The interventionist turn in science and technology studies (STS) increasingly involves researchers with practices of technology development and thus entails the need for appropriate methodologies. Based in software engineering, this article introduces the deconstructive technique of “mind scripting” as a method for analyzing processes of the co-materialization of gender and technology and as a tool to support cooperative, reflective work practices. Anchored in critical design approaches, “mind scripting” is a means for development teams to disclose discourses implicitly guiding work practices in order to make negotiable the underlying value systems. After discussing its foundation in deconstructivist feminist theory, the author illustrates how the method is applied by drawing on selected empirical results. Generating insights into the reproduction of hegemonic social discourses in development processes, “mind scripting” enables the rethinking of established ways of doing.
AdamAlison. 1998. Artificial Knowing: Gender and the Thinking Machine. New York: Routlegde.
2.
AgrePhilip E.1997. Computation and Human Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AllhutterDorisHanappi-EggerEdeltraud. 2005. “Making the Invisible Visible: Mind-Scripting as Method of Deconstructing IT-System Design.” In CD-ROM Proceedings of The 13th International Conference of Women Engineers and Scientists, edited by The Association of Korean Woman Scientists and Engineers (KWSE). The Association of Korean Woman Scientists and Engineers.
4.
AllhutterDorisHanappi-EggerEdeltraud. 2006. “The Hidden Social Dimensions of Technologically Centred Quality Standards: Triple-Loop Learning as Process Centred Quality Approach.” In Perspectives in Software Quality, edited by DawsonR.GeorgiadouE.LinecarP.RossM.StaplesG., 179–95. Southampton, UK: British Computer Society.
5.
AllhutterDorisHofmannRoswitha. 2010. “Deconstructive Design as an Approach to opening Trading Zones.” In Thinking Machines and the Philosophy of Computer Science: Concepts and Principles, edited by VallverdúJordi, 175–92. Hershey, NY: IGI Global.
6.
BaradKaren. 1998. “Getting Real: Technoscientific Practices and the Materialization of Reality.”Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies10:87–128.
7.
BødkerSusannePekkolaSamuli. 2010. “A Short Review to the Past and Present of Participatory Design—Introduction to Debate Section.”Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems22(1):45–48.
8.
BowkerGeoffrey C.StarSusan Leigh. 1999. Sorting Things Out. Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
ButlerJudith. 1997. The Psychic of Love of Power. Theories in Subjection. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
10.
CockburnCynthiaOmrodSusan. 1993. Gender & Technology in the Making. London: SAGE.
11.
DittrichYvonneRönkköKariErikssonJeanetteHanssonChristinaLindebergOlle2008. “Cooperative Method Development. Combining Qualitative Empirical Research with Method, Technique and Process Improvement.”Empirical Software Engineering13(3):231–260.
12.
DittrichYvonneJohnMichaelSingerJaniceTessemBjørnar. 2007. “Editorial for the Special Issue on Qualitative Software Engineering Research.”Information and Software Technology49:531–9.
13.
FaulknerWendy. 2007. “Nuts and Bolts and People”: Gender-Troubled Engineering Identities.”Social Studies of Science37:331–56.
14.
FloydChristiane. 1992. “Software Development as Reality Construction.” In Software Development and Reality Construction, edited by FloydChristianeZüllighovenHeinzBuddeReinhardKeil-SlawikReinhard, 86–100. Heidelberg: Springer.
15.
FriedmanBatyaKahnPeter H.JrBorningAlan. 2006. “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems.” In Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems: Foundation, edited by ZhangPingGallettaDennis, 348–72. New York: AMIS.
16.
Hanappi-EggerEdeltraud. 2006. “Gender and Software Engineering.” In Encyclopaedia of Gender and Information Technology, edited by TrauthEileen M., 453–9. Hershey, London: Idea Group Publishing.
17.
HarawayDonna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.”Feminist Studies14:575–99.
18.
HarawayDonna. 1985. “Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s.”Socialist Review80:65–108.
19.
HaugFrigga. 1999. “Erinnerungsarbeit—ein Leitfaden zur Methode.” In Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Erinnerungsarbeit, edited by HaugFrigga, 199–227. Hamburg: Argument.
20.
HaugFrigga. 1991. Erziehung zur Weiblichkeit. Hamburg: Argument-Verlag.
21.
HaugFriggaBünz-ElfferdingAnkeHauserKorneliaLangUrselLüdemannMagretMeirUteNemitzBarbaraNiehoffErikaPrinzRenateRäthzelNoraScheuMartinaThomasChristine. 1999. Female Sexualization. A Collective Work of Memory. London: Verso.
22.
MathiassenLars. 2002. “Collaborative Practice Research.”Information, Technology & People15:321–45.
23.
NørbjergJacobKraftPhilip. 2002. “Software Practice Is Social Practice.” In Social Thinking—Software Practice, edited by DittrichYvonneFloydChristianeKlischewskiRalf, 205–22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
OudshoornNellyRommesElsStienstraMarcelle. 2004. “Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies.”Science, Technology, & Human Values29:30–63.
25.
OudshoornNellyPinchTrevor. 2008. “User-Technology Relationships: Some Recent Developments.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by HackettEdward J.AmsterdamskaOlgaLynchMichaelWajcmanJudy, 3rd ed., 541–65. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
RobinsonHughSegalJudithSharpHelen. 2007. “Ethnographically-Informed Empirical Studies of Software Practice.”Information and Software Technology49:540–51.
27.
SengersPheobeBoehnerKirstenDavidShayKayeJoseph. 2005. “Reflective Design.” In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, edited by BertelsenOlav W.BouvinNiels OlofKroghPeter G.KyngMorten, 49–58. ACM Press.
28.
SuchmanLucy. 2008. “Feminist STS and the Sciences of the Artificial.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by HackettEdward J.AmsterdamskaOlgaLynchMichaelWajcmanJudy, 3rd ed., 139–63. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
SuchmanLucyTriggRandallBlombergJeanette. 2002. “Working Artefacts: Ethnomethods of the Prototype.”British Journal of Sociology53:163–79.
30.
WrightPeterMcCarthyJohn. 2005. “The Values of the Novel in Designing for Experience.” In Future Interaction Design, edited by PirhonenAntiiIsomäkiHannakaisaRoastChrisSaariluomaPertii, 9–30. London: Springer.
31.
ZornIsabelMaaßSusanneRommesElsSchirmerCarolaSchelhoweHeidi, eds. 2007. Gender Designs IT: Construction and Deconstruction of Information Society Technology. Wiesbaden: VS.
