skip to main content
10.1145/2957276.2957290acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgroupConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Designing for Inclusion: Supporting Gender Diversity in Independent Innovation Teams

Published:13 November 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

We study how independent innovation teams develop an environment of inclusion to support gender diversity. Through a mixed-methods study involving surveys and interviews with people involved in independent innovation, we sought to better understand the mechanisms by which their teams fostered a sense of inclusion to support gender diversity via interpersonal practices and communication and collaboration technology usage. By understanding how inclusion supports gender diversity, we discuss design implications to help more diverse independent innovation teams form and function.

References

  1. Dominic Abrams, Michael A. Hogg, and José M. Marques. 2004. Social psychology of inclusion and exclusion. Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Gordon Willard Allport. 1979. The Nature of Prejudice. Basic books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Neal R. Anderson and Michael A. West. 1998. Measuring Climate for Work Group Innovation: Development and Validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19, 3: 235--258.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Karen A. Bantel and Susan E. Jackson. 1989. Top Management and Innovations in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference? Strategic Management Journal 10, S1: 107--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Jakob Bardram. 1998. Designing for the dynamics of cooperative work activities. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM, 89--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, and Austin Toombs. 2014. Now That's Definitely a Proper Hack: Self-Made Tools in Hackerspaces. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 473--476. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design. Proc. of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1301--1310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Dan Baugher, Andrew Varanelli Jr, and Ellen Weisbord. 2000. Gender and Culture Diversity Occurring in Self-formed Work Groups. Journal of Managerial Issues: 391--407.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Laura Beckwith, Margaret Burnett, Susan Wiedenbeck, Curtis Cook, Shraddha Sorte, and Michelle Hastings. 2005. Effectiveness of end-user debugging software features: Are there gender issues? Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 869--878. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Laura Beckwith, Derek Inman, Kyle Rector, and Margaret Burnett. 2007. On to the real world: Gender and self-efficacy in Excel. IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, IEEE, 119--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Laura Beckwith, Cory Kissinger, Margaret Burnett, et al. 2006. Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers' debugging. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in computing systems, ACM, 231--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Peter Michael Blau. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. Free Press New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nathan Bos, N. Sadat Shami, Judith S. Olson, Arik Cheshin, and Ning Nan. 2004. In-group/Out-group Effects in Distributed Teams: An Experimental Simulation. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM, 429--436. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jack W. Brehm. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Margaret Burnett, Scott D. Fleming, Shamsi Iqbal, et al. 2010. Gender differences and programming environments: across programming populations. Proceedings of the Symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, ACM, 28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Margaret M. Burnett, Elizabeth F. Churchill, and Michael J. Lee. 2015. SIG: Gender-Inclusive Software: What We Know About Building It. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, ACM, 857--860. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Margaret Burnett, Anicia Peters, Charles Hill, and Noha Elarief. 2016. Finding Gender-Inclusiveness Software Issues with GenderMag: A Field Investigation. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Julia Cambre, Chinmay Kulkarni, Michael S. Bernstein, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2014. Talkabout: smallgroup discussions in massive global classes. Proc. of the Conference on Learning@Scale, ACM, 161--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jennifer A. Chatman, Jeffrey T. Polzer, Sigal G. Barsade, and Margaret A. Neale. 1998. Being Different Yet Feeling Similar: The Influence of Demographic Composition and Organizational Culture on Work Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly: 749--780.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Justin Cheng and Michael Bernstein. 2014. Catalyst: Triggering Collective Action with Thresholds. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 1211--1221. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Cyrus Innovation. Just Not Sorry - The Gmail Plug-in. Retrieved from https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/just-notsorry-thegmail/fmegmibednnlgojepmidhlhpjbppmlci?hl=en-USGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Laura Dabbish, Colleen Stuart, Jason Tsay, and Jim Herbsleb. 2012. Social Coding in GitHub: Transparency and Collaboration in an Open Software Repository. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, ACM, 1277--1286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Richard L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel. 1983. Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design. Texas A&M University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Carsten KW De Dreu and Michael A. West. 2001. Minority Dissent and Team Innovation: The Importance of Participation in Decision Making. Journal of applied Psychology 86, 6: 1191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Charles Frederick DeTar. 2013. InterTwinkles: Online Tools for Non-hierarchical, Consensus-oriented Decision Making. Ph.D Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Cristina Díaz-García, Angela González-Moreno, and Francisco Jose Sáez-Martínez. 2013. Gender Diversity Within R&D Teams: Its Impact on Radicalness of Innovation. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 15, 2: 149--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Martin Dufwenberg and Astri Muren. 2006. Gender Composition in Teams. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 61, 1: 50--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Kate Ehrlich and Marcelo Cataldo. 2014. The Communication Patterns of Technical Leaders: Impact on Product Development Team Performance. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 733--744. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Robert W. Fairlie, Arnobio Morelix, E.J. Reedy, and Joshua Russell. 2015. The Kauffman Index: Startup Activity - National Trends. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Shelly Farnham, David Keyes, Vicky Yuki, and Chris Tugwell. 2012. Puget sound off: fostering youth civic engagement through citizen journalism. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 285--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Thomas A. Finholt and Gary M. Olson. 1997. From Laboratories to Collaboratories: A New Organizational Form for Scientific Collaboration. Psychological Science 8, 1: 28--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Sarah Fox, Rachel Rose Ulgado, and Daniela K. Rosner. 2015. Hacking Culture, Not Devices: Access and Recognition in Feminist Hackerspaces. Proc. of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. E. Gerber. 2009. Using Improvisation to Enhance the Effectiveness of Brainstorming. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm Strauss. 2009. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Anja Guzzi, Alberto Bacchelli, Yann Riche, and Arie van Deursen. 2015. Supporting Developers' Coordination in the IDE. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 518--532. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Julia Katherine Haines. 2013. Cultivating Creativity in Diverse Teams. Proc. of the Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ACM, 32--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Leslie RM Hausmann, Janet Ward Schofield, and Rochelle L. Woods. 2007. Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Intentions to Persist Among African American and White First-year College Students. Research in Higher Education 48, 7: 803--839.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Pamela J. Hinds and Diane E. Bailey. 2003. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization science 14, 6: 615--632. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Lionel R. Hoffman and Norman R. F. Maier. 1961. Sex Differences, Sex Composition, and Group Problem Solving. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63, 2: 453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Ute R. Hülsheger, Neil Anderson, and Jesus F. Salgado. 2009. Team-level Predictors of Innovation at Work: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis Spanning Three Decades of Research. Journal of Applied Psychology 94, 5: 1128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Charles B. Hutchison. 2009. What happens when students are in the minority: Experiences and behaviors that impact human performance. R&L Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Geoff Kaufman and Mary Flanagan. 2015. A psychologically "embedded" approach to designing games for prosocial causes. Cyberpsychology 9, 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Geoff Kaufman, Mary Flanagan, and Max Seidman. 2015. Creating stealth game interventions for attitude and behavior change: An "Embedded Design" model. Proc. of the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Sara Kiesler, Jane Siegel, and Timothy W. McGuire. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computermediated communication. American psychologist 39, 10: 1123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Taemie Kim, Agnes Chang, Lindsey Holland, and Alex Sandy Pentland. 2008. Meeting Mediator: Enhancing Group Collaboration Using Sociometric Feedback. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM, 457--466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Travis Kriplean, Michael Toomim, Jonathan Morgan, Alan Borning, and Andrew Ko. 2012. Is This What You Meant?: Promoting Listening on the Web with Reflect. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1559--1568. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Stacey Kuznetsov and Eric Paulos. 2010. Rise of the Expert Amateur: DIY Projects, Communities, and Cultures. Proc. of NordiCHI, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Gilly Leshed, Diego Perez, Jeffrey T. Hancock, et al. 2009. Visualizing Real-time Language-based Feedback on Teamwork Behavior in Computer-mediated Groups. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 537--546. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. John M. Levine, Richard L. Moreland, and Leslie R. M. Hausmann. 2005. Managing Group Composition: Inclusive and Exclusive Role Transitions. In The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion, Dominic Abrams, Michael A. Hogg and José M. Marques (eds.). Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, 137--160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Myriam Lewkowicz and Manuel Zacklad. 2002. A structured groupware for a collective decision-making aid. European Journal of Operational Research 136, 2: 333--339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Silvia Lindtner, Garnet D. Hertz, and Paul Dourish. 2014. Emerging Sites of HCI Innovation: Hackerspaces, Hardware Startups & Incubators. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 439--448. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Penelope Lockwood, Christian H. Jordan, and Ziva Kunda. 2002. Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83, 4: 854.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher. 2003. Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Jennifer Marlow, Laura Dabbish, and Jim Herbsleb. 2013. Impression Formation in Online Peer Production: Activity Traces and Personal Profiles in Github. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 117--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Marianne Schmid Mast. 2002. Dominance as Expressed and Inferred Through Speaking Time. Human Communication Research 28, 3: 420--450.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Poppy Lauretta McLeod and Sharon Alisa Lobel. 1992. The Effects of Ethnic Diversity on Idea Generation in Small Groups. Academy of Management Journal, 227--231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Matthew B. Miles and Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Michal E. Mor-Barak and David A. Cherin. 