Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you(19)

Similar to Understanding gender in wheat-based livelihoods for enhanced WHEAT R4D impact in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Ethiopia(20)

Advertisement

More from CGIAR(20)

Advertisement

Understanding gender in wheat-based livelihoods for enhanced WHEAT R4D impact in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Ethiopia

  1. Understanding gender in wheat- based livelihoods for enhanced WHEAT R4D impact in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Ethiopia Dr. Kristie Drucza - k.drucza@cgiar.org CGIAR gender 28/2/19 BMZ funded
  2. 3 year R4D project - went for 4 years - 2014-2018
  3. Social Norms Boudet, et al. 2012 Group beliefs about appropriate behavior and expected actions for members. Can refer to the ideas held by a group of individuals and the actions they elicit in individuals; and how individuals are sanctioned by their surrounding community if they break a social norm.
  4. Gender Norms Represent perspectives on what gender relations ‘should be like’ and how individuals of particular genders ‘should behave.’ Typically operate on an ideological level and an individual level. Often connect to broader social norms. Marcus, 2014
  5. Why a meta-analysis?
  6. Meta-analysis research questions • What approaches and interventions affect change in gender-related social norms? What doesn’t work? • What insights into how efficacy was, or was not achieved can be identified?
  7. Methodology: first round inclusion criteria Independence: External Document type: Evaluation 2011-2017 Ethiopia 26 - 13 Round 1 Pakistan 41 - 14 Round 1
  8. Methodology: second round inclusion criteria Rigor of Methods Quantitative Sampling Qualitative Treatment Evidence for Findings Gender Included in Evaluation None Section on Gender Woven Throughout Social Norm Change (Outcome) None Claimed Present
  9. 41 Round 1 14 Round 2 3 Deep Dive 2 Deep Dive 13 Round 2 26 Round 1 Meta-analysis sample
  10. We aren’t learning much from evaluations Evaluations serve an accountability function, rather than a learning function (especially with gender).
  11. Country context Pakistan Ethiopia Population (mil) 197 105 GDP growth% 5.7 10.2 2018 Global Hunger Index (119 countries) 93 106 FHH 10.9% 26.1% 2017 GII UNDP (160 countries) 133 121 Labor force participation Male 82.7% Female 25% Male 87% Female 77% Work hours per day Men 8-10 Women 12-17 Men 6-9 Women 13-17 Religion 95-98% Muslim Ethiopian Orthodox 43.5%, Muslim 33.9%, Protestant 18.5%, other.
  12. Speaker 2: Emily Springer, Ethiopia Speaker 3: Sidra Minhas, DevTrio Pakistan
  13. Similarities Multi-intervention/component design to capture different change pathways High level goals and targets. ToC Indicators of change + importance of monitoring/feedback Factor gender norms into designs - Overcome participation/mobility barriers, women in groups Work with men, boys and communities. Train staff Social empowerment/participatory/social transformative method Evaluation ToR must include a gender learning focused question Poor rigor in evaluation methods (qant and qual). Mixed methods Gender should be mainstreamed throughout the evaluation report Long term?
  14. Audience questions Are people more interested in what works for programming or what works to build an evidence base and why? Where are you located and do our findings resonate with your work?
  15. Thank you for your interest! Photo Credits (top left to bottom right): Julia Cumes/CIMMYT, Awais Yaqub/CIMMYT, CIMMYT archives, Marcelo Ortiz/CIMMYT, David Hansen/University of Minnesota, CIMMYT archives, CIMMYT archives (maize), Ranak Martin/CIMMYT, CIMMYT archives.

Editor's Notes

  1. Structure: Talk a little bit about the project, introduce the country contexts, methodology, hand over to Emily and then Sidra, short discussion on similarities and Q and A.yes – how long will this take?
  2. We were after strong findings, where gender is strongly included, AND social norm change is present Many had a single section on gender combined by adjectives to farmers, but not clear on it the data was only talking about men in other sections or men AND women. We wanted to look at best cases so we can lay out some steps to walk in. Rigor of methods: Quantitative sample What was the quantitative sampling strategy? Did strata include women or female-headed households? Was it statistically representative? Are sampling methods and survey procedures explained? Qualitative treatment How was their qualitative sample taken? Did it involve women? Is qualitative data presented in a systematic and rigorous manner? Evidence for findings Is their analysis and presentation of evidence credible? Are the results disaggregated by sex? Are evaluative claims supported by empirical data? Gender Included in evaluation None No substantive mention or exploration of gender or women in the document Section on gender Is there a section in the evaluation on gender? Is this the only place where women and/or gender is discussed? Woven throughout Is the differential impact of the project on men and women continuously disaggregated throughout the document? Is terminology gender sensitive (e.g. “women” used as an adjective to farmers only in the gender section)? Are results explored by different head-of-household type? Social Norm Change None No mention of social norms in the document Claimed Did the project claim to change social norms but struggle to provide credible evidence of change that can be linked to the program? Present Did the project change social norms and provide credible evidence of social-norm changes that are linked to the program?
Advertisement