Dilemmas and tensions facing a faith-based organisation promoting HIVprevention among young people in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faith-based organisations (FBOs) are receiving growing attention for their roles in addressing HIV and AIDS in southern Africa. These roles, however, are not without philosophical challenges. Yet, to date, most references to the successes or limitations of FBOs have remained the domain of theoretical and, often, ideological debate. In this context, discussions about the roles of faith and FBOs in responding to HIV and AIDS often evoke extreme positions-either advocating for or critiquing their involvement. In place of this there is a need for empirical evidence and analyses that shed light on both the challenges and opportunities of faith-based HIV-prevention programming. This article presents a critical sociological analysis of the complexities confronting one FBO in its effort to deliver an abstinence-focused HIV-prevention programme to school-going adolescents in a poor peri-urban area of South Africa. As one aspect of a larger mixed-methods evaluation, this analysis is based on 11 focus group discussions, variously held with parents, teachers, learners and programme facilitators, in an effort to determine how and why the participants perceived the programme to work. We present and analyse four sources of tension appearing within the data which relate to the programme's faith-based orientation: a) enthusiasm for sexual abstinence despite awareness of the structural constraints; b) a dichotomous framing of behaviours (i.e. good versus bad); c) mixed messages about condoms; and d) administering faith-based programming within secular public schools. Through this analysis we aim to identify opportunities and challenges for faith-based HIV-prevention efforts more broadly. We argue that any assessment of faith-based HIV-prevention programming ought to respect and reflect its complexity as well as the complexity of the context within which it operates.
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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".