CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

Feminist HCI:
Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design
Shaowen Bardzell
Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing
919 E 10th Street, Rm 237, Bloomington, IN 47408
[email protected]
ABSTRACT ing moral and intellectual complexity of our professional
Feminism is a natural ally to interaction design, due to its activities.
central commitments to issues such as agency, fulfillment,
identity, equity, empowerment, and social justice. In this This topic is hardly new to computing: science and technol-
paper, I summarize the state of the art of feminism in HCI ogy studies (STS) and social informatics have long empha-
and propose ways to build on existing successes to more sized these sorts of issues. Yet when it comes to interaction
robustly integrate feminism into interaction design research design—HCI proper—these concerns come up in a much
and practice. I explore the productive role of feminism in more piecemeal and ad hoc way. For the purpose of this
analogous fields, such as industrial design, architecture, and paper, I therefore confine my focus to the relationships be-
game design. I introduce examples of feminist interaction tween feminism and interaction design (as opposed to
design already in the field. Finally, I propose a set of femi- “computing” or “technology” more generally).
nist interaction design qualities intended to support design Specifically, I am concerned with the design and evaluation
and evaluation processes directly as they unfold. of interactive systems that are imbued with sensitivity to the
Author Keywords central commitments of feminism—agency, fulfillment,
HCI, Feminist HCI, feminism, design, feminist standpoint identity and the self, equity, empowerment, diversity, and
theory, gender, interaction design, feminist design qualities social justice. I also seek to improve understanding of how
gender identities and relations shape both the use of interac-
ACM Classification Keywords tive technologies and their design. Additionally, feminist
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): HCI entails critical perspectives that could help reveal un-
Miscellaneous. spoken values within HCI’s dominant research and design
General Terms paradigms and underpin the development of new ap-
Theory proaches, methods and design variations.
INTRODUCTION Likely outcomes of this agenda include contributions such
As a movement and an academic discipline, feminism has as the following:
been prominent for over half a century. Infused throughout
many aspects of everyday life, it is hardly a surprise that • A comprehensive introduction to issues of gender and
feminist concerns also touch on the topic of interaction. feminism as they pertain specifically to the professional
And indeed, as I argue later in this paper, it has already practice and theorization of interaction design
affected HCI in positive ways. Yet as a field, even when we • A generative integration of specific feminist perspectives
are pursuing goals that can be called “feminist,” we tend in HCI and interaction design, that is, ways that femi-
not to engage explicitly with feminism. As computers in- nism can support creative activity and novel problem-
creasingly become a part of everyday life for ever- solving approaches
increasing populations in the world—from the rise of do-
mestic computing in the West to the rise of ICTs for devel- • Examinations of how technologies construct and per-
oping countries—the stakes have never been higher. Digital petuate gender and the ensuing implications for the prac-
interactions mediate people’s relationships with friends and tice of design
loved ones, with society, and with culture itself. As we as- • Attempts to move beyond the piecemeal use of feminist
pire to develop more pervasive, ubiquitous, and universal ideas in HCI, so as to integrate feminism in a more intel-
technologies, we inevitably also must engage in the increas- lectually rigorous way

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for • Contributions toward the development and legitimization
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are of a Feminist HCI research agenda that encompasses
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies both theory and design practice
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior While feminism is generally known as a critical strategy,
specific permission and/or a fee. which too often suggests that feminism is only applicable
CHI 2010, April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Copyright 2010 ACM 978-1-60558-929-09/10/04....$10.00.

1301
CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

after the fact, in these bullets and the rest of the paper, I By making visible the manifold ways that gender is con-
stress the potential for feminism to contribute to an action- structed in everyday life, contemporary feminism seeks to
based design agenda. That is, feminist approaches can inte- generate opportunities for intervention, making it a natural
grate seamless and productively in all stages of the design ally to design.
process, including user research, prototyping, and evalua-
tion. Feminist Epistemologies
The transition to third-wave HCI [16,45] represents not
To clarify the goals, intentions, and resources for such an only a turn to a different sort of computing, but also to new
agenda, I provide in the ensuing sections a brief overview epistemologies better suited to our changing design practice
of feminism as an intellectual discipline; an introduction to needs. Thus we have the continued exploration of Heideg-
feminism in cognate fields, including STS, industrial de- gerian phenomenology [34] and computer scientists appro-
sign, and game design; a summary of the state of the art of priating literary theory and pragmatist philosophy to offer
feminism in HCI today; and I then propose a set of feminist new ways of accounting for experience [59]. One of femi-
interaction design qualities to clarify and solidify the femi- nism’s primary intellectual achievements has been the con-
nist HCI agenda. struction of a critical strategy for developing epistemolo-
gies: feminist standpoint theory.
REINTRODUCING FEMINISM
Portrayals of feminism, in politics, the media, and even in Feminist standpoint theory [46,43] begins with the supposi-
HCI conferences, suggest that this household word is not tion that all knowledge attempts are socially situated and
always well understood. In this section, I offer a brief sum- that some are better than others as starting points for
mary of the ways feminism, as an academic field, construes knowledge. Knowledge production is inevitably enmeshed
itself. Academically, feminism is often seen as a domain of in acts of power, and in patriarchal societies, women’s
critical theory that examines “the ways in which literature knowledge is suppressed. Accordingly, feminist standpoint
(and other cultural productions) reinforces or undermines theory advocates for the use of women’s viewpoints and
the economic, political, social, and psychological oppres- experiences as an alternative point of departure for social
sion of women.” [72]. Feminism integrates a collection of science research. This theory holds that cultural expecta-
theories, analytical and interpretative methodologies, ethi- tions and conventions in patriarchal societies limit women
cal values, and political positions, which have evolved over to certain roles with differential access to resources. The
the past two centuries. result is that women hold and produce different types of
knowledge from their male counterparts, and that these dif-
A Summary History of Feminism ferent types of knowledge should be recognized and utilized
Summarizing historically, feminism has gone through three as a resource, rather than marginalized. Feminist standpoint
major phases [76]: theory thus attempts to reconfigure the epistemic terrain and
valorize the marginal perspectives of knowledge, so as to
• First-wave feminism (1830s-1920s) refers to the suffra-
expose the unexamined assumptions of dominant epistemo-
gette movement in the late 19th century/early 20th cen-
logical paradigms, avoid distorted or one-sided accounts of
tury in the US and UK that focuses on women’s rights to
social life, and generate new and critical questions [2].
vote and participate in democratic government.
Feminist standpoint theory’s privileging of alternative epis-
• The second wave of feminism (1960s-1980s) corre- temologies simultaneously introduces a new domain of user
sponds with the intellectual movement of liberal human- research—the “marginal” user, which forces us to think
ism and is concerned with the emancipation of women through what that would mean—and implies a new set of
from patriarchal structures and argues against the oppres- strategies and methods for user research.
sion of women. It includes liberal feminism, radical
feminism, and black feminism among others. FEMINISM IN COGNATE FIELDS
• The third and present wave of feminism achieved critical Interaction design is increasingly positioning itself as a de-
mass in the early 1990s and confronts the second wave’s sign discipline, comparable to product design, information
essentialist position on femininity. It includes postmod- design, graphic design, fashion, and architecture. At the
ern feminism, post-colonial feminism, and eco-feminism, same time, HCI has always been the human face of engi-
among others. For the third wave, rather than treating neering, and accordingly it has deep ties with psychology,
“female” and “femininity” as given facts, biological or science and technology studies and social informatics.
otherwise, third-wave feminism explores the construc- Though its place in HCI remains somewhat unclear and
tion of gender in media, institutions, embodied perform- underdeveloped, feminism is relatively established in all of
ances, scientific discourse, and so on. The third wave these related fields. Thus, as a point of departure, we can
builds on the famous dictum of Simone de Beauvoir, consider how practitioners and researchers in these fields
“One is not born a woman, but becomes one” [31]. apply feminism in their work and specifically how their
professional practice embodies feminist thinking.

