<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Appendices














xml version 1.0 standalone yes
Volume_Errors
Errors
PageID P43
ErrorID 4


PRIVATE ITEM
Digitization of this item is currently in progress.
Training report
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007158/00001
 Material Information
Title: Training report Gender analysis training ; a training-of-trainers course AEE 6935, Fall 1995
Portion of title: Gender analysis training a training-of-trainers course AEE 6935, Fall 1995
Physical Description: 44 p. : ill., tabs. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Staal, Lisette
Russo, Sandra
Bastidas, Elena
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, FL
Publication Date: 1995
 Subjects
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: course instructors : Lisette Staal, Sandra Russo, Elena Bastidas.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "December, 1995."
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 692172112
ocn692172112
System ID: AA00007158:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Appendices
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
Full Text

1 /


Gender Analysis Training: a training-of-trainers course
AEE 6935, Fall 1995



Training Report
December, 1995






Course Instructors:

Lisette Staal
MERGE, Training and Project Coordinator

Dr. Sandra Russo
International Studies and Programs, Assistant Director

Elena Bastidas
MERGE, Graduate Assistant



Sponsored by:
Managing the Environment and Resources with Gender Emphasis (MERGE)
Tropical Conservation and Development Program
Center for Latin American Studies
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida





1
C


Table of Contents






Introduction ...................................... 1


Course Planning ................ .................... 1


Course Design .................. .......,. ......... ..... ...... .2


Course Objectives. ................ .......... ................. 4.....


Course Delivery .................. .......... ................. 4.....


Course Participants .................. ................... 4...............


Course Evaluation ................ ........... ................... 5.....


Lessons Learned and Reconunendations ................. .................... 6


Appendices


Appendix 1: Course Syllabus................. ................ 12


Appendix 2: Agenda, Ecuador Course. ................... .................. 17


Appendix 3: Written Exercise .................. ......................... 19


Appendix 4: Session Training Plan Assignment .......................... 21


Appendix 5: Final Training Plan Assignment .............................. 25


Appendix 6: List of Participants .................. ................... 27


Appendix 7: Evaluation responses ................... .. ................ ....29


Appendix 8: Evaluation form .................. ................ ... 36


Appendix 9: Activity Results recommendations........................ 39


Appendix 10: Future activities and interests. ................... ........._..42









Introduction


The Gender Analysis Training Course delivered at the University of Florida in Fall 1995 aimed to
impart training skills as well as technical content related to gender, gender analysis, natural
resource management and community participation. This course, offered for graduate credit for
the fist time this year, was developed as part of the MERGE (Managing the Ecosystems and
Resources with a Gender Emphasis) and WIAD (Wo0men in Agricultural Development) programs
on the University of Florida Campus.

MERGE addresses the need to strengthen the understanding of gender issues and community
participation in natural resource management on the part of both academic researchers and local
technicians responsible for the implementation of natural resource management projects. An
interdisciplinary group of faculty and graduate students are involved in developing techniques for
incorporating gender concerns into research, teaching and training activities. MERGE works
with partner organizations to carry out training and networking on gender and natural resource
management in specific sites in Brazil, Ecuador and Peru. This collaboration has included several
field training activities. Experienced trainers from several of these and other training programs
delivered specific lessons in the University of Florida course. This cross-training and
collaborative exchange of experiences and information serves to strengthen all partners' training.

Course Planning

Over the past several years, different approaches have been taken to provide training in gender
analysis and training techniques to both graduate students and faculty at the University of Florida.
Most of these efforts were extra-curricular activities and participants tried to fit them into their
already overcrowded schedules as best they could. We try to refine the training by incorporating
lessons learned into each subsequent activity. The approaches varied from one day seminars, to
several seminars scheduled throughout the semester, to specific training sessions throughout the
semester complemented with practice training experiences. The latter approach was employed in
1994 (see Training Techniques for Gender Analysis in Natural ~Resource Management, Trainer's
Report, December 1994). Based on the interest and commitment of the students (some spending
over 30 hours) and their comments on the usefulness of the activity, we offered the course for
graduate credit for the first time in 1995.

Several recommendations from the 1994 training program were implemented in the 1995 course
design. The recommendations included increasing the length and number of sessions to allow for
more practice and~applications, providing practice training within the classroom setting rather
than in varied university classes, introducing the principles of training: first and then have the
participants observe the training techniques in action, structuring application exercises to be
integrated throughout the training program as homeworkk application exercises," and providing
more information and experience for lesson planning do's and don't.











Course Design


The training-of-trainers (TOT) course was conceptualized as a "technical course" within a "
training of trainers course" and aimed to impart training skills as well as technical content related
to gender, gender analysis, natural resource management and community participation. Each class
session included a "technical lesson," a student facilitated discussion, and a "training lesson" (see
appendix 1 for syllabus).

Technical Lessons

Experienced trainers from several MERGE field training activities and other training programs
delivered specific "technical lessons" in the TOT course. The logical flow of these "technical
lessons" was based on a training program delivered earlier in Ecuador (see appendix 2). The
following sessions were included:

1. People and Nature, Karen Kainer, PhD Candidate, Department of Forestry
2. Gender and Gender Analysis, Anne Todd-Bockarie, PhD Candidate, Department of Forestry
3. Ecosystems, Farming Systems and Commnities, Elena Bastidas, MERGE Training Assistant
4. Tool: The interview and the community, Jon Dain, MERGE Regional Coordinator
5. Tool: Gender Analysis Tools, Elena Bastidas and Cristina Espinosa, Anthropology
6. Tool: Stakeholder Analysis, Marianne Schmink, MERGE Director, Co-Director TCD
7. Analysis of Projects, Shari Bush, Anthropology


Student Facilitated Discussions

Each student with a partner was responsible for facilitating a discussion based on a specific
reading for one class session. Emphasis was on the technical content as well as the facilitation
process used. Students met with instructors following their facilitated discussion and "lessons
learned" were developed and distributed to the rest of the class members. Listed below are the
topics and readings used for the student facilitated discussions.

1. Population and Conservation, Sen. G. 1994. Development Population, and the Environment:
A Search for balance. In: Population Policies Reconsidered: Health Empowerment and Rights.
Edited by : Gita Sen, A. Germain and L.C. Chen. Harvard University Press. pp:63-73)

2. Why Gender Analysis?, Cloud, K. 1985. Women's Productivity in agricultural systems:
Considerations for Project Design. In: Gender Roles in Development Projects. Edited by C.
Overholt, M. Anderson, K. Cloud and James Austin. Kumarian Press. pp: 17-56.

3. Considerations for Working with Communities, Bunch, Roland. 1982. Paternalism,









enthusiasm and participation, Chapter 3 in: Two Ears of Corn. World Neighbors. pp: 18-36.

4. Defining Information Needs and Constraints, Scherr, S. and Vosti, S. 1993. Household Data
Needs for Food Policy: Toward Criteria for Choice of Approaches. In: Data Needs for Food
Policy in Developing Countries. Edited by Joachmim Von Braun. IFSPRI. Washington, D.C
pp:44-79

5. Multiple-users, Rocheleau M. 1988. Gender, Resource Management and The Rural
Landscape: Implications for Agroforestry and Farming Systems Research. In: Poats, S. V., M.
Schmink, and A. Spring, eds. Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension.
Westview Special Studies in Agriculture Science and Policy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

6. Stakeholders Analysis, Honadle, G. and L. Cooper. 1989. Beyond Coordination and Control:
An Interorganizational Approach to Structural Adjustment, Service Delivery, and Natural
Resource Management. World development. Vol. 17, No. 10, pp.1531-1541.

7. Micro and Macro Issues, Bush, S. 1995 (brief unpublished paper), Micro and Macro issues in
one project: The Bethel Cooperative and Proyecto Centro Maya, The Peten, Guatemala.

Training Lessons

Most of the course participants had little background in adult education theory to apply to gender
analysis training. They had not been exposed to self directed and experiential learning models
that are used most successfully in gender analysis training. These sessions exposed the participants
to adult learning theories and helped them see how these can be applied in the training process..
The following list shows the training topics addressed throughout the TOT course.

1. The Adult Learner and the Training Process
2. Needs Assessment
3. Training Objectives
4. The Training Design
5. Choosing appropriate methods and materials: The Role Play
6. Choosing appropriate methods and materials: Various Techniques
7. Choosing appropriate methods and materials: The Case Study
8. Evaluation and Feedback
9. Practical Training Experience
10. Training Review, Discussion and Follow-up









Course Objectives

By the end of the course the participants will be able to:

1. apply knowledge of the training process and adult learners to gender analysis training;
2. explain the concepts of gender, community participation and stakeholders and how they apply
to development and conservation;
3. identify participatory tools for collection and analysis of data disaggregated by gender;
4. design and write a training plan which includes the specifications outlined in class;
5. choose appropriate training techniques based on situational factors; and
6. develop and deliver a lesson using participatory techniques and focusing on gender,
community participation and natural resource management.

Course Delivery

The course was offered for variable credit (1-3). Class met for 3 hours each week (Monday, 1:55
PM 4:55 PM). There were a total of 13 sessions, of which 3 were practical training experiences
for the participants.

A series of integrated written exercises (appendix 3) were assigned to help the students develop a
training plan, a lesson plan and, ultimately, to deliver a training session. Students, again working
in pairs, created a scenario based on their experiences and developed a 3-day training plan. The
first step was to "create" a setting, an audience and complete a needs assessment. Based on this
hypothetical situation, they wrote learning objectives and developed a macro-training plan. They
then chose and developed one 45-minute training session within their 3-day plan to deliver to the
class (see appendix 4 and 5). The lesson plans which they prepared included a variety of teaching
methods and participatory techniques. These have been compiled, along with the guest trainers
technical lesson plans, in a document available through MERGE.

For the final project, each student pair submitted their training plan (written macro-plan, session
plan and bibliography) and presented the lesson to the class.

Course Participants

Sixteen participants attended the course (appendix 6). Fourteen students took the course for
credit, while one student and one faculty member sat in on the course. The participants had
varied levels of international experience, knowledge of gender analysis, knowledge of
participatory training, disciplinary focus, and knowledge of English. About half of the students
had some exposure to the theoretical foundations to gender issues, and only two indicated
knowledge of participatory training techniques. This wide range of characteristics provided quite
a challenge to the instructors as well as the participants in the class.

Participant expectations were solicited through group discussion at the beginning of the course.









Expectations were in three areas including general, the more specific technical focus in gender
analysis, and training. Although the general comments indicate more of an interest in training
technique than content, this was not always reflected in comments throughout the course and in
the final evaluation. The expectations are noted below.

General

More technique (training) than content (gender)
How to bridge disciplines, both in training and gender analysis.
Apply skills learned in future work

Gender analysis Technical Content

Gender analysis and needs assessment in a community context.
Techniques for understanding local gender perceptions and not just behaviors.
Develop new gender analysis tools.
How to evaluate projects with gender sensitivity
How to utilize participatory gender methods with specific groups farmersr, extension
workers)
Gender analysis and how to incorporate it in research and personal philosophy (almost as a
by-product of learning to train).
Incorporate gender and gender analysis into their "way of thinking"

Training

Learning appropriate training tools, application and evaluation.
Learning how to become an effective trainer.
Practical training tools for training in a variety of circumstances (illiterate, rural vs. urban
setting, etc.)
To be comfortable making formal presentations.
How to incorporate gender analysis into training so that we can share these
methodologies so they can be used/taught/incorporated in others work/research
Develop and share training skills

Course Evaluation

Evaluations were carried out throughout the course for each technical session, student facilitated
discussion and overall training session. Each evaluation was completed immediately following the
specific session. Several participants commented that there was "over-evaluation". The final
evaluation included an exercise where the student drew pictures of how they felt at the end of the
course, and wrote down several "stumbling blocks" as well as recommendations (appendix 7).
They also completed a written evaluation (appendix 8) and the University of Florida official class
evaluation. We also discussed future opportunities, interests and activities (appendix 9 and 10).









Many students expressed strong interest in continued involvement in training activities and a
network was established.

The participants were pleased with the course and felt that it met its stated objectives. Five of the
six objectives were ranked as very good or excellent by over 90% of the respondents. The other
objective was rated as good by 25% of the respondents and excellent by 75%. They made some
well-considered comments regarding the content, process and training aspects of the course and
provided several recommendations. These recommendations are incorporated below.

The majority of participants indicated that developing the training plan, the session plan and the
practice training was the most useful to them. Some people commned on the review
discussions, readings, concepts, and individual work with the instructors.

The student facilitated discussions were mentioned most of ten as the least helpful, and most
frustrating part of the course. Others mentioned too many readings and the difficulty of wearing
two hats at once, that is, both analyzing a training technique and being an audience for it at the
same tune.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Throughout the semester we identified several lessons which are noted here. These lessons are in
three areas: 1) general, 2) technical content, and 3) process and logistics.


1) General

>Training within a training A very fundamental element of the design was mentioned
several times by the students as being difficult (i.e., trying to cover 2 topics
simultaneously). We were teaching basic gender analysis while at the same time that we
were teaching training techniques for training in gender analysis. This was necessary
since, although we were training trainers, some of the participants were not familiar with
gender issues or gender analysis. Some students recommended doing all the training first
and all the gender second.

Recommendation: 1) Require that participants have a basic knowledge of gender issues before
taking the class or 2) of fer training of trainers only to those who have thorough understanding of
gender analysis. Several participants did not like this option since they "would not have been able
to take the course." 3) Clearly define roles and allow appropriate time for each topic and
discussion time.

>Diversity of participants Closely related to the first recommendation is the make up of
the class. No pre-requisites were applied to the course, although people with little or no
international experience, anthropology or farming systems background were encouraged









not to take the course.


Recommndation: 1) Limit attendance by establishing pre-requisites. 2) Offer more training
throughout the year on gender analysis in order for participants to qualify for the course.


>Timing Although we followed the recommendation from the 1994 class and increased
the number and length of sessions, timing was still an issue. Each class session was tight,
and there was always a feeling of needing to do more. What often suffered was adequate
time for students to process the activities and discuss various applications to their own
situations.

Recommendations: 1) Drop the student facilitated discussions which were 25 minutes out of
each period. The objective of these discussions was not clearly defined by the trainers, and
therefore were frustrating and not effective for the students. Several much shorter, and more
consistent activities can be included to reach the "facilitation objective" of the discussions.

>Student facilitated discussion It became evident that the trainers had not been clear on
the objectives for the activity. Although the reading provided information for a
discussion, the central objective was not to analyze the article, but to use the article to
identify some or an important issue, and to discuss the issue drawing on people's
experience and knowledge, as well as information in the article. Although we recognized
the value of analyzing readings, due to time constraints and the objective of the course, we
would have preferred the student to use the article as a point of departure for discussion,
not as the subject of the discussion. This was unclear to the students. Another problem
with the discussions was the range of articles assigned. Some were short, clear and
directly relevant. Others were long, dense and theoretical. It made the focus of discussion
difficult for participants.

Recommendations: 1) Do not include the facilitated discussion. Create other much less time
consuming opportunities for participants to practice a variety of facilitation skills throughout the
semester. For example, assign icebreakers every week to different participants, short 2-minute
training ideas... etc. 2) Be much more selective on the readings assigned to the participants for
the course.


2) Technical Content

>Gender vs. Women Several students felt that the course focused much more on women
than on gender. One student commented that good tools exist for gender disaggregated
data, but what about gender aggregated data (without loosing sight of both genders).

Recommendation: 1) Be aware of this bias and focus on the distinctions as well as the origins.









Encourage open discussion of these frustrations early in the class.


>Lack of theoretical underpinnings and critical discussion We return back to the basic
dilemma of the course... is it a course in gender analysis or training of trainers or both!
We tried to indicate that this was not a course that would provide all the theoretical
foundations nor current issues in gender and recommended that people take other courses
to explore these areas. Even the participants noted in their expectations for the course
that they thought it would be less "content" and more training technique. However, in
reality it is difficult to move forward without the underpinnings and several participants
expressed frustration. Also, because of the time constraints and structure of the course as
noted in some lessons above, time for deep critical discussion was not available and
participants needed to find time on their own, to explore these areas.

Recommendations: 1) We need to clarify the central objective of the course and provide outlets
for areas that cannot realistically be attained during the semester course. 2) More time for
processing and discussion of content and technique must be included.

>More on community focus The title of the training course is incorrect. Gender Analysis
Training is too narrow given the approach that was taken. Our intention was to broaden
the focus to community participation, gender and natural resource management ( a
reflection of MERGE and the training in Peru and Ecuador). We did in fact reach that
objective, however, not to a very large degree. Although we touched on several issues in
working with communities, we did not go into depth, have many readings, nor address
PRA (participatory rural appraisal) in any significant way. We need to consider how to
bring the training to community level implementation/self-evaluation, etc. Perhaps the title
should be changed to Considering Gender when working with communities and NRM: a
training of trainers course.

Recommendations: 1) More explicitly incorporate issues of how to approach the community--
what are the issues, what are the techniques. 2) Make a title change.

>Tools for collection, organization and analysis of information There were three sessions
dedicated to these tools. However, it was not very clear to the participants what we
meant by "tools" and "gender analysis tools." This section needs to be more explicit in
the description of the types of tools. Because the "gender analysis framework" was not
specifically introduced prior to the first session of the tools, it was not really clear as to
what was the basic gender analysis framework (set of questions). Therefore, explicit
teaching of "gender analysis tools" occurred during one class session and the framework
was introduced during that time as well. This seemed confusing to the participants.

Recommendations: 1) Introduce Gender Analysis framework clearly and up front in the course.
2) Clarifyl the meaning of tools. 3) Incorporate more discussion of how to obtain the









information for the compilation of the gender analysis tools. 4) Incorporate section on
application of gender analysis tools and discussion of constraints.

> Logical f ow of the course Why start with People and Nature first, and not start with
gender? It seems like we jump around too much. Maybe we should start with gender,
move to People and Nature and then on to systems.

Recommendation: 1) Be more explicit in the introduction of gender issues -- then people and
nature, then gender framework! Because we did not clearly introduce gender framework before
tools, it seemed that the logic was a bit askew. I think we should leave the order, but focus on the
sessions.

>Gender as a variable The trainers felt that there was some confusion and lack of
definition of gender into the middle of the course.

Recommendation: 1) We should be up front, direct and clear, that we are looking at gender as a
variable. The variable can, and should, be applied to whatever theme. When introducing- What is
gender we should focus on not just defining gender, but understanding Gender as a variable and
how to collect data on that variable and use information obtained from addressing that variable.
2) Community participation, gender and natural resource management is not of equal balance.
Gender is a variable for consideration within community participation and NRM. Perhaps it is
misleading to place it at the same level. See suggested title change above.


>Training Techniques The amount of time spent on specific techniques and the variety of
techniques was seen to be too limited.

Recommendations: 1) Focus more on ways to address different audiences. 2) A sporadic
(re)evaluation of concepts throughout the course would have been extremely helpful. 3) Address
more techniques. Be more directed to training techniques, which include some more time for
each technique. 4) Have participants do self-evaluation assignments.


