Z544 Syllabus

I399/Z544: Gender and Computerization

Semester:	Spring 2015	Instructor:	Prof. Susan Herring
Time:	M 5:45-8:30 p.m.	Office:	LI 037
Place:	LI 030	Phone:	856-4919 (voice mail)
Office hours:	M 4:15-5:15 p.m. and by appointment	Email:	herring @ indiana.edu

Facebook group (for class members only): I399/Z544: Gender and Computerization

Required reading:

Misa, T. J. Ed. (2010). Gender Codes: Why Women Are Leaving Computing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Articles to be made available on Oncourse or on the public Web.

1. Course background and importance

Women are active users of information technology. They outnumber men on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest. Older teen girls are avid users of online technologies that enable them to reinforce existing relationships. While the gender gaps that were still visible a few years ago have narrowed in terms of overall Internet use, information technology (IT)-related fields have yet to undergo a similar change. IT as well as associated disciplines such as mathematics and engineering have been and continue to be male-centric environments. This is not to say that there are not women in computer science, for example. There are. This is also not to say that the IT experience for men is always a positive one. It is not.

However, research suggests that more males than females enroll in and complete computer science courses/programs; and more males than females design, implement, and administer computer networks. In general, females express less interest than males in learning about computer programming. Despite their active use of digital environments, females continue to convey less confidence than their male peers in their technological capabilities. Scholars posit that these and other issues translate into fewer women entering IT careers. The “gender gap” and the “leaky pipeline” are terms that are commonly used to describe the disparity between the number of males and females in IT.

At the same time, today’s technology-focused world is becoming more global, and IT is becoming even more pervasive in the workings of everyday life. When students attend class, technology is typically part of that experience. Patients who visit a physician also encounter technology when their medical history information is entered into a computer system. Even a simple visit to the neighborhood grocery story involves technology. What happens if certain segments of the population are left behind as the technology moves forward?

In order to compete in a global society, it is in the best interest of society as a whole for its citizens to have similar technological access and opportunities. Currently, scholars in IT, education, gender studies, as well as other related areas are working to better understand emerging technologies and how they affect people of all genders. Many of these topics appear in the popular media and are discussed in non-traditional outlets (blogs, Twitter, YouTube, etc.), as well.

2. Course description

This course introduces students to the ways gender and technologies, particularly related to computerization, have been understood. Throughout the semester, we will examine technological studies, gender critiques of technology, and problematic imaginings and representations of gender and technology, as well as ways in which gender has shaped practice and technological developments over time.

More specifically, this course will cover a broad spectrum of topics, including:

• The association of computers with male interests and aptitudes.

• The IT climate in education and in the workplace.

• The nature versus nurture debate (e.g., is being good with computers an innate ability or the result of socialization?)

• The role stereotypes (many perpetuated by the media) play in IT.

• The number of males and females using Internet resources and what the closing of this gap means.

• The attraction to virtual worlds (including digital gaming), and how these carnivalesque environments may close the gender gap.

• Sex and sexuality in technologized environments.

• Gender, artificial intelligence, and robotics.

• The ways in which technology designed by women may serve to close the gender computing gap.

• The impact digital inequality has on males and females alike.

The course is based on readings and critical discussion, and is conducted in a part-lecture, part-discussion format in which opportunities to speak are available to all students in each class session.

3. Course objectives

As a result of completing this course, you should gain:

• A better understanding of the role gender plays in shaping computer technology, its design, and its uses.

• An awareness of gender and IT issues in educational settings and the workplace, as well as in more playful environments.

• Knowledge of the tactics used to encourage the formation of a more gender diverse computing environment.

• Insight into the global reach of the gender gap.

• Awareness that equal access alone is not the solution.

• Experience in summarizing, synthesizing, and presenting concepts from published scholarship.

• Hands-on experience using technologies for discussion and presentation that may be new to you.

• The ability to analyze and critique images, reports, and portrayals of gender and IT in traditional and non-traditional media outlets.

4. Requirements

For Students Enrolled in I399:

There is no exam or term paper requirement; your final grade will be based on three evenly-spaced projects and participation. Participation includes attendance and discussion of the course readings.

Attendance. You are expected to be physically present and alert during class meetings. You may miss one class, no questions asked, with no effect on your grade. If you must miss two or more class sessions for a legitimate reason, contact me (preferably in advance) for suggestions of what you can do to make up your participation.

Readings and online discussion. You are expected to read the assigned readings and participate in discussions about them in the private class Facebook group. Every week, one person will post a summary (2-3 paragraphs, briefly encapsulating each article's main claims) for each assigned reading, and everyone else will post one or more comments on the summaries. Good comments will engage specifically and thoughtfully with the content of the readings. Time will also be devoted to discussing the readings and applying them to contemporary situations during class meetings.

1st project: Content analysis of representations of gender and computers in print mass media. Using a principled sampling method, you will select and copy 12 advertisements from current magazines showing computers and humans, and do a mini-content analysis of how females and males are portrayed. OR: Do the same for 12 current cartoons showing computers and humans. Your observations should be written up in a short (3-4 typed page) report, and should include appendices listing the instances observed. Your report will be due in Week 6.

2nd project: Voicethread discussion and analysis of self-representation on a social media site. You will select a social media site that has user profiles and, using a principled sampling method, collect 12 profile pictures representing different genders. From these, you will create a powerpoint slide displaying four images -- those that are most typical of your sample or else those you find most interesting -- and submit the slide to me to integrate into a group Voicethread (http://voicethread.com/). Everyone in the class will analyze your slide using the multimedia commenting options in Voicethread (text, audio, video). After this phase is complete, you will briefly present your own analysis of the images on your slide in front of the class. Your slide will be due Week 9; the Voicethread discussion will take place between Week 9 and Week 10; and your in-class presentation will be in Week 11.

3rd project: Video essay and critiques. To explore current trends in gender and computerization (and learn to use technologies that may be new to you), you will script and record a short (5-6 minute) video essay on a current issue, phenomenon, or debate related to gender and computerization. For this activity you may work alone or in pairs (if you work in pairs, your video should be about 10 minutes long). You must upload your video to YouTube (such that it is viewable without any major technical glitches!) by 10 pm, Sunday, May 3rd. You will then critique the content of other students' video essays by posting comments on them by 5 pm, Wednesday, May 6th.

For Students Enrolled in Z544:

There is no exam or term paper requirement; your final grade will be based on three evenly-spaced projects and participation. Participation includes attendance and discussion of the course readings.

1st project: Content analysis of representations of gender and computers in print mass media. Using a principled sampling method, you will select and copy 15 advertisements from current magazines showing computers and humans, and do a mini-content analysis of how females and males are portrayed. OR: Do the same for 15 current cartoons showing computers and humans. Your observations should be written up in a short (3-4 typed page) report, and should include appendices listing the instances observed. Your report will be due in Week 6.

2nd project: Voicethread discussion and analysis of self-representation on a social media site. You will select a social media site that has user profiles and, using a principled sampling method, collect 16 profile pictures representing different genders. From these, you will create a powerpoint slide displaying four images -- those that are most typical of your sample or else those you find most interesting -- and submit the slide to me to integrate into a group Voicethread (http://voicethread.com/). Everyone in the class will analyze your slide using the multimedia commenting options in Voicethread (text, audio, video). After this phase is complete, you will briefly present your own analysis of the images on your slide in front of the class. Your analysis, including the procedure you followed to collect your sample of images, should then be written up as a 3-4 page report. Your slide will be due Week 9; the Voicethread discussion will take place between Weeks 9 and 10; your in-class presentation will be in Week 11; and your written report is due in Week 12.

For Ph.D. students taking the course to satisfy an ILS doctoral seminar requirement:

Your final grade will be based on participation, two presentations of readings, a written research paper, and an oral presentation of your research paper's findings. Participation includes attendance and discussion of the course readings.

Presentation of readings. For two different weeks, locate an additional article that is related to the week’s theme and present its main points in 10 minutes to the class, using PPT slides.