1302
CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

Feminism in STS sumers’ decision processes with regard to the acquisition,

Science and technology studies (STS) investigate how so- collection, and disposal of communication technologies
cial, political, and cultural values and assumptions affect [30,7,54].
technological advancement and scientific research; it also
investigates the converse, that is, the influences science and Possible application areas in HCI for this strand of femi-
technology have on society. STS theorists postulate that nism include domestic computing and ICTs for developing
ideas about women and men shape science and technology, countries.
evident in the decades-long practice of more men than
Feminism in Architecture and Urban Planning
women studying computer science, designing, implement-
Architecture is a discipline that is centrally concerned with
ing, administering network infrastructure, purchasing and
using Internet and digital devices. The combination of the the production and consumption contexts of the design arti-
underrepresentation of women in these domains and the fact, since buildings largely determine artifacts’ physical
boundaries. Feminist perspectives have played a significant
universalizing aspirations about the design and use of in-
formation and communication technologies have led STS role in the field of architecture since late 1970s, in the con-
researchers to warn of a digital divide and call attention to ceptualization of space and the built environment [28,63].
To Weisman [78], built environments are conditioned by
the inequities caused by technology’s troubling relationship
with gender [70, 42, 75, 49, 55, 47, 74]. social, political, and economic forces, and feminist criticism
can contribute to our understanding of the impact of these
Some application areas in HCI with obvious potential to forces upon urban spaces and domestic landscapes.
benefit from this kind of thinking include accessible inter-
action, with its aspirations for “universal” design. Building upon Weisman, Rothschild et al [65] explore spa-
tial arrangements in dwellings and neighborhoods and ex-
Feminism in Product and Industrial Design
amine how they manifest assumptions about people’s
Feminism is also established in the fields of design research needs, family relationships, as well as home and work. Fo-
and industrial design. Commenting on the role of feminist cusing on environments, such as urban landscapes, the
approaches in questioning how traditional design histories kitchen table, and housing design, etc., they conclude that
are understood and recorded, Victor Margolin writes, these assumptions are often the result of the dominant ide-
“Feminism is the most powerful critique of design history ologies. Anthony [3] promotes architectural designs that are
thus far” [cited in 6]. Design critic Philippa Goodall ob- more “sensitive to the needs of a diverse population.”
serves, “We live in a world designed by men. It is not for Feminism in architecture is integrated with the field in di-
nothing that the expression ‘man-made’ refers to a vast verse ways: influencing architectural practice in general,
range of objects that have been fashioned from physical creating a space for women architects to work, as well as
material” [37]. Feminist design critics note that women as contributing to the theorization of architecture as a disci-
consumers and designers of artifacts are conditioned by the pline, from artifacts (buildings) to the contexts and spaces
dominant (i.e., male) groups. Feminist design historian they help create.
Cheryl Buckley writes that the notion of patriarchy is cen- Application areas in HCI for these applications of feminism
tral to understanding women’s role in design (i.e., how they include ubiquitous and pervasive computing, mobile com-
are omitted from design and are often only referenced in puting, and domestic computing, among others.
relation to their male partners and/or family members). The
result, she states, is that patriarchy in design prevents Feminism in Game Design
women from participating fully in all areas of society as Leisure technologies, with their immense popularity and
well as different sectors of design. Buckley advocates the marketability, are a source of interaction design that em-
use of feminist theory in design research to “delineate the phasizes pleasurable and affective experiences, learning,
operation of patriarchy and the construction of the ‘femi- simulation, and creativity. In game design and research,
nine’” and urges design researchers to understand women’s feminist concerns have long been at the forefront of the
contributions to design as a product of a sexual division of field [22, 38, 1, 39, 44]. The portrayal of the female body,
labor [20]. for example, is a commonly discussed topic in video game
and virtual world research. Of course, women and games
Cockburn and Ormrod use feminist design criticism to ex-
have had a notoriously troubled history, from the domina-
amine the design and dissemination of the microwave and
tion of the game market by young men to such things as the
the associated projection of women as consumers and ob-
introduction of “breast physics” in the popular fighting
jects in gendered advertising. They highlight how the de-
game Dead or Alive or the softcore imagery of the popular
sign of the domestic technological artifact (i.e., microwave)
magazine, Girls of Gaming [36]. Such features embody a
is shaped by gender identity, and they consider a feminist
“male gaze,” which makes all players spectators of the fe-
strategy of change to productively overcome the divergence
male body. Physically formidable and sexually appealing to
in gendered subjectivities in the design and use of everyday
young male players, these heroines invite players to identify
objects and technologies [27]. Gender identity and subjec-
with them. This hybrid idealization of traditionally male
tivity are also increasingly important in the study of con-

1303
CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

and female characteristics suggests that the construction cally integrate them into the field, e.g., in interaction design
and presentation of gender is very much part of the design pedagogy, textbooks, and everyday practice.
of gaming experience. A more positive example is Laurel
[53], whose game Purple Moon seeks to offer gameplay OPPORTUNITIES TO DRAW ON FEMINISM IN HCI
appropriate for pre-adolescent girls, replacing sexualized RESEARCH
heroines killing monsters with play that enables girls to For all of the changes that have come to HCI in the past
explore their concerns about friendship and other social decade, i.e., the changes brought on during the so-called
development issues—a strategy that presumably could be “cultural turn” in HCI, usability remains in many ways at
used to design games for boys as well. Another positive the center of the discipline. Yet if usability is to evolve to
example is Isbister [50], who explores the linkage between meet the challenges of third-wave HCI, it needs some up-
a robust array of gender-based preferences and player satis- dating. Universality, a value traditionally associated with
faction through improved identification and/or roleplay- masculinity, continues to dominate usability evaluation
ing/fantasy. (e.g., mental models, Fitts’ and Hicks’ laws, usability lab
protocols) and design methods (e.g., design process models
Application areas in HCI that might benefit from this work such as waterfall and agile, design principles). De Angeli &
include affective computing, intimate interaction, and ex- Bianchi-Berthouze are correct in pointing out that “while
perience design. gender is routinely controlled in usability evaluations, little
is actually known on whether and how differences in gen-
FEMINISM IN HCI: THE STATE OF THE ART der should influence the design of interactive software.”
HCI continues to expand beyond the preoccupations with [32]. The interaction design process takes place independ-
how efficiently a system performs and is becoming increas- ent of gender considerations, and even today the central
ingly concerned with culture [8, 9, 5], society [11], and concept of the whole field—the user—remains genderless.
interested in the experiential qualities of computing [59]. Gender preferences regarding UI components is of great
The discipline stands to benefit from feminism, whose theo- interest to interaction designers and researchers alike,
ries and concepts have much to offer HCI due to its com- though it can be a contentious issue that becomes entangled
mitments to issues such as the home, the constitution of in cultural expectations and even stereotypes [57, 69].
gender and the self in everyday life, the indirect effects of
design, alternative epistemologies, craft, emotion, desire, The growing body of domestic technology research in HCI
embodiment, performance, surveillance/gaze, and reflec- manifests the field’s increasing concern with new kinds of
tiveness, among many others. accounts of human interactions. These new accounts are
increasingly informed by phenomenological, rather than
Of course, feminism is already a part of HCI, both because rationalist, approaches. Domestic lives are subjective and
feminism is a part of the fields that are inputs to HCI as emotional, and the “home” is more than the mere physical
well as because of work in HCI that takes on concerns tra- space of a house or apartment; it is also a cultural construct
ditionally associated with feminism. Bødker and Green- where gender identity plays a major role. Home lives,
baum [14] apply gender perspectives to explore informal whether or not information technologies are involved, are
work relationship of systems developers. In an edited an- often dictated by gender norms [29, 26, 10]. Thus, beyond
thology on information technology and office systems, the phenomenological accounts, which excel at subjective
Green and her colleagues explore the intersection between and experiential categories of use, one could argue that
gendered patterns of work relations and the design of ICTs feminist approaches can bring clarity to the way that sub-
[40]. Cassell [23] questions how gender differences, in par- jectivity and experience with technology are gendered—and
ticular, a deficit model of women and technology, under- what designers could and should do about that.
mine the design and development of interactive systems.
Taylor and Swan pay special attention to women’s work in Feminism could also help us engaging with difficult di-
the design and use of home organizing systems, such as lemmas such as the following: How do we simultaneously
calendars and to-do lists [68]. De Angeli & Bianchi- serve real-world computing needs and avoid perpetuating
Berthouze focus on the examination of attitudinal and be- the marginalization of women and indeed any group in
havioral differences between men and women in the per- technology? It would seem that serving existing needs—the
ception, acceptance, and usage of interactive technologies traditional approach to HCI—is conservative and perpetu-
at AVI 2006 [32]. Bell and Dourish critique the inadequate ates the status quo. Conversely, an activist stance is prob-
use of family as the unit of analysis for domestic technol- lematic because it seems to privilege the social values of the
ogy design, because male and female members of the fam- designer. This is a vital ethical dilemma that is central to
ily use technology in diverse ways [9]. In the ECSCW 2009 domestic computing and ICTs for developing countries, and
conference, Rode & Bødker attempt to forge connections our field as yet offers little practical guidance on how to
between gender theory and computer supported cooperative cope with it.
work [64]. Clearly HCI is already benefitting from and con- Another potential intersection of feminism and HCI is
tributing to feminist perspectives. The question moving ubiquitous computing. Ubicomp continues to stand on an
forward is how to solidify these gains and more systemati-

1304
CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

updated version of Weiser’s 1991 vision in which technolo- “qualities” to develop a range of feminist interaction design
gies disappear and “weave themselves into the fabric of qualities. These qualities are not, in themselves, necessarily
everyday life” [77]. An operationalized vision of this sort unique to feminism; indeed, many of them already figure in
not only entails speculations about future technologies and various ways in HCI literature, most noticeably in third-
interactions, but it also forces us to imagine and even com- wave HCI, in areas such as experience design, critical tech-
mit to conceptualizations of space and place in light of nical practice, and designing for interpretation and appro-
these new technologies. priation. Rather, it is this constellation of qualities—all of
them appearing together in a critical mass—that I argue
Humanist geography, and its offshoot feminist geography,
characterizes feminist interaction. The qualities I propose as
is productive in helping us understand the locus of social
a starting point are as follows: pluralism, participation, ad-
interaction and power dynamics presented in space and
vocacy, ecology, embodiment, and self-disclosure.
place as a result of pervasive technologies. For example,
feminist geographers often consider the body as a place, a
Pluralism
“location or site…of the individual” [60]. Judith Butler de- Feminist standpoint theory critiques Western scientific epis-
velops the influential concept of “performativity,” regard- temology, arguing that while science presents itself as natu-
ing gender as a performance in the “stylized repetition of ral and universal, and in doing so it becomes normative. A
acts” [21]. These perspectives prompt questions such as the key feminist strategy is to denaturalize normative conven-
following: How does a culturally constituted body enact tions, both exposing their constructedness as human dis-
community rules, beliefs, rituals, and power dynamics courses situated in socio-political institutions and exploring
through Ubicomp’s new spaces? How are places alternative approaches. A related strategy is to investigate
(re)configured as a result of Ubicomp to enable such per- and even nurture the marginal, for here alternatives to nor-
formances? malizing discourses are often most visible. The quality of
Feminist theory is also productive in helping us understand pluralism refers to design artifacts that resist any single,
the phenomena of social media and the culture of user- totalizing, or universal point of view. This may seem like an
generated content. Gender identity play, sexism, and even obvious point, but even today, the introduction to a major
sexual harassment are well known phenomena of social HCI textbook published in 2009 [66] has a long section
lives online and deserve further research [83, 67]. What is devoted to “Universal Usability.” Likewise, “universal ac-
the role of gender in social media and virtual worlds? How cessibility” remains at least a rhetorical goal of accessible
do we design for different artificial gender (i.e., virtual computing.
cross-dressing), and how does and should it shape and af- The rise of information and communication technologies
fect interactions online? for developing countries research in HCI is a fertile ground
In sum, I see the contribution of feminist theories and for products that exhibit the pluralist quality of interaction
methods to HCI in the following ways: design. Several projects in recent years have critiqued the
Western universalism in technological advancement in de-
• Theory: Feminism can critique core operational concepts, veloping countries, most notably in [35, 19]. A timeless and
assumptions, and epistemologies of HCI, and at the same universal stance in cross-cultural design is dangerous be-
time, open up opportunities for the future cause it demotes cultural, social, regional, and national dif-
• Methodology: Interaction designers and researchers can ferences in user experiences and outlooks. It also quietly
incorporate feminism in user research, iterative design, and usually unintentionally imposes—without transparent
and evaluation methodologies to broaden their repertoire or rational justification—Western technological norms and
for different contexts and situations practices. In other words, universalizing approaches not
only violate the standards of feminism, but they also violate
• User Research: The notion of “the user” can be updated the standards of science itself, because they cannot offer
to reflect gender in a way that noticeably and directly af- scientifically acceptable accounts of themselves.
fects design
We can see an example of this in the failed implementation
• Evaluation: Feminism can help make visible ways that of Whirlpool’s “World Washer,” in which a design was
designs configure users as gendered/social subjects—and based on a universalizing model of clothes washing (includ-
what implications these configurations bear for future ing the shape, weight, and durability of clothes themselves),
design work rather than direct contact and engagement with target user
groups. When this washing machine was sent to south In-
QUALITIES OF FEMINIST INTERACTION dia, use of the washing machine led to the destruction of
In their Thoughtful Interaction Design, Löwgren and Stol- personal property (especially Indian women’s saris, a frag-
terman introduce a set of “use-oriented qualities of digital ile garment that is typically invested in profound emotional
artifacts” as a way to articulate a holistic, pervasive collec- significance), frustrating user experiences, and impediment
tion of traits that characterizes a given design artifact [56]. to adoption [25].
My approach in this section is to extend this notion of

