G. Haintz, H. McKenzie, Beth Turnbull, Melissa Graham
{"title":"包容性的政策?影响妇女生育决策的政策交叉分析","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":"{\"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}","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}
Inclusive Policy? An Intersectional Analysis of Policy Influencing Women’s Reproductive Decision‐Making
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.
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.