Abstract
Because gender relations are complex and context-specific, nuanced, context-specific data collection and analytical methods are recommended. This chapter presents a suite of quantitative and qualitative methods for collecting and analyzing data on gender relations in agriculture. It begins with a detailed overview of how quantitative and qualitative methodologies can be employed to collect gender and assets data for agricultural research. It reviews the use of mixed-methods approaches in research projects to strengthen research findings and to create a more complete and convincing picture of gender relationships. Three case studies illustrate the ways in which qualitative and quantitative data can be used together in analyzing the gender dimensions of agriculture: adoption of maize varieties in Mexico, adoption of maize varieties in Zimbabwe, and agricultural technology dissemination in Bangladesh. In these three examples, using integrated mixed-methods enabled researchers to understand more about the processes underlying the adoption of agricultural technologies. The chapter concludes with a number of important data needs for gender work in quantitative and qualitative agricultural research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
These studies included Guyer (1980), Tripp (1982), Pahl (1983), and studies from different countries (for example, Fapohunda 1988) in the volume edited by Dwyer and Bruce (1988). A series of studies on agricultural commercialization and nutrition in developing countries also found that income controlled by women is more likely to be spent on food than is income controlled by men (Kennedy 1994). Evidence that men and women may have different production priorities can be found in the work of Dey (1985) and von Braun and Webb (1989) on irrigated rice in The Gambia, Jones’s (1983) formal model of intrahousehold conflict and husband’s and wife’s gains from cooperation based on work in the Cameroon, Mukhopadhyay’s (1984) decision model of the sexual division of labor for household tasks, Hill’s (1963, 1978) description of Fante women’s entrepreneurial behavior, and Gladwin’s (1975, 1982) models of women’s marketing and farming decisions. Implications of these differences for project design are discussed by Cloud (1983). These and other studies from Sub-Saharan Africa are reviewed in Gladwin and Macmillan (1989). By the mid-1990s, economists appeared to be developing a considerable level of interest in the issue of the unitary household, to which the research by Chris Udry (1996) and others in Burkina Faso was particularly important and continues to be heavily cited (Jackson 2005). IFPRI played an important role in bringing together current research on gender and intrahousehold issues—and in catalyzing future research—through a 1992 conference, the proceedings of which produced a publication comprising 30 policy briefs and, eventually, a book (Haddad et al. 1997).
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
We accept a wide ranging conception of assets that spans both tangible and intangible assets, including physical assets, financial assets, social capital, human capital, and so on.
- 5.
While randomized placement of the intervention has been viewed as the gold standard for impact evaluation, other approaches may be more feasible, depending on context. This includes matching methods, regression discontinuity designs, and instrumental variables approaches.
- 6.
- 7.
The difference between participant and direct observation lies in whether the researcher participates in activities along with the household or community. Watching people harvest a crop is direct observation; helping out with the harvest is participant observation.
References
Adato M (2008) Combining survey and ethnographic methods to improve evaluation of conditional cash transfer programs. Int J Mult Res Approach 2(2):222–236
Adato M, Meinzen-Dick R (2002) Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework. Food consumption and nutrition division discussion paper 128. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Adato M, Meinzen-Dick R (eds) (2007) Agricultural research, livelihoods, and poverty: studies of economic and social impacts in six countries. Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute, Baltimore
Alderman H, Chiappori PA, Haddad L, Hoddinott J, Kanbur R (1995) Unitary versus collective models of the household: is it time to shift the burden of proof? World Bank Res Obs 10(1):1–19
Baulch B, Davis P (2008) Poverty dynamics and life trajectories in rural Bangladesh. Int J Mult Res Approach 2(2):176–190
Behrman JR (1997) Intrahousehold distribution and the family. In: Rosenzweig MR, Stark O (eds) Handbook of population and family economics. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 126–188
Bellón MR, Hellin J (2011) Planting hybrids, keeping landraces: agricultural modernization and tradition among small-scale maize farmers in Chiapas, Mexico. World Dev 39:1434–1443
Bellón M, Adato M, Becerril J, Mindek D (2007) Improved maize germplasm, creolization, and poverty: the case of Tuxpeňo-derived material in Mexico. In: Adato M, Meinzen-Dick R (eds) Agricultural research, livelihoods, and poverty: studies of economic and social impacts in six countries. Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute, Baltimore, pp 239–284
