Learning from Feminist Critiques of and Recommendations for Industrial Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper shows how a feminist perspective can inform industrial design theory and practice. It provides a list of feminist-informed critiques and proposals toward industrial design based on a literature analysis of existing feminist work in industrial design and analysis of three feminist-driven co-design projects. The results show that a feminist perspective identifies systemic problems in industrial design based on the presence of power and masculinity, unequal power dynamics between people and negative situations facing women. These problems appear at the multiple levels of industrial design and are a theme throughout feminist critiques in the field. In turn, feminist recommendations are typically grass roots, relying on actor interventions that draw on women’s perspectives and/or feminist perspectives. These results offer a range of contributions to industrial design. Broadly speaking, they offer an alternative perspective to industrial design to help the field move forward and respond to social imperatives. The specific critiques and recommendations can also be broadly applied, as they pinpoint problems within the field and guide alternative practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".