An official website of the United States government
Data sharing and reuse are becoming the norm in quantitative research. At the same time, significant skepticism still accompanies the sharing and reuse of qualitative research data on both ethical and epistemological grounds. Nevertheless, there is growing interest in the reuse of qualitative data, as demonstrated by the range of contributions in this special issue. In this research note, we address epistemological critiques of reusing qualitative data and argue that careful curation of data can enable what we term “epistemologically responsible reuse” of qualitative data. We begin by briefly defining qualitative data and summarizing common epistemological objections to their shareability or usefulness for secondary analysis. We then introduce the concept of curation as enabling epistemologically responsible reuse and a potential way to address such objections. We discuss three recent trends that we believe are enhancing curatorial practices and thus expand the opportunities for responsible reuse: improvements in data management practices among researchers, the development of collaborative curation practices at repositories focused on qualitative data and technological advances that support sharing rich qualitative data. Using three examples of successful reuse of qualitative data, we illustrate the potential of these three trends to further improve the availability of reusable data projects.
more »
« less
Evaluating Design Fiction: The Right Tool for the Job
Design fiction has become so widely adopted that it regularly appears in contexts ranging from CEO speeches to dedicated tracks at academic conferences. However, evaluating this kind of work is difficult; it is not clear what good or bad design fiction is or what the judgment criteria should be. In this paper we assert that design fiction is a heterogeneous set of methods, and practices, able to produce a diversity of scholarly and design contributions. We argue locating these diverse practices under the single header of "design fiction" has resulted in epistemological confusion over the appropriate method of evaluation. We identify different traditions within the HCI literature-critical design; narratology and literary theory; studio-based design "crits"; user studies; scenarios and persona development; and thought experiments-to articulate a typology of evaluative frames. There is often a mismatch between the standards to which design fiction is held and the knowledge that speculative methods seek to produce. We argue that evaluating a given instance of design fiction requires us to properly select the right epistemological tool for the job.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1844901
- PAR ID:
- 10252099
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS)
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1901 to 1913
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
In response to Pearl, Aronow et al. (2025) argue that randomized experiments are special among causal inference methods due to their statistical properties. I believe that the key distinction between randomized experiments and observational studies is not statistical, but rather epistemological in nature. In this comment, I aim to articulate this epistemological distinction and argue that it ought to take a more central role in these discussions.more » « less
-
Within the ongoing disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, technologically mediated health surveillance programs have vastly intensified and expanded to new spaces. Popular understandings of medical and health data protections came into question as a variety of institutions introduced new tools for symptom tracking, contact tracing, and the management of related data. These systems have raised complex questions about who should have access to health information, under what circumstances, and how people and institutions negotiate relationships between privacy, public safety, and care during times of crisis. In this paper, we take up the case of a large public university working to keep campus productive during COVID-19 through practices of placemaking, symptom screeners, and vaccine mandate compliance databases. Drawing on a multi-methods study including thirty-eight interviews, organizational documents, and discursive analysis, we show where and for whom administrative care infrastructures either misrecognized or torqued (Bowker and Star 1999) the care relationships that made life possible for people in the university community. We argue that an analysis of care—including the social relations that enable it and those that attempt to hegemonically define it—opens important questions for how people relate to data they produce about their bodies as well as to the institutions that manage them. Furthermore, we argue that privacy frameworks that rely on individual rights, essential categories of “sensitive information,” or the normative legitimacy of institutional practices are not equipped to reveal how people negotiate privacy and care in times of crisis.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Recent educational reforms conceptualize science classrooms as spaces where students collaboratively engage in disciplinary practices to construct and evaluate scientific explanations of phenomena. For students to effectively collaborate with each other, they need to develop a shared framing of the nature of the science activity and the expectations surrounding their engagement in it. Such framing does not only pertain to the conceptual work but also involves myriad epistemological, social, and affective dimensions. We conceptualize collaborative disciplinary engagement as the process of aligning the group’s framing along these dimensions and, we argue, student negotiations to achieve this alignment are in part what initiate and sustain collaborative disciplinary engagement in the science classroom. By focusing on student negotiations, this study builds on existing research on group dynamics involved in science learning and contributes nuanced empirical insights on the nature of student negotiations along the conceptual, epistemological, social, and affective dimensions of argumentation in science. Moreover, the findings provide a proof of concept regarding the key role that student negotiations of framing have in driving collaborative disciplinary engagement. The study findings have implications for research and practice to support learners’ productive disciplinary engagement in group work in the science classroom and beyond.more » « less
-
Nature-based solutions (NBS) are used to transform existing unsustainable and undesirable path dependencies in cities. For NBS to contribute to just urban transformations, a stronger inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge base is needed. This knowledge base is essential to engage with six complex yet crucial questions about NBS, including “for what?,” “which nature?,” “where?,” “how?,” “when,” and “for whom?.” To address these questions, we identify two critical opportunities to advance the knowledge of NBS. First, we argue for solidifying interdisciplinary approaches to examine how NBS can be designed, planned, and implemented for multifunctionality. Second, we argue that researchers need to work transdisciplinarily with diverse stakeholders to ensure the design, siting, and planning of NBS are appropriate to the context. In both critical opportunities, justice should be a core guiding principle from the beginning of planning the NBS, starting with the foundational understanding that NBS are not inherently just or unjust. Instead, their value depends on a holistic examination of the context in which they operate and the institutional logic that guides their planning. To center justice in the inter- and transdisciplinary research and practice of NBS, a knowledge shift from epistemological injustice to epistemological inclusivity is a critical way forward.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395464
