conduct a case study regarding the gender and development

The Latest Evidence on Gender and Development

David evans.

Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2016

Critical gender studies and international development studies: interdisciplinarity, intellectual agility and inclusion

• Yvonne Underhill-Sem 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  2 , Article number:  16012 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

4223 Accesses

2 Citations

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies

Critical gender studies and international development studies are both interdisciplinary, but intellectual agility can ensure they are inclusive sites of knowledge production. To develop intellectual agility, which underpins progressive interdisciplinarity, students must paradoxically venture into more closely defined disciplinary traditions in the social sciences, the humanities and the sciences. Intellectual agility begins by being fully cognizant of epistemological and theoretical framings in substantive debates, such as, for instance, the perpetuation of violence against women or the entrenchment of poverty. I argue that by explicitly tethering ideas to disciplinary traditions, interdisciplinary research and teaching can more successfully address pressing international development concerns in an inclusive manner. International development studies can easily be seen as utilitarian and instrumental just as critical gender studies can easily be seen as impractical and vague. Here, I show how I have worked critical gender studies into international development studies so that students can develop intellectual agility. Underpinning this is the call for progressive interdisciplinary research and teaching delinked from the defensive claims of long-standing scholarly traditions or the aspirational ambitions of newly cast bodies of knowledge. This article is published as part of a thematic collection dedicated to multi- and interdisciplinary perspectives on gender studies.

Sow (2002) in her remarkable piece on President Leopold Sedar Senghor, who in 1960 became the first president of Senegal, succinctly articulates the tensions of post-colonial African feminism. She celebrates his success as a poet in scripting the beautiful poem Black Woman . At the same time, she notes that he was ushering his country into the complexities of a post-colonial world. Sow writes that even in his success, he also deeply disappoints. Her article elegantly shows how a critical feminist scholar navigates disciplinary knowledge in the humanities and social sciences to powerfully depict the gendered context and processes of a post-colonial moment that ultimately contributed to entrenched gender inequality in Senegal. Although written in the colonial language of French, the message in the English version that my students read is clear: to address the deep structures of gender oppression, it is important to understand gender relations, structural inequality and patriarchal privilege. And to do this one must learn to be intellectual agile—a feature I would argue is fundamental to wide interdisciplinary studies ( Kelly, 1996 ).

This text welcomes my students to an introductory graduate course in a small postgraduate programme, simply titled “Gender and Development”, and signals the need for interdisciplinarity and agile thinking. Throughout the course, students read philosophy, anthropology, sociology, politics and economics, and my own discipline of geography. Part way through the course, students raise routine concerns. “When are we going to learn how to do gender analysis?”, or “I have been doing gender analysis in my organization for many years and I am still waiting to see how this is relevant?”. However, after 12 weeks of reading and discussing material from different disciplines, students start developing the intellectual agility needed to begin to do interdisciplinary research in international development studies with a critical gender lens. This is research that tackles problems such as engrained poverty and gender-based violence, both of which require multi-dimensional responses because of entrenched power dynamics that perpetuate and sustain inequalities. Importantly in international development studies, there is a strong imperative to suggest “interventions”—polices or programmes that go some way to alleviate problems. Sometime these are pragmatic and instrumental; sometimes they offer nuanced guidance for cognitive transformation. Dealing with a range of possible responses is a common challenge both in international development studies and critical gender studies, and this challenge is why students need to become agile intellectuals. They need to be able to read across disciplinary boundaries, integrate their learnings and become strategic in their proposed solutions. These are key features in the burgeoning area of interdisciplinary studies in all its different forms ( Klein, 2009 ; Repko et al., 2014 ).

Moreover, students begin to learn that to be “change agents” also requires intellectual agility ( Kesby, 2005 ). While more time in class would fully ground this agility into practice, being introduced to this agility is undoubtedly the beginning of critical international development studies. This agility allows students to deconstruct what seems evident before reconstructing in ways that makes possible diverse options. Critical gender studies are central to this process of developing agile thinking. It is another interdisciplinary area of study, but in contrast to the instrumentalism that dominates international development studies the imperative is criticality as intellectual and social practice ( Danvers, 2015 ). As a body of knowledge, critical gender studies “speaks truth to power” in its many dimensions ( Woodward and Woodward, 2015 ) that allows for wide-ranging challenges such as to neoclassical economics, which continues to dominate mainstream international development policies and practices ( Mohanty, 2003 ). This is also evident in pointed critiques of the gender smart economics that are promoted by the World Bank ( Chant and Sweetman, 2012 ).

Critical gender thinking in international development studies can emerge in many and various ways. Embodied experiences, like brutal rapes ( Lodhia, 2015 ), can reveal the complexities of inequality and injustice in widespread public mobilizations. Solidarity politics, like support for the Chibok school girls abducted in Nigeria, can throw into sharp relief post-colonial politics of differently situated and distant support ( Khoja-Moolji, 2015 ). Affective technologies ( Schwittay and Boocock, 2015 ) can present imperatives to engage with the business of development as a stranger. Notwithstanding the long-standing antitheory critique of international development studies, I argue that international development studies programmes that engage with critical gender thinking can train agile thinkers. This would mean presenting paradoxical situations, inviting clarity on one’s positionality and recognizing partiality in all responses. And, this is vital for rethinking international development policies and practices in the increasingly paradoxical and unjust post-colonial world, where theory and ethics must make explicit how practices of international development are framed.

Critical international development studies: gender and development

International development studies programmes and courses have expanded enormously in over the last decade and especially those focused on gender and development. Targeted degrees are offered in a range of related fields such as gender violence and conflict, gender analysis in international development and gender, development and globalization. Fracturing a broad area of study into specified degrees enhances technical expertise in gender and development at the same time as it contributes to the expansion of postgraduate education in modern “neoliberalizing” universities ( Shore and Davidson, 2014 ). Further, courses are shared online for wider consumption. There is a democratic value in this sharing; however, the irreplaceable value of face-to-face engagement is overlooked. Given that mainstream international development policy-making and practice often occurs at vast social, economic, political and cultural distances, face-to-face engagement is critical for its effect on progressive knowledge production.

In this context, the postgraduate classroom that includes students who are diversely situated with respect to language, race, sexual orientation, religion, class and gender can be seen as a special space for learning about international development practice. Students can engage face-to-face with each other and this allows for the relational and dynamic dimensions of personal ethical engagement to be experienced and conceptualized. Observing this engagement lead me to think more carefully about the notion and effect of intellectual agility as a process. Importantly, this reflection highlighted the different kinds of interdisciplinarity produced by international development studies (the study of the processes of change that lead to global poverty, inequality and the accompanying social, cultural and political transformations) and critical gender studies (the study of gender and sexuality and how it intersects with other social identities).

Partnerships have long been critically scrutinized in international development ever since they were seen as addressing the problems of participation and implementation ( Pattberg and Widerberg, 2014 ). At the same time there is a steady flow of analysis that continually redeems the concept of partnership based on the particularities of successful partnerships (for example, Impey and Overton, 2014 ). In international development practice, partnerships just do not seem to go away. Part of the reason for this persistence, I argue, is the imperative of the relational dimension of “partnering” between “actors”—the affects of engagement. These include emotions of compassion, anger, guilt and determination.

To fully understand the relational dimension of partnerships in international development, we need to understand the ongoing process by which “new” actors and new subjectivities in development come to be ( Underhill-Sem, 2012 ). But it also requires understanding the paradox of partnering in development that allows for both being “part of” and being “apart from” ( Noxolo et al., 2012 )—in this case, a postgraduate class on gender and development. This post-colonial reading of the practice of partnering is particularly pertinent to the notion of inclusive international development. “Inclusion” has become a notable emerging qualifier, somewhat like “social” capital, at a time when the United Nations is launching its new international development agenda with 17 Sustainable Development Goals. International development “actors” are important in this new agenda as material embodied persona through which they must moderate themselves and their intersecting identities. However, the subject positions in this terrain are constituted by discourses and practices of international development, which create subtle ambiguities that are intimately entangled in international development processes ( Underhill-Sem, 2012 ). As “new” subjectivities form sense-making groups, or collectivities, these simultaneously create both hegemonic and progressive economic and political projects ( Ibid .). It is therefore an ongoing process of working out the relational, affective and dynamic dimensions of partnering with new subjectivities that supports the notion of “partnerships” to flourish despite the constant criticism of them as a mode of international development.

Fortunately, my classes in gender and development have long been constituted by a very diverse group of students and have had to work through similar kinds of relational, affective and dynamic dimensions of partnering. My last class of 14 students included a woman and a man from Bangladesh, a woman from each of the following countries—Cambodia, China, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Philippines and Tonga—and five women from New Zealand. We also had a man from Colombia. Their disciplinary backgrounds included sociology, politics, anthropology, social work, psychology, economics and geography. They had work experience in large NGOs, small NGOs, and a range of government departments and their previous degrees ranged from international relations to social welfare. Their ethnic, social and cultural backgrounds varied as did their family situations, religious background and life experiences. They were keen students but also committed to working in the international development field and amenable to becoming intellectually agile.

One way to develop students’ intellectual agility while making the links between working in diverse groups, the practice of partnering and international development was to begin with a close reading of interdisciplinary scholarship, such as that by Sow. Unsurprisingly responses to reading Sow were diverse. Diverse response became even more apparent in a discussion about body politics initiated by a reading of disciplinary discrete scholarship (see also Lacey and Smits, 2015 ). Each person considered their understanding of transgender identities and the expressions of this in daily public life. Collectively there was agreement with a rights-based argument of inclusion. However, there was expressed personal discomfort from some students about sharing a public bathroom with someone who does not “belong” to that gendered space. This took us back to considering the nature of sex/gender systems ( Rubin, 1975 ). In particular, we discussed how these systems move across space and through different cultural and religious codes of conducts. The challenge for many students was to consider progressive codes intellectually and in different places. In the course of 2 hours, our discussion ranged from a parochial debate on the practice and challenges of rights-based policy in a New Zealand university, to the careful consideration of transgender identities and experiences, to the discomfort of personally confronting one’s own practice and preference, and back to the intellectual underpinnings of how to think through the tensions of converging or diverging sentiments around a critical gender issue in international development.

Inclusive research, policy and practice require the agile intellectual engagements with paradoxical issues ( Underhill-Sem et al., 2014 ) and this requires partnering. This practice can be developed in university courses but I argue not without theory and not without a particular kind of ethics. Interdisciplinarity in critical gender studies heightens this kind of scholarly engagement because it requires a constant reframing of the issue. In a post-colonial development world where the layers of complicity are complex and multiple, this is especially pertinent. While the notion of framing requires attention to exclusionary processes ( Fraser, 2009 ), it is central to the intellectual partnering of critical gender studies with international development studies.

Rubin’s (1975) thinking on sex/gender systems is a critical part of the course. While some students struggle with the wide scope of work that she engages with, it is useful for two reasons. First, it disturbs a key notion in gender and international development thinking and advocacy—namely, patriarchy. It does this by critically analysing the Marxist canon from which emerge the concepts of patriarchy, “oppression” and “submission” that have long-structured advocacy around gender inequality. However, this is an intellectually disruptive action not an outright dismissive one because these concepts have relevance in some places and times. For me, notions of industrial capitalism and especially women’s labour as a commodity did not sit comfortably with my intellectual sense-making and lived experience of gender inequality in the Pacific (see Josephides, 1985 ). However, recent engagements with capitalism in the Pacific resonate more tunefully ( McCormack and Barclay, 2013 ), although Hirsch (2014 : 78) cogently argues that “there are limitations to all analytical ideas” and even “Foucault among the Melanesianists will surely continue to provoke debate”.

The second reason Rubin is useful is that it offers an alternative conceptual framework that requires close consideration of historical and cultural contexts. Increasingly the historical dimension of international development is fading from contemporary accounts of global inequality and injustice. At the same time new cultural complexes are emerging. Both have critical implications for women. Rubin’s feminist scholarly text combines a number of analytical ideas from anthropology, politics, philosophy and psychology that invite a critical interdisciplinary analytic. It requires readers to engage, disengage and then regroup their ideas around an emerging argument. It is a less ideologically disputable framework than, for instance, a patriarchy-focused one, or a human capital one. This provides students with a theoretical platform to rest on lightly as they learn that theoretical discomfort is part of the interdisciplinarity of both critical gender studies and international development studies.

A shared feminist ethics of practice is also an important imperative in critical gender studies and international development studies. The key principles of feminist ethics of practice are mutual respect, recognition of differences, commitment to non-hierarchical modes of organization, an obligation to care and intergenerational transfers of knowledge and power ( Cave et al., 2012 ). Teaching as a space of ethical decision-making—as a social practice—must also embrace these principles and this space is possible with care ethics inspired by intersectionality ( Hankivsky, 2014 ). This practice is an important component of my seminar teaching. Rarely do I know much about my students when they arrive in my class so work is needed to make the space safe for everyone. This commitment to care in the classroom has demonstrable effects in the challenging but productive discussions that emerge in the course of the semester.

This is also what makes the seminar room an interesting site for learning about international development practice. It is routine practice in the international development sector to engage with many and diverse peoples, using different languages and with everyone having varying concerns and priorities. To be productive in such spaces, international development practitioners need to deliver a range of outcomes, some more and some less explicit. Students in a postgraduate course are not expected to actually deliver such outcomes; however, their experience in such settings can go beyond internalizing the sensibilities promoted by seminar discussions.

The degree to which the contributions that students in my classes make towards progressive social change rests heavily on their ability to be intellectually agile, explicitly inclusive and personally tolerant. As an area of research and practice, international development studies easily becomes complicit with the machinery that contributed to the emergence of “development” in the first place ( Escobar, 2012 ). Salaries, research funding and other financial inducements combine with the affective power of helping less-privileged others to confuse critical community collaborations ( Cave et al., 2012 ) from which the scholarly study of international development must be based. Fortunately, increasingly reflective and critical feminist analysis is keeping open the space for such a work (see, for example, Nagar, 2014 ). These innovative spaces are not without tension. My own experience of discomfort is due to the interdisciplinary nature of international development studies, albeit in an instrumental form, and gender studies, specifically in its critical form ( Huutoniemi et al., 2010 ). Both have, at times, been untenable, argumentative and compromising. One untenable situation was when the uneven depth of conceptual engagement in critical feminist scholarship in a research group led to the withdrawal of some contributions. One argumentative situation arose because the attribution of ideas was contested between those who make their living as writers and those who do not so that in the end authorship was acronymized. One compromised situation was where despite a commitment to a collective feminist hybrid writing style, the emotive expression when describing empirical material was constantly kerbed ( Underhill-Sem et al., 2014 ).

I have found a shared feminist politics useful in overcoming disciplinary tensions that arise from efforts to work in an interdisciplinary fashion with colleagues who have backgrounds in sociology, anthropology, history, politics, philosophy, planning and operations research, and my own subject area of geography. Working with colleagues from the physical sciences has been notably less successful, despite advances in this area (see Schiebinger and Schraudner, 2011 ) and even though the compounding inequalities of gender are becoming more apparent in climate change science in the Pacific. Widespread scholarly grounding presents the possibility for intellectual agility in the interdisciplinary fields of critical gender studies and international development studies. This can be further nuanced by the lived experience or acknowledged heritage in the places under scrutiny. This invites consideration of another area of progressive or even radical interdisciplinarity ( Holm et al., 2013 )—one that deals with indigenous worldviews and non-human agency. But that is another paper.

Additional information

How to cite this article : Underhill-Sem Y (2016) Critical gender studies and international development studies: interdisciplinarity, intellectual agility and inclusion. Palgrave Communications ; 2:16012 doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.12.

Cave J, Johnston L, Morrison C and Underhill-Sem Y (2012) Community-university collaborations: Creating hybrid research and collective identities. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online ; 7 (1): 37–50.

Google Scholar  

Chant S and Sweetman C (2012) Fixing women or fixing the world? ‘Smart economics’, efficiency approaches, and gender equality in development. Gender & Development ; 20 (3): 517–529.

Article   Google Scholar  

Danvers EC (2015) Criticality’s affective entanglements: Rethinking emotion and critical thinking in higher education. Gender and Education ; 28 (2): 1–16.

Escobar A (2012) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World . Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fraser N (2009) Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World . Columbia University Press: New York.

Hankivsky O (2014) Rethinking care ethics: On the promise and potential of an intersectional analysis. American Political Science Review ; 108 (2): 252–264.

Hirsch E (2014) Foucault among the Melanesianists. Oceania ; 84 (1): 69–79.

Holm P et al. (2013) Collaboration between the natural, social and human sciences in global change research. Environmental Science & Policy ; 28 (1): 25–35.

Huutoniemi K, Klein JT, Bruun H and Hukkinen J (2010) Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy ; 39 (1): 79–88.

Impey K and Overton J (2014) Developing partnerships: The assertion of local control of international development volunteers in South Africa. Community Development Journal ; 49 (1): 111–128.

Josephides L (1985) The Production of Inequality: Gender and Exchange among the Kewa . Tavistock: London.

Kelly JS (1996) Wide and narrow interdisciplinarity. The Journal of General Education ; 45 (2): 95–113.

Kesby M (2005) Retheorising empowerment-through-participation as a performance in space: Beyond the tyranny to transformation. Signs ; 30 (4): 2038–2065.

Khoja-Moolji S (2015) Becoming an “intimate publics”: Exploring the affective intensities of hashtag feminism. Feminist Media Studies ; 15 (2): 347–350.

Klein JT (2009) Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures: A Model for Strength and Sustainability . John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco.

Lacey A and Smits K (2015) Reflections from the field: Teaching feminism/teaching as a feminist in politics departments. Women’s Studies Journal ; 29 (1): 56.

Lodhia S (2015) From “living corpse” to India’s daughter: Exploring the social, political and legal landscape of the 2012 Delhi gang rape. Women’s Studies International Forum ; 50 (1): 89–101.

McCormack F and Barclay K (2013) Insights on capitalism from Oceania. Research in Economic Anthropology ; 33 (1): 1–27.

Mohanty CT (2003) “Under western eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles. Signs ; 28 (2): 499–535.

Nagar R (2014) Muddying the Waters: Coauthoring Feminisms across Scholarship and Activism . University of Illinois Press: Urbana, Chicago and Springfield.

Noxolo P, Raghuram P and Madge C (2012) Unsettling responsibility: Postcolonial interventions. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers ; 37 (3): 418–429.

Pattberg P and Widerberg O (2014) Transnational multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Building blocks for success, Available at SSRN 2480302, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan.

Repko AF, Szostak R and Buchberger MP (2014) Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies . Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.

Rubin G (1975) The traffic in women: Notes on the political economy of sex. Toward an Anthropology of Women ; l57–2l0.

Schiebinger L and Schraudner M (2011) Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews ; 36 (2): 154–167.

Schwittay A and Boocock K (2015) Experiential and empathetic engagements with global poverty: ‘Live below the line so that others can rise above it’. Third World Quarterly ; 36 (2): 291–305.

Shore CN and Davidson M (2014) Beyond collusion and resistance: Academic-management relations within the neoliberal university. Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences (LATISS) ; 7 (1): 12–28.

Sow F (2002) Rethinking African Development: And What if Women Had a Say in It. General Assembly distinguished lectures, Kampala, 2002. Texts of the Cheikh Anta Diop, Claude Ake and Leopold Sedar Senghor Lectures delivered at the CODESRIA 10th General Assembly held in Kampala, Uganda in December, pp 37–51.

Underhill-Sem Y (2012) Contract scholars, friendly philanthropists and feminist activists: New development subjects in the Pacific. Third World Quarterly ; 33 (6): 1095–1112.

Underhill‐Sem Y, Cox E, Lacey A and Szamier M (2014) Changing market culture in the pacific: Assembling a conceptual framework from diverse knowledge and experiences. Asia Pacific Viewpoint ; 55 (3): 306–318.

Woodward K and Woodward S (2015) Gender studies and interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Communications ; 1 , 15018 10.1057/palcomms.2015.18.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Development Studies, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Yvonne Underhill-Sem

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Underhill-Sem, Y. Critical gender studies and international development studies: interdisciplinarity, intellectual agility and inclusion. Palgrave Commun 2 , 16012 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.12

Download citation

Received : 26 January 2016

Accepted : 29 March 2016

Published : 26 April 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.12

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Case Study: Gender and Enterprise Development in Africa

• First Online: 30 March 2019

Cite this chapter

• Keren Naa Abeka Arthur 3  

620 Accesses

This chapter explores the question of how female micro entrepreneurs can transition into transformational entrepreneurs. Using case studies, the chapter draws on the experiences of successful women entrepreneurs who have succeeded in growing their businesses from micro enterprises into impactful ones. In addition, the chapter conducts a cross-case analysis and highlights lessons learnt for policy making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

This case was written using primary data collected through an interview with Anita Osei-Assibey.

This case was written using data from secondary sources. Below is a list of sources referred to: Iwuoha, John-Paul. 2013a. Bimbeads Concept: How a bead jewelry making hobby became a million naira business. 14 March 2013. http://www.smallstarter.com/get-inspired/bimbeads-concept/ (Accessed 30 August 2018); https://bimbeads.com (Accessed 30 August 2018); BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation. 2012. The Nigerian woman who sold two necklaces and never looked back. 22 June 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-18535002 (Accessed 30 August 2018).

This case was written using data from secondary sources. Below is a list of sources referred to: Iwuoha, John-Paul. 2013b. Faustina Sakyi – The Ghanaian cassava farmer who turned her world around. 14 March 2013. http://www.smallstarter.com/get-inspired/faustina-sakyi/ (Accessed 30 August 2018); Samil, Roxanna. 2010. Ghana has another Yaa Asantewaa: A powerful lady cassava producer and community leader sets up shop in rural Ghana. 9 November 2010. ifad-un.blogspot.com/2010/11/ghana-has-another-yaa-asantewaa.html (Accessed 30 August 2018).

This case was written using data from secondary sources. Below is a list of sources referred to: Iwuoha, John-Paul. 2013c. Pigfarming. How this business is changing lives in Africa and everything you need to start your own. 23 August 2013. http://www.smallstarter.com/get-inspired/how-to-start-pig-farming-in-africa/ (Accessed 30 August 2018); Gospel, Emeka. 2018. How Anna Phosa Became one of Africa’s Biggest Pig Farmer. February 26, 2018. https://myafribusiness.com/anna-phosa-became-one-africas-biggest-pig-farmers/ (Accessed 31 August 2018).

This case was written using data from secondary sources. Below is a list of sources referred to: http://paulinecosmetics.com (Accessed 31 August 2018); Genga, Shirley. 2013. Homegrown Beauty. http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/lifestyle/ssrticle/2000093551/homegrown-beauty (Accessed 31 August 2018); Bizna. 2017. My Entrepreneurial story as The Founder and CEO of Pauline Cosmetics. 31 October 2017. https://biznakenya.com/entrepreneurial-story-founder-ceo-pauline-cosmetics/ (Accessed 31 August 2018).

Ardagna, S., & Lusardi, A. (2010). Explaining International Differences in Entrepreneurship: The Role of Individual Characteristics and Regulatory Constraints. In J. Lerner & A. Schoar (Eds.), International Differences in Entrepreneurship . Chicago: University of Chicago Press (for NBER).

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2009). The Miracle of Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation . Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Google Scholar  

de Mel, S., McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2005). Returns to Capital in Microenterprises: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123 (4), 1329–1372.

Article   Google Scholar  

Henry, C., Foss, L., & Ahl, H. (2015). Gender and Entrepreneurship Research: A Review of Methodological Approaches. International Small Business Journal, 34 (3), 1–25.

Jenssen, J. I. (2001). Social Networks, Resources and Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2 , 103–109.

Maas, G., Jones, P., & Lockyer, J. (2016). Position Paper: International Centre for Transformational Entrepreneurship . Working Paper. Coventry: Coventry University.

Marmer, M. (2012). Transformational Entrepreneurship: Where Technology Meets Social Impact. Harvard Business Review .

Meyskens, M. I., Elaine, A., & Brush, C. G. (2011). Human Capital and Hybrid Ventures. In G. T. Lumpkin & J. A. Katz (Eds.), Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Volume 13) (pp. 51–72). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Minniti, M. (2009). Gender Issues in Entrepreneurship. Foundation and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5 (7–8), 497–621.

Schoar, A. (2010). The Divide Between Subsistence and Transformational Entrepreneurship . National Bureau of Economic Research. Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11765 , pp. 57–81.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

Keren Naa Abeka Arthur

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keren Naa Abeka Arthur .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

International Centre for Transformational Entrepreneurship, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

Gideon Maas

School of Management, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Arthur, K.N.A. (2019). Case Study: Gender and Enterprise Development in Africa. In: Maas, G., Jones, P. (eds) Transformational Entrepreneurship Practices. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11524-1_4

Published : 30 March 2019

Publisher Name : Palgrave Pivot, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-11523-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-11524-1

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

Focus On Ethics: Gender Expression and Identity

You are here

We are pleased to have guest editor Katie Schaffer’s help in addressing this sensitive and timely issue. Katie brings extensive knowledge and insight regarding gender issues to this column.

Four-year-old Michael usually comes to school in jeans and a T-shirt but always goes to the dress-up area as soon as he arrives and puts on a dress or skirt.

On the day his mother was volunteering in the classroom, he walked in and immediately put on a ballerina skirt and sparkly shoes. She firmly told him to take them off and instead put on the firefighter’s hat and boots, try on the cowboy hat, or do “something that boys do.” Michael complied with his mother’s demand but soon left the dramatic play area.

When the children went outside to play, Michael’s mother told Ana, Michael’s teacher, that he consistently plays female roles at home and shows little interest in toys and activities typically associated with boys. She and her husband were very concerned about his behavior, and she asked Ana not to allow Michael to play with any “girl stuff” at school.

Ana also has observed that Michael strongly prefers playing with girls and chooses activities that are stereotypically feminine, like having tea parties and wearing dress-up clothes that have lots of ribbons and sequins. He also frequently tells the other children that he is really a girl and that he wants to be called “Michelle.”

Ana knows that some children begin to persistently identify with a gender different from their assigned sex at a very young age (Ehrensaft 2011; Fox 2015). (See “Glossary of Terms” for definitions of words and phrases used in this column.) She is also aware that the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct strongly supports maintaining close, collaborative relationships with families and respecting their child-rearing and cultural preferences. What is her most ethical response?

Responding to the issue

This scenario is similar to the one described in the Focus on Ethics column “Don’t Let My Son Dress Up as a Girl!” in the September 2017 issue of Young Children . In both cases, there is a conflict between a family’s request that its son not be allowed to engage in stereotypically feminine activities in school and a teacher’s belief that it is best for children to be encouraged to choose the activities that are most meaningful to them.

Our role as educators is to create a safe and reflective space for children to develop their identities and to counterbalance gender stereotypes.

Despite the similarities, there are some important differences between these two scenarios. Like Victor (the child described in the September 2017 column), many boys are fascinated by glittery clothing and enjoy playing a variety of roles—including feminine ones—in the dramatic play area. Michael’s interest in “girl stuff,” however, is not limited to playing with clothes and roles. Michael consistently gravitates to female-assigned pursuits, identifies as a girl, and asks to be called by a girl’s name. These are examples of how Michael’s gender expression (how a person shows their gender to the world through external choices) is currently gender nonconforming (it does not follow prevailing cultural and social expectations about what is appropriate for their gender). Michael may be—or ultimately identify as— trans or transgender (a person whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned at birth).

While there is nothing new about gender nonconforming behavior in early childhood settings, advice for how educators can best handle conflicting perspectives has been scarce or absent, and resources to help teachers work with children and their families on this issue have not been readily available (Kilman 2013).

As in previous columns, we will use the process described in Ethics and the Early Childhood Educator (Feeney & Freeman 2018) to systematically apply the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct (2011) to this situation. We will then consider the unique challenges presented by this case and explore some resources that might be helpful to teachers and administrators who are working with children like Michael and their families.

Our analysis is informed by contributions from students in the ECE 200, The Professional in Early Childhood Education, class at Portland Community College in Portland, Oregon; participants at the June 2018 NAEYC Professional Learning Institute in Austin, Texas; Briel Schmitz, head of Spruce Street School in Seattle, Washington; and Rabbi Meir Muller, assistant professor of early childhood education at the University of South Carolina and head of Cutler Jewish Day School in Columbia, South Carolina. We thank them for contributing to this analysis.

