Lay Understandings of Sex/Gender and Genetics: A Methodology That Preserves Polyvocal Coder Input

Sex Roles

Volumn 49, Issue 11-12, 2003, Pages 557-570

  Condit, Celeste M ^a   Condit, Deirdre M ^b   Dubriwny, Tasha ^a   Sefcovic, Enid ^c   Acosta Alzuru, Carolina ^a   Brown Givens, Sonja ^d   Dietz, Cindy ^a   Parrott, Roxanne L ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE   (United States)

^e PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Content analysis; Genetics; Polysemy; Qualitative methods; Sex

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346957270     PISSN: 03600025     EISSN: 15732762     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000003127.32481.f1     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Barry, C. A., Britten, N., Barter, N., Bradley, C., & Stevenson, F. (1999). Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 26-44.
2. Bell, K. E., Orbe, M. P., Drummond, D. K., & Camara, S. K. (2000). Accepting the challenge of centralizing without essentializing: Black feminist thought and African American women's communicative experiences. Women's Studies in Communication, 23, 41-62.
3. Brookey, R. A. (2001). Bio-rhetoric, background beliefs, and the biology of homosexuality. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37, 171-183.
4. Brookey, R. A. (2002). Reinventing the male homosexual: The rhetoric and power of the gay gene. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
5. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
6. Condit, C. M. (1989). The rhetorical limits of polysemy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 103-122.
7. Condit, C. M. (1999). The meanings of the gene. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
8. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.
9. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
10. Fiske, J. (1986). Television: Polysemy and popularity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 391-408.
11. Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 257-272.
12. Hallstein, D. L. O. (2000). Where standpoint stands now: An introduction and commentary. Women's Studies in Communication, 23, 1-15.
13. Hanson, R. L., Kobes, S., Lindsay, R. S., & Knowler, W. C. (2001). Assessment of parent-of-origin effects in linkage analysis of quantitative traits. American Journal of Human Genetics, 68, 951-962.
14. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15. Hartsock, N. C. M. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding & M. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality (pp. 283-310). Boston: Reidel.
16. Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld.
17. Jennings, K. (1992). Ideological thinking among mass publics and political elites. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 419-441.
18. Katz, E., & Liebes, T. (1984). Once upon a time in Dallas. Intermedia, 12, 28-32.
19. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20. Keller, E. F., & Longino, H. E. (Eds.). (1996). Feminism and science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1979)
22. Markowitz, S. (2001). Pelvic politics: Sexual dimorphism and racial difference. Signs, 26, 389-415.
23. Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. In E. F. Keller, & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism and science. (pp. 19-96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Martinez-Salgado, C. (1999). Unexpected findings of a female team in Xochimilco, Mexico. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 11-25.
25. Miller, D. H. (1998). Freedom to differ: The shaping of the gay and lesbian struggle for civil rights. New York: New York University Press.
26. Morison, I. M., Paton, C. J., & Cleverley, S. D. (2001). The imprinted gene and parent-of-origin affect database. Nucleic Acids Research, 29, 275-276.
27. Morley, D. (1980). The "nationwide" audience: Structure and decoding. London: British Film Institute.
28. Morse, J. M. (1999). Myth #93: Reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 717-718.
29. Phillips, K. R. (1996). The spaces of public dissension: Reconsidering the public sphere. Communication Monographs, 63, 231-248.
30. Popping, R. (2000). Computer-assisted text analysis. London: Sage.
31. Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance: Woman, patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
32. Richards, L. (1999). Qualitative teamwork: Making it work. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 7-10.
33. Rothman, B. K. (1995). Of maps and imaginations: Sociology confronts the genome. Social Problems, 42, 1-10.
34. Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 538-552.
35. Steiner, L. (1988). Oppositional decoding as an act of resistance. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5, 1-15.
36. Tuana, N. (1993). The less noble sex: Scientific, religious, and philosophical conceptions of woman's nature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
37. Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Pearls, pith, and provocation: Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522-537.
38. Zarkower, D. (2001). Establishing sexual dimorphism: Conservation amidst diversity? Nature Reviews Genetics, 2, 175-185.