uk resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology

Hi Wendy,
I'm studying science & technology at Edinburgh Uni specialising in gender. In your view, what is the reason for the lack of females in technology and what do you think needs to be done to redress the balance?
Many thanks in anticipation of your response.
Lorna

Hi Wendy, thanks for being part of the GetSET Women blog and for your in put to our conference at the same time. I'm interested in Lorna's questions, and also in the research you mention which imagines life in the UK if we embedded microprocessors across the built environment. I imagine that could really impact on domestic life and so free up some women who carry the burden of care and/or housework at home. Did the report go into the differential impact such a scenario might have based on the current distribution of roles and responsibilities between men and women?

There's just been an interesting discussion with the last blogger, Jeanne, about women and entrepreneurship, and that maybe women and men approach risk in different ways http://www.ukrc4setwomen.org/html/women-and-girls/getsetwomen-blog/?id=17 Maybe its part testosterone, maybe part conditioning and stereotyping. But I wondered if this impacted on how women and men visualise the future and the steps they consider taking to achieve different futures. Thanks Wendy.

Hi Wendy, I was lucky enough to hear you speak at the UKRC conference yesterday. Your speech was extremely engaging. As one example of how things may change in the future you mentioned urban agriculture - inner city skyscrapers converted into huge green houses. This is an exciting thought. I wondered whether it is still a pipe dream, or whether it is already happening somewhere?

Lorna -- thank you for your interest and your question. I am somewhat hesitant to answer, because neither gender studies, sociology, nor psychology are my fields, so I have neither scholarly theories nor evidence to buttress any response.

I can answer only from my own experience. And my own experience was of taking four years of both science and mathematics in high school (in the USA, that is years (9-12), testing out of any math requirements for my undergraduate degree, and happily diving into the smorgasbord of courses offered at university without feeling any need to further my acquaintance with the elegant language that is mathematics. I did take several physics and engineering classes, more for the conceptual knowledge than for applicability. Why didn't I study math or science or engineering? primarily because I have the attention span of a gnat and discipline only when curiosity pulls me into immersive investigations. I could say this is a product of socialisation, but really I perceive it to be more of a personal failing on my own part.

Especially given that my parents gave me the very great gift of encouraging me to use my skills and gifts however I saw fit -- and made sure that my experiences both at home and in school equipped me with a lot of skills (learning the difference between series and parallel wiring was just one example of what my father thought of as practical knowledge everyone should have, regardless of gender). I rather took that worldview for granted most of the time, and was genuinely astonished at what other girls my age didn't know about.

So, my quick answer? socialisation. However, I think generational value shifts will erode some of that socialisation over time -- now the difficulty is that while the constraints of socialisation are eroding, so is the quality of educational infrastructure in many developed countries: certainly the state of public education in the USA is appalling (although educational erosion in the USA is also at least partly due to lack of parental support for education in a highly consumerist culture). I cannot speak to the state of public education in the UK -- although I have certainly heard varieties of complaints from friends with children.

So, socialization is the answer -- and, as several participants in my workshop yesterday suggested, one response would be to make SET sexy -- or rather, to make it as cool as an extreme sport. Or, as Lord Drayson suggested, put more living female scientists and engineers out there in the public eye. For example, Baroness Greenfield (Oxford neuroscientist) embodies both qualities -- as did many of the very impressive women captured on the PAWS video the conference organisers were showing during breaks.

Your degree program sounds very interesting; I would love to hear more about it.

Wow! this comment field does not maintain carriage returns (and thus paragraph breaks) upon posting. Very disappointing, and my apologies for the long post above that is rendered rather uncomfortable to read without its paragraph breaks...

Melanie -- very interesting question: I shall raise it next week at the annual Gathering of the Association of Professional Futurists. I think as many women as men are risk-takers -- if it's not as obvious on the world stage, perhaps it is because most women take less flashy risks. But many do of course compete directly with the boys when it comes to risk taking, from Freya Stark to Ellen MacArthur.


But I must offer the same proviso here that I did above -- I have neither theory nor statistics to back up any comments I might make in answer: although I think it a terrific area for study (and may go see what I can dig up). I can say that when I think of the women I know in futures studies and foresight, more seem to be engaged in foresight as academics, or as consultants to governments and non-profits, whereas my male colleagues are more often directly wired into corporate foresight projects. But buyer beware! that comment is really based on a very quick mental inventory of the landscape.


As far as dreaming different dreams, or visualising different futures, the primary difference I see is not gender based, but the difference between people who have a mono-culture approach to their foresight methods, and those who pursue variculture foresight: all disciplines go through intellectual fashions and fads, and develop schools of thought, and a few exist in futures studies that were powerful engines of development in futures thinking when they first emerged, but now are more and more acting as constraints -- paradigms reify into dogma and fundamentalism over time.


If you want to look for writing by well-regarded women futurists, look for Eleonora Barbieri Masini, or Hazel Henderson, or Barbara Marx Hubbard, or Elise Boulding, or Anita Rubin, or Michele Bowman, or Sandy Burchsted.


By the way, if I'm rambling a bit, blame it on the flu I picked up two days ago that was just blooming during yesterday's conference -- I got home and discovered I had a temperature of 102!

Rachel -- thank you,

Here are two references:
first, the website of the Futuropolis conference held last October in Singapore, where I first heard of vertical farming:
http://www.futureofcities.com/ShowEvent.aspx?id=81346&details=132584

and here is the website of the actual Vertical Farming design project:
http://www.verticalfarm.com

Here is the index to all the articles published in the New York Times about urban agriculture, including vertical agriculture:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/agriculture/urban_agriculture/index.html

And here is the website of the group that's organised the Science Barge that -- while not vertical agriculture -- is an active experiment in urban agriculture in New York City.

I think that the Korea might be the first site of a purpose-built vertical agriculture installation -- a lot of future-focussed initiatives are getting organised in Korea, and it wouldn't surprise me if that were one of them.

First apologies for being anonymous - I was at the conference representing an excellent organisation, but want to comment from a more personal perspective. At your workshop, Wendy (which I enjoyed a lot) I was in a group looking at a very competitive, demanding, long-hours, short-term-contract future. In fact, it felt a lot like today. It made me realise anew the importance of legislation and education now to avert the worst, or to ensure humane values in difficult times. In yesterday's Guardian there was a lot about workers, employers and unions agreeing to part-time working to cope with the recession. I know this is grim for many people, but I began to wonder if a new economy might emerge which was less work-intense and less wealth-divided. And this would be of benefit to many women, many people, if everyone earned enough to survive. I think I sort of knew this, but your exercise let me step outside and check my assessment from a different vantage point . Very interesting - thank you.
The Guardian links: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/13/reduced-working-hours http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/13/recession-four-day-week-work

Wendy, thank you for your wonderful contribution to the UKRC conference last week. It was fascinating to be part of your workshop: I recommend anyone interested to download Wendy's materials for the workshop and have a go at them. This I think is particularly fruitful if done in a small group - the debate and different perspectives people have really brings it to life. Wendy has kindly let us post these on our website: http://www.ukrc4setwomen.org/html/news-and-events/ukrc-conferences/2009-conference/ Wendy is on the blog till Monday 23 March - we'd love to hear from you if you were at the workshop, or if you have a go at the activities.

PS - we are working on the paragraph breaks :-)

You said: < Futures studies is a transdisciplinary, systems-science-based approach to analysing patterns of change in the past, identifying trends and emerging issues of change in the present, and exploring a range of alternative possible futures, in order to help people create the future they most desire.>

Wendy I heard you speak last week (flu not noticeable!) and was in your workshop and really enjoyed both. 20 years or more ago I cut out an big article from broadsheet about "the future - what to expect" . I filed it. I am looking forward to finding it again to see what they predicted and whether it came true - at the mo it is mislaid!!!!

This is a roundabout way into asking about the science basis of future studies - logical, systemic, about probabilities. What backward facing work is done by you and your colleagues to explore how the analysis worked out in real life? How does future studies shape up under that kind of scrutiny and has it changed your practices?

Secondly - it would be great to hear more about probabilities - how do you help lay people hold and consider the complexity and think about this. There must be so many variables to have interact. Have you got good graphical ways of doing analysis?

Rachel -- sorry, just realised I had dropped the link somehow to the Science Barge article in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/nyregion/westchester/23bargewe.html?_r=1


and the home website of the project:
http://nysunworks.org/
http://www.groundworkhudsonvalley.org/sciencebargemore.html

Wendy.

Anonymous -- the "end of work" has been forecast by any number of futurists any number of times -- and we all seem to be working more, not less -- or else not working at all.

It's probably more accurate to say that different work patterns are emerging that include older patterns (we still have farmers, we still have factory workers) but expand the range of working patterns -- the growth of freelance work, of virtual or self-organising work teams responding to particular client's needs, and then dissolving and re-forming with different colleagues and partners to respond to the next client (that describes many of my project teams). This potentially allows for better work / life balance, but maintaining that balance is itself a skill, and one few of us socialised in educational cultures designed to produce good factory workers (where time management is controlled by someone else) have really mastered. But a transition to a less work-intense and less wealth-divided economy and society requires not simply possibilities for new models of work and productivity, but a value shift that says, "less is more," "achieve an elegant sufficiency" rather than "consumption makes the world go round" -- the latter is currently underpinning the Western capitalist world model: check out Daniel Bell's The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism for a classic critique of the capitalist growth model.

Such a value shift may be emerging, as indicated by the growth of the so-called "cultural creatives" worldview, the "slow food" movement, and signs that health and more importantly wellness are a new priority for many people. The notion that life might be more about optimising your potential rather than collecting goods and services seems to be gaining ground.

Marion - excellent question.

First, futures studies as an academic discipline is about forty or so years old. It was founded by scholars from a wide variety of disciplines in the humanities and natural and social sciences who all found themselves asking critical questions about the long-term future(s) for humanity and the planet. Thus they each contributed the conceptual paradigms and methodological tools of their original fields of study. Consequently some futures researchers / forecasters pursue very quantitative research and extrapolate trends based on large databases. Others create dynamic systems models. Some are philosophers, and others social scientists who essentially deconstruct images of the future floating around different cultures.

What very few do is predict. In fact, I would say that reputable futures researchers do not predict. Futures studies is far more concerned with managing uncertainty, and creating dialogue and conversations about what might constitute preferred futures. Part of that is helping people perceive change, and think through its impacts systemically. In some cases, that is done via formal systems analysis, systems mapping and causal loop mapping. Informally we help people new to futures think through the cascades of impacts emerging from change using a technique called "futures wheels" (also sometimes called "impact wheels"). Futures wheels are very visual -- often hand-drawn in workshop settings, there are more and more software programs that assist impact mapping and influence mapping. Some software actually enables the three-dimensional visual organisation of data, eg, PersonalBrain. I am currently sitting in the opening session of a futures conference on "Design Thinking and Foresight" where I hope to hear about innovations in visual thinking and new techniques that will enable lay people to more easily manage the complexity of emerging change and its impacts.

That very complexity renders probability assessment difficult: societies are complex adaptive / evolving systems. That is, emerging change creates turbulence, often generating chaotic systemic behavior to which the system then responds by adapting and evolving: hence, straight-line extrapolation of trends very far into the future is rendered essentially useless vis-a-vis a lot of social systems. The most useful approach to managing probabilities is via an ongoing observational / monitoring process that continuously re-assesses the speed and reach of changes as they unfold.

As far as historical verification of futures work, I am ashamed to say that entirely too few T1-futures intervention-T2 studies have been performed to assess the actual effectiveness of futures studies. On the other hand, a number of futurists do retrospectives of their own research and assess their success / failure rate. But again, it's not so much about how often you are "right" with regard to a forecast, and much more about the extent to which you engender an "aha" moment with regard to future possibilities and current working / thinking assumptions.