Feminist science and technology studies: Difference between revisions
Mxnicpixie (talk | contribs) m formatting and grammar fixes |
Mxnicpixie (talk | contribs) m added sentence to background |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
====2000's-Present==== |
====2000's-Present==== |
||
Building upon prior research from two decades of feminist STS literature, studies adopted principles based on updated frameworks at the turn of the millennium, such as [[Ellen van Oost]]'s research into how gender becomes configured into electric shavers<ref>{{Citation |last=Oost |first=Ellen van |title=Chapter 6. Aligning Gender and New Technology: The Case of Early Administrative Automation |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110810721.179 |work=Getting New Technologies Together |place=Berlin, Boston |publisher=DE GRUYTER |access-date=2022-04-14}}</ref>, [[Ruth Schwartz Cowan]]'s study on technological innovation increasing women's labor<ref>{{Citation |last=Cowan |first=Ruth Schwartz |title=The "Industrial Revolution” in the Home |date=9 March 2018 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781315180472-7 |work=The Routledge Companion to Modernity Space and Gender |pages=69–85 |place=New York |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-315-18047-2 |access-date=14 April 2022}}</ref>, and Jennifer R. Fishman's exploration of pharmaceutical technology's potential to designate potential consumers as dysfunctional<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fishman |first=Jennifer R. |date=April 2004 |title=Manufacturing Desire: |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312704043028 |journal=Social Studies of Science |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=187–218 |doi=10.1177/0306312704043028 |issn=0306-3127}}</ref>. |
|||
==Key Concepts== |
==Key Concepts== |
||
Revision as of 02:29, 21 April 2022
Feminist science and technology studies (feminist STS) is a theoretical subfield of science and technology studies (STS)
Background and Context
Early 1980's-Late 1990's
Feminist STS emerged as a social theory in the early 1980's prompted by an introduction of feminist theory into science and technology studies, partially credited to Donna Haraway's 1985 article "A Cyborg Manifesto"[1]. The discipline gained prominence in STS alongside Social construction of technology (SCOT) and Actor-network theory (ANT) as a response to criticisms of objectivity (science) and technological determinism[1]. Early feminist STS literature focused on gender differences in technology use, such as Claude S. Fischer's study of the residential telephone[2] and Cynthia Cockburn and Susan Ormrod's study of the microwave oven[3]. Including Adele Clarke and Theresa Montini's arena analysis of abortifacient technology RU486[4], early feminist STS researchers used the case study method to show that men and women interact with technology in different ways[3]. These studies were significant for establishing how people come to associate technology with masculinity or femininity through social interaction[2]. In addition to determining masculinity and femininity are multiple rather than binary constructs, research showed evidence of situated knowledges, or, the idea that there is no such thing as a neutral subject or researcher[4]. From establishing a presence in pharmaceutical and commercial technologies, feminist STS expanded into questioning the dominant authority of science by the early 1990's, borrowing methodology from ANT to expand upon prior research[4]. Theory and methods from SCOT were also incorporated into the discipline as researchers began to explore the process through which gender becomes embedded within technology, with studies adopting principles of social constructivism, for example, Judy Wajcman's research on the culture of engineering[4]. Other feminist STS studies throughout the 1990's were also influenced by the work of Steve Woolgar and his research on how technology is designed with users in mind[5], such as Trevor Pinch and Nancy Oudshoorn, who continued research into user configuration into the 2000's[6].
