Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

PolicyCraft: Supporting Collaborative and Participatory Policy Design through Case-Grounded Deliberation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.15644 v2 pith:MGO4TNCS submitted 2024-09-24 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords policiescasespolicycraftcollaborativeconcretedesignpolicycase-grounded
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Community and organizational policies are typically designed in a top-down, centralized fashion, with limited input from impacted stakeholders. This can result in policies that are misaligned with community needs or perceived as illegitimate. How can we support more collaborative, participatory approaches to policy design? In this paper, we present PolicyCraft, a system that structures collaborative policy design through case-grounded deliberation. Building on past research that highlights the value of concrete cases in establishing common ground, PolicyCraft supports users in collaboratively proposing, critiquing, and revising policies through discussion and voting on cases. A field study across two university courses showed that students using PolicyCraft reached greater consensus and developed better-supported course policies, compared with those using a baseline system that did not scaffold their use of concrete cases. Reflecting on our findings, we discuss opportunities for future HCI systems to help groups more effectively bridge between abstract policies and concrete cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Why (not) use AI? Analyzing People's Reasoning and Conditions for AI Acceptability

    cs.CY 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 197-person survey finds AI acceptability varies by use case and demographic background, and that rule-based reasoning is associated with lower acceptance and more disagreement.

  2. Gig2Gether: Data-sharing to Empower, Unify and Demystify Gig Work

    cs.HC 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 7-day field study with 14 gig workers found that a cross-platform data-sharing tool supports mutual support, financial reflection, and worker willingness to share data with policymakers.

Pith tools