Author response to commentaries on H is for Human and How (Not) to Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI
TLDR
This paper provides the authors' response to multiple commentaries on their original article regarding the evaluation of qualitative research in HCI.
Key contributions
- Responds to seven specific commentaries on qualitative HCI evaluation.
- Engages with diverse perspectives on assessing human-centered research.
- Clarifies points raised regarding the original "H is for Human" article.
- Fosters ongoing dialogue about research methodology in HCI.
Why it matters
This paper is crucial for understanding the ongoing discourse on qualitative research evaluation in HCI. It provides the authors' perspective on feedback from leading scholars, enriching the methodological debate. This response helps shape best practices for human-centered research.
Original Abstract
This is the authors response to commentaries on the original article H is for Human and How (Not) to Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2475743 Commentaries were provided by: Jeffrey Bardzell, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2612474 Alan Blackwell, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2591878 Paul Dourish, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2594529 Bonnie Nardi, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2596752 Peter Pirolli, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2596745 Jennifer Rode, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2598800 Peter Tolmie, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2591872 Please feel free to copy, redistribute, adapt, and build on any part of this article in accordance with the CC BY 4.0 license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
📬 Weekly AI Paper Digest
Get the top 10 AI/ML arXiv papers from the week — summarized, scored, and delivered to your inbox every Monday.