Participatory design meets gender equality at European higher education institutions

ABSTRACT

Gender equality is among the sustainable development goals expected of higher education institutions (HEIs). This paper will explore the potential and implications of participatory design (PD) in the context of gender equality work in HEIs. We study the topic within a multinational, multidisciplinary consortium, which is working for gender equality in HEIs, using PD as a tool and inspiration. We identify a variety of local conditions shaping PD and gender equality work, divergent discourses on gender equality work, and several sources of friction regarding PD and gender equality work. We conceptualise PD for gender equality work as being highly contested and emergent, with multiple forces shaping its trajectory. PD needs to be sensitive towards local circumstances at the national and organisational level, both politically and ideologically. It needs to navigate within national and international politics and policies and consider different timescales beyond specific projects. It also needs to acknowledge that PD for gender equality entails design, discourse, and friction.

KEYWORDS:

• Gender equality
• higher education
• participatory design
• discourse
• friction

1. Introduction

This paper brings Participatory Design (PD) back to its origins, namely the premises of European higher education institutions (HEIs). It explores the potential of PD in the context of gender equality work in HEIs. Horizon Europe, a research and innovation program of the European Commission (EC), requires all grant applicants, including HEIs, to have a gender equality plan (GEP) and dedicated resources for the design, implementation, and monitoring of the execution of gender equality work. Approximately 200 European universities have or are currently executing a GEP drafting process in EC-funded projects (EC 2021b). The EC’s input on gender equality in research and innovation is thus remarkable, and it is a carefully calculated investment that should provide returns. This study considers the complex constellation of gender equality work and PD in HEIs: we examine what PD can offer in moving towards greater gender equality in HEIs and what contextual implications are shaping PD in turn.

From the outset, PD aligns with gender equality work in many ways – one could argue they are kindred spirits (cf. Korsmeyer, Light, and Grocott 2022 on co-design and feminism). Both gender equality work and PD prioritise equality and work on behalf of those suffering from injustice in the workplace; gender equality work in particular considers different genders and intersectionality (e.g. Ahmed 2009; Bustelo, Ferguson, and Forest 2019; Heikkinen et al. 2020), and PD has advocated for the rights of workers and workplace democracy since the very early days (Bjerknes and Bratteteig 1995; Greenbaum and Kyng 1991; Greenbaum and Loi 2012; Luck 2018; Schuler and Namioka 1993). PD has acknowledged the significance of the gender of designer-researchers and participants as well as considered design outcomes from the viewpoint of gender. Feminist scholars have also inspired PD, and they are prominent figures in the literature on gender equality work (e.g. Bell et al. 2019; Bustelo, Ferguson, and Forest 2019; Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo 2010). Both PD and gender equality work share a concern for ethics, reflexivity, and positionality (Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo 2010; Ahmed 2009; Pihkala and Karasti 2016, 2022), that is, there seems to be a strong alignment of values, even if we acknowledge that gender equality work may be tackling different issues to those usually under negotiation in PD. Gender equality work tackles discrimination, harassment, violence, and harm in particular (e.g. Ahmed 2009; Bell et al. 2019) and, while PD does not remain ignorant of these issues, it is not always focused on them. Despite these differences, we see potential for PD in helping gender equality work to advance towards more equal futures in HEIs by means of participation and design.

In this study we explore this topic within a multinational, multidisciplinary consortium called Redesigning Equality and Scientific Excellence Together (RESET), working for gender equality in HEIs and introducing GEPs to them, using PD as a tool and inspiration. As the first year of the four-year project is now over, we need a reality check. How can a three million euro EC-funded project, and regularly updated institutional GEPs, generate the forces needed to improve gender equality within the HEIs involved in the consortium and ensure the sustainability of that process towards greater gender equality? We report on a qualitative study involving five reflective group discussions among 13 participants from the consortium, with the participants representing different nationalities, universities, and disciplines. The discussions enable us to answer the following research questions: ‘What is the potential of PD within gender equality work in the context of HEIs?’ ‘What kinds of contextual considerations are implicated on PD in this setting?’ ‘What kinds of challenges may be encountered with PD in this setting?’ The participants reflected on PD principles, practices, potential, and implications within their local settings. We identify local conditions and divergent discourses shaping PD and gender equality work in HEIs, as well as several sources of friction regarding PD and gender equality work in HEIs. Implications for PD research and practice are discussed.

2. Related research

2.1. Participatory design

In this study, we underscore the following as the characteristics of PD (Bjerknes and Bratteteig 1995; Greenbaum and Kyng 1991; Greenbaum and Loi 2012; Luck 2018; Schuler and Namioka 1993; Pihkala and Karasti 2016, 2022): active, effective, meaningful stakeholder participation; mutual reciprocal learning and competence building as well as valuing everyone’s expertise; contextual, situational, cultural sensitivity; equalising power relations; striving towards democratic practices; giving a voice to those who may otherwise be marginalised; and accentuation of the reflexive, ethical, responsible, and accountable position of the designer-researcher.

2.2. Gender equality work in research and innovation

The usefulness of feminist studies in understanding human relations and organisations has been pointed out in various instances, but the mainstreaming of feminist studies in diverse disciplinary areas remains slow (Bell et al. 2019; Benschop 2021; Benschop and Husu 2021; Benschop and Verloo 2015). Bell et al. (2019, 8) write: ‘For us, a primary importance of feminisms arises from offering a language, a vocabulary and a grammar, for naming, analysing and challenging discrimination, sexism and misogyny. Discrimination is most often experienced as differential treatment based on gendered categorisation, especially when combined with attributes such as ethnicity and social class. The rationalising ideology that justifies such practices of unequal treatment, exploitation and oppression is sexism (Manne 2018). While there is diversity of experience in everyday life for both women and men, the dominant gender regime that exists today in virtually all societies is sexist in ways that result in the systematic marginalisation, oppression and exploitation of women’.

Explicit gender expertise and tacit gender knowledge are useful concepts in analysing organisational gender knowledges. According to Cullen, Ferree, and Verloo (2019), explicit gender expertise brings gender relations to the surface of organisational knowledge work. As gender knowledge becomes more explicit, women’s authority over naming, describing, and interpreting evidence of inequality is itself articulated, but also contested, co-opted, and resisted. Concerning tacit gender knowledge, they write: ‘As an analytical concept, tacit gender knowledge enables the examination and comparison of competing gendered meanings in processes and action. It is at its core a critique of the apparent gender neutrality of knowledge, and it allows for the identification of specific sites and forms of gendered power relations. Applying such a concept especially helps to theorise the role of resistances and opposition in the dynamics, determinants and impacts of gender and sexual politics (Kuhar and Paternotte 2017; Verloo 2018)’ (Cullen, Ferree, and Verloo 2019, 765). Studies on gender equality have extensively discussed power dynamics and the associated struggles, resistance and opposition encountered in organisations as well as in society at large, at the level of science policy, discourses, ideologies, and local practices (Ahmed 2009; Bustelo, Ferguson, and Forest 2019; Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo 2010).

Today, gender equality is on the agenda of the EC. The official website of the European Union states that the overall goal is to co-create research and innovation environments as gender-equal and diverse sites where all talents can thrive (EC 2021c). Researchers should analyse sex, gender, and intersections in their research projects to improve their quality and ensure the relevance for society of the produced knowledge, technologies, and innovations in making (EC 2020, 2021c). Gender equality is presented as an essential condition for an innovative, competitive, and thriving European economy. We can only reach our full potential if we use all our talent and diversity. Gender equality is argued to create jobs and increase productivity, both necessary for green and digital transitions, for overcoming demographic challenges (EC 2021c) and for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

We address gender equality work within the European HEI context. Ideally, a gender-equal culture and climate (O’Connor 2020) are expected to influence the ethics and quality of processes (Heikkinen et al. 2020), designed products (Schiebinger et al. 2020) and equality among producers (Nielsen, Bloch, and Schiebinger 2018) – the particular focus of this paper. Could research and innovation funding motivate institutions and individual researchers to work towards greater equality? The main research and innovation funding instrument in the European Union is Horizon Europe, with 95 billion euro over a seven-year program period (2021–2027). An institutional GEP is an eligibility criterion for applicants. The integration of the sex and gender dimensions into research and innovation content has been a requirement since the preceding framework program, Horizon 2020. In Horizon Europe this integration is evaluated under the excellence criterion, unless the topic description explicitly specifies otherwise (EC 2021c). Gender balance is a ranking criterion for proposals with the same score.

The EC has set some requirements for a GEP (EC 2021a). It should be a public and readily available document that includes dedicated resources for the design, implementation, and monitoring of its execution. In its GEP, an HEI aspiring to receive EC funding is obligated to pay systematic attention to the significance of gender in an organisation. A gender equality survey is a required step in the GEP drafting process, as it reveals sex and gender as an organising principle within an institution. Such a survey may also clarify the meaning of sex and gender as well as render it visible to ensure both that gendered power relations become acknowledged by the members of the institution and that injustices identified are corrected through measures described in the GEP. Recognizing, naming, and reporting inequality issues drives the concrete implementation and monitoring of GEPs.

Grünberg (1999) brings up conditions that are crucial for the success of promoting gender equality, including taking pedagogical initiatives to improve the educational atmosphere, creating space for developing a sense of solidarity among diverse groups including women, maintaining systems for addressing harassment and inequality, and offering courses on gender equality. These intra-institutional initiatives influencing micropolitics also contribute to social change (Morley 2000), gendered power structures and regimes (Walby 2020; Acker 2006), and knowledge society (Walby 2011). The main function of HEIs is knowledge production, through which gender relations and gender ideologies are reconfigured and reproduced (Cullen, Ferree, and Verloo 2019). Institutional transformation processes must reach the production of new knowledge. The concept of intersectional gender responsibility (Heikkinen et al. 2020) raises an ethical concern in the entire knowledge production process and its products. The aim is to cultivate excellence through the recognition of simultaneous, intersecting socio-cultural categorisations in scientific research settings.

2.3. Gender equality and participatory design

In prior PD literature, gender equality has, surprisingly, not been a widely studied topic. We could locate only one study focusing on it explicitly. The lack of PD studies on gender was also shown by Ramírez Galleguillos and Coşkun (2020); their literature review revealed that three out of 46 PD studies included women as a participant group, with common topics including ‘gender stereotypes’ and ‘social inclusion’. We performed a literature search on PD and obtained similar results. However, we found some PD studies addressing gender and/or inspired by feminist scholars. We found some studies discussing gender from the perspective of design process or outcomes; regarding the process, studies have discussed how designer-researchers’ or participants’ gender affects the process while, for the outcomes, gender awareness has been discussed and design interventions organised. Additionally, some studies strongly advocate for a feminist approach in PD (starting with the seminal work of Suchman 2002). Next, this literature is discussed in more detail.

Some studies addressing the influence of gender and/or deriving inspiration from feminist theorising when addressing research or design processes were found. A study on avoiding gender clichés and critically investigating conventional and stereotypical design solutions for mobile phones aimed at woman users indicates that there is a need for awareness of how research settings mirror results. The deconstruction of gender stereotypes from design and product development leads to reconstructing gender images. Researchers also became victims, being woman members of society (Bredies, Buchmüller, and Joost 2008). The researcher’s role in the research process has also been discussed from the perspective of how a researcher who does not fit into gender norms can affect the research process and how such situations could be handled, in the case of doing PD with disabled children (Spiel et al. 2018). Feminist new materialism praxis has also been used to inform PD, for example, in the case of social media use for workplace safety and wellbeing or educational arts-based and activist research addressing gendered injustice with children (Pihkala and Karasti 2016, 2022). These studies place emphasis on reflexivity and engagement, response-ability and rethinking of designer-researcher responsibilities and accountabilities. How feminist anticipation unfolds and evolves has been explored in co-design from the facilitators’ perspective, with a focus on how co-design sessions can be used to challenge dominant norms and question the status quo (Korsmeyer, Light, and Grocott 2022).

Some studies also discuss how the participants’ gender can affect the research and design processes and outcomes. Particular attention has been paid to the role of women in PD projects. In a study on power and knowledge in information technology (IT) design in Southern Africa, local power structures and workload distribution pressured women to remain in their homesteads, and researchers only managed to engage with them in a late stage of their process (Rodil, Winschiers-Theophilus, and Jensen 2012). Cultural aspects in a project involving traditional Romani groups made gender visible in the research process, presenting a case with strict cultural rules of conduct (Sabiescu et al. 2014). Similar issues have been underscored in the context of co-design with marginalised groups in developing countries, where gendered power relations and gender-based norms have acted as barriers to co-design (Jagtap 2021). In a case study on an IT design project, it is argued that women, who were central knowers, became visible as participants only in some specific situated practices (Sefyrin 2010; Sefyrin and Mörtberg 2010). A feminist technoscience-inspired study appreciated participants’ experiences and knowledge created within their work practices, suggesting a method of making visible participants’ everyday performances and practices (Elovaara and Mörtberg 2010). The feminist technoscience lens has also inspired studies on PD sessions in the context of e-government focusing on, for example, silences (Sefyrin and Mortberg 2009) or participants becoming-with in ongoingness (Finken, Mörtberg, and Elovaara 2018) as well as in the context of elderly and digital care technologies, examining how elderliness and independence came into being (Finken and Mörtberg 2014).

Gender has also been acknowledged regarding design outcomes. Cozza, Tonolli, and D’Andrea (2016) identify ‘gender awareness’ as one dimension affecting the acceptability of technology in the case of elderly people co-designing wearable and in-house technologies. Some design experiments addressing gender have been reported, such as the issue of indicating correct pronouns when enabling the reporting of hate crimes towards LGBT+ youth through design (Gatehouse 2020). The design process of solutions addressing gender may have included specific participants, such as ‘disadvantageous’ migrant women from China living in Hong Kong, who were empowered to voice their views on the planning and renewal process of the urban living environment, together with their housing preferences (Kwok 2004). Participedia has also been discussed, a solution redesigned by a women-led team inspired by feminist values of equity, diversity, and inclusion (Frid-Jimenez et al. 2020). Feminist coalition design (Eleutério and van Amstel 2020) and feminist web servers (Mauro-Flude and Akama 2022) have also been envisioned and co-designed.

In addition to these studies, we located some studies touching upon gender at the societal level, regarding governmental and democratic environments. While similar problems can certainly be located around the world, it seems PD researchers located in Latin America have explicitly taken this up. These studies point out Brazilian government as a ‘far-right government that daily attacks human rights, the left, gender studies, and minorities’ (Schultz et al. 2020, 36). Latin America in general is mentioned as lacking fundamental rights, such as gender equality (Serpa et al. 2020).

The only paper we found specifically on PD and gender equality outlines a plan to address gender equality in higher IT education and in science practices, deriving inspiration from feminist technoscience, arguing for the acknowledgement of complex power relations and for researcher reflexivity and positioning (Sefyrin, Elovaara, and Mörtberg 2018). This paper, along with others arguing for deep reflection on complex, inequal power relations and designer-researcher and participant positioning within, offers a valuable basis for our study. In addition to this prior research, however, we feel there is space to contribute to the PD discourse by scrutinising the potential of PD for gender equality work. Gender equality has been shown to be a contested notion with various discourses, policies, practices, and ideologies circulating around it, encountering resistance, opposition, and hostility inside HEIs as well as in society at large.

3. Research design

3.1. Research setting

Six universities are participating in the EC-funded RESET consortium, each a large-scale multidisciplinary HEI with a body of students and staff ranging from 17 500 to 78 250, altogether consisting of nearly 300 000 people. Gender equality challenges within these HEIs vary depending on the national context, but all of them follow the general European research area profile with horizontal and vertical gender segregation (EC 2019). The institutions had already started their gender equality work, utilising PD as a tool in the process, drafting their GEPs, implementing their gender equality surveys and developing their training, culture, and governance towards gender equality (https://wereset.eu/).

In the project the operationalisation of gender is on one hand produced by the EC, which is the funding organisation. As set down by the research funding organisation, the project aims to support HEIs in implementing GEPs and, in this respect, it refers to biological sex and social gender that shall be measured for GEP and improved through it. In this respect the starting point and definition of gender comes from ‘equality feminism’. On the other hand, in the project gender is understood as intersectional, consisting, in addition to gender, of various other social categories and categorisations than socio-biological ones that influence individual self-definition and/or experienced group identity and capabilities. Gendered meanings and meaning makings are thus infused with various power plays – inclusions and exclusions that will be explicated as part of the GEPs. In the project gender is also approached multidimensionally – both as an institutional category (structures) that is measured, for example, vertical and horizontal gender segregation, and as an institutional process that is conducted in institutional practices mediated through interactions such as recruitment, career progression, and negotiations on salaries. Thus, gender is also an institutional resource.

With PD in the project, we see great potential in allowing more voice and agency for those vulnerable or marginalised to drive change. In line with PD, we also emphasise broad participation and the agency of those whose work is to be affected by gender equality work. We see this as also contributing to the sustained impact of our project. We expect our work on PD in gender equality work to change the context in which it operates, as gender inequality is produced and sustained in this institutional context. We consider discourses, policies, and practices inside HEIs as well as at the level of science policy-making. We are also deeply aware of our own responsibility; we are dealing with a sensitive and volatile topic in which the protection and wellbeing of the participants, particularly people with vulnerabilities, is our top priority.

3.2. Research methods

We opted for a qualitative approach to explore the relationship between PD and gender equality work. Five semi-structured group discussions of collaborative reflection (see e.g. Myers and Newman 2007; Iivari 2018) were held with a total of 13 participants from five HEIs in five European countries, all part of a consortium aiming to increase gender equality in European HEIs. The goal was to discuss, negotiate, and build a shared understanding of what PD in this context may entail. The participants had a strong background in gender studies or gender equality work in HEIs, and relatively little background in PD, which was introduced to them at the beginning of the project. The study followed the Ethics guidelines and criteria of the Finnish National Agency for Research Integrity. Informed consent was asked from the participants. The discussions took place online via video conferencing and were recorded, totalling 7 h 4 min 57s, supplemented with observation notes. The first author acted as the facilitator in all the sessions. Each session began with a presentation of the core principles of PD. The participants were then invited to discuss and reflect upon factors shaping gender equality work and PD in their institutional, societal, and cultural contexts. Our shared aim is to continue collaboratively building and reflecting on this understanding for the next two years, in line with our iterative and context-sensitive approach to PD. This study reports on the insights generated during the first year of operation.

An iterative data-driven analysis of the meeting recordings and notes was subsequently carried out. The analysis started with a careful examination of each session and reporting of the insights particular to each. Afterward, the separate findings were combined and contrasted with each other. Based on iterative reading and sense making of individual findings and the whole, a categorisation of local circumstances, discourses on gender equality work, and sources of friction to be acknowledged in PD for gender equality emerged. Theoretical insights from varying fields and traditions, that is, from PD and infrastructuring (Bødker, Dindler, and Iversen 2017; Karasti 2014; Smith et al. 2020; Karasti, Baker, and Millerand 2010; Smith and Iversen 2018), PD, gender and feminist theorising (Pihkala and Karasti 2016, 2022; Sefyrin, Elovaara, and Mörtberg 2018), interaction and discourse studies (Scollon and Scollon 2004; Hall and O’Shea 2013) and organisational inquiry (Deetz 1996), acted as sensitising devices, guiding, structuring, and inspiring the analysis.

4. Empirical insights

4.1. Contextualizing PD and gender equality work

Our empirical analysis led to the identification of the influence of the local context in a variety of ways; the data indicated several layers in space and time to consider (c.f., Scollon and Scollon 2004): national, organisational, and disciplinary contexts with historical trajectories. As for the national level, the significance of national politics, legislation, religion, and public discourses produced and reproduced in society were brought up (Figure 1). Moreover, the participants acknowledged the importance of the local context of their universities (Figure 2). In addition, divergent ideologies underlying gender equality work were identified.

Figure 1. National level factors shaping PD and gender equality work.

Figure 2. Organizational level factors shaping PD and gender equality work.

Concerning national politics, it was pointed out that in many European countries, extreme right-wing parties are gaining a prominent position, which may impact gender equality work in significant ways, for instance, through funding for higher education – influencing the funding of disciplines and degree programs. Even if universities are independent, they are reliant on government decisions. Moreover, it was pointed out that very discriminatory public discourses are becoming legitimised in the current political climate, these being hostile towards gender equality and diversity work, while in relation to which gender equality work must operate. The position of religion differs across European countries and its impact on gender equality work was seen to range from none to some.

As a positive development, public discourses, particularly among the young generation, were identified, such as the #MeToo movement. Other contributing factors were seen to be the universities’ competition for excellence labelling, evident in some countries. Additionally, some European countries already legislate equal treatment of men and women, which is forcing universities to act regarding gender equality and thus gives legitimacy to equality work. However, it was also pointed out that in other countries, gender equality work still requires additional motivation and, moreover, it is important to note that legislation does not guarantee equality.

When considering the microcosmos of each university, they were all considered hierarchical, while clear differences could be identified. Some universities had a long history of gender equality work. Some had advocates of gender equality who were both influential and eager to engage in PD of GEPs and related work, while in other universities, such communities were still being built. Some of them had several disciplines and researchers working on gender equality topics, while other universities were struggling to find influential or interested participants. Different kinds of stakeholder groups were considered as lacking a voice in HEIs. A rather coherent view of those in less powerful positions was expressed. These were identified along the lines of gender diversity, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, disability, religion, or class. People representing minorities, non-permanent staff, international staff, or students were considered as being marginalised or silenced. Their participation in PD of GEPs and associated work was considered essential. It was also emphasised that there is always a need to protect the victims of any kind of harassment, discrimination, or violence in PD sessions. It was noted that staff in general, or management in particular, may be difficult to mobilise. Interestingly, stakeholder groups advocating for gender equality but in opposition to the approach of the project were pointed out, that is, more radical feminist groups. All considered it to be essential to address power differentials in arranging PD sessions; professors, deans, rectors, that is, top and middle management, were considered as those in power, for whom separate sessions were needed in order to enable other participants to have a voice. It was considered important to arrange sessions suitable for the target groups, for example, playful sessions were to be avoided with high-level participants. The importance of good moderation was also emphasised for PD: moderation that is sensitive to the power dynamics and different needs of participants, particularly of the victimised or previously marginalised.

Overall, this section indicates that conducting PD on gender equality takes place in a heavily power-laden context, organisationally, nationally, and internationally, in space and time, also taking into account different disciplines and disciplinary traditions. Sensitivity towards all these factors is required.

4.2. Different discourses on gender equality work

Based on empirical analysis, we identified different discourses¹ on gender equality work. For their categorisation, Deetz (1996) and Hall and O’Shea (2013) offer useful tools. Deetz has developed a rethinking of Burrell’s and Morgan’s categorisation of paradigms in social theory and suggests the distinctions between local/emergent versus elite/a priori and consensus versus dissensus (Deetz 1996). We interpret the distinction between local/emergent and elite/a priori highlighting audience and agency in gender equality work and PD: whether they are assumed to be in a position of power and privilege inside the university, or within the masses, the marginalised, and the grassroots inside HEIs. We point out, based on Deetz (1996), that Burrell’s and Morgan’s conceptualisation of the”elite” can be understood as the ‘establishment’ or the ‘privileged position’, which also could be replaced with ‘male as a norm’ or ‘male dominance’, especially in the framework of this study. Since the establishment of European Universities for 800 years ago they have been accessible only for men, similarly to institutions such as the church and the army. Women started to gain access to these male-only institutions gradually about a century ago. It is important to notice the gendered history of these institutions, as has been done by the authors of the ‘Gendering Organisational Analysis’ from year 1992 (Mills and Tancred 1992), including Burrell himself. Since the early 70’s, transformation towards more equal university institution has been steady but slow. Institutional GEPs are speeding and systematising the process towards more inclusive university; the GEPs are, among other issues, to valorise the university institution’s single sex or homosocial history that reminiscently seem to prevail in horizontal and vertical hierarchies.

We interpret the distinction between consensus and dissensus to concern the relation of gender equality work to the existing social order: one may rely on ‘a dominant set of structurings of knowledge’ within organisations, a research community, or society (consensus), while one may also ‘work to disrupt these structurings’ (dissensus), in which case, one aims at challenging the maintenance of order and the domination of people (Deetz 1996). The consensus/dissensus distinction is further elaborated with the notion of common sense (Hall and O’Shea 2013); common sense can be considered an everyday understanding that offers a frame on how to make sense of the world, reproducing a dominant understanding of it. However, there is also the potential for counter-narratives. For gender equality, too, one may stay within a dominant structuring of knowledge in HEIs, that is, within the common sense, serving those privileged and the status quo (consensus), while it is also possible to oppose the common sense and produce alternative understandings, questioning the status quo (dissensus).

Figure 3 summarises different discourses on gender equality work along these dimensions. All these discourses advocate for gender equality. All these discourses hence consider gender equality to be common sense and aim at making it common sense for everyone in HEIs, but with differently positioned speakers, audiences, underlying assumptions, values, and implications (see also Ahmed 2009; Bustelo, Ferguson, and Forest 2019; Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo 2010). All these discourses were articulated by the study participants, i.e. by advocates of gender equality in HEIs, while the last one, grassroots dissensus discourse, positioned radical feminists as those actually producing the discourse.

Figure 3. Different discourses advocating gender equality in HEIs.

One could identify the privileged and consensus-oriented discourse on gender equality work, produced and promoted by the gender equality advocates while targeting those with power and privilege inside HEIs, that is, the management, that emphasises an apolitical, neutral, profit-oriented, and top-down approach to gender equality. This discourse argues for expressing the value of gender equality work in language that management understands and appreciates, showing its economic relevance and impact. Along these lines, the mainstreaming of gender equality work and the sustainability of gender equality work within the organisational context are prioritised – managing and leading a sustainable organisational change and management commitment for such are called for. Establishing an office and integrating gender equality into local policies and practices are underscored. Within this discourse, the need for a digital infrastructure serving gender equality work and its impact assessment is also highlighted, providing objective facts for the decision-makers.

