A thoughtful meditation on the role of meaning and purpose in the development of technology.

In the last fifteen years, testing has attracted much attention in science and technology studies. Most researchers have focused almost exclusively on testing in the laboratory, specifically designed test locations, and, for medical technologies, the clinic. What counts as testing has largely been described in terms of the activities of scientific experts. This is not to say that science and technology studies have completely neglected other institutional discourses. Journalistic texts have been a favorite research site for scholars in science and (...) technology studies, particularly those seeking to understand the dynamics of public controversies on science and technology. Although most constructivist studies of science and media relations have treated journalistic texts as secondary to scientific texts, other scholars have dismissed this hierarchy. In this article, scientific texts and journalistic texts are considered equally important locations in which to analyze the testing of technologies. Based on a case study on the testing of a new contraceptive technology for men, the article shows that what counts as successful testing is not solely in the hands of scientific experts. In the case of male contraceptive technologies, journalists have contested the claims of scientific experts, particularly their claims about the cultural feasibility of the new technology. (shrink)

This article seeks to open up a new avenue for feminist technology studies—gender-aware research on engineers and engineering practice—on the grounds that engineers are powerful symbols of the equation between masculinity and technology and occupy significant roles in shaping new technologies. Drawing on the disparate evidence available, the author explores four themes. The first asks why the equation between masculinity and technology is so durable when there are such huge mismatches between image and practice. The second examines this mismatch in (...) the detail of engineering knowledge and practice to reveal that fractured and contradictory constructions of masculinity frequently coexist. The third theme addresses the suggestion that women and men might bring different styles to engineering. Finally, the author explores subjective experiences of engineering to argue that engineers’ shared pleasures in and identification with technology both define what it means to be an engineer and provide appealing symbols of power that act to compensate for a perceived lack of power or competence in other arenas. (shrink)