Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 88 references

Mitigating Trauma in Qualitative Research Infrastructure: Roles for Machine Assistance and Trauma-Informed Design

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that trauma-informed computing can be translated into concrete design decisions for qualitative coding software, producing a system that lets analysts define their own traumatic concepts, track their exposure, and manage…

desk verdict Solid formative design study; the safety-as-enablement reframing is the real contribution, and the unvalidated exposure metric is a weakness but not a fatal one. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16866 v1 pith:2JRQNGDQ submitted 2024-12-22 cs.HC

Emily Tseng , Thomas Ristenpart , Nicola Dell This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords trauma-informedcomputingqualitativecodingmixed-initiativesystemsresearcherwell-beingsemanticsearchcodeembeddingssafety-as-enablementdesignscienceresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the principles of trauma-informed computing can be translated into concrete software decisions for qualitative research tools, and that the resulting tool can reduce researchers' traumatic exposure without taking control away from them. It presents TIQA, a qualitative coding system in which an analyst defines the concepts that disturb them, a semantic-search model finds and counts similar passages, and the analyst can track prior and upcoming exposure and signal when they need a break. In interviews, 15 researchers who study intimate partner violence or online hate used TIQA on synthetic datasets; their reactions support the view that machine assistance should act as a self-reflective surface and an initiator of a culture of care, not as an enforcer of efficient coding or mandatory breaks. The paper also argues for a conceptual shift from 'safety as exposure reduction' to 'safety as enablement,' and for evaluating the trauma-informedness of design processes rather than only measuring user outcomes.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is TIQA's personalized code-embedding loop, which is reused for both annotation and trauma tracking. A code is modeled as the average sentence-embedding (a vector encoding a text segment's meaning) of the passages the analyst has annotated with it; SemanticSearch returns segments whose cosine similarity to that embedding exceeds a user-set threshold; and ExposureModeler uses those matches to estimate prior exposure (count of annotated matches plus session time) and upcoming exposure (predicted matches in the remaining document). A ReactionPredicter module—not fully implemented in the formative study—would train a classifier on those three features plus the analyst's explicit 'I'm taking a break' signals to issue future self-care nudges. The six trauma-informed computing principles (safety, trust, enablement, peer support, collaboration, intersectionality) serve as the design lens, and the paper's conceptual pivot is the interpretation of safety as enablement: giving users the tools to manage their own experience rather than automatically hiding content.

What would settle it

A longitudinal comparison of TIQA's exposure counts and nudge predictions against analysts' own break decisions and self-reported distress would settle the proxy question: if a single highly graphic passage produces as strong a reaction as dozens of mild mentions, or if count-based predictions do not anticipate when analysts actually take breaks, the system's core feedback loop is not measuring what it claims to measure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a qualitative coding tool can be deliberately designed from trauma-informed computing principles to let each analyst define their own personally traumatic concepts, and that this design changes what machine assistance is for. TIQA operationalizes the definition by treating a user-defined code as an embedding of the passages annotated with it, using semantic search to suggest other matching passages, and then reusing those matches to measure how many traumatic instances the analyst has already seen and how many remain. The authors' formative study with 15 researchers indicates that analysts welcome this as a value-add precisely because it does not automate the core work of interpretation: they imagined the tool as a self-reflective surface for understanding their own coding and stress reactions, an initiator of peer support and team conversations about care, and a fair allocator of documents—provided it stays accountable to human supervisors and protects individual privacy. The paper further claims that safety in such systems is better understood as enablement than as shielding, and that this reframing resolves tensions between the safety principle and the other trauma-informed computing principles.

Load-bearing premise

The design assumes that an analyst's traumatic exposure can be approximated by counting how many text segments match a user-defined traumatic code (plus session length), rather than by how graphic or personally significant any single passage is.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Qualitative coding software can be built so that warnings are personal: each analyst defines their own traumatic concepts, and the system learns them from the analyst's own annotations.
  • Researchers will accept machine assistance for trauma mitigation when it supports self-reflection and collaboration, but will reject it if it acts as a productivity enforcer or mandates breaks.
  • Exposure measurements can inform self-care planning (e.g., scheduling heavy analysis before a recovery activity) and team workload allocation, provided privacy safeguards prevent supervisors from profiling individuals.
  • Nudges toward self-care are most plausible as team-culture initiators, not as hard constraints, because analysts expect they would otherwise bypass or ignore them.
  • Trauma-informed design processes should document tradeoffs among safety, trust, enablement, peer support, collaboration, and intersectionality, and be evaluated for their trauma-informedness even when outcome measures of trauma remain unsettled.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper, the count-based exposure model might be improved by weighting matches with a graphicness or intensity rating derived from the analyst's own annotations, and then testing whether weighted counts predict self-reported distress better than raw counts.
  • Going beyond the paper, the safety-as-enablement framing suggests a general design pattern for content moderation and journalism tools: instead of automatically obscuring content, systems could offer users configurable warnings, privacy-preserving aggregates of their own exposure, and optional break prompts.
  • Going beyond the paper, sharing a 'trusted peer's code embedding' could be the seed of a privacy-preserving sensitivity-sharing protocol, in which teams exchange exposure models without exposing the individual passages or reactions that formed them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper explores how trauma-informed computing (TIC) principles can be operationalized in software for qualitative coding, presenting a prototype system called TIQA that combines user-defined code models, semantic search, and exposure tracking. Through a formative study with 15 researchers who used TIQA on synthetic intimate-partner-violence and social-media datasets, the authors identify potential roles for machine assistance: a self-reflective surface for analysts, an initiator of collaboration and a culture of care, and a fair allocator of team responsibility, while participants rejected the role of enforcer. The paper also advances a conceptual reframing, safety-as-enablement, and argues for evaluating the trauma-informedness of design processes.

Significance. This is a useful and timely contribution at the intersection of CSCW, HCI, and trauma-informed computing. The paper provides a concrete design exploration (TIQA) that demonstrates how high-level TIC principles can be translated into lower-level design decisions, and it grounds the proposed roles in participant feedback from a scenario-based study with an appropriately experienced sample. The safety-as-enablement reframing is a valuable conceptual contribution that extends prior TIC scholarship and offers design guidance beyond qualitative coding. The authors are careful to frame the study as formative and to acknowledge limitations such as synthetic data, short sessions, and an unvalidated exposure metric. The inclusion of participant critiques (e.g., P05's challenge to the count-based metric) strengthens the paper's credibility and provides a basis for future work.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.1] Section 3.3 states that the ReactionPredicter module was not implemented in full, yet Section 4.1 says participants were asked to 'explore the reaction predictions and nudges.' The interview protocol in Appendices A and C asks participants to imagine the feature, so please explicitly state in Section 4.1 that the prediction/nudge functionality was described as a concept rather than presented as a functional component, to avoid ambiguity about what participants actually encountered.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Table 1] The ExposureModeler proxy (count of code occurrences plus session time) is not validated against any self-report or physiological measure of distress. While the paper acknowledges this concern in Section 4.2.2 and Section 5.3, the abstract and Section 3.2.2 use the term 'measure' without qualification. Please add an explicit statement in the Limitations that this metric is an unvalidated design artifact and that the empirical findings reflect participants' perceptions of a design provocation rather than evidence of effective measurement.
  3. [Appendix A.3 and C.3] Interview protocol question 3 describes the exposure metric as a function of (a) time spent, (b) number of annotations, and (c) 'how difficult this concept was for you to read,' but the implementation described in Table 1 and Section 3.3 only includes time and count. Please reconcile the protocol with the actual implementation, or clarify that (c) was part of the interview script to elicit discussion rather than a system feature.
  4. [Table 3] The row for 'Measurement of user's prior and upcoming traumatic exposures' lists 'ML-assisted content warnings are a value-add' as participant feedback, but the corresponding quote from P06 refers to the general idea of using ML for trauma tracking rather than content warnings. Consider aligning the table summary more closely with the quoted participant statements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ExposureModeler proxy is transparently presented and critiqued, ReactionPredicter is explicitly not implemented, and the central claims derive from participant feedback and design analysis rather than from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper makes no mathematical derivation that could reduce to its inputs. Its central claims are empirical (what 15 participants said about a design provocation) and conceptual (the safety-as-enablement reframing). The one component that resembles a fitted predictor, ExposureModeler/ReactionPredicter, is openly described as a design proxy: Table 1 defines prior exposure as code-annotation counts plus session time and upcoming exposure as semantically matched segment counts, and Section 3.3 states, "we did not implement ReactionPredicter in full, since training it would require long-term data from a user on their traumatic reactions." The paper also directly reports a participant challenge to that proxy (P05, Section 4.2.2: impact depends on graphicness, not quantity of instances), so it does not present the proxy as a validated measurement of trauma. The self-citation to the authors' earlier TIC framework (Chen et al. 2022) is used as a design lens, not as a theorem that forces the results; indeed, the paper's main conceptual contribution is a critique and reframing of that framework into safety-as-enablement, grounded in the authors' design analysis and participants' reactions. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction, imported uniqueness theorem, ansatz-via-citation, or renaming pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters; the exposure model uses a similarity threshold and a pre-trained sentence embedding model as inputs. The main load-bearing assumptions are that embeddings can model personal trauma concepts and that short formative sessions reveal useful design roles. TIQA itself is an invented artifact, but it is a design probe, not an entity with independent empirical evidence.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Semantic embeddings and cosine similarity can capture the semantic relationship between a code and text segments for the purpose of personalized trauma exposure tracking.
    In Section 3.2.1 and Table 1, TIQA's CodeModeler and SemanticSearch rely on this. Participants questioned the validity of exposure counts (P05, Section 4.2.2).
  • domain assumption Participants' reactions to a short session with synthetic data can inform design roles for long-term trauma mitigation tools.
    The formative study method in Section 4.1 uses 1.5 hour sessions; the authors acknowledge in Section 5.3 that longer-term embedded studies are needed.
invented entities (1)
  • TIQA prototype
    purpose: Design provocation to elicit participant responses on trauma-informed qualitative coding.
    Described in Section 3.3 as a functional but non-polished prototype. It is an artifact of the study, not a theoretical postulate, and it makes no falsifiable prediction outside the study beyond participants' self-reported reactions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mitigating Trauma in Qualitative Research Infrastructure: Roles for Machine Assistance and Trauma-Informed Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JRQNGDQ

@misc{pith2026241216866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mitigating Trauma in Qualitative Research Infrastructure: Roles for Machine Assistance and Trauma-Informed Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JRQNGDQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16866}
}
read the original abstract

Researchers increasingly look to understand experiences of pain, harm, and marginalization via qualitative analysis. Such work is needed to understand and address social ills, but poses risks to researchers' well-being: sifting through volumes of data on painful human experiences risks incurring traumatic exposure in the researcher. In this paper, we explore how the principles of trauma-informed computing (TIC) can be applied to reimagine healthier tools and workflows for qualitative analysis. We apply TIC to create a design provocation called TIQA, a system for qualitative coding that leverages language modeling, semantic search, and recommendation systems to measure and mitigate an analyst's exposure to concepts they find traumatic. Through a formative study of TIQA with 15 participants, we illuminate the complexities of enacting TIC in qualitative knowledge infrastructure, and potential roles for machine assistance in mitigating researchers' trauma. To assist scholars in translating the high-level principles of TIC into sociotechnical system design, we argue for: (a) a conceptual shift from safety as exposure reduction towards safety as enablement; and (b) renewed attention to evaluating the trauma-informedness of design processes, in tandem with the outcomes of designed objects on users' well-being.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Design science research process, following [57] as demonstrated in [67]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architectural diagram of how TIQA enables users to develop personalized models of their codes using an underlying ML workflow (shaded blue box). See Section 3.2.1 for a step-by-step walkthrough, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architectural diagrams of how TIQA enables users to self-manage their traumatic exposure using the same underlying ML workflow as in part A (blue box). See Section 3.2.2 for a step-by-step walkthrough, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdul-Fatawu Abdulai, Hasti Naghdali, Eden Tekie Ghirmay, Fuseini Adam, Eunice Bawafaa, et al. 2023. Trauma-Informed Care in Digital Health Technologies: Protocol for a Scoping Review. JMIR Research Protocols 12, 1 (2023), e46842

    2023

  2. [2]

    Daniel A Adler, Emily Tseng, Khatiya C Moon, John Q Young, John M Kane, Emanuel Moss, David C Mohr, and Tanzeem Choudhury. 2022. Burnout and the Quantified Workplace: Tensions around Personal Sensing Interventions for Stress in Resident Physicians. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–48

    2022

  3. [3]

    Naseem Ahmadpour, Lian Loke, Carl Gray, Yidan Cao, Chloe Macdonald, and Rebecca Hart. 2023. Understanding how technology can support social-emotional learning of children: a dyadic trauma-informed participatory design with proxies. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2023

  4. [4]

    Leena Alghamdi, Mamtaj Akter, Jess Kropczynski, Pamela J Wisniewski, and Heather Lipford. 2023. Co-designing Community-based Sharing of Smarthome Devices for the Purpose of Co-monitoring In-home Emergencies. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2023

  5. [5]

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, et al. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2019

  6. [6]

    Marianne Aubin Le Quéré, Hope Schroeder, Casey Randazzo, Jie Gao, Ziv Epstein, Simon Tangi Perrault, David Mimno, Louise Barkhuus, and Hanlin Li. 2024. LLMs as Research Tools: Applications and Evaluations in HCI Data Work. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–7

    2024

  7. [7]

    Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1301–1310

    2010

  8. [8]

    Tehmina Basit. 2003. Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational research 45, 2 (2003), 143–154

    2003

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Eric PS Baumer, David Mimno, Shion Guha, Emily Quan, and Geri K Gay. 2017. Comparing grounded theory and topic modeling: Extreme divergence or unlikely convergence? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68, 6 (2017), 1397–1410

    2017

  2. [10]

    Eric PS Baumer, Drew Siedel, Lena McDonnell, Jiayun Zhong, Patricia Sittikul, and Micki McGee. 2020. Topicalizer: reframing core concepts in machine learning visualization by co-designing for interpretivist scholarship. Human–Computer Interaction 35, 5-6 (2020), 452–480

    2020

  3. [11]

    Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2000. Instrumental interaction: an interaction model for designing post-WIMP user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 446–453

    2000

  4. [12]

    Rosanna Bellini. 2023. Paying the Price: When Intimate Partners Use Technology for Financial Harm. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2023

  5. [13]

    2024 (to appear)

    Rosanna Bellini, Emily Tseng, Noel Warford, Alaa Daffalla, Tara Matthews, Sunny Consolvo, Jill Woelfer, Patrick G Kelley, Michelle Mazurek, Dana Cuomo, Nicola Dell, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2024 (to appear). SoK: Safer Digital-Safety Research Involving At-Risk Users. IEEE Sympos...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Alemitu Bezabih, Kathrin Gerling, Workeabeba Abebe, and Vero Vanden Abeele. 2023. Challenges and Opportunities for Interactive Technology to Support Parents of HIV-Positive Children in Ethiopia in the Disclosure Process. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Facto...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Aparajita Bhandari, Diana Freed, Tara Pilato, Faten Taki, Gunisha Kaur, Stephen Yale-Loehr, Jane Powers, Tao Long, and Natalya N Bazarova. 2022. Multi-stakeholder perspectives on digital tools for US asylum applicants seeking healthcare and legal information. Proceedings of th...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Adream Blair-Early and Mike Zender. 2008. User interface design principles for interaction design. Design Issues 24, 3 (2008), 85–107

    2008

  9. [17]

    Dana C Branson. 2019. Vicarious trauma, themes in research, and terminology: A review of literature. Traumatology 25, 1 (2019), 2

    2019

  10. [18]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597

    2019

  11. [19]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2022. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology 9, 1 (2022), 3

    2022

  12. [20]

    India Bryce, Nicola Horwood, Kate Cantrell, and Jessica Gildersleeve. 2023. Pulling the trigger: a systematic literature review of trigger warnings as a strategy for reducing traumatization in higher education. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 24, 4 (2023), 2882–2894

    2023

  13. [21]

    We found no violation!

    Pooja Casula, Aditya Anupam, and Nassim Parvin. 2021. “We found no violation!”: Twitter’s Violent Threats Policy and Toxicity in Online Discourse. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities & Technologies-Wicked Problems in the Age of Tech . 151–159. Ma...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Robey B Champine, Jason M Lang, Ashley M Nelson, Rochelle F Hanson, and Jacob K Tebes. 2019. Systems measures of a trauma-informed approach: A systematic review. American Journal of Community Psychology 64, 3-4 (2019), 418–437

    2019

  15. [23]

    Niu Chen, Allison McDonald, Yixin Zou, Emily Tseng, Kevin A Roundy, Acar Tamersoy, Florian Schaub, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. 2022. Trauma-informed computing: Towards safer technology experiences for all. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in c...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge. 2020. Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons

    2020

  17. [25]

    Alaa Daffalla, Marina Bohuk, Nicola Dell, Rosanna Bellini, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2023. Account Security Interfaces: Important, Unintuitive, and Untrustworthy. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) . 3601–3618

    2023

  18. [26]

    Anubrata Das, Brandon Dang, and Matthew Lease. 2020. Fast, accurate, and healthier: Interactive blurring helps moderators reduce exposure to harmful content. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing , Vol. 8. 33–42

    2020

  19. [27]

    Lynn Dombrowski, Ellie Harmon, and Sarah Fox. 2016. Social justice-oriented interaction design: Outlining key design strategies and commitments. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems . 656–671

    2016

  20. [28]

    Paul N Edwards, Steven J Jackson, Melissa K Chalmers, Geoffrey C Bowker, Christine L Borgman, David Ribes, Matt Burton, and Scout Calvert. 2013. Knowledge infrastructures: Intellectual frameworks and research challenges. (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Melissa Eggleston and Lesley-Ann Noel. 2024. Trauma-Informed Design: Leveraging Usability Heuristics on a Social Services Website. Journal of User Experience 19, 3 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Daniel A Epstein, Clara Caldeira, Mayara Costa Figueiredo, Xi Lu, Lucas M Silva, Lucretia Williams, Jong Ho Lee, Qingyang Li, Simran Ahuja, Qiuer Chen, et al. 2020. Mapping and taking stock of the personal informatics literature. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, ...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Sheena Erete, Yolanda Rankin, and Jakita Thomas. 2023. A method to the madness: Applying an intersectional analysis of structural oppression and power in HCI and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 2 (2023), 1–45

    2023

  24. [32]

    Cristian Felix, Aritra Dasgupta, and Enrico Bertini. 2018. The Exploratory Labeling Assistant: Mixed-Initiative Label Curation with Large Document Collections. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Berlin, Germany) (UIST ’18...

    2018

  25. [33]

    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 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Compu...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Jessica L Feuston and Jed R Brubaker. 2021. Putting Tools in Their Place: The Role of Time and Perspective in Human-AI Collaboration for Qualitative Analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–25

    2021

  27. [35]

    Is My Phone Hacked?

    Diana Freed, Sam Havron, Emily Tseng, Andrea Gallardo, Rahul Chatterjee, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. 2019. " Is My Phone Hacked?" Analyzing Clinical Computer Security Interventions With Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer In...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Simret Araya Gebreegziabher, Zheng Zhang, Xiaohang Tang, Yihao Meng, Elena L Glassman, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2023. Patat: Human-ai collaborative qualitative coding with explainable interactive rule synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computi...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Nitesh Goyal, Ian D Kivlichan, Rachel Rosen, and Lucy Vasserman. 2022. Is your toxicity my toxicity? exploring the impact of rater identity on toxicity annotation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–28

    2022

  30. [38]

    Cécil Guerin and Eisha Maharasingam-Shah. 2020. Public figures, public rage: candidate abuse on social media . Institute for Strategic Dialogue

    2020

  31. [39]

    Donna Haraway. 2016. ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’. InSpace, gender, knowledge: Feminist readings. Routledge, 53–72

    2016

  32. [40]

    Matt-Heun Hong, Lauren A Marsh, Jessica L Feuston, Janet Ruppert, Jed R Brubaker, and Danielle Albers Szafir. 2022. Scholastic: Graphical Human-AI Collaboration for Inductive and Interpretive Text Analysis. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Soft...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 159–166

    1999

  34. [42]

    Yiqing Hua, Mor Naaman, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2020. Characterizing twitter users who engage in adversarial interactions against political candidates. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2020

  35. [43]

    Yiqing Hua, Thomas Ristenpart, and Mor Naaman. 2020. Towards measuring adversarial twitter interactions against candidates in the us midterm elections. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 14. 272–282

    2020

  36. [44]

    Shagun Jhaver, Quan Ze Chen, Detlef Knauss, and Amy Zhang. 2022. Designing Word Filter Tools for Creator-led Comment Moderation (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517505

    2022

  37. [45]

    Jialun Aaron Jiang, Kandrea Wade, Casey Fiesler, and Jed R Brubaker. 2021. Supporting serendipity: Opportunities and challenges for Human-AI Collaboration in qualitative analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–23

    2021

  38. [46]

    Sowmya Karunakaran and Rashmi Ramakrishan. 2019. Testing stylistic interventions to reduce emotional impact of content moderation workers. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing , Vol. 7. 50–58. Manuscript submitted to ACM Trauma-Informed ...

    2019

  39. [47]

    Hannah Kirk, Abeba Birhane, Bertie Vidgen, and Leon Derczynski. 2022. Handling and presenting harmful text in NLP research. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 . 497–510

    2022

  40. [48]

    Rolf J Kleber. 2019. Trauma and public mental health: A focused review. Frontiers in psychiatry 10 (2019), 451

    2019

  41. [49]

    thinking-aloud

    Clayton Lewis. 1982. Using the" thinking-aloud" method in cognitive interface design . IBM TJ Watson Research Center Yorktown Heights, NY

    1982

  42. [50]

    Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 557–566

    2010

  43. [51]

    Christina Maslach. 1998. A multidimensional theory of burnout. Theories of organizational stress 68, 85 (1998), 16

    1998

  44. [52]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–23

    2019

  45. [53]

    Laura K Nelson. 2020. Computational grounded theory: A methodological framework. Sociological Methods & Research 49, 1 (2020), 3–42

    2020

  46. [54]

    Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela DR Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Critical race theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–16

    2020

  47. [55]

    Fabian Okeke, Michael Sobolev, Nicola Dell, and Deborah Estrin. 2018. Good vibrations: can a digital nudge reduce digital overload?. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services . 1–12

    2018

  48. [56]

    Leysia Palen and Kenneth M Anderson. 2016. Crisis informatics—New data for extraordinary times. Science 353, 6296 (2016), 224–225

    2016

  49. [57]

    Ken Peffers, Tuure Tuunanen, Marcus A Rothenberger, and Samir Chatterjee. 2007. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of management information systems 24, 3 (2007), 45–77

    2007

  50. [58]

    Jiaxin Pei, Aparna Ananthasubramaniam, Xingyao Wang, Naitian Zhou, Jackson Sargent, Apostolos Dedeloudis, and David Jurgens. 2022. Potato: The portable text annotation tool. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08620 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Hawra Rabaan and Lynn Dombrowski. 2023. Survivor-Centered Transformative Justice: An Approach to Designing Alongside Domestic Violence Stakeholders in US Muslim Communities. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2023

  52. [60]

    Lana Ramjit, Natalie Dolci, Francesca Rossi, Ryan Garcia, Thomas Ristenpart, and Dana Cuomo. 2024. Navigating Traumatic Stress Reactions During Computer Security Interventions. In 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24) . 2011–2028

    2024

  53. [61]

    Gonzalo Ramos, Christopher Meek, Patrice Simard, Jina Suh, and Soroush Ghorashi. 2020. Interactive machine teaching: a human-centered approach to building machine-learned models. Human–Computer Interaction 35, 5-6 (2020), 413–451

    2020

  54. [62]

    If Someone Downvoted My Posts—That’d Be the End of the World

    Casey Randazzo and Tawfiq Ammari. 2023. “If Someone Downvoted My Posts—That’d Be the End of the World”: Designing Safer Online Spaces for Trauma Survivors. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2023

  55. [63]

    Casey Randazzo, Carol F Scott, Rosanna Bellini, Tawfiq Ammari, Michael Ann Devito, Bryan Semaan, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2023. Trauma-Informed Design: A Collaborative Approach to Building Safer Online Spaces. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported ...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Alexander Ratner, Stephen H Bach, Henry Ehrenberg, Jason Fries, Sen Wu, and Christopher Ré. 2017. Snorkel: Rapid training data creation with weak supervision. In Proceedings of the VLDB endowment. International conference on very large data bases , Vol. 11. NIH Public Access, 269

    2017

  57. [65]

    Afsaneh Razi, John S Seberger, Nurun Naher, Munmun De Choudhury, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2024. Toward Trauma-Informed Research Practices with Youth in HCI: Caring for Participants and Research Assistants When Studying Sensitive Topics. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer...

    2024

  58. [66]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics. http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Katharina Reinecke and Abraham Bernstein. 2013. Knowing what a user likes: A design science approach to interfaces that automatically adapt to culture. Mis Quarterly (2013), 427–453

    2013

  60. [68]

    Dina Sabie, Reem Talhouk, Cansu Ekmekcioglu, Carleen Maitland, Volker Wulf, Eiad Yafi, Samar Sabie, Asam Almohamed, Safa’a AbuJarour, Kahina Le Louvier, et al. 2021. Migration and mobility in HCI: Rethinking boundaries, methods, and impact. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CH...

    2021

  61. [69]

    Devansh Saxena and Shion Guha. 2018. Algorithmic Harms in Child Welfare: Uncertainties in Practice, Organization, and Street-level Decision- Making. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Hope Schroeder, Marianne Aubin Le Quéré, Casey Randazzo, David Mimno, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2024. Large language models in qualitative research: Can we do the data justice? arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07362 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Carol F Scott, Gabriela Marcu, Riana Elyse Anderson, Mark W Newman, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2023. Trauma-Informed Social Media: Towards Solutions for Reducing and Healing Online Harm. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2023

  64. [72]

    Renee Shelby, Shalaleh Rismani, Kathryn Henne, AJung Moon, Negar Rostamzadeh, Paul Nicholas, N’Mah Yilla-Akbari, Jess Gallegos, Andrew Smart, Emilio Garcia, et al. 2023. Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction. In Proceedings of the 2...

    2023

  65. [73]

    Who is the right homeless client?

    Dilruba Showkat, Angela DR Smith, Wang Lingqing, and Alexandra To. 2023. “Who is the right homeless client?”: Values in Algorithmic Homelessness Service Provision and Machine Learning Research. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–21

    2023

  66. [74]

    2022.Qualitative literacy: A guide to evaluating ethnographic and interview research

    Mario Luis Small and Jessica McCrory Calarco. 2022.Qualitative literacy: A guide to evaluating ethnographic and interview research . Univ of California Press. Manuscript submitted to ACM 28 Tseng et al

    2022

  67. [75]

    Miriah Steiger, Timir J Bharucha, Sukrit Venkatagiri, Martin J Riedl, and Matthew Lease. 2021. The psychological well-being of content moderators: the emotional labor of commercial moderation and avenues for improving support. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human...

    2021

  68. [76]

    Angelika Strohmayer, Rosanna Bellini, and Julia Slupska. 2022. Safety as a grand challenge in pervasive computing: using feminist epistemologies to shift the paradigm from security to safety. IEEE Pervasive Computing 21, 3 (2022), 61–69

    2022

  69. [77]

    Sandeep Subramanian, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Christopher J Pal. 2018. Learning general purpose distributed sentence representations via large scale multi-task learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00079 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Kurt Thomas, Devdatta Akhawe, Michael Bailey, Dan Boneh, Elie Bursztein, Sunny Consolvo, Nicola Dell, Zakir Durumeric, Patrick Gage Kelley, Deepak Kumar, et al. 2021. Sok: Hate, harassment, and the changing landscape of online abuse. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Priv...

    2021

  71. [79]

    I Thompson. 2021. The Dart Center style guide for trauma-informed journalism. Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma. https://dartcenter. org/resources/dart-center-style-guide (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Emily Tseng, Rosanna Bellini, Nora McDonald, Matan Danos, Rachel Greenstadt, Damon McCoy, Nicola Dell, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2020. The tools and tactics used in intimate partner surveillance: An analysis of online infidelity forums. In 29th USENIX security symposium (USENIX S...

    2020

  73. [81]

    Emily Tseng, Diana Freed, Kristen Engel, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. 2021. A digital safety dilemma: Analysis of computer-mediated computer security interventions for intimate partner violence during covid-19. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors ...

    2021

  74. [82]

    We can learn. Why not?

    Emily Tseng, Fabian Okeke, Madeline Sterling, and Nicola Dell. 2020. " We can learn. Why not?" Designing Technologies to Engender Equity for Home Health Aides. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    2020

  75. [83]

    Emily Tseng, Mehrnaz Sabet, Rosanna Bellini, Harkiran Kaur Sodhi, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. 2022. Care infrastructures for digital security in intimate partner violence. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2022

  76. [84]

    Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Rosé, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Re-examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2020

  77. [85]

    John Zerilli, Alistair Knott, James Maclaurin, and Colin Gavaghan. 2019. Algorithmic decision-making and the control problem. Minds and Machines 29, 4 (2019), 555–578

    2019

  78. [86]

    Wenqi Zheng, Emma Walquist, Isha Datey, Xiangyu Zhou, Kelly Berishaj, Melissa Mcdonald, Michele Parkhill, Dongxiao Zhu, and Douglas Zytko

  79. [87]

    Track Exposure

    John Zimmerman and Jodi Forlizzi. 2014. Research through design in HCI. In Ways of Knowing in HCI . Springer, 167–189. A Interview Protocol: IPV Scenario A.1 Introduction Hello and thank you for joining today! Is now still a good time for a 75-minute interview? (If consent for...

    2014

  80. [2024]

    It’s Not What We Were Trying to Get At, but I Think Maybe It Should Be

    “It’s Not What We Were Trying to Get At, but I Think Maybe It Should Be”: Learning How to Do Trauma-Informed Design with a Data Donation Platform for Online Dating Sexual Violence. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.