Exploring the Role of Men as Practitioners within the Gender and Development Paradigm in International Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined the role of men within the gender and development paradigm and male students’ perceptions of gender-related work in the professional practice of IDEV. The study addressed men’s experiences with both formal and non-formal gender training in IDS within Canadian and US graduate programs. The study asked questions about influential theory, skills and tools relevant to the GAD paradigm. The methods included an online survey of males in IDS graduate programs from five North American universities. Key informants were also interviewed, including faculty members from four universities and two senior level gender advisors working for large non-profit organizations. The findings were presented as four emerging themes: 1) Despite exposure to some gender training opportunities, many male graduate students are not engaged with theory and practise on GAD; 2) The relevance of men in GAD continues to be questioned by the field and men themselves; 3) There is little “buy in” to gender in IDEV by men studying IDS at the graduate level; 4) The field of GAD is primarily operating without the active engagement of men and therefore, is better associated with WID’s “women’s focused” policy and programming, an approach the UN acknowledges to have failed in the past. The study recommends adjustments within IDS graduate studies as well as further research on men and masculinity to strengthen the role of men in achieving GAD’s stated goal of gender equality.
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 | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".