AECT Handbook of Research

Table of Contents

10. Postmodern and Poststructural Theory

10.1 Read me first
10.2 Postmodernism
10.3 Realism and the Symbolic: Two Ways of Knowing
10.4 Poststructural Feminism and Research in Educational Communications and Technology
10.5 Postmodern and Poststructural Theory
10.6 Conclusion
10.7 Envoi
Search this Handbook for:



We will know that the influence of poststructural feminism on educational communications and technology has arrived

when handbooks like this no longer exist, when authorities no longer catalog the official view, and when the primary

concerns of the field are no longer how best to produce efficient and effective learning materials but rather to speak with real live people of all genders, races, and classes, and to construct knowledge together. The idea of a handbook such as this, which tells people bow to do research, we find troublesome. (Ironically, we are also glad to be included.) It is a form of institutionalization and attempts to lead people towards some issues and away from others. Would it not be better, we wonder, to provide a hypertext that shows many local examples of how many types of people find technology empowering and disempowering in a variety of situations? What are the purposes of standardization, hierarchy, fragmentation, and subjugation?

Most people know that feminist research is based in the lives of women (see also 1.12) and seeks, in one way or another, to improve the ' conditions of those lives. However, people, both women and men, may not know that there are several branches of feminism. The best-known branch, and the branch most frequently invoked in discussions of education, is liberal feminism: "Liberal feminism aims to achieve full equality of opportunity in all spheres of life without radically transforming the present social and political system" (Weedon, 1987, p. 5). Typical liberal feminist research deals with equity issues, such as whether male and female students have equal access to technology and/or how more women can be interested in computing as a career; reviews of research on gender equity and educational technology are abundant (e.g., Hawkins, 1987; Kay, 1992). Liberal feminism accepts unproblematically the political and theoretical assumptions of the dominant society and seeks to carve out for women a better place in a society that is otherwise unchanged. Other branches of feminism (e.g., socialist, Marxist, radical) disagree with these assumptions and believe that woman's position can be improved only with broader political and economic changes in the total society. Poststructural feminism, the branch of feminism that concerns us here, advocates societal change and shares with other poststructuralisms a turn away from projects that Promote "Progress" and the search for "truth."

Poststructural feminists are concerned with ."how gender power relations are constituted, reproduced, and contested" (Weedon, 1987, p. vii). Poststructural feminists use poststructural concepts of language, subjectivity, social organization, and power in an effort to understand why women tolerate social relations that subordinate their interests to those of a masculinist culture (Weedon, 1987, p. 40). They/we also seek insights into the social mechanisms that convince people to adopt and act from particular attitudes.

Poststructural feminism challenges dominant masculinist views of knowledge by using strategies of opposition, resistance, and deconstruction. According to poststructuralism, theory is in the midst of a paradigm shift: The view of knowledge as objective and disinterested of social context is being replaced with a conception of knowledge as 11 constructed, contested, incessantly perspectival and polyphonic" (Lather, 1991, p. xx). Poststructural feminists seek to reveal patriarchal genealogies and delegitimize their centrality to society. Another aim of poststructural feminists is to empower people who have been marginalized and to offer these people new ways of understanding the world. This work can entail both conversation (consciousness raising) and personal and political action to understand and to uproot the causes of powerlessness, systems of oppression, and women's complicity in them.

10.4.1 Language

Language, feminists claim, is never gender-free (Diamond & Quinby, 1988, p. xv).

For poststructuralists, experience has no inherent essential meaning, but the meaning of experience is produced and reproduced through the use of language. "Language enables people to think, speak, and give meaning to the world around them" (Weedon, 1987, p. 32). Like feminist linguists and radical feminists of the 1970s (Lakoff, 1975; Daly, 1978; Spender, 1980), poststructural feminists argue that language limits women by framing and inscribing their lives. Not only what is said, but what is unsaid and unheard, is subject to analysis. Poststructural feminists think the unthinkable and speak the unspeakable as strategies of resistance, opposition, and deconstruction.

In agreement with Michel Foucault and other poststructuralists, feminists note that discourses speak people. How people write, talk, and otherwise communicate about what they know, do, and believe reflects the ways they are shaped by particular discourse communities. The more people incorporate the language of a particular discourse community, the more power that discourse community has. For example, the languages of the AECT (1979) definition of educational technology, of "the learner" and of "components," of educational computing, and of hypertext, all inscribe the activities and potentialities of teachers and students, and thus "speak them" into a certain way of being. The ways in which the discourse of educational technology "speaks people" are discussed in the writings of Taylor and Johnsen (1986), Damarin (1991b), Anderson (1992), Bryson and deCastell (1994), and others. While these authors address the construction of language within educational technology, R K. Jamison (1992) discusses the appropriation by the field of language developed outside it; by adopting/adapting the language of values, liberation, and empowerment from emancipatory pedagogy, educational technology denies its meaning and robs emancipatory educational reformers of their voices.

Poststructural feminists bring together Foucauldian and earlier feminist concerns with the political language of the body. They consider the ways in which women's bodies are positioned by discourses of gaze, spectacle, and pornography, and by the normalizing absorption of these discourses into the culture at large (Haraway, 1991). Some feminist poststructuralists within educational technology focus on the body politics within our field. For example, Ann DeVaney's work reveals the intrusion of pornographic imagery into educational television (DeVaney & Elenes,1990) and of the discourse of woman as spectacle into computer software (DeVaney, 1993).

Recent work within postmodern feminism (e.g., Butler, 1990, 199 1; Haraway, 1985, 199 1) amplifies the language of "difference" while challenging the binary division associated with sex/gender. This development is important to the rethinking of research on gender and educational media and technology because most research in this area is based on the essentialist classification of students as male or female important work on this issue by Bryson and deCastell (1994) leads to rethinking of prior feminist research on educational computing (e.g., Turkle & Papert, 1990; Brunner, 1992). Many concepts that underlie instructional design (e.g., individualizing instruction, learning style) are associated with the sex/gender division. Consideration of these issues is closely related to concerns with subjectivity. Subjectivity. One project of poststructural feminism is to deconstruct the liberal-humanist subject (the human entity) as a rational, unified, free, and self determining individual. In contrast, poststructuralists view subjects as socially constructed; to the extent that media and technology contributes to social language, norms, and requirements, they also shape the postmodern subject. For poststructural feminists, "subjectivity" refers to "conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding her relation to the world" (Weedon, 1987, p. 32). Rather than considering individuals as having an essential being, poststructuralists see an individual's subjectivity as a site for disunity, conflict, struggle, and change. "Subjectivity is precarious, contradictory, and in process, constantly being reconstituted in discourse each time we think or speak" (Weedon, 1987, p. 33). Insofar as thoughts and emotions are constructed, mediated, and reinforced through language and discourse, subjectivity is derived from them; therefore, work such as DeVaney's (1994) is particularly important to understanding how educational media and technology influences, produces, and reproduces women's subjectivity.

In much of her work, Elizabeth Ellsworth (1987, 1988, 1990) addresses the interrelatedness of various aspects of education, media, diversity, and postmodern subjectivity, exploring at the interstices of these phenomena the disease of the postmodern subject. Ellsworth uncovers ways in which the subjectivities of students and teachers affect, and are affected by, the use of educational media. Focusing on the language and normative practices of computing, Damarin (1991a, 1993b) suggests ways in which these affect subjectivity and identifies sites of disunity, resistance, and potential change. Damarin suggests that in postmodern times, simulation might replace the unified self as a metaphor for thinking about subjectivity.

In her radical critique of socialist feminism, Donna Haraway introduces the postmodern notion of the cyborgpart person, part machine-and describes the cybofgian displacement of modem by postmodern concepts and ways of being (1988, 1990, 1991). In the cyborg vision, representation gives way to simulation, work to text, mind to artificial intelligence, perfection to optimization, cooperation to communications enhancement, and individual to replicon. Cyborgs construct subjectivity through strategies of resistance within an "informatics of domination" in which being "feminized means to be made extremely vulnerable; able to be disassembled, reassembled, exploited as a reserve labor force ... leading an existence that always borders on the obscene, out of place, and reducible to sex" (Haraway, 1988, p. 166).

As Haraway points out, cyborgian resistance requires the identification of strategic sites and often requires affiliation with unlikely co-conspirators. The strategic identification of such sites and partners within educational technology is an implicit goal of the work cited above. The cyborg is also influential in P. K. Jamison's critiques of educational technology (1991, 1992), and in Allecquerre Stone's (1993) discussion of subjectivity and virtual reality. As mainstream/ malestream educational technology develops increasingly many and powerful uses of postmodern technologies, poststructural feminists within the field will continue to strive through research and practice to identify and open spaces in which women and other marginalized cyborgs/persons can construct subjectivities of power. As Haraway points out, because the networks of communications, multimedia, and virtual reality must be open in order for the powerful to exercise power, they are open to resistors and resistance as well. Social Process. Consciousness-raising groups and activities, which were central to the women's liberation movement of the 60s and 70s, provided spaces for women to discuss their personal and public lives. These collective discussions led to the recognition of commonality in experiences and feelings. Through these discussions, women first questioned whether, and then concluded that, patriarchal and masculinist institutions were producing social and cultural practices that work against women's interests. Feminists' political drive to participate more actively in discussions and situations of gender, race, and class resulted. They engaged in political activity, often on the local level and around issues of community and family, under the banner "the personal is political."

Poststructural feminists reverse this binary link and argue that politics is personal: "This politics speaks to the ways that power operates at the most intimate levels of daily life" (Diamond & Quinby, 1988, p. xvi). Rejecting a politics of hierarchy and domination, they seek and create a politics that grows out of a concept of friendship and that suggests nonhierarchical and reciprocal relationships between people. Rejecting an ethics of justice and laws, they work toward defining an ethic of relation and care. They value dialogue over argument, and they recognize the worth and validity of individual views (Diamond & Quinby, 1988, pp. ix, x). Poststructural feminist educators, as theorists and practitioners, consider how to provide situations and spaces in which teachers and students can participate in reciprocal exchange, where teachers are no longer the disseminators of knowledge, authorities on subjects, or regulatory agents for an educational bureaucracy; instead, teachers facilitate learning experiences that allow students to participate in a variety of ways, with a multiplicity of voices, and in places where meaning and knowledge can be negotiated.

To date, feminist research on social process in educational technology and communication has dealt primarily with how technologies can provide more opportunities for social, collective, and reciprocal communication and exchange. Elizabeth Ellsworth (1987) writes about a course in racism and media that she offered at the University of Wisconsin because of racial tension on the Madison campus. As a final project, the students designed a group political statement to perform, show, or distribute on the topic of racism. Jane Anderson (1992) has considered how hypertext can be used in a course to decenter the authority of the teacher. Anderson suggests that hypertext design can provide for an electronic space where a collective, possibly anonymous, discussion can occur among the students on a subject without the directive energy of the teacher. Suzanne Damarin discusses similar issues in relation to the teaching of science (1991c) and also explores the potentialities of situated learning and cognition in relation to feminist practices and ideas (1993a, 1995). Power/Institution. For poststructural feminists, scientism, professionalism, technical rationality, and patriarchy have turned schooling into a machinery of social and cultural regulation (Gore, 1993). Education as an institution has helped to construct gender, race, and class differences. The language of efficiency, effectiveness, control, and predictable outcomes which dominates modem educational discourse has privileged an authority-based teacher/student relationship, process and goal-oriented teaching techniques, and activities that aim to turn people into self-regulatory individuals who don't question authority. By its definition (AECT, 1979), educational technology is complicit in these activities.

As part of the institutional machine, educational technology and communication has a history of promising tools and materials that can be used in any context, teach concepts quickly using scientific principles, and widen student vision beyond the limitations of the local classroom. These promises have appeal to educational groups that value concepts of scientific progress, professional power, civil control, and orderliness, In contrast, poststructural feminists tend to prefer educational practices that focus more on the local than on the institutional.

The influence of the military on education and educational technology is a particular concern for radical and poststructural feminists. As Sally Hacker (1989) and Cynthia Enloe (1988) argue, the military has developed as a masculinist and patriarchal institution (the integration of women into it, notwithstanding). The influences of West Point on Harvard, of military needs on engineering education, and of military codes of discipline and teaching on all educational institutions are documented by Hacker (1989). The fiscal and conceptual contributions of the armed services to the educational design and development are well documented. Douglas Noble (1984, 1991) demonstrates how the move to mandate computer literacy instruction emanated from the Department of the Defense, and Paul Edwards' (1990) work analyzes the influences of the military on the development of computer technologies and their place in education. Carol Cohn's (1987) study of the language of the military reveals the boundedness of certain concepts to it.

Complementing the research that specifically addresses the influence of the military, Cornelia Brunner (1992) and colleagues examine differences in the ways in which women and men view technology and the types of technologies they would choose to construct. Findings to date indicate that men construct technologies with greater attention to enhancing power, while women seek technologies that promote human interaction. Linda Condron is interviewing women engineers concerning the ways they adapt and construct values within their workplaces (1993a, 1993b). As these and related researches are coming together, poststructural feminists use their findings to deconstruct practices in the institutions of education and educational technology.

Within educational technology and communications, feminist research on institutional power in the future might entail deconstructing the field or instructional design models to unravel what power groups are best served by particular instructional approaches (e.g., Damarin, 1991b). Poststructural feminists might also deconstruct their own teaching practices through collaborative study with their students and show how their interests are present in the teaching practices they use (Luke & Gore, 1992). Poststructural feminists claim that no instruction is innocent of the special interest of the teacher, but by foregrounding these special interests and how they shape practice, they feel they can open new space for understanding and change.

Like Foucault, feminist poststructuralist educators (e.g., Walkerdine, 1990; Gore, 1993) situate the academic study of pedagogy and public schooling within discourses of social regulation. They examine the effects on education of the political/patriarchal need for specifically skilled, obedient, and docile workers for the industrial age. As feminists they are particularly concerned with the ways in which schools and their discourses reproduce gender inequality; work such as Jane Gaskell's (1987) reveals how school requirements related to the mastery of technology devalues young women. Apple and Jungck (1990) address the related phenomenon of the deskilling of teachers through the introduction of (required) computer literacy units.

10.4.2 Research and Pedagogy: Focusing on Practice

Feminist scholarship has addressed and influenced all forms of academic research. Feminist historians studied and legitimized the use of diaries of "common folk" and oral histories as scholarly resources (Lerner, 1973); feminist literary and media critics have legitimized the reading of texts from positions of marginality (Spender, 1982). Because the dominant mode of scholarly research in education over the past several decades has been (quasi) scientific inquiry, feminist critique and philosophy of science are of particular interest to us here. Of the many feminist scientists and philosophers of science who have contributed insights relevant to educational research, the work of Sandra Harding (1986, 1987, 1991), Helen Longino (1987), and Donna Haraway (1988) is most pertinent. The following concepts, introduced and expanded by these theorists, are central to feminist research.

For these theorists, no research is objective in the sense traditionally claimed by scientists; a researcher cannot be in the position of "a god's-eye seeing everything from nowhere" (Haraway, 1991, p. 189). All research takes place from a position, and research should be conducted by one who stands in "the same critical plane" as the researched (Harding, 1987). Feminist research must attend to the concerns and lives of women (Harding, 1986; Longino, 1987, 1990). It should be carried out from the "feminist standpoint" (Harding, 1986, 1991, 1993); that is, it should begin with the lives and experiences of women. Like the proletarian standpoint of Marxism (Hartsock, 1983), and other standpoints of the less powerful, feminist standpoint epistemology yields objective "truths." Such research is argued to have "strong objectivity" (Harding 1991) as a result of its being conducted with less interest in preserving the status quo than mainstream/ malestrearn research. Thus, standpoint epistemology assumes that there are real objects in the world that we can study and understand. Haraway (1988) argues for a "radical objectivity" in which objects are conceived, not only as real but also as everchanging and as actors that act upon us, even as we act upon them.

Feminist postructuralist researchers borrow freely from the methods of standpoint epistemology without endorsing any form of objectivity. While they conduct research (primarily qualitative) beginning with the lives of women (or other marginalized groups), they recognize a need to report multiple interpretations of the data they have gathered and to interrogate and reveal their own positions in relation to multiple aspects of the study. Therefore, self-reflexivity is characteristic of feminist poststructuralist inquiry. Self-Reflexivity. A leader in poststructuralist feminist research methodology, Patti Lather writes: "By reflexive, I mean those stories which bring the teller of the tale back into the narrative, embodied, desiring, invested in a variety of often contradictory privileges and struggles" (1991, pp. 128-29). Researchers are invested in what they study, what they select to report, and what meaning they find in the research situation. Self-reflexivity involves professional self-critique, in which the researchers own up to their values and how they are present in their work as interested people. Self-reflexive material gives readers a chance to learn bow the personal interests of researchers might shape research questions, approaches, and findings.

Susan Krieger (1991),in Social Science and the Self: Personal Essays on an Art Form, writes about how the written products of research studies are more often about the researcher than anything else. For Krieger, doing research, interpreting it, and presenting it are projects of self-expression. When people are doing research, they are in a sense researching projections of themselves. For her, research can be a form of artistic expression. Krieger blurs the boundary between doing social science research and doing art.

Feminists (e.g., Bordo, 1987; Code, 1991; Keller, 1985) observe that historically only men were viewed as (or allowed to "be") rational. As a residue of this history, many people associate the language of rationality with the masculine, and the language marginalized or suppressed by rationalism -poetic language and the languages of mysticism, madness, and magic-with the feminine. In their research methodologies, several poststructuralist researchers honor and adopt the poetic (Richardson, 1993). Some feminists have long read the mystical and magical as credible (Lerner 1981, 1993), and worked towards the deconstruction of madness (Chesler, 1973; Mander & Rush, 1974; Millet, 1990). In this self-reflexive turn, these feminist women claim the power of the discourses assigned to them. Pedagogy. For poststructural feminists in education, pedagogy is a central concern-it's where theory and practice meet. Poststructural feminists believe that pedagogy has a great affect on how gendered knowledge and experience are produced (Gore, 1993, p. 26). They advocate pedagogical styles that enable women and men to listen to themselves and each other, so that they might arrive at a better understanding of how different, variously capable, and socially responsible people are. They reject institutionalized pedagogical knowledge as being too technical and focused on method of teaching. Poststructural feminists also criticize critical pedagogists (such as Giroux, Freire, Apple, and McClaren) for being patriarchal and masculinist in their reverie of "emancipatory knowledges" (Luke & Gore, 1992).

Poststructural feminist pedagogy is more interested in locating the differences among gendered beings than the commonalities (Gore, 1993, p. 33; see also Britzman, 1991, 1993). Poststructuralist feminists argue against teaching practices that claim to be context-free and independent, and for teaching practice that maintains the specificity of a multifaceted situational learning event. For them/us, pedagogy should be rooted in the actual public and private lives of the women and men involved in the learning situation. The pedagogy should have elements of self-reflexivity, interactivity, and collaboration.

To date, most poststructural feminist research on pedagogy has been self-reflexive and has dealt with teaching undergraduates. This research uses journal entries, action research principles, and reflexive strategies to unpack how specific interests work for and against educational practices. In educational communications and technology, most media and software studies have shown how particular learning approaches tend to gender learning domains.

10.4.3 Our Theory/Our Practice:Self-Reflexive Notes

In writing this, we feel as though we have had to fragment and reduce the work of many people to bounded concepts; "in truth," the work we talk about aims to blur boundaries, to rupture the idea of a finely defined discipline. See the self-reflexive first paragraph of this feminist section. The issues we have spoken about are interrelated in complex ways, and we find it dangerous to single out and reduce them to specific subsections of a (part of a) paper. Language, subjectivity, power, institutions, social concerns, research, and pedagogy are everywhere, and they are deeply entailed in each other.

The work discussed here is the work of many people, only some of whom are acknowledged in this writing. We know there are many graduate students, teachers, and others whose course papers, diaries, and publications in remote places, and whose videos, software, songs, poems, and performances we wish we could have included. Much is still left to explore, and we believe it can be explored in many different ways. How can educational communications and technology transform social power and social relations so those who have been marginalized may have greater voice? How can educational communications and technology assist us so we might hear more clearly those who have been marginalized speaking with their own fine, strong voices?


Anderson, Jane H. (1992, Apr.). Connecting voices: feminist pedagogy and hypertext. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Apple, Michael W. & Jungck, Susan (1990). "You don't have to be a teacher to teach this unit": teaching, technology, and gender in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal 27 (2), 227-5 1.

Association for Educational Communication and Technology Task Force on Definition and Terminology. (1979). Educational technology: definition and glossary of terms, Vol 1. Washington, DC: AECT.

Bordo, Susan R. (1987). The flight to objectivity: essays on Cartesianism and culture. Albany, NY. SUNY Press.

Britzman, Deborah P. (1991). Practice makes practice: a critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY. SUNY Press.

(1993). Beyond rolling models: gender and multicultural education. In Sari Knopp Biklen & Diane Pollard, eds. Gender and education: ninety-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 25-42. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Brunner, Cornelia (1992, Apr.). Gender and technological desire. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Bryson, Mary & deCastell, Suzanne (1994). Telling tales out of school: modernist, critical, and postmodern "true stories" about educational computing. Journal of Educational Computing Research 10, 199-22 1.

Butler, Judith (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

(1991) Imitation and subordination. In Diana Fuss, ed. Inside/out, 13-3 1. New York: Routledge.

Chesler, Phyllis (1973). Women & madness. Garden City, NY. Avon.

'Code, Lorraine (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press.

Cohn, Carol (1987). Sex and death in the rational world of defence intellectuals. Signs 12 (4), 687-718.

Condron, L. (1993a). Women and the discourses of the visual: where are women in this picture? In Visual literacy in the digital age: selected readings from the annual conference of the International Visual Literacy Association: 25th, Rochester, NY, Oct. 13-17, 1993. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 583.)

- (1993b). Women and technology: feminist perspectives. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 13 (3), 139-41.

Daly, Mary (1978). Gyn/ecology: the metaethics of radical feminism. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Damarin, Suzanne K. (1991 a). Feminist unthinking and educational technology. Educational and Training Technology International 27 (4), 111-19.

- (1991b). Rethinking science and mathematics curriculum and instruction: feminist perspectives in the computer era. Journal of Education 173 (1), 107-23.

- (1991c). Women and information technology: framing some issues for education. Feminist Teacher 6 (2), 16-20.

- (1993a). Schooling and situated knowledge: travel or tourism? Educational Technology 33 (3), 27-32.

- (1993b). Technologies of the individual: women and subjectivity in the age of information. Research in Technology and Philosophy 13, 185-200, [Special issue on Technology and Feminism, Joan Rothschild, ed.]

- (1995). The emancipatory potential of situated learning. In Hilary McLellan, ed. Perspectives on situated learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

DeVaney, Ann & Elenes, A. (1990). Square one: television and gender. In R.A. Braden, D.G. Beauchamp & J.C. Clark-Baca, eds. Perceptions of visual literacy. Conway, AR: International Visual Literacy Association.

- (1993). Reading educational computer programs. In R. Muffoletto & N. Knupfer, eds. Computers in education: social, political, and historical perspectives, 181-96. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

- (1994). Watching channel one. Albany, NY- SUNY Press.

Diamond, Irene & Quinby, Lee (1988). American feminism and the language of control. In 1. Diamond & L. Quinby, eds. Feminism and Foucault: reflections on resistance, 193-206. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Edwards, Paul N. (1990). The army and the microworld: computers and the politics of gender. Signs 16 (1), 102-27.

Ellsworth, Elizabeth (1987). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review 59 (3), 297-324.

- (1988). Media interpretation as a social and political act. Journal of Visual Literacy 8 (2), 27-38.

- (1990). Teaching to support unassimilated difference. Unpublished paper.

Enloe, Cynthia (1988). Does khaki become you? The militarization of women ~ lives. Boston, MA: Pandora.

Gaskell, Jane (1987). Gender and skill. In David W. Livingstone, ed. Critical pedagogy and cultural power, 137-53. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Gore, Jennifer M. (1993). The struggle of pedagogies: critical and feminist discourses as regimes of truth. New York: Routledge.

Hacker, Sally (1989). Pleasure, power, and technology. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

Haraway, Donna J. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14 (3), 575-99.

- (1990). A manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980's. In L.J. Nicholson, ed. Feminism/postmodernism, 190-233. New York: Routledge.

- (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. New York: Roudedge.

Harding, Sandra (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press.

- (1987).'The method question. Hypatia: A Journal of feminist Philosophy 2 (3), 19-35.

- (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press.

Hartsock, Nancy (1983). The feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding & M. Hintikka, eds. Discovering reality. feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science, 283-3 10. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

Hawkins, Jan. (1987). Computers and girls: rethinking the issues. In Karen Sheingold & Roy Pea, eds. Mirrors of minds. patterns of experience in educational computing, 242-57. New York: Ablex.

Jamison, P. K. (1991). An interview with Donna Haraway. Feminist Teacher 6(2), 3-15.

(1992). Tech(knowledge)y, Paper presented at Bergamo Conference, Oct. 1992.

Kay, Robin H. (1992). Understanding gender differences in computer attitudes, aptitude, and use: an invitation to build theory. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 25 (2),159-71.

Keller, E.F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press.

Krieger, Susan (1991). Social science and the self- personal essays on an art form. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Lakoff, Robin (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.

Lather, Patti (1991). Getting smart: feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.

Lerner, Gerda (1973). Black women in white America: a documentary history. New York: Random House.

- (1986). The creation of patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press.

- (1993). The creation of feminist consciousness: from the Middle Ages to 1870. New York: Oxford University Press.

Longino Helen. E. (Fall 1987). Can there be a feminist science? Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 2 (3), 51--64. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Luke, Carmen & Gore, Jennifer, eds. (1992). Feminisms and critical pedagogy. New York: Routledge.

Mander, Anica Vesel & Rush, Anne Kent (1974). Feminism as therapy. New York: Random House.

Millet, Kate (1990). The loony-bin trip. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Noble, Douglas (1984). Computer literacy and ideology. In D. Sloan, ed. The computer in education.: a critical perspective, 64-76. New York: Teachers College Press.

(1991). 7he classroom arsenal: military research, information technology, and public education. London: Falmer.

Richardson, Laurel (1993). The consequences of poetic representation: writing the other, rewriting the self. In Carolyn Ellis & M. Flaherty, eds. Windows on lived experience, 125-40. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Spender, Dale (1980). Man made language. New York: Routledge.

Spender, Dale (1982). Women of ideas and what men have done to them: from Amphora Ben to Adrienne Rick London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Stone, Allecquerre Rosanne (1993). Will the real body please stand up? Boundary stories about virtual cultures. In Michael Benedikt, ed. Cyberspace first steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Taylor, William D. & Johnsen, Jane B. (1986). Resisting technological momentum. In J.A. Culbertson & L.L. Cunningham, eds. Microcomputers in education: eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 216-33. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Turkle, Sherry & Papert, Seymour (1990). Epistemological pluralism: styles and voices within the computer culture, Signs 16 (1),128-57.

Wajcman, Judy (1991). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Walkerdine, Valerie (1990). Schoolgirl fictions. Londo& Verso. Weedon, Chris (1987). Feminist practice and poststructural theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.


Updated August 3, 2001
Copyright © 2001
The Association for Educational Communications and Technology

1800 North Stonelake Drive, Suite 2
Bloomington, IN 47404

877.677.AECT (toll-free)

AECT Home Membership Information Conferences & Events AECT Publications Post and Search Job Listings