Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Interacting with Computers

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/intcom

A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI ⇑ Jennifer A. Rode

Drexel University, United States Downloaded from article info abstract

Article history: HCI has a complex and often ambivalent attitude towards the issue of and interactive systems. Available online 27 May 2011 Here I discuss three dominant paradigms for treating gender in HCI, and discuss their limitations. Next,

I will present the theoretical perspectives on gender which are on the fringes of HCI – Technology as http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ Keywords: Masculine Culture, Gender Positionality, and Lived Body Experience – and discuss their possible contribu- Gender tions. I will show how this supports a reassessment of the use of gender theory in technological set- Critical theory tings and its relevance for framing questions of gender in HCI. My goal in doing so is to argue for Ethnography the importance of a more direct treatment of gender in HCI and move towards a for Anthropology HCI. HCI Ó 2011 British Informatics Society Limited. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017

1. Introduction ways in which gender roles are enacted and performed in everyday action. So, our question is not ‘‘do women and men display differ- HCI has a complex and often ambivalent attitude towards the ent aptitudes for technological tasks?’’ but rather, ‘‘how are beliefs issue of gender and interactive systems. On the one hand, a series and use of technology embedded in the production and ongoing of examinations, focused primarily but not exclusively on cogni- management of gender in daily life?’’ tive and perceptual tasks, has uncovered gender differences that I have been approaching these questions through a series of may be consequential for interactive system design (Beckwith qualitative studies of gender in rich social settings where gender et al., 2006; Cassell, 2002; Kelleher et al., 2007; Rode et al., unquestionably affects everyday interaction in a deep and perva- 2004; Tan et al., 2003). On the other hand, at a somewhat higher sive fashion (Rode, 2010, 2008; Rode et al., 2004). That work has level, there is a pervasive belief that gender does not – or should allowed me to reflect on three dominant paradigms for treating not – be consequential to patterns of computer use e.g. (Martin gender in HCI, which I will discuss here along with their limita- et al., 2007; O’Neill and Martin, 2003; Tolmie et al., 2007). Cutting tions. Next, I will present the theoretical perspectives on gender across this issue of framing gender, there are clear gender gaps in on the fringes of HCI and discuss their possible contributions. Fi- technology participation, which are mirrored by similar gaps in nally, I will show how this supports a reassessment of the use of numbers of women creating technology. Feminist STS scholars ar- gender theory in technological settings and its relevance for fram- gue (Cockburn, 1992; Wajcman, 1992) that this is indicative of an ing questions of gender in HCI. underlying male bias both of technical culture but also of techni- My goal in doing so is to argue for the importance of a more di- cal products, which if eliminated would allow technology to be rect treatment of gender in HCI. There is a twofold reason for in- designed more responsively to the flexible gender definitions of creased emphasis on gender. First if women are avoiding careers its users. in math and science because the culture excludes them (Camp, In this article, I call for the framing of the issue of gender in 1997; Margolis and Fisher, 2002), we have the opportunity, as I will interactive systems using a different perspective. My perspective show here, as HCI practitioners to ensure that the artifacts them- differs from more traditional HCI approaches in two ways. First, I selves encourage both Technical , as well as flexible def- argue for a need to focus on gender issues in real-world settings initions of gender and that the design processes support this. rather than in laboratory settings, because I want to focus on gen- Secondly, as we move from considering issues of to user der as an aspect of everyday life. Second, I argue for the examina- experience, and from GUI to increasingly ubiquitous computing, tion of gender as a social product – that is, I am concerned with the we must recognize that gender although suspect to redefinition and reinscription is deeply enmeshed in all aspects of daily life, particularly domestic life. I want to frame this paper here in terms of Bardzell’s more re- ⇑ Tel.: +1 949 923 0191; fax: +1 215 895 1820. cent ‘‘Feminist HCI’’ (Bardzell, 2010) paper which is more familiar E-mail address: [email protected]

0953-5438/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 British Informatics Society Limited. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.005 394 J.A. Rode / Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400 to this community.1 Here Bardzell sketches four possible contribu- populations that were at least two-thirds male (Barkhuus and tions of feminist theory to HCI: theory, methodology, user research Rode, 2007). This suggests that while in some case gender may and evaluation (Bardzell, 2010, p. 1305). She concludes there are genuinely not be relevant, we are not following best practices in two ‘‘general ways in which contributes to interaction de- studies using balanced samples, and a careful review of the CHI lit- sign’’ these are critique based or studies with feminist lenses and gen- erature combined with knowledge of gender theory might lead us erative contributions where ‘‘feminist approaches’’ are used to to question a few hypotheses. influence design judgments (Bardzell, 2010, p. 1308). This paper is The space of orientations towards gender then includes four calling for a third contribution beyond those called for by Bardzell, positions. First, individuals who choose on principled grounds and the scope of influence is not limited to interaction designers spe- not to engage with gender as it is irrelevant to their subject of cifically, but rather the field of social informatics as a whole. Many study regardless of their personal beliefs. Second, as illustrated researchers, including Dourish (2006) and myself (Rode, 2011), have above, individuals who over-look its relevance. Third, in many argued for the need for socio-technical theory, and here I strive to communities, though I will make no claims regarding whether this build the foundation for a socio-technical theory of gender. view exists in HCI specifically, there are individuals who have a Thus moving forward requires us to appropriately handle gen- hostile attitude towards the topic altogether and believe women der. I will argue we need to do so by embracing feminist theory— are lesser creatures. Fourth, individuals who pick up the topic of that is engaging with the critical theory in the com- gender and engage with it passively or actively in their work. munity and applying it to HCI. This article hopes to discuss relevant It is this last category, individuals who engage with gender, that Downloaded from theory from gender studies, and show how it relates to HCI in the I wish to address in more detail in the next section. I will describe hopes that it will move all us towards that goal. Ultimately, we will three dominant positions, which can be mapped to specific theo- need to create our own gender theory as a community, but for now retical orientations towards gender. These are not the only three my goal is simply to promote awareness of our community’s for instance, my work has strong Marxist-Feminist leanings, but stances on gender and how they relate to established theories. In it is clearly in the minority. The three positions I will lay out are http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ this paper I am not presenting a unified feminist theory for HCI, more mainstream and readily identifiable, and most importantly rather I am setting a theoretical agenda. I am calling for us to en- by setting them out here, I can explain how these positions are gage with existing feminist theory to create our own feminist so- inherently problematic. This will allow me to readily contrast other cio-technical theory; this goes well beyond the current framing feminist positions outside HCI which I will show have relevance to of Feminist HCI. HCI.

2. Approaches to gender within HCI 2.1. at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017 How is gender treated in HCI research? There are a variety ways If, as I have shown, the majority of CHI papers are ignoring gen- of addressing, or not addressing, gender in HCI. Some writers with- der, and considering gender is part of best practices in the social in HCI would argue gender is not relevant to their subject of study, sciences, then why are we doing this? As a feminist who believes and as such make a principled decision not to include it. As a fem- gender is relevant to most situations, I would like to think better inist scholar I believe that while there are genuine cases where of our community than authors simply being methodologically gender is not relevant, its relevance often is merely overlooked. sloppy or failing to acknowledge gender’s relevance. Although gen- For example, take Goh et al’s study of photowork (Goh et al., der is often ignored, this is not necessarily a failure to take a theo- 2010). In their 2010 Nordichi paper they lay out a careful study retical stance towards gender as topic; it can be an expression of a of photowork with an imbalanced gender sample, concluding that particular theory of gender, Liberal Feminism (Tong, 1998; Oost, their competitive phototagging game out performed the collabora- 2003). As such, Liberal Feminism provides one internally consis- tive one. However, as I said, the gender of their study’s participants tent rationale for this behavior. Liberal in this instance is not a ref- was unbalanced, such that they studied 66% men. While their con- erence to a political orientation but a specific school of feminist clusion was statistically valid, if one combines it with feminist the- thought. Liberal Feminism denies inherent gender differences, ories, the strength of their finding is substantially weaker. What even those that may have biological basis, and argues that women they actually showed is that a competitive game was more pre- would achieve parity with men if they were just given the same ferred by a predominately male sample, and if you combine this opportunities (Tong, 1998). Accordingly, a liberal feminist position with the theory that men are socialized to be more competitive denies the relevance of gender to HCI, because it argues that, ‘‘all and women more collaborative (Hapnes and Sorenson, 1995), the other things being equal,’’ gender should not matter. HCI practitio- end result is really that tagging applications are successful if they ners who followed Liberal Feminism then would ignore gender in follow gender norms. (It is worth noting that Goh and colleagues their studies not out of methodological sloppiness, but rather be- in yet unpublished follow up work were able to replicate the find- cause they principally believed it was irrelevant. While not all ing with a gender balanced sample reaffirming their initial hypoth- HCI practitioners who fail to examine gender are Liberal Feminists, esis.) However, it illustrates the possibility of gender’s relevance to an implicit Liberal Feminist leaning in HCI, perhaps even an uncon- studies where the research team initially thought it might be scious one, may in part explain the community’s attitude towards irrelevant. gender. This is why best practice in experimental psychology is to gen- However, there is a problem with this position which I will lay der balance participants. However, an examination of usability out next. It is precisely this question of ‘‘all other things being studies published in CHI over 24 years shows that the great major- equal’’ which potentially undermines the liberal feminist perspec- ity ignore gender of their participants altogether as a consideration tive. The inherent focus on the individual in Liberal Feminism (Barkhuus and Rode, 2007). Specifically, in Barkhuus and Rode’s makes it difficult to see the ways in which underlying social struc- sample in 2006, about half the studies failed to mention the gender tures and values disadvantage women; and it is precisely these of their participants at all, and another quarter tested on subject structures that question the premise of the Liberal Feminist stance (such as those surrounding development of and access to technol- 1 However, broadly this paper is my attempt to publish the theory that came out of ogy.) Liberal feminism then assumes technology itself is gender my dissertation (Rode, 2008) and companion talk series. neutral, which I will show later (in Section 3) is not the case. J.A. Rode / Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400 395

Consequently, I argue that the influence of this philosophy in and performative phenomenon in conversation with race, class, HCI is a disregard for gender as an element of design—in that tech- and other subjectivities. Paramterizable studies assume that by sim- nology is not seen to be a source of this opportunity gap. Technol- ply putting people into categories based on their biology one can ogy designers do not consider themselves to have the agency to control for differences in socially constructed gender. As I will show give men and women the same opportunities. Thus these issues later (Section 3.2), this is not the case. are seen to have social and not technological origins. However, as Third, this work often results in technology designed explicitly illustrated by Bjiker’s technological frame (the set of techniques for women’s needs, such as Kelleher and Pausch’s version of the used by a community for problem solving including tacit knowl- Alice system for teaching to program (Kelleher et al., 2007). edge) (Bijker, 1994) there is a bi-directional nature of influence be- As Cassell (Cassell, 2002) points out, this approach risks ghettoiz- tween technology and society. Thus, not considering the technical ing women or girls, and assumes a deficit model where male tech- origins of attitudes towards gender is perhaps shortsighted, but nology use is understood as normative, while females need to regardless the dominant treatment of gender in HCI is to consider ‘‘catch up’’ to levels of their male counterparts. it a problem beyond what is consider the appropriate scope of Thus, this approach is problematic in that gender requires technology design. Gender-blind design is explicitly mandated in understanding complex social settings, without resorting to gender Cassell’s ‘‘undetermined design.’’ Cassell writes, essentialism (as discussed in Section 3.2). Doing so leads designers to a problematic deficit model of design.

‘‘We didn’t see that it was our place to design a game for girls or Downloaded from a game for boys. We didn’t see that it was our place to claim to know what was or what boy was, because there’s too much 2.3. Ethnomethdological treatments of gender diversity. So, we decided to design computer games that in their very use would allow children to decide who they were, and to A third approach to gender is that of the ethnomethodological discover who they were in the richest way that we could.’’ (Cas- treatment. The ethnomethodologists in HCI and CSCW have a

sell, 2002, p. 12). well-reasoned argument for avoiding gender, in that it is a meth- http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ odological convention that they do not apply theory when discuss- Gender, then, is removed from the consideration of designers in ing fieldwork; rather they focus on the meaning of what was said that the ‘‘user’’ can construct their identity as they choose if pre- and the members’ own conceptual categories (Garfinkel and Sacks, sented with sufficiently gender-blind technological opportunity. 1970). Their argument is that these are constructions and as such However, as I will show later (see Sections 3 and 3.1) creating gen- not observable, thus the theories lack explanatory power. An der-blind technology is fraught with issues, in that technology is example of an ethnomethodological treatment of gender within inherently gendered (Berg and Lie, 1995; Harding, 1986; Oost, HCI would be Tolmie et al. (2007), who differentiate themselves 2003) and as designers we need to have agency in its gendering. from ‘‘traditional social science accounts of housekeeping, which emphasize the roles of gender divisions to the accomplishment at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017 2.2. Parameterize gender for interface design of housework in general,’’ presumably because they found no ob- servable patterns in terms of gender. However, outside HCI and A second approach, reflecting HCI’s origins in cognitive psychol- CSCW, ethnomethodologists have explicitly discussed observable ogy, focuses on gender differences in task performance. In general, patterns in men’s and women’s behavior (Garfinkel, 1984; Garfin- this work attempts to determine a series of parameterizable gen- kel and Sacks, 1970; West and Fenstermaker, 1995; West and Zim- der differences that might be influential for design and analysis. merman, 1987). Further, while they question gender as a Here gender is a variable, and as such it is a category constructed theoretical construct, they acknowledge that participants can en- by the results of repeated experiments (e.g., Helgeson, 2010). Re- gage in managing their gender identity in the context of social cent examples include Beckwith et al.’s research (Beckwith et al., expectations of what men and women do (Garfinkel, 1984). The 2006) which attempts to differentiate men and women’s self-effi- ethnomethodological stance on gender is best articulated in West cacy quantitatively in terms of their abilities to tinker and reflect and Zimmerman’s ‘‘Doing Gender’’ (West and Zimmerman, 1987). as part of learning to program, or Tan et al.’s (Tan et al., 2003) look- Here they discuss gender as a situated activity which is repeatedly ing at gendered differences of ability in terms of spatial navigation. ‘‘being done’’ in relation to others. Actions are constructed in re- This approach takes the issue of gender difference seriously, by sponse to normative gender practice, and ideally actions will pass determining clear differences between men and women. However, as normative, just as Garfinkel’s pre-operative transsexual Agnes it has its limitations. hoped to be socially classified as a by behaving appropri- First, studies often ignore important aspects of the social con- ately (Garfinkel, 1984). While normative gender behaviors are en- text within which gender issues occur in everyday life. Social con- acted such that they are unremarkable, individuals are accountable text, however, is critical to understanding gendered behavior. For to any deviations from normative behavior—or in West and Zim- instance, consider Robinson-Staveley and Cooper’s research, which merman’s terms ‘‘to be at risk of gender assessment.’’ So too, is gen- showed that college-age female computing novices were less suc- der being done, when men and women allocate technologies to the cessful and experienced greater situational stress when performing masculine or feminine spheres. tasks in the presence of another person (Huff, 2002). The same While ethnomethdologists outside of HCI have discussed the study showed men performed better on the same task in public. performativity of gender, those within our community have chosen 3 This demonstrates how social context is required to understand not to engage with gender. I would argue in doing so they have gender. implicitly embraced the Liberal Feminist notions of many of their Second, it adopts an essentialist approach to gender, of the sort peers. While I will not challenge their disposition against theory in that has been a considerable site of critique for third-wave femi- this essay, as such a debate belongs in an essay of its own, I take is- nism.2 Third-wave feminism argues for a more fluid and nuanced sue with their not engaging with the performativity of observable consideration of gender, one that recognizes gender as a discursive gender, especially in situations such as conversation or domestic work (O’Neill and Martin, 2003; Tolmie et al., 2007) which have been

2 Third wave feminism is the current school of feminist study which critiques earlier feminist work for focusing too much on Anglo-European elites, focuses on a 3 There are few instances of ethnomethodology in HCI that discuss gender at all, more diverse group of women and resists trying to homogenize women’s needs across but when they do their treatment is similar to Tolmie et al’s (Tolmie et al., 2007)in cultures. that they declare it out of scope (Martin et al., 2007; O’Neill and Martin, 2003). 396 J.A. Rode / Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400 shown to be highly gendered (Berk, 1985). The ethnomethodological sex differences’’ (Harding, 1986, p. 17–8). This assignment of char- perspective on gender from authors such as Garfinkel, West, Fenster- acteristics to a particular gender (for instance, women are graceful maker or Zimmerman would be a valuable addition to the HCI com- whereas men are strong) is not fixed, but rather socially and cul- munity designing systems. turally constructed (Butler, 2006; Young, 2005). Consequently, Butler (2006) quotes Beauvoir: ‘‘‘one is not born a woman, but, 2.4. Reflection on current practice rather one becomes one’’’ (p. 11), and Butler adds that ‘‘gender is performatively produced... gender proves to be performative— These three approaches take radically different stances on gen- that is, constituting the identity it is purported to be’’ (p. 34). Butler der.4 Liberal Feminism considers the inequalities of gender to be out- argues that women do this in part by reaffirming and grounding side the milieu of the technology design space. The second approach the masculine identity of their partners; they deny and give up in HCI attempts to parameterize gender and the design accordingly. their own desire in order to participate in the desire of men. And the third, the ethnomethodological approach, raises a complex It is important to recognize that, while all types of gender are theoretical objection to the theoretical concept of gender being ab- socially constructed, these are not ‘‘equal,’’ but conditioned by a stractly applied to a data set. series of power imbalances. Ortner, amongst others, examined Taken together, the critiques of these three perspectives suggest these from a cultural perspective (Ortner, 1974). She argues that that there is an important area of investigation that is under-exam- in the West, the masculine is associated with the built environ- Downloaded from ined in HCI research. The current treatment of gender is problem- ment and culture, and the feminine with nature, and that, by atic for three reasons. First, there is still significant disparity in extension, the masculine realm is that of the mind and the femi- society with regard to gender (Berk, 1985; Martin, 1984; Maushart, nine that of the body. Consequently, she argues that as the mind 2001; Strathern, 1980; Sullivan, 2002). Second, as I have shown controls the body, the masculine world controls the feminine elsewhere, how men and women enact male and female gender world. In looking at the Hagen case, Strathern has shown how assignment of these dualities are not culturally universal, in that roles effects the organization of domestic work with regards to http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ technology (Rode, 2010; Rode et al., 2004). Finally, these ap- the Hagen treat aspects Westerners consider masculine to be fem- proaches assume gender is stagnant and based on physiology. This inine and vice versa (Strathern, 1980). Thus the assignment of ignores the empowering concept that notions of gender can be dualistic gender traits to Structural Gender is culturally constructed. changed. Just as in Bijker’s technological frame, technology and However these gender dualities come to be, it is clear they are society have bi-directional influence on one another such that each complex and apply to different aspects of social life. Moreover, can impact or shape one another (Bijker, 1994). Similarly, gender, these complexities are under constant negotiation as we construct as one aspect of society, and technology both exert bi-directional and redefine notions of gender. Our goal here is to contribute to an influence. emerging effort to understand gender in a techno-cultural context (Bell et al., 2005; Wyche et al., 2006). I want to understand not just

Cutting across these three issues is the strong evidence that at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017 there is a gap in women’s participation in technology (Camp, how gender affects technology, but how technology affects gender, 1997). These issues prompt Burnett (2010) who questions how and how the relationship between these topics emerges as part of ‘‘supposedly gender-neutral software interacts with gender differ- socially-situated, everyday practice. ences.’’ What if, as Burnett eludes, the cause of this participation gap is that software often is not gender neutral? Indeed, I will ad- 3. Treatments of gender further afield dress this later (in Section 3.2), but for now I wish to stress that cutting across these issues of gender disparity, gender roles as ap- Next, I wish to introduce three theoretical approaches to gender plied to technology, and the bi-directional influence of technology from the gender studies literature and the feminist science and and society is the notion that the gender of software is, at least in technologies literature that might prove more productive as orien- part, the artifact of the design process. I will come back to this last tations towards gender. While each of these approaches have had point later (see Section 3.1), but first my use of the term gender re- some influence on authors in HCI, they are lesser considered views. quires additional clarification. These theories are broadly compatible, though have not necessarily Gender is a separate concept from biological sex, though often been applied together. These are three of many theories, selected these two issues are conflated (West and Zimmerman, 1987). because when considered in relation to current treatment of gen- When I talk about the lack of women in science and engineering der in HCI they give insight into areas of future inquiry for HCI. I am talking about sex. Thus much of HCI research that does deal Before I can examine them in more detail, I need to clarify the with women focuses on sex, in particular the work on behavioral multiple analytic roles that gender can play. I rely in part on Sandra differences between men and women or gaming for girls. However, Harding’s (Harding, 1986) distinction of three uses of the word when I talk about science and engineering cultures not allowing for gender – Individual Gender, Gender Structure, and Gender Symbolism. expressions of femininity I am talking about gender. We need the Individual Gender refers to a person’s gender self-identification, and debate to move from discussing sex to discussing gender. for many people this would correspond to their biological sex; Gender is not a fixed concept; both femininity and masculinity Gender Structure refers to the as defined by a division are socially constructed and undergo constant, albeit subtle, redef- of labor and responsibility at a larger societal level; while Gender inition and re-inscription. At the core is the assignment of gender Symbolism is the assigning of gender to other characteristics characteristics to the dualism of sexed bodies, or assigning passiv- beyond the individual and division of labor. ity and nurturing to the feminine and aggression and providing to Gender Symbolism is by far the most theoretically complex. In a the masculine (Faulkner, 2000b; Ortner, 1974). Feminist philoso- home domain, for instance, details of practice such as the Symbolic pher Sandra Harding expands on this by saying, ‘‘gendered social Gendering of appliances are included (Livingstone, 1992). Berg and life... is the result of assigning dualistic gender metaphors to vari- Lie discuss how this gendering is not done on the basis of heuristics ous perceived dichotomies that rarely have anything to do with but based on social construction (Berg and Lie, 1995). Symbolic gender, as Oost (2003) shows, can be given as part of the design process (Oost, 2003). At the same time individuals recognize the 4 Clearly, there may also be other minority approaches including individual symbolic gender of an artifact, as illustrated by Livingstone’s study adherents to other specific schools of feminist though (Tong, 1998), however, I am attempting to broadly identify major positions so I can outline how we can read (Livingstone, 1992) where she asks people to label domestic tech- feminist theory in light of them. nologies as masculine or feminine and finds there is clear consen- J.A. Rode / Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400 397 sus. Livingstone’s participants classified brown goods, goods that What this suggests is that Individual Gender and Technical Iden- used to be wood paneled, such as TV components, stereos and tity, one’s identities pertaining to technology, are being co-con- PCs, as masculine. By contrast, they defined feminine technologies structed. While there are no doubt individual exceptions, what as white goods, such as kitchen and laundry appliances (Living- this substantial body of suggests is that the so- stone, 1992). Historically technologies that are femininely gen- cial construction of gender within engineering is problematic for dered, however, gradually lose their status as technology many women, and likely some men as well. Technologies can have (Frissen, 1985; Kaye, 2007). For instance, on introduction, the land- gender inscribed into them, ie. be symbolically gendered, as part of line phone was considered highly technical and masculine, but the design process (Berg and Lie, 1995; Oost, 2003). Technologies gradually women became primarily responsible for maintaining with masculine symbolic gendering are particularly problematic social networks via the phone (Frissen, 1985). Eventually the for women and prone to produce Gender Inauthenticity. Prior work phone became femininely gendered and, arguably, we no longer (Alsheikh et al., 2011; Friedman, 1996; Kaye, 2007) has argued as think of it as technology (Frissen, 1985). I do not mean to implied designers we have the opportunity to engage with Values in de- these ‘‘masculine technologies’’ are not used by women, it is to say sign. Extending this rather than reifying the gendered status quo, we do not think of them as feminine. Thus Technology, ‘‘big T’’ we as technology designers have the unique opportunity to at- technology, the technology we think of as technical, becomes syn- tempt to change values with regards to gender as we create tech- onymous with men’s technology. This opens a design space for nology. We can act as agents of social change that attempt to Technologies, with a big T, that simultaneously have a feminine redefine normative Structural Gender. Downloaded from Gender Symbolism and retain a technical identity. Ultimately, the To apply Technology as Masculine Culture to HCI a two-pronged symbolic gender of an item is socially constructed through the approach is required. First, a productive starting point for HCI bi-directional process (Bijker, 1994) with input applied by both would be the design of technologies that do not marginalize female society, which comprised of individuals, and technology creators. or feminine values. Second, just as there are many examples of Individuals’ beliefs on Gender Symbolism are an important part of masculinely symbolically gendered technologies, there is a need http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ Individual Gender, and artifacts may be gendered differently in for technologies that allow for the demonstration of Technical Fem- terms of Individual and Structural Gender. ininity. Technical Femininity is demonstrated by women using tech- These layered meanings of gender (Individual Gender, Gender nologies that are symbolically gendered to be feminine and still Structure and Gender Symbolism) interact with one another as indi- maintain their status as Technology, thereby resolving Gender viduals manage their relationships with technology. While biolog- Inauthenticity. While some women are able to construct a feminine ical sex may be binary, rare cases of intersexed persons aside, technical identity, this remains a problem for the majority (Turkel, gender is a nuanced, socially constructed aspect of our identity; 1988), and only feminine technologies will address it. As I stated in thus it is critical our discussion of gender maintain this nuance. Section 3, a lack of femininely gendered technology is particularly Next I will discuss the three theoretical approaches to gender problematic in that technologies that are femininely symbolically at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017 which I argue the HCI community can benefit from, Technology as gendered often lose their status of requiring technical skill to oper- Masculine Culture, Gender Positionality, and Lived Body Experience, ate (Frissen, 1985). Consider for instance the typical oven which each in turn. Rode et al. (2004) showned to require considerably more cognitive complexity to program than a VCR, and yet is no longer considered 3.1. Technology as Masculine Culture to be Technology. This needs to be addressed. Of course, Cassell ar- gues designing for women risks ghettoizing them (Cassell, 2002). I The first theoretical framework for discussing gender is the would like to clarify this. The risk is in designing technology explic- Technology as Masculine Culture (Cockburn, 1992), which suggests itly for women, and not in designing feminine technologies. The that the inherent male bias of technology is in part caused by wo- latter is not essentialist and is used by both men and women, men’s lack of involvement in the design of technologies that are of- but appeals to feminine aspects of their character. These tasks ten shaped by male power and interests (Oost, 2003; Schwartz- are gendered as feminine, in that they center on the construction Cowan, 1983). The notion here is that designers are inadvertently of normative and Individual Gender. Normative definitions of Gen- constructing masculinely symbolically gendered technology, and der Structure can be oppressive and limit power particularly when that this impacts how technology is ultimately used if it is at odds technical skill is tied to wealth and power in our society, but at the with Individual Gender. As a result, women feeling alienated from same time they can afford a sense of empowerment and an outlet technology define their femininity in terms of rejection rather than for creativity. We as designers we cannot afford to engage in Liber- adoption of technology (Turkel, 1988). Thus, some women may al Feminism, given so much evidence that technology is currently intentionally define themselves as not technological to preserve gendered in a way to exclude women (Berg and Lie, 1995; Camp, their femininity (Turkel, 1988), or if they do they are liable to expe- 1997; Cockburn, 1992; Dourish, 2006; Faulkner, 2000a,b, 2001; rience what she terms Gender Inauthenticity. Gender Inauthenticity Harding, 1986; Huff, 2002; Kvande, 1999; Rode et al., 2004; Rode, then refers to how the masculine culture surrounding technology 2011; Turkel, 1988; Oost, 2003; Wajcman, 1992). ‘Technology as design makes women who choose to participate struggle with cre- Masculine Culture’ (Cockburn, 1992; Wajcman, 1992) is a provoca- ating an Individual Gender that includes technology use that is at tive (and difficult) starting point for design, but I feel it is one that the same time consistent with Structural Gender. CHI needs to consider. If you were to take this school of thought as Faulkner (2000a) looks at Gender Inauthenticity and how it af- valid, how would it be addressed in design? We need to engage fects career choice; she claims it propels women toward what critically with these three forms of gender (Individual, Structural she calls more feminine technical careers which she defines by and Symbolic) and be nuanced in treatments of gender as we make example—user interfaces, quality assurance, project management design decisions regarding Gender Inauthenticity and Technical or management of people. She argues these careers are ‘‘ghetto- Femininity. ized’’ within the software profession and are low-status from the perspective of the engineering culture. Similarly, Kvande discusses 3.2. Gender Positionality her ethnographic work and how female engineers were presented with a dilemma in the workplace as to how to construct their iden- A second theoretical framework of relevance to HCI is Gender tity, showing that many of them give up aspects of their femininity Positionality (Alcoff, 1988). This is an approach that specifically at- to act as ‘‘One-of-the-Boys’’ (Kvande, 1999). tempts to examine the practice of gender as a relational concept 398 J.A. Rode / Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400

(that is, one in which gender roles are mutually constituted.) Gen- The question then is how does binary gender relate to Harding’s der Positionality is founded on critiques of other relational concep- three forms of gender? While Gender Structure is enacted in rela- tions of gender. tion to hegemonic binary gender norms, these norms are being For instance, while cultural feminists have argued for a reap- redefined and reconstructed. Binary gender is then something that praisal of the values and characteristics defined as masculine and we can theoretically move beyond, and indeed one could argue a feminine, they have nonetheless accepted those attributions as gi- more flexible normative categorization of gender is occurring, ven; and while poststructuralist gender scholars have pursued a while at the same time the work of gender is enacted primarily rel- deconstruction of gender roles and gender rhetoric, their approach ative to binary gender. Individual and Gender Structure then are fails to provide a position from which political reform can be both changing, and at a theoretical level neither need to be binary. achieved. In her Gender Positionality framework, Alcoff presents It is critical to recognize that while I am calling for a non-binary an alternative to these approaches (Alcoff, 1988). treatment of gender with regards to theory, in everyday life binary Broadly speaking, rather than seeking a relational position with treatments of gender do exist in society. Individual identity and respect to men, Gender Positionality suggests that women are con- Structural Gender are created in relation to binary gender norms, ceptualized relative to society. Since society is in a constant state of though individual constructions can be non-binary. Gender then change, this relationship is also subject to change. Alcoff elaborates on the level of the individual can be constructed in a non-binary the relationship between women and society by analogizing it to a fashion, however at the same time we can recognize a socially con- game of chess: structed dominant paradigm of Gender Structure which is pres- Downloaded from ently constructed as largely binary. Ethnographic realism When the concept ‘‘women’’ is defined not by a particular set of requires practices to be documented for what they are, and real life attributes but by a particular position, the internal characteris- might rely on binary gender. However, as we construct theory tics of the person thus identified are not denoted so much as the based on ethnography we cannot fall into essentialist treatments external context within which that person is situated. The of gender. external situation determines the person’s relative position, just http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ Similarly, essentialism is a serious critique for the HCI studies as the position of a pawn on a chessboard is considered safe or that hope to establish the psychology of gender. Further, in line dangerous, powerful or weak, according to its relation to the with Butler’s vision we can recognize that a more nuanced para- other chess pieces (p. 433). digm of both individual and Structural Gender that allows for more flexible combination of physical sex and gendered traits is needed. Gender Positionality theory then allows flexibility for the definition This allows for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, and transsexual of woman to change radically at some point in the future. identities, and by extension, Technical Femininity and a-technical I find Gender Positionality relevant to HCI for two reasons. First, I masculinity. At the same time it provides flexibility given that soci- find this approach particularly useful because it allows gender def- ety is still struggling with incorporating these attitudes into its initions to change as domestic roles are modified in response to at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017 existing binary framework of Structural Gender. Gender Positionality new technology. Further, Gender Positionality permits one to con- allows for a non-binary treatment of gender in HCI, which is critical sider being a woman as a perspective from which values are inter- for creating theoretical framework for redefining gendered atti- preted and constructed. This would include a woman’s values on tudes towards technologies. technology as well as a woman’s relationships to technology and to the Symbolic Gendering of technology. Gender Positionality al- 3.3. Lived Body Experience lows for the exploration of the nuanced relationship between gen- der and technology as we as designers explore femininely Finally, a third theoretical approach to gender is Young’s Lived gendered technologies. Body Experience (Young, 2005). This is a non-binary treatment for This brings me to the second reason it is relevant to HCI, when gender, which can be used to further investigate technology use. examining technology and gender from this perspective, it is Young’s approach dispenses with categorization of sex and gender, important to note that a binary concept of gender may be inade- which Young argues is limiting in that it should not be treated quate for the task at hand. Binary gender is the notion that Individ- independent of other factors such as race, class, disability and so ual Gender identity follows physical gender. Binary gender is what forth. Further, Young argues these cannot merely be treated in an we assume when we do experimental studies where we group additive fashion. The Lived Body approach, as proposed by Moi people by bodily traits, by sex, thus HCI research that treats gender (1999), focuses on the physical experiences of the body in a partic- as parameterizable is susceptible to critiques about binary gender. ular socio-cultural context. Thus, it is critical to study experience Faulkner’s ethnographic research on gender and technology (Dou- in situ, hence my call in the introduction for needing to explore real rish, 2006; Faulkner, 2000a, 2001) illustrates that the relationship world settings. is more complex than binary patterns of gender would allow. Con- The Lived Body approach’s relevance to HCI lies in that gender is sequently, echoing Butler (2006), I call for a non-binary treatment just one axis of life experience. Embodiment is achieved in rela- of gender in approaching technology and technology use.5 Butler tionship to many different aspects of experience. The Lived Body argues grouping men and women by sex enforces heteronormativity, approach is not tied to definitions of gender, class, or race. It con- that is an assumption that Individual Gender identity follows sex, and centrates on the perspective of the individual living in a particular as such robs men and women of flexible gender definitions. While socio-cultural context, as Young explains: Butler as a queer theorist uses this to argue for the inclusion of gay and lesbian identities in gender theory, it is just as relevant for The person always faces the material facts of her body and its Individual Gender characteristics that go against Structural Gender relation to the environment. Her bodily organs have certain for straight individuals. We need to move past binary gender in order feeling capacities and function in determinate ways; her size, to allow a flexible discussion of gender and technology. age, health and training make her capable of strength and movement in relation to her environment in specific ways. Her skin has a particular color, her face determinate features, 5 My critique is less of the studies themselves, as binary gender is an organizing her hair particular color and texture, each with their own aes- feature of Structural Gender norms, rather than of how these studies are applied. They thetic properties. Her specific body lives in a specific context suggest we need to adopt extreme care in using these studies findings as a starting – crowded by other people, anchored to the earth by gravity, point for design. J.A. Rode / Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400 399

