Community Advisory Boards for Technology Design in HCI: Lessons from Trans and Queer Research

Paper Title

Community Advisory Boards for Technology Design in HCI: Lessons from Trans and Queer Research

Publication Info

• Topic area: Community-based participatory research in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) with a focus on trans and queer communities.
• Keywords: Community Advisory Boards, HCI, participatory design, trans and queer research, technology co-design, community-based research, mutual aid, positionality, sustainability, equity.

Background and Problem

• Problem / challenge: Community Advisory Boards (CABs) are underutilized in HCI research, despite their potential to address power imbalances and ensure community-aligned outcomes in technology design.
• Significance: CABs can foster meaningful partnerships, especially with marginalized communities like trans and queer people, who have historically faced exploitative research practices.
• Motivation and related work: While CABs are well-established in health research, their application in HCI remains limited. Existing participatory methods in HCI often struggle with shallow engagement, power imbalances, and sustainability. This paper builds on Queer HCI and mutual aid traditions to explore how CABs can address these gaps.

Solution

• Proposed approach: The paper examines three case studies of CABs involving trans and queer communities to co-design technologies, offering insights into their establishment, implementation, and sustainability.
• Novelty:
  1. Adapts CAB practices from health research to HCI, focusing on technology design.
  2. Identifies four key facilitators for meaningful CAB partnerships: collaborative expectations, transparency, positionality, and benefits beyond research.
  3. Proposes alignment strategies for managing CAB relationships, including capacity assessment and sustainability practices.
  4. Highlights the unique challenges and opportunities of CABs in trans and queer contexts.
• Procedure and key techniques:
  • Comparative case study analysis of three CABs.
  • Reflexive thematic analysis through surveys and group discussions.
  • Integration of auto- and duo-ethnographic reflections to derive insights.

Results

• Concrete findings:
  • Four facilitators for meaningful CAB partnerships:
    1. Establishing collaborative expectations (e.g., clear communication, conflict management).
    2. Transparency in decision-making (e.g., incorporating feedback, acknowledging structural barriers).
    3. Attending to positionality (e.g., reflecting on shared and differing identities).
    4. Providing benefits beyond research (e.g., compensation, professional development, social support).
  • Alignment strategies for CAB partnerships:
    1. Shared values and goals.
    2. Capacity assessment to avoid overburdening members.
    3. Sustainability practices for long-term engagement.
    4. Translation work to align academic and community priorities.
• Advantage over baselines: CABs offer a formalized structure that addresses limitations of traditional participatory methods, such as shallow engagement and lack of power redistribution, while fostering long-term, equitable partnerships.
• Experiments / evaluation:
  • Case studies included:
    1. CAB1: A national board of 17 trans and queer youth co-designing a sexual health tool.
    2. CAB2: A mixed board of community and academic trans experts developing gender-affirming AR technologies.
    3. CAB3: A youth advisory council informing HIV prevention interventions via Discord.
  • Data collection spanned three years, involving surveys, reflections, and thematic analysis.
• Limitations and future work:
  • Lack of direct feedback from CAB members due to privacy concerns.
  • Findings are not universally generalizable; they are context-specific.
  • Future research should explore how to align academic incentives with CAB practices and address community resistance to certain technologies (e.g., AI).

Summary

This paper explores the use of Community Advisory Boards (CABs) in HCI research with trans and queer communities, focusing on technology co-design. Through three case studies, it identifies four key facilitators—collaborative expectations, transparency, positionality, and benefits beyond research—and proposes alignment strategies for sustainable and equitable partnerships. While CABs are not a universal solution, they provide a structured framework for addressing power imbalances and fostering meaningful community engagement. The findings contribute to advancing community-based research in HCI, particularly in contexts involving marginalized communities.