{"id":3025,"date":"2013-08-02T16:48:02","date_gmt":"2013-08-02T16:48:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.digitalrhetoriccollaborative.org\/?p=3025"},"modified":"2013-08-02T16:48:02","modified_gmt":"2013-08-02T16:48:02","slug":"toward-a-technofeminist-ethic-of-care-session-b10","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.digitalrhetoriccollaborative.org\/2013\/08\/02\/toward-a-technofeminist-ethic-of-care-session-b10\/","title":{"rendered":"Toward a TechnoFeminist Ethic of Care ~ Session B10"},"content":{"rendered":"

Review by Erin Frost<\/strong><\/p>\n

Read more about session B10<\/a>\u00a0on the C&W conference site.<\/p>\n

Panelists<\/h3>\n

Megan Adams, Bowling Green State University
\nJen Almjeld, New Mexico State University
\nKristine Blair, Bowling Green State University
\nChristine Denecker, University of Findlay
\nMeghan McGuire, New Mexico State University
\nChristine Tulley, University of Findlay<\/p>\n

This roundtable theorized how mentoring relationships can help marginalized groups\u2014especially women\u2014to interrupt systems of power and redefine technological hierarchies. More specifically, panelists shared their own stories of mentorship experiences. Megan Adams (whose paper was read by Mariana Grohowski) specifically highlighted the value of stories; she argued that scholarship in our field reveals the power of stories, and that feminists also have taught us about the importance of stories\u2014not as master narratives, but so we might begin to theorize our locations and understand how gender and power are embedded in technology. To this end, Adams contributed a story of how she found herself in this field to help illuminate the ways mentoring practices can affect scholars. She was working as a broadcast news reporter when she observed that women reporters were typically expected to eventually move into an anchor position, behind a desk. She did not want to move to a desk job. Around this time, she took a course with co-panelist Christine Tulley, then one with Christine Denecker, and she began to see new possibilities; it was her relationships with these two women that lead her to pursue a PhD.<\/p>\n

The relationships Adams described with Tulley and Denecker were representative of the panel. In fact, Kristine Blair opened the panel by telling the audience that the panelists have longstanding reciprocal relationships with each other. For example, Jen Almjeld and Meghan McGuire each discussed their relationship from their own perspectives. Shortly after the two met, Almjeld\u2014whose paper, fittingly, was read by McGuire\u2014was in a position to help McGuire\u2014a doctoral candidate at the time\u2014be assigned a course on cultural identity and representation, and she did so. McGuire worked with Almjeld in teaching this course, wherein McGuire focused the class on Twitter while Almjeld focused it on online dating profiles. They were able to share and exchange ideas, assignments, and approaches to the class. Since this time, McGuire and Almjeld have continued to develop their relationship as reciprocal mentors. They share what works and does not work in their classrooms, noting that what works for one will not always work for the other. The sharing of ideas goes both ways, and exchanges often have taken place in an office when the door was open. McGuire stressed that important conversations often happen far from the classroom and even the campus.<\/p>\n

Almjeld pointed to the ways in which unofficial mentoring relationships can be useful precisely because they are not institutionalized, structured, and inflexible. In particular, organic mentoring practices can intervene in institutional practices that perpetuate racism and sexism. McGuire, who positioned her paper in conversation with Almjeld\u2019s, argued that reciprocal relationships are especially important in computers and writing scholarship. Collaboration is vital precisely because we know that teachers do not and cannot know everything, particularly in fast-moving technology fields. Collaboration and reciprocal mentoring relationships are therefore the most sustainable kind of relationships we can sponsor\u2014a fact evidenced by the existence of this panel.<\/p>\n

Kristine Blair discussed the panel itself as an example of technofeminist mentoring. She said that in some ways it seemed strange to use the space to share stories, but the importance of narrative as a technofeminist method should not go unsaid. Stories are so much a part of our field because they chronicle our techno-literacy acquisition. Stories also help the field to pay attention to intersectional interests and to the ways in which particular positions\u2014being a graduate student, for example\u2014both enable and constrain access. Blair also stressed that feminist mentoring is reciprocal and co-equal, not hierarchical; she pointed to a number of scholars (including Patricia Sullivan, Cindy Selfe, Gail Hawisher, Mary Hocks, Pam Takayoshi, and her co-panelists) who have participated in reciprocal mentoring relationships with her over the years.<\/p>\n

Blair also talked about particular projects intended to respond to data showing that women don\u2019t seek careers in STEM areas. Blair argued that we need to negotiate our identities in ways that acknowledge the personal and political goals for our research as benefiting not just essentialized groups but as ways of understanding what enables and constrains literate activity so as to intervene in patterns like the dearth of women in STEM. She said we need to allow spaces like this panel at conferences so that such stories are heard.<\/p>\n

Christine Denecker and Christine Tulley both provided some concrete ways of thinking about and practicing mentoring. Denecker began her presentation by talking about her history of moving from being a high school English teacher to a professor to an administrator. Based on her experiences, she advocated extending mentoring relationships to four specific groups:<\/p>\n