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

Seung Wan Ha

dblp:374/8794 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-4853-8550ORCID · corroborated

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021

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
2 papers
Design research and methods · 54% Health and well-being technologies · 46%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Network and information security
1 paper
Usable security · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
qualitative research
0.812024
Understanding fraudulence in online qualitative studies: From the researcher's perspective · CHI 2024

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

interview study · 2.3qualitative study · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Preparing and Experiencing Food During Life Events: Implications for Technology Supporting Social and Value Changes
abstract
Peer Reviewed
Seung Wan Ha, Novia Nurain, Elena Agapie, Chia-Fang Chung
CHI1
2024 Understanding fraudulence in online qualitative studies: From the researcher's perspective
abstract
Researchers are increasingly facilitating qualitative research studies online. While this has made research more accessible for participation, there have been notable encounters with “fraudulent” participants. By fraudulent, we refer to individuals who are deceptive about meeting the inclusion criteria, their identity, or experiences. Fraudulent participants have generated new challenges for researchers who have to interact 1:1 with these individuals, face ethical dilemmas on appropriate next steps, diagnose and prevent the issue from happening again, and deal with their own identity as a scholar. In this study, we interview 16 HCI researchers to understand and learn from their experiences. We contribute: (1) an understanding of how HCI qualitative researchers deal with fraudulent participants; (2) a guide for qualitative HCI researchers on how to handle fraudulence; and (3) a reflection on how the HCI research community might better improve our science and training efforts.
Aswati Panicker, Novia Nurain, Zaidat Ibrahim, Chun-Han Ariel Wang, Seung Wan Ha, Yuxing Wu, Kay Connelly, Katie A. Siek, Chia-Fang Chung
CHI5