ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2024
The security implications of using feminist methodologies to study gender-based violence in Yemen.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This paper examines the political and security implications of gender-based violence (GBV) research in Yemen during the period (2019-2023). As various radical groups are gaining power over Yemeni land, radical views toward women and gender equity and equality shape the experiences of GBV survivors, practitioners, and researchers in the North of Yemen. Policing Houthi ideologies in Yemen have curtailed GBV research and subjected feminist research to myriad risks. If this situation continues, experiences of women and girls in Yemen will not be captured by research. Their stories and needs will not be captured by humanitarian and peace-building actors. Methodology: Findings of this study are based on primary data from key informant interviews with 25 GBV researchers actively engaged in Yemen. Sampling followed the snowballing technique. Results: The findings examine political and security power dynamics after the Houthi radical group took control in the north of Yemen, and implications on GBV research design. Anti-feminist ideologies coupled with extreme security measures have impacted quality of GBV study methodologies as well as researchers' safety and mobility. Donors of previously established GBV programs and research were harassed to change research topics or lose permission to speak to local communities or collect data from aid beneficiaries. Researchers who do not follow new rules of engagement with the community are detained, harassed and their devices and databases are confiscated. Terms like "gender" and "GBV" are not deemed acceptable as these are western concepts that do not align with new community values. The findings highlight the need to use conflict-sensitivity and Do No Harm principles in settings where GBV work is scrutinized. It also challenges the orthodox definition of "GBV evidence" and explores the ethical implications of the use of alternative means to collecting data. Findings also provide insight into valuable alternative methodologies that allow local and national researchers to continue studying GBV in conflict impacted areas without exposing themselves to actual or perceived risk. The paper proposes concrete approaches that can mitigate political and security risk on both researchers and GBV survivors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.