by WIM 40+ member, Ellen Lichtig
Institute for Women and Technology
Systers
Silicon Valley Events
If there was an essence to be had from the presentation at the WIM 40+ gathering
held at its new location in the offices of Alumnae Resources, it was this: Women,
now is the time to pull together to make technology be for us.
It was a message made even more encouraging to each of us present as we heard
about a stream of already powerful contributions by this month's unique speaker at
WIM. She is Anita Borg, Ph.D., respected computer scientist, international
symposium organizer, International Women's Hall of Fame winner, and Director of
the newly-organized Institute for Women and Technology, all of which has aptly
reflected her own strong desire to support women in our technical fields. (The
latter organization, in particular, has been founded to facilitate research and
development projects that will enable technology applications to become more
relevant to women and our needs). Most recently, Anita has won grants from such
major corporate players as Hewlett Packard, Sun and Xerox. It's all a wow, an
exciting time to realize what opportunities exist and will continue to unfold as
more and more women choose a place at this technology table too.
To inspire, Anita started out her presentation with a question for all of us.
What do all of these products have in common: brown paper bags, liquid paper,
compiler options, disposable diapers, torpedo guidance
systems, and foundations for object-oriented programming? And the answer? All are
technically-sophisticated products invented by women. We may not know their names
but the contributions they've made have had an undeniable impact worldwide.
Which has led us to this time, our age, where technology and democracy figure
prominently in our search for ubiquitous impact. But before we can go charging
ahead and ride out the waves in boats of our own making, Anita offered a helpful
orientation: to understand the current state of technology, you have to look at
technology's promise (as well as lack of it), and, of course, its chief
beneficiaries. More simply, is technology good or bad and for whom? We looked at
four categories to settle into a point of view.
Economically speaking, it's been said that since the introduction of the Internet
and the web, processes are more efficient and ecologically-minded, jobs have
become accessible over great distances, and the knowledge economy is now more
likely to expand with fewer constraints than ever before.
Of course, our economy is also exposed to vulnerabilities as never before (Y2K),
with imposed Internet influences taking away our privacies and actually
controlling more of us, piece by piece. As a culture we've also begun to
experience an increased stratification with rich and poor (20% of our population
lives under the poverty line). Computer technology may actually end up hurting
whole segments of the population then, especially kids who are poor.
Socially speaking, the dichotomy is rather visible too. The possibilities for
making connections and understanding cross cultures has never been so promising,
and all kinds opportunities have cropped up, allowing us to interact in ways never
before possible. For example, universal education and better delivery of health
care are both quite viable now.
And then again, access to both these potential innovations may become available to
only the smallest slice of our population, not to mention the danger of its
reverse, that access to information may now get into the hands of an unruly few,
and be applied in ways we would never hope for, less imagine.
Politically speaking, new ways of voting, the potential for more comprehensive
understanding of our own political system, and far easier access to candidates
before and after you vote have all come to the fore.
But once again, on the other side, we're also facing mass propaganda with no
source, restricted access to information sources based on who we are, and the
threat that more decisions will be made for us, decisions that we won't see, by
people who quite simply don't want us to know.
Personally-speaking, we're already experiencing in our own families, how much
easier it is to communicate and maintain contact with relatives we haven't seen
for years. We’re also deterred by the very same media which keep us isolated in
our own homes and computer universes where the number of things mediated by a
computer is a fact of life.
Considering all these possible outcomes then, it's not hard to conclude that
technology can become as much a tool to enhance democratic, personally satisfying
aims as a tool to oppress us. And yet, whatever position you hold, it will be
those who pull together their knowledge who will feel most encouraged by the
results.
This was brought home to Anita when she attended a conference that congregated 300
female scientists from 60 developing countries in Cape Town, South Africa. It was
quite a sight, attested Anita; every color and dress filled the room. A great
privilege to be part of. This joining may never have materialized without
technology access.
Who has had knowledge, access and power with respect to technology to date? Three
groups: people from the West, Northern Europeans, and males. To accept a
composite like this, such a narrow slice of people to lead us and the rest of the
world, is no longer acceptable. The composition can be described more
specifically: those with a card for entry are most likely to be computer investors
who provide the money, executives who run the show, and technical implementation
specialists with degrees. It's a wake up call to become a society that sees its
future depend on greater inclusion and variety in its points of view.
