| Summary: | In CHI papers, citation of previous work is typically a shallow, throwaway action that demonstrates little critical engagement with the work cited. We present a citation context analysis of over 3000 citations from 69 papers at CHI2016, which demonstrates that only 4.8% of papers cited are presented as anything other than uncontested fact. In 43% of CHI papers sampled, we found no evidence of any critical engagement. Lack of discussion and critique of previous work can encourage the spread of misunderstandings and errors. Authors, reviewers and publication venues must all change practices to respond to this failure of scholarship.
|
|---|