'Hedging' and gender in participatory design

Abstract

There has been much dispute over the role 'hedging' - equivocation in expressing opinions - plays in group conversation as well as the impact of gender on a range of processes including Participatory Design; (Holmes, 1986, Dixon and Foster, 1997, Stokoe and Smithson, 2001, Stokoe andWeatheral, 2002, Brulé, E. and Spiel, K. (2019), ). This paper addresses these issues by analysing gender differences and hedging in an Innovation Participatory Design workshop focused around the creation and combination of ideas for app development. Discussions were transcribed and analysed; 'hedging' terms seemed an interesting theme for analysis, but no statistical significance was found to prove that 'hedging' was gender-biased. This initial, exploratory, short paper reflects on this finding; on the contrast with research that has found gender differences (Holmes, 1986); on the importance of supplementing statistical with contextual forms of analysis; and what effect or implications this may have on the process of Participatory Design, by acknowledging the importance of giving voice and parity, and trying to facilitate group dynamics that properly reflect the views of all participants.