The Technology Gender Gap
Aired April 22 and 23, 2000
Listen to the show.
You must have RealAudio installed to listen to the show. Download RealAudio here.
This is Internet on the Air. I’m Joan Silvi. The technology gender
gap. Details in a moment.
Funding Credit: Internet On The Air is a production of the University of Michigan
School of Information and Michigan radio, made possible by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation.
In terms of enrollment, women at the University of Michigan have made advances in every
field except computer science. Women represent 27% of engineering undergraduates,
exceeding the national average of 18%. But only 1 in 10 computer science majors is female.
This isn’t surprising, given that most girls ages 14-17 prefer data entry classes,
the modern version of typing, to computer science. The Association of American University
Women reports that boys “exhibit higher computer self-confidence and a more positive
attitude about computers than girls”.
A new research group at U of M is studying how software design affects this gender gap.
Software produced specifically for girls has grown so much that toy stores display
separate signs for boys and girls software. But researchers and parents wonder if
so-called “pink” software, such as Disney’s Princess Fashion Boutique and
Barbie Magic Hairstyler will teach girls the technology skills and confidence building
they need to narrow the digital gender gap.
According to Nichole Pinkard, Director of the Gender and Learning Technologies Research
Group, the popularity of pink software may be more a result of marketing campaigns than
true preferences among girls. But while games like Barbie may not teach girls many
technology skills, Pinkard says they do attract girls who may not otherwise use computers.
Until researchers learn more about the effects of software on girls’ self-esteem,
Pinkard encourages parents to be actively involved in selecting and evaluating software
for their daughters.
To find out more about the gender gap and girls software or to hear an interview with
Nichole Pinkard, visit our Web site at www.iota.org
Top of Page
Related Links
For further information, try these Web sites:
Top of Page
The Interview
IOTA interviewed Nichole Pinkard and Denise Conanan in March 2000.
Many people are familiar with the digital divide
in terms of economic class and race. What is the state of the gender gap in terms of
technology use?
According to the AAUW’s (Association of American University Women) report, the
gender gap in regards to technology is actually widening. They believe that the gender gap
in relation to computers is going to be wider than the gender gap in relation to
mathematics.
There has been a decrease in the number of women enrolled in computer-related degrees. But
at the same time, there really hasn’t been any data that analyzes other types of
programs that women are going into that also make use of technology. Whereas not as many
women are getting degrees in computer science, more women might be getting degrees in
graphic art. I think it’s important to caution that.
A recent show, the Digital Divide, a PBS documentary, also highlighted the gender gap in
terms of use of computers. I don’t have the exact figures, but there are studies out
there that say that it is increasing. It’s something we need to put on the front
burner so that it doesn’t increase and become even more of an issue that the existing
gap with math.
At what age do girls show signs of resisting
technology, or interacting with computers in different ways than boys?
We’re currently engaged in some research to understand that now. We’re mostly
using the published reports. Most studies have actually only focused on a subset of girls,
adolescent girls who have access to technology in the home. I don’t think we have the
data to say exactly where the gender gap begins (at what age it begins). Our studies show
that as young as the second grade, there is a gender gap in terms of computer preferences
between boys and girls.
We’ve also seen with the creation of Barbie™ software, that even at such a young
age you’re seeing differences in software preferences. But at the same time, given
that the kids aren’t buying the technology, you don’t know if it’s the
kids’ preference or the parents’ preference.
Does the availability of the Barbie™ PC and
the Hotwheels PC reflect actual preferences between girls and boys, or are the toy
companies simply marketing pink to girls, blue to boys?
I think it’s both, I think it’s a combination. I’m teaching a course,
Culture, Design, and Technology, this semester, and we’ve engaged in this
conversation in some sense. I think the existence of Barbie™ software is bringing in
a new class of girls in some sense, to the technology, that probably wouldn’t use it
in any other way. At the same time, I don’t know how much of it is the technology and
how much of it is Barbie™ (girls at that age play with Barbie™), and how much of
it is the designers too.
If you go into ToysRUs, you see a sign that says “girls software” and a sign
that says “boys software”. In some sense they’re creating the juxtaposition
in that is someone going to go in there and say “Let me buy my girl boy’s
software”. You don’t see as much at a young age, “this is software for
everyone”. In some sense it’s type-defined.
Now you can buy the computer, either the Barbie™ or Hot Wheels™ computer, that
already comes pre-loaded. But what we did find in doing some research on the software, say
a Playmate, that targets girls (boys and girls use it but it’s targeted around the
interests of girls) by teaching reading skills, by recreating lyrics to playground songs.
Some preliminary analysis of the data, in terms of children’s perceptions of their
computer ability, we saw that girls who liked the software program the most were also the
girls who use computers the least. We didn’t really expect to find that, and as we
follow up and go into more and more classrooms, we’re going to access that…So I
do believe that the existence of girls software is bringing in new girls into the computer
market.
The question we have to ask now is what are we preparing them to do? Just because
they’re using it doesn’t mean they’re developing any of the requisite
skills that we believe are necessary. If you look at most of the girls’ software,
it’s recreating existing social patterns. A graduate student here, Tiffany Moore, is
doing some research really exploring how the design of the software programs for girls
helps to create perceptions of themselves and their computer ability, and just who they
are as people.
