Participatory exclusion of women in natural resource management: silent voices from wetland communities in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Bangladesh, women are generally excluded from participatory management of natural resources, despite such activities being widely considered by policymakers and decision makers as gender-neutral processes. In this context, we seek to examine the participatory exclusion of women from collective management of natural resources in wetland communities. As we consider ‘agency’ to be central to understanding collective action, an analysis of agency dynamics is the primary focus of our research. Drawing upon Bourdieu's theory of field, capital, and habitus and Giddens’ notion of agency, an examination of structure and voice, and emotionality as the two primary factors affecting agency is emphasized. The findings of our investigation of a development project reveal that women in local communities often exclude themselves from participatory institutions due to family endowment and their limited ability to cope with hegemonic norms (i.e. habitus). They are also excluded by powerful social forces due to the generally subjugated class position and status of women in Bangladeshi culture. However, women with significant cultural capital and social networks hold relatively higher positions within the society and are better able to exercise their agency.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".