Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Systematic Literature Review of Infrastructure Studies in SIGCHI

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 2504.09612 v2 pith:CJOWKK33 submitted 2025-04-13 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords infrastructurestudiesreviewsigchicommunityhumanliteraturesystematic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Infrastructure is an indispensable part of human life. Over the past decades, the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) community has paid increasing attention to human interactions with infrastructure. In this paper, we conducted a systematic literature review on infrastructure studies in SIGCHI, one of the most influential communities in HCI. We collected a total of 190 primary studies, covering works published between 2006 and 2024. Most of these studies are inspired by Susan Leigh Star's notion of infrastructure. We identify three major themes in infrastructure studies: growing infrastructure, appropriating infrastructure, and coping with infrastructure. Our review highlights a prevailing trend in SIGCHI's infrastructure research: a focus on informal infrastructural activities across various sociotechnical contexts. In particular, we examine studies that problematize infrastructure and alert the HCI community to its potentially harmful aspects.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Adapting to LLMs: How Insiders and Outsiders Reshape Scientific Knowledge Production

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Researchers outside core AI fields became markedly more application-oriented, transdisciplinary, and socially accountable in their LLM-era papers, while AI insiders mainly responded by diversifying collaborations.

Pith tools