• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Why consider gender issues...
 Research methodology
 Results and analysis
 Conclusions and recommendation...
 References
 Appendix A: Gender issues...
 Appendix B: List of projects
 Appendix C: Type of project, personnel,...






Title: Gender issues in farming systems research and extension : a survey of current projects
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080846/00001
 Material Information
Title: Gender issues in farming systems research and extension : a survey of current projects
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Poats, Susan V.
Gearing, Jean
Russo, Sandra
Publisher: Tropical Research and Development, Inc.
Publication Date: 1989
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080846
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 183214225

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Acknowledgement
        Acknowledgement
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
    Executive summary
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Why consider gender issues in FSR/E?
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Research methodology
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Results and analysis
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Conclusions and recommendations
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    References
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Appendix A: Gender issues questionnaire
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
    Appendix B: List of projects
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Appendix C: Type of project, personnel, gender analysis, and gender training
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
Full Text
. r


U.SA.I.D. Contract Number:

PDC-0100-0-00-8144-00


By

Susan V. Poats
Jean Gearing
Sandra Russo


Tropical Research and Development, Inc.
Gainesville, Florida






Prepared for

Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination
Office of Women in Development
U.S. Agency for International Development


February 1989


GENDER ISSUES IN
FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION:
A SURVEY OF CURRENT PROJECTS











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The Tropical Research and Development, Inc. Team would like to thank all the people
who took time from their busy schedules and demanding workloads to complete and
return the questionnaire on Gender Issues. We are most appreciative of their thoughtful
comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank the Office of Women in
Development, U.S.A.I.D., for supporting this study and Bruce Horwith and Ron Grosz
for their assistance in completing the project.








TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION...........

1.1 Structure of the Report .......... ..

1.2 Objectives of the Study ............

1.3 Rationale and Antecedents for the Study

1.4 Intended Audience for the Study Results


SECTION

2.1


2.2

2.3


SECTION

3.1

3.2

3.3


SECTION

4.1

4.2


TWO: WHY CONSIDER GENDER ISSUES IN

The Significance of WID and Gender Issues
Research and Extension ...........

A History of WID, Gender Issues, and FSR/E

Current Status of Gender Issues in FSR/E ..


FSR/E? .

to Farming

. .


Systems


. . .

. .. .


THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................... 8

The Questionnaire ................................. 8

The Sam ple ..................................... 8

Methods of Analysis ................. ............... 9


FOUR: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..................... 10

Non-Questionnaire Responses ................... ........ 10

Analysis of Descriptive Parameters ................ 11
4.2.1 Project Location ............................ 11
4.2.2 Institutional/Agency Affiliation of Projects ............ 12
4.2.3 Funding Sources of Project .. ..................... 12
4.2.4 Duration of Project ................ ........... 13
4.2.5 Project Objectives ......... .................... 13
4.2.6 Target Groups ........... ........ ....... 14
4.2.7 Project Components........ .................... 15
4.2.8 Typology of Projects ............................ 17








4.2.9
4.2.10
4.2.11


Project Linkages .............................
Project Personnel ................ .............
Summary of Descriptive Parameters .................


4.3 Gender Analysis and Training Results . . . .
4.3.1 Gender Analysis .................. .... .
4.3.1.1 Was a gender analysis done? When? .
4.3.1.2 Who Did the Gender Analysis? .......
4.3.1.3 Gender Analysis Methods ..........
4.3.1.4 Timing of the Gender Analysis .......
4.3.1.5 Effects of the Gender Analysis on Project
4.3.2 Source of Initiative to Include Gender Issues .. .


Stages
. .


.0
.
.
.
.
.
.


4.3.3 Gender Issues Training .......................
4.3.3.1 Projects Receiving Training ...............
4.3.3.2 Gender Issues Training Providers ...........
4.3.3.3 Participation of Team Members in Training .....
4.3.3.4 Timing of Training .....................
4.3.3.5 Contents of Training ....................
4.3.3.6 Usefulness of Training ...................
4.3.3.7 Significance of Training ..................
4.3.4 Effects of Gender Issues Analysis and Training ........
4.3.4.1 Data Disaggregation ....................
4.3.4.2 Incorporation of Women .................


4.4 Obstacles, Strategies and Benefits to Gender Analysis and the
Inclusion of Women ................... ... .......... 35
4.4.1 Obstacles to the Inclusion of Gender Issues and Women .. 35
4.4.1.1 Inclusion of Gender Issues .............. 36
4.4.1.2 Gender Issues Strategies ................ .. 37
4.4.1.3 Active Participation of Women ............... 38
4.4.1.4 Participation of Women Strategies ............. 39
4.4.2 Benefits from the Inclusion of Gender Issues and Women 40
4.4.2.1 Gender Issues Benefits ....... ... ... .. 41
4.4.2.2 Participation of Women Benefits .............. 42
4.4.3 Obstacles, Strategies, and Benefits Summary ............ 43
4.4.3.1 Obstacles, Strategies, and Benefits and Type of
Project, Gender Analysis, Gender Issues Training, and
Project Personnel ....................... 44

4.5 Optional Comments .................. ............ 47


SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 49

5.1 Conclusions ..................................... 49
5.1.1 Uncertainty about "Gender Issues" .. .............. 49
5.1.2 Uncertainty about "Gender Analysis" ................ 49


. 20
.. 20
.20
24
24
. 25
25
28
29
.29
31
31
.32
.32
32
.32
33
33
33







Resistance to Gender Analysis . . .
Effectiveness of Gender Analysis ..........
Timing of Gender Analysis ............
Crucial Role of Training .. .. .......


5.2 Recommendations ............. ...........


REFERENCES

APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B:


APPENDIX C:

I.

II.


GENDER ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE ......

LIST OF PROJECTS BY GEOGRAPHIC
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION, FUNDING
DURATION, AND LINKAGES I...........


REGION,
SOURCE,


TYPE OF PROJECT, PERSONNEL, GENDER ANALYSIS,
AND GENDER TRAINING .......................

List of Disciplines and Number of Projects Reporting .....

List of Projects by Project Type, Personnel, Gender Analysis,
and Gender Training ....... ....................


5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6


111111








LIST OF TABLES


Table 1. Number of Projects By Geographic Region ...................
Table 2. Project Duration by Geographic Region: .....................
Table 3. Target Group by Type of Project: .........................
Table 4. Project Components: ..................................
Table 5. Project Components by Project Type: ........................
Table 6. Project Personnel by Project Type .........................
Table 7. Performance of Gender Analysis By Geographic Region: ..........
Table 8. Performance of Gender Analysis by Type of Project .............
Table 9. Performance of Gender Analysis and Project Personnel ...........
Table 10. Source of the Initiative for Gender Issues ....................
Table 11. Gender Issues Training by Geographic Region of Project ..........
Table 12. Gender Issues Training by Type of Project ...................
Table 13. Training Provider by Type of Training .....................
Table 14. Obstacles, Strategies, and Benefits by Type of Project, Gender Analysis
Gender Issues Training, and Project Personnel ................







EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents an analysis[ of the mechanisms that have led to the successful
integration of gender issues and analysis into certain agricultural research and extension
projects that are using the Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) approach,
the costs (actual and perceived) in integration, and the obstacles and barriers that still
prohibit effective integration of gender issues into the large set of FSR/E efforts. Based
on this analysis, the report also presents a set of conclusions and recommendations for
the training of agricultural development project personnel in gender issues and analysis.
The recommendations include staffing and project management alternatives for research
and extension managers, national programs, international entities and donor agencies to
consider in order to enhance the effective integration of gender issues into agricultural
development.

Uncertainty about the meaning of "gender issues" and what the incorporation of "gender
issues" into a project implies continues to trouble project teams. Many respondents
confused the use of gender as a socioeconomic variable to analyze the farming system
and disaggregate data, with the equity issue of including women, both as project
personnel and as target groups for development projects. Closely tied to respondents'
confusion over the meaning and implications of gender issues was an uncertainty about
how to do a "gender analysis," and once analysis is done, what to do with the findings.
Too many respondents conceive of "gender analysis" as something done strictly as part
of the initial diagnosis or socioeconomic assessment. Often it is perceived as the sole
responsibility of the social scientist on the team, or the female team members, rather
than the entire team. Obstacles to conducting gender analysis lie largely within the
project team, not with farmers.

Despite uncertainty about gender analysis and resistance to its implementation, gender
analysis is an effective and useful tool to projects that do it. The major benefits reported
as a result of doing gender analysis were primarily to projects themselves, making
interventions more appropriate and more accurately targeted, research more efficient,
transfer of technology easier and better received by target groups. The projects
represented in the survey that conducted gender analysis did so either early in their
project cycle or later after the project was well underway. Whether it was done early
or later had little affect on the benefits of conducting the analysis. Training in gender
issues and gender analysis works to make project personnel more aware of gender and
to do gender analysis more effectively. Those projects, where such training (either
formal or informal) did occur, subsequently conducted or improved gender analysis.
This points strongly to the usefulness of explicitly including training mechanisms in an
overall strategy to incorporate gender issues in project activities.

The results of this study underline the view that the majority of the agricultural
researchers and extensionists engaged in FSR/E activities are beyond the sensitization
stage in their understanding of gender issues. Most clearly recognize the need to
consider gender in agricultural development. Their overiding concern is how to do it
most effectively. The emphasis today needs to be placed on developing appropriate
methodologies that will work efficiently in the field to allow good data collection and
analysis on gender, communicating those methods that are field tested to other projects,
and training project teams in their utilization.









SECTION ONE


INTRODUCTION


This report presents an analysis of the mechanisms that have led to the successful
integration of gender issues and analysis into some agricultural research and extension
projects that are using the Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) approach,
the costs (actual and perceived) in integration, and the obstacles and barriers that still
prohibit effective integration of gender issues into the larger set of FSR/E efforts.
Based on this analysis, the report also presents a set of conclusions and recommendations
for the training of agricultural development project personnel in gender issues and
analysis.

1.1 Structure of the Report.

The report is divided into five sections with appendices. Section 1 introduces the overall
goals and objectives of the study, provides the background on why the study was initiated,
and defines the audience for the results. Section 2 addresses the question "why consider
gender issues in FSR/E?" and describes the history and current status of Women in
Development (WID), gender issues, and FSR/E. Section 3 describes the research
methodology used in developing and distributing the questionnaire, analyzing of the
results, and interpreting the findings. Section 4 presents the survey findings and the
analysis and interpretation of the results. These are then summarized as conclusions in
Section 5 and a series of recommendations. are presented for project managers,
researchers, and development workers. A bibliography and several appendices with the
survey questionnaire and description of the survey sample complete the report.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The major objective of the project was to survey the researchers and development
workers who submitted abstracts for inclusion in the 1988 Farming Systems Research
Symposium concerning the mechanisms used to integrate Women in Development (WID)
and gender issues into current FSR/E activities around the world. The study focused on
the extent to which projects using the FSR/E approach actually address the needs of
women farmers, what methods are used in conducting research on gender, and how and
why gender issues came to be included in the projects. The study also examined whether
women professionals are necessary to conduct WID in FSR/E projects and whether the
gender of the professional project staff is related to the integration of gender issues into
project activities.

1.3 Rationale and Antecedents for the Study

Tropical Research and Development, Inc. proposed the idea of conducting this study to
the Office of Women in Development in the Bureau for Program and Policy







Coordination of the U.S. Agency for International Development (PPC/WID/U.S.A.I.D.)
in July 1988. The goals and objectives proposed for the study were consistent with
U.S.A.I.D.'s mandate to integrate Women in Development concerns into its program of
economic and development support. More specifically, the proposal offered the WID
Office an opportunity to gain information about current progress of agricultural projects
(one of their targeted sectors for WID work) in incorporating WID and gender issues.
Since the study proposed to survey all projects submitted to the symposium, it would
provide an opportunity to compare U.S.A.I.D.-supported development projects with those
supported by other donors or operating without donor support. The WID Office agreed
to fund the study and the contract was negotiated and finalized in August 1988.

The study took advantage of the explicit attention given to gender issues in the October
1988 Annual FSR/E Symposium held at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.
Gender Issues was one of the four themes of the Symposium. The annual symposium
attracts a wide variety of participants representing an interdisciplinary cross-section of
international agricultural development projects and provided an excellent sample for the
study. Because many of the respondents to the survey questionnaire were at the
Symposium, a preliminary draft of this report, based on the first thirty-five responses to
the questionnaire, was presented as the keynote address for the Gender Issues theme
(Poats 1988). The presentation was circulated following the Symposium to elicit feedback
and comments which were incorporated into this final report. Additional questionnaires
were received during and following the Symposium which were incorporated into the final
analysis and interpretation of results.

1.4 Intended Audience for the Study Results

This report is directed at their agricultural development community and intended
specifically for project design officers, field staff of donor agencies, and field team
personnel working in the area of on-farm client-oriented research and development. The
analysis of the status of the integration of gender issues into projects using the FSR/E
approach will be beneficial to other entities already engaged in similar activities or those
that are considering initiating this type of project. The lessons and recommendations
are particularly relevant to the need for training in gender analysis and the need for
balanced staffing of projects in terms of gender and discipline.







SECTION TWO


WHY CONSIDER GENDER ISSUES IN FSR/E?


2.1 The Significance of WID and Gender Issues to Farming Systems Research and
Extension

Farming Systems Research and Extension, or FSR/E, is an approach used in agricultural
research and development to generate appropriate technology for low-input or resource-
poor farmers. The approach is holistic and iterative, and potentially offers an excellent
mechanism for identifying and addressing the agricultural problems of farmers, both male
and female. As the FSR/E approach has spread worldwide and matured, in both its
application and methodology, increasing attention has been focused on an area that is
often referred to as "gender issues." Like FSR/E, "gender issues" is used as a shorthand
for an extensive field of interdisciplinary research and practice also known as "women in
development." Like the FSR/E approach, WID began with a concern for the distribution
of development benefits (Poats et al. 1988). Both FSR/E and WID have evolved rapidly
and are still changing, incorporating new research evidence and the growing body of
experience of development professionals. The application or integration of gender issues
across the broad range of FSR/E activities has not been even nor has it been
accomplished without difficulty. The process of integration is not complete, but much
progress has been made and much can be learned from projects that have incorporated
gender issues into their research and development activities. This study was designed to
assess the progress that has been made, how this progress was achieved, and the benefits
that have resulted.

2.2 A History of WID, Gender Issues, and FSR/E

Before reviewing the current status of gender issues in development projects, it is useful
to consider briefly how gender issues became a part of FSR/E. The farming systems
approach to agricultural research and extension emerged in the 1970's as a response to
the challenge of developing technologies that would be appropriate to the needs of low-
resource farmers. This task required an understanding of farmers' particular constraints,
goals, and farming practices that went beyond strictly technical and economic criteria.
Definition of the farming environment of low-resource producers also required FSR/E
practitioners to focus on the management and decision making abilities of farmers. This
in turn led to an emphasis on the farm household as the central unit of the farming
system. While the focus on the household was part of a long-needed recognition of the
rationality of low-resource farmers, it unfortunately also obscured the differences among
individuals within the household. Borrowing household models proposed by economists,
practitioners assumed that "the farm household" functioned as a single unit of production
and consumption. It was further assumed that consensus among household members
existed on the allocation of resources and benefits, and that all household members'
interests and problems were identical (Cloud 1988).







In recent years, these beliefs and assumptions about farm households have radically
shifted in part because of the growing body of empirical research on women's roles in
development. WID researchers focused on women's importance as household producers
and providers in addition to their domestic roles. Women emerged as active producers
whose potential contributions were often overlooked or undermined by development
projects (Poats et al. 1988). By recognizing differences between men's and women's
roles in production, the assumed homogeneity of the farm household was replaced by the
concept of "intra-household dynamics." It is now widely recognized that intra-household
relationships are as diverse and dynamic as the relationships between households.
Individuals within a household may share some interests, have separate interests, and at
times have opposing interests (Feldstein et al. 1987, Cloud 1988). Technology that will
help one farmer in a household may actually hurt other farmers within the same
household. The recognition that these diverse and complex relationships among members
of households must be considered in the design, testing, and evaluation of new technology
has stimulated some of the most exciting and innovative methodological developments
in FSR/E to date.

The shift from the unitary household assumption to an intra-household dynamics
perspective in FSR/E has not occurred by accident. It is the result of the convergence
of social science research on agriculture and women in development (WID) research.
First, exploration of the environment of the low-resource farmer opened the door in
agricultural research and development for the growth of social science research on
agriculture. While there are excellent examples of social science research on agriculture
prior to FSR/E, the approach changed the relationship between social science and
agriculture in the following important ways:

(A) FSR/E encouraged expansion of social science involvement from a narrow group
of agricultural economists to a broader range of social science disciplines, including
anthropology and sociology;

(B) FSR/E enabled social scientists to work as members of interdisciplinary teams in
the actual development of technology;

(C) The development of institutional structures to contain FSR/E in research or
extension institutions at last provided a secure home base for the social sciences
in agriculture (Bingen and Poats 1988).

These three changes expanded the perspective of agricultural development personnel to
include a focus on intra-household dynamics and gender issues, but it was the growing
WID field that provided the tools Ito do the work. By the end of the 1970's, the growing
WID research base showed that, in addition to equity, an understanding of women's roles
was related to more technical problems of efficiency and productivity. Analysis of
changes in women's roles in production helped predict the success or failure of
agricultural development projects. This analysis depended on the development of
appropriate methodologies for studying the complex dynamics of rural households. These
tools were not endless checklists of questions to be asked and data to be gathered in
each project setting. Rather, the new tools were actually frameworks of analysis or







"conceptual maps" researchers and development workers could use to identify relevant
information on who performs which activities, decision making about the allocation and
control of resources, benefits and incentives, and the ways in which women and men are
included (or not included) in development activities (Feldstein et al 1987, Anderson et
al 1985). These new frameworks of analysis move researchers away from emphasizing
only the importance of including women in development toward a focus on the cross-
culturally variable social roles of men and women, or "gender issues." The use of these
conceptual frameworks to analyze gender roles and intra-household dynamics within
farming systems and the extrapolation of this information into the design and
performance of agricultural development has become known as "gender analysis."

The use of conceptual frameworks in gender analysis to outline key issues of inquiry and
handle setting-dependent outcomes fits well within the client-oriented FSR/E approach.
However, the convergence of these two methodological spheres occurred primarily
because there were social scientists within the agricultural research and extension system
capable of applying the methods and insights of WID research to the practical problems
of technology development.

The shift of emphasis in the WID field away from women's equity issues to gender
issues has been both significant and opportune for the integration of gender issues into
FSR/E. The need to identify the constraints and problems of individual farmers and to
consolidate farmers into groups sharing particular research problems (recommendation
domains) is recognized, but the fact that households can be disaggregated in several
ways--by age, status, or gender--can complicate the methodological strategy. Gender has
proved to be the most useful category to disaggregate the farm household and analyze
intra-household behavior (Cloud 1988). Increasingly in FSR/E, gender analysis is the
tool of choice to access the low-resource farm household for more efficient and more
equitable technology development and delivery.

2.3 Current Status of Gender Issues in FSR/E

The extent to which gender analysis is currently used in FSR/E can be gauged by the
number of conferences, workshops, and on-going networking efforts at international and
regional levels, as well as by the attention the topic is receiving from international aid
donors. Since 1983, at least six major international conferences and workshops have
been held on gender and farming systems research.

One of the earliest international conferences on households and farming systems was
organized in Bellagio, Italy, by the Rockefeller Foundation in 1984 (Moock 1986). The
papers published from the conference represent some of the earliest work in the field.
Conference participants called for increased attention in FSR/E to gender and especially
to the roles and responsibilities of women. Though some participants expressed concern
about the difficulty of incorporating gender issues into farming systems research, others
such as Jane Guyer contended that gender analysis "is not a question of grafting on a
new factor, but of having recourse to a whole other framework of analysis, one which
holds fewer factors constant and, as a result, can address long-term change" (Moock
1986).








At the University of Florida's conference on Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research
and Extension in February 1986,' over 100 papers were submitted for inclusion in the
conference, 91 presenters were on the program, and nearly 300 people registered from
more than twenty countries and four international agricultural research centers. A
special ad hoc session on methodologies for field research and analysis following the
conference was attended by over 50 people, indicating a strong interest in this issue.

A number of international agricultural research centers (IARCs) have undertaken
initiatives to study and incorporate gender issues within their various programs of on-
farm research. The International Rice Research Institute's (IRRI) involvement in gender
issues began in 1983 with the first women in rice farming meeting. As a result of this
meeting, a major network on Women in Rice Farming Systems (WIRFS) was created in
Asia with support from IRRI and IDRC. Through the actions of the WIRFS,
collaboration between the national programs in the network and IRRI has been
enhanced. The network's most recent international conference, "A Training and Planning
Workshop for Women in Rice Farming Systems," was held at IRRI in May 1988. In the
workshop, efforts to consider the needs of rural women in the design of rice farming
systems projects were reviewed, strategies and methodologies for integrating women's
concerns were discussed, and technologies relevant to women were examined. A training
module using case studies was conducted during the workshop to assist participants in
conducting their own training activities in their home institutions. WIRFS network
meetings also play a crucial role in research planning. During the recent meeting,
participants developed plans for on-farm research projects as part of the network and
four more activities for the network were planned for 1988-89.

While each of the other international agricultural research centers (IARCs) have pursued
different routes to incorporate WID and gender issues within their programs, most have
done so through their various on-farm research programs. For example, when CIMMYT
commissioned a study on assistance to women in the developing world and its assessment
at the request of several of its donors (Carney 1988), the study demonstrated that a
majority of CIMMYTs efforts that have included women have occurred in their on-farm
research programs. Efforts are concentrated in the outreach program, especially in
Africa, although CIMMYTs first study exclusively on women maize producers began in
Mexico this year.

An example of CIMMYTs outreach efforts that include gender and household issues is
the regional networkshop on household issues and farming systems research which was
held in Lusaka, Zambia, on April 27-30, 1987 (Sutherland 1987). The overriding concern
of the workshop participants was how to move beyond sensitization to the issues to
inclusion of gender analysis in research activities. Participants discussed alternative
methods of gender analysis and the situations where they work best. New terms to
describe field tools were created, such as "nested general activities mapping" and
participants advocated "overcoming the tyranny of randomization" as they looked at
purposive sampling procedures. While the networkshop was very useful and participants
expressed a .desire for further interaction on the topic, there was no mechanism to
sustain the momentum and continue regular meetings.








The Secretariat of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) organized a seminar on "Differential Users of Technology" for one morning of
the annual Center's Week in October 1987. The session was held at the request of
several donors to the CGIAR system. The term "differential users" can be viewed as a
euphemism for discussing gender and other "disaggregators" of human populations. Most
of the presentations focused on women as users of technology, gender differences in
technology constraint and adoption, and the inclusion of women in the research and
extension process, both as technology users and as technology developers. Discussion
during the session emphasized the leadership that the IARCs can provide in the
integration of WID and gender issues into agricultural research and development.

The CGIAR seminar during Center's Week is significant because the annual meeting
brings together all of the major donors of international agricultural research and
development to discuss and determine the kind and level of support to be given to the
IARCs and other regional research institutes. Most of these international aid donors
either have adopted WID policies to encourage their recipients to include women in the
development process or are developing policies for WID. To the extent these same
donors also support FSR/E, there is considerable emphasis being placed currently on the
adoption of gender-sensitive development approaches and the incorporation of gender
analysis in agricultural research and extension.

According to a paper prepared by Eva Rathgeber (1987), Women in Development
Coordinator for the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada, the
following donor organizations and foreign aid divisions of national governments have
WID policies or programs that support WID and gender issues in the projects they fund:
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), UNIFEM, CIDA-Canada, U.S.A.I.D.,
Ford Foundation, World Bank, SIDA-Sweden, SAREC, Netherlands assistance programs,
DANIDA-Denmark, FINNIDA-Finland, the Belgian government, and the ADAB-
Australia. A set of guidelines for the integration of women into development programs
was issued by the DAC/OECD and several countries have adopted these guidelines.
Rathgeber states that while IDRC-Canada does not have a specific policy nor strategy
on the integration of women in development, the IDRC has given great informal support
to research looking at the special problems of women as researchers, consultants, and
grant recipients.

The final international effort that must be highlighted in this review is the annual FSR/E
Symposium which has functioned as a key forum for the exchange and development of
gender analysis in FSR/E. Although the 1988 symposium is the first with an explicit
focus on gender issues, each year there has been an effort during the meetings to
organize sessions, often under the category of "special topics," to discuss the methods and
results of gender analysis and to create opportunities within the symposium to exchange
field experiences. This has generated a large constituency within the network interested
in gender issues and led to the selection of gender as a sub-theme in 1988. Thus, it was
not only opportune but very appropriate to use the Symposium participants as the
sampling base for this survey.









SECTION THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 The Questionnaire

A short questionnaire of 21 questions was designed by the three principal investigators
of the study. (See Appendix A for a copy of the Gender Issues Survey Questionnaire.)
The four-page questionnaire included mostly short answer questions covering the
following areas:

(A) Descriptive information about the projects responding, including location and
duration of project, institutional/agency affiliation, funding source, personnel,
linkages, objectives, components, and target groups.

(B) Gender analysis conducted' in the project (was it done, when, by whom, at what
stage in the project if not done initially, methods used, evaluation of impact on
FSR/E stages/functions).

(C) Source of the initiative to Iinclude gender issues (team member, donor, national
government, target group member).

(D) Disaggregation by gender of the socioeconomic data collected by the project (yes
or no).

(E) Training of project team members in WID or gender issues and analysis (formal
and informal).

(F) The extent of women's inclusion in project activities (surveys, on-farm trials,
evaluation activities).

(G) Identification (name, discipline, sex) of the persons) responsible for incorporation
of gender into the project.

In addition to the short answer question, the questionnaire included four open-ended
questions on the last page on two topics: (1) obstacles to the inclusion of gender issues
and the active participation of women in projects and the strategies used to overcome
them, and (2) the benefits (anticipated or not) that have resulted for the project from
an awareness of gender issues and the active participation of women. An additional,
optional open-ended final question asked respondents for any further comments.

3.2 The Sample

The questionnaire was sent to, the lead author of every abstract submitted for
consideration by the organizers of the 1988 Symposium. Although some of the abstracts







were later rejected for presentation by the symposium committees, we used the larger
group of names in order to have the widest possible set of responses. A total of 214
questionnaires were mailed out in the third week of August with a cover letter explaining
the purpose of the study.

Four questionnaires were returned as unable to be delivered, reducing the sample to 210
individuals. A total of 48 people mailed back completed questionnaires. An additional
11 individuals sent letters of response but did not complete questionnaires. Thus, 28%
of all individuals contacted made some response and 23% completed questionnaires.

Examination of all questionnaires revealed three sets of two questionnaires referred to
the same projects but were completed by different individuals. One set was a near
duplicate, with responses on both questionnaires matching the other word-for-word except
for the last four questions. The other two sets had similar responses for the factual
questions (i.e. location of project, funding source, etc.), but differed on the opinion
questions. These three sets of two questionnaires were analyzed together for factual
responses and separately for opinion responses. In total, then, the questionnaires referred
to 45 different projects or programs.

3.3 Methods of Analysis

Questionnaires were numbered from 1 to 48 in the order in which they were received
beginning in September 1988. Preliminary analysis was conducted on the first 35
questionnaires received before the Farming Systems Conference in October. These
results were incorporated into the keynote address on the gender sub-theme to the
conference (Poats, 1988). Additional questionnaires were received at the conference, and
several more were mailed in afterwards. Final analysis of all questionnaires began after
December 1, when no questionnaires had been received for approximately two weeks.

Responses to short answer questions were totaled and percentages calculated for different
types of answers. The descriptive questions were used to group projects by location, type
of project, and make-up of project teams (both by discipline and by the presence of
women professionals). The responses of different groups of projects on the questions on
gender analysis and training were then compared.

Content analysis was used on the open-ended questions to determine common themes
within responses. These themes were then related to descriptive project groupings or to
answers on the gender analysis/training questions.

The small size of the total sample and sub-samples received precluded more powerful
methods of statistical analysis of results. However, the recurrence of similar statements
over and over and the presence of similar patterns of responses is highly suggestive of
the dominant patterns and problems currently experienced in the integration of gender
issues in FSR/E activities.








SECTION FOUR

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Non-Questionnaire Responses

Eleven respondents sent in letters but did not complete the gender issues survey
questionnaire. Most the letters explained why they could not complete the questionnaire.
Eight individuals stated that the work they were doing is not tied to a development
project and the questionnaire was inappropriate. Five of these respondents stated that
gender was not a relevant issue in their work. One of these individuals, who is
conducting research on cereal crops in the West African Semi-Arid Tropics, said that he
"does not consider gender issues in the least bit." This raises some concern for the
results of his research given women's roles in production for many cereal crops in that
region.

The other three respondents stated that their paper for the Farming Systems Symposium
was a survey of multiple projects. They reported on the status of gender issues in their
survey. A communications expert commented that the "methodological problems in
dealing with such issues on a short-term contract basis are probably worth a whole
symposium, not to mention related obstacles presented by the short-term approach to
development."

An irrigation specialist noted that while FSR/E and on-farm water management share
much of the same methodology and philosophy, the latter is still firmly grounded in the
physical sciences, particularly engineering, and is "still very much male gender bound."
He went on further to say:

"It is a man's world. Farm families, women, children are rarely if ever
referents in this program, let alone intra-household matters...there is yet a
long way to go before the subject of on-farm water management will trickle
down to any real concerns for gender or intra-household issues."

