Aerts, M., and R. P. Hagendijk, eds. 1992. Kennis en politiek . Kennis & Methode (Special issue)16 (1).
2.
Ashmore, M., and E. Richards, eds. 1996. The politics of SSK: Neutrality, commitment and beyond . Social Studies of Science (Special issue)26 (2).
3.
Cockburn, C. 1983. Brothers: Male dominance and technological change. London: Pluto .
4.
Collins, H. M., and R. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies. Studies of expertise and experience . Social Studies of Science32 (2): 235-296 .
5.
Elam, M. 1994. Anti anticonstructivism or laying the fears of a Langdon Winner to rest . Science, Technology, & Human Values19 (1): 101-106 .
6.
Faulkner, W. 2000. The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for “making gender stick” to engineers . Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 87-119 .
7.
Gill, R. 1996. Power, social transformation and the new determinism: A comment on Grint and Woolgar . Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (3): 347-353 .
8.
Grint, K., and S. Woolgar. 1995. On some failures of nerve in constructivist and feminist analyses of technology . Science, Technology, & Human Values20 (3): 286-310 .
9.
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association .
10.
Harding, S. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press .
11.
Harding, S. 1992. After the neutrality ideal: Politics and “strong objectivity.” Social Research59: 567-587 .
12.
Lohan, M. 2000. Constructive tensions in feminist technology studies . Social Studies of Science30 (6): 895-916 .
13.
Martin, B. 1993. The critique of science becomes academic . Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (2): 247-259 .
14.
Pels, D. 1996. The politics of symmetry . Social Studies of Science26 (2): 277-304 .
15.
Pels, D., and G. H. de Vries, eds. 1990. Feiten en waarden . Kennis & Methode (Special issue)14 (1).
16.
Radder, H. 1998a. The politics of STS . Social Studies of Science28 (2): 325-331 .
17.
Radder, H. 1998b. Second thoughts on the politics of STS. A response to replies by Singleton and Wynne . Social Studies of Science28 (2): 344-348 .
18.
Rose, H. 1994. Love, power and knowledge: Towards a feminist transformation of the sciences. Cambridge, UK: Polity .
19.
Scott, P., E. Richards, and B. Martin. 1990. Captives of controversy: The myth of the neutral social researcher in contemporary scientific controversies . Science, Technology, & Human Values15 (4): 474-494 .
20.
Singleton, V. 1998. The politic(ian)s of SSK: A reply to Radder . Social Studies of Science28 (2): 332-338 .
21.
Star, S. L. 1991. Power, technologies and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination, edited by J. Law, 26-56. London: Routledge .
22.
Wajcman, J. 2000. Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is the art? Social Studies of Science30 (3): 447-464 .
23.
Whelan, E. 2001. Politics by other means: Feminism and mainstream science studies . Canadian Journal of Sociology26 (4): 535-581 .
24.
Winner, L. 1993. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology . Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (3): 326-378 .
25.
Winner, L. 1994. Reply to Mark Elam . Science, Technology, & Human Values19 (1): 107-109 .
26.
Woodhouse, E., D. Hess, S. Breyman, and B. Martin. 2002. Science studies and activism: Possibilities and problems for reconstructivist agendas . Social Studies of Science32 (2): 297-319 .
27.
Woolgar, S. 1993. What's at stake in the sociology of technology? A reply to Pinch and to Winner . Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (4): 523-529 .
28.
Woolgar, S., and K. Grint. 1996. A further decisive refutation of the assumption that political action depends on the “truth” and a suggestion that we need to go beyond this level of debate: A reply to Rosalind Gill . Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (3): 354-357 .
29.
Wynne, B. 1998. Reply to Radder . Social Studies of Science28 (2): 338-344 .
