Abstract
This paper summarizes a yearlong
qualitative study of uses and mental concepts of computers and computer
culture in seventh and eighth grade boys and girls. A social-constructivist
stance formed the theoretical framework for this study. I used interpretive
methods in technology-rich, middle school classrooms to study gender-specific
meanings for the technology tools used by students. My goal was to gain
insight into how adolescent boys and girls conceptualized and used computers
in the current computer culture. By focusing particularly though not
exclusively on girls, I hoped to shed light on how girls view their
experiences with technology. The focus of this study was not to further
investigate the perceived gender gap regarding technology, but rather
to address the meanings that adolescents assign to computers as they
interact with them. Adolescent boys and girls view and use computers
differently. Each gender seems to accept this as a natural part of its
culture, and, in general, is accepting of each other’s visions
and uses.
Introduction
A social-constructivist stance
forms the theoretical framework for this study. I view both gender and
computers as social constructions that exist in particular contexts.
Gender is assumed to be constructed within a culture and not genetically
inherent in an individual. West and Fenstermaker (1993) believe that
gender is “a mechanism whereby situated social action contributes
to the reproduction of social structure in which people do gender; and
men and women do it differently” (p. 158). In a similar vein,
objects, such as computers, take on meanings constructed by individuals
as they interact with these objects. Technologies do not exist in a
vacuum – with no history and no social implications or connections.
Technologies exist only in social contexts. People negotiate and renegotiate
meaning as they personally interact with objects, thereby constructing
a social order as well as a personal meaning. Within this perspective,
gender and computers are social constructions that vary from person
to person. This research delves into these personal meanings.
The focus of this yearlong
qualitative study of seventh and eighth grade boys and girls was not
to investigate further the perceived gender gap regarding technology,
but rather to address the meanings that adolescents assign to computers
and the ways they interact with computers. By focusing particularly
though not exclusively on girls, who historically are either left out
or are underrepresented in studies of technology, I hoped to shed light
on how girls and boys view their experiences with technology. In my
role as teacher/researcher, I used interpretive methods in technology-rich,
middle school classrooms to study gender-specific meanings for the technology
tools used by students.
One of the major challenges
of such a study is that it focuses on three moving targets: students
developing from their formative years to adolescence, a culture with
evolving and changing gender roles, and, as Volman and van Eck (2001)
indicate, an evolving and changing computer culture within educational
settings. The term computer culture emerged in the mid 1980s and was
used commonly in the literature on technology and gender by the early
1990s. Its origins stem from the work of Turkle (1984) who identified
two different computer programming styles, that of hard masters and
soft masters. Hard masters tend to be male and soft masters tend to
be female. “In our culture girls are taught the characteristics
of soft mastery--negotiation, compromise, give-and-take, while models
of male behavior stress decisiveness and the imposition of will”
(Turkle, 1984, p. 109).
In 1990, Turkle and Papert
argued that, within the computer culture, we must accept the “validity
of multiple ways of knowing and thinking” (p. 113). They discuss
two major approaches to computer programming: the dominant, structured
approach used by “planners” (often associated with males)
and the more suspect artistic, intuitive approach used by “bricoleurs”
(often associated with females). Turkle and Papert labeled this concept
epistemological pluralism; they called for the development of a new
computer culture which “would require a new social construction
of the computer” (1990, p. 133), which would be, in turn, more
inclusive than the existing male-dominated culture. They cited the work
of feminist scholar, Gilligan (1982), who questioned the “idea
of one privileged, mature way of thinking” (p. 123) as parallel
to their view of “the computer as a projective screen for different
approaches to knowledge” (p. 134). And finally, these researchers
stated:
Feminist scholarship
could make a crucial contribution to the (until now) male computer
culture by promoting the recognition of the diverse ways that people
think about and appropriate formal systems and by encouraging the
acceptance of our profound human connection with our tools (Turkle
& Papert, 1990, p. 136).
More recently, Herring (1999)
delineated communication styles of males and females in cyberspace.
The male style is characterized by adversity while the female style
is characterized by supportiveness. This leads her to suggest that men
and women are indeed creating different electronic cultures.
Literature
Review
A review of empirical studies
on gender and computers conducted between 1984 and the present paints
an overall picture of male dominance. Not only are females alarmingly
underrepresented in computer science and technology fields, girls continue
to view “a computer person as male and antisocial” (AAUW,
2000, p. 2). The most recent AAUW study, Tech Savvy: Educating Girls
in the New Computer Age (2000), which gathered data from 900 teachers
and 700 middle and high school girls, found that girls still see computers
as associated with the male computer nerd. Further, they report that
girls say, “We can do this, we’re just not interested.”
Girls wish to change the computer culture, rather than change for it.
This report indicated a need to take girls’ views seriously and
transform the existing computer culture by integrating the insights
of girls and women into this emerging culture. Finally, they found that
such a transformation needs to focus on increasing technological fluency
for girls and women, not simply as consumers or end users of technology,
but as designers, leaders, and shapers of the computer culture (AAUW,
2000).
