Gender Bias in Research â€“

Interdisciplinary Center of Competence for Gender Issues in Sports Sciences

Gender Bias in Research –a Case Study in Sports Medicinea Case Study in Sports Medicine

Prof. Dr. Ilse Hartmann-Tews, Dr Bettina Rulofs Prof apl Dr Klara Brixius Dr Claudia CombrinkDr. Bettina Rulofs, Prof. apl. Dr. Klara Brixius, Dr. Claudia Combrink

Dones i esport: bones pràctiques en recerca, docència i innivacióWomen and sport: innovation in research, teaching and practice

Barcelona, Sept. 26./27. 2011


Structure

1. Current state of research

2. Methodological approach

3. First Results

4. Conclusion and prospects


1. 1. CurrentCurrent statestate ofof researchresearch

• lack of research with focus on gender issues in health sciencesg(sex ~ biological aspects; gender ~ social aspects)

• increasing awareness in medicine• increasing awareness in medicine, but scarcity of gender-sensitive studies

• insufficient knowledge about gender bias

Cp. Risberg Johansson & Hamberg, 2009; Combrink, Rulofs & Hartmann-Tews (2008); Babitsch (2005); Maschewsky-Schneider & Fuchs (2004); Voss & Lohff (2004); Fuchs, Maschewsky & Maschewsky-Schneider (2002); Jahn (2002)


Gender bias in research

1 Androcentrism/ Gynocentrism

Gender bias in research

1. Androcentrism/ Gynocentrism• Underrepresentation of women or men in study-samples• Male or female perspective in focus

2. Sex/Gender blindness• Ignoring the relevance of gender and/or sex• De-contextualization• No reflection on the relevance of male/ female investigators

3. Unequal standard of measurement• Interpretation of results guided by stereotypes

Cp. Risberg Johansson & Hamberg, 2009; Combrink, Rulofs & Hartmann-Tews (2008); Babitsch (2005); Maschewsky-Schneider & Fuchs (2004); Voss & Lohff (2004); Fuchs, Maschewsky & Maschewsky-Schneider (2002); Jahn (2002)


Reasons for gender bias in research y

deq

uity

ifferees

s/e nce/ i

ignoring differences based on biology, culture, power asymmetry

assuming differences where there are none, e g stereotyping

amen

e inequ

power asymmetry e.g. stereotyping

sauity

(cp. Risberg Johansson & Hamberg, 2009; Combrink, Rulofs & Hartmann-Tews, 2008; Ruiz & Verbrugge, 1997)


QuestionsQuestionsQuestionsQuestions

In how far does gender bias occur in sports medicine and sport-related health research?

What kind of social structures foster or impede gender bias in research designs?gender bias in research designs?


Structure



3. First Results



Gender Bias in sports medicine and sport related health researchin sports medicine and sport-related health research

1. Survey of the relevance of sex and gender aspects

2. Analysis of reasonsfor gender bias

3. Development of criteria forgender-sensitive researchof sex and gender aspects for gender bias gender-sensitive research

A C DB

Quantitative content analysis of

abstracts in the fi ld f t

Interviews withexperts

from scientific

Evaluation of research projects in

sports medicine

In-depths analysis of selected articles

field of sports medicine institutions, funding

bodies and journals

pconcerning gender

sensitivity


Content analysis of abstracts in sports mediciney p(Subproject A)

• Data set: 2.922 abstracts of Journal articlesDatabase: Pubmed/Medline and Spolit Complete inventory of the years 2005-2008 Sports medicine [broad field]Research institution in GermanyResearch institution in Germany

• Standardized short-answer questionaire

• Interrater-reliability: 90%


Structure



3. First Results



Sample composition: Androcentrism / Gynocentrism?

90%

100%

70%

80%

38 2%42,2%

50%

60%

38,2%

15 5%20%

30%

40%

Topic relevant to both sexes15,5%

4,1%0%

10%

20%

Topic relevant to one sex only/not determinable

0%

not determinable men & women men only women onlyN=2.922N=2.829


Sample composition of different research designs

70%70%

80%

70%65%60%

40%

50%

both sexes were

29%20%

30%investigated

10%

20%

0%clinical studies field laboratory N=2.829


Gender-sensitive research ?

