Introduction
Fieldwork is a fundamental aspect of
research in disciplines such as ecology, palaeontology, biology, archaeology,
and geology (Butzer 1982; Vetter 2022; Nordseth et
al. 2023). It provides essential data and insights
that drive scientific discoveries and foster advancements in these fields.
However, fieldwork in natural sciences is often conducted under remote and
physically demanding conditions, which are shaped by androcentric norms that
prioritise productivity over comfort and basic necessities (Greene et al. 2020; Kojima et al.
2024). These challenging conditions, —characterized
by limited access to amenities such as sanitary facilities and private spaces— disproportionately
impact those who menstruate. While all field researchers face these harsh
conditions, they present unique and compounded difficulties for women and other
menstruating individuals, particularly when access to menstrual hygiene
products and adequate sanitation facilities is constrained (Das 2023; Nash 2023; Pickering and Khosa 2023).
Despite menstruation affecting
approximately half the global population, it remains a largely overlooked topic
in fieldwork discussions. The systemic oversight of menstruation is not merely
the result of inadvertence but a manifestation of ingrained sexist biases and
an androcentric worldview that has historically structured the organization of
both academic and scientific fields (EU Commission 2013; Bailey et al. 2019). This worldview centres male experiences as the norm, relegating
the needs of women and other minoritized groups —who are neither minor in
number nor contributions— to the periphery, thereby silencing and concealing
their specific needs (Bailey
et al. 2019; Gil 2022). Recognizing the impact of
these biases is crucial, as they perpetuate gender disparities in academic and
scientific careers, often under the guise of maintaining 'neutral' or
'objective' standards that are in reality anything but (Nash 2023).
The invisibility of menstruation in
fieldwork settings is not an isolated phenomenon but is embedded within broader
social and cultural dynamics historically shaped by patriarchal systems (Valls-Llobet 2006). These systems have contributed to the masculinisation of public
and professional spaces, where female bodies and their specific needs—such as
menstrual health—are frequently disregarded or stigmatised (Botello-Hermosa and Casado-Mejía
2015; Peña Axt et al. 2023). Science and
academic institutions, often perceived as models of fairness and equity (Phillips 2002; Philip and
Azevedo 2017), cannot be separated from the
cultural conceptions of social relations and hierarchies that disadvantage
women (Esteban 2006). Consequently, the needs of women, and other menstruating
individuals, remain sidelined in environments predominantly designed by and for
men, perpetuating the notion that female bodies must adapt to androcentric
standards rather than transforming these standards to be inclusive (Esteban 2006).
Previous research has repeatedly
highlighted the barriers that women, non-binary, and transgender people face
within the academic sphere, including discrimination, harassment, and
obstructed paths to career advancement (Cortina et al. 1998; Bilimoria and Stewart 2009; Boustani and
Taylor 2020; Boivin et al. 2024). Despite growing
awareness and discussion around gender equity in science (Budden et al. 2008; Clancy et al.
2014; De Kleijn 2020; Rasmussen et al. 2023), the specific challenges that menstruating researchers
encounter—challenges that their non-menstruating counterparts do not face—are
often overlooked or minimally explored in scientific literature (Olson et al. 2022). This lack of empirical data limits our understanding of the full
spectrum of obstacles that menstruating researchers encounter, particularly in
remote or resource-limited settings where such challenges may be most
pronounced.
To address this gap, we conducted a
cross-sectional survey among 429 participants from various natural science
disciplines, recruited through academic networks, professional societies, and
social media platforms. This research design allowed us to gather both
quantitative and qualitative data on the impact of menstruation on fieldwork,
thereby providing a comprehensive picture of the logistical, social, and
health-related challenges involved.
This study, initiated by the Association
Mujeres con los Pies en la Tierra and the Equity Committee of the Spanish
Society of Terrestrial Ecology, seeks to address this gap by presenting
data on the impact of menstruation on fieldwork across various natural science
disciplines. By bringing these challenges to the forefront, we aim to raise
awareness about the barriers that women, and other menstruating individuals,
face in field settings and to advocate for the development of more inclusive
policies and practices. Such initiatives are vital not only for ensuring that
all researchers, regardless of gender or physiological differences, are
supported but also for advancing true equity in scientific research.
Material and Methods
Study Design and Participants
This study was designed as a
cross-sectional survey to explore the impact of menstruation on fieldwork
experiences across natural science disciplines. The research was initiated and
carried out by a volunteer team of young women from the Association Mujeres
con los Pies en la Tierra and the Equity Committee of the Spanish
Society of Terrestrial Ecology (AEET). While the team comprised feminist
activist researchers committed to advancing gender equality in sciences, we
recognize our lack of formal academic training in gender studies, which might
have influenced our approach and analytical framework. The impetus for this
study arose from our shared experiences and realizations of the systemic
androcentric biases that we, and many others, faced during fieldwork. These
discussions among ourselves highlighted the pervasive nature of such biases and
the urgent need to address them systematically. The survey was designed around
significant dates such as the International Day of Women and Girls in Science
(11th February) and International Women's Day (March 8th), to emphasize the
challenges and discrimination women face in science and STEM, including the
ongoing stigmatization of menstruation. By openly discussing the composition
and background of our research team, we aim to provide transparency and
encourage a reflexive understanding of how our identities as young, feminist
researchers shape the study's outcomes and its contributions to discussions on
gender in science.
Our approach in this survey has focused
primarily on women's experiences due to the demographic makeup of our
respondents and our own personal and professional backgrounds. However, we have
strived to be inclusive in our language and methodology by using the term
'individuals who menstruate', recognizing the existence of non-binary and
transgender men who also experience menstruation. Despite this, it's crucial to
acknowledge that our sample included only a minor representation of non-binary
individuals (two people) and no transgender men, leading our discussion and
analysis to predominantly address the experiences of women researchers.
Participants were recruited through various
academic networks, including university departments, professional societies,
and social media platforms targeting researchers who had participated in
fieldwork. The survey was voluntary and open to individuals across all genders,
and career stages, from students to senior researchers, and intended to capture
a broad spectrum of experiences. To participate, individuals needed to have
experience in fieldwork, which may have limited the collection of experiences from
individuals who were previously excluded from fieldwork due to menstruation or
other factors. The survey used tailored questioning to ensure that respondents
only answered questions relevant to their gender, career stage, and experience.
Survey Instrument
The survey, developed following preliminary
interviews with field researchers, included both closed-ended and open-ended
questions covering:
Demographic Information: Questions to identify gender, age group, academic position, and
whether the participant has ever menstruated.
Menstrual Experience and Management: Questions focused on menstrual pain, discomfort, and the
availability of menstrual products and sanitation facilities during fieldwork.
Fieldwork Logistics: Questions about the presence and content of first aid kits,
arrangements for privacy, and the adequacy of rest stops or breaks during field
activities.
Impact of Menstruation on Fieldwork: Questions exploring how menstruation affects participation in
fieldwork, including any modifications to schedules or tasks, as well as
perceived adaptations to meet the needs of menstruating researchers.
Perceptions and Attitudes: Questions to capture the perspectives of both menstruating and
non-menstruating researchers regarding the consideration of menstrual needs in
fieldwork planning.
Open-Ended Responses: Inviting participants to provide additional comments about their
experiences or suggest improvements to accommodate menstruation during
fieldwork.
Data Collection and Analysis
The survey was administered online via a
secure platform (Google Forms) to ensure participant anonymity and
confidentiality. The survey was available for thirty-four weeks, from 11
February 2024 to 11 October 2024. A total of 429 completed responses were
collected and used in the final analysis. Participants provided informed
consent before beginning the survey, confirming their voluntary participation
and understanding of the study's purpose. They were also assured that their
responses would remain confidential. Data were analysed using a combination of
descriptive statistics and qualitative assessment of responses.
Results
Based on the voluntary survey responses
collected, several key findings have emerged regarding the impact of
menstruation on fieldwork experiences and how menstrual health is considered in
fieldwork planning.
Demographic overview of
participants in the survey
The survey included 429 respondents, the
vast majority of whom were women (86.0%), with 13.5% identifying as male, and
0.5% as non-binary (Fig. 1). Most respondents fell within the 25-34
(40.8%) and 35-44 (28.2%) age groups, while only one respondent (0.2%) was over
64 years old (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Overview of the demographic diversity of the survey sample by
gender (left) and age (right).
Figura 1. Resumen de la diversidad demográfica de la
muestra encuestada según género (izquierda) y edad (derecha).
In terms of
academic background and occupation, a significant portion of respondents were
early-career researchers, with 19.8% of participants pursuing a PhD, 10.7%
enrolled in a Master’s program, and 7.5% being undergraduate students.
Postdoctoral researchers comprised 29.1%, while technical staff represented
15.9% of the sample. Full professors made up the smallest group (0.9%), all of
whom were women, alongside one male retired faculty member (0.2%). Most female
respondents were postdoctoral researchers, followed by PhD students, while most
male respondents were postdoctoral researchers, followed by Master’s students.
Menstrual experience of
participants in the survey
Among all
respondents, 86.0% (369 women and one non-binary person) reported that they
were currently menstruating or had menstruated in the past. Among them, 48.0%
described their menstrual pain as ‘quite painful’, and 13.0% reported it as
‘very painful’. Only 3.8% of respondents indicated that they experienced no
pain during menstruation (Fig.
2).
Figure 2. Left, number of menstruating/no-menstruating respondent and, right,
rating of their menstrual pain.
Figura 2. A la
izquierda, número de personas encuestadas que menstrúan/no menstrúan y, a la
derecha, porcentaje de las personas encuestadas que menstrúan con diferente
valoración de su dolor menstrual.
The most
commonly reported symptoms included “severe menstrual pain” and
“fatigue/sleepiness” (both 69.1%), followed by “irritability and mood swings”
(63.7%), “low motivation” (57.7%), and “heavy menstrual flow” (57.2%) (Fig. 3). These symptoms were reflected in qualitative responses, with one
participant noting: “The exhaustion during menstruation makes it extremely
difficult to keep up with the physical demands of fieldwork, especially when
there’s no chance to rest.”
Figure 3. Frequency with which menstruating respondents identify different
symptoms of menstrual discomfort.
