Understanding fraudulence in online qualitative studies: From the researcher's perspective
Authors: 
Aswati Panicker, 
Novia Nurain, 
Zaidat Ibrahim, Chun-Han (Ariel) Wang, Seung Wan Ha, Yuxing Wu, Kay Connelly, 
Katie A. Siek, 
Chia-Fang ChungAuthors Info & Claims
Aswati Panicker, Novia Nurain, Zaidat Ibrahim, Chun-Han (Ariel) Wang, Seung Wan Ha, Yuxing Wu, Kay Connelly, Katie A. Siek, Chia-Fang ChungAuthors Info & ClaimsArticle No.: 824, Pages 1 - 17
Abstract
Researchers are increasingly facilitating qualitative research studies online. While this has made research more accessible for participation, there have been notable encounters with “fraudulent” participants. By fraudulent, we refer to individuals who are deceptive about meeting the inclusion criteria, their identity, or experiences. Fraudulent participants have generated new challenges for researchers who have to interact 1:1 with these individuals, face ethical dilemmas on appropriate next steps, diagnose and prevent the issue from happening again, and deal with their own identity as a scholar. In this study, we interview 16 HCI researchers to understand and learn from their experiences. We contribute: (1) an understanding of how HCI qualitative researchers deal with fraudulent participants; (2) a guide for qualitative HCI researchers on how to handle fraudulence; and (3) a reflection on how the HCI research community might better improve our science and training efforts.
Supplemental Material
MP4 File - Video Presentation
Video Presentation
- Download
- 133.68 MB
- Transcript
References
[1]
Elena Agapie, Shefali Haldar, and Sharmaine G. Poblete. 2022. Using HCI in Cross-Disciplinary Teams: A Case Study of Academic Collaboration in HCI-Health Teams in the US Using a Team Science Perspective. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (11 2022), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555610
[2]
Dilmi Aluwihare-Samaranayake. 2012. Ethics in Qualitative Research: A View of the Participants’ and Researchers’ World from a Critical Standpoint. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 11, 2 (4 2012), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100208
[3]
Lesley Andrew, Emily Gizzarelli, Mohamed Estai, and Ruth Wallace. 2024. Participant Misrepresentation in Online Focus Groups: Red Flags and Proactive Measures. Ethics & Human Research 46, 1 (2024), 37–42.
[4]
Mandy M. Archibald, Rachel C. Ambagtsheer, Mavourneen G. Casey, and Michael Lawless. 2019. Using Zoom Videoconferencing for Qualitative Data Collection: Perceptions and Experiences of Researchers and Participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18 (1 2019), 160940691987459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596
[5]
April M Ballard, Trey Cardwell, and April M Young. 2019. Fraud Detection Protocol for Web-Based Research Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Development and Descriptive Evaluation. JMIR Public Health Surveill 5, 1 (2019), e12344. https://doi.org/10.2196/12344
[6]
Nick Ballou, Vivek R. Warriar, and Sebastian Deterding. 2021. Are You Open? A Content Analysis of Transparency and Openness Guidelines in HCI Journals. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445584
[7]
Joshua Boland, Susan Banks, Robin Krabbe, Suanne Lawrence, Therese Murray, Terese Henning, and Miriam Vandenberg. 2022. A COVID-19-era rapid review: using Zoom and Skype for qualitative group research. Public Health Research & Practice 32, 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp31232112
[8]
Robert Bowman, Camille Nadal, Kellie Morrissey, Anja Thieme, and Gavin Doherty. 2023. Using Thematic Analysis in Healthcare HCI at CHI: A Scoping Review. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581203
[9]
Amy Bruckman. 2014. Research ethics and HCI. Ways of Knowing in HCI (2014), 449–468.
[10]
Tom Buchanan. 2020. Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLOS ONE 15, 10 (10 2020), e0239666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666
[11]
Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Imes. 1978. The Imposter Phenomenon in High Achieving Woomen: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, and Practice 15, 3 (1978).
[12]
J. McGrath Cohoon, Sergey Nigai, and Joseph "Jofish" Kaye. 2011. Gender and computing conference papers. Commun. ACM 54, 8 (8 2011), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978542.1978561
[13]
Claiton Marques Correa, Gabriel Viegas Maciel de Freitas, André Luis dos Santos Eberhardt, and Milene Selbach Silveira. 2021. From now on. In Proceedings of the XX Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472301.3484334
[14]
Gennaro Costagliola, Mattia De Rosa, Vittorio Fuccella, and Parinaz Tabari. 2023. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Human–Computer Interaction Empirical Research. Interacting with Computers (4 2023). https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwad031
[15]
Eric G. Devine, Kristina R. Peebles, and Valeria Martini. 2016. Strategies to exclude subjects who conceal and fabricate information when enrolling in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 5 (2016), 67 – 71. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13697968
[16]
Jill P. Dimond, Casey Fiesler, Betsy DiSalvo, Jon Pelc, and Amy S. Bruckman. 2012. Qualitative Data Collection Technologies: A Comparison of Instant Messaging, Email, and Phone. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA) (GROUP ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1145/2389176.2389218
[17]
Serge Egelman, Ed H Chi, and Steven Dow. 2014. Crowdsourcing in HCI Research. In Ways of Knowing in HCI, Judith S Olson and Wendy A Kellogg (Eds.). Springer New York, New York, NY, 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_11
[18]
Jessica L. Feuston, Arpita Bhattacharya, Nazanin Andalibi, Elizabeth A. Ankrah, Sheena Erete, Mark Handel, Wendy Moncur, Sarah Vieweg, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2022. Researcher Wellbeing and Best Practices in Emotionally Demanding Research. 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 72, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3503742
[19]
Sarah Flicker. 2004. "Ask Me No Secrets, I’ll Tell You No Lies": What Happens When a Respondent’s Story Makes No Sense. The Qualitative Report 9 (2004), 528–537. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:142452366
[20]
John Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. 2023. MyChart/Epic Recruitment. Retrieved Dec 12, 2023 from https://ictr.johnshopkins.edu/service/recruitment/mychart-epic/
[21]
Dominic Furniss, Ann Blandford, and Paul Curzon. 2011. Confessions from a grounded theory PhD. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978960
[22]
Susan Gair. 2012. Feeling Their Stories. Qualitative Health Research 22, 1 (1 2012), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311420580
[23]
Dilrukshi Gamage, Piyush Ghasiya, Vamshi Bonagiri, Mark E. Whiting, and Kazutoshi Sasahara. 2022. Are Deepfakes Concerning? Analyzing Conversations of Deepfakes on Reddit and Exploring Societal Implications. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517446
[24]
Jillian V. Glazer, Kirsten MacDonnell, Christina Frederick, Karen Ingersoll, and Lee M. Ritterband. 2021. Liar! Liar! Identifying eligibility fraud by applicants in digital health research. Internet Interventions 25 (9 2021), 100401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2021.100401
[25]
Kelly T. Gleason, Daniel E. Ford, Diana Gumas, Bonnie Woods, Lawrence Appel, Pam Murray, Maureen Meyer, and Cheryl R. Dennison Himmelfarb. 2018. Development and preliminary evaluation of a patient portal messaging for research recruitment service. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2, 1 (2 2018), 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.10
[26]
Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2016. How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 18, 1 (7 2016), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
[27]
Jeffrey T. Hancock and Jeremy N. Bailenson. 2021. The Social Impact of Deepfakes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 24, 3 (3 2021), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.29208.jth
[28]
Eric B. Hekler, Predrag Klasnja, Jon E. Froehlich, and Matthew P. Buman. 2013. Mind the theoretical gap. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3307–3316. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466452
[29]
Serena Hillman, Azadeh Forghani, Carolyn Pang, Carman Neustaedter, and Tejinder K. Judge. 2015. Chapter 2 - Conducting Interviews with Remote Participants. In Studying and Designing Technology for Domestic Life, Tejinder K. Judge and Carman Neustaedter (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800555-2.00002-2
[30]
Cate Huston. 2015. The Trouble with Imposters. https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-trouble-with-imposters
[31]
Abigail Jones, Line Caes, Tessa Rugg, Melanie Noel, Sharon Bateman, and Abbie Jordan. 2021. Challenging issues of integrity and identity of participants in non-synchronous online qualitative methods. Methods in Psychology 5 (12 2021), 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.METIP.2021.100072
[32]
Joy Kim, Avi Bagla, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2015. Designing Creativity Support Tools for Failure. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Glasgow, United Kingdom) (C&C ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/2757226.2764542
[33]
Michaela Krawczyk and Katie A. Siek. 2024. When Research Becomes All About the Bots: A Case Study on Fraud Prevention and Participant Validation in the Context of Abortion Storytelling. In Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, Hawaii, USA) (CHI EA ’24). New York, NY, USA, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3637109
[34]
E A Kupetsky-Rincon and W K Kraft. 2012. Healthy Volunteer Registries and Ethical Research Principles. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 91, 6 (6 2012), 965–968. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2012.32
[35]
Nicholas Laberge, K. Hunter Wapman, Allison C. Morgan, Sam Zhang, Daniel B. Larremore, and Aaron Clauset. 2022. Subfield prestige and gender inequality among U.S. computing faculty. Commun. ACM 65, 12 (12 2022), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3535510
[36]
Emily A Largent and Holly Fernandez Lynch. 2017. Paying Research Participants: Regulatory Uncertainty, Conceptual Confusion, and a Path Forward.Yale journal of health policy, law, and ethics 17, 1 (2017), 61–141.
[37]
Carolyn Lauckner, Natalia Truszczynski, Danielle Lambert, Varsha Kottamasu, Saher Meherally, Anne Marie Schipani-McLaughlin, Erica Taylor, and Nathan Hansen. 2019. “Catfishing,” cyberbullying, and coercion: An exploration of the risks associated with dating app use among rural sexual minority males. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health 23, 3 (7 2019), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2019.1587729
[38]
Jennifer Lawlor, Carl Thomas, Andrew T. Guhin, Kendra Kenyon, Matthew D. Lerner, and Amy Drahota. 2021. Suspicious and fraudulent online survey participation: Introducing the REAL framework. Methodological Innovations 14, 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991211050467
[39]
Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2017. Online and ubiquitous HCI research. In Research Methods in Human Computer Interaction. Elsevier, 411–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805390-4.00014-5
[40]
Danielle Lindemann, Dana Britton, and Elaine Zundl. 2016. "I Don’t Know Why They Make it So Hard Here" Institutional Factors and Undergraduate Women’s STEM Participation. International Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology 8 (2016).
[41]
Holly Fernandez Lynch. 2014. Human research subjects as human research workers.Yale journal of health policy, law, and ethics 14, 1 (2014), 122–93.
[42]
Haley MacLeod, Ben Jelen, Annu Prabhakar, Lora Oehlberg, Katie Siek, and Kay Connelly. 2016. Asynchronous Remote Communities (ARC) for Researching Distributed Populations. In Proceedings of the 10th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (Cancun, Mexico) (PervasiveHealth ’16). ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering), Brussels, BEL, 1–8.
[43]
Claudia Malacrida. 2007. Reflexive Journaling on Emotional Research Topics: Ethical Issues for Team Researchers. Qualitative Health Research 17, 10 (12 2007), 1329–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308948
[44]
Mochammad Ircham Maulana. 2022. Leveraging Zoom Video-Conferencing Features in Interview Data Generation During the COVID-19 Pandemic. In Research and Teaching in a Pandemic World. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7757-2_26
[45]
David J. McCann, Nancy M. Petry, Anders Bresell, Eva Isacsson, Ellis Wilson, and Robert C. Alexander. 2015. Medication Nonadherence, “Professional Subjects,” and Apparent Placebo Responders. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 35, 5 (10 2015), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCP.0000000000000372
[46]
Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (11 2019), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174
[47]
Wendy Moncur. 2013. The emotional wellbeing of researchers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1883–1890. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466248
[48]
Tonya R. Moon. 2011. Project Implicit. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
[49]
Geoffrey Nelson, Joanna Ochocka, Kara Griffin, and John Lord. 1998. “Nothing About Me, Without Me”: Participatory Action Research with Self-Help/Mutual Aid Organizations for Psychiatric Consumer/Survivors. American Journal of Community Psychology 26, 6 (12 1998), 881–912. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022298129812
[50]
Giovanna Nunes Vilaza, Kevin Doherty, Darragh McCashin, David Coyle, Jakob Bardram, and Marguerite Barry. 2022. A Scoping Review of Ethics Across SIGCHI. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533511
[51]
National Institute of Health. 2021. Scientific Workforce Diversity Seminar Series (SWDSS) Seminar Proceedings. https://diversity.nih.gov/sites/coswd/files/images/NIH_COSWD_SWDSS_Implicit_Bias_Proceedings_508.pdf
[52]
Seymour Papert and Idit Harel. 1991. Situating Constructionism. In Constructionism, Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson (Eds.). Ablex Publishing Corporation, Chapter 1.
[53]
Lisa Parker, Stephanie Boughton, Rosa Lawrence, and Lisa Bero. 2022. Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 151 (11 2022), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006
[54]
Jessica Pater, Amanda Coupe, Rachel Pfafman, Chanda Phelan, Tammy Toscos, and Maia Jacobs. 2021. Standardizing Reporting of Participant Compensation in HCI: A Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations for the Field. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445734
[55]
Elizabeth Pellicano, Dawn Adams, Laura Crane, Calliope Hollingue, Connie Allen, Katherine Almendinger, Monique Botha, Tori Haar, Steven K Kapp, and Elizabeth Wheeley. 2023. Letter to the Editor: A possible threat to data integrity for online qualitative autism research. Autism (5 2023), 136236132311745. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231174543
[56]
Rachel Pozzar, Marilyn J Hammer, Meghan Underhill-Blazey, Alexi A Wright, James A Tulsky, Fangxin Hong, Daniel A Gundersen, and Donna L Berry. 2020. Threats of Bots and Other Bad Actors to Data Quality Following Research Participant Recruitment Through Social Media: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22, 10 (10 2020), e23021. https://doi.org/10.2196/23021
[57]
Mandi Pratt-Chapman, Jenna Moses, and Hannah Arem. 2021. Strategies for the identification and prevention of survey fraud: Data analysis of a web-based survey. JMIR cancer 7, 3 (2021), e30730.
[58]
Mandi Pratt-Chapman, Jenna Moses, and Hannah Arem. 2021. Strategies for the Identification and Prevention of Survey Fraud: Data Analysis of a Web-Based Survey. JMIR Cancer 7, 3 (7 2021), e30730. https://doi.org/10.2196/30730
[59]
Susan Quach, Jennifer A Pereira, Margaret L Russell, Anne E Wormsbecker, Hilary Ramsay, Lois Crowe, Sherman D Quan, and Jeff Kwong. 2013. The Good, Bad, and Ugly of Online Recruitment of Parents for Health-Related Focus Groups: Lessons Learned. J Med Internet Res 15, 11 (2013), e250. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2829
[60]
Debra Richardson, Fran Berman, Diane Gonzalez, Yolanda Rankin, and Katie Siek. 2010. Imposter Plenary Panel. Grace Hopper Celebration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAw6xWd_Hec&t=411s
[61]
Damien Ridge, Laurna Bullock, Hilary Causer, Tamsin Fisher, Samantha Hider, Tom Kingstone, Lauren Gray, Ruth Riley, Nina Smyth, Victoria Silverwood, Johanna Spiers, and Jane Southam. 2023. ‘Imposter participants’ in online qualitative research, a new and increasing threat to data integrity?Health Expectations 26, 3 (6 2023), 941–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13724
[62]
Jacqueline Roehl and Darci Harland. 2022. Imposter Participants: Overcoming Methodological Challenges Related to Balancing Participant Privacy with Data Quality When Using Online Recruitment and Data Collection. The Qualitative Report (11 2022). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5475
[63]
Margaret R. Salinas. 2023. Are Your Participants Real? Dealing with Fraud in Recruiting Older Adults Online. Western Journal of Nursing Research 45, 1 (1 2023), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459221098468
[64]
Tina Seelig. 2009. What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20 A Crash Course on Making Your Place in the World. HarperOne.
