Proposed CHI 2027 workshopAcceptance pending · Submissions not open
News Without
NewsroomsGet in touch

JOURNALISM / HCI / AI / POLICY

PITTSBURGH, MAY 2027 2027 CHI

News WithoutNewsrooms

A PROPOSED CHI 2027 WORKSHOP

Belief, Spread, and Aftermath as Questions for Journalism and HCI

What can people see, verify, and do when a post looks like news?

Explore the workshop

01 / INSIDE THE WORKSHOP

When a post
becomes the news.

Work with people from journalism, HCI, AI, and policy. Follow a documented accusation-video case through three stages, examine the decisions people made at each one, then test your idea in someone else’s stage.

Three stages of a claim

Verification at the first encounter, recirculation, and correction re-exposure. Select a stage to see your group’s activity.

THE QUESTION

Before I believe it, what can I check?

Record what a viewer could see, what the interface let them inspect or verify, and what stayed out of reach at the moment of judgment. A visible signal of authority is not evidence of verification.

On the table
A news-like video, its description, and the credibility, source, and provenance cues visible to a first viewer.
You leave with
A question about how a particular cue or action affects a user decision, and the evidence needed to answer it.

02 / IN THE ROOM

A seat in the room.

Follow one participant through the day, or see the whole room at once. Choose your interest and explore the proposed activities.

PITTSBURGH · WORKSHOP PREVIEW
Your participant
01 / 09Opening sceneWorkshop time · 10 min
Opening scene: an illustrative workshop room20 people including six of the organizers. Everyone looks at a composite post and notes what they would check before believing or sharing it. Pixel characters represent participants. Your chosen interest is Credibility & verification. People and furniture show a possible arrangement, not a confirmed room plan.OUR WORKSHOP / AN IMAGINED ROOMSESSION 1What would you check?MATERIALSCOFFEEThe postThe spreadThe aftermath
Your interest: Credibility & verificationFollow the character marked “you”
2.5s per scene
1 / 9
Activity details & materials

Click a paper or a double outline + to preview the material.

Session 1 · 10 minutes

Opening scene

Everyone looks at a composite post and notes what they would check before believing or sharing it.

YOUR PART IN THIS MOMENT

Start with your question: What makes a claim worth believing? Note one thing you would want to inspect in the post.

What the group produces

A first question from each person.

An illustrative visit with 20 pixel characters, including six of the organizers. Dialogue and the featured participant’s role are examples. The planned attendance is 15–25. Your interest suggests a starting group; organizers will balance the actual groups. The city scene is inspired by Pittsburgh and the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, the announced CHI 2027 venue. This room, seating, and panel are illustrative. During the exchange, worksheets move between groups.

03 / PROGRAM DETAILS

The proposed program.

Shared cases, then questions to pursue together.Select an activity for details.

SESSION 0190 MIN

A shared sequence and your context

  1. Opening scene

    Look at a labeled composite post. Note its cues, what the interface lets you inspect, and what actions it offers before you believe or share. The documented sequence is then introduced.

    10 min · proposed
  2. Panel conversation

    A journalist, a platform or provenance practitioner, and a policy or government voice each bring a case and one consequential user encounter. The last five minutes take questions from cards. Speakers to be confirmed.

    25 min · proposed
  3. Lightning contributions

    Up to fifteen three-minute talks. Each places one situation and one question on the sequence, using a shared slide file and timer.

    45 min · proposed
  4. Find your group

    Choose post, spread, or aftermath. Organizers balance the groups by experience and context.

    10 min · proposed
SESSION 0290 MIN

User decisions, system conditions, and transfer

  1. Work with a case

    In pairs or trios, complete the common worksheet: the record, the cues and actions that were available, evidence of exposure, interaction, and effects, the practice or rule that applied, unknowns, and one research question with its evidence requirement.

    35 min · proposed
  2. Assemble the sequence

    Each group reports for two minutes. The worksheets form one sequence with documented, unknown, and disputed items visible.

    15 min · proposed
  3. Try the idea elsewhere

    Exchange worksheets. Take an intervention, such as a source link, label, provenance cue, community note, or disclosure rule, into another stage or case. Work through its target interaction, intended effect, required conditions, failure modes, and evidence of success. Return one hypothesis and one open question.

    20 min · proposed
  4. Choose what comes next

    Four five-minute steps: a silent research proposal from each person, clustering by stage and target interaction, ranking with dissent and evidence gaps visible, and a volunteer owner and next step for the three highest-ranked questions.

    20 min · proposed
What we take forwardA shared sequence, research questions, and reusable materials.

A shared sequence

Available cues and actions, any evidence of exposure, interaction, and effects, and the unknowns and disagreements across stages.

Questions with next steps

Research questions that each name a user interaction, a system condition, a context, and the evidence needed, with a volunteer owner and a next step.

A reusable foundation

A participant-reviewed report within six weeks, the case pack, and an autumn 2027 online follow-up.

Provisional program · Two 90-minute sessions with a 30-minute conference break · If sessions are 75 minutes, every activity is kept but shortened · Final timing follows acceptance.

04 / PARTICIPATION

Bring your
perspective.

We welcome HCI and AI researchers, system designers, journalists, creators, and platform and policy practitioners.

You do not need expertise in every field or prior knowledge of the Korean cases. Bring a case, an interface, a study, or a design question that others can work with. Name a user encounter, the interface feature that mattered, and what your material can and cannot establish. Practitioners need not use HCI terminology or a technical method.

Materials will be accessible PDFs with text descriptions of interface examples. We will request live captioning. You may contribute without attribution, and authors keep copyright of anything posted with their consent.

Submissions are not open yet.

The call and final instructions will follow workshop acceptance.

TWO WAYS TO CONTRIBUTE

A

Position paper

2–4 pages · ACM single-column · Not anonymized

A case, interface, study, or design question: one concrete situation, one question others can work on, and a note on what the material establishes and what remains unknown.

B

Practitioner statement

1 page

One situation from practice and one question. No HCI terminology or technical method is required.

Planned call opening17 Dec 2026
Planned submission deadline11 Feb 2027 AoE

Dates are subject to acceptance. Submissions are by email; the address and instructions will be published with the call. Two organizers review each contribution for relevance, a concrete interaction context, and a workable question. Acceptances go out at least seven days before early registration, and every accepted contribution enters the shared sequence. Up to fifteen receive lightning talks. We expect 15 to 25 attendees, and at least two organizers will attend in person.

05 / PREPARATION

Before you arrive

Shared materials make it easier to spend the workshop working together.

  1. TWO WEEKS BEFORE

    Read the case pack

    Posted two weeks ahead, it gives each case’s platform, genre, jurisdiction, endpoint, sources, and dates, with checked English translations of Korean records. It keeps the documented event sequence separate from evidence of what users were shown, and marks missing interface or audience evidence as unknown. The person accused is not named.

  2. FIND YOUR STARTING POINT

    Locate your question

    Choose a stage. Note what your record shows, what it cannot establish about exposure or effects, and what another perspective could help you understand.

  3. COME READY TO SHARE

    Prepare your contribution

    Selected contributors give a three-minute talk using a shared slide file. Others introduce their work in groups. Question cards keep discussion open.

From a record to a research question

Preview the seven prompts we’ll work through together.

Open the worksheet

06 / ORGANIZERS

Organizing team

Nine organizers from Columbia, Cornell, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Tokyo bring backgrounds in diplomacy, law, international development, media forensics, AI, news products, and public communication.

01

News platforms & data

Dongjae Kang

Columbia University

About

Kang is an MPA candidate in Technology Policy and Innovation at Columbia University, with a B.S. in Industrial and Systems Engineering from KAIST. As an intern at the UN Statistics Division, he leads development of a companion to UN Statistical Commission session reports that links each decision to the discussion behind it. He co-first-authored CrisisNews, a 93,250-article dataset presented at News Futures (CHI 2025), and builds PRISM, a news platform publishing daily public-affairs briefs with source provenance across US and Korean media.

02

Public communication & policy

Sze Wing (Hesper) Lui

Columbia University

About

Lui is an MPA candidate in Technology Policy and Innovation with a minor in Cybersecurity at Columbia University and an Institute of Global Politics Student Scholar. She previously worked at Hong Kong's Legislative Council and in ESG and climate communications at MSCI. Her current research examines legitimacy laundering and human rights risks in cyberspace.

03

Diplomacy & Japanese cases

Xuefei (Sophie) Ren

Columbia University

About

Ren is an MPA candidate in Technology Policy and Innovation at Columbia University. She previously worked on global Smart TV advertising projects at Samsung Ads' PMO team, following management consulting experience at EY. As a McGill Integrated Management Student Fellow, she interviewed researchers at OpenAI and Mila. She has also advised a companion robotics company on product strategy and co-founded an initiative focused on responsible AI and data transparency.

04

Humanitarian technology

Zifu (Tyler) Qin

Cornell University

About

Qin is a Ph.D. researcher in Systems Engineering at Cornell University. His research spans multimedia forensics, computer vision, signal processing, and trustworthy AI, with interests in robust video analysis, deepfake detection and localization, and media authenticity. His work investigates computational and forensic methods for detecting and localizing manipulated visual content under real-world media transformations. He has also participated in NSF I-Corps, exploring pathways for translating media authentication technologies into practical applications. He will help evaluate submitted papers and materials and facilitate the three stages, grounding the discussion in existing and emerging authentication technologies that platform and system engineers use to track provenance.

05

Product & responsible AI

Sara Shibata

Columbia University

About

Shibata studies International Security and Diplomacy, with a minor in Technology Policy, at Columbia University, where she is Communications Director of SIPA Cyber's Digital and Cyber Program. She has worked at Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and holds a Master of Public Policy from the University of Tokyo, where she researched Japanese youth's civic participation on social media.

06

AI & language technology

Crystal Yang

Columbia University

About

Yang is an MIA candidate at Columbia University, concentrating in Technology Policy and Innovation. Her background spans law, governance, and tax compliance in Australia and the United States. At Wikimedia NYC, she led public programs advancing free knowledge on the internet, and before that held legal and compliance roles at the Australian Taxation Office. She holds a Combined Bachelor Degree in Law and Arts from the University of Sydney, and is admitted as a solicitor in Australia. Crystal's interests include digital safety, digital transformation, AI governance, and information integrity.

07

Law & governance

Sneha Shree Saikia

Columbia University

About

Saikia is an MIA candidate in International Security and Diplomacy with a minor in Tech Policy at Columbia University. Before SIPA, she worked with members of parliament in India on legislation, including a bill on AI regulation, and as an intern in UNDP's Crisis Bureau she worked on information management systems and AI tools for practitioners and country offices.

08

Policy & AI governance

Puyu (Irene) Cui

University of Pennsylvania

About

Cui is a master's student in Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania, with a background in computer science, statistics, and finance. She works on AI and machine learning, including natural language processing, reinforcement learning, and AI agents.

09

Media forensics

Fio Wibawa

The University of Tokyo · Columbia University

About

Wibawa is a dual-degree candidate in the University of Tokyo's Master of Public Policy International Program and Columbia University's Master of International Affairs. At Tokyo, Wibawa follows the Public Management and International Relations stream on law, policy, and emerging technologies, and at Columbia concentrated in Technology Policy and Innovation with a focus on AI governance.