Research in midwifery: are midwives their own worst enemies?

This study investigated the hypothesis that midwives will undervalue research they believed to have been undertaken by a midwife as compared with that believed to have been undertaken by an obstetrician. Eighteen midwives were asked to assess two comparable research articles on 5 criteria. Half the sample were informed that the first article was written by a midwife and the second by an obstetrician. The order of authorship was reversed for the remainder of the sample. A related t-test was carried out to compare the midwife's paper with the obstetrician's on each of the 5 criteria. These suggested that no difference was perceived between the midwife's and obstetrician's clarity of expression or expertise on the topic in question, but significant differences were found on attributed grasp of research methodology, understanding of statistical analysis and contribution to current understanding, with the midwife emerging worse on all three (t = 1.99, p less than 0.05, t = 2.28, p less than 0.025, t = 1.8, p less than 0.05 respectively). Comparison of the overall scores also revealed that the general quality of the midwife's paper was also perceived to be poorer than the obstetrician's (t = 2.24, p less than 0.025). The findings are partially explained in terms of the gender influences that operate in midwifery.