by Revi Sterling
We all know the frustration of advocating for greater representation of women in computing, but we primarily share our ideas, frustrations and successes with each other. It’s hard to mainstream gender, both as a topic of discussion and as a practice in our institutions. The press tell us we have an “evergreen story” with 22 years of decline, where’s the urgency to tell the story? However, the Chronicle of Higher Education decided that the story was worth telling to a broad range of academics. On January 13th, the Chronicle reported on the major issues around under-representation and highlighted two success stories - Carnegie Mellon University and University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC). On the same day, the Chronicle also hosted a live chat with Claudia Morrell, Executive Director of the Center for Women and Information Technology at the University of Maryland-Baltimore Country.
Some of us know Ms. Morrell from National Center for Women and IT meetings where she is a member of the Academic Alliance, but most of us know of her through the organization she directs, UMBC’s Center for Women and Information Technology, which provides an incredibly thorough collection of gender and computing resources including the most comprehensive bibliography on the subject. Claudia took over from CWIT’s Founding Director, Dr. Joan Korenman, who brought Anita Borg to speak at the inaugural session of the CWIT speaker series. Claudia took questions on the Chronicle’s “Colloquy Live” program, hosted in real time by technology editor Jeff Young. The hour-long chat further evidenced the need for us advocates to widen our sphere of communication and influence, as many of the questions demonstrated continuing concern and confusion about some of the barriers to attraction and retention that we have been working on since the inception of the Institute for Women and Technology, now the Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology.
As a participant, I was somewhat discouraged by the types of questions that came in from participants. However, the frustration stems only from the seemingly slow progress ABI, NCWIT, CWIT, and the many individual contributors at institutions around the country are making that is not keeping pace with my personal desire for change. What is encouraging is that the questions are indeed being asked and by a wide range of participants who were new names to those of us who are already within the advocacy arena. Comments and questions came from schools like Daniel Webster College in Nashua, New Hampshire; Cottey College, a two-year women’s college in Nevada, Missouri; Illinois’ Wheaton College, and the Florida Distance Learning Consortium, which is the online degree arm of Florida’s Community College and University system. Claudia also fielded questions from participants at military institutions, oversees universities, as well as high school administrators and students. In a field of new names, it was also reassuring to see the involvement of Ken Yasuhara, a gender equity in education specialist at University of Washington, who we recognize from past Grace Hopper’s conferences.
Two posts stood out to me as topics to explore in greater detail. A participant from SUNY Canton called attention to the changing nature of gender discrimination, positing that “”Sexist decisions, promotions and hiring are much more sophisticated (for the most part) than 20, 15, or even 5 years ago. The impact is still the same although decisions are presented much more charmingly.” Gender discrimination in high tech has become more subtle and insidious as diversity and gender issues gain visibility within institutions. ABI has an opportunity to champion these conversations in order to help expose insidious undercurrents that keep women from staying and thriving in high tech. Ken Yasuhara also discussed backlash issues, but in the context of women’s only programs. He discussed how women benefit in gender-neutral outreach, recruitment, and retention efforts - information that those trying to create programs should find helpful, especially in state schools where gender-based programs are illegal.
I have asked the Chronicle for viewer statistics for the discussion, as it would be interesting to see how many other people were lurking in the discussion but not actively participating. The numbers will be telling in either direction. A high number of “lurkers” may mean that web-based discussions have more than incremental value. I’m personally torn on the utility of these online discussions. On the plus side, it’s interesting to see who shows up for the event. On the other hand, we historically do a terrible job of tracking the outcomes of these discussions. While I have seen serialized online chat efforts fail more often than succeed (hard to sustain interest and participation; shoddy moderation), I can see the value in having a continuation of webcasts/podcasts that can be utilized in Women in Computing classes and organizations across campuses. These could be streamed from multiple sources - MentorNet, ACM-W, ABI, WEPAN - that way, the message is consistent and those looking for the message find it on the sites they already have a link or affinity with. If these discussions are but a one-off effort by one organization, they will be doomed to be seen by only those in the know, and will lack the legitimacy they would have by being “mirrored” by the many organizations that share in the vision of increasing women’s representation in technology.
One of the major advantages of leveraging multiple organizations is the ability to target different academic populations. The wide range of participants underscores the need to connect with the schools that can produce a potentially large number of technical female students - liberal arts schools, all-women schools, community colleges, specialize technology institutes and military institutions. We need to work on stronger links between our organizations and these schools who are hungry for the information that we have but are apparently not disseminating in the most effective manner. We have websites, listervs and research papers, but somehow the word is not getting out. It may take new engagement strategies - progressive legislation, regional programs spearheaded by the flagship university in each state, getting more coverage in mainstream academic publications and conferences, but we should simultaneously look at our part in the communication problem. While we are passionate about the programs and research, we can tend towards isolation and what I’ve even heard referred to as “cronyism”. The cross-pollination of people on boards and committees across the gender equity in technology space means we work, trust and produce as a pretty cohesive group. To me, this is the best thing about being part of this troupe of gender champions. The flip side to this is that we refer projects to each other’s institutions and do research with those people with whom we are familiar. I’m not calling for an opening of the floodgates because issues of scale, focus, resources and quality are some of our essential priorities. However, finding ways to expand our reach and base will not only infuse us with fresh thinking, but give us a mechanism to reach a broader audience representing those who are concerned and frustrated about the current state of women in computing. This is something to keep in mind when we meet as a group - who else would be benefiting from the information we bring to the table who isn’t there?
Related links
Chronicle of Higher Education article: Wanted: Female Computer-Science Students
Center for Women and Information Technology at UMBC
Hosted Chat with Claudia Morrell: The Computer Science Clubhouse