Task gender orientation perceptions by
novice designers: implications for
engineering design research, teaching
and practice
Gül E. Okudan, School of Engineering Design and Professional
Programs, 213T Hammond Building, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
Susan Mohammed, Department of Psychology, 425 Moore Building,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
This paper presents a study where (1) task gender orientation perceptions
of novice designers, and (2) reasons underlying the perceived gender
orientation were studied. Data collection included both quantitative and
qualitative methods. Results indicate that indeed, design tasks may be
seen as having a gender orientation due to perceptions regarding the
design task domain. Further, if a task domain is deemed as favoring
a gender, the reasons for doing so are related to the gender associations of
institutions, objects, actions, and related knowledge. In terms of
implications for future research, the current study suggests that the
gender orientation of tasks can vary considerably and should be controlled
for or taken into account when interpreting design performance results. In
terms of implications for engineering design teaching, it is recommended
that careful attention be given to the selection of applied projects in order
to avoid domains with strong masculine or feminine overtones. Instead,
the design problem should be framed to be gender neutral.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: engineering design, teamwork, gender orientation
D
espite the widespread use of teams in engineering design, they
are not always successful. Therefore, investigating the determinants of collaborative design performance is of paramount importance. Accordingly, this paper focuses on the design task domain as
a determinant of collaborative design performance.
Corresponding author:
Gül E. Okudan
gkremer@psu.edu
In general, design tasks involve understanding requirements, generating
and comparing alternatives, and evaluating as well as communicating
the final design to stakeholders. Completion of these design activities
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 27 (2006) 723e740
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.003
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
723
in a team environment requires the collaboration of members with different characteristics, and these differences might impact collaboration
and hence the design performance in diverse ways. However, related research has been scarce. Attesting to this, Cross and Cross (1995) indicated that
‘‘Design methodology, particularly in the engineering domain, has
tended to treat the design process as a technical process e as a sequence
of activities based on a rationalized approach to a purely technical
problem. More recently, and more particularly in the architecture,
product design and software design domains, attention also has been
directed to designing as cognitive process e to the cognitive skills and
limitations of the individual designer. Just a few studies have begun to
suggest that designing is also a social process, to point out how
designers interact with others such as their clients or their professional
colleagues, and to observe the social interactions that influence the
activities of teamwork in design.’’
This progression is also reflected in collaborative design reviews mostly
focusing on design methodology (Lang et al., 2002), design thinking
(Okudan and Rao, 2005), knowledge management and software aids
(Lang et al., 2002; Okudan and Rao, 2005), design representations
(Lang et al., 2002; Okudan and Medeiros, 2005), and workstations
(Okudan and Medeiros, 2005).
In the current research, which focuses on design task’s gender orientation and related perceptions of novice designers, we intend to contribute to the studies that view design as a social process. Although the
process of designing is not seen to have a gender orientation, we argue
that the domain of the design task can be oriented to one gender or the
other. That is, some task domains may be perceived as being more masculine, neutral, or more feminine. Indeed, based on our literature
search, we assert that inadequate attention has been given to the factors
that determine a task domain’s gender orientation. Moreover, there is
limited research concerning these variables in an engineering design
context. Thus, the goal of the study was to examine a task domain’s
gender orientation as a potential factor in engineering design team
functioning. The following sections of the paper first provide a review
of the related prior research and then explain the research methodology. Finally, study results are summarized and conclusions are offered.
1
Review of literature on gender orientation of
task domain
The increasing number of women joining the work force (Jackson, 1992)
has led investigators to consider the effect of the gender composition of
724
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 6 November 2006
teams on team processes and performance. However, the results of these
studies are somewhat contradictory. For example, research comparing
the decision quality of all-female teams to all-male teams has shown
that all-female teams performed worse than all-male teams (Sashkin
and Maier, 1971), performed equal to all-male teams (Bray et al.,
1978) or outperformed all-male teams (Wood et al., 1985). These conflicting results can be partly explained by the confounding effect of experimental task type on team performance. For example, all-male
teams were shown to perform better in short-term task activities, and
all-female teams were shown to perform better in social activities (Eagly
and Karau, 1991; Wood, 1987). Building on these findings, Rogelberg
and Rumery (1996) showed that when a male-favoring task was used,
the potential gains on decision quality derived from increasing the number of males in four-person teams would plateau at a team male-to-female composition ratio of three to one, i.e., the lone-female groups
outperformed the all-male groups. The experimental task for Rogelberg
and Rumery’s (1996) study was a winter survival exercise. These results
are consistent with Eagly and Karau (1991), who suggested that the requirements of the task itself can emphasize sex-differentiated skills or
qualities and can therefore accentuate gender differences in teams.
