Raising awareness:
Towards building equal conditions in the IT work-field
Roxana Escobedo
Interaction Design One-Year Master 15 Credits Spring 2017
ABSTRACT
Once women were the pioneers within the tech industry, but during the past decades the number of women who choose a career within computer science has decreased rapidly. The imbalance raises the question if the tech industry has been adapted for a more masculine way.
The lack of female participation in Information Technology (IT) education and professional work is a challenging and constant issue. This problematic is now a well-documented research area, but the causes and remedies remain puzzling and complex. A quantitative study and literature review aims to shed light on one of the possible underlying issues, which might be prevented men to acknowledge and to discuss gender imbalances, and be a part of the solution: the fear to lose all privileges the norm has historically provided them. Thus, this project aims to bring awareness to those hegemonic groups and urge them to improve conditions by using their power status as a first step towards to fixing the system and a generation of equity conditions, so everybody could have access to the same opportunities to develop a satisfactory professional career within the IT field. Keywords: Gender, gender gap, interruptions, IT, norm, microaggressions, equality, equity.
“The first resistance to social change is to say it's not necessary” Gloria Steinem
I. PROJECT OUTLINE Introduction
Background
Motivation and research question Ethical considerations
II. Literature review 2.1 Sex and gender
2.1.1 Gender Definition 2.1.2 How gender is learned? 2.1.3 Norm and gender 2.1.4 Gender stereotypes 2.1.5 Gender and culture 2.1.6 Gender resistance 2.1.7 Lack of awareness 2.1.8 Privilege theory
2.2 Microaggressions
2.2.1 Definition and effects
2.3 Gender equality and gender equity 2.4 Communication styles
2.4.1 The theory of Turn taking in conversation
2.4 Interruptions 2.4.1 Definition
2.4.2 Dimension of interruptions 2.4.3 Categories of Interruptions
2.5 Critical Design 2.6 Boundary Object
III. Related work / Canonical examples 3.1 Women interrupted
3.2 Gender Time
3.3 Pink programming initiative
3.4 A Journey to Gender Equality Board Game 3.5 Career moves 3.6 Corporate Ladder 3.7 Educational initiatives IV. Methodology 4.1 Desktop research 4.2 Ethnography 4.2.1 Interviews 4.2.2 Participant selection 4.2.2 Fieldwork 4.3 Workshop
4.3.1 Role-playing game / Privilege walk activity 4.4 Fast prototyping
V. Design Process
5.1 Desktop research and Interviews analysis and insights 5.2 Workshop
5.2.1 Game and role-playing game 5.2.2 Workshop design
5.2.3 Insights and conclusions 5.3 Concept development
5.4 Prototyping
5.5 Testing & Evaluating
VI. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
VII. FUTURE WORK AND CONSIDERATION
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: Women discrimination-timeline APPENDIX B: Microaggressions
APPENDIX C: Related Media APPENDIX D: Interview APPENDIX E: Workshop APPENDIX F: Arduino Sketch
Acknowledgements
I would like to first thank my supervisor Anders Emilsson for his patient guidance throughout this project.
I especially want to thank all the ladies whose insights and experiences were invaluable for the elaboration of this paper.
Also, I would like to express my gratitude to David Cuartielles for his support and to all the Arduino staff for their cooperation.
I want to dedicate this to my parents for their everlasting love and support; to Paco, Caro, Ligia, Alina, Daniela and Mariana, I wouldn’t be here without you.
Completing this work would have been more difficult were it not for the support and friendship provided by Carlos Mario Rodriguez Perdomo; thanks for sharing your time, insight, knowledge and your invaluable experience. Your help was key to the outcome of this project.
Finally, but not least, I want to thank Simon Niedenthal for encouraging me to improve in my weaker areas through his invaluable feedback.
“The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn”. Gloria Steinem
1.1 Introduction
For many years now, a central concern of women has been the limited access to scientific and technical institutions and professions. Number of studies have identified barriers to women’s
participation, looking at sex discrimination in employment and the type of education that girls receive. have channeled them away from studying mathematics and science (Rossiter 1982; Keller 1985). Sex stereotyping in schools has been revealed how girls and boys are guided into different subjects in secondary and tertiary education, leading to a segregated labor market.
In the 1970s and 1980s, liberal feminists focused on gender stereotypes, and denied the existence of sex differences between women and men. If girls were given the right opportunities and
encouragement they could easily become scientists and engineers. Remedying the gender deficit was seen as a problem that could be overcome by a combination of different socialization processes and equal opportunity policies. Feminists at that time pointed out that the liberal feminist tradition located the problem in women and failed at questioning the ways in which techno-science could adjust to integrate them: they were forced to exchange major aspects of their gender identity for a masculine version without prescribing a similar ‘degendering’ process for men. (Wajcman, 2007).
A shift from the women-technology approach to the analysis of the social factors that shaped different technologies, started to emerge particularly, the way technology reflects gender divisions and
inequalities. Increasingly, women’s interests and needs, which differ significantly from those of men, were and still are not always well served by current technologies. For instance, the Apple Watch’s Health app launched in 2015, allowed users to track nearly everything they have could imagined, but failed to include menstrual tracking. Research has revealed how women were excluded from
technology as a consequence of male domination.
Then, the issue it was not only about the control men has over technology but also the way gender is embedded in technology itself. Research revealed how women were excluded from technology as a consequence of male domination of skilled trades that developed during the industrial revolution (Cockburn 1983; Milkman 1987; Bradley 1989). Thus, feminists identified masculinity embedded in the machinery itself, highlighting the role of technology as a key source of male power. (Cockburn 1985; McNeil 1987; Webster 1989; Wajcman 1991); technology not only was seen as socially shaped, but shaped by men and women were not included.
1.2 Background
What happened to all the female developers and engineers? Making IT world masculine
Once, the programming field was stereotyped as female; the very first programmers were women though at that time, the term “programmer” or even the concept of a program did not even exist. In the early 1940´s, six women were hired to work on the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer ENIAC — which design and construction was financed by the U.S. Army— to teach the machine how to calculate trajectories of weapons. Despite the presence of the so called “ENIAC girls” opened the field for women for years thereafter, that did not mean that the executives of the ENIAC project held a modern perspective toward women in the labor force. According to Nathan Ensmenger, professor in
the School of Informatics and Computing at Indiana University, in his book “The Computer Boys Take Over”, he explores the origins of programming and unveils the processes used to hire and train programmers. He also describes how managers hired women because “programming” was expected to be a low-skill clerical task reduced to typing, punching cards and plugging and switching cables into telephone switchboard. A more mechanical than intellectual or scientific work therefore, they were seen as “operators” and often called “coders”, which became a term linked to female gender. The real “intellectual” work in electronic computer was the hardware part, task reserved to male engineers only.
