Global contributions to knowledge about women’s health can be made in one of three ways: theoretically, practically, or methodologically. None of the researchers’ articles in this issue make global contributions, yet in each article the authors generated hypotheses that may be tested globally. Four of the five of these articles are substantive outliers for us, as we have thus far published very little on microfinance, leisure participation, clinical research, or gender bias in scientific authorship. We hope to receive more research on such topics in the future. We have also published relatively little phenomenology, and would like to receive more such research in the future because of the potential for researchers to generate theory with such methods. A theoretical contribution tests an existing hypothesis or generates a new one, methodological, practice, or policy contribution to existing literature. As we move ahead, we expect authors to state with clarity that their research findings may be tested elsewhere to make a theoretical contribution, as the editor has done in the table entries.
A methodological contribution answers epistemological questions in a new manner. The essence of the answers to such questions should explain how we know what we think we know about women’s health. A methodological contribution might be realized by the creation of a new measurement device, but only if the device has been created and found to be useful. The methodological contribution would occur within a manuscript whose authors also contribute to women’s health practice. Ideally, both the device and its use in practice would be described to be replicable elsewhere.
An author may make a methodological contribution by demonstrating how an existing instrument or device has been modified in context. To do so the author would demonstrate how and why culture makes a difference in utilizing health equipment, or in interpreting research measurements or findings.
We publish manuscripts written by authors who create new measurement scales about women’s health, especially when authors provide evidence of statistical reliability and validity of their scales. In the future we will publish such manuscripts only when the new scale also has face validity. The editor interprets face validity to mean that an international interdisciplinary audience of scholars and practitioners will understand what the scale is intended to measure and why it is being measured. The authors will have to provide evidence that their new scale is utilized to inform health care practice for women or women’s health policy. They cannot simply claim that it will be so. We will not publish a new scale without such evidence.
Another kind of methodological contribution occurs when authors explain the limitations of existing datasets. While public health scholars value cross-cultural comparisons, authors make methodological contributions when they reveal nations use different standards to calculate population measurements such as rates of fertility, morbidity and mortality.
A practice contribution provides evidence that a new way of delivering health care is effective. Further, this effective new way of delivering health care must be replicable and likely to be helpful and useful elsewhere. Such work is commonly based on an experimental design.
Authors are expected to clearly state the type of contribution to knowledge about global women’s health. Doing this helps shine a bright light on what is known and what is needed to continue to stimulate an international, multidisciplinary dialogue on women’s health issues.
As always, we hope that you read and learn using the table of literature contributions to guide you.
Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]
Elizabeth Fugate-Whitlock, PhD
Managing Editor
December 8, 2022