GENDER, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFORMATION -...

GENDER, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFORMATION

INF 385T/WGS 393

#27277/#49052

Dr. Philip DotySchool of Information

University of Texas at AustinSP 2008

Class time: Monday 1:00 – 4:00 PM

Place: SZB 526

Office: SZB 570

Office hrs:Tuesday 1:00 – 2:00 PM

By appointment other times

Telephone: 512.471.3746 – direct line512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist512.471.3821 – main iSchool office

Internet: [email protected]://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm

Class URL: http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty_Philip/2008/spring/INF385T/

TA: Melissa [email protected]

Office hours

Thursday 11:00 AM – 12:00 N

By appointment other times

Copyright Philip Doty November 2007 1

Place TBA


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the course 3

Expectations of students’ performance 4

Analysis and holism 5

Standards for written work 6

Editing conventions 10

Grading 11

Texts and other tools 12

List of assignments 13

Outline of course 14

Schedule 16

Assignments 20

References 23

Sources in the class schedule

Selected important journals

Selected additional sources


INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

Gender, Technology, and Information (INF 385T/WGS 393) examines the three elements of the course’s title. Students will be asked to explore various perspectives on the interactions, historically and currently, among gender, technology, and information. These perspectives and concepts include narrative and metaphor, design and gender, the gendering of various technologies, identity and the Internet, the digital divide, the invisibility of information work in organizations, the history of technology, and gender and reading (including book clubs). We are fortunate to have several experts visiting this class from various departments and research centers here at UT.

Graduate students from all disciplines and academic units in the University are welcome, and students may take the class for a letter grade or for credit/no credit.

In this course, we will assume a non-essentialist position about gender, i.e., we will not support the assertion that there are some essential, identifiable differences among people of different genders. We also are interested in gender as broadly as possible, considering but also moving beyond “feminism and . . .” or “women in . . .” as the sole focus of the course; in fact, consideration of masculinities and technology will be a specific feature of the course.

Technology is another of the significant concepts for our course. We will not limit our consideration of technology to digital technologies this semester, or, for that matter, only to information technologies. While we will examine artifacts like computers, paper, books, houses, and other technologies, technology studies includes many other elements, e.g., music, language, literary genres, social conventions, and practices of all kinds.

I would like to offer two quick words about the third and final major topic of our work this semester – information. While we will use the useful fiction of information as thing, please remember that I, along with many others, consider it only a fiction. As such, information is not “in our minds” or “in files” or the like – thus we will avoid locutions such as “content” when speaking about information and communication. Instead, we will move beyond the cognitivism inherent in information as thing and look more to meaning making, cultural production, and social practice.


EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE

Students are expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class discussions and in the overall conduct of the class. In addition, students are expected to:

• Attend all class sessions; if a student misses a class, it is her responsibility to arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets.

• Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to inform their classroom participation and their writing. Students must learn to integrate what they read with what they say and write. This last imperative is essential to the development of professional expertise and to the development of a collegial professional persona.

• Educate themselves and their peers. Successful completion of graduate academic programs and participation in professional life depend upon a willingness to demonstrate initiative and creativity. Participation in the professional and personal growth of colleagues is essential to one’s own success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of scholarship, so some assignments are designed to encourage collaboration.

Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom; therefore, a 3-credit graduate course requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside the classroom.

• Participate in all class discussions.

• Complete all assignments on time; late assignments will not be accepted except in the particular circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will result in a failing grade for the course.

• Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve.

• Ask for help from the instructor or the teaching assistant, either in class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially appropriate for information questions, but please recall that Doty has limited access to email outside the office. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, it is always wise to send a copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA as well; she has access to email more regularly.

Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.

The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for students with documented disabilities. The University’s Office of the Dean of Students at


471.6259, 471.4641 TTY, can provide further information and referrals as necessary.


ANALYSIS AND HOLISM IN READING, WRITING, AND PRESENTING

Students in this class must be analytic in their reading of others' work, in their own writing, and in their presentations. What follows are suggestions for developing analytic and critical methods of thinking and communication. These suggestions are also indications of what you should expect from the writing and speaking of others.

At the same time, however, please remember that a holistic, integrative understanding of context must always complement depth of analysis.

First and foremost, maximize clarity – be clear, but not simplistic or patronizing.

Remember that writing is a form of thinking, not just a medium to "display" the results of thinking; make your thinking engaging, reflective, and clear.

Provide enough context for your remarks that your audience can understand them but not so much that your audience's attention or comprehension is lost.

Be specific.

Avoid jargon, undefined terms, undefined acronyms, colloquialisms, clichés, and vague language.

Give examples.

Be critical, not dismissive, of others' work; be skeptical, not cynical.

Answer the difficult but important "how?," "why?," and “so what?” questions.

Support assertions with evidence.

Make explicit why evidence used to support an assertion does so.

Identify and explore the specific practical, social, and intellectual implications of courses of action.

Be evaluative. Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own critical point of view.

Identify the specific criteria against which others' work and options for action will be assessed.

See the Standards for Written Work and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further explanations and examples.


STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK

You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks. Review these standards both before and after writing; I use them to evaluate your work.

Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what his or her audience knows about the topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of language, and clarity of syntax are interrelated and mutually reinforcing.

Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Writing is a form of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. A vivid example of how this complex process of composition and thought works is in the unexpurgated version of Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie (1994, p. 144):

Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all effort, what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he could find words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those inmost breathings which thus found words took hold upon him.

We need not adopt Dreiser’s breathless metaphysics or naturalism to understand the point.

All written work for the class must be done on a word-processor and double-spaced, with 1" margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font.

Some writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information that notes and references are impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in engineering and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA. Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing submissions to journals, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. You may also want to consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.).

Do not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to define a term, use a specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy or subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.

Use a standard spell checker on your documents, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries: do not include most proper nouns, including personal and place names; omit most technical terms; include few foreign words and phrases; and


cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their,” or in writing "the" instead of "them."

It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 383T or WGS 393). If you have any questions about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.

CONTINUED


Remember, every assignment must include a title page with:

• The title of the assignment

• Your name

• The date

• The class number – INF 385T or WGS 393.

Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professional written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 25 (some have more than one error):

1. Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or other means of keeping the pages together.

2. Number all pages after the title page. Notes and references do not count against page limits.

3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction – be serious and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and "option."

4. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant input."*

5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in specific technical ways.

6. Avoid using “content” as a noun.

7. Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in information studies.

8. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "high-quality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate.

9. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*

10. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts," "factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.

11. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.


12. Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *THIS* is often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in

CONTINUED


number; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is singular, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent or the pronoun must change in number.

13. "If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."

14. Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes only to Antone's."

15. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.

16. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.

17. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the lecture. The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then, obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture.

18. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with precision.

19. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructor very unhappy :-(.

20. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for uncountable nouns.

21. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*

22. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.

23. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, and Ms., and so on when referring to persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates as appropriate in APA.

24. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give an indication, as specifically as possible, of:


- responsibility (who?)- title (what?)- date of creation (when?)- date viewed (when?)- place to find the source (where? how?).

CONTINUED


See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214, 231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE for more guidance.

25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*

26. Citation, quotation, and reference are nouns; cite, quote, and refer to are verbs.

27. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of course. Single quotation marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations.

28. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number and/or other directional cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”

29. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.

30. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."

31. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to

identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.

32. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”

33. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.

34. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,” “participants,” and “informants” are preferred and have been for decades.

35. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not footnotes.


http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE

SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS

Symbol Meaning

# number OR insert a space; context will help you decipher its meaning

AWK awkward; and usually compromises clarity as well

BLOCK make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with

quotations ≥ 4 lines

caps capitalize

COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided

dB database

FRAG sentence fragment; often that means that the verb and/or subject of the sentence is missing

ITAL italicize

j journal

lc make into lower case

lib'ship librarianship

org, org’l organization, organizational

PL plural

Q question

Q’naire questionnaire

REF? what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?

RQ research question

sp spelling

SING singular

w/ with

w.c.? word choice?

I also use check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good point. Wavy lines indicate that usage or reasoning is suspect.


GRADING

Grades for this class include:

A+ Extraordinarily high achievement not recognized by the UniversityA Superior 4.00A- Excellent 3.67B+ Good 3.33B Satisfactory 3.00B- Barely satisfactory 2.67C+ Unsatisfactory 2.33C Unsatisfactory 2.00C- Unsatisfactory 1.67F Unacceptable and failing. 0.00.

See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in the School of Information student orientation packet for explanations of this system. Consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/general_info.php) and the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch01/ch01a.grad.html#The-Nature-and-Purpose-of-Graduate-Work and http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch01/ch01b.grad.html#Student-Responsibility) for more on standards of work. While the University does not accept the grade of A+, the instructor may assign the grade to students whose work is extraordinary.

The grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. The instructor reserves the grade of A for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and techniques discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner and communicate them effectively, successfully informing the work of other students.

The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be negotiated with the instructor before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office.

I use points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. Points on any assignment are determined using an arithmetic – not a proportional – algorithm. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is roughly equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total ≥ 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then s/he will have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total ≥ 80, then s/he will have earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns a total of 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 98, the student would earn an A-. If, on the other hand, a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91,


then the student would earn an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester.


TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS

There are two required texts for this class, and both can be purchased at the University Coop on Guadalupe. Many of the other readings are available online, and many readings are available in the Course Documents section of the course Blackboard site. As many of the required readings as possible will be on Reserve at PCL.

These are the required texts:

Lerman, Nina E., Oldenziel, Ruth, & Mohun, Arwen P. (2003a). Gender & technology: A reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Wajcman, Judy. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

I recommend these books for your further study of gender, technology, and information:

Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Nye, David E. (1994). American technological sublime. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Pursell, Carroll. (Ed.). (2001a). American technology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Spain, Daphne. (1992). Gendered spaces. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Wajcman, Judy. (1991b). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: Penn State.

I strongly recommend:

Manoff, Marlene. (2007). Science and technology Web sites. Available at http://libraries.mit.edu/humanities/WomensStudies/Tech2.html

This site is part of the material gathered by the Women’s Studies Section of the Association of College and Research Libraries (WSS, ACRL). You may especially want to look at the link there to Miscellaneous Resources, particularly the Gender-Related Electronic For[a] (http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/forums.html).


LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS

The instructor will provide additional information about each assignment. Written assignments should be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins. Assignments are due in class unless otherwise indicated.

Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade

Preparation and participation --- 10%

DQ’s on theories of technology JAN 27/28 5

DQ’s on gender and science and technology studies FEB 10/11 5

Response paper (4 pp.) FEB 2515

Topic and abstract (2 pp.) for final paper on MAR 3 ---gender, technology, and information

Annotated bibliography for final paper MAR 24 10

Choice of final paper to review MAR 31 ---

Draft of paper on gender, technology, and information APR 14---

(≥ 10 pp.)

Peer review of another student’s draft of final paper APR 2115

(3-4 pp.)

Public presentation on final paper APR 21, 28

Instructor’s evaluation 10

Classmates’ evaluation 5

Final paper on gender, technology, and information APR 2825

(20 pp.)

All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will be accepted only if:

1. At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructor gives explicit permission to the student to hand the assignment in late.

2. At the same time, a specific date and time are agreed upon for the late submission.


3. The assignment is then submitted on or before the agreed-upon date and time.

The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health, family, or personal situations.

All of your assignments should adhere to the standards for written work; should be clear, succinct, and specific; and should be explicitly grounded in the readings, class discussions, and other sources as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your papers.


OUTLINE OF COURSE

Meeting Date Topics

Unit I: introduction to technology and gender studies

1 JAN 14 Introduction to the courseReview of the syllabusStudents’ specific research interests

Exploring technology (1): Definitions, metaphors, and theories

JAN 21 No class – martin luther king holiday

2 JAN 28 Exploring technology (2): Definitions, metaphors, and theories

• DUE: Discussion question (DQ) on theories of technology

(5%)

Unit II: A gendered look at technology

3 FEB 4 Feminism and science and technologies studies

4 FEB 11 Reproductive and sexual technologies

• DUE: Discussion question (DQ) on gender and science and technology studies (5%)

5 FEB 18 Masculinities and technologies (1): Introduction

6 FEB 25 Masculinities and technologies (2): Continued

• DUE: Response paper (4 double-spaced pp.) (15%)

7 MAR 3 Domestic technologies

• DUE: Topic and two-page abstract for final paper

MAR 10 No class – spring break


8 MAR 17 Digital and communication technologies (1): Introduction


9 MAR 24 Digital and communication technologies (2): Continued

• DUE: Annotated bibliographies (10%)

10 MAR 31 Design and architecture

• DUE: Choice of final paper to review

11 APR 7 Book clubs and reading

12 APR 14 Gender and articulation work

• DUE: Draft due – final paper (≥ 10 pp.)

unit iii: students’ research

13 APR 21 Students’ presentations (10/5%)

• DUE: Review of another student’s draft of final paper (3-4

pp.) (15%)

14 APR 28 Students’ presentations (10/5%)Course evaluationCourse summary

• DUE: Final paper (20 pp.) (25%)


SCHEDULE

The schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester. Readings from Gender and Technology: A Reader are indicated as A Reader. Some readings are in the course documents section of Blackboard (CD), while many other required readings are available online as indicated. Some of the readings require you to be logged in with your UTEID through the UT libraries. AS indicates Additional Sources listed at the end of this document.

DATE TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS

Unit I: introduction to technology and gender studies

JAN 14 Introduction to the courseReview of the syllabusStudents’ specific research interests

Exploring technology (1): Definitions, metaphors, and theories

READ: Lerman et al. (2003b) – A ReaderIngold (2005) onlineVan Zoonen (1992) onlineO’Day & Nardi (2003) CDPursell (2001b) CD

JAN 21 No class – martin luther king holiday

JAN 28 Exploring technology (2): Definitions, metaphors, and theories

READ: Herzig (2003) – A ReaderLatour (1991) CDMcGaw (1989) CDPacey (1992/1974) CDPickering (1995) CD

• DUE: Discussion question (DQ) on theories of technology (5%)

Unit II: A gendered look at technology

FEB 4 Feminism and science and technologies studies

READ: McGaw (2003) – A ReaderWajcman (2004), 1 and 2Barad (1999/1998) CDKeller (1999/1987) CDLury (1993) CD


FEB 11 Reproductive and sexual technologies

READ: Maines (2003) – A ReaderFishman (2004) onlineWajcman (1991c), 3 (“Reproductive Technology: Delivered

into Men’s Hands”) CD

Williams (1998/1994) CDMaines (2001) ) – and Taylor (2001), Snow (2001), Eberhart

(2001), Covey (2001), “Enjoy Life” (2001), and “Further Reading” (2001a)

CDVan House (2003) CD

• DUE: Discussion question (DQ) on gender and science and technology studies (5%)

FEB 18 Masculinities and technologies (1): Introduction

READ: Brandth & Haugen (2005) onlineLohan & Faulkner (2005) onlineKleif & Faulkner (2004) CD

FEB 25 Masculinities and technologies (2): Continued

READ: Oldenziel (2003) – A ReaderEdwards (2003) – A ReaderMellström (2004) onlineNoble (1997) CD

Due: Response paper (4 double-spaced pp.) (15%)

MAR 3 Domestic technologies

READ: Kline (2003) – A ReaderParr (2003) – A ReaderNickles (2002) onlineMcGaw (2001) CDKleinegger (2001) – and “Social and Labor Needs,” Tripp

(2001), Sims (2001), and “Further Reading” (2001b) CD

• DUE: Topic and two-page abstract for final paper

MAR 10 No class – spring break

MAR 17 Digital and communication technologies (1): Introduction

READ: Wajcman (2004), 3 and 4


Haraway (1990) onlineHaraway (2004) CDO’Brien (1999) CD


MAR 24 Digital and communication technologies (2): Continued

READ: Light (2003) – A ReaderBalka (1997) onlineElectronic Privacy Information Center (2004) onlineShade (1998a) onlineStanworth (2000) online

AS: Oudshoorn et al. (2004) online

• DUE: Annotated bibliographies (10%)

MAR 31 Design and architecture

Speaker – Hillary Hart

READ: Wajcman (2004), 5Wajcman (1991a), 5 (“The Built Environment: Women’s Place,

Gendered Space“) CD

• DUE: Choice of final paper to review

APR 7 Book clubs and reading

Speaker – Elizabeth Long – Book clubs

READ: Flint (2006) onlineLong (2003a, b, c, and d) CDMcDowell (2007) CDOlson (2005) CD

APR 14 Gender and articulation work

Speakers – panel

READ:Olson (2001) onlineStar & Strauss (1999) onlineCeruzzi (1991) CDSuchman (1996) CD

• DUE: Draft due – final paper (≥ 10 pp.)

Unit III: students’ research

APR 21 Students’ presentations (10/5%)

• DUE: Review of another student’s draft of final paper (3-4 pp.) (15%)


APR 28 Students’ presentations (10/5%)Course evaluationCourse summary

READ: Lerman, Mohun, & Oldenziel (2003) – A ReaderStar & Griesemer (1989) onlineOldenziel (1996) CDWinner (1980) CD

• DUE: Final paper (20 pp.) (25%)


ASSIGNMENTS

Discussion questions – Due January 27/28 (5%) and February 10/11 (5%)

There is a large and complex set of literatures about science and technology studies (STS), and we have the opportunity to study some parts of that set this semester. Using whatever of the readings we have done for the classes on January 14 and 28, please address this question:

Why study technology?

Each student will prepare a one-page (250-word) response to this question and submit that response to the appropriate Blackboard forum no later than 12:00 N Sunday, January 27, and bring it to class in print form on Monday, January 28.

Be sure to read all of your classmates’ responses and come prepared to discuss them in class. This assignment is worth 5% of your course grade.

Using course readings, classroom discussion, and any other sources you regard as appropriate, please respond to this question:

How does using the conceptual lens of technology give us insight into the concept of gender?

Each student will prepare a one-page (250-word) response to this question and submit that response to the appropriate Blackboard forum no later than 12:00 N Sunday, February 10, and bring it to class in print form on Monday, February 11.

As with the January 28 discussion question assignment, be sure to read all of your classmates’ responses and come prepared to discuss them in class. This assignment is worth 5% of your final grade.

Response paper – Due February 25 (15%)

Please use this assignment to engage any aspect of the two textbooks for the course, Lerman et al. (2003a) or Wajcman (2004). Choose any elements of these books to engage, e.g., a theme in a particular chapter, a comparison of any two or more chapters/readings, discussion of the introductions, and so on.

Please write a paper of four double-paced pages (4 pp.) addressing these texts. The paper may be related to the topic you choose for your final paper or address concerns that complement or even contradict the thesis of your major paper. If your topic for the final paper does not encompass much of what we read, the response paper will allow you to explore some of those often compelling ideas.

Paper on gender, technology, and information – Different parts due various dates


Every student’s final paper of the semester will report on a topic of the student’s choice about gender, technology, and information. Each student should consider this final paper as an opportunity to advance her own current and evolving research program. While the topic for the final paper must be determined in negotiation with the instructor, students are especially encouraged to consult with their classmates about their topics.

The topic should be sufficiently narrow that the student can apply the concepts, literatures, and other class resources in order to engage a substantial topic in the intersection of gender, technology, and information in 20-25 double-spaced pp. from a perspective informed by our work together this semester. It is imperative that students keep their topics narrowly focused and that their papers be succinct and clear.

Topic and abstract – Each student will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by March 3. Each student must provide a clear statement of his topic and a two-page abstract of how the final paper will address the topic by that date, preferably before.

In addition to their own research interests and professional work, students may find a number of resources of value in identifying a topic for the paper: discussion with the instructor and colleagues (both inside and outside of the class), review of the supplemental parts of the references in the class syllabus, bibliographies, mailing lists, the mass media, class readings, general and specific Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what the class reads. The instructor will create a list of students and topics to be distributed online and in class no later than March 24.

Annotated bibliography – Due March 24 (10%) – each student will create an annotated bibliography of ten (10) sources pertinent to the student’s final paper for the class. The annotations should be about 3-4 sentences long and should be very specific about the sources’ value to the paper’s topic. The student should distribute a paper copy of the annotated bibliography to each member of the class and give two paper copies to the instructor. Students will also post their annotated bibliographies to the appropriate forum in BlackBoard as instructed.

Choice of paper to review – Due March 31. Each student will choose another student’s paper to review no later than March 31. The choices will generally be on a first-come, first-served basis, although the instructors reserve the right to assign students to particular drafts keeping in mind such criteria as students’ genders, research interests, education, employment, native languages, and the like.

Draft – Due April 14. Each student will submit an initial draft of his final paper on April 14. The draft will be at least 10 double-spaced pp. long, will have a one-page abstract, will indicate how the rest of the paper will develop, and will have a substantial part of the bibliography identified and complete in APA format. Students will submit two copies of this draft -- one for the student peer editor and one for the instructor.

Presentation – April 21 and 28 (10% for instructor’s evaluation and 5% for students’ evaluations) – each student will make a 20- minute oral presentation related to her final paper. This will be a public presentation to which a few other persons with an interest in gender, technology, and information will be invited, particularly faculty members with advisees in the class.


Every student should use the computer and projection device available, as well as prepare an appropriate handout with, at the least, an outline of the presentation (this handout may include copies of PowerPoint slides if the student is using PowerPoint) and a short list of appropriate sources. Students will present in each half of class, with questions saved for 15-20 minutes at the end of each half of class. This arrangement parallels one common in professional conferences. Each student peer editor will act as the initial respondent to any one paper.

The dates for the presentations are April 21 and 28. The instructor and the class TA will organize the presentation sessions and announce the schedule on the class and other email lists no later than April 7.

Review of another student’s draft – Due April 21 (15%). Each student will review the draft of another student’s final paper and submit two copies of a three- to four-page, double-spaced critique of the paper. One copy will go to the student who wrote the draft and one to the instructor. Be specific in the critique -- what works in the draft? What does not? Why or why not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper, whether about the topic, the argument, definitions, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and so on? The major criterion used to evaluate these reviews will be how valuable each one is in helping the author to improve her work.

Final draft – Due April 28 (30%). This is a final paper of 20 double-spaced pages that engages a topic of the student’s choice about gender, technology, and information. This final paper may help the student prepare presentations, grant proposals, master’s theses, conference papers, and dissertation chapters. This final version, like the first draft, will have a one-page abstract outlining the topic, methods of discussion and analysis used in the paper, and other pertinent elements of the paper.

The paper should be both analytic and holistic, using the texts and other general material read for the course, as well as that material more focused on students’ own disciplines. Students should remember to consult the syllabus on standards for written work both before and after they write and provide two copies of their final papers in the last class on Monday, April 28. They will also post the final drafts in the appropriate forum in the class Blackboard space.


REFERENCES

Many required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule. Some of the course readings are in the Course Documents section of the BlackBoard site (CD).

Some of the readings, on the other hand, require you to be logged in with your UT EID through the UT libraries. Those journals are usually available online for only part of their publication run; further, UT often has more than one arrangement through which to get these journals online, so there may be more than one URL for each journal. Feel free to explore the various online journal packages – the more familiar you are with such arrangements, the better researcher you will be.

Sources in the class schedule

Balka, Ellen. (1997). Participatory design in women’s organizations: The social world of organizational structure and the gendered nature of expertise. Gender, Work & Organization, 4(2), 99-115. Also available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/loi/gwao?

Barad, Karen. (1999). Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 1-11). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1998) CD

Brandth, Berit, & Haugen, Marit S. (2005). Text, body, and tools: Changing mediations of rural masculinity. Men and Maculinities, 8(2), 148-163. Also available at http://jmm.sagepub.com/

Ceruzzi, Paul. (1991). When computers were human. Annals of the History of Computing, 13(3), 237-244. CD

Covey, A. Dale. (2001). Profitable office specialties. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 140-141). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published c. 1912) CD

Crow, Barbara. (2005). Gendering surveillance: Mobile masculinities. Paper presented at the International Communications Studies Association, New York, May 28.

Eberhart, Noble M. (2001). A brief guide to vibratory technique. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 135-140). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published c. 1910) CD

Edwards, Paul N. (2003). Industrial genders: Soft/hard. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 177-203). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original published 1990)

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). (2004). Gender and electronic privacy. Available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/gender/default.html

Enjoy life. (2001) . In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (p. 142). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1913) CD


Fishman, Jennifer R. (2004). Manufacturing desire: The commodification of female sexual dysfunction. Social Studies of Science, 34(2), 187-218. Also available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/03063127/sp040018?frame=noframe&[email protected]/01c0a8347400504e5e9&dpi=3&config=jstor

Flint, Kate. (2006). Women and reading. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 31(2), 511-536. Also available at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/Signs/journal/available.html

Further reading. (2001a). In American technology (p. 143). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. CD

Further reading. (2001b). In American technology (p. 207). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. CD

Gere, Anne Ruggles. (1994). Common properties of pleasure: Texts in nineteenth century women’s clubs. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 383-400). Durham, NC: Duke University. CD

Given, Lisa M. (2005). Social positioning. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 334-338). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Haraway, Donna. (1990). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. In Linda J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 190-233). New York: Routledge. Also available at http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html

Haraway, Donna. (2004). There are always more things going on than you thought! Methodologies as thinking technologies. Part II of an interview with Donna Haraway by Nina Lykke, Randi Markussen, and Finn Olesen. In The Haraway reader (pp. 332-342). New York: Routledge. CD

Herzig, Rebecca. (2003). Situated technology: Meanings. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 72-97). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Ingold, Cindy. (2005). Women and gender studies Internet reference resources: A critical overview. Journal of Library Administration, 43(3/4), 103-117. Also available at http://www.haworthpress.com/Store/E-Text/ViewLibraryEText.asp?s=J111&m=0

Jones, Alice Hanson. (2001). American colonial wealth: Documents and methods. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 32-38). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1977)

Keller, Evelyn Fox. (1999). The gender/science system: Or, is sex to gender as nature is to science? In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 234-242). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1987) CD


Kleif, Tine, & Faulkner, Wendy. (2004). “I’m no athlete [but] I can make this thing dance!” – Men’s pleasure in technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 28(2), 296-325. CD

Kleinegger, Christine. (2001). Out of the barns and into the kitchens: Transformations in farm women’s work in the first half of the twentieth century. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 170-188). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1987) CD

Kline, Ronald R. (2003). Home ideologies: Progress? In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 392-423). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original work published 1997)

Latour, Bruno. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In John Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103-131). London: Routledge. CD

Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Lerman, Nina E., Mohun, Arwen P., & Oldenziel, Ruth. (2003). The shoulders we stand on/The view from here: Historiography and directions for research. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 425-449). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.


Lerman, Nina E., Oldenziel, Ruth, & Mohun, Arwen P. (2003b). Introduction: Interrogating boundaries. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 1-9). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Light, Jennifer. (2003). Programming. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 295-326). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original published 1999)

Lohan, Maria, & Faulkner, Wendy. (2005). Masculinities and technologies: Some introductory remarks. Men and Maculinities, 8(2), 319-329. Also available at http://jmm.sagepub.com/

Long, Elizabeth. (2003a). Between past and present: Introductory reflections on the changing nature of women’s reading groups. In Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in everyday life (pp. 59-73 and 230-231). Chicago: University of Chicago. CD

Long, Elizabeth. (2003b). I felt like I had been made totally invisible: Readers Inc. engages the issue of women in the public world. In Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in everyday life (pp. 163-169). Chicago: University of Chicago. CD

Long, Elizabeth. (2003c). Reading and cultural context. In Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in everyday life (pp. 21-30). Chicago: University of Chicago. CD

Long, Elizabeth. (2003d). Preface. In Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in everyday life (ix-xviii and p. 225). Chicago: University of Chicago. CD


Lury, Celia. (1993). Technologies of culture and gender. In Cultural rights: Technology, legality, and personality (pp. 177-206). London: Routledge. CD

Maines, Rachel. (2001). Socially camouflaged technologies: The case of the electromechanical vibrator. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 117-130). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 8(2), 3-11, 23. Also available http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=1989&isnumber=1367&Submit32=Go+To+Issues (Original work published 1989) CD

Maines, Rachel P. (2003). Situated technology: Camouflage. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 98-119). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

McDowell, Paula. (2007). “On behalf of the printers”: A late Stuart printer-author and her causes. In Sabrina Alcorn Baron, Eric N. Lindquist, & Eleanor F. Shevlin (Eds.), Agent of change: Print culture studies after Elizabeth L. Eisenstein (pp. 125-139). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. CD

McGaw, Judith A. (1989). No passive victims, no separate spheres: A feminist perspective on technology’s history. In Stephen Cutliffe & Robert Post (Eds.), In context: History and the history of technology, Essays in honor of Melvin Kranzberg, Research in Technology Studies (Vol. 1, pp. 172-191). Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University. CD

McGaw, Judith A. (2001). “So much depends upon a red wheelbarrow”: Agricultural tool ownership in the eighteenth-century mid-Atlantic. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 12-31). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1994) CD

McGaw, Judith A. (2003). Why feminine technologies matter. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 13-36). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original published 1996)

Mellström, Ulf. (2004). Machines and masculine subjectivity: Technology as an integral part of men’s life experiences. Men and Maculinities, 6(4), 368-382. Also available at http://jmm.sagepub.com/

Nickles, Shelley. (2002). “Preserving women”: Refrigerator design as social process in the 1930s. Technology and Culture, 43(4), 693-727. Also available at http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/journals/technology_and_culture/

Noble, David F. (1997). A masculine millennium: A note on technology and gender. In The religion of technology: The divinity of man and the spirit of invention (pp. 209-228 and 256-259). New York: Knopf. CD

Nye, David E. (1994). American technological sublime. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

O’Brien, Jodi. (1999). Writing in the body: Gender (re)production in online interaction. In Marc A Smith & Peter Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 76-104). London: Routledge. CD

O’Day, Vicki L., & Nardi, Bonnie A. (2003). An ecological perspective on digital libraries [excerpt]. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P.


Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 66-71). Cambridge, MA: MIT. CD

Oldenziel, Ruth. (1996). Objection/ions: Technology, culture, and gender. In W. David Kingery (Ed.), Learning from things: Methods and theory of material culture studies (pp. 55-69). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. CD

Oldenziel, Ruth. (2003). Why masculine technologies matter. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 37-71). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original work published 1997)

Olson, Hope A. (2001). Patriarchal structures of subject access and subversive techniques for change. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 26(2/3), 1-29. Also available at http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=105&sid=28073a9d-32af-44f2-83b2-b524fcad4606%40sessionmgr107

Olson, Linda. (2005). Reading, writing, and relationships in dialogue. In Linda Olson & Kathryn Kerby-Fulton (Eds.), Voices in dialogue: Reading women in the middle ages (pp. 1-30). Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame. CD

Pacey, Arnold. (1992). Idealistic trends in twentieth-century technology. In The maze of ingenuity: Ideas and idealism in the development of technology (2nd ed., pp. 242-266 and 281-286). Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original work published 1974) CD

Parr, Joy. (2003). Economics and homes: Agency. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 329-358). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Pickering, Andrew. (1995). Technology: Numerically controlled machine tools. In The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science (pp. 157-176). Chicago: University of Chicago. CD

Pursell, Carroll W. (Ed.). (2001a). American technology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Pursell, Carroll. (2001b). Introduction. In American technology (pp. 1-10). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. CD

Shade, Leslie Regan. (1998a). A gendered perspective on access to the information infrastructure. Information Society, 14(1), 33-44. Also available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/utis/1998/00000014/00000001/art00004;jsessionid=21ljenqucvijo.victoria

Sims, Newell Leroy. (2001). The farm house. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 203-207). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1928) CD

Sinclair, Bruce. (2001). Local history and national culture: Notions on engineering professionalism in American culture. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 145-154). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Snow, M.L.H. Arnold. (2001). Mechanical vibration and its therapeutic application. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 134-135). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1904) CD


Social and labor needs. (2001) . In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 189-200). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1915) CD

Spain, Daphne. (1992). Gendered spaces. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Stanworth, Celia. (2000). Women and work in the information age. Gender, Work and Organization, 7(1), 20-32. Also available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/loi/gwao?cookieSet=1

Star, S. Leigh, & Griesemer, James R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. Also available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/03063127/ap010058?frame=noframe&[email protected]/01c0a8347400504e5e9&dpi=3&config=jstor

Star, Susan Leigh, & Strauss, Anselm. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The dialogues between visible and invisible work. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 9-30. Also available at http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=161888&PDF=1

Suchman, Lucy. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Suchman, Lucy. (1996). Supporting articulation work. In Rob Kling (Ed.), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed., pp. 407-423). San Diego, CA: Academic. CD

Taylor, George H. (2001). Improvement in medical rubbing apparatus. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 131-133). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1876) CD

Tenner, Edward. (1997). The computerized office: The revenge of the body. In Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences (pp. 206-234 and 392-396). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1996) CD

Tripp, Guy E. (2001). Power on the farm. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 201-203). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1926) CD

Van House, Nancy A. (2003). Science and technology studies and information studies. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 3-86). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

van Zoonen, Liesbet. (1992). Feminist theory and information technology. Media, Culture & Society, 14(1), 9-30. CD

Wajcman, Judy. (1991a). The built environment: Women’s place, gendered space. In Feminism confronts technology (pp. 110-136). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. CD


Wajcman, Judy. (1991b). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Wajcman, Judy. (1991c). Reproductive technology: Delivered into men’s hands. In Feminism confronts technology (pp. 54-80). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. CD

Wajcman, Judy. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Williams, Rosalind. (1998). The political and feminist dimensions of technological determinism. In Merritt Roe Smith & Leo Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history?: The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 217-235). Cambridge, MA: MIT. CD

Winner, Langdon. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136. CD


Selected important journals

Cultural Studies

differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies

Feminist Theory

Gender and History

Gender & Society

Gender, Work & Organization

History and Technology

Journal of Gender Studies

Journal of Material Culture

Knowledge and Society: The Anthropology of Science and Technology

Men and Masculinities

Minerva

Science and Technology Review

Science and Technology Studies

Science Studies

Science, Technology,& Human Values

Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society

Social Studies of Science

Technology and Culture

Women’s Studies International Forum

Women’s Studies Quarterly


Selected additional sources

Adam, Alison. (2005). Gender, ethics and information technology. New York: Palgrave.

Alexander, Ilene D. (2004). Building literacy into courses: Syllabus and pedagogical considerations. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 32(1 & 2), 272-284.

Allan, Graham, & Crow, Graham (1990). Constructing the domestic sphere: The emergence of the modern home in post-war Britain. In Helen Corr & Lynn Jamieson (Eds.), Politics of everyday life: Continuity and change in work and family (pp. 11-36). London: Macmillan.

Allen, Anita. (1988). Uneasy access: Privacy for women in a free society. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

Allen, Anita L. (2000). Gender and privacy in cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1175-1200.

Allen, Anita L., Mack, Erin. (1991). How privacy got its gender. Northern Illinois Law Review, 10, 441ff.

Appadurai, Arjun. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In Arjun Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 3-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Appadurai, Arjun. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Arnold, Erik, & Burr, Lesley. (1985). Housework and the appliance of science. In Wendy Faulkner & Erik Arnold (Eds.), Smothered by invention: Technology in women’s lives. London: Pluto.

Augst, Thomas, & Wiegand, Wayne A. (Eds.). (2002). Libraries as agencies of culture. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Reprint of Augst, Thomas, & Wiegand, Wayne A. (Eds.). (2001). The library as an agency of culture [special issue]. American Studies, 42(3).

Baehr, Helen, & Dyer, Gillian. (1987). Boxed in: Women and television. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Balka, Ellen. (1997). Participatory design in women’s organizations: The social world of organizational structure and the gendered nature of expertise. Gender, Work and Organization, 4(2), 99-115.

Balsamo, Anne. (1995). Technologies of the gendered body: Reading cyborg women. Durham, NC: Duke University.

Barad, Karen. (1998). Getting real: Performativity, materiality, and technoscientific practices. differences, 10(2), 87-128.


Barad, Karen. (1999). Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 1-11). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1998)

Baran, B. (1987). The technological transformation of white-collar work: A case study of the insurance industry. In Heidi I. Hartmann, Robert E. Kraut, & Louise A. Tilly (Eds.), Computer chips and paper clips: Technology and women’s employment (vol. 2, pp. 23-62). Washington, DC: National Academy.

Bartow, Ann. (2000). Our data, ourselves: Privacy, propertization, and gender. University of South Florida Law Review, 34, 633ff.

Basalla, George. (1988). The evolution of technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bender, Gretchen, & Druckery, Timothy. (Eds.). (1994). Culture on the brink: Ideologies of technology. Seattle, WA: Bay Press.

Beniger, James R. (1984). The control revolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

Biagioli, Mario. (Ed.). (1999). The science studies reader. New York: Routledge.

Biagioli, Mario, Reid, Roddey, & Traweek, Sharon. (Eds.). (1994). Located knowledge: Intersections between science, gender, and cultural studies [special issue]. Configurations, 2(1).

Bijker, Wiebe E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Bijker, Wiebe, & Bijsterveld, Karin. (2000). Women walking through plans: Technology, democracy and gender identity. Technology and Culture, 41(3), 485-515.

Bijker, Wiebe E., Hughes, Thomas B., & Pinch, Trevor J. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Bijker, Wiebe E., & Law, John. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Blair, Kristine, &Takayoshi, Pamela. (1999). Feminist cyberspaces: Mapping gendered academic spaces. Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Boorstin, Daniel J. (1978)> The republic of technology. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Bose, Christine E., Bereano, Philip L., & Malloy, Mary. (1984). Household technology and the social construction of housework. Technology and Culture, 25(1), 53-82.

Brants, K. (1989). The social construction of the information revolution. European Journal of Communication, 3(4), 79-97.


Callahan, Ewa. (2004). Interface design and culture. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 257-310). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Callon, Michel, Law, John, & Rip, Arie. (Eds.). (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. London: MacMillan.

Callon, Michel. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas B. Hughes, & Trevor J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83-103). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Canel, Annie, Oldenziel, Ruth, & Zachman, Karin (Eds.). (2000). Crossing boundaries, building bridges: Comparing the history of women engineers, 1870s-1990s. London: Harwood Academic.

Cardwell, Donald. (1995). The Norton history of technology. New York: W.W. Norton.

Carey, James W., & Quirk, John J. (1970a). The mythos of the electronic revolution – Part I. American Scholar, 39(1), 219-241.

Carey, James W., & Quirk, John J. (1970b). The mythos of the electronic revolution – Part II. American Scholar, 39(2), 395-424.

Chandler, Alfred D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

Clark, Adele, & Montini, Teresa. (1993). The many faces of RU486: Tales of situated knowledge and technological contestations. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 18(1), 42-78.

Clarke, Alison J. (1998). Window shopping at home: Classifieds, catalogues and new consumer skills. In Daniel Miller (Ed.), Material cultures: Why some things matter (pp. 73-99). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Cockburn, Cynthia. (1983). Brothers: Male dominance and technological change. London: Pluto.

Cockburn, Cynthia. (1988). Machinery of dominance: Women, men, and technical know-how. Boston: Northeastern University.

Cockburn, Cynthia, & Ormrod, Susan. (1993). Gender and technology in the making. London: Sage.

Cockburn, Cynthia, & Fürst-Diliç, Rúza. (Eds.). (1994). Bringing technology home: Gender and technology in a changing Europe. Buckingham, UK: Open University.

Collins, Harry, & Kusch, Martin. (1998). The shape of action: What humans and machines can do. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Collins, Harry, & Pinch, Trevor. (1998). The golem at large: What you should know about technology. New York: Cambridge University.


Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Coombe, Rosemary J. (1994). Author/iszing the celebrity: Publicity rights, postmodern politics, and unauthorized genders. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 101-132). Durham, NC: Duke University.

Crompton, Rosemary, & Jones, Gareth. (1984). White-collar proletariat: Deskilling and gender in clerical work. London: Macmillan.

Curry Jansen, Sue. (1989). Gender and the information society: A socially structured silence. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 196-215.

Darnton, Robert. (1990). First steps towards a history of reading. In Kiss of Lamourette (pp. 154-190). London: Faber & Faber.

de Grazia, Victoria. (Ed.). (1996). The sex of things: Gender and consumption in historical perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Deem, R. (Ed.). (1980). Schooling for women’s work. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Downey, Gary, & Dumit, Joseph. (Eds.). (1997). Cyborgs and citadels: Anthropological interventions in the emerging sciences and technologies. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.

Edwards, Paul N. (1996). The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in cold war America. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Ehrenreich, Barbara, & English, Deirdre. (2005). For her own good: 150 years of the experts’ advice to women (2nd ed.). New York: Anchor.

Eisenstein, Hester. (1984). Contemporary feminist thought. London: Allen and Unwin.

Elger, T. (1987). Review article: Flexible futures? New technology and the contemporary transformation of work. Work, Employment and Society, 1(4), 528-540.

Ellul, Jacques. (1964). The technological society (trans. J. Wilkinson). New York: Knopf.

Ellul, Jacques. (1990). The technological bluff (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Engeström, Yrjö. (1990). When is a tool? Multiple meanings of artifacts in human activity. In Yrjö Engeström (Ed.), Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory (pp. 171-195). Helsinki: Konsutit Og.

Enloe, Cynthia H. (1983). Does khaki become you?: The militarisation of women’s lives. London: Pluto.


Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Faulkner, Wendy, & Arnold, Erik. (Eds.). (1985). Smothered by invention: Technology in women’s lives. London: Pluto.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (1992). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic.

Fee, Elizabeth. (1981). Women’s nature and scientific objectivity. In Marian Lowe & Ruth Hubbard (Eds.), Women’s nature: Rationalizations of inequality (pp. 9-27). New York: Pergamon.

Fischer, Claude. (1988a). Gender and the residential telephone, 1890-1940: Technologies of sociability. Sociological Forum, 3(2), 211-233.

Fischer, Claude. (1988b). “Touch someone”: The telephone industry discovers sociability. Technology and Culture, 29(1), 32-61.

Fischer, Claude S. (1992). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Flint, Kate. (1993). The woman reader, 1837-1914. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Flynn, Elizabeth A., & Schweickart, Patrocinio P. (1986). Gender and Reading: Essays on readers, texts, and contexts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Franklin, S., Lury, C., & Stacey, J. (1991). Feminism and cultural studies: Pasts, presents, futures. Media, Culture and Society, 13(2), 171-192.

Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Fritz, W. Barkley. (1996). The women of ENIAC. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 18(3), 13-28.

Galatea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatea_%28mythology%29

Galison, Peter. (1994). The ontology of the enemy: Norbert Wiener and the cybernetic vision. Critical Inquiry, 21(1), 228-265.

Gardey, Delphine. (2001). Mechanizing writing and photographing the word: Utopias, office work, and histories of gender and technology. History and Technology, 17(4), 319-352.

Garrety, Karin, & Badham, Richard. (2004). User-centered design and the normative politics of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(2), 191-212.

Gattiker, Urs E. (1994). Women and technology. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

Gere, Anne Ruggles. (1997). Intimate practices: Literacy and cultural work in U.S. women’s clubs, 1880-1920. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.


Gershuny, Jonathan. (1978). After industrial society: The emerging self-service economy. London: Macmillan.

Gordon, Linda Perlman. (1977). Woman’s body, woman’s right: A social history of birth control in America. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

de Grazia, Victoria, & Furlough, Ellen. (Eds.). (1996). Sex of things: Gender and consumption in historical perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Greek Mythology Link. (1997). Pygmalion 1. http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Pygmalion1.html

Green, Eileen, & Adam, Alison. (1998). On-line leisure: Gender and ICTs in the home. Information, Communication & Society, 1(3), 291-312.

Green, Eileen, Owen, Jenny, & Pain, Den. (1993). Gendered by design?: Information technology and office systems. London: Taylor & Francis.

Green, Karen, & Bigelow, John. (1998). Does science persecute women? The case of the 16th-17th century witch-hunts. Philosophy, 73(2), 195-217.

Greenbaum, Joan. (1979). In the name of efficiency: Management theory and shopfloor practices in data processing work. Philadelphia: Temple University.

Greenwood, Monique, Johnson, Lynda, & Mitchell-Brown, Tracy. (1999). The go on girl! book club guide for reading groups. New York: Hyperion.

Griffiths, Dorothy. (1985). The exclusion of women from technology. In Wendy Faulkner & Erik Arnold (Eds.), Smothered by invention: Technology in women’s lives (pp. 51-71). London: Pluto.

Grint, Keith, & Gill, Rosalind. (Eds.). (1995). The gender-technology relation: Contemporary theory and research. London: Taylor & Francis.

Grunberg, Gérald, & Giffard, Alain. (1993). New orders of knowledge, new technologies of reading. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 80-93). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Habib, Laurence, & Cornford, Tony. (2002). Computers in the home: domestication and gender. Information Technology & People, 15(2), 159-174.

Hacker, Sally L. (1981). The culture of engineering: Woman, workplace and machine. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 4(4), 341-353.

Hacker, Sally L. (1990). “Doing it the hard way”: Investigations of gender and technology. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Haddon, L. (1999). Gender and the domestication of the home computer: A look back. In W.H. Dutton (Ed.), Society on the line: Information politics in the information age (pp. 253-254). Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Hakken, David. (1999). Cyborgs@cyberspace?: An ethnographer looks to the future. New York: Routledge.


Haraway, Donna J. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and the nature of modern science. New York: Routledge.

Haraway, Donna J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.

Haraway, Donna J. (1992). The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate(d) others. In Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, & Paula A. Treichler (eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 295-337). New York: Routledge.

Hacker, S. (1990). “Doing it the hard way”: Investigations of gender and technology.

Harding, Sandra. (1986a). The instability of the analytic categories of feminist theory. Signs, 11(4), 645-664.

Harding, Sandra. (1986b). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Harding, Sandra. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Hardyment, Christina. (1988). From mangle to microwave: The mechanization of the household. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Hartley, Jenny. (2002). The reading groups book. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Hartman, Mary, & Banner, Lois. (Ed.). (1976). Clio’s consciousness raised. New York: Harper & Row.

Hartmann, H., Kraut, Robert, & Tilly, L. (Eds.). (1986, 1987). Computer chips and paper clips: Technology and women’s employment (vols. 1 and 2). Washington, DC: National Academy.

Hartouni, Valerie. (1997). Cultural conceptions: On reproductive technologies and the remaking of life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Hartsock, Nancy. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Sandra Harding & Merrill B. Hinitkka (Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology and philosophy of science (pp. 283-310). Dordrecht: Reidel.

Hawthorne, Susan, & Klein, Renate. (1999). Cyberfeminism: Connectivity, critique and creativity. North Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex.

Hayden, Dolores. (1980). Redesigning the domestic workplace. In Gerda R. Wekerle, Rebecca Peterson, & David Morley (Eds.), New space for women. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Hayden, Dolores. (1982). The grand domestic revolution: A history of feminist designs for American homes, neighborhoods, and cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hayden, Dolores. (2002). Redesigning the American dream: Gender, housing, and family life (Rev. and expanded ed.). New York: Norton. (Original published 1984)


Hayes, Kevin J. (1996). A colonial woman’s bookshelf. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.

Heap, N., Thomas, R., Einon, G., & Mason, R. (Eds.), Information technology and society: A reader. London: Sage.

Henderson, Kathryn. (1996). The visual culture of engineers. In Susan Leigh Star (Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 196-218). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Henwood, F. (1993). Establishing gender perspectives on information technology: Problems, issues and opportunities. In Eileen Green, Jenny Owen, & Den Pain, Gendered by design?: Information technology and office systems (pp. 31-49). London: Taylor & Francis.

Herzig, Rebecca. (2004). On performance, productivity, and vocabularies of motive in recent studies of science. Feminist Theory, 5(2), 127-147.

Hiley, David R., Bohman, James F., & Shusterman, Richard. (1991). The interpretive turn: Philosophy, science, culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Homans, Hilary. (Ed.). (1985). The sexual politics of reproduction. London: Gower.

Hopkins, Patrick D. (1999). Sex/machine: Readings in culture, gender, and technology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

Horowitz, Roger, & Mohun, Arwen. (Eds.). (1998). His and hers: Gender, consumption, and technology. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

Hughes, Thomas P. (1989). American genesis: A century of invention and technological enthusiasm. New York: Viking.

Hughes, Thomas P. (1999). The evolution of large technological systems [abridged]. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 202-223). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1987; abridged 1998)

Hughes, Thomas P. (2004). Human-built world: How to think about technology and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Hutchins, Edwin. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Hynes, Patricia H. (Ed.). (1991). Reconstructing Babylon: Essays on women and technology. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana.

Ito, Mizuko, O’Day, Vicki L., Adler, Annette, Linde, Charlotte, & Mynatt, Elizabeth D. (2001). Making a place for seniors on the net: SeniorNet, senior identity, and the digital divide. Computers and Society, 31(3), 15-21. Also available at http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=504696&coll=portal&dl=ACM&type=issue&idx=J198&part=periodical&WantType=periodical&title=ACM%20SIGCAS%20Computers%20and%20Society&CFID=60024550&CFTOKEN=47846330

Jackson, S. (1992). Towards a historical sociology of housework: A materialist feminist analysis. Women’s Studies International Forum, 15(2), 153-172.


Jarman, Neil. (1998). Material of culture, fabric of identity. In Daniel Miller (Ed.), Material cultures: Why some things matter (pp. 121-145). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Jaszi, Peter. (1994). On the author effect: Contemporary copyright and collective creativity. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 29-56). Durham, NC: Duke University.

Julien, Heidi. (2005). Women’s ways of knowing. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 387-391). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Karpf, A. (1987). Recent feminist approaches to women and technology. In M. McNeil (Ed.), Gender and expertise (pp. 158-170). London: Free Association Books.

Kasson, John F. (1999). Civilizing the machine: Technology and republican values in America, 1776-1900. New York: Hill and Wang. (Original published 1976)

Keller, Evelyn Fox. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Keller, Evelyn Fox. (1992). Secrets of life, secrets of death: Essays on language, gender, and science. New York: Routledge.

Keller, Evelyn Fox, & Longino, Helen E. (Eds.). (1996). Feminism and science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Kelly, A. (Ed.). (1981). The missing half: Girls and science education. Manchester, UK: Manchester University.

Kerber, Linda. (1988). Separate spheres, female worlds, woman’s place: The rhetoric of women’s history. Journal of American History, 75(1), 9-39.

Kerber, Linda K., Kessler-Harris, & Sklar, Kathryn Kish. (Eds.). (1995). U.S. history as women’s history: New feminist essays. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Kessler-Harris, Alice. (1982). Out to work: A history of wage-earning women in the United States. New York: Oxford University.

Kevles, Bettyann Holtzmann. (1997). Naked to the bone: Medical imaging in the twentieth century. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Kidder, Tracy. (1982). The soul of a new machine. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Kingery, W. David (Ed.). (1996). Learning from things: Methods and theory of material culture studies. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Klein, Lawrence E. (1996). Gender and the public/private distinction in the eighteenth century: Some questions about evidence and analytic procedure. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 29(1), 97-109.


Kling, Rob. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics. The Information Society, 16(3), 217-232. Also available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/utis/2000/00000016/00000003;jsessionid=1m0eji43lawmt.henrietta

Knoblauch, C.H., & Brannon, Lil. (1993). Critical teaching and the idea of literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Reed Publishing.

Kraft, Philip. (1977). Programmers and managers: The routinization of computer programming in the United States. New York: Springer Verlag.

Kraft, Philip. (1979). The routinization of computer programming. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 6, 139-155.

Kramarae, Cheris. (Ed.). (1988). Technology and women’s voices: Keeping in touch. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kranakis, Eda. (1989). Social determinants of engineering practice: A comparative view of France and America in the nineteenth century. Social Studies of Science, 19(1), 5-70.

Kubler, George. (1962). The shape of time: Remarks on the history of things. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Latour, Bruno. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and society: Studies in the sociology of culture past and present (Vol. 6, pp. 1-40). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Latour, Bruno. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Lave, Jean. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Étienne. (1992). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Law, John. (1987). Review article: The structure of sociotechnical engineering – A review of the new sociology of technology. The Sociological Review, 35(2), 404-425.

Lee, Josie Laurite. (2004). Literacy practices: An alternative definition for women-focused institutions, pedagogy, and research. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 32(1 & 2), 28-42.

Lenoir, Timothy. (Ed.). (1998). Inscribing scientific texts and the materiality of communication. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Leonard, Eileen B. (2002). Women, technology, and the myth of progress. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lerman, Nina E., Mohun, Arwen Palmer, & Oldenziel, Ruth. (1997). Versatile tools: Gender analysis and the history of technology. Technology and Culture, 38(1), 1-8.



Levy, David M. (2003). Documents and libraries: A sociotechnical perspective. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 25-42). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Lewis, Linda H. (1987). Females and computers: Fostering involvement. In Barbara Drygulski Wright (Ed.), Women, work, and technology (pp. 268-280). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Leys Stepan, Nancy. (1996). Race and gender: The role of analogy in science. In Evelyn Fox Keller & Helen E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism and science (pp. 121-136). Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Lie, Merete. (1995). Technology and masculinity: The case of the computer. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 2(3), 379-394.

Light, Jennifer S. (1999). When computers were women. Technology and Culture, 40(3), 455-483.

Lindqvist, Svante. (1984). Technology on trial: The introduction of steam power technology into Sweden. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Lipartito, Kenneth. (1994). When women were switches: Technology, work, and gender in the telephone industry, 1890-1920. American Historical Review, 99(4), 1075-1111.

Long, Elizabeth. (1993). Textual interpretation as collective action. In Jonathan Boyarin (Ed.), The ethnography of reading (pp. 180-211). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Long, Elizabeth. (2003). Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Longino, Helen. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Lubar, Steven, & Kingery, W. David. (Eds.). (1993). History from things: Essays on material culture. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Lublin, Nancy. (1998). Pandora’s box: Feminism confronts reproductive technology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lunsford, Andrea A., & Ede, Lisa. (1994). Collaborative authorship and the teaching of writing. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 417-438). Durham, NC: Duke University.

Lupton, Ellen. (1993). Mechanical brides: Women and machines from home to office. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.


Lury, Celia. (1993). Technologies of culture and gender. In Cultural rights: Technology, legality and personality (pp. 177-206). London: Routledge.

Mack, Pamela. (2001). What difference has feminism made to engineering in the twentieth century? In Angela N.H. Creager, Elizabeth Lunbeck, & Londa Schiebinger (Eds.), Feminism in twentieth-century science, technology, and medicine (pp. 149-164). Chicago: University of Chicago.

MacKenzie, Donald. (1990). Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

MacKenzie Donald, & Wajcman, Judy. (Eds.). (1999). The social shaping of technology (rev. and expanded ed.). Birmingham, UK: Open University.

Maines, Rachel P. (1999). The technology of orgasm: “Hysteria,” the vibrator, and women’s sexual satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Manguel, Alberto. (1996). A history of reading. London: HarperCollins.

Mansell, R, & Silverstone, R. (Eds.). (1996). Communication by design: The politics of information and communication technologies. New York: Oxford University.

Marcus, George. (Ed.). (1995). Technoscientific imaginaries. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Margolis, M. (1985). Mothers and such: Views of American women and why they changed. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Margolis, Jane, & Fisher, Allan. (2001). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Martin, C. Dianne. (1993). The myth of the awesome thinking machine. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 120-133.

Martin, Emily. (1992). The end of the body? American Ethnologist, 19(1), 121-140.

Martin, Emily. (1996). Flexible bodies: Tracking immunity in American culture from the days of polio to the age of AIDS. Boston: Beacon.

Martin, Michele. (1991). “Hello Central?”: Gender, technology, and culture in the formation of telephone systems. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University.

Marvin, Carolyn. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University.

Marx, Gary. (2003). Technology and gender: Thomas I. Voire and the case of the peeping Tom. Sociological Quarterly, 43(3), 407-433.

Marx, Leo. (1964). The machine in the garden: Technology and the pastoral ideal in America. New York: Oxford University.

Marx, Leo. (1988). The pilot and the passenger: Essays on literature, technology and culture in the United States. New York: Oxford University.


Marx, Leo. (1990). Does improved technology mean progress? In Albert H. Teich (Ed.), Technology and the future (5th ed.; pp. 3-14). New York: St. Martin’s Press. (Original published 1987)

Massey, Doreen. (1995). Masculinity, dualisms and high technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20(4), 487-500.

McClung, Andrew Jay. (1995). Bringing privacy out of the closet: A tort theory of liability for intrusions in public places. North Carolina Law Review, 73, 989ff.

McGaw, Judith A. (1982). Women and the history of American technology: Review essay. Signs, 7(4), 798-828.

McGaw, Judith A. (1997). Review essay: Inventors and other great women: Toward a feminist history of technological luminaries. Technology and Culture, 38(1), 214-231.

McIlwee, Judith S., & Robinson, J. Gregg. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

McLuhan, Marshall. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

McNeil, Maureen. (Ed.). (1987). Gender and expertise. London: Free Association Books.

McNeil, Maureen. (2000). Techno-triumphalism, techno-tourism, American dreams and feminism. In Sara Ahmed, Jane Kilby, Celia Lury, Maureen McNeil, & Beverley Skeggs (Eds.), Transformations: thinking through feminism (pp. 221-234). London: Routledge.

McNeil, Maureen, Varcoe, Ian, & Yearley, Steven. (Eds.). (1990). The new reproductive technologies. London: MacMillan.

Miles, Ian. (1988). Home informatics: Information technology and the transformation of everyday life. London: Pinter.

Millar, Melanie Stewart. (1998). Cracking the gender code: Who rules the wired world? Toronto: Second Story.

Miller, Daniel. (1998). Why some things matter. In Daniel Miller (Ed.), Material cultures: Why some things matter (pp. 3-21). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Miller, Daniel. (Ed.). (1998). Material cultures: Why some things matter. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Miller, Mev. (2004). Editorial. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 32(1 & 2), 6-27.

Moore, Henrietta. (1990). Paul Ricoeur: Action, meaning and text. In Christopher Tilley (Ed.), Reading material culture: Structuralism, hermeneutics and post-structuralism (pp. 85-120). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Morgan, A.J., Quesenberry, J.L., & Trauth, E.M. (2004). Exploring the importance of social networks in the IT workforce: Experiences with the “Boy's Club.”


Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1313-1320), New York, NY.

Morgan, Konrad, Brebbia, C.A., Sanchez, J., & Voiskounsky, A. (Eds.). (2004). Human perspectives in the Internet society: Culture, psychology and gender. Southampton, UK: WIT.

Morison, Elting. (1966). Men, machines, and modern times. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Morison, Elting. (1974). From know-how to nowhere. New York: Basic Books.

Morley, David, & Silverstone, Roger. (1990). Domestic communication: Technologies and meanings. Media, Culture and Society, 12(1), 31-56.

Morton, Donald. (1999). Birth of the cyberqueer. In Jenny Wolmark (Ed.), Cybersexualities: A reader on feminist theory, cyborgs, and cyberspace (pp. 295-313). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.

Moyal, Ann. (1989). The feminine culture of the telephone. Prometheus, 7(1), 5-31.

Mulkay, Michael. (1979). Knowledge and utility: Implications for the sociology of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 9(1), 63-80.

Mumford, Lewis. (1934). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.

Murcott, A. (1983). Women’s place: Cookbooks’ images of technique and technology in the British kitchen. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(1), 3-9.

Mythography. (no date). Galatea. http://www.loggia.com/myth/galatea.html

Nagel, Thomas. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Nardi, Bonnie A., & O’Day, Vicki L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Nelson, Lynn H., Nelson, Jack. (Eds.). (1996). Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Noble, David F. (1977). America by design: Science, technology and the rise of corporate capitalism. New York: Knopf.

Noble, David F. (1984). Forces of production: A social history of industrial automation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Noble, David F. (1997). The religion of technology: The divinity of man and the spirit of invention. New York: Knopf.

Nye, David E. (1990). Electrifying America: Social meanings of a new technology, 1880-1940. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Oakley, Ann. (2000). Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. New York: The New Press.


O’Keefe, Deborah. (2000). Good girl messages: How young women were misled by their favorite books. London: Continuum.

Oldenziel, Ruth. (1999). Making technology masculine: Men, women and modern machines in America, 1870-1945. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University.

Olsen, Bjørnar. (1990). Roland Barthes: From sign to text. In Christopher Tilley (Ed.), Reading material culture: Structuralism, hermeneutics and post-structuralism (pp. 163-205). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Olson, Linda, & Kerby-Fulton, Kathryn. (Eds.). (2005). Voices in dialogue: Reading women in the middle ages. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame.

Ong, Walter J. (1982). Orality & literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.

Ortner, Sherry. (1997). Making gender: The politics and erotics of culture. Boston: Beacon.

Oudshoorn, N.E.J. (1999). On masculinities, technologies and pain: The testing of male contraceptives technologies in the clinic and the media. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 24(2), 265-290.

Oudshoorn, Nelly, & Pinch, Trevor. (Eds.). (2003). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Oudshoorn, Nelly, Rommes, Els, & Stienstra, Marcelle. (2004). Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(1), 30-63.

Pacey, Arnold. (1983). The culture of technology. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Pacey, Arnold. (1992). The maze of ingenuity: Ideas and idealism in the development of technology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original work published 1974)

Pacey, Arnold. (1999). Meaning in technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Park, Julie. (2006). Pains and pleasures of the automaton: Frances Burney’s mechanics of coming out. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 40(1), 23-49.

Parker, Roszika. (1984). The subversive stitch: Embroidery and the making of the feminine. London: Women’s Press.

Parr, Joy. (1999). Domestic goods: The material, the moral and the economic in the postwar years. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Pearce, Susan M. (1992). Museums, objects and collections: A cultural study. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Pellegram, Andrea. (1998). The message in paper. In Daniel Miller (Ed.), Material cultures: Why some things matter (pp. 103-120). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Perry, J.P.H. (2001). Unemployed engineers. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 160-168). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1938)


Petchesky, R. (1987). Foetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. In M. Stanworth (Ed.), Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood and medicine. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Pickstone, John V. (2000). Ways of knowing: A new history of science, technology and medicine. Manchester, UK: Manchester University.

Pinch, Trevor J., & Bijker, Wiebe E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas B. Hughes, & Trevor J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Pool, Robert. (1997). Beyond engineering: How society shapes technology. New York: Oxford University.

Prown, Jules David. (1996). Material/culture: Can the farmer and the cowman still be friends? In W. David Kingery (Ed.), Learning from things: Methods and theory of material culture studies (pp. 19-27). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Pursell, Carroll W. (1990). Technology in America: A history of individuals and ideas (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Pursell, Carroll W. (1995). The machine in America: A social history of technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Quesenberry, J.L. and Trauth, E.M. (2005). The role of ubiquitous computing in maintaining work-life balance: Perspectives from women in the IT workforce. In C. Sorensen, Y. Yoo, K. Lyytinen, & J.I. DeGross (Eds.), Designing ubiquitous information environments: Socio-technical issues and challenges (pp. 43-55). IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Working Conferences, August 1-3, 2005.

Quimby, Ian M.G. (Ed.). (1978). Material culture and the study of American life. New York: Norton.

Radway, Janice A. (1991). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Radway, Janice A. (1997). A feeling for books: The Book-of-the-Month Club, literary taste, and middle-class desire. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Rakow, Lana F. (1988a). Gendered technology, gendered practices. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5(1), 57-70.

Rakow, Lana F. (1988b). Women and the telephone: The gendering of a communications technology. In Cheris Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women’s voices: Keeping in touch (pp. 207-229). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Rakow, Lana F. (1992). Gender on the line: Women, the telephone, and community life. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

Rakusen, Jill, & Davidson, Nick. (1982). Out of our hands: What technology does to pregnancy. London: Pan.


Ravetz, Alison. (1965). Modern technology and an ancient occupation: Housework in present-day society. Technology and Culture, 6(2), 256-260.

Ravetz, Alison. (1987). Housework and domestic technologies. In Maureen McNeil (Ed.), Gender and expertise. London: Free Association Books.

Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Richards, Evelleen, & Schuster, John. (1989). The feminine method as myth and accounting resource: A challenge to gender studies and social studies of science. Social Studies of Science, 19(4), 697-720.

Rickard, John. (no date). Pygmalion and Galatea. http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rickard/Hypermedia/HTML/pygmalion.html

Riggs, Karen E. (2004). Granny @ work: Aging and new technology on the job in America. New York: Routledge. Also available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.netLibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=115753

Romanyshyn, Robert D. (1989). Technology as symptom and dream. New York: Routledge.

Ross, Andrew. (2001). Hacking away at the counterculture. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 325-347). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original published 1991)

Rosser, Sue V. (Ed.). (1995). Teaching the majority: Breaking the gender barrier in science, mathematics, and engineering. New York: Teachers College.

Rossiter, Margaret W. (1992). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original published 1982)

Rossiter, Margaret W. (1992a). Introduction. In Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940 (xv-xviii). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original published 1982)

Rossiter, Margaret W. (1992b). Preface. In Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940 (xi-xii). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original published 1982)

Rossiter, Margaret W. (1993). The Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325-341.

Rossiter, Margaret W. (1992c). Women’s clubs and prizes: Compensatory recognition. In Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940 (pp. 297-316 and 394-397). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original published 1982)

Rossiter, Margaret W. (1995). Women scientists in America: Before affirmative action, 1940-1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Rothman, Barbara Katz. (1989). Recreating motherhood: Ideology and technology in a patriarchal society. New York: W.W. Norton.


mailto:Granny@work

Rothschild, Joan. (Ed.). (1983). Machina ex dea: Feminist perspectives on technology. New York: Pergamon.

Rothschild, Joan. (1988). Teaching technology from a feminist perspective. New York : Pergamon

Rothschild, Joan. (1989). From sex to gender in the history of technology. In Stephen H. Cutliffe & Robert C. Post (Eds.), In context: History and the history of technology (pp. 192-203). Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University.

Rouse, Joseph. (1999). Understanding scientific practices: Cultural studies of science as a philosophical program. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 442-456). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1998)

Sale, Kirkpatrick. (1995). Rebels against the future: The Luddites and their war on the Industrial Revolution: Lessons for the computer age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schwartz Cowan, Ruth. (1976). The “Industrial Revolution” in the home: Household technology and social change in the 20th century. Technology and Culture, 17(1), 1-24.

Schwartz Cowan, Ruth. (1979). From Virginia Dare to Virginia Slims: Women and technology in American life. Technology and Culture, 20(1), 51-63.

Schwartz Cowan, Ruth. (1983). More work for mother: The ironies of household technologies from the open hearth to the microwave. New York: Basic Books.

Scharff, Virginia. (1991). Taking the wheel: Women and the coming of the motor age. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico.

Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. (1986). The railway journey: The industrialization of time and space in the 19th century. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Schön, Donald. (1983). From technical rationality to reflection-in-action. In The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (pp. 21-69 and 357-359). New York: Basic Books.

Schön, Donald. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schuler, Douglas. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. New York: ACM.

Schuler, Douglas, & Namioka, Aki. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erblaum.

Scott, Joan W. (1999). Gender and the politics of history (rev. ed.). New York: Columbia University.

Scott-Dixon, Krista. (2004). Doing IT: Women working in information technology. Toronto: Sumach.


Shade, Leslie Regan. (1998b). Women and media bibliography. Available at http://courseweb.edteched.uottawa.ca/cmn3104/bib.htm

Shade, Leslie Regan. (2002). Gender and community in the social construction of the Internet. New York: Peter Lang.

Shade, Leslie Regan, & Crow, Barbara. (2004). Canadian feminist perspectives on digital technology. Topia: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 11, 161-176.

Shapin, Steven. (1999). The house of experiment in seventeenth-century England. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 479-504). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1988)

Shaw, George Bernard. (1994). Pygmalion (Ed. Thomas Crofts). Mineola, NY: Dover Thrift Editions. (Original work published 1916)

Sicherman, Barbara. (1995). Reading Little Women: The many lives of a text. In Linda K. Kerber, Alice Kessler-Harris, & Kathryn Kish Sklar (Eds.), U.S. history as women’s history: New feminist essays (pp. 245-266). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Silverman, Eric Kline. (1990). Clifford Geertz: Towards a more “thick” understanding? In Christopher Tilley (Ed.), Reading material culture: Structuralism, hermeneutics and post-structuralism (pp. 121-159). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Silverstone, R, & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: Technical change and everyday life. In R. Mansell & R. Silverstone (Eds.). Communication by design: The politics of information and communication technologies (pp. 44-74). New York: Oxford University.

Silverstone, R., & Hirsch, E. (1992). Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge.

Smith, Merritt Roe, & Marx, Leo. (Eds.). (1994). Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Sørensen, K.H. (1992). Towards a feminized technology? Gendered values in the construction of technology. Social Studies of Science, 22(1), 5-31.

Stanley, Autumn. (1993). Mothers and daughters of invention: Notes for a revised history of technology. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.

Star, Susan Leigh. (1991). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conversations: On being allergic to onions. In John Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 25-56). London: Routledge.

Star, Susan Leigh. (Ed.). (1995a). The cultures of computing. Oxford, UK: Blackwell..

Star, Susan Leigh. (Ed.). (1995b). Ecologies of knowledge: Work and politics in science and technology. Albany, NY: State University of New York.


Staudenmaier, John M. (1989). Technology’s storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Stein, D. (1985). Ada: A life and legacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stern, Susannah R. (2004a). Expressions of identity online: Prominent features and gender differences in adolescents’ WWW home pages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(2), 218-243.Also available at http://weblinks2.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+ufhjnh+bt+ID++%22JBE%22+586E&_ug=sid+935145AE%2D3B88%2D428B%2DB042%2D3FE41853BCAC%40sessionmgr2+dbs+ufh+cp+1+DDD8&_us=hd+False+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00082915+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+CCF9&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Journal++of++Broadcasting++%26++Electronic++Media%22++and++DT++20040601+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Dufh+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+719D&lfr=Hierarchical+Journal&uh=1&sci=S1

Stern, Susannah R. (2004b). Studying youth online: A consideration of ethical issues. In E.A. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 274-287). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Stone, Allucquere R. (1996). The war of desire and technology at the end of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Strom, Sharon Hartman. (1992). Beyond the typewriter: Gender, class, and the origins of modern American office, 1900-1930. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

Strasser, Susan. (1982). Never done: A history of American housework. New York: Pantheon.

Suchman, Lucy, Blomberg, Jeanette, Orr, Julian E., & Trigg, Randall. (1999). Reconstructing technologies as social practice. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 392-408.

Sweetman, Caroline. (1999). Gender and technology. Oxford, UK: Oxfam.

Taylor, H. Jeanie, Kramarae, Cheris, & Ebben, Maureen. (Eds.). (1993). Women, information technology, and scholarship. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

Taylor, Robert S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194.

Teich, Albert H. (Ed.). (1990). Technology and the future (5th ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Terry, Jennifer, & Calvert, Melodie. (Eds.). (1997). Processed lives: Gender and technology in everyday life. New York: Routledge.

Tijdens, Kea, Jennings, Mary, Wagner, Ina, & Weggelaar, Magaret. (Eds.). (1989). Women, work and computerization: Forming new alliances. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Tobey, Ronald C. (1996). Technology as freedom: The New Deal and the electrical modernization of the American home. Berkeley, CA: University of California.


Tone, Andrea. (2001). Devices and desire: A history of contraception in America. New York: Hill and Wang.

Trauth, Eileen M. (2002). Odd girl out: An individual differences perspective on women in the IT profession. Information Technology & People, 15(2), 98-118.

Trauth, Eileen M., & Quesenberry, J.L. (2007). Gender and the information technology workforce: Issues of theory and practice. In Pak Yoong, & Sid Huff (Eds.), Managing IT professional in the Internet age (pp. 18-36). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Traweek, Sharon. (1999). Pilgrim’s progress: Male tales told during a life in physics [abridged]. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 525-542). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1988; abridged 1998)

Trescott, Martha Moore. (Ed.). (1979). Dynamos and virgins revisited: Women and technological change in history. Methuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.

Turkle, Sherry. (1988). Computational reticence: Why women fear the intimate machine. In Cheris Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women’s voices: Keeping in touch (pp. 41-61). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Turkle, Sherry. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster

Turkle, Sherry. (1999). What are we thinking about when we are thinking about computers? [abridged]. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 543-552). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1995; abridged 1998)

Ullman, Ellen. (1997). Close to the machine: Technophilia and its discontents. San Francisco: City Light Books.

Vanek, Joann. (1974). Time spent on housework. Scientific American, 231(5), 116-120.

Van House, Nancy A. (2003). Science and technology studies and information studies. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 3-86). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Vitale, Antonietta. (2003). Video voyeurism and the right to privacy: The time for federal legislation is now. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 27, 381ff.

Waddell, J.A.L. (2001). Some notes on vocational guidance. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 155-160). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1928)

Wagner, Ina. (1993). Women’s voice: The case of nursing systems. AI and Society, 7(4), 295-310.

Walshok, Mary. (1981). Blue collar women: Pioneers on the male frontier. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Walshok, Mary Lindenstein. (1990). Blue collar women. In Albert H. Teich (Ed.), Technology and the future (5th ed.; pp. 288-296). New York: St. Martin’s Press. (Original published 1983)


Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Wekerle, Gerda R., Peterson, Rebecca, & Morley, David. (Eds.). (1980). New space for women. Boulder, CO: Westview.

van den Wijngaard, Marianne. (1997). Reinventing the sexes: The biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana.

Weinberg, Sandy. (1990). Expanding access to technology: Computer equity for women. In Albert H. Teich (Ed.), Technology and the future (5th ed.; pp. 277-287). New York: St. Martin’s Press. (Original published 1987)

Williams, Rosalind. (1990). Notes on the underground: An essay on technology, society, and the imagination. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Wilson, Melanie. (2002). Making nurses visible? Gender, technology and the care plan as script. Information Technology & People, 15(2), 139-158.

Winner, Langdon. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics out of control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Winner, Langdon. (1986). The whale and the reactor. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Winner, Langdon. (1990). The whale and the reactor. In Albert H. Teich (Ed.), Technology and the future (5th ed.; pp. 262-276). New York: St. Martin’s Press. (Original published 1986)

Winterowk, W. Ross. (1989). The culture and politics of literacy. New York: Oxford University.

Wolmark, Jenny. (Ed.). (1999). Cybersexualities: A reader on feminist theory, cyborgs, and cyberspace. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.

Woodfield, Ruth. (2002). Women and information systems development: Not just a pretty (inter)face? Information Technology & People, 15(2), 119-138.

Woodmansee, Martha. (1994). On the author effect: Recovering collectivity. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 15-28). Durham, NC: Duke University.

Wosk, Julie. (2003). Women and the machine: Representations from the spinning wheel to the electronic age. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Wright, Barbara Drygulski. (Ed.). (1987). Women, work, and technology: Transformations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Wyatt, Sally. (2004). Danger! Metaphors at work in economics, geophysiology, and the Internet. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(2), 242-261.

Wylie, Alison. (1999). The engendering of archaeology: Refiguring feminist science studies [abridged]. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 553-567). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1997; abridged 1998)


Yelland, Nicola, & Rubin, Andee. (2002). Ghosts in the machine: Women’s voices in research with technology. New York: Peter Lang.

Ziman, John. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. London: Cambridge University.

Ziman, John. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Zimmerman, Jan. (Ed.). (1983). The technological woman: Interfacing with tomorrow. New York: Praeger.

Zimmerman, Jan. (1986). Once upon the future: A woman’s guide to tomorrow’s technology. New York: Pandora.


GENDER, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFORMATION -...

Documents

Transcript of GENDER, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFORMATION -...