L567:
Gender and
Computerization
|
Semester: |
Spring 2007 |
Instructor: |
Dr. Susan
Herring |
|
Time: |
F 1-3:45 p.m. |
Office: |
LI 037 |
|
Place: |
LI 031 |
Phone: |
856-4919
(voice mail) |
|
Office hours: |
T and F 4-5
p.m.
and by appointment |
Email: |
herring @
indiana.edu |
Class
majordomo list: gencomp-l @ indiana.edu
Required
reading:
Articles to
be made available
electronically on ereserves (http://ereserves.indiana.edu/) or on
print
reserve in the library (articles in Cherny & Weise, Harcourt,
and
Kramarae books) if not linked directly from this syllabus.
Recommended
texts:
Cherny, L.
& E.
Weise, eds. (1996). wired_women. Seattle:
Seal Press.
Harcourt,
W., ed. (1999).
women@internet: Creating New Cultures in Cyberspace. London:
Zed Books.
Kramarae,
C., ed. (1988).
Technology and Women's Voices: Keeping in Touch. New York:
Routledge.
1. Background
Technology,
with its associations
with engineering, has traditionally been a mostly male preserve.
Information
technology (IT) continues this tradition. More men than women study
computer
science; design, implement, and administer computer networks;
and--until
quite recently--use the Internet. Moreover, girls and women
still
express
less interest than boys and men in learning to program computers and in
entering IT careers.
The IT
"gender
gap" takes on increasing social, political and economic importance as
computerization spreads globally, pervading every aspect of human
existence
from medicine to education to grocery shopping. Democratic societies
have an
interest in ensuring equitable access to all of their members to the
benefits
of computing, out of fairness and in order to maximize the productive
potential
of the population as a whole. Practically speaking, female users may
have
different experiences, needs, and perspectives from male users, such
that when
it comes to IT design and use, "one size" may not
necessarily "fit all." Finally, the Internet and the World Wide Web
are
attracting increasing numbers of female users, challenging the
historically
male culture of computing in interactive, online domains. More than
ever
before, IT professionals, educators, gender scholars, and critics of
science and
technology are called upon to understand and act on these social
contexts and
dynamic trends.
2. Course description
This course
explores the
history and mechanisms of—and alternatives
to—traditional male
control of computer technology, with special focus on information and
communication technologies such as the Internet and the World Wide Web.
Questions to be addressed include:
• How do computers come to be
associated with masculine interests and aptitudes?
• What are the consequences of
this association for females' and males' educational, work and leisure
experiences?
•
How is the association of
computing with masculinity challenged now that computers have become
widely
accessible and easy to use? (cf. recent statistics that show that equal
numbers
of women and men in North America now use the Internet)
• What might computers and
computer networks look like if they were designed by women?
• What factors prevent girls and
women from acquiring technical skills and entering computing-related
professions in numbers equal to men, and how might those factors be
changed?
The course
is based on
readings and critical discussion, and is conducted in a part-lecture,
part-discussion format in which opportunities to speak are available to
all
students in each class session. Students have the option of taking a
final exam
or writing a term paper as the primary basis for evaluating their
performance
in the course.
3. Course objectives
The aim of
this course is
to explore in a critical, balanced, and nuanced manner issues related
to gender
and computers, with special focus on the "IT gender gap" and its
current status in the Internet Age. As a result of completing this
course, you
should gain:
• an understanding of the role
of gender as a social and historical force in shaping computer
technology
• practical awareness of gender
and computing issues in educational, workplace, recreational, and
global
contexts
• a critical perspective on gender
and computer system design
• knowledge of possible
interventions at the level of home environment, education, system
design, and
administrative policy
• enhanced skills in
summarizing and synthesizing concepts from published scholarship.
4. Student requirements
Readings and reading notes. You are
expected to read the
assigned readings and write notes responding to each
reading in the online space designated for this purpose (probably
OnCourse, LiveJournal, or both). An ideal entry is 1-2 paragraphs
identifying the article's main claim(s), and commenting on or
questioning some
aspect of the article that is of interest to you. Your entries should
be posted by 9 p.m. each Tuesday. In addition, you are expected to
comment on at least three of your classmates' entries by Wednesday or
Thursday each week. The online notes will extend the course
conversation beyond the classroom, and let us move beyond discussing
the readings during class time.
Observation
reports. There will
be three
observation reports during the semester for which you will collect and
present
data related to gender and computerization based on first-hand
observation. The
reports should be 2-3 typed pages long, and may include appendices
listing the
instances observed.
Exam. There will
be a comprehensive final take-home exam.
The essay-type exam questions will be of a synthetic nature, requiring
you to
draw together, relate and apply key concepts from the readings and
class
discussions. A review sheet of key concepts will be distributed before
the
exam. You will have four days in which to write the final exam.
Term paper (OPTIONAL).
Instead of taking the final
exam, you may choose to write a 5,000-7,000 word term paper (excluding
references and appendices) reporting on the results of original
research on
some aspect of gender and computerization. The topic need not be a
phenomenon
we have discussed in the course, but the analysis should be
theoretically
grounded in concepts from the course. Students wishing to write a term
paper
instead of taking the final exam should submit a one-page proposal by
week 10
identifying the topic, research question, methods, data and preliminary
observations on which the paper will be based. The final paper should
follow
the formal conventions for a publishable-quality research article,
including
footnotes and citations of scholarly work in APA (American
Psychological
Association) style.
There is an
electronic discussion list
for this course. You are expected to check your email at least twice
between
class meetings, including the evening before class for last-minute
announcements and reminders. Interactive participation on the class
list is
encouraged, although it is not a requirement of the course.
5. Student evaluation
The final grade for students enrolled in the course
will be
calculated as follows:
|
Online
reading notes and class participation |
35% |
|
Observation
reports (3 x 10%) |
30% |
|
Final exam
or term paper |
35% |
|
Total: |
100% |
Grading
policies:
• Late reading notes
will be counted once during the
semester, no questions asked,
provided they are posted by 5 p.m. Saturday before the next class
meeting.
• Reading notes and
class participation will be graded with a check mark for each class
meeting, to
indicate that the requirement was met. Class participation means being
willing and
prepared to speak intelligently in class about the topics under
discussion.
(Note: this does NOT necessarily mean speaking a lot—you may be
penalized
if you habitually dominate class discussions.) Participation cannot be
made up if you miss a class.
• Observation
reports and the exam or term paper will be assigned letter grades (A,
A-, B+,
B, B-, C+, C, etc.). Generally speaking, an A denotes 'outstanding'
work, a B
is 'good', and a C is 'average' (but below the level expected for
graduate-level work).
• Observation
reports will be graded on the method of sampling, which should be
clearly
explained, and the quality and number of observations. High quality
observations are systematic, insightful, and relate (as appropriate) to
themes
presented in the readings and class discussions.
• The final exam
will be graded on quality (depth and accuracy) of understanding of key
concepts; ability to extend, apply, and relate concepts beyond what was
discussed in class; appropriate citation of sources; and clarity and
organization of written presentation.
• The term paper
(if you choose this option) will be graded on
content—originality of
the
research question, appropriateness of the data and methods used to
investigate
the question, plausibility of your interpretations; and
form—organization, clarity, and quality of written expression,
and
appropriate use of scholarly conventions such as citations and
footnotes.
Statement
on academic integrity:
Learning
is a collaborative enterprise. However, plagiarism, copyright
infringement, and
other types of academic dishonesty will NOT be tolerated. To help you
recognize
plagiarism, the IU Writing Center has prepared a short guide: Plagiarism:
What It is and How to Recognize and Avoid It. Please read this
guide and
refer to it when you produce your written assignments for this course.
6. Tentative Course Schedule
(Note: All
readings notes should be posted by 9 p.m. on the Sunday before
class for that week's readings.)
----------------
|
Week 1
(1/12/07): |
Introduction
to course. Stereotypes about gender and computers: (Soft) nature vs.
(hard) technology. The "gender computing gap." |
|
|
Read article by Bentson, "Why women hate IT", in e-reserves. |
|
|
|
----------------
|
Week 2
(1/19/07): |
Historical
contributions of women to technology. Women as users, women as
inventors. |
|
Browse: |
Past notable
women of computing. http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/past-women-cs.html |
|
Read: |
1. Davies,
M. (1988). "Women clerical workers and the typewriter: The writing
machine." In C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and Women's
Voices:
Keeping in Touch (pp.29-40).
New York: Routledge. 2. Rakow, L.
(1988). "Women and the telephone: The gendering of a communication
technology." In C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and Women's Voices:
Keeping in Touch
(pp.207-228). New York: Routledge. 3.
Gürer, D. (1995). "Pioneering women in computer
science." Communications
of the ACM 38 (1),
45-54. 4. Camp, T.
(1997). "The incredible shrinking pipeline." Communications of the
ACM 40 (10),
103-110. http://www.mines.edu/fs_home/
tcamp/cacm/paper.html |
----------------
|
Week 3
(1/26/07): |
Are females
less interested than males in computers? Attitudes towards computers. |
|
Read: |
1. Turkle,
S. (1988). "Computational reticence: Why women fear the intimate
machine." In C. Kramarae (Ed.),
Technology and Women's Voices, 41-61.
(Oncourse) 2. Edwards,
P. (1990). "The army and the microworld: Computers and the politics of
gender identity." (pp.102-127).
(ereserves) 4. Ogan, C.,
Herring, S., Ahuja, M., & Robinson, J. (2006, May). The more things change, the more they
remain the same: Gender differences in attitudes and experiences
related to computing. Paper presented at the International
Communication Association conference, New York. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ica.pdf |
|
Browse: |
Ward, M.
(2001). "Sexiest geek declared." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1400333.stm.
More information about Ellen Spertus and the "sexiest geek" contest: http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Geek/ |
----------------
|
Week 4
(2/2/07): |
The cultural
construction of computing as gendered: Representations of
computer users in the print mass media. |
|
1st
Observation Report: |
Photocopy
10-15 advertisements from
current magazines showing computers and humans, and describe how
females and males are portrayed. OR: Do
the same for 10-15 current cartoons showing
computers and humans. |
|
Read: |
1.
Michaleson, G. (1994). "Women and men in computer cartoons 1946-1982." In A. Adam et al. (Eds.), Women, Work and
Computerization. (ereserves) 2. Milburn,
S. S, Carney, D. R., & Martinez, A. M. (2001). "Even in modern
media, the picture is still the same: A content analysis of clipart
images." Sex Roles, 44(5/6),
277-294. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2001_March/ai_78361728/pg_1
|
|
Week 5
(2/9/07): |
Computing
culture: Hackers, geeks, and nerds. |
|
Browse: |
Definition
of a hacker. http://www.iwriteiam.nl/HackerDef.html The code of
the geeks v.3.12. http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html
- type |
|
Read: |
1. Hacker,
S. (1990). "The culture of engineering." In S. Hacker,
D. Smith, & S. Turner (Eds.), Doing it the Hard Way:
Investigating Gender and Technology (pp.
111-112). London: Unwin Hyman. (ereserves) 2. Turkle,
S. (1984). "Hackers: Loving the machine for itself." In The Second
Self. New York: Simon and Schuster. (ereserves) 3. Kendall,
L. (1999). " 'The nerd within': Mass media and the negotiation of
identity among computer-using males." The Journal of Men's
Studies 7(3),
353-369. (ereserves) 4. Gilboa,
N. (1996). "Elites, lamers, narcs and whores: Exploring the computer
underground." In In L. Cherny & E. Weise (Eds.), wired_women
(pp. 98-113). Seattle: Seal Press. |
----------------
|
Week 6
(2/16/07): |
Environmental
and educational factors. Experiences of girls and boys with computing.
Experiences of female and male students in computer science programs. |
|
Read: |
1. Anderson, G. T., Hilton, S. C., & Wouden-Miller, M. (2003). A gender comparison of the cooperation of 4-year-old children in classroom activity centers. Early Education & Development, 14(4) 2. Evard, Michele (1996). "So please stop, thank you:" Girls online. In L. Cherny & E. Weise (Eds.), wired_women (pp.188-204). 3. Shashaani, L. (1994). Socioeconomic status, parents' sex role stereotypes, and the gender gap in computing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 433-451. 4. Gunn, C.,
McSporran, M., Macleod, H., & French, S. (2003). Dominant or
different? Gender issues in computer supported learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
7(1). http://genderls.pbwiki.com/f/v7n1_gunn.pdf 5.
Miliszewska, I., Barker, G., Henderson, F., & Sztendur, E. (2006).
The issue of gender equity in computer science--What students say. Journal of Information Technology Education,
5(5), 107-120. http://jite.org/documents/Vol5/v5p107-120Miliszewska136.pdf |
----------------
|
Week 7
(2/23/07): |
Computer
games as socialization into computer use. Gender stereotypes and
stereotype breakers. |
|
2nd
Observation Report: |
Go to a
store where computer-related toys and games are sold and describe all
of the products targeted at children. OR: Go to a video arcade and
describe the themes and graphics of each game. |
|
Read: |
1.
Subramanyam, K. & P. Greenfield (1998). "Computer games for girls:
What makes them play?" In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and
Computer Games (pp.
46-71). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2. Jenkins,
H. (1998). "'Complete freedom of movement': Video games as gendered
play spaces." From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer
Games. Cambridge:
MIT Press. http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/complete.html 3. Jansz, J.,
& Martens, L. (2005). "Gaming at a LAN event: the social context of
playing video games." New Media
& Society, 7(3):333-355. Preprint: http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOP_5X8MF6/$file/MES_JJ_LANparties.pdf 4. Taylor, T.
L. (2005). "Multiple pleasures: Women and online gaming." Convergence, 9(1), 21-46. |
| |
|
Week 8
(3/2/07):
|
Computer-mediated
communication on the Internet (Part I). Potential and struggle. |
|
Read: |
1. Light, J.
(1995). "The digital landscape: New space for women?" Gender, Play
and Culture 2(2),
133-146. 2. Herring,
S. (1993). "Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication." Electronic
Journal of Communication 3(2). http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ejc.txt 3. Camp, L.
Jean (with Anita Borg) (1996). "We are geeks, and we are not guys: The
systers mailing list." In L. Cherny and E. R. Weise (Eds.), Wired_Women:
Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace
(pp.114-125). Seattle: Seal Press. 4. Dibell,
J. (1998). "A rape in cyberspace. (Or TINYSOCIETY, and how to make
one)." Chapter One of My Tiny Life. http://loki.stockton.edu/~kinsellt/stuff/dibbelrapeincyberspace.html 5. Spertus, E. (1996). "Social and technical means for fighting on-line harassment." http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Gender/glc/glc.html |
----------------
|
Week 9
(3/9/07): |
Computer-mediated
communication on the Internet (Part II). Gender, identity, and
sexuality. |
|
Read: |
1. Bruckman,
A. (1993). "Gender swapping on the Internet." http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/papers/bruckman/gender-swapping-
bruckman.pdf 2. McRae, S.
(1996). "Coming apart at the seams: Sex, text and the virtual body." In
L. Cherny and E. Weise (Eds.), Wired_Women
(pp. 242-263). Seattle: Seal Press. 3.
Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P. M., and Tynes, B. (2004).
"Constructing sexuality and identity in an online teen chat room." Applied
Developmental Psychology 25, 651-666. http://www.cdmc.ucla.edu/downloads/Constructing%20sexuality.pdf 4. Egan, J.
(2000). "Lonely gay teen seeking same." The New York Times Magazine, Dec. 10. http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001210mag-
online.html 5. Huffaker,
D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use
in teenage blogs. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 1. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html |
----------------
|
Week 10
(3/23/07):
|
Gender on
the World Wide Web. Uses of the Web. Visual representations of females
and males. Women's portals. Weblogs. |
|
3rd
Observation Report: |
Find 10-15
websites of the same genre which display images of humans (photographs
and/or
graphics), and describe how females and males are portrayed. OR: Go to a graphical chat environment and
describe the avatars in use. |
|
Read: |
1. Rickert,
A., & Sacharow, A. (2000). "It's a woman's World Wide Web." Media
Metrix and Jupiter Communications report. http://www.rcss.ed.ac.uk/sigis/public/backgrounddocs/womenontheweb2000.pdf 2. Brown, J.
(2000). "What happened to the Women's Web?" Salon, August 25.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/08/25/womens_web/ 3. Miller,
H., & Arnold, J. (2001). "Self in Web home pages: Gender, identity
and power in cyberspace." In: G. Riva &
C. Galimberti (Eds.), Towards
CyberPsychology: Mind, Cognitions and Society in the Internet Age. 4. Herring, S. C., Kouper, I., Scheidt, L. A., & Wright, E. (2004). "Women and children last: The discursive construction of weblogs." In: L. Gurak, S. Antonijevic, L. Johnson, C. Ratliff, and J. Reyman (Eds.), Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. University of Minnesota. http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/women_and_children.html |
----------------
|
|
Human-computer
interaction and system design. Can machines be gendered? |
|
Read: |
1. Huff, C.
(2002). "Gender, software design, and occupational equity." SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 112-115. http://drzaius.ics.uci.edu/meta/classes/informatics161_fall06/papers/10-huff.pdf 3. McDonough, J. P. (1999). "Designer selves: Construction of technologically mediated identity within graphical, multiuser virtual environments." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50 (10), 855-869. 4. Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P., Hodges, L. F. (2006). "Can a virtual cat persuade you? The role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness." Proceedings of CHI 2006, 1153-1162. 5. Bell, G.,
Blythe, M., & Sengers, P. (2005). “Making by making strange:
Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technology.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction, Special issue on Social Issues and HCI, 12 (2),
149-173. |
----------------
|
Week 12
(4/6/07): |
Gender and
globalization: Is there a "digital divide"? |
|
Read: |
1. Galpin,
V. (2002). “Women in computing around the world.” inroads—SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2): Special Issue on Women and Computing,
94-100. 2.
Inayatullah, S. & I. Milojevic (1999). "Exclusion and communication
in the information era: From silences to global conversation." In women@internet, ed. by W.
Harcourt. 3. Lennie,
J. et al. (1999). "Empowering on-line conversations: A pioneering
Australian project to link rural and urban women." In women@internet, ed. by W.
Harcourt. 4. Wheeler,
D. (2001). "Women, Islam, and the Internet: Findings in Kuwait." In Culture,
Technology, Communication: Towards an Intercultural Global Village, C. Ess
(ed.), pp.158-182. 5. Lagesen,
V. A. (2005). "A cyber-feminist utopia? Perceptions of gender and
computer science among Malaysian women computer science students." In Extreme
Makeover: The Making of Gender and Computer Science. Trondheim. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/lagesen.pdf
|
|
Browse: |
Hafkin,
N. (2003). "Some thoughts on gender and telecommunications/ICT
statistics and indicators." (Especially the big table.) International
Telecommunication Union. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/wict02/doc/pdf/Doc46_Erev1.pdf |
----------------
|
Week 13
(4/13/07): |
Gendered
impacts of computers on office work, telework, and IT-intensive
professions. |
|
Read: |
1. Brynin, M.
(2006). "Gender
equality through computerisation." European Sociological Review, 22(2),
111-123. 2. Harris,
R. (2000). "Squeezing librarians out of the middle: Gender and
technology in a threatened profession." Women, Work and
Computerization: Charting a Course to the Future. Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Women, Work and Computerization.
Vancouver, British Columbia: June
2000, ed. by E.
Balka & R. Smith (pp. 250-259). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing. |
|
Optional
reading (long but interesting): |
Wright, R.,
& Jacobs, J. J. (1994). "Male flight from computer work: A new look
at occupational resegregation and ghettoization." American
Sociological Review, 59 (4), 511-536. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/wright.pdf |
----------------
|
Week 14
(4/20/07): |
What can be
done? Postmodern imaginings; practical interventions. |
|
Read: |
1. Haraway,
D. (1991). "A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist
feminism in the late twentieth century." In Simians, Cyborgs, and
Women: The Reinvention of Nature
(pp.149-181). New York: Routledge. 2.
Braidotti, R. (1996). "Cyberfeminism with a difference." New
Formations, 29 (Autumn), 9-25. http://www.let.uu.nl/womens_studies/rosi/cyberfem.htm
3. Wilding,
F. (2003). "Where is feminism in cyberfeminism?" http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/fwild/faithwilding/wherefem.pdf 4. Herring,
S. C., & Marken, J. (2007). "Implications of gender consciousness
for students in information technology." Under review. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/herring.marken.pdf
5. Blum, L.
(2001). "Transforming the culture of computing at Carnegie Mellon." http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~lblum/PAPERS/
TransformingTheCulture.pdf and Frieze, C. & L. Blum
(2001). "Building an effective computer science
student organization: The Carnegie Mellon women@scs action plan." http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cfrieze/paper.html |
|
Browse: |
Lynch, D.
(2000). "High tech gender bending: Computer scientist Lynn Conway
debunks gender gap myths." http://votum.nl/leestafel/detailpages/ALL/233.html |
----------------
----------------
|
Week 16
(5/02/07): |
Take-home
final exam (or research paper) due by 5 p.m. THURSDAY |
----------------
Last
updated: April 12, 2007