A group of international scholars funded by the European Union were unable to define “sex” or “gender” after studying the topic for more than five years, but nevertheless concluded that both concepts should be incorporated into all academic research going forward.
“GENDER-NET Plus” is an initiative that, beginning in 2018, funded 13 transnational research projects with nearly 400 researchers from 12 countries. According to a grant agreement, the European Union awarded GENDER-NET Plus nearly $4.2 million.
As the various projects under the GENDER-NET Plus umbrella concluded, 40 researchers met for a two-day workshop in November, 2022 to “share experiences, discuss challenges, and consider the best ways forward to incorporate sex and gender in research,” a summary of which was published as “Integrating Gender Analysis into Research” with 16 co-authors in The Lancet. The authors are affiliated with a number of well-known universities from across the globe, including Yale, Oxford, and McGill.
“It has become increasingly important to integrate considerations of sex and gender into all branches of research to boost accuracy, provide high-quality science, improve reproducibility and generate innovative, equitable and inclusive findings,” reads the report, which was published online in July. It concludes, “we hope to advance consideration of intersectional sex and gender integration in all research.”
Despite arguing that “all branches of research” should consider “sex and gender,” the report was unable to provide a firm definition of either term.
“While several initiatives have been taken to improve study design descriptions and reporting in the scientific literature, existing databases and resources often describe sex as either male or female, and gender as either woman or man — oversimplifications which are no longer appropriate,” reads the report, further stating that “care should be taken to avoid suggesting that ‘sex’ is a simple binary; doing so misrepresents the diversity of humans.” The report suggests that “sex” may be “more appropriate” in research focused on “biological features.”
Similarly, the report was unable to define “gender,” suggesting that “there cannot be a standardized measure of ‘gender’” because “the items and instruments to be used need to be evaluated and determined depending on the study objectives.”
“Though tempting, creating a single ‘centralized’ authoritative voice (e.g., guidelines) were thought to run the risk of being dogmatic/political and contrary to scientific freedom and debate,” states the report.
Recommendations in the report for future research include: 1) “Define sex and/or gender (and specify the relevant dimensions) as they will preliminarily be understood for purposes of the research,” 2) “Qualify or adjust definitions/language based on factors involving participants,” and 3) “Emphasize why the terms (and definitions, operationalizations, etc.) have been chosen and how they bear on the research question or findings, being mindful of any real-world impact.” The report further encourages the use of “gender-neutral language” when referencing a person or group “of unknown or indeterminate gender.”
“Important obligations of gender-aware researchers,” according to the report, include “gender-responsiveness,” ensuring the research group is diverse, and evaluating the parental-leave policies. The report suggests that employing diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in research will advance a “gender-sensitive approach.”
The report argues that “researchers and knowledge producers” hold “a position of privilege and power” and are “afforded a certain level of trust,” therefore they must ask whether their research could “inadvertently harm the population or specific communities, groups, or individuals,” and further consider “how the findings that result from [their] research may be interpreted.”
“An intersectional and gendered approach to research is inherently tied to a commitment to social justice, equity, and gender equality,” reads the report.