Script analysis is often used in research that focuses on gender and technology design. It is applied as a method to describe problematic inscriptions of gender in technology and as a tool for advancing more acceptable inscriptions of gender in technology. These analyses are based on the assumption that we can design technologies that do justice to gender. One critique on script analysis is that it does not engage with the emergent effects of design. The authors explore this critique with the help of two vignettes taken from their design research. In this article they ask: How to design for gender if gender and design are emergent? The authors present two design strategies, degendering design and undesigning design and propose a new approach to doing justice to gender in design. This perspective foregrounds ethics in the design process, in particular the accountability of technology designers.
AkrichMadeleine. 1992. “The De-scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology, edited by BijkerWiebeLawJohn, 205–224. Cambridge: MIT Press
3.
BaradKaren. 1996. “Meeting the Universe Halfway: Realism and Social Constructivism Without Contradiction.” In Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, edited by NelsonLynn HankinsonNelsonJack, 161–194. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press
4.
BaradKaren. 1999. “Agential Realism: Feminist Interventions in Understanding Scientific Practices.” In The Science Studies Reader, edited by BaglioliMario, 1–11. New York: Routledge
5.
BaradKaren. 2003. “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.”Signs28:801–31.
6.
BaradKaren. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
BjerknesGroBratteteigTone1995. “User Participation and Democracy: A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on System Development.”. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7, 25–45.
9.
BrighamMartinIntronaLucas. 2007. “Invoking Politics and Ethics in the Design of Information Technology: Undesigning the Design.”. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 1–10.
10.
ButlerJudith.1993. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex"New York: Routledge.
11.
ButlerJudith. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
12.
CritchleySimon2007. Infinitely Demanding: Ethics of Commitment, Politics of ResistanceLondon: Verso.
ElovaaraPirjoIgiraFaraja T.MörtbergChristina2006. “Whose Participation? Whose Knowledge?—Exploring PD in Tanzania, Zanzibar and Sweden.”. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Participatory Design: Expanding Boundaries in Design—Volume 1, edited by I. Wager, J. Blomberg, G. Jacucci, and F. Kensing, 105-114New York: ACM Press.
15.
ElovaaraPirjoMörtbergChristina2007. “Design of Digital Democracies—Performance of Citizenship, Gender and IT.”. Information Communication and Society, 10, 404–23.
16.
GregoryJudith.2003. “Collaboration in Design—Scandinavian Approaches to Participatory Design.”. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 19, 62–74.
17.
HarawayDonna.1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.”. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–99.
18.
HarawayDonna. 1994. “A Game of Cat's Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies.”Configurations1:59–71.
LatourBruno.2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-TheoryOxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
LevinasEmmanuel.1981. Otherwise than Being or Beyond EssenceDordrecht: Kluwer.
22.
LevinasEmmanuel. 1989. The Levinas Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
23.
MörtbergChristinaElovaaraPirjo. 2010. “Attaching People and Technology: Between E and Government.” In Gender Issues in Learning and Working with Information Technology: Social Constructs and Cultural Contexts, edited BoothS.GoodmanS.KirupG., 83–98. Hersey, USA: IGI Global
24.
OudshoornNellyRommesElsStienstraMarcelle2004. “Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies.”. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29, 0–63.
25.
RommesEls.2006. “Gender Sensitive Design Practices.”. In Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology, edited by E. M. Trauth, 675-81. Hersey, USA: IGI Publishing
26.
RommesElsvan OostEllenNellyOudshoorn. 1999. “Gender in the Design of the Digital City of Amsterdam.”. Information, Communication & Society, 2, 476. doi:10.1080/136911899359510
27.
SefyrinJ.2010. ‘But That is a Systems Solution to Me’ - Negotiations in IT Design.”. Codesign, 6, 25–41.
28.
SengersPhoebeBoehnerKirstenDavidShayKayeJoseph ‘Jofish’2005. “Reflective Design.”. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, edited by O. W. Bertelsen, N. O. Bouvin, P. G. Krogh, and M. Kyng, 49-58Aarhus, Denmark: ACM.
29.
ShadeLeslie Regan.2007. “Feminizing the Mobile: Gender Scripting of Mobiles in North America.”. Continuum, 21, 179–89.
30.
SuchmanLucy.2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions2nd ednCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van der VeldenMaja.2008b. “What's Love Got To Do With IT? On Ethics and Accountability in Telling Technology Stories.”. In Sixth International Conference on Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication, edited by F. Sudweeks, H. Hrachovecs, and C. Ess, 26-39Nîmes, France: University of Nîmes.
33.
van der VeldenMaja. 2009. Another Design is Possible: Looking for Ethical Agency in Global Information and Communication Technology. PhD thesis, University of Bergen, Norway
34.
van OostEllen. 2003. “Materialized Gender. How Shavers Configure the Users‘ Femininity and Masculinity.” In How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology, edited by OudshoornNellyPinchTrevor, 193–208. London: MIT Press.
35.
WinthereikBrit RossJohannsenNisStrandDixi Louise. 2008. “Making Technology Public: Challenging the Notion of Script Through an E-Health Demonstration Video.”. Information Technology & People, 21, 116–32.
