Abstract

Rethinking UX requires mapping trends in empirical research to find out how the field has developed. This study addresses that need by analyzing over 400 academic empirical studies published between 2000--2016. Our research questions are, "How have the artifacts, analysis, and methods of UX research changed since the year 2000?" and "Do scholars use research questions and hypotheses to ground their research in UX?" Our research found that services, websites, and imagined objects/prototypes were among the most frequently studied artifacts, while usability studies, surveys, and interviews were the most commonly used methods. We found a significant increase in quantitative and mixed methods studies since 2010. This study showed that only 1 out of every 5 publications employed research questions to guide inquiry. We hope that these findings help UX as a field more accurately and broadly conceive of its identity with clear standards for evaluating existing research and rethinking future research opportunities as a discipline.

Journal
Communication Design Quarterly
Published
2018-02-16
DOI
10.1145/3188173.3188175
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Communication Design Quarterly
  2. Communication Design Quarterly

Cites in this index (4)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  3. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Also cites 22 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1145/2639189.2641208
  2. 10.1145/1978942.1979336
  3. 10.1145/2377783.2377790
  4. 10.1145/2838739.2838833
  5. 10.1145/2824893.2824914
  6. 10.1145/2399016.2399067
  7. 10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y
  8. 10.1145/1512714.1512717
  9. 10.1080/01449290500330331
  10. 10.1371/journal.pone.0093949
  11. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.048
  12. 10.1145/1996461.1996485
  13. 10.1145/1518701.1518813
  14. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.006
  15. 10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.008
  16. 10.1007/978-3-642-39209-2_38
  17. 10.1093/reseval/rvv049
  18. 10.1177/0018720812465006
  19. 10.5555/3040226.3040227
  20. 10.1145/1868914.1868973
  21. 10.1145/503376.503460
  22. 10.1109/INTECH.2013.6653647
CrossRef global citation count: 46 View in citation network →