Sage Publications, Inc. Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Science, Technology, & Human Values

The Power and the Pleasure?
A Research Agenda for "Making Gender Stick" to Engineers

Author(s): Wendy Faulkner
Source: Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Winter, 2000), pp. 87-119
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/690201
Accessed: 04/02/2010 14:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science,
Technology, & Human Values.
http://www.jstor.org
The Powerand the Pleasure?A
ResearchAgendafor "Making
GenderStick"to Engineers
Wendy Faulkner
Universityof Edinburgh,Scotland
This article seeks to open up a new avenuefor feminist technology studies-gender-

aware researchon engineers and engineeringpractice-on the groundsthat engineers
are powerful symbols of the equationbetweenmasculinityand technologyand occupy
significantroles in shapingnew technologies.Drawingon the disparateevidenceavail-
able, the authorexploresfourthemes. Thefirstasks whythe equationbetweenmasculin-
ity and technology is so durablewhen there are such huge mismatchesbetween image
andpractice. Thesecond examinesthis mismatchin the detail of engineeringknowledge
andpractice to revealthatfracturedand contradictoryconstructionsof masculinityfre-
quentlycoexist. The third theme addresses the suggestion that women and men might
bring differentstyles to engineering.Finally,the authorexploressubjectiveexperiences
of engineeringto argue that engineers'sharedpleasures in and identificationwith tech-
nology both define what it means to be an engineer and provide appealing symbols of
power that act to compensatefor a perceived lack of power or competence in other
arenas.
In the past (roughly) two decades, a growing body of feminist work has
exploredthe gender-technologyrelation.It is possible to chartthe emergence
of fours streams of (still current)work in this area. The firstswomen in
AUTHOR'S NOTE:I wouldlike to thankthefollowingfortakingthetimeto readandcommenton

earlier writtenversions of this article:FrankBechhofer,Liz Bondi, Annette Burfoot, Cynthia
Cockbum, Flis Henwood, Lisa Jacobsen, Anne Kerr, Gill Kirkup,John Macinnes, Donald
MacKenzie,Elaine Seymour,KnutS0rensen,JanWebb,and the anonymousreviewers.Verbal
presentationswere madeto the GenderStudiesandScience andTechnologyStudiesnetworksin
Edinburghin early 1997; to the Networkof EuropeanCentresin Science and TechnologyStud-
ies (NECSTS)Workshopon Gender,Science, andTechnology,held at NTNU, Trondheim,Nor-
way, in May 1997; andto a colloquiumof the Women'sStudiesCenterat the Universityof Colo-
rado at Boulder in April 1998. I am grateful to all those who shared their thoughts and
experienceswith me on those occasions, especially SandiBish, GingerMelton, andJill Tietjen,
who between them have spent nearly fifty years in engineering.
Science, Technology,& HumanValues,Vol. 25 No. 1, Winter2000 87-119

? 2000 Sage PublicationsInc.
87
88 Science, Technology,& HumanValues
technology-focuses on the question"whyso few?"now firmlyon the agen-

das of governmentsand industry.The literatureon women in engineeringis
small comparedwith thaton women in science and, for the most part,is not
informedby technology studies.A recentU.S. study by JudithMcllwee and
Gregg Robinson (1992; Robinson and Mcllwee 1991) is notable for its
detailedinvestigationof engineers workingin industry,highlightingaspects
of engineeringculturesthatact to retardwomen's careeradvancementcom-
paredwith men's. The second streamof work-on women and technology-
emergedduringthe late 1970s, promptedby the adventof word-processing
technology and by growing unhappinessabout women's encounters with
medical technologies. This shift reflected a desire to broaden the agenda
beyondthe obviousequityissue, on the basis thatthe vast majorityof women
encountertechnology as usersratherthandesigners.Much feminist scholar-
ship continuesto be couched in termsof women andtechnology,with a ten-
dencyto portraywomenas victims of men's technology(Berg 1997, chap. 1).
By contrast,feminists workingwithin technology studies soon framedtheir
concernsin termsof genderandtechnology-the thirdstream.This shift sig-
naled two things: first, a recognition that one has to understandrelations
betweenmen as well as between women and men to make sense of the posi-
tion of women (e.g., Cockburn1983); second, an insistence thattechnology
be understoodas socially shapedand thus potentiallyreshapeable.Accord-
ingly, feminist technology studies emphasize the two-way mutual shaping
relationshipbetween gender and technology-with technology as both a
source and consequenceof genderrelations.
Unlike feminist science studies, feminist technology studies is no longer
on the margins of science and technology studies (Faulkner1995, 1998).
Indeed,some of the most interestingdevelopmentsin technology studies are
coming from or inspiredby feminist scholars,in the spiritof RuthSchwartz
Cowan's(1987) memorablecall for a researchfocus on the "consumption junc-
tion."I am thinkingof thatstreamof researchon the use andusersof technolo-
gies in everydaylife, highlighting(amongotherthings)thatflexibleinterpreta-
tion continueslong afteran artifacthas left the factorygates (e.g., S0rensen
andBerg 1991; Lie and S0rensen 1996; Silverstoneand Hirsch 1992; Cock-
burnand Dilic 1994; Cockburnand Ormrod1993). As Anne-JorunnBerg
(1997) ruefully observes, gender"sticks"most readily in the context of use
because women are present. There is nonetheless importantgender-aware
workto be done-important for technology studiesas well as feminism-on
the men-only domainsof technology,which suggests a fourthstream,a new
avenuefor feministtechnologystudies,on men/masculinityandtechnology.
Already,we have studies that addressmasculinegender identities in the
context of men's use of technology.1My own project in this article is to
Faulkner/ The Power and the Pleasure? 89
encourage people to get "inside the belly of the beast" of technological

design, to examine how gender "sticks"to the engineers involved. Bluntly
put, I believe engineers representan importantresearchfocus for feminist
technology studies because they are powerfulinstantiationsand symbols of
the equationbetween masculinityandtechnology.A betterunderstandingof
engineering practice and how engineers tick should contributeto a better
understandingof how thatequationworks. It might also yield fresh insights
into why thereare so few women in engineering,thoughthis is not my con-
cernin this article.I focus primarilyon design engineersat this stagebecause,
in additionto their symbolic importance,design engineersalso play signifi-
cant roles in shaping new technologies-roles that are of great theoretical
andpolitical importfor feministtechnology studies.However,much of what
follows is relevantto all engineers. Indeed, it would be very revealing to
explorethe gender-technologyrelationcomparatively-in relationto profes-
sional andtechnicianengineers;to those workingin manufacturing,market-
ing, and maintenanceas well as design; to the full range of specialisms and
organizationsinvolved;and in differentcountries.
Before elaboratingon the researchprogramI am proposingin this article,
let me pauseto outlinethe theoreticalpredilectionsthatI bring(andthatbring
me) to the subject.
Underlyingmuch feminist scholarshipon technology is a debate,crudely
put, about whethertechnology is male dominatedbecause it demandssome
essentiallymasculinetraitsor simply becausetechnologyis wherethe power
is. The more essentialist end of this debate encompasses a range of views.
BrianEaslea (1981, 1983) arguesthatmen gravitateto science and technol-
ogy to compensatefor a shared"wombenvy,"ecofeministsemphasizemen's
emotional detachmentfrom the naturalworld (e.g., Cox 1992; Merchant
1992), and othersdrawon psychoanalyticaltheory to explain the tenacious
linkbetweenmasculinity,abstraction,andobjectivity(Keller1990;Turkleand
Papert1990). Formanyfeminists,myself included,genderessentialism-the
belief in universalformsor featuresof femininityandmasculinity-runs the
dangerof conflatinggenderwith sex (where sex refersto biological female-
ness andmaleness,andgenderrefersto socially constructedfemininitiesand
masculinities).2The distinctionis problematicin a numberof respects.3Per-
hapsmost profoundly,gender,while not the same as sex, is connectedto it in
each individual woman and man; our biological bodies house gendered
beings (Macinnes 1998). Nevertheless,the distinctionbetween sex and gen-
derremainsvital for feminist politics insomuchas it highlightsthe potential
for iniquitousrelationsbetween women and men to change and the diverse
rangeof gender identitiesthat exists empirically.
Accordingly,the alternative"power"position in the genderand technol-

ogy debateappealsto an understanding of the social contextwithinwhichpar-
ticulargenderconstructionsandparticulartechnologiesappear.Thus,Cynthia
Cockburn(1985a, chap. 1) demonstrateshow groupsof men have positioned
themselves in key technologicalroles historically:metalworkingin feudal
times andmachinetoolingin industrialtimes.AndJudyWajcman(1991, chap.
7) remindsus thatmoderntechnologyis supportedand directedby powerful
institutionsand interests.Because both moderntechnology and hegemonic
masculinity(see below) arehistoricallyassociatedwith industrialcapitalism,
they are linked culturallyby themes of control and domination.Achieving
controlanddominationover naturewas a centralplankin the Baconianproj-
ect (Merchant1980; Easlea 1981; Noble 1991), andthe "masteryof nature"
remains a powerful emblem of technology-both within engineering (e.g.,
Florman1976,121-26) andin widerculture(e.g., Caputi1988). In this sense,
technologyis understoodas a "masculineculture"(Wajcman1991, chap.7).
During the 1990s, writersin this traditionhave been challenged by col-
leagues in technology studies for tending to essentialize both gender and
technology,despiteproteststo the contrary(e.g., GrintandGill 1995, chap.1;
GrintandWoolgar1995).4Certainly,thereis a tensionbetween,on one hand,
the structuralistemphasison the historicalroots anddurabilityof the cultural
equation between masculinity and technology and, on the other hand, the
antiessentialistrefusal to see eithertechnology or men as necessarily about
controlanddomination.My own responseis to accept andlive with this ten-
sion: to adopt some of the principles of poststructuralism,particularlyits
emphasis on complexity and contingency,without losing sight of "power"
altogether.5In this spirit, I embrace the frameworkof the coproductionof
gender and technology, favored by many feminist scholars of technology,
where genderand technology are each seen as performedand processualin
character,ratherthangiven andunchanging,andwherethe mutualshapingof
genderand technology is seen as happeningsimultaneously,in a context of
multiple, decenteredagencies with no singular line of causation.6In this
spirit,too, andlike others(Berg 1997;Lerman,Mohun,andOldenziel 1997),
I embracethe crudebutuseful triadproposedby SandraHarding(1986, chap.
1) andJoanScott(1988) for analyzinggenderrelations-of genderstructures
(e.g., occupations,education),gendersymbolism (e.g., culturalassociations
between masculinityand technology), and genderidentity (how people see
themselvesas women andmen). As I will elaborateat the end of this article,I
believe this frameworkremindsus thatthereis more to the male dominance
of technology thanpower and that we must explore much more closely the
distinct-but-relatedlinks between structure,symbolism, and identity in the
gender-technologyrelation.
The shift to "men/masculinityand technology"that I detect and wish to

encouragewithinfeminist technology studiesbuilds on growingconcernsin
wider feminist theorywith genderidentityand with masculinity.I will high-
light threeconcepts thathave gained currencyfrom these literatures.Firstis
the insistence that because gender is socially constructedand cuts across
otherdifferences(not least class andrace), thereare numerousmasculinities
andfemininities.Second, andrelated,is the distinctionbetweenindividually
practicedgenderidentityand collectively held genderstereotypesor norms.
Bob Connell's (1987) notion of hegemonic masculinity is helpful here.
Hegemonicmasculinityis counterpoisedto "subjugatedfemininity";it is the
standardagainst which other men are measured and which is wielded to
exclude women from public life. It connotes the particularversion of man-
hood associatedwith men who are in power:in Westernculture,it is associ-
atedwith white, heterosexualmen who aresuccessful in termsof the capital-
ist marketplace (Kimmel 1994). Of course, most men do not meet the
standard,but in general the performanceof masculinitycombines outward
"homosocialenactment"(i.e., displays to othermen) with inwardrepression
of "the feminine" (Kimmel 1994). This brings us to a central paradox in
men's studies- the thirduseful concept-namely, thatwhile men as a group
hold and exercise power, most do not feel powerfulindividually(Kaufman
1994; Brod and Kaufman1994).
Surprisingly,the growing field of masculinitystudies has so far failed to
look at engineering, even though science and technology are widely
acknowledged as powerful motifs of hegemonic masculinity and even
though the gendering of industrialorganizations,in which most engineers
work, has been scrutinized(e.g., Roper 1994). Conversely,science andtech-
nology studies on engineering,for all the depth of some recent work (e.g.,
Vincenti 1990; Bucciarelli 1994), have been largely gender blind-even
though engineers' ambivalentrelationshipwith power has been a recurring
theme in this literature(see Downey andLucena 1995 for a review) andeven
thoughthe male dominanceof design activitiesis recognizedas in principle
relevantto the social shapingof technology(MacKenzieandWajcman1985,
chap. 1). And for the reasons outlined above, few feminists have looked
"insidethe blackbox"of technologicalknowledgeandpractice.The notable
exceptions are some studies of women engineers (Cockburn1985a, chaps.
5-6, 1985b; S0rensenand Berg 1987; Carterand Kirkup1990; Kvandeand
Rasmussen 1990; S0rensen 1992); a recent ethnographyof engineering
design in Sweden by UlfMellstrom (1995), which highlights masculinityto
some degree; and the pioneering work of the late Sally Hacker (1989,
1990), who became interested in engineers throughlabor process studies
and conducted participantobservationin three different U.S. engineering
educationalestablishments.In addition,we now have a handfulof ratherdis-

paratestudiesthattogetherI believe aresuggestiveof the complex gendering
that takes place in engineeringpractice.
Whatfollows is a threadingtogetherof this diversematerialto suggest a
set of questionsfor futureresearchanda broadframeworkfor theiranalysis.
The spiritof this articleis to invite othersto sharein developingresearchon a
topic that in my view is wide open for exploration-gender of and in engi-
neering. This articleis structuredaroundfour interrelatedthemes. The first
briefly explores some of the equationsbetween masculinityand technology
thatarguablycontributeto the continuedexclusionof women fromengineer-
ing. It asks why this equationis so durablewhentherearefrequentandvisible
mismatches between masculine images of technology and actual practice.
The second theme examinesmore closely the mismatchbetween image and
practicewith findingsthatpoint to contradictoryconstructionsof masculin-
ity in the detail of engineeringknowledgeandpractice.I tentativelydrawon
the sociology of engineeringto make sense of such findings.I also highlight
the tendencyfor engineeringto be conceivedin dichotomoustermsandwon-
der how this relatesto genderdualisms,if at all. The thirdthemeexploresthe
contested suggestion, from both "diversity"politics and standpointepiste-
mologies, that a strongerpresence of women in engineering design could
change the shape of artifacts.This debate takes us to the heart of wider
debates about gender essentialism. While the evidence is limited, it seems
likely thattherecould be considerableepistemologicalpluralismin engineer-
ing practicebutthatthis potentialis severely constrainedby normativepres-
suresto conform-pressures thatmay be gendered.Finally,the fourththeme
picks up the challengein the title of this article-to exploresubjectiveexperi-
ences of engineers, particularlytheir pleasures in technology and their
ambivalentrelationshipswith power.Returningto the theoreticalframework
outlinedin this introduction,I concludethatthe interactionsbetween gender
identity,symbolism, and structuresmay be quite seamless and thatall sides
of this triad must be addressed if we are to make sense of the gender-
technology relationin the lives and practiceof engineers.
Masculinity and Technology: Mismatches

between Image and Practice
It is notablethatwhereaswomenarepushingopen the doorsof otherpow-

erful institutions(includingscience) and despite nearlytwo decades of gov-
ernment- and industry-backed"women into engineering"campaigns, the
numbersenteringengineeringarestill derisoryin most countries.Whetheror
not they are subjectto discriminationand/ordiscouragement,most girls and

women are voting with their feet: it does not even occur to them to get into
design roles in technology;they just are not interested.This crucial point is
frequentlymissed by initiativesto get more women into engineering,which
typicallystartfromthe assumptionthatwomen (theirsocialization,etc.) have
to be modified to fit into engineering,not the other way around(Henwood
1996). The virtualfailureof these initiativessuggests thatthe symbolic asso-
ciation of masculinityand technology must be operatingstrongly.
Within this association, one can discern a series of highly gendered
dichotomies, of which three stand out for me. First and foremost is the
assumed-to-bemutuallyexclusive distinctionbetween being people focused
and machine focused-one version of the sociological distinctionbetween
feminine expressiveness and masculine instrumentalism.Sherry Turkle
(1988) shows thatwomen startingout in computingare often reticentabout
computingbecausethey see hobbyisthackersas the only model for intimacy
with computers,and so many hackersappearto eschew or be incapable of
humanintimacy.Similarly,Tove HapnesandBente Rasmussen(1991) dem-
onstratethat a centralreason for the declining intake of young women into
computerscience in Norway is girls' rejectionof the "nerd"image of com-
puterhackers.It seems thatfor a women to opt to work so closely with tech-
nology is potentiallyto rejectanymeaningfulengagementin the social world
and so face "genderinauthenticity"(Keller 1985; Cockbum 1985b).
Of course, most women routinelyinteractwith people and technologies;
some even develop strongemotionalattachmentsto particularartifacts.7As
feminist scholarsof technology have long argued,however,women's every-
day encounters with technological artifactsare rarely recognized as such
(Berg and Lie 1995). Our most common cultural images of technol-
ogy-industrial plants,space rockets,weaponsystems, andso on-are large
technologicalsystems associatedwith powerfulinstitutions.Here we meet a
second interesting dualism-in this case, implicitly ratherthan explicitly
gendered."Hard"technology is inertandpowerfullike the examples above;
this is real technology. "Soft"technology is likely to be smaller scale, like
kitchen appliances,or more organic,like drugs;most people do not readily
identifysuchproductsas "technology."So the worldof technologyis madeto
feel remoteandoverwhelminglypowerfulbecausethe hard-softdualismfac-
tors out those othertechnologies thatwe all meet on a daily basis and can in
some sense "relateto."8
Third,the hard-softdualism also finds expressionin relationto styles of
thought(Edwards 1996, 167-72) since the association of engineering with
science brings with it longstandinggenderdualisms. On the masculine side
of those dualisms, we have an objectivist rationality associated with
emotional detachmentand with abstracttheoretical(especially mathemati-

cal) and reductionistapproachesto problemsolving. On the feminine side,
we have a more subjectiverationalityassociatedwith emotionalconnected-
ness and with concrete,empirical,and holistic approachesto problemsolv-
ing. As we will see underthe nexttwo themes, abstractstyles of thinkingand
workingareoften associatedmore with men and concreteones with women.
Yetboth sides of the concrete-abstractdualismarerequiredwithinengineer-
ing. I returnto these familiardualismsfor the same reasonEvelyn Fox Keller
(1990) does in relationto science: they arewidely held as truthsby technical
and nontechnical people, women and men alike.9 The fact that popular
images of both science andtechnology arestronglyassociatedwith the mas-
culine side of these dualismsmustbe one of the reasonswhy,in a deeply gen-
der divided world, most girls and women do not even consider a career in
engineering.
Evidence from studies of technology educationin schools tends to con-
firm the operationof all threesets of dualismsaddressedhere (namely,peo-
ple vs. technologyfocused, soft vs. hardtechnology,andconcretevs. abstract
approaches).Early differencesin interestsand role-playingdeveloped out-
side school shape how girls and boys respond to, and are interpretedas
respondingto, technology inside. For example, girls are more likely than
boys to feel confidentabout,and to succeed in, workingwith tables of data
concerninghealth, reproduction,or domestic situationsbut anticipatefail-
ure-"I don't know anythingaboutthat"--when faced with tables of dataon
machinery,buildingsites, or cars (Murphy1990). The reverseholds for most
boys: the task is the same, but the contentis gendered.Girls are usually less
confidentthan boys in handling"realtechnology"-and this extends to the
use of all sorts of equipmentin school, which boys tend to monopolize. The
greater people-centerednessof most girls also is reflected in how they
approachtechnicaltasks. Recent surveysundertakenin U.K. schools reveal
thatteenage girls in design andtechnology classes aremore likely thanboys
to "identifythe issues thatunderlietasksin empathizingwith usersandevalu-
atingproductsand systems in termsof how well they might performfor the
user,"whereasboys are more likely to approachtechnical tasks in isolation
andjudge the contextto be irrelevant(Kimbell,Stables,andGreen 1996, 94;
also Murphy1990).10This is an astoundingresult:it seems thatgirls demon-
strate greater potential in precisely those holistic and heterogeneous
approachesso necessaryto success in technologicaldesign, as well as a thirst
for whateducationalistscall "deepunderstanding," yet theirdifferent"learn-
ing styles"arereadby teachersas indicatinga lack of confidenceor ability.
Of course,manyof the ways of thinkinganddoing thatwe stereotypically
deemfeminineareusefulif not essentialin technicalwork:linguisticabilities
in computerprogramming,for instance.And plenty of women now do jobs

that are extremelytechnical,just as plenty of men are technically incompe-
tent. In short,there are huge mismatchesbetween the image and practiceof
technology with respect to gender.This crucial point is often missed. Yet I
believe it obliges us to look more closely at why the gendereddualisms so
palpablein culturalimages of technologyareso effective in keepingit a male
domain. Specifically, we need to examinethe relationshipbetween the con-
tinuedmale dominanceof engineeringand masculineimages of technology
and how these images are sustained.For example, how much do engineers
contributeto promotingthese images, andhow arethey influencedby them?
Whatinfluence do these images have on young people more generally?How
muchdo "we"nontechnicalpeople "need"to believe in the objectivityof our
expertsand thus contributeto sustainingthese images?Whatotherinterests
do they serve?
Contradictory Gendering in Engineering

Knowledge and Practice
The mismatchbetweenimage andpracticehighlightedaboveinvitesus to

bringa gendergaze to the "blackbox" of engineeringknowledge and prac-
tice. Thoughthereis a crying need for detailedempiricalwork, we do have a
small numberof studies that togetherappearto suggest that the gendering
takingplace at this level is both more complex thanconventionallyassumed
and highly contradictory.
A useful way to view this complexity is to focus on some of the dichoto-
mous ways in which engineeringwork is often categorized.The most obvi-
ous and perhapspivotal of these is the distinctionbetween the manuallabor
of the craft or technicianengineer,'1who works directly on the artifactin a
greasy workshop,and the mental labor of the professional(graduate)engi-
neer,who frequentlyworksremotelyfromthe artifact(via a computer)in an
almostclinically clean office. As Wajcman(1991, chap. 6) argues,these two
versionsof masculinityareessentiallyclass basedandembodythe often gen-
dered dualism of mind-body.But the distinctionis also reproducedwithin
professional engineering practice since it nevertheless involves hands-on
"tinkering"work as well as mathematicalanalysis. So, the dichotomy from
science, which labels concrete,empiricalapproachesas feminine, is clearly
at odds with the importanceof hands-onworkin technicianandprofessional
engineering. Men are deemed to be more "natural"technologists because
they possess both the appropriaterationalityand good mechanicalskills.
Paradoxically,while men's relationships with artifacts can be cast as

instrumentalin the sense of being task ratherthanpeople centered,it is also
expressive.Like others,McIlwee andRobinson(1992) found thatmost men
engineers display a deep fascination with tools, machinery,and gadgets.
They conclude that
the cultureof engineeringinvolves a preoccupationwith tinkeringthat goes

beyond the requirementsof thejob. Vocationbecomes avocation,and,in turn,
devotion.It is not enoughto be competentin the hands-onaspectsof engineer-
ing: one shouldbe obsessed with them.It is not enoughto know the difference
between a pistonanda rod:one shouldtakeobviousjoy in this knowledge.The
engineersmustbe readynot only to engagein technicalexchangesduringwork
periods, but interestedin participatingin them duringbreaks as well. To be
seen as a competentengineer means throwingone's self into these rituals of
tinkering.(McIlwee and Robinson 1992, 139)
The women engineers studied did not share this obsession; they had other
topics of conversationsand sources of joy. Hobbyist hackers,like tinkering
engineers,have a very expressiverelationshipwith theirartifacts(which, as
we saw earlier,often alienates aspiringwomen computerspecialists). To a
lesser extent, so do "ordinary"male users of home computers,where their
wives arequiteinstrumental-they use themas a tool (Aune 1996). I believe
the pleasuresthatmen engineerstakein technology area very importantele-
mentof "whatmakesthemtick,"andI will returnto thispointin the last of my
four themes.
Juxtapositionsof apparentlydualistic concrete and abstractapproaches
are also found in computing.Softwaredevelopers often draw a distinction
between top-down planning approaches to programming and more
"bottom-up"approachesinvolving trialand error.The termhackingis often
used to describethe latterapproach,yet hobbyisthackersare generallyboys
andyoung men. So once again we see one version of masculinityassociated
with concrete approachescoexisting with anotherversion of masculinity
based on more abstractapproaches.Hapnes and Rasmussen (1991) found
thatwhile computerscience teachersfavorthe "dedicated"computerscience
studentswho adoptthe more formalapproachesthey teach,they nonetheless
respect the hackers.Moreover,Hapnes(1996) provides some rich evidence
to show thatmanyfamiliarandoften gendereddichotomiesareambiguously
butintimatelyandnecessarilycombinedin the courseof programmingwork.
So hobbyists consciously use judicious mixtures of concrete and abstract
approachesbecause while logical planning and command approachesare
effective for many tasks, interactionwith the system-"muddling through,"
as one called it-is oftenessential,for example,in identifyingbugs orin find-

ing one's way aroundunfamiliarsoftware.
Withinengineeringeducation(at least untilrecentlyin the UnitedStates),
higherstatusandcreditattachto themoremathematicalandabstractanalytical
workandless to hands-onconcretework-even thoughit is widelyrecognized
in the professionthatthose who become the best engineersareoften not those
who performthe best academically(Hacker1989, chap. 3). Sally Hacker's
(1989) accountof life as an engineeringstudentis reminiscentof the "hazing
experience"that new recruitsto the militaryforces are put through.12Engi-
neeringeducationis characterizedby seemingly endless andrepetitivedrills
of mathematicalproblemsolving (Hacker1989, chap. 3). As well as cement-
ing a mathematicalapproachto engineering (see below), Hacker saw this
inductionas channelingthe passions and erotic energies of would-be engi-
neers, creatinga profoundmind-bodysplit that she arguedis alien to many
women. To explorethis theme further,she interviewedhumanitiesand engi-
neering faculty members at an elite instituteabout their early life (Hacker
1990, chap. 4). She found that while both groups were strongly cerebralas
opposedto corporealin theirinterestsat high school-most had not excelled
at sportand were shy of romanticand sexual relationships-in adultlife, the
engineers continuedto experience far more anxiety about their bodies and
aboutemotionallydemandingpersonalrelationshipsthandid the humanities
academics.Hacker'sacademicelite areprobablyan extremecase in termsof
the mind-body split, given the evidence cited above for the prominenceof
concreteapproachesand of displays of technicalcompetencein engineering
workin industry.Moreover,the evidence thatsportis a primaryoutsideinter-
est for manyengineers(Mellstrom1995;Mcllwee andRobinson 1992) does
not tally with the pictureof engineers "havinga problemwith theirbodies."
But since anecdotallyit seems that substantialnumbersof engineersdo not
includesportor fitness in theirlives, this may be an interestingareaof diver-
gence among engineers.
While the mind-bodydichotomy should not be overstated,that between
rationalityandemotionalityis veryevident.Itis commonto find atleast some
engineerswho seek refugefromhumanrelationshipsin mathematicsor tech-
nology (e.g., Mellstrom 1995; Hapnes 1996). More subtle signs of a "prob-
lem with emotions" can be found in relation to the use of mathematicsin
engineeringdesign. Typicalof muchengineeringdiscourse,literaryengineer
SamuelFlorman(1976, 142) talks of the "pristinerealm of pure mathemat-
ics" and"thepurebeautyof mathematics"andsees humancomplexityas the
othermessy but necessaryside of this coin in engineering.In a very interest-
ing passage, Louis Bucciarelli (1994, 108) deconstructsa typical university
engineeringproblemto demonstratejust how muchof this complexityhas to

be paredaway:"Thestudentmustlearnto perceivethe worldof mechanisms
and machinery as embodying mathematicaland physical principle alone,
mustin effect learnto not see whatis therebutirrelevant.... Reductionismis
the lesson."Two thingsstandout here.First,the emotionaldetachmentof the
dry, formal processes of analytical problem solving learned at university
stands in stark contrastto the emotionally laden dramasthat ethnologists
(Bucciarelli1994;Mellstrom1995) andjournalists(Kidder1981;Lovell and
Kluger 1994) have observedunfolding in the course of engineeringdesign
and problem-solving work in industry.Second, exercises of reductionism
exclude much "social"informationthatis vital to successful design.
Sociologists of technology have long arguedthat engineers must take a
holistic view and integrateheterogeneoustechnical and nontechnicalele-
ments if artifactsareto "work"andmeet a "real"need (S0rensenandLevold
1992;Law 1987;Vincenti 1990;Faulkner1994). Thisprovidesan interesting
contrastto science, wherereductionistapproachesandspecialismsaregener-
ally esteemedfarmorehighly thanholistic ones andwhereholism tends to be
gendered feminine.13As Knut S0rensen (1997) reminds us, however, the
ratherheroic model of the heterogeneousengineer-the "captainsof indus-
try,"such as Thomas Hughes's (1983) portrayalof Thomas Edison-is
increasinglyat odds with the realityfacing most engineerstoday since engi-
neers areincreasinglydefinedby theirtechnicalspecialismand only partici-
patein a holistic projectto the extentthatthey areorganizedinto multiskilled
collective endeavors. The fragmentedlabor process in engineering (e.g.,
Constant1984) thereforehouses a dichotomybetweennarrowlydefinedspe-
cialist tasks, where reductionismis acceptable, and heterogeneous tasks,
where holism is necessary and "the social" cannot be deemed irrelevant.
Fieldworkobservationsin Scotlandrevealinterestingdifferencesin how the
heterogeneous role of user interaction in information systems gets gen-
dered.'4In universities,wherethe usersareindividualsandthe role is seen in
termsof supporting,we see a higherproportionof women in these roles than
in the technicaljobs; in companies,wherethe users are otherbusinesses and
therole has marketingconnotations,we see it occupiedby men, leaving com-
parativelymore women in the "backroom"technicaljobs. By contrast,McIl-
wee and Robinson(1992) foundthatin U.S. companies,design roles remain
higher status among engineers, and women are generally making greater
incursionsinto engineeringmarketingand management.
I have shown that many dualistic epistemologies found in engineering
practiceare genderedin contradictoryways andthatmany fracturedmascu-
linities within engineeringare sustainedsimultaneously-among engineers
as a group and, to varying degrees, by individuals:they coexist in tension.
Like Hapnes(1996), I am struckby the clearevidence thatboth sides of these

dichotomies-concrete and abstract, specialist and holist, technical and
social (one could go on)-are necessary to engineering work. Bucciarelli
(1994, 48) commentsthat"whenwe look at the contemporaryworld and see
technology, we often oversimplifyand split the world in two."Engineering
knowledge andpracticeareconceptualizedin dichotomoustermseven when
thereis no necessaryhierarchyor obvious genderingimplied-for example,
formalversusexperientialknowledge(Vincenti1990), visual versusanalyti-
cal knowledge(Ferguson1992). Mellstrom(1995, 76) also notes the primacy
of whathe calls "binarythinking":"Technicalproblemsaregiven the charac-
ter of either-or,plus-minus,negative-positive,andin its most basic technical
form:zero or one."He sees this binarythinkingas groundedin "a complete
faith in cause and effect,"epitomizedfor him by the outburstof a frustrated
designer one day: "Eitherthings work or they don't!"
There is nothing inherently gendered about the distinctions addressed
here, nor(I suspect)arethey intrinsicto engineering.Forthis reason,it might
be worthexploringfurtherwhy dichotomousor dualisticthinkingappearsso
endemicto engineering(andengineers)andwhetherthis relatesat all to gen-
der.Genderis generallyconceived of in dichotomousterms-because of the
obvious link with sex (as in femaleness and maleness) but also because het-
erosexuality is usually posited ideologically on an attractionof gendered
opposites. I agree with Henwood (1994) that heterosexism is an underre-
searchedtheme in the genderingof technology and believe that it may pro-
vide at least partialanswers.But I would also stressthatdualisticideologies
arestill ideologies; real women andmen do not fit dichotomousassumptions
any more readily thando real engineers.
Sex and Gender in Engineering:

The Question of "Styles"
This thirdthemeexploresanotherpotentialbutcontestedaspectof gender

in engineering-namely, whetherthere are genderdifferencesin how engi-
neering is done or whetherwomen and men (might) bring differentstyles,
perspectives, and prioritiesto engineering. Let me establish some "facts"
from the outset: there are no innatedifferencesin technical ability between
women and men, girls and boys; there are no universaldifferences in how
females and males engage with technicaltasks.15But thereis suggestive evi-
dence of some differencesin some settings-for instance,the evidence that
girlstendto bringa moreheterogeneousapproachto design tasksin school.
In theirstudyon the acquisitionof programmingskills by school andcol-

lege students,SherryTurkleand SeymourPapert(1990) foundthatgirls and
women tendto adoptan interactiveor relational,"bricoleur"approach,while
boys and men tend to adopt a formal, linear, and hierarchicalplanning
approach.16Both approaches"work,"yet the bricoleursfound themselves
actively discouragedby theirteachers,forcedto pursuethis approachsurrep-
titiously or unlearnit or give up on computing.Turkleand Papertsee a clear
link between the two styles and wider patterns of gendering, invoking
object-relations psychoanalytical theory to argue that boys will tend to
favor abstractapproaches,while girls will tend to favorconcrete, relational
approaches. Personally I am not convinced that appeal to psychology is
necessary since early socialization is extremely influential. And I am not
convinced that the gender split found by Turkleand Papertobtains among
working programmers; many women programmers favor abstract
approaches because they lack teenage experience at hacking. However, I
am struck by their conclusion that "the computer supports epistemologi-
cal pluralism, but the computer culture does not" (Turkle and Papert
1990, 132). The point is, then, that in both the design and programming
classes, dominant gendered assumptions-about males having an apti-
tude and about the value of nominally "masculine"styles-are sustained
even in the face of counterevidence.
This phenomenonindicates aspects of the exclusion of would-be female
technologists rarely graspedby equal opportunitycampaigns. It also begs
some intriguingquestionsaboutthe consequencesof the genderingandmale
dominanceof engineeringon the design of technologicalartifacts.Might the
greaterparticipationof women in engineeringin any way changetechnologi-
cal design and thus the shape of new technologies in the future?Or, more
broadly,could engineeringsupportdifferentepistemologicalstyles of work?
These questionsarebeingraised(albeitin differentlanguages)in bothliberal
discourses within equal opportunitiescampaigns and radical discourses
within technology studies and feminism.
The liberaldiscourseis essentiallya democraticcase for inclusion:should
such a powerfuloccupationas engineeringbe predominantlyshapedby a sin-
gularset of values andstyles? Certainlythis is the thrustof muchrecentequal
opportunitiescampaigningthroughoutthe industrializedworld, where the
currentfashion is to stress the possible benefits to male-dominatedareas
(quite apartfrom equity) of the diversitythatit is arguedwould accompany
the higherrepresentationof both women and ethnic minorities:diversityin
inputs to innovationor marketing,for instance.17The "diversity"position
buildsimplicitlyon an assumptionthatwomenby being women bringdiffer-
ent approachesand priorities-an assumptionthatmany see as dangerously
essentialist.At the very least, it fails to challenge stereotypicalconstructions

of femininityandmasculinityor to acknowledgethatthese constructionsare
notjust differentbut unequal(in the sense thatfemininityis associatedwith
subordinateand masculinitywith controllingroles in society). For example,
a common strategyused to encouragemorewomen into computingandengi-
neering is to emphasize the social elements of technical work-such as the
growing importance of organization or communication in information
technology-on the assumptionthat women will both be more attractedto
andhavemoreto offerto engineeringif it is definedin nontechnicalterms.As
HapnesandRasmussenargue,this strategyleaves intactthe equationof tech-
nology andmasculinity-and, I might add,the dichotomybetweenfeminine
expressivenessand masculine instrumentalismon which this equationpar-
tially rests.
The radicaldiscourse within technology studies is an extension of social
constructivism, which carries the possibility that technological artifacts,
once deconstructed,can be reconstructed(e.g., Bijkerand Law 1992) or, to
use the languageof social shaping,thatthereare"roadsnot taken"thatcould
in principle be followed (MacKenzieand Wajcman1985). In addition,the
notion of "styles"is familiarin the sociology of scientific knowledge. Yet,
very few studies have given detailed considerationto how the male domi-
nanceof engineeringaffects the actualshapeof technologicalartifacts,18 and
none has really "got inside"the design process to explore the possibility of
therebeing differentlygendered"styles"or outcomes.
The radical discourse within feminism is reflected in the insistence of
many activists that men's interests,priorities,perceptions,and experiences
areboundto be reflectedin the design of artifacts.For some, it has long been
an article of faith that the better representationof women in technology
would, by itself, begin to transformboth the productsof technology and its
modus operandi(e.g., Arnold and Faulkner1985). Yet feminist standpoint
epistemology has not been formallyappliedto technology-theoretically or
empirically.Few would arguewith the notion thatwomen designers should
be more likely to "see"the needs of particularfemale users (e.g., for wider
gangwayson buses, to allow for women with young children,or airbagsthat
arenot lethal to shortwomen). More contestedis HilaryRose's (1983, 1994,
chap. 2) argumentthatwomen are morelikely to bringa "caringrationality"
to technicalworkbecausetheirpositionin the sexual division of labormeans
thatthey generallydo (or are more socialized to do) more caring work than
men. This argumentis appealinginsomuch as it would be "a good thing"if
there were a greater"professionalethic of care"in engineering (Andersen
and S0rensen 1994).
As yet, however,the evidenceis limitedandinconclusive.In particular,no

one has yet exploredthis questionusing the kind of close ethnographicwork
that might reveal any methodologicaldifferences. MarthaTrescott's (e.g.,
1984) historicalstudies suggest thatearly women pioneersin the profession
tendedto bringa more holistic approachto problemsolving in engineering,
andI have heardanecdotallythatin some U.S. firms,women engineersoften
preferjobs characterizedby breadthratherthan narrowlyspecialist depth.
Norwegian studies of engineers (S0rensenand Berg 1987; S0rensen 1992)
andof computerscience students(HapnesandRasmussen1991) suggest that
womenaremorelikely to choose specialismsthataremore"applied"or more
closely relatedto everydaylife. The U.S. engineerssurveyedby McIlwee and
Robinson (1992, 140) all identified interpersonalskills as an area where
women do betterthanmen engineers,andin a U.K. ethnographyof software
developers, Ruth Woodfield (forthcoming) found that women were per-
ceived as facilitatingteamworkandteam spirit.Similarly,Anne Kerr(1995)
foundthatthe mainpracticalchangesthatfeministscientistsareable to bring
to the way they do science is thatthey runtheir laboratoriesmore coopera-
tively thanis normal.While such evidence seems to indicategreaterexpres-
siveness and/orsociotechnicalheterogeneityin women, we cannot assume
this to hold in all cases. The womenengineersin TarjaCronberg's(1995) fas-
cinatingstudyof the Russiandefense industry,like the men, takegreatpride
in their work and "sanitize"it by talking about "components"ratherthan
tanksand bombs.
The question of gendered styles tends to divide women engineers as it
does women scientists(Barinaga1993). Thepolitics of diversityhavemadeit
more acceptablefor women engineersto talk aboutthe particularcontribu-
tion they can make,butthe pressureto become acceptedas "oneof the guys"
(Cockburn1985b, chap. 6; Hacker 1989, chap. 3; Carterand Kirkup1990)
meansthatmanyvehementlydeny any differences.Keller(1992) has argued
thatwe need to "learnto count past two"-past the two popularchoices that
eithersee women as the same as men, and so deny gender,or see women as
differentfrom men, and so treatgender as fixed. In seeking, tentatively,to
countpast two, I am inclined to adoptthe languageof "styles"-but without
embracingessentialism. I do so with the expectation that epistemological
pluralismis in principle possible but that normativepressures of various
types will generallyresult in the suppressionof all but a few styles.
My belief in the potentialfor epistemologicalpluralismbuilds on Bucci-
arelli's (1994, chap.3) findingthatthereis considerableindividualvariation
in how engineers interpretproblems-because of the uniqueblends of indi-
vidualbackground,education,specialization,workexperiences,andcharac-
ter. I would also suggest that differentsocial frameworks-in engineering
education and workplaces as well as in wider political ideologies-could

produceradicallydifferentperceptionsof prioritiesanddifferentapproaches
to pursuingthem. They might even alter significantly the "frameworkfor
common discourse"(includingthe dichotomiesaddressedearlier)thatengi-
neers share (Bucciarelli 1994, chap. 4): we just don't know! This said, it is
clear that the normativepressuresare real enough. In the case of program-
ming styles discussedearlier,mostpracticingprogrammersmaintainthatbri-
coleur approaches"justdon't work"in the developmentof large-scale and
complex informationsystems because of the demandsfor hierarchicalcon-
trol over the productionand testing of software in the main military and
industrialorganizationsinvolved. It may well be that both women and men
with nonconventionalstyles are effectively weeded out or face strongpres-
suresto conform.Engineeringeducationclearlyplays a majorrole in this. In
addition,S0rensen(1992) has evidence thatboth women andmen engineers
become socialized into theiremployers'values andprioritiesonce they have
been workingin industryfor a few years (see also Gardner1976).
We do not know to what extent this occurs or what kinds of normative
pressureare exertedin educationand industry.But it seems to me that both
the potentialfor pluralismin technologicaldesign andthe actualsuppression
of some styles and voices are extremelyinterestingpolitically. It would be
very useful to explorefurtherwhich "styles"get suppressedandwhetherthis
is genderedat all. Such workmight serve to open a doorbetween liberaland
radicaldiscourses,as well as sheddingfurtherlight on the complex gendering
of engineering practice. At this stage, some general conclusions can be
anticipated.First, professional socialization and pressuresto conform are
likely to be most visible in the courseof educationandfirstcareerjobs; those
establishedin theirfields areunlikelyto see suchpressuressince they arenow
partof the normativeculture.Women may be especially subject to profes-
sional socializationandso less likely to demonstratealternativestyles. In any
case, it seems unlikely thatthe styles of actualwomen and men will be that
distinct-precisely because (as I showed in the previous section) the very
technical practice of engineering is subject to contradictoryand fractured
genderingand because gender identities themselves are typically fractured
andcontradictory.Finally,even if some genderdifferencesin style arefound,
these may not necessarily work to women's advantage.Gender inequality
can still be reassertedeven where rhetoricsuggests otherwise. This is dra-
matically illustratedin Woodfield's (forthcoming) study of a progressive
computing firm where the widespread assumption that women have
strongerinterpersonalskills than men and where these skills were valued
organizationallydid not translateinto easier careeradvancementfor women
in management.19
Subjectivities in Engineering:
The Power and the Pleasure
It will be apparentfollowing my introductorycomments that for me the

durabilityof the equationbetweenmasculinityandtechnologyremainsprob-
lematic and insufficientlyexplored-hence my concern with the mismatch
between masculineimages of technologyandtechnicalpracticeand with the
complex and contradictorygendering that takes place within engineering.
Like FergusMurray(1993), I believe we need to take a closer look at engi-
neers' subjective experiences-my fourth theme-to explore the equation
further.In particular,I proposethatthreesubjectivitieswarrantfurtheratten-
tion: the pleasureengineersso palpablytakein technology,theirambivalent
relationshipswith power, and the identity work they do.20I will argue that
engineers'pleasurein technologyandtheirclose identificationwith technol-
ogy arecrucialelementsin the individualidentityandsharedcultureof engi-
neers. They provide some solace and rewardto engineers whose everyday
workandlives often offeronly limitedexcitementorpower.And they cement
a fraternitythateffectively excludes women engineersfromimportantinfor-
mal networks.
Firstsome briefobservationsaboutchangingimages of engineersandthe
implicationsof this for identity work:in 1976, civil engineer Samuel Flor-
man (1976) wrote a popularbook titled The ExistentialPleasures of Engi-
neering,2~ most importantof which, he suggested,is the overridinggratifica-
tion in "havingparticipatedin a greatundertaking"(p. 149) andin helping to
improvethe humanlot by the design of new technologies, which he sees as
the "centralmission of the professionalengineer"(p. 143). The book may be
readas a voice from an older generationof engineers,lamentingthe demise
of a "GoldenAge of Engineering"(from 1850 to 1950), whenengineerswere
unequivocallyallied with progress, and the rise of the now-tarnishedand
equivocalimage of technology(andhence engineers)following the antitech-
nology movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It is not clear how many engi-
neerstodaywould shareFlorman'ssense of mission. The youngergeneration
of Swedish engineers studied by Mellstrom (1995, chap. 7) are motivated
moreby prospectsof a good career,althoughin the United Kingdomthereis
also a perceptionof engineerscontributingto nationaleconomic prosperity
throughtechnological innovation.The point is that engineers are no longer
reveredas the "priesthoodof Progress"(Florman1976, 45), nor,as S0rensen
(1997) remindsus, are they likely to become "captainsof industry."In this
context,the most readilyavailableculturalimage of today's engineeris that
of the nerd.22While respected(if not revered)for theirtechnicalcompetence,
nerdsarederidedfor theirlack of competencein otherareas;it is not a terribly
appealingor positive image to outsiders.23Certainly,some engineers reject

the "humiliatingstereotype"of having a "binarymindset"(Mellstrom1995,
77) or being inadequatein humanrelationships(Hapnes 1996). This begs
questions aboutwhy (some) men are still attractedto engineeringand what
they get out of it-which bringsus to the pleasuresof engineering.
The "glintin the eyes" of obsessive tinkerersandhobbyistsis evidentto all
who have caredto look. This themebecame a centralfocus of Sally Hacker's
(1990) later work. She both witnessed and experienced the sensual, even
erotic, pleasuresto be had in makingthings work. Similarly,in The Existen-
tial Pleasures of Engineering,Florman(1976) extols at length the sensual
absorption,spiritualconnection,emotionalcomfort,and aestheticpleasures
to be foundin engineers'intimacywithtechnicalartifacts.In all of the studies
reportedhere, engineers manifest sensual and emotional pleasures (if not
spiritualor aesthetic ones) in workingwith technology.And in virtuallyall
cases, such pleasures are first experienced in early childhood, and they
strengthenduringadolescencewin the classic case of takingcarsapart,tech-
nology providesa rarefocus for bondingbetweenfathersandsons-with the
resultthatengineeringis a "self-evident"careerchoice for most male engi-
neers (Mellstrom 1995, chap. 7).
Underlyingengineers'centralmission, Florman(1976) argues,is a more
basic pleasurethat,in effusively genderedlanguage,he sees as groundedin
an instinctive desire to change if not conquer the naturalworld; "bornof
humanneed, [thisdesire]has takenon a life of its own. Man the creatoris by
his very naturenot satisfiedto acceptthe worldas it is" (Florman1976, 120).
Conscious that natureis "not to be tamperedwith unthinkingly,"Florman
suggests that the awesome and intimidatingscale of nature nevertheless
inspires in the civil engineer a "yearningfor immensity,"an existential
impulse for the "vanityof pyramidsor dams"-constructions that "inevita-
bly invoke thoughtsof the divine"(pp. 122, 126, 124). In anotherdelightful
passage, he describesengineers'pride in the machine:
The machinestill standsas one of mankind'smost notableachievements.Man

is weak, andyet the machineis incrediblystrongandproductive.The primor-
dialjoy of the successful huntof the abundantharvesthas its modem counter-
partin the exhilarationof the man who has inventedor produceda successful
machine.(P. 130)
Hacker(1989, chap. 3; 1990, chap.9) also perceivedthatpartof the pleas-

ureof engineeringis a pleasurein dominationandcontrol-over workersas
well as the natural world-but sees this pleasure as echoing prominent
themes in present-dayeroticism ratherthanmale instincts. The connection
with eroticismis frequentlyhintedatby feminists,notleast becauseit is over-

whelming in the languageof potency and birththatsurroundsmilitarytech-
nology (Easlea 1983). In her very thoughtfuland illuminatingethnography
of defense intellectuals, Carol Cohn ([1987] 1996) suggests that this lan-
guage does not necessarilyreflectindividualmotivations;rather,itmay func-
tion to tame or make tenable"thinkingthe unthinkable"-of nuclearannihi-
lation. In a similar vein perhaps,Hacker suggested that the fun engineers
have with technologyis a compensationfor contributingto largersystems of
dominance and control-an especially important"reward"when so many
engineersoccupy fragmentedroles in the laborprocess and othersources of
job satisfactionmay be limited (Hacker1989, chap. 3).
Hacker's(1989, 1990) crucialcontributionwas to show us how the power
andthe pleasureof engineeringarelinked-hence the title of this article.I see
a resonance with Florman's(1976) rhetoricabout dams and machines: the
power of the technology symbolically extends engineers' limited sense of
strengthor potency.Often the men who appearto take the most pleasurein
technology are relativelyunpowerful-hackers and other technical hobby-
ists are obvious examples.MaureenMcNeil (1987, 194) asks, "Couldn'tthe
obsessionalknowledgeof some workingclass lads who arecarbuffs, or some
of the avid readersof mechanics or computermagazines, be interpretedas
evidence of impotence?"Flis Henwood (1993, 41) responds that in such
cases, technologyoffersa symbolicpromiseof power,as well as the potential
to compensatemateriallyfor theirrelativelack of class powerby "astrength-
ening of their genderpower"throughthe acquisitionof technical expertise.
Perhapsanotherkind of power promisedby engineeringis power over way-
wardbodies and emotions, given Hacker's (1990, chap. 4) evidence, cited
under my second theme, about adolescent anxieties. Drawing on Turkle
(1984), PaulEdwards(1996, 171) suggests thatthe "holdingpower"of com-
puterprogramminglies in the simulatedcharacterof the "microworlds"so
created.These microworldsare appealingbecause, on one hand, they offer
"vast powers to transform,refine, and produce information"and, on the
other,they arefree of unwantedemotionalcomplexity.Withinthem, "things
make sense in a way humanintersubjectivitycannot,"and "theprogrammer
is omnipotent"(if not omniscient). So, Edwards suggests, "For men, to
whompoweris an icon of identityandan index of success, a microworldcan
becomeachallengingarenafor anadultquestforpowerandcontrol"(p. 172).
Itseems thatmathematicalandtechnicalprowessoffers some engineersat
least compensationfor a lack of prowess or control in various realms. As
Downey andLucena(1995, 1987) note, "Engineersroutinelyfeel powerless
themselves but are viewed as highly empowered by outsiders"-a rather
clear case of men's contradictoryexperienceof power (cf. Kaufman 1994).
Even accomplishedprofessionalengineersareproneto feeling powerless in

relationto politics-witness the numberwho, privatelyat least, harbortech-
nocraticdreamsin the belief thatthe worldwould be a betterplace if it were
runby people like them. Engineers'ambivalentrelationshipwith power has
roots in their structurallocation within capitalistindustry.Situatedambigu-
ously between capital,labor,and the state, they have collectively identified
themselves with technology because this self-ascriptionprovidedthem with
a cloak of neutrality(Berner 1992). So throughouttheir history,engineers
have faced tensions between a desire for professional autonomy and the
demandsof corporateemployers(e.g., Layton1971). Mellstrom's(1995, 54)
engineers all complained about clashes between engineering perspectives
and business perspectives-over time required to develop a design, for
instance-and saw the latter"as threateningthe technicalcore of theirpro-
fessional identity."The ambivalenceis profound:the limitedopportunitiesto
do "realengineering"is probablythe single largestsource of dissatisfaction
among engineers (Downey and Lucena 1995; Mellstrom 1995), yet several
studies reportthatmost engineers are interestedin acquiringorganizational
power (Zussman 1985; Whalley 1986; McIlwee and Robinson 1992, 20)-
which usually implies moving away from narrowlytechnicalwork.
The collective identification with technology attributedto engineers'
structurallocation has a subjective counterpart.Florman's(1976) rhetoric
aboutpleasurecapturesjust how profoundlyengineersidentify themselves
with theirtechnology.Engineersin thecarindustryareproudto be associated
with such a visible artifactandsee themselvesas "hardwaremen";the design
jobs thathold the highest statusand challenge are those associatedwith the
"hardmechanical core" of the engine, drive line, and chassis (Mellstrom,
1995, chap. 3). Similarly,engineersin microprocessorshave an "unmistak-
able identificationwith futuretechnology"andexperiencegreatprofessional
pride when they can demonstratetheirtechnicalvirtuosityto theirpeers, in
producing"a beautifullayout,"for instance(Mellstrom 1995, chap. 4).
I suspect thatengineers'close identificationwith technology is precisely
what makes it harderto establish a positive identity for themselves among
nonengineers;it gives them a "separatereality,"to use Murray's (1993)
phrase. Indeed, we may view engineering as a fraternitybuilt aroundthis
commonidentitywith, andpleasureandpridein, technology.Highereduca-
tion is typically where engineers meet others like themselves in large num-
bersfor the firsttime. They survivethe "hazingexperience"throughsolidar-
ity: they are "all in it together."In Sweden, the shared social life of
engineering students revolves arounddisplays of drinkingprowess and a
common interest in sports (Mellstrom 1995, chap. 7). And in the United
States,wherefewer engineersseem to be athletic,this culturespills overinto
108 Science, Technology, & HumanValues
the "technicallocker room" of the workplacepopulatedas it is by "jocks"

engagedin ritualisticdisplaysof hands-ontechnicalcompetence;"theimage
of technicalvirtuosityis revered-even whereactionsof technicalvirtuosity
in the lab are rare"(McIlwee and Robinson 1992, 139). The ethnographic
work of both Mellstrom(1995, chap. 5) and Hacker(1990, chap. 4) shows
thatthis is a recurringthemein thejokes andstoriesthatengineerssharewith
one another.Engineers'humortypically celebratestheir technicalprowess
and ridicules the lack of it in others.24By this stroke, technical prowess is
what defines them as engineersand what gives them power (since the "out-
group"is defined as less powerfulbecause they lack such prowess).
The fraternityof engineers is thus a homosocial enactment(cf. Kimmel
1994) affirmingparticularversions of masculinity.But it is also a primary
resource in furtheringtheir position and interests.McIlwee and Robinson
(1992, 138, chap. 1) conclude that in organizationsand disciplines where
engineers enjoy high status,they benefit from the "powerto create a work-
style comfortableto them as men": an engineering culture will dominate
when the centralityof technologyis stressedandaggressivedisplaysof com-
petence are the acceptedmeans of landingthe more interestingassignments
andjobs. Mellstrom(1995) finds thatcareerprogressionis basedon associa-
tion with successful projectsand on a membershipof networksof contacts
and mentors.In a situationwhere "engineeringpracticetends to reproduce
patternsof homosociality"(Mellstrom1995, 152; see also Kvandeand Ras-
mussen 1990) and where most women engineers initially lack hands-on
experience and confidence and, even when competent,never quite feel or
paradethe thrillandobsession of theirmale colleagues (McIlwee andRobin-
son 1992), it is hardlysurprisingthatwomen engineerstendto dropout or to
lose out in career terms: they never really "belong to the club." And it is
hardlysurprisingthatthe entryof women is (still) greetedwith hostility by
many engineers:it challengeswhatit meansto be a man (Murray1993). Per-
haps it also threatensto spoil their fun.
Murray(1993) points out that the collective identity of engineers draws
heavily on the image of the warhero-withdrawing fromnormallife andsac-
rificing all for the common good. Dramaticexamples are providedin Tom
Wolfe's (1980) accountof the hardshipand privationthatearly male astro-
nautswent through,aptly titled The RightStuff;Tracy Kidder's(1981) por-
trayalof computerhardwaredesign in TheSoul of a New Machine;andBrian
Easlea's (1983) study of the ManhattanProject.Murraysuggests that the
same phenomenonoccurs more routinely in the development of business
applicationssoftware. Here, engineers in project teams experience strong
bondingandloyalty, workingtogetheron a commonobjectivefor which per-
sonal commitments, and sometimes their health and sanity, have to be
sacrificedto get the new softwareto the customeron time. It is likely thatthis
experienceis repeatedin numerousindustriesas companiescompete under
the marketpressureto "innovateor die" (Freeman1982, chap. 1). The thrill
of the sharedmission andits successfulcompletionin a new productlaunchis
short-lived as the new productbecomes supersededand the process must
begin all over again (often with teams being disbandedandregroupedin the
process).Bucciarelli(1994, 195) andMellstrom(1995, 99) bothobservehow
lifeless and lacking in human imprintthe final artifactseems once all the
dramaof its design is over. The pain and the pleasureexperiencedby engi-
neerson this rollercoasterthusmanifestandreflectthe demandsof capitalist
competitionfor marketshare.
In sum, engineerschose theirwork for more thanmoney or status.25The
pleasure in technology is a strong motivator and a significant reward.
Togetherwith a sharedpridein technologyandin technicalcompetence,it is a
centralelement in the individualidentitiesand sharedcultureof engineers-
and so acts to demarcatethe engineers from outsiders(and often men engi-
neersfromwomenengineers).The symbolic associationsof bothtechnology
and technical prowess with power may act as compensationin a situation
where most engineersperceive themselves to have only limited power.
Toward a Research Agenda
As an exploratorythink piece, drawingon a very patchy literature,this

articlehas been writtento raisemorequestionsthanit answers.Before outlin-
ing a researchagenda,I would nonethelesslike to emphasizetwo very gen-
eral theoreticalconclusions that, though by no means novel, have gained
greatersignificance for me as a consequenceof writingthis article.
First, the analyses of the subjective experiences and identity of engi-
neers presentedabove underlinethe need for a more nuancedand sophisti-
cated frameworkfor understandingthe equation between technology and
masculinity--and, in part,the male dominanceof technology--than is pro-
vided by appealsto "anomniscientmale power protectingand reproducing
its known interests"(Murray1993, 78). They highlight the need to look at
cultural,subjective,and structuralelements of gender(cf. the familiartriad
outlinedin the introduction),recognizingthateach of these elements is dis-
tinct and often only loosely interrelated.Individualexperienceand identity
provide a link between structuresand symbols, on one hand, and everyday
practice,on the other.But as Murray(1993) stresses, subjectivitiesare not a
director simple reflectionof powerrelations.At the same time, the analyses
presentedhere underlinethe need for a more "seamless"approachto how we
conceptualizethe interactionsbetween genderidentity,symbols, and struc-

tures.While I would arguefor greaterattentionto subjectivitiesin engineer-
ing, it seems to me vital thatanalysesof genderidentitybe locatedin context
and not undertaken as it were toute seule. The interplay between gender iden-
tity and genderstructuresin relationto technology shouldnot need stressing
but is frequentlymissed. Little boys only get the leisure time in which to
tinker(e.g., Haddon1990), andmale engineersworkingin "high-tech"com-
panies only have the "freedom"to spendlong hoursat work (Massey 1995)
because neitherareexpectedto assumethe same level of domesticresponsi-
bilities as theirsistersor wives. Interplaysbetween genderidentityand gen-
der symbolism with respect to technology are highlighted,for instance, by
Henwood's(1993) andMcNeil's (1987) analysesof working-classlads' tink-
ering.More systematicwork,along the lines of thatbeing pioneerednotably
by Merete Lie (1996a, 1996b, 1998), is warranted.26
Second, in reflecting on the four themes addressedin this article, I have
come to a deepenedsense of the complexityof genderandthe necessarycoex-
istenceof multipletensions-both in the lived masculine(or feminine)identi-
ties of engineersand in the materialand symbolic genderingof engineering
practiceand culture.We have yet to acknowledgethis complexity in either
technology studies or gender studies, let alone make sense of it. I believe
these varioustensions are contingenton an interplayof diversefactorscon-
cerning structures,culture,and identities of both gender and technology-
like engineers'ambiguousrelationshipto powerandperhapsto issues of control
and domination(discussed underthe fourththeme), the historicaldevelop-
mentof engineeringepistemologyandeducation(e.g., its questfor scientific
legitimacy),the particularsocial organizationswhereengineerswork, deep-
seated gender dualisms (e.g., mind-body,rationality-emotionality),iniqui-
tous divisions of public and privatelabor,and changingimages and percep-
tionsof bothtechnologyandgender.Inturn,thecoexistenceof multipletensions
highlights why the performanceof such a (for many people) taken-for-
grantedaspectof ourpersonalidentitiesas gendernonethelessdemandscon-
siderableand often continuouseffort.Thus, men engineersconstantlynego-
tiate relationshipswith business managers,other engineers, nonengineers,
wives, and so forth in an attemptto find an identity and modus vivendi that
they can (more or less) live with. And in differentcountries,types of institu-
tions, fields andorganizationalcultures,as well as in individualengineersof
different ages, upbringing, class, ethnicity, domestic circumstances, and
inclination,this will yield diverseconstellationsof masculinities.
Above all, this article is offered as a challenge to furtherunravel the
technology-masculinitynexusby bringinga gendergaze to the studyof engi-
neers and engineering practice. It has shown that engineering may be
/ ThePowerandthePleasure? 111
Faulkner
gendered in four ways: (1) in symbolic representations and images of engi-

neering available to those outside of engineering, (2) in symbolic gendering
of engineering knowledge and practice, (3) in gender differences in how
engineering is done, and (4) in engineers' subjective experiences and identi-
ties as engineers. I believe further research on these themes is justified
because engineers represent such a powerful instantiation of the equation
between masculinity and technology, and I believe that one important conse-
quence of such work will be to destabilize that equation (cf. Haraway 1986).
Clearly, the evidence reviewed here-highlighting the mismatch between
image and practice and the contradictory constructions of masculinity in engi-
neering practice- already serves to destabilize that equation in some modest
way. In this spirit, and by way of summary, I propose that the following
research questions warrant serious attention in both technology studies and
gender studies:
Masculine images of technology

Whatis the relationshipbetween masculineimages of technology andthe contin-
ued male dominanceof engineering?
Why aremasculineimages of technologyso durableeven though(because?)they
so often diverge from practice?
Contradictorygenderingof engineeringknowledgeand practice
In whatways (if at all) arethe images, language,andsymbols foundin the detailof
engineeringpracticegendered?
Why are engineeringand technology so often conceived in dichotomousterms,
and what relationdoes this have to genderdualisms?
How widespread are apparentlycontradictorygender constructionsin various
branchesof engineeringwork?
How might we understandgenderof/in engineering(contradictoryor otherwise)
in relationto boththe social organizationof engineeringworkandgenderrela-
tions and constructionsmore generally?
Epistemologicalstyles and the gender shaping of technology
Whatis the extent of andscope for epistemologicalpluralismin engineering,and
to what extent are certainepistemological styles suppressed?
To what extent does genderinfluence engineeringstyles? In particular,how (if at
all) does or might the sex/genderof the design engineer shape technological
artifacts?
Subjectivityand identity
What are the pains and pleasuresexperiencedby engineers, and what are their
relationshipswith and feelings abouttechnology?
To what extent is technical prowess and/or pleasure in technology a symbolic
compensation for lacking competencies or power in other areas? To what
extent do engineersfeel themselves to be ambiguouslylocated and perceived
with respectto power?
What images do engineersidentify with, and what identity work do they engage
in? How are we to understandthis? What is the significance of engineers'
identificationwith and pride in technology, for engineering and for gender

relations?
Finally, I believe that the kind of theoretical sensitivities discussed imme-

diately above have practical implications for the design of research on gender
of/in engineering. First, we need to look in detail at engineering practice
while keeping our eye on wider masculine emblems of technology if we are
to remove the gender blinders but retain the depth of previous ethnographic
studies. Second, we need to look to the contingent-the specificities of con-
text, including the particular demands and culture of the organizations
employing engineers-if we are to make sense of the contradictory patterns
of gendering observed. And third, we need to view engineers as whole peo-
ple, with histories and lives outside of engineering, if we are to get at a full
picture of their gender identities in relation to technology.
Notes
1. For example, threeout of seven of the empiricalchaptersin Lie and S0rensen's(1996)

recentcollection on technologyin everydaylife focus exclusively on men'suse of technology.
2. Of courseit shouldbe acknowledgedthatgenderessentialismdoes not necessarilyimply
thatgendertraitsarebiologically determined;appealsto psychoanalysisor to divisions of labor
and attendantsocialization (cf. Rose 1983) are specifically not invokingbiology.
3. As we have been powerfullyremindedby JudithButler (1990), even the attributionof
biological sex is a social and thereforecontestedprocess.
4. At the same time, constructivistandactornetworkapproachesto the studyof technologi-
cal change have been criticizedby feminists in the field for failing to take accountof the history
and durabilityof particulargender arrangementsand for neglecting the social constructionof
artifactsandthe buildingof networksthattakeplace in the contextof the use of technology (e.g.,
Cockbum 1992). Variouspositions taken aroundfeminism and constructivismin technology
studiesare presentedin a special issue of Science, Technology,& HumanValues("Feministand
ConstructivistPerspectives"1995) and in Grintand Gill (1995).
5. Like Cockbum(1992), I believe thatthe perceptionof poweras "capacity"embeddedin
actornetworkapproachesjust misses the pointthatmanywomen (andmen)experiencepoweras
domination.
6. The performednatureof the two-way shapingof genderandtechnology is nicely articu-
latedand illustratedempiricallyin the recentcollection of Berg's (1997) workand in Cockburn
and Ormrod's(1993) detailedstudy of microwavesand domestic food preparation.
7. This is delightfullyillustratedby Inga's outpouringof love for her washing machinein
Berg (1997, chap. 4).
8. Dominantculturalimages of technologymay be changingas informationandcommuni-
cation technologies become increasingly accessible, but even here the hard-soft dualism is
evident.
9. An illustrationof thiswasprovidedby the 1993specialissueof Scienceon womenin science,
whichgave considerablecredenceto the notionthatwomenbringdifferent"styles"to science-on
the basis of interviewsof both female andmale scientists(Barinaga1993) andpopularaccounts

of how early women entrantsbrought"empathy"and "patience"to the field of primatology
(Morell 1993).
10. An examplehere mightbe the task of specifying a fabricfor use in mountainconditions:
girls would be more likely to ask what fabricis being used for. For example, will its wearerbe
active or stationary,which, of course, has a bearing on whether the fabric used needs to be
breathable(PatriciaMurphy,privatecommunication,October 1996).
11. The label "craftengineer"may not have meaningoutside the United Kingdom:it con-
notes someone who is not universitytrainedandwho usuallyworksin the maintenance,installa-
tion, or manufactureof artifacts.
12. The termhazingis uniquelyAmerican;the parallelwas suggestedto me during1998 by
GingerMelton (of the Universityof Coloradoat Boulder)butis widely recognizedamongU.S.
engineers.
13. Withinthe life sciences, for example, molecularbiology is seen as very exciting while
whole organismand observationalsciences, such as animalbehaviorandprimatology,are seen
as decidedly more "girlie."
14. This materialwas sharedwith me during 1996 by JanWebbof the Universityof Edin-
burgh'sSociology Department.
15. Forexample,longitudinalstudiesshow no significantdifferencein how girls andboys do
mathematics-either in how well theyperformor in how they approachthe task(Walkerdineand
The Girls and MathematicsUnit 1989).
16. In herearlierstudy,Turkic(1984) used the termshardandsoft mastery.I believe this was
unfortunatesince, like the termshardandsoft technology,they infer a genderedhierarchyeven
where none may exist or be warranted.
17. I take it as significantthata seniorpolicy personin the United Kingdomwas willing to
endorse my proposalfor a pilot study on gender in engineeringon the basis that it sought to
explorewhethertherewere differencesin style andwhethercompaniessuppressstyles (includ-
ing "feminine"styles), which might be useful to them.
18. I believe the approachof simultaneouslyinvestigatingthe designanduse of technology-
to revealthe interactionbetweenthem-is extremelyworthwhileandwarrantsmorewidespread
adoption.It has been put to good use in termsof furthergenderanalysesof technology in some
recenthistoricalworkcollectedin a specialissue of Technologyand Culture("GenderAnalysis"
1997) and in the EuropeancollaborativeViennaproject(Cockbumand Dilic 1994; Cockbum
and Ormrod1993), both of which investigatea series of everyday technologies, as well as a
recentstudyon how cockpitdesign hasbeen gearedto "fitting"the averagebodily proportionsof
men, not women (Weber 1997).
19. Thereis a considerableliteratureon genderedstyles in management(see, e.g., Wajcman
1998).
20. By "identitywork,"I understandthe workthatindividualsandgroupsdo to createor sus-
tain an image or identitywith which they can feel comfortable.
21. Florman's(1976) book was writtenas a responseto the "antitechnology"movementof
the late 1960s and early 1970s, and it providesan interestinginstanceof identityworkby engi-
neers. The first half responds to criticisms of technology (illustratinghow closely engineers
identify with technology), while the second seeks to challengethe tarnishedimage of engineers
as antiemotional"dullards"(hence the title).
22. I am gratefulto KnutS0rensenfor highlightingthis theme for me. I would like to alert
readersto the workhe is currentlydoing, which contrastsself-images of formerengineeringcap-
tains of industrywith those of present-dayengineers working in fragmentedlabor processes
(S0rensen 1997).
23. This may varyin differentcountriesandcommunities.In the United States,the exciting,

progressiveimage of technology appearsto ruboff on engineersmorethanin the United King-
dom. Even the nerd image is often viewed ratherfondly-witness the popularityof Scott
Adams's pitiful but still heroic cartooncharacter,Dilbert.
24. One relativelywell-knownexample is the list often pinnedto a door or wall that starts,
"Realprogrammers,...."MellsteOm (1995,77) foundone suchlistthatincludedtheentry,"Realpro-
gramnmers don'twritein BASIC.Actually,no programmers writein BASIC,afterthe age of 12."
25. Engineers in the United Kingdom, uniquely I suspect, enjoy little of either money or
status,which makes the resistanceto women entrantsin that countryparticularlyinteresting.
26. Forexample,Lie (1995, 391) exploreswhathappenswhen individualmen do not match
up to hegemonicmasculinitiesaroundtechnology:"Evenif farfromall men aremastersof tech-
nology, what is experiencedas failureby individualmen may not affect the general image of
hegemonic masculinity.Those who are mastersdemonstratenot only that they are 'real men'
themselves, but they demonstratea phenomenonrecognized as masculinityand confirm the
meaning of the concept."
References
Andersen,H. W.,andK. H. S0rensen.1994. Frankenstein'sDilema: En Bokom Teknologi,Milj0

of Verdier.Oslo, Norway:Ad Notam Glydendal.
Arnold,E., and W. Faulkner.1985. Smotheredby invention:The masculinityof technology. In
Smotheredby invention:Technologyin women'slives, editedby W.FaulknerandE. Arnold,
18-50. London:Pluto.
Aune, M. 1996. The computerin everydaylife: Patternsof domesticationof a new technology.In
Makingtechnologyour own? Domesticatingtechnologyinto everydaylife, editedby M. Lie
and K. H. S0rensen,91-120. Oslo: ScandinavianUniversityPress.
Barinaga,M. 1993. Is therea "femalestyle" in science? Science 260: 384-91.
Berg, A. -J. 1997. Digitalfeminism. Dragvoll,Norway:Senterfor Teknologiof Samfum,Nor-
wegian Universityof Science and Technology.
Berg, A. -J., andM. Lie. 1995. Feminismandconstructivism:Do artifactshavegender?Science,
Technology,& HumanValues20 (3): 332-51.
Berner,B. 1992. Professionalor wage worker?Engineerand economic transformationin Swe-
den. Polhem2: 131-61.
Bijker,W., andJ.Law,eds. 1992. Shapingtechnology/buildingsociety.Cambridge:MITPress.
Brod, H., and M. Kaufman.1994. Introduction.In Theorizingmasculinities,edited by H. Brod
and M. Kaufman,1-10. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Bucciarelli,L. L. 1994. Designing engineers. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Butler,J. 1990. Gendertrouble: Feminismand the subversionof identity.London:Routledge
Kegan Paul.
Caputi, J. 1988. Seeing elephants:The myths of phallotechnology.Feminist Studies 14 (3):
487-524.
Carter, R., and G. Kirkup. 1990. Women in engineering: A good place to be? London:
Macmillan.
Cockbum,C. 1983. Brothers:Male dominanceand technological change. London:Pluto.
. 1985a.Machineryof dominance:Women,menand technicalknow-how.London:Pluto.
. 1985b.Caughtin the wheels: The high cost of being a female cog in the male machinery
of engineering.InThesocial shapingof technology,editedby D. MacKenzieandJ. Wajcman,
55-66. Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.
. 1992. The circuitof technology:Gender,identityandpower.In Consumingtechnology:
Media and informationin domesticspaces, edited by R. Silverstoneand E. Hirsch, 32-47.
London:RoutledgeKegan Paul.
Cockbum,C., andR. F. Dilic, eds. 1994. Bringingtechnologyhome: Genderand technologyin a
changing Europe.Philadelphia,PA:Open UniversityPress.
Cockburn,C., and S. Ormrod.1993. Genderand technologyin the making.London:Sage.
Cohn,C. [1987] 1996. Sex anddeathin the rationalworldof defenseintellectuals.In Genderand
scientific authority,edited by B. Laslell, S. G. Kohlstedt,H. Longino, and E. Hammonds,
183-214. Reprint,Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.
Connell, R. W. 1987. Genderand power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge,
UK: Polity.
Constant,E. 1984. Communitiesandhierarchies:Structuresin the practiceof science and tech-
nology. In Thenatureof technologicalknowledge:Aremodelsof scientificchangeRelevant?
edited by R. Laudan,27-43. Dordrecht,the Netherlands:Reidel.
Cowan, R. S. 1987. The consumptionjunction:A proposalfor researchstrategiesin the sociol-
ogy of technology.In Thesocial constructionof technologicalsystems,edited by W. Bijker,
T. Hughes, and T. Pinch, 261-80. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Cox, C. 1992. Eco-feminism. In Inventingwomen: Science, technologyand gender,edited by
G. Kirkupand L. Smith Keller,282-94. Cambridge,UK: Polity.
Cronberg,T. 1995. The feeling of home: Russianwomen in the defense industryand the trans-
formationof their identities. Paperpresentedto an internationalworkshopon the mutual
shapingof gender and technology,October,Universityof Twente,the Netherlands.
Downey, G. L., and J. A. Lucena. 1995. Engineeringstudies. In Handbookof science and tech-
nology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff,E. G. Markle,J. C. Petersen,and T. Pinch, 167-88.
ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Easlea, B. 1981. Science and sexual oppression.London:Weidenfeldand Nicolson.
.1983. Fatheringthe unthinkable:Masculinity,scientists and the nuclear arms race.
London:Pluto.
Edwards,P. N. 1996. The closed world: Computersand the politics of discourse in cold war
America.Cambridge:MIT Press.
Faulkner,W. 1994. Conceptualizingknowledge used in innovation: A second look at the
science-technology distinction and industrialinnovation.Science, Technology,& Human
Values19 (4): 425-58.
. 1995. Feminist, science and technology: Irreconcilablestreams?Journal of Gender
Studies4 (3): 341-47.
. 1998. Extraordinaryjourneys aroundordinarytechnologies in ordinarylives. Social
Studiesof Science 28 (3): 484-89.
Feminist and constructivistperspectives on new technology [Special issue]. 1995. Science,
Technology,& Human Values20 (3).
Ferguson,E. J. 1992. Engineeringand the mind's eye. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Florman,S. 1976. The existentialpleasures of engineering.New York:St. Martin's.
Freeman,C. 1982. The economics of industrialinnovation.2d ed. London:FrancesPinter.
Gardner,R. E. 1976. Women in engineering:The impact of attitudinaldifferences on educa-
tional institutions.EngineeringEducation67: 233-40.
Genderanalysisandthe historyof technology [Specialissue]. 1997. Technologyand Culture38

(1): 1-272.
Grint, K., and R. Gill, eds. 1995. The gender-technologyrelation: Contemporarytheory and
research.London:Taylor& Francis.
Grint,K., and S. Woolgar.1995. On some failuresof nervein constructivistand feminist analy-
ses of technology. Science, Technology,& HumanValues20 (3): 286-310.
Hacker,S. 1989. Pleasure,power and technology:Some tales of gender,engineering, and the
cooperativeworkplace.Boston: Unwin Hyman.
. 1990. Doing it the hardway: Investigationsof gender and technology.Boston: Unwin
Hyman.
Haddon,L. 1990. Researchinggender and home computers.In Technologyand everydaylife:
Trajectoriesand transformations,edited by K. H. S0rensenand A. -J. Berg, 89-108. Oslo:
NorwegianResearchCouncil for Science and Humanities.
Hapnes,T. 1996. Not in theirmachines:How hackerstransformcomputersinto subculturalarte-
facts. In Makingtechnologyour own? Domesticatingtechnologyinto everydaylife, edited
by M. Lie and K. H. S0rensen, 121-50. Oslo: ScandinavianUniversityPress.
Hapnes, T., and B. Rasmussen. 1991. Excluding women from the technologies of the future?
Futures,December, 1107-19.
Hapnes, T., and B. Rasmussen. 1998. Internettog multimedia- avmaskuliniseringav IT?
[Internetand multimedia- demasculinisationof IT?], Kvinder,Kon, & Forskning,nr. 1.
Haraway,D. 1986. Primatologyis politics by othermeans. In Feministapproachesto science,
edited by R. Bleier, 77-118. Elmsford,NY: Pergamon.
Harding,S. 1986. The science question infeminism. Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversityPress.
Henwood, F. 1993. Establishing gender perspectives on informationtechnology: Problems,
issues andopportunities.In Genderedby design? Informationtechnologyand officesystems,
edited by E. Green,J. Owen, and D. Pain, 31-52. London:Taylor& Francis.
. 1994. Engineering difference:Discourses on gender, sexuality and work. Working
PaperSeries No. 3. London:InnovationStudies, Universityof East London.
. 1996. WISE choices? Understandingoccupationaldecision-makingin a climate of
equal opportunitiesfor women in science and technology. Gender and Education 8 (2):
199-214.
Hughes, T. 1983. Networksof power: Electrificationin Westernsociety 1880-1930. Baltimore,
MD: Johns HopkinsUniversityPress.
Kaufman,M. 1994. Men, feminism,and men's contradictoryexperiencesof power.In Theoriz-
ing masculinities,editedby H. BrodandM. Kaufman,142-64. ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.
Keller, E. F. 1985. A world of difference. Reflections on gender and science, 158-76. New
Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.
. 1990. From secrets of life to secrets of death. In Body/politics: Womenand the dis-
courses of science, edited by M. Jacobus,E. F. Keller, and S. Shuttleworth,177-91. New
York:Routledge Kegan Paul.
. 1992. How gendermatters,or, why it's so hardfor us to count past two. In Inventing
women: Science, technologyand gender,edited by G. Kirkupand L. Smith Keller, 42-49.
Cambridge,UK: Polity.
Kerr,A. 1995. Feminisingscience: Linkingtheoryandpractice.Ph.D. diss., Universityof Edin-
burgh,Edinburgh,Scotland.
Kidder,T. 1981. The soul of a new machine.Boston: Little, Brown.
Kimbell, R., R. Stables, and R. Green. 1996. Understandingpractice in design and technology.
Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
Kimmel, M. S. 1994. Masculinityas homophobia:Fear,shame, shame and silence in the con-
structionof genderidentity.In Theorizingmasculinities,editedby H. BrodandM. Kaufman,
119-41. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Kvande,E., and B. Rasmussen.1990. Nye kvinneliv.Kvinneri mennsorganisasjoner.Oslo: Ad
Notam forlag.
Law, J. 1987. Technology,closure and heterogeneousengineering:The case of the Portuguese
expansion.InThesocial constructionof technologicalsystems,editedby W.Bijker,T.Hughes,
and T. Pinch, 111-34. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Layton,E. T. 1971. Therevoltof the engineers:Social responsibilityand the engineeringprofes-
sion. Cleveland,OH: Press of Case WesternUniversity.
Lerman,N. E., A. P. Mohun,and R. Oldenziel. 1997. The shoulderswe standon and the view
fromhere:Historiographyanddirectionsforresearch.Technologyand Cutlure38 (1): 9-30.
Lie, M. 1995. Technology and masculinity:The case of the computer.EuropeanJournal of
Women'sStudies 2 (3): 379-94.
. 1996a.Genderin the image of technology.InMakingtechnologyour own? Domesticat-
ing technologyinto everydaylife, editedby M. Lie and K. H. S0rensen,201-23. Oslo: Scan-
dinavianUniversityPress.
. 1996b. "Excavating"the present:The computeras genderedmaterialculture.Knowl-
edge and Society 10: 51-68.
. 1998. Computerdialogues: Technology,gender and change. Trondheim,Norway:
Senter for kvinneforskning,Norges Teknisk-naturvitenskapelige Universitet.
Lie, M., andK. H. S0rensen,eds. 1996. Makingtechnologyourown? Domesticatingtechnology
into everydaylife. Oslo: ScandinavianUniversityPress.
Lovell, J., andJ. Kluger.1994. Lostmoon: Theperilousvoyage of Apollo 13. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Macinnes, J. 1998. The end of masculinity.Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
MacKenzie,D., andJ. Wajcman.1985. Introduction.In Thesocial shapingof technology,edited
by D. MacKenzieand J. Wajcman,2-25. Milton Keynes:Open UniversityPress.
Massey, D. 1995. Masculinity,dualisms and high technology. Transactionsof the Instituteof
British Geography20: 486-99.
McIlwee, J. S., andJ. G. Robinson.1992. Womenin engineering:Gender,power,and workplace
culture.Albany: SUNY.
McNeil, M. 1987. It's a man's world. In Genderand expertise,edited by M. McNeil, 187-97.
London:Free Association Books.
Mellstrom,U. 1995. Engineeringlives: Technology,time and space in a male-centredworld.
Linkoping,Sweden: Departmentof Technologyand Social Change.
Merchant,C. 1980. The deathof nature:Women,ecology and the scientific revolution.London:
Wildwood House.
. 1992. Radical economy:Thesearchfor a liveableworld. New York:RoutledgeKegan
Paul.
Morell,V. 1993. Called"trimates,"threebold women shapedtheirfield. Science 260: 420-25.
Murphy,P. 1990. Genderdifferencesin pupils' reasonsto practicalwork. In Practical science,
edited by B. Woolnough, 112-22. Milton Keynes:Open UniversityPress.
Murray,F. 1993. A separatereality: Science, technology and masculinity. In Gendered by

design? Informationtechnologyand officesystems,editedby E. Green,J. Owen, andD. Pain,
64-80. London:Taylor& Francis.
Noble, D. 1991. A worldwithoutwomen: Theevolutionof the masculinecultureof science. New
York:Knopf.
Robinson, G. J., and J. S. McIlwee. 1991. Men, women, and the cultureof engineering. The
Sociological Quarterly32 (3): 403-21.
Roper,M. 1994. Masculinityand the Britishorganizationmansince 1945. Oxford,UK: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Rose, H. 1983. Hand,brain,and heart.Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society 9 (1):
73-96.
. 1994. Love,power and knowledge:Towardsa feminist transformationof the sciences.
Cambridge,UK: Polity.
Scott, J. 1988. Genderand the politics of history.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Silverstone,R., and E. Hirsch,eds. 1992. Consumingtechnologies: Media and informationin
domestic spaces. London:Routledge Kegan Paul.
S0rensen,K. H. 1992. Towardsa feminizedtechnology?Genderedvalues in the constructionof
technology.Social Studiesof Science 22: 5-31.
. 1997. The masculinemystique:Engineeringtales. Paperpresentedto Networkof Euro-
peanCentresin Science andTechnologyStudiesworkshopon Gender,Science andTechnol-
ogy, May, NTNU, Trondheim,Norway.
S0rensen,K., and A. -J. Berg. 1987. Genderizationof technology among Norwegianengineer-
ing students.Acta Sociologica 30 (2): 151-71.
, eds. 1991. Technologyand everydaylife: Trajectoriesand transformations.Oslo: Nor-
wegian ResearchCouncil for Science and the Humanities.
S0rensen, K., and N. Levold. 1992. Tacit networks,heterogeneousengineers, and embodied
technology.Science, Technology,& HumanValues 17 (1): 13-35.
Trescott,M. M. 1984. Womenengineersin history:Profilesin persistenceandholism. In Women
in scientific and engineeringprofessions,edited by V. B. Hass and C. C. Perucci, 181-204.
Ann Arbor:Universityof MichiganPress.
Turkle,S. 1984. The second self. New York:Simon & Schuster.
.1988. Computationalreticence:Why women fearthe intimatemachine.In Technology
and women'svoices, edited by C. Kramarae,41-61. London:Routledge KeganPaul.
Turkle,S., and S. Papert.1990. Epistemologicalpluralism:Styles and voices within the com-
puterculture.Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society 16 (1): 128-58.
Vincenti,W. 1990. Whatengineersknowand how theyknowit. Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins
UniversityPress.
Wajcman,J. 1991. Feminismconfrontstechnology.Cambridge,UK: Polity.
. 1998. Managing like a man: Womenand men in corporatemanagement.Cambridge,
UK: Polity.
Walkerdine,V., andThe GirlsandMathematicsUnit. 1989. Countinggirls out.London:Virago.
Weber,R. 1997. Manufacturinggender in commercial and military cockpit design. Science,
Technology,& HumanValues22 (2): 235-53.
Whalley,P. 1986. The social productionof technicalwork:The case of Britishengineers. Lon-
don: Macmillan.
Wolfe, T. 1980. The right stuff.London:Picador.
Woodfield,R. Forthcoming.Women,workand computing.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniver-
sity Press.
Zussman, R. 1985. Mechanics of the middle class: Workand politics among Americanengi-
neers. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
WendyFaulkner(Ph.D.) is Senior Lecturerin the Science Studies Unit, Universityof

Edingburgh,whereshe convenesa doctoralprogrammein technologystudies.She has a
long streamof empiricalresearchon industrialinnovation,focusing latterlyin knowl-
edge use and knowledgeflows in innovation(see KnowledgeFrontierswith Jacqueline
SenkerandLea Velho).She also has been writingon gender,science, and technologyfor
more than 20 years (see Alice Throughthe Microscope, BrightonWomenand Science
Group,and Smotheredby Invention,editedwithErikArnold).Hercurrentresearchis on
gender and technologyin engineeringpractice.

Sage Publications, Inc. Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Science, Technology, & Human Values

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sage Publications, Inc. Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Science, Technology, & Human Values

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Power and the Pleasure?

A Research Agenda for "Making Gender Stick" to Engineers

This article seeks to open up a new avenuefor feminist technology studies-gender-

AUTHOR'S NOTE:I wouldlike to thankthefollowingfortakingthetimeto readandcommenton

Science, Technology,& HumanValues,Vol. 25 No. 1, Winter2000 87-119

technology-focuses on the question"whyso few?"now firmlyon the agen-

encourage people to get "inside the belly of the beast" of technological

Accordingly,the alternative"power"position in the genderand technol-

The shift to "men/masculinityand technology"that I detect and wish to

educationalestablishments.In addition,we now have a handfulof ratherdis-

Masculinity and Technology: Mismatches

It is notablethatwhereaswomenarepushingopen the doorsof otherpow-

not they are subjectto discriminationand/ordiscouragement,most girls and

emotional detachmentand with abstracttheoretical(especially mathemati-

in computerprogramming,for instance.And plenty of women now do jobs

Contradictory Gendering in Engineering

The mismatchbetweenimage andpracticehighlightedaboveinvitesus to

Paradoxically,while men's relationships with artifacts can be cast as

the cultureof engineeringinvolves a preoccupationwith tinkeringthat goes

as one called it-is oftenessential,for example,in identifyingbugs orin find-

engineeringproblemto demonstratejust how muchof this complexityhas to

Like Hapnes(1996), I am struckby the clearevidence thatboth sides of these

Sex and Gender in Engineering:

This thirdthemeexploresanotherpotentialbutcontestedaspectof gender

In theirstudyon the acquisitionof programmingskills by school andcol-

essentialist.At the very least, it fails to challenge stereotypicalconstructions

As yet, however,the evidenceis limitedandinconclusive.In particular,no

education and workplaces as well as in wider political ideologies-could

It will be apparentfollowing my introductorycomments that for me the

appealingor positive image to outsiders.23Certainly,some engineers reject

The machinestill standsas one of mankind'smost notableachievements.Man

Hacker(1989, chap. 3; 1990, chap.9) also perceivedthatpartof the pleas-

with eroticismis frequentlyhintedatby feminists,notleast becauseit is over-

Even accomplishedprofessionalengineersareproneto feeling powerless in

the "technicallocker room" of the workplacepopulatedas it is by "jocks"

Toward a Research Agenda

As an exploratorythink piece, drawingon a very patchy literature,this

conceptualizethe interactionsbetween genderidentity,symbols, and struc-

gendered in four ways: (1) in symbolic representations and images of engi-

Masculine images of technology

identificationwith and pride in technology, for engineering and for gender

Finally, I believe that the kind of theoretical sensitivities discussed imme-

1. For example, threeout of seven of the empiricalchaptersin Lie and S0rensen's(1996)

the basis of interviewsof both female andmale scientists(Barinaga1993) andpopularaccounts

23. This may varyin differentcountriesandcommunities.In the United States,the exciting,

Andersen,H. W.,andK. H. S0rensen.1994. Frankenstein'sDilema: En Bokom Teknologi,Milj0

Genderanalysisandthe historyof technology [Specialissue]. 1997. Technologyand Culture38

Murray,F. 1993. A separatereality: Science, technology and masculinity. In Gendered by

WendyFaulkner(Ph.D.) is Senior Lecturerin the Science Studies Unit, Universityof

Вам также может понравиться