Do the abstracts

• Inform about the relevance of sex orInform about the relevance of sex or gender in research ?

• address sex or gender differences and/or similarities ?

• reflect on gender order ?Topic relevant to both sexes


N=2.922


Gender-sensitive research

Topic relevant to both sexes 7,2%


(N=2.829)N=2.922


Sample composition of different research designs

70%70%

80%

70%65%60%

40%

50%

both sexes were

29%20%

30%investigated

10%

20%

0%clinical studies field laboratory N=2.829


Gender sensitivity with different research designs

N=2.829


Gender sensitivity with respect to central journals

80%

90%■ both sexes were investigated

■ gender-sensitivity

50%

60%

70%

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%

N=2.829


Structure



3. Firts Results

4. Conclusion


Gender Bias in Sports Medicine ?

1 Androcentrism / Gynocentrism1. Androcentrism / Gynocentrism• Male or female perspective in focus• Underrepresentation of women or men in study-samples

2. Sex/Gender blindness• Ignoring the relevance of gender and/or sex• De-contextualization• No reflection on the relevance of male/ female investigators

3. Unequal standard of measurement• Interpretation of results guided by stereotypes


Structure



3. Firts Results



Prospects





A C DB




from scientific

Evaluation of research projects in

sports medicine



bodies and journals

pconcerning gender

sensitivity


In In depthdepth--analysisanalysis ofof articlesarticlesyy

Central parts of an articleGendered ?

• State of the art• Intervention / Method

~ 20%~ 3%

• Results• Discussion / Interpretation

~ 46% ~ 24%

• Deficits / Prospect~ 8%


Prospects





A C DB




from scientific

Evaluation ofresearch projects in

sports medicine



bodies and journals

pconcerning gender

sensitivity


Thank you for your attention!y yResearch Group :

Prof. Dr. Ilse Hartmann-Tews, Prof apl Dr Klara BrixiusProf. apl. Dr. Klara Brixius, Dr. Claudia Combrink,Dr. Bettina Rulofs,Johanna Schirm,Stefanie Schulte, Thomas WendtTatiana Zueva

www.dshs-koeln.de/igis


Literatur

Babitsch B (2005) Soziale Ungleichheit Geschlecht und Gesundheit Bern: HuberBabitsch, B. (2005). Soziale Ungleichheit, Geschlecht und Gesundheit. Bern: Huber, Hogrefe.

Combrink, C., Rulofs, B. & Hartmann-Tews, I. (2008). Geschlechtersensible Forschung im Kontext von Gesundheit und Bewegung. In Hartmann-Tews, I. & Combrink C. (Hrsg.), Gesundheit, Bewegung und Geschlecht (pp. 13-28). St. Augustin: Academia.

Fuchs, J., Maschewsky, K & Maschewsky-Schneider, U. (2002). Zu mehr Gleichberech-tigung zwischen den Geschlechtern: Erkennen und Vermeiden von Gender Bias in der Gesundheitsforschung Berlin: BZPHder Gesundheitsforschung. Berlin: BZPH.

Jahn, I. (2002). Methodische Probleme einer geschlechtergerechten Gesundheits-forschung. In Hurrelmann, K. & Kolip, P. (Hrsg.), Geschlecht, Gesundheit und Krankheit. Männer und Frauen im Vergleich. S. 142-156. Bern: Hans Huber.

Maschewsky-Schneider, U. & Fuchs, J. (2004). Gender Bias – gender research in Public Health. In W. Kirch (Ed.), Public Health in Europe. (pp. 119-128). Berlin u.a.: Springer.

Voss, A. & Lohff, B. (2004). Nach-denkliches zur Gender Medizin. In A. Rieder & B. Lohff(Hrsg ) Gender Medizin Geschlechtsspezifische Aspekte für die klinische Praxis (pp(Hrsg.), Gender Medizin. Geschlechtsspezifische Aspekte für die klinische Praxis (pp. 435-443). Wien: Springer.

Risberg, G., Johansson, E. & Hamberg, K. (2009). A theoretical Model for AnalysingGender Bias in Medicine. International Journal for Equity in Health, 8, 28.

Ruiz, T.M. & Verbrugge, L.M. (1997). A Two Way of Gender Bias in Medicine. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 51, 106-109.

Gender Bias in Research â€“

Documents