Front Cover
 Executive summary
 Status of activity/trip findin...
 Mission women in development...
 Appendix 1. Scope of work
 Appendix 2. Participant list
 Appendix 3. Original schedule
 Appendix 4. Gender section detailed...
 Appendix 5. Gender overheads
 Appendix 6. Participando de...
 Appendix 7. Trainers' self-evaluation...
 Appendix 8. Results of participant...
 Appendix 9. Photographs of the...
 Back Cover

Title: Trip report on a GENESYS project training workshop : programa de treinamento GENESYS : analise de genero e pesquisa em ciencias sociais, 26 April-1 May, 1992, Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089920/00001
 Material Information
Title: Trip report on a GENESYS project training workshop : programa de treinamento GENESYS : analise de genero e pesquisa em ciencias sociais, 26 April-1 May, 1992, Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Poats, Susan V.
Donor: Marianne Schmink ( endowment )
Publication Date: 1992
Copyright Date: 1992
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089920
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Executive summary
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Status of activity/trip findings
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Mission women in development summary
        Page 21
    Appendix 1. Scope of work
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Appendix 2. Participant list
        Page 25
    Appendix 3. Original schedule
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Appendix 4. Gender section detailed plan
        Page 30
    Appendix 5. Gender overheads
        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
    Appendix 6. Participando de redes
        Page 48
    Appendix 7. Trainers' self-evaluation session
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
    Appendix 8. Results of participant evaluation module
        Page 62
        Page 63
    Appendix 9. Photographs of the workshop
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
    Back Cover
        Page 73
        Page 74
Full Text




26 APRIL 1 MAY, 1992



JUNE 15, 1992


The objective of my trip to Brazil for the GENESYS Project of the
Futures Group/USAID/PPC-WID was to serve as the primary trainer
for the gender component of the week-long training workshop and
to work with the trainer team as a facilitator, resource person
and technical advisor for the remainder of the workshop. The
other members of the trainer team included Suely Anderson
(REBRAF/GENESYS Rio, Brazil), Jon Dain (Univ. Florida), Judith
Lisansky (GENESYS-Washington, D.C.), and Marianne Schmink
(PESACRE/Univ. Florida). The training workshop activity was part
of the GENESYS component of the Global Climate Change Program in

I completed the major portion of the preparation for the gender
component prior to traveling to Brazil. The materials and
training methods were based on those developed by the Gender and
Agriculture Project of the Population Council, New York. These
were translated from English to Portuguese by GENESYS. Upon
arrival in Rio Branco, Acre, I joined the training team in the
last planning and preparation activities, assisted in some
reorganization of planned activities, prepared a complementary
slide module on gender division of labor in the Amazon for the
introductory segment, and completed a few last minute
rearrangements of the gender training module.

I led the gender module for the first day and a half of the
workshop and then participated as a facilitator and resource
person for the remainder of the workshop. Given my
responsibility to provide an overall evaluation of the workshop,
as stated in my contract, I observed and recorded the actual
training process of the workshop and developed a mechanism for
the trainer team to conduct a self-evaluation of the workshop at
its close. The write-up of the self-evaluation is included in
Appendix 9. As an additional activity, I also developed a short
module on networking that was included in the last afternoon of
the course.

Following the course and the self-evaluation, I participated with
the trainer team in discussions of future actions for the GENESYS
program in the region and in particular for the follow-up
training course in September. The summary of my input to the
discussion is included in this report. In response to interest
from course participants in methods for conducting marketing
studies for new products, I met with participants after the
course to discuss these issues and sent each participant group a
copy of the marketing study for a new cassava product that was
conducted in Colombia in collaboration with CIAT and copies of
the modified questionnaire for an expanded study being run
currently in Ecuador. I also met with PESACRE members to discuss
the possibility of a person from Acre coming to Ecuador to
participate in our marketing study to gain experience in the


Overall, the workshop was highly successful. The group of
participants were well-selected and very motivated. The major
aspects of most training objectives were met and plans were made
for follow-up activities. Despite what one might consider as
insurmountable logistial coordination barriers due to distance
between the trainers prior to the workshop, the training team
worked very well together, managed to assemble meaningful
learning activities and ambience for the participants, and
conducted evaluations of the event at several levels. I believe
the event can be considered by GENESYS as a very good starting
point for the remainder of the activities planned for the region.


This trip report covers my participation in the GENESYS training
workshop on "Analise de Genero e Pesquisa em Ciencia Sociais"
(Gender Analysis and Social Science Research Methods) which was
held in Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil, April 26 through May 1, 1992.
Earlier documents prepared by GENESYS (GENESYS Brazil Activity
WORKPLAN January 1992; Florida Workshop Planning Session January
1992) provide the background on the decision to conduct this
training workshop and the planning trips and preliminary meetings
which lead to the development of the workshop plan.

The goal of the workshop was to reinforce the socioeconomic
analysis capacity of the participants, particularly in reference
to gender analysis. The participants were representatives of
various NGOs currently working with and receiving funding from
the Global Climate Change Program in Brazil (USAID/LAC). A list
of the participants is included in Appendix 2. The GCC is
managed by its principal contractor, World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
A representative of WWF/GCC, John Butler, was present for most of
the workshop.

1. Workshop Objectives:

There were four learning objectives for the training workshop:

"By the end of this training course, the participants will
be able to:

1. Understand and apply the concepts and methods of gender
2. Understand and apply appropriate social science methods;
3. Produce a viable plan of work detailing how they will
incorporate what they learned during the course into
their work and their organization; and
4. Take advantage of the opportunity to exchange ideas and
discuss the possibility of collaborative work with other

participant groups in the workshop."

(Translated from the portuguese version of the letter of
introduction to the participant workshop training manual.)
The original schedule for the workshop is included in Appendix 3.
Changes that occurred in the schedule as the workshop progressed
are reflected in the trainer self-evaluation section of this

2. Consultant Scope of Work (SOW):

A copy of my original Scope of Work (SOW) as a consultant
contracted as a trainer for this event is attached in Appendix 1.
It also is presented below, as requested in the GENESYS trip
report guidelines, with comments on the changes that occurred
either prior to the actual travel or during the process of the

i. Serve as the primary trainer for the day and a half component
on gender analysis, and participate as a facilitator, resource
person and technical advisor during the entire five-day workshop,
in conjunction with other trainers Dain, Lisansky, and Schmink.
These responsibilities include but are not limited to:

While this responsibility, in my view, was mostly accomplished, I
feel that my third role as "technical advisor" was not clear,
either to me or the rest of the team. I understood this to mean
that I was to advise on both issues relating to the content---the
social science methods and their application---of the rest of the
workshop in addition to the specific methods of gender analysis,
and on the techniques of training used in the workshop. Thus, I
saw my role as supporting both on content and process. This
function was made difficult by the way the responsibilities for
segments of the workshop were divided up among team members and
the lack of time to really work as a team on these segments prior
to the workshop. Thus, my input as an advisor often seemed to
come at last minute or after the fact.

(1) Participate in the TPM to design the workshop (via

The meeting was held in Gainesville. Neither Anderson nor I were
present. I received a preliminary plan for the workshop prior to
the meeting and mostly commented on this on the phone. There was
only one phone interaction during the actual meeting, though I
consulted by phone with Lisansky and Dain following the meeting.
Given the fact that it was logistically impossibly for the whole
team to get together to plan the workshop, the telephone
connection to a majority of the team was an effective vehicle to
at least provide communication on the plan. I do believe it
would have been better for the workshop as a whole if the gender
trainer could have been physically present for the planning

meeting. Some of the disjuncture between components of the
workshop was largely due to the impossibility of prior joint

(2) Coordinate and supervise the design of the gender analysis
training component, using GENESYS and other expertise and
resources as needed.

As I designed the component largely alone, there was no one to
coordinate. I selected and adapted materials from my own prior
work in gender analysis training, largely from the Gender and
Agriculture Project (Population Council) and the two volume
training manuals Working Together: Gender Analysis in
Agriculture, Hilary Feldstein and Susan Poats, eds. (Kumarian
Press, 1990). Though I asked for help in securing relevant
materials on gender and natural resources, GENESYS was not able
to locate these. I did secure elsewhere a copy of Kathy Parker's
GENESYS document on gender and natural resource management issues
and documents on the ECOGEN project at Clark University. The
major difficulty is that the application of gender analysis
training to natural resource management is in its infancy and
there simply aren't good materials yet available, especially with
case studies or examples from Latin America.' Those that are
available concern Africa and Asia, and were not considered highly
relevant to the participants in the workshop.

(3) Carry out the necessary preparations for training
responsibilities including becoming familiar with all subject
matter, and finding or development training exercises or case

Related to (2), I expressed repeatedly to GENESYS my concern that
my own materials and experience were in the agricultural sector
and that I needed other materials to use to cover ground in
natural resource management and specifically in use of extractive
resources and gender issues. Being located in Ecuador, I did not
have access to a wider range of gender or natural resource
documents. I did not receive any materials of this nature from
GENESYS and had to rely on my collection of agriculture
materials. I discussed with Dain the possibility of creating a
brief case study on his prior ACRE experience, but due to a lack
of time and other reasons this was not possible. There seems to
general agreement that there is a lack of existing training

Though not related to Latin America, I recently learned that
the forestry group at FAO is doing a training program with
foresters in Asia. Their work includes materials development,
delivery of training and training of trainers. I suggest that
GENESYS should get in touch with Marilyn Hoskins at FAO to learn
about what they are doing. Vickie Wilde is the trainer in charge
of this project.

materials anywhere in this area, and thus this could be a future
objective for GENESYS to development relevent materials. It was
not possible within the time allocated for this consultancy to
undertake such a task. Though I feel the gender module worked
well, the lack of concrete examples from natural resources and
gender lowered the effectiveness and applicability of the gender
component. This is demonstrated in the results of the
participant evaluation of the module.

(4) Arrive in Rio Branco three to four days prior to the workshop
to make final workshop preparations and help conduct final team
planning meeting, adjust final assignments, and other

Due to difficulties in traveling from Quito to Rio Branco, this
was not possible. Instead, by traveling via Miami, I was able to
arrive on Saturday morning prior to the start on Sunday evening.
This shortened considerably the time available for the team as a
whole to come together.

(5) Participate in the 5 days of the workshop alternating between
roles as lead trainer, secondary trainer, facilitator, or
resource person, as appropriate.

Similar to 1. above, only the role of technical advisor is
absent, adding to the confusion about this role. I largely
played a lead trainer role for the gender module and a
facilitator or resource person during the rest of the workshop.
I did not play the role of secondary trainer, as I did not co-
train for the other workshop modules.

2. Supervise the development of the gender analysis training
materials for the workshop, select material for translation into
Portuguese, and review other workshop training materials being
prepared as requested, in conjunction with the other trainers
Dain, Lisansky and Schmink. These responsibilities include:

(1) Develop the didactic material as needed or work with the
other trainers to ensure that the didactic materials for the
gender analysis component is prepared in advance.

I identified the materials from Working Together in January.
These included the Conceptual Framework, How to study for a case
study, and the Colombia Case Study. These were translated in
Florida for use on the first day of the course for the afternoon
session. I selected and translated myself supporting materials
(overheads and examples) for the lecture discussion on gender to
introduce the module in the first day morning session. As I had
hoped to have case material from ACRE to develop into a session
for the morning of the second day, I delayed preparing other
materials for this session. When the anticipated materials were
not forthcoming, I selected two alternative activity materials,

carried them to Rio Branco, and made my final selection there in
favor of a slide-case study presentation on the cassava project
and gender analysis in Ecuador. The translated versions of my
training materials did not arrive in Ecuador until April 8, when
I was in the middle of a previously scheduled event in Ecuador.
I was not able to review the documents until the week before the
workshop when it was too late to make corrections.

(2) Review other workshop didactic material, as requested, to
ensure workshop integration.

I did not receive in advance any training materials for the other
modules of the workshop prepared by the other trainers. I saw
them only on arrival in Rio Branco. The materials for the last
module of the workshop were developed during the first part of
the workshop.

(3) Ensure that all needed workshop readings and case studies for
the gender analysis component are prepared in advance, in
conjunction with Dain who will supervise translation,
photocopying, and preparation of workshop materials.

As stated above, they were sent to GENESYS on time and
translated, but due to a problem in mailing, they arrived too
late to make any changes.

(4) Ensure that all decisions on material selection have been
approved by GENESYS.


3. Communicate regularly with updates on your tasks and responses
to materials sent for review with the US-based training team,
Dain and Lisansky, during the two months prior to the workshop on
major workshop design and materials development questions. This
is particularly important since the entire workshop team is
scattered between Washington, DC, Florida, Ecuador, Rio Branco
and Rio de Janeiro.

Considering that my SOW arrived only three weeks before the
actual workshop, it was difficult to comply with assignments
specified in the SOW with respect to timing. Contractual
arrangements for me were quite difficult, delayed and time-
consuming, and caused the delay in receiving the SOW.

4. Select training materials, in conjunction with GENESYS, for
translation into Portuguese in sufficient time prior to the
workshop to allow for translation, specifically during February
and early March 1992. The translation and preparation of the
materials for the workshop will primarily be carried out by Dain
and Johnson in Gainesville, Florida.

Who is Johnson?? This is a repeat of prior tasks.

5. Select, prepare, and transport to Rio Branco any materials,
such as slides, that you will need to bring from Quito, Ecuador,
and advise and get approval from GENESYS in advance for any
excess luggage requirements.


6. Assist in the workshop evaluation and preparations for future
workshops by preparing a trip report within two weeks after the
assignment which includes your own evaluation of the training and
fulfills other requirements as specified in the GENESYS
consultant guidelines.

The evaluations and initial preparations for the future workshop
were done within the time spent in Rio Branco and is reported in
detail later in this report. A preliminary version of the
results of the trainer evaluation of the workshop was written
prior to departure and left with GENESYS member Anderson. The
final trip report has been delayed due to conflicting activities
in Ecuador.

The evaluation portion of the trip report should include:

(A) Your evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the
workshop in light of the overall GENESYS project objectives.

This is included the the following section under the trainer
evaluation write-up.

(B) Your analysis of the participants' responses and what they

I only have the summary of the participant responses to the
gender module, not for the entire workshop. These are discussed
in the section C-6.

(C) Your specific suggestions for the best way to carry out
follow-up with the participating NGOs to facilitate their putting
their workshop training into practice.

I did not receive a copy of the plans of action drafted by the
NGO participants during the workshop. I participated in general
discussions with the other trainers on follow-up activities,
however, largely in the context of the next workshop, not in
terms of specific actions for individual NGOs. The only specific
follow-up with individuals that I did was concerning methods for
conducting new product marketing studies, as mentioned above.

(D) Your specific suggestions for how to go about designing the
next workshop (September 1992) based on the first workshop's


These were discussed with the trainer team as a whole in Acre and
are summarized in section C-8.


This section of the trip report summarizes the various activities
accomplished during the time of the consultancy. It is divided
into eight sub-sections as follows:

1. Preparations for the workshop
2. Contracting with GENESYS
3. Arrival in country and last minute preparations
4. The workshop itself: schedule and summary
5. Workshop participants
6. Participant evaluation
7. Trainer self-evaluation
8. Discussion of next training activity

Specific findings and observations on what worked well and what
did not are included in each sub-section.

1. Preparations for the workshop

Preparations for the workshop took place over a period of about
six months and involved several steps. In general, the earliest
steps went quite well and achieved their purposes. The problems
in the preparation phase of the workshop relate nearly entirely
to the distance between the trainers and the inability for the
whole team to get together in advance to plan the workshop
together and to become a team, rather than a collection of
sequential trainers. All of us realized that a complete team
meeting in advance was impossible, and we worked around the
problem. Because most of us knew each other from prior work and
connections to the University of Florida, we worked better
together than most teams might have under the same conditions.
Nonetheless, it should be noted for future activities that joint
planning will enhance the likelihood of a successful training
course and should be conducted if at all possible.

When team building and planning are not possible prior to the
training event, then it may be useful to allocate time for team
meetings within the context of the training week, in the evenings
for example, rather than planning other work activities.
Training team meetings to assess progress and alter schedules
accordingly is a good way to make training work better under
normal circumstances. In a case such as this one, it becomes
more important because it helps the team learn to work together
and to support each others' responsibilities.

The early steps of preparation included a series of field visits
conducted by GENESYS project leaders Lisansky and Anderson in
Brazil. They visited the Amazonian states, met with members of
NGOs and discussed areas of content for the training event.
Through these visits, they were able to achieve several things
crucial to the successful outcome of the training workshop.

First, the priority areas concerning gender methods in
conjunction with other social science methods were identified
with participation from potential participants. In effect,
"ownership" by participants of the workshop was initiated long
before it actually began. Second, they were able to identify
highly appropriate participants in the workshop and ensure a
solid mixture of experiences and needs, and generally and fairly
even technical level. Finally, they correctly assessed the need
for tangible products from the workshop (ie. the plans for
incorporation) and were thus able to plan how to achieve these.
Through their trip reports, the two persons were able to
effectively communicate the results of the visits and these were
incorporated in the thinking and planning of the whole trainer

Concerning the preparations for the content of the workshop, the
objectives (listed above in Section A under objectives) are quite
broad and somewhat over-ambitious, especially regarding the
understanding of social science methods. In preparation
discussions, I strongly suggested that the team narrow down and
focus on a selection of two or three methods that would be new
and applicable to the participants. Otherwise I felt there was
too much material to cover.

I feel the same about the general objective concerning gender
analysis for the workshop and in light of this, I worked against
three more specific objectives for the gender module:

1. To become familiar with the various tools and methods
that are used to collect information about gender and to
conduct gender analysis.

2. To practice gender analysis using secondary information
and data.

3. To discuss and propose alternative ways of applying these
methods of gender analysis to the issues and problems of
natural resource management.

The sequence of activities in the gender component were organized
around these objectives and the participant evaluation reflects
the extent to which they were achieved.

It should be emphasized here that the team recognized the need
for materials relevant to natural resource management and gender
issues, but we were unable to identify anything that was
appropriate. As a next best alternative, during the preparation
process, I selected a training case study to demonstrate gender
analysis from Colombia, dealing with bean variety selection. I
supplemented this with a slide case study presentation on gender
analysis and its implications in Ecuador. Neither dealt with
natural resources, but both were Latin American, dealing with

production, processing and farmer organization issues similar to
those facing the participants. They were the best possible
options given the time limitations.
2. Contracting with GENESYS

The logistics in dealing with my own contract were problematic,
as mentioned earlier. Delays of an administrative nature greatly
hampered moving ahead with developing the materials and content
of the workshop. While I doubt that any recommendations here
will ultimately affect a contracting process that reflects
problems at the USAID level, not just the Futures Group, I would
like to recommend to GENESYS that the consultant/orientation
package of guidelines could have been sent much in advance of the
actual contract. This could have helped the contracting process.
(The only real risk might be that the consultant would be
dismayed by what appears to be a lot of paperwork and turn the
consultancy down.....)

In addition, having the guidelines in advance would have reminded
me about the need for US citizens to have a visa to enter Brazil.
Not having worked there in some years, I had forgotten this need,
and had to scramble at the last minute to obtain a visa and I
used precious preparation time (nearly a full day) doing it.

As mentioned above, the delay in receiving the workshop documents
hampered the planning of the content. It was a simple error.
The lesson learned is that when dealing with a scattered team, it
is useful to follow-up all document mailings with confirmations
by phone or FAX.

3. Arrival in country and last minute preparations.

I arrived in Rio Branco on Saturday morning after traveling all
day and a night. I immediately joined the team (minus Marianne)
in a planning meeting. As the last to arrive, it was much like
catching a moving train. I learned that a lot of the time since
the others' arrival in Rio Branco had been spent re-editing the
portuguese translation of the manual Judith had written on how to
conduct formal surveys. Redoing the translation and then re-
typing it took a lot of the trainers' preparation time. This
issue is considered in greater detail under the trainers' self
evaluation section no. 7.

During the Saturday and Sunday, each trainer worked independently
on the remaining details for their sessions. We also worked as a
team on the final organization of the schedule. Marianne, due to
family obligations, was unable to participate as fully as the
rest in the team preparations, however, we did hold two meetings
to review as a complete team the entire schedule.

During this time, I worked on the final translations of the
overheads for my opening presentation, put together a brief slide

show depicting gender roles in agriculture and extractive
activities in the Brazilian amazon, and prepared a slide case
presentation on gender analysis in the Ecuador cassava program.
Suely helped greatly in reviewing most of the overheads and Jon
Dain collaborated on the development of the amazon slide set.
The latter was developed to complement the slide presentation
"Invisible Women" that I had developed earlier and had been
translated by PESACRE to Portuguese. It had been decided that
the presentation would be shown during the Sunday evening
informal opening session. I took a number of slides of my own,
Marianne's and Jon's and put them together to silently show the
various divisions and responsibilities by gender of the amazonian
production and extractive activities. This was then scheduled
for presentation during the Monday morning Introduction session.

I had originally thought that I would use a video from Jackie
Ashby's project on participatory research in Colombia as an
opener for my Tuesday morning session. However, I was concerned
that it would not be appropriate to the audience. Jon helped me
review the video and we both decided not to include it and to
instead give more time to the cassava case study and time for the
participants to discuss gender analysis methods both in small
groups as in plenary.

Once the participants began to arrive on Saturday afternoon,
there was less time available for the trainers to finalize
preparations. As I was leading the first day and a half alone,
the rest of the trainers had a bit more time to prepare. At
7:00pm Sunday evening the workshop began.

The positive aspects or strengths of having all the trainers
arrive early in Rio Branco before the workshop began were:

time to make last-minute changes and corrections in the
program and the training materials
time for the trainer group to begin to function as a team

The weaknesses of this period were:

too much time devoted to correcting translations which
should have been corrected prior to arrival
lack of a separate person to handle only the secretarial,
logistics, and money needs of the workshop and training
team. This meant that Suely had to handle most of these
three needs, in addition to being responsible as a trainer
for the final session on action plans and her
responsibilities for business connected with other aspects
of the GENESYS project in Brazil.
there was no packet of materials or orientation prepared
for the participants upon arrival at the hotel. They
arrived and did not know what to do with their time nor
when things would be getting underway.

4. The workshop itself: schedule and summary

This section includes first some general comments about the
overall plan (macro-plan) for the workshop. Then the entire
workshop content is reviewed chronologically, giving particular
emphasis to my section of responsibility.
The original workshop schedule is presented in Appendix 2. Noted
in parentheses are changes in timing or the schedule as it
actually occurred. Most changes were minor or reflected timing
changes. The only major change was a decision to end the
workshop a half day early on Friday to give participants time to
visit areas in Rio Branco. A social event --- a churrasco,
hosted by PESACRE members --- closed the workshop on Saturday.
In reviewing the overall macro-plan for the workshop, I would
like to stress that it went very well. However, in retrospect,
there are several ways that it could have been improved to better
use the time and interest of both participants and trainers.
First, there was a lack of connection between the gender section
and the social science methods section. As stated earlier, much
of this was due to inability to plan both sections as a whole
team. However, for example, more use in the methods section of
the methods described in the Colombia case study (group
interviews, key informant interviews, participant observation,
informal surveys) might have created more of a link and better
inclusion of gender issues.

Second, a field trip was originally scheduled but then deleted
from the program due to lack of time. However, given that a
half-day was free at the end, it would have been better to have
programmed a field trip. This could have been on Tuesday
afternoon as a break between the gender and social science
methods sections, or on Friday afternoon itself. As Friday was a
holiday, it was not a particularly useful day for a break without
an activity planned. In addition, many of the non-Acre
participants were in Acre for the first time and were very
interested in seeing first hand the work of some of the well-
known projects/institutions operating there.

Third, there was very little involvement of local participating
groups except as individual participants. PESACRE has gained
quite a bit of experience in handling workshops and in particular
in conducting exercises using the "sondeo" methodology. This
experience could have been highlighted more in the workshop.

The workshop opened with an informal cocktail gathering on Sunday
evening (see Appendix 2). The session was lead by Jon Dain and
was designed as a general ice breaker and an introduction to the
workshop. Some but not all of the local participants (PESACRE)
attended. Materials were distributed, including the gender
materials, and participants were instructed to read over the
conceptual framework and the Colombia Case Study. Jon introduced
the trainers and the participants introduced themselves. Then my

slide module, "Invisible Women" was shown.

Rather than having Jon or I read the Portuguese script, Jon had
asked (earlier in the day) one of the early-arriving participants
(Leonardo) to study and read the script. He not only read the
script, but made valuable contributions towards revising the
script. By having one of the participants involved right from
the start in leading an activity, the event also set a
participatory tone for the workshop. One criticism I have,
however, is that following the slide show would have been a good
time for one of the trainers to have led a brief
discussion/comment section. Instead, the module was used more to
provoke individual thought and reflection. While this is useful,
by waiting until the following day to discuss it, some of the
learning and critique is lost. I did, however, make reference to
the slide show in my opening session the next morning. Following
the slide module, the session was drawn to a close.

Monday morning, Jon, together with Judy and Suely, led the
introduction section. Along with further introductions to what
is GENESYS and what the workshop would entail, Jon lead a session
on expectations for the workshop, dividing the participants into
groups and having the trainer team as well post its expectations.
This immediate small group activity got the day off to a good
start by involving the whole group of participants and trainers
in a tack. More importantly, the participant expectations were
well-reflected in the larger objectives for the workshop,
indicating that the preparation phase had included needs of the
prospective participants.

The introductory session also included the second gender slide
show, complementing the one from the evening session. This show
was presented silently, allowing each participant to reflect
individually on the slides depicting women's and men's roles in
Amazonia in agricultural production and extractive activities.
Following the slides, Jon lead a brief discussion of what people
saw, and many related the pictures to the slide/script
presentation the evening before. The purpose of the set of
slides---to take the participants from the global perspectives of
gender to the specifics of gender issues in Amazonia---seemed to
work well. Jon Dain is making a copy of the set for GENESYS that
could be used in conjunction with "Invisible Women" in future
workshops in Amazonia.

The gender analysis section went from mid-morning Monday to noon
on Tuesday. The detailed plan---or micro-plan---for the gender
section is included in Appendix 4. The content of the section
was divided into 4 parts. The first was a lecture/discussion
using a series of overheads (xeroxes of the overheads are
included in Appendix 5). This section also drew examples from
the two earlier slide presentation.

The second segment was the Colombia Case Study. Reading time was
allowed following lunch, since the reading materials were only
handed out during the prior evening session. In retrospect, it
would have been better for the materials, with instructions on
what to study, to have been waiting for the participants at the
hotel upon their arrival. Many might have spent some of the
afternoon reading the materials and would have been better
prepared for the session. Reading time was followed by small
group discussion where participants were directed to try to use
the analytical tools from the conceptual framework and to discuss
the study questions at the end of the case. This was followed by
a general plenary discussion that I lead. Due primarily to my
own fatigue from my first full day in Portuguese in years, I
closed the session a half an hour early and proceeded to a brief
wrap-up and instructions for the next day.

On Tuesday morning, the gender session resumed with the third
segment, a slide presentation of the application of gender
analysis to the Ecuador cassava program in Manabi Province. This
presentation, though not related geographically nor ecologically
to Amazonia, connected to the participants because it dealt with
a familiar crop (cassava) and familiar technology (cassava starch
processing). Also the organizational aspects were related to the
experiences of many of the participants who work with farmer or
extrativista groups.

After the coffee break, was the final segment to the gender
session, two short small group sessions, first dealing with the
gender methods presented thus far and the second on application
of gender methods. The same small groups established for the
Colombia Case Study were maintained. The session ended at noon.
Jon did a brief wrap-up session and then after lunch, we moved
directly into the social science methods session.

Judy and Marianne led the afternoon session. Marianne opened
with a discussion of types of social science methods and elicited
comments from participants on methods they wanted to learn more
about or that they thought were needed for their project
activities. Judy recorded all the responses on the board.
Marianne ended early and turned the session directly over to
Judy. This was the only point in the workshop where there was a
transition to a new event or trainer without a natural break
(coffee, lunch or nighttime).

Judy introduced the theme of questionnaires, formal surveys and
sampling. Following the coffee break, she lead the group in
"Tudolandia", a short exercise in sampling that demonstrates the
need for selecting informants or respondents beyond those living
just along the accessway (road or river).

During both of Judy's segments concerning questionnaires and
sampling, Marianne interrupted her to conduct a brief example of

time allocation study methods by getting everyone in the room to
note down what they were doing with their body at that time.
Marianne analysed the responses and presented it the next day
within the "other methods" section.

The session ended pretty much on time.

Wednesday morning, Judy led off the session continuing her
discussion of formal survey methods and giving examples of
problems and difficulties from her own field work in Brazil.

Marianne followed the session, moving the discussion to other
social science mentods. Though on the schedule, several methods
were to be covered, most of the time was devoted to participant
observation and key informant interview. Focus groups, community
and especially sondagem were given short shrift.
Following lunch, Marianne continued to lead the session. Jon had
selected a group of five participants to put together their
version of a "bad" interview as a way to generate discussion on
how to conduct good surveys. By accident or intent, the five
persons were excellent actors and actrices and the drama was
excellent and generated a discussion of how to conduct
interviews. The second half of the afternoon session focused on
time allocation studies and Marianne presented the results of the
time allocation study done the previous day during Judy's

After the coffee break, Jon lead the final segment of the social
science methods section. The participants were divided into 6
groups (different from those of the gender section) and were each
given the task of taking all the methods discussed in the
previous three days and consider them in light of their own
project activities and their general usefullness. This generated
an extraordinary amount of information, but processing it was not
totally possible, instead, the activity and the small group
discussion served as the basis for a review of all the methods

Thursday, Suely introduced the concept of an action plan in her
opening lecture, and then organized the participants by their own
project groups, to prepare a first draft of an action plan to
incorporated what they had learned in the workshop. Participants
worked all of the rest of the morning on their action plans, and
into the lunch period. In the afternoon, five of the groups
presented their plans which were discussed by the trainers and
the other participants.

On Friday morning, the two remaining action plan presentations
were made before the coffee break. After the break, participants
and trainers formed a single line circle to discuss, in general:
the action plans, ideas and problems concerning incorporation of
these concepts. Suely lead this discussion. Then time was given

for the written evaluation. Following this, Jon lead a second
"circle discussion" covering opinions and suggestions concerning
the workshop itself, future activities and networking, and the
written evaluation. I delivered a brief statement on networking,
(prepared at the request of the remainder of the training team)
and used an overhead to depict the types of networking that exist
in order to generate discussion on the topic (see Appendix 6).
The session discussion lead into more on "what to do next". The
oral evaluation session continued after lunch and was then
concluded. A more formal closure and "thanks" was carried out at
the churrasco the next afternoon.

The evaluation of the successfulness and the problems encountered
in the workshop are presented from two perspectives in following
sections: from the position of the participants and from the
view of the trainer team.

5. Workshop participants

A total of twenty-one participants attended the workshop along
with one WWF representative, John Butler. A list of all the
participants is included in Appendix 2. Of the 21, 11 were
female. There were no participants representing the USAID
mission. A majority of the non-Acre participants represented
NGO's engaged in development activities regarding production and
extractive activities. From ACRE, there was a mix of University
and NGO participants. One participant from Macapa had to leave
right after the gender section and another from the same group
left on Thursday. Another PESACRE member had a project crisis
that required her attention away from most of the workshop.
Other than these cases, most of the participants were there for
the majority of the workshop. Participants were mostly young and
most are currently engaged in field-level work, either conducting
research or community-level development projects. All the
participants were enthusiastic and highly participatory. They
were an excellent group to work with.

As there so often is in groups of this size, there was one
participant who was antagonistic to the training process and who
consistently made comments that were out of place and disruptive
to the group as a whole. Fortunately, the trainers did not have
to deal with this problem directly. Instead pressure from
colleagues within the participants acted to bring him back in
line with the group.

6. Participant evaluation

Jon Dain was responsible for developing the participant
evaluation forms and conducting the evaluation section. This was
done in two parts. First, the participants filled out the
evaluation forms individually; then, joined in a circle with the
trainer team and all facing each other, they offered verbal

comments on the workshop as a whole. Appendix 8 contains the
farm used to evaluate the gender section of the workshop and
includes the totals for the participant responses to the
questions. On the whole, the evaluation was positive. It is
clear that the first objective of the session was the most
successful----to familiarize the participants with the various
tools of gender analysis----was the most useful. In agreement
with my own assessment, the Colombia case study was too
complicated and removed from the working contexts of the
participants. There is a strong need for case materials from the
region for use in this kind of training session.

The oral evaluation session was in many ways more constructive
than the written session because participants interacted with
each other concerning their comments and observations. I took
notes on most of the comments and have summarized the statements
made by participants below.

Leonardo: The workshop was quite useful.
Fabio: We needed time on the program to make presentations on
our own work.

Margarida: For me, the most important part of the workshop were
the exchanges/contacts with other participants. The trainers
were good, anticipated language problems, but these were
overcome. Time was the only limiting factor; we needed more time
dedicated to practicing the techniques demonstrated by the

Marli: The distribution of time could have been better. It
would have been very useful to have participant presentations at
the beginning of the workshop so we would have known more about
our companions. If this had been done, then the presentations on
the action plans would have dealt more with plans themselves and
would have generated more discussion and better communication.

(At this point we broke for lunch and began again after lunch
with Jon leading the discussion.)

William: We really needed a field trip. Really did not get to
know much about PESACRE nor the work being done in ACRE.

Celia: We needed more on the methods for social science
research. Time was very short.

Bidu: Workshop should have been for two weeks with a field

Eliete: We needed more training on how to do things, not just
introduction to what they are.

Marcio: I found the gender analysis section the most useful as I

had not known of this before.

Celia: Found the gender section too theoretical, could have
been more practical. The drama was the most active and very
useful. Within the workshop, was hard to concentrate after
lunch, would have been better not to have lectures after lunch.
Better to have action, like the drama.

William: Would have been better to have received the reading
material in advance of workshop or at least upon arrival to begin

Celia: Best parts were small group activities where had to
produce a product as a team.

Cleusa: Could have profited from having more participation from
PESACRE, especially concerning informal research methods. Better
organization of workshop would be to have mornings dedicated to
technical presentations and afternoons for working on activities.

Ivonete: The most fundamental part of workshop was the gender
analysis. It included many things we had not thought of before
and presented concepts of how to include human values. ("resgata
valor humano". I do not have a lot of experience in doing
research but I have learned a lot here.

No Name? : The section on time allocation was very useful, but
we needed a lot more on how to do it, more practice needed. Also
needed to place attention on how to conduct marketing studies.

Carolina: The most important thing was the section on gender.
This subject needs much wider disseminations. Perhaps we could
have gotten the local TV station involved in workshop to share
the information and experiences. We need to include more on how
to carry these experiences back home with us. How to we "extend"
what we have learned here.

Suely: We need to learn more on the "art" of asking questions.

Marli: In my opinion, the workshop successfully met its
objectives. Now we need to concentrate on how to use these
methods better.

Following the evaluation discussion, the group moved to
discussing themes and topics to be addressed in subsequent
workshops. Their comments are summarized in section 8 below
concerning the next training activity.

7. Trainer self-evaluation

Following the close of the workshop, the trainer team met at
Marianne's house for a "self-evaluation" of the workshop. The

results of this evaluation session are included in Appendix 7.

8. Discussion of next training activity

Following the participant evaluation discussion, the entire
group---trainers and participants---discussed themes and issues
for a follow-up workshop organized by GENESYS to be held later in
the year. The list of topics below summarizes the discussion:

* Participatory research and participation
* Data analysis, especially of social science data
* Definition of key socioeconomic variables
* Practice in conducting gender analysis
* Include active field work/field visits
* Social aspects of managing natural resources
* Methods for dissemination of results
* Training of trainers
* Data collection methods
* Methods for conducting marketing studies
* Evaluation of participant progress between workshops

Prior to departure from ACRE, the trainer team met once again to
discuss ideas for the next workshop. Many of the recommendations
related throughout this document regarding planning, team
training, preparation of materials, were also suggested during
the planning meeting. Above all, my strongest recommendations
for the future were in two concrete areas. First, that the next
workshop focus on conducting informal surveys or "sondeios". To
do this, the group should engage the PESACRE team in organizing
the content of the workshop, with support from the Univ. Florida
training division, which has considerable expertise in running
farming systems training courses. The objective would be to
create a realistic workshop in an area where a team or project is
already or going to be working so that the data collected during
the workshop can serve as the base for initiating field level
activities. In other words, the workshop can be a real social
science field activity that will fit into a project's needs and
objectives. Since GENESYS was already considering Macapa as the
next site for a workshop, we suggested that they approach the
people working in Macapa about conducting a field activity in an
area where they intend to begin working. Making the activity as
real as possible will enhance the learning by the participants.

The second suggestion was to support work among the various
projects in learning how to conduct market studies. I suggested
that various persons with expertise in this area could be brought
together by GENESYS to share their methods and results with a
selection of persons who might be considering initiating similar
activities. In particular, the work being done by Cultural
Survival on market entry of forest products and the market
acceptance surveys CIAT is conducting could be included in such
an event.


The scope of work for this consultancy did not include any USAID
mission level activities nor travel to the USAID mission office
in Brasilia. No USAID mission personnel were present at the
workshop in Rio Branco, Acre.


Appendix 1.
Appendix 2.
Appendix 3.
Appendix 4.
Appendix 5.

Appendix 6.
Appendix 7.
Appendix 8.
Appendix 9.

Original GENESYS Scope of Work for Susan Poats
List of participants and institutions
Original workshop schedule with revisions
Gender Section Detailed Plan
Training Materials for Gender Component of
Networking Overhead
Trainers' Self-Evaluation Session
Key and Summary of Participant Evaluation
Photographs of the Workshop

; i
7ri' fRerovr A&J&~, '

Consultant Agreement
The Futures Group

Susan Virginia Poats

Under the GENESYS project;
AID Contract No.: PDC-0100-Z-00-9044-00
TFG Project No.: EX: 5833.301

I. Term of Service and Rate: Authorization is hereby given for you to provide Lonsulting
services for a period not to exceed 18 days between April 1. 1992 and June 30. 1992.

4 Predeparture activities -
12 Days in the field
2 Report Writing

Your daily consulting rate will be $ which has been approved by our Contracting Officer. This
payment willbe for an 8-hour day, however, you should understand that often there willbe days when
you willbe required to work longer than these hours. Time spent within the normal wodkday on long
distance travel to and from your assignment' will be reimbursed. '. ,

The work will be performed in Rio Branco Brazil from .April 1. 1992 to June 30, 1992. The per
diem rate for Rio Branco, Brazil is $92.00 with 11 allowed. Authorization is give r{or a six day,
workweek. -

Please review your consultant guidelines carefully. They provide you with information albut expense,
reporting. You will be expected to adhere' to 'the 'guidelines and to obtain any necessary -
interpretations and clarifications from the'Project "Administrator, Lee Martinez. '

II. Scope of Work: .; ": :':

1. Serve as the primary trainer, for the day and a half component on gender .alysis, and '.
Participate as a facilitator, resource person'and technical advisor during the eti re five-day'"
workshop, in conjunction 'with' other trainers *" Dain,' Lisansky, and Schmipk. These
responsibilities include but'are not limited to: '. '

(1) Participate in the TPM to design the workshop (via telephone). : ..

(2) Coordinate and supervise the design of the gender analysis training comment, using
GENESYS and other expertise' and'resources as needed. '' ,"


"19 . ....


go I
\'"3I; ~lc41w

(3) Carry out the necessary preparations for training responsibilities, include g becoming
familiar with all subject matter, and finding or developing training exercises or case studies.

(4) Arrive in Rio Branco three to four days prior to the workshop to make final workshop
preparations and help conduct final team planning meeting, adjust final assignments, and
other arrangements. '

(5) Participate in the 5 days of the workshop alternating between roles as lead trainer,
secondary trainer, facilitator, or resource person, as appropriate. .

Supervise the development of the gender analysis training materials for the workshop, select .
material for translation into Portuguese, and review other workshop training materials being "
prepared as requested, in conjunction with the other trainers Dain, Lisansky .arid Schmink.
These responsibilities include: -.

(1) Develop the didactic material as needed or work with the other trainers to" ensure that
the didactic materials for the gender analysis component is prepared in advance.

(2) Review other workshop didactic material, as requested, to ensure workshop integration.

(3) Ensure that all needed workshop readings and case studies for the gender analysis
component are prepared in advance, in conjunction with Dain who will supervise translation,
photocopying, and preparation of workshop materials.' I

(4) Ensure that all decisions on material selection have been been approved by GENESYS.

3. Communicate regularly with updates' on your tasks and responses to materials seit for review ,
with the US-based training team, Dain and Lisahsky, during the two months rior to the
workshop on major, workshop; design' 'and :materials 'development question 's This is
particularly important since the entire'worrkshop team is scattered between Washington, DC,
Florida, Ecuador, Rio Branco and Rio de Janeiro, '

4. Select training materials, in conjunction with GENESYS,'for translation into Portuguese in
sufficient time prior to the workshop td allow for translation,, specifically during February and
early,March 1992. The translation and preparation" of the.materials for the workshop will
primarily be carried out by Dain and Johnson in Gainesville; Florida. .

5. Select, prepare, and transport to Rio Branco any materials, such as slides, that you will need
to bring from Quito, Ecuador, and'advise and get'approval from GENESYS in advance for
any excess luggage requirements. ' .

6. Assist in the workshop evaluation and preparations for'future workshops by preparing a trip
report within two weeks after the assignment'.which'includes your own evaluation of the
training and fulfills other requirements as specified in the GENESYS consultant guidelines.

The evaluation portion of the trip report that should include: i;

(A) Your evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the workshop in light of the
overall GENESYS project objectives./ .. ;...


i' 3 ". j :> ,
*^ ; "'* *.. ," ';. .** ;* < * .' ; **: ., .* ,

(B) Your analysis of the participants' responses and what they'indicate.

(C) Your specific suggestions for the best way to carry out follow-up with the participating
NGOs to facilitate their putting their workshop training into practice.

(D) Your specific suggestions for how to go about designing the;.,next workshop
(September 1992) based on the first workshop's outcomes. .

III. Reporting Requirements:

1. As the primary trainer for the gender analysis component, the consultant will ensure that the
component is designed,and that teaching and exercises materials are selected and/or prepared
and translated into Portuguese during the two months prior to the April 27-May 1, 1992
workshop. Specifically, the consultant should provide Dain with specific written requests for
material development and/or translation, and specific requests for time allocations during the
workshop, by March 10, 1992.

2. The consultant willparticipate in the team planning meeting in Rio Branco for approximately
three days prior to the workshop (April 24-26, 1992), and participate as a trainer with primary
responsibility for the gender analysis component and as a facilitator and resource person
during the five-day workshop April 27-May 1, 1992.

3. The consultant will write a trip report 'which includes an evaluation of the workshop, and
specifically: (a) her evaluation of the strengths' and weaknesses of the workshop in light of
the overall GENESYS objectives, (b) her analysis of the participants' responses and what they
indicate, (c) her specific suggestions "for the best vay to carry out the follow-up with
participating NGOs to facilitate their putting their 'workshop training into practice, and (d)
her specific suggestions for how to go about designing the next workshop (September 1992)
based on the first workshop's outcomes. The report is to be done within two weeks after the
-workshop (May 18, 1992). The trip report will also include information as specified in the
GENESYS consultant guidelines. ;' :; '.

The consultant willbe responsible for completing the necessary forms for The Futures Group
request for payment, travel vouchers, "and reimbursement requests. Reimbursements and
travel vouchers require receipts.r Please see the consultant's guidelines.

.. '

I 'T,+l pOaL.v


2. Suely Anderson: REBRAF/GENESYS
4. Susan Poats: CIAT/GENESYS
6. Celia Regina Tomiko Futemma: IMAZON
7. FAblo de Castro: IMAZON
8. Marli Maria de Mattos: WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER
9. Leonardo Vielra Lacerda: FUND. VITORIA AMAZONICA
10. Andrew William Murchie: FUND. VITORIA AMAZONICA
11. Irene Margarete Hohn: STR/PARAGOMINAS
12. William dos Santos Assis: STR/PARAGOMINAS
13. Maria Raquel Mattoso Mattedi: IEA/MACAP
14. JoAo Alcindo Costa Milhomem: CNS/AMAP
15. Marcio Lima de Matos: CNS/AMAP
16. Allce Margarida Negreiros Alves: CEPASP
17. Ivonete Nascimento Gomes Trindade: CEPASP
18. Edviges Marta loris: MUSEU NACIONAL
19. Francisco Rlldo Cartaxo: PESACRE
20. Maria Cleusa Damo Rancy: PESACRE
21. Eduardo Cesar Montezuma Brito: PESACRE
22. Carolina Sampaio Barreto: PESACRE
23. Francisco Ubiracy Machado de Vasconcelos: PESACRE
24. Homero de Oliveira Costa: PESACRE
25. Denise Regina Garrafiel: PESACRE

A1 ^ -ev- a 'I x Q


SC-eJd e- 3

C0r^^v~t ^>^e-


to Gender Analysis and Social Science Research
April 26 May 1, 1992
Rio Branco, Acre

Sunday, April 26 Participants arrive in Acre

0: i3-!j :3 O-Jiirk

Monday, April 27


12:00- :30



Tuesday, April 28


Riecepion: lide shw "Invisible rmen" ALL
(Readings: Conceptual framework/Case St.udy)

Intiroduc ion to Tra i ning: SA, D),LL ,LL
-Intr-oduction Ice- Breaki
ij .. is Genesys (goals/objectives )
-F--*-.:tations:; par-ticipants & trainers
coais/i i. .lecitives of t.rai ning program
-Overview of training schedule

Introduction to Gender Analysis:
-rtl iect. ives
-Coincftptui.i.L-i Fr 'amework
Gender Ana I y1s is
-Colombia Case Study
-re-ad i ng ( i.h"s 1
-smn. grp. discuss. (Ihr)

Gender Analysis
-Colombia Case F' i
S-Pl enar y d i session
Daily Wrap-Up

Gender Ana ys ij
-T. ise





Conclusion of Gender Analysis
-Eva ua t, i on

10:1 5-12:00

Dtherl Social i ence '.. 1 _ds Cion i nued '
-Inter-view exercise ( poe.rrti';.ti^t id.rarl,- 'ek-w)
.-.. Recordings data i(taping, wrii:.ing, listening)
-Time Allocation .'' es

Wednesday cont.
1: 3:15


5:15-5: -:'

Thursday, April 30
86 00 -9 :S -m
(gioo- q0o)


(C:0- i1:oo
1 : 3 -2:30
3: -.: 00
4 :.,--5: 15
(: 30-S:CO)
Friday, fay 1
8: 00-9:45am

(0:005- 01:20

(\Ooo 10:20 )

Cio:o-- lco )

Conclusion: Intrduction to ::cial :ienc e
-qPuljlin.g it a.ll. together
Da i y Wrap--up

Introduction t.o action Plain (30

Es.r c i'si 4. (45)
.indiiduai NG0 Work on- Ac:tion Plan
-Ex 1riation (n0)
/ -Indiv. Niti work ( 1' 15")
CAjCtora 9a.^ nr Sv H Grous')

Coimii Plans
.Precnt-tionr. 1 sma l ;jcoups

Fri-esentetions in sm groups
Discussion of planning process

(5 4roop pres-^^ht^'1 ei Gc<.ck'n (

.:.,,-st. for incorporating Action Plansr'
Network .. :
How? Benefits'
-De vel op rea1s i c pl an





;', SA, JL

TiSA, R,

F ish 'S esc t i -y orcfc o c_

(Co E- k0

v -C~n o PLcv) ~c~-V e U +lu-(S iA f JOoj


Tuesday count.


Introduction to o.i.-:al Science Methods MS,JL
-Objectives of sessions
-Discussion: need for identifying
research wants and needs
-D.iscussion; identifying methods to address
those needs
-Discussion: the great variety of social science
methods that exist
-Importance of selecting the ;-:: I ,... iate
methodology/ i es

intr! oduction to ...-.-- : and Questionnaires JL
-: ,-1. is a survey
-When is iti appropriate
... is it not appropriate
., ges in survey research

introduction to Surveys and Questionnaires
y...l ing

Daily Wrap-up (reading Ass ignment )
trfl1 IC'ly rIi-rj ll\ C

Wednesday, April 29


(io: 5 "oo)


Survey Research Continued
-Designing resea.jch for ease of analysis
-.I.-. can happen if we are not careful


Intr-oduction to Other Dcial. Science
-i.,n- r-esearcher as a q :c.rch instrument
--i: -r-vation: directed -, participant
-Types of Interviews:
1) Key informant
2) Focus group
3) Community
4) Sondagem (sondeo)





5:15-5: 30


Fr id.ay contc.

12:00-1 LUNCH

I:: 3: 15 Networking Contin.ued ( if needed )

3: 5-3:30 CAFE

S:30i -4 : i 5 Eva luation
-Writt en
Ora 1

4:15-5:00 Conclusion of Training Frogra'r o

Saturday, May 2

1 1. : 0---. .- cows c:cre t'iie Churrasco

Sunday, May 3 Par-icipants leave Act-e





Monday, April








(41oo -q:30)
q 30 co)

Tuesday, April








Introduction: Gender Analysis Traininq Module
General objectives of module
Review detailed program
Introduction to trainer

What is gender analysis? (Lecture/Discussion)
Terminology and definitions
Brief history of gender analysis
Application of gender analysis to
agricultural research and development
Examples of using gender analysis tools

Wrap-up of morning session and assignment for pm.
Introduce Colombia Case Study
How to study for a case study


Reading time for conceptual framework and case
study. Individual work on study questions.

Small group discussion of case study

Coffee break

Plenary discussion of Colombia case study

Wrap-up of day's activities and preview of Tues.


Presentation of Ecuador cassava case study

Coffee break

Small group discussion of gender methods presented
and practiced thus far

Presentation and discussion of methods

Second small qroup discussion on application nf
gender methods

Discussion and wrap-up of the session



PppenkkA S .

g o.

,( m ir;

t #1 N'r

CO, rvry

f. MOao.-d


U4'U ti ,P ' W .1tA9 8r. 4(AC &
^^Secor hfl". .

3 e^-- ft t'
o. *pU^.,7
Q(>% ^rtup


VO.via S

4 D~tsS



SOv EyR/4D

.ZI: ~h

-C -~f.Vl 1

0.,v. .I, 9.

%;er~pojr 1~'YQnu.,; \^;{.F pevpes.~
C %"eb t91I~F14A.11't r ( l
CL. Ct le..lqy^ r t, eTil t

('8r u

I ,

pq.'% Co Ie .-

:?COi~v r~)

#fl~ IA94W.


Q10 c.4gt'

a)i e

ufM\ Mrd0Ao

- r (tkhc


owM; ci (i c

"i 4.r.

I- Ic; (lo ,32


A Gn- O^n

3 AnFl f -t I Ats.


S .

Tc..rrmi^ol %4
...m. w.. I an..

Caon eq f V*, (


(]h~: a-



'oe sZn vol v i nre -

I %

"es s vo(ve mt.P%4*
SAg ro.pwr0 a
*13 .~I~OIVV>/d

c t.



Oer- pacu-rio 0


.Si atvsI



P?4 % l ;.


Sir' t~a

el a tf* naer it$" 41
,a4ow@ @(Q

ct \. < .', 0 lfCei igcnf) f .Ir l/ eh%

.?. ~Poucsr ;^(.p @ 4> d. 'dy^ S1 %ctf oo Ia
S (SS n^'^^'c a ,

I' Rs dc^ h i pRres brt



I;ariwft r44tran vkr.Ei (se Far
ta Ti' fr e'' '*rC%. .

* rr


l / M 'st.

#~.:) eji~

-" A 49
h + t n o

/a~' Vmh ~ IPIk we4r

wrobs co

A <

wFic~l; F1 a\ mBr rci -0

d~n itc.n l~'


%% Tv ; I 1


?. :
*.( .>$

SVYo-lidvco^ a
T'" Won"& sio "M

.n. n. - r -T- )

plo~rriu4 ~L

* rjs thr* jw

* pr fii prSvn.

