Author response to commentaries on H is for Human and How (Not) to Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI
A new paper challenges how we judge qualitative studies in human-computer interaction...
Andy Crabtree has published an author response to seven expert commentaries on his original article 'H is for Human and How (Not) to Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI.' The original paper proposed a framework for properly assessing qualitative research within the human-computer interaction field, arguing against inappropriate application of quantitative metrics. Commentaries were provided by leading HCI figures including Jeffrey Bardzell, Alan Blackwell, Paul Dourish, Bonnie Nardi, Peter Pirolli, Jennifer Rode, and Peter Tolmie.
Crabtree's response engages with each critique, defending his core thesis that qualitative HCI research requires evaluation methods suited to its interpretive, context-rich nature rather than borrowing standards from quantitative or experimental traditions. The paper is available on arXiv (arXiv:2604.25312) under a CC BY 4.0 license, allowing free redistribution and adaptation. This exchange highlights ongoing methodological debates in HCI about how to maintain rigor while respecting the epistemological foundations of qualitative inquiry.
- Crabtree responds to 7 expert commentaries from top HCI researchers
- Paper addresses proper evaluation of qualitative research in HCI
- Published under CC BY 4.0 license on arXiv for open access
Why It Matters
Shapes how qualitative HCI research is judged, influencing design and evaluation standards across the field.