ENIAC, the world's first digital computer, unveiled 70 years ago Sunday at the University of Pennsylvania, had six primary programmers: Kay McNulty, Betty Jennings, Betty Snyder, Marlyn Wescoff, Fran Bilas and Ruth Lichterman. They were initially called "operators. accessed 22 August 2017,
<"http://www.phillyvoice.com/70-years-ago-six-philly-womeneniac-digital-computer-programmers/>
It was until the 1950s when the term “programmer” was widely adopted within the computer
community yet, for a few decades to come, the term “coder” still had a negative connotation, and male programmers strove to keep distance from it.
The work of the ENIAC women was certainly overlooked in large part simply because they were women. But almost as significant as their gender, was their subordinate position as “software” workers in a hardware oriented development project. The use of the word “software” would not be introduced until 1958 but, hierarchical distinctions and gender connotations between “hard” technical mastery and the “software,” more social (and implicitly, of secondary importance) aspects of
computer work – are applicable even in the earliest of electronic computing development projects (Grier, 1996).
In the April 1967 issue of Cosmopolitan magazine, an article entitled “The Computer Girls”, urged their female readers to consider careers in programming. In the text, Dr. Grace Hopper, one of the ENIAC´S 6, was quoted saying that: “Programming is just like planning a dinner. You have to plan ahead and schedule everything so that it’s ready when you need it… Women are ‘naturals’ at computer programming.”
This article portrayed the gender dynamics of computer work at that time, as well as the unclear and contradictory role of women in the field; women did play an important role in early programming but, on the other hand, the programming profession was already becoming masculinized by creating educational requirements and discouraging the hiring of women. (Abbate,2012). Furthermore, computer industry advertisements associated women staffers to human-error and inefficiency therefore, programming ended up turning into one of the most stereotypically male professions, inhospitable to all but the most adventurous and unconventional women. (Ensmenger, 2008).
The Computer Girls” article in Cosmopolitan magazine, accessed 2 August 2017, < http://dunescholar.com/category/education/>.
The typical stereotype of the socially awkward, white man has become for a long time now, the norm. This perception is one of the reasons why the profession is not inclusive nor inviting for women. But, what shaped that image of programmers and why it has not changed? Companies started to realize the bright future of computing and suddenly had to face the difficult task of hiring good programmers in order to avoid errors. However, it was unclear what kind of specific skill set these programmers should have. A notion that programmers had to be “born not made” and that programming was a “black art” started to emerge. To identify and recruit programmers, most companies utilized some aptitude forms test and try to filter the specific traits essentials to good programming. IMB PAT became the most popular instrument. To increase even more the efficiency of identifying people with desirable competences such as abstract reasoning and logical thinking, two phycologists were
commissioned to design a “Vocational interest scale” for programmers. They found one particular trait associated to programmers: Lack of interest in people. The antisocial, mathematically inclined males, was the profile used by the industry was the selected programmers. Combined with the often-explicit association of programming personnel with beards, sandals, and scruffiness, it is no
wonder why women felt increasingly excluded from the center of the computing community. (Ensmenger, 2010).
In addition, a dramatically climb in salaries and prestige within the field emerged. Decades before, the programmer stereotype prevails; employers still seek to hire people that fit this mold.
Once women enter in to the IT (information technology), why do so many of them leave the Field?
For decades, many efforts and initiatives trying to attract more women to the field have been designed and implemented. However, little progress has been made towards reducing the gender imbalance within the field. A study carried out at the University of Wisconsin in 2014, estimated that nearly 40% of women who earn an engineering degree, either quit or never enter the
profession. The psychologist behind the study, Nadya Fouad, surveyed around 5,300 women with engineering degrees trying to shed light on why so few stayed in engineering. Results reported that only 62% of respondents were currently working in engineering. Those who left the field gave specific reasons in the survey.
The answer Dr. Fouad gave during her presentation was quite simple:
“It's the climate, stupid!", referring to the "old-boys club" workplaces that still exist in many It organizations; she also added: It's about changing the work environment."
To see a timeline on how women have been pushed out from the IT field go to APPENDIX 1
1.3 Motivation and research question
If gender issues have been addressed for decades now, and there is a large body of research on the topic and several strategies and programs that have been implemented (ones with more success than others) in different contexts, mainly in education, why progress has been so slow?
On the documentary: “Chemical Imbalance” (https://vimeo.com/71294882) that addressed science and gender equality, is stated that: “At our current rate of progress, it will take 70 years before we achieve parity between the sexes”. Not very encouraging but it opens the opportunity to ask the right questions. Maybe the implemented strategies are not appropriate or perhaps is there a lack of
commitment or unwillingness or inability to change? or is just that gender balance will be never be achieved, and what is needed instead is to think how would gender imbalance would be in the future?
Hence, the aim of this research is as follows: How to bring awareness to the social imposed social
constructions and gender roles we perform in everyday life to openly and honestly engage in a
dialogue about gender.
Invisibility is the main characteristic of power and privilege; the ability to go under examined and lacking introspection. Our thoughts create our realities; thus if we want to change behavior, the way of thinking, awareness is the first step. Unfortunately, many go through life oblivious to their actions and thoughts.
Sub research question: How to make visible the invisible privileges to those who have them?
1.3 Ethical considerations
For the interviews, the participants signed a form where their permission was requested for using their opinions and answers in this project, without disclosing any personal information that could reveal their identities. For the workshop, I requested permission from each participant to capture their likeness in still images, video, and audio recordings.
II. Literature review 2.1. Sex and gender
It was John Money a sexologist who first introduced the distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. However, his work remained unnoticed until the 1970s, and still today, both terms are often used interchangeably in the vernacular. Before defining gender, a distinction between the terms is briefly presented next.
A person's sex is a primary state of anatomic or physiologic parameters; is defined by the gonads, or potential gonads, and is generally assigned at birth. On the other hand, gender is defined by one's own
identification as male, female, or intersex. A person's gender is a conclusion reached in a broad sense when individual gender identity and gender role are expressed. (Gosh, 2015).
Gosh, also uses a phrase to point out the difference in an oversimplified manner: Sexual identity is in the perineum; gender identity is in the cerebrum. (Gosh, 2015).
2.1.1 Gender definition
According to the Ministry of Women's Affairs, gender refers to the social construction of female and male identity. It can be defined as more than biological differences between men and women. It includes the ways in which those differences, whether real or perceived, have been valued, used and relied upon to classify women and men and to assign roles and expectations to them. The significance of this is that the lives and experiences of women and men, including their experience of the legal system, occur within complex sets of differing social and cultural expectations.
In Performative Gender (1990), Judith Butler introduced the notion of “performativity”, which refers to the idea that gender is not something people are, but something they continually do, so one can become recognizable as a girl by doing girl things; by sitting with the legs crossed while wearing a skirt for instance. The way people act, talk, walk and speak, consolidates an impression of being a man or being a woman.
Butler also argues that: ‘We act as if that being of a man or that being of a woman is actually an internal reality or something that is simply true about us, a fact about us, but actually it's a phenomenon that is being produced all the time and reproduced all the time, so to say gender is performative is to say that nobody really is a gender from the start. I know it's controversial, but that's my claim […] It's my view that gender is culturally formed, but it's also a domain of agency or
freedom, and that it is most important to resist the violence that is imposed by ideal gender norms, especially against those who are gender different, who are nonconforming in their gender
presentation’.
2.1.2 How gender is learned?
The way how we learn gender is also called by sociologist gender socialization. Socialization is defined as the ways in which we learn to become a member of any group, including the very large group we call humanity. The process of socialization begins the moment individuals are born and continues throughout their lives to the very end, as they constantly learn how to successfully belong to new groups or adjust to changes in the groups to which they already belong. Gender socialization is the process by which individual learn society’s gender norms and come to develop an internal gender identity. (Ryle, 2014).
2.1.3 Norm and gender
The term ‘norm’ or ‘behavioral norm’ can be used simply to mean a common practice, what most people do in a particular context. Sen et al. (2007) argue:
‘Norms are vital determinants of social stratification as they reflect and reproduce relations that empower some groups of people with material resources, authority, and entitlements while
marginalizing and subordinating others by normalizing shame, inequality, indifference or invisibility. It is important to note that these norms reflect and reproduce underlying gendered relations of power, and that is fundamentally what makes them difficult to alter or transform’ (p.28).
Gender norms are powerful, pervasive values and attitudes, about gender-based social roles and behaviors that are deeply embedded in social structures. Gender norms manifest at various levels, including within households and families, communities, neighborhoods, and wider society. They ensure the maintenance of social order, punishing or sanctioning deviance from those norms, interacting to produce outcomes which are frequently inequitable, and dynamics that are often risky for women and girls [...] Norms are perpetuated by social traditions that govern and constrain behaviors of both women and men, and by social institutions that produce laws and codes of conduct that maintain gender inequities (Keleher and Franklin, 2008: 43).
2.1.4 Gender Stereotypes
According to monda.eu (a product of the project Global E-learning supported by the European commission), gender stereotype is a very stable element in consciousness, influencing opinions, judgment, attitudes and behavior. For the stereotype, undifferentiated overall attribution of certain characteristics to all members of the group is typical. It is characterized by emotionality and
irrationality, as well as simplistic interpretations of event. Although it is true that gender stereotypes have changed in relation to historical changes, they still fulfill the function of maintaining a
hierarchical -unequal relationship between the genders. This may explain why gender discrimination persists despite the shift in gender roles.
2.1.5 Culture and gender
Culture shapes the contents of gender stereotypes, such that men are perceived as possessing more of whatever traits are culturally valued (Cuddy et al 2010). Men have been stereotyped as independent, agentic, and goal oriented; women, as interdependent, communal, and oriented toward others (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). These stereotypes affect important life outcomes such as hiring and promotion (Cuddy et al 2004; Gorman, 2005; Heilman, 2001), job performance evaluations (Fuegenet al, 2004; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007), academic performance (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000). The contents of gender stereotypes are accepted as pervasive and universal (Heilman, 2001), and are endorsed by both men and women (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Wood & Eagly, 2010) and across cultures (Williams & Best, 1990).
2.1.6 Gender resistance
Resistance can be defined as the refusal to accept or comply with something, is the opposition to the change that gender mainstreaming promotes (Benschop and Verloo 2011; Lombardo and Mergaert
2013). Resistance is a phenomenon aiming to preserve the status quo rather than question a particular dominant social order (NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 2013 Special Issue on ‘Feminist Resistance-Resistance to Feminism’).
The power and norms of hegemonic groups within an institution then not only facilitate particular (male) behaviors, but they also block or oppose change that gender initiatives such as gender mainstreaming promote (Kenny 2011; Mackay 2011).
Through their daily practices of ‘doing gender’, institutions construct particular gender norms and behaviors that are deemed appropriate in a given institutional context (Cavaghan forthcoming 2015; Connell 1997). Gender mainstreaming has the ambition to transform these institutional gender norms and behaviors that create inequalities (Council of Europe 1998). And this institutional change can trigger resistance on the part of the actors involved, that are commonly inclined to preserve the status quo (Pauly, Mergaert and OPERA team 2009). Processes of mainstreaming gender into institutions are likely to face particular resistance, argues Díaz (2001), because the changes that gender
mainstreaming requires challenge the order of norms and practices concerning relations between women and men within a given institution.
Bergqvist, Bjarnega and Zetterberg (2013: 281) also bring the concept of “Resistance to feminism” which is often seemingly invisible and implicit, and it seldom manifests itself explicitly as such. This suggests that such resistance is not necessarily a conscious, deliberate action, but rather an expression of the unequal gender norms that individuals have learnt and therefore tend to preserve.
Types of resistance
Mergaert and Lombardo, identified four types of gender resistance in order to reveal patterns of action or inaction that is repeated systematically and suggests an opposition against gender change:
Types of resistance Features
Individual Resistance expressed through the action or
inaction of an individual to oppose gender change.
Institutional Resistance revealed by a pattern of aggregated action or inaction that is systematically repeated and that suggests a collective orchestration to oppose gender change.
Explicit Resistance expressed overtly when actors oppose gender equality initiatives through their action and discourses, or do not do what they ought to do to advance gender equality even when they are made aware of gender equality commitments.
Implicit Resistance not overtly manifested that can be
verified by observing the extent to which actors, in their discourses and inactions or inadequate actions, distance themselves from the goal of gender equality itself.
2.1.7 Lack of Gender Awareness / Gender Blindness
Individuals, may resist a certain change because there may be a lack of awareness of the problem (Pendlebury, et al.,1998); they are gender blind. Awareness is of paramount importance to gendered dynamics since, either men or women, may internalize the existing state of affairs and may not have the urge for change. When individuals fail to understand the gender focus in change projects aiming for a more diverse and equal working environment, they may tend to ignore `gender`, find it irrelevant (Rhoton, 2011), stamp gender equality policies as superfluous or resist the change itself.
2.1.8 Privilege theory
This theory explains that the idea of oppression operates through a series of unearned advantages enjoyed by those who do not suffer a particular oppression. So, all men, white people or straight people, for example, will gain privileges that come from not facing sexism, racism or homophobia. The beneficiary of these privileges may be completely unaware of them—in fact much emphasis among privilege theorists is on what they would describe as “making privilege visible” (Kimmel, & Ferber 2010)—alerting people to the unearned advantages they may take for granted. Similarly, individuals do not choose whether or not to have these “privileges”—they are automatically bestowed by virtue of someone’s race, gender, sexuality and so on. Through this framework, gender becomes just one of a myriad of oppressive divisions in society. Privileges are often seen to operate at a
psychological level, as unconscious (and therefore inescapable) bias. This is why much of the practice of privilege theorists consists of exhorting others to “check your privilege”—in other words
suggesting that the actions or ideas that are being challenged come from the unconscious prejudices that flow directly from someone’s “privileged position”. (Fogg, 2013).
Supporters of privilege theory insist that the “privileged” can play at most a supporting role to the oppressed. Frances Kendall (2013), for example, argues that the point of checking our privileges is to become an “ally”, able to build authentic relationships with those who do not share our privileges.
2.2 Microaggressions 2.2.1 Definition
Gender microaggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward women. Perpetrators of microaggressions are often unaware that they engage in such communications when they interact with the opposite sex minorities (Wing et al., 2007).
Microaggressions tend to be subtle, indirect, and unintentional; its power lies in their invisibility to the perpetrator and, oftentimes, the recipient (Sue, 2005). Most people experience themselves as good, moral, and decent human beings who believe in equality and democracy. Thus, they find it difficult to believe that they possess biased racial attitudes and may engage in behaviors that are discriminatory (Sue, 2004).
In most cases, when individuals are confronted with their micro aggressive acts, the perpetrator usually believes that the victim has overreacted and that is being overly sensitive. The immediate reaction might be a series of questions: Did what I think happened, really happen? Was this a deliberate act or an unintentional slight? How should I respond? Sit and stew on it or confront the person? If I bring the topic up, how do I prove it? Is it really worth the effort? Should I just drop the matter? These questions in one form or another have been a common, if not a universal, reaction of persons of color who experience an attributional ambiguity (Crocker & Major,1989).
Individuals may have different reactions to macroaggressions; deciding to do nothing by sitting on one’s anger is one response that occurs frequently. This response occurs because people may be:
1. Unable to determine whether a microaggression has occurred, 2. A loss for how to respond,
3. Fearful of the consequences,
4. Rationalizing that “it won’t do any good anyway,” or
5. Engaging in self-deception through denial (“It didn’t happen.”).
Although these explanations for nonresponse may hold some validity for the person that experiences the aggression, not doing anything has the potential to result in psychological harm. It may mean a denial of one’s experiential reality, dealing with a loss of integrity, or experiencing pent-up anger and frustration.
What is lacking is research that points to adaptive ways of handling microaggressions and suggestions of how to increase the awareness and sensitivity of men to microaggressions so that they accept responsibility for their behaviors and for changing them (Solórzano et al., 2000).
To see the forms of microaggressions and its consequences, go to Appendix B
2.3 Gender equality and gender equity.
Gender equity means fairness of treatment for women and men, according to their respective needs. This may include equal treatment or treatment that is different, but which is considered equivalent in terms of rights, benefits, obligations and opportunities. (ABC Of Women Workers’ Rights and Gender Equality, ILO, Geneva, 2000, p.48).
Gender mainstreaming Conceptual framework, methodology and presentation of good practices report (1998), defines gender equality as follows: Gender equality means accepting and valuing equally the differences between women and men and the diverse roles they play in society. Gender equality means discussing how it is possible to go further, to change the structures in society which contribute to maintaining the unequal power relationships between women and men, and to reach a better balance in the various female and male values and priorities. Looking back at the two aspects of the gender concept discussed above, this implies calling into question the domination of ways of life, thinking and interests associated with men and the way in which our societal structures reproduce this norm. The quintessence is to assure that the social construction of gender leaves room for difference and does not contain a notion of hierarchy placing men higher than women.
2.4 Gender communication styles
There is a large body of interdisciplinary research about the different gender communication styles. For example, Julia Wood (1986) have argued that for women, communication is a way to establish and maintain relationships, are responsive and supportive and value equality while for men, is oriented toward solving problems and maintaining dominance and assertiveness, and are less responsive. Elizabeth Aries (1987), also has concluded in her research that men are more dominant and hierarchical and women more supportive and cooperative and egalitarian in conversation. Also, studies of group discussions have revealed that high status actors have many effects on participation: men interrupt women, adults interrupt children, the more powerful spouse interrupts the less powerful one, and those with masculine identities interrupt those with more feminine self-images. These individuals tend to talk and interrupt more, are asked their opinion more often, receive more positive feedback and are more likely to influence groups decisions and dominate the conversation (Ridgeway 1983, pp. 160-204).
According to Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974), an ideal conversation is organized so that no interruption occurs. The coordination between the speaker and listener is perfect in that the speaker sends the right signals—verbal and/or nonverbal and tonal cues to the listener when a turn change is
due. The listener understands and takes the signals for a turn change. Any violation of the orderliness of this turn-exchange principle is considered a deep intrusion of the rights of the current speaker, as well as a severe disruption of the flow of the ongoing conversation.
2.4.1 The theory of Turn Taking in Conversation
Sacks and his colleagues developed a model that has served to guide most of the research on interruptions (Sacks et al, 1974) aiming to minimize the occurrence of gaps or overlaps between speakers in a conversation. In their study, they tape-recorded natural conversations and noted that are surprisingly orderly where each person talks at a time, and the transitions between speakers are well coordinated.
On their model, Sacks and colleagues broke conversations down into small units and each speaker was entitled to one unit. When the first unit was completed, a change of speaker occurred, and another speaker took the floor from the first speaker. Basically, this was a three-rule model where, according to the first rule, the current speaker selected the next speaker, by name or by asking a question, or by nonverbal cues like eye contact. Then, the designed speaker had the right to the next turn and was the only party with that right. If the current speaker did not select the next speaker, then the second rule followed. This rule is that self-selection will govern the right to speak, that the next speaker will be the one who selects herself or himself first. If self-selection did not occur, rule three was applied: the current speaker has the right to take up the floor again; if that did not happen, rule two -self-selection - followed and so on.
Although this model has served as the basis for research on interruptions, not all conversation fit in this model. In transcription analysis of conversations of more than two people, researchers found a great deal of simultaneous speech, making it difficult to determine exactly whose turn it is. Rather than taking turns, conversation is often characterized by overlaps in speech, even in formal settings like staff meetings (Murray, 1987).