Anita went on to discuss the impact on her of a recent reality. Having returned
from the Washington D.C. Summit on Women in Engineering where 200 powerful
individuals, all heads of their respective organizations,
congregated to discuss the future of the field, she couldn't help but compare it
with one earlier in her own career where only 10-15% individuals were involved. I
was one of the people with only a B.A. in hand that
entered simply because the field needed more people than it had.
Now, of course, technology has evolved into an entirely different story. Nancy
Ramsey and Pamela McCorduck, through the Institute for Women and Technology,
recently organized an exciting conference on the future of women. They were there
to discuss scenarios for the 21st century, to look at issues that impacted them,
such as the current economy, individual rights, etc. They were challenged to work
out a narrative that rang true
to them.
Its significance was that it represented a first in technology research. The
joining of regular people, not specialists, to explore how they could impact the
development of a product from its inception. For the first time,
participants were challenged to consider women's needs as important, normal and
not the exception. To imagine policy in government and academia that would take
women into account. To explore how bringing women's perspectives to bear might
change the products in production lines. And what would that look like? What
would be better technology for a better world?
A recent study by a University of British Columbia professor approached answering
that question by taking a simple observation girls’ and boys’ different approach
styles to the computer -- and exploring its implications.
The differences were quite distinct; boys approached the computer as if it were
always a 1:1 event. Girls, on the other handed, surrounded it, as if in a
circle. The computer was simply another element/another participant
in this experience, and not necessarily the most important one. Where did this
take Anita?
That something as simple as the kiosk, if it were to include the natural responses
of girls, could be designed to enhance this natural preferences of girls...for
example, be designed to include the viewing of a group of girls
all at once. In this example, computer IO (connections), shape of the box and
services would all be impacted.
Extending this line of thought, Anita cited the design of pda's, noting its size:
small enough to fit into the breast pocket of a man. Well, this was quite
revealing; women, of course, are less likely to appreciate that
shape.Her point exactly. It brings up the issue of how the palm pilot was
originally decided and by whom.
Calendars present still another prejudice in design. Calendars assume an
individual life with a single person doing a multitude of tasks. But women never
really operate as a single person; given their more typical
responsibilities to keep track of entire families. So, why no shadow calendars?
It's a familiar puzzle.
Another individual in another place, University of Pennsylvania, Rina Bicci, a
director working for the National Science Foundation in robotics, developed
something so simple, yet clearly overlooked in the grocery store
universe. As a technical product developer, she developed little cameras (not
virtual reality or anything like, just cameras) that could be placed in grocery
stores, so that shoppers could pick out things remotely. It's an idea that would
work well for women because it appeals directly to our needs.
What has inhibited this kind of thinking, this kind of development? Perhaps it's
been that what inspires different cultures with different problems/constraints
remains hidden. Or it has resulted from our current culture of innovation in which
our own ideas have become too inbred. If we can assume we've only got one pipeline
for the reception of new ideas, it's now the obvious next step to build other
pipelines, to find ways to bring
out other perspectives. In the profession, no one has talked about this reality
yet; it's a reflection of the elitism of the technical priesthood.
All of which brought Anita to her most recent and exciting innovation: to develop
Virtual Development Centers to serve as a new model of engineering education as
much as to encourage better product development. It's a
question of getting people on the student level communicating with real engineers
and various other factions of a community from the start.
To expand on this idea, community members, industry professionals, academics and
high school students all come together to explore a problem in the community
technology could address. The workshop would be ongoing and provide the framework
into which a year's worth of development projects could be pursued. For example,
if the problem chosen was to develop something to track store inventory, the teams
would work together to explore how existing sensors might be devised to evaluate
what's in a cabinet as much as what technologies to push to come up with such a
capability. Or if the problem were to provide mentoring support, an email-based
mentoring system could be set up, that incorporated not just a 1:1 perspective of
mentor- student but an industry perspective as well. Interestingly, this roving 1
year virtual development community concept
turns out not to be just a "pie in the sky" idea but one that already has its
wheels moving. Santa Clara University, Carnegie Mellon, University of Washington
in Seattle are all sites under consideration for such an effort.
