Revisiting the Ethical-Political Perspective in Technology Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter revisits the ethical-political perspective on technology design. Feminist/intersectional approaches to the design of IT artifacts build on practices developed in participatory design and action research, enriching them with norm-critical, norm-creative, and social justice-oriented perspectives. Practice-based design adds experiences with designing flexible, malleable systems that are open to end-user development, offering technological tools for designing systems that are open to other ways of thinking and doing (work). Decolonizing approaches contribute to doing justice to parts of the world that experience(d) oppression and marginalization, discarding the needs of people and disrespecting their knowledge. Among the specific challenges of a feminist/intersectional approach to design are the need to make invisible aspects of work visible; to recognize women’s skills without falling into the trap of gender stereotyping; to engage in improving working conditions; to defend care against a managerial logic, take care of the many overlooked and undervalued aspects of work in design, but also to care for research subjects and create safe spaces.
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 | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".