mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

H is for Human and How (Not) To Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI

arXiv 2409.01302 ↗First posted 20 Aug 2024cs.HCcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Concern has recently been expressed by HCI researchers as to the inappropriate treatment of qualitative studies through a positivistic mode of evaluation that places emphasis on metrics and measurement. This contrasts with the nature of qualitative research, which privileges interpretation and understanding over quantification. This paper explains the difference between positivism and interpretivism, the limits of quantification in human science, the distinctive contribution of qualitative research, and how quality assurance might be provided for in the absence of numbers via five basic criteria that reviewers may use to evaluate qualitative studies on their own terms.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 20 Aug 2024.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

6 papers.