women's participation in the culture of computing - Wiley Online Library

New Technology, Work and Employment 18:2 ISSN 0268-1072

Can compute, won’t compute: women’s participation in the culture of computing Fiona Wilson This paper is designed to enlarge our understanding of how computing is perceived. It uses findings from a quantitative and qualitative study of Computer Science and Psychology students. The paper shows how students believe they have an equal chance in Computing Science and are failing to acknowledge inequality.

Introduction The number of women choosing Computer Science at university is very low and has been declining. Despite the increase in number of computing courses at universities, the increased emphasis on computing in education and the high pay for computer personnel, the number of women participating is falling (Durndell and Thomson, 1997; Panteli et al., 1999). The most recent statistics produced by the Higher Education Statistical Agency and UCAS show that females make up only 19 per cent of students majoring in Computer Science. As a result the number of female computer professionals is low. The new and rapidly expanding Information Technology occupations should be open and gender neutral, providing opportunities for women (Panteli et al., 1997) but women are under-represented in Information Technology jobs in all member states of the European Union (Panteli et al., 1997). In no member states is the share estimated to be above 30 per cent and in most cases it is closer to 20 per cent; the UK shows the greatest downward trend Panteli et al., 1999; Robertson et al., 2001). Women in computing tend to be segregated. They are found to be working in what are considered as ‘softer’ areas of the profession, for example in sales, marketing and support functions such as customer services and on help desks, jobs that are seen as requiring good interpersonal skills. Men dominate technical jobs like analyst and programming jobs (Panteli et al., 1999). Research in Silicon Valley found numerous examples of women being assigned menial tasks, while similarly male colleagues are given ‘choice’ projects (DiDio, 1997). Jobs are also segregated hierarchically so women have ❒ Fiona Wilson is Professor of Organisational Behaviour in the Department of Business and Management at the University of Glasgow. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Women and computing

127

a small proportion of management posts and earn lower salaries (Panteli et al., 1999). Computing continues, as a result, to attract mainly men (Roberston et al., 2001). This poses a problem, not only for women, but also for technology and pedagogic practices (Clegg and Trayhurn, 1999). This paper intends to focus on the social construction of computing and technology, to use a symbolic-interpretative view to look at how they are socially constructed and interpreted. This position explicitly recognises that reality does not exist in any objective sense but is the product of beliefs. We invent and sustain meaning of terms that we then use to understand the world. We act and interpret action within a sociocultural context of our own making. The aim here is to understand the subjective reality ‘or perhaps a reality working behind’ (Remenyi et al., 1998: 35) of these students in order to make sense of and understand their motives, actions and intentions. Social Constructionism could also help highlight the mutual construction of gender and computing. The cultural association between masculinity and technology is hard to exaggerate. ‘To talk about women and technology in the same breath seems strange, even incongruous. Technology is powerful, remote, incomprehensible, inhuman, scientific, expressive and—above all—male’ (Faulkner and Arnold, 1985). Women’s alienation from technology is a product of the historical and cultural construction of technology as masculine (Cockburn, 1993; Wajcman, 1991). For example women are rarely involved in the design of technologies. The key specialist actors in the design of new technological artefacts and systems are predominately men. Masculinity is partly constructed through notions of technical competence. Men identify with technology and through their identification with technology form bonds with one another (Wajcman, 1991). The continued male dominance is due in large measure to the enduring symbolic association of masculinity and technology, cultural images and representations of technology converging with prevailing images of masculinity and power. The computing culture, particularly the cultural image of the computer, is not attractive to women. Sex stereotypes are produced and reproduced. In the computing profession the personal qualities thought to be required for computer scientists are those usually associated with men—hard headedness, single-mindedness, ambition, toughness (Leeming, 1996). In science the masculine is associated with objectivist, rationalist, emotional detachment, coupled with abstract theoretical and reductionist approaches to problem solving. The feminine approach to science is associated with a more subjective rationality, emotional connectedness and concrete, empirical and holistic approaches to problem solving. Women and men are seen then to have different styles of thinking and working (Faulkner, 2001). This reification, this making real the differences between women and men has two effects. Firstly females feel that taking too much interest in technology threatens their image of themselves as women (Lage, 1991). For example they construct their femininity in relation to computers through defining hacking as bad and constructing their own approach to computer science antithetical to what they see as a monstrous love of computers for their own sake (Hapnes and Sorensen, 1995). Women’s interest in computing may be seen as rejecting any meaningful engagement in the social world and so they may face ‘gender inauthenticity’ (Faulkner, 2001). Secondly women are marked out as ‘lesser’, possessing skills of less value. For example male hackers associate women with Macintosh computers that are simpler to use and related to activities like the design of text that is defined as feminine (Hapnes and Sorensen, 1995). Further it is assumed that women in the computing profession cannot be technically competent, even when qualified so they are given more menial jobs or are supervised more closely (DiDio, 1997). Skill is not some objectively identifiable quality but rather is an ideological category, one over which women continue to be denied the rights of contestation (Gill and Grint, 1995). We should retain scepticism about what men are said to have and women lack. Females do not lack ability. Girls at school have been shown superior to boys in several specific areas of programming, for example (Anderson, 1987; Kiesler et al., 1985) but they lack encouragement and interest. By the time they reach the age of 18 many girls 128

New Technology, Work and Employment

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

have already opted out. Males then have an advantage over females in their prior experience of computing before university entrance (Durndell et al., 1987; Shashaani, 1994; Comber et al., 1997), although there is some contradictory evidence on this (see Roberts, 1995 and Whitley, 1996). Six times as many boys as girls in the UK have a computer bought for them (Cole et al., 1994) and boys are the main users of the computer even when it is bought for the family (Schinzel, 1997). Having a computer at home can increase confidence or liking for computers (Colley et al., 1995) and the extra curricular use of computers gives boys an advantage over most girls when they use computers in school and college (Schinzel, 1997). Perhaps as a result of greater use and knowledge of computing, boys see computers as being more enjoyable, special, important, friendly and cheaper than girls do (Levin and Gordon, 1989). Females show more negative attitudes towards computers (Collis, 1987; Colley, 1994; Shashaani, 1994; Durndell et al., 1995; Janssen Reinan and Plomp, 1996; Comber et al., 1997; Mitra et al., 2000). They report less comfort and skill with computers (Wilder et al., 1985; Linn, 1985; Pearl et al., 1990). While women are equal to men in academic ability and academic self esteem, their lesser computer knowledge and less computer experience probably lead to the research findings that show females as more computer anxious (Brosnan, 1998) being less confident about their computer skills (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Borge et al., 1980; Mayfield, 2001) and lower in self efficacy in computing. They underestimate their computer abilities (Busch, 1996; Mayfield, 2001). Females will then, in general, appear to be rather less interested in computers than their male peers (Durndell et al., 1987; Shashaani, 1993). Women tend to underestimate their competence in the technical skills associated with computing and continue to equate technical competence and skill with masculinity and men (Henwood, 2000). A woman lacking technical competence is not merely a sex stereotype but becomes part of the feminine gender identity. Turkle (1988) goes as far as saying that women use their rejection of computers as their way of ‘doing femininity’. However girls from single sex schools and from Asian origin have been found to enjoy computing more than most girls (Culley, 1986). Instead of interpreting these findings as women being less technically competent than men, these research findings need to be understood as dominant cultural representations that construe men and women differently, exhibiting differing levels of interest in computing and differing levels of belief in their computing abilities. While women and men have not been found to differ in cognitive abilities (Linn and Hyde, 1989) they have different standpoints (Harding, 1991). Women have been found to describe themselves as ‘different’ and not accepting or feeling part of the male culture of computing. Women starting out in computing are often reticent about it because they see hobbyist hackers as the only model for intimacy with the computer; so many hackers seem to be incapable of human intimacy (Turkle, 1988). ‘Who, after all would want to go into a field that privileges and admires the stereotypes of the obsessional and anti-social hacker and the techno-freak who uses his technical mastery as a form of macho posturing?’ (Mahoney and Van Toen, 1990: 326). Computer Science is firmly situated in the domain of masculinist modern Western Science (Stepulevage and Plumeridge, 1998). Women see computer work as a field for men and anti-social people (Newton, 1991; Shade, 1993). Women reject the culture of men who sit in front of the computer all day and night (Rasmussen and Hapnes, 1991). This image of the computer scientist who is fascinated by the machine and spends all ‘his’ time using it is a popular one; the stereotype is of the hacker (Turkle, 1988) yet this is a marginal and unrepresentative group. Such images of computer scientists are partial. Alan Durndell claims that by the time girls are 15 or 16 they have been turned off career choices involving computers due to ‘violent and immature’ computer games (The Guardian, 21 December 1996: 6). Girls are turned off by boring, violent video games and dull programming classes (AAUW, 2000). ‘When it comes to computer games and software, girls want high-skill not high kill’ (AAUW, 2000). Software is written primarily by and for men (Huff and Cooper, 1987). Another explanation for women’s lack of participation in computing comes from Collis’s (1985) paradox ‘we can, but I can’t’. Females as individuals personally are © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Women and computing

129

unable to work effectively with computers. Females might feel the need to stress equality between both gender groups (we can enjoy computers) but when asked about their own individual attitudes they say that they personally feel less enjoyment in using computers (see also Janssen Reunion and Plomp, 1996). Perhaps a more accurate representation of this attitude is ‘we can but we won’t’ or ‘we can, but we don’t want to’ (Siann, 1997: 120). We feel ambivalent about the technology so count ourselves out. A particular idea of masculinity has become ideologically central to our definition of computing (Webster, 1996). Technology and computing are male and threaten our image as females. Feminine women have to behave in what are deemed socially appropriate ways (Nicolson, 1996: 11). Yet, gender identities within computing are not fixed. There does not have to be this ‘natural’ association between masculinity and technical competence (Grint and Gill, 1995). Adding to the potential obstacles women face in computing, male computer students have shown that they are threatened by women’s growing confidence. Henwood (2000) talks of how a women-only space in a Women and Technology course option was debated, and how several male students were perceived by the women taking the option to be trying to undermine their choice by suggesting it was an option for the ‘lesbians’. Evidence from the IT industry shows that male IT workers have strenuously resisted female incursions (Glastonbury, 1992; Murray, 1993). Further, for women considering a career in computing, combining family commitments with a career is seen as difficult. Computing is seen as a career that demands long hours and is constantly evolving (Tierney, 1995). The fast pace of technological change makes it difficult for women to take time out when children are young. As long as women have the main responsibility for children (Turner, 1997) they will be more likely to aspire to careers that can be managed alongside family commitments. Another explanation for female’s lack of enthusiasm for computers comes from the socialisation experience. Yeloushan (1989) found that a major social barrier for females is the attitudes of parents and teachers who believe that computers are learning tools predominately for males. The ratio of computers to pupils in schools, the location of computing in science and maths classes and the emphasis on experience gained in computer clubs, all have benefited boys rather than girls (Newton, 1991; Culley, 1986; Hoyles, 1988). There may be a less bleak picture to paint. Siann et al. (1988) showed how the negative stereotyping of female computer scientists is becoming increasingly less likely. Francis (1994) and Colley et al. (1995) support this finding by showing how only a small number of students held gender stereotyping views of computer use, but Colley et al. (1995) say that this is not encouraging them to participate more. Female teachers can create a participatory climate for all students (Crawford and MacLeod, 1990). Stockdale (1987) claims that when women students are introduced to computers in such a way as that computers are presented as non-threatening, not linked with mathematics and as instrumentally useful, motivation and interest in computers increases markedly. If pedagogical changes are introduced that broaden the scope of study, the gender mix will change (Salminen-Karlsson, 1997). Conscious redesign of courses to attract those interested in the social and organisational aspects of technology is likely to increase the percentage of female students (Robertson et al., 2001). Women university students will be more attracted to computer courses that emphasise social issues and computer applications than to traditional science based computer courses (Siann, 1997; Henwood, 2000; Clegg and Trayhurn, 1999). In the light of the more pessimistic findings, a number of university computing teachers have been formally addressing the problem of having so few women in computing since 1987. However the figures are not yet showing significant increase (see Lovegrove and Hall, 1987; Lovegrove et al., 1994; Lovegrove and Segal, 1991; Grint and Woolgar, 1995; Williams et al., 1996; Whitehouse, 1996). Recent evidence shows that just 12 per cent of full time undergraduates on British computing science courses are women (Panteli, 1999). A similar situation exists in the USA (Wright, 1996) where the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in Computer Science to women has decreased almost every year over the last decade (Camp, 1997; Glover, 2001). Female 130



academics are few in computing departments. An analysis of old UK universities showed that only six per cent at senior levels were women and 18 per cent of computing departments had no women academics at all (Grundy, 1996). Women are poorly represented in the powerful networks within the profession. It follows that women have a low level of influence and therefore it is difficult for women to effect change within the masculine culture of computing. We have little understanding of the subjectivity of those making decisions about whether or not to study Computer Science, the interrelationship between maleness and computing or how instances of male dominance are achieved in this subject area. This research was designed to look at how computing is construed among computer science students and to examine how women students, both inside and outside Computer Science, view the subject.

