Citation
Gender issues in farming systems research and extension : a survey of current projects

Material Information

Title:
Gender issues in farming systems research and extension : a survey of current projects
Creator:
Poats, Susan V.
Gearing, Jean
Russo, Sandra
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
Tropical Research and Development, Inc.
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
183214225 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
( r


U.SA.I.D. Contract Number:

PDC-0100-0-00-8144-00


By

Susan V. Poats Jean Gearing Sandra Russo


Tropical Research and Development, Inc.
Gainesville, Florida





Prepared for

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


February 1989


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











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


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







TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION .

1.1 Structure of the Report . . .

1.2 Objectives of the Study .

1.3 Rationale and Antecedents for the Study 1.4 Intended Audience for the Study Results


SECTION

2.1 2.2 2.3


SECTION

3.1 3.2 3.3


SECTION

4.1 4.2


TWO: Vw11Y CONSIDER GENDER ISSUES IN

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

A History of WID, Gender Issues, and FSR/E Current Status of Gender Issues in FSR/E


FSR/E? . . to Farming


Systems


THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 8

The Questionnaire . 8

The Sam ple . . 8

M ethods of Analysis . . 9


FOUR: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS . 10

Non-Questionnaire Responses . . 10

Analysis of Descriptive Parameters . 11 4.2.1 Project Location . 11 4.2.2 Institutional/Agency Affiliation of Projects . 12 4.2.3 Funding Sources of Project . : . 12 4.2.4 Duration of Project . 13 4.2.5 Project Objectives . *** *' 13
4.2.6 Target Group's . . 14
1
.4.2.7 i Project Corn onents . . 15 4.2.8 Typology of Projects . . 17







4.2.9
4.2.10 4.2.11


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


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


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


Stages


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


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

4.5 Optional Comments . 47


SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 49

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







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


5.2 Recommendations. . I.


REFERENCES APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B:



APPENDIX C:


GENDER ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE.

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


REGION,
SOURCE,


TYPE OF PROJECT, PERSONNEL, GENDER ANALYSIS, AND GENDER TRAINING . List of Disciplines and Number of Projects Reporting. List of Projec ts, by Project Type, Personnel, Gender Analysis, and Gender Training. .


5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6








LIST OF TABLES


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







EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

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

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









SECTION ONE


INTRODUCTION


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

1.1 Structure of the Report.

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

1.2 Objectives of the Study

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

1.3 Rationale and Antecedents for the Study

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







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

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

1.4 Intended Audience for the' Study Results

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







SECTION TWO


WHY CONSIDER GENDER ISSUES IN FSR/E?


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

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

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

Before reviewing the current status of gender issues in development projects, it is useful to consider briefly how gender issues became a part of FSR/E. The farming systems approach to agricultural research and extension emerged in the 1970's as a response to the challenge of developing technologies that would be appropriate to the needs of lowresource farmers. This task required an understanding of farmers' particular constraints, goals, and farming practices that went beyond strictly technical and economic criteria. Definition of the farming environment of low-resource producers also required FSR/E practitioners to focus on the management and decision making abilities of farmers. T'his in turn led to an emphasis on the farm household as the central unit of the farming system. While the focus on the household was part of a long-needed recognition of the rationality of low-resource farmers, it unfortunately also obscured the differences among individuals within the household. Borrowing household models proposed by economists, practitioners assumed that "the farm household" functioned as a single unit of production and consumption. It was further assumed that consensus among household members existed on the allocation of resources and benefits, and that all household members' interests and problems were ideRtical (Cloud 1988).








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

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

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

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

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

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







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

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

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

2.3 Current Status of Gender Issues in FSR/E

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

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









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

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

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

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








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

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

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

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









SECTION THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 The Questionnaire

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

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

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

(C) Source of the initiative to !include gender issues (team member, donor, national
government, target group m ember).

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

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

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

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

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

3.2 The Sample

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







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

Four questionnaires were returned as unable to be delivered, reducing the sample to 210 individuals. A total of 48 people mailed back completed questionnaires. An additional 11 individuals sent letters of response but did not complete questionnaires. Thus, 28% of all individuals contacted made some response and 231yo completed questionnaires.

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

3.3 Methods of Analysis

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

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

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

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








SECTION FOUR

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Non-Questionnaire Responses

Eleven respondents sent in letters but did not .complete the gender issues survey questionnaire. Most the letters explained why they could not complete the questionnaire. Eight individuals stated that the work they were doing is not tied to a development project and the questionnaire wa's inappropriate. Five of these respondents stated that gender was not a relevant issue in their work. 'One of these individuals, who is conducting research on cereal crops in the West African Semi-Arid Tropics, said that he "does not consider gender issues in the least bit." 1This raises some concern for the results of his research given women's roles in production for many cereal crops in that region.

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

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

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

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

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








4.2 Analysis of Descriptive Parameters

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

4.2.1 Project Location

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

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

Table 1. Number of Projects By Geographic Region:


Geographic Number of Number of Percentage of
Region Projects Responses Responses


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

Total 45 48 100.0%








4.2.2 Institutional/Agency Affiliation of Projects

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

Projects reported the following types of institutional/agency affiliations:

Type of Affiliation: I Number of Projects:

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

Total Affiliations 62


4.2.3 Funding Sources of Project

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

Respondents reported the following funding sources for projects:

Funding Source: Number of Projects:

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

Total Funding Sources 55







4.2.4 Duration of Project


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

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

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

Table 2. Project Duration by Geographic Region:


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


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



4.2.5 Project Objectives

Reported project objectives crystallized around the following eight themes:

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.6 Target Groups

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

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

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

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








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

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

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

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

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

(D) "Subsistence Workers": 2 responses mentioned some other form of subsistence
workers (e.g fishermen, forest occupiers). Table 3 shows target groups by type of project. Table 3. Target Group by Type of Project:


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


FSR/E 20 4 -FSR/E+ 12 2 1 1

Non
FSR/E 5 9 2 1


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

4.2.7 Project Components

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








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

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

Table 4. Project Components:


Types of Number of Percentage of
Projects Projects Total Projects


Sections 14 31%
Stages 11 24%
Activities 1022%
Objectives 5 11%
Products 12 4%
No Response 3 7%

Total 45 100%



Table 5. Project Components by Project Type:


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


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

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

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

Total 14 10 10 5 2 3








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

4.2.8 Typology of Projects

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

4.2.9 Project Linkages

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

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

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

4.2.10 Project Personnel

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








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

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

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

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

Twenty-two projects had multi-disciplinary teams and both men and women. Seventeen projects had a mixture of disciplines but not sexes. N o project reported single disciplines and both men and women. Four projects had single disciplines and same-sex teams.

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

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

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








Table 6. Project Personnel by Project Type


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


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

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

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


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








4.2.11 Summary of Descriptive Parameters


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

4.3 Gender Analysis and Training Results

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

4.3.1 Gender Analysis

4.3.1.1 Was a gender analysis done? When?

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








Table 7. Performance of Gender Analysis By Geographic Region:


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


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

Europe 0 01
(n= 1)

Carib/CA/SA 3 11
(n =5)

Africa 8 4 1
(n = 13)

Asia 9 91
(n = 19)

Worldwide 1 01
(n =2)


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

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








Table 8. Performance of Gender Analysis by Type 'of Project


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


FSR/E 10 101
(n=21)

FSR/E+ 8 31
(n = 12)

Non-FSR/E 3 18
(n = 12)


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


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


and one didi a late analysis.

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

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

Thus, although their project team Idid appreciate the Iimportance of gender analysis, they believed it was too late to do it.

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

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

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








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

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

Table 9. Performance of Gender Analysis and Project Personnel


Personnel Early Analysis Late Analysis No Analysis


Women on Team 14 8 3
(n = 25)

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

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

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

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

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


*[One project did not answer this question.]

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









4.3.1.2 Who Did the Gender Analysis?


The 35 projects that did a gender analysis were divided into those that did an early analysis (21 projects) and those that did a late analysis (14 projects). Two of the 21 early analysis projects and five of the 14 late analysis projects did not answer question 11B, who did the gender analysis? Content analysis of the remaining 28 responses revealed the following patterns-. i

Early Ana Late Analvsis
bL
(n = 19) (n=9)
Analysis Performed-By:::

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

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

4.3.1.3 Gender Analysis Methods

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

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

24








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

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

4.3.1.4 Timing of the Gender Analysis

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

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

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

4.3.1.5 Effects of the Gender Analysis on Project Stages

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

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








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

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

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

Closer examination of the ten i incomplete from not-yet finished projects
indicates that all six of the early analysis projects 'used information from the gender analysis in the diagnosis stage. Findings from the gender analysis led to changes in the designation of target groups to include more women farmers or female headed households. Gender analysis also revealed a difference between male and female roles in the farming system. Three unfinished early analysis projects reported that the gender analysis had caused modification's in the design of experiments and in conducting onfarm trials. Projects had made efforts to select women collaborators or include women as well as men in the trials. None of the unfinished early analysis projects had reached analysis of results, "evaluation of: technology, or dissemination of results stages. One project reported using women volunteers to test and evaluate prototypes of new equipment.

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

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








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

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

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

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

4.3.1.6 Summary: Gender Analysis

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








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

Specific effects created by using a gender focus included:

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.2 Source of Initiative to Incl ude Gender Issues.

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

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












Source of Early Analysis Late Analysis
Initiative Projects Projects


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


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

Fifteen of these 23 projects which reported "team member" as source of the initiative had a woman on the project team. Twenty projects had a social scientist on the project. Twenty-two projects had either a woman or social scientist on the team; while 13 projects had both a woman and a social scientist on the team. This confirms the results of Question 1 1B that initiating or doing gender analysis, is related to the presence of women and/or social scientists on the project team.

4.3.3 Gender Issues Training

4.3.3.1 Projects Receiving Training

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


Table 10. Source of the Initiative for Gender Issues








Table 11. Gender Issues Training by GeographicReinoPrjc


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


U.S.A. 0 02 3
(n =5)

Europe 0 0 1 0
(n=l)

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

Africa 3 3 7 0
(n = 13)

Asia 4 2 11 2
(n = 19)

Worldwide 1 0 1 0
(n =2)


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

Table 12. Gender Issues Training by Type of Project


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


FSR/E 6 3 1
(n=21) 1

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

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


Region of Project








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

4.3.3.2 Gender Issues Training Providers

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

Table 13. Training Provider by Type of Training


Provider: Total Formal Informal


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

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

Non-specified 1 0 1


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

4.3.3.3 Participation of Team Members in Training

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








4.3.3.4 Timing of Training

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

4.3.3.5 Contents of Training

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

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

4.3.3.6 Usefulness of Training

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







. 1
4.3.3.7 Significance of Training

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

4.3.4 Effects of Gender Issues Analysis and Training

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

4.3.4.1 Data Disaggregation

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

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

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

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

4.3.4.2 Incorporation of Women

Question 15 asked projects to give: (A) the percentage of women respondents in socioeconomic surveys; (B) the percentage of on-farm trials conducted with women farmers; and (C) the percentage 1 of farmers participating in evaluation activities that are women. Thirteen projects did not answer this question at all. Thirteen other projects








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

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

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

Examination of the 19 projects that answered Question 15 completely shows a wide range of answers. Responses to (A) ranged from 0% to 100%; ten projects reported a percentage of women respondents of less that 40%; seven projects reported a percentage of women ' respondents from 40% to 75%; and two projects reported a percentage of women respondents over 75%. Responses to (B) ranged from 001o to 100%; 14 projects reported less than 40% of on-farm trials were conducted with women farmers; four reported 40% to 75% of on-farm trials are conducted with women farmers; and one project reported over 75% of on-farm trials are conducted with women farme rs. Responses to (C) ranged from 0% to 90%; 13 projects reported that less than 40% of the farmers participating in evaluation activities were women; five projects reported that 40% to 75% participants are women; and one project reported that over 75% of participants are women.

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

4.3.5 Responsibility for Gender Issues

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

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








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

Two of the six agricultural economists assigned responsibility for gender issues were women. Ten of the other social scientists assigned responsibility for gender issues were women. Four of the biologicals 1 IcLentists assigned responsibility for gender issues were women. Assignment of responsibility for gender issues thus appears to be associated closely with the individual's discipline and sex; individuals responsible for gender issues tend to be social scientists (including agricultural economists) and/or women, preferably a female social scientist. This confirms the pattern observed in the responses to Question 11B (Who did the gender analysis?) and Question 12 (Who was the source of initiative to include gender on the project?) Gender issues seem to be perceived as either a social scientist's 'or a woman's concern and responsibility.

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

Questions 17, 18, 19, and 20 asked respondents to describe: obstacles to the inclusion of gender issues and to the active participation of women encountered by the project, strategies used to overcome these obstacles, and their effectiveness (Questions 17 and 18); and benefits (anticipated or 'not) to the project from an awareness of gender issues and the active participation of w6men (Questions 19 and 20).

4.4.1 Obstacles to the Inclusion of Gender Issues and Women

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

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









4.4.1.1 Inclusion of Gender Issues


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

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

Philippines:
"Lack of training and analysis."

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

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

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

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

Number of Projects Repgjjing Internal Obstacles
No Women n Project Team 5
Women on Team Overloaded 1
No Social Scientists on Team 1
Lack of Training/Awareness 7
Lack of Information 3
Resistance of Project Staff 5
Resistance of Nat'l. Counterparts 5
Funding Agency 1
Project Orientation 4

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








4.4.1.2 Gender Iss ues Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








4.4.1.3 Active Participation of Women


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

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

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

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

Mali:
"How to approach women farmers."

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








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

Number of Projects Reporting

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

External Obstacles
Cultural Attitudes (Target Gr6ups) 12
No Women's Community Organizations 4
Women Want Other Programs 1
Other Demands on Women's Time 1
Political Conditions of Country 1
Host Country Government Resistance 1
Physical Conditions in Country 2


4.4.1.4 Participation of Women Strategies

Twenty-two of the' 38 respondents answering Question 18 reported strategies for overcoming the obstacles mentioned. Eight respondents made the same answer to Question 18 as they did to Question 17. Twelve respondents cited single strategies, while ten projects cited multiple strategies. Seven respondents mentioning single obstacles mentioned no strategies for overcoming them, while two projects mentioning multiple obstacles mentioned no I strategies. The following I comments illustrate the types of strategies reported: 1

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

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

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

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








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

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

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

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

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

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

4.4.2 Benefits from the Inclusion of Gender Issues and Women

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








4.4.2.1 Gender Issues Benefits


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

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

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

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

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

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







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


T it Number of ProJect Reporting
ype of Benef
Better Understanding of Farming System 5
Increased Awareness of Women's Capabilities 14
More Socioeconomic Research Included 3
Better Prioritization of Problems 1
Target Group more Accurately Defined 6
Increased Support from Target Groups 3

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


4.4.2.2 Participation of Women Benefits

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

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

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

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








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

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

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

Number of Projects Reporting )a2e of Benefit
Better Project Planning
Target Group more Accurately Defined 4
Increased Awareness of Women's Capabilities 7
Increased Support from Target Groups 4
Women Better Collaborators 1 6
Helped Project with Funding Agency 1
Better Understanding of Farming System 5
More Proportionate Representation of Women 1
More Effective Transfer of Technology 5
Scholarly Equity 1
Direct Benefits to Women (Decreased Illiteracy,
Increased Status, New Skills)
Benefits to Rural Households, 2
Benefits to Rural Communities 1


4.4.3 Obstacles, Strategies, and Benefits Summary

When responses t6 Questions 17, 18, 19, and 20 were examined together four response patterns emerged. ! One group of projects had made' no effort to include gender issues or women. This group was labelled the "no attempt" group. A second group reported obstacles to the inclusion of gender issues and women but had no strategies to overcome them and derived few if any benefits. This group was labelled the "obstacles but no strategies" group. A third group reported no obstacles to either the inclusion of gender issues or to women, included them, and derived benefits. This group was labelled the "no obstacles" group. A final group reported obstacles to the inclusion of gender and women but also reported strategies for overcoming these obstacles and, as a result of their efforts, derived benefits. This group was labelled the "obstacles, strategies, and benefits" group. Thus, two groups included gender issues and women (the "no obstacles" and the "obstacles' 1 strategies, and benefits" groups) and two groups did not (the "no attempt" and the "obstacles, no strategies" groups).
I








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

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

Table 14 shows the four response patterns and type of project (FSR/E, FSR/E plus other elements, and non-FSR/E); performance of gender analysis (early analysis, late analysis, no analysis); gender issues training (formal training, informal training, no training); and project personnel (women, no women, agricultural economists and other social scientists, agricultural economists alone, other social scientists alone, no social scientists)Twenty-five out of the 36 projects (69%) that did a gender analysis reported having no obstacles or having strategies to overcome the obstacles. In contrast, eight out of 11 projects (73%) that did not do a gender analysis either did not attempt to include gender issues or women, or had no strategies to overcome obstacles. Doing gender analysis thus appears to be closely tied to the inclusion of gender issues and the active participation of women in projects.

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

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

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








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

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

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

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

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







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


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


type of Project:

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


Gender Analysis:

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

Gender Issues Training:

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

Project Personnel:

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









4.5 Optional Comments


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

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

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

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

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

(F) remarks that there are no problems because t he importance of women's roles was
recognized (two p rojects);

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

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

(I) negative remarks'about the source of resistance to the inclusion of gender issuesexternal to the project itself (two projects);

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

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

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








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

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









SECTON 5


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


5.1 Conclusions

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

5.1.1 Uncertainty about "Gender Issues"

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


5.1.2 Uncertainty about "Gender Analysis"

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








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

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

5.1.3 Resistance to Gender Analysis

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

It places team members in the role of "ignorant" recipients, rather than
"expert" donors;

It challenges team members' perceptions about their roles within project
teams and their research methodologies;

It questions basic constructs that team members have about "gender" and
appropriate gender roles.

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








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

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

5.1.4 Effectiveness of Gender Analysis

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

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

5.1.5 Timing of Gender Analysis

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








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

5.1.6 Crucial Role of Training

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

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

5.2 Recommendations

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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


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








(J) Donor agencies, international agricultural research centers, and national agricultural
research universities and institutions should do on-going surveys of projects' efforts at incorporation of gender issues and maintain a database of successful training approaches, field methodologies for gender analysis, and strategies for the implementation of gender analysis findings to projects. T'his will advance our methodological knowledge and keep both trainers and projects from having to "reinvent the gender issues wheel."

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









REFERENCESi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








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









APPENDIX A

GENDER ISSUES QUESTIONNAIRE


Gender Issues in FSR/E Survey

1. Project Title:

2. Location of, Project:

3. Date Project Began:; Ending Date of Project:

4. Institutional/Agency Affiliation of Project:

5. Funding Source:

6. Professional Personnel:I
Title/Role:' Discipline:
7. What linkages exist between the project and
(A) the host country government?
(B) non-governental organizations in the host country?
(C) private voluntary organizations?
(Be sure to list any women's organizations.) 8. What is the major objective of this project?,

9. What are the project's main components? i 10. Who are the target groups for this project?

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

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

1 1D. If not done initially, when was the gender analysis done?








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

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

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

13B. Who provided this training?

13C. How many team members participated?

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

13E. What did the training cover?

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

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

15. Concerning your project's farming systems activities:
(A) What is the percentage (%) of women respondents in socioeconomic surveys?
(B) What percentage (%) of on-farm trials are conducted with women farmers?
(C) What percentage (01) of the farmers who participate in evaluation activities
are women?

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









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

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

19. What benefi ts anticipated1 or not) have resulted for the project from an awareness
of gender issues?

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

21. Other comments:

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













Each project Geographic Region United States [11 USA [41 USA [5] USA [12] USA


[45]

[331


USA Europe


Caribbean/Central [2] Honduras [101 CA [26] Peru


APPENDIX B

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

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

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

and Europe:

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

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

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


Priv. Fdtn./ U.S. State U.S. State Host Univ.


America/South Host Univ. IARC U.S. Univ./ Dev. Consort.


A.I.D.

Priv. Fdtn./ U.S. State U.S. State Host Univ.


America:

Priv. Fdtn.

IARC

Priv. Fdtn.


5 yrs.> 43 mos. 7 yrs.>


27 mos.> 68 mos.>


Gov/NGO/PVO None

Govt. Only


Gov/NGO/PVO None

Gov/NGO


_ _ j













Geographic Region Caribbean/Cent [31] Jamaica [32] Mexico


Africa: [8] Zambia


[11] Burundi [14] Burundi/
Rwanda/
Zaire

[18] Malawi [391 Malawi [20] Niger


[25] Botswana


APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)

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

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

ral America/South America (continued):

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

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


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

Dev.Consort. Natl.Ag.Min.



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

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


U.S.A.I.D.


U.S.A.I.D.

Natl.Ag.Min.



U.S.A.I.D.

U.S.A.I.D.

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


78 mos.> 28 mos. >

4 yrs. >



3 yrs.> 3 yrs.>

5 mos.>


6 yrs. >


Gov. Only Gov/PVO Gov. Only



Gov/NGO/PVO Gov/NGO/PVO Gov/NGO Gov/NGO












Geographic Region


APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)

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

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


Africa (continued):

[28] Swaziland

[29] Nigeria

[361 Zaire

[38] So.Africa
ON
tj [40] Mali


[471 Mali


[42] Rwanda


[481 Zambia


U.S. Univ. Natl.Univ. IARC/U.S.A.I.D. Natl.Univ. Natl.Ag.Min. Natl.Ag.Min. U.S. Univ/ Natl.Ag.Min. Priv. Fdtn.


U.S.A.I.D.

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

Priv.Corp. U.S.AI.D./
Natl.Gov. U.S.A.I.D./
Natl.Gov. U.S.A.I.D.


Priv. Fdtn.


yrs. > yrs. > yrs. > yrs. > yrs. >


2 yrs.> 3 yrs.> 2 yrs. >


Gov/NGO/PVO Gov/NGO Gov/NGO/PVO Gov/NGO/PVO Gov Only


Gov Only Gov Only


Gov/NGO/PVO


Asia:

[31 Indonesia [16] Indonesia


U.S. Univ. Dev. Consort.


U.S.A.I.D.

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


6 yrs.> 9 yrs. >


Gov Only Gov Only













Geographic Region Asia (continued) [15] India [231 India [24] Banglade


ON
[271

[211 [301




[46] [7] [91

[19]


APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)

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

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


sh


Bangladesh Bangladesh Bangladesh




Bangladesh Philippines Philippines Philippines


Natl. Ag. Inst. Natl. Univ./ Priv. Fdtn. Natl. Ag. Inst. Natl.Ag.Min. Natl. Ag.Min. Natl. Ag. Inst.




Natl. Ag. Inst. Natl. Univ. IARC

Natl. Ag. Min.


Priv. Fdtn. Priv. Fdtn. U.S.A.I.D./

IDA

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

U.S.A.I.D.

IDRC IARC U.S.A.I.D.


Gov Gov


1 yr.>

_6 yrs. 40 mos. > 53 mos.> 53 mos.>

3 yrs. >




43 mos. > 10 mos.> 7 mos.>

4 yrs. >


Only Only


Gov Only


Gov Gov Gov


Only Only Only


Gov Only Gov/PVO Gov Only Gov/NGO/PVO







APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)


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


Geographic Region


Institutional Affiliation


Funding Source


Project Duration


Linkages w/Govt./NGO/PVO


Asia (continued):


[34] Philippines


[431 Philippines


o [171 Philippines

[351 Sri Lanka [371 Thailand

[411 Papua/New
Guinea


[44] Nepal


Nati. Univ. Natl.Ag. Min. IARC/Natl.Univ. Natl. Ag. Min. Natl.Univ. Natl. Ag. Min. Natl. Ag. Min.


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


IARC/Natl. Univ.
World Bank/ Natl. Gov. Natl. Ag.Min. IDRC/IARC IARC/NatI.Gov Natl. Gov.


ODA

IDRC


2 mos. 3 yrs.> 2 yrs.> 12 yrs. 2 yrs.> 3 yrs. >


20 yrs. > 2 yrs. >


Gov Only Gov/NGO/PVO Gov/PVO Gov Only Gov Only Gov/NGO Gov/NGO/PVO


None








APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)


Geographic Region Worldwide:


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


Institutional Affiliation


Funding Source


Project Duration


Linkages w/Govt./NGO/PVO


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


U.S.A.I.D.


10 yrs. >


Gov/NGO/PVO


,m [13] Gender in
Agriculture
Project


Population Council/FSSP


Ford Fdtn.


4 yrs.>


None








APPENDIX C

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

1. List of Disciplines and Number of Projects Reporting

Discipline Number of Projects

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

Engineering:
Agricultural Engineering 5
Civil Engineering 1
Appropriate Technology 1

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

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

Other Social Science:
Sociology 8
Rural/Development Sociology 4





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

Discipline Number of Projects

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

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

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

Other:
Farming Systems Specialist Research Assistant (unspecified)








H. List of Projects by Project Type, Personnel, Gender Analysis, and Gender Training Each project was assigned an identification number when it was received. These numbers are used in the table below.


Project #/ Country FSR/E Projects (n = 22) [2] Honduras [26] Peru [8] Zambia [25] Botswana (28] Swaziland (36] Zaire [48] Zambia [3] Indonesia [16] Indonesia [15] India [23] India [24] Bangladesh [27] Bangladesh [21] Bangladesh (30] Bangladesh (46] Bangladesh (19] Philippines

* No information


Women on Team




Yes Yes No Yes



No No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes provided.


Soc. Sci. on Team




No Yes Yes Yes



Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


Gender Analysis




Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


Gender Training




Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No


. t 68








II. List of Projects" by Project
(Continued)

Project #/ Women
Country on Team

[34] Philippines Yes

[17] Philippines Yes

[35] Sri Lanka No

[37] Thailand Yes

[411 Papua/New
Guinea 'No

FSR/E plus Other Elements (n = 14)

[11] Burundi Yes

[14] Rwanda/Zaire
Burundi/ No'
[18] Malawi Yes

[39] Malawi Yes

[20] Niger Yes

[29] Nigeria No

[38] So. Africa No

[40] Mali Yes

[47] Mali Yes

[42] Rwanda No

[7] Philippines Yes

[9] Philippines Yes

[43] Philippines Yes


Type, Personnel,


Soc. Sci.
on Team

Yes No No Yes


Yes




Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes


Gender Analysis,and Gender Training,


Gender Analysis

Yes Yes No Yes


Yes




Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes


Gender Training

Yes No No Yes No




No Yes Yes

*Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No









IL. ist of Projects by Project
(Continued)

Project #/ Women
Country on Team

[44] Nepal Yes

Non-FSR/E Projects (n = 12)