surrounded by buildings and streets with a unique history, tions are embodied within it. Not only are the physical hearing particular languages, having food and shelter available, experiences of our bodies situated in a particular socio-cultural or not, as a result of culturally specific social processes that context, they are part of a socio-technical context as well. This make specific requirements on her to access them. All these means we cannot afford to ignore gender in ethnomethodological concrete material relations of a person’s bodily existence and or other ethnographic forms of analysis. A Lived Body approach her physical and social environment constitute her facticity brings gender into the discussion of embodiment: beyond that a (Young, 2005, p. 16). Lived Body approach indicates that the treatment of gender I have suggested above is appropriate for issues of class, race, and physi- In this way, the Lived Body approach attempts to understand an cal ability. Consequently, a Lived Body approach can allow us to individual’s unique viewpoint in the context of a particular history move beyond the co-construction of gender and technical identity, and culture, rather than additively trying to combine differing la- to the co-construction of technical identity and a broader sense of bels of gender or race. embodied identity which includes aspects of gender, class, race The Lived Body perspective is consistent with but extends be- and physical ability. In doing so we can ensure the experiences yond Gender Positionality. While Positionality allows for the indi- of technology are more broadly inclusive for a broader range of life vidual to position themselves relative to normative categories of experiences. gender, a Lived Body perspective transcends them—individual con- Here I have argued for three specific feminist theories, Technol- structs become a holistic identity in response to their embodied ogy as Masculine Culture, Gender Positionality, and Lived Body Expe- Downloaded from life experience with their positioning of their gender identity being rience, in that they allowed me to overturn assumptions present in one core component of this. Just as the Lived Body approach can be HCI’s current treatment of gender. However, these are only a few of used to understand feminine perspectives, it too can be used to ac- many Feminist theories. ; Marxist and Socialist count for men’s perspectives, including their treatment of women. Feminism; Psychoanalytic Feminism; Multicultural, Global, and In these ways, the Lived Body approach gives us a non-heteronor- ; ; and Postmodern and Third http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ mative approach to understanding gender, which more readily al- Wave Feminism all likely offer other insights. As a community, lows us to support the creation of technical identities that thwart feminist HCI needs to engage with and develop fluency in the var- gender conventions. ious forms of feminist theory before we can begin to create cri- The Lived Body perspective then is valuable to HCI. Applying it tiques and responses. Only then can we develop a comprehensive could bring the concept of gender back into discussions of embodi- feminist critical theory of HCI. ment (Dourish, 2001), which scholars outside of HCI have found A starting point for a feminist theory of HCI, if we do indeed useful (Mellstrom, 2002). It reminds us that gender cannot be con- wish to embrace a more considered perspective of gender and ad- sidered in isolation, and provides a non-binary embodied frame- dress the disparity of women in science and engineering, is that we work for its treatment along with class and gender. In doing so it need to understand this process of co-construction of technical and at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017 serves as a complement to feminist ethnomethodology which has feminine identity. A deep understanding of these practices will al- attempted to bridge race, class, and gender (West and Fenster- low for the creation of technologies that support these practices for maker, 1995). Most importantly it offers a powerful critique of a broader range of women. This requires a focus on gender as an HCI’s genderless practice of ethnomethodology, in that one’s Lived aspect of everyday life, as well as an examination of gender as a so- Body Experience and way of making sense in the world is filtered cial product – that is, looking at the ways in which gender roles are through a gendered doing. enacted and performed in everyday action. As researchers we need to stop attempting to answer the question ‘‘do women and men 4. Conclusions: a new approach to gender display different aptitudes for technological tasks?’’ but rather, ‘‘how are beliefs and use of technology embedded in the produc- While prior treatments of gender in HCI have attempted to tion and ongoing management of gender in the world?’’ Engaging parameterize gender, reify Structural Gender through the creation with rich theoretical practices such as Technology as Masculine Cul- of gender-specific technology, or argue on theoretical grounds that ture, Gender Positionality, and Lived Body Experience and using them it is an irrelevant abstraction, here I have presented three impor- to ground qualitative research to generate best practice are critical tance pieces of social science theory that provide new ways of for a program of Gender Sensitive Design—my term for Value Sen- engaging with gender, each of which have important implications sitive Design to support Feminist design goals (Rode, 2008). Such a for HCI. First, in this article I have argued that a masculine culture program of feminist design would focus on creating technologies of design can alienate female users producing Gender Inauthentic- that afford Technical Femininity, as well as and other forms of flex- ity. Consequently, as designers we have the opportunity to ascribe ible definitions of gender and technological identity. This sort of values to our technology that encourage progressive attitudes to- theoretically motivated design could address Gender Inauthenticity wards gender roles, especially towards feminine Values (Alsheikh and in turn might ease the participation gap in computer science et al., 2011; Friedman, 1996; Kaye, 2007). In doing so I have shown and engineering. Engaging with gender theory and constructing technology is gendered affecting women’s opportunities, making our own socio-technical theories of gender is a vital component Liberal Feminism an untenable starting point for design. Second, in any program of Gender Sensitive Design. I presented Gender Positionality which allows for gender to be pro- duced and enacted in everyday life; further, in using it I argued Acknowledgements how gender and technical identity are being co-constructed and both are subject to redefinition and reinstruction. Here I called Thanks to Paul Dourish, Genevieve Bell, Sean Goggins, Andrea for nuance to avoid essentialism and binary treatments of gender Forte, Melinda Sebastian, and Rachel Magee as well as anonymous and discuss adopting Harding’s more precise vocabulary of Individ- reviewers for comments on this article. This work was funded by ual, Structural and Symbolic Gender. I demonstrated how we must NSF 1048515, Google and Nokia. approach experimental studies in HCI that reify binary gender, and instead suggest qualitative work that allows for nuanced References understanding of non-binary gender identity as it is co-constructed alongside technological identity. Finally, I argued we need to con- Alcoff, L., 1988. versus post-structuralism: the identity Crisis in sider the Lived Body Experience and how our technology interac- feminist theory. Signs 13 (3), 405–436. 400 J.A. Rode / Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 393–400

Alsheikh, T., Rode, J.A., Lindley, S., 2011. (Whose) Value-sensitive design? a study of Kvande, E., 1999. In the Belly of the Beast; Constructing in Engineering long-distance relationships in an arabic cultural context. In: Computer Organizations. The European Journal of Women’s Studies. 6 (3), 305–328. Supported Coopoerative Work, Hangzhou, China. ACMP, New York, pp. 75–84. Livingstone, Livingstone, S., 1992. The meaning of domestic technologies: a Bardzell, S., 2010. Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In: personal construct analysis of familial gender relations. In: Silverstone, R., Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Hirsch, E. (Eds.), Consuming Technologies. Routledge, London. Computing Systems (CHI ‘10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1301–1310. Margolis, J., Fisher, A., 2002. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Barkhuus, L., Rode, J.A., 2007. From mice to men: 24 years of evaluation at CHI. Alt Press, Cambridge, MA. Chi. Martin, B., 1984. wouldn’t like it! housework as magic. Theory Society and Beckwith, L., Kissinger, C., Burnett, M., Widenbeck, S., Lawrence, J., Blackwell, A., Culture 2 (2), 19–35. Cook, C., 2006. Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers debugging. In: Martin, D., O’Neill, Jacki, Randall, Dave, Rouncefield, Mark, 2007. How can I help Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. you? call centres, classification work and coordination. Computer Supported Montreal, Canada, pp. 231–240. Cooperative Work 16 (3), 231–264. Bell, G., Blythe, M., Sengers, P., 2005. Making by making strange: Defamiliarization Maushart, S., 2001. Wifework: What Marriage Really Means for Women. and the design of domestic technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer- Bloomsbury, New York, NY. Human Interaction (TOCHI) 12 (2), 149–173. Mellstrom, U., 2002. Patrarchal machines and masculine embodiment. Science, Berg, A.-J., Lie, Merete, 1995. Feminism and constructivism: do artifacts have Technology and Human Values 27 (4), 460–478. gender? Science Technology and Human Values 20 (3), 332–351. Moi, T., 1999. What is Woman? Oxford, Oxford UP. Berk, S.F., 1985. The Gender Factory: The Appointment of Work in American O’Neill, J., Martin, David, 2003. Text chat in action. In: Proceedings of the 2003 households. New York, Plenum. International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP Bijker, W.E., 1994. The social construction of fluorescent lighting. In: Bijker, W.E., ‘03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 40–49. Law, J. (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Oost, 2003. Materialized gender: how shavers configure the users’ femininity Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 75–104. and masculinity. In: Oudshoorn, N., Pinch, T. (Eds.), How Users Matter: The Downloaded from Burnett, M.M., 2010. Gender HCI: what about the software? In: Proceedings of the Co-construction of Users and Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 28th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC ‘10). 193–208. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 251–251. Ortner, S.B., 1974. Is female to male as nature is to culture. In Women, Culture and Butler, J., 2006. Gender Trouble. Routeledge, New York, NY. Society, 67–88. Camp, T., 1997. The incredible shrinking pipeline. Communications of the ACM 40 Rode, J.A., Toye, E.F., Blackwell, Alan F., 2004. The domestic economy: a broader unit (10), 103–110. of analysis for end user programming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference

Cassell, J., 2002. Genderizing HCI. In: Jacko, J., Sears, A. (Eds.), The Handbook of on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, Portland, OR, pp. 161– http://iwc.oxfordjournals.org/ Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 402–411. 176. Cockburn, C., 1992. The circuit of technology: gender, identity and power. In: Rode, J.A., 2008. An Ethnographic Examination of the Relationship of Gender & End- Information and Communication Technologies in the Home. Routledge, New User Programming. Doctoral Thesis University, California Irvine. UMI Order York, NY, pp. 32–47. Number: AAI3311560. Dourish, P., 2001. Where the Action Is. Cambridge, MA, MIT University Press. Rode, J.A., 2010. The roles that make the domestic work. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Dourish, P., 2006. Implications for design. In: Grinter, Rebecca, Rodden, Thomas, ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Savannah, Georgia. Aoki, Paul, Cutrell, Ed, Jeffries, Robin, Olson, Gary (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM, New York, NY, pp. 381–390. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, Rode, J.A., 2011. Reflexivity in digital anthropology. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI NY, USA, pp. 541–550. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Faulkner, W., 2000a. The power and the pleasure? a research agenda for ‘‘making pp. 123–132. gender stick’’ to engineers. Science, Technology and Human Values 25 (1), 87– Schwartz-Cowan, R., 1983. More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household

119. Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. Basic Books, New York, at Univ of Southern California on January 10, 2017 Faulkner, W., 2000b. Hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of NY. Science 30 (5), 759–792. Strathern, M., 1980. No nature, no culture: the hagen case. In: Maccormack, C.M., Faulkner, W., 2001. The technology question in feminism: a view from feminist Strathern, M. (Eds.), Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge UP, Cambridge, UK, technology studies. Women’s Studies International Forum 24 (1), 79–95. pp. 174–219. Friedman, B., 1996. Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3 (6), 16–20. Sullivan, O., 2002. The division of domestic labor: twenty years of change? Frissen, V., 1985. Gender is calling: uses of the telephone. In: Grint, K., Gill (Eds.), Sociology 34 (3), 437–456. The Gender-Technology Relation; Contemporary Theory and Research. Taylor Tan, D.S., Czerwinski, M., Robertson, G., 2003. Women go with the (optical) flow. In: and Francis, R. London, pp. 79–94. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Garfinkel, H., Sacks, H., 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. In: Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, pp. 209–215. McKinnney, J.C., Tiryakian, E.A. (Eds.), Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Tolmie, P., Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Greenhalgh, C., Benford, S., 2007. Making the Developments. Appleton-Century-Crofts. home network at home: digital housekeeping. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Garfinkel, H., 1984. Studies in Ethnomethodology, sixth ed. Prentice Hall Press, Conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Oxford. ACM Press, Limerick, Wereland, pp. 331–350. Goh, Dion Hoe-Lian, Ang, Rebecca P., Chua, Alton Y.K., Lee, Chei Sian, 2010. Tong, R.P., 1998. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction, Westview Evaluating game genres for tagging images. In: Proceedings of the sixth Nordic P., Boulder, CO. Conference on Human-computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (NordiCHI Turkel, S., 1988. Computational Reticence: Why Women Fear the Intimate Machine, ‘10). ACM, NY, NY, USA, pp. 659–662. Technology and Women’s Voices. Routeledge, New York, NY. Hapnes, T., Sorenson, K.H., 1995. Competition and collaboration in male shaping of Wajcman, J., 1992. Feminist Theories of Technology. Paper Presented at Workshop computing: a study of Norwegian hacker culture. In: Grint, K., Gill, R., (Eds.), The on The Gender-Technology Relation, CRICT, Brunell University 16–17 Gender Technology Relation; Contemporary Theory and Research. Taylor & September. Francis, London. West, C., Fenstermaker, Sarah, 1995. Doing difference. Gender and Society 9 (1), 8– Harding, S., 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell UP, Prentice Hall, 37. Ithaca, NY. West, C., Zimmerman, C., 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society 1 (2), 125–151. Helgeson, V., 2010. Psychology of Gender. third ed. Wyche, S.P., Hayes, G.R., Harvel, L.D., Grinter, R.E., 2006. Technology in spiritual Huff, C., 2002. Gender, software design, and occupational equity. SIGCSE 34 (2), formation: an exploratory study of computer mediated religious 112–115. communications. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Kaye, J., 2007. Evaluating Experience-focused HCI. Extended Abstracts on Human Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 199–208. Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, San Jose, CA, New York, NY, pp. 1661– Young, I.M., 2005. On Female Body Experience: Throwing Like a Girl and Other 1666. Essays. Oxford UP, Oxford, UK. Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., Kiesler, S., 2007. Storytelling alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, pp. 1455–1464.