1932

Abstract

The high-tech industry is the world's most powerful and profitable industry, and it is almost entirely dominated by white, Asian American, and Asian men. This article reviews research on social inequality in the high-tech industry, focusing on gender and race/ethnicity. It begins with a discussion of alternative ways of defining the sector and an overview of its history and employment demographics. Next is an analysis of gendered and racialized pathways into high-paying jobs in the industry, followed by a review of research on workplace organization that emphasizes how sexism and racism are embedded inside the firm and beyond it, through the design of high-tech products and services. Finally, gender and racial disparities in attrition rates are discussed. The conclusion calls for future research on social inequality and the funding structure of the industry, age discrimination inside tech, effective diversity policies, and labor movement activism throughout the high-tech industry.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-034202
2023-07-31
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/49/1/annurev-soc-031021-034202.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-034202&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abad MV. 2022. Wisdom behind cultural capital: race, gender, and the corporate labor market Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Conference Los Angeles:
  2. Alegria S. 2019. Escalator or step stool? Gendered labor and token processes in tech work. Gend. Soc. 33:5722–45
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alegria S. 2020. What do we mean by broadening participation? Race, inequality, and diversity in tech work. Sociol. Compass 14:6e12793
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alfrey L, Twine FW. 2017. Gender-fluid geek girls: negotiating inequality regimes in the tech industry. Gend. Soc. 31:128–50
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Alimahomed-Wilson J, Reese E 2021. Surveilling Amazon's warehouse workers: racism, retaliation, and worker resistance amid the pandemic. Work Glob. Econ. 1:1/255–73
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Banerjee P. 2006. Indian information technology workers in the United States: the H-1B visa, flexible production, and the racialization of labor. Crit. Sociol. 32:2/3425–45
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Banerjee P. 2022. The Opportunity Trap: High-Skilled Workers, Indian Families, and the Failures of the Dependent Visa Program New York: NYU Press
  8. Banerjee P, Rincón L. 2019. Trouble in tech paradise. Contexts 18:224–29
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barefoot K, Curtis D, Jolliff W, Nicholson JR, Omohundro R. 2018. Defining and measuring the digital economy Work. Pap. Bur. Econ. Anal., US Dep. Commer. Washington, DC:
  10. Barley SR, Kunda G. 2006. Gurus, Hired Guns, and Warm Bodies: Itinerant Experts in a Knowledge Economy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  11. Baron JN, Hannan MT, Burton MD. 2001. Labor pains: change in organizational models and employee turnover in young, high-tech firms. Am. J. Sociol. 106:4960–1012
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Benjamin R. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code Medford, MA: Polity
  13. Benner K. 2017. A backlash builds against sexual harassment in Silicon Valley. New York Times July 3. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment.html
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bernstein E, Bunch J, Canner N, Lee M. 2016. Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Business Review July/Aug. 38–49. https://hbr.org/2016/07/beyond-the-holacracy-hype
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bittner A, Lau B. 2021. Women-led startups received just 2.3% of VC funding in 2020. Harvard Business Review Febr. 25. https://hbr.org/2021/02/women-led-startups-received-just-2-3-of-vc-funding-in-2020
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Booz M. 2018. These 3 industries have the highest talent turnover rates. LinkedIn Talent Blog March 20. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/3-industries-have-highest-talent-turnover-rates-michael-booz
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bosky A, Muller C, Williams CL. 2022. Precarious professionals: layoffs and gender inequality in the oil and gas industry. Soc. Forces 101:2774–802
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Branch EH. 2016. Pathways, Potholes, and the Persistence of Women in Science: Reconsidering the Pipeline Lanham, MD: Lexington
  19. Brown E. 2019. Former WeWork executives allege gender, age discrimination. Wall Street Journal June 21. https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-wework-executives-allege-gender-age-discrimination-11561082242
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Browne S. 2015. Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  21. Calasanti T 2003. Theorizing age relations. The Need for Theory S Biggs, J Hendricks, A Lowenstein 199–218. New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Carter P. 2009. Equity and empathy: toward racial and educational achievement in the Obama era. Harv. Educ. Rev. 79:2287–97
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cech E. 2015. Engineers and engineeresses? Self-conceptions and the development of gendered professional identities. Sociol. Perspect. 58:156–77
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Cech E, Blair-Loy M. 2019. The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM. PNAS 116:104182–87
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cech E, Rubineau B, Silbey S, Seron C. 2011. Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76:5641–66
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Cech E, Waidzunas T. 2022. LGBTQ@NASA and beyond: work structure and workplace inequality among LGBTQ STEM professionals. Work Occup 49:2187–228
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chavez K. 2021. Penalized for personality: a case study of Asian-origin disadvantage at the point of hire. Sociol. Race Ethn. 7:2226–46
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chavez K, Weisshaar KR, Cabello-Hunt T. 2022. Hiring folks for diversity: commodification of gender and racial diversity in hiring by job level Paper presented at American Sociological Association Annual Conference Los Angeles:
  29. Chen C. 2022. Work Pray Code: When Work Becomes Religion in Silicon Valley Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  30. Chin MM. 2020. Stuck: Why Asian Americans Don't Reach the Top of the Corporate Ladder New York: NYU Press
  31. Chow TY. 2023. Privileged but not in power: how Asian American tech workers use racial strategies to deflect and confront race and racism. Qual. Sociol. 46:129–52
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Cooper M. 2000. Being the “go-to guy”: fatherhood, masculinity, and the organization of work in Silicon Valley. Qual. Sociol. 23:4379–405
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Cooper M. 2014. Cut Adrift: Families in Insecure Times Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  34. Correll S. 2017. Reducing gender biases in modern workplaces: a small wins approach to organizational change. Gend. Soc. 31:6725–50
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Correll SJ, Weisshaar KR, Wynn AT, Wehner JD. 2020. Inside the black box of organizational life: the gendered language of performance assessment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 85:61022–50
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Daniels J. 2009. Cyber Racism: White Supremacy Online and the New Attack on Civil Rights Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
  37. Edwards E. 2021. Check your stats: The lack of diversity in venture capital is worse than it looks. Forbes Febr. 24. https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethedwards/2021/02/24/check-your-stats-the-lack-of-diversity-in-venture-capital-is-worse-than-it-looks
    [Google Scholar]
  38. EEOC (US Equal Employ. Oppor. Comm.) 2016. Diversity in high tech Rep. US EEOC Washington, DC: https://www.eeoc.gov/special-report/diversity-high-tech
  39. Ensmenger NL. 2012. The Computer Boys Take Over: Computers, Programmers, and the Politics of Technical Expertise Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  40. Eubanks V. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin's
  41. Frick W. 2014. How old are Silicon Valley's top founders? Here's the data. Harvard Business Review April 3. https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top-founders-heres-the-data
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gee B, Peck D. 2017. The illusion of Asian success: scant progress for minorities in cracking the glass ceiling from 2007–2015 Work. Pap. Ascend Pan-Asian Leaders, Ascend Found. New York:
  43. Gershon I 2017. Down and Out in the New Economy: How People Find (or Don't Find) Work Today Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Google 2022. Google diversity annual report 2022 Rep. Google Mountain View, CA:
  45. Gosselin P, Tobin A. 2018. Cutting ‘old heads’ at IBM. ProPublica March 22. https://features.propublica.org/ibm/ibm-age-discrimination-american-workers
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Govindarajan V, Srivastava A. 2019. No, WeWork isn't a tech company. Here's why that matters. Harvard Business Review Aug. 21. https://hbr.org/2019/08/no-wework-isnt-a-tech-company-heres-why-that-matters
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gray ML, Suri S. 2019. Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass Boston: Harper Bus.
