Conference Paper/Proceeding/Abstract 401 views 96 downloads
Changes in Research Ethics, Openness, and Transparency in Empirical Studies between CHI 2017 and CHI 2022
,
Lahari Goswami ,
Pooja S. B. Rao ,
James Tyler ,
Alessandro Silacci ,
Sadiq Aliyu ,
Annika Aebli ,
Chat Wacharamanotham ,
Mauro Cherubini
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Swansea University Author:
Chat Wacharamanotham
-
PDF | Version of Record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Download (1.38MB)
DOI (Published version): 10.1145/3544548.3580848
Abstract
In recent years, various initiatives from within and outside the HCI field have encouraged researchers to improve research ethics, openness, and transparency in their empirical research. We quantify how the CHI literature might have changed in these three aspects by analyzing samples of 118 CHI 2017...
| Published in: | Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems |
|---|---|
| ISBN: | 978-1-4503-9421-5 |
| Published: |
New York, NY, USA
ACM
2023
|
| Online Access: |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580848 |
| URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa63283 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract: |
In recent years, various initiatives from within and outside the HCI field have encouraged researchers to improve research ethics, openness, and transparency in their empirical research. We quantify how the CHI literature might have changed in these three aspects by analyzing samples of 118 CHI 2017 and 127 CHI 2022 papers—randomly drawn and stratified across conference sessions. We operationalized research ethics, openness, and transparency into 45 criteria and manually annotated the sampled papers. The results show that the CHI 2022 sample was better in 18 criteria, but in the rest of the criteria, it has no improvement. The most noticeable improvements were related to research transparency (10 out of 17 criteria). We also explored the possibility of assisting the verification process by developing a proof-of-concept screening system. We tested this tool with eight criteria. Six of them achieved high accuracy and F1 score. We discuss the implications for future research practices and education. |
|---|---|
| College: |
Faculty of Science and Engineering |