L567:
Gender and
Computerization
|
Semester: |
Spring 2006 |
Instructor: |
Dr. Susan
Herring |
|
Time: |
T 1-3:45 p.m. |
Office: |
LI 037 |
|
Place: |
LI 031 |
Phone: |
856-4919
(voice mail) |
|
Office hours: |
T 4-6 p.m.
and by appointment |
Email: |
herring @
indiana.edu |
Class
majordomo list: gencomp-l @ indiana.edu
Required
reading:
Photocopied
articles to be made available
electronically on ereserves (http://ereserves.indiana.edu/) or on
print
reserve in the SLIS library (articles in Cherny & Weise, Harcourt,
and
Kramarae books).
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 LiveJournals. You are
expected to read the
assigned readings and keep a personal LiveJournal
in which you write informal entries about each
reading. 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 Sunday. In addition, you are expected to
comment on at least three of your classmates' entries by Monday or
Tuesday each week. The Live Journals 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:
|
LiveJournal
entries and class participation |
35% |
|
Observation
reports (3 x 10%) |
30% |
|
Final exam
or term paper |
35% |
|
Total: |
100% |
Grading
policies:
• Late LiveJournal entries
will be counted once during the
semester, no questions asked,
provided they are posted by 5 p.m. Saturday before the next class
meeting.
• LiveJournal entries 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
LiveJournal entries should be posted by 9 p.m. on the Sunday before
class for that week's readings.)
----------------
|
Week 1
(1/10/06): |
Introduction
to course. Stereotypes about gender and computers: (Soft) nature vs.
(hard) technology. The "gender gap" in the age of the Internet. |
|
|
Create a
LiveJournal and post a short introduction about yourself and your
interests in gender and /or technology. |
|
|
|
----------------
|
Week 2
(1/17/06): |
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
(1/24/06): |
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. 2. Kramer, P. & S. Lehman (1990). "Mismeasuring women: A critique of research on computer avoidance." Signs 16(1), 158-172. 3. Ray, C.
M., C. Sormunen, & T. M. Harris (1999). "Men's and women's
attitudes toward computer technology: A comparison." Office Systems
Research Journal 17(1),
Spring. http://www.osra.org/itlpj/raysormunenharris.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
(1/31/06): |
The cultural
construction of computing as gendered: Popular representations of
computer users. |
|
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. Edwards,
P. (1990). "The army and the microworld: Computers and the politics of
gender identity." (pp.102-127). 2.
Michaleson, G. (1994). "Women and men in computer cartoons 1946-1982." In A. Adam et al. (Eds.), Women, Work and
Computerization. 3. Ware, M.
& M. F. Stuck (1985). "Sex-role messages vis-à-vis
microcomputer use: A look at the pictures." Sex Roles 13(3/4),
205-214. 4. Borsook,
P. (1996). "The memoirs of a token: An aging Berkeley feminist examines
Wired." In L.
Cherny & E. Weise (Eds.), wired_women (pp.24-41).
Seattle: Seal Press. |
----------------
|
Week 5
(2/7/06): |
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. 2. Turkle,
S. (1984). "Hackers: Loving the machine for itself." In The Second
Self. New York: Simon and Schuster. 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. 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
(2/14/06): |
Environmental
and educational factors. Experiences of girls and boys with computing.
Experiences of female students in computer science programs. |
|
Read: |
1. Krendl et
al. (1989). "Children and computers: Do sex-related differences
persist?" Journal of Communication 39(3),
85-93. 2.
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. 3. Evard,
Michele (1996). "So please stop, thank you: Girls online." In L. Cherny
& E. Weise (Eds.), wired_women
(pp.188-204). 4. Spertus,
E. (1991). "Why are there so few female computer scientists?" [Skim
entire article; read closely the sections and subsections on: "Ways
that males and females are treated differently"; "The masculine
environment"; "Problems with solutions"] http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Gender/pap/pap.html 5. Herring, S. C. Ogan, C., Ahuja, M., & Robinson, J. C. (In press, 2006). "Gender and the culture of computing in applied IT education." Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/gite.pdf
|
----------------
|
Week 7
(2/21/06): |
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. Gorriz,
C. & C. Medina (2000). "Engaging girls with computers through
software games." Communications of the ACM, January
43(1), 42-49. 2.
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. 3. 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 4. Bryce, J., & Rutter, J. (2002). "Killing like a girl: Gendered gaming and girl gamers' visibility." Computer Games and Digital Cultures-Conference Proceedings. http://www.digiplay.org.uk/media/cgdc.pdf
5. Castronova, T. (2003). "The price of 'man' and 'woman': A hedonic pricing model of avatar attributes in a synthetic world." CESIFO Working Paper no. 957, Category 4: labour markets. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=415043 [Click below abstract to download paper.] |
|
Browse: |
Brown, J. (1997). All-girl Quake clans shake up boys' world. http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,1885,00.html |
----------------
|
|
System
design and human-computer interaction. Can machines be gendered?
|
|
Read: |
1. Benston,
M. (1989). "Feminism and system design: Questions of control." In The
Effects of Feminist Approaches on Research Methodologies, W. Tomm
(ed.), pp.205-223. Calgary: Wilfred Laurier University
Press. 2.
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. 3. Herring,
S. et al. (2002). "Designing for community: The effects of gender
representation in videos on a Web site." Proceedings of the 35th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los
Alamitos: IEEE Press. 5. Beckwith, L., & Burnett, M. (2004). Gender: An important factor in end-user programming environments? Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing Languages and Environments, Rome, Italy. ftp://ftp.cs.orst.edu/pub/burnett/vlhcc04.gender.pdf |
|
Browse: |
Eisenberg, A. (2000). "Mars and Venus, on the Net: Gender stereotypes
prevail." The New York Times, October 12. [short] http://ntac.org/news/00/10/12nyt.html |
|
Week 9
(3/7/04):
|
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 10
(3/21/06): |
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. Hall, K.
(1996). "Cyberfeminism." In S. C.
Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social
and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. |
----------------
|
Week 11
(3/28/06):
|
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. Kibby, M.
(1997). "Babes on the Web: Sex, identity and the home page." Razón
y Palabra 9(2). http://www.cem.itesm.mx/dacs/publicaciones/logos/anteriores/n9/
babe.htm 4. Raphael, C., Bachen, C., et al. (2006). "Portrayals of information and communication technology on
World Wide Web sites for girls." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3). http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/raphael.pdf
5. Herring, S. C., Kouper, I., Scheidt, L. A., and 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
|
----------------
|
Week 12
(4/4/06): |
Gendered
impacts of computers on office work, telework, and IT-intensive
professions. |
|
Read: |
1. Stanworth, C. (2000). "Women and work in the Information Age." Gender, Work and Organization, 7 (1), 20-32. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/stanworth.pdf 2.
Calabrese, A. (1994). "Home-based telework and the politics of private
woman and public man: A critical appraisal." In U. Gattiker (Ed.), Women
and Technology
(pp. 161-199). New York: Walter de Gruyter. 3. Truman, G., & Baroudi, J. J. (1994). Gender differences in the Information Systems managerial ranks: An assessment of potential discriminatory practices. MIS Quarterly, 18 (2), 129-142. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/truman.pdf 4. 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,
and R. Smith (pp. 250-259). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing. 5. Lie, M.
(1995). "Technology and masculinity: The case of the computer." The
European Journal of Women’s Studies, 2, 379-394. |
|
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 13
(4/11/06): |
Gender and
globalization of the Internet. Is there a "digital divide"? |
|
Read: |
1. Hafkin,
N. & N. Taggart (2001). "Gender, information technology, and
developing countries: An analytic study." http://learnlink.aed.org/Publications/Gender_Book/executive_summary/1gender_foreword.htm 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: |
Pastore,
M. (2001). "Internet remains a man's domain." http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics/ar
ticle/
0,,5901_809341,00.html and "Europe, U.S. on Different Sides of the Gender Divide." http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/demographics/article.php/3095681 |
----------------
|
Week 14
(4/18/06): |
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. (2006). "Implications of gender consciousness for students in IT." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 10. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/aera.l567.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
(5/01/06): |
Take-home
final exam (or research paper) due by 5 p.m. |
----------------