Unequal partners: associations between power, agency and benefits among women and men maize farmers in Nigeria

Figures & data

Figure 1. Representation of four definitions of power. Source. Galié and Farnworth, 2019.

Figure 2. Representation of power through. Source. Galié and Farnworth, 2019.

Figure 3. Study site selection matrix.

Figure 4. Map showing location of case studies.

Table 1. Research tools.

Tool	Respondent Category	Themes
Community Profile SSI	Key informants	Overview of key features of the community trends over the past ten years: livelihood dynamics, marriage practices, educational opportunities, economic development, etc.
Well-being FGD	Low income adults aged 25-55	Factors shaping socio-economic mobility, poverty trends and their gender dimensions. Includes a ‘Ladder of Life’ activity, which provides the basis for a discussion on the causal factors of women and men moving in and out of poverty and how they relate to women's and men's decision-making power and participation in innovations.
Gender Norms and Capacity to Innovate FGD	Middle income adults aged 25–55	Gender norms in relation to household and agricultural marketing; intra household bargaining over livelihood portfolios, food security, assets; gender-based violence; women's mobility; social capital.
Innovator pathways SSIs	Recognized innovators	Individual experiences with agricultural innovation.
Life history SSIs	Key informants	Life stories of men and women in the community who have moved out of poverty or remained trapped in poverty.
Aspirations of Youth FGD	Youth aged 16–24	Agency of young people in determining their life choices and their participation in innovation processes.

Source: Petesch et al., 2018.

Table 2. Overview of respondents.

	# Key Informants		# FGD Participants						#SSI Respondents
	Community Profile		Low-income		Middle-income		Youth		Innovation Pathways		Life Stories
Community	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men
Mwaghavul	2	2	10	8	10	8	10	9	2	2	2	2
Gbodomu	2	2	10	8	10	8	8	10	2	2	2	2
Kaduwa	2	2	10	10	10	8	10	9	2	2	2	2
Ilu Titun	2	2	9	9	10	9	8	10	2	2	2	2
Totals	8	8	39	35	40	33	36	38	8	8	8	8

Table 3. Trends (mean) in perceptions of agency level for middle-income men and women across the four study sites.

	Characteristics	Power and Freedom. Men 10 years ago.	Power and Freedom. Men now.	Power and Freedom. Women 10 years ago.	Power and Freedom. Women now.
Ilu Titun	SW. High Econ. HGG.	2.11	3.22	1.10	2.20
Gbodomu	SW. High Econ. LGG	2.63	3.88	2.00	4.00
Kaduwa	N. Low Econ. LGG.	2.13	3.75	2.30	2.20
Mwaghavul	N. Low Econ. HGG.	2.00	3.13	3.10	2.90

Key. SW: Southwest; N: North; LGG: Low Gender Gaps; HGG: High Gender Gaps.

Figure 5. Movement out of poverty. Average across all communities (Number. 8 low-income FGDs).

Galié, A., & Farnworth, C. R. (2019). Power through: a new concept in the empowerment discourse. Global Food Security, 21, 13–17. https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S2211912418301299

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Petesch, P., Badstue, L., Camfield, L., Feldman, S., Prain, G., & Kantor, P. (2018). Qualitative, comparative and collaborative research at large scale: The GENNOVATE field methodology. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 3, 28–53. https://agrigender.net/views/the-GENNOVATE-field-methodology-JGAFS-312018-2.php

 Google Scholar