Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

A Node on the Constellation: The Role of Feminist Makerspaces in Building and Sustaining Alternative Cultures of Technology Production

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Feminist makerspaces persist by refusing to scale and deepening local solidarity.

desk verdict A useful empirical study of feminist makerspace sustainability whose abstract overclaims causality; deserves peer review with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22329 v2 pith:YHWIW7S2 submitted 2025-07-30 cs.HC

Erin Gatz , Yasmine Kotturi , Andrea Afua Kwamya , Sarah Fox This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords feministmakerspacessustainabilityprefigurativecounterspacessolidarityeconomymutualaidsharedgovernancecareworkcommunity-basedresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks what lets U.S. feminist makerspaces last, drawing on interviews with 18 founders and members across eight spaces plus the first author's own experience co-running one. It argues that endurance comes not from growth, professionalization, or institutional money, but from care-driven stewardship, solidarity with local justice movements, and shared governance. These practices make the spaces prefigurative counterspaces: places that enact feminist values of care, mutual aid, and collective knowledge production in everyday operations rather than deferring them. The claim matters because it challenges standard nonprofit and tech-industry assumptions that sustainability means scaling, and it offers an alternative model for justice-oriented tech work.

What carries the argument

The central object is the prefigurative counterspace, defined in one phrase as a site where feminist values are enacted in daily practice instead of deferred. The mechanism carrying the argument is a mutually reinforcing triad of practices: resisting reliance on corporate and philanthropic funding, refusing pressure to scale, and deepening relationships with neighboring justice organizations. Around that triad the paper places care-driven stewardship, meaning succession planning, rotating governance, and the affective and maintenance labor that keeps volunteer-run spaces operating. These together are what the paper credits with long-term endurance.

What would settle it

A longitudinal survey of a larger cohort of feminist makerspaces tracking funding sources, growth decisions, governance structure, and neighbor ties would settle it: if spaces that accepted institutional funding and scaled survived at the same rate as those that refused, or if the three closed spaces in this sample practiced these strategies as fully as the open ones, the claimed link would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Based on interviews across eight U.S. feminist makerspaces plus autoethnographic reflection, the paper finds that the spaces that endure do so by refusing the growth-and-institutional-funding logic of mainstream nonprofits. Sustainability is achieved through care-driven stewardship, including distributed leadership, rotating governance, and maintenance labor; through shared governance with members and neighbors; and through solidarity with local racial- and social-justice organizations. These practices embed the spaces in regional constellations of justice work, making them prefigurative counterspaces rather than merely shelters from hostile tech cultures. The paper presents this as the path visible in the spaces studied, not as a claim that every feminist makerspace follows it.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's account depends on 18 interviewees recruited through the authors' own networks being representative enough that the three practices named are the decisive causes of endurance, and the closed spaces are not systematically compared with the open ones to prove that.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Feminist makerspaces that persist tend to do so by deepening local relationships rather than expanding membership, programs, or physical footprint.
  • Refusing corporate and foundation money, or treating grants as merely supplemental, protects the anticapitalist identity of a space and preserves member trust.
  • Distributed leadership and succession planning reduce the fragility that comes when founders or board members cycle out.
  • These spaces function as prefigurative counterspaces, meaning their daily operations already model the feminist, collectivist tech culture they hope to build.
  • As corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion commitments retreat, community-led spaces that are already embedded in justice movements offer a more durable model for equity work in technology.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's evidence is mostly correlational, so the three practices should be treated as candidate mechanisms for endurance rather than proven causes, especially since the three closed spaces are not systematically compared with the five open ones.
  • If the pattern holds, funders who require scaling metrics may be actively undermining the organizations they intend to support, which suggests a testable extension: unrestricted, no-growth operating support should correlate with longer survival for community-led tech spaces.
  • The 'incubator' dynamic described in one space implies that the value of a feminist makerspace may partly consist in training organizers who later leave; sustainability metrics that count only continuous membership would miss this downstream contribution.
  • A natural next study would survey a larger cohort of feminist makerspaces while controlling for city rent levels and founders' personal wealth, to separate the three named practices from the material resources that make them possible.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports on a qualitative interview study of 18 founders and members from 8 U.S. feminist makerspaces, complemented by the first author's autoethnographic reflection as a co-founder of a feminist makerspace. The authors ask what relational, organizational, and infrastructural practices enable feminist makerspaces to persist. They identify three interlocking practices: resisting institutional and corporate funding dependence, refusing pressures to scale, and deepening relationships with neighboring justice organizations. The paper argues that sustainability is achieved not through growth or institutionalization but through care-driven stewardship, solidarity with local justice movements, and shared governance, positioning these spaces as prefigurative counterspaces. The central empirical contribution is the thematic analysis of participant accounts and the integration of autoethnographic material, with implications for CSCW research on counterinstitutional and community-led technology production.

Significance. If the empirical claims were fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to CSCW literature on feminist makerspaces, counterspaces, and solidarity economies. Its strengths include direct use of participant quotes, a disclosed insider positionality, and a reflexive autoethnographic layer that connects the first author's organizational experience to the interview themes. The paper also foregrounds important, understudied questions about long-term stewardship, governance continuity, and the labor of sustaining alternative tech infrastructures. However, the central causal claim about what enables endurance is stronger than the evidence can support given the sample composition and the absence of a systematic comparison between surviving and closed spaces. The paper is therefore likely to be of interest to the CSCW community, but its analytical claims need to be recalibrated to match the interpretive, non-comparative design.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §4, Abstract] The abstract's claim that 'sustainability is not achieved through growth or institutionalization, but through care-driven stewardship, solidarity with local justice movements, and shared governance' is a causal claim about what enables endurance, but the data cannot support this at the stated strength. Section 3.1 reports 18 participants, with only 3 reflecting on closed spaces, and Section 4 presents themes with illustrative quotes rather than a systematic comparison of the 5 open and 3 closed spaces. The three practices are identified as emergent themes, but the paper does not code all eight spaces for the presence or absence of each practice, nor does it examine whether closed spaces also exhibited these practices before closure. Without such a comparison, the data cannot rule out that these practices were common to all feminist makerspaces regardless of survival, or that endurance was driven by other factors such as location, real-estate costs, or founder income. I recommend reframing the contribution as an interpretive account of the practices that participants in surviving spaces describe as important, rather than as a demonstrated explanation of why some spaces endure.
  2. [§4.2, §4.2.1] The strong negative claim that sustainability is 'not achieved through growth or institutionalization' is undermined by the paper's own autoethnographic material. In §4.2, the first author describes how her space initially accepted a large corporate grant, used it to expand, hire staff, and purchase equipment, and then later transitioned to a membership-driven model; the space remained open through this period. This account shows that institutional funding and growth can coexist with survival, at least temporarily. Additionally, §4.2.1 reports that all participants wanted to establish a broad constituent base, and several described tiered membership as a growth strategy. The sample thus contains little variation on 'growth' as a practice, because most participants explicitly rejected scaling. The paper should either qualify the negative claim as an ideological stance expressed by participants rather than a demonstrated causal condition, or report explicit variation across spaces on funding and growth decisions.
  3. [§4.1] The discussion of closed spaces in §4.1 attributes closure primarily to financial precarity, founder departure, and burnout, but it does not show that the closed spaces lacked the three proposed sustaining practices. For instance, Gene's closed Pacific Northwest space is quoted describing gentrification and reliance on personal income; Zoe's closed space is quoted discussing trans-inclusive governance; Tye co-founded both a closed space and an open space. These examples complicate any simple mapping from feminist practices to endurance. The paper's own account of why spaces closed centers on material conditions and turnover, not on the absence of solidarity or shared governance. This does not invalidate the themes, but it means the interpretive link between the three practices and endurance is asserted rather than demonstrated. The authors should explicitly acknowledge this limitation and soften causal language in the findings and discussion.
  4. [§3.1, §3.2] The recruitment and analysis procedures raise a threat to the representativeness of the findings that is disclosed but not fully addressed. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling beginning from the authors' personal networks, and the first author's insider role was used to connect with founders. While this is appropriate for accessing a hard-to-reach population, the paper does not discuss how the resulting sample—15 participants from open spaces and 3 from closed spaces, concentrated in three U.S. regions—might shape the themes. The interview protocol was intentionally not differentiated by open/closed status, which is a strength for consistency, but the analysis would be more convincing if it reported how many of the eight spaces exemplified each theme, and whether any closed-space participants described the same practices as present in their spaces before closure. I suggest adding a case-by-case summary or explicit cross-case analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Reference [26]] Reference [26] is incomplete and incorrectly formatted: 'Huberman et al. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Journal of Qualitative Research (2014)' should cite Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña's book, not a journal article. Please correct this in the reference list.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 would be clearer if it explicitly listed the number of closed vs. open spaces per region, rather than only the tenure ranges. The current presentation makes it difficult for the reader to map the 15/3 participant split onto the eight organizations.
  3. [§3.1] The phrase 'approximately one third of the feminist makerspaces we included in our study shut down' is imprecise: the paper later states three of eight closed, which is 37.5%. Please use exact numbers.
  4. [§4.3.1] The subsection title 'Reclaiming Making and Hacking as a Way of Life' introduces a theme that is not fully connected to the sustainability argument. Consider explaining how this theme relates to endurance, or moving it to a broader discussion of feminist maker culture.
  5. [§5.2] The discussion of mutual aid and solidarity economies draws on Dean Spade and other normative literature, but it would benefit from a sentence distinguishing the authors' interpretive framing from the participants' own accounts, since some of the quoted participants did not use the term 'mutual aid' themselves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sustainability themes are empirical interpretations of interviews and autoethnography, not consequences of the paper's definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that feminist makerspaces endure through care-driven stewardship, solidarity with local justice movements, and shared governance rather than growth or institutionalization, is presented as a thematic finding from semi-structured interviews with 18 participants and the first author's autoethnography (Sections 3.2 and 4). These themes are not defined into existence: feminist makerspaces are defined by mission-statement values and self-identification (Section 3.1), while endurance versus closure is a separate, observed outcome (Table 1: three closed, five open). There is no equation, fitted parameter, or definitional equivalence in which the conclusion reduces to an input. The paper does cite several of the authors' prior works (e.g., Fox et al. 2015; Le Dantec and Fox 2015; Rosner and Fox 2016; Kotturi, Hui et al. 2024), but these are used for background framing and conceptual vocabulary, such as 'work to keep the work going', and are not the evidentiary basis for the empirical finding. No uniqueness theorem or analytical ansatz is imported from the authors' earlier work to force the conclusion. The skeptic's concern about the lack of systematic comparison between the three closed and five open spaces, and about snowball sampling, is a valid question about causal inference and representativeness, but it is not a circularity concern under the review rules. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained relative to its qualitative evidence, and any self-citation is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric free parameters apply to this qualitative study. The central findings rest on the reliability of interview accounts, the representativeness of a small network-based sample, the validity of autoethnographic reflection, and the interpretive assignment of causal weight to the three themes. These are disclosed domain assumptions rather than hidden inputs.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Participants' retrospective self-reports accurately reflect the practices and outcomes of their makerspaces.
    Findings rely on interview accounts without observational or archival verification (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The sample of 18 participants from 8 spaces, recruited via snowball sampling through the authors' networks, is adequate to support general claims about feminist makerspace sustainability.
    Recruitment is described in Section 3.1; the sample is small and network-based, which may overrepresent spaces connected to the authors.
  • domain assumption Autoethnographic reflection from the first author is a valid source of generalizable knowledge about organizational sustainability.
    The method is justified in Section 3.2 with citations to Ellis et al. [18] and Rapp [36].
  • domain assumption The three emergent themes are the principal drivers of endurance, rather than other unmeasured factors.
    Section 4 presents the themes; no comparative test against alternative explanations is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Node on the Constellation: The Role of Feminist Makerspaces in Building and Sustaining Alternative Cultures of Technology Production." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHWIW7S2

@misc{pith2026250722329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Node on the Constellation: The Role of Feminist Makerspaces in Building and Sustaining Alternative Cultures of Technology Production},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHWIW7S2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22329}
}
read the original abstract

Feminist makerspaces offer community led alternatives to dominant tech cultures by centering care, mutual aid, and collective knowledge production. While prior CSCW research has explored their inclusive practices, less is known about how these spaces sustain themselves over time. Drawing on interviews with 18 founders and members across 8 U.S. feminist makerspaces as well as autoethnographic reflection, we examine the organizational and relational practices that support long-term endurance. We find that sustainability is not achieved through growth or institutionalization, but through care-driven stewardship, solidarity with local justice movements, and shared governance. These social practices position feminist makerspaces as prefigurative counterspaces - sites that enact, rather than defer, feminist values in everyday practice. This paper offers empirical insight into how feminist makerspaces persist amid structural precarity, and highlights the forms of labor and coalition-building that underpin alternative sociotechnical infrastructures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mariam Asad. 2019. Prefigurative design as a method for research justice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–18

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Anne Balsamo. 2020. Designing culture: The technological imagination at work . Duke University Press

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Shaowen Bardzell. 2018. Utopias of participation: Feminism, design, and the futures. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI) 25, 1 (2018), 1–24. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW362. Publication date: November 2025. CSCW362:18 Erin Gatz, Yasmine Kotturi, Andrea Afua Kwamya, and Sarah Fox

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Aksel Biørn-Hansen and Maria Håkansson. 2018. Building momentum: Scaling up change in community organizations. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Christopher Brooks, Erica Principe Principe Cruz, Jamie Camera, and Alexandra To. 2021. Uplifting us: a BIPOC game design case study. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games . 1–5

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Dan Calacci. 2022. Organizing in the end of employment: information sharing, data stewardship, and digital workerism. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work . 1–9

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Dana Calacci, Varun Nagaraj Rao, Samantha Dalal, Catherine Di, Kok-Wei Pua, Andrew Schwartz, Danny Spitzberg, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2025. FairFare: A Tool for Crowdsourcing Rideshare Data to Empower Labor Organizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11273 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Tara Capel, Bernd Ploderer, and Margot Brereton. 2020. The wooden quilt: carving out personal narratives in a women-only makerspace. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1059–1071

    work page 2020

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Tara Capel, Bernd Ploderer, Margot Brereton, and Meg O’Connor Solly. 2021. The making of women: creating trajectories for women’s participation in makerspaces. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–38

    2021

  2. [10]

    Kathy Charmaz. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . Sage

    2006

  3. [11]

    Aarjav Chauhan, Dipto Sarkar, Taneea S Agrawaal, and Robert Soden. 2024. Value Tensions in OpenStreetMap: Openness, Membership, and Policy in Online Communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW2 (2024), 1–25

    2024

  4. [12]

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need . The MIT Press

    2020

  5. [13]

    Dominic-Madori Davis. [n. d.]. Here are all the tech companies rolling back DEI or still committed to it — so far | TechCrunch — techcrunch.com. https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/26/here-are-all-the-tech-companies-rolling-back- dei-or-still-committed-to-it-so-far/. [Accessed 15-04-2025]

    2025

  6. [14]

    Catherine D’ignazio and Lauren F Klein. 2023. Data feminism. MIT press

    2023

  7. [15]

    Tawanna R Dillahunt, Alex Jiahong Lu, and Joanna Velazquez. 2023. Eliciting alternative economic futures with working-class detroiters: Centering afrofuturism in speculative design. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 957–977

    2023

  8. [16]

    Tawanna R Dillahunt and Amelia R Malone. 2015. The promise of the sharing economy among disadvantaged communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems . 2285–2294

    2015

  9. [17]

    Christina Dunbar-Hester. 2020. Hacking diversity: the politics of inclusion in open technology cultures . Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

    2020

  10. [18]

    Carolyn Ellis, Tony E Adams, and Arthur P Bochner. 2011. Autoethnography: an overview. Historical social re- search/Historische sozialforschung (2011), 273–290

    2011

  11. [19]

    Sheena Erete, Karla Thomas, Denise Nacu, Jessa Dickinson, Naomi Thompson, and Nichole Pinkard. 2021. Applying a Transformative Justice Approach to Encourage the Participation of Black and Latina Girls in Computing. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 21, 4, Article 27 (Oct. 2021), 24 pag...

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Ellen K Foster. 2019. Claims of equity and expertise: Feminist interventions in the design of DIY communities and cultures. Design Issues 35, 4 (2019), 33–41

    2019

  13. [21]

    Sarah Fox, Rachel Rose Ulgado, and Daniela Rosner. 2015. Hacking culture, not devices: Access and recognition in feminist hackerspaces. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 56–68

    2015

  14. [22]

    Steffen Haesler, Stefka Schmid, Annemike Sophia Vierneisel, and Christian Reuter. 2021. Stronger together: how neighborhood groups build up a virtual network during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–31

    2021

  15. [23]

    Sonali Hedditch and Dhaval Vyas. 2021. A gendered perspective on making from an autoethnography in makerspaces. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1887–1901

    2021

  16. [24]

    Sonali Hedditch and Dhaval Vyas. 2023. Design justice in practice: community-led design of an online maker space for refugee and migrant women. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, GROUP (2023), 1–39

    2023

  17. [25]

    Mar Hicks. 2017. Programmed inequality: How Britain discarded women technologists and lost its edge in computing . MIT press

    2017

  18. [26]

    Michael Huberman et al

    A. Michael Huberman et al. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Journal of Qualitative Research (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Lilly C Irani and M Six Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 611–620

    2013

  20. [28]

    Kelly F Jackson, Sara Goodkind, Mery Diaz, Sharvari Karandikar, Ramona Beltrán, Mimi E Kim, Jennifer R Zelnick, Margaret F Gibson, Sarah Mountz, Gina E Miranda Samuels, et al. 2024. Positionality in Critical Feminist Scholarship: Situating Social Locations and Power Within Kno...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Yasmine Kotturi, Julie Hui, TJ Johnson, Lutalo Sanifu, and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2024. Sustaining Community-Based Research in Computing: Lessons from Two Tech Capacity Building Initiatives for Local Businesses. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–31

    2024

  22. [30]

    Christopher A Le Dantec and Sarah Fox. 2015. Strangers at the gate: Gaining access, building rapport, and co- constructing community-based research. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing . 1348–1358

    2015

  23. [31]

    Chantal Mouffe. 2022. Towards a green democratic revolution: left populism and the power of affects . VERSO, London New York

    2022

  24. [32]

    Lisa Nakamura. 2014. Indigenous circuits: Navajo women and the racialization of early electronic manufacture. American Quarterly 66, 4 (2014), 919–941

    2014

  25. [33]

    INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. 2017. The revolution will not be funded: beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Duke University Press, Durham London

    2017

  26. [34]

    Margaret O’Mara. 2022. Why can’t tech fix its gender problem? Technology Review (2022). https://www. technologyreview.com/2022/08/11/1056917/tech-fix-gender-problem/

    2022

  27. [35]

    Rankin and Nyshia Baker

    Yolanda A. Rankin and Nyshia Baker. 2025. Sister Circles: An Intersectional Method in Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (SIGCSETS 2025). Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Amon Rapp. 2018. Autoethnography in human-computer interaction: Theory and practice. New directions in third wave human-computer interaction: Volume 2-Methodologies (2018), 25–42

    2018

  29. [37]

    Melissa Rogers. 2016. Making Queer Feminisms Matter: A Transdisciplinary Makerspace for the Rest of Us. Journal of Peer Production (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Wendy Roldan, Julie Hui, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2018. University makerspaces: Opportunities to support equitable participation for women in engineering. Int. J. Eng. Educ 34, 2 (2018), 751–768

    2018

  31. [39]

    Daniela K Rosner and Sarah E Fox. 2016. Legacies of craft and the centrality of failure in a mother-operated hackerspace. new media & society 18, 4 (2016), 558–580

    2016

  32. [40]

    Daniela K Rosner, Samantha Shorey, Brock R Craft, and Helen Remick. 2018. Making core memory: Design inquiry into gendered legacies of engineering and craftwork. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2018

  33. [41]

    Selena Savić and Stefanie Wuschitz. 2018. Feminist hackerspace as a place of infrastructure production. (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Rafael ML Silva, Ana Maria Cardenas Gasca, Joshua A Fisher, Erica Principe Cruz, Cinthya Jauregui, Amy Lueck, Fannie Liu, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and Kai Lukoff. 2024. With or Without Permission: Site-Specific Augmented Reality for Social Justice. In Extended Abstracts of the...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Dean Spade. 2020. Mutual aid: Building solidarity during this crisis (and the next) . Verso Books

    2020

  36. [44]

    Udayan Tandon, Vera Khovanskaya, Enrique Arcilla, Mikaiil Haji Hussein, Peter Zschiesche, and Lilly Irani. 2022. Hostile ecologies: Navigating the barriers to community-led innovation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–26

    2022

  37. [45]

    Alexandra To, Angela DR Smith, Dilruba Showkat, Adinawa Adjagbodjou, and Christina Harrington. 2023. Flourishing in the everyday: Moving beyond damage-centered design in HCI for BIPOC communities. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 917–933

    2023

  38. [46]

    Austin L Toombs, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2015. The proper care and feeding of hackerspaces: Care ethics and cultures of making. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems . 629–638

    2015

  39. [47]

    Sophie Toupin. 2014. Feminist hackerspaces: The synthesis of feminist and hacker cultures. Journal of Peer Production 5, 2014 (2014), 1–11

    2014

  40. [48]

    Anh-Ton Tran, Ashley Boone, Christopher A Le Dantec, and Carl DiSalvo. 2022. Careful Data Tinkering. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–29

    2022

  41. [49]

    Donald Trump. 2025. Ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing. The White House (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Elizabeth Tunstall and Ene Agi. 2023. Decolonizing design: a cultural justice guidebook . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England

    2023

  43. [51]

    Vasillis Vlachokyriakos, Clara Crivellaro, Pete Wright, Evika Karamagioli, Eleni-Revekka Staiou, Dimitris Gouscos, Rowan Thorpe, Antonio Krüger, Johannes Schöning, Matt Jones, et al . 2017. HCI, solidarity movements and the solidarity economy. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI co...

    2017

  44. [52]

    Vasillis Vlachokyriakos, Clara Crivellaro, Pete Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2018. Infrastructuring the solidarity economy: Unpacking strategies and tactics in designing social innovation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12. ...

    2018

  45. [53]

    World Economic Forum Staff. 2021. How Gender and Race Shape Experiences in the Tech Industry. https://www. weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/gender-race-tech-industry/ Accessed: 2024-10-27

    2021

  46. [54]

    Stefanie Wuschitz. 2014. Hacking Feminism. The Art of Reverse Engineering (2014), 71

    2014

  47. [55]

    Stefanie Wuschitz. 2022. A feminist hacklab’s resilience towards anti-democratic forces. Feminist Theory 23, 2 (2022), 150–170. Received October 2024; revised April 2025; accepted August 2025 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW362. Publication date: N...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.