In the vast realm of design, where creativity shapes the world around us, an insidious force has quietly persisted for far too long: male gender bias. It is a force that moulds our products, spaces, and experiences, often overshadowing the unique needs, perspectives, and contributions of women. Today, we embark on a journey to unveil the influence of this bias, to shed light on its consequences, and to ignite a fervent call for change. For in addressing this deep-rooted issue, we pave the way for a design world that thrives on inclusivity, diversity, and equality, one that celebrates the boundless creativity that flourishes when all voices are heard. Let's look into some fields that have historically been shaped by male gender bias and examine the effects it has had.

Ergonomics is a multidisciplinary field that focuses on designing and arranging products, systems, and environments to optimise human well-being and performance. It considers the capabilities and limitations of individuals and seeks to create interactions that are comfortable, safe, efficient, and productive. Ergonomics is based on several factors and principles, including:

Anthropometry, which is the measurement of human body dimensions and proportions. It plays a crucial role in ergonomics, ensuring that products and environments can accommodate a wide range of individuals. This entails the design of chairs, desks, and equipment with adjustable features, allowing for customization to suit different body sizes and shapes.

Within the realm of human physiology, ergonomics delves into the study of physical and physiological attributes of individuals, including factors such as strength, flexibility, and sensory capabilities. By understanding these aspects, ergonomics aims to create workspaces and tools that effectively accommodate these attributes, ultimately striving to minimize physical strain and enhance overall well-being.

Biomechanics involves studying the mechanics that govern living organisms, particularly the forces generated by muscles and the resulting movements. In the field of ergonomics, understanding these biomechanical principles is essential. They guide the design of tasks and equipment, aiming to minimize muscular effort, fatigue, and the risk of musculoskeletal disorders.

Ergonomics recognizes the mental and cognitive aspects of human performance, encompassing factors such as perception, attention, memory, decision-making, and workload. It also takes into account the influence of the physical environment on human performance, including elements such as lighting, noise, temperature, air quality, and ergonomics in office furniture. These factors can greatly impact comfort, concentration, and overall well-being. Designing interfaces, displays, and controls that are intuitive, organized, and easy to understand, as well as creating environments that are conducive to work and optimize these physical factors, can enhance cognitive performance, reduce errors, improve productivity, and increase satisfaction. Additionally, ergonomics considers the organization of work systems, including elements such as task design, work schedules, and teamwork, with the goal of creating workflows that promote productivity, minimize mental and physical fatigue, and support collaboration and communication. Ergonomics emphasises the prevention of accidents and injuries. It considers ergonomic hazards and risk factors associated with tasks, tools, and environments, and aims to mitigate them through appropriate design, training, and procedures.

Sounds good right? So, what’s the problem? The problem is that all of this collected data is based on men. The historical reliance on male data in ergonomics can be attributed, but is not limited, to several factors:

Occupational Distribution

Within the broad range of occupations, certain industries and professions, such as manufacturing, construction, and engineering, have historically been dominated by men. The field of ergonomics initially focused on these industries, leading to a disproportionate number of male participants in data collection.

Societal Norms and Gender Roles

Gender roles deeply ingrained in society have significantly influenced the representation of women in the workforce. Limited opportunities for women in physically demanding or high-risk occupations have contributed to their underrepresentation in ergonomics research.

Research Challenges

Conducting comprehensive research that includes a diverse range of individuals presents logistical and ethical challenges. Involving women in studies introduces additional considerations, such as potential pregnancy, hormonal variations, and other unique factors that require careful attention.

Sample Size Limitations

Building a representative sample size for ergonomic studies can be complex and resource-intensive. Limited resources and time constraints may have led to smaller sample sizes in studies, making it difficult to capture the full diversity of the population, including gender diversity.

Now that we are finally reaching more enlightened times, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of considering gender differences in ergonomics, and updated ergonomic guidelines and standards are being developed to better address the needs of both men and women. You’d think these considerations would have started soon after WWII at the latest, with women going into the workforce en masse after all the men had left, but nope, it took another 50+ years or so.

The importance of including women in ergonomics research and design cannot be overstated. Neglecting to do so can have significant health consequences for women across various occupational settings. The underrepresentation of women in ergonomics data is not an isolated phenomenon, but rather reflects a wider challenge encountered by numerous scientific and research disciplines. Here are some crucial points to elaborate on this:

Bias in Research & Safety

Many scientific fields have historically exhibited biases towards specific demographics, including gender bias. This bias leads to limited data and knowledge pertaining to underrepresented groups. It has been acknowledged that such biases can result in incomplete or inaccurate understandings of human characteristics, needs, and responses.

For our first example, let’s look at car safety features, such as seat belts and airbags. They have historically been designed using male crash test dummies and male anthropometric data. Consequently, safety systems may be less effective for women. Seat belts may be incorrectly positioned for female bodies, and airbags may deploy with excessive force for smaller-statured individuals, potentially causing harm.*

*A nice Fediverse user named LucyLastic, who is a specialist working on automotive safety testing, has informed me that this paragraph is mostly outdated information, and that “mortality and serious injury outcomes from road traffic accidents for people in cars made in the last 10 years, have nearly reached gender parity, the newer the vehicle the more equal (and in general better over all) it gets. That includes people of different body shapes and ages, too.” I encourage you to read her full insights here.

Next is personal protective equipment like safety harnesses, helmets, and protective clothing, which have been designed based on male body dimensions. This approach can result in ill-fitting PPE for women, compromising their safety and increasing the risk of injury. For instance, helmets designed for larger male heads may not offer sufficient protection or secure fit for women, leaving them vulnerable to head injuries.

Health and Medical Research

In fields such as medical research, there has been a historical overemphasis on male participants, both in clinical trials and basic research. This emphasis has created a knowledge gap in comprehending the unique physiological and hormonal aspects of female health.

Certain medical devices, such as implants or diagnostic tools, have predominantly been tested and designed with male patients in mind. This can lead to devices that do not fully consider the physiological characteristics of women, resulting in suboptimal treatment outcomes or increased risks during medical procedures.

Social Sciences and Psychology

Even in fields like social sciences and psychology, where gender and diversity are central themes, there has been a historical focus on male participants. This bias has implications for understanding gender differences in behaviour, cognition, and social dynamics.

Gender biases have also been observed in user interfaces for various technologies, including smartphones, software, and voice recognition systems. For instance, voice recognition systems may exhibit higher error rates when processing female voices due to their primary training on male voices. Such biases can limit usability and cause frustration for women when using these technologies.

Data Collection and Representation

In many research disciplines, data collection methods have traditionally relied on convenience samples, leading to homogeneity and limited diversity in participant populations. This homogeneity can result in biased findings and recommendations.

Numerous organizations, research institutions, and funding agencies are actively championing diversity and inclusivity in research. They are formulating guidelines and policies that encourage researchers to include diverse populations in their studies and address gender and other biases. This broader movement towards inclusivity aims to enhance the overall quality and relevance of research across various disciplines.

In conclusion, the underrepresentation of women in ergonomics research and design has far-reaching implications for the effectiveness and safety of ergonomic solutions. The historical reliance on male data in these fields reflects broader challenges faced by scientific disciplines, including biases and limited inclusivity. However, there is a growing recognition of the importance of considering gender differences in ergonomics, leading to the development of updated guidelines and standards. By including women in ergonomics research and design, we can address health risks, improve workplace safety, and create ergonomic solutions that truly meet the needs of all individuals. As we strive towards a more inclusive and equal design landscape, we pave the way for a future that celebrates diversity, fosters innovation, and uplifts the well-being and performance of everyone. It is through dismantling patriarchal norms, challenging boundaries, and embracing inclusivity that we can ignite a design uprising that ushers in a post-patriarchal era.

Sources and further reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Women:_Exposing_Data_Bias_in_a_World_Designed_for_Men Book: Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Perez

https://www.evoke.org/articles/july-2019/data-driven/deep_dives/the-dangers-of-gender-bias-in-design The dangers of gender bias in design

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/gender-equality-design-building-inclusive-productive-workplace/ ‘Gender Equality by Design’: Building a More Inclusive (and Productive) Workplace

https://medium.com/hh-design/the-world-is-designed-for-men-d06640654491 The World is Designed for Men - how bias is built into our daily lives

https://robertamoralesmtz.medium.com/a-man-made-world-884bf945fdc2 A Man-Made World -

https://genderbias.design/examples_of_gender_bias Examples of gender bias in products

Gender and Design Bias in the Architectural World

https://www.creativebloq.com/features/join-the-fight-for-gender-equality-in-design Design's gender problem, and what you can do about it

https://blogs.iu.edu/womenandtech/2021/02/06/biases-in-the-design-of-everyday-things/ Biases in the design of Everyday things

https://genderbias.design/index One Size Fits Some: Gender Bias in Design

https://archive.ph/iEj9M How Doctors Take Women’s Pain Less Seriously (original here)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480686/ Women And Hysteria In The History Of Mental Health

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800017/ Women’s involvement in clinical trials: historical perspective and future implications

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4372614/ Gender Bias in Diagnostic Criteria for Personality Disorders: An Item Response Theory Analysis

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/07/womens-immune-system-genes-operate-differently-from-mens.html Women’s immune system genes operate differently from men’s

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2731093/ A theoretical model for analysing gender bias in medicine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4723260/ The Separate Spheres Model of Gendered Inequality

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691619826015 Six Lessons for a Cogent Science of Implicit Bias and Its Criticism

https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/THEORIA/article/view/17751 Implicit Bias: From Social Structure To Representational Format