CALL FOR EVIDENCE

Summary

We launched an online call for evidence* in September 2021 to gather feedback on creating good practice guidelines for responsible communication of research on sex/gender and the brain.
We had 86 responses, a fifth of which (17/86) were from people directly involved in communicating about research findings on sex/gender and the brain, with most of the rest from people who hear or read about this research.
Around half (42/86) of respondents told us that they do not find it easy to tell whether research findings on sex/gender and the brain are communicated accurately, with a further 22 respondents reporting that while they can tell, they would still find good practice guidelines helpful.
There was support for the guidelines being straightforward, concise, endorsed by key stakeholders and easy to find online. Some respondents also highlighted the importance of the guidelines being balanced, factual and unbiased, and shared actively with non-scientific groups including journalists and educators.
Respondents suggested a wide range of issues that might be critical for the guidelines to address, such as the problem of authors ignoring the effect of socialisation, using bogus evolutionary arguments, and forgetting that there is likely to be a bigger difference within a group than between the averages for two groups.

More detail...

The online call for evidence was carried out through a Limesurvey questionnaire, which was available through our website and which we promoted through twitter and relevant professional networks.
We carried out the survey on an anonymous basis: we did not collect respondents' name, professional affiliation or other identifying features.
The survey asked the following five questions:
- Are you involved in communicating about research findings on sex/gender and the brain, or is your main interest here as someone who reads or hears about this research?
- Do you find it easy to tell whether research findings on sex/gender and the brain are communicated accurately? [yes/no]
- What do you think is most important to make these guidelines a success? [straightforward/concise/endorsed by key stakeholders/easy to find online/other]
- Which, if any, of these problems do you see it as critical for these guidelines to address, to ensure responsible reporting on sex/gender and the brain? [‘hype’: exaggerating how important a research finding is /cherry-picking’:selective reporting of findings to suit a particular narrative/'false division': exaggerating the extent of difference found/ masking similarity/ 'leaps of faith': logical failings/other]
- Have you come across examples of poorly communicated research findings on sex/gender and the brain, and if so where? [Academic literature/textbooks/social media/other]