Aagaard, L K and Madsen, L V (2022) Technological fascination and reluctance: Gendered practices in the smart home. Buildings & Cities, 3(1), pp. 677-691. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Smart home technology (SHT) is becoming more widespread, implemented to enhance convenience as well as energy flexibility and efficiency. Smart heating, lighting, security and entertainment systems are affecting social practices and the use of energy in different ways. This paper explores differences in competences, meanings and forms of knowledge involved in the performance of (gendered) household practices based on two Danish qualitative studies of different user groups: SHT frontrunner households (n = 15) and less tech-interested households (n = 12). The former had incorporated a broad range of smart technologies, e.g. vacuum cleaners, lighting and entertainment systems, while the latter were primarily engaged with smart heating systems. In the frontrunner households, internal differences in competences and meanings between men and women were more apparent than in households with less tech interest. A clear division between traditional and digital housekeeping is apparent that reinforces gender inequality. Evidence shows the variation in how SHT is part of gendered everyday practices; how SHT changes meanings and competences in practices and induces new ways of performing practices that can involve gendered digital inequality. Thus, it is necessary to consider competences and meanings in everyday practices as well as gendered ideas behind the technology.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | digital housekeeping; energy; gender; homes; smart home; social practices; tech competences |
| Index terms: | variation, meaning, household, evidence, inequality, becoming, qualitative study, efficiency, smart home, user group, social practice, women, heating system, competence |
| Subjects: | philosophical process, sociology, personnel development, performance management, evaluation and assessment methods, demography, design practice, energy systems, social theory, client relations, contractual condition, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Research Practice, Design Practice, Sustainability, Quality Management, Ethics, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here