在职业健康研究中考虑性别因素:持续的紧张关系

Q2 Social Sciences
P. Armstrong, K. Messing
{"title":"在职业健康研究中考虑性别因素:持续的紧张关系","authors":"P. Armstrong, K. Messing","doi":"10.1080/14774003.2014.11667794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Thinking about women’s occupational health reveals tensions that are involved in doing all occupational health research. By ‘tensions’ we mean conflicting pressures that are not easily or perhaps ever resolved. Recognising such tensions can lead to better science, even when the underlying issues persist. Based on research about women’s occupational health, this paper identifies a series of tensions that have become sources of conflicting pressures within this specific field and which have more general implications for occupational health and, indeed, public health research: sex vs. gender; universal patterns vs. context-specific knowledge; women as a group vs. particular groups of women; quantitative studies vs. qualitative studies; male-female comparisons vs. the study of women; short-term health effects vs. long-term health effects. The tensions identified here are not intended as a finite list but rather as a starting point for the explicit recognition of tensions within specific research projects. Many of these tensions are revealed during interdisciplinary collaborations and need to be understood through such collaborations.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14774003.2014.11667794","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taking Gender into Account in Occupational Health Research: Continuing Tensions\",\"authors\":\"P. Armstrong, K. Messing\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14774003.2014.11667794\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Thinking about women’s occupational health reveals tensions that are involved in doing all occupational health research. By ‘tensions’ we mean conflicting pressures that are not easily or perhaps ever resolved. Recognising such tensions can lead to better science, even when the underlying issues persist. Based on research about women’s occupational health, this paper identifies a series of tensions that have become sources of conflicting pressures within this specific field and which have more general implications for occupational health and, indeed, public health research: sex vs. gender; universal patterns vs. context-specific knowledge; women as a group vs. particular groups of women; quantitative studies vs. qualitative studies; male-female comparisons vs. the study of women; short-term health effects vs. long-term health effects. The tensions identified here are not intended as a finite list but rather as a starting point for the explicit recognition of tensions within specific research projects. Many of these tensions are revealed during interdisciplinary collaborations and need to be understood through such collaborations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14774003.2014.11667794\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2014.11667794\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2014.11667794","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

对妇女职业健康的思考揭示了从事所有职业健康研究所涉及的紧张关系。所谓“紧张”,我们指的是不容易或可能永远无法解决的相互冲突的压力。认识到这种紧张关系可以带来更好的科学,即使潜在的问题仍然存在。根据对妇女职业健康的研究,本文确定了一系列紧张局势,这些紧张局势已成为这一特定领域内相互冲突的压力的来源,并对职业健康以及实际上对公共卫生研究具有更普遍的影响:性与性别;通用模式vs.情境特定知识;女性作为一个群体vs.特定的女性群体;定量研究vs.定性研究;男女比较与女性研究;短期健康影响vs.长期健康影响。这里确定的紧张局势不打算作为一个有限的列表,而是作为明确认识特定研究项目中的紧张局势的起点。许多这些紧张关系在跨学科合作中显露出来,需要通过这种合作来理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Taking Gender into Account in Occupational Health Research: Continuing Tensions
Abstract Thinking about women’s occupational health reveals tensions that are involved in doing all occupational health research. By ‘tensions’ we mean conflicting pressures that are not easily or perhaps ever resolved. Recognising such tensions can lead to better science, even when the underlying issues persist. Based on research about women’s occupational health, this paper identifies a series of tensions that have become sources of conflicting pressures within this specific field and which have more general implications for occupational health and, indeed, public health research: sex vs. gender; universal patterns vs. context-specific knowledge; women as a group vs. particular groups of women; quantitative studies vs. qualitative studies; male-female comparisons vs. the study of women; short-term health effects vs. long-term health effects. The tensions identified here are not intended as a finite list but rather as a starting point for the explicit recognition of tensions within specific research projects. Many of these tensions are revealed during interdisciplinary collaborations and need to be understood through such collaborations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信