Links

AdaCamp http://adacamp.org/

FemBot Collective http://fembotcollective.org/

FemTechNet http://femtechnet.newschool.edu/

GenderIT Conference http://genderit.wineme.fb5.uni-siegen.de/

Women in CSCW/Social Computing https://www.facebook.com/groups/159136980789875/

References

Bardzell, S. and Bardzell, J. (2011). Towards a feminist HCI methodology: Social science, feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 675-684.

Barlow, J.P. (1996). A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Retrieved online https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html.

Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Los Angeles: Wiley-Blackwell.

Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, 149-181.

Hochschild, A.R. (2012). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Oakland: University of California Press.

Hemphill, L., Erickson, I., Ribes, D., & Mergel, I. (2014). Feminism and social media research. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW Companion ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 319-322.

Kannabiran, G., Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2011). How HCI talks about sexuality: discursive strategies, blind spots, and opportunities for future research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 695-704.

Noble, D. (1979). Social choice in machine design: The case of automatically controlled machine tools. Politics & Society, 8(3-4), pp.313-347.

Ramamurthy, P. (2004). Why is buying a “madras”cotton shirt a political act? A feminist commodity chain analysis. Feminist Studies, 30(3), 734-769.

Rode, J. A. (2011). A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 393-400.

Star, S. L. (1999). Infrastructure and ethnographic practice: Working on the fringes. American Behavioral Scientist November, (43), 377-391.

Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, ACM, 38(9), 56–ff.

Turkle, S. (1988). Computational reticence: Why women fear the intimate machine. In Kramarae, C. (Ed.) Technology and Women’s Voices. New York: Routeledge and Kegan Paul.

Wajcman, J. (2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is the art? Social Studies of Science, 30(3), 447-464.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s