Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 61 references

The Shape of Agency: Designing for Personal Agency in Qualitative Data Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that personal agency, as conceptualized by Eichner's four dimensions of action, choice, narrative, and space, can be used as a design lens for software interfaces supporting computational thematic analysis.

desk verdict A modest but useful design-lens case study; the deductive coding and n=5 limit the evidence, but the framework and guidelines are worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14481 v1 pith:X5UVHWXC submitted 2024-12-19 cs.HC

Luka Ugaya Mazza , Plinio Morita , James R. Wallace This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords personalagencyqualitativedataanalysiscomputationalthematichuman-AIcollaborationvisualizationdesignscienceresearchresearcherautonomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that personal agency, defined through Eichner's four dimensions of action, choice, narrative, and space, can serve as a practical design lens for software that helps qualitative researchers analyze large text corpora with machine learning. Through a four-phase design science study with five health-care qualitative researchers, the authors develop a low-fidelity data-visualization prototype and test it in co-design feedback sessions. They report that participants value choices, transparency, editing control, and guidance, and that these features map onto the four dimensions of personal agency. The claim, on the authors' terms, is that the four dimensions translate abstract worries about autonomy into concrete interface features for human-AI collaboration.

What carries the argument

The central object is Eichner's personal agency framework, which decomposes agency into mastery of action, choice, narrative, and space, and which the paper applies deductively as both an analytic coding scheme and a generative design tool. The framework comes from media reception theory, where agency is felt when a user's actions visibly change an environment, when structured rules make choices meaningful, when recognizable patterns let a user predict and follow a story, and when navigation is seamless enough to move without friction. In this paper the framework organizes the interview coding into the categories of agency, cognitive assistance, and visual literacy, and it generates the prototype's guiding principles, such as grouping visualizations by researcher task, offering guidance without removing final choice, and providing editing tools and transparency.

What would settle it

A study with qualitative researchers from other disciplines and varied programming backgrounds could test whether their stated concerns still fall naturally into action, choice, narrative, and space, or whether new dimensions emerge. A sharper test would compare two versions of the same visualization tool, one built with the agency lens and one without, and measure whether users report more agency, trust, and willingness to delegate in the agency-lens version.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Eichner's four dimensions of personal agency, action, choice, narrative, and space, can be used as a design lens for interfaces supporting computational thematic analysis. The authors argue that when researchers can act and see results quickly, choose among guided options rather than face blank canvases or full automation, follow and shape a visual story in their data, and move through a familiar unobstructed interface, they experience ownership over AI-assisted analysis. The interview and prototype-feedback phases indicate that transparency about how AI reaches results, editing tools, and category-based guidance foster agency, while opaque black-box automation and hidden navigation diminish it. If the claim is right, the four dimensions give designers a concrete checklist for building human-AI tools that qualitative researchers will trust and adopt.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the four dimensions of personal agency, applied deductively to interview data from five health-care researchers, actually capture how qualitative researchers in general experience agency, even though the analysis method assumes the framework fits before testing it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The four dimensions can be used as a checklist for designers: each interface feature can be classified by which form of agency it fosters, and features that impede action, choice, narrative, or space can be flagged early.
  • For AI-assisted qualitative analysis, transparency about how results are reached is not an optional extra; participants treated it as a condition for delegating tasks and feeling in control.
  • Tools should offer guided categories and suggestions rather than either blank canvases or full automation, since participants reported that excessive freedom and complete automation both reduce agency.
  • Editing tools that let researchers adjust visualizations support agency through action and narrative, and fast feedback on changes strengthens the sense of influence.
  • Co-design itself appeared to shift skeptical participants toward accepting AI assistance, suggesting that involving researchers in prototype development can build trust alongside the artifact.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the agency lens generalizes, it may also apply to other expert-AI collaborations where users fear replacement, such as journalism, medicine, or law, where the same four dimensions could guide interfaces for delegating screening, summarization, or evidence review.
  • The paper's finding that guidance plus choice fosters agency suggests a testable design principle: an interface that reveals a curated set of options, then lets the user reject or modify them, may outperform both full automation and open-ended tools, and this could be measured with task-based studies.
  • The observed shift in participants' attitudes during co-design hints that the design process itself is an intervention; future work could test whether simply walking researchers through a prototype's transparency features, without co-design, produces the same increase in openness to AI.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a design science research study in which five healthcare-focused qualitative researchers were interviewed about their analysis processes and visualization practices, a low-fidelity prototype for computational thematic analysis was developed, and the same participants provided feedback on the prototype. The interviews were analyzed deductively using Eichner's four dimensions of personal agency—action, choice, narrative, and space—and the authors claim that personal agency can serve as a design lens for software interfaces that support qualitative analysis with AI. The paper also reports that participants valued transparency, guidance, and editing capabilities, and that their openness to AI delegation increased over the course of the co-design process.

Significance. If the central claim were well supported, the paper would make a useful contribution by translating an agency framework from media theory into concrete interface design considerations for human-AI collaboration in qualitative analysis. The work is especially timely given recent HCI findings that loss of agency is a barrier to adoption of automated tools. The paper has notable strengths: participant sketches are reported in detail, the DSR process is made explicit, the four-phase structure is easy to follow, and the participants' own words are used throughout to ground the reported themes. The connection to prior work on trust and delegation is also appropriate. However, because the interview analysis was deductively coded with the very framework being claimed as a design lens, and because the evaluation uses the same participants who helped shape the prototype, the paper currently demonstrates that Eichner's vocabulary can be mapped onto qualitative-analysis interface concerns rather than showing that this lens is uniquely or practically valuable for design.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3 and §4.4] The thematic analysis was conducted deductively with Eichner's agency framework, and the coding scheme in §4.4 defines agency sub-codes as 'mastery, choice, narrative, action, and space.' This makes the reported fit between participant concerns and these dimensions partly an artifact of the method: any statement about control, options, movement, or storytelling would be assigned to one of these buckets. The central claim in §1 and §7 that 'personal agency can be used as a design lens' therefore needs independent evidence that the framework captured participant concerns rather than imposing them. I recommend adding an inductive coding pass or a disconfirming-case analysis, or explicitly reframing the contribution as an exploratory mapping rather than a validated design lens.
  2. [§5 and §6] The prototype was built on principles 'grounded in the concepts of personal agency' (§5), and the feedback session in §6 asked the same participants who had helped generate those requirements to react to the resulting prototype. Positive reactions show that the features (categories, editing tools, transparency) are acceptable and liked, but they do not show that the four-dimension agency lens is what produced those features. The features are also consistent with self-determination theory and with prior HCI work on transparency and trust. To support the central claim, the paper should either compare the design process against a plausible alternative lens or substantially weaken the claim to compatibility rather than causal or practical superiority.
  3. [§4.1] The study is based on five snowball-sampled healthcare researchers, yet the Discussion and Implications sections generalize to 'qualitative researchers' as a broader population. The authors invoke Malterud et al.'s information-power argument, but they do not explain why this particular sample has sufficient information power for the breadth of the claims made. The scope should be explicitly limited to the studied population and experience levels, with the broader design-lens claim presented as a hypothesis for future work.
  4. [§7] The Discussion repeatedly refers to 'the sample analysis' (e.g., §7.1, §7.2, §7.4) as a source of evidence about how existing software fosters or hinders agency, but the Methods section only mentions a close reading of similar software in Phase 1 (§3) and does not describe the selection, procedure, or analytic treatment of that software sample. Without a description of this analysis, these claims are not verifiable. Please either report the sample-analysis method and results or remove these references from the Discussion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The sentence about controversy in HCI contains an unresolved citation placeholder 'noted by ? ]', and reference [24] appears as '[24? ]' in the text; these must be completed.
  2. [References] Reference [42] contains the placeholder DOI 'https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnnnnn.nnnnnnn' and should be replaced with the correct bibliographic information.
  3. [§3] The description of the DSR phases lists '3) specifying needs and requirements, 3) development of prototype, and 5)' without a clear fourth item; the numbering should be corrected.
  4. [§7.1] There is a typo in 'agency was fostered thorough the researchers’ interactions' — it should be 'through.'
  5. [Figures] The manuscript text around Figure 2 contains duplicated paragraphs and internal figure labels such as 'Figure 27' and 'Figure 29' that do not match the published numbering; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Deductive coding with Eichner's four dimensions makes the reported fit between participant concerns and the agency lens partly an artifact of the method; the prototype and feedback loop complete the circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3 (Analysis Method) and Section 4.4 (Results)]
    "We conducted the thematic analysis deductively with the theories of fostering of agency. ... Agency was divided into the four kinds of mastery, choice, narrative, action, and space."

    The interview data were coded into the same four Eichner dimensions that the paper later presents as its central result ('Our results show that personal agency can be used as a design lens for software interfaces'). Any participant statement about control, options, movement, or storytelling was assigned to one of these pre-existing buckets, so the reported fit between participants' concerns and the four dimensions is guaranteed by the codebook rather than discovered from the data. The 'lens' is therefore the input of the analysis, not an independent output of it.

  2. self definitional [Section 5 (Development of Digital Paper Prototype) and Section 6 (Feedback on Prototype)]
    "we decided on some guiding principles grounded in the concepts of personal agency: ... We then performed a thematic analysis of their responses, consistent with the analysis we performed in the original round of interviews."

    The prototype was deliberately built from guidelines already expressed in Eichner's dimensions (categories for action/choice, editing for narrative/action, transparency for choice/autonomy), and the feedback session was analyzed with the same deductive agency codebook used in the original interviews. Positive feedback therefore confirms only that features designed to instantiate the lens were appreciated; it cannot independently validate the lens itself, because the lens was used to create the artifact and to interpret the reactions to it.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that personal agency (Eichner's action/choice/narrative/space) can serve as a design lens—is partially an artifact of its method. The interview data were coded deductively using exactly those four dimensions (§4.3), so the later mapping of participant concerns onto action/choice/narrative/space (§7) is a property of the codebook. The prototype was also constructed from guidelines 'grounded in the concepts of personal agency' (§5), and the feedback analysis reused the same deductive codes (§6), creating a closed loop: the lens determines what is built, what is looked for, and what is found. This is not a case of independently testing the lens. However, the paper reports substantial raw participant quotes, and the underlying concerns (trust, delegation, guidance) are corroborated by external prior work [27, 36, 42], so the work is not wholly circular. Self-citations [30, 31] are used for software examples and prior tooling, but they are not load-bearing for the central claim. Score 6 reflects partial circularity by construction, not 8-10, because the qualitative data, quotes, and design process are transparent and the central claim still carries some independent content from the external literature.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are about the applicability of the agency framework, the sufficiency of the qualitative sample, and the validity of self-report and co-design feedback. These are common in qualitative HCI research but are not independently verified.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Eichner's four dimensions of personal agency (action, choice, narrative, space) are applicable to qualitative data analysis tool use.
    The paper deductively codes interview data using this framework (Section 4.3), so the framework's mapping to user experiences is partly assumed rather than demonstrated from data.
  • domain assumption Five participants recruited via snowball sampling provide sufficient information power for the claims made.
    The authors cite Malterud et al. [44] to justify the sample, but the abstract states broadly that 'qualitative researchers have a wide range of cognitive needs,' which exceeds the narrow health-care, local-institution sample.
  • domain assumption Self-reported perceptions of agency correspond to actual agency experiences.
    All evidence is from interviews and prototype feedback; there are no behavioral or observational measures of agency during real analysis tasks.
  • domain assumption The low-fidelity prototype feedback phase validates the design requirements.
    The same participants who co-designed the prototype later evaluated it, so positive reactions may reflect co-ownership and familiarity rather than independent usefulness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Shape of Agency: Designing for Personal Agency in Qualitative Data Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5UVHWXC

@misc{pith2026241214481,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Shape of Agency: Designing for Personal Agency in Qualitative Data Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5UVHWXC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14481}
}
read the original abstract

Computational thematic analysis is rapidly emerging as a method of using large text corpora to understand the lived experience of people across the continuum of health care: patients, practitioners, and everyone in between. However, many qualitative researchers do not have the necessary programming skills to write machine learning code on their own, but also seek to maintain ownership, intimacy, and control over their analysis. In this work we explore the use of data visualizations to foster researcher agency and make computational thematic analysis more accessible to domain experts. We used a design science research approach to develop a datavis prototype over four phases: (1) problem comprehension, (2) specifying needs and requirements, (3) prototype development, and (4) feedback on the prototype. We show that qualitative researchers have a wide range of cognitive needs when conducting data analysis and place high importance upon choices and freedom, wanting to feel autonomy over their own research and not be replaced or hindered by AI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14481 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our Design Science Research process followed a series of four phases: 1) Problem Comprehension, 2) Specifying user needs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. grouping diagram sketched by participant 1. “That's how I get things out of my head so that I'm not just juggling them in my head so that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. prototype 1, main screen color coded by section. Fig. 3. Our prototype interface. We used this prototype as a design probe, and discussed how it would support qualitative research [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_31.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Marc TP Adam, Shirley Gregor, Alan Hevner, and Stefan Morana. 2021. Design science research modes in human-computer interaction projects. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 13, 1 (2021), 1–11

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Tawfiq Ammari, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Daniel M. Romero. 2018. Pseudonymous Parents: Comparing Parenting Roles and Identities on the Mommit and Daddit Subreddits. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (, Montreal QC, Canada,) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/...

