Recruitment and Websites

1
Recruitment and Websites

• What Do IT Program Websites Reveal about Woman
  Friendliness?
• Kristin Hanks

Gender and IT Education Conference, Indiana
University, 2007
2
Research Questions

• At first glance, might websites give subtle
  gender cues, whether intentional or not?
• Do applied departments differ in their online
  recruitment practices from Computer Science and
  Engineering departments?

3
Why Websites?

• Websites are one of the most influential
  recruitment devices, second only to an in-person
  campus visit
• (Abrahamson, 2000)

4
Technology Usage Differences

• Women Prefer
• sites that are less cluttered
• minimal use of graphics
• sites which avoid multiple levels of sub-pages to
  drill through
• Women Value
• ease of use (while men value perceived
  usefulness)

5
Information Processing Differences

• Women are more sensitive to
• visual/non-verbal cues
• message claims
• overall themes
• manipulative intent
• Comprehensive Information Processors
• Women have a tendency to elaborate on these
  messages, forming opinions using subtle cues.

6
Professional Preference Differences

• Desired workplace characteristics
• Interpersonal relationship opportunities
• Prioritization of work-life balance
• Service as a core value
• Environment of Inclusiveness
• Empowerment
• Empathy
• Women in studies valued an informal and friendly
  culture and a place that really cared about them
  as individuals

7
Methodology

• Content Analysis of 104 pages from 16 departments
  at the 5 schools, over 90 variables on each page
• Pages Coded Recruitment Perspective
• Home
• About Us/Mission
• Contact Us
• Prospective Student
• Admissions/Applying
• Current Student
• People or Find People
• Diversity
• Other

8
Coding Categories

• Photographs
• Text
• Navigation
• Qualitative Observations

9
Photographs might indicate

• Who represents the school?
• Proportion of men to women in photos?
• Photos of groups or individuals?
• Is intimacy depicted?
• Are people making eye contact?
• Are people touching?
• Are the pictures formal (headshots, posed groups)
  or informal?
• What/who is the main focus? Are the photos of
  buildings, technology, people, or a mix?

10
Text might indicate

• Who speaks for the school?
• Who is quoted?
• Who gets credit?
• Are the accomplishments of both genders listed?
• Is diversity valued?
• Is there a link to information about diversity or
  minorities?
• Is diversity mentioned in the other text on the
  page?

11
Navigation might indicate

• Can I find the information I need?
• Wayfinding is documented to be different for men
  and women.
• Can I find other female students?
• Do female student organizations exist here?
• Are such organizations clearly a priority for the
  department?

12
Three Disclaimers

• Can NOT tell the cumulative effects of the
  elements
• The applied departments are all grouped together,
  despite the fact that substantial differences may
  exist between them
• NOT suggesting "feminizing" the pages

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Research Questions

• At first glance, might websites give subtle
  gender cues, whether intentional or not?
• Do applied fields differ in their online
  recruitment practices from Computer Science and
  Engineering departments?

16
Findings - Photographs
Applied

• More photographs of women
• More clearly posed pictures

Computer Science

• Higher representation of women relative to their
  enrollment statistics
• More intimate photographs (eye contact)
• Higher percentage of candid photographs

17
Findings - Text
Applied

• Had more quotes, but a relatively low overall
  number of 8. All 8 were male quotes.

Computer Science

• Listed more accomplishments
• Listed more female than male accomplishments
• Used full names more often

18
Findings - Navigation
Applied

• Used more search boxes, site maps, and
  consistently placed "contact us" buttons on their
  pages.
• Had more consistent layouts from page to page.

Computer Science

• Linked to more female and minority organizations
  and did so from more pages.

19
Findings - Qualitative

• Mentorship programs
• More on CS pages
• Diversity statements
• Found on both CS and Applied pages
• few mention gender as a representation issue. 
• Several departments have family oriented student
  groups
• suggest an attempt to help with work/life balance
  issues which might be important to women

20
Overall Impressions
Applied

• Elements which better suit female information
  processing and culture preferences 
• Less elements emphasizing gender equity as a high
  priority

Computer Science

• Obvious effort to reverse low enrollment
  statistics
• Project an image of inclusion
• Structural/navigation elements indicate male
  information processing patterns

21
A word of caution

• Equating the findings with intention
• CS links to female organizations more
• higher priority? 
• older department with more ties?   
• Applied pages have navigation elements which map
  better to female processing strategies
• just good design? 
• more female webmasters/staff who contributed to
  the design?     
• Future Studies are needed
• much larger sample size
• breaking down the "Applied" departments by type
• testing whether the elements which are
  significantly different make a real difference to
  real women

22
Applying the Current Study
First Steps

• Representation of females in website photographs
• Posted diversity statements
• Links to female organizations
• Consistent page layouts and navigation element
• Opportunities for departmental contact

23
A Final Note

• Prospective students will see through superficial
  changes which do not reflect valuing the work and
  contribution of the women in the department.