Citation
Progress report on the Intra-Household Dynamics and FSR/E Case Studies Project

Material Information

Title:
Progress report on the Intra-Household Dynamics and FSR/E Case Studies Project
Creator:
Poats, Susan
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
Farming Systems Support Project
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Farming ( LCSH )
Agriculture ( LCSH )
Farm life ( LCSH )
University of Florida. ( LCSH )
Spatial Coverage:
North America -- United States of America -- Florida

Notes

Funding:
Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.

Full Text
I
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 participatingr. 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 committe for project and plan for the first meeting of the advisory committee.
2. To review the project plans and committee selectionstith 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/nicrht 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 restaurante 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 committe and it is hoped this will result in the best possible coordination of the case studies development.
Originally, onely 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 Dr. Frederico Poey
Department of Horticulture AGRIDEC
Michigan State University 1414 Ferdinand Street
East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(617) 353-5473 (305) 271-5694
Ms. Kate Cloud Dr. Mary Rojas
Department of Agricultural Economics 105 Patton Hall
University of Illinois Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Champaign, Illinois 61821 & State University
(217) 333-5832 Blacksburg, Virginia 24601
(703) 961-4651
Dr. Frank Conklin
Office of International Agriculture Ms. Hilary S. Feldstein
Oregon State University Managing Editor
Corvallis, Oregon 97330 Population Council/FSSP
(503) 754-2304 Case Studies Project
RFD 1, Box 821
Ms. Nadine Horenstein Hancock, New Hampshire 03449
Room 3725 NS (603) 525-3772
US/AID
Washington, DC 20523 Ms. Judith Bruce, ex officio
(202) 632-3992 Program Associate
Population Council
Ms. Kate McKee 1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
Ford Foundation New York, New York 10017
320 East 43rd Street (212) 644-1777
New York, New York 10017
(212) 573-5345 Dr. Susan Poats, ex officio
Associate Director
Dr. Rosalie Norem Farming Systems Support Project
Department of Family Environment University of Florida
Iowa State University 3028 McCarty Hall
LeBaron Hall, Room 173 Gainesville, Florida 32611
Ames, Iowa 50011 (904) 392-2309
(515) 294-8608
Dr. Cornelia Butler-Flora, ex officio Dr. David Nygaard Chairman, Technical Committee FSSP
Agricultural Development Council Department of Sociology
725 Park Avenue Kansas State University
New York, New York 10021 Manhattan, Kansas 66506
(212) 517-9700 (913) 532-6865
Dr. Pauline Peters
Harvard Institute for
International Development
1737 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-3785




down o-(: A
A 'A, A,,--f
oe F QJW4
.44
!;>4aa!ej co- P Flo,;6L 1411
CCOAC4.
tej
k4l
C-6
All
4',4,
t6 kZ,
rA i i
KxJt.,, c s F6A
A obc,/Ne yck 1 -rcAAb4
---------oGp,(.bECvp-T i
0 t'-s E Wic,*-3;




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.1 (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,
Sincereyyour ii
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 ami 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.4
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 intrahousehold 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 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.
1




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? Wha 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 of4
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




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 availabilty 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 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 aln 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 i clude, 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 witheld from the trainees who are
expected to undertake the analysis of the information and wake 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




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




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 and ~may 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 commiodity pricing, personnel, training or placement of extension services; availability of
-8-




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? p6st-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.
-9-




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 nay 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.
2




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 Dr. Ruth Fiiney, Chief
University of Maryland, Women in Agricultural Production
Eastern Shore and Rural Development Service
Department of Agriculture Food & Agricultural Organization
Princess Anne, Md. 21853 via delle Ternae de Caracalla 00100
Rome, Italy
Dr. Jocelyn Albert
U.S.A.I.D. Anne Ferguson
Department of State Program/WID Specialist
S & T/AGR/ETP Michigan State University
Washington, D.C. .20523 Bean/Cowpea CRSP Management Office
200 Center for International Programs Dr. Jacqueline Ashby East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Centra Internacional de Agricultura
Tropical Dr. James Fitch
Apartado Aereo 6713 AgriManagement
Cali, Columbia P.O. Box 583
Yakima, Washington 98907
Dr. Randolph Barker
New York College of Agriculture Dr.Jan L. Flora, Associate Professor
Cornell University Department of Sociology,
Warren Hall Anthropology and Social Work
Ithaca, New York 14850 Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Dr. Sara Berry
93 Forest Street Dr. Charles A. Francis
Newton Highlands, Massachusetts 02161 Rodale Research Center
Box 323, RD. 1
Dr. George Burrill Kutztown, PA 19530
Associates in Rural Development, Inc. 362 Main Street Dr. Louise Fresco
Burlington, Vermont 05401 Wageningen Agricultural University
Brouwersgracht 865
Dr. Mead Cain 1015 J K
Center for Policy Studies Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Population Council
1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza Mr. Isao Fujimoto
New York, NY 10017 Applied Behavioral Science
University of California, Davis Dr. David Cleveland Davis, California 95616
Center of People, Food,
and Environment Dr. Patricia Garrett
344 South Third Avenue Rural Sociology
Tucscon, Arizona 85701 Cornell University
Warren Hall
Dr. Christopher Delgado Ithaca, NY 14853
IFPRI
1776 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Dr. Elon Gilbert
Washington, D.C. 20036 CRED
Lorch Hall
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
- c 9




Dr. Richard Harwood
Rodale Research Center
Box 323, RD. 1 Dr. Pat Barnes McConnell, Director
Kutztown, PA 19530 Bean Cowpea CRSP Project
Michigan State University
Dr. Peter Hildebrande Center for International Programs
Food and Resource Economics Department 200 Agriculture Hall
2126 McCarty Hall East Lansing, Michigan 48824
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611 Dr. Robert Maxwell
Office of International Programs
Dr. Teresa Ho College of Agriculture & Forestry
The World Bank University of West Virginia
Room 18-232 Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
1818 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433 Dr. Joyce Moock
Rockefeller Foundation
Dr. Marilyn Hoskins 1133 Avenue of Americas
Department of Sociology New York, NY 10036
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University Wendell Morris
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 Project Manager-FSSP
S & T/AGR/EPP
Dr. Janice Jiggins Room 406 E SA 18
De Dellen 4 USAID
Andelst Washington, D.C. 20523
Netherlands
Dr. Isabel Nieves
Dr. Sam Johnson International Center for
University of Illinois Research on Women
113 Mumford Hall 1010 Sixteenth Street NW
1301 West Gregory Drive 3rd Floor
Urbana, Illinois 61301 Washington, D.C. 20036
Dr. Bruce Johnston Dr. Jan Noel
Food Research Institute Washington State University
Stanford University French Administration Building 338
Stanford, California 94305 Pullman, Washington 99164 1030
Dr. Stuart Kean Dr. David Norman
Adaptive Research Planning Agricultural Technology
Team Coordinator Improvement Project
MAWD Department of Agricultural Research
Department of Agriculture Private Bag 0033
Box 50291 Gaberone, Botswana
Lusaka, Zambia
Dr. D. Pachico
Dr. Carol Kerven (on FYI list) Economist, Bean Program
C/o Ray H. Behnke, Jr. CIAT .
Hunting Technical Services Apartado Aereo 6713
P.O. Box 6172 Cali, Colombia
Peoples Hall Post Office
Khartoum, Sudan Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen
IFPRI
1776 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036




Dr. Constantina Safilios-Rothschild Center for Pblicy Studies Population Council I 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 Universit Fort Collins, Colorado 80523




I UGt 19SVI
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.




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.
~2




Report of the first meeting to the Advisory Committee for the "IntraHousehold 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, ... rank 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 oftfi- 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 disaggregation 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 technology.
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) A critical need is to getthe documentation of successful 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 lunck 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 newsletter 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 1516: 1 day meeting of Advisory Committee:
1) select proposals




-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 considered by a subcommitte 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 Concensus reached
geog distrib internal priority
stages of FSR/E will be basis for case format
FS only or wider net announcement will use "farming systems"
priority to FSR/E projects
non FS hh studies picked up by announcement
authorship options available including request for
author
audience priorities FSR practitioners
productivityvs welfare announcement will emphasize productivity
and it will be given priority in evaluating proposals.
project specific high priority
production data and measurements essential component
of production
national institutions? donor priority given to national programs.
led? international centers? Straight international center programs
low priority because of endowment resource differences. Left to evaluation stage.
Subject: crops, livestock, cast widely, take best cases.
agroforestry; how wide the net?
Subsistence vs. market take best cases, must line up with
project, government objective. donor/government objectives. must be included
outcomes of research must be included; acceptance of intervention higher priority than experimental proof
monitoring during experimentation requested in the Expression of Interest form.
farmer participation (and which) included in announcement and Expression
of Interest form
institutions cooperating or in- essential part of case study, stated in
volved announcement
interventions: biological? priority given to biological
organizational?
upstream (off the shelf) vs. down- leave open.
stream (to be developed technology)




Issues List (cont'd)
team work doing case study info, requested in Expression of Interest form
don't assume FSR/E knowledge case studies and analytic framework will
include methodological information on both farming systems and intra hh data requirements.




Farming Systems ResearchAprojects 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 41W tested because these interactions are poorly understood. 4:6 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 succesful cases where specific attention 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 FSRpractitioners 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 the multidisciplinary 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 development.
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 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 W
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 JBHSF) 240 2 480 SP
Subtotal 5660 12040
HSF 340 /-3 -96-100 HSF
Total to be printed 6000 13000
13O(GO
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.




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
Problem.Statement
Farming 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.
2) The influence of gender and age on the decision process of access to and use of productive resources
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 technological change.
t There 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 systems research and extension, the active participation of the farm family, and the role of each family 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:
- diagnoses the constraints to increasing agricultural production on family farms.
7 designs ways and means of alleviating these constraints.
t- ests appropriate new technology on farmers' fields under their own conditions, or
- diffuses beneficial'recommendations to other farmers in the target area.
Organization:
The Farming Systems Support Project and the Population Council, with support from U.S.A.I.D. and the Ford Foundation, have initiated the case studies project with the 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 ar intended t be practitioners of farming systems research and extension as well as others engaged in agricultural development It is anticipated
:, in~uagriculturaln develon .....or "~'....a
these case studies will be published for distribution in the developedevelopeveloping world.
An .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 Ind testing of the experimental training materals. In this first phase of the project, three to five cases will bedeveloped and tested. In addition we hope to identify a ich pool of materialssuitable for future deveopnent into case.
tetd In ddti 'w ...... "'oi-re-f~~ns:eni
studies and accompanying material-, so we encourage submission of Expression of interest forms even if they could not be included in this first round., '"Y :,.
Case- S dy-Requirements' ,, ,.
The material embodied in the case studies' should be sufficiently.' specific., t!o enable readers to identify problems and propose solutions at various stages of farming systems projects. Documentation should be based on an actual farming systems project and on existing or readily accessible data., M.laterial desired for the case studies include:
Background on project area: physical., socio-economic and production characteristics including cropping
calendars and field maps, :. ,. r
- 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, ,, ., i.i .,
- description of project monitoring systems and of the project's interaction with farm families and their
members, and
- project outcomes to date.
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)




An ideal case would document productivity enhancing interventions which include attention to intraor 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
countries,
- materials which demonstrate successful movement from one stage of farming systems project
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
careful analysis of intra-household variables or gender disaggregation of data.
Budget:
Awards 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 ,
- individuals or project teams interested inwriting case studies
- 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-and-selection_procedure:
Expression of Interest forms which accompany this announcement and the curiculum vita of principal case writer must be submitted by March 15, 1985. Awards will be made by the end of April, following
review by the Ad~isory Committee..
! Address]nquiries-andApplications-to:"
Hilary S. Feldstein. Managing Editor .
Intra-Household Dynamics and Farming Systems Case Studies Project RFDl1.Box 821
Hancock, New Hampshire 03449 ,
AdvisoryLi uC nar~mjttj
H.C. Bittenbender, Michigan State University Rosalie Norem, Iowa State University
Kathleen Cloud. University ofIlliinois David Nygaard. Agricultural Devel'opment Council
* l Frank Conklin, Oregon State University Pauline Peters, Harvard University
Nadine Horenstein, USAID -..-. Federico Poey. AGRIDEC
Katharine McKee, Ford Foundation Mary Rojas, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Hilary S. Feldstein. Managing Editor :
.Judith Bruce, Population Council
Susan Poats, Farming Systems Support Project
Cornelia 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
Florida to provide technical, training and network support to farming systems projects. The PopulationCouncil 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.
. + . +;




EXPRESS IONOF_1 NTEREST INTRA-HOUSEHOLD.DYNAMICSAND-EARMINGSYSTEMS CASF -STUDIES PRdlFCT
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? And what is the current stage of farming
systems implementation (diagnosis, testing, evaluation, extension)?
(f) Brief Project Description
NATURE OF THE DATA AVAILABLE
(a) physical, environmental
(b) production
(c) soclo-economic
(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_ NTEREST INTRA-HOUSEHOLDDYNAMICS-AND.FARMIN6GSYSTEMS CASE 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? And what is the current stage of farming
systems implementation (diagnosis, testing, evaluation, extension)?
(f) Brief Project Description
NATURE OF THE DATA AVAILABLE
(a) physical, environmental
(b) production
(c) socio-economic
(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 teem 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




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 / 9Crt
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 thatI 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




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.




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: o
food, shelter, water, fuel, education including the time or cash required.
E. Economic information: (1) role of agricultura
production in the household ecomony; other sources of liv 1i1(I especially if relevant for understanding time and cash constraints or'incentives, including questions of timing, Cisk, stability; (2) with reference to particular crops grown, subsistence vs. cash use (nutritional value? relative impo Lancze to household income? additional uses of a crop such as fo'ecr, thatch, fuel, etc.), yields including variability, marketi-ng structures, pricing, input prices and availability, time allocation budget by household members. In time allocation I
information, information could/should include the seasonal:y c1. tasks associated with specific activities.
F. Intra-household information: This is a difficult
section and needs to include what is relevant, what was reveld by the diagnosis made by the FSR/E team, without overload. Relevancy may be affected by explicit project objectives ad/or objectives introduced by the author and clearly stated as h.




(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 tor 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 household(s) 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 recommedation 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
author(s) should present as acurately as possible the evaluation




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 author(s). 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. .




The Rockefeller Foundation Eai
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 Overhead payments cannot be provided. The grant may
be made through a tax-exempt institution or sef The Foundation's purpose is to encourage attention to administered. changes in gender roles by supporting projects that address the social, psychological, political, and economic ______________________phenomena associated with the rapidly changing status of HOW TO APPLY women. Projects could examine factors underlying such changes. or analyze ways in which policy could respond The proposal should be typed in English and doubleto tese hanes-spaced. Two copies of all of the following material should Three sub-themes will be given particular emphasis: be submitted:
- The changing nature of women's and men's work and A cover sheet detailing: family responsibilities. The applicant's full name, address, telephone number.
*Differences in the allocation of income and time Title of project. between men and women within the'household, and their Institutional affiliation, if any implication for social welfare of the family, particularly the Amount of money requested. children. -Duration.
* The psychological dimension of gender roles and changing patterns of socialization. *Abstract of purpose.
Projctsmay ddrss teseconernsthrugh rignal The proposal itself (two copies) should contain:
Project ma adres thse oncrnsthrughoriina *10 to 15 pages devoted to the scope, purpose, research or through synthesis and interpretation of methodology, and expected outcome of the project; along research to encourage recognition in appropriate areas of with a statement of the researcher's qualifications relevant public policy. to the project.
- Curricula vitae of individuals involved with the project.
ELIGIBILITY ____________________ Listing of institutions involved in the project.
ELIGIBLITY Budget.
The competition is open to wo men and men around the 0 The names, titles and addresses of three people whom world who have completed their professional training, the applicant will be asking to supply references. Referees Scholars and practitioners from the social sciences, should have expertise in the subject matter of the humanities, law, journalism, health and the natural poposed grant and familiarity with the applicant's work. sciences are encouraged to apply. Awards cannot be Finalists will be asked to have referees send letters made for the completion of degree training, for curricular commenting on the applicant and his or her project to the projects, the wriing of fiction or poetry, or for prjet Rockefeller Foundation/Gender Roles Program. offering direct services to individuals. Applicants need not have an academic or institutional affiliation. Proposals involving more than one investigator or more than one TIMETABLE AND SELECTION PROCESS institution are welcome.
-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 BUDGET deadline date. Outside reviewers will work with officers of~
the Foundation in selecting grantees.
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 ADDRESS INQUIRIES AND APPLICATIONS TO: additional financial support from other sources, including their home institutions. Information about other sources of Gender Roles Program
support should be included in the proposal submitted to The Rockefeller Foundation
the Foundation. Grant funds may be requested for salary 1133 Avenue of the Americas
or honoraria, secretarial or research support, or travel. New York, N.Y. 10036
PLEASE POST Note, ev~s /A A-_ Q~t.~~