The Disciplinary Identity of HCI Research: An Investigation Using Configurational Theory

References

• Alrøe, T., Grann, J., Grönvall, E., Petersen, M. G., & Rasmussen, J. L. (2012, October). Aerial tunes: Exploring interaction qualities of mid-air displays. In L. Malmborg, & T. Pederson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (pp. 514–523). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2015). Humanistic HCI. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(4), 1–185. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00664ED1V01Y201508HCI031
   Google Scholar
• Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., & Koefoed Hansen, L. (2015). 1019 Immodest proposals. In B. Begole, J. Kim, K. Inkpen, & W. Woo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference 1020 on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI’15. ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, J., & Ekbia, H. (2018). The theory-practice gap as generative metaphor. In R. Mandryk, M. Hancock, M. Perry, & A. Cox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). ACM Press, Paper 620, 1–1.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, J., & Stolterman, E. (2017). Reviewing the big questions literature. In O. Mival, M. Smith, & P. Dalsgaard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems – DIS ’17 (pp. 969–981, 1025). ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bhola, H. S. (1965). The configurational theory of innovation diffusion. Indian Educational Review, 2(1), 42–72.
   Google Scholar
• Blackwell, A. F. (2015). Filling the big hole in HCI research. Interactions, 22(6), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/2830317
   Google Scholar
• Bødker, S., & Klokmose, C. N. (2012, October). Dynamics in artifact ecologies. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Making sense through design (pp. 448–457). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bødker, S. (2015). Third-wave HCI, 10 years later—participation and sharing. Interactions, 22(5), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2804405
   Google Scholar
• Brusilovsky, P., Burmistrov, I., & Kaptelinin, V. (1993, August). Structuring the field of HCI: An empirical study of experts’ representations. In L. J. Bass, J. Gornostaev, & C. Unger (Eds.), International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 11–20). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Chow, K. (2013). Animation, embodiment, and digital media: human experience of technological liveliness. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Compston, H. (2003). Beyond corporatism: A configurational theory 1047 of policy concertation. European Journal of Political Research, 42(6), 787–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiss, P. C., Cambré, B. and Marx, A., eds. (2013). Configurational theory and methods in organizational research. Emerald Group Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through 1052 design? In J. A. Konstan, E. H. Chi, & K. Hook (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human 1053 Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’12 (p. 937). ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, S., Sengers, P., & Tatar, D. (2011). Making epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, S., Tatar, D., & Sengers, P. (2007, April). The three paradigms of HCI [Paper presentation]. Alt. CHI. Session at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose California, USA (pp. 1–18).
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, B. (2007). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Space Syntax.
   Google Scholar
• Hornbaek, K., Oulasvirta, A., Reeves, S., & Bødker, S. (2015, April). What to study in HCI? In B. Begole, J. Kim, K. Inkpen, & W. Woo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2385–2388). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Janlert, L.-E., & Stolterman, E. (2017). Things that keep us busy: The elements of interaction. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kostakos, V. (2015). The big hole in HCI research. Interactions, 22(2), 48–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/2729103
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. (1976). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In S. G. Harding (Ed.), Can theories be refuted? (pp. 205–259). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lars-Erik, J., & Erik, S. (2017). Things that keep us busy – the elements of interaction. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, Y., Donaldson, J., Jung, H., Kumz, B., Royer, D., Ramalingam, S., Thirumaran, S., & Stolterman, E. (2007). Emotional Experience and Interaction Design. In C. Peter, & R. Beale (Eds.), Affect and emotion in human-computer interaction (Vol. 4868). LNCS, Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., Goncalves, J., Ferreira, D., Xiao, B., Hosio, S., & Kostakos, V. (2014, April). CHI 1994–2013: Mapping two decades of intellectual progress through co-word analysis. In M. Jones, P. Palanque, A. Schmidt, & T. Grossman (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3553–3562). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Long, J., & Dowell, J. (1989, October). Conceptions of the discipline of HCI: Craft, applied science, and engineering. In A. Sutcliffe, & L. Macaulay (Eds.), People and Computers V: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the British Computer Society (Vol. 5, p. 9). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, A., Tsui, A., & Hinings, C. R. (1993, December). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195. https://doi.org/10.2307/256809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, D. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In Donald Norman and Stephen Draper (Eds.) User-centered design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction (pp. 31–62). Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Oulasvirta, A., & Hornbaek, K. (2016, May. HCI research as problem-solving. In J. Kaye, A. Druin, C. Lampe, D. Morris, & J. P. Hourcade (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4956–4967). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2015). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction (4th ed.). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves, S. (2015). Locating the 'big hole’ in HCI research. ACM Interactions, 22(4), 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/2785986
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y. (2012). HCI theory: Classical, modern, and contemporary. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 5(2), 1–129. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00418ED1V01Y201205HCI014
   Google Scholar
• Sauer, C., Southon, G., Dampney, C. N. G. (1997). Fit, failure, and the house of horrors: Toward a configurational theory of IS project failure (pp. 349–366). https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=353141
   Google Scholar
• Schiller, P, 18.2 (1938). A configurational theory of puzzles and jokes. The Journal of General Psychology, 18(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1938.9709976
   Google Scholar
• Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Stolterman, E., Jung, H., Will, R., & Siegel, M. A. (2013). Device landscapes: A new challenge to interaction design and HCI research. Archives of Design Research, 26, 7–33. https://doi.org/10.15187/ADR.2013.05.26.2.7
   Google Scholar
• Van De Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiberg, M., ed. (2005). The interaction society: Practice, theories and supportive technologies. IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Wickson, F., Carew, A. L., & Russell, A. W. (2006, November). Transdisciplinary research: Characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures, 38(9), 1046–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURES.2006.02.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science, What it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010, August). An analysis and critique of research through design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. In O. W. Bertelsen, P. Krogh, K. Halskov, & M. G. Petersen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 310–319). ACM.
   Google Scholar