Turkle (2003) states “the
computer culture is still, in the main, made by engineers for engineers
and by men for men” (¶ 1). In feminist research, computing
is portrayed as reflective of male characteristics of aggression, competition,
and dominance (Winkelman, 1997). This tendency is found in elementary
classrooms where boys tend to dominate computer use and often crowd
girls out (Elkjaer, 1992; Inkpen, Booth, & Klawe, 1992, Sadker &
Sadker, 1994). By broadening our definition of computer culture so it
is more inclusive of female voices, we would invite more girls to participate
more fully in that culture (Turkle, 2003).
Three times as many boys as girls participated in summer computer camps,
and parents were more likely to purchase computers, computer software,
and peripherals for boys than for girls. Males used computers more than
females, especially for programming and game playing. By high school,
the gender gap in computer use was even more pronounced. Boys were more
likely to own a computer, understand the electronic operations of computers,
and be part of extracurricular computer classes. Lack of female role
models, gender-stereotyped computer course materials, and male-oriented
names of computer science courses also contributed to students’
existing connotation of computers as male domains (Schofield, 1995).
The trend continued at the university level where, in an introductory
computer course, more than half the males used the computer lab after
hours while almost none of the females took advantage of this opportunity.
At all levels, boys were
more likely to be chosen to assist the teacher with technology than
were girls (Sanders, 1990). Christie (1995) and de Castell and Bryson
(1998) observed that girls generally enjoyed computing less than boys
because most available software appealed to boys rather than to girls;
the software used gaming formats that were competitive and often violent
and which pitted two players against each other or one player against
the computer. Girls preferred to explore feelings, solve problems, and
work cooperatively and interactively at the computer. They also preferred
adventure, friendship, or creativity as the focus of software (AAUW,
2000; Fiore, 1999). And finally, male teachers used computers more than
female teachers at the elementary, secondary, and university levels
(Hattie & Fitzgerald, 1987). Therefore students lacked female role
models in this domain.
Gender stereotyping attitudes
would appear to be prevalent (AAUW, 2000). When surveying 1,600 kindergarten
through grade 12 students, Wilder, Mackie, and Cooper (1985) found that
both boys and girls considered computers as more appropriate for males
than females. When asked to draw a computer user, both boys and girls
were more likely to draw boys/men in this role (Martin, Heller, and
Mahmoud, 1992). Gender stereotypes were reinforced by parents, peers,
and the educational system (Walkerdine, 1990).
This cultural gender bias
is found extensively in advertising and is perpetuated through advertising
(Gooler, 1986; Nye, 1991). Although this trend has begun to change in
the last five years, technology advertising is more likely to picture
a male “computer nerd” or “computer geek” than
a female computer scientist. Similarly, computer users tend to be pictured
as females. Margolis and Fisher (2002) reported that women and girls
are using computers and the Internet in equal proportions to men and
boys, but few women and girls are learning to invent, create, or design
computer technology. The old adage that boys make things and girls use
things that boys make is still unfortunately true (Margolis & Fisher,
2002). The perception that males are programmers and females are users
is captured well in a recent Microsoft News Event. The caption under
a picture of Bill Gates reads: XP called an operating system even your
mother would love. The implicit meaning, however, is that male computer
scientists have made XP so simple even a woman can use it.
The lack of female-in-control
of technology examples, coupled with the plethora of female-needing-help
using computers examples deters girls from exploring computers and computer-related
careers. One further deterrent for females is the use of sex as an advertising
tool. A controversial Palm Pilot advertisement pictured front and back
views of a nude female figure holding a Palm Pilot. Such advertising
degrades females and discourages them not only from using the technology
tools that are available today, but also from choosing to become participants
or leaders in technology-centered careers.
Kramer and Lehman (1990)
contended that the male-as-computer-programmer image was accurate when
computers were nothing more than number-crunching machines. With the
rapid changes and advancements in technology, however, the presumption
that maleness and computers are closely related domains contributes
to an “increasingly inaccurate portrayal” (p.170) of computer
use in the 1990 and 2000s. Hoyles (1988) summed up this tendency succinctly:
“computers tend to be conceptually assimilated to the category
of science, mathematics, and technology and acquire some of the traditional
qualities of differentiated interest amongst boys and girls” (p.
10). This outdated view of computers, which disadvantages any “non-logical”
person, and women are perceived to be highly represented in this category,
serves to reinforce the bias that women are less competent and confident
with computers than males.
Turkle and Papert (1990)
called for a new social construction of the computer to contribute to
our understanding of the ways males and females think about and use
computers. After reviewing ten years of research on gender, ethnicity,
and social class differences in the uses of computers in K-12 classrooms,
Sutton (1991) concluded that there is a need to understand more fully
the complexities of inequities in computer use in schools. This study
answers these calls.
