Gendered Interactions Mediated by Design: Sexual Harassment on Public Transport

References

• Aaltojärvi, I. A. 2012. “‘That Mystic Device Only Women Can Use’ – Ascribing Gender to Domestic Technologies.” International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 4 (2): 208–230.
   Google Scholar
• Akrich, M. 1992. “The De-Scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law, 205–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, H. 2018. Approaches for Gender Responsive Urban Mobility. Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-Makers in Developing Cities Module. 2nd ed. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://www.sutp.org/publications/approaches-for-gender-responsive-urban-mobility-gender-and-urban-transport-smart-and-affordable/
   Google Scholar
• Amon, A. 1999. “The Domestication of Space-Age Technologies.” In Design and Feminism: Re-Visioning Spaces, Places, and Everyday Things, edited by J. Rothschild, 125–128. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arjmand, R. 2017. Public Urban Space, Gender and Segregation: Women-Only Urban Parks in Iran. London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, P. 2005. “Man in a Briefcase: The Social Construction of the Laptop Computer and the Emergence of a Type Form.” Journal of Design History 18 (2): 191–205. doi:10.1093/jdh/epi024
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2003. “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward and Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (3): 801–831. doi:10.1086/345321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, M., and J. Lewis. 1990. “Women Designers – Is There a Gender Trap?” Design Studies 11 (2): 114–120. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(90)90026-9
   Google Scholar
• Buckley, C. 1986. “Made in Patriarchy: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Women and Design.” Design Issues 3 (2): 3–14. doi:10.2307/1511480
   Google Scholar
• Buckley, C. 1989. “‘The Noblesse of the Banks’: Craft Hierarchies, Gender Divisions, and the Roles of Women Paintresses and Designers in the British Pottery Industry 1890-1939.” Journal of Design History 2 (4): 257–273. doi:10.1093/jdh/2.4.257
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. L., C. Quincy, J. Osserman, and O. K. Pedersen. 2013. “Coding in-Depth Semistructured Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement.” Sociological Methods & Research 42 (3): 294–320. doi:10.1177/0049124113500475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cockburn, C., and R. Fürst-Dilic. 1994. Bringing Technology Home: Gender and Technology in a Changing Europe. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cockburn, C., and S. Ormrod. 1993. Gender and Technology in the Making. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Doering, E., R. Switzky, and R. Welz. 1994. Goddess in the Details: Product Design by Women. New York: Association of Women Industrial Designers.
   Google Scholar
• Drăguțescu, A., P. Land, and E. Meskovic. 2020. “Addressing Gender Equity and Vulnerable Groups in SUMPs.” Accessed May 17, 2021. https://www.mobiliseyourcity.net/sites/default/files/2021-02/sump_topic-guide_gender-equity_vulnerable-groups_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Durmuş, E. 2013. “Sexual Harassment University Students’ Perceptions and Reactions.” Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education 14 (1): 15–30.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrnberger, K., M. Räsänen, E. Börjesson, A. Hertz, and C. Sundbom. 2017. “The Androchair: Performing Gynaecology through the Practice of Gender Critical Design.” The Design Journal 20 (2): 181–198. doi:10.1080/14606925.2016.1261510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrnberger, K., M. Räsänen, and S. Ilstedt. 2012. “Visualising Gender Norms in Design: Meet the Mega Hurricane Mixer and the Drill Dolphia.” International Journal of Design 6 (3): 85–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, N., J. Cui, and E. Coiacetto. 2017. “Harassment on Public Transport and Its Impacts on Women’s Travel Behaviour.” Australian Plan 54 (1): 8–15. doi:10.1080/07293682.2017.1299189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanözü, S., S. Mollahasanoğlu, E. Esen, E. Şimşek, D. Boztaş, A. Doğan, and H. Başkal. 2015. İstanbul’da kamu ulaşım araçlarında gerçekleşen kadına yönelik cinsel şiddetin varlığı, yoğunluğu ve psikolojik etkileri (Existence, Intensity and Psychological Effects of Sexual Violence against Women in Public Transportation in Istanbul). Istanbul: Marmara University.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartsock, N. C. M. 2004. “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.” In The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, edited by S. Harding, 35–53. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, E., and E. Setliff. 2000. “In ‘a Man’s World’: Women Industrial Designers.” In Women Designers in the USA 1900-2000: Diversity and Difference, edited by P. Kirkham, 269–290. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, O. B. 2013. Staging Mobilities. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kandiyoti, D. 2016. “Locating the Politics of Gender: Patriarchy, Neoliberal Governance and Violence in Turkey.” Research and Policy on Turkey 1 (2): 103–118. doi:10.1080/23760818.2016.1201242
   Google Scholar
• Kaygan, H., P. Kaygan, and Ö. Demir. 2019. “A Pen That ‘Looks Like a CEO in a Business Suit’: Gendering the Fountain Pen.” Journal of Gender Studies 28 (1): 86–96. doi:10.1080/09589236.2017.1409105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaygan, P. 2016. “Gender, Technology and the Designer’s Work: A Feminist Review.” Design and Culture 8 (2): 235–252. doi:10.1080/17547075.2016.1172862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkham, P., ed. 1996. The Gendered Object. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkham, P., and L. Walker. 2000. “Women Designers in the USA 1900-2000: Diversity and Difference.” In Women Designers in the USA 1900-2000: Diversity and Difference, edited by P. Kirkham, 49–84. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lagesen, V. A. 2015. “Gender and Technology: From Exclusion to Inclusion?.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, edited by J. D. Wright, 2nd ed., 723–728. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lea, S., E. D’Silva, and A. Asok. 2017. “Women’s Strategies Addressing Sexual Harassment and Assault on Public Buses: An Analysis of Crowdsourced Data.” Crime Prevention and Community Safety 19 (3-4): 227–239. doi:10.1057/s41300-017-0028-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lie, M. 1995. “Technology and Masculinity: The Case of the Computer.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 2 (3): 379–394. doi:10.1177/135050689500200306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loukaitou-Sideris, A. 2016. “A Gendered View of Mobility and Transport: Next Steps and Future Directions.” Town Planning Review 87 (5): 547–565. doi:10.3828/tpr.2016.38
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madan, M., and M. Nalla. 2016. “Sexual Harassment in Public Spaces: Examining Gender Differences in Perceived Seriousness and Victimization.” International Criminal Justice Review 26 (2): 80–97. doi:10.1177/1057567716639093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oğuz, M. 2020. “Perception of Safety within Intermediate Public Transportation Systems: The Case of Minibüs in Istanbul.” Planlama 30 (1): 104–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn, N., A. Saetnan, and M. Lie. 2002. “On Gender and Things: Reflections on an Exhibition on Gendered Artifacts.” Women’s Studies International Forum 25 (4): 471–483. doi:10.1016/S0277-5395(02)00284-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özkazanç, S., and F. N. Ö. Sönmez. 2017. “Spatial Analysis of Social Exclusion from a Transportation Perspective: A Case Study of Ankara Metropolitan Area.” Cities 67: 74–84. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, N. 1999. “Women Designers: Making Differences.” In Design and Feminism: Re-Visioning Spaces, Places, and Everyday Things, edited by J. Rothschild, 120–124. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Quinones, L. M. 2020. “Sexual Harassment in Public Transport in Bogotá.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 139: 54–69. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2020.06.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramazanoğlu, C., and J. Holland. 2002. Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ramboll Smart Mobility. 2021. “Gender and (Smart) Mobility.” Green Paper. Accessed June 1, 2021. https://ramboll.com/-/media/files/rgr/documents/markets/transport/g/gender-and-mobility_report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rivadeneyra, A. T., A. L. Dodero, S. R. Mehndiratta, B. B. Alves, and E. Deakin. 2015. “Reducing Gender-Based Violence in Public Transportation: Strategy Design for Mexico City, Mexico.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2531 (1): 187–194. doi:10.3141/2531-22
   Google Scholar
• Rommes, E., E. van Oost, and N. Oudshoorn. 1999. “Gender and the Design of a Digital City.” Information Technology, Communication and Society 2 (4): 476–495. doi:10.1080/136911899359510
   Google Scholar
• Rommes, E., M. Bos, and J. O. Geerdink. 2011. “Design and Use of Gender Specific and Gender Stereotypical Toys.” International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 3 (1): 185–204.
   Google Scholar
• Shade, L. R. 2007. “Feminizing the Mobile: Gender Scripting of Mobiles in North America.” Continuum 21 (2): 179–189. doi:10.1080/10304310701269032
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. 2004. “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology.” In The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, edited by S. Harding, 21–34. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sparke, P. 1995. As Long as It’s Pink: Sexual Politics of Taste. London: Pandora.
   Google Scholar
• Sprague, J. 2005. Feminist Methodologies for Critical Researchers. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• van Oost, E. 2003. “Materialized Gender: How Shavers Configure the User’s Femininity and Masculinity.” In How Users Matter: The Construction of Users and Technology, edited by N. Oudshoorn and T. Pinch, 193–208. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. P. 2005. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design, translated by R. P., Crease. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wajcman, J. 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• XYX Lab. n.d. “Preventing Sexual Harassment in Australian Public Transport Spaces.” Accessed May 28, 2021. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1157118/XYX-Lab-Monash-University-Free-to-Be-Public-Transport-Report.pdf
   Google Scholar