Akrich, M. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law, 205-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Arnold, E., and W. Faulkner. 1985. Smothered by invention: The masculinity of technology. In Smothered by invention: Technology in women’s lives, edited by W. Faulkner and E. Arnold, 18-50. London: Pluto.
3.
Berg, A.-J. 1997. Digital feminism. Rapport nr. 28, Senter for Teknologi of Samfum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Dragvoll.
4.
Bijker, W., and J. Law, eds. (1992). Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Bird, S. R. 1996. Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender and Society10 (2): 120-132.
6.
Brod, H., and M. Kaufman. 1994. Introduction. In Theorizing masculinities, edited by H. Brod and M. Kaufman, 1-10. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Caputi, J. 1988. Seeing elephants: The myths of phallotechnology. Feminist Studies14 (3): 487-524.
8.
Cockburn, C. 1983. Brothers: Male dominance and technological change. London: Pluto.
9.
Cockburn, C. 1985. Machinery of dominance: Women, men and technical know-how.London: Pluto.
10.
Cockburn, C. 1992. The circuit of technology: Gender, identity and power. In Consuming technology: Media and information in domestic spaces, edited by R. Silverstone and E. Hirsch. London: Routledge.
11.
Cockburn, C., and R. F. Dilic, eds. 1994. Bringing technology home: Gender and technology in a changing Europe. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
12.
Cockburn, C., and S. Ormrod. 1993. Gender and technology in the making. London: Sage.
13.
Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
14.
Cowan, R. S. 1983. More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave. New York: Basic Books.
15.
Demetriou, D. 2001. Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society30:337-361.
16.
Easlea, B. 1981. Science and sexual oppression.London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
17.
Faulkner, W. 2000a. Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science30 (5): 759-792.
18.
Faulkner, W. 2000b. The power and the pleasure? Aresearch agenda for “making gender stick” to engineers. Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 87-119.
19.
Faulkner, W. 2001. The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. Women’s Studies International Forum24 (1): 79-95.
20.
Gill, R., and K. Grint. 1995. Introduction. In The gender-technology relation: Contemporary theory and research, edited by K. Grint and R. Gill, 1-28. London: Taylor and Francis.
21.
Grint, K., and R. Gill, eds. 1995. The gender-technology relation: Contemporary theory and research. London: Taylor and Francis.
22.
Grint, K., and S. Woolgar. 1995. Onsome failures of nerve in constructivist and feminist analyses of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values20 (3): 286-310.
23.
Håpnes, T., and B. Rasmussen. 1991. Excludingwomen from the technologies of the future? Futures December:1107-1119.
24.
Henwood, F. 1996. WISE choices? Understanding occupational decision-making in a climate of equal opportunities forwomen in science and technology. Gender and Education8 (2): 199-214.
25.
Horowitz, R., ed. 2001. Boys and their toys: Masculinity, class and technology in America. Hagley Center Studies in the History of Business and Technology. New York: Routledge.
26.
Hughes, T. 1983. Networks of power: Electrification in Western Society 1880-1930.Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
27.
Hughes, T. 1986. The seamless web: Technology, science, etcetera, etcetera. Social Studies of Science16:281-292.
28.
Kleif, T., and W. Faulkner. 2003. “I’m no athlete [but] I can make this thing dance!”—Men’s pleasures in technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 28 (2): 296-325.
29.
Latour, B. 1988. The prince for machines as well as for machinations. In Technology and social process, edited by B. Elliot, 20-43. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
30.
Latour, B.1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Shaping technology/building society, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law, 225-257. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
Law, J. 1987. Technology, closure and heterogeneous engineering: The case of the Portuguese expansion. In The social construction of technological systems, edited by W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch, 111-134. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
32.
Lerman, N. E., A. P. Mohun, and R. Oldenziel. 1997. The shoulders we stand on and the view from here: Historiography and directions for research. Special issue. Technology and Culture38 (1): 9-30.
33.
Lie, M. 1995. Technology and masculinity: The case of the computer. Special issue. The European Journal of Women’s Studies2 (3): 379-394.
34.
Lie, M. 1998. Computer dialogues: Technology, gender and change. Trondheim, Norway: Senter for kvinneforskning, Norges Teknisk-naturvitenskapelige Universitet.
35.
Lie, M., and K. H. Sørensen, eds. 1996. Making technology our own? Domesticating technology into everyday life. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
36.
Lohan, M. 2000. Constructive tensions in feminist technology studies. Social Studies of Science36 (6): 895-917.
37.
Lohan, M. 2001. Men, masculinities and “mundane” technologies: The domestic telephone. In Virtual gender, edited by A. Adam and E. Green, 189-206. London: Routledge.
38.
McIlwee, J. S., and J. G. Robinson. 1992. Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
39.
McNeil, M., ed. 1987. Gender and expertise.London: Free Association Books.
40.
Mellström, U. 1995. Engineering lives: Technology, time and space in a male-centred world. Linköping, Sweden: Department of Technology and Social Change.
41.
Merchant, C. 1982. The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. 2nd ed. London: Wildwood House.
42.
Noble, D. 1991. A world without women: The evolution of the masculine culture of science. New York: Knopf.
43.
Oldenziel, R. 1999. Making technology masculine: Men, women, and modern machines in America, 1870-1945.Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
44.
Ormrod, S. 1994. “Let’s nuke the dinner”: Discursive practice of gender in the creation of a new cooking process. In Bringing technology home: Gender and technology in a changing Europe, edited by C. Cockburn and R. F. Dilic, 42-58, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
45.
Oudshoorn, N. 1999. On masculinities, technologies, and pain: The testing of male contraceptives in the clinic and the media. Science, Technology, & Human Values24 (2): 265-289.
46.
Pinch, T., and Bijker, W. 1984. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science14:399-441.
47.
Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1995. Special issue. 20(3).
48.
Silverstone, R., and E. Hirsch, eds. 1992. Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge.
49.
Sørensen, K., and A.-J. Berg, eds. 1991. Technology and everyday life: Trajectories and transformations. Oslo: Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities.
50.
Stanworth, M., ed. 1987. Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood and medicine. Oxford: Polity.
51.
Wajcman, J. 1991. Feminism confronts technology. Cambridge: Polity.
52.
Webster, J. 1990. Office automation: The labour process and women’s work in Britain. Brighton: Harvester.
