I
M
A
G
E
B
Y
M
A
L
G
O
R
Z
A
T
A
S
M
I
G
I
E
L
S
K
A
change over time. Co-word analysis
can map the “knowledge” of a
scientific field by considering how
concepts are linked. This analysis
has been conducted for various other
disciplines including psychology [ 5],
software engineering [ 6], and stem cell
research [ 7]. Therefore, in addition to
using an established methodology, we
are also able to compare the findings
of our analysis with previous findings,
and in this way identify how our own
community’s research compares with
that of other disciplines.
By far the most important finding
in our paper was that CHI has
At the 2014 CHI conference, my group
published a paper that presented a
bibliometric analysis of the conference
itself over the past 20 years [ 1]. The
extent to which the conference reflects
the entire field of HCI is debatable,
but it is acknowledged that this is the
flagship conference of the field. Our
analysis did not look at citations, or
even authors, as this work has been
previously published [ 2]. Rather, we
performed a type of bibliometric
analysis known as co-word analysis
[ 3, 4], which considers the keywords of
papers, how keywords appear together
on papers, and how these relationships
Insights
→ Research in HCI has
consistently lacked motor
themes, mainstream topics,
and schools of thought.
→ Implications for design
have likely contributed to
the scattered nature of
our research.
→ Our discipline can
establish motor themes
by placing value in tools,
data, and theory. A
The Big Hole
in HCI
Research
Vassilis Kostakos, University of Oulu
