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 Hardings (1986) conceptualisation of gender as symbolic, structural and individual. 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 coproduction 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 prove useful in this essay is Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Latour and Callon), which along with Hughess (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.

Co-production can be seen through the symbolic gendering of many technological artefacts in everyday life. For example, the labelling of certain electro-mechanical parts as male and female reinforces ideas of masculine dominance and heterosexuality as the norm (Faulkner, 2001). At a wider level society perceives certain technologies as masculine, such as construction tools, fast cars and high-tech gadgets, whereas other technological artefacts such as kitchen or beauty tools are associated with femininity. These gender associations are enacted and reproduced by the way technologies are used. For example Masseys (1996) study of men working in the high-tech industry found that although they perceived themselves as technological experts at work, they were dismissive of domestic technologies such as the washing machine and constructed themselves as technologically incompetent in the home. The men in this research had constructed their individual gender identities around their technological work, as they are described as obsessive and workaholics (ibid., p.489). They can be seen to reinforce the symbolic gendering of technological artefacts by creating a dichotomy between the masculine and feminine technologies of work and the home respectively, which in turn reinforces gender structures. The structural gendering of technology can be explained through Akrichs (1992) idea of scripting, where gender relations are actually embodied in technological artefacts rather than simply being perceived by the user. This process of scripting begins with the designers themselves who make gendered assumptions about the user and inscribe gendered meaning into the product. This is particularly pertinent as the development and design of technology is an activity largely undertaken by men. The absence of women in STEM professions is clearly an important aspect of the gendering of artefacts, however discussing the reasons behind the low numbers of women is beyond the scope of this essay. The practice of I-methodology (Akrich 1995; Oudshoorn 1996), whereby designers consider their own preferences to be representative of those of future users, means that technological artefacts become attuned to the interests of young males. This gendered division of labour within the design process, and the tendency to conform to gender stereotypes surrounding which industries are seen as masculine and feminine, means that these gendered scripts are often inaccurate and stereotyped. Cockburn & Ormrod (1993) conducted a study of the microwave which illustrates how gender can be designed into an artefact. The original target group for the microwave was single men who wanted to quickly warm up a meal, and microwaves were marketed as brown goods along with other high-tech gadgets such as stereo systems. The product was then redesigned as a white good, marketed as an everyday domestic utility appliance and targeted at women with families. More complex cooking functions were designed into the microwave as it was assumed that women are more interested in and skilled at cooking than men. This example illustrates the mutual shaping of gender and technology as the features designed into artefacts that are aimed specifically at masculine or feminine users tend to reflect and reproduce gender stereotypes. Another example of genderscripting can be found in the analysis of the Digital City of Amsterdam (DDS) by Rommes et al. (2001) which aimed to explore why over 90% of DDS users identified as masculine despite the explicit aim of creating a system accessible to everyone. The study found that the DDS system was gendered at various levels, utilising Hardings tripartite division. At the structural level, the design process was characterised by a gendered division of labour where most of the programming was performed by young ICT-educated males whilst female workers held creative and assistant positions. Male programmers used the I-methodology technique and did not devote

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 in over-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. Sundins (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 decisionmaking 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 whilst technology 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. Haraways (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