3) Process and Logistics

>Training Plan and Presentation A series of integrated written exercises (see attached) were
assigned to help the students develop a training plan, a lesson plan and ultimately to deliver a
training session. Students created a scenario based on their experiences and developed a
three-day training plan. The fist step was to "create" a setting, an audience and complete a
needs assessment. Based on this hypothetical situation, they wrote learning objectives and
developed a macro-training plan. They then chose and developed one 45 minute training
session within their three-day plan to deliver to the class. The lesson plans which they
prepared included a variety of teaching methods and participatory teaching techniques.









Students had several comments regarding this process.


1. The hypothetical situation is difficult for delivery of the sessions/final presentations. The final
presentations are currently set up so that the class is expected to play the role of the "scenario"
established by the participants. Some students felt that this did not necessarily add anything to the
session, in fact it made it more difficult to carry out. They felt that this is because the participants
do not really have enough information on how to respond as the person described in the scenario.
Maybe for the discussions the participants could act themselves. Discussion on this is needed.
Pro--gives people opportunity to "target" the lesson and get in touch with how others may be
thinking about the lesson. Con--is a bit false and complicates issues, unless the participants are
very clear about their scenarios and expected roles.
2. Hand all the assignments out ahead of time so that people can better work together on
scheduling time to complete the work. Also, consider lumping: training plan assignments to allow
for more in depth review/discussion with Lisette and Sandra.
3. Try not to schedule the class on Monday. That way the participants will have time to work on
assignments over the weekend.
4. Need more formal meetings with instructors throughout the course to discuss the plans and
progress.


Recommendations: 1) Working in teams simulated reality and many of the frustrations that the
participants faced were good learning experiences. Keep the team approach, but consider ways to
team people most appropriately. 2) We would not recommend changing the "scenario" to "real."
By making participants draw from their own experience and knowledge of given situations, it
give them a much better view of reality to them than they would get from a "real case" that is not
relevant to them. 3) Keep the written assignments, distribute the assignments at the beginning of
the course so participants can self pace themselves. 4) Establish required meeting times with the
students throughout the semester to discuss ideas and concerns.

> Materials too many theoretical readings assigned early in the course. Too much paper was
distributed and the participants had difficulty keeping it organized. It was difficult xeroxing
every week.

Recommendations: 1) Give out or have students buy a booklet of readings to be used for the
course. This will require identifying appropriate items and getting copyright clearance as soon as
possible. 2) Be sure all copies of assigned readings are Xeroxed well and have citations on them.
3) Make a bibliography available of more sources on training and gender.

>Evaluations Less evaluations. Maybe lump them to have one per day.










Appendices


Appendix 1: Course Syllabus

Appendix 2: Agenda: Ecuador Course

Appendix 3: Written Exercise

Appendix 4: Session Training Plan Assignment

Appendix 5: Final Training Plan Assignment

Appendix 6: List of Participants

Appendix 7: Evaluation responses

Appendix 8: Final Evaluation

Appendix 9: Activity Results recommedations

Appendix 10: Future activities and interests








Appendix 1

Course Syllabus










Gender Analysis Training


AEE 6935, Fall 1995
Monday, 7-9 periods (1:55-4:55 p.m.)
142 Leigh Hall

Lisette Staal
Center for Latin American Studies
Tropical Conservation and Development Program
Managing the Environment and Resources with Gender Emphasis (MIERGE)
Office: 351 Grinter Hall, phone: 392-6548, fax: 392-0085, email: 1staal@ted.ufl.edu
Office Hours: Tuesday 10:30 12:00, Thursday 2:00 3:00

Dr. Sandra Russo
International Studies and Programs, Assistant Director
Office: 308 Tigert Hall, phone: 3 92-6783, fax: 392-83 79, email: srusso@nerym. nerdc.ufl.edu
Office Hours: Monday 11:00 12:00, Wednesday 1:00 2: 15

Elena Bastidas
Graduate Assistant, MERGE, TCD
319 Grinter Hall, 392-6548, fax: 392-0085, email: diegol@gny.ifas.ufl.edu
Office Hours: Wednesday, 9:30 11:30

This course has been developed as part of the MERGE (Managing the Environment and
Resources with Gender Emphasis) and WIAD (Women in Agricultural Development) programs
on the University of Florida Campus. MERGE has convened an interdisciplinary group of faculty
and graduate students who are involved in developing techniques for incorporating gender
concerns into research, teaching and training activities. The program is housed in Tropical
Conservation and Development (TCD) in the Center for Latin American Studies. MERGIE was
developed to address the need to strengthen the understanding of gender issues and community
participation in natural resource management on the part of both academic researchers and local
technicians responsible for the implementation of natural resource management projects.





Course Objectives

The general objectives of the course are to:

(1) develop training skills which can be applied in gender analysis training;









(2) explore the concepts of gender and community participation and their application to
conservation and development projects;
(3) explore the relationship between ecosystems, community, households and gender in order
to improve conservation and development projects;
(4) discover fundamentals of adult learners and experiential learning; and
(5) experience and apply participatory training techniques.


Specific Objectives

By the end of the course the participants should be able to:

(1) apply knowledge of the training process and adult learners to gender analysis training;
(2) explain the concepts of gender, community participation, and stakeholders and how they
apply to development and conservation;
(3) identify participatory tools for collection and analysis of data disaggregated by gender;
(4) design and write a training plan which includes the specifications outlined in class;
(5) choose appropriate training techniques based on situational factors; and
(6) develop and deliver a lesson using participatory techniques and focusing on gender,
community participation and natural resource management.


Course Assignments

Class participation (15%): Active participation in activities and discussions is expected of each
student. You should prepare by reading the assigned materials prior to each session.

Student facilitated discussion (15%): Each student will be responsible for facilitating a
discussion based on specific readings for one of six class sessions. Some students may work as
partners, depending on the number of students in the class. Emphasis should be on the technical
content as well as the facilitation process. Selection of topics will take place during the first class
meeting. .

Weekly written assignments (15%): Brief written assignments will follow each session. These
assignments will focus on developing training plans and can be used as building blocks toward the
final project.

Final project (55%): Each student will be responsible for the development of a training plan
and the design and delivery of a participatory training session. This will include the draft of a
training plan, a written session plan, a bibliography, and the delivery of the session.

The written training plan (15%): Each student will submit a written plan for a training
course. The plan must include all parts of a plan as outlined in class.










A written session plan (15%): Each student will submit a written session plan as outlined in
class. This session plan will be one session fr-om your training plan.

Bibliography (5%): A bibliography of materials to be used during the training plan both as
required reading and as support documents.

Micro-training (20%): Each student will present one lesson to the class using participatory
techniques. Team teaching may be required.


Grades will be based on class participation (15%), student facilitated discussion activities (15%),
weekly written assignments (15%) and, final project (55%).


AEE 693 5,section 383 1
COURSE: OUTLINE
Fall, 1995


Introduction

August 28:


September 4:


Introduction to the Course
Technical: Gender

Labor Day Holiday, no classes


Concepts and Issues


September 11:

September 18:



September 25:



October 2:


Training: The adult learner and the training process

Technical: People and Nature
Student facilitated discussion: Population and Conservation
Training: Needs Assessment

Technical: Gender and Gender Analysis
Student facilitated discussion: Why gender analysis?
Training: Training Objectives

Technical: Ecosystems, Farming Systems and Communities
Student facilitated discussion: Considerations for working with
communities
Training: The training design





























Practice and Application

November 6: Practical Training Experience

November 13: Practical Training Experience

November 20: Practical Training Experience

November 27: Practice training review and discussion

December 4: Action plans, follow-up, evaluation


Skill Develop~ment

October 9:



October 16:



October 23:



October 30:


Technical: Tools for collection, organization and analysis of information
Student facilitated discussion: Defining information needs and constraints
Training: Choosing appropriate methods and materials

Technical: Tools for collection, organization and analysis of information
Student facilitated discussion: Multiple-users
Training: Choosing appropriate methods and materials

Technical: Tools for collection, organization and analysis of information
Student facilitated discussion: Stakeholder Analysis
Training: Choosing appropriate methods and materials

Technical: Analysis of projects
Student facilitated discussion: Micro and macro issues
Training: Evaluation and Feedback









Appendix 2


Agenda:


Ecuador Course













MiBrcoles 31 de mayo Jueves 1 de junio Viernes 2 de junio Sgbado 3 de junio

8:00 Encuentro de participants 7:30 Visita a la Laguna Micacocha 8:00 Iriuoducci6n del dia
on Quito 9:00 Introduccibn del dia
7:00 Salida hacia Pintag 8:05 GRUPOS DE
8:30 Salida para "L~a Mica" '( 9:05 ECOSISTEMAS,UNIDADES 9:0 rc ---a a INTERES
11:30 Llegada y refrigerio on PRODUCTIVAS Y9:0 Pcta ne
"La Mica". COMUNIDADES campo on cinco 10:30 Receso

12:00 INTRODUCCION 13 Receso 11:00dde A~NALISIS DE
Bienvnida11:45 CONSIDERATION 12:3CT- Uegada de los PROYECTOS CON
Presentaciones equipos a Pintag LA PERSPECTIVA
Expectativas ES EN EL DE GENERO
Objetivos TRABAJO CON
Program COMUNIDADES


13:30 ALMUERZO 1 2:45 ALMUERZO ALMUERZO "PICNIC" 1 3:00 ALMUERZO

14:30 GENTE Y NATURALEZA 13:45 HERRAMIENTAS PARA LA 13:30 Salida de Pintag 14:00 Presentaciones por
1510IUEESGNEO!JRECOLECCION, IIgrupo
15:1 gQE ESGENROORGANIZACION Y 14:30 Uegada a Yarugui
Reflexidn ANALISIS DE 15:30 Receso
Definicidn INFORMACION 15:00 Trabajo on grupos
Marco Conceptual 15:45 COMPROMISOS
Receso 16:00 Presentacidn de
grupos 16:00 EVALUACION
16:15 Receso 18:00 RESUMEN DEL DIA Y Escrita
MONITOREO 18:45 Resumen del dia y Oral
16:30 Relato do 24 horas monitorbo
18:15 Presentacidn de la 17:00 Salida para Quito
18:45 Resumen del dia y Fundacidn Antisana 19:00 C E NA
monitored sobre la Reserva
Ecoldgica Antisana 20:00 Presentacidn de los
19:00 CENA proyectos de los
19:00 CEN A' participants
20:00 Preparacidn de los
Proyetos d los20:00 Preparacidn para la
Participants pdtc ne ap


COMUNIDAD, PARTICIPATION Y GENERO EN EL MANEGlO SUSTENTABLE DE RECURSOS NATURALES


FLACSOlFUNAN/UNIVERSIDAD DE FLORIDA


~;~;\oc b~u;~~ ;nc\ud~J irr ~Or









Appendix 3

'Written Exercise Instructions









Appendix 3: Written Exercise Instructions
AEE 6935, Gender Analysis Training
F~all,1995

WRITTEN EXERCISES


'You and your partner will work together throughout the semester on a series of
written exercises. Each exercise will help you toward designing a training course.
The training site and situation will vary.

The fist step will be to "create" a setting, an audience and to complete a needs
assessment. Based on this hypothetical situation, you will write learning objectives,
develop a training plan, choose appropriate methods and materials, and establish an
evaluation. These exercises will help you complete your fmal project.

These exercises are expected to be brief. They will be due on the Friday of the
week that they are assigned. The assignments can be submitted by e-mail.


Exercise 1 Needs Assessment (assigned September 18, due September 22)

Exercise 2 Training Objectives (assigned September 25, due September 29)

Exercise 3 The Training Design (assigned October 2, due October 6)

Exercise 4 Selecting Techniques (assigned October 9, due October 20*)

Exercise 5 Implementing the training (assigned October 23, due October 27)

~Exercise 6 Evaluation Methods (assigned October 30, due November 3)

*note 2 weeks available








Appendix 4

Practice Training Session Guidelines









Appendix 4: Training Session Guidelines
AEE 6935: Gender Analysis Training
Fall, 1995

TRAININliG SESSION GUIDELINES

Each team will present one lesson (total of 45 minutes) to the class using participatory training
techniques (schedule attached). Remember that the session/lesson that you will be presenting in
class is part of your scenario. Members of the class will be playing the roles of your participants.
They must know who they are and what the training is about.


You must provide the class with...

1) a copy of your 3-day training planone week prior to your session. This copy of the 3-
day training plan must: 1) briefly note the scenario, 2) indicate the target audience, 3) layout the
training macro-plan, and 4) highlight where the session you are delivering appears in the plan

2) any additional background information on your scenario prior to the session which might be
required for your activity.

In order to make copies for the class, it would be appreciated if we could get these to Elena on
the Friday, or no later than Monday at 10:00.

Logistics

1) Please inform Elena of any equipment needs such as slide projector, flip chart, etc. one week
before the session.

Feedback:

1) Each student will be asked to provide feedback to the student training teamn using the attached
form. We will distribute this form for each training session. Open, constructive comments are
encouraged. Your feedback will be very helpful to the student training team.

2) Each team should schedule a time to meet with us as soon after your presentation as possible.
~This meeting should last no more than 1 hour. Contact Elena to schedule a time.









AEE 6935: Gender Analysis Training Fall, 1995
PEER FEEDBACK ON PRESENTATIONS

Training Team: and
Topic:

1. HOW WELL DID THE TRAINING TEAM DO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING?
not adequately well
done done done
Set an appropriate climate
Listened carefully
Asked and answered questions
Guided the activity
Offered observations and clarifications
Stimulated and encouraged discussion
Showed enthusiasm
Stimulated participation
Others:


Comments:



not adequately well
incorporated incorporated incorporated
2. HOW WELL WAS THE SESSION DESIGNED?
Followed the experiential learning model
Had a logical sequence of activities
Included start-up and closure
Accommodated individual learning styles
Use methods appropriate for learning the
content information
Objectives were met
Others:


Comments:

PLEASE MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIK FOR THE
TRAINING TEAM ON THE BACK OF THIS PAPER.











Partners for developing the Training Plan


The partners and dates for delivery of one training session are as follows:


DELIVERY


SCENARIO,
OBJECTIVES AND
TRAINING PLAN
DUE


Cartaxo and Mike
Dorota and Vicky



Annie and Heisel
Kevin and Noemi
Amanda P. and Nancy



Amanda S. and Janet
Katie and Palma
Abib and Eduardo


November 6
November 6



November 13
November 13
November 13



November 20
November 20
November 20


Fri., Oct. 27 or Mon. Oct 30 before 10 am
Fri., Oct. 27 or Mon. Oct 30 before 10 am



Fri., Nov.3 or Mon. Nov. 6 before 10) am
Fri., Nov. 3 or Mon. Nov. 6 before 10 am
Fri., Nov. 3 or Mon. Nov. 6 before 10 am



Fri., Nov. 10 or Mon. Nov. 13 before 10 am
Fri., Nov. 10 or Mon. Nov. 13 before 10 am
Fri., Nov. 10 or Mon. Nov. 13 before 10 am








Appendix 5

Final Training Plan Assignment











Appendix 5: Final Training Plan Assignment
Session Training Plan Assignment
AEE 6935: Gender Analysis Training
Fall, 1995

GUIDELINES FOR FINAL PROJECT


Your final project will be a compilation of the work that you have done in teams throughout the
semester. It is expected that you will have addressed the suggested changes in each of your
written exercises. Each team is responsible for:

1) the development of a training plan
2) the design and delivery of one participatory training session




The final plan must include:

1. A cover p~age with the your names, a title (A training plan for ...), and date.


2. The written training plan: The plan includes your scenario, needs assessment, objectives
(overall course objectives), and macro plan (in graphic form showing each day, relative time,
topics, suggested techniques (optional)), and an evaluation.


3. A written session/lesson plan : Each student will submit a written session/lesson plan
following the format provided in class. This session plan will be one session (or activity) from
your training plan. The session/lesson plan should have a cover sheet with your names, the title of
the session/lesson and a brief statement indicating generally what happens before the session and
what will follow.


4. Bibliography : A bibliography of any training materials or reference materials you expect to
use during the training plan both as required reading and as support documents.

5. Micro-training : E~ach team will present a lesson (total of 45 minutes), based on their written
session plan, to the class using participatory techniques. See "Training Session Guidelines."








Appendix 6

List of Participants













Appendix 6: List of Participants



AEE 6935, Fall 1995
List of Participants, Guest Trainers, and Instructors

Participants


Abib Araujo
Francisco Cartaxo
Dorota Haman
Annie Hermansen
Palma Ingles
Mike Kenney
Katy Lynch
Vicky Michener
Nancy Myers
Amanda Perdomo
Noemi Porro
Janet Puhalla
Eduardo Romero
Amanda Stronza
Kevin Veach
Heisil Villalobos

Guest Trainers

Elena Bastidas
Shari Bush
Jon Dain
Cristina Espinosa
Karen Kainer
Marianne Schmink
Anne Todd-Bockarie


M.S. Student, Agricultural Education and Communications
M.S. Student, Latin American Studies
Associate Professor, Agricultural Engineering
M.S. Student, Forestry
M.S. Student, Anthropology
M.S. Student, Latin American Studies
M.S. Student, Anthropology
M.S. Student, Anthropology
M.S. Student, Agricultural Education and Communications
Ph.D. Student, Instruction and Curriculum Design
M.S. Student, Latin American Studies
M.S. Student, Agricultural Education and Communications
M.S. Student, Latin American Studies
M.S. Student, Anthropology
M.S. Student, Latin American Studies
M.S. Student, Agricultural Education and Communications


M.S. Student, Food and Resource Economics
Ph.D. Student, Anthropology
Regional Coordinator, MERGE:
Ph.D. Student, Anthropology
Ph.D. Candidate, Forestry
Director, MERGE- Co-Director, TCD
Ph.D. Candidate, Forestry


Instructors


Sandra L. Russo, Assistant Director, International Studies and Programs
Lisette M. Staal, Training and Project Coordinator, MERGE
Elena Bastidas, Training Assistant, MERGE








Appendix 7

Participant evaluation responses









Appendix 7: Participant evaluation responses
Gender Analysis Training: Training of Trainers
AEE 6935, Section 3831
Fall, 1995

COURSE EVALUATION


1. To what extent did this training program meet its stated objectives? Put an X on the picture
indicating your satisfaction. Please make additional comments.

Specific objectives: By the end of the course the participants will be able to:

A. apply knowledge of the training process and adult learners to gender analysis training;



comments:
* It is good to know the backbone of the experiential learning process.
* I learned a lot.
* Still feel need for practice in real context rather than made-up scenario in class to be confident
in applying knowledge.
* This was very well done.
* I think that I am more comfortable to apply the knowledge in other ways than in gender
analysis training.
* I went from zero knowledge and background, up a steep learning curve, to broad
understanding. Thanks.
* Needs of adult learners were fairly intuitive to me but the experiential learning cycle was new
and important.
* For training process-we applied throughout the course. But adult learners-we read about and
then didn't talk about again.


B. explain the concepts of gender, commnity participation and stakeholders and how they
apply to development and conservation;



comments:
* Gender and stakeholders are more easily defined than community participation; integrating an
entire community into development is more difficult and this is harder to integrate.
* Good job teaching this topic.









