CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Innovative Human-Technology InteractionPosthumanist Ethics and ActivismCybernetics and Technology in Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tracing Conceptions of the Body in HCI: From User to More-Than-Human

Homewood, Sarah, Hedemyr, Marika, Fagerberg Ranten, Maja, Kozel, Susan·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3411764.3445656
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper traces different conceptions of the body in HCI and identifies a narrative from user to body, body to bodies, and bodies to more-than-human bodies. Firstly, this paper aims to present a broader, updated, survey of work around the body in HCI. The overview shows how bodies are conceptualized as performative, sensing, datafied, intersectional and more-than-human. This paper then diverges from similar surveys of research addressing the body in HCI in that it is more disruptive and offers a critique of these approaches and pointers for where HCI might go next. We end our paper with recommendations drawn from across the different approaches to the body in HCI. In particular, that researchers working with the body have much to gain from the 4th wave HCI approach when designing with and for the body, where our relationships with technologies are understood as entangled and the body is always more-than-human.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3411764.3445656

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Almeida, T. 2018. Woman-Centred Design. DRS 2018: Design Research Society International Conference. (2018).
  2. Bilge S. and Collins P.H. 2016. Intersectionality. Polity Cambridge UK.
  3. Braidotti, R. 2013. The Posthuman. John Wiley & Sons.
  4. Butler, J. 2002. Gender trouble. Routledge.
  5. 10.4324/9781315582924-10 · DOI
  6. Depraz, N. 2003. On becoming aware. John Benjamins Publishing.
  7. 10.7551/mitpress/7221.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Forlano, L. 2017. Maintaining, Repairing and Caring for the Multiple Subject. Continent. 6 (2017), 30–35.
  9. 10.2979/3270.0 · DOI
  10. Haraway, D. 1997. Modest_Witness@ Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: feminism and technoscience. Routledge, New York.
  11. Höök, K. 2019. Soma design and politics of the body addressing conceptual dichotomies through somatic engagement. Proceedings of the Halfway to the Future Symposium 2019 (HTTF 2019) (2019).
  12. 10.5749/9781452953465 · DOI
  13. Latour, B. 2003. The promises of constructivism. Chasing Technology: Matrix of Materiality. 46, (2003), 27–46.
  14. Leder, D. 1990. The Absent Body. University of Chicago Press.
  15. Loke, L. and Robertson, T. 2011. The lived body in design. Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on - OzCHI ’11 (2011), 181–184.
  16. Merleau-ponty, M. 1968. The Visible and the Invisible. Northern University Press.
  17. Oulasvirta, A. 2003. Understanding contexts by being there: Case studies in bodystorming. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (2003), 125–134.
  18. Schiphorst, T.H.H.M. 2009. The Variaties of Human Experience: Bridging Embodied Methodologies From Somatics and Performance To Human Computer Interaction. University of Plymouth.
  19. Taylor V.A. 2007. Feminist Frontiers. McGraw-Hill Humanities Social.
  20. Viseu, A. and Suchman, L. 2010. Wearable Augmentations: Imaginaries for the Informed Body. Technologized Images, Technologiezed Bodies: anthropological approaches to a new politics of vision. (2010), 161–184.
  21. Weiser, M. 1991. The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 145

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Homewood, S., Hedemyr, M., Fagerberg Ranten, M., & Kozel, S.
Affiliations
  • IT University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Malmö University (SE)
  • Roskilde University Dept. of People and Technology, Denmark
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-05-06
Pages
1-12
DOI
10.1145/3411764.3445656
OpenAlex
W3160494047
Cited by
145
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3
FWCI
14.56
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • RUCforsk (Roskilde University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Posthumanist Ethics and Activism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
conceptions of the body, performative body, intersectionality, entanglement, user-centered 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