THE MAKING OF COMPUTER SCIENTISTS: RENDERING TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, GENDER, AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN SINGAPORE by Samantha Breslin A dissertation submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology Memorial University of Newfoundland August 2018 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Abstract This dissertation explores the making of computer scientists in Singapore. I explore how transnational computer science epistemologies and Singaporean state policies work to render the world into technical problems that computer scientists can manipulate and solve. Computer science knowledge and practice is thereby presented as mobile, while masking the colonization of places like Singapore by specifically rendered and gendered American computer science. I also map out the diffractive effects of these transnationally mobile renderings. This research is based on participant observation and interviews centring on an undergraduate computer science program in Singapore. Singaporean and technology media, Singaporean government policies, and university and computer science curricula are also analyzed. I first show how students learn to model and render “reality” into technical frames, creating naturalized computing “worlds,” but ones wherein magic is real and computer scientists are the magicians. Heteronormative binary renderings of gender are (re)produced within these worlds through narratives about algorithms and computing “problems” that constitute a transnational, but US-centric, tradition and that govern the possible ways for students and professors to think about and do computer science. I also show how students themselves are “rendered technical” and their lives and identities “torqued” as they are summoned to inhabit gender norms and hegemonic values of neoliberal competition, passion, and entrepreneurialism. In particular, the performance of passion by certain students works to create a gendered benchmark against which all ii students come to measure themselves, but which often turns to promoting over-work and exploitation in the name of career development and innovation. Moreover, while some students perform situationally dependent and fluid gender identities, I argue that the predominance of research reducing gender to the question of “women in” computing limits the possibilities both for research on and enactments of gender in computer science and works both to mask and reproduce gender inequalities. Yet, I also show how – in the space produced through conflicting intra-actions of different norms and values – students’ performances of self complicate binary renderings of gender and disrupt the hegemonic status of neoliberal passion and entrepreneurialism, suggesting new possibilities for becoming/being a “good” computer scientist. iii Acknowledgements Thank you to all those in Singapore who contributed to this research. Thanks especially to the students who shared their stories about their lives and their experiences learning computer science, and to the professors who welcomed me into their classrooms. I also thank the many people, including administrators, professors, and professionals, who helped me during my time in Singapore, made the time to speak with me, and shared their insights about computing, education, and work in Singapore. Thank you also to Bimlesh Wadhwa for enthusiastically engaging and working with me on questions of gender and computing. My colleagues and professors have provided much intellectual and personal guidance. To my supervisor, Robin Whitaker, who has seen me through two degrees and has always had insightful suggestions, helpful advice, and given such dedicated and unwavering support, thank you so much for being a great supervisor. Thank you to my committee, Reade Davis, Wayne Fife, and Lucy Suchman, for your thoughtful suggestions throughout the course of this project, and to my examiners, Flis Henwood, Nicole Power, and Mark Tate for your helpful insights and comments on this dissertation. Thank you also to all members of the Department of Anthropology for all that I’ve learned over these many years. My fellow graduate students and friends, particularly Dianne West, Dave Cooney, Consuelo Griggio, Josh Lalor, Karen Samuels, Tracy Winters, and Joonas Plaan have also provided much commiseration and encouragement. The Department of Sociology at Lancaster University provided an intellectually stimulating and inspiring visit over the three months I was there preparing for fieldwork. iv The members of SafetyNet have also provided a productive and welcoming place to work, as well as always having tea and food. I am also grateful for the financial support provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council in the form of a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship and a Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement; by Memorial University of Newfoundland, including a School of Graduate Studies Fellowship, the Scotia Bank Bursary for International Study, the Professor Peter Hart Memorial Scholarship, and the Scholarship in the Arts Doctoral Completion Award; and through research assistant work with Lachlan Barber and Barb Neis with the On the Move Partnership. My friends and family have also been of great help. Special thanks to Susan Walling, Michelle Brophy, and Rob Brown for all the tunes and good times. Thank you to my parents who have always supported me in all my goals and endeavours and for always being there for me. My cat Amber, who passed shortly before the final submission of this dissertation, provided constant (if sometimes insistent) companionship. Finally, thank you to Ben Staple who has provided unending encouragement, support, and insight, along with reading and editing multiple drafts. v Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1 : Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Computer Science Renderings .................................................................................. 4 1.2 Technology and Gender .......................................................................................... 11 1.2.1 Posthumanist Performativity ......................................................................................... 18 1.3 Education and Subject-Making ............................................................................... 21 1.3.1 State Power and Hidden Curricula ................................................................................ 25 1.3.2 Performative Agency .................................................................................................... 31 1.4 Outline of Chapters ................................................................................................. 38 Chapter 2 : Methodology .................................................................................................. 41 2.1 Studying Computer Science .................................................................................... 43 2.1.1 Proposed Research ........................................................................................................ 45 2.2 Doing Fieldwork ..................................................................................................... 48 2.2.1 Participant Observation ................................................................................................. 49 2.2.2 Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 62 2.2.3 Media and Library/Archive Research ........................................................................... 69 2.3 Methodological Reflections .................................................................................... 73 2.3.1 Fieldwork and “Community” ........................................................................................ 73 2.3.2 Fieldwork, Selfhood, and Politics ................................................................................. 79 2.4 Writing Decisions ................................................................................................... 86 Chapter 3 : Initiating Programming .................................................................................. 89 3.1 Programming Worlds .............................................................................................. 91 3.1.1 Learning to Program ..................................................................................................... 91 3.1.2 Learning to Think ......................................................................................................... 98 3.2 Rendering Technical and Rendering Natural ........................................................ 105 3.2.1 Translating Reality .....................................................................................................