The thesis is concerned with relationships between different conceptualizations and understandings of gender mainstreaming in Oxfam GB during 2001-2006 and focuses on two sites of policy and practice: Oxfam House and an Oxfam project in Cambodia. Drawing on anthropology of development literature, I observe that while the mainstreaming strategy was becoming further embedded in the organisation, it also evolved differently in each research site. Gender policy and practice were not necessarily linked, and policy did not drive practice; different drivers were at play.ududIn Oxfam House, understandings of gender mainstreaming among senior managers were informed by perennial feedback that the organisation’s gender work was wanting and perceptions that previous gender efforts were overly critical and uninspiring. These understandings influenced inter-related imperatives, pursued by senior managers, of assuming organisational leadership for gender and making “gender accessible”. Both of these contributed to rendering the promotion of gender equality a contested process. In contrast, the project case study in Cambodia, which Oxfam viewed as a “successful” gender mainstreamed model of community-based disaster management, demonstrates a process of taking on gender issues characterised by mutual benefit and reciprocity. Regional gender advisors and project staff needed to work together to secure their places in Aidland. Unlike the drivers of policy in Oxfam House, the drivers of gender mainstreaming practice were the demands and uncertainties of Aidland and, in the light of these, the maintenance of project relations and reproduction of “success”. They also concerned localised contingencies of social relations of gender and relations of aid.ududI conclude that while gender mainstreaming policy and practice are connected by formal organisational structures, they can also be unrelated due to different micro politics within these respective sites and, relatedly, from the varying degrees of autonomous decision making exercised by Oxfam staff and their understandings of gender and their particular interests.
展开▼
机译：本文关注的是2001-2006年间乐施会GB中不同的概念和对性别主流化的理解之间的关系，并着重于政策和实践的两个方面：乐施会之家和柬埔寨的乐施会项目。借助发展人类学文献，我观察到主流化策略已被进一步嵌入到组织中，但每个研究站点的主流化策略也有所不同。性别政策和实践不一定联系在一起，政策也不能推动实践； ud ud在乐施会大楼中，高层管理人员对性别主流化的了解是通过长期反馈得出的，该反馈是该组织的性别工作很匮乏，并且认为以前的性别工作过于挑剔和无益。这些理解影响了高级管理人员所追求的相互联系的当务之急，这些当务之急是承担起性别方面的组织领导责任，并使“两性平等”成为可能。这两者都使促进性别平等成为一个有争议的过程。相反，柬埔寨的项目案例研究被乐施会视为基于社区的灾害管理的“成功的”性别主流化模型，它展示了一个以互惠互利为特征的性别问题的过程。区域性别顾问和项目人员需要共同努力，以确保在艾德兰的地位。与乐施会的政策动因不同，性别主流化实践的动因是艾德兰的需求和不确定性，并鉴于此，维持了项目关系和“成功”的再现。他们还关注社会性别关系和援助关系的局部性突发事件。 ud udI得出结论，尽管性别主流化政策和实践是由正式的组织结构联系在一起的，但由于这些站点内不同的微观政治因素，它们也可能不相关，并且与此相关的是，乐施会工作人员行使不同程度的自主决策以及他们对性别和特殊利益的理解。
展开▼
