A Theoretical Agenda for Feminist HCI ⇑ Jennifer A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Interacting with Computers journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/intcom A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI ⇑ Jennifer A. Rode Drexel University, United States Downloaded from article info abstract Article history: HCI has a complex and often ambivalent attitude towards the issue of gender and interactive systems. Available online 27 May 2011 Here I discuss three dominant paradigms for treating gender in HCI, and discuss their limitations. Next, I will present the theoretical perspectives on gender which are on the fringes of HCI – Technology as http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ Keywords: Masculine Culture, Gender Positionality, and Lived Body Experience – and discuss their possible contribu- Gender tions. I will show how this supports a reassessment of the use of gender theory in technological set- Critical theory tings and its relevance for framing questions of gender in HCI. My goal in doing so is to argue for Ethnography the importance of a more direct treatment of gender in HCI and move towards a feminist theory for Anthropology HCI. HCI Ó 2011 British Informatics Society Limited. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017 1. Introduction ways in which gender roles are enacted and performed in everyday action. So, our question is not ‘‘do women and men display differ- HCI has a complex and often ambivalent attitude towards the ent aptitudes for technological tasks?’’ but rather, ‘‘how are beliefs issue of gender and interactive systems. On the one hand, a series and use of technology embedded in the production and ongoing of examinations, focused primarily but not exclusively on cogni- management of gender in daily life?’’ tive and perceptual tasks, has uncovered gender differences that I have been approaching these questions through a series of may be consequential for interactive system design (Beckwith qualitative studies of gender in rich social settings where gender et al., 2006; Cassell, 2002; Kelleher et al., 2007; Rode et al., unquestionably affects everyday interaction in a deep and perva- 2004; Tan et al., 2003). On the other hand, at a somewhat higher sive fashion (Rode, 2010, 2008; Rode et al., 2004). That work has level, there is a pervasive belief that gender does not – or should allowed me to reflect on three dominant paradigms for treating not – be consequential to patterns of computer use e.g. (Martin gender in HCI, which I will discuss here along with their limita- et al., 2007; O’Neill and Martin, 2003; Tolmie et al., 2007). Cutting tions. Next, I will present the theoretical perspectives on gender across this issue of framing gender, there are clear gender gaps in on the fringes of HCI and discuss their possible contributions. Fi- technology participation, which are mirrored by similar gaps in nally, I will show how this supports a reassessment of the use of numbers of women creating technology. Feminist STS scholars ar- gender theory in technological settings and its relevance for fram- gue (Cockburn, 1992; Wajcman, 1992) that this is indicative of an ing questions of gender in HCI. underlying male bias both of technical culture but also of techni- My goal in doing so is to argue for the importance of a more di- cal products, which if eliminated would allow technology to be rect treatment of gender in HCI. There is a twofold reason for in- designed more responsively to the flexible gender definitions of creased emphasis on gender. First if women are avoiding careers its users. in math and science because the culture excludes them (Camp, In this article, I call for the framing of the issue of gender in 1997; Margolis and Fisher, 2002), we have the opportunity, as I will interactive systems using a different perspective. My perspective show here, as HCI practitioners to ensure that the artifacts them- differs from more traditional HCI approaches in two ways. First, I selves encourage both Technical Femininity, as well as flexible def- argue for a need to focus on gender issues in real-world settings initions of gender and that the design processes support this. rather than in laboratory settings, because I want to focus on gen- Secondly, as we move from considering issues of usability to user der as an aspect of everyday life. Second, I argue for the examina- experience, and from GUI to increasingly ubiquitous computing, tion of gender as a social product – that is, I am concerned with the we must recognize that gender although suspect to redefinition and reinscription is deeply enmeshed in all aspects of daily life, particularly domestic life. I want to frame this paper here in terms of Bardzell’s more re- ⇑ Tel.: +1 949 923 0191; fax: +1 215 895 1820. cent ‘‘Feminist HCI’’ (Bardzell, 2010) paper which is more familiar E-mail address: [email protected] 0953-5438/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 British Informatics Society Limited. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.005 394 J.A. Rode / Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400 to this community.1 Here Bardzell sketches four possible contribu- populations that were at least two-thirds male (Barkhuus and tions of feminist theory to HCI: theory, methodology, user research Rode, 2007). This suggests that while in some case gender may and evaluation (Bardzell, 2010, p. 1305). She concludes there are genuinely not be relevant, we are not following best practices in two ‘‘general ways in which feminism contributes to interaction de- studies using balanced samples, and a careful review of the CHI lit- sign’’ these are critique based or studies with feminist lenses and gen- erature combined with knowledge of gender theory might lead us erative contributions where ‘‘feminist approaches’’ are used to to question a few hypotheses. influence design judgments (Bardzell, 2010, p. 1308). This paper is The space of orientations towards gender then includes four calling for a third contribution beyond those called for by Bardzell, positions. First, individuals who choose on principled grounds and the scope of influence is not limited to interaction designers spe- not to engage with gender as it is irrelevant to their subject of cifically, but rather the field of social informatics as a whole. Many study regardless of their personal beliefs. Second, as illustrated researchers, including Dourish (2006) and myself (Rode, 2011), have above, individuals who over-look its relevance. Third, in many argued for the need for socio-technical theory, and here I strive to communities, though I will make no claims regarding whether this build the foundation for a socio-technical theory of gender. view exists in HCI specifically, there are individuals who have a Thus moving forward requires us to appropriately handle gen- hostile attitude towards the topic altogether and believe women der. I will argue we need to do so by embracing feminist theory— are lesser creatures. Fourth, individuals who pick up the topic of that is engaging with the critical theory in the gender studies com- gender and engage with it passively or actively in their work. munity and applying it to HCI. This article hopes to discuss relevant It is this last category, individuals who engage with gender, that Downloaded from theory from gender studies, and show how it relates to HCI in the I wish to address in more detail in the next section. I will describe hopes that it will move all us towards that goal. Ultimately, we will three dominant positions, which can be mapped to specific theo- need to create our own gender theory as a community, but for now retical orientations towards gender. These are not the only three my goal is simply to promote awareness of our community’s for instance, my work has strong Marxist-Feminist leanings, but stances on gender and how they relate to established theories. In it is clearly in the minority. The three positions I will lay out are http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ this paper I am not presenting a unified feminist theory for HCI, more mainstream and readily identifiable, and most importantly rather I am setting a theoretical agenda. I am calling for us to en- by setting them out here, I can explain how these positions are gage with existing feminist theory to create our own feminist so- inherently problematic. This will allow me to readily contrast other cio-technical theory; this goes well beyond the current framing feminist positions outside HCI which I will show have relevance to of Feminist HCI. HCI. 2. Approaches to gender within HCI 2.1. Liberal Feminism at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017 How is gender treated in HCI research? There are a variety ways If, as I have shown, the majority of CHI papers are ignoring gen- of addressing, or not addressing, gender in HCI. Some writers with- der, and considering gender is part of best practices in the social in HCI would argue gender is not relevant to their subject of study, sciences, then why are we doing this? As a feminist who believes and as such make a principled decision not to include it. As a fem- gender is relevant to most situations, I would like to think better inist scholar I believe that while there are genuine cases where of our community than authors simply being methodologically gender is not relevant, its relevance often is merely overlooked. sloppy or failing to acknowledge gender’s relevance. Although gen- For example, take Goh et al’s study of photowork (Goh et al., der is often ignored, this is not necessarily a failure to take a theo- 2010). In their 2010 Nordichi paper they lay out a careful study retical stance towards gender as topic; it can be an expression of a of photowork with an imbalanced gender sample, concluding that particular theory of gender, Liberal Feminism (Tong, 1998; Oost, their competitive phototagging game out performed the collabora- 2003).