Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Complexity of Gender: It Is All That and More….In sum, It Is Complicated

The Complexity of Gender: It Is All That and More….In sum, It Is Complicated This commentary responds to “Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity,” where Wood and Eagly (2015) discussed two traditions of research on gender identity: gender self-categorization and gender-typed traits. This commentary replies, with a focus on research and theory from the U.S., by noting the importance of each approach, but more importantly, by noting the areas of gender identity not addressed by Wood and Eagly. Issues of complexity discussed include the multidimensional nature of gender, the limitations of the gender binary system, intersectionality, and the developmental context. Also, this commentary provides advice for incorporating the developmental context in research on gender identity. The commentary concludes by discussing the usefulness of qualitative research methodologies for incorporating other complexities in research, but also notes the need for innovation in methodology to better reflect the complex nature of gender in research. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Sex Roles Springer Journals

The Complexity of Gender: It Is All That and More….In sum, It Is Complicated

Sex Roles , Volume 73 (12) – Sep 18, 2015

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/springer_journal/the-complexity-of-gender-it-is-all-that-and-more-in-sum-it-is-06an4Yl6Wy

References (38)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by Springer Science+Business Media New York
Subject
Psychology; Gender Studies; Sociology, general; Medicine/Public Health, general
ISSN
0360-0025
eISSN
1573-2762
DOI
10.1007/s11199-015-0542-5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This commentary responds to “Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity,” where Wood and Eagly (2015) discussed two traditions of research on gender identity: gender self-categorization and gender-typed traits. This commentary replies, with a focus on research and theory from the U.S., by noting the importance of each approach, but more importantly, by noting the areas of gender identity not addressed by Wood and Eagly. Issues of complexity discussed include the multidimensional nature of gender, the limitations of the gender binary system, intersectionality, and the developmental context. Also, this commentary provides advice for incorporating the developmental context in research on gender identity. The commentary concludes by discussing the usefulness of qualitative research methodologies for incorporating other complexities in research, but also notes the need for innovation in methodology to better reflect the complex nature of gender in research.

Journal

Sex RolesSpringer Journals

Published: Sep 18, 2015

There are no references for this article.