We begin with the first two steps of the process we use to address a workplace issue.

Identify the problem and determine if it involves ethics

This situation involves ethics because Ana must decide the right course of action to support a gender nonconforming or trans child and the child’s concerned family.

Determine if it is an ethical responsibility or an ethical dilemma

While we noticed similarities between Michael and Victor (from our 2017 column), we came to appreciate that Ana faced a more challenging situation than Victor’s teacher. She needed to respect Michael’s preferences while working effectively and sensitively with his parents.

After presenting the scenario to two groups of early childhood educators and doing some research and reflection, we came to the conclusion that Ana is facing an ethical responsibility (a situation with just one morally justified course of action), not an ethical dilemma (a situation for which there is more than one possible resolution, which can be justified in moral terms). Because we consider it an ethical responsibility to respect children’s gender self-determination, we will refer to Michael using her chosen name, Michelle, and chosen gender pronouns, she/her, for the remainder of the article.

Glossary of Terms

Assigned sex: The label given at birth—usually male or female —based on a variety of factors (usually genitalia, but sometimes also hormones and chromosomes). The term assigned at birth acknowledges that someone (often a doctor) is making a decision but there is far more biological, anatomical, and chromosomal variation than captured by the binary labels of male and female .

Gender: A social construct that categorizes and labels societal and cultural expectations (i.e., gender norms) for how people of different assigned sexes (and thus assigned genders) are supposed to act. Gender varies over time and from place to place.

Gender identity: How a person self-identifies their gender, which may include man , woman , genderqueer , or other gender identities. A person’s understanding of their gender identity can begin as early as age 2.

Gender expression: The way in which a person expresses their gender identity, typically through their appearance, affect, behavior, and activities.

Gender nonconforming: A term to describe a person whose behavior or appearance does not follow prevailing cultural and social expectations about what is appropriate to their assigned gender (and thus assigned sex). Some people who position their gender outside of a man/woman binary describe their gender as gender nonconforming or genderqueer .

Trans or transgender: A self-identification of a person whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex. For example, someone who was assigned female at birth but identifies as male might use the term transman .

Cis or cisgender: A person whose gender identity is the same as their assigned sex. For example, if the doctor said “It’s a boy,” and the child continues to identify as a boy/man, then he is cis or a cisman. People who are not trans are, therefore, cis.

Queer: A term that allows individuals to avoid the rigid categorization of straight and gay , and can indicate an attraction to people of many genders. For some, queer is also a political statement, expressing rejection of binary thinking and asserting that sexual orientation and gender identity are complex and potentially fluid. Although historically a derogatory term, queer has been reclaimed by many communities to have a positive connotation.

Sexuality: Sexuality is not just about sex. It is about individuals’ bodies, genders, feelings, relationships, and ways of experiencing intimacy. In this context, children’s healthy sexual development involves learning about their bodies, feelings, and relationships. Sexuality can also refer to sexual feelings, thoughts, attractions, and preferences. Sexual orientation often refers to whom we are sexually attracted. Some common terms for sexuality include bi (or bisexual ), gay , straight , and queer .

Guidance from the NAEYC Code

Let’s look at the guidance the NAEYC Code provides for this decision.

The groups who discussed this situation both concluded that they could not justify forbidding a child to behave in ways that express her strongly held sense of self and that, therefore, they could not comply with this family’s request to keep her from activities associated with girls or femininity. They agreed that Ana’s primary responsibility was to Michelle, and that she needed to honor Michelle’s ways of expressing her identity. The groups also emphasized the importance of Ana listening carefully to the family’s concerns and treating them with understanding and respect.

Some noted that Ana might feel she lacks the expertise to respond confidently to this situation. They recommended that she work closely with her director and seek out other knowledgeable professionals. Together, they could help her prepare to share information about young children’s developing gender identity with Michelle’s family, helping them understand their child’s request to be identified as a girl and to engage in play that she finds meaningful. For suggestions on how to engage families and respond to some of their concerns, see “ Practical Guidance for Teachers: Supporting the Families of Gender Nonconforming Children ”. It would also be important that Ana and the director work with the program’s other teachers and families to help them accept Michelle’s gender identity with kindness and understanding.

The Code’s Core Values, Ideals, and Principles

Respondents to this case found that the Code’s Core Values, Ideals, and Principles offered guidance that would help Ana address this family’s concerns. They noted, in particular, educators’ responsibilities to children and the importance of nurturing positive relationships with families. The following excerpts from the Code are those most applicable to this situation.

Core Values

• Base our work on knowledge of how children develop and learn
• Appreciate and support the bond between the child and family
• Respect the dignity, worth, and uniqueness of each individual (child, family member, and colleague)
• Recognize that children and adults achieve their full potential in the context of relationships that are based on trust and respect

I-1.2 —To base program practices upon current knowledge and research in the field of early childhood education, child development, and related disciplines, as well as on particular knowledge of each child.

I-1.3 —To recognize and respect the unique qualities, abilities, and potential of each child.

I-1.5 —To create and maintain safe and healthy settings that foster children’s social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development and that respect their dignity and their contributions.

I-2.2 —To develop relationships of mutual trust and create partnerships with the families we serve.

I-2.5 —To respect the dignity and preferences of each family and to make an effort to learn about its structure, culture, language, customs, and beliefs.

I-2.6 —To acknowledge families’ childrearing values and their right to make decisions for their children.

I-2.8 —To help family members enhance their understanding of their children . . . and support family members in the continuing development of their skills as parents.

P-1.1—Above all, we shall not harm children. We shall not participate in practices that are emotionally damaging, physically harmful, disrespectful, degrading, dangerous, exploitative, or intimidating to children. This principle has precedence over all others in this Code.

P-1.4 —We shall use two-way communications to involve all those with relevant knowledge (including families and staff) in decisions concerning a

child, as appropriate, ensuring confidentiality of sensitive information.

P-2.4 —We shall ensure that the family is involved in significant decisions affecting their child.

P-2.6 —As families share information with us about their children and families, we shall ensure that families’ input is an important contribution to the planning and implementation of the program.

The Code offers strong justification for a teacher to base her actions on the needs of the child and for honoring the family’s childrearing values and agreeing to their request. However, the Code also points educators toward putting the wellbeing of the child above all other concerns. P-1.1 takes precedence over all other items in the Code and supports Ana’s decision to place the highest priority on the best interests of the child.

Guidance for the director

These items from the Code’s Supplement for Program Administrators (2011) provide additional guidance for the director who is helping Ana address this issue:

P-1.1—We shall place the welfare and safety of children above other obligations (for example, to families, program personnel, employing agency, community). This item takes precedence over all others in this Supplement.

I-2.2 —To serve as a resource for families by providing information and referrals to services in the larger community.

P-2.10 —We shall respond to families’ requests to the extent that the requests are congruent with program philosophy, standards of good practice, and the resources of the program. We shall not honor any request that puts a child in a situation that would create physical or emotional harm. In such instances, we shall communicate with the family the reason(s) why the request was not honored and work toward an alternative solution.

Reflecting on the case

Gender curiosity in children is not a recent phenomenon. Young children have always engaged in various forms of gender play, exploration, and identification. However, in recent years there has been greater recognition of the range of ways that individuals can express their gender identity and significantly more representation of trans people and communities in mainstream media. While this has opened up space for conversations about gender nonconforming and trans-identified children, some adults (including some educators, parents, grandparents) still attempt to stop the behavior (as in the case of Michelle’s parents) or attempt to rigidly categorize the behavior (assuming they can predict the child’s ultimate identity).

It is important to note that in US society today, children who are assigned male at birth receive more intense gender scrutiny than children who are assigned female at birth. For instance, girls are often encouraged by their parents to explore and participate in games traditionally associated with boys. These children are often celebrated as “strong” and “independent.” However, when boys express interests in activities associated with girls, they are typically reprimanded, ostracized, or identified as problematic. This double standard stems from a culture that often demeans behavior associated with women and femininity.

This case warrants particularly careful consideration because of the potential lifelong consequences of respecting or refusing to respect Michelle’s view of herself. It is important that the adults in Michelle’s life be willing to honor who she says she is. Denying children the opportunity to express themselves by forcing them to accept adults’ views of gender-appropriate behavior is likely to damage relationships and the children’s sense of self, in addition to making their lives more difficult.

Teachers working with families who are concerned about how their children are expressing their gender identity need to be flexible and well prepared. It may be helpful to refresh their knowledge of child development, specifically identity development as it relates to concepts of gender. Gender is varied and dynamic. All of us express our gender differently over the course of our lives; children should be encouraged and supported to play, explore, and define the gender that feels right to them at the time (without an expectation of day-to-day or month-to-month consistency). Our role as educators is to create a safe and reflective space for children to develop their interests and identities and to counterbalance pervasive gender stereotypes.

Flexibility and preparation are also essential for supporting families. The most important thing that a teacher or director can do with families is listen carefully and try to understand their concerns. Some families may be worried about their children’s future school experiences during their middle childhood and teen years. They may be seeking assurance that their children will be safe, happy, and well adjusted. Other families may be interested in knowing if there is research that indicates that a transgender child can grow into a confident and well-adjusted adult. Families with strong religious or cultural beliefs that do not support gender nonconformity need to feel that their perspectives are being heard.

Teachers also need to have appropriate resources in mind for families, knowing that different families will be best supported in different ways. Some will be interested in reading scientific literature; others may just need someone to listen to and reassure them. At times, it may be appropriate to refer the family to a community resource person who is skilled in addressing questions of gender and sexual expression.

It may be helpful to remind family members that the ultimate goal is preserving their positive long-term relationships with their child. By sharing current information on child development, teachers may point out that there are things about the child that the family can neither change nor control. While they can’t change their child’s gender identity, they do have the power to strengthen the relationship by being loving and supportive no matter how their child self-identifies. (For more specifics to help you work effectively with families, see pages 91–93.)

As we pointed out in our September 2017 column about a father’s disapproval of his son dressing up in girl’s clothing, many child-rearing values are strongly rooted in families’ cultural beliefs. Sensitive teachers must carefully balance their responsibilities to children and to their families—this can be particularly challenging when working with groups that have strong positions about appropriate gender roles. Additional challenges arise when a child’s gender preference is at odds with their family culture and values. Those situations will call for exceptional cultural navigation skills and, most likely, additional support from experts and organizations in the community. We anticipate that this topic will continue to be addressed in early childhood education.

As a teacher, you have the ability to make the world a better place for children who are gender nonconforming, are gender creative, or identify as trans. One place to start is with an inclusive classroom that supports a variety of gender expressions and avoids perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes. There are simple ways to make classrooms more inclusive, like avoiding consistently dividing children into groups by gender. For example, think about how you call children to the door. Instead of calling boys, then girls, to line up at the door, you might ask children wearing red, then blue, then green, to get ready to go outside. You can incorporate pictures, books, and dress-up materials that avoid gender stereotypes into the classroom. And you can help children move beyond traditional gender roles by encouraging girls to pretend they are firefighters and boys to role-play as nurses. If possible, make your restrooms available to all genders. Respond to children’s fears, teach children to stand up for themselves if teased for their gender expressions, and validate their gender identities as they choose to express them. Strive to help all the children and adults in your program embrace a more inclusive, less restrictive view of gender.

Resources for Teachers and Families

Books and articles for adults.

Gender Born, Gender Made: Raising Healthy Gender-Nonconforming Children. Diane Ehrensaft (2011). This developmental and clinical psychologist provides clear advice about supporting children who do not conform to society’s narrowly defined gender categories.

The Transgender Child: A Handbook for Families and Professionals. Stephanie Brill & Rachel Pepper (2008). A comprehensive resource with information to help adults guide gender-variant and transgender children.

This Is How It Always Is: A Novel. Laurie Frankel (2017). A family’s journey of learning and acceptance begins when their 3-year-old son announces that he wants to be a girl when he grows up.

“Tate and the Pink Coat: Exploring Gender and Enacting Anti-Bias Principles.” Janice Kroeger, Abigail E. Recker, and Alexandra C. Gunn. 2019. This article presents current research on the importance of gender inclusivity in early childhood classrooms and offers practical tips to help teachers support children’s explorations of gender. NAEYC.org/resources/pubs/yc/mar2019/exploring-gender-enacting-anti-bias

Gender Spectrum . This website has links to resources that help programs create gender-sensitive and inclusive environments for all children. Includes resources for children, families, and teachers, and training materials addressing a wide range of topics. www.genderspectrum.org

Teaching Tolerance . This website contains resources for educators committed to diversity, equity, and justice, including classroom and professional development materials focused on race and ethnicity, religion, ability, class, immigration, gender and sexual identity, bullying, and bias. www.tolerance.org/topics

Gender Justice in Early Childhood . This website focuses specifically on young children and offers resources and links to help educators consider their language, teaching practices, and programs from a gender justice perspective. www.genderjusticeinearlychildhood.com

Children’s books

The Boy & the Bindi , by Vivek Shraya, illus. by Rajni Perera (2016). (Ages 4–8) A 5 year-old South Asian boy is fascinated with his mother’s bindi, the colored dot commonly worn in the middle of Hindu women’s foreheads. He wants to have one of his own. His mother agrees and teaches him about its cultural significance.

Elena’s Serenade , by Campbell Gleeson (2014). (Ages 3–8) A young Mexican girl admires her father’s glassblowing and wants to follow in his footsteps. However, pointing to her size and gender, he disapproves of her aspirations. She disguises herself as a boy to learn the craft and ultimately changes her father’s views. Told in both English and Spanish, the story explores the limiting nature of gender roles and the power of children to challenge adult thinking.

Introducing Teddy, by Jessica Walton, illus. by Dougal MacPherson (2016). (Ages 3–6) Errol and his teddy bear, Thomas, are best friends who do everything together. One day, Thomas tells Errol, “In my heart, I’ve always known that I’m a girl teddy, not a boy teddy.” Errol replies, “I don’t care if you’re a girl teddy or a boy teddy! What matters is that you are my friend.”

Julián Is a Mermaid , by Jessica Love (2018). (Ages 4–8) Inspired by women he sees on the subway who are colorfully dressed as mermaids, Julián dresses up like a mermaid when he gets home. He worries about how his grandmother will respond, but she celebrates his transformation.

