The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as successor science
Abstract
Epistemological issues have long been debated by feminist philosophers aiming to answer the question, ''what difference does it make to take gendered points of view seriously in the construction of knowledge?'' Coming out of this history, a strand of work in feminist science studies has argued for the necessity of ''successor science:'' new forms of science based in standpoint epistemology, i.e. a recognition of the necessarily situated points of view of scientific knowledge-makers. In this paper, we argue that such a successor science has already come into being within the field of HCI, though it is perhaps not recognized as such by its practitioners. In particular, we identify a cluster of research we term the 'third paradigm.' This cluster of research cuts across HCI research areas as typically organized by topic area. Instead, this research shares an underlying epistemological orientation closely aligned with standpoint epistemology, focused around an acknowledgment of the social, cultural, and physical situatedness of both users and analysts. Feminist philosophers of science argue that a logical outcome of standpoint epistemology is the need for science to reflexively grapple with the limitations of its own ways of knowing; we conclude such an outcome may also be in store for the third paradigm.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Haraway, D. (1988) · Feminist Studies · doi:10.2307/3178066 · Cited by 18,364
Picard, R. W. (1997) · MIT Press · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001 · Cited by 7,382
Ambiguity as a resource for design
Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/642611.642653 · Cited by 1,474 · cited 1×
“This notion is at the heart of Plans and Situated Actions (Suchman, 1987) and has been constitutive of CSCW; in other areas we see, for example, research on the value of ambiguity (Gaver et al., 2003).”
How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design
Klemmer, S. R., Hartmann, B., & Takayama, L. (2006) · Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems · doi:10.1145/1142405.1142429 · Cited by 645
Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation
Sengers, P., & Gaver, B. (2006) · Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems · doi:10.1145/1142405.1142422 · Cited by 620 · cited 2×
“Designing interaction moves from attempting to establish one correct understanding and set of metrics to studying the local, situated practices of users, taking into account but not adjudicating the varying and perhaps conflicting perspectives of users (Sengers and Gaver, 2006).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Cited by
Next steps for value sensitive design
Borning, A., & Muller, M. (2012) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2208560 · Cited by 365
Reviewing reflection: on the use of reflection in interactive system design
Baumer, E. P. S., Khovanskaya, V., Matthews, M., Reynolds, L., Schwanda Sosik, V., & Gay, G. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems · doi:10.1145/2598510.2598598 · Cited by 266
A Critical Lens on Dementia and Design in HCI
Lazar, A., Edasis, C., & Piper, A. M. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025522 · Cited by 202
Not For Me: Older Adults Choosing Not to Participate in a Social Isolation Intervention
Waycott, J., Vetere, F., Pedell, S., Morgans, A., Ozanne, E., & Kulik, L. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858458 · Cited by 127
Machine Learning Uncertainty as a Design Material: A Post-Phenomenological Inquiry
Benjamin, J. J., Berger, A., Merrill, N., & Pierce, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445481 · Cited by 130
Evaluation of Prototypes and the Problem of Possible Futures
Salovaara, A., Oulasvirta, A., & Jacucci, G. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025658 · Cited by 48
Articulations toward a crip HCI
Williams, R. M., Ringland, K., Gibson, A., Mandala, M., Maibaum, A., & Guerreiro, T. (2021) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/3458453 · Cited by 46
Inclusion in the Third Wave: Access to Experience
Power, C., Cairns, P., & Barlet, M. (2018) · Human–Computer Interaction Series · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73356-2_10 · Cited by 19
How is "Public Policy" Used in HCI Scholarship?
Gairola, R., & Gray, C. M. (2025) · Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706599.3719997 · Cited by 8
Beyond Presentation: Shared Slideware Control as a Resource for Collocated Collaboration
Chattopadhyay, D., Salvadori, F., O’Hara, K., & Rintel, S. (2018) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2017.1388170 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrison, S., Sengers, P., & Tatar, D.
- Venue
- Interacting with Computers
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 385-392
- ISSN
- 0953-5438 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131717425
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 30.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
