Power, knowledge and politics: Exploring the contested terrain of girl-focused interventions at the national launch of the United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative in The Gambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender equality in education has become a highly embedded norm in global development policy, as well as within the poverty reduction and national development policies of aid recipient countries. Despite such progress, however, we know little about the significance of competing gender equality and education policy orientations (e.g., human capital, human rights, human capabilities), especially in relation to the power and political dynamics at work in the enactment of global gender equality in education policies in national policy spaces. This article addresses these gaps in the literature through a qualitative examination of girls’ education policy in The Gambia, a country widely hailed as a leader in the promotion of gender equality in education. I use an analysis of the produced knowledge of World Bank and government documents alongside the findings from an ethnographic account of the United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI) national launch workshop in The Gambia to illustrate my central claim that girls’ education policy, on the ground, is more complex and contested than is suggested in the produced knowledge of donor and government documents. Moreover, my account of the UNGEI launch workshop serves to highlight some of the challenges and tensions associated with the global–national interface of efforts to promote gender equality in education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".