|
\: MEMORANDUM
February 21, 1985
To: FSSP Staff and Technical Committee, Wendall Morse (USAID),
Judith Bruce and Hilary Feldstein (Population Council).
From: Susan Poats, FSSP.
Subject: Progress Report on the Intra-Household Dynamics and
FSR/E Case Studies Project.
This memo and the attached documents will serve as a progress
report on the joint FSSP and Population Council Case Study Series
on Intra-Household Dynamics and FSR/E. Earlier updates on
project activities dealt with the proposed project budget and
letters of agreement (July 1984) and the candidates for the
advisory committee (November 1984). The attached documents
include the trip report on the first project management meeting
in New York (December 1984) and the subsequent selection of
advisory committee members (see enclosed list).
During December, Hilary and I attended the third of the series of
HIID/WID case study workshops, where we learned how to use the
case studies on Women in Development, prepared by the Harvard
Institute for International Development. This workshop provided
us with both input and stimulus towards better definition of the
format for our case studies. A copy of the case studies and
analytical framework used during the workshop is in my office,
should any of you wish to review it.
The first advisory committee meeting was held January 7-8, at the
Population Council, New York City. The enclosed report on the
meeting, prepared by Hilary Feldstein, summarizes the activities
and results from this meeting. Shortly after the meeting, Hilary
finalized the flyer announcing the project and the call for
expressions of interest (also attached). This was sent out
immediately to all PA's with a copy of On-Networking, and with
the Spanish and French versions of the previous newsletter. The
current mailing of the English newsletter also contains the
flyer.
With input from a smaller working group, within the advisory
committee, I constructed a first draft of the case study format.
This has been circulated to the committee for comments. Hilary
will integrate corrections into a second draft for review. In
light of our current training unit activities, I would appreciate
any comments any of you might have on the format and whether you
feel it will be appropriate for other experiential learning
activities.
Future plans for the project include a panel presentation on
FSR/E and Intra-Household issues at the Association for Women in
Development Meeting in Washington, DC, April 23-25. We will have
the second advisory committee meeting, to review and prioritize
the responses solicited with the expression of interest forms.
We hope to have a selection of three case studies for development
by the end of May. We will then hold a short concensus-building
writer's workshop and hope all case studies will be underway by
summer, in order to have results to show at KSU in October.
TRIP REPORT
NEW YORK CITY: POPULATION COUNCIL
Country: New York City, USA
Assignment: Project Management Meeting, Intra-Household Dynamics and
Farming Systems Case Studies Series.
Name: Susan V. Poats, FSSP
Date: November 14-15, 1984
Address: FSSP/ International Programs
3028 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
BACKGROUND:
Since August, Hilary Feldstein, Managing Editor of the IHD/FSR
Project has been soliciting suggestions for persons to serve on the
case studies advisory committee. Over 100 persons were contacted
asking for their interest in participating. These persons were
identifies primarily through networking activities within the FSSP
'network and that of the Population Council. From those who expressed
an interest and were available, we made a first cut on the list, and
solicited resumes from those remaining on the list. FSSP staff were
asked to reviewthe resulting short-list with brief qualifications
sketches and prioritize their selections. These comments were then
carried to NY for consideration at the first formal management meeting
for the project. (All previous meetings have been conducted over the
phone, or during the KSU FSR Symposium and FSSP Annual Meeting,
attended by Hilary Feldstein.)
OBJECTIVES:
1. To meet with Hilary Feldstein, managing editor, and Judith
Bruce, co-manager of the project to select the advisory committee for
project and plan for the first meeting of the advisory committee.
2. To review the project plans and committee selections ith
Ms. Katharine McKee, Project Manager with the Ford Foundation,
co-sponsor of the case studies project.
CHRONOLOGY OF TRIP:
November 14.
12:00 noon.
Arrived New York La Guardia airport and proceeded to take a share-taxi
to the Barbizon Plaza Hotel, 106 Central Park South (corner 6th Ave.
and Central Park South) in Manhattan. This was a mistake as this
route took 1 1/2 hours. Moral: next time take a taxi direct and
alone! Checked into the hotel ($119.00/night double room, and vastly
overpriced; next time will try to stay at the Doral).
1:30-2:30
Met with Hilary over lunch and discussed our preliminary rankings of
candidates for the committee.
3:00-6:00
First management meeting of the IHD/FSR Case Study Project at Judith
Bruce's home. After much discussion and weighing of the relative
merits of each person, we agreed on eight persons to serve on the
committee, and agreed that we would consider two more overnight and
meet again in the morning.
Evening
Hilary and I had dinner at a French/Japanese restaurant in the
Village. We continued to discuss the potential members of the
committee and their duties, as well as possible case studies for the
series. We concluded the evening by attending a performance of
" 'A' My Name is Alice", a feminist musical revue---an utterly
appropriate way to end the day.
November 15
10:00-11:00
We resumed our meeting at the Population Council and concluded the
selection process of the committee by adding two more persons to the
eight selected the day before. We also discussed the selection of a
person to represent intra-household and gender issues on the FSSP
Evaluation Task Force (ETF). We will inform Dan Galt on this issue
separately. Finally, we laid out a tentative date and agenda for the
first advisory committee meeting.
11:15-12:15
Hilary and I walked over to the Ford Foundation to meet with Katharine
McKee, Project Manager. We discussed the selection of advisory
committee members and some of the issues concerning FSR and
intra-household dynamics which were raised at the Bellagio Conference
on the same topic earlier in the year.
12:30-2:30
Hilary and I returned to the Population Council for lunch and a
final discussion on the agenda for the committee meeting, and some
additional items such as a possible presentation by the project at the
next AWID Meeting, April 23-25, Washington, DC.
3:00-5:00
FREE!!! I visited the museum of Modern Art exhibition "Primitivism in
Modern Art" and thoroughly enjoyed myself.
6:15
Departed for La Guardia Airport to continue to Washington DC for a
meeting with Wendall Morse USAID/S&T and the Africa Bureau (See memo
of November 17, 1984 for results of this meeting.)
RESULTS OF MEETINGS
Table 1 list the persons selected to serve on the advisory
committee and their addresses and affiliations. Table 2 gives their
disciplines, institutional affiliations (past and present), regional
representation in the developing world, agro-ecological zone
experience, farming systems research and intra-household experience
(P=practical, T=theoretical). A broad range of expertise is
represented by the committee and it is hoped this will result in the
best possible coordination of the case studies development.
Originally, only six persons were to be selected for the
committee, however, in light of the number of persons interested in
serving on the committee, and the need for considerable breadth and
depth in experiences, the committee was expanded to 10. This will
not, however, over-spend the budget allocated for the three committee
meetings scheduled annually. Holding the meetings in New York, at the
Population Council, reduces costs in airfares and perdiems, especially
since three participants live in the New York area.
In terms of committee procedures, Hilary Feldstein will
coordinate and manage activities, beginning with the organizational
meeting which is scheduled for January 7-8, 1985. Judith Bruce and I
will serve as non-voting members of the committee and overall project
managers. Hilary will prepare a draft outline of a case study format
and list some of the issues for consideration for our next meeting and
mail these to the committee members. She will also contact those
persons not selected to serve on the committee to determine their
interest in continuing to serve as external reviewers of case study
proposals and manuscripts.
Advisory Committee for Population Council/FSSP Case Studies Project
Dr. Harry (Skip) Bittenbender
Department of Horticulture
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
(617) 353-5473
Ms. Kate Cloud
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Illinois
Champaign, Illinois 61821
(217) 333-5832
Dr. Frank Conklin
Office of International Agriculture
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
(503) 754-2304
Ms. Nadine Horenstein
Room 3725 NS
US/AID
Washington, DC 20523
(202) 632-3992
Ms. Kate McKee
Ford Foundation
320 East 43rd Street
New York, New York 10017
(212) 573-5345
Dr. Rosalie Norem
Department of Family Environment
Iowa State University
LeBaron Hall, Room 173
Ames, Iowa 50011
(515) 294-8608
Dr. David Nygaard
Agricultural Development Council
725 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10021
(212) 517-9700
Dr. Pauline Peters
Harvard Institute for
International Development
1737 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-3785
Dr. Frederico Poey
AGRIDEC
1414 Ferdinand Street
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(305) 271-5694
Dr. Mary Rojas
105 Patton Hall
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
& State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24601
(703) 961-4651
Ms. Hilary S. Feldstein
Managing Editor
Population Council/FSSP
Case Studies Project
RFD 1, Box 821
Hancock, New Hampshire 03449
(603) 525-3772
Ms. Judith Bruce, ex officio
Program Associate
Population Council
1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
New York, New York 10017
(212) 644-1777
Dr. Susan Poats, ex officio
Associate Director
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(904) 392-2309
Dr. Cornelia Butler-Flora, ex officio
Chairman, Technical Committee FSSP
Department of Sociology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
(913) 532-6865
Ia4, : .I A I I '
I I
A/vA t-
i &;v 4k-4''~ ebe
,1,4 asd ~
72d~bkt -7
4a ~k~~/fJe.
p-*-1re44Sc~) ~
p p
T P
yeq Co-
Anfirhpo t<
Sc~A-C
1 -i~" er"ec,
SsP /On, j/ orFl
brf'~s9~~~
ices ~~R~-aBe~4
~aa
cclei E~uLrCB,
RFD 1 Box 821
Hancock, NH 03449
December 4, 1984
Jocelyn Albert
U.S.A.I.D.
