GENDER, TECHNOLOGY, AND INFORMATION
GRS 390J
Unique Number #63750
Dr. Hillary Hart
Dr. Philip Doty
College of Engineering School of
Information
University of Texas at Austin
SP 2006
Class time: Wednesday 4:00 – 7:00 PM
Place: ECJ 7.208
Office: (Hart) ECJ 8.214
(Doty) SZB 570
Office hrs: (Hart) Tuesday 1:30 – 3:30 PM
(Doty) Friday 9:00 – 10:00 AM
By appointment other times
Telephone: Direct line
(Hart) 512.471.4635
(Doty) 512.471.3746
Main office (Hart)
512.471.4921 (Doty)
512.471.3821
Internet: hart@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/hart
pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm
Class URL:
http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty/2006/spring/GRS390J/
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
GRS 390J examines gender, technology, and information (see below),
three major concepts in contemporary social theory, empirical research,
and work practice, looking especially at the interaction among
them. The course is interdisciplinary, drawing on work in areas
such as gender studies, engineering and computer science, information
studies, anthropology, literary studies, communication, politics,
sociology, business, philosophy, cultural studies, and public affairs.
Students will be asked to explore various perspectives on the
interactions, historically and currently, of gender, technology, and
information. These perspectives and concepts include narrative
and metaphor, design and gender, the gendering of various technologies,
identity and the Internet, the digital divide, the invisibility of
information work in organizations, the history of technology, and
gender and reading (e.g., book clubs). We are fortunate to have several
international experts visiting this class as part of the Gender,
Technology, and the Information Society Speaker Series. These
researchers, along with UT faculty members, staff, and students with
particular expertise, will guide our exploration of how those
perspectives intersect with topics such as digital technologies,
the “new economy,” reproductive technologies, domestic
technologies, and public health. The course also considers
multiple research methods to investigate gender, technology, and
information.
Like all GRS courses, GRS 390J supports students’ current research and
helps them produce various scholarly products, e.g., grant proposals,
master’s theses, conference papers, and dissertation chapters.
Special goals of a GRS course are the usefulness of students’ learning
and its engagement with multiple disciplines and the community of
scholars.
Graduate students from all disciplines and units in the University are
welcome, and the class may be taken for a letter grade or for credit/no
credit.
In this course, we take a non-essentialist position about gender, i.e.,
we do not support the assertion that there are some essential,
identifiable differences among people of different genders. We
also are interested in gender as broadly as possible, considering but
also moving beyond “feminism and . . .” or “women in . . .” as the sole
focus of the course.
Technology is another of the significant concepts for our course.
We do not limit our consideration of technology to digital technologies
this semester, or, for that matter, only to information
technologies. While we will examine concrete artifacts like
computers, paper, books, houses, and other technologies, technology
studies includes many other elements, e.g., music, language, literary
genres, social conventions, and practices of all kinds.
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 it is
only a fiction. As such, information is not “in our minds” or “in
files” or the like – thus we will avoid locutions such as “content”
when speaking about information and communication. Instead, we
will move beyond the cognitivism inherent in information as thing and
look more to meaning making, cultural production, and social practice.
EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE
Seminar students are especially expected to be involved, creative, and
vigorous participants in class discussions and in the overall conduct
of the class. In addition, students are expected to:
• Attend all class sessions; if a student misses a
class, it is her responsibility to arrange with another student to
obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets
• Read all material prior to class; students are
expected to use the course readings to inform their classroom
participation and their writing assignments. Students, like all
scholars, 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 scholarly
persona.
• Educate themselves and their peers. Your
successful completion of your academic program and your participation
in professional life depend upon your willingness to demonstrate
initiative and creativity. Your participation in the professional
and personal growth of your colleagues is essential to your success as
well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of professional
life, especially among scholars, so some assignments are designed to
encourage collaboration.
• Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each
hour in the classroom of a seminar; therefore, a 3-credit hour course
requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside the classroom
• Participate in all class discussions
• Hand in all assignments fully and on time -- late
assignments will not be accepted except in the particular circumstances
noted below.
• Be responsible with collective property, especially
books and other material on reserve
• Ask for any explanation and help from the
instructors or the Teaching Assistant, either in class, during office
hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate
way. Email is especially appropriate for information
questions. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, it is
always wise to send a copy of any email intended for the
instructors to the TA as well; he has access to email more regularly.
Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud,
will not be tolerated and will incur severe penalties, including
failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior that
may be academically dishonest, consult the instructors. Students
should refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C,
Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988)
by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of
Students.
The instructors are happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for
qualified 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.
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK
Review these standards before and after writing; they are used to
evaluate your work. While a few are idiosyncratic ;~), most are
key to being part of the community of scholars.
You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity,
clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in your written work for
this class, and, to that end, we offer the following remarks.
Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what his or her
audience knows about the topic at hand; therefore, effective
communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott reminds
us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . .
. the many who do not know, not the few who do." It is also
important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of language, and
clarity of syntax are mutually reinforcing. Good writing makes
for good thinking and vice versa. Remember that writing is a form
of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static
thought “in” the mind.
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 10, 11, or 12
pt. font.
Certain writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either
footnotes or endnotes) and references. It is particularly
important in professional schools such as the College of Engineering
and the School of Information that notes and references are impeccably
done. Please use MLA (Modern Language Association),
Chicago/Turabian, or APA (American Psychological Association)
standards. Familiarity with standard formats is essential for
understanding others' work and for preparing submissions to journals,
funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. Please check
the journals in your field to see which referencing and citation
standards they use.
In graduate school or in professional writing, do not use a general
dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms. If you want to use
a reference source to define a term, a better choice would be a
specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
or subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia
of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The best alternative,
however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the
term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that
literature. This understanding is vital to the development of
your identity as an independent scholar.
Use the spell checker in your word processing package to review your
documents, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries: do not
include most proper nouns, including personal and place names; omit
most technical terms; include very few foreign words and phrases; and
cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there"
instead of "their," or in writing "the" instead of "them."
It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise
in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your
writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally,
each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing the
following items:
• The title of the assignment
• Your name
• The date
• The class number – GRS 390J
If you have any questions about these standards, we will be pleased to
discuss them with you at any time.
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)
Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the
aims of the class, we will read and edit your work as the editor of a
professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a
professional conference would. The reminders below will help you
prepare professional-level written work appropriate to any
situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14,
15, 18, 20, and 25 (some have more than one error):
1. Staple all papers for this class in the
upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or other
means of keeping the pages together.
2. Number all pages after the title
page. Ordinarily, notes and references do NOT count against page
limits.
3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial
language, *you know?* It is essential in graduate work and in
professional communication to avoid failures in diction -- be serious
and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for,
and be everything in between as necessary.
4. Avoid clichés. They are vague,
*fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant input."*
5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input,"
"feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in
specific technical ways; similarly avoid using “content” as a noun.
6. Avoid using the term "relevant" except in
its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a colloquial
cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in
information studies.
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 your preferred style convention for
the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*
9. Avoid using the terms "objective" and
"subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major
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 a singular
form, 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 [not "was"] only taller."
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, the sentence should read "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; e.g., it is
inappropriate to write the following sentence: “As someone
interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to
attend the lecture.” The sentence is inappropriate because the
phrase "As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica" is meant
to modify the next immediate word, which should then, obviously, be
both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify
the word "I" by preceding it immediately. One good alternative
for the sentence is: As someone interested in the history of
Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture.
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. Remember that the words "data," "media,"
"criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all PLURAL forms. They
*TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a
singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the
instructors very unhappy :-(.
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. Remember also that
“less” refers to volume and “fewer” to quantity (number): “Eating less
candy leads to fewer dentist bills.”
20. *The passive voice should generally be used with
caution.* We will discuss appropriate voice in class.
21. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while
"among" is used with three or more.
22. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as
Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to persons in your
writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last
names and dates as appropriate in your preferred citation convention.
23. There is no generally accepted standard for
citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give an
indication, as specifically as possible, of:
- responsibility (who?)
- title (what?)
- date of creation (when?)
- date viewed (when?)
- place to find the source (where? how?).
See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association
(2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214, 231, and 268-281) for a sample discussion
of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see Web
Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at
http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE
24. "Cite" is a verb, "citation" is a noun;
similarly, "quote" is a verb, "quotation" is a noun.
