SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2601.19021

Listening before Asking: Lived-Experience Advisors as Methodological Partners in Dementia Caregiving Studies

Abstract

Research with dementia caregivers poses persistent methodological and ethical challenges, particularly when interview-based studies are designed without sufficient grounding in lived caregiving realities. Questions framed through clinical or deficit-oriented assumptions risk alienating participants, undermining rapport, and producing shallow or ethically fraught data. While human-computer interaction (HCI) research increasingly adopts participatory approaches in technology design, participation rarely extends to the design of research methods themselves. This paper examines the role of lived-experience advisors as methodological partners in caregiver interview research. We report on a qualitative study in which two advisors with extensive dementia caregiving experience were engaged prior to fieldwork as methodological partners, extending participatory principles beyond technology design into the design of research methods themselves. Drawing on transcripts of advisor consultations and subsequent interviews with ten caregivers and one person living with dementia, we identify two key methodological contributions of advisor involvement. First, advisors enabled anticipatory validity by surfacing caregiving challenges, ethical sensitivities, and interpretive concerns that later appeared in caregiver interviews, allowing the researcher to enter the field with grounded awareness under constrained recruitment and fieldwork conditions. Second, advisors provided cultural, emotional, and systemic context that improved interpretive sensitivity and helped avoid misreadings. We argue that lived experience functions as methodological infrastructure, extending participatory principles into the design and conduct of research itself, and constituting a generalizable methodological pattern for HCI research with caregivers and other vulnerable or marginalized populations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joy Lai, Kelly Beaton, David Black, Alex Mihailidis. 2026-01-26. Listening before Asking: Lived-Experience Advisors as Methodological Partners in Dementia Caregiving Studies. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19021

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC