A Feminist intervention is needed for Interaction Design
This paper was written as part of my Masters in UX & Interaction Design and it will investigate Human-Computer Interaction through a norm-critical, gendered lens advocating the widespread adoption of feminist methodology throughout the entire design system. It proposes that without mediation Interaction Designers, like designers from older disciplines, unknowingly perpetuate normative values and bolster postfeminism ideologies (Baker, 2018, p. 540–552), therefore contributing to the preservation of feminine devaluation, aided by the suppression of feminist discourse, inside the workplace and greater society. It will argue that it is the obligation of Interaction Designers to learn from the history of design and technologies, to prevent future wrongdoings through arbitration of feminist methodology and practice of self-reflexivity.
Interaction Design is the union of User Experience, Design and Technology, but also products and services; it is expanding exponentially and proceeds to permeate all areas of society. As a consequence of its enduring presence, it has become an extension of ourselves (Sturken and Cartwright, 2017), it amplifies pre-existing normative values, essentialist beliefs and gender inequality. The failure to understand the ramifications of unchecked design, or the failure to question the agenda behind a design, has negatively affected everyone (Monteiro, 2019). However, this negative effect has historically been distortional for women, who are still suffering from the magnitude of ramifications today.
Design, for better or worse, has a significant role in culture, and in turn, it has the power to cement gender norms in society. Design critic, Alice Rawthorn, views design as ‘the agency for change’ (2016). Even a brief glimpse at the past of design and technology will reveal that positions of power were and still are, male-dominated. The persistence of gender imbalances in these sectors has a detrimental effect on societal progress, as Cheryl Buckley, a Feminist design historian, explains ‘patriarchy in design prevents women from participating fully in all areas of society as well as different sectors of design.’ (Bardzell, 2010, p. 1303). We know this to be the case through the unacknowledged but widely accepted practices of feminine devaluation and postfeminism in the workplace.
The damage caused through the exclusion of half the population is seen through an examination of the worst offenders of gender imbalance within industry. A look at two examples from the interlinked histories of Product Design and Technology will illuminate the dangers of current Design practice without interference. First, Bardzell (2010), in her paper ‘Feminist HCI’, highlights when product designers took advantage of the changing times and utilized design as a tool to bind women to reproductive labour. The abolition of slavery and the departure of servants from households resulted in designers accordingly touting women as the next in line for this vacancy.
The product responsible was the Hoosier cabinet, marketed with the rationalization to ‘increase homemakers’ efficiency’ due to the loss of household staff. Regardless of whether the designers’ intentions were benevolent or malicious, by labelling it “the greatest household help that womenkind has ever received at the hands of science,” (Bardzell, 2010), they validated the notion that a woman’s role is bound to unpaid domestic labour under the guise of liberation. It accentuates the realization that without a norm-critical lens to examine design and new technologies, it will inevitably further reproductive labour. Subsequently, women carry the weight of the worlds of unpaid domestic labour and care work (Baker, 2018).
Men in past positions of power, with the compliance of male Designers, decided on catastrophic gender roles for everyone, which continued to happen, again and again. The growth of postfeminism as a counter to the feminist movement (Ronen, 2018. pg. 1303) has contributed to essentialized roles becoming even further ingrained within society, that is to say, women have become the majority of exploited, unpaid or underpaid workers used by a patriarchial society to reinforce a power dynamic which oppresses them (Criado Perez, 2019) while also benefitting from the creation of and demand for an unsustainable consumer culture (Sturken and Cartwright, 2017).
Notably, in this context, it is worthwhile considering the gender imbalance within the Design and Technology industries; as mentioned earlier, the worst discipline affected is Product design, where female designers comprise only a shocking 5% of the workforce (Finnegan, 2014). In general, 78% of designers in the UK are male, even though 7 out of 10 students taking design for the A-levels are female (Fairs, 2018). Accordingly, this leads to the creation of a single male perspective, void of empathy for the female other and the strengthening of essentialist beliefs as women withdraw from Design and Technology (Corneliussen, 2014).
Product Design serves as the primary example of the after-effects of exclusion, spanning across generations to present day. Undoubtedly, gendered design has become so normalized that it is barely noticeable until criticism or mockery calls attention to it. Women make up the majority of global buying power at 65% (Ronen, 2017, p. 523), yet the exclusion of women from the workplace remains, unavoidably leading to poor design decisions. One instance, was when Dell received scathing backlash to the ill-fated launch of a platform targeting female consumers to buy technological goods, dubbed ‘Della’ (Choney 2009). In light of this information, it is crucial to counter the myth of essentialism, commencing with the inclusion of women, and their voices, within design practice, for the betterment of every gender across industry and society.
As previously established, Interaction Design is the intersection between design, technology and the user, it is, therefore, necessary to examine the relationship between technology and gender roles to avoid repetition of past mistakes. Unfortunately, it is apparent that essentialism is ubiquitous within the field of technology and that gender biases will continue to embed themselves into our society without a mediator. Jennifer Light, back in 1999, has evidenced that the omission of women from the history of computer science perpetuated the persistent myth of women as uninterested or incapable in the field.
Light set a bleak scene in her paper ‘When Computers Were Women’; in 1943, women in the USA were encouraged to take jobs within scientific and technological fields, roles which required high levels of education and skill, by the Government and media who simultaneously erased or undermined their vital role in emerging technologies. When the New York Times printed the most widely disseminated image of the ENIAC, they cropped the women out. Women were infrequently mentioned, and when they were, it was only to belittle their role with banal captions such as ‘plugging cables’. A guide for managers from the same year, is quoted with “Women can be trained to do any job you’ve got — but remember ‘a woman is not a man;’ A woman is a substitute — like plastic instead of metal.” The complex, highly technical nature of women’s work was deliberately omitted and downplayed by the Government, media and management, being reduced to a false depiction to ensure women knew their place and did not threaten the status quo.
This exclusion of women from technology, which has endured the prevailing decades to present day, where technology is still a male-dominated field, where technology is viewed as a masculine interest and the failure to keep women in long-term employment is dubbed as ‘the leaky pipeline’ (Corneliussen, 2014, p. 210). Hilde Corneliussen builds on these themes with her paper ‘Making the invisible become visible: Recognizing women’s relationship with technology’. As Corneliussen points out, new digital technologies are interwoven into everyday life, making them a crucial communication tool and extension of the self. Certainly, women should be able to fully participate in these technologies and the accompanying interaction design that comes with them, as they overlap the professional and private life, as seen most commonly through the medium of social media networks.
However, social media networks place pressure on users to conform to normative roles or face social rejection (Lundmark and Normark, 2014, p. 223–241). It was observed that women place a higher emphasis on their physical appearance on social media, while also trying to present themselves as less feminine. The results, unsurprisingly, showed the adverse effects of conforming to a gender-specific expectation on women’s’ mental wellbeing compared to men (Oberst et al., 2016, p. 560). However, social media is a conduit for communication and can be used to affect positive, meaningful changes in user behaviour.
A massive feature of social media and a user’s interaction with it is emoji, which have become a vital channel for communication, emotion and sentiment through text online. Several studies have indicated the importance of emoji for strengthened social connection and self-expression (Jones et al., 2020, p.1). Generally, studies show that women have more positive attitudes towards emoji and women, especially younger women, use emoji much more than men (Prada et al., 2018, p.1926), while it has also been ascertained that the gender of a sender affects the perception of emojis for the recipient in line with normative views (Butterworth et al., 2019, p. 2) to the further disadvantage of women.
As shown previously, design is a vehicle for normativity, and the existence and design of emoji are controlled by the Unicode consortium, who decide on the curation of emoji for the use of society, and that set of emoji are decidedly a ‘very narrow view of culture, one that is mostly white and heterosexual’ (Stark and Crawford, 2015, p. 7), reflecting the members of the Unicode consortium. Plan International brought this narrow view to light, when they proposed a period emoji, to help overcome the embarrassment and stigma attached to menstruation (Ho, 2019), to the Unicode Consortium, who coldly stipulates that applications should not apply to “justify the addition of emoji because of they further a “cause”, no matter how worthwhile”. Ultimately, it appears that women and their bodily functions, despite using emoji more frequently than men, were deemed unworthy of being immortalised in emoji form and Plan International’s first proposed emoji, blood-stained underwear, was rejected. Still, undeterred Plan International teamed up with the NHS Blood and transplant to share their proposed, and successful, emoji; a drop of blood. Lamanda Ballard (Ho, 2019), points out the opaque judging criteria for emoji approval, with her comparison between the approval of the poop emoji, which incidentally has eyes and a smiley face on it, to the rejection of menstruation; two natural functions of the human body. It makes one wonder if men menstruated, would this even be a discussion?
