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.
Randomista economics: A critique from Naila Kabeer
Worth a read - Naila Kabeer's strong rebuttal of Esther Duflo's proposition that affirmative action for gender equality is distortionary and inefficient. Kabeer points to the "selective storytelling" that replicates familiar biases and constructs a narrative that is not borne out by experiences on the ground.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13545701.2020.1743338?...
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Pamela del Canto on February 11, 2021 at 16:16 -
Thank you for sharing this article. I've always felt uncomfortable with Duflo's RCT development techniques because of the way people are objectified and the lack of structural change that it fails to realize. It is such a relief to see practitioners such as Kabeer put into words that which is felt by so many of us in the development field.
-
Comment by Joan DeJaeghere on February 5, 2021 at 20:28
-
I appreciate this discussion of Kabeer's response to RCTs and her examples of qualitative research and on-the ground work.
In a study focused on youth livelihoods where a matching sample (PSM) was used to examine outcomes of programs as well as rich qualitative data over 5 years, we found disconnects between the short-term findings of quasi-experimental designs and the qualitative data. But getting both governments and donors to both support and listen to the qualitative findings is a challenge.
More about the shortcomings of RCTs/quasi-experimental designs and livelihoods here:
DeJaeghere, J., Morris, E. & Bamattre R. (2020). Moving beyond employment and earnings: reframing how youth livelihoods and wellbeing are evaluated in East Africa. Journal of Youth Studies, 23, 5, 667-685. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1636013
-
Comment by Rituu B Nanda on February 5, 2021 at 18:38
-
ISST had organised a presentation on RCTs and gender .
Randomized Control Trials through a Gender lens
On 19th July 2013, the Institute of Social Studies Trust (ISST), hosted a reflection session on ‘Randomized Control Trials and Gender’, at the National Foundation of India, India Habitat Centre. The session was organized with the primary aim of building an informal network of students and professionals, either working in or interested in the areas of evaluation and gender. Being first in the series of reflection sessions that have been planned under the project ‘Engendering Policy through Evaluation’ (funded by IDRC, Canada and the Ford Foundation), the session aimed at enhancing the participants’ knowledge and understanding of RCT’s while giving them the space to reflect upon the ways in which their implementation is effected by and in turn impacts gender relations.
Read more https://gendereval.ning.com/forum/topics/randomized-control-trials-...
-
Comment by Anne Stephens on February 5, 2021 at 12:52
-
Thanks for sharing this. I settled in with a coffee, in a comfy chair and indulged myself in reading this. What a joy.
I’m a lover of methodology, as a discipline. I love the ontological challenges and the creativity of sorting out just how are we going to know the answer to this, this, problem!!! I’m one who reads the methodology section of a paper, because, I value the importance of getting the process right- everything you say hinges on how you came to know it.
So, I won’t recap the article. But it provides a dense precise of research practices that try to convince us of a particular political view. I guess my favourite line in the whole piece is:
… the evidence does not speak for itself, regardless of how rigorous the evaluation: interpretation matters. (p.8)
YES. It absolutely does, and not just the privileged researcher's interpretation.
Essentially, it boils down to proponents utilising designs characterised by ‘…short, linear, mono-causal, and event-proof causal chains – single causes leading to single short-term effects’ to dissuade us from believing that direct investment in gender equality and women’s empowerment, can make a difference. That ‘what works’ is broad-based, gender neutral development, as this will promote gender equality anyway.
So, Kabeer demolishes this argument, effectively. Vindicating both my life’s work as a proponent of systemic, action and grounded methodologies, and forthcoming work I did for UN Women on impact evaluation approaches for the prevention of violence against women and girls that recommends very careful and select use of RCT and quasi-experimental design, in certain contexts. It is not widely recommended.
The Gender Snapshot 2020 was released today. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/09/pro... It is therefore a fitting time to read this work and ponder Kabeer's sobering final words.
Citing OECD data, 72.2 billion USD was spent on development with no focus on gender equality. 40.2 billion USD had gender equality as a secondary objective. Just 4.6 billion had gender equality as the primary goal. Money for women’s empowerment, and empowerment in the economy in particular, is “still a drop in the ocean” (quoting the OECD, p.21).
-
-
Thanks Kalyani for posting.
Prof Kabeer produced a documentary and working paper for teaching purposes. It compares strengths/weaknesses of quantitative (RCT) and qualitative assessments of similar programs & also what we can learn from program approach,. Links to both documentary & paper
https://www.lse.ac.uk/international-development/Assets/Documents/PD...
https://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/internationaldevelopment/20190814_fishC...
© 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