• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Introduction
 Table of Contents
 Reference






Title: Linking FSR/E and gender: an introduction
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073851/00001
 Material Information
Title: Linking FSR/E and gender: an introduction
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Poats, Susan V.
 Subjects
Subject: Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
 Notes
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073851
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Farming systems research and extension
            Page 1
        Women in development
            Page 2
            Page 3
        Gender issues in farming systems research and extension (FSR/E)
            Page 4
            Disaggregating development beneficiaries
                Page 4
            The whole farm system
                Page 5
            Intra-household dynamics
                Page 6
            Farmer participation
                Page 7
    Table of Contents
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Reference
        Page 17
Full Text









Linking FSR/E and Gender: An Introduction
Susan V. Poats, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring


NOTE TO THE USER:

This document is a pre-print for the chapter of the same title published as Chapter 1 in
Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension, edited by Susan V. Poats,
Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring (Boulder, CO and London, England : Westview
Press, 1988. Layout and editorial differences may exist between this version and the
published version.












Linking FSR/E and Gender: An Introduction
Susan V. Poats, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring


The title of this book is like a code. The two terms "gender issues" and
"farming systems research and extension" are shorthand. Each represents an
extensive field of research and practice: women and development or WID, and
farming systems or FSR/E, respectively. The two fields have much in common.
Both emerged relatively recently in response to dissatisfaction with the results of
technological change in agriculture in developing countries, whereas in the 1950s
and 1960s development theory and practice emphasized growth in productivity,
by the 1970s there was a renewed concern to implement programs that
conceived of development more broadly, to mean the possibility of better lives for
most people. This perspective challenged a development field dominated by
technical and economic expertise. Efforts to develop more comprehensive
approaches that would bring together technical, economic, and social
considerations led to the two interdisciplinary fields of WID and FSR/E.

In this brief introduction, justice cannot be done to either field in its own terms.
Rather, the historical and practical considerations that favor their interaction and
the conceptual problems such a union can help to overcome are reflected. The
discussion will indicate how the following chapters in this book contribute
theoretical and methodological insights that can help to make agricultural
development programs more efficient and equitable.


FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

Most farms in developing countries are small scale, with few resources other
than family labor. Their subsistence activities are multifaceted and their goals
complex, including both market and non-market considerations. Minimizing risk
is especially important when family survival is at stake. Given the constraints
they face, small farmers actively seek ways to improve their productivity and to
maximize the few resources at their disposal. Agricultural technologies (including
equipment, inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, and management practices)
are often designed for farmers with greater resources and market orientation
based on an essentially economic calculation of costs and benefits. By the
1970s, development practitioners became concerned that the benefits of
agricultural innovation accrued most easily to these wealthier farmers. Yet small
farmers constituted the majority of producers and, ultimately, those most directly
responsible for the welfare of rural families and communities. What were the












Linking FSR/E and Gender: An Introduction
Susan V. Poats, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring


The title of this book is like a code. The two terms "gender issues" and
"farming systems research and extension" are shorthand. Each represents an
extensive field of research and practice: women and development or WID, and
farming systems or FSR/E, respectively. The two fields have much in common.
Both emerged relatively recently in response to dissatisfaction with the results of
technological change in agriculture in developing countries, whereas in the 1950s
and 1960s development theory and practice emphasized growth in productivity,
by the 1970s there was a renewed concern to implement programs that
conceived of development more broadly, to mean the possibility of better lives for
most people. This perspective challenged a development field dominated by
technical and economic expertise. Efforts to develop more comprehensive
approaches that would bring together technical, economic, and social
considerations led to the two interdisciplinary fields of WID and FSR/E.

In this brief introduction, justice cannot be done to either field in its own terms.
Rather, the historical and practical considerations that favor their interaction and
the conceptual problems such a union can help to overcome are reflected. The
discussion will indicate how the following chapters in this book contribute
theoretical and methodological insights that can help to make agricultural
development programs more efficient and equitable.


FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

Most farms in developing countries are small scale, with few resources other
than family labor. Their subsistence activities are multifaceted and their goals
complex, including both market and non-market considerations. Minimizing risk
is especially important when family survival is at stake. Given the constraints
they face, small farmers actively seek ways to improve their productivity and to
maximize the few resources at their disposal. Agricultural technologies (including
equipment, inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, and management practices)
are often designed for farmers with greater resources and market orientation
based on an essentially economic calculation of costs and benefits. By the
1970s, development practitioners became concerned that the benefits of
agricultural innovation accrued most easily to these wealthier farmers. Yet small
farmers constituted the majority of producers and, ultimately, those most directly
responsible for the welfare of rural families and communities. What were the












social and economic costs of neglecting them? The design of technologies
appropriate to the majority of low resource farmers required an understanding of
their particular constraints, goals, and practices that went beyond strictly
technical and economic criteria. The farming systems concept emerged as a
response to this challenge.

FSR/E is not a single approach, but an array of different perspectives and
methods. This diversity is a source of debate and dialogue that continually
enriches the field. In this book there is likewise no orthodoxy, but rather a
collection of different points of view as to how to conceptualize and carry out
farming systems work. The common elements that underlie most versions of
farming systems include: an explicit commitment to low-resource producers; a
systems approach that recognizes the complexity of small farm enterprises; a
focus on the farm family or household; and a recognition of the importance of
including farmers in the research and extension process. The concept of
"domains" is used to denote the specific client group (defined by environmental,
ecological, and/or socioeconomic criteria) to whom the project is oriented.


WOMEN IN DEVELOPMENT

The WID field, similar to FSR/E, began with a concern for the distribution of
development benefits. Like farming systems, women and development is far
from a unified field of knowledge. Not only does it include many strands of
research and practice, but the field has evolved rapidly over the approximately 20
years of its existence, since economist Ester Boserup published her ground-
breaking work Women's Role in Economic Development in 1970. Boserup's
work challenged the prevailing notion that economic development, or
modernization, would automatically improve women's status by replacing
traditional values and economic backwardness with new opportunities and an
egalitarian ethos. She argued instead that economic innovations often replaced
women's traditional economic activities with more efficient forms of production
controlled by men. Examples included the decline of women's cottage industries
due to competition from factories hiring predominantly men and, in some parts of
the world, the growth of modern service and commerce sectors in which men
predominated, in place of women's traditional marketing practices. The
recognition that development, as practiced, might actually worsen women's
position relative to men's crystallized the new field of women and development
around a concern with equity.












By the late 1970s, however, a growing research base on women's economic
activities showed that equity was intimately related to more technical problems of
efficiency and productivity. If development undermined women's traditional
economic contributions, was this loss compensated by the output of new forms of
production? Were new economic opportunities opening up for women? What was
the impact of these shifts on the welfare and productivity of the poor populations
of the world? The new emphasis on the poor focused attention on women's
importance as household producers and providers in addition to their domestic
roles. No longer were they to be viewed simply ad"-potential welfare
beneficiaries whose needs might be neglected by development efforts. Instead,
women were a mainstay of family and community welfare, active producers
whose potential contributions were often overlooked or undermined. A clearer
understanding of changes in women's role in production therefore was essential
for the success of agricultural development projects.

A decade of theoretical experimentation and empirical research on women's
role in development moved the field from the stage of raising awareness and
clarifying issues to a search for practical applications. How could the WID
insights be applied to development work? One solution was to create special
projects or components devoted to women. While sometimes successful, these
all too often emphasized women's domestic responsibilities rather than their
productive work. They also distracted from the more general problem of
improving the effectiveness of "mainstream" development projects by making
them more responsive to gender differences among the client population. By
what practical means could such a formidable task be undertaken? The first
attempts to answer this question produced an array of checklists of questions to
be asked and data to be gathered in each project setting. A series of case
studies were published as examples of how gender affected development
projects. Various institutions compiled handbooks that specified how gender
issues could be addressed at each step of the project cycle. But there were not
enough experts trained in the analysis of such complex and variable matters as
household division of labor, decision making, and income management. Some of
the basic issues could be specified in advance, but each setting required a
unique assessment of their relevance and of the interaction with other important
variables. While hiring more women as project staff members appeared to be a
good idea, the gender of the researcher or practitioner turned out to be no
guarantee of the requisite analytical skills.

In response to this dilemma, WID efforts in the 1980s sought to develop the
tools of "gender analysis" and the methods by which development practitioners
could learn and adopt them. USAID fostered a major effort to adapt the Harvard












Business School's case study teaching method to training on gender issues in
development projects. The Office of Women in Development sponsored the
writing of several new analytical case studies that were compiled in a handbook
that also provided a framework and set of basic concepts to be used in the case
study analysis (Overholt et al. 1985). The cases and the training method have
been widely used in training workshops that provide practice in tackling a set of
questions that might otherwise seem hopelessly complicated. The strength of
this approach is its emphasis on the link between project or development goals
and gender differences in the client population. This focus helps to clarify the
relevant issues and to indicate priorities for research and action.


GENDER ISSUES IN FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
(FSR/E)

The farming systems perspective is especially appropriate for such a process-
oriented approach to gender analysis. The FSR/E methodology consists of a
series of stages (diagnosis, planning and design of technology, experimentation
and evaluation, and dissemination) that facilitate the specification of steps to be
taken to address particular aspects of research and extension and how to make
the best use of different kinds of data. But FSR/E is also conceived to be an
iterative, adaptive process in which, once the project is well underway, the
various stages of research take place simultaneously. This philosophy is
intended to maximize the potential impact of on-going farmer evaluations on the
design and dissemination of future technological changes. The research process
allows time to learn about the intricacies of farming systems and to incorporate
new insights into more refined measures and project adaptations. Other
characteristics of the farming systems approach especially important for gender
analysis include its, focus on small farm households and on the participation of
farmers in the research and extension process.

Disaggregating Development Beneficiaries

The farming systems emphasis on reaching specific low income groups
helped to illuminate women's roles in agricultural development. Identifying small
farmer constituencies required the disaggregation of society into "target" or
"client" groups which brought women's activities into greater focus. The
interaction of socioeconomic standing and gender was brought home by the
growing recognition that women in poor families played essential economic roles
that bore little resemblance to the activities of middleclass and elite women in the
same societies. These observations were confirmed by mounting evidence from












Business School's case study teaching method to training on gender issues in
development projects. The Office of Women in Development sponsored the
writing of several new analytical case studies that were compiled in a handbook
that also provided a framework and set of basic concepts to be used in the case
study analysis (Overholt et al. 1985). The cases and the training method have
been widely used in training workshops that provide practice in tackling a set of
questions that might otherwise seem hopelessly complicated. The strength of
this approach is its emphasis on the link between project or development goals
and gender differences in the client population. This focus helps to clarify the
relevant issues and to indicate priorities for research and action.


GENDER ISSUES IN FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
(FSR/E)

The farming systems perspective is especially appropriate for such a process-
oriented approach to gender analysis. The FSR/E methodology consists of a
series of stages (diagnosis, planning and design of technology, experimentation
and evaluation, and dissemination) that facilitate the specification of steps to be
taken to address particular aspects of research and extension and how to make
the best use of different kinds of data. But FSR/E is also conceived to be an
iterative, adaptive process in which, once the project is well underway, the
various stages of research take place simultaneously. This philosophy is
intended to maximize the potential impact of on-going farmer evaluations on the
design and dissemination of future technological changes. The research process
allows time to learn about the intricacies of farming systems and to incorporate
new insights into more refined measures and project adaptations. Other
characteristics of the farming systems approach especially important for gender
analysis include its, focus on small farm households and on the participation of
farmers in the research and extension process.

Disaggregating Development Beneficiaries

The farming systems emphasis on reaching specific low income groups
helped to illuminate women's roles in agricultural development. Identifying small
farmer constituencies required the disaggregation of society into "target" or
"client" groups which brought women's activities into greater focus. The
interaction of socioeconomic standing and gender was brought home by the
growing recognition that women in poor families played essential economic roles
that bore little resemblance to the activities of middleclass and elite women in the
same societies. These observations were confirmed by mounting evidence from












research that documented poor women's multiple economic activities, low
earnings and long work hours, and restricted access to productive resources.
Women played a central role in the low-resource farm households that were the
focus of farming systems work.

The surprisingly high and growing proportions of female-headed households
dramatized women's economic importance in poor populations and revealed the
extra constraints under which they often labored to achieve family welfare
(Buvinic and Youssef 1979). Rural out-migration of men was rising in many parts
of the world as a result of development, leaving many women either temporarily
or permanently in charge of their households (Palmer 1986). Their efforts were
often undermined by labor constraints or by lack of access to productive
resources, in part because research and extension services were primarily
oriented to male farmers. The focus on female-headed households illustrated
how disaggregation of beneficiary populations could more precisely delineate
appropriate interventions for specific social groups. It also undermined the
assumption that development projects focused on male farmers always would
have the most effective impact on family welfare.

The Whole Farm System

The systems approach endorsed by the FSR/E constituency lent itself well to
illuminating women's economic importance. Small farm enterprises encompass
multiple activities whose interaction is key to understanding management
decisions and practices. The configuration of a given system changes readily
over time in response to both internal and external factors. This holistic, dynamic
perspective on small farming enterprises provided a framework within which the
family division of labor could be a key focus. Social definitions of which tasks
would be carried out by men or women vary from one society, region, class, or
ethnic group to another. This variability indicates that the division of labor is
determined not by the physical difference between the sexes, but by the social
definitions of proper relations between women and men. The concept of
"gender" serves to distinguish the social character of these relationships, and the
"sexual division of labor" describes the allocation of tasks and responsibilities to
men and women in a particular situation. In practice, farming systems
practitioners may disaggregate only so far, stopping short at the analysis of the
division of labor within the household or family. Agricultural research has
historically focused on specific commodities whose production is market-
oriented. FSR/E recognized that small farm enterprises combine crops and
animals. Yet the perspective still overlooked other essential activities carried out
by farm families, including off-farm work, home-based production for use or












exchange, and the work required to maintain the home and its inhabitants. WID
research revealed that women were often predominant in these activities,
especially those based in the home that tended to be overlooked or viewed as
merely "domestic" work. While men often specialized in income-generating
activities, women typically combined household management, child care, and
work to generate earnings (both on and off the farm). These competing
demands on their time could serve as a significant constraint to the adoption of
new forms of production that relied on women's labor.

In small farm households, decisions reflected priorities and constraints related
to a variety of activities and goals, not just to those related to cash crop
production. The potential trade-offs between resources devoted to agricultural
production and investments in improved family nutrition were of particular
concern to farming systems practitioners whose objective was to stabilize or
enhance rural welfare. The systems approach adopted by FSR/E practitioners
provided a starting point for integrating the diversity of farm and non-farm
activities within a more complex model of the whole farm-household system.
WID practitioners collaborated by focusing attention on women's importance in
agricultural production, but also in focusing on activities not generally defined as
"production" that are nevertheless essential to the well-being and economic
livelihood of rural households and communities.

Intra-Household Dynamics

The focus on farm families brought development work much closer to the
realities of poor families than was possible using the country level statistics. The
concept of "household", sometimes used to denote a residential unit, sometimes
synonymous with the nuclear family, was useful in the field of development and
in the social sciences in general (Schmink 1984). It provided an intermediate
level of analysis (between the individual and the aggregate society) and a
convenient unit for the collection of empirical data. The existence of such
primary domestic units in virtually all societies implied an attractive universality
for the concept of household that was familiar to researchers and practitioners
from their own personal existence. These perceived advantages, however, had
hidden drawbacks. Development practitioners often generalized from their own
experience, presuming that households elsewhere were similar to those in which
they lived, when in fact household structure and functioning is highly variable.
Whereas in advanced industrial society productive work is largely separated from
the home, the same is not true for agrarian communities. Home-based food
processing, handicrafts, care of animals, kitchen gardens, and manufacturing of
such useful items as soap and clothing for a peasant family are not analogous to












the domestic chores of a middle-class urban housewife. They are productive
tasks essential to household welfare. Whereas a U.S. household typically
depends on one or two monetary wages for its sustenance, rural families in the
developing world rely on a diverse set of paid and non-paid activities for survival.

In many societies women and men have quite separate responsibilities,
access to distinct resources, and differentiated control over returns from their
own activities. In fact, households are themselves systems of resource allocation
(Guyer 1981). The unitary neoclassical view of household income inherited from
the advanced industrial nations is especially inappropriate for such complex
situations in which household members have access to different resources and
work opportunities, and exercise differing degrees of control over separate
income streams that flow through the household. Household decision-making is
neither necessarily unitary nor harmonious. Different members may decide
about production strategies, contribute labor to specific tasks, or bear
responsibility for the use of the commodities produced. The complexity of intra-
household dynamics implies that the possibility of competing goals or priorities
may require negotiation among household members. Households are also fluid;
variability stems from responses to exogenous changes (such as male out
migration), from internal differentiation based on class, income, ethnicity, and
culture, and from demographic variables within the household unit (that is, the
pattern of family formation, or the "life cycle" of the family).

Farmer Participation

The internal dynamics of small farm households affect the process of client
involvement in the research and extension process. If work responsibilities,
control over resources, and decision-making are fragmented within the family
unit, who are the appropriate partners in the research process and potential
beneficiaries of the proposed technologies? Since male household heads are
typically the public representatives of family groups, it is often assumed that
information and resources conveyed to them will "trickle across" to others in their
household. But indirect communications strategies are inefficient and may omit
the actual "user" from the process of FSR/E. This omission represents a loss of
valuable indigenous knowledge and may lead to inadequate or incomplete
application of technological innovations. Since women and men may know about
different factors relevant to agricultural production, the labor of one may not
necessarily substitute for the other. If farming systems projects are to succeed in
forging effective collaborative ties with their client population, they must include
both women and men farmers as partners in the research process.













CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK


The chapters of this book are a selection of the papers concerned with
developing countries in Latin America, Asia, Middle East, and Africa presented at
the Conference in 1986 at the University of Florida (see Preface). The
Conference's primary objective was to bring together scholars and practitioners
with expertise and interest in FSR/E to discuss state-of-the-art issues related to
gender in FSR/E. In order to maximize coherence, participants were asked to
prepare papers that would address specific issues of theory, method, and policy
related to FSR/E across developing regions. The following questions were
posed under several topical areas:

The Whole Farming System. How can key components of a farming
system, including non-farm activities, livestock, secondary crops, food storage,
and food processing, be identified? How does the division of labor by age and
gender constrain or facilitate specific economic or productive goals? What is the
potential impact of improved agricultural technology on each of these goals and
on household members responsible for specific production activities?

Intra-Household Dynamics. What are the key aspects of internal
heterogeneity of household units: differential access and use of resources within
households; multiple enterprises and their interactions; substitutability and
specialization of labor in agricultural activities; marketing outlets and their
relationship to differing or conflicting priorities and needs within farm units; and
how might proposed interventions alter the balance of power and advantage?

Institutional and Policy Concerns. How does the surrounding environment
beyond the farm gate at household, community, and other social levels differ for
men and women? What specific constraints to production are posed by these
gender differences? How can FSR/E address constraints such as legal status,
restrictions on mobility, domestic obligations, property rights, access to credit,
markets, and employment?

Definition of Research Domains. How can the key components and actors
within household and farming systems be identified? What are key constraints to
productive activities and how does access to production inputs differ by gender?
What is the significance of, and interactions between, multiple enterprises within
the farm household and how do they create different labor requirements, goals,
incentives, markets, and priorities for different family members?












On-Farm Research and Extension. Who are the specific audiences for
direct involvement in on-farm research and extension? How do labor constraints
affect proposed solutions and how do labor patterns impact on household
members who differ in their access to resources? How can extension strategies
be devised that are responsive to the productive activities of both women and
men? Which extension mechanisms are most effective in reaching both male and
female farmers?

Monitoring and Evaluation. How can strategies be designed for monitoring
the differential impact of FSR/E interventions on different individuals and
enterprises within the farming system? What are the unanticipated effects of
technological change? In what ways does misunderstanding of gender issues
lead to inadequate planning and design or diminished returns to FSR/E projects?
How can these effects be minimized?

The papers contained in this book do not exhaust the answers to these
questions, but they do provide a beginning. Authors were asked to include a
common "minimum data set" in their case study material to facilitate comparison.
The following chapters contain many innovative approaches to conceptualizing
and carrying out farming systems projects that effectively take gender into
account. They highlight several features of the farming systems approach that
could be improved by more attention to gender, and they suggest practical ways
that this could be done. The book presents a comparative perspective on the
relevance of gender to farming systems work in the developing regions. Two
dimensions run throughout the various chapters: the presentation of site-specific
data that will permit in-depth analysis of specific cases and the search for
conceptual and methodological innovations.

Part I presents a set of articles that focus on key theoretical and
methodological issues relevant to the farming systems approach. In Chapter 2,
Rosalie Norem summarizes the results of a survey of farming systems projects
that collected data on intra-household dynamics and gender differences. Project
staff expressed a need for more intra-household data, especially on the factors
determining household variability (such as out-migration and the family "life
cycle"), on specific labor constraints stemming from the gender division of labor,
and on income management within the household. Her findings also reveal that
different kinds of information are useful at each phase of a project. In Chapter 3,
Alison Evans discusses some of the problems with FSR/E procedures that
impede the effective integration of gender considerations, including the emphasis
on market criteria and measure, and the assumed homogeneity of the farm
household. She presents a framework of ideas to help in constructing a broader,












more dynamic model of farm-household systems. She also discusses the
relevance of gender at different points in the FSR/E process, and institutional
constraints that must be overcome to improve attention to gender.

Janice Jiggins, in Chapter 4, continues the discussion by focusing on the
problems of communication between researchers, farmers, and extension
workers, using examples from Zambia and Lesotho that show the rationality and
flexibility within the domestic domain. She explores the difficulties of reconciling
scientific knowledge systems with those of indigenous people in the course of
conducting on-farm research. Lessons drawn from her examples point to the
need for establishing key field-household interactions at an early stage of the
diagnostic process and to developing methods for mutual communication of key
concepts across researchers and female producers' distinct knowledge systems.
She proposes the use of situation-analysis based on critical incident technique
and peer group workshops as appropriate methodologies for improving
communication and diagnosis.

Amalia Alberti focuses in Chapter 5 on the problem of generating data
sufficiently sensitive to gender differences to guide the definition of client groups
during the initial phases of a project. Echoing Evans' point that a priority for
wealthier, more market-oriented farmers will tend to exclude women, she
discusses the pros and cons of different sources of techniques for data collection
in FSR/E projects. The following chapter, by Peter Wotowiec, Jr., Susan Poats,
and Peter Hildebrand, explores in more detail how definitions of client
populations need to be modified in accordance with the problems posed at
different stages of the project cycle. They offer a refinement of the conventional
FSR/E concept of "domains" to distinguish between "research domains" (that
maintain variability), "recommendation domains" (homogeneous for technology
testing), and "diffusion domains" (for disseminating new technologies). In
Chapter 7, Jonice Louden summarizes the compelling reasons for incorporating
gender issues into FSR/E monitoring and evaluation systems, especially in a
country such as Jamaica where women play key roles in agricultural production.
The FSR/E process presents an opportunity to collect systematically valuable
information that can help to inform project implementation and refine gender-
sensitive measures of key indicators of development.

Chapters 8, 9, and 10 take up conceptual and methodological issues beyond
the farming systems universe. Dissatisfied with the market bias of standard
economic models of the household, authors Lila Engberg, Jean Sabry and Susan
Beckerson propose an alternative production activity model based on measures
of time allocated to income-generation, subsistence, and home production. The












more integrated model suggests trade-offs between labor allocated to cash and
to subsistence activities in Malawi that could have nutritional implications. Also
concerned with the concept of household Art Hansen presents data, in Chapter
9, from Africa that suggests caution in conceptualizing and measuring the
frequency of female-headed households. His findings show that static surveys
may underestimate the probability that a woman will be a head of household at
some moment or moments in her life, thereby reinforcing the importance of
involving both men and women in development efforts. Eva Wollenberg's
Chapter 10 discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various time allocation
methodologies and their relevance to farming systems work. She explores how
four different approaches to the collection of time use data were used in a
Philippine project. Her discussion emphasizes the dynamic nature of the FSR/E
process, a theme common to all of the chapters in this section. Gender patterns
and intra-household relationships become relevant to different degrees and in
different ways at each point in the project cycle. These chapters, and others
following, provide concrete suggestions as to how an unfolding farming systems
project team can collect and analyze the information that will enable it to develop
and adapt production technologies to the needs of different users.

Diane Rocheleau, in Chapter 11, draws upon experience from a broad range
of countries; she details a land user perspective as an appropriate method for
incorporating women as clients and active participants in agroforestry projects.
Her paper and that of Owusu-Bempah (Chapter 29) play an important role in
expanding the horizon of FSR/E to consider the rural landscape as the context
and focus for projects in order to address the gap between natural resource
management and farming systems research. The role and domain of women in
the interface of these two areas is clearly laid out as the next critical frontier for
expansion of household research and gender-based analysis.

Beginning with Part II, the Chapters explore gender issues in FSR/E on a
regional basis. Women's roles in agricultural production are less visible in Latin
America than in other developing regions. The same is not true in the
Caribbean-nations such as St. Lucia, described in Chapter 12 by Vasantha
Chase. While island women play a significant role in farm work and decision
making, they receive less income and fewer extension services than do male
farmers. Informal data collection methods reveal that female-headed households
face particular labor and input constraints that limit their output, choice of crops,
and amount of land planted. A concern with integrating food consumption into
the farming systems approach led the Caribbean Agricultural Research and
Development Institute (CARDI) to recommend labor-saving methods of backyard
garden production, oriented to improvement of family nutrition. The link between












nutrition and agricultural change is also the focus of Eunice McCulloch and Mary
Futrell's Chapter 13. Their measures of the nutritional output of cropping
activities reveal the "low level steady state" farming system that maintains
Honduran families at risk of persistent malnutrition.

In Chapter 14, Patricia Garrett and Patricio Espinosa describe the steps taken
by the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Project in Ecuador to adapt project
activities to gender and social class differentiation. Their rich discussion of the
FSR/E process demonstrates the importance of women's participation in
production and decision-making, even in Andean Latin America where farming
commonly is assumed to be the domain of men. The same is true in the
Peruvian highland community described in Chapter 15 by Maria Fernandez, were
women are responsible for most tasks associated with livestock production.
Recognizing women as a key source of knowledge on traditional livestock
production practices, the project team experimented with a variety of strategies to
draw them into active participation. Fernandez' argument reflects the emphasis
in Rocheleau's and Owusu-Bempah's papers on agroforestry of the importance
of women's knowledge about traditional resource management practices.

Part III presents five case studies from Asia and the Middle East. Chapter 16
by Rita Gallin and Anne Ferguson and Chapter 17 by Jane Gleason present case
studies from Taiwan. Gallin and Ferguson use longitudinal data from one village
to show that a limited focus on farming activities ignored off-farm work and failed
to analyze the interactions between the agricultural and industrial sectors of
society. The authors propose the term "household enterprise" as a way of
dealing with interrelated farming and off-farm work, and encourage researchers
to view off-farm activities as "central rather than tangential to FSR/E analysis."
Gallin and Ferguson discuss farm mechanization and note that it did not displace
women, but rather concentrated certain tasks among some male specialists and
caused some women to assume managerial positions previously restricted to
men. Older women also took over tasks of younger women who then sought off-
farm employment.

Gleason's detailed labor study in Southern Taiwan complements the previous
work, and together they present a good example of why generalizations about
gender and agriculture should not be made for an entire country. Gleason
argues that in Southern Taiwan, as agricultural mechanization increased, more
women than men were displaced and forced to other sectors of the economy. In
her study, availability of female labor increased the variety of crops grown and
the level of diversification, indicating that women will be the users of modern












vegetable technology and will be most affected by changes in vegetable
production.

Chapter 18 by Bahnisikha Ghosh and Sudhin Mukhopadhyay studies time
allocation by men and women in a rice-based farming system in West Bengal,
India. Though female labor is subject to sociological constants, the contribution
of women is often larger than men's. A change to 'new rice technology
increased female-olabor, however the authors show that the increased workload
falls within the home production sector and was largely unaccounted for in the
traditional economic literature.

Chapters 19 and 20 are based on work conducted at two of the International
Agricultural Research Centers. Thelma Paris, in Chapter 19, describes how
women were successfully integrated into a crop-livestock project of the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), in the Philippines. Beginning as
observers and slowly integrating themselves by collecting and disaggregating
data on household and production activities, the section members of the Women
in Rice Farming Systems were able to produce useful information and become
fully participatory members of the project. As a result of their efforts, the whole
team began to recognize that specific production activities are the responsibility
of women and that on-farm research needed to target them. Women's livestock,
particularly swine, root crops, and vegetables that had not been previously
addressed by the project, were proposed as new areas of research as a result of
the incorporation of women's concerns. In addition, subsequent training courses
included a significant number of women participants, and the course addressed
women's production problems.

Andree Rassam and Dennis Tully in Chapter 20, discuss research at the
International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) on gender
and agricultural labor in Syria. They find that though male and female time
contributions to crop production are similar, males are more often involved in new
technologies, especially mechanization, while females are more involved in more
traditional ones such as hand labor. The authors expect continuing
mechanization to further reduce female agricultural activities and they propose
additional research to determine the impact of these changes.

Part IV contains a number of case studies from Africa that includes the
descriptions of cropping systems, labor patterns, and work in on-farm, farmer-
managed trials. Some themes that emerge from the papers are: the separate
economies of men and women within households; the variability of the sexual
division of labor in farm tasks; and increasing numbers of households headed by












women and the concomitant increase in work burden due to male migration and
divorce. Concerning the sexual division of labor, tasks may be the same or
different for both sexes; in female-headed households the so-called "male tasks"
are performed by women out of necessity. Concomitantly, the authors report that
researchers and extensionists have failed to recognize women's roles in farming,
ignored gender in the design of FSR/E projects, and not included women much
as trial cooperators. Women, especially female heads of households, are often
low-resource farmers who may have special problems that research and
extension need to address. (Indeed, there are male low-resource farmers who
have many of the same constraints.) The question as to whether or not gender
accounts for separate recommendation domains finds different answers in the
papers due to differential ecologies, social organization, and cropping systems.

Chapter 21 by Margaret Norem, Sandra Russo, Marie Sambou, and Melanie
Marlett provides an example from The Gambia of how a women's component
was formulated and operationalized as part of a larger, FSR/E project. Existing
women's societies were used as a basis for organizing women and a maize-
cowpea intercropping package was developed. The women experienced
difficulties with the package related to pests, seed varieties, and labor patterns.
The project was able to use women's participation in the trials and the problems
they encountered to argue for the need to include women in subsequent
research and extension efforts.

Jeane Henn in chapter 22, examines how government policies and
environmental constraints impact on intrahousehold dynamics in Cameroon.
Labor patterns, proximity to roads and urban areas, and farm gate prices affected
incomes, differently in two villages. Food sales were very important to women's
incomes but marginal to men's incomes that were mostly derived from cash
crops. In one village, men withdrew labor from food crops resulting in an
increase in women's work. However, the women close to roads and urban
markets were able to increase their labor output and foodstuffs produced, and
double their income while women in the other village were not.