The prevalence of normative values have become ingrained in our culture, and by not bringing self-reflexivity into Design practice, designers continue to preserve these toxic expectations of gender. Indeed, it would suggest that the unimpeded progression of normativity has led to the widespread acceptance of Postfeminism ideologies in both professional and personal life. It can be concluded from research that normative values created the gendering of labour and thus, the devaluation of a feminine role, paving the way for gender inequality in work and the evolution of postfeminism, defined by Ronen (2018) as: “A set of ideas that both endorse and disavow feminism… in the terms of two mechanisms by which work becomes gender types: gender essentialization and feminine devaluation.”
The damage wreaked by postfeminism is demonstrated in Ronen’s study, where she focuses on the Design industry, confirming Designers essentialize differences between male and female designers, with designers claiming they can identify an author’s gender by looking at the style of their work. Designers who have their work termed as feminine take the description as an insult, even when they are female (Ronen, 2018, p.524). As noted earlier, essentialism leads the way to feminine devaluation. However, the paradox of postfeminism is that it ‘celebrates essentialized gender differences’ but also refuses to accept the reality of devaluation. To that end, postfeminism shuts down feminist discourse in the workplace, denying people of the opportunity to gain a better understanding of unconscious bias and feel comfortable towards gender while hiding the truth of feminine devaluation. As long as they are unable to vocalize their oppression, the drop-off rate of women in design, technology and leadership roles will continue to advance.
AIGA, the professional association for Design in the USA, published an article (2020) querying the lack of women in leadership roles in the Design Industry. The USA, unlike the UK, has a much higher ratio of female designers at 61%, but it still has few women in leadership positions. Min Lew observes that; “I didn’t see the gender difference in a school setting, it’s only in the professional world that you start to see leadership roles mostly represented by men.” (Bolt, 2020).
Bolt, who is representing the AIGA in this matter, writes; “The most crucial key to unlocking opportunities in graphic design to women is actually the women themselves.” By contrast, in the same article, renowned American Designer, Paula Scher, admits to the existence of feminine devaluation but believes “if you stay in the game and you do the work, you’ll be recognized”. Scher ultimately places the blame back on women for not persisting and working hard enough. Nevertheless, if women make up 61% of Designers in the USA, how can so many be so willing to leave ‘the game’ before achieving recognition? Moreover, if the crucial key to unlocking opportunity lies with women, what are women to do when there are so few women who are successful in the game?
Shelly Ronen’s study (2018) highlights many facets of feminism and postfeminism. Interestingly, on one side of it, only the male designers interviewed felt comfortable discussing gender in the workplace. Their consensus was that ‘gender balance as highly valued is understood as serving broader goals of good design’. On the other hand, postfeminism is so deep-seated it has led to women feeling afraid of being associated with being a feminist that they actively distance themselves from the term.
Female designers went one step further and claimed that to talk about gender only made things worse (Ronen, 2018, p.522). Likewise, female designer Charlotte when speaking about Femme Den, a design firm that advocates for inclusive design, specifically for women, answered ‘I don’t even know if I would call them ‘feminist’, that’s the wrong word. It’s more about equality… I think sometimes it gets pegged as being feminist. But it’s not about feminism.’ (Ronen, 2018, p.524).
Except, this is all about feminism. The current rhetoric only serves the total ingratiation of gender essentialism as most people are too intimidated to engage in a discourse on gender. Additionally, there is a double standard to contend with, as women must suppress their femininity when working in a masculine dominated field, unable to speak of their glass ceiling when by contrast, men in feminine dominated fields can swiftly rise to the to top (Corneliussen, 2014, p.216). Margaret Burnett proves in ‘Gender HCI and Microsoft’ that it is possible to open up the discourse with reluctant employees, by working around the constraints of postfeminism, in this case, it was through embracing vocabulary which enabled staff to discuss gender without mentioning gender. Burnett said this aspect was the key to people’s willingness to participate in gender inclusiveness conversations (2017, p. 141). After all, Sterling and Mertes say is best when they exclaim ‘recognition is the first step to Enlightenment. That’s how change happens.’ (Morley, 2016).
There is an opportunity for change within Interaction design (ID), as a newly forming design discipline, which proclaims its practice focuses on empathy and places human-centred design at its core. However, in order for change to occur, Designers must implement an appropriate norm-critical, gendered lens to examine the past and stage a prompt intervention. Without feminist methodologies in place, ID will have the same destructive impact on society as its predecessors through the furthering of traditional hierarchies (Lundmark and Normark, 2014, p. 224). The implementation of a feminist methodology is crucial to stop the degradation of Interaction Design, and to set it on a new path, deviating from the traditional values and culture of past design and technology fields.
Several authors, such as Bardzell, Baker, Ronen, Fletcher and Grose, identify the vital components of feminist methodologies. However, this paper will select three of these concepts as prime methods which designers can instantly bring into their practice. First of all is pluralism, which counters normativity by rejecting any universal design as it will inevitably be a normative one and exclude so-called edge cases and has the benefit of being authentically more human-centred than universal design.
Secondly, it is encouraging and valuing participation and co-operation between stakeholders and creating a participatory culture which will be mutually advantageous between designers, companies and users (Sturken, 2017, p.259). Opening a dialogue between designers and users will bring valuable insights to future developments. An additional benefit of incorporating participation is that it is one of the key concepts at the heart of sustainable design (Fletcher and Grose, 2012, p.144).
Lastly, is the exercise of reflexivity for designers, which requires designers to contemplate their position and influence within design (Breslin and Wadhwa, 2014, p.294), and the practice of considering other identities than oneself will reinforce the previous two steps, creating a solid foundation of a feminist methodology, in turn, putting Interaction Design onto a new path that genuinely focuses on human-centred design.
In conclusion, the persistence of normative values throughout the decades, has been established as a critical factor in the regression of feminism in the workplace, and broader society as witnessed historically within older disciplines. This has resulted in the rise of postfeminism in its place, an ideology which celebrates only the positives of essentialism, while neglecting to acknowledge the many discriminations that come with it. Moreover, this only further perpetuates harmful normative values, as postfeminism claims equality has already been achieved, it robs women of any chance to confront the problem by closing feminist discourse. Therefore, as technology continues to advance into our professional and personal lives, it is vital to combat the aforementioned issues through the establishment of a female presence and voice in the development of Interaction Design, as well as the adoption of a norm-critical, gendered lens and implementation of feminist methodologies, beginning with pluralism, participation and reflexivity to safeguard the future of design, technology and society.
Keywords:
Feminism, feminine devaluation, normativity, discourse, othering, gender, essentialism, design.
References:
Baker, S. E. (2018) ‘Post-Work Futures and Full Automation: Towards a Feminist Design Methodology’, Open Cultural Studies, 2,p.540–552.
Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. (2017) Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture, 3rd Ed, New York, USA: Oxford University press.
Monteiro, M. (2019) Ruined by Design: How Designers Destroyed the World, and what we can do to Fix It, 1st Ed, SFCA 94133: Mule Design.
Bolt,L. (2020) Women make Up Over Half the Design Industry — so Why are there so Few at the Top?, Available at: https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/women-make-up-more-than-half-of-the-design-industry-but-how-do-they-get-to-the-top/
Bardzell, S. (2010) ‘Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design’, CHI 2010: HCI for All, p.1301–1310.
Ronen, S. (2017) ‘The Postfeminist Ideology at Work: Endorsing Gender Essentialism and Denying Feminine Devaluation in the Case of Design Work’, Gender Work Organisation, 25,p.514–530.
Criado Perez, C. (2019) Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, 1st Ed, London, UK: Penguin Random House UK.
Finnegan, C. (2014) International Women’s Day: Women in Design [online] Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/international-women-s-day-women-design [Accessed 03/05/2020].
Fairs, M. (2018) ‘UK Design has “Shocking Gender Imbalance” According to Design Museum Research’, Dezeen, 15/12/.
Corneliussen, H. G. (2014) ‘Making the Invisible Become Visible: Recognizing Women’s Relationship with Technology’, International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 6, (2), p.209–222.
Choney, S. (2009) Let’s Market PC’s Like it’s 1959 [online] Available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30709961/ns/technology_and_science-digital_home/t/lets-market-pcs-its/#.XrAFZahKiHt [Accessed 05/04/2020].
Light, J. S. (1999) ‘When Women were Computers’, Technology and Culture, 40, (3).
Lundmark, S. and Normark, M. (2014) ‘Designing Gender in Social Media: Unpacking Interaction Design as a Carrier of Social Norms’, International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 6, (2), p.223–241.
Oberst, U., Renau, V., Chamarro, A. and Carbonell, X. (2016) ‘Gender Stereotypes in Facebook Profiles: Are Women More Female Online?’, Computers in Human Behaviour, 60, (7), p.559–564.
Jones, L. L., Wurn, L. H., Norville, G. A. and Mullins, K. L. ‘Sex Differences in Emoji use, Familiarity, and Valence’, Computers in Human Behaviour, p.1–10.
Prada, M., Rodrigues, D. L., Garrido, M., V., Lopes, D., Cavalheiro, B. and Gaspar, R. (2018) ‘Motives, Frequency and Attitudes Toward Emoji and Emoticon Use’, Telematics and Informatics, 35,p.1925–1934.
Butterwoth, S. E., Guilian, T. A., White, J., Cantu, L. and Fraser, K. C. (2019) ‘Sender Gender Influences Emoji Interpretation in Text Messages’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10,p.1–5.
Stark, L. and Crawford, K. (2015) ‘The Conservatism of Emoji: Work, Affect, and Communication’, Social Media + Society, 1–11.
Ho, V. (2019) ‘Bloody Brilliant: New Emoji to Symbolize Menstration Welcomed’, The Guardian, 09/02/.
Bolt,L. (2020) Women make Up Over Half the Design Industry — so Why are there so Few at the Top?, Available at: https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/women-make-up-more-than-half-of-the-design-industry-but-how-do-they-get-to-the-top/
Burnett, M. (2017) ‘Gender HCI and Microsoft: Highlights from a Longitudinal Study’, 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), p.139–143.
Morley, M. (2016) Can Design be Genderless? [online] Available at: https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/can-design-be-genderless/ [Accessed 03/05/2020].
Fletcher, K. and Grose, L. (2012) Fashion & Sustainability: Design for Change, 1st Ed, London, UK: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.
Breslin, S. and Wadhwa, B. (2014) ‘EnGendering Interaction Design’, 3rd International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), p.292–295.
Bibliography:
A New Emoji is on the Way(2019) , Available from: .
Picture Character: An Emoji Documentary(2019) [online] Available at: https://www.picturecharacter.com/ [Accessed 01/04/2020].
Women Who Wrote Under Male Pen Names [online] : Google Arts & Culture. Available at: https://artsandculture.google.com/theme/women-who-wrote-under-male-pen-names/-QICfDz_O3goIw?hl=en [Accessed 01/05/2020].
Bae Brandtzaeg, P. (2015) ‘Facebook is no “Great Equalizer”: A Big Data Approach to Gender Differences in Civic Engagement Across Countries’, Social Science Computer Review, 1, (23), p.1–22.
Baker, S. E. (2018) ‘Post-Work Futures and Full Automation: Towards a Feminist Design Methodology’, Open Cultural Studies, 2,p.540–552.
Bardzell, S. (2010) ‘Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design’, CHI 2010: HCI for All, p.1301–1310.
Barker, S. (2019) Tifa’s Chest Size Reduced in Final Fantasy VII Remake Per Square Enix Ethics Department Request [online] Available at: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/06/tifas_chest_size_reduced_in_final_fantasy_vii_remake_per_square_enix_ethics_department_request [Accessed 02/05/2020].
Bolt,L. (2020) Women make Up Over Half the Design Industry — so Why are there so Few at the Top?, Available at: https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/women-make-up-more-than-half-of-the-design-industry-but-how-do-they-get-to-the-top/
Breslin, S. and Wadhwa, B. (2014) ‘EnGendering Interaction Design’, 3rd International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), p.292–295.
Burnett, M. (2017) ‘Gender HCI and Microsoft: Highlights from a Longitudinal Study’, 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), p.139–143.
Bury, L. (2013) ‘JK Rowling Tells Story of Alter Ego Robert Galbraith’, The Guardian, 24/07/.
Butterwoth, S. E., Guilian, T. A., White, J., Cantu, L. and Fraser, K. C. (2019) ‘Sender Gender Influences Emoji Interpretation in Text Messages’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10,p.1–5.
Choney, S. (2009) Let’s Market PC’s Like it’s 1959 [online] Available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30709961/ns/technology_and_science-digital_home/t/lets-market-pcs-its/#.XrAFZahKiHt [Accessed 05/04/2020].
