Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Feminist Philosophy of Technology pp 167–183Cite as

Gender Factors and Feminist Values in Living Labs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 851 Accesses

Part of the book series: Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie ((TPAHT,volume 2))

Abstract

In this paper, we describe the feminist perspectives that have informed design in the HCI community, and develop an argument for an approach that translates these broad commitments into a pragmatic design space, drawing on emancipatory agendas such as participatory design. As designers of technologies, we regard creating research infrastructures that offer safe spaces for the development of user-centered artifacts based on diverse and critical perspectives as not only a utopian vision, but as a practical contribution to a more equal society. Shaowen Bardzell stresses this point when she states that in envisioning utopias, we are “seeking not so much to predict the future, but rather to imagine a radically better one”. Recognizing that technology shapes social life and amplifies social practices both good and bad, research in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) increasingly focuses on how technology has been developed in the past, and how constructive futures may be envisaged. More and more, academics are inviting multidisciplinarity and embracing ethnographic methods as part of the design of networks and technical artifacts, realizing that innovation cannot be user-centered if designers employ a bird’s-eye perspective. This leads to an approach that advocates designing socially embedded technologies in real world environments. Thus, for some time now, collaboration and participatory design approaches have provided a means for enacting positive social and technological change. If we agree that “those who design technologies are […] designing society”, new questions arise in terms of responsibility for the future shape of the world: How do we design technologies to design a better society for people of all genders?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Participatory Design (PD), participants such as potential, future users are involved in the innovation design process together with designers, researchers etc. It has a strong moral and political (democratic) stance, as the cooperative tasks aim not only at user friendly design but also at including (marginalized) users in all design decisions as a matter of emancipation (Wagner 2018).

References

  • Aaltojärvi, I.A. (2012). “That Mystic Device Only Women Can Use”—Ascribing Gender to Domestic Technologies. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 4(2), 208–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadi, M., Weibert, A., Ogonowski, C., Aal, K., Gäckle, K., Marsden, N. & Wulf, V. (2018). Challenges and lessons learned by applying living labs in gender and IT contexts. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT, 239–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In Bijker (Ed.), Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 205–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrich, M. (1995). User Representations: Practices, Methods and Sociology. In J.A. Rip, T.J. Misa & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London, New York: Pinter, 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almirall, E., Lee, M. & Wareham, J. (2012). Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review 2, 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballon, P. & Schuurman, D. (2015). Living labs: concepts, tools and cases. Info 17(4). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/info-04-2015-0024.

  • Bardzell, S. (2010). Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 1301–1310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardzell, S. (2014). Utopias of Participation: Design, Criticality, and Emancipation. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts—PDC ’14—volume 2. Windhoek, Namibia: ACM Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662213, 189–190.

  • Bath, C. (2014). Searching for Methodology: Feminist Technology Design in Computer Science. In W. Ernst & I. Horwath (Eds.), Gender in Science and Technology. Bielefeld: transcript, 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. & Pinch, T.J. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, L.V., Snyder, L.A. & Mavriplis, C. (2009). Diverse Faculty in STEM Fields: Attitudes, Performance, and Fair Treatment. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 2(4), 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratteteig, T. (2002). Bringing Gender Issues to Technology Design. In Feminist Challenges in the Information Age. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 91–105. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-94954-7_8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2011). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London, New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cardone, G., Cirri, A., Corradi, A. & Foschini, L. (2014). The participact mobile crowd sensing living lab: The testbed for smart cities. IEEE Communications Magazine 52(10), 78–85. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2014.6917406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catterall, M., Maclaran, P. & Stevens, L. (1997). Marketing and feminism: a bibliography and suggestions for further research. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 15(7), 369–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheryan, S., Master, A. & Meltzoff, A.N. (2015). Cultural Stereotypes as Gatekeepers: Increasing Girls’ Interest in Computer Science and Engineering by Diversifying Stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, E.F. (2010). Sugared puppy-dog tails: gender and design. Interactions 17(2), 52–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. (2016). Artificial Intelligence Has a ‘Sea of Dudes’ Problem. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-23/artificial-intelligence-has-a-sea-of-dudes-problem.

  • Cockburn, C. (1983). Brothers: Male Dominance and Technological Change. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, C. (1997). Domestic technologies: Cinderella and the engineers. Women’s Studies International Forum 20(3), 361–371. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(97)00020-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, C. & Fürst-Dilić, R. (1994). Bringing technology home: Gender and technology in a changing Europe. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, C. & Ormrod, S. (1993). Gender and Technology in the Making. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosgrave, E., Arbuthnot, K. & Tryfonas, T. (2013). Living Labs, Innovation Districts and Information Marketplaces: A Systems Approach for Smart Cities. Procedia Computer Science 16, 668–677. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J., Hanson, W., Clark Plano, V. & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative Research Designs: Selection and Implementation. The Counseling Psychologist 35(2), 236–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. London: Chattoo & Windus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Era, C. & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: A Methodology between User-Centred Design and Participatory Design: Living Lab. Creativity and Innovation Management 23(2), 137–154. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVault, M.L. & Ingraham, C. (1999). Metaphors of silence and voice in feminist thought. In M.L. DeVault (Ed.), Liberating method: feminism and social research. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Ignazio, C., Hope, A., Michelson, B., Churchill, R. & Zuckerman, E. (2016). A Feminist HCI Approach to Designing Postpartum Technologies: “When I First Saw a Breast Pump I Was Wondering if It Was a Joke.” Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2612–2622. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858460.

  • Dimond, J.P. (2012). Feminist HCI for real: Designing technology in support of a social movement (PhD Thesis). Georgia Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A.H. & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15(4), 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J.S., Jacobs, J.E. & Harold, R.D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues 46(2), 183–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Schachter, M.E., Matti, C.E. & Alcántara, E. (2012). Fostering Quality of Life through Social Innovation: A Living Lab Methodology Study Case: Social Innovation and Living Labs. Review of Policy Research 29(6), 672–692. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00588.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian Design: On Participation and Skill. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 41–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. & Topgaard, R. (2014). Making futures: marginal notes on innovation, design, and democracy. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, M. & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-Art in Utilizing Living Labs Approach to User-centric ICT Innovation—A European Approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-Spanning Technology. Retrieved from http://84.88.32.6/openlivinglabs/documents/SOA_LivingLabs.pdf.

  • Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. In Women’s studies international forum (Vol. 24). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiesler, C., Morrison, S. & Bruckman, A.S. (2016). An Archive of Their Own: A Case Study of Feminist HCI and Values in Design. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2574–2585. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858409.

  • Fogelberg Eriksson, A. (2014). A Gender Perspective as Trigger and Facilitator of Innovation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 6(2), 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, J., Kıvılcım, Z. & Özgür Baklacıoğlu, N. (Eds.). (2017). A gendered approach to the Syrian refugee crisis. London, New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/search?isbn=9781138693722&db=100.

  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, T. (2012). Becoming human by design. London: Berg.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design activism: beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. London; Sterling: Earthscan. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10313173.

  • Gäckle, K., Reichert, T. & Marsden, N. (2018). Virtual Reality or Virtuous Reality?: How Gender Stereotypes Limit Access to Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT. New York: ACM Press, 143–145. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3196839.3196861.

  • Gatenby, B. & Humphries, M. (2000). Feminist Participatory Action Research: Methodological and Ethical Issues. In Women’s Studies International Forum (Vol. 23). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 89–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, L.D. (1999). Domesticating efficiency: Lillian Gilbreth’s scientific management of homemakers, 1924–1930. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 24(3), 633–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, A. (1992). Video Playtime: The Gendering of a Leisure Technology. London, New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A.G. & Krieger, L.H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. Cal. L. Rev. 94, 945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R.F. (2003). Women and Workplace Discrimination: Overcoming Barriers to Gender Equality. New Brunswick, New Jersey, London: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldrup, M., Mads, H., Samson, K. & Padfield, N. (2015). REMIX UTOPIA: ELEVEN PROPOSITIONS ON DESIGN AND SOCIAL FANTASY. Nordes 1(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hankerson, D., Marshall, A.R., Booker, J., El Mimouni, H., Walker, I. & Rode, J.A. (2016). Does technology have race? In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 473–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s” truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited”: whose standpoint needs the regimes of truth and reality? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22(2), 382–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, D. (1978). Two utopian feminists and their campaigns for kitchenless houses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 4(2), 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, D. (1982). The grand domestic revolution: A history of feminist designs for American homes, neighborhoods, and cities. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, C. (2009). Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. American Sociological Review 74(2), 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, A. & Klein, S. (2011). Introduction to the Living Lab Approach. In Y.-H. Tan, N. Björn-Andersen, S. Klein & B. Rukanova (Eds.), Accelerating Global Supply Chains with IT-Innovation. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer, 31–36. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15669-4_2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill Collins, P. (1990). Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, E.C. (1993). Ideology in consumer research, 1980 and 1990: A Marxist and feminist critique. Journal of Consumer Research 19(4), 537–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzblatt, K. & Marsden, N. (2018). Retaining Women in Technology. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC). IEEE, 148–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • hooks, bell. (1984). From Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobi, T., Ogonowski, C., Castelli, N., Stevens, G. & Wulf, V. (2017). The Catch(Es) with Smart Home: Experiences of a Living Lab Field Study. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 1620–1633. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025799.

  • Layne, L.L., Vostral, S.L. & Boyer, K. (2010). Feminist technology (Vol. 4). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues 2(4), 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ley, B., Ogonowski, C., Mu, M., Hess, J., Race, N., Randall, D., … Wulf, V. (2015). At Home with Users: A Comparative View of Living Labs. Interacting with Computers 27(1), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, L. (2015). The Sociology of Gender Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks. London, New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lorber, J. (2011). Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclaran, P. (2012). Marketing and feminism in historic perspective. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing 4(3), 462–469. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/17557501211252998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, P. (1996). Proposing a More Feminist Participatory Research: Knowing and Being Embraced Openly. Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences, 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, N. & Haag, M. (2016). Stereotypes and Politics: Reflections on Personas. Presented at the CHI’16. New York: ACM Press, 4017–4031. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858151.

  • Mäkinen, M. (2006). Digital empowerment as a process for enhancing citizens’ participation. E-learning and Digital Media 3, 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRobbie, A. (2008). Young women and consumer culture: An intervention. Cultural Studies 22(5), 531–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meurer, J., Müller, C., Simone, C., Wagner, I. & Wulf, V. (2018). Designing for Sustainability: Key Issues of ICT Projects for Ageing at Home. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 27(3–6), 495–537. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9317-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morley, D. (2005). Family television: Cultural power and domestic leisure. London, New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nasser-Eddin, N. (2017). Gender performativity in diaspora: Syrian refugee women in the UK. In J. Freedman, Z. Kivilcim & N. Özgür Baklacıoğlu (Eds.), A Gendered Approach to the Syrian Refugee Crisis. London, New York: Routledge, 152–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogonowski, C., Jakobi, T., Müller, C. & Hess, J. (2018). PRAXLABS: A Sustainable Framework for User-Centered ICT Development. In V. Wulf, V. Pipek, D. Randall, M. Rohde, K. Schmidt & G. Stevens (Eds.), Socio Informatics—A Practice‐Based Perspective. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogonowski, C., Ley, B., Hess, J., Wan, L. & Wulf, V. (2013). Designing for the living room: Long-term user involvement in a Living Lab. CHI ’13 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1539–1548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E. & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values 29(1), 30–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D. (2003). Living Inside a Smart Home: A Case Study. In R. Harper (Ed.), Inside the Smart Home. London: Springer, 227–246. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/1-85233-854-7_12.

  • Rapoport, R.N. (1970). Three Dilemmas in Action Research: With Special Reference to the Tavistock Experience. Human Relations 23(6), 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rode, J. (2011). A Theoretical Agenda for Feminist HCI. Interacting with Computers 23(5), 393–400. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohde, M., Brödner, P., Stevens, G., Betz, M. & Wulf, V. (2017). Grounded Design—A Praxeological IS Research Perspective. Journal of Information Technology 32(2), 163–179. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rommes, E.W.M. (2002). Gender scripts and the Internet: The design and use of Amsterdam’s digital city (PhD Thesis). Radboud University Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrödter, M. (2007). Die Objektivität des Rassismus. Anerkennungsverhältnisse und prekäre Identitätszumutungen. Die Soziale Thematisierbarkeit Des Interkulturellen. Düsseldorf: IDA-NRW, 69–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman, D., De Marez, L. & Ballon, P. (2015). Living Labs: A Systematic Literature Review. In Open Living Lab Days 2015, Proceedings. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-7026155.

  • Silverstone, R. (1993). Time, information and communication technologies and the household. Time & Society 2(3), 283–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solnit, R. (2014). Men explain things to me. Chicago, Illinois: Haymarket Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ståhlbröst, A. (2013). A Living Lab as a Service: Creating Value for Micro-enterprises through Collaboration and Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review 3, 37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ståhlbröst, A. & Holst, M. (2017). Reflecting on Actions in Living Lab Research. Technology Innovation Management Review 7(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stambaugh, M. (2015). The Prophets and Profits of Neoliberal Feminism in America. Summer Research. Paper 262. Retrieved from https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/summer_research/262/.

  • Susman, G.I. & Evered, R.D. (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 582–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, P. & Crabtree, A. (2008). Deploying research technology in the home. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. New York: ACM Press, 639–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toyama, K. (2015). Geek heresy: rescuing social change from the cult of technology. New York: PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulwick, A.W. (2002). Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business Review 80(1), 91–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oost, E. (2003). Materialized Gender: How Shavers Configure the Users’ Feminity and Masculinity. In Nelly Oudshoorn & Trevor Pinch (Eds.), How Users Matter. The Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, 193–208. Retrieved from https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/materialized-gender-how-shavers-configure-the-users-feminity-and-masculinity(6fc5a9f4-81a4-41f0-a57d-86faa03c95a8).html.

  • von Hellens, L.A., Nielsen, S.H. & Trauth, E.M. (2001). Breaking and Entering the Male Domain. Women in the IT Industry. In Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research. New York: ACM Press, 116–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy 5(3), 212–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science 32(7), 791–805. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, I. (2018). Critical Reflections on Participation in Design. In V. Wulf, V. Pipek, D. Randall, M. Rohde, K. Schmidt & G. Stevens (Eds.), Socio Informatics—A Practice‐Based Perspective. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 243–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wajcman, J. (2009). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1), 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, W. F. (1991). Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M.W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal 13(4), 496–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. & Lykes, M.B. (2003). Bridging Theory and Practice: Using Reflexive Cycles in Feminist Participatory Action Research. Feminism & Psychology 13(3), 287–294. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353503013003002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodruffe, H.R. (1996). Methodological issues in consumer research: towards a feminist perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 14(2), 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, V., Müller, C., Pipek, V., Randall, D., Rohde, M. & Stevens, G. (2015). Practice-Based Computing: Empirically Grounded Conceptualizations Derived from Design Case Studies. In V. Wulf, K. Schmidt & D. Randall (Eds.), Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World. London: Springer, 111–150. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6720-4_7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, V., Pipek, V., Randall, D., Rohde, M., Schmidt, K. & Stevens, G. (Eds.). (2018). Socio-Informatics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, V., Rohde, M., Pipek, V. & Stevens, G. (2011). Engaging with Practices: Design Case Studies as a Research Framework in CSCW. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, 505–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, V., Schmidt, K. & Randall, D. (Eds.). (2015). Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World. London: Springer. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/de/book/9781447167198.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), grant number 01FP1603, 01FP1604, and 01FP1605 (GEWINN) as well as the Leitmarktwettbewerb „CreateMedia“ with capital from the European Fond for regional development and the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, grant number EFRE-0800485 (Nett.Werkzeug). The responsibility for all content supplied lies with the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Siegen, Germany

    Michael Ahmadi, Anne Weibert, Victoria Wenzelmann, Tanja Ertl, Dave Randall, Peter Tolmie & Volker Wulf

  2. Heilbronn, Germany

    Nicola Marsden

Authors
  1. Michael Ahmadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Weibert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victoria Wenzelmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tanja Ertl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dave Randall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter Tolmie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Volker Wulf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nicola Marsden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Ahmadi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Philosophie, Universität Wien, Wien, Austria

    Janina Loh

  2. Institut für Philosophie, Universität Wien, Wien, Austria

    Mark Coeckelbergh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ahmadi, M. et al. (2019). Gender Factors and Feminist Values in Living Labs. In: Loh, J., Coeckelbergh, M. (eds) Feminist Philosophy of Technology. Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie, vol 2. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04967-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04967-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-476-04966-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-476-04967-4

  • eBook Packages: J.B. Metzler Humanities (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation