Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Delores Orr

dblp:217/9693 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Design research and methods · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Design research and methods › participatory research
community-based participatory research
0.312018
Entrepreneurship and the Socio-Technical Chasm in a Lean Economy · CHI 2018
Computational social science and digital humanities › ICT for development
digital divide
0.112018
Entrepreneurship and the Socio-Technical Chasm in a Lean Economy · CHI 2018
Computational social science and digital humanities
technology entrepreneurship
0.112018
Entrepreneurship and the Socio-Technical Chasm in a Lean Economy · CHI 2018

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

participatory action research · 0.7longitudinal study · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Entrepreneurship and the Socio-Technical Chasm in a Lean Economy
abstract
Online technologies are increasingly hailed as enablers of entrepreneurship and income generation. Recent evidence suggests, however, that even the best such tools disproportionately favor those with pre-existing entrepreneurial advantages. Despite intentions, the technology on its own seems far from addressing socio-economic inequalities. Using participatory action research, we investigated why this might be, in an intimate, close-up context. Over a 1-year period, we--a collaborative team of university researchers and residents of Detroit's East Side--worked to establish a neighborhood tour whose initial goal was to raise supplementary income and fundraise for community block clubs. We found that in addition to technical requirements, such as communication tools, a range of non-technological efforts is needed to manage projects, build self-efficacy, and otherwise support community participants. Our findings widen Ackerman's "socio-technical gap" for some contexts and offer a counterpoint to overgeneralized claims about well-designed technologies being able to address certain classes of social challenges.
Tawanna Dillahunt, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Desiree McLain, Minnie Lester, Delores Orr, Kentaro Toyama
CHI5