The authors suggest that postcolonial science studies can do more than expand answers to questions already posed; it can generate different questions and different ways of looking at the world. To illustrate, the authors draw on existing histories and anthropologies and critical theories of colonial and postcolonial technoscience. To move forward together, rather than remaining mired in regretful contemplation of past biases, the authors offer some analytical and practical suggestions. In reading hegemonic forms of postcolonial computing, this article offers tactics for rereading, rewriting, or reimagining those scripts.
AgreP. 1997. Toward a critical technical practice. In Bridging the great divide: Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work, ed. BowkerG.GasserL.StarS. L.TurnerB., 131–58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
AkrichM. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society, ed. BijkerW.JohnL., 205–22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
AndersonW. 2002. Postcolonial technoscience. Social Studies of Science32:643–58.
4.
AneeshA. 2006. Virtual migration. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
AppaduraiA. 1996. Modernity at large. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
6.
ArnoldD. 2005. Europe, technology, and colonialism in the 20th century. History and Technology21:85–106.
7.
BaradK. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: A Journal of Women in Culture and Society28:801–31.
8.
BergM. 1998. The politics of technology: On bringing social theory into technological design. Science, Technology & Human Values23:456–90.
9.
ChristenK. 2005. Gone digital: Aboriginal remix and the cultural commons. International Journal of Cultural Property12:315–45.
da Costa MarquesI. 2005. Cloning computers: From rights of possession to rights of creation. Science as Culture14:139–60.
12.
FergusonJ. 2006. Global shadows: Africa in the neoliberal world order. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
13.
FisherL. 1989. Xerox sues apple computer over Macintosh copyright. The New York Times, 15 December.
14.
FortunK. 2004. Environmental information systems as appropriate technology. Design Issues20:54–65.
15.
FoucaultM. 1980. Power/knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
16.
GandhiL. 1998. Postcolonial theory: A critical introduction. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
17.
GillespieT. 2006. Designed to ‘effectively frustrate:’ Copyright, technology, and the agency of users. New Media and Society8:651–69.
18.
GohD. P. S. 2006. States of ethnography: Colonialism, resistance, and cultural transcription in Malaya and the Phillipines, 1890s-1930s. Comparative Studies in Society and History49:109–42.
19.
GuptaA. 1988. Postcolonial developments: Agriculture in the modern making of India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
20.
HarawayDonna. 1985.A Manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review80:65–108.
21.
HaydenC. 2003. When nature goes public: The making and unmaking of bioprospecting in Mexico. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
HeideggerM. 1977. The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Harper Perennial.
23.
LatourB. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
LatourB. 2008. A cautious prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design: Keynote lecture. In Proceedings of 2008 annual international conference of design history society, ed. HackneF.GlynneJ.MintoV., 2–10. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers.
MazzarellaW. 2003. Shoveling smoke: Advertising and globalization in contemporary India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
27.
MrázekR. 1997. Let us become radio mechanics: Technology and national identity in late-colonial Netherlands East Indies. Comparative Studies in Society and History39:3–33.
28.
PennyS. 2000. Agents as artworks. In Human cognition and social agent technology, ed. DautenhahnK., 395–414. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29.
PhilipK. 2001. Science and technology studies and indigenous knowledge. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, ed. SmelserN. J.BaltesP. London: Elsevier.
30.
PhilipK. 2005. What is a technological author? The pirate function and intellectual property. Postcolonial Studies8:199–218.
31.
PovinelliE. A. 2006. The Empire of love. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
RamachandranV. 2009. The solution is ‘Jugaad’. CIO.IN.IDG.
33.
RossJ.IraniL.SilbermanM. S.ZaldivarA.TomlinsonB. 2010. Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in mechanical turk. Extended Abstracts of CHI 2010 (alt.chi). New York: ACM Press.
34.
RyanJohn C.DurningAlan Thein. 1997. Stuff: The secret lives of everyday things. New Report, No. 4. Seattle, Washington, DC: Northwest Environment Watch.
35.
Sengers, 2009. Critical technical practice, Forum organized at the German National Computer Science Research Center, Germany. http://cmc.uib.no/dac/abstracts/sengers.html. (Accessed December 10, 2009).
36.
SiegelJ. T. 1997. Fetish, recognition, revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
37.
SmithA. 2005. The alternative technology movement: An analysis of its framing and negotiation of technology development. Research in Human Ecology12:106–119.
TurnbullD. 2000. Masons, tricksters, and cartographers: Comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Amsterdam: Harwood.
46.
VerranH. 2002. A postcolonial moment in science studies. Social Studies of Science32:729–62.
47.
VerranH.ChristieM.Anbins-KingB.Van WeerenT.YunupinguW. 2007. Designing digital knowledge management tools with aboriginal Australians. Design Creativity18:129–42.
48.
VerripsJ.MeyerB. 2001. Kwaku’s car: The struggles and stories of a Ghanian long-distance taxi-driver. In Car cultures, ed. MillerD., 153–84. Oxford: Berg.
49.
WainwrightJ. 2005. Politics of nature: A review of three recent works by Bruno Latour. Capitalism Nature Socialism16:115–27.
50.
WarschauerM. 2003. Demystifying the digital divide. Scientific American289:42–47.
