Inclusive Policy? An Intersectional Analysis of Policy Influencing Women’s Reproductive Decision‐Making

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Social Inclusion Pub Date : 2023-04-27 DOI:10.17645/si.v11i2.6427
G. Haintz, H. McKenzie, Beth Turnbull, Melissa Graham
{"title":"Inclusive Policy? An Intersectional Analysis of Policy Influencing Women’s Reproductive Decision‐Making","authors":"G. Haintz, H. McKenzie, Beth Turnbull, Melissa Graham","doi":"10.17645/si.v11i2.6427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Policy can be used and experienced as a tool for social inclusion or exclusion; it can empower or disenfranchise. Women’s reproductive decision‐making and health is impacted by policy, and women’s experiences of diverse and intersecting marginalised social locations can influence their experiences of policy. This research aimed to explore how intersectionality is considered within Victorian state government policies that influence and impact women’s reproductive decision-making. A systematic search of Victorian (Australia) government policy instruments was undertaken, identifying twenty policy instruments. Policies were analysed using an intersectional policy analysis framework using a two‐stage process involving deductive coding into the domains of the framework, followed by inductive thematic analysis within and across domains. Findings reveal inconsistencies within and across policies in how they consider intersecting social relations of power in the representation of problems, women’s positionings, policy impacts, and policy solutions. These gaps could exclude and marginalise individuals and groups and contribute to systemic inequities in women’s reproductive decision-making and the outcomes of those decisions, particularly among already marginalised groups. The lack of women’s voices in policy further excludes and marginalises those impacted by the policy and limits the representation of all women in policy. Policy development needs to meaningfully involve women with diverse and intersecting marginalised social locations, and critical reflexivity of all stakeholders, to ensure policies can better account for the experiences of, and impacts upon, women who are marginalised and effect change to promote social inclusion and equity in women’s reproductive decision‐making.","PeriodicalId":37948,"journal":{"name":"Social Inclusion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Inclusion","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i2.6427","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Policy can be used and experienced as a tool for social inclusion or exclusion; it can empower or disenfranchise. Women’s reproductive decision‐making and health is impacted by policy, and women’s experiences of diverse and intersecting marginalised social locations can influence their experiences of policy. This research aimed to explore how intersectionality is considered within Victorian state government policies that influence and impact women’s reproductive decision-making. A systematic search of Victorian (Australia) government policy instruments was undertaken, identifying twenty policy instruments. Policies were analysed using an intersectional policy analysis framework using a two‐stage process involving deductive coding into the domains of the framework, followed by inductive thematic analysis within and across domains. Findings reveal inconsistencies within and across policies in how they consider intersecting social relations of power in the representation of problems, women’s positionings, policy impacts, and policy solutions. These gaps could exclude and marginalise individuals and groups and contribute to systemic inequities in women’s reproductive decision-making and the outcomes of those decisions, particularly among already marginalised groups. The lack of women’s voices in policy further excludes and marginalises those impacted by the policy and limits the representation of all women in policy. Policy development needs to meaningfully involve women with diverse and intersecting marginalised social locations, and critical reflexivity of all stakeholders, to ensure policies can better account for the experiences of, and impacts upon, women who are marginalised and effect change to promote social inclusion and equity in women’s reproductive decision‐making.
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
包容性的政策?影响妇女生育决策的政策交叉分析
政策可以作为社会包容或社会排斥的工具来使用和体验;它可以赋予人们权力,也可以剥夺人们的权利。妇女的生殖决策和健康受到政策的影响,妇女在不同和相互交叉的边缘化社会地位的经历可能影响她们对政策的经历。本研究旨在探索维多利亚州政府政策中如何考虑交叉性,这些政策影响和影响妇女的生殖决策。对维多利亚州(澳大利亚)政府政策工具进行了系统的搜索,确定了20项政策工具。政策分析采用交叉政策分析框架,采用两阶段过程,包括对框架领域进行演绎编码,然后在领域内和跨领域进行归纳主题分析。调查结果揭示了政策内部和政策之间的不一致之处,这些政策在如何考虑问题的表现、妇女的地位、政策影响和政策解决方案方面的交叉社会权力关系。这些差距可能会将个人和群体排除在外并使其边缘化,并导致妇女在生殖决策方面的系统性不平等以及这些决定的结果,特别是在已经边缘化的群体中。妇女在政策中缺乏发言权,进一步排斥和边缘化受政策影响的人,限制了所有妇女在政策中的代表性。政策制定需要有意义地让不同和交叉的边缘化社会地区的妇女参与进来,并让所有利益攸关方都具有关键的反思能力,以确保政策能够更好地考虑边缘化妇女的经历和对她们的影响,并产生改变,促进妇女生殖决策中的社会包容和公平。
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
Social Inclusion
Social Inclusion Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Inclusion is a peer-reviewed open access journal, which provides academics and policy-makers with a forum to discuss and promote a more socially inclusive society. The journal encourages researchers to publish their results on topics concerning social and cultural cohesiveness, marginalized social groups, social stratification, minority-majority interaction, cultural diversity, national identity, and core-periphery relations, while making significant contributions to the understanding and enhancement of social inclusion worldwide. Social Inclusion aims at being an interdisciplinary journal, covering a broad range of topics, such as immigration, poverty, education, minorities, disability, discrimination, and inequality, with a special focus on studies which discuss solutions, strategies and models for social inclusion. Social Inclusion invites contributions from a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds and specializations, inter alia sociology, political science, international relations, history, cultural studies, geography, media studies, educational studies, communication science, and language studies. We welcome conceptual analysis, historical perspectives, and investigations based on empirical findings, while accepting regular research articles, review articles, commentaries, and reviews.
期刊最新文献
Disability, Religion, and Gender: Exploring Experiences of Exclusion in India Through an Intersectional Lens Intersecting Disability and Poverty in the Global South: Barriers to the Localization of the UNCRPD Disabled People and the Intersectional Nature of Social Inclusion Discourses of Digitalisation and the Positioning of Workers in Primary Care: A Norwegian Case Study Work‐Related ICT Use and the Dissolution of Boundaries Between Work and Private Life
×
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