Softening Up Hard Science: Reply to Newell and Card

John M. Carroll, Robert L. Campbell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A source of intellectual overhead periodically encountered by scientists is the call to be “hard,” to ensure good science by imposing severe methodological strictures. Newell and Card (1985) undertook to impose such strictures on the psychology of human-computer interaction. Although their discussion contributes to theoretical debate in human-computer interaction by setting a reference point, their specific argument fails. Their program is unmotivated, is severely limited, and suffers from these limitations in principle. A top priority for the psychology of human-computer interaction should be the articulation of an alternative explanatory program, one that takes as its starting point the need to understand the real problems involved in providing better computer tools for people to use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)227-249
Number of pages23
JournalHuman-Computer Interaction
Volume2
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1986

Fingerprint

Human computer interaction
Pathologic Constriction
Psychology

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Applied Psychology
  • Human-Computer Interaction

Cite this

Carroll, John M. ; Campbell, Robert L. / Softening Up Hard Science : Reply to Newell and Card. In: Human-Computer Interaction. 1986 ; Vol. 2, No. 3. pp. 227-249.
@article{85c9467f73804cc7bf3bbd5728357bc7,
title = "Softening Up Hard Science: Reply to Newell and Card",
abstract = "A source of intellectual overhead periodically encountered by scientists is the call to be “hard,” to ensure good science by imposing severe methodological strictures. Newell and Card (1985) undertook to impose such strictures on the psychology of human-computer interaction. Although their discussion contributes to theoretical debate in human-computer interaction by setting a reference point, their specific argument fails. Their program is unmotivated, is severely limited, and suffers from these limitations in principle. A top priority for the psychology of human-computer interaction should be the articulation of an alternative explanatory program, one that takes as its starting point the need to understand the real problems involved in providing better computer tools for people to use.",
author = "Carroll, {John M.} and Campbell, {Robert L.}",
year = "1986",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1207/s15327051hci0203_3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "227--249",
journal = "Human-Computer Interaction",
issn = "0737-0024",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

Softening Up Hard Science : Reply to Newell and Card. / Carroll, John M.; Campbell, Robert L.

In: Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 2, No. 3, 09.1986, p. 227-249.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Softening Up Hard Science

T2 - Reply to Newell and Card

AU - Carroll, John M.

AU - Campbell, Robert L.

PY - 1986/9

Y1 - 1986/9

N2 - A source of intellectual overhead periodically encountered by scientists is the call to be “hard,” to ensure good science by imposing severe methodological strictures. Newell and Card (1985) undertook to impose such strictures on the psychology of human-computer interaction. Although their discussion contributes to theoretical debate in human-computer interaction by setting a reference point, their specific argument fails. Their program is unmotivated, is severely limited, and suffers from these limitations in principle. A top priority for the psychology of human-computer interaction should be the articulation of an alternative explanatory program, one that takes as its starting point the need to understand the real problems involved in providing better computer tools for people to use.

AB - A source of intellectual overhead periodically encountered by scientists is the call to be “hard,” to ensure good science by imposing severe methodological strictures. Newell and Card (1985) undertook to impose such strictures on the psychology of human-computer interaction. Although their discussion contributes to theoretical debate in human-computer interaction by setting a reference point, their specific argument fails. Their program is unmotivated, is severely limited, and suffers from these limitations in principle. A top priority for the psychology of human-computer interaction should be the articulation of an alternative explanatory program, one that takes as its starting point the need to understand the real problems involved in providing better computer tools for people to use.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022985595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022985595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1207/s15327051hci0203_3

DO - 10.1207/s15327051hci0203_3

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0022985595

VL - 2

SP - 227

EP - 249

JO - Human-Computer Interaction

JF - Human-Computer Interaction

SN - 0737-0024

IS - 3

ER -