Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

CTIN 510 • Weekly Readings & Library

Course supplement to plan your explorations.

Published onJan 08, 2023
CTIN 510 • Weekly Readings & Library

Weekly Readings

All resources are freely available via the USC library, via Interlibrary Loan (ILIAD)[1], or via the ARES Course Reserves. If you encounter paywalls, you are not searching through the right channel. Be sure to link your Google Scholar account with the USC Library.

Week 1 – Introduction

Masterclass “How research can make your games better?”

Week 2 – Basic research skills and concepts

Kamp, M. a, Slotty, P., Sarikaya-Seiwert, S., Steiger, H.-J., & Hänggi, D. (2011). Traumatic brain injuries in illustrated literature: Experience from a series of over 700 head injuries in the Asterix comic books. Acta Neurochirurgica, 153(6), 1351–1355; discussion 1355.

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2010). Autoethnography: An Overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1).

Week 3 – The art of literature reviews

  • PRISMA on Scoping Reviews (Includes the PRISMA checklist, an explainer video, and tips)

  • In USC SAGE: Byrne, D. (2017). Reviewing the literature. Project Planner. USC link

Paré, G., Trudel, M. C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information and Management, 52(2), 183–199.

Scoping review samples:

Kwok, I., & Wescott, A. B. (2020). Cyberintimacy: A scoping review of technology-mediated romance in the digital Age. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(10), 657–666.

Ravenek, K. E., Wolfe, D. L., & Hitzig, S. L. (2015). A scoping review of video gaming in rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 00(00), 1–9.

Crampton, N. H., Reis, S., & Shachak, A. (2016). Computers in the clinical encounter: A scoping review and thematic analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(3), 654–665.

Akhtar, M. H., & Ramkumar, J. (2023). Primary Health Center: Can it be made mobile for efficient healthcare services for hard to reach population? A state-of-the-art review. Discover Health Systems, 2(1), 3.

Evans, L., Evans, J., Pagliari, C., & Källander, K. (2023). Scoping review: Exploring the equity impact of current digital health design practices. Oxford Open Digital Health, 1, oqad006.

Lokmic-Tomkins, Z., Bhandari, D., Bain, C., Borda, A., Kariotis, T. C., & Reser, D. (2023). Lessons learned from natural disasters around digital health technologies and delivering quality healthcare. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4542.

Week 4 – Introduction to interviewing methods and qualitative coding methods

Deep dives:
Roulston, K. (2010). Designing studies that use interviews. In Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice (pp. 74-95). SAGE Publications Ltd,

Hewitt, J. (2007). Ethical components of researcher—Researched relationships in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1149–1159.

Guillemin, M., & Heggen, K. (2012). The narrative approach as a learning strategy in the formation of novice researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 22(5), 700–707.

Harris, A., & Guillemin, M. (2012). Developing sensory awareness in qualitative interviewing: A portal into the otherwise unexplored. Qualitative Health Research, 22(5), 689–699.

Soiferman, L. K. (2010). Compare and contrast inductive and deductive research approaches (ED542066; p. 23). ERIC.

Week 5 – Guest lecture - Games and Human-Computer Interaction Methods

Medlock, M. C. (2018). The Rapid Iterative Test and Evaluation Method (RITE). Games User Research, 203–215.

Medlock, M. C., Lead, U. T., Studios, M. G., Wixon, D., Manager, U., Terrano, M., Designer, G., & Studios, E. (2002). Using the RITE method to improve products: A definition and a case study. Usability Professionals Association.

Chapter 15 in:
Drachen, A., Mirza-Babaei, P., & Nacke, L. (2018). Games User Research. Oxford University Press. (USC eBook)

Tractinsky, N. (2018). The Usability Construct: A Dead End? Human–Computer Interaction, 33(2), 131–177.

Moreno-Ger, P., Torrente, J., Hsieh, Y. G., & Lester, W. T. (2012). Usability testing for serious games: Making informed design decisions with user data. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2012.

