Votre recherche

La littérature scientifique a exploré de nombreux aspects relatifs à la notion de « violence », mais elle n’a jamais cherché à l’appréhender, à notre connaissance, en termes de généalogie vis-à-vis des mouvements féministes. Il s’avère par ailleurs que la formulation du concept de « violence obstétricale » est récente alors que l’expérience est ancienne. C’est ce paradoxe que cet article interroge. Plus précisément, cette contribution vise à élucider comment les mouvements féministes ont pu jouer un rôle facilitateur dans l’émergence de ce concept dont la généalogie s’ancre dans la réflexivité hospitalière et les mouvements féministes. En se saisissant de l’observation d’une association féministe engagée dans la pratique des accouchements alternatifs, cette étude vise à appréhender comment les dynamiques militantes ont ouvert la voie à ce nouveau concept. La recherche de terrain a permis d’identifier deux postures à partir d’entretiens mené auprès des usagères du système hospitalier. L’analyse de l’histoire de cette association montre que c’est un compromis interne à la rencontre entre ces deux postures qui a favorisé un espace de parole pour les parturientes et des négociations avec l’hôpital local pour des réalisations concrètes. La discussion analyse ces deux postures au prisme des points de vue féministes universaliste et différencialiste, ainsi que de la sociologie du corps. La conclusion interroge cette dynamique des mouvements sociaux, se demandant si on peut y observer un processus analogue.

In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal’s publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals’ names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45–55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45–55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors’ institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.

Ce cahier présente un premier état des lieux du développement inclusif par le genre (DIG) et brosse le portrait des sources de données internationales et institutionnelles existantes et accessibles au sujet du développement inclusif afin d’outiller l’Observatoire et de soutenir ses partenaires dans leur volonté de se saisir de cette problématique de l’égalité et de participer concrètement aux défis qui en découlent. En répertoriant les sources de données existantes, en analysant leurs caractéristiques et leurs lacunes ainsi qu’en identifiant les angles morts dans la couverture des dimensions inégalitaires persistantes au sein des secteurs clés du DIG (milieux économiques, systèmes éducatifs, domaine de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche ), nous cernons des enjeux qui sont au cœur de la mission de l’Observatoire.

Les femmes expertes en environnement sont-elles sous-représentées dans les médias écrits québécois❓ C’est pour répondre à cette question que le Réseau des femmes en environnement a réalisé une étude exploratoire sur le sujet. Dans le cadre de cette étude : ➾ La littérature et les données récentes sur le sujet ont brièvement été explorées; ➾ 125 articles québécois tirés de la revue de presse produite par Copticom pour sa communauté de pratique en communication climatique ont été analysés ; ➾ Dix entrevues individuelles ont été menées auprès de journalistes et de femmes expertes souvent citées dans les médias relativement à des enjeux environnementaux ou de santé. Le Réseau a été accompagné dans cette démarche par Selma Vorobief, conseillère en évaluation participative et en recherche-action.

Introduction The importance of menstrual health has been historically neglected, mostly due to taboos and misconceptions around menstruation and androcentrism within health knowledge and health systems around the world. There has also been a lack of attention on ‘period poverty’, which refers to the financial, social, cultural and political barriers to access menstrual products and education. The main aim of this research is to explore menstrual health and experiences of period poverty among young people who menstruate (YPM). Methods and analysis This is a convergent mixed-methods study, which will combine a quantitative transversal study to identify the prevalence of period poverty among YPM (11–16 years old), and a qualitative study that will focus on exploring menstruation-related experiences of YPM and other groups (young people who do not menstruate (YNM); primary healthcare professionals; educators and policy-makers). The study will be conducted in the Barcelona metropolitan area between 2020 and 2021. Eighteen schools and 871 YPM will be recruited for the quantitative study. Sixty-five YPM will participate in the qualitative study. Forty-five YNM and 12 professionals will also be recruited to take part in the qualitative study. Socioeconomic and cultural diversity will be main vectors for recruitment, to ensure the findings are representative to the social and cultural context. Descriptive statistics will be performed for each variable to identify asymmetric distributions and differences among groups will be evaluated. Thematic analysis will be used for qualitative data analyses Ethics and dissemination Several ethical issues have been considered, especially as this study includes the participation of underage participants. The study has received ethical approval by the IDIAPJGol Research Ethics Committee (19/178 P). Research findings will be disseminated to key audiences, such as YPM, YNM, parents/legal tutors, health professionals, educators, youth (and other relevant) organisations, general community members, stakeholders and policy-makers, and academia.