Research Through Design in HCI
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
RtD's reflexivity is one of its main epistemological strengths.
“This allowed us to lean on one of RtD's main epistemological strengths; its reflexivity [81], meaning the capacity to engage with a domain or material while continuously 'reframing the underlying situation and goal during the design process' [97].”
From Responding to Generative AI Technologies with Research-through-Design: The Ryelands AI Lab as an Exploratory Study (2024) · cites this paper as [97]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 67 · Cited by 348
- Authors
- Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zimmerman, John
- Venue
- Ways of Knowing in HCI
- Publisher
- Springer New York
- Published
- 2014
- Pages
- 167-189
- OpenAlex
- W2118369420
- Semantic Scholar
- eb59fb5ff1178d19d33806ec21593106aea93d19
- Cited by
- 348
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 16.89
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- research through design, human-computer interaction, iterative design, deep reflection, knowledge production, research by design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