Jean Due provides data in Chapter 23 from Tanzania, Zambia, and Malawi on
how gender is important to FSR/E work arguing that unless there are persons)
on the FSR/E team who are sensitive to the issues, important information will be
missed. In Tanzania, a diagnostic survey for bean/cowpea research revealed
that women select seed and contribute more labor on the crop than men. FSR/E
work in Zambia would be hindered by not knowing the extensive labor
contribution of women on the one hand, and the extent of off farm and non-crop
income, some of which is generated by women, on the other. Data on extension












agents' contacts with farmers in Tanzania and farmers' farm income are
correlated and show that male contact farmers have seven times the income of
female heads of households, who are rarely contacted by extensionists.

In Chapter 24, Timothy Mtoi discusses labor patterns in one region of
Tanzania and uses a model to test the significance of female labor on expected
risk and productivity under two cropping systems connected to a FSR project.
The analysis shows that farm income would increase if the new alternative
farming system had female labor transferred to it. However, policy decisions
affect whether or not women can participate in the new technology (i.e., be trial
cooperators) and obtain extension advice on the packages.

Chapters 25, 26, and 27 focus on Zambia and provide a more detailed set on
the farming systems there and on the results of FSR/E diagnostic surveys. Mary
Tembo and Elizabeth Chola Phiri discuss the traditional chitemene system of
shifting agriculture and its sexual division of labor, the results of the colonial
period that drained off male labor, and the lack of extension credit services to
women. The result of these conditions has affected the diet and nutritional status
of the population because women have taken to growing cassava (a crop that is
less labor intensive, but also less nutritious than millet or maize), and farmers
neglect food crops for household consumption because of growing cash crops.

Chapters by Robert Hudgens and Alistar Sutherland examine FSR/E
diagnostic survey work of Adaptive Research Planning Teams that became
sensitized to the need to target women farmers in research activities and in the
determination of recommendation domains. Hudgens details the characteristics
of male and female-headed households in terms of land holdings, draft power,
source of inputs, and cash sales. The comparisons show that there are both
similarities and differences between the two household types and that the
female-headed households experience labor shortages. Women tend to be
isolated from government services and their production is constrained by lack of
exposure to new ideas, inputs, and capital.

As part of the diagnostic phase of FSR work, Sutherland compares women's
and men's roles in three regions of Zambia and argues that even within one
country, gender roles are influenced by cultural, economic, political, and
ecological factors. Labor, cash availability, and draft power tend to divide
households into recommendation domains. Gender is a distinguishing factor in
one region, but not in the others.












In Chapter 28, Anita Spring reports on two different on-farm, farmer-managed
trials in Malawi. In the first, the inclusion of low-resource female farmers along
with high-resource male farmers generated two recommendation domains.
Improved maize cultivars and use of fertilizer worked well in the better
environments and with high resource farmers, but would be disastrous in the low
resource environments and with low-resource farmers. On the other hand, the
traditional cultivar was better in -these situations. The second set of trials
involved all female cooperators to solve a technical problem of inoculating
soybeans as well as the issue of whether or not male\ extensionists could work
with female farmers. It was found that the women could do trials with precision
and that male extension and research staff could work with women farmers in
terms of training and credit programs.

Kofi Owusu-Bempah, in the final paper, argues for inclusion of farmers in the
planning and design of projects, and particularly calls for the involvement of
women in the selection of species to be included in agroforestry projects in
Ghana. His work represents a largely private sector effort and, like Rocheleau,
calls for expanding the framework of analysis to include the landscape
perspective and the intersection of crops, livestock and forest enterprises.

In conclusion, the papers in this volume contribute to an understanding of
how gender affects farming systems and the way that FSR/E operates. The
papers demonstrate that by linking the two codes gender and FSR/E the
agricultural research and extension system can become more efficient and
effective in dealing with different groups of farmers. The papers provide details
of specific cases and the methods used to incorporate gender perspectives and
analysis. There is no single recipe for action. Instead, these studies from an
array of ecological, social, and political contexts demonstrate that it is both
possible and practical to use gender analysis as a tool in the work of agricultural
development.












REFERENCES


Boserup, E.
1970. Women's Role in Economic Development. New York: St. Martin's
Press.

Guyer, J.
1981. Household and Community in African Studies. African Studies Review
24: 2/3.

Overholt, C., M. Anderson, K. Cloud, and J. Austin
1985. Gender Roles in Development Projects: A Casebook. W. Hartford,
CN: Kumarian Press.

Palmer, I.
1985. The Impact of Male Out-Migration on Women in Farming. W.
Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.

Schmink, M.
1984. Household Economic Strategies: Review and Research Agenda. Latin
American Research Review 19:3:87-101.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs