What Do We Mean by 'Pilot Study': Early Findings from a Meta-Review of Pilot Study Reporting at CHI
This addresses a methodological issue for HCI researchers, but it is incremental as it reviews existing practices without proposing new solutions.
The paper tackles the problem of inconsistent and vague reporting of pilot studies in HCI research at CHI, finding that many papers reference pilots without details, indicating a methodological blind spot.
Pilot studies (PS) are ubiquitous in HCI research. CHI papers routinely reference 'pilot studies', 'pilot tests', or 'preliminary studies' to justify design decisions, verify procedures, or motivate methodological choices. Yet despite their frequency, the role of pilot studies in HCI remains conceptually vague and empirically underexamined. Unlike fields such as medicine, nursing, and education, where pilot and feasibility studies have well-established definitions, guidelines, reporting standards and even a dedicated research journal, the CHI community lacks a shared understanding of what constitutes a pilot study, why they are conducted, and how they should be reported. Many papers reference pilots 'in passing', without details about design, outcomes, or how the pilot informed the main study. This variability suggests a methodological blind spot in our community.