1998. A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusionexclusion. Administration in Social Work 22, 1: 47--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Michael Muller, Kate Ehrlich, Tara Matthews, Adam Perer, Inbal Ronen, and Ido Guy. 2012. Diversity among enterprise online communities: collaborating, teaming, and innovating through social media. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2815--2824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Lisa Nishii. 2013. The Benefits of Climate for Inclusion for Gender Diverse Groups. Academy of Management Journal 56, 6: 1754--1774.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Ray Oldenburg. 1999. The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Cars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Marlowe, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Gary M. Olson and Judy S. Olson. 2000. Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction 15, 2: 139--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Christian R. Østergaard, Bram Timmermans, and Kari Kristinsson. 2011. Does a Different View Create Something New? The Effect of Employee Diversity on Innovation. Research Policy 40, 3: 500--509.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Fatih Kursat Ozenc and Shelly D. Farnham. 2011. Life Modes in Social Media. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 561-- 570. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Daniela K. Rosner, Silvia Lindtner, Ingrid Erickson, Laura Forlano, Steven J. Jackson, and Beth Kolko. 2014. Making Cultures: Building Things & Building Communities. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 113--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Max Seidman, Mary Flanagan, and Geoff Kaufman. 2015. Failed Games: Lessons Learned from Promising but Problematic Game Prototypes in Designing for Diversity. Proc. of Diversity of play: Games -- Cultures - Identities. Retrieved February 16, 2016 from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digitallibrary/100_Flanagan_etal_FailedGames.compressed.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Rajesh Sethi, Daniel C. Smith, and C. Whan Park. 2001. Cross-functional Product Development Teams, Creativity, and the Innovativeness of New Consumer Products. Journal of Marketing Research 38, 1: 73--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Mario Luis Small. 2011. How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly Growing Literature. Annual Review of Sociology 37, 1: 57--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Daniel Solorzano, Miguel Ceja, and Tara Yosso. 2000. Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate: The Experiences of African American College Students. Journal of Negro Education: 60--73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler. 1986. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management science 32, 11: 1492--1512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler. 1991. Computers, networks and work. Scientific American 265, 3: 116--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Derald Wing Sue. 2010. Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Stephanie Teasley, Lisa Covi, Mayuram S. Krishnan, and Judith S. Olson. 2000. How Does Radical Collocation Help a Team Succeed? Proc. of the Conference on Computer supported Cooperative Work, ACM, 339--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Maryam Tohidi, William Buxton, Ronald Baecker, and Abigail Sellen. 2006. User sketches: a quick, inexpensive, and effective way to elicit more reflective user feedback. Proc. of the Nordic Conference on Humancomputer interaction: changing roles, ACM, 105--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Cristen Torrey, Elizabeth F. Churchill, and David W. McDonald. 2009. Learning How: The Search for Craft Knowledge on the Internet. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1371--1380. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Priyamvada Tripathi and Winslow Burleson. 2012. Predicting Creativity in the Wild: Experience Sample and Sociometric Modeling of Teams. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM, 1203--1212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Gerben S. Van der Vegt and Onne Janssen. 2003. Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation. Journal of Management 29, 5: 729--751.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Bogdan Vasilescu, Daryl Posnett, Baishakhi Ray, et al. 2015. Gender and Tenure Diversity in GitHub Teams. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Elizabeth S. Veinott, Judith Olson, Gary M. Olson, and Xiaolan Fu. 1999. Video helps remote work: Speakers who need to negotiate common ground benefit from seeing each other. Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 302--309. Retrieved May 13, 2016 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=303067 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Hao-Chuan Wang, Susan Fussell, and Dan Cosley. 2011. From Diversity to Creativity: Stimulating Group Brainstorming with Cultural Differences and Conversationally-Retrieved Pictures. Proc. of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Etienne Wenger. 1999. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Katherine Y. Williams and Charles A. O'Reilly. 1998. Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research. Research in Organizational Behavior 20: 77--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Donghee Yvette Wohn, Nicole B. Ellison, M. Laeeq Khan, Ryan Fewins-Bliss, and Rebecca Gray. 2013. The Role of Social Media in Shaping First-generation High School Students' College Aspirations: A Social Capital Lens. Computers & Education 63: 424--436. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Amy X. Zhang, Mark S. Ackerman, and David R. Karger. 2015. Mailing Lists: Why Are They Still Here, What's Wrong With Them, and How Can We Fix Them? Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 4009--4018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. 2015. Women Entrepreneurs are Key to Accelerating Growth. Kauffman Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Designing for Inclusion: Supporting Gender Diversity in Independent Innovation Teams

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              GROUP '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work
              November 2016
              534 pages
              ISBN:9781450342766
              DOI:10.1145/2957276

              Copyright © 2016 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 13 November 2016

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              GROUP '16 Paper Acceptance Rate36of111submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate125of405submissions,31%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader