Background Both women's and men's occupational health problems merit scientific attention. Researchers need to consider the effect of gender on how occupational health issues are experienced, expressed, defined, and addressed. More serious consideration of gender-related factors will help identify risk factors for both women and men. Methods The authors, who come from a number of disciplines (ergonomics, epidemiology, public health, social medicine, community psychology, economics, sociology) pooled their critiques in order to arrive at the most common and significant problems faced by occupational health researchers who wish to consider gender appropriately. Results This paper describes some ways that gender can be and has been handled in studies of occupational health, as well as some of the consequences. The paper also suggests specific research practices that avoid errors. Obstacles to gender-sensitive practices are considered. Conclusions Although gender-sensitive practices may be difficult to operationalize in some cases, they enrich the scientific quality of research and should lead to better data and ultimately to well-targeted prevention programs. Am. J. Ind. Med. 43:618-629, 2003. KEY WORDS: gender; sex; women; men; research methodology; epidemiology; ergonomics; confounding; effect modification; gender-based analysis INTRODUCTIONBoth women's and men's occupational health merit scientific attention. In the United States, women constitute 46% of the paid workforce [United States Department of Labor, 2002], and have one third of compensated occupational health and safety problems, resulting in 81% of claims on a per hour basis [McDiarmid and Gucer, 2001]. These injuries entail direct and indirect costs to workers and employers, as well as human suffering [deCarteret, 1994]. Therefore, appropriately including sex and gender is increasingly relevant for occupational health research. Although researchers are interested in developing studies involving these variables, they may not know exactly how to do this. This article supplies some suggestions. Many of the arguments presented here will apply to other sources of socially defined diversity such as age, race/ ethnicity, and social class [Krieger et al., 1993;Kilbom et al., 1997;Wegman, 1999; Chaturvedi, 2001]. Each of these factors has its own interactions with the work environment and health effects, but their discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.We have identified three types of problems in the way occupational health research has dealt with sex and gender. First, hazards in women's work have been underestimated [Rosenstock and Lee, 2000;Bäckman and Edling, 2001;London et al., 2002;McDiarmid and Gucer, 2001]. Women have been less often studied by occupational health scientists [Zahm et al., 1994;Messing, 1998a;Niedhammer et al., 2000]. Under-reporting and under-compensation, recognized problems in occupational health [Biddle et al., 1998;Davis et al., 2001;Harber et al., 2001], may be more of a problem for women [Lippel and Demers, 1996;Gluck and O...

Describes a conceptual case study of the group dynamics of parents and other community members on the board of a human service agency serving people with developmental disabilities. Can more than one group on a community agency board be empowered at the same time? If so, can these coempowered groups collaborate? The case study demonstrated that both parents and other community members couM be simultaneously empowered when the board culture promoted inclusionary group processes and the activation of member resources. Collaboration between empowered groups occurred when the board culture encouraged appreciation for interdependencies and the development of boundary spanners'. When both groups were empowered and collaborated, there was a synergy in board functioning that enabled the organ&ation to accomplish more than # did when only one group held power.

This cross-sectional study of nonfaculty university employees examined associations among gendered work conditions (e.g., sexism and discrimination), job demands, and employee job satisfaction and health. Organizational responsiveness and social support were examined as effect modifiers. Comparisons were made by gender and by the male-female ratio in each job category. The relationship of gendered conditions of work to outcomes differed on the basis of respondents' sex and the job sex ratio. Although the same predictors were hypothesized for job satisfaction, physical health, and psychological distress, there were some differing results. The strongest correlate of job satisfaction was social support; perceived sexism in the workplace also contributed for both men and women. Organizational factors associated with psychological distress differed between female-and male-dominated jobs.

Three broad Diversity Principles for Community Research and Action are described and offered as community psychology's contribution to the growing literature on multicultural competence in psychology. The principles are applicable to multiple dimensions of diversity including race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, and social class. The diversity principles are illustrated with examples from the twenty-two diversity stories in the AJCP Special Issue on Diversity Stories in Community Research and Action. Each of the three diversity principles (Community Culture, Community Context, and Self-in-Community) are associated with a fundamental assumption, a process emphasis (descriptive, analytic, and reflective), a core question to engage, an orienting stance (informed compassion, contextualized understanding, and empowered humility), and three areas of focus. Taken together, the principles suggest the value of the overarching stance of connected disruption. It is suggested that applying the principles to community work in diverse settings will facilitate the process of bridging differences and enhance the relevance and effectiveness of our work.

Creating settings that support diversity has been a long-standing concern of community psychology. In this paper, I propose two qualities as important aspects of organizational contexts that support the meaningful participation of diverse groups: (a) a culture of connection and (b) recognition of multiple "realities." For each theme, I first examine countervailing values that can undermine meaningful participation of nondominant groups. I suggest that organizational values for independence and a press for sameness can contribute to settings where members of traditionally oppressed groups will be prevented from meaningful participation. I also suggest that fostering a culture of connectedness that actively legitimizes multiple realities is a constructive alternative. To illustrate these points, I share observations based on experiences in manufacturing, educational, and community-based settings. Then, I explore two dynamics that are important when confronting the countervailing values and building more inclusive contexts: (a) accountability for impact and (b) privilege dynamics. Last, I turn to some possibilities for change through a stance of connected disruption.