pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.08787 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-09 · 💻 cs.HC

Exploring the Grassroots Understanding and Practices of Collective Memory Co-Contribution in a University Community

Zeyu Huang , Xinyi Cao , Yue Deng , Junze Li , Kangyu Yuan , Xiaojuan Ma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords collective memoryco-contributionuniversity communitylocative narrativegrassroots practicescommunity identityuser-generated contentmobile systems
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

University community members see collective memory co-contribution as a tension between documenting the present for future use and reflecting on the past.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shifts focus from broad sociological views of established collective memory to how individual members in a university group actually understand and add to it through daily practices. Researchers gave 38 participants two mobile systems over two weeks: a locative narrative tool drawn from prior design ideas and a standard online forum. Participants showed a recurring split in approach, choosing either to capture current events as material for later remembrance or to look backward at what already happened. This choice affected the stories they told, the expectations they held for shared memory, and how they looked to the group for ideas. The study draws out design suggestions for systems that can handle these different approaches and help connect members who think about memory in varied ways.

Core claim

The central claim is that grassroots co-contribution to collective memory in a university community revolves around a core debate: whether to retrospectively contemplate past events or to document the present as a history intended for future audiences. This debate shapes narrative focuses, expectations about what collective memory should include, and the ways participants draw inspiration from the group. Evidence comes from a two-week mixed-methods field study with 38 participants who used a locative narrative and exploration system alongside a conventional online forum, leading to extracted design considerations for platforms that support diverse conceptualizations and strengthen community.

What carries the argument

The two-week mixed-methods field study anchored by a locative narrative and exploration system (condensed from existing design frameworks) paired with a conventional online forum to observe interpretative and interactional patterns of collective memory co-contribution.

If this is right

  • Design considerations can help platforms embrace varied conceptualizations of collective memory.
  • Systems can better connect members who hold different views on what collective memory should contain.
  • Locative narrative features can be tailored for community-driven user-generated content platforms.
  • The identified patterns can guide future work on participatory memory building in similar groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar tensions between present documentation and past reflection may appear in other closed communities such as workplaces or neighborhoods.
  • Platforms could add features that let users switch between reflective and prospective modes of contribution.
  • Longer-term studies might reveal how these practices evolve as community membership changes over years.

Load-bearing premise

Observations from 38 participants over two weeks on one university campus using two specific systems capture the main grassroots conceptualizations and practices of collective memory co-contribution.

What would settle it

A follow-up study with more participants across several universities or non-campus communities that finds no evidence of the same debate between documenting the present for future history and contemplating the past would undermine the core claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08787 by Junze Li, Kangyu Yuan, Xiaojuan Ma, Xinyi Cao, Yue Deng, Zeyu Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Drop’n’Collect, one of our design probes to explore HCI support for collective memory co-contribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An overview of the design process for Drop’n’Collect. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: More screenshots of the feature pairs in both systems ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Aspects covered in each condition’s posts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The thematic map of our qualitative findings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A playful and creative check-in. Two participants “teased” the couple in the postcard photo. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Collective memory -- community members' interconnected memories and impressions of the group -- is essential to the community's culture and identity. Its development requires members' continuous participatory contribution and sensemaking. However, existing works mainly adopt a holistic sociological perspective to analyze well-developed collective memory, less focusing on member-level conceptualization of this possession or what the co-contribution practices can be. Therefore, this work alternatively adopts the latter perspective and probes such interpretative and interactional patterns with two mobile systems. With one being a locative narrative and exploration system condensed from existing literature's design frameworks, and the other being a conventional online forum representing current practices, they served as the anchors of observation for our two-week, mixed-methods field study (n=38) on a university campus. A core debate we have identified was to retrospectively contemplate or document the presence as a history for the future. This also subsequently impacted the narrative focuses, expectations of collective memory constituents, and the ways participants seek inspiration from the group. We further extracted design considerations that could better embrace the diverse conceptualizations of collective memory and bond different community members together. Lastly, revisiting and reflecting on our design, we provided extra insights on designing devoted locative narrative experiences for community-driven UGC platforms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from a two-week mixed-methods field study (n=38) on a single university campus. Participants used two mobile systems—one a locative narrative and exploration system condensed from prior design frameworks, the other a conventional online forum—to surface grassroots conceptualizations and co-contribution practices around collective memory. The central finding is a core debate on whether to retrospectively contemplate or document the present as history for the future; this debate is reported to shape narrative focus, expectations of collective-memory constituents, and participants’ inspiration-seeking behaviors. The authors derive design considerations for supporting diverse conceptualizations and offer reflections on locative-narrative design for community UGC platforms.

Significance. If the empirical patterns hold beyond the studied setting, the work supplies a useful member-level complement to existing holistic sociological treatments of collective memory. The mixed-methods deployment and extraction of concrete design considerations constitute a practical contribution to HCI research on community identity and participatory platforms.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] The central claim—that the observed debate and its downstream effects represent grassroots understanding—rests on the assumption that the two-week, single-campus deployment with 38 participants using literature-derived systems captures unprompted practices. The transient academic population, short observation window, and system priming are not mitigated by saturation analysis, cross-site replication, or comparison to non-university communities (Abstract; implied Methods section).
  2. [Results] Support for the core debate and its reported impacts on narrative focus, constituent expectations, and inspiration-seeking is presented at a high level only. No participant quotes, coding scheme, inter-rater reliability, or quantitative measures are referenced, leaving the evidential basis for the claim thin (Abstract; Results).
minor comments (2)
  1. [System Design] Specify the exact condensation process used to derive the locative narrative system from existing frameworks so readers can judge fidelity and potential bias.
  2. [Participants] Clarify recruitment details, inclusion criteria, and any demographic limitations of the university sample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications on our study design and evidence while indicating revisions that will strengthen the presentation and contextualization of our findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] The central claim—that the observed debate and its downstream effects represent grassroots understanding—rests on the assumption that the two-week, single-campus deployment with 38 participants using literature-derived systems captures unprompted practices. The transient academic population, short observation window, and system priming are not mitigated by saturation analysis, cross-site replication, or comparison to non-university communities (Abstract; implied Methods section).

    Authors: We acknowledge the limitations inherent in our exploratory single-site field study. The two-week deployment on one university campus with 38 participants was intentionally scoped to enable in-depth mixed-methods observation of co-contribution practices within a defined community, using the two systems as contrasting anchors (one literature-derived locative narrative system and one conventional forum). While system design inevitably shapes interaction to some degree, the combination of usage logs, surveys, and semi-structured interviews allowed us to triangulate data and surface participant-driven conceptualizations rather than purely prompted responses. We did not conduct formal saturation analysis, as the study followed a thematic analysis approach rather than grounded theory, nor did we include cross-site replication or non-university comparisons, which would require a different research design. In the revision, we will expand the Methods and add a dedicated Limitations section to explicitly discuss the transient academic population, short observation window, and potential priming effects, while outlining directions for future multi-site work. This revision contextualizes our claims without changing the reported findings. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Support for the core debate and its reported impacts on narrative focus, constituent expectations, and inspiration-seeking is presented at a high level only. No participant quotes, coding scheme, inter-rater reliability, or quantitative measures are referenced, leaving the evidential basis for the claim thin (Abstract; Results).

    Authors: We agree that greater transparency in the Results section would strengthen the manuscript. The full analysis drew on interview transcripts and system logs to identify the core debate and its downstream effects through inductive thematic coding. In the revised version, we will include representative participant quotes to illustrate the retrospective-versus-present-documentation debate and its impacts on narrative focus, constituent expectations, and inspiration-seeking behaviors. We will also describe the coding scheme in more detail, report any inter-rater reliability metrics or the collaborative analysis process used, and incorporate relevant quantitative measures (e.g., frequency of themes across participants or usage patterns) where they support the qualitative findings. These additions will make the evidential basis more explicit while preserving the original interpretations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical qualitative study with direct observational claims