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Haimson, Munmun De Choudhury, and Andrea Forte

    Nazanin Andalibi, Oliver L. Haimson, Munmun De Choudhury, and Andrea Forte. 2016. Understanding Social Media Disclosures of Sexual Abuse Through the Lenses of Support Seeking and Anonymity. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Nick Ballou, Sebastian Deterding, April Tyack, Elisa D Mekler, Rafael A Calvo, Dorian Peters, Gabriela Villalobos-Zúñiga, and Selen Turkay

    work page

  5. [5]

    Albert Bandura. 2006. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological science 1, 2 (2006), 164–180

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Eric PS Baumer, David Mimno, Shion Guha, Emily Quan, and Geri K Gay. 2017. Comparing grounded theory and topic modeling: Extreme divergence or unlikely convergence? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68, 6 (2017), 1397–1410

    2017

  7. [7]

    Dan Bennett, Oussama Metatla, Anne Roudaut, and Elisa D. Mekler. 2023. How does HCI Understand Human Agency and Autonomy?. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 375, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580651

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Jim Bizzocchi. 2003. Ceremony of Innocence and the Subversion of Interface: Cursor Transformation as a Narrative Device. MelbourneDAC, the 5th International Digital Arts and Culture Conference (2003). http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/dac/papers/Bizzocchi.pdf

    work page 2003

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Jim Bizzocchi. 2005. Run, Lola, Run-Film as Narrative Database. In Conference conducted at the 4th Media In Transition Conference of the Massachutes Institute of Technology, Massachutes, MA

    2005

  2. [10]

    Jim Bizzocchi and Joshua Tanenbaum. 2011. Well read: Applying close reading techniques to gameplay experiences. Well played 3.0: Video games, value and meaning 3 (2011), 289–316

    2011

  3. [11]

    David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research 3, Jan (2003), 993–1022

    2003

  4. [12]

    Boyatzis

    Richard E. Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, US. 17 CHI ’25, April 26– May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ugaya-Mazza et al

    1998

  5. [13]

    Jaqueline Vasconcelos Braga, Tiago Barros Pontes e Silva, and Virgínia Tiradentes Souto. 2020. Manipulações estatísticas e anomalias visuais: design de visualização de dados e reconhecimento de vieses estatísticos. InfoDesign - Revista Brasileira de Design da Informação 17 (20...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2006), 77–101. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    Federico Cabitza, Angela Locoro, Daniela Fogli, and Massimiliano Giacomin. 2016. Valuable visualization of healthcare information: From the quantified self data to conversations. Proceedings of the Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces A VI 07-10-June-2016, 376–380. https: //...

    2016

  8. [16]

    Nan-Chen Chen, Margaret Drouhard, Rafal Kocielnik, Jina Suh, and Cecilia R. Aragon. 2018. Using Machine Learning to Support Qualitative Coding in Social Science: Shifting the Focus to Ambiguity.ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 8, 2, Article 9 (jun 2018), 20 pages. https://do...

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis. The journal of positive psychology 12, 3 (2017), 297–298

    2017

  10. [18]

    Benjamin Cooley. 2020. Data visualization as Grief. https://medium.com/nightingale/data-visualization-as-grief-599dc6536e6f

    2020

  11. [19]

    John W Creswell and Cheryl N Poth. 2016. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Sage publications

    2016

  12. [20]

    Shih-Chieh Dai, Aiping Xiong, and Lun-Wei Ku. 2023. LLM-in-the-loop: Leveraging Large Language Model for Thematic Analysis. arXiv:2310.15100 [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2012. Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology 1, 20 (2012), 416–436

    2012

  14. [22]

    Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln. 2011. The Sage handbook of qualitative research . sage

    2011

  15. [23]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Didion, Krzysztof Wolski, Dennis Wittchen, David Coyle, Thomas Leimkühler, and Paul Strohmeier

    Johanna K. Didion, Krzysztof Wolski, Dennis Wittchen, David Coyle, Thomas Leimkühler, and Paul Strohmeier. 2024. Who did it? How User Agency is influenced by Visual Properties of Generated Images. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and T...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Susanne Eichner. 2014. Agency and Media Reception Experiencing Video Games, Film, and Television (1 ed.). Springer VS, Wiesbaden. 250 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04673-6

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Luciane Maria Fadel. 2020. O método close reading aplicado à análise de mídias interativas. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Florianópolis, SC (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Feuston and Jed R

    Jessica L. Feuston and Jed R. Brubaker. 2021. Putting Tools in Their Place: The Role of Time and Perspective in Human-AI Collaboration for Qualitative Analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5 (10 2021). Issue CSCW2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479856

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Jie Gao, Yuchen Guo, Gionnieve Lim, Tianqin Zhan, Zheng Zhang, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and Simon Tangi Perrault. 2023. CollabCoder: A GPT-Powered Workflow for Collaborative Qualitative Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07366 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    I Will Not Drink With You Today

    Robert P Gauthier, Mary Jean Costello, and James R Wallace. 2022. “I Will Not Drink With You Today”: A Topic-Guided Thematic Analysis of Addiction Recovery on Reddit. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’2...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Gauthier, Catherine Pelletier, Laurie-Ann Carrier, Maude Dionne, Ève Dubé, Samantha Meyer, and James R

    Robert P. Gauthier, Catherine Pelletier, Laurie-Ann Carrier, Maude Dionne, Ève Dubé, Samantha Meyer, and James R. Wallace. 2022. Agency and Amplification: A Comparison of Manual and Computational Thematic Analyses by Public Health Researchers. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. ...

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Gauthier and James R

    Robert P. Gauthier and James R. Wallace. 2022. The Computational Thematic Analysis Toolkit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6. Issue GROUP. https://doi.org/10.1145/3492844

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Josir Cardoso Gomes, Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta, and Marco Schneider. 2019. MINERAÇÃO DE DADOS NA PESQUISA EM CIÊNCIA DA INFORMAÇÃO: DESAFIOS E OPORTUNIDADES. GT-1 – Estudos históricos e epistemológicos da Ciência da Informação

    2019

  25. [34]

    Abram Handler, Narges Mahyar, and Brendan O’Connor. 2022. ClioQuery: Interactive Query-Oriented Text Analytics for Comprehensive Investigation of Historical News Archives. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 12, 3, Article 22 (jul 2022), 49 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524025

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    Marsh, Jessica L

    Matt Heun Hong, Lauren A. Marsh, Jessica L. Feuston, Janet Ruppert, Jed R. Brubaker, and Danielle Albers Szafir. 2022. Scholastic: Graphical Human-AI Collaboration for Inductive and Interpretive Text Analysis. UIST 2022 - Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User In...

    2022

  27. [36]

    Brubaker

    Jialun Aaron Jiang, Kandrea Wade, Casey Fiesler, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2021. Supporting Serendipity: Opportunities and Challenges for Human-AI Collaboration in Qualitative Analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5 (4 2021). Issue CSCW1. https://doi.org/10...

    2021

  28. [37]

    Shunichi Kasahara, Kazuma Takada, Jun Nishida, Kazuhisa Shibata, Shinsuke Shimojo, and Pedro Lopes. 2021. Preserving Agency During Electrical Muscle Stimulation Training Speeds up Reaction Time Directly After Removing EMS. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Fac...

    2021

  29. [38]

    Helen Kennedy and Martin Engebretsen. 2020. Data Visualization in Society . https://doi.org/10.5117/9789463722902

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    Lauren F Klein, Jacob Eisenstein, and Iris Sun. 2015. Exploratory thematic analysis for digitized archival collections. Digital scholarship in the humanities 30, suppl_1 (2015), i130–i141. 18 The Shape of Agency CHI ’25, April 26– May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan

    2015

  31. [40]

    Marie laure Ryan. 2006. A vatars of Story. University of Minnesota Press 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 290 Minneapolis, MN 55401 -2520 http://www.upress.umn.edu Library

    2006

  32. [41]

    Robert P Lennon, Robbie Fraleigh, Lauren J Van Scoy, Aparna Keshaviah, Xindi C Hu, Bethany L Snyder, Erin L Miller, William A Calo, Aleksandra E Zgierska, and Christopher Griffin. 2021. Developing and testing an automated qualitative assistant (AQUA) to support qualitative ana...

    2021

  33. [42]

    Brian Lubars and Chenhao Tan. 2022. Ask Not What AI Can Do, But What AI Should Do: Towards a Framework of Task Delegability. ACM (2 2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnnnnn.nnnnnnn

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    Martin Maguire. 2001. Methods to support human-centred design. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 55 (2001), 587–634. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0503

    2001

  35. [44]

    Kirsti Malterud, Volkert Dirk Siersma, and Ann Dorrit Guassora. 2016. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qualitative Health Research 26 (11 2016), 1753–1760. Issue 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

    2016 doi

  36. [45]

    Baumer, David Mimno, and N

    Michael Muller, Shion Guha, Eric P.S. Baumer, David Mimno, and N. Sadat Shami. 2016. Machine Learning and Grounded Theory Method: Convergence, Divergence, and Combination. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, Florida...

    2016

  37. [46]

    Janet Murray. 1997. Immersion. 98–122

    1997

  38. [47]

    Mynatt, Shion Guha, and Jessica A

    Fayika Farhat Nova, Amanda Coupe, Elizabeth D. Mynatt, Shion Guha, and Jessica A. Pater. 2022. Cultivating the Community: Inferring Influence within Eating Disorder Networks on Twitter. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, GROUP, Article 7 (jan 2022), 33 pages. https://doi.org/...

    2022

  39. [48]

    Michael Quinn Patton. 2014. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage publications

    2014

  40. [49]

    Catherine Pope, Sue Ziebland, and Nicholas Mays. 2000. Qualitative research in health care Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 320 (2000), 114–116. www.bmj.com

    2000

  41. [50]

    Rawlins and Gregory D

    Jacob D. Rawlins and Gregory D. Wilson. 2014. Agency and interactive data displays: Internet graphics as Co-Created rhetorical spaces. Technical Communication Quarterly 23 (10 2014), 303–322. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2014.942468

    2014

  42. [51]

    Pranee Liamputtong Rice. 1996. In Quality We Trust! The Role of Qualitative Data in Health Care. , 51-57 pages

    1996

  43. [52]

    Maria Y Rodriguez and Heather Storer. 2020. A computational social science perspective on qualitative data exploration: Using topic models for the descriptive analysis of social media data. Journal of Technology in Human Services 38, 1 (2020), 54–86

    2020

  44. [53]

    Aguinaldo Dos Santos. 2018. Seleção do Método de Pesquisa . 230 pages. https://editorainsight.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/af_Metodos-de- pesquisa_web.pdf

    2018

  45. [54]

    Daisuke Tajima, Jun Nishida, Pedro Lopes, and Shunichi Kasahara. 2022. Whose Touch is This?: Understanding the Agency Trade-Off Between User- Driven Touch vs. Computer-Driven Touch.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 29, 3, Article 24 (Jan. 2022), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    Karen Tanenbaum and Joshua Tanenbaum. 2009. Commitment to Meaning. A Reframing of Agency in Games. After Media — Embodiment and Context, Digital Arts and Culture 2009, Arts Computation Engineering, UC Irvine 3 (2009), 10. Issue 2. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6f49r74n

    2009

  47. [56]

    April Tyack and Elisa D. Mekler. 2020. Self-Determination Theory in HCI Games Research: Current Uses and Open Questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    2020

  48. [57]

    Larissa Ugaya-Mazza. 2023. Digital graveyards : a study about data visualization portraying death during the Covid-19 pandemic

    2023

  49. [58]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All you Need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. V...

    2017

  50. [59]

    Vera Liao, Rania Abdelghani, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer

    Ziang Xiao, Xingdi Yuan, Q. Vera Liao, Rania Abdelghani, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. 2023. Supporting Qualitative Analysis with Large Language Models: Combining Codebook with GPT-3 for Deductive Coding. In Companion Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent ...

    2023

  51. [60]

    Tian Xu, Junnan Yu, Dylan Thomas Doyle, and Stephen Voida. 2023. Technology-Mediated Strategies for Coping with Mental Health Challenges: Insights from People with Bipolar Disorder. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article 240 (oct 2023), 31 pages. https://doi.org/10...

    2023

  52. [61]

    John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (, San Jose, California, USA,) (CHI ’07). Association for Computi...

    2007

  53. [2022]

    In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22)

    Self-Determination Theory in HCI: Shaping a Research Agenda. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 113, 6 pages. https://doi.o...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.