GENDER, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFORMATION
GENDER, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFORMATION
INF 386G/WGS 393
# 27705/45221
Dr. Philip Doty*
School of Information
University of Texas at Austin
SP 2020
Class time: Tuesday 3:00 – 6:00 PM
Place: UTA 1.204
Office: UTA 5.452
Office hours: Monday 1:00 – 2:00 PM
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
* Dr. Carla Criner, assistant dean for education and student affairs at the School of Information, was a key collaborator in the design of this course. Dr. Criner will join us in the classroom discussions as an informal co-instructor throughout the semester, bringing her special expertise about gender and technology as well as literary and other forms of theory. I am deeply grateful for her help.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the course 3
Expectations of students’ performance 4
Analysis and holism in reading, writing, and presenting 5
Standards for written work 6
Some editing conventions for students’ papers 11
Grading 12
Texts 13
List of assignments 15
Class schedule, topics, assignments, and readings 16
Assignments
Informal 250-word reaction to readings for the first class 20
Discussion questions 20
Leading in-class discussion and annotated bibliography 21
Paper on gender, technology, and information 22
References
Sources in the class schedule 24
Additional sources (AS) of value 27
Selected important journals 40
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- and eco-feminism; domestic technologies; reproductive and sexual technologies; virtuality, disembodiment, and gaming; and the gendered history of computing.
Students will produce, along with several other writing assignments, a final paper that discusses a topic of the student’s choice about the intersection (s) of gender, technology, and information. We will likely have several experts visiting this class from various departments and research centers here at UT to share their expertise in gender, technology, and information.
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 for 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.
We 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.
EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE
Students are expected to be involved and vigorous participants in class discussions and in the conduct of the class. The instructor aims to have every student participate in every class meeting’s discussion. In addition, students must:
• Attend all class sessions. If a student misses a class, it is her responsibility to arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets.
• Read all material prior to class, including before the first class meeting. 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 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.
• Spend 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom for a graduate course. Thus, students should regularly spend about 10-12 hours per week reading, writing, and preparing for class.
• Complete all assignments on time. The instructor will not accept late assignments except in the limited circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will result in a failing grade for the course.
• Ask for help from the instructor either in class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially appropriate for information questions, and the instructor will ordinarily respond to a message within 24 hours except on weekends.
Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, is intolerable and will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, students should consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) from the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.
The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for students with documented disabilities. The University’s Office of the Dean of Students at 471.6259, 471.4641 TTY, can provide further information and referrals as necessary.
ANALYSIS AND HOLISM IN READING, WRITING, AND PRESENTING
Students in this class must be analytic in their reading of others' work, in their own writing, and in their presentations. What follows are suggestions for developing analytic and critical methods of thinking and communication. These suggestions are also indications of what you should expect from the writing and speaking of others.
At the same time, however, please remember that a holistic, integrative understanding of context must always complement depth of analysis.
• First and foremost, maximize clarity – be clear, but not simplistic or patronizing.
• Remember that writing is a form of thinking, not just a medium to display the results of thinking; make your thinking engaging, reflective, and clear.
• Provide enough context for your remarks that your audience can understand them but not so much that your audience's attention or comprehension is lost.
• Be specific.
• Avoid jargon, undefined terms, undefined acronyms, colloquialisms, clichés, and vague language. These are particular challenges in graduate courses that involve politically and intellectually volatile matters.
• Give examples.
• Be critical, not dismissive, of others' work; be skeptical, not cynical.
• Answer the difficult but important "how?," "why?," and “so what?” questions.
• Support assertions with evidence.
• Make explicit why evidence used to support an assertion does so.
• Identify and explore the specific practical, social, and intellectual implications of courses of action.
• Be evaluative. Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own critical point of view.
• Identify the specific criteria against which others' work and options for action will be assessed.
See the Standards for Written Work and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further explanations and examples.
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK
Students will meet professional standards of clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in written assignments and should review these standards before and after writing. The instructor uses them to evaluate all assignments.
Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what her audience knows; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. Similarly, good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Recall that writing is a form of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie shows vividly how the interplay of composition and thought can work (1994, p. 144):
Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all effort, what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he could find words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those inmost breathings which thus found words took hold upon him.
We need not adopt the breathless metaphysics or literary naturalism to understand Dreiser’s point.
All written work for the class must be done on a word-processor and double-spaced, with 1" margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font, in one of three font styles: Times, Times New Roman, or Palatino. Uploading to Canvas is the standard way to submit assignments.
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 instructor’s directions for written work but may also consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2010, 6th ed.) and Purdue’s OWL Web site ().
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(s) related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of the literature(s).
Students should always use a standard 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, therefore, particularly 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. 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 – 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 will read and edit 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?* It is essential in graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction – be serious and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and "option."
3. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant input."*
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. Even in attempts to avoid sexist language, please 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. A good, non-sexist alternative is: “all persons went to their homes.”
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 (2010, 6th ed., chapters 6 and 7) 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.
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.”
32. While the Congress and other legislative bodies have debates, careful writers tend to avoid the locution of “public debate.” Such a locution makes a series of faulty assumptions:
- It presumes that a public policy issue 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 public policy issue have merit.
- “Debate” implies that there can be and will be one and only one “winner.” This presumption naively ignores the fact that some public policy issues 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.
For explanations of this system, consult the iSchool Web site () and 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 AND OTHER TOOLS
There are three (3) required texts for this class, available at the University Coop on Guadalupe and on 2-hour Reserve at PCL. Many other readings are available online in the Files section of the course Canvas instantiation:
These are the three required texts:
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. (1983). More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave. New York: Basic Books.
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. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
We recommend these books for your further study of gender, technology, and information as your interests dictate:
Ernst, Waltraud, & Howarth, Ilona. (Eds.). (2014). Gender in science and technology: Interdisciplinary approaches. Bielefeld, Germany: Verlag.
Grier, David Alan. (2005). When computers were human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Haraway, Donna J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
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.
Lerman, Nina E., Oldenziel, Ruth, & Mohun, Arwen P. (2003a). Gender & technology: A reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 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.
Perez, Caroline Criado. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. New York: Abrams 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.
Wajcman, Judy. (1991c). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
We also recommend these sites for additional material of value to the study of GT&I among the many hundreds of interest:
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 more specialized journals but also in more general journals and collections.
LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS
The instructor will provide additional information about each assignment. Written assignments are due in Canvas at 12:00 Noon unless otherwise indicated, should be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins.
Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade
Preparation and participation --- 15%
On Wajcman, McGaw, and Noble JAN 21/27 ---
DQ’s on techno-feminism and eco-feminism MON FEB 3 5
Annotated bibliography various dates 15
Overheads, handouts, discussion leadership various dates 10
Topic and abstract (2 pp.) for final paper on GT&I MAR 3 ---
DQ’s on virtuality, disembodiment, and gaming MON MAR 9 5
Choice of final paper to review MAR 31 ---
Draft of paper on GT&I (≥ 10 pp.) APR 28 ---
Public presentation on final paper APR 28 10
MAY 5
Peer review of another student’s draft of final paper MAY 5 15
(3-4 pp.)
Final paper on GT&I (20 pp.) FRI, MAY 8 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.
SCHEDULE
The schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester. Some readings are in the Files section of Canvas (C), while many other required readings are available online as indicated. Some of the readings require you to be logged in with your UTEID through the UT libraries. AS are among the Additional Sources listed at the end of this document.
