Forest research and gender: a review of available methods for promoting equity

Abstract

Recognising widespread uncertainty about how to address gender within the forestry world (researchers, as well as natural resource, development and conservation practitioners), this paper strives to provide targeted guidance. We divide gender methods into three main approaches, based on the availability of resources. In the first section, we provide a brief discussion of theory and method. Then, after discussing some all-purpose methods, we classify methods loosely into the ‘quick and (more or less) dirty’ studies, ‘academic’ studies and collaborative studies. We argue that although there is legitimate space for all three approach, the last is most likely to result in meaningful and long-term improvements in forest and human well-being.

Keywords:

• resources
• approach
• women
• collaboration

Notes

This article is based on a much longer and detailed version, which is available at http://www.cifor.org/online-library/browse/view-publication/publication/3893.html. This work was supported by the CGIAR Research Program Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP6) and the gender program of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Bogor, Indonesia.

^2. In this research, the author regrets her own reduced access to men and their songs – just as men are likely to suffer in trying to understand women's lives.

^3. Surely among the most difficult groups for foresters to access – because of their low status, low educational levels, shyness before strangers (particularly educated men), lack of time and of day-to-day self-determination.

^4. By ‘participatory’, we refer to the intensive, collaborative decision-making model, designed to empower local users and communities – called ‘interactive (empowering) participation’ by Agarwal (2010).

^5. See http://www.cifor.org/acm/

^6. For extensive materials on collective action, see the website of CAPRI (Collective Action and Property Rights), within the CGIAR (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research): http://www.capri.cgiar.org/. Pandolfelli et al. (2007) provide particularly pertinent guidance.

^7. Wollenberg et al. (2005) provide an excellent discussion of the rationale for involving all relevant stakeholders in forest management, in Chapters 1 and 2, on pluralism and social difference.

^8. Evans et al. (2006) break this idea down into four potential elements that communities might consider in thinking about their futures: scenarios, projections, visioning and pathways (see also Wollenberg et al. 2000).