Interrogating scientific knowledge through the introduction of new theories and methods to feminist STS led to conflicts within the field related to the categories of sex and gender and how they are used in research[7]. Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker, SCOT researchers, proposed "interpretive flexibility" to explain different social group's varied responses to technology, gender reflected as a relevant social group[6]. Pinch was critical of Woolgar's previous research on users of technology as the design process of technological products had not been considered, proposing "symmetry", where humans impact technology equal to how technology impacts humans[6]. The symmetry approach addressed the co-constructive relationship between gender and technology[6], though was critiqued for ignoring historically-relevant power imbalances in how gender and technology relate to one another[7]. Wendy Faulkner became a notable critic of symmetry, encouraging an approach balancing symmetry's optimism with feminism's characteristic pessimism which recognizes science and technology's relationship to hegemonic masculinity[7]. This critique endorsed a return of the discipline to Donna Haraway's metaphor of the cyborg to assert women's presence in both technology design and technological cultures historically stereotyped as masculine, affirming the necessity of feminine characteristics in both design and use of technology[7]. Faulkner addressed power imbalances not addressed by the social-constructivist approach, but the reliance on gendered labels was criticized for heteronormativity within a field which had recognized multiple gender representations distinct from binary sex roles.[a 1]. Faulkner's research presented a feminist perspective in which men inherently possessed masculinity, and women femininity, neglecting the material-semiotic nature of gender and technology adopted by feminist STS scholars proposing gender as co-created alongside, not prior-to, technology[a 1]. Judy Wajcman commented on the negotiation occurring within the discipline's research from the early 1980's until the turn of the century, crediting these debates for the complex understanding of gender-technology relationships developed by feminist STS[4]. Cyberspace introduced new possibilities for research into the co-construction of gender and technology, both of which were no longer conceptualized by feminist STS as separate and fixed, but interconnected and multiple[4].
2000's-Present
Building upon prior research from two decades of feminist STS literature, studies adopted principles based on updated frameworks at the turn of the millennium, such as Ellen van Oost's research into how gender becomes configured into electric shavers[8], Ruth Schwartz Cowan's study on technological innovation increasing women's labor[9], and Jennifer R. Fishman's exploration of pharmaceutical technology's potential to designate potential consumers as dysfunctional[10].
Key Concepts
Material-semiotics
Material-semiotic theory is a relativist theory in which the social does not exist separately from the material, used in feminist STS to describe the co-constructive relationship between humans and technology[1].
Situated knowledges
Situated knowledges are knowledges created from the subject's perspective, as opposed to knowledge written about a subject[11].
Social constructivism
Social constructivism is a theoretical perspective in which knowledge is created through social interactions between entities, human or non-human[5].
Impact
Contributions
Criticisms
References
- ^ a b c Law, John (November 2008). "On Sociology and STS". The Sociological Review. 56 (4): 623–649. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.2008.00808.x. ISSN 0038-0261.
- ^ a b Fischer, Claude S. (1988). "Gender and the residential telephone, 1890?1940: Technologies of sociability". Sociological Forum. 3 (2): 211–233. doi:10.1007/bf01115291. ISSN 0884-8971.
- ^ a b Wajcman, Judy (June 2000). "Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies:". Social Studies of Science. 30 (3): 447–464. doi:10.1177/030631200030003005. ISSN 0306-3127.
- ^ a b c d e f Clarke, Adele; Montini, Theresa (January 1993). "The Many Faces of RU486: Tales of Situated Knowledges and Technological Contestations". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 18 (1): 42–78. doi:10.1177/016224399301800104. ISSN 0162-2439.
- ^ a b Woolgar, Steve (May 1990). "Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials". The Sociological Review. 38 (1_suppl): 58–99. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.1990.tb03349.x. ISSN 0038-0261.
- ^ a b c d Oudshoorn, Nelly; Pinch, Trevor (2005). "Introduction: how users and non-users matter". Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–25.
- ^ a b c d Faulkner, Wendy (January 2001). "The technology question in feminism". Women's Studies International Forum. 24 (1): 79–95. doi:10.1016/s0277-5395(00)00166-7. ISSN 0277-5395.
- ^ Oost, Ellen van, "Chapter 6. Aligning Gender and New Technology: The Case of Early Administrative Automation", Getting New Technologies Together, Berlin, Boston: DE GRUYTER, retrieved 2022-04-14
- ^ Cowan, Ruth Schwartz (9 March 2018), "The "Industrial Revolution" in the Home", The Routledge Companion to Modernity Space and Gender, New York: Routledge, pp. 69–85, ISBN 978-1-315-18047-2, retrieved 14 April 2022
- ^ Fishman, Jennifer R. (April 2004). "Manufacturing Desire:". Social Studies of Science. 34 (2): 187–218. doi:10.1177/0306312704043028. ISSN 0306-3127.
- ^ Haraway, Donna (September 1988). "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective". Feminist Studies. 14 (3): 575–599. Retrieved 16 April 2022.
Cite error: There are <ref group=a> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=a}} template (see the help page).