This issue of Development in Practice focusses on discussions of gender and, in several articles, intersectionality, or the way in which multiple aspects of a person’s identity, such as ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, or socio-economic status can affect their material existence, via discrimination, prejudice, or privilege. Many of the respondents in these articles are women farmers in some of the poorest areas of the world. Others under discussion include sex workers, LGBTQ individuals, drug users, people living with HIV, street vendors, pregnant women seeking abortion, and women subject to violent traditional practices.
Some of these articles do the important work of directing our attention to systemic inequalities that, in marginalising women, also affect their families and communities. For example, Stella Matere et al. discuss the relationship between gender and the adoption of improved pigeon peas, thereby exploring how gender inequality directly affects crop yields and food security. Wilhelmina Quaye, Justina Adwoa Onumah, Mavis Boimah, and Abubakari Mohammed consider the adoption of technology by male and female famers in Ghana, finding that female farmers are more likely to adopt technology than their male counterparts, despite facing greater restrictions in access to resources. Each of these articles suggest that with greater access to resources, women would have the capacity to increase yields and facilitate innovative approaches to farming.
Continuing the discussion of barriers that inhibit women as agents for change, Charles Gyan, Maya Malik, and Aisha Siddique consider the restrictions against women’s involvement in community development in rural Ghana, finding that women are marginalised in planning processes as a result of patriarchal structures and socialisation. Thus, bringing attention to their underrepresentation is crucial in fostering equality in community participation and development.
Considering other factors, such as employment type or environment, which may further contribute to prejudice against working women, Fiona McKay and Richard Osborne investigate the experiences of women street vendors in India, finding that women vendors lack equal access to education, that they are financially vulnerable, and require better work and living conditions. Following on from this, Indranil De addresses the impact of environment on women’s empowerment in remote urban India. De finds that being employed in an enterprise outside the employer’s household has a positive effect on women’s ability to influence social decisions.
Other articles consider what is already being done to address inequalities – and many from a highly critical standpoint. Tara Saharan and Lau Schulpen examine the approach of women’s rights organisations in relation to abortion in Kenya, arguing that, despite the advances afforded by these agencies, many are beholden to donor-led agendas, which means that the issue of safe and accessible abortion can often be put aside. Considering value chain development among potato farmers in Peru, Daniel Tobin and Paige Castellanos find that despite initiatives to encourage women’s involvement, men dominated value chain development in this area.
As an innovative way of responding to gender disparity, Ramona Boodoosingh and Safua Akeli Amaama explore how film can be used to stimulate gender equality in Samoa, via a short film training session and competition. Joseph Uduji, Elda Okolo-Obasi, and Simplice Asongu examine the role played by multinational oil companies in preventing traditional practices involving violence against women in Nigeria’s oil region. Carolien Aantjes, Dave Burrows, and Russell Armstrong consider the potential of capacity building to contribute to social change, examining the globally run Bridging the Gaps programme, which focusses on the sexual and reproductive health and rights of key groups.
Finally, considering the ways in which research can unwittingly reinforce gender inequalities, Siera Vercillo, Cameron, McCordic, and Bruce Frayne explore the gender biases inherent in collecting data only from household heads; instead, they sample male and female members of the same households in Ghana. Ascertaining that women were much more likely to report severe food insecurity than men, their study suggests that current measures of food security may be skewed.