HUMAN FACTORS, CHI, AND MIS - Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations - page 398

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ACROSS FIELDS AND CONTINENTS
Differences in language often signal broader cultural differences. CHI researchers who first used
computers as students in the 1970s did not see themselves as “operators.” They also reacted neg-
atively to the male generic “man-machine systems” of human factors and managerial papers of
that era (still used today; e.g., Banker and Kaufmann, 2004, p. 286). International Journal of
Man-Machine Studies did not become International Journal of Human-Computer Studies until
1994. These changes in terminology may seem minor, but they affected where manuscripts were
submitted, how they were handled, and the levels of enthusiasm and respect for different litera-
tures. As noted above, HFES drew psychologists focused on government contracting; CHI drew
developers from R&D divisions of software companies. Attitudes toward standards illustrated the
difference: HFES considered them a contribution to innovation; within CHI they have largely
been seen as blocking innovation. MIS drew from governmental and non-governmental user
organizations; software company participation in MIS was limited and came from marketing divi-
sions. The cultural divide between marketing and R&D within many organizations parallels the
gap between MIS and CHI.
Another distinction between CHI and the other disciplines lies in traditions of scholarship.
HF&E and MIS regard journal publication as the mark of quality. Conference papers are works in
progress, a means to get feedback and some recognition. CHI and much of computer science in
North America regard conference publication as the final repository for most research. Leading
researchers in CHI and other computer science disciplines repeatedly note the declining signifi-
cance of journals. (Possible origins and ramifications of this cultural divide are discussed in
Grudin [2004a].)
Table 19.1 provides suggestive data. Two leading journals are considered for each discipline:
IJMMS/IJHC and BIT, ISR and MISQ, HCI and TOCHI. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10
percent from recent figures provided by editors. The pool of conference papers is comparable
across areas. CHI journals attract relatively few submissions despite higher acceptance rates than
CHI conferences. By my estimate, 10 percent of CHI-sponsored conference papers progress to
journal articles. In contrast, Jay Nunamaker, speaking at HICSS 2004, estimated that 80 percent of
MIS track papers reach journal publication. For most CHI authors, conference selectivity is suffi-
cient validation of quality (CHI, CSCW, and UIST median acceptance rates for the past three years
were 16 percent, 20 percent, and 21 percent). ACM and IEEE guidelines discourage journal repub-
lication of conference material. In contrast, HF&E and MIS treat conference papers as works in
progress, even for ICIS, a selective conference. MIS tracks at HICSS accept around 50 percent, the
OCIS and TIM tracks of AOM accept 60 percent, and AIS SIGHCI events have a median of about
65 percent. HF&E figures are based on HCII and the CSTG track of the annual conference.
These differences in academic culture impede dialogue. Researchers in HF&E or MIS who
submit work in progress to CHI conferences will be rejected, and efforts to polish conference
papers can seem an inappropriate expenditure of energy in a journal-oriented field. After CHI
reduced its acceptance rate from 34 percent to 18 percent in 1985, human factors participation
largely disappeared. In interviews, some human factors researchers of that era note CHI's insis-
tence on polished work. Others focus on methodological differences.
Computer-supported cooperative work strove to bridge CHI and MIS. In 1986, four of thirteen
CSCW program committee members and many accepted papers were from schools of manage-
ment. The conference included speakers from schools of management, business and policy at
Arizona, Harvard, London School of Economics, Michigan, MIT, NYU, UCI, and USC. By con-
trast, the last three CSCW program committees had no one primarily affiliated with a school of