So I slowly plodded my way through the article. It was a dense article that I had to eat in small bites. The author explores how research has been androcentric, defined as ”the characteristic of being derived from, based upon and relevant principally to the experiences of men.” (Code, 1995, p. 15) The definitions of intelligence favour men. Women’s health issues were seen as fictitious and imagined because they were different than men’s health issues. Gender along with racial and culture bias have created an incomplete picture. How do we arrive at a more holistic understanding? Or is the concept of an inclusive truth a fiction? The diversity of people, mixed with privilege and power dynamics suggest to me that there would be no valid universal truths, particularly for something as culture-bound as learning. The author makes the point that women are more hetereogenous than homogeneous as a group. If we cannot understand someone else’s reality without experiencing their lives, we also cannot draw general conclusions about a people’s knowledge constuction.
Code (1995) explains that almost all research conducted is eurocentric and heteronormative. Intelligence tests and theories support the privilege of white, wealthy, heterosexual men by ascribing them higher scores and to acheive scholastic success, students either learn to conform to this model or struggle in the system. As we begin conducting our own research, how will we avoid this historical tendency to exclude?
Code, L. (1995). Changing methods. Chapter one. How do we know? Questions of Method in Feminist Practice. p. 13-39.
