Content uploaded by Vivian Anette Lagesen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vivian Anette Lagesen on Jul 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://sth.sagepub.com/
Values
Science, Technology & Human
http://sth.sagepub.com/content/33/1/5
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0162243907306192
December 2007
2008 33: 5 originally published online 10Science Technology Human Values
Vivian Anette Lagesen
Faculty
Science among Malaysian Women Computer Science Students and
A Cyberfeminist Utopia? : Perceptions of Gender and Computer
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Social Studies of Science
at:
can be foundScience, Technology & Human ValuesAdditional services and information for
http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://sth.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://sth.sagepub.com/content/33/1/5.refs.htmlCitations:
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
A Cyberfeminist Utopia?
Perceptions of Gender and
Computer Science among
Malaysian Women Computer
Science Students and Faculty
Vivian Anette Lagesen
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
The low and shrinking numbers of women in higher computer science educa-
tion is a well-known problem in most Western countries. The dominant Western
perception of the relationship between gender and computer science codes
the latter as “masculine,” and the low number of women is seen at least partly
as an effect of that coding. Malaysia represents a different case. There are
large numbers of women in computer science, and computer science is not
perceived as “masculine.” Rather, it is deemed as providing suitable jobs and
good careers for women. This reflects an understanding of gender where
femininities are constructed by association to office work, commonly recog-
nized as a woman-friendly space because it is seen as more safe and protected
than, for example, construction sites and factories. The findings suggest that
gender and computer science may be more diversely coproduced than commonly
believed in Western research.
Keyw ords: computer science; gender; technofeminism; cyberfeminism; cyborg
feminism
M
uch research has explored the gender-technology relationship to
analyze how women have been excluded from technological fields and
how gendered perceptions and values have worked to shape design as well
as use of technologies. A common claim across an otherwise diverse body
of research has been that this exclusion has been produced through a strong
relationship between technoscience and men’s performance of masculinities
(Cockburn 1983, 1985; Cockburn and Ormrod 1993; Faulkner 2000; Fergus
1993; Hacker 1989, 1990; Lie 1998; Mellström 1995; Robinson and McIlwee
1991; Wajcman 1991, 2004). An exclusion focus has also dominated studies
of the gendering of computer science, which have primarily explained the
Science, Technology, &
Human Values
Volume 33 Number 1
January 2008 005-027
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0162243907306192
http://sth.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
5
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
low and declining number of women in higher computer science education
in most Western countries through two types of deficit models (Lagesen 2005,
14-18): women’s deficits (e.g., Brosnan 1998; Borge et al. 1980; Durndell
et al. 2000; Kramer and Lehman 1990; Maccoby and Jacklin 1974; Siann
1997) and deficits in the educational practices of computer science and its
student culture (e.g., Cohoon 2002, 2006; Gabbert and Meeker 2002; Lagesen
2005; Margolis and Fisher 2002; Roberts, Kassiandou, and Irani 2002;
Townsend 2002). Furthermore, discriminatory practices and other minority
problems have been identified as produced within the culture of computer
science (e.g., Dambrot et al. 1985; Spertus 1991; Teague 2000). Finally, the
image of computer science has been viewed as “masculine” and thus prone
to exclude women (e.g., Corneliussen 2002; Edwards 1990; Henwood 2000;
Kvande and Rasmussen 1989; Mörtberg 1987; Stepulevage and Plumeridge
1998; Wright 1996).
The weakness of this kind of negative-critical analysis is illuminated when
we encounter the case of Malaysia. Here, women constitute about half of
all students in higher computer science education (Lagesen 2005; Ng 1999;
Othman and Latih 2006). Thus, the exclusion thesis appears quite misplaced.
When so few Western women study computer science, the palpable question
is, how come many Malaysian women do? This article aims to explore how
the Malaysian situation is different by analyzing how Malaysian women
reasoned about their decision to study computer science—not to explain the
difference between their decision-making and that of Western women. Why
did Malaysian women make this choice? Did they see computer science as
gendered, and if so, in what way?
Because of the exclusion dominance in previous research, we know little
about why the few Western women who actually study computer science do
so. In a North American context, Margolis and Fisher characterized women
computer science students as the “survivors of the ‘boy’s club’ of high school
computing” (2002, 49). They were skilled and interested in the technical
aspects of computing and derived pleasure from logical thinking. A major
influence was parents’ careers, interest, and support (see also Teague 2000).
Furthermore, Margolis and Fisher observed the importance of “pillars of
persistence” like believing in hard work rather than in talent and exercising
resistance toward the “male hacker-culture.” Similarly, Trauth (2002) found
that women who chose to study computer science were a diverse group,
exposed to different sociocultural influences and experiences and with
different ways to handle their situation. However, they shared being an “odd
girl out” as women in a field that was dominated by men and also, by impli-
cation, looked upon as a “masculine.” What, then, happens when women are
not a minority in computer science as is the case in Malaysia?
6 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Cyberfeminism, Cyborg Feminism,
and Technofeminism
The large proportion of women studying computer science in Malaysia
challenges the way Western feminist research has theorized the gender-
technology relationship in terms of exclusion. Do we need to understand
this relationship in a different way, or does previous Western research still
offer fruitful frames of analysis? Is the Malaysian situation less utopian
than one could believe?
Judy Wajcman’s (2004) recent review of research on gender and techno-
science outlines four different frames of analysis, covering the main theore-
tical positions in this field today. Can they work as accounting resources to
understand the high number of women in computer science in Malaysia?
The first frame, “technoscience reconfigured,” represents the initial feminist
effort to analyze the gender-technology relationship. A main achievement was
the transformation of studies of technoscience from gender-blind to gender-
aware (Cockburn 1983, 1985). While celebrating the importance of this
research in shaping feminist perceptions of technoscience, Wajcman notes
several weaknesses of this frame, above all its tendency toward essentialism.
The second frame has emerged under the label of cyberfeminism (see, e.g.,
Flanagan and Booth 2002; Hawthorne and Klein 1999; Bell and Kennedy
2000; Kirkup et al. 2000; Reiche and Kuni 2004). The term encompasses a
range of approaches to analyze the relationship between information and
communication technologies (ICT) and gender, which claim to observe
progress of women in new technological arenas such as the World Wide
Web (Kennedy 2000). While contributions designated or proclaimed to be
cyberfeminist are diverse, they share an optimism concerning women’s
computer-based activities, above all related to the use of the Internet and
net-based ways of communicating (Kennedy 2000; Wajcman 2004; see also
Woodfield 2000).
While most cyberfeminists do not deny that there are processes that tend
to exclude women (Hawthorne and Klein 1999; Spender 1995), they also see
that many women have become highly motivated and skilled cybercitizens
(see, e.g., Wakeford 2003). Sadie Plant (1996) offers perhaps the most promi-
nent and optimistic cyberfeminist visions. Women, computers, virtual reality,
and cyberspace, she argues, are linked together in dispersed, distributed
connections—the matrix, which, because of its inherent feminine character,
will emerge as the new society that will destroy patriarchy. However, Plant’s
visions have been criticized for essentialism, lacking critical perspective, hyping
new technologies, and overstating the women-friendliness of cyberspace
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 7
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(Adam 1997; Hawthorne and Klein 1999; Pohl 1997; Squire 1999; van
Zoonen 2002; Wajcman 2004).
A related, more pragmatic program of cyberfeminism has been called
“the communicative turn” in the use of computers. It suggests that commu-
nicative aspects of computer technologies are important to make women
interested (Nordli 2001; Silverstone and Sørensen 2005). From this perspec-
tive, women are expected to engage with the technology in a way that tran-
scends the role of users, finding particular pleasure in the communication
possibilities (Rasmussen and Håpnes 2003).
The third frame is based on Donna Haraway’s (1985, 2004) figure of the
cyborg, an implosion of human and machine. This perspective suggests a
focus on disruptions and ambiguities in relation to gender and technology.
It advocates the exploration of the women-computing relationship, while
paying particular attention to the complexities and contradictions of this
relationship. Wajcman (2004, 127) acknowledges Haraway’s sensitivity to
the cyborg’s ambiguous nature. Still, she criticizes cyborg feminism as well
as cyberfeminism for assigning too much agency to new technology and not
enough to feminist politics.
To amend this problem, Wajcman (2004) introduces the fourth frame of
analysis, technofeminism. It emphasizes the need to investigate the gendering
of new technologies to assess critically how technologies are shaped in ways
detrimental to women. Technofeminism relies on feminist political practices
in combination with feminist research to change sociotechnical networks to
include more women. According to Wajcman, this is needed, because the
culture of computing is still “predominantly the culture of white American
males” (2004, p. 112). Wajcman, nevertheless, sees opportunities for women
to be attracted to technoscientific spheres when “entry does not entail co-option
into a world of patriarchal values and behaviour” (2004, p. 112). Moreover,
she asserts that an increase in the number of women in engineering eventually
will dismantle the strong relationship between hegemonic masculinity and
the culture of engineering. This latter argument suggests that quantity is
vital to change-gendered practices, cultures, and symbols, implying that
computer science may, in fact, be gendered differently in Malaysia (see
Lagesen 2007; Sørensen and Berg 1987).
These four frames have to be used critically when analyzing women
computer science students in a non-Western country like Malaysia since they
may represent Western points of view with respect to women and technology
(see Mohanty 2002; Ong 1995; Stivens 2000). Thus, when I draw on these
frames as accounting resources in the analysis, I can also examine some of
their underlying assumptions. For this purpose, Malaysia may be a critical
8 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
case. Using the first frame, technoscience reconsidered, the expectation would
be that Malaysian women get excluded or marginalized within computer
science. The second frame, cyberfeminism, would suggest that Malaysian
women students consider communication a major attraction of new computer
technologies, using this as a way to succeed as computer scientists. The
cyborg feminist frame invites a focus on the potentially ambiguous gains of
studying computer science, while the technofeminist frame suggests that
feminist politics or women’s struggles are essential in achieving a large
proportion of women students in computer science. Moreover, all four frames
presuppose that computer science would be gendered and that this would
be apparent from the accounts of my informants.
Malaysia—Women and Modernization
I started my research by looking for places where the number of female
and male students in computer science would be roughly equal. The rationale
was to explore the implications of such a situation with respect to percep-
tions of gender and computer science. The University of Malaya (UM) was
selected as my field site. It is a large public university situated in the capital,
Kuala Lumpur. The Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology
(FSKTM) was established in the mid-1990s. In 2001, women constituted
52 percent of the bachelor’s students in computer science and 65 percent
in information technology at FSKTM. Forty-three percent of the master’s
students, and 39 percent of the PhD students were women. While this may
look like a shrinking pipeline pattern, one has to consider that many of the
male PhD students actually were non-Malaysians. The majority of the faculty,
as well as all heads of departments and the dean, were women. This seems
a representative picture of the gender pattern in computer science education
for the whole of Malaysia for the past ten years (Othman and Latih 2006).
Two particular aspects of the Malaysian society should be mentioned
here. First, ICT has been a government priority area fueled by the rapid
economic growth in Malaysia. It has been seen as a key to a better future,
and the authorities have strongly encouraged young people to study IT for the
past fifteen years (Ng 1999, p. 144). Second, the official quota system privi-
leges indigenous Malays. It provides them with benefits in most official areas,
such as quota protection in education, scholarships, employment, training,
trade, business permits, and so on. This gives them advantages in relation to the
other large ethnic groups in Malaysia, Chinese (about 30 percent) and Indians
(about 10 percent). The government created the program to correct interethnic
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 9
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
economic imbalances among the ethnic groups, but it is a sensitive and
controversial issue (Chee-Beng 1997; Luke 2002; Mellström 2003; Ng 1999).
Malaysian women constitute a diverse group in terms of ethnicity,
religion, class, and regional cultures, including urban/rural differences as well
as cultural variations within the ethnic groups (Chee-Beng 1997; Oorjitham
1984). Thus, one should be careful about making general claims. Education,
however, has played a key role in the swift modernization process and has
been instrumental in promoting “national unity” (Mellström 2003; Stivens
2000). The government made particular efforts to remedy women’s previously
disadvantageous educational position through a state-sponsored, large-scale
entry of women into mass education and industry (Ong 1995; Yun 1984).
Stivens (2000) argues that the high number of women in Malaysian higher
education shows that parents value education for daughters as much as for
sons. Moreover, women play an increasingly important role as political and
religious actors, and they also engage with regional and global feminism
(Ong 1995; Stivens 2000).
Ong asserts that Malay women have been made icons of modernity by
two competing institutions working to form different postcolonial nation-
alisms: the government and the Islamic resurgence. State-driven programs
dictated a series of tasks for women, for instance, to raise children with values
such as efficiency and self-reliance. “The official discourse on the modern
family thus defined women’s modern roles: as working daughters who could
pull their families out of ‘backwardness’ and as housewives (serirumah) who
could inculcate ‘progressive’ values in their children” (1995, p. 394). This
family model supported a more assertive role for women at home, raised
the expectations for women, and granted them new freedoms (Lie and Lund
1994; Ong 1995). However, the Islamic revivalism of the late 1970s and
the early 1980s produced a countermodel, in which the Islamic discourse
(dakwa) suggested that women should not compete with men in the labor
market. Jobs that involved serving others—for example, as clerks, teachers,
and nurses or doctors (attending women and children only)—were preferred
(Ong 1995). However, the dakwa has become much less prominent since
the mid-1980s.
A common feature of the state-driven modernity discourse and the dakwa
is the centrality of women’s role as mothers and wives. Nevertheless, there
is a potential conflict between the image of the relatively free and emancipated
working woman and the domesticated, compliant, modest Muslim woman.
According to Nagata and Salaff (1996), this has intensified the ambiva-
lence of Malay women seeking professional careers, and it inhibits a potential
common sentiment of women across ethnic lines. Both Chinese Malaysian
10 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
and Indian Malaysian women belong to religions (Hinduism), cultures, and
moral systems (Confucianism) that are potentially paternalistic and may
suppress women’s autonomy (Armstrong 1996; Mellström 2003; Oorjitham
1984; Peng 1984). However, Chinese as well as Indian Malaysians recognize
the importance of higher education, perhaps because of their disadvantaged
situations as non-bumiputeras (Chee-Beng 1997; Mellström 2003). Also, the
Malaysian state programs’ focus on education and progress has probably
influenced all ethnic groups in Malaysia. A study of student attitudes towards
learning to use the Internet found no ethnic or gender differences, suggesting
a fairly evenly distributed interest toward ICTs among ethnic groups (Hong,
Ridzuan, and Kuek 2003).
Method
Data were collected at UM in 2001. I interviewed twenty female students
at FSKTM. Eleven were undergraduates, and nine were master’s students
who also worked as tutors. In addition, I interviewed three heads of depart-
ments, the dean, one female lecturer, and two male master’s students. All
informants found it acceptable to be interviewed in English.
I got in touch with interviewees through one of the master’s students who
were asked to help me to meet others. Using so-called snowball sampling,
I reached more potential informants through other students. Generally, people
were willing to be interviewed. The interviews took place in different locations
on campus.
The interviews have been transcribed and analyzed according to the
main tenets of grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss 1990), emphasizing the
method of constant comparison across the empirical data (Glaser and Strauss
1968). In the presentation, illustrative quotes from the interviews have been
provided, often showing the dialogue that took place between me and my
informants. To let readers make their own interpretations, the dialogue has
been reproduced close to the original transcriptions.
The female students I interviewed were of different ethnic origins: eight
were Chinese Malaysian; three were Indian Malaysian; and the rest, including
faculty and the two male students, were Malay. Ethnicity is indicated by names.
Indian students have names that begin with an I. Chinese students have
American or Chinese names, and the rest of the names is Malay.
My informants varied in terms of age, year of study, and social background.
Since my research questions are analytical-explorative, I consider the set of
informants to be adequate even if it is not statistically representative. Although
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 11
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ethnic aspects play an important role in a wider discussion of female students
in Malaysia, not least because of the bumiputera politics (see, e.g., Luke
2002), this is not used as an accounting resource in the article. Rather, the
analysis focuses on what the informants say about themselves and how they
describe their choice of computer science, in line with the tenets of micro-
sociological, interactionist approaches. It is not an inquiry into aspects of the
wider Malaysian culture.
Consequently, context will be invoked only when the informants themselves
address it in their accounts, mainly through stories about personal experi-
ences and background. The selection has been made to provide a diversity
of voices in relation to the research questions. Also, in my analysis, the
content of the concepts of masculine and feminine are seen as continuously
produced through my informants’ account and not as having any pregiven
meaning. Thus, I use quotation marks with these concepts consistently
throughout this article.
Becoming Students of Computer Science
Most of my informants did not consider their choice of computer science
as special and as something that women in general would not consider. Rather,
they saw their choice as consistent with being women. The informants offered
quite varied narratives about their decisions. Two aspects emerged as partic-
ularly prominent: enthusiasm and instrumentalism concerning computing
and computer science. To understand the variations in the gender–computer
science relationship, we need to explore in detail how the women reasoned
around their choice of computer science. What was the role of enthusiasm
relative to instrumentalism, and how did my informants account for these
motives?
Enthusiasm
Most of the research that has investigated enthusiasm toward technology
has looked at men and the way they find pleasure in tinkering with tech-
nology, including computers (Hacker 1989, 1990; Kleif and Faulkner 2002;
Mellström 1995, 2003; Turkle 1984). Computer enthusiasm among girls or
women has been linked to communication or graphic design and informa-
tion retrieval (Rasmussen and Håpnes 2003; Kennedy 2000; Plant 1996).
However, it has also been shown to emerge from technological aspects,
including a fascination for programming (Berg 2000; Corneliussen 2002;
12 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Nordli 2003). Margolis and Fisher found that enjoyment of computing was
the factor most frequently mentioned among female students as their reason
to major in computer science. However, this interest went beyond technical
aspects. It was made meaningful only by invoking human and social contexts
(2002, 52). Thus, we have three different ideas of where women would find
enthusiasm for computers: in human communication, technical aspects, or
social utility. Were my Malaysian informants enthusiastic about computers,
and if so, for what reasons?
Actually, quite a few of the women were clearly interested in computers.
Some of them had even developed a profound fascination and decided to
study computer science when they were still in school, like Salina:
V: So, why did you choose to study computer science?
Salina: Maybe because I’m very interested, actually since I was in form 1.
[Standard 1-6 is primary school; form 1 to form 5 is secondary and higher
secondary school.] I used to sit and tell my mum: “I am going to be a system
analyst, or I’m going to be someone who is an expert in computers.”
V: What interests you about it?
Salina: Maybe because the computer did something . . . it’s a machine and then . . .
we have to operate that . . . I don’t know . . . I just like it very much!! (laughing)
V: Did you have any experience with the computers when you were younger?
Salina: Yes, at my primary school . . . I used to learn basic programming, when
I am in standard 3 or 4, I think. I used to go to the class every week!
Salina was very enthusiastic. Salina also described the general atmosphere
in her class as very positive toward computer science. She had no notion of
computer science as a “boy thing.” In her class of fifty-fifty boys and girls,
everybody enjoyed computing.
V: Did people enjoy computer science or computer subjects in general?
Salina: Yeah. And for me, I enjoyed it very much.
V: And the other girls?
Salina: Yes, they enjoyed it very much too. Because our computer teacher—she
is so kind and very generous. She would sit besides us and say, “This is like
this, and this is like this, okay?” (Laughing)
Clearly, Salina perceived her female teacher as a role model, associating
computer science with her generous and careful guidance. This inspired
Salina to want to become a computer science teacher.
There were also informants who had been fascinated with computers
because they could be programmed to do things beyond imagination. For
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 13
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
example, Haifa, who since the age of twelve, had wanted to make a robot that
could do all kind of things, including housework: “I wanted to do a machine
that can do any job . . . at that time I was twelve years old. I don’t know the
name of that machine, now I know, that machine is called robot. So, I’m
very interested to think about how to make life easier.” Haifa had completed
a bachelor’s degree four years ago. Now she was married with three children
and wanted to pursue a master’s degree in artificial intelligence.
Yin Sung was another enthusiastic computer student working on her
master’s degree. She had also been introduced to computers as a child and
had wanted to become a computer scientist since then: “I wanted to join this
computer science mostly because of my dad. I went to Pittsburgh for two
years. . . . My dad was doing his master’s there. It was very near Carnegie
Mellon, the top computer school in the world. So I was really . . . my
mom took courses there, so I was very aspired to become a computer
scientists. I was very young at the time, around 7 or 8 only. But I remember
it very well.”
The interest in computers was quite often combined with an enthusiasm
for studying computer science because of good job prospects. Computer
science was seen as a path to secure well-paying jobs. Also, many of the
enthusiastic women had been encouraged by their parents, particularly
fathers, to study IT.
Clearly, these women shared an enthusiasm for computers and computer
science; some had even developed this interest quite early. However,
contrary to the cyberfeminist assumption, the enthusiasm was not related
to communication and networks. It was mainly related to the understanding of
computers and the ability to manage them, even if the capability of commu-
nication or graphic design was mentioned as well. It was also interesting to
note how most of these women combined enthusiasm with accounts that
emphasized how computer science was a sensible choice in terms of a future
career and how they took advice from parents and other family very seriously.
In a way, it was a win-win situation. What they wanted to do was sensible
and what their parents advised them to choose. Computer science did not
represent any break with paternalism, perhaps rather the opposite.
Instrumentality
A large group of my informants had chosen computer science largely for
instrumental reasons. They had made it their first choice mainly because of
good job prospects and career opportunities. Many had also been strongly
encouraged by their parents. For example, Indrani, who was in her third and
final year in the bachelor’s program. She originally wanted to become a
14 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
veterinarian, but her father had talked her out of that and suggested computer
science instead:
Indrani: Actually, when I wanted to come into the university, I wanted to study
veterinary science. . . . But then my father was a bit against it, because he said
it is difficult for girls to go in that line in Malaysia. So I had to agree with
him. . . . So, actually, my father suggested for me to do IT or computer
science. I was a bit interested in computers also. . . .
V: What was your father’s argument for you to study computer science?
Indrani: He said that there is a lot of job opportunities coming up. . . . He told
me, “You can have your master’s and PhD, and you can earn enough money
for your master’s and PhD.” I said like, “All right.” I am glad he told me.
Clearly, Indrani paid a lot of attention to her father’s advice. She said she
wanted to respect his wishes because of appreciation for him and what he had
done for her. The norm about following parents’ suggestions or request about
educational choice was widespread. Ah Ling started to study computer
science because she “obeyed” her father, as she said in a humoristic tone:
Hmm . . . it’s a long story (laughter). Like, I told you, right, that I like sociology.
I like psychology. Actually, these were my first choices for my undergrad.
But because my dad, he is a teacher, and he is quite realistic, so he says
that if I . . . Like, in Malaysia it is not very applicable if I study psychology.
He means, [I] cannot gain more money, but this is not true in UK and other
countries; it only applies for Malaysia. So, [that is] why my dad says: cannot!!
So I just “obey” my dad and take computer science. But that is, at that time,
a very famous course. And my brother is also in IT line. So, I think he could
help me. So I just . . . take it.
Why were the parents of these women so eager to encourage their daughters
to study computer science? One obvious suggestion is the fact that the
Malaysian government had been urging people to study IT, particularly
during the 1990s. Also, the profound priority given to a conspicuous IT
project in Malaysia, like the Multi-media Super Corridor (MSC), was prob-
ably an important backdrop of these parents’ perceptions of future job oppor-
tunities. This was suggested by Supryia. When asked about why she started,
she said, “It is because of my father’s advice. Because during that time
period it was, that was in early in 1990s . . . if I am not mistaken that was
in 1993, when the government start[ed] to urge Malaysian people to study
IT. And that’s what made my father advised me to do so, choose this field,
especially IT. So I just follow this advice, and I am quite satisfied in this
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 15
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
field. I want to be a professional in computing, on IT and computer-related
fields.” Another master’s student, Sadaah, had studied marketing in the United
States. She had decided to change to computer science because “Malaysia is
now turning to technology and computing.” Also, she found that too many
Malaysians at her U.S. university studied marketing. She wanted to change
to IT to be more competitive.
Even if most of the women students I spoke with had been encouraged
by their parents, particularly their fathers, there were exceptions. Rafiah, a
master’s student, came from a small village in the provinces and grew up as
the oldest child in a family where no one had higher education and where
her family did not highly value having an education. They did not support
her decision to take a master’s degree. Rafiah was quite troubled when
I interviewed her. She felt a pressure from her family to finish her master’s
so she could start to work and earn money to help with their financial prob-
lems. Rafiah wanted to break away from the kind of life her parents lived
and find better opportunities through an education and a career.
The obligation and pressure to provide for younger siblings or older retired
parents was a recurrent theme among other women students, even if no one
else was in Rafiah’s situation. It was a consideration that entered their plans
for their future. Even first-year students thought about this:
V: Have any of you thought about doing a master’s?
Sheryl: I think about it, but it depends . . . on my family condition. I have to . . .
because have a brother, he is doing engineering courses at the other university,
cause there are only two of us in our family. And then my parents are already
old, if . . . after three years—because my brother have to study four year in
the engineering course—so after three years, if I graduate, I don’t work, so
how should I afford my family, my parents.
V: What about you?
Mei Wee: Mostly the same thing as her. Because I’m the oldest, and my father
is retiring soon, so after that there will be no income for my family. So, when
I graduate, I still have to support my brother, he is quite young.
Even if many of the women had been persuaded or encouraged by their
parents to study computer science, most of them found computer science to
be an interesting subject. They also acknowledged that the choice to study
computer science was sensible and wise because of the good job prospects.
However, often the women admitted that with complete freedom, they would
have elected something else. But, as Sheryl commented, “Parents always
object (laughter) if you want to learn art or music.”
16 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
An even more severe conflict of interest was evident from the interview
with Azizah, a first-year student. She had wanted to study medicine and was
not at all happy to end up in the computer science program. She was the
youngest and only daughter in her family. Her mother, who had recently died,
had wanted her to become a doctor. Since she was not admitted to medicine,
her father and brothers had persuaded her to study computer science instead.
During the interview, it became clear that Azizah was quite indignant about
this persuasion and that she was admitted to computer science instead of
medicine. For two years, she had prepared to study medicine, but Azizah
found it important to follow her father’s wish. However, she was considering
studying medicine after completing her computer science degree.
Clearly, it was not easy to go against the family’s will in the choice of edu-
cation. The norm that you should follow your family’s/parent’s/father’s wishes
out of love and respect was strong. However, the interview with Azizah also
demonstrated her anger of being put in this situation and also her agency, her
will to get out of this conflict of interest between herself and her family.
Perceptions of Gender and Computer Science
The absence of gender as an accounting resource in my informants’
narratives was striking, compared to the construction of gender and computer
science as an amalgam of men/“masculinities” and technologies so prevalent
in Western research (see, e.g., Wajcman 1991, 2004). Since men’s power
mainly seemed to be mediated through the family, the gendering of computer
science was different from Wajcman’s concept of technofeminism. So how
was computer science gendered among my informants?
A general observation was the close link between the perceptions of what
was considered “masculine” and “feminine” and the number of men and
women in the area. If an area was observed to be dominated by men, it was
perceived as “masculine.” With a sufficiently large number of women, the
field was seen as suitable for women or deemed “feminine.” However, other
symbolical aspects were also invoked when we discussed gender.
To begin with, computer science was not at all deemed “masculine.”
Rather, it was described as different from areas that were considered “mas-
culine,” like engineering. Dr. Mazliza, a young head of department, put it
like this: “I never thought of computer science as a masculine subject. . . .
You know, engineering is something that people see as masculine, or geology.
But not computer science. I don’t see what is masculine about computer
science.” Computer science was frequently compared to engineering to explain
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 17
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
why it was not seen as masculine. Azizah and Maimunah did this in an
interesting and illuminating way:
Maimunah: You can say that computer science . . . this computer science course
is meant to be for women instead of guys. I mean, guys usually go for engi-
neering, architecture, contractors, that kind of jobs.
V: Why?
Azizah: Out. Because it is out, not in the office, they’re doing outside.
Maimunah: They get exposed a lot.
Azizah: Exposed, yeah. More dangerous.
Maimunah: Except for us, for girls, they expect us to stay in the office, to do that
kind of work.
It seemed that the basis to characterize engineering as “masculine” was, in
addition to being an area that men often chose, that it required work outdoors.
You could be exposed to the sun and to men workers. Computer science, on
the other hand, could be considered “feminine” or at least suitable for women
because it was associated with office work. It meant working indoors,
perhaps mostly with other women. Sadaah, a master’s student, formulated
it like this: “But in Malaysia, there are many in IT science, many women
also enter now. They just like it! Yes. To do technology, right? They want to
do more. And if we work with computers, we don’t have to go out, right?
We can just sit there in the office.” The notion that to work indoors was
most suitable for women was explained by reference to security, as shown
above. Also, gender discrimination in environments dominated by men was
perceived as a potential barrier:
V: What do you consider to be the typical female subject here?
Mei Wee: Hmm . . . I think office work. Business . . . computer science . . . doctors
. . . dentist. Actually there are quite a lot of jobs for women. I think engineering
is still a male-dominated area. There are few females in engineering.
V: Why do you think it is like that?
Mei Wee: Maybe . . . for engineering, where you have to build buildings, right?
And engineers are required to go to the site to check the building constructions,
stuff like that . . . because they have to converse with the laborers. And I heard
from my friends, they say that, laborers don’t really respect women. So, it’s
better for men to go down to talk to the laborers.
V: (To Sheryl) You thought about studying engineering. Did you think of it as a
“masculine” subject?
Sheryl: Yes, but I think it is more about civil engineering. Chemical engineering
is more to the female side. Because in chemical engineering, most of the time
you work in labs, testing the stuff like that. So I think it’s quite suitable for
18 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
females also. But for civil engineering, I never thought about that. Because,
like she said, we have to go to the site and check out the constructions. Because,
I don’t like sunlight (laughter). So, you see, I won’t choose civil engineering
.
Not all types of engineering were seen as “masculine”; chemical engineering
was mentioned by many as the most popular choice for women. However,
the perception of civil engineering as a clearly “masculine” field seemed
widespread (see also Mellström 2003).
Not all specialities within computer science were perceived equally suit-
able for men and women:
V: So, did any of you think of computer science to be a predominantly male
subject?
Sheryl: Not really, I think it is quite equal.
Mei Wee: But maybe on the hardware side it is more males than females,
because they have to carry the computer around, with wires and stuff.
Sheryl: Like network, we have to learn about circuits, electronic circuits; I don’t
like electronics (laughter).
V: Is that more of a male subject, you think?
All: Yeah!
V: If this is more of the male part of computer science, do you think there are
any parts that are more suitable for females?
Sheryl: I think software engineering and Management Information Systems
(MIS) is maybe more suitable for females. Because, software engineering is
more to the programming side . . . not so much about physical stuff, you
know, the electronic circuits (everyone laughing).
This way of reasoning in relation to gender and computer science was quite
common among my informants. Samantha, one of the master’s students,
maintained that “a lot of boys like networking, but girls like more of theory
things.” Sheryl put it in a similar way: “Hmm. . . . Among all the four
majors, I think software is the best choice. Because networking is . . .
I think most the people are guys, because it involves physics, electronics.”
Setting up networks required traveling to customers, thus raising a security
issue as well. However, some women choose to specialize in networks
because it is seen as a “masculine” field. Fatimah chose computer networks
because it was dominated by men, and she wanted to compete with men.
In addition, she did not like reading and the speciality required less reading
than other fields. Maimunah was also attracted to networks because of the
lack of women in the field: “I think I’m impressed by that, because I can see
a woman. Because, usually, I see like a few friends, and my cousin, and they
are all guys. The ones that have done networking, they are all guys. I want
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 19
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
to be the first woman in the family, the first.” The woman Maimunah referred
to was Dr. Mazliza, head of the Networking Department and also quite young.
She was an important role model. Fatimah said, “She is very eligible. I
had class with her last year, and she is very . . . I would like to be like her!!”
Clearly Dr. Mazliza, and also the other heads and the dean, served as role
models for the female students. This may explain why so many intervie-
wees wanted to become lecturers in computer science. In fact, nearly all the
women I interviewed wanted to become university lecturers. They mentioned
several reasons, including the flexible job situation. Some, like Ah Ling,
had worked as software engineers in an ICT company:
Okay. . . . As I told you before, I was a software engineer. We started work at
seven o’clock, and we came back from work normally at seven or eight p.m.
So, one can say that the whole day is sold to a company. So, that kind of life
is not the life that I want . . . that’s why I came back to school to do my master
course, is to make me become a maybe lecturer at university or colleges. So
that’s the way to make me have more time, flexi-time to take care of me and
my future family.
Sadaah, the only one with a family, had also been working in the ICT industry:
Sadaah: After I married, before that I like to travel, so after I married, I don’t
want that, I just want to relax. So, we have a family right, so I don’t want to
rush anymore (laughing).
V: But you still want to work?
Sadaah: Yes, I still want to work. I just want to be a lecturer. So, my husband also
says that, better you be a lecturer so you can take care of your family right?
You don’t have to travel . . . lecturer also travel, but not so much right, so you
have to take care of your family, because men always busy right? And then it
is nobody to take care of my son. So, I want to be a lecturer.
Less traveling and exposure (compared to working in industry) were
important reasons to pursue an academic career. Salina also emphasized
that working in the ICT business involved more barriers to women than
teaching because of security issues. Women could not stay in the office to
work late.
Like in many Western countries, a lot of the Malaysian women students
lacked previous experience or knowledge of computing when they entered
the program. Interestingly, compared to Western research (e.g., Margolis
and Fisher 2002), very few complained about this. Usually, they said that it
was just a matter of working hard, and then they would catch up:
20 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ah Ling: I told myself; just study hard, study smart, to catch up. So, now I have.
Hard (and smart) work was the preferred strategy to cope with lack of know-
ledge and experience in computing. Moreover, there was a widespread
belief that women worked harder than men. Also the idea that Chinese and
Indian students worked harder than Malays was present, but this applied first
and foremost to male students.
However, some of the first-year students seemed to think that men were
better at programming than women. Indrani mentioned that she saw gender
differences in how men and women coped with programming:
Indrani: The other girls . . . basically, most of the girls don’t like programming.
Even my friends, when we talk together, we don’t like programming, because
it is a bit hard for us to understand. And we don’t know how guys can under-
stand it better. So . . . but I think, if we just keep on studying it, we tend to
understand. I just have to go through it more times. Then I understand.
Thus, the domination and perceived superior competence of men was not
considered a real problem and definitively not by the master’s students who
did not mention such experiences at all. For the female bachelor’s students,
it became even more important to study hard.
A Different Computer Science?
Perhaps not surprisingly, Malaysia was not a cyberfeminist utopia. There
were many women in computer science, but they did not particularly excel
in communication, nor did they find their situation unambiguously liberating.
Rather, we learnt that there were high demands in terms of efforts, similar
to Ong’s (1995) and Harris’s (2004) observations of the different, difficult,
and contradictory expectations toward young women. My informants told
they were subjected to numerous demands. Many felt a pressure to sustain
their family’s finances and to provide for elderly parents as well as younger
siblings. Also, the expectation to be an obedient daughter was evident, the
costs of which were well illustrated by Aziza’s situation. The expectations
also included getting married and having children. Most of my informants
said they wanted that, but they also wanted to combine having a family with
a career. Being a successful career woman was important to them. Thus, in
these young women’s narratives, there is a mix of individualized and, in a
Western sense, “modern” discourses (see Ong 1999 for a critical discussion)
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 21
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
about opportunities and aspirations, as well as more “traditional” family-
bound concerns.
How do the findings concur with the four analytical frames discussed
previously on the basis of Wajcman’s review of main perspectives on
gender and technoscience? To begin with, we have observed a coproduction
of gender and computer science that appears different, more complex, and
less stereotypical than implicated by the main body of Western research.
It is important to note, though, that my informants did not offer sponta-
neous comments about the relationship of gender and computer science.
However, when I asked, they willingly provided gendered accounts, but they
were dissimilar to those that dominate Western research. First, computer
science was constructed as a discipline well suited for women, not as a mas-
culine recluse. Second, gender was invoked in a different way. Physical
activities like working with electronics and mechanical objects were looked
upon as “masculine,” in contrast to software engineering and programming.
The latter were deemed as “theoretical” and thus fitting for women. In fact,
a gendered dichotomy of the physical and the theoretical was quite prevalent.
Supposedly, women liked theory, while men preferred (and were better at)
technical and practical tasks related to the computer.
Thus, there seems to be a complex coding of gender in relation to computer
science, mediated by what is perceived as “suitable” for women. This reflects
an understanding of gender where women are associated with being indoors
and with being protected, and a perception of the office as a woman-friendly
place, compared to spaces like construction sites and factories. In contrast
to the dominant exclusion focus in the “technoscience revisited” frame,
computer science was deemed particularly suitable for women.
Considering the level of enthusiasm among my informants toward a
wide range of aspects of computer science, there is also little support for the
cyberfeminist belief that communication is women’s main preference with
respect to computers. The women I interviewed were not particularly enthu-
siastic about communicative aspects of computer science or other “soft”
features. Their objects of fascination included what many Westerners
perceive as “masculine” areas, like software engineering, programming, and
hardware. Thus, the cyberfeminist frame did not work well as an accounting
resource either.
The high proportion of women among Malaysian computer science
students was not a result of any technofeminist politics. The national policy
that seemed to have influenced the recruitment of women to computer
science, in fact, encouraged all young people to study IT. Furthermore,
practically all the women I interviewed emphasized that their motivation to
22 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
study computer science was linked to their goal of getting a well-paid and
secure job. However, from Wajcman’s (2004) perspective, it may be appre-
ciated that the larger number of women in computer science in Malaysia
seemed to make the culture more welcoming to them.
When analyzing the discourse in the technofeminist frame, the most
striking feature was the lack of “masculine” references, in particular the absence
of a hacker or computer geek mythology. Also, the women’s willingness to
invest in hard work and, above all, their belief in the potential of hard work
to solve problems, counteracted mythological ideas (see also Margolis and
Fisher 2002).
Arguably, it is the cyborg feminism frame that offers the most fruitful
theoretical account of my observations, through its emphasis on the ambiguous,
complex, and also changeable nature of the gender-technoscience relationship.
The frame invites a refusal of a unilateral glorification of technoscience as
well as a rejection of it. It is both/and, not either/or. It is inclusion as well
as exclusion. To the Malaysian female students, computer science seemed
to act like Haraway’s (1985) trickster—it offered many new and interesting
opportunities of becoming skilled, valued, and important, yet it presented a
way of combining empowerment with the acceptance of a paternal system
as well as gender differentiating practices that definitely worked in their
disfavor.
In this article, I have above all tried to show the complexity of my infor-
mants’ coproduction of gender and computer science, which—when aligned
to Western research—allows greater diversity in understanding the relation-
ship between gender and computer science. In fact, female computer science
students in Western institutions may also protest or counter the coding
of their discipline as “masculine” (Lagesen 2005). Gansmo, Lagesen, and
Sørensen (2003) provide a good example of the dangers inherent in this
research. They show how the generalized hacker figure created by social
scientists to criticize the problematic effect of a particular form of “mas-
culinity” on computer practices lives on as a myth that young women use
as an argument to stay away from computers. The scientific statements we
produce about the world may be repercussive. As Haraway (1985) puts it,
we have a responsibility for the monsters created by our research, but perhaps
even more important, we should try to avoid creating them.
References
Adam, A. 1997. What should we do with cyberfeminism? In Women in computing, edited by
R. Lander and A. Adam, 17-27. Exeter, UK: Intellect.
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 23
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Armstrong, J. 1996. Twenty years of domestic service: A Malaysian Chinese woman in change.
Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 24 (1): 64-83.
Bell, D., and B. Kennedy. 2000. The cybercultures reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Berg, V. A. L. 2000. Firkanter og rundinger. Kjønnskonstruksjoner blant kvinnelige datain-
geniørstudenter ved NTNU [Squares and circles. Gender constructions among women
computer science engineer students at NTNU]. Skriftserien 3/2000. Trondheim, Norway:
Centre for feminist and gender studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Borge, M. A., A. Roth, G. T. Nichols, and B. S. Nichols. 1980. Effects of gender, age, locus of
control and self esteem on estimates of college grades. Psychological Reports 47:831-37.
Brosnan, M. 1998. Technophobia: The psychological impact of information technology.
London: Routledge.
Chee-Beng, T. 1997. Chinese identities in Malaysia. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science
25 (2): 103-17.
Cockburn, C. 1983. Brothers: Male dominance and technological change. London: Pluto Press.
———. 1985. Machinery of dominance. Women, men and technical know-how. London: Pluto.
Cockburn, C., and S. Ormrod. 1993. Gender and technology in the making. London: Sage.
Cohoon, J. M. 2002. Recruiting and retaining women in undergraduate computing majors.
SIGSCE Bulletin 34 (2): 48-53.
———. 2006. Retaining women in undergraduate computing. In Women and information
technology: Research on underrepresentation, edited by J. M. Cohoon and W. Aspray,
205-39. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Corneliussen, H. 2002. Diskursens makt—individets frihet. Kjønnede posisjoner i diskursen
om data [The power of the discourse—the freedom of the individual. Gendered positions
in the discourse of computing]. PhD diss., University of Bergen, Norway.
Dambrot, F. H., M. A. Watkins-Malek, S. M. Silling, R. S. Marshall, and J. A. Garver. 1985.
Correlates of sex differences in attitudes toward and involvement with computers. Journal
of Vocational Behaviour 27:71-86.
Durndell, A., Z. Haag, D. Asenova, and H. Laithwaite. 2000. Computer self efficacy and gender.
In Woman, work and computerization: Charting a course to the future, edited by E. Balka
and R. Smith, 78-85. Vancouver, Canada: Kluwer.
Edwards, P. 1990. The Army and the microworld. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society 16 (1): 102-7.
Faulkner, W. 2000. Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science
30 (5): 759-92.
Fergus, M. 1993. A separate reality: Science, technology and masculinity. In Gendered by design?
Information technology and office systems, edited by E. Green, J. Owen, and D. Pain, 64-80.
Bristol, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Flanagan, M., and A. Booth. 2002. Reload. Rethinking women
+
cyberculture. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Gabbert, P., and P. H. Meeker. 2002. Support communities for women in computing. SIGSCE
Bulletin 34 (2): 62-66.
Gansmo, H. J., V. A. Lagesen, and K. H. Sørensen. 2003. Forget the hacker? In He, she and
IT—Revisited, edited by M. Lie, 34-68. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Glaser, B., and A. L. Strauss. 1968. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
24 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Hacker, S. 1989. Pleasure, power and technology: Some tales of gender, engineering and the
cooperative work place. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
———. 1990. Doing it the hard way: Investigations of gender and technology. Boston: Unwin
Hyman.
Haraway, D. 1985. A manifesto for cyborgs. Socialist Review 15 (2): 65-107.
———. 2004. The Haraway reader. New York: Routledge.
Harris, A. 2004. Future girl. Young women in the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge.
Hawthorne, S., and R. Klein. 1999. Cyberfeminism: Introduction. In Cyberfeminism. Connectivity,
critique
+
creativity, edited by S. Hawthorne and R. Klein, 1-16. Melbourne: Spinifex.
Henwood, F. 2000. From the women question in technology to the technology question
in feminism—Rethinking gender equality in IT education. European Journal of Women
Studies 7 (2): 209-27.
Hong, K. S., A. A. Ridzuan, and M. Kuek. 2003. Student’s attitudes toward the use of the
Internet for learning: A study of a university in Malaysia. Educational Technology & Society
6 (2): 45-49.
Kennedy, B. 2000. Introduction. In The Cybercultures reader, edited by D. Bell and B. Kennedy,
283-90. London and New York: Routledge.
Kirkup, G., L. Janes, K. Woodward, and F. Hovenden, eds. 2000. The gendered cyborg. London:
Routledge.
Kleif, T., and W. Faulkner. 2002. “I’m not an athlete, but I can make this thing dance!” Men’s
pleasures in technology. Science Technology and Human Values 28 (2): 296-325.
Kramer, P. E., and S. Lehman. 1990. Mismeasuring women: A critique of research on computer
ability and avoidance. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16 (1): 158-71.
Kvande, E., and B. Rasmussen. 1989. Men, women and data systems. European Journal of
Engineering Education 14 (4): 369-79.
Lagesen, V. A. 2005. Extreme make-over? The making of gender and computer science. PhD
diss. STS-report 71/2005. Trondheim: Centre for Technology and Society, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
———. 2007. The strength of numbers. Strategies for including women into computer science.
Social Studies of Science 37 (1): 67-93.
Lie, M. 1998. Computer dialogues. Technology, gender and change. Skriftserien 2/98. Trondheim:
Centre for Feminist and Gender Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Lie, M., and R. Lund. 1994. Renegotiating local values: Working women and foreign industry
in Malaysia. Richmond, VA: Curzon.
Luke, C. 2002. Globalisation and women in Southeast Asian higher education management.
Teachers College Record 104 (3): 625-62.
Maccoby, E. E., and C. N. Jacklin. 1974. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Margolis, J., and A. Fisher. 2002. Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Mellström, U. 1995. Engineering lives. Technology, time and space in a male-centred world.
PhD diss., Linköping studies in art and science no. 128. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping
University.
———. 2003. Masculinity, power and technology: A Malaysian ethnography. Hampshire,
UK: Ashgate.
Mohanty, C. T. 2002. Under Western eyes’ revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist
struggles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (2): 499-534.
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 25
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Mörtberg, C. 1987. Varför har programmeryrket blivit mannligt? [Why has the occupation of
programming become masculine?]. TULEA 1987:042. Luleå, Sweden: Tekniska Högskolan
i Lulea.
Nagata, J., and J. W. Salaff. 1996. Introduction. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science
24 (1): 1-18.
Ng, C. 1999. Positioning women in Malaysia: Class and gender in an industrializing state.
London: Macmillan.
Nordli, H. 2001. From “Spice girls” to cybergirls: The role of multimedia in the construction
of young girls’ fascination for and interest in computers. In Social learning technologies,
edited by M. van Lieshout, T. Egyedi, and W. E. Bijker, 110-33. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
———. 2003. The net is not enough. Searching for the female hacker. PhD diss, STS-report
61/2003, Trondheim, Centre for Technology and Society, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology.
Ong, A. 1995. State versus Islam: Malay families, women’s bodies and the body politic.
In Bewitching women, pious men: Gender and body politics in Southeast Asia, edited by
A. Ong and M. G. Peletz, 159-94. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 1999. Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Oorjitham, K. S. S. 1984. Indian women in urban Malaysia—A sociological approach.
In Women in Malaysia, edited by H. A. Yun, N. S. Karim, and R. Talib, 13-126. Kuala
Lumpur, Indonesia: Pelanduk.
Othman, M., and R. Latih. 2006. Women in computer science: No shortage here! Communications
of ACM 49 (3): 111-14.
Peng, C. O. 1984. Traces of Confucianist influence on Malaysian Chinese women and its impli-
cations. In Women in Malaysia, edited by H. A. Yun, N. S. Karim, and R. Talib, 174-86.
Kuala Lumpur, Indonesia: Pelanduk.
Plant, S. 1996. On the matrix: Cyberfeminist simulations. In Cultures of Internet: Virtual spaces,
real histories, living bodies, edited by R. Shields, 170-83. London: Sage.
Pohl, M. 1997. The Internet—A “feminine” technology? In Women in computing, edited by
R. Lander and A. Adam, 190-97. Exeter, UK: Intellect.
Rasmussen, B., and T. Håpnes. 2003. Gendering technology. Young girls negotiating ICT
and gender. In He, she and IT—Revisited, edited by M. Lie, 173-97. Oslo: Gyldendal
Akademiske.
Reiche, C., and V. Kudi, eds. 2004. Cyberfeminism: Next protocols. New York: Autonomedia.
Roberts, E., M. Kassiandou, and L. Irani. 2002. Encouraging women in computer science.
SIGCSE Bulletin 34 (2): 84-88.
Robinson, G. J., and J. S. McIlwee. 1991. Men, women and the culture of engineering. The
Sociological Quarterly 32 (3): 403-21.
Siann, G. 1997. We can, we just don’t want to. In Women in computing, edited by R. Lander
and A. Adam, 113-21. Exeter, UK: Intellect.
Silverstone, R., and K. H. Sørensen. 2005. Towards “the communication society.” In Media,
technology and everyday life in Europe, edited by R. Silverstone, 213-22. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
Sørensen, K. H., and A.-J. Berg. 1987. Genderization of technology among Norwegian engi-
neering students. Acta Sociologica 30 (2): 151-71.
Spender, D. 1995. Nattering on the net: Women, power and cyberspace. Melbourne: Spinifex.
Spertus, E. 1991. Why are there so few female computer scientists? MIT Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory Technical Report 1315. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
26 Science, Technology, & Human Values
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Squire, J. 1999. Fabulous feminist futures and the lures of cyberculture. In The cybercultures
reader, edited by D. Bell and B. Kennedy, 360-373. London and New York: Routledge.
Stepulevage, L., and S. Plumeridge. 1998. Women taking positions within computer science.
Gender and Education 10 (3): 313-26.
Stivens, M. 2000. Becoming modern in Malaysia. In Women in Asia: Tradition, modernity and
globalisation, edited by L. Edwards and M. Roces, 16-38. St Leonards, Australia: Allen &
Unwin.
Teague, J. 2000. Women in computing: What brings them to it, what keeps them in it? GATES
5 (1): 45-59.
Townsend, G. C. 2002. People who make a difference: Mentors and role models. SIGSCE
Bulletin 34 (2): 57-62.
Trauth, E. M. 2002. Odd girl out: An individual differences perspective on women in the IT
profession. Information Technology & People 15 (2): 98-118.
Turkle, S. 1984. The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.
van Zoonen, L. 2002. Gendering the Internet: Claims, controversies and cultures. European
Journal of Communications 17 (1): 17-23.
Wajcman, J. 1991. Feminism confronts technology. Oxford, UK: Polity.
———. 2004. Technofeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Wakeford, N. 2003. The embedding of local culture in global communication: independent
internet cafes in London. New Media and Society 5 (3): 379-99.
Woodfield, R. 2000. Women, work and computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, R. 1996. The occupational masculinity of computing. In Masculinities in organizations,
edited by C. Cheng, 77-96. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yun, H. A. 1984. Women and work in West Malaysia. In Women in Malaysia, edited by H. A. Yun,
N. S. Karim, and R. Talib, 234-312. Kuala Lumpur, Indonesia: Pelanduk.
Vivian Anette Lagesen is currently a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Interdisciplinary
Studies of Culture at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Lagesen / Computer Science and Gender 27
at LONG ISLAND UNIV LIBRARY on March 30, 2011sth.sagepub.comDownloaded from
