Feminist Futurisms (a HASTAC@ASU Bibliography)

In the Fall of 2018 Anne Hammang, Rebecca Monteleone, and Kaethe Selkirk joined me in a directed reading on the topic of “Feminist Futures.” While each comes to her scholarship with different foci, as a group they were eager to find common ground in critical feminist STS scholarship. Additionally, we were all interested in thinking about the ways that we might engage the often masculinist and white discourses of popular “futurists.”

Attentive to the risks that academic work can seem insular and removed, Hammang, Monteleone, and Selkirk asked that one of the outputs of the course be public facing. I’m personally fond of the ‘angry bibliography’ genre, and this seemed an even more productive (because generative and not quite so hotly angry) document to share with the world. 

What follows is their annotated bibliography of the texts we read over the course of the term. Our syllabus only took its final form at the end as it was a dialogic and living document throughout the reading. As you’ll see, we ended up engaging with a lot of what might be called foundational feminist STS, which we felt was needed in order to understand the discourses around science studies and speculative futures. The bibliography and annotations are collaboratively authored by Hammang, Monteleone, and Selkirk and includes a set of topical headings, under which there are both fully annotated entries and then bibliographic information for items we might have read in each of their three specific areas of scholarship and if we had all the time in the world. There are additional citations that didn’t make it to the “final” syllabus but that I’ll be adding soon as well.

Collectively, we hope that you’ll find some of the work here useful and we invite you to add your suggestions for other texts to add to the bibliography. While Feminist Futures as a directed reading is complete, I will happily update this document as long as people are finding it useful.

Warm wishes ~ Jacque (Dec 2017)


Feminist STS

Wajcman, Judy.  “Feminist Theories of Technology,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 34.1(2010): 143-152.

Wajcman provides an overview of the intersections between feminist thought and science and technology studies over the past quarter century.   She begins with early scholarship that worked to valorize the feminine and its associated technologies, and to identify the ways the institutions and cultural sensibilities of science and technology work to exclude women.   She then moves to strands of radical feminism, which make a more fundamental challenge to the premises of science and technology as masculinist projects of domination over women and nature.  Much of this work focuses on military and medical institutions, and in particular, reproductive technologies.  She identifies a third strand as socialist feminism, which extends Marx’s critique of class and political economy to understand gender as the result of sexual divisions of labor.  She also presents third wave feminism, which works against gender essentializing of other articulations of feminism to consider equality against other axes of power.  She ends with a synopsis of contemporary feminism, which she characterizes as interested in the emancipatory potential of emerging digital technologies (notably, Haraway 1985).  Wajcman points to the ways this more optimistic tone has been fostered by new theoretical turns toward agency, namely, performativity from feminism thought (Butler 1990) and social constructivist approaches from science and technology studies (Bijker et. al 1987, Latour 1991).  While the tone of contemporary technofeminism has become notably less optimistic since the publish date in 2009, the piece remains a lucid guide to the heterogeneous and overlapping strands of feminist theories of technology.  

Suchman, Lucy.  “Feminist STS and the Sciences of the Artificial.”  New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies.  Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.

Suchman provides a synopsis of contemporary feminists STS scholarship in the mid-2000s.  She focuses particularly on reflections on human machine interactions through projects like AI, robotics, and software.  Feminist STS scholarship has unpacked the development of these technologies along gendered, racial, and classist lines.  She also reflects on sites of engagement and techniques favored by critical feminist STS, particularly, ethnography, historical case study, and commitment to “studying up.”  

Standpoint and Knowledge Optics

Hartsock, Nancy C. M.  “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.”  Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, edited by S. Harding and M. B. Hintikka, 293-310.  Dordrecht, Boston, London: D. Reidel, 1983.

Hartsock uses Marxist historical materialism to build an analogous theoretical framework for understanding gender relations.  This operates from the assumption that material life shapes social understanding.  Like the proletariat and owning classes, men (in the oppressive standpoint) have a partial optic on the structures of oppression but nonetheless structure material reality in meaningful ways; women (the oppressed viewpoint) have a more complete optic of the structures of gender relations, but less power to shape material reality.  She builds this analogy by drawing on Freudian psychoanalytic thought and treating women as an undifferentiated category in ways that may feel dated to readers with the conceptual resources of third wave feminism and intersectionality.  This was written before many of the analytical tools now available for talking about the structures that shape masculinity and femininity, and remains an important theoretical foundation to standpoint theory, a key feminist insight.

Haraway, Donna.  “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.”  Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, 183-201. New York: Routledge, 1991.

Situated knowledges is Haraway’s response to the long-standing debate in feminist scholarship around objectivity. Traditional scientific modes engage objectivity as singular, all-knowing, and ever-present, what Haraway famously calls in this essay “the god-trick.”  But Haraway is also critical feminist responses to objectivity which claim reality as a strict social construction, and often romanticize and appropriate subjugated vantage points.  She builds the concept of situated knowledges from Harding’s standpoint theory, but rather than emphasizing one particular standpoint, she articulates standpoints as nodes in a collective body of knowledge production.  Faithful accounts of the “real world,” she proposes, come from collections of partial viewpoints that emerge from embodied experience.  Scholars are not to be held to objectivity, but accountability; they must own their limitations and name their vision.  The accumulation of these partial perspectives generates messy, contested, and personal, but ultimately real and knowable truths.  

Scheibinger, Londa. “Agnotology and Exotic Abortifacients: The Cultural Production of Ignorance in the Eighteenth-Century Atlantic World.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 149.3 (2005): 316-43.

Scheibinger takes a historical approach to examine the knowledge around the peacock plant used as an abortifacient in Surinam, Jamaica, and the West Indies.  The peacock plant is of interest because, while the plant itself migrated to Europe, knowledge of its abortifacient qualities did not.  Scheibinger uses the peacock plant as a case to develop the concept of agnotology, the “study of culturally-induced ignorances” as a counterweight to epistemology.  She tracks the state policies, trading patterns, and scientific institutions that did not actively suppress knowledge of the abortifacient, but fostered a collective forgetting of its uses.  Her case exemplifies the ways power creates distinct bodies both of knowledge and of ignorance.  

Standards and Infrastructures

Star, Susan Leigh Star and Bowker, Geoffrey. “Introduction: To Classify is Human” and “IV: The Theory and Practice of Classifications.”  Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences.  Cambridge: MIT Press 1999.

In the introduction, Star and Bowker present their case for a sociology of classification, the information infrastructures that shape the modern world.  They recognize classification as simultaneously symbolic (patterns of change and action, a resource for organizing abstraction) and material (affixed to things).  They outline the following chapters which trace social histories of different medical classifications to demonstrate the contingent, socially situated, and historically specific nature of these disembodied systems of expertise, and the many ontological, political, ethical, and social consequences they carry.    

In chapter 4, Bowker and Star begin to build from their case studies a theory of classification.  They show how classification systems can be better contextualized through analytical attention to boundary objects.  In previous work, Star proposed boundary objects as a framing to consider how different actors and communities interact with a technology or system of expertise in ways that are situated and fluid.  Boundary objects have the ability to retain some common identity across several communities of practice while being malleable enough to satisfy the local needs of each.  This gives them the analytical advantage to ease tensions between the formal/empirical and the local/situated.  Bowker and Star propose boundary infrastructures as a way to scale the theoretical insights of boundary objects to a more systematic level of thinking.  The approach also presents analysts with the chance to extend their work from critique to engagement, and intervene in infrastructure design.


Barad, Karen.  “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.”  Signs 28.3 (2003): 801-831.

Barad presents posthumanist performativity as a theoretical alternative to representationalism, which makes an ontological distinction between language and the thing the language represents.  Performativity focuses on discursive practices and rather than representation, and understands the material and discursive as entwined.  Posthumanism challenges a second dualism between the human and nonhuman, distinguishing it from strict social constructionist approaches.  The world is not infinitely malleable (as radical relativism holds), and posthumanism flattens the human without minimizing issues like gender and race.  An agential realist ontology, she argues, reorients the analyst away from static, objectified “things” and toward “phenomena” – “reconfigurations / entanglements / relationalities / (re)articulations.”  This conception of agency is a network, rather than a subjective quality.  Everything in agential posthumanism is emergent, and expression exists between two things, as “intra-actions.”

Taylor, Diana.  “Who, What, When, Why.”  The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americans.  Durham: Duke University Press, 2003.

Taylor argues performance as more than an object of analysis, but as a way of knowing, with important political implications.  She argues that the written archive does not capture the breadth of knowledge making and transmission, and that performance can.  Performance is not to be understood in the strict sense of discrete practices or events, but anything which “we copy from person to person by imitation,” from symbols to gender to citizenship to resistance.  The chapter nicely lays out the intellectual histories of performativity before moving forward with her illustration of an intersectional performativity primed for hemispheric (Latin/o) studies.  This account illustrates the way performativity is not only a heuristic to navigate questions of structure and agency, but a conceptual resource for feminist epistemological projects.  Methodological attention to performance, in its many forms, expands the bounds of what knowledge counts and accounts for a greater number of marginalized voices.  


May, Vivian M.  “Introduction: The Case for Intersectionality and the Question of Intersectionality Backlash” and “1 What is Intersectionality?  Matrix Thinking in a Single Axis World.”  Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries.  Taylor and Francis, 2015.

May offers a primer on intersectionality in a political moment where the idea is been widely used and often misapplied. Intersectionality she emphasizes is, above all, is an orientation toward matrix thinking.  This heuristic has several theoretical advantages for considering power.  It allows a conception of oppression that is multi-dimensional, rather than along single axis.  This guards against the gender essentializing often found in previous waves of feminist thought.  It recognizes that oppression operates on individual identities, and is as much an epistemological practice as it is a disposition for political action.  The framing also forces a recognition of identities that confer privilege, as well as those that are vulnerable to oppression, and allows for analysis both in and across communities.  Feminist futurists may be interested in May’s proposal of “counter histories” as a methodology for rewriting intersectional futures.   

Lykke, Nina.  “5 Theorizing Intersectionalities: Theorizing Genealogies and Blind Spots” and “8 Rethinking Epistemologies.”  Feminist Studies: A Guide to Intersectional Theory, Methodology, and Writing.  Routledge, 2010.

In chapter 5, Lykke writes a Foucauldian genealogy of intersectionality.  She starts with intersectionality as first articulated by Crenshaw in the context of legal studies and traces its later post-structuralist adaptations.  She takes a historical step back to acknowledge intellectual work on intersections, that predate Crenshaw’s articulation, through 19th century anti-abolition movements.   Finally, she accounts other feminist theories that look at intersections while not explicitly invoking intersectionality, including the work of feminist Marxists, cyborg feminists, and human-animal relations and ecofeminists.   This disparate work is united by its efforts to understand agency and subjectivity as mutually interwoven and inseparable.  

In chapter 8, Lykke reviews four categories of feminist epistemologies.  First, she characterizes feminist empiricism, which seeks to elevate the knowledge of women and female sphere’s into parity with men.  She then describes feminist standpoint epistemology, which argues individuals with oppressed identities have a privileged view of systems of oppression and reality.  Next she characterizes postmodern feminist epistemology which critiques standpoint in its assumption of a stable position from which to provide a viewpoint.  Haraway’s situated knowledges refines standpoint theory against this postmodern sensibility by calling for collective knowledge production through context-specific “partial objectivities.” Lykke closes the chapter with Barad’s onto-epistemologies, which makes the most fundamental challenge to dominant epistemic practices by contesting the distinction between phenomenon and their representations.

Noble, Safiya Umoja Noble.  “A Future for Intersectional Black Feminist Technology Studies.”  S&F Online 13.3 (2016).

Noble’s piece is an illustrative execution of intersectional principles, which she uses to complicate the dominant, neoliberal discourse of the internet as a tool for social empowerment. The intersectional stance highlights the falseness of this understanding as the result of an overwhelming emphasis on the white, middle class male consumer experience of the internet.  It also redirects attention to multiple strands of less visible realities: not just white men, but black women; not just African Americans, but the wider Diaspora; not just consumers, but producers.  This approach also redirects from analytical treatment of the internet as a digital and disembodied abstraction to a material infrastructures connected to heterogeneous embodied experiences.  She winds together geographically distant threads from many different bodies of literature: coltan mining in the Congo, environmental racism in Silicon Valley, and the hypersurveillance of Black activists across the United States.  This article is meant to be a nucleation point for further Black feminist analysis of the internet, a scholarly community equipped to address the gaps left by communication and information studies and the social construction of technology, and bring a more comprehensive critical analysis of the internet.

Daniels, Jesse.  “The Trouble with White Feminism: Whiteness, Digital Feminism, and the Intersectional Internet.” The Intersectional Internet.  Ed. Noble, Safiya Umoja and Tynes, Brendesha M.  Peter Lang Inc. (2016).  

An intersectional critique of digital feminism by way of three case studies in popular culture from 2012-2014: Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In and Ban Bossy; Eve Ensler’s One Billion Rising campaign; and Martin and Valenti’s Future of Online Feminism Report.  These examples illustrate the ways digital campaigns for feminist issues are often limited by their narrow conceptualizations of women (as white, heteronormative, middle class).   This framing leads to campaigns for change organized around individual actions within an aracial political economy.  It fails to account for marginalized voices in feminist action while also appropriating those voices into white feminist agendas.   Lykke highlights the need to acknowledge whiteness without centering it in digital feminist work.


Terry, J.  “The past, present and future in critical Afrofuturisms.”  The future of us: an anthology.  Durham Research Online, 2016.  47-55.

Terry engages Afrofuturism as a lens through which to “…question who the realm of the future belongs to, challenging the historic denial of narratives of modernity, technological advancement and the anticipatory to particular groups.” Bringing Alondra Nelson, Kodwo Eshun and Mark Bould into conversation, Terry uses each author to draw out particular perspectives on how the  past, present and future can and should be connected. Terry points to particular similarities and dissimilarities between author perspectives which tackle issues of temporality, power, and progress and the relationships and structures that govern and connect each domain. She notes that authors  largely agree that connections between past, present and future should be held in unity and “…advocate a grounding of ideas in black diasporic history, that is, they reject the severance of connection with the past that often comes with futurist turns.”


Futures in Context

Future Bodies

Yoon, Hyaesin.  “Feral Biopolitics: animal bodies and/as border technologies.”  Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities 22.2 (2017): 135-150.

Yoon builds a conceptual framework for biopolitics of borders.  She combines critical feminist STS, animal studies, and postcolonial studies through analytical attention to ferality.  The feral, explored in all of these disciplinary traditions under different names, are the edge cases that illuminate underlying architectures of domination.   Ferality can thus be used to show the overlaps in logics of oppression between nations, animals, and people.   In her analysis, she works with an understanding of ferality as performative,  enacted in heterogeneous ways.

Kafer, Allison.  Feminist, Queer, Crip.  Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013.    

Feminist, Queer, Crip is book-length proposition for the establishment of the “politics of a crip futurity,” drawing heavily from – as the title implies – feminist, queer, and disability scholarship. As Kafer states, “I, we, need to imagine crip futures because disabled people are continually being written out of the future renders as the sign of a future no one wants” (p. 46). Her argument is explicitly political, and she reimagines disability as a “site of potential cultural reimaginings” rather than the limiting and binary social or medical models that proceed her. Chapters explore areas such as crip time, reproductive technologies, disability studies’ inattention to cognitive disability, and (exclusionary) feminist futures. She concludes with a call for renewed commitments to intersectional, coalitional scholarship and activism.

Bumiller, Kristin.  “The Geneticization of Autism: From New Reproductive Technologies to the Conception of Genetic Normalcy.”  Signs 34.4 (2009): 875-899.

Bumiller explores the shifting social and cultural perception of autism, which increasingly favors genetic conceptions. She notes that genetic research in autism is increasingly drawing funds and attention without providing tangible benefits for children (or future children) with autism. Geneticization of autism creates tensions around decision-making in pregnancies and pressure to perform as a good “genetic citizen,” and creates a “backdoor to eugenics.” Ultimately, “the concurrent forces of life optimization…and demands for personal responsibility” create a system in which a person’s worthiness is dictated by their ability, genetic citizenship, and adherence to social norms. Autism is used as a case study to illustrate Lippman’s concept of the “funneling of social concerns into a genetic prism,” which narrows the social perception of autism and ultimately creates new responsibilities and expectations for children with disabilities and their caretakers.

Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie.  “Feminist Disability Studies.”  Signs 30.2 (2005).

Garland-Thomson’s 2005 article seeks to establish the field of feminist disability studies as distinct from both of the disciplines from which it draws its name. It challenges assumptions about what is innate and what is cultural interpretation, “find[ing] disability’s significance in interactions between bodies and their social and material environments.” Disability, in Garland-Thomson’s estimation, provides a useful site of inquiry for questions concerning identity, intersectionality, and embodiment. Feminist disability studies extends beyond women’s health as previously taken up in feminist scholarship by problematizing and politicizing concepts such as health and disease. She then presents a wealth of work, including narrative, scholarly, and theoretical, she categorizes as feminist disability studies, broadly categorized as “retrievals, reimaginings, and rethinkings.” She concludes by asserting feminist disability studies moves feminist scholarship from exclusion to inclusion.

Hall, Melinda.  Bioethics of Enchantment: Transhumanism, Disability, and Biopolitics.  Minneapolis: Lexington Books (2016).


Futures of Reproduction

Hartouni, Valerie. “On Breeding Good Stock.”  Cultural Conceptions: On Reproductive Technologies and the Remaking of Life.  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

In this chapter, Hartouni critically examines Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve and its critics, with particular attention paid to the conspicuously unquestioned assumptions regarding reproduction, race, and class. She begins by briefly outlining the central position of The Bell Curve – essentially that the “cognitive underclass”, disproportionately comprised of poor, black, deviant individuals, are breeding at a rate much higher than that of the “cognitive elite.” According to Herrnstein and Murray, IQ is genetic and largely immutable, so social programs – such as those central to the Great Society – are unhelpful and should be replaced with policies to shift relative fertility. Hartouni then briefly examines critiques to The Bell Curve, noting that while they attack the scientific legitimacy and analysis in the book, they do not interrogate the meanings ascribed to black women, their fertility, and their bodies. Using an historical context, Hartouni then argues that white single women of childbearing age became a “valuable social commodity”  in the 1950s, when their children could be leveraged to sate the emerging middle class’s demand for a nuclear family; an affordance not allowed to black women. Thus, the condition of illegitimacy was reconfigured for white women – it became less a genetic and biological failing than a psychological one that could be rehabilitated in exchange for their children. Black women, by virtue of their blackness, were not able to access this entrance into a “normative life.” In this context, Herrnstein and Murray’s recommendations to manage and regulate the bodies of procreating women poses a dangerous threat to black women. White women no longer signify “as a site of the unrestrained wanton breeding of unwanted bodies” as black women do; therefore, black women become “incorrigible…and in need of containment.”

Mank, Casey E.  “I Imagine She Calls Herself Pro-Choice”: Reproductive Rights, Reproductive Futurism, and Rhetorical Representation in Online Discourse Communities.  Dissertation, Georgetown University, 2017.  


Futures of Work

Orlikowski, Wanda J.  “Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work.”  Organization Studies 28.9 (2009): 1435-1448.  

Orlikowski brings the theoretical insights of science and technology studies to organization studies for more sophisticated analyses of emerging technologies in the workplace.  She demonstrates the value of these conceptual resources by way of two examples: the Google search engine (understood in her analysis emergent and performative, as opposed to static), and the Blackberry (framed as a systematic reconfiguration of behavior, as opposed to an individually focused study of behavioral psychology).    

Acker, Joan.  “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations.”  Gender & Society 20.4 (2006): 441-464.

Acker expands previous work in organizational studies which has taken a data driven approach to classifying inequality along lines of race, gender, and class in organizations.   She proposes instead to understand inequality in terms of practices, that is, the ways that power differentials are enacted and perpetuated by organizational policies and norms.  She illustrates the value of this insight through a review of separate studies on different workplace practices that perpetuate inequality (for example, unstated expectations around working overtime penalize mothers who are primary caretakers to their children).  She then goes onto to characterize the failures of various organizational equality projects, again through attention to the ways these were articulated in practice (for example, affirmative action and diversity programs).  She emphasizes organizational changes must be bolstered by broader social movements for change in order to reach success.  Inequality in the workplace is more legitimate than ever as neoliberal cultural paradigms prize individual success above all else.

Nadesan, Majia H.  “Post-Fordism, Political Economy, and Critical Organizational Communications Studies.” Management Communication Quarterly 15.2 (2001): 259-267.

