Abstract
When Mary Belenky, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger, and Jill Tarule published their book, Women's Ways of Knowing, they essentially waved red flag before loyal disciples of William Perry's developmental scheme. These researchers question the Perry model because, while its methodology allowed for the incorporation of interviews with female subjects, its conclusions were based only on data from interviews with males. Belenky et al. argue that Perry's research might indicate that women conform to the male pattern, but the research strategy itself was deficient in its ability to uncover developmental patterns which more accurately describe the female experience. What Perry may have been measuring, Belenky et al. argue, is the process by which a relatively homogeneous group of people are socialized into and make sense of system of values, standards and objectives, specifically, how Harvard University promotes and encourages relativistic thought and how male students respond (15).1 To say the least, the resulting confusion, concern, and debate engendered by Belenky et al.'s assertions have influenced wide range of academic disciplines. Composition teachers are certainly not immune. Female students now constitute significant percentage of the college population. To the extent that we have been influenced by and made use of the Perry development model, we may be applying teaching methods developed for and around male students. Belenky et al. alert us to the possibility that William Perry's scheme may not tell us everything we need to know about our female students. Exactly what does the Perry scheme tell us? In 1970 William Perry described the developmental stages of college students in the following way: 1) Entering freshmen are dualists. They view knowledge as collection of information falling into two categories: right and wrong. This habit of structuring the world into opposites-we and they, good and bad, correct and incorrectprompts dualists to assume that truth is inarguable and can be dispensed through the proper authorities. Learning is therefore passive process. 2) Students become multiplists as they are exposed to the spectacle of authorities disagreeing among themselves. Recognizing that often there are no clearcut answers and that truth is not absolute, multiplists become functional