Practical Steps for Incorporating Sex and Gender Analysis into Participatory Research
Researchers and designers should:
1. Identify the area of work or everyday life they wish to address:
Investigate gendered structures in that area: what opportunities may have been missed in the past as a result of failing to analyze sex and gender. For instance, in transportation planning, and housing and neighborhood design, it will be critical to consider “mobility of care” (see Case Study: Smart Mobility), and how needs with respect to built-up environments vary by gender role and gendered division of labor (see Case Study: Housing and Neighborhood Design).
As an alternative to direct user involvement, developers may create personas (see Case Studies: Smart Energy Solutions; Smart Mobility; Quality Urban Space). Personas are fictitious representations of typical (or atypical) target populations derived from data about these actors’ shared traits and characteristics (Miaskiewicz & Kozar, 2011). They are used as ‘model characters’ or benchmarks for the user experience in order to focus design on the people the planned project seeks to benefit. An important consideration when developing personas is to avoid reinforcing stereotypes with respect to gender, race, age, etc., as this may end up constraining the uptake of the product, service or solution (Hill et al., 2017; Turner & Turn, 2011).
3. Seek user or community input: Engage users/communities in defining problems, requirements, and solution and design alternatives (Oudshoorn et al., 2003: Oudshoorn et al., 2002). Ensure that your participant sample is heterogeneous enough to capture the various intersecting positions of relevance to the project (Method: Intersectional Approaches). Involving users who vary by gender, ethnicity, age and socio-economic status allows researchers and engineers to gather information about how a technology, product or public health measure will affect people’s everyday lives, assist their work or enhance their leisure activities. 4. Observe workers or users: Observing people at work allows scientists and engineers to access tacit knowledge—knowledge that is self-evident or taken for granted by workers themselves and rarely articulated. Capturing tacit knowledge may bring new perspectives to formal research and design. Researchers might ask: How do sex and gender influence how the work is done, how an artefact is used or how a process works? How may this differ in a single-sex versus a mixed-sex context? Engineers and designers can probe their understanding of work processes in interactions with users. For example, to develop new software for customer service call centers, ICT researchers observed, interviewed and worked with call center employees—a majority of them women—to understand their needs. Analyzing the gendered nature of the work and gathering user input produced software that better captured previously unrecognized needs (Maass & Rommes, 2007).5. Evaluate and redesign: Researchers can cooperate with users/communities in all steps of project evaluation, from defining goals or measures of success to determining whether these goals have been achieved in the design, implementation and monitoring steps (WHO, 2002—see Method: Gender Impact Assessment). User and community input can also help to guide product redesign and further research.
Works Cited
Gonsalves, J., Becker, T., Braun, A., Campilan, D., de Chavez, H., Fajber, E., Kapiriri, M., Rivaca-Caminade, J., & Vernooy, R. (2005). Participatory Research and Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: A Sourcebook, Volume 1: Understanding Participatory Research and Development. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., & Janamian, T. (2016). Achieving research impact through co‐creation in community‐based health services: literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(2), 392-429. Hill, C. G., Haag, M., Oleson, A., Mendez, C., Marsden, N., Sarma, A., & Burnett, M. (2017, May). Gender-Inclusiveness Personas vs. Stereotyping: Can we have it both ways? In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6658-6671. Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 283-296. Leung, M., Yen, I., & Minkler, M. (2004). Community-Based Participatory Research: A Promising Approach for Increasing Epidemiology’s Relevance in the 21st Century. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33 (3), 499-506. Maass, S. & Rommes, E. (2007). Uncovering the Invisible: Gender-Sensitive Analysis of Call Center Work and Software. In Zorn, I., Maass, S., Rommes, E., Schirmer, C. & Schelhowe, H. (Eds.) Gender Designs Information Technology (IT), pp. 97 - 108. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes?. Design Studies, 32(5), 417-430. Oudshoorn, N., Saetnan, A., & Lie, M. (2002). On Gender and Things: Reflections on an Exhibition of Gendered Artifacts. Women’s Studies International Forum, 25 (4), 471-483. Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (Eds.) (2003). How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technologies. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press. Smith, R. C., Bossen, C., & Kanstrup, A. M. (2017). Participatory design in an era of participation. Codesign, 13(2). Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2011). Is stereotyping inevitable when designing with personas? Design Studies, 32(1), 30-44. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357. World Health Organization (WHO). (2011). Indigenous Peoples and Participatory Health Research. Geneva: WHO. World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). Gender Analysis in Health: A Review of Selected Tools. Geneva: WHO.