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

Niall Docherty

dblp:317/0168 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0001-5945-008XORCID · 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
Health and well-being technologies · 48% Collaborative and social computing · 41% Human-robot interaction · 11%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Health and well-being technologies
digital well-being
0.822023
(Re)Politicizing Digital Well-Being: Beyond User Engagements · CHI 2022
Integrative Objects in Sociotechnical Contexts: Constructing Digital Well-Being with Generic Epistemology · CHI 2023
Collaborative and social computing › team collaboration
interdisciplinary collaboration
0.712023
Integrative Objects in Sociotechnical Contexts: Constructing Digital Well-Being with Generic Epistemology · CHI 2023
Human-robot interaction
user engagement measurement
0.212022
(Re)Politicizing Digital Well-Being: Beyond User Engagements · CHI 2022

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

generic epistemology · 1.3case study · 1.3interdisciplinary literature review · 0.6critical analysis · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Integrative Objects in Sociotechnical Contexts: Constructing Digital Well-Being with Generic Epistemology
abstract
This paper presents a generative approach to interdisciplinary collaboration based on generic epistemology. Informed by the work of philosopher Anne-Françoise Schmid, we introduce the concept of the integrative object as a means to reorient interdisciplinary collaboration toward the requirements of the object of research itself, rather than via the requirements of particular disciplinary languages, methods, or operative logics. We show how such an approach is useful for research into sociotechnical phenomena that exceed the boundaries of discrete disciplines and their convergence. We introduce digital well-being as a case study, drawing on the authors’ own interdisciplinary collaborative experiences in this area as its empirical matter. From this, and in order to aid future research into similarly complex sociotechnical objects, we then provide practical tools to help those in the HCI community prepare and conduct interdisciplinary research in a similarly generative, non-dogmatic, and non-hierarchical manner.
Magdalena Krysztoforska, Niall Docherty, Asia J. Biega
CHI2
2022 (Re)Politicizing Digital Well-Being: Beyond User Engagements
abstract
The psychological costs of the attention economy are often considered through the binary of harmful design and healthy use, with digital well-being chiefly characterised as a matter of personal responsibility. This article adopts an interdisciplinary approach to highlight the empirical, ideological, and political limits of embedding this individualised perspective in computational discourses and designs of digital well-being measurement. We will reveal well-being to be a culturally specific and environmentally conditioned concept and will problematize user engagement as a universal proxy for well-being. Instead, the contributing factors of user well-being will be located in environing social, cultural, and political conditions far beyond the control of individual users alone. In doing so, we hope to reinvigorate the issue of digital well-being measurement as a nexus point of political concern, through which multiple disciplines can study experiences of digital ill as symptomatic of wider social inequalities and (capitalist) relations of power.
Niall Docherty, Asia J. Biega
CHI1