he I957 movie, Desk Set, treated issues of gcn- der and coinputcr ... It is sal'c lo say that since. 1957, our ... plex, and more accurate, frameworks than thc Desk.
Gender and Computer Technologies
by women [6].We know that “token women” in maledominated profcssions are viewed with suspicion not only by other women but also by the men with whom they compete for jobs [71-[9]. More generally, we now recognize that the cultural associations of tcchnologihe I957 movie, Desk Set, treated issues of gcn- cal compclcncc with masculinity, and technological der and coinputcr cngincering as a humorous hicompetcncc with femininity, arc social and not bionovelly. The film portraycd thc conllict logical coiistructioiis [4], [IO], [ I 11. We havc good between an cngineer (Spencer l‘racy) and an oll‘icc evidence that such cultural associations play an managcr (Katherine Hepburn) over the inlroduction of important role in discouraging women from taking thc the “Emcrac,” a stalc-or-the-art computer designcd to carly malhcmatics courses necessary Cor pursuing replace an all-fcinalc staf1 of librarians in the refer- undcrgraduatc and graduate degrces in computer science deparlmcnt at the mythical Federal Broadcasting cncc and engineering 1121. There are numerous attempts afoot in higher cducaCompany. The high-jinx that transpire cciitcr oii thc suspicions of the reference staff that they arc about to tioii lo documenl and disrupt the role that educational he replaced. At onc point in lhc movie, the librarians institutions play in maintaining women’s unequal and are introduced to a woman engineer researching tlic uneven access lo technological expertise and training computcr’s cfliciency and effectiveness. Rut madain 1131. Yet, educators’ attempts in recent years to recruit and retain women in undcrcneineer. like the Emerac, graduate computer science and proms too inflexibly ratioiial to engineering majors havc rcsullwork successfully in this alled in only small, if steady, gains female environment. By the in thc pcrcentage of students movie’s end, both shc and ihc who are women. The most computer rail miserably, while recent figures indicate that in the ladies on thc rcfcrcnce staff the U.S., for instance, 13.5% of meiiily resume thcir convcnundergraduate degrees in comtional, sex-segregated jobs.’ puter science were awarded to It is sal‘c lo say that since women in 1975. Twenty years 1957, our understandings of the Alison Adam Mary Wyer Iatcr, that fiatire relationshiv between render - had increased and computcr engineering have developed more com- to 2O%6 an average of less than one percent a year plex, and more accurate, frameworks than thc Desk 1141. The Uniled Kingdom version of these events has Set portrayal, informcd now by Ceminist critiques of followed dift’ercnt, and somcwhat paradoxical trends. technology. (Scc, e.g., Ll]-L5l.) We know now, for From a high point o l about 25% in the late 197Os, instance, that computer technologies havc led to a women’s participation has dropped to a current figurc deskilling and loss of jobs in occupations dominated of around IO% in single honors computer science courses [IS]. Yet women arc better rcpresented in Mary Wyer i s with the Wumen’.y und Gender Sti6clie.r jointcd honors and in courses with titles such as “inforProgruin,, P O . Box 7107, North Cumlinu State Uni- mation systems.” Whaiever onc wants to make of the vemity, Ruleigh, NC 27278: ernuil: tnbwyer@ complcxities of these scenarios, the number of women urzity.nc,su.erlu. Alison Adam is with the Depurfment remains low, despite recruitment efforts. If wc are to of Computation, UMISI: Manclzestei: U.K: ernail: he both proactive and effective in ensuring the full participation of women in computer science and cngiA.Adum @ CO. umist. uc.uk. neering prokssions, thc time has comc to take a second look at our assumptions about the cducatioiial proccsscs that arc implicated in women’s under-repre-
T
L
I
4
IEEE Technology end Society Magazine, Winter 199912000
sentation in computer science and enginecring majors. Scholarship focusing on gender incquality in higher education offers two general cxplanations for thc disproportionately low numbers of women in computcr science and enginecring - that structural barriers limit many students’ opportunities to learn, and that cognitive differences among students lead to pcrforinance differences in the classroom. Accordingly, two general kinds of intervention models have emcrged -the deficit model and thc difference modcl 1161. Many institutions havc created special programs, centers, or offices that ofkr academic support, services, and programming lo targeted groups, most often women and/or minorities, based on the assumptions uf the d c k i t model. The primary emphases of such efforts is recruitment and relention [17]. Recruitment and retention programs attempt to address the structural barriers that discourage individuals, assuming that students lack somc key lactor that they need in order to succeed in their majors. The new prograins give individuals from under-representcd groups an avcnue into computer sciencc and engineering hy providing them with tutoring, role modcls, fellowships, and other career “boosts” to improve their career outcoincs. Though thcre has been no national study to cstablish a direct causal link between the recruilmcnt and retention efforts and the increased presence of women and people of color in computer-rclaled careers, individual programs a1 some univcrsitics have descrihcd the succcss of their efforts in professioual p~ihlicatious and popular press articles [ 18]-120]. As the difference model is used in educational interventions, il is not based on ideas about biological diffcrences but rather cmphasizes the rolc of life experiences in tlic development of learning stylcs and carccr aspirations. According to this model, some white mcn but only a few women and peoplc of color have the kinds ol life experiences that give them learning styles and carcer commitments consistent with prevailing educational and professional practices. The focus on these difkrcnccs is meant to offcr an explanation for why talcnled students, and not just those who lack basic skills, avoid computer scicnce and engineering courses and majors. Experimental courses informed hy this model use relalional, multicausal, and interactive approaches that arc said to appeal to a broader range of students than do conventional practices. Though both models have informcd equity projects in science and mathematics education, thc difkrence model has produced parlicularly innovalivc curriculum initiatives. For inslance, Cind;i-Suc Davis iind
Sue Rosser havc advocated the introduction ol componcnts of women’s sludics into the pre-college and college sciencc, cngineering, and mathematics curriculum as a way of involving and retaining a more diverse group o l students in these fields 1211. Some faculty have developcd “fcinale-lriendly courscs” that rcsl on notions of gender difkrences in learning styles. A few projects (most notably Thc University of Wisconsin System project and The University of South Carolina Project) have sought to introduce both pedagogical and content changes in science, enginecring, and malheinatics courses. Facully influenced by these projects havc dcveloped experimental courscs, such a s “Cullurally Inclusive Chemislry” or “Earth Systems: A Feminist Approach” [22],1231. Yet, neilhcr the deficit nor the diffcrcuce model adcquatcly captures the cxtcnl to which gender divisiondpreconceptionslprescriptions inform and constrain students’ academic and career directions. Indeed, Ceminisl scholars in every discipline in acadcinc have documenlcd [he influence of Wcslcrn colistructions or masculinity and femininity on nearly cvery aspect of our livcs. Though there are clcarly woincn sludents who are ill-prcpared for coursework in engineering and coinputer science, and though cnginccring and computer science courses may usc pedagugical approaches that draw lrom the experiences of incn ralhcr than women, we suggest thal neither ”fixing the women” nor “fixing the curriculum” alone is a sulficient perspective for rcdrcssing gender incquality i n highcr education. In particular, laken together or separately, ncither recognizes thc dcgrce to which coinputer technologies thcmsclves may provide an opening for promoting geuder equily. In a vcry rcal sense, we may havc bcen overlooking tlic lorest for the trees. l h c articles included in this special issue wcrc sclectcd to introduce readers to a multi-level apprmich Lo understanding how computer technologics ligurc
r
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. Winter 1999l2000
5
and potentially refigure gcnder constructs in Western culture. We have included a feature &cle for each of the three levels critical to shaping the gender-technology relation -the individnd, structural, and symholic levels [24:1. The first article, an cxcerpt Srom Sherry Turkle's Zife on the Screen, describes Turkle's cncounters with students using internet chat rooms to explore their understandings of masculinity and Cemininity. As individuals, these students are actively both learning and challenging thc derining constraints of gcnder constructs. Men present themselves as womcn, and vice versa: in the process learning preciscly what "counts" as gender appropriate bchavior. Our second article features research underway in Carnegie Mellon's School of Computer Scicnce. The authors report on their study of students' orientations to computing, their attitudes toward computer-based activities and their relationship to the computer itself. They documcnt, through students' accounts, a correlation between gender and two distinct orientations toward computing. Then they go on to make recoinmendations about how to redesign computer scicncc courses in order to utilize these dikerent orientations to the fullcst in the cducational process. Onr third article, by Flis Hcnwood, takes up the issue of the gender-computer techiiology relation at thc symbolic level by examining how women in coinpnter science cousses are undcrstood by thcmselves and othcrs. Bascd on over a decade of work in higher education in thc United Kingdom, Henwood argues that efforts to create "woman friendly" courscs in computer science must promote students' awareness of (and resistance to) prevailing gender norms. Becausc our undcsstandings oC technology presume men's competence and women's incompetence, women students facc rcsistance to their presence whether they are in conventional or specially dcsigncd courscs. This resistance is manifested in different ways hut it is nonethclcss present. Women in male-
ing women, this article offers suggestions toward improving the situation. Katy Campbell acknowledges and describes the ways in which institutional design practiccs in technology-based learning have traditionally rcflcctcd masculine values. Yet these
technologies can reach new types of learners if design practices are changed. Campbcll outlincs some of thc ways in which the design of learning technologies can bc madc consciously inclusivc towards women. We have also included a hook review by Leslie Shade. The collection she reviews, From Uarbic to Mortal Komhat, by Justine Casscll and Henry Jenkins, emerged from a symposium sponsored by the M.I.T. Program in Women's Studics organiacd to spark initiatives that address girls' interests in computing. The hook is an especially timely and interesting exploration oE the problems and possibilities associated with designing computer games specifically with gender distinctions in mind. It has beeii less than thirty years since the emesgcncc of woincn's studies in higher education and yet it already has sparked new theory, methods, and research directions in ncarly cvcry disciplinc in thc humanities and social sciences. Computer scicncc and engineering educators are j u t beginning to realize the signilicance ol' this development but will have the hcneCit ol' other disciplines' histosics oC incorporating women. Already the debate has moved from focusing on women's technophohia (whese women are the problem) toward more sophisticated interpretations oC the ways in which technologics shape and arc shapcd by gender distinctions within social, economic, and historical contexts. Indeed, technologies can be so associated with a gender that they are said to he "gendered" themselves. We are heartened to sce that thc "mainstream" is taking an interest in these issues. As we go to prcss, this ycar's IEEE-SSIT Intcrnational Symposium on Tcchnology and Society (ISTAS) brings together researchess from all over the world on the topic or gcndcr and technology.' We take it as a very good sign, too, that we have been able to offer this special issue to readers.
- -
(Continued on page 45) 'A r i m i d C~YLLC curmrining p q m f m m (,sT,Is '99 will he published in IhEE Tcchnology and Society Mngnaine hi .Sprinz 2000.
IEEE Teshnoloyy and Society Magazine. Winter 1999l2000
