Cargando…
The history of sexual selection research provides insights as to why females are still understudied
While it is widely acknowledged that Darwin’s descriptions of females were gender-biased, gender bias in current sexual selection research is less recognized. An examination of the history of sexual selection research shows prevalent male precedence—that research starts with male-centered investigat...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9666445/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36379954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34770-z |
_version_ | 1784831505354194944 |
---|---|
author | Ah-King, Malin |
author_facet | Ah-King, Malin |
author_sort | Ah-King, Malin |
collection | PubMed |
description | While it is widely acknowledged that Darwin’s descriptions of females were gender-biased, gender bias in current sexual selection research is less recognized. An examination of the history of sexual selection research shows prevalent male precedence—that research starts with male-centered investigations or explanations and thereafter includes female-centered equivalents. In comparison, the incidence of female precedence is low. Furthermore, a comparison between the volume of publications focusing on sexual selection in males versus in females shows that the former far outnumber the latter. This bias is not only a historical pattern; sexual selection theory and research are still male-centered—due to conspicuous traits, practical obstacles, and continued gender bias. Even the way sexual selection is commonly defined contributes to this bias. This history provides an illustrative example by which we can learn to recognize biases and identify gaps in knowledge. I conclude with a call for the scientific community to interrogate its own biases and suggest strategies for alleviating biases in this field and beyond. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9666445 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96664452022-11-17 The history of sexual selection research provides insights as to why females are still understudied Ah-King, Malin Nat Commun Perspective While it is widely acknowledged that Darwin’s descriptions of females were gender-biased, gender bias in current sexual selection research is less recognized. An examination of the history of sexual selection research shows prevalent male precedence—that research starts with male-centered investigations or explanations and thereafter includes female-centered equivalents. In comparison, the incidence of female precedence is low. Furthermore, a comparison between the volume of publications focusing on sexual selection in males versus in females shows that the former far outnumber the latter. This bias is not only a historical pattern; sexual selection theory and research are still male-centered—due to conspicuous traits, practical obstacles, and continued gender bias. Even the way sexual selection is commonly defined contributes to this bias. This history provides an illustrative example by which we can learn to recognize biases and identify gaps in knowledge. I conclude with a call for the scientific community to interrogate its own biases and suggest strategies for alleviating biases in this field and beyond. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9666445/ /pubmed/36379954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34770-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Perspective Ah-King, Malin The history of sexual selection research provides insights as to why females are still understudied |
title | The history of sexual selection research provides insights as to why females are still understudied |
title_full | The history of sexual selection research provides insights as to why females are still understudied |
title_fullStr | The history of sexual selection research provides insights as to why females are still understudied |
title_full_unstemmed | The history of sexual selection research provides insights as to why females are still understudied |
title_short | The history of sexual selection research provides insights as to why females are still understudied |
title_sort | history of sexual selection research provides insights as to why females are still understudied |
topic | Perspective |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9666445/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36379954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34770-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ahkingmalin thehistoryofsexualselectionresearchprovidesinsightsastowhyfemalesarestillunderstudied AT ahkingmalin historyofsexualselectionresearchprovidesinsightsastowhyfemalesarestillunderstudied |