I love writing academic papers, partly because writing forces me to review a lot of resources and rethink and reconstruct my ideas over topics that are either hot or cold, and finally generate something that might possibly valuable to someone.

While I am writing the paper “On Criticism” (a topic appropriated from Carroll’s book On Criticism). I suddenly realized I am not only a HCI designer, more likely I am a social researcher, and on my way to a not-that-bad philosopher. I am not surprised, for as we are in the third wave of HCI, it seems to be inevitable that every HCI designer could and should be a social researcher. It is fortunate, because every subject we are delving in has a common goal of getting out of the ivory towers to contribute to the massive. It indicates, apparently, HCI will revive in the future.

Criticism in HCI is relatively new in comparison with it in literature. For quite a long time in three waves of HCI, we did not actually pay much attention to criticism as an approach to evaluate HCI. But once it was appropriated, it flourished itself. Till now, it has become far more effective than we ever expected. But after my reading a lot of articles about criticism and critical thinking, I realized that criticism is far not a pill of panacea, it has a lot of limitations.

Maybe it is just too many readings on criticism that renders me some kind of illusion on the overuse of criticism, it just makes me feel a lot of people insist on criticism (which is good) and on criticism only (which is bad). It restrains our scopes to evaluate and interpret designs we confront. This is what I want to talk about in my next paper.

I love academic writings and theoretical stuff, and I hope I could be a good PhD student in the future with my full devotions.

And of course, I think I can be.