GENDER AND PARTICIPATION IN SYNCHRONOUS CMC: AN IRC CASE STUDY

Concetta M. Stewart, Temple University
Stella F. Shields, Fordham University
Dominique Monolescu, Temple University
John Charles Taylor, Temple University

ABSTRACT

A considerable amount of research has been done on both the gender dynamics in face-to-face communication as well as in asynchronous, mediated discussion groups such as email distribution lists. This study, however, focuses on real time, mediated communication, specifically the Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Gender differences with respect to on-line participation and language styles are examined. Results of the questionnaire showed that although all of the participants reported IRC as easy to use, men generally liked the experience better, while women observed that people were being ignored. Analysis of the transcripts also reveals that men always sent the most messages in each group, while women always sent the least, and men always began and ended each session. There was also a noticeable difference in the type of language used by men and women, with men also more likely to take charge.

INTRODUCTION

Current discussion surrounding the evolution of technology-mediated communication systems puts forth the notion that these environments will be the great equalizers. Predictions are that life in cyberspace will be "more egalitarian than elitist, more decentralized than hierarchical . . . (serving) individuals and communities, not mass audiences . . . (and) founded on the primacy of individual liberty and a commitment to pluralism, diversity, and community" (Kapor, 1993, p. 53). Even more optimistic are the predictions appearing in WIRED, "the magazine of the Digital Generation," foretell of a new social environment, where "race, gender, disabilities, physical appearance, even social status lose their significance . . . where all that matters is one's capacity for expression' (Leslie, 1993, p. 90).

Recent reports do indeed show that the number of women using the Internet has increased dramatically. For instance, findings reported by Media Metrix (1999) show that the percentage of adult women 18 years and older using the Internet has increased from 18% in 1996 to 50% in 1999. In addition, by 1995, 50% of all PCs were purchased by women (PCs by gender, 1995). Nielsen Media Research (1999) also reports that women are emerging as a 'buying force' on the Net, and teenage girls are a growing focus of market research on the Net (Web marketers, 1999). However, given this focus, the use women make of the Internet seems to be viewed simply as an extension of their traditional role in society, namely as consumers.

Consequently, despite many increases, women may still not be participating equitably in cyberspace. For instance, a recent study by Scientific American (1998a) shows that while women are more than 50% of the workforce, they are only 22% of the technical workforce. Additionally, in the last ten years the number of women majoring in information age disciplines such as computer science, is steadily dropping (Scientific American, 1998b; ACM, 1997). Other studies also show that women are still segregated into the least technical jobs and occupy few executive positions in high-tech companies (Scientific American, 1998c).

Where's the difference?

As already noted, recent studies do indeed suggest that womens' access to the Internet is improving. Though such optimism is not uncommon when new technologies are introduced, these hopes are rarely realized (Marvin, 1988). But will more equitable access necessarily lead to more participation? And will this participation necessarily be democratic in nature? Beyond availability, significant differences have been found between men and women in their use of and reaction to these networked computer systems, including type and frequency of use as well as attitudes toward the technology (Parry & Wharton, 1994). It has also been suggested that women lack the confidence and the time to use the technology the same way that men do (AAUW, 1995; Smith, 1995). It would appear, then, that there are differences that may not be remedied simply through increased access to and availability of the technology.

Rakow (1988) explains that technologies are merely an effect of a particular social order, reflecting the values and meanings of that order. In the case of networked communication systems, the technology is based on the dominant masculine value systems of Western society. In addition, men and women have different access to the creation of technology as well (Balks, 1996). The result has been the creation of a place were social practices 'extend the construction of two asymmetrical genders' (p. 57). She states that key task, then, is to gain an understanding of how power is exercised through technology.

This study goes beyond the question of access and technical proficiency to analyze issues of participation in on-line discussions; specifically, who actually controls and directs these discussions. A considerable amount of research has been done on both the gender dynamics in face-to-face communication as well as in asynchronous, computer-mediated on-line discussion groups. This case study, however, focuses on real-time, mediated communication, specifically the Internet Relay Chat (IRC). The transcripts of an IRC session were examined to determine gender differences with respect to on-line participation and language styles. Questionnaires were also administered.

Real-time Discussions in CMC

Most of the published research concerning mediated group discussions on the Internet is about electronic mail distribution lists. Communication via this medium is asynchronous, which means that each participant posts and reads messages at his or her convenience. IRC conversely is real-time and immediate, and unlike electronic mail distribution lists, has no message archive to go back and review. These two forms of Internet communication are, therefore, quite distinct and these authors believe that the much-neglected synchronous chat form warrants closer study.

Synchronous communication systems such as IRC are particularly relevant for a study of gender dynamics in cyberspace. Spender (1995), for instance, has found that women are reporting that they especially like the chatting capabilities of the Internet. She has also found that women are increasingly using the Internet to extend their communities and enjoy these conversational aspects. This finding is also consistent with early research on the conversational styles of men and women, in which women engage in a highly interactional style of conversation in which there is a large degree of conversational overlap and interruption, a process which mirrors the IRC (Edelsky, 1981).

That little research has been done on chats may be due to the fact that the data is harder to capture (Condon & Cech, 1996). Transcripts are not automatically archived as with electronic mailing lists, and special programming is required to even be able to capture these discussions. Chats are worthy of study, though, particularly as their popularity grows. This growth is especially noticeable among teenagers and the college age population, where chats have become quite common. Internet Relay Chat (IRC), is a common form of a real time communication on the Internet and 'acts like a form of ham radio, in that there are thousands of shifting channels for discussion' (Shank & Cunningham, 1996: 39). Werry (1996) views this form of 'computer writing' as converging more with spoken discourse than its asynchronous counterparts on the Internet (such as email and mailing lists) and, as a result, shows greater potential for creating virtual communities.

These chats are also supplanting many traditional face-to-face group situations. For instance, more and more classroom situations are being conducted using synchronous CMC, along with the more conventional email and mail distribution tools (Colomb & Simutis, 1996; Hiltz, 1994; Ma, 1996). There are also implications resulting from the implementation of these synchronous systems in the workplace. Real-time discussion or meetings are key communication processes the workplace where "they serve to reproduce its social entities and relationships as well as playing important part in the sense-making process' (Fulk & Collins-Jarvis, in press). In addition, as corporations and other institutions increasingly implement these technologies, an employee's role and worth in these organizations will depend on their status in interactive, real-time discussion. While a significant body of research exists on mediated communication for meetings, most of that research also deals with asynchronous communication. Consequently, more research is needed to examine real-time, mediated discussions, since these forms of discussion are more closely related to the online group dynamics most individuals will increasingly face in the workplace, at school and in informal social settings.

Since it is a synchronous, yet text-based form of communication, IRC is simultaneously compared to both spoken and written communication. Shank and Cunningham (1996) explain that 'an oral culture is fundamentally different from a literate culture, and an Internet culture will be different from both of these.' It is these differences that warrant attention. Technological advancements will also make real-time chats more commonplace (unless there is a dramatic change in the rate structures), possibly supplanting communication processes traditionally conducted over the telephone. With the growth of these real-time mediated conversations, we will also see 'people exploring ways of creating new communicative modes and new cultures. And all of this suggests that we are not talking about minor cultural shifts but of a watershed move' (p. 40).

BEYOND AVAILABILITY

Persisting inequities are especially troubling as we have come to recognize that computer competence is not an optional skill or reserved for leisure time activity. These skills are, instead, increasingly tied to achieving financial rewards in our society (Bureau of Labor Statistics1989, 1998). In order to maintain a voice in both public and private organizations and communities, increasingly one must participate in networked communication systems (Anderson, 1995; Reimus, 1998). With participation in the technological infrastructure also increasingly becoming a prerequisite to participation in the economic infrastructure, this issue should be one of special importance to scholars and policy makers (Adler, 1995; The Economist Telecommunications Survey, 1995; ITU, 1984; Reich, 1991).

Access, Skills and Socialization

It has been observed that such exclusion from participation in computer-based systems starts in the very early years, beginning with the focus of computer games whose primary audience is boys (Morse, 1995). In addition, nearly 100% of computer club members are boys, and as early as preschool boys are seen driving girls away from the computers (Spender, 1995). As Kantrowitz (1994) observes: "Cyberspace, it turns out, isn't much of an Eden after all. It's marred by just as many sexist ruts and gender conflicts as the Real World' (p. 48). In fact, stripped of the social courtesies and contextual amenities of traditional communication channels, this new environment is likely to be less hospitable to women (Adams, 1996). It is not surprising, then, when we hear that more female users feel compelled to turn to women-only discussion groups.

In their 1992 study, How Schools Shortchange Girls, the AAUW found that girls simply believe that they are 'not as good at technology.' In the 1999 AAUW study, Gender Gaps, show girls' scores in science and math increasing. However, this good news is tempered by the fact that girls do not view technology as relevant to their lives, use computers less, and have less prior experience. The AAUW study also reports that girls find educational software less interesting and it is suggested that the reason is that the software reinforces traditional stereotypes about girls and technology. Scientific American (1998d) also reports that while traditional barriers of availability are diminishing, subtle and informal barriers persist. The results of their survey of women in science and technology careers suggests that women still feel pressures of socialization, attitudes and expectations. Balka (1996) characterizes the problem quite clearly when she points out that how skills are conceived and rewarded is in fact a political concept as it relates to who is included and who is valued.

Galbraith (1998) observes that among economists, the near-universal explanation for increased inequality in the U.S. is the 'skill premium,' i.e., increasing education and skill development among the disadvantaged will improve their wage-earning propects and thereby reduce inequality. He asserts that the skills-shortage hypothesis and the idea that education can cure the problem are fantasies, but these fantasies are comforting because they lay the blame on the workers. The real blame he suggests, however, lies with public policy that has favored those already enfranchised.

Gender Differences in Mediated Communication

As a technology-mediated environment, the Internet has been a male domain since its inception. Work of scholars such as Spender (1995), Tannen (1990), and Turkle (1984) suggests that women are in fact discouraged from participating in traditionally male environments because they do not know how -or aren't allowed--to succeed in these social orders. In addition, women are made to feel extremely unwelcome because they don't know how to "play by the rules." Studies of Internet listservs have found that in mixed gender groups, men (in some cases only a few men) have overwhelmingly dominated those discussions (Spender, 1995; Ebben, 1994; Herring, 1993; Herring, 1996b). In a recent study of one listserv, it was also found that the men participated at much higher rates overall than women in several categories. Specifically, men joined the list at twice the rate of women and sent nearly four times as many messages, and also sent much longer messages. Other interesting patterns emerged as well, such as more men adopted username identities than women and the men chose very different kinds of usernames. (In many email systems, users are automatically assigned names that conform to some standard established by the administrator, such as first-initial-plus-last-name; but those names can usually been changed at the users request. This option is often not exercised by users.) Men chose usernames such as gd, the Movie Maniac, Newt Gingriche's Bitch, while women chose usernames such as me, poohbear, Cheshire Cat, or variations of their real names (Stewart & Shields, 1996).

Other studies have found that the contributions made by women in mixed gender email discussion groups were not as valued as the men's contributions, with both men and women responding more to comments made and questions posed by men (Herring, Johnson & DiBennedetto, 1995; Herring, Johnson & DiBennedetto, 1992). This seems to suggest a recognition of the more powerful status of men in the group overall. Other differences also appear in relation to how men and women generally view mediated communication environments. In her pioneering work, The Second Self, Turkle (1984) explains that some men will even turn to machines to avoid people, because they don't talk back. Studies of hackers, who are almost exclusively male (and are considered among the most sophisticated users of the Internet), show a preoccupation with winning and of subjecting themselves to increasing stress as they strive for greater challenges in this technology-mediated environment. For some, this technical power is even the focus of their lives (Sterling, 1992). But these are role models that most women reject entirely; and many women are instead seeing the potential of the Net to extend their communities. They will, however, often find themselves censured for using the Net merely for 'social purposes.' This, Spender notes, was the same criticism leveled at women adopting and earlier mediated communication system, the telephone (Spender, 1995).

Ess (1996) and others contend that just a few dominant voices can overwhelm these so-called democratic fora. Rakow (1988) cautions us that it is the most dominant and powerful group whose values take on a normative status. Herring (1996a) contends that the challenge, then, is to understand whose values inform the rules of behavior on the Internet. These differences that reproduce patterns of dominance must be known and understood in order that we may address them to achieve a more equitable and hospitable environment in cyberspace. Since vast differences still exist in the participation of men and women in cyberspace, the dynamics of gender and communication are key.

Gender Differences and Communication Practice

A significant body of research exists on the fundamental issue of gender differences and communication practices (Lakoff, 1973; Rakow, 1986; Spender, 1985; Stewart & Ting-Toomey, 1987; Tannen, 1994). However, as Rakow (1986) states, we need to refocus this research away from a conceptualization of gender as an individual attribute to bring more attention to the structures of the relationship between gender and power. The extent of the problem is dramatically illustrated by research which finds that men perceive women as dominating a discussion even when they contribute as little as 30% of the talk (Herring, Johnson & DiBenedetto, 1992; Spender, 1989). Spender (1989) explains this finding in her observation that it is the "natural order of things" for women to contribute significantly less to a group discussion than their male counterparts. So, women are then thought of as dominating the discussion when they participate at anywhere beyond that minimal level.

Tannen (1993) also explains that the context is essential to explaining this misconception. For instance, research has shown that men talk more in formal versus informal tasks and more in public versus private communication because there is more status associated with formal and public conversation. The effect is that while same sex task teams produce consistent amount of task oriented contributions, in mixed sex teams men produce more than women (James & Drakich, 1993; Rakow, 1998). There are obviously implications for women, then, as they are increasingly participating in public arenas such as the workplace, the classroom and in politics.

In these public spaces, men speak for a greater length of time and men's speech is more on task while women's is more reinforcing. Men's talk serves to hold floor for extended lengths of time, so that talking exercises dominance and prevents others from speaking. The ultimate affect is a lack of regard for women and their speech. This dominance also implies higher social status and that men are more competent to complete the tasks or to discuss the issues at hand than are women (James & Drakich, 1993; Rakow, 1998). Tannen (1994) explains that women also typically use more supportive language patterns, thereby diminishing the power of their own contributions.

Dominance in conversation is evidenced not only by amount of communication, but by the amount of interruptions, as well (James & Clark, 1993). Tannen (1993) states that scholars recognize intuitively that interruption and topic control in conversation is encouraged by, and encourages, power imbalance. So research showing that women actually interrupt more was puzzling. This anomaly can be explained, though, by the difference in the patterns of interruption. For instance, men raise more new topics than women and use interruptions to change subjects and take the floor, while women use interruptions as cooperative overlap and to show support for the speaker. Lakoff (1995) believes that this control of the discussion is actually interpretive control and goes beyond the 'genderlect' (i.e., simply a difference in language style based on gender) Tannen describes. According to Lakoff men are actually assigning valuation to women's speech. She contends that men will also use silence, since to ignore is a sign of power; non response is one of the most effective ways the powerful silence the less powerful. She states that as 'annoying and discouraging as interruption is . . . . non-response is by contrast annihilating' because to ignore someone is to deny their existence (p. 28).

Tannen (1993) also identifies another key difference in the communication practices of men and women, i.e., men use a more adversarial style in discussions, while women are likely to ask more questions. Women also use verb qualifiers and have a pattern of politeness behaviors, leading to image of less intelligence. According to Lakoff (1995), women have learned the language of apology, and these linguistic patterns negatively affect credibility and suggests uncertainty and triviality in the subject matter. Women also value harmony and will avoid conflict, controlling action to minimize damage, behavior which Herring (1996b) also characterizes as a positive politeness pattern. Men, by contrast, value freedom from censorship and in this spirit will violate what Herring calls negative politeness (i.e., imposition) with the longest posts, copying most text and the longest signature files. Research also shows that men are more critical as well as adversarial, valuing candor and debate, and are more likely to engage in flaming (a practice of attacking someone personally for their postings).

Research Questions

In this study, we are going beyond the question of access and technical proficiency to analyze issues of equitable participation. We, therefore, examine issues of dynamics of gender and power and the role played by language and communication processes. Specifically we ask the following questions:

Who sends how many messages?

How long are the messages?

What type of language and conversational style is used by men?

By women?

Who directs the discussion ?

Who makes the decisions?

Who introduces new topics?

Who is ignored?

AN IRC CASE STUDY

This study focuses on IRC as a synchronous, or real-time, mediated communication system. Particular attention was paid to the differences in participation between the males and females. The purpose of this study was to evaluate more closely the characteristics and effectiveness of a "live" group discussion process to see if the same well-documented differences in communication practice between men and women would still be present.

IRC is a generally available facility of the Internet. It is a multi user, multi-channel chatting network that allows people all over the Internet to talk to one another simultaneously or in "real-time." The IRC system provides a menu of simple commands including those needed to join the discussion, see who else in on-line, and even conduct private, sidebar conversations known as "whispering." The study team served as the channel operators for the group sessions, which means they were the only ones who could allow an individual to join the discussion. They did not serve as moderators, though, and did not impose any controls on who spoke or when. Instead, all of the participants were allowed to enter comments at any time.

The participants were already logged into the session when they entered the discussions. So, for the purposes of this study, the participants needed only to start typing their comments to begin. It is also important to note that at the high speed permitted by the Ethernet link, comments went by quickly on the screen. And since there is no archive or the ability to scroll back to review messages, the participants were unable to go back to comments they missed.

This study was set up as a quasi-experiment, that is, the communication situation was contrived by the researchers. However, the researchers view this as a valid design since it closely approximates professional communication. Specifically, in organizational life, one is often required to participate in team work; and with increasing globalization these teams are becoming virtual (Shields & Stewart, 1999). In addition, Walther's (1997) research has shown that some conditions of computer-mediated communication used by geographically dispersed partners 'render effects systematically superior to those obtained in other mediated conditions, and greater or lesser than effects obtained through face-to-face interaction' (p. 342). And, finally, these situations also approximate face-to-face discussions from two perspectives: Such communication is often on a 'first-come, first-served' basis; and one is unable to go back and review previous comments. (Meetings with rigid agendas and copious minutes are the possible exception here.)

METHOD

Participants

The study took place in a large urban university in the U.S. Seventeen undergraduate student volunteers were recruited from an undergraduate course enrolling approximately 125 students (1). The study was originally designed to consist of four small groups of four each, comprised equally of male and female members. However, only 15 volunteers were present when the sessions began, so the study team divided them into three groups of five each. Given the size of the class, only two of the participants knew each other, and these two individuals were assigned to separate groups. Three men and two women comprised two of the groups and three women and two men comprised the third group. The final study group consisted of eight males and seven females with most of the participants ranging in age from 20 and 25 years of age. Two of the participants were under 20 years of age, and two were between 26 and 30 years of age.

Procedure

In order to promote discussion rather than competition, a problem was selected for which there was no "right" or "wrong" answer, and the students were informed of this fact. The "Lost on the Moon" test was used as the exercise for this study (Doyle & Strauss, 1976). This is a group decision making exercise where participants are told that they have crash landed on the moon, and are scheduled to meet the mother ship 200 miles away. It was presented as a fun, informal exercise.

A member of the study team directed each participant to a computer terminal, which was already logged into IRC. They were asked to use variations of their real names (2). The participants were instructed to rank, in order of importance to their survival, 15 items to bring on their trek and were told they had 30 minutes to complete the task. Each participant read a sheet of general instructions about the exercise and then joined the discussion by entering:

/nick <his or her name>

In most cases, the participants began typing immediately.

Data Collection

The data collection consisted of two major components: a questionnaire and a transcription of the chat sessions.

A 35-item questionnaire was administered after the 30-minute exercise. Items included fill-in-the-blank, 5-pt. Likert scales (most with the anchors strongly disagree to strongly agree ) as well as several open-ended items. The information collected included basic demographic information as well as participants' report of attitudes and previous experience with computers and mediated communication systems such as email and voice mail.

In addition, a transcription of each of the discussions was collected. These transcripts included a complete listing of all of the exact text of the messages sent during the sessions as well as who sent them.

Analysis

Given the small sample size, only simple frequencies and means were calculated for each of the items on the questionnaire. In addition, the open ended items were examined to identify common or salient themes. The transcripts were analyzed to determine the number of messages for each participant. Then a close reading of the transcripts was performed to establish who initiated and summarized each discussion, the types of language used by the participants, and the styles of communication. In order to analyze the dynamics of interaction among the participants, we also examined the following message variables by gender: Message frequency, assertive messages (e.g., "Let's move on people."), non-assertive messages (e.g., "I agree."), sarcasm and "put-downs", messages introducing or bringing a topic to closure, and messages with no follow-up from other participants.

RESULTS

Questionnaire

Many of the participants reported having at least some familiarity with computers and e-mail, reporting a means of 2.67 and 2.87 on a scale of 1 (very much) to 5 (very little). Very few had any experience with listserv or IRC, reporting means of 4.27 and 4.67 respectively. In addition, few of the participants reported having previous experience with audio- or video conferencing or computer-based training. However, all but one of those reporting such previous experience, reported it as being a favorable one.

In general, the participants reported that the IRC was easy to use, averaging 4.2 on a 5.0-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree . They also rated it as an effective tool for sharing information, reporting 4.13 on the same scale. (It is worth noting that the standard deviations for all of these responses were small.) The participants were only slightly less favorable on the comparison of the effectiveness of IRC with face-to-face communication, rating it 3.67.

Analysis of the items by gender reveals that the participants had similar levels of experience with computers, electronic mail, listservs and IRC between males and females. In addition, both males and females reported similar predisposition toward the technology, reporting favorably as to its effectiveness as a communication tool, their willingness to use it again, its ease of use and their ability to ask and answer questions.

It is interesting to note that women and men did show differences in the actual communication behavior they reported:

In response to the item "I answered questions often": Five of seven women "strongly disagreed," while seven of eight men "strongly agreed." In response to the item "I raised questions often": 3 women responded 'strongly disagreed' and 4 'strongly agreed,' while two men reported "strongly disagreed" and six men reported "strongly agreed."

In the analysis of the open-ended items, there were also differences between the male and female responses. Men generally liked the experience better and had more to say about it. Only the women noticed that some people were ignored. In response to the question "what I liked most about IRC," men reported:

"The funny banter."

"The anonymity."

"Got honest responses."

"Even the shyest of people can partake unlike in a group discussion."

"Talking to someone who wasn't there. They don't know who you are."

"It was a great experience I had fun."

"The part I liked most was the ability to communicate effectively without being in visual contact with my group members."

"Interjecting statement for general use was easy because no one can talk at the same time, one is always above the other."

The women responded:

"No one knew who I was. Didn't even know who I was talking to."

"The people all participated and had a lot to offer."

"Being able to ask and answer questions immediately!"

"Can communicate, no matter who you are."

In response to "what I liked least about the IRC," comments from the men included:

"Very impersonal."

"Lends itself to very light subject matter."

"You can't really tell a personality type over IRC."

Comments from the women included:

"Some times everyone would talk at once and your questions would be ignored."

"Slower way of communicating than just talking in person."

"Sometimes we lost the point."

"The thing I liked least was that at times, participants were delivering messages at the same time and some participants were ignored."

It's interesting that several of the participants spoke of anonymity, though all of the students actually used variations of their real names as their IRC nicknames. However, this is probably related to the fact that the participants were drawn from a large lecture class and did not know each other beforehand. A few male responses were positive about anonymity. Apparently these men believe that one's 'speech' does not reveal much about them.

There is also an interesting contrast here, because the male sees it as positive that the communication is linear, and the female sees it as a problem because she interprets the linearity as the reason for some participants to be ignored. Apparently being ignored is not at all part of the sense-making process for the male.

Analysis of Transcripts

Participation.

An analysis of the transcripts by number of messages sent, reveals that in all three groups, it was a male who always sent the most messages and a female who always sent the fewest. The only exception is with Group 2, where there was a tie for the most messages sent between a male and female. That was also the group with the highest total number of messages, 202 versus 134 and 163 for Groups 1 and 3. It is worth noting that Group 2 had three female members and two male members, the reverse of the other two groups. Nearly half of the messages sent by F3, the female who sent the most messages in that group, were reinforcing statements made by others (22 of 51 messages).

In all three groups, the men also were to ones to begin each session and to end each session. It is also of interest, that even given the difference in total volume of messages between the groups, men always sent significantly more messages than women. Again, the exception is F3, who though tying for the most messages in her group, nearly half of her statements were simply agreeing with statements made by others.

A summary is presented in the table below, where the participants are labeled M (male) or F (female) and numbered in order of appearance.

Table 1

Number of Messages by Gender by Group by Member

Language. In the examples presented and analyzed below, there is a noticeable difference in the type of language used by men and women. For instance, males are more likely to take charge, start threads of the discussion, make decisions and draw conclusions. In addition, there seems to also be evidence of the 'positive politeness' patterns Herring (1996b) describes.

EXAMPLE 1:

Group 1

<M3> Somebody make a list.

<F2> oxygen first, water #2, matches 15

.

.

<M1> time is up

<M3> here we go guys, oxygen,water,food,rope, parachute,

<M3> logout

Group 2

<M4> i tought we said compass wouldn't work

<F5> my fault

It is also worth noting that the women usually complied with the orders even though they were not specifically addressed to do so, as with F2 above.

Group 1

<M1> well, matches would be the last thing you'd need on the moon.

<F1> Hello,group. What's the plan?

<F1> I guess we need oxygen and water

<M1> as I said, matches and a life raft wouldn't be important

<M2> I'm not real sure what I'm expected to write, but I'll start but saying I'd take the radio.

Here, M1 immediately makes the first assertion, but F1 'interrupts' by asking the group for the plan. She follows up with her suggestion oxygen and water. Her question was an example of a polite pattern to get her idea to the group in a cooperative manner. M1's was an assertion, not asking anyone for feedback. His is the next line, and he makes it clear that he has said something 'as I said.' M2 is nonassertive, but lets everyone know he is not in agreement. Later on he gives his list a few times assertively.

Also, this group is on task at first, until the 'milk' discussion later on. (For some reason the males in all three groups thought milk was humorous.)

Group 1

<M2> milk is out

<M3> makes a body good

.

.

<M3> want to put milk before the rope...

<M1> what'll we do, snort it?

<M2> milk has all that fat.

<M3> that's good though

<M2> but summer's coming!

The strongest example of an individual taking charge, making decisions and giving the orders is M6, who appears to be the most comfortable with giving orders to both his male and female colleagues. Below, in Example 2, is a summary of the orders he gave to the group.

EXAMPLE 2:

Group 3

<M6> so people can we number this so we can go home

<M6> So if all parties agree lets make water and food concentration 1 and 2

<M6> me to so now what, water, food or Oxygen lets choose already

<M6> M7 you give use the order then

<M6> M7, M8, F7, F6 anyone else

<M6> M7 lower you voice you are talking to loud

However, he also says 'Look it does not matter which goes where we are going to die anyway'. He then follows this up with a question about the finals (later repeated) and he orders the group to 'pick this order I'm hungry.' His control seems to wane as M7 takes over until the end. M6 says consecutively:

<M6> M7 stop talking out of your ass

<M6> M8 go home [in response to M8 saying ëa good one M7']

<M6> M7 you are crazy

<M6> ladies say something

<M6> how do you know what have you been reading the moon times.

['Putdown' on M8.]

M6 takes over leadership again at the very end when F7 says 'we out of time'. M6 says 'radio milk rope signal flares' The responses are 'ok, ok, ok', 'that's fine with me', 'the answer is C' Then M6 says 'when is the test [once again asking about final exams]' And everyone signs off. This move by M6 does not appear to be last ditch effort to make a list was consensual. Rather, they were simply out of time. So M6 rattled off a list and they said 'ok' it seemed, just to get it over with and sign off immedidately. There was no real agreement.

This raises the issue of the groups' effectiveness in developing the list. For example, Group 3 had only five items on its list. Group 1 had ten items on their list. However, they only had prioritized 5 items to take with them. Group 2 (the only group with 3 women and two men) was the only group to reach over 5 items to be taken (having agreed on 7 items), and they did so by consensus.

We also can see how males also engaged in banter, posturing and made "wise cracks,' while none of these behaviors were demonstrated by the women. Some examples of these exchanges are listed below in Example 3:

EXAMPLE 3:

Group 1

<M2> Why would we need all the dehydrated milk? We only have a few gallons of water.

<M3> milk is out

<M1> milk, makes a body good

<M1> couldn't help it

.

<M3> isn't the moon made of cheese?

.

<M2> if the sun didn't reach it, Pink Floyd's album would be "Dark Side of the Sun"

<M3> we're on the dark side of the moon M2

<M1> gotta hand it to you guys, rotten jokes

.

<M1> want to put milk before rope, it is still a source of nourishment

<M2> what'll we do, snort it?

.

<F1> Why do we need a pistol?

<M1> in case you get out of hand

<M2> now that's not nice

.

<M2> there's no water to use the raft on.

<M1> 5 gallons

<M1> kidding

One also notes that while M1 sent the most messages in his group, many of them were jokes or teasing and not directly contributing to the discussion.

As already mentioned, M6 made the most comments in his group and most often took the lead. He also made many "wise cracks" at the other members of the group, seeming to want to "put them in their place." It is also worth noting that while the other men usually snapped back at him, the females would simply get quiet. An example is listed in the following:

EXAMPLE 4:

Group 3

<F7> hi

<M6> what do you mean hi we have been here for a while

<M6> just joking

.

<M6> learn how to spell M7

.

<M6> I need to learn how to spell

.

<M7> there is no oxygen on the moon

<M6> How do you know have you been there

<F7> That is true

<M8> I'm a big fan of breathing myself.

.

<M7> breathing is peachy keen have you ever seen total recall

.

<M8> heating units are might groovy also concidering the moon is sopposed to be pretty cold

.

<M7> will a magnetic good on the moon does it work

<M8> interresting word order M7

<M7> its hunky dory

.

<M6> Does anyone know when our final for this class is Imust study for it when we get back to earth

.

<M7> rock on island M7

Part of the explanation for the silencing of the women may be related to the fact that the males were more likely to criticize and make personal attacks, i.e., 'flaming,' a behavior with which women are uncomfortable. An example of this type of exchange is listed below:

EXAMPLE 5:

Group 2

<M5> what about milk for 5

<M4> na, milk is for babies. I think we have enough nutrtion with the h20 & food.

.

<F5> What about the fm receiver next

<M4> so we can listen to Howard Stern on the trip.

Also, while M4 made the most comments in this group, much of his feedback was in the form of critical responses.

Below is an example of the some of the roughest exchange in the chats, with bad language being used by two of the male participants. Again, M6 is involved, but this time F6 speaks up in protest.

EXAMPLE 6:

Group 3

<M6> What about milk?

<M7> milk can be 6 it does a body good .

<M8> fuck milk.

<F6> Watch your mouth M8

<M6> fuck you M8 milk is the shit, who cares anyway we are going to die

<M7> M8 im going to give you a spanking just coroporate

Here again we see M6 being very aggressive and being especially sharp with F6, who ended up sending the least amount of messages in her group. In fact, M6 sent three times as many messages as F6. (There also seems to be a prelude to the gender play we'll see more clearly in later on in Example 8.)

The milk issue turned into 'p-----g contest' with M6 and M8 excluding M7. M6 had previously ordered the women's cooperation, 'ladies say something,' and M7 had responded, 'I am a lady big boy'. Nine lines later, M6 commented, 'Are you gay M7'. In this episode, F7 tries to get them back on task by saying, 'I lost point!' Her language and style is to avoid conflict and bring about harmony by accepting responsibility herself rather than saying, 'You've lost the point of the exercise'. After that. M6 matched M8's 'fuck milk' language equally aggressively, with 'fuck you M8 milk is the shit, who cares anyway we are going to die'. Both F6 and M7 reprimanded M8. F6 was direct, 'Watch your mouth M8' before M6's reply, and M7 used jest, 'M8 im going to give you a spanking just coroporate'. F7 once again enters, but not to reprimand or take charge. She is inclusive in saying, 'we out of time'.

This was an odd exchange, and since it occurred at the very end, and very aggressive language used by M8 and M6 seemed to exclude the women and M7. It's doubtful, that the two men could not have behaved this aggressively until the end.

Men and women also reacted differently to being ignored. Although M6 seemed to assume leadership effectively at the beginning, he asked about the final exam at least three times during the exercise. At no time was he answered. Perhaps this was because the question was not task relevant and viewed as a distraction by the others. Women in all groups reacted to the lack of response to their questions by participating less, or asking, 'did you hear me?'. M6, however, continued to try to exert authority throughout the exercise, although he had lost it by the end, when M7 takes over. The final line of dialogue is from M6, when once again he asks, 'when is the test'. There is no reply as everyone leaves.

Below we see how the male style of interaction is to challenge. The women hold up to these challenges for a while, but seem to get 'worn down' eventually. As mentioned earlier, the women in this group spoke far less than the men, and both women made less total statements than any of the men.

EXAMPLE 7:

Group 3

<M7> why pistols

<F6> for protection

<M7> from what

<M6> why there are no crocks on the moon it is only us

<M8> against what

<F6> Who knows? Do you know what's out there?

<M6> buss it compass is 5 would everyone agree

<M7> nothing dont you watch the news

<M7> compass is 5

<F6> I thought we already decided that the compass was 5

<M7> ok than

<M6> da F6

Below we see how M6 shuts F6 down with his sharp comments, but we also see that M7 shoots a reply right back in response to M6's 'putdowns.'

EXAMPLE 8:

Group 3

<F6> Will a solar-powered transmitter work on the moon?

<M8> who cares

<M6> who know we have to try

<M7> yes there is sun

<M6> what sun

<M8> good one M7

<M7> well give all its got scotty

<M6> M7 stop talking our of your ass

<F6> Come on guys, what's next?

<M8> signal flares rule. they like shoot high , and stuff

<M6> M8 go home

<M8> ok

<M7> fine i try to bring some humor into us dying and all you do is yell at me where the hell is my shrink

<M6> M7 you are crazy

.

<M6> ladies say something

<M7> i am alady big boy

<F7> I lost point!

<M8> rope is good. It's pretty mountain filled up there

<M6> How do you know what have you been reading the moon times

<M6> What about milk people

<M7> milk can be 6 it does a body good

<M6> true that

<M8> I say rope=7, matches=15, and life raft=14

<M7> than again M8 does a body good also

<F7> We got only 2 minites

<M6> are you gay M7

The gender play here is also interesting, where after a playful yet antagonistic exchange, M6 asks: 'are you gay M7.' The authors wonders if this is meant as a 'put down' and what, if any, significance this has in the power dynamic.

Analysis of these transcripts also revealed that some of the women's questions would go unanswered, but none of the men's. Example 9 below demonstrates this 'silencing' quite vividly.

EXAMPLE 9:

Group 2

<F4> I just thought about the flares, we can't use them without the matches right?

.

<M5> would flares work on the moon?

<F4> M4 did you hear me about the flares?

<F5> why not

<M4> can you light a match on moon?

In this example, F4 raises a question twice and never gets a response from either the male or female members of that group. F5 is also ignored; when she states: 'signal flares should be # 3.' There is no reply. She waits through ten lines of dialogue, and asks, 'Can you hear me?' Immediately, F4 asks, 'What did you say?'. F5 doesn't reply immediately, but agrees with the other on food for # 3. M5 asks, 'what should be 4', and she immediately replies signal flares. Nobody answers about flares. She again waits and agrees with the others on the map as #4. As soon as everyone has agreed, she immediately comments, 'I still think we need the signal flares to alet the mother ship'. Now, she has expanded her comment, speaking longer. Everyone responds to her, and agrees. Then another woman who has agreed asks, 'If there's no oxygen, will they work right?' Flares are then discarded for heating. Next, M5 suggests the fm transmitter. F5 uses the language of politeness by simultaneously affirming his choice without pointing out it is a receiver, not a transmitter, 'what about the fm receiver next?' In a sign of inclusion and listening to her, M4 picks up on her point it is a receiver by using jest, 'so we can listen to Howard Stern on the trip.'

It is worth noting, though, that although there was some male jesting in Group 2, it appeared to good-humored, no one was attacked and it included the women, rather than excluding them. This group is also noteworthy for the good humor that prevailed, and it is the only group that affirmed each other by saying 'bye'. When the time ran out, M4 asks, 'that's it???' M5 next says 'bye', F3 answers M4, 'Yes that's what she (a study team member) said,' then F4 says, 'bye!', M4, 'bye everyone', and F3 'bye'.

Summary

The questionnaire responses revealed that the participants were roughly similar in background and experience levels with technology and in their attitudes towards the technology. Despite this fact, though, there was a significant difference in the amount and type of communication by gender. Specifically, the men sent more and longer messages than the women and the men also tended to take control of the discussion. There were also noticeable differences in language style between men and women, with some men using strong and even aggressive language and women using language of agreement and inclusion. Gender differences in language style, therefore, seem to reflect and or even create asymmetry in power. In addition, there also appears to be a difference in 'seriousness' accorded to the exercises by men and women. In other words, the men seem to be treating the task as more of a game, which may be attributed to the fact that they are more comfortable with both the technology and their own authority.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study are consistent with others that found that not only do women contribute significantly less than the men, but the length of the women's messages were shorter than the men's (Herring, Johnson & DiBenedetto, 1992). However, as Herring (1993) has noted, it is actually a minority of men who dominate discussions online, by volume and by "rhetorical intimidation." In addition, as Tannen (1990) has noted, women were more likely to take personal offense to the verbally aggressive style that most men take for granted as part of discourse. In an interview with Technology Review , Turkle (Session with a cybershrink, 1996) explains that women are less visible in online groups than men and when things get rowdy, they become silent or leave. In Wired magazine, Turkle (1996) also explains that women seem to be more likely to express themselves when their gender identity is hidden.

According to Rakow (1986), it has been common to cite women's lack of access and skills to explain this unequal participation, but she observes that the differences are in the social structure not in the women. Also, Ebben and Kramarae (1993) would say we should not be surprised by these results, since the same relationships of power in "real life" are simply transferred into these new mediated environments. In an article appearing in Cybersociety , Kramarae (1995) powerfully states that "we see that women are in this cyberspace but in the same basic ways they have been in the rest of men's technology creations, not as primary decision makers but primarily as tools or concepts to be used in the creations of men.' (p. 41). An analogy can be drawn to politics, where Stark (1996) states the framework for the American political system, and it was already set up by men based on the sports and war metaphors with which they are most comfortable. Then when women got involved, they were stuck with those male-oriented paradigms if they wanted to play. The same relationship seems to hold true in cyberspace, where women seem to need to learn the rules of the gameÖ.or lose.

Reich (1991) reminds us that in the 21st-century, individuals will be required to spend a good deal of their time using that information infrastructure, we are calling cyberspace, as part of a vast "global web" of communication and economic activity. If economic well-being and equality depend on equal access to information, if the key to strategy and decision making is information, if economic power depends on access to information, women will continue to occupy the lower rungs of our democracy and our economy. Historically women have consistently and systematically been "left out" of key societal systems.

Obstacles to equity in information technology do continue to exist for women--in experience, training, orientation, and cultural expectation. These obstacles need to be confronted; otherwise, the implementation of an information superhighway will only further fragment and stratify society. This point is best illustrated in a recent report of the AAUW (1995), "How Schools Shortchange Girls," which suggests that girls lack the confidence to succeed. For example, girls are more likely to attribute their failure to lack of ability, while boys are more likely to attribute their failure to the subject matter not being interesting. Pointing to a growing gender gap in technology related areas, AAUW recommends that programs be developed to deal specifically with these issues of confidence. This means that if we want an information superhighway that serves the entire community, then it is imperative that we make it a place where all of its participants feel welcome, their needs are recognized, and obvious inequities are addressed and provided for in its policy. This can begin with early education and awareness for both boys and girls.

In an interview with Working Woman , Turkle (Examining the interface, 1996) also states: "When that culture (i.e., cyberspace) was primarily by engineers for engineers and by men for men, women could be disregarded. Things change when women become mainstream consumers and make their voices heard' (p. 36). This point of view is reinforced in the increasing number of conferences and workshops asking us to join them to learn "How to Market to Women.Online" or "Women Online: Developing content and advertising for an emerging market" sponsored by cybermarketing companies such as Jupiter Communications and Women's Wire. Reducing the debate to marketplace terminology clouds the bigger picture, though. Developing content and advertising for an emerging market is a step in the right direction, assuming there is an active role for women as "producers" rather than as passive target "consumers."

We see still other obstacles to equity in terms of the relatively low numbers of women developing these high tech systems and the women who are in these industries are compensated poorly. Computerworld (He/she salaries, 1996) reported from a 1995 survey of information systems professionals showing that the IS population was 70% male, with men's salaries ranging from less than $45,000 (29%), $45-55,000 (30%), and more than $55,000 (41%), compared to a distribution for women's salaries of less than $45,000 (62%), $45-55,000 (25%), and more than $55,000 (13%). We also see even greater disparities globally. According to UNICEF (1999) two thirds of the world's illiterate are women. And according to NUA (1998) only 4% of Internet users in the MiddleEast are women, with European women not faring much better at 18% (GVU, 1999)

Consequently, until women are involved in decision-making processes at all levels of development of the GII, and until a coherent system of accountability is integrated into its formations and dynamics, the needs of some sectors of the population will not be met. Equitable participation in cyberspace will not come from women envisioning themselves as an equal proportion of the users or of consumers to be targeted for goods and services. Equality in cyberspace is also related to equal participation in the shaping of its technology, its environment, its capitalization, and its regulations.

AAUW. (1995). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW Report. New York: Marlow & Co.

ACM. (1997). The incredible shrinking pipeline. Communications of the ACM, 40(10), 103-110.

Anderson R. et al. (1995). Universal access to email: Feasibility and societal implications. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Adams, C. (1996). 'This is not our fathers' pornography': Sex, lies, and computers. In C. Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 147-170). Albany: State University Press of New York Press.

Adler, R. (1995). Introduction. The Annual Review of the Institute for Information Studies. Crossroads on the Information Highway: Convergence and Diversity in Communications Technologies (pp.ix-xxv). Queenstown, MD: The Aspen Institute.

Balka, E. (1996). Gender and skill in human computer interaction.Electronic proceedings of CHI96. Available on-line: http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi96/proceedings/intpost/Balka/be_txt.html

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1998). Occupational Outlook Handbook: Available http://stats. bls.gov/

Colomb, G. & Simutis, J. (1996). Visible conversation and academic inquiry: CMC in a culturally diverse classroom. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 203 223). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Condon, S. & Cech, C. (1996). Functional comparisons of face-to-face and computer-mediated decision making interactions. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 65-80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Doyle, M. & Strauss, D. (1976). How to make meetings work. Chicago, IL: Playboy Press.

Ebben, M. (1994). Women on the net: An exploratory study of gender dynamics on the Soc.women computer network. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

Ebben, M. & Kramarae, C. (1993). Women and information technologies: Creating a cyberspace of our own. In H.J. Taylor, C. Kramarae & M. Ebben (Eds.), Women, information technology, scholarship (pp. 15-27). University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign: Center for Advanced Study.

The Economist Telecommunications Survey: The death of distance. (1995, September 30). The Economist. September 30. [On-line]. Available: http://economist.iconnet.net/surveys/distance

Elshtain, J. (1982, August 7). Interactive TV, Democracy and the QUBE tube. The Nation, 108.

Ess, C. (1996). The political computer: Democracy, CMC and Habermas. In C. Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 115-146). Albany: State University Press of New York Press.

Examining the interface: An interview with Sherry Turkle. (1996, June). Working Woman, 35-37, 70-2.

Fulk, J. & Collins-Jarvis, L. (in press). Wired meetings: Technological mediation of organizational settings. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), New handbook of organizational communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Galbraith, J. (1998). Created unequal: The crisis in American pay. New York: Free Press.

He/she salaries in information technology. (1996, June 24). Computerworld, p. 84.

Herring, S. (1996a). Introduction. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 1-10). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Herring, S. (1996b). Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in CMC. In C. Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 115-146). Albany: State University Press of New York Press.

Herring, S. (1994, June). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing faciliar baggage to the new frontier. Paper presented at American Libarary Association annual convention, Miami, FL. Available on line: http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_culture/Gender_issues/cmc_and_gender.article

Herring, S. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3 (2). Available Email: comserve@vm.its.rpi.edu Message: Get herring V3N293

Herring, S., Johnson, D. & DiBenedetto, T. (1995). 'This discussion is going too far!': Male resistance to female participation on the Internet. In Hall K. & Bucholtz, M. (Eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self. New York: Routledge.

Herring, S., Johnson, D. & DiBenedetto, T. (1992, April). Participation in electronic discourse in a "feminist" field. Paper presented at the Berkeley Women and Language conference, University of California Berkeley.

Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

ITU. (1984). The missing link: Report of the Independent Commission for World Wide Telecommunications Development. (Geneva: ITU).

James, D. & Clark, S. (1993). Women, men, and interruptions: A critical review. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 231 280). New York: Oxford University Press.

James, D. & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 281-312). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kantrowitz, B. (1994, May 16). Men, women and computers. Newsweek, pp. 48 52.

Kapor, M. (1993, July/August). Where is the digital highway really heading?: A case for Jeffersonian information policy. Wired, 1 (3), 53-59, 94.

Kramarae, C. (1995). A backstage critique of virtual reality. In Steven Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 36-56). Newbury Park, CA: Sage,.

Lakoff, R. (1995). Cries and whispers: The shattering of silence. In Hall K. & Bucholtz, M. (Eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self. New York: Routledge.

Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and women's place. Language and Society, 2, 45 79.

Leslie, J. (1993, November). Kids connecting. Wired, 1 (5), 90.

Ma, R. (1996). Computer-mediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural communication between East Asian and North American college students. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 173-186). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Media Metrix. (1999). Press release. Media Metrix chronicles the 'history' of the Internet. Available on-line: http://www.mediametrix.com/PressRoom/Press Releases/03-18-99.html

Morse, S. (1995, Winter). Why girls don't like computer games. AAUW Outlook, 16-19.

Nielsen Media Research. (1999). Women shoppers head to the Web in force as the number of Internet buyers jumps 40% in nine months. Available on-line: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/newsreleases/releases/1999/commercenet.html

Parry, L. & Wharton R. (1994). Networking in the workplace: The role of gender in electronic communications. In U. Gattiker (Ed.) Studies in Technological Innovation and Human Resources: Vol. 4. Women and Technology (pp. 65-92). Berlin: DeGruyter Press.

PCs by gender. (1995, November 6). U.S. News & World Report, 66.

Rakow, L. (1988). Gendered technology, gendered practice. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5, 57-70.

Rakow, L. (1986). Rethinking gender research in communication. Journal of Communication, 36 (4), 11-26.

Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st-Century capitalism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Reimus, R. (1998). Knowledge sharing within management consulting firms: Reports on how U.S.-based management consultancies deploy technology, use groupware and facilitate collaboration. Executive Summary. (Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire: Kennedy Publications). Available: http://www.kennedypub.com/gware.html

Scientific American. (1998a). Explorations: Women in Science. A Status Report. Is the glass half full or half empty? Available on-line: http://www.sciam.com/explorations/1998/042798women/index.html

Scientific American. (1998b). Explorations: Women in Science. A Status Report. You've come a long way, maybe. Available on-line: http://www.sciam.com/explorations/1998/042798women/progress.html

Scientific American. (1998c). Explorations: Women in Science. A Status Report. Where's the difference? Available on-line: http://www.sciam.com/explorations/1998/042798women/impede.html

Scientific American. (1998d). Forum: Women in Science. Available on-line: http://www.sciam.com/explorations/1998/051898women/index.html

Session with the cybershrink: An interview with Sherry Turkle. (1996, February/March). Technology Review, 99 (2), 41-47.

Shank, G. & Cunningham, D. (1996). Mediated phosphor dots: Toward a post Cartesian model of CMC via the semiotic superhighway. In C. Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 27-44). Albany: State University Press of New York Press.

Shields, S. and Stewart, C. (1999, May). Virtual teams: A comparison between academe and industry. Paper presented at International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.

Smith, J. (1995, October/November). What does convergence mean for women? Intermedia, 23 (5), 20-22.

Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the Net: Women, power and cyberspace. North Melborne, Australia: Spinifex Press Pty Ltd.

Spender, D. (1989). The writing or the sex (or why you don't have to read women's writing to know it's no good). The Athene Series. New York: Pergamon.

Spender, D. (1985). Man-made Language. London: Routledge.

Stark, S. (1996). Gap politics. The Atlantic Monthly, 278, (1), 70-80.

Sterling, B. (1986). Preface. In B. Sterling (Ed.), Mirrorshades: The cyberpunk anthology. New York: Arbor House Publishing Corp.

Stewart, C. and Shields, S. (1996, May). Women and men communicating in cyberspace: Do listservs offer new possibilities for communication equity? Paper presented at International Communication Association conference, Chicago, IL.

Stewart, L. and Ting-Toomey, S. (1987). Communiation, gender, and sex roles in diverse interaction contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tannen, D. (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 165-188). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc.

Turkle, S. (1996, January). Who am we? WIRED, 4 (1), 148-152, 194-199.

Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.

UNICEF. (1999). State of the world's children 1999. Available on-line: http://www.unicef.org/sowc99/sw99rite.htm

Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in computer-mediated international collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23(3), 342-369.

Web marketers target teenage girls. (1999, May 18). USA Today.

Werry, C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of the Internet Relay Chat. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-64). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.