My Princess Boy , by Cheryl Kilodavis, illus. by Suzanne DeSimone (2009). (Ages 4–8) This story is told from the perspective of the mother of a 4-year-old boy who likes to wear dresses and enjoys things that typically appeal to girls.

Sparkle Boy , by Lesléa Newman, illus. by Maria Mola (2017). (Ages 4–8) Casey loves blocks, puzzles, and his dump truck, but he also wants to try out the shimmer skirt, glittery nails, and bracelets his sister and his grandmother wear. The adults in his life support his choices, but he worries when older boys tease him.

Ehrensaft, D. 2011. Gender Born, Gender Made: Raising Healthy Gender-Nonconforming Children . New York: The Experiment.

Feeney, S., & N.K. Freeman. 2018. Ethics and the Early Childhood Educator: Using the NAEYC Code , 3rd ed. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Feeney, S., & N.K. Freeman. 2017. “Don’t Let My Son Dress Up as a Girl! – The Response.” Focus on Ethics. Young Children 72 (4): 90–93.

Fox, R.K. 2015. “Is He a Girl? Meeting the Needs of Children Who Are Gender Fluid.” Chap. 7 in Discussions on Sensitive Issues , ed. J.A. Sutterby, 161–76. Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Kilman, C. 2013. “The Gender Spectrum: Move Beyond the Pink/ Blue Binary to Support Children Who Don’t Conform to Narrow Gender Norms.” Teaching Tolerance 44. www.tolerance.org/magazine/summer-2013/the-gender-spectrum .

NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children). 2011. “Code of Ethical Conduct and Statement of Commitment.” Position statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC. NAEYC.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/Ethics%20Position%20 Statement2011_09202013update.pdf.

NAEYC. 2011. “Code of Ethical Conduct: Supplement for Early Childhood Program Administrators.” Washington, DC: NAEYC. NAEYC.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/Supplement%20PS2011. pdf.

Photographs: © Getty Images

Stephanie Feeney, PhD, is professor emerita of education at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She is coauthor of NAEYC’s “Code of Ethical Conduct” and NAEYC’s books about professional ethics. She participated in the development of supplements to the code for adult educators and program administrators and has written extensively about ethics in early care and education. She is the author of numerous articles and books, including Professionalism in Early Childhood Education: Doing Our best for Young Children  and coauthor of Who Am I in the Lives of Children ?   [email protected]

Nancy K. Freeman, PhD, is professor emerita of education at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, where she was a member of the early childhood faculty. She has served as president of NAECTE and was a member of its board for many years. Nancy has written extensively on professional ethics since the 1990s, and has been involved in the Code’s revisions and in the development of its Supplements for Program Administrators and Adult Educators.   [email protected]

Katie Schaffer , BA, is a white, cis, queer woman dedicated to collectively envisioning and implementing liberatory educational practices. For the past six years, Katie has worked at the New York Early Childhood Professional Development Institute. Finding a dearth of teacher education courses or professional development opportunities on gender, sexuality, and LGBTQ families in early childhood settings, Katie has created a training series and built out a facilitation team that has provided support to preschools and child care centers across New York City.

Vol. 74, No. 5

Print this article

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Gender Development Research in Sex Roles : Historical Trends and Future Directions

Kristina m. zosuls.

School of Social and Family Dynamics, Program in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 873701, Tempe, AZ 85287-3701, USA

Cindy Faith Miller

School of Social and Family Dynamics, Program in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Diane N. Ruble

Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

Carol Lynn Martin

Richard a. fabes.

The late 1960s through the 1970s marked an important turning point in the field of gender research, including theory and research in gender development. The establishment of Sex Roles in 1975 as a forum for this research represented an important milestone in the field. In this article, we celebrate the 35th anniversary of Sex Roles and, in particular, its contributions to the field of research on children’s and adolescents’ gender development. We examine the trends in research on gender development published in Sex Roles since its inception and use this analysis as a vehicle for exploring how the field has grown and evolved over the past few decades. We begin with a brief review of the history of this field of research since 1975. Then, we present a descriptive assessment of articles published on gender development in Sex Roles over time, and link this assessment to general trends that have occurred in the study of gender development over the past 35 years. We conclude with a discussion of future directions for the field of gender development. In particular, we highlight areas in which the journal could play a role in promoting more diversity in topics, methods, and ages employed in gender development research.

Introduction

Even before a child is born, processes of gender socialization begin as parents prepare for their child’s arrival: do the parents allow the ultrasound technologist to tell them the sex of their baby? Does knowing this information make a difference in how parents think about their unborn child? Once a child is born, parents remark, react to, and question the origins of their child’s behaviors—are they related to how they treat their child, or might they be related to their genes or personality? Developmental scientists are concerned with how and why behaviors emerge and change over time, and gender developmental scientists narrow their focus to the study of the origins of gendered behavior and gendered thinking. Gender development researchers, similar to other developmental researchers, focus on questions of change over time ( Ruble and Martin 1998 ). How early do children learn to identify themselves and others as males or females, and what are the consequences of learning to discriminate and label gender? At what point in development do girls and boys begin to diverge in their behaviors and interests, and why do these gender differences emerge? When do children develop a sense of male privileged status and when do they form negative attitudes about the other sex? These questions all concern basic processes underlying the origins and transmission of gender-role attitudes and structures, and are important to understanding broader issues related to the role of gender in shaping individuals, relationships, and social institutions.

These questions have also found their way into the journal Sex Roles. Since its first issue, the journal Sex Roles has published studies focused on children and adolescents. The presence of such articles in a journal more broadly devoted to the study of gender indicates a longstanding recognition of the importance of understanding the emergence and development of gender across development. Without having an understanding of developmental changes and of the patterns of change over time, scholars may only have a limited perspective on human behavior. Gender development researchers strive to fill these gaps in understanding.

In this article, we review both the broader history of research on gender development over the past few decades and more specifically address how this research has been represented in Sex Roles . In doing so, we celebrate the 35th anniversary of Sex Roles and, in particular, its contributions to the field of research on children’s and adolescents’ gender development. We believe that the 35th anniversary of Sex Roles provides a unique occasion to expand the mission and scope of the journal to more thoroughly incorporate ideas and research about gender development.

We examine the trends in research on gender development published in Sex Roles since 1975 and use this as a vehicle for exploring how the field has grown and evolved, and to highlight gaps in knowledge and research. We first provide a brief review of the history of this field of research since the journal’s inception. Then, we present a descriptive assessment of articles published on gender development in Sex Roles over time, and link this assessment to general trends that have occurred in the study of gender development over the past 35 years. We conclude with a discussion of future directions for the field of gender development and hope to influence what we see in the next 35 years (or more) of research in Sex Roles .

Milestones in the Study of Gender Development

The late 1960s through the 1970s marked an important turning point in the field of gender research. For example, in 1978, the current editor of this journal and her co-authors published one of the first textbooks on the psychology of women and gender roles ( Frieze et al. 1978 ). At that time, these areas were just emerging and the textbook represented an early and important effort to survey and integrate the existing literature. A recurring theme throughout the text was the white male bias that characterized the existing research and its interpretation. Furthermore, it provided a thorough discussion of the complexities surrounding the relative contributions of biological and social factors in understanding the psychology of women. Since that time, the field of gender studies has evolved and research on the development of gender-related behaviors and processes has grown considerably. In this section, we briefly review the developments in this field over the past few decades, with a particular focus on innovations in theory and research on gender development. In this section, we provide some perspective on the broader context of research and theory in the field that coincided with the establishment of Sex Roles as a forum for gender research.

A pivotal moment in the field of the psychology of gender occurred with the publication of Maccoby’s (1966) edited book, The Development of Sex Differences . The book focused on theories of gender development and contained several chapters that remain to this day the foundations of research and theory on children’s gender development (chapters by Hamburg and Lunde on hormonal influences on gender differences in behavior, Mischel’s chapter on social learning theory of gender development, and Kohlberg’s chapter proposing his cognitive developmental theory of gender development). These theoretical contributions gave direction to the study of gender in children.

In 1972, Money and Ehrhardt’s book, Man and Woman, Boy and Girl , advanced a provocative theory about gender identity and gender differentiation that continues to spark debate. Based on research with intersex patients, this book advanced the idea that social factors were more important than biological factors in gender identity and gender roles and brought nature-nurture issues to the forefront. The authors also promoted the notion of “gender role” as a term referring to the socially defined, outward manifestations of gender, and “gender identity” as one’s personal experienced sense of gender.

Chronologically, another important contribution was Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) book, The Psychology of Sex Differences. This book presented an unparalleled synthesis of research findings on gender differences in development. It was especially innovative because it challenged the idea that there were numerous differences between the genders; instead, it argued for only a few well-established differences. This book was also important for highlighting that within-gender differences are often larger than those between the genders (a point still lost in many of the popularized beliefs held today; for example, see Sax 2006 ). Maccoby and Jacklin’s conclusions stimulated further investigations on gender differences and similarities. Furthermore, the authors challenged the notion that parents are the primary agents of children’s gender socialization. Instead, they promoted the idea that children play an important and proactive role in the adoption of gender-stereotyped behaviors, and introduced the term “self-socialization” to describe these child-directed processes. The idea that children’s choices of whom to imitate plays a key role in their gender development sparked a new generation of research and debate on social and cognitive processes involved in children’s gender socialization. Their ideas also added a new dimension to research in the field by turning attention to group-level peer processes.

The 1970s marked a turning point in terms of how scholars thought about the concepts of sex and gender. Unger’s (1979) influential paper, Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender , asserted that the use of the term gender “serves to reduce assumed parallels between biological and psychological sex or at least to make explicit any assumptions of such parallels” (p. 1,086). Her ideas led scholars to become more selective in their use of the terms sex and gender and to avoid framing research in ways that might hint at biological determinism ( Poulin 2007 ). Terminology issues have continued to be raised in the field: some researchers proposed other usages because of concern that separating “sex” and “gender” may presuppose knowledge of the origins of behaviors (e.g., Deaux 1993 ).

Also during the 1970s, scholars started to move away from unidimensional and relatively simplistic models about the origins and meaning of gender differences and began to challenge conceptualizations of masculinity and femininity as representing bi-polar opposites. Most notably, in a conceptual breakthrough with both theoretical and methodological ramifications, Constantinople (1973) and Bem (1974) argued that males and females possess both masculine and feminine qualities. This idea revolutionized the measurement of these characteristics. Bem (1974) also argued that having both masculine and feminine qualities—that is, being psychological androgynous—was optimal for psychological adjustment. Her research laid the groundwork for subsequent research on gender identity and framed much research over the following years ( Marecek et al. 2003 ).

These ideas about multidimensionality were further emphasized in Huston’s (1983) chapter in the Handbook of Child Psychology . Huston encouraged researchers to conduct empirical investigations of links between domains of gender typing rather than to infer their existence, as researchers had been doing (e.g., make assumptions about a child’s gender identity based on toy preferences). To provide a framework for organizing existing theoretical constructs and describing different content areas, Huston presented a matrix of gender typing. This matrix helped focus theoretical debates and organize literature in the field. The matrix also has provided directions for new research.

Another important advancement in gender research has been the development and incorporation of meta-analytic methods. Meta-analysis allows for the systematic quantitative assessment of patterns across the findings of multiple studies and has had considerable impact on the study and understanding of many aspects of the psychology of gender ( Hyde and Linn 1986 ). Although not an experimental method, the application of meta-analysis to the study of gender differences has once again highlighted the limited nature of differences between the genders and has illuminated the conditions under which gender differences are more or less likely to appear (e.g., Else-Quest et al. 2006 ; Hyde et al. 1990 ). Meta-analyses are themselves not without limitations; they are non-experimental and thus limited in ability to draw cause-effect conclusions and tend to focus on mean differences rather than distributions (see Knight et al. 1996 ). Nonetheless, they provide important insights into gender development and gender differences.

Current Theoretical Trends and Debates

The field of gender development has been dominated by a few prevailing theoretical perspectives that have driven progress and debate in the field. Some of these competing perspectives have given rise to concepts (and related terms), methods, and research studies that have shaped the literature, including the research found in the pages of Sex Roles . In this section, we describe these contrasting perspectives and debates; however, we refer the reader to other sources for detailed discussions of the individual theories that are beyond the scope of what we can do in this article (e.g., Ruble et al. 2006 ).

Because developmental researchers are interested in the origins of behaviors, it is not surprising, that issues of nature and nurture are theoretically important and that great attention and fervor surround biological versus socialization approaches to understanding gender development ( Ruble et al. 2006 ). Biological arguments have long been advanced to justify gender inequality ( Shields 1975 ) and are often interpreted as deterministic. As such, there is much at stake when biological theories are proposed and research findings are interpreted. Nonetheless, with advancements in research methods and theories addressing biological mechanisms, this field of inquiry has gained acceptance and visibility ( Ruble et al. 2006 ). Current biological approaches do not imply determinism and instead emphasize the ways in which biological and social factors interact to produce behavior. Some of the most active research in this area has been on girls with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), a genetic disease in which the fetus is exposed to elevated levels of androgens. Researchers have found that girls with CAH tend to be masculinized in some aspects of their preferences and behaviors (e.g., Berenbaum and Snyder 1995 ). Studies of prenatal exposure to normal variations in hormones such as testosterone ( Cohen-Bendahan et al. 2005 ), and cross-species comparisons ( Alexander and Hines 2002 ; Wallen 1996 ) have also become increasingly sophisticated and common.

Another debate that has received considerable attention in the field has concerned socialization and cognitive approaches to gender development. Although this debate can be traced back to Kohlberg’s and Mischel’s chapters in Maccoby’s 1966 book, more recent reviews of empirical evidence has re-stimulated this discussion (e.g., Bandura and Bussey 2004 ; Bussey and Bandura 1999 ; Martin et al. 2002 , 2004 ). Both approaches emphasize socialization versus biological processes and highlight the shaping of children’s behavior to match cultural gender role norms. However, the socialization and cognitive perspectives differ in the degree to which they emphasize the role of the social environment, especially reinforcement and modeling of adults and peers, relative to cognitive developmental processes, such as the emergence of children’s gender identity and knowledge of gender stereotypes. Despite the disagreements over relative contributions of socialization and cognitive processes, there are a number of similarities in these approaches, and both groups of theorists have conducted studies of cognitive and socialization factors. For instance, Bussey and Bandura (1999) describe some cognitive information-processing mechanisms, such as selective attention, forming cognitive representations, and forming plans of action, that mediate observational learning. Cognitive theorists describe the ways in which children interpret and respond to messages provided by socialization agents, such as peers ( Ruble et al. 2006 ).

These controversies have been important for driving new research. For example, researchers have increased efforts to understand early origins of gender differences and have done so by focusing research on younger ages, when gendered cognitions and behaviors first emerge (e.g., Zosuls et al. 2009 ). More research has also turned to focusing on links among various cognitive and socialization processes, thus leading to more complex models and studies of gender development (for example, see Tobin et al. 2010 ).

Gender Development Research in Sex Roles

There is no doubt that the historic changes described above have influenced the research that appears in our scholarly journals. To explore these trends, we turn our attention to the patterns of publication on gender development within Sex Roles since 1975. Our aim is to provide a descriptive medium for presenting trends in the field (and this journal, in particular) rather than to present an empirical piece with analyses that are an end in themselves. In taking this approach, we intend to characterize the issues, methods, and age groups that have received attention in the published research, and identify areas that need additional emphasis. Furthermore, we discuss why conducting developmental investigations is enriching to the field of gender studies, both theoretically and methodologically.

Identifying Patterns in Sex Roles Articles

To accomplish our goals, we reviewed all articles published in Sex Roles since 1975 (through 2009) and identified 660 abstracts of Sex Roles articles that specifically focused on children and child development (for further inclusion criteria, see Appendix A ). We then categorized these articles based on the age of the participants in the study (see Fig. 1 ), the principal type of methodology used in the study (see Fig. 2 ), and the content. Given the large number of articles we compiled and the descriptive purpose of our categorizations, our classifications were based on text provided in the abstracts. Because articles often investigated more than one content area or topic, categorizations were not mutually exclusive.

Percentage of articles by decade including each age grouping

Percentage of articles by decade using each type of methodology

Issues of Terminology

One of the most challenging aspects of classifying the articles was deciphering the meaning of some terms. In fact, this exercise served to highlight conceptual developments in the field and we felt a discussion of terminology was in itself a revealing way to illustrate important conceptual issues. As the area of gender development has evolved and expanded, the terminology used has similarly expanded and sometimes the meaning terms have changed over time. For example, although the terms “sex-typing,” “gender-typing,” or “gender stereotyping,” and “gender identity” have been the most frequently used terms in the field, the definitions and operationalizations of these terms have changed over time. To address this definitional issue, we briefly review these terms, how they have been used, and how we decided to code them in our analyses.

A recent model of children’s gender self-socialization, the Gender Self-Socialization Model (GSSM; Tobin et al. 2010 ) provides a useful framework for distinguishing among the various constructs studied by gender researchers. Tobin et al. point out that “sex-typing” and “gender-typing” are used in many different ways. They may refer to (a) the demonstration of knowledge or beliefs about attributes associated with gender categories (i.e., gender stereotyping), (b) thoughts and feelings about oneself in relation to being a girl or boy (i.e., gender identity), and (c) the enactment of gendered behavior. In accordance with Tobin et al. (2010) , when classifying articles, we took into account what measures authors used and classified studies as investigating Stereotyping, Gender Identity, or Gender Differences.

Studies investigating masculinity and femininity as proposed by Bem (1981) were classified under Gender Identity because this classification is consistent with the intent of the authors of these studies. However, a problem with Bem’s measurement and conceptualization of gender identity is that it is not assessed in terms of subjective thoughts, feelings, and knowledge about oneself as a member of a gender category, but rather is inferred from self-reports of the degree to which one possesses certain gender stereotyped attributes ( Tobin et al. 2010 ). Thus, we attempted to be sensitive to the multiple types of assessment methods used to investigate gender identity, such as those defined by Perry and his colleagues (e.g., Egan and Perry 2001 ) and adopted by other researchers over the past decade or so (e.g., Smith and Leaper 2006 ).

We also found that the term “gender stereotyping” was used without indication of whether gender stereotypes were assessed in terms of personal stereotype beliefs, knowledge of cultural stereotypes, stereotyped judgments, or the enactment of stereotype-consistent behaviors. Such distinctions are important. For example, a child’s personal beliefs related to gender stereotypes (e.g., believing that girls are good at math) might not always be consistent with her knowledge of cultural gender stereotypes (e.g., knowing the cultural stereotype that girls are not good at math; Signorella et al. 1993 ). Judgments, perceptions, and attributions might be closely linked with stereotype knowledge and beliefs, but are nonetheless distinct from them. Behaviors, such as engaging in stereotyped activities or demonstrating stereotyped interactions styles, might also be linked with more cognitive variables, such as stereotype knowledge, but are also distinct from them. As such, applying the general term “gender stereotyping” without explicit indication of whether gender stereotyped beliefs, knowledge, or behaviors are being measured can cause confusion and more importantly, conflate conceptually distinct constructs. In our classification, we included knowledge and beliefs in the category of stereotyping but included behaviors under Gender Differences.

Content of Gender Development Research in Sex Roles

In this section, we examine the content of articles in Sex Roles and how it relates to the field more broadly. We focus on the content both in terms of the methods used and the topics covered in the articles.

How Much Attention Has Sex Roles Paid to Gender Development Issues?

Since its inception, Sex Roles has published a substantial number of articles focused on child and adolescent participants, although such articles made up on average only about 20% of the journal’s total publications. The child-focused articles were least represented in the 2000s, comprising only 15% of the publications in Sex Roles , compared to between 20% and 23% in other decades. The changes over time are somewhat surprising when compared to the field (see Ruble and Martin 1998 ). This decline seen in Sex Roles might possibly be due to an increase in the number of developmental journals since the 1990s and greater receptiveness of other journals to articles focusing on gender development.

The publications in Sex Roles represented a wide range of developmental stages from infancy to adolescence. On average, Adolescence was clearly the most studied age group, followed by Middle Childhood (43% and 31% on average, respectively), and the least frequently studied stage was Infants/Toddlers, especially in the 2000s (see Fig. 1 ). The paucity of research in Infants/Toddlers in Sex Roles likely does not reflect a general trend in the field as sophisticated infant paradigm procedures have been recently developed, allowing researchers to gain better sense of infants’ and toddlers’ understanding of gender (e.g., Serbin et al. 2001 , 2002 ). In contrast to Infant/Toddler studies, there was a steady increase across decades in articles focusing on Adolescence (see Fig. 1 ). This change may be due to increased interest in adolescents’ gender development in general but it may also be that some of the specific topics, such as body image, have garnered more attention in recent years because of societal focus on health and problems with obesity.

What Have Been the Dominant Methods to Study Gender Development in Sex Roles ?

Although the studies in Sex Roles have used a wide range of methods, across all years the most frequently used method of study represented in Sex Roles was Survey methodology (66% on average). A number of articles also used Experimental (14% on average) and Observational (14% on average) methods; however, over time these methods were less represented (see Fig. 2 ). In addition, few articles used longitudinal or cross-sectional designs to make age comparisons and test developmental hypotheses. On average, 24% of studies involved cross-sectional or longitudinal designs, and these appeared to decrease across decades, with the 1970s and 1980s having the largest percentage and the 1990s and 2000s having a lower proportion of studies using such designs. Overall, the heavy reliance on non-experimental survey and interview methods and the lack of studies using longitudinal and cross-sectional designs may be problematic in that this tendency limits the goals and questions that can be the focus of study. For instance, debates surrounding the relative influence of biological, socialization, and cognitive factors in the emergence of gender stereotyped preferences and behaviors need to be addressed using methods that can test causal directions, including experimental methods and longitudinal designs. Furthermore, many topics that are important to theoretical development require the use of methods that may be time consuming, expensive, and complex, such as observation methods. The gender development field will need to focus more on these complicated methodologies to make further progress in answering these types of questions. Certainly, Sex Roles can be a leader in emphasizing these methods and in creating calls for special issues that focus on these methods.

Which Particular Issues of Gender Development Have Been Focused on in Sex Roles ?

In the following section, we use the latest version of the multidimensional matrix from the Handbook of Child Psychology ( Ruble et al. 2006 ) to organize the publication topics represented by gender development researchers in Sex Roles. We also use this endeavor to illustrate areas that have not been explored in any depth. This matrix addresses normative aspects of gender development and is organized around four gender-related constructs (e.g., concepts or beliefs) and six content areas (e.g., activities and interests) to create cells (identified with unique number and letter combinations) that contains specific research topics (e.g., gender constancy). Because this matrix has served as a precedent for organizing the literature and has also been modified and discussed over time in successive Handbook chapters ( Huston 1983 ; Ruble and Martin 1998 ; Ruble et al. 2006 ), it serves as a heuristic for describing trends. In Table 1 , we present a breakdown of the content areas and constructs, showing how many articles (and what percentage of the total number) fell into each cell of the matrix.

Classification of articles in the matrix of gender-typing ( Ruble et al. 2006 ): total number of articles (percentage of total articles)

Content areas and Constructs were from the latest version of the multidimensional matrix from the Handbook of Child Psychology ( Ruble et al. 2006 )

The articles in Sex Roles covered a wide range of broad content categories and constructs, although certain topics and constructs were consistently more dominant (see Table 1 ). Starting with content areas (the rows), by far more articles were written on two of the six content areas of the matrix—Activities and Interests (toys, occupations, etc.) and Personal-Social Attributes (roles, abilities, etc.)—than the other areas. Compared to the general patterns reported in the state-of-the-science review chapters on gender typing in the Handbook of Child Psychology , these two areas also received much attention from gender developmental scientists. However, there were notable differences between some of the less frequently appearing categories and trends in the broader field: Sex Roles published fewer studies on Gender-Based Social Relationships and on Biological/Categorical Sex when compared to the field in general. Given the strong socialization perspective of many readers of Sex Roles , it may not be that surprising that Sex Roles published few articles on Biological/Categorical Sex, but this topic has been very popular in the gender development literature because of its theoretical implications. Both Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental theory and gender schema approaches are based on ideas that understanding of basic gender knowledge facilitates and motivates learning about other aspects of gender (e.g., stereotypes) and engaging in gender-typed behaviors. Thus, three gender category topics that would fall under Biological/Categorical Sex (cell 1A) have received heavy research attention in developmental journals: understanding of gender identity, gender constancy (children’s understanding that gender is constant across time and situations), and infants’ abilities to discriminate gender (ability to distinguish males from females). On the other hand, research on Values Regarding Gender (attitudes, bias, discrimination, etc.) associated with gender has not been the focus of research attention by gender developmentalists, and this lack of attention has also been evident in Sex Roles . Given the feminist perspective on the importance of considering power and status, it may be somewhat surprising that so few child-focused articles appearing in Sex Roles have explored issues of gendered values.

An examination of constructs from the matrix (columns) shows that two of the four constructs—Identity/Self-Perception and Behavioral Enactment—were represented more often than others but the differences were relatively small. Concepts and Beliefs were well represented, but Preferences showed the lowest frequency of publication. These patterns are consistent with the amount of space devoted to these constructs in the Handbook of Child Psychology chapters, suggesting that the constructs of interest to gender developmental scientists have been mirrored in Sex Roles .

Also of interest are cells that were empty (e.g., concepts/belief about values; Cell 6A) or showed very low numbers of publications (concepts/beliefs about relationships; Cell 4A). When comparisons were made between the patterns of publication of gender development topics in Handbook of Child Psychology , the articles appearing in Sex Roles appeared to mirror the trends shown in the field more broadly with one major exception. Specifically, Sex Roles differed in the lack of publication of articles on topics related to identity/self perception associated with gender categories (Cell 1B). As described above, researchers have attended to this cell because of the implications for gender development more broadly, but this trend has not been demonstrated in Sex Roles .

Which Gender Development Topics Have Received Consistent Research Interest and Which Have Changed over Time?

In this section, we describe the findings using a more general classification strategy. That is, we classified articles based on major topic areas addressed in the literature on gender development. We identified topic areas using a bottom-up analysis of the articles in Sex Roles. Our topic areas are also consistent with the way in which topic areas are frequently grouped at conferences that cover gender development research, and thus reflects general research activity in the field. This approach allowed us to explore more fully and descriptively the interests of authors and editors of Sex Roles , which may diverge from the focus on topics represented in the developmental handbooks. We developed nine broad topic categories (see Table 2 ). The categories are discussed in terms of whether they have maintained consistent interest over time or have shown a change in research interest over time. We follow this review of the more prominent categories with a discussion of topics that have been relatively neglected across time and more specific content areas that deserve greater attention.

Topic categories by decade: total number of articles (percentage of articles)

Percentages calculated as a proportion of the total number of child-focused articles in individual decades. The 1970s included the years 1975–1979 and the 2000s included the years 2000–2009

Topics that have Maintained Consistent Interest Over Time

A number of topic areas received consistent research attention across time. Here we describe them in order of their prominence.

Gender Differences

The most frequent category appearing across all years was Gender Differences (an article was coded into the Gender Differences category when the abstract mentioned a comparison between girls and boys in a specific area). On average, slightly over half of the articles published in Sex Roles examined differences between the genders, and this trend mirrored research in the field more broadly. It is noteworthy that there was a decrease in the number of these studies in Sex Roles from the 1990s to the 2000s (see Table 2 ), potentially showing a declining interest in this area of research. It is possible that Maccoby and Jacklin’s 1974 book on the psychology of gender differences initially spurred increased interest in this area that peaked in the 1990s, but that increasing criticisms pertaining to the methodology and conclusions drawn from gender differences research resulted in a decrease in studies focusing on such differences by the 2000s. Most notably, Hyde (2005) proposed the gender similarities hypothesis to counter the differences model that has been popular in science and the popular media. The gender similarities hypothesis proposes that males and females are similar on most psychological variables and that most differences are in the close to zero range when examining effect sizes. Further, Hyde (2007) has argued that more theoretical and research attention needs to focus on gender as a stimulus variable that influences how other people behave toward a person rather than as an individual difference variable. Thus, in recent years, researchers have been challenged to formulate more complex research goals and studies that directly address popular assumptions about the existence, origins, and stability (or malleability) of gender differences. It will be interesting to see if such challenges are addressed in future articles in Sex Roles .

