Generalizability and scientific rigor were things that I pulled out and identified with most about yesterday’s lecture. I presented my thoughts on whether or not HCI was still “stuck in the past” of first wave HCI. It would make sense a bit, given that hard science was a pervasive theme in the infancy of HCI. After your post, this got me thinking about how the construction of knowledge is taken in HCI. For many projects, we do research attempting to ascertain what people need in a situation. Often we get insights from one particular person that may say something of interest, but we may not get this information from ever person (as all users are not the same). This goes against the grain of scientific replicability.

It just got me thinking about how we have moved past some of the more “hard science” thinking of first wave HCI and have moved on to the more subjective and social nature of the second and third waves (and potentially the fourth wave that some say we might be in now). Where does science fit into this? You need a bit of replicability to make your design relevant and useful to a larger group.

I may be digressing a bit. But I was just further trying to explicate my question out for further interrogation of the replicability and generalizability of our designs and research insights. Hopefully this wasn’t too stream of conscious that it makes sense to people. Haha!

Advertisements