Computer Science:  Where (and why) have all the women gone?  

by
Dr. Lynda R. Ross

Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada

presented at

Canadian Women’s Studies Association Conference
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 27 – May 30, 2007

Abstract

Like other post-secondary institutions in North America, Athabasca University has not been successful in either recruiting or retaining women to its Computing and Information Science programmes.  The gradual decline in women’s participation has generally been attributed to the hostile masculine ‘culture’ of the discipline.  The current study, through indepth interviews with 19 female and 19 male computer science students, explores notions of the computing ‘culture’ and its perceived impact on women’s place in computer science as well as its effects on the discipline.    

Presentation

My interest in women’s role in computing science began several years ago when I was evaluating one of Athabasca University’s introductory computing science courses.  At the time of the review, the completion and pass rates for the introductory computing course course were similar for both men and women (i.e., 30%).  Although women represent close to 40% of enrollments in introductory CS courses, by fourth year women’s participation drops and accounts for less than 10% of the passing registrations.

The project that I’m going to talk briefly about today was designed to assess factors affecting women’s choices to continue their studies in AU’s computing science programme. There has been a lot of recent interest in and consequently studies looking at problems of both recruitment and retention in traditional educational settings, but nothing to date describing women’s experiences with distance delivered computing science programmes. 

Camp and her colleagues are one group of researchers that have been interested in the problem.  They coined the term ‘the incredible shrinking pipeline’ to describe women’s declining participation in undergraduate and graduate CS programmes.  Figures suggest that in Canada women are currently earning less than 20% of all bachelor’s degrees in this discipline. But the problem isn’t just that women are currently under-represented, the concern is that over the several decades, each year fewer and fewer women are choosing computing science as their major area of study.

One might be tempted to ask, why the concern?  The concern seems to be threefold.  First, are women, in fact making “real” choices to stay out?  Or is there something about CS programmes that are creating barriers to restrict women’s participation.  Second and of equal importance, what are the effects on the discipline resulting from women’s absence?  And finally, because of today’s emphasis on IT, a shortage in qualified computer scientists has been predicted – increasing women’s involvement is seen as part of the solution to this shortage.

Several factors have been proposed in the literature to account for the decline in women’s participation.  Two decades ago, efforts to increase women’s participation were based on notions that women feared computers, that they were avoiding math related subjects, and that women therefore lacked the confidence to pursue careers in computing.  More recently, however, researchers are suggesting that it is women’s reticence – and not fear – that is keeping them out and that their reticence is largely based in their understandings of the CS “culture”.  There’s a wealth of evidence to support the view that women’s under-representation is largely a result of the cultural development of the field.  Feminist researchers have suggested that the high-tech culture is a place in which masculinity is deliberately and actively reproduced.  As a consequence the discipline has now expanded into a system of inequitable gender differences – both in educational and workplace environments.

In addition to effects of the “culture” on women’s choices to enrol in and remain in computer science programmes, other factors have mitigated against women’s success.  Women do tend to come into the discipline with significantly less computing experience; a poorer basis in mathematics; and weaker  science backgrounds, compared to their male counterparts.  It stands to reason then, particularly in light of the curriculum, that because of the academic gaps in women’s backgrounds, traditional universities tend to admit fewer women. And because of their backgrounds and the culture they find themselves in, many women who are admitted often feel less competent and comfortable in the programmes. And many women are also less successful with first year computing science courses compared to men.  Poor teaching practices –  inexperienced teachers, gender insensitivity, assignments that don’t match course objectives—also have a stronger effect on women’s as compared to men’s success and retention. On the other hand, courses and curriculum placing technology in the context of its real-world uses, although shown to increase women’s retention, is not yet a consistent strategy that has been used by many CS departments in Canada. 

Although the computing culture may be less overt in a distance compared to a traditional university environment, there is still room for the culture to invade virtual and distance ‘classrooms.’  Through for example instructor/tutor expectations, poor course design, gender biased materials, and curriculum that neglects women’s interests. 

So…that’s a little bit about what the literature proposes to account for women’s under-representation.  And now I want to talk a bit about the study that we conducted at AU. I want to mention that the first phase of this project was conducted with Dr. Pete Holt, who is a professor in the CS department.  And Julia Johnson has been working on this project from the outset as our research associate.  She conducted all of the interviews and did all of the transcriptions.  She also co-authored a book chapter with Pete and myself, based on the findings from the women’s interviews.  I’d also like to acknowledge that the research was funded by two separate Academic Research grants from Athabasca University.

Overall, this project is based on 38 in depth interviews, 19 with women and 19 with men.  The students that were interviewed were enrolled at least one CS course or had very recently completed a course. It was a quasi-random sample – but we did try to ensure that we interviewed students who had experienced success with their courses, as well as those who were less successful. Several graduates of the programme were included as well as several graduate students.

In conducting this study, we used a semi-structured interview protocol adapted from an instrument developed by Margolis and Fisher in 2002 for their study they carried out at MIT. Our interviews were done over the telephone and were taped with student’s knowledge and permission.  The interviews ranged in length from an hour to an hour and a half.  (Note:  all of the women’s data has been analyzed; I’m still in the process of analyzing the men’s transcripts…particularly for their detailed suggestions on how to improve the programme.)

I’m going to share some of the findings that relate to three of the questions that were included as part of the interview.  These questions were designed to help us explore this notion of “culture”.  The first asked students if they could describe an “atmosphere” that they may have experienced while studying at AU; the second expanded on this concept by asking students to describe any gender related experiences that might have contributed to an “atmosphere”; and the third asked students to reflect on reasons for women’s non-participation in CS and for them to suggest ways in which AU might facilitate women’s participation in the discipline in the future. 

By assessing the atmosphere – or culture – we wanted to see whether or not AU was somehow replicating the same kind of gendered learning environments experienced by many women in traditional university settings. Our assumption, going into this project, based on other studies, was that AU must in fact doing just that. After reviewing the data, it is clear that our assumption was not correct. 

Before I talk about “atmosphere”, for those of you not familiar with AU, you need to keep in mind that all of the CS courses are offered in an individualized study mode, in an online format. So what this means is that students register at the beginning of any month, throughout the year, they have 6 months to complete their course, their progress is self-paced, and so they don’t really have a cohort of students going through the courses with them.  Although all students at AU have a tutor assigned to them and have the opportunity for scheduled weekly telephone contact, almost all student-tutor contact occurs via email. Also, although virtual conference boards and chat rooms have been set up to enable students to interact with one another, for a variety of reasons there is, in fact very little online interaction between students. 
You kind of get the picture of students working to a large extent – with the exception of some email contact –  in isolation of both their instructors and of one another. 

So, now I’d like to talk a little bit about our findings in relation to a computing “culture;” student speculations as to why so few women enrol in CS; and some of the solutions they proposed.  Remarkbly, in relation to these three issues, the responses from the men and women we interviewed were very similar.
 
Not surprisingly – given the nature of AU’s delivery system –  participants had some difficulty describing any kind of an atmosphere.  Mostly they talked about it as being non-existent or being very individual, suggesting that “it’s what you make it.” “It’s just you and your computer.”  Many of the students acknowledged that because “atmosphere is a measure of interaction’’ and most felt quite ‘unconnected’, it was impossible for them to discern or describe any environment within the department.  And consequently, the notion of “culture” seemed rather foreign to our distance students.

We probed this issue further, asking our women participants whether at any time in their studies did they feel that to being a woman was an issue; and similarly we asked our male participants whether they felt that women would have a more difficult time in the programme. The response to this question pretty much unanimous. Students could identify no evidence of sexist or discriminatory practices.  For most of the women, it never crossed their minds, prior to us asking the question, that their gender would be an issue. Gender wasn’t seen as an obstacle or a disadvantage and most women felt that their experiences in the department could be no different than men’s experiences. Many mentioned that the course materials – study guides, textbooks, assignments – seemed gender neutral; that the tutors and professors, although predominantly male, were open-minded, friendly and encouraging. Some of the students – men and women –  commented that the online environment naturally tended to eliminate the potential for gender bias because often students were unaware of the gender of the people they were interacting with. 

Our male participants felt that women’s experiences in the programme would be no different than their own – although one participant questionned that although “the experience is the same [for men and women], do [women] enjoy that experience?”  By “experience,” that particular student was referring to computing being a solitary pursuit, one requiring independent work, and one that necessitated delving into technical detail.

In summary, all participants – men and women –  reported no overt evidence of a ‘male computing culture’ and as such, this did not appear to be a factor affecting women’s participation and success in the CS programme at AU.

When asked to share their views on why women generally aren’t drawn to the discipline, it’s important to keep in mind that all of the women we were talking to, were in fact quite committed to computing science in particular and to studying at AU in general. So, in many ways we were asking the women to step outside of  their own experiences and to separate themselves from the majority of women who don’t choose CS as a discipline of study. This kind of separating self from others was evident throughout many of their narratives – when they talked about their own backgrounds and interests in science and how they felt their upbringings were not typical of how many other women had been brought up. The women we talked to had very strong backgrounds in sciences or in computing and they all mentioned that as young women they were encouraged in these pursuits and all seemed very confident about their approaches to the discipline and their ability to succeed in CS studies and careers.  

The reasons given for other women not being drawn to the discipline were largely based on stereotypes.  They talked about gender differences in cognitive skills and abilities, in learning styles, communication patterns, and in social needs. So for example our women suggested that other women would find computing too hard; would to gravitate towards less substantial careers; tended not to understand math concepts; were less logical, more emotional or that other women had different social needs, tending to want more communication and social interaction than they perceived CS would offer.  And all of these factors, they felt, mitigated against women’s involvement in CS.

In much the same way the men suggested that the “field just isn’t interesting to women”; it “doesn’t appeal to the female character;” “women are more social, more caring, more nurturing;” “anything dealing with computers is sort of cold, hard, factual, straight logic – perhaps females are drawn to more creative things;”  “women are different; they think differently;” “most women enjoy talking to people, more than machines;”  “women are more emotional than logical;” and “it’s less socially acceptable for them.”

The women we interviewed acknowledged that the male domination of the discipline discourages some women from pursuing degrees and careers in computing, including what they described as the ‘image problem’ associated with the discipline (i.e., men interacting only with their computers) and a fear that because it’s a male dominated area that women would be unable to secure positions once they graduate.   

It was interesting that a number of the women we interviewed – and not the men –  suggested that the reason more women don’t go into computing is because women are not willing to put up with the commitment and volume of work required by a number of the courses. And this is not because they felt that women were incapable of doing the work, but because they choose not to. They simply have too many other responsibilities to balance in their lives. In discussing the number of hours required by some of the courses, one of our participants stated:  “Well, quite frankly I don’t think anybody should be that committed, and perhaps women have some sense when they avoid it…I do believe in having a healthy, well balanced lifestyle.”  

And it would seem that women perceive that a career in CS will make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain balance in their lives. ‘Lifestyle choice’ was seen as a central reason for women’s reluctance to engage in a CS career.  And some of the men expressed the view that “Sure [men and women] have the same intellectual capacity, but that doesn’t mean we enjoy doing the same thing…don’t get too focussed on dragging women into computer science rather than encouraging them because you offer the best programme.  [CS] is still a male-centric world…I’m not sure it can be made female friendly.”

When our participants were asked to pose solutions to the problem of women’s under-representation their responses fell into two broad categories – those addressing issues of recruitment and those of retention.  Most acknowledged that the problem of recruiting women into CS was a broad societal problem and could only be solved – in the longer term –  by preparing young women academically through encouraging the early pursuit of mathematics and science.  As one male participant noted: “Girls don’t do math.  I think that’s what would have to change.”

Participants also felt that the image of computing needed to be changed and that the industry itself has to change to adapt to women’s realities.  One man suggested that, although stereotypes persist, they are not an accurate reflection of what CS and the people involved in CS are really all about.  and that “the whole field has to be attractive to everyone in general, before it can be attractive to women.”

In terms of retention, a number of suggestions were made. From our women participants, some of these suggestions were based in notions, again, of other women’s needs being different from their own.   Other suggestions were reflections of the women’s own experiences –  things that would have made their own studies in the programme more appealing.  And the men, who in general were less critical of the existing courses and curriculum, made suggestions largely based on their stereotypical understandings of women as well as from factors that motivated them to pursue their studies in CS – like early involvement in “gaming”. 

The idea that women are more social than men informed many of the solutions. While students we interviewed had very little interaction with their fellow students, students recommended facilitating communication and developing a sense of community spirit. In this regard, some of our participants also suggested developing and circulating a newsletter, highlighting women’s accomplishments in the field. 

Interaction and community could also be created through enhancing the profile of the existing online conferences (i.e., mandatory participation; more team work); creation of study groups (online and offline) and by instituting occasional weekend face-to-face conferences for upper-level students. A number of students suggested setting up a mentoring system – one that would pair new students with women already established in the programme. In a similar vein a number of the participants felt that hiring more women tutors and faculty would go a long way towards increasing women’s retention.
   
For themselves, the women we interviewed emphasised overall the need to adapt the curriculum and courses to reflect women’s interests and women’s realities. From this perspective suggestions focussed on adapting the context in which many of the current courses are offered. This included making courses and assignments more socially relevant through, for example, encouraging links between computing and relationships and other disciplines; through the promotion of team work; by changing applications and examples to focus on women’s interests; and by offering more courses dealing with the social and human aspects of computing. 

Some of our participants suggested that CS would appeal to larger numbers of women if it were to be offered as part of a split-degree – a programme that would encourage women to apply their computing knowledge in creative ways to other academic contexts (e.g., Business administration and systems design; Accounting and data base administration; Psychology and web-space design).  

Students also felt that in order for CS to retain women the workloads associated with individual courses need to be revised and  made more realistic – in effect tailored to the multiple roles women studying at AU are carrying.

I’m going to end here by saying that although our participants reported no overt evidence of a ‘male computing culture’ in their experiences at AU, the focus of their suggestions to increase retention in the CS programme all revolved around the need to adapt the programme to fit with women’s interests and realities. This would suggest that the our participants still perceive CS as meeting male, as opposed to female needs.  The majority of our participants – although a few of the men were quite committed to the notion that men and women  are “hard-wired” to think differently – suggested that the solution has to come from early socialization practices at home and in the schools. In the final analysis a gender balance and equity in the field, was seen as enhancing the discipline and thought to be a positive and necesssary change to the CS as it currently exists.