In the HCI community, it is widely believed that a gap exists between practitioners and researchers. In preparation for our workshop at CHI 2010 on practice-research interaction, we are interested in your opinion on this, and especially in your suggestions for what steps we, as a community, may take to overcome such a gap.
The following survey is divided into X parts, with a total of Y questions. It should take you no more than 5 minutes to answer the questions. However, if you would like to give us more elaborate comments, we invite you to submit those to (wiki? Elizabeth? somewhere else?) to help us ensure that your views and ideas will be presented at the workshop.
Thank you in advance for taking this survey (all our names?), workshop organizers

(a) About you

1. I am an HCI (select more than one)
  • Academic researcher
  • Industry researcher
  • Practitioner
  • Other (please specify)

2. My primary field of study was: (select one) [SD: What about people in multidisciplinary programs? Select as many as apply?]
  • Computer science
  • Engineering
  • Design
  • Psychology
  • HCI
  • Education
  • Communication
  • Business
  • Other (please specify)………………………………………………..

3. I have been involved in HCI for …… years

(b) About your perception of the relationship between HCI practice and research

For questions 4-5, insert a 7-point scale:
strongly disagree ..…. neither disagree/nor agree ..….. strongly agree

4. Express your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements:

(EB comment: We need to rearrange these a bit so they are mixed up, content-wise. Also, most of these statements blame researchers for the problem.)
SD: There are a number that "blame" practitioners too. My concern: This could take longer than 5 min to rate all these - plus there are some others...


a. Research is typically couched in jargon that is inaccessible to practitioners.
b. There is typically no take-away for practitioners.
c. Research papers do not make it clear how their findings could be applied.
d. Researchers are interested only in communicating with each other.
e. Research does not address problems of relevance to practitioners.
f. Research findings are usually too little and too late to be useful for practitioners.
g. It is difficult to find relevant and useful research.
h. Research is largely irrelevant to practitioners.
i. Practitioners don’t need to read research.
j. Practitioners don’t have time to read research papers.
k. The investment of time to read research is not worth the benefits that practitioners could reap from it.
l. Researchers don’t try to include practitioners in their research.
m. Researchers don’t know what practitioners need.
n. When practitioners do submit papers to conferences like CHI, they are almost always rejected.
o. Practitioners don’t have a chance to make their voice and needs heard.
p. Practitioners don’t understand the pressures that researchers are under.
q. Researchers don’t understand the pressures that practitioners are under.
r. There’s a lack of will in both subcommunities to overcome the gap.
s. Practitioners regard themselves as second-class citizens.
t. Researchers regard themselves as being better informed than practitioners.
u. Research addresses different problems from the ones practitioners need solved.
v. There is just not enough communication between the two communities.
w. There are not enough opportunities for the two subcommunities to get to know one another better.
x. Practitioners have no clue about how research might be useful to them.
y. Practitioners don't let researchers know what issues concern them or what research would be helpful to them.
z. Practitioners don't know how to read research papers.

SD adds:
aa. It is extremely complicated to focus on "real world" issues - they are messy and variables can't be controlled tightly enough to be considered "rigorous"
bb. There is no reward or incentive for undertaking "real world" research - not considered "science" by researchers' peers
cc. "Real world" research takes much more time and money than "traditional" research - both of which are very scare in today's world


5. How could the situation between HCI research and practice be improved?
SD: Are we talking in general or at CHI?
a. Get more practitioners involved in organizing HCI conferences.
b. Recruit more practitioners to review papers submitted to conferences.
c. Ensure a balance of researcher and practitioner paper reviewers.
d. Eliminate the status differences between ‘papers’ and ‘extended abstracts’ at CHI (i.e., the latter are not ‘archival’).
e. Encourage more case studies in conferences.
f. Ensure that case studies are reviewed by practitioners.
g. Design conference themes that are more relevant to practitioners.
h. Invite practitioners to sit on research thesis committees.
i. Invite practitioners to speak in classes, seminars, and colloquia.
j. Use the CHI chapters to bring the two subcultures together.
k. Arrange events that bring the two subcommunities together at conferences.
l. Demand
[SD: REQUIRE] that papers submitted to CHI, to be accepted. have a practical take-away.
m. Provide information and/or training to practitioners in how to read research papers

SD adds: n. Invite researchers to practitioner-focused events and conferences (e.g., UPA)