Monthly Corner
Astha Ramaiya [Co-author] Shared the Journal Article - Published in Child Abuse & Neglect, June 2026
A new systematic review published in Child Abuse & Neglect examined the link between mental health and technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and abuse (TF-CSEA). Analysing 10 studies with over 25,000 participants across seven countries, researchers found that depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and prior trauma were consistently associated with victimisation. Crucially, the relationship appears bidirectional with mental health difficulties both preceding and resulting from exploitation; creating potential cycles of repeated harm. Perhaps most striking: traditional parental monitoring through technological surveillance showed limited protective effects. What actually mattered? The quality of parent-child relationships including, open communication, emotional warmth, and trust. The findings suggest prevention efforts should combine universal school-based programmes building emotional resilience with targeted support for high-risk youth, while parent education should prioritise connection over control. With 12.5% of children globally experiencing online solicitation annually, understanding these psychological pathways is essential for effective child protection.
Alok Srivastava, Vasanti Rao & Amita Puri Article on International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, January 2026
Tara Prasad Article on Challanges and Lessons Learns of GESI responsive and inclusive conservatiom practices, Nepal
Ritu Dewan & Swati Raju Article on Economic and Political Weekly
Viera Schioppetto shared Thesis on Gender Approach in Development Projects
Events
Vacancies
- Seeking Senior Analyst - IPE Global
About the job
IPE Global Ltd. is a multi-disciplinary development sector consulting firm offering a range of integrated, innovative and high-quality services across several sectors and practices. We offer end-to-end consulting and project implementation services in the areas of Social and Economic Empowerment, Education and Skill Development, Public Health, Nutrition, WASH, Urban and Infrastructure Development, Private Sector Development, among others.
Over the last 26 years, IPE Global has successfully implemented over 1,200 projects in more than 100 countries. The group is headquartered in New Delhi, India with five international offices in United Kingdom, Kenya, Ethiopia, Philippines and Bangladesh. We partner with multilateral, bilateral, governments, corporates and not-for-profit entities in anchoring development agenda for sustained and equitable growth. We strive to create an enabling environment for path-breaking social and policy reforms that contribute to sustainable development.
Role Overview
IPE Global is seeking a motivated Senior Analyst – Low Carbon Pathways to strengthen and grow its Climate Change and Sustainability practice. The role will contribute to business development, program management, research, and technical delivery across climate mitigation, carbon markets, and energy transition. This position provides exceptional exposure to global climate policy, finance, and technology, working with a team of high-performing professionals and in collaboration with donors, foundations, research institutions, and public agencies.
Equity, SDG indicators and systems thinking
In this blog I would like to use parts of the Rajagopalan’s (2015) Immersive Systemic Knowing framework. He distinguishes between four ways of knowing: being, cognition, doing and learning. Being refers to ways of living, existing and relating with others and environment which is shaped by culture and history. Cognition is the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. Doing refers to activities in which one engages. Learning refers to not only knowledge, but also attitudes and skills through doing, study, experiences
Figure 1: Ways of Knowing
Action
Cognition Learning
Being
Source: Rajagopalan, 2015
What are the implications of this framework for developing indicators related to gender and equity?
A first lesson is that there can be progress towards 17 SDG and 169 targets only when changes take place in all these four ways of ‘knowing’.
For example, one of the SDG Goal 1 target (1.1) is “By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day”. A ‘being’ indicator is “50% of population 18-60 years believe that poverty is not due to poor people’s ‘karma’ (results of deeds done in previous birth) but their lack of access to resources or unequal access to resources. As long as government officials and well to do people believe due to their culture that poverty is due to “karma” it is difficult to achieve to reduce poverty.
An example on the need for attention to ‘cognition’ path to knowledge is illustrated with Target 5.2 namely “eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation”. An cognitive indicator could be that 100% of adolescent girls and women should be aware of important legislation on violence against women and girls and where to get justice. An indicator in the ‘learning’ aspect is that 100% of police officials and 50% of women and adolescent girls have developed skills in filing firsthand information reports related to violence against women. An indicator in the ‘doing’ sphere is that “100% of verdicts given are progressive towards women” and “100% of verdicts are implemented”. Thus the ambitious target set in SDG requires ambitious targets in each of these knowledge spheres: being[1], cognition, learning and action
While changes are required in all four domains of knowing, where maximum change is required is with regard to ‘being’. The positive aspects of being in each culture have to be preserved. At the same time negative aspects have to transformed. For example, an indicator that all government record and preserve indigenous knowledge systems by 2030 could be included. An indicator on whether financial compensation to women who are looking after elderly are in place could be considered (a cultural practice in parts of South Asia) .
On the other hand indicators on whether negative aspects are changing are essential –in particular
- Indicator on proportion of people18-49 years who believe that their nationality, gender, race, caste, religion is superior on inferior to others
- Indicator on proportion of people 18-49 years who feel there should be limit to acres of land and cars, and houses owned by a household; or a proportion between salary of top executive and that of a wage labourer
- Indicator on proportion of people 18-49 years who feel that people of different castes, classes, religion and gender identity should live in the same street and colony (rural and urban) and mix together
- Indicator on the ratio of percapita land and common property resources (weighted by quality) owned by a country vis a vis the least
There is a political shift required to identify indicators in four kinds of knowledge to attain SDG targets. The neoliberal paradigm and inequalities between and within countries (on the basis of race, caste, gender, religion, abilities, sexual orientation etc) have to be challenged.
Reference:
Rajagopal, Raghav, 2015, Immersive Systemic Knowing: Rational Analysis and Beyond, Draft Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Systems Sciences Centre for Systems Studies, Hull University Business School, United Kingdom
[1] For the 5.2 target to be met it is necessary (not enough) that 100% of women and men, police and judiciary do not believe that spouses/intimate partners have a right to hit them if they are not happy with their actions.
Add a Comment
© 2026 Created by Rituu B Nanda.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Gender and Evaluation to add comments!
Join Gender and Evaluation