The Reintegration of Young Mothers in Northern Uganda: Considering Post-War Spaces for Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 12,000 girls and women were abducted during Uganda’s civil war (1986-2007), and many were forced to be wives. When these young women returned home, they were marginalized by their communities for their participation in the war and having had children out of wedlock. \n \nReintegration programs were created as a means to improve relationships with the community, help youth process the trauma from the war, and develop the skills necessary for a livelihood. Research demonstrates that these programs tend to use deficit-based approaches, essentialize young women as “victims,” and pathologize their experiences. Furthermore, the programs do not involve the young women in decisions that concern them. There is a need to create reintegration programs grounded in a critical understanding of marginalization and the barriers these women face at all levels of the socio-ecology. \n \nThis project examines three different approaches to the post-war reintegration of war-affected and formerly abducted young mothers in Northern Uganda, as well as the social, political, and cultural barriers to reintegration. Hall’s (1994/1999/2004) theory of marginalization and Cornwall and Coelho’s (2007) notion of social spaces were used in order to frame this comparison. Each approach or space was assessed on how well it enhanced three factors: competent functioning, social inclusion, and financial stability. Using ethnographic methods, the first approach I investigated consisted was “formal or closed spaces,” namely two reintegration programs headed by NGOs. The second approach was a “created space” developed by 20 young mothers, community members, elders, and myself. Using participatory action research, we collectively created a self-directed, peer-support model of reintegration. The third space was “claimed” by a local group of women who supported each other, saved together, and borrowed money from their group to expand their businesses. This study revealed the need for programs to take a socio-ecological approach to reintegration and to address the structural barriers such as patriarchal values that keep women in poverty. Based on findings concerning the interconnectedness of the three success factors, the benefits of using participatory processes and considering the nature of social spaces, recommendations and a new model for reintegration are put forward.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".