Research in User-Centered Design 2009 to 2018: A Systematic Keyword Network Analysis

User-centered design (UCD) has become an important concept in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and other disciplines. While there is abundant UCD research, keyword analysis research has been less studied even though keywords are important for achieving better understanding of UCD. Therefore, this study provides keywords network a visual analysis of UCD articles published between 2009 and 2018 to answer the following questions: (1) What UCD-related keywords have been studied and in which disciplines? and (2) How have keywords been connected to on another? The study analyzed 304 keywords articles from IEEE, ACM, and ScienceDirect that included “UCD” in their titles. It utilized Gephi 0.9.2 to visualize keyword frequencies, relationships, and authors’ disciplines. The findings presented that the five most frequently mentioned keywords regarding UCD were “usability,” “HCI,” “User Experiences,” “User-Centered,” and “User Interfaces”. The top five most identified disciplines in the UCD articles were Computer Science, Design, Engineering, Education, and Psychology. In visualizing this data, we created a keyword hierarchy with various sizes of texts and circles, and we denoted various relationship levels between keywords by different weights of edges. This visualization of the selected 43 keywords shows a clear relationship between keywords in which UCD is strongly related to usability, UX, user-centered, HCI, Persona, prototype, interaction design, interface design, assistive technology, design thinking. The findings can be valuable in understanding the current UCD research mainstream for researchers and designers pursuing interdisciplinary approaches

Evidence-based activism: Patients' organisations, users' and activist's groups in knowledge

This article proposes the notion of ‘evidence-based activism’ to capture patients’ and health activists’ groups’ focus on knowledge production and knowledge mobilisation in the governance of health issues. It introduces empirical data and analysis on groups active in four countries (France, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom), and in four condition-areas (rare diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, ADHD – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and childbirth). It shows how these groups engage with, and articulate a variety of credentialed knowledge and ‘experiential knowledge’ with a view to explore concerned people’s situations, to make themselves part and parcel of the networks of expertise on their conditions in their national contexts, and to elaborate evidence on the issues they deem important to address both at an individual and at a collective level. This article argues that in contrast to health movements which contest institutions from the outside, patients’ and activists’ groups which embrace ‘evidence-based activism’ work ‘from within’ to imagine new epistemic and political appraisal of their causes and conditions. ‘Evidence-based activism’ entails a collective inquiry associating patients/activists and specialists/professionals in the conjoint fabrics of scientific statements and political claims. From a conceptual standpoint, ‘evidence-based activism’ sheds light on the ongoing co-production of matters of fact and matters of concern in contemporary technological democracies

The babel of drugs: On the consequences of evidential pluralism in pharmaceutical regulation and regulatory data journeys

This is the final version. Available on open access from Springer via the DOI in this recordThroughout the last century, pharmaceutical regulators all over the world have used various methods to test medical treatments. From 1962 until 2016, the Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT) was the reference test for most regulatory agencies. Today, the standards are about to change, and in this chapter we draw on the idea of the data journey to illuminate the trade-offs involved. The 21st Century Cures Act (21CCA) allows for the use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) for the assessment of different treatment indications for already approved drugs. This might arguably shorten the testing period, bringing treatments to patients faster. Yet, EHR are not generated for testing purposes and no amount of standardization and curation can fully make up for their potential flaws as evidence of safety and efficacy. The more noise in the data, the more mistakes regulators are likely to make in granting market access to new drugs. In this paper we will discuss the different dimensions of this journey: the different sources and levels of curation involved, the speed at which they can travel, and the level of risk of regulatory error involved as compared with the RCT standard. We are going to defend that what counts as evidence, at the end of the journey, depends on the risk definition and threshold regulators work with.European Research Council (ERC)Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC