Introduction
To navigate their daily life in an increasingly technologically intensive society, citizens need knowledge and skills in the form of highly developed technological literacy (Rohaan et al.
2010; Siu and Lam
2005; Turja et al.
2009). Without this knowledge, citizens will not be able to make deliberate democratic choices (Keirl
2006). The Swedish preschool curriculum stresses the importance of technology education, and states that the goal is to ensure that children develop their ability to identify and explore technology in everyday life (Swedish National Agency for Education
2018, p. 14). In the curriculum it is also stated that the preschool has a responsibility to counteract gender patterns that limit children’s development, choices and learning, and that children should be given the opportunity to develop their abilities and interests regardless of gender affiliation (p. 7). However, research shows that this is very complex goal for preschool teachers to handle (e.g. Boström
2018; Eidevald
2009).
One challenge is that there is a strong relationship between technology and masculinity in today’s society (e.g. Faulkner
2001; Mellström
2003,
2004; Oldenziel
1999; Wajcman
1991). Historically, technology has often been considered a male area of interest, and this notion has for the most part gone unchallenged. However, the societal view of gender and technology needs to be understood from a perspective that these two concepts affect, shape and construct each other (Oldenziel
1999). The notion that technology is an exclusively male domain, while having historical roots, is a relatively new one which can be traced back to the Western industrial revolution and the rise of the engineer as a male role model (Berner
1999; Oldenziel
1999). Before this, a lot of different occupations, inventions, production areas or knowledge could be placed in the technological domain, or as Oldenziel (
1999) puts it:
Language, quilts or corsets, all important objects of women’s inventive activity in the nineteenth century, do not come readily to contemporary minds as significant inventions or as markers of technology today, yet they once were. An early nineteenth-century speaker could discuss manufacturing, industry, and industriousness, referring to any kind of production mechanical or otherwise that could even include agriculture; could mention science and useful knowledge in one breath without sensing any contradiction, could marvel about the wonderful inventions and discoveries that ran the whole gamut from language to mechanical devices; and could speak of technology referring to academic knowledge as well as to the skills of millers, bakers, farmers, teachers, and innkeepers. (p. 19)
During the twentieth century, however, engineers started to influence and lay claim to the definition of technology. This was done not only by excluding females from vocations and educational institutions, but also through cultural narratives and discourses of what it meant to be a technologist and/or an inventor, and what could be interpreted as technological knowledge and skills. In this process, men were hailed as the technological heroes and women were put in the role of the silent bystander. Enterprises involving men, such as building cars, bridges and planes, were put at the top of the hierarchy of technology, while
[…] agricultural production, non-mechanical devices, languages, teachers, farmers, bonnets, and corsets were banished to the basement of the modern classification system of technology. (Oldenziel,
1999, p. 19)
This a pattern that still pervades today; in most industrialised countries the majority of engineers (and scientists) are men (Blickenstaff
2006). There is also a clear distinction between feminine coded and masculine coded technology in the societal discourse. The former is often described as “soft”, while the latter is described as “hard”. The “soft” technology (i.e. women’s work, knowledge and everyday artefacts) is often closer to everyday labour and is not even considered to be technology by all people. In this vein, many traditionally feminine occupations are described as non-technological, even though the person carrying out the work needs to be equipped with a wide array of technological knowledge and know-how. Therefore, gender coded artefacts and vocational roles act as agents that reinforce gender stereotypes (Berner
2004; Freeman
2007).
This may be connected to the fact that children’s views of gender form early in life, and as early as the age of 2 they begin to define themselves as “girl” or “boy” (e.g. Freeman
2007; Lyon
1991; Trepanier-Street and Romatowski
1999; Sandnabba and Ahlberg
1999; Turja et al.
2009). Children observe how the adults around them categorise things according to the female/male dichotomy, and through this they develop an understanding of gender-appropriate behaviour regarding toys, vocation and leisure activities (Kimmel
2000; Browne and Ross
1991; Freeman
2007; Lyon
1991; MacNaughton
1997; Raag and Rackliff
1998; Trepanier-Street and Romatowski
1999).
Gender differences in attitudes toward technology have long been a concern in education, and research indicates that a gender gap still persists (e.g. Bain and Rice
2006; Cai et al.
2017; Murphy
2006; Nisbet et al.
1998; Svenningsson et al.
2018; Volk and Ming
1999; Volman et al.
1995). The norm has been that men are expected to have a higher degree of knowledge in technology as well as confidence with technological artefacts. Norms like this have been a hindrance for women to approach technology (Cockburn
1985; Cockburn and Ormrud
1983; Oldenziel
1999).
