skip to main content
10.1145/3441000.3441021acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesozchiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Gender Differences in Innovation Design: A Thematic Conversation Analysis

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 February 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

This study investigates aspects of the role gender plays in participatory design innovation workshops; reflecting on both the process and the output. Often when gender and design are discussed, the problems raised concern a lack of women as designers or developers [26], but there appear to be gaps in addressing full gender representation when it comes to users in the design process. In this study, a design workshop was run where participants, two men and five women were asked initially to identify or generate problems and possible digital solutions concerning their academic studies, and then to design their top self-selected solution. The workshop was recorded and transcribed, and conversation and discourse analysis were carried out which found gender to influence problem raising, language used and group practices. The paper concludes both that gender apparently plays a strong role in group dynamics with regards to design innovation; and that thematic conversation and discourse analysis provides an appropriate and insightful approach to understanding these issues. 

References

  1. Adichie, C. 2020. We Should All Be Feminists. Fourth Estate LTD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashcroft, A. 2020. 'Hedging’ and Gender in Participatory Design. 1986 (2020), 176–180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashcroft, A. 2018. A nice brain teaser. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Balka, E. 1997. Participatory design in women's organizations: The social world of organizational structure and the gendered nature of expertise. Gender, Work and Organization. (1997). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00027.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Benwell, B. 2006. Discourse and identity. Edinburgh University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, A.J. 2018. Women's visibility in academic seminars: Women ask fewer questions than men. PLoS ONE. (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202743.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, C. 2019. Feminist Rhetorical Practices in Digital Spaces. Computers and Composition. (2019), 132–141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixon, J. and Foster, D. 1997. No Title. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,. 26, 1 (1997), 89–107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Dourish, P. 2006. Implications for design. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings (2006).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ending Gender Bias: Why Richard Branson Says Everyone Should Take Meeting Notes, Not Just Women.: 2015. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2015/08/31/ending-gender-bias-why-richard-branson-says-everyone-should-take-meeting-notes-not-just-women/. Accessed: 2020-04-09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagan, M.H. 2004. The influence of creative style and climate on software development team creativity: An exporatory study. Journal of Computer Information Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Franklin, D. 2013. A Practical Guide to Gender Diversity for Computer Science Faculty. Synthesis Lectures on Professionalism and Career Advancement for Scientists and Engineers. (2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2200/s00495ed1v01y201304pro002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Guest, G. 2012. Applied Thematic Analysis. SAGE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta, A.K. 2007. Innovation at and Across Multiple Levels of Analysis. Organization Science. 18, 6 (2007), 885–897. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Hansen, N., Dindler, C., Halskov, K., Iversen, O., Bossen, C., Basballe, D. and Schouten, B. 2019. How Participatory Design Works. Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction.45, 4 (2019), 675. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/591889.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hester, S. and Francis, D. 1994. Doing Data: The Local Organization of a Sociological Interview. The British Journal of Sociology. (1994). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/591889.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmes, J. 1986. Functions of You Know in Women's and Men's Speech Language in Society. Source: Language in Society. (1986).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmes, J. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language and Communication. (1990). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnstone, B. 2018. Discourse Analysis.John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitzinger, C. 2008. Developing feminist conversation analysis: A response to Wowk. Human Studies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitzinger, C. 2000. Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism and Psychology. (2000). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010002001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Murphy, B. 2010. Corpus and sociolinguistics: investigating age and gender in female talk. John Benjamins Pub. Co.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. O'Leary, Z. 2017. The essential guide to doing your research project. SAGE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Park, D. 1996. Gender role, decision style and leadership style. Women in Management Review. 11, 8 (1996), 13–17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/09649429610148737.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Reuben, E. 2012. The emergence of male leadership in competitive environments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. (2012). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Rode, J.A. 2011. A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI. Interacting with Computers. (2011). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Sacks, H. 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language. 24, 2 (1974), 111–134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/412243.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sidnell, J. 2010. Conversation analysis. Sociolinguistics and Language Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Silverstein, D. 2013. The Innovator's Toolkit. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Speer, S.A. and Stokoe, E. 2011. Conversation and gender. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Spinuzzi, C. 2005. The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication. (2005), 163–174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Steen, M. 2013. Virtues in Participatory Design: Cooperation, Curiosity, Creativity, Empowerment and Reflexivity. Science and Engineering Ethics. (2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9380-9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Stokoe, E. 2006. On ethnomethodology, feminism, and the analysis of categorial reference to gender in talk-in-interaction. Sociological Review. (2006). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00626.x.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Stokoe, E.H. 2005. Analysing gender and language. Journal of Sociolinguistics. (2005). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00285.x.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Stokoe, E.H. and Smithson, J. 2001. Making gender relevant: Conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction. Discourse and Society. 12, 2 (2001), 217–244. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012002005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Stokoe, E.H. and Weatherall, A. 2002. Gender, language, conversation analysis and feminism. Discourse and Society. 13, 6 (2002), 707–713. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013006751.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Strategyzer | Corporate Innovation Strategy, Tools & Training: 2019. http://businessmodelgeneration.com/. Accessed: 2019-11-21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Taking Notes Isn't “Women's Work”: What To Do When You're The Default Admin.: 2013. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2013/10/18/taking-notes-isnt-womens-work-what-to-do-when-youre-the-default-admin. Accessed: 2020-04-09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Tannen, D. 1994. Talking from 9 to 5. New York: Avon Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Wooffitt, R. 2005. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    OzCHI '20: Proceedings of the 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
    December 2020
    764 pages

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 15 February 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate362of729submissions,50%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)16
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format