There are many different methods and approaches that can be used when incorporating gender considerations into research projects. This presentation gives an overview of the pros and cons of different useful methods, and explains which are suitable depending on the scale of the project and the resources (time, money, expertise) available. CIFOR scientist Carol Colfer prepared this presentation, together with Rebakah Minarchek, for an international meeting of some 30 gender specialists held on 6–8 November 2012 at CIFOR's headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia.

1. Gender Methods:
An Overview
Carol J. Pierce Colfer
and
Rebakah Minarchek
CIFOR Gender Workshop
6‐8 November 2012

2. Methodological issues in gender
and natural resources
• All‐purpose methods/resources
• Methods for three kinds of users: those
needing something
– ‘quick and [perhaps] dirty’
– Systematic/academic/extractive
– Participatory, usually long term
• Conclusions

4. Huge variety of approaches
• E.g. Marxist feminists, Third World feminists,
feminist political ecologists, ecofeminists,
feminist environmentalists, socialist feminists,
feminist poststructuralists, institutional analysis
and development specialists
• WID, GAD, WAD [Marxist, Women and
Development], DAWN [Development Alternatives
with Women for a New Era], WED [Women,
environment and Sustainable Development]

5. I. Four Common All‐Purpose
Methods
1. review of existing literature,
2. surveys/questionnaires,
3. interviews, and
4. case studies
5. [Indices (SIGI, VCI, WEAI)]
Disaggregate by Sex

6. Useful Quantitative Overviews
• OECD developed SIGI (Social Institutions &
Gender Index) – social norms & gender
equality
• India’s (India) ISET produced VCI (Vulnerability
Capacity Index) – on climate change
• IFPRI, OPHI & USAID developed WEAI
(Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index)

7. II. For users with few resources (time,
money & expertise)
• PRA, RRA, RAAKS [Rapid Assessment of
Agricultural Knowledge Systems], etc.
• Many collections available (e.g. Geilfus 2008)
• E.g. historical transects, pebble distribution
games, seasonal calendars, venn
diagrams, wealth ranking, sondeos,
CATPAC, focus groups, future
scenarios, ++

8. From Behrmann et al. 2012
• Diagnosis and Design (D&D); Diagnostico Rural Rapido (DRR); Farmer Participatory Research;
Farming Systems Research; Groupe de Recherche et d’Appui pour l’Auto‐Promotion
Paysanne (GRAPP); Methode Acceleree de Recherche Participative (MARP); Micro‐Planning
Workshops; Participatory Analysis and Learning Methods (PALM); Participatory Action
Research (PAR); Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME); Participatory Operational
Research Projects (PORP); Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA); Participatory Poverty
Monitoring (PPM); Participatory Policy Research (PPR); Participatory Research Methodology
(PRM); Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA); Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning (PRAP);
Participatory Social Assessment (PSA); Participatory Technology Development (PTD);
Participatory Urban Appraisal (PUA); Planning for Real (PfR); Process Documentation; Rapid
Appraisal; Rapid Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS); Rapid Assessment
Procedures (RAP); Rapid Assessment Techniques (RAT); Rapid Catchment Analysis (RCA);
Rapid Ethnographic Assessment (REA); Rapid Food Security Analysis (RFSA); Rapid Multi‐
perspective Appraisal (RMA); Rapid Organisational Assessment (ROA); Rapid Rural Appraisal
(RRA); Samuhik Brahman (Joint Trek); Self‐esteem, Associative Strength, Resourcefulness,
Action Planning, and Responsibility (SARAR); Soft Systems Methodology (SSM); Theatre for
Development; Training for Transformation (TFT); Village Appraisal (VA); Visualisation in
Participatory Programmes (VIPP); and Zielorientierte Projekt Planung (ZOPP).

9. Advantages of PRA
• Speedy
• inexpensiveness
• quick look at community realities
• entrées, ways to meet a few
community members, establish early levels of
rapport, explain why you are there

10. Dangers of PRA
• The likelihood of misunderstanding & error
increase with a quick visit.
• Diving into a community without knowledge
of how people group (e.g. political factions)
can raise barriers difficult to overcome later.
• Beginning work in a new community without
first establishing trust, rapport can lead to lies
& misrepresentation.

11. III. For users with social science
expertise easily available
• Use of existing • Computer Dependent
documents methods
• Statistical & • Ethnography
quantitative analysis • Interpretive methods

12. Advantages/Differentiation
from PRA (1/2)
• Widely accepted
theory & method
• Focused researcher
training or past
experience on topic &
method.
• Sufficient time frame
for research

13. Advantages/Differentiation
from PRA (2/2)
• Evidence of a) replicability; b) evidence‐
based, key insights into historical trends;
&/or c) interactions among parts of key
systems
• Results likely to be publishable
in accepted scientific journals

14. Constraints to Systematic/Academic
Use of Social Science Expertise
• Trained people may use
conceptual frameworks &
terminologies alien to others
• Refereed journals  long lag
times – perhaps too long
• Social scientists’ in‐depth
training may have reduced
exposure to biophysical
sciences

15. IV. For users with adequate
resources, seeking understanding and
long‐term development
• Participatory approaches strengthen local
capabilities (analysis, networking, monitoring,
conflict mgm’t, leadership, facilitation +)
• [Especially women’s viewpoints;
voice]
• Uses PRA & extractive methods as
complements, as needed

16. Common Elements of
Participatory Approaches
• Developing a vision
• Planning and monitoring
• Facilitation of collective action
• Approaching equity explicitly
• Participatory modeling

17. Advantages to Participatory
Approaches (1)
• Takes systems approach – attends to multiply
intersecting elements of women’s & men’s
lives & environment
• Builds on local knowledge (men’s, women’s),
‘married’ with external knowledge
• Recognizes human & environmental
propensity for change, with mechanisms for
dealing with change

18. Advantages to Participatory
Approaches (2)
• Recognizes flexibility
required by changing
circumstances, greater
likelihood of responding
appropriately
DOUBLY ADVANTAGEOUS
WITH ATTENTION TO GENDER

19. Challenges with Participatory
Approaches
• Long (variable) periods of time
• Qualified/trained persons regularly involved in
village life (remote, uncomfortable, dangerous?)
• Impossible to ensure original plans succeed,
resulting need for humility, willingness to change
— loss of perceived control.
• Superior (not unequivocal) rights of communities
to determine collaborative actions.

20. Concluding Reminders
• Women have active roles in many natural
resource systems. We’ll do a better job if we
attend to those doing the work.
CONSIDER in methods selection:
• Scale (macro, meso, micro), gendered power
differentials, and resources available (time,
expertise, funds)

21. Comments Welcome!
Sketches by Paradorn Threemake