As a final example from those who responded but did not complete the questionnaire,
a letter came from an extension specialist working with a survey of 140 programs in the
Cooperative Extension System of the United States that are using an integrated systems
approach to improve the profitability and competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. She found
only limited integration of the household as a component of the farm/ranch system and
very few social scientists other than agricultural economists. She wrote:

"None has purposefully included gender issues either in diagnosis or
implementation. Household issues and family economics is generally left to the
home economics staff while the agricultural staff do the farm/business production
and financial management work. Change is coming though. The next 4-year
program cycle is expected to bring integration across program areas and attention
to gender issues in program development."








4.2 Analysis of Descriptive Parameters

Questions 1 through 10 of the survey instrument were designed to elicit basic descriptive
information about the projects responding, including project location, duration,
institutional/agency affiliation, funding source, personnel, linkages, objectives, components,
and target groups. Tabulation of the answers to these questions revealed several
groupings among the projects.

4.2.1 Project Location

Questionnaires were received from projects operating in 26 single countries and from
five projects operating in more than one country. Two of the multi-country projects were
evaluations of other projects; one project was a multi-country coordinated project; one
had different sub-sectors in five countries; and the final project produced training
materials to be used by farming systems projects world-wide.

Questionnaires were grouped into six geographic regions by location. These regions
were: the United States; Europe; the Caribbean, Central, and South America; Africa;
Asia; and Worldwide. Three of the multi-country projects were assigned to the
appropriate geographic region, and the remaining two received the "worldwide"
designation. (See Appendix B for a complete list of projects by country and region.)
Table 1 shows the number of projects, number of questionnaires, and the percentage of
responses received by region.

Table 1. Number of Projects By Geographic Region:


Geographic Number of Number of Percentage of
Region Projects Responses Responses


U.S.A. 5 5 10.5%
Europe 1 1 2.0%
Carib/CA/SA 5 1 10.5%
Africa 13 15 31.0%
Asia 19 20 42.0%
Worldwide 2 2 4.0%

Total 45 48 100.0%


( ^








4.2.2 Institutional/Agency Affiliation of Projects

Twenty-one projects listed only one institutional/agency affiliation and 24 listed multiple
affiliations including both projects' designated as "worldwide" projects. (See Appendix B
for a complete listing of affiliations by project.)

Projects reported the following types of institutional/agency affiliations:

Type of Affiliation: Number of Projects:

U.S. Universities/University Consortiums 15
U.S. Private Development Institutes 3
U.S. Private Foundations 7
U.S.A.I.D. 3
International Agricultural Research Centers 4
Host Country Agricultural Ministry/Institute 19
Host Country University or College 8
Host Country Private Foundation 1
Host Country Rural Organization 2

Total Affiliations 62


4.2.3 Funding Sources of Project

Twenty-four projects listed a single source of funding and 21 projects listed multiple
sources of funding, including both projects designated as "worldwide" projects. (See
Appendix B for a complete listing of funding sources by project.)

Respondents reported the following funding sources for projects:

Funding Source: Number of Projects:

U.S.A.I.D. 17
World Bank 3
I.D.R.C. 2
Brit. Govt. 1
Private Foundations 8
Host Country Government 10
U. S. University 6
Host Country University 1
International Agricultural Research Institute 6
Other Private (For Profit) 1

Total Funding Sources 55







4.2.4 Duration of Project


Project duration was reported for 44 out of 45 projects. Seven projects were already
completed at the time the questionnaire was filled out and 37 were still on-going.

The mean length of all projects (completed & on-going to date) was 4 yrs, 3 months,
with a range of 2 months to 20 years. The median was 36 months, and the mode was
24 months. Completed projects had a mean length of 4 yrs, 4 months, with a range of
2 months to 12 years, and a median of 43 months. On-going projects had a mean length
(to date) of 4 years, 2 months, with a range of 5 months to 20 years, a median of 36
months, and a mode of 24 months.

Thirteen of the 37 on-going projects were open-ended with no estimated date of
completion listed. Twenty-four of the 37 on-going projects listed ending dates.
Percentage of project time completed was calculated for these 24 "finite" on-going
projects, with the following results: the mean percentage of project time completed was
60%, with a range of 8% to 95%, a median of 60%, and a mode of 50%. Eighteen of
the 24 projects were over 50% completed. Table 2 shows project duration by geographic
region. (See Appendix B for complete list of project durations.)

Table 2. Project Duration by Geographic Region:

Completed On-Going Mean Length
Projects Projects (Range in Months)


U.S.A. (5) 3 2 35 months (9-60)
Europe (1) 0 1 7 years
Carib/CA/SA (5) 1 4 67 months (27-132)
Africa 1 12 39 months (5-84)
Asia 3 16 55 months (2-240)



4.2.5 Project Objectives

Reported project objectives crystallized around the following eight themes:

(A) "Pure Research": projects whose primary goals were to do research and
development of agricultural technology (including crops, animals, tools, inputs,
etc.) These projects did not emphasize testing this technology in on-farm trials or
disseminating results to farmers.

(B) "Institution Building": projects whose primary goals were to develop or strengthen
the capacity of institutions i.e. national ministries of agriculture to do FSR/E.
These projects only secondarily were concerned with doing FSR/E in the field.









(C) "FSR/E": projects whose primary goals were to do research and develop
agricultural technology using on-farm as well as on-station trials and were actively
involved in disseminating the technology to farmers. These projects emphasized
an iterative and interactive research, testing, and dissemination method and
employed a broad "farming system" focus.

(D) "Other Applied Research": projects whose primary goals were to do research and
develop agricultural technology for a specific purpose or intervention and
disseminate the results to a target group (not always farmers). These projects had
a narrow, specialized focus rather than the entire farming system and/or did not
emphasize iterative or interactive methods.

(E) "Integrated Rural Development": projects whose primary goals included
community organization arid development as well as agriculture.

(F) "EcoSystem Management": projects whose primary goals included an emphasis on
ecosystems or natural resource management as well as agriculture.

(G) "Women's/Gender Projects": projects whose primary goals emphasized either
women as target groups or WID as a major focus. These projects are not
primarily involved in developing or testing new technologies.

(H) "Evaluations": projects whose primary goal was to evaluate the performance of
other (FSR/E) projects. These projects were not engaged directly in developing,
testing, or disseminating new technologies.

The 45 projects were then combined into three groups according to major themes.
These three groups were: FSR/E /Projects (21 projects); FSR/E plus Other Elements (12
projects); and non-FSR/E Projects (12 projects).

4.2.6 Target Groups

A total of 74 target groups were specified in response to question 10. Twenty-two
respondents identified multiple target groups, while 25 respondents identified a single
target group. One questionnaire was blank on question 10.

Content analysis of the answers to question 10 (target group) revealed four major
divisions amongst the responses. The vast majority (42) of responses--categories A,C, and
D combined--mentioned rural peoples. These four divisions were:

(A) "Farmers" or "Farm Families/Households" : the largest group (47 responses)
mentioned farmers or farm families. This group can be further subdivided by size
of farm, access to resources, or gender of farmer:

(1) Unspecified: 14 responses mention "farmers" without specifying size, access
to resources, or gender.








(2) Small: 17 responses specify "small farmers" or "smallholders."

(3) Low Resource: 8 responses specify "resource poor farmers," "subsistence
farmers," or "marginal farmers."

(4) Women/Whole Household: 3 responses specify women, farm families, or the
whole household.

(B) "Agricultural researchers, scientists, extension workers, planners, or administrators"
(Agricultural Professionals): 15 responses mentioned professionals in the
agricultural community as their target group.

(C) "Communities" or "Rural Organizations": 3 responses mentioned whole communities
or rural organizations.

(D) "Subsistence Workers": 2 responses mentioned some other form of subsistence
workers (e.g fishermen, forest occupiers).

Table 3 shows target groups by type of project.

Table 3. Target Group by Type of Project:


Type of Agricultural Rural Subsist.
Project Farmers Researchers Commun. Workers


FSR/E 20 4 --

FSR/E+ 12 2 1 1

Non-
FSR/E 5 9 2 1


Projects designated FSR/E and FSR/E plus Other Elements targeted farmers more than
non-FSR/E projects, which targeted agricultural professionals more than farmers.

4.2.7 Project Components

This question was somewhat ambiguous because the meaning of the term "components"
was not defined. Some responses were very specific, others very broad and generalized.
Respondents defined "components" several different ways, including project sections,
stages, activities, objectives or goals, or products. Sections referred to structural elements
of projects, including topical foci, such as agronomy, fruit crops, entomology, etc. or
administrative units, such as planning, extension, evaluation, etc. Stages included some








chronological ordering, such as initial site description, testing of technology, transfer of
technology, or some variation thereof. Activities included responses which lacked either
a topical focus or chronological sequence, such as community organization, nutrition
management, workshops, etc. Objectives or goals included statements such as
"development of technologies directed at small farmers." Finally, products included
specific outputs, such as videotapes, training manuals, books, etc.

Table 4 shows the number of projects and percentage of total projects reporting different
types of project components. Table 5 shows project components by major project
objectives.

Table 4. Project Components:


Types of Number of Percentage of
Projects Projects Total Projects
I

Sections 14 31%
Stages 11 24%
Activities 10 22%
Objectives 5 11%
Products 2 4%
No Response 3 7%

Total 45 100%



Table 5. Project Components by Project Type:


Sections Stages Activities Goals Products Blank
(n= 14) (n-10) (n= 10) (n=5) (n=2) (n=3)


FSR/E 10 6 4 1 0
(n=21)

FSR/E+ 4 3 3 1
(n-12)

Non-FSR/E -- 1 3 3 2 3

Total 14 10 10 5 2 3








All of the projects designated as being related to FSR/E were described in terms of
sections, stages, or activities, except for one FSR/E project whose components were
described in terms of objectives or goals. This corresponds to our concept of FSR/E as
a multidisciplinary (therefore multiple sections or activities) and iterative (therefore
chronologically ordered stages) approach to agricultural development.

4.2.8 Typology of Projects

The analysis of responses to questions 1 (Project Title), 8 (Project Objectives), 10 (Target
Groups), and 9 (Components) supports the tripartite grouping of projects into FSR/E
projects, FSR/E plus Other Elements, and Non-FSR/E projects initially proposed in
Section 4.1.5, Project Objectives. Grouping by type of project will be used subsequently
to examine patterns of responses to questions about gender analysis, data disaggregation,
gender issues training, and obstacles, strategies, and benefits of incorporating gender
issues and women into agricultural development projects.

4.2.9 Project Linkages

Question 7 asked respondents to describe project linkages between (a) the host country
government; (b) non-governmental organizations in the host country; and (c) private
voluntary organizations. (See Appendix B for a complete list of project linkages.)
Thirty-eight projects reported linkages with the host country government. Twenty projects
reported linkages with non-governmental organizations, and 16 projects reported linkages
with private voluntary organizations. Five projects reported no linkages. Two projects
reported linkages with non-governmental organizations only.

Of the 38 projects reporting linkages with host country governments, 17 reported linkages
only with host country governments, five reported linkages with host country governments
and non-governmental organizations; three projects reported linkages with host country
governments and private voluntary organizations; and 13 projects reported linkages with
all three.

All of the 21 FSR/E and the 12 FSR/E Plus Other Elements projects reported linkages
with host country governments. Seventeen of these 33 FSR/E-related projects reported
linkages with the host country government only; seven reported also having linkages with
non-governmental organizations, and three reported also having linkages with private
voluntary organizations only. Ten FSR/E-related projects reported having linkages with
all three. These strong linkages between FSR/E related projects and host country
governments reflect efforts to incorporate host country counterparts into the FSR/E
approach to development and to train them in FSR/E methodologies.

4.2.10 Project Personnel

Respondents were asked to list the project's professional personnel in Question 6, giving
title/role, discipline, and sex of each project member. Title/Role did not prove relevant
because it was too project specific. Listing of personnel discipline and sex were more
significant, and yielded information about the size of project teams, range and mixtures








of disciplines represented, and presence or absence of women on projects as professional
personnel. Information on the range or mixture of disciplines and on the presence or
absence of women was also derived from answers given to Question 16 (the person
most involved with the incorporation of gender into the project), as well as the answers
to questions on gender analysis, gender training, and obstacles, strategies, and benefits
to incorporating gender issues and women into projects.

Forty-one respondents listed project personnel for Question 6. The mean number of
personnel per project was 6, with a range of 1 to 58, a median of 4, and a mode of 3.
Thirty-nine respondents also listed disciplines of project personnel. The mean number
of disciplines represented was 4, with a range of 1 to 10, a median of 3, and a mode of
3. Forty-nine different disciplines were listed for all projects that answered this question.
(A complete list of disciplines is available in Appendix C.)

Thirty-seven of the 41 questionnaires listing personnel had a mixture of disciplines, while
only four listed only a single discipline. Two each projects with only one team member
accounted for half of the single discipline teams.

Twenty-five of the 43 projects that gave information about gender of personnel had a
woman team member, while 18 projects had all-male teams.

Twenty-two projects had multi-disciplinary teams and both men and women. Seventeen
projects had a mixture of disciplines but not sexes. No project reported single disciplines
and both men and women. Four projects had single disciplines and same-sex teams.

Thirty-four projects had a social scientist on the project team, including agricultural
economists and other types of economists. Twenty-four projects reported having an
agricultural economist, and nine 'f these projects reported having both an agricultural
economist and another type of social scientist, while 15 projects reported having an
agricultural economist alone. Ten projects reported having some other type of social
scientist. The final ten projects reported having no social scientists on their teams. (See
Appendix C for a listing of gender and discipline of personnel by project.)

Nineteen of the 34 projects with social scientists also had women on the teams. Six of
the nine projects with both an agricultural economist and another social scientist had
women team members. Six of the 15 projects with an agricultural economist alone had
women on their teams. Seven of the ten projects with another type of social scientist
had women on the team. Five of the ten projects without social scientists had women
on the team. Table 6 shows the presence of social scientists and/or women on project
teams by project type.

Differences in project personnel will be used to examine patterns of responses to
questions about gender analysis, data disaggregation, gender issues training, and obstacles,
strategies, and benefits of incorporating gender issues and women into agricultural
development projects. Projects will be compared in terms of the presence or absence
of social scientists (including agricultural economists) and the presence or absence of
women on their teams.








Table 6. Project Personnel by Project Type


Project Ag. Econ. Ag. Econ. Soc. Sci. No. Women No.
Type + Soc.Sci. Only Only Soc.Sci. On Team Women
(n=9) (n=15) (n=10) (n=10) (n=25) (n=19)*


FSR/E 5 8 3 4 10 10
(n=20)*

FSR/E+ 3 4 3 2 8 4
(n =12)

Non-FSR/E 1 3 4 4 7 5
(n =12)


*[Two projects did not list personnel or give gender of team members.]








