In this article the argument is that in order to find women who participate in the design of IT, it is not enough to analyze gendered divisions of labor in terms of professional belongings but also to analyze the practices behind the professional categories that are involved in IT design. The purpose of the article is to explore how actors in various ways were configured during an IT design project. The article is based on an IT design project, and the empirical material for the study was gathered through the use of ethnographic methods, and analyzed diffractively. This analysis showed that the boundaries between actors shifted, that the actors were placed in several different positions, and that what was done in practices did not always fit with the formal positions. The analysis made it possible to see that in this IT design project, women were important participants on which the whole project depended. If this project is representative also for other IT design projects, the problem of women as outsiders of IT design could be rephrased, and the problem is no longer that women are not included in IT design, but that their participation does not always become visible.
AlanderSara. 2007. “Offentliga storkök i det gröna folkhemet: Diffrakterade berättelser om hållbar utveckling”[Public Large-Scale Kitchens in the Green People’s Home: Diffracted Stories about Sustainable Development]. PhD Thesis, Luleå University of Technology.
2.
BaradKaren. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway – Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
3.
BeckEevi. 2002. “P for Political – Participation is not Enough.”Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems14:77–92.
4.
BjörgvinssonErling B.2008. “Open-ended Participatory Design as Prototypical Practice.”CoDesign4:85–99.
5.
BødkerKeldKensingFinnSimonsenJesper. 2004. Participatory IT Design. Designing for Business and Workplace Realities. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
6.
BraidottiRosi. 1994. Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
7.
BraidottiRosi. 2002. Metamorphoses. Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press.
8.
BratteteigTone. 2004. “Making Change. Dealing with Relations between Design and Use.”PhD Thesis, Oslo University.
9.
BruunJensen Casper. 2004. “Researching Partially Existing Objects: What is an Electronic Patient Record? Where do you find it? How do you study it?”Working Papers from Centre for STS Studies, Department of Information & Media Studies, University of Aarhus.
10.
ButlerJudith. 1993. Bodies that Matter. On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York & London: Routledge.
11.
ButlerJudith. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
12.
ElovaaraPirjo. 2003. “Information Technology – Are Women Outsiders and/or Insiders?” In How do we Make a Difference? Information Technology, Transnational Democracy and Gender, edited by MörtbergChristinaElovaaraPirjoLundgrenAgneta, 21–28. Division Gender and Technology, Luleå University of Technology.
13.
ElovaaraPirjoIgiraFaraja T.MörtbergChristina. 2006. “Whose Participation? Whose Knowledge? Exploring PD in Tanzania-Zanzibar and Sweden.” In Proceedings of the Ninth Participatory Design Conference, edited by JacucciGianniKensingFinn, 105–114. New York: ACM.
14.
FaulknerWendyLieMerete. 2008. “Gender in the Information Society: Strategies of Inclusion.”Gender Technology and Development11:157–77.
15.
FoucaultMichel. 1983. “On the Genealogy of Ethics: An Overview of Work in Progress.” Working sessions with Foucault at Berkeley in April 1983. Gathered and transcribed by H. L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow. In Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, edited by DreyfusHubert L.RabinowPaul, 229–52. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
16.
GreenbaumJoanKyngMorten. 1991. Design at Work – Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ, Hove, and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
GrönlundÅke. 2004. “Introducing e-Gov: History, Definitions, and Issues.”Communications of the Association for Information Systems15:713–29.
HarawayDonna. 2000. How Like a Leaf – Interview with Thyrza Nichols Goodeve. London: Routledge.
20.
HarawayDonna. 2004 (1992). “The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/Others.” In Cultural Studies, edited by GrossbergLawrenceNelsonCaryTreichlerPaula A., 295–337. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
HenriksenDixi Louise. 2002. “Locating Virtual Field Sites and a Dispersed Object of Research.”Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems14:31–45.
22.
JanssonMariaMörtbergChristinaMirjamdotterAnita. 2008. “Participation in e-Home Healthcare @ North Calotte.”Proceedings: NordiCHI 2008, October, 20-22, 192–200.
23.
KensingFinnBlombergJeanette. 1998. “Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns.”Computer Supported Cooperative Work7:167–85.
24.
KlineRonald. 2003. “Resisting Consumer Technology in Rural America: The Telephone and Electrification.” In How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology, edited by OudshoornNellyPinchTrevor, 51–66. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
25.
LaegranAnne Sofie. 2003. “Escape Vehicles? The Internet and the Automobile in a Local-Global Intersection.” In How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology, edited by OudshoornNellyPinchTrevor, 81–100. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
26.
LatourBruno. 1987. Science in Action - How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
LawJohn. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
28.
Lindblad-GidlundKatarina. 2009. “The Reflexive Designer – A Method for Sustainable Technology Development.”International Journal of Sustainable Society2:406–419.
29.
LindsayChristina. 2003. “From the Shadows; Users as Designers, Producers, Marketers, Distributors, and Technical Support.” In How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology, edited by OudshoornNellyPinchTrevor, 29–50. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
30.
LöwgrenJonasStoltermanErik. 2004. Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
31.
MarcusGeorge E.1995. “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography.”Annual Review of Anthropology24:95–117.
32.
MarkussenRandi. 1996. “Politics of Intervention in Design: Feminist Reflections on the Scandinavian Tradition.”AI & Society10:127–41.
33.
MörtbergChristinaElovaaraPirjo. 2010. “Attaching People and Technology – Between e and Government.” In Gender Issues in Learning and Working with Information Technology: Social Constructs and Cultural Contexts, edited by BoothShirleyGoodmanSaraKirkupGill, 83–98. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
34.
MörtbergChristinaStuedahlDagny. 2005. “Silences and Sensibilities – Increasing Participation in IT Design.” In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, edited by BertelsenOlav W.BouvinNiels OlofKroghPeter G.KyngMorten, 141–144. New York: ACM.
35.
NewmanSusan E.1998. “Here, There, and Nowhere at all: Distribution, Negotiation, and Virtuality in Postmodern Ethnography and Engineering.”Knowledge and Society11:235–67.
36.
OudshoornNellyRommesElsStienstraMarcelle. 2004. “Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies.”Science, Technology, & Human Values29:30–63.
37.
RommesEls. 2002. “Gender Scripts and the Internet: The Design and Use of Amsterdam’s Digital City.”PhD Thesis, University of Twente.
38.
SandersElizabeth B. N.StappersPieter Jan. 2008. “Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design.”CoDesign4:5–18.
39.
SefyrinJohanna. 2010. “Sitting on the Fence – Critical Explorations of Participatory Practices in IT Design.”PhD Thesis, Mid Sweden University.
40.
StoltermanErik. 1995. “Information Systems Research and Social Responsibility.”Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems7:123–8.
41.
SuchmanLucy. 2002. “Located Accountabilities in Technology Production.”Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems14:91–105.
42.
SuchmanLucy. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations – Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
SuchmanLucy. 2008. “Feminist STS and the Sciences of the Artificial.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed., edited by HackerEdward J.AmsterdamskaOlgaLynchMichaelWajcmanJudy, 139–163. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.
44.
Sveriges Officiella Statistik, Statistiska Meddelanden. Yrkesstrukturen i Sverige 2009 [Sweden's Public Statistics, Statistical Messages. Professional structure in Sweden in 2009]. Accessed May 17, 2011. http://www.scb.se.
45.
TrojerLena. 2002. Genusforskning inom teknikvetenskapen – En drivbänk för forskningsförändring[Gender Research within Technoscience – A Hotbed for Research Change]. Stockholm: Högskoleverket.
46.
WajcmanJudy. 2000. “Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In What State is the Art?”Social Studies of Science30:447–64.
47.
WajcmanJudy. 2007. “From Women and Technology to Gendered Technoscience.”Information, Communication & Society10:287–98.
48.
WajcmanJudy. 2010. “Feminist Theories of Technology.”Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access34:143–152.
49.
WoolgarSteve. 1991. “Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials.” In A Sociology of Monsters. Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by LawJohn John, 57–99. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
WyattSally. 2003. “Non-Users Also Matter: The Construction of Users and Non-Users of the Internet.” In How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology, edited by OudshoornNellyPinchTrevor. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
