Performing Rigor: Reflexivity in HCI/CSCW

Reflexivity has become a routine expectation in qualitative HCI, often expressed through positionality statements or defensive methodological claims. Yet these practices risk drifting into procedural forms that foreground researcher identity or procedural compliance rather than the systematic interpretive work through which qualitative insight is produced. We examine how longstanding tensions between interpretive and measurement-oriented approaches to qualitative inquiry are negotiated in contemporary HCI. Drawing on a citation analysis of 919 ACM publications referencing Reliability and Inter-Rater Reliability in Qualitative Research (2019), along with close readings of a CHI/CSCW subsample, we analyze how IRR is invoked as a methodological reference point for articulating qualitative rigor. We identify recurring configurations in which interpretive commitments coexist with expectations around coding, agreement, and validation. We argue that these configurations reflect a recurring tension within methodological discourse in how rigor is articulated and evaluated. In response, we propose generative reflexivity —a stance that centers interpretive humility, traces how understanding was produced, and foregrounds analytic process, rather than relying on identity disclosure or pseudo-quantitative coding practices.