Introduction

Eliminating the unbalanced gender distribution in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) is increasingly prioritised by schools, universities and governments, and aims to sustain education and industry by recruiting based on competence and reducing gender inequality. Therefore, a growing body of research on engagement is driven by equity concerns caused by the lack of women in technology, engineering, and STEM (Ertl et al., 2017). The second UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Engineering Report (2021) thus also states that it is essential that more young people, especially girls, consider engineering as a career.

In an earlier report, UNESCO (2017) investigated the factors that hinder or facilitate girls’ and women’s participation, achievement and continuation in STEM education. The report found that informal learning environments such as STEM summer camps can effectively spark pupils’ interest in STEM. Rahm et al. (2021) describe “doing science” as emotional, entangled in and emergent from relations among actors, materials, and tools, meaning that attending such a STEM camp is more than simply being present.

In the present study, we follow Swedish teenage girls on a three-day technology camp, an initiative created with three goals, according to the organiser: “Get girls interested, keep girls interested and provide knowledge about futures within technology professions” (camp organiser website, 2019). The study aims to investigate girls’ technological activities and conceptions when participating in an all-girl technology camp. Our research questions are:

  • What technological activities do the girls engage in at the technology camp, and what artefacts do they make and/or use in the activities?

  • What conceptions of technology and being technical do the girls at the technology camp express?

  • How do the girls’ technological actions and conceptions play out on different levels of gender?

In this study, “levels of gender” refer to Sandra Harding’s (1986) framework on gender identity and how it is produced. A description of how this framework is used is presented below in the theory section.

Literature review

In a chapter discussing gender and its implications, Paechter (2006) points out that in education, the feminine is generally seen as subordinated to the masculine, which inevitably alienates and creates a sense of non-belonging for girls interested in male-dominated areas such as technology and engineering education. The influence of perceptions of the feminine and the masculine on STEM participation has also been studied by researchers such as Archer et al. (2013, 2020), Berner (2009), Calabrese Barton et al. (2013), Faulkner (2000), Francis (2000), Mellström (2009) and Ottemo et al. (2020), confirming this as a complex area. Salas-Morera et al. (2019) conducted a survey in Spain on males and females in upper secondary school, the first year of engineering degrees and the first year of science degrees. The results show that although girls who participated in the survey saw engineering professions as highly valued, they still declared that these professions were not for women. Girls who are relatively uninterested in STEM-related school subjects are also more likely to believe that these subjects constitute a male domain, as evidenced in a Croatian study (Blažev et al., 2017).

In Finland, Autio (2013) concluded that making motivated behavioural choices towards studying or working in technical fields is a complicated process, particularly for women. Furthermore, according to Engström (2016), Swedish female engineering students in higher education who do go on to graduate have experiences and resources such as “well-educated parents, positive attitudes to the engineer students’ traditions, and a positive view of the engineering profession” (p. 239). This is also recognisable in Lloyd et al. (2018) when studying Australian 8 to 18-year-old pupils. The authors found that pupils interested in STEM were typically high achieving, and over 90% of their guardians aspired for them to attend university.

Stereotypes about girls in relation to technology may also deter girls from pursuing their interests in STEM and induce less positive attitudes (Berner, 2004; Brownlow et al., 2002; Cheryan et al., 2015, 2017; Sultan et al., 2019). When technology is constructed as a male domain and comprised of male attributes, this tends to produce negative self-images among girls (Godec et al., 2020; Kessels, 2005; Sanders, 2005). There is also a corresponding gender difference in interest in the technological and engineering fields between girls and women on the one hand and boys and men on the other. This interest difference begins as early as elementary school, with girls reporting less interest and less confidence in their abilities than boys, which may affect future educational choices (Archer & MacRae, 1991; Archer et al., 2020; Ardies et al., 2015; Ertl et al., 2017; Jidesjö, 2012; Hand et al., 2017; Rooke, 2013; Varney et al., 2012). According to Archer et al. (2020) and UNESCO (2017), most interventions focus on students aged fourteen and above, even though career aspirations have often already formed by the age of thirteen. After this, it is increasingly difficult to interest students in the STEM field (Lindahl, 2007).

However, earlier research on girls’ constructions of gender in educational settings also provides an understanding of the actual diversity of gender productions (e.g. Aapola et al., 2004; Berner, 2003; Harris, 2004; Nagy et al., 2008; Paechter, 2006; Rooke, 2013; Skogh, 2001). Fouad and Santana (2016), Blažev et al. (2017), and Tellhed et al. (2016) highlight the importance of fostering positive images, building constructive self-efficacy beliefs and realistic outcome expectations as a means to a future entry into a STEM occupation. Gender research in technology education (Fröberg, 2010; Grenholm, 2016; Mostafa, 2019; Reinking & Martin, 2018; Rooke, 2013; Skogh, 2001; Svenningsson et al., 2022) has explored such issues and concludes that the sense of non-belonging among girls can be avoided by providing them with the following:

  • broad notions of technology,

  • continued connections to technology after interventions,

  • professional female role models in technology, and

  • positive attitudes towards technology.

Fostering interest and confidence in pursuing STEM pathways may increase girls’ representation in STEM fields (Vela et al., 2019). However, Lent et al. (2018) accounted for large portions of variance in interests and choice goals when analysing predictors of participation in STEM domains.

That the single-sex engineering camp model can have more positive effects on the self-efficacy of the young women who attend and participate is confirmed by Schilling and Pinnell (2019), who analysed quantitative and qualitative data collected at a total of four engineering camps. When following a Girls Tech Camp, Stapleton et al. (2019) learned that one of the best things about the camp, according to the participants, was making friends. Hughes et al. (2021) concluded that identity as a computer coder was created when girls received recognition from educators and other adults viewed as experts, making peers and camp leaders an essential factor. Hughes et al. (2021) also emphasised the importance of understanding how adults recognise girls’ competence and identity performances. An all-girl camp may compensate for competition and other social factors where girls moderate their performance in the presence of boys. However, it is not only on girls that out-of-school experiences with technology can have a positive impact. When examining students’ perceptions of participating in a STEM summer camp, Conrad et al. (2018) found that middle-school students showed the most significant gains compared to elementary and secondary students. In addition, both boys and girls left the camp with more positive attitudes towards STEM.

Schilling and Pinnell (2019) conclude that incorporating creative activities can also positively impact participants’ self-efficacy related to engineering. Although it has been suggested that instructor and camp leaders’ behaviours and traits could enhance the effect of STEM programmes on career decidedness, this was not supported in Gagnon and Sandoval’s (2020) study. An explanation for the lack of mediational or direct effects could, according to them, “imply the participants were already ‘decided’ on a STEM career; indeed, the means within career decidedness factor suggest high scores in this area (i.e., ceiling effects)” (p. 7).

Studying out-of-school programming for girls aged 12–13, Crawford-Ferre and Weist (2016) note that participants showed a significant positive change in their perception of mathematics as a female domain. The girls considered mainly the academic aspects of participating as important. In Halonen and Aksela (2018), more than 91% of participants stated that individual interest in the subject was the reason for participating in the science camp. In addition, 42% felt the desire to influence the planet’s future and people’s well-being as one of the reasons for participating. How engineering camp activities are presented may also affect participants’ perceptions of their abilities in engineering (Schilling & Pinnell, 2019). Nourishing girls’ engagement with technology in informal activities such as summer camps can scaffold their interest in technology. A supported interest could also create a more durable and robust individual interest (Crowley et al., 2015; Kager, 2015). Attention to how girls engage in informal activities can tell us about the knowledge and self-efficacy girls employ to belong in technology (e.g., Gonsalves et al., 2013).

In summary, previous research indicates that although results vary, all-girl camps in STEM fields may positively affect the participating girls’ motivation, interest and sense of belonging, especially in technology and engineering.

Theoretical framework

The key concepts for this study are gender and technology. Since there are no single definitions of these concepts, below is a description of how they are used in this study.

Gender

Gender in this context means social and cultural gender, not biological sex. Gender refers to how being a woman, man, girl, or boy is socially constructed. As a social construct, which includes the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, gender varies from society to society and can change over time (Butler 1990/1999). Gender is constantly being constructed; it is created based on our values, attitudes, and experiences (Lindsey, 2015). The social and cultural gender is thus a manifestation of the perceptions and notions that exist in our society about what is feminine and masculine. Bray (2007) points to how gender is expressed in any society through technology: “Technical skills and domains of expertise are divided between and within the sexes, shaping masculinities and femininities” (Bray, 2007, p. 38).

Technology and being technical

In this study, we have chosen to use DiGironimo’s (2011) characterisation of technology: Technology as Artefacts, Technology as a Creation Process, and Technology as a Human Practice. Technology as Artefacts refers to the products of technological innovation and includes familiar technical objects. Technology as a Creation Process can be seen as engagement in the technological activity of design, and Technology as Human Practice is technology as a human enterprise. Inspired by DiGironimo (2011), we define being technical as being knowledgeable or skilled in technology, in praxes, design, construction and/or use of technology. Even though this study does not take place in school per se, technology education is still the context of the study because of the girls’ earlier experiences of school technology and because the camp constitutes informal technology education. We use the term technical to describe the girls’ capabilities in relation to technology, such as when creating, designing, using, and discussing technological content (see our definition above).

Gender and technology

Harding (1986) stresses that inadequate conceptualisations of gender can be a problem. In multiple works, she has addressed the feminist issues in science and technology, problematising theories and practices of science and technology (S&T) using a gendering lens (e.g., Harding 1995, 2011, 2013). Gender is often seen as ways of ordering, valuing, and comparing feminine and masculine identity and behaviour. Harding thus aims for an adequate theorisation of gender in relation to such issues. Her theory has gained status as one of the most fundamental in the relationship between gender, science and technology. Recent scholars within STEM education, such as Beck et al. (2022), have conducted similar work and expanded on or used the thinking of Harding (see also UNESCO, 2017). Harding (1986) points out how we are gendered not only on one level of existence, so she introduces a framework where gender identity is seen as produced on three different levels. Even if these levels were not used initially for gaining knowledge within technology, they are still helpful as tools for understanding how gender is produced in the gender system, especially unpacking gender in relation to technology. By using Harding’s original work on the three levels of gender, we aim to expand on these understandings in connection to technology education.

In this study, we refer to gender symbolism, the symbolic level, which concerns cultural norms, ideas and linguistic expressions/dichotomies, to recognise what gender and technology are and what it means to be technical; gender structure, the structural level, regards gender in relation to the structure and organisation of technology teaching; and individual gender, the individual level, is used to connect to girls’ self-image or view of their identity in relation to technology and technology education. Harding’s (1986) gender levels are important for this study because they explain the designing, making and using of technology as a social phenomenon; the relationship between gender and technology is socially situated, fluid and dependent on the context and level of analysis (e.g. Wajcman 2010).

The research context: introducing the camp

The camp organiser was a Swedish national technology association member dedicated to scaffolding and increasing children’s (age 6–16) interest in technology. They are affiliated with one of Sweden’s larger municipalities and have hosted the camp for the last ten years. The municipality founded the camp using money from the Government and local and regional technology industries. According to Statistics Sweden’s classification SNI (SCB, 2007/2021), the technology industry is involved in manufacturing metal products, means of transport, repair and installation of machinery and equipment, architectural and technical consultancy, technical testing, and analysis. These companies have connections to the global market, which are affected by the unbalanced gender distribution in their engineering workforce and a lack of interest among youth, particularly girls, in entering the manufacturing world. Eleven regional companies sponsored. All the activities at the camp were represented in some way (or were meant to represent) each sponsoring company’s technical speciality. Besides supporting with money, the technology industries could, if they wanted to, conduct targeted advertisements during the camp. This could consist of giving a talk, contributing to the girls’ “goodie bag” or having their logo visible throughout the camp.

An invitation to attend the free-of-charge camp was sent through post to all girls in school years 7 and 8 (ages 13–15) who lived in the municipality. The camp admitted 100 girls, non-binary or persons identifying as a girl. The invitation to attend was promoted online as well. On the camp organisers’ social media platform, the camp was promoted for the girls as being creative, leading to many different career opportunities and a desire to get the girls more interested in technology. It stated that they might be the engineers of the future.

As the attending girls came from different socioeconomic backgrounds, the association rented a bus to drive the girls who could not get to and from the camp on their own to ensure that all admitted girls could attend. The camp also served lunch and snacks for free and welcomed girls with various disabilities with the vision of showing that technology can be something for anyone. According to the camp organiser, the girls had mixed prior technical experience, from novice to highly experienced, depending on content and context. However, an important common factor was that they all had some interest in technology and voluntarily applied to the camp. The camp organiser’s vision is an educational goal: to create technological literacy and to get girls into educational programmes with a technological focus. The camp’s primary purpose was to make girls interested in and excited about a future in technology.

The camp was held for three consecutive days and was filled with activities in the field of technology. The facilities were an upper secondary school with a long tradition of giving industrial and educational programmes, and at the building of the national technology association. The aim of the original decision to establish a camp only for girls was to create an environment where girls could relax and be scaffolded without competing with boys for attention regarding materials or knowledge (Table 1).

Camp activities

At the start of the three days, the larger group of girls was divided into smaller groups. There were approximately 8–10 girls in every group, and each group had a leader. The group leader was part of the camp staff and was usually a young person, 17–20 years old. Many group leaders were students or former students at the school involved. The role of the leader was to create an inviting environment of belonging and ensure the girls found their way, got engaged and made friends. The days were mixed with social and practical/technical events or activities.

Technological activities for the girls

There were nine different activity rooms to choose from. Each room had at least two staff positioned to guide, scaffold and engage the girls in specific activities. The girls could freely decide where they wanted to go, what to do, and how long they wanted to stay in the room. The only scheduled time to follow was for social activities, breaks and lunch.

Table 1 Activities that the girls could choose from during the three-day technology camp
Full size table

Method

Based on this study’s aim and research questions, we have methodologically chosen to draw inspiration from ethnography. Ethnography is concerned with describing a group or culture (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Key elements are the use of multiple methods for the purpose of gathering rich and diverse forms of data, a researcher participating in the daily lives of a group of people watching and registering what is happening, and that perspectives of the participants are given high status (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Data was collected through participant observations, recorded with audio recordings, photos and field notes, and an audio-recorded focus group interview. There are empirical and analytical reasons to do an ethnographic study, most notably that the research site, as in our case, needs to be experienced first-hand to fully understand it (Beach & Vigo-Arrazola, 2021). The researchers’ experiences will be a lens through which they view the world and, subsequently, in their research: “Common human experiences of people as they negotiate social structures, power relations and interactive encounters are easily compared and interpreted through ethnographic methodology” (Beach et al., 2004, p. 534).

The ethical principles for research were followed by informing all participants, adults and children, about the purpose of the participant observations (field notes, audio recordings and photos) and the focus group interview. Furthermore, they were informed about the requirement of their informed consent, and, conversely, their right to discontinue their participation should they wish to do so. Consent was obtained from camp supervisors, the participating girls, and the girls’ legal guardians. The participants were also informed that their participation was anonymous (data and presentation in the article are entirely anonymised) and that the data would only be used for research purposes (Swedish Research Council, 2017). The data is also stored and protected according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Participant observations

The first author performed the participant observations for three days and in different activity rooms, visiting all activities offered at the camp at some point. The purpose was to get inside the social and cultural context of the camp setting, and the observer moved from being a non-participant to becoming increasingly a participant, intending to produce qualitative observation data (Kawulich, 2012). Audio recordings, photos and field notes were used to document the observations. There were 22 recordings made over three days, totalling two hours of spoken material. The audio recordings were transcribed to analyse the verbal interactions where the girls were engaging, the interactions with their peers and what was happening around the participants. Fifty-four photos were taken to remember the settings. Field notes spanning altogether 26,000 characters with spaces were taken continuously on a check sheet and in the field notes booklet. Notes and observations were written up as soon after the sessions as possible. The results of the participant observations include a total of six girls.

Focus group interview

One focus group interview was conducted on the last day after the final activity. The interview was voluntary with one group of girls with diverse backgrounds who did not know each other before but had worked together during the three days. The interview utilised a semi-structured interview format, and the questions were partly based on the first author’s experiences as a participant observer over three days. The semi-structured interview guide was also based on the results of a scoping literature review regarding girls’ interest in technology (Sultan et al., 2019). This resulted in topics including themes such as belonging and attitudes to technology. The 30-minute focus group session was conducted with nine girls, led by the first author, and audio recorded. The semi-structured nature allows probing, and through questions and comments, the girls could explain and describe the context of the setting (Krueger & Casey, 2014; Smith, 1995; Smithson, 2000). By having girls discuss and interact, the researcher could gain insight into the language and cultural interactions of the girls, as well as their self-image (e.g., Harding 1992; 1995).

Concerning the focus group interview, the interviewees also felt comfortable in that they had met the interviewer during the camp. This allowed the girls to feel more relaxed. The girls who had chosen to take part in the interview could also choose whether to participate actively in the discussion.

Data analysis

The empirical data includes two primary qualitative data sources: participant observation and a focus group interview. A thematic analysis was used since it is a method for identifying and examining common or shared experiences of the participants in a well-structured way through the creation of descriptive themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006) Varpio et al., (2020) describe the thematic analysis method as a way of analysing qualitative data that involves “searching across a data set to identify, analyse, and report repeated patterns” (p. 847). The qualitative data in this study consisted of a transcribed focus group interview and transcribed audio recordings, photos (only for documentation) and field notes from participant observations of the activities. Bearing the study’s research questions in mind and following Varpio et al.’s. (2020) description of the analysis process, the thematic analysis was conducted as follows:

The collected data – audio recordings, field notes, and photos – was gone through every day when the camp was over. The first author made summarising notes of first impressions. Then all authors, in the first phase as described by Braun and Clarke (2006), familiarised themselves with the whole data set and its correlation with the research questions. In the second phase, qualitative, hermeneutic analysis of the field notes, transcriptions of observations and focus group interview as well as photos led to an inductive generation of initial codes concerning rooms, tools, and girls’ interactions and talk. For example, in Observation 1, we coded aspects of the room and the involved tools, as well as the nature of the girls’ interaction with these and each other. In a third phase, the many codes were again related to the research questions. They were thus collated into broader themes (e.g., “Improvisational design”) about activities, artefacts, conceptions and self-confidence. These themes were reviewed and revisited in a fourth phase, for instance, to avoid overlap. The categorisation of activities about RQ1, for example, was not straightforward and involved consideration of the type of activity and content. As we came closer to finalising the analysis process, the themes were finally defined and named (fifth phase) in conjunction with relating them deductively to the theoretical framework, Harding’s (1986) three gender levels. In this regard, the framework helped us analyse the girls’ technological activities and conceptions in relation to different levels of gender influence. The final phase in the analysis process was to produce the report/manuscript.

Results

Girls’ engagement, technological activities, and artefacts

The girls were introduced to and engaged in various technological activities and objects at the technology camp. The main themes in this section mirror the primary technological activities that the girls participated in because these activities became defining contexts for their continued engagement with each other, the teachers, and the different artefacts. These themes are construction, joining and separating, rules of thumb, digital making, and improvisational design. In the results, we have chosen to present three of five themes as examples of observation data. A more thorough thematised summary of the results of the analysis relating to RQ1 is presented in Table 2. All observation – documented with field notes, audio recordings and photos – was used in the thematic analysis that generated the following results.

Table 2 Technological activities, artefacts, and engagement of the girls participating in the technology camp
Full size table

The girls who attended the technology camp were offered a spectrum of different technological activities from various technology and engineering fields and could make and/or use an even broader array of technological artefacts. Although the girls had the opportunity to engage with traditionally male activities such as puncture welding and soldering (Berner, 2013), the majority of the activities connected to the actual artefacts were of the sort that can be considered feminine coded; making earrings, handbags, shampoo and lipstick (Andreucci & Chatoney, 2017; Bray, 2007).

Below are extracts of girls’ conversations recorded during our observations, exemplifying three different themes at the camp. First, the reading guide for the following observations: In the examples, “G” stands for “girl”, “T” stands for teacher and “FA”, used in the interview extracts, stands for the first author. The teachers in the observations are not group leaders. Instead, the teachers are connected to a specific activity or room.

Observation 1: joining and separating

One girl (G1) and one teacher (T1) are standing in a room, focusing on learning about simple circuits and how to use LEDs (Fig 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of the room where observation 1 took place. Girls are sitting and standing around a big table, working on the activities connected to the room

Full size image

T1: If you look here, [points] here is an instruction. Try. Don’t forget safety glasses.

G1: But I have never used a… I mean I don’t know. What is what?

T1: Ah, ok. We will take it step by step. Have you checked so that every LED is working?

G1: Yes.

T1: Ok. Good job! This is the pen [holds soldering iron]. Tip gets really hot. It melts metal. So, if you think about how you use a glue gun, you know?

G1: Yes.

T1: The warm glue makes things stick together. Yes? The pen here is the same. You take this.

G1: [Takes the soldering pen. Holds it in the air].

T1: Now. The tip of the pen is going to heat up this [points to LED leg]. You need to hold the pen there for a short while to heat it. Then, you add solder, this thread here [has in hand] to it.

G1: Like this?

T1: Watch it! Don’t touch the solder directly to the tip of the pen!

G1: [Concentrating hard]

T1: Looks good.

G1: Hmmm

T1: Nice! You want to make a tiny volcano. Not a ball.

G1: Good?

T1: You did it. Whohoo [shouts out to the room]!

In this observation about soldering, on an individual level, the female teacher takes Girl 1’s perspective and thus acts as a peer, similar to the girls in Observation 2 below. Here again, the girl engages with a traditionally male domain – soldering – in which she has no experience. Therefore, the woman teacher also acts as the more knowledgeable person, but one with whom the girl can identify. The teacher also encourages and cheers Girl 1 on, as seen in the last line. Relating to Harding’s (1986) symbolic level, the linguistic expressions in the example recognise the making of connections to a technical world the girls are expected to be familiar with – the glue gun – as they are being introduced to a new artefact, the soldering iron. Here the teacher also uses metaphors from outside a strictly technical world to describe how to solder, thereby hopefully boosting self-confidence and creating an identity in relation to technology on the individual level.

Observation 2: rules of thumb

Three girls (G2, G3 and G4) are standing by a desk, drilling holes into the skateboard base they are building for themselves. To guide them, there are written instructions on how to make it, what parts to use, and in what order (Fig 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Three girls are standing around a table, drilling holes for skateboard wheels

Full size image

G2: I don’t know. Can you show me how you did it?

G3: Take that and drill there. Oh, wait. Have you marked it?

G2: Can’t I just drill [there, points to truck]?

G3: No, no, the wheels have to match.

G2: Ah.

G3: Get that marker.

G2: Get marker.

G3: Yes, there. Good. Now you can drill.

G2: But I’m not sure. I haven’t [drilled] before. How do I…?

G3: Just hold it and drill. Press down and let it work.

G4: See! You did it!

This second observation extract shows, by way of a building activity, the process by which the girls cooperatively build both the skateboards and their technological knowledge: they help one another acquire drilling skills while operating from rule of thumb and following written instructions. Thus, in comparison with the previous observation, we see here how another activity which is symbolically related to a male tradition – drilling – can still be appropriated by the girls on the individual level; they utilise being only girls and having freedom of execution to support each other in learning and building confidence (Harding, 1986).

Observation 3: improvisational design

Two girls (G5 and G6) and two teachers (T2 and T3) are standing in a room used to teach metalwork. The girls’ assignment is to design and make a chandelier.

G5: Oh, am I using the bad scissors to the sheet metal?

T2: Yes, exactly, it is good. I would say it is best for that [to cut with], that one [points to another cutting tool] looks like it would be better, but it is not.

G5: I understand.

T2: The weird thing is that it, if you cut it like that, it folds. Often. That is my experience.

G5: Ah

Girl 5 takes the scissors and thinks of her next move - where to cut.

G6: One just has to start. I listened to the teacher. Go improvisation craft.

T2: Improvisation craft is the best!

G6: I totally buy into that – improvisation craft.

T2: It is the opposite to what you need to do in school. There it is super controlled.

G6: First you need to do the shelf and then the stool.

T2: Working three weeks with a sketch.

G6: Plan.

T2: Yes, not allowed to start directly.

G6: I like sloyd anyway, a lot!

T3: Me too.

The conversation in this observation of the steel design assignment shows some interesting features of the technology camp. First, although most activities are specifically created to make girls want to engage with technology and engineering by alluding to rather traditional gender roles, for example, by making lipstick, there is also a focus on more traditionally male design and material: steel. Yet, in this extract, they do not seem to be primarily concerned with whether the activity or the material is coded according to male or female norms. Instead, it is the freedom of doing “improvisation craft” that attracts them, as opposed to the kind of “super-controlled” technology education that takes place in school. Analysing this observation with Harding’s (1986) gender framework, at the symbolic level, the activity and the artefact symbolise both male and female attributes with the construction of a metal chandelier. At the same time, at the structural and individual levels the focus of the activity for the girls is the fact that it is unstructured and involves an improvisational design. In a sense, therefore, it is the freedom of the activity that most clearly resonates with the girls’ relation to and engagement with technology.

