MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3182098246 · doi:10.20381/ruor-26465

Where's Betty?: Integrating Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) in Canada’s Federal Government Evaluation Function

2021· dissertation· en· W3182098246 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jane Whynot

Notice bibliographique

RevueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2021
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGender Politics and Representation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesFisheries and Oceans CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaIndigenous Services CanadaGlobal Affairs CanadaUniversity of OttawaPublic Health AgencyIndigenous and Northern Affairs CanadaAustralian GovernmentPublic Health Agency of CanadaUNICEF
Mots-clésFunction (biology)Government (linguistics)Political sciencePublic administrationLibrary sciencePsychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyBiologyGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This doctoral research by Jane Whynot explores how Gender-based Analysis/Plus (GBA/+), has been integrated into the Canadian federal government’s evaluation function. This research has been supervised by Dr. Caroline Andrew at the University of Ottawa. Efforts presented in this dissertation have been profoundly influenced by political leadership, and their efforts to reprioritize gender equality and other elements of diversity across the bureaucracy. Presumably, employing this mechanism across the policy cycle will provide information to decision-makers that will ultimately impact diversity, equity, and inclusion (EDI) outcomes. Canada is unique amongst governments worldwide in its efforts to so comprehensively consider personal identity elements in policy discourse. Sadly, however, the federal government’s evaluation function is lagging. Both domestic and international cues prompting the integration of gender and other elements of diversity into evaluation efforts have fallen unheard despite official domestic commitments formalizing these linkages. Theories of intersectionality, and how intersectional analysis is undertaken are at the core of this research. The “+” in GBA was intended to represent all elements of personal identity beyond gender such as but not limited to race, language, sexuality, geographic location, disability, and Aboriginal status. The federal government’s lead agency for gender equality does not explicitly reference details on any of these components in their publicly facing materials. These elements are embedded in this research’s conceptual framework and subsequent lines of evidence. Michie, VanStalen, and West’s (2012) theory of behavioural change provides the foundational structure for this research. These authors suggest that (c)apacity change only occurs when (m)otivations, (o)opportunities, and c(apabilities) are simultaneously present. Mayne (2016, 2017, 2018) was responsible for integrating this model of behavioural change into program theory; it is this COM-B theory of change (ToC) that has been used as the conceptual framework for this research. In Mayne’s COM-B ToC, capacity change outcomes are situated mid-results chain and are accompanied by both precedent and antecedent outcomes. A tailored ToC for integrating GBA+ in the federal government’s evaluation function is presented in the thesis that aligns with the changing state of GBA+ implementation across the policy cycle, honing in on the federal government evaluation function. This research was initiated before the specific articulation of GBA+ as a federal government priority in the Policy on Results (Treasury Board Secretariat, 2016); the conceptual framework serves to capture the dynamic nature of the state of GBA/+ implementation across the federal government’s policy cycle. This research adopted a mixed-methods approach involving qualitative and quantitative lines of evidence as recognized by Greene (2007). Supporting lines of evidence included: • A survey was administered to the Heads of Evaluation (HoE) who are senior level decision-makers responsible for the evaluation function within each federal government organization. Survey questions posed addressed the entire tailored ToC. Responses were intentionally designed to solicit binary responses; • A critical review of all publicly accessible federal government produced resources exploring the linkage between gender mainstreaming, GBA and GBA+ and evaluation; • Key informant interviews comprised of representatives from various federal government organizations including leads from central agencies and those responsible for gender mainstreaming, academics with expertise in feminist evaluation, Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), and • Case studies of federal government evaluation functions exploring the integration of GBA+ in evaluation efforts (n=6). Each case study focused on a different element of GBA+ evaluation integration. Focus areas of each case study included: 1 organization focused on building evaluation function capacity to integrate GBA+, 1 organization focused on building capacity to integrate GBA+ amongst the evaluation and performance measurement and/or results unit, and 4 organizations focused on a single program. Each case study included the following lines of evidence: a literature review, a review of evaluations for GBA+ since 2016, a review of organizational documentation, key informant interviews, and for 3 case studies, a combination of focus groups/information exchange sessions. The COM-B tailored ToC for integrating GBA/+ in the federal government’s evaluation function encompasses a causal outcome pathway represented by a results chain. These pathways map a series of outcomes extending from activities and outputs, stakeholder reach/reaction, capacity change, behaviour change, direct benefits, and improved well-being. Each of these outcomes has multiple accompanying assumptions. Data from the tailored ToC is presented across thesis chapters. Despite widespread recognition of nascent GBA+ policy requirements and the federal government’s GBA+ tool, little GBA+ instrumental evaluation use has resulted. A wide interval exists however between awareness and use. Nestled between building GBA+ capacity and instrumental use within evaluation functions, are multiple examples of GBA+ conceptual and process use. Many organizations are aware of the federal government’s GBA+ tool, but there is inconsistent uptake of related training opportunities to build this capacity. Many federal organizations have undertaken only comparative or additive intersectional analysis and indicated limited intention to progress to interactional or truly intersectional integration analysis. To some extent, evaluation functions must navigate their course in this uncharted territory. Federal government organizations identifying as having established some capacity for GBA+ integration have developed unique GBA+ evaluation tools specific to their organizations in the absence of central agency guidance materials and a lack of evaluation function engagement of Gender Champions (GC) and Gender Focal Points (GFP). This research provided the first examination within the governmental contexts of efforts to integrate intersectional research within evaluation functions. While providing answers to many questions, many more arise – consequently providing the foundation for a potential future research program.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,475
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,086
Tête enseignante GPT0,361
Écart entre enseignants0,275 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Même sujetGender Politics and RepresentationTravaux en français237 207