페미니스트 과학기술학: 두 판 사이의 차이

새즈믄해에 들어서면서 학제 구성 이후 20년 동안 구축된 페미니스트 STS 기존 연구 문헌에 기반해, 업데이트된 체계에 기반한 원칙들을 채택한 연구들이 등장했다. 여기에는 엘렌 반 오스트{{S|Ellen van Oost}}의 젠더가 전기면도기를 구성한 방식에 대한 연구<ref>{{책 인용|last=Oost |first=Ellen van |title=Aligning Gender and New Technology: The Case of Early Administrative Automation |장=6 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110810721.179 |work=Getting New Technologies Together |year=1998 |place=Berlin, Boston |publisher=DE GRUYTER |doi=10.1515/9783110810721.179 |isbn=9783110810721 |access-date=2022-04-14}}</ref>, 룻 슈와르츠 코완{{S|Ruth Schwartz Cowan}}의 여성 노동양을 늘리는 기술혁신에 대한 연구<ref>{{책 인용 |last=Cowan |first=Ruth Schwartz |title=The "Industrial Revolution" in the Home |date=2018-03-09 |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 |doi=10.1201/9781315180472-7 |isbn=978-1-315-18047-2 |access-date=2022-04-14}}</ref>, 제니퍼 피시맨{{S|Jennifer R. Fishman}}의 제약기술이 예상 소비자를 부기능자로서 결정지을 가능성에 대한 탐색<ref>{{저널 인용 |last=Fishman |first=Jennifer R. |date=2004-04 |title=Manufacturing Desire |journal=Social Studies of Science |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=187–218 |doi=10.1177/0306312704043028 |pmid=15295831 |s2cid=28476868 |issn=0306-3127|doi-access=free }}</ref>이 포함된다.

<!-- Research regarding decades of [[body modification]] practices in [[queer]] communities introduced material connections between gender and technology through individuals who represented and created diverse genders for themselves through physical alteration of their bodies,<ref>{{Citation |last=Pitts |first=Victoria L. |title=Visibly Queer |date=2003 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781403979438_4 |work=In the Flesh |pages=87–118 |place=New York |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |doi=10.1057/9781403979438_4 |isbn=978-1-349-38736-6 |access-date=2022-04-14}}</ref> further establishing academic literature on gender beyond binary terminology and connecting queer theory to feminist STS.

 

Compared to past studies which were restricted to questioning the objectivity of scientific knowledge through the language used in descriptions of biological sex,<ref name="Martin 179–189">{{Citation |last=Martin |first=Emily |title=The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles |date=2017-09-25 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315094106-22 |work=Feminist Theory and the Body |pages=179–189 |publisher=Routledge |doi=10.4324/9781315094106-22 |isbn=978-1-315-09410-6 |access-date=2022-04-14}}</ref> researchers approached reproductive studies through a gender-based framework, [[Rayna Rapp]] emphasizing feminist [[ideology]] in her study of the impact of reproductive biomedicalization on women,<ref name="Martin 179–189"/> while Laura Mamo's exploration of knowledge negotiation in [[lesbian]] reproduction six years later emphasized situated knowledges.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mamo |first=Laura |date=May 2007 |title=Negotiating Conception |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243906298355 |journal=Science, Technology, & Human Values |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=369–393 |doi=10.1177/0162243906298355 |s2cid=143853418 |issn=0162-2439}}</ref> Both studies found multiple possibilities of femininity reflected in their research subjects, similar to Wendy Faulkner's conclusions in her 2001 study on limitations to women's participation in engineering which proposes a radical shift in culture to emphasize the necessity of women in technology development to counteract masculinity being embedded in technological [[Cultural artefact|artefact]]s by men who create them.<ref name=":5" /> As with past feminist STS research, these studies were similarly critiqued for use of binary concepts like masculinity and femininity which suggested gender existed separate from its relationship to technology, contradicting the material-semiotic stance of the field.<ref name=":9" />  -->