1305
CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

A more positive example is the design and release of “Ran- participatory approach is compatible with empathic user
goli,” a visual phonebook for low-literate users in rural In- research [81] that avoids the scientific distance that cuts the
dia [51]. Recognizing that in developing countries language bonds of humanity between researcher and subject, pre-
and literacy are barriers that prevent people from using empting a major resource for design (empathy, love, care).
simple and essential applications like a phonebook on mo- This, of course, is not an argument against usability testing
bile phones, the design team engaged in extensive user or other scientific strategies. Rather, we need to comple-
studies in the villages of Chinchavli and Ukarul. The design ment such approaches with participatory processes, espe-
team observed and interviewed people to learn how they cially when considering interaction-related phenomena that
currently stored phone numbers and contact information on are deeply personal and subjective.
paper, using small notepads (referred by locals as “dia-
The participatory design (PD) movement originated in
ries”), as well as how this paper-based system was imbued
Scandinavia in the late 1960s and early 1970s illustrate de-
with personal and cultural characteristics. The design team
sign artifacts with such multi-voiced, participative quality.
recorded the conventions of organization principles of con-
Projects such as Utopia and AT [13, 15] recognize and lev-
tact entries (both in the case of textual entries and number
erage the values of workers’ participation in the improve-
entries) found in these users’ diaries with regard to lan-
ment of the quality of information system design. Relying
guages (e.g., types of languages, whether alphabet order is
on the principle of collective resources, different groups of
used, etc.) and alternative organization schemes (e.g., by
stakeholders (e.g., workers and managers) were brought in
locations of the contact). The situated user research led to
during the design process as a way to explore understand-
the design of “Rangoli,” a phonebook that enables low-
ings of work practices and to inform design.
literate users to organize contacts’ phone numbers into col-
ors and icons in nine color pages. On each page a total of Contemporary examples of PD include the involvement of
nine icons are displayed in that color. A contact is associ- museum goers to contribute to exhibition design [71]; ef-
ated with a color and an icon, and all contacts can be ac- forts to motivate community members to contribute to the
cessed by pressing only two buttons on the number pad. resolution of local, community problems [58]; and the en-
gagement of patients, medical professionals, and software
The quality of pluralism rejects the claims to universalism
developers in the improvement of dental practices [24].
not on dogmatic terms, but because of the practical benefits
Each of these approaches is inclusive and collaborative.
of such an understanding. Pluralist designs are likely to be
They all demonstrate a respect for the expertise of different
more human-centered than universalizing designs simply
perspectives, including non-professional ones, regardless of
because “human” is too rich, too diverse, and too complex a
backgrounds, status, and technical know-how.
category to bear a universal solution. Pluralist design en-
courages an alternative sensibility to design, foregrounding
Advocacy
questions of cultural difference, encouraging a constructive
As noted earlier, design often entails an ethical dilemma. In
engagement with diversity, and embracing the margins both
conducting needs analyses based on empirical research,
to be more inclusive and to benefit from the marginal as
designers are focusing on and working within the status
resources for design solutions.
quo. If they are not careful, they may perpetuate regressive
and harmful practices and structures in service of usability.
Participation
Conversely, designers that take an advocacy position, seek-
In conducting user research, sketching, prototyping, and
ing to offer progressive design solutions, run the risk of
evaluation, designers inevitably establish relationships with
imposing their own values on users and other stakeholders.
users as subjects. In controlled laboratory experiments, such
as traditional usability studies, researchers establish an ob- The quality of advocacy engages with this dilemma seri-
jective, distant, and scientific relationship with subjects. In ously. On the one hand, feminist interaction design should
auto-ethnographic research, anthropologists and user re- seek to bring about political emancipation and not just keep
searchers obviously have quite an intimate relationship with up with it. At the same time, it should also force designers
subjects. The quality of participation refers to valuing par- to question their own position to assert what an “improved
ticipatory processes that lead to the creation and evaluation society” is and how to achieve it. Participatory approaches
of design prototypes. just described are a natural ally to this quality, because they
distribute the authority and responsibility for such decisions
This quality depends on an epistemological position,
across a polyvocal dialogue among stakeholders.
namely that knowers are not substitutable for one another.
The scientific value of replicability is based on the notion We can see this quality in tools designed for improving the
that different scientists collecting data from similar sources lives of underrepresented populations in developing coun-
or populations and analyzing that data in the same ways tries, such as Nokia Life Tools [61] or Ishakti [62]. These
should come up with similar findings. Yet much of design devices provide tailored information synchronized with
cannot be known scientifically, and ongoing participation crop cycles and weather, for example, so that farmers can
and dialogue among designers and users can lead to valu- maximize their productivity and make informed decisions
able insights that could not be achieved scientifically. A about markets and pricings. These tools not only enable

1306
CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

individual users to design a personalized user experience, since made significant progress in dealing with the embod-
but they also empower people in isolated communities to ied nature of human-computer interaction. The next stage of
participate in discourses, markets, and institutions previ- this agenda, that is, development on the quality of embodi-
ously out of reach. ment, needs to push embodiment in the direction of gender
commonalties and differences, gender identity, human
Ecology sexuality, pleasure and desire, and emotion.
Material ecology theory emphasizes the extent to which an
artifact participates in a system of artifacts [73, 52]. This Much of this work is already underway: HCI’s recent pre-
structural approach considers ways that relationships among occupation with emotion [17], fun [12], spirituality [82],
artifacts determine their meaning in the system or ecology. food [41], sexuality [18; 4], embodied interactions [34], and
whole-body interactions [33] is demonstrative of the sig-
Extending this notion of material ecology, the quality of nificance of focalizing the agency of interaction not on the
ecology in feminist interaction design integrates an aware- interface or its designer, but the bodies, motivating drives,
ness of design artifacts’ effects in their broadest contexts and primordial urges of users. More work needs to be done
and awareness of the widest range of stakeholders through- on the differential ways that women and men experience
out design reasoning, decision-making, and evaluation. It and perform interactions in these new contexts.
invites interaction designers to attend to the ways that de-
Self-disclosure
sign artifacts in-the-world reflexively design us [79], as
Every design is founded on assumptions about users. As a
well as how design artifacts affect all stakeholders.
field, user research helps us make these assumptions in rea-
The “Hoosier” cabinet [48], a kitchen cabinet popular in the soned ways. A byproduct of these assumptions is that every
early twentieth century and the predecessor of the modern design projects its own “ideal user.” The closer actual users
kitchen cabinet, is an interesting example of a design that conform to this ideal, the easier, or more powerfully, or
participated in the changing ecology of the American more pleasurably they will interact with the design. For
kitchen in the early twentieth century. With the rise of in- example, a consumer tax application, such as TurboTax,
dustrialism, household servants were leaving domestic ser- makes assumptions about the kinds of things its users know
vice and entering factories, leaving well-to-do families to and don’t know; the kinds of incomes and expenses they are
take on domestic chores on their own. Marketed as “the likely to have; the amount of time they can devote to doing
greatest household help that womankind has ever received their taxes; and so on. A user who falls outside of this pro-
at the hands of science,” a design that “makes kitchen work jected ideal user—because she understands the tax code
a joy” [48], the Hoosier cabinet was equipped with a pull- much better or worse than the software expects, or because
out counter as a large work surface, a flour bin/sifter, and she has a more complex or more simple financial profile
dedicated, built-in storage for various cooking utensils, than the program anticipates—could find that the software
supplies, pots, and pans. simply fails her needs. This is a situation that is hard to
avoid, and it is naïve to suggest that tax software should
The design rationale behind the Hoosier cabinet was to in- work for all people all of the time (i.e., be “universal”).
crease homemakers’ efficiency in part to compensate for
the loss of the household servant. The cabinet was a success At the same time, we can also see that using software con-
in introducing new efficiencies into the kitchen. Less wel- stitutes users as subjects; that is, it makes us become the
come from my perspective was its ecological byproduct: kind of user the software is for, bracketing aside the rest of
rather than emancipating women from household work, it ourselves that is not relevant to the software. The software
more completely identified them with it: the tagline in con- gives us an identity that we are pressured into accepting.
temporary ads boasted, over a picture of a woman in front The quality of self-disclosure refers to the extent to which
of the Hoosier cabinet, “The best servant in your house.” In the software renders visible the ways in which it effects us
short, the homemaker, once the mistress in the former as subjects. Self-disclosure calls users’ awareness to what
kitchen ecology, has become a servant in the new one. the software is trying to make of them, and it both intro-
duces a critical distance between users and interactions, and
In HCI, we see a rising interest in the concept of ecology, also creates opportunities for users to define themselves for
both from the standpoint of systems theory [52] and in the software.
environmental sense with the rise of sustainable interaction
design [11]. What remains is to continue extending these Amazon.com’s recommendation service is a good example
rising ecological perspectives into considerations of gender, of self-disclosure. Many of us define ourselves both pub-
race, social class, developing countries, and so forth. licly and privately based on the kinds of media we con-
sume, including movies, music, and books. Amazon tracks
Embodiment several kinds of information about our media consumption
HCI’s early tendency to understand the user in disembodied habits on its site, including purchasing habits, browsing
ways (e.g., mental models, information processing theories habits, wish listing habits, the habits of people with similar
of the user) were criticized as early as the 1980s [80]. From profiles on Amazon, the habits of popular culture at-large,
situated action theory to embodied interaction, the field has

1307
CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

and so on. I am positioned not only as a media consumer, Critique-based feminist approaches are already influential
but as a certain kind of media consumer. in computing, especially in social informatics and STS. Yet
HCI is an action-oriented field driven by its practitioners,
At the same time, Amazon is transparent about how it con-
who design interactions that (hopefully) improve lives.
stitutes visitors as media consumers. Recommendations
Thus, there is an opportunity for the field to develop femi-
often appear on the site accompanied by a link, “Fix this
nism’s generative contribution type. As I have argued
recommendation.” Clicking the link exposes the algorithm
throughout this paper, I believe that feminism has enormous
by which the user is constituted as a potential consumer of a
potential to affect design practice directly, helping us to
given item: it is because the user bought/browsed some
generate concrete new design directions and new ap-
other item, which Amazon associates with the recom-
proaches to studying users. Feminism has far more to offer
mended item. It then offers several mechanisms by which
than pointing out instances of sexism after the fact. Cognate
the user can do something about it: one can rate items,
fields offer models for what such contributions might look
claim to own them, say it was a gift, and even check a box
like, and existing positive examples in HCI need recogni-
called “Don’t use for recommendations.”
tion so that they might better serve as models for us to
This process became valuable to me as an Amazon user move forward. The constellation of feminist interaction
who is also a researcher of gender studies and human sexu- design qualities I have offered here will hopefully serve as
ality. Due to a series of book purchases related to my field the beginning of a conversation about how our community
of research, Amazon started recommending erotic fiction moves this agenda forward.
and photobooks on my Amazon start page with pictures.
Not wanting to be visually constituted as a consumer of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
erotica and even pornography—especially on a computer I I am grateful for the feedback from Jeffrey Bardzell, Eliza-
use in my office—I made use of these options to communi- beth Churchill, Gilbert Cockton, Erik Stolterman, and the
cate back to Amazon what kind of subject I want the appli- reviewers, as well as the support of Eli Blevis, Marty
cation to treat me as. Siegel, Rajasee Rege, and Vidya Palaniswamy.

CONCLUSION REFERENCES
In offering this conceptualization of the Feminist HCI 1. Agosto, D. Girls and gaming: A summary of the research
agenda, I have referred to analogous fields, including STS, with implications for practice. http://tinyurl.com/mnsho5.
architecture, and industrial design, and I have outlined a Retrieved: July 19, 2009.
vision of how feminism provides opportunities for the dis- 2. Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. Feminist Epistemologies. Rout-
cipline. Building on these traditions and potentials, I have ledge, 1992.
articulated a series of qualities that compose my present 3. Anthony, K. Designing for Diversity: Gender, Race, and
understanding of feminist interaction design. My goal in Ethnicity in the Architectural Profession. U of Illinois
doing this is not to propose a radical departure from what Press: Urbana and Chicago, 2001.
we already do in HCI, but rather to clarify and solidify an
4. Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. Docile avatars: Aesthetics,
agenda that seems already to be underway but seldom rec-
experience, and sexual interaction in Second Life. Proc.
ognized as such.
of British HCI 2007, (2007).
Stepping back, one can broadly distinguish among two gen- 5. Bardzell, J. Interaction criticism and aesthetics. Proc. of
eral ways that feminism contributes to interaction design: CHI 2009, ACM Press (2009), 2357-2366.
Critique-based and generative. 6. Barnard, M. Approaches to Understanding Visual Cul-
• Critique-based contributions rely on the use of feminist ture. Palgrave, Hampshire, UK, 2001.
approaches to analyze designs and design processes in 7. Belk, R., and Wallendorf, M. Of mice and men: Gender
order to expose their unintended consequences. Such identity in collecting. In Pearce, S. (ed.). Interpreting Ob-
contributions indirectly benefit interaction design by jects and Collections. Routledge, London and New York,
raising our sensibilities surrounding issues of concern. 1992, 240-253.
8. Bell, G., Blythe, M., & Sengers, P. Making by making
• Generative contributions involve the use of feminist ap-
strange: Defamilarization and the design of domestic
proaches explicitly in decision-making and design proc-
technology. TOCHI 12, 2(2005), 149-173.
ess to generate new design insights and influence the de-
sign process tangibly. Such contributions leverage femi- 9. Bell, G, and Dourish, P. Yesterday’s tomorrows: Notes
nism to understand design contexts (e.g., “the home” or on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision. Personal and
the “workplace”), to help identify needs and require- Ubiquitous Computing (2006).
ments, discover opportunities for design, offer leads to- 10.Berg, A. A gendered socio-technical construction: The
ward solutions to design problems, and suggest evalua- smart house. In MacKenzie, D., and Wajcman, J. (eds).
tion criteria for working prototypes, etc. The Social Shaping of Technology. Open University
Press, United Kingdom,1999, 301-313.

1308
CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

11.Blevis, E. Sustainable interaction design: Invention & 28.Coleman, D., Danze, E., Henderson, A. Architecture and
disposal, renewal & reuse. Proc. of CHI’07, ACM Press Feminism. Princeton Architectural Press, New York,
(2007), 503-512. 1996.
12.Blythe, M., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A., and Wright, P. 29.Cowan, R. More Work for Mother: The Ironies of House-
Funology: From usability to Enjoyment. Springer, 2003. hold Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave.
13.Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M., & Basic Books, New York, 1983.
Sundblad, Y. (1987). A utopian experience. In G. 30.Cowan, R. The consumption junction: A proposal for
Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng. (eds.), Computers and de- research strategies in the sociology of technology. In Bi-
mocracy-A Scandinavian challenge. Aldershot, England: jker, W., Hughes, T., and Pinch, T. (eds.). The Social
Avebury, 1987, 251-278. Construction of Technological Systems. The MIT Press,
14.Bødker, S. and Greenbaum, J. A feeling for systems de- Boston, MA, 1989, 261-280.
velopment work. In K. Tijdens, et al (eds.). Women, Work 31.De Beauvoir, S. The Second Sex. Vintage, New York,
and Computerization. North Holland, 1988. 1989.
15.Bødker, S. Creating condictions for participation: Con- 32.De Angeli, A., and Bianchi-Berthouze, N. Gender and
flicts and resources in system development. Human Com- interaction: Real and virtual women in a male world. AVI
puter Interaction 11, 3 (1996), 215-236. 2006 workshop (2006).
16.Bødker, S. When second wave HCI meets third wave 33.Dix, A. Whole body interactions.
challenges. Proc. of NordiCHI’06, ACM Press (2006). http://tinyurl.com/lhqxad
17.Boehner, K., DePaula, R., Dourish, P., and Sengers, P. 34.Dourish, P. Where the Action is: The Foundations of Em-
How emotion is made and measured. International Jour- bodied Interaction. MIT Press, 2006.
nal of Human-Computer Studies 65, Elsevier Ltd (2007), 35.Dray, S., Siegel, D., & Dotze, P. Indra’s Net: HCI in the
275-291. developing world. Interactions, 10 (2003), 28-37.
18.Brewer, J., Kaye, J., Williams, A., and Wyche, S. Sexual 36.Girls of Gaming. Fusion Publishing. Retrieved 07/19/09.
interactions: Why we should talk about sex in HCI. Ext. http://tinyurl.com/pfvj8l
Abstracts CHI 2006, ACM Press (2006). 37.Goodall, P. Design and gender. In The Block Reader in
19.Brewer, E., Demmer, M., Ho, M., Honicky, R., Pal, J., Visual Culture. Routledge, 1983.
Plauché, M., and Surana, S. The challenges of technology 38.Gorriz, C. M., & Medina, C. Engaging girls computers
research for developing regions. Pervasive Computing. software games. Communications of the ACM, 43,1
April-June, (2006), 15-23. (2000), 42-49.
20.Buckley, C. Made in patriarchy: Toward a feminist analy- 39.Graner-Ray, S. Gender-Inclusive Game Design: Expand-
sis of women and design. In Margolin, V. (ed). Design ing the Market. Charles River Media, Hingham, MA,
Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism, 1989. 2003.
21.Butler, J. Gender trouble. Routledge, London, 1990. 40.Green, E., Owen, J., and Pain, D. Gendered by Design?
22.Cassell, J., & Jenkins, H. Chess for girls? Feminism and Information technology and office systems. Taylor &
computer games. In J. A. Cassell & H. Jenkins (eds.), Francis, London, 1993.
From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer 41.Grimes, A. and Harper, R. Celebratory technology: New
Games. The MIT Press, Cambridge, USA,1998, 2-45. directions for food research in HCI. Proc. of CHI’08,
23.Cassell, J. Genderizing HCI. In J. Jacko & A. Sears ACM Press (2008).
(eds.), The Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction 42.Haraway, D. A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2002, 402-411. and socialist feminism in the late twentieth century. In
24.Cederman-Haysom, T. and Brereton, M. A participatory Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Na-
design agenda for ubiquitous computing and multimodal ture (pp.149-181). Routledge, New York, 1991.
interaction: A case study of dental practice. Proc. of 43.Harding, S. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: In-
PDC’06, ACM Press (2006). tellectual and Political Controversies. Routledge, 2003.
25.Chavan, A., Gorney, D., Prabhu, B., Arora, S. The wash- 44.Hartmann, T., and Klimmt, C. Gender and computer
ing machine that ate my sari: Mistakes in cross-cultural games: Exploring females' dislikes. Journal of Computer-
design. Interactions,16, 1 (2009), 26-31. Mediated Communication, 11, 4 (2006), article 2.
26.Cockburn, C. The circuit of technology: Gender, identity, 45.Harrison, S. Tatar, D. and Sengers, P. The three para-
and power. In Silverstone, R. and Hirsch, E. (eds). Con- digms of HCI. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2007, ACM Press
suming Technologies: Media and Information in Domes- (2007).
tic Spaces. Routledge, London & New York, 1992, 32-47.
46.Hartsock, N. The feminist standpoint. In S. Harding and
27.Cockburn, C., & Ormrod, S. Gender and Technology in M. B. Hintikka (eds). Discovering Reality. D. Riedel Pub-
the Making. Sage Publications, Ltd., 1993. lishing Company, Holland, Boston, London, 1983, 283-
310

1309
CHI 2010: HCI For All April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA

47.Herring, S. C., Ogan, C., Ahuja, M., and Robinson, J. C. 66.Shneiderman, B., and Plaisant, P. Designing the User
Gender and the culture of computing in applied IT educa- Interface. Addison-Wesley, 2009.
tion. In: E. Trauth (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Gender and In- 67.Taylor, T. L. Multiple pleasures: Women and online gam-
formation Technology. Information Science Publishing, ing. Convergence: The International Journal of Research
Hershey, PA, 2006. into New Media Technologies, 9, (2003), 21-46.
48.Hiller, N. The Hoosier Cabinet in Kitchen History. Indi- 68.Taylor , A., and Swan, L. Artful systems in the home.
ana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 2009. Proc. of CHI’05, (2005), 641-650.
49.Hubbard, R. Science, facts, and feminism. In Wyer, M., 69.Teasley, B., Leventhal, L., Blumenthal, B., Instone, K.,
Barbercheck, M., Giesman, D., Öztürk, H., and Wayne, and Daryl, S. Cultural diversity in user interface design:
M. (eds.). Women, Science, and Technology. Routledge, Are intuitions enough? SIGCHI Bulletin 26, 1 (1994), 36-
New York, London, 2001,153-160. 40.
50.Isbister, K. Better Game Characters by Design: A Psy- 70.Turkle, S. Computational reticence: Why women fear the
chological Approach. Morgan Kauffmann, 2006. intimate machine. In C. Kramarae (ed.), Technology and
51.Joshi, A., Welankar, N., BL, N., Kanitkar, K., and Sheikh, Women's Voices, 1988, 41-61.
R. Rangoli: A visual phonebook for low-literate users. 71.Taxén, G. Introducing participatory design in museums.
Proc. of MobileHCI (2008). Proc. of PDC’04, ACM Press (2004).
52.Krippendorff, K. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation 72.Tyson, L. Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide.
for Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2006. Routledge, New York and London, 2006.
53.Laurel, B. Utopian Entrepreneur. MIT Press, 2001. 73.Verbeek, P. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections
54.Lerman, N., Mohun, A., and Oldenziel, R. Versatile tools: on Technology, Agency, and Design. Penn State Univer-
Gender analysis and the history of technology. Technol- sity Press, University Park, PA, 2005.
ogy and Culture 38 (1997), 1-8. 74.Von Hellens, Annikki, L., Nielsen, S., Kaylene, C., and
55.Longino, H. Can there be a feminist science? In Wyer, Beekhuyze, J. Conceptualizing gender and IT: Australians
M., Barbercheck, M., Giesman, D., Öztürk, H., and taking action in Germany, 2005.
Wayne, M. (eds.). Women, Science, and Technology. 75.Wajcman, J. Feminism Confronts Technology. Penn State
Routledge, New York, London, 2001, 216-222. University Press, University Park, PA, 1991.
56.Löwgren, J. and Stolterman, E. Thoughtful Interaction 76.Waugh, P. Literary Theory and Criticism. Oxford, UK:
Design. MIT Press, 2004. Oxford UP, 2006.
57.Marcus, A. Human communications issues in advanced 77.Weiser, M. The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am
UIs. Communications of the ACM 36, 3 (1993),101-108. 265, 3(1991), 94-104
58.Merkel, C., Xiao, L., Farooq, U., Ganoe, C., Lee, R., Car- 78.Weisman, L. Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Cri-
roll, J., and Rosson, M. Participatory design in commu- tique of the Man-Made Environment. U of Illinois Press,
nity computing contexts: Tales from the field. Proc. of Urbana and Chicago, 1994.
PDC’04, ACM Press (2004). 79.Willis, A.M. Ontological designing. Design Philosophy
59.McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. Technology as Experience. Papers. #02/2006 (2006).
The MIT Press, 2004. 80.Winograd, T. and Flores, W. Understanding Computers
60.McDowell, L. Gender, Identity, and Place: Understand- and Cognition. Addison-Wesley, Norwood, NJ, 1986.
ing Feminist Geographies. Minneapolis: University of 81.Wright, P. and McCarthy, J. Empathy and experience in
Minnesota Press, 1999. HCI. In Proc. of CHI 2008, ACM Press (2008).
61.Nokia Life Tools. http://tinyurl.com/n4atc9 82.Wyche, S., Hayes, G., Harvel, L., and Grinter, R. Tech-
62.Patel, S., Bataveljic, O., Lisboa, P.J., Hawkins, C., Rajan, nology in spiritual formation: An exploratory study of
R. iShakti: Crossing the digital divide in rural India. Proc. computer mediated religious communications. Proc. of
of IEEE WI’06 (2006). CSCW 2006. ACM Press (2006).
63.Rendell, J., Penner, B., and Borden, I. Gender Space Ar- 83.Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P., Hodges, L. F. Can a virtual
chitecture: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Routledge, cat persuade you? The role of gender and realism in
London and New York, 2001. speaker persuasiveness. Proc. of CHI 2006, ACM Press
64.Rode, J. and Bødker, S. Considering gender in ECSCW. (2006), 1153-1162.
ECSCW 2009 workshop (2009).
65.Rothschild, J. Design and Feminism: Re-Visioning
Spaces, Places, and Everyday Things. Rutgers UP, New
Brunswick, New Jersey, and London, 1999.

1310