Girls’ conceptions of technology and being technical

Transcripts from the focus group interview and observations of 3D printer and steel activity from Pinterest, LED and soldering activity were used to identify the girls’ conceptions of technology and what it means to be technical (RQ2). The themes that emerged from the thematic analysis were: technology as making; being technical in others’ eyes; and school technology education as impetus.

Technology as making

Several girls expressed their interest in and fascination with technology, already before they applied to be part of the camp, as was shown in the reply by one girl in the focus group interview:

FA: What is the best thing about the camp?

G7: Lots of new technology.

A similar reply was given by several of the girls later:

FA to G9: And you? How do you know you like technology?

G9: It just happened. To have something to do when on summer break.

G10: I like computing so I would really like to do things on the computer. Like games and things like that.

G9: I like soldering.

G8: You don’t have to sound like that boring type because you are still creative but you can escape that darn handicraft.

When it comes to what conceptions of technology that the girls expressed, a widespread view was that technology is about doing things in the classroom, and that hands-on activities are more fun:

FA: What is technology?

G7: Fun, you do stuff.

G8: You make stuff with eeeeeeeh what is it called?

G9: Computer!

G8: Mechanical.

G10: You make things that have a specific appearance.

G8: Meccano, the old.

[laughter]

It is also obvious in the above quote that the girls did not distinguish between older and newer technologies but that if they could do things, partake in activities, and produce some artefact, it was considered fun and creative. On the symbolic level, the cultural norm of technology as being connected to action is thus reflected in who they express as being technical, despite – or maybe because of – the mentioned technologies being typically “male” (computer, Meccano; Meccano is a toy model construction system that enables the building of working models of mechanical devices). At the structural level, the organisation of camp activities also enhances this notion of technology with the focus on doing and making, resulting on the individual level in a strengthened identity of being technical as being a doer/maker (Harding, 1986). The camp also partly presupposes that the girls should be engaged in “girly” activities. However, in the interview, a view emerges of “girlified” activities being undesirable, implying that they want out of the girly handicraft box (Swedish: pysslande, which is not as technologically oriented as tinkering in Observation 3).

Being technical in others’ eyes

Many of the girls consider themselves technical, although it is hard to admit to themselves and to others, and it seems to be in comparison with others. Being technical in others’ eyes motivated them to participate in the camp. They are often asked about technical things both at home and in school, and often they can find solutions:

FA: How do you know you like technology?

G12: I like technology at home. I usually help Dad when he fixes stuff and so on.

FA: Is it Dad who says, “come with me and fix this thing”?

G12: Yes.

FA: Do you think you are technical?

G11: Yeah, one has to be.

G13: More technical now than before [the camp].

G7: Yeeees.

FA: You weren’t before the camp?

G12: More technical than others. They like panic if it says like this [gesturing technical error] [mimicking nervous voices]. “No, I don’t know - you solve it.”

If there is a technical problem to be solved in school, it most often has to do with computers and the girls end up fixing it:

G14: I am not that technical, but I am most technical in my class. I am the one fixing if there is something not right with the computer.

G7: Yes, then it’s me who gets up and solves it.

[…]

G12: Yes, it is only to push a few buttons, and something will happen.

[laughter]

G13: Yes, but it’s true

[…]

FA: What do the others in the class say when you do? Do they say anything?

G12: Nerd

G7: My [female] teacher says: “Oh, wow.”

G13: No, they say: ”Oh my God, you are so technical.”

G7: My teachers say that to me too.

G12: “You are such a whizz”.

G11: It’s more like this. They ask: ”Who is good at computers?” and then okay.

There is a clear gender difference here in that boys are expected to be good at computers. In the girls’ opinion they are better than the boys, who are “brain dead”:

FA: Do you feel they are looking at you then? Like yes.

G7 to G5: Yes.

FA: Or do they look at the boys [in the classroom]?

G7: They look at me

G8: Look mostly at the boys.

G8: Mostly yes.

G14: No boy is technical, soooooo …

G15: No, they are just in shock.

G14: Mm, the only thing guys do is play Fortnite [a computer game].

G15: Yeah, like.

G8: Or if computing, they still are like, done. Brain dead.

G7: Yes.

It also seems to be the case that since boys are expected to be good at computers, the technical girls are turned to as a secondary option.

At the symbolic level, we see in the examples above expressions of gender in relation to what it means to be technical, when boys are expected by teachers, and often the girls themselves, to be the most technical. At the individual level, the girls also, in a sense downplay their own capability and show low self-confidence, all the while also saying that they are better than the boys at managing technological artefacts that are usually considered male, such as computers. Consequently, at the symbolic and structural levels, we construe from the data how the teachers’ expectations of girls as not being technical make them compare themselves with and feel inferior to the boys on the individual level. At the same time, the girls’ technical identity is strong, and they identify strongly as being technical even in relation to technology with a male code when prompted by the interviewer and the other girls (Harding, 1986).

School technology education as impetus

A common denominator for many girls was also that they were critical of their current school technology education, most notably that there was too little actual technology education going on:

G7: When I went to my old school, we had the worst teaching sessions. We were handed a notebook and worked with it, like three pages. Too easy. That was the only thing we worked with. I didn’t know then I liked technology but when I started to have good lessons in technology, I realized it was super fun!

FA: What do you do in technology education?

G7: We do everything from programming to writing essays. And we are building a house. Like, lots of stuff.

They also claimed that technology education was boring and that few girls like technology education. They also said that their teachers were not competent and that the material in school is often broken or old. Furthermore, they reported that school technology is often about writing rather than doing/making, that lessons without practical work are boring, and that they would like to work with the practical content they will need later in life. On a more positive note, some girls said that the technology classes are too short and that female teachers are more fun or more meticulous:

FA: If you could choose - How to make lessons in technology [in school] more fun?

G8: More computers.

G7: More practical activities.

G9: More practical activities.

G10: More technology – how it works.

G8: More technology you actually have use for. Not knowing how to build a chair out of drinking straws…

G7: That is something you might need in grades 4–6. Then being older, going up [the school grades] you need help with [learning the content of] technology.

FA: Would you like to learn practical skills like how to change your bike tyre and stuff?

G7: God! Yes!

FA: Could that be a practical thing?

All girls: Yes!

It seems that in terms of motivation for participating in the technology camp, critique of traditional school teaching is one reason, at the same time as they also want to get better grades and meet new – technologically inclined – friends:

FA: Out of school – do you hang out with other girls who like technology?

All: No.

FA: None?

G12: There were two from our school who liked technology.

G13: There was one in my [school]. [quiet] That was me.

FA: So, meeting new friends is a good thing?

G13: Hmmmm yes.

G12: You get to learn how to make [as in doing, making technology] so you will like, get an A [highest grade] in this [technology education].

On Harding’s (1986) symbolic level, it is evident that the prevailing norms among the girls are that technology education should be a practical subject where the pupils learn how things work and acquire the knowledge they have a practical use for. On the other hand, thinking and writing about technology are not expressed as valued by the girls. On a structural level, therefore, the girls want more and better technology education, with a focus on knowing and doing. They also put forth the – female – teacher as an important factor in making technology education a meaningful learning experience. On the individual level, we see the sense of belonging as strongly connected to the girls’ identity in relation to technology and technology education. They are usually alone in their interest in technology, so meeting friends and getting good grades became important factors for participating in the camp.

Discussion

The study aimed to investigate girls’ technological activities and conceptions when participating in an all-girl technology camp. Faulkner (2000) has shown that it matters how contexts are gendered. The girls participated in sessions that could be construed as typically and traditionally male or manly: managing machines, building and construction (cf. Berner, 2009; Bray, 2007; Faulkner, 2000; Lloyd et al., 2018; Ottemo et al., 2020; Sultan et al., 2019). However, the girls also participated in what can be seen as typically female activities, such as design (albeit with steel), creating, and making girlified artefacts (Andreucci & Chatoney, 2017). But, if we look at, for instance, Observation 3, the girls particularly expressed liking the improvisional aspects of design. Thus, the rationale for participation in the camp went beyond the kinds of technology and activities the girls encountered; the camp met a need for freedom, both in befriending other girls and approaching technology.

By applying the three levels of gender from Harding (1986) on an out-of-school event we hope to contribute to the understanding of girls’ technological activities, conceptions, and self-confidence in technology. On the symbolic level, the “girlification” of activities can be seen as stereotyping what girls are appealed by. By girlification, we mean the act of making otherwise not gendered artefacts girly; girlified here means how something has been transformed from a male or neutral to a more feminine coded object, which has probably been done to attract girls. However, in the worst-case scenario, girlification can be seen as sorting technology in a non-favourable way by giving a sense of technology having to be in a certain way to appeal to girls. Girlification can also give a false image of what work is like in the technological industry, which was one of the aims of the camp. Yet, the girls in this study already identified themselves as technical and might not be as influenced by girlified activities as a girl who does not identify as such. This can be interpreted as the camp being based on the notion that all girls are attracted to girlified activities, which they might not be (cf. Salas-Morera et al., 2019). The difficulty with many intervention activities is that they often appeal only to those students who are already interested in STEM, not to those who are sceptical about these fields. Girlification was probably an attempt to remedy this, although it did not really appeal to the girls in our study because they already had a strong interest.

On the structural level, the camp being for girls only led the organisation of teaching to doing and making activities with little depth of knowledge in the sense of reflection and contextual issues of technology. At the same time camp leaders aimed at fostering the girls’ positive images and sense of belonging in a STEM occupation. The camp focused on girls aged thirteen and fourteen even though career aspirations have often already been formed by age 13 (Archer et at., 2020; UNESCO, 2017). Despite trying to get away from stereotypical conceptions of technology, there is a risk of making masculine coded technology a norm since the authentic connections to work life in the industry were mainly in the male domain. The masculine setting and artefact focus thus dominated, even if girlified activities potentially conveyed a picture of what could also be considered as “real technology”. The more female activities, like making shampoo or lipstick that is not usually identified as technology (Andreucci & Chatoney, 2017; Bray, 2007), was indeed present but not promoted in any other way than as an activity. For example, no future work or education within the make-up industry was promoted. No problem solving was offered as an activity itself, except for social games, group interactions, and get-to-know-each-other games, thus making it likely that the camp also strengthened stereotypical conceptions about girls focusing more on the social aspects than the technical (Sultan et al., 2019). On the other hand, it is also conceivable that the broad array of activities pointed to a broad conception of technology as a means to strengthen girls’ interest in technology.

On the individual level, we could not see girls’ performances of femininity negotiated in any radical way, but this might be because it was an all-girl camp with girls already identifying as being technical. Yet the girls expressed often being alone in their interest in technology, making the aspects of meeting friends at the camp important for them (e.g. Stapleton et al., 2019), which also seems to have succeeded as the camp experience itself was a positive aspect for the girls’ engagement with and conceptions of technology. Similar to Crawford-Ferre and Weist’s (2016) study, the academic aspects of participating were also an important factor for the girls at the camp. We do not know if the participants’ perceptions of their abilities in technology got stronger during the camp. However, the results point to girls’ having a self-image as being technical, on the individual level. The girls at the camp expressed being good at technology and being technical in school.

Nevertheless, based on our definition of being technical, as having capabilities in relation to technology and being knowledgeable or skilled in technology, in praxes, design, construction and/or use of technology, we suggest that the girls did not present a clear technical self. For example, they did not express a noticeably clear relation to the more reflective and contextual aspects of technology (technology as human practice, see DiGironimo 2011). They did, however, present a sense of belonging in relation to knowing and doing technology. That is, they had a positive technological self-image, including a diverse way of knowing, doing and being in technology which is a type of technological knowledge according to Faulkner (2000).

Rahm et al. (2021) point to how informal moments such as camps or after-school activities can nurture positive emotions and positive feelings tied to being together and strengthen the sense of belonging in STEM. This was confirmed in this study. The motivation for participating in the camp was to meet new friends and led us to ask questions about how girls express being technical and interact with technology in a specific context. We, therefore, would like to suggest a fourth level of gender in addition to Harding’s (1986) three levels – the social. The fourth level can be used to understand the interconnections between the three original levels but in the social context. This would be a social level where girls are seen as technical, and being technical is also something you think you are because of a supportive social context. A social level connects to the works of Schilling and Pinnell (2019) and Stapleton et al. (2019), highlighting the importance of how camps are organised but also the findings from Tate and Linn (2005) pointing to identity as important for feeling social belonging in STEM.

Limitations

Although this is a qualitative study that does not aim to generalise data, there are still aspects of the results that can be transferrable. In this sense, the study is set in a particular Swedish out-of-school context, and one needs to be cautious when comparing it with other educational and national contexts. We observed 100 Swedish girls, but 15 are visable in our data. Furthermore, not all of the girls originally came from Sweden, which adds to the context’s specificity. However, because we study girls in STEM related to technology and engineering, there is, as we show in the introductory research overview, the potential for comparison of important aspects of the results and in this sense, this study can make a considerable international contribution relating to gender and technology/STEM education.

Conclusion and implications

In conclusion, our study indicates that when being in a setting such as a technology camp, girls become subject to the agreed norms of technology presented there. This is confirmed by the camp’s ambiguous notions of what technology can be, or at least it connected technology primarily to traditionally male-oriented domains. At the same time, these domains were made more feminine through “girlification”. Making girlified content might not be favourable in this context, however. The girls were already interested in technology, and they showed few if any signs of gendering technology – they like all technology. Another side of girlifying technology is that it can give the girls a false image of the future mostly industrial work life that the camp organiser aimed to inspire. Despite this, the presented camp activities were still identified as meaningful and relevant to the girls. The camp met a need for freedom in approaching technology, and it created opportunities for the girls to develop their sense of being technical and the feeling of belonging. On the other hand, the girls’ conceptions of technology and what gave their sense of belonging the most meaning were, to a great extent, traditionally male domains such as computing and soldering. Finally, there was a longing among the girls for more – and better (see, for instance, G7) – technology education, focusing on more knowledge, making and doing in technology. In a sense, the kind of out-of-school projects found at the camp is necessary and attractive to the girls largely because of the state of current technology education in Swedish schools, where at least half of the teacher cohort does not have a proper technology education certificate.

Implications for technology classroom settings and future technology or STEM camps are to value practical work and improvisational design without making the teaching unreflected. Technology as artefacts, creation processes, human practice, and societal and environmental context are thus all important (DiGironimo, 2011). This could be a way of engaging and familiarising girls with the multifaceted world of technology. Still, the most important thing from a gender point of view is to instil technological knowledge that is as broad in scope as possible. As Svenningsson et al. (2022) indicate, a broad conception of technology could make gender codes less relevant and make girls more willing to engage with technology and pursue a technological or STEM career.