↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Meaning-making of female genital cutting: children’s perception and acquired knowledge of the ritual

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Women's Health, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Meaning-making of female genital cutting: children’s perception and acquired knowledge of the ritual
Published in
International Journal of Women's Health, April 2013
DOI 10.2147/ijwh.s40447
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jon-Håkon Schultz, Inger-Lise Lien

Abstract

How do girls who have undergone female genital cutting understand the ritual? This study provides an analysis of the learning process and knowledge acquired in their meaning-making process. Eighteen participants were interviewed in qualitative indepth interviews. Women in Norway, mostly with Somali or Gambian backgrounds, were asked about their experiences of circumcision. Two different strategies were used to prepare girls for circumcision, ie, one involving giving some information and the other keeping the ritual a secret. Findings indicate that these two approaches affected the girls' meaning-making differently, but both strategies seemed to lead to the same educational outcome. The learning process is carefully monitored and regulated but is brought to a halt, stopping short of critical reflexive thinking. The knowledge tends to be deeply internalized, embodied, and morally embraced. The meaning-making process is discussed by analyzing the use of metaphors and narratives. Given that the educational outcome is characterized by limited knowledge without critical reflection, behavior change programs to end female genital cutting should identify and implement educational stimuli that are likely to promote critical reflexive thinking.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Uganda 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Researcher 7 12%
Lecturer 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Psychology 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,027,997
of 24,848,516 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#242
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,125
of 205,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,848,516 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 205,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.