GENDER, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFORMATION
GENDER, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFORMATION
INF 386G/WGS 393
# 28880/46364
Dr. Philip Doty
School of Information
Technology and Information Policy Institute
Center for Women’s and Gender Studies
University of Texas at Austin
FA 2021
Class time: Wednesday 9:00 AM – 12:00 Noon
Place: All meetings synchronous online by Zoom
Office: UTA 5.452
Office hours: All office hours will be virtual
Monday 1:00 – 2:00 PM (by Zoom, telephone, email)
By appointment other times
Telephone: 512.471.3746 – direct line
512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist
512.471.3821 – main iSchool office
Email: pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu
Class URL:
(the sections are combined into one Canvas instantiation)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Land acknowledgement 3
Introduction to the course 4
Expectations of students’ performance 5
Analysis and holism in reading, writing, and presenting 6
Standards for written work 7
Some editing conventions for students’ papers 12
Grading 13
Texts 14
List of assignments 16
Outline of the course (topics, readings, assignment dates) 17
Assignments
Essay on gender and technology 20
Leading in-class discussion and annotated bibliography 20
Paper on gender, technology, and information 21
References
Sources in the class schedule 23
Additional sources (AS) of value 29
Selected important journals 43
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks to Professor Loriene Roy of the UT iSchool for the following. Dr. Roy introduces herself as Anishinabe, enrolled on the White Earth Reservation, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Her father was Mississippi Band, her mother is Pembina Band, and, in her words, “we are mukwa, bear clan”:
We acknowledge that the iSchool sits on indigenous land. The Tonkawa lived in central Texas and the Comanche and Apache moved through this area. Today, various indigenous peoples from all over the globe visit Austin and/or call it home. We are grateful to be able to study and learn on this piece of Turtle Island. Since our class is online, you may be contributing from other tribal lands. Here is a map that may help you in identifying the indigenous peoples of the land on which you study:
To read more about land acknowledgement, see: Stewart, Mariah, "Acknowledging Native Land is a Step Against Indigenous Erasure," Insight Into Diversity, December 19, 2020. Available at:
Many thanks to Dr. Roy for this acknowledgement and permission to quote her identification statement.
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
Gender, Technology, and Information (INF 385T/WGS 393) critically examines the three elements of the course’s title in relation to each other. Students will be asked to explore various perspectives on the interactions, historically and currently, among gender, technology, and information. Topics include science and technology studies; techno-feminism; intersectionality; domestic technologies; reproductive and sexual technologies; data feminism; and the gendered character of computing and networked technologies.
During the fall 2021 semester, INF 386G and WGS 393 ill have all of its 14 class meetings synchronously online, and we will rely on the UT course management platform Canvas for its various functions. We will meet through Zoom at the appointed class meeting time: Wednesday 9:00 AM - 12:00 Noon Central time.
Graduate students from all disciplines and academic units in the University are welcome in the course, and students may take the class for a letter grade or credit/no credit with the instructor’s permission. For the course to count toward iSchool Master’s degrees including the dual MS/MA with Women’s and Gender Studies, however, the course must be taken for a letter grade.
In this course, we will assume a non-essentialist position about gender, i.e., we will not support the assertion that there are some inherent, identifiable differences among people of different genders, nor will we presume the long-established gender binary. We also are interested in gender as broadly as possible, considering but also moving beyond “feminism and . . .” or “women in . . .” as the focus of the course.
Technology is the second significant concept for our course. We will not limit our consideration of technology to digital technologies this semester, or, for that matter, only to information and communication technologies (ICT’s). We will examine artifacts such as computers, paper, housework technologies, books, games, sexual and reproductive technologies, and other technologies, while remembering that technology studies includes many other elements, e.g., music, language, literary genres, social conventions, and practices of many 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 many scholars consider it only a fiction. As such, information is not “in our minds” or “in files” or the like. The instructor, therefore, will generally 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. This last approach complements the critical considerations of gender and technology that also characterize the course.
The course comprises three units over 14 class meetings:
1. Introduction to technology and gender studies (4 class meetings)
2. Gendered looks at some specific technologies (9)
3. Students’ research (1).
As possible, we will have a small number of guest speakers, from UT-Austin and elsewhere, join us in our class meetings, whether in-person or virtually.
EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE
Students will be involved and vigorous participants in class discussions and in the conduct of the class, whether synchronous or asynchronous. To the extent possible, the instructor aims to have every student participate in every class meeting’s discussion. In addition, students must:
• Attend all class sessions. Notifying the instructor ahead of time is crucial. Further, if a student misses a class, it is their 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 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 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 hour course requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside class.
• Participate in all class discussions.
• Complete all assignments on time. Late assignments will not be accepted except in the limited 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 e-books and other shared material.
• Ask for help from the instructor in class, during office hours, via Zoom, telephone, email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially useful for information questions, and the instructor will ordinarily respond to a message within 24 hours.
Academic integrity is paramount in the academy and professional life. The UT Dean of Students has an excellent, brief summary of means for ensuring academic integrity at (); see the three links there.
Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud is intolerable and will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. All instances of academic dishonesty will be reported to both the iSchool administration and the UT Dean of Students. If there is concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, students should consult the instructor.
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 and writing 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 questions: How? Why? So what?
• 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 any potential courses of action you recommend or describe.
• 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, Suggestions for Writing Policy Analysis, and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further explanations and examples.
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK
Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what her audience knows; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity, especially in professional writing. Similarly, good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Friedman & Steinberg remind us that “reading, writing, and thinking are interrelated” and are all essential to learning ((1989, xiii and p. 9).
Recall that writing is a form of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. Writing is not only a means to communicate with others, but is also a means to discover our own ideas more completely and in context, “to learn the full meaning of these ideas by seeing them in relation to each other” (Friedman & Steinberg, p. 22). For example, well known political theorist and public policy expert Aaron Wildavsky argues convincingly in Craftways: On the Organization of Scholarly Work (1989, p. 9):
I do not know what I think until I have tried to write it. Sometimes the purpose of writing is to discover whether I can express what I think I know; if it cannot be written, it is not right. Other times I write to find out what I know; writing becomes a form of self discovery . . . . [F]ew feelings compare with the exhilaration of discovering a thought in the writing that was not in the thinking.
Wildavsky’s book is now in its seventh enlarged edition published in 2019 and available as an e-book in the UT Libraries. Please remember, however, that we need not adopt the incipient positivism to appreciate Wildavsky’s point.
What follows is some specific advice to help students meet professional standards of clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in written assignments. The instructor uses this advice to evaluate all assignments, so students should be sure to review these standards before and after writing.
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, in one of three font styles: Times, Times New Roman, or Palatino.
Some writing assignments demand the use of references and may require either footnotes or endnotes. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information that notes and references are impeccably done. In this course, students must 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 professional societies, journals, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. Students should always follow the instructors’ directions for written work but may also consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2019, 7th ed.) and Purdue’s OWL Web site () and its related resources.
Students should not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in professional writing. Instead, students should consult a specialized dictionary, e.g., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy; subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences; and/or a glossary or dictionary provided by a reputable professional association. The best alternative, however, is understanding the literature related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of the literature.
Students should always use a spell checker but be aware that spell checking dictionaries have systematic weaknesses: they exclude most proper nouns, e.g., personal and place names; they omit most technical terms; they omit most foreign words and phrases; and they cannot identify homophones, e.g., "there" instead of "their,” or the error in writing "the" in place of "them."
It is important to proofread work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read one’s writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Reading one’s work aloud is another widely used strategy for improving one’s writing. While the instructor relies on submission of all assignments in Canvas to the appropriate Assignment folder, please be certain that all assignments clearly indicate:
• The title of the assignment
• The student’s name
• The date
• The class number and title – either INF 386G Gender, Technology and Information or WGS 393 Gender, Technology, and Information.
The instructor will be happy to address any questions about these standards.
Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, the instructor reads and edits students’ work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a professional conference would. The reminders below help produce professional written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 24 (some have more than one error):
1. Number all pages after the title page. Notes and references do not count against page limits.
2. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* Graduate work and professional communication should 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."
3. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope."*
4. Avoid computer technospeak such as "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in specific technical ways.
5. Avoid using “content” as a noun.
6. 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 related to information retrieval in information studies and cognate disciplines.
7. 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.
8. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*
9. Generally, 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.
10. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.
11. 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 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.
12. "If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were only taller," not “was.”
13. 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, a better rendering is, "he goes only to Antone's."
14. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.
15. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.
16. Avoid misplaced modifiers. For example, it is misleading to write the following sentence: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the lecture. The sentence misleads 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.
17. 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.
18. The words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are still all PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. Unfortunately, that is no longer true for “opera” and “agenda.”
19. "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.
20. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*
21. "Between" denotes two alternatives, while "among" three or more.
22. Generally, avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to persons in writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates as appropriate in APA.
23. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, it is common to 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?).
24. See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2019, 7th ed.) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples.
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 usually indicate quotations within quotations in American English.
28. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page or other digital source without page numbers, 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. Assuming the two terms are identical often confuses syntax and the reader.
30. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."
31. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" identifies 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 "topic.” This admonition is especially important in this course where the study of public policy is its main focus.
32. While the Congress and other legislative bodies have debates, careful writers, including your instructor, choose to avoid the locution of “public debate.” Such a locution makes a series of faulty assumptions:
• It presumes that a controversy, whether a public policy issue or other important matter of disagreement (i.e., dissensus), has only two “sides.” There are usually three or four or more perspectives on any topic of public dissensus that merit consideration. “Debate” hides this multivalent complexity.
• “Debate” implies that one “side” and only one “side” can be correct; that presumption ignores the fact that the many perspectives on a controversy have merit.
• “Debate” implies that there can be and will be one and only one “winner.” This presumption naively ignores the fact that some disagreements are intractable, that these issues are often emergent as are their resolutions, and that compromise is oftentimes a mark of success rather than of failure or “surrender.”
33. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”
34. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.
35. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,” “participants,” and “informants” are preferred terms and have been for decades.
36. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not footnotes. Please discuss any such use with the instructor in advance.
37. Please adhere to this orthographic (spelling) convention of spelling Internet” with a capital “I” to indicate the TCP/IP-compliant computer network with a shared address convention. Otherwise, “internet” with a lower-case “i” simply means any of the many millions of networks of networks.
SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS
Symbol Meaning
# number OR insert a space; the context will help you decipher its meaning
AWK awkward and usually compromises clarity as well
BLOCK make quotations ≥ 4 lines into a block quotation without external
quotation marks
caps capitalize; usually accompanied by three short underscore marks
COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided
dB database
FRAG sentence fragment; often means that the verb or subject is missing
ITAL italicize
lc make into lower case; usually accompanied by a strike through
org, org’l organization, organizational
PL plural
Q question
REF? what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?
sp spelling
SING singular
w/ with
w.c.? word choice?
The instructor sometimes uses 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 University
A Superior 4.00
A- Excellent 3.67
B+ Good 3.33
B Satisfactory 3.00
B- Barely satisfactory 2.67
C+ Unsatisfactory 2.33
C Unsatisfactory 2.00
C- Unsatisfactory 1.67
F Unacceptable and failing. 0.00.
Please feel free to ask me should you have any questions or concerns about grades and see the Graduate School Catalog (e.g., and ) for more on standards of work. While the University does not accept the grade of A+ and it does not appear on a student’s transcript, 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.
The instructor uses points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. They use an arithmetic – not a proportional – algorithm to determine points on any assignment. 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. The instructor will explain this system throughout the semester.
TEXTS
There are two (2) required texts for this class, available online as unlimited access e-books from the UT libraries and in print and Kindle forms online; check the Co-op on Guadalupe as well as various book sellers online for available print and digital versions. The supplemental and additional valuable texts are also generally available from the UT Libraries. Supplement them all as your interests and professional goals dictate.
The readings for our seminar often address intellectual, political, theoretical, methodological, and social questions that are inherently controversial and value-laden. Because of that complexity, we expect that reasonable people may and will disagree about the topics, methods, and other elements of our course. We will all try to deepen and enhance our own particular views of matters related to gender, technology, and information and be responsive to others’ views and values as we learn together. Both academic courtesy and mutual respect demand such behavior, especially in the classroom where we all are inquirers on a shared journey.
The REQUIRED texts are:
D’Ignazio, Catherine, & Klein, Lauren. (2020). Data feminism. MIT Press.
Wajcman, Judy. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Polity.
We will also read selected chapters and/or passages from these supplemental texts:
Haraway, Donna J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge.
Lerman, Nina E., Oldenziel, Ruth, & Mohun, Arwen P. (Eds.). (2003a). Gender & technology: A reader. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Noble, Safiya Umoja. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
Nye, David E. (2007). Technology matters: Questions to live with. MIT Press.
Perez, Caroline Criado. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. Abrams Press.
Additional valuable texts for your further study of gender, technology, and information include:
Browne, Simone. (2015). Dark matters: On the surveillance of blackness. Duke University Press.
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. (1983). More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave. Basic Books.
Dubrofsky, Rachel E, & Magnet, Shoshana Amielle. (Eds.). (2015). Feminist surveillance studies. Duke University Press.
Ernst, Waltraud, & Howarth, Ilona. (Eds.). (2014). Gender in science and technology: Interdisciplinary approaches. Transcript Verlag.
Grier, David Alan. (2005). When computers were human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hayles, N. Katherine. (1999a). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayles, N. Katherine. (2005a). My mother was a computer: Digital subjects and literary texts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific
facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Maines, Rachel P. (1999). The technology of orgasm: “Hysteria,” the vibrator, and women’s sexual satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Martin, Michèle. (1991a). “Hello, Central?” Gender, technology, and culture in the formation of telephone systems.
Mundy, L. (2017a). Code girls: The untold story of the American code breakers of World War II. New York: Hachette Books.
Murphy, Michelle. (2012). Seizing the means of reproduction: Entanglements of feminism, health, and technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Nye, David E. (1994). American technological sublime. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pursell, Carroll. (Ed.). (2001a). American technology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Reinharz, Shulamit. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Spain, Daphne. (1992). Gendered spaces. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Suchman, Lucy. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. May be available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Wajcman, Judy. (1991c). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
See these sites for additional material of value to the study of GT&I:
The Web site for Gina Bastone, humanities librarian and expert in WGS et al. at UT Libraries:
The Web site for the Special Interest Group for Computing, Information, and Society of the Society for the Social Study of Science (SSSS):
Also, be sure to check the list of Additional Sources (AS) and Selected Important Journal later in this syllabus. You may find the special issues of the journals below on gender and technology, including information and communication technologies (ICT’s), of particular interest.
|Journal |Volume(issue) |Date |
|Acme: An International Journal for Critical Geographers |5(1) |2006 |
|Ada: A Journal of New Media, Gender, and Technology |2 |2013 |
|Australian Feminist Law Journal |44(1) |2018 |
|Information, Communication, & Society |2(4) |1999 |
| |10(3) |2007 |
|The Information Society |15(3) |1999 |
|Journal of Technology Management & Innovation |4(4) |2009 |
|Media Culture, & Society |14(1) |1992 |
|Social Sciences |--- |2017-2018 |
|Technology and Culture |38(1) |1997 |
Please remember that this is only a selected list and that research about gender, technology, and information is now reflected not only in specialized journals but also in more general journals and collections.
LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS
The instructor will provide additional information in class and in other modes about each assignment. Students will generally submit assignments as Word documents in Canvas in the appropriate format by 9:00 AM unless otherwise indicated, should be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins. GRP indicates that an assignment is based on group work.
Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade
Preparation and participation --- 25%
Choice of topic for in-class discussion SEP 1 ---
Essay on gender and technology (3 pp.) OCT 6 10
Annotated bibliography GRP various dates 10
Overheads, handouts, discussion leadership GRP various dates 10
Topic for final paper GRP OCT 20 ---
Draft of paper (≥ 10 pp.) GRP NOV 3 ---
Choice of final paper to review NOV 3 ---
Individual peer review of another student group’s NOV 17 15
draft of final paper (3-4 pp.)
Presentation on final paper GRP DEC 1 5
Final paper on GT&I (18-20 pp.) GRP THU, DEC 9 25
12:00 Noon
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 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. It is particularly useful to write multiple drafts of papers.
OUTLINE OF THE COURSE
While unlikely, the schedule may be adjusted as necessity dictates as the semester evolves. C indicates a reading in Files in Canvas, while AS indicates Additional Sources germane to the course but NOT required. Other readings are our textbooks or those available on the open Web. The References have detailed citations for each reading.
|Date | Topics |Readings |Assignments |
| | | | |
| |Unit I: Introduction to technology and | | |
| |gender studies | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|1: AUG |Introduction to the course |Nye (2007a , b, c) | |
|25 |Brief review of the syllabus |McGaw (2003) | |
| |Students’ specific research interests |McQuire (2006) | |
| | |Law (2016) | |
| |Exploring gender and technologies (1) |Kelan (2012) | |
| |Definitions, theories, and metaphors | | |
| | |AS: Noble (1997) | |
| | |Jarman (1998) | |
| | | | |
|2: SEP 1|Exploring gender and technologies (2) |McGaw (1989) |Choice of topic for leading |
| |Science and technology studies |Lerman (2010) |in-class discussion |
| |More on definitions, theories, and metaphors|Bray (2007) | |
| | |Kenney (2019) | |
| | |Sim & Hensman (1994) | |
| | | | |
| | |AS: Balsamo (2014) | |
| | |Donner (1992) | |
| | |Crawford (2000) | |
| | | | |
|3: SEP 8|Exploring gender and technologies (3) |Wajcman (2004), TechnoFeminism | |
| |Techno-feminism |Oldenziel (2006) | |
| |More on definitions, theories, and metaphors|Layne (2010) | |
| | |Johnson (2010) | |
| | |Goenstein (2010) | |
| | |Howes (2012) | |
| | | | |
|4: SEP 15|Exploring gender and technologies (4) |Borkowska (2020) | |
| |Masculinities and technologies |Collingwood (2018) | |
| | |Ging (2017) | |
| | |Barry & Weiner (2019) | |
| | |Oldenziel (2003) | |
| | |Kleif & Faulkner (2004) | |
| | | | |
| | |AS: Payne (2018) | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |Unit II: Gendered looks at some specific | | |
| |technologies | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|5: SEP |Domestic technologies and care work |Fox (1990) |Student-led discussion |
|22 | |Parr (2003) | |
| | |Kline (2003) |Annotated bibliography (10%) |
| | |Lanoix (2013) | |
| | |Parks (2010) |Overheads, handouts, |
| | |Kennedy et al. (2015) |discussion leadership (10%) |
| | | | |
| | |AS: Cowan (1983), passim | |
| | | | |
|6: SEP |Reproductive and sexual technologies (1) |Maines (1989) |Student-led discussion |
|29 | |Maines (1999e) | |
| | |Maines (1999b) |Annotated bibliography (10%) |
| | |Maines (1999f) | |
| | | |Overheads, handouts, |
| | | |discussion leadership (10%) |
| | | | |
|7: OCT 6|Reproductive and sexual technologies (2) |Knight & Miller (2021) |Essay on gender and technology|
| | |Campo-Engelstein et al. (2019) |(3 pp.) (10%) |
| | |Daniels & Heidt-Forsythe (2012) | |
| | |Richardson (2012) | |
| | |Kessler (1990) | |
| | | | |
| | |AS: Moore & Currah (2015) | |
| | |Roberts (2015) | |
| | | | |
|8: OCT |Considering gender, computing, and networked|Wyatt (2008) |Student-led discussion |
|13 |technologies (1) |Comunello et al. (2021) | |
| | |Scarelli et al. (2021) |Annotated bibliography (10%) |
| | |Floegel (2020) | |
| | |Allen (2017) |Overheads, handouts, |
| | | |discussion leadership (10%) |
| | |AS: Leach & Turner (2015) | |
| | |Hardey (2020) | |
| | | | |
|9: OCT |Considering gender, computing, and networked|Wajcman (1991d) |Identification and approval of|
|20 |technologies (2) |Williams (2013) |topic for final paper |
| | |Dasgupta & Stout (2014) | |
| | |Sun (2021) | |
| | |Vitores & Gil-Juárez (2016) | |
| | |Miltner (2019) | |
| | |Light (1999) | |
| | |Ceruzzi (1991) | |
| | |Mundy (2017b) | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|10: OCT |Considering gender, computing, and networked|Collins (2015) | |
|27 |technologies (3) |Collins (n.d.) | |
| |Intersectionality |Noble (2016) | |
| |Introduction to data feminism |Noble (2018a) | |
| | |Noble (2018b) | |
| | |Cukier et al. (2002) | |
| | |Lerman (2010) – reprise | |
| | |D’Ignazio & Klein (2020), Introduction | |
| | |and Chapter 1 (pp. 1-19, 21-47, and | |
| | |235-241, 241-252) | |
| | | | |
| | |AS: Dubrofsky & Wood (2015) | |
| | | | |
|11: NOV |Considering gender, computing, and networked|Haraway (1991/1985) |Draft of final paper (≥10 pp.)|
|3 |technologies (4) |Lupton (2013) | |
| |Haraway and cyborg theory |Hayles (1999b) |Choice of final paper to |
| |Data feminism continued |D’Ignazio & Klein (2020), Chapters 2 |review |
| | |and 3 (pp. 49-72, 73-96, and 252-262, | |
| | |262-268) | |
| | | | |
|12: NOV |Considering gender, computing, and networked|D’Ignazio & Klein (2020), Chapters 4 | |
|10 |technologies (5) |and 5 (pp. 97-123, 125-148 and 268-276,| |
| |Data feminism continued |276-283) | |
| | |Miner (2020) | |
| |Writing studio |Rolston (2010) | |
| | |Rommes et al. (2012) | |
| | |Shabbar (2018) | |
| | | | |
| | |AS: Rommes (2014) | |
| | | | |
|13: NOV |Considering gender, computing, and networked|D’Ignazio & Klein (2020), Chapters 4 |Review of another team’s draft|
|17 |technologies (6) |and 5 (pp. 97-123, 125-148 and 268-276,|(3-4 pp.) – 15% |
| |Data feminism continued |276-283) | |
| | | | |
| |Writing studio | | |
| | | | |
|14: DEC |Students’ presentations |D’Ignazio & Klein (2020), Chapters 6 |In-class presentation – 5% |
|1 | |and 7 and Conclusion (pp. 149-172, | |
| |Course summary |173-201, 203-214 and 283-291, 291-298, | |
| | |298-301) | |
| | |Perez (2019) | |
| | | | |
| | |AS: Winner (1980) | |
| | |Hall (2015) | |
| | | | |
|DEC 9 | | |Completed final paper (18-20 |
|12:00 | | |pp.) – 25% |
|Noon | | | |
ASSIGNMENTS
• Essay on gender and technology (10%) – due OCT 6
Over the course of the semester, we will read and discuss a large number of sources that examine the relationships among gender, technology, and information from many perspectives and in many contexts. This essay comes at about the mid-point of the semester, aiming to help students reflect on what we’ve done to that point in our time together. The specific purpose of the essay is to help students consider what they see as the most important or interesting elements of the study of gender and technology together.
Each student will submit an essay three double-spaced pages long (c. 750 words), not counting a cover page and references (in APA format), addressing these two questions as specifically as possible:
1) How does the study of gender give us insight into technologies writ large?
2) How does the study of technology give us insight into gender?
To address these questions, please use 3-5 sources we have read together as a class and only those sources. Be sure to address the questions clearly and specifically, and recall that a simple reassertion of what our readings say is insufficient to complete the assignment. While others’ work will provide the foundation for your response, the paper must include reflections and analysis that go beyond a pastiche of quotations and/or paraphrases from your sources.
This paper is worth 10% of your semester grade and is due in Canvas no later than 9:00 AM Wednesday October 6. As with all academic products, be sure that this assignment reflects your own original work.
Leading in-class discussion and annotated bibliography GROUP (20%) – due SEP 20/22, SEP 27/29, and OCT 11/13
There are four elements of this assignment:
(1) Each student will notify the instructor of their ranked choices of the three topics and dates as in the table below by 9:00 AM September 1. Each student will rank the three topics and dates from most to least preferred. I will assign the topics on a first-come, first-served basis, while also trying to give students their most preferred choices. Each group will likely have 4 or 5 students, depending upon the course’s enrollment.
(2) Each team will prepare three or four questions to help facilitate the classroom discussion, and these questions should be posted to the Canvas site in the appropriate forum no later than the Monday before class by 12:00 Noon. Each team should work as a group to develop these questions, and the other members of the class should check the forum before class to prepare for the discussion. The discussion leaders should prepare a handout, whether digital or hard copy, with the questions to distribute in class.
(3) The instructor may make a few comments (perhaps 10-15 minutes’ worth) before turning the class over to each team to lead the discussion for 90 minutes. Each member of the team should assume roughly the same amount of leadership in the class; no one should dominate the conversation. Be prepared to run class for an hour and a half – for about an hour up to the break and then for another 30 minutes after the break. The instructor may use the last 30 minutes to expand on the day’s topic and/or introduce new material.
(4) Each team should also prepare an annotated bibliography of ten (10) items that we have NOT read as a class and that are germane to the day’s discussion. The team should post these items to the Canvas site no later than 9:00 AM the day of class. The annotations, featuring APA citations, should be about 3-4 sentences long and should be very specific about the sources’ value to the day’s topic. If thought useful, the team should distribute a digital or paper copy of the annotated bibliography to each member of the class.
|Topic |Discussion questions due two days before class |Leading in-class discussion and |
| | |annotated bibliography due |
|Domestic technologies and care work |12:00 Noon MON September 20 |September 22 |
|Reproductive and sexual technologies |12:00 Noon MON September 27 |September 29 |
|Gender, computing, and networked |12:00 Noon MON October 11 |October 13 |
|technologies | | |
The discussion questions and facilitating the discussion will be worth 10% of the semester grade, the annotated bibliography 10%. All members of the group will receive the same grade for both elements of the assignment. Be sure to facilitate the discussion, not monopolize it – get your classmates involved.
Paper on gender, technology, and information – Different parts due various dates
Students will work in small groups of three or four to produce a final paper that will report on a topic of the students’ choice about gender, technology, and information. To ensure that all groups have a chance to present their final papers on the last day of class, only five groups will form. While the topic for the final paper must be determined in negotiation with the instructor, students must consult with their classmates about their topics.
The topic should be sufficiently narrow and explicitly in the intersection of gender, technology, and information. Each group will produce a paper of 18-20 double-spaced pp. from a perspective informed by concepts, literatures, and other class resources we engaged together this semester. It is imperative that students keep their topics narrowly focused and that their papers be succinct and clear. Students working on master’s reports, theses, dissertation topics, and the like are invited to use this final assignment as a way to make progress on those projects as appropriate.
Topic – Each group will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by October 20. Each group will upload to Canvas a clear statement of the paper topic and a description of how the final paper will address the topic by that date, preferably before. The instructor will move these documents to the Files section of Canvas to make them available to the class as a whole for students to choose which papers they wish to review.
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, social media, 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, topics, and peer reviewers (more on which below) to be distributed online by about October 25.
Draft – Due November 3. Each group will submit an initial draft of the paper on November 3 to the appropriate site in Canvas. 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.
Choice of paper to review – Due November 3. Each student will choose another group’s paper to review no later than November 3 by email to the instructor, listing three preferences for papers to review in descending order. The choices will generally be on a first-come, first-served basis, although the instructor reserves the right to assign students to particular drafts keeping in mind such criteria as students’ research interests, education, genders, employment, native languages, and the like.
Review of another student’s or group’s draft – Due November 17 (15%). Each individual student will review the draft of another group’s paper and submit a three- to four-page, double-spaced critique of the paper to the appropriate site in Canvas by November 17. 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 authors to improve their work.
Presentation – December 1 (5%) – each group will make a 20-minute oral presentation related to the final paper. Every group should prepare an appropriate handout with, at the least, an outline of the presentation (this handout may include copies of PowerPoint slides if the group is using PowerPoint) and a short list of appropriate sources in APA format. Students will present in each half of class, likely with questions for the groups 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 an initial respondent to any one paper.
The presentations will occur on December 1. The instructor will announce the specific schedule for presentations no later than November 25.
Final draft – Due Thursday December 9 at 12:00 Noon (25%). This is a final paper of 18-20 double-spaced pages that engages a topic about gender, technology, and information. This final paper may help the students 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. This final version is due Thursday December 9 at 12:00 Noon in Canvas.
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 home disciplines and specific interests. Students should remember to consult the syllabus on standards for written work both before and after they write and upload the final versions of papers to the appropriate site in Canvas.
REFERENCES
Many required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule. Some of the course readings not easily available on the open Web are in Files in Canvas (C).
Some of the readings, on the other hand, require you to be logged in the UT libraries with your UT EID. Those journals and/or e-books are usually available online for only part of their publication run. UT often has more than one arrangement for getting these materials online, so there may be more than one URL for each source. Feel free to explore the various online packages – the more familiar you are with such arrangements, the better researcher you will be.
Sources in the class schedule
Allen, Samantha. (2017). Will the Internet ever be safe for women?
Barry, Ben, & Weiner, Nathaniel. (2019). Suited for success? Suits, status, and hybrid masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 22(2), 151-176.
Borkowska, Katarzyna. (2020). Approaches to studying masculinity: A nonlinear perspective of theoretical paradigms. Men and Masculinities, 23(3-4), 409-424.
Bray, Francesca. (2007). Gender and technology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 37-53. Available at:
Campo-Engelstein, Lisa, Kaufman, Suzanne, & Parker, Wendy M. (2019). Where is the pill for the “reproductive man”?: A content analysis of contemporary US newspapers articles. Men and Masculinities, 22(2), 360-379.
Ceruzzi, Paul E. (1991). When computers were human. Annals of the History of Computing, 13(3), 237-244.
Collingwood, Lisa. (2018). Autonomous trucks: An affront to masculinity? Information & Communications Technology Law, 27(2), 251-265.
Collins, Patricia Hill. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology 41, 1-20. Available at
Collins, Patricia Hill. (n.d.). Patricia Hill Collins: Intersecting oppressions.
Comunello, Francesca, Parisi, Lorenza, & Ieracitano, Francesca. (2021). Negotiating gender scripts in mobile dating apps: Between affordances, usage norms and practices. Information, Community & Society, 24(8), 1140-1156.
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. (1983). More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave. New York: Basic Books.
Cukier, Wendy, Shortt, Denise, & Devine, Irene. (2002). Gender and information technology: Implications of definitions. [ACM] SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(4), 142–148. Available at
Daniels, Cynthia R., & Heidt-Forsythe, Erin. (2012). Gendered eugenics and the problematic of free market reproductive technologies: Sperm and egg donation in the United States. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 37(3), 719-747.
Dasgupta, Nilanjana, & Stout, Jane G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21-29.
D’Ignazio, Catherine, & Klein, Lauren. (2020). Data feminism. MIT Press. UT libraries unlimited e-book:
Floegel, Diana. (2020). “Write the story you want to read”: World-queering through slash fanfiction creation. Journal of Documentation, 76(4), 785-805.
Fox, Bonnie J. (1990). Selling the mechanized household: 70 years of ads in Ladies Home Journal. Gender & Society, 4(1), 25-40.
Ging, Debbie. (2017). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638-657.
Goenstein, Shirley. (2010). What we know about feminist technologies. In Linda L. Layne, Sharra L. Vostral, & Kate Boyer (Eds.), Feminist Technology (pp. 203-214). University of Illinois Press. C
Haraway, Donna. (1991). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149-182). (Original published 1985) C
Hayles, N. Katherine. (1999b). The materiality of informatics. How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics (pp. 192-221 and Notes 313-316). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries:
Howes, Moira. (2012). [Review of the book Feminist Technology]. Hypatia, 27(2), 446-449.
Johnson, Deborah G. (2010). Sorting out the question of feminist technology. In Linda L. Layne, Sharra L. Vostral, & Kate Boyer (Eds.), Feminist Technology (pp. 37-54). University of Illinois Press. C
Kelan, Elisabeth K. (2012). The politics of gender and technology. In J.K.B. Olsen, S.A. Pedersen, & V.F. Hendricks (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 338-341). Wiley & Sons. Available at:
Kennedy, Jenny, Nansen, Bjorn, Arnold, Michael, Wilken, Rowan, & Gibbs, Martin. (2015). Digital housekeepers and domestic expertise in the networked home. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 21(4), 408-422.
Kenney, Martha. (2019). Fables of response-ability: Feminist science studies as didactic literature. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 5(1), 1-39. Available at:
Kessler, Suzanne J. (1990). The medical construction of gender: Case management of intersexed infants. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1), 4-26.
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.
Kline, Ronald R. (1997). Ideology and social surveys: Reinterpreting the effects of “laborsaving” technology on American farm women. Technology and Culture, 38(2), 355-385.
Knight, Amber, & Miller, Joshua. (2021). Prenatal genetic screening, epistemic justice, and reproductive autonomy. Hypatia, 36, 1-21.
Lanoix, Monique. (2013). Labor as embodied practice: The lessons of care work. Hypatia, 28(1), 85-100.
Law, John. (2016). STS as method. In Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouche, Clark A. Miller, & Laurel Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed., pp. 31-57). MIT Press. Available at:
Layne, Linda L. (2010). Introduction. In Linda L. Layne, Sharra L. Vostral, & Kate Boyer (Eds.), Feminist Technology (pp. 1-35). University of Illinois Press. C
Lerman, Nina E. (2010). Categories of difference, categories of power: Bringing gender and race to the history of technology. Technology and Culture, 51(4), 893-918.
Light, Jennifer, (1999). When computers were women. Technology and Culture, 40(3), 455-483.
Lupton, Deborah. (2013) The digital cyborg assemblage: Haraway’s cyborg theory and the new digital health technologies (preprint). In Fran Collyer (Ed.), The handbook of social theory in health, illness, and medicine (pp. 567-581). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at:
Maines, Rachel. (1989). Socially camouflaged technologies: The case of the electromechanical vibrator. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 8(2), 3-12. Available at
Maines, Rachel P. (1999b). Female sexuality as hysterical pathology. The technology of orgasm: “Hysteria,” the vibrator, and women’s sexual satisfaction (pp. 21-48 and Notes pp. 136-144). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries:
Maines, Rachel P. (1999e). Preface. The technology of orgasm: “Hysteria,” the vibrator, and women’s sexual satisfaction (ix-xvi and Notes p. 125). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries:
Maines, Rachel P. (1999f). Revising the androcentric model. The technology of orgasm: “Hysteria,” the vibrator, and women’s sexual satisfaction (pp. 111-123 and Notes p. 166-169). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries:
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 Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries:
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) C
McQuire, Scott. (2006). Technology. Theory, Culture & Society [Special Issue on Problematizing Global Knowledge], 23(2-3), 253-265.
Miltner, Kate M. (2019). Girls who coded: Gender in twentieth century U.K. and U.S. computing. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(1), 161-176.
Miner, Joshua. (2020). Information tactics: Indigenous activism and digital cartographies of gender-based violence. Information, Community & Society.
Mundy, Liza. (2017b, October 10). The secret history of the female code breakers who helped defeat the Nazis. Politico Magazine.
Noble, Safiya Umoja. (2016). A future for intersectional black feminist technology studies. A future for intersectional Black feminist technology studies. The Scholar &Feminist Online,13.3–14.1. Available at
Noble, Safiya Umoja. (2018a). Introduction. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce oppression (pp. 1-14 and 187). New York University Press. UT libraries unlimited e-book:
Noble, Safiya Umoja. (2018b). Searching for Black girls. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce oppression (pp. 64-109 and 194-196). New York University Press. UT libraries unlimited e-book:
Nye, David E. (2007a). Preface. Technology matters: Questions to live with (ix-xi). MIT Press. UT libraries unlimited e-book:
Nye, David E. (2007b). Can we define “technology”? Technology matters: Questions to live with (pp. 1-15 and 227-228). MIT Press. UT libraries unlimited e-book:
Nye, David E. (2007c). How do historians understand technology? Technology matters: Questions to live with (pp. 49-66 and 234-235). MIT Press. UT libraries unlimited e-book:
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) C
Oldenziel, Ruth. (2006). Signifying semantics for a history of technology. Technology and Culture, 47(3), 477-485.
Parks, Jennifer A. (2010). Lifting the burden of women’s care work: Should robots replace the “human touch”? Hypatia, 25(1), 100-120.
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. C
Perez, Caroline Criado. (2019). A sea of dudes. Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men (pp. 169-191 and 358-361). Abrams Press. UT libraries unlimited e-book:
Richardson, Sarah S. (2012). Sexing the X: How the X became the “female chromosome.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 37(4), 909-933.
Rolston, Jessica Smith. (2010). Talk about technology: Negotiating gender difference in Wyoming coal mines. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 35(4), 893-918.
Rommes, Els, Bath, Corinna, & Maass, Susanne. (2012). Methods for intervention: Gender analysis and feminist design of ICT. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37(6), 653-662.
Scarelli, Cosimo Marco, Krijnen, Tonny, & Nixon, Paul. (2021). Sexuality, gender, media. Identity articulations in the contemporary media landscape. Information, Community & Society, 24(8), 1063-1072.
Shabbar, Andie. (2018). Queer-Alt-Delete: Glitch art as protest against the surveillance Cis-tem. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, 46(3/4), 195-211. doi: 10.1353/wsq.2018.0039
Sim, CeceliaNG Choon, & Hensman, Rohini. (1994). Science and technology: Friends or enemies of women? Journal of Gender Studies, 3(3), 277-287.
Sun, Ping. (2021). Straddling between technology and gender boundaries: The identity negotiation of female programmers in China. Information, Community & Society, 24(1), 19-34.
Vitores, Anna, & Gil-Juárez, Adriana. (2016). The trouble with “women in computing”: A critical examination of the deployment of research on the gender gap in computer science. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(6), 666-680.
Wajcman, Judy. (1991c). Reproductive technology: Delivered into men’s hands. In Feminism confronts technology (pp. 54-80). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Press. C
Wajcman, Judy. (1991d). Patriarchy, technology, and conceptions of skill. Work and Occupations, 18(1), 29-45.
Wajcman, Judy. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity. UT libraries unlimited e-book:
Williams, Christine L. (2013). The glass escalator revisited: Gender inequality in neoliberal times, SWS feminist lecturer. Gender & Society, 27(5), 609-629.
Wyatt, Sally. (2008). Feminism, technology and the information society: Learning from the past, imagining the future. Information, Community & Society, 11(1), 111-130.
Additional sources (AS) of value
Ahmed, Sara. (2010). Killing joy: Feminism and the history of happiness. Signs, 35(3), 571-598.
Ali, Kamran Asdar. (2002). Faulty deployments: Persuading women and constructing choice in Egypt. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 44(2), 370-394. Also available at
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 ?
Balsamo, Anne. (2014). Gendering the technological imagination. In Ernst Waltraut & Ilona Horwath (Eds.), Gender in science and technology: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 19-39). Transcript Verlag.
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)
Bart, Pauline. (1968). Social structure and vocabularies of discomfort: What happened to female hysteria? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 9(3), 188-193.
Bath, Corinna. (2014). Searching for methodology: Feminist technology design in computer science. In Waltraud Ernst & Ilona Howarth (Eds.), Gender in science and technology: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 57-78). Bielefeld, Germany: Verlag.
Baxter, Judith. (2003). Positioning gender in discourse: A feminist methodology. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Berg, Anne-Jorunn, & Lie, Merete. (1995). Feminism and constructivism: Do artifacts have gender? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 20(3), 332-351.
Berlin, Sharon B. (1990). Dichotomous and complex thinking. Social Sciences Review, 64(1), 46-59.
Bordo, Susan. (1986). The Cartesian masculinization of thought. Signs, 11(3), 439-455.
Braidotti, Rosi. (2007). Feminist epistemology after postmodernism: Critiquing science, technology and globalization. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(1), 65-74.
Brakman, Sarah-Vaughan, & Scholz, Sally J. (2006). Adoption, ART, and a re-conception of the maternal body: toward embodied maternity. Hypatia, 21(1), 54-73.
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
Brooke, Siân. (2019, October). “There are no girls on the Internet”: Gender performances in Advice Animal memes. First Monday, 24, 10.
Broussard, Ramona, & Doty, Philip. (2016). Toward an understanding of fiction and information behavior. ASIST ’16: Proceedings of the 79th ASIST Annual Meeting, Article No. 66.
Clinton, Catherine. (1984a). Edging toward equality. In The other civil war: American women in the nineteenth century (pp. 3-20). New York: Hill and Wang.
Clinton, Catherine. (1984b). women’s work and the cotton revolution. In The other civil war: American women in the nineteenth century (pp. 21-39). New York: Hill and Wang.
Cockburn, Cynthia. (1988). Machinery of dominance: Women, men, and technical know-how. Boston: Northeastern University Press. (Original work published 1985.)
Cott, Nancy. (1977). The bonds of womanhood: ‘Woman’s sphere’ in New England, 1780-1835. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Covey, A. Dale. (2001). Profitable office specialties. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 140-141). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published c. 1912)
Crow, Barbara. (2005). Gendering surveillance: Mobile masculinities. Paper presented at the International Communications Studies Association, New York, May 28.
Daniels, Jessie. (2009). Rethinking cyberfeminism(s): Race, gender, and embodiment. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 37(1/2), 101-124. Also available at
Doty, Philip. (2021). Privacy, surveillance, and the “smart home.” In Melissa Ocepek & William Aspray (Eds.), Deciding where to live: Information studies on where to live in America (pp. 93-123). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Doty, Philip, & Broussard, Ramona. (2017). Fiction as informative and its implications for information science theory. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 54(1), 61–70.
Dubrofsky, Rachel E., & Wood, Megan M. (2015). Gender, race, and authenticity: Celebrity women tweeting for the gaze. In Rachel E. Dobrovsky & Shoshana Amielle Magnet (Eds.), Feminist surveillance studies (pp. 93-106). Duke University Press.
Drabinski, Emily. (2013). Queering the catalog: queer theory and the politics of correction. Library Quarterly, 83(2), 94-111.
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)
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)
Egan, R. Danielle. (2013). Lost objects: Feminism, sexualisation and melancholia. Feminist Theory, 14(3), 265-274.
Elbow, Peter. (2000a). Freewriting and the problem of wheat and tares. In Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing (pp. 85-92). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, Peter. (2000b). Illiteracy at Oxford and Harvard: Reflections on the inability to
write. In Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching
writing (pp. 5-27). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). (2004). Gender and electronic privacy. Available at
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. (1981). Public man, private woman: Women in social and political thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ensmenger, Nathan. (2010a). The computer boys take over: Computers, programmers, and the politics of technical expertise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ensmenger, Nathan. (2010b). Making programming masculine. In Thomas J. Misa (Ed.), Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing (pp. 115-141). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ensmenger, Nathan. (2012). The digital construction of technology: Rethinking the history of computers in society. Technology and Culture, 53(4), 753-776.
Ensmenger, Nathan. (2015). “Beards, sandals, and other signs of rugged individualism”: Masculine culture within the computing professions. Osiris, 30(1), 38-65.
Enjoy life. (2001). In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (p. 142). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1913)
Ernst, Waltraud. (2014). Diffraction patters?: Shifting gender norms in biology and technology. In Waltraud Ernst & Ilona Howarth (Eds.), Gender in science and technology: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 147-164). Bielefeld, Germany: Verlag.
Ernst, Waltraud, & Howarth, Ilona. (Eds.). (2014). Gender in science and technology: Interdisciplinary approaches. Bielefeld, Germany: Verlag.
Finders, Margaret J. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Fischer, Claude S. (1988). "Touch someone": The telephone industry discovers sociability. Technology and Culture, 29(1), 32-61. Also available at
Fishman, Jennifer R. (2004). Manufacturing desire: The commodification of female sexual dysfunction. Social Studies of Science, 34(2), 187-218. Also available at
Flint, Kate. (2006). Women and reading. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 31(2), 511-536. Also available at
Forgays, Deborah Kirby, Hyman, Ira, & Schreiber, Jessie. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 314-321. Also available at
Fox, Sarah E., Silva, Rafael ML, & Rosner, Daniela K. (2018). Beyond the prototype: Maintenance, collective responsibility, and the public IoT. Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 21-32.
Fox, Sarah, Ulgado, Rachel Rose, & Rosner, Daniela. (2015). Hacking culture, not devices: Access and recognition in feminist hackerspaces. CSCW ’15: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 56-68.
Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Further reading. (2001a). In American technology (p. 143). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Further reading. (2001b). In American technology (p. 207). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Gaard, Greta. (1997). Toward a queer ecofeminism. Hypatia, 12(1), 114-137. Also available at
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 Press.
Giordano, Sara. (2017). Feminists increasing public understandings of science: A feminist approach to developing critical science literacy skills. Frontiers, 38(1), 100-125. Also available at
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.
Grasswick, Heidi, & Webb, Mark Owen. (2002). Feminist epistemology as social epistemology. Social epistemology, 16(3), 185-196.
Green, Venus. (1995). Race and technology: African American women in the Bell system, 1945-1980. Technology and Culture, 36(2), S101-S144. Supplement: Snapshots of a Discipline: Selected Proceedings from the Conference on Critical Problems and Research Frontiers in the History of Technology, Madison, WI, October 30 - November 3, 1991. Also available at [also in Carroll Pursell (Ed.). (2001). American technology (pp. 254-288). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.]
Grier, David Alan. (2005). When computers were human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Guroff, Margaret. (2016). The wheel, the woman, and the human body. In The mechanical horse: How the bicycle reshaped American life (pp. 33-50 and Notes pp. 186-192).
Hall, Rachel. (2015). Terror and the female grotesque. In Rachel E. Dubrofsky & Shoshana Amielle Magnet (Eds.), Feminist surveillance studies (pp. 127-149). Duke University Press.
Haraway, Donna J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna. (2004a). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Sandra Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 81-102). New York and London: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna. (2004b). 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.
Hardey, Mariann. (2020). Gender and technology culture: Points of contact in tech cities. Sociological Research, 25(1), 101-118.
Harding, Sandra. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York and London: Routledge.
Hassan, Narin. (2010). Milk markets: Technology, the lactating body, and new forms of consumption. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 38(3/4), 209-228).
Hayden, Dolores. (2002). Redesigning the American dream: Gender, housing, and family life (revised and expanded ed.). New York: WW Norton & Company. (Original work published 1984.)
Hayles, N. Katherine. (1999a). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Hayles, N. Katherine. (2005a). My mother was a computer: Digital subjects and literary texts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayles, N. Katherine. (2005b). Simulating narratives: What virtual creatures can teach us. In My mother was a computer: Digital subjects and literary texts (pp. 193-213 and Notes pp. 258-261). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Hayles, N. Katherine. (2005c). (Un)masking the agent: Stanislaw Lem’s “The Mask” In My mother was a computer: Digital subjects and literary texts (pp. 171-192 and Notes pp. 257-258). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
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.
Hess, Beth B. (1990). Beyond dichotomy: Drawing distinctions and embracing differences. Sociological Forum, 5(1), 75-94.
Hodder, Ian. (2012). Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hupfer, Maureen E., & Detlor, Brian. (2006). Gender and Web information seeking: A self-concept orientation model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1105-1115.
Huttunen, Aira, Kähkönen, Lottamari, Enwald, Heidi, & Kortelainen, Terttu. (2019). Embodied cognition and information experiences of transgender people. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, Ljubljana, Slovenia, June 16-19, 2019. Information Research, 24(4).
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
Jarman, Neil. (1998). Material of culture, fabric of identity. In Daniel Miller (Ed.), Material cultures: Why some things matter (pp. 121-145). University of Chicago Press.
Jepsen, Thomas C. (2000a). My sisters telegraphic: Women in the telegraph office, 1846-1950. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Jepsen, Thomas C. (2000b). Reclaiming history: Women in the telegraph industry. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 19(1), 15-19.
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)
Kanai, Akane. (2016, October). Sociality and classification: Reading gender, race, and class in a humorous meme. Social Media + Society.
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)
Kendall, Lori. (2000). “Oh, no I’m a nerd!”: Hegemonic masculinity on an online forum. Gender & Society, 14(2), 256-274.
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)
Koborov, Neill. (2013). Positioning identities: A discursive approach to the negotiation of gendered categories. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 111-131.
Kramerae, Cheris. (Ed.). (1998). Technology and women’s voices: Keeping in touch. New York and London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kroløkke, Charlotte, & Kotsi, Filareti. (2019). Pink and blue: Assemblages of family balancing and the making of Dubai as a fertility destination. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(1), 97-117.
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.
Latour, Bruno. (2002). Morality and technology: The end of the means (trans. Couze Venn). Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 247-260.
Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Leach, Lori, & Turner, Steven. (2015, October-December). Computer users do gender: The do-production of gender and communications technology. Sage Open, 1-14.
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. (2003a). Gender & technology: A reader. 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.
Lipartito, Kenneth. (1994). When women were switches: Technology, work, and gender in the telephone industry, 1890-1920. The American Historical Review, 99(4), 1074-1111.
Liu, Ziming, & Huang, Xiaobin. (2008). Gender differences in the online reading environment. Journal of Documentation, 64(4), 616-626.
Lohan, Maria, & Faulkner, Wendy. (2005). Masculinities and technologies: Some introductory remarks. Men and Maculinities, 8(2), 319-329. Also available at
Long, Elizabeth. (2003a). Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Long, Elizabeth. (2003b). 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 Press.
Lury, Celia. (1993). Technologies of culture and gender. In Cultural rights: Technology, legality, and personality (pp. 177-206). London: Routledge.
MacKinnon, Catharine. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Maines, Rachel P. (1999a). The technology of orgasm: “Hysteria,” the vibrator, and women’s sexual satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Maines, Rachel P. (1999c). The job nobody wanted. The technology of orgasm: “Hysteria,” the vibrator, and women’s sexual satisfaction (pp. 1-20 and Notes pp. 125-136). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Maines, Rachel P. (1999d). Notes on sources. The technology of orgasm: “Hysteria,” the vibrator, and women’s sexual satisfaction (pp. 171-173). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Maloney, Marcus, Roberts, Steven, & Caruso, Alexandra. (2018). “Mmm . . . I love it, bro!”: Performances of masculinity in YouTube gaming. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1697-1714.
Martin, Michèle. (1991a). “Hello, Central?” Gender, technology, and culture in the formation of telephone systems. Montréal and Kingston (Ontario): McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Martin, Michèle. (1991b). The culture of the telephone. In “Hello, Central?” Gender, technology, and culture in the formation of telephone systems (pp. 140–166 and Notes pp. 185-187). Montréal and Kingston (Ontario): McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Martin, Michèle. (1991c). Introduction. In “Hello, Central?” Gender, technology, and culture in the formation of telephone systems (pp. 3-13 and Notes p. 175). Montréal and Kingston (Ontario): McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Martin, Michèle. (1991d). The making of the perfect operator. In “Hello, Central?” Gender, technology, and culture in the formation of telephone systems (pp. 50-81 and Notes pp. 180-182). Montréal and Kingston (Ontario): McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Martin, Michèle. (1991e). [Selected photos]. In “Hello, Central?” Gender, technology, and culture in the formation of telephone systems. Montréal and Kingston (Ontario): McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Massanari, Adrienne. (2017). #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329-346.
Massanari, Adrienne, & Chess, Shira. (2018). Attack of the 50-foot justice warrior: The discursive construction of SJW memes as the monstrous feminine. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 525-542.
Mazzarella, Sharon R. (Ed.). (2005). Girl wide web: Girls, the Internet, and the negotiation of identity. New York: Peter Lang.
McGaw, Judith A. (1982). Women and the history of American technology. Signs, 7)4), 798-828.
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)
McWeeny, Jennifer. (2014). Topographies of flesh: women, nonhuman animals, and the embodiment of connection and difference. Hypatia, 29(2), 269-286.
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
Miltner, Kate M. (2014, August). “There’s no place for lulz on LOLCats”: The role of genre, gender, and group identity in the interpretation and enjoyment of an Internet meme. First Monday, 19(8).
Moore, Lisa Jean, & Currah, Paisley. (2015). Legally sexed : Birth certificates and transgendered citizens. In Rachel E. Dobrovsky & Shoshana Amielle Magnet (Eds.), Feminist surveillance studies (pp. 58-76). Duke University Press.
Mundy, L. (2017a). Code girls: The untold story of the American code breakers of World War II. New York: Hachette Books.
Murphy, Michelle. (2012a). Seizing the means of reproduction: Entanglements of feminism, health, and technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Murphy, Michelle. (2012b). Assembling protocol feminism. In Seizing the means of reproduction: Entanglements of feminism, health, and technoscience (pp. 25-67 and Notes pp. 190-200). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Murphy, Michelle. (2012c). Introduction: Feminism in/as biopolitics. In Seizing the means of reproduction: Entanglements of feminism, health, and technoscience (pp. 1-24 and Notes pp. 183-189). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Newman, Louise Michele. (Ed.). (1985). Men’s ideas/women’s realities: Popular science, 1870-1915. New York: Pergamon.
Nickles, Shelley. (2002). “Preserving women”: Refrigerator design as social process in the 1930s. Technology and Culture, 43(4), 693-727. Also available at
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ((JN+%22Canadian+Journal+of+Information+%26+Library+Sciences%22+and+DT+20010601))&type=1&site=ehost-live
Olson, Hope A. (2002). The power to name: Locating the limits of subject representation in libraries. Dordrecht [The Netherlands]: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Olson, Hope A. (2007). How we construct subjects: A feminist analysis. Library Trends, 56(2), 509-541.
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)
Payne, Julianne. (2018). Manufacturing masculinity: Exploring gender and workplace surveillance. Work and Occupations, 45(3), 346-383.
Pellack, Lorraine J., & Kappmeyer, Lori Osmus. (2011). The ripple effect of women’s name changes in indexing, citation, and authority control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(3), 440-448.
Peñas, Celia Sánchez, & Willett, Peter. (2006). Brief communication: Gender differences in publication and citation counts in librarianship and information science research. Journal of Information Science, 32(5). 480-485.
Perez, Caroline Perez. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. New York: Abrams Press.
Phillips, Whitney. (2015). This is why we can’t have nice things: Mapping the relationship between online trolling and mainstream culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pickering, Andrew. (1995). Technology: Numerically controlled machine tools. In The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science (pp. 157-176). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pizzey, Erin. (1974). Scream quietly of the neighbours will hear. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Potts, Amanda. (2015). “LOVE YOU GUYS (NO HOMO)”: How gamers and fans play with sexuality, gender, and Minecraft on YouTube. Critical Discourse Studies, 12(2), 163-186.
Prigoda, Elena. (2007). Purls of wisdom: A collectivist study of human information behaviour in a public library knitting group. Journal of Documentation, 63(1), 90-114.
Pursell, Carroll W. (Ed.). (2001a). American technology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Pursell, Carroll. (2001b). Introduction. In American technology (pp. 1-10). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Rakow, Lana F., & Navarro, Vija. (1993). Remote mothering and the parallel shift: Women meet the cellular telephone. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 144-157.
Rang, Jennifer. (1987). Toward a feminist epistemology. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 753-772.
Reinharz, Shulamit. (1992a). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Reinharz, Shulamit. (1992b). Conclusions. In Feminist methods in social research (pp. 240-269 and Notes pp. 341-349). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rentschler, Carrie A., & Thrift, Samantha C. (2015). Doing feminism in the network: Networked laughter and the “Binders full of women” meme. Feminist Theory, 16(3), 329-359.
Roberto, K.R. (2011). Inflexible bodies: Metadata for transgender identities. Journal of Information Ethics, 20(2), 56-64.
