What’s Race Got To Do With It? Confronting the Colorblindness of HCI

TL;DR

Despite the pervasive impact of technology on diverse populations, the HCI community has historically ignored race. Out of nearly 14,000 papers published over three decades, only 0.1% meaningfully address race. This workshop paper introduces Critical Race Theory (CRT) into the CHI canon, aiming to dismantle systemic biases in both research methodology and professional academic structures.

Background: The 0.1% Problem

In the world of Human-Computer Interaction, we often talk about "users" as a monolithic entity. However, the authors argue that this neutrality is a myth. The data is sobering:

• Academic Gap: According to the Taulbee Survey, Black or African American faculty make up only 1.8% of CS departments in the US/Canada.
• Research Gap: Between 1981 and 2016, a staggering 99.9% of CHI papers failed to engage with race in any meaningful capacity.

The motivation for this work is not just "representation" for the sake of optics; it is about the realization that "colorblind" design often results in technologies that actively harm or exclude non-white populations.

Methodology: Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a Tool

To bridge this gap, the authors propose using Critical Race Theory (CRT)—a framework originally from legal scholarship. CRT is built on several key pillars that the authors apply to HCI:

1. Counter-storytelling: Elevating the "stifled voices" of those who experience technology-mediated oppression.
2. Challenge to Dominant Ideology: Questioning the "objectivity" of Western-centric design.
3. Action Orientation: The workshop isn't just a discussion; it’s a design session to produce tangible artifacts like a "Best Practices Zine."

Above: The workshop structure, blending "Lightning Talks" with collaborative Zine creation and participatory design for diversity at CHI.

Why Conventional Diversity Efforts Fail

The authors highlight that current efforts, like "Diversity and Inclusion Lunches," are often "mere drops in an ocean." They argue that the community needs:

• Epistemological Change: Recognizing how race affects things as "neutral" as chatbot interactions or algorithmic moderation.
• Structural Change: Identifying the conditions in research environments that prevent researchers from even bringing up race.

Figure Tip: Refer to the introduction for the comparative breakdown of racial demographics in CS/CE departments vs. PhD awardees.

Experiments in Inclusion: The Workshop Goals

The "intervention" proposed here is a one-day deep dive designed to:

• Identify "unresolved challenges" researchers face when conducting race-related work.
• Draft a Practical Zine: A low-barrier, accessible guide for the broader community to understand how to engage with non-majority populations responsibly.
• Influence SIGCHI Leadership: Moving the needle from "discussion" to "actionable items" for conference organizers.

Critical Insight & Conclusion

This paper serves as an "intervention" in the academic coordinate system. It effectively argues that HCI's failure to engage with race is not an oversight, but a systemic bias that requires a methodological shift.

The Takeaway for the Industry: If you are building products for a global audience, "neutrality" is no longer an option. Failing to account for race in the design process is not being "objective"—it is being exclusionary. The future of HCI lies in Intersectional Design, where the nuances of identity are prioritized rather than abstracted away.

Limitations

The authors acknowledge their own positionality: being based in North American institutions, they reach a broad but not exhaustive global community. Future work must bridge the gap between "Western race politics" and the globalized contexts of technology in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.