4.2.11 Summary of Descriptive Parameters


Analysis of responses to questions 1 through 10 indicated several major groupings of
projects, including project location (geographic region), type of project, and project
personnel (presence or absence of social scientists and women on project teams). These
major groupings will be used in the next section to examine patterns of responses to
questions about gender analysis and training in the next section.

4.3 Gender Analysis and Training Results

Questions 11 through 16 of the survey instrument were designed to elicit information
about the project's use of gender analysis, the incorporation of the results of gender
analysis into the project's stages, and whether project personnel had received any training
in gender issues. Questions 11,| 12, 13, and 16 asked for specific information about
analysis, training, and responsibility for gender issues. Questions 14 and 15 sought
information about the impact of gender analysis and training by asking about data
disaggregation by gender and the inclusion of women as project participants.

4.3.1 Gender Analysis

4.3.1.1 Was a gender analysis done? When?

Thirty-five projects reported doing some kind of gender analysis. Twenty-one projects
included gender issues in the initial diagnostic phase, and 14 projects did a gender
analysis at a later stage of the project. Ten projects did not do any gender analysis.
(See Appendix C for a complete list of which projects did gender analysis.) Table 7
shows which projects performed early or late gender analysis by geographic region.








Table 7. Performance of Gender Analysis By Geographic Region:


Region: Early Analysis Late Analysis No Analysis
(n=21) (n=14) (n=10)


U.S.A. 0 0 5
(n=5)

Europe 0 0 1
(n= 1)

Carib/CA/SA 3 1 1
(n=5)

Africa 8 4 1
(n= 13)

Asia 9 9 1
(n= 19)

Worldwide 1 0 1
(n=2)


None of the U.S. projects did a gender analysis, though one project included some
women as cooperators on on-farm trials. While the total number of U.S. projects is very
small, the lack of inclusion of gender analysis in U.S.-based on-farm research seems to
point to an area of possible resistance to the inclusion of gender as a variable in FSR/E.
In contrast, only three projects in the Caribbean, Central America, South America,
Africa, and Asia combined did not do a gender analysis. Gender analysis is much more
successfully integrated into projects in developing countries than it is in the United States.

Table 8 shows which projects performed early or late analysis by type of project.








Table 8. Performance of Gender Analysis by Type of Project


Project Type: Early Analysis Late Analysis No Analysis
(n=21) (n=14) (n=10)


FSR/E 10 10 1
(n=21)

FSR/E+ 8 3 1
(n= 12)

Non-FSR/E 3 1 8
(n= 12) 1


Thirty-one FSR/E-related projects
and only two FSR-related projects
early analysis, and eleven projects
thirds of all non-FSR projects, did


did a gender analysis at some time during the project
did not do a gender analysis. Twenty projects did an
did a late analysis. Eight non-FSR projects, or two-
not do a gender analysis; three did an early analysis


and one did a late analysis.

The one FSR/E project that did not do a gender analysis was one of the oldest projects
in the survey and began in 1976.' The respondent made the following comment on the
questionnaire:

'The importance of gender issues were not perceived by those who planned and
initiated the project. When this was realized, it was too late to make changes."

Thus, although the project team did appreciate the importance of gender analysis, they
believed it was too late to do it.

The one FSR/E plus Other Elements project that did not do a gender analysis focused
on institutionalizing FSR/E as well as on doing on-farm research. The respondent
commented, "No effort has been made by any team member to include women in our
work, even though some of us recognize it is important."

Both of these projects had all-male teams, and the first one cited also lacked any social
scientists. The importance of the gender of project personnel and the presence of social
scientists is made clear when the four non-FSR/E projects that did a gender analysis
are examined.

The four non-FSR/E projects that did do a gender analysis share several features in
common. All four either include women as target groups or emphasize gender. Three
projects have social scientists, all of whom are women. The fourth project has an all-








male team without a social scientist but is focused on women as users of fuel wood and
appropriate technology (woodstoves).

Table 9 shows which projects did an early or late analysis by the presence or absence
of women and social scientists.

Table 9. Performance of Gender Analysis and Project Personnel


Personnel Early Analysis Late Analysis No Analysis


Women on Team 14 8 3
(n= 25)

No Women on Team 7 6 6
(n= 19)

Ag. Econ. &
Other Soc. Sci. 3 5 1
(n = 9)

Ag. Econ.Only 7 6 2
(n=15)

Other Soc.Sci. 4 3 3
(n= 10)

No Soc.Sci. 5 0 4
(n=9)*


*[One project did not answer this question.]

Twenty-two of the 35 projects that did a gender analysis had women on the teams; and
28 projects that did a gender analysis had a social scientist on the project team. This
suggests a strong relationship between the presence of either a woman or a social
scientist on the project team and the performance of gender analysis.









4.3.1.2 Who Did the Gender Analysis?


The 35 projects that did a gender analysis were divided into those that did an early
analysis (21 projects) and those that did a late analysis (14 projects). Two of the 21
early analysis projects and five of the 14 late analysis projects did not answer question
11B, who did the gender analysis? Content analysis of the remaining 28 responses
revealed the following patterns:
Early Analysis Late Analysis
(n=19) (n=9)
Analysis Performed By:

Whole Team 8 1
Specialized Part of Team 2 2
Single Member of Team 4 3
Team Member & Outside Help 4 0
Outside Consultant 3 3

Further analysis of the 10 projects in which only a part of the team performed the
analysis reveals that in eight cases, social scientists performed the gender analysis. In the
10 projects in which a part of the team and outside consultants, or outside consultants
alone, performed the analysis, social scientists also performed the analysis in nine cases.
Gender analysis was the responsibility of social scientists in 20 out of 29 projects which
answered question 11B. Seven projects reporting that the whole team did the gender
analysis had social scientists on the team. This supports the relationship between the
presence of social scientists and projects' performance of gender analysis suggested above.

4.3.1.3 Gender Analysis Methods

Question 11C elicited a wide variety of responses. Fourteen projects reported multiple
methods, 14 projects reported single methods, and eight projects did not answer or did
not know what methods had been used to do the gender analysis. Projects reported
the use of qualitative and quantitative methods, alone and in combination. The most
common responses included literature reviews, formal surveys using questionnaires,
informal surveys, informal interviews, group discussions with farmers, case studies,
participant observation, time allocation studies, rapid rural appraisals, and labor and
production surveys. The most 'popular method used was surveys, both formal and
informal. Some projects used case studies while others reported a growing use of group
discussions to analyze data and discuss the implications of the data for the project.
These findings on the popularity of qualitative methods appear to indicate that projects
that are deeply committed to gender analysis are moving away from the "tyranny of
randomization" and are focusing on more purposive diagnostic and on-farm techniques.

Four of the 21 early analysis projects did not answer Question 11C. The remaining 18
projects listed a total of 40 different responses to Question 11C. Five respondents cited
a literature review; 17 respondents cited assorted qualitative methods, eight respondents
24








cited a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, two cited quantitative
methods alone, and seven respondents cited some general type of analysis, such as a
"rapid rural appraisal."

Four of the 14 late analysis projects did not answer question 11C. The remaining ten
projects listed a total of 20 responses. Eight respondents cited assorted qualitative
methods, nine respondents cited a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods,
and three respondents cited some general type of analysis.

4.3.1.4 Timing of the Gender Analysis

Twenty-two projects reported that the analysis was done at the beginning of the project.
The beginning dates of these projects ranged from 1968 to 1988. Eighteen projects
began and did their gender analysis between 1982 and 1988.

Fourteen projects reported that the analysis was done after the project began. The
beginning dates of these projects range from 1977 to 1986. Gender analysis was done
anywhere from seven years after the project began to several months. All 14 of the
projects did their gender analysis between 1982 and 1988.

Thus, the majority of both the early analysis and the late analysis projects did gender
analysis during the same chronological period. This reflects the recent emphasis that has
been placed on women and gender issues in development, and the growing awareness
that doing gender analysis can impact development projects positively. However, although
the vast majority of projects did gender analysis during the same chronological period,
the early analysis projects group did analysis at the beginning stages, while the late
analysis group did not analyze gender issues until after the project had already been
underway, in some cases, for several years. This may be why the early analysis projects
reported that the analysis was done by the whole group much more often than the late
analysis projects, who were more likely to rely on outside consultants to assist with or
to do the gender analysis for them.

4.3.1.5 Effects of the Gender Analysis on Project Stages

Respondents were asked to describe the effects of the gender analysis on the diagnosis,
design of experiments, conducting of on-farm trials, analysis of trial results, evaluation of
technology, and dissemination of results for their projects. Many respondents did not
answer this question fully because their projects were not yet finished and had not yet
reached the final stages of analysis, evaluation, or dissemination of results.

Fifteen projects that did a gender analysis did not answer this question completely.
Another six respondents did not answer the question at all. Ten respondents gave a
single answer to describe the comprehensive effects of the gender analysis. Only five
projects answered the question completely. The failure of more respondents to answer
this question completely or at all may indicate that the question was inappropriately
phrased. A more disturbing interpretation may be that gender analysis is not being








integrated into all stages or sections of projects, but is primarily confined to the diagnosis
stage and to socioeconomic analysis/social science sections of projects.

Ten of the early analysis projects and five of the late analysis projects did not complete
Question 11E on the effects of the gender analysis on project stages. Ten projects did
not answer because they had not yet reached particular stages, while the other five were
incomplete for other reasons.

Three of the early analysis projects and three of the late analysis projects did not answer
the question at all. Six of the early analysis projects and four of the late analysis
projects gave a single answer to the entire question. Only three of the early analysis
projects and two of the late analysis projects answered the question completely.

Closer examination of the ten incomplete responses from not-yet finished projects
indicates that all six of the early analysis projects used information from the gender
analysis in the diagnosis stage. Findings from the gender analysis led to changes in the
designation of target groups to include more women farmers or female headed
households. Gender analysis also revealed a difference between male and female roles
in the farming system. Three unfinished early analysis projects reported that the gender
analysis had caused modifications in the design of experiments and in conducting on-
farm trials. Projects had made efforts to select women collaborators or include women
as well as men in the trials. Noie of the unfinished early analysis projects had reached
analysis of results, evaluation of technology, or dissemination of results stages. One
project reported using women volunteers to test and evaluate prototypes of new
equipment.

Three of the four unfinished late analysis projects used gender analysis in the diagnosis
stage. Two of these three projects, however, referred to the diagnosis and addition of
a new objective or component specifically targeted to women as farmers or users of
technology rather than to the diagnosis stage of the entire project. Three projects
designed new experiments for women, and two recruited women collaborators. Three
late analysis projects had not yet reached the analysis,' evaluation, or dissemination stages.
One project was still conducting trials and doing analysis, but had already begun
evaluating technology and disseminating technology to women. This project had
developed a wide range of methods for disseminating results to women, including
involving women in radio dramas and stage plays, as well as in specialized task forces.

The other four incomplete responses of early analysis projects were more diversified than
the responses of the six unfinished early analysis projects. Three projects said that
gender analysis had not affected the formal diagnosis, design of experiment phases, or
conduct of on-farm trials. In one of these projects, women were the only targets of the
new technology (more energy efficient stoves and new fuels), and the project did not use
a classic FSR/E methodology. In another project, gender analysis was not done formally
as part of diagnosis or design-of experiments, but women were included as on-farm
collaborators, evaluators, and incorporated into analysis of results and extension efforts.








The fourth project, an Integrated Pest Management project using a farming systems
research and extension methodology, targeted women as the purchasers of all farm inputs,
including pesticides, that their farmer husbands used. Education and intervention
directed solely at the farmer husbands proved ineffective, but when the farmer's wives
were targeted for education and training, the amount of pesticides purchased and used
declined significantly.

Three projects also reported effects on the evaluation of technology, including having
women's groups as evaluators, and considered the effects of women's post-harvest
participation (i.e., food processing, food preparation, storage, and seed selection) on
proposed varieties. Three projects also reported effects on dissemination activities,
primarily by making an effort to include women at meetings or directing extension
officers to work with women.

Examination of the responses of the ten projects that gave single answers to question 11E
showed that three early analysis projects and two late analysis projects reported no effects
and no changes implemented. Three early analysis projects and two late analysis projects
reported some improvement in awareness or sensitivity towards women's roles in the
farming system or an increase in women's level of participation in the project.

All three early analysis projects that answered the question completely reported modifying
the project in terms of target groups, design of trials, conducting trials, evaluation, and
dissemination to include more women or to vary the project's stages according to the
different roles of men and women in the farming system. This included targeting
women's traditional crops for experimentation, as well as including women as
collaborators on research on new varieties or treatments. The two late analysis projects
that completed Question 11E differed from those reported for early analysis projects.
One project reported little change in the agricultural component of the broadly targeted
rural development project. Special projects for women had been created and were
successful, but women had not been incorporated into the farming systems research and
extension activities of the project. The other project, exclusively agricultural in focus,
reported a modification of target groups to include female headed as well as male
headed households, and subsequent modification of experiment design, on-farm trials,
analysis, evaluation, and dissemination to accommodate the differences between female
and male headed farm households, which differed in terms of access to labor, resources,
and extension help.

4.3.1.6 Summary: Gender Analysis

The impact of gender analysis varied, but the majority of respondents reported changes
in the project as a result of the gender analysis. Projects that did gender analysis, early
or late, reported using the findings to modify target groups, design of experiments,
conducting of on-farm trials, and evaluation of technology. Whether a project did a
gender analysis at the beginning or after the project had been underway did not affect
the impact the gender analysis had on the project. Doing a gender analysis made a
difference in the project no matter when the analysis was done.








Including a gender focus--using a "gender lens"--helped the project team identify with
whom to work, the target population for the research, and who controlled technology in
order to allocate research resources appropriately. Modification of target groups and
design of experiments was the most common effect cited; either to include women as
targets for the new technology or to expand the project to experiment with women's
traditional farming activities. Evaluation of technology was modified to either specifically
include women as evaluators or to include criteria based on women's pre- and post-
harvest activities in the evaluation. These effects can be described as "fine tuning" the
project to revealed gender differences in farming systems, "expanding the farming system"
to include activities away from farmers' fields, or "expanding the definition" of the
"farmer" to include women as well as men, female headed as well as male headed farm
households, or the entire farm family. Lesser impacts, or effects, were reported for
analysis of results or dissemination of technology. Many projects had not yet reached
these stages, or were already disaggregating the results of their analysis by gender, or
were unaware of the need to disaggregate their results.

Specific effects created by using a gender focus included:

(A) increased sensitivity to women's contribution to production;

(B) changing group meeting participants from all men to men, women, and children;

(C) moving some of the on-farm research sites to fields owned by female headed
households;

(D) adding new research areas, such as a focus on home gardens or indigenous
vegetables;

(E) raising subtle issues of access and control of resources as key variables in
technology adoption or rejection.

