Locating Masculinity in Men's Health Research, Policy, and Practice.

Abstract

How masculinity is conceptualised shapes what men's health research and policy define as a problem and where intervention is directed. A substantial psychological and behavioural literature has operationalised masculinity-related constructs through individual measures of attitudes, conformity, and gender role conflict. These measures can produce useful evidence, but when individual scores are treated as proxies for masculinity itself, the individual risks becoming both the unit of measurement and the assumed location of the problem. This paper examines the movement from relational theories of masculinity to individualised forms of explanation across men's health research, policy, and practice. It argues that individual, service, and structural factors are frequently identified without adequately explaining the mechanisms through which relationships, institutions, and material conditions produce, reinforce, or change gendered health practices. A relational approach does not displace individual agency or behavioural intervention. Rather, it widens the unit of analysis and intervention to include the settings that give practices their gendered meanings, distribute their social costs, and shape whether healthier alternatives are credible and available. The paper concludes that men's health policy and practice should examine and act upon these mechanisms rather than treating masculinity primarily as a set of attributes carried by individual men.