Another related discourse, produced by the gender equality advocates and targeting the privileged – in this case the decision-makers on science policy more broadly in society – and with a dissensus orientation, addresses a more political perspective on gender equality as being intermingled with ‘doing science policy’. Within this discourse in our empirical data, however, only moderately radical notions were expressed. The existing premises were not strongly questioned, but critical voices nevertheless emerged, for example, in the sense of questioning and calling for redefining the notions of scientific excellence. It was also pointed out that gender equality in fact originated from the grassroots, though it is entering the level of science policy and university management and administration, who are now expected to legitimise it and, while doing so, engage with the complex power and politics associated with excellence in science.

Then again, some discourses generated by the gender equality advocates target the grassroots – the masses – rather than those in the position of power and privilege. Representing the consensus orientation, we identified a discourse in which an apolitical approach to gender equality, in the sense of caring for people and nature, emerged. This discourse underscores making people feel cared for and safe, no matter their gender. This discourse again relies on the existing structurings of knowledge, reproducing discourses on work wellbeing and sustainable development, generally accepted in society and HEIs. However, another grassroot, yet dissensus oriented, discourse was identified, which is hostile towards the apolitical and supposedly neutral take on gender equality utilised in the project; this discourse questions the management oriented discourse on gender equality and argues for a radical act against violence. The participants positioned radical feminists as the actual enunciators of this discourse, and the participants felt in a sense attacked by this discourse.

4.3. Friction in/and PD of gender equality work

Based on the findings, we have identified notable friction (cf., Forlano and Mathew 2014) that PD for gender equality work must acknowledge, navigate, and address. Figure 4 summarises our findings on the contextual factors and potential friction influencing PD for gender equality work in HEIs.

Figure 4. Contextual factors and friction shaping PD and gender equality work in HEIs.

Some of the friction we have identified is something we must at least acknowledge, while not always being able to directly affect in significant ways: among such are national politics, religion, and associated public discourses. We do acknowledge that PD researchers are working at this level and trying to disrupt the problematic dynamics (e.g. Agid 2016; Balka et al. 2018; Bødker, Dindler, and Iversen 2017; Gatehouse 2020; LeDantec and DiSalvo 2013; Light and Akama 2014; Calderon Salazar and Huybrechts 2020; Shah, Gonçalves, and Mulder 2020; Smith et al. 2020; Thorpe et al. 2016), but for our local participants, we see influencing matters at this level as very challenging and potentially resulting in detrimental consequences. At this level one can identify many discourses and developments that are problematic for PD and gender equality work, which share a similar value base. It is important at least to acknowledge that PD in gender equality work does not operate in silos external to society. The way in which our work is approached and advertised within and beyond universities places us under public scrutiny, which we cannot control. Being prepared for this, as well as for the potential hostility and negative consequences, is important. It is also important to acknowledge that public discourses are not necessarily a problem; many positive developments and discourses can be identified, which may be utilised as resources for PD and gender equality work in HEIs.

Inside universities, there is friction to acknowledge and potentially engage with. Universities are hierarchical organisations with the powerful and privileged positions being held by the top and middle management, that is, the rectors, deans, and unit leaders. In addition to those who are victims of any kind of harassment, discrimination, or violence, there are many marginalised groups identified in terms of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, ethnicity, language, and class. International staff, students, administrative staff, and non-permanent staff are considered as potentially silenced and in need of special attention to ensure their full participation in PD of gender equality. Arranging PD requires sensitivity towards participant profiles, moderation, and method choices in the sessions.

Additionally, we identified some friction among the discourses advocating gender equality. We showed that a distinction, if not even some hostility, could be identified between those advocating for sustainable organisational gender equality work in HEIs – addressing the management, preparing for sustained organisational change – and feminists arguing for radical acts against gender-based violence. For PD, it is important to acknowledge the different discourses, if not take a position within them. This requires value-laden and political choices from PD designer-researchers.

5. Discussion

Our findings contribute to the current PD discourse in the following ways: 1) we underscore the significance of the national context, politics, and policies for PD; 2) we emphasise extending the temporal orientation of PD towards both the past and the future; 3) we characterise gender equality work as a fruitful arena for PD; and 4) we embrace the notions of design, discourse, and friction in the context of gender equality work.

5.1. Accentuating national politics and international policies

Considering the national level, some studies have already indicated the need to extend PD beyond particular stakeholders, technological artefacts, sessions and organisations to the level of society and with longer timescales (e.g. Bødker, Dindler, and Iversen 2017; Karasti 2014; Karasti, Baker, and Millerand 2010; Smith and Iversen 2018; Smith et al. 2020). The studies have shown relevant stakeholders ranging from the parliament, national agencies, municipalities, schools, and administrations to individual teachers and pupils (Smith et al. 2020; Bødker, Dindler, and Iversen 2017). The studies emphasise broadening the view of participatory infrastructuring both vertically and in reach; to consider ‘different political and practical arenas’ and integration with the existing networks across organisations (Bødker, Dindler, and Iversen 2017). Our study accentuates the significance of considering stakeholders and their participation broadly, both horizontally and vertically; for gender equality work, the local stakeholders in universities and sensitivity towards their broad inclusion are central, but one also needs to acknowledge societal developments, taking into consideration national politics and public discourses. These may be hostile towards PD and gender equality work, while PD and gender equality work may still have to manage within them. So far, PD research has mentioned the significance of national politics on gender equality in only a couple of studies: Schultz et al. (2020) mention issues related to how the Brazilian ‘far-right government’ ‘daily attacks human rights, the left, gender studies, and minorities’ and Serpa et al. (2020) discuss issues related to Latin America and how fundamental rights, such as gender equality, are not guaranteed. We underscore the fact that similar developments and discourses work against PD and gender quality across Europe, and we must acknowledge these and collectively consider how we can try to disrupt these problematic dynamics – even if there may be little we can do to change them.

In addition to national politics, we underline the importance of national and international policies shaping our work. So far, studies have acknowledged that PD needs to be engaged with the policy level (Balka et al. 2018; Shah, Gonçalves, and Mulder 2020; Thorpe et al. 2016) and enable participants to influence policies (Kwok 2004). It has been argued that policies and practices do not necessarily converge, and a critical analysis of policies is needed (Gidlund 2012). One study showed how PD influenced national policy in the context of children’s basic education (Bødker, Dindler, and Iversen 2017; Smith et al. 2020). However, PD research has remained quite silent about science policy, despite its significance for any research community. In computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW), it has been noted that science policy should be placed on the agenda (Jackson, Steinhardt, and Buyuktur 2013). We should better acknowledge how policies shape our research practices and engage in their formulation and critique. They also heavily shape gender equality work in HEIs. Such entanglements of policy and practice, addressing equality, diversity, design, and participation, require closer attention in PD. Hence, this study broadens the view of ‘different political and practical arenas’ (Bødker, Dindler, and Iversen 2017) to be considered in PD.

5.2. Extending the temporal orientation towards the past and the future

The findings at the national level indicate that PD needs to be positioned within different temporal scales considering the past, present, and future (Karasti, Baker, and Millerand 2010; Scollon and Scollon 2004). When acknowledging the influence of legislation, religion, or the political climate of a country, one must understand historical trajectories, transformation, and change in longer-term timescales (Scollon and Scollon 2004). In research on gender equality, developments at national and policy levels have received attention (e.g. Bustelo, Ferguson, and Forest 2019; Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo 2010) that could be utilised to inspire PD research. For PD, the significance of history has been pointed out (Agid 2016; Karasti 2014). This study, along these lines, highlights the past as shaping the present. We should be inquiring and appreciating the ‘larger socio-political-historical context’ shaping our social and political possibilities (Agid 2016). In PD, orientation to the longer-term future is stronger than to the longer-term past (Karasti 2014), while the longer-term past is also embedded in us – in our bodies, practices, tools, and architectures – and should be better appreciated and scrutinised (Scollon and Scollon 2004).

Ensuring sustainability of our work in a longer timescale is something the PD community should focus on. There are PD studies addressing the topic of sustainable social change, for example, through the concepts of infrastructuring and scaling (Bødker, Dindler, and Iversen 2017; Karasti 2014; Karasti, Baker, and Millerand 2010; Smith et al. 2020). Scaling considers long-term processes and impacts on communities (Smith et al. 2020). Sustainability in PD requires a sense of ownership, mutual learning, and skills and expertise among the participants (Poderi and Dittrich 2018). Sustainability of gender equality work also requires a longer temporal orientation to the future, sense of ownership, mutual learning, and competence development within HEIs. Building them inside HEIs, which are by no means all advocates of gender equality (e.g. Ahmed 2009), is not a trivial task and PD research certainly does not have all the answers. Overall, however, we wish to point out that a longer-term orientation towards gender equality is needed, one that forces us to see our work ‘unfold as a series of steps moving towards an emergent future’ (Karasti, Baker, and Millerand 2010). It needs to be acknowledged that various forces in organisational, national, international, and disciplinary arenas will be shaping the unfolding work and its emergent outcomes. Anticipating and projecting into the future is required, but with an acknowledgement of the emergent and conflict-laden nature of the future to be.

5.3. Gender equality as a PD concern

We were somewhat surprised that gender equality has not received much attention in PD. We do acknowledge there are critical studies on gender and studies inspired by feminist scholars that advocate equality, diversity, and inclusion. PD researchers could still be more engaged in addressing the topic, in Europe and elsewhere. Gender equality in HEIs is a topic relevant to many of us and we should be using PD as a resource and inspiration to address the unequal power dynamics in HEIs as well as elsewhere.

This study shows that this is by no means easy. There are challenges at many levels, many of them such that we cannot easily change; there are developments in society, in science policy, and in the microcosmos of each university that need to be acknowledged. Gender equality work can also be approached from different epistemological and ideological positions, as the discourses on gender equality work identified in this paper indicate. One may advocate a sustainable organisational change that strives towards integrating gender equality into policies and practices relying on management commitment and digital infrastructure geared at supporting gender equality work with data and technology. Alternatively, one may rely on a management-hostile approach and advocate for radical acts against violence and discrimination. In either case, PD could be considered valuable, aligning with the basic values of gender equality. The existing PD research informed by feminist scholars should be considered valuable in this quest, guiding us to carefully consider and reflect on our positionality, responsibility, and accountability (Pihkala and Karasti 2016, 2022; Korsmeyer, Light, and Grocott 2022; Sefyrin, Elovaara, and Mörtberg 2018). PD is intermingled with the existing power relations and discourses, which we should approach with criticality and reflexivity. We should also take specific care to safeguard our participants: when addressing gender equality, PD is addressing a volatile topic that may provoke strong reactions in the public discourse and among the decision-makers. This underscores the ethical, responsible, accountable stance for the PD designer-researcher.

5.4. Celebrating design, discourse, and friction

Our study revealed significant potential for friction and different discourses shaping PD and gender equality work in HEIs. We do not consider friction a problem, but rather follow Forlano and Mathew (2014) in viewing design and friction ‘as a way of understanding the ways in which conflicts, tensions and disagreements can move complex socio-technical discussions forward’. They, as well as others, rely on the ideas of Mouffe on agonistic design (DiSalvo 2012; Frauenberger et al. 2019; Björgvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2010), in which design is seen as doing the work of agonism, ‘a condition of disagreement and confrontation – a condition of contestation and dissensus’ (DiSalvo 2012). From this perspective, design for gender equality needs to be celebrated as a conflictual activity, in which complex socio-technical discussions emerge and unfold; discourses at the societal and local levels are circulating, as they are produced and reproduced, adopted but also negotiated and challenged. Design for equality and diversity by its very nature is political and it would be meaningless to try to eliminate this aspect. Instead, we advocate for the agonistic design of gender equality, in which different voices are welcomed, and conflicts and tensions are expected and appreciated as fuel moving us forward alongside design that questions, provokes, deconstructs, and reconsiders the established regimes of power. Despite the positive aspects of friction in design, however, we also wish to emphasise that oppression, discrimination, violence, and hostility may be intermingled with gender equality work (e.g. Ahmed 2009) and these aspects should not be treated as positive resources in design.

6. Conclusions

The paper has aimed to explore the potential and implications of PD in the context of gender equality work in HEIs, considering what doing PD may entail and what kinds of friction it may end up with, reveal, or require dealing with. Our results imply that PD or gender equality work in HEIs is a highly contested and emergent phenomenon with multiple forces shaping it and its trajectories. PD needs to be sensitive towards the local circumstances, nationally and organisationally, politically, and ideologically, in space and in time. PD needs to acknowledge national and international politics and policies and navigate within them. It also needs to consider different time horizons beyond specific project times, acknowledging that PD for gender equality will entail design, discourse, and friction.

This study has several limitations to be noted. We have examined only the experiences derived during the first year of operation. In the future, studies examining a longer timespan with more diverse participants are warranted. This should also enable the identification of more discourses on gender equality; certainly, we do not think the four discourses we have identified are the only possible ones to adopt and reproduce. We are very interested in examining the discursive trajectory, emerging during the project and beyond, entailing the discursive construction of PD and gender equality in HEIs. This should allow a deeper delving into the potential friction residing within and between different discourses. We also acknowledge that gender should be approached in more versatile ways, acknowledging non-binary gender in relation to gender equality; we should be inquiring into the complexity of how gender inequity and gendered expectations impact people who fall outside the norms and how PD could engage with gender and with the structures of gendered power in this context. We also emphasise that future studies should approach gender as a process, as something that varies and changes, is emergent and done in practices – hence, again approaching gender as non-binary. Another significant aspect to be examined in future studies is how PD opens up new pathways and possibilities in this context: in terms of framing discussions, managing frictions, mobilising participation, framing collaboration, appreciating expertise, engaging the previously silenced, creating contexts for conversations that might not happen otherwise. Applying PD in this context acts as an enabler for diversity of voices and thus as an affordance for co-creating transformative practices, the process which we plan to further inquire.

To conclude, in this study we advanced PD by mobilising grassroot-level views on gender equality work in European HEIs. In the dialogue with local participants the local hierarchies, practices, and political climate met the new European research area profile with the strengthened provisions for gender equality, which may and hopefully will result in further debates, cause friction, and further lead to a process of designing gender equality in knowledge production. With the participants, this dialogue has continued and will do so in the future, building a shared understanding of the value and challenges involved in doing PD on gender equality in HEIs with a multitude of political and ethical issues intermingled. This analysis has provided insights from only the most central actors within the involved HEIs and only from the first year of operation, during which the most significant developments were the drafting of the first institutional GEPs and the associated gender equality surveys. In the future, developments within various arenas such as training, culture, and governance are expected. We anticipate further examination of how PD can serve as a balancing factor on the micropolitical level between the discursive, economic, national, and supranational political forces, and consequently ease the way for institutional gender equality work.

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 101006560. We thank the RESET teams in our partner HEIs, including the team of the University of Bordeaux, for contributing to this work and for commenting on the paper draft.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the European Commission [101006560]

Notes

1. We interpret discourses in line with Foucault (1972) as powerful ways of speaking about a topic, determining how to talk about and approach the topic, while at the same time positioning the speaker and the audience in particular ways. However, there are always competing discourses available, that is, there is an ongoing discursive struggle, and the dominant discourses can also be negotiated and challenged, not only adopted and reproduced (e.g. Weedon 1987).