"Women Into Computers/Technology" Programs

During the 1990s, as computer technology became more prevalent in the workforce and in universities, the discrepancies between the number of men and women involved in computer science grew. According to the National Science Foundation, in 1994 there were approximately 7000 women who received Bachelors Degrees in computer science, as compared to approximately 17,000 men. Statistics from 1995 showed approximately 2500 women receiving Masters Degrees, compared with around 8000 men, and approximately 125 women receiving Doctoral Degrees, as compared to around 750 men. Also, while the number of men obtaining Masters and Doctoral Degrees has been steadily increasing throughout the 1990s, the number of women with comparable degrees seems to have reached a plateau.

According to the National Science Foundation statistics, approximately 30% of people receiving Bachelor's Degrees in computer science in 1994 were female. For comparison, I polled seven Midwestern liberal arts colleges to find the percentage of women in their computer science departments. For the most part, the data seems to suggest that the percentage is falling. Knox College, in Galesburg, Illinois, has the highest percentage of female computer science majors: 13 of their 41 majors (32%) are women. The following three schools have very close percentages: Beloit College, in Beloit, Wisconsin currently has 17 declared computer science majors, 4 of which are female (24%); Grinnell College, in Grinnell, Iowa, has 8 women amongst its 36 computer science majors (22%); Cornell College, in Mount Vernon, Iowa, has 24 computer science majors, 5 of which are female (21%). Ripon College, in Ripon, Wisconsin, has 2 females among its 13 computer science majors (15%). Both Carleton College (Northfield, Minnesota) and Macalester College (St. Paul, Minnesota) have alarmingly low percentages of women in their computer science departments: Carleton has 2 women amongst 30 majors (6%), and Macalester has only 2 women among 47 computer science majors (4%).

As the gap between the number of men and women in computer science grows, more and more institutions are implementing "Women Into Computers and Technology" programs to increase the number of women in these fields. There are both pros and cons to these sorts of programs, making them somewhat controversial. On one hand, "Women Into" programs can offer support to women who might otherwise feel alone and outnumbered. Members of both the UK's "Women into Computing" organization and the international e-mailing list "Systers" say that these groups offer a "tangible support network" for technically-oriented women working in an environment that is often "fairly hostile and male dominated at the best of times." (Adam 20). It is important for women to have such camaraderie to reinforce the notion that they are not alone, and that other women have faced similar difficulties and have succeeded. Such "Women Into" programs also raise the issue of numerical discrepancies between the genders to non-feminists: "if there is a 'problem' about women in computing, it is one which is owned by all computing practitioners, not just the small body of women prepared to do something about it." (Adam 20-1). This, too, is a critical step towards alleviating some of the societal difficulties that women in computing are facing. Raising peoples' consciousness to the uneasiness that women often face will hopefully encourage more institutions to take action to eliminate their discomfort.

Unfortunately, this does not always happen. Often, while institutions spend immense effort in recruiting more women into computers and technology, very little is done to better the situations of those already in the field. Even the early mission statements of groups such as the UK's "Women into Computing" organization implied that steering more women into technical fields would alleviate the "current and future shortages of [Information Technology] skilled staff," but they showed no notice of the problems that many of these women were already facing (Adam 20). The problem seems to lie within the attitude of most individuals that science and technology shape and mold society, with no recognition that the inverse may also be true. "Women Into" groups claim that the computer field can change the way that women work; while this is true, it is equally acceptable to claim that the way that women work can also change the computer field. This refusal to see science and technology as anything other than a permanent and immutable societal construct is often the downfall of many groups and organizations who try to steer women towards computers, but seem not to care what happens to them once they get there. In fact, the most dangerous disadvantage of "Women Into" programs, from a psychological viewpoint, is their underlying belief that the 'problem' about women in computing is strictly numerical. While this may seem at first a solid argument, Alison Adam gives the following analysis of this philosophy:

[W]omen are seen as just as capable as men and so the 'problem' becomes explaining their absence. It is a more subtle argument, part of the 'women into' arguments...that somehow blames women for 'just not coming forward' when they ought to do so. This type of under-theorized argument assumes that if there are no tangible physical barriers, then a situation of equality prevails. There is no understanding of the reasons why women either do not or cannot choose technological careers, and it presupposes that there is something wrong with women's attitudes if they are not scrambling up the corporate ladders (23).

Adam returns to this idea much later in her book when she relates a story about male peers who are "puzzled" if she neglects to attend university-founded "Women Into Technology" workshops or seminars. "[T]he status quo is left unchallenged," she writes, "women [are seen to] constitute the problem for not entering computing in the numbers that they should, and...almost every attempt to boost student numbers in an underfunded and overstretched university environment is seen as a good thing." (157). This message to women, however unintentional, that the current situation of women in computer science is their own fault, is appalling. It is true that there are many more technically-oriented men than women in the classroom and workplace, but it is ridiculous to assume that the fundamental problem about women in technology boils down to this numerical discrepancy. Just as "Women Into" groups seem to ignore that society can alter the way that it views technology, they also seem to overlook the inverse correlation between women's uneasiness in technological fields and the numerical discrepancies between themselves and men. "Women Into" groups tend to interpret the relationship between these two facts by stating that the numerical discrepancy causes women's uneasiness: if more women join the computing world, the uneasiness will abate. Unfortunately here, the inverse is missing: the discomfort of women already present in the computing field often increases the numerical discrepancy between men and women. If a female college freshman, even one with an interest in computers, sees an older female computer science major become discriminated against, ridiculed, and perhaps harassed, this sends a strong message to the freshman, and it would be not at all surprising if she pursued a different academic path. "Women Into" groups might blame the young woman for not joining the ranks and increasing the numbers, but in this case, it is obvious that there are subtle influences at work here and that this is more than just a strictly numerical issue. To ignore these other issues, and to refuse to acknowledge that individual institutions must work to alleviate the difficulties of women already present in the technical fields, demonstrates the fundamental problem evident in "Women Into" groups and organizations.

In conclusion, it is evident that there is a great discrepancy between the number of men and women currently involved in computer science. Universities and other institutions often implement "Women Into" groups as a means of encouraging more women to join technical fields, thus eradicating the shortage of women. These programs are usually helpful because they offer a support network and examples of successful women in computing. Unfortunately, they can also backfire, as they often do not address the problems of women currently in technology fields, and in fact can give women the impression that the numerical discrepancy between men and women in computing is their fault.

Go back to the Table of Contents
Go on to Attitudes of Women in Computer Science: 1991 - 1999