Figura 3. Frecuencia
con las que las personas encuestadas que menstrúan identifican diferentes
síntomas de molestias menstruales.
When menstruating during fieldwork,
respondents reported using various strategies to communicate discomfort to
their supervisors. Responses varied significantly depending on the supervisor's
gender: 59.9% of women felt comfortable discussing their menstrual discomfort
directly with female supervisors, while only 30.5% felt comfortable doing so
with male supervisors. Additionally, when dealing with male supervisors, 30.5%
of women preferred to communicate that they were feeling “unwell” rather
than mentioning menstruation explicitly. One respondent explained: “It’s
easier just to say you’re not feeling well instead of mentioning menstruation.
It avoids awkwardness, especially with male supervisors.”
Availability and inclusion of
menstrual products
Regarding the availability of first aid
kits during fieldwork, 13.0% of respondents supervising fieldwork were unaware
of whether such kits were present, while 38.1% confirmed their absence. Among
those who confirmed the presence of a first aid kit (48.7%), the vast majority
(84.8%) reported that these kits did not include menstrual hygiene products.
Only a small percentage stated that they ensured the inclusion of menstrual
products themselves (13.5%) or that their institution provided them (1.7%).
Qualitative feedback expressed frustration
with the lack of available resources: “It’s ridiculous that menstrual
products are never included in first aid kits. You have to bring everything
yourself, even though it’s such a basic need.” Others described the
embarrassment they feel when needing to ask for such products, particularly in
male-dominated teams.
Perception of fieldwork
adaptation to menstrual needs
A substantial 75.3% of respondents stated
that fieldwork conditions do not adequately consider menstrual and general
health needs, such as medication intake, hygiene facilities or bathroom breaks.
Only 24.7% believed their fieldwork experiences were adequately adapted to meet
these needs. Additionally, 94.4% of respondents agreed that menstrual health
should be explicitly considered in fieldwork planning and other academic
activities.
Many qualitative responses reinforced this
concern, with one participant stating: “I’ve never seen any discussion about
how fieldwork could be adapted for menstruating individuals. It’s like it’s not
even acknowledged as a factor.” Another participant expressed: “There’s
often no clean toilet available, and it can be embarrassing to try and manage
menstruation in these conditions.”
Non-menstruating individuals’
perspectives
Although the survey focused on the
experiences of women and menstruation-related challenges in fieldwork, 14.0% of
respondents (58 men,1 woman, and 1 non-binary person) were non-menstruating
individuals who provided their perspectives on the issue. 68.3% of them
reported being aware of the difficulties their menstruating colleagues face
during fieldwork. Additionally, 96.7% of them agreed that menstrual health
should be considered in fieldwork planning. One non-menstruating participant
stated: “Even though I don’t menstruate, I can see how difficult it is for
my colleagues, and there should be more support for them.”
Discussion
The findings from our voluntary survey
provide critical insights into the experiences of many women in academic fieldwork,
particularly within the natural sciences. Our data not only highlight the
prevalence of menstrual discomfort but also expose broader systemic issues
related to gendered dynamics in the perception and discussion of menstruation,
coupled with a lack of infrastructural support during fieldwork. These findings
underscore the urgent need for structural changes in fieldwork planning and
execution to move away from androcentric perspectives and ensure that the needs
of all researchers are met, irrespective of their gender or menstruation
status. We aimed to include diverse groups such as non-binary and transgender
individuals using neutral terminology in our survey; however, the limited
number of respondents from these groups constrained our ability to analyse
their unique experiences in depth, which remains a crucial area for future
research.
The demographic imbalance in the survey,
with 87.4% of respondents under 45 years old and a broad majority identifying
as women (Fig. 1), mirrors a pattern frequently observed in
gender and equality research (Wasson et al. 2008). Studies indicate
that younger women are more likely to participate in diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) initiatives than older individuals or their male colleagues (World Economic Forum 2022; Krivkovich
et al. 2023). This overrepresentation of younger
women is concerning, as it implies that the burden of addressing DEI issues,
such as menstruation in fieldwork, tends to fall disproportionately on those
already marginalised by gender and age. Furthermore, senior faculty members,
who hold significant decision-making power in academia, are often absent from
these conversations, a gap that risks perpetuating the marginalisation of the
concerns of minoritized groups and shifting the responsibility of advocacy onto
those already disadvantaged (Johnson and Hekman 2016). In addition,
the high proportion of female respondents in our survey contrasts sharply with
the gender distribution in the natural sciences reported by documents such as
CSIC Women Researchers Reports (Mayoral Gastón et al. 2024), which
indicate that women account for less than 50% of professionals in these fields.
This discrepancy suggests that individuals most affected by issues like
menstruation in fieldwork may be overrepresented in our sample, a phenomenon
arising not only from a greater personal stake in the outcomes but also
reflects a broader societal trend where those facing structural inequities are
more actively engaged in addressing them. Together, these dynamics underscore
the critical need for more inclusive approaches in academic leadership and
research agendas, ensuring that the responsibility for advocacy and change does
not fall disproportionately on those most impacted by existing inequalities.
At the same time, we acknowledge that our
methodological definition of participants as individuals with fieldwork
experience may have limited our ability to capture the full spectrum of
experiences. This limitation includes those women previously excluded from
fieldwork due to risks such as the potential exposure of non-conforming gender
identity or barriers related to disabilities, thereby contributing to the
observed demographic imbalance. This oversight highlights a critical area of
concern, as fear of gender-based discrimination or the lack of adequate
facilities might deter women from participating in field-based roles. In light
of these limitations, future studies should consider strategies to engage these
underrepresented groups to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the
challenges faced by all menstruating individuals during fieldwork.
The survey also reveals a significant
discrepancy in how respondents report menstrual pain. While 69.1% of
participants described their pain as "severe" (Fig. 3), only 13.0% classified it as “very painful,” with the majority
(48.0%) characterized it as “quite painful” (Fig. 2).
This disparity suggests that women may minimise their pain, reflecting societal
norms that normalise discomfort or even suffering among women (Hoffman and Tarzian 2001; Wiggleton-Little
2024). Dysmenorrhea, or painful menstruation,
affects a large portion of the global population, with prevalence rates
reaching as high as 89.1% in certain regions (Iacovides et al. 2015; Gebeyehu et
al. 2017). However, in professional and academic
androcentric environments where productivity is valued above all else, women
may feel compelled to downplay their pain, thereby preventing them from seeking
necessary accommodations (Lahiri-Dutt
2015). This minimisation exacerbates both the
physical and emotional toll of menstruation during fieldwork, negatively
impacting health and performance. It should be noted that menstrual health
problems are underdiagnosed, can be associated with labour discrimination and
are increasingly recognised as serious issues—as evidenced by the recent
implementation of menstrual leave policies under Spanish law on sexual and
reproductive health, championed by labour unions. However, all these policies
are insufficient if not coupled with a recognition of the gravity of menstrual
discrimination, creating a non-discriminatory environment and dignifying the
conditions of menstruators in the workplace (Paudel 2023).
Regarding the availability of first aid
kits during fieldwork, our findings reveal a significant gap in the inclusion
of menstrual hygiene products, a basic yet overlooked necessity. Although 48.7%
of respondents confirmed the presence of first aid kits, a staggering 84.8%
reported that these kits lacked menstrual hygiene products. This oversight is
not only inconvenient but also reflects a broader androcentric culture that
routinely dismisses menstruation as a non-normative condition unworthy of
standard consideration (Stone
2021). Following a masculine war epistemology (Gil 2022), first
aid kits are conceived primarily to address acute emergencies, while chronic
issues, such as menstruation and its associated symptoms (e.g., PMS), are
systematically trivialised. In light of Spanish regulations, specifically, Real Decreto 486/1997, first aid kits are mandated to contain essential items like
disinfectants, gauzes, and bandages, there is no mention of menstrual products
yet. This regulatory gap is especially striking given recent legislative
advancements in Spain, such as Ley Orgánica 1/2023, which underscores
the importance of access to menstrual products in educational and penal
institutions by acknowledging menstrual management as a health necessity.
Article 5 quater of Ley
Orgánica 1/2023 further mandates that the
distribution of menstrual products must respect the users’ choices, ensuring
availability without mediation while protecting privacy and confidentiality.
This is particularly vital for individuals, especially those from transgender
and non-binary communities, who may prefer not to disclose their menstruating
status to supervisors or institutions (Rydström 2018). Overall, this
legislative context exposes a discrepancy between recognising menstrual health
in some public policies and its omission from workplace health and safety
standards. The absence of menstrual products in fieldwork settings not only
undermines the well-being and dignity of women and other menstruating
individuals but also perpetuates a gendered barrier to participation in
field-based scientific research. In light of these findings, future regulations
must consider menstrual health products as essential components of first aid
kits, particularly in fieldwork contexts where their availability can
significantly impact women’s ability to work effectively and without
discomfort.
In examining the prevalence of symptoms
such as severe menstrual pain and fatigue reported by participants, it is
essential to consider not only the physiological aspects of menstruation but
also the context in which these symptoms occur. Beyond physical discomfort,
more than half of the respondents reported experiencing emotional symptoms such
as fatigue, irritability, and low motivation, that can adversely affect their
performance in field activities by reducing their ability to socialise or
participate in team efforts, thereby undermining their professional
effectiveness (Maity et al.
2022; Rogers et al. 2023). Fieldwork, known
for its physical and psychological demands, undoubtedly exacerbates these
symptoms (Hummel and El
Kurd 2021), with severe menstrual pain often linked
to psychological distress, with affected individuals showing increased levels
of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Rogers et al. 2023). While it might be
tempting to interpret these symptoms as indicative of reduced performance among
women, doing so risks inadvertently reinforcing gender-based biases.
Historically, medical research has been critiqued for its androcentric biases (Merone et al. 2021), which have contributed to an incomplete understanding of
conditions predominantly affecting women and other menstruating individuals (Bueter 2017; Roh 2019) in
demanding environments like fieldwork. Moreover, the assumption that
menstruation inherently diminishes one’s performance warrants critical
examination. Such assumption not only reinforces harmful stereotypes but also
overlooks the potential for adaptive strategies that could mitigate these
challenges. Despite the prevalence of these issues, they are largely overlooked
when planning fieldwork activities. Addressing these challenges requires not
only physical accommodations but also robust mental health support systems that
recognize the connection between menstrual health and emotional well-being,
ensuring that these concerns are never used as a justification for
discrimination against women and menstruating individuals.
One significant, though not surprising,
finding of our survey is the gendered disparity in communication about
menstrual discomfort, which underscores deeply ingrained sexism within
fieldwork settings. While 60% of respondents felt comfortable discussing
menstrual issues with female supervisors, only 30.3% felt the same ease with
male supervisors. This discomfort is not merely an anticipated discrepancy but
a reflection of androcentric norms that dismiss menstruation as a trivial
'women’s issue,' thereby excluding it from serious consideration in fieldwork
planning. Such systemic oversight not only perpetuates discrimination and
embarrassment but also impacts perceived performance, leading to unjust
penalties for women when their productivity is affected by inadequate support
for menstrual health (Schoep
et al. 2019; Pao 2023). As one respondent stated: “It
will just become another reason for discrimination, and I don’t feel
comfortable sharing such personal information with my superiors”.
This communication gap poses a significant
barrier to addressing the needs of women in academic fieldwork (Lahme et al. 2018), preventing the inclusion of necessary accommodations in fieldwork
planning. Moreover, the reluctance to discuss menstruation openly, particularly
in male-dominated environments, reflects a broader societal mandate that women
conceal their menstrual status, a directive rooted in androcentric values that
deem public acknowledgement of menstruation inappropriate (Roh 2019). This
culture of silence further exacerbates the challenges faced by menstruating
individuals, especially transgender and non-binary persons, who may fear
additional stigmatization. Existing fieldwork conditions, designed without
considering menstrual health, force many women and other menstruating
individuals to either endure unbearable conditions or leave their positions (Pun 2023),
mirroring exclusionary practices observed in sectors like engineering or gaming
(Tonso 1996; Kowert et al.
2017). To counteract these inequities, there is a
pressing need for a paradigm shift in how menstrual health is integrated into
fieldwork planning. By normalising and incorporating menstrual health
considerations into occupational health and safety frameworks, we can enhance
productivity (Xu 2008), foster inclusivity, and dismantle the sexist structures that
marginalize menstruating individuals in scientific research.
The lack of consideration for menstrual
health in fieldwork logistics is not merely an oversight; it reflects deeply
ingrained gender dynamics within academia that are often disguised as issues of
capability. This androcentric approach to designing and organising fieldwork
perpetuates a subtle form of discrimination by attributing poor performance to
personal limitations rather than recognising the lack of adequate institutional
support for women’s needs. As universities and other scientific institutions increasingly
adopt neoliberal policies focused on productivity and output (Mountz et al. 2015), there is an implicit assumption that all members of the academic
community are capable of meeting constant performance demands without
consideration for their specific needs. Critiquing these androcentric
practices, rather than presumed individual incapacities, helps avoid the
pitfall of suggesting that women are inherently less capable. Instead, it
underscores the urgent need to rethink field activity planning and management
so that all academic community members, regardless of gender or menstrual status,
have access to conditions that allow for optimal, discrimination-free
performance.
Interestingly, our survey revealed that
82.5% of non-menstruating respondents support the inclusion of menstrual health
considerations in fieldwork planning, suggesting high levels of empathy and
awareness among these colleagues. However, this broad support contrasts with
the frustration expressed by some menstruating individuals, who feel that male
colleagues lack an understanding of how debilitating menstruation can be in the
field. One respondent noted, “There’s a lack of understanding from non-menstruating
colleagues, particularly men, about how debilitating menstruation can be in the
field.” This discrepancy may be partially attributed to a sample bias toward
individuals already committed to gender equality, as the survey was voluntary,
thereby highlighting a gap between general support for DEI initiatives and the
lived experiences of those who menstruate. Direct, open discussions within
academic teams are crucial to bridging this gap, translating empathy into
concrete action, and ensuring tangible support for menstruating researchers.
The findings from this survey underscore
the need for academic institutions to address menstruation as a legitimate
health issue in fieldwork. While there is broad support for including menstrual
health in planning, implementation lags. To create truly inclusive and
non-discriminatory academic institutions and research teams, it must prioritise
the health and well-being of all researchers. Moreover, academic institutions
must first acknowledge that menstrual discrimination contributes directly to
gender-based discrimination and inequality (Paudel 2023). This issue is closely tied
to workplaces built on a male-centered worldview, and addressing it is
essential to developing better practices and policies in workplaces. This may
involve:
Challenging and transforming androcentric
perspectives in work planning, including fieldwork campaigns. Rather than
simply abandoning these perspectives—which might seem overly radical and
difficult to implement—institutions can start by critically examining and
gradually reshaping ingrained practices. This shift would promote inclusivity
by ensuring that work planning reflects the diverse needs of all researchers.
Including menstrual products in the standard
first aid kits and ensuring their availability is well-communicated. This
measure helps normalise the conversation and ensures those needing these
products feel supported.
Encouraging open dialogue on menstrual health
among all genders, particularly in field campaigns led by men, fosters
discussions about menstrual health and addresses the availability of products.
This demonstrates awareness of potential challenges and zero tolerance for
discrimination.
Rethinking the ableist structures that
prioritise productivity at the expense of personal well-being. Fieldwork
environments must be inclusive, allowing individuals to prioritize their health
and hygiene without compromising their participation
Holding preparatory meetings for field campaigns
with the most diverse team possible. These meetings help identify potential
issues and propose solutions before the campaign begins, ensuring a more
inclusive and supportive environment for everyone.
By implementing these changes, academia can
move closer to dismantling the barriers that prevent menstruating individuals
from fully participating in research, thereby fostering a more equitable and
supportive environment for all. Breaking the menstrual taboo has already
contributed to overcoming stigma and discrimination, promoting equal
opportunities and enriching the academy.
Finally, as we advocate for the inclusion
of menstrual products in first aid kits, open dialogues on menstrual health
among all genders, and the rethinking of ableist structures that prioritise
productivity over well-being, it becomes clear that an interdisciplinary
approach is essential. Our own experiences as researchers who have encountered
androcentric biases during fieldwork underscore the importance of reflexivity:
acknowledging how our personal motivations have shaped both the questions we
ask and the solutions we propose. Collaboration with social science
experts—particularly those specializing in gender studies—would enrich these
initiatives by providing deeper insights into the social dynamics and gendered
experiences that influence fieldwork. Such collaboration ensures that our
strategies are not only inclusive but also grounded in a comprehensive
understanding of the diverse challenges faced by all menstruating individuals.
By incorporating social science perspectives into fieldwork planning and execution,
we can more effectively dismantle the sexist structures that disadvantage women
and other menstruating individuals in science.
Contribution of the authors
Sara Gamboa: Conceptualization, Data
Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing –
Original Draft, Writing – Review and
editing. Elena Cuesta: Conceptualization, Writing –
Review and editing. Virginia Domínguez-García: Writing – Review and editing. Ana García-Muñoz: Writing – Review and editing. Ana Rosa Gómez Cano:
Conceptualization, Writing – Review and
editing. Paloma López-Guerrero: Conceptualization, Writing – Review and editing. Iris Menéndez:
Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – Review and editing. Adriana Oliver:
Conceptualization, Writing – Review and
editing. Elena Velado-Alonso: Writing –
Review and editing. Patricia M. Carro-Rodríguez: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing – Review and
editing. Dánae Sanz-Pérez: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review and editing.
Data availability
The data supporting the findings of this study (Cross-sectional survey with 429 participants) have been included in the digital repository
Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28512839).
Financing, required permits, potential
conflicts of interest and acknowledgments
This work was supported by the European
Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation program (grant agreement 947921). SG was founded by the Spanish
Ministry of Universities and the Next Generation European Union programme
through a Margarita Salas Grant from Universidad Complutense de Madrid, grant
CT31/21. DSP was financed by the PID2022-138275NB-I00 project (Ministerio de
Ciencia e Innovación, Spain). IM was funded by a Humboldt Research Fellowship
for postdoctoral researchers from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. EC was
funded by a Marie S. Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship from Horizon Europe. This
project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2021 research
and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No
101064340 to V.D.-G. E.V.-A. is supported by the InterRest project, funded
through the 2020-2021 Biodiversa+ and Water JPI joint call for research
projects, under the BiodivRestore ERA-NET Cofund (GA N°101003777), with the EU
and the funding organizations Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German
Research Foundation) through research grant 491739988, Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency through research grant 2022-00027, Estonian Research Council,
the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and the Spanish
State Investigation Agency through the grant PCI2022-1329.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Bailey, A.H., LaFrance, M., Dovidio, J.F. 2019. Is man the measure of all
things? A social cognitive account of androcentrism. Personality and social
psychology review 23(4): 307-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318782848
Bilimoria, D., Stewart, A.J. 2009. "Don't ask, don't tell": The
academic climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty in science
and engineering. The National Women's Studies
Association Journal 21(2): 85-103. https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2009.a316151
Boivin, N., Täuber, S., Beisiegel, U., Keller, U., Hering, J.G. 2024. Sexism
in academia is bad for science and a waste of public funding. Nature
Reviews Materials 9(1): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-023-00624-3
Botello-Hermosa,
A., Casado-Mejía, R. 2015. Miedos y temores relacionados con la menstruación:
estudio cualitativo desde la perspectiva de género. Texto and
Contexto-Enfermagem 24: 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072015000260014
Boustani, K., Taylor, K.A. 2020. Navigating
LGBTQ+ discrimination in academia: where do we go from here? The biochemist 42(3): 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1042/BIO20200024
Budden, A.E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L.W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Lortie,
C.J. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female
authors. Trends in ecology and evolution 23(1): 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
Bueter, A. 2017.
Androcentrism, feminism, and pluralism in medicine. Topoi 36: 521-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-015-9339-y
Butzer, K.W. 1982. Archaeology
as human ecology: method and theory for a contextual approach. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511558245
Clancy, K.B., Nelson, R.G., Rutherford, J.N., Hinde, K. 2014. Survey of
academic field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PloS
one, 9(7): e102172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
Cortina, L.M., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L.F., Waldo, C. 1998. Sexual harassment
and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly 22(3):
419-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00166.x
Das, S. 2023.
Navigating fieldwork amidst my menstrual cycle: Being a female ethnographer in
a remote Indian region. In: Badiozaman, I.F.A., Voon, M.L., Sandhu, K. (Eds.), Women
Practicing Resilience, Self-care and Wellbeing in Academia, pp. 92-102.
Routledge, London, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003341482-10
De Kleijn, M. 2020. The researcher journey through a gender lens: An
examination of research participation, career progression and perceptions
across the globe. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/insights/gender-and-diversity-in-research/researcher-journey-2020
Esteban,
M.L. 2006. El estudio de la salud y el género: las ventajas de un enfoque
antropológico y feminista. Salud colectiva 2: 9-20. https://doi.org/10.18294/sc.2006.52
European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2013. Gendered
innovations – How gender analysis contributes to research – Report of the
expert group 'Innovation through gender', Publications Office, 2013, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/11868
Gebeyehu, M.B., Mekuria, A.B., Tefera, Y.G., Andarge, D.A., Debay, Y.B., Bejiga,
G.S., Gebresillassie, B.M. 2017. Prevalence, impact, and management practice of
dysmenorrhea among University of Gondar students, northwestern Ethiopia: A
cross‐sectional
study. International journal of reproductive
medicine 2017(1): 3208276. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3208276
Gil, S.L. 2022. No solo dolor: discursos subversivos sobre la
regla. El Salto Diario. [online] accesed
on: 04-02-2025. Available at: https://www.elsaltodiario.com/salud/no-solo-dolor-discursos-subversivo-sobre-regla
Greene, S., Ashley, K., Dunne, E., Edgar, K., Giles, S.,
Hanson, E. 2020. Toilet
stops in the field: An educational primer and recommended best practices for
field-based teaching.
University of Birmingham. Birmingham, UK. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/gnhj2
Hoffmann, D.E., Tarzian, A.J. 2001. The girl who cried pain: a bias against
women in the treatment of pain. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics
29(1): 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2001.tb00037.x
Hummel, C., El Kurd, D. 2021. Mental health and fieldwork. PS: Political Science and
Politics 54(1): 121-125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S10490965 20001055
Iacovides, S., Avidon, I., Baker, F.C. 2015. What we know about primary
dysmenorrhea today: a critical review. Human
reproduction update 21(6): 762-778. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv039
Johnson, S.K., Hekman, D.R. 2016. Women and minorities are penalized for
promoting diversity. Harvard Business Review 60(2): 771-797. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0538
Kojima, Y., Takahashi, K., Matsuura, N., Shimada, M. 2023. A study on psychological traits of
long-term fieldworkers. International Journal of Mental Health and
Psychiatry 9(3). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3233535/v1
Krivkovich, A., Kulik, J., Yee, L., Silverman, R. 2023. Women
in the workplace 2023. McKinsey and Company, New
York, USA. [online] accesed on: 11-02-2025. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace
Kowert, R., Breuer, J., Quandt, T. 2017. Women are from FarmVille, men are
from ViceCity: The cycle of exclusion and sexism in video game content and
culture. In: Kowert, R., Quandt, T. (Eds.) New perspectives on the social
aspects of digital gaming, pp. 136-150. Routledge, New york, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315629308-9
Lahiri-Dutt, K. 2015. Medicalising menstruation: a feminist
critique of the political economy of menstrual hygiene management in South
Asia. Gender, Place and Culture 22(8): 1158-1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2014.939156
Lahme, A.M., Stern,
R., Cooper, D. 2018. Factors impacting on menstrual hygiene and their
implications for health promotion. Global
health promotion 25(1): 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975916648301
Ley
Orgánica 1/2023, de 28 de febrero,
por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2010, de 3 de marzo, de salud sexual y
reproductiva y de la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo. Boletín Oficial
del Estado núm. 51, de 01/03/2023. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2023/02/28/1/con
Maity, S., Wray,
J., Coffin, T., Nath, R., Nauhria, S., Sah, R., Waechter, R., Ramdass, P.,
Nauhria, S. 2022. Academic and social impact of menstrual disturbances in
female medical students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers
in medicine 9: 821908. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.821908
Mayoral Gastón, M.D.C., Cuesta Ruiz, M., Valdés-Solís Iglesias, T.,
Suárez González, T., González-Sampériz, P., Pozo-Bayón, M.Á., Campillo, N., et
al. 2024. 2024 Women Researchers Report. Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas, España. https://doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/16534
Merone, L., Tsey, K., Russell, D., Nagle, C. 2021. Sex and gender gaps in
medicine and the androcentric history of medical research. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Public Health 45(5): 424-426.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13139
Mountz, A., Bonds, A., Mansfield, B., Loyd, J., Hyndman, J., Walton-Roberts,
M., Basu, R., et al. 2015. For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of
resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 14(4): 1235-1259. Available at: http://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/1058/1141
Nash, M. 2023.
Breaking the silence around blood: managing menstruation during remote
Antarctic fieldwork. Gender, Place and Culture 30(8): 1083-1103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2022.2066635
Nordseth, A.E., Gerson, J.R., Aguilar, L.K., Dunham, A.E., Gentles, A., Neale,
Z., Rebol, E. 2023. The Fieldwork Wellness Framework: a new approach to field
research in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 21(6):
297-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2649
Pao, P.S. 2023.
Social Stigma Centred around Menstruation: A Reflective Review. Frontier Anthropology 11: 51-58. https://doi-ds.org/doilink/01.2023-14175947/Frontier
Paudel, R. 2023. Menstrual discrimination and its impact on decent work.
Global South Coalition for dignified menstruation. Kathmandu, Nepal. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11020.08329
Peña Axt,
J.C., Boll Henríquez, V., Riquelme Brevis, H. 2023. Masculinización de lo
público: Percepciones sobre la utilización del espacio público en universidades
chilenas de la zona centro y centro sur del país. urbe. Revista
Brasileira de Gestão Urbana 15: e20220177. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-3369.015.e20220177
Philip, T.M., Azevedo, F.S. 2017. Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested
terrain. Science Education 101(4): 526-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21286
Phillips, D. 2002. Perceptions of Fairness of Discipline Events in
the Work Place. Masters Theses and Specialist Projects. Paper 630.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/630
Pickering, R., Khosa, R. 2023. The geological period no one talks about:
menstruation in the field. EGU General Assembly
2023, Vienna, Austria, 24–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-167. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-167
Pun, I. 2023. Beliefs
About and Attitudes Towards Menstruation Among American Youths and Their
Suggestions to Improve Early Menstrual Communication. Master's thesis, East
Carolina University, Greenville, NC. USA. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10342/12875
Olson, M.M.,
Alhelou, N., Kavattur, P.S., Rountree, L., Winkler, I.T. 2022. The persistent
power of stigma: A critical review of policy initiatives to break the menstrual
silence and advance menstrual literacy. PLOS Global Public Health 2(7):
e0000070. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000070
Rasmussen, K., Chen, J., Colquhoun, R.L., Frentz, S., Hiatt, L., Kosciesza, A.J.,
Olsen, C., et al. 2023. Gender inclusive methods in studies of STEM
practitioners. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.15802
Real
Decreto 486/1997, de 14 de abril, por
el que se establecen las disposiciones mínimas de seguridad y salud en los
lugares de trabajo. Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 97, de
23/04/1997 https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/1997/04/14/486/con
Rogers, S.K., Ahamadeen, N., Chen, C.X., Mosher, C.E., Stewart, J.C., Rand,
K.L. 2023. Dysmenorrhea and psychological distress: a meta-analysis. Archives of Women's Mental Health 26(6):
719-735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-023-01365-6
Roh, J. 2019.
Feminist menstrual activism in South Korea (1999–2012). Asian Journal of
Women's Studies 25(1): 96-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2019.1577031
Rydström, K. 2018. Trans
Menstruators Matter: A Qualitative Research Exploring Swedish Trans. MA
Thesis. University of Oviedo (Spain) and University of
Hull (UK).
Schoep, M.E., Adang, E.M., Maas, J.W., De Bie, B., Aarts, J.W., Nieboer, T.E.
2019. Productivity loss due to menstruation-related symptoms: a nationwide
cross-sectional survey among 32 748 women. BMJ open 9(6): e026186. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026186
Stone, M.M. 2021. Rhetorics
of menstruation: Mattering menstrual healthcare technologies. Doctoral
Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. Available at https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/4790241d-7ac5-4d05-a0c5-9ccc04d7203a/content
Tonso, K.L. 1996.
Creating engineers: Processes that exclude women. In: Proceedings of the 1996 WEPAN National Conference:
"Capitalizing on Today's Challenges" / The Experience of Being a
Woman Engineering Student: Perspectives and Coping. June 1-4, 1996 at Denver,
Colorado, pp. 93-98. Available at: https://journals.psu.edu/wepan/article/view/57853
Valls-Llobet, C. 2006. La menstruación: de la invisibilidad a la abolición. Duoda:
Revista d'estudis feministes 31: 71-84. Available at: https://www.raco.cat/index.php/DUODA/article/view/63189/91493
Vetter, J. 2022.
The History of Fieldwork. Histories 2(4): 457-465. https://doi.org/10.3390/histories2040032
Wasson, C., Brondo, K., LeMaster, B., Turner, T., Cudhea, M., Moran, K.,
Adams, I., et al. 2008. We’ve come a long way, maybe: Academic climate report
of the committee of the status of women in anthropology. American
Anthropology Association: 1-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/e598242011-001
Wiggleton-Little, J. 2024. “Just” a painful period: A philosophical
perspective review of the dismissal of menstrual pain. Women's Health 20:
17455057241255646. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057241255646
World
Economic Forum. 2022. Female leaders are twice
as likely as their male counterparts to drive diversity, equity and inclusion
at work, report finds. World Economic Forum.
[online] accesed on: 12-01-2025. Available at:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/female-leaders-male-work-diversity-equity-inclusion/
Xu, Y.J. 2008. Gender disparity in STEM
disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover intentions. Research
in higher education 49: 607-624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9097-4
, Elena
Cuesta2,4