[65]
Justine S. Sefcik, Zachary Hathaway, and Rose Ann DiMaria‐Ghalili. 2023. When snowball sampling leads to an avalanche of fraudulent participants in qualitative research. International Journal of Older People Nursing (8 2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12572
[66]
Thomas M Shiovitz, Marlene E Zarrow, Andrew M Shiovitz, and Alexander M Bystritsky. 2011. Failure rate and" professional subjects" in clinical trials of major depressive disorder. The Journal of clinical psychiatry 72, 9 (2011), 7145.
[67]
Jennifer E. F. Teitcher, Walter O. Bockting, José A. Bauermeister, Chris J. Hoefer, Michael H. Miner, and Robert L. Klitzman. 2015. Detecting, Preventing, and Responding to “Fraudsters” in Internet Research: Ethics and Tradeoffs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, 1 (1 2015), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12200
[68]
Cesar Torres, Sarah Sterman, Molly Nicholas, Richard Lin, Eric Pai, and Eric Paulos. 2018. Guardians of Practice: A Contextual Inquiry of Failure-Mitigation Strategies within Creative Practices. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Hong Kong, China) (DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196795
[69]
Daniel Turner. 2020. Reflexive journals in qualitative research. https://www.quirkos.com/blog/post/reflexive-journals-in-qualitative-research/
[70]
Katherine Weber. 2012. Gender Differences in Interest, Perceived Personal Capacity, and Participation in STEM-Related Activities. Journal of Technology Education 24, 1 (9 2012). https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v24i1.a.2
[71]
Sarah Wiseman, Anna L. Cox, Sandy J. J. Gould, and Duncan P. Brumby. 2017. Exploring the effects of non-monetary reimbursement for participants in HCI research. Human Computation 4, 1 (4 2017), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.15346/hc.v4i1.1
[72]
Maria K. Wolters, Zawadhafsa Mkulo, and Petra M. Boynton. 2017. The Emotional Work of Doing EHealth Research. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI EA ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3052764
[73]
Optimal Workshop. 2023. Participant Recruitment - UX Research | Optimal Workshop. Retrieved Dec 12, 2023 from https://www.optimalworkshop.com/recruit/
[74]
Jane Wray and David Barrett. 2022. In the room where it happens: in-person or remote data collection in qualitative research?Evidence Based Nursing 25, 2 (4 2022), 44–45. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2022-103535
[75]
Kai-Cheng Yang, Emilio Ferrara, and Filippo Menczer. 2022. Botometer 101: social bot practicum for computational social scientists. Journal of Computational Social Science 5, 2 (11 2022), 1511–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-022-00177-5
[76]
Ziyi Zhang, Shuofei Zhu, Jaron Mink, Aiping Xiong, Linhai Song, and Gang Wang. 2022. Beyond Bot Detection: Combating Fraudulent Online Survey Takers. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022(WWW ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3512230
Index Terms
- Understanding fraudulence in online qualitative studies: From the researcher's perspective
Recommendations
Forms of Fraudulence in Human-Centered Design: Collective Strategies and Future Agenda for Qualitative HCI Research
CHI EA '24: Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsNew technical forms of deception–including AI deepfakes and unethical uses of ChatGTP–have gained attention in the wider research community and media. There has also been an increase in the coordinated social activities of bad actors posing as legitimate ...
A qualitative enquiry into OpenStreetMap making
Exploring ProdusageBased on a case study on the OpenStreetMap community, this paper provides a contextual and embodied understanding of the user-led, user-participatory and user-generated produsage phenomenon. It employs Grounded Theory, Social Worlds Theory, and ...
Utilising online qualitative methods for web science
WebSci '16: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web ScienceContext is key. The Web is not just a technology, it is co-constituted by people who situate it within their everyday lives and experiences. Therefore, to understand how and why the Web is evolving, it is imperative to use qualitative methods in ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2024
18961 pages
ISBN:9798400703300
DOI:10.1145/3613904
Copyright © 2024 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Data Availability
Video Presentation: Video Presentation https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642732#3613904.3642732-talk-video.mp4
Conference
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 580Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)580
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)161
Reflects downloads up to 13 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format