Socialization

Over time, an average of about one-third of the articles in Sex Roles were focused on gender socialization (see Table 2 ), and almost half of these articles focused on socialization by parents. Socialization continues to be a popular topic of study in gender development ( Ruble et al. 2006 ). A range of parent factors were represented in these Sex Roles publications, from parents’ attitudes, expectations, and perceptions, to parents’ behaviors with their children, and how parental characteristics (e.g., maternal employment, gay/lesbian parents) affected children’s gender development. A fair number of studies also investigated adults more generally (e.g., adult networks in children’s lives, adults’ perceptions of children) and teachers as socialization agents, although these categories were more prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s. The emphasis on gender socialization by parents and other adults is consistent with the popularity of socialization theories that emerged in the late 1960s ( Mischel 1966 , 1970 ) and revised in the 1970s and 1980s ( Bandura 1977 , 1986 ; Mischel 1979 ).

Studies focused on peer socialization were also prevalent in the journal, representing on average almost 20% of the socialization articles across the decades. Somewhat more articles on peer socialization were published in the 1970s and the 2000s, perhaps a result of Maccoby’s work in the 1970s on peer socialization and later, from renewed focus and theorizing about the role of peers, such as Judith Harris’ (1995) group socialization theory, and Maccoby’s later work on the consequences of gender segregation ( 1998 ). The peer socialization category also included studies that related to peer bullying and aggression, and there appeared to be more articles on this topic in the 2000s in Sex Roles and in the field more broadly, coinciding with the popularity of new theories concerning gender differences in styles of aggression (e.g., relational aggression vs. physical aggression, Crick and Grotpeter 1995 ).

Two other socialization topics were relatively frequent in the 2000s. First, several articles examined the role of social contexts, such as the family or school environment or specific factors in the broader sociocultural context. This apparent trend toward emphasizing context is consistent with the growth of contextual theories and cultural perspectives over time (for example, see Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006 ; Magnusson and Stattin 2006 ). Second, some studies investigated the ways in which properties of objects could lead children to develop distinct styles of play (e.g., Karpoe and Olney 1983 ; Serbin et al. 1990 ). This type of research reveals how adults’ choices of children’s toys and children’s own choices can indirectly affect girls’ and boys’ development of different interaction styles and skills and more research identifying these features and their affects could and should be published in Sex Roles.

Stereotyping

The next largest category represented in Sex Roles was Stereotyping, with approximately 25% of the studies across decades addressing some aspect of children’s stereotyping (see Table 2 ). It should be noted that studies that only concerned adult stereotyping (e.g., parents’ stereotyped beliefs) were classified under Socialization rather than Stereotyping. As a result, this category was restricted to children’s stereotype-related cognitions and behaviors. Not surprisingly, most of these studies concerned the domains of activities/interests and personal-social attributes, similar to our findings reported above for gender differences. Studies commonly investigated the links between stereotype knowledge/beliefs and children’s interests/behaviors. Such studies are necessary for resolving theoretical controversies regarding the importance of cognitions in the development of early gendered behaviors, and these types of studies have been popular in the broader field of gender development as well as being represented in Sex Roles . For example, Bradbard and Endsley (1983) found that when novel objects were labeled as being for the other gender (i. e., stereotype knowledge), preschoolers explored the objects less frequently, asked fewer questions, and were more likely to forget object names than when the objects were labeled for their own gender or both genders. Although there were a number of experimental gender-labeling studies like this conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, there have been no recent studies published in this area in Sex Roles. Such studies continue to be published in other child development journals ( Martin et al. 1995 ). This decline in Sex Roles is unfortunate as there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding mediating mechanisms, age trends, and individual differences that are essential for theoretical development and intervention efforts ( Miller et al. 2006 ).

Children’s attitudes regarding egalitarian gender roles were also included within the Stereotyping category, and a considerable number of studies were published in this area, which were coded within the matrix cell for gender attitudes. These studies represent the longstanding interest and established measures concerning attitudes about egalitarian gender roles both within Sex Roles and the broader field of gender development. Moreover, these attitudes were often studied in relation to parent socialization (i.e., how parents’ gender role attitudes relate to children’s gender role attitudes) and as factors influencing gender differences (i.e., how children’s gender role attitudes relate to their behaviors and interests).

This category also encompassed a number of articles that focused on how children process and respond to gendered information in the environment. Many of these studies were designed to investigate the effects of stereotypes on children’s perceptions, including their memory/recall of stereotype consistent and inconsistent information, social judgments, and expectancies. These studies were therefore focused on exploring the cognitive processes underlying gender development.

Gender Identity

Gender Identity was also a consistently appearing topic category across the decades. The largest number of articles on this topic concerned self-perceptions of traits and abilities. Those studies typically involved children’s self-ratings of masculinity/femininity using scales such as Bem’s Sex Role Inventory ( Bem 1974 ) and Spence’s Personal Attributes Questionnaire ( Spence et al. 1975 ). As mentioned previously, however, the studies using these measures did not specifically assess children’s own thoughts, feelings, and knowledge regarding their membership in a gender category ( Tobin et al. 2010 ). Rather, children were asked to indicate the extent to which they believe that certain gender-typed attributes characterize them and the researcher uses this information to classify children along masculine/feminine dimensions. Historically, this has been the methodology used in the adult literature and, until recently, researchers interested in children have also used this approach. Currently, however, child researchers have tended to assess gender identity by directly asking children about their personal feelings regarding being male or female such as asking children the degree to which they feel that they are typical members of their gender group and the extent to which they are content with being a member of their gender group (e.g., Egan and Perry 2001 ). However, there may be developmental constraints in collecting such data as younger children may not be able to reflect upon their personal feelings regarding being male or female.

Another central focus of research and debate on gender identity development has been Kohlberg’s concept of gender constancy and gender schema views on the importance of basic gender understanding ( Martin and Halverson 1981 ; Martin et al. 2002 ). Indeed, the second largest number of articles on Gender Identity concerned gender awareness, labeling, and constancy. These aspects of early gender identity have received less research attention in Sex Roles than in the field more broadly (as described above). Only a small handful of studies addressed children’s affective sense of themselves as male or female or the wish to be male or female. Articles published in the 2000s were more likely than earlier studies to investigate multiple dimensions of identity (e.g., Carver et al. 2003 ), thus representing current thinking about gender identity as a complex, multifaceted construct.

Aside from studies growing out of classic theories of gender identity development, another somewhat frequent sub-category concerned body image. This topic became especially noticeable in the publications in the 1990s and 2000s, likely coinciding with increased attention to and alarm in the popular media surrounding the issue of eating disorders and obesity. Indeed, during the same two decades, eating disorder symptomology also appeared as a topic in Sex Roles .

Topics that Showed Changes Over Time

Although we did not observe any dramatic changes in coverage of the various topics across decades, some did evidence an increase in research attention over time. Here we discuss them in order of their general prominence in the journal.

Increased Cross-cultural Research

One of the more noticeable changes across decades was an increase in publications in Sex Roles categorized as Cross-Cultural in the 2000s (see Table 2 ). This pattern is not surprising given that the recent editorial policy of Sex Roles emphasizes internationalization and the importance of understanding cultural context ( Frieze and Dittrich 2008 ). This increase in cultural articles is also consistent with the increasing attention to cultural differences and representation in the psychological and developmental literatures more generally. Theories about cultural differences have been adapted to provide a framework for describing gender differences ( Cross and Madson 1997 ) and researchers have increasingly called for the need to extend the study of gender differences and gender development. Prior to 2000, most of the studies categorized as cross-cultural concerned racial/ethnic group differences or differences across countries. More recently, however, the bulk of studies in this category have focused on gender in one specific (typically non-white) cultural group. This change is consistent with trends in child development more broadly in investigating within-culture variability. Some studies also investigated differences related to socioeconomic status (SES) and demographic differences related to geography (typically urban versus rural populations).

We also noted that across time, abstracts were more likely to include information on the demographic characteristics of their samples, thus implicitly acknowledging potential limits to the generalizability of their findings and highlighting studies that were not conducted on the predominant US and/or white, middle-class samples. These studies that simply mentioned the demographic characteristics of their sample in the abstract (e.g., African American sample, middle- class sample) were not coded as cross-cultural unless they specifically focused on cultural issues such as similarities or differences between cultures. Thus our figures might somewhat underestimate the presence of culture as a theme in Sex Roles articles.

Increased Attention to Media

Articles in the Media category involved a number of types of media (i.e., books, TV programs/cartoons, commercials, films/video, computer/internet, music, etc.). Published articles concerning media or books were consistently present in the journal and appeared to increase in number in the 1990s and 2000s (see Table 2 ). The form of media most frequently represented involved books, and these most often dealt with the portrayals of females and males. However, in the last two decades, articles appeared that explored new media including the content of computer applications, the internet, and video games. A few other articles examined diverse content, including consumer product packaging (e.g., cereal boxes) and personalities in the media (e.g., celebrities).

On the whole, research in this category confirmed the idea that the books and media that children are exposed to present highly stereotyped portrayals of men and women, and women are often under-represented in stereotypically male roles (e.g., Purcell and Stewart 1990 ). Most studies in this category were content analyses and did not directly test implications, such as effects on various aspects of children’s gender identity (although body image was examined in a few studies) and stereotyping.

Increased Attention to Individual Differences and Adjustment

This broad and diverse category captured a somewhat surprisingly large percentage of articles, especially in the 2000s (See Table 2 ). The size of this category was partly due to the number of studies investigating topics related to psychological adjustment, including general measures of adjustment, such as self-esteem, as well as symptoms of psychopathology. These topics are of obvious relevance to gender development, but have been less frequently studied than core aspects of gender identity and gender-related beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors. Nonetheless, implications related to adjustment have been a driving force of research in gender development and have been important to theories of gender development. Indeed, a central concern of researchers dating back to Kagan (1964) and Bem (1974 , 1981) has been the implications of gender-typing and cross-gender-typing on adjustment. More recently, researchers have investigated adjustment outcomes in relation to multiple dimensions of gender identity (for a review, see Lurye et al. 2008 ). For instance, research by Perry and his colleagues has found that felt pressure to adhere to gender norms is associated with lower self-worth ( Egan and Perry 2001 ). Thus, current research on adjustment appears to be a focus on aspects of gender that lead to good or poor adjustment outcomes. This is an especially fruitful and important direction for future research, as it directly addresses the implications of various aspects of gender for children’s more general functioning.

Several other topics included in this category because of their relevance to adjustment were Gender Identity Disorder and eating disorders and body issues. The number of articles addressing Gender Identity Disorder was extremely small and only appeared in the 2000s. Given the controversies about the causes and consequences of extreme gender non-normative behavior (e.g., Hegarty 2009 ; Zucker et al. 2009 ), and its obvious relevance to theories of gender identity development, more research on this topic is certainly warranted. The studies in this category also reflect topics related to eating disorders, body satisfaction, and body size or Body Mass Index (BMI). These topics have received much attention in the public media and are of clear relevance to gender development.

Publications that focused on various dimensions of personality and individual differences were also coded into this category. One of the individual difference constructs that stood out was the measurement of “fear of success” in the 1970s and 1980s. This was perhaps the most dated concept we came across and its disappearance after the 1980s is indicative of social changes. Although there is little, if any, recent research on girls’ motivations to avoid success as an individual difference, girls might nonetheless avoid participation in certain male-dominated fields due to real and perceived obstacles to success in those fields. For example, the concept of stereotype threat has been frequently used to discuss barriers to girls’ success in fields such as math (e.g., Spencer et al. 1999 ). Thus, in a general sense, the “fear of success” topic is still with us, but its framing has changed to reflect the role of context and the more nuanced nature of barriers to girls’ participation and success in male stereotyped fields.

A number of articles included in this category also addressed topics more closely related to sexuality, sexual maturation, and male-female relationships, including sexual behaviors, dating, menarche, sexual orientation, and sexual harassment. These topics have not been very well integrated into the gender development literature and sexual identity in particular tends to be very specialized and focused on sexual minorities ( Diamond 2003 ). Furthermore, although sexual identity is later developing and obviously related to older age groups, awareness of sexual attraction and relationships emerge earlier, and is clearly relevant to children’s conceptions of gender roles. Thus, greater consideration of issues of sexual identity and sexual and romantic relationships would provide a more complete understanding of gender development.

Neglected Topics and Gaps in the Literature

Thus far, we have primarily focused on the topics and theories that have dominated the literature and been most visible in this journal. However, gaps in the literature were found and are important to consider as they help identify future directions for researchers.

There were gaps in the ages of children studied. Few studies in our content analysis of articles published in Sex Roles involved research on infants and toddlers. The lack of infant and toddler research may be due to in part to challenges associated with testing very young children. However, researchers now have access to a variety of methods available to them for observing and analyzing behavioral data, thus freeing researchers from having to rely on self-report and parent reported data on children, and expanding options for studying children who are too young to follow complex procedures or report on their own thoughts and behaviors. Given that children demonstrate a range of gender-typed behaviors, preferences, and knowledge by 2–3 years of age, if not earlier, it behooves investigators to expand efforts to better understand the earliest stages of gender development.

Gaps were also noted in the types of methods utilized in studies. Self-report measures were the most frequently used method of data collection. This reliance on self-report measures is likely because many of the issues and questions addressed in the articles could be assessed most easily and directly via these methods (and may explain the relative lack of focus on young children and infants/toddlers). These qualities are certainly strengths of direct self-reports. However, weaknesses and limitations also exist (as is the case with any method) and differences in methods may contribute to lack of coherence in findings. For example, Eisenberg and colleagues ( Eisenberg and Lennon 1983 ; Fabes and Eisenberg 1996 ) found that gender differences in empathy and sympathy varied with the method used to assess empathy-related responding. Specifically, their meta-analyses found large differences favoring girls for self-report measures of empathy/sympathy, especially questionnaire indices. No gender differences were found when the measure of empathy was either physiological or unobtrusive observations of nonverbal behavior. Eisenberg and Lennon (1983) suggested that the general pattern of results was due to differences among measures in the degree to which the intent of the measure was obvious and people could control their responses. Gender differences were greatest when demand characteristics were high (i.e., it was clear what was being assessed) and individuals had conscious control over their responses (i.e., self-report indices were used). In contrast, gender differences were virtually nonexistent when demand characteristics were subtle and study participants were unlikely to exercise much conscious control over their responding (i.e., physiological indices). Thus, when gender-related stereotypes are activated and people can easily control their responses, they may try to project a socially desirable image to others or to themselves. Such findings call for the greater use of multiple methods in research published in Sex Roles (and elsewhere) to ascertain whether this pattern exists in our research and certainly argues for less sole reliance on self-report methods.

