Automated content analysis as a tool to compare content in sexual selection research with examples of sexual selection in evolutionary biology textbooks: implications for teaching the nature of science

Abstract

Abstract Background  We used college-level evolution textbooks to examine the presentation of sexual selection research—a field with ongoing debates related to sex, sexuality and gender identity. Many classic sexual selection concepts have been criticized for androcentrism and other forms of gender-sex bias, specifically for de-emphasizing the female role in reproductive behaviors and over-reliance on gender-sex binaries. These classic concepts are fundamentally captured in the idea that animal reproductive-related behaviors can be grouped in sex roles (e.g. competitive males and selective females). Recently developed alternative concepts provide a more nuanced understanding of the flexibility of sexual and reproductive-related behaviors, stemming in part from growing attention to a broader range of female behavior. To assess whether students are receiving content reflecting these insights, we measured the congruence between textbook content and the scientific literature, using insects as a case study because of the importance of this group in the development of sexual selection theory, its prevalence in current sexual selection research, and the number of insect examples included in textbooks. We first coded textbook content for sexual selection concepts. We used automated content analysis to analyze a database of citations, keywords and abstracts in sexual selection research published between 1990 and 2014, inclusive of the period covered by the textbooks. Results The textbooks and research literatures prioritized the same taxa (e.g., fruit flies) and sex roles as embodied in classic sexual selection theory. Both the research literature and some textbooks acknowledge androcentrism and other forms of gender-sex bias in classic sexual selection paradigms, especially competitive male and selective female sex roles. Yet, while the research literature included alternative models, textbooks neglected these alternatives, even when researchers had studied both classic and alternative views in the same insect. Conclusions  We recommend using this kind of analysis of textbook content to engage students in a conversation around the social factors that impact knowledge construction, a key part of the epistemological understanding they need for a robust grasp of the Nature of Science and of evolutionary theory.