^{Return to note 5}  In Women’s Ways of Knowing, Belenky et al. articulate an epistemological taxonomy developed as an alternative to William Perry’s and Carol Gilligan’s models of human development. In contrast to William Perry (1970), who studied the epistemological development of the relatively homogeneous social class of undergraduate Harvard (primarily) men in the 1960s, Belenky et al. (1986) interviewed women from more heterogeneous backgrounds: cross-sections of social-class and ethnicity, and samplings of women who were either high school students, college students, recent college graduates, or women being supported in their parenting by human service agencies (p. 12). Whereas Perry focused upon epistemological development—creating a taxonomy of basic dualism, multiplicity, relativism subordinate, and full relativism (Belenky et al., 1986, pp. 9-10), Gilligan in the 1970s studied how the moral development of women contrast with the ideas of moral development by Piaget (1965) and Kohlberg (1981, 1984), who attempted to articulate a gender neutral model of a “morality of rights.” Gilligan (1982) posed problems with the gender neutrality of a system created after studying mostly male participants; and in response, she argued women follow a developmental model of a “morality of responsibility and care” very different from a “morality of rights” (p. 8). In order to test the conclusions of Perry and Gilligan, Belenky et al. included in their interview structure questions and methods of interviewing from each of the Perry and Gilligan studies.

^{Return to note 6}  Despite my use of the phrase “the brain,” enactionist theory—as well as scientists who study brains’ activities—do not refer to the human brain as entirely singular or predictable in nature. Nonetheless, scientists investigate the outer parameters of the brain as a human organ, parameters that social scientists believe can help in predicting human behavior in response to certain constellations of stimuli.