HCI Research as Problem-Solving

Going through Oulasvirta and Hornbaek paper HCI Research as Problem-Solving (CHI, 2016) was a bit challenging for me since I come from a public health background and have very limited knowledge about HCI. Yet, I managed to have a general understanding of its content.

The essential points that are highlighted in the paper can be summarized as follows:

First of all, the aim of the paper according to the authors is to portray HCI research as “problem solving research” which links solutions to problems. They start off by presenting the types of research problems as defined by Larry Laudan and framing them within HCI research. Laudan defines two types of research problems; empirical and conceptual to which the authors add constructive research problem which in HCI would entail understanding the principles behind the construction/design of interactive artefacts. Each type of the aforementioned research problems in HCI encompasses subtypes that the authors clearly explain.

The authors do not stick to defining the 3 types of research problems but go beyond that to actually list the criteria which can guide the process of evaluating the quality of HCI research in relation to the problem-solving capacity including: significance( the solution responds to a problem relevant to stakeholders of the research), effectiveness ( resolving the main aspects of a problem), efficiency (the costs of applying a solution versus the outcomes achieved), transfer ( applying the same solution to other problems or other aspects of a problem) and confidence( sustainability of a solution nuancing applicability of a solution in different contexts). Therefore, problem-solving capacity implies the ability to fulfill all of the above criteria. Based on the different types of research problems and the criteria of problem-solving capacity, the authors present a clear definition of HCI research as a problem-solving research which accounts for design and innovation, empirical knowledge and methods, concepts and models.

In order to assess the state of HCI research as a problem-solving field, the authors examine the best papers of CHI 2015 and underline their main observations. These observations revealed that most papers of HCI focus on empirical and constructive research problems while conceptual research problems aren’t addressed which raises questions whether papers tackling such problems aren’t usually selected or is it an actual gap in HCI. In addition, most papers include some of the criteria put forward by authors such as significance, transfer, confidence, effectiveness with some limitations while efficiency isn’t a major concern. However, according to the authors, there isn’t a clear consensus on all 5 criteria and each paper has its own strategy. The last observation of authors regarding the CHI best papers is that these papers mainly tackle practical problems (i.e. empirical problems) while construction and theory-oriented research problems are scarce. In order not to seem only critical vis à vis the current research in HCI, the authors propose ways to move HCI forward especially under the scope of problem-solving. They suggest 1) rendering results of research actionable by focusing on conceptual contributions; investing in “integrative” concepts linking empirical and constructive problems 2) improving the writing of papers in the sense of clarifying the problems tackled rather than only focusing on results/solutions 3) applying problem-solving as a “thinking tool” in HCI to refine and generate better ideas by adopting the 5 criteria and exploring whole sub-topics under the problem-solving lens. Moreover, the authors state that relying on models shouldn’t be the sole source of theorising. While models might be offering implications for design, representing hypothesis and explaining empirical phenomena, the authors suggest based on Laudan’s view that models would restrict the problem-solving capacity. At the end, the authors list the general critiques and limitations of problem-solving and respond to each of these.

After reading this article, I personally find it interesting how the authors are trying to find a way to define HCI or at least framing it within a specific field. I believe HCI research can be viewed as problem-solving because the criteria it entails is core for any research or intervention. In addition, like every field, HCI would need to have some clear concepts and theories to guide it as it would infer more structure for designers while maintaining both subjectivity and creativity. By having clearly defined problems and solutions, the HCI field would be better understood especially from individuals who do not have a background in that field. One point that I would raise is that while authors are trying to advance the view that HCI should be considered as problem-solving, it would have been interesting if they mentioned few of their own projects that could portray the ideal problem-solving approach.

The paper I chose which I believe exemplifies HCI for me is:

Tanveer, M. I., Zhao, R., Chen, K., Tiet, Z., & Hoque, M. E. (2016, March). Automanner: An automated interface for making public speakers aware of their mannerisms. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 385-396). ACM.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2856785