Documenting Research with Transgender, Nonbinary, and Other Gender Diverse (Trans) Individuals and Communities: Introducing the Global Trans Research Evidence Map
social determinants of health
Special situations and conditions
Full recordShow full item record
AbstractThere is limited information about how transgender, nonbinary, and other gender diverse (trans) people have been studied and represented by researchers. The objectives of this study were to: (1) increase access to trans research; (2) map and describe trans research across subject fields; and (3) identify evidence gaps and opportunities for more responsible research. Eligibility criteria were established to include empirical research of any design, which included trans participants or their personal information and that was published in English in peer-reviewed journals. A search of 15 academic databases resulted in 25,230 references; data presented include 690 trans-focused articles that met the screening criteria and were published between 2010 and 2014. The 10 topics studied most frequently were: (1) therapeutics and surgeries; (2) gender identity and expression; (3) mental health; (4) biology and physiology; (5) discrimination and marginalization; (6) physical health; (7) sexual health, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections; (8) health and mental health services; (9) social support, relationships, and families; and (10) resilience, well-being, and quality of life. This map also highlights the relatively minor attention that has been paid to a number of study topics, including ethnicity, culture, race, and racialization; housing; income; employment; and space and place. Results of this review have the potential to increase awareness of existing trans research, to characterize evidence gaps, and to inform strategic research prioritization. With this information, it is more likely that trans communities and allies will be in a position to benefit from existing research and to hold researchers accountable.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
THE IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL TIME AND PRODUCTION BETWEEN STIMULI ON ADULT LANGUAGE LEARNINGGerken, LouAnn; Ayala-Miranda, Karen Alexa; Ayala-Miranda, Karen Alexa (The University of Arizona., 2018-10-17)This study followed up on a previous experiment, wherein adults were unable to learn a particular type of language sound rule (a Type II phonological rule), which infants were readily able to learn. As in the earlier study, adults participated in a familiarization phase, where they heard nonsense words that followed the rule in question, and a test phase where they had to judge new nonsense words as to whether they fit or did not fit the pattern of the familiarization words. Two factors that might improve learning were part of the familiarization phase of the current experiment (1) addition of time between familiarization words, (2) plus vocal production of each familiarization word. Twenty-five total adults participated, but the results did not indicate any improvement in the participants’ ability to learn the Type II phonological rule based on the manipulated factors. Possible reasons for differences between infant and adult language learning are discussed.
Développement durable et école : sélection d’outilsMinichiello, Federica (Centre international d'études pédagogiquesRevue internationale d'éducation de Sèvres, 2016-01-22)Si la protection de l’environnement et la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique animent le débat international depuis plusieurs décennies, l’année 2015 aura mis le climat et le développement durable au premier plan. L’Assemblée générale des Nations unies a adopté, fin septembre 2015, le Programme de développement durable à l’horizon 2030, défini comme « une charte pour l’humanité et pour la planète au XXIe siècle », dans le prolongement des Objectifs du millénaire pour le développement. En...
Academic integrity: differences between design assessments and essaysThe University of Newcastle. Faculty of Science & Information Technology, School of Design Communication and IT; Simon,; Cook, Beth; Minichiello, Mario; Lawrence, Chris (Umeå Institute of Design, Umeå University, 2014)Perceptions of plagiarism and collusion in essays have occupied much research in academic integrity. This project explores such perceptions in relation to both text-based assessments such as essays and non-text-based assessment such as visual designs. The principal research instrument was an Australia-wide survey of academics and students who use nontext-based assessments. We find substantial differences between perceptions in the text and non-text environments. With design assessments, participants are less likely to think that basing work on that of another student, or using freely available material without referencing it, is plagiarism or collusion; but they are more likely to think that discussing tasks with others or asking others to improve their work is plagiarism/collusion. Some participants deemed particular practices acceptable despite identifying them as plagiarism/collusion, and some regarded practices as unacceptable despite not considering them to be plagiarism/collusion. As well as substantial differences in perceptions of plagiarism/collusion between text and non-text assessments, we find greater uncertainty regarding plagiarism and collusion in design assessments. This suggests a need for clear definitions of plagiarism and collusion for design assessments, and for universities to incorporate these definitions into their academic integrity policies and to implement appropriate educational strategies for academics and students.