Search Results for: wiki storming

FTN Roadshow Blog Series* – Improvisation

by Melissa Meade, Colby-Sawyer College and Cricket Keating, Ohio State University

Comedian Tina Fey has recently foregrounded two key tenets of successful improvisation. The first she dubs the “Rule of Agreement.” In her words, “the Rule of Agreement reminds you to “respect what your partner has created” and to at least start from an open-minded place. Start with a YES and see where that takes you” (Fey 2011). The second rule is that in addition to saying yes, you should add something of your own; that is, you should say “YES, AND.”

As an experiment in learning, the FemTechNet DOCC has been marked by an improvisational ethos. Indeed, from its open-ended organizational structure, which encourages educators of all sorts to join the collective, to its open-ended network of classes, to its key learning projects distributed across the network (such as Feminist Wiki-storming, Situated Knowledges Map, and Exquisite Engendering), FemTechNetters have said again and again “yes, and.”

In adding our “yes, ands” to the improvisation, we partnered the undergraduate students at Colby-Sawyer College (a private, liberal arts college of about 1400 students in central New Hampshire) and the Ohio State University (a large state university in central Ohio with about 44,000 undergraduates on a campus with about 58,000 students).

As instructors coming out of media and cultural history and political and feminist theory, neither of us particularly professionalized or skilled in digital media production, we joined this shared teaching and thinking project with a “DIY” mantra firmly in mind: a do-it-yourself feminist politics that suggests we ought not wait to be invited into circuits, but that we jump in and add our own.

As critical inspiration, we read Riot Grrrls and feminist DIY punk cultural production of the 1990s in our classes. They said, “Because we must take over the means of production in order to create our own moanings.” Yes, and we say FemTechNet is a power tool” (FemTechNet Manifesto).

Animating a DIY approach with an improvisational spirit to us underscored that DIY is actually a misnomer. We need others — we need each other — to do the kind of work that will upend hierarchies, eliminate violence, create room for difference in the academy and beyond, and move past individual expressions of identity, the isolated and isolating digital practices. And so began our move from DIY to DWO (doing with others).

Much has been made of the role of the amateur in digital economies. Some have heralded its presence as a liberating creative spirit, with the ability to elide expertise and professionalism directly correlated to increased participation in the marketplace of ideas (see, for example, Lawrence Lessig and Clay Shirky). Carolyn Marvin has also critiqued the rise of the professional engineer and scientist of old technologies as tied to the exclusion of women and minorities in these fields (Marvin 1988). By squashing the tinkering impulse, and the tinkerer, we reinscribe hierarchies of thought, labor, and power.

Others have noted that amateurism is too easily coopted into the logic of neoliberal economies. DIY becomes a brand, and the amateur becomes a creative psychology useful to a growing economy. Astra Taylor has noted that “the grassroots rhetoric of networked amateurism has been harnessed to corporate strategy, continuing a nefarious tradition” and warns, “When we uphold amateur creativity, we are not necessarily resolving the deeper problems of entrenched privilege or the irresistible imperative of profit” (Taylor 2014, 63- 64).

Marshall McLuhan once intoned that “the amateur can afford to lose.” Yes, and we say: “Irony, comedy, making a mess, and gravitas are feminist technologies” (FemTechNet Manifesto).

In addition to jumping into the projects already in place in the network, we added some of our own, and invited others to join us. Inspired by the Object Making key learning project, and wanting to render visible what are often invisible gendered technologies, the Colby-Sawyer students developed a Bra Project that would be showcased at a Fem Fair. Inviting others to join us in this improvisation, we put out a “Call for “Bras” across FemTechNet. Here the network said yes, and sent dozens of bras, bindings and underthings through the mail. The students decorated, mutilated, and repurposed these into visual displays of gendered technologies. The Fem Fair took place in rural New Hampshire, while capturing the spirit of the dispersed and distributed FemTechNet.

femfair1Celebrating “The Bra Project” at Colby-Sawyer College, Fall 2013

At Ohio State, our class developed the idea of Freedom Recycling Bins. Taking inspiration from the “freedom trash cans” of the feminist protests at the 1968 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City, we repurposed trash cans so that they could be used as depositories of objects that symbolized or that perpetuated oppression. We then brainstormed how each object could be recycled and repurposed to serve liberatory ends. Later, we developed a game based on the idea. Here’s how to play!

Freedom Recycling Bin: The Game

 bra-burning_freedomtrashcan.jpg?w=428&h=444

Players: Unlimited

To play, you will need:

A trash can

Markers, paper, playdough and other repurposing supplies

A timer

How to play:

  • Label a trash can a “freedom recycling bin” and put it in the middle of the room.
  • Set the timer for five minutes. In that time, each person places an object that represents or perpetuates some aspect of oppression in their lives (either the actual object or a representation of the object) into the recycling bin.
  • Break up into even-numbered teams.
  • Set a timer for 10 minutes. Racing against the clock, each team picks an object from the recycling bin and repurposes it for liberatory ends. Keep going until all the objects in the recycling bin are repurposed or until the time runs out.
  • Groups share their repurposed objects with the others. The team with the most successfully repurposed objects wins the round.
  • Repeat as often as necessary.

Speaking of the imperative of coalition work, Bernice Johnson Reagon writes: “we have lived through a period where there have been things like railroads and telephones, and radios, TVs, and airplanes, and cars and transistors, and computers. And what this has done to the concept of human society, and human life is, to a large extent… what we have been trying to grapple with” (Reagon 2000, 365).

Reagon stresses that a consequence of these technological transformations is our vulnerability– “there is no hiding place”– and our connection– we have to build coalitions through and across difference in order to survive (Reagon, 365). Yes, and we say animating these coalitions, both on and off-line, with an improvisational spirit will help us to deepen, expand, and multiply them. There won’t be a place oppression can hide.

References Cited:

FemTechNet. “Manifesto.” Femtechnet.org, 2014.

Fey, Tina. Bossypants. Little, Brown and Company, 2011.

Marvin, Carolyn. When Old Technologies Were New: Thinking about Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press, 1988.

McLuhan, Marshall and Quentin Fiore. The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. Bantam Books, 1967.

Freedom Trash Can Photo: https://mediamythalert.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bra-burning_freedomtrashcan.jpg

Reagon, Bernice Johnson. “Coalition Politics: Turning the Century,” Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology, Barbara Smith, ed. ([Kitchen Table Press, 1983] Rutgers University Press, 2000.

“Riot Grrrl Manifesto,” Bikini Kill Zine 2, 1991.

Taylor, Astra. The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age. Metropolitan Books, 2014.


*FemTechNet Roadshow Blog Series – Over the past couple of months, about a dozen FemTechNet participants have presented work based on our research and teaching related to FemTechNet in a two-part FemTechNet Keywords Workshop at the CUNY Feminist Pedagogies Conference in April 2015, and at the Union for Democratic Communications Conference at the University of Toronto in May 2015. Since these gatherings brought together such divergent modes of FemTechNet engagement, we thought we’d collect and share this new work over the last two weeks of May, leading up to the deadline for our 2015 FTN Summer Workshop. For more information on this series, contact T.L. Cowan

media mentions

NOTE: These mentions have not been updated since 2015.

Coverage of the FemTechNet project and the DOCC [for archival purposes]:

start a community node

How to Start A Community-Based FemTechNet DOCC Node in 10 Easy Steps

By Penny Boyer penelopeATpenelopeboyerDOTcom
August 2014

Community-based components are essential ingredients to the full FemTechNet ecology. These are activities and events that are preferably not based in academic settings; that are bound to a community or communities defined by geography, by interest(s), by any common denominator that binds them—even if that commonality is only a fuzzy understanding of what FemTechNet is.

¡Taller! gathering in September 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA

¡Taller! gathering in September 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA

Starting a node, or semester-long class session, of the FemTechNet DOCC (Distributed Open Collaborative Course), is one of the best ways to really get your feet wet with FemTechNet. It’s easy to start a community-based FemTechNet DOCC node: It just takes a little courage, a little community and a small space with wi-fi.

Here’s how:

1) Come up with a clever name, use FemTechNet in it. Let it be representative of where you are geographically (e.g., in 2013, Mass FemTechNet was held in Northampton, MA, and FemTechNet ¡Taller! was held in San Antonio, TX).

2) Decide on a day and time to meet. Select a day and time to meet that works best for you and your community—one that is as free from consistent conflicts as possible. Consider evenings and weekends to fit with the workaday world. Most FemTechNet Videos are about 40 minutes in length, though some are longer. You should plan to meet for sessions no shorter than an hour and a half to allow for constructive conversation.

3) Find a place to meet. It should be free. It should be central. It should be fully-accessible. It must have reliable wi-fi. It would be great if it had an a/v set-up (screen and projector connected to pc hook-up). It should be free because you don’t want to have to charge your DOCC participants to attend the node. Following the FemTechNet community-based best practices, no one should expect to be paid or have to pay to participate in a community-based FemTechNet opportunity; it’s a plus if you can figure out a stipend for facilitators, including yourself, but please don’t be deterred if you can’t find such funding—just put yourself on equal level with your participants who aren’t paying for this experience/experiment. If you’re having trouble identifying finding a free site in your community, look harder—there’s one out there: Check out the library, schools (elementary through colleges), tech start-ups, artist spaces/galleries. Explain what you want it for, describe the institutions in the FemTechNet network (provide link); they are, after all, your national partners in this project. Be resourceful. Ask, and you may receive.

4) Set your schedule: [This is somewhat dated, as the “spine” has been discontinued. –Ed.]
Using the FemTechNet Video schedule as your spine, you have 10-weeks of pre-planned programming prepared for you. Just follow the video release schedule, one video per week—plan to screen and discuss the video each week just as all the other DOCCs are doing.

5) Consider finding a co-facilitator: You don’t have to do this alone. Find a feminist friend or a faculty member at a local school whom you admire. Make a prioritized list of such possible people and invite them one by one to take this adventure with you. If they say no, ask them instead if they could join you on this journey by being a co-facilitator for one session only and match them up with an appropriate weekly theme (Labor, Wikistorming, Sexualities, Race, Bodies, Difference, Place, Systems, Games, Archive, Transformations). Hopefully by doing this you will not only have identified a partner-in-crime for the full 10-week DOCC, but also you will also have some invited guests to help lead specific, themed sessions—if you’ve really done your job right, some of these guest co-facilitators will be true local authorities on given themes.

6) Gather your group: Use your social media skills to round up a diverse group of participants. Start a website for your node—Facebook works fine for these purposes, but you could build your own. Use the website to entice folks to your meetings and to disseminate details about each week’s suggested readings and upcoming video dialogues. The website should also be used to explain the FemTechNet Learning Tools; at least provide this link to them. It can also serve as a repository for general interest FemTechNet-themed postings you think might be of interest to your group: FemTechNet Content (see the FemTechNet Digest on Flipboard for ideas).

7) Publicize to reach a broader public. Write a simple press release. Send it to any media contacts you may have. Who knows, you might land a cover story in the local free paper like San Antonio did https://sacurrent.com/news/femtechnet-hopes-to-revolutionize-sa-s-higher-education-possibilities-1.1553684. Great way to get a more diverse group.

8) Share FemTechNet’s weekly reading lists with your community on your website; they are found here. Many of these are open source materials, available online for free, with additional information in this list. [These lists have not been updated since the amazing Penny Boyer did this work in 2014. –Ed.]

9) [Also discontinued. –Ed.] Each week, a FemTechNet nodal instructor from one of the colleges and universities presenting the DOCC will hold Open Online Office Hours (OOOH!) Anyone participating in any DOCC anywhere may attend. Encourage your participants to take part in this portion of the DOCC; instructions are online here. During the course of the semester, FemTechNet may hold special Town Hall meetings online for the entire FemTechNet community; encourage your node to participate in these events.

10) Become familiar with the FemTechNet Key Learning Projects found on this website. These are projects you will want to share with your participants throughout the course of the DOCC. All have easy to follow instructions and can morph into personalized projects or group exercises. Intersperse these throughout the course of the DOOC. Be sure to keep the last one, “Gift Exchange” for the last session, but remember to start that project earlier because participants need to make their gifts for giving.

Lastly, do little things for your node: Consider bringing snacks or having participants share snack-bringing; have a pizza night perhaps.

Following these ten steps, you should be set to have a wonderful FemTechNet node underway.

Following are some insights about how the 2013 FemTechNet community-based DOCCs worked.

As mentioned, FemTechNet took place outside the academy at two locations in 2013: at FemTechNet ¡Taller! in San Antonio, TX and at Mass FemTechNet in Northampton, MA. There, the DOCC was based inside communities, not on college campuses, not on computers, not even in coffeehouses. They met in community spaces with free Wi-Fi and shared all the DOCC tools—same syllabi, same video dialogues, same activities, same online community. Participants were not matriculated students; instructors were not salaried faculty. Finally, there were no formal obligations to the project as there were no grades or responsibilities to the project.

For FemTechNet ¡Taller!, some thirty women (and men) met at Geekdom, a digitech startup space in downtown San Antonio, over the course of twelve weeks. Participants ranged from stay-at-home and working moms, to PhDs working at cultural nonprofits or in academia, to practicing artists and undergrads from community colleges or local universities. They were a mix of Latinas and Anglos.

A Feminist Mapping Project about female public art parity in San Antonio was collaboratively conceived and conducted by Taller [workshop] participants. Another successful tactic was the invitation of local co-facilitators including theme-related artists, community leaders, and professors for about half the sessions. Disappointingly, these guests generally did not attend any of the Taller sessions except the night that they co-facilitated, but many took their night seriously by preparing a presentation that went beyond FemTechNet’s “suggested syllabi” and connecting it closer to the San Antonio community. Particularly memorable sessions included Dr. Merla Watson’s presentation on “Place” and Dr. Cortez Walden presenting Gloria Anzaldua’s theory of transformation during the final DOCC session.

Mass FemTechNet, held in Northampton, MA in the heart of the Pioneer Valley’s Five College area, met weekly with a core group of six participants ranging in age from 22-45. Of the two recent college graduates, three current PhD students, and one PhD, four worked as teachers, researchers, or librarians, five identified as women, one as trans, at least two identified as women of color, and at least five identified as queer. Everyone had significant experience with feminist theory, and interests in technologies including Tumblr, online surveillance and security, access and accessibility, library practice, film and media art, and sociological methods.

According to a report by Stephanie Rosen, the Mass FemTechNet facilitator:

“We had very productive conversations about Wikipedia-editing and feminist mapping…and one member of our group became interested in mapping the access barriers to FTN readings. For the final object-making project, we ended up creating a zine together.”

Rosen noted that Mass FemTechNet formed a solid intellectual community as well as several friendships that have carried beyond the course, including involvement in post-DOCC FemTechNet committee work based on their own experiences. For example, they have spearheaded a push for greater accessibility of the FemTechNet videos and readings for all participants, world-wide, by advocating the use of open access publications and audio/visual accessibility tools.

Not all community engagements were held face to face: One community-based version of the 2013 DOCC happened in Second Life on the Ohio State University virtual campus. It was led by avatar Ellie Brewster (aka Dr. Sharon Collingwood) at the Ada Lovelace Library in a place called Minerva.

Finally, self-directed learners who tuned in globally during DOCC 2013 could follow FemTechNet’s video dialogue release schedule and syllabi from participating institutions from a designated sector of the FemTechNet Commons website, or respond to content on an interactive FemTechNet Google+ site.

These engagements continue to be central to FemTechNet. The DOCC’s online and open to the public Town Hall meetings, Speaker’s Bureau, Open Online Office Hours (OOOH), and FemTechNet Digest on Flipboard are all community engagement components now underway with pathways for self-directed learners provided on FemTechNet.org.

Have fun FemTechNet-ing!

BGSU Students discuss the question “what is a DOCC and why are we in it?”

by Anca Birzescu, Doctoral Candidate in the School of Media and Communication, Bowling Green State University and volunteer working with Femtechnet/DOCC2013

After reading several articles that introduce the DOCC project, students at Bowling Green State University (BGSU) in Ohio posted on Canvas their answers to the question “So what is a DOCC and why are we in it?

The student postings reveal the diversity of lenses through which they look at the DOCC concept, their views on technology, feminism and education, and at the same time the sheer excitement with which they embark on this novel learning journey. It is of utmost importance to bring into discussion the feedback provided by students enrolled in the current DOCC, since they are the main stakeholders in this feminist enterprise. Their readings of what the DOCC stands for stressed a range of interests and expectations with regard to the goals and objectives of the DOCC.

Being aware of the different systems of inequality/identity markers that obstruct knowledge acquisition and discriminate among different types and levels of knowledge in such process, students highlighted the value of information access and information sharing provided by a DOCC environment:

What an unfortunate truth that gender, economic status, or geographic location have such an impact on the level of options available to retrieve historic/current event information.[…] The benefits of this type of format is the vast bank of knowledge through instructors, students, and libraries, and the ease of sharing this information. This format encourages the sharing of information and ideas while still focusing on local relationships.

Students also emphasized the patriarchal ideology circumscribing the Internet and the possibilities for resistance and challenge to this status quo that may arise in a DOCC context. One of the students thus wrote:

Patriarchal views of the internet and how it is used have hindered discussion and dialogue on feminism, sexuality, race, and gender. In this DOCC, technology will be viewed through a feminist lens. I am also excited about the “Wikipedia Storming” that will take place. Being able to effectively improve the accuracy and increase the prevalence of feminist works will further expand peoples’ knowledge and awareness.

Collaboration—as a challenge to the top-bottom approach to education perpetuated currently by the MOOCS, inter-disciplinarity, and active learning, were other recurrent features/qualities mentioned by students in regard to the nature and goal of the DOCC educational project. In this sense, one student wrote that

DOCC also allows the use of technology to our advantage to collaborate with other individuals from different institutions, unlike MOOCS, which are primarily created for individual institutions.

Another post explained that:

DOCC allows numerous institutions, instructors, and students to gather and collaborate on a specific topic, while also allowing the course to be individualized by each instructor at each institution. Each week, there will be a highlight topic across the entire DOCC and then each unit of the DOCC will focus on the topic at hand through a separate syllabus. This type of course offers an incredible wealth of knowledge, as it is taught and discussed by a broad range of individuals.

Always emphasizing collaboration, students showed thus their interest in a feminist approach to education:

The DOCC is a free flowing collaboration of support and knowledge that is working to open people’s eyes to feminism in a technology focused world. We are in a DOCC to help spread knowledge that others have been shielded from or have ignored. When you work alone, your message is never usually as strong as when you are working in a collaboration.

Likewise, one post pointed that:

The goal of the collaborative course is to get input and feedback from many different users and institutions. Why is this beneficial? This makes the course much more diverse than it would be with just one institution or the course being under just one instructor. DOCC’s are the new alternative to MOOC’s which were massive online courses. The problem with these is that they were branded by just one single institution. With using just one main institution it could be a bit more bias in a certain direction or could only attract a certain type of user which could eliminate the diversity that is needed in a collaborative course.

Yet another student emphasized the learners’ responsibility in the act of learning:

These courses allow for a broader area and sense of interaction. The students share the responsibility of addressing and supplying material and discussion in this class. With the technology and ability to mass communicate it allows perspectives and participation an essential part of this course. A mass audience (students) brings people together to focus on the similarities rather than their differences.

Students showed excitement about the new possibilities offered by DOCC:

In this course we will interact with many different Universities and we will have the opportunity to work with a student from a different university on our artifact project. We are “in it” in order to broaden the possibilities of the thoughts that will be provoked, and also to break away from the typical layout of an online course that lies just within one university.

Their answers also revealed students’ appreciation of diversity of viewpoints in the act of knowledge acquisition implicit in a DOCC context:

While the course specifics vary from the different instructors from each university, the overall collaboration abilities of this course allows you to tap into different viewpoints and information from a number of different people. I think that with that in mind the ability to take in a multitude of viewpoints from different areas of the country allows us to gain a better understanding of the topic at hand.  This broader view is the main reason why we are participating in this style of learning.

The customizing potential of the DOCC—not possible in a MOOC environment— was also highlighted by students:

“We are also going to use skype as a source to have one on one times with the instructor, which is greatly going to help keeping up relations with the students.”

Another student similarly wrote that

“The goal is to collaborate and educate on a particular topic as a whole yet also allowing the instructor the flexibility to structure their virtual classroom syllabus.”

Last but not least, the collaboration versus top-bottom approach to education was clearly emphasized in several posts, which also revealed students’ articulate perspective and awareness of the challenge represented by the DOCC in the current context of neoliberal education politics:

One of the goals is to allow an environment of learning, training and information exchange to a broader group of underrepresented, including women and economically struggling communities worldwide, while maintaining a more personalized and collaborative approach to teaching and learning. It is an honor that BGSU is one of the few universities participating in this groundbreaking method.

[DOCC] allows for students and teachers from various schools to create a course where they all can contribute to the topic of Dialogues on Feminism and Technology. DOCC is different from MOOC (massive open online course) due to the fact that DOCC is not branded by an elite institution. It involves many institutions and the work is distributed through participants from various networks, which causes more diversity.

There are multiple reasons why the MOOC was not seen as a suitable option, one of which being that MOOC’s are generally for profit at some point down the line. The size of the courses within a DOCC are also much smaller so that there is more discussion between a smaller group of people at multiple universities.

 

Steering Committee Writes Talking Points for Press Inquiries

The Distributed Open Collaborative Courses and their learning projects, especially the activities around editing Wikipedia, have received a fair amount of coverage over the last month, in online news, blogs, and video.We have collected the Media Mentions that we know about here.

Female sex symbol with "mind the gap" written across it

To ensure that all of us involved with FemTechNet provide consistent and thoughtful responses to inquiries about our work, the Steering Committee wrote these talking points over the weekend of September 7-8.

On Wikipedia editing, collaboratively or collectively creating knowledge, and “Storming Wikipedia”

All Wikipedia editors are guided by the “neutral point of view” policy, one of Wikipedia’s three core content policies.
*Neutrality in editing entails understanding and communicating the full range of a debate or discussion on a topic.
*As the Wikipedia page on “neutral point of view” notes – “Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them…As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view” – this means that responsible editing includes representing feminist perspectives.

All Wikipedia editors are similarly bound by the other two core content policies “verifiability” and “no original research”
*Consequently, the editing that is part of the FemTechNet effort is not an “injection” of individual opinion or bias, but an effort to more fully represent existing knowledge on a range of topics, including, but not limited to the lives and works of women.

The Wikipedia community itself recognizes their problem of system-wide bias, both in terms of contributors and content. They note: The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, but it is inhibited by systemic bias that discriminates against underrepresented cultures and topics. The systemic bias is created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects on Wikipedia.

The FemTechNet community takes seriously the need to learn about and engage with the Wikipedia community
*We worked with well-established Wikipedians during the pilot phase in Spring 2013.
*Now in the official launch phase, we’ve had the good fortune to have Wikipedians create training videos for the group and lead a summer workshop for all of the instructors.
*We are actively engaging with the Project Feminism Wikipedia community, as well as with others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism

The FemTechNet effort to help transform Wikipedia content, culture, and community is not about publicity. It is about engaging in the creation of knowledge in ways that are responsible and governed by feminist principles, including equal representation of all cultural and social groups.
*One of five key learning projects, the Wikipedia activity is a concerted effort by a critical mass of feminist thinkers to improve the scope of Wikipedia.
*The Wikipedia activity aims to teach critical media literacy to our students, useful for everyone who engages with the Internet and other information sources, independent of political persuasion.

On feminist pedagogy in institutions of higher education:

Gender and Women’s Studies (GWS) as an academic field in higher education in the US has been in existence, and engaged in substantive intellectual pursuits, for 45 years.
*While there is disagreement about the role of feminism(s) in GWS, as in any area of inquiry, these debates are often productive for new scholarship.
*In the US, there are over 700 departments/programs in GWS; ~50 master’s degree programs and 15 doctoral programs. See https://www.nwsa.org/

Feminist scholarship is interdisciplinary, intersectional, global and comparative, deriving methods and ideas from many fields and movements.
*The scope of feminist studies is broad, including scholars in many other disciplinary areas. In other words, GWS approaches are used in STEM fields, history, sociology, etc. Comparisons across disciplines also enrich the field.
*Saying that feminist scholarship is intersectional means that social systems (like educational institutions, for example) as well as personal interactions are complex; any analyses of them must include issues of race, class, sexualities, and gender, among other identities, to approach understanding of past and present conditions.
*Feminists have been actively engaged in settings all over the world, from the Arab Women’s Solidarity Association, to the Asian Women’s Studies Congress, to the Federation of South African Women, to name only a few efforts.

Feminist teaching and learning—which, of course, is related to scholarshipconnect with lengthy traditions of intellectual freedom and educational alternatives: taking a stand, respecting diversity, democratic processes,  expanding possibilities.
*Online, face-to-face or “hybrid” courses are in the news as methods of content “delivery” are in development, along with the means to fund/support them.
*The Distributed Open Collaborative Course (DOCC) being offered in Fall 2013 at 16 institutions is a feminist rethinking of the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). We intend to contribute to the larger conversation about educational equity and excellence.
*We are thinking about and developing strategies to work within, across, and with attention to difference, place, and privilege.
*Whether our students are feminist or not, and regardless of the different ways we professors are feminists, or teach feminism, we are introducing our students to a lively, thoughtful, complex, lengthy, and self-critical body of knowledge about technology that asks them to think about their own role in its history, production, and analysis.