MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011644427

Neoliberal co-optation of feminist discourse within agricultural transformation policy and practice across sub-Saharan Africa

2023· dissertation· en· W7011644427 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWhite Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsortium of International Agricultural Research CentersInternational Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentNew Partnership for Africa's DevelopmentWageningen University and ResearchTanzania Commission for Science and TechnologyEuropean Synchrotron Radiation FacilityPriestley International Centre for Climate, University of LeedsInternational Development Research CentreDepartment for International DevelopmentInternational Fine Particle Research InstituteBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsGender mainstreamingFraming (construction)InequalityMainstreamEmpowermentGender analysisNarrativeGender equalityDiscourse analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivation: The apparent ‘success’ of centring gender equality in international development agendas calls into question whose version of gender it is that is mainstreamed and what values and knowledge are upheld within this. Drawing on critiques of the aid-driven development landscape, this thesis explores how the gender ‘buzzwords’ which have long animated the field of gender and development have now been absorbed within agricultural transformation discourse.
\nPurpose: Through analysis of key gender-development buzzwords and policy paradigms: gender mainstreaming, women’s empowerment, and smart economics, the overarching aim is to explore how gender inequality is discursively framed as a policy ‘problem’ within agricultural transformation discourse, and how this then shapes how it is approached within policy and practice across sub-Saharan Africa.
\nApproach and Methods: A qualitative approach to data collection and analysis - combining discourse analysis of key policy and practitioner documents and key-informant and expert interviews – is utilised to explore how the discursive framing of gender inequality co-opts feminist discourse, and hence shapes how gender relations are understood and approached within development.
\nFindings: Through linking gender equality and empowerment with agricultural productivity and profitability, gender inequality - and specifically women’s disempowerment - is discursively framed as a barrier to agricultural productivity and transformation. These donor-driven gender narratives impose a reductive and simplistic version of gender couched in mainstream Western ideals of what ‘empowerment’ entails, and promotes the continued victimisation and nstrumentalisation of rural African women.
\nContribution and Policy Implications: Findings demonstrate that these gender buzzwords and myths have been purposefully absorbed into agricultural transformation discourse where they are reinforced by powerful hegemonic donors through control of narratives, funding and reporting relationships in development projects, programmes and policy. An important contribution is through promoting the potential that decolonial and African feminist literature offers in 
\nconstructing counter-hegemonic discourses that disrupt neoliberal framings of the Third World Woman that underlie these myths and buzzwords.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.238 · 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