为什么我们需要SAGE的性别顾问

C. Wenham, A. Herten-Crabb
{"title":"为什么我们需要SAGE的性别顾问","authors":"C. Wenham, A. Herten-Crabb","doi":"10.31389/LSEPPR.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The UK government has largely failed to consider gender in its COVID-19 response, despite the many and varied differential impacts of policy interventions on women and men. Since government policy is informed by the advice ministers receive, we sought to understand whether and how gender had been considered by the UK government’s COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE). This paper uses two forms of policy analysis to assess 73 SAGE meeting minutes and background documents for 1) the explicit references to sex and/or gender, and 2) references to issues evidenced in the literature to be gendered, to understand whether the gendered implications of policy were considered. We find that the acknowledgement of the gendered dynamics of particular issues, such as school closures and feminised (or masculinised) employment sectors, were largely absent in SAGE meeting minutes and that explicit references to women were largely of a biological (sex) nature, rather than social (gender). Over time we saw increased references to the gendered impacts of policy in meeting background documents, though these references largely reproduced gendered stereotypes and roles rather than actively engaging with the gender issues. However, not all blame can be put at the feet of SAGE members, who did show awareness of equity issues and were predominantly epidemiologists and behavioural scientists likely untrained in gender analysis. SAGE members are selected based on the government’s framing of the type of emergency at hand, and COVID-19 has been treated by the government as a an epidemiological emergency, rather than a social, political and economic one. We argue that reframing emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic in a more holistic way enables us to redefine the scientific advice deemed necessary for SAGE membership, and facilitates the inclusion of gender advisors to mitigate the downstream gendered impacts of non-pharmaceutical interventions associated with the government’s COVID-19 response.","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why we Need a Gender Advisor on SAGE\",\"authors\":\"C. Wenham, A. Herten-Crabb\",\"doi\":\"10.31389/LSEPPR.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The UK government has largely failed to consider gender in its COVID-19 response, despite the many and varied differential impacts of policy interventions on women and men. Since government policy is informed by the advice ministers receive, we sought to understand whether and how gender had been considered by the UK government’s COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE). This paper uses two forms of policy analysis to assess 73 SAGE meeting minutes and background documents for 1) the explicit references to sex and/or gender, and 2) references to issues evidenced in the literature to be gendered, to understand whether the gendered implications of policy were considered. We find that the acknowledgement of the gendered dynamics of particular issues, such as school closures and feminised (or masculinised) employment sectors, were largely absent in SAGE meeting minutes and that explicit references to women were largely of a biological (sex) nature, rather than social (gender). Over time we saw increased references to the gendered impacts of policy in meeting background documents, though these references largely reproduced gendered stereotypes and roles rather than actively engaging with the gender issues. However, not all blame can be put at the feet of SAGE members, who did show awareness of equity issues and were predominantly epidemiologists and behavioural scientists likely untrained in gender analysis. SAGE members are selected based on the government’s framing of the type of emergency at hand, and COVID-19 has been treated by the government as a an epidemiological emergency, rather than a social, political and economic one. We argue that reframing emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic in a more holistic way enables us to redefine the scientific advice deemed necessary for SAGE membership, and facilitates the inclusion of gender advisors to mitigate the downstream gendered impacts of non-pharmaceutical interventions associated with the government’s COVID-19 response.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSE public policy review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSE public policy review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31389/LSEPPR.25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSE public policy review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/LSEPPR.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

尽管政策干预对女性和男性产生了许多不同的不同影响,但英国政府在应对COVID-19方面基本上没有考虑到性别问题。由于政府政策是根据部长们收到的建议来制定的,我们试图了解英国政府的COVID-19紧急情况科学咨询小组(SAGE)是否以及如何考虑了性别问题。本文使用两种形式的政策分析来评估73份SAGE会议纪要和背景文件:1)明确提及性别和/或社会性别,以及2)参考文献中证明的性别问题,以了解政策是否考虑了性别影响。我们发现,在SAGE会议纪要中,对特定问题的性别动态的承认,例如学校关闭和女性化(或男性化)就业部门,在很大程度上是缺席的,明确提到女性的主要是生物(性别)性质,而不是社会(性别)性质。随着时间的推移,我们看到在会议背景文件中越来越多地提到政策对性别的影响,尽管这些提及在很大程度上再现了性别的刻板印象和角色,而不是积极参与性别问题。然而,并不是所有的责任都可以归咎于SAGE成员,他们确实意识到了公平问题,而且主要是流行病学家和行为科学家,可能没有接受过性别分析方面的培训。SAGE成员是根据政府对手头紧急情况的定义来选择的,政府一直将COVID-19视为流行病紧急情况,而不是社会、政治和经济紧急情况。我们认为,以更全面的方式重新构建COVID-19大流行等紧急情况,使我们能够重新定义被认为是SAGE成员所需的科学建议,并促进性别顾问的加入,以减轻与政府应对COVID-19相关的非药物干预措施对下游性别的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why we Need a Gender Advisor on SAGE
The UK government has largely failed to consider gender in its COVID-19 response, despite the many and varied differential impacts of policy interventions on women and men. Since government policy is informed by the advice ministers receive, we sought to understand whether and how gender had been considered by the UK government’s COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE). This paper uses two forms of policy analysis to assess 73 SAGE meeting minutes and background documents for 1) the explicit references to sex and/or gender, and 2) references to issues evidenced in the literature to be gendered, to understand whether the gendered implications of policy were considered. We find that the acknowledgement of the gendered dynamics of particular issues, such as school closures and feminised (or masculinised) employment sectors, were largely absent in SAGE meeting minutes and that explicit references to women were largely of a biological (sex) nature, rather than social (gender). Over time we saw increased references to the gendered impacts of policy in meeting background documents, though these references largely reproduced gendered stereotypes and roles rather than actively engaging with the gender issues. However, not all blame can be put at the feet of SAGE members, who did show awareness of equity issues and were predominantly epidemiologists and behavioural scientists likely untrained in gender analysis. SAGE members are selected based on the government’s framing of the type of emergency at hand, and COVID-19 has been treated by the government as a an epidemiological emergency, rather than a social, political and economic one. We argue that reframing emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic in a more holistic way enables us to redefine the scientific advice deemed necessary for SAGE membership, and facilitates the inclusion of gender advisors to mitigate the downstream gendered impacts of non-pharmaceutical interventions associated with the government’s COVID-19 response.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The International System in the Shadow of the Russian War in Ukraine Who Supports the War? And Who Protests? The Legacies of Tzarist Social Divide in Russia After Merkel: Germany from Peace to War Weaponised Energy and Climate Change: Assessing Europe’s Response to the Ukraine War Europe and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Where Does the EU Stand?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1