Engage Wider Audience or Facilitate Quality Answers? a Mixed-methods Analysis of Questioning Strategies for Research Sensemaking on a Community Q&A Site

November 18, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact.

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Changyang He, Yue Deng, Lu He, Qingyu Guo, Yu Zhang, Zhicong Lu, Bo Li arXiv ID 2311.10975 Category cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction Citations 7 Venue Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Discussing research-sensemaking questions on Community Question and Answering (CQA) platforms has been an increasingly common practice for the public to participate in science communication. Nonetheless, how users strategically craft research-sensemaking questions to engage public participation and facilitate knowledge construction is a significant yet less understood problem. To fill this gap, we collected 837 science-related questions and 157,684 answers from Zhihu, and conducted a mixed-methods study to explore user-developed strategies in proposing research-sensemaking questions, and their potential effects on public engagement and knowledge construction. Through open coding, we captured a comprehensive taxonomy of question-crafting strategies, such as eyecatching narratives with counter-intuitive claims and rigorous descriptions with data use. Regression analysis indicated that these strategies correlated with user engagement and answer construction in different ways (e.g., emotional questions attracted more views and answers), yet there existed a general divergence between wide participation and quality knowledge establishment, when most questioning strategies could not ensure both. Based on log analysis, we further found that collaborative editing afforded unique values in refining research-sensemaking questions regarding accuracy, rigor, comprehensiveness and attractiveness. We propose design implications to facilitate accessible, accurate and engaging science communication on CQA platforms.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Human-Computer Interaction

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted