Search

The present study is based on the analysis and conclusions in a preceding paper by the author. Major interpretations of epigenetics are considered - social-ecological, biomedical and bioethical, - as well as their impact on social sciences and humanities, policies and opportunities for human development. The following important conclusions are formulated: firstly, epigenetics can be a stimulus to reform social sciences, as well as for policies aiming at purer environment, less poverty and social inequality, more freedom and less violence; (2) one-sided and implicit biomedical interpretation of epigenetics not only does not solve but intensifies existing problems relating to health and wellbeing of people in contemporary societies; (3) this however does not mean rejecting the biomedical approach but finding it's appropriate and balanced place in the context of functioning ecological and social policies; (4) practices and behavioural models that epigenetics determines as sensitive presuppose respective responsibilities on the part of various subjects - organisations, institutions and pdrticular individuals. A critical evaluation is necessary of attempts to reject responsibilities as well as of their imballanced distribution among various subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we present the results of a scoping review in which we examined the scientific literature (2010–2021) on faith-based organizations (FBOs) working within the field of poverty alleviation, focusing on the way studies define and use the term FBO. Fifty-two relevant studies were identified and included. Our research shows that the term FBOs is primarily used in American studies. Moreover, there is no broad consensus on the exact definition or meaning of the term nor on its scope. Because of this lack of consensus and the inherent shortcomings of the term, we suggest to replace the term FBO by the term "religion-based solidarity initiatives" (RSIs), We define RSIs as: "Initiatives that, from a religious inspiration, aim at organizing collective action for and/or providing support or services to people in vulnerable positions." These initiatives can range from small scale ad hoc initiatives till large scale formal organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) is a new approach to quantitative intersectional modelling. Along with an outcome of interest, MAIHDA entails the use of two sets of independent variables. These include group demographics such as race, gender, and poverty status as well as strata which are constructs such as Black female poor, Black female wealthy, and White female poor. These constructs represent the combination of the demographic variables. To operationalize the approach, an initial random intercepts model with strata as a level 2 context is specified. Then, another model is specified that includes the strata as well as the demographic variables as level 1 fixed effects. As such, it is argued that MAIHDA uniquely identifies the additive and intersectional effects for any given outcome. In this paper we show that MAIHDA falls short of this promise: the strata are an individual-level composite variable not a level 2 context. Rather than being analogous to neighborhoods as contexts, strata are analogous to socio-economic status which is a combination of individual-level demographic variables, albeit often presented as a group-level characteristic. The result is that the demographic variables are inserted in both level 2 and 1. This duplication across the levels in MAIHDA means that there is a built-in collinearity across the levels and that the models are mis-specified and, therefore, redundant. We conclude that single-level models with the demographic variables and interactions or with the strata as fixed effects are still the more accurate models for quantitative intersectional analyses. • There has been limited analysis of the MAIHDA method. • We compare MAIHDA to traditional HLM. • We show that strata are a level 1 composite variable not a level 2 context. • We identify duplication and collinearity in this approach. • We advocate for single level models in quantitative intersectionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issues of class and poverty are largely absent from children’s fiction and from elementary school curricula, even though, in Canada, one in every five children live in food insecure households. This paper examines the limited number of middle grade children’s books that feature depictions of food insecurity published in North America in English in the past forty years and interrogates their assumptions about children, poverty, food, and hunger. While the primary cause of food insecurity for children is inadequate household income, often due to systemic inequities, most children’s fiction suggests individual choices or life circumstances are to blame and charity, kind strangers, and simple luck are the solutions, giving children, at best, an incomplete understanding of the social and political issues that produce food insecurity.