Department of State
S & T/AGR/ETP
Washington, D.C. 20523
Dear Jo:
First, it was good to see you at the meeting in Kansas. Your comments
there and help in soliciting names, particularly of agricultural
scientists, were helpful. I never did write up all my observations, but
they will be fed into the next step of the case study process which is to
draft format and a set of criteria to be included in an RFP which I shall
send on to you for comments when they are done (sometime in the next three
weeks).
We have selected our committee and I enclose a list. There was a lot
of balancing involved, but we are pleased that it is one which is diverse
and all committed' to the task. We will be meeting in New York in early
January.
I also enclose a letter I sent to Marilyn Richards concerning an
interest in having a panel related to the case studies at the AWID meeting.
Susan and I heard that you are also interested in such a panel (or papers?)
and would like to explore with you how such efforts could be complementary,
mutually reinforcing, or integrated, whatever seems appropriate. Susan is
in Togo but will try to call you on her return. Or please call me when you
are back in country and let's discuss. I shall be here (603-525-3772) for
the rest of the month except December 17-19 (in Washington for the AID/WID
training workshop) and December 26-Jan.l (in New York with family). Hope
to hear from you soon. All the best,
Sincerely,
Hilary S. Feldstein
The Population Council
RFD 1 Box 821
Hancock, NH 03449
December 12, 1984
Dr. Susan Poats, ex officio
Associate Director
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611
Dear Susan:
I want to thank you formally for agreeing to be on the Advisory
Committee to the Population Council/FSSP Case Studies Project on
"Intra-Household Dynamics and FSR/E." I have enclosed a list of the
entire committee and hope you will agree with me we have a diverse
and first rate group.
This letter is to confirm our meeting for January 7th and 8th at
the Population Council. The Population Council is located at the
corner of 48th Street and 2nd Avenue. We will convene Monday at 12:30
for lunch in the JDR room on the 44th floor. The formal agenda will
begin at 2:00 p.m. running to 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. On Tuesday we will
begin at 9:00 a.m. and expect to finish by 3:00 p.m. The objectives
of this meeting are to consider and set guidelines for the format for
the case studies, critical issues to be included, criteria for
evaluating proposals, and procedures and timing for requesting,
reviewing and judging them. To this end, I will be sending you a
packet of discussion materials before January 1st.
For those of you traveling to New York City I have enclosed a
sheet with information on the hotel and travel arrangements and the
procedures for reimbursement. I am very much looking forward to
meeting you all and to a fruitful beginning of the new year. With
best wishes for the holiday season,
Sincerely yours -
Hilary S. Feldstein
Managing Editor
Enclosures
HF/rr
The Population Council
RFD 1, Box 821
Hancock, NH 03449
December 27, 1984
Dear Advisory Committee member:
I hope you all had peaceful, joyful holidays and a good start
to the New Year.
With this letter are a number of materials I hope you will
review before the meeting next week. Our experience with case studies
written for Harvard and the Population Council indicates it is helpful
and ultimately time saving to be as specific as possible to (potential)
case writers as to (a) the audience to whom it is directed; (b) format
for cases; and (c) main issues to be addressed. Our principal audience
in this case are farming system practitioners being trained by FSSP.
Susan Poats will review this training at the meeting. The other
criteria important to considering the format is that each case should
include an analytic section so that it can be used for self study by
those to whom a training session is not accessible.
With that in mind, I would the January meeting to focus on producing
guidelines for the case study writing. Specifically I am looking for
the following products of our discussion:
agreement on the specific objectives and perhaps their weighting
case study format
agreement on principal issues to be addressed by the case
studies
content of the RFP, proposal requirements, and the procedures
and criteria for choosing which cases to support.
I have enclosed the following papers which will be helpful in
these considerations*:
draft discussion materials: a statement of objectives and
trainee requirements, case study format and other issues
to be considered
Sex Roles in the Nigerian Tiv Farm Household by Mary E. Burfisher
and Nadine R. Horenstein. This case is part of the Population
Council series on The Impact of Large-Scale Development
Projects on Women. Unlike case studies used in the Harvard
Series, these include an analytical section and suggestions
for project redesign.
*for those who have copies I have not sent additional ones.
The Population Council
Advisory Committee members
December 27, 1984
page two
Four pieces from the Harvard/HIID case studies written for
AID/WID: an introduction to the case study method; a
framework for analysis of women in development; a check
list for considering the allocation of gender or household
members' tasks and resources in agriculture (prepared by
Kate Cloud); and the Egerton College Case. The Harvard
cases withhold the analysis which becomes the content of
class discussion under leadership of a trainer. The
analytical framework is considered very helpful by AID
trainees and we may want to consider something similar to
accompany our cases.
Please familiarize yourself with the cases and particularly with
the draft discussion materials so that we will have a common basis for
discussion.
For preparing cases we are working within the following framework:
we have budgeted from $3,000 to $5,000 per case for three cases;
essentially two months of an author's time to prepare a case from
existing materials. We have not budgeted for new data collection or
extensive analysis. We also have set aside funds for editorial
assistance for each of the cases.
I very much look forward to this meeting and to your assistance in
framing these cases so that we draw in and enable presentation of good
material which will further the full consideration of intra-household
dynamics in agricultural research and extension.
Finally, there have been two changes in the committee. Steve
Franzel's work commitments make him unable to participate and we have
therefore added Rosalie Norem from Iowa State University who has done
training for FSSP. We will also be joined in our first meeting by
Cornelia Butler Flora, chairman of the FSSP Technical Committee who
wrote the original working paper on this project.
With best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
Hilary Feldstein
HF/rr
enclosures
The Population Council
Travel, Accomodations and Reimbursement
Under the terms of the agreement between the Population Council and
FSSP, FSSP will pick up the travel and per diem costs of the Title XII
members of the Advisory Committee and the Population Council other members.
FSSP is covered by AID guidelines on reimbursement which are detailed
below. Our budget is low and we ask that each of you be frugal in making
your arrangements. The current arrangements and the procedures covering
FSSP's reimbursement are as follows:
Travel: We have asked you to make your own travel arrangements.
As soon as they are completed, please notify Judy Meline at FSSP
(International Programs, University of Florida, 3028 McCarty Hall,
Gainesville, FL 32611, 904-392-2309) of the cost of your ticket and your
social security number. This will start the process at Florida and
expedite your reimbursement later. You will be reimbursed for air ticket
and transfers. After the meeting you will need to submit an air ticket,
times of departure and arrival, and receipts for any transfers over $14.99.
Accomodations: Rooms have been guaranteed for late arrival for
Monday night at the Milford Plaza (a Best Western hotel), 270 West 45th
Street, NYC 10036 for Bittenbender, Cloud (also Sunday), Conklin (also
Sunday), Peters, Poey, Rojas, Feldstein and Poats. For any changes in
reservations the number is 800-221-2690; for contacting you, the number is
212-869-3600. If you do not use the reservation, please notify them
before 6:00 p.m. on the 7th; otherwise we will be charged for the room.
The guarantee number is Carol 12/12/84.
These rooms are $75.00 per night. FSSP will pay your hotel bill
plus $21.00 per day for meals. You are entitled to pro-rated additional
meals during travel according to the time of departure (before 6:00 a.m.)
and arrival (after 8:00 p.m.) from and to your residence. You will need
to submit your hotel receipt for reimbursement, but not those from meals.
I hope this is clear and helps your planning. If you have any
further questions please call Judy Meline in Florida or Hilary Feldstein
in Hancock.
Population Council/FSSP Case Study Project
"Intra-Household Dynamics and Farming Systems Research and Extension"
Background Information to Case Study Format:Draft 12/84
Objectives of Training using the Case Studies
Introduction: Farming systems are very complex and consideration of intra-
household questions adds another layer of complexity. There is resistance to
seeking data in this area unless it can be established that understanding the
productive roles, constraints and incentives of all household members
substantially improves the research design and, ultimately, productivity, and
that relevant information can be collected with an economy of means. The case
studies are meant to serve the following objectives.
1. Sensitization of farming systems practitioners to the importance of
attention to the productive roles of all household members in data collection
and design of experiments.
2. Experience of analyzing a situation and the data and coming to
conclusions about tradeoffs in the design of agricultural or livestock
production technology and/or experiments. In some respects forcing attention to
the areas of greatest discomfort will help the learning (i.e. for ag
scientists, social science analysis and vice versa).
3. Guidance as to how to include intra-household-questions explicitly:
(a) determining the unit of analysis;
(b) determining the most useful data which can be collected
disaggregated by household member; and,
(c) effective means of collecting data, including all farmers
perceptions, before research design and in monitoring the experimental stage and
farm trials.
I' I 3
What trainee is required to do:
1. On the basis of Parts I, II and III in the case study (see format
below):
(a) Determine what are the areas of opportunity for improved
crop/livestock production in the area: (i) are they for subsistence or cash, how
important in the household economy; (ii) what are the complementary or competing
economic activities including household reproduction, self-employment, wage
labor, migration; (iii) are family subsistence needs met through own production
or purchase; and (iv) how do these areas fit national or donor objectives.
(b) F6r the most important production activities as determined by (a),
disaggregation of activities and access and control of resources and benefits by
household member/types, perhaps according to a format similar to that used by
the HIID/WID cases; who are the decision makers on the use of important
resources for project crops.
(c) What is the structure of the household? What constraints and/or
incentives will affect the response of different household members/types to
changes in agricultural practices.
2. (a) Designate recommendation domains and plan for the design of,
agricultural technology or experiments within the overall project guidelines and
constraints. Design to include an on-going monitoring system; or
(b) Go through entire FSR framework analyzing where and how and what
attention must be paid to intra-household issues within this particular project.
Suggest tradeoffs.
3. As a second exercise, on the basis of IV.A., critique actual design and
implementation and suggest improvements.
Note: This version of the case study format assumes some knowledge of farming
systems methodology and that the cases will be used in an interactive mode
similar to that used with the Harvard/WIID case studies.
Population Council/FSSP Case Study Project
"Intra-Household Dynamics and Farming Systems Research and Extension"
Case Study Format: Draft 12/84
Title of Case
I. Country and Project Background
Two or three pages of relevant information about the history, economy,
culture and political conditions in the country including particularly those
features which are important context to the project (especially trends which are
affecting agriculture and family structures--the roles of men, women and
children--for instance education, migration, landlessness). This section should
include a brief description of the institutions affecting agriculture and
livestock production(relevant ministries, services, pricing, place of
agriculture in the overall economy, etc.)
Project background may be woven into country background or treated
separately, whichever works better. This should include the initiatives and
rationale for the project; a description of the relevant institutions sponsoring
and implementing the project, their objectives and commitment, their overall
capacity, the resources and personnel available to the project; any other
factors which establish constraints or opportunities on the design of
agricultural research or extension.
II. Project Area Description
This section presents in narrative and tabular form (in annexes), the kind
of data collected during a "well done sondeo" augmented by a review of
appropriate secondary literature, upon which the decisions regarding the design
of agriculture technology or experiments will be based. The description of the
elements should be clear, but include no evaluative comment. The section should
.ri
be introduced with a short description of how data were obtained: secondary
literature used? questionnaires & sampling? interview questions and sampling
used in sondeo? any other means of obtaining information. Note: from the
information contained in these sections, the trainee should be able to draw out
the main productive activities, the tasks and resources required disaggregated
by household member.
A. Physical factors affecting crop or livestock production: rainfall,
topgraphy, soil tillage capacity and fertility, availability of irrigation.
B. Agronomic information: principal crops, cropping patterns, cropping
calendar including maps of field layouts, rotation patterns, pests and pest
protection strategies. Description of sets of patterns for different groups
(e.g. women's fields, men's fields, joint fields). Who "knows" this
information, who has the best practices?
C. Livestock information: principal animals, role in the household
economy, numbers.
D. Household reproduction requirements: provision of food, shelter, water,
fuel, education including the time or cash required.
E. Economic information: (1) role of agricultural production in the
household economy; other sources of livelihood especially if relevant for
understanding time and cash constraints or incentives, including questions of
timing, risk, stability; (2) with reference to particular crops grown,
subsistence vs. cash use (nutritional value? relative importance to household
income? additional uses of a crop such as fodder, thatch, fuel, etc.), yields
including variabilty, marketing structures, pricing, input prices and
availability, time allocation budget by household members. In time allocation
need to include the seasonality of tasks associated with specific activities.
F. Intra-household information:
This is a very tricky section, needs to include what is relevant without
overload; relevancy may be affected by explicit project objectives and/or
objectives introduced by the author and clearly stated as such.
1. Description of what in this particular case is the appropriate unit
or units of analysis, i.,e. major types of household including family structure,
membership and size, relevant variations; relationship of this unit(s) to larger
structures (kinship, community); if relevant, patterns of obligations affecting
availability of resources to agriculture or disposition of production.
2. Description of activities, resources required, and benefits of (i)
cash and subsistence crop and livestock production, (ii) any other primary
income activities, and (iii) household maintenance. Which household member
undertakes the activity? Who has access and/or control of the resources (land,
labor, cash, etc.)? and the benefits of production? Where relevant, information
should include flexibility and interchangeability of tasks, pooling or non-
pooling of income. Is there an observable pattern of decision making on farm
management, agricultural or other investment (especially assets, working
capital), use of produce (storage, sale, gifts), use of labor? Is there an
operative "family survival strategy" implicit or explicit in the assignment of
tasks and responsibilities?
(a) activities: task allocation for different stages of crop and
livestock production, harvesting, processing, and trading and for the major
tasks of household reproduction.
(b) access and control:
(i) resources--land (ownership, use rights), labor, cash,
information/education, technology/inputs, markets; and
(ii) benefits--commodities produced (stored for subsistence or
sold?), income from sale, income from local or migrant wage labor, etc.
G. Farmers' (men and women) view of agricultural constraints and
objectives. Is the household head's view similar to that of its members?
Note: Parts I & II should be no longer than 20-25 pp.
III. Annexes
Supporting data, tables, statistics and charts are useful for case
background and detailed information! Careful selection can help to make the
case text brief. Be selective and focused on information needed to understand
the design situation. This might include, for example, national statistics on
agricultural production or prices or migration; local figures on rainfall, land
holding, acreage in relevant commodities, month-by-month breakdown of
agricultural or particular commodity production. Use the data you have and make
up your own tables or charts for presentation if necessary to ensure relevance
to the case.
The case should also include a map showing project area
IV. Separate analytic or teaching note
In a training situation this no e is withheld from the trainees who are
expected to undertake the analysis o the information and make recommendations.
It will be used for self-study and as a teaching aid to trainers. It should be
concise, confining itself to the most important points impinging on design of
agricultural technology or experiments, for example, the constraints (e.g.
labor) and incentives (adequate food supply, income) which affect household
members interest in or capacity for undertaking changes in agricultural
technology. For example,
A. A description of the design of agricultural technology or experiments
resulting from use of this information in the project, including specifically
.. J
how the team incorporated information from the household; and/or,
B. Conceptual and speculative analysis concerning tradeoffs of different
approaches taking into account household information.
C. What improvements could be made in 'how' or 'what' information was
gathered, particularly with reference to intra-household questions.
Both A and B should include discussion of system for on-going monitoring and
adjustment: in the case of A, what was put in place; in the case of B, what an
efficient and adequate system would look like. How are the views of all
household members assessed as the experiments and testing proceed?
Note: Other models of case studies have inserted a separate section on the
context for women, highlighting the main issue, between Parts I & II. Would a
similar section on households be useful here or better incorporated into Part
II.
7
Other Issues
In the reading, discussions and conferences, a number of issues emerge
which are frequently mentioned in the context of FSR/E or intra-household
questions. They are not dealt with very directly in the draft case studies
format, and we should consider whether and how to address them.
I. Issues not addressed by the draft case format.
1. How to determine the unit of analysis before setting out;
how to determine the most important questions to ask;
2. How to get the information required; methodological strategies
for acquiring and'analyzing the data and using the results.
NOTE: The first set of cases will be drawn from existing material
and analysis andmay not therefore address these questions.
3. Need for overarching analytic piece or technical paper as an
introduction? Or a framework or set of questions/guidelines as used in
HIID/WID cases. If so, what form should it take? What should be included?
II. Options for inclusion or exclusion from first set of case studies or
as criteria in evaluating proposals. Do we want some of these issues
given priority or excluded on the first round or see what happens?
1. Questions of equity (versus productivity).
2. Nutritional or welfare considerations as objectives; should
nutritional value of various crops be included, or designs be questioned
which place a disproportionate burden on certain household members.
3. Different regional or institutional settings (national systems,
donor, international agricultural centers).
4. Whether or not to get into policy issues such as commodity pricing,
personnel, training or placement of extension services; availability of
credit, land holding patterns, cooperative membership? Short of making
policy statements do we want to see creative solutions?
5. Focus on subsistence versus cash crop production? livestock?
agroforestry? post-harvest processing and storage or sale?
6. Short term versus long range strategies for improvements in
production.
7. Amount of emphasis to be given to farmer participation and to
models for on-going monitoring, feedback and adjustment, and within
that assurance, that all relevant household members are considered.
8. RelationShip of farming systems to fertility behavior; likely
effect of introduced changes.
III. Other strategies (besides case studies) which can contribute to
improved consideration of intra-household dynamics in FSR/E.
1. Literature review; use of secondary materials to help set initial
questions.
(a) availability of materials, i.e., collection and summation
of relevant materials, e.g. Bean Cow Pea CRSP materials.
(b) time to do preparation before project design and/or research .
stage.
2. Availability of existing data sets and analysis, e.g. Ivory
Coast National Household Food Consumption and Budgetary Survey.
3. Value of in-depth longitudinal studies of particular systems.
4. Whether and how to attract proposals beyond budget guidelines
and if so, strategy for funding.
IV. Procedural
1. RFP inclusions
2. RFP proposal requirements, format
3. RFP and.selection procedures and timing
4. Editorial assistance, choices
5. Field testing of cases
-10-
Case Study suggestions received as of 12/84
Dr.Diane Rocheleau, ICRAF, P.O.Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya. Project working with
women in soil conservation plantings which has developed into improved use of
forage and conservation plantings by individual male and female farmers.
Highlights the use of group for community improvements and as a means of access
to women and through them to their families and additional information on
farming systems.
Nepal..U. Virginia; see Marilyn Hoskins report; over the years gender issues
have been incorporated in resource conservation and institutionalization of
agricultural development (from Tue. mtg. FSSP)
U.Washington: Sudan & Lesotho projects, incorporated into the framework.
Contact Jan Noel.
Zaria..example of where national research program looking at technology has
changed; Zaria as a possibility of mixed cropping (Louise F., Tues. mtg)
Santa Lucia. WINROCK project with CARDI. Vasantha Narendran looked at market
strategies, then households and farming activities in different ecologocal zones
resulting in two recommendation domains for field trials: one, male fields; the
other, female fields.
Rainfed Systems in Northeastern Thailand. Contact:
Dr. Terd Charoenwatana
Faculty of Agriculture
Khon Kaen University
Khon Kaen, Thailand
cc. Dr. Terry Grandstaff
from Sam Johnson: has long data set, recent input from the social sciences;
good intellectually and in practice.
Application of Farming Systems Approach to Management of the Niger River System.
Paper by Gregory Sullivan, Auburn University at FSSP conference in which the
role of women as processors and sellers proves important to understanding system
and constraints.
Amalia Alberti, International Agriculture, Cornell on Ecuador; comparison of
time allocation, division of labor tasks, agronomic data, socio-economic vs.
ethnic differentiation (socio economic better predictor)
work done by Gillian Hart (where?) on Java on labor distribution and
utilization.
Gambia material from Gambia Mixed Farm Production Project (ref. Eckert)
Gambia material being developed by CRED project (ref. Gilbert) ,"
Also Jenny Dey's work here mentioned by Louise Fresco; studies on rice
plantations
Botswana material (Norman?)
Dr. Carolyn Barnes, Nairobi REDSO, Dept. of State, Washington, D.C.; has
longitudinal data on Kenyan households (ref. Louise Fortmann)
Ms. Lini Wollenberg, College of Natural Resources, UC Berkeley, 145 Mulford
Hall, Berkeley, Calif. 94720; masters student currently collecting data on
agroforestry in Philippines, due back in spring. Current address: Davao
Cottage, Silliman University, Dumaguete 6501, Philippines.
Ben White, Ann Stoler, Java
Burkina Fasso, ICRISAT data
Peter Matlon and Ken Shapiro
University of Wisconsin
(ref. Elon Gilbert)
Carol Kerven c/o Behnke
Huntings Tech. Services
P.O. Box 6172
People's Hall P.O.
Khartoum, Sudan
(work in Botswana on women in the pastoral economy, specifically in the
processing and marketing of milk and milk products; now doing further work in
this area in Somalia leading to a comparative analysis of changing economic
roles of women in pastoral systems undergoing commercialization).
Philippines data set: two day measures of activities and dietary intake and
extensive SES descriptors on 1000 women. 'Activities' includes time allocation.
Described as an unusually rich data set. Contact: Barry Popkin at University of
North Carolina Public Health School. (Ref. David Shanklin, Research Triangle
Institute).
Further analysis of data available from a longitudinal study of women in a
Resettlement Scheme in Burkina Fasso including base line data from pre-project
villages. Preliminary analysis shows considerable change in women's roles and
resources in agriculture over time. Not strictly FSR in application, but pay
have data from which an FSR case can be derived. Contact: Donna McMillan,
anthropologist, University of Florida.
CRSP projects in Ecquador (Cornell, Amalia above), Tanzania (Washington State
University), and Malawi (Michigan State University), both cited as having strong
WID components in CRSP Evaluation.
4
Population Council/FSSP Case Studies Project
Master List
Board of Review
Dr. Gustavo Arcia
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park,..N. C. 27709
Dr. Janet Benson
Department of Anthropology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Dr. Vernon Cardwell
Agronomy Department
University of Minnesota
1509 Gortner Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
Dr. Jerry Eckert
Gambia Mixed Farming and
Resource Management Project
Department of Economics
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Dr. Louise Fortmann
College of Natural Resources
145 Mulford Hall
Berkeley, California 94720
Dr. Steve Franzel
Development Alternatives, Inc.
624 Ninth Street NW 6th floor
Washington, D.C. 20001
Dr. Steven E. Kraft
Department of Agricultural
Business Economics
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois 62901
Dr. Eileen Kennedy
International Food Policy
Research Institute
1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dr. Beatrice L.Rogers
School of Nutrition
Tufts University
Medford, Mass.02155
Dr. Jean Weidemann
2607 24th Street North
Arlington, Virginia 22207
list 1
Master list
Dr. Emmanuel Acquah
University of Maryland,
Eastern Shore
Department of Agriculture
Princess Anne, Md. 21853
Dr. Jocelyn Albert
U.S.A.I.D.
Department of State
S & T/AGR/ETP
Washington, D.C. .20523
Dr. Jacqueline Ashby
Centra Internacional de Agricultura
Tropical
Apartado Aereo 6713
Cali, Columbia
Dr. Randolph Barker
New York College of Agriculture
Cornell University
Warren Hall
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dr. Sara Berry
93 Forest Street
Newton Highlands, Massachusetts 02161
Dr. George Burrill
Associates in Rural Development, Inc.
362 Main Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dr. Mead Cain
Center for Policy Studies
Population Council
1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Dr. David Cleveland
Center of People, Food,
and Environment
344 South Third Avenue
Tucscon, Arizona 85701
Dr. Christopher Delgado
IFPRI
1776 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dr. Ruth Firiney, Chief
Women in Agricultural Production
and Rural Development Service
Food & Agricultural Organization
via delle Ternae de Caracalla 00100
Rome, Italy
Anne Ferguson
Program/WID Specialist
Michigan State University
Bean/Cowpea CRSP Management Office
200 Center for International Programs
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Dr. James Fitch
AgriManagement
P.O. Box 583
Yakima, Washington 98907
Dr.Jan L. Flora, Associate Professor
Department of Sociology,
Anthropology and Social Work
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Dr. Charles A. Francis
Rodale Research Center
Box 323, RD. 1
Kutztown, PA 19530
Dr. Louise Fresco
Wageningen Agricultural University
Brouwersgracht 865
1015 J K
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mr. Isao Fujimoto
Applied Behavioral Science
University of California, Davis
Davis, California 95616
Dr. Patricia Garrett
Rural Sociology
Cornell University
Warren Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
Dr. Elon Gilbert
CRED
Lorch Hall
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
1 t 9
Dr. Richard Harwood
Rodale Research Center
Box 323, RD. 1
Kutztown, PA 19530
Dr. Peter Hildebrande
Food and Resource Economics Department
2126 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Dr. Teresa Ho
The World Bank
Room 18-232
1818 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433
Dr. Marilyn Hoskins
Department of Sociology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Dr. Janice Jiggins
De Dellen 4
Andelst
Netherlands
Dr. Sam Johnson
University of Illinois
113 Mumford Hall
1301 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, Illinois 61301
Dr. Bruce Johnston
Food Research Institute
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
Dr. Stuart Kean
Adaptive Research Planning
Team Coordinator
MAWD
Department of Agriculture
Box 50291
Lusaka, Zambia
Dr. Carol Kerven (on FYI list)
c/o Ray H. Behnke, Jr.
Hunting Technical Services
P.O. Box 6172
Peoples Hall Post Office
Khartoum, Sudan
Dr. Pat Barnes McConnell, Director
Bean Cowpea CRSP Project
Michigan State University
Center for International Programs
200 Agriculture Hall
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Dr. Robert Maxwell
Office of International Programs
College of Agriculture & Forestry
University of West Virginia
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
Dr. Joyce Moock
Rockefeller Foundation
1133 Avenue of Americas
New York, NY 10036
Wendell Morris
Project Manager-FSSP
S & T/AGR/EPP
Room 406 E SA 18
SAID
Washington, D.C. 20523
Dr. Isabel Nieves
International Center for
Research on Women
1010 Sixteenth Street NW
3rd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dr. Jan Noel
Washington State University
French Administration Building 338
Pullman, Washington 99164 1030
Dr. David Norman
Agricultural Technology
Improvement Project
Department of Agricultural Research
Private Bag 0033
Gaberone, Botswana
Dr. D. Pachico
Economist, Bean Program
CIAT .
Apartado Aereo 6713
Cali, Colombia
Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen
IFPRI
1776 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
I~t-3
Dr. Constantina Safilios-Rothschild
Center for Pblicy Studies
Population Council
1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Ms. Angelika Schuckler
c/o Women in Agricultural Production
and Rural Development Service
Food & Agricultural Organization
via delle Ternae de Caracalla 00100
Rome, Italy
Dr. Victor Snyder
Assistant Professor, Agronomy
Cornell University
151 Emerson Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
Dr. Peter Timmer
Harvard Business School
Soldiers Field
Boston, Massachusetts 02163
Dr. Norman Uphoff
Rural Development Committee
Center for International Studies
Cornell University
170 Uris Hall, Tower Road
Ithaca, New York 14853
Dr. Robert Werge
U.S. Department of Agriculture
International Training
Auditions Building Room 4106
Washington D.C. 20250
Dr. William F. Whyte
c/o Rural Development Committee
Center for International Studies
Cornell University
170 Uris Hall, Tower Road
Ithaca, New York 14853
Dr. Donald Wood
Department of Agronomy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Pop. Coufei I N Y. C.4b
AGENDA
Meeting of the Advisory Committee on the
Population Council/FSSP Case Studies Project
"Intra-Household Dynamics and Farming Systems Research/Extension"
Meeting Objectives
1. Determine objectives and audience for case studies.
2. Determine critical issues to be addressed by case studies and criteria to be
used in evaluating proposals.
3. Determine case study format.
4. Determine content of the RFP including proposal requirements.
5. Determine criteria, procedures and timing for evaluation of proposals.
6. Discuss what 'complementary material might be developed in association with
the case studies (e.g. guidelines, analytical framework).
DAY 1 Monday, January 7
12:30 Lunch
2:00 Introductions and Welcome
2:45 Background for discussions:
Project background and organization: Hilary Feldstein
Bellagio, FSR/E, and IHH: Kate McKee
Population Council case study experiences: Judith Bruce
HIID case study experiences: Kate Cloud
FSSP interests, training, trainees: Susan Poats
3:30 Break
3:50 Discussion and determination of objectives, critical issues, general
format for cases.
5:15 Roundup of decisions taken. Background for workgroups.
1
DAY 2 January 8
9:00 Workgroups:
A. Case studies content and format.
B. RFP content, procedures, timing.
11:00 Break
11:20 Presentation, discussion, and decisions on case study format.
12:00 Presentation and discussion on RFP.
12:30 Lunch
1:30 Decision on RFP content, timing.
Wrap up: Review of decisions.
3:00 End of meeting.
p
Report of the first meeting to the Advisory Committee for the "Intra-
Household Dynamics and Farming Systems" case study project held at
the Population Council, New York City, January 7-8..
Those attending: Advisory Committee: H.C. (Skip) Bittenbender,
- _..., Frank Conklin, Kate Cloud, Nadine Horenstein, Kate McKee, Rosalie
Norem, David Nygaard, Pauline Peters, Federico Poey.- Mary Rojas;
ex-officio: Judith Bruce, Cornelia Butler-Flora, Susan Poats;
managing editor, Hilary Feldstein.
The meeting began at 1:30 p.m. with a welcome from Judith Bruce
of the Population Council and general introductions around the table.
Presentations were made concerning different aspects of the project:
Kate McKee on the Bellagio conference on intra-household dynamics
and farming systems; Judith Bruce on the case studies for planners
on Women and Large Scale Projects; Kate Cloud on the Harvard case
studies on women in development for the World Bank at USAID; and
Susan Poats on FSSP and the training needs and trainees to which
the case studies will be directed.
The rest of the afternoon was spent in consideration of the
objectives oft~ie case studies, the various audiences to which it
might be directed, possibilities for format, and a range of
issues related to the cases such as geographical distribution,
range of farming systems projects to be included, relative
emphasis on productivity, biological outcomes vs. policy, etc..
One of the thornier issues addressed was how to deal with the
incompleteness of the expression "intra-household dynamics",
2 -
since it may or may not be interpreted to include gender disag-
gregation of data, family structures, and linkages of a household
or its members to other households.
The main points emerging from the first days discussion
were the following:
1) Get cases in which units of analysis beyond the household
(intra-houshold, gender, inter-household ) are important variables
in the design, experimentation and acceptance of agricultural tech-
nology.
2) Critical audiences: biological scientists (and policy makers).
This conclusion was challenged; Nygaard suggesting that the critical
audience is social scientists, i.e. teaching them to find the data
relevant to the concerns of biological scientists. General
agreement that both are the audience and that the message must
be persuasive and methodological.
3) Persuasive evidence is often found in the later stages
of FSR.
4) Cases must a) be usable in small chunks
b) include a section (not embedded) which draws
out the important issues.
5) Usefulness of some overarching framework/guidelines for
analyzing cases and for using them in the field.
6) Acritical need is to getthe documentation of success-
ful projects, leaving exact format to be part of the 'massaging'
process between receipt of materials in some form and the final
papers.
3-
Tuesday's meeting opened with a statement of the previous day's
main points and discussion of Nygaard's draft for an introduction
to an announcement of a call for case studies.
The meeting then broke into two working groups: Group A to
work on a RFP and procedures for eliciting, reviewing and selecting
proposals; Group B to work on the question of a desirable case study
format. (Group A: Nygaard, Horenstein, Bittenbender, McKee, Rojas,
Flora and Feldstein; Group B: Cloud, Conklin, Peters, Poey,
Norem, and Poats.)
The meeting reconvened in plenary before lunch, and group
presentations were made. After lunch agreement was reached on a
framework and timetable for the project as follows:
Timetable for soliciting case studies:
Jan. 7-25: Preparation and printing of a one page Announcement
of a call for case studies and of an Expression of Interest form.
Jan. 30: Announcement and forms to be sent with FSSP news-
letter and to FSSP Program Associate and list of self-identified
farming system projects and others on list.
Mar. 15: Expression of Interest due.
Mar 1-.
April 15: Evaluation of Expressions of Interest, weeding out
some, elaborating others. Work to be divided among Advisory Committee
members according to schedule established by HSF.
April 15-
16: 1 day meeting of Advisory Committee:
1) select proposals
I A
-4-
2) agree on case format and generic questions
3) consider proposal for commission
analytic framework and methodological format or guidelines.
Case format draft being prepared by Susan Poats and circulated to
all. Guidelines, generic questions, and analytical framework being con-
sidered by a subcommittee made up of Cornelia Flora, Kate Cloud, Pauline Peters
and Hilary Feldstein.
June 1-10: 2-3 day training workshop for selected case study
writers.
Other Agreements:
The project "name" will be "Intra-household dynamics and farming
systems" leaving to the wording of the announcement to elucidate
issues of gender differentiation, inter-household linkages, and household
resource allocation patterns.
Issues List
geog distrib
stages of FSR/E
FS only or wider net
non FS hh studies
authorship
audience priorities
productivityvs welfare
project specific
production data and measurements
of production
national institutions? donor
led? international centers?
Subject: crops, livestock,
agroforestry; how wide the net?
Subsistence vs. market
donor/government objectives..
outcomes of research
monitoring during experimentation
farmer participation (and which)
institutions cooperating or in-
volved
interventions: biological?
organizational?
upstream (off the shelf) vs. down-
stream (to be developed technology)
Concensus reached
internal priority
will be basis for case format
announcement will use "farming systems"
priority to FSR/E projects
picked up by announcement
options available including request for
author
FSR practitioners
announcement will emphasize productivity
and it will be given priority in evalu-
ating proposals.
high priority
essential component
priority given to national programs.
Straight international center programs
low priority because of endowment
resource differences. Leftto evaluation
stage.
cast widely, take best cases.
take best cases, must line up with
project, government objective.
must be included
must be included; acceptance of inter-
vention higher priority than experimental
proof
requested in the Expression of Interest form.
included in announcement and Expression
of Interest form
essential part of case study, stated in
announcement
priority given to biological
leave open.
Issues List (cont'd)
team work doing case study
don't assume FSR/E knowledge
info- requested in Expression of Interest form
case studies and analytic framework will
include methodological information on
both farming systems and intra hh data
requirements.
1 *IMlt SzcJL +Uyi-
Farming Systems Research projects often ignore dynamic interactions
within households and the linkage among households in the project area.
Therefore, such projects are less effective than they should be. ,-"
Inappropriate technologies are designed, developed ad ,tested because
these interactions are poorly understood. 46 projects that focus
only on the household or "family farm"are often studying only part
of the structure. Issues usually overlooked are:
1) The diverse goals of family members.
2) The influence of gender and age on the decision
process and the pattern of access to and use of
productive resources within households, e.g. the
allocation of family labor to various agricultural
tasks'as well as to other productive or reproductive
activities.
3) The uneven distribution of the effects of technological
change.
4) Transfers between households in acquiring inputs
or marketing produce.
There is a need to document successful cases where specific at-
tention to these issues has improved the effectiveness of Farming
Systems Research, This is a call for studies of such cases -- papers
that will lucidly illustrate to FSR/practitioners the benefits of
giving careful attention to household dynamics. These papers will be
used to train researchers in the skills required to conduct analyses
of household process within the context of FS projects projects which
emphasize themultidisciplinary nature of FSR, the active participation
of the farm family and the role of each family member in the system.
This can be demonstrated at one or more stages of Farming Systems
Research where the team:
o diagnoses the constraints to increasing agricultural
production on family farms,
o designs ways and means of alleviating these
constraints,
o tests appropriate new technology on farmers fields
under their own conditions, or
o diffuses beneficial recommendations to other
farmers in the target area.
The Population Council, in collaboration with FSSP and the Ford
Foundation, have initiated the case studies project with the principal
aim of developing training and self-instruction materials which
clearly elucidate these dynamics. The primary users of such case
studies are intended to be practitioners of FSR and agricultural develop-
ment.
A multidisciplinary Advisory Committee has been constituted to
guide the case studies project, review and select proposals from among
those submitted, design the case study format, and oversee editing and
7
testing of the experimental training materials. In this first phase
of the project, three to five cases will be developed and tested.
However, we hope to identify a rich pool of materials suitable for
future development into case studies, so would encourage submission
of EOI's even if they could not be included in this first round.
To: Susan
From: Hilary
Date: January 16, 1984
Great news on the budget. I shall be meeting with Pauline soon on HIID things
and shall do some preliminary thinking about a June workshop...at least
logistics.
Enclosed are the following:
1) The original and one xerox copy of the announcement (2 pages, to be done
front and back) and the "Expression of Interest" form (2 pages, to be done
front and back). I am not sure which copy is the best for the printers to
work from. Note on page 2 of the Expression of Interest form, I could not
get the lines at the bottom to line up correctly (a discrepancy between
the Mac and the printer which I didn't have time to fool with). I think
it is a simple job with tape but also not very important. Ask Steve
perhaps. I hope otherwise all is well with it. I shall call you Thurs.
afternoon or Friday to see if there are any problems.
2) A note to be sent out with the packets of 20 announcements and 40
Expressions of Interest to members of the Advisory Committee
3) 12 postcards to be sent with the packets to the Advisory Committee. One is
for you and none to be sent to me and Judith.
4) A copy of the newsletter announcement. You may want to include copies in
the packets????? I will have them to the AID newsletters and NALGUc or
whatever on Thursday.
Printing and Distribution: Here is my chart...
Organization #Announce. #EOI/ann. Total#EOI Responsibility
FSSP Mailing List 4000 2 8000 FSSP
Program Assoc. 800 2 1600 FSSP
Self Ident.FSP 70 3 210 FSSP
Population Council 500 3 1500 Pop.Council/JB
BIFAD 50 5 250 HSFi
12 Adv.Comm.Mbrs ,
@ 20 ea (not JB,HSF) 240 2 480 SP
Subtotal 5660 12040
HSF 340 /-3 96oW 100 HSF
Total to be printed 6000 13000
13oGO
I hope you do not mind sending out the packets to the Advisory Committee members
but it seems the most efficient way since you will have the material.
At some point will you send me your travel schedule so I know what is ahead??
Thanks. All the best.
kis letter
INTRA-HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS AND FARMING SYSTEMS PROJECTS
A CALL FOR CASE STUDIES
The Farming Systems Support Project at the University of Florida and the
Population Council announce a call for case studies on "Intra-Household Dynamics
and Farming Systems Projects". We are looking for material which will document
cases where specific attention to inter- and intra- household questions has
improved the effectiveness of farming systems projects in diagnosing constraints
to agricultural production, designing ways of alleviating these constraints,
testing appropriate new technology on farmers' fields, and diffusing beneficial
recommendations.
The case studies should document actual farming systems projects. They are
intended as training materials for farming systems practitioners as well as
others engaged in agricultural development and for self-instruction. It is
anticipated that they will be published for distribution in the developed and
developing world. Awards of up to $3000 will be made for preparing the case
studies and expenses also will be paid for case writers to attend a training
workshop in early June.
Applications are encouraged from individuals or project teams interested in
preparing case studies or from project teams who wish to nominate themselves to
work with a case writer supplied by the project. For more information and
application forms, contact:
Hilary S. Feldstein, Managing Editor
Intra-Household Dynamics and Farming Systems
Case Studies Project
RFD 1 Box 821
Hancock, NH 03449
(603 525-3772)
INTRA-HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS AND FARMING SYSTEMS
A CALL FOR CASE STUDIES
-Y
Problem Statement
SFarming systems projects often ignore dynamic interactions within households and the linkages among
.households in the project area. Therefore, such projects are less effective than they should and could be.
Because these interactions are poorly understood. inappropriate technologies are designed, developed.
tested and even recommended. Farming systems projects that focus only on the field activities of the farm
household or treat the household as a single unit are often studying only part of the structure. Issues
: ,. usually overlooked are:
1) The diverse goals of different family members.
S:2) The influence of gender and age on the decision process of access to and use of productive resources.
S: 3) Transfers carried out between and within households in acquiring inputs of marketing produce, e.g;
.:between household members and their kin groups or community associations.
.4) The uneven distribution on different household members of the effects of technologicalchange.
T here is a need to document cases where specific attention to these and related issues has improved
: the effectiveness of farming systems projects. This is a call for papers which will lucidly illustrate to
:: farming systems practitioners the benefits of giving careful attention to household dynamics. These papers
;! ; ::will be used to train researchers in the skills required to conduct analyses of households processes within
the context of farming systems projects, gnd should emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of farming
S '. systems research and extension, the active participation of the farm family, and the role of each family
S, member in the system. We welcome submission of case materials which demonstrate these interactions at
,; one or more stages of a farming systems project where the research team: ':
S diagnoses the constraints to increasing agricultural production on family farms.
,; I- designs ways and means of alleviating these constraints.
tests appropriate new technology on farmers' fields under their own conditions. or-
: : : / ;: 'diffuses beneficial'recommendations to other farmers in the target area ::.
O.''rgan zation: :
S: '; The Farming Systems Support Project and the Population Council, with support from U.S.A.I.. and
; : the Ford Foundation, have initiated the case studies project with 'he principal aim of developing training and
Sself-instruction materials which clearly elucidate the interactions of households, their members, and
farming systems. The primary users of such case studies are intended to be practitioners of farming
systems research and extension as well as others engaged in agricultural development. It is anticipated
These case studies will be published for distribution in the developed and developing world.
;,;::i '-.. An Advisory Committee has been constituted to guide the case studies project, review and select
,',;.: i: proposals from among those submitted 'design 'te case study format, and oversee editing and testing of the
experimental training materiais."in this firs phase of the project, three o five cases will be developed'and
tested. In addition we hope to Identify a, 'rich pool of materials sruitable':6r" future development into case
S:': studies and accompanying material, so we encourage submission of Expression of Interest forms even if
they could not be included in this first round. .-i ,;: .
S: i: ase. Study.-Requirements: : i :.
The material embodied in the case studies: should be sufficiently specific, to tenable readers to
identify problems and propose solutions at various stages of farming systems projects. Documentation,
S; : should be based on an actual farming systems project, and on existing or readily accessible daa., Material
S desired for the case studies include:, '
:, :, background on project area: physical, socio-economic and production characteristics including cropping
calendars and field maps, .. .
S- Information on the farming system project, objectives, participating institutions, and time frame,, ;
descriptions of project interventions and their relationship to intra-household variables including',,
'gender disaggregation of data, : *' .
description of project monitoring systems and of the project's interaction with farm families and their
members, and
project outcomes to date.
S: Case studies will be written in several sections; the data to be included and the analysis may be
; separate. Precise details on case study format are being developed and will be elaborated further at a
workshop for selected case writers in early June. :; (Please turn over)
Priorities:
An ideal case would document productivity enhancing interventions which include attention to intra-
S :''': or inter-household questions as an important variable. Priority will be given to:
farming systems projects undertaken by or in collaboration with national institutions of developing
S countries,
materials which demonstrate successful movement from one stage of farming systems project
I ,implementation to the next,
projects emphasizing biological interventions or improvements in crop or animal husbandry, and
projects for which success can be attributed in part to design of interventions or experiments based on
S careful analysis of intra-household variables or gender disaggregation of data.
SMechanics
Budgt:
SAwards of up to $3000 will be made for writing the case studies. In addition, transportation and
expenses will be paid for case writers to attend the training workshop in early June, and, in selected
; cases, for testing case materials. Applicants are encouraged to seek supplementary financial support if
Needed from their home institution or other sources. ;"\
.hi o...mly:. ..
individuals or project teams interested in writing case studies
S project teams interested in nominating themselves to work with a case writer supplied by the case
, ~; study project in preparing materials for a case.,
Application.nd dselection-procedure: ..-
Expression of Interest forms which accompany this announcement and the curriculum vita o principal
S; case writer must be submitted by March 15, 1985. Awards will be made by the end of April, following .
review by the Adiisory Committee..
Address nquiriesandApplicationsato: '
SHilary S. Feldstein, Managing Editor
Intra-Household Dynamics and Farming Systems Case Studies Project
RFD Box 821 ,
- -L *... ...L....flY AR
o. .cnancoc, New nampsir
Advisory Committee:
H.C. Bittenbender. Michigan State University
Kathleen Cloud, University of Illinois :
Frank Conklin, Oregon State University -
Nadine Horenstein. USAID
Katharine McKee, Ford Foundation
e u .'03
SRosalie Norem, Iowa State University
David Nygaard. Agricultural Development Council
l Pauline Peters, Harvard University
Federico Poey. AGRIDEC
Mary Rojas. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Hilary S. Feldstein. Managing Editor .; ;;i : :;
Judith Bruce. Population Council :. : .
S Susan Poats, Farming Systems Support Project '
SCornelia Butler-Flora, Farming Systems Support Project
"The Farming Systems Support Project is a cooperative agreement between U.S.A.I.D. and the University of
SFlorida to provide technical, training and network support to farming systems projects. The Population
SCouncil is an international scientific organization engaged in research in human reproductive biomedical
science as well as social science research aimed at a deeper understanding of the relationship between
demographic changes and socio-economic development.
::.?
i ,.
EXPRESSION_OF_ INTEREST
INTRA-HOUSEHOLDPDYNAMICSANDLFARMINGSYSTEMS CASF STUDIES PROJECT
Applicants to write case studies or projects nominating themselves to work with a case study writer please
fill out this form. Be brief. We are interested primarily in the nature of data readily available. We will
contact you if we need further information.
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
(a) Where is the project?
(b) What is the project?
(c) What are the projects objectives?
(d) What are the implementing institutions?
(e) What Is the project's time frame?
systems implementation (diagnosis,
(f) Brief Project Description
NATURE OF THE DATA AVAILABLE
(a) physical, environmental
(b) production
(c) soclo-economic
And what is the current stage of farming
testing, evaluation, extension)?
(d) intra-household or gender disaggregated
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
page two
DESCRIBE
(a) nature of project interaction with farm family and its members.
(b) nature of multidisciplinary team work
(c) key project interventions as they relate to intra- or inter- household
dynamics
(d) project outcomes or impact to date and their relationship to intra-household
questions
PROPOSED WORK PLAN FOR PREPARING CASE STUDY: Describe institutions that
would be collaborating In preparing this material, principal writer's
availability and time frame for assembling and analyzing the project materials
and writing the case study.
SEND TO: Hilary S. Feldstein, Managing Editor; Intra-Household Dynamics and
Farming Systems Case Studies Project; RFD 1, Box 821; Hancock, NH 03449
USA
EXPRESSIONOF-INTEREST
INTRA-HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICSAND FARMIN6GSYSTEMS CASF STUDIES PROJECT
Applicants to write case studies or projects nominating themselves to work with a case study writer please
fill out this form. Be brief. We are interested primarily in the nature of data readily available. We will
contact you if we need further information.
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
(a) Where is the project?
(b) What is the project?
(c) What are the projects objectives?
(d) What are the implementing institutions?
(e) What Is the project's time frame?
systems implementation (diagnosis,
(f) Brief Project Description
NATURE OF THE DATA AVAILABLE
(a) physical, environmental
(b) production
(c) socio-economic
And what is the current stage of farming
testing, evaluation, extension)?
(d) intra-household or gender disaggregated
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
page two
DESCRIBE
(a) nature of project interaction with farm family and its members.
(b) nature of multidisciplinary team work
(c) key project interventions as they relate to intra- or inter- household
dynamics
(d) project outcomes or impact to date and their relationship to intra-household
questions
PROPOSED WORK PLAN FOR PREPARING CASE STUDY: Describe institutions that
would be collaborating in preparing this material, principal writer's
availability and time frame for assembling and analyzing the project materials
and writing the case study.
SEND TO: Hilary S. Feldstein,
Farming Systems Case Studies
USA
Managing Editor;
Project; RFD 1,
Intra-Household Dynamics and
Box 821; Hancock, NH 03449
Telephone: (904) 392-1965
Cable: CENTROP FSSP
Farming Systems Support Project
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
January 17, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Advisory Committee of the FSSP/Pop Council
Case Study Project on Intra-Household Dynamics and FSR/E
FROM: Susan Poats, FSSP -
Subject: Case Study Draft Format
Greetings to all of you. Before launching into my
comments on the enclosed draft case study format, I would like to
say that.I was very pleased at the way our meeting went in New
York. I think we covered a great deal of ground and succeeded in
outlining an efficient and effective plan for producing some very
valuable case studies. I enjoyed meeting those of you at last
who had been previously only names on numerous lists, and it was
also a pleasure to see old friends again.
You will be pleased to know that Hilary finished the flyer
and EOI forms. They are being printed at the University of
Florida and will be mailed with the next batch of FSSP
newsletters during the next two weeks. You will be mailed your
own 20 copies to distribute as you wish as soon as possible.
Hilary will have some extras, should you need more. Hilary has
calculated that they will be mailed to roughly 6,000 people. It
will be interesting to see what kind of a response we receive.
Now to the case study format. I took the liberty of
expanding on what group B originally outlined, and in the
process, incorporated sections of the original format Hilary had
drafted. I intend to circulate it to the FSSP group at Florida
for comments, particularly concerning coverage of the FSR/E
stages. I am concerned that 6 sections, as I have outlined, may
be overambitious. However, I do think that from a training
standpoint, more and shorter sections are better than too few,
lengthy narrative pieces. I hope that my ideas of having the
case studies "unfold" is clarified in the format description.
Since Federico, Cornelia and I will be together at Florida
in mid-February, it would be useful to have your reactions before
then so we could meet as a sub-group to review them and revise
the format. If you would rather discuss your suggestions by
phone, the number is 904-392-1965. I look forward to hearing
from you.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
-d
d .---- ---^
FSSP/POPULATION COUNCIL CASE STUDY PROJECT
"INTRA-HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS AND FARMING SYSTEMS
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION"
CASE STUDY FORMAT: DRAFT 1/17/85
Drafted by Susan Poats
Based on discussions from
group B, IHH/FSR/E Advisory
committee meeting 1/8/85.
The format for each of the case studies will be derived from a
time-series perspective of the four basic stages intrinsic to the
Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) process. Rather
than presenting in narrative form the sum total of information
about the specific area and project, as is done with other case
studies such as the HIID and earlier Population Council series,
the time-series format will provide the user with information as
it was known by the farming systems team at the particular time
and stage of the FSR/E process. In effect, this will allow the
user to experience the "unfolding" of a situation and thereby
provide a more realistic "hands-on" experience in the analysis of
household processes within the actual context of a farming
systems project.
Case study authors will be required to write the case in
brief (5-10 pp.) narrative sections with appended tables of
figures which can be used as separate modules in training
activities, but which can also "stand together and alone" for the
wider audience not experiencing the cases in a training context.
The first five sections of the case study will comprise
the following areas:
1. Country and project background
2. Initial diagnostic survey or sondeo results
3. Plans for experimentation and monitoring
4. Results of experiments and monitoring
5. Evaluation, adaptation and dissemination
Analysis will be withheld from these sections permitting users to
analyse the data and come to their own conclusions as part of the
learning process. Section 6 will then present an analysis and
discussion of the case as a whole, this time from the perspective
of the "omniscient author." Desired content for each of these
units will be elaborated in greater detail below.
In addition the the narrative pieces, the case study will
include two other sections. One will be a concise executive
summary oriented to policy and decision makers. The other will
contain sets of guiding or probing questions to be used during
training activities to elicit participant analysis of the case
study data through small group discussion. These questions will
be formulated by the advisory and editorial committee for the
case study project, based on an analytical framework and a set of
"generic" questions to the issue of intra-household dynamics and
the FSR/E process, which will be written by a sub-committee of
the advisory committee.
Section 1. Country and Project Background
This section must be written from the perspective of what
was known at the time the project was designed. Political,
institutional, or other changes which occurred later, and which
may have caused changes in project direction should be introduced
later, at the appropriate sequence in the "unfolding" of the
case. The section should include two or three pages of relevant.
information about the history, economy, culture and political
conditions in the country including particularly those features
which are important context to the project (especially trends--
known at the time of project design--which are affecting
agriculture and family structures, such as the roles of men,
women and children, education, migration, or landlessness).
This section should include a brief description of the
institutions affecting agriculture and livestock production
(relevant ministries, services, pricing, place of agriculture in
the overall economy, etc.)
Project background may be woven into country background or
treated separately, whichever works better. This should include
the initiatives and rationale for the project, a description of
the relevant institutions sponsoring and implementing the
project, their objectives and commitment, their overall capacity,
the resources and personnel available to the project, and any
other factors which establish constraints or opportunities on the
design of agricultural research or extension.
Section 2. Initial Diagnostis Survey or Sondeo Results
This section will present in narrative and tabular form
(in annexes) the data collected during the sondeos or surveys
conducted as part of the first diagnostic phase of the project.
Again, it will be important to present the data as it was known
to the project team at the time they collected and used it to
design their first experimentation cycle. The section should
include any review of appropriate secondary literature, as was
done by the team. If in fact, relevant secondary literature was
available to the team, especially regarding gender variables or
intra-household organization, and was not used in the diagnosis
at this stage, and the information could have altered the way the
experimentation or monitoring phases were set up, then this
information could be summarized in a brief, separate section, to
be used by trainers in an appropriate place. The description of
all the elements should be clear, but include no evaluative
comment.
The section should begin with a brief methodological
description stating how the data were obtained. Was secondary
literature used? Any questionnaires or sampling procedures used?
What kinds of interview questions and sampling were used in the
sondeo? Was any other means of obtaining information utilized?
The information following the methodological description should
contain details concerning the following areas (listed below)
depending on th'e quality of the diagnosis conducted by the FSR/E
team. Again, it must be stressed that the information presented
should not go beyond the bounds of what was known by the team at
the end of their first diagnostic survey phase.
A. Physical factors affecting crop or livestock
production: rainfall, temperature, seasonal variation in
weather, topography, soil type, tillage capacity and fertility,
availability of irrigation.
