Malin Ah-King
I am an evolutionary biologist and gender researcher. I have a Ph.D. in Zoology at Stockholm University, and was later employed in the GenNa program at the Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, Sweden (a program designed to transgress natural sciences and cultural studies since 2007). Furthermore, I have worked at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles, the Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, the Centre for Gender and Future Research, Marburg University, Department of History, Humboldt University of Berlin, and the Department of Ethnology, History of Religions and Gender Studies, Stockholm University. I am an Associate Professor in Gender Studies at the School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, Sweden. I focus on feminist science studies on sexual selection.
Address: School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, Sweden
Address: School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, Sweden
less
InterestsView All (6)
Uploads
Papers by Malin Ah-King
gender-biased, gender bias in current sexual selection research is less recognized.
An examination of the history of sexual selection research shows
prevalent male precedence—that research starts with male-centered investigations
or explanations and thereafter includes female-centered equivalents.
In comparison, the incidence of female precedence is low. Furthermore, a
comparison between the volume of publications focusing on sexual selection
in males versus in females shows that the former far outnumber the latter. This
bias is not only a historical pattern; sexual selection theory and research are
still male-centered—due to conspicuous traits, practical obstacles, and continued
gender bias. Even the way sexual selection is commonly defined contributes
to this bias. This history provides an illustrative example by which we
can learn to recognize biases and identify gaps in knowledge. I conclude with a
call for the scientific community to interrogate its own biases and suggest
strategies for alleviating biases in this field and beyond.
Open access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34770-z
gender-biased, gender bias in current sexual selection research is less recognized.
An examination of the history of sexual selection research shows
prevalent male precedence—that research starts with male-centered investigations
or explanations and thereafter includes female-centered equivalents.
In comparison, the incidence of female precedence is low. Furthermore, a
comparison between the volume of publications focusing on sexual selection
in males versus in females shows that the former far outnumber the latter. This
bias is not only a historical pattern; sexual selection theory and research are
still male-centered—due to conspicuous traits, practical obstacles, and continued
gender bias. Even the way sexual selection is commonly defined contributes
to this bias. This history provides an illustrative example by which we
can learn to recognize biases and identify gaps in knowledge. I conclude with a
call for the scientific community to interrogate its own biases and suggest
strategies for alleviating biases in this field and beyond.
Open access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34770-z