DATE TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS
Unit I: Introduction to technology and gender studies
JAN 21 Introduction to the course
Review of the syllabus
Students’ specific research interests
Introduction to gender studies and the study of technologies
READ: Wajcman (2004), TechnoFeminism
McGaw (2003) C
Noble (1997) C
AS: Reinharz (1992b)
• DUE: Informal 250-word reaction to Wajcman (2004), McGaw (2003),
and Noble (1997)
JAN 28 Science and technology studies
READ: Suchman (2007), Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated
Actions, Acknowledgements, Preface, and Chapters 1-10 (pp. 1-187) online
AS: Berg & Lie (1995)
McGaw (1982)
Van House (2003)
FEB 4 Techno-feminism
Eco-feminism
READ: Suchman (2007) Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated
Actions, Chapters 11-15 (pp. 187-286) online
Wilson & MacGregor (2019) C
AS: Braidotti (2007)
Gaard (1997)
Romberger (2011)
• DUE: MON March 3 at 12:00 N – Discussion question (DQ’s) on techno-feminism and eco-feminism (5%)
Unit II: A gendered look at specific technologies
FEB 11 Reproductive and sexual technologies (1)
READ: Wajcman (1991d) C
Murphy (2012b and c) online
FEB 18 Student-led discussion
Reproductive and sexual technologies (2)
READ: Maines (1989) online
Maines (1999 b-f) online
AS: Bart (1968)
• DUE: Annotated bibliography (15%)
• DUE: Overheads, handouts, discussion leadership (10%)
FEB 25 Domestic technologies (1)
READ: Cowan (1983), More Work for Mother
AS: Fox (1990)
Wajcman (1991b)
MAR 3 Student-led discussion
Domestic technologies (2)
READ: Forgays et al. (2014) online
Martin (1991b-e) C
McGaw (1989) online
Smoreda & Licoppe (2000) online
AS: Jepsen (2000b)
• DUE: Annotated bibliography (15%)
• DUE: Overheads, handouts, discussion leadership (10%)
• DUE: Topic and two-page abstract for final paper
MAR 10 Virtuality, disembodiment, and gaming (1)
READ: Haraway (2006/1985) online
Hayles (1999b) online
Hayles (2005b) online
Hayles (2005c) online
AS: Daniels (2009)
van Doorn (2011)
Zwart (2016)
• DUE: MON March 9 at 12:00 N – Discussion questions (DQ’s) on virtuality, disembodiment, and gaming (5%)
MAR 17 No class – spring break
MAR 24 Student-led discussion
Virtuality, disembodiment, and gaming (2)
READ: Huttunen et al. (2019) online
Roomes et al. (2012) online
Shabbar (2018) online
Tolman et al. (2014) online
• DUE: Annotated bibliography (15%)
• DUE: Overheads, handouts, discussion leadership (10%)
MAR 31 Gendered history of computing (1)
READ: Ceruzzi (1991) online
Grier (2005) Introduction (1-8) and Notes (p. 333) online Grier (2005, pp. 81-88, 138-140, and 256-261) and Notes (pp. 341-342,
pp. 347-348, and p. 362) online
Miltner (2019) online
Mundy (2017b) online
AS: Brooke (2019)
APR 7 Student-led discussion
Gendered history of computing (2)
READ: Cukier, Shortt, & Devine (2002) online
Light (1999) online
AS: Bath (2014)
Trauth (2006)
• DUE: Choice of final paper to review
• DUE: Annotated bibliography (15%)
• DUE: Overheads, handouts, discussion leadership (10%)
Unit III: Guest speakers and writing studio
APR 14 Speaker(s)
Writing studio
APR 21 Speaker(s)
Writing studio
Unit IV: Students’ research
APR 28 Students’ public presentations (10%)
• DUE: Draft due – final paper (≥ 10 pp.)
MAY 5 Students’ public presentations (10%)
Course evaluation
Course summary
• DUE: Review of another student’s draft of final paper (3-4 pp.) (15%)
FRI MAY 8 12:00N
• DUE: Final paper (20 pp.) (25%)
ASSIGNMENTS
• Informal 250-word reaction to Wajcman (2004), McGaw (2003), and Noble (1997) – Due 12:00 N Tuesday January 21/optional revision due 12:00 N Monday January 27
In preparation for the in-class discussion each student will upload upload an informal reaction to the readings for the first class of the semester: Judy Wajcman’s influential 2004 monograph TechnoFeminism, Judith McGaw’s foundational 2003 paper on “Why Feminine Technologies Matter,” and David Noble’s appendix “A Masculine Millennium: A Note on Technology and Gender” to his well-known 1997 monograph on The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention. Each of these helps set the stage for our work together this semester, and we ask that you prepare an informal document up to 250 words long, c. one double-spaced page, engaging these three works. Bulleted lists, brief quotations, comparative thoughts, and the like are all welcome, as are more discursive reactions. This assignment will count toward your class preparation and participation grade.
Please upload these informal reactions to the appropriate Canvas site by no later than 12:00 Noon Tuesday January 21, the first day of class.
And please bring the document, in either digital or paper form, to class to help seed our discussion about the sources and our course this semester. Although this assignment is ungraded and will be integrated into each student’s class preparation and participation, students may wish to revise this informal assignment in light of the class discussion, and, should they do so, they can upload the revised version of this informal reaction to Wajcman (2004), McGaw (2003), and Noble (1997) to the appropriate site in Canvas for the instructor to review and react to. If you choose this optional second go at the assignment, please upload it to the appropriate Canvas site by 12:00 N Monday January 27.
• Discussion questions – Due 12:00 N Monday February 3 (5%) and 12:00 N Monday March 9 (5%)
(1) We will spend some time this semester looking at some of the large and complex corpus on techno-feminism and eco-feminism. Using whatever of the readings we have done for the classes on January 21, January 28, and February 4, please address this question:
How does the field of science and technology studies give us insight into techno-feminism and eco-feminism?
Each student will prepare one double-spaced page (250-word) response to this question and submit that response to the appropriate Canvas site no later than 12:00 Noon Monday February 3. Be sure to read all of your classmates’ responses and come prepared to discuss them in class. This assignment is worth 5% of your course grade.
(2) Using course readings, classroom discussion, and any other sources you regard as appropriate, please respond to this question:
In your opinion, why is the concept of virtuality important for understanding gender and technology?
Each student will prepare a one-page (250-word) response to this question and submit that response to the appropriate Canvas site no later than 12:00 N Monday March 9. As with the February 3 discussion question assignment, be sure to read all of your classmates’ responses and come prepared to discuss them in class. This assignment is worth 5% of your final grade.
Leading in-class discussion and annotated bibliography GROUP (25%) – due FEB 17, MAR 2, MAR 23, and APR 6
There are three elements of this assignment:
(1) 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 with the questions to distribute in class.
(2) 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.
(3) 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 12:00 N the day of class. The annotations should be about 3-4 sentences long and should be very specific about the sources’ value to the day’s topic. The team should distribute a paper copy of the annotated bibliography to each member of the class.
Each student will self-select into one group of 3 or 4 students, depending upon the course’s enrollment, to lead class discussions on these dates:
|Topic |Discussion questions due the day before class |Leading in-class discussion and |
| | |annotated bibliography due |
|Reproductive and sexual technologies |12:00 Noon MON February 17 |February 18 |
|Domestic technologies |12:00 Noon MON March 2 |March 3 |
|Virtuality, disembodiment, and gaming |12:00 Noon MON March 23 |March 24 |
|Gendered history of computing |12:00 Noon MON April 6 |April 7 |
The discussion questions and facilitating the discussion will be worth 10% of the semester grade, the annotated bibliography 15%. 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
Whether working alone or in pairs, every student will produce a final paper that will report on a topic of the student’s choice about gender, technology, and information. Each student should consider this final paper as an opportunity to advance her own current and evolving research program. While the topic for the final paper must be determined in negotiation with the instructor, students are especially encouraged to consult with their classmates about their topics.
The topic should be sufficiently narrow to apply the concepts, literatures, and other class resources in order to engage a substantial topic in the intersection of gender, technology, and information in 20 double-spaced pp. from a perspective informed by our work together this semester. It is imperative that students keep their topics narrowly focused and that their papers be succinct and clear. 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.
Topic and abstract – Each student/group will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by March 3. Each student must upload to Canvas assignments a clear statement of the paper topic and a two-page abstract 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 by no later than March 10.
In addition to their own research interests and professional work, students may find a number of resources of value in identifying a topic for the paper: discussion with the instructor and colleagues (both inside and outside of the class), review of the supplemental parts of the references in the class syllabus, bibliographies, mailing lists, the mass media, class readings, general and specific Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what the class reads. The instructor will create a list of students, topics, and peer reviewers (more on which below) to be distributed online by April 7.
