Reaching substantive female representation among decision-makers: A qualitative research study of gender-related experiences from the health sector in Mozambique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Achieving significant female representation in government at decision-making levels has been identified as a key step towards achieving gender equality. In 2015, women held 39.6% of parliamentary seats in Mozambique, which is above the benchmark of 30% that has been suggested as the turning point for minority representation to move from token status to having a sizable impact. We undertook a study to identify gender-related barriers and facilitators to improving women-centered policies in the health sector. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 39 individuals (32 women, 7 men) involved at a senior level in policy making or implementation of woman-centric policies within the Mozambique Ministry of Health and affiliated institutions. We used a semi-structured interview guide that included questions on difficulties and facilitating factors encountered in the policy making process, and the perceived role of gender in this process. We used both deductive and inductive analysis approaches, starting with a set of pre-identified themes and expanding this to include themes that emerged during coding. RESULTS: Our data suggest two main findings: (1) the women who participated in our study generally do not report feeling discrimination in the workplace and (2) senior health sector perceive women to be more personally attuned to women-centric issues than men. Within our specific sample, we found little to suggest that gender discrimination is a problem professionally for female decision-makers in Mozambique. However, these findings should be contextualized using an intersectional lens with recognition of the important difference between descriptive versus substantive female representation, and whether "percentage of women" is truly the best metric for gaging commitment to gender equality at the policy making level. CONCLUSIONS: Mozambique's longstanding significant representation of women may have led to creating an environment that leads to positive experiences for female decision-makers in the government. However, while the current level of female representation should be celebrated, it does not negate the need for continued focus on female representation in decision-making positions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".