Critiques of gender mainstreaming (GM) as the officially agreed strategy to promote gender equity in health internationally have reached a critical mass. There has been a notable lack of dialogue between gender advocates in the global north and south, from policy and practice, governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This paper contributes to the debate on the shape of future action for gender equity in health, by uniquely bringing together the voices of disparate actors, first heard in a series of four seminars held during 2008 and 2009, involving almost 200 participants from 15 different country contexts. The series used (Feminist) Participatory Action Research (FPAR) methodology to create a productive dialogue on the developing theory around GM and the at times disconnected empirical experience of policy and practice. We analyse the debates and experiences shared at the seminar series using concrete, context specific examples from research, advocacy, policy and programme development perspectives, as presented by participants from southern and northern settings, including Kenya, Mozambique, India, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada and Australia. Focussing on key discussions around sexualities and (dis)ability and their interactions with gender, we explore issues around intersectionality across the five key themes for research and action identified by participants: (1) Addressing the disconnect between gender mainstreaming praxis and contemporary feminist theory; (2) Developing appropriate analysis methodologies; (3) Developing a coherent theory of change; (4) Seeking resolution to the dilemmas and uncertainties around the 'place' of men and boys in GM as a feminist project; and (5) Developing a politics of intersectionality. We conclude that there needs to be a coherent and inclusive strategic direction to improve policy and practice for promoting gender equity in health which requires the full and equal participation of practitioners and policy makers working alongside their academic partners.
The author of this study aims to explore people's perceptions of the cause of illnesses in the Democratic Republic of Congo using qualitative methods, namely case studies and focus group discussions, to gather data from participants. He identifies seven main categories of causes of illnesses and describes the relations between them. The local concept of the causes of illnesses does not absolutely respect the biomedical framework. As the popular saying puts it, Congolais hakufi na microbe, meaning "Congolese people do not die by microbes." The perception of witchcraft is strong as a cause of illness among the Bira of Mobala and the Nande of Mukulia. The author argues that health professionals should take this view into account instead of rejecting it.
Cet article passe en revue l'état des connaissances sur la violence sexuelle en période de conflit armé, ainsi que les différentes méthodologies utilisées. Il examine la littérature théorique et empirique, en utilisant une combinaison de méthodes qualitatives et quantitatives. Les résultats montrent que la violence sexuelle «structurelle » a ses racines dans diverses institutions sociales qui l'exacerbent en la transformant en violence «conjoncturelle » et qui font obstacle à la prévention et la protection des victimes. La violence sexuelle a des conséquences physiques, psychologiques et sociales graves et peut replonger les victimes dans un cycle de violence. Nos travaux suggèrent que la violence sexuelle devra être analysée en période de conflit aussi bien qu'en période de paix d'où elle tire ses origines. Les analyses devraient couvrir les perspectives des auteurs de violence aussi bien que des victimes, indépendamment de leur sexe.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.