Nadesan proposes organizational studies are limited in the ways they are narrowly focused on small spaces and analytically disconnected from relevant macroeconomic forces well characterized in other literature.  She proposes the field overcome this limitation by connecting micro-level workplace sociology to macro trends of post-Fordism and globalization. After laying out a summary of Fordism and post-Fordism, she systematically characterizes the strands of debate in post-Fordist literature.  These range from the economically determinist regulation focused debates around state policies and consumer habits to the culturally focused, neo-Gramscian “the new times approach,” to what she sees as the most careful analysis of shifting global capital, Sassen’s cultural geography approach.  

O’Neil, Cathy. “Know Thy Futurist,” Boston Review (September 25, 2017) http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/cathy-oneil-know-thy-futurist 

Suchman, Lucy.  “Demystifications and reenchantments of the human-like machine.”  Human Machine Reconfigurations.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.  

Wajcman, Judy.  “Automation: Is It Really Different this Time?”  British Journal of Sociology 68.1 (2017): 119-127.  

Terranova, Tiziana.  “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy.”  Electronic Book Review (2003).

Schwartz Cowan, Ruth.  More Work for Mother.  Palo Alto: Basic Books, 1983.  

Irani, Lily.  “Difference and Dependence Among Digital Workers: The Case of Amazon Mechanical Turk.”  South Atlantic Quarterly 114.1 (2015).  

Futures in Design

D’Ignazio, Catherine, and Lauren Klein. “Feminist Data Visualization.”  IEEE (2016).

D’Ignazio and Klein develop a feminist approach to data visualization.  Their work is intended to demonstrate that “visualization research can be adapted to emphasize the situated nature of knowledge and its perception… [with a goal to] encourage the development of a range of alternative visualization processes that better emphasize the design decisions associated with data and its visual display.”  Foundational theories from four distinct disciplines, including Feminist Science Technology Studies, Feminist Human Computer Interaction, Feminist Digital Humanities, and Critical Cartography & GIS, provide the theoretical foundation for a six-point framework which points to particular best practices and processes of feminist data visualization.  Their  framework is organized by didactic headers including: Rethinking Binaries, Embrace Pluralism, Examine Power and Aspire to Empowerment, Consider Context, Legitimize Embodiment and Affect, and Make Labor Visible. Each category includes a brief description of design practice and sample questions to guide design process and product.  Embracing a feminist approach, D’Ignazio and Klein explain,  “… requires that we expand the design frame so as to account for the range of social forces and material conditions that influence the design process.  In other words, a feminist approach to data visualization, while centered on design, insists that data, design, and community of use, are inextricably intertwined.”

Fiesler, C. et al. “An Archive of Their Own : A Case Study of Feminist HCI and Values.” Design. Proc. of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2016): 2574–2585.

Fiesler et al. present AO3 (Archive of Our Own).  AO3, a fanfiction site born from and developed by a particular user-community, contains norms and values specific to the user-community that designed it.  Authors note that AO3’s design process and values echo that of Bardzell’s (2010) “feminist HCI” agenda and methodology.  Fiesler et al. follow Bardzell’s framework in their analysis of AO3 member interviews.  Categories of analysis include: Participation, Advocacy, Self-Disclosure, Pluralism and Ecology and Embodiment.  One primary point in the piece is that while “AO3 designers said that integrating community values was critical to the design of the archive, and that many of these track to the values that underlie feminist HCI… a key challenge when considering values in design is thinking about whose values.”  The author’s concluding section discusses conflicting and competing values within the design process and subsequent design decisions that made particular values more important than others.

Futures in Science and Technology

Adam, B., Groves, C.  Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics (Supplements to the Study of Time; v. 3).  Boston: Brill, 2007.

Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A.  Contested Futures : A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2000.

Konrad, K., Van Lent, H., Groves, C., Selin, C.  “Performing and Governing the Future in Science and Technology.”  Ed. U. Felt, C.A., Miller and L. Smith-Doerr, The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies.  Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017. 465-493.

Selin, C.  “The Sociology of the Future: Tracing Stories of Technology and Time.” Sociology Compass, 2.6 (2008): 1878-1895.

Photo by hannah grace on Unsplash

One response to “Feminist Futurisms (a HASTAC@ASU Bibliography)”