Authors:
Robert Soden, Austin Toombs, Michaelanne Thomas
Over the past few review cycles at CHI, CSCW, and other HCI venues, there has been a significant increase in the demands that reviewers and associate chairs (ACs) place on methods reporting for qualitative research. Some of this is appropriate, and to be expected as the community continues to grow and our engagement with a broad range of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives matures. However, this has not come without problems. In this article, we highlight what appears to be a growing misunderstanding of interpretive research practices. We discuss how to evaluate their methods and claims, and the vital contributions…
You must be a member of SIGCHI, a subscriber to ACM's Digital Library, or an interactions subscriber to read the full text of this article.
GET ACCESS
Join ACM SIGCHIIn addition to all of the professional benefits of being a SIGCHI member, members get full access to interactions online content and receive the print version of the magazine bimonthly.
Subscribe to the ACM Digital Library
Get access to all interactions content online and the entire archive of ACM publications dating back to 1954. (Please check with your institution to see if it already has a subscription.)
Subscribe to interactions
Get full access to interactions online content and receive the print version of the magazine bimonthly.