Roberts, Dorothy E. (2015). Race, gender, and genetic technologies: A new reproductive dystopia? In Rachel E. Dubrofsky & Shoshana Amielle Magnet (Eds.), Feminist surveillance studies (pp. 169-186). Duke University Press.
Romberger, Julia E. (2011). Ecofeminist ethics and digital technology: A case study of Microsoft Word. In Douglas A. Vakoch (Ed.), Ecofeminism and rhetoric: Critical perspectives on sex, technology, and discourse (pp. 117-144). New York: Berghahn Books.
Rommes, Els. (2014). Feminist interventions in the design process. In Ernst Waltraut & Ilona Horwath (Eds.), Gender in science and technology: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 41-55). Transcript Verlag.
Rose, Hilary. (1997). Goodbye truth, hello trust. In Mary Maynard (Ed.), Science and the construction of women (pp. 15-36). London: UCL Press.
Rosner, Daniela K., Fox, Sarah E. (2016). Legacies of craft and the centrality of failure in a mother-operated hackerspace. New Media & Society, 18(4), 558-580.
Rosner, Daniela K., Shorey, Samantha, Craft, Brock, & Remick, Helen. (2018). Making core memory: Design inquiry into gendered legacies of engineering and craftwork. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’18, 1-13.
Rossiter, Margaret W. (1992). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1982.)
Rossiter, Margaret W. (1995). Women scientists in America: Before affirmative action, 1940-1972. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rupp, Leila, & Taylor, Verta. (1990). Surviving in the doldrums: The American women’s rights movements, 1945 to the 1960s. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Sachs, Carolyn. (1983). The invisible farmers: Women in agricultural production. Totowa, NJ: Rowan & Allanheld.
Scharff, Christina. (2010). Young women’s negotiations of heterosexual conventions: Theorizing sexuality in constructions of “the feminist.” Sociology, 44(5), 827-842.
Shade, Leslie Regan. (1998a). A gendered perspective on access to the information infrastructure. Information Society, 14(1), 33-44. Also available at
Shifman, Limor, & Lemish, Dafna. (2010). Between feminism and fun(ny)mism: Analysing gender in popular Internet humour. Information, Communication & Society, 13(6), 870-891.
Shifman, Limor, & Lemish, Dafna. (2011). “Mars and Venus” in virtual space: Post-feminist humor and the Internet. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28(3), 253-273.
Shorey, Samantha. (2015). Fragmentary girls: Selective expression on the Tumblr platform. Master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Shorey, Samantha, & Howard, Philip N. (2016). Automation, big data, and politics: A research review. Journal of Communication, 10, 5032-5055.
Sims, Newell Leroy. (2001). The farm house. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 203-207). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1928)
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.
Smith, Anna Marie. (2009). Reproductive technology, family law, and the postwelfare state: The California same-sex parents’ rights “victories” of 2005. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 34(4), 827-850.
Smoreda, Zbigniew, & Licoppe, Christian. (2000). Gender-specific use of the domestic telephone. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 238-252. Also available at
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)
Social and labor needs. (2001) . In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 189-200). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1915)
Spain, Daphne. (1992). Gendered spaces. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Stanworth, Celia. (2000). Women and work in the information age. Gender, Work and Organization, 7(1), 20-32. Also available at
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
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
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.
Suchman, Lucy. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue. May be available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Tanczer, Leonie Maria. (2016). Hacktivism and the male-only stereotype. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1599-1615.
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)
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)
Tolman, Deborah L., Bowman, Christine P., & Fahs, Breanne. (2014). Sexuality and embodiment. In Deborah L. Tolman, L. M. Diamond, J. Bauermeister, W. H. George, J. Pfaus, & M. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality and psychology (pp. 759–804). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books. doi:10.1037/14193-025
Trauth, Eileen M. (2006). Theorizing gender and information technology research. Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology, 1154-1159.
Trojer, Lena. (2014). Gender research as knowledge resource in technology and engineering. In Ernst Waltraut & Ilona Horwath (Eds.), Gender in science and technology: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 165-183). Transcript Verlag.
Tripp, Guy E. (2001). Power on the farm. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 201-203). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published 1926)
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.
Urquhart, Christine, & Yeoman, Alison. (2010). Information behaviour of women: Theoretical perspectives on gender. Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 113-139.
Valenze, Deborah. (1995). The first industrial woman. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Valli, Linda. (1986). Becoming clerical workers. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
van Doorn, Niels. (2011). Digital spaces, material traces: How matter comes to matter in online performances of gender, sexuality and embodiment. Media, Culture & Society, 33(4), 531-547. Also available at
van Zoonen, Liesbet. (1992). Feminist theory and information technology. Media, Culture & Society, 14(1), 9-30. Also available at
Vare, Ethlie Ann, & Ptacek, Greg. (1987). Mothers of invention: From the bra to the bomb, forgotten women and their unforgettable ideas. New York: Quill.
Venkatesh, Viswaneth, & Morris, Michael G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.
Vijayakumar, Gowri. (2013). “I’ll be like water”: Gender, class, and flexible aspirations at the edge of India’s knowledge economy. Gender & Society, 27(6), 777-798.
Wajcman, Judy. (1991a). The built environment: Women’s place, gendered space. In Feminism confronts technology (pp. 110-136). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wajcman, Judy. (1991b). Domestic technology: Labour-saving or enslaving? In Feminism confronts technology (pp. 81-109). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wajcman, Judy. (1991c). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wajcman, Judy. (2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is the art? Social Studies of Science, 30(3), 447-464.
Wajcman, Judy. (2007). From women and technology to gendered technoscience. Information, Community and Society, 10(3), 287-298.
Warner, Marina. (1981). Joan of Arc: The image of female heroism. New York: Vantage.
Webster, Juliette. (1996). Shaping women’s work: Gender, employment and information technology. London: Routledge.
Weisman, Leslie Kanes. (1992). Discrimination by design: A feminist critique of the man-made environment. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Wertheimer, Barbara Mayer. (1977). We were there: The story of working women in America. New York: Pantheon Books.
West, Sarah Myers. (2020). Redistribution and rekognition: A feminist critique of algorithmic fairness. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 6(2), 1-24.
Williams, Christine L. (1995). Still a man’s world: Men who do women’s work. Berkeley, CA: University of California 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.
Wilson, Joanna, & MacGregor, Sherilyn. (2019). New ecofeminisms: Matters of life and/or death. Invited review essay. Hypatia, 34(4), 852-857.
Winner, Langdon. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.
Worth, Anna, Augustinos, Martha, & Hastie, Brianne. (2016). “Playing the gender card”: Media representations of Julia Gillard’s sexism and misogyny speech. Feminism & Psychology, 26(1), 52-72.
Wu, Laurie, Fan, Alei (Aileen), & Mattila, Anna S. (2015). Wearable technology in service delivery processes: The gender-moderated technology objectification effect. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 1-7.
Zwart, H.A.E. (Hub). (2016). The obliteration of life: Depersonalization and disembodiment in the terabyte era. New Genetics and Society: Critical Studies of Contemporary Biosciences, 35(1), 69-89.
Selected important journals
Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience
Cultural Studies
differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies
Feminist Studies
Feminist Theory
Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies
Gender and History
Gender & Society
Gender, Technology, and Development
Gender, Work & Organization
History and Technology
Hypatia
International Journal of Gender, Science, 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
Science, Technology and Society
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society
Social Studies of Science
Technology and Culture
Women’s Studies International Forum
Women’s Studies Quarterly
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- free rixty robux card code
- how to redeem game pass free trial
- alt codes reference sheet alt codes alt key codes
- windows alt codes reference chart
- `` free v bucks 2020 no survey daily codes
- free v bucks generator wells college
- `working hack ` how to get free v bucks 2021 no
- minecraft steve vs roblox noob
- how to hack minecraft to get free minecoins
Related searches
- emerging technology in information technology
- computer and information technology pdf
- health information technology and healthcare
- information technology and covid 19
- gender socialization and family
- information technology vs information system
- gender equality and equity pdf
- gender equity and gender equality
- information technology and services industry
- information technology and politics
- information technology and knowledge management
- information system and information technology