skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Embracing Four Tensions in Human-Computer Interaction Research with Marginalized People

Published:17 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Human-computer interaction has a long history of working with marginalized people. We sought to understand how HCI researchers navigate work that engages with marginalized people and considerations researchers might work through to expand benefits and mitigate potential harms. In total, 24 HCI researchers, located primarily in the United States, participated in an interview, survey, or both. Through a reflexive thematic analysis, we identified four tensions—exploitation, membership, disclosure, and allyship. We explore the complexity involved in each, demonstrating that an equitable endpoint may not be possible, but this work is still worth pursuing when researchers make certain considerations. We emphasize that researchers who work with marginalized people should account for each tension in their research approaches to move forward. Finally, we propose an allyship-oriented approach to research that draws inspiration from discourse occurring in tangential fields and activist spaces and pushes the field into a new paradigm of research with marginalized people.

References

  1. Indigenous Action. 2014. Accomplices Not Allies: Abolishing the Ally Industrial Complex. Retrieved from http://www.indigenousaction.org/accomplices-not-allies-abolishing-the-ally-industrial-complex/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Aguirre. 2000. Women and Minority Faculty in the Academic Workplace: Recruitment, Retention, and Academic Culture. SHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. ERIC Publications. DOI:https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED447752.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. A. Ahmed. 2018. Trans competent interaction design: A qualitative study on voice, identity, and technology. Interacting with Computers 30, 1 (2018), 53--71. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwx018Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. S. Ahmed. 2012. On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Sociological Research Online. Duke University Press Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. N. Kumar and S. Bardzell. 2020. An unofficial guide to seven stages of reviewing for CHI. Retrieved from https://nehakumar.medium.com/an-unofficial-guide-to-seven-stages-of-reviewing-for-chi-7938880fc895.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. N. Antle. 2017. The ethics of doing research with vulnerable populations. Interactions. 24, 6 (2017), 74--77. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3137107Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Bardzell and J. Bardzell. 2011. Towards a feminist HCI methodology: Social science, feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 675--684. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979041Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. G. Bauer, A. Devor, M. Heinz, Z. Marshall, A. Pullen Sansfaçon, and J. Pyne. 2019. CPATH Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Transgender People & Communities. Retrieved from https://cpath.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CPATH-Ethical-Guidelines-EN.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. E. P. S. Baumer and M. S. Silberman. 2011. When the implication is not to design (technology). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 25, 1--9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420172Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. R. Benjamin. 2020. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code. Social Forces 98, 4 (2020), 1--3. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz162Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. C. L. Bennett, E. Brady, and S. M. Branham. 2018. Interdependence as a frame for assistive technology research and design. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’18). 161--173. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3236348Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. C. L. Bennett and O. Keyes. 2019. What is the point of fairness? Disability, AI and the complexity of justice. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing 125 (2019), Article 5, 1. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3386296.3386301Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. L. Bennett and D. K. Rosner. 2019. The promise of empathy: Design, disability, and knowing the “other.” In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 298, 1--13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300528Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. N. Berenstain. 2016. Epistemic exploitation.Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy 3, 22 (2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0003.022Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Black in Computing and Our Allies for Equity and Fairness: 2020. Retrieved from https://blackincomputing.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. T. Bratteteig and I. Wagner. 2012. Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers (PDC’12). 41--50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2347635.2347642Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. V. Braun and V. Clarke. 2019. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 13, 2 (2019), 201--216. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. V. Braun and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. P. H. Collins. 2002. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics Of Empowerment. Routledge. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2074808Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R. N. Brewer. 2017. Understanding and Developing Interactive Voice Response Systems to Support Online Engagement of Older Adults. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Proquest Number: 10603427.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. E. M. Broido. 2000. The development of social justice allies during college: A phenomenological investigation. Journal of College Student Development 41, 1 (2000), 3--18. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.1439&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. K. Brooks and K. Edwards. 