Research paper and oral presentation of research findings. Towards the end of the semester, you will write a 5000-7000 word (excluding appendices) research paper on a topic related to gender and computerization that integrates ideas and sources presented in the class. A 500-word written proposal describing the data to be analyzed and the methods to be employed, and including a minimum of 3-5 references, is due in the 10th week of the semester. In the last week of the semester, the results of your research will be shared with the class in an oral presentation (approximatey 15 minutes). The written paper should follow the formal conventions for a publishable-quality research article, including footnotes and citations of scholarly work in APA (American Psychological Association) style. For examples of APA conventions, see articles in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1083-6101).

ALL STUDENTS:

There is a Facebook group for this course (I399/Z544: Gender and Computerization). You are expected to check the group at least once a day, including the afternoon before class for last-minute announcements and reminders. Posting and commenting in the Facebook group is strongly encouraged.

5. Student evaluation

The final grade for students enrolled in I399 will be calculated as follows:

Attendance and in-class participation	15%
Online participation	15%
First project	20%
Second project	20%
Video essay	20%
Video essay critiques	10%
Total:	100%

The final grade for students enrolled in Z544 will be calculated as follows:

Attendance and in-class participation	15%
Online participation	15%
First proejct	20%
Second project	25%
Video essay	15%
Video essay critiques	10%
Total:	100%

The final grade for doctoral students taking the course to satisfy an ILS seminar requirement will be calculated as follows:

Attendance and in-class participation	15%
Online participation	15%
Reading presentations (5% x 2)	10%
Research paper proposal	5%
Research paper oral presentation	10%
Research paper	45%
Total:	100%

Grading policies:

- Late online comments on the readings will be accepted once during the semester, no questions asked, provided they are posted within two days after the class meeting in which the readings were discussed. I reserve the right to subtract one-third of a letter grade (from A to A-, A- to B+, etc.) for each day one of the projects is late beyond the due date.

- Class participation, reading summaries, and online discussions will be graded with a check mark for each class meeting, to indicate that the requirement was met. Class participation means being willing and prepared to speak intelligently in class about the topics under discussion. (Note: this does not necessarily mean speaking a lot—you may be penalized if you habitually dominate class discussions.)

- The first project, second project, video essay, and the critiques of the video essays (for students in categories 1 and 2) will be assigned letter grades (A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, etc.). The research paper and oral presentation of the research paper (for students in category 3) will also be assigned letter grades.

Policy regarding personal technology use in the classroom:

Sometiimes it is useful for a student to have a laptop or other digital device in the classroom, e.g., for note taking or to search the web for information relevant to the class. This use is permitted provided the student observes the following rules: 2) All students wishing to use a laptop or other digital device must sit in the first two rows of the classroom; and 2) Use of laptops and digital devices during class time is limited to activities that relate directly to the course. Surfing the web for other purposes; reading or replying to email, text messages, or Facebook; and other non-class-related use of digital media is not permitted during either face-to-face or online class meetings.

Statement on academic integrity:

Learning is a collaborative enterprise. However, plagiarism, copyright infringement, and other types of academic dishonesty will NOT be tolerated. To help you recognize plagiarism, the IU Writing Center has prepared a short guide: Plagiarism: What It is and How to Recognize and Avoid It (http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ewts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml). Please read this guide and refer to it when you produce your written assignments for this course. Other helpful resources include a tutorial (http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/) and test: “How to Recognize Plagiarism” (http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/test.html) created by the IU School of Education.

6. Course Schedule (under construction!)

(Subject to change with advance notice)

----------------

Week 1 (1/12/15):

Introduction to course. Feminine technologies, masculine technologies, and the "gender computing gap."

Read:

1. Torgrimson, B. N., & Minson, C. T. (2005). Sex and gender: What's the difference? Journal of Applied Physiology, 99(3), 785-787. [Oncourse]

2. McGaw, J. A. (2003). Why feminine technologies matter. In N. E. Lerman, R. Oldenziel & A. P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 13-36). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. [Oncourse]

3. Oldenziel. R. (2003). Why masculine technologies matter. In N. E. Lerman, R. Oldenziel & A. P. Mohun (Eds.), Gender & technology: A reader (pp. 37-71). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. [Oncourse]
Cleaner version also available through Google Books.

4. Misa, T. (2010). Gender codes: Defining the problem. In T. J. Misa (Ed.), Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing (pp. 3-23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. [Oncourse]

----------------

Week 2 (1/19/15):

Martin Luther King Jr. Day. CLASS WILL NOT MEET.

Read:

Finish reading Week 1 articles if you haven't already.

----------------

Week 3 (1/26/15):

Women as users and as inventors: A historical look at the relationship between women and technology.

Read:

(Choose 3)

1. Davies, M. (1988). Women clerical workers and the typewriter: The writing machine. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women's voices: Keeping in touch (pp.29-40). New York: Routledge. [Oncourse]

2. Frissen, V. (1995). Gender is calling: Some reflections on past, present, and future uses of the telephone. In K. Grint & R. Gill (Eds.), The gender-technology relation: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 79-94). Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis. [Oncourse]

3. Light, J. (1999/2003). When computers were women. Technology and Culture, 40(3), 455-83. http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/journals/technology_and_culture/v040/40.3light.html

4. Haigh, T. (2010). Masculinity and the machine man: Gender in the history of data processing. In Misa, Ed., pp. 51-71.

5. Hayes, C. (2010). Computer science: The incredible shrinking woman. In Misa, Ed., pp. 25-49.

Browse:

The Ada project: Pioneering women in technology. http://women.cs.cmu.edu/ada/Resources/Women/

----------------

Week 4 (2/2/15):

Because it’s boring? Gender attitudes towards computers.

Read:

(Choose 3)

1. Rommes, E., Overbeek, G., Scholte, R., Engels, R., & de Kemp, R. (2007). ‘I’m not interested in computers’. Gender-based occupational choices of adolescents. Information, Communication & Society, 10(3), 299-319. [Oncourse]

2. Kvasny, L. (2006, Fall). Let the sisters speak: Understanding information technology from the standpoint of the ‘other.’ ACM SIGMIS Database, 37(4), 13-25. [Oncourse]

3. Ogan, C., Herring, S., Ahuja, M., & Robinson, J. (2006, May). The more things change, the more they remain the same: Gender differences in attitudes and experiences related to computing. Paper presented at the International Communication Association conference, New York. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ica.pdf

4. Abbate, J. (2010). The pleasure paradox: Bridging the gap between popular images of computing and women's historical experiences. In Misa, Ed., pp. 213-227.

----------------

Week 5 (2/9/15):

A picture is worth a thousand words: Representations of computer users in the print mass media.

Watch:

Killing us Softly 4 (2010) http://trutube.tv/video/4851/Killing-Us-Softly-4-2010-Jeane-Kilbourne and comment on it in the Facebook group

Read:

1. Michaleson, G. (1994). Women and men in computer cartoons 1946-1982. In A. Adam et al. (Eds.), Women, Work and Computerization (pp. 171-184). Amsterdam: North Holland. [Oncourse]

2. Johnson, N. F., Rowan, L., & Lynch, J. (2006). Constructions of gender in computer magazine advertisements: Confronting the literature. Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education, 6(1), Article number: 74. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=edupapers

3. Cox, A. (2009). Visual representations of gender and computing in consumer and professional magazines. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(1), 89-106. [Oncourse]

----------------

Week 6 (2/16/15):

Educational experiences with IT and Computer Science.

1st Project:

Copy 12 [I399 students] or 15 [Z544 students] advertisements from current magazines showing computers and humans, and describe how females and males are portrayed. OR: Do the same for 12 or 15 current cartoons showing computers and humans. Written report due. Be prepared to summarize your main findings briefly in class.

Read:

1. Volman, M., van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary education. , 35-55. [Oncourse]

2. Spertus, E. (1991). Why are there so few female computer scientists? MIT Artificial Inteligence Laboratory Technical Report. http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/7040/AITR-1315.pdf

----------------

Week 7 (2/23/15):

Hackers, geeks, and nerds.

Browse:

The code of the geeks v.3.12. http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html - type

Read:

1. Adam, A. (2005). Hacking into hacking: Gender and the hacker phenomenon. In Gender, ethics and information technology (pp. 128-146). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Oncourse]

2. Kendall, L. (1999). Nerd Nation: Images of nerds in US popular culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2(2), 260-283. [Oncourse]

3. Currie, D. H., Kelly, D. M., & Pomerantz, S. (2006). The geeks shall inherit the earth. Journal of Youth Studies, 9(4), 419-436. [Oncourse]

----------------

Week 8 (3/2/15):

Gender and IT professions.

Read:

1. Lamont, M. (2009). Gender, technology, and libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 28, 137-142.

2. Simard, C., Henderson, A. D., Gilmartin, S. K., Schiebinger, L., & Whitney, T. (2008). Climbing the technical ladder: Obstacles and solutions for mid-level women in technology. Anita Borg Institute and Stanford University. http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Climbing_the_Technical_Ladder.pdf [Read the Executive Summary and skim the rest.]

3. Burnett, R. (2014, August 23). More women get jobs in video-game industry, but gender gap persists. The Orlando Sentinel. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-video-game-gender-gap-20140823-story.html
Wu, B. (2014, July 22). No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry. Polygon. http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/22/5926193/women-gaming-harassment

----------------

Week 9 (3/9/15):	Identity and self-presentation on the Internet.
2nd Project:	Select a social media site that has user profiles and, using a principled sampling method, collect 12 [I399 students] or 16 [Z544 students] profile pictures representing different genders. Create one powerpoint slide displaying four of the images and email it to me to integrate into a group Voicethread.
Read:	1. Herring, S. C., & Kapidzic, S. (2014). Teens, gender, and self-presentation in social media. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier. Prepublication version: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/teens.gender.pdf 2. Kapidzic, S., & Herring, S. C. (2014). Race, gender, and self-presentation in teen profile photographs. New Media & Society. Prepublication version: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/race_gender.photos.pdf 3. Senft, T. M. (2008). Keeping it real on the web: Authenticity, celebrity, branding. In Camgirls: Celebrity and community in the age of social networks (pp. 15-32). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. [Oncourse] 4. Eördögh, F. (2012). YouTube or Boob Tube: Reply girl scandal rocks video world. The Daily Dot, February 25. http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/reply-girls-yogscast-meganspeaks/ [short] 5. Cooper, M., & Dzara, K. (2010). The Facebook revolution: LGBT identity and activism. In C. Pullen & M. Cooper (Eds.), LGBT identity and online new media (pp. 100-112). London: Routledge. [Oncourse]

Guest lecture:	Lois Scheidt

----------------

SPRING BREAK

----------------

Week 10 (3/23/15):

Computer-mediated communication on the Internet: The hope, the hype, and the reality.

2nd Project:

Post text, audio, and video comments on the slides in the group Voicethread (minimum 1 substantial comment per slide).

Read:

(Everyone read #1; choose any two others)

1. Herring, S. C., & Stoerger, S. (2014). Gender and (a)nonymity in computer-mediated communication. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff, & J. Holmes (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality, 2nd edition. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prepublication version: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/herring.stoerger.pdf

2. Cassell, J., & Cramer, M. (2008). High tech or high risk: Moral panics about girls online. In T. McPherson (Ed.), Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected (pp. 53-76). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. http://mdcramer.com/downloads/MoralPanic_DML.pdf

3. Laws, C. (2013). One woman's dangerous war against the most hated man on the Internet. Jezebel, November 22. http://jezebel.com/one-womans-dangerous-war-against-the-most-hated-man-on-1469240835

4. Citron, D. K. (2009). Law’s expressive value in combating cyber gender harassment. Michigan Law Review, 108. [Oncourse]

5. Jernigan, C., & Mistree, B. F. T. (2009). Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation. First Monday, 14(10). http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2611/2302

----------------

Week 11 (3/30/15):

Computers, sex, and sexuality.

2nd Project:

Share your analysis of the images on your slide with the class in a short (4 minute) presentation.

Read:

1. McRae, S. (1996). Coming apart at the seams: Sex, text and the virtual body. In L. Cherny and E. Weise (Eds.), Wired_Women (pp. 242-263). Seattle: Seal Press. [Oncourse]

2. Smith, C. (2011). 7 ways tech is changing sex. Huff Post Tech, May 25. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/how-tech-is-changing-sex_n_585204.html#s92639title=New_Ways_To

3. Smith, B. (2011). Are internet affairs different? Monitor on Psychology (March), 3-4. http://www.brendanlsmith.com/pdf/monitor_internet_affairs.pdf

3. Magee, J. C., Bigelow, L., DeHaan, S., & Mustanski, B. S. (2012). Sexual health information seeking online: A mixed-methods study among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender young people. Health Education & Behavior, 39(3), 276-289. [Oncourse]

----------------

Week 12 (4/6/15):	Digital games and virtual worlds.
2nd Project:	Written report due of your analysis of the images you collected [Z544 students only].
Read:	(Choose 3) 1. Greenberg, B. S., Sherry, J., Lachlan, K., Lucas, K., & Holmstrom, A. (2010). Orientations to video games among gender and age groups. Simulation & Gaming, 41(2), 238-259. [Oncourse] 2. Taylor, T. L. (2003). Multiple pleasures women and online gaming. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 9(1), 21-46. [Oncourse] 3. Eklund, L. (2011). Doing gender in cyberspace: The performance of gender by female World of Warcraft players. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17(3), 323-342. [Oncourse] 4. Brookey, R. A., & Cannon, K. L. (2009). Sex lives in second life. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26(2), 145-164. [Oncourse] 5. Miller, K. (2014). Gaming the system: Gender performance in Dance Central. New Media & Society. [Oncourse]
Guest lecture:	Guo Zhang

----------------

Week 13 (4/13/15):

Gender and design.

Read:

(Choose 3)

1. McDonough, J. P. (1999). Designer selves: Construction of technologically mediated identity within graphical, multiuser virtual environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(10), 855-869.

2. Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P., Hodges, L. F. (2006). Can a virtual cat persuade you? The role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness. Proceedings of CHI 2006 (pp. 1153-1162) ACM: New York. [Oncourse]

3. Bardzell, S. (2010). Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1301-1310). ACM: New York. [Oncourse]

4. Fujitsu. (2012). Fujitsu announces new "Floral Kiss" brand of FMV personal computers for women. Fujitsu.com, October 19. http://www.fujitsu.com/global/news/pr/archives/month/2012/20121019-03.html and Roy, J. (2012). Like Duh, here are all the things wrong with the Fujitsu ‘Floral Kiss’ laptop for ladies. BetaBeat.com, October 23. http://betabeat.com/2012/10/like-duh-here-are-all-the-things-wrong-with-the-fujitsu-floral-kiss-laptop-for-ladies/

----------------

Week 14 (4/20/15):

Globalization, militarization, and IT.

Read:

1. Edwards, P. (1990) The Army and the Microworld: Computers and the politics of gender identity. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16, 172-197. [Oncourse].

2. Masters, C. (2005). Bodies of technology: Cyborg soldiers and militarized masculinities. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(1), 112–132. http://www.ualberta.ca/~lgotell/OB_Articles/masters.pdf

3. Pande, R. (2006). Digital divide, gender and the Indian experience in IT. In E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gender and information technology (pp. 191-199). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. [Oncourse]

----------------

Week 15 (4/27/15):

Cyberfeminism, feminist hacktivism, and cyberfutures.

Read:

1. Daniels, J. (2009). Reethinking Cyberfeminism(s): Race, gender, and embodiment. WSQ: Women's Studies Quarterly, 37(1 & 2), 101-124. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wsq/v037/37.1-2.daniels.html

2. Tanczer, L. M. (2015). Hacktivism and the male-only stereotype. New Media & Society. [Oncourse]

3. Adam, A. (2000). Feminist AI projects and cyberfutures. In G. Kirkup, L. Janes, K. Woodward, & F. Hovenden (Eds.), The gendered cyborg: A reader (pp. 276-290). London: Routledge and Open University Press. [Oncourse]

----------------

Week 16 (5/4/15):

Third project: Upload video essays to YouTube by 10 pm, Sunday, May 3rd. Critiques of other students' video essays due 5 pm, Wed., May 6th.

----------------

Last updated: February 2, 2015