Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36125700›Full record

ReviewAmbio2023

Participatory monitoring in community-based fisheries management through a gender lens.

Jenny House, Danika Kleiber, Dirk J Steenbergen, Natasha Stacey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ambio, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jenny HouseResearch Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, NT, 0810, Australia. jenny.house@cdu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0806-1572
Danika KleiberPacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 1845 Wasp Blvd, Honolulu, HI, 96818, USA.
Dirk J SteenbergenAustralian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, North Wollongong, NSW, 2500, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4067-4432
Natasha StaceyResearch Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, NT, 0810, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2262-9817

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In small-scale fisheries management, the significance of participation is widely recognised but we are still learning how this can be better operationalised to include different groups, such as women or Indigenous peoples. Participatory monitoring is one tool which has been used to increase participation in fisheries management. The aim of this review is to use critical interpretive synthesis to examine the literature on participatory monitoring within community-based fisheries management from a gender perspective. The synthesis identified and discussed several key areas: reasons presented in the literature for engaging with the themes of gender or participatory monitoring, gendered aspects of participatory monitoring, knowledge valuation and prioritisation in management, replicability and transparency of programme or research methods, and marginalisation narratives. Our findings show the complexities of conducting gender-aware participatory monitoring. Participatory monitoring has the potential to be a transformative and empowering process if the power dynamics involved are considered and addressed.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchFisheriesFemaleHumansKnowledgeResearch DesignSex FactorsCritical interpretive synthesisLocal knowledgeSmall-scale fisheriesSystematic reviewWomen’s participation

Identifiers

PMID36125700
PMCPMC9755429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.