To appear in:
Floyd, C.; Kelkar, G.,
Kramarae, C.; Limpangog, C.; & Klein-Franke, S. (eds) (forthcoming 2002): Feminist Challenges in
the Information Age, Verlag Leske +
Budrich, Germany
“‘“.. AND HERE IS
SOMETHING FOR THE LADIES …’””
oOOn Gender Aand Design oOf Technology
Tone Bratteteig
Abstract
This article discusses gender
issues in design of
information technology: are there gender issues, and what could they be? It is
relatively easy to apply a gender perspective on
to the result of design: the artefact. Artefacts are
designed to communicate with gender stereotypes in contemporary society (including stereotypes of
work). Applying gender perspectives on to
artefacts is not very different
from other kinds of social analysis of use activities or artefacts in context.
Applying a gender perspective on to
the design process is more
difficult. Some aspects of
design can, however, benefit from such analysis: the ideas and visions that
guide the design process comes from someone —that who
has gender. I do not claim that femalewomen software designers always design different software than from
their male colleagues. However, the design process will
benefit from having different sets of experiences as a
basis for ideas and visions.
1. Background: Issues in Technology Design
Design of technology is often presented and
conceived as a mysterious process. Most people conceive technology as a “‘“black
box”’”: it
works or it doesn’t—its inner workings remain unknown for all except the
technicians. As a computer scientist I am trained in building technology and
for me technology is not a “‘“black
box.”’”. I
find it important to use my knowledge to reveal the inner workings of ‘““black
boxes’””:
the invisibility and inaccessibility of how technology works makes it difficult
to question and criticise the problem definitions and basic assumptions
underlying technical solutions. This article aims to point to ways to ‘““open
up”’”
technology to enable a more open discussion of its role in human activity and
society. Technology is not neutral: it is designed by someone,
for someone. I find it particularly interesting to discuss the bias in
technological solutions in relation to global and cultural heterogeneity. I
specifically address gender aspects in the design of information technology (it).
,
however,
As some of the readers of this article may not be
technically skilled, I will illustrate my
points with everyday technologies. even if my main
objective is to discuss information technology. However,
I also want to draw attention to the
fact that the everyday technology is technology
even if women seldom recognisze their washing machines, stoves, or cars as
technology (cf.cf Mörtberg
1997).
The notion of design means to give form and
meaning to some material: to create an artefact, as well as making plans and
specifications for the production
of the artefact (cf.cf, e.g.eg,
(Cross
et al 1997)). The concept of “‘“design”’” is
used to speak about the process of creating an artefact and about the artefact
itself: the result or product of the design process. Literature about design
often emphasiszes either process or product: I want to
include both in my discussion. Discussions about gender and design normally
address the product side only: the artefacts or the use of artefacts. I also
want to discuss gender aspects of the design process.
The paper is organiszed
as follows: this first section introduces some concepts for speaking about
design as process and product. The next section briefly discusses some gender
aspects of (the
use of) artefacts. The following two sections
address gender aspects of the design process, in a general way and with a
particular focus on technology as design material, respectively. The last
section concludes the paper.
Design as Pproduct: tThe Aartefact
[I noticed
that the format in the first 6 lines is different from the rest of the article]We
are surrounded by artefacts designed with the aim to support human activitiesyy (or rather
the designers’ vision of the human activitiesyy). I find it
useful to characterizse
artefacts by their:
·
function: their usefulness (or ‘““toolness’””)
with respect to human activity,
· meaning: their symbolic value within a particular culture and society, and
·
communication: how function and
meaning is are presented in form and structure.
We understand how a concrete, material
artefact is part of human activities by analyzsing its function and meaning. The
function of an artefact is related to the activities it is designed to be used
in, they the activities ‘““carry
with them an intention of what those objects will do and how they will be
perceived and used.”’” (Winograd 1996: p. xv). Their
functions and the way thesey
are communicated are often referred to as ‘“affordances’” of
the artefact (cf Norman
1989 :[page? []):
the “‘“reading”’” of the an artefact (how to use
it) should be easy for all—within the culture of a particular target group. For
accidental users who are not members of the target group, the cultural codes
may not communicate the functionality well: even if most technology aims to
enable human beings and reduce disabilities by extending our muscular or memory
powers, some artefacts contribute to further disablinge some social
groups
more.
The meaning of the an artefact can be
found if we interpret its form (or its very existence) as a sign within a
particular culture. In Western societies consumers choose between a range of
very similar products that do approximately the same thing, but give different
cultural signals. The reason for choosing one brand for rather than another has
more to do with the cultural meaning of the artefact than of with its functionality.
Neither the function nor the meaning of an
artefact can be understood outside of the use context. Use happens as
purposeful activity: in work, learning, everyday life, and the artefact
contributes to—and receives—function and meaning from bythrough [can I use through
instead? I don’t think by catches what I want to say] being
made part of human activity. And the human activity takes place in a
larger context, in a group, an organiszation, a
society/culture, and as part of societal change and technology development.
Social science analyseanalyzses of technology would
include use
in at various societal
levels: individual, group, organisationorganization, society / culture; and with various
analytical perspectives: power (decisions), meaning (symbolic communication),
activities (usefulness), change processes (use over time), etc. A feminist perspective on (computer-based)
artefacts would address many of the same dimensions and levels. ,
with various
analytical perspectives: power (decisions), meaning (symbolic communication),
activities (usefulness), change processes (use over time), etc.
A feminist
perspective on (computer-based) artefacts would address many of the same
dimensions and levels.
Design as creative Pprocess:
Aa cCreative
pProcess
Design can be seen as a process that works
with the relation between ideas and materials (cf Bratteteig, forthcoming 2002 [not a
quote]:[page?]). Design work is
carried out by someone: a designer who has an idea and knows the material.
Design work is carried out in a context: in a group, organiszation,
society/culture, as part of global and local technology development. Both the
design process and the design product are influenced by the situation and
context.