There is some evidence that such a change is beginning to happen. For example, our analysis revealed a slight increase in studies employing time and labor intensive methods that allow for the discovery and analysis of the more subtle and complex aspects of behavior, such as the coding of transcriptions and videotaped and real-time observation, and qualitative methods. Such methods allow for a more micro-analytic examination of the dynamics of behavioral interactions but also take considerable time and effort to code, manage, and analyze. The investigation of changing patterns of behaviors in large-scale observational or longitudinal studies may require dynamical analyses that may be unfamiliar to many gender researchers ( Martin and Ruble 2010 ). Moreover, a fair amount of debate has surrounded the value and limitations of qualitative methods, though there is now growing consensus that empirical and qualitative methods each have advantages and disadvantages and can be used to complement each other (e.g., Oakley 1999 ).

There were also a number of gaps in the content of the articles. Overall, it seems that the emphasis in the gender development publications in Sex Roles has been on the development of different gender-linked abilities and traits, often in the areas of academic and career-related choices and skills. These aspects of gender development make up only a small portion of the Matrix of Gender-Typing ( Ruble et al. 2006 ) and this emphasis on a limited set of gender-related attributes suggests that many aspects of children’s gender-typing remain to be explored. Some of these aspects might be less salient or more difficult to measure (e.g., gestures, speech patterns), but nonetheless are integral aspects of gender identity. Further research is also needed to better understand the relations among the various cells in the matrix and how such relations might change across development.

Despite the prevalence of articles addressing socialization, our analysis of this category indicated that research in this area has been heavily slated toward investigating the role of parents. Less attention was focused on peers in the articles we reviewed in Sex Roles . Nonetheless, there has been greater focus on peers in the more recent literature. This research activity may have been facilitated by the recognition of peer influences earlier in development (e.g., Fabes et al. 2003b ), as well as by methodological advances that have allowed for the exploration of peer processes in greater depth and complexity ( Martin et al. 2005 ; Martin and Ruble 2010 ).

Despite the recent interest in this topic, the fact that little attention has been paid to peer relationships in children younger than adolescents may reflect a failure to recognize the importance of early peer relationships to young children’s gender development and adjustment. Given that much of young children’s peer-related interactions are highly structured by gender and that these gender segregated peer groups have important influences on short- and long-term adjustment ( Fabes et al. 2003a ; Martin and Fabes 2001 ), researchers who publish in Sex Roles (and elsewhere) need to be more attentive to the role that peers play in early gender development.

Furthermore, relatively little research has focused on the ways in which gender affects relationships and communication with peers and might impact same- and other-gender relationships across time into adulthood. In our analysis, studies that did involve relationship processes tended to focus on adolescents and addressed specific relationship contexts and issues, such as dating and sexual harassment. Few studies focused on assessing cognitions or beliefs about relationships. There is a need for theory to better understand the dynamics and development of male-female (and same-gender) relationships over time ( Zosuls et al. 2011 ). Such knowledge would help us to better understand children’s interpersonal dynamics in friendship, school, and home contexts and how to promote more positive relationships into adulthood.

Children’s social cognition, including their intergroup attitudes, plays an important role in peer relationships. Intergroup attitudes and behaviors have been of longstanding interest to gender researchers coming from a social psychological perspective (e.g., Bigler 1995 ; Powlishta 1995a , b ) and have been prominent in gender schema views ( Martin and Halverson 1981 ; Liben and Signorella 1980 ). However, with the exception of the measurement of children’s gender role attitudes, few studies investigated intergroup processes and gender differences in values regarding gender. The limited research on intergroup processes is surprising given that the study of children’s intergroup gender attitudes should have obvious connections to theories related to children’s behaviors, including gender segregation. One reason for the dearth of research directly measuring children’s intergroup gender attitudes might be that such bias is inferred from children’s greater liking for peers of their own gender. Whereas such evidence certainly indicates more positive attitudes about one’s own group, it does not constitute a direct measure of attitudes and is a poor gauge of the exact nature of children’s feelings about their own and the other gender group ( Martin and Ruble 2010 ; Zosuls et al. 2011 ). Once again, however, it could be the case that studies focused on Intergroup Processes appear in journals that more specifically address these topics (e.g., social psychology journals).

Although gender discrimination is a common topic of study in the adult psychological literature, research on children’s same-gender peer preferences, evaluations, and interactions are rarely framed in terms of discrimination. Furthermore, relatively little is known about how children may or may not perceive gender discrimination directed at others or themselves (for an exception, see Brown and Bigler 2004 , 2005 ). More studies investigating gender discrimination within and between gender groups would be valuable for better understanding the dynamics of girls’ and boys’ relationships and for designing strategies to prevent acts of gender-based discrimination among children.

Our analysis also suggested that even less is known about the impact on gender development of socialization messages children receive from features of the larger socio-cultural context, such as the media. Given how much media children are exposed to and the debates often surrounding children’s media content, more studies that directly test the effects of media on gender-related self-concepts, behaviors, and perceptions would be a valuable direction for future research. Furthermore, although a number of studies investigated features of media that children are exposed to, few examined whether children perceive media messages in the ways that they are presented and assumed to be processed by adults. In the majority of studies of socialization, investigators have often worked under the assumption that gender-related features of the environment are relatively passively encoded by children, rather than actively processed. Future research should aim to test these assumptions.

The Gender Identity and Adjustment and Individual Differences categories reflected growth and evolution in theories and topics addressed by the literature, but also suggested the need for further integration of these topics into core theories and research. Both categories featured a number of studies addressing the topic of body image; however, this aspect of identity is not usually included in models and measures related to various aspects of gender identity, such as gender typicality (e.g., Egan and Perry 2001 ). Rather, body image is generally discussed in terms of its relation to psychological adjustment (e.g., eating disorders). Nonetheless, body image has obvious relevance to children’s gender identity development and future research should aim to incorporate this idea more directly into theories and studies of gender identity. For example, body image might have relevance to children’s sense of gender typicality, with children who have bodies and body images that are closer to societal ideals for their gender feeling more typical for their gender.

Finally, the vast majority of studies addressed cognitive and socialization processes. Only one published study directly focused on biological ideas about gender development ( Rodgers et al. 1998 ). Studies focusing on biology may have been virtually nonexistent because such articles are more likely to be published in journals that are oriented to the biological sciences, and may be due to this journal’s greater emphasis on socialization and feminist perspectives. Indeed, the name of this journal— Sex Roles —emphasizes roles, which connotes socially learned and prescribed behaviors. Research studies investigating of biological factors, such as hormones, also tend to be complex and expensive and are conducted by a relatively small group of investigators interested in gender development (e.g., Alexander and Hines 2002 ; Berenbaum and Snyder 1995 ; Wallen 1996 ). Nonetheless, research involving a biological perspective has gained momentum in recent decades and would be a valuable addition to the body of research represented in Sex Roles.

Looking forward, as gender development researchers and contributors to Sex Roles , we should also consider what areas of research are most important to address given current inequalities, societal problems, and shifting cultural and demographic features of society and the endpoints we are interested in achieving for future generations of girls and boys. Social issues concerning educational practices and improving school outcomes have become gendered discussions (Does the gender gap in education now favor girls? Should single-sex education be encouraged or discouraged?), and these issues warrant the attention of researchers. Changes in media also provide new areas for research investigation. For instance, the ubiquity of and interest in social networking for adolescents suggests that researchers should consider how virtual, immediate, and potentially continuous social connections among adolescents influences personal and social dimensions of gender development. Biological and cultural changes suggest how the lines between adolescence and younger ages are becoming blurred. The earlier ages of puberty and increased sexualization of young girls are examples of topics that require additional research attention ( American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls 2007 ).

Summary and Conclusion

In this paper, our primary goal was to describe trends in research on gender development published in Sex Roles over the past few decades. Overall, the topics receiving the greatest emphasis—Gender Differences, Socialization, and Stereotyping, and to a somewhat lesser degree, Gender Identity—were relatively stable over time. The prevalence of articles documenting gender differences is logical given that gender differences—whether real or perceived, small or large in magnitude—was the starting point of interest for which the field came into existence and that many researchers are ultimately interested in explaining. Gender differences have long captured the public’s interest and have been used to justify myriad laws, policies, and practices in the public and private spheres. The emphasis on gender socialization and stereotyping is also consistent with the prominence of socialization theories beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s and the journal’s mission to provide a feminist perspective. The Gender Identity category was especially varied and rich; the studies in this category clearly reflected the broad influence of Bem’s measure, but also included work influenced by Kohlberg’s (1966) ideas about gender constancy, and newer multidimensional models of gender identity.

Gender development has progressed a long way from the initial study of gender differences, and has continued to move forward steadily. Leaders in the field have encouraged increasingly precise and clear terminology, more sophisticated methods and analytic techniques, and a greater diversity of topics of study. Assumptions made about one domain of gender development predicting all others have been questioned, and the multidimensionality of gender has been highlighted, as evidenced here in the many topics covered by researchers. Sex Roles has played an important role in the growth of the field by providing an outlet dedicated to disseminating research on the wide array of topics associated with gender development. In the next 35 years, our hope is that the journal will continue to play a leadership role in the field, and to promote more diversity in topics, methods, and ages employed in gender development research.

Acknowledgments

The paper was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD045816-01) awarded to the Carol Lynn Martin and Richard A. Fabes; a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development research grant (R01 HD04994) to Diane N. Ruble; and a National Science Foundation IRADS grant (0721383) Funds from the T. Denny Sanford Foundation also supported work on this paper. Funding also was provided by the School of Social Dynamics and the Challenged Child Project at Arizona State University.

To determine inclusion, we used several parameters. In addition to including studies that had children as direct participants, we also included studies that had children or child development as the targets of study (e.g., maternal reports about children, parents’ gender-typed discipline strategies). Second, we included studies that involved content analyses of children’s media (e.g., gender-typed behaviors displayed in children’s cartoons). Third, studies with a primary purpose of reporting the psychometric properties of a measure developed for and used with children were also included. We excluded studies that were based on a college student sample or that included participants 17 years and older if the primary purpose of the study did not concern adolescence. Moreover, we did not include retrospective studies, and we did not include non-empirical theoretical and review papers.

Contributor Information

Kristina M. Zosuls, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Program in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 873701, Tempe, AZ 85287-3701, USA.

Cindy Faith Miller, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Program in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.

Diane N. Ruble, Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.

Carol Lynn Martin, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Program in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.

Richard A. Fabes, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Program in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.