Corneliussen, H. G. (2014) ‘Making the Invisible Become Visible: Recognizing Women’s Relationship with Technology’, International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 6, (2), p.209–222.
Criado Perez, C. (2019) Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, 1st Ed, London, UK: Penguin Random House UK.
Ellis Grey, E. (2019) Why Women are Called ‘Influencers’ and Men Creators’ [online] : Wired. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/influencers-creators-gender-divide/ .
Fairs, M. (2018) ‘UK Design has “Shocking Gender Imbalance” According to Design Museum Research’, Dezeen, 15/12/.
Finnegan, C. (2014) International Women’s Day: Women in Design [online] Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/international-women-s-day-women-design [Accessed 03/05/2020].
Fletcher, K. and Grose, L. (2012) Fashion & Sustainability: Design for Change, 1st Ed, London, UK: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.
Flores, P., Gómez, N. R., Roa, A. F. and Whitson, R. (2018) ‘Reviving Feminism through Social Media: From the Classroom to Online and Offline Public Spaces’, Gender and Education, p.1–16.
Hauser, M. (2019) ‘Picturing the Future’, The New Republic, p.36–39.
Ho, V. (2019) ‘Bloody Brilliant: New Emoji to Symbolize Menstration Welcomed’, The Guardian, 09/02/.
Houghton, R. (2017) Harry Potter Publisher Asked JK Rowling to use Her Initials to Hide Her Gender [online] Available at: https://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/a832808/why-jk-rowling-uses-initials-harry-potter/ .
Hugel, M. (2013) Why did J.K. Rowling use a Male Pen Name for Her Crime Novel? [online] Available at: https://www.mic.com/articles/55499/why-did-j-k-rowling-use-a-male-pen-name-for-her-crime-novel [Accessed 01/05/2020].
Jones, L. L., Wurn, L. H., Norville, G. A. and Mullins, K. L. ‘Sex Differences in Emoji use, Familiarity, and Valence’, Computers in Human Behaviour, p.1–10.
Jones, L. L. (2020) ‘Sex Difference in Emoji use, Familiarity, and Valence’, Computers in Human Behaviour 108 (2020) 106305, .
Light, J. S. (1999) ‘When Women were Computers’, Technology and Culture, 40, (3), .
Lundmark, S. and Normark, M. (2014) ‘Designing Gender in Social Media: Unpacking Interaction Design as a Carrier of Social Norms’, International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 6, (2), p.223–241.
Monteiro, M. (2019) Ruined by Design: How Designers Destroyed the World, and what we can do to Fix It, 1st Ed, SFCA 94133: Mule Design.
Morley, M. (2016) Can Design be Genderless? [online] Available at: https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/can-design-be-genderless/ [Accessed 03/05/2020].
Oberst, U., Renau, V., Chamarro, A. and Carbonell, X. (2016) ‘Gender Stereotypes in Facebook Profiles: Are Women More Female Online?’, Computers in Human Behaviour, 60, (7), p.559–564.
Prada, M., Rodrigues, D. L., Garrido, M., V., Lopes, D., Cavalheiro, B. and Gaspar, R. (2018) ‘Motives, Frequency and Attitudes Toward Emoji and Emoticon Use’, Telematics and Informatics, 35,p.1925–1934.
Ratzer, B. (2014) ‘Bringing Gender into Technology: A Case Study in User-Interface-Design and the Perspective of Gender Experts’, International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 6, (1), p.3–24.
Richards, B. (1979) ‘Women Say they had to be Sterilized to Hold Jobs’, The Washington Post, 01/01/.
Ronen, S. (2017) ‘The Postfeminist Ideology at Work: Endorsing Gender Essentialism and Denying Feminine Devaluation in the Case of Design Work’, Gender Work Organisation, 25,p.514–530.
Rukavnina, S., Gruss, S., Hoffmann, H., Tan, J., Walter, S. and Traue, H. C. (2016) ‘Affective Computing and the Impact of Gender and Age’, PLoS ONE 11(3), 11, (3), .
Stark, L. and Crawford, K. (2015) ‘The Conservatism of Emoji: Work, Affect, and Communication’, Social Media + Society, 1–11.
Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. (2017) Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture, 3rd Ed, New York, USA: Oxford University press.
