Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Designing for Community Care: Reimagining Support for Equity & Well-being in Academia

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a one-day co-design workshop, grounded in care ethics, to turn academia's informal, exclusionary peer-support networks into structured, inclusive systems of collective care.

desk verdict A thoughtful workshop proposal that makes no empirical claims; its untested transferability is a future-validation gap, not a flaw in the proposal itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01690 v1 pith:5G35Z2JI submitted 2025-07-02 cs.HC

Beatriz Severes , Ana O. Henriques , Rory Clark , Paulo Bala , Anna Carter , Rua Mae Williams , Geraldine Fitzpatrick This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords AcademicSupportSystemsCareEthicsCommunity-ledDesignResilienceWell-beinginAcademiaParticipatoryPeerEquity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a workshop proposal, not a study: it argues that academic well-being is carried by peer-support networks that are informal, unevenly distributed, and dependent on personal connections and social capital, and that this leaves many researchers, especially those from marginalized groups, without reliable support. It proposes a one-day participatory co-design workshop grounded in feminist care ethics to move academic support from these ad hoc arrangements toward structured, inclusive care-based systems. The paper's claim is that a facilitated process of reflection, value-setting, and prototyping can produce transferable guidelines, shared resources, and a committed peer network.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the workshop structure itself, organized around feminist care ethics as a guiding lens. Care ethics, in this paper, treats care as a relational and interdependent practice that is a shared responsibility rather than an individual burden. The workshop's four phases — pre-workshop engagement, mapping lived experience to core values, prototyping value-based interventions, and synthesizing adaptable guidelines — are designed to convert that ethical stance into concrete support structures. Design-centered techniques such as speculative prototyping and zine-making carry the translation from values to action.

What would settle it

Run the workshop as specified and track its stated outputs for one year. If participants report no change in their access to peer support, or if the post-workshop network is inactive within six months, the claim that this format produces sustainable, committed support structures would be falsified. A second, sharper test: recruit participants with no prior interest in care ethics; if the co-design process no longer yields actionable guidelines, the method depends on an already-aligned audience.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that academic well-being depends on peer-support networks, that these networks are currently informal, inequitable, and unsustainable, and that participatory design grounded in care ethics can repair them. On its own terms, the discovery is a design proposition: a one-day workshop in which participants move from lived experience to core values, then from values to prototypes, and finally from prototypes to guiding principles, will yield strategies for embedding care, equity, and sustainability into academic peer support. The paper frames this as a shift from deficit-focused, individual-responsibility models of well-being to interdependent, collective care. It does not report empirical results; it describes the rationale, structure, expected outcomes, and intended audience of the workshop.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that a single day of facilitated co-design with 10 to 20 self-selected participants, whose work already resonates with the themes, will produce guidelines that transfer to the wider academic community; the paper offers no evidence for that transferability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the workshop works as described, academic peer support can shift from informal, chance-based networks to formalized structures that do not depend on pre-existing social capital.
  • The co-developed guidelines would give institutions and departments a concrete resource for building equitable support systems, rather than leaving support to individual goodwill.
  • The post-workshop community platform and committed participant network would become a durable care-focused space for academics to continue refining support practices.
  • The synthesis of participant insights could inform institutional recommendations, extending the workshop's impact beyond its immediate attendees.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to run the workshop with a cohort recruited without prior affinity for the themes, to see whether the guidelines still take shape when participants are not self-selected for interest.
  • The co-design format could transfer to other workplaces with informal mentoring cultures, such as hospitals, law firms, or tech companies, where support also relies on social capital.
  • Longitudinal measurement of the peer network's activity after six or twelve months would show whether the committed-network outcome is durable or an artifact of the workshop day.
  • One could compare the guidelines produced by this care-ethics process against those from a standard brainstorming workshop to isolate what the ethical framing adds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a one-day workshop for DIS 2025 titled "Designing for Community Care: Reimagining Support for Equity & Well-being in Academia." The authors argue that academic peer-support networks are informal, inequitable, and unsustainable, and that care-ethics-based participatory design can help co-develop structured, inclusive support systems. The paper reviews relevant literature on early-career-researcher mental health, marginalization, emotional labor, and feminist care ethics, then describes the workshop's pre-workshop engagement, day-of schedule (welcome, keynote, introductions, lived-experience mapping, values-to-action prototyping, synthesis, reflection), post-workshop sharing, expected outputs (a report, a position paper, arXiv proceedings), intended audience, accessibility accommodations, and call for participation. The central contribution is a concrete workshop design grounded in prior HCI and care-ethics work, together with planned dissemination activities.

Significance. If the workshop achieves its stated goals, it would produce guidelines and an interdisciplinary network for care-based academic support, and the dissemination plans (SIGCHI Equity Committee report, position paper, arXiv proceedings) could give the outputs institutional visibility. The paper's strengths are its detailed, well-structured agenda, its grounding in an established care-ethics literature (Tronto, Held, Toombs et al.), and its explicit accessibility accommodations (synchronous/asynchronous participation, Miro board, accommodation form). However, the manuscript does not provide empirical evidence that the workshop activities will yield transferable or durable outcomes, and the expected outputs are listed without an evaluation plan. The proposal is therefore best read as an exploratory workshop design rather than a demonstrated intervention.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Expected Outcomes; Section 6, Intended Audience] The abstract and Section 5 claim the workshop will produce "actionable guidelines" and "a peer network invested and committed," but the paper provides no method for assessing whether these outcomes are achieved, whether the guidelines are adopted, or whether the network persists. The load-bearing claim of transferability is untested and, as written, untestable. Add a concrete evaluation plan (e.g., post-workshop surveys, follow-up interviews at three and six months, tracking of guideline use) or explicitly reframe the outputs as exploratory workshop artifacts rather than transferable solutions.
  2. [Section 6, Intended Audience] The recruitment criterion of "10-20 participants whose work or experiences resonate with the themes" risks a confirmation-biased sample and does not by itself support the paper's claim to "actively encourage diverse participation." The proposal should specify how the organizers will recruit across roles, disciplines, and marginalized groups, and should acknowledge in the text that self-selected resonant participants limit the generalizability of any co-designed guidelines.
  3. [Section 1, Introduction and Background] The sentence "Indeed, academic support is most effective when community networks move beyond deficit models to foster interdependence" (with citations [34,35,41]) and the claim that "HCI research has demonstrated the value of amplifying community voices to co-create equitable and effective peer-support systems" (citations [1,18,33]) are empirical effectiveness claims that the cited qualitative studies do not directly establish in academic contexts. Since this is the rationale for the workshop, either add supporting empirical evidence or soften the claims to "can contribute to" rather than "is most effective" and "has demonstrated."
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Expected Outcomes; Section 1, Introduction and Background] "An resource kit" should be "a resource kit" in both places where it appears.
  2. [Section 1, Introduction and Background] Citation formatting has stray spaces before brackets in several places (e.g., "researchers [ 28, 39]" and "credible contributors [43]"), which should be normalized to ACM style.
  3. [Section 4.3, Post-Workshop] "Where we gathered for Pre-Workshop activities" should be revised to "where participants engaged in pre-workshop activities" or similar.
  4. [Section 6, Intended Audience] The sentence beginning "We actively encourage diverse participation" is a statement of intent but no mechanism is described beyond the call; consider specifying concrete outreach channels or partnerships.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from a short "Limitations" paragraph acknowledging that the workshop's outcomes are not evaluated and that the guidelines are provisional.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular step: the workshop proposal's central claims are either externally sourced empirical framing or explicitly unvalidated intended deliverables; the authors' self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

Reviewing the derivation chain: this paper is a workshop proposal, not an empirical derivation. Its two central claims are that peer-support networks are informal, inequitable, and unsustainable, and that a care-ethics-based co-design workshop can produce actionable guidelines and a committed peer network. The first claim is supported by independent external literature (e.g., Evans et al. [11], Kozlowski et al. [20], Mcgee et al. [21], Miner et al. [23], Nicholls et al. [26]) and is not derived from the authors' own prior work. The second claim is explicitly stated as an intended output, not a validated prediction: 'At the end of the workshop, participants will co-develop design strategies for integrating care and resilience in academic ecosystems, resources for designing equitable support systems, and a peer network invested and committed to fostering a supportive academic community.' Section 5 lists planned deliverables — a report, a position paper, and arXiv proceedings — without claiming that their effectiveness has been demonstrated. No equation, fitted parameter, or uniqueness theorem is used, so there is no reduction-by-construction. The authors do cite their own prior work on care ethics and community-building ([2, 8, 12, 16, 27, 32, 33, 41, 43]) to motivate the framing, but the care-ethics framework is also anchored in independent external sources (Held [15]; Tronto [36, 37]; Toombs et al. [34, 35]), so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The concern that 10–20 self-selected participants may not yield generalizable guidelines is an evaluation/validity limitation, not a circularity: the workshop's success condition — participants co-develop strategies and establish a peer network — is a concrete deliverable that could fail, and the paper does not define success as the framework's truth. The appropriate verdict is unverified rather than circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. All substantive premises are imported from cited work or assumed by the workshop design; the only ad hoc assumption is that the proposed one-day format produces transferable outputs.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Academic support networks are informal, inequitable, and unsustainable.
    Stated in the introduction as a premise, supported only by citations (e.g., refs 9, 20, 23); no new data.
  • domain assumption Institutional well-being responses neglect faculty and staff.
    Asserted in the abstract and introduction with reference [6]; treated as background.
  • domain assumption Feminist care ethics is an appropriate lens for redesigning academic support.
    Imported from external sources (Held, Tronto) and the authors' own prior work; not argued for within this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper A one-day co-design workshop with 10-20 self-selected participants yields transferable guidelines.
    The workshop structure assumes this without any evaluation plan; it is specific to this proposal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing for Community Care: Reimagining Support for Equity & Well-being in Academia." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5G35Z2JI

@misc{pith2026250701690,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing for Community Care: Reimagining Support for Equity & Well-being in Academia},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5G35Z2JI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01690}
}
read the original abstract

Academic well-being is deeply influenced by peer-support networks, yet they remain informal, inequitable, and unsustainable, often relying on personal connections and social capital rather than structured, inclusive systems. Additionally, institutional well-being responses frequently focus on student populations, neglecting the emotional labour of faculty and staff, reinforcing an exclusionary academic culture. Drawing on HCI methodologies, participatory design, and care ethics, this workshop will provide a space for rethinking how academic communities can support inclusive networks. Through pre-workshop engagement, co-design activities, and reflection, participants will examine systemic gaps in networks and explore ways to embed care, equity, and sustainability into academic peer-support frameworks -- from informal, exclusionary models to structured, inclusive care-based ecosystems. At the end of the workshop, participants will co-develop design strategies for integrating care and resilience in academic ecosystems, resources for designing equitable support systems, and a peer network invested and committed to fostering a supportive academic community.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Elena Agapie, Shefali Haldar, and Sharmaine G Poblete. 2022. Using HCI in cross-disciplinary teams: A case study of academic collaboration in HCI-health teams in the US using a Team Science perspective. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 6, Cscw2 (Nov. 2022), 1–35

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Alice Ashcroft, Beatriz Severes, and Melissa Martinez-Perez. 2025. Suggested Prompts for Reflexivity: Navigating Intersectionality in HCI and CSCW Research. Interacting with Computers (Feb. 2025). https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwaf007

    work page doi:10.1093/iwc/iwaf007 2025

  3. [3]

    Pernille Bjørn, Maria Menendez-Blanco, and Valeria Borsotti. 2022. Organiza- tional Change for Equity & Inclusion . Springer International Publishing, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13314-5_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13314-5_8 2022

  4. [4]

    Megan A Brown, Josephine Lukito, Meredith L Pruden, and Martin J Riedl. 2024. Making academia suck less: Supporting early career researchers studying harmful content online through a feminist ethics of care. New Media Soc. (Dec. 2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Lynette Browning, Kirrilly Thompson, and Drew Dawson. 2017. From early career researcher to research leader: survival of the fittest? J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 39, 4 (July 2017), 361–377

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Ryan Melissia Butler. 2022. Serious mental illness in healthcare and academia: A lived experience. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs. 29, 5 (Oct. 2022), 624–629

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Microaggressions

    Michelle Madsen Camacho and Susan M. Lord. 2011. "Microaggressions" in engineering education: Climate for Asian, Latina and White women. In 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) . Ieee, S3h–1–s3h–6. https://doi.org/10. 1109/fie.2011.6142970

    work page arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Henriques, Hugo Nicolau, Kyle Montague, Reem Talhouk, Tiffany Knearem, Ceylan Besevli, Firaz Peer, Clara Crivellaro, and Sarah Ruller

    Anna Rose Lucy Carter, Ana O. Henriques, Hugo Nicolau, Kyle Montague, Reem Talhouk, Tiffany Knearem, Ceylan Besevli, Firaz Peer, Clara Crivellaro, and Sarah Ruller. 2024. Envisioning Collaborative Futures: Advancing the Frontiers of Embedded Research. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2024: Exploratory Papers and Workshops - Volume 2 (...

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Bettina J Casad, Jillian E Franks, Christina E Garasky, Melinda M Kittleman, Alanna C Roesler, Deidre Y Hall, and Zachary W Petzel. 2021. Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. J. Neurosci. Res. 99, 1 (Jan. 2021), 13–23

    2021

  2. [10]

    Susan T Charles, Melissa M Karnaze, and Frances M Leslie. 2022. Positive factors related to graduate student mental health. J Am. Coll. Health 70, 6 (Aug. 2022), 1858–1866

    2022

  3. [11]

    Teresa M Evans, Lindsay Bira, Jazmin Beltran Gastelum, L Todd Weiss, and Nathan L Vanderford. 2018. Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 3 (March 2018), 282–284

    2018

  4. [12]

    Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2016. Changing Academic Life Podcast. https:// changingacademiclife.com Continuing series; currently active

    2016

  5. [13]

    Race Doesn’t Matter, but

    Roxanna Harlow. 2003. “Race Doesn’t Matter, but... ”: The Effect of Race on Professors’ Experiences and Emotion Management in the Undergraduate College Classroom. Social Psychology Quarterly 66, 4 (Dec. 2003), 348. https://doi.org/10. 2307/1519834

    2003

  6. [14]

    Harrington, Aashaka Desai, Aaleyah Lewis, Sanika Moharana, Anne Spencer Ross, and Jennifer Mankoff

    Christina N. Harrington, Aashaka Desai, Aaleyah Lewis, Sanika Moharana, Anne Spencer Ross, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2023. Working at the Intersection of Race, Disability and Accessibility. In The 25th International ACM SIGAC- CESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Assets...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Virginia Held. 2005. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global . Oxford University PressNew York. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195180992.001.0001

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    Henriques, Hugo Nicolau, Anna R.L

    Ana O. Henriques, Hugo Nicolau, Anna R.L. Carter, Kyle Montague, Reem Talhouk, Angelika Strohmayer, Sarah Rüller, Cayley Macarthur, Shaowen Bardzell, Colin M. Gray, and Eleonore Fournier-Tombs. 2024. Fostering Feminist Community-Led Ethics: Building Tools and Connections. DIS ...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Amelia Hollywood, Daniel McCarthy, Carol Spencely, and Naomi Winstone. 2020. ‘Overwhelmed at first’: the experience of career development in early career academics. J. Furth. High. Educ. 44, 7 (Aug. 2020), 998–1012

    2020

  10. [18]

    Jane Im and Kentaro Toyama. 2024. Understanding how to design a social computing system that helps PhD students collectively navigate mistreatment or abuse in advising relationships. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu HI...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Patricia C Jackman, Lisa Jacobs, Rebecca M Hawkins, and Kelly Sisson. 2022. Mental health and psychological wellbeing in the early stages of doctoral study: a systematic review. Eur. J. High. Educ. 12, 3 (July 2022), 293–313

    2022

  12. [20]

    Diego Kozlowski, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy R Sugimoto, and Thema Monroe- White. 2022. Intersectional inequalities in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 119, 2 (Jan. 2022), e2113067119

    2022

  13. [21]

    I Know I Have to Work Twice as Hard and Hope That Makes Me Good Enough

    Ebony O Mcgee, Derek M Griffith, and Stacey L Houston. 2019. "I Know I Have to Work Twice as Hard and Hope That Makes Me Good Enough": Exploring the Stress and Strain of Black Doctoral Students in Engineering and Computing. , 38 pages

    2019

  14. [22]

    Kasey Meeks, Amy Sutton Peak, and Adam Dreihaus. 2023. Depression, anxiety, and stress among students, faculty, and staff. J Am. Coll. Health 71, 2 (Feb. 2023), 348–354

    2023

  15. [23]

    Miner, Samantha C

    Kathi N. Miner, Samantha C. January, Kelly K. Dray, and Adrienne R. Carter- Sowell. 2019. Is it always this cold? Chilly interpersonal climates as a barrier to the well-being of early-career women faculty in STEM. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 38 (2 2019), 226–245. Issue 2...

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    R A Moss, P Gorczynski, W Sims-Schouten, K Heard-Laureote, and J Creaton

  17. [25]

    Elizabeth L Murnane, Tara G Walker, Beck Tench, Stephen Voida, and Jaime Snyder. 2018. Personal informatics in interpersonal contexts. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 2, Cscw (Nov. 2018), 1–27

    2018

  18. [26]

    Helen Nicholls, Matthew Nicholls, Sahra Tekin, Danielle Lamb, and Jo Billings

  19. [27]

    Ana O Henriques, Anna R. L. Carter, Beatriz Severes, Reem Talhouk, Angelika Strohmayer, Ana Cristina Pires, Colin M. Gray, Kyle Montague, and Hugo Nicolau

  20. [28]

    PLoS One 17, 5 (May 2022), e0268890

    The impact of working in academia on researchers’ mental health and well-being: A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. PLoS One 17, 5 (May 2022), e0268890

    2022

  21. [29]

    Margaret Price, Mark S Salzer, Amber O’Shea, and Stephanie L Kerschbaum. 2017. Disclosure of mental disability by college and university faculty: The negotiation of accommodations, supports, and barriers. Disabil. Stud. Q. 37, 2 (June 2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Kirsi Pyhältö, Lynn McAlpine, Jouni Peltonen, and Montserrat Castello. 2017. How does social support contribute to engaging post-PhD experience? Eur. J. High. Educ. 7, 4 (Oct. 2017), 373–387

    2017

  23. [31]

    O’Brien, Samuel T

    Katharine R. O’Brien, Samuel T. McAbee, Michelle R. Hebl, and John R. Rodgers

  24. [32]

    Beatriz Severes, Mary Barreto, and Augusto Esteves. 2024. Designing for mental health in higher education: a collaborative approach to digital interventions. Behaviour & Information Technology (Dec. 2024), 1–19. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0144929x.2024.2436503

    2024

  25. [33]

    Franziska Tachtler, Reem Talhouk, Toni Michel, Petr Slovak, and Geraldine Fitz- patrick. 2021. Unaccompanied Migrant Youth and Mental Health Technologies: A Social-Ecological Approach to Understanding and Designing. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Austin Toombs, Shad Gross, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2017. From empathy to care: A feminist care ethics perspective on long-term researcher- participant relations. , 45–57 pages. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iww010

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    S Rönkkönen, L Tikkanen, V Virtanen, and K Pyhältö. 2023. The impact of super- visor and research community support on PhD candidates’ research engagement. Eur. J. High. Educ. 14, 4 (July 2023), 536–553

    2023

  28. [36]

    Joan C. Tronto. 1990. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003070672

    1990 doi

  29. [37]

    Joan C. Tronto. 2013. Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality, and Justice . NYU Press

    2013

  30. [38]

    Alicia Nicki Washington. 2020. When Twice as Good Isn’t Enough: The Case for Cultural Competence in Computing. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Sigcse ’20) . Acm, 213–219. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366792

    2020

  31. [39]

    Toombs, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell

    Austin L. Toombs, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2015. The Proper Care and Feeding of Hackerspaces: Care Ethics and Cultures of Making. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Chi ’15). Acm, 629–638. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2015

  32. [40]

    Wilkins-Yel, Amber Simpson, and Patricia D

    Kerrie G. Wilkins-Yel, Amber Simpson, and Patricia D. Sparks. 2019. Persisting Despite The Odds: Resilience And Coping Among Women In Engineering.Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 25, 4 (2019), 353–368. https: //doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2019026945

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Rua Mae Williams and Chorong Park. 2023. Cyborg Assemblages: How autistic adults construct sociotechnical networks to support cognitive function. In Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings . Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Chris Woolston. 2020. Postdocs under pressure: ’Can I even do this any more?’. Nature 587, 7835 (Nov. 2020), 689–692

    2020

  35. [43]

    Wilkins-Yel, Jacqueline Hyman, and Nelson O.O

    Kerrie G. Wilkins-Yel, Jacqueline Hyman, and Nelson O.O. Zounlome. 2019. Link- ing intersectional invisibility and hypervisibility to experiences of microaggres- sions among graduate women of color in STEM. Journal of Vocational Behavior 113 (8 2019), 51–61. Issue 4. https://d...

    2019 doi

  36. [47]

    I am just terrified of my future

    Anon Ymous, Katta Spiel, Os Keyes, Rua M. Williams, Judith Good, Eva Hornecker, and Cynthia L. Bennett. 2020. “I am just terrified of my future” – Epistemic Violence in Disability Related Technology Research. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in...

    2020

  37. [2016]

    Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016)

    The impact of interpersonal discrimination and stress on health and performance for early career STEM academicians. Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016). Issue Apr. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00615

    2016

  38. [2022]

    Mental health and wellbeing of postgraduate researchers: exploring the re- lationship between mental health literacy, help-seeking behaviour, psychological distress, and wellbeing. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 41, 4 (June 2022), 1168–1183

    2022

  39. [2025]

    In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25)

    A Feminist Care Ethics Toolkit for Community-Based Design: Bridging Theory and Practice. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25) . ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713950

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.