Co-Production of Gender and Technology

8/13/2019 Co-Production of Gender and Technology

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/co-production-of-gender-and-technology 1/4

Discuss how gender and technology are ‘co- produced’ or mutually shaped in relation

to both the design and use of technological artefacts. Use examples to illustrate your

argument

The co-production of gender and technology is a term used to express the ‘dialectical shaping’ of

gender and technology. It highlights the performed and processual nature of gender and technology

and proposes that the boundaries and content of both are socially negotiated, rather than

predetermined characteristics. This constructivist approach has been termed ‘anti-essentialist’ as it

rejects the notion that technology and gender have intrinsic properties (Grint & Woolgar, 1995). This

mutually shaping relationship is demonstrated though the gendering of technological artefacts and

the ways in which technology reinforces, or deconstructs gender roles in society. It is useful, for the

purpose of this essay, to define the terms ‘gender’ and ‘technology’ before discussing them in depth.

This essay will utilise Harding’s (1986) conceptualisation of gender as symbolic, structural andindividual. Gender symbolism refers to the culturally specific set of associations between gender and

other human and non-human aspects of society, such as the association of machines with

masculinity. The structural dimension of gender refers to the organisation of daily life, particularly

the division of labour. Individual gender is defined as how individuals develop self-perceived

identities in reference to the existing gender structures and symbols. Haraway (1991) suggests that

science as well as gender could be usefully analysed using Harding's three dimensions, and thus it

may also prove a useful analytical tool for technology. Technology refers not only to technological

artefacts but to a heterogeneous assemblage of artefacts, actors and practices which is explained

below. This essay will briefly outline how constructivist theories are useful for understanding the co-

production of gender and technology, before discussing various examples of co-production in both

the design and use of technological artefacts.

The concept of co-production draws on key social theories such as the social construction of

technology (SCOT) which is a response to technological determinism (Pinch & Bijker, 1987). One of

the key components of SCOT is the notion of interpretative flexibility which suggests that not only

are technologies open to interpretation by the user, but also that the design process can produce

different outcomes depending on social circumstances. This is clearly a useful concept for analysing

how gender and technology are co-produced as interpretations of artefacts will differ based on

prescribed gender roles and norms in society. Another constructivist approach which will proveuseful in this essay is Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Latour and Callon), which along with

Hughes’s (1986) notion of the seamless web, portrays technology and society as a heterogeneous

network linking both human and non-human entities (Law, 1987). Consequently, those who design

new technologies are also designing society (Latour 1988; Bijker and Law 1992) by inscribing

technological artefacts with certain meanings or a ‘script’ (Akrich, 1992). However, this inscribed

meaning is far from straightforward due to interpretive flexibility which allows users to challenge

and renegotiate the meanings of the artefact. Whilst SCOT falsifies the perception that technology is

somehow neutral or separate from society, ANT develops this by giving agency to both technology

and society, and therefore to gender as a social phenomenon.





additional attention to the requirements of female users. At the symbolic level a very masculine

approach was taken towards the development of the new technology in which programmers were

encouraged to ‘play around’ with the technology and bring in their own ideals. This links to the

identity dimension as all the designers were ‘fascinated with all the new technical possibilities of

computer networks, and endowed with a masculine learning style’ (ibid., p.256). This resulted inover-complicated software with unnecessary functions and ultimately excluded those users who were

less confident using computers, many of whom were female.

The above examples demonstrate how technology reproduces existing gender roles, structures and

stereotypes but it is also the case that the shaping and application of technology depends on existing

gender orders. Sundin’s (1995) study of the introduction of computer aided design (CAD)

technology into two cartographer firms highlights how the same technology was incorporated into

the firms depending on existing gender distinctions. In one setting work was divided into fieldwork

and in-house work which were perceived as masculine and feminine respectively. The CAD

technology was considered a tool for map-drawing and thus as in-house work for a female worker.

The other company considered the technology as a powerful tool for construction and decision-

making and there was a struggle between occupational groups to claim the new technology which

was eventually understood as a professional tool to be used by, mostly male, engineers and

architects. This shows that the interpretive flexibility attached to new technologies force negotiations

of what is considered masculine and feminine. Ultimately though, in both cases existing gender

stereotypes influenced how the CAD technology was used within the companies.

So far this essay has utilised the concept of interpretive flexibility to discuss the co-production of

gender and technology. However, it has been argued (Grint and Woolgar, 1995) that whilsttechnology is generally open to re-interpretation; the dichotomy between the masculine and the

feminine is far more rigid and in many analyses is not sufficiently scrutinised, a so-called ‘failure of

nerve’ (ibid., 1995). Indeed some literature can be seen to adopt the view that gender is an enduring

property of the user (Montgomery, 2012) rather than a process which one does. This static perception

of gender as an inherent characteristic is inadequate and oversimplified, but technology can be used

to help deconstruct these rigid notions of gender. Haraway’s (1985) concept of the cyborg, a hybrid

of human biology and technology, is used to question and even redefine our notions of masculine

and feminine. She specifically uses the example of sex and gender to show how physically

determined characteristics are not synonymous with the binaries and dualisms we associate with

gender. In this case the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering technologies force us to

reconsider what we define as masculine and feminine.

To conclude, this essay has used various examples to illustrate the co-production of gender and

technology through the design and use of technological artefacts. Gender and technology have been

shown to be in a mutually shaping relationship where technological artefacts are inscribed with a

gendered meaning and thus given agency as part of the network referred to in the actor network

theory. These artefacts then reproduce gender relations on a symbolic, structural and individual level.

The notion of interpretive flexibility has been used throughout the essay to highlight the fluid and

contingent nature of both gender and technology and how one is influenced by the interpretation of



the other. Finally the essay explored how, as well as reinforcing gender structures, perhaps

technology could be used to deconstruct the rigid gender dualism which is present in society.

Word count: 1,707

Documents

Co-Production of Gender and Technology