The process of creating an artefact
includes a series of stages on the road from an idea to a finished artefact. A
common view is that design processes involve the making of visions, sketches,
and specifications,:
seen as levels of abstraction and detail worked on in parallel during the
design process (cf
Bratteteig & Stolterman 1997[not a quote]:[page?])—the
vision may need re-vision [intended
pun?: re-vision? Yes J]after
some sketching work, the specification may need some extra sketching. The
vision that guides the design is created by the individual designers involved
in the process, on the basis of their knowledge and skills in design and of
their professional and cultural values and ideas. Visions are created when
ideas and materials
is are set to meet
(Bratteteig forthcoming2002).
Visioning is a situated activity to a large extent determined by what the
designers know about design materials and future use situations. Sketching aims
to make visions more concrete; sketches are used as tools for thinking as well
as for communication n(cf Henderson
1999[not a quote]:[page?]).
Design processes are decision processes.
Decisions in design concern the resources for the design process and the design
result. Visions of system usage—the new way of doing things, the change—are
constructed in negotiations between people with various roles,
responsibilities, and power, between people from different organiszations, i.e.ie,
design and use organizsations.
Existing power structures are normally strengthened in a new system (cf Wajkman
1991[not a quote]:[page?]).
Design is a work process that can be analyszed in the same way as
other social processes, as
referring to various societal levels (individual, group, organisationorganization, society)
and analytical perspectives (power, meaning, activities, change processes, etc.).
In this article I focus on the design
process because it [that?] [if this is not
good English I would rather prefer something like: because I want to discuss
the material etc]makes it possible to question the material results
of the design process;, the technical artefact as such. I want to “‘“open
up the black box”’” for
the non-technical readers. In order to do this, I need to
discuss the “materiality” [material nature? No, I will keep the
word materiality as it resembles words like textuality…I
don’t think that is an English word, even if you can form it, I don’t think you ought
to (what does it
mean, anyway?—If you must keep it,
can you put it in inverted commas, please!] of
the process
and product. I do this by discussing software as a design material. As a design
material,
software is characteriszed as a symbolic representations of parts of
the world, and only technically skilled people are able to envision the model
that the symbols refer to. Numbers in the bank's computer symboliszes money in [or out of!] my
bank account. The symbolic representation is materializsed in a running computer, and the
representation becomes a part of the world—it is really “‘“a
difference that makes a difference”’” (to use Bateson ‘’s famous phrase1972: [page]).
We can shop with the money we have in the bank by using our credit cards—I may never see or
touch a single cent of thisese
money as coins or notesbills,
I just get calculations performed on the numbers that represent my bank
account.
Software is different from other symbolic
representations (e.g.eg,
architects’'
drawings) by being the basis for program executions (processes in a machine):
the architect makes
drawings that the carpenter realizses in wood, stone, brick, glass,
metal, but in information systems both “the ‘“drawings”’” and
the realizsations
are the same kind of symbolic representations. Computers are machines, and this
fact implies
that the artefact is not finished before until the program(s) can can
[‘“hasve been
executed’” seems to be
suggested by the second part of the sentence, i.e.ie until the end-product of the execution of
the program is there]be
executed;,. Before the program
is executable it before until theis only
[?] exists as static
textual and graphical representationss of the
program execution in the machine exists (i.e.ie,
as representations
of representations). Interpreting the representations means envisioning the
running program execution, and requires knowledge about system description
languages (including programming languages) and computers (that make program
descriptions become automatic processes) (cf
Bratteteig forthcoming2002[not a quote]:[page?]).
2. Do Artefacts hHave
Gender?
Seemingly objective and factual things like metro railroad tracks, road
tunnel sizes, or medical diagnostic categories can be interpreted as
expressions of politics, power structures, cultural attitudes—and therefore not
neutral at all (Bowker
& Star 1999; cf
Star 1991; Suchman 1994). By deciding
that the tracks gauge of the Paris metro should be narrower
than that of the
surrounding railroad system, a union of the two systems were was prevented
(cf Latour
1996). The decision to make a tunnel too small for public transport materializsed a political
decision of to disableing public transport—and thus the people
who relying
in
thaton it—on
those roads (cf
Winner 1985). Diagnostic categories
change through time and space but are often presented as context-free and
general (cf
Bowker & Star 1999). Bowker & Star
(19Bowker & Star (1999) use theillustrate with the—still
presenttopical—discussions
about the definition of life (when does life start—is it at the moment of
conception, is it when a child is baptized and given a name?) to illustrate this.:
when
does life start—is it in the moment of conception, is it when a child is
baptised and given a name?
In the following sections I argue that
artefacts are not neutral, and that applying a feminist perspective would make
help
us understand this better.
Use in activities
Use is a relation between a human
being—situated within a context, usually some activity—and an artefact
(Bratteteig forthcoming2002).
The relation is personal, but the personal is shaped by—and shapes—the
environment: the group or community of people in of which the person is
part. People behave with reference to socioal-cultural roles and
economic-political reasons while using artefacts. Seen as a relations
between a human being and an artefact, use activities can be discussed in a
number of ways: in informatics the two most well best known are Human-Computer
Interaction (hci)
and Participatory Design (pd). Basically, hci looks
at interface design in product development and thus focusses on general aspects
of human beings (their ‘““bodies”’”), while
pd addresses the development of an
information system within an organisationorganizational context, and emphasiszes the user as a
worker.
A different perspective is found in social
theories on human action in a context, where the context at the
same time delimits and enables human action. One of these is Actor-Network
Theory (Callon 1986; see Latour 1987;
1996), where human beings and artefacts mutually influence each
other and are seen together in heterogeneous networks of human and non-human ‘“actants’”..”
Non-human actants (like rules, procedures, technologies)
have particular interests ‘“inscribed.’” [?].
“if we are interested in technical
objects ... we have to go back and forth continually between the designer and
the user, between the designer’s projected user and the real user, between the world inscribed in the object and the world described by its displacement.
For it is in this incessant variation that we obtain access to the crucial
relationships: the user’s reaction that give body to the designers project, and
the way in which the user’s real environment is in part specified by the
introduction of a new piece of equipment.” (Akrich 1992: pp. 208-209)
To move between ‘““the
technical and the social”’,,”
and ‘““the
inside and the outside”’” helps us see that the relation between human actants (users) and
non-human actants (artefacts) is mutually constituting: it is in the use
situation that use is enacted. It helps us de-scribe their [whose: the artefacts'’s? yes]
meaning in use (cf Akrich
1992). The relation between actants influences—and is influenced by—the
surrounding network.
Use can be understood and analyseanalyzed in a number of
ways. An example from my Norwegian everyday experience is that a bag of flour
comes in 1 or 2 ½ kilogramss,
a bag of cement in 50 kilogramss.
The flour bag looks clean and white; the cement bag does not have to seem clean
in the same way. The bags are designed to fit different use contexts, different
activities and use environments: the kitchen at home, where we make bread and cakes for our familiesy, or a building site where the cement
can be used to build a wall or a fireplace. A similar discussion can be made
comparing a kitchen mixer and a drill. A feminist perspective on product
wrappings refers to assumptions about who are involved in which activities, i.e.ie,
to the segregation of the work life (cf., Wajkman
1991; Cockburn & Ormrod 1994; Waldén 1994).
Use of computers does not normally not refer
this openly to the gendered division of labour. However, when the use situation
is seen in a larger, political and cultural context, gender can play a
significant role in understanding the reasons for designing an artefact in a
particular way. A well-known example is the introduction of the QWERTY keyboard
to graphical [?] work when typesetting
replaced lead with electronic [mechanical
typewriters also had the QUERTY keyboard] equipment (cf Cockburn
1985). The typesetting keyboard was replaced by a typewriter-oriented keyboard:
the QWERTY keyboard, hence favouring female, unorganised, cheap labour instead
of the graphical workers, which who were
male, unionised, and skilled craftsmen. [I think the
keyboard layout, which is different in different countries (languages), is something
to do with the relative frequency of the letters in the respective languages:
the most frequent are in the middle, to be struck with the strongest and
most mobile fingers
(index fingers), and vice versa, which is of no great importance
any longer with the computer keyboards but was of great significance with mechanical
typewriters, which you really had to strike hard to get a result; this is
surely the same for men and women.] [I know that the
QUERTY is designed for mechanical typewriters and maybe should be redesigned as
we all use electronic keyboards. But here my point was different: I refer to Cockburn’s analysis of the development of equipment for ‘“graphical
work’” where she argue that there
were economic arguments for replacing the traditional lead
typesetting keyboard instead of making it the standard keyboard for
electronic typesetting. The distribution and division of labour seen over time
can very well be analysed with a gender perspective]
Cultural Meaning
The meaning of an artefact relates to its
symbolic value within a particular culture: the meaning of an artefact is
always interpreted within a culture and thus has to “‘“speak”’” the
language of the culture in an easily recognizsable way. In order to speak to women,
artefacts must communicate with through symbols related to the contemporary
cultural identity of women. The neat and white bags of
flour and the white and clean kitchen mixers both refer to clean kitchens and kitchen activities [Have you
noticed how you can
hardly find any white kitchen equipment any more, at least not of the more
expensive makes? (At least in Germany and in England) ― yes
and the trend in Norway where men are invited into the kitchen with steel
equipment …].
The pink and the black & steel razors are made for the same kind of
activity but designed with different appearances to referring to gender
stereotypes. Product wrappings are often designed with reference to cultural
stereotypes and images of their target groups (which by this get reconstituted).
Cultural identity is a key to understanding how we design our
environment by choosing among artefacts (cf Silverstone
& Haddon 1996). We prefer the artefact that fits with or
signals how we see or want to see ourselves—or rather want to be seen by
others! In the same way language is used to signal social belonging to both
insiders and outsiders (c.f., professional
languages and socio-lects). We design our identity.
Artefacts visually signal social and cultural values: the Le Corbussier’s
chair LC4 is not just a beautiful and comfortable chair,; it is also a cultural signal.
The famous kitchen equipment designer & and manufacturer Alessi speaks talks about his vision to of makinge beautiful
products for the home that everybody could afford: he “brings ‘““poetry
to the kitchen’”..” It
is the aspects of “‘“art
and poetry’””
of an artefact that makes us prefer one product to another: when deciding to
buy a car, its horsepower or safety program or costs plays a
role—but its form, its colours, the feeling, or the trust in the brand are just
as important (especially when most cars have quite similar characteristics).
Artefacts are cultural expressions that
contribute to defining gender. Pink has become the symbol for girls—and every
time we use pink in order to “‘“speak’””
to girls, we strengthen this meaning of pink. When artefacts are made for a
large market, clichés are used to reach as many as possible of the target
group. This obviously reinforces cultural stereotypes.
Gendered Design?
Design is an individual process but carried
out in the context of a group in an organisationorganization—it is a
social process as well. Design processes are influenced both by the individual
designers and by the design group and group process. Design processes are also
influenced by external factors such as external agendas, goals, time limits,
available people, resources, and power games outside beyond of
the control of the group.
Designers do have gender—but is gender an
issue in software design? Some femalewomen systems
development researchers claim that women make different choices in design and
take on different roles in systems development processes than from many
of their male colleagues (cf Thoresen
1989; Bødker & Greenbaum 1989).
Do female systems developers think more on about the solution as a whole
solution than on about technical
details? Do they show more responsibility for finishing the a project
on time? Some of these characteristics fit very well with gender stereotypes
(always having an
overview, tidying up and being
responsible) and I think it may very well be that many femalewomen
developers have developed such skills as part of being female citizens. Taking
such roles at work may be a way of combining being female and a professional
systems developer (Mörtberg 1997). I have myself been part of a research
project where we made a deliberate decision to make come up with a
simple and down-to-earth technical solution and experienced our choice as
conflicting with computing culture, which emphasizes sing
novel and “‘“fancy’””
technology (cf Bjerknes
& Bratteteig 1988a; 1988b). The experience also
demonstrated that technical expertise can be challenged just as much by working
to implement user requirements made by users who do not feel committed to think
about how to realisze the solution, and do not let well- known
or easy design possibilities guide their needs (Bjerknes &
Bratteteig 1987b).*
I find it more useful to discuss if whether gender
influences the work processes in the design
process. I argue that it is possible to apply a gender perspective in design
because designers have gender, their experiences in
life has gender aspects to themit, and they act as part of a gendered
society.
Visions and Ideas
Design is oriented towards
use: design it is based
on a vision about of how the
artefact will be used (cf., e.g., (Schön
1987; Winograd 1996)).
The functionality of the artefact is designed with respect to a set of tasks
and, consequently, assumptions of about the
needs of a user performing these tasks—both as imagined
by the designer(s). In order to make the artefact useful, the designer takes
care to communicate the functionality in ways that are easy to understand for
the intended user group. Intentions of use are built into the artefact: some
use activities are encouraged, while some are made difficult or impossible.
Most information systems include procedures that do not exactly fit
every user’s work perfectly, thus many users have to include system
work-arounds as part of their everyday work routines (Gasser 1986).
Some information systems are based on
visions about the work-and-use activity that are very far from the users’
experience of their everyday activities. A number of sStudies of
the introduction of groupware hasve concluded
that groupware which is based on the idea that people like to share information
with other people in an organization by making all documents available to all
people, do not work in organizations where there are good reasons for not
sharing all information—e.g.eg,
individual career patterns (Orlikowski 1992). In a global network of biology
researchers, Ph.D. students who were conducting lab
tests as a part of their Ph.D.. did not want to make the results
available to the project network before their theseis
wasere published—or else the basis for their Ph.D. might disappear (Star &
Ruhleder 1994). They did not use the system as intended.
VDesign visions
are both a product of the ideas that we have—from our lived livesfe,
from our usage the use we
make of artefacts—and the knowledge about the material that we gain
through education and work, theory and practice, and as users of artefacts. The
ideas we have are based on our experiences—to a certain extent we reproduce
existing artefacts and existing routines. It is very difficult to not
make technology that does not mimic current technology―see
for example the way many computer systems mimic paper technology
(Yates 1989). A simple example to illustrate this point is sewing
machines: designing a needle with its hole in the end and not rather than
in the head made a revolutionized for
the sewing machines as they stopped mimicking sewing by hand and
started utilizsing
what machines can do (cf Waldén
1994).
In aAn experiment
that engaged software designers to build educational software for boys, girls,
and students, respectively, showed that gender stereotypes in designers’ and
programmers’ minds madke
them design different software for the three categories: boys, girls, and
students (cf Huff
& Cooper 1987). Interestingly, the design for boys and students were very
similar, while the design for the girls category used girlish activities as a
basis (dolls and the like). The visions
about usage guides the design all the way through.
Design Context
The context of design usually sets limits as
to what can be made. Limited resources: (time and
people),
isare the most obvious way to of controlling the
design process. In addition, more subtle ways of power can be exercised in the
decision process: control of the agenda, the problem definition and the range
of possible solutions (cf Bachrach
& Baratz 1962; March & Olsen 1976; Wajkman 1991). In
modern software development, which includes Internet and intranet solutions,
time is very limited. When time is too limited, the designer to
a greater extent needs to reuse earlier solutions to a greater
extent, adjusting them just enough to appear tailored to the current
customer (cf Greenbaum
& Stuedahl 2000).
In a larger context, technical solutions
are not necessarily decided upon by technical arguments. Abbate (1994) analyseanalyzes the process leading
that
led to TCP/IP becoming the standard Internet protocol instead of the
competing X.25. Her telling of the complex process shows that technical
arguments were used to legitimate political and social positions. Development
of software products aimed at a mass market is decided upon by market analyseanalyzes
analyses of possible potential users’
needs. Development of software tailored to a particular organisationorganization differs by
the fact that the designers can get to know their users and even collaborate
with them and discuss their needs for computer support (Bjerknes &
Bratteteig 1987a). Also iIn theise cases there will also be
limits to what can be made, and these limitations that may
influence what the users experience and present as their needs. [I find this
sentence too complicated – can you make it simpler?]
A feminist perspective on the design
context aims to identify actors and their interests, their resources and
strategies for exercising power with gender as a
particular focus
on gender. It will therefore be relevant to discuss the lack of women in
computing: do women design differently? Do female decision makers decide
differently? Whether or not women behave differently—and for whatever reasons—is perhaps
less interesting than the fact that many women are not included in these
processes. The lack of balance and privilege, the different possibilities opportunities [?] for
access to technological resources in society, the injustice of not including
women, makes a basis for making an
argument based on justice an argument for changing the current state of
affairs based on fairness and principles of
equal rightsencouraging changinges in
the present situation
[?](cf Verne
2000; Robertson et al 2001).
4. Software as Aa
Design Material
How far into the material of design it
is it
useful to apply a gender perspective?
I start with a set of examples that I find
particularly interesting: games and web sites designed for girls and boys. We
can easily interpret the very pink web pages of Barbie dolls.[1]. The
Barbie web pages also include games for girls where they can design clothes for
their Barbie doll or dress her up in different costumes (but not at all as
innovative as girls’ play with real dolls can be!). An
appealing introduction to the Internet for girls—or does this just contribute
to reinforcing gender stereotypes (cf Bratteteig
& Verne 1997)? A different approach has been used by Brenda Laurel in
making the game site Purple Moon[2] for girls aged between 12 and 15. Laurel and her colleagues
interviewed 2000 girls about games and hobbies before they designed Purple Moon
(Laurel 2001). The idea of Purple Moon is different: a young girl (Rockett)
comes to a new school, and the game is about her introduction and interaction
with the her social environment. As “‘“tools’””
you get to read other girls’ diaries or listen to their secrets, to assist
Rockett in handling difficult social difficult situations.
The game awards utiliszing and practising social and emotional
competencies rather than training manual
dexterity skills like speed and precision, it is about understanding human
beings and choosing making choices in
ambiguous situations rather than killing dragons or monsters. Purple Moon utilizses
game and Internet technology to offer a game to girls about things they are
interested in, and in ways that they are interested in doing them in a
more profound way than dressing pink Barbie dolls. The ‘““things
girls do’””
also constitutes what girls do: what girls should do
and should be interested in, and encourage seeing “‘“girls’””
as a homogeneous target group. Nevertheless, I think Purple Moon realizses
a new genre of games, and through this makes gender valid as an analytical
perspective of games. Games “‘“as
such’””
are not altered by introducing a gender dimension.
Technology as Material
Software can be characterizsed as symbolic
representations of parts of the world (cf.e.g.eg,
money in the bank) that become part of the world (cf.e.g.eg,
we shop with the money we have ‘““stored’””
in the bank by using our credit cards). Software is different from other symbolic
representations (like e.g.eg,
architects’'
drawings) by being executable programs: processes in a machine—computers are
machines. This also impliesy
that the artefact, the product, is not finished until the programs can be
executed—before that,
only static, textual and graphical representations of the process in the
machine can be represented. A ‘““Ccorrect’””
interpretation of the representations thus requires knowledge about computers
and system description languages (among them programming languages) (Bratteteig
2002forthcoming).
A program is a ‘“prescription,’”
[description/set of commands?no, keep
prescription but you may do it like pre-scription if this is better], a structure, of a generalized
process in a computer system. To build structures in computers (data
structures, program structures, programs) includes abstracting and simplifying.
The common way to abstract in computing is aimed at to constructing
patterns that cover more than one instance of a phenomenon: general patterns.―wWe want to make
computer programs for more than once instance of a process, and we want
to automate routine processes. We simplify in order to find, or create properties
common to several processes or properties that vary in predictable, limited
ways.
The basic process of building computer
systems is abstraction. We abstract from details and concrete materials, and
construct levels of abstraction and detail as a way of handling complexity. The
command “‘“print”’” hides
the inner workings of the computer, it hides the complexity of making the
computer actually send the text and format information of a document to a
printer and get it printed. ‘“”The
act of systems design is the creation and manipulation of abstractions’”.”
(Dourish & Button 1998:PAGE p. 414).
Abstractions are means to manage complexity and act as ‘““black
boxes.’” ”. Abstractions can be used to hide
complexity and to work with different levels of detail and complexity.
But not even abstractions are neutral:
there are always different ways of representing what you have in mind
(Dijkstra 1978). Choosingces between the ways are partly can be due to personal likings preferences (e.g.eg,
do you prefer computational speed or minimal code) or due to external
requirements (e.g.eg,
particular hardware or environmental constraints: speed or minimal code can be
a constraint and not subject to personal likingpreference)—or due to
(limited) knowledge. Design is decisions—all the way down to the program code:
A study survey study of
computer science students revealed that there are different ways to of thinking about computer
programs: the abstract, mathematical way that emphasizes sing the abstract logic, or a very concrete
way, envisioning the program execution (Turkle & Papert 1990). According to
the students, only the first way of thinking wasere accepted in their environment, thus the students originally
thinking in the concrete way, had to learn how to explain their
programs in the acceptable, abstract way. Turkle and Papert [where? In the same
article] The authors claim
that most of the ‘““concrete’”
thinkers’”ing among the students were femalewomen. I find
the study interesting not because of the claim that one sex thinks differently
about computer programs than the other (which I find hard to believe), but
rather that
the study because
it demonstrates that there are different ways to understand computers but
thatyet the established culture only ‘““allows’””
one of them. Not accepting heterogeneous ways of knowing may encourage an
impression of neutrality and thus make it very difficult to articulate and
accept differences.
Design of Software
Software design means making abstract models
that have an internal logic, and that relates to activities
in the real world in a formal, specified way. Real world activities are both
starting and end point of the abstract
model. Modelling thus departs from some real world problems, and modelling is
about finding ways to identify and formally describe the relevant aspects so
that the wanted desired routines are automated. The notion of
““ ''relevant’””
is worthwhile discussing because the relevance
is decided upon [defined?ok with me]
with respect to a particular definition of problems. In object-oriented modelling,
the basic idea is to decide on which objects to include, which characteristics
are relevant and what procedures the objects should carry out. The model is
supposed to 1) portray all important and relevant characteristics of some part
of the world, and 2) to be a basis for constructing a
computer system whoseich internal logic is without errors and works in a predictable,
controllable way. This double aim may not be easy to achieve, as the two goals
may have different priorities and different logics (Gregory 2000):
the logic of the real world, the work, may differ from the logic of the
computer. Formal systems development methodologies tend to encourage extending
the logic of the computer as a perspective on the real world: describing the
world in concepts that makes easy facilitate the kind of abstractions
needed to build a computer makes systems analysis easier but does not ensure
that the logic of the world is taken into consideration.
Models are described in ways that supports
communication between people performing different parts of systems development:
‘““systems
analysts”``”
communicates with ‘““systems
designers,’””, interface designers, programmers,
usability people etc. Systems description languages at all levels (i.e.ie,
programming, overall design etc.) are made for communication between people
about the production of the artefact, and represent different levels of
abstraction in the making of the system.
5. Gender Aspects in Technology Design
Concluding the discussion, I would claim that:
yes, there are interesting insights to be gained from looking for gender in
design of technology. Easiest to see—and do—and best documented are gender
perspectives on the communicative or presentation aspects of design of
artefacts: the wrapping of artefacts to fit with gender stereotypes in society.
I include here stereotypes in society that make some artefacts designed to be
used by women and some by men. Applying gender perspectives onto artefacts—design
products—is not very different from other kinds of social analysis of use
activities or artefacts in context.
A more difficult task is to apply gender
perspectives toon
the design process. Some aspects of design benefit from such an analysis: 1)
the idea that guides the design process: the idea comes
from somebody: a designer, an employer, a customer. The idea is the basis for comes develops [?]into
a vision of the artefact in use—and 2) the
vision is made by someone: the vision guides the design by suggesting the roles
of the artefact in some activity, how the artefact can be shaped to fit the
envisioned situation, how the design material (be it software or clay) can be
pushed so that the needs of the user isare better taken care
of. Software design is about 3) making
formal representations of parts of the world: even if (!) the internal logic of
the representation is gender- neutral, the act of representing, of
choosing what to describe and how, expresses a particular understanding of the
world—held by someone. The ‘“"someone’”"—the
designer or designers—should always be analyseanalyzed with respect
to gender; gender may be significant in characterizsing how we understand and envision
the world.
I do not by this claim that femalewomen
software designers necessarily design different software than from their
male colleagues. This might may be the case. But it might is also possible be that
the professional
culture sometimes overrules
other cultural characteristics― such as gender. I do not want femalewomen
computer scientists not to be given responsibility for
being a different kind of computer scientists. I claim that the design process
itself would benefit from having different sets of experiences as baseis for ideas and visions.
(e.g.eg,
as user representatives or reference groups (Bratteteig & Stolterman
1997))—and that they should be present in design as references
and discussants.
In a gendered society, gender would be a
significant characteristic of how we experience and act in the world. Gender
aspects of technology are particularly visible when we study the relations
between design and use (cf.,see, e.g.eg, (Haraway 1991)). Design of
gendered technology reinforces the a gendered culture,― which is again the
basis for designing gendered technology. Bringing gender issues to design may
contribute to a more open attitude within technical cultures towards different
ways of thinking about computers and software (Bratteteig & Verne 1997), as
well as towards different evaluation criteria for what makes a system
successful.
Acknowledgements
[Different
format in this text]For many years I have had the great
pleasure of discussing many of the issues in the article with Guri Verne,
Christina Mörtberg, Judith Gregory, and Joan Greenbaum. All have contributed to
the arguments presented here: thank you! I also want to thank Heidi Schelhowe and Mona Dahms
ion the ifu[3] faculty staff and the editors for helpful comments.
References
Abbate, J.anet. (1994). The Internet
Challenge. In: Summerton, Jane (ed): Changing
Large Technical Systems (pp. 193-210). Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press
Akrich, Madeleine.. (1992). The De-Scription of Technical Objects, In:
Bijker, Wiebe.
E. & Law, John (eds). Shaping
Technology / Building Society. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Bjerknes, Gro &
Bratteteig, Tone. (1988). Computers — Utensils or Epaulets? The
Application Perspective Revisited. In: AI
and Society, vol 2, no 3, pp. 258-266
Bratteteig, Tone.
(forthcoming). Making
change. Working in and between design and use in systems development. Thesis,
Department of Informatics, University of Oslo
Bratteteig, Tone. & Stolterman, Erik. (1997). Design in
groups—and all that jazz. In: Kyng, Morten & Mathiassen, Lars (eds). Computers and Design in Context (pp.
289-316). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Bratteteig, Tone. & Verne, Guri. (1997). Feminist or
merely critical? In search of a Gender Perspective in Informatics. In: Moser, Ingunn. et& Aas, Gro Hanne (eds.) Technology and Democracy—
Comparative Perspectives (pp. 59-74), (workshop on
"Gender, Technology and politics in transition?"), Jan. 17-19 1997,
Oslo: TMV
Bowker, Geoffrey C. & Star, S. Leigh. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its
Consequences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Cockburn, Cynthia (1985). Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men and Technical Know-how. London:
Pluto Press
Cockburn, CynthiaC. & Ormrod, Sue. (1994). Masculinity and
Technology — Making Meaning, Giving Value, Achieving Dominance. In: Gunnarson,
Ewa & Trojer, Lena (eds.). Feminist
Voices on Gender, Technology and Ethics (pp. 122-131). Luleå: Centre of
Women’s Studies, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
Cross, Nigel; Christiaans, Henri & Dorst, Kees
(1997). Analysing Design Activity.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
Dourish, Paul. & Button, Graham. (1998).
Technomethodology: Paradoxes and Possibilities. Proceedings of CHI’96, pp. 19-26 ACM SIGCHI, NY Editor(s) place
publisher?
Greenbaum, Joan.
& Stuedahl, D. (2000). Deadlines and Work
Practices in New Media Development. In: Svensson, L. et al Please name(eds.). Proceedings of IRIS’23 (pp. 537-546).
Laboratorium for Interaction Technology, University of Trollhättan Uddevalla Place, Publishers
Gregory, Judith.
(2000). Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Creating
the Electronic Health Record: Re-Inventing Medical Records and Patient Care.
(PhD. dissertation). La Jolla, CA: Department of Communication, University of
California-San Diego
Haraway, Donna J.eanne (1991): A Cyborg Manifesto, in Haraway, Donna J.eanne.: Simians,
Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. Free Assoc. Books, London
Henderson, Kathryn
(1999): On Line and On Paper MIT
Press, Cambridge
Huff, Charles. WW. & Cooper, Joel. (1987): Sex Bias in
Educational Software: The Effect of Designers’ Stereotypes on the Software They
Design, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 17:6, pp. 519-532
Latour, Bruno. (1996): Aramis, or the Love of Technology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press
Laurel, Brenda. (2001): Utopian Entrepreneur, Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press
Mörtberg, Christina. (1997): “Det beror på att man är kvinna …” Gränsvandrerskor formas
och formar informationsteknologi (“It’s because on is a
woman …” Transgressors are shaped and shape information technology), PhD
Thesis, Department of Work Science: Gender and Technique, Univerisity of Luleå
Norman, Don.
(1989): Design of everyday things
Doubleday, New York
Orlikowski, Wanda .J. (1992): Learning from Notes, in Proceedings of CSCW'92 ACM, New York,
pp. 362-369
Robertson, M.; S.
Newell; J. Swan; Lars. Mathiassen & Gro. Bjerknes (2001): The issue of
gender within computing: reflections from the UK and Scandinavia Information Systems Journal vol 11 issue
2; April 2001, pp. 111-126
Silverstone, R.
& L. Haddon (1996): Design and the Domestication of Information and
Communication Technologies: Technical Change and Everyday Life, pp. 44-74 In:
Mansell, Robin & Silverstone (eds): Communication
by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Star, S.
Leigh.(1991): Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being
allergic to onions, Law, John (ed.) A
Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination,
Sociological Review Monograph 38, Routledge
Star, S. Leigh. & Ruhleder, Karen. (1994):
Steps Towards an Ecology of Infrastructure: Complex Problems in Design and
Access for Large-Scale Collaborative Systems, In: Proceedings of the CSCW'94, ACM, pp. 253-264
Suchman, Lucy. A. (1994): Do Categories Have
Politics? The Language/Action Perspective Reconsidered, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative
Computing, vol. 2 no 3, pp. 177-190
Thoresen, Kari.
(1989): Systems development—Alternative design strategies, in Tijdens et al.
(eds): Women, Work and Computerization:
Forming New Alliances (Proceedings of IFIP TC 9.1 International Conference,
Amsterdam 27-29 April 1988), pp. 123-130
Turkle, Sherry. & Papert, Seymour. (1990):
Epistemological Pluralism: Styles and Voices within the Computer Culture, Sign, Autumn 1990
Verne, G. (2000): Affirmative action strategies: Equal rights
or more?, talk: ITTDG workshop Oslo, October 27-29 2000 on Citizenship and
identity in emerging Information Societies, ITTDG (Information Technology,
Transnational Democracy and Gender) http://www.luth.se/depts/arb/genus_tekn/ITTDG.htm
Wajkman, Judy.. (1991): Feminism
confronts technology Polity Press, Cambridge UK
Waldén, Louise. (1994): “Those living sewing machines …” or Is
Male to Female as Technology to Humanism, pp. 32-42 in Gunnarson, E.wa & Trojer, Lena.
(eds): Feminist Voices on Gender,
Technology and Ethics, Centre of Women’s Studies, Luleå University of
Technology, Sweden
Winner, L. (1985):
Do Artifacts Have Politics?, in MacKenzie, D. & Wajkman, J. (eds): The Social Shaping of Technology, Milton
Keynes
Winograd, Terry. (ed.) (1996): Bringing Design to Software, Addison-Wesley
Yates, J. (1989): Control through Communication, The John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreReferences
The number of references has been reduced from 46 (I agree that this is
too much), but I cannot do 15: This article is
based on arguments from about four different disciplines and I need to refer to some literature in
each to be seen as reliable in each of them. I have cut down as many as possible while preserving the reliability of my arguments.
Please put the remaining references in line with
publishers’ requirements (see attachment to e-mail and the examples I have done). Please supply missing information.
Abbate, J. (1994).: The Internet Challenge., iIn: Summerton, J. (ed): Changing Large Technical
Systems (pp. 193-210),. PLACE: Westview Press, pp. 193-210
Akrich, M. (1992):. The De-Scription of Technical Objects, iIn: Bijker, W.E. and & Law, J. (eds).: Shaping Technology / Building Society. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, Cambridge
Bachrach, P. & M. Baratz
(1962): Two Faces of Power, pp 947-952 in American Political Science
Reviews, vol 56 no 4
Bateson, G. (1972): Steps to an ecology of mind Ballantine, New York
Bjerknes, G. & Bratteteig,
T. (1987a): Florence in
Wonderland, in Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., and Kyng, M. (eds): Computers and Democracy—a Scandinavian Challenge Avebury, Aldershot, pp.
279-295
Bjerknes, G. & Bratteteig,
T. (1987b): Å implementere en ide—samarbeid og konstruksjon
i Florence-prosjektet (Implementing an
idea—cooperation and construction in the Florence project), Florence report no.
3, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo
Bjerknes, Gro. & Bratteteig, Tone. (1988a):. Computers—Utensils
or Epaulets? The Application Perspective Revisited. I, in: AI and Society, vol 2, no 3, pp. 258-266
Bjerknes, G. & Bratteteig,
T. (1988b): The memoirs of two survivors—or evaluation of a computer system for
cooperative work, in Proceedings for The Second Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work ACM, pp. 167-177
Bratteteig, Tone. (2002, forthcoming).: Making change. Working in and
between design and use in systems development. tThesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo PUBLISHERS?
Bratteteig, Tone. & Stolterman, E. (1997):. Design in groups—and all that jazz. I, pp. 289-316 in: Kyng & Mathiassen (eds):. Computers and Design in
Context,
(pp. 289-316). Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press
Bratteteig, Tone. & G. Verne,
G.
(1997).: Feminist or merely
critical? In search of a Gender Perspective in Informatics,. iIn: Moser, I. et al PLEASE NAME THE OTHERS (eds.) Technology and Democracy—
Comparative Perspectives (pp. 59-74), (workshop on "Gender, Technology and politics
in transition?"), Jan. 17-19
1997, TMV Oslo, IS THAT THE PLACE OF THE
WORKSHOP OR OF PUBLICATION?pp. 59-74
Bowker, Geoffrey.C. & Star, S.Leigh. (1999).: Sorting Things Out:
Classification and Its Consequences,. Cambridge, Mass: Place MIT Press
Bødker, S. & Greenbaum, J.
