What motivates girls to choose a career in technology?

(Photo: NHO)

Studies of young people’s motivation to pursue a career in technology have often focused on when and how interest in technology develops. Many teenagers lose interest in science and technology, and because his affects girls more than boys, it leaves a short gap to capture girls’ interest, it has been argued. Many initiatives to increase girls’ interest have been designed based on images of boys’ interest in video gaming and programming. The problem is that this type of interest is also gendered.

We are in the process of concluding a survey among girls in Norway with nearly 700 respondents who were studying science and technology at high schools and universities.

What has been the most important motivation for your choice of studying in science and technology?

When we asked the girls this question, the top 9 motivating factors were all related to working life and society:

  • 93% agreed that exciting job opportunities in technology was an important motivation
  • 80% were strongly motivated by the possibility of using technology for solving social issues.

In the opposite end of the scale we found activities associated with boys:

  • less than 5% of the girls have been motivated through after-school/leisure time activities involving technology
  • less than 14% found video games motivating for choosing technology at high school or university.

These findings support our previous empirical research finding that many girls are motivated by other things than technology when they enter tech education.

The report (in Norwegian) will be out soon, for those who want to read more!


Corneliussen, H.G. (2020) “Dette har jeg aldri gjort før, så dette er jeg sikkert skikkelig flink på” – Rapport om kvinner i IKT og IKT-sikkerhet, Sogndal: VF-rapport 8/2020.
Corneliussen, H.G. (2020) ‘What Brings Women to Cybersecurity? A Qualitative Study of Women’s Pathways to Cybersecurity in Norway’ European Interdisciplinary Cybersecurity Conference (Eicc 2020).
Talks, I., Edvinsson, I., & Birchall, J. (2019). Programmed Out: The gender gap in technology in Scandinavia. Oslo: Plan International Norway.
McKinsey & Company and Pivotal Ventures. (2018). Rebooting representation – using CSR and philanthropy to close the gender gap in tech. https://www.rebootrepresentation.org/report-highlights/: Tech Report 2018 [Accessed March 2021].
Microsoft Corporation. (2017). Why Europe’s Girls Aren’t Studying STEM. – Microsoft Philanthropies.

In eager antipication of interoperability and user-friendliness…

This is the time of year when all academics in Sweden, and possibly elsewhere, are either busily writing funding applications or – and for many it is and – doing annual or final reports for their funded activities. In the digital world, much of this work for which we once had specialists falls on academics not trained in such accounting activities. Somehow the notion that we all have computers translates in many institutions into the idea that therefore we can also all – quasi-osmotically? – undertake all the processes for which we once had trained staff. Research time thus turns into research administration time, and since this is not what academics were trained for, we spend more time than is appropriate on tasks that we do not do routinely but intermittently.

This is made worse when accounting to funders requires the translation of the same information into multiple forms that are incompatible, use different categories each, and are not interoperable. One way in which this happens is when funders have a local system but also then decide to buy an ‘off-the-peg’ system from elsewhere (usually the US) where other discourses, categories, and assumptions prevail, and where the system may have been set up for certain disciplines (medicine or certain science/s spring to mind) that answer to other accounting imperatives. For the researcher this creates added administrative burdens in an age when ‘lean’ is the norm, and academics have virtually (or actually) no support for the burgeoning of administrative tasks they are meant to fulfill. Systems with a variety of automated functions including e.g. the selection of journal titles or funders (where one has to enter information manually which one ends up doing almost entirely – after all, how many of us have e.g. the DOI handy at all times?), but where the journal titles and publishers are really all the US ones, and to find non-US ones takes ages, are not helpful. So what is one to do?

In posh hotels now they have IT butlers, ready to help you with your IT needs in smart rooms with systems that your average punter cannot operate. Maybe it’s time universities appointed IT butlers, too, ready to do the digital labour that is research administration which takes researchers many unproductive hours. This measure would help researchers through the current stage of lack of interoperability and user-friendliness that bedevils the add-on strategies of organizations grappling with their digitalization processes.

Gabriele Griffin

Work beyond Crises – WORK2021

Turku Center for Labour Studies (TCLS) at University of Turku, Finland are organizing the WORK2021 Conference that will take place on-line and offer three virtual conferences:

WORK I (18-19 Aug)
WORK II (13-14 Oct)
WORK III (8-9 Dec)

The theme for this year is Work beyond Crises and will address contemporary transformations and reconfigurations of work, such as digitalization and changing work relations stirred by the current pandemic.

One of the streams is Gendering Work and will be chaired by Nordwit researcher Päivi Korvajärvi, Tampere University, and Minna Nikunen, University of Jyväskylä.

Gender and work are entangled in several complex ways. Work is embodied and person-related, and its percussions to gendering society reach beyond the work itself. It is therefore crucial to analyze how gender relates to work and how it is located in structures, meanings, interactions and subjects constituted and reconstituted in work. The questions of embodied work and ways through which the gendering of work takes place are among the topics of interest in this stream. The contemporary questions in relation to gendered effects of pandemics to working life, and inequalities in relation to gendered working life are welcomed. Also papers and studies addressing the gendering taking place at different levels and in different processes of working life are especially welcomed. Papers exploring more generally the theme of the conference from gender perspective are welcomed.

According to the preliminary schedule the stream will have its sessions on 13-14 Oct and 8-9 Dec. The deadline for abstract submission is 15 March.

Welcome to submit your abstract!

Gender in knowledge-based entrepreneurship: Comparing Finland and Turkey

My doctoral research is about how gender affects research and knowledge-based entrepreneurship in Finland and Turkey. I aim to analyze the inequalities that women entrepreneurs face because of gender ideologies and their strategies to overcome inequalities in the research and innovation sector. My general aim is to bring out the women entrepreneurs’ experiences related to structural and interactional constraints and analyze their experiences in terms of similarities and differences. Throughout the conferences and doctoral courses I’ve attended, the main question asked about my research is “why I compare Finland and Turkey since they have very different cultural routes in terms of gender equality debates.” As Ahl (2006) argues, a comparison between countries with different socio-cultural backgrounds gives more global perspectives to understand better common features and crucial differences of women entrepreneurs among countries. For example, Finland is often regarded as already achieved gender equality, but according to the European Commission Statistics on research and innovation, only 17.3% of private-sector researchers are women. Despite being influenced by the intensive religio-conservative gender climate for the last few decades (Günes-Ayata and Doğangün 2017), the proportion of women researchers in the private sector is 24.4% in Turkey.  As the statistics show, regardless of country, women researchers are significantly under-represented in the research and innovation sectors, leading to a gender gap in technology-based firm creation. 

For this study, I interviewed 29 women entrepreneurs (16 from Turkey and 13 from Finland). There are surprising similarities between Finnish and Turkish participants’ experiences in the highly gendered sector. In my next blog post, I would like to discuss my findings.

Demet Demirez,
PhD Student at Tampere University, associated with Nordwit

Ahl, H. (2006). Why Research on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595-621.

Güneş-Ayata, A.,Doğangün, G. (2017). Gender Politics of the AKP: Restoration of a Religio-Conservative Gender Climate. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 19(6), 610-627.

Zoom spreading

One of the amazing effects of being locked down during the current pandemic, which has just passed its first anniversary, has been the rapidity with which everybody – or in any event many people working from home – have adapted, and had to adapt, to working pretty much entirely online. In many ways, however, this is not work as usual. For one thing, self-isolation and being largely tethered to one’s home has created the expectation that one is always available – unless one is in another zoom meeting. The effect of this is what I would describe as ‘zoom spreading’ whereby online meetings, whatever platform they occur on, have now infiltrated every working day, and to a much greater extent in terms of numbers of meetings, than before the pandemic. Many meetings require ‘tech check’ pre-meetings, as well as pre-meeting meetings to discuss the process of the meetings to be had etc. It’s rather reminiscent of the workings of Charles Dickens’ Circumlocution Office where metadiscursivity takes up as much, ney sometimes more, space than discursivity – so to speak. But this new normal of having several online meetings every day, of the assumption that you are never off, also brings with it new distortions of one’s working life, with little time for tasks that are not or do not involve meetings. Time to research, read and write is at a new and unprecedented premium, an effect of zoom spreading. I am as guilty as the next person in respect of this but: we need to learn to guard against this.

Gabriele Griffin  

Advancing gender equality through collaboration between researchers and regional agencies

On December 3rd 2020, Nordwit’s Tampere team helped organise and participated in a seminar, titled Why does it benefit small and medium-sized businesses to consider (gender) equality? The seminar was part of a series of discussions titled Research and innovation in the Pirkanmaa region: gender equality as a solution, organized collaboratively by the Council of Tampere Region, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, Nordwit at Tampere University and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. The previous events in the series were workshops, which mapped the current state of gender equality in regional research and innovation (workshop 1) and focused on practices in university and regional funding (workshop 2). The third event was a open-to-all online seminar of about 30 participants, and its objective was to discuss the meaning of (gender) equality for a small or medium-sized business’s innovativeness and resilience.

Continue reading “Advancing gender equality through collaboration between researchers and regional agencies”

Gender Budgeting – a tool to increase the sustainability of gender equality plans?

In the previous blogpost, Gabrielle Griffin wrote about gender equality policies that function as “non-performative performatives” (Ahmed, 2012). Such policies not only fail to bring about institutional change but are also taken to be the action itself. It has been argued that gender budgeting is one solution to this problem in the implementation of gender equality plans. This is also one of the ten topics we, Nordwit-Pillar 1, focus on in our action to increase women’s participation in technology related innovation.

 The CoP GenBUDGET of the ACTonGender project recently organized a webinar on the same topic, gender budgeting in higher education and research institutions. In it, two of the webinar’s presenters, Tiandara Addabbo and Jennifer Dahmen-Adkins, asserted that gender budgeting can be seen as a lever of structural change in research institutions. They argued that following research institutions’ money can reveal and help act against gender biases in the allocation of funds and resources. Thus, as the budget reflects an institution’s real policy commitments, an analysis of budgeting can also increase the sustainability of gender equality plans.

Another presentation, however, pointed to a challenge in implementing gender equality through gender budgeting; namely, the lack of transparency in budgets. Carmichael, Steinþórsdóttir and Taylor’s research on gendered workloads in research institutions showed that detecting gender biases in budgeting might be more difficult than assumed. Despite of the extensive use of management tools in workload allocation processes, transparency of process and equity of outcome are not ensured (ibid, 2020).

As we enter 2021, many research and higher education institutions might be readying to institute gender equality plans due to the new GEP requirement for eligibility in Horizon Europe. As the GEP requirements in research is in a new phase, it is critical to put the difficulties related to the implementation of gender equality policies on the agenda.

Gilda Seddighi

Carmichael,F., Steinþórsdóttir, F. S. and Taylor, S. (December 11th, 2020). “Gendered workload in universities as a feminist issue: A case study of a UK Business School.” Webinar on Gender Budgeting in research organizations. ActonGender

Why do gender equality measures not work as expected?

Last week our ‘sister’ centre Nordicore hosted an excellent webinar at which Charlotte Silander from SLU in Uppsala spoke about gender equality measures in academe in Finland, Norway and Sweden. She and colleagues have categorized gender equality measures in terms of organizational ones and those aimed at individuals. They showed that all universities have organisational equality measures such as equality policies but measures aimed at individuals are less frequently employed. The higher education institutions in the three different countries also had these equality measures to diverse degrees. Interestingly, though, these measures and the extent to which institutions had them did not seem to effect the numbers of women in senior positions. Given that pretty much all institutions had organizational measures such as relevant policies, one answer which offers itself to this conundrum is Sara Ahmed’s (2012) analysis of institutional policies as ‘non-performative performatives’, i.e. as measures that are meant to do certain things but they do not. Those of us who live institutional professional lives are only too familiar with such non-performative performatives. The processualization of academic life since the 1990’s has certainly led to greater degrees of bureaucracy and answered demands for accountability but it has not necessarily resulted in better outcomes. Still, 2021 is only around the corner – let’s hope for the future!

Gabriele Griffin

An interesting question of research ethics

In her most recent blog post, Päivi Korvajärvi mentioned a conversation we had over Zoom with our Tampere Nordwit team, where we discussed the complexity of analyzing research interviews when the explicit and implicit content of the interviews are clearly contradictory. In this post I would like to expand on this conversation and the ethical dilemmas that arose from it.

One of my tasks as a research assistant is translating sections of interviews which were conducted in Finnish into English for international publication. This means that I’ve read through a lot of quotes from the interviews, intensely focused on capturing the exact meaning of what was said. What has caught my attention, more than anything else, is this: The women Nordwit has interviewed in Tampere for our research describe events and experiences in their academic careers that to us, reading the interviews with some level of gender studies expertise, seem obviously gendered and often openly discriminatory. The interviewees, however, appear to be very eager to offer up pretty much anything besides gender as an explanation or context for these experiences.

My belief is that this is a kind of defence mechanism: in order to survive in male-dominated fields that can be unwelcoming or outright hostile towards women, these women have had to choose not to acknowledge how their gender affects the way they are treated. To acknowledge that gender makes a difference in the workplace – often, for women, a negative difference – would mean having to acknowledge that there is a systematic problem and a structure of oppression, one that the individual academic employee is relatively powerless to change.

With a sense of powerlessness comes a lack of agency and feelings of victimhood, and women can’t function effectively in academia and do excellent research if they feel like they have no agency and are victims in their own workplaces. Therefore choosing to deny that there are gendered structures and inequalities becomes the only viable option for continuing their work in their chosen field. Not to mention that being one of the few women in a male-dominated setting and talking about gender equality is not a likely recipe for popularity among colleagues.

I am just an assistant and have not seen the entirety of the data, but in our discussion, my colleagues seemed to agree that this is a reoccurring theme in the interviews. They pointed out, however, that problem that then arises for them as researchers is how to address this phenomenon in their research and various publications. The goal, of course, is to treat the women who were kind enough to take the time to share their professional lives for the benefit of Nordwit’s research with utmost respect. Is it, therefore, ethical, let alone respectful, to call the interviewees’ experiences into question in such a way? And are we calling their experiences into question by pointing out the contradictions between the experiences they describe and how they explain them, or are we simply analysing the way they contextualise their experiences and through what kind of discourse they recount them? Do we have a right to do that, either?

Clearly, this is a significant problem, because it is fairly obvious that there are practices and structures in academia, particularly in male-dominated STEM fields, which produce gendered inequalities and injustice, and there is no other way to address and dismantle systemic injustice other than to first acknowledge that there is systemic injustice at play. Pointing out in research that there is a pattern of discrimination, despite the individuals’ claims that there is not, is essential in calling attention to the problems that must be addressed. But is it a disservice to our interviewees to contextualize their experiences in ways they don’t agree with? Are we sacrificing them to the cause of understanding gender inequality in academia? And if we are, can we justify it?

Liekki Valaskivi

What Brings Women to Cybersecurity?

This was the question I tried to answer at the European Interdisciplinary Cybersecurity Conference two weeks ago. Summing up a case study where we compare women in cybersecurity with women in other IT disciplines, I talked about which similarities and differences we found between the two groups. The study is based on 24 in-depth interviews with women studying or holding PhD, Postdoc or early research recruitment positions in academia, 12 in cybersecurity and 12 in other IT disciplines in STEM faculties.

Women are a minority in cybersecurity as well as IT in general, however, there has been some overall improvement in women’s participation, but not in cybersecurity. The graphs below visualize the massive male dominance in these disciplines.  

Women in Cybersecurity and women in other IT disciplines share some features, like a notable lack of knowledge about IT disciplines when they are in transition between upper secondary/high school and university. The unfortunate result is that stereotypical ideas of IT, with images of male «geeks» and «hooded gamers» who had started programming early, dominate women’s expectations of ICT at university, and they don’t see themselves fit within this image: «I had never programmed before in my life“. The interviews document that there is still a strong association of IT with masculine stereotypes, and more, such ideas about IT becomes a barrier for women to choose any IT disciplines, including cybersecurity.

There are also differences between women in cybersecurity and other IT fields, for instance that cybersecurity was described as open for a more varied set of competences. The women could recognize their own strengths and expertise from other disciplines, like arts and social sciences, as relevant in cybersecurity, and this became an important door opener for many of them. We also found that it was easier for women to understand and associate themselves with the goals of cybersecurity rather than with the goals of other IT disciplines. They saw cybersecurity as a field concerning «everybody» and everyday life, thus not only relevant for women but also in need of women.

You can hopefully read more when the paper is published by ACM as:
Corneliussen, H. G. (2020). What Brings Women to Cybersecurity? A Qualitative Study of Women’s Pathways to Cybersecurity in Norway, European Interdisciplinary Cybersecurity Conference (EICC 2020).

Update: the article is now published online by ACM