How WEIRD and Androcentric Is Sex Research? Global Inequities in Study Populations
How WEIRD and Androcentric Is Sex Research? Global Inequities in Study Populations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00224499.2021.1918050
复制
发表时间：
2021-05-04
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Conley, Terri D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Klein, Verena;Savas, Ozge;Conley, Terri D.
以前的研究人员已经注意到，在心理学等领域，西方、受过教育、工业化、富裕和民主（WEIRD）的样本占主导地位。在这项研究中，我们提出了这样的问题：当代性研究有多怪异、多以男性为中心？我们集中研究了两个历史上代表性不足的群体，即非weird和女性/性别不一致的样本。我们分析了2223篇文章，这些文章来自5个主要的性科学研究期刊（性行为档案、性研究杂志、性与婚姻治疗杂志、性医学杂志和国际性健康杂志）。我们对2015年至2019年在这些期刊上发表的文章的国家背景和抽样人群的性别进行了编码。结果表明，在已发表的性学研究结果中，WEIRD种群占主导地位（从68%到88%不等）。两份期刊的研究中有较多的研究只包括男性作为参与者，一份期刊的研究中有较多的样本只包括女性，很少包括性别多样化的样本（即，非二元性、变性、双性人）。讨论了改进当前研究和出版实践的建议。
Previous researchers have noted the domination of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples in fields like psychology. In this study we asked: how WEIRD and androcentric is contemporary sex research? We focused on two historically underrepresented groups in research, namely non-WEIRD and women/gender non-conforming samples. We analyzed 2,223 articles drawn from five leading journals in scientific sexuality research (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Journal of Sex Research, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Journal of Sexual Medicine, and International Journal of Sexual Health). We coded the national context and gender of sampled populations for articles published between 2015 and 2019 in these journals. Results indicated that WEIRD populations dominate the published findings in sex research (ranging from 68% to 88%). Two journals had a higher number of studies that only included men as participants, and one a higher number of samples that consisted of only women, and very few included gender diverse samples (i.e., non-binary, trans*, intersex). Recommendations for improving the current research and publishing practices are discussed.