arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2508.07301

In-person, Online and Back Again -- A Tale of Three Hybrid Hackathons

Abstract

Hybrid hackathons, which combine in-person and online participation, present unique challenges for organizers and participants. Although such events are increasingly conducted, research on them remains fragmented, with limited integration between hackathon studies and hybrid collaboration. Existing strategies for in-person or online-only events often fail to address the unique challenges of hybrid formats, such as managing communication across physical and virtual spaces. Our work addresses this gap by examining how hybrid hackathons function, analyzing how organizers structure these events and how participants navigate hybrid-specific challenges. Drawing on established theories of hybrid collaboration, we examine key dimensions - synchronicity, physical distribution, dynamic transitions, and technological infrastructure - that shape collaboration in hybrid events. Through an exploratory case study of three hackathon events, we analyze how these dimensions are implemented and their effects on participant experiences. Our findings reveal differing organizer considerations of the hybrid dimensions in the hackathon design, leading to distinct experiences for participants. Implementation styles - favoring in-person, online, or balanced participation - led to varied participant experiences, affecting access to resources, communication, and team coordination. Organizers in our study also relied on technology to bridge hybrid interactions, but overlooked critical aspects like time-zone management, dynamic transitions, and targeted support for hybrid teams. Additionally, participants in their teams responded to gaps in event scaffolding by adapting collaboration strategies, revealing gaps in organizers' preparedness for hybrid events. Learning from our findings, we offer practical recommendations when organizing hybrid hackathon events and recommendations to participants when attending them.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Abasi-amefon Obot Affia-Jomants, Alexander Serebrenik, James D. Herbsleb, Alexander Nolte. 2025-08-10. In-person, Online and Back Again -- A Tale of Three Hybrid Hackathons. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07301

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC