Anne Hammarström1. 1. Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Division of Family Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. anne.hammarstrom@fammed.umu.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interest is growing both in implementing a gender perspective in medical research and in developing gender research. However, few models exist that can help researchers who want to develop gender research. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article were to analyze gender research compared with sex/gender blind research as well as with research on sex/gender differences in work-life research, and to propose a tool that can be used by researchers who want to develop gender research. METHODS: Using the PubMed database, the search period for the main analyses covered January 1, 2000, to November 1, 2006. In the first of 2 searches, the search criteria were English language and the term unemployment. In the second search, the criteria used were English language and 3 combinations of search terms: (1) underemploy or employ and (fixed-term or types or temporary or atypical or precarious or casual); (2) labor market and (attachment or core periphery or trajectory); and (3) job and (flexibility or casual). RESULTS: The number of articles about women and gender in unemployment research that are available in PubMed steadily increased during the 1990s. The proposed model could be regarded as a tool that by necessity is simplified. The tool should not be interpreted as if all research fulfills all the characteristics in the model; rather, the tool illustrates the potentials with gender research. Whereas gender research questions the dominating epistemology of medicine (eg, through challenging biological determinism), the other 2 research traditions are often performed within the dominating medical paradigm. Gender is an analytic category, and structural analyses of gender relations are central in medical gender research, whereas sex/gender is often analyzed as a variable on the individual level in other research. Masculinity research constitutes a dynamic part of gender research. However, in other research, men as well as women are often analyzed as one of several variables. Through questioning the existing field of knowledge, gender research, with its base in power analyses and theoretical development, can provide new and different knowledge about men and women. In gender research, there has been an increasing awareness of the need for vigilance to avoid exaggerating differences (both biological and sociocultural) between men and women. Thus, the risk of essentialism (ie, the tendency to regard differences between men and women as constant, pervasive, and unchangeable) is lower than in other research. CONCLUSION: A model has been suggested that may be used to implement gender research. This tool needs continuous development through active dialogue between gender researchers.
BACKGROUND: Interest is growing both in implementing a gender perspective in medical research and in developing gender research. However, few models exist that can help researchers who want to develop gender research. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article were to analyze gender research compared with sex/gender blind research as well as with research on sex/gender differences in work-life research, and to propose a tool that can be used by researchers who want to develop gender research. METHODS: Using the PubMed database, the search period for the main analyses covered January 1, 2000, to November 1, 2006. In the first of 2 searches, the search criteria were English language and the term unemployment. In the second search, the criteria used were English language and 3 combinations of search terms: (1) underemploy or employ and (fixed-term or types or temporary or atypical or precarious or casual); (2) labor market and (attachment or core periphery or trajectory); and (3) job and (flexibility or casual). RESULTS: The number of articles about women and gender in unemployment research that are available in PubMed steadily increased during the 1990s. The proposed model could be regarded as a tool that by necessity is simplified. The tool should not be interpreted as if all research fulfills all the characteristics in the model; rather, the tool illustrates the potentials with gender research. Whereas gender research questions the dominating epistemology of medicine (eg, through challenging biological determinism), the other 2 research traditions are often performed within the dominating medical paradigm. Gender is an analytic category, and structural analyses of gender relations are central in medical gender research, whereas sex/gender is often analyzed as a variable on the individual level in other research. Masculinity research constitutes a dynamic part of gender research. However, in other research, men as well as women are often analyzed as one of several variables. Through questioning the existing field of knowledge, gender research, with its base in power analyses and theoretical development, can provide new and different knowledge about men and women. In gender research, there has been an increasing awareness of the need for vigilance to avoid exaggerating differences (both biological and sociocultural) between men and women. Thus, the risk of essentialism (ie, the tendency to regard differences between men and women as constant, pervasive, and unchangeable) is lower than in other research. CONCLUSION: A model has been suggested that may be used to implement gender research. This tool needs continuous development through active dialogue between gender researchers.