Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Despite growing evidence for the effectiveness of community interventions to address violence against women (VAW), the evidence on factors that motivate community participation in them is insufficient. We did a grounded theory study of a large-scale non-government (NGO) program in informal settlements in Mumbai, India, aiming to analyses motivations for community participation in program activities.</p> Method <p>We systematically collected data using a grounded theory framework, guided by theories of collective action. We conducted 27 focus group discussions and 31 semi-structured interviews with 77 women and 36 men, as well as with 9 NGO staff. We also undertook over 170&#xa0;h of field observation. All data was coded using open and selective coding. We constantly compared codes for community participation in primary prevention with codes for response.</p> Result <p>We found meaningful differences between motivations for participation in prevention activities and motivations for response to incidents of VAW. A desire to practice community citizenship, expected or desired material incentives from the NGO, and opportunities to learn to navigate government services motivated participation in prevention activities, whilst concerns about time use demotivated participation. These concerns played a lesser role in motivating community responses to incidents of VAW, which depended on factors such as belief in individual efficacy, perceived privacy norms, and confidence in action in the face of risks of retaliation. Support from family, neighbors, and the implementing organization facilitated participation in both prevention and response activities.</p> Conclusion <p>We argue that differences in motivational factors can be accounted for by differences in the focus, costs, and benefits of prevention versus response activities. Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners should account for the full range of motivations to participate in community action when designing intervention programs and evaluating their impact on the effectiveness of VAW prevention. This likely involves collaborating with implementers and field staff to address differences in prevention and response activities in program implementation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Exploring Motivational Differences in NGO-Inspired Community Action to Address Violence Against Women in Mumbai, India: Prevention Versus Response

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月18日

查看全文
  • Sukanya Paradkar,
  • Chatush Singh,
  • Anand Suryavanshi,
  • Beniamino Cislaghi,
  • Nayreen Daruwalla,
  • David Osrin,
  • Lu Gram

摘要

Purpose

Despite growing evidence for the effectiveness of community interventions to address violence against women (VAW), the evidence on factors that motivate community participation in them is insufficient. We did a grounded theory study of a large-scale non-government (NGO) program in informal settlements in Mumbai, India, aiming to analyses motivations for community participation in program activities.

Method

We systematically collected data using a grounded theory framework, guided by theories of collective action. We conducted 27 focus group discussions and 31 semi-structured interviews with 77 women and 36 men, as well as with 9 NGO staff. We also undertook over 170 h of field observation. All data was coded using open and selective coding. We constantly compared codes for community participation in primary prevention with codes for response.

Result

We found meaningful differences between motivations for participation in prevention activities and motivations for response to incidents of VAW. A desire to practice community citizenship, expected or desired material incentives from the NGO, and opportunities to learn to navigate government services motivated participation in prevention activities, whilst concerns about time use demotivated participation. These concerns played a lesser role in motivating community responses to incidents of VAW, which depended on factors such as belief in individual efficacy, perceived privacy norms, and confidence in action in the face of risks of retaliation. Support from family, neighbors, and the implementing organization facilitated participation in both prevention and response activities.

Conclusion

We argue that differences in motivational factors can be accounted for by differences in the focus, costs, and benefits of prevention versus response activities. Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners should account for the full range of motivations to participate in community action when designing intervention programs and evaluating their impact on the effectiveness of VAW prevention. This likely involves collaborating with implementers and field staff to address differences in prevention and response activities in program implementation.