In addition to the above mentioned gender composition issues for
teams, there has been research showing that occupations are perceived
to have a gender orientation. For example, engineering overall is perceived as a masculine occupation (Shinar, 1975). In 1975, Shinar
(1975) had high school students rate the gender orientation of occupations using a 1e7 Likert scale where one was the most masculine, seven
was the most feminine, and four was gender neutral. In 1988, this study
was replicated by Beggs and Doolittle (1993). Both studies used the data
for the percentage of women in various occupations collected by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. A portion of these data is given in Table 1
in the order of increased perceived masculinity of the occupation.
Beggs and Doolittle’s (1993) replication of Shinar’s study showed a significant change in the rating of these occupations towards gender neutrality, which can be explained by the increasing number of women in
these occupations (Krefting et al., 1978). Nevertheless, in both samples,
engineering was perceived as masculine in orientation. Despite the fact
that Heilman (1979) predicted that women will begin to feel more comfortable with traditionally male dominated occupations as the proportion of women in these occupations increases, recent studies still
indicate a gap in confidence levels of females and males. For example,
a recent study conducted at 17 institutions found female students to
Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers
725
Table 1 A comparison of perceived gender orientation of occupations in the direction of increasing
masculinity
Occupation title
Shinar (1975)
mean
Beggs and Doolittle
(1993) mean
Computer programmer
Mathematician
Engineer
Forestry engineer
Mining engineer
3.417
3.167
1.917
1.917
1.417
3.668
2.965
2.669
2.401
2.007
1 ¼ most masculine, 4 ¼ gender neutral, 7 ¼ most feminine.
have consistently lower confidence levels in their background knowledge
about engineering and in their ability to succeed in engineering (Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2001).
In the engineering domain, a recent study investigated the effects of gender composition of the teams on design performance across two distinct
design projects (Okudan, 2002). The premise was that the performance
of design teams with different gender compositions would change due to
the nature of team dynamics in mixed-gender settings. Gender composition was measured using Teachman’s (1980) entropy-based index because of the categorical nature of the data. Half of the teams
completed a shipping crate design for a 700 lbs switch (16 teams), and
the other half competed an inverted tooth chain assembly design
(16 teams).
Control variables included in the study were average team grade point
average (GPA), meeting time for course sections (e.g., 8:00 a.m., 2:30
p.m.), and the average contribution levels of team members to the design
project. Team performance was measured using team quizzes, peer design evaluations, and a blind review of the design reports. Data were analyzed at the team level of analysis, and the hierarchical regression
results are presented in Table 2. Control variables were entered first
(model 1), followed by independent variables (model 2) and the interaction between gender composition and project type (model 3).
In Table 2, t is the test statistic; p is the probability of getting a value of
the test statistic as extreme or more extreme than that actually observed,
given that the null hypothesis is true (Mansfield, 1987). Study variables
in model 3 accounted for 64.7% of the variation in team performance,
and all variables except the average contribution level to the project
were significant at p values <0.01. Even with the relatively small sample
size, both gender composition and project type had a significant impact
726
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 6 November 2006
Table 2 Hierarchical regression results
Model 1
Control variables
Statistic
Constant
Average team GPA
Average contribution
level
Class time
Theoretical model
Project type
Gender composition
Gender composition )
project type
R2 (%)
R2 (adjusted) (%)
F
t
Model 2
3.56
2.41
1.7
p
0.002
0.024
0.102
1.38
0.180
23.5
14.3
2.56 (p ¼ 0.078)
t
Model 3
1.92
3.02
0.89
p
0.068
0.006
0.382
2.59
2.59
2.60
0.96
4.31
1.22
p
0.347
0.000
0.236
0.016
4.02
0.001
0.016
0.016
4.32
3.82
3.07
0.000
0.001
0.006
49.6
38.6
4.52 (p ¼ 0.005)
t
64.7
55.1
6.72 (p ¼ 0.000)
Values in bold indicates the significant variables at the 95% confidence level.
on the performance of design teams. In addition, the interaction of gender composition and project type is significant, and the form of the interaction indicated that task type had more of an impact under conditions
of low gender heterogeneity than high gender heterogeneity. Because
the preliminary study could not explain why gender composition was
contingent upon task type, it was necessary to conduct further research
focusing specifically on the gender orientation of the task domain.
In this paper, we assert that not only is the engineering field perceived to
have a gender orientation, but the specific design domain in which individuals perform tasks may also be perceived by team members to be
more masculine or feminine. That is, the task domain may accentuate
gender differences in team functioning. The domain of the product design task and the familiarity of the product’s usage to the members of
a design team may influence the performance of design teams.
A literature search on studies examining gender composition and team
performance revealed that little research has examined task gender orientation (e.g., Harrison et al., 2002; Laeser et al., 2003; Randel, 2002),
although the results discussed above indicate that it may be relevant.
In addition, the research that has been done may be improved upon
by giving more systematic attention to the measurement of task gender
orientation. For example, some authors have simply suggested that
tasks may be more masculine or feminine without directly measuring
the variable to provide empirical support (e.g., Wood, 1987). Others
Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers
727
have examined the dimension in a cursory and indirect manner. For example, LePine et al. (2002) utilized a simulation of a military task for
command and control teams, which was assumed to be masculine, but
the gender orientation was not directly assessed or validated. Studies
that have directly measured gender orientation have typically selected
stereotypically sex-typed tasks based on previous work on gender differences and then validated those assessments on a pre-test sample. To
illustrate, Vancouver and Ilgen (1989) found that tasks based on sports,
changing oil, and designing a tool shed were rated to be more masculine,
whereas tasks based on flowers, cooking a meal, and designing a store
window were rated to be more feminine. In addition, Wentworth and
Anderson (1984) utilized pre-tested masculine (investment decisions),
feminine (wedding planning), and gender-neutral tasks (advising a married couple on how to spend an inheritance). In contrast to previous research, we argue that design tasks in subsequent research investigations
should rely less heavily on obvious gender stereotypes and be directed at
a more technical context.
What is not clearly understood from previous studies is the set of factors
that determine whether a task is perceived as more masculine or more
feminine. Existing measures of task gender orientation (e.g., Vancouver
and Ilgen, 1989; Wentworth and Anderson, 1984) do not provide insight
about the characteristics of task gender-type or what variables are important in how those assessments are made. Accordingly, a study was
designed and conducted to better understand the factors that shape
the gender domain orientation of a design task.
2
Methodology
Participants included freshmen engineering students enrolled in an
Introduction to Engineering Design course at Penn State. Students in
this course complete two design projects over the course of a 15-week
semester. The first project is orchestrated in that students follow the procedural outline of a design manual, whereas the second project is industry sponsored and more open-ended. The requirements of these projects
include generating feasible design ideas, narrowing down and selecting
an idea for full development, and completing design drawings and a prototype for the selected solution.
The study was conducted in two consecutive semesters: fall 2003 and
spring 2004. The fall sample included seven sections of the course,
and the spring sample included five sections. In three sections of fall
2003, task gender orientation was measured right after students were
introduced to the design task sponsored by an industrial company. These
728
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 6 November 2006
sections will be referred to as Time 1 teams and included 61 males and 9
females. In the remaining four fall sections, task gender orientation was
measured near the end of the semester in order to avoid sensitizing students to gender issues throughout the course. This sample consisted of
75 males and 39 females. The design task for this semester involved
a countermeasure design for rocket propelled grenade (RPG) attacks.
Design activities included generating and selecting concepts for detection of a RPG attack and deployment of the countermeasure for the attack. Overall, kinematics, trajectory generation, application of sensors,
momentum, and energy concepts were used throughout the design
activity.
During the spring semester, task gender orientation was measured near
the end of the semester in all five sections (like Time 2 teams for the fall
2003 data collection). This sample consisted of 125 males and 19 females. The design task for this semester was designing an air velocity
controller for a variable velocity fume hood. Topics covered to support
design activities included application of sensors, air velocity measurement, and mechanical means to control air velocity and energy concepts.
Task gender orientation was measured by means of four questions. The
first question asked students to rate their perceptions regarding the industry-sponsored design project on a scale from one (very masculine)
to five (very feminine), with three being labelled as ‘‘gender neutral.’’
The second question was open-ended and asked students to elaborate
upon their reasons for rating the first question as they did. For the third
question, students were asked whom they would regard as having
greater expertise on the task (1 ¼ primarily men, 3 ¼ men and women
equally, 5 ¼ primarily women). Similar to the second question, students
were also asked why they answered the third item the way that they did
in an open-ended format. Allowing the students to write reasons for
their ratings was expected to aid in diagnosing the factors underlying
task domain’s gender orientation, which is a weakness of previous
research.
3
Results
These results were gathered and tabulated after administering a comprehensive survey, in which task gender orientation-related questions were
included. The findings presented here focus on the ratings of design project gender orientation and understanding the underlying factors that
influence the gender orientation ratings. Below, we present results
comparing gender orientation judgments across task types, time
periods, and by gender.
Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers
729
Table 3 presents gender orientation ratings for the RPG countermeasure
design project (Time 1 and Time 2 groups) and the air velocity controller
design project. As shown, both Time 1 (62.9%) and Time 2 (51.4%)
teams judged the RPG countermeasure design project to be predominantly male-oriented. Interestingly, there was a trend to rate the task domain as more masculine when students were first exposed to the project
(Time 1 teams) than when students had almost completed the project
(Time 2 teams). In addition, compared to Time 1 teams (37.1%),
more individuals from Time 2 teams (47.7%) rated the task domain as
neither masculine nor feminine. For the air velocity controller design
task, 83.9% judged the project to be gender neutral, although 14% rated
it as male-oriented, and 2.1% rated it as female-oriented.
In order to gain a more detailed understanding of these results, the task
domain gender orientation ratings for Time 2 were broken down by gender for both projects. For the RPG countermeasure design project, the
parallel data set is not provided for both genders for Time 1 because of
the very small number of females (n ¼ 9) in the sample. As shown in
Table 4 for the RPG countermeasure design project, males (58.2%)
were more likely to rate the task domain as more masculine than females
(43.2%). In addition, more females (56.8%) rated that task domain as
gender neutral than males (40.3%). In a similar way, for the air volume
controller design, males (14.5%) were more likely to rate the task
domain as more masculine than females (10.5%).
The open-ended responses of students explaining the reasons for their
rating of task gender orientation were coded. Eight substantive categories of responses emerged (in addition to a ninth category for which
responses were either blank or unclassifiable) and are described below.
Table 3 Task domain gender orientation ratings
Project
RPG countermeasure design
Rating
Time 1, N ¼ 70
Time 2, N ¼ 111
Time 2, N ¼ 144
%
Cumulative (%)
%
Cumulative (%)
%
Cumulative (%)
15.7
47.1
37.1
0.0
0.0
15.7
62.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
16.2
35.1
47.7
00.9
0.0
16.2
51.4
99.1
100.00
100.00
8.4
5.6
83.9
2.1
0.0
8.4
14.0
97.9
100.0
100.0
1
2
3
4
5
Air velocity
controller design
1 ¼ very masculine, 3 ¼ neither masculine nor feminine, 5 ¼ very feminine.
730
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 6 November 2006
Table 4 Task domain gender orientation ratings by gender for Time 2
Project RPG countermeasure design
Rating
Females, N ¼ 37
%
1
2
3
4
5
Males, N ¼ 67
Cumulative (%) %
21.6 21.6
21.6 43.2
56.8 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
Air velocity controller design
Females, N ¼ 19
Cumulative (%) %
13.4 13.4
44.8 58.2
40.3 98.5
1.5 100.0
0.0 100.0
Males, N ¼ 124
Cumulative (%) %
0.0
0.0
10.5 10.5
89.5 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
Cumulative (%)
9.7
9.7
4.8 14.5
83.1 97.6
2.4 100.0
0.0 100.0
1 ¼ very masculine, 3 ¼ neither masculine or feminine, 5 ¼ very feminine.
1. Product (object) related: Responses that referenced RPGs,
weapons, guns, and explosives were categorized as associated
with a product or an object. A typical explanation given by students was ‘‘Guns, rockets, explosives usually point towards
males.’’
2. Experience related: Responses that referenced experiences in a situation were categorized here. A typical explanation given by students
was ‘‘In our society war is associated with masculinity.’’
3. Institution or domain related: References to the military, army, and
navy were categorized as institutional. A typical explanation given
by students was ‘‘Males are more involved in military issues,’’ or
‘‘Mostly fume hoods are done in the industry, which is mainly
male.’’
4. Action related: Killing, destroying and similar verbs were categorized as relating to an action. A typical explanation given by students in this category was ‘‘Killing is commonly thought to be
masculine.’’
5. Interest related: Expected interest level in the project was categorized
as association to interest level. A sample explanation given by students was ‘‘Military issues affect everyone, but men tend to be
more interested.’’
6. Work in team/idea generation: Comments relating to work within the
team context were grouped in this category. A typical explanation
given by students was ‘‘The ideas were built up by all males.’’
7. Background knowledge related: A sample explanation for background knowledge category was ‘‘Guys seem to know more about
military stuff.’’
8. Gender composition related: A typical response was ‘‘We are all
males.’’
9. Other: Blank or unclassifiable responses were grouped in this
category.
Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers
731
Table 5 presents the results for responses to the reasons why
students rated the gender orientation of the task as 1 (very masculine) or 2 (masculine). Upon observing the categories of responses
in Table 5, it appears that the first four reasons relate more to
task or domain characteristics, whereas the second four reasons
relate more to personal or human aspects. Results indicate that
when a masculine gender orientation rating is given, the judgment
is primarily due to task or domain aspects (e.g., products, experience, institutions). These associations mostly define the task domain, with some explanations being attributed to personal aspects
(e.g., interest level, gender).
Each author independently coded each open-ended student response
from the nine categories listed in Table 5. Because the categories were
not mutually exclusive, some responses were assigned to more than
one category. Interrater reliability (the degree to which different individuals code data consistently) was determined by computing the percent
agreement or the number of times raters agreed on a code divided by
the total number of coding judgments. Indicating acceptable levels of interrater reliability (see Landis and Koch, 1977), the average percent
agreement was 80%, ranging from 73.08% for the air velocity controller
design to 78.38% (Time 1) and 88.46% (Time 2) for the RPG
Table 5 Reasoning behind masculine task domain ratings
Project
Ratings (1 ¼ very
masculine, 2 ¼ masculine)
Reasoning source
1. Product (object) related
2. Experience related
3. Institution
or domain related
4. Action related
5. Interest related
6. Work in team/idea
generation related
7. Background
knowledge related
8. Gender
composition related
9. Other
RPG countermeasure design
Air velocity
controller design
Time 1
Time 2
Time 2
1
2
%
1
2
%
1
2
%
2
2
3
9
9
14
16
16
25
6
6
3
8
10
11
19
21
19
6
0
0
3
0
1
38
0
4
0
2
0
7
9
0
10
16
0
1
4
1
6
6
2
10
13
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
1
3
6
1
4
7
1
2
13
2
2
6
2
2
6
5
2
29
1
3
6
0
2
3
1
2
13
Values in bold indicates the significant variables at the 95% confidence level.
732
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 6 November 2006
countermeasure design. Where discrepancies existed, the authors discussed their categorizations and resolved their differences via consensus.
Interestingly, when students were first exposed to the rocket propelled
grenade task domain (Time 1 groups), females reported less interest in
the project as well as less knowledge about the project domain. Specifically, correlation coefficients were significantly negative between gender
(1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female) and interest in the project (r ¼ .46, p ¼ 0.000) as
well as knowledge about the project domain (r ¼ .28, p ¼ 0.000). These
results, along with the explanations that students offered for their ratings of task gender orientation, suggest that task domains perceived
as masculine-oriented may potentially hinder women’s performance,
who are already in the minority in the engineering field and may often
be the minority in design teams as well.
Parallel to the coding of the open-ended responses to the reasons why
students rated the gender orientation of the task as masculine, we also
coded the reasons why students rated the gender orientation of the
task as neutral. Nine categories of responses emerged from the coding
and are described below.
1. Did not think about gender: A typical response in this category was
‘‘Didn’t think about gender when we did the project.’’
2. Project has both female and male characteristics: A response in this
category was ‘‘I feel it targets both!’’
3. Problem affects females and males equally: An example included,
‘‘Both sexes could be subject to attack, so both can work on it.’’ Responses in this category referenced the potential implications of the
problem for both genders.
4. Problem solving ability: Responses in this category focused on the
ability for solving the problem at hand, such as ‘‘Both genders can
contribute.’’
5. Design process does not favor a gender: When thinking of design
activities, students in this category did not find the project to be
oriented towards one gender over the other. A typical response
was ‘‘I don’t see how a project of this type can be geared to any
gender.’’
6. Everyone did equal work: Responses in this category referred to the
work sharing in the team. For example, ‘‘My team has a female
on it, and she’s doing just as much work and having just as much
fun as the males.’’ was a typical response.
7. Interest level related: Responses in this category included perceptions
about interest level of the individuals towards the design project.
Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers
733
8. Product familiarity: For some subjects, the product designed was not
found to be more familiar to one gender over the other. For example, ‘‘Because it doesn’t appeal more to male or female.’’
9. Other: Blank or unclassifiable responses were grouped in this
category.
As shown in Table 6, the reasons underlying students’ genderneutral judgments were mostly different than the ones indicated in
Table 5. When they judged the project to be a 3 (neither masculine
nor feminine), one of the dominant reasons was attributed to feeling
that the project incorporates both gender perspectives (does not favor a gender). In addition, several students reported not thinking
about gender in relation to the task. Explanations regarding personal characteristics (e.g., familiarity) were generally reported
more frequently by students for the air velocity controller design
project whereas team dynamics related items (e.g., everyone doing
equal work) were reported more frequently by students completing
the RPG countermeasure design project.
Table 6 Reasoning behind gender neutral task domain rating
Project
Rating (3 ¼ gender
neutral)
Reasoning source
1. Did not think
about gender
2. Project
has both female and
male perspectives
3. Product or design
problem affects both
genders equally
4. Problem
solving ability does
not depend on gender
5. Design project or
design process does
not favor a gender
6. Everyone
did equal work
7. Interest related
8. Product familiarity
9. Other
RPG countermeasure design
Air velocity
controller design
Time 1
Time 2
Time 2
3
%
3
%
3
%
3
10
11
26
31
24
0
0
2
5
1
1
2
7
3
7
14
11
4
13
4
9
2
2
3
10
7
16
13
10
8
27
1
2
3
2
3
0
7
10
0
23
3
5
7
7
12
16
3
34
29
2
26
22
Values in bold indicates the significant variables at the 95% confidence level.
734
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 6 November 2006
Again, each author independently coded each open-ended student response from the nine categories listed in Table 6. Because the categories
were not mutually exclusive, some responses were assigned to more than
one category. Indicating acceptable levels of interrater reliability (see
Landis and Koch, 1977), the average percent agreement was 82.43%
(80.85% for the air velocity controller design; 78.95% (Time 1) and
87.50% (Time 2) for the RPG countermeasure design). Where discrepancies existed, the authors discussed their categorizations and resolved
their differences via consensus.
In addition to gender orientation judgments, students were also asked to
indicate their gender expertise judgments for each design task domain.
As shown in Table 7, there were few differences between Time 1 and
Time 2 when participants were asked about perceived expertise levels related to the RPG countermeasure design project. A little over half of the
students responded that men and women equally shared expertise. However, a sizable percentage of students (44.3% and 47.3% for Time 1 and
Time 2 groups, respectively) perceived males to have greater expertise.
Virtually no one responded that females had greater expertise. In contrast, the percentage of students rating the air velocity controller design
project as gender neutral was substantially higher (76.2%). However,
22.4% of students perceived this project to be masculine in orientation.
As shown in Table 8, the greater expertise on task ratings for Time 2 are
broken down by gender for both projects. Because there were only nine
females included in the Time 1 sample for the RPG countermeasure design project, only the gender breakdown for Time 2 is reported. Interestingly, a higher percentage of females (43.2%) than males (37.9%) rated
that men had greater expertise on the RPG countermeasure design project. However, a higher percentage of females (56.8%) than males
Table 7 Greater expertise on task ratings
Project
RPG countermeasure design
Time 1
1
2
3
4
5
Air velocity
controller design
Time 2
Time 2
%
Cumulative (%)
%
Cumulative (%)
%
Cumulative (%)
12.9
31.4
54.3
0.0
01.4
12.9
44.3
98.6
98.6
100.0
16.4
30.9
52.7
0.0
0.0
16.4
47.3
100.0
100.00
100.00
11.2
11.2
76.2
0.7
0.7
11.2
22.4
98.6
99.3
100.00
1 ¼ primarily men, 3 ¼ men and women equally, 5 ¼ primarily women.
Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers
735
Table 8 Greater expertise on task ratings by gender for Time 2
Project RPG countermeasure design
Rating
Females, N ¼ 37
%
1
2
3
4
5
Air velocity controller design
Males, N ¼ 67
Cumulative (%) %
21.6 21.6
21.6 43.2
56.8 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
Females, N ¼ 19
Cumulative (%) %
13.6 13.6
37.9 51.5
48.5 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
Males, N ¼ 124
Cumulative (%) %
10.5 10.5
10.5 21.1
78.9 100.00
0.0 100.00
0.0 100.00
Cumulative (%)
11.3 11.3
11.3 22.6
75.8 98.4
0.8 99.2
0.8 100
1 ¼ primarily men, 3 ¼ men and women equally, 5 ¼ primarily woman.
(48.5%) also rated equal expertise for men and women. For the air volume controller design, there were few gender differences between the ratings of task expertise. Slightly more females (78.9%) than males (75.8%)
rated men and women as having equal expertise on this task, with
roughly equal percentages reporting greater expertise by men (21.1%
for females, 22.6% for males). Except for 1.6% of males on the air
velocity controller design task, no one reported greater expertise by
females on either design task.
4
Discussion
These results support the view that although design tasks themselves are
not gender biased, the domain of the task might favor one gender or the
other, depending on the associations one develops with products/objects, institutions, and actions. The findings presented in this paper indicate that the RPG countermeasure design task was perceived to have
masculine overtones (male-oriented task domain), as revealed by items
asking students about the gender orientation of the domain, as well as
which gender would have greater expertise. On the other hand, the air
velocity controller design was mostly seen to be gender neutral. For
both of the projects, however, more males than females perceived the
project to be male-oriented (58.2% vs. 43.2% for the RPG countermeasure design, and 14.5% vs. 10.5% for the air velocity controller
design).
Not only did the current study demonstrate quantitatively that engineering design domains differed on gender orientation, but the reasons underlying the ratings were also explored. Results indicated that when
a masculine gender orientation rating was given, the judgment was primarily due to task or domain aspects (e.g., products, experience, institutions), with fewer explanations being attributed to personal aspects (e.g.,
736
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 6 November 2006
interest level, gender composition related). When students judged the
project to be gender neutral, the dominant reasons were not thinking
about gender in relation to the task, or perceiving that the project
does not favor a gender. Explanations regarding personal characteristics
(e.g., familiarity) were generally reported more frequently by students
for the air velocity controller design project while team dynamics
(e.g., everyone did equal work) were reported more frequently by students completing the RPG countermeasure design project.
Major implications for the gender orientation of the design task for engineering design are summarized below.
1. In terms of implications for future research, the current study suggests that the gender orientation of tasks can vary considerably
and should be controlled for or taken into account when interpreting
design performance results.
2. In terms of implications for engineering design teaching, it is recommended that careful attention be given to the selection of applied
projects in order to avoid domains with strong masculine or feminine
overtones. Instead, the design problem should be framed to be
gender neutral.
3. In terms of implications for engineering design team dynamics, study
results raise the possibility that males and females on the same team
may view the gender orientation of the project domain differently. In
addition, perceptions of who has greater expertise on the project
may differ as well. Except for 1.6% of males on the air velocity controller design task, no one reported greater expertise by females on
either design task. Although the current study was conducted at
the individual-level of analysis, future research should investigate
the effect of differing task domain gender orientation perspectives
on team processes and performance.
4. In terms of implications for female retention in the engineering field,
the current findings suggest the possibility that project domain gender orientation may be a contributing factor in female engineering
students feeling undervalued by their male peers and the lower
self-efficacy reported by females in academic and industry settings
Heilman (1979). There was a clear difference in perceptions of
gender orientation between the two project domains examined in
the current study, with students rating the RPG countermeasure
design as having more masculine overtones. Indeed, a higher percentage of females (43.2%) than males (37.9%) rated that men
had greater expertise on the RPG project. However, even though
the overwhelming majority of students rated the air velocity
Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers
737
controller design as gender neutral, a sizable percentage still thought
that it was masculine in orientation (14%) and that men had
greater expertise (22.4%). Interestingly, males (14.5%) as well as females (10.5%) rated this task as more male-oriented. In addition to
being the numerical minority in the engineering field, viewing project
domains to be masculine in orientation and better suited to male expertise may negatively affect female retention in the major and field.
Utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study contributed to the engineering design research literature by showing
that design tasks can be perceived to have a gender orientation,
However, various limitations of the study exist, which will be potential future research topics. Some of these are
1. This study assessed the gender orientation of only two project domains (RPG countermeasure design, air velocity controller design).
Future research should examine a greater breadth of engineering
task domains.
2. Because the study participants were freshmen students, it is unclear
whether results generalize to experienced designers working in applied settings. Subsequent research should compare novice and expert designers with regard to their perceptions of the task.
3. Prior engineering related experience of freshman students (study
subjects) is not taken into account. Future studies should account
for it.
4. Although the disparity between male and female students in the current research study reflects the reality of female under-representation
in the engineering classroom, the non-equivalent sample sizes made
it more difficult to make comparisons. For example, there were 37
females and 67 males rating the RPG countermeasure task, but
only 19 females and 124 males rating the air velocity controller design for Time 2.
5. Because the goal of the study was to assess whether task domains
differed on gender orientation and the underlying reasons provided
for such ratings, the linkage between gender orientation and design
performance was not analyzed. Follow-up studies will investigate
gender orientation in relation to team processes and outcome
measures.
5
Conclusion
This paper reports a study investigating task domain gender orientation
as a potentially important variable for mixed-gender engineering design
teams. The focus of the research was on ratings of perceived task gender
738
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 6 November 2006
orientation and the underlying reasons for such judgments. Results indicated that the RPG countermeasure design task was perceived to
have masculine overtones, but the air velocity controller design task
was mostly seen to be gender neutral. The reasons underlying the ratings
were primarily attributed to task or domain aspects (e.g., products, experience, institutions), with fewer explanations being attributed to personal aspects (e.g., interest level, gender). These findings have
implications for future engineering design research and teaching, design
team dynamics, and female retention in the engineering field.
References
Beggs, J M and Doolittle, D C (1993) Perceptions now and then of occupational sex typing: a replication of Shinar’s 1975 study Journal of Applied
Psychology Vol 23 No 17 pp 1435e1453
Besterfield-Sacre, M, Moreno, M, Shuman, L J and Atman, C J (2001) Gender and ethnicity differences in freshmen engineering student attitudes:
a cross-institutional study Journal of Engineering Education Vol 90 No 4
pp 477e489
Bray, R M, Kerr, N L and Atkin, R S (1978) Effects of group size, problem
difficulty, and sex on group performance, and member reactions Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology Vol 36 pp 1224e1240
Cross, N and Cross, A C (1995) Observations of teamwork and social processes in design Design Studies Vol 16 pp 143e170
Eagly, A H and Karau, S J (1991) Gender and emergence of leaders:
a meta-analysis Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 60 No 5
pp 685e710
Harrison, D A, Price, K H, Gavin, J H and Florey, A (2002) Time, teams,
and task performance: changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity
on group functioning Academy of Management Journal Vol 45 No 5 pp
1029e1045
Heilman, M E (1979) High school students’ occupational interest as a function of projected sex ratios in male dominated occupations Journal of
Applied Psychology Vol 43 pp 22e34
Jackson, S E (1992) Team in organizational settings: issues in managing an
increasingly diverse workforce in S Worchel, W Wood and J A Simpson
(eds) Group process and productivity Sage, Newbury Park, CA pp 138e173
Krefting, L A, Berger, P K and Wallace Jr, M J (1978) The contribution of
sex distribution, job content, and occupational classification to job sex typing: two studies Journal of Vocational Behaviour Vol 13 pp 181e191
Laeser, M, Moskal, B, Knecht, R and Lasich, D (2003) Engineering design:
examining the impact of gender and the team’s gender composition Journal
of Engineering Education Vol 92 No 1 pp 49e56
Lang, S Y T, Dickinson, J and Buchal, R O (2002) Cognitive factors in distributed design Computers in Industry Vol 48 pp 89e98
Landis, J and Koch, G G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement
for categorical data Biometrics Vol 33 pp 159e174
LePine, J A, Hollenbeck, J R, Ilgen, D R, Colquitt, J A and Ellis, A (2002)
Gender composition, situational strength, and team decision-making
Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers
739
accuracy: a criterion decomposition approach Organizational Behaviour
and Human Decision Processes Vol 88 No 1 pp 445e475
Mansfield, E (1987) Statistics for business and economics (3rd edn) WW
Norton & Company, Inc., New York, NY
Okudan, G E (2002) On the gender orientation of the product design task,
in Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
November 6e9, 2002, Boston, MA
Okudan, G and Medeiros, D (2005) Facilitating collaborative design:
a review on design representations and workstations, in Proceedings of
IDETC/CIE Design Automation Conference, September 24e28, Long
Beach, CA
Okudan, G and Rao, G (2005) Collaborative conceptual design thinking
and software aids: a review, in Proceedings of IDETC/CIE Design Theory
and Methodology Conference, September 24e28, Long Beach, CA
Randel, A E (2002) Identity salience: a moderator of the relationship between group gender composition and work group conflict Journal of Organizational Behaviour Vol 23 pp 749e766
Rogelberg, S G and Rumery, S M (1996) Gender diversity, team decision
quality, time on task, and interpersonal cohesion Small Group Research
Vol 27 pp 79e90
Sashkin, M and Maier, N R F (1971) Sex effects in delegation Personal Psychology Vol 86 pp 291e298
Shinar, E H (1975) Sexual stereotypes of occupations Journal of Vocational
Behaviour Vol 7 pp 99e111
Teachman, J D (1980) Analysis of population diversity Sociological
Methods and Research Vol 8 pp 341e362
Vancouver, J B and Ilgen, D R (1989) Effects of interpersonal orientation
and the sex-type of the task on choosing to work alone or in groups Journal
of Applied Psychology Vol 74 No 6 pp 927e934
Wentworth, D K and Anderson, L (1984) Emergent leadership as a function
of sex and task type Sex Role Vol 11 No 5/6 pp 513e523
Wood, W (1987) Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance Psychological Bulletin Vol 102 pp 53e71
Wood, W, Poleck, D and Atkin, C (1985) Sex differences in group task performance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 48 pp 63e71
740
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 6 November 2006