• Alexander GM, Hines M. Sex differences in response to children’s toys in nonhuman primates (cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus) Evolution and Human Behavior. 2002; 23 :467–479. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00107-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of girls. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2007. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A, Bussey K. On broadening the cognitive, motivational, and sociostructural scope of theorizing about gender development and functioning: Comment on Martin, Ruble, and Szkrybalo (2002) Psychological Bulletin. 2004; 130 :691–701. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.691. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bem SL. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1974; 42 :155–162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bem SL. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review. 1981; 88 :354–364. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berenbaum SA, Snyder E. Early hormonal influences on childhood sex-typed activity and playmate preferences: Implications for the development of sexual orientation. Developmental Psychology Special Issue: Sexual Orientation and Human Development. 1995; 31 :31–42. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.31. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bigler RS. The role of classification skill in moderating environmental effects on children’s gender stereotyping: A study of the functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Development. 1995; 66 :1072. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradbard MR, Endsley RC. The effects of sex-typed labeling on preschool children’s information-seeking and retention. Sex Roles. 1983; 9 :247–260. doi: 10.1007/BF00289627. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA. The bioecological model of human development. In: Lerner RM, Damon W, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol 1, theoretical models of human development. 6. Hoboken: Wiley; 2006. pp. 793–828. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown CS, Bigler RS. Children’s perceptions of gender discrimination. Developmental Psychology. 2004; 40 :714–726. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.714. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown CS, Bigler RS. Children’s perceptions of discrimination: A developmental model. Child Development. 2005; 76 :533–553. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bussey K, Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review. 1999; 106 :676–713. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carver PR, Yunger JL, Perry DG. Gender identity and adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles. 2003; 49 :95–109. doi: 10.1023/A:1024423012063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen-Bendahan CCC, van de Beek C, Berenbaum SA. Prenatal sex hormone effects on child and adult sex-typed behavior: Methods and findings. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews Special Issue: Prenatal Programming of Behavior, Physiology and Cognition. 2005; 29 :353–384. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.11.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Constantinople A. Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin. 1973; 80 :389–407. doi: 10.1037/h0035334. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development. 1995; 66 :710–722. doi: 10.2307/1131945. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cross SE, Madson L. Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin. 1997; 122 :5–37. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deaux K. Commentary: Sorry, wrong number—A reply to Gentile’s call. Psychological Science. 1993; 4 :125–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond LM. New paradigms for research on heterosexual and sexual-minority development. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2003; 32 :490–498. doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3204_1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egan SK, Perry DG. Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology. 2001; 37 :451–463. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberg N, Lennon R. Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin. 1983; 94 :100–131. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.100. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Else-Quest NM, Hyde JS, Goldsmith HH, Van Hulle CA. Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2006; 132 :33–72. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fabes RA, Eisenberg N. Unpublished manuscript. Arizona State University; 1996. Age and gender differences in prosocial behavior: A metaanalytic examination. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fabes RA, Hanish LD, Martin CL. Children at play: The role of peers in understanding the effects of child care. Child Development. 2003a; 74 :1039–1043. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00586. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fabes RA, Martin CL, Hanish LD. Young children’s play qualities in same-, other-, and mixed-sex peer groups. Child Development. 2003b; 74 :921. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00576. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frieze IH, Dittrich S. Sex roles: An international journal. Sex Roles. 2008; 58 :751. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9433-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frieze IH, Parsons JE, Johnson PB, Ruble DN, Zellman GL. Women and sex roles: A social psychological perspective. New York: W. W. Norton; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris JR. Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review. 1995; 102 :458–489. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hegarty P. Toward an LGBT-informed paradigm for children who break gender norms: Comment on Drummond et al. (2008) and Rieger et al. (2008) Developmental Psychology. 2009; 45 :895–900. doi: 10.1037/a0016163. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huston AC. Sex-typing. In: Hetherington EM, editor. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development. New York: Wiley; 1983. pp. 387–467. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyde JS. The gender similarities hypothesis. The American Psychologist. 2005; 60 :581–592. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyde JS. New directions in the study of gender similarities and differences. New Directions in Psychological Science. 2007; 16 :259–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00516.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyde JS, Linn MC, editors. The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyde JS, Fennema E, Lamon SJ. Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 107 :139–155. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909. 107.2.139. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kagan J. On measurement: Suggestions for the future. Journal of Projective Techniques & Personality Assessment. 1964; 28 :151–155. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karpoe KP, Olney RL. The effect of boys’ or girls’ toys on sex-typed play in preadolescents. Sex Roles. 1983; 9 :507–518. doi: 10.1007/BF00289790. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knight GP, Fabes RA, Higgins DA. Concerns about drawing causal inferences from meta-analyses: An example in the study of gender differences in aggression. Psychological Bulletin. 1996; 119 :410–421. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohlberg LA. A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex role concepts and attitudes. In: Maccoby EE, editor. The development of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1966. pp. 82–173. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liben LS, Signorella ML. Gender-related schemata and constructive memory in children. Child Development. 1980; 51 :11–18. doi: 10.2307/1129584. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lurye LE, Zosuls KM, Ruble DN. A developmental perspective on social identity: The case of gender identity. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2008; 120 :31–46. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maccoby EE, editor. The development of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maccoby EE. The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
• Magnusson D, Stattin H. The person in context: A holistic-interactionistic approach. In: Lerner RM, Damon W, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development. 6. Hoboken: Wiley; 2006. pp. 400–464. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marecek J, Kimmel EB, Crawford M, Hare-Mustin RT. Psychology of women and gender. In: Freedheim DK, editor. Handbook of psychology: History of psychology. Vol. 1. Hoboken: Wiley; 2003. pp. 249–268. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin CL, Fabes RA. The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology. 2001; 37 :431–446. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.431. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin CL, Halverson CF. A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development. 1981; 52 :1119–1134. doi: 10.2307/1129498. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin CL, Ruble DN. Patterns of gender development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2010; 61 :353–381. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100511. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin CL, Eisenbud L, Rose H. Children’s gender-based reasoning about toys. Child Development. 1995; 66 :1453–1471. doi: 10.2307/1131657. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin CL, Ruble DN, Szkrybalo J. Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin. 2002; 128 :903–933. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin CL, Ruble DN, Szkrybalo J. Recognizing the centrality of gender identity and stereotype knowledge in gender development and moving toward theoretical integration: Reply to Bandura and Bussey (2004) Psychological Bulletin. 2004; 130 :702–710. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.702. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin CL, Fabes RA, Hanish LD, Hollenstein T. Social dynamics in the preschool. Developmental Review. 2005; 25 :299–327. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2005.10.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller CF, Trautner HM, Ruble DN. The role of gender stereotypes in children’s preferences and behavior. In: Balter L, Tamis-LeMonda CS, editors. Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues. 2. New York: Psychology Press; 2006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W. A social-learning view of sex differences in behavior. In: Maccoby EE, editor. The development of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1966. pp. 57–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W. Sex typing and socialization. In: Mussen PH, editor. Carmichael’s handbook of child psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Wiley; 1970. pp. 3–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W. On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person–situation debate. The American Psychologist. 1979; 34 :740–754. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.9.740. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Money J, Ehrhardt AA. Man and woman, boy and girl. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1972. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oakley A. People’s ways of knowing: gender and methodology. In: Hood S, Mayall B, Oliver S, editors. Critical issues in social research. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1999. pp. 154–170. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Poulin C. It made us think differently: Unger’s ‘toward a redefinition of sex and gender’ Feminism & Psychology. 2007; 17 :435–441. doi: 10.1177/0959353507084322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powlishta KK. Gender bias in children’s perceptions of personality traits. Sex Roles. 1995a; 32 :17–28. doi: 10.1007/BF01544755. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powlishta KK. Intergroup processes in childhood: Social categorization and sex role development. Developmental Psychology. 1995b; 31 :781–788. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.781. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Purcell P, Stewart L. Dick and Jane in 1989. Sex Roles. 1990; 22 :177–185. doi: 10.1007/BF00288190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodgers CS, Fagot BI, Winebarger A. Gender-typed toy play in dizygotic twin pairs: A test of hormone transfer theory. Sex Roles. 1998; 39 :173–184. doi: 10.1023/A:1018894219859. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruble DN, Martin CL. Gender development. In: Damon W, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 5. New York: Wiley; 1998. pp. 933–1016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruble DN, Martin CL, Berenbaum SA. Gender development. In: Eisenberg N, Damon W, Lerner RM, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, social, emotional, and personality development. 6. Hoboken: Wiley; 2006. pp. 858–932. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sax L. Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. NY: Random House; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Serbin LA, Zelkowitz P, Doyle A, Gold D. The socialization of sex-differentiated skills and academic performance: A mediational model. Sex Roles. 1990; 23 :613–628. doi: 10.1007/BF00289251. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Serbin LA, Poulin-Dubois D, Colburne KA, Sen MG, Eichstedt JA. Gender stereotyping in infancy: Visual preferences for and knowledge of gender-stereotyped toys in the second year. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2001; 25 :7–15. doi: 10.1080/01650250042000078. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Serbin LA, Poulin-Dubois D, Eichstedt JA. Infants’ response to gender-inconsistent events. Infancy. 2002; 3 :531–542. doi: 10.1207/S15327078IN0304_07. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shields SA. Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women. The American Psychologist. 1975; 30 :739–754. doi: 10.1037/h0076948. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Signorella ML, Bigler RS, Liben LS. Developmental differences in children’s gender schemata about others: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review. 1993; 13 :147–183. doi: 10.1006/drev.1993.1007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TE, Leaper C. Self-perceived gender typicality and the peer context during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2006; 16 :91–103. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00123.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spence JT, Helmreich R, Stapp J. Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1975; 32 :29–39. doi: 10.1037/h0076857. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1999; 35 :4–28. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1373. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobin DD, Menon M, Menon M, Spatta BC, Hodges EV, Perry DG. The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-socialization. Psychological Review. 2010; 117 :601–622. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Unger RK. Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. The American Psychologist. 1979; 34 :1085–1094. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.11.1085. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wallen K. Nature needs nurture: The interaction of hormonal and social influences on the development of behavioral sex differences in rhesus monkeys. Hormones and Behavior. 1996; 30 :364–378. doi: 10.1006/hbeh.1996.0042. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zosuls KM, Ruble DN, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shrout PE, Bornstein MH, Greulich FK. The acquisition of gender labels in infancy: Implications for sex-typed play. Developmental Psychology. 2009; 45 :688–701. doi: 10.1037/a0014053. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zosuls KM, Martin CL, Ruble DN, Miller CF, Gaertner BM, Hill AP, England DE. “It’s not that we hate you”: Understanding children’s gender attitudes and expectancies about peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2011 (in press) [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zucker KJ, Drummond KD, Bradley SJ, Peterson-Badali M. Troubled meditations on psychosexual differentiation: Reply to Hegarty (2009) Developmental Psychology. 2009; 45 :904–908. doi: 10.1037/a0016125. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

What are the key findings of the NHS gender identity review?

Report by Dr Hilary Cass finds young people being let down by lack of research and evidence on medical interventions

• Thousands of children ‘let down by NHS’
• Review has major implications for mental health services

A review into the NHS’s gender identity services has found that children and young people have been let down by a lack of research and evidence on medical interventions in a debate that has become exceptionally toxic.

Dr Hilary Cass said her report was not about defining “what it means to be trans” or “undermining the validity of trans identities”, but about “how best to help the growing number of children and young people who are looking for support from the NHS in relation to their gender identity”. Here are the review’s key findings.

The evidence

“This is an area of remarkably weak evidence,” Cass writes in the foreword to her 398-page report.

Despite that, she adds: “Results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”

When Cass began her inquiry in 2020, the evidence base, especially about puberty blockers and masculinising and feminising cross-sex hormones was “weak”. That was exacerbated by the existence of “a lot of misinformation, easily accessible online, with opposing sides of the debate pointing to research to justify a position, regardless of the quality of the studies.”

Cass commissioned the University of York to undertake systematic reviews of the evidence on key issues, such as puberty blockers. It found that “there continues to be a lack of high-quality evidence in this area”. York academics, as part of their research, tried to document the outcomes seen among the 9,000 young people who the Tavistock and Portman NHS trust’s gender identity development service (Gids) treated between 2009-2020. However, it was “thwarted by a lack of cooperation from [six of England’s seven NHS] adult gender services”.

The new NHS services for these young people must routinely collect evidence of what treatments work, and learn from them to improve clinical practice, the report states.

Cass acknowledges that the discussion around how to care for such young people is polarised, both among health professionals and in wider society. For example, some clinicians believe that most people who present to gender services “will go on to have a long-term trans identity and should be supported to access a medical pathway at an early stage”.

“Others feel that we are medicalising children and young people whose multiple other difficulties are manifesting through gender confusion and gender-related distress. The toxicity of the debate is exceptional,” the report says.

Cass has been criticised for talking both to groups who support gender affirmation – the medical approach – and also those who believe greater caution is needed. Some experienced doctors who have offered different viewpoints have been “dismissed and invalidated”, she says.

“There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop.”

The toxicity of debate has made some clinicians fearful of working with these young people.

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust

When its Gids service was set up in 1989, it saw fewer than 10 children a year, mainly birth-registered males who had not reached puberty. Most received therapy and only a few hormones from the age of 16.

But in 2011 the UK began trialling the use of puberty blockers, as a result of the emergence of “the Dutch protocol”, which involved using them from early puberty. However, a study undertaken in 2015-16, although not published until 2020, shows “a lack of any positive measurable outcomes”.

“Despite this, from 2014 puberty blockers moved from a research-only protocol to being available in routine clinical practice.” This “adoption of a treatment with uncertain benefits without further scrutiny” helped increase the demand among patients for them, the report finds.

An NHS England review in 2019, which examined the evidence on medical intervention and found evidence of its effectiveness to be “weak”, led to Cass being asked to undertake her review.

Changing patient profile

Referral rates to Gids have rocketed since 2014, but there has also been a shift in the profile of those using services. For centuries transgender people have been predominantly trans females who present in adulthood. Now the vast majority are teenagers who were registered as female at birth.

An audit of discharge notes of Gids patients between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2022 showed the youngest patient was three, the oldest 18, and 73% were birth-registered females, according to the review, which tries to discover why things have changed so dramatically.

One area it explores is the deterioration in mental health among young people, and the links with social media, which have brought pressures to bear on them that no previous generation has experienced.

“The increase in presentations to gender clinics has to some degree paralleled this deterioration in child and adolescent mental health,” the review says. “Mental health problems have risen in both boys and girls, but have been most striking in girls and young women.”

Youngsters who present with gender identity issues to services may also have depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, tics and eating disorders, as well as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Referrals to Gids are also associated with higher than average rates of adverse childhood experiences, the review says.

“There is no single explanation for the increase in prevalence of gender incongruence or the change in case-mix of those being referred to gender services,” the review says, concluding instead that gender incongruence is a result of “a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors”.

Transitioning

Young people’s sense of their identity is not always fixed and can evolve over time, Cass says.

“Whilst some young people may feel an urgency to transition, young adults looking back at their younger selves would often advise slowing down,” the report says.

“For some, the best outcome will be transition, whereas others may resolve their distress in other ways. Some may transition and then de/retransition and/or experience regret. The NHS needs to care for all those seeking support.”

Social transitioning

Social transitioning is the process by which individuals make social changes in order to live as a different gender, such as changing name, pronouns, hair or clothing, and it is something that schools in England have been grappling with in recent years.

According to the Cass review, many children and young people attending Gids have already changed their names by deed-poll and attend school in their chosen gender by the time they are seen.

The review says research on the impact of social transition is generally of a poor quality and the findings are contradictory. Some studies suggest that allowing a child to socially transition may improve mental health and social and educational participation.

Others say a child who is allowed to socially transition is more likely to have an altered trajectory, leading to medical intervention, which will have life-long implications, when they might otherwise have desisted.

“Given the weakness of the research in this area there remain many unknowns about the impact of social transition,” the review concludes. “In particular, it is unclear whether it alters the trajectory of gender development, and what short- and longer-term impact this may have on mental health.”

The review recommends that parents should be involved in decision making, unless there are strong grounds to believe this may put a child at risk, and where children are pre-puberty, families should be seen as early as possible by a clinician with relevant experience. It also suggests avoiding premature decisions and considering partial rather than full transitioning as a way of keeping options open.

Future care

The report says that in the future any young person seeking NHS help with gender-related distress should be screened to see if they have any neurodevelopmental conditions, such as autism spectrum disorder, and also given a mental health assessment.

NHS England has already in effect banned the use of puberty blockers because of limited evidence that they work. Cass found that there is “no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think”, which their advocates have claimed. There is also “concern that they may change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development” as well as pose long-term risks to users’ bone health, the review says.

There is also a lack of evidence to prove that masculinising and feminising hormones improve a young person’s body satisfaction and psychosocial health, and there is concern over the impact on fertility, growth and bone health. There is also no evidence they reduce the risk of suicide in children, as their proponents have claimed.

Lastly, the evidence base showing whether psychosocial interventions – therapy – work for those who do not undergo hormone treatment is “as weak” as for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

All this means that there is “a major gap in our knowledge about how best to support and help the growing population of young people with gender-related distress in the context of complex presentations”.

• Transgender
• Young people

More on this story

Veteran trans campaigner: ‘Cass review has potential for positive change’

Cass review must be used as ‘watershed moment’ for NHS gender services, says Streeting

‘This isn’t how good scientific debate happens’: academics on culture of fear in gender medicine research

Five thousand children with gender-related distress awaiting NHS care in England

Ban on children’s puberty blockers to be enforced in private sector in England

What Cass review says about surge in children seeking gender services

Adult transgender clinics in England face inquiry into patient care

‘Children are being used as a football’: Hilary Cass on her review of gender identity services

Thousands of children unsure of gender identity ‘let down by NHS’, report finds

Review of gender services has major implications for mental health services

Most viewed.