BOOK REVIEWKicking butt in computer science
BOOK REVIEWKicking butt in computer science
复制标题
书评在计算机科学中踢屁股
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Daniel Zingaro
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Daniel Zingaro
对我来说，这本书的前卫标题预示着卡内基梅隆大学 (CMU) 的大厅里会有一场热烈的欢闹，其中讲述了计算机科学 (CS) 领域女性的故事。计算机科学领域成功女性的轶事，她们崛起之路的编年史——这就是我所期待的。这不是我得到的。我得到的是更有用的东西——一本关于卡内基梅隆大学计算机科学领域女性的仔细学术论文，对于那些希望提高女性和计算机科学（女性-CS）在学校的契合度的人来说，这是一个值得深思的地方。这本书的论点很简单，尽管存在争议——关注性别差异是行不通的；对文化的关注确实如此。 1999 年，CMU 进行了一些改革，改善了女性与 CS 的契合度。这些变化的结果之一是更多的女性被计算机科学专业录取。与有关女性在计算机科学领域感到不快乐和不舒服的文献报道相反，卡内基梅隆大学的研究人员指出，女性现在的毕业率与男性同龄人相当，并且在毕业时也很享受。在第一章中，作者对现有文献进行了调查和批评，这些文献表明女性在计算机科学领域的悲惨经历。一个特别有趣的观察是，计算机科学领域的女性在人数很少时经常接受采访。当女性人数增加时，情况会发生变化吗？作者还认为，所谓的性别差异被过度夸大了，而且这种差异通常是特定于背景和文化的。在第二章中，作者利用最新的相关统计数据来论证，无论是绝对数量还是相对于其他科学领域，女性参与计算机科学的比例都较低。探讨了这种低参与度带来的道德、社会、经济、社会和绩效成本。这是一章很短的一章，如果您已经确信多元化员工队伍的好处，那么可以将其作为可选章节。第3章由两个主要部分组成。第一部分是卡耐基梅隆大学及其计算机科学学院的历史，以及多样性在这些历史中所扮演的角色。第二部分扩展了 1999 年招生的变化——选择 SAT 成绩优异且有回馈社会证据的学生——并探讨了这些变化对女性参与和学校氛围的影响。与其他任何章节相比，本章更深入地阐述了卡内基梅隆大学的传统、人民和历史；这提供了有用的视角，尽管有些材料过于具体以致于应用起来很困难。在第四章中，作者介绍了案例研究和定性方法。
F or me, the edgy title of the book promised a fiery romp through the halls of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), wherein the stories of butt-kicking women in computer science (CS) are told. Anecdotes of successful women in CS, chronicles of their rise to butt-kicking status—this is what I expected. This is not what I got. What I got was more useful—a careful academic treatise of women in CS at CMU, and a cache of food-for-thought for anyone hoping to improve the women and computer science (women-CS) fit at their schools. The book’s thesis is simple, if contentious—a focus on gender differences does not work; a focus on culture does. In 1999, changes were made at CMU that improved the women-CS fit. One result of these changes was that more women were admitted to the CS major. Contrary to literature reporting on women feeling unhappy and uncomfortable in CS, researchers at CMU noted that women were now graduating at rates comparable to their male peers and were enjoying themselves while doing so. In the first chapter, the authors survey and critique the existing literature that suggests bleak experiences for women in CS. A particularly interesting observation is that women in CS are often interviewed when they are few of them. Might things change when the number of women is increased? The authors also argue that supposed gender differences are over exaggerated, and that such differences are often contextand culturally-specific. In the second chapter the authors leverage up-to-date, relevant statistics to argue that women’s participation in CS is low in both absolute numbers and relative to other science fields. The moral, social, economic, societal, and performance costs of this low participation are explored. This is a short chapter, and an optional one if you are already convinced of the benefits of a diverse workforce. Chapter 3 is composed of two main parts. The first is a largely optional history of CMU and its School of Computer Science, and the role that diversity played in these histories. The second part expands on the changes to admissions made in 1999—selecting students with both strong SAT scores and evidence of giving back to the community—and explores the effects of these changes in terms of women’s participation and school atmosphere. More than any other chapter, this chapter is steeped in the traditions, people, and history of CMU; this offers useful perspective, though some of the material is so specific as to make application difficult. In chapter 4, the authors introduce the case studies and qualitative methods on