229 Addressing Gender Equality in Music Production
Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) campaign
3
and the Women’s
Engineering Society (WES)
4
.
A growing awareness of the need to counteract the male domination
of the music industry has led to the creation of websites and networks
to highlight the contributions of women both historic and current, such
as Her Noise,
5
the Delia Derbyshire Archive,
6
She Is The Music,
7
the
Women’s Audio Mission,
8
and Pink Noises.
9
These organizations not only
organize face-to-face physical meetings but also act as an online source to
collect material and share information. This is crucial in order to highlight
not only the hidden history of women in music technology, but also in
retaining current contributions by women to music production, electronic
music, DJing, songwriting, sound art, and audio engineering for the future.
A number of women-only groups have also been established across the
world for those working in the discipline, such as the Yorkshire Sound
Women’s Network,
10
Women in Music,
11
SONA WOMEN,
12
and Women
in Sound Women on Sound.
13
These groups provide a safe space for women and non-binary people to
meet together, offer mutual support, and take part in activities in a space
free from discrimination, gender bias, imposter syndrome, and stereotype
threat.
There are also good examples of interventions, focused mentorship, and
sponsorship for female engineers and producers such as Spotify (2018),
which provides mentorship and work experience in three recording stu-
dios aimed at eventually improving the numbers of women working in the
industry.
Such organizations and schemes often face criticism for being “exclu-
sive” rather than inclusive, as they mostly exclude those from the majority
group. This can be seen as discrimination against the majority group; how-
ever, this fundamentally misses the point of minority-only spaces. Desig-
nating a space for a specific minority group allows members of that group
somewhere where they can feel less guarded, more supported, and often
safer than they do in the space where the majority has control. A female-
only space allows women to own the space rather than it being a men’s
space that the women have to then come into.
Women-only groups and interventions aimed at raising the profile of
women in STEM and in the audio industry are undoubtedly helping to
build confidence amongst those in the minority group and working hard
to encourage women to participate. If they continue to grow and diver-
sify traditionally male-dominated spaces into those where all are welcome
and included, then surely we should hope that, eventually, the need for
women-only safe spaces within the industry becomes redundant.
Inspiring the Next Generation
As the data outlined herein shows, women are not taking qualifications in
technology-based subjects at the same rate as men. Seemingly the divide
between arts and science subjects at school is as marked as it ever has
been, and gendered expectations of school students means that a higher
230
Jude Brereton, et al.
proportion of those studying arts subjects are women. In the UK, students
specialize early in their academic career, with most choosing three or four
A-Level (Level 3) subjects.
Of those students who combine AS level subjects across disciplinary
divides, girls are much more likely to choose combinations which include
Arts and Humanities (37.7% of female 2012–13 AS level students com-
pared to 19.7% of male), and boys are more likely to choose Arts and
Science subjects in combination (9.0% of male 2012–13 AS level students
compared to 7.9% female) (Sutch 2014). Given that most Music Technol-
ogy degree courses require skills in both music and science/technology
subjects, and music qualifications are often gained outside of the school
curriculum, it is clear that girls, with a lower take-up of maths and science,
are choosing the “wrong” subjects at school to easily progress to Music
Technology degree-level study.
In fact, the early specialism roughly at age 16 prevents many school
students from retaining a broad-based education, which is beneficial for
such interdisciplinary subjects (McLeish 2019). Indeed, many students
don’t study any science subjects at all between ages 16–18. One attempt
to encourage students to study a broader range of subjects at Level 3 (age
16–18) was the introduction of Core Maths A level. It was hoped that this
would attract those who needed to continue with some maths as a facili-
tating subject in order to progress to numerical subjects (such as physical
sciences and engineering) at University level. Unfortunately, this radical
move hasn’t been effective in opening up otherwise closed-off paths to
HE, since many of the most selective Universities in the UK routinely do
not accept it as part of their entry requirements.
The gendered expectations of school subjects has long been a source
of concern for those working in computer science and engineering areas.
Indeed, there has been substantial research on the reasons that girls don’t
consider these subjects at university-level study. For example, girls don’t
think that computer science/IT is relevant to them, as a narrow interpreta-
tion of what computer science is and what computer scientists actually
do has been presented at school. Many girls have negative experiences
in a male-dominated classroom; being one of few girls studying the sub-
ject leads to social isolation and insecurity, and girls choosing to study
computer science must make a positive, conscious decision against most
gendered norms and peer pressure (Goode et al. 2006).
Interviewing teenage girls about their perception of engineering as a
career, Andrews and Clark (2012a) highlight three areas where gendered
expectations against women in engineering are experienced: in the transi-
tion from primary school to secondary education (where science becomes
less practical, more theoretical), in perceptions of science at secondary
level, and in perceptions of engineering as a career choice.
Such findings are important for music technology/music production,
since the results focus around working with technology and technologi-
cal expertise (rather than the creative use of technology). If female school
students don’t feel that they belong in audio engineering/music technol-
ogy, then it will be difficult to establish a critical mass of female students
231 Addressing Gender Equality in Music Production
participating in the subject. This leads to a worrying cycle of low partici-
pation, which in turn feeds into future attitudes towards STEM subjects.
It is interesting in itself that, although actual GCSE results show that
female students slightly outperform male students in maths and science
(68% of girls achieve grades A–C, compared to 65% of boys), when pupils
are asked which subjects they are best at only 33% of girls chose STEM
subjects as opposed to 60% of boys. Indeed, despite similar performance
in Maths and English, boys are much more likely to state that their best
subjects was Maths, whereas girls chose English (Department for Educa-
tion 2019). Schools and teachers will need to work hard to dismantle some
of this gendered perception around subject disciplines, although this is
quite a task given that subject choices seem to align with more widespread
societal “Gender Schemas” as first proposed by Valian (1999) and fur-
ther investigated by Hewlett et al. (2008): “In white middle-class society,
the gender schema for men includes being assertive, instrumental, task
oriented, and capable of independent autonomous action” – which aligns
nicely with technological expertise. The gender schema for women is dif-
ferent: “it includes being nurturant, expressive, communal, and concerned
about others” – perhaps better suited to the performing and expressive arts
(Hewlett et al. 2008).
Many organizations across science and engineering are investing con-
siderable time and funding into interventions and outreach activities to
inspire and encourage greater diversity in the next generation of those
working in STEM.
The Athena SWAN charter has been a driving force for addressing gen-
der balance in Higher Education in the UK. The Women’s Engineering
Society, The Institute of Physics, and the Royal Society of Chemistry have
undertaken sustained efforts to address gender balance in their respective
disciplines. Some of this work is through outreach activities in schools
targeted specifically at female pupils, and raising the profile of the diver-
sity of those already working in the field to act as potential role models
for future generations of scientists and engineers. This means there is now
a substantial body of work on interventions to address gender imbalance,
and a growing understanding of what works and what doesn’t work (see,
for example, Valian 1999; Bohnet 2016; Savonick and Davidson 2016;
The Center for WorkLife Law 2018).
Off the back of this, there is already much work being undertaken by a
variety of groups in the UK and beyond to raise the profile of women in
music production and to inspire and encourage the next generation. Many
of these groups and initiatives are highlighted elsewhere in this book and
online,
14
so we will not list them here.
In many ways, the multifaceted nature of music production, the blurring
of lines between traditional technology-based and artistic roles, and the
changing nature of job roles and multiple career options may be confus-
ing for students entering further study and aiming for a role in the indus-
try. The current data also suggests that the perceived strong alignment of
music technology with engineering and technology disciplines is the main
reason why the subject is heavily male-dominated.
232
Jude Brereton, et al.
With both the creative industries and the engineering sector recently
renewing efforts around aspects of diversity, inclusion, and outreach work,
there is huge potential for the audio industry to capitalize on its interdis-
ciplinary nature and learn from other fields and those working to improve
gender balance.
Outreach, Inclusion, and Belonging
While there is an abundance of outreach work to encourage under-
represented groups to participate in STEM (and in Music Technology in
particular), this does not alter the industry’s inclusion record to date, and
we end up with a situation which one commentator called the “all space
camp and no space suit problem”.
15
Coined on the occasion of the infamous cancellation of the first NASA
all-female spacewalk due to a lack of appropriate equipment, this term
represents the push to get girls and women interested in STEM, or into
STEM careers, without acknowledging or addressing the reasons why
girls and women are then pushed away. Much time, effort, and resources
are spent on encouraging more women into the industry, only for them to
then find that they are not welcome because of sexism and a toxic male-
dominated culture within the industry itself.
Potential of Future Technologies
The increase in the availability and affordability of technology for mak-
ing music over the last few decades has the potential to increase the
diversity of those participating in music technology. It has been shown
that the proportion of students from lower socio-economic groups study-
ing Music Technology is much larger than traditional Music degrees,
where the potential entry costs might be much higher (e.g. thousands of
pounds for a classical music instrument and private tuition) (Born and
Devine 2015).
Indeed, since the 1990s there has been a huge increase in the range and
number of music technology-based degrees in Universities and Colleges
in the UK, which Born and Devine (2015) hail as a move away from the
more historically oriented traditional music degrees. But there is also
the danger that Music Technology degrees are spaces which exacerbate
the gender imbalance problem, since they often “participate in feedback
loops whereby existing ideologies of gender and technology, and social
class differences, are being reinforced or even amplified” (Born and
Devine 2015).
But it seems that the democratization of music technology hasn’t so far
resulted in music technology being used by all and equally by men and
women. In many ways, the market for consumer music technology has
mirrored the marketing of personal and home computers which targeted
dads and boys during advertising campaigns in the 1970s and 1980s. The
stereotypical image of the computer gamer as male is still prevalent in
popular culture. Such images feed the common attitude that it’s okay for
233 Addressing Gender Equality in Music Production
teenage boys to isolate themselves in their home or bedroom studios sur-
rounded by technology, but not so much for teenage girls.
However, there is evidence to suggest that the gender balance of those
using and purchasing music technology is beginning to change. For exam-
ple, a recent survey by Fender found that 50% of beginner and aspirational
guitar players are women (Duffy 2019), and there is evidence that in the
USA more women are buying and selling vinyl (a traditionally stereotypi-
cally male domain) (Mixmag 2018).
We are also on the cusp of exciting new developments in virtual and
augmented reality technology, and recent media coverage has suggested
that women are playing a leading role (Onanuga 2019). However, it is vital
that well-known issues around the non-inclusive design and development
of technology (Faulkner 2000) are avoided. There is a huge opportunity to
all of us working in music production and music technology-related fields,
to harness the potential of the fourth industrial revolution. Women’s par-
ticipation in designing and shaping immersive and interactive technolo-
gies and experiences should be cherished and nurtured.
Music and sound play a key role in the development of XR (virtual real-
ity, augmented reality, mixed reality) technologies. Nevertheless, there is
a danger that the typically male-dominated technology sector will steal the
ground. If we are careless, there is a real chance that women will be pre-
vented from participating in and benefiting fully from the presaged fourth
industrial revolution.
What Doesn’t Work
Identifying potential reasons for poor non-male representation can only be
a positive step forward. It provides the basis for the development of practi-
cal strategies and policies that target the heart of the problem, and there-
fore attempts to address the symptom rather than the cause. However, the
complex and heavily encultured nature of gender and its representation in
society can make well-intentioned interventions highlight the fundamental
issues rather than provide a positive framework for change.
In 2012, the European Commission launched “Science: It’s a Girl Thing”
to improve the number of females choosing STEM subjects between the
ages of 13–17. The campaign was data-driven in its approach, acknowl-
edging the need to address education and the pipeline of decision-making
for STEM subjects, with an aim to make science appear “cool” to females.
However, the promotional video for the campaign received attention for
all the wrong reasons, and was quickly removed from its website after
criticism for its stereotyping of the sexes (Collins 2012) and a defensive if
not critical public response from the advisory group for the project (Sán-
chez de Madariaga et al. 2012).
Another example, this time of a commercial company drastically miss-
ing the mark, was the initial release of the Midiplus MIRROR, for which
the product web page
16
contained the phrases: “an audio interface spe-
cially for females”, “through a female perspective and taste, we attempted
to integrate mirror light”, and “twirl the colorful eye-shadow shaped
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.