Author response to commentaries on H is for Human and How (Not) to Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI

TL;DR

This paper is a response to various commentaries on a prior article discussing the evaluation of qualitative research in HCI, engaging with multiple perspectives to clarify and defend the original arguments.

Contribution

It provides a detailed reply to diverse critiques of the original work, advancing the discourse on qualitative research evaluation in HCI.

Findings

Clarifies misunderstandings about qualitative research evaluation

Engages with critiques to refine original arguments

Supports open discussion with the community

Abstract

This is the authors response to commentaries on the original article H is for Human and How (Not) to Evaluate Qualitative Research in HCI, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2475743 Commentaries were provided by: Jeffrey Bardzell, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2612474 Alan Blackwell, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2591878 Paul Dourish, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2594529 Bonnie Nardi, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2596752 Peter Pirolli, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2596745 Jennifer Rode, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2598800 Peter Tolmie, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2025.2591872 Please feel free to copy, redistribute, adapt, and build on any part of this article in accordance with the CC BY 4.0 license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/