Students' Understanding of Health and Social Issues: A GEDSI Perspective At Two Islamic Universities in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32382/medkes.v21i1.2242Keywords:
Gender equality, disability inclusion, social inclusion, higher education, university studentsAbstract
The Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) framework explicitly seeks to address the structural barriers faced by marginalized groups, yet institutionalizing these frameworks within higher education settings often faces deep implementation gaps. While macro-policies and empirical violations are widely documented, understanding how university students conceptualize these intersecting issues is crucial for developing genuinely responsive campus ecosystems. This study aims to analyze the level of GEDSI understanding among Indonesian university students. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was conducted concurrently at Universitas 'Aisyiyah Yogyakarta and Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar. The quantitative phase utilized a 17-item Likert scale questionnaire administered to 71 purposively sampled undergraduate students from various health and technical programs. Subsequently, the qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with a subset of 15 students selected based on survey score variations. The quantitative data underwent descriptive statistical analysis, while the qualitative audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and examined using thematic analysis. The findings reveal a distinct dualism in how university students conceptualize the GEDSI framework. In the public sphere, students demonstrated progressive perspectives, with 97.2% supporting equal leadership roles for female and 98.6% agreeing that classroom religious differences must be accommodated. Conversely, deeply internalized stereotypes persisted in the domestic domain, with 95.7% maintaining that the role of head of household belongs exclusively to men. Furthermore, despite 100% support for physical campus accessibility, 90.1% of respondents perceived individuals with disabilities through a traditional charity-based model rather than a structural, rights-based framework. A clear divergence persists between students' public endorsement of equity and their internalized, traditional beliefs regarding domestic gender roles and charity-focused models of disability.
References
1. AIPJPM. Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Justice Phase 2 Mid-term Review [Internet]. 2019. Available from:https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/australia-indonesia-partnership-justice-phase-2-independent-review.docx
2. Ibda H, Wijanarko AG. Pendidikan Inklusi Berbasis GEDSI (Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion). Mata Kata Inspirasi; 2023.
3. Indriyany IA, Hikmawan MD, Utami WK. Gender dan pendidikan tinggi: studi tentang urgensitas kampus berperspektif gender. JIIP: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pemerintahan. 2021;6(1). https://doi.org/10.14710/jiip.v6i1.9376
4. Rokhmah I. Disabilitas dan Kesehatan Reproduksi dalam Perspektif Al-Qur'an. 1st ed. Permatasari IA, editor. Yogyakarta: The Journal Publishing; 2022.
5. Afriyanti D. Empat hal penting dari perspektif GEDSI apa saja [Internet]. Yogyakarta: Khittah Pimpinan Pusat Muhammadiyah; 2022 Aug 26 [cited 2024 May 20]. Available from: https://muhammadiyah.or.id/empat-hal-penting-dari-perspektif-gedsi-apa-saja/
6. Moriña A. Inclusive education in higher education: challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Special Needs Education 2017;32(1):3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964
7. KemenPPPA. Data Kekerasan terhadap Perempuan_SIMFONI-KEMENPPA [Internet]. Jakarta; 2024. Available from: https://kekerasan.kemenpppa.go.id/ringkasan
8. Hardiani BL, Hadi A, Iskandar I. Peran Dinas Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak dalam menangani kekerasan terhadap perempuan. Journal of Government and Politics. 2021;1(2):55–71. https://doi.org/10.31764/jgop.v1i2.3961
9. Israpil I. Budaya patriarki dan kekerasan terhadap perempuan (sejarah dan perkembangannya). PUSAKA. 2017;5(2). https://doi.org/10.31969/pusaka.v5i2.176
10. Syufri. Perspektif sosiologis tentang kekerasan terhadap perempuan dalam rumah tangga. Jurnal Academica FISIP Untad. 2009;1(4).
11. Eleanora FN, Sari A. Pernikahan anak usia dini ditinjau dari perspektif perlindungan anak. PROGRESIF: Jurnal Hukum. 2020;14(1). https://doi.org/10.33019/progresif.v14i1.1485
12. Giyartika G, Nurhadi N, Yuhastina Y. Menelisik pencegahan pernikahan usia anak di Kota Surakarta. Jurnal Sosiologi Pendidikan Humanis. 2021;6(1):39–54. https://doi.org/10.17977/um021v6i1p39-54
13. Gusnita C. Fenomena pernikahan anak usia dini sebagai penyimpangan budaya Indonesia. IKRA-ITH Humaniora: Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora. 2022;7(2). https://doi.org/10.37817/ikraith-humaniora.v7i2.2287
14. Kusuma Dewi PDP, Megaputri PS, Sujana IW. Pro kontra sunat perempuan di Indonesia: sebuah analisis wacana. Vidya Samhita: Jurnal Penelitian Agama. 2021;7(1):76. https://doi.org/10.25078/vs.v7i1.670
15. Santi S. Khitan perempuan: legitimasi agama dan budaya atas kekerasan dan pengendalian tubuh perempuan. Forum Ilmiah Indonusa. 2006;3(1):1–9.
16. Rokhmah I, Ro’fah. Positioning isu disabilitas dalam gerakan gender dan disabilitas. Musãwa. 2021;20(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.14421/musawa.2021.201.31-44
17. Kitta I, Cardona-Moltó MC. Students’ perceptions of gender mainstreaming implementation in university teaching in Greece. Journal of Gender Studies. 2022;31(4):457–477. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/095 89236.2021.2023006
18. Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Vol. 16. SAGE Publications; 2011. 103 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2010.09.003
19. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology [Internet]. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
20. Breda T, Jouini E, Napp C, Thebault G. Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2020;117(49):31063–31069. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/ pnas.2008704117
21. Eagly AH, Karau SJ. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review 2002;109(3):573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
22. Fakih M. Panggil Aku Disabilitas. In: Prasetyo E, Agustina FBTJLMIO, editors. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar; 2002. p. 304.
23. Ganchimeg T, Ota E, Morisaki N, Laopaiboon M, Lumbiganon P, Zhang J, et al. Pregnancy and childbirth outcomes among adolescent mothers: a World Health Organization multicountry study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology [Internet]. 2014;121(s1):40–48. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1471-0528.12630
24. Yoto M, Devy SR, Laksono AD, Puspikawati SI, Prastia TN, Megatsari H. Determinants of stunting among children with teenage mothers: evidence from Indonesia. Indian Journal of Community Medicine. 2025;50(3):465–471. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_729_23
25. Basrowi RW, Farradika Y, Sundjaya T. Mother’s perspective and trust toward Integrated Services Post (Posyandu) in Indonesia. Open Public Health Journal. 2024;17(1):1–8. https://doi.org/ 10.2174/0118749445329656240930095509
