Understanding the Boundaries between Policymaking and HCI
Honorable MentionAuthors
There is a growing body of literature in HCI examining the intersection between policymaking and technology research. However, what it means to engage in policymaking in our field, or the ways in which evidence from HCI studies is translated into policy, is not well understood. We report on interviews with 11 participants working at the intersection of technology research and policymaking. Analysis of this data highlights how evidence is understood and made sense of in policymaking processes, what forms of evidence are privileged over others, and the work that researchers engage in to meaningfully communicate their work to policymaking audiences. We discuss how our findings pose challenges for certain traditions of research in HCI, yet also open up new policy opportunities for those engaging in more speculative research practices. We conclude by discussing three ways forward that the HCI community can explore to increase engagement with policymaking contexts.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 67%
Funding AI for Good: A Call for Meaningful Engagement
CHI '26· AI Ethics, Fairness & Accountability +2
- 67%
Skin-Deep Bias: How Avatar Appearances Shape Perceptions of AI Hiring
CHI '26· AI Ethics, Fairness & Accountability +2
- 67%
“Are Compliments Bad Now?”: Comparing LLMs and Human Interpretations of Gender Microaggressions in the Workplace
CHI '26· AI Ethics, Fairness & Accountability +2
- 60%
The General Data Protection Regulation : an opportunity for the HCI Community?
CHI '18· Privacy by Design & User Control +1
- 60%
Making Sense of Blockchain Applications: A Typology for HCI
CHI '18· Algorithmic Fairness & Bias +1
- 60%
The Politics of Privacy Theories: Moving from Norms to Vulnerabilities
CHI '20· Privacy by Design & User Control +1
- 60%
The Cruel Optimism of Tech Work: Tech Workers' Affective Attachments in the Aftermath of 2022-23 Tech Layoffs
CHI '25· Algorithmic Fairness & Bias +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)