The Bangladeshi Perspective: The Case of Married Academic Women Pursuing Foreign Degrees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the global gender gap report (2012) published by the World Economic Forum, over the last two decades women's empowerment in Bangladesh has benefitted from the active participation of both rural and urban women in all the sectors of economic activity for sustainable development of the country.Informed by theories of discourse (Foucault, 1972;Gill, 2008;Mitchell, 1993;Russo, 1976), this research explores the lived lives of urban married Bangladeshi female academics, specifically, those academics who have been involved or wish to be involved in higher studies in a foreign country.Since there is a dearth of research on Bangladeshi married academic women's participation in higher studies abroad, this study endeavours to explore their motives and experiences in pursuing foreign degrees, the barriers encountered, and their strategies for overcoming them.This case study (Yin, 1994) investigates the phenomenon of study abroad through the narrative accounts of five married academic women from Bangladesh at different stages of study abroad (pre-departure and planning; in progress; and completed).Within the framework of the discursive construction of identity (e.g., Ivanic, 1998;Lakoff, 1973;Tannen 1994), accounts of four participants were elicited through semistructured interviews.As an in-progress, married, female, Bangladeshi graduate student myself, I reflect on their accounts in relation to my own experiences with study abroad.The study suggests that academic women's participation in a foreign degree program depends to a great extent on how they construct the meaning of identity-shaping discourses in their "private" and "public" lives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".