Abstract
Lay understandings of the role of heredity and genetics in the production of human sex may be important in perceptions of the relative similarity and difference of men and women and therefore of the appropriateness of behaviors or social policies. We employed 17 focus groups segregated by gender and ethnicity (43 European American and 39 African American) to assess lay understandings of genetics and biological sex. To ensure the inclusion of multiple perspectives in results, we developed and applied a methodology we call “polyvocal coding.” Results show uneven incorporation of basic genetics, with substantial diversity of alternative understandings, especially with regard to sexual orientation. Different individuals, including both coders and participants, may interpret the same information about sex chromosomal inheritance as a fundamental quality of individual identity that constitutes essential and significant difference or as a component with limited impact on each person.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Brookey, R. A. (2001). Bio-rhetoric, background beliefs, and the biology of homosexuality. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37, 171-183.
Brookey, R. A. (2002). Reinventing the male homosexual: The rhetoric and power of the gay gene. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Condit, C. M. (1989). The rhetorical limits of polysemy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 103-122.
Condit, C. M. (1999). The meanings of the gene. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
Fiske, J. (1986). Television: Polysemy and popularity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 391-408.
Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 257-272.
Hallstein, D. L. O. (2000). Where standpoint stands now: An introduction and commentary. Women's Studies in Communication, 23, 1-15.
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.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
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.
Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld.
Jennings, K. (1992). Ideological thinking among mass publics and political elites. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 419-441.
Katz, E., & Liebes, T. (1984). Once upon a time in Dallas. Intermedia, 12, 28-32.
Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Keller, E. F., & Longino, H. E. (Eds.). (1996). Feminism and science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1979)
Markowitz, S. (2001). Pelvic politics: Sexual dimorphism and racial difference. Signs, 26, 389-415.
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.
Martinez-Salgado, C. (1999). Unexpected findings of a female team in Xochimilco, Mexico. Qualitative Health Research 9, 11-25.
Miller, D. H. (1998). Freedom to differ: The shaping of the gay and lesbian struggle for civil rights. New York: New York University Press.
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.
Morley, D. (1980). The "nationwide" audience: Structure and decoding. London: British Film Institute.
Morse, J. M. (1999). Myth #93: Reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 717-718.
Phillips, K. R. (1996). The spaces of public dissension: Reconsidering the public sphere. Communication Monographs, 63, 231-248.
Popping, R. (2000). Computer-assisted text analysis. London: Sage.
Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance: Woman, patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Richards, L. (1999). Qualitative teamwork: Making it work. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 7-10.
Rothman, B. K. (1995). Of maps and imaginations: Sociology confronts the genome. Social Problems, 42, 1-10.
Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research 11, 538-552.
Steiner, L. (1988). Oppositional decoding as an act of resistance. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5, 1-15.
Tuana, N. (1993). The less noble sex: Scientific, religious, and philosophical conceptions of woman's nature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Pearls, pith, and provocation: Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522-537.
Zarkower, D. (2001). Establishing sexual dimorphism: Conservation amidst diversity? Nature Reviews Genetics, 2, 175-185.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Condit, C.M., Condit, D.M., Dubriwny, T. et al. Lay Understandings of Sex/Gender and Genetics: A Methodology That Preserves Polyvocal Coder Input. Sex Roles 49, 557–570 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000003127.32481.f1
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000003127.32481.f1