Choice of paper to review – Due March 31. Each student will choose another student’s or group’s paper to review no later than March 31 by email to the instructor, listing three preferences 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.
Draft – Due April 28. Each group or individual student will submit an initial draft of the final paper on April 28 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.
Presentation – April 28 and May 5 (10%) – each student or group will make a 20-minute oral presentation related to the final paper. This will be a public presentation to which a few other persons with an interest in gender, technology, and information may be invited, particularly faculty members with advisees in the class.
Every student should use the computer and projection device available, as well as prepare an appropriate handout with, at the least, an outline of the presentation (this handout may include copies of PowerPoint slides if the student is using PowerPoint) and a short list of appropriate sources. Students will present in each half of class, with questions saved for 15-20 minutes at the end of each half of class. This arrangement parallels one common in professional conferences. Each student peer editor will act as the initial respondent to any one paper.
The dates for the presentations are April 28 and May 5. The instructor will announce the schedule on the class and other email lists no later than April 14.
Review of another student’s or group’s draft – Due May 5 (15%). Each student will review the draft of another student’s or group’s final paper and submit a three- to four-page, double-spaced critique of the paper to the appropriate site in Canvas. Be specific in the critique -- what works in the draft? What does not? Why or why not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper, whether about the topic, the argument, definitions, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and so on? The major criterion used to evaluate these reviews will be how valuable each one is in helping the author to improve her work.
Final draft – Due Friday May 8 at 12:00 Noon (25%). This is a final paper of 20 double-spaced pages that engages a topic about gender, technology, and information. This final paper may help the student(s) prepare presentations, grant proposals, master’s theses, conference papers, and dissertation chapters. This final version, like the first draft, will have a one-page abstract outlining the topic, methods of discussion and analysis used in the paper, and other pertinent elements of the paper.
The paper should be both analytic and holistic, using the texts and other general material read for the course, as well as that material more focused on students’ own home disciplines. 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
Ceruzzi, Paul E. (1991). When computers were human. Annals of the History of Computer, 13(3), 237-244. Also available at
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
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
Grier, David Alan. (2005). When computers were human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Available as an e-book in the UT Libraries catalogue.
Haraway, Donna. (2006). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. In Joel Weiss, Jeremy Hunsinger, Jason Nolan, & Peter Pericles Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 117-158). Also available at (Original published 1985)
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 catalogue.
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.
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).
Light, Jennifer, (1999). When computers were women. Technology and Culture, 40(3), 455-483. Also available at $B/1/Technology+and+Culture$3b+Baltimore/01999Y07Y01$23Jul+1999$3b++Vol.+40+$283$29/$N?accountid=7118
Maines, Rachel. (1989). Socially camouflaged technologies: The case of the electromechanical vibrator. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 8(2), 3-12. Also available
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 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.
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 catalogue.
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 catalogue.
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. C
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. C
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. C
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. C
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 catalogue.
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
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. Also available at
Mundy, Liza. (2017b, October 10). The secret history of the female code breakers who helped defeat the Nazis. Politico Magazine.
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.
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. C
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. Also available at
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
Smoreda, Zbigniew, & Licoppe, Christian. (2000). Gender-specific use of the domestic telephone. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 238-252. Also available at
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.
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
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. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Wilson, Joanna, & MacGregor, Sherilyn. (2019). New ecofeminisms: Matters of life and/or death. Invited review essay. Hypatia, 34(4), 852-857. C
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 ?
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.
Ceruzzi, Paul. (1991). When computers were human. Annals of the History of Computing, 13(3), 237-244. Also available at
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, & Broussard, Ramona. (2017). Fiction as informative and its implications for information science theory. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
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
Fox, Bonnie J. (1990). Selling the mechanized household: 70 years of ads in Ladies Home Journal. Gender & Society, 4(1), 25-40.
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.]
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
Kline, Ronald R. (2003). Home ideologies: Progress? In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 392-423). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original work published 1997)
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.
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.
Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Trauth, Eileen M. (2006). Theorizing gender and information technology research. Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology, 1154-1159.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Also available at
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 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