Wixon, D. (2003). Evaluating usability methods. Interactions, 10(4), 28–34.

Bonus material:

Medlock, M. C., Wixon, D., McGee, M., & Welsh, D. (2005). The rapid iterative test and evaluation method: Better products in less time. In Cost-Justifying Usability (pp. 489–517). Elsevier Inc.

Borsci, S., Macredie, R. D., Martin, J. L., & Young, T. (2014). How many testers are needed to assure the usability of medical devices? Expert Review of Medical Devices, 11(5), 513–525.

Nielsen, J. (2000). Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users.

Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’93, 206–213.

Week 6 – Introduction to constructing and selecting questionnaires

Wixon, D. (2011). Measuring fun, trust, confidence, and other ethereal constructs. Interactions, 18(6), 74.

eBook Reference Guide:
Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. SAGE Publications, Inc. (USC Link)

Current consensus:

Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Measuring sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation (N. Bates, M. Chin, & T. Becker, Eds.; p. 26424). National Academies Press.

Critical perspective:

Spiel, K. (2021). ”Why are they all obsessed with Gender?”—(Non)binary Navigations through Technological Infrastructures. Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021, 478–494.

Deep dive:

Tyack, A., & Mekler, E. D. (2020). Self-determination theory in HCI games research: Current uses and open questions. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–22.

Week 7 – Ethnographic Interviewing and Analysis

(See Presentations folder in GDrive).

Week 8 – Introduction to analysis of survey data and basic statistics

Wendi’s List (ordered by duration)

1. Distributions in JMP

2. Distributions in general

3. Normality

4. Central limit theorem

5. Variable types: ordinal, nominal, etc

6. Five number summaries in JMP

7. Box plots, bar charts, histograms

Marientina’s List 

Week 9 – Introduction to interdisciplinary topics of ethics in research

Sample research protocols in GDrive.

Bonus materials (try to read at least 2 articles):

Madary, M., & Metzinger, T. K. (2016). Real virtuality: A code of ethical conduct. Recommendations for good scientific practice and the consumers of VR-technology. Frontiers Robotics AI, 3(FEB), 1–23.

Gotsis, M., & Jordan-Marsh, M. (2018). Calling HCI professionals into health research: Patient safety and health equity at stake. Proceedings of the 22nd Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics - PCI ’18, 213–218.

Karppinen, P., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013). Three approaches to ethical considerations in the design of behavior change support systems. In S. Berkovsky & J. Freyne (Eds.), Persuasive 2013 (pp. 87–98). Springer-Verlag.

Brown, B., Weilenmann, A., McMillan, D., & Lampinen, A. (2016). Five provocations for ethical HCI research. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 852–863.

Spiel, K., & Gerling, K. (2020). The Purpose of play: How HCI games research fails neurodivergent populations. 1(1), 1–41.

Vines, J., McNaney, R., Clarke, R., Lindsay, S., McCarthy, J., Howard, S., Romero, M., & Wallace, J. (2013). Designing for- and with- vulnerable people. CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems on - CHI EA ’13, 3231.

Burr, C., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). The ethics of digital well-being: A thematic review. In Science and Engineering Ethics (Vol. 26, Issue 4). Springer Netherlands.

Alexander, S. J. (2010). “As long as it helps somebody”: Why vulnerable people participate in research. In International Journal of Palliative Nursing (Vol. 16, Issue 4, pp. 173–178). MA Healthcare Ltd.

Archibald, M. M., & Gerber, N. (2018). Arts and mixed methods research: An innovative methodological merger. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 956–977.

Lynch, B. (2020). Introduction: Neither helpful nor unhelpful–a clear way forward for the useful museum. In Museums and Social Change (pp. 1-32). Routledge.