25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*
26. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single
quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of course. Single quotation
marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations.
27. Provide a specific page number for all direct
quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page or other digital
source, provide at least the paragraph number and/or other directional
cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”
28. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.
29. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as
to." Do not use “due to,” for reasons we will discuss.
30. In much of social science and humanistic study,
the term "issue" is used in a technical way to identify sources of
public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to
topics about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT
synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.
31. “Impact” is a noun; so is “research.”
32. Generally avoid starting a sentence with
“however.”
33. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward,
colloquial, and vague.
34. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe
research participants. “Respondents,” “participants,” and
“informants” are preferred terms and have been for decades.
35. Do not use footnotes unless absolutely necessary,
but, if you must use them, adhere to your preferred style convention
for the use of notes.
36. Be consistent in your use of citation and note
conventions – choose one style for any particular paper and use that
style throughout.
SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS
Your papers will be returned with careful comments on style, clarity,
intellectual rigor, organization, and grammar. In some cases, we
will suggest specific revisions; in others, we will describe the source
of the error or weakness. At yet other times, we will query you about
your intention and structural plan for the paper. Writing well takes
lots of practice and a healthy embracing of constructive
criticism. Forgive us in advance if we tend to comment more on
what needs work in your paper than on what is well done.
Symbol Meaning
#
number OR insert a space; context
will help you decipher its meaning
AWK awkward;
and usually compromises clarity as well
block make into
a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with
quotations ≥ 4 lines
caps capitalize
COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided
dB
database
FRAG sentence fragment; often that
means that the verb and/or subject of the sentence is missing
j
journal
lc
make into lower case
org, org’l organization, organizational
PL plural
Q
question
Q’naire questionnaire
REF? what is the referent
of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?
RQ
research question
sp
spelling
SING singular
w/
with
w.c.? word choice?
We also use check marks to indicate that the writer has made an
especially good point and wavy lines under or next to a term to
indicate that the usage is suspect.
GRADING
The grading system for this class includes the following grades:
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
Students should consult the iSchool Web site
(http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/index.html) and the Graduate
School Catalogue (e.g.,
http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad03-05/ch1/ch1a.html#nature
and
http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad03-05/ch1/ch1b.html#student)
for more on standards of work. While the University does not
accept the grade of A+, the instructors may assign the grade to
students whose work is extraordinary.
A grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate
school. In this class, the grade of A is reserved 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 instructors before the
end of the semester.
We will use points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades.
Instead, we will cumulate points earned at the end of the semester to
determine final letter grades for the course. A point total ≥ 90
will earn an A of some kind, while a point total ≥ 80 will earn at
least a B of some kind.
The instructors will be happy to explain this system further as the
semester progresses.
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS
There are four required texts for this class. You can purchase
Lerman et al. (2003a), Pursell (2001a), and Shaw (1994) at the Co-op
(476.7211). The reading packet is at University Duplicating
Service at the Graduate School of Business, GSB 3.136 (471.8281).
As many of the required readings as possible will be on Reserve at PCL,
including the reading packet; many of the readings are available
online. We also list a number of recommended books – these can be
supplemented by the many sources in the separate document online.
These are the required texts:
Lerman, Nina E., Oldenziel, Ruth, & Mohun, Arwen P.
(2003a). Gender & technology: A reader.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Pursell, Carroll. (Ed.). (2001a). American
technology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Shaw, George Bernard. (1994). Pygmalion (Ed. Thomas
Crofts). Mineola, NY: Dover Thrift Editions. (Original
published 1916)
Reading packet – one volume of readings.
You may also wish to review these discussion lists:
CYBER-FEM [send the message:
SUBSCRIBE CYBER-FEM to
MAJORDOMO@HSPHSUN2.HARVARD.EDU]
GENDER-SET [see
http:www.jismail.ac..uk/lists/gender-set.html]
SYSTERS [send a message with the
word “subscribe” in the subject line to
SYSTERS-ADMIN@SYSTERS.ORG]
WEBWOMEN-TECH [send a message with
the word “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject field to
WEBWOMEN-TECH-REQUEST@NIESTU.COM]
We recommend these books for your further study of gender, technology,
and information:
Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve.
(1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific
facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Spain, Daphne. (1992). Gendered
spaces. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
Wajcman, Judy. (1991). Feminism
confronts technology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University.
Wajcman, Judy. (2004).
TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS
The instructors will provide additional information about each
assignment. Written assignments are to be word-processed and
double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins.
Assignments are due in class unless otherwise indicated.
Assignment
Date Due
Percent of Grade
Preparation and participation
---
10%
Topic and abstract (2 pp.) for final paper on
MAR 1
---
gender, technology, and information
Response paper #1 (2-4 pp.)
MAR
8
10
Annotated bibliography for final paper
MAR 29
5
Response paper #2 (2-4 pp.)
APR
5
15
Choice of final paper to review
APR 5
---
Draft of paper on gender, technology, and information
APR 12
---
(≥ 10 pp.)
Public presentation on final paper
APR 12, 19, 26
MAY 3
Instructors’ evaluation
10
Classmates’ evaluation
5
Peer review of another student’s draft of final paper
APR 19
15
(3-4 pp.)
Final paper on gender, technology, and information
MAY 3
30
(20-25 pp.)
All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructors reserve
the right to issue a course grade of F if any assignment is not
completed. Late assignments will not be accepted unless three
criteria are met:
1. At least 24 hours before the date due, the
instructors give explicit permission to the student to hand the
assignment in late.
2. At the same time, a specific date and time are
agreed upon for the late submission.
3. The assignment is then submitted on or before the
agreed-upon date and time.
The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health,
family, or personal situations.
All of your assignments should adhere to the standards for written
work; should be clear, succinct, and specific; and should be explicitly
grounded in the readings, class discussions, and other sources as
appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write
multiple drafts of your papers.
SCHEDULE
The schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through
the semester. Readings from Gender and Technology: A Reader
are indicated as A Reader; readings from American Technology are
indicated by Amer Tech. Some readings are in the reading packet
(R), while many other required readings are available online as
indicated. Some of the readings require you to be logged in with
your UTEID through the UT libraries. AS indicates Additional
Sources, listed in a separate document.
DATE TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND
REQUIRED READINGS
JAN 18
Introduction to the course
Review
of the syllabus
What are your
specific research interests, and how can this course support them?
READ: Lerman et al. (2003b) – A
Reader
Ingold (2005) online
JAN 25
Exploring technology (1): Definitions, metaphors,
perspectives, theories
READ: McGaw (2003) – A Reader
Pickering (1995) R
O’Day & Nardi (2003) R
FEB 1
Exploring technology (2): Definitions, metaphors, perspectives,
theories
READ: Oldenziel (2003) – A Reader
Readings on Galatea – Mythography
(n.d.) online, Wikipedia (2006) online, Greek Mythology Link (1997)
online, Rickard (n.d.) online
Shaw (1994; 1916)
Lury (1993) R
FEB 8
A gendered look at technology (1)
READ: Haraway (1990) online
Haraway (2004) R
Kleinegger (2001) – and “Social and
Labor Needs,” Tripp (2001), Sims (2001), and “Further Reading” – Amer
Tech
Kline (2003) – A Reader
FEB 15
A gendered look at technology (2)
Speakers – Barbara Crow and Leslie R. Shade – Digital
technologies and gender
READ: Crow (2005)
Shade (1998) online
Shade & Crow (2004)
FEB 22
A gendered look at technology (3)
READ: Wajcman (1991) R
Maines (2001) – and Taylor
(2001), Snow (2001), Eberhart (2001), Covey (2001), “Enjoy Life”
(2001), and “Further Reading”
AS:
Fishman (2004)
MAR 1
Book clubs and reading
Speaker – Elizabeth Long – Book clubs
READ: Long (2003a, b, c, and d) R
Olson (2005) R
Rossiter (1992c) R
AS:
Miller (2004)
Lee (2004)
Alexander (2004)
DUE: Topic and two-page abstract for final paper
MAR 8
Age and the digital world (1)
The new
economy
Speakers – Karen Riggs, Sirkka Jarvenpaa
READ: Riggs (2004), 1, 3 and
10 online
Trauth and
Quesenberry (forthcoming) online
Morgan et al. (2004)
online
Quesenberry and Trauth
(2005) online
DUE: Response to speakers (2-4 pp.) (10%)
MAR 15
No class – spring break
MAR 22
Gender, computer science, and engineering (1)
Speaker – Mary Jo Kiristis, Elaine Rich
READ: Rossiter (1992a and b) R
Sinclair (2001) – and
Waddell (2001), Perry (2001), and “Further Reading” – Amer Tech
AS:
Canel et al. (2000)
Ceruzzi (1991)
Creager et al. (2001)
Fritz (1996)
McIlwee & Robinson (1992)
MAR 29 Age
and the digital world (2)
Gender,
computer science, and engineering (2)
Speaker – Mizuko Ito – youth cultures
READ: Edwards (2003) – A Reader
Ito et al. (2001) online
DUE: Annotated bibliographies (5%)
APR 5
Gender and articulation work
Speakers – Mary Lynn Rice-Lively, Suellen Adams, Tracy LaQuey Parker –
panel
READ: Star & Strauss (1999)
online
Suchman (1996) R
Chen (2001) online
DUE: Response paper (2-4 pp.) (15%)
APR 12
Students’ presentations (10/5%)
DUE: Draft due – final paper (≥ 10 pp.)
APR 19
Students’ presentations (10/5%)
DUE: Review of another student’s draft of final paper (≥ 3-4 pp.)
(15%)
APR 26
Students’ presentations (10/5%)
Speaker – Susannah Stern – the Internet and identity
READ: Stern (2004a) online
Stern (2004b)
MAY 3
Students’ presentations (10/5%)
Course evaluation
Course summary
READ: Pursell (2001b),
Introduction – Amer Tech
McGaw (2001) – and Jones (2001)
and “Further Reading” – Amer Tech
Ross (2001) – and “Further
Reading” – Amer Tech
Lerman, Mohun, & Oldenziel
(2003) – A Reader
DUE: Final paper (20-25 pp.) (30%)
ASSIGNMENTS
Response papers – Due March 8 (10%)
and April 5 (15%)
These assignments are designed to help you synthesize and deepen your
thinking about two of the speakers’ work. You will choose one external
(non-UT) speaker for each paper and write a paper of two to four
double-paced pages (2-4 pp.) assessing both the written work and the
speaker’s presentation of her research or conclusions. The first paper
will respond to ideas generated by Barbara Crow, Leslie Shade, or
Elizabeth Long. The second paper will respond to Karen Riggs or Mizuko
Ito. Your papers should also respond to in-class discussion.
These papers may be related to the topic you choose for your final
paper, or they may address concerns that complement or even contradict
the thesis of your major paper. Often in scholarly work, the imperative
to present a coherent and cohesive argument means you have to leave out
some ideas, themes, or metaphors you have encountered. If
your topic for the final paper does not encompass specifically the work
of these 5 scholars, the response papers will allow you to explore some
of those often compelling byways of thought.
Paper on gender, technology, and
information – Different parts due various dates
Every student’s final paper of the semester will report on a topic of
the student’s choice about gender, technology, and information.
Since all GRS courses aim to help students produce presentations, grant
proposals, master’s theses, conference papers, and dissertation
chapters, 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 instructors, students are especially encouraged
to consult with their classmates about their topics.
The topic should be sufficiently narrow that the student can apply the
concepts, literatures, and other class resources in order to engage a
substantial topic in the intersection of gender, technology, and
information in 20-25 double-spaced pp. from a perspective informed by
our work together this semester. It is imperative that students
keep their topics narrowly focused and that their papers be succinct,
clear, and focused.
Topic and abstract – Each student will clear the proposed topic
with the instructors by March 1. Each student must provide a
clear statement of his topic and a two-page abstract of how the final
paper will address the topic by that date, preferably before.
In addition to their own research interests and professional work,
students may find a number of resources of value in identifying a topic
for the paper: discussion with the instructors 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 instructors will create a list of students and topics
to be distributed online and in class no later than March 22.
Annotated bibliography – Due March 29 (5%) – each student will create
an annotated bibliography of ten (10) sources pertinent to the
student’s final paper for the class. The annotations should be
about 3-4 sentences long and should be very specific about the sources’
value to the paper’s topic. The student should distribute a paper
copy of the annotated bibliography to each member of the class and give
three paper copies to the instructors. Students will also post
their annotated bibliographies to the appropriate forum in BlackBoard
as instructed.
Choice of paper to review – Due April 5. Each student will choose
another student’s paper to review no later than April 5.
The choices will generally be on a first-come, first-served basis,
although the instructors reserve the right to assign students to
particular drafts keeping in mind such criteria as students’ genders,
research interests, education, employment, native languages, and the
like.
Draft – Due April 12. Each student will submit an initial draft
of his final paper on April 12. 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, MLA, or other
acceptable format. Students will submit three copies of this
draft -- one for the student peer editor and two for the instructors.
Presentation – April 12, 19, and 26, May 3 (10% for instructors’
evaluation and 5% for students’ evaluations) – each student will
make a 30- minute oral presentation related to her final paper.
This will be a public presentation to which a few other persons with an
interest in gender, technology, and information will be invited,
particularly faculty members with advisees in the class.
Every student should use the computer and projection device available,
as well as prepare an appropriate handout with, at the least, an
outline of the presentation (this handout may include copies of
PowerPoint slides if the student is using PowerPoint) and a short list
of appropriate sources. Two 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 12, 19, 26, and May 3.
The instructors and the class TA will organize the presentation
sessions and announce the schedule on the class and other email lists
no later than April 5.
Review of another student’s draft – Due April 19 (15%). Each
student will review the draft of another student’s final paper and
submit three copies of a three- to four-page, double-spaced critique of
the paper. One copy will go to the student who wrote the draft
and two to the instructors. 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 May 3 (30%). This is a final paper of 20-25
double-spaced pages that engages a topic of the student’s choice about
gender, technology, and information. This final paper may help
the student prepare presentations, grant proposals, master’s
theses, conference papers, and dissertation chapters. This final
version, like the first draft, will have a one-page abstract outlining
the topic, methods of discussion and analysis used in the paper, and
other pertinent elements of the paper.
The paper should be both analytic and holistic, using the texts and
other general material read for the course, as well as that material
more focused on students’ own disciplines. Students should
remember to consult the syllabus on standards for written work both
before and after they write and provide three copies of their final
papers in the last class on Wednesday, May 3. They will also post
the final drafts in the appropriate forum in the class BlackBoard
space.
REFERENCES
Some of the readings are in the course packet from University
Duplicating (R). Several other required readings are available
online, as indicated below and in the class schedule, and some of them
require you to be logged in with your UTEID through the UT libraries.
Those journals available online are usually available for only part of
their publication run; further, UT often has more than one arrangement
through which to get these journals online, so there may be more than
one URL for each journal. Feel free to explore the various online
journal packages – the more familiar you are with such arrangements,
the better researcher you will be.
Sources in the class schedule
Chen, Hope A. (2001). Patriarchal structures of subject
access and subversive techniques for change. Canadian Journal of
Information and Library Science, 26(2/3), 1-29. Also available at
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bt+ID++%222TB%22+1025&_ug=sid+E23D3121%2DB969%2D4427%2D99AE%2D914A051D34B3%40sessionmgr2+dbs+aph+4110&_us=hd+False+fcl+Aut+or+Date+frn+1+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00082255+5F70&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Canadian++Journal++of++Information++%26++Library++Sciences%22++and++DT++20010601+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Daph+hd+False+op%5B0+%2D+mdb%5B0+%2Dimh+C35A&fn=1&rn=1
Covey, A. Dale. (2001). Profitable office
specialties. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp.
140-141). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original published c.
1912)
Crow, Barbara. (2005). Gendering surveillance: Mobile
masculinities. Paper presented at the International
Communications Studies Association, New York, May 28.
Eberhart, Noble M. (2001). A brief guide to vibratory
technique. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp.
135-140). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original 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)
Enjoy life. (2001) . In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American
technology (p. 142). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original
published 1913)
Greek Mythology Link. (1997). Pygmalion 1.
http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Pygmalion1.html
Haraway, Donna. (1990). A manifesto for cyborgs:
Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. In
Linda J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 190-233).
New York: Routledge. Also available
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html
Haraway, Donna. (2004). There are always more things going
on than you thought! Methodologies as thinking
technologies. Part II of an interview with Donna Haraway by Nina
Lykke, Randi Markussen, and Finn Olesen. In The Haraway reader
(pp. 332-342). New York: Routledge. R
Ingold, Cindy. (2005). Women and gender studies Internet
reference resources: A critical overview. Journal of
Library Administration, 43(3/4), 103-117. Also available at
http://www.haworthpress.com/Store/E-Text/ViewLibraryEText.asp?s=J111&m=0
Ito, Mizuko, O’Day, Vicki L., Adler, Annette, Linde, Charlotte, &
Mynatt, Elizabeth D. (2001). Making a place for seniors on
the net: SeniorNet, senior identity, and the digital
divide. Computers and Society, 31(3), 15-21. Also available
at
http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=504696&coll=portal&dl=ACM&type=issue&idx=J198&part=periodical&WantType=periodical&title=ACM%20SIGCAS%20Computers%20and%20Society&CFID=60024550&CFTOKEN=47846330
Jones, Alice Hanson. (2001). American colonial
wealth: Documents and methods. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.),
American technology (pp. 32-38). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
(Original published 1977)
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
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 published 1997)
Lerman, Nina E., Mohun, Arwen P., & Oldenziel, Ruth.
(2003). The shoulders we stand on/The view from here:
Historiography and directions for research. In Nina E. Lerman, Ruth
Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender &
technology: A reader (pp. 425-449). Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins.
Lerman, Nina E., Oldenziel, Ruth, & Mohun, Arwen P.
(2003b). Introduction: Interrogating boundaries. In
Nina E. Lerman, Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.),
Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 1-9).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Light, Jennifer. (2003). Programming. In Nina E. Lerman,
Ruth Oldenziel, & Arwen P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender &
technology: A reader (pp. 295-326). Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins. (Original published 1999)
Long, Elizabeth. (2003a). Between past and present:
Introductory reflections on the changing nature of women’s reading
groups. In Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in
everyday life (pp. 59-73 and 230-231). Chicago: University
of Chicago. R
Long, Elizabeth. (2003b). I felt like I had been made
totally invisible: Readers Inc. engages the issue of women in the
public world. In Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading
in everyday life (pp. 163-169). Chicago: University of
Chicago. R
Long, Elizabeth. (2003c). Reading and cultural
context. In Book clubs: Women and the uses of reading in
everyday life (pp. 21-30). Chicago: University of Chicago. R
Long, Elizabeth. (2003d). Preface. In Book clubs:
Women and the uses of reading in everyday life (ix-xviii and p.
225). Chicago: University of Chicago. R
Lury, Celia. (1993). Technologies of culture and
gender. In Cultural rights: Technology, legality, and
personality (pp. 177-206). London: Routledge. R
Maines, Rachel. (2001). Socially camouflaged
technologies: The case of the electromechanical vibrator.
In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 117-130).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell. IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine, 8(2), 3-11, 23. Also available
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=1989&isnumber=1367&Submit32=Go+To+Issues
(Original published 1989)
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 published 1994)
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)
Morgan, A.J., Quesenberry, J.L., & Trauth, E.M. (2004).
Exploring the importance of social networks in the IT workforce:
Experiences with the “Boy's Club.” Proceedings of the Americas
Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1313-1320), New York, NY.
Mythography. (no date). Galatea.
http://www.loggia.com/myth/galatea.html
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. R
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 published 1997)
Olson, Linda. (2005). Reading, writing, and relationships
in dialogue. In Linda Olson & Kathryn Kerby-Fulton (Eds.),
Voices in dialogue: Reading women in the middle ages (pp.
1-30). Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame. R
Perry, J.P.H. (2001). Unemployed engineers. In
Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 160-168). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell. (Original published 1938)
Pickering, Andrew. (1995). Technology: Numerically
controlled machine tools. In The mangle of practice: Time,
agency, & science (pp. 157-176). Chicago: University of
Chicago. R
Pursell, Carroll. (2001b). Introduction. In American
technology (pp. 1-10). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Quesenberry, J.L. and Trauth, E.M. (2005). The role of ubiquitous
computing in maintaining work-life balance: Perspectives from women in
the IT workforce. In C. Sorensen, Y. Yoo, K. Lyytinen, & J.I.
DeGross (Eds.), Designing ubiquitous information environments:
Socio-technical issues and challenges (pp. 43-55). IFIP TC8 WG
8.2 International Working Conferences, August 1-3, 2005.
Rickard, John. (no date). Pygmalion and Galatea.
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rickard/Hypermedia/HTML/pygmalion.html
Riggs, Karen E. (2004). Granny @ work: Aging and new
technology on the job in America. New York:
Routledge. Also available at
http://www.lib.utexas.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.netLibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=115753
Ross, Andrew. (2001). Hacking away at the
counterculture. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology
(pp. 325-347). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original published
1991)
Rossiter, Margaret W. (1992a). Introduction. In Women
scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940
(xv-xviii). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original
published 1982)
Rossiter, Margaret W. (1992b). Preface. In Women
scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940
(xi-xii). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original
published 1982)
Rossiter, Margaret W. (1992c). Women’s clubs and prizes:
Compensatory recognition. In Women scientists in America:
Struggles and strategies to 1940 (pp. 297-316 and 394-397).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. (Original published 1982)
Shade, Leslie Regan. (1998). A gendered perspective on
access to the information infrastructure. Information Society,
14(1), 33-44. Also available at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/utis/1998/00000014/00000001/art00004;jsessionid=21ljenqucvijo.victoria
Shade, Leslie Regan, & Crow, Barbara. (2004). Canadian
feminist perspectives on digital technology. Topia:
Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 11, 161-176.
Shaw, George Bernard. (1994). Pygmalion (Ed. Thomas
Crofts). Mineola, NY: Dover Thrift Editions. (Original
published 1916)
Sims, Newell Leroy. (2001). The farm house. In
Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 203-207). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell. (Original 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
published 1904)
Social and Labor Needs. (2001) . In Carroll Pursell (Ed.),
American technology (pp. 189-200). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
(Original published 1915)
Star, Susan Leigh, & Strauss, Anselm. (1999). Layers of
silence, arenas of voice: The dialogues between visible and
invisible work. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work, 8(1-2), 9-30. Also available at
http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=161888&PDF=1
Stern, Susannah R. (2004a). Expressions of identity
online: Prominent features and gender differences in adolescents’
WWW home pages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
48(2), 218-243.
Also available at
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+ufhjnh+bt+ID++%22JBE%22+586E&_ug=sid+935145AE%2D3B88%2D428B%2DB042%2D3FE41853BCAC%40sessionmgr2+dbs+ufh+cp+1+DDD8&_us=hd+False+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00082915+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+CCF9&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Journal++of++Broadcasting++%26++Electronic++Media%22++and++DT++20040601+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Dufh+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+719D&lfr=Hierarchical+Journal&uh=1&sci=S1
Stern, Susannah R. (2004b). Studying youth online: A
consideration of ethical issues. In E.A. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings
in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp.
274-287). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
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. R
Taylor, George H. (2001). Improvement in medical rubbing
apparatus. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp.
131-133). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original published 1876)
Trauth, E.M., & Quesenberry, J.L. (Forthcoming). Gender and
the information technology workforce: Issues of theory and
practice. In P. Yoong, & S. Huff (Eds.), Managing IT
professional in the Internet age.
Tripp, Guy E. (2001). Power on the farm. In Carroll
Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp. 201-203). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell. (Original published 1926)
Waddell, J.A.L. (2001). Some notes on vocational
guidance. In Carroll Pursell (Ed.), American technology (pp.
155-160). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original published 1928)
Wajcman, Judy. (1991). Reproductive technology:
Delivered into men’s hands. In Feminism confronts technology (pp.
54-80). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University. R
Wikipedia. (2006). Galatea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatea_%28mythology%29
Selected important journals
differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies
Feminist Theory
Gender and History
Gender, Work & Organization
Journal of Gender Studies
Knowledge and Society: The Anthropology of Science and Technology
Minerva
Science and Technology Review
Science and Technology Studies
Science Studies
Science, Technology, and Human Values
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society
Social Studies of Science
Technology and Culture
Women’s Studies Quarterly
Selected additional sources
These sources are already posted in a separate document on the Web site
and will also be handed out in class in the first few weeks of the
semester. We want to help open the door to the many existing
explorations of the intersections of gender, technology, and
information, but we do not want to overwhelm you, at least immediately.