MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381123398 · doi:10.32920/ifmj.v3i2.1769

‘Conversations with Men’

2023· article· en· W4381123398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Cain, Booker Mwenzva

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Film and Media Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth African History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationGeneral partnershipFocus groupCitizen journalismPublic relationsSocial mediaRelevance (law)Participatory action researchReciprocity (cultural anthropology)SociologyPolitical scienceBusinessMarketingComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research on the Gender Conversations with Men media project in Southern Africa investigates the significance of collaboration in promoting effective and sustainable media practices on gender issues using the partnership between STEPS and their partner organizations as a case study. STEPS, established in 2000, is a non-profit media organization based in South Africa that uses film and video as tools for social change. It has longstanding relationships with 9 partner organizations in 7 different Southern Africa countries. This case study offers a wholly Global South example of a collaborative, multi-country media advocacy program centered on gender issues. Additionally, the researchers are based in and/or from the region from which they both have practice-based participatory video backgrounds. The varied types and levels of collaboration found within the ‘web’ of project relationships was considered from the framework of co-creation to assess questions of power, equity and reciprocity. The nature of the collaboration was then considered in terms of assessing its relevance to indicators of project success and efficacy. Data was collected through document and media gathering and analysis - including Gender Conversations with Men program documentation, the STEPS films used in the first 2 phases of the program, and the participatory ‘change story’ videos created as part of the project. Research visits were conducted with onsite focus groups and semi-structured interviews with program coordinators and facilitators with 6 of the partner organizations in 4 countries. Of most relevance to this paper, the various collaborative relationships within the network were explored in these research interactions as well as change stories at facilitator and community participant level. This paper argues that the specific type of collaboration that took place within the Gender Conversations with Men project was co-creation and that this contributed significantly to the high levels of ownership of the process at local project level. The locally based partner organizations were able to develop and run programs they deemed most appropriate to their needs, which enabled highly engaged conversations at community-level screenings as well as authentic participatory video storytelling. The first-hand ‘change stories’ collected from the research suggest a high level of impact at facilitator (and community) level on attitude and behavior change specifically on young men through their participation in virtual interactive workshops, facilitation of (or participation in) community screenings and the making of the participatory ‘change story’ videos. This research highlights the critical role of interrogating pervasive claims of ‘collaboration’ to consider authentic co-creation as a more effective and sustainable way in which to address sensitive topics, such as gender issues, through media advocacy practices. Co-creation allows for diverse perspectives and expertise to come together based on principles of equity and reciprocity to foster engagement, motivation, and ownership among participants. The case study provides insights for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers interested in using collaborative approaches in their media interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Film and Media JournalSame topicSouth African History and CultureFrench-language works237,207