Bouis H, de la Brière B, Guitierrez L, Hallman K, Hassan N, Hels O, Quabili W et al (1998) Commercial vegetable and polyculture fish production in Bangladesh: their impacts on income, household resource allocation, and nutrition. International Food Policy Research Institute/Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Institute of Nutrition and Food Science, Washington, DC/Dhaka
Bourdillon MFC, Hebinck P, Hoddinott J, Kinsey B, Marondo J, Mudege N, Owens T (2007) Assessing the impact of high-yield varieties of maize in resettlement areas of Zimbabwe. In: Adato M, Meinzen-Dick R (eds) Agricultural research, livelihoods, and poverty: studies of economic and social impacts in six countries. Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute, Baltimore, pp 198–237
Brewer J, Hunter A (1989) Multimethod research: a synthesis of styles. Sage, Newbury Park
Chambers R (1992) Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed and participatory. Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 311. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Chambers R (2004) Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): analysis of experience. World Dev 22(9):1253–1268
Chung K (2000) Using qualitative methods to improve the collection and analysis of data from LSMS household surveys. In: Grosh M, Glewwe P (eds) Designing household survey questionnaires for developing countries: lessons from 10 years of LSMS experience. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 337–363
Cloud K (1983) Women’s productivity in agricultural systems; considerations for project design. Harvard Institute for International Development, AID/WID Training Project, Cambridge, MA
Creswell JW (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Sage, Thousand Oaks
de Brauw A, Eozenou P, Gilligan DO, Hotz C, Kumar N, Loechl C, McNiven S, Meenakshi JV, Moursi M (2010) The impact of the HarvestPlus Reaching End Users Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato Project in Mozambique and Uganda. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Denzin NK (1978) Triangulation. In: Denzin NK (ed) The research act: an introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill, New York
Dercon S (2001) Assessing vulnerability to poverty. Mimeo, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford, Oxford
Dey J (1985) Women in African rice farming systems. In: International Rice Research Institute (ed) Women in rice farming: proceedings of a conference on women in rice farming systems. Gower Publishers, Brookfield, pp 419–444
Dillon, A, Quiñones E (2010)Asset dynamics in northern Nigeria. IFPRI discussion paper 1049.International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Doss C, Grown C, Deere CD (2008) Gender and asset ownership: a guide to collecting individual-level data. Policy research working paper 4704. World Bank, Washington, DC
Doss C, Truong M, Nabanonga G, Namaalwa J (2011) Women, marriage, and asset inheritance in Uganda. Chronic poverty research centre working paper 184. Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Manchester
Dwyer D, Bruce J (eds) (1988) A home divided: women and income in the Third World. Stanford University Press, Stanford
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2005) Agricultural censuses and gender: lessons learned in Africa. FAO, Rome
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2011) The state of food and agriculture 2011. Women in agriculture: closing the gender gap for development. FAO, Rome
Fapohunda E (1988) The nonpooling household: a challenge to theory. In: Dwyer D, Bruce J (eds) A home divided: women and income in the Third World. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 143–154
Gladwin CH (1975) A model of the supply of smoked fish from Cape Coast to Kumasi. In: Plattner S (ed) Formal methods in economic anthropology. American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp 77–127
Gladwin CH (1982) Off-farm work and its effect on Florida farm wives’ contribution to the family farm. In: Rojas M (ed) World development and women, vol 2. Virginia Tech Title XII Women in Development Office, Blacksburg
Gladwin CH, Macmillan D (1989) Is a turnaround in Africa possible without helping African women to farm? Econ Dev Cult Chang 37(2):345–369
Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WD (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal 11(3):255–274
Guyer J (1980) Household budgets and women’s incomes. African studies center working paper no 28. Boston University, Boston
Haddad L, Hoddinott J, Alderman H (eds) (1997) Intrahousehold resource allocation in developing countries: methods, models, and policy. Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute, Baltimore
Hallman K, Lewis D, Begum S (2007) Assessing the impact of vegetable and fishpond technologies on poverty in rural Bangladesh. In: Adato M, Meinzen-Dick R (eds) Agricultural research, livelihoods, and poverty: studies of economic and social impacts in six countries. Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute, Baltimore, pp 103–148
Hentschel J (1999) Contextuality and data collection methods: a framework and application to health service utilization. J Dev Stud 35(4):64–94
Hill P (1963) Migrant cocoa farmers of southern Ghana. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hill P (1978) Food farming and migration from Fante villages. Africa 48(3):220–230
Hoddinott J, Quisumbing A (2003) Data sources for microeconometric risk and vulnerability assessments. Mimeo, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Jackson C (2005) Strengthening food policy through gender and intrahousehold analysis: impact assessment of IFPRI multicountry research. IFPRI impact assessment discussion paper 23. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24(4):602–611
Jones C (1983) The mobilization of women’s labor for cash crop production: a game theoretic approach. Am J Agric Econ 65(5):1049–1054
Kanbur R (ed) (2003) Q-squared: qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal. Permanent Black, Delhi
Kanbur R, Shaffer P (2007) Epistemology, normative theory, and poverty analysis: implications for Q-squared in practice. World Dev 35(2):183–196
Kennedy E (1994) Health and nutrition effects of commercialization of agriculture. In: von Braun J, Kennedy E (eds) Agricultural commercialization, economic development, and nutrition. Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute, Baltimore, pp 79–102
Kumar N, Quisumbing A (2010a) Access, adoption, and diffusion: understanding the long-term impacts of improved vegetable and fish technologies in Bangladesh. IFPRI discussion paper no 995. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Kumar N, Quisumbing A (2010b) Does social capital build women’s assets? The long-term impacts of group-based and individual dissemination of agricultural technology in Bangladesh. CAPRi working paper 97. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved online September 27 2010, from http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/capriwp97.pdf
Lilja N, Ashby J (1999) Types of gender analysis in natural resource management and plant breeding. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Cali, Participatory Research and Gender Analysis
Maluccio JA, Adato M, Skoufias E (2010) Combining quantitative and qualitative research methods for the evaluation of conditional cash transfer programs in Latin America. In: Adato M, Hoddinott J (eds) Conditional cash transfers in Latin America. Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute, Baltimore, pp 28–52
Meinzen-Dick RS, Di Gregorio M, McCarthy N (2004) Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agric Syst 82(3):197–214
Moser C (2001) ‘Apt illustration’ or ‘Anecdotal information’? Can qualitative data be representative or robust? In: Kanbur R (ed) Qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal: complementarities, tensions, and the way forward, pp 52–55. Draft contributions to a workshop at Cornell University, March 15–16, Ithaca, NY, US
Mukhopadhyay C (1984) Testing a decision process model of the sexual division of labor in the family. Hum Organ 43(Fall):227–242
Norton A, Owen D, Milimo J (1994) Zambia participatory poverty assessment, vol 5: participatory poverty assessment. Southern Africa Department, World Bank, Washington, DC
Pahl J (1983) The allocation of money within marriage. Sociol Rev 32(May):237–264
Quisumbing AR (ed) (2003) Household decisions, gender, and development: a synthesis of recent research. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Quisumbing AR (2011) Do men and women accumulate assets in different ways? Evidence from rural Bangladesh. IFPRI discussion paper 1096. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Quisumbing AR, Kumar N, Behrman J (2010) Do shocks affect men’s and women’s assets differently? A review of literature and new evidence from Bangladesh and Uganda. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC (Background paper for the World Development Report)
Smith LC, Haddad L (2000) Explaining child malnutrition in developing countries: a cross-country analysis. Research report 111. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Smith LC, Ramakrishnan U, Ndiaye A, Haddad L, Martorell R (2003) The importance of women’s status for child nutrition in developing countries. Research report 131. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Strauss JA, Thomas D (1995) Human resources: empirical modeling of household and family decisions. In: Srinivasan TN, Behrman J (eds) Handbook of development economics. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1883–2023
Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (1998) Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied social research methods no 46. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Thorbecke E (2003) Tensions, complementarities, and possible convergence between the qualitative and quantitative approaches to poverty assessment. In: Kanbur R (ed) Q-squared: combining qualitative and quantitative methods in poverty appraisal. Permanent Black, Delhi
Tripp R (1982) Farmers and traders: some economic determinants of nutritional status in Northern Ghana. Food Nutr Bull 8(1):3–12
Udry C (1996) Gender, agricultural production, and the theory of the household. J Polit Econ 104(5):1010–1046
von Braun J, Webb P (1989) The impact of new crop technology on the agricultural division of labor in a West African setting. Econ Dev Cult Chang 37(3):513–534
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Behrman, J.A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A.R. (2014). Understanding Gender and Culture in Agriculture: The Role of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. In: Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J., Peterman, A. (eds) Gender in Agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8615-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8616-4
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)