Digital access and women's work in Pakistan: Constraints, use patterns, and policy directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation Mobile and internet usage has seen accelerated upward trends following the COVID‐19 shock. There is growing evidence of the significant potential inherent in digital spaces in terms of upskilling, networking, and expanding earning opportunities. However, despite its potential, there remains a substantial divide in access to digital spaces, particularly from a gender perspective. This is especially so in patriarchal societies with strictly defined gender roles such as in Pakistan. Purpose In this article, we focus on women's patterns of digital technology and social media use in Pakistan and examine how these broadly connect with the labour market. We also explore the immense potential of the digital ecosystem, as well as the challenges women face in utilizing digital technologies to enhance their earning opportunities. Approach and methods Our study uses extensive qualitative research in the form of in‐depth interviews, field observations, and focus group discussions with approximately 250 women of varying socioeconomic status, professions, and educational backgrounds. We also engaged with women's rights organizations, capacity building experts, and digital trainers in Pakistan. Findings Our findings suggest that although the digital ecosystem in Pakistan has significant potential to improve women's economic opportunities and outcomes, there are also substantial barriers that prevent them from fully engaging in the digital environment. We identify these constraints as: financial and time constraints, limited trust and privacy concerns, gendered power dynamics, and inadequate structures and infrastructural support. Policy implications It is imperative to implement processes and laws that utilize digital technology as a tool for the financial and social empowerment of women in Pakistan. Our article recommends increased government involvement and collaboration with private entities to provide affordable access to mobile phones and digital accessories, fund training and awareness programmes that promote the sustainable use of digital technology, and raise awareness about data privacy and online security.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".