full rationale

The paper reports results from a two-week mixed-methods field study (n=38) using two deployed systems on one campus. All central claims (core debate on retrospective documentation as history for the future, effects on narrative focus, expectations, and inspiration-seeking) are presented as extracted from participant interviews, usage logs, and observations. No equations, fitted parameters, derivations, or model predictions exist. The locative system is described as condensed from prior literature frameworks, which is standard practice and does not reduce any claim to self-definition or self-citation load-bearing. No uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or renamings of known results are invoked in a way that creates circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks (observed behavior), yielding a score of 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that collective memory develops through continuous participatory contribution and sensemaking, with no free parameters or invented entities introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Collective memory is essential to the community's culture and identity and requires members' continuous participatory contribution and sensemaking.
    Stated directly in the opening of the abstract as background for the study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5536 in / 1169 out tokens · 29169 ms · 2026-05-16T23:40:56.114675+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014.Memory Boxes: An Experimental Approach to Cultural Transfer in History, 1500 -

    Heta Aali and Jörg Rogge (Eds.). 2014.Memory Boxes: An Experimental Approach to Cultural Transfer in History, 1500 -

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    22 in Mainz Historical Cultural Sciences

    Number Vol. 22 in Mainz Historical Cultural Sciences. transcript-Verl, Bielefeld

    work page

  3. [3]

    Nashwan, Radhwan Hussein Ibrahim, Araz Qadir Abdalla, Barzan Mohammed M

    Sirwan Khalid Ahmed, Ribwar Arsalan Mohammed, Abdulqadir J. Nashwan, Radhwan Hussein Ibrahim, Araz Qadir Abdalla, Barzan Mohammed M. Ameen, and Renas Mohammed Khdhir. 2025. Using Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research.Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health6 (Aug. 2025), 100198. doi:10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198

    work page doi:10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198 2025

  4. [4]

    Yasmin Aldamen and Dilana Thasleem Abdul Jaleel. 2024. Stimulation of the Collective Memory of the 1999 Turkey Earthquake through the Turkish Media Coverage of the 2023 Earthquake.Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies14, 2 (April 2024), e202420. doi:10.30935/ojcmt/14407

    work page doi:10.30935/ojcmt/14407 2024

  5. [5]

    Pengcheng An, Jiawen Stefanie Zhu, Zibo Zhang, Yifei Yin, Qingyuan Ma, Che Yan, Linghao Du, and Jian Zhao. 2024. EmoWear: Exploring Emotional Teasers for Voice Message Interaction on Smartwatches. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642101 2024

  6. [6]

    Susanne Barth and Menno D.T. De Jong. 2017. The Privacy Paradox – Investigating Discrepancies between Expressed Privacy Concerns and Actual Online Behavior – A Systematic Literature Review.Telematics and Informatics34, 7 (Nov. 2017), 1038–1058. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013 2017

  7. [7]

    Steve Benford, Gabriella Giannachi, Boriana Koleva, and Tom Rodden. 2009. From Interaction to Trajectories: Designing Coherent Journeys through User Experiences. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 709–718. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518812

    work page doi:10.1145/1518701.1518812 2009

  8. [8]

    Peter Bennett, Heidi Hinder, Seana Kozar, Christopher Bowdler, Elaine Massung, Tim Cole, Helen Manchester, and Kirsten Cater. 2015. TopoTiles: Storytelling in Care Homes with Topographic Tangibles. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 911–916. doi:10.1145/27...

    work page doi:10.1145/2702613.2732918 2015

  9. [9]

    Bowser, Derek L

    Anne E. Bowser, Derek L. Hansen, Jocelyn Raphael, Matthew Reid, Ryan J. Gamett, Yurong R. He, Dana Rotman, and Jenny J. Preece. 2013. Prototyping in PLACE: A Scalable Approach to Developing Location-Based Apps and Games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/2470654.2466202 2013

  10. [10]

    2022.Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide(1 ed.)

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2022.Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide(1 ed.). SAGE, Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Ana Caraban, Evangelos Karapanos, Daniel Gonçalves, and Pedro Campos. 2019. 23 Ways to Nudge: A Review of Technology-Mediated Nudging in Human-Computer Interaction. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Yung-Ju Chang, Chu-Yuan Yang, Ying-Hsuan Kuo, Wen-Hao Cheng, Chun-Liang Yang, Fang-Yu Lin, I-Hui Yeh, Chih-Kuan Hsieh, Ching-Yu Hsieh, and Yu-Shuen Wang. 2020. Tourgether: Exploring Tourists’ Real-time Sharing of Experiences as a Means of Encouraging Point-of-Interest Exploration.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Techn...

    work page doi:10.1145/3369832 2020

  13. [13]

    Keith Cheverst, Helen Turner, Trien Do, and Dan Fitton. 2017. Supporting the Consumption and Co-Authoring of Locative Media Experiences for a Rural Village Community: Design and Field Trial Evaluation of the SHARC2.0 Framework.Multimedia Tools and Applications76, 4 (Feb. 2017), 5243–5274. doi:10.1007/s11042-016-3515-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11042-016-3515-y 2017

  14. [14]

    Justin Cranshaw, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and S.A. Needham. 2016. Journeys & Notes: Designing Social Computing for Non-Places. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4722–4733. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858573

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858573 2016

  15. [15]

    Fabio Crestani. 2012. Spread of Activation Theory. InEncyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, Norbert M. Seel (Ed.). Springer US, Boston, MA, 3175–3179. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_76

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_76 2012

  16. [16]

    Ron Eyerman. 2004. The Past in the Present: Culture and the Transmission of Memory.Acta Sociologica47, 2 (2004), 159–169. jstor:4195021 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 1, Article GROUPxx. Publication date: January 2026. Exploring the Grassroots Understanding and Practices of Collective Memory Co-Contribution in a University CommunityGROUPxx:27

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    Sushardjanti Felasari and Chengzhi Peng. 2021. Collating a City’s Collective Memory in Co-Production of an Online Urban Design Learning Space.Interaction Design and Architecture(s)49 (Sept. 2021), 84–96. doi:10.55612/s-5002-049-005

    work page doi:10.55612/s-5002-049-005 2021

  18. [18]

    Michela Ferron and Paolo Massa. 2011. Collective Memory Building in Wikipedia: The Case of North African Uprisings. InProceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 114–123. doi:10.1145/2038558.2038578

    work page doi:10.1145/2038558.2038578 2011

  19. [19]

    Dario Freni, Carmen Ruiz Vicente, Sergio Mascetti, Claudio Bettini, and Christian S. Jensen. 2010. Preserving Location and Absence Privacy in Geo-Social Networks. InProceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, Toronto ON Canada, 309–318. doi:10.1145/1871437.1871480

    work page doi:10.1145/1871437.1871480 2010

  20. [20]

    Gerritsen, Dan Tasse, Jennifer K

    David B. Gerritsen, Dan Tasse, Jennifer K. Olsen, Tatiana A. Vlahovic, Rebecca Gulotta, William Odom, Jason Wiese, and John Zimmerman. 2016. Mailing Archived Emails as Postcards: Probing the Value of Virtual Collections. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858541 2016

  21. [21]

    Asghar Ghasemi and Saleh Zahediasl. 2012. Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for Non-Statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism10, 2 (2012), 486–489. doi:10.5812/ijem.3505

    work page doi:10.5812/ijem.3505 2012

  22. [22]

    2023.Remembering World War II: A Mixed-Methods Exploration of Memory Practices on an Online Forum

    Anastasia Glawion. 2023.Remembering World War II: A Mixed-Methods Exploration of Memory Practices on an Online Forum. Springer Nature

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Jonna Häkkilä, Matilda Kalving, Saija Marjomaa, and Maija Mäkikalli. 2023. Connecting the Past: Evaluating an Indigenous Sámi Heritage Search Portal in Schools. InRelate North, Glen Coutts and Timo Jokela (Eds.). InSEA Publications, Viseu, 116–131

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Maurice Halbwachs. 1950. Space and the Collective Memory. InThe Collective Memory

    work page 1950

  25. [25]

    Harris, Helen M

    Celia B. Harris, Helen M. Paterson, and Richard I. Kemp. 2008. Collaborative Recall and Collective Memory: What Happens When We Remember Together?Memory16, 3 (April 2008), 213–230. doi:10.1080/09658210701811862

    work page doi:10.1080/09658210701811862 2008

  26. [26]

    Lucrèce Heux, Clare Rathbone, Sarah Gensburger, Rebecca Clifford, and Céline Souchay. 2023. Collective Memory and Autobiographical Memory: Perspectives from the Humanities and Cognitive Sciences.WIREs Cognitive Science14, 3 (2023), e1635. doi:10.1002/wcs.1635

    work page doi:10.1002/wcs.1635 2023

  27. [27]

    Yamashiro, and Alin Coman

    William Hirst, Jeremy K. Yamashiro, and Alin Coman. 2018. Collective Memory from a Psychological Perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences22, 5 (May 2018), 438–451. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.010 2018

  28. [28]

    Claire Hou, Sharda Umanath, Amy Corning, and Magdalena Abel. 2025. You Don’t Understand Me! But, I Do! Awareness of Cross-Generational Differences in Collective Remembering of National Historic Events.Memory33, 1 (Jan. 2025), 45–58. doi:10.1080/09658211.2024.2403714

    work page doi:10.1080/09658211.2024.2403714 2025

  29. [29]

    Zeyu Huang, Xinyi Cao, Yuanhao Zhang, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. Sharing Frissons among Online Video Viewers: Exploring the Design of Affective Communication for Aesthetic Chills. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642818

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642818 2024

  30. [30]

    Ivars Ijabs. 2014. Collective Memory. InEncyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, Alex C. Michalos (Ed.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 991–993. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_436

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_436 2014

  31. [31]

    Jasmine Jones. 2016. Designing Social Memory Artifacts in a Smart Home. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 473–477. doi:10.1145/2957276.2997021

    work page doi:10.1145/2957276.2997021 2016

  32. [32]

    Ackerman

    Jasmine Jones and Mark S. Ackerman. 2018. Co-Constructing Family Memory: Understanding the Intergenerational Practices of Passing on Family Stories. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173998

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173998 2018

  33. [33]

    Jae Yeon Ju, Jae Sang Yoo, Jooyeon Lee, and Heejung Kwon. 2015. Breadcrumb SNS: Asynchronous Empathy Chat for Smart City Residents. In2015 Eighth International Conference on Mobile Computing and Ubiquitous Networking (ICMU). 13–18. doi:10.1109/ICMU.2015.7061021

    work page doi:10.1109/icmu.2015.7061021 2015

  34. [34]

    Yixiao Kang, Zhenglin Zhang, Meiqi Zhao, Xuanhui Yang, and Xubo Yang. 2022. Tie Memories to E-souvenirs: Hybrid Tangible AR Souvenirs in the Museum. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’22 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–3. doi:10.1145/3526114.3558722

    work page doi:10.1145/3526114.3558722 2022

  35. [35]

    Maurits Clemens Kaptein, Clifford Nass, and Panos Markopoulos. 2010. Powerful and Consistent Analysis of Likert-Type Rating Scales. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2391–2394. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753686

    work page doi:10.1145/1753326.1753686 2010

  36. [36]

    Ryan Kelly and Daniel Gooch. 2012. Understanding Participation and Opportunities for Design from an Online Postcard Sending Community. InProceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 568–571. doi:10.1145/2317956.2318041

    work page doi:10.1145/2317956.2318041 2012

  37. [37]

    Daria Khlevnyuk. 2019. Narrowcasting Collective Memory Online: ‘Liking’ Stalin in Russian Social Media.Media, Culture & Society41, 3 (April 2019), 317–331. doi:10.1177/0163443718799401 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 1, Article GROUPxx. Publication date: January 2026. GROUPxx:28 Huang et al

    work page doi:10.1177/0163443718799401 2019

  38. [38]

    Helen Klaebe, Marcus Foth, Jean Burgess, and Mark Bilandzic. 2007. Digital Storytelling and History Lines: Community Engagement in a Master-Planned Development. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, M. Docherty (Ed.). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), France, 108–120

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    Rebecca Kleinberger, Alexandra Rieger, Janelle Sands, and Janet Baker. 2019. Supporting Elder Connectedness through Cognitively Sustainable Design Interactions with the Memory Music Box. InProceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 355–369. doi:...

    work page doi:10.1145/3332165.3347877 2019

  40. [40]

    Martin Krzywinski and Naomi Altman. 2014. Nonparametric Tests.Nature Methods11, 5 (May 2014), 467–468. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2937

    work page doi:10.1038/nmeth.2937 2014

  41. [41]

    Azadeh Lak and Pantea Hakimian. 2019. Collective Memory and Urban Regeneration in Urban Spaces: Reproducing Memories in Baharestan Square, City of Tehran, Iran.City, Culture and Society18 (Sept. 2019), 100290. doi:10.1016/j. ccs.2019.100290

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2019

  42. [42]

    Lee and Claytie Davis III

    Richard M. Lee and Claytie Davis III. 2000. Cultural Orientation, Past Multicultural Experience, and a Sense of Belonging on Campus for Asian American College Students.Journal of College Student Development41, 1 (2000), 110–115

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    Zisu Li, Li Feng, Chen Liang, Yuru Huang, and Mingming Fan. 2023. Exploring the Opportunities of AR for Enriching Storytelling with Family Photos between Grandparents and Grandchildren.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies7, 3 (Sept. 2023), 108:1–108:26. doi:10.1145/3610903

    work page doi:10.1145/3610903 2023

  44. [44]

    Lindley, Dave Randall, Wes Sharrock, Maxine Glancy, Nicola Smyth, and Richard Harper

    Siân E. Lindley, Dave Randall, Wes Sharrock, Maxine Glancy, Nicola Smyth, and Richard Harper. 2009. Narrative, Memory and Practice: Tensions and Choices in the Use of a Digital Artefact. InPeople and Computers XXIII Celebrating People and Technology. BCS Learning & Development. doi:10.14236/ewic/HCI2009.1

    work page doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2009.1 2009

  45. [45]

    Can Liu, Ben Bengler, Danilo Di Cuia, Katie Seaborn, Giovanna Nunes Vilaza, Sarah Gallacher, Licia Capra, and Yvonne Rogers. 2018. Pinsight: A Novel Way of Creating and Sharing Digital Content through ’Things’ in the Wild. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3196709.3196782 2018

  46. [46]

    Chengzhong Liu, Shixu Zhou, Dingdong Liu, Junze Li, Zeyu Huang, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2023. CoArgue : Fostering Lurkers’ Contribution to Collective Arguments in Community-based QA Platforms. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580932

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580932 2023

  47. [47]

    Sophia B. Liu. 2010. Grassroots Heritage in the Crisis Context: A Social Media Probes Approach to Studying Heritage in a Participatory Age. InCHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2975–2978. doi:10.1145/1753846.1753899

    work page doi:10.1145/1753846.1753899 2010

  48. [48]

    Ryan Louie, Kapil Garg, Jennie Werner, Allison Sun, Darren Gergle, and Haoqi Zhang. 2021. Opportunistic Collective Experiences: Identifying Shared Situations and Structuring Shared Activities at Distance.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW3 (Jan. 2021), 269:1–269:32. doi:10.1145/3434178

    work page doi:10.1145/3434178 2021

  49. [49]

    Anders Sundnes Løvlie. 2012. You Are the One Thinking This: Locative Poetry as Deictic Writing.New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia18, 1-2 (March 2012), 109–127. doi:10.1080/13614568.2012.617845

    work page doi:10.1080/13614568.2012.617845 2012

  50. [50]

    Riia Luhtanen and Jennifer Crocker. 1992. A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One’s Social Identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin18, 3 (June 1992), 302–318. doi:10.1177/0146167292183006

    work page doi:10.1177/0146167292183006 1992

  51. [51]

    Määttä, Karita Suomalainen, and Ulla Tuomarla

    Simo K. Määttä, Karita Suomalainen, and Ulla Tuomarla. 2021. Everyday Discourse as a Space of Citizenship: The Linguistic Construction of in-Groups and out-Groups in Online Discussion Boards.Citizenship Studies25, 6 (Aug. 2021), 773–790. doi:10.1080/13621025.2021.1968715

    work page doi:10.1080/13621025.2021.1968715 2021

  52. [52]

    H. B. Mann and D. R. Whitney. 1947. On a Test of Whether One of Two Random Variables Is Stochastically Larger than the Other.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics18, 1 (March 1947), 50–60. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177730491

    work page doi:10.1214/aoms/1177730491 1947

  53. [53]

