Copyright ©Tatar 2006
Recently, my students and I at VT have been asking why there are so few women in computer science here, only 5.4% in the undergraduate population. Of course, there are many large-scale factors in this (including perceived job prospects), and many social-psychological factors (like self-efficacy in technical fields). Yet these processes by which these factor come into play themselves requires explanation. For example, the VT mathematics department though superficially comparable is constituted quite differently than the Computer Science department.
As faculty advisor to the Association for Women in Computing (AWC) and a member of the undergraduate program committee (UPC), I have a chance to do something about this.
However, as a researcher, I also have a chance to investigate and reflect upon it, along with mechanisms that promote or discourage participation in the many kindergarten-twelfth (K-12) grade schools I have worked with in California, South Carolina, and Texas.
The great social psychologist Kurt Lewin pointed to the importance of channel factors in determining actual behavior. Channel factors are qualities in a situation that from an external perspective may seem like details, yet have profound impact on behavior. The presence of knowledge of a stereotype, as in the theory of stereotype threat, is such a factor, and is arguably profound. Yet five years ago, we were doing better in computer science. Furthermore, stereotype threat has proved more enduring in some arenas than in others. When my mother graduated from NYU law school, in 1967, her graduating class had a higher percentage of women than any other in the country, and I can name both of the women who together constituted 4% of the class. Now it seems ridiculous, but you would not have wanted her experiences looking for a job that year.
Many sociological and personality variables cast partial light on why law could change a lot and computer science less so. However, the processes of attentional engagement and emotional regulation seen in other bits of my work on technology and collaboration/coordination are an important overlooked part of this puzzle of non-participation.
When people are truly engaged, they surprise themselves and others with their own accomplishments. Coordination is one key tool in engagement. The work in understanding attentional engagement and emotional regulation underlies the work in designing and appreciating coordinated activities.