Yesterday I received word that the work-in-progress paper I submitted to CHI was not accepted. As it was not my idea to submit to CHI because I do not view it as a good view for design, I was not disappointed. However, I will gripe about the comments I received because they emphasize CHI’s lack of design understanding.
My paper was based on my thesis project work, which explores the idea of being able to prototype your identity in the physical world. I’m taking a research-through-design approach, which means I’m creating a solution to produce knowledge on how explore solutions. This is very much a design approach, using a design process and methods to develop insights and inform direction.
Overall, the three reviewers were interested in the work, but felt it was not fully developed (quite probably). I received an overall rating of 3 (of 5, I assume) from all the reviewers. The 3 translates to “Borderline: Overall I would not argue for accepting this paper.”
The first reviewer begins by stating that the motivation of my work is “not well motivated and embedded in psychologist’s work.” As my work is totally motivated by designer’s work, I completely agree. For the reviewer, it seems a more scientific approach would have been better received. Having gone to CHI last year and witnessed the emphasis on the quantitative and the lack of design, this does not surprise me.
The second and third reviewers share the first’s skepticism, questioning whether the findings could be applied universally and generalized. The third also states that “the conclusions drawn seem to be too subjective.” While it’s entirely possible that my findings were not well argued, thus appearing “too subjective,” I can’t help but wonder if there would have been any room for any subjectivity at all.
While I applaud CHI for attempting to bring more design into the conference (though I also wonder why), I question how design might find its way in if the reviewers do not seem to understand the approach and methods.
And speaking of CHI and design, today I received an ACM bulletin which states: “Each year the SIGCHI conference draws together engineers, designers, educators, and many others concerned with interaction design.” Interaction design? Really? Of all the things they could have said, why not human computer interaction? If making a claim about a conference that draws people together who are concerned with interaction design, it might be best to point to something like the IxDA conference. As someone concerned with interaction design, that’s where I’ll be.
Comments
2 responses to “CHI Paper Not Accepted”
I was randomly looking at people coming from IxDA on the crowd vine site and came across you blog. I spent the last few days hanging out with Jodi during her visit to GaTech and have been reminiscing about my days at CMU .
Anyway, Like I said I was surfing/ procrastinating, and came across your post. Sorry your paper was not accepted, however I’d would argue that your experience isn’t indicative of a broader aversion or misunderstanding of design within the CHI community. CHI has always been a crap shoot regardless of what discipline you are coming from – it is the premier conference in the field and difficult to have any kind work accepted. And yes you are right the conference does tend to celebrate positivistic research more so than that with more of s design slant. However this is changing and if you take a closer look at the work being presenting this year you will find a growing number of papers that take a more qualitative/design approach. I’ll point to the one I am presenting about design fieldwork I did in Nairobi over the summer and the work of my colleagues from GaTech who are presenting ethnographic/design inspired work on technology for homelessness and eating.
It would be more to talk more about this at IxDA, hope to meet you there.
Cheers,
Susan Wyche
I realize that CHI is trying to bring more design into the conference, which seems to be indicative of HCI’s increased interest in design. However, I still argue that in general CHI and the HCI community does not get design, which I felt the feedback I got illustrated. I’m not saying that the feedback was all crap and that my paper should have been accepted (I admit it was likely weak), but CHI does not seem to be a good venue for design.
I’d love to hear more of your thoughts in Savannah. See you there. ;)