    McGookin, Stephen A

    David K. McGookin, Stephen A. Brewster, and Georgi Christov. 2014. Studying Digital Graffiti as a Location-Based Social Network. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3269–3278. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557266

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557266 2014

  54. [54]

    Merriman, Jan Ondřej, Eugenie Roudaia, Carol O’Sullivan, and Fiona N

    Niamh A. Merriman, Jan Ondřej, Eugenie Roudaia, Carol O’Sullivan, and Fiona N. Newell. 2016. Familiar Environments Enhance Object and Spatial Memory in Both Younger and Older Adults.Experimental Brain Research234, 6 (June 2016), 1555–1574. doi:10.1007/s00221-016-4557-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00221-016-4557-0 2016

  55. [55]

    Millard and Charlie Hargood

    David E. Millard and Charlie Hargood. 2017. Tiree Tales: A Co-operative Inquiry into the Poetics of Location-Based Narrative. InProceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15–24. doi:10.1145/3078714.3078716

    work page doi:10.1145/3078714.3078716 2017

  56. [56]

    Millard, Charlie Hargood, Michael O

    David E. Millard, Charlie Hargood, Michael O. Jewell, and Mark J. Weal. 2013. Canyons, Deltas and Plains: Towards a Unified Sculptural Model of Location-Based Hypertext. InProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 109–118. doi:10.1145/2481492.2481504 Proc. ACM Hum...

    work page doi:10.1145/2481492.2481504 2013

  57. [57]

    Ida Momennejad, Ajua Duker, and Alin Coman. 2019. Bridge Ties Bind Collective Memories.Nature Communications 10, 1 (April 2019), 1578. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09452-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09452-y 2019

  58. [58]

    Mor Naaman, Jeffrey Boase, and Chih-Hui Lai. 2010. Is It Really about Me? Message Content in Social Awareness Streams. InProceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 189–192. doi:10.1145/1718918.1718953

    work page doi:10.1145/1718918.1718953 2010

  59. [59]

    Nadim Nachar. 2008. The Mann-Whitney U: A Test for Assessing Whether Two Independent Samples Come from the Same Distribution.Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology4, 1 (March 2008), 13–20. doi:10.20982/tqmp.04.1. p013

    work page doi:10.20982/tqmp.04.1 2008

  60. [60]

    Valentina Nisi. 2022. Authoring Locative Narratives–Lessons Learned and Future Visions. InThe Authoring Problem: Challenges in Supporting Authoring for Interactive Digital Narratives, Charlie Hargood, David E. Millard, Alex Mitchell, and Ulrike Spierling (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 221–233. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-05214-9_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-05214-9_14 2022

  61. [61]

    Jean-François Orianne and Francis Eustache. 2023. Collective Memory: Between Individual Systems of Consciousness and Social Systems.Frontiers in Psychology14 (Oct. 2023), 1238272. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1238272

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1238272 2023

  62. [62]

    Tom Page. 2014. Skeuomorphism or Flat Design: Future Directions in Mobile Device User Interface (UI) Design Education.International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation8, 2 (Jan. 2014), 130–142. doi:10.1504/IJMLO.2014. 062350

    work page doi:10.1504/ijmlo.2014 2014

  63. [63]

    Jaihyun Park, JungHwan Yang, Amanda Tolbert, and Katherine Bunsold. 2024. You Change the Way You Talk: Examining the Network, Toxicity and Discourse of Cross-Platform Users on Twitter and Parler during the 2020 US Presidential Election.Journal of Information Science(April 2024), 01655515241238405. doi:10.1177/01655515241238405

    work page doi:10.1177/01655515241238405 2024

  64. [64]

    Fabio Pittarello. 2011. Designing a Context-Aware Architecture for Emotionally Engaging Mobile Storytelling. In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2011, Pedro Campos, Nicholas Graham, Joaquim Jorge, Nuno Nunes, Philippe Palanque, and Marco Winckler (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 144–151. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23774-4_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23774-4_14 2011

  65. [65]

    Paul Ricoeur. 2006. Personal Memory, Collective Memory. InMemory, History, Forgetting. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 93–132

    work page 2006

  66. [67]

