Appropriating
Technology: an introduction
Most social studies of science and technology have focused
on either production by established professionals, or the impact on the general
public. But what about the lay public as producersof technology and
science? From the vernacular engineering of Latino car design to environmental
analysis among rural women, groups outside the centers of scientific power
persistently defy the notion that they are merely passive recipients of technological
products and scientific knowledge. Rather, there are many instances in which
they reinvent these products and rethink these knowledge systems, often in
ways that embody critique, resistance, or outright revolt. This book presents
the first collection of case studies of such appropriated science and technology.
For shorthand we will refer to these as “appropriated technologies,”
but keep in mind that they are often as much about scientific knowledge and
ideas as they are about gadgets and technical methods—that is, they
encompass the entire realm of “technoscience”.
[1]
1) What are Appropriated Technologies?
Sociologists, anthropologists, historians, and other
researchers have recently converged in a new field termed “Science and
Technology Studies” (STS). Many of these studies have been framed in terms of
“social impact,” examining how science and technology change our personal lives
or cultural attitudes or environment. Another approach to STS, dating back to
the work of Robert Merton in the 1930s, studies science itself as a social
phenomenon. Recently this has produced some heated debates about just how much
social processes actually influence scientific and technological research.
Other STS research clusters have been built around policy studies, ethics and
values in science, anthropology of medicine, etc.
Despite this diversity of approaches, the vast majority of
these studies focus on the professional as the producer. This approach is
so frequent that alternatives can be easily overlooked. As social scientist
Manuel Castells suggests, one way to make the relations between society and
technoscience more visible is to think about a “space of flows”
in which we map not just geographic locations, but the networks of information
and paths of material transport that increasingly define a knowledge-based
economy. Here we will extend visualizations of this space of flows to even
more intangible attributes ofpeople and power—not as a way to reduce
social dynamics to a single point of view, but rather the opposite, to expand
our ability to understand appropriated technologies from a greater variety
of perspectives.
[2]
Figure 1 shows how the standard view of science and
technology might be visualized. 
On the vertical axis we have “social power,” with some
well-to-do professionals at the top, and some hard-knock blue collar folks at
the bottom. Granted, there are hundreds of different aspects of social power;
some obvious such as financial assets, political legitimacy, or religious
authority; and some more subtle, such as the often unconscious bias against
personal appearance (ethnicity, gender, age, beauty) that can emerge in even
the most nondiscriminatory of circumstances. Moreover, these different aspects
of social power can conflict with each other. A penniless prophet might hold
thousands in his sway, while a lonely rich atheist might mold society by money.
So when producing this type of graph, we need to remember that there are many
different ways each a single case study could be drawn, depending on the focus
of the analysis.
Let’s assume that we have agreed upon some particular
category or dimension of social power, such as income, which lands our scientists
or engineers in this study towards the upper half (something like upper-middle
class). Now we want chart the flow of artifacts or ideas as they leave the
laboratory and find their way to consumers. For this task we will need the
horizontal axis of figure 1, the production-consumption axis. Again, there is
no reason to think of this single dimension as simultaneously representing the
hundreds of different consumption/production aspects of our lives; we take it
that the graph is only trying to show a single aspect of one product. If we
divide our consumers into two groups—the rich and the poor—then we would have
two paths from the professional producers, as shown in figure 1. Of course the
graph is only indicating the general direction of the flow in terms of these
two dimensions; in physical time and space these paths might be quite complex,
with knowledge that slowly diffuses to the public, or circuitous routes from
design lab to factory floor to shops to home (cf. Cowan 1987).
Even with such a simplified view, there are many
instances which it do not fit this picture.The best known are those of the
ethnosciences; for example ethnomathematics or ethnobotany (figure 2).An
indigenous society may be at the margins of political and economic power, but
their knowledge systems can produce information that winds up in a first world
high-tech laboratory.
Through ethnopharmacology, for example, indigenous
herbal cures can lead to high profits in the biotechnology industry. Of course
that doesn’t necessarily mean high profits for the indigenous herbalists -- in
fact, their knowledge is often appropriated without compensation.
Appropriation, however, can be a two-way street, and
it is the traffic in the opposite direction that concerns us. The case studies
presented in this book show how people outside the centers of social power --
from white middle-class homemakers to rural Native Americans -- have been able
to use materials and knowledge from professional science for their own kinds of
technological production. In these appropriated technologies (figure 3), we
begin with production at the usual professional locations, but it is followed
by a second phase in which this technoscience is reinterpreted, adapted, or
reinvented by those outside these centers of power. Of course the trajectory
need not stop there. Such innovations can reappear in professional contexts,
mix with indigenous knowledge, and enter into further appropriations from
either top or bottom. 
2)Why study appropriated technologies?
Many of the researchers in social studies of science have
entered the field because of their concern over the real and potential dangers
involved in science and technology. For this reason the field has gain a
reputation for pessimistic views, and critics sometimes accuse them of being
technophobes or luddites. Appropriated technologies offer a rich resource for
combining a critical analysis of social issues with an eye towards the positive
application of science and its artifacts.Of course not all of these case
studies are happy stories: neo-nazi groups are also outside the centers of
scientific production, and they too adapt and reinvent to gain power.The
stories of technological appropriations are multifaceted; they are both painful
and joyous, reassuring and shocking. They are complex enough to warrant study
for their own sake. But their primary importance is in their potential
contribution to socio-political resistance and social reconfiguration.
3) Variations along the consumption-production
dimension
In collecting the various case studies for this anthology,
it became apparent that some examples made a stronger case for appropriation
than others. Using that distinction, we developed the following three analytic
categories, positioned along the consumption/production axis (figure 4).
The weakest
case, reinterpretation, is defined by a change in semantic association with
little or no change in use or structure.Graffiti tags are a good illustration:
the physical and functional aspects of a building are essentially unchanged,
but the semantic claim to possession, as a form of either cultural resistance
or criminal turf war,is not trivial (Castleman 1982, Rose 1994).The next stronger
case, adaptation, is defined by a change in both semantic association and
use.For example, the Bedouin society of Egypt, a relatively disempowered ethnic
minority, found that cassette tape players, which were marketed for listening
to music from the Egyptian majority, had an unused recording capability as
well.They began to record their own songs, and this eventually led to the
rise of a Bedouin pop star and the creation ofnew economic andcultural opportunities
(Abu-Lughod 1989).Adaptation requires two technosocial features.First, an
attribute of the technology-user relationship that Hess (1995) refers to as
“flexibility.”
[3]
For example, a calculator is less flexible than a word processor,
which is less flexible than a personal computer.Second, it requires a violation
of intended purpose.It is a mistake to reduce this to the intentions of designers;
we also need to consider marketing intentions and “common-sense”
or popular assumptions. In the case of Bedouin cassette players we have a
pre-existing flexibility for recording that was intended by the designers,
but this was obscured by the marketing focus on play-back only. Adaptation
can be described as the “discovery” of a “latent”
function, but that definition needs to be problemitized in the same ways that
philosophers have debated whether mathematics is invention or discovery (Restivo
et al 1993). The creativity required to look beyond the assumed functions
of the technology and see new possibilities is a powerful force for social
change, yet one that receives insufficient theoretical attention.
The strongest case for appropriated technologyis reinvention,
in which semantics, use and structure are all changed.That is, if adaptation
can be said to require the discovery of a latent function, reinvention can be
defined as the creation of new functions through structural change.Low-rider
cars (figure 5) provide a clear demonstration of this combination. Although
automobile shock absorbers were originally produced for decreasing disturbance,
Latino mechanics developed methods for attaching them to electrically
controlled air pumps, turning shock absorbers into shock producers.Low-rider
cars violate both marketing and design intentions, but the new functionality
was introduced by altering the original structure, rather than discovering
functions lying dormant in the original artifact. 
Figure 5: Joe Grosso’s Mazda, “Desirable Ones.” Copyright
Lowrider Magazine, use by permission only
It is
important to understand that in distinguishing strong versus weak cases for
appropriated technology, we make no evaluation of ideology or effectiveness.
One might, for instance, find more political success with reinterpretation than
reinvention in a given case. But the three categories do offer a useful set of
analytic distinctions. Consider, for example, Native American artist Sharol
Graves’ description of the genesis of her work (figure 6—not show for copyright
reasons):
The
image of these serigraph prints started out as a joke. When I worked in the
silicon valley, I used to draw on the computer during my lunch hour. I made the
computer do things the software wasn’t designed to do. I would draw for an hour
and save my “Indian design” drawing. Then the computer would crash because of a
memory overload. Then, I had to figure out a way to save it another way. When I
finally tried to plot out the design on a D-size drafting plotter, I ran into a
similar problem. Once again, I was able to figure out a way to manipulate the
plotter to draw the entire image (Graves 1995).
Graves
first reinterpreted the CAD/CAM software for circuit design as an artistic
medium; she then adapted it for new functionality, and finally reinvented the
system, changing its physical capabilities. She explains, “I wanted the public
to know that a Native American was working in the research and development of
high technology, just to blow a few stereotypes about the ‘Indian Mind.’” For
Graves the activities of reinterpretation, adaptation, and reinvention map out
a journey that progressively fused cultural and electrical resistance.
4) Variations along the social power dimension
In
considering variation along the social power dimension, we need to steer
between two potential pitfalls.On the one hand, we need to avoid
multiculturalist relativism, in which every social group is seen as just
another dish in the global smorgasbord (Fraser 1997).On the other hand, we need
to avoid a contest for victimhood; we don’t want to construct a hierarchy of
oppressions.One way to avoid this dilemma is to keep in mind the
multidimensional nature of these categories of social power; as noted earlier
each case could be mapped in several different ways. But even if we reduce our
analysis to one dimension – say, for example, racial/ethnic identity -- both
groups and individuals must be approached in historic, contextual terms, not as
a fixed “essence.”Indigenous (“fourth world”) societies, for example, can be
endangered by the descendants of colonialists, but many of these descendants
are themselves ethnic hybrids seeking to contest their own marginal “third
world” status. Analyses of appropriated technologies need to consider the
historically specific relation between these cultural locations, and the
turbulent mixture of people, artifacts, techniques and texts that make up
technoscience.
Consider, for example, the famous case of Kayapo
video (Turner 1992). Deep in the Amazon rainforest, the construction of a
hydroelectric dam threatens Kayapo lands. The Kayapo use handheld camcorders;
at first to rally support in dispersed villages, and later to help document
their protest. Despite the Brazilian government’s interest in keeping the
activism quiet, the images are picked up by the first world press, showing the
Kayapo in full war regalia with bright tropical bird feathers juxtaposed
against the high-tech camcorders. What could have been an obscure protest
becomes an international media event, resulting in political pressure to stop
the dam. But how should this be analyzed in regard to appropriated
technologies? In one sense, the Kayapo are merely using camcorders the way the
Sony corporation intended: to make videos. In terms of the
consumption-production dimension, it is quite weak. But the Kayapo are not the
typical consumer that the Sony engineers had in mind when they created this
technology.
First world consumers, especially those from the white
middle class, rarely realize the extent to which their technological access
is ensured simply by their status as “the user” foremost in so
many designers’ minds. For example, even something as seemingly universal
as photographic film embodies decades of chemical refinement using white-skinned
models; similar phenomena exist for furniture, clothing, and many other products.
[4]
When we think about the dimension of consumption/production,
we need to keep in mind that some consumers have flows of access to the “production”
end of the spectrum that are normally invisible, even to themselves.
[5]
In the case of Kayapo video those paths are nonexistent;
merely the fact that they were able to translate use of this technology from
the first world context in which it was designed (a context which assumes,
for example, that there will be electrical outlets with stable power sources
available) to the fourth world context of indigenous artifacts and knowledge
is in itself an impressive appropriation accomplishment. In other words, movement
across the dimension of social power is just as important in defining appropriated
technologies as movement across the consumption-production dimension.
Thus we should think of our graph not as a static
map, but as a place to chart the movements of artifacts, ideas, and even
people. Movements make visible the contours of social power in relation to
technoscience: we sense the difficulty of movement in the “wrong direction,”
the resistance we encounter when these artifacts, ideas and people try to flow
upstream. We can visualize this difficulty or resistance to uphill flow on our
graph by adding a third dimension (figure 7). 
Figure 7: The uphill struggle to appropriate science and
technology
When I mention appropriated technologies to political
conservatives, they sometimes respond with a Horatio Alger story: “technology
lets anyone pull themselves up by their ownbootstraps.” Figure 7 helps
to visualize the critique of that myth: a portrait of the forces that unite
elite social power and technoscience production, and of the pull that keeps
disenfranchised groups away. Working class students struggling in school,
for example, often describe their troubles in terms that sound like bad luck—“missed
my exam because I had to take my brother to the hospital” or “my
car wouldn’t start”—but when we step back and view the whole
of such incidents we can see them like iron filings in a magnetic field, mapping
out flows of power.
[6]
As cultural theorists such as Michel Foucault and N. Katherine
Hayles have pointed out, social power can be so diffuse that it acts more
like a force field in physics, a volume filled with electrical or magnetic
or gravitational vectors. And that too is an appropriation; we need new kinds
of literacy that allow more non-scientists to understand and shape the contours
of this multidimensional space of flows.
5) A brief survey of previous research
Unlike this anthology, the word “appropriation” in STS
literature typically refers to the context of professional scientists and
engineers, such as the Marxist critique of the appropriation of labor by the
upper class, or the complex portrait recently offered in Hård and Jamison’s
anthology titled The Intellectual Appropriation of Technology, which
describes how professionals have used technology for purposes of romanticism,
nationalism, etc. But the appropriation of science and technology by
marginalized groups, as we have defined it here, is a more widespread
phenomenon. The following seven categories describe how some of this research
has been conceptualized.
a. The
consumption junction. Cowan (1987) charts the relations of consumption
and production in the history of cooking stoves, using innovative diagrams that
work like topological maps to show the collective force of consumers in shaping
technology design through market demands (see also “evolutionary economics,”
e.g. Dosi et al 1988).Mackay and Gillespie (1992) and Lie and Sorenson (1996)
extend this analysis to user adaptation through more detailed examples. Smith
and Clancey’s (1998) anthology includes a collection of essays on “hobbyist
worlds” of innovation, such as Douglas’ study of the extraordinary role played
by early amateur radio operators.
b. Vernacular
knowledge systems. Vernacular architecture has long been a subject of
interest in folk arts and anthropology, particularly where “high culture”
components are reassembled into “low culture” structures. Vernacular
mathematics is described by Nunes et al (1993) and Lave (1988), and both Eglash
(1995) and Darrah (1995) describe adaptations in information technology that
can be termed vernacular cybernetics. Akrich (1992) analyzes vernacular
engineering of energy generation in third world development, and demonstrates
how differences in both technical flexibility and cultural context influence
adaptation. Pacey (1983) on “Eskimo” adoption of snowmobiles, Manuel (1993) on
cassette use in India, and Gupta (1998) on selective synthesis of indigenous
and high-tech agricultural knowledge are all good examples of such vernacular appropriation.
Appadurai (1996) and Escobar (1995) discuss some of the broader cultural
politics of technological hybrids.
c. The
ambiguity of use. Westrum (1991) describes how the “ambiguity of use”
invites adaptation and tinkering. “A device is basically a solution, but there
may be more than one problem to which it applies” (p. 239). Tenner (1996)
provides an analysis of the “unintended consequences” of technology, such as
the dialectic between changes in sports technology and changes in sports
activity.
d. Creative
misuse. Penley and Ross (1991) note several cases of “popular
refunctioning of foreign technology” such as “the Vietnamese farmers who turn
bomb craters… into fish ponds” (although they curiously disregard these as
merely “cute” examples, preferring information technology as a more explicitly
oppositional political appropriation of technology). Terry and Calvert (1997),
focusing on gender, point to groups such as the Barbie Liberation Organization,
which switched voice recordings for Barbie dolls and G.I. Joe and slipped them
into stores across the nation, to emphasize the intentionality of what Terry
calls “creative misuse.” On a less political note, Hesser (1998) describes the
wide variety of culinary innovations, from a panty hose consommé strainer to
cedar roof shingles for salmon.
e. Public
understanding of science. Toumey (1996) points to several examples, such as
evolution versus creationism, the fluoridation debate, and other public
controversies in which the authority of science is brought to play against
itself. In the hands of popular groups such debates at times appropriate
science using rigorous data and analysis, and at other times are merely
“conjuring” the effect of science using its symbols. Irwin and Wynne’s (1996)
anthology emphasizes the appropriation aspects of certain lay interpretations.
f. The
outsider within. Collins (1987) describes the multiple and sometimes
conflicting positions for African American women as “the outsider within.” This
framework in which personal identity and professional identity lie at opposite
ends of the social power axis is descriptive for many situations in which
marginalized groups move into professional science and technology production.
Examples include Manning’s (1983) study of anti-racist biologist E.E. Just,
Koblitz’s (1983) biography of feminist mathematician Sophia Kovaleskaia, and
others whose upward mobility did not erase an “oppositional consciousness”
(Sandoval and Davis 2000).
6) The role of appropriation in democratizing science
and technology
Appropriated technologies do not have an inherent ethical
advantage. First, insofar as appropriation is a response to marginalization, we
should work at obviating the need for it by empowering the marginalized.Second,
not all forms of resistance are necessarily beneficial in the long run.Aihwa
Ong, for example, notes that Malaysian women using spirit possession as
resistance to exploitation may be releasing frustrations that could have gone
into collective labor organizing.And as we noted, white supremacist groups
might well be described as marginalized people who appropriate the internet and
other technologies.While free speech must be preserved at all costs,
appropriation is not an ethical win in the case of neo-nazi web sites.
Insofar as science and technology appropriations do
have potential contributions to stronger democracy (cf. Winner 1986, Sclove
1995, Schuler 1996), we need to understand how these positive attributes can
succeed. First, there are obstacles to appropriation itself; most obviously those
created by totalitarian governments, but corporations can also dampen or
discourage appropriation. The flexibility required to allow user adaptation,
for example, is increasingly threatened in contemporary information technology
marketing strategies. The best known case is Microsoft’s attempts in securing
market shares by preventing inclusion of the Netscape web browser, but this
strategy of selective compatibility is much more widespread. For example,
during the web browser court inquiry, it was revealed that Microsoft had
prevented its competition from gaining complete knowledge of all Windows OS
files, which would mean that Microsoft’s own application software would be more
reliable than that of its competitors. Encouraging designers to incorporate appropriation
as a positive virtue means reversing this trend towards inflexibility. Of
course flexibility itself can be a means of social dominance, as Martin (1994)
points out in examining concepts of the embodied self under capitalist
relations of “flexible accumulation” (eg flexibility as a managerial strategy).
Extending Martin’s framework to technology design, we might point to the ways
in which the increasing flexibility of software allows it to adapt to
individual users’ computers, making internal changes to its software
configurations, linking automatically to company websites and engaging in other
activities that blur the line between “enhancement” of user capabilities and a
prosthetic for corporate influence.
Second,
we can examine each case of lay/professional relationship in terms of the
dependence or independence fostered by various appropriated technology
strategies (figure 8).Rather than romanticize independence, both users and
designers should strive towards the methodof appropriation that will move
toward strong democracy their particular context, while allowing for changes
such as increasing independence to free up new possibilities, or decreasing it
to facilitate institutionalization.
Finally,
we can encourage, inspire, and incite the use ofappropriated technologies for
opening new possibilities in the relations of culture and science. Foucault’s
powerful phrase, “technologies of the self,” only uses technology in a
metaphorical sense, and is focused on self-making by those at the high end of
the social power spectrum, but de Lauretis’ Technologies of Gender
brings the apparatus of representation together with discussion of its marginal
actors in ways that suggest both the challenge and promise of appropriation for
cultural identity. We need not just more cultural expertise in technical
matters, but more syncretism in both directions. We need not only more
scientific access for local communities, but more cultural workers -- artists,
writers, activists and others -- who can animate the spirit of technoscience,
and speak to the soul of appropriated technologies.
References
Abu-Lughod, Lila.“Bedouins, Cassettes, and
Technologies of Popular Culture.” Middle East Report (July-August),
pp. 7-11, 47, 1989.
Akrich, M. “The de-scription of technical objects.”
Pp. 205-240 in W.E. Bijker and J. Law (eds) Shaping Technology/Building
Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press 1992.
Anderson, Philip W., Arrow, Kenneth J., and Pines,
David (eds). The Economy as an Evolving Complex System. Addison Wesley
Longman 1988.
Appaduri, A. (ed.).The Social Life of
Things:Commodities in a Cultural Perspective.Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press 1986.
Appadurai, A. Modernity at large: Cultural
dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press 1996.
Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society.
Malden, Mass: Blackwell 1996.
Castleman, Craig.Getting Up: Subway Graffiti
in New York. Cambridge: MIT Press 1982.
Collins,
H.M. “Knowledge and controversy.” Social Studies of Science 11:3-10
(1981).
Cowan,
Ruth Schwartz. “The consumption junction: a proposal for research strategies in
the sociology of technology.” Pp. 261-280 in Bijker, Wiebe E., Hughes, Thomas
P., andPinch, Trevor J. (eds) The Social construction of technological
systems : new directions in the sociology and history of technology.
Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1987.
Darrah, C. N. (1995). "Techno-Guanxi: Connecting
Relationships and Icons Through Technology." Paper presented at American Anthropological
Association annual meeting, Washington, D.C., 1995.
de Lauretis, Teresa. Technologies of Gender.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press 1987.
Dosi, G. et al.Technological Change and Economic
Theory.New York: Pinter 1988.
Eglash, R."African influences in
cybernetics."in The Cyborg Handbook,Chris Gray (ed), New York:
Routledge 1995.
Escobar,
A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third
world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fang , Irving. A History of Mass
Communication : Six Information Revolutions. Boston
Focal Press, c1997.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and punish : the
birth of the prison (trans. Alan Sheridan).
New York: Vintage Books 1979.
Foucault, M. (1988). “Technologies of the self.” In
L. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A
seminar with Michael Foucault (pp. 16-49). Amhurst, Mass.: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Fraser, Nancy. Justice Interruptus: Critical
Reflections on the 'Postsocialist' Condition. New York: Routledge 1997.
Graves, Sharol. “Indian Circuit.” In Sara Bates (ed) Indian
Humor. SF: American Indian Contemporary Arts 1995.
Gupta, A. (1998). Postcolonial developments:
Agriculture in the making of modern India. Durham: Duke University Press
Hess, D. Science and Technology in a Multicultural
World. (Columbia University Press 1994).
Hesser,
Amanda. “Quick, Hide the Tools. Here Comes a Chef.” New York Times, pg 1
of Dining In, Dining Out/Style Desk, September 16, 1998.
Irwin, Alan and Wynne, Brian. Misunderstanding
Science? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1996.
Koblitz, Ann Hibner. A Convergence of Lives : Sofia
Kovalevskaia : Scientist, Writer, Revolutionary. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
Univ Press 1983.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. Labotory Life.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.
Lave, J. Cognition in Practice.New York:
Cambridge University Press 1988.
Lie, Merete and Sørensen, Knut H. (eds) Making
technology our own? : domesticating technology into everyday life.Oslo: Scandinavian
University Press, 1996.
Mackay, Hughie and Gillespie, Gareth.
“Extending the social shaping of technology approach: ideology and
appropriation.” Social Studies of Science 22:685-716 (1992).
Manning, Kenneth R. Black Apollo of science : the
life of Ernest Everett Just. New York : Oxford University Press, 1983.
Manuel, P. (1993). Cassette culture: Popular music
and technology in north India. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. An Evolutionary Theory
of Economic Change.Cambridge: Belknap Press 1982.
Nunes, Terezinha, Schliemann, Analucia Dias; and
Carraher, David William. Street mathematics and school mathematics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Oudshoorn, N., United we Stand: The Pharmaceutical Industry,
Laboratory, and Clinic in the Development of Sex Hormones into Scientific
Drugs, 1920-1940. Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol.18, nr.1,
1993: 5-24.
Ong, Aihwa. Spirits of resistance and capitalist
discipline : factory women in Malaysia. Albany : State University of New
York Press, 1987.
Pacey, A. The culture of technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The MIT Press 1983.
Penley, Constance and Ross, Andrew. Technoculture
(ed). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991.
Pinch, Trevor J. and Bijker, Wiebe E. “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 Science
14:399-441 (1984).
Restivo, Sal, van Bendegem, Jean Paul, and Fischer,
Roland(ed.). Math Worlds : Philosophical and Social Studies of Mathematics
and Mathematics Education. Albany : State University of New York Press,
1993.
Rose, T.Black Noise.Hanover: Wesleyan
University Press 1994.
Sandoval, Chela and Davis, Angela Y. Methodology
of the Oppressed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.
Schuler, Douglas.New Community Networks: wired for
change.New York: Addison-Wesley 1996.
Sclove, Richard. Democracy and technology.
New York : Guilford Press, 1995.
Smith, Merritt Roe, and Clancey, Gregory. Major
problems in the history of American technology : documents and essays.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.
Tenner, Edward. Why things bite back : technology
and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York : Knopf, 1996.
Terry, Jennifer and Calvert, Melodie (ed). Processed
lives : gender and technology in everyday life. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Toumey, Christopher. Conjuring Science. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press 1996.
Turner,
Terrence.“Defiant images: The Kayapo appropriation of video.” Anthropology
Today 8(6): 5-16, 1992.
Westrum, Ron.Technologies & society :
the shaping of people and things. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1991.
Winner, Langdon (1986) The Whale and the Reactor: A Search
for Limits in an Age of High Technology Chicago: Chicago University Press.
End Notes