What We Talk About When We Talk About Frameworks in HCI

TL;DR

This paper systematically reviews how frameworks are used in HCI research, revealing a tendency to propose new frameworks without sufficient validation and emphasizing the need for more rigorous, reflective practices.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive classification and analysis of HCI frameworks, highlighting gaps in validation and encouraging more systematic development practices.

Findings

Proposing new frameworks exceeds iterating on existing ones.

Framework functions are often ambiguous and lack validation.

Calls for more rigorous and reflective framework practices.

Abstract

In HCI, frameworks function as a type of theoretical contribution, often supporting ideation, design, and evaluation. Yet, little is known about how they are actually used, what functions they serve, and which scholarly practices that shape them. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of 615 papers from a decade of CHI proceedings (2015-2024) that prominently featured the term framework. We classified these papers into six engagement types. We then examined the role, form, and essential components of newly proposed frameworks through a functional typology, analyzing how they are constructed, validated, and articulated for reuse. Our results show that enthusiasm for proposing new frameworks exceeds the willingness to iterate on existing ones. They also highlight the ambiguity in the function of frameworks and the scarcity of systematic validation. Based on these insights, we call for more rigorous, reflective, and cumulative practices in the development and use of frameworks in HCI.