Tannen (1985) and Coates (1988) also found simultaneous talk to be common in conversations with friends, which is also accepted and expected in informal friend conversation and do not seem to be related to dominance or power. In this context, Tannen interpreted the overlaps to be an indication of cooperation rather than violation.
2.5 Interruption 2.5.1 Definition
To interrupt a speaker-that is, to begin talking before the speaker’s turn is finished and perhaps prevent her or him from completing their thought.is to prevent, at least temporarily, that speaker from accomplishing these interactional goals. Since interruptions represent a clear violation of turn-taking norms that give one conversant greater access to others' attention, it is not surprising that their occurrence is linked to dominance, power, and status (Drass, 1986; Eakins and Eakins, 1978;
to determine whether the greater power and dominance of men in society is reflected in ordinary face-to-face interactions between men and women (Aries, 1996).
2.5.2 Dimensions of interruptions
In his study, Li (2012) divided interruptions in successful and unsuccessful. Successful interruptions are differentiated into intrusive and cooperative.
An interruption is judged successful if the second speaker cuts off the first speaker before he or she finishes a complete utterance (more than the last word of the utterance), and the second speaker continues to talk until he or she finishes an utterance, whereas the first speaker stops talking abruptly (Beaumont & Cheyne, 1998; Jacob, 1974; Mishler & Waxler, 1968; Ng et al., 1995).
An unsuccessful interruption occurs when the second speaker begins to talk before the first speaker finishes an utterance, and either both speakers continue talking and complete their utterances (Beaumont & Cheyne, 1998; Jacob, 1974; Ng et al., 1995) or the second speaker stops before finishing the intruding speech, although the first speaker continues talking and holding the floor.
2.5.3 Categories of interruption
Murata (1994), has identified two categories of interruption: cooperative and intrusive.
-Cooperative Interruptions aim to help the speaker by coordinating on the process and/or content of the ongoing conversation. This interruption has two subcategories: agreement, and clarification. An agreement interruption enables the interrupter to show concurrence, understanding, or support. Sometimes, the interruption also serves as an extension or elaboration of the idea being presented by the speaker (Kennedy and Camden 1983).
Clarification: This type of interruption is usually initiated by the listener, to understand the message being sent by the speaker. The goal is to have the current speaker clarify or explain a previously elicited piece of information that the listener is unclear about (Kennedy & Camden, 1983).
Intrusive Interruptions pose threats to the current speaker’s territory by disrupting the process and/or content of the ongoing conversation (Goldberg, 1990). Murata’s category has three subcategories: disagreement, floor taking, and topic change.
-Disagreement: When the interlocutor in the role of the listener disagrees with what the current speaker is saying and wants to voice his or her opinion immediately, disagreement interruption occurs. -Floor taking: In the case of floor taking, the interrupter does not intend to change the topic of the current speaker. Instead, the interrupter usually develops the topic of the current speaker and does so by taking over the floor from the current speaker.
-Topic change: In this conversational act, the interrupter is somewhat more aggressive than in the floor-taking situation because he or she has to accomplish the task of changing the topic.
2.6 Critical design
“We need the capacity, which critical forms of design have, for flights of fantasy, for saying the unsayable, for proposing absurdities. Yet we also need critical social sciences that can engage
seriously with design as an equal partner. Design is integral for thinking about futures because design has to propose, prefigure, speculate, protype, anticipate, fail, revise, fail and sometimes succeed”.
Damian White Thoughtful reflections on gender inequality, surveillance, class struggle, climate change,
human-machine relations, can all be found in all manner of places: sci-fi movies, graphic novels, animations, movies, etc. All these currents – and many others – have used futures as a narrative backdrop to open up debate about worlds we might wish to inhabit or avoid. However, in the "real world" of contemporary politics, such kind of discussions are hard to address and barely tolerated. Gender inequality is a pressing public issue that requires debate about. Contemporary figures in the critical social sciences such as Erik Olin Wright (2010) and David Harvey (2000), have urged that we must place not just futures, but serious concrete material proposals for reconfiguring our social and political relations back on the agenda.
A view of design futuring can be found in the writings and work of Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. Dunne first introduced the term Critical Design in his book Hertzian Tales (1999) and Design Noir (2001). It rejects how things are now as being the only possibility, it provides a critique of the prevailing situation through designs that embody alternative social, cultural, technical or economic values; it raises awareness, exposing assumptions, provoking action, sparking debate.
2.6 Boundary object
After reviewing the concept of boundary objects, introduced by Susan Leigh Star and James Griesemer in 1989, the designed artifact presented in this research, can be considered as such. Looking at complex situations through the lens of boundary objects can help to understand how the various actors involved can cooperate on a project, despite having different and oftentimes conflicting interests and understandings.
A boundary object is an artifact, document or even an idea that helps people from different
communities build a shared understanding; they essentially provide a common point of reference for conversations and conventions. As a Star and Griesemer define them, boundary objects “inhabit several intersecting social worlds,” and “satisfy the informational requirements of each of them” (Star & Griesemer, 1989). Instead of demanding full comprehension by every member of a community, “boundary objects serve as a point of mediation and negotiation around intent” (p. 393).
The research on boundary objects emphasizes how they allow actors from different “social worlds” to reconcile different meanings and produce shared understandings, in turn, enabling cooperation and the transformation of knowledge.
III. Related work. Canonical examples. 3.1 Gender Time
Gender time is a swedish application developed by Fredrik Eklöf and Andreas Bhagwani, which allows people to track how often men and women speak at the workplace, as well as in other context and even in the media ( TV, movies, etc.). As stated in the app’s website:
“GenderTimer promotes gender awareness in social groups and workplaces; it shows you clearly who is talking the most, men or women and helps you see and discuss normative gender patterns. Just seeing the numbers helps people self-regulate, and improve”.
Figure 1: Gender Time app. Source: researcher's own archives.
According to an article published in the New York Times entitled “Why Women Stay Quiet at
Work”(Sandberg & Grant, 2015), when a woman speaks in a professional setting, she is either ignored or judged as too aggressive. However, when a man says virtually the same thing, he is listened
without being disregarded. As a result, women have decided to speak less. In addition, other studies such as the one carried out by Yale psychologist, Victoria L. Brescoll, “Who Takes the Floor and Why, Gender, Power, and Volubility in Organizations” (2012), found that males senators with more power, used to talk more on the Senate floor than their junior colleagues. But for female senators, power was not linked to significantly more speaking time. Furthermore, another paper published by Journal of Language and Social Psychology (2014), showed that in conversation women are interrupted more often than men are (by both men and women), and again, when they do speak frequently, they are often perceived negatively.
3.2 Women interrupted
Manterrupting is one of the most common microaggression women experienced; it happens when a man interrupts a woman unnecessarily. This kind of action, prevents women from expressing their ideas freely especially in male-dominated environments. Women interrupted is an app that helps to stop this behavior by detecting whenever a male voice interrupts a female’s. Using the microphone on the mobile device, the app detects male and female voice frequencies, (previous woman’s voice calibration needed), displaying on the screen how many times a woman was interrupted. Once the conversation is over, the app also shows a graph indicating the points of the conversation when the interruptions happened. The app also allows the users to share the results on social media.
3.3 Pink programming
Is a volunteer organization created by three female Swedish developers in 2015. Since then, they have created monthly “Sundays coding workshops” and camps around Scandinavia to provide women, girls and transgender people with an inspiring and safe environment where they can learn to code. Also, they have introduced to its community, female role models that give inspirational talks and discuss about their experience in the tech industry.
From a critical perspective, this type of initiatives may see as “sexist”, “separative” and “consciously exclusive”; even the name “Pink programming” is reproducing a gender stereotype. On the other hand, this has been the solution they have found to make programming more “friendly” to women. The group founders refused to be part in this project by contributing with their experiences, arguing “schedule conflicts”.
3.4 A Journey to Gender Equality
This is a board game where each player embarks on a journey to create a more equal society out of an existing world that is suffering from the consequences of gender inequalities. To win, the players have to gain 20 Gender Equality points (GE points) to move towards the end of the board (a society which achieves gender equality).
The game simulates real world situations and the players will experience the struggles to promote gender equality, existing bias towards females and organizations that promote gender equality.
Components: -1 Play board -54 Talents cards -5 Organization Cards
-16 Movement Cards -8 Bias Cards
-Numerous Education Funding Tokens -Numerous Gender Equality Tokens -5 Player Tokens
-Number of players: 2-5 Players age: 12 +
A Journey to Gender Equality,by Caroline Wang accessed 20 November 2017,
< https://linyingwang.wordpress.com/portfolio/board-game-to-address-gender-equality/>
The game was designed to create awareness and spark conversations; to encourage women to choose major in the STEM field; to educate people about the involvement of gender equality;
to help creating more equal workplace, and as a tool for academic advisors and career counsellors to incorporate the game as part of the education curriculum.
3.5 Career Moves
This is board game created by Mary Flanagan, an international recognized artist, author and educator. Her artwork ranges from game-inspired systems to computer viruses, embodied interfaces to
interactive texts exhibit at museums around the world. For Flanagan, play becomes a contextual medium within the player can think critically about play experiences while having fun. This approach to games as generators of critical and interpretative play is key to her work; this is well represented in “Career Moves” (2000).
In this game, she uses play to ask questions about gender biases in the workplace. The artifact is a digitally augmented board game that seems to be some a mix of Chute and Ladders(1969), Operation(1965) and Monopoly (1935). The game presents the player with a combination of stereotypically female career choices, such as waitress or stay-at-home mom but also presents more
progressive set of choices such as project manager or CEO. As the players move around, gender biases emerge to show how women are perceived and show the limits on how they are positioned within the male-dominated corporate structures. By using a die, players take turns and move around the board. One can find numerous plastic items embedded into the board that players need to extract using a pair of metal tongs. If the player fails to remove it or touches the side of the board, audio excerpts of self-help and career advice targeted at women play, uncovering gender biases deep embedded inside our culture. Career moves produces a range of interpretations: it can be played as a game but also as a way for reconsidering the cultural frames shaping and limiting women’s career choices and trajectories (Sharp, 2015). The object could be also a critical artwork as it questions the role of games as cultural artifacts in the reinforcement of stereotypes: Why are women still trapped in these roles? Why does our culture keeps working to preserve gender biases?
Physical specifications:
-Gameboard is 20″x 30″, controlled by a pc laptop
-Game kit includes: two sets of headphones, die, player pieces, corporate objects for removal
Career moves, accessed 18 October 2017 <http://maryflanagan.com/work/career-moves/>
3.6 Corporate ladder
Is a physical computer-driven installation, designed by Mary Flanagan (1999). The user is free to move through the physical space towards a projection or a monitor that displays popular
representations of women in corporate settings. As the participant approaches to the image, it started to incrementally blurred, the image becomes indefinable; the user is positioned in a kind of visual glass ceiling, and when gets closer to the projection, it is eradicated, switching to another image of the
series. The visitors directly interact and influence the images they see or cannot see by their proximity to the images of the women. The goal of this piece is to put the user inside the tension women have maintaining multiple and opposed identities as corporate worker and self.
Corporate Ladder, accessed 25 October 2017< http://maryflanagan.com/work/corporate-ladder/>
3. 7 Educational initiatives
There are myriad root causes for underrepresentation and attrition in STEM that can affect anyone at every academic and career juncture, including individual differences in career preferences, inadequate science and mathematics academic preparation, poor STEM classroom experiences, a lack of peer supports, market value of STEM skills to non-STEM occupations, and inadequate mentoring for career advancement (AAUW, 2010; National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity [NAPE]). Nonetheless, despite initial connections to STEM, underrepresented minorities are systematically more likely to become disconnected from these fields (Byars-Winston, 2013).
Several studies have revealed a pattern of academic and work environments that may be unwelcoming to underrepresented minorities and in which they encounter cultural stereotypes and discrimination. Conspicuous minority status, due to being one of only a few underrepresented groups, can lead to cultural isolation, a low sense of belonging, and self-doubt for underrepresented minorities despite a strong motivation to pursue STEM (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Ong, 2001).
There is an urgent need to improve the educational and career development of individuals to work in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) field which are vital to the social and economic condition and contributing innovations that improve living conditions (e.g., health care, clean energy).
There is no easy way to ensure interventions lead to greater empowerment for women and girls, or to achieve long-term and sustainable change. It requires a holistic approach, which tackles gender inequalities and seeks to empower women and girls from a number of perspectives.
Here is an overview of some of the most successful interventions to address the problem of gender inequality in the STEM world:
1. CODE: Debugging the Gender Gap (2015). Through compelling interviews, the documentary examines the reasons why more girls and are not seeking opportunities in computer science and explores how cultural mindsets, stereotypes, educational hurdles and sexism all play roles in this gap. Expert voices from the worlds of tech, psychology, science, and education are intercut with inspiring stories of women who are engaged in the fight to challenge
complacency in the tech industry and have their voices heard. CODE aims to inspire change in mindsets, in the educational system, in startup culture and in the way women see
themselves in the field of coding.
2. She’s Coding is an open-source project developed in cooperation with the documentary film CODE: Debugging the Gender Gap. This initiative provides education, resources, and actionable guidelines for anyone who wants to help bridge the gender gap in the field of computer science and increase diversity.
3. She + + is a nonprofit organization, that empowers underrepresented groups in technology. This initiative works with high schools and college students and with a mentorship program.
IV. Methodology
Because this research is mainly concerned with experience and values, qualitative approaches that focus on meaning, and interpretation were considered the most appropriate. However, to analyze the two apps that are discussed in section III, a quantitative empirical method was utilized as well.
4.1 Desktop research
An extensive literature review to gain a deeper understanding of the field was carried out. Initial exploration was rather broad which led to identify available openings to explore, and then be able to become more focus based on the research question. Also, this preparatory research was of paramount relevance to elaborate interview guide and laid the foundations to design the workshop.
4.2 Ethnography 4.2.1 Interviews
Interviews were carried out with women working in the Information Technology (IT) field and were conducted in different settings and contexts. An in-depth conversational approach (Rubin & Rubin, 2005) was utilized to conduct the interviews based on iterative questioning and follow-ups. The objective of these interviews was to elicit an account of how women experience gender at
workplace as well as their perspectives and challenges of being part of a minority in the IT industry. A conversational partnership approach helped to establish trust and familiarity with the participants, engaging them in a deeper exploration of their experiences.
4.2.2 Participant selection
Four participants were interviewed, they were identified at the Pink Programming Sundays monthly workshops (which is discussed in more detail in Section 3). And two during open discussions after talks and conferences presentations about gender equality in technology and during a code retreat event.
4.2.3 Fieldwork
This method provided a better sense of the current situation in the IT field. In addition to the
possibilities a conference opens to access new knowledge and insights, attending this type of meetings also allowed to employ fly-on-the-wall observations to gather information on people's behaviors and reactions in a different setting, as well as their main concerns and needs. The conferences will be described in section.
To see the transcriptions and listen to recordings, go to APPENDIX D.
4.3 Workshop
4.3.1 Role-playing -The Privilege walk.
This workshop was inspired in the Privilege Walk game where participants experience what it is like to be someone else in their society, in this case within the IT workplace, through role-playing. Engage in role-playing allows a person to “walk in another person’s shoes” in a fictional reality that can be considered “consequence-free”. According to Markus Montola in The Positive Negative Experience in Extreme Role-Playing (2010), players sometimes experience moments where feelings, relationships and thoughts from their real life and physical states spill over into their characters’ and vice versa; this event in role-playing studies is called bleed.
A series of role-playing cards were designed with a detailed profile of working females and males in the IT Industry and handed out to players at random.
3.4 Fast prototyping
The insights generated from the Privilege walk playing-role workshop and the results from the analysis of interviews and apps, provided a great amount of input to begin with the exploration of the materiality of the design intervention.
Since the aim of this project is to raise awareness of the actual and prevailing gender imbalance, the implementation of rapid prototype, which do not intend to evolve into fully functional solution, was the most suitable way to elicit such a state of consciousness and sparking debate.
V. Design Process
5.1 Desktop research and interviews
After reviewing the relevant literature, it was determined that the best way to learn from women’s experiences and values was through ethnographic methods: Interviews, coupled with observations and field work. The motivation to start with informal interviews, as opposed to formal, follows the belief that asking highly constrained questions before participants had enough understanding of the situation, would lead to poor quality answers. As mentioned on the methodology section, four women, aged 28 – 47, from the IT field were interviewed. It is also important to mention that two men from an IT company were also requested to participate in the interview; both declined arguing not being “qualified” to talk about the topic.
The results and the process followed to analyze the interviews are described next:
A code to theory method of analysis was used. Codes are generated from the transcripts and then was possible to interrelate them between participants After the interviews were conducted, the audio recordings were transcribed. A document was created, and notes and reflections were added to make the concept identification process more efficient.
Main concepts found in the Interviews:
Interview #1 Interview #2 Interview #3:
-environment -fight -male
-mimic -be heard -judge
-confidence -anger -toxic
-reflection -role models -toxic environment
-norm -confidence -bias
-needs -separation -awareness
-bias -stereotype -label
-separation -loneliness -ownership
-support -challenge
-power -safe
-fight -exclusionary
-Five salient concepts were identified from this first coding cycle: environment, bias, confidence, power and separation /exclusion.
After a second reading of the transcripts, a second list of concepts was elaborate; common patterns were found between the interviews.
Key concepts II Interview #1 -Cute—stereotype
-Environment –not same opportunities—inequality, stereotypes, gender role
-Hiring people—biased—more men hired by men —gender blindness—unawareness -Lack of confidence—stereotype—gender role.
-Same opportunities to develop your competencies make situation better -Talked a lot of gender role and stereotypes
-Separate—solution
Interview #2
-Be strong—Fight—as a result of the male-environment. -Believe in yourself—lack of confidence —stereotype -Make yourself heard—invisible—microaggression
-Female role models—hidden from women and girls, no one talks about them; only 50% are visible—ignorance—unawareness.
-Rebel —associating being a rebel with a man’s profession such as engineer—stereotype -Chose a “male” profession, like their fathers—mimic environment.
-pay gap—women earn less—gender role.
P3
-Lack of confidence—not a women’s field—insecure -Father believes—stereotypes—gender roles—environment -Separation men and women—did not considered another solution.
-Showed their bias GUI male designer—could be a woman, not a man cause he is in touch with customers—characteristic associated to women: be more social—stereotype—gender role.
-Undervalue themselves—stupid questions feel insecure—feel stressed—they do not know as much as men—gender roles.
-Feel lonely—Jargon-feel left out boy’s club—microaggression -Support—stay together—make team
P4
Interview #3
-Industry is biased—Being judged, ignored— microaggression -women underrepresentation—toxic environment
-the importance on working in teams and communicate—integration
-women are interested already in IT field; the problem is make them to stay— -why women leave—toxic environment—unawareness from male group. -safe space—not being judged—isolation—microaggression
Participants’ attitudes and behaviors during the interview
Although participants two (P2) and three (P3), were both women and active in the Pink programming initiative and have experienced themselves the difficulties of being a woman in the industry, they
hesitate to answer many questions. Usually, their first answer was “I do not know”; it seems like they haven’t given a deep thought on the subject before and they were unaware of some facts related to the topic. As the interview moved forward they were more comfortable and gave more articulated
answers.
On the other hand, participant 4 (P4) brought new ways of approaching the discussion. This might be because “she” stayed in the same careers after the gender transition started, making “her” uniquely qualified to discuss the difference between how men and women experience the workplace. “She” revealed exactly the way one’s outward appearance of gender affects day-to-day interactions; and even sensed some resentment towards men.
Results:
The analysis of the interviews revealed the participants’ values, attitudes, beliefs and their own bias about gender. Common patterns were identified despite the difference between age and gender of the interviewees. It was possible then to identify that one of the main issues they have experience are “microaggressions”. They never used the term, but described specific situations, feeling and effects characteristics of microaggressions. It was clear how some of the answers the gave were completely gendered and even them (the women) being part of a “minority” are sometimes unaware of certain situations that has been internalized and “normalized”.
At this stage is was possible to start focusing on the workplace in the IT field as a potential context to design an intervention.
Conferences and talks:
“Bridging the Gender Gap in IT” (IT University, Copenhagen).
This conference aimed to raise awareness of the causes behind gender imbalances in the field. Researches from Universities in California, London and Copenhagen showed their findings and shared the strategies they have been implemented to attract and retained women and students to computer science majors towards achieving a more balanced field. Others shared their experiences about being a woman in the field and how they have faced the challenges it implies.
“Being a woman in the tech industry”
Despite living in one of the highest-ranking countries concerning gender equality with endless possibilities, a swedish engineer, shared her perspectives, challenges and struggles she has faced as a female student and then as part of the IT working force.
Discussions after the conferences revealed how many women have dropped out the work place in the It field not once but several times; many of them call themselves “nomads” and others described it as a” love-hate relationship” because as much as they enjoy their professions, they have not been able to They also described how “microaggressions” have affected them and how hard is to confront the perpetrators and try to change the situation. They found easier to leave the field; “Too much energy consuming, not worth it” some of them pointed out.
5.2 Workshop
Game-role / Privilege walk activity
Figure 2: Role cards. Source: researcher's own archives.
To gain more insights on how women and men experience workplace and their interactions, a workshop-game-role was designed.
This workshop took place at an IT company workplace in Malmö during working hours, with participants aged between 24-42 from five different cultural backgrounds. 3 women and 4 men participated.
Due to the staff busy agenda, this workshop was postponed two times and suffered some
modifications such as the number of participants which originally was 10, as well as the date and time and duration.
The motivation of making a game-role workshop was because players need to “immerse” themselves in character, so that they understand how they would react and feel to any given situation; then, players could sympathize and empathize with what is going on and make the experience more
genuine. Therefore, by immersing into the reality of another person, men and women would be able to experience (temporarily) firsthand unconscious biases, prejudices and preferences one doesn't realize in the everyday life interactions.
5.2.1 Game and role-playing
Before introducing the workshop, it is important to understand first the difference between everyday life and game. Philosopher, historian and anthropologist Johan Huizinga addresses the problem in his 1938 book Homo Ludens, where he describes play as a free activity standing quite consciously outside “ordinary” life as being “not serious”, but at the same time absorbing the players intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It
proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner (Huizinga 1938, 13). Finally, play is governed by rules that are different from those that people must follow in ordinary life.
As playing begins, a ‘magic circle’ is created. What happens within is interpreted playfully and has no direct effect on the ordinary world. Salen & Zimmerman (2004) take this metaphor and use it as the basis for their magic circle of gameplay. Magic circle is entered voluntary and it is self-sufficient, it is set apart from ordinary life in locality and duration, and it has rules that differ from ordinary life. Although role-playing games have a strong historical connection to games, some game theorists claim that shouldn’t be classified as games at all, due to the fact that most of them lack the winning
condition or fixed rules. Juul and game designers, Zimmerman and Salen comment that these games could be seen as “limit case” games, or borderline cases (Salen & Zimmerman 2004, 81–82; Juul 2003, 39).
Finnish game researcher Markus Montola (2007) argues, that the problem is that the base rules of role-playing games are implicit and thus difficult to grasp. He defines role-playing games through a set of Invisible rules:
1) Role-playing is an interactive process of defining and re-defining the state, properties and contents of an imaginary game world.
2) The power to define the game world is allocated to participants of the game. The participants recognize the existence of this power hierarchy.
3) Player-participants define game world through personified character constructs, conforming to the state, properties and contents of the game world.
For the purpose of this workshop role-playing games are considered as games. However, they might be a little bit closer to the Caillois’ game typology. Role-playing games mix mimicry (pretending to be someone else) with alea (many RPGs use dice to determine some outcomes), as well as agôn (there is a skill to playing) and ilinx (the physical high one gets from doing something very much out of the ordinary). (Caillois, 1958).
In any case, as Heliö (2004) concludes in Role-Playing: A Narrative Experience and a Mindset, the role-playing dimension can, developed, designed and analyzed in several different ways depending on one’s motives.
5.2.2 Workshop design
A series of role-playing cards were designed with a detailed profile of working females and males in the It Industry including traits such as age, civil status, education, professional field experience. Initially, cards were handed out to the participants at random two days before the workshop and were asked to keep the card to themselves during the entire time without revealing their roles to the other players. It is important to note that character creation in role-playing begins long before the players come together into the “magic circle” so they can prepare and begin with the “immersion”, however, as mentioned before, the date, number and some of the participants changed due to work schedule conflicts thus, the cards were handed to the new participants minutes before the workshop started.
The workshop was divided into three stages or phases: 1. Preparation
2. Playing
3. Discussion (in role and out of it)
For the Preparation phase, the participants were requested to start getting into role. The next questions were read out loud and pausing after each one to let the players to reflect and to start building up their lives:
1. How was your childhood like? 2. What is your lifestyle?
3. What kind of neighborhood you live in? 4. What your parents do?
5. Where do you live?
6. What do you do on your spare time? 7. What are your hopes and fears? 8. What is your daily routine? 9. What do you do on weekends?
Then, participants were asked to stay in role for 20 minutes and carry on with their daily tasks at work. Afterwards, the second phase started; players lined up beside each other and the game rules were explained. A series of eighteen statements and questions appeared on a screen and were read as well, if a player could answer “yes” to any of those statements (according to their role), he / she had to step forward otherwise, stayed in place. As the game advanced, players started to notice their
positions in relation to each other’s. As expected, those who played a male character were at the front while those who played a female role were at the back.
The discussion phase, started by asking participants about what happened and how they felt about the activity. At the end of the game, players looked around at the final positions and were asked some questions:
1.How do you feel stepping forward - or not?
2. For those who stepped forward often, at what point did you begin to notice that others were not moving as fast as you were.
3. How easy or difficult was it to play the different roles? How did they imagine what the person? 4. What first steps could be taken to address the inequalities at workplace?
