Using qualitative methods for gender analysis


Published on

Presentation by Michelle Adato on using qualitative methods for gender analysis

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Using qualitative methods for gender analysis

  1. 1. Using qualitative methods for gender analysis in program evaluations Michelle Adato IFPRI Tool Pool Seminar on Identifying Gender Dimensions in your Research April 28, 2010
  2. 2. Why use qualitative methods? Use of qualitative methods responds to reality that: Whether interventions are successful—and who benefits—is affected by social dynamics in households, communities, and institutions - Social relationships, norms, values, culture, beliefs, experience, interests, etc. And, that these dynamics are not simple to uncover and understand
  3. 3. Gender issues in Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs • CCT programs aim to empower women through cash transfers; health services; training; and girls education • Policy interest in • Impacts on women‟s and girls‟ human capital and empowerment, and impact pathways • Why impacts are not greater • Unanticipated negative impacts Page 3
  4. 4. Types of gender issues studied via qualitative methods: Conditional Cash Transfer program evaluations • Sociocultural norms, and how they affect program reception and outcomes • Why do women not participate in some health services, despite strong messages and cash incentives? • Why do girls not attend school despite the CCT? • Do cash transfers provide incentives to have more children? • Social norms may be more powerful than financial incentives Page 4
  5. 5. Types of gender issues studied, cont. • Program efforts to promote women‟s empowerment • Does giving money to women reduce or increase tensions between couples? • What types of empowerment effects and what are the pathways? (money, training, discourse?) • Why do programs with similar designs have different impacts • Gendered interactions with institutions (e.g. government, banks, markets, health centers) • How do women‟s experiences affect their confidence and program participation? Page 5
  6. 6. Advantages of qualitative methods • Qualitative methods are effective at capturing these issues because • Elaboration, and sometimes several tries and lengthy follow-up and probing, are needed to convey the questions adequately and understand answers • People do not always tell the truth: Getting candid information often requires time, trust, rapport, triangulation, observation • Discover unanticipated issues • Solicit local solutions to problems Page 6
  7. 7. How qualitative research adds value to quantitative research • Identifies issues and questions for surveys and hypotheses for testing • Identifies response options for survey questions • Clarifies terms/language for use in surveys • Confirms validity of constructs and proxies • Triangulation, confirmation, contradiction • Explanation/interpretation of survey findings • Depth, texture, context • Impact pathways, and reasons for lack of impact
  8. 8. How quantitative research adds value to qualitative research • Identifies stratification strategy • Provides community and household characteristics for sampling • Identifies issues for investigation • Triangulation, confirmation, contradiction • Determines prevalence of qualitative findings in wider population • Reveals representation of qualitative sample Page 8
  9. 9. Methods: Focus Groups Advantages Disadvantages • Cost- and time-efficient— • Less time to explore and cover more people probe • Can be a safe space for • Inability to triangulate data discussion of sensitive on individuals/households issues • Louder and quieter voices, • Early identification of peer pressure important issues • Discussions trigger ideas, recollections, opinions Page 9
  10. 10. Methods: Semi-structured interviews Advantages Disadvantages • Depth and detail • More time consuming • Rapport and costly, so smaller • Analytic power: Ability sample sizes to relate data to other • No trigger and data at individual, interaction effects of household, and group community levels • No peer pressure Page 10
  11. 11. Methods: Ethnography • Local researchers live in cmtys for 4-5 months • HH case studies: Interview all members; observe activities in HH, cmty, program • Builds trust, rapport, motivation • Increases opportunity for privacy • Reduces reactivity • Discover unanticipated behaviors • Increases understanding through iteration, triangulation • Attention to gender of researcher—depends on topics and context
  12. 12. Qualitative sampling using survey data: (-) (+) (-) (+) health health education education Children X X 0- 5 years Primary X X school girls/boys Secondary X X school girls/boys
  13. 13. Selected findings on Gender and CCTs in Latin America Mexico (Adato, de la Briere, Mindek, & Quisumbing 2000; Adato and Roopnaraine 2009) Nicaragua (Adato and Roopnaraine 2004; 2009) El Salvador: (Adato, Roopnaraine, Pleitez, Morales, Calderon, et al. 2009)
  14. 14. Findings on gender relations: Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador • Potential for intra-household conflict but minimal (M, N, ES) • Contrary to rumor, little evidence of domestic violence • Reduced social strain due to new household resources • Women seen as making „better‟ spending decisions • Program for „women and children‟ so non-threatening to male identity as breadwinner (N, ES) • However, women must negotiate program and domestic responsibilities (M, N, ES)
  15. 15. Findings on gender issues, cont. • Sociocultural norms affect participation in health services: Shame, religion, tradition (M, N, ES) • Need more attention to men, especially with regard to health issues (M,N,ES) • Increased confidence through participation in training and collective activities, but varies greatly by program (more so in M, ES) • New gender discourses (M, N, ES) • Changes in power relations are modest, but cash provides some independence • Spending without asking permission (M,N,ES) • Freedom to leave spouse (ES) Page 15
  16. 16. Women’s empowerment “Beneficiaries defend themselves better since PROGRESA. [Q: why?] Because of pláticas, because they speak with each other...beneficiary with beneficiary... For example, in my community I hold a meeting and we begin to talk, and they have more experience. Now they know how to speak more. Because they ask each other…how do you handle something, how did you do it? That is how, one to the other, we open our minds” (promotora, Guerrero, Mexico) “Before I was so timid, even talking to him, and because he was quite stern, I was ashamed. But now, I have more strength to speak to him, because of all they‟ve taught us: that we‟re also important and that we should feel supported and strong enough to speak with him . Before, if he did something which I didn‟t like, I just let it go but now, no…to say that I‟m boss in the house, like he used to say, made me a little bit afraid, not that he‟d hit me, but that he would make a big deal out of it, but even he says I have changed a lot” (Beneficiary, Las Pacayas, El Salvador) Page 16
  17. 17. Selected Findings on Gender and CCTs in Turkey (Adato, Roopnaraine, Smith, Altinok, Çelebioğlu, & Cemal, et al. 2007)
  18. 18. CCTs in southeastern Turkey • Impact on women‟s empowerment depends on program objectives, and sociocultural context • No gender discourse • Some expression of new independence in spending and interaction with institutions, but limited • Money sometimes turned over to men • No collective activities: women can not gather in groups • No women‟s leadership (complex social tensions) • Survey found no impact on pregnancy; qualitative study explained why: financial incentive overshadowed by economic and social pressures
  19. 19. Survey findings from Turkey • CCT had significant impacts on secondary enrollment at national level: increased by 10.7% for girls aged 14-17 (Ahmed, Gilligan, Kudat, Colasan, Tatlidil, & Ozbilgin, et al. 2006) • But large regional differences
  20. 20. Primary and secondary school enrollment: 3 provinces in Turkey Net Enrollment* Province Boy Girl All Primary school enrollment (grade 1-8) Diyarbakir 97.5 95.6 96.7 Samsun 92.3 100.0 95.9 Van 90.7 81.1 86.1 Secondary school enrollment (grade 9-11) Diyarbakir 78.7 63.9 71.3 Samsun 58.8 70.0 64.9 Van 47.4 15.5 32.2 (Note: Survey data not representative at provincial level)
  21. 21. Reasons why children do not attend school in Turkey (qualitative study) Percent of all households 120 100 80 (n=87) 60 40 20 0 Factors affecting decisions Diyarbakir Samsun Van
  22. 22. Gender and Schooling Decisions • Women‟s primary identity as wife and mother • Education irrelevant or counterproductive • Inappropriate for women to work • Bride price • Honor, reputation, sexuality • Fear of damage to family reputation and honor by girls contact with men and boys • Physical maturity and appearance of girls a factor • Transportation and location of schools • No secondary schools in communities • Objection to girls walking to school, riding on buses with boys, or being driven by man
  23. 23. Girls and education in Van, Turkey • “the girls have only their honor as a valuable thing in the village and it is my duty to prevent any bad words about that… No one sends their daughters to school anyway. Why should I send mine? They will look at them in a bad way.” • “Let’s say someone fools her, abducts her, who will clean my name? Are you or is the teacher going to clean my name?.... I would not send her for any money.” • “Now I can say to my husband that the government is paying me money for my daughters and I am sending them, it is none of your business now.”
  24. 24. Conclusions from CCT evaluations • Significance of country and region specific norms for women (incl sanctions associated with non-conformity) that impact the interests and desires of males and females • Relevance of ethnic and religious differences • Influence of authority (e.g. tribal leaders, elders, nurses) • Financial incentives powerful, but not necessarily • Training and discourse powerful, but not necessarily • Implications for program design, complementary program needed, regional variations, flexibility—not blueprints! • Not static: Values and practices do change over time; interventions can influence these
  25. 25. Cautions • Allocate sufficient time and budget for • Iterative research phases • Dialogue, analysis, and integration through • Instrument design • Data analysis • Research quality: Don‟t cut corners or loses value • Iteration with panel surveys Page 25