Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

What We Talk About When We Talk About Frameworks in HCI

Shitao Fang, Koji Yatani, Kasper Hornbæk

Abstract

In HCI, frameworks function as a type of theoretical contribution, often supporting ideation, design, and evaluation. Yet, little is known about how they are actually used, what functions they serve, and which scholarly practices that shape them. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of 615 papers from a decade of CHI proceedings (2015-2024) that prominently featured the term framework. We classified these papers into six engagement types. We then examined the role, form, and essential components of newly proposed frameworks through a functional typology, analyzing how they are constructed, validated, and articulated for reuse. Our results show that enthusiasm for proposing new frameworks exceeds the willingness to iterate on existing ones. They also highlight the ambiguity in the function of frameworks and the scarcity of systematic validation. Based on these insights, we call for more rigorous, reflective, and cumulative practices in the development and use of frameworks in HCI.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Frameworks in HCI

Abstract

In HCI, frameworks function as a type of theoretical contribution, often supporting ideation, design, and evaluation. Yet, little is known about how they are actually used, what functions they serve, and which scholarly practices that shape them. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of 615 papers from a decade of CHI proceedings (2015-2024) that prominently featured the term framework. We classified these papers into six engagement types. We then examined the role, form, and essential components of newly proposed frameworks through a functional typology, analyzing how they are constructed, validated, and articulated for reuse. Our results show that enthusiasm for proposing new frameworks exceeds the willingness to iterate on existing ones. They also highlight the ambiguity in the function of frameworks and the scarcity of systematic validation. Based on these insights, we call for more rigorous, reflective, and cumulative practices in the development and use of frameworks in HCI.
Paper Structure (53 sections, 8 figures, 4 tables)

This paper contains 53 sections, 8 figures, 4 tables.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Related Work
  3. Framework in Research
  4. Study and Analysis of Frameworks
  5. Meta-Research and Literature Syntheses in HCI
  6. Method
  7. Research Questions
  8. Paper Identification and Selection
  9. Sources and Data Format
  10. Screening Process
  11. Eligibility Assessing and Corpus Finalizing
  12. Inductive Coding for Engagement Type
  13. Codebook Development
  14. Coding Protocol and Principles
  15. Coding Process and Inter-Rater Reliability
  16. ...and 38 more sections

Figures (8)

  • Figure 1: Adapted PRISMA flowchart demonstrating the selection process of framework-engaged paper. EC = Exclusion Criteria; IC = Inclusion Criteria.
  • Figure 2: Six types of engagement with frameworks (N = 615).
  • Figure 3: Mosaic plots showing the conditional probability of authorship given the disciplinary origin in the engagement types Adapt, Validate, Review, and Use. The width of each bar represents the proportion of frameworks originating Outside vs. Inside HCI. The vertical split within each bar represents the proportion of Self vs. External engagement. The dashed line indicates the global average of External engagement for that category.
  • Figure 4: The position of "framework" in the reviewed papers (2015–2024).
  • Figure 5: Dual-direction cross-tabulation of engagement and contribution types. The left heatmap shows, for each engagement type (rows), the percentage distribution of contribution types (columns). The right heatmap shows, for each contribution type (columns), the percentage distribution of engagement types (rows)
  • ...and 3 more figures