* Yes. This was well done.
* I would have liked to practice using the stakeholders analysis tool more, as it crosses gender
and race lines to all people who have a stake in resources.
* Main focus was on training techniques.
* I think we could have focused a little more on concepts, taking some time from technique.
* Covered these in readings and in some sessions but didn't get to discuss the topics in depth
from our point of view as graduate students (as opposed to the very simplified way the
concepts were presented in the sessions).


C. identify participatory tools for collection and analysis of data disaggregated by gender;



comments:
Without a background in the use of the tools, the course left some blank spots in where and
when to use them.
* Good job. Would like examples as to how to use them all.
* Still unsure of my ability to do tools (like calendars) although very familiar with them. Will be
so until done with real group, in real situation in my research.
* We focused much more on collection than on analysis and implications of gender-specific
data.
* We didn't have enough opportunity to discuss the dilemmas/difficulties of applying
participatory tools.
* Now I want to go out and use the tools.

D. design and write a training plan which includes the specifications outlined in class;




* Good exercise. However, a touch of reality or a good case study would have added more of a
challenge (e.g. develop a training based on an in depth case study).
* Excellent, make some improvements and this will be a better experience for everyone.
* Although others found this difficult, I thought it was well explained and laid out.
* Ours did not include gender specifically, but I don't think it was specified.
* The final project was a very productive assignment.
* I liked the process and the steps involved, but I would have preferred real over imaginary
scenarios.
* We did this, but I think the experience would have been much more valuable if it were a
training session of real need presented to a real audience.









E. choose appropriate training techniques based on situational factors,



comments:
* Excellent, however, how many more techniques are out there.
* Could have learned more.
* We have to focus on more techniques.
* Wie didn't emphasize enough the importance of different techniques for different audiences.
Maybe some discussions after training sessions on how the technique used would change for a
different audience.
* I never really got a sense of which techniques would be better than others for different
reasons.


F. develop and deliver a lesson using participatory techniques and focusing on gender,
community participation and natural resource management.



comments:
* My difficulty was with creating the scenario. Although it was very fun and allowed creativity.
* We did not focus on gender, but we did do community participation and natural resource
management.
* Very helpful assignment.
* I enjoyed and learned a lot from the training activities, but I would have preferred real over
unagmnary scenarios.
* It was hard to work in all three topics. Maybe the student trainers could choose between
them.

2. To what extent did this program achieve your personal objectives and expectations?

* I fulfilled my objectives as I got out of it what I wanted. I expected more details on
techniques of training.
* Very well, I learned more than I ever though I would at the beginning.
* Very nicely. I'mz probably one you may have lost had you chosen to have the luxury of having
a prerequisite. I am very glad you guys (women)(is there an equivalent?) were up to the
challenge and the scrutiny. Kudos to you all for even venturing to "do" this class. I look
forward to learning more about where we have been in this class. Here's a soundbite: This
class has been a trampoline for me. Now I'm ready to take the class again and become a
trainer of trainers on gender issues.
* We really leaned how to apply participatory techniques (had good examples every week). I






Page
Missing
or
Un ava ila ble










4. Which aspects were least helpful?


* At some points there was sensory overload. For example, technical trainer coming in to do a
session and then after holding the class as a training session. The technical portions weren't
always that interesting to me as it was hard to get content out of them when there is so much
training activity going on.
* All the theory reading. Boring.
* The dynamics of the student facilitated discussion. Were we learning tools, summarizing
content..?
* The reading were useful but like I mentioned, I lost the objective/goal of the student led
discussions. Was it to only practice technique of presenting with participatory methods or to
critically analyze the content of the articles. Would like more discussion of content.
* I have in mind that everything we have done in our life is helpful, so I think this course was
very helpful to me.
* Farming systems applications. I don't think I will use this information, but it is good to know
about.
* Readings were too much. Discussion groups were too quick, especially for non-native
speakers.
* It was not helpful when both idsette and Sandra went away the week preceding my training
presentation. I would have appreciated their feedback at this point in the course.
* Student facilitate discussion activity. The idea was good but I got frustrated because I did not
have a clear idea of what I was supposed to do.
* The student facilitated discussions. I felt they focused too much on training techniques rather
than content. I thought that since the 45 minute student training sessions were focused on
training that the student facilitated discussions could have focused more on ideas, concepts
and perspectives in the articles.
* It was hard to be both analyzing training technique and being an audience for the conceptual
content.
* No chance to have in-depth discussion of the readings.


5. We are planning to offer a similar course again. What suggestions can you make regarding the
course (be as specific as possible addressing overall course design, assignments, readings,
resources, balance of technical/training etc.)

* Reading should be more similar to each other or at least appropriate to the class since we did
not discuss them much. Redesign the class into whole portions at a time in lieu of 1/3 at a
time; it is confusing this way and unfortunately we often missed the training technique part.
Strongly suggest a WID, WIAD, or gender type class before this class a having some WID
theory background before this class as having some WID theory background takes the
ambiguity out of GA Training.









* Less reading. More feedback. Sample training plans. More detailed assignments. Watch
usage of all the different techniques. Keep it to 2 people in a group.
Be sure all copies of assigned readings are Xeroxed well and have citations on them. More
lectures. We may have gone to an extreme, but then I like lectures in general. I think a
sporadic (re)evaluation of concepts throughout the course would have been extremely helpful.
* I agree with class comments on separating class into specific section on training, where we go
out to community and actually create calendars or resource maps. Maybe 1st few weeks
present tools, then next apply them for training in real situation. I would lump training plan
assignments to allow for more in depth review/discussion with Lisette and Sandra. Also agree
with less paper since in training might not want to use so many resources. Less evaluations.
Maybe lump them to have one per day.
* More discussion on gender roles, more specific readings, less evaluations, more techniques
discussion. I am very glad for having the opportunity to be trained by women. Thank you
very much!
* Give out or have students buy a booklet of readings to be used for the course. It was difficult
Xeroxing every week. For the student facilitated discussion, relay on theoretical article with
more defined terms, so presenters and participants get the theory of content and can discuss
better. For training sessions, it may be good to find a performance gap in a community that
need training and present training so that it seems more real. Do self-evaluation assignments.
* Be more directed to training techniques, which include some more time for each technique.
Maybe only one technique could be taught per week.
* More emphasis on gender analysis tools. Do not assign student writings as reading
assignments unless they are thoroughly proofread ( I though Shari Bush's contributions to the
literature were pretty weak.)
* Less evaluation. Wie covered alot but some concepts need more discussion. More in
community participation (men, women, class, age) It is so difficult to evaluate students
presentations because everyone has different skills.
* Course design: less emphasis on mechanics and process, and more on content. assignments
wouldn't change anything, but make the scenarios real. Readings: we didn't discuss the
content of the readings enough. Great instructors! Very well planned, enjoyable, and highly
useful course. Thank you.
* More time for discussion evaluation of how to improve the training session.
* Great readings, but please make a bibliography available of more sources on training and
gender. We only had one reading on participation (Two Ears of Corn) There should be more
since the training are supposed to be about community participation. It would have been nice
to get into the people-focus vs. nature-focus debate. On the other hand, more content takes
away from the time spent on training.









Appendix 8

Final Evaluation Form











Appendix 8: Final E~valuation Form
Gender Analysis Training: Training of Trainers
AEE 6935, Section 3831
Fall, 1995

COURSE EVALUATION


1. To what extent did this training program meet its stated objectives? Put an X on the picture
indicating your satisfaction. Please make additional comments.

Specific objectives: By the end of the course the participants will be able to:

apply knowledge of the training process and adult learners to gender analysis training;


comments:




explain the concepts of gender, community participation and stakeholders and how they
apply to development and conservation;


comments:



identify~ participatory tools for collection and analysis of data disaggregated by gender;


comments:




design and write a training plan which includes the specifications outlined in class;


comments:
















choose appropriate training techniques based on situational factors; and


comments:



develop and deliver a lesson using participatory techniques and focusing on gender,
community participation and natural resource management.


comments:



2. To what extent did this program achieve your personal objectives and expectations?



3. Which portions of the program were most helpful to you?




4. Which aspects were least helpful?



5. We are planning to offer a similar course again. What suggestions can you make regarding the
course (be as specific as possible addressing overall course design, assignments, readings,
resources, balance of technical/training etc.)








Appendix 9

Activity Results: recommendations





1' C


Appendix 9: Activity Results recommendations

WHAT WERE THE STUMBLING BLOCKS OF THE COURSE ?

The participants were asked to write some of their "stumbling blocks" encountered during
the course on a card, and to post it on a felt board. The facilitator then directed a
discussion around the comments on the felt board. She moved them around during the
discussion to "categorize" them into some like categories. The following categories
emerged from the discussion and the statements are noted within each category. Groups
were then asked to discuss one category and come up with some recommendations to
present to the overall class. Below are listed the statements by category and the
recommendations made by each group.

CONTENT
Strong emphasis in the women role rather than in "gender."
Focused on female issues rather than in gender.
Processing loaded and complex concepts through, participatory, simple technques.
Learning training within a training.
Difficulty in including critical/analytical discussion of content, along with learning
techniques.

Recommendations:
Add class discussion on theoretical paradigms we're working from.
Discuss ideas behind these techniques.
Create 2 courses one for learning techniques and one for learning to become a trainer in
gender.


TRAINING PROCESS (LOGISTICS)
Too many objective charts
What are we to get out of the student facilitated discussions?
Over-evaluation of sessions.
and again and again and again and again and ...
Lots of paper
Playing the audience role
Too much reading in the beginning of classes...not remembering what I read.

Recommendations:
Reduce paper (charts, objectives, handouts...)
Group sessions together for broader objectives and fewer evaluations.
For evaluations, use fewer check marks and make them more qualitative.











TRAINEE RELATED
* personal skills
* student background affected performance
* Trainees needed to have a common understanding of what we were doing in our
training project.
* During the planning trainees did not know what to expect for the next assignment.
Examples would be good.


Recommendations:
More formal meetings with the trainees and instructors while they are working on
"training plan project" to try to achieve a common concept for the project.
Video tape trainings/discussions [to facilitate feedback].
Give at leas a week for each assignment to be completed.
Provide booklets with example training plans at the beginning of the class.




r* )


Appendix 10

Participant responses
Future activities and interests





r


Appendix 10: Participant responses to future activities and interests

Participants were asked to consider future interests and activities both here in Gainesville
and elsewhere. The following are some of the comments. An interest group for MERGE
training has since been formed, and several activities are planned.

In 1996 -

* Do Research on Gender & International Relations & Comp. Politics.
* Developing thesis on NGOs & Sustainable /Participatory Devel.
* Taking my last class and writing my research I will take other class in gender.
* Graduating.
* Going to school, working with gender issues at my job UAA.
* Make contacts with wider GA community.
* Practicing my training techniques at all opportunities.
* The Second Coming of WIAD/GEAP.
* Incorporating these concepts /techniques into my studies-take WID course, WID cert.
Do research.
Still learning.
Graduating.
Demonstrating participatory tools used on GA training.
Applying skills learned in this class.
Finishing my thesis, working on a first project or figuring out where I can apply my
skills.
* Volunteering in Alachua Co, by helping conservation project for local farms!
* Teaching Environ. Studies in middle school and community education.
* Being sensitive to females.



In 2001 -

* Teaching at the Federal University of Acre (Farming Systems).
* Working with small Farm or Extension agents in agriculture and Community
development on my country.
* Incorporating concepts/techniques into work in policy making and/ or academic
environment.
* Working with my extension agents on improved Ag. practices related to Animal
Science.
* Working with educators in developing countries to train in development and
environmental studies methods.









* Looking for a job or hopefully working as a consultant in conservation/ gender (or
living in the mountains) Applying techniques in my local community.
Working as consultant in environmental NGO (or looking for a job).
Still learning and diffusing some knowledge.
Doing DSRE and GA work overseas, hopefully in Africa.
Have my own NGO.
Working with training and community participation in a Latin American NGO or
consulting with.
Writing and teaching.
Working as a consultant or teaching diving (with gender) in Caribbean.
Working as an applied research for and NGO (includes training).
Researching for my dissertation.

What Would You Like to See Happen?

Explore the ways to go from gender awareness/analysis to empowerment.
*, Know concrete opportunities for facilitating comm. participation in cons/dev. projects.
Do short term field research with merge related to gender and community participation
and conservation.
* Pursue training my students in how City Commission works.
* Focus on Careers at Santa Fe C.C. for displaced Home makers.
* Immediate e-mail support group.
* 1-year- TOT- Look for funding.
* Designing, writing and doing my PhD research in gender/environ. w/MERGE.
* Working with MERGE partner in Peru.
* Conducting field research for PhD in Peru.
* I will be doing research in Acre, Brazil.
* Practicing some methods in Brazil.
* Continental Sustenance Peru-Brazil-Ei~cuador for conferences training.