The Reality of Reality-Based Interaction

Abstract

Frameworks such as Direct Manipulation or Instrumental Interaction have been an important force in HCI research. Evaluating the impact of frameworks can identify whether and how a framework was used, how it has evolved, and what trends have developed over time. However, studying the impact of such theoretical contributions requires consideration of various perspectives and level of impact. As a case study for investigating the impact of theoretical work in HCI, we present our evaluation of the impact of the Reality Based Interaction (RBI) framework, introduced by the authors in 2008. We provide our findings about the impact of the framework both on contemporary research, through content-based citation analysis, and in HCI education, through a survey we conducted on emerging interaction frameworks. The article contributes a comprehensive methodology for evaluating the impact of frameworks through our twofold approach: content-based citation analysis, including the design of a new citation typology; and a survey on the use of frameworks in education using a taxonomy of learning goals. We also consider the role of frameworks in HCI as well as the future of the RBI framework. CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → HCI theory, concepts and models; • Information systems → Link and co-citation analysis; • Social and professional topics → Computing education;

Self-Determination Theory in HCI Games Research: Current Uses and Open Questions

“…To support more intentional practices of theory use, we identify opportunities for HCI games research to talk back to SDT and inform design practice, and locate productive avenues for SDT-based games research based on un(der)used areas of the theory. Beyond SDT, this work extends our understanding of the import and impact of theory in HCI [202,455,456], especially with respect to why certain theories gain traction over others, and how the conditions that facilitate theory uptake shape the ways theory is put to use.…”

“…Turning to specific theories, Clemmensen et al [110] used citation analysis to evaluate Activity Theory's influence, concluding that HCI had fruitfully applied the theory to inform design, as well as for guiding conceptual and empirical analyses of HCI phenomena, and in turn produced key reference texts used in other disciplines. Similarly, a review of the Reality-Based Interaction framework [202] determined that the framework was most frequently cited to justify research decisions, inform the design of studies or novel artefacts, and support claims. Substantive applications of the framework appeared to be declining over time, however.…”

“…The coding schema applied to the academic corpus (N = 259), largely adapted from prior citation analysis research [i.e. 61,202,355]. Note that papers could be coded as belonging to multiple secondary categories.…”

“…However, this approach was deemed not sufficiently granular for the aims of the present work, as a theory's intended purpose does not necessarily reflect its application in the citing work. Instead, we adapted the citation typology by Girouard et al [202], which was specifically developed for assessing the impact and degree of engagement with theoretical frameworks. Their typology differentiates higher level theory citations (i.e., generative and analytic theory use) -where theory presumably serves as a direct influence on the citing work -from low-level citations that draw from theory to help contextualise the work, but where theoretical tenets are otherwise non-critical (i.e., their omission would not substantially change the work).…”

“…Their typology differentiates higher level theory citations (i.e., generative and analytic theory use) -where theory presumably serves as a direct influence on the citing work -from low-level citations that draw from theory to help contextualise the work, but where theoretical tenets are otherwise non-critical (i.e., their omission would not substantially change the work). Unlike Girouard et al [202], we did not consider individual mentions of SDT as unit of analysis. This would have complicated interpretation due to many papers in our corpus featuring multiple SDT-based references, often in the same sentence.…”