B. Agronomic information: principal crops, cropping
patterns, cropping calendar including maps of field layouts,
rotation patterns for different groups (e.g. women's fields,
men's fields, joint fields). Information could/should indicate
who "knows" this information.
-t
C. Livestock information: principal animals, role in
household economy, numbers, ownership, relationship to crop
production activities, sources of food for livestock,
destinations of livestock products.
D. Household reproduction requirements: provision: of
food, shelter, water, fuel, education including the time 3r cash
required.
E. Economic information: (1) role of agriculture
production in the household ecomony; other sources of live -!boo
especially if relevant for understanding time and cash
constraints or'incentives, including questions of timing, 'l:k
stability; (2) with reference to particular crops grown,
subsistence vs. cash use (nutritional value? relative imn:i i:L">
to household income? additional uses of a crop such as fodd~cr
thatch, fuel, etc.), yields including variability, marketiin-
structures, pricing, input prices and availability, time
allocation budget by household members. In time allocat on
information, information could/should include the season 3riy c'.
tasks associated with specific activities.
F. Intra-household information: This is a difficult
section and needs to include what is relevant, what was ievele.'
by the diagnosis made by the FSR/E team, without overload.
Relevancy may be affected by explicit project objectives a.id/o
objectives introduced by the author and clearly stated as r~u,
(1) Concerning household organization, the section should
describe the major types of household including family structure,
membership and size, relevant variation; relationship of this
unit(s) to larger structures (kinship, community), and if
relevant, patterns of obligations affecting availability of
resources to agriculture or disposition of production. Again,
the section should not be overloaded, but should include the
information used by the team to determine appropriate units of
analysis for the experimental design stage. Household
information learned later in the process should not be introduced
here, but brought out in appropriate chronological order.
(2) The section should also include a description of activities,
resources required and benefits of (i) cash and subsistence crop
and livestock production, (ii) any other primary income
activities, and (iii) household maintenance. Questions which can
be addressed in this section include: Which household member
undertakes the activity? Who has access and/or control of the
resources (land, labor, cash, etc.) and the benefits of
production? Is there flexibility and interchangeability of
tasks, pooling or nonpooling of income? Is there an observable
pattern of decision making on farm management, agricultural or
other investment (especially assets, working capital), use of
produce (storage, sale, gifts), use of labor? Is there an
operative "family survival strategy" implicit or explicit in the
assignment of tasks and responsibilities?
In this section, activities described should include task
allocation for different stages of crop and livestock production,
harvesting, processing, and trading and for the major tasks of
household reproduction. Description of access and control should
include: (a) resources: land (ownership, use rights), labor,
cash, information/education, technology/inputs, markets; and (b)
benefits: commodities produced (stored for subsistence or sale),
income from sales, income from local or migrant wage labor, etc.
G. Farmers' (men and women) view of agricultural
constraints and objectives, Is the household head's view similar
to that of its members?
Section 3. Plans for Experimentation and Monitoring
This section should detail the analysis made by the FSR/E
team of their diagnostic activities, define the problems they
discovered, describe the experiments planned and how they were
arrived at (ex-ante analysis of available technology,
prioritization of problems identified), and discuss any
monitoring, focused surveys, verification surveys, variable theme
surveys or continued characterization of the farming system and
farm households) planned to parallel the field level
experimentation. The section should include specific explanation
of how and why (or why not, if that is the case) the team
incorporated information from the household, and describe the
unit(s) of analysis selected. The section should contain
examples of trial protocols, experimental layouts, and data
collection sheets or field book samples. Description should
include how the recommendation domain(s) (or research domains,
depending upon the terminology used) were defined, how
cooperating farmers within each domain were selected, and what
"type" of trial was selected (exploratory, researcher-managed,
extension-managed, farmer-managed, combinations, other).
Section 4. Results of Experimentation and Monitoring
This section should present the results of the
experimental and monitoring activities described in the previous
section. This would include summary tables of trial outcomes,
monitoring results, and any other observations made during the
trial procedures. If a number of trials and monitoring
activities were implemented during the experimental phase of the
project, then it may be necessary to select only a few to include
in this section. It is important that only the data be presented
here; no evaluative comments should be included.
Section 5. Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemination
This section should begin with a brief description of how
the analysis of the experimental and monitoring data was
conducted. The analysis should follow with as much information
as possible summarized in tabular or other form. The case study
authors) should present as accurately as possible the evaluation
-1t
of the experiments as it was arrived at by the FSR/E team. This
should include decisions on the "successfulness" of the
technology tested, how the specific agriculture technology might
need to be altered, for whom is the technology appropriate, where
and how subsequent testing and experimentation phases might take
place, how the technology could impact on the household and its
members and on other sub-components of the household farming
system, and how the technology could affect other households
within the research domain and the general farming system.
Depending on how far advanced the case study project is, this
section could also present results from further testing of the
technology, adaptations made to the technology by farmers,
researchers or extensionists, how the technology was
disseminated, adoption rates, or, depending on the case, why the
technology was not adopted. Recommendations at a policy level,
derived from the FSR/E experiments, should also be included.
Section 6. Analysis and Discussion
The final section provides an analysis and discussion of
the project as a whole by the case study authorss. Results of
any project evaluations to date should be included in this
section. In a training situation, this section would be withheld
from the trainees until all other sections have been used to
stimulate analytical discussion. It will be used for self-study
and as a teaching aid to trainers. The section should be
concise, confining itself to the most important points impinging
on the design of agricultural technology or experiments which
affect household members interest in or capacity for undertaking
changes in agricultural technology. It could include conceptual
and speculative analysis concerning tradeoffs of different
approaches taking into account additional household information,
or even information which was known by the FSR/E team, but
overlooked during their own analyses. Suggestions could also be
made for improvements in "how" or "what" information is gathered,
particularly with reference to intra-household questions. The
discussion should include comments on systems for on-going
monitoring and adjustment, and some description of what an
efficient and adequate system would look like. The latter could
attempt to deal with such questions as: How are the views of all
household members assessed as the experiments and testing
proceed?
Your comments and suggestions on the case study format presented
here are welcome.
SThe Rockefeller Foundation
EXPLORING LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF
CHANGING GENDER ROLES
The Rockefeller Foundation is pleased to announce support for projects that will improve the
understanding and recognition of changing gender roles in the work place and within the family.
SCOPE
The Foundation's purpose is to encourage attention to
changes in gender roles by supporting projects that
address the social, psychological, political, and economic
phenomena associated with the rapidly changing status of
women. Projects could examine factors underlying such
changes, or analyze ways in which policy could respond
to these changes.
Three sub-themes will be given particular emphasis:
* The changing nature of women's and men's work and
family responsibilities.
* Differences in the allocation of income and time
between men and women within the'household, and their
implication for social welfare of the family, particularly the
children.
* The psychological dimension of gender roles and
changing patterns of socialization.
Projects may address these concerns through original
research or through synthesis and interpretation of
research to encourage recognition in appropriate areas of
public policy.
ELIGIBILITY
The competition is open to women and men around the
world who have completed their professional training.
Scholars and practitioners from the social sciences,
humanities, law, journalism, health and the natural
sciences are encouraged to apply. Awards cannot be
made for the completion of degree training, for curricular
projects, the writing of fiction or poetry, or for projects
offering direct services to individuals. Applicants need not
have an academic or institutional affiliation. Proposals
involving more than one investigator or more than one
institution are welcome.
BUDGET
The Foundation seeks to support projects with small and
moderate budgets. Most grants will be in the range of
$15,000 to $30,000. Researchers are encouraged to seek
additional financial support from other sources, including
their home institutions. Information about other sources of
support should be included in the proposal submitted to
the Foundation. Grant funds may be requested for salary
or honoraria, secretarial or research support, or travel.
Overhead payments cannot be provided. The grant may
be made through a tax-exempt institution or self-
administered.
HOW TO APPLY
The proposal should be typed in English and double-
spaced. Two copies of all of the following material should
be submitted:
A cover sheet detailing:
* The applicant's full name, address, telephone number.
* Title of project.
* Institutional affiliation, if any.
* Amount of money requested.
* Duration.
* Abstract of purpose.
The proposal itself (two copies) should contain:
* 10 to 15 pages devoted to the scope, purpose,
methodology, and expected outcome of the project; along
with a statement of the researcher's qualifications relevant
to the project.
* Curricula vitae of individuals involved with the project.
* Listing of institutions involved in the project.
* Budget.
* The names, titles and addresses of three people whom
the applicant will be asking to supply references. Referees
should have expertise in the subject matter of the
proposed grant and familiarity with the applicant's work.
Finalists will be asked to have referees send letters
commenting on the applicant and his or her project to the
Rockefeller Foundation/Gender Roles Program. .
TIMETABLE AND SELECTION PROCESS
Deadlines for submission of proposals are March 15, 1985
and September 15,1985. The final decision on awards will
be announced approximately two months after the
deadline date. Outside reviewers will work with officers of
the Foundation in selecting grantees.
ADDRESS INQUIRIES AND APPLICATIONS TO:
Gender Roles Program
The Rockefeller Foundation
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, N.Y. 10036
PLEASE POST
Note: Seevis f/A Ie cAnsid-/ al--
-5Ppperrt1/;4k4rtSI- ;''' K^^^
I I
Efvi
|
RSS
HIDE