* Cp Lpk tn.'
Cataher f-.

dSa b'C wto*

deoa pfodtuCeApt

;irerdisplfcaw ae dCa s nskmSe
04 s CIS\ t. f t i, -' ex A see c

* Q^oy n are Cu A daL tAmfrrw/C^4Mr@ (r J-

* "' Fee4A &eck" porc d ~cwE4 to cle CMda* d
d4 pspsa

ca FU I\"~j~n~Ti

Repon c k ( da.c


,. 14IL4 Psy eAwder>

3. Th7ere& $4 s p
9< Tmr^e^ c0ampxLas6s

O" /tt 4.A
ai*,4 f.c ,
4 jUVt. A

c' m efs toa
tom icie "


4r. /7uyo


A oWeL .
'i11" o00,

C0 Mt/ J.o

aOs rdieo 5


A f (kt,

C ti kAZ'%,.

c.K ak I,

/ alf~rir~a~' ,s~

S~i CtS(FI C


o rnuoir~n .

P.. tvam

cf rn.

/1 se"eo4R e
a.,,r*., r'Q. ~*0

P SA P"m

2. : P7

pmrv eo a ls


< ceiMrvn c sV Cavcu^fte dcf nmpo.7 facnade 1.g
^^ co

rl~ ~i(

i &ft n V i tcro


po tF,:l ;

4+v. 1 `I h-S

ki3: m,

h~?(!T(r r


Pqunks+ BDicoA.*

Q uem

Q qFwr~1rm


3 0~IY

A ?
94d Ut

Ac ss o

ree, TS f
Yqmmv COmIm

C, cv 'Iy (

3. (o'd1u



11l4 dC S

0 Ur% 41

,~ ~(:

i n Ceru (d~

Sproja -o
A 9y0. (t c.a o


Conce tihakol

Qua d'l '1 inn I a .l I r"
F 1 IIATt-, "" '1






- 0&'

"T~ i~c~(qs~~p~g%
C~OF~rI C~che

it ol(cg I





V/ V uft.r.- "V

~ ~ U " " " ' -
% I-T*
('F1m e


Benerfi ciI fnmenlto

'l'rn(zidu o de: Dijnntre RocheleaL.M. "The User Perspective and the
Agroforstry Reseanrch and Action Agenda", pgs. 59/871n |lIGhol~
(ed.), Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities, and Potencialites
Dordrecht: Martint Hi.jhoff,1987.


L o moIe obm

I :
"rL c

Trnduz.ido de: Di)nne E. Rocheleatt M. "The User Ietspective and the
Agroforestry Research nnd Actioni Agenda", pgq~n 59/871n' H.Gholz
(ed.) Agroforestry: Rnalities, Possibilities, and Potencialit
Dordrecht: Martints lj jhoff,1987.


j orghum sort
i citrus (scattered)
|. .':; ,guava (scattered) aOoie Ih
'-w, .,n cowpeas 'iA' a rCb
... .. .U* 1 lots of Sesbania (dispersed
I SON f 2's ELNIOR pattern)

Sesbania (scattered) SON 3's PLOT
maize i m ,.he:, I,,
sorghum eemaize I
i cowpena 4 I d ,' sorglium tO
[ tIfTr cowpeas 4.g4 b tuar

WIFE'S Fl (r SON # 3's WIFE'S PLOT ,

Sesbania (,r atlired) I l, maize Wk( ,,%
Smaize f vh %I sorghum S 'i
sorghum Sv copean ii
I cowpca A&ijga t'; Sbania (scattered)
C'3--.---- ..n, ..z....... .. -.r ,.;,:. .,. < _,,,W_< ----.._.=..

maize twhit
Foighum i(@S
('owpeas ()
S sbpaiq (scattered)

F allow and grazing
plot (wild and
I overgrown) to be
locatedd to Son # 4
when married.

1'. 0. -aWha&Lrtf.

(, \~aR e~cg;


r f t GEN I'ci8ac
jJIjjlJJJJW Iniut nd I ledge, usunly) low c ,edingl hedges or grai5' strips
Q S~ ; 3 b "LiviG I:encei around compound
f~tvr~'r. ! g26t's

-FC,9ut%~~i lu-I

Store ;on's Ist wife CwoSa4A, Son's wife j Kx|
Elder's n .2 0i Son # 3
house aSct t, au Son's
ornamental k 2nd wife B (for timber
Senior wifes and shade trecs FC 0ooa ( forg ,r
house and U1,******, u iN^.Cn.
3rhouse l d'wife s house i"
t and stlor 1

2nd wife's house mt 1 nrkhamia'itrees and crops :1y .
cCa mize
S 'a te maize t|lho "s(ngium %

4|,- Ir. ^rIsI|
a dt r > s5 ...... ( t' :d sorghum )
kiBri"'n 'I, cowpeas
SON # 2's PLOT

Markhatnil|trees and crops *
maize uijh G&1aB'x Viyw
sorghum $s@ "
cowpea 4 ,, di. !i .ENIOR WIFE'S PLOT TI IlRD WIFE'S
cO pe m Eaz- t
mi naize I-







w ek



Modelo hipotetico de urn sistema de produgao familiar do Oeste da Africa







* *w 'a' *

6...... ...........

MAIZE LAND PREP ################
S.qWur.: Lw, I.. The indusion of Tim Fctorus intWr design of On-Sttion and On-Farm Tris: Aca study
from Kiloa DiOstrict Tanzania. August 1985.

WEEDING +++++++.++
HARVEST ***********e
. ,' --t . .. .



FsIPr emphasizes generating income through diver-
rSiati~nn. In 1984, 88% of households surveyed had
ihtomes below P8,000 a year. As the average family
needs about P5,000 Worth of rice annually, many fami-
lies lack funds for food and other basic needs.
The degree of relative poverty varies greatly by
household. The percentages of increased income
needed to reach the 1978 poverty threshold were cal-
culated for each type of household, as follows: Upland
farmers earning P3,329, 106,; landless laborers with
PS,646, 88%; coconut farmers with P3,825, 79%;
rainfed rice and corn farmers with P4.124, 66%; irri-
gated rice farmers with P5,518, 52%; and fishermen
with P4,735, 45%.
Farmer intercstin crops grown under coconut stems
from the land tenure system. In typical coconut-based

areas, tenants occupy about 95% of the land. They"
share the coconut harvest with the owner. A common
split gives 40% to the tenant who also bears half of all
production costs and guards the trees throughout the.
year. The tenant may keep or sell whatever he can pro.
duce under the trees. With depressed cocd; as prices,
tenant income from coconuts is not sufficient for sur-
vival. Hence, they seek other crops and ways to gener-
ate income.
A household usually produces crops and a few
animals (goats, poultry, perhaps a water buffalo, and
one or two cdws). The family uses the produce in the
home or sells it dii ectly at retail at the market center or
through middlemen (roving buyers, buyers based in
the barangay, or those in the market center). Off-farm
and non-farm jobs provide additional cash. Land-
r '

Upland &





Under :


300, *.'. Systems
Upland Coconut CASSAVA + MUNG WEEr POTATO Bsemg
__ "_ :------ __ -___-----_--_ ._ -Studied .',
Rainfed Lowland MUNG nICE RICE _____ ___ RICE MUN
Rainfed Lonvland ESii RICE RICE SES.
Ralnfed Low land RICE RICE Farmes'
I Traditional i
Coconut Areas .... SWEET POTATO Patters



TraditiorwI, ti-il, and new cropping patterns currently offer Bicol farmers several options
tofit veiriaoions in weather and markets. Farmers adjust crops and planting times to
expected a,,d rising rainfall patterns. This chart reflect the situatrin at an Albay site in

I .

-- I

I __U __ I__~_I__ ~~ _I

Nn -------- ITi

Figura 1-1

Exmplo dc urn Calenditio de Atividades Desagregado p:or Genero



I Estagio Chuvosa I EstaIo Seca I
Mar Abr Mai Jun Jul Ago Sep Out Nov Dez Tan Feb

6-- P c cCo
Ar c DD
PT o-- O----
- C Co/Ar/De De

PT p C Co PR
C 0- r








Coleta de

de Agua

Alimenta-io de
Animais Pequenos


Cuidado de

Construio e
Conserto de Case

SC Co Ar

Co De
D^~-- c Q-----0--------
r pT C -

Sp C Co/Ar/Dc
0 3------ ---
OCo Ar _______p i
O--- Ar 0)--^ i-----

~-------- --

cs~--------- Ilsl~r~~ZFI n~-l,__l


0-------- ---------------------

~a----- --

~i)-------- --



Tarefa parea mlheres
Tarefa pare homens
Atividade conjunta
Crianra mascatina
Crianag feminine
Atividede contimnc
tpoca de stividades mais
intensas ou mais tro-

Preparag o de Terra
Primeire Carpinagem
Segunda Carpinagem

Pr Processamento
Ar Armaneisatiento
Dc Descasca
De Debulh-


c2 Co/Pr

I --- ------- -

~rWc~h; ;r%~CLO c~L& ic2cc

tC? IVA.

uk k

* .erc o\froS
* Co~-o s ltrO 'vS
* kcxc0o au -C

* Correto e-(ec-fr'vYcc-b
* v / 61' r5Ls

-+0pos :

Odri-Q S- e- u rocg;eS

o cri;m4,."s p h-p c^

SrconjfeAs r.e-

CO;ov-c Cofl O, o e

v l/fs; le 3

(ek'ty-S, rOJEJeaiw omnfp'oC

C colervlkn\ ft5olare
resu (AJe ,, 4,t 4

* Wia
s ol -n- rq5ul~are.



Immediately following the close of the workshop, the trainers
participated in a self-evaluation session lasting about 2 hours
that I designed during the latter part of the week. As part of
the preparation for the session, I calculated the actual time
devoted to certain parts of the workshop versus the time planned
for in the program in order to identify problem areas in the
workshop. I also identified all the transition points in the
workshop program and assessed how well they worked.

The session was organized to follow the planned flow of the
workshop and to comment on each discrete section lead by a
specific trainer. The format used was to let the responsible
trainer lead off by stating what she/he thought worked well or
not well and why. Interventions by the other trainers were not
allowed until the lead trainer concluded. One trainer (usually
myself) recorded the comments on a series of large poster papers.
The session allowed us to examine how each session went and to
see the connections and interactions among sessions of the
workshop. Overall, such an evaluation helps trainers not only to
identify WHAT went well, but also to analyse WHY it went well,
and to review areas that need improvement.

As much as possible, this section summarizes the flow of
discussion during the session. I have also, where appropriate,
added additional comments from my own perspective.