    Raquel Breejon Robinson, Ricardo Rheeder, Madison Klarkowski, and Regan L Mandryk. 2022. ”Chat Has No Chill”: A Novel Physiological Interaction For Engaging Live Streaming Audiences. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3491102.3501934

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501934 2022

  67. [68]

    Roediger and Magdalena Abel

    Henry L. Roediger and Magdalena Abel. 2015. Collective Memory: A New Arena of Cognitive Study.Trends in Cognitive Sciences19, 7 (July 2015), 359–361. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.003 2015

  68. [69]

    Carmen Ruiz Vicente, Dario Freni, Claudio Bettini, and Christian S. Jensen. 2011. Location-Related Privacy in Geo-Social Networks.IEEE Internet Computing15, 3 (May 2011), 20–27. doi:10.1109/MIC.2011.29

    work page doi:10.1109/mic.2011.29 2011

  69. [70]

    Lesk, and Randall S

    Aleksandra Sarcevic, Ivan Marsic, Michael E. Lesk, and Randall S. Burd. 2008. Transactive Memory in Trauma Resuscitation. InProceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 215–224. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460597

    work page doi:10.1145/1460563.1460597 2008

  70. [71]

    Corina Sas and Alan Dix. 2006. Designing for Collective Remembering. InCHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1727–1730. doi:10.1145/1125451.1125773

    work page doi:10.1145/1125451.1125773 2006

  71. [72]

    Martin Schrepp, Andreas Hinderks, and Jörg Thomaschewski. 2017. Design and Evaluation of a Short Version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S).International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence4, 6 (2017), 103. doi:10.9781/ijimai.2017.09.001

    work page doi:10.9781/ijimai.2017.09.001 2017

  72. [73]

    Michael Schudson. 1995. Dynamics of Distortion in Collective Memory. InMemory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 346–364

    work page 1995

  73. [74]

    2003.Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory

    Barry Schwartz. 2003.Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    work page 2003

  74. [75]

    Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph ’Jofish’ Kaye. 2005. Reflective Design. InProceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility (CC ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–58. doi:10.1145/1094562.1094569

    work page doi:10.1145/1094562.1094569 2005

  75. [76]

    Yoshiyuki Shoji, Kenro Aihara, Noriko Kando, Yuta Nakashima, Hiroaki Ohshima, Shio Takidaira, Masaki Ueta, Takehiro Yamamoto, and Yusuke Yamamoto. 2024. Museum Experience into a Souvenir: Generating Memorable Postcards from Guide Device Behavior Log. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL ’21). IEEE Press, Virtual E...

    work page doi:10.1109/jcdl52503.2021.00024 2024

  76. [77]

    Panote Siriaraya, Kenta Suzuki, Wan Jou She, Ryotaro Tanaka, Da Li, Jin Narumoto, Noriaki Kuwahara, Kazutoshi Sumiya, and Shinsuke Nakajima. 2022. Palm Happiness: A Location-Based Application to Promote Awareness of Everyday Happy Moments. InAdjunct Publication of the 24th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Inter...

    work page doi:10.1145/3528575.3551432 2022

  77. [78]

    A Postcard from Your Food Journey in the Past

    Zhida Sun, Sitong Wang, Wenjie Yang, Onur Yürüten, Chuhan Shi, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2020. "A Postcard from Your Food Journey in the Past": Promoting Self-Reflection on Social Food Posting. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1819–1832. doi:10.1145/3357236.3395475

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236.3395475 2020

  78. [79]

    1990.Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values

    Yi-Fu Tuan. 1990.Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values. Columbia University Press. 260 Pages pages

    work page 1990

  79. [80]

    Keegan, and Aaron Shaw

    Marlon Twyman, Brian C. Keegan, and Aaron Shaw. 2017. Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia: Collective Memory and Collaboration around Online Social Movements. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1400–1412. doi:10.1145/2998181.2998232

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998232 2017

  80. [81]

    Daisuke Uriu, Naruhiko Shiratori, Satoru Hashimoto, Shuichi Ishibashi, and Naohito Okude. 2009. CaraClock: An Interactive Photo Viewer Designed for Family Memories. InCHI ’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3205–3210. doi:10.1145/1520340. 1520458

    work page doi:10.1145/1520340 2009

Showing first 80 references.