A Cyberfeminist Utopia Perceptions of Gender and Computer Science Among Malaysian Women Computer...

8/12/2019 A Cyberfeminist Utopia Perceptions of Gender and Computer Science Among Malaysian Women Computer Science Students and Faculty

1/24

A Cyberfeminist Utopia? Perceptions of Gender and Computer Science among MalaysianWomen Computer Science Students and FacultyAuthor(s): Vivian Anette LagesenSource: Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 2008), pp. 5-27Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29734019.

Accessed: 10/11/2013 13:05

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science,

Technology, &Human Values.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 175.144.129.41 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:05:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/29734019?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/29734019?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/24

A CyberfeministUtopia? |o9C%^PerceptionsfGenderand ^JH?r^"Computer Science among _ ?*?*?-*???Malaysian Women ComputerScience Students and FacultyVivian Anette LagesenNorwegian University ofScience and Technology

The low and shrinkingumbers fwomen inhigher omputer cienceeduca?tion is a well-known problem inmost Western countries. The dominant Westernperceptionof therelationship etweengender and computerscience codesthe atters "masculine,"and the lownumber fwomen is seenat leastpartlyas an effect of that coding. Malaysia represents a different case. There arelarge numbers of women in computer science, and computer science is notperceivedas "masculine."Rather, it sdeemed as providingsuitablejobs andgood careers for women. This reflects an understanding of gender wherefemininities are constructed by association to office work, commonly recog?nized as a woman-friendly space because it is seen as more safe and protectedthan, orexample,construction ites and factories. he findings uggestthatgender ndcomputerciencemay bemore diverselyoproducedthancommonlybelieved inWestern research.

Keywords: computer science; gender; technofemimsm; cyberfeminism; cyborgfeminism

Muchresearch has explored the gender-technology relationship toanalyze how women have been excluded from technological fields andhow gendered perceptions and values have worked to shape design as wellas use of technologies. A common claim across an otherwise diverse bodyof research has been thatthis exclusion has been produced through strongrelationship between technoscience and men's performance ofmasculinities(Cockburn 1983,1985; Cockburn andOrmrod 1993; Faulkner 2000; Fergus1993;Hacker 1989,1990; Lie 1998;Mellstr?m 1995;Robinson andMcDwee

1991;Wajcman 1991,2004). An exclusion focus has also dominated studiesof thegendering of computer science, which have primarily explained the5

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


3/24

6 Science, Technology, & Human Values

low and declining number ofwomen inhigher computer science educationinmostWestern countries through wo typesof deficitmodels (Lagesen 2005,14-18): women's deficits (e.g., Brosnan 1998; Borge et al. 1980; Durndellet al. 2000; Kramer and Lehman 1990;Maccoby and Jacklin 1974; Siann1997) and deficits in the educational practices of computer science and itsstudent ulture (e.g.,Cohoon 2002,2006; Gabbert andMeeker 2002; Lagesen2005; Margolis and Fisher 2002; Roberts, Kassiandou, and Irani 2002;Townsend 2002). Furthermore, discriminatory practices and otherminorityproblems have been identified as produced within the culture of computerscience (e.g.,Dambrot et al. 1985; Sperms 1991; Teague 2000). Finally, theimage of computer science has been viewed as "masculine" and thuspronetoexclude women (e.g.,Corneliussen 2002; Edwards 1990; Henwood 2000;Kvande andRasmussen 1989;M?rtberg 1987; Stepulevage and Plumeridge1998;Wright1996).The weakness of thiskind ofnegative-critical analysis is illuminatedwhenwe encounter the case ofMalaysia. Here, women constitute about half ofall students inhigher computer science education (Lagesen 2005; Ng 1999;Othman and Latih 2006). Thus, the exclusion thesisappears quite misplaced.When so fewWestern women studycomputer science, thepalpable questionis,how come manyMalaysian women do? This article aims to explore howtheMalaysian situation is differentby analyzing how Malaysian womenreasoned about theirdecision to studycomputer science?not to explain thedifferencebetween theirdecision-making and that fWestern women.WhydidMalaysian women make thischoice? Did they see computer science asgendered, and if so, inwhat way?Because of theexclusion dominance inprevious research,we know littleaboutwhy the fewWestern women who actually studycomputer science doso. In aNorth American context,Margolis and Fisher characterized womencomputer science students s the"survivorsof the 'boy's club' ofhigh schoolcomputing" (2002, 49). They were skilled and interested in the technicalaspects of computing and derived pleasure from logical thinking.A majorinfluence was parents' careers, interest, and support (see also Teague 2000).Furthermore,Margolis and Fisher observed the importance of "pillars ofpersistence" likebelieving in hardwork rather than in talent and exercisingresistance toward the"male hacker-culture." Similarly,Trauth (2002) foundthat women who chose to study computer science were a diverse group,exposed to different sociocultural influences and experiences and withdifferentways tohandle their situation.However, theysharedbeing an "oddgirl out" as women ina field thatwas dominated bymen and also, by impli?cation, looked upon as a "masculine." What, then, happens when women arenot aminority in computer science as is thecase inMalaysia?



4/24

Lagesen /Computer Science and Gender 7

Cyberfeminism, Cyborg Feminism,and TechnofeminismThe large proportion ofwomen studying computer science inMalaysia

challenges theway Western feminist research has theorized the gendertechnology relationship in termsof exclusion. Do we need to understandthis relationship in a differentway, or does previousWestern research stilloffer fruitful frames of analysis? Is theMalaysian situation less Utopianthanone could believe?

JudyWajcman's (2004) recent review of research on gender and techno?science outlines fourdifferentframes of analysis, covering themain theore?tical positions in thisfield today.Can theywork as accounting resources tounderstand thehigh number ofwomen incomputer science inMalaysia?The firstframe, technoscience reconfigured,"representsthe initialfeministeffort oanalyze thegender-technology relationship.A main achievementwasthe transformation f studies of technoscience fromgender-blind togenderaware (Cockburn 1983, 1985).While celebrating the importance of thisresearch in shaping feministperceptions of technoscience,Wajcman notesseveralweaknesses of thisframe,above all its tendencytoward essentialism.The second framehas emerged under the label of cyberfeminism see, e.g.,Flanagan and Booth 2002; Hawthorne and Klein 1999; Bell and Kennedy2000; Kirkup et al. 2000; Reiche and Kuni 2004). The termencompasses arange of approaches to analyze the relationship between information andcommunication technologies (ICT) and gender, which claim to observeprogress ofwomen innew technological arenas such as theWorld WideWeb (Kennedy 2000). While contributions designated or proclaimed tobecyberfeminist are diverse, they share an optimism concerning women'scomputer-based activities, above all related to theuse of the Internet andnet-based ways of communicating (Kennedy 2000; Wajcman 2004; see alsoWoodfield 2000).While most cyberfeministsdo not deny thatthereare processes that tendtoexclude women (Hawthorne andKlein 1999; Spender 1995), theyalso seethatmany women have become highlymotivated and skilled cybercitizens(see, e.g.,Wakeford 2003). Sadie Plant (1996) offersperhaps themost promi?nent and optimistic cyberfeminist visions. Women, computers, virtual reality,and cyberspace, she argues, are linked together in dispersed, distributedconnections?the matrix, which, because of its inherent feminine character,will emerge as thenew society thatwill destroy patriarchy.However, Plant'svisions have been criticized for ssentialism, lackingcriticalperspective,hypingnew technologies, and overstating the women-friendliness of cyberspace



5/24


(Adam 1997; Hawthorne and Klein 1999; Pohl 1997; Squire 1999; vanZoonen 2002; Wajcman 2004).A related,more pragmatic program of cyberfeminism has been called"the communicative turn" in theuse of computers. It suggests thatcommu?nicative aspects of computer technologies are important tomake womeninterested Nordli 2001; Silverstone and S0rensen 2005). From thisperspec?tive,women are expected toengage with the technology inaway thattran?scends the role of users, finding particular pleasure in the communicationpossibilities (Rasmussen andH?pnes 2003).The thirdframe isbased onDonna Haraway's (1985, 2004) figure of thecyborg, an implosion of human and machine. This perspective suggests afocus on disruptions and ambiguities in relation togender and technology.It advocates the exploration of thewomen-computing relationship, whilepaying particular attention to the complexities and contradictions of thisrelationship.Wajcman (2004, 127) acknowledges Haraway's sensitivity tothecyborg's ambiguous nature. Still, she criticizes cyborg feminism aswellas cyberfeminism forassigning toomuch agency tonew technology and notenough to feministpolitics.To amend thisproblem,Wajcman (2004) introduces the fourth frame ofanalysis, technofeminism.Itemphasizes the need to investigatethegenderingof new technologies toassess criticallyhow technologies are shaped inwaysdetrimental towomen. Technofeminism relies on feministpolitical practicesincombination with feministresearch tochange sociotechnical networks toincludemore women. According toWajcman, this is needed, because theculture of computing is still "predominantly the culture of white Americanmales" (2004, p. 112).Wajcman, nevertheless, sees opportunities forwomentobe attractedto technoscientificsphereswhen "entrydoes notentail co-optionintoaworld of patriarchal values and behaviour" (2004, p. 112).Moreover,she asserts that n increase in thenumber ofwomen inengineering eventuallywill dismantle the strongrelationship between hegemonic masculinity andthe culture of engineering. This latterargument suggests thatquantity isvital to change-gendered practices, cultures, and symbols, implying thatcomputer science may, in fact, be gendered differently inMalaysia (seeLagesen 2007; S0rensen and Berg 1987).These four frames have to be used critically when analyzing womencomputer science students in a non-Western country likeMalaysia since theymay representWestern points of view with respect towomen and technology(seeMohanty 2002; Ong 1995; Stivens 2000). Thus, when I draw on theseframes as accounting resources in the analysis, I can also examine some oftheirunderlying assumptions. For thispurpose,Malaysia may be a critical



6/24


case. Using the irstframe,technoscience reconsidered, theexpectationwouldbe thatMalaysian women get excluded ormarginalized within computerscience. The second frame, cyberfeminism,would suggest thatMalaysianwomen students consider communication a major attraction of new computertechnologies, using this as a way to succeed as computer scientists. Thecyborg feministframe invitesa focus on thepotentially ambiguous gains ofstudying computer science, while the technofeminist frame suggests thatfeminist politics or women's struggles are essential in achieving a largeproportion ofwomen students incomputer science.Moreover, all four framespresuppose thatcomputer science would be gendered and that thiswouldbe apparent from theaccounts ofmy informants.

Malaysia?Women andModernizationI startedmy research by looking forplaces where the number of femaleand male students incomputer science would be roughlyequal. The rationale

was to explore the implications of such a situation with respect topercep?tions of gender and computer science. The University ofMalaya (UM) wasselected asmy field site. It is a large public university situated in thecapital,Kuala Lumpur. The Faculty ofComputer Science and InformationTechnology(FSKTM) was established in themid-1990s. In 2001, women constituted52 percent of the bachelor's students in computer science and 65 percentin information technology at FSKTM. Forty-three percent of themaster'sstudents,and 39 percent of thePhD studentswere women. While thismaylook like a shrinkingpipeline pattern,one has to consider thatmany of themale PhD studentsactuallywere non-Malaysians. The majority of thefaculty,as well as all heads of departments and thedean, were women. This seemsa representativepicture of thegender pattern incomputer science educationfor thewhole ofMalaysia for thepast tenyears (Othman and Latih 2006).Two particular aspects of theMalaysian society should be mentionedhere. First, ICT has been a government priority area fueled by the rapideconomic growth inMalaysia. Ithas been seen as a key to a better future,and the uthorities have strongly ncouraged young people to study T for thepast fifteenyears (Ng 1999, p. 144). Second, the official quota systemprivi?leges indigenousMalays. Itprovides themwith benefits inmost official areas,such as quota protection in education, scholarships, employment, training,trade, business permits, and so on. This gives them advantages in relation to theother largeethnicgroups inMalaysia, Chinese (about 30 percent) and Indians(about 10percent).The governmentcreated theprogram to correct interethnic



7/24


economic imbalances among the ethnic groups, but it is a sensitive andcontroversial issue (Chee-Beng 1997; Luke 2002; Mellstr?m 2003; Ng 1999).Malaysian women constitute a diverse group in terms of ethnicity,

religion, class, and regional cultures, includingurban/rural ifferencesas wellas cultural variationswithin the ethnic groups (Chee-Beng 1997; Oorjitham1984). Thus, one should be careful aboutmaking general claims. Education,however, has played a key role in the swiftmodernization process and hasbeen instrumental inpromoting "national unity" (Mellstr?m 2003; Stivens2000). The governmentmade particularefforts oremedywomen's previouslydisadvantageous educational position througha state-sponsored, large-scaleentryofwomen intomass education and industry (Ong 1995; Yun 1984).Stivens (2000) argues thatthehigh number ofwomen inMalaysian highereducation shows thatparents value education fordaughters asmuch as forsons.Moreover, women play an increasingly importantrole as political andreligious actors, and they also engage with regional and global feminism(Ong 1995; Stivens 2000).

Ong asserts thatMalay women have been made icons ofmodernity bytwo competing institutionsworking to formdifferentpostcolonial nation?alisms: thegovernment and the Islamic resurgence. State-driven programsdictated a series of tasksforwomen, for instance, toraise childrenwith valuessuch as efficiency and self-reliance. "The official discourse on themodernfamily thusdefined women's modern roles: asworking daughterswho couldpull theirfamilies out of 'backwardness' and as housewives (serirumah)whocould inculcate 'progressive' values in their children" (1995, p. 394). Thisfamilymodel supported a more assertive role forwomen at home, raisedtheexpectations forwomen, and granted themnew freedoms (Lie and Lund1994; Ong 1995). However, the Islamic revivalism of the late 1970s andthe early 1980s produced a countermodel, inwhich the Islamic discourse(dakwa) suggested thatwomen should not compete with men in the labor

market. Jobs that involved serving others?for example, as clerks, teachers,and nurses or doctors (attendingwomen and children only)?were preferred(Ong 1995). However, the dakwa has become much less prominent sincethemid-1980s.A common feature of the state-drivenmodernity discourse and thedakwais the centrality of women's role as mothers and wives. Nevertheless, thereis a potential conflictbetween the imageof therelativelyfree and emancipated

working woman and the domesticated, compliant, modest Muslim woman.According toNagata and Salaff (1996), this has intensified the ambiva?lence ofMalay women seekingprofessional careers, and it inhibits potentialcommon sentiment of women across ethnic lines. Both Chinese Malaysian



8/24


and IndianMalaysian women belong to religions (Hinduism), cultures, andmoral systems (Confucianism) that are potentially paternalistic and maysuppresswomen's autonomy (Armstrong 1996;Mellstr?m 2003; Oorjitham1984; Peng 1984). However, Chinese aswell as IndianMalaysians recognizethe importance of higher education, perhaps because of theirdisadvantagedsituations as non-bumiputeras (Chee-Beng 1997;Mellstr?m 2003). Also, the

Malaysian state programs' focus on education and progress has probablyinfluenced all ethnicgroups inMalaysia. A studyof student ttitudes towardslearning touse the Internetfoundno ethnicor gender differences, suggestinga fairlyevenly distributed interest toward ICTs among ethnic groups (Hong,Ridzuan, and Kuek 2003).

MethodData were collected atUM in2001.1 interviewed twentyfemale studentsat FSKTM. Eleven were undergraduates, and nine were master's students

who also worked as tutors. In addition, I interviewed threeheads of depart?ments, the dean, one female lecturer, and two male master's students. Allinformants found itacceptable tobe interviewed inEnglish.I got in touchwith interviewees throughone of themaster's studentswhowere asked tohelp me tomeet others.Using so-called snowball sampling,I reachedmore potential informantsthrough ther students.Generally, peoplewere willing tobe interviewed. he interviews tookplace indifferent ocationson campus.The interviews have been transcribed and analyzed according to themain tenetsof grounded theory Corbin and Strauss 1990), emphasizing themethod of constant comparison across theempirical data (Glaser and Strauss1968). In thepresentation, illustrativequotes from the interviews have beenprovided, often showing thedialogue that took place between me andmyinformants. o let readersmake theirown interpretations,thedialogue hasbeen reproduced close to theoriginal transcriptions.The female students I interviewedwere of different thnic origins: eightwere Chinese Malaysian; threewere IndianMalaysian; and therest, includingfaculty nd thetwomale students, ereMalay. Ethnicity is indicatedby names.Indian students have names thatbegin with an /. Chinese students haveAmerican or Chinese names, and the rest of the names isMalay.My informants aried in terms f age, year of study, nd social background.Since my research questions are analytical-explorative, I consider the set ofinformants obe adequate even ifit snot statisticallyrepresentative. lthough



9/24


ethnie aspects play an importantrole inawider discussion of female studentsinMalaysia, not least because of thebumiputera politics (see, e.g., Luke2002), this is not used as an accounting resource in the article. Rather, theanalysis focuses onwhat the informantssay about themselves and how theydescribe their choice of computer science, in linewith the tenetsofmicrosociological, interactionistapproaches. It isnot an inquiry intoaspects of thewiderMalaysian culture.

Consequently, contextwill be invokedonlywhen the nformants hemselvesaddress it in theiraccounts, mainly through stories about personal experi?ences and background. The selection has been made toprovide a diversityof voices in relation to the research questions. Also, inmy analysis, thecontent of theconcepts ofmasculine andfeminine are seen as continuouslyproduced throughmy informants'account and not as having any pregivenmeaning. Thus, I use quotation marks with these concepts consistentlythroughout this article.

Becoming Students ofComputer ScienceMost ofmy informants id not consider their hoice of computer scienceas special and as something that omen ingeneralwould not consider.Rather,

theysaw their hoice as consistentwith beingwomen. The informants fferedquite varied narratives about theirdecisions. Two aspects emerged as partic?ularly prominent: enthusiasm and instrumentalism concerning computingand computer science. To understand thevariations in thegender-computerscience relationship,we need to explore in detail how thewomen reasonedaround their choice of computer science.What was the role of enthusiasmrelative to instrumentalism,and how didmy informantsaccount for thesemotives?Enthusiasm

Most of theresearch thathas investigatedenthusiasm toward technologyhas looked atmen and theway theyfind pleasure in tinkeringwith tech?nology, including computers (Hacker 1989, 1990; Kleif and Faulkner 2002;Mellstr?m 1995, 2003; Turkle 1984). Computer enthusiasm among girls orwomen has been linked to communication or graphic design and informa?tion retrieval (Rasmussen and H?pnes 2003; Kennedy 2000; Plant 1996).However, it has also been shown to emerge from technological aspects,including a fascination forprogramming (Berg 2000; Corneliussen 2002;



10/24


Nordli 2003). Margolis and Fisher found thatenjoyment of computing wasthe factormost frequentlymentioned among female studentsas theirreasontomajor incomputer science. However, this interestwent beyond technicalaspects. Itwas made meaningful only by invokinghuman and social contexts(2002, 52). Thus, we have threedifferent ideas of where women would findenthusiasm for computers: in human communication, technical aspects, orsocial utility.Were myMalaysian informants nthusiastic about computers,and if so, forwhat reasons?

Actually, quite a few of thewomen were clearly interested incomputers.Some of them had even developed a profound fascination and decided tostudycomputer science when theywere still in school, like Salina:

V: So, why did you choose to study computer science?Salina: Maybe because I'm very interested, actually since I was in form 1.[Standard1-6 isprimary chool; form 1 to form5 is secondaryand higher

secondary school.] I used to sit and tellmy mum: "I am going to be a systemanalyst, or I'm going to be someone who is an expert in computers."V: What interests ou about it?

Salina: Maybe because the computer did something . .. it's amachine and then ...we have to operate that... I don't know ... I just like itvery much (laughing)V: Did you have any experience with the computers when you were younger?Salina: Yes, atmy primary school ... I used to learn basic programming, whenI am in standard 3 or 4,1 think. I used to go to the class every week

Salina was veryenthusiastic. Salina also described thegeneral atmospherein her class as very positive toward computer science. She had no notion ofcomputer science as a "boy thing." In her class of fifty-fiftyoys and girls,everybody enjoyed computing.

V: Did people enjoy computer science or computer subjects in general?Salina: Yeah. And forme, I enjoyed it very much.V: And the thergirls?Salina: Yes, they enjoyed itvery much too. Because our computer teacher?sheis so kind and very generous. She would sit besides us and say, 'This is like

this, and this is like this, okay?" (Laughing)

Clearly, Salina perceived her female teacher as a rolemodel, associatingcomputer science with her generous and careful guidance. This inspiredSalina to want to become a computer science teacher.There were also informantswho had been fascinated with computersbecause theycould be programmed to do things beyond imagination. For



11/24


example,Haifa, who since theage of twelve,had wanted tomake a robot thatcould do all kind of things, includinghousework: "Iwanted todo amachinethatcan do any job ... at that time Iwas twelve years old. I don't know thename of thatmachine, now I know, thatmachine is called robot. So, I'mvery interestedto think bout how tomake life easier." Haifa had completeda bachelor's degree fouryears ago. Now shewas married with threechildrenand wanted topursue amaster's degree in artificial intelligence.Yin Sung was another enthusiastic computer studentworking on hermaster's degree. She had also been introduced to computers as a child andhad wanted tobecome a computer scientist since then: "I wanted tojoin thiscomputer science mostly because ofmy dad. Iwent toPittsburgh for twoyears. . . .My dad was doing his master's there. Itwas very near CarnegieMellon, the top computer school in theworld. So Iwas really ... mymom took courses there, so I was very aspired to become a computerscientists. Iwas veryyoung at the time,around 7 or 8 only.But I rememberit very well."The interestincomputerswas quite often combined with an enthusiasmfor studying computer science because of good job prospects. Computerscience was seen as a path to securewell-paying jobs. Also, many of theenthusiastic women had been encouraged by their parents, particularlyfathers, to study IT.

Clearly, thesewomen shared an enthusiasm forcomputers and computerscience; some had even developed this interest quite early. However,contrary to the cyberfeminist assumption, the enthusiasm was not relatedtocommunication and networks. Itwas mainly related to theunderstandingofcomputers and theability tomanage them,even if thecapability of commu?nication or graphic design was mentioned as well. Itwas also interestingtonote how most of thesewomen combined enthusiasm with accounts thatemphasized how computer sciencewas a sensible choice in termsof a futurecareer and how they took advice from parents and other family very seriously.In a way, itwas a win-win situation. What they wanted to do was sensibleand what theirparents advised them to choose. Computer science did notrepresent any break with paternalism, perhaps rather theopposite.

InstrumentalityA largegroup ofmy informantshad chosen computer science largely forinstrumentalreasons. They had made it their irst choice mainly because ofgood job prospects and career opportunities. Many had also been stronglyencouraged by their arents. For example, Indrani,who was inher third ndfinal year in thebachelor's program. She originally wanted to become a



12/24


veterinarian,buther fatherhad talked her out of that nd suggested computerscience instead:Indrani: Actually, when Iwanted to come into the university, I wanted to study

veterinary science.... But thenmy father was a bit against it,because he saidit isdifficult orgirls togo in that ine inMalaysia. So I had toagreewithhim. ... So, actually, my father suggested for me to do IT or computerscience. Iwas a bit interested in computers also. . . .V: What was your father's argument for you to study computer science?Indrani: He said that there is a lot of job opportunities coming up. . . .He toldme, "You can have your master's and PhD, and you can earn enough moneyfor your master's and PhD." I said like, "All right." I am glad he told me.

Clearly, Indrani paid a lotof attention toher father's advice. She said shewanted torespecthiswishes because of appreciation forhim andwhat he haddone forher.The norm about followingparents' suggestions or request abouteducational choice was widespread. Ah Ling started to study computerscience because she "obeyed" her father, s she said in a humoristic tone:Hmm ... it's a long story (laughter). Like, I told you, right, that I like sociology.I like psychology. Actually, these were my first choices formy undergrad.But because my dad, he is a teacher, and he is quite realistic, so he saysthat if I. . .Like, inMalaysia it is not very applicable if I study psychology.He means, [I] cannot gain more money, but this is not true inUK and othercountries; tonlyapplies forMalaysia. So, [that s]whymy dad says:cannotSo I just "obey" my dad and take computer science. But that is, at that time,a very famous course. And my brother is also in IT line. So, I think he couldhelp me. So I just. . . take it.

Why were theparentsof thesewomen so eager toencourage theirdaughtersto study computer science? One obvious suggestion is the fact that theMalaysian government had been urging people to study IT, particularlyduring the 1990s. Also, theprofound priority given to a conspicuous ITproject inMalaysia, like theMulti-media Super Corridor (MSC), was prob?ably an important backdrop of these parents' perceptions of future job oppor?tunities.This was suggested by Supryia.When asked aboutwhy she started,she said, "It is because ofmy father's advice. Because during that timeperiod itwas, thatwas in early in 1990s ... if I am notmistaken thatwasin 1993, when thegovernment start[ed] tourgeMalaysian people to studyIT.And that'swhat made my fatheradvised me todo so, choose thisfield,especially IT So I just follow this advice, and I am quite satisfied in this



13/24


field. Iwant tobe a professional incomputing, on IT and computer-relatedfields."Another master's student, adaah, had studiedmarketing in theUnitedStates. She had decided tochange tocomputer science because "Malaysia isnow turningto technology and computing."Also, she found that toomanyMalaysians at herU.S. university studiedmarketing. She wanted to changeto IT tobemore competitive.Even ifmost of thewomen students I spoke with had been encouragedby theirparents, particularly theirfathers, therewere exceptions. Rafiah, amaster's student,came froma small village in theprovinces and grew up astheoldest child in a familywhere no one had higher education and whereher family did not highly value having an education. They did not supporther decision to take amaster's degree. Rafiah was quite troubled whenI interviewed her. She felta pressure from her family tofinish her master'sso she could starttowork and earnmoney tohelp with theirfinancial prob?lems.Rafiah wanted tobreak away from the kind of life her parents livedand find better opportunities throughan education and a career.The obligation and pressure toprovide foryounger siblingsor older retiredparents was a recurrent theme among other women students, even if no oneelse was inRafiah's situation. Itwas a consideration that ntered theirplansfor their future.Even first-year students thoughtabout this:

V: Have any of you thought about doing amaster's?Sheryl: I think about it, but itdepends ... on my family condition. I have to . . .because have a brother, he is doing engineering courses at the other university,cause there are only two of us in our family. And thenmy parents are already

old, if . . . after three years?because my brother have to study four year inthe engineering course?so after three years, if I graduate, I don't work, sohow should I afford my family, my parents.V: What about you?Mei Wee: Mostly the same thing as her. Because I'm the oldest, and my fatheris retiring soon, so after that there will be no income formy family. So, whenI graduate, I still have to support my brother, he is quite young.

Even ifmany of thewomen had been persuaded or encouraged by theirparents to study computer science, most of them found computer science tobe an interesting subject. They also acknowledged that the choice to studycomputer science was sensible and wise because of the good job prospects.However, often thewomen admitted thatwith complete freedom, theywouldhave elected something else. But, as Sheryl commented, "Parents alwaysobject (laughter) ifyou want to learn artormusic."



14/24


An evenmore severe conflict of interestwas evident from the interviewwithAzizah, a first-yearstudent.She had wanted to studymedicine andwasnot at all happy to end up in the computer science program. She was theyoungest and only daughter inher family.Her mother,who had recentlydied,had wanted her tobecome a doctor. Since shewas not admitted tomedicine,her father nd brothers had persuaded her to studycomputer science instead.During the interview,itbecame clear that zizah was quite indignant aboutthispersuasion and that shewas admitted to computer science instead ofmedicine. For two years, she had prepared to studymedicine, but Azizahfound it importanttofollow her father'swish. However, shewas consideringstudyingmedicine aftercompleting her computer science degree.

Clearly, itwas not easy togo against thefamily'swill in thechoice of edu?cation.The norm thatyou should follow your family's/parent's/father'sishesout of love and respectwas strong.However, the interviewwith Azizah alsodemonstrated her anger of being put in this situation and also her agency, herwill toget out of this conflict of interest etween herself and her family.

Perceptions ofGender and Computer SeieneeThe absence of gender as an accounting resource inmy informants'narrativeswas striking, ompared to the constructionofgender and computerscience as an amalgam ofmen/umasculinities" and technologies so prevalentinWestern research (see, e.g.,Wajcman 1991, 2004). Since men's power

mainly seemed tobe mediated throughthefamily,thegendering of computerscience was differentfromWajcman's concept of technofeminism. So howwas computer science gendered among my informants?A general observationwas theclose linkbetween theperceptions of whatwas considered "masculine" and "feminine" and the number ofmen andwomen in thearea. If an area was observed tobe dominated bymen, itwasperceived as "masculine." With a sufficiently large number ofwomen, thefieldwas seen as suitable forwomen or deemed "feminine."However, othersymbolical aspects were also invokedwhen we discussed gender.To begin with, computer science was not at all deemed "masculine."Rather, itwas described as differentfromareas thatwere considered "mas?culine," like engineering. Dr. Mazliza, a young head of department, put itlike this: "I never thought of computer science as a masculine subject. . . .You know, engineering is something thatpeople see asmasculine, or geology.But not computer science. I don't see what is masculine about computerscience." Computer science was frequently compared to engineering to explain



15/24


why itwas not seen as masculine. Azizah and Maimunah did this in aninteresting nd illuminatingway:

Maimunah: You can say that computer science . . . this computer science courseismeant to be for women instead of guys. Imean, guys usually go for engi?neering, architecture, contractors, that kind of jobs.V:Why?

Azizah: Out. Because it is out, not in the office, they're doing outside.Maimunah: They get exposed a lot.Azizah: Exposed, yeah. More dangerous.Maimunah: Except for us, for girls, they expect us to stay in the office, to do that

kind of work.

It seemed that the basis to characterize engineering as "masculine" was, inaddition tobeing an area thatmen oftenchose, thatitrequiredwork outdoors.You could be exposed to the sun and tomen workers. Computer science, ontheotherhand, could be considered "feminine" or at least suitable forwomenbecause itwas associated with office work. Itmeant working indoors,perhaps mostly with otherwomen. Sadaah, amaster's student,formulatedit like this: "But inMalaysia, therearemany in IT science, many womenalso enternow. They just like it es. To do technology, right? They want todo more. And ifwe work with computers,we don't have togo out, right?We can just sit there in the office." The notion that towork indoorswasmost suitable forwomen was explained by reference to security,as shownabove. Also, gender discrimination inenvironments dominated bymen wasperceived as a potential barrier:

V: What do you considertobe thetypicalfemale subjecthere?Mei Wee: Hmm ... I think office work. Business . .. computer science ... doctors... dentist. Actually there are quite a lot of jobs forwomen. I think engineeringis still a male-dominated area. There are few females in engineering.V:Why do you think t s like that?Mei Wee: Maybe ... for engineering, where you have to build buildings, right?And engineers are required to go to the site to check the building constructions,stuff like that... because they have to converse with the laborers. And I heardfrom my friends, they say that, laborers don't really respect women. So, it'sbetter formen to go down to talk to the laborers.V: (To Sheryl) You thought about studying engineering. Did you think of it as a

"masculine" subject?Sheryl: Yes, but I think it ismore about civil engineering. Chemical engineeringismore to the female side. Because in chemical engineering, most of the timeyou work in labs, testing the stuff like that. So I think it's quite suitable for



16/24


females also. But for civil engineering, I never thought about that. Because,like she said, we have to go to the site and check out the constructions. Because,Idon't likesunlight laughter). o, you see, Iwon't choose civilengineering.

Not all typesof engineeringwere seen as "masculine"; chemical engineeringwas mentioned bymany as themost popular choice forwomen. However,the perception of civil engineering as a clearly "masculine" field seemedwidespread (see alsoMellstr?m 2003).

Not all specialities within computer science were perceived equally suit?able formen and women:V: So, did any of you think of computer science to be a predominantly malesubject?Sheryl:Not really, think t isquite equal.Mei Wee: But maybe on the hardware side it is more males than females,

because they have to carry the computer around, with wires and stuff.Sheryl: Like network, we have to learn about circuits, electronic circuits; I don't

like electronics (laughter).V: Is thatmore of a male subject, you think?All: YeahV: If this ismore of the male part of computer science, do you think there are

any parts that are more suitable for females?Sheryl: I think software engineering and Management Information Systems

(MIS) ismaybe more suitable for females. Because, software engineering ismore to the programming side ... not so much about physical stuff, youknow, the electronic circuits (everyone laughing).

This way of reasoning inrelation togender and computer science was quitecommon among my informants. Samantha, one of the master's students,maintained that"a lot of boys likenetworking, but girls likemore of theorythings." Sheryl put it in a similarway: "Hmm. . . .Among all the fourmajors, I think software is the best choice. Because networking is . . .I thinkmost thepeople are guys, because it involves physics, electronics."Setting up networks required traveling to customers, thus raising a securityissue as well. However, some women choose to specialize in networksbecause it is seen as a "masculine" field. Fatimah chose computer networksbecause itwas dominated bymen, and she wanted to compete with men.In addition, she did not like reading and the speciality required less readingthan other fields.Maimunah was also attracted tonetworks because of thelack ofwomen in thefield: "I think 'm impressed by that, ecause I can seea woman. Because, usually, I see like a few friends, and my cousin, and theyare all guys. The ones that have done networking, they are all guys. I want



17/24


tobe thefirstwoman in thefamily,the irst." he woman Maimunah referredtowas Dr.Mazliza, head of theNetworking Department and also quite young.She was an important role model. Fatimah said, "She is very eligible. Ihad class with her lastyear, and she isvery ... Iwould like tobe like her "Clearly Dr. Mazliza, and also theother heads and thedean, served as rolemodels for the female students. This may explain why somany intervie?wees wanted tobecome lecturers incomputer science. In fact,nearly all thewomen I interviewedwanted tobecome university lecturers.Theymentionedseveral reasons, including the flexible job situation. Some, likeAh Ling,had worked as software engineers inan ICT company:

Okay. ... As I told you before, Iwas a software engineer. We started work atseven o'clock, and we came back from work normally at seven or eight p.m.So, one can say that the whole day is sold to a company. So, that kind of lifeis not the life that Iwant... that's why I came back to school to do my mastercourse, is tomake me become a maybe lecturer at university or colleges. Sothat's the way tomake me have more time, flexi-time to take care ofme and

my future family.

Sadaah, theonly onewith a family,had also been working in the CT industry:Sadaah: After Imarried,before that like to travel, o after married, I don't

want that, I just want to relax. So, we have a family right, so I don't want torush nymore laughing).V: But you still want towork?Sadaah: Yes, I still want towork. I just want to be a lecturer. So, my husband also

says that, better you be a lecturer so you can take care of your family right?You don't have to travel... lecturer also travel, but not somuch right, so youhave to take care of your family, because men always busy right? And then itis nobody to take care ofmy son. So, I want to be a lecturer.

Less traveling and exposure (compared to working in industry) wereimportant reasons to pursue an academic career. Salina also emphasizedthatworking in the ICT business involvedmore barriers towomen thanteaching because of security issues.Women could not stay in the office to

work late.Like inmanyWestern countries, a lotof theMalaysian women studentslacked previous experience or knowledge of computing when theyentered

the program. Interestingly, compared toWestern research (e.g., Margolisand Fisher 2002), very few complained about this.Usually, they said thatitwas just amatter ofworking hard, and then theywould catch up:



18/24


Ah Ling: I toldmyself; just studyhard, study mart, ocatchup. So, now I have.Hard (and smart)work was thepreferredstrategytocope with lack of know?ledge and experience in computing. Moreover, therewas a widespreadbelief thatwomen worked harder thanmen. Also the idea thatChinese andIndian studentsworked harder thanMalays was present,but thisapplied firstand foremost tomale students.

However, some of thefirst-year students seemed to think thatmen werebetterat programming thanwomen. Indranimentioned thatshe saw genderdifferences inhow men and women coped with programming:

Indrani: The other girls . . .basically, most of the girls don't like programming.Even my friends, when we talk together, we don't like programming, becauseit is a bit hard for us to understand. And we don't know how guys can under?stand itbetter. So ... but I think, ifwe just keep on studying it,we tend tounderstand. I just have to go through itmore times. Then I understand.

Thus, thedomination and perceived superior competence ofmen was notconsidered a real problem and definitivelynot by themaster's studentswhodid notmention such experiences at all. For the female bachelor's students,itbecame even more importantto studyhard.

A Different Computer Science?Perhaps not surprisingly, alaysia was not a cyberfeminist utopia. Therewere many women incomputer science, but theydid not particularly excel

incommunication, nor did they ind theirsituationunambiguously liberating.Rather, we learnt that therewere high demands in termsof efforts,similartoOng's (1995) and Harris's (2004) observations of thedifferent,difficult,and contradictory expectations toward young women. My informants toldtheywere subjected tonumerous demands. Many felt a pressure to sustaintheirfamily's finances and toprovide forelderly parents aswell as youngersiblings. Also, the expectation to be an obedient daughter was evident, thecosts ofwhich were well illustratedbyAziza's situation.The expectationsalso included gettingmarried and having children.Most ofmy informantssaid theywanted that,but they lso wanted tocombine having a familywitha career. Being a successful career woman was important to them. Thus, inthese young women's narratives, there is a mix of individualized and, in aWestern sense, "modern" discourses (see Ong 1999 fora critical discussion)



19/24


about opportunities and aspirations, as well asmore "traditional" familybound concerns.

How do thefindings concur with the four analytical frames discussedpreviously on the basis ofWajcman's review of main perspectives ongender and technoscience? To begin with,we have observed a coproductionof gender and computer science thatappears different,more complex, andless stereotypical than implicated by themain body ofWestern research.It is importanttonote, though, thatmy informantsdid not offer sponta?neous comments about the relationship of gender and computer science.However, when I asked, theywillingly provided gendered accounts, but theywere dissimilar to those thatdominate Western research. First, computersciencewas constructed as a discipline well suited forwomen, not as a mas?culine recluse. Second, gender was invoked in a differentway. Physicalactivities likeworking with electronics and mechanical objects were lookedupon as "masculine," in contrast to software engineering and programming.The latterwere deemed as "theoretical" and thusfittingforwomen. In fact,a gendered dichotomy of thephysical and the theoreticalwas quite prevalent.Supposedly, women liked theory,while men preferred (and were better at)technical and practical tasks related to thecomputer.Thus, there eems tobe a complex coding ofgender inrelation tocomputerscience,mediated bywhat isperceived as "suitable" forwomen. This reflectsan understanding of genderwhere women are associated with being indoorsand with being protected, and a perception of theoffice as awoman-friendlyplace, compared to spaces like construction sites and factories. In contrastto the dominant exclusion focus in the "technoscience revisited" frame,computer science was deemed particularly suitable forwomen.

Considering the level of enthusiasm among my informants toward awide range of aspects of computer science, there is also littlesupportfor thecyberfeministbelief thatcommunication iswomen's main preferencewithrespect to computers. The women I interviewed were not particularly enthu?siastic about communicative aspects of computer science or other "soft"features. Their objects of fascination included what many Westernersperceive as "masculine" areas, like software engineering, programming, andhardware. Thus, thecyberfeministframe did notwork well as an accountingresource either.The high proportion of women among Malaysian computer sciencestudentswas not a result of any technofeministpolitics. The national policythat seemed to have influenced the recruitment of women to computerscience, in fact, encouraged all young people to study IT. Furthermore,practically all thewomen I interviewed emphasized that theirmotivation to



20/24


study computer science was linked to theirgoal of getting a well-paid andsecure job. However, fromWajcman's (2004) perspective, itmay be appre?ciated that the largernumber ofwomen in computer science inMalaysiaseemed tomake the culturemore welcoming to them.When analyzing the discourse in the technofeminist frame, themoststriking eaturewas the lackof "masculine" references, nparticularthe bsenceof a hacker or computer geekmythology. Also, thewomen's willingness toinvest in hardwork and, above all, theirbelief in thepotential of hardworkto solve problems, counteractedmythological ideas (see alsoMargolis andFisher 2002).

Arguably, it is the cyborg feminism frame thatoffers themost fruitfultheoretical ccount ofmy observations, through tsemphasis on theambiguous,complex, and also changeable natureof thegender-technoscience relationship.The frame invites a refusal of a unilateral glorification of technoscience aswell as a rejection of it. It is both/and, not either/or. t is inclusion as wellas exclusion. To theMalaysian female students, computer science seemedto act likeHaraway's (1985) trickster?it offeredmany new and interestingopportunities of becoming skilled, valued, and important,yet itpresented away of combining empowerment with the acceptance of a paternal systemas well as gender differentiatingpractices thatdefinitelyworked in theirdisfavor.

In thisarticle, I have above all tried to show thecomplexity ofmy infor?mants' coproduction of gender and computer science,which?when alignedtoWestern research?allows greaterdiversity inunderstanding therelation?shipbetween gender and computer science. In fact,female computer sciencestudents inWestern institutionsmay also protest or counter the codingof theirdiscipline as "masculine" (Lagesen 2005). Gansmo, Lagesen, andS0rensen (2003) provide a good example of the dangers inherent in thisresearch. They show how the generalized hacker figure created by socialscientists to criticize theproblematic effectof a particular formof "mas?culinity" on computer practices lives on as amyth thatyoung women useas an argument to stay away fromcomputers. The scientific statementsweproduce about theworld may be repercussive. As Haraway (1985) puts it,we have a responsibilityforthemonsters createdby our research,butperhapseven more important, we should try to avoid creating them.

ReferencesAdam, A. 1997. What should we do with cyberfeminism? InWomen in computing, edited byR. Lander and A. Adam, 17-27. Exeter, UK: Intellect.



21/24


Armstrong, J. 1996. Twenty years of domestic service: A Malaysian Chinese woman in change.Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 24 (1): 64-83.Bell, D., and B. Kennedy. 2000. The cybercultures reader. London and New York: Routledge.Berg, V. A. L. 2000. Firkanter og rundinger. Kj0nnskonstruksjoner blant kvinnelige datain

geni0rstudenter ved NTNU [Squares and circles. Gender constructions among womencomputer science engineer students atNTNU]. Skriftserien 3/2000. Trondheim, Norway:Centre for feminist and gender studies,Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Borge, M. A., A. Roth, G. T. Nichols, and B. S. Nichols. 1980. Effects of gender, age, locus ofcontrol and self esteem on estimates of college grades. Psychological Reports 47:831-37.Brosnan, M. 1998. Technophobia: The psychological impact of information technology.

London: Routledge.Chee-Beng, T. 1997. Chinese identities inMalaysia. Southeast Asian Journal ofSocial Science25 (2): 103-17.Cockburn, C. 1983. Brothers: Male dominance and technological change. London: Pluto Press.-. 1985.Machinery of dominance. Women, men and technical know-how. London: Pluto.Cockburn, C, and S. Ormrod. 1993. Gender and technology in themaking. London: Sage.Cohoon, J.M. 2002. Recruiting and retaining women in undergraduate computing majors.SIGSCE Bulletin 34 (2): 48-53.-. 2006. Retaining women in undergraduate computing. In Women and information

technology: Research on underrepresentation, edited by J.M. Cohoon andW. Aspray,205-39. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Corbin, J.,andA. Strauss. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory?rocedures and

techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Corneliussen, H. 2002. Diskursens makt?individets frihet.Kj0nnede posisjoner i diskursenom data [The power of the discourse?the freedom of the individual. Gendered positionsin the discourse of computing]. PhD diss., University of Bergen, Norway.Dambrot, F. H., M. A. Watkins-Malek, S. M. Silling, R. S. Marshall, and J.A. Garver. 1985.Correlates of sex differences in attitudes toward and involvement with computers. Journal

ofVocational Behaviour 27:71-86.Durndell, A., Z. Haag, D. Asenova, and H. Laithwaite. 2000. Computer self efficacy and gender.InWoman, work and computerization: Charting a course to thefuture, edited by E. Balkaand R. Smith, 78-85. Vancouver, Canada: Kluwer.Edwards, P. 1990. The Army and themicroworld. SIGNS: Journal ofWomen inCulture andSociety 16 (1): 102-7.Faulkner, W. 2000. Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science30 (5): 759-92.Fergus,M. 1993.A separate reality: Science, technology andmasculinity. InGendered bydesign?

Information technology and office systems, edited by E. Green, J.Owen, and D. Pain, 64-80.Bristol, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Flanagan, M., and A. Booth. 2002. Reload. Rethinking women + cyberculture. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Gabbert, P., and P. H. Meeker. 2002. Support communities forwomen in computing. SIGSCEBulletin 34 (2): 62-66.Gansmo, H. J.,V. A. Lagesen, and K. H. S0rensen. 2003. Forget the hacker? InHe, she and

IT?Revisited, edited byM. Lie, 34-68. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Glaser, B., andA. L. Strauss. 1968. The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.



22/24


Hacker, S. 1989. Pleasure, power and technology: Some tales of gender, engineering and thecooperative workplace. Boston: Unwin Hyman.-. 1990. Doing it the hard way: Investigations of gender and technology. Boston: UnwinHyman.

Haraway, D. 1985. A manifesto for cyborgs. Socialist Review 15 (2): 65-107.-. 2004. The Haraway reader. New York: Routledge.Harris, A. 2004. Future girl. Young women in the twenty-first entury.New York: Routledge.Hawthorne, S., and R. Klein. 1999. Cyberfeminism: Introduction. InCyberfeminism. Connectivity,

critique + creativity, edited by S. Hawthorne and R. Klein, 1-16. Melbourne: Spinifex.Henwood, F. 2000. From thewomen question in technology to the technology questionin feminism?Rethinking gender equality in IT education. European Journal ofWomenStudies 1 (2): 209-27.Hong, K. S., A. A. Ridzuan, and M. Kuek. 2003. Student's attitudes toward the use of theInternet for learning:A study of a university inMalaysia. Educational Technology & Society6 (2): 45-49.Kennedy, B. 2000. Introduction. InThe Cybercultures reader, edited byD. Bell and B. Kennedy,283-90. London and New York: Routledge.Kirkup, G., L. Janes,K. Woodward, and F. Hovenden, eds. 2000. The gendered cyborg. London:

Routledge.Kleif, T., and W. Faulkner. 2002. "I'm not an athlete, but I can make this thing dance " Men's

pleasures in technology. Science Technology and Human Values 28 (2): 296-325.Kramer, P. E., and S. Lehman. 1990.Mismeasuring women: A critique of research on computer

ability and avoidance. SIGNS: Journal ofWomen inCulture and Society 16(1): 158-71.Kvande, E., and B. Rasmussen. 1989. Men, women and data systems. European Journal of

Engineering Education 14 (4): 369-79.Lagesen, V. A. 2005. Extreme make-over? The making of gender and computer science. PhDdiss. STS-report 71/2005. Trondheim: Centre for Technology and Society, Norwegian

University of Science and Technology.-. 2007. The strengthof numbers. Strategies for including women into computer science.Social Studies of Science 37 (1): 67-93.Lie, M. 1998. Computer dialogues. Technology, gender and change. Skriftserien 2/98. Trondheim:Centre forFeminist and Gender Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Lie, M., and R. Lund. 1994. Renegotiating local values: Working women and foreign industryinMalaysia. Richmond, VA: Curzon.Luke, C. 2002. Globalisation and women in Southeast Asian higher education management.Teachers College Record 104 (3): 625-62.Maccoby, E. E., and C. N. Jacklin. 1974. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.Margolis, J., and A. Fisher. 2002. Unlocking the clubhouse: Women incomputing. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Mellstr?m, U. 1995. Engineering lives. Technology, time and space in a male-centred world.PhD diss., Link?ping studies in art and science no. 128. Link?ping, Sweden: Link?ping

University.-. 2003. Masculinity, power and technology: A Malaysian ethnography. Hampshire,UK: Ashgate.Mohanty, C. T. 2002. Under Western eyes' revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist

struggles. Signs: Journal ofWomen in Culture and Society 28 (2): 499-534.



23/24


M?rtberg, C. 1987. Varf?r har programmeryrket blivit mannligt? [Why has the occupation ofprogramming become masculine?]. TULEA 1987:042. Lule?, Sweden: Tekniska H?gskolaniLulea.

Nagata, J., and J.W. Salaff. 1996. Introduction. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science24(1): 1-18.

Ng, C. 1999. Positioning women inMalaysia: Class and gender in an industrializing state.London: Macmillan.Nordli, H. 2001. From "Spice girls" to cybergirls: The role of multimedia in the constructionof young girls' fascination for and interest in computers. In Social learning technologies,edited byM. van Lieshout, T. Egyedi, and W. E. Bijker, 110-33. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

-. 2003. The net is not enough. Searching for the female hacker. PhD diss, STS-report61/2003, Trondheim, Centre forTechnology and Society, Norwegian University of Scienceand Technology.

Ong, A. 1995. State versus Islam: Malay families, women's bodies and the body politic.In Bewitching women, pious men: Gender and body politics in Southeast Asia, edited byA. Ong and M. G. Peletz, 159-94. Berkeley: University of California Press.-. 1999. Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.

Oorjitham, K. S. S. 1984. Indian women in urban Malaysia?A sociological approach.InWomen inMalaysia, edited by H. A. Yun, N. S. Karim, and R. Talib, 13-126. KualaLumpur, Indonesia: Pelanduk.

Othman, M., andR. Latih. 2006. Women incomputer science: No shortagehere CommunicationsofACM 49 (3): 111-14.Peng, C. O. 1984. Traces of Confucianist influence onMalaysian Chinese women and its impli?cations. In Women inMalaysia, edited by H. A. Yun, N. S. Karim, and R. Talib, 174-86.Kuala Lumpur, Indonesia: Pelanduk.Plant, S. 1996. On thematrix: Cyberfeminist simulations. InCultures of Internet:Virtual spaces,real histories, living bodies, edited by R. Shields, 170-83. London: Sage.Pohl, M. 1997. The Internet?A "feminine" technology? InWomen in computing, edited byR. Lander and A. Adam, 190-97. Exeter, UK: Intellect.Rasmussen, B., and T. H?pnes. 2003. Gendering technology. Young girls negotiating ICTand gender. InHe, she and IT?Revisited, edited by M. Lie, 173-97. Oslo: Gyldendal

Akademiske.Reiche, C, and V. Kudi, eds. 2004. Cyberfeminism: Next protocols. New York: Autonomedia.Roberts, E., M. Kassiandou, and L. Irani. 2002. Encouraging women in computer science.SIGCSE Bulletin 34 (2): 84-88.Robinson, G. J., and J. S. Mcllwee. 1991. Men, women and the culture of engineering. The

Sociological Quarterly 32 (3): 403-21.Siann, G. 1997.We can, we just don't want to. InWomen in computing, edited by R. LanderandA. Adam, 113-21. Exeter, UK: Intellect.Sil verstone, R., and K. H. S0rensen. 2005. Towards "the communication society." InMedia,

technology and everyday life inEurope, edited by R. Silverstone, 213-22. Aldershot, UK:Ashgate.S0rensen, K. H., and A.-J. Berg. 1987. Genderization of technology among Norwegian engi?neering students. Acta Sociol?gica 30 (2): 151-71.Spender, D. 1995. Nattering on thenet:Women, power and cyberspace. Melbourne: Spinifex.

Spertus, E. 1991. Why are there sofew female computer scientists? MIT Artificial IntelligenceLaboratory Technical Report 1315. Cambridge, MA: MIT.



24/24


Squire, J. 1999. Fabulous feminist futures and the lures of cyberculture. In The cyberculturesreader, edited by D. Bell and B. Kennedy, 360-373. London and New York: Routledge.

Stepulevage, L., and S. Plumeridge. 1998. Women taking positions within computer science.Gender and Education 10 (3): 313-26.Stivens,M. 2000. Becoming modern inMalaysia. In Women inAsia: Tradition, modernity and

globalisation, edited by L. Edwards andM. Roces, 16-38. St Leonards, Australia: Allen &Unwin.Teague, J. 2000. Women incomputing: What brings them to it,what keeps them in it?GATES

5(1): 45-59.Townsend, G. C. 2002. People who make a difference: Mentors and role models. SIGSCEBulletin 34 (2): 57-62.Trauth, E. M. 2002. Odd girl out: An individual differences perspective on women in the IT

profession. Information Technology & People 15 (2): 98-118.Turkle, S. 1984. The second self: Computers and the human spirit.New York: Simon & Schuster,van Zoonen, L. 2002. Gendering the Internet: Claims, controversies and cultures. EuropeanJournal ofCommunications 17(1): 17-23.Wajcman, J. 1991. Feminism confronts technology. Oxford, UK: Polity.-. 2004. Technofeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Wakeford, N. 2003. The embedding of local culture in global communication: independentinternetcafes inLondon. New Media and Society 5 (3): 379-99.Woodfield, R. 2000. Women, work and computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wright, R. 1996. The occupational masculinity of computing. InMasculinities inorganizations,edited by C. Cheng, 77-96. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Yun, H. A. 1984.Women and work inWest Malaysia. InWomen inMalaysia, edited byH. A. Yun,N. S. Karim, and R. Talib, 234-312. Kuala Lumpur, Indonesia: Pelanduk.

Vivian Anette Lagesen is currentlya postdoctoral fellow in theDepartment of InterdisciplinaryStudies ofCulture at theNorwegian University of Science and Technology.

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lolitaesque
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

A Cyberfeminist Utopia Perceptions of Gender and Computer Science Among Malaysian Women Computer...

Documents