3 ms·

Not a single woman, unless I am mistaken. (Am I?) Not sure what that says.

kedean 11y ago
I don't think it says anything. The vast majority of the seminal papers were written in the 60's and 70's, when few women were even in academia in the first place. A good number are from the 80's, during which you can argue very little emphasis was placed on women in engineering at all. By the nineties we were trying harder to equalize the gap, but it was not yet a priority in the field of CS. The last papers on here are from 2000. Basically, if you know the history of women in academia, the lack of women on this list is absolutely no surprise. What do you expect people to do, pretend that there was a surplus of female researchers when the really widely applicable research was happening? That's simply not true, and it wouldn't be true in any field.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Perhaps include an apology and treatise on historical sexism? Maybe go hunting for a handful of papers by women from that era, and include them in the interests of inclusion? The former would be irrelevant at best, and the latter is usually called tokenism, but both are options. If that's actually the goal. Personally, I suspect neither is helpful.
bunderbunder 11y ago
It says at least a little bit about the sexual politics of the industry. In two ways: For one, there just haven't been very many women in the field, for a variety of reasons that I should hope I don't need to enumerate here. Second, what few there have been still have a tendency to get overlooked. I'd hope to have at least seen Liskov & Wing's 1994 paper in this list.
symbol_pt 11y ago
Probably not much - there are certainly papers out there - but as with most things - its the popular hits that get remembered. However it would have been nice to see at least Grace Hopper's compiler papers mentioned e,g: G.M. Hopper, "Compiling Routines," Computers and Automation, Edmund C. Berkeley and Associates, vol. 2, no. 4, May 1953, pp. 1-5. though given age of those papers - it may not be familiar to those surveyed.

I don't think it says anything. The vast majority of the seminal papers were written in the 60's and 70's, when few women were even in academia in the first place. A good number are from the 80's, during which you can argue very little emphasis was placed on women in engineering at all. By the nineties we were trying harder to equalize the gap, but it was not yet a priority in the field of CS. The last papers on here are from 2000. Basically, if you know the history of women in academia, the lack of women on this list is absolutely no surprise. What do you expect people to do, pretend that there was a surplus of female researchers when the really widely applicable research was happening? That's simply not true, and it wouldn't be true in any field.

Kalium 11y ago
Perhaps include an apology and treatise on historical sexism? Maybe go hunting for a handful of papers by women from that era, and include them in the interests of inclusion? The former would be irrelevant at best, and the latter is usually called tokenism, but both are options. If that's actually the goal. Personally, I suspect neither is helpful.

bunderbunder 11y ago

It says at least a little bit about the sexual politics of the industry. In two ways: For one, there just haven't been very many women in the field, for a variety of reasons that I should hope I don't need to enumerate here. Second, what few there have been still have a tendency to get overlooked. I'd hope to have at least seen Liskov & Wing's 1994 paper in this list.

symbol_pt 11y ago

Probably not much - there are certainly papers out there - but as with most things - its the popular hits that get remembered. However it would have been nice to see at least Grace Hopper's compiler papers mentioned e,g: G.M. Hopper, "Compiling Routines," Computers and Automation, Edmund C. Berkeley and Associates, vol. 2, no. 4, May 1953, pp. 1-5. though given age of those papers - it may not be familiar to those surveyed.