Critical Research On Gender And Information Systems Research

141

Critical Research on Gender and Information Systems Eileen M. Trauth The Pennsylvania State University, USA Debra Howcroft University of Manchester, UK

INTRODUCTION In 1991 Orlikowski and Baroudi published a seminal paper about the role of epistemological lenses in shaping information systems (IS) research. Citing Chua’s (1986) classification of research epistemologies they went on to describe the way in which each of three lenses—positivist, interpretive, and critical—influences the conduct of IS research. They concluded with the observation that whereas positivism dominated the IS research landscape, interpretive research was beginning to make an appearance. They also noted the dearth of critical IS research. Throughout the 1990s a few papers on critical research appeared. Myers’ (1997) paper on critical ethnography helped to bridge the understanding gap between interpretive and critical research. Ngwenyama and Lee (1997) used the critical lens to guide their approach to examining information richness theory. Doolin (1998) argued that a research approach based on critical theory is needed in order to view information technology within a broader context of social and political relations. However, in the 2000s there has been a significant increase in the focus on critical research, as evidenced in an increasing number of publications, conference streams, special issues, and academic electronic networks concerned with discussing critical IS1. It can be argued that the social nature of activities associated with the development, implementation, and use of IS and the management of people who carry out these activities leads naturally to considerations of social and political power. This consideration of power, in turn, encourages critical analysis. In the social sciences the term critical is used to describe a range of related approaches,

including critical theory (Horkheimer, 1976), critical operational research (Mingers, 1992), critical ethnography (Forester, 1992), and critical management studies (Alvesson & Willmott, 1996). Despite some areas of commonality, critical researchers draw upon a broad range of social theories. These include, for example, the Frankfurt School of critical social theory (Horkheimer, 1976), actor-network theory (Latour, 1991), Marxism (Marx, 1974), feminist theory (Wajcman, 1991), and the work of Bordieu (1990), Dooyeweerd (1973), Foucault (1979), and Heidegger (1953).

BACKGROUND It can be further argued that the topic of gender and IS is particularly suitable for critical research insofar as it is concerned with power relations and underrepresented voices in the context of gender and information technology use (Kvasny & Trauth, 2002). The choice of a critical rather than a positivist or an interpretive epistemology for research on gender and IS, however, has definite implications for both the perspective on the topic and the way it is researched (Howcroft & Trauth, 2004). When the positivist epistemology is applied to the topic of gender and IT, the objective is typically to discover whether and where there are gender differences. The aim is to uncover gender distinctions, not to explain or theorize why these distinctions have arisen and continue to exist. Examples of this include investigations of women’s vs. men’s use (adoption, acceptance, etc.) of IT (e.g., Gefen & Straub, 1997) and women’s participation rate in the IS profession (e.g., Carayon, Hoonakker, Marchand, & Schwarz, 2003; Truman & Baroudi, 1994). Further, the theory

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc., distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI is prohibited.

+

Critical Research on Gender and Information Systems

underlying positivist gender research is often essentialist whereby observed gender differences are understood to arise from the dichotomizing of male/ female roles that, in turn, are assumed to generally derive from bio-psychological differences (Wajcman, 1991). Much of this research is predicated on negative assumptions about women (such as assumptions that women are inherently less technologically competent than men) and is not typically informed by the gender literature (Adam, Howcroft, & Richardson, 2004). This type of research is typically motivated by a desire to advance managerial objectives. For example, it might be to consider gender as a factor of production in better harnessing diversity in pursuit of effectiveness and productivity (e.g., Gallivan, 2003; Igbaria & Baroudi, 1995; Igbaria & Chidambaram, 1997; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). Problems of inequality are viewed in terms of wasted resources, with increased equality being promoted as a means of optimizing efficiency. The main drawback of this research approach is that the investigation remains on the surface of observable and documentable differences. In so doing, it offers an unproblematic treatment of the topic in which the observation of differential treatment in the workplace by gender has a tendency to become the explanation (i.e., that men and women are treated differently in the IT workplace because they are different with respect to their relationship to IT and IT work in some relevant, essential way). Further, by offering only managerialist perspectives, positivist gender and IS research privileges one perspective over others. Hence, the gendered aspects of IT use, for example, are not considered from the perspective of those experiencing it. In contrast, interpretive studies of gender and IS focus on developing a better understanding of how these gender differences in IT use and IT work have come about. The objective is to add context to the observations about gender and IT. This research invokes such theories as social construction (e.g., Nielsen, von Hellens, Greenhill, & Pringle, 1998; Tapia, 2003) or individual differences (Trauth, 2002; Trauth, Quesenberry, & Morgan, 2004) in developing theoretical explanations that incorporate social influences underlying inequality (e.g., observable differences) between the genders. The point of view of this research is not just managerialist; the motiva142

tion is also to advance our understanding of the relationship between gender and IT by understanding the point of view of the women IT users. Thus, an interpretive examination of gender and the IS profession might explore the influence of national culture on the social construction of gender identity as it relates to the IT workforce (Trauth, 1995; Trauth, Nielsen, & von Hellens, 2003; Trauth, Quesenberry, & Yeo, 2005). However, a limitation of the interpretive approach is that the focus is on understanding the societal influences, not questioning them. It is directed at coping with the dynamics of inequality, not challenging the legitimacy of underlying social influences or undoing them.

MAIN THRUST OF THE ARTICLE In response, the objective of critical gender and IS research is to investigate why gender inequality exists. The motivation is to understand and challenge power relations that reproduce inequality (Kvasny, in press). Critical social theory, postmodernism, and feminist theory (Adam 2002; Adam & Richardson, 2001; Kvasny, Greenhill, & Trauth, 2005), for example, are used to inform the search for the underlying causes of gender inequality. Thus, a critical perspective on gender and IT might concentrate on the gendered nature of the workplace and technological skills (Wilson, 2002). This moves the research away from positivist and interpretive themes of profitability, efficiency, effectiveness, and gender identity, and towards themes of control, resistance, and inequality. Critical researchers also embrace the social and political influences on their research, rather than negate these assumptions and beliefs. They aim to balance their interest in the people being studied with an awareness of less explicit ideological and structural forces. This is in contrast to what Bhaskar (1979) has described as the “linguistic fallacy,” the claim adopted by many interpretivists that subjects, concepts, meanings, and accounts of their actions cannot be criticized. In critical research the spotlight shifts from an exclusive focus on individuals, situations, and local meaning to the systems of relations, which make such meanings possible. This is not to suggest that experiences are ignored; rather they

Critical Research on Gender and Information Systems

are balanced against issues of an ideological nature that may frame the experiences and ascribe additional meaning. The use of critical IS research to study the topic of gender and IS enables new explanations and theories to become available. It addresses positivist limitations by offering alternatives to managerialist perspectives and theories. It addresses interpretive limitations by considering power relations, marginality, and dominant discourses in the organizational and societal context. The use of critical theories enables the researcher to shed theoretical light on the subtle ways in which gender inequality is operationalized in technological disciplines in the academy and the workforce.

CONCLUSION While the use of a critical epistemology for research on gender and IS would seem to flow naturally from the nature of the topic, there is surprisingly little critical gender and IS literature, with some notable exceptions.2 This situation suggests a fertile area for future research. In making the choice of a critical epistemology, however, it is important to recognize the methodological implications of doing so. First, while there is little critical gender and IS literature, there is even less empirical critical gender and IS research literature. This dearth of empirical research means that there are few examples in the literature upon which researchers can currently model their work. Second, whereas positivist research endeavors to remove bias from the research account, both interpretive and critical research acknowledge the inherent bias in all research. But because of the agenda of highlighting the power dynamics at work in organizations, critical research is typically more vulnerable to political issues when attempts are made to publish such work. The diffusion of critical research in IS is being enhanced by critical IS books, critical IS conferences, and special issues of journals on critical IS, which provide new outlets for the dissemination of critical IS research. It is hoped that at least some of this emergent research will address the topic of gender and IT.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article is from a study funded by a National Science Foundation Grant (EIA-0204246).

REFERENCES Adam, A. (2002). Exploring the gender question in critical information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 59-67. Adam, A., Howcroft, D., & Richardson, H. (2004). A decade of neglect: Reflecting on gender and IS. New Technology, Work and Employment, 19(3), 222-240. Adam, A., & Richardson, H. (2001). Feminist philosophy and information systems. Information System Frontiers, 3(2), 143-154. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1996). Making sense of management: A critical introduction. London: Sage. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: Harvester. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Carayon, P., Hoonakker, P., Marchand, S., & Schwarz, J. (2003). Job characteristics and quality of working life in the IT workforce: The role of gender. In E. Trauth (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM SIGMIS Computer Personnel Research Conference (pp. 58-63). New York: ACM Press. Chua, W. F. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought. The Accounting Review, 61, 601-632. Doolin, B. (1998). Information technology as disciplinary technology: Being critical in interpretive research on information systems [Special Issue on Interpretive Research in Information System]. Journal of Information Technology, 13(4), 301-312. Dooyeweerd, H. (1973). Introduction. Philosophia Reformata, 38, 5-16.

143

+

Critical Research on Gender and Information Systems

Forester, J. (1992). Critical ethnography: on fieldwork in a Habermasian way. In M. Alvesson & H. Wilmott (Eds.), Critical management studies. London: Sage. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gallivan, M. (2003). Examining gender differences. In E. Trauth (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM SIGMIS Computer Personnel Research Conference (pp. 10-23). New York: ACM Press. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension of the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 389-400. Heidegger, M. (1953). Being and time. New York: State University of New York Press. Horkheimer, M. (1976). Traditional and critical theory (1937). In P. Connerton (Ed.), Critical sociology. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Howcroft, D., & Trauth, E. M. (2004). The choice of critical IS research. In Relevant theory and informed practice—Looking forward from a 20 year perspective on IS research (pp. 195-211). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Howcroft, D., & Trauth, E. M. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of information systems research: Critical perspectives on information systems design, development and implementation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Igbaria, M., & Baroudi, J. J. (1995). The impact of job performance evaluations on career development prospects: An examination of gender differences in the IS workplace. MIS Quarterly, 19, 107-123. Igbaria, M., & Chidambaram, M. (1997). The impact of gender on career success of information systems professionals. Information Technology & People, 10(1), 63-86. Kvasny, L. (in press). Cultural (re)production of digital inequality in a U.S. community technology initiative. Information, Communication and Society. Kvasny, L., Greenhill, A., & Trauth, E. M. (2005). Giving voice to feminist projects in management information systems research. International Jour144

nal of Technology and Human Interaction, 1(1), 1-18. Kvasny, L., & Trauth, E. M. (2002). The digital divide at work and home: Discourses about power and underrepresented groups in the information society. In E. Wynn, M. D. Myers, & E. A. Whitley (Eds.), Global and organizational discourse about information technology (pp. 273-291). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable, a sociology of monsters. In J. Law (Ed.), Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103-131). London: Routledge. Marx, K. (1974). Capital. London: Penguin. Mingers, J. (1992). Technical, practical and critical OR—past, present and future? In M. Alvesson, & H. Wilmott (Eds.), Critical management studies (pp. 90-112). London: Sage. Myers, M. D. (1997). Critical ethnography in information systems. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 276-300). London: Chapman & Hall. Ngwenyama, O. K., & Lee, A. S. (1997). Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 145-167. Nielsen, S., von Hellens, L., Greenhill, A., & Pringle, R. (1998, March 26-28). Conceptualising the influence of cultural and gender factors on students’ perceptions of IT studies and careers. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCPR Computer Personnel Research Conference, Boston (pp. 86-95). Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying IT in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 128. Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tapia, A. H. (2003). Hostile_work_environment.com. In E. Trauth (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM SIGMIS Computer Personnel Research Conference (pp. 64-67). New York: ACM Press.

Critical Research on Gender and Information Systems

Trauth, E. M. (1995). Women in Ireland’s information economy: Voices from inside. Eire Ireland, 30(3), 133-150. Trauth, E. M. (2002). Odd girl out: An individual differences perspective on women in the IT profession [Special Issue on Gender and Information Systems]. Information Technology and People, 15(2), 98-118. Trauth, E. M., Nielsen, S. H., & von Hellens, L. A. (2003). Explaining the IT gender gap: Australian stories for the new millennium. Journal of Research and Practice in IT, 35(1), 7-20. Trauth, E. M., Quesenberry, J. L., & Morgan, A. J. (2004, April 22-24). Understanding the under representation of women in IT: Toward a theory of individual differences. In M. Tanniru & S. Weisband (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computer Personal Research, Tuscon, AZ (pp. 114-119). New York: ACM Press. Trauth, E. M., Quesenberry, J. L., & Yeo, B. (2005b). The influence of environmental context on women in the IT workforce. In M. Gallivan & J. E. Moore (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research (pp. 24-31). New York: ACM Press. Truman, G. E., & Baroudi, J. J. (1994). Gender differences in the information systems managerial ranks: An assessment of potential discriminatory practices. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 129-141. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115139. Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Webster, F. (2002). Theories of the information society (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Wilson, M. (2002). Making nursing visible? Gender, technology and the care plan as script. Information Technology & People, 15(2), 139-158.

KEY TERMS Actor-Network Theory (ANT): Developed by Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, ANT is a social theory that explains the interrelated connections between human and nonhuman actors. At the core of this theory is the understanding that technology and society are mutually constitutive. Critical Research: Research that critiques the status quo through the exposure of what are believed to be deep-seated, structural contradictions within social systems, thereby transforming these alienating and restrictive social conditions (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991, p. 5-6). Feminism: A social, political, economic and intellectual movement that is concerned with removing the subordination of women. With regard to research, feminism searches for ways in which women’s positions in life can be made equal with those of men (Adam, 2002). Feminist Theory: According to Wajcman (1991), there is no single “feminist theory” but rather a diversity of perspectives including: cultural feminism, eco-feminism, liberal feminism, postmodernism, radical feminism and social feminism. This body of theories argues that inquiry should be based on the “lived sociopolitical experiences of women” because their perspectives afford an alternative view of social relations to that of mainstream empirical epistemologies (Schwandt, 2001, p. 93). Interpretive Research: Research directed at understanding the deeper structure of a phenomenon within its cultural context by exploring the subjective and intersubjective meanings that people create as they interact with the world around them (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991, p. 5). Positivist Research: Research that assumes the existence of a priori fixed relationships within phenomena which are typically investigated with structured instruments. The purpose of this research is primarily to test theory (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991, p. 5). Postmodernism: An intellectual movement that rejects modernist principles and practices. It argues, instead, that there is no single truth or reality. Since

145

+

Critical Research on Gender and Information Systems

multiple versions of truth or reality exist, it argues for pluralist principles and practices (Webster, 2002, Chap. 9).

ENDNOTE 1

146

An example of books is Howcroft and Trauth (2005). Examples of special issues of journals

devoted to critical research include Data Base (2001/2002), Journal of Information Technology (2002), and Information Systems Journal and Information Technology & People (forthcoming). Examples of conferences with a critical IS stream include the Critical Management Studies conference (1999, 2003, 2005), Critical Research in IS Workshops (2001, 2004), and a critical stream at the Americas Conference on IS since 2001.