Gender and Technology Culture: Points of Contact in Tech Cities

Territories and characteristics

Tech cities are commonly based in run-down areas on the fringes of, or occupying undesirable spaces within, urban areas, often supported by government grants to promote growth and demonstrate investment in the digital sector. For Nathan et al. (2018), such investment demonstrates that tech cities should be treated as unique locations in terms of the business and work opportunities located within them. Well-known tech cities include the following:

The first three – currently the most significant technology clusters globally (TechNation, 2018) – are the case study sites for this research. Given the level of capital funding and investment, tech cities should be seen as significant sites of growth and part of an emerging digitally enabled global civil society (Sassen, 2016). Technology companies in Silicon Roundabout have received £6.9 billion in venture capital funding since 2010 (London & Partners, 2017). In terms of specialist creative digital clusters within specific urban economies, researchers are starting to address the unique attributes of these sites and the plurality of ‘co-creative’ labour therein (Nathan et al., 2018; Pareja-Eastaway, 2016). However, the inequalities and behavioural factors that contribute to the different experiences and opportunities of work in these spaces have not yet been scrutinised.

Re-shaping diversity in tech

Some (e.g. Sassen, 2016) see tech clusters as signalling the move from local city initiatives to government intervention in support of cross-border dynamics, as these spaces begin to form global culture and citizenship. In contrast, Florida et al. (2017) identify the city as an ‘innovation machine’ and study the effect on regional structures with similar characteristics to tech cities. While these accounts take very different perspectives on the dynamics of the creative class, they usefully highlight the global economic fortitude of the creative job sector and how this is unique to the physical places of tech cities. However, this scholarship fails to capture gendered differences in experiences of professional life or to analyse interventions aimed at neutralising the dominant masculine work culture. While there are several comparative analyses of women’s and men’s earnings within broad categories of work, including tech (Acker, 1990, 2006; Olivetti and Petrongolo, 2008; Weichselbaumer and Winter-Ebmer, 2007), research examining gender differences within a defined spatial and cultural context often focuses solely on barriers within the workplace, interpreting discriminatory policies and practices as the main causes of women’s workplace disadvantage (Damaske et al., 2014; Prokos and Padavic, 2002, 2005). Lim and Cortina’s (2005) work on sexual harassment highlights the impact of toxic organisational culture and unites patterns of resistance to an array of coping strategies enacted beyond workplace boundaries. This context is important, as it confirms the hidden biases in male-dominated industries (such as engineering and construction) that continue to contribute to toxicity alongside overt victimisation and sexualisation of women (McLaughlin et al., 2012; Ness, 2012; Watts, 2009). In attempting to reshape the diversity of the tech industry, it is important to investigate gender relations within tech cities: how do women and men position themselves relative to professional spaces, roles and responsibilities, and the work they carry out? These forms of interaction are analysed as points of contact in light of participants’ attempts to shape new meaning and actions within tech cities.

Points of contact

The above creative-city context is not new; classic theorists have suggested the increasing significance of the high-tech industrial districts that have replaced the post-Fordist economy (Castells, 2014; Piore and Sabel, 1984). What are new are the differing practices that constitute ‘work’ emerging under the umbrella of digital capital. The change of occupational clusters might present new ‘relational opportunities’ in collaborative workplaces (Ettlinger, 2003: 145), demonstrating a shift in work culture owing to the dense concentration of creative and, more specifically, digital producers (Gandini, 2016). Indeed, the way in which work can occur independent of organisational structures and the shift towards ‘entrepreneurial practices’ (Cockayne, 2018) characterise many of the professional relationships explored here. The structure of tech cities encompasses physical (architectural and superstructural) and immaterial (digital, social, and cultural) boundaries.

Recent scholarly interest in physical movements within workspaces suggests heightened worker visibility in ideological constructions of work and gender-related status (Polletta and Tufail, 2016; Vallas and Christin, 2018), creating conditions in which ‘defined gender expectations have significant consequences for the labour process’ (Payne, 2018: 347). Far from being freeing, therefore, digital workspaces intensify male hegemonic work practices, solidifying boundaries. Indeed, tech cities’ apparently innovative work dynamics form part of the new contextual boundaries of ‘maker cultures’ utilising digital networks and gender difference (Rosner and Fox, 2016). While tech cities and the digital economy might be held up as examples of democratisation enabled by desirable creative work, this is by no means universally available. Working across global contexts, professionals experience considerable autonomy in tech cities. With such innovation and creative organisational efforts, including developing worker relationships, what forms do professional identities take and how influential is masculine tech culture? Below, I describe the study’s methods and examine in more detail the three sites studied, before discussing its findings on these questions.

Participants and places

Co-working spaces at each tech city site agreed to host the focus groups – one located on a campus of a well-known tech organisation (California, Silicon Valley, SV), the second in an urban area of high social and economic mobility (London, Silicon Roundabout, SR), and the third at an inner-city location of mixed commercial use and socio-economic status (New York, Silicon Alley, SA). Each group involved 20 participants; participant characteristics are summarised below:

Focus groups

Observation field notes from each site, along with survey responses, were used to identify key themes to be developed in focus groups. These were semi-structured, covering a range of issues to do with opportunities for new career roles and new practices aimed at reordering spaces and identities. Each discussion began with a ‘point of difference’ exercise adapted from a group role-play technique: groups were given scenarios involving different professionals and were asked to talk about the relative roles, responsibilities, opportunities, and barriers of each and to indicate where they believed each professional might be placed relative to the others in terms of seniority and status. This exercise built group rapport and allowed investigation of each group’s attitudes and views.

Focus groups took place over lunchtime for 90 minutes in a shared work hub. This was a non-invasive way to integrate the sessions into the working day and provide stimulus for some of the more personally revealing reflections. Time was given at the end for participants to raise issues that concerned them. To protect participants’ identity, quotes have been made anonymous, but apart from some elision, their words are reproduced verbatim. The focus groups were digitally recorded and transcribed, along with the author’s field notes – personal narratives using diary-style accounts and images that were analysed using qualitative techniques – and handwritten notes of observations.

Analysis

Building on Glaser and Strauss (1967), comparative analysis was used to identify and compare the actions and interpretations of participants in each group. The aim was to identify a set of themes to allow an account of work, diversity, and discrimination in tech cities to be constructed, by noting the range and prevalence of practices participants experienced. Thematic analysis was used to compare the group discussions, including the observations made at the time. To ensure methodological rigour, initial interpretations were presented to several volunteers from among the participants (n = 8). Any points considered not faithful to the intended meaning were corrected during this process.

Points of contact I: awareness of diversity in professional and non-professional settings

At each case study site, gender equality initiatives had been implemented in response to negative work practices. Each tech city has a distinct vision of how women should fit into the tech economy, based on recent publications and evidence about the importance of diversity and skills development. The most common initiatives included marketing and networking events orientated around the ‘women in tech’ identity, a label discussed at length:

A large part of the dialogue was about reforming how women in tech are viewed through involvement with initiatives to improve the teaching of technology to girls and their access to the sector. These findings highlight the focus on the subcultural context of tech culture that was associated with identifiable ‘women’s roles’ in marketing, advertising, community management, and content editing (Duffy and Schwartz, 2017). Moreover, there is a link to Ness’s (2012) research on occupational ideology concerning a masculinised hierarchy of labour – it is not that women are unable to do the work, or secure careers in tech cities, rather the often insecure conditions of employment and career trajectory favour masculine identities and ways of working. This echoes more traditional assumptions attached to working in tech (Corneliussen, 2004; Henwood, 2000) and the way in which common gendered associations aligned with the ‘women in tech’ identity. Within tech cities, a major issue is that of roles concerning how these replicate gender segregation of jobs and are connected to visibility – or in this case, the visible lack of diversity experienced by many participants. To give an example, the degree to which the ‘women in tech’ label was tied to non-professional roles had most impact. The US focus groups were more optimistic about how to reposition the language around diversity:

Being known as ‘women in tech’ comes with risks: ‘you only do marketing’ (Clara, 20, intern) or ‘you get asked about your family or marriage situation more than your business’ (Amy, 47, CEO). Yet participants agreed that the label is markedly more positive when applied to meaningful activities such as mentoring, business coaching, and (in some cases) networking. In this way, professional training is a key point of contact in determining the polarity of women’s and men’s roles in tech cities – and, as James’s reply highlights, something experienced very differently by men. This finding is reflected in Watts’s (2009) research about women civil engineers and how women are marginalised in professional contexts. For example, maintaining a respected professional identity had different implications for those women in the study whose identity was always defined in relation to motherhood, with the risk of putting one’s career in jeopardy.

Attitudes about professional roles and experiences in tech cities were far from homogeneous. The survey highlighted considerable similarity in experiences of attitudes and access, and opinions about the future of diversity in tech cities, but also important differences (Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Tech professionals’ attitudes to work in tech cities (%).

	London, SR			California, SV			New York, SA
	Female	Male	All	Female	Male	All	Female	Male	All
I feel that women are less visible in the tech sector	100	73	87	83	48	66	74	21	48
I feel secure working in tech	21	67	55	75	99	87	77	97	87
Working in a tech city is very important to my future	31	84	58	57	95	76	44	73	59

SR: Silicon Roundabout; SV: Silicon Valley; SA: Silicon Alley.

In practice, dialogues on contentious and sensitive subjects tend to result in segregation into recognisable groups and networks. One example is the ‘Girls in Tech’ network, of which many women in this study were members. Membership had allowed some to feel they could create a more constructive message about female tech professionals, but at the same time, it emphasised their sense of precarity. Indeed, skills difference continues to act as the pivot for this image (Vallas and Christin, 2018). Marginality features in this study in terms of the lack of diversity in roles – ‘more often the boys create the code’ (Sara, 52, game designer) – but also, for a few female participants, as a way to enable them to ‘celebrate’ what is distinct in their experience of working in a tech city: ‘I get a real kick out of proving I am as good as the boys’ (Erica, 20, intern). In a context where women professionals can ‘do a bit of showing off’ (Jane, 40, network manager), there is a counter-narrative emerging around empowerment and ‘really changing the attitudes about women here’ (Zoe, 32, web designer). This leads to the next point of contact: the way in which new identities are allowed to emerge in the space of tech cities.

Points of contact II: changing tech identities and changing spaces

The focus on ‘women in tech’ stereotypes above shows how gender differences and lack of diversity in professional experience (particularly in senior roles) can be reproduced in tech cities. Such patterns are ever-present, but their repetition is not automatic or unchangeable; rather, it must be continually either enacted or reacted against. This implies that – particularly in moments when counter-narratives are introduced and even ‘celebrated’ – tech cities may also be viewed as spaces of change (Hardey, 2019). However, such change is likely to be contested and to cause tensions:

These participants had proactively sought to enable positive change, such as negotiating on salary offers. However, such practices took place within difficult and stressful contexts: Rebecca feels violated and is asking for an open dialogue; Iris feels patronised and dismissed. In both instances, there is frustration at new opportunities being closed off and reaction against an increasingly toxic culture (Massanari, 2017). Cockayne (2018) identifies similar boundaries in San Francisco’s digital sector, noting the silent agreement by early stage employees to fit with current work culture. This is just one example of Payne’s (2018) observations about the continuation of masculine cultural expectations of competition and performance-driven compliance. While Rebecca, Iris, and Jenna continue to work in tech cities, to do so necessitates constantly negotiating their professional status by identifying ways to establish a cohesive identity across professional spaces. Strategies for stepping outside of perceived roles involved, for some, entering new patterns of labour as part of digital projects that could be managed from home. However, such strategies limit the potential for diversity in tech cities, with (mostly women) workers managing career and family at home (Polletta and Tufail, 2016; Richardson, 2018). The next exchange concerns perceptions of the division of labour within tech cities:

Much of this conversation was about being allowed to enter and occupy tech cities in ways that singled women out as ‘different from boys in tech’, with women’s professional identities and occupation of space perceived differently to those of men. Duffy and Schwartz (2017) take this division one step further, thinking about the situational context of women’s labour and its categorisation in job advertisements, with expectations that women will take on feminised roles. The above exchange reveals a distinction between women’s and men’s responsibilities, in Arjun’s identification of women being associated with ‘social and domestic tasks’ and Miranda’s observation of ‘a status judgement’. What is noticeable is not a lack of competencies, but how these are viewed ‘differently’ when comparing women’s and men’s status (Hacker, 2017). Janet’s comment about the emotional energy involved in creating space for opportunities highlights how steps towards inclusion rely on an affective element – echoing Hochschild (2012 [1983]) ‘emotional labour’ – and reinforce the gendered, stratified effects of dominant male work culture (Polletta and Tufail, 2016), and possible resistance to change (Johansson et al., 2017). However, there are advantages to such affective effort, as the London group discussed regarding the social and professional benefits of tech networks in allowing space for diversity:

A positive aspect of gendered tech networks implied here is their support role, helping to establish and promote women into stronger positions. A similar effect was noted by Rosner and Fox (2016) in their study of a mother-operated hackerspace enabling culture and knowledge exchange. However, the exchange above underscores how tech cities are coded by perceived masculine ways of working to the extent that Ladan and Steve feel obliged to repress any public expression of negative feelings.

Points of contact III: inscribing empowerment through narratives of success

This final point of contact was revealed in discussions setting empowerment alongside ‘privilege’, closely aligned to attributes associated with the youthful, white, masculine ideal. Such privilege allows men to act as the ‘ideo-affective resonator’ (Ngai, 2005: 75) and exclude the actions of women. Understanding how empowerment might overcome this was a significant discussion point in California:

There is a tension in how the group talked about women’s place in tech and the possibilities for a future change in this status. The group talked about being allowed to criticise the lack of diversity, noting negative reactions and being labelled as ‘sensitive’ to issues of discrimination. This contrasted with the belief, much supported in all focus groups, that women deserve equal opportunities in the sector. Discussions demonstrated an awareness of a culture around status and roles within tech cities that continues to strongly favour a certain masculine ideology. This theme was taken up by the London group, where concern was expressed about the representation of diversity at events and public-facing activities:

This discussion demonstrates the distinction of women as ‘lesser’ in experience and expertise, compared with the privilege (and prejudice) demonstrated by the conference Chair. Such marginalisation links back to the first point of contact: participants’ perceptions of being labelled as ‘women in tech’. Alongside such labelling is concern about how we begin to tell a story about the roles women are allowed to emulate and to dismiss claims about their supposed lack of interest in tech careers (Cheryan et al., 2013; Ehrlinger et al., 2018). Taking this context one step further, the participants are saying that as long as the ‘women in tech’ label exists, it is mostly predictable and (relatively) ‘easy’ to navigate around. But more complex negotiations are needed within tech cities to reach beyond the label and ‘properly speak to the issues’ (Meghan) (Massanari, 2017). Some felt that their attempt to change the story around women in tech had itself became a point of conflict: ‘I don’t feel comfortable going to the events where its all male and pale who stare at your tits and don’t listen or consider that you could be more competent than them’ (Sally, 22, media sales); ‘you fight to be heard. If you’re talking about business you get past the “being a woman” apology as quickly as you can’ (Ana, 42, CEO).

Such attitudes appear at odds with more optimistic visions on gender and technology, ‘where neither gender nor technology is taken to be pre-existing, nor is the relationship between them immutable’ (Wajcman, 2007: 287). Participants’ perceptions were shaped by the masculine territories of tech cities and their experiences of having to negotiate or explain their difference and seeking to produce and fix in place new narratives of success (regardless of gender) that were constantly overlooked. While participants agreed that gender was a focus of discrimination, they felt that the spaces within tech cities enabled further labour divisions that intersected with negative judgement about women’s professional roles. This distinction in labour reinforces a uniformity in the professional relations that are allowed to materialise in the spaces in and around tech cities to echo technology as a source of masculine power (Cockburn, 2009; Hacker, 2017). Far from being neutral places, tech cities consist of spaces where power relations (especially those shaped by gender) have a profound effect (Hardey, 2019, 2017). One of the most passionate discussions in the New York group was about establishing diversity in tech cities:

The need for women to represent themselves in ways other than as mother, wife, or carer was discussed in all three sites. Participants recognised that personal contexts often prevented a focus on professional roles and activities. Moreover, because networking and professional events were located in tech cities, some of the dynamics of these personal contexts reflected the physical separation of women’s and men’s roles. Compared with male colleagues, female participants more often worked from home and were not interested in attending evening ‘drink-about’ networking events. Within this context, the challenge is to enable women and men of different professional experience to establish more, and more meaningful, points of contact, recognising commonality in their experiences, which might break down preconceived stereotypes and identify new points of transition.