Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Unpacking the “Gender Box”: Identifying the Gender Dimensions of Your Research

103 views

Published on

Unpacking the “Gender Box”: Identifying the Gender Dimensions of Your Research

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to like this

Unpacking the “Gender Box”: Identifying the Gender Dimensions of Your Research

  1. 1. Unpacking the “Gender Box”: Identifying the Gender Dimensions of Your Research Photo credit: Agnes Quisumbing Ruth Meinzen-Dick Senior Research Fellow Environment and Production Technology Division International Food Policy Research Institute
  2. 2. Some terminology Gender = socially constructed relationships/differences between men and women.  Includes the roles, responsibilities and opportunities associated with being male or female in a given culture.  These characteristics vary among cultures and change over time. Gender ≠ Sex (biological differences). Gender ≠ Women (men are also part of gender).  Refer to “women’s empowerment” or “gender equality/equity, NOT “gender empowerment”. Male and Female are adjectives (need to describe something); Men and Women refer to adult people.
  3. 3. Gender Analysis A set of tools for uncovering differences between men and women in order to ensure that our research produces policy recommendations that are appropriate to the needs of both men and women. Which differences are most important will depend on the context. Emphasis is not on having “right” answers, which may be right only in a specific circumstance, but on asking right questions. Page 3
  4. 4. Page 4  When there are systematic gender differences in… oOutcomes (yield differentials, health and nutrition indicators, poverty rates, etc.) oDeterminants (effects of male and female schooling, male and female land ownership, male and female headship, etc.) oProcesses (when there are differences in the preferences, motivations, and behavior of men and women) When does it make sense to pay attention to gender in your research?
  5. 5. Assets Well-being Livelihood strategy Full income Consumption Savings/ Investment Shocks Men WomenJoint Context: Ecological, social, economic, and political factors Source: Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011b New technologies The Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project Conceptual Framework
  6. 6. Research has shown that:  Unitary model of the household does not apply.  Households do not act as one when making decisions or pooling resources.  One’s share of resources depends on bargaining power; women control fewer resources than men.  Women’s assets and incomes are used to improve the health & food security of their children.  Gender gap (OECD index) associated with higher Global Hunger Index (esp. education gap in SSA).  Improving women’s access to assets can  agricultural productivity, food security, and children’s nutrition, health, and education.
  7. 7. Gender in Food Systems Agriculture is highly “gendered” in developing economies (SOFA 2011):  Women make up a large percentage of the agricultural labor force in developing countries (average 43%, 50% in Africa). Women are disadvantaged in productive asset ownership (including land and livestock), control of productive inputs (including access to credit, insurance, technology etc.). Gender differences in base education levels, access to services (extension), natural resource knowledge. Female farmers produce less than men not because they are less efficient/able farmers, but because they lack equal access to resources. Photo credit: Deborah Rubin
  8. 8. By closing the gender-resource gap  Productivity boost.  Women could increase productivity on their farms by 20-30%.  This would raise total output at national level by 2.5-4%.  Productivity gains of this magnitude have potential to:  Reduce in the number of hungry people in the world by 12-17%.  100-150 million people move out of hunger.  Multiplier effects on broader economic and social realms  Women, relative to men, spend more on food for the family.  Women’s incomes are more strongly associated with child health and nutrition. Infographic from FAO: http://www.fao.org/gender/infographic/en/
  9. 9. Page 9 Reducing poverty  Women are more constrained than men in terms of control over and access to resources  Women often lack the assets and income necessary to exit poverty and are subject to gender-based vulnerabilities, including: o Fewer benefits/protections under customary or statutory legal systems o Lack of decision-making authority and control of financial resources o Greater time burdens o Social isolation o Threats or acts of violence  Interventions that don’t anticipate the unique dimensions of women’s poverty or identify the constraints to women’s full participation often fail to reach their objectives, or may have unintended effects
  10. 10. Page 10 Keep in mind  Intersectionality: oNarrow focus on differences between men and women may mask differences among women, e.g. variations by marital status, age, and the size of women’s land holdings oEthnicity, religion, caste, class, level of education, etc. may be more or less important in different contexts oGender studies show how to analyze this  Need to give attention to men, as well  Beyond the unitary household  Gender > female headed households!
  11. 11. Levels of gender analysis Household type (“MHH” “FHH”) This is a comparison of household types, not a full gender analysis
  12. 12. Levels of gender analysis Individual “Men” “Women” Household type (“MHH” “FHH”)
  13. 13. Levels of gender analysis Individual “Men” “Women” Household type (“MHH” “FHH”) Plot “Male managed” “Female managed” “Jointly managed”
  14. 14. Objectives of gender-sensitive development programs  Three types of gender-sensitive development programs:  The strategies and activities to achieve these aims will be different  Need indicators to monitor these programs Reach Benefit Empower Include women in program activities Increase women’s well- being (e.g. food security, income, health) Strengthen ability of women to make strategic life choices and to put those choices into action 14
  15. 15. Example: Nutritious crop disseminated through agricultural extension Objective Reach Benefit Empower • Deliver agricultural extension services to women • Increase women’s well-being • Increase women’s agency in production and nutrition decisions Strategies • Provide transportation • Conduct training during convenient times of the day Indicators • Proportion of women attending training, receiving extension advise • Consider women’s preferences and constraints in design and content of training • Sex-disaggregated data for yields, income, land use, nutrition, time use, etc • Decision making power on production, income, food consumption • Reduction of GBV, time burden • Enhance women’s decision making power in households and communities, especially on crops to grow 15
  16. 16. Definition of empowerment The various material, human, and social resources that serve to enhance one’s ability to exercise choice The capacity to define one’s own goals and make strategic choices in pursuit of these goals, particularly in a context where this ability was previously denied The achievement of one’s goals Agency AchievementsResources Source: Kabeer (1999) 16
  17. 17. Measuring Empowerment Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)  Measures inclusion of women in the agricultural sector  Survey-based index - interviews men and women in the same household  Designed for population-based surveys  Launched in 2012 by USAID, IFPRI, and OPHI  Details on index construction in Alkire et al. (2013) Project-level WEAI (pro-WEAI)  Survey-based index - interviews men and women in the same household  Builds on abbreviated WEAI  Adapted to assess impact of agricultural development projects, with additional indicators (e.g. mobility)  Details on index construction in Malapit et al. (2019)
  18. 18. Three types of agency measured in pro-WEAI Power to (instrumental agency) Power within (intrinsic agency) Power with (collective agency)
  19. 19. Pro-WEAI is made up of two sub-indices Three domains of empowerment (3DE) A direct measure of women’s empowerment in 3 dimensions Gender parity Index (GPI) Women’s achievement’s relative to the primary male in household Project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI) All range from zero to one; higher values = greater empowerment 90 % 10 % 19
  20. 20. 12 indicators of empowerment Each indicator receives an equal proportion (1/12) of the overall weight Empowered if adequate in 75% of indicators
  21. 21. Key questions to ask  What different roles/stakes do women and men have in XXX?  How might a policy or intervention affect them differently?  Will both men and women realistically be able to participate and to benefit? (look at time, assets)  How might differential participation of men, women affect project activities and impact?  How could the research contribute to gender equity? Page 21
  22. 22. Page 22 Resources  WEAI Resource Center” http://weai.ifpri.info/  Gender, Agriculture and Assets Program website (Methods toolkit, practitioners’ guide, etc.) http://gaap.ifpri.info/  IFPRI Gender tool box: www.ifpri.org/themes/gender/gendertools.asp  World Bank/FAO/IFAD Gender & Agriculture Sourcebook www.worldbank.org/genderinag  FAO State of Food and Agriculture 2011: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf  A. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick, T. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Behrman, and A. Peterman (Eds.) Gender in agriculture and food security: Closing the knowledge gap. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer and FAO. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4.  Quisumbing, A.R., et al. 2014. Reducing the gender asset gap through agricultural development: A technical resource guide. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/gaap_techguide.pdf  https://genderfoodpolicy.wordpress.com/ --sign up for notifications
  23. 23. References/Resources  Malapit et al. - Development of the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro- WEAI) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.018  Blog: Reach, benefit, or empower: Clarifying gender strategies of development projects http://a4nh.cgiar.org/2016/11/29/reach-benefit-or- empower-clarifying-gender-strategies-of-development-projects/?utm_source=Email&utm_campaign=GNIE29Nov  Doss CR,Kovarik C, Peterman A, Quisumbing AR, van den BoldM. 2013. Gender inequalities in ownership and control of land in Africa: myths versus reality. IFPRI Discuss. Pap. 01308, Int. Food Policy Res. Inst., Washington, DC Or Doss, C. R., C. Kovarik, A. Peterman, A. Quisumbing, and M. van den Bold. Forthcoming. “Gender Inequalities in Ownership and Control of Land in Africa.” Journal of Agricultural Economics. (http://www.ifpri.org/publication/gender-inequalities-ownership-and-control-land-africa).  Cheryl Doss: "If women hold up half the sky, how much of the world's food do they produce?" (http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am309e/am309e00.pdf)  "Standards for collecting sex disaggregated data for gender analysis" (http://www.pim.cgiar.org/2014/07/31/standards-for-collecting-sex- disaggregated-data-for-gender-analysis/)  "Data needs for gender analysis in agriculture" (http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01261.pdf)  Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, P. Biermayr-Jenzano, V. Wilde, M. Noordeloos, C. Ragasa, and N. Beintema. (2011a). Engendering agricultural research. IFPRI Monograph. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/rr176.pdf  Meinzen-Dick, R., N. Johnson, A. Quisumbing, J. Njuki, J. Behrman, D. Rubin, A. Peterman, and E. Waithanji. (2011b). Gender, assets, and agricultural development programs: A conceptual framework. CAPRi Working Paper 99. Washington, DC: IFPRI. 2008. http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/capriwp99.pdf.  Meinzen-Dick, R., Q. Bernier, and E. Haglund. (2013). The six “ins” of climate-smart agriculture: Inclusive institutions for information, innovation, investment, and insurance. CAPRi Working Paper No. 114. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/capriwp114

×