{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019087136929460582, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.590163934426229, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Methodological Issues in Menopause Research

Research on menopause is not the prerogative of any single discipline. The topic interests anthropologists (both physical and social), biologists, historians, psychologists, sociologists, members in the subfields within the medical sciences from epidemiologists to endocrinologists, feminists, and health economists. Each discipline has its own approach to the creation of new knowledge and its own methodological principles; hence there are as many methods in menopause research as there are disciplines. I want to start this discussion of methodologic issues by examining the ways in which our different disciplinary affiliations and methodologies influence how we think about menopause and what we each define as relevant knowledge. In the second section, I will discuss some of the ways in which menopause research has been (is) impeded by a reluctance to acknowledge the validity of knowledge produced by other disciplines than our own. Finally, and as befits an interdisciplinary conference, I will present a case not simply for mutual tolerance of each others’ methodologies, but for a more active form of collaborative relationship between disciplines.