Pink, S (2022) The gender of smart charging. Buildings & Cities, 3(1), pp. 488-502. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
With the growing focus on the home as a site for life, work, and energy generation and demand, home batteries of many kinds are increasingly ubiquitous. Batteries play a dual role of everyday emerging technologies (which can be used for something) and infrastructure (which enables other things). This article considers how batteries become technologies and infrastructures both for the accomplishment of practical everyday life activities and routines in the present, and imagining future everyday life. A design anthropological and ethnographic analysis of 72 Australian households with a focus on four demographically diverse women is used to investigate the gendered discourses concerning the future of battery charging; new and emerging everyday gendered techniques and routines of battery charging and their entanglements with women’s priorities for socialities of care and wellbeing. The implications of these findings are considered through the lens of recent feminist approaches to technology and technology design, together with future charging scenarios.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | batteries; design anthropology; energy; everyday life; futures; gender; homes; smart charging |
| Index terms: | women, everyday life, well-being, household, emerging technology, routine |
| Subjects: | demography, sociology, innovation and technology management, mental health and wellbeing |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Urban Studies, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 C |
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