4.3.2 Source of Initiative to Include Gender Issues.

Question 12 asked respondents for the source of the initiative to include gender issues
into the project. Respondents were asked to circle one of six choices (team member,
funding agency, institutional/agency affiliation, host country government, host country non-
governmental organization, or target group member), or list any other source of the
initiative.

Twenty early gender analysis projects responded to this question. Four early analysis
projects listed multiple sources, while 16 listed single sources. All 14 late analysis
projects responded to this question. Four late analysis projects listed multiple sources,
while ten listed single sources. Table 10 shows the source of initiative for projects doing
late or early gender analysis.









Table 10. Source of the Initiative for Gender Issues


Source of Early Analysis Late Analysis
Initiative Projects Projects


Team Member(s) 13 10
Funding Agency 6 4
Host Country Govt. 2
Inst./Agency Affil. 1 1
Target Group Member 1
Host Country NGO 1
Outside Consultant 1


The most common source of the initiative to include gender issues in the project, for
both early and late analysis projects, was a team member, cited by 23 projects. Ten
projects cited the project funding agency as the source of the initiative to include gender
issues. We can speculate that the development of a gender focus comes only through the
long-term efforts of a team member in constant contact with his or her colleagues. We
can also see the effectiveness of donor insistence.

Fifteen of these 23 projects which reported "team member" as source of the initiative had
a woman on the project team. Twenty projects had a social scientist on the project.
Twenty-two projects had either a woman or social scientist on the team; while 13 projects
had both a woman and a social scientist on the team. This confirms the results of
Question 11B that initiating or doing gender analysis is related to the presence of women
and/or social scientists on the project team.

4.3.3 Gender Issues Training

4.3.3.1 Projects Receiving Training

Seventeen of 45 projects received some sort of gender issues training. Eleven projects
received some type of formal training, while six projects reported having some type of
informal training. Twenty-three projects received no training in gender issues. Five
respondents either did not know whether the project team received training or considered
training inappropriate. Table 11 shows the projects receiving training by geographic
region.








Table 11. Gender Issues Training by Geographic


Formal Training Informal Training No Training Unknown/No Answer
(n= 11) (n=6) (n=23) (n=5)


U.S.A. 0 0 2 3
(n=5)

Europe 0 0 1 0
(n=1)

Carib/CA/SA 3 1 1 0
(n=5)

Africa 3 3 7 0
(n= 13)

Asia 4 2 11 2
(n= 19)

Worldwide 1 0 1 0
(n=2)


Both Africa and Asia have the highest number of projects receiving training, six each.
No projects in the United States' or in Europe reported receiving training. Table 12
shows the projects receiving training by type of project.

Table 12. Gender Issues Training by Type of Project


Formal Training Informal Training No Training Unknown/No Answer
(n= 11) (n=6) (n=23) (n=5)


FSR/E 6 3 10 2
(n=21)

FSR/E+ 3 2 7 --
(n= 12)

Non-FSR/E 2 1 6 3
(n= 12)


Region of Project









Fourteen FSR-related projects and three non-FSR projects reported receiving some sort
of training in gender issues. Ten of the seventeen 17 projects receiving training had
women on the project team. Thirteen projects which received training had social
scientists on the project team.

4.3.3.2 Gender Issues Training Providers

Responses to this question were analyzed according to whether the training was formal
or informal. Table 13 shows the training provider by formal and informal training.

Table 13. Training Provider by Type of Training


Provider: Total Formal Informal


Project Leader 2 1 1
Staff Member 3 1 2
Prev. Staff Exp. 1 0 1
Staff Total 6 2 4

Outside Consultant 4 4 0
IARC Workshop 4 3 1
Nat'l. Ag. Res. Ctr. 1 1 0
Dev. Inst. 1 1 0
Outside Total 10 9 1

Non-specified 1 0 1


Gender issues training came from inside the project from staff (six projects) or from
outside the project (ten projects). Informal training came entirely from project staff.
Formal training came primarily from outside the project, but two projects also had on
a staff member provide formal training to other staff members.

4.3.3.3 Participation of Team Members in Training

Eight of the 17 projects receiving training reported that all team members participated
in training. Five of these projects received formal training and three projects received
informal training. Three projects reported that only one team member received formal
training. Five projects reported that "some" of the project staff received training. Three
of these received formal training, and two received informal training. One project did
not specify how many of the team members received training.








4.3.3.4 Timing of Training

Eight of the 17 projects receiving training reported that training took place at the
beginning of the project as preliminary staff training. This included six projects that
received formal training and two that received informal training. Two projects reported
that training took place during the diagnosis stage of the project. Four projects reported
that training took place when social scientists joined the project or when the project
began FSR/E activities. One project reported that training was received in the middle
of the project, and two projects did not specify when training was received.

4.3.3.5 Contents of Training

Several themes emerged from a content analysis of the responses to Question 13E.
Gender issues training included: women's role in agriculture or farming systems; gender
issues in analysis of development projects; women and development; methods to do
gender issues analysis and/or extension activities with women. Four projects reported
that training included material on women's role in agriculture/farming systems; five
projects reported that training included gender issues in analysis of development projects;
three projects reported that training included methods of doing gender issues analysis;
two projects reported that training included doing how to do extension activities with
women; and three projects did not specify what training covered.

It cannot be determined from the brief responses whether training on women in
agriculture/farming systems or gender issues in analysis of development projects also
included training on methods of doing gender analysis or techniques on how to
incorporate the findings of gender analysis into development projects. It is interesting,
however, that only five projects mention methods, either of analysis or extension.
Training may be effective in raising the issue of gender into conscious awareness of
project staff, but it remains to be seen whether this training has been as effective in
converting this "raised consciousness" into project action.

4.3.3.6 Usefulness of Training

Fourteen of the 17 projects receiving training rated its effectiveness from 1, not useful
at all, to 5, extremely useful. Training was rated useful to extremely useful by the
projects that received it. The mean was 3.9, with a range of 2 to 5. All 11 projects
receiving formal training rated its effectiveness. The mean was 3.8, with a range of 2
to 5. Only three projects receiving informal training rated its effectiveness. The mean
was 4.3, with a range of 3 to 5. The higher rating for informal training may reflect its
increased relevance to the project, since informal training was done primarily by a staff
member and could be tailored expressly to the needs of the project. Formal training
relied more on outside consultants and may have been less specific and thus somewhat
less applicable.








4.3.3.7 Significance of Training

Sixteen of the projects receiving training performed a gender analysis. The one project
that did not perform a gender analysis was not an agricultural development project but
a project to develop gender issues training materials for agricultural development projects.
This means that 100% of the development projects that received training performed a
gender analysis. Of these 16 projects, 11 performed an early analysis, and five performed
a late analysis. Twelve of the 16 projects modified their projects in some fashion to
accommodate the findings of the analysis and to increase women's access to and
participation in the project.

4.3.4 Effects of Gender Issues Analysis and Training

Questions 14 and 15 attempted to assess the effects of gender issues analysis and training
by asking for information about the disaggregation of data and the inclusion of women
as target groups for different activities.

4.3.4.1 Data Disaggregation

Twenty-one projects reported disaggregating socio-economic data by gender; 13 projects
reported not disaggregating data! by gender; and 11 respondents reported that they did
not know whether their project disaggregated data by gender or that disaggregation was
not appropriate to their project.

Nineteen projects that disaggregated socioeconomic data by gender also performed a
gender analysis. Nine of these 19 projects did an early gender analysis, and ten did a
late analysis. Two projects reported disaggregating their data but did not do a gender
analysis. Twelve early analysis and four late analysis projects did not disaggregate data.

Nine projects that disaggregated data performed gender analysis and had gender issues
training. Seven projects did a gender analysis and had gender issues training but did not
disaggregate socioeconomic data by gender.

The relationship between gender issues analysis and training and the disaggregation of
socioeconomic data by gender does not seem clearly established in the pattern of
responses to Questions 11, 13, and 14. Although few projects disaggregated data without
having done a gender analysis, many projects that did gender analysis and nearly half of
the projects that also had training did not disaggregate data by gender. The usefulness
of disaggregating data by gender for monitoring project activities does not seem to have
been understood by many projects.

4.3.4.2 Incorporation of Women

Question 15 asked projects to give: (A) the percentage of women respondents in
socioeconomic surveys; (B) the percentage of on-farm trials conducted with women
farmers; and (C) the percentage of farmers participating in evaluation activities that are
women. Thirteen projects did not answer this question at all. Thirteen other projects








answered this question incompletely. Nineteen projects answered this question
completely.

Only two of the 16 projects that did a gender analysis and had training in gender issues
left question 15 blank. Five answered it incompletely, and nine answered it completely.
Six of the 20 projects that did a gender analysis but did not have training left question
15 blank. Four answered it incompletely, and ten answered it completely. Four of the
eight projects that neither did a gender analysis nor had training left the question blank,
and four answered it incompletely.

Examination of the 13 projects that answered Question 15 incompletely shows that six
projects answered (A), six answered (B), and five answered (C). Responses to (A)
ranged from 8% to 100%. Responses to (B) ranged from 15% to 100%. Responses to
(C) ranged from 25% to 50%. Two projects responded that the answers varied by crop
or by country (one project was a multi-country evaluation).

Examination of the 19 projects that answered Question 15 completely shows a wide range
of answers. Responses to (A) ranged from 0% to 100%; ten projects reported a
percentage of women respondents of less that 40%; seven projects reported a percentage
of women respondents from 40% to 75%; and two projects reported a percentage of
women respondents over 75%. Responses to (B) ranged from 0% to 100%; 14 projects
reported less than 40% of on-farm trials were conducted with women farmers; four
reported 40% to 75% of on-farm trials are conducted with women farmers; and one
project reported over 75% of on-farm trials are conducted with women farmers.
Responses to (C) ranged from 0% to 90%; 13 projects reported that less than 40% of
the farmers participating in evaluation activities were women; five projects reported that
40% to 75% participants are women; and one project reported that over 75% of
participants are women.

The wide range of responses to Question 15 (both complete and incomplete) may be
related to differences in the farming systems, as well as differences in projects. The
ability to answer this question is related to having done a gender analysis and having
training but other factors also influence the participation of women in projects. The
pattern of responses to Question 15 indicates that more women are included in surveys
than in on-farm trials, and even fewer women are involved in evaluation of on-farm
research.

4.3.5 Responsibility for Gender Issues

Question 16 asked respondents who was most involved with the incorporation of gender
in to the project. Respondents were asked to give the person's name, discipline, and sex.

Thirty-three projects answered this question. Seven of these projects reported that more
than one individual was responsible, while 26 projects assigned responsibility to a single
individual. One project reported a team of social scientists were responsible, and one
project assigned responsibility to a team of biological scientists. Four projects assigned
responsibility to joint teams of social scientists and biological scientists. One project








assigned responsibility to a team composed of an agricultural economist and a social
scientist. Five of the seven joint teams were composed of men and women together.
Seventeen projects assigned responsibility to a womanI on the team. Six projects assigned
responsibility to an agricultural economist; 15 projects assigned responsibility to another
social scientist; and 12 projects assigned responsibility to a biological scientist.

Two of the six agricultural economists assigned responsibility for gender issues were
women. Ten of the other social scientists assigned responsibility for gender issues were
women. Four of the biological scientists assigned responsibility for gender issues were
women. Assignment of responsibility for gender issues thus appears to be associated
closely with the individual's discipline and sex; individuals responsible for gender issues
tend to be social scientists (including agricultural economists) and/or women, preferably
a female social scientist. This confirms the pattern observed in the responses to
Question 11B (Who did the gender analysis?) and Question 12 (Who was the source of
initiative to include gender on the project?) Gender issues seem to be perceived as
either a social scientist's or a woman's concern and responsibility.

4.4 Obstacles, Strategies and Benefits to Gender Analysis and
the Inclusion of Women

Questions 17, 18, 19, and 20 asked respondents to describe: obstacles to the inclusion of
gender issues and to the active participation of women encountered by the project,
strategies used to overcome these obstacles, and their effectiveness (Questions 17 and
18); and benefits (anticipated or not) to the project from an awareness of gender issues
and the active participation of women (Questions 19 and 20).

4.4.1 Obstacles to the Inclusion of Gender Issues and Women

Thirty-nine out of a total 48 respondents answered Question 17 about the obstacles to
the inclusion of gender issues. Thirty-eight answered Question 18 about obstacles to the
active participation of women. Eight projects that answered Question 18 responded
"same as above," or an equivalent response to Question 18, indicating that obstacles to
the active participation of women' were the same as obstacles to the inclusion of gender
issues.

Content analysis to responses to Questions 17 and 18 indicated that respondents were
confused about the differences between the inclusion of gender issues and the active
participation of women. The two questions were designed to ask about gender as a
social category or variable and about the actual participation of women in the project.
Question 18 was deliberately ambiguous and did not specify women as project personnel
or women as members of target groups. Respondents answered the question in terms
of both. The confusion over the meaning of "gender issues" resulted in some responses
to Question 17 being more appropriately considered responses to Question 18. However,
except as indicated by the respondent themselves (in two cases), answers were accepted
at face value for the questions asked.









4.4.1.1 Inclusion of Gender Issues


Seventeen of the 39 respondents that answered Question 17 reported single obstacles to
the inclusion of gender issues, while 13 respondents reported multiple obstacles to the
inclusion of gender issues. Six respondents reported no obstacles to the inclusion of
gender issues. Six individuals gave an inappropriate or irrelevant response to the
question.

Content analysis of the responses to Question 17 indicated several common themes.
These responses were broadly divided into obstacles that were internal to the project
itself or external to the project. Twenty-six projects reported internal obstacles and 12
projects reported external obstacles. Responses ranged from the very specific to the
global, as the following examples show.

Philippines:
"Lack of training and analysis."

Peru:
"The biggest obstacle has been the cultural supposition that men "run" the family
farm and make all the decisions."

Burundi:
"Reticence on part of extension agents to select women collaborators."

Thailand:
"Men staff are less interested. The project then uses female staff which is all right
except work is piling on them."

The following brief list presents a summary of the obstacles reported:
Number of Projects Reporting
Internal Obstacles
No Women n Project Team 5
Women on Team Overloaded 1
No Social Scientists on Team 1
Lack of Training/Awareness 7
Lack of Information 3
Resistance of Project Staff 5
Resistance of Nat'l. Counterparts 5
Funding Agency 1
Project Orientation 4

External Obstacles
Cultural Attitudes (Target Groups) 10
Few Women Producers 1
Political Conditions of Country 1








4.4.1.2 Gender Issues Strategies

Twenty-two of the 39 projects answering Question 17 reported strategies for overcoming
the obstacles mentioned. Ten projects cited single strategies, while 12 projects cited
multiple strategies. Five projects mentioning single obstacles mentioned no strategies for
overcoming them, while two projects mentioning multiple obstacles mentioned no
strategies. Strategies, like obstacles, ranged from the very specific to the global:

Philippines:
"Reevaluation of the existing data and case study presentation provided project
management and team members deeper insights in refocusing their field activities.
Very effective."

Peru:
"Our most effective strategy has been data collection and statistical analysis in
group sessions."

Burundi:
"We asked extension agents to look for widows and explained that we needed a
wide range of socio-economic levels for participants."

The following brief list presents a summary of the strategies reported:

Number of Projects Reporting
Strategies
Hired Women to Work on Project 7
Trained Staff 6
Informal Staff Consciousness Raising 2
Group Discussion of Data Analysis 5

Expanded/Modified Project Focus 2
Additional Research/Surveys 1
Req. Staff to Include Women (as Targets) 2
Modified Extension/Communication 2

Involved Project with Women's Groups 2
Added Special Projects for Women 2

As the list of strategies indicates, projects adopted three basic approaches: changing the
project staffs attitudes through training or by hiring women, changing project components
or procedures, or adding projects for women to the original project.








4.4.1.3 Active Participation of Women


Twenty-two of the 38 respondents that answered Question 18 reported single obstacles
to the active participation of women. Eight respondents reported multiple obstacles to
the active participation of women. Four respondents said there were no obstacles to the
active participation of women in the project. Four respondents gave irrelevant or
inappropriate answers or said that the question did not apply to the project.

Respondents reported similar obstacles for both the inclusion of gender issues and the
active participation of women in the projects. Respondents interpreted Question 18 in
two ways: obstacles to the active participation of women as project personnel and as
target group members. Content analysis of the responses to Question 18 revealed several
common themes. The responses were broadly categorized as obstacles internal to the
project itself and obstacles external to the project. The following examples give an
indication of the kinds of responses made:

Honduras:
"Mainly government restrictions on women's access to inputs."

Nepal:
"Major obstacles are: geographically difficult terrain and the attitude of some team
members."

Mali:
"How to approach women farmers."

Bangladesh:
'The women are restricted to talk with male personnel working at the FSR site
due to religious grounds."








The following brief list presents a summary of the obstacles reported:

Number of Projects Reporting

Internal Obstacles
No Women on Project Team 4
Lack of Training/Awareness 1
Resistance of Project Staff 4
Resistance of Nat'l. Counterparts 3
Funding Agency 1

External Obstacles
Cultural Attitudes (Target Groups) 12
No Women's Community Organizations 4
Women Want Other Programs 1
Other Demands on Women's Time 1
Political Conditions of Country 1
Host Country Government Resistance 1
Physical Conditions in Country 2


4.4.1.4 Participation of Women Strategies

Twenty-two of the 38 respondents answering Question 18 reported strategies for
overcoming the obstacles mentioned. Eight respondents made the same answer to
Question 18 as they did to Question 17. Twelve respondents cited single strategies, while
ten projects cited multiple strategies. Seven respondents mentioning single obstacles
mentioned no strategies for overcoming them, while two projects mentioning multiple
obstacles mentioned no strategies. The following comments illustrate the types of
strategies reported:

Honduras:
"[the project] set up separate access to inputs for women."

Nepal:
'The obstacles were easily solved by employing a female professional who is willing
to work in the mountains. Selection of the right person is the critical factor."

Mali:
"Explanation of project's intention to work with women to the men farmers. The
men gave their agreement and introduced the women researchers."

Bangladesh:
"Some female scientists and female block supervisors were engaged for information
collection [with women] and these steps were effective."








The following brief list presents a summary of the strategies reported:

Number of Projects Reporting
Strategies
Hired Women to Work on Project 6
Trained Staff 3

Added Women to Target Group 1
Req. Staff to Include Women 2
Modified Extension Meetings 3
Modified Training of Collaborators 1

Additional Research/Surveys 1
Publicized Data 1
Asked Men About Women's Activities 1

Organized Women into Groups 2
Involved Project with Women's Groups 2
Educated/Trained Women 1
Set Up Additional Women's Programs 3
Emphasized Importance of Women's Activities 1

The strategies reported to increase the active participation of women fall into four major
categories: hiring women staff and training staff; modifying the project's activities to
include women; doing additional research to increase knowledge about women's activities;
and setting up programs for women or training them to be collaborators, and working
with women's groups in the community. While some of the strategies reported to
increase the participation of women are similar to those reported for the inclusion of
gender issues, more of the strategies to include women are directed towards women as
development project participants and beneficiaries rather than towards the staff of
development projects.

4.4.2 Benefits from the Inclusion of Gender Issues and Women

Thirty-three out of the total of 48 respondents answered Question 19 about the benefits
(anticipated or not) derived from the inclusion of gender issues. Thirty-four respondents
answered Question 20 about benefits derived from the active participation of women.
Seven projects that answered Question 20 responded "same as above" or an equivalent
response to Question 19, indicating that the benefits derived from the active participation
of women were the same as benefits derived from the inclusion of gender issues. Again,
content analysis of responses to Questions 19 and 20 indicated that respondents were
confused about the differences between the inclusion of gender issues and the active
participation of women. However, despite the apparent confusion, answers were accepted
at face value for the questions asked:








4.4.2.1 Gender Issues Benefits


Sixteen out of the 33 respondents that answered Question 19 reported multiple benefits
(listing an average of two), and ten projects reported single benefits. Four projects
reported no benefits yet, two because gender issues had yet to be included in the project,
and two because the inclusion of gender issues into project was just underway. Four
responses were inappropriate or irrelevant.

Twenty-four respondents listed benefits to the projects themselves as a result of including
gender issues, while only five respondents listed benefits to project recipients. However,
project recipients will undoubtedly benefit from projects that are more efficient and are
targeting beneficiaries more appropriately.

Benefits reported from the inclusion of gender issues were quite diverse, as the following
comments illustrate:

Bangladesh:
"Scientists now better understand the intrahousehold dynamics of farming systems
and the role of women in farming systems. They are able to decide who should
be the participants, men or women, in the technology testing and evaluation.
More experiments are now being planned for, homestead areas where women are
the target beneficiaries."

Nigeria:
"Appreciation of gender issues is important when developing farm tools for women.
More requests are pouring in from women's organizations to help develop
appropriate technologies for women workers."

India:
"Incorporation of gender issue has resulted in the smooth functioning of the project
with some very quick positive results with little extra efforts. ...villagers are
beginning to trust us more due to the benefits they have been getting by following
our suggestions."








The following list presents the type of benefit reported and the number of projects
reporting it.

Number of Project Reporting
Type of Benefit
Better Understanding of Farming System 5
Increased Awareness of Women's Capabilities 14
More Socioeconomic Research Included 3
Better Prioritization of Problems 1
Target Group more Accurately Defined 6
Increased Support from Target Groups 3

Intervention or Trials Modified 5
Better Design of Technology 1
More Effective Transfer of Technology 4
Project Functioning More Smoothly 3
Helped Project with Funding Agency 2
Results More Representative & Equitable 2
Addressed Women's Concerns 3
Working More with Women's Groups 4
Prepared Groundwork for Another Project 1


4.4.2.2 Participation of Women Benefits

Eleven of the 34 respondents that answered question 20 reported multiple benefits (listing
an average of three), and 16 respondents reported single benefits. Four respondents
reported no benefits yet because the projects and/or the active participation of women
in-the projects have just begun. One respondent reported no benefits because the project
was not funded beyond the initial analysis stage. Two responses were inappropriate or
irrelevant.

Twenty-five respondents listed benefits to the projects themselves as a result of the active
participation of women, while only five respondents listed benefits to project recipients.
However, women as project recipients will undoubtedly benefit from projects that are
targeting them directly.

Again, the benefits reported from the active participation of women inclusion were quite
diverse, as the following comments indicate:

Niger:
'The involvement of women is anticipated to result in better transfer of technology
and better acceptance of the technical team."








Peru:
'There was a clear orientation toward animal production improvement through the
direct participation of real producers--women. The research provided women an
opportunity to organize a concrete and felt problem--animal improvement."

Philippines:
"Appropriate interventions were made, that is the needs and preferences of the
target beneficiaries were addressed properly. It is really a farming systems
approach."

The following list presents the type of benefit reported and the number of projects
reporting it.

Number of Projects Reporting
Type of Benefit
Better Project Planning 1
Target Group more Accurately Defined 4
Increased Awareness of Women's Capabilities 7
Increased Support from Target Groups 4
Women Better Collaborators 6
Helped Project with Funding Agency 1
Better Understanding of Farming System 5
More Proportionate Representation of Women 1
More Effective Transfer of Technology 5
Scholarly Equity 1
Direct Benefits to Women (Decreased Illiteracy,
Increased Status, New Skills) 1
Benefits to Rural Households, 2
Benefits to Rural Communities 1


4.4.3 Obstacles, Strategies, and Benefits Summary

When responses to Questions 17, 18, 19, and 20 were examined together four response
patterns emerged, j One group of projects had made no effort to include gender issues
or women. This group was labelled the "no attempt" group. A second group reported
obstacles to the inclusion of gender issues and women but had no strategies to overcome
them and derived few if any benefits. This group was labelled the "obstacles but no
strategies" group. A third group reported no obstacles to either the inclusion of gender
issues or to women, included them, and derived benefits. This group was labelled the
"no obstacles" group. A final group reported obstacles to the inclusion of gender and
women but also reported strategies for overcoming these obstacles and, as a result of
their efforts, derived benefits. This group was labelled the "obstacles, strategies, and
benefits" group. Thus, two groups included gender issues and women (the "no obstacles"
and the "obstacles, strategies, and benefits" groups) and two groups did not (the "no
attempt" and the "obstacles, no strategies" groups).








The relationship between these four response patterns--no response; obstacles, no
strategies; no obstacles; and obstacles, strategies, and benefits--and type of project,
performance of gender analysis, receipt of gender issues training, and project personnel
will be examined in the next section.

4.4.3.1 Obstacles, Strategies, and Benefits and Type of Project, Gender Analysis, Gender
Issues Training, and Project Personnel

Table 14 shows the four response patterns and type of project (FSR/E, FSR/E plus
other elements, and non-FSR/E); performance of gender analysis (early analysis, late
analysis, no analysis); gender issues training (formal training, informal training, no
training); and project personnel (women, no women, agricultural economists and other
social scientists, agricultural economists alone, other social scientists alone, no social
scientists).

Twenty-five out of the 36 projects (69%) that did a gender analysis reported having no
obstacles or having strategies to overcome the obstacles. In contrast, eight out of 11
projects (73%) that did not do a gender analysis either did not attempt to include gender
issues or women, or had no strategies to overcome obstacles. Doing gender analysis thus
appears to be closely tied to the inclusion of gender issues and the active participation
of women in projects.

Fifteen out of the 17 projects that received training in gender issues reported having no
obstacles or having strategies to overcome the obstacles. In contrast, 17 out of 28
projects whose personnel received no training in gender issues either did not attempt to
include gender issues or women, or had no strategies to overcome obstacles. Gender
issues training thus appears to be closely tied to the inclusion of gender issues and the
active participation of women in projects.

Eighteen of the 25 projects (72%) with women on their teams reported having no
obstacles or having strategies to overcome obstacles. In contrast nine of the 17 projects
(53%) without women on their teams either did not attempt to include gender issues or
women, or had no strategies to overcome obstacles. Having women on project teams
strongly affects whether projects will include gender issues and encourage the active
participation of women.

Twenty of the 35 projects (57%) with social scientists on their teams reported having no
obstacles or strategies to overcome obstacles. In contrast, six of the ten projects (60%)
without social scientists either did not attempt to include gender issues or women, or had
no strategies for overcoming obstacles. Interestingly, 14 out of 20 projects (70%) with
other social scientists reported having no obstacles or strategies to overcome obstacles
compared with only 6 out of 15 projects (40%) with agricultural economists alone.
Although the presence of a social scientist on the team is associated with the inclusion
of gender issues and the active participation of women in projects, some social scientists
appear to be more effective than others at encouraging projects to include gender issues
and women.








Gender analysis, gender issues training, and having women and social scientists on teams
are all associated with the inclusion of gender issues and the active participation of
women. The relative importance of these different factors can be determined if we
compare the response patterns of the projects with women and social scientists that did
not include gender issues or encourage the participation of women with the response
patterns of projects without women or social scientists that did include gender issues
and encourage the participation of women.

Six of the seven projects (86%) with women on their teams that did not include gender
issues or women did not receive gender issues training. Thus, the presence of women
on teams does not guarantee that] the project will include gender issues or encourage the
active participation of women if teams are not trained in gender issues. In contrast, all
six projects without women that included gender issues and encouraged women's
participation received gender issues training. Gender issues training alone is sufficient
for teams without women personnel to include gender issues and encourage the
participation of women.

A similar pattern emerges if we examine the response pattern displayed by projects with
and without social scientists on their teams according to which ones also received training
on gender issues. Eleven of the 12 projects (92%) with social scientists that did not
include gender issues or women received no training on gender issues. The one project
that was trained in gender issues but also reported obstacles and no strategies is the
project whose funding was terminated after the initial analysis phase was completed.
Overcoming this particular obstacle (termination of funding) was beyond any strategy the
project could develop.

The importance of training is confirmed if we examine the response patterns of projects
without social scientists. All three projects without social scientists that received training
in gender issues reported including gender issues and women. Only one project without
social scientists that did not receive training included gender issues and women. This
unique project team was made !up of all women biological scientists and the project
focused on women's role in post-harvest storage.

Although having social scientists and women on project teams increases the possibility
that gender issues and women will be included,' neither automatically provides a
guarantee. However, gender issues training promotes the inclusion of gender issues even
when project teams lack social scientists and women. Further probing on this subject
may reveal that training serves to illuminate and legitimize the issue, which is then
pursued most frequently by social scientists and/or women on the project teams.
Training thus emerges as an important factor influencing whether projects include gender
issues and encourage the active participation of women. Training is especially important
if projects do not have women or social scientists on their teams.







Table 14. Obstacles, Strategies, and Benefits by Type of Project, Gender Analysis, Gender Issues Training, and Project
Personnel


Obstacles,
No Obstacles, No Strategies,
Attempt No Strategies Obstacles Benefits


type of Project:

FSR/E 7 3 1 11
FSR/E+ 1 1 3 9
Non-FSR/E 5 2 2 3


Gender Analysis:

Early Analysis 4 3 5 10
Late Analysis 3 1 1 9
No Analysis 6 2 0 1

Gender Issues Training:

Formal Training 0 0 2 9
Informal Training 1 1 1 3
No Training 12 5 3 8

Project Personnel:

Women on Team 5 2 5 13
No Women on Team 7 2 1 7
Ag. Econ. & Other Soc. Sci. 2 0 1 7
Ag. Econ. Only 6 3 4 2
Oth. Soc. Sci. Only 1 3 2 4
No Soc. Sci. 5 1 1 3








4.5 Optional Comments


Question 21 asked respondents to make any other comments that they wished. Twenty-
five respondents added further comments; 23 respondents did not. Comments were
extremely diverse. Although content analysis of the optional comments revealed ten
themes, only a small number of responses grouped around each theme. These ten themes
were grouped into three overall categories: positive (1,2,3,4,5), negative (6,7,8), and
composite (9,10). Eleven of the 25 responses were positive; seven responses were
negative; and seven responses were classified as composites. The themes mentioned
were:

(A) positive remarks about the project's efforts on gender issues (one project);

(B) remarks about additional efforts planned by the project to incorporate gender
issues and/or women (two projects);

(C) descriptions of women's roles in the farming system and how the project is using
this information (three projects);

(D) remarks that the project is just overcoming resistance and efforts are only a
beginning of future plans (two projects);

(F) remarks that there are no problems because the importance of women's roles was
recognized (two projects);

(G) negative remarks about WID and gender issues (two projects);

(H) remarks that can be summarized as "the project has made no efforts to include
gender issues or women, but some of us on the project know it's important and
we're trying to convince other project members" (three projects);

(I) negative remarks about the source of resistance to the inclusion of gender issues-
external to the project itself (two projects);

(J) remarks for the need for more training to be more effective in efforts to include
gender issues and women (two projects);

(K) "defensive" remarks that explain why the project hag or has not had problems with
incorporating gender issues--three of these responses were made by men (six
projects).

Analysis of the optional comments supports conclusions drawn from analysis of the rest
of the questionnaire. Fifteen respondents that did gender analysis made positive or
composite comments; only four respondents that did a gender analysis made negative
comments. Nine projects that received gender issues training made positive or compositive
comments; only one project that received gender issues training made negative comments,
and these were directed at the funding agency that cut off funding for the project. Three








projects that did not perform gender analysis or receive gender issues training made the
most negative comments about WID and gender issues. It is important to note, however,
that these three negative remarks were only a small minority of all comments.

Finally, respondents reported still being confused or uncertain about how to do gender
analysis and whose responsibility gender analysis should be on the project team. Projects
that lacked women on the teams or did not receive training were the most defensive
about their efforts, even though they recognized the importance of doing gender analysis.









SECTION 5


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


5.1 Conclusions

Analysis of the responses to the gender issues survey confirms several observations made
in the review of the current status of gender issues and gender analysis in FSR/E
presented earlier in the report. Several conclusions, or lessons learned, can be distilled
and used as a guide to the continuing integration of gender analysis in FSR/E.

5.1.1 Uncertainty about "Gender Issues"

Uncertainty about the meaning of "gender issues" and what the incorporation of "gender
issues" into a project implies continues to trouble |respondents. Respondents confused
the use of gender as a socioeconomic variable to analyze the farming system and
disaggregate data, with the equity issue of including women, both as project personnel
and as target groups for development projects. While gender analysis may indicate a
need to include women as target groups or hire women on project teams, doing a gender
analysis and incorporating the results into project design and implementation has far
broader consequences. The addition of women to teams or target groups may not be
sufficient if the intervention is inappropriate to women's responsibilities within the
farming system or if their access and control over resources is not understood. Effective
gender analysis expands our understanding of the farming system in its entirety to include
an awareness of how all the activities of all members of the farm household are inter-
related and impacted by development-induced change. Specific recommendations based
on gender analysis will vary from farming system to farming system and broad
generalizations such as "hire more women" or "target women farmers" cannot be
automatically transferred from project to project.


5.1.2 Uncertainty about "Gender Analysis"

Closely tied to respondents' confusion over the meaning and implications of gender issues
was an uncertainty about how to do a "gender analysis," and once analysis is done, what
to do with the findings. Too many respondents conceived of "gender analysis" as
something done strictly as part of the initial diagnosis or socioeconomic assessment.
Respondents also saw "gender analysis" as part of the social scientist's job or contribution
to the project. Respondents reported a tendency to segregate gender analysis two ways-
-by doing it only at the beginning of the project or by making it solely the responsibility
of the social scientist. Unfortunately, the survey responses show that this pattern of
segregation means that the findings of the gender; analysis are not effectively translated
into recommendations to modify other aspects of the project, especially the conduct of
on-farm trials, evaluation, and dissemination. When gender analysis is perceived as the
"social scientist's job," other team members do not see the relevance of the findings to








their own responsibilities. Group discussion of analysis findings emerges as the most
effective tool to overcome this tendency to segregate the gender analysis, and an
emphasis on the importance of disaggregating by gender all data collected throughout the
project makes gender analysis everyone's responsibility through all project stages.

A major problem identified by many respondents was an uncertainty about methods to
do gender analysis, and once analysis was underway, techniques to convert the findings
into recommendations for project design, implementation, and evaluation. More attention
must be paid to training on methodological issues and to the process of taking gender
analysis findings and converting these to project-specific recommendations. Too many
projects reported doing a "gender analysis" but not modifying project activities as a result.

5.1.3 Resistance to Gender Analysis

The obstacles to gender analysis lie largely within project teams and less in resistance to
from farmers. Effective inclusion of gender issues into development projects requires
overcoming "cultural attitudes" emanating from at least four different "cultural" sources:
the culture of the professional discipline, the culture of the development project/agency,
the native cultures) of the project team members, and the cultures) of the target
groupss. All too often in development work, the cultures) of development project
teams go unexamined, and the cultures) of target groups are treated only as obstacles
to be overcome to successfully transfer technology. In the case of introducing "gender
analysis," a new "tool" is being introduced to the development team at the same time that
the team is attempting to introduce new technology to a target group. There are several
reasons why the introduction of gender analysis provokes resistance from team members:
S It places team members in the role of "ignorant" recipients, rather than
"expert" donors;

It challenges team members' perceptions about their roles within project
teams and their research methodologies;
S It questions basic constructs that team members have about "gender" and
appropriate gender roles.

Leading researchers who have studied the cross-cultural variability in gender roles note
that one must simultaneously examine not only the constructs of the group under study
but also one's own constructs about gender (Collier and Yanagisako 1988). Human
beings in most cultures regard gender as a natural and fixed category, even though they
may not agree on the characteristics of that category. Scientists are forced to question
gender as a social construct, something that is not immutable, but is as subject to change
as any other social category. This conflict, between what we learn as natives about
gender and what we know as scientists, can produce the phenomenon psychologists refer
to as "cognitive dissonance." One way to resolve the problem of cognitive dissonance is
to alter our.perceptions to make them more similar. The knowledge that gender is a
variable, socially constructed category in other cultures implies that our own constructs








are equally variable and socially determined. Gender issues thus cut across our
professional and home environments as well as our analysis of other cultures.

When the client orientation of the FSR/E approach opens the scientific eye to the
gender implications of technological change, and particularly to the need to include
women in the process of research and extension, that same eye turns to the work place
and wonders why women aren't included as the researchers and extension agents of that
process. A reluctance to do gender analysis as part of the development process may
reflect a reluctance to examine its wider implications for project personnel. The
cognitive dissonance experienced contributes to the tendency to segregate gender analysis
as part of the initial diagnosis or as the social scientist's responsibility. It is interesting
and indicative of how basic our native gender constructs are to our conceptions of
ourselves, that development project personnel can advocate changes in target groups' food
crops, cash crops, methods of production, and community organization but are reluctant
to consider any modification in projects that would affect gender roles.

5.1.4 Effectiveness of Gender Analysis

Despite uncertainty about gender analysis and resistance to its implementation, gender
analysis is an effective and useful tool to projects that do it. The major benefits reported
as a result of doing gender analysis were primarily to projects themselves, making
interventions more appropriate and more accurately targeted, research more efficient,
transfer of technology easier and better received by target groups. Gender analysis thus
makes project personnel's jobs easier and projects more effective. This is especially true
of projects in which the entire team was trained in gender analysis and was partially
responsible for conducting it. Gender analysis is the most effective tool to open up the
farm household and to begin to understand the behavior of its members. Disaggregation
of information must be done to define the systems that proscribe the choices open to the
farm household. Disaggregation does not stop with gender--it must go further to include
age, class, caste, race, ethnicityJ-but the most effective category to start with is gender.

Gender analysis must not be restricted to the diagnosis phase in FSR/E or to the social
scientists on the team. The key questions of gender analysis applied to agricultural
research and extension--who does what, who has access and control of the resources
and benefits of production, and who is included in the process of technology
improvement--are essential to the design of on-farm research, the implementation of on-
farm experiments, and they are critical to the evaluation and dissemination of on-farm
research. These questions are ithe responsibility of all team members.

5.1.5 Timing of Gender Analysis

The projects represented in the survey that conducted gender analysis did so either early
in their project cycle or later after the project was well underway. Whether it was done
early or later had little effect on the benefits of conducting the analysis. More important
was the fact that the analysis was done at all. The actual point in chronological time
that gender analysis was done! or gender became' an issue in the projects overall was
quite similar and is more a result of the growing international emphasis on WID issues.








Whether this was early or late in a project depended more on the differences regionally
in the development of projects using the FSR/E approach. The projects in Asia were
older and so gender issues became important after projects were well underway. In
Africa, FSR/E was newer and gender issues were more often considered in the design
of these projects which coincided with the growing attention to WID internationally.

5.1.6 Crucial Role of Training

A major finding from this study is that training is crucial to the effective integration of
gender issues and analysis in agricultural projects using the FSR/E approach. While
there was a correlation between having women and/or social scientists on the teams and
whether or not gender analysis was conducted, not all women or social scientists were
successful in conducting gender analysis. Their presence did not guarantee attention to
gender issues. Additionally, there were some teams with no women nor social scientists
who did include gender issues or conduct gender analysis. The key was training.
However, further study and analysis is needed to determine whether teams without
women and social scientists that receive training are able to sustain attention to gender
issues.

Training in gender issues and gender analysis works to make project personnel more
aware of gender and to do gender analysis more effectively. When personnel were
trained in methods of gender analysis they applied them to their projects and derived
many benefits. Personnel who were not trained were not as effective in devising
strategies to overcome obstacles and their projects did not benefit. Training should
consist not only of formal programs but also informal efforts that continue throughout
the project. If training is perceived as part of the "continuing education" of project teams
it emphasizes the importance of doing an on-going gender analysis. An effective
approach that was mentioned by several respondents was the group data
analysis/discussion meeting in which entire teams brainstormed strategies based on shared
gender analysis results. Formal training efforts must address the need for project-specific
solutions best devised by the project team themselves on an on-going, iterative basis.

5.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations based on the analysis of the results of the survey of
gender issues in FSR/E projects:

(A) Gender Analysis is an important tool to make FSR/E projects more effective and
more efficient; all projects everywhere should make an effort to do gender analysis
routinely as part of normal procedures.

(B) Gender Analysis should be an on-going process whose findings are continually
being applied to all stages of development projects.

(C) Gender Analysis should be every project team member's responsibility, regardless
of their sex or discipline, although a single team member should be in charge of
gender analysis activities.










(D) Gender Issues Training works and should be incorporated into all FSR/E projects.
Training should include both formal and informal approaches.

(E) Formal Gender Issues Training should be implemented before projects begin and
be directed at the entire project team and host country counterparts, if possible.
Training focus has often been only on participant training in degree programs or
on short courses delivered by external experts. This focus must shift to training
trainers within funding agencies and local systems if gender analysis is to become
truly a part of the normal process and function of projects in the field.

(F) Formal Gender Issues Training should address the importance of gender analysis,
sources of resistance to the inclusion of gender issues into development projects,
methods of doing gender analysis and methods of converting gender analysis
findings into project-specific recommendations or modifications.

(G) Informal Gender Issues Training should continue throughout the duration of all
projects and should involve all members of the project team. This informal
training should be directed at adapting gender analysis findings to the needs of all
project members and all project stages.

(H) Donor agencies, international agricultural research centers, and national agricultural
research universities and institutions should have staff available to backstop the
efforts by projects to integrate gender issues and to troubleshoot on gender and
WID problems. It is especially important to provide technical backstopping for
formal and informal training delivered to project personnel. Some institutions do
this with an internal WID office; others with staff who are WID advisors; and
some with external consultants. The first two types of persons usually have
programming, planning and evaluation roles and responsibilities for WID or gender
issues across the institution and its project portfolio and often cannot devote
enough time to any individual project. The latter type of person often has no
background experience With the project or institution and is less effective than
desired. An alternative strategy is to complement WID offices or staff wid
advisors with external "long-term short-term WID consultants who would provide
expertise on gender issues to a specific projects(s) during regular short visits to the
project over the life of the project. This mechanism would provide much needed
consistency and depth to the external input of technical assistance in gender issues.


(I) The methodological tools necessary to collect appropriate data and conduct gender
analysis need improvement. FSR/E project members must share their
methodologies and strategies for overcoming problems experienced in the field.
Efforts must be made to collect, standardize, and disseminate these evolving
methodologies in gender analysis as part of overall training efforts. Increased
attention must be paid not only to methods for doing gender analysis but strategies
for applying gender issue findings to all stages of FSR/E projects.









(J) Donor agencies, international agricultural research centers, and national agricultural
research universities and institutions should do on-going surveys of projects' efforts
at incorporation of gender issues and maintain a database of successful training
approaches, field methodologies for gender analysis, and strategies for the
implementation of gender analysis findings to projects. This will advance our
methodological knowledge and keep both trainers and projects from having to "re-
invent the gender issues wheel."

In summary, the results of this study underline the view that the majority of the
agricultural researchers and extensionists engaged in FSR/E activities are beyond the
sensitization stage in their understanding of gender issues. Most clearly recognize the
need to consider gender in agricultural development. Their overiding concern is how to
do it most effectively. The emphasis today needs to be placed on developing appropriate
methodologies that will work efficiently in the field to allow good data collection and
analysis on gender, communicating those methods that are field tested to other projects,
and training project teams in their utilization.










REFERENCES i

Bingen, R. James and Susan V. Poats. 1988. The Development and Management of
Human Resources in On-Farm Client-Oriented Research (OFCOR): Lessons From Nine
Case Studies. ISNAR Draft Working Paper.

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

Carney, Judith. 1988. Response to the request for information on work that is directed
to assisting women in the developing world, and any assessment of its effectiveness.
CIMMYT Working Document Number 3, Mexico.

Cloud, Kathleen. 1988. A Teaching Module on Women and Agriculture: Household
Level Analysis. University of Illinois: International! Workshop Women, Households and
Development: Building a Data Base. Manuscript.

Collier, Jane Fishbourne and Sylvia Yanagisako. 1987. Kinship and Gender: Essays
Toward a Unified Analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Feldstein, Hilary, Susan Poats, Kathleen Cloud, and Rosalie Norem. 1987. Intra-
Household Dynamics and Farming Systems Research and Extension Conceptual
Framework. Population Council, New York. Manuscript.

Garrett, Patricia and Patricio Espinosa. 1988. Phases of Farming Systems Research:
The Relevance of Gender in Ecuadorian Sites. In Gender Issues in Farming Systems
Research and Extension. Susan V. Poats, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring, eds.
Boulder: Westview Press.

