Exploring Gender, Feminism and Technology from a Communication Perspective: An Introduction and Commentary

Abstract

Across disciplines, studies of technology offer fertile ground for understanding women's experience and for engaging the world through feminist critique. Women's studies research, in turn, contributes distinctly to understanding issues central to living in an increasingly technological world. The goal of this special issue is to emphasize the contribution of communication research in exploring the relationship between gender, feminism, and technology. The collection of articles presented here reminds us of how technology is simultaneously both rapidly changing and yet stubbornly intractable. Consider, we live in a time when technological artifacts are highly mutable (think of how quickly cell phones change, or of the frequency of software updates), but yet 25 years of research into the study of culture in dozens of technological contexts consistently reveals the dominance of masculinist ideologies of mastery and control (cf., Kidder, 1981; Kirkup & Keller, 1992; McIlwee & Robinson, 1992; Schwartz Cowan, 1983; Wajcman, 1991). The always-connected communication reality of 2007 is almost inconceivably different from that of the land-line world of 1987, yet our research finds that identity, interaction, and communication consistently exhibit clearly gendered characteristics and present familiar concerns of women's access, voice, and empowerment. A common theme among these four essays is a caution to look beyond the veneer of the technological artifact to underlying, enduring elements of communication and social interaction. To introduce the essays, I suggest two deeper concerns they speak to. The first is the fallacy of add women and stir. The second is the fallacy of technological determinism. Avoiding the Fallacy of Add Women and Stir A number of recent reports warn that the United States will likely face a serious shortage of scientists, engineers, and other technical professionals in the near future (see, e.g., National Academies, 2007; U.S. White House, 2006). One strategy for addressing this shortage is to increase the representation of women and girls in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and medicine). Typically referred to as pipeline solutions, these efforts are gaining steady momentum at all levels of education, from elementary school through post-graduate training. Historically, technical disciplines have not attracted many women. As many scholars (and women scientists and engineers) attest, a main problem is that these disciplines have not been very attractive to women (McIlwee & Robinson, 1992; Margolis & Fisher, 2002). In response, a growing number of initiatives examine ways to make STEM subjects more interesting and more engaging to women. For example, recently Bryn Mawr and Georgia Tech both introduced courses that teach computer science by assigning students to program robots (Fischman, 2007). Industry-academic consortia, such as the National Center for Women in Technology (http://www.ncwit.org/) attempt to raise awareness of the situation and to support change initiatives, particularly those aimed at curriculum reform. These efforts are significant and important for addressing the problem of women's absence. However, the voices and contributions of communication scholars are essential in these efforts in order to avoid the fallacy of add women and stir. (1) Lasting change requires more than the addition of female bodies. It requires a careful examination of the complex issues embedded (and often taken for granted) in technological contexts. For example, an instructor who revises a course to make the content more relevant and engaging to women, and yet maintains a traditional pedagogy emphasizing competition and individual accomplishment, has not recognized the importance of reforming the experience of women in these disciplines. This critical stance is particularly relevant as computer science begins to incorporate a new area of study: the design and development of digital games. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.