanidi, Marit Bentvelzen, Paweł W Woźniak, Thomas Kosch, Mikołaj P Woźniak, Thomas Mildner, Stefan Schneegass, Heiko Müller, and Jasmin Niess. 2023. Literature Reviews in HCI: A Review of Reviews. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581332
[25]
April Tyack and Elisa D. Mekler. 2020. Self-Determination Theory in HCI Games Research: Current Uses and Open Questions. (2020), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376723
[26]
Preeti Vyas, Unma Mayur Desai, Karin Yamakawa, and Karon Maclean. 2023. A Descriptive Analysis of a Formative Decade of Research in Affective Haptic System Design. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580735
[27]
Jacob O Wobbrock and Julie A Kientz. 2016. Research Contributions in Human-Computer Interaction. Interactions 23, 3 (4 2016), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2907069
[28]
Georgios N Yannakakis, Kostas Karpouzis, Ana Paiva, and Eva Hudlicka. 2011. Emotion in Games. Technical Report. 497 pages. http://sirenproject.
Index Terms
- Reflections Towards More Thoughtful Engagement with Literature Reviews in HCI
Recommendations
Literature Reviews in HCI: A Review of Reviews
CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThis paper analyses Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) literature reviews to provide a clear conceptual basis for authors, reviewers, and readers. HCI is multidisciplinary and various types of literature reviews exist, from systematic to critical reviews ...
The Systematic Review-lution: A Manifesto to Promote Rigour and Inclusivity in Research Synthesis
CHI EA '23: Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThe field of human-computer interaction (HCI) is maturing. Systematic reviews, a staple of many disciplines, play an important and often essential role in how each field contributes to human knowledge. On this prospect, we argue that our meta-level ...
Recommended Steps for Thematic Synthesis in Software Engineering
ESEM '11: Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and MeasurementThematic analysis is an approach that is often used for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data in primary qualitative research. 'Thematic synthesis' draws on the principles of thematic analysis and identifies the recurring ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2024
315 pages
ISBN:9798400710421
DOI:10.1145/3686169
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 21 October 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
HTTF '24
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 208Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)208
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)52
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in