  48. Han J, Tomaskovic-Devey D. 2022. Is tech sector diversity improving? Rep. Cent. Employ. Equity, Univ Mass. Amherst, MA: https://www.umass.edu/employmentequity/tech-sector-diversity-improving
  49. Harnett S. 2020. Words matter: how tech media helped write gig companies into existence. Beyond the Algorithm: Qualitative Insights for Gig Work Regulation D Das Acevedo 169–88. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Harris M. 2023. Palo Alto: A History of California, Capitalism, and the World New York: Little, Brown
  51. Harrison S. 2019. Five years of tech diversity reports—and little progress. Wired Oct. 1. https://www.wired.com/story/five-years-tech-diversity-reports-little-progress
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hart CG. 2021. Trajectory guarding: managing unwanted, ambiguously sexual interactions at work. Am. Sociol. Rev. 86:2256–78
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Hayes D. 1999. Behind the Silicon Curtain: The Seductions of Work in a Lonely Era Boston: South End
  54. Hern A. 2019. Google pays $11m to jobseekers who alleged age discrimination. The Guardian July 22. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/22/google-pays-11m-to-jobseekers-who-alleged-age-discrimination
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hill C, Corbett C, St. Rose A. 2010. Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Rep. Am. Assoc. Univ. Women Washington, DC:
  56. Hossfeld KJ. 1994. Hiring immigrant women: Silicon Valley's “simple formula. .” In Women of Color in U.S. Society MB Zinn, BT Dill 65–94. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hossfeld KJ. 1995. Why aren't high tech workers organized? Lessons in gender, race, and nationality from Silicon Valley. Working People of California D Conford 405–32. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hyman L. 2018. Temp: The Real Story of What Happened to Your Salary, Benefits, and Job Security London: Penguin
  59. Irani L. 2015. Difference and dependence among digital workers: the case of Amazon Mechanical Turk. S. Atl. Q. 114:1225–34
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kalev A. 2014. How you downsize is who you downsize: biased formalization, accountability, and managerial diversity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:1109–35
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kelly EL, Moen P. 2020. Overload: How Good Jobs Went Bad and What We Can Do About It Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  62. Kelly EL, Moen P, Tranby E. 2011. Changing workplaces to reduce work-family conflict: schedule control in a white-collar organization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76:2265–90
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kenney M 2000. Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  64. Krippner GR. 2005. The financialization of the American economy. Socio-Econ. Rev. 3:2173–208
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kunda G. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
  66. Lécuyer C. 2005. Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the Growth of High Tech, 1930–1970 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  67. Lee JC. 2013. Employment and earnings in high-tech ethnic niches. Soc. Forces 91:3747–84
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Lin K-H, Neely MT. 2020. Divested: Inequality in the Age of Finance Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  69. Lin K-H, Tomaskovic-Devey D. 2013. Financialization and U.S. income inequality, 1970–2008. Am. J. Sociol. 118:51284–329
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Luhr S. 2019. Glass walls: gender, role sorting, and unequal trajectories in the San Francisco Bay Area tech industry Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Conference New York:
  71. Luhr S. 2020. Vanishing women: gender presentation and belonging Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Conference San Francisco:
  72. Luhr S. 2023.. ‘ We're better than most’: diversity discourse in the San Francisco Bay Area tech industry. Soc. Problems In press
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Mac R, Yaffe-Bellany D. 2022. Inside a corporate culture war stoked by a crypto C.E.O. New York Times June 15. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/technology/kraken-crypto-culture.html
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Malone MS. 1985. The Big Score: The Billion Dollar Story of Silicon Valley Garden City, NY: Doubleday:
  75. McGee EO, Bentley L. 2017. The troubled success of Black women in STEM. Cogn. Instr. 35:4265–89
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Mickey E 2018. Networks of exclusion in a gendered organization in the high-tech industry PhD Diss. Northeastern Univ. Boston:
  77. Mickey E 2019. When gendered logics collide: going public and restructuring in a high-tech organization. Gend. Soc. 33:4509–33
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Mickey E 2022. The organization of networking and gender inequality in the new economy: evidence from the tech industry. Work Occup. 49:4383–420
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Misa TJ 2010. Gender Codes: Why Women Are Leaving Computing Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/IEEE
  80. Nakamura L. 2014. Indigenous circuits: Navajo women and the racialization of early electronic manufacture. Am. Q. 66:4919–41
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Neely MT. 2018. Fit to be king: how patrimonialism on Wall Street leads to inequality. Socio-Econ. Rev. 16:2365–85
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Neely MT. 2020. The portfolio ideal worker: insecurity and inequality in the new economy. Qual. Sociol. 43:2271–96
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Neely MT. 2022. Hedged Out: Inequality and Insecurity on Wall Street Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  84. Neff G. 2012. Venture Labor: Work and the Burden of Risk in Innovative Industries Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  85. Nelson LK, Zippel K. 2021. From theory to practice and back: how the concept of implicit bias was implemented in academe, and what this means for gender theories of organizational change. Gend. Soc. 35:3330–57
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Nicholas T. 2019. VC: An American History Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  87. Noble SU. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism New York: NYU Press
  88. Oldenziel R. 2004. Making Technology Masculine: Men, Women, and Modern Machines in America, 1870–1945 Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press
  89. Ollilainen M, Calasanti T. 2007. Metaphors at work: maintaining the salience of gender in self-managing teams. Gend. Soc. 21:15–27
    [Google Scholar]
  90. O'Mara M. 2019. The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America London: Penguin
  91. Osnowitz D. 2010. Freelancing Expertise: Contract Professionals in the New Economy Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  92. Pelisson A, Hartmans A. 2017. The average age of employees at all the top tech companies, in one chart. Business Insider Sept. 11. https://www.businessinsider.com/median-tech-employee-age-chart-2017-8
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Pellow D, Park LS-H. 2002. The Silicon Valley of Dreams: Environmental Injustice, Immigrant Workers, and the High-Tech Global Economy New York: NYU Press
  94. Pisoni A. 2015. Here's why you should care about holacracy. Fast Company May 6. https://www.fastcompany.com/3045848/heres-why-you-should-care-about-holacracy
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Prescod-Weinstein C. 2021. The Disordered Cosmos: A Journey into Dark Matter, Spacetime, and Dreams Deferred New York: Bold Type
  96. Quinn BA. 2000. The paradox of complaining: law, humor, and harassment in the everyday work world. Law Soc. Inq. 25:41151–85
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Rao AH. 2020. Crunch Time: How Married Couples Confront Unemployment Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  98. Ravenelle AJ. 2019. Hustle and Gig: Struggling and Surviving in the Sharing Economy Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  99. Rider CI, Sterling AD, Tan D 2016. Career mobility and racial diversity in law firms. Diversity in Practice S Headworth, RL Nelson, R Dinovitzer, DB Wilkins 357–82. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Ridgeway CL. 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  101. Riegle-Crumb C, Humphries M. 2012. Exploring bias in math teachers’ perceptions of students’ ability by gender and race/ethnicity. Gend. Soc. 26:2290–322
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Riegle-Crumb C, Moore C 2014. The gender gap in high school physics: considering the context of local communities. Soc. Sci. Q. 95:1253–68
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Roscigno VJ, Mong S, Byron R, Tester G 2007. Age discrimination, social closure and employment. Soc. Forces 86:1313–34
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Rudrappa S. 2010. Cyber-coolies and techno-braceros: race and commodification of Indian information technology guest workers in the United States. Univ. San Franc. Law Rev. 44:2353–72
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Ruiz NG. 2017. Key facts about the U.S. H-1B visa program. Pew Research Center Blog April 27. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/key-facts-about-the-u-s-h-1b-visa-program
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Schor JB. 2020. After the Gig: How the Sharing Economy Got Hijacked and How to Win It Back Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  107. Sheehan P. 2021. Unemployment experts: governing the job search in the new economy. Work Occup 48:4470–97
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Sheehan P. 2022. The paradox of self-help expertise: how unemployed workers become professional career coaches. Am. J. Sociol. 127:41151–82