The inference here was that both what gets developed and who develops them comes
down to the question of what you make natural. 18-33 year olds making decisions
about our technological future is not natural, if they are the only ones
developing. Although it's critical to raise our kids and young adults to believe
in their own impact, there's also a need to broaden these perspectives, especially
where product innovation is concerned.
This idea for the research and development centers, says Anita, came from a
personal place. I wanted to have some place to go where I really could enjoy
working, I never had a direct collaborator myself, and I wanted to
see what influences output in the technical arena. From there, I came up with two
goals: to increase women's impact on technology through research, development, and
policy planning, and to increase the impact of technology on all the world's
women. Actually, each impacts the other. Finally, given that most women are
inclined to work towards social good, I thought, why not take advantage of it?
The Institute is beginning to do just that. It has as its mission, 3 areas of
focus: To become a research and development think tank with an international
reputation, to develop events and conference workshops on technology or product
development and finally, to engage in outreach, such as sponsorship of the virtual
communities alluded to before.
Anita then brought us into the final segment for the evening: a look at a sample
workshop on video where women and technical specialists were brought together to
brainstorm possible products that could serve them. It was called "family support
of the future," and they were challenged to come up with products that fit the
theme.
The makeup of the group and the experience went like this: Only 1/3 of the
participants were technologically familiar. Old and young came together. The
workshop lasted for 2 and a half days. They gathered and were
encouraged with a few basic interaction rules in mind. Keep their eyes on
speaker, don't interrupt, listen well, all rules we women adopt rather naturally.
Oh, and one more: to think outside of the box.
We wanted each participant to approach the process with a belief in themselves as
experts vs. having someone lead them with the traditional, "we know what's good
for you, we think you're going to want this technology
approach" common to most product development focus groups. And it wasn't just out
of respect for the women attending that this belief in equal contribution emerged
but because these women really were on equal footing
since the challenge was to come up with the way technology could aid them in their
lives, not the other way around.
The participants, of course, came up with great ideas, grounded in real needs.
Here are two examples:
1) A virtual wall dedicated to communication. Like a visiting wall where families
can spread out on the floor to see and hear what's happening with friends and
family. The design could connect people in a bigger way and
one more natural to the way they congregate to chat; i.e., going into a room. 2)
An integrated home inventory system where sensors could be used to track how many
black shirts I have at home, or if a household was low on toilet paper, even where
did I leave the keys.
Through this process, the women actually came up with innovations that pushed the
technology envelope farther out than it's ever been. You see, Anita concluded,
constraints emanating from the lives of real people, in
this case, women, really can drive technology in useful and exciting directions.
The essential challenge is how to take technology and make it respond to what we
feel could be better in our own lives.
In closing. Anita argued that anything can be looked at as an opportunity. Take
the Palm Pilot example of before. This technology has only scratched the surface
of opportunity and hasn't really broken into the women's market to date. A hip new
organizer could be a great opportunity, designing technology just for women,
although it may have fairly recently been considered narrow (women are just a
subset of people, after all), and yet, look again. A women's market really isn't
narrow. Women aren't everybody. Technology must meet where we really are, and new
sources of innovation will have to be devised to uncover our genius, passions and
unique situations more fully.
To help make this happen, we must also be smart in using the important cards we
already have. Raising our voices, and voting with our pocketbooks. If there's an
issue such as individual privacy, we can now respond together to be heard. In
fact, it is interesting to realize that our own individual privacies are not even
as strong as Europe's; an area we haven't organized around and where we've got
work to do. Yet even having this information, made available through web and
email technology, can only help us in our own development process.
Start from where you are. A University of Minnesota professor has found that email
may not be the most appropriate style of communication for some women. If this is
the case, maybe there is something better. Maybe a whole new way would come into
our minds' buzz notes or the like. It's time to redesign technology based on a more
expanded understanding of who we are, the people who use it.
Why hasn't the design process been developed starting with users, and then coming
up with products that fit? Silicon Valley has always been backwards in its own
priorities. As long as the most compelling motivator for
product development has been next-quarter profits, there's not time for training
or redesign, just for that next airplane ticket. Oh, yes, we definitely have work
to do.
Great ideas, Anita. Thank you.
Email TechNation:TechNation