(1989): A feeling for
systems development—Work-design of the ROSA project, in Tijdens et al. (eds): Women, Work and
Computerization: Forming New Alliances (Proceedings of IFIP TC 9.1
International Conference, Amsterdam 27-29 April 1988), pp. 161-170
Callon, M. (1986): Some elements of a sociology
of translation: Domestication of the scallops of St. Brieuc Bay, Law, J. (ed.):
Power, Action and Belief. A
New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph
32, Routledge & Kegan Paul
Cockburn, C. (1985):. Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men and
Technical Know-how. London: Pluto Press, London
Cockburn, C. & Ormrod, S. (1994):. Masculinity and Technology — Making Meaning, Giving
Value, Achieving Dominance,. pp. 122-131 iIn: Gunnarson, E. & Trojer, L. (eds.):. Feminist Voices on Gender, Technology and
Ethics (pp. 122-131),. Centre of Women’s Studies, Luleå University of
Technology, Sweden PLACE:PUBLISHERS
Cross, N.; Christiaans, H. & Dorst,. K. (1997):. Analysing Design Activity. Place:, John Wiley & Sons
Dijkstra, E.W. (1978): A Discipline of Programming, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs New Jersey
Dourish, Paul. & Button, G. (1998):. Technomethodology: Paradoxes and Possibilities., in Proceedings of CHI’96, pp. 19-26 Editor(s) place publisher?
Gasser, L. (1986): The Integration of Computing and Routine
Work ACM Transactions on Office
Information Systems,
vol. 4, no 3, pp .205-225
Greenbaum, Joan. & Stuedahl, D. (2000).: Deadlines and Work Practices in New Media
Development. In:, Svensson, L. et al Please name(eds.).: Proceedings of IRIS’23 (pp. 537-546)., Laboratorium for Interaction Technology, University
of Trollhättan Uddevalla Place, Publishers, pp. 537-546
Gregory, Judith. (2000).: Sorcerer’s Apprentice:
Creating the Electronic Health Record: Re-Inventing Medical Records and Patient Care. (Ph.D. dissertation). La Jolla, CA: Department of
Communication, University of California-San Diego
Haraway, Donna.J. (1991): A Cyborg Manifesto, in Haraway, D.J.: Simians, Cyborgs, and Women.
The Reinvention of Nature.
Free Assoc. Books,
London
Henderson, K. (1999): On Line and On Paper MIT Press, Cambridge
Huff, C.W. & Cooper, J. (1987): Sex Bias in
Educational Software: The Effect of Designers’ Stereotypes on the Software They
Design, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17:6, pp. 519-532
Latour, B. (1987): Science in Action Milton Keynes, Open
University Press
Latour, Bruno. (1996): Aramis, or the Love of
Technology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press
Laurel, B. (2001): Utopian Entrepeneur, MIT Press
March, J. & Olsen, J.P.
(1976): Ambiguity and Choice in
Organizations, Universi-tetsforlaget, Oslo,
Norway
Mörtberg, C. (1997): “Det beror på att man är
kvinna …” Gränsvandrerskor
formas och formar informationsteknologi (“It’s because on is a woman
…” Transgressors are shaped and shape
information technology), PhD Thesis, Department of Work Science: Gender and
Technique, Univerisity of Luleå
Norman, Don. (1989): Design of everyday things Doubleday, New York
Orlikowski, Wanda.J. (1992): Learning from Notes, in Proceedings of CSCW'92 ACM,
New York, pp. 362-369
Robertson, M.; S. Newell; J. Swan; Lars. Mathiassen & Gro. Bjerknes (2001): The issue of gender within
computing: reflections from the UK and Scandinavia Information Systems Journal vol 11 issue 2; April 2001, pp. 111-126
Schön, D. (1987): Educating the reflective
practitioner, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San
Francisco
Silverstone, R. & L. Haddon (1996): Design and
the Domestication of Information and Communication Technologies: Technical
Change and Everyday Life, pp. 44-74 in Mansell & Silverstone (eds): Communication by Design: The
Politics of Information and Communication Technologies Oxford: Oxford University Press
Star, S. Leigh.(1991): Power, technology and the phenomenology of
conventions: on being allergic to onions, Law, J. (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters:
Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Sociological Review Monograph 38, Routledge
Star, S.Leigh. & Ruhleder, Karen. (1994): Steps Towards an Ecology of Infrastructure:
Complex Problems in Design and Access for Large-Scale Collaborative Systems, in Proceedings of the CSCW'94, ACM, pp. 253-264
Suchman, Lucy.A. (1994): Do Categories Have Politics? The
Language/Action Perspective Reconsidered, Computer Supported Cooperative
Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 2 no
3, pp. 177-190
Thoresen, Kari. (1989): Systems development—Alternative design
strategies, in Tijdens et al. (eds): Women, Work and
Computerization: Forming New Alliances (Proceedings of IFIP TC 9.1 International Conference,
Amsterdam 27-29 April 1988), pp.
123-130
Turkle, Sherry. & Papert, Seymour. (1990): Epistemological Pluralism: Styles and
Voices within the Computer Culture, Sign, Autumn 1990
Verne, G. (2000): Affirmative action strategies:
Equal rights or more?,
talk: ITTDG workshop Oslo, October 27-29
2000 on Citizenship and identity in emerging Information Societies, ITTDG
(Information Technology, Transnational Democracy and Gender) http://www.luth.se/depts/arb/genus_tekn/ITTDG.htm
Wajkman,
J. (1991): Feminism confronts technology Polity Press, Cambridge UK
Waldén, L. (1994): “Those living sewing machines …”
or Is Male to Female as Technology to Humanism, pp. 32-42 in Gunnarson, E.
& Trojer, Lena. (eds): Feminist Voices on Gender, Technology and Ethics, Centre of Women’s Studies, Luleå University of
Technology, Sweden
Winner, L. (1985): Do Artifacts Have Politics?, in
MacKenzie, D. & Wajkman, J. (eds): The Social Shaping of
Technology, Milton Keynes
Winograd, Terry. (ed.) (1996): Bringing Design to Software, Addison-Wesley
Yates, J. (1989): Control through Communication, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
[1] see http://www.barbie.com/
<http://www.barbie.com/> Actually the colour is violet .... J
[2] see http://www.purple-moon.com/<
http://www.purple-moon.com/>
[3] ifu: International Women's University, here: ifu's Project Area Information