COMPASS 2022 Paper #250 Reviews and Comments =========================================================================== Paper #250 Note: “I Use YouTube Now in COVID”: Understanding Technology Adoption of Indigenous Communities during COVID-19 Pandemic in Bangladesh Review #250A =========================================================================== Reviewer expertise ------------------ 3. Knowledgeable Intended Contribution --------------------- This paper seeks to understand technology usage by indigenous communities in Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors conducted seven focus groups with 36 participants, resulting in six hours of audio recordings. They documented various positive aspects of technology usage during this period (such as skills training for teachers and aids for business) as well as challenges (such as misinformation and scams relating to financial transactions and sales). Strengths --------- The study addresses an interesting topic (engagement of remote communities with technology during the pandemic). It has a valid research methodology that is respectful of the communities and likely gathered interesting data. The specific findings described are novel and provocative, especially in the challenges faced (e.g., a public cash transfer scheme leading to misinformation/scams that new SIM cards are needed to receive the transfers; being tricked into buying the wrong product online) as well as some of the positive uses (tailor discovering a new design on YouTube; showing products for sale remotely). Weaknesses ---------- While promising as an initial exploration, unfortunately the paper does not engage sufficiently deeply with the data or with prior literature to substantiate a full-length contribution. The detailed qualitative results (Sections 5.2-5.3) span about two pages, and would have to be expanded to about 7-9 pages to match with strong qualitative papers in this venue. The related work focuses on the overlap with indigenous communities but does not engage with broader literature on technology use in the Global South. Finally, the paper needs significant improvement in its writing and presentation. Detailed feedback for authors ----------------------------- As indicated above, I appreciated several aspects of this work. I found that the challenges faced, such as unexpected scams relating to public benefit programs, and negative first experiences of online shopping, were among the most new and interesting results, and could likely be expanded into their own paper. It is also interesting to learn about tailors finding designs on YouTube, and technology enabling remote sales even for small-scale businesses during the pandemic. In its current form, the paper could be a good candidate for a poster, note, or work-in-progress session in various HCI venues. However, as a full-length contribution, the weaknesses cited above would prevent publication in venues such as COMPASS. Perhaps the biggest barrier is the overall depth of the paper; it engages at a surface level with both the data and the literature, but would need to be expanded significantly for a full-length contribution. A few additional comments: - The paper repeatedly asserts that there are "no gender differences" which is likely too strong of a claim. Perhaps it could be qualified to indicate along what dimensions there were not significant differences observed. - The paper needs to be edited for language clarity throughout. For example, in the abstract, I'm not sure how to interpret "We found their communities scenarios that are strongly connected in communities" - In Table 1, is Internet access referring to a data connection from a phone? Often the word "Internet" is used in the context of computers. - In Table 1, on the designation of low income vs. upper middle income as per the World Bank - can a citation be added to clarify the actual amount of income? Also, are these representative of the communities studied? Many seem middle upper income. - The paper could expand its literature search. For example, in understanding teachers' engagement with technology, consider [1] and the papers it cites. In discussion of privacy and security concerns, consider [2] and the papers it cites. For general usage of technology in similar communities, consider [3] and the papers that cite it, etc. [1] Varanasi et al., "Challenges and Issues Integrating Smartphones into Teacher Support Programs in India", ICTD 2020. [2] Vashistha et al., "​Examining Security and Privacy Research in Developing Regions", COMPASS 2018. [3] Medhi Thies, "User interface design for low-literate and novice users: Past, present and future", Foundations and Trends in HCI 2015. Overall recommendation ---------------------- 1. Reject Suggested revisions (if applicable) ----------------------------------- See above. (R&R only) Recommendation after major revision ---------------------------------------------- 1. Reject Consider for a paper award? --------------------------- 1. No Review #250B =========================================================================== Reviewer expertise ------------------ 3. Knowledgeable Intended Contribution --------------------- The paper aims to study underrepresented indigenous communities of Bangladesh to understand their technology adoption during the Covid19 pandemic. Strengths --------- Working with underrepresented communities is commendable and a much-needed area of research. Weaknesses ---------- The paper does not offer any new insights and neither provides any results unique to the indigenous community. The results reported are fairly generic and already available. The link to HCI or CSCW research is also weak. Detailed feedback for authors ----------------------------- First, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the authors in conducting research with indigenous communities of Bangladesh. Such research is much needed and is not well represented in HCI literature. The number of participants is decent and the use of research methods is also appropriate. However, I find several challenges in accepting the research in its current form. First, the research talks about technology adoption during COVID, however, the data about technology use pre-covid is not provided. It is a well-known fact that technology usage during COVID time increased significantly across the communities and across the globe. To argue for adoption, I would like to have the data of pre-covid usage to see if there were any new users of technology or did they follow the global pattern. While the authors have connected with 6 communities, there is almost no diversity in terms of economic levels. Barring 3 participants, the rest are Upper-middle or high income; and barring one, the rest possessed smartphones. My guess (data not provided) is that all smartphone users were already using technology for different purposes and while they may have followed global patterns (of increased use of financial transactions or video calling or usage for health or education), there was no specific adoption that could be attributed to them belonging to indigenous communities. Therefore, the argument that the research brings new insight into technology usage of indigenous communities does not hold for me. The findings are very generic and hold true for the global population and follow a global pattern and this is my major reason for rejecting the work. The discussion is not very strong and merely repeats the finding. At a Computing conference, I would have also liked to see better integration with computing/HCI literature (not present in the current list of references). My suggestion to authors is to look beyond the global pattern and try to report findings that arise due to the unique characteristics of the community and therefore fill the gap in HCI research that the authors claim. Overall recommendation ---------------------- 1. Reject (R&R only) Recommendation after major revision ---------------------------------------------- 1. Reject Consider for a paper award? --------------------------- 1. No Review #250C =========================================================================== Reviewer expertise ------------------ 1. No familiarity Overall recommendation ---------------------- 2. Weak reject (R&R only) Recommendation after major revision ---------------------------------------------- 2. Weak reject Consider for a paper award? --------------------------- 1. No