One way in which these norms can be challenged or reinforced is through the literature with which children come into contact. Reading aloud has a long tradition in Swedish preschools and often involves books from public libraries (Kåreland
2005; Simonsson
2004). A Swedish government investigation states that preschool, through its activities such as reading aloud, is an arena where societal norms can be either preserved or challenged (SOU
2006:75). Since children’s literature is a way for one generation to transmit cultural values to the next, the content of these books has the capacity to influence children’s views of the world and themselves (Crisp and Hiller
2011; Gooden and Gooden
2001; Hellsing
1999; Kåreland
2005,
2013; Reynolds
2011), for example regarding what society deems as appropriate behaviour for women and men (Crisp and Hiller
2011; Oskamp et al.
1996; Trepanier-Street and Romatowski
1999).
Gender stereotyping and the under-representation of girls and women in children’s picture books have been documented in previous research (e.g. Axell
2015; Clark et al.
2003; Hamilton et al.
2006; Nikolajeva
2004; Paynter
2011). Girls have generally been portrayed as passive, as waiting for the adventure to come to them, while boys have been portrayed as energetic, as “doers” (Kåreland
2005; Pearson
2011; Ross Johnston
2011). During the late 1990s and the early 2000s there was a debate in Sweden about the lack of varied portrayals of girls in picture books. The absence of female characters created a demand for girls’ stories that would be in tune with a contemporary view of gender. Nowadays, this imbalance in picture books is considered by some to have been equalised, while others believe it is still a problem (Nikolajeva
2000; Kåreland
2005). For example, Hamilton et al. (
2006) found that most adult characters in children’s books could be found in traditional stereotypical occupations. They also found that males had a wider range of occupations than females. If a stereotypical view of gender is conveyed in books (as documented by Axell
2015; Clark et al.
2003; Hamilton et al.
2006; Nikolajeva
2004; Paynter
2011), this may contribute to socialising children into traditional roles and limiting their interest in other activities that may also suit them (Gooden and Gooden
2001; Oskamp et al.
1996).
Literature can thus be regarded as both a mediator for what is considered to be valuable technological knowledge and a teaching aid in technology education. Although some research has been carried out regarding the relationships between technology, society, culture and literature in regard to younger readers (Axell
2015; Axell
2017a,
b; Axell et al.
2014; Foster
2009), this perspective has generally been explored to a limited extent (Westin
2003a,
b). However, in the adjacent field of science education there seems to be a growing consensus among researchers that children’s literature can be used to foster interest and create positive attitudes towards learning about science in early childhood education (see e.g. Sackes et al.
2009; Monhardt and Monhardt
2006; Trundle and Troland
2005). McLean et al. (
2015) indicate that children’s literature may offer a way for early childhood teachers to develop confidence and competence to teach science by inquiry, but overall research on how technology is portrayed in children’s fiction is still in its infancy, as is research regarding the use of fiction in the technology classroom (Axell
2015,
2017a,
b).
The text and pictures in books can be viewed as qualitative information. Like all texts, children’s books are culturally coded, consciously as well as unconsciously, implicitly and explicitly. Cultural codes regarding gender may be so deeply ingrained and pervasive that they are not recognised by those who hold them (Ross Johnston
2011).
Consequently, the aim of this study is to investigate the technological content in a selection of picture books from a gender perspective. More specifically:
-
What kind of different portrayals of technology can be found in the books under investigation and how do these relate to gender?
-
In what way can these portrayals act as agents for reinforcing or challenging gender stereotypes?
Methodology
To narrow down the empirical material, we chose to examine picture books from the library sections Facts for youngsters and Technology for youngsters at four different libraries in three Swedish cities. All of the books in these sections were perused, and those with technological content (i.e. the books which contained manmade artefacts and/or people interacting with manmade artefacts) were singled out for further analysis. This resulted in 180 books aimed at the age groups 1–3 and 3–6. During our visits to the libraries some of the books with technological content may of course have been on loan and therefore excluded from the empirical material. Due to our large sample of books, however, this should not pose a problem.
We used a thematic analysis to identify dominant themes and patterns in the books. A thematic analysis “minimally organizes and describes your data set in (rich) detail” (Braun and Clarke
2008, p. 79) and is useful for interpreting various aspects of a research topic (Boyatzis
1998). A thematic analysis seeks to unearth themes at different levels, and the aim is to explore the understanding of an issue, rather than to reconcile conflicting definitions of an idea (Attride-Stirling
2001). As Braun and Clarke (
2008) note, “the ‘keyness’ of a theme is not necessarily dependent on quantifiable measures, but rather on whether it captures something important in relation to the overall research question” (p. 82). Based on this, the decision to use a thematic analysis was twofold; firstly, it is a way of processing qualitative information—the words and pictures in the picture books can be viewed as qualitative information carrying cultural values; secondly, both technology and gender structures are complex and can be viewed from a multitude of perspectives—a thematic analysis allows for several possible interpretations (e.g. Boyatzis
1998). When analysing the technology content in the books we took Ihde’s (
1993) broad definition of technology as our point of departure:
1.
Technology has some kind of concrete component.
2.
Humans use these components in some kind of praxes.
3.
There is a relation between the humans and the technology (i.e. using, designing, making and modifying).
In picture books, the message to the reader is mediated through an interaction between text and pictures. Therefore, the analysis was performed using a holistic interpretation of image and text (Hallberg
1982,
2008). According to Björndahl (
2005), analysing is a subjective endeavour where the researcher picks out content of particular importance; it is impossible to analyse everything in a certain situation. According to Braun and Clarke (
2008), the process of doing a thematic analysis can be broken down into the following steps:
1.
Familiarising oneself with the data: We read and re-read the picture books several times to immerse ourselves in the material. These repeated readings helped us to become intimately familiar with the data.
2.
Coding the material: The technological content of the books was then dissected into meaningful bits of data in the form of short summarising codes. The codes that we found in the data were of course dependent on our research questions, or as Altrichter, Posch and Somekh (
2000) put it, “Categories (features) need to be chosen which are relevant to the research question and at the same time partially express the contents of the data” (p. 124).
3.
Identifying the themes: Common themes were extracted and refined from the codes so that they only pertained to one specific idea. The common themes were then organised, depending on similarity, into groupings of main themes and sub-themes.
4.
Reviewing the themes: We both separately reviewed the main themes and sub-themes on the basis of their integrity (i.e. that they held up in relation to the coded data). We then compared our reviews and found that some themes “told the same story” and had to be collated into the same theme, while other themes had to be broken down into new themes and sub-themes.
5.
Defining and conveying the themes: We then read the books through the lenses of the identified themes and sub-themes and wrote a detailed analysis of each main theme. The themes were described using examples from the text and were contextualised using relevant earlier research.
Conclusions and implications
Previous research has shown that there is an emphasis on artefacts and the making of artefacts in technology education. This emphasis also permeated the picture books in our study. This may limit children’s holistic understanding of technology. If technology is not placed in a broader context, the connections between artefacts and humans, as well as what kind of implications the artefacts have in a societal context, run the risk of being disregarded. (Axell
2015,
2017a,
b; Mawson
2007; Siu and Lam
2005; Svensson
2011). Although books aimed at younger children cannot contain advanced technological concepts, there is a risk that the lack of context may prevent children from discovering that technology is part of a larger whole.
The books in this study convey a message that technology has a life of its own and is not linked to human activity, knowledge and volition (i.e. something humans create and use to satisfy needs and wants, or to solve problems). The majority of the picture books, particularly those aimed at younger readers, fail to create a connection between technology and human intentions. On one hand the books can be interpreted as if they want to present technology as being as value-free and as neutral as possible. On the other hand, they miss the opportunity to connect technology to everyday life (i.e. to tie technology to the societal and environmental settings in which they operate).
From a gender perspective, the message in the picture books is clear: Men are both the source of technological development and the users of technology. Male and female characters are often presented in a stereotypical manner and there is also an over-representation of male characters. In the few examples of books where the stereotypes are challenged, there is still an implicit gender normative notion.
As Bjurulf (
2011) states, technology education should be conducted on the basis of a holistic approach to learning. When technology is put into a broader perspective, it can contribute to children’s understanding of the “made world”. For many children, learning about the world starts with picture books, which also often work as an introduction to human application of technology. As gender is something that is mainly socially and culturally created, reading aloud in preschool (which often constitutes the teacher reading the text to the children, while simultaneously showing them the pictures) can encourage children to develop an awareness of gender and how gender patterns are created (SOU
2006:75). After the analysis of about 180 picture books, our conclusion is that, while these may serve as a basis for an introduction to technology, there is also a risk that they will reinforce gender patterns. The way technology is presented in the books, with a heavy focus on males and masculine coded technology, is not in accordance with the goals of the national preschool curriculum, set by the Swedish National Agency for Education. This clearly states that both girls and boys should be given the same opportunities without limitations imposed by stereotyped gender roles. As technology is often presented in a gender normative way in the picture books, it will be up to the preschool teacher to problematise the relationship between technology and gender in these books.
It should be noted that this study is based on children’s literature written in a Western cultural context. Based on a view of technology as a product of human beings’ social and cultural world, it would be interesting for future research to investigate how technology and technological development are depicted in relation to gender in children’s literature in other cultural settings and parts of the world.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.