skip to main content
10.1145/3311350.3347186acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Hacking Masculine Cultures - Career Ambitions of Female Young Professionals in a Video Game Company

Published:17 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Women employed in video game companies are facing several barriers regarding equality and career chances. Scholars argue that career development of women is at times hindered because of hegemonic masculinity in organizations, with networks and other social factors playing a more important role than qualifications. This means that women miss out on career opportunities in a thriving and future driving industry. Yet, as gendered working environments are considered to be the result of social construction, they can also be restructured. To explore the drivers of these aspects, we conducted a qualitative field study in a video game company in a large city in Germany to understand what challenges regarding masculinity exist and how they are dealt with. Our lessons learned contribute to the realization of more gender-sensitive working environments in the video game sector and, as a result, of more diverse video games as well. Furthermore, a native English speaker dealt with typos and linguistic infelicities.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p413-ahmadi.mp4

mp4

104.9 MB

References

  1. Joan Acker. 2006. Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gend. Soc. 20, 4 (2006), 441--464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Michael Ahmadi, Anne Weibert, Corinna Ogonowski, Konstantin Aal, Kristian Gäckle, Nicola Marsden, and Volker Wulf. 2018. Challenges and lessons learned by applying living labs in gender and IT contexts. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT, 239--249.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Lauren Alfrey and France Winddance Twine. 2017. Gender-Fluid Geek Girls: Negotiating Inequality Regimes in the Tech Industry. Gend. Soc. 31, 1 (February 2017), 28--50. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0891243216680590Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Albert Bandura. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37, 2 (1982), 122--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10), 1301-- 1310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Laura Berger, Yvonne Benschop, and Marieke van den Brink. 2015. Practising gender when networking: The case of university--industry innovation projects. Gend. Work Organ. 22, 6 (2015), 556--578.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Hannah Riley Bowles. 2013. Psychological Perspectives on Gender inNegotiation. In The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Psychology. SAGE Publications, Ltd, London, 465--483. DOI:https:// doi.org/10.4135/9781446269930.n28Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Tor Busch. 1995. Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 12, 2 (1995), 147--158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Judith Butler. 2004. Undoing gender. Routledge, New York & London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Justine Cassell. 2003. Genderizing HCI. In The Human-computer Interaction Handbook, Julie A. Jacko and Andrew Sears (eds.). L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 401--412. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=772072.772100Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Cliff Ed Cheng. 1996. Masculinities in organizations. Sage Publications, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sapna Cheryan, Allison Master, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. 2015. Cultural Stereotypes as Gatekeepers: Increasing Girls' Interest in Computer Science and Engineering by Diversifying Stereotypes. Front. Psychol. 6, (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sapna Cheryan, Victoria C Plaut, Paul G Davies, and Claude M Steele. 2009. Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 6 (2009), 1045.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Shira Chess and Adrienne Shaw. 2015. A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 59, 1 (January 2015), 208--220. DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08838151.2014.999917Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. D Jean Clandinin and F Michael Connelly. 2000. Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. David L. Collinson and Jeff Hearn. 2005. Men and Masculinities in Work, Organizations, and Management. In Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities, Michael S. Kimmel, Jeff Hearn and R.W. Connell (eds.). SAGE, Thousand Oaks, 289-- 310. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233833.n17Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Tammy Duerden Comeau and Candace L Kemp. 2007. Intersections of age and masculinities in the information technology industry. Ageing Soc. 27, 2 (2007), 215--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. R.W. Connell. 1995. Masculinities. Allen & Unwin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R.W. Connell and James W Messerschmidt. 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gend. Soc. 19, 6 (2005), 829--859.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Mia Consalvo. 2012. Confronting toxic gamer culture: A challenge for feminist game studies scholars. Ada J. Gend. New Media Technol. 1, 1 (2012), 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mia Consalvo and Christopher A Paul. 2013. Welcome to the discourse of the real: Constituting the boundaries of games and players. In FDG, 55--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Will H Courtenay. 2000. Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being: a theory of gender and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 50, 10 (2000), 1385--1401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Angela R. Cox. 2018. Women by Women: A Gender Analysis of Sierra Titles by Women Designers. In Feminism in Play, Kishonna L. Gray, Gerald Voorhees and Emma Vossen (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 21--36. DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978--3--319--90539--6?Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Mary Crawford. 2003. Gender and humor in social context. J. Pragmat. 35, 9 (September 2003), 1413-- 1430. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378--2166(02) 00183--2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. John Creswell, William Hanson, Vicki Clark Plano, and Alejandro Morales. 2007. Qualitative Research Designs: Selection and Implementation. Couns. Psychol. 35, 2 (2007), 236--264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Caroline Criado Perez. 2019. Invisible Women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. Chattoo & Windus, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Barbara Czarniawska. 1997. A narrative approach to organization studies. Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Marjorie L DeVault and Chrys Ingraham. 1999. Metaphors of silence and voice in feminist thought. In Liberating method: feminism and social research, Marjorie L DeVault (ed.). Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 175--186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Michele D. Dickey. 2006. Girl Gamers: The Controversy of Girl Games and the Relevance of Female-Oriented Game Design for Instructional Design. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 37, 5 (2006), 785--793.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Catherine D'Ignazio, Alexis Hope, Becky Michelson, Robyn Churchill, and Ethan Zuckerman. 2016. A Feminist HCI Approach to Designing Postpartum Technologies: "When I First Saw a Breast Pump I Was Wondering if It Was a Joke." In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 2612--2622. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858460Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Rosalind Edwards and Melanie Mauthner. 2002. Ethics and Feminist Research: Theory and Practice. In Ethics in Qualitative Research, Melanie Mauthner, Maxine Birch, Julie Jessop and Tina Miller (eds.). 14--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Nathan L Ensmenger. 2012. The computer boys take over: Computers, programmers, and the politics of technical expertise. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Kim Etherington. 2004. Becoming a reflexive researcher: Using our selves in research. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Rhonda Evans, DeAnn K Gauthier, and Craig J Forsyth. 1998. Dogfighting: Symbolic expression and validation of masculinity. Sex Roles 39, 11--12 (1998), 825--838.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Clare Farquhar and Rita Das. 1999. Are focus groups suitable for 'sensitive'topics. In Developing focus group research, Rosaline Barbour and Jenny Kitzinger (eds.). SAGE, London, 47--63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarah Fox, Rachel Rose Ulgado, and Daniela Rosner. 2015. Hacking Culture, Not Devices: Access and Recognition in Feminist Hackerspaces. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15), 56--68. DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2675133.2675223Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Silvia Gherardi. 1995. Gender, symbolism and organizational cultures. SAGE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Elena Gorbacheva, Jenine Beekhuyzen, Jan vom Brocke, and Jörg Becker. 2019. Directions for research on gender imbalance in the IT profession. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 28, 1 (2019), 43--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jolie O. Graybill, Maria Taesil Hudson Carpenter, Jerome Offord, Mary Piorun, and Gary Shaffer. 2013. Employee onboarding: identification of best practices in ACRL libraries. Libr. Manag. 34, 3 (February 2013), 200--218. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121311310897Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. David Hankerson, Andrea R Marshall, Jennifer Booker, Houda El Mimouni, Imani Walker, and Jennifer A Rode. 2016. Does technology have race? In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 473--486.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Orit Hazzan and Yael Dubinsky. 2006. Empower Gender Diversity with Agile Software Development. In The Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology, Eileen Trauth (ed.). Hershey, Pennsylvania, 249--256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Cedric Herring. 2009. Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74, 2 (2009), 208--224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Ramon Hinojosa. 2010. Doing Hegemony: Military, Men, and Constructing a Hegemonic Masculinity. J. Mens Stud. 18, 2 (April 2010), 179--194. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1802.179Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Laura E Hirshfield. 2010. " She Won't Make Me Feel Dumb": Identity Threat in a Male-Dominated Discipline. Int. J. Gend. Sci. Technol. 2, 1 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Karen Holtzblatt and Nicola Marsden. 2018. Retaining Women in Technology. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 148--155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Yasmin B. Kafai, Carrie Heeter, Jill Denner, and Jennifer Y. Sun. 2008. Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Gaming. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Elisabeth K. Kelan. 2010. Gender Logic and (Un)doing Gender at Work. Gend. Work Organ. 17, 2 (March 2010), 174--194. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.14680432.2009.00459.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Aphra Kerr. 2006. The business and culture of digital games: Gamework and gameplay. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. John Kirriemuir and Angela McFarlane. 2004. Literature Review in Games and Learning. NESTA Futur. Res. Rep. Report 8, (2004). Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190453Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Rachel Kowert, Ruth Festl, and Thorsten Quandt. 2014. Unpopular, Overweight, and Socially Inept: Reconsidering the Stereotype of Online Gamers. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 17, 3 (March 2014), 141--146. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1089/ cyber.2013.0118Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Rachel Kowert, Mark D. Griffiths, and Julian A. Oldmeadow. 2012. Geek or Chic? Emerging Stereotypes of Online Gamers. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 32, 6 (December 2012), 471--479. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467612469078Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Terry A. Kupers. 2005. Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. J. Clin. Psychol. 61, 6 (June 2005), 713--724. DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jclp.20105Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, Meredith Meyer, and Edward Freeland. 2015. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347, 6219 (2015), 262-- 265.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Linda Lindsey. 2015. The Sociology of Gender Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. John Lofland and Lyn Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings. Belmont CA Wadsworth (1995).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Judith Lorber. 2011. Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Hans Lundkvist. 2015. Gender Aware Employer Branding: How to Become Authentic, Unique and Attractive. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 10, 11 (October 2015), 62. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n11p62Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Patricia Maguire. 1987. Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach. Center for International Education, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Patricia Maguire. 2001. Uneven Ground: Feminisms and Action Research. In Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice, Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury (eds.). SAGE, London, 59--69. Retrieved March 12, 2019 from https://nls.ldls.org.uk/welcome.html?ark:/81055/vdc_ 100025506362.0x000001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher. 2003. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Nicola Marsden and Monika Pröbster. 2019. Personas and Identity: Looking at Multiple Identities to Inform the Construction of Personas. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '19, 1--14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300565Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Crystle Martin and Matthew Rafalow. 2015. Gendered Barriers to Participation in Gaming Culture. In GenderIT 2015 Advancing Diversity (ICPS: ACM international conference proceeding series), 49--52. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2807565.2807713Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Seonaidh McDonald. 2005. Studying actions in context: a qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qual. Res. 5, 4 (November 2005), 455--473. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056923Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Seonaidh McDonald and Barbara Simpson. 2014. Shadowing research in organizations: the methodological debates. Qual. Res. Organ. Manag. Int. J. 9, 1 (2014), 3--20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/ QROM-02--2014--1204Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Danaë Metaxa-Kakavouli, Kelly Wang, James A. Landay, and Jeff Hancock. 2018. Gender-Inclusive Design: Sense of Belonging and Bias in Web Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '18, 1--6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3173574.3174188Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Marc J. Natale. 2002. The effect of a male-oriented computer gaming culture on careers in the computer industry. ACM SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 32, 2 (2002), 24--31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/566522.566526Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Su Olsson. 2000. Acknowledging the female archetype: women managers' narratives of gender. Women Manag. Rev. 15, 5/6 (August 2000), 296-- 302. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420010372959Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Benjamin Paaßen, Thekla Morgenroth, and Michelle Stratemeyer. 2017. What is a true gamer? The male gamer stereotype and the marginalization of women in video game culture. Sex Roles 76, 7 (2017), 421-- 435. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0678-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Julie Prescott and Jan Bogg. 2011. Segregation in a male-dominated industry: Women working in the computer games industry. Int. J. Gend. Sci. Technol. 3, 1 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Julie Prescott and Jan Bogg. 2013. The Gendered Identity of Women in the Games Industry. Eludamos J. Comput. Game Cult. 7, 1 (2013), 55--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Julie Prescott and Jan Bogg. 2014. The Experiences of Women Working in the Computer Games Industry: An In-Depth Qualitative Study. In Gender Considerations and Influence in the Digital Media and Gaming Industry. IGI Global, 92--109.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Bonnie Ruder, Dwaine Plaza, Rebecca Warner, and Michelle Bothwell. 2018. STEM Women Faculty Struggling for Recognition and Advancement in a "Men's Club" Culture. In Exploring the Toxicity of Lateral Violence and Microaggressions, Christine L. Cho, Julie K. Corkett and Astrid Steele (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 121--149. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--74760--6_7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Laurie A. Rudman and Julie E. Phelan. 2008. Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 28, (January 2008), 61--79. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.riob.2008.04.003Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Steven P Schacht. 1996. Misogyny on and off the "pitch" the gendered world of male rugby players. Gend. Soc. 10, 5 (1996), 550--565.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Michael Schmalz. 2015. Limitation to Innovation in the North American Console Video Game Industry 2001--2013: A Critical Analysis. Electron. Thesis Diss. Repos. (2015). Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/3393Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Stephanie Schnurr and Janet Holmes. 2009. Using humor to do masculinity at work. In Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, Neal R. Norrick and Delia Chiaro (eds.). John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 101--124. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/ pbns.182.05schGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Adrienne Shaw. 2012. Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity. New Media Soc. 14, 1 (2012), 28--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Dorothy E Smith. 1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. University of Toronto Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Statistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit. 2017. Beschäftigte - statistik.arbeitsagentur.de. Retrieved October 20, 2017 from https://statistik. arbeitsagentur.de/nn_31966/SiteGlobals/Forms/Rubri kensuche/Rubrikensuche_Form.html?view=processF orm&resourceId=210368&input_=&pageLocale=de &topicId=746716&year_month=201703&year_mont h.GROUP=1&search=SuchenGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Andrea H. Tapia and Lynette Kvasny. 2004. Recruitment is Never Enough: Retention of Women and Minorities in the IT Workplace. In Proceedings of the 2004 SIGMIS Conference on Computer Personnel Research: Careers, Culture, and Ethics in a Networked Environment (SIGMIS CPR '04), 84-- 91. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/982372.982392Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. T. L. Taylor. 2012. Raising the Stakes: E-Sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Helen Thornham. 2008. "It's A Boy Thing": Gaming, gender, and geeks. Fem. Media Stud. 8, 2 (June 2008), 127--142. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770801980505Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Cherie Todd. 2015. Commentary: GamerGate and resistance to the diversification of gaming culture. Womens Stud. J. 29, 1 (2015), 64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Melissa Tyler and Laurie Cohen. 2010. Spaces that matter: Gender performativity and organizational space. Organ. Stud. 31, 2 (2010), 175--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. Maja Van der Velden and Christina Mörtberg. 2012. Between need and desire: Exploring strategies for gendering design. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 37, 6 (2012), 663--683.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Roli Varma. 2007. Women in computing: The role of geek culture. Sci. Cult. 16, 4 (2007), 359--376.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Lotte Vermeulen, Mariek Vanden Abeele, and Sofie Van Bauwel. 2016. A gendered identity debate in digital game culture. Press Start 3, 1 (2016), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Liisa A. Von Hellens, Sue H. Nielsen, and Eileen M. Trauth. 2001. Breaking and Entering the Male Domain. Women in the IT Industry. In Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, 116--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Lingyi Zhang, Yun-Han Huang, Claudia Hilderbrand, Zoe Steine-Hanson, and Margaret Burnett. 2019. From Gender Biases to Gender-Inclusive Design: An Empirical Investigation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '19, 1--14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3290605.3300283Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Candace West and Don H Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gend. Soc. 1, 2 (1987), 125--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  92. Johanna Weststar and Marie-Josée Legault. 2018. Women's Experiences on the Path to a Career in Game Development. In Feminism in Play, Kishonna L. Gray, Gerald Voorhees and Emma Vossen (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 105--123. DOI:https:// doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--90539--6?Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. Volker Wulf, Kaoru Misaki, Meryem Atam, David Randall, and Markus Rohde. 2013. On the Ground in Sidi Bouzid: Investigating Social Media Use During the Tunisian Revolution. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 1409--1418.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Hacking Masculine Cultures - Career Ambitions of Female Young Professionals in a Video Game Company

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI PLAY '19: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
        October 2019
        680 pages
        ISBN:9781450366885
        DOI:10.1145/3311350

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 October 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI PLAY '19 Paper Acceptance Rate51of181submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader