“Human-centered research” must make sure that research practices are accessible for both participants and researchers with disabilities. Yet, people rarely discuss how to make common methods accessible. We interviewed 17 accessibility experts who were researchers or community organizers about their practices. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering accessibility at all stages of the research process and across different dimensions of studies like communication, materials, time, and space. We explore how technology or processes could reflect a norm of accessibility and offer a practical structure for planning accessible research.
This study examines 154,305 Google reviews from across the United States for all medical specialties. Many patients use online physician reviews but we need to understand effects of gender on review content. Reviewer gender was inferred from names.
Reviews were coded for overall patient experience (negative or positive) by collapsing a 5-star scale and for general categories (process, positive/negative soft skills). We estimated binary regression models to examine relationships between physician rating, patient experience themes, physician gender, and reviewer gender.
We found considerable bias against female physicians: Reviews of female physicians were considerably more negative than those of male physicians (OR 1.99; P<.001). Critiques of female physicians more often focused on soft skills such as amicability, disrespect and candor. Negative reviews typically have words such as “rude, arrogant, and condescending”
Reviews written by female patients were also more likely to mention disrespect (OR 1.27, P<.001), but female patients were less likely to report disrespect from female doctors than expected.
Finally, patient experiences with the bureaucratic process also impacted reviews. This includes issues like cost of care. Overall, lower patient satisfaction is correlated with high physician dominance (e.g., poor information sharing or using medical jargon)
Limitations of our work include the lack of definitive (or non-binary) information about gender; and the fact that we do not know about the actual outcomes of treatment for reviewers.
Even so, it seems critical that readers attend to the who the reviewers are when reading online reviews. Review sites may also want to provide information about gender differences, control for gender when presenting composite ratings for physicians, and helping users write less biased reviews. Reviewers should be aware of their own gender biases and assess reviews for this (http://slowe.github.io/genderbias/).
A deeper understanding of how discrimination impacts psychological health and well-being of students would allow us to better protect individuals at risk and support those who encounter discrimination. While the link between discrimination and diminished psychological and physical well-being is well established, existing research largely focuses on chronic discrimination and long-term outcomes. A better understanding of the short-term behavioral correlates of discrimination events could help us to concretely quantify the experience, which in turn could support policy and intervention design. In this paper we specifically examine, for the first time, what behaviors change and in what ways in relation to discrimination. We use actively-reported and passively-measured markers of health and well-being in a sample of 209 first-year college students over the course of two academic quarters. We examine changes in indicators of psychological state in relation to reports of unfair treatment in terms of five categories of behaviors: physical activity, phone usage, social interaction, mobility, and sleep. We find that students who encounter unfair treatment become more physically active, interact more with their phone in the morning, make more calls in the evening, and spend less time in bed on the day of the event. Some of these patterns continue the next day.
Jasper Tran O’Leary, Sara Zewde, Jennifer Mankoff , Daniela K. Rosner
This paper draws on a collaborative project called the Africatown Activation to examine the role design practices play in contributing to (or conspiring against) the flourishing of the Black community in Seattle, Washington. Specifically, we describe the efforts of a community group called Africatown to design and build an installation that counters decades of disinvestment and ongoing displacement in the historically Black Central Area neighborhood. Our analysis suggests that despite efforts to include community, conventional design practices may perpetuate forms of institutional racism: enabling activities of community engagement that may further legitimate racialized forms of displacement. We discuss how focusing on amplifying the legacies of imagination already at work may help us move beyond a simple reading of design as the solution to systemic forms of oppression.
Academic success and promotion are heavily influenced by publication record. In many fields, including computer science, multi-author papers are the norm. Evidence from other fields shows that norms for ordering author names can influence the assignment of credit. We interviewed 38 students and faculty in human- computer interaction (HCI) and machine learning (ML) at two institutions to determine factors related to assignment of author order in collaborative publication in the field of computer science. We found that women were concerned with author order earlier in the process:
Interview outcomes informed metrics for our bibliometric analysis of gender and collaboration in papers published between 1996 and 2016 in three top HCI and ML conferences. We found expected results overall — being the most junior author increased the likelihood of first authorship, while being the most senior author increased the likelihood of last authorship. However, these effects disappeared or even reversed for women authors:
Based on our findings, we make recommendations for assignment of credit in multi-author papers and interpretation of author order, particularly with respect to how these factors affect women.