CHI4Good or Good4CHI
summary
Argues that HCI’s “good” work actually fits three concrete types—application research, cross-over work, and community-centric research—and shows why CHI’s 10‑page format, reviewer norms, and conference cycles prevent rigorous evaluation. Proposes concrete fixes: add community‑impact sections, include long‑term practitioners as reviewers, require authors to assess potential harms, and fund sustained field immersion (one‑year embedding is cited as effective). Also recommends naming projects by target population or domain rather than calling everything “good.”
AI-written summary · about
chapters (5)
related talks
20mBuilding a Diverse and Inclusive Open Source Community
44mOpen Source DEI: Transitioning from Intentions to Impact
30mOpen Source Resilience & Growth: Creating Communities
39mCHAOSS Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) Open Source Badging Initiative
36mPanel Discussion: Metrics that Matter: How to Forge More Diverse, Inclusive Communities
18mHCI and Intimate Care as an Agenda for Change in Women’s Health
44mWhy Is My Community In Danger?
50mCreating a Healthy Community Culture