So while Barbie™ software might not be
teaching girls many skills, it does provide some girls with exposure to technology who
might not otherwise be interested in it?
It might not have to do with the effect on the girls right now, but at least it brought
to the table the importance of considering the design decisions in software. Mostly before
we only focused on the social factors - we need more girls in the computer classroom, we
need all-girls classrooms, we need to get the mothers using the computers - but the same
software was on the market and the designers were never really held accountable for what
it was that they’re designing.
I remember in the Newsweek article, “Let’s Talk about Me” was the first
million dollar seller for girls software (I think). It was the first big one and it was on
the cover of Newsweek. All of a sudden they’re like “Oh, we have a new
market”. There is an existence of a girls software market. Within a couple of months
you see all this girls software. So at least it made people question,“how did they
design it and who did they design it for?”
It also probably opened up opportunities for women getting into the design process (e.g.,
Purple Moon). Hopefully in the long run it will have more of an impact there. At the same
time, given that we’re at the beginning of the industry, you’re going to see
more stereotypical software, than (hopefully) you’ll see four to five years down the
line. Right now what they know works is Barbie™, so of course Barbie™ is going
to be sold.
Is increasing access to the Internet in schools
and homes helping or hindering the gender gap among girls and boys?
[Denise Conanan] I think there’s something different happening with girls and
computers once the Web is involved, as compared to the stand alone CD-ROMs that you would
buy off the shelf. Because you have the ability, obviously, for a connection with other
people. And, things like chats, which have a lot of appeal to girls. There are things
brewing and there’s probably lots going on that’s not really studied.
What a lot of this is telling us is that we need to understand it and we need to explore
it. As we think of technology becoming more of a major vehicle for ways in which kids
learn, we have to understand the consequences of using that. If you have existing gender
gaps for what computer courses girls take and what computers they’re willing to use,
you want to understand that first before we give everyone a laptop.
Part of what we’re hopefully saying is that we need to at least explore the issue. We
might find that there’s really not a gender gap or something else is more of a
factor. But, we really don’t have the data. Most of the data we have is on a very
small population that’s not reflective of the larger issues. We need a lot of
research and a lot of thought going into exploring the use of technology at home, in
schools, and everywhere.
There are possibly different use patterns on the computer, but there’s also more
variety, more choices out there than what you have on the software program. Given that the
major vehicle is communication, even the software off the shelf is designed from a
communications standpoint. Remember you can also create your own persona, so that might
also have something to do with it, but I just don’t think we know.
What are the top research priorities of the
Gender and Learning Technologies Research Group?
First, we want to bring this issue to the awareness of the University of Michigan
community. U of M itself is beginning to think about how to put an influx of technology
into courses, and how students are taught and how they learn. So, first we’re raising
the issue of “what do we understand to be the relationship between gender and
learning technologies?”
We want to promote some base-level research and some collaborations, and some
interdisciplinary work on the issues. At the same time we want to think about outreach
programs that we can create to bring more women into some of the relevant fields. We
definitely want to begin to establish a community and to think about the other types of
vehicles and venues for funding to do some larger scale research.
There’s a lot of work that happens that’s related to the issue. Based upon the
feedback, when we were setting up the [kickoff event], we were expecting 20 people, and
we’re up to 70 people, which is an amazing response from many different areas of the
University.
Is it possible that a distinction is made
between educational software and fun software, and that the educational software is
considered gender-neutral?
Still, most of the considerations in terms of how the technology is gendered, has still
been on the “edutainment” software. Those discussions haven’t quite found
their way into discussions related to the actual educational software that kids use in
classrooms. Clarisworks, for example, or other types of programs that might be used in a
classroom.
I still would say that we really haven’t had those types of discussions. A lot of
that has to do with the types of questions that we ask as researchers. Are we beginning to
explore the differences between genders and other cultural groups on how they use the
technology? Where we have seen differences before assume that it’s because of the
individual in terms of the design of the technology. My particular research interests are
to begin to push that and to explore, what is it about the actual design that also creates
particular types of use.
What recommendations do you have for parents who
are selecting software for their daughters?
Denise Conanan: [Does Jane Compute?] has a section that talks about tips for parents,
strategies for change. These are really important - being aware of inequitable patterns of
use at home. Don’t put the computer in the boy’s room if you have one, or be
aware that you may want to encourage equal time among the kids, and encourage exploration.
It’s ok to make a mistake, you’re not going to break the computer.
Nichole Pinkard: At the same time, use patterns don’t have to be the same for boys
and girls, but looking at software, don’t just stop at the cover of the box.
Don’t just look at this is Barbie, or this is whatever, so I’m going to buy it.
Begin to look at the software and see what it’s actually doing, and understand what
it is that your child likes. Then see if you can cross some of those barriers…to
begin to look beyond the packaging and to pick software that they view as helpful, but is
also interesting and is connected to what their son or daughter likes to do.
Again, look at the patterns of use at home and try to create safe spaces (I do still think
that social factors are important) - places where the girls can still have access and can
use the technology. If they’re concerned about their daughters using the technology,
see if there are any summer programs. You are beginning to see programs that are designed
to motivate and interest girls to use technology. Try to get access to those.
Please direct questions or comments to iota.webmaster@umich.edu.
Last Updated April 11, 2000
|