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Shestakofsky B. 2017. Working algorithms: software automation and the future of work. Work Occup. 44:4376–423
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Shestakofsky B. 2020. Stepping back to move forward: centering capital in discussions of technology and the future of work. Commun. Public 5:3/4129–33
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Shestakofsky B, Kelkar S. 2020. Making platforms work: relationship labor and the management of publics. Theory Soc. 49:5/6863–96
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Shih J. 2006. Circumventing discrimination gender and ethnic strategies in Silicon Valley. Gend. Soc. 20:2177–206
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Simard C, Davies Henderson A, Gilmartin SK, Schiebinger L, Whitney T 2007. Climbing the technical ladder: obstacles and solutions for mid-level women in technology Rep. Clayman Inst. Gend. Res., Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA: https://gender.stanford.edu/sites/gender/files/climbing_the_technical_ladder.pdf
  114. Smith-Doerr L. 2004. Women's Work: Gender Equality Versus Hierarchy in the Life Sciences Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
  115. Smith-Doerr L, Croissant J. 2011. A feminist approach to university-industry relations: integrating theories of gender, knowledge, and capital. J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 17:3251–69
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Sobering K. 2019. The relational production of workplace equality: the case of worker-recuperated businesses in Argentina. Qual. Sociol. 42:543–65
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Teitelbaum MS. 2014. Falling Behind? Boom, Bust, and the Global Race for Scientific Talent Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  118. Turco C. 2016. The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  119. Twine FW. 2018. Technology's invisible women: Black geek girls in Silicon Valley and the failure of diversity initiatives. Int. J. Crit. Divers. Stud. 1:158–79
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Twine FW. 2022. Geek Girls: Inequality and Opportunity in Silicon Valley New York: NYU Press
  121. Vallas S, Schor JB. 2020. What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 46:273–94
    [Google Scholar]
  122. van der Zwan N. 2014. Making sense of financialization. Socio-Econ. Rev. 12:199–129
    [Google Scholar]
  123. van Romburgh M. 2021. Funding to Black startup founders quadrupled in past year, but remains elusive. Crunchbase News July 13. https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/something-ventured-funding-to-black-startup-founders-quadrupled-in-past-year-but-remains-elusive
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Vassallo T, Levy E, Madansky M, Mickell H, Porter B et al. 2015. The elephant in the valley Surv., Elephant in the Valley Stanford, CA: https://www.elephantinthevalley.com
  125. Wajcman J. 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology University Park: Pa. State Univ. Press
  126. Wajcman J. 2009. Feminist theories of technology. Camb. J. Econ. 34:1143–52
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Wakabayashi D. 2019. Google's shadow work force: temps who outnumber full-time employees. New York Times May 28. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/technology/google-temp-workers.html
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Wiener A. 2020. Uncanny Valley: A Memoir New York: MCD
  129. Williams CL 2017. The gender of layoffs in the oil and gas industry. Precarious Work AL Kalleberg, SP Vallas 215–41. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Res. Sociol Work Vol. 31
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Williams CL. 2021. Gaslighted: How the Oil and Gas Industry Shortchanges Women Scientists Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  131. Williams CL, Muller C, Kilanski K. 2012. Gendered organizations in the new economy. Gend. Soc. 26:4549–73
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Williams JC. 2001. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  133. Wingfield AH, Alston RS. 2012. The understudied case of Black professional men: advocating an intersectional approach. Sociol. Compass 6:9728–39
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Wolfe T. 1983. The tinkerings of Robert Noyce: how the sun rose on the Silicon Valley. Esquire Magazine Dec. 1 346–74
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Women Who Tech 2020. The state of women in tech and startups Rep. Women Who Tech https://womenwhotech.org/data-and-resources/state-women-tech-and-startups
  136. Wynn AT, Correll SJ. 2018. Puncturing the pipeline: Do technology companies alienate women in recruiting sessions?. Soc. Stud. Sci. 48:1149–64
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-034202
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error