Advertisement

Gender Factors and Feminist Values in Living Labs

  • Michael AhmadiEmail author
  • Anne Weibert
  • Victoria Wenzelmann
  • Tanja Ertl
  • Dave Randall
  • Peter Tolmie
  • Volker Wulf
  • Nicola Marsden
Chapter
Part of the Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie book series (TPAHT, volume 2)

Abstract

In this paper, we describe the feminist perspectives that have informed design in the HCI community, and develop an argument for an approach that translates these broad commitments into a pragmatic design space, drawing on emancipatory agendas such as participatory design. As designers of technologies, we regard creating research infrastructures that offer safe spaces for the development of user-centered artifacts based on diverse and critical perspectives as not only a utopian vision, but as a practical contribution to a more equal society. Shaowen Bardzell stresses this point when she states that in envisioning utopias, we are “seeking not so much to predict the future, but rather to imagine a radically better one”. Recognizing that technology shapes social life and amplifies social practices both good and bad, research in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) increasingly focuses on how technology has been developed in the past, and how constructive futures may be envisaged. More and more, academics are inviting multidisciplinarity and embracing ethnographic methods as part of the design of networks and technical artifacts, realizing that innovation cannot be user-centered if designers employ a bird’s-eye perspective. This leads to an approach that advocates designing socially embedded technologies in real world environments. Thus, for some time now, collaboration and participatory design approaches have provided a means for enacting positive social and technological change. If we agree that “those who design technologies are […] designing society”, new questions arise in terms of responsibility for the future shape of the world: How do we design technologies to design a better society for people of all genders?

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), grant number 01FP1603, 01FP1604, and 01FP1605 (GEWINN) as well as the Leitmarktwettbewerb „CreateMedia“ with capital from the European Fond for regional development and the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, grant number EFRE-0800485 (Nett.Werkzeug). The responsibility for all content supplied lies with the authors.

References

  1. Aaltojärvi, I.A. (2012). “That Mystic Device Only Women Can Use”—Ascribing Gender to Domestic Technologies. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 4(2), 208–230.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmadi, M., Weibert, A., Ogonowski, C., Aal, K., Gäckle, K., Marsden, N. & Wulf, V. (2018). Challenges and lessons learned by applying living labs in gender and IT contexts. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT, 239–249Google Scholar
  3. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In Bijker (Ed.), Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 205–224.Google Scholar
  4. Akrich, M. (1995). User Representations: Practices, Methods and Sociology. In J.A. Rip, T.J. Misa & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London, New York: Pinter, 167–184.Google Scholar
  5. Almirall, E., Lee, M. & Wareham, J. (2012). Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review 2, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballon, P. & Schuurman, D. (2015). Living labs: concepts, tools and cases. Info 17(4). Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1108/info-04-2015-0024.
  7. Bardzell, S. (2010). Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 1301–1310.Google Scholar
  8. Bardzell, S. (2014). Utopias of Participation: Design, Criticality, and Emancipation. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts—PDC ’14—volume 2. Windhoek, Namibia: ACM Press. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662213, 189–190.
  9. Bath, C. (2014). Searching for Methodology: Feminist Technology Design in Computer Science. In W. Ernst & I. Horwath (Eds.), Gender in Science and Technology. Bielefeld: transcript, 57–78.Google Scholar
  10. Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. & Pinch, T.J. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Blackwell, L.V., Snyder, L.A. & Mavriplis, C. (2009). Diverse Faculty in STEM Fields: Attitudes, Performance, and Fair Treatment. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 2(4), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bratteteig, T. (2002). Bringing Gender Issues to Technology Design. In Feminist Challenges in the Information Age. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 91–105. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-94954-7_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, J. (2011). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cardone, G., Cirri, A., Corradi, A. & Foschini, L. (2014). The participact mobile crowd sensing living lab: The testbed for smart cities. IEEE Communications Magazine 52(10), 78–85. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2014.6917406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Catterall, M., Maclaran, P. & Stevens, L. (1997). Marketing and feminism: a bibliography and suggestions for further research. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 15(7), 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheryan, S., Master, A. & Meltzoff, A.N. (2015). Cultural Stereotypes as Gatekeepers: Increasing Girls’ Interest in Computer Science and Engineering by Diversifying Stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology 6.Google Scholar
  17. Churchill, E.F. (2010). Sugared puppy-dog tails: gender and design. Interactions 17(2), 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, J. (2016). Artificial Intelligence Has a ‘Sea of Dudes’ Problem. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-23/artificial-intelligence-has-a-sea-of-dudes-problem.
  19. Cockburn, C. (1983). Brothers: Male Dominance and Technological Change. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cockburn, C. (1997). Domestic technologies: Cinderella and the engineers. Women’s Studies International Forum 20(3), 361–371. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(97)00020-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cockburn, C. & Fürst-Dilić, R. (1994). Bringing technology home: Gender and technology in a changing Europe. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cockburn, C. & Ormrod, S. (1993). Gender and Technology in the Making. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Cosgrave, E., Arbuthnot, K. & Tryfonas, T. (2013). Living Labs, Innovation Districts and Information Marketplaces: A Systems Approach for Smart Cities. Procedia Computer Science 16, 668–677. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Creswell, J., Hanson, W., Clark Plano, V. & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative Research Designs: Selection and Implementation. The Counseling Psychologist 35(2), 236–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. London: Chattoo & Windus.Google Scholar
  26. Dell’Era, C. & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: A Methodology between User-Centred Design and Participatory Design: Living Lab. Creativity and Innovation Management 23(2), 137–154. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. DeVault, M.L. & Ingraham, C. (1999). Metaphors of silence and voice in feminist thought. In M.L. DeVault (Ed.), Liberating method: feminism and social research. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 175–186.Google Scholar
  28. D’Ignazio, C., Hope, A., Michelson, B., Churchill, R. & Zuckerman, E. (2016). A Feminist HCI Approach to Designing Postpartum Technologies: “When I First Saw a Breast Pump I Was Wondering if It Was a Joke.” Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2612–2622. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858460.
  29. Dimond, J.P. (2012). Feminist HCI for real: Designing technology in support of a social movement (PhD Thesis). Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  30. Eagly, A.H. & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15(4), 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eccles, J.S., Jacobs, J.E. & Harold, R.D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues 46(2), 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Edwards-Schachter, M.E., Matti, C.E. & Alcántara, E. (2012). Fostering Quality of Life through Social Innovation: A Living Lab Methodology Study Case: Social Innovation and Living Labs. Review of Policy Research 29(6), 672–692. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00588.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian Design: On Participation and Skill. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 41–77.Google Scholar
  34. Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. & Topgaard, R. (2014). Making futures: marginal notes on innovation, design, and democracy. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Eriksson, M. & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-Art in Utilizing Living Labs Approach to User-centric ICT Innovation—A European Approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-Spanning Technology. Retrieved from http://84.88.32.6/openlivinglabs/documents/SOA_LivingLabs.pdf.
  36. Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. In Women’s studies international forum (Vol. 24). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 79–95.Google Scholar
  37. Fiesler, C., Morrison, S. & Bruckman, A.S. (2016). An Archive of Their Own: A Case Study of Feminist HCI and Values in Design. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2574–2585. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858409.
  38. Fogelberg Eriksson, A. (2014). A Gender Perspective as Trigger and Facilitator of Innovation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 6(2), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Freedman, J., Kıvılcım, Z. & Özgür Baklacıoğlu, N. (Eds.). (2017). A gendered approach to the Syrian refugee crisis. London, New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/search?isbn=9781138693722&db=100.
  40. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  41. Fry, T. (2012). Becoming human by design. London: Berg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design activism: beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. London; Sterling: Earthscan. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10313173.
  43. Gäckle, K., Reichert, T. & Marsden, N. (2018). Virtual Reality or Virtuous Reality?: How Gender Stereotypes Limit Access to Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT. New York: ACM Press, 143–145. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/3196839.3196861.
  44. Gatenby, B. & Humphries, M. (2000). Feminist Participatory Action Research: Methodological and Ethical Issues. In Women’s Studies International Forum (Vol. 23). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 89–105.Google Scholar
  45. Graham, L.D. (1999). Domesticating efficiency: Lillian Gilbreth’s scientific management of homemakers, 1924–1930. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 24(3), 633–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gray, A. (1992). Video Playtime: The Gendering of a Leisure Technology. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Greenwald, A.G. & Krieger, L.H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. Cal. L. Rev. 94, 945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gregory, R.F. (2003). Women and Workplace Discrimination: Overcoming Barriers to Gender Equality. New Brunswick, New Jersey, London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Haldrup, M., Mads, H., Samson, K. & Padfield, N. (2015). REMIX UTOPIA: ELEVEN PROPOSITIONS ON DESIGN AND SOCIAL FANTASY. Nordes 1(6).Google Scholar
  50. Hankerson, D., Marshall, A.R., Booker, J., El Mimouni, H., Walker, I. & Rode, J.A. (2016). Does technology have race? In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 473–486.Google Scholar
  51. Harding, S. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s” truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited”: whose standpoint needs the regimes of truth and reality? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22(2), 382–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hayden, D. (1978). Two utopian feminists and their campaigns for kitchenless houses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 4(2), 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hayden, D. (1982). The grand domestic revolution: A history of feminist designs for American homes, neighborhoods, and cities. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Herring, C. (2009). Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. American Sociological Review 74(2), 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Higgins, A. & Klein, S. (2011). Introduction to the Living Lab Approach. In Y.-H. Tan, N. Björn-Andersen, S. Klein & B. Rukanova (Eds.), Accelerating Global Supply Chains with IT-Innovation. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer, 31–36. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15669-4_2.Google Scholar
  56. Hill Collins, P. (1990). Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Hirschman, E.C. (1993). Ideology in consumer research, 1980 and 1990: A Marxist and feminist critique. Journal of Consumer Research 19(4), 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Holtzblatt, K. & Marsden, N. (2018). Retaining Women in Technology. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC). IEEE, 148–155.Google Scholar
  59. hooks, bell. (1984). From Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  60. Jakobi, T., Ogonowski, C., Castelli, N., Stevens, G. & Wulf, V. (2017). The Catch(Es) with Smart Home: Experiences of a Living Lab Field Study. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 1620–1633. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025799.
  61. Layne, L.L., Vostral, S.L. & Boyer, K. (2010). Feminist technology (Vol. 4). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  62. Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues 2(4), 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ley, B., Ogonowski, C., Mu, M., Hess, J., Race, N., Randall, D., … Wulf, V. (2015). At Home with Users: A Comparative View of Living Labs. Interacting with Computers 27(1), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lindsey, L. (2015). The Sociology of Gender Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Lorber, J. (2011). Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Maclaran, P. (2012). Marketing and feminism in historic perspective. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing 4(3), 462–469. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1108/17557501211252998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Maguire, P. (1996). Proposing a More Feminist Participatory Research: Knowing and Being Embraced Openly. Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences, 27–39.Google Scholar
  68. Marsden, N. & Haag, M. (2016). Stereotypes and Politics: Reflections on Personas. Presented at the CHI’16. New York: ACM Press, 4017–4031. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858151.
  69. Mäkinen, M. (2006). Digital empowerment as a process for enhancing citizens’ participation. E-learning and Digital Media 3, 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McRobbie, A. (2008). Young women and consumer culture: An intervention. Cultural Studies 22(5), 531–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Meurer, J., Müller, C., Simone, C., Wagner, I. & Wulf, V. (2018). Designing for Sustainability: Key Issues of ICT Projects for Ageing at Home. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 27(3–6), 495–537. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9317-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Morley, D. (2005). Family television: Cultural power and domestic leisure. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nasser-Eddin, N. (2017). Gender performativity in diaspora: Syrian refugee women in the UK. In J. Freedman, Z. Kivilcim & N. Özgür Baklacıoğlu (Eds.), A Gendered Approach to the Syrian Refugee Crisis. London, New York: Routledge, 152–164.Google Scholar
  74. Ogonowski, C., Jakobi, T., Müller, C. & Hess, J. (2018). PRAXLABS: A Sustainable Framework for User-Centered ICT Development. In V. Wulf, V. Pipek, D. Randall, M. Rohde, K. Schmidt & G. Stevens (Eds.), Socio Informatics—A Practice‐Based Perspective. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Ogonowski, C., Ley, B., Hess, J., Wan, L. & Wulf, V. (2013). Designing for the living room: Long-term user involvement in a Living Lab. CHI ’13 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1539–1548.Google Scholar
  76. Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E. & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values 29(1), 30–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Randall, D. (2003). Living Inside a Smart Home: A Case Study. In R. Harper (Ed.), Inside the Smart Home. London: Springer, 227–246. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-85233-854-7_12.
  78. Rapoport, R.N. (1970). Three Dilemmas in Action Research: With Special Reference to the Tavistock Experience. Human Relations 23(6), 499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rode, J. (2011). A Theoretical Agenda for Feminist HCI. Interacting with Computers 23(5), 393–400. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rohde, M., Brödner, P., Stevens, G., Betz, M. & Wulf, V. (2017). Grounded Design—A Praxeological IS Research Perspective. Journal of Information Technology 32(2), 163–179. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rommes, E.W.M. (2002). Gender scripts and the Internet: The design and use of Amsterdam’s digital city (PhD Thesis). Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  82. Schrödter, M. (2007). Die Objektivität des Rassismus. Anerkennungsverhältnisse und prekäre Identitätszumutungen. Die Soziale Thematisierbarkeit Des Interkulturellen. Düsseldorf: IDA-NRW, 69–94.Google Scholar
  83. Schuurman, D., De Marez, L. & Ballon, P. (2015). Living Labs: A Systematic Literature Review. In Open Living Lab Days 2015, Proceedings. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-7026155.
  84. Silverstone, R. (1993). Time, information and communication technologies and the household. Time & Society 2(3), 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Smith, D.E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  86. Solnit, R. (2014). Men explain things to me. Chicago, Illinois: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
  87. Ståhlbröst, A. (2013). A Living Lab as a Service: Creating Value for Micro-enterprises through Collaboration and Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review 3, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ståhlbröst, A. & Holst, M. (2017). Reflecting on Actions in Living Lab Research. Technology Innovation Management Review 7(2).Google Scholar
  89. Stambaugh, M. (2015). The Prophets and Profits of Neoliberal Feminism in America. Summer Research. Paper 262. Retrieved from https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/summer_research/262/.
  90. Susman, G.I. & Evered, R.D. (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 582–603.Google Scholar
  91. Tolmie, P. & Crabtree, A. (2008). Deploying research technology in the home. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. New York: ACM Press, 639–648.Google Scholar
  92. Toyama, K. (2015). Geek heresy: rescuing social change from the cult of technology. New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  93. Ulwick, A.W. (2002). Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business Review 80(1), 91–7.Google Scholar
  94. van Oost, E. (2003). Materialized Gender: How Shavers Configure the Users’ Feminity and Masculinity. In Nelly Oudshoorn & Trevor Pinch (Eds.), How Users Matter. The Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, 193–208. Retrieved from https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/materialized-gender-how-shavers-configure-the-users-feminity-and-masculinity(6fc5a9f4-81a4-41f0-a57d-86faa03c95a8).html.
  95. von Hellens, L.A., Nielsen, S.H. & Trauth, E.M. (2001). Breaking and Entering the Male Domain. Women in the IT Industry. In Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research. New York: ACM Press, 116–120.Google Scholar
  96. von Hippel, E. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy 5(3), 212–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science 32(7), 791–805. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wagner, I. (2018). Critical Reflections on Participation in Design. In V. Wulf, V. Pipek, D. Randall, M. Rohde, K. Schmidt & G. Stevens (Eds.), Socio Informatics—A Practice‐Based Perspective. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 243–278.Google Scholar
  99. Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
  100. Wajcman, J. (2009). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1), 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Whyte, W. F. (1991). Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park: SAGE.Google Scholar
  102. Wiederman, M.W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal 13(4), 496–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Williams, J. & Lykes, M.B. (2003). Bridging Theory and Practice: Using Reflexive Cycles in Feminist Participatory Action Research. Feminism & Psychology 13(3), 287–294. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353503013003002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Woodruffe, H.R. (1996). Methodological issues in consumer research: towards a feminist perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 14(2), 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wulf, V., Müller, C., Pipek, V., Randall, D., Rohde, M. & Stevens, G. (2015). Practice-Based Computing: Empirically Grounded Conceptualizations Derived from Design Case Studies. In V. Wulf, K. Schmidt & D. Randall (Eds.), Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World. London: Springer, 111–150. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6720-4_7.Google Scholar
  106. Wulf, V., Pipek, V., Randall, D., Rohde, M., Schmidt, K. & Stevens, G. (Eds.). (2018). Socio-Informatics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Wulf, V., Rohde, M., Pipek, V. & Stevens, G. (2011). Engaging with Practices: Design Case Studies as a Research Framework in CSCW. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, 505–512.Google Scholar
  108. Wulf, V., Schmidt, K. & Randall, D. (Eds.). (2015). Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World. London: Springer. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/de/book/9781447167198.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Ahmadi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anne Weibert
    • 1
  • Victoria Wenzelmann
    • 1
  • Tanja Ertl
    • 1
  • Dave Randall
    • 1
  • Peter Tolmie
    • 1
  • Volker Wulf
    • 1
  • Nicola Marsden
    • 2
  1. 1.SiegenGermany
  2. 2.HeilbronnGermany

Personalised recommendations