Recommended movies (in ARES Course Reserves)

  • Crip Camp (2020) - Down the road from Woodstock, a revolution blossomed at a ramshackle summer camp for teenagers with disabilities, transforming their lives and igniting a landmark movement. A film that showcases radical inclusivity and activism for young people with disabilities.

  • First Language (2014) - An Emmy Award-winning documentary that chronicles the efforts of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to preserve and revitalize the endangered Cherokee language. An exemplary project of community-based research and education programs led by insiders.

  • Miss Evers’ Boys (1997) - The true story of the U.S. Government's 1932 Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, in which a group of black test subjects were allowed to die, despite a developed cure. A film about one of the most famous ethical violations in medical research.

  • Picture A Scientist - K-12 Edition(2020) - Despite the minimal news coverage, sexual harassment and gender inequality against women are no less prevalent in science than they are in pop culture and corporate America. A film that demonstrates the costs of exclusion and discrimination in science.

Week 10 – No class - Spring break

Week 11 – Intermediate qualitative research methods

Chapter 1 from Saldaña manual in GDrive.

McDonald, N., Schoenebeck, S., & Forte, A. (2019). Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–23.

Week 12 – Intermediate statistical methods

See resources in class GDrive.

Week 13 – Project triage

Week 14 – Longitudinal research methods in games

Gotsis, M., Wang, H., Spruijt-Metz, D., Jordan-Marsh, M., & Valente, T. W. (2013). Wellness Partners: Design and evaluation of a web-based physical activity diary with social gaming features for adults. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(2), 1–14.

Gesell, S. B., Barkin, S. L., & Valente, T. W. (2013). Social network diagnostics: A tool for monitoring group interventions. Implementation Science : IS, 8(1), 116.

Week 15 – Guest lecture - TBD special topic


Week 16 – Project triage


Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative Interviewing. Oxford University Press.
(USC eBook link)­­

Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Measuring sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation (N. Bates, M. Chin, & T. Becker, Eds.; p. 26424). National Academies Press.

Hammond, M., & Wellington, J. (2020). Research Methods; The Key Concepts; Second Edition (2nd ed.). Routledge. (USC Link)

Lankoski, P., & Bjork, S. (Eds.). (2015). Game Research Methods: An Overview. ETC Press. Available here.

Drachen, A., Mirza-Babaei, P., & Nacke, L. (2018). Games User Research. Oxford University Press. (USC Link)

Select chapters added in ARES Course Reserves (pending):

Esposito, J., & Evans-Winters, V. (2021). Introduction to Intersectional Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.

Pink, S., Lanzeni, D., Duque, M., Sumartojo, S., & Strengers, Y. (2022). Design ethnography: Research, responsibilities, and futures. Routledge.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications. (or 2009 which is available online via Google as a scanned PDF)

Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2021). Qualitative Research: Analyzing Life (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.


Durham, Aisha. An introduction to the autoethnographic method. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2017. VIDEO@USC: (10 minutes)

Bliss, L. A., & Rocco, T. S. (2013). “Mind the gap”: Qualitative researchers and mixed methods research. 2003 COERC, 25–30.“Mind+the+gap”%3A+Qualitative+Researchers+and+Mixed+Methods+Rese

Michelle O’Reilly, & Nisha Dogra. (2017). Designing your interview study. In Interviewing children and young people for research (p. 15–). SAGE Publications Ltd.
(USC eBook link)

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251.

Duncan, L. R., Hieftje, K. D., Culyba, S., & Fiellin, L. E. (2014). Game playbooks: Tools to guide multidisciplinary teams in developing videogame-based behavior change interventions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 108–116.

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.

Topics in Autoethnography

Lapadat, J. C. (2017). Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(8), 589–603.

Pelias, R. J. (2019). Writing autoethnography. Writing Performance, Identity, and Everyday Life, 1(4), 31–52.

Wessner, P. B. (2021). Finding hope. Journal of Autoethnography, 2(3), 355–358.

No comments here
Why not start the discussion?