Moock, Joyce L., ed. 1986. Understanding Africa's Rural Households and Farming
Systems. Boulder: Westview Press.

Overholt, Catherine, Mary Anderson, Kathleen Cloud, James Austin. 1985. Gender
Roles in Development Projects. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

Poats, Susan V. Gender Analysis in Farming Systems Research and Extension Projects.
In Proceedings of the Annual Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium,
October 1988, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Poats, Susan V., Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring, eds. 1988. Gender Issues and
Farming Systems Research and Extension. Boulder: Westview Press.

Rathgeber, Eva. 1987. Women in Development: Some Thoughts on IDRC Support.
Social Sciences Division, IDRC, Canada. Manuscript.








Sutherland, Alistair, ed. 1987. Report on a Networkshop on Household Issues and
Farming Systems Research. Lusaka, Zambia, April 27-30, 1987. CIMMYT Regional
Office, Harare, Zimbabwe, Networking Workshops Report No. 10.









APPENDIX A

GENDER ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE


Gender Issues in FSR/E Survey

1. Project Title:

2. Location of Project:

3. Date Project Began: Ending Date of Project:

4. Institutional/Agency Affiliation of Project:

5. Funding Source:

6. Professional Personnel:
Title/Role: Discipline:

7. What linkages exist between the project and
(A) the host country government?
(B) non-governmental organizations in the host country?
(C) private voluntary organizations?
(Be sure to list any women's organizations.)

8. What is the major objective of this project?,

9. What are the project's main components?

10. Who are the target groups for this project?

11A. Were gender issues included in the initial diagnosis of the farming systems of your
project area? (circle one)
yes no

11B. Who did the gender analysis?

11C. What methods were used to do the gender analysis?

11D. If not done initially, when was the gender analysis done?








11E. How have the findings of the analysis affected the project's stages?
(A) Diagnosis
(B) Design of Experiments
(C) Conducting On-Farm Trials
(D) Analysis of Trial Results
(E) Evaluation of Technology
(F) Dissemination of Results

12. What was the source of the initiative to include gender issues into the project?
(circle one)
Team Member
Funding Agency
Institutional/Agency Affiliation
Host Country Government
Host Country Non-Governmental Organization
Target Group Member
Other:

13A. Has training in gender issues been provided to the project team?
(circle one) yes no

13B. Who provided this training?

13C. How many team members participated?

13D. At what stage in the project did the training take place?

13E. What did the training cover?

13F. How useful was the training for the project? (1 not useful at all to 5
extremely useful) 1 2 3 4 5

14. Are socioeconomic data collected by the project disaggregated by gender?
(circle one) yes no don't know

15. Concerning your project's farming systems activities:
(A) What is the percentage (%) of women respondents in socioeconomic surveys?
(B) What percentage (%) of on-farm trials are conducted with women farmers?
(C) What percentage (%) of the farmers who participate in evaluation activities
are women?

16. Who is the person most involved with the incorporation of gender into your
project?
Name:
Discipline:
M/F:









17. What obstacles to the inclusion of gender issues has the project encountered?
What strategies were used to overcome these obstacles, and how effective were
they?

18. What obstacles to the active participation of women has the project encountered?
What strategies were used to overcome these obstacles, and how effective were
they?

19. What benefits (anticipated' or not) have resulted for the project from an awareness
of gender issues?

20. What benefits (anticipated or not) have resulted for the project from the active
participation of women?

21. Other comments:

[FEEL FREE TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER]













Each project

Geographic
Region

United States

[1] USA

[4] USA

[5] USA


[12] USA


[45]

[33]


USA

Europe


Caribbean/Central

[2] Honduras

[10] CA

[26] Peru


APPENDIX B

LIST OF PROJECTS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION, INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION,
FUNDING SOURCE, DURATION, AND LINKAGES

was assigned an identification number when it was received. These numbers are used in the table below.

Institutional Funding Project Linkages
Affiliation Source Duration w/Govt./NGO/PVO

and Europe:

U.S. Univ. U.S. Univ. 16 mos. None

U.S. Univ. U.S. Univ. 9 mos. NGO only

U.S. Univ. U.S. Univ./ 4 vrs.> NGO only


Priv. Fdtn./
U.S. State

U.S. State

Host Univ.


America/South

Host Univ.

IARC

U.S. Univ./
Dev. Consort.


A.I.D.

Priv. Fdtn./
U.S. State

U.S. State

Host Univ.


America:

Priv. Fdtn.

IARC

Priv. Fdtn.


5 yrs.>


43 mos.

7 yrs.>


27 mos.>



68 mos.>


Gov/NGO/PVO


None

Govt. Only


Gov/NGO/PVO

None

Gov/NGO


_ j













Geographic
Region

Caribbean/Cent

[31] Jamaica

[32] Mexico


Africa:

[8] Zambia


[11] Burundi

[14] Burundi/
Rwanda/
Zaire

[18] Malawi

[39] Malawi

[20] Niger


[25] Botswana


APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)

LIST OF PROJECTS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION, INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION,
FUNDING SOURCE, DURATION, AND LINKAGES

Institutional Funding Project Linkages
Affiliation Source Duration w/Govt./NGO/PVO

ral America/South America (continued):

Priv. Fdtn. Priv. Fdtn./ 40 mos.> Gov/NGO/PVO

Priv. Fdtn. Priv. Fdtn. 11 yrs.> Gov/NGO/PVO


Dev. Consort./
U.S.A.I.D.

Dev.Consort.

Natl.Ag.Min.



Dev.Consort.

Dev. Consort.

Dev. Consort./
U.S.A.I.D.

U.S. Univ./
Natl.Ag.Min.


U.S.A.I.D.


U.S.A.I.D.

Natl.Ag.Min.



U.S.A.I.D.

U.S.A.I.D.

U.S.A.I.D./
IARC

U.S.A.I.D./
Natl.Ag.Min.


78 mos.>


28 mos.>

4 yrs.>



3 yrs.>

3 yrs.>

5 mos.>


6 yrs.>


Gov. Only


Gov/PVO

Gov. Only



Gov/NGO/PVO

Gov/NGO/PVO

Gov/NGO


Gov/NGO













Geographic
Region


APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)

LIST OF PROJECTS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION, INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION,
FUNDING SOURCE, DURATION, AND LINKAGES

Institutional Funding Project Linkages
Affiliation Source Duration w/Govt./NGO/PVO


Africa (continued):

[28] Swaziland

[29] Nigeria

[361 Zaire

[38] So.Africa

t [40] Mali


[47] Mali


[42] Rwanda


[48] Zambia


U.S. Univ.

Natl.Univ.

IARC/U.S.A.I.D.

Natl.Univ.

Natl.Ag.Min.


Natl.Ag.Min.


U.S. Univ/
Natl.Ag.Min.

Priv. Fdtn.


U.S.A.I.D.

Natl.Ag.Min.

U.S.A.I.D.

Priv.Corp.

U.S.A.I.D./
Natl.Gov.

U.S.A.I.D./
Natl.Gov.

U.S.A.I.D.


Priv. Fdtn.


yrs. >

yrs. >

yrs. >

yrs. >

yrs. >


2 yrs.>


3 yrs.>


2 yrs.>


Gov/NGO/PVO

Gov/NGO

Gov/NGO/PVO

Gov/NGO/PVO

Gov Only


Gov Only


Gov Only


Gov/NGO/PVO


Asia:

[3] Indonesia

[16] Indonesia


U.S. Univ.

Dev. Consort.


U.S.A.I.D.

U.S.A.I.D./
Natl. Gov.


6 yrs.>

9 yrs.>


Gov Only

Gov Only














Geographic
Region

Asia (continued)

[15] India

[23]- India


[24] Banglade


[27]

[211

[30]




[46]

[7]

[9]

[19]


APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)

LIST OF PROJECTS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION, INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION,
FUNDING SOURCE, DURATION, AND LINKAGES

Institutional Funding Project Linkages
Affiliation Source Duration w/Govt./NGO/PVO


sh


sh


Bangladesh

Bangladesh

Bangladesh




Bangladesh

Philippines

Philippines

Philippines


Natl. Ag. Inst.

Natl. Univ./
Priv. Fdtn.

Natl. Ag. Inst.


Natl.Ag.Min.

Natl. Ag.Min.

Natl. Ag. Inst.




Natl. Ag. Inst.

Natl. Univ.

IARC

Natl. Ag. Min.


Priv. Fdtn.

Priv. Fdtn.


U.S.A.I.D./
IDA

World Bank

World Bank

World Bank/
Natl.Gov/
Priv. Fdtn./
U.S.A.I.D.

U.S.A.I.D.

IDRC

IARC

U.S.A.I.D.


Gov

Gov


1 yr.>

6 yrs.


40 mos.>


53 mos.>

53 mos.>

3 yrs.>




43 mos.>

10 mos.>

7 mos.>

4 yrs.>


Only

Only


Gov Only


Gov

Gov

Gov


Only

Only

Only


Gov Only

Gov/PVO

Gov Only

Gov/NGO/PVO







APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)


LIST OF PROJECTS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION, INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION,
FUNDING SOURCE, DURATION, AND LINKAGES


Geographic
Region


Institutional
Affiliation


Funding
Source


Project
Duration


Linkages
w/Govt./NGO/PVO


Asia (continued):


[34] Philippines


[43] Philippines


S[17] Philippines

[351 Sri Lanka

[37] Thailand

[41] Papua/New
Guinea


[44] Nepal


Natl. Univ.


Natl.Ag. Min.


IARC/Natl.Univ.

Natl. Ag. Min.

Natl.Univ.

Natl. Ag. Min.


Natl. Ag. Min.


[22] Asia Natl. Ag. Min.
(Bangladesh,
Indonesia,
Nepal, Sri
Lanka, Thailand,
the Philippines)


IARC/Natl.
Univ.

World Bank/
Natl. Gov.

Natl. Ag.Min.

IDRC/IARC

IARC/Natl.Gov

Natl. Gov.


ODA

IDRC


2 mos.


3 yrs.>


2 yrs.>

12 yrs.

2 yrs.>

3 yrs.>


20 yrs.>

2 yrs. >


Gov Only


Gov/NGO/PVO


Gov/PVO

Gov Only

Gov Only

Gov/NGO


Gov/NGO/PVO


None








APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)


Geographic
Region


Worldwide:


LIST OF PROJECTS BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION, INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION,
FUNDING SOURCE, DURATION, AND LINKAGES


Institutional
Affiliation


Funding
Source


Project
Duration


Linkages
w/Govt./NGO/PVO


[6] SR-CRSP Dev. Consort.
(Brazil,
Indonesia,
Kenya, Peru,
Morocco)


U.S.A.I.D.


10 yrs.>


Gov/NGO/PVO


m [13] Gender in
Agriculture
Project


Population
Council/FSSP


Ford Fdtn.


4 yrs.>


None








APPENDIX C

TYPE OF PROJECT, PERSONNEL,
GENDER ANALYSIS, AND GENDER TRAINING

I. List of Disciplines and Number of Projects Reporting

Discipline Number of Projects

Biological/Agricultural Sciences:
Agronomy, Agriculture 3
Horticulture 6
Botany 1
Plant Breeding, Genetics 5
Plant Pathology 1
Soil Science 7
Entomology 4
Rodent Control 1
Animal Science/Livestock 7
Zootechnicians 1
Veterinary Medicine 1
Forage/Pasture Science 2
Fisheries 1
Forestry 4
Biologist 1

Engineering:
Agricultural Engineering 5
Civil Engineering 1
Appropriate Technology 1

Nutrition & Home Economics:
Nutrition 2
Family Development 1
Home Management 1

Economics & Statistics:
Agricultural Economics, Food &
Resource Economics 18
Economics 8
Social Statistics 1
Econometrics 1
Agricultural Statistics 1

Other Social Science:
Sociology 8
Rural/Development Sociology 4









I. List of Disciplines and Number of Projects Reporting (continued).

Discipline Number of Projects

Other Social Science (continued):
Anthropology 3
Social Workers 1
Social Science (unspecified) 3

Extension, Communications, Training:
Agricultural Extension 8
Training Specialist 1
Public Education 1
Communications/Development
Communications 5
Media Specialist/Coordinator 2

Management, Administration, Business:
Management Specialist 3
Director/Administrator 1
Agribusiness 1
Management & Finance 1
Farm Management 1
Business Administration 1
Computer Science 1

Other:
Farming Systems Specialist 1
Research Assistant (unspecified) 1


A ,









II. List of Projects by Project Type, Personnel, Gender Analysis, and Gender Training

Each project was assigned an identification number when it was received. These
numbers are used in the table below.


Project #/
Country

FSR/E Projects
(n = 22)

[2] Honduras

[26] Peru

[8] Zambia

[25] Botswana

[28] Swaziland

[36] Zaire

[48] Zambia

[3] Indonesia

[16] Indonesia

[15] India

[23] India

[24] Bangladesh

[27] Bangladesh

[21] Bangladesh

[30] Bangladesh

[46] Bangladesh

[19] Philippines

No information


Women
on Team




Yes

Yes

No

Yes


No

No
No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

provided.


Soc. Sci.
on Team




No

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


Gender
Analysis




Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


Gender
Training




Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No


68









I. List of Projects by Project
(Continued)

Project #/ Women
Country on Team

[34] Philippines Yes

[17] Philippines Yes

[35] Sri Lanka No

[37] Thailand Yes

[41] Papua/New
Guinea No

FSR/E plus Other Elements
(n = 14)

[11] Burundi Yes

[14] Rwanda/Zaire
Burundi/ No

[18] Malawi Yes

[39] Malawi Yes

[20] Niger Yes

[29] Nigeria No

[38] So. Africa No

[40] Mali Yes

[47] Mali Yes

[42] Rwanda No

[7] Philippines Yes

[9] Philippines Yes

[43] Philippines Yes


Type, Personnel,


Soc. Sci.
on Team

Yes

No

No

Yes


Yes




Yes


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes


Gender Analysis,and Gender Training,


Gender
Analysis

Yes

Yes

No

Yes


Yes




Yes


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes


Gender
Training

Yes

No

No

Yes


No




No


Yes

Yes

SYes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No









II. List of Projects by Project
(Continued)

Project #/ Women
Country on Team

[44] Nepal Yes

Non-FSR/E Projects
(n = 12)

[1] U.S.A. No

[4] U.S.A. Yes

[5] U.S.A. No

[12] U.S.A. No

[45] U.S.A. Yes

[33] Netherlands Yes

[10] Central
America No

[31] Jamaica No

[32] Mexico Yes

[22] Asia Yes

[6] Worldwide Yes

[13] Worldwide Yes


Type, Personnel, Gender Analysis, and Gender Training,


Soc. Sci.
on Team

Yes




Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes


Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


Gender
Analysis

Yes




No

No

No

No

No

No


No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No


Gender
Training

No




No

No

No

No

No

No


No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes


`I L




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