On Some Failures of Nerve in Constructivist and Feminist Analyses of Technology

Science, Technology & Human Values

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 1995, Pages 286-310

  Grint, Keith ^a   Woolgar, Steve ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84965565071     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016224399502000302     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Anderson, B.S., and J.P. Zinsser. 1990. A history of thear own: Women in Europe from prehistory to the present. Harmondsworth, England. Penguin.
2. Ashmore, Malcolm. 1989. The reflexive thesis: Wrighting the sociology of scientific knowledge Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Ashmore, Malcolm, Derek Edwards, and Jonathan Potter. 1994. The bottom line: The rhetoric of reality demonstrations Configurations 2: 1-14.
4. Atwood, Margaret. 1987 The handmaid's tale London: Virago.
5. Berg, A.J. 1991. “He, she and I T.: Desigmng the technological house of the future “ IFIM Paper No 12/91, Institute for Social Research in Industry, Trondheim, Norway.
6. Bijker, W. E., T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, eds 1987. The social construction of technological systems Cambndge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Bijker, W E, and J Law, eds 1992 Shaping technology/building society: Studies in Socaotechmcal change Cambndge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Cockburn, Cynthia 1983 Brothers: Male dominance and technological change. London. Pluto.
9. C. Cockburn Cynthia 1985 Machinery of dominance: Women, men and technical know-how. London: Pluto.
10. C. Cockburn Cynthia 1991 In the way of women London Macmillan.
11. Cooley, M. 1968 Architect or bee ? Slough, England Langley Techmcal Services.
12. Corea, M., Duelli-Klein, R., Hanmer, J., Holmes, H.B., Hoskins, B., Kishwar, M., Raymond, J., Rowland, R. and Steinbacher, R. 1985 Man-made women: How new reproductive technologies affect women London Hutchinson.
13. Coulter, J. 1989 Mind in action Cambridge, England Polity.
14. Cowan, Ruth Schwartz 1983 More work for mother New York Basic Books.
15. Dixon, N.F. 1976 On the psychology of military incompetence London Futura.
16. Easlea, Brian 1983 Fathering the unthinkable Masculinity, scientists and the nuclear arms race London Pluto.
17. Edwards, Derek, Malcolm Ashmore, and Jonathan Potter 1992 “Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism.” Unpublished manuscript, Loughborough University, Department of Social Sciences.
18. Elam, M. 1994. Anti anticonstructivism, or laying the fears of Langdon Winner to rest Science, Technology, & Human Values 19. 101-6.
19. Farrant, W. 1985. Who's for ammocentesis? The pohtics of prenatal screening In The sexual politics of reproduction, edited by H. Homans Aldershot, England: Gower.
20. Firestone, S. 1970. The dialectic of sex. New York: William Morrow.
21. Gnnt, Keith, and Rosalind Gill, eds. Forthcoming. The gender-technology relation. London: Taylor & Francis.
22. Grint, Keith, and Steve Woolgar. 1995. Deus ex machina: Technology, work and society Cambridge, England: Polity.
23. Hacker, Sally. 1989. Pleasure, power and technology. London: Unwin.
24. Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
25. Harding, Sandra, ed. 1986. Perspectives on gender and science. Bnghton, England. Falmer.
26. Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1988. Feminist perspectives on science studies Science, Technology, & Human Values 13: 235-49.
27. Kirkup, G., and L. Smith Keller. 1992. The nature of science and technology In Inventing women: Science, technology and gender, edited by G. Kirkup and L Smith Keller. Cambridge, England: Polity.
28. Klein, R. 1985. What's “new” about the “new” reproductive technologies? In Man-made women, edited by G. Corea et al. London: Hutchinson.
29. Kling, Rob, 1992 Audiences, narratives and human values in social studies of technology Science, Technology, & Human Values 17: 349-65.
30. Kreinberg, N., and E.K. Stage 1983. EQUALS in computer technology In The technological woman: Interfacing with tomorrow, edited by J Zimmerman. New York. Praeger.
31. Kvande, E., and B. Rasmussen. 1986. “Who lacks courage-the organizations or the women?” NOTAT Paper No. 5, Institute for Social Research in Industry, Trondheim, Norway.
32. Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
33. Law, John., ed. 1991. A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination London: Routledge.
34. MacKenzie, Donald. 1990 Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of missile guidance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. McNeil, Maureen, ed 1987 Gender and expertise. London: Free Association Books.
36. Moskos, C. 1990. Army women Atlantic Monthly. August.
37. Pinch, Trevor, and Wiebe Bijker. 1989 The social construction of facts and artifacts-or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other In The social construction of technological systems, edited by W E. Bijker, T P Hughes, and T Pinch Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
38. Pollner, M. 1978. Constitutive and mundane versions of labeling theory Human Sciences 31 285-304.
39. Post Office Records 1930 Women Clerks Equality of Opportunity (No 0033) London.
40. Roberts, M. 1979 Sickles and scythes. Htstory Workshop Journal, No 7, pp 3-28.
41. Rothschild, J. 1983. Machina ex dea Oxford, England: Pergamon.
42. Rowland, R. 1992. Living laboratories. Women and reproductive technologies London Lime Tree.
43. Shields, P.M. 1988 Sex roles in the military In The military More than just a Job?, edited by C Moskos and F. R. Wood. Oxford, England. Pergamon-Brassey.
44. Sorensen, Knut 1992. Towards a feminized technology? Gendered values in the construction of technology. Social Studies of Science 22. 5-31.
45. Stanley, A. 1992. Mothers of invention New Jersey. Scarecrow.
46. Wajcman, J. 1991. Feminism confronts technology Cambridge, England: Pohty.
47. Wheelwright, J. 1992. “A brother in arms, a sister in peace”: Contemporary issues of gender and military technology. In Inventing women, edited by G. Kirkup and L Smith Keller Cambridge, England: Polity.
48. Winner, Langdon 1985 Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109: 121-36.
49. 1993 Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Scaence, Technology, & Human Values 18-362-78.
50. Woolgar, Steve. 1981 Interests and explanation in the social study of science Social Studies of Science 11: 365-94.
51. S. Woolgar Steve., ed 1988. Knowledge and reflexrvaty: New frontiers in the socaology of knowledge London: Sage.
52. S. Woolgar Steve. 1992. “Who/what is this for? Utility and value as textual accomplishments “ Paper presented at 4S/EASST Conference, Gothenberg, Sweden 12-15 August.
53. S. Woolgar Steve. 1993 What's at stake in the sociology of technology? Science, Technology, & Human Values 18: 523-29.
54. Woolgar, Steve, and Dorothy Pawluch 1985. Ontological gerrymandering. The anatomy of social problems explanations Social Problems 32: 214-27.
55. Zoonen, L. Van. 1992. Feminist theory and information technology. Media, Culture and Society 14: 9-30.