Overall Comments By Trainers Concerning Workshop:

1. Trainers shouldn't have an overload of other work for the time
period of a training workshop. The need during this week for
trainers (Judith and Suely) to do GENESYS project work competed
for time to be allocated to the training workshop. Trying to do
both well can cause trainers to become overly tired and for
tensions to develop within the training team. Marianne's
comment: "you need to do one or the other, or else be content
with both achieving somewhat less than desireable."

2. Generally, trainer dynamics were quite good. Why? All
trainers had prior experience with some of the training team, and
all shared a prior base at the University of Florida. This fact
enabled the team to devote less time to pre-workshop training
team building (and having the team widely scattered during the
pre-arrival planning period) and yet still have a good degree of
co-training and collaboration during the workshop. This might
not be possible in other workshops if the trainers have never
worked or known each other before.

3. We see a need to plan the transitions from trainer to trainer
carefully, especially when they occur outside of a normal
transition such as coffee break, lunch or evening.

4. The size of the group of participants was excellent.

5. The mix of talents and experience within both the participants
as well as the training team was especially good and contributed
strongly to the overall success.

6. There was a good balance of men and women among the
participants. The participants reflect positively the benefits
of the prior visits to the projects and the selection of the
participants by the GENESYS team leaders.

7. The participant evaluation discussion session was very useful
and provided many insights into what was really learned from the
workshop and gave good suggestions for improvements for the
future and themes and activities for the September workshop.



Jon's comments (Sunday Evening cocktail)

-might have been better to have project presentations in evening
as part of ice breaker, something more detailed about
participants, perhaps having them bring something about project
like William did (the fotos mounted on the wall of the training
-General comment from Jon: should have food at coffee breaks.

Jon's comments (Morning session):

-was trying to set mood of workshop
-trainer introductions were ok
-slides were quite effective (Amazon collection)
-would have been better with an icebreaker even though one was
done night before at the opening cocktail
-felt he didn't share his plan with rest of team and they didn't
know what he was going to do when he started.
-thought it generally went pretty good
-his comment about wanting to be informal and not having a
distance between the trainers and the participants, and then
sitting in chair created some confusion, especially for Susan who
intended to do her session totally on her feet.

Other Trainers' Comments:

-did need more of ice breaker in morning
-in future we could have participants write introductory

paragraphs about themselves ahead of time and then circulate them
with opening documents
-participants needed instructions when arrived at the Hotel, and
a packet could have included the training materials
-we should have encouraged discussion of the slide show
"Invisible Women" at the opening session.
-the "salgadinhos" from Maria Brasileira were not very good at
the cocktail.


Susan's comments:

-think went fairly well. I dropped three overheads in the
presentation because I thought I was running out of time.
-it was difficult to get the language (Portuguese) up and running
again after so long of not speaking it; I felt I was speaking
slowly and a lot of it in Spanish.
-I did not think I had enough time to let the concepts sink in; I
should have planned for a number of small exercises (calendaring,
benefits analysis, mapping, etc.) in order for participants to
practice the tools for gender analysis, instead of just
presenting them with the overheads. I did not spend enough time
on the specific pieces of the conceptual framework, thinking
instead that participants would grasp this from the work with the
Colombia Case study.

Comments from other trainers:

-the session went well, but there were too many overheads, too
complicated because of complex information;
-it was a bit too much for one session
-very complex

3. COLOMBIA CASE STUDY (Monday after lunch)

Susan' Comments:

-there were three parts to the exercise: individual study of the
case, discussion in small groups, then a plenary discussion of
the case study. Participants were kept in same small groups for
the entire 1 1/2 day gender session in order to let participants
get to know each other well, and for sessions to get
progressively more analytical.
-Colombia case study was not good for the group. They did not
have enough time to read it, and using it after lunch meant they
were too tired to absorb the information. I had originally
planned to walk the participants through the case study analysis
as a group, not depending on them to do the analysis. However,
when I saw the list of participants, I thought they were more
advanced than they were, and I also thought the PESACRE people
from agronomy would be participating, to provide more analysis.

Instead, they were very few people with agricultural research
experience, and thus many of the case points were lost. I
thought the small group session was still useful, and the
discussion generated many useful observations and issues on
gender that were used further on in the workshop.
-on whole, I would rank the session as medium.
-I ended the session at 4:30, early, because I was exhausted and
because the discussion on the case study was winding down.

Other Trainers' Comments:

-should walked the participants through the case; didn't
understand it nor what should be doing.
-would not use this case with this group (or similar) again
-was a complicated case study and should have had 3-4 basic
questions instead of the ones in the back of case for guiding the
participant discussion and analysis.
-fewer questions maybe would have been better.
-should not have scheduled reading for after lunch. Better to
have given out in advance.
-many materials were never read by participants.
-should have done exercise on mapping instead.
-should have had more on details of analytical part.
-excellent, well-presented overall


Susan's Comments:

-I decided night before (with Jon's help) not to use the Colombia
case study video, it did not seem to portray the gender issues
effectively; instead, presented the cassava case study with
-very familiar work for me ---thus easier to present, was in
morning so was fresh; still related to participants because dealt
with processing cassava and with farmer organizations.

Other trainer's Comments:

-was own material, rang "truer"

5. METHODS OF GENDER ANALYSIS (Tuesday mid-morning)

Susan's Comments:

-purposely kept same small groups; discussion was even better
as a result;

Other trainers's Comments:

-a set of guidelines for the various methods of gender data

collection and gender analysis would have been useful

(Tuesday late morning)

Susan's comments:

-no comments written on the sheet.
-in general, I think it went well, most important was the
participant discussion and presentation of what each group would

Other trainers's Comments:

-good professional presentation
-"made" the workshop work
-they got it

7. WRAP-UP/CLOSURE (Monday end of day)

Jon's comments:

-not a fire-side chat
-not effective...too tired, too late...needed some "trick"
-good idea but didn't work

Other Trainers' Comments:

-may review objectives more and comment on guideposts
-amazingly on time (referring to whole gender session and the
timing of the closure of session before lunch)
-was effective (countering Jon's assessment that "didn't work")
-session is a "marker" of the end of day (established that when
Jon gets up, the end is near.)
-knew that Jon could "cope" with all the problems


Marianne's comments:

-I am "good trainer, poor planner"
-wanted to elicit what it was they wanted to know about and got
it up there but didn't know what to do next.
-wanted to know what they were doing

Other trainers' comments:

-we did most of planning for this event (activity) when we
arrived, not before, made difficult to get it all ready, did not
work on collaboration "co-training", did not plan transition to
next session.
-participants were frustrated

-they wanted to talk about their work by now but only got a
little taste,
-did make a transition of sorts, "here are all these methods"
-but most of methods elicited were surveys, not alternative
(was underlined on the poster paper)
-could have analysed their projects and identified the methods
they are using and lead discussion of other methods based on
-should have let others write on the board instead of Judith who
could have then been preparing herself to take over the session
when Marianne finished.


Judith's comments:

-I have not done training before, only teaching, training is
really different
-"during our trainer planning meeting in January, I was stuck
with this session" (the questionnaire session)
-surveys, questionnaires, didn't want to do it
-survey/questionaire methods, they all know them, needed to be
unthreatening and undirected, yet needed to be challenging
-stuff was not ready (my visuals, materials) and had to organize
the room and front when Marianne finished, I had dry mouth,
always happens when I have to talk to audience, wasn't any water,
Bidu had to get it, when it came he spilled it on my
-objective was ok, but lacked an example, not a good exercise

Comments from other trainers:

-Marianne: "I messed Judith up, thought I had special need to be
doing the time allocation exercise while she was presenting her
stuff. Thought I needed three periods of measurement, when I
realized I only needed two, and I could have done it during my
own sessions. Just when Judith got going and into material, I
would leap up and interupt to get the time allocation done.
First time was awful, second time, not so bad. I should have
interrupted myself. "
-Marianne: (in reference to planning sessions and who would do
what) "In planning sessions, I thought Judith wanted it (the
session on questionnaires) so I didn't make comment ahead. Could
have been livened up. Could have spent more time on content,
than on abstract of the stages of the process.

(There were other comments here, but not recorded on the sheets.)
-Susan's comment: This session was the only one in the workshop
where there was a transition from one trainer and a session to

another without a natural break. Marianne ended earlier than was
scheduled and handed off to Judith suddenly and quickly. Judith
who had been writing on the board was left short without time to
collect her thoughts and get ready with her stuff to start. The
participants were just waiting for the next event to happen.
This was particularly hard on Judith who was training for the
first time, and was naturally nervous. Also, the timing after
lunch on the second day, when there normally is a "low" energy
period no matter what the content of a week-long workshop, worked
against Judith. The other trainers, Susan, Jon, Suely, did not
know what was happening, because we had not discussed as a team,
and did not know what to do to help. All of these things in
combination lead to the session not being as good as it could
have been. With Marianne's interruptions for the time
allocation, it only made it more difficult for Judith.

What could have been done differently? Judith could have said
something like "well, this has been a long day and we have seen
some interesting issues placed on the board. Let's all take ten
minutes to stretch our legs outside and think about methods and
problems of collection data...". Or, Jon could have taken over at
that point and made a new transition: "Thank you Marianne for
getting us off on the right foot for the next segment of our
workshop. Since Judith will lead the next session, let's give
her a bit of time to get organized, so let's go for a stretch
outside, (or right here in place). Alternatively, Marianne,
could have made the signal for a brief break and transitedd" for
Judith. While the session was not at all bad, it was not as good
as it could have been, and all of the above made the task of
training harder for Judith. Better preparation and team
collaboration, would have diminished the problems.

EXERCISE (Tuesday end of afternoon).

Judith's comments:

-"thank God for Jon" in ref. to his help in developing an
exercise for the concept of sampling
-sampling did get across
-good for problems of sampling, even mistakes were a "learning"
because such mistakes happen in the real thing.
-exercise saved the afternoon
-IMAZON knew a lot, had experience to share with others
-crisis with materials, the manual problems and translation
really hindered the training process
-was not designed to be perfect, but I wanted this "perfect
thing", how could I find out what I needed to have?

Other trainers' comments:

There were none written on the paper, at this point, I was
writing and also directing discussion about the afternoon's
session. I should have asked Jon to take over the writing.
Susan's comments: The Tudolandia exercise was an excellent tool
for getting across the idea of sampling and sampling error. It
worked well with the group. The only problem was that it was
"solved" fairly quickly and discussed, and then there was nothing
prepared to follow. A pre-test of the tool might have revealed
this, however, often a tool will work very differently with
different audiences. Since the group was already tired, the
discussion lagged. What could have been done? Many trainers
plan alternative activities that can be done when one finishes
sooner than expected. A new short activity involving small
groups might have brought the session back up to action to end
the day.

11. SURVEY METHODS CONTINUED (pre-test, questionnaire, her own
examples, small group discussion) (Wednesday morning)

Judith's comments:

-"actually, I wasn't really stuck with the session" (speaking
about the surveys/questionaires) initially, but I did feel that
it was something I could do, wanted to do.
-this session I re-couped, setup fresh in morning, went over the
material again, showed them in the manual where things were,
zeroed in on the design, "stuff was really there",
-"I felt fluent again"
-now we were ready to go into small groups
-survey is not appropriate for everything. We wanted to get this
across to group. In small groups discussed that questionnaires
are not always appropriate, but this was not emphasized in larger
-still work on piece of it, ok idea for the future.
-session did flow to the next part (better transitions this

Other trainer's comments:

-switched groups here, they were now different from Susan's
-started session at a natural transition point, first thing in
-Judith established her credibility as researcher with her book
and with examples of her own work.
-She placed her own problems on view for the participants to see,
processed them and gave alternative solutions to problems.
-it was a good introduction for community surveying methods
-Judith is a "morning person". This is her natural time to be
dynamic and high energy. For future planning she should keep
this in mind and do her "trainer dependent" session in mornings,
and conduct small group or participant lead activities in the


coffee break)

Marianne's comments:

-this session felt good. Better handle on it. Would have been
better if in small group as well, but the group did get into it.
They did most of talking. Lots of discussion about participatory
research and participant observation. Wanted to present "the
researcher as a tool" and give other people way of thinking about
-Led them into the "personal side" of research. Main purpose was
to discuss types of interviews, but did not cover all types on

Other trainer's comments:

-"researcher as tool" is good concept, must be "sharp tool"
-nice to have different styles of presentation among trainers
-content of the session was on "other tools" that can be science
-session was more relaxed, Marianne slowly built into case for
different methods
-still reliance was heavy on surveys, observations, but very
little on "sondeio" or informal surveys. Focused also on time
allocation methods, which tend to be more "formal".

13. OTHER METHODS (Wednesday afternoon)
a. Skit
b. Time allocation methods

Marianne's comments:

-the skit was wonderful. Jon organized it, selected participants
to organize it. Purpose was to demonstrate problems in doing
informal interviews with team of researchers.
-participants and "actors" had lots of comments and the skit "hit
home" with most people.
-the time allocations examples and the demonstration of what was
done with the time studies during the sessions the previous
afternoon were quite interesting to group, but don't know if they
really got the methods.

Other trainer's comments:

-skit was fantastic
-device of getting participants to develop and present the skit
was great
-time allocation session worked well, was a "technical method",
seems precise, is a "counter" to other methods presented which

seem "fuzzy" to non-social science participants dealing with them
for the first time.
-participants were more curious about it than most other methods


Jon's comments:

-Liked the session and it seemed valuable,
-BUT, it was the least prepared session, I had worked it out in
my head, and not on paper, I thought it would work but I hadn't
counted up how many "cells" of information each of six small
groups would have to fill out.
-exercise fell apart in two places: 1) underestimated by half
the amount of time it would take people to complete the task,
several groups did not finish; 2) it was a massive size once we
got going.
-had too many small groups (6)
-not enough room for all small groups in room and not enough
space on board for the whole exercise.
-I said I would type it tomorrow (Thurs.) but never got around to
doing it.
-Despite these problems, I really wanted to do something with
"training content" in the workshop and not just do the logistics,
I needed more time to get session organized, and I needed to try
it out with other trainers before delivering it.

Other trainer's comments:

-need to think ahead of time how to organize the small groups,
who to put together, how to manage.
-Jon needed to discuss the exercise ahead of time with the rest
of the trainers; we did not know what was going on.
-But despite these problems, the exercise went well. It was like
a review session for the whole group.
-from what groups placed in the charts it was possible to
identify what they did and did not understand from the methods

15. ACTION PLAN (Thursday morning)

Suely's comments:

-it was only after getting to Rio Branco that I really understood
the plan of the course, the concrete exercises and sections of
the workshop.
-I was intimidated by the training team
-it was scary to take on a large session like this one
-some of the best points unfolded naturally, not planned
-participants 'more or less' understood the framework of the
action plan.
-I didn't smile, was very focused on the task.

-'How' was missing from the chart presented for the action plan
-used transparancies (first time), effective but overdone.
-organizing the participants into a circle worked well for the
processing and evaluation of the session.

Other trainers' comments:

-this was the first time during the week of the workshop that we
all collaborated in planning a section and it was delivered as a
team, with all knowing what our roles were and what was about to
-the opening presentation was very clear and worked well.
-the presentations by the participant groups of their plans were
very good, but the timing was off. Should have kept them closer
to the time allocated. As it was, had to go over into Friday
morning for the conclusion of presentations.
-Suely really "grew into the task", and exercise went very well.


1. All of us except Suely Anderson conducted the training in a
second language. The demands of training in a second language
need to be recognized by the trainers. Such training exaggerates
the normal exhaustion and increases the degree of difficulty in
planning, active listening and facilitating during training and
diminishes the time available for rapid re-design while the
training event is going on just because the trainer, after a full
day of training, is too exhausted to do anything else well.
While training in a second language does not necessarily have to
be second-rate, planning for the additional difficulty of
language can make the difference between 'good' training and
'just ok'.

2. We had one male participant who was a classic "difficult and
obstructive participant". His behavior and questions were all
the more bothersome because he did not speak clearly. Each of us
in turn was subjected to his attempts to discredit whatever we
were working on at the moment. We should have probably
recognized him as a problem earlier and worked out a way to
handle him. However, what happened was that his own colleagues
from ACRE put him back in his place and in effect told him to
behave. Many training courses have difficult individuals and
there are a variety of ways to handle them. What worked well
here was that we were supportive as a team once we recognized
that he was the problem, not us, and we were fortunate that his
peers dealt with the problem.

3. The flow of the workshop content from the "drama" to time
allocation study methods did not seem right to me. Following the
drama which so beautifully demonstrated what not to do in an

interview, we should have moved into informal interview
techniques and a discussion of who to select for interviews and
lead into "sondeio" methodology. I think we missed an
opportunity to use the drama for this purpose. Instead, the
sequence moved to a more "formal" technique, the time allocation
study, which did not build on the "drama".

4. We noted in the presentations of the action plans that the
majority included plans for formal surveys and several noted
interest in trying out time allocation studies. However, very
few noted the other informal survey methods. This aspect was one
of the purposes of the course, to expose participants to the
pitfalls of formal surveys (sampling errors, data analysis), how
to deal with them (better sampling design, etc.) and to offer
participants alternative methods to use for social science data
collection. Practically none of the participants put informal
surveys into their plans.

I believe a large part of the reason for this was that the
majority of the time during the social science methods was
dedicated to formal survey procedures and this is reflected in
the participants' plans. Also, there was some discrepencies
between the time planned for a session and what was actually
delivered. The table below demonstrates the time planned and
actually allocated to the different pieces of the social science
methods section and the total time allocated to each kind of


Introduct./overview 1.0 0.66
Intro. survey res. questionnaire 1.0 1.0
Surveys and sampling exercise 1.25 0.75
Survey res. and questionnaire 1.75 1.5
Introd. other methods 1.75 1.5
Other methods 1.75 1.75 (.87 time alloc
.87 drama)
Conclusion/drawing together 1.5 1.5

10.0 8.66

Total time for: Time %

- questionnaires 3.25 37.5
- drama 0.87 10.0
- time allocat. 0.87 10.0
- discussion 1.50 17.3
- other 2.17 25.0

What we see from this analysis is that the majority of the time
of the social science section was devoted to formal
questionnaires. Though the intent was to demonstrate the
difficulties of these methods and the attractiveness of
alternatives, by focusing time on the questionnaires, the workshop
tended to reinforce the existing tendencies of the participants
to lean in favor of questionnaires, and not towards the
alternatives. The gender session, which showed some other types
of methods (calendaring, mapping) are really tools for
summarizing and analyzing genderedd" information after it is
already collected. They were not necessarily data gathering

Since the workshop reinforced the formal survey method, it is all
the more important that the next workshop concentrate on the
alternatives, especially the sondeio methodology.

ApenAC ii 8
SReseo s of PAr4kc par4 Evaluc-cm-
oa GnciLer MO rn d l-

Avaliagao da Urndade "AnrAlse de Genero"
Program de Treinamento GENESYS
Rio Branco, Acre 28 de Abril de 1992

A unidade do trelriamento que tratou da AnAllse de Gncro
teve tres objetivos. Por favor indlque o nivel de sucesso que a
unidade teve en ajudar voc a alcangar esses objetivos:

1. Famlllarlzar-ee comI
as vArlas ferramentas
e 8letodos para coletu:
informagOes sobre
genero e ara fazer
ankllse de genero.

2. Pratlcar a anAllse de
genero utillzando
nformagOes e dados

3. Discutir e proper
manelras para a
apllcagao de anllse
de genero aos assuntof;
e problems de manejo
dos reoursos naturals.

4. Equal parte
Por que?


1 2 3


6) ;


4 5


2 3 4


2 3 4 5

da unldade de AnAl1se de Genero fol a menos Otil?

5-- C6\on\cA scas 5-7

9-- Moi~'. -

5. Equal part
Por que?

da unidade de An~llse de Genero fol a was Otill?

3 meoIstllS (c^ei^cv, ctc)

3.- e-" -fl,'

3 j i-ue-lo-, 1 6A

S- Ufe(PPY Oo s*'/


: o(10 i-reychd

L/.a av.

3,' ava.

3 v- Y

6. So voc5 tivesse a oport.un1dade de modificar a unidade de
trelnamento em Anbllse de Genero, como a modificaria?

7. Outros comentrlogs?


-U I


mob=+-,. A'


-;. I *.


r~ I V

~ ~ ~ ~ '.*..r

:;8:, : A

In L..W .1l?
'4.~ r

"~ :i' i. ~"Illl :
'K u;,

-. Un s)3-E q m zin 333 -


44 -. ..





er~narg~" ~ fl" I

; i.

an .

Vg pl X'5



~E; -'



"~s~ "

fjo ..




A p~e~;~FiF:~: :




PI, ~* i

'-: le~-l~i~Bg~ In~yS
~Y I~




1 -.

A p JI

do t., L I -T ,. ,
,i . ,CIt r r 'i t

d iMvti de frllnin ll t



"r ,^i

;- ';"i"
?;:~ "


qI tI I

mmm.-__ .,d

IF) =iil

.~-4 8
( Jl6rur I

6 Zi ; J
*=lf J n

I-F-I =6irp

4 1'ar,
Z 59s116P

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