2009. Allies in the workplace: Including LGBT in HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources 11, 1 (2009), 136--149. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308328500Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. E. Brulé and K. Spiel. 2019. Negotiating gender and disability identities in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Communities & Technologies—Transforming Communities. 218--227. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3328320.3328369Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Cahill. 2007. Including excluded perspectives in participatory action research. Design Studies 28, 3 (2007), 325--340. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. K. Caldwell. 2010. We exist: Intersectional in/visibility in bisexuality & disability. Disability Studies Quarterly 30, 3/4 (2010). DOI:https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v30i3/4.1273Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. H. Castleden, T. Garvin, and H. First Nation. 2008. Modifying photovoice for community-based participatory indigenous research. Social Science and Medicine 66, 6 (2008), 1393--1405. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.030Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. R. Charlotte Smith, H. Winschiers-Theophilus, A. Paula Kambunga, and S. Krishnamurthy. 2020. Decolonizing participatory design: Memory making in Namibia. In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020. 96--106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3385010.3385021Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. P. A. L. Cochran, C. A. Marshall, C. Garcia-Downing, E. Kendall, D. Cook, L. McCubbin, and R. M. S. Gover. 2008. Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research and community. American Journal of Public Health 98, 1 (2008), 22--27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.093641Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Combahee River Collective. 1977. Combahee River Collective: A Black Feminist Statement. Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices of Resistance, Reform and Renewal; An African American Anthology. Retrieved from https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. R. Cornejo, R. Brewer, C. Edasis, and A. M. Piper. 2016. Vulnerability, sharing, and privacy: Analyzing art therapy for older adults with dementia. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’16). 1572--1583. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819960Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. S. Costanza-Chock. 2018. Design justice: Towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society 2018. DOI:https://ssrn.com/abstract=3189696Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. S. Costanza-Chock. 2020. Introduction: #Travelingwhiletrans, Design Justice, and Escape from the Matrix of Domination. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Crenshaw Kimberle. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989 (1989), Article 8, 139--163. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. K. Crenshaw. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43, 6 (1991), 1241--1299. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. A. Gaeta. 2019. Cripping Emotional Labor: A Field Guide. Retrieved from https://disabilityvisibilityproject.com/2019/06/03/cripping-emotional-labor-a-field-guide/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. C. D'Ignazio, A. Hope, B. Michelson, R. Churchill, and E. Zuckerman. 2016. A feminist HCI approach to designing postpartum technologies: “When I first saw a breast pump I was wondering if it was a joke.” In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2612--2622. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858460Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. C. D'Ignazio and L. F. Klein. 2020. Data Feminism. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. S. Daley, D. L. Wingard, and V. Reznik. 2006. Improving the retention of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine. Journal of the National Medical Association 98, 9 (2006), 1435--1440.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. C. A. Le Dantec and W. K. Edwards. 2008. Designs on dignity: Perceptions of technology among the homeless. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 627--636. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357155Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. C. A. Le Dantec, R. G. Farrell, J. E. Christensen, M. Bailey, J. B. Ellis, W. A. Kellogg, and W. K. Edwards. 2011. Publics in practice: Ubiquitous computing at a shelter for homeless mothers. In Proceedings of the 2011 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1687--1696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979189Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. C. W. Daum. 2020. Social equity, homonormativity, and equality: An intersectional critique of the administration of marriage equality and opportunities for LGBTQ social justice. Administrative Theory and Praxis 42, 2 (2020), 115--132. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. N. Dell and N. Kumar. 2016. The ins and outs of HCI for development. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2220--2232. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858081Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Design Justice Network. 2018. Design Justice Network Principles. Retrieved from https://designjustice.org/read-the-principles.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. I. Dey. 1999. Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. Emerald Publishing Limited.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. T. Dillahunt, J. Mankoff, and E. Paulos. 2010. Understanding conflict between landlords and tenants: Implications for energy sensing and feedback. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’10). 149--158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1864349.1864376Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. T. R. Dillahunt and T. C. Veinot. 2018. Getting there: Barriers and facilitators to transportation access in underserved communities. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 25, 5 (2018), Article 29. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3233985Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. K. P. Morgan. 1996. Describing the emperor's new clothes: Three myths of educational (In-)equity. In The Gender Question in Education. A. Diller, B. Houston, K. P. Morgan, M. Ayim, and K. P. Morgan (Eds.), Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. J. P. Dimond, M. Dye, D. Larose, and A. S. Bruckman. 2013. Hollaback!: The role of collective storytelling online in a social movement organization. In Proceedi ngs of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’13). 477--490. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441831Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. L. Dombrowski, E. Harmon, and S. Fox. 2016. Social justice-oriented interaction design: Outlining key design strategies and commitments. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Fuse (DIS’16). 656--671. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901861Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. L. Duggan. 2002. The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In Materializing Democracy Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics. R. Castronovo and D. Nelson (Eds.), Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. M. Dye, D. Nemer, L. R. Pina, N. Sambasivan, A. S. Bruckman, and N. Kumar. 2017. Locating the internet in the parks of Havana. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3867--3878. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025728Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. L. Palen. 2014. Empirical Epistemologies Applied to Human-Centered Computing Research: 2014. Retrieved from https://cmci.colorado.edu/~palen/EmpiricalEpistemologiesforHCC-7.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. K. V. L. England. 1994. Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. Professional Geographer 46, 1 (1994), 80--89. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00080.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. D. A. Epstein, N. B. Lee, J. H. Kang, E. Agapie, J. Schroeder, L. R. Pina, J. Fogarty, J. A. Kientz, and S. A. Munson. 2017. Examining menstrual tracking to inform the design of personal informatics tools. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 6876--6888. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025635Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. S. Erete, A. Israni, and T. Dillahunt. 2018. An intersectional approach to designing in the margins. Interactions 25, 3 (2018), 66--69. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3194349Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. S. Erete, Y. A. Rankin, and J. O. Thomas. 2020. I can't breathe: Reflections from black women in CSCW and HCI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2020), Article 234, 23 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1122445.1122456Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. S. L. Erete. 2015. Engaging around neighborhood issues: How online communication affects offline behavior. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’15). 1590--1601. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675182Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. N. J. Evans, J. L. Assadi, and T. K. Herriott. 2005. Encouraging the development of disability allies. New Directions for Student Services 2005, 110 (2005), 67--79. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.166Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. N. J. Evans and V. A. Wall. 1991. Beyond Tolerance: Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on Campus. UPA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. M. Cifor, P. Garcia, T. L. Cowan, J. Rault, T. Sutherland, A. Chan, J. Rode, A. L. Hoffmann, N. Salehi, and L. Nakamura. 2019. Feminist Data Manifest-No. Retrieved from https://www.manifestno.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. C. Fiesler, S. Morrison, and A. S. Bruckman. 2016. An archive of their own: A case study of feminist HCI and values in design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2574--2585. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858409Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. M. Fine. 1994. Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~addesa01/documents/Fine_Hyphens.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. M. Franks. 2002. Feminisms and cross-ideological feminist social research: Standpoint, situatedness and positionality—Developing cross-ideological feminist research. Journal of International Women's Studies 3, 2 (2002), 38--50. Retrieved from http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol3/iss2/3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. M. Fricker. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. P. I. Fusch and L. R. Ness. 2015. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Report 20, 9 (2015), 1408--1416. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss9/3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. M. Gallagher. 2008. “Power is not an evil”: Rethinking power in participatory methods. Children's Geographies 6, 2 (2008), 137--150. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280801963045Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. S. Ghoshal and A. Bruckman. 2019. The role of social computing technologies in grassroots movement building. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 26, 3 (2019), Article 18, 36 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3318140Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. T. Gillespie. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media. Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. S. D. Grady, P. J. Wisniewski, R. Metoyer, P. Gibbs, K. Badillo-Urquiola, S. Elsayed-Ali, and E. Yafi. 2020. Addressing institutional racism within initiatives for SIGCHI's diversity and inclusion. Interactions. Retrieved from https://interactions.acm.org/blog/view/addressing-institutional-racism-within-initiatives-for-sigchis-diversity-an.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. S. D. Grieb, M. M. Eder, K. C. Smith, K. Calhoun, and D. Tandon. 2015. Qualitative research and community-based participatory research: Considerations for effective dissemination in the peer-reviewed literature. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 9, 2 (2015), 275--282. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2015.0041Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. A. Grimes and R. E. Grinter. 2007. Designing persuasion: Health technology for low-income African American communities. In Persuasive Technology (PERSUASIVE’07). Y. de Kort, W. IJsselsteijn, C. Midden, B. Eggen, B. J. Fogg (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4744. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77006-0_4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Oliver L. Haimson, Dykee Gorrell, Denny L. Starks, and Z. Weinger. 2020. Designing trans technology: Defining challenges and envisioning community-centered solutions. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’20). 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. D. M. Halperin. 2012. How To Be Gay. Belknap Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. A. M. Hancock. 2007. When multiplication doesn't equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics 5, 1 (2007), 63--79. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592707070065Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. D. Hankerson, A. R. Marshall, J. Booker, H. El Mimouni, I. Walker, and J. A. Rode. 2016. Does technology have race? In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 473--486. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892578Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. D. J. Haraway. 2016. Staying with the Trouble. Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. S. Harding. 1992. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?” The Centennial Review 36, 3 (1992), 437--470. Retrieved December 23, 2020 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23739232Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. S. G. Harding. 2004. The feminist standpoint theory reader. In The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. S. Hardouin, T. W. Cheng, E. L. Mitchell, S. J. Raulli, D. W. Jones, J. J. Siracuse, and A. Farber. 2020. Prevalence of unprofessional social media content among young vascular surgeons. Journal of Vascular Surgery 72, 2 (2020), 667--671.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. C. N. Harrington, K. Borgos-Rodriguez, and A. M. Piper. 2019. Engaging low-income African American older adults in health discussions through community-based design workshops. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 593, 1--15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300823Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. C. N. Harrington, S. Erete, and A. M. Piper. 2019. Deconstructing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW, Article 216 (2019), 25 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. C. N. Harrington and A. M. Piper. 2018. Informing design through sociocultural values: Co-creation with low-income African-American older adults. In Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth’18). 294--298. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3240925.3240966Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. P. Harris. 1995. Who am I? Concepts of disability and their implications for people with learning difficulties. Disability & Society 10, 3 (1995), 341--352. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599550023570Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. G. R. Hayes. 2011. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 18, 3 (2011) Article 15, 20 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1993060.1993065Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. M. K. Scheuerman, K. Spiel, O. Haimson, F. Hamidi, and S. M. Branham. 2019. HCI Guidelines for Gender Equity and Inclusivity. Retrieved from https://www.morgan-klaus.com/sigchi-gender-guidelines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. G. Bauer, A. Devor, M. Heinz, Z. Marshall, A. Pullen Sansfaçon, and J. Pyne. 2019. CPATH Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Transgender People & Communities. Retrieved from https://cpath.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CPATH-Ethical-Guidelines-EN.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. R. Heeks. 2002. Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations. Information Society 18, 2 (2002), 101--112. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290075039Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. K. Heimerl, S. Hasan, K. Ali, E. Brewer, and T. Parikh. 2013. Local, sustainable, small-scale cellular networks. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development: Full Papers: Volume 1 (ICTD’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2--12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2516604.2516616Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. P. Hill Collins and S. Bilge. 2016. What is intersectionality? Using intersectionality as an analytic tool. Intersectionality 61, 11 (2016), 1036--1039. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2009.08.024Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. A. L. Hoffmann. 2019. Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information Communication and Society 22, 7 (2019), 900--915. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573912Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  91. P. E. Hopkins. 2009. Women, men, positionalities and emotion: Doing feminist geographies of religion. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 8, 1 (2009), 1--17. Retrieved from https://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/818.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. D. Howard and L. Irani. 2019. Ways of knowing when research subjects care. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 97, 1--16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300327Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. J. Hui, N. R. Barber, W. Casey, S. Cleage, D. C. Dolley, F. Worthy, K. Toyama, and T. R. Dillahunt. 2020. Community collectives: Low-tech social support for digitally-engaged entrepreneurship. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376363Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. R. Imrie. 2012. Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability and Rehabilitation 34, 10 (2012), 873--882. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.624250Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  95. R. Dutt-Ballerstadt. 2020. In Our Own Words: Institutional betrayals. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/03/06/underrepresented-faculty-members-share-real-reasons-they-have-left-various.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. L. Irani, J. Vertesi, P. Dourish, K. Philip, and R. E. Grinter. 2010. Postcolonial computing: A lens on design and development. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1311--1320. DOI:https://doi.org./10.1145/1753326.1753522Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. B. A. Israel, E. A. Parker, Z. Rowe, A. Salvatore, M. Minkler, J. López, A. Butz, A. Mosley, L. Coates, G. Lambert, P. A. Potito, B. Brenner, M. Rivera, H. Romero, B. Thompson, G. Coronado, and S. Halstead. 2005. Community-based participatory research: Lessons learned from the centers for children's environmental health and disease prevention research. Environmental Health Perspectives 113, 10 (2005), 1463--1471. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7675Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  98. B. A. Israel, C. M. Coombe, R. R. Cheezum, A. J. Schulz, R. J. McGranaghan, R. Lichtenstein, A. G. Reyes, J. Clement, and A. Burris. 2010. Community-based participatory research: A capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. American Journal of Public Health 100, 11 (2010), 2094--2102. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.170506Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  99. A. Iyer and C. W. Leach. 2009. Helping disadvantaged out-groups challenge unjust inequality: The role of group-based emotions. In The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior: Group Processes, Intergroup Relations, and Helping. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444307948.ch17Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. S. K. Kane, J. P. Bigham, and J. O. Wobbrock. 2008. Slide rule: Making mobile touch screens accessible to blind people using multi-touch interaction techniques. In Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’08). 73--80. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1414471.1414487Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. O. Keyes. 2018. The misgendering machines: Trans/HCI implications of automatic gender recognition. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), Article 88, 22 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3274357Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. O. Keyes, J. Hoy, and M. Drouhard. 2019. Human-computer insurrection: Notes on an Anarchist HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 339, 1--13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300569Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. O. Keyes, B. Peil, R. M. Williams, and K. Spiel. 2020. Reimagining (Women's) health: HCI, gender and essentialised embodiment. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 27, 4 (2020) Article 25, 42 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3404218Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. J. Kluttz, J. Walker, and P. Walter. 2019. Unsettling allyship, unlearning and learning towards decolonising solidarity. Studies in the Education of Adults 52, 1 (2019), 49--66. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2019.1654591Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  105. S. Kolovson, A. Pratap, J. Duffy, R. Allred, S. A. Munson, and P. A. Areán. 2020. Understanding participant needs for engagement and attitudes towards passive sensing in remote digital health studies. In Proceedings of the 14th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth’20). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3421937.3422025Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. R. Koster, K. Baccar, and R. H. Lemelin. 2012. Moving from research ON, to research with and for indigenous communities: A critical reflection on community-based participatory research. Canadian Geographer 56, 2 (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00428.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. J. L. Laws. 1975. The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Sex Roles 1, 51--67 (1975). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287213Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  108. S. De Leeuw, E. S. Cameron, and M. L. Greenwood. 2012. Participatory and community-based research, indigenous geographies, and the spaces of friendship: A critical engagement. Canadian Geographer 56, 2 (2012), 180--194. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00434.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  109. G. Leonard and L. Misumi. 2016. W.A.I.T. (Why Am I Talking?): A dialogue on solidarity, allyship, and supporting the struggle for racial justice without reproducing white supremacy. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy 61--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. C. Lee and J. Hume-Pratuch. 2013. Let's Talk About Research Participants. Retrieved from http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/08/lets-talk-about-research-participants.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. E. Lightman, A. Vick, D. Herd, and A. Mitchell. 2009. ‘Not disabled enough’: Episodic disabilities and the Ontario disability support program. Disability Studies Quarterly 29, 3 (2009). DOI:https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v29i3.932Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  112. B. Lloyd-Jones. 2014. African-American women in the professoriate: Addressing social exclusion and scholarly marginalization through mentoring. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 22, 4 (2014), 269--283. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2014.945737Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  113. M. Lugones. 2007. Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia. 22, 1 (2007), 186--219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01156.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  114. L. Malinverni and N. Pares. 2017. An autoethnographic approach to guide situated ethical decisions in participatory design with teenagers. Interacting with Computers. (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iww031Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. Black Lives Matter. #TalkAbout Trayvon: A Toolkit for White People. 2017. Retrieved from https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Toolkit-WhitePpl-Trayvon.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  116. W. D. Mignolo. 2018. What does it mean to decolonize? In On Decoloniality. W. D. Mignolo and C. E. Walsh (Eds.), Duke University Press, 105--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  117. M. Minkler. 2004. Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education and Behavior 31, 6 (2004), 684--697. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104269566Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  118. L. Mizock and K. V. Page. 2016. Evaluating the ally role: Contributions, limitations, and the activist position in counseling and psychology. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology 8, 1 (2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.33043/JSACP.8.1.17-33Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  119. K. Moon and D. Blackman. 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology 28, 5 (2014), 1167--1177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  120. P. Moss, J. P. Jones, H. J. Nast, and S. M. Roberts. 1999. Thresholds in feminist geography: Difference, methodology, representation. Economic Geography 27, 11 (1999), 1659--1662. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/144254Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  121. M. J. Muller. 2003. Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (2nd ed.). CRC Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/153571.255960Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  122. C. Munteanu, H. Molyneaux, W. Moncur, M. Romero, S. O'Donnell, and J. Vines. 2015. Situational ethics: Re-thinking approaches to formal ethics requirements for human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 105--114. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702481Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  123. A. Waller. 2020. Nextdoor removes app's ‘forward to police’ feature. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/us/nextdoor-forward-to-police-.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  124. J. T. O'Leary, S. Zewde, J. Mankoff, and D. K. Rosner. 2019. Who gets to future? Race, representation, and design methods in Africatown. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 561, 1--13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300791Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  125. I. F. Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, A. D. Smith, A. To, and K. Toyama. 2020. Critical race theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376392Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  126. R. Gay. 2016. On making Black Lives Matter: 2016. Retrieved from https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a21423/roxane-gay-philando-castile-alton-sterling/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  127. W. J. Orlikowski and J. J. Baroudi. 1991. Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2, 1 (1991), 1--84. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  128. A. G. Parker, V. Kantroo, H. R. Lee, M. Osornio, M. Sharma, and R. E. Grinter. 2012. Health promotion as activism: Building community capacity to effect social change. In Proceedings of the 2012 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 99--108. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207692Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  129. A. Peshkin. 1988. In search of subjectivity—One's own. Educational Researcher 17, 7 (1988), 17--21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017007017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  130. E. S. Poole and T. Peyton. 2013. Interaction design research with adolescents: Methodological challenges and best practices. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’13). 211--217. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485766Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  131. J. Powell and A. Kelly. 2018. Accomplices in the academy in the age of Black Lives Matter. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis 6, 2 (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.31274/jctp-180810-73Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  132. A. Quijano. 2000. Coloniality of power and eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology 15, 2 (2000), 215--232. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  133. Y. A. Rankin and J. O. Thomas. 2019. Straighten up and fly right: Rethinking intersectionality in HCI research. Interactions 26, 6 (2019), 64--68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3363033Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  134. Y. A. Rankin, J. O. Thomas, and N. M. Joseph. 2020. Intersectionality in HCI: lost in translation. Interactions 27, 5 (2020), 68--71. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3416498Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  135. H. W. J. Rittel and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 4, 2 (1973), 155--169. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  136. L. S. Rodopoulos. 2004. Becoming an ally: Breaking the cycle of oppression (2nd edn). Australian Social Work 57, 4 (2004), 410--412. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0312-407x.2004.00170.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  137. G. M. Russell. 2011. Motives of heterosexual allies in collective action for equality. Journal of Social Issues 67, 2 (2011), 376--393. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01703.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  138. G. M. Russell and J. S. Bohan. 2016. Institutional allyship for LGBT equality: Underlying processes and potentials for change. Journal of Social Issues 72, 2 (2016), 335--354. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12169Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  139. S. Ryan, J. Yip, M. Stieff, and A. Druin. 2013. Cooperative inquiry as a community of practice. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference 2, CSCL (2013), 145--148. Retrieved from http://bigyipper.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CSCL2013_ShortPaper_Submission.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  140. B. de Sousa Santos. 2014. A critique of lazy reason: Against the waste of experience and toward the sociology of absences and the sociology of emergences. In Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. B. de S. Santos (Ed.), Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315634876Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  141. A. M. Santuzzi, P. R. Waltz, L. M. Finkelstein, and D. E. Rupp. 2014. Invisible disabilities: Unique challenges for employees and organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12134Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  142. S. Schalk. 2013. Coming to claim crip: Disidentification with/in disability studies. Disability Studies Quarterly 33, 2 (2013). 10.18061/dsq.v33i2.3705Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  143. M. K. Scheuerman, S. M. Branham, and F. Hamidi. 2018. Safe spaces and safe places: Unpacking technology-mediated experiences of safety and harm with transgender people. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018) Article 155. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3274424Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  144. A. Schlesinger, W. K. Edwards, and R. E. Grinter. 2017. Intersectional HCI: Engaging identity through gender, race, and class. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5412--5427. DOI::https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025766Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  145. Y. B. Shrinivasan, M. Jain, D. P. Seetharam, A. Choudhary, E. Huang, T. Dillahunt, and J. Mankoff. 2013. Deep conservation in urban India and its implications for the design of conservation technologies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1969--1978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466261Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  146. K. A. Siek, J. S. LaMarche, and J. Maitland. 2009. Bridging the information gap: Collaborative technology design with low-income at-risk families to engender healthy behaviors. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group - Design: Open 24/7 (OZCHI’09). 89--96. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1738826.1738841Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  147. C. E. Smith, X. Wang, R. P. Karumur, and H. Zhu. 2018. [Un]breaking news: Design opportunities for enhancing collaboration in scientific media production. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 381, 1--13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173955Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  148. L. T. Smith. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  149. K. Spiel, A. M. Walker, M. A. DeVito, J. Birnholtz, P. Barlas, A. Ahmed, J. R. Brubaker, O. Keyes, E. Brulé, A. Light, J. Hardy, J. A. Rode, and G. Kannabiran. 2019. Queer(ing) HCI: Moving forward in theory and practice. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper SIG11, 1--4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3311750Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  150. A. Strohmayer, R. Comber, and M. Balaam. 2015. Exploring learning ecologies among people experiencing homelessness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2275--2284. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702157Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  151. C. Sturm, A. Oh, S. Linxen, J. Abdelnour-Nocera, S. Dray, and K. Reinecke. 2015. How WEIRD is HCI? Extending HCI principles to other countries and cultures. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2425--2428. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2702656Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  152. E. Subašić, K. J. Reynolds, and J. C. Turner. 2008. The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12, 4 (2008), 330--342. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308323223Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  153. S. Sultana, F. Guimbretière, P. Sengers, and N. Dell. 2018. Design within a patriarchal society: Opportunities and challenges in designing for rural women in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 536, 1--13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174110Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  154. M. Tanis and T. Postmes. 2005. Short communication a social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology (2005). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.256Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  155. B. D. Tatum. 1994. Teaching white students about racism: The search for White allies and the restoration of hope. Teachers College Record 95, 4 (1994), 462--476. Retrieved from http://www.goldenbridgesschool.org/uploads/1/9/5/4/19541249/teaching_white_students_about_racism.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  156. A. Taylor. 2011. Out there. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 685--694. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979042Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  157. J. O. Thomas, N. Joseph, A. Williams, C. Crum, and J. Burge. 2018. Speaking truth to power: Exploring the intersectional experiences of Black women in computing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT’18). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/RESPECT.2018.8491718Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  158. L. Thompson and S. Reinharz. 1992. Feminist methods in social research. Journal of Marriage and the Family 54, 4 (1992), 996--997. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/353180Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  159. A. To, W. Sweeney, J. Hammer, and G. Kaufman. 2020. “They just don't get it”: Towards social technologies for coping with interpersonal racism. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW (2020), Article 024, 29 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3392828Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  160. K. M. Unertl, C. L. Schaefbauer, T. R. Campbell, C. Senteio, K. A. Siek, S. Bakken, and T. C. Veinot. 2016. Integrating community-based participatory research and informatics approaches to improve the engagement and health of underserved populations. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 23, 1 (2016), 60--73. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv094Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  161. A. Vashistha, R. Anderson, A. Garg, and A. A. Raza. 2019. Threats, abuses, flirting, and blackmail: Gender inequity in social media voice forums. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 72, 1--13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300302Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  162. A. Vashistha, P. Sethi, and R. Anderson. 2018. BSpeak: An accessible crowdsourcing marketplace for low-income blind people. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper 57, 1--13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173631Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  163. T. C. Veinot, J. S. Ancker, H. Cole-Lewis, E. D. Mynatt, A. G. Parker, K. A. Siek, and L. Mamykina. 2019. Leveling up: On the potential of upstream health informatics interventions to enhance health equity. Medical Care 57, 6 (2019), S108--S114. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001032Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  164. S. Villenas. 1996. The colonizer/colonized Chicana ethnographer: Identity, marginalization, and co-optation in the field. Harvard Educational Review 66, 4 (1996), 711--732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.4.3483672630865482Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  165. J. Vines, R. McNaney, R. Clarke, S. Lindsay, J. McCarthy, S. Howard, M. Romero, and J. Wallace. 2013. Designing for- and with- vulnerable people. In Proceedings of the CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3231--3234. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2479654Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  166. J. Vines, R. McNaney, S. Lindsay, J. Wallace, and J. McCarthy. 2014. Designing for and with vulnerable people. Interactions 21, 1 (2014), 44--46. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2543490Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  167. N. Shaprio. 2020. Viral #medbikini response to controversial manuscript leads editor to retract article. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2020/07/25/viral-medbikini-response-to-controversial-manuscript-leads-editor-to-retract-article/?sh=283a146c1f47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  168. N. B. Wallerstein and B. Duran. 2006. Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice. (2006). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  169. J. K. Walter, J. F. Burke, and M. M. Davis. 2013. Research participation by low-income and racial/ethnic minority groups: How payment may change the balance. Clinical and Translational Science 6, 5 (2013), 363--371. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12084Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  170. J. Waycott, G. Wadley, S. Schutt, A. Stabolidis, and R. Lederman. 2015. The challenge of technology research in sensitive settings: Case studies in “Sensitive HCI.” In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (OzCHI’15). 240--249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2838739.2838773Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  171. S. Wendell. 2016. Unhealthy disabled: Treating chronic illnesses as disabilities. In The Disability Studies Reader (5th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527–2001.2001.tb00751.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  172. E. P. Williams and J. K. Walter. 2015. When does the amount we pay research participants become “undue influence”? AMA Journal of Ethics 17, 12 (2015), 1116--1121. DOI:10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.12.ecas2-1512Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  173. G. R. Williamson and S. Prosser. 2002. Action research: Politics, ethics and participation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 40, 5 (2002), 587--593. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02416.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  174. L. Winner. 1985. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109, 1 (1985), 26--38 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315259697-21Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  175. M. Wong-Villacres, A. Kumar, A. Vishwanath, N. Karusala, B. DiSalvo, and N. Kumar. 2018. Designing for intersections. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS’18). 45--58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196794Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  176. S. Wyche, T. R. Dillahunt, N. Simiyu, and S. Alaka. 2015. “If god gives me the chance I will design my own phone”: Exploring mobile phone repair and postcolonial approaches to design in rural Kenya. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’15). 463--473. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804249Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  177. S. P. Wyche, M. Densmore, and B. S. Geyer. 2015. Real mobiles: Kenyan and Zambian smallholder farmers? Current attitudes towards mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development. Article 9, 1--10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2737856.2738013Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  178. S. P. Wyche and L. L. Murphy. 2012. “Dead china-make” phones off the grid: Investigating and designing for mobile phone use in rural Africa. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS’12). 186--195. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317985Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  179. A. Ymous, K. Spiel, O. Keyes, R. M. Williams, J. Good, E. Hornecker, and C. L. Bennett. 2020. “I am just terrified of my future”: Epistemic violence in disability related technology research. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381828Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  180. S. Linton. 1998. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. NYU Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.35-6303Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Embracing Four Tensions in Human-Computer Interaction Research with Marginalized People

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
      ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 28, Issue 2
      April 2021
      264 pages
      ISSN:1073-0516
      EISSN:1557-7325
      DOI:10.1145/3461620
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 17 April 2021
      • Accepted: 1 December 2020
      • Revised: 1 November 2020
      • Received: 1 November 2019
      Published in tochi Volume 28, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format