Abstract
The dominant literature on interactivity of mobile phones treats it as a feature of the device that is neutral and value-free. Mostly quantitative studies of interactivity consider it as a stable construct, devoid of the contexts that constitute it. Of particular interest is the nature of interactivity in women’s lives within patriarchal home and work spaces. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 35 women in STEM careers in Singapore, I depict the gendered nature of mobile phone use, situated amid patriarchal structures, familial roles, and cultural norms. Specifically I examine the ways in which the meanings of interactivity are constituted amid gendered familial, sociocultural, and organizational spaces. The participants offer a conceptual framework of interactivity that challenges the techno-deterministic literature positioning new technologies as emancipatory solutions. The interactive features on mobile phones reproduce and magnify the gendered challenges experienced by the participants, adding new forms of reproductive labour. Gendered expectations of housework extend to interactions with the mobile device, with the device shaping the frequency, duration, and immediacy of interactions. Moreover, these interactive features afford specific forms of male interactions such as informal work chat groups that exclude women and simultaneously serve as spaces of decision-making. Features such as video chats and text messages further magnify the erasure of women in STEM amid patriarchal STEM cultures. Similarly, social media constitute structures that shape gendered performances although positive interactions on social media are seen as coping resources.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adkins, C. L., & Premeaux, S. A. (2014). The use of communication technology to manage work-home boundaries. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 15, 82–100.
Anderson, J. F., Beard, F. K., & Walther, J. B. (2007). Turn-taking and the local management of conversation in a highly simultaneous computer-mediated communication system. Language@ Internet, 7(7). Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2804/index_html#d57e622.
Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45, 813–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500804.
Blair-Loy, M., & Cech, E. A. (2017). Demands and devotion: Cultural meanings of work and overload among women researchers and professionals in science and technology industries. Sociological Forum, 32(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12315.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Supporting a grounded theory with an audit trail: An illustration. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12, 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570802156196.
Brooks, A. (2006). Gendered work in Asian cities: The new economy and changing labour markets. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Bucy, E. P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society, 20, 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490508063.
Burgoon, J. K., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52, 657–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02567.x.
Buzzanell, P. M., & Liu, M. (2005). Struggling with maternity leave policies and practices: A poststructuralist feminist analysis of gendered organizing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0090988042000318495.
Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce? Science Education, 98, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21108.
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress, and family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1237–1248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00213.x.
Chung, D. S. (2007). Profits and perils: Online news producers’ perceptions of interactivity and uses of interactive features. Convergence, 13, 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856507072856.
Chung, H., & Zhao, X. (2004). Effects of perceived interactivity on web site preference and memory: Role of personal motivation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00232.x.
Collinson, D. L. (1988). Engineering humour: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop floor relations. Organization Studies, 9, 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900203.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Currie, J., & Eveline, J. (2011). E-technology and work/life balance for academics with young children. Higher Education, 62, 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9404-9.
Dijkman, R. M., Sprenkels, B., Peeters, T., & Janssen, A. (2015). Business models for the internet of things. International Journal of Information Management, 35, 672–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.07.008.
Dutta, D. (2016). Negotiations of cultural identities by Indian women engineering students in US engineering programmes. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45, 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2016.1165727.
Dutta, D. (2017). Cultural barriers and familial resources for negotiation of engineering careers among young women: Relational dialectics theory in an Asian perspective. Journal of Family Communication, 17, 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1363045.
Dutta, D. (2018). Women’s discourses of leadership in STEM Organizations in Singapore: Negotiating sociocultural and organizational norms. Management Communication Quarterly, 32, 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917731537.
Duxbury, L., & Smart, R. (2011). The “myth of separate worlds”: An exploration of how mobile technology has redefined work-life balance. In S. Kaiser, M. J. Ringlstetter, D. R. Eikhof, & M. P. E. Cunha (Eds.), Creating balance? (pp. 269–284). Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Studying gender and ethnic differences in participation in math, physical science, and information technology. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 110, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.146.
Edley, P. P. (2001). Technology, employed mothers, and corporate colonization of the lifeworld: A gendered paradox of work and family balance. Women and Language, 24, 28–35. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/198826108?accountid=14574.
Fallman, D. (2008). The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues, 24, 4–18. Retrieved from https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/desi.2008.24.3.4.
Faulkner, W. (2009). Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox. Engineering Studies, 1, 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378620903225059.
Golden, A., & Geisler, C. (2007). Work-life boundary management and the personal digital assistant. Human Relations, 60, 519–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707076698.
Ha, L., & James, E. L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159809364462.
Herring, S. C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society, 6, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039906.
Horst, H. A. (2013). The infrastructures of mobile media: Towards a future research agenda. Mobile Media & Communication, 1, 147–152.10.1177/2050157912464490.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: NYU Press.
Katz, J. E. (2008). Handbook of mobile communication. Boston: MIT Press.
Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4, 355–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144480200400303.
Kirby, E. L., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2014). Communicating work life issues. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research and methods (pp. 351–373). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kirby, E. L., Golden, A. G., Medved, C. E., Jorgenson, J., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2003). An organizational communication challenge to the discourse of work and family research: From problematics to empowerment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679020.
Kisselburgh, L. G., Berkelaar, B. L., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2009). Discourse, gender, and the meaning of work: Rearticulating science, technology, and engineering careers through communicative lenses. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 33 (pp. 384–408). New York: Routledge.
Lee, J. S. K., & Seow, C. L. (2001). Work-family conflict of women entrepreneurs in Singapore. Women in Management Review, 16, 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420110395692.
Ling, R., & Horst, H. A. (2011). Mobile communication in the global south. New Media & Society, 13, 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810393899.
Low, P. K. C. (2006). Father leadership: The Singapore case study. Management Decision, 44, 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610641481.
Lucas, K., Liu, M., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2006). No limits careers: A critical examination of career discourse in the U.S. and China. In M. Orbe, B. J. Allen, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), The same and different: Acknowledging diversity within and between cultural groups. International and intercultural communication annual 28 (pp. 217–242). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24, 1337–1357. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0806.
McMillan, S. J. (2000). Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: Function, perception, involvement, and attitude toward web sites. In M. A. Shaver (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2000 conference of the American Academy of advertising (pp. 71–78). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2002.10673674.
Moratti, S. (2018). What’s in a word? On the use of metaphors to describe the careers of women academics. Gender and Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1533927.
Mukhopadhaya, P. (2014). Income inequality in Singapore. London: Routledge.
Nam, T. (2014). Technology use and work-life balance. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9, 1017–1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9283-1.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Porter, C. E. (2004). A typology of virtual communities: A multi-disciplinary foundation for future research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10. Retrieved from https://academic-oup-com/jcmc/article/10/1/JCMC1011/4614445.
Quiring, O. (2009). What do users associate with “interactivity”? A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media & Society, 11, 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809336511.
Quiring, O., & Schweiger, W. (2008). Interactivity: Are view of the concept and a framework for analysis. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 33, 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun.2008.009.
Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. Hawkins, J. Weimann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 110–134). Newbury Park: Sage.
Rafaeli, S., & Ariel, Y. (2007). Assessing interactivity in computer-mediated research. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 71–88). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/2/4/JCMC243/4584410.
Rakow, L. F., & Navarro, V. (1993). Remote mothering and the parallel shift: Women meet the cellular telephone. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039309366856.
Ribak, R. (2009). Remote control, umbilical cord and beyond: The mobile phone as a transitional object. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151008X388413.
Rice, R. E. (1984). New media technology: Growth and integration. In R. E. Rice (Ed.), The new media: Communication, research & technology (pp. 33–54). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Sidhu, R., Ho, K. C., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2014). Singapore: Building a knowledge and education hub. In J. Knight (Ed.), International education hubs: Student, talent, +−knowledge–innovation models (pp. 121–143). Dordrecht: Springer.
Smeding, A. (2012). Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex Roles, 67, 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0209-4.
Stich, J. F., Farley, S., Cooper, C., & Tarafdar, M. (2015). Information and communication technology demands: Outcomes and interventions. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2, 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-09-2015-0031.
Sundar, S. (2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In A. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 89–102). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sundar, S. S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H., & Kim, H. S. (2016). Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer interaction: Effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Communication Research, 43, 595–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534962.
Tonso, K. (2014). Engineering identity. In A. Johri & B. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 267–282). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. West Sussex: Wiley- Blackwell.
Wajcman, J. (2008). Life in the fast lane? Towards a sociology of technology and time. The British Journal of Sociology, 59, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2007.00182.x.
Wajcman, J., Bittman, M., & Brown, J. (2009). Intimate connections: The impact of mobile phone on work/life boundaries. In G. Goggin & L. Hjorth (Eds.), Mobile technologies: From telecommunications to media (pp. 9–22). New York: Routledge.
Wang, M. T., Eccles, J. S., & Kenny, S. (2013). Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological Science, 24, 770–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458937.
Williams, F., Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Research methods and the new media. New York: Free Press.
Yang, F., & Shen, F. (2018). Effects of web interactivity: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 45, 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217700748.
Funding
Funding for the present study was provided by the Department of Communication and New Media, National University of Singapore.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
I, Debalina Dutta, declare that there was no potential conflict of interest in this research.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
The research study was approved by Institutional Review Board, National University of Singapore. The reference number of the application is A-13-406.
Informed Consent
Signed informed consent was obtained from the participants prior to the study in compliance IRB National University of Singapore guidelines
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOCX 14 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dutta, D. Mobile Phones as Interactive Technologies Mediating Gendered Work-Life Conflict: A Qualitative Study on Women in STEM. Sex Roles 82, 659–672 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01088-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01088-y