Research methodology Two main methods were used: a)

b)

Questionnaires were distributed to all students on a first semester, first year, Computer Science (CS) module. There were 63 males and 14 females registered for this module (52 of whom returned questionnaires—14 females and 38 males). In order to provide a comparison and a view from outside CS, 170 questionnaires also distributed to all those students in the first level Psychology course of which 130 were returned. A follow up monitoring questionnaire was issued to the second semester, first year participants in CS where there were 67 students. 48 of these returned questionnaires (eight females and 40 males; two females and 28 males had been in the first module). Semi-structured interviews. 20 of the first semester CS students (16 male and four female) were interviewed individually after they completed practical classes. These students were self-selecting as they were the students who agreed to interview and could spare the time following the class.

Also data was gathered from informal discussions with students. Time was spent with the students around the practical classes and over breaks. These informal discussions provided insights that other research methods had failed to uncover.

Context of the research In the Computer Science Division there were few women amongst both staff and students. Among a full time teaching staff of 9 there is currently one female professor (who was not the Head of Department) and two part-time female demonstrators. The CS modules have a pre-requisite of an A level or Higher Mathematics (a pass at the highest school level examination). In Psychology of 19 full time academic staff, there is one female professor, two female lecturers, two part-time female demonstrators and a lecturer. Students in Psychology and Computer Science were asked about their use of computers and their views on their own abilities and thoughts on Computing and Computer Scientists.

Findings from questionnaires The findings show three significant differences between men and women students:

•

•

When asked if they read computer magazines, a significant difference was found between men and women across the whole study and within groups. Significantly more females than males said they did not read computer magazines. Specifically in the CS course, while no women ‘sometimes, regularly or often’ read computer magazines, 57.9 per cent of men did. Significantly more males than females, both across the study and within groups, said that they were good with computers. For example in the first CS over half the men (26) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement ‘I am good with com-


Women and computing

131

•

puters’ whereas only two women could agree. In the second module five males strongly agreed with this statement but no women. This may, in part, be due to prior qualification where in CS 44.5 per cent of male and 35 per cent of females had a high-grade pass in Computing from school. Across both groups, significantly more females than males agreed with the statement ‘Computers make me feel nervous’.

Other findings:

•

•

•

•

•

•

In CS, almost equal numbers had a computer they could use at home. However when asked if they had their own computer here at university, more males than females in both modules had their own computers (10 males and two females in first module and 15 males and two females in second module). It could be argued that computer ownership is not necessary if physical access to computers within a university is good. In the monitoring questionnaire seven of the eight females found physical access very easy or easy, so access is less likely to be an issue but ownership may encourage use and feelings of involvement with computing. More males (21) than females (four) in the first CS module used a computer on a daily basis outside the module. It may be, though, that the males were WWW surfing or playing games rather than working on the module so later they were asked how many hours were spent working on course material. Four men but no women were working six to eight hours a week on average. One male said he was working more than 10 hours a week. All the women (eight) and the majority of men (33 of the 40) were working between two and six hours. This result would suggest a stereotype of the male ‘anorak’ working long and hard hours but this is only a small number of men in CS. When asked to draw a picture of a CS student almost half (39 out of 80) of those who did so (from Psychology and CS) drew a masculine figure and almost all these figures were wearing spectacles. A further 34 subjects drew gender-less figures and of these 20 are wearing spectacles. Only Psychology students drew seven female figures. This demonstrates the male domination of Computer Science in the imagination of, in particular, CS students. In CS, six of the 14 females and six of the 38 males in the first module and three of the eight females and nine of the 40 males in the second module said they either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘I have less prior computer experience than other students in this module’. Women students clearly lacked the same level of belief in having prior experience that the men had. The lack of experience was then reflected in their confidence. Did they think men and women were being treated differently by lecturers and tutors? All the women and the majority of men (38 of the 40) in the second module thought that this was not the case. There was then a strong belief in equity and that women and men were receiving equal treatment and women were not being excluded. When asked why they thought there were less women than men taking CS there was general agreement both across genders and groups that the main reason why there were fewer women than men was because science in general, and CS in particular, was perceived as a male domain and that women were less interested in computers than men. Some of the females explained women’s lack of interest by saying that women had other priorities, were less solitary and more interested in others. CS was seen to lack emotional content.

Findings from semi-structured interviews with Computer Science students How did they feel about the fact that women were very much a minority in the division? Was this an issue for them? CS students were reluctant to acknowledge the issue of why so few women are in Computing. Of the 20, 10 students said this was not an 132



issue or not really an issue. Two believed that there was a change happening and more women would be found in computing in the future. (Each individual has been assigned a number and their gender: M or F). One male student went as far as to deny the fact that there were so few women. ‘It’s just an opinion. Jobs are a matter of choice’. He was asked why it was just an opinion when the fact was that there were only 10 females out of 41 staff. ‘If you look into it there is probably a degree of sexism. There is not sexism in the course but it is thought of as a male subject—this is the stereotype’. (M15) The women wanted to believe they live in a just world. A female student said, ‘More women could do it if they wanted to. Women have an equal chance’ (F1) One however acknowledged the difficulty: ‘It is more noticeable in Computing than in other departments. It does make it more difficult at the beginning. You are aware very much of being in a minority’. (F3) Are men or women more afraid of computers? Eight students said that they did not think that there were gender differences. One male said ‘Everyone’s equal’ but went on to say ‘Having said that my mother is afraid. People are afraid of deleting files that are important, doing something wrong when computers are expensive’. (M4) Two students (M4, M9) said that their mothers were afraid while another mother (of M7) was ‘unsure’. Only one father was mentioned as afraid. Some thought it had more to do with familiarity of background ‘My mates just don’t know how to use them. It’s complicated. They are not afraid but just not comfortable working with computers’ (M5). One female student said it depended on each individual’s background while another thought it was to do with experience. ‘I think some people are. I know people who won’t do a module because they don’t understand computers and will feel others can do but they can’t, both men and women. Some have done computing already. It is mainly lack of experience. Those who haven’t the experience feel disadvantaged. It is more girls that feel this way but some lads as well’ (F3). Several students thought ‘afraid’ was too strong and instead thought ‘intimidated’, ‘hesitant’, ‘unsure’ or ‘apprehensive’ might better describe how men or women felt. Very few thought women were more afraid than men. One male thought females may be a little more technophobic, less interested in the way things work, more interested in what it can do for them. (How did he know this?) ‘I know this from personal experience. When you talk to males they are often more interested in how a piece of equipment or technology works’. (M10) One thought that men tend to be more confident anyway (M15) while another thought ‘More so women afraid than men’. (M16) Did they think there were differences in the way men and women students feel about CS (e.g. enjoyment/motivation)? The students were clearly divided on this issue. Seven thought there was no difference here while one said that it varied by individual and another said ‘probably not’. Those who thought there were differences made the following points: ‘I suspect there is. Boys seem to enjoy computers more and spend more time in computer departments’. (M7) ‘A minority actually enjoy the subject. Out of those, more men enjoy it. Almost everyone is motivated as all are conscientious and that’s the type of student who comes here—everyone would like to do well’. (M10) ‘Most of my male friends spend about three hours a day on the Internet and e-mail. None of my female friends do. Women are more motivated if they have problems, motivated to do something about it’. (M11) ‘I would say most women are not intending to carry on with it (CS); it is a basis for others subjects. People outside the module want to do e-mailing and that’s all really’. (F3) © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Women and computing

133

‘The girls I’ve met are not so interested in computers. I don’t know why it is but it’s just natural to me. Girls like more in Arts—views. Boys don’t care so much about this. (60/40 per cent boys and girls)—they are not all like this’. (F4) ‘Only in so much as I’d imagine females work up a perception of Computer Science being a male based subject, a male stronghold, all boys together in the computer room. It’s a misperception’. (M13) ‘Yes, for sure (In what way?) I’d say fewer females tend to take the subject let alone continue with it. It is assumed to be an option for a male’. (M15) How would they describe the personality of Computer Scientist? The majority (12) thought that there was no particular personality, computer scientists were ‘normal’ or everyone was different. Some were aware of the stereotypes: ‘Stereotypically—they probably have glazed eyes and don’t have much of a life as they spend so much time talking to computers. It’s not like the stereotype though. I am sure there are one or two around’. (M7) The stereotype that came through in three of the answers, however, was a technical person who liked to see how things worked: ‘They like puzzles, how things unfold, like seeing what something can do, like an engineer’. (M1) ‘Quite technical, it requires technical knowledge. Pretty much the same as any other student’. (M13) ‘I think they look to see things work rather than use them—want to take, for example, a video recorder apart. They are fun people, not shy’. (M14) Does the way CS is taught here accommodate or suit the needs of both men and women students? Almost all thought it did. There were some interesting qualifying remarks though: ‘I think it does unless women are put off by all male lecturers that we’ve had so far’. (M7) ‘Yes. They seem to be aware of the problems’. (F3) Again the issue of thinking there were more female students now came up: ‘Fair in this respect as there are more women now’. (M10) What changes would be needed to encourage women and men students? Many of the students had some ideas about what might be tried, though they had not had the opportunity to think through this issue. Here is what was suggested: ‘Change of attitudes—people thinking there are stereotypes. There is no attitude problem in here’. (M2) ‘I’m not sure how women would feel’. ‘They might find it preferable to have more women though I am happy. It is mainly male dominated in the sciences. Women are more in the Arts departments’. (M7) ‘Perhaps if there were more women staff and it wasn’t so male dominated’. (F3) There is then a sex-based view, held by a few, that women are a bit more afraid of computing or technology and that women prefer or are attracted by the Arts (four) despite the fact that they have equal opportunity. There is much denial of the female/male stereotype to be found but not always very consistently. This is seen by examining the interviews individually, rather than under question headings as has been done above. 134



For example one female (F1) argued in her interview that men and women hold the skills needed for computing equally and that ‘more women could do it if they wanted to’. ‘Women have an equal chance’ yet conceded that whether or not you are afraid depends on your background knowledge and whether you have been brought up with a computer. Similarly another female (F4) said that whether or not you have computing skills depends on your background (she and her brother had been treated the same) but she thought that girls were not so interested in computers. A male (M10) said ‘Everyone had equal opportunity to be on the course so its is personal preference.’ However ‘women may be a little more technophobic, less interested in the way things work, more interested in what it can do for them’. More men enjoyed Computing Science than women he thought. Another male (M15) denied the fact that there are fewer women in CS but concedes later that fewer females take the subject and it is assumed to be an option for a male. It is clear that women are less involved—there are far less of them on the course and the four that were interviewed do not plan to continue. There are various explanations from the men on the lack of women’s involvement. The first is that the situation is changing therefore there is no problem or issue to address: There are more women than there used to be (M5 + M10) and there are more in Maths (M11). The second is that women do not enjoy computing or have more sense than enjoy it: ‘I don’t think women like machines’. (M11) ‘Women have more sense than guys and that that’s why they stay away from the stupid machines’. (M11) Both these explanations would require no action. A third is that females feel less experienced and men are more confident: ‘Those who haven’t the experience feel disadvantaged. It is more girls that feel this way but some lads as well’. (F3) Men tend to be more confident anyway (M15). An associated reason is that women are guided by misperception: ‘I’d imagine females work up a perception of Computer Science being a male based subject, a male stronghold, all boys together in the computer room. It’s a misperception’. (M13)

Findings from informal discussions with female students Two first year female Computing Science students did not intend to continue with the subject (their intention was Maths on entry to university). One said that the response they got when they expressed their feelings about the level of difficulty on the course, from the male class members, was either ‘this is not difficult’ or ‘if it is difficult, may be you shouldn’t be here’. Many males were not helpful and you soon worked out which were. A second year student agreed that the subject was hard; she found it very difficult. She said that she might spend a good deal of a weekend and more time working on a practical while she knew that many of the male students could complete the work in the three hours that it should have taken. It was agreed that women may not be as confident about approaching the subject and so felt they faced more of a challenge. These female students thought the males would probably have had more experience of computing before entry to university. The second year student had a story to illustrate her lesser computer knowledge and experience. She had been working in the second year laboratory on a practical. There were no demonstrators around and she read an instruction on the whiteboard. She typed the instruction into her machine and lost all her files (all her past practicals, directory etc.) Very reluctant to admit to a man that she had done this, she approached © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Women and computing

135

a male and asked what would happen if someone were to type this instruction. He thought for a couple of moments and said that it would wipe all the files. She admitted that she should not have typed the instruction without knowing what it would do but had realised, she said, how much knowledge this male had and that she ought to have known.

Discussion of results The literature warns us that women CS students will be less experienced, less confident in their computing skills and not find the culture of computing attractive. The female CS students in this study confirmed these findings showing that they were less experienced with computing, less confident, and less integrated into a computing culture. Fewer owned computers or had them at university and their usage was lower. They also did not read computer magazines. The magazines contain minimal higher level technical information that would develop cognitive skills or abilities. One magazine is called ‘T3: Tomorrow’s Technology Today’ and is advertised as ‘a men’s mag about home cinema, computers, hi-fi . . . after all it’s blokes for whom this stuff is designed: we like big TVs and new computers and good looking hi-fi and expensive gadgets that we don’t really need’. Escape magazine is described as the magazine for ‘boys behaving badly rather than techno nerds’. ‘And it has everything a self-respecting bloke wants: horny babes, boobs, booze, loads of laughs, oh and bundles of information on electronic entertainment’ (The Guardian, 28 October 1996). Male images dominate the magazines and in the imaginations of individuals when thinking about computing. These magazines are unlikely to directly help with technical skills but they may help increase levels of familiarity and experience with computers and therefore male confidence as well as feelings of belonging to the culture of computing. The magazines and games may help men feel part of the computing culture, its shared values and norms, which requires both social knowledge of that culture and technical knowledge of computers as machines (Kiesler et al., 1985). Men are more likely to assume that they are naturally ‘good at computers’ (Newton, 1991); advertisements in computer magazines reinforce this image (Turner and Hovenden, 1997; Dilevko and Harris, 1997). It is not surprising that women feel less prepared and less confident within the culture where the male is treated as norm, as is also demonstrated in earlier research. Women’s confidence in computing is clearly challenged and shaken within the computing culture as they are surrounded by men who appear to have more experience, confidence and to be more technically competent. This is demonstrated in the data collected here and a case reported from a female computer science student at Carnegie Mellon University in the US (see Mayfield, 2001 and Margolis et al., 2001). ‘I’ve been playing with computers since I was four and coding since I was five or six. Then I got here and just felt so incredibly overwhelmed by the other people in the program (mostly guys, yes) that I began to lose interest in coding because really, whenever I sat down to program there would be tons of people around going “My God, this is so easy, why have you been working on it for two days, when I finished it in five hours and Geez, you’re such a terrible hacker you must have only gotton into SCS because you’re a girl”.’ There is a clear link being demonstrated here between what goes on in Computing Science and female levels of confidence. We know that females do not lack ability but their belief in that ability is undermined by their experience and male behaviour. There appears to be a vicious circle at work where females lack of self esteem and efficacy may be leading to lack of interest and experience. Females are in a minority. As a result women do not choose computing careers and therefore are not shaping the decisions of technology; this in turn means there is a risk that technology will not be as interesting, relevant or useful for women in the future. Women need to be involved in the making and shaping of the computer culture. The computing culture has actively reproduced inequitable gender differences. 136



Given that students do not perceive a problem of equity it would be hard to justify radical change. We know from informal discussion that female students do not want different treatment so it would not be possible to introduce women only course or classes, peer mentoring or any of the more radical practices suggested by the literature. They appear to be thinking of computing as being gender neutral and offering equality of opportunity; it clearly does not. They would need to recognise their active exclusion from the subject, the historical and cultural construction of technology as masculine, the ideological process which makes the connection between masculinity and technical expertise seem so natural, before there could be change. Good teaching practices which emphasised participation and involvement for all seemed to be the most practical and reasonable of solutions and was the one implemented (see Nightingale et al., 1997) but is unlikely to bring about radical change in the number of women wishing to take computer science courses. The inherent masculinity of the subject must be challenged. More radical change could be brought about by presenting statistics and facts on women and computing in pre-sessional literature and running a pre-sessional course to encourage female students to consider modules in CS. Gender and technology could come under closer scrutiny in courses so that both men and women are more aware of the issues and current inequality. Teaching styles that emphasise relational and contextual contexts rather than those that emphasise the formal and abstract would appeal more to women. The needs and values of women may be different. A radical redesign of both the design and marketing of computing courses to incorporate a multiplicity of skills, not just ‘hard’ technical skills and a reduction in the reliance on mathematical verification in computing (Fetzer, 1998) may increase female recruitment. Coupling IT skills with business and management skills in course design also appears to help attract female students (Robertson et al., 2001) as may an increase in co-operative learning through teamwork and group projects (Whitehouse et al., 1997; Schinzel, 1997). Low interest loans to help students buy their own computers as female students need privacy to develop their skills and confidence. Women need to be encouraged and supported in doing CS courses in order to ensure women are represented in CS careers in the future.

Conclusions While most would like to believe that men and women have an equal chance and there are equal opportunities, there are some processes here which help militate against women choosing Computing Science. These students may wish to believe that they live in a world where there is justice and equality of opportunity (for a similar attitude see Nicolson and Welsh’s 1992 study of medical students where students were indignant when potential gender inequalities were suggested to them, or Marshall’s (1988: 19) work with women managers) but some are failing to see, or acknowledge the inequity and injustice which exists. Some are failing to take account of the male dominance of technology. It may be that female CS students in this male dominated field may be more ‘masculine’ in interests and perhaps in some personality traits than the average female student (Radford and Holdstock, 1995). Research reported in Bjorkman et al. (1997: 56) and noted from personal experience, suggests that the dress code within the computing culture is set by men. Dress is one way in which females can adjust to a male dominated culture. Playing down the gendered nature of Computer Science can be another way of saying there is no need for equality (Bjorkman et al., 1997). This may be because women do not want to be seen as different or ‘other’ so emphasise that equality exists; they are resisting the perpetual re-inscription of women as ‘other’ (Ermath, 1989) particularly if this means women are constructed as ‘other’ to the ‘technologically gifted’ male (Wajcman, 1991). In emphasising ‘we are not different’ they are emphasising similarity of abilities and so avoiding being segregated or excluded from scientific/technological work (Fox-Keller, 1986: 168) and are failing to challenge the status quo. Women are certainly not less able or more fearful (Rasmussen, 1997) and we must be wary of psychological research which shows differences between men and women; the differences shown here are due to what is © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Women and computing

137

expected of women, socialisation and prior learning experience of computing. But as Fox-Keller notes, women will not gain equality by demanding to be treated the same as men; they will be ‘negated in the quest for assimilation’ (1986: 169). Women are seen here to regulate their behaviour under the surveillance of the men and the ‘male in the head’ using a patriarchal logic (Holland et al., 1994). To be female is to construct oneself in relation to the heterosexual male. What is being observed is male power and female collusion. Women can be very traditional in terms of gender related behaviours that men and women have conventionally found attractive in member of the other gender; they tend self consciously to mould their behaviours in an attempt to make themselves attractive (Sherman and Spence, 1997). ‘Women are complicit in the social practices of their silence’ (Smith, 1987: 34). Women are complicit because they have adapted to and react in the context of male-oriented organisational value systems (Clegg, 1981; Morgan, 1986). In order to defend their views of a just world and equality, three strategies have been adopted by the participants in this study which say:

• • •

The situation is changing (the men seem to believe this). Men and women are seen as equal but different—women do not enjoy computing as much. This would be supported by the data from both the questionnaires and interviews where women are using computers less, have less confidence in their abilities, and are more attracted to the Arts. There is a misperception that computing and technology is for males.

Those who believe there are already equal opportunities will see no reason for action or change. Those who believe there is misperception or that women feel less confident (perhaps due to family background or socialisation) may be tolerant of change happening to encourage more women into CS but may be more likely to be content to see the status quo maintained. The women do not want to be singled out for special treatment (we know this from informal discussion) but do lack belief in their equal abilities. As a result they might just count themselves out and express ambivalence towards computing. There is then, a much more complex argument here than simply women can compute but won’t. While issues of equity are not seen as such, then little change is going to happen. Silence is perfect for the dominant culture and its members (Bjorkman et al., 1997). For change to happen men and women are going to have to acknowledge the masculine culture of technology, the power men hold, and wish to see that change. Networks and power structures will need to change. The discourse that perpetuates the masculine image of the field makes it difficult for women to establish legitimacy and identity as experts. While it is clear that the computing sector is not inherently gender neutral (Panteli et al., 2001), perhaps future research might want to look at the place of women in emerging e-commerce and web-based development. Acknowledgement An earlier and less developed version of the paper was published as a chapter in R. Lander and A. Adam (eds) (1977) “Women in Computing”, Intellect Books, Exeter. References AAUW (2000), (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation) Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age, (Washington DC: AAUW, reported in Mayfield 2000). Anderson, R.E. (1987), ‘Females Surpass Males in Computer Problem Solving: Findings From the Minnesota Computer Literacy Assessment,’ Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 1, 39–51. Bjorkman, C., I. Christoff, F. Palm and A. Vallin (1997), ‘Exploring the Pipeline: Towards an Understanding of the Male Dominated Computing Culture and its Influence on Women,’ paper published in Women in Computing (Exeter: Intellect Books).

138



Borge, M.A., A. Roth, G.T. Nichols and B.S. Nichols (1980), ‘Effects of Gender, Age, Locus of Control and Self Esteem on Estimates of College Grades,’ Psychological Reports, 47, 831–837. Brosnan, M.J. (1998), ‘The Impact of Psychological Gender, Gender-Related Perceptions, Significant Others, and the Introducer of Technology Upon Computer Anxiety in Students,’ Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 1, 63–78. Busch, T. (1996), ‘Gender, Group Composition, Co-operation and Self-Efficacy in Computer Studies,’ Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 2, 125–135. Camp, T. (1997), ‘The Incredible Shrinking Pipeline,’ Communications of the ACM, 40, 10, 103– 110. Clegg, S. (1981), ‘Organization and Control,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 532–545. Clegg, S. and D. Trayhurn (1999), ‘Gender and Computing: Not the Same Old Problem,’ British Educational Research Journal, 26, 1, 75–89. Cockburn, C. (1993), ‘Feminism/Constructivism in Technology Studies: Notes on Genealogy and Recent Developments,’ Paper presented at Conference on European Theoretical Perspectives on New Technology: Feminism, Constructivism and Utility, CRICT, Brunel University, 16th–17th September. Cole, A., T. Conlon, S. Jackson and D. Welch (1994), ‘Information Technology and Gender: Problems and Proposals,’ Gender and Education, 6, 1, 77–85. Collis, B. (1985), ‘Psychosocial Implications of Sex Differences in Attitudes Towards Computers: Results of a Survey,’ International Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 3, 207–213. Collis, B. (1987), Sex Differences in the Association Between Secondary School Students’ Attitudes Towards Mathematics and Towards Computers, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 5, 349–402. Colley, A. (1994), Gender and Educational Computing, NIBPS Newsletter, 4, 4–8. Colley, A., F. Hill, J. Hill and A. Jones (1995), ‘Gender Effects in the Stereotyping of Those With Different Kinds of Computing Experience,’ Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 1, 19–27. Comber, C., A. Colley, D.J. Hargreaves and L. Dorn (1997), ‘The Effects of Gender and Computer Experience Upon Computer Attitudes,’ Educational Research, 39, 2, 123–134. Crawford, M. and M. Macleod (1990), ‘Gender in the College Classroom: An Assessment of the “Chilly Climate” for Women,’ Sex Roles, 23, 3/4, 101–122. Culley, L. (1986), Gender Differences and Computing in Secondary Schools, (Loughborough: Department of Education). DiDio, L. (1997), ‘Look Out for Techno-Hazing,’ Computerworld, 31, 72–73. Dilevko, J. and R.M. Harris (1997), ‘Information Technology and Social Relations: Portrayals of Gender Roles in High Tech Product Advertisements,’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 8, 718–727. Durndell, A., H. Macleod and G. Siann (1987), ‘A Survey of Attitudes to, Knowledge About and Experience of Computers,’ Computer Education, 11, 3, 167–175. Durndell, A., P. Glissov and G. Siann (1995), ‘Gender and Computing: Persisting Differences,’ Educational Research, 37, 3, 219–227. Education News (1996), Summer: 4. Durndell, A., and K. Thomson (1997), Gender and Computing: A Decade of Change? Computers and Education, 28, 1, 1–9. Ermath, E.D. (1989), ‘The Solitude of Women and Social Time’ in F. J. Forman and C. Sowton (eds) Taking our Time: Feminist Perspectives on Temporality (Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 37–46). Faulkner, W. and E. Arnold (1985), Smothered by Invention (London: Pluto Press). Faulkner, W. (2001), ‘The Technology in Question: A View From Feminist Technology Studies,’ Women’s Studies International Forum, 24, 1, 79–95. Fetzer, J. (1998), Philosophy and Computer Science: Reflections on the Programme Verification Debate in T.W. Bynum and J. Moor (eds) The Digital Phoenix: How Computers are Changing Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell). Fox-Keller, E. (1986), ‘How Gender Matters, or Why It’s So Hard For us to Count Past Two’ in J. Harding (ed.) Perspectives on Gender and Science (London: Falmer Press). Francis, L.J. (1994), ‘The Relationship Between Computer-Related Attitudes and Gender Stereotyping of Computer Use,’ Computers and Education, 22, 4, 283–289. Grint, K. and R. Gill (1995), Introduction to The Gender-Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Social Research, (London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 1–28). Glastonbury, B. (1992), The Integrity of Intelligence: A Bill of Rights for the Information Age (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Glover, J. (2001), ‘Women and Scientific Employment: Current Perspectives,’ Paper presented to the Athena Project conference called New Research on Women, Science and Higher Education, Royal Institution of Great Britain, 25 September. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Women and computing

139

Grint, K. and S. Woolgar (1995), ‘On Some Failure of Nerve in Constructivist and Feminist Analysis of Technology’ in K. Grint and R. Gill (eds) The Gender Technology Relation (London: Taylor and Francis). Grundy, F. (1996), Women and Computers (Exeter: Intellect Books). Hapnes, T. and K.H. Sorensen (1995), ‘Male Shaping of Computing: A Hacker Culture,’ in K. Grint and R. Gill (eds) The Gender-Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research (London: Taylor and Francis) pp. 174–191. Harding, S. (1991), Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking From Women’s Lives (New York: Cornell). Henwood, F. (2000), ‘From the Women Question in Technology to the Technology in Question in Feminism—Rethinking Gender Equality in IT Education,’ European Journal of Women’s Studies, 7, 2, 209–227. Holland, J., C. Ramazanoglu, S. Sharpe and R. Thomson (1994), ‘Reputations: Journeying into Gendered Power Relations,’ Paper given at British Sociological Association Conferences, Preston. Hoyles, C. (1988), Girls and Computers, (London: Bedford Way Papers). Huff, C.W. and J. Cooper (1987), ‘Sex Bias in Educational Software: The Effect of Designers’ Stereotypes on the Software They Design,’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 6, 519– 532. Janssen Reinan, I. and T. Plomp (1996), ‘Gender and Computers: Another Area of Inequality in Education?’ in W.J. Pelgrum, I.A.M. Janssen Reinen and T. Plomp (eds) Schools, Teachers, Students and Computers: a Cross-National Perspective. Published by IEA, December 1993. [December, 1996](http://uttou2.to.utwente.nl/comped/fr2/fr2 chap6.htm). Kiesler, S., L. Sproull and J.S. Eccles (1985), ‘Pool Halls, Chips and War Games—Women in the Culture of Computing,’ Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 4, 451–462. Lage, E. (1991), ‘Boys, Girls and Microcomputing’, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1, 29–44. Leeming, A. (1996), ‘Professionalism and IT—The Contribution That Could be Made by Women if They Were There,’ PASE 1996—Professional Awareness in Software Engineering, Conference Proceedings, University of Westminster, 1–2 Feb. Levin, T. and C. Gordon (1989), ‘Effect of Gender and Computer Experience on Attitudes Towards Computers,’ Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 1, 69–88. Linn, M. (1985), ‘Gender Equity in Computer Learning Environments,’ Computers and the Social Sciences, 1, 1, 19–27. Linn, M.C. and J.S. Hyde (1989), ‘Gender, Mathematics and Science,’ Educational Researcher, 18, 17–27. Lovegrove, G. and W. Hall (1987), ‘Where Have All the Girls Gone?’ University Computing, 9, 207–210. Lovegrove, G., C. Whitehouse and S. Williams (1994), ‘Women and Computing: IT EQUATE,’ Staffordshire University and Schools, Development and Role of Women in Technology, International Conference in Beijing, China, September. Lovegrove, G. and B. Segal (1991), Women into Computing, Selected Papers 1988–1990, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag). Maccoby, E.E. and C.N. Jacklin (1974), The Psychology of Difference, (Standford, California: Standford University Press). Mahoney, K. and B. Van Toen (1990), ‘Mathematical Formalism as a Means of Occupational Closure in Computing—Why “Hard” Computing Tends to Exclude Women,’ Gender and Education, 2, 3, 319–331. Margolis, J., A. Fisher and F. Miller (2001), ‘Living Among the “Programming Gods”: The Nexus of Confidence and Interest for Undergraduate Women in Computer Science,’ working paper of the Carnegie Mellon Project on Gender and Computer Science (http://www.cs.cmu/ ~gendergap) Marshall, J. (1988), ‘Issues of Identity for Women Managers’ in D. Clutterbuck and M. Devine (eds) Businesswomen: Present and Future (London: Macmillan). Mayfield, K. (2000), ‘Why Girls Don’t Compute (2000)’ Wired 20 April (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0.1284,35654,00.html) Mayfield, K. (2001), ‘Computing the Geek Gender Gap’ (report on University of California at Los Angeles’s annual survey) Wired, 25 January (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0.1284,41399,00.html) Mitra, A., M.A. Lenzmeier, T. Steffensemeier, R. Avon, N. Qu and M. Hazen (2000), ‘Gender and Computer Use in an Academic Institution: Report From a Longitudinal Study,’ Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 1, 67–84. Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization (California: Sage).

140



Murray, F. (1993), ‘A Separate Reality: Science, Technology and Masculinity’ in E. Green, J. Owen and D. Pain (eds) Gendered by Design: Information Technology and Office Systems, (London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 64–81). Newton, P. (1991), ‘Computing: An Ideal Occupation for Women?’ In J. Firth-Cozens and M.A. West (eds) Women at Work: Psychological and Organizational Perspectives, (Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 143–153). Nicolson, P. (1996), Gender, Power and Organization (London: Routledge). Nicolson, P. and C.L. Welsh (1992), Gender Inequality in Medical Education, Preliminary Report to Trent Regional Health Authority, cited in Nicolson 1996. Nightingale, W., A. Halkett, K. Hammond, C. Mason and F. Wilson (1997), ‘Involve: Inclusive Teaching in First-Year Computer Science Courses,’ paper published in Women in Computing (Exeter: Intellect Books). Panteli, A., H. Ramsey and M. Beirne (1997), ‘Engendered Systems Development: Ghettoization and Agency,’ paper published in Proceedings of the 6th International IFIP Conference, Women Work and Computerization: Spinning a Web from Past to Future, Bonn, 24–27 May. Panteli, A., J. Stack, M. Atkinson and H. Ramsay (1999), ‘The Status of Women in the UK IT Industry: An Empirical Study,’ European Journal of Information Systems, 8, 170–182. Pearl, A., M. Pollack, E. Riskin, B. Thomas, E. Wolf and A. Wu (1990), ‘Becoming a Computer Scientist,’ A Report by the ACM Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Science, Communications of the ACM, November, 33, 11. Radford, J. and L. Holdstock (1995), ‘Gender Differences in Higher Education Aims Between Computing and Psychology Students,’ Research in Science and Technological Education, 13, 2, 163–176. Rasmussen, B. (1997), ‘Girls and Computer Science: “It’s not me. I’m not interested in sitting behind a machine all day” ’ paper published in Proceedings of the 6th International IFIP Conference, Women Work and Computerization: Spinning a Web from Past to Future, Bonn, 24–27 May. Rasmussen, B. and T. Hapnes (1991), ‘Excluding Women from the Technologies of the Future?’ Futures, 23, 10, 1107–1120. Remenyi, D., B. Williams, A. Money and E. Swartz (1998), Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method (Sage: London). Roberts, E. (1995), Women into Computer Science: Barriers to academic success, Jing Lyman lecturer series, Stanford University (see Leeming). Robertson, M., S. Newell, J. Swan, L. Mathiassen and G. Bjerknes (2001), ‘The Issue of Gender Within Computing: Reflections From the UK and Scandinavia,’ Information Systems Journal, 11, 2, 111–126. Salminen-Karlsson, M. (1997), ‘Why Do They Never Talk About the Girls?’ in R. Lander and A. Adam (eds) Women in Computing (Exeter: Intellect Books, pp. 160–172). Schinzel, B. (1997), ‘Why has Female Participation in German Informatics Decreased?’ In Women, Work and Computerisation, Proceedings of the 6th International IFIP Conference, Bonn, Germany, 24–27 May A.F. Grundy, D. Kohler, V. Oechtering and U. Phetersen (eds) (Germany: Springer). Shade, L.R. (1993), ‘Gender Issues in Computer Networking,’ paper presented at Community Networking: the International Free-Net Conference, Ottawa, August. Shashaani, L. (1993), ‘Gender-Based Differences in Attitudes Toward Computers,’ Computers and Education, 20, 2, 169–181. Shashaani, L. (1994), ‘Gender Differences in Computer Experience and Its Influence on Computer Attitudes,’ Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 4, 347–367. Sherman, P.J. and J. Spence (1997), ‘A Comparison of Two Cohorts of college Students in Responses to the Male-Female Relations Questionnaire,’ Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 265–278. Siann, G. (1997), ‘We Can, We Don’t Want To: Factors Influencing Women’s Participation in Computing,’ in R. Lander and A. Adam (eds) Women in Computing (Exeter: Intellect Books, pp. 113–121). Siann, G., A. Durndell, H. Macleod and P. Glissov (1988), ‘Stereotyping in Relation to the Gender Gap in Participation in Computing,’ Educational Research, 30, 2, 98–103. Smith, D.E. (1987), The Everyday World as Problematic (Milton Keynes: Open University Press). Stepulevage, L. and S. Plumeridge (1998), ‘Women Taking Positions Within Computer Science,’ Gender and Education, 10, 3, 313–326. Stockdale, J.E. (1987), ‘Desexing Computers.’ In the proceedings of the 4th GASAT Conference, University of Michigan, cited in Siann et al., 1988. Tierney, M. (1995), ‘Negotiating a Software Career,’ in R. Gill and K. Grint (eds) The Gender Technology Relation (London: Taylor and Francis). Turkle, S. (1988), ‘Computational Reticence: Why Women Fear the Intimate Machine’ in © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Women and computing

141

C. Kramarae (ed.) Technology and Women’s Voices: Keeping in Touch (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul). Turner, E. (1997), ‘What is Our Worth?’ Women, Work and Computerisation, Proceedings of the 6th International IFIP Conference, Bonn, Germany, 24–27 May, A.F. Grundy, D. Kohler, V. Oechtering and U. Phetersen (eds) (Springer: Germany). Turner, E. and F. Hovenden (1997), ‘How Are We Seen? Images of Women in Computing Advertisements,’ paper published in Women in Computing (Exeter: Intellect Books). University of Limerick (1999), ‘Barriers for Women in Computing,’ Report found at http://www.ul.ie/~govsoc/barrierstw.html Wajcman, J. (1991), Feminism Confronts Technology (Cambridge: Polity). Webster, J. (1996), Shaping Women’s Work: Gender Employment and Information Technology (London: Longman). Whitehouse, C., G. Lovegrove and S. Williams (1996), ‘But Isn’t Computing Boring’ PASE 1996 (International Conference on Professional Awareness in Software Engineering) London, Feb. Whitehouse, C., G. Lovegrove and S. Williams (1997), IT EQUATE through the web and internet in Women, Work and Computerisation: proceedings of the 6th International Conference, Bonn, Germany, May 24–27, A.F. Grundy et al., eds (Germany: Springer). Whitley, B.E. (1996), ‘Gender Differences in Computer-Related Attitudes—It Depends on What You Ask,’ Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 2, 275–289. Wilder, G., D. Mackie and J. Cooper (1985), ‘Gender and Computers: Two Surveys of ComputerRelated Attitudes,’ Sex Roles, 13, 3/4, 215–228. Williams, S., G. Lovegrove and C. Whitehouse (1996), ‘Working Towards Equality in IT in the Year 2000’, GASAT-8 International Conference on Gender and Science and Technology, India, January. Wright, R. (1996), ‘The Occupational Masculinity of Computing,’ Chapter 4 in Masculinities in Organizations, C. Cheng (ed.) (California: Sage). Yeloushan (1989), see I. Janssen Reinan and T. Plomp (1996).

142

