Hammarström Anne
Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Division of Family Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Gend Med. 2007;4 Suppl B:S123-32. doi: 10.1016/s1550-8579(07)80053-2.
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.
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.
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).
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.
A model has been suggested that may be used to implement gender research. This tool needs continuous development through active dialogue between gender researchers.
在医学研究中纳入性别视角以及开展性别研究的兴趣日益浓厚。然而，几乎没有模型能够帮助想要开展性别研究的人员。
本文的目的是将性别研究与忽视性别因素的研究以及工作-生活研究中的性别差异研究进行分析比较，并为想要开展性别研究的人员提出一种可用工具。
使用PubMed数据库，主要分析的检索时间段为2000年1月1日至2006年11月1日。在两次检索中的第一次，检索标准为英文和“失业”一词。在第二次检索中，使用的标准为英文和三组检索词组合：(1)就业不足或就业以及（定期或类型或临时或非典型或不稳定或临时或随意）；(2)劳动力市场以及（依恋或核心-边缘或轨迹）；(3)工作以及（灵活性或临时）。
20世纪90年代期间，PubMed中可获取的关于失业研究中女性和性别的文章数量稳步增加。所提出的模型可被视为一种必然简化了的工具。该工具不应被理解为所有研究都符合模型中的所有特征；相反，该工具展示了性别研究的潜力。性别研究对医学中占主导地位的认识论提出质疑（例如，通过挑战生物决定论），而其他两种研究传统通常是在占主导地位的医学范式内进行。性别是一个分析范畴，性别关系的结构分析在医学性别研究中至关重要，而在其他研究中，性别往往在个体层面作为一个变量进行分析。男性气质研究是性别研究的一个动态组成部分。然而，在其他研究中，男性和女性往往都作为多个变量之一进行分析。通过对现有知识领域提出质疑，基于权力分析和理论发展的性别研究能够提供关于男性和女性的新的、不同的知识。在性别研究中，人们越来越意识到需要保持警惕，避免夸大男性和女性之间的差异（包括生物和社会文化差异）。因此，本质主义的风险（即倾向于将男性和女性之间的差异视为恒定、普遍且不可改变的）低于其他研究。
已提出一个可用于开展性别研究的模型。该工具需要通过性别研究人员之间的积极对话不断发展。
