CSE 510 - Advanced Topics in HCI - Winter 2025

Contribution Reflection

HCI research presents many different forms of contribution, corresponding to different forms of knowledge that are advanced by underlying research activities. The combination of activities in a project commonly presents multiple contributions, which may be more or less clear, developed, or distinct. Given the challenge and importance of understanding different forms of contribution, there have been efforts to characterize the range of contributions in HCI:

Jacob O. Wobbrock, Julie A. Kientz. Research Contributions in Human-Computer Interaction. Interactions. 2016.

A contribution reflection asks you to reflect on forms of contribution relative to an example of HCI research.

Paper and Research Selection

Select a paper that characterizes forms of contribution in HCI research.

  • An appropriate paper that we expect you may select is:

    Jacob O. Wobbrock, Julie A. Kientz. Research Contributions in Human-Computer Interaction. Interactions. 2016.

  • Alternatively, other papers characterize more specific forms of contribution in areas of HCI research, such as:

    James Fogarty. Code and Contribution in Interactive Systems Research. CHI 2017 Workshop on #HCI.Tools: Strategies and Best Practices for Designing, Evaluating, and Sharing Technical HCI Toolkits.

  • You may choose one of these papers, or you may choose a paper characterizing forms of contribution in HCI that you encounter outside the course. For a reading from outside the course, we require you to seek course staff pre-approval. We aim for you to be able to engage with forms of contribution that are mostly likely to benefit your understanding, planning, or execution of HCI research, and we will briefly review a potential paper from outside the course to ensure its likely relevance.

Select another research paper assigned as part of a Research Topic in this course.

  • Papers must be from among those assigned in a course Research Topic. Although these ideas extend to papers outside the context of this course, contribution reflections are limited to material in the course.

  • You may not use papers from other days that framed the entire course (e.g., Visions of Human-Computer Interaction, Contributions in Human-Computer Interaction, Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful).

Contribution reflections that do not adhere to the above constraints on paper selection will not receive credit.

Reflection

Use the language and understanding of the selected characterization of forms of contribution in HCI research to analyze and discuss the selected paper. The goal is for you to use the language and understanding established in the contribution-focused paper to meaningfully consider the contributions in a specific piece of HCI research, thus demonstrating you can apply your understanding of forms of contribution:

  • Briefly summarize elements of the contribution-focused paper that are most relevant to insights you will discuss. We encourage being explicit in language and concepts you will apply (e.g., using brief quotes from the contribution-focused paper, identifying specific forms of contribution you will discuss, highlighting key perspectives from the contribution-focused paper relative to the forms of contribution and related insights you will discuss).
  • Briefly summarize elements of the research paper that are most relevant to insights you will discuss relative to this understanding of contribution. This provides a reader with shared context for understanding insights you develop.
  • Discuss multiple distinct insights that you develop through considering the research paper relative to language and concepts from the contribution-focused paper. You should convey at least three distinct insights. You may convey more within the allowable word count.

Each reflection may be up to 750 words. No points will be awarded beyond the allowable word count.

Evaluation

Responses will be evaluated on the understanding you demonstrate and the critical relationships you discuss. It will be considered insufficient to only summarize a form of contribution, a piece of HCI research, or a contribution of a piece of HCI research. The goal is for you to use the understanding established in the contribution-focused paper to meaningfully consider contributions in a specific piece of HCI research, thus demonstrating you can apply your understanding of that contribution-focused reading.

For example, a poor analysis might simply restate key points of a contribution-focused paper, perhaps note or praise such contributions in the paper, but not engage with meaningful aspects of contribution in HCI and a research paper. A better analysis might discuss:

  • How a specific aspect of the contribution-focused paper provided context or understanding that advanced or challenged a specific aspect of your understanding of the contributions in the HCI research paper.
  • How a specific aspect of the research activities or contributions in the HCI research paper advanced or challenged a specific aspect of your understanding of contribution in HCI research relative to that provided by the contribution-focused paper.
  • How a specific aspect of a research paper’s explicit or implicit statement of one or more of its intended contributions created expectations that you then felt the paper met, did not meet, or exceeded, then how this might inform how you consider or present future HCI research.
  • How a specific aspect of a research paper’s activities suggest a potential contribution that was not stated or developed, a consideration of why this might be or how it impacted the overall research, then how this might inform how you consider or present future HCI research.
  • How a specific aspect of a research paper’s presentation of a combination of contributions based in its underlying research activities advanced or challenged your understanding of articulating contribution within a piece of HCI research.

These and other potential meaningful insights will require understanding the contribution-focused reading and then relating it to a specific piece of HCI research.

There is no inherent reward for choosing a contribution-focused reading or a piece of HCI research that is more difficult to relate. If you find yourself unable to develop multiple meaningful insights, you may consider revisiting your choice.

Points will be allocated for correct and appropriate interpretation and summary of elements that are most relevant to insights you intend to discuss, then for how substantial we find each of the multiple distinct insights discussed in your reflection. Points will be allocated in an additive manner, allowing accrual across multiple insights offered in a reflection.

Formatting

Use a document format that will ensure readability of your reflection (e.g., the default 11-point Arial font and associated formatting of Google Docs, a similarly readable format).

Using appropriate whitespace to separate components, structure the content of your document to include:

  • Citation and link to the selected contribution-focused paper.
  • Citation and link to the selected piece of HCI research.
  • An explicit statement of the word count of your reflection. Do not include the above citations in this word count, and ensure the word count does not exceed the limit for this reflection.
  • The text of your reflection.

Do not include your name in your submission. As emphasized in Reflections, our goal is to maximize anonymity in grading of reflections and submissions that include a name will be penalized.