Problematising the digital gender gap: invoking decoloniality and intersectionality for inclusive policymaking

Q1 Social Sciences Gender and Development Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.1080/13552074.2022.2117930
Anukriti Dixit, M. U. Banday
{"title":"Problematising the digital gender gap: invoking decoloniality and intersectionality for inclusive policymaking","authors":"Anukriti Dixit, M. U. Banday","doi":"10.1080/13552074.2022.2117930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The digital economy is seen as the latest phase in the socioeconomic development trajectory. There has been a proliferation of policy documents on ensuring gendered inclusion and addressing the ‘gender gap’ in the digital economy. Particularly in the context of the ‘third world’, there are large volumes of ‘evidence’ reported linking economic welfare through digital inclusion and gender equality. Drawing from capabilities, intersectionality, and decolonial scholarship, we analyse how the problem of the ‘gender gap’ in the ‘digital economy’ is constituted through particular discourses. We employ an approach termed ‘problematisation’, which contends that policies produce and articulate ‘problems’ in specific ways rather than solve pre-ordained ‘problems’. We take ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ articulations within the most recent reports by multilateral governance bodies, including the World Bank, UN Women, and the World Economic Forum (WEF), among others. Our findings indicate that digital gender gap policies are formulated through interlinking assumptions of the capabilities approach with neoliberal rationality. Accordingly, the ‘gender gap’ is produced as a problem of rights and economic development to be solved through neoliberal ‘empowerment’ and ‘entrepreneurship’. In an attempt to produce universal cross-cultural frameworks, these policy documents ignore the intersectionality of gendered power relations and reproduce colonial frameworks of development, modernity, and progress. The latter is accomplished through the technologies of statistical scientificity (generalised causality) and temporality (‘developed versus developing’ discourses of modernity). We, therefore, argue that developmental policymaking, particularly the capabilities approach, must incorporate intersectionality and decoloniality to be effective, inclusive, and unsettle colonial universalisation.","PeriodicalId":35882,"journal":{"name":"Gender and Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gender and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2022.2117930","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The digital economy is seen as the latest phase in the socioeconomic development trajectory. There has been a proliferation of policy documents on ensuring gendered inclusion and addressing the ‘gender gap’ in the digital economy. Particularly in the context of the ‘third world’, there are large volumes of ‘evidence’ reported linking economic welfare through digital inclusion and gender equality. Drawing from capabilities, intersectionality, and decolonial scholarship, we analyse how the problem of the ‘gender gap’ in the ‘digital economy’ is constituted through particular discourses. We employ an approach termed ‘problematisation’, which contends that policies produce and articulate ‘problems’ in specific ways rather than solve pre-ordained ‘problems’. We take ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ articulations within the most recent reports by multilateral governance bodies, including the World Bank, UN Women, and the World Economic Forum (WEF), among others. Our findings indicate that digital gender gap policies are formulated through interlinking assumptions of the capabilities approach with neoliberal rationality. Accordingly, the ‘gender gap’ is produced as a problem of rights and economic development to be solved through neoliberal ‘empowerment’ and ‘entrepreneurship’. In an attempt to produce universal cross-cultural frameworks, these policy documents ignore the intersectionality of gendered power relations and reproduce colonial frameworks of development, modernity, and progress. The latter is accomplished through the technologies of statistical scientificity (generalised causality) and temporality (‘developed versus developing’ discourses of modernity). We, therefore, argue that developmental policymaking, particularly the capabilities approach, must incorporate intersectionality and decoloniality to be effective, inclusive, and unsettle colonial universalisation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解决数字性别差距问题:为包容性政策制定援引非殖民化和交叉性
摘要数字经济被视为社会经济发展轨迹中的最新阶段。关于确保性别包容和解决数字经济中的“性别差距”的政策文件激增。特别是在“第三世界”的背景下,据报道,有大量“证据”将经济福利与数字包容和性别平等联系起来。从能力、交叉性和非殖民化学术出发,我们分析了“数字经济”中的“性别差距”问题是如何通过特定的话语构成的。我们采用了一种称为“问题化”的方法,认为政策以特定的方式产生和阐明“问题”,而不是解决预先设定的“问题”。我们在多边治理机构的最新报告中阐述了“问题”和“解决方案”,包括世界银行、妇女署和世界经济论坛等。我们的研究结果表明,数字性别差距政策是通过将能力方法的假设与新自由主义理性联系起来制定的。因此,“性别差距”是一个权利和经济发展问题,需要通过新自由主义的“赋权”和“创业”来解决。为了建立普遍的跨文化框架,这些政策文件忽视了性别权力关系的交叉性,并再现了发展、现代性和进步的殖民框架。后者是通过统计科学性(广义因果关系)和时间性(现代性的“发展与发展”话语)技术实现的。因此,我们认为,发展政策制定,特别是能力方法,必须结合交叉性和非殖民化,才能有效、包容并扰乱殖民地的普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gender and Development
Gender and Development Social Sciences-Gender Studies
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Since 1993, Gender & Development has aimed to promote, inspire, and support development policy and practice, which furthers the goal of equality between women and men. This journal has a readership in over 90 countries and uses clear accessible language. Each issue of Gender & Development focuses on a topic of key interest to all involved in promoting gender equality through development. An up-to-the minute overview of the topic is followed by a range of articles from researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. Insights from development initiatives across the world are shared and analysed, and lessons identified. Innovative theoretical concepts are explored by key academic writers, and the uses of these concepts for policy and practice are explored.
期刊最新文献
‘If You Want Peace, Create Peace’: women’s rights organisations as operatives of hybrid peace in the former Yugoslavia Engendering injustice: gendered lawfare in Guatemala Suspicion: Vaccines, Hesitancy, and the Affective Politics of Protection in Barbados Ekla Chalo Re: a tribute to Ms. Mary Roy Funding schemes and support towards gender-based violence prevention and sexual and reproductive health in Lebanon: a critical analysis of their impacts on human rights defenders
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1