I'm finding this one helpful some former WaPo folks there... contrarian.substack.com

www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/arti...

This sounds like the kind of thing that the 'implications for design paper' was aimed at quashing many years ago (dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/...) -- feels like it's maybe time for thoughtful re-articulation of research methods and best practices in our communities...

I personally find hard to read very small but tightly constructed studies that don't seem to offer much in the way of ecological validity or broader impact, that make it through reviewing with flying colors. I guess that's my internal straw man :)

And I used the word 'rigor' because others and I have been exploring why lately design papers have been attacked more and more for 'lack' of it... I think we all could use a well-written primer in research methods of HCI/Games to help reviewers and give us a solid foundation for our conversations.

Thanks for these thoughtful remarks, Sebastian--much appreciated. There's poorly conducted research on many fronts these days, and I agree, rushing things is a big part of it. I really crave kind, thoughtful, uplifting communication and wise decision making these days, condolences accepted!

The vitriol in your tone here is unfortunate. I believe (as someone who does design research) that there is some valuable work in this area. There's certainly poorly conceived work taking any approach, including 'rigorously' designed studies that honestly might lead us nowhere.