Technology and Gender versus Technology and Work: Social Work and Computers

Technology and Gender versus Technology and Work: Social Work and ComputersAuthor(s): Merete LieSource: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 40, No. 2 (1997), pp. 123-141Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201019 .

Accessed: 11/06/2014 10:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ActaSociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:18:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201019?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ACTA SOCIOLOGICA

Technology and Gender versus

Technology and Work: Social Work and

Computers

Merete Lie

HIST/AHS

Recently, computers have been introduced within the field of social work, which is a female-dominated profession. A direct relationship is often assumed between gender and attitudes to technology. However, when people are introduced to computers at work they have already acquired a specific way of reasoning through their training. A way to understand the specific attitudes to computers among social workers is therefore to focus on the nature of the problems they are supposed to solve and the way of reasoning acquired through their training. There is much overlap between the skills of this profession and those generally attributed to the female gender. Thus one can hardly discern between the professionally related and the gender related in attitudes to a new

technology; rather the case-study reveals how gender is embedded within jobs and tasks. Social work belongs to the 'soft' professions, with care and human communication as its main tasks. Thus the study also reveals some incongruence between computer systems and human communication.

Merete Lie, H0gskolen i S0r~Tr0ndelag (HIST) Avd. for helse og sosialfag, 7005 Trondheim, Norway ? Scandinavian Sociological Association 1997

1. Introduction

Studying gender and technology we are constantly faced with the problem that women and men are rarely in comparable situations. Generally, one finds few women and many men in contexts with 'much' or Tiigh' technology and vice versa. Recently there has been a change. Computers have been introduced to most types of tasks, even in the 'soft' professions of care and

nursing. Do we at last face a situation where we can compare women's and men's attitudes to technology because they use the same tool? After studying women's and men's computer use in different occupations I would argue against this type of comparison. Rather, I would argue that women's attitudes to technology become comprehensible only once we understand how gender is embedded in technologies as well as in the social and cultural contexts in which they are put to use.



124 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 1997 VOLUME 40

Generally, technology is considered a male domain in western culture. There are, however, a growing number of studies which show that women have strong relationships to various technical artifacts, even sharing in the more sensual pleasures previously alluded to as a specifically male attitude towards technology (cf. Hacker 1990 versus Berg 1997; Kvande & Rasmussen

1990; Packer 1996). Nor does the evidence convincingly support fear or avoidance as explanations of women's apparent absence from technological fields.

A better explanation may be the very concept of technology, generally excluding the fields where most women have their experience of technologies such as within the household (Berg & Lie 1995). Other explanations relate to

masculine cultures focused on technical matters at work and leisure, combined with male dominance, making women's exclusion from the field

of technology the other side of an equation of gendered relationships (Cockburn 1983 and 1985; Cockburn & Ormrod 1993; H?pnes & Rasmussen

1991; Wajcman 1991).

Technology and work studies have a tradition of generalizing in relation to technical change. Within the tradition of labour process studies a main

question has been whether or not there is a general deskilling or degradation of work in relation to computerization and automation (Braverman 1974; Wood 1982). Tracing such broad trends, there is an implicit understanding that computerization means a homogenization of work in the sense that

different jobs are transformed into 'computer work'. The generalizing

perspective on technological development and working life has been

challenged from feminist research emphasizing ways in which women's

work is different from men's work. Technical change therefore may follow

different tracks in typical women's work because work tasks are specific, women employ different skills than do men, employer and employee relations

are different, etc. The favourite place of technology and work studies is

evidenced by the term 'industrial sociology^, whereas most women are found

in the service sectors. Does this mean that differences related to gender and

technology all boil down to differences of work, and thus are a question of

context rather than gender difference? There is, however, a new trend in technology studies which may bridge

the gap between these issues. The early labour process studies focused

mainly on the impacts of technology on social processes. Changing the

perspective to the social shaping of technology, social relationships were

acknowledged as central to the design and therefore to the effects of

technologies (MacKenzie & Wajcman 1985). More recently, science and

technology studies (STS) have directed attention to the interrelatedness of

the technical and the social not only during the design of new technologies but through the whole process of implementation and use (Bijker et al. 1987;

Bijker & Law 1992). The social and the technical are so tightly interwoven

that they cannot, or should not, be taken apart. Rather, analyses should

reveal the coherence of the two during processes of technical change.

According to STS analysis, one can hardly distinguish between the

technical on the one hand and gender as an integral part of the sociocultural

on the other hand.1 My question is whether we can make for new

understandings of myths such as women's techno-fear when applying an



Technology and Gender versus Technology and Work: Social Work and Computers 125

understanding of gender as embedded in work as well as in technology. To make the interweaving of gender, work and technology more than a general statement I shall apply this analytical approach, i.e. study how gender is embedded in work and technology, to an empirical case-study of social work and computers.

Social work is a case worthy of reflection on this matter because it is a

highly feminized profession. Not only are most social workers women but

they are furthermore a group of women who in many ways represent what we have come to define as feminine: they are women who have directed their life course towards a profession where care, communication and close

relationships are the catchwords. It means, in other words, not only occupying a 'feminine role' in private but also consciously choosing it for

your professional life.

Studying women and computers, here the characteristics of a profession will be central to the argument. A direct relationship is often assumed between gender and attitudes to technology. But when people are introduced to computers at work, they are supposed to apply them to problem-solving tasks they are already familiar with. They have acquired a specific way of

reasoning through their training. My way of understanding the specific attitudes to computers among social workers is to focus on the nature of the

problems they are supposed to solve and a way of reasoning acquired through social workers' training. More indirectly then it is a story about gender, and not only about gender and technology, but also about the embeddedness of

gender within educations and occupations.

2. The computer as similar or different

Approaching questions on computers, an interesting question is how people will categorize the computer and what they will compare it to. According to Zuboff (1988), figuring a new thing similar to matters with which you are

already familiar is a way of appropriating it. What struck me from the interviews with female social workers was how eagerly they stressed

qualities which made the computer unfamiliar to them and different from matters in which they found themselves capable.

?ou must take an interest in seeing whether things function, in practice. They [read: those who fancy computers] are working practically. They are very practically minded. I prefer the broad lines, not the little things. Here there are too many little things to remember.*2

'Me, I am practical, extrovert. I deal with other services: schools, working life, etc. I can't imagine using computers for that. Or I go out to do shopping and get people settled in an apartment. I am not the computer type. There is nothing practical about it; rather it demands the reflective and philosophical type of person.

'

Defining yourself as not a practical person, the computer is presented as a tool for the practically minded. However, once you meet a practical person, the computer is presented as being the opposite. Generally, one's own

personality is not experienced as being in accord with the demands of the




computer, regardless of what these might be. Moreover, their education is not thought to be either.

*We have been talking about it here, that we chose another type of education. '

The computer is spontaneously, and fairly unanimously, associated with earlier frustrations arising from practical experiences with technology as well as with science subjects at school. They feel taken aback after having for

years systematically 'opted out of such subjects during education and work career - and then all of a sudden being confronted with the computer.

There are among them a very few who present the computer as fitting her type of personality and her preferred way of working:

? grasped it easily. I am orderly, systematic - these are my characteristics. I have not felt so sure about working with clients. My interests are rather

planning and organizational development. I attend classes in Business Administration in the evenings, considering the College of Social Work rather as primary education. I prefer systematizing clients to talking with clients. lean see that computers are important if you are working at organizational development and thinking about new ways of doing things. This is not common

thinking among social workers, but perhaps more among the new ones. The others have "dug themselves down" [in individual cases]/

Here, feeling on familiar terms with the computer goes along with appre- hending oneself as different from the majority. She presents herself as a

person with a work orientation and preferences that deviate from the typical. Apparently, social workers experience the computer as foreign to their

way of thinking, whether this is thought of as personal style or related to their professional training. Turkle (1984) has emphasized that the computer is open to different ways of knowing and thinking. Still Turkle and Papert (1990) point to differences in cognitive style which make some, in this case female students, experience the computer as contrary to their own style.

Like Lisa and Robin, their exclusion from the computer culture is perpetuated not by rules that keep them out, but by ways of thinking that make them reluctant to join in. . . . They want to stay away because the computer has come to symbolize an alien way of thinking. They learn to get by and to keep a certain distance. (Turkle & Papert 1990:135)

Difference and distance are catchwords to characterize the relationship between these social workers and their computers. Exploring why this is so,

why computers are apprehended as foreign to their personalities and ways of

thinking, my approach is to relate their experiences of the computer to some characteristics of the profession. My intention is to explore how the

experience of the computer may be influenced by a specific socialization to

work. Social workers are familiar with certain types of information and ways of acquiring knowledge. Could this be a key to understanding their

reluctance towards computers?

3. Studying computers and social work In Norway, social workers receive their training during three years of

education at a school of social work. This includes two terms of placement




work with communities, groups and individual clients, done under the

supervision of experienced professionals. Most social workers are public employees dealing mainly with two types of cases: firstly, economic support to individuals and families, and, secondly, child welfare work. The study was undertaken within two public offices of this type. Each has 20-30 employees, of whom the majority are social workers. There are also some individuals from other professions such as a psychologist. Clerical tasks are attended to

by general office workers who are all women. In one organization, all

employees were interviewed, in the other about half of them. In both offices, computers had been introduced about one year

previously, first to the clerical workers, and shortly thereafter to every case worker. The social workers use their computers mainly for word-

processing, adding notes to clients' case sheets, writing reports, and filling in forms. The clerical workers perform the final editing of the written products. The most advanced function, or at least the last step for those who find

computing difficult, is checking information on clients in public archives. The

computers are linked to a network within the local public sector and also have on-line connection to the national register and the labour exchange register.

As mentioned previously, it is often taken for granted that computerization equals conformity in the sense that a previously wide variety of work tasks is transformed into pressing the keys of a computer. However, people relate to a computer in different ways, for instance as communicators and listeners as opposed to masterers or conquerors of the machine (Turkle 1984). The image of everybody doing the same when using the same type of machine is contradicted by studies showing a wide variety of intellectual

processes even in what are considered simple and repetitive tasks (Lie & Rasmussen 1990). People have different repertoires of experience to draw on when confronted with a computer. The challenge of this research has been to

discern, from what people say about the computer, these repertoires and the

implications they have for the person's apprehension of a computer and its

way of functioning. To get this type of data, I have relied on a combination of semi-

structured interviews, informal discussions and observation. Observations became somewhat limited in this case because of the privacy of single offices and closed doors combined with the confidential character of client work. The

starting point of interviews was a description of the job tasks. The informants would often demonstrate the procedure of tasks for which the computer was used. They were also asked about the introductory phase, training and

support. To these more descriptive themes were added more imaginative ones, such as what they experienced as characteristics of the computer, their likes and dislikes, and what kind of image they had of its way of working. Characterizations of the computer were generally followed by characterizations of oneself, as being a 'computer type' or not. The experiences of the

computer were compared with other experiences from previous work practice or from home and leisure time.

When interviewing in the first organizaton, several of the social workers, all women, spontaneously mentioned their reluctance towards technology and towards science subjects at school. This was a bit surprising because




their training on computers had been very little technically oriented, starting with a typing course, and use was mostly concentrated on word-processing. When interviewing in the second organization, I decided to follow up this theme. Thus I asked them all, if they did not raise the topic themselves, whether they associated the computer with subjects like science and

mathematics, and whether they felt confronted with a piece of technology. Every case worker now uses a computer and with few difficulties. Still,

the main story was one of experiencing resistance, fear and anger when the

computers were introduced. Having previously studied computers in different work settings, I had never met such united opposition. Nor was it found among the female clerical workers within the same organizations. How then to interpret what they do (i.e. using computers frequently) in relation to what they say (i.e. expressions of distance and difference)? The interviewees also think about this type of question, that differences in what they say do not necessarily reflect differences in abilities, as here in a comment related to

gender:

'The men never say 'huff [read: a mild expression of frustration]. That is

perhaps something about men. They do not say: 7 shall never learn this. ' They

just dive into all of this. But we women, we can allow ourselves to say that. '

(female office worker)

What people allow themselves to say is here the subject of analysis. So too is the contrast between the ease with which the workers have been able to

adapt to computers and the strong resistance one hears in what they say. In the analysis, ideas expressed in the interviews are compared with ideas

prevalent within social work teaching. Here I draw on my experiences from

joining the faculty at one of the schools of social work in Norway during the

past three years. The textbooks cited are those set for the students or often referred to by the teachers.

In the quotation above, the interviewee also reflects on gender difference and makes a comparison. However, what is the basis for making such

comparisons at her place of work? In this profession, men are a small

minority, and this is the case among the interviewees. At one organization, there were only two male employees, both social workers but both in administrative positions. At the other one, there were six male employees of whom five were case workers while one had an administrative position. However, of the male case workers only three were educated as social workers. Thus, a total of eight men were interviewed but their tasks as well as their education vary. For the purpose of relating attitudes to computers to social work theory and practice, the interviewees comprise eighteen women and three men practising social work. Eight clerical workers, all women, were interviewed.

Studying computers within a clearly gendered profession points to a

more general problem of comparison in relation to gender, namely the

difficulty of finding women and men in comparable situations. In the case of

social work, who should a minority of men be representative of? In this

context one may hold women to be representatives of their profession,

including its internal conflicts and differences. Men, however, deviate from




the 'typical' male just by joining the profession and they deviate from the

'typical' social worker by their gender. To compare female social workers with male workers of another profession would mean that an important aspect of comparison gets lost, namely in what ways and for what purposes they use computers, and how their ways of knowing are related to what they do. Thus, in the following, the aim is not to make comparisons between women and men, but to analyse the particularities of a female-dominated

profession in relation to computers.

4. Qualified judgement When the focus is on a new technology, attention is mainly directed at

change. The problems that appear are seldom new, however. In social work, there are some basic paradoxes included in the professional role. Making routines for daily work tasks is a way of avoiding or coping with such dilemmas. Because new technologies usually mean a breaking of routines, well-known problems may come to the surface.

The dilemmas of social work can be summarized as follows:

The social worker is confronted directly with social problems at the individual/ family levels. Her duty is to listen and understand; to provide information and control; to inform about grants and rejections. In short, she is obliged to perform tasks and inform about decisions she herself has little influence upon. (Hillgaard & Keiser 1980) (Author's translation)

As a case worker and public employee, the social worker is on the one hand an administrator of laws and directives of the social sector and her duty is to maintain control over the use of public funds; on the other hand, her duty is to be a provider of care and support to her clients. To train students for this combination of support and control, the emphasis is on the social worker's communication skills and her ability to draw conclusions on this basis.

However, communication with clients is on the one hand a means of control: Is the client reliable as regards information on matters such as income, cohabitation and standard of living? On the other hand, conversation with clients is a means of support and personal growth. Whereas social workers are trained to establish trust and empathy in client work as a basis for

understanding, a certain distance is required for control. In the textbooks of this profession, emphasis is on the former and not the latter aspect, stressing concepts such as empathy, acceptance, and tuning in to where the client is

(Compton & Galaway 1984; Shulman 1992). Thus, of the two aspects of this

work, only one is really acknowledged and is the focus of education and

professional advancement. When Jones (1990) seeks to identify the skills of social work, these are on

the lines of the artistic, intuitive and interactive in contrast to a traditional

understanding of the scientific. Referring to Schon's (1983) concept of 'reflection in action', Jones identifies certain abilities as characteristic of social work:

Reflection-in-action requires openness, mutuality, receptivity, self-adjustment, on the spot creativity - qualities understood as the 'artistic', when this is portrayed as being polar to the 'scientific'. (Jones 1990:190)




Interviewing social workers, Jones was searching for learning processes within the profession and especially for how people reach conclusions. He was struck by the repetitive assertion, ? just knew', often called intuition but here analysed as the operation of experience. Similarly, Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) warn against the mystical attunement of the word 'intuition', which

they use interchangeably with 'know-how'. This means the ability to analyse a situation quickly and correctly on the basis of factual knowledge as well as

previous experiences. What these authors refer to is not simply a repertoire of similar cases but

rather a sum of professional and personal experiences merged with theory and professional knowledge. The way this knowledge is activated is

compared to a kind of expanded conversation.

The experience is at once one of present and past encounters and events, a

mediating and fusing of them into a distinctly new, but deeply grounded knowing. . . . There has been a conversation - with past comparative situations, with stored items of 'established knowledge', and with the subject herself. The experience happens but is also worked at and with. (Jones 1990:190)

Qualified judgement in social work is based upon stored knowledge from

education, reading and work practice, combined with the knowledge of a

present case. The latter means that knowledge is aquired directly through

personal communication with people. As people are different and also

present a wide variety of problems, there are no standard procedures for

categorizing cases. Rather, during their education social workers are urged to listen to the specificity of each case and avoid the danger of stereotyping, as regards types of persons as well as types of cases.

There is not only a wide variety of cases to be handled by the individual

social worker. There is also am abundance of laws and regulations, followed

by ever-changing directives from the Ministry of Social Affairs as to how

these are to be applied. The laws and directives are taught during the social

work training. Practising them in concrete cases, however, is complex. There

exists a gap of knowledge between on the one hand what is stated by law and

on the other hand the cases to be handled, a gap to be filled in by the

experienced social worker. Therefore much emphasis is given to practical

experience with actual cases. During placement work, students are trained

by observation of and supervision from experienced professionals. As personal experience is an acknowledged source of expertise, one has

to learn by listening to an inner voice (Belenky et al. 1986). This way of

acquiring knowledge is often classified as inferior to knowledge-seeking by scientific principles - collecting more factual data and assessing them

according to standardized methods. Within the social work profession,

however, listening to the inner voice is a way of acquiring knowledge that is

developed during training and work practice. It does not mean that one is

encouraged to make subjective and impressionistic judgements, however. It

is rather a recognition of the fact that the uniqueness of each case makes it

impossible to rely solely on generalized knowledge from outside sources. The

practice of qualified judgement is therefore systematized in textbooks, lectures and practical training.




In the interviews, there are statements about the computer which touch

upon principles for the practice of qualified judgement. From the curriculum of social work I have elicited some of the basics of social work with clients. These are holism, process, nearness and uniqueness. Analysing what social workers say about computers, the discussion is related to these four

categories. In the analysis, my intention is not to show that computers or

computer programmes Tiave' certain characteristics making them unfit for social work. Wftiat I am looking for is how the computer is experienced within a certain context and in relation to a particular way of acquiring knowledge. The question is whether social workers experience it and characterize it as

constituting a contrast to themes which during their education and

professional Ufe have been stressed as most central to social work. Another

question is how the computer relates to the built-in dilemma between

support and control.

5. Holism

Holism means referring to a client as a complex human being within a

specific social context. It is the total social situation of the person that is of

importance, not the single problem that the person first presents or is identified as having by other persons. Thus one avoids the danger of reducing a person to a label such as 'alcoholic'. In practice, holism refers to the

principle of regarding information as more than a collection of bits and

pieces. Particular information is to be interpreted within its context and never as isolated details.

The wholes that are the focus of social work concern gire more than the sum of their paired variables . . . The analytic method that breaks a phenomenon into its separate parts only gives us a vast number of items of information and leaves us without the ability either to make sense out of the information or to reassemble the system. (Compton & Galaway 1984:118)

The principle of searching for a holistic view, whether it concerns a client or a

specific social problem, is to see this as different from adding ever more pieces of information. Likewise, social work texts warn against breaking up a whole into separate parts when analysing a problem. Coming then to what social workers say about the computer, it is exactly the emphasis on details that becomes apparent. Using the computer is experienced as a way of

splitting up information and losing sight of the bigger picture.

'To me it [the computer] is a practical gadget. I take no interest in it. It goes too much into details, whereas I prefer the larger issues. Then I put in the details later - if planning to decorate a room for instance. And then comes that you have to remember all these details.

'

?ou can't see the mistake, and then you can't see the way back and what you need to do. Whereas when knitting a sweater with a pattern you can see the mistake. . . . I am practically inclined when it comes to sewing and making lampshades. There at least you get a clear answer. Whereas on the screen, I can see clearly that I have done something wrong. But what went wrong, where I should go, and what will happen if I continue to go in the wrong direction - do you understand? I have not got the whole picture.'




To get an overview of the situation is the way to put the ideal of holism into

practice. That means for instance pulling together a story of bits and pieces into a client's case sheet and later retrieving an entire case at a quick glance. Compared with this need, the experience is that the computer's Svay of

reasoning' is opposite to their own because it continually asks them to dissolve wholes into pieces of information to be entered at specific positions on the screen.

One may ask whether it is not the same when filling in a form on paper. According to the interviews, it is not experienced as being the same. One difference is that, when holding the form in one's hands, the whole picture is there while filling it in. One can decide whether to follow the order of one's

notes, thus following the story as it was told, rather than following the order of the form. Often computer systems demand a certain sequence when

entering information, thus making sure that nothing is forgotten. But even when such control is not present, many have a feeling that there is no choice but 'to follow the system' (Lie & Rasmussen 1990).

At the same time, the computer is pointed out as being perfectly suited to

specific tasks. These are storing and analysing economic data and accessing databases where one can check information provided by clients themselves, such as income, employment status and home address. Consequently, whereas the computer is said to be useless for giving the whole picture, it is praised for its ability to provide exactly the opposite, namely specific bits of information.

6. Process

Central to the work ethics of social work is regarding each case as a process connected to human growth and changing circumstances. In this respect, the

aim is to start a process rather than complete a case. Compton and Galaway

compare social work with the process of research, referring to the concept of

the reflective practitioner as an illustration.

. . . practice is researchlike. Means and ends are framed interdependently in his problem setting. And his inquiry is a transaction with the situation in which knowing and doing are inseparable. (Sch?n 1987:78)

Although using previous experience, each case is still an experiment, given the thesis that each case is unique. Moreover, goals may change during the

process and then the means will also have to be changed. And once a goal has

been achieved, a new one may be set in an endless process.

? get irritated with the machine because there is so little latitude. I have to do

things the way it has decided. There is a demand for efficiency very much in

conflict with working with humans. That [i.e. working with humans] implies certain processes which have to take place.'

The computer is apprehended not only as a means to efficiency, but also as

demanding efficiency and speed (Lie & Rasmussen 1990). Above, the

computer is seen as unsuited to a certain aspect of working with human

problems. But social work is more than working with human growth. The

concept of process, as part and parcel of problem-solving and human growth,




collides with the administrative character of the job. As a a public employee and case worker, pride is connected with completing cases. This means

visibly getting rid of the sheets that keep piling up.

7 have this feeling of getting something done, when you see the number of files you carry downstairs when you go home [i.e. for typing]. . . Here, the number of cases you complete is what matters for esteem. Now [read: with computers], nobody can see it.'

Consequently, social workers seem to lose a physical representation of caseloads and case completion even as computerization increases efficiency.

There is, however, a dilemma between an ideal that tells them that human problems have no ordered sequence and no end, and a job that urges them to finish cases. A particular of the new way of working is that it makes chaos look like order. Once a case has been entered on the screen, an

unorderly story is neatly ordered and seems almost completed. Thus on the one hand the computer fits in perfectly as a means of completing cases, but on the other hand it does not make sense in relation to an understanding of human problems as open and never-ending processes.

7? Nearness

According to a traditional, though ever more challenged, view of science, analysing a problem presupposes a certain distance. In textbooks on social

work, however, a professional relationship is not connected with analysing problems at a distance. Quite the opposite: closeness to persons and problems is posed as a way to truer knowledge. To make clients confide their

information, a relationship of trust is necessary, and this is to be gained by personal attention and empathy. According to Perlman (1957), the professional relationship is distinguished by being directed by conscious purpose- ness. The professional relationship in casework should be provided by support and stimulation and not at the cost of closeness. This is underlined

by stressing the element of acceptance (Perlman 1957). Thus, professionality is connected neither to objectivity nor to distance.

Asked about a possible contradiction in working with machines to deal with human problems, the social workers generally associate this question with whether the computer interferes with the face-to-face relationship with clients.

Interviewer:

'Have you ever thought if there might be a contradiction between working with human beings and computers?'

Social worker:

'No, I never thought about that. But I never do it simultaneously. Then I think it would have been icecold, very impersonal. That would be business-like and cold. . . . But working with human beings, you have them inside you also at the computer.

'

Similarly, another person answers:




? don't think so, because it is so separated. You work with humans in one phase, and then sit down to write. This machine just produces what I have inside my head - the same as if I used a pen. So it is just an extension of working with people. No different from working with words in another way.

'

Some people mention previous discussions that face-to-face communication with clients might be affected. According to their experience, this has not

happened because they always separate the two tasks, meaning that they seldom approach the screen when meeting with clients. Stressing the

importance of separating computer work from client work one does in fact

say that these are two opposites which cannot, and should not, come

together. The two opposites are hierarchically ordered. Client work is the core of

what social work is about, and to most social workers it means pleasant work. Computer work means administrative tasks and economic matters, which are less valued. Moreover, several people point to the fact that ever more time is spent in front of the computer and less with the clients.

'The contact with clients is the best part of the job. The computer is efficient then to get information recorded and to handle the applications. . . . There is more time at the screen than with the clients.'

'There is a current discussion on how much - ever more of our time is frittered away by office routines which were previously done by clerical workers. There is a difference between those [of the social workers] who wanted community work and those who like the more administrative tasks. To me it is OK with the administrative tasks. Now we have the whole length of the case, following the process further. If computing is time-saving, I do not feel that we [the social workers] had any of this time-saving.'

Whereas social workers feel that more time is spent at the screen and less in direct contact with clients, the computer is generally not considered the reason behind this change. Rather computers have been accepted as a means of coping with an increasing number of cases, which in turn entails that the time left for each client decreases. Still, when computer work is consciously separated from client relationships, the cleavage between different aspects of social work becomes even more visible. The computer is associated with administrative tasks, calculations, money and control, which are presented as opposite to 'real' social work with clients involving communication skills, closeness and empathy.

8. Unique but equal The uniqueness of each individual, and thus of each case, has previously been presented as a reason for relying on qualified judgement. One is urged to consider information as particular and related to a certain case. Thus one cannot rely solely on knowledge of a general character such as theories

presented in textbooks. Students are also taught to see people as subjects to be encouraged to take control of their own lives, rather than as objects to be allotted help from public services. In each specific case the client will be the best source of information about his/her case as well as the possibilities for

solving the problems.




According to textbooks, one must know enough about each individual in order to see him or her as distinctly different from others (Compton &

Galaway 1984). Generalizations and stereotyping are the pitfalls of those who do not collect sufficient information. Students are warned not to jump too readily to conclusions about a person. Because categorizing is the habitual way of thinking in our culture, of which the next step is attaching different values to the categories, thorough knowledge of each case is the means to avoid stereotypical categories (Compton & Galaway 1984).

When entering information on the screen, the social workers attend to tasks where the uniqueness of each case is less apparent than the general aspects. Defining each case as unique and striving for holism mean that information has to be related to its context. The information that appears on the screen, however, is in a uniform shape and often free from context.

Commenting on differences between paper files and computer files, again detail and not holism are seen as characteristic of the computer system.

'It is questioned whether the paper files should be eliminated. But with the

computer you have to know something exact to find the person; they are more

easily found among the cards. '

When files are on cards, partly typed, partly in hand-writing, they are easily identified since lots of additional information is available at first glance. Zuboff (1988) reveals how the change to computer files makes the personal look disappear. One can no longer see from the hand-writing by whom and

during which period something was written. On cards, comments added later are placed at the end or in the margins, and the style of pen and hand-writing may vary. In computer files, however, what is added appears in the same form as what was written originally or in another phase of the procedure. All information is recorded in the same format, later additions are placed in a

space according to theme, and as such are integrated into the original text. Thus on the screen all information is in a certain sense equal and not unique.

Equality in the sense of equal treatment is another important principle of casework. This means that every client should get what they are entitled

to, neither more nor less. To put the principle of equal treatment into

practice, information provided by the client is checked, and the computer means easier access to check information.

7 feel it [the computer] is inhuman, but perhaps it is only a myth. During my education I was afraid of being put in front of a screen. But it is a remedy, the way I see it now, it is a remedy for efficiency and control. And that is for the best to the clients too.'

With better control people will not receive more public assistance money than they are entitled to, thus the computer supports the principle of equal treatment. This pari; of the job, however, most clearly emphasizes a position of authority in relation to the client. The two principles of equal treatment and uniqueness are not easy to combine, and case workers are left to struggle with the balance. They have been taught to direct attentiveness to the

uniqueness of every human being and the complexity of their problems, whereas in reality they have to give priority to control and be attentive to




budgets. The way they present the computer is not as a means of coping with such dilemmas but as a supporter of one of these concerns.

9? Accept at a distance

The computer has gained a certain acceptance as a means of performing certain tasks. In relation to the core tasks of this profession, however, it is

kept out. Constantly being a supporter of the 'wrong* tasks, it cannot support a professional identity.

So far my focus has been on a profession and not on gender. However, is it possible in this case to ask if what is observed is a specific female way of

relating to computers or if it is characteristic of a profession? Following recent trends in science and technology studies, as referred to initially, studying the implementation of a new technology should be done within a

specified social context to grasp the interweaving of the technical and the social. Thus, the aim of the analysis has not been to identify a particular female way of relating to computers but rather to explore the interweaving of

gender, work and technology by identifying how gender is embedded within

tasks, training and ways of reasoning, just as it is within technologies. When

studying new technologies within their social contexts, gender will be of

relevance at different levels of analysis and can therefore not be a matter of

simple comparisons between women and men.

Here, specific ways of reasoning have been related to training and work

ethics, and not to a particular female way of thinking. However, going through the characteristics of this profession there are many overlaps with what has come to be defined as feminine in our culture. The professional training emphasizes skills in communication and stresses closeness "and

empathy in relationships. Moreover, there is a professional hierarchy in

which client work and the above-mentioned skills are ranked higher than

working with economic matters and administrative tasks, which is now

'computer work'. This hierarchy and the emphasis on certain skills have been

developed by women, who dominate this profession hierarchically as well as

numerically. The character of the work continues to attract new women.

Thus social work is a very 'feminine profession' in a double sense, both in

numbers and in attributes. Therefore it does not make sense to differentiate

the degree to which social workers' relationships to computers is explained

by gender and how far by their training for a specific profession. This study rather reveals how gender is implicitly moulded into a profession.

Having argued against comparisons with men in this case, all I would

indicate is that in their attitudes to the computer the female social workers

are no more similar to the other women of the office than they are to their male colleagues, groups who both refer to the computer as a more trivial and

down-to-earth matter. The women office workers have a rather practical and

matter-of-fact attitude to the computer. Though they may also refer to

difficulties, these are more often seen as minor problems whereas overall, in

their accounts, the computer is presented as an efficient means of performing their tasks. In other words, they seem to say that they mainly find the

computer suited to their tasks and to their own ways of performing them.




Some of them talk about anxieties in relation to the use of computers, but this is also used as a point to distinguish themselves from the social workers:

'We used to laugh a bit at the case workers who were scared - scared about the

consequences of what you do.'

(female office worker)

Office workers also point to the social workers' education and special interests as barriers to computers:

'Who is interested in computers?'

7 do not like to say it, but the men -'. . .

'What do the women say?'

'They say that they don't need it, but that is not true . . . The case workers are

very much afraid that there will be too much paperwork. There is something about their profession indicating that they should not be preoccupied with

paperwork but keep in touch with the client. In fact, economic matters are not

important - in fact they do not want to understand it.'

(female office worker, responsible for computer services)

Unlike many a social worker, office workers often compare the computer to

objects they are used to handling in their work such as typewriters and calculators. They consider it to be similar and not in contrast to what they are familiar with, which makes it easy to deal with by including it in their own repertoire of knowledge. Of the female social workers, however, many do

exactly the opposite, namely identify the computer with an 'outside world'. This other world, which they consciously keep at a distance and do not want to enter, is generally associated with science and mathematics:

'Where did you get it from, the fear that actually you cannot manage?'

7 know very well, because ever since primary school I had to practise weights and measures - and my father supervised it. '

'So you associate it with science and mathematics?'

'Spontaneously I do, yes, there is a certain connection . . . These are matters I do not really control.'

'What would be the opposite ofthat - what you do control?'

'Spontaneously: To talk - and to think in that way. Then I feel safe, that is something I know. Yes, that would be the opposite.'

Difference is a cue to the social workers' experience of the computer. It is

spontaneously associated with the subjects they feel most unfamiliar with and have consciously tried to get away from. Though they have learned how to use it for certain purposes, the computer is still dissociated from their familiar ways of reasoning and associated with subjects they consider as

opposite to these. Thus the computer becomes involved in a dichotomy between listening to an inner voice' and scientific reasoning. In their

education, a combination of these principles is advocated, similar to what

Belenky et al. (1986) identify as one of 'women's ways of knowing', i.e.




constructed knowledge. This means an effort to integrate personal knowl-

edge from inside with knowledge from sources outside. You let the inside out and the outside in' (Belenky et al. 1986:135). Similarly, in social work education one is urged to combine general theory with personal experiences and personal style to develop one's own professional role. The personal in this sense does not mean the spontaneous or intuitive, but an accumulation of

personal experience which is reflexive and worked on, and then combined with theory 'from outside'. By the social workers, however, the computer is

positioned as part of an administrative system which aims at structuring both communication and reasoning in certain ways and thus as opposed to their skills in human communication and the development of a personal style.

After a period of training and experience with computers there seems to be awareness of a new way of working, and thus to be on friendly terms with the computer. Going further with computing, however, might imply a new

way of knowing:

7 keep it at the level of daily usage. I am not so interested in going beyond the concrete usage, I would not give priority to that. It is very convenient to get over the threshold and to be able to use it, but -1 want to learn it, but I do not want to

get into that world.'

7 had a lot of respect for technical gadgets beforehand. But it was good reducing things to a system and getting rid of the paper. I got on friendly terms with

technique . . . I decided not to worry about what is inside, that is too heavy. It is like with science and mathematics: it's enough to learn some formulas. I never asked why, but what I needed to do to get along.

'

Thus there is more to it, but they have decided to draw the line. They want to learn what is relevant to their daily tasks, but the more general principles of

computing are experienced as 'another world' most of them do not want to enter. Such a limit is stated over and over again: So far, but no further. As

long as it is kept at a distance it does not interfere with their ways of

knowing. There is no question that computers have come to stay in social work. In

the interaction that takes place between humans and machines, there will be

adjustments. Probably, in the near future social workers will have found their way, and who wants to be old-fashioned or left behind? There will

probably also be adjustments not only in relation to the workers but also in relation to the tasks.

The danger of technology is that it demands to be fed. In the case of computer psychotherapy, if computers can perform behaviour modification, psychotherapy must follow. If computers can do cognitive mapping, this technique acquires new status. If computers need rules in order to work, then areas of

knowledge in which rules had previously been unimportant must formulate them or perish. (Turkle 1995:107)

The computer touches upon several of the dilemmas of the social work

profession, and one may ask whether it will demand to be fed in a way that is

more supportive of some aspects of the work than of others. One dilemma is

choosing this profession out of a wish to work with people and human




problems, and still having to deal with what is experienced as the opposite, namely budgets and calculations, and recently also technology. Another is to

represent a profession with its scholarly approach and theories, and still stress principles different from the traditionally scientific. Another dilemma, which is most apparent in daily work, is to combine care and control.

The computer represents principles similar to those of a traditional scientific way of reasoning: splitting up phenomena and adjusting them to one and the same terminology so as to analyse them according to general principles. The question is whether dealing with clients according to such ideals as holism and uniqueness is compatible with the use of computers. There axe, however, different ways of relating to the same machine. As mentioned initially, Sherry Turkle (1984 and 1995) has been concerned with differences related to cognitive styles, such as rule-based hard mastering versus tinkering in a dialogue with the machine. Here I have related ways of

knowing not to personalities but to a way of reasoning particular to a

profession. The point is that the social workers find the computer suited to several purposes but these are tasks which are neither considered central to their profession nor representative of their skills. Rather it is representative of tasks they prefer to get rid of, either by increased efficiency with

computers, or by a new division of work between clerical and social workers. So far, by isolating it and emphasizing its usefulness for limited purposes -

while not allowing it to interfere with their spheres of interest and ways of

reasoning - the computer has gained acceptance. Finally, this case-study points to more far-reaching questions. Does the

computer demand a specific way of reasoning? Are tasks or users affected by the fact that computer systems are based on binary oppositions? Do

computers really divide matters into small parts - or do they, as some

claim, integrate information as well as people into networks? Such questions about information technology in relation to human reasoning cannot be answered in general terms, for computers do not equalize problems and

knowledge. There are different ways of using and experiencing computers, not only because of different personalities but also because people are trained in different ways of reasoning and have varying needs for information and

information-processing. Thus communication with and via computers may proceed more or less smoothly. The strength of the present case-study is that it highlights very clearly some incongruence of reasoning. To ask whether this incongruence and the ways of reasoning identified here are specific to a female way of knowing or to a profession is futile because they are the outcome of an interweaving of gender and profession.

First version received September 1995 Final version accepted December 1996

Notes *A gender perspective has to be added to STS analyses since

there has been a general ignorance of the importance of gender in the STS literature. Of late there have been some successful attempts to




apply the STS analytical tools to feminist technology studies (see Berg 1997; Saetnan 1996).

If not indicated otherwise, quotations gire from female social workers.

References

Belenky, M. F. et al. 1986. Women's Ways of Knowing. The Development of Voice, Self, and Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Berg, A.-J. 1997. Digital Feminism. Dr.polit.dissertation, Trond- heim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Berg, A.-J. & Lie, M. 1995. Feminism and Constructivism: Do Artifacts Have Gender? Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(3), 332-351.

Bijker, W., Hughes, T. & Pinch, T. (eds.) 1987. The Social Con- struction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bijker, W. & Law, J. (eds.) 1992. Shaping Technology IBuilding Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York:

Monthly Review Press. Cockburn, C. 1983. Brothers. Male Dominance and Technological

Change. London: Pluto Press. Cockburn, C. 1985. Machinery of Dominance. London: Pluto Press. Cockburn, C. & Ormrod, S. 1993. Gender and Technology in the

Making. London: Sage. Compton, B. & Galaway, B. 1984. Social Work Processes. Homewood,

IL: The Dorsey Press.

Dreyfus, H. L. & Dreyfus, S. E. 1986. Mind over Machine. New York: The Free Press.

Hacker, S. 1990. 'Doing It the Hard Way'. Investigations of Gender and Technology. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

H?pnes, T. & Rasmussen, ?. 1991. Excluding Women from the

Technologies of the Future? Futures, December.

Hillgaard, L. & Keiser, L. 1980. Social (be)handling. Teori og metode i socialt arbejde. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Jones, M. 1990. Understanding Social Work: A Matter of Interpreta- tion? British Journal of Social Work, 20, 181-196.

Kvande, E. & Rasmussen, B. 1990. Nye kvinneliv. Kvinner i menns

organisasjoner. Oslo: Ad Notam. Lie, M. 1996. 'Excavating' the Present: The Computer as Gendered

Material Culture. Knowledge and Society, 10, 51-68. Lie, M. & Rasmussen, B. 1990. Step by Step: New Systems in an Old

Structure. In J. F. Dy (ed.), Advanced Technology in Commerce, Offices and Health Services. Newcastle: Avebury.

MacKenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. (eds.) 1985. The Social Shaping of Technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Packer, S. 1996. The Context-dependent Nature of the Gendering of Technical Work: A Case Study of Work in a Scientific Laboratory. Work, Employment & Society, 10, 125-149.

Perlman, ?. H. 1957. Social Work with Groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sch?n, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. London: Temple Smith.




Sch?n, D. ?. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Saetnan, A. R. 1996. Speaking of Gender ... : Aspects of a Medical

Technology Policy Debate. In M. Lie & ?. H. S0rensen (eds.), Making Technology Our Own? Domesticating Technology into

Everyday Life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Turkle, S. 1984. The Second Self. London: Granada. Turkle, S. 1995. Life on the Screen. Identity in the Age of the Internet.

New York: Simon & Schuster. Turkle, S. & Papert, S. 1990. Epistemologica! Pluralism: Styles and

Voices within the Computer Culture. SIGNS, 16, 128-157.

Wajcman, J. 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Wood, S. (ed.) 1982. The Degradation of Work? Skill, Deskilling and the Labour Process. London: Hutchinson.

Zuboff, S. 1988. In the Age of the Smart Machine. Oxford: Heinemann.



Documents

Technology and Gender versus Technology and Work: Social Work and Computers