Playing with Power Tools: Design Toolkits and the Framing of Equity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design toolkits that aim to to promote equity offer designers simplified approaches to creating more equitable technology. However, it is important to understand how equity is conceptualized in practice. As a curated collection of methods, toolkits signal how equity is imagined in design. In this paper, we perform a qualitative analysis of 17 design toolkits related to equity. We explore alternative design approaches that address inequity in design. We evaluate whether equity toolkits align with calls for changes to design practice, as well as Nancy Fraser’s dimensions of justice. Finally, we find that design toolkits focus on the ‘digital divide’ rather than redistributing world-building power, and thus continue to keep design power with professional designers. We also find that ‘design thinking’ continues to influence design toolkits. Furthermore, the simplicity of toolkits does not engage with the complexities that shape equity in practice. We conclude with suggestions to help researchers and designers rethink design toolkits.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it