Beyond “painting in pink”: A critical case study of all-girls generative AI workshops in a European makerspace

Synthesis: This critical case study examines an all-girls initiative run by a European urban makerspace that integrated two generative AI (GenAI) tools — Playground (a free image generator) and Deforum (a free animation platform) — into workshops about climate change. The initiative was part of a two-year, research-practice partnership across six makerspaces in five countries foregrounding equity and social justice in STEM. The authors analyze qualitative, Multimodal AI data including 15 interviews with girls, parents, and practitioners, four reflective sessions, two observation fieldnotes, and 44 GenAI-generated images, interpreted through Harding's (1986) multi-level framework (symbolic, structural, individual) extended by a social level (Sultan et al., 2024) and feminist pedagogy.

While stakeholders generally viewed the all-girls format positively as a safer, more relaxed space, the study argues that the workshops fell short of gender-transformative practice. Practitioners enacted three steps — representation (symbolic), relationship building (social), and a responsive approach (individual) — but persistent challenges revealed the marginalization of girls' voices, agency, and assets. The paper distinguishes superficial girlification ("painting in pink") from genuinely centering girls, and proposes a girl-centered, multi-level pedagogical framework to move equity interventions beyond symbolic-level changes.

Key Findings

• The all-girls format was valued as a "safe" and "relaxed" space. Girls reported they talked more, felt braver to express ideas, and preferred all-girls over mixed-gender groups; parents noted girls often "got scared" and spoke less in mixed settings, echoing a chilly climate of gendered interpersonal behavior.
• Practitioners enacted three key steps: (1) representation at the symbolic level (female-centered promotional language and imagery, women role models to challenge stereotypes); (2) relationship building at the social level (ice-breakers like a Jenga Tower game, casual break-time conversation, valuing girls' funds of knowledge, an equal facilitator–girl relationship); and (3) a responsive approach at the individual level (adapting prompt-writing support for younger girls who lacked English confidence, letting girls choose digital drawing).
• Four interlinked challenges emerged in practice: an inappropriate workshop topic (climate change — chosen by a facilitator based on personal experience, with only two of 44 images reflecting it), limited peer collaboration (girls worked mostly individually on laptops, despite collaborative intent), inaccessibility of GenAI tools (Playground lost free functions and became "pro," a cost barrier for an under-resourced nonprofit), and language barriers in prompt-writing (the tools accepted English prompts only, a design-embedded structural barrier for non-native English speakers).
• Underlying issues were the marginalization of girls' voices, agency, and assets. Workshop topics, tools, and pedagogy were largely decided by practitioners from deficit-based assumptions, without girls' participation in decision-making; girls' strengths were less recognized, and power relations among girls, practitioners, and technology persisted.
• Tool experience differed by pedagogy, not just technology. Girls felt their ideas were inadequately reflected by Playground-generated images and preferred animating their own drawings with Deforum, which leveraged rather than replaced their original creations — underscoring that GenAI should amplify, not overshadow, girls' creative expression.
• Girlification is insufficient for structural change. Superficial adjustments (girl-only grouping, women facilitators, feminine marketing) operate mainly at the symbolic level; without changes across symbolic, structural, social, and individual levels, girls' marginalization persists.

Implications for Practice

• Move beyond "painting in pink" / girlification toward centering girls: foreground girls' voices, needs, agency, and assets across planning, implementation, and evaluation, and interrogate power relations with questions such as "For whom/whose practice?" and "Based on whose values?" (Vossoughi, 2017).
• Adopt co-production: involve girls as decision-makers and change agents in choosing whether, what, and how GenAI is used, rather than positioning them as passive recipients of predetermined content.
• Reject deficit-based assumptions: avoid presuming girls lack interest, confidence, or relevant knowledge; critically reflect on and challenge the masculinist norms and structures that shape computing.
• Evaluate GenAI tools through an equity lens before use: examine safety, Accessibility, affordability, language barriers, and biases embedded in training data and algorithms; integrate GenAI intentionally as a lever to amplify girls' voices rather than a superficial "add-on."
• Design intentional peer collaboration and scaffolded prompt-writing, recognizing computing as a social and creative practice, and address English-language dominance in tool design.
• Build collaborative partnerships among AI technology developers, practitioners, and researchers to bridge the gap between tool design and equitable educational use, supported by knowledge exchange and reflective dialogue.

Connected Concepts

• Equity
• Generative AI
• K-12
• AI Literacy
• Learner Agency
• Learner Identity
• Critical Pedagogy
• STEM Education
• Digital Divide
• Bias Mitigation
• Parents and Families

Connected Articles

• Informal Learning Emerges in Everyday Human-LLM Interaction — explores informal, out-of-school AI interaction, the same setting type (informal learning) that this study argues remains under-researched for equity-oriented GenAI.
• Generative AI Literacy Training Improves Intelligence Analysts’ Discrimination of Real and AI-Generated Images — addresses learners' critical evaluation of GenAI-generated images, parallel to the workshops' activity of judging whether images were AI-produced.
• Scaffolding critical thinking with generative AI: Design principles for integrating large language models in higher — concerns scaffolding of GenAI use in learning, echoing this study's call for responsive, girl-centered prompt-writing and pedagogical scaffolding.

Citation

Beyond "painting in pink": A critical case study of all-girls generative AI workshops in a European makerspace and implications for gender equity in computing — Liu, Q., Archer, L., Nag Chowdhuri, M., Freedman, E., & DeWitt, J. (2026). Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 10, 100602.