A response to the critique of gender issues in
computer-supported learning

Cathy Gunn,* Sheila French,** Hamish MacLeod,*** Mae McSporran**** and
Grainne Conole*****

*University of Auckland **Manchester Metropolitan University ***University of

Edinburgh ****Unitec *****University of Southampton

email: ca.gunn@auckland.ac.nz

We find the critique of our paper both interesting and informative. The author raises a
number of points as a caution against oversimplification of the issues surrounding gender
and computer-supported learning. We fully acknowledge the difficulty of reporting
findings from a number of studies and of attempting to define or analyse the complex
interaction of already complex concepts such as gender, identity and behaviour within
computer-supported learning environments.

In response we believe it is important to acknowledge the context in which the article was
written: it summarized the research findings of several authors who together ran a
discussion panel at the ALT Conference in 2001. The authors come from England, New
Zealand and Scotland, have different professional backgrounds and work in different
academic disciplines. We brought a variety of converging backgrounds with respect to
theories of gender to this collaboration, including cognitive, developmental and
experiential (Siann, Durndell, MacLeod and Glissov, 1988; Siann, MacLeod, Glissov and
Durndell, 1990). The common interest we share is in the real business of working with
students in technologically mediated learning environments. We have concerns, based on
direct observations, which we would like others to engage with us about.

Gender issues, we would argue, have not been at the fore of either the ALT journal or
Conference. Our purpose with both the panel and the paper was to raise awareness and to
bring issues that our own and others' research identify as important to the attention of a
wider audience. The paper was neither an in-depth study of gender, nor an analysis of the
social and cultural practices which constitute science and technology. This paper was a
discussion of the panel's findings from their own experiences with reference to published
research from other contexts. Whilst the authors would have liked to explore the issues

80



ALT-J Volume 10 Number 2

further, the length of the paper as well as the complexity of the issues prevented us from
doing so. Fuller reading of the case studies cited can be found in Richardson and French
(2001), McSporran, Dewstow and Young (1999) and McSporran and Young (2001).

In our paper, we have tended to universalize gender, particularly for the women in the
studies. We have not discussed class, ethnicity, educational background or institutional
culture, although our collective experience does make us aware of the impact of these
factors. Whilst we argue we have tried to acknowledge such differences, we may appear to
have fallen into the trap of essentialism. The difficulties of exploring difference in students
without losing the gendered subject, we agree, is complex and problematic. Richardson
and French realized in their study that there seemed to be a presence of 'woman', which, as
reported, was a minority on the course. The experiences of these women compelled the
authors to explore their experiences further. The authors were not blind to these differences
but attempted to recognize them, although this was not covered in the short paper.
However, the authors also recognize that to explore differences among women perhaps
compels us to explore differences among men. This, we suggest, waters down the case of
women and challenges the reasons we raised the issues in the first place. The authors
acknowledge that this is a complex argument of feminist concern (Alcoff, 1997).

Further difficulties and complexities arise when reporting findings from a group of
international authors. We, the authors, are from diverse cultures and different genders.
Bringing together findings based on race, ethnicity, our own gendered experience and that
of our students is almost impossible. We all have our own subjectivities and the cultural
contexts we work in are not comparable. In our individual studies we did find differences in
ethnicity and class, which again varied across countries and cultures. For example,
Richardson and French found their female students to be mainly under thirty, and of
diverse cultures and class. McSporran et al. found the females in their study were mainly
working class, predominantly white but including some Asian and other recent immigrant
groups, as well as mature students returning to work. Most of these women had seen the
usefulness of computers in the workplace and were pragmatic in their choice of courses.
However, our discussion revealed that there is no basis for comparison across the UK and
New Zealand cultures. Social class and the perceived role of women within these cultures
are different, as is the acceptable role of researchers studying cultural groups that they do
not belong to. The ethnic mixes are very different, and so the complexity of definition and
analysis increases. Comparing - or even discussing - this in such a short piece of work was
difficult, if not impossible.

Moving then to the educational aspects, the authors are aware that there is a body of work
from authors such as Clegg, Mayfield and Trayhurn (1999) who discuss the many
discourses around the field of computing. We recognize that these are also complex and
need further exploration, which some of us are pursuing.

To conclude, the discussion raised by Hughes from our original paper has been both
stimulating and informative. The suggestions give the authors a further body of work to
research should they so wish. We feel these discussions can only help to raise the profile of
gender issues in computer-supported learning and hope they will be the start of a new and
stimulating dialogue within the ALT arena. We propose that bringing the various discourses
of gender, identity and computer-supported learning to the attention of academics in all

81



Cathy Gunn et al A response t o the critique of gender issues in computer-supported learning

disciplines will support a move towards the breadth of understanding required to address
imbalances wherever these exist. A parallel to this is the evolution of the discipline of
Human Computer Interaction (HCI) which brought multi-disciplinary perspectives to
software design in order for its products to be suitable for, and accessible to non-specialists.

References
Alcoff, L. (1997), 'Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: the identity crisis in
feminist theory', in L. Nicholson (ed.), The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory,
London: Routledge, 330-55.

Clegg, S., Mayfield, W. and Trayhurn, D. (1999), 'Disciplinary discourses: a case study of
gender in information technology and design courses', Gender and Education, 11 (1),
43-55.

McSporran, M., Dewstow, R. and Young, S. (1999), 'Who wants to learn on-line?
Identifying our flexible learners', Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications Conference, Washington.

McSporran, M. and Young, S. (2001), 'Does gender matter in online learning?', ALT-J, 9
(2), 3-11.

Richardson, H. J. and French, S. (2001), 'Education on-line: what's in it for women?', in
E. Balka and R. Smith (eds), Women, Work and Computerisation: Charting a Course to the
Future, Boston: Kluwer.

Siann, G., Durndell, A., Macleod, H. and Glissov, P. (1988), 'Stereotyping in relation to
the gender gap in participation in computing', Educational Research, 30, 98-103.

Siann, G., Macleod, H., Glissov, P. and Durndell, A. (1990), 'The effect of computer use
on gender differences in attitudes to computers', Computers in Education, 14 (2), 183-91.

82