Cscw related work

CSCW Related Work

Related work at CSCW is not a defensive perimeter; it is where the paper joins a forty-year conversation. Reviewers here are unusually likely to be the authors of the traditions you cite, to know the concept lineage personally, and — because of Revise and Resubmit — to check in round two whether the engagement you added in round one is real.

The four literatures to braid

Literature	What reviewers check	Failure smell
CSCW's own lineage	That you know the concept history (awareness, articulation work, incentive misalignment, place/space) before renaming a piece of it	"We introduce the novel notion of..." for an idea with a 1992 citation
Recent PACMHCI-era CSCW work	Engagement with the last ~3-5 years of the venue on your topic	A related-work section whose newest CSCW citation predates the journal era
Neighboring venues	CHI, ICWSM, GROUP, DIS, and TOCHI work on the same phenomenon, cited by contribution rather than lumped	Treating a CHI interface study and a CSCW practice study as interchangeable
Source disciplines	The sociology, organization studies, communication, or STS work your framing borrows	Invoking a social theory via a secondary HCI citation only

Braiding matters more than coverage: a paragraph per literature, each ending in what this paper takes from or contests in it, beats an alphabetical tour.

Era-correct citation of CSCW itself

CSCW's publication record has a seam in it, and sloppy citations tear on the seam:

• Before 2017: conference proceedings papers — "In Proceedings of CSCW '96."
• 2017 onward: journal articles — "Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 1, No. CSCW, Article 31." There is no "Proceedings of CSCW 2019" for papers; a bibliography entry claiming one signals the authors have not read carefully.
• Verify each CSCW citation on dblp (conf/cscw stream) or the ACM DL PACMHCI CSCW track; fix venue strings your reference manager guessed.

The Lasting Impact lineage in resources/exemplars/library.md doubles as a spine for concept-history paragraphs: if your topic touches failure-of-adoption, cite through Grudin 1988; awareness, through Dourish & Bellotti 1992; place and presence, through Harrison & Dourish 1996; sensitive-community storytelling, through Dimond et al. 2013; moderation at platform scale, through the PACMHCI-era trace canon.

Positioning moves that survive re-review

• Contest, don't just cite. "Unlike X, we find..." is only safe when you can name the condition that explains the difference; otherwise write "extending X to a setting where..."
• Give every neighboring-venue citation a job. A CHI citation should mark the interaction-level boundary of your claim; an ICWSM citation should mark the measurement baseline you build past.
• Import theory at the source. If Suchman, Star, Goffman, or Ostrom is doing analytic work in your paper, cite and quote the primary text; reviewers from the source discipline will notice a chain of second-hand paraphrases.
• Date your snapshot. For fast-moving topics (moderation policy, AI-mediated collaboration), state when the literature search closed — the R&R gap can span most of a year, and round-two reviewers may expect newer work acknowledged.

Self-citation under anonymous journal review

Submissions are anonymized. Your own prior work must be cited in the third person ("Building on the deployment reported by [12]...") and must not be the only scaffolding the argument stands on — a paper that cites one anonymous-adjacent thread six times deanonymizes itself structurally even with names removed. If prior work is on arXiv or a personal site, do not link it in a way that resolves identity.

Audit block

[Lineage]    Oldest CSCW concept engaged: <paper, year> — engaged or name-dropped?
[Recency]    Newest CSCW/PACMHCI citation: <year>; search-close date stated? y/n
[Neighbors]  CHI/ICWSM/GROUP/DIS citations each given a boundary-marking job? y/n
[Sources]    Primary-text citation for each imported theory? y/n
[Era check]  All post-2017 CSCW refs cite PACMHCI vol/issue/article? y/n
[Anonymity]  Self-citations third-person, load-bearing count ≤ 2? y/n

Re-run the audit at every R&R: reviewers who asked for missing literature will read the new paragraphs first, and they can tell insertion from integration.

Citation-form facts verified against the ACM DL and dblp on 2026-07-08.