Coburn Kaitlyn, Troy Kris, Busch Carly A, Barber-Choi Naomi, Bonney Kevin M, Couch Brock, García-Ojeda Marcos E, Hutto Rachel, Famble Lauryn, Flagg Matt, Gladding Tracy, Kowalkowski Anna, Landaverde Carlos, Lo Stanley M, MacLeod Kimberly, Mbogo Blessed, Misheva Taya, Trinh Andy, Vides Rebecca, Wieboldt Erik, Gormally Cara, Maloy Jeffrey
Department of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155.
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106.
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2025 Mar 1;24(1):ar3. doi: 10.1187/cbe.24-01-0033.
Trans* and genderqueer student retention and liberation is integral for equity in undergraduate education. While STEM leadership calls for data-supported systemic change, the erasure and othering of trans* and genderqueer identities in STEM research perpetuates cisnormative narratives. We sought to characterize how sex and gender data are collected, analyzed, and described in biology education research. We reviewed and coded 328 original research studies published in CBE-Life Science Education from 2018 to 2022. Studies often relied upon binary classifications and conflated sex and gender. For instance, terms used to describe sex, such as "male" and "female," were frequently offered as gender options. Only 27 studies (8%) included trans* and genderqueer students in their analysis. Of those that excluded trans* and genderqueer students from analysis, only 23 (7.6%) acknowledged this as a methodological limitation. Further, there has been no temporal trend away from cisnormative language over the 5-year period we analyzed (OR = 1.0, = 0.93). Our findings show the prevalence of cisnormative language and methodologies in biology education research and demonstrate a lack of representation of trans* and genderqueer individuals. Our results are a call for researchers to critically conceptualize whether and how they investigate gender data in future studies.
跨性别和性别酷儿学生的保留与解放对于本科教育的公平至关重要。虽然STEM领域的领导层呼吁进行数据支持的系统性变革,但在STEM研究中对跨性别和性别酷儿身份的抹除及他者化使顺性别规范叙事长期存在。我们试图描述在生物学教育研究中性别数据是如何收集、分析和描述的。我们对2018年至2022年发表在《CBE - 生命科学教育》上的328项原创研究进行了综述和编码。研究常常依赖二元分类,且将性别和性混为一谈。例如,用于描述性别的术语,如“男性”和“女性”,经常被作为性别选项给出。只有27项研究(8%)在分析中纳入了跨性别和性别酷儿学生。在那些将跨性别和性别酷儿学生排除在分析之外的研究中,只有23项(7.6%)承认这是一种方法上的局限性。此外,在我们分析的5年期间,没有出现远离顺性别规范语言的时间趋势(优势比 = 1.0,95%置信区间 = 0.93)。我们的研究结果表明顺性别规范语言和方法在生物学教育研究中的普遍存在,并表明跨性别和性别酷儿个体缺乏代表性。我们的结果呼吁研究人员批判性地思考在未来研究中是否以及如何研究性别数据。