[1] U.S.A. No

[4] U.S.A Yes

[5] U.S.A No

[12] U.S.A. No

[45] U.S.A Yes

[33] Netherlands Yes

[10] Central
America No

[3 11 Jamaica No

[32] Mexico Yes

[22] Asia Yes

[6] Worldwide Yes

[13] Worldwide Yes


Type, Personnel, Gender Analysis, and Gender Training,


Soc. Sdi. on Team

Yes




Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes


Gender Analysis

Yes




No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No


Gender Trainin

No




No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
fcla fda yes
!-- Gender issues in farming systems research and extension : a survey of current projects ( Book ) --
METS:mets OBJID UF00080846_00001
xmlns:METS http:www.loc.govMETS
xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink
xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
xmlns:daitss http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss
xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3
xmlns:sobekcm http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm
xmlns:lom http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm_lom
xsi:schemaLocation
http:www.loc.govstandardsmetsmets.xsd
http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitss.xsd
http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-4.xsd
http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcmsobekcm.xsd
METS:metsHdr CREATEDATE 2020-08-03T12:36:29Z ID LASTMODDATE 2020-04-02T14:36:30Z RECORDSTATUS COMPLETE
METS:agent ROLE CREATOR TYPE ORGANIZATION
METS:name UF,University of Florida
OTHERTYPE SOFTWARE OTHER
Go UFDC - FDA Preparation Tool
INDIVIDUAL
UFAD\renner
METS:dmdSec DMD1
METS:mdWrap MDTYPE MODS MIMETYPE textxml LABEL Metadata
METS:xmlData
mods:mods
mods:accessCondition The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
mods:identifier type OCLC 183214225
mods:language
mods:languageTerm text English
code authority iso639-2b eng
mods:location
mods:physicalLocation University of Florida
UF
mods:url access object context http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080846/00001
mods:name
mods:namePart Poats, Susan V.
Gearing, Jean
Russo, Sandra
mods:originInfo
mods:publisher Tropical Research and Development, Inc.
mods:place
mods:placeTerm Gainesville, Fla.
mods:dateIssued 1989
mods:recordInfo
mods:recordIdentifier source sobekcm UF00080846_00001
mods:recordContentSource University of Florida
mods:titleInfo
mods:title Gender issues in farming systems research and extension : a survey of current projects
mods:typeOfResource text
DMD2
OTHERMDTYPE SOBEKCM SobekCM Custom
sobekcm:procParam
sobekcm:Aggregation ALL
SOCIAL
SCIENCES
FAO1
UFIR
WID
IFSA
IUF
sobekcm:MainThumbnail 00001thm.jpg
sobekcm:Wordmark UFIR
sobekcm:bibDesc
sobekcm:BibID UF00080846
sobekcm:VID 00001
sobekcm:Publisher
sobekcm:Name Tropical Research and Development, Inc.
sobekcm:Source
sobekcm:statement UF University of Florida
sobekcm:SortDate 726102
METS:amdSec
METS:digiprovMD DIGIPROV1
DAITSS Archiving Information
daitss:daitss
daitss:AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT PROJECT UFDC
METS:techMD TECH1
File Technical Details
sobekcm:FileInfo
sobekcm:File fileid JP21 width 2478 height 3225
JPEG1 630 820
JPEG2
JP22 2477
JPEG3
JP23 2483 3231
JPEG4 819
JP24 3228
JPEG5 814
JP25 2489 3216
JPEG6 821
JP26 2471 3221
JPEG7 815
JP27
JPEG8 822
JP28 2472
JPEG9
JP29 2484
JPEG10
JP210
JPEG11
JP211 3227
JPEG12
JP212
JPEG13
JP213
JPEG14 818
JP214 3219
JPEG15
JP215
JPEG16
JP216
JPEG17
JP217 3233
JPEG18
JP218
JPEG19
JP219 2490 3222
JPEG20 817
JP220 3215
JPEG21
JP221
JPEG22
JP222
JPEG23
JP223
JPEG24 823
JP224
JPEG25
JP225
JPEG26 485
JP226
JPEG27
JP227
JPEG28
JP228
JPEG29
JP229 3213
JPEG30
JP230
JPEG31
JP231
JPEG32
JP232
JPEG33 816
JP233
JPEG34
JP234 2487
JPEG35
JP235 2481
JPEG36
JP236
JPEG37
JP237
JPEG38
JP238
JPEG39
JP239
JPEG40
JP240
JPEG41
JP241
JPEG42
JP242
JPEG43
JP243
JPEG44
JP244
JPEG45
JP245
JPEG46
JP246
JPEG47
JP247
JPEG48
JP248
JPEG49
JP249
JPEG50
JP250
JPEG51
JP251
JPEG52
JP252
JPEG53 486
JP253 3174 2447
JPEG54
JP254
JPEG55
JP255
JPEG56 840
JP256 2418
JPEG57
JP257
JPEG58
JP258
JPEG59
JP259
JPEG60
JP260
JPEG61
JP261
JPEG62
JP262
JPEG63
JP263
JPEG64
JP264
JPEG65
JP265
JPEG66 841
JP266 2424 3236
JPEG67 475
JP267 3186 2403
JPEG68 474
JP268
JPEG69 480
JP269 3160 2406
JPEG70 473
JP270
JPEG71
JP271 3184 2399
JPEG72 459
JP272 3207 2334
JPEG73 843
JP273 2375 3179
JPEG74
JP274
JPEG75 825
JP275 3246
JPEG76 827
JP276 2460
JP277 3234
JPEG77
METS:fileSec
METS:fileGrp USE archive
METS:file GROUPID G1 TIF1 imagetiff CHECKSUM c4ea22b44240ea838c48647ee951c233 CHECKSUMTYPE MD5 SIZE 8011800
METS:FLocat LOCTYPE OTHERLOCTYPE SYSTEM xlink:href 00001.tif
G2 TIF2 2d7f2027808718c072339b312d319938 8008092
00003.tif
G3 TIF3 cf61c9bed66d9bf535464ef7da31acf5 8044932
00004.tif
G4 TIF4 0d465a3cd4e9a8f6cf5962ab808f0767 8037788
00005.tif
G5 TIF5 09053df68ae9a54507e3d5454102964c 8025544
00006.tif
G6 TIF6 2989034d133aa2a28bb56489fa2026eb 7979668
00007.tif
G7 TIF7 da3495da0965d3f9d0e04d053613a456 8041568
00008.tif
G8 TIF8 13477a8615d8bfc86af33b762851a018 7995788
00009.tif
G9 TIF9 185b03b03d92ee986fa18d40d67f92e3 8048664
00010.tif
G10 TIF10 c0a43ee7ba583bb26829b583d7e69f65 8002284
00011.tif
G11 TIF11 d103ba4eac32240d3e951f4524bf3845 8037096
00012.tif
G12 TIF12 65c598a1ca9e6dee899c057b769a20db 8046920
00013.tif
G13 TIF13 63d4c7c4f467b05fcc0fdc7586950581 7993504
00014.tif
G14 TIF14 6ed94f4e62e878b734052e9f35abafae 8001008
00015.tif
G15 TIF15 5a9964c56f124705de7de9226984be92 8000020
00016.tif
G16 TIF16 7d86e2ba5eddddf9afe58269da993aab 8020344
00017.tif
G17 TIF17 e417640e7abb21a8c52f640d38fdbb16 8054380
00018.tif
G18 TIF18 3e3270501064e60fc4602faa48e722f4 7991556
00019.tif
G19 TIF19 fb068fad600f10f5b9c37b5f357bfc96 8044432
00020.tif
G20 TIF20 bb029b69b1c4dbe256011e997bd10a5d 7990328
00021.tif
G21 TIF21 982613bb67721998ca1ff3dd9ee8a4c1 8024528
00022.tif
G22 TIF22 64254f8eea93a82261cb0332d367face 8011324
00023.tif
G23 TIF23 918edca3fd7ddba93ad2762b0619a8ac 8014832
00024.tif
G24 TIF24 df40636cac008fca3816f390e11d9892 8011132
00025.tif
G25 TIF25 9509091684882d179ab3c1dcfcbb989f 8050056
00026.tif
G26 TIF26 294aa6b2323db23f5f80c7a5d11d4bb7 8028092
00027.tif
G27 TIF27 08ed691ea2db328ee41203b3e4e6f2ac 8033748
00028.tif
G28 TIF28 e262bec94ca9bc725f1d960e73bd6a32 8029052
00029.tif
G29 TIF29 b1be30f1e11a7d5346e8bd2d52ad23d5 8001076
00030.tif
G30 TIF30 18dd8cbeed5217a3fc4b6d3f52003640 8029272
00031.tif
G31 TIF31 70494eb7ac40232d33539391f2c045ef 8046016
00032.tif
G32 TIF32 c0cacf868c91973231097bdf1a55f165 8001028
00033.tif
G33 TIF33 c5086059742159f32fac2d9f9f7b3e6c 8020136
00034.tif
G34 TIF34 4ac761f9ebae291b29a4c0f639320316 8064776
00035.tif
G35 TIF35 9b41b8f6d3df105f1d3aa38920d7f7ee 8015088
00036.tif
G36 TIF36 388c64dd4f96f41105617f9a027cbf30 7995952
00037.tif
G37 TIF37 8c8a943c5d86f0ca872387906f2f9dd6 7961156
00038.tif
G38 TIF38 ae1f8dd6d879d98379409224c4dfe39e 8035236
00039.tif
G39 TIF39 fa2e6bc8d341a0b6aabfe2bb1a1bec26 7978084
00041.tif
G40 TIF40 5eeabadeb7d65d39539c32cf3b66c782 8065536
00042.tif
G41 TIF41 b2cb142614520b5e5369c46609b92ec4 7997912
00043.tif
G42 TIF42 5c0857450de0dcf7b2ee0327d76b2a31 8012432
00044.tif
G43 TIF43 b51309540c8c370b6739609e763ca8c4 8028876
00045.tif
G44 TIF44 5582fe9e4eea3efcfdfee87482701670 8003520
00046.tif
G45 TIF45 287ab98ebf9dc6bffaffe9d815c5db95 7990708
00047.tif
G46 TIF46 34989db30de5fea38d5df3ffda28252b 8049384
00048.tif
G47 TIF47 333124084eac488af17d587e78ef6bfc 7984676
00049.tif
G48 TIF48 750fe1c3d32164d553ff7d29c717a045 7979672
00050.tif
G49 TIF49 39d8e5b26595ab22349bb268de2ee263 8057848
00051.tif
G50 TIF50 4bb2f5768bf373784235f7bf336fbd2d 8023956
00052.tif
G51 TIF51 5563acbc487d86adc07d14fb1803e6ac 7986784
00053.tif
G52 TIF52 dd5cd2605cca98ae66f7bad33d0f1d11 8054716
00054.tif
G53 TIF53 88d03a51b4c3de5bc8baa98683209eaf 7788328
00055.tif
G54 TIF54 db1ccd4d3743a5b82a004d1013531c7d 8010848
00056.tif
G55 TIF55 2e0400090164549c25bea62c872abd18 7992212
00057.tif
G56 TIF56 bc92ec95983b4cd3384b415410105ce1 7821852
00058.tif
G57 TIF57 6f6db30a46ed91e197a496d0072bcef1 8008672
00059.tif
G58 TIF58 8717423c1ef8f8a2668205692c5e01dd 8023700
00060.tif
G59 TIF59 8ef7d4d604ec9dc0a7f45504561664fc 8047236
00061.tif
G60 TIF60 7f0ac6d3a69292a02cb2f8167155bbbd 8042480
00062.tif
G61 TIF61 62f529d405d252d6c5c528c000372cdb 8009504
00063.tif
G62 TIF62 81aa8aaeb4d56847a6a71afc5e333388 8007820
00064.tif
G63 TIF63 a7fddbd0b1254d1c457bb6830e16f856 8022776
00065.tif
G64 TIF64 02e43172af4424b03b0db9aebe49c5d6 8020224
00066.tif
G65 TIF65 5ea2dce2699b7d77392cd3731933c349 8009228
00067.tif
G66 TIF66 4f194fb53d2082b3ecf9c7e57da07af5 7864760
00068.tif
G67 TIF67 f9e4bac87e8c348bed2e44beeac0ae5f 7677996
00069.tif
G68 TIF68 cbb50d2cd5b6f5bf27e76ca28f22d689 7824868
00070.tif
G69 TIF69 2aab6a59bf8002ee096e627697243564 7624960
00071.tif
G70 TIF70 6522c1384611a1865d896e808202be7c 7805532
00072.tif
G71 TIF71 332d7fcd7bfa4341d444e8caf2fb1ab2 7660048
00073.tif
G72 TIF72 e1a87dbbe7a4d919af9b633441d98c03 7505456
00074.tif
G73 TIF73 8428aa46749e5cf46b450f22645567dd 7571184
00075.tif
G74 TIF74 c40060a38df635b603de88b9d973bb57 7992452
00076.tif
G75 TIF75 6006ac1d341992ddcc532e2e023d66a2 8065532
00077.tif
G76 TIF76 db1e1a48dd8691ae3ce31dfd65fbf88f 7962832
00078.tif
G77 TIF77 f79983ec9e4aa1cdf8f48c043a976f72 8073784
00079.tif
reference
imagejp2 face536caf7b117d163aff4238aecf09 643148
00001.jp2
98c649ee9bb176721efc0fd9ff4ef20a 362153
00003.jp2
62f10a554dd5ff7f9c3a39451db1c8d7 990128
00004.jp2
3469250dda33b9f3aa29f27c5b45db6e 1001965
00005.jp2
c43aae24a847035b2f0d0da3093ced1b 667513
00006.jp2
50028326fefdf8d14586f8799f4279e1 697192
00007.jp2
a47929837b5e4bcaa96fd738d499f01f 1002217
00008.jp2
b2382c960ab594265b3ee1b8c0f48453 996595
00009.jp2
abc89818a43c4359f01c28481d937d8b 1003323
00010.jp2
bfb556ec88a28db0e4f7aa70ac6dff66 997392
00011.jp2
8ccee06269fda951e64b8063192b09b4 1001677
00012.jp2
5ff3df6d0cd75751f23f8ca52c6dadac 1002931
00013.jp2
c77950e3f4c4d2694d241ac0b4c7cb9c 996185
00014.jp2
5945714b9ded86abb3fa40ed99e67c18 997176
00015.jp2
c98d4f4113ade715cd07cea4b92c085a 997180
00016.jp2
189da2d7099a3db9ce10254d2f808b67 999647
00017.jp2
67077ece71009a54c42604e1316fd8ad 1003954
00018.jp2
87b4156dbcc337aa8837e0079382942a 996209
00019.jp2
eb81a47c5598c4849c3ce208e522df25 1002934
00020.jp2
ec8c1cf0ac705cb8f5f4953fe9efdcea 995907
00021.jp2
28a244d340861689d2ce53aef4990f0c 1000160
00022.jp2
41a05e36ee107308d80070c39a32866e 998636
00023.jp2
f7cc73cbf19d7d3b41214ec1f69d99d8 974297
00024.jp2
eccabb01ba28b014087e9193b310761d 998478
00025.jp2
9f1f9ebe37005f35323349b91f65e0f4 1003309
00026.jp2
a8e30fca64b6a6ccd3d6930a7b1a9c4c 340664
00027.jp2
3c3925aadfdfdbd98452cae3e00ef189 1001612
00028.jp2
2004018fed0674c13e99ef1c803c9574 724114
00029.jp2
0de0c18855f53327da58da7f1331e272 997314
00030.jp2
6edc960b032fc15649c77a3b82b89a86 712093
00031.jp2
9aa8cde1b9b23f2e0ecd8e89c00d8a5e 1002876
00032.jp2
74cb44a0bd13dd3eaba0523215856c11 997169
00033.jp2
aeddf4b0bc0a112a4bafbc178381e310 999603
00034.jp2
fc19b7403e70c912c2fb7699dbecc66f 1005164
00035.jp2
33e492b5e6d05da0468d8d65e0591ada 998990
00036.jp2
852202ca7b52a79aaba1c9613d3f4d2c 996757
00037.jp2
08bd21f122eaede165564d3160f450b1 720845
00038.jp2
f4a1a00a388fd28de83f8dd3bf0e8bc4 1001685
00039.jp2
1b73800a22cfff0c5baf744c3b91d543 994335
00041.jp2
750d40fe690c4c9acca22d95d973ff80 1005348
00042.jp2
c7d3484e43c71b02dc2f28ea0e1b6d9b 996785
00043.jp2
c903fd757226c27ba8d9250dd07990a7 998644
00044.jp2
60c4f83dcceb5442c15589448122f1d6 1000897
00045.jp2
ec9fb51eb9a43c09cdfb44128f5d1339 997732
00046.jp2
c7277750e04e2b62e757e51962e23335 962159
00047.jp2
6606a2fabc679dea0cedefa5e6783548 1003488
00048.jp2
cf546b386e0403af5f6f6ffb9cd83d2c 995332
00049.jp2
a27d06620813779d50ffeedebee5dc8a 994754
00050.jp2
982fad6866413e98b82f6482787960b8 1004415
00051.jp2
6cae17f5eb576775021d68a9a9e3c08a 1000096
00052.jp2
693cf4585c38d73f2eab4c29c663352a 995390
00053.jp2
7bad9dbd9730fabfb6a286b5c259b196 1003947
00054.jp2
e668ddb568593c3555c109bdc62d9e05 711162
00055.jp2
45c674421597a822cb516c8bc6770d77 998484
00056.jp2
4e7eb867347a9915d3ec409fbf6dd605 442817
00057.jp2
9f2ccbda32229fa3bcabfef04cfe64f5 974770
00058.jp2
c349fc23d3e28edca2cf933ab8bb0843 998057
00059.jp2
711550f43ae023e10dac57740b68beab 999976
00060.jp2
8e3bc093cf1a7ae217bd24f9ba765bfb 1002949
00061.jp2
459f46025d85bb625db23ee4e432a7cc 1002389
00062.jp2
4323ae733812d165cdc0c7f8289c2a3a 829558
00063.jp2
47c1a8b2ca861061aa8d5046bdf04c3b 998097
00064.jp2
4b66e7ba73e3481e5d40f8aeae8b217f 192508
00065.jp2
ebc4081f3e31266b7a5b6f00f6e1d5d1 756999
00066.jp2
dc53a34a6b66c5b7be167fa4ba836766 998486
00067.jp2
d7c06299aee5c305760cc5389b34c158 595559
00068.jp2
c5125226352959a96d7548a0c9ca55ef 754981
00069.jp2
12e9a2336e101da1a82b9e9b5ce2f4e0 793610
00070.jp2
0c30ed34056dad46d4b9a9b918083d31 682380
00071.jp2
60e3c20bf62f35c4b75979c1da0e6b25 764535
00072.jp2
e02f764ec8fb32cab23439ae49533173 702719
00073.jp2
196680660407c7bb5a074ecd61e5ab65 464722
00074.jp2
986fc000b7d670009e3d210cc90628e1 723055
00075.jp2
bb30783869acc49a2727e9a3817c1fcf 581739
00076.jp2
e0a05303651d5c42fe29e0d60d4e0ff5 663276
00077.jp2
aafa4b9f02b478e192401b5adf87276e 702772
00078.jp2
95aed6a8b6d729df01c86e5ddaeb242b 468995
00079.jp2
imagejpeg a08386746514c109344826010657d729 67855
00001.jpg
JPEG1.2 38017615b3335e67c4f92875b34f43c3 34011
00001.QC.jpg
0f326fe0734e472997857118490d1fcb 55232
00003.jpg
JPEG2.2 c76b36ce29fab2084b8dc9c9b1edffc4 29418
00003.QC.jpg
fbf72fb5cf0fab71700ecfee2e1c3f58 128217
00004.jpg
JPEG3.2 510df82627e3c45d227e0c9450d9b1d5 57755
00004.QC.jpg
6ef27023c6fcdf43fd1ce9babf4a9f47 164518
00005.jpg
JPEG4.2 a2d62febe4f41bfc850e54d34cf5ce1f 63868
00005.QC.jpg
17a02ddc628b7f026d1362992a49a4d5 89629
00006.jpg
JPEG5.2 d97718a52c8f913db4245a760d83023e 43052
00006.QC.jpg
7606bf865c7f466d714b7c4d11b5ea75 92442
00007.jpg
JPEG6.2 f7b286d37a902c29408edc95eb1c3bbc 39904
00007.QC.jpg
57a9af9f92e3555e3e7c86157cf45ac1 239219
00008.jpg
JPEG7.2 4b4f3437a9fb6c1b834113decf0c7920 79277
00008.QC.jpg
8f4311ccf5b9eddc8acfa17aa4ebe0ef 184930
00009.jpg
JPEG8.2 7638bc4a1b2f95d981a3086101a30355 66690
00009.QC.jpg
78144c3f68e9fee9cf784376bcfe8cb3 183087
00010.jpg
JPEG9.2 335c2a3631e7eb3b241aecf5d43dea50 64604
00010.QC.jpg
70c45ba133a92fde2197b0fffa4f4ec7 207948
00011.jpg
JPEG10.2 e19bb24a99f1f536485a90cf8282606e 71207
00011.QC.jpg
dcd14cbb2a26fd4105bd926f4a24ba72 225545
00012.jpg
JPEG11.2 7441665152e95b5b3a30b224f4671bc7 77370
00012.QC.jpg
673f69dc53f7b3a0c7a89cf6069863f6 224813
00013.jpg
JPEG12.2 2e8520cad5623a002ebc75a3a1028fda 76214
00013.QC.jpg
7875f11af1c7420d0611b403afeac568 239352
00014.jpg
JPEG13.2 22b2b0b2a40388e3b48477aa37946af9 79046
00014.QC.jpg
f6a7fdd1a1601568f32555946b683a29 229693
00015.jpg
JPEG14.2 34affd60cf5e2a481da0d0fb797bde12 76035
00015.QC.jpg
405d14c3adbf37501e1359b47aebc81b 156089
00016.jpg
JPEG15.2 d5f03d6e9257f4d6747579ca7747f2ca 61872
00016.QC.jpg
58a8d25509ec8fb7eafcd69c7eb1c1e2 199707
00017.jpg
JPEG16.2 a5a28d1f396cebd98bd1293d96d0c8f2 69912
00017.QC.jpg
961d513ddf31b5c659eed7fdd63b36d8 192748
00018.jpg
JPEG17.2 cef5997c746f0bee427ab3f817ca4f4d 67885
00018.QC.jpg
d7f91a7d15d485ee771ab3ab3a3f71ce 133159
00019.jpg
JPEG18.2 15b0ed6cd48e80647def2b9839350233 53188
00019.QC.jpg
d0897f07fcb0045cc86494275c851be3 117918
00020.jpg
JPEG19.2 4c73eb822fe79b5ec58cbe2e0c4455fe 49983
00020.QC.jpg
d3e95cde2f99f549740112f7f0960ed0 164381
00021.jpg
JPEG20.2 9b17df66c38c4fe36704c7aa8bd25cfa 63946
00021.QC.jpg
2c39d1f7d41b67ea57bf99e663c4ebf4 181623
00022.jpg
JPEG21.2 f48c29ea3c5cec7ba4d5c4d1f41c7caf 67363
00022.QC.jpg
a6943143a5949b853211437574f8c682 134693
00023.jpg
JPEG22.2 c5268ddc32c0ecc0eb458abe3b0e74d3 57322
00023.QC.jpg
60b14b4e0aaec004ac3a7ff2c6c74415 115580
00024.jpg
JPEG23.2 a8494780f31ad854e715d9eb181c16d0 50595
00024.QC.jpg
85b1ef521b172f6faea62aa5ab539c0c 208759
00025.jpg
JPEG24.2 9cccd9be821ab3b5aa0c52caf2b18ae2 72575
00025.QC.jpg
fbbd21cf8904a3408cbd6318c2f01386 224050
00026.jpg
JPEG25.2 ed7594e2d2a645d4451617b759149cb0 76542
00026.QC.jpg
cb2fb114eeaa1543ca9a935eb39dd9ad 44885
00027.jpg
JPEG26.2 4a72839b55ee8045db84ee020c156d3c 28663
00027.QC.jpg
21b72df6fb58b7414ad8456262c957a3 128058
00028.jpg
JPEG27.2 40a8a091e35a2b6a8996b708c3af0284 50107
00028.QC.jpg
4c6d84621650eef4f2b1b61efa980455 91086
00029.jpg
JPEG28.2 20e0288598633cc40f0fb622c19529dc 43111
00029.QC.jpg
619e90a33be774793b1258474f0fa6ba 154275
00030.jpg
JPEG29.2 5d8352bedda52082856b62b41112cc73 60974
00030.QC.jpg
15785782d71ea9297395e5aa6a30465f 89855
00031.jpg
JPEG30.2 37da766e36ccbc2d844843cda6b68fe0 43482
00031.QC.jpg
483dbe9de8d4ff0aaf2de747c753fb21 194336
00032.jpg
JPEG31.2 c2aebb2138957aba15cb0e5c0ebb4a40 68529
00032.QC.jpg
11c0852ba9ef9d43baafe1d60fd264dd 205760
00033.jpg
JPEG32.2 2fa70a86f523c3da8507a167dbeb4a61 72570
00033.QC.jpg
9bcc69f02d4b5c788a659534c17519a0 223265
00034.jpg
JPEG33.2 2e98e510dc1e8e68737e2804d11ee1cd 75805
00034.QC.jpg
04029b4e6dda8273a7deca33f885ffdf 221445
00035.jpg
JPEG34.2 39b51033b1ec95c92af2b94a2f1ccf02 73989
00035.QC.jpg
d68aa1fff69f2421a2c1829b42a57f0b 185101
00036.jpg
JPEG35.2 526796e837acad41d27107fe70b9b41a 68576
00036.QC.jpg
b42d42cc2fc33533295be7ff9cce2158 141005
00037.jpg
JPEG36.2 6f40ab732813eb0ad1894a7e9bcb473a 54346
00037.QC.jpg
dbd6de298b8d96aa28e49ae52d3ada53 93735
00038.jpg
JPEG37.2 015bd9a7e9af06e6a65af89014b57184 46025
00038.QC.jpg
014ed3619155534094bfd4404dae531d 134344
00039.jpg
JPEG38.2 3480c4d2462329f201b77a15e8e01eff 54904
00039.QC.jpg
fdc4edc79a582537821c9c6746193b82 199310
00041.jpg
JPEG39.2 e0c74c3a255a2ca313cb22733d2386c3 69069
00041.QC.jpg
69231f0d1b7a59a3c11af83f015c0507 195733
00042.jpg
JPEG40.2 8a1212b8e731a3dc3deda148e3d63213 69437
00042.QC.jpg
3442115b7e857de0f885c4b616fd415f 215294
00043.jpg
JPEG41.2 ccf2e5e47bf4329c2be46c1b29f649b2 74735
00043.QC.jpg
64df64d3c22fd4f007af56c50eaf6999 212933
00044.jpg
JPEG42.2 6b4488be56e0dcc2ba9d59933257a094 73703
00044.QC.jpg
23e4dc70b40c46a348c3dcb4794efbb5 128863
00045.jpg
JPEG43.2 49089e2db4398357373a6d7283b778c3 53441
00045.QC.jpg
9b9d887b7b82c0ba9da17be5e6b0d4df 131609
00046.jpg
JPEG44.2 061ac65f5457d13ab15ee4ac6d5218bc 53551
00046.QC.jpg
bd36ccfeee5caefc0eee9bf0d60f9b78 108720
00047.jpg
JPEG45.2 d6975b9bb14beeadb2ad99bd717b1aac 46027
00047.QC.jpg
76cf0cb9253ce09d4fe94b3099027caa 131030
00048.jpg
JPEG46.2 8f5f76f567cafa082d78c74abaa4bd04 53003
00048.QC.jpg
7e9a241965747892d62751c96d0364d3 159239
00049.jpg
JPEG47.2 d795640ec1cf0aaa7039e439d8f4876d 59260
00049.QC.jpg
97f0b54df93b7ff4a3263e0ba71ca6ae 134253
00050.jpg
JPEG48.2 c8ac2bb6d49e4fac950d43bb8827fe64 52756
00050.QC.jpg
2c77d3ff4cbe22130f98799495e47761 135771
00051.jpg
JPEG49.2 918e580ab79cf3c0aadb750efb161184 55566
00051.QC.jpg
f96df601ed42e8f09aebd4f494d08bc6 164434
00052.jpg
JPEG50.2 bd74371a9da685be2e42f503e8a87e91 60320
00052.QC.jpg
b0862a77912fa6b48057bfdce1b7b5d4 209922
00053.jpg
JPEG51.2 f267a63e7fc08375fbc1d75a37bac6cc 72961
00053.QC.jpg
7f3349c46e15da72aea79af135afeda8 209133
00054.jpg
JPEG52.2 e9bc2411f1a2f8810d95105b792d921b 70714
00054.QC.jpg
9977ba507c95f8d297884d39bcdb003d 66321
00055.jpg
JPEG53.2 408e97714fed8048c9aa1a2d07874aae 34759
00055.QC.jpg
28d653b80ea6fb85b14c3f6da04d3fcf 181578
00056.jpg
JPEG54.2 233f09f52df5901de4ea24850977fc4c 68847
00056.QC.jpg
9b57d8669ad987b7a8b30236568d8d6a 62783
00057.jpg
JPEG55.2 ac206e1ccc6bb53f1b942ac086d7fd00 31367
00057.QC.jpg
c0ed69f03fa9dfdede2083f97650e317 207675
00058.jpg
JPEG56.2 c32dcfa4cf302c7d6f863d9b2e28ea1c 72158
00058.QC.jpg
9f308b08a5e32fba63cc071fc4a7de8b 215568
00059.jpg
JPEG57.2 d968bfa4aed629fe5dfd725cd169d80e 74433
00059.QC.jpg
3de01262ecd7a496a67516bd4e376c47 231501
00060.jpg
JPEG58.2 37f863fcbec38b5964a27a06efe4e41f 79050
00060.QC.jpg
7ba6f36a80ef4b92820ccb490956ab93 203147
00061.jpg
JPEG59.2 9a52c5c381950d371fd894ccf70cbc92 72776
00061.QC.jpg
880dfdb075bd5b567ca6c5436937191b 209798
00062.jpg
JPEG60.2 a131c6d312a750ca6057ec5ac432e465 73410
00062.QC.jpg
3f014ebf2bf44685a1afd11de9c5e70c 97127
00063.jpg
JPEG61.2 3c057f46a1e52c1881e0b4caf5ea182f 40528
00063.QC.jpg
6de281a897454173cc84153166bc8c51 172446
00064.jpg
JPEG62.2 27e319102996a543bee23d9753881ed1 67675
00064.QC.jpg
560aa04ad36730a5c1a1b1e90b0680dc 38972
00065.jpg
JPEG63.2 f4d7a1af408a261368ff42689d46040e 24875
00065.QC.jpg
190cccf5e9c873bd3f61bcd88ee9d4b3 93423
00066.jpg
JPEG64.2 322ffee29ce5fb44e4095af12f6eeed8 44474
00066.QC.jpg
a2b937b96cf207c4a8fd7476c8e8d10f 116445
00067.jpg
JPEG65.2 e03d7efdbe8fc4bf316debae87faa642 52560
00067.QC.jpg
a34cd6ea8cd85edda3d0d4d9d2e2f0f1 78039
00068.jpg
JPEG66.2 181eb0b2597b5f96b9aad3c0d81f1f50 38306
00068.QC.jpg
a57025bbaf32fa76ab2df46c2e51e9fc 68032
00069.jpg
JPEG67.2 466cfd0b12169de8146e3b650df90802 37585
00069.QC.jpg
f2b2f008031c43523c169860da091fd1 73632
00070.jpg
JPEG68.2 745792a9ab287ee015411aa50a82c206 38975
00070.QC.jpg
6774b297cf70e29944da5ccdbfb83adf 68666
00071.jpg
JPEG69.2 4df034244e478a122b396f293d4eda4c 38308
00071.QC.jpg
5eb5d69db8798699bc7a9320e28395ed 72183
00072.jpg
JPEG70.2 631941dffd67f2c04a3462f7076c2a4b 38984
00072.QC.jpg
ac9d67d4d2e5c950ade2d8e732801d76 66989
00073.jpg
JPEG71.2 fed15fc2d1a43155c5eb6e8a56d10bfb 36611
00073.QC.jpg
eba440c5e4076622a8813513ab2f6656 49816
00074.jpg
JPEG72.2 9a943ea89642e406dab839b8aad501bd 29852
00074.QC.jpg
dbdc9d0edd0db69efd62d57314a6d4ea 86509
00075.jpg
JPEG73.2 b41874208c6673757922e8382e3c59c5 40910
00075.QC.jpg
f5f85dec7398920051ad0b58a6211428 74149
00076.jpg
JPEG74.2 cd47c208ce751f4b9c21493e660e0484 35946
00076.QC.jpg
e9636547cd3e873d44be89f73baaa538 88003
00077.jpg
JPEG75.2 0db895ed1b4e38e9cf1563bdf1c7f141 46597
00077.QC.jpg
1ab8061bb4559ba865229fd303540419 90952
00078.jpg
JPEG76.2 f236844731f1cd5c6ae963bd99706d59 47163
00078.QC.jpg
8b0d739e38e836fe38b4bfc82875e6ff 69071
00079.jpg
JPEG77.2 51bd0754a7f5eb850236ccc847c42630 39425
00079.QC.jpg
THUMB1 imagejpeg-thumbnails 7b5f4975c9ab13d35e5a4a3de8cfd8d4 23764
00001thm.jpg
THUMB2 318078a3c49a6bf9fb15df003a13dd8e 21707
00003thm.jpg
THUMB3 cc6790b803623a1701ba5021a1bd5321 30672
00004thm.jpg
THUMB4 8e929a4644ebf9f4ad07987b3e2bda71 31180
00005thm.jpg
THUMB5 6a808699113b203d7f39518224bbea9c 26152
00006thm.jpg
THUMB6 ded93a1ed5b06e0c7f983012d2224433 24386
00007thm.jpg
THUMB7 e42b924fa7f5d13ef7f15f3937461f26 35787
00008thm.jpg
THUMB8 c1d99c2cd9f86c4c8bcc13b2fcef3278 33220
00009thm.jpg
THUMB9 f65e3b9f93f2fd8fd552b250a3496732 31520
00010thm.jpg
THUMB10 c9759d28dce6f0b2e78cee49a311719a 33773
00011thm.jpg
THUMB11 0202b8ae83a198071e3f64b382816754 35932
00012thm.jpg
THUMB12 b2f96966db65aa6a4349eb52b95f34b0 35230
00013thm.jpg
THUMB13 93d1480eb6f89dd842e93bd0638aeef8 35747
00014thm.jpg
THUMB14 15331c46df7f6fb4b88e57b9fdd3cfd8 35295
00015thm.jpg
THUMB15 afe08e001ce4afeed9f785c9f4f9037e 32831
00016thm.jpg
THUMB16 aa65af395cfb3b56bc2d7934ecce37af 33806
00017thm.jpg
THUMB17 6ac2ff55711c57a9de4f3038fd0b91a2 33656
00018thm.jpg
THUMB18 16f134dbcfe1f743693b025f0ca39812 29473
00019thm.jpg
THUMB19 225aa2538b442d6fcc9caccc30136d4f 28302
00020thm.jpg
THUMB20 0e663fa066cb0a72e3554ab3cf87335f 33017
00021thm.jpg
THUMB21 6788dd56bcf4de07b91c2d44397c9ae2 33780
00022thm.jpg
THUMB22 c3954f0bb77d4e5645daba4b4eb6426e 31824
00023thm.jpg
THUMB23 cf3194c6b8be832d56fc5fbc54c08c4c 29393
00024thm.jpg
THUMB24 06e3c7c203162ef2c7c2a7d3db966fce 34655
00025thm.jpg
THUMB25 c12db1d70b67fa8ff930537ba8bf9a35 35349
00026thm.jpg
THUMB26 5db82a062ddb67b7a1a21d760196fba5 22696
00027thm.jpg
THUMB27 cf22df3cd289d96a4ffa79b16fb9c232 27662
00028thm.jpg
THUMB28 99be4c429124cdefcd512be123a04717 26750
00029thm.jpg
THUMB29 e089ca3f8a38daa273d369f9729088a6 32250
00030thm.jpg
THUMB30 74aa92955969a20ce58ad77f7ebeced2 27622
00031thm.jpg
THUMB31 57dc091d290d82ce2f7f322157a10715 33322
00032thm.jpg
THUMB32 17c033a1064e18b010145221f799b076 35109
00033thm.jpg
THUMB33 40420531ccafcefffe64717ba3a484fb 34986
00034thm.jpg
THUMB34 f7ea3cb8447297ca6ae1efd1418ca40d 34846
00035thm.jpg
THUMB35 b6e85c362fbaabc4f088b82399687d56 33632
00036thm.jpg
THUMB36 6303763dc537dcf1e7f92bff8641c893 29694
00037thm.jpg
THUMB37 760a04ebdbe9aecffd91902b2c7a95d7 28390
00038thm.jpg
THUMB38 578a988b43965d9986218de393653c23 30175
00039thm.jpg
THUMB39 34d8c08dc9421925c23a5e79d3c994bf 33917
00041thm.jpg
THUMB40 8522b440b40348169b26a857a6e1d907 34152
00042thm.jpg
THUMB41 6c7634818faec1179f918f99db20e152 35438
00043thm.jpg
THUMB42 4693ba5e0e67306e2453b52842d5c428 34632
00044thm.jpg
THUMB43 2fd5f0b0b3c9950c318997b6a2040e7a 30186
00045thm.jpg
THUMB44 1403a20587fecf247b3fefba0631b532 30123
00046thm.jpg
THUMB45 d2776ba8a4af59233de4a10b30b91d26 27471
00047thm.jpg
THUMB46 11c9404797d09f1468448d6a4530c18f 29843
00048thm.jpg
THUMB47 0104bcad353f8756734f59b3bf1571cf 31252
00049thm.jpg
THUMB48 b4b9d92dcbc6a88db1ff27e6d3bd8386 29415
00050thm.jpg
THUMB49 ea37656aa2c1fd428f9ba700abb05027 30539
00051thm.jpg
THUMB50 66df50d5063ed0a0ed17e2ec4730d24c 32001
00052thm.jpg
THUMB51 7959a319dedaeba3081a05f3c1ffc071 35515
00053thm.jpg
THUMB52 dc366372120bb588fadd13fd88d68afd 34545
00054thm.jpg
THUMB53 90c4cbd8d3d0e8166b5ad875982f6ad5 25290
00055thm.jpg
THUMB54 93140cad1d37331f6cdd3829c63fcb28 34678
00056thm.jpg
THUMB55 eae5b868e8d06ec4d80bbf57488ffaba 22474
00057thm.jpg
THUMB56 2a2d1c7d974c57f256568f862fbfb5c1 34584
00058thm.jpg
THUMB57 8e161d5b6e62c5f1c22db38e6031659d 35761
00059thm.jpg
THUMB58 b760c33406c3e86ecb77e66636dc1521 36437
00060thm.jpg
THUMB59 ec969fee32ba4cb302aa95398e0cfcb3 35023
00061thm.jpg
THUMB60 95f4f089e742c14103494125d79db30c 35258
00062thm.jpg
THUMB61 3a9c8be8facc4f529f8b8f7d2c58d8fc 25015
00063thm.jpg
THUMB62 62174bf97fa96cf8f4bb24b8c0d5c5ed 34318
00064thm.jpg
THUMB63 e2acfe0e6386d2cf206020cde576ddb4 20486
00065thm.jpg
THUMB64 5a5d67faef36434e553d3a9bed9dd1c0 27242
00066thm.jpg
THUMB65 a78ef29619001f5aeb907cb7e4e10858 29522
00067thm.jpg
THUMB66 43d69e2efe571f41357a3e9bf772ba4c 25363
00068thm.jpg
THUMB67 dca9b9d82584bd84c73d09a22da7be96 26349
00069thm.jpg
THUMB68 36a29c82104dfea43f4b5d73b77ce4a5 26123
00070thm.jpg
THUMB69 680cd7751dbc123bbd95112a73cd365d 26293
00071thm.jpg
THUMB70 ff464f86a5c23fe8c8722104cd58549f 26383
00072thm.jpg
THUMB71 9cb04382d4bcf47fbd04e9e4c334ef83 25261
00073thm.jpg
THUMB72 1287affa88159101cf6c55c244e4262d 22427
00074thm.jpg
THUMB73 a6ec23217ec7087f6b420c2524e3813d 26094
00075thm.jpg
THUMB74 138137959ebd8fa6d5856a02afddf983 24113
00076thm.jpg
THUMB75 cad34e1e759d1647654f7384e9a188fc 28556
00077thm.jpg
THUMB76 47d33c0e21b9762d8efd3e60d6a453c4 28913
00078thm.jpg
THUMB77 a144e075283f3aaa5245ac999bf3e0d2 26310
00079thm.jpg
TXT1 textplain e0c0888dcfee8f0e510c5e8d790f3bcc 526
00001.txt
TXT2 208b54a471fb0ccb7c81fcf55c01027d 530
00003.txt
TXT3 83909986450ee71455fba244b1ba9239 1419
00004.txt
TXT4 26f911aa5d6df3d46ee2ff55700da32b
00005.txt
TXT5 8fa552f6d13ffa2f106d35c024c55785 635
00006.txt
TXT6 24adf1ae40452971f7eef393494185ef 858
00007.txt
TXT7 5dcd18dd1089137b1485510099006dcb 3708
00008.txt
TXT8 bb9d88c9978a4942d5e55b2de8a7123b 2703
00009.txt
TXT9 aa412a30f86cfae588d5d82bff97382c 2582
00010.txt
TXT10 f7718f3cd3d616964c7a79b56f6103dd 3078
00011.txt
TXT11 4e87e5839e6b40b661577c3317c9e5e8 3382
00012.txt
TXT12 3c75f54307aae2e8fd82f095e703e448 3369
00013.txt
TXT13 28af52f9a2b125b907782ba9dff9a27b 3548
00014.txt
TXT14 1ae4478687055b9431c1e811c2e35f53 3384
00015.txt
TXT15 a998398499261919facd7e27af54a3b2 2176
00016.txt
TXT16 cf2b8d4df547b0d5469ee597de68b7df 2927
00017.txt
TXT17 5cea3763343ce6a1773bf20fe6b25f98 2852
00018.txt
TXT18 7a1aed2fb71a13fcc2c142d6fc11b047 2195
00019.txt
TXT19 291b95ad19a2a4ab1d5f75aa11abc819 2145
00020.txt
TXT20 c03506b10c9cecda08dc5a7531a86f37 2500
00021.txt
TXT21 2a0afc2d0c4556604ca04a245f62808b 2651
00022.txt
TXT22 e0d00d4150f1cd137ab54654e2d8fd53 2029
00023.txt
TXT23 4db2d54d951e37641db1bc2711cb5bb1 1835
00024.txt
TXT24 41aeb8e6e87417be5ce6ccb5f280adea 3072
00025.txt
TXT25 7a5317d411509122a979cfe778aca8f9 3324
00026.txt
TXT26 f158898335970a126589c4f740aa5b8f 802
00027.txt
TXT27 58985186c193693e37766ecb0b7ce44c 1615
00028.txt
TXT28 d2174ceb1a3058007eb9e388e17585b2 1309
00029.txt
TXT29 ee7ef9e803e691684f76a7840e62fbd0 2116
00030.txt
TXT30 d6332bf7dce19d361ccd42058c2b563b 1268
00031.txt
TXT31 b09d6d473bd3f4299e6b6f2916cc95bd 3264
00032.txt
TXT32 64c50da41d0d3ea0495751e5f55eb5b5 3035
00033.txt
TXT33 cbdb5ccdb868ae71a71a38cbda994c85 3446
00034.txt
TXT34 90755797e483268f07c73d0086c0dae2 3290
00035.txt
TXT35 3c6450e29f10164525c9503ee541da77 2658
00036.txt
TXT36 70649e0e0551fa36cd234caf2e36920a 2153
00037.txt
TXT37 ffe82693dcf63dee1ecd737468bf5249 1439
00038.txt
TXT38 62e30b5aa2aa9c2c4f10676636ed83ea 2221
00039.txt
TXT39 20db02c0ae0462c095daf74ec658f6e4 2923
00041.txt
TXT40 973289408cf6440e0d5baebe087b5e29 2837
00042.txt
TXT41 9f4c31719fe36f608fa79eaa94e97db0 3113
00043.txt
TXT42 7ebfdabfb4a01714d5440eee828c154c 3138
00044.txt
TXT43 ad0b0c872b46c9bc52ccca9441051135 2118
00045.txt
TXT44 e818b54f86f41a71ab5a2730a32f4f17 2053
00046.txt
TXT45 aa0c97b52d65a9a2a7a2c22385e143dc 1456
00047.txt
TXT46 9a2a6871da1a33bcdb42bc453f8b8659 2030
00048.txt
TXT47 dfe476b920123d018f2e7a5ea9e48966 2630
00049.txt
TXT48 4bd448ea59958eb0c495585e1510375b 1807
00050.txt
TXT49 20325c73bbd867ddd5b25dff145d402f 2322
00051.txt
TXT50 ca991db532967b6e7c7b10b41541f743 2624
00052.txt
TXT51 d78149df49cf90dd146a304d73657df1 3102
00053.txt
TXT52 e811f654a511b6ab87ec17a4ec3bcef8 3094
00054.txt
TXT53 a18ec202d1c49e684976f876a8dd518f 2007
00055.txt
TXT54 a859e7bb8cc68300cd526566f2d57ef3 2568
00056.txt
TXT55 a94ae0996e40612693c7ad4121d6c269 619
00057.txt
TXT56 bbecc61336ab4f6226d060af9b429496
00058.txt
TXT57 f7cf6715254db3cac096b6580423c1cc
00059.txt
TXT58 16941d7f99087aa5995dc1306b2447a9 3463
00060.txt
TXT59 f048cfe365c48d1fe19cfc6393935259 3012
00061.txt
TXT60 de79ddebfe1a9ccf51c0273b9397f554 3268
00062.txt
TXT61 f0e5c1bcb551dba8a1a90c10c6963258 1210
00063.txt
TXT62 3863fed03b56893c513e950bfbd30601 2184
00064.txt
TXT63 2ad1ce13f95c3ec1cd222dfa93c47830 232
00065.txt
TXT64 383e94bf3d36637ea4104b107972ac1c 1171
00066.txt
TXT65 8c6ff21f6e87e8c8bcbdc6703291bdf8 1640
00067.txt
TXT66 9ce664c6563607ffc2b40527bf556d96 787
00068.txt
TXT67 fc7bf22774cd4624c10da030471a06d9 1201
00069.txt
TXT68 ffd6051bbc6d60c3bffe192273e4c41f 1142
00070.txt
TXT69 658731acaabc849cd434ef30ab18828e 1106
00071.txt
TXT70 02a79034fde6061714ac5b1bc7a031db 1136
00072.txt
TXT71 f2a2ca2a0c1fbed37ab55ae684ef620d 970
00073.txt
TXT72 9bf50e3798c23884c361be03f2021aef 584
00074.txt
TXT73 15786a765a77411fa82e93bc094680c4 1747
00075.txt
TXT74 55dd8b29e73e035dc6b9935b64c08787 933
00076.txt
TXT75 9e4fdd5772c0b0308d3d866627cc6215 942
00077.txt
TXT76 f63951f92c1df4d0d55986205240f814 1111
00078.txt
TXT77 329422af269c914b1e169d30255f030d
00079.txt
TXT1.2
TXT2.2
TXT3.2
TXT4.2
TXT5.2
TXT6.2
TXT7.2
TXT8.2
TXT9.2
TXT10.2
TXT11.2
TXT12.2
TXT13.2
TXT14.2
TXT15.2
TXT16.2
TXT17.2
TXT18.2
TXT19.2
TXT20.2
TXT21.2
TXT22.2
TXT23.2
TXT24.2
TXT25.2
TXT26.2
TXT27.2
TXT28.2
TXT29.2
TXT30.2
TXT31.2
TXT32.2
TXT33.2
TXT34.2
TXT35.2
TXT36.2
TXT37.2
TXT38.2
TXT39.2
TXT40.2
TXT41.2
TXT42.2
TXT43.2
TXT44.2
TXT45.2
TXT46.2
TXT47.2
TXT48.2
TXT49.2
TXT50.2
TXT51.2
TXT52.2
TXT53.2
TXT54.2
TXT55.2
TXT56.2
TXT57.2
TXT58.2
TXT59.2
TXT60.2
TXT61.2
TXT62.2
TXT63.2
TXT64.2
TXT65.2
TXT66.2
TXT67.2
TXT68.2
TXT69.2
TXT70.2
TXT71.2
TXT72.2
TXT73.2
TXT74.2
TXT75.2
TXT76.2
TXT77.2
G78 METS78 unknownx-mets 9b8a57dc5461ab9f9885dad46a0b3474 98241
UF00080846_00001.mets
METS:structMap STRUCT1 physical
METS:div DMDID ADMID ORDER 0 main
PDIV1 1 Front Cover
PAGE1 Page
METS:fptr FILEID
PDIV2 Acknowledgements 2 Chapter
PAGE2
PDIV3 3 Table Contents
PAGE3 i
PAGE4 ii
PAGE5 iii
PDIV4 4 List Tables
PAGE6 iv
PDIV5 Executive summary 5
PAGE7 v
PDIV6 6 Introduction
PAGE8
PAGE9
PDIV7 Why consider gender FSRE 7
PAGE10
PAGE11
PAGE12
PAGE13
PAGE14
PDIV8 Research methodology 8
PAGE15
PAGE16 9
PDIV9 Results analysis
PAGE17 10
PAGE18 11
PAGE19 12
PAGE20 13
PAGE21 14
PAGE22 15
PAGE23 16
PAGE24 17
PAGE25 18
PAGE26 19
PAGE27 20
PAGE28 21
PAGE29 22
PAGE30 23
PAGE31 24
PAGE32 25
PAGE33 26
PAGE34 27
PAGE35 28
PAGE36 29
PAGE37 30
PAGE38 31
PAGE39 32
PAGE40 33
PAGE41 34
PAGE42 35
PAGE43 36
PAGE44 37
PAGE45 38
PAGE46 39
PAGE47 40
PAGE48 41
PAGE49 42
PAGE50 43
PAGE51 44
PAGE52 45
PAGE53 46
PAGE54 47
PAGE55 48
PDIV10 Conclusions recommendations
PAGE56 49
PAGE57 50
PAGE58 51
PAGE59 52
PAGE60 53
PAGE61 54
PDIV11 References
PAGE62 55
PAGE63 56
PDIV12 Appendix A: questionnaire
PAGE64 57
PAGE65 58
PAGE66 59
PDIV13 B:
PAGE67 60
PAGE68 61
PAGE69 62
PAGE70 63
PAGE71 64
PAGE72 65
PDIV14 C: Type project, personnel, analysis, training
PAGE73 66
PAGE74 67
PAGE75 68
PAGE76 69
PAGE77 70
STRUCT2 other
ODIV1 Main
FILES1
FILES2
FILES3
FILES4
FILES5
FILES6
FILES7
FILES8
FILES9
FILES10
FILES11
FILES12
FILES13
FILES14
FILES15
FILES16
FILES17
FILES18
FILES19
FILES20
FILES21
FILES22
FILES23
FILES24
FILES25
FILES26
FILES27
FILES28
FILES29
FILES30
FILES31
FILES32
FILES33
FILES34
FILES35
FILES36
FILES37
FILES38
FILES39
FILES40
FILES41
FILES42
FILES43
FILES44
FILES45
FILES46
FILES47
FILES48
FILES49
FILES50
FILES51
FILES52
FILES53
FILES54
FILES55
FILES56
FILES57
FILES58
FILES59
FILES60
FILES61
FILES62
FILES63
FILES64
FILES65
FILES66
FILES67
FILES68
FILES69
FILES70
FILES71 71
FILES72 72
FILES73 73
FILES74 74
FILES75 75
FILES76 76
FILES77 77
FILES78 78