社会部门之声

Chris Bopp, A. Voida
{"title":"社会部门之声","authors":"Chris Bopp, A. Voida","doi":"10.1145/3368368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The prevalence of HCI research carried out with nonprofit organizations has increased dramatically over the past 35 years. Despite this history and our accumulating understanding of social sector organizations and their diverse stakeholders’ use of technology, there have not yet been any systematic reviews of this body of research. Before making more holistic claims about what this body of knowledge might suggest for a research agenda moving forward, we carry out a systematic literature review to characterize the systemic biases that are present as a result of the varying degrees of inclusion or exclusion of the voices of different groups of stakeholders. Building off of the results of our analysis, we contribute a framework of Analytic Charismas for more broadly engaging in reflexivity as a discipline.","PeriodicalId":322583,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)","volume":"132 12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Voices of the Social Sector\",\"authors\":\"Chris Bopp, A. Voida\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3368368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The prevalence of HCI research carried out with nonprofit organizations has increased dramatically over the past 35 years. Despite this history and our accumulating understanding of social sector organizations and their diverse stakeholders’ use of technology, there have not yet been any systematic reviews of this body of research. Before making more holistic claims about what this body of knowledge might suggest for a research agenda moving forward, we carry out a systematic literature review to characterize the systemic biases that are present as a result of the varying degrees of inclusion or exclusion of the voices of different groups of stakeholders. Building off of the results of our analysis, we contribute a framework of Analytic Charismas for more broadly engaging in reflexivity as a discipline.\",\"PeriodicalId\":322583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)\",\"volume\":\"132 12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3368368\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3368368","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在过去的35年里,非营利组织开展的HCI研究的流行程度急剧增加。尽管有这样的历史,而且我们对社会部门组织及其不同利益相关者对技术的使用也有了越来越多的了解,但还没有对这一研究体系进行任何系统的回顾。在对这一知识体系可能对未来的研究议程提出更全面的主张之前,我们进行了系统的文献综述,以表征由于不同程度地包容或排除不同利益相关者群体的声音而出现的系统性偏见。基于我们的分析结果,我们提供了一个分析性魅力的框架,以便更广泛地参与作为一门学科的反思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Voices of the Social Sector
The prevalence of HCI research carried out with nonprofit organizations has increased dramatically over the past 35 years. Despite this history and our accumulating understanding of social sector organizations and their diverse stakeholders’ use of technology, there have not yet been any systematic reviews of this body of research. Before making more holistic claims about what this body of knowledge might suggest for a research agenda moving forward, we carry out a systematic literature review to characterize the systemic biases that are present as a result of the varying degrees of inclusion or exclusion of the voices of different groups of stakeholders. Building off of the results of our analysis, we contribute a framework of Analytic Charismas for more broadly engaging in reflexivity as a discipline.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信