IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cdipxx/v27y2017i5p733-744.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The unhealthy divide: how the secular-faith binary potentially limits GBV prevention and response

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabet le Roux
  • Lizle Loots

Abstract

While progress has been made in creating conversations between the secular and faith actors involved in developmental issues, a distinct binary still exists. This could potentially be limiting a holistic response to gender-based violence, a global public health, development, humanitarian, and human rights issue. This article explores how perceptions of this binary – faith versus secular – are understood to impact GBV prevention and response efforts. Drawing on interviews conducted during a scoping study, the opinions and experiences of actors from faith-based organisations and academic institutions are used to shed light on how the faith-secular binary is being upheld and challenged, and how it is perceived to be impacting holistic GBV prevention and response.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabet le Roux & Lizle Loots, 2017. "The unhealthy divide: how the secular-faith binary potentially limits GBV prevention and response," Development in Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(5), pages 733-744, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:27:y:2017:i:5:p:733-744
    DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2017.1327023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09614524.2017.1327023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09614524.2017.1327023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:27:y:2017:i:5:p:733-744. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cdip .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.