Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.
Michael S. Bernstein, Mark S. Ackerman, Ed H. Chi, Robert C. Miller<br />
Michael S. Bernstein, Mark S. Ackerman, Ed H. Chi, Robert C. Miller<br />
Michael S. Bernstein, Mark S. Ackerman, Ed H. Chi, Robert C. Miller<br />
Ratio of “Understanding Users” papers<br />to “Systems, Tools, Architectures and Infrastructure” papers <br />submitted to...
Trouble: Exponential Growth<br />Your usage data is not really compelling because only a small fraction of Facebook is usi...
Suggestion: Exponential Growth<br />Separate evaluation of spread from steady-state.<br />Which claim is the paper making?...
Trouble: Snowball Sampling<br />The authors’ choice of study method – snowball sampling their system by advertising within...
Suggestion: Snowball Sampling<br />Snowballing is inevitablein social systems. It is fundamental to how they operate.<br />
NoveltyBetween a Rock and a Hard Science<br />
sociotechnical<br />
sociotechnical<br />studiersbuilders<br />
sociotechnical<br />studiersbuilders<br />Fatal Flaw Fallacy [Olsen]<br />Ecological validity at the cost of internal vali...
sociotechnical<br />studiersbuilders<br />Show us elegant complexity.(simple ideas that enable complex scenarios)<br />We ...
socio  technical<br />studiers  builders<br />Build a technically interesting system <br />    (that is hard to spread or ...
The contribution needs to take one strong stance or another. Either it describes a novel system or a novel social interact...
Create a shared understanding<br />of research contributions<br />
social technical<br />New forms of social interaction<br />	Shared organizational memory [Ackerman 1994]<br />Designs that...
social technical<br />Designs collecting or powered by social data<br />Wikidashboard [Suh et al. 2008]; sense.us [Heeret ...
social technical<br />×<br />Paired contributions can increase each others’ value<br />ManyEyes<br />[Viégas et al. 2007]<...
In conclusion introduction:<br />What are our millennium challenges? <br />What is our relationship with industry 	and wal...
Próxima SlideShare
Cargando en…5
×

The Trouble with Social Computing Systems Research

  • Inicia sesión para ver los comentarios

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

The Trouble with Social Computing Systems Research

  1. 1. Michael S. Bernstein, Mark S. Ackerman, Ed H. Chi, Robert C. Miller<br />
  2. 2. Michael S. Bernstein, Mark S. Ackerman, Ed H. Chi, Robert C. Miller<br />
  3. 3. Michael S. Bernstein, Mark S. Ackerman, Ed H. Chi, Robert C. Miller<br />
  4. 4. Ratio of “Understanding Users” papers<br />to “Systems, Tools, Architectures and Infrastructure” papers <br />submitted to the Interaction Beyond the Individual track at CHI 2011.<br />4:1<br />
  5. 5. Trouble: Exponential Growth<br />Your usage data is not really compelling because only a small fraction of Facebook is using the application. Worse, your numbers aren’t growing in anything like an exponential fashion.<br />– CHI metareviewer, paraphrased<br />
  6. 6. Suggestion: Exponential Growth<br />Separate evaluation of spread from steady-state.<br />Which claim is the paper making?<br />
  7. 7. Trouble: Snowball Sampling<br />The authors’ choice of study method – snowball sampling their system by advertising within their own social network – potentially leads to serious problems with validity.<br />– CHI metareviewer, paraphrased<br />
  8. 8. Suggestion: Snowball Sampling<br />Snowballing is inevitablein social systems. It is fundamental to how they operate.<br />
  9. 9.
  10. 10. NoveltyBetween a Rock and a Hard Science<br />
  11. 11. sociotechnical<br />
  12. 12. sociotechnical<br />studiersbuilders<br />
  13. 13. sociotechnical<br />studiersbuilders<br />Fatal Flaw Fallacy [Olsen]<br />Ecological validity at the cost of internal validity<br />[Ackerman 2000], [Barkhuus and Rode 2007], [Chi 2009], [Greenberg and Buxton 2008], [Kaye and Sengers 2007], [Landay 2009], [Lieberman 2003], [Olsen 2007], [Zhai 2003]<br />
  14. 14. sociotechnical<br />studiersbuilders<br />Show us elegant complexity.(simple ideas that enable complex scenarios)<br />We let people type messages up to 140 characters.<br />That’s it? What is possible now that wasn’t before?<br />Nothing — but focus on emergent social activity.<br />Can you add multitouch?<br />Not using IE8.<br />
  15. 15. socio technical<br />studiers builders<br />Build a technically interesting system <br /> (that is hard to spread or evaluate), or<br />Simplify to a system with socially interesting outcomes <br /> (that builders find less novel).<br />
  16. 16. The contribution needs to take one strong stance or another. Either it describes a novel system or a novel social interaction. If it’s a system, then I question the novelty. If it’s a social interaction, it needs more development.<br />– CHI metareviewer, paraphrased<br />Build a technically interesting system <br /> (that is hard to spread or evaluate), or<br />Simplify to a system with socially interesting outcomes <br /> (that builders find less novel).<br />
  17. 17. Create a shared understanding<br />of research contributions<br />
  18. 18. social technical<br />New forms of social interaction<br /> Shared organizational memory [Ackerman 1994]<br />Designs that impact social interactions<br />Increasing online contribution [Beenen et al. 2004]<br />Enable fluent social interaction in a new domain<br />Socially translucent systems [Erickson and Kellogg 2000]<br />
  19. 19. social technical<br />Designs collecting or powered by social data<br />Wikidashboard [Suh et al. 2008]; sense.us [Heeret al. 2007]<br />Algorithms to coordinate crowds or derive signal from social data<br />Collaborative Filtering [Resnick et al. 1994]; Iterate-and-Vote [Little et al. 2010]<br />Platforms and infrastructures<br />TurKit [Little et al. 2010]<br />
  20. 20. social technical<br />×<br />Paired contributions can increase each others’ value<br />ManyEyes<br />[Viégas et al. 2007]<br />
  21. 21. In conclusion introduction:<br />What are our millennium challenges? <br />What is our relationship with industry and walled gardens?<br />How can (and should) we evolve<br />our standards of proof?<br />
  22. 22. Michael S. Bernstein, Mark S. Ackerman, Ed H. Chi, Robert C. Miller<br />
  23. 23.
  24. 24. Make clear that “not in this talk” doesn’t mean “not in the paper”<br />AC quote about it’s not quite this, not quite that, it’s rejected<br />Frame it as Problems with reviewing?<br />Reasons that papers are getting rejected<br />How do we judge these papers? Not “how can we do social computing research”<br />Label as problem or solution<br />Authors’ names<br />Frame contributions of the paper?<br />Three-way conversation<br />Juho: improve the conversation part<br />

×