Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication
Herring, Susan C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication 3(2): available at http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ejc.txt
In this study, Herring examines the democratizing claim of computer-based communication, focusing on gender, in the context of academic listservs. Drawing on Habermas’ “rules of reason� (1983), Herring breaks down four characteristics claimed to foster democracy in CMC:
• Accessibility
• Social decontextualization
• (lack of) conventions of use
• (lack of) censorship
Herring’s research question is: how democratic is CMC in practice; specifically, does it produce gender equality in communication? Using mixed methods of ethnography, discourse analysis, and survey in analyzing two academic listservs over one year, Herring finds significant differences in:
• Amount
• Topic, and
• Manner of participation
That is, men participate more than women; men’s comments are responded to more frequently than women’s; men contribute more on theoretical topics while women contribute more on topics of real-world consequences; and that there are sex-based features of language where women tend to avoid confrontation and men engage in adversarial rhetoric—all of which point to a greater lack of democracy in CMC than previously thought. Herring concludes: “male and female academic professionals do not participate equally in academic CMC.�
This study is striking in its findings, particularly in light of the era in which it was conducted. Optimism in the medium was high. CMC was touted as a truly democratizing form of communication. Herring’s study was one of the first to test these early optimistic assumptions and studies (Kiesler et al, 1984; Graddol & Swann, 1989). In truly democratic discourse, according to Habermas, there can be no censorship: yet, Herring found internal and external instances of censorship in academic CMC. Of course, once again, we find claims made based on academia, a shortcoming for generalizability in this, and many other studies.