CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 DECEMBER 2021 Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies By Ida Arff Tarjem, Catherine Ragasa, Vivian Polar, Almamy Sylla, Béla Teeken, Eileen Nchanji, Gaudiose Mujawamariya, Netsayi Mudege, Priscilla Marimo This publication is copyrighted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. To view this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Unless otherwise noted, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the following conditions: ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by ILRI or the author(s). ISBN: 92–9146–707–1 Citation: Tarjem, Ida Arff; Ragasa, Catherine; Polar, Vivian; Sylla, Almamy; Teeken, Béla; Nchanji, Eileen; Mujawamariya, Gaudiose; Mudege, Netsayi; Marimo, Priscilla 2021. Tools and methods on gendered design, deployment and evaluation of agricultural technologies. CGIAR GENDER Platform Working Paper #003. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Platform https://hdl.handle.net/10568/116887 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The CGIAR GENDER Platform is grateful for the support of CGIAR Trust Fund Contributors: www.cgiar.org/funders COVER PHOTO CREDITS: Mulugeta Ayene/WLE ABOUT CGIAR GENDER PLATFORM Generating Evidence and New Directions for Equitable Results (GENDER) is CGIAR’s platform designed to put gender equality at the forefront of global agricultural research for development. The Platform is transforming the way gender research is done, both within and beyond CGIAR, to kick-start a process of genuine change toward greater gender equality and better lives for smallholder farmers everywhere. gender.cgiar.org DISCLAIMER This working paper has been internally peer-reviewed, and the opinions expressed herein reflect those of the authors; not necessarily those of the CGIAR GENDER Platform. CONTACT CGIAR GENDER Platform at International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) PO Box 30709 Nairobi 00100, Kenya Tel. +254-20 422 3000 GenderPlatform@cgiar.org CGIAR GENDER Platform Working Paper #003 DECEMBER 2021 Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies Ida Arff Tarjem Catherine Ragasa Vivian Polar PhD Fellow Senior Research Fellow Senior Specialist at Norwegian University at IFPRI at CIP of Life Science c.ragasa@cgiar.org V.Polar@cgiar.org ida.arff.tarjem@nmbu.no Almamy Sylla Béla Teeken Eileen Nchanji Scientific Officer Associate Scientist Gender Specialist at ICRISAT at IITA at Alliance Bioversity-CIAT a.sylla@cgiar.org b.teeken@cgiar.org E.Nchanji@cgiar.org Gaudiose Mujawamariya Netsayi Mudege Priscilla Marimo Value Chain Expert Senior Scientist Socioeconomist at AfricaRice at WorldFish at African Plant Nutrition G.Mujawamariya@cgiar.org n.mudege@cgiar.org Institute pmarimo@vt.edu TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract p.iv 1. Introduction p.1 2. Analytical framework p.2 3. Methods p.4 4. Overview of the tools p.5 5. Review of tools and analytical studies by innovation stage p.12 5.1 Tools p.12 5.2 Analytical studies p.15 6. Discussion p.21 6.1 Innovation cycle–scope and gaps p.21 6.2 Innovation cycle and complementarity of the tools p.23 6.3 Technological scope p.23 6.4 Gender-dimension scope p.24 6.5 Methodological scope p.25 6.6 Intersectionality and user scope p.25 6.7 Uptake, use and geographical scope p.26 7. Concluding remarks and recommendations p.27 7.1 Innovation cycle–scope, gaps and complementarity p.27 7.2 Technological and gender-dimension scope p.28 7.3 Methodological scope p.28 7.4 Intersectionality and user scope p.29 7.5 Uptake, use and geographical scope p.29 References p.30 Appendix 1: Tool descriptions p.39 Appendix 2: Glossary p.53 Appendix 3: Additional glossary references p.57 Appendix 4: Further reading p.59 Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies iii Abstract Agricultural technology and innovation are seldom, if ever, neutral. They may further entrench or help challenge unequal gender norms and relations. However, while studies demonstrate the ways in which agricultural technologies can benefit women, women have often not been consulted during technological innovation. Consequently, their voices, needs and preferences are not reflected in the design, deployment and evaluation of agricultural technologies, which may result in lack of technology adoption and development impacts. Research tools and methods that help address gender inequities across the entire agricultural innovation cycle are needed. This paper reviews and maps available tools and methods according to five innovation stages: priority- setting, research and development, extension, adoption and evaluation. For each stage, the paper also identifies analytical studies in which said tools or other standard methods of data collection and analysis have been used to support gender analysis of agricultural technologies. We identify several tools and analytical studies that help enhance our understanding of who the user is and what their needs, preferences and demands are from a gender perspective, which thus may inform priority-setting. Several tools and analytical studies also help inform adoption and evaluation by providing information about gendered drivers of and constraints to adoption, and gendered impacts of technologies, respectively. Comparably fewer tools and analytical studies address the stages of research and development (particularly about how findings on gendered preferences and needs get translated into actual programs and outcomes) and extension (specifically on what approaches work and how to design gender-intentional extension programs). Additionally, the paper addresses other gaps; areas of improvement and recommendations that can direct future research and investment decisions; as well as inform the development of new gender tools and methods for technology design, deployment and evaluation. The paper provides a resource for researchers, scientists, practitioners, extensionists, students and others hoping to support agricultural innovation in ways that contribute to gender equity and women’s empowerment in agriculture and food systems. Keywords: gender, technology, innovation, methods This review of tools for analyzing and/or addressing gender in design, deployment and evaluation of agricultural technologies is part of a series of studies to curate and synthesize a portfolio of tested gender methods and tools. This gender research on key themes was conducted as part of the Methods module of the CGIAR Generating Evidence and New Directions for Equitable Results (GENDER) Platform. The review also has broader value to the community of researchers and development practitioners focused on rural areas and food systems. iv CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 1. Introduction Social and gender norms are pervasive in agriculture and food systems globally, where they help shape who does what, under what conditions, using what means, and to what ends (Blackden and Wodon 2006; FAO 2011; Peterman, Behrman and Quisumbing 2011; Raney et al. 2011; Quisumbing et al. 2014; Kerr 2017). Accordingly, different intersectional groups of women and men often exhibit different knowledge, skill sets, challenges, needs, preferences and ambitions related to agricultural technology. However—with some notable exceptions— women have often not been consulted during technological innovation, meaning that their voices, needs and preferences are not reflected in the design, deployment and evaluation of agricultural technologies. This is believed to contribute to low levels of adoption and positive impacts of agricultural technologies for women (e.g., Doss 2001; Doss and Morris 2001). In other words, agricultural technology and innovation are seldom, if ever, gender neutral (e.g., Wajcman 2004). It is pivotal to ensure that women and men of various socioeconomic and sociodemographic backgrounds and positions have equal ability and opportunity to shape agricultural technology and innovation. This will help provide novel opportunities and benefits, as well as avoiding critical issues such as: (i) imposing additional time and drudgery on women’s already busy schedules; (ii) displacing women’s income opportunities; and (iii) requiring complementary inputs to which women do not have access, control or ownership of. If developed to target women’s strategic needs and disseminated alongside complementary interventions that challenge unequal gender structures, relations and norms, technologies may be gender- transformative, meaning that they contribute to transforming power imbalances and empowering women. Developing and promoting technological solutions and innovations to achieve inclusive and sustainable livelihoods, and food and nutrition security around the world is central to the work of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR Consortium). CGIAR has a long history of programs and initiatives to address this, but with varying and mixed results (e.g., Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011; CGIAR-IEA 2017; MOPAN 2020). While studies indicate that technologies can benefit women (e.g., Vemireddy and Choudhary 2021), the integration of gender in agricultural technology innovation remains ambiguous. For instance, while several studies have investigated gendered preferences, needs and demand for traits and varieties for crop improvement and breeding programs, little evidence exists on the development impacts of gender-responsive varieties, and how gendered market and customer profiles are actually used and integrated in breeding and technology development processes. Additionally, recent literature continues to demonstrate women’s limited access to extension services as compared to men (Ragasa 2014; Davis, Babu and Ragasa 2020), and little is known about the gender-differentiated impacts of agricultural extension services and the different approaches of provision (e.g., Buehren, Goldstein, Molina and Vaillant 2019). Further, a recent review paper on the impacts of food-system innovations targeting the food environment and consumer behavior also shows limited evidence on gender-accommodating and gender-transformative innovations, with no systematic analysis of the gender-specific impacts of innovations (Lecoutere, van den Berg and de Brauw 2021). Researchers, scientists, practitioners, extensionists and other people require tools and methods that help support their activities in gender-intentional ways across the entire innovation cycle. This paper reviews and maps gender-intentional tools and methods available in the literature according to five innovation stages: priority-setting, research and development, extension, adoption and evaluation. Additionally, for each stage, the paper showcases analytical studies in which said tools or other, more standard methods Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 1 of data collection and analysis have been used to support gender analysis of agricultural technologies. Additionally, we discuss scopes, advantages, gaps, and the use and uptake of the tools and methods. Accordingly, the analysis helps identify recommendations for further development of tools and studies, which can be important in directing future research and investments. The aim is to provide an overview of the different tools and studies that exist, with an overarching goal of contributing to the increased quantity and quality of gender-intentional studies and agricultural technology innovation that help promote gender equity and women’s empowerment, along with other interrelated development goals such as poverty alleviation, food and nutrition security, and climate resilience. This paper is structured as follows. First, we present the analytical framework, followed by the methods used. Second, we describe the different tools and analytical studies according to the five innovation stages. Third, we discuss scopes, complementarities, gaps, use and uptake. Lastly, we provide recommendations and guidance as emerging good practices of gender-intentional design, deployment and evaluation of agricultural technologies. 2. Analytical framework The paper distinguishes between gender-blind, gender-intentional, gender-responsive, and gender-transformative processes. Gender-blind refers to an innovation process in which gender gaps and dimensions are ignored or overlooked. In contrast, when innovation is gender-intentional it explicitly or intentionally considers gender by systematically identifying gender inequalities and designing context-relevant interventions to close gender gaps (Gates 2014). The resulting outcome may be gender-responsive or gender-transformative. Gender-responsive refers to the incorporation of gender-specific constraints, needs, preferences, knowledge and skill sets into design, development, dissemination and evaluation to, at the very minimum, avoid potentially harmful social and gender effects and, at best, promote beneficial ones (Ashby, Polar and Thiele 2018). Gender-transformative, in turn, moves beyond gender-responsiveness to challenge and potentially help transform structural conditions rooted in—among others—institutions and norms that maintain and reinforce gender inequalities (e.g., Wong, Vos, Pyburn and Newton 2019). We further consider agricultural technology to entail any technical solution, tool, equipment or management practice applicable across agricultural or aquacultural value chains or food systems. These may include improved varieties, seeds, breeds or strains of different commodities (e.g., crops, livestock, poultry, aquatic species and agroforestry); management practices (e.g., agronomic, aquaculture and animal husbandry); mechanization; organic and inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, animal drugs and vaccines, and other chemicals; irrigation; postharvest and agro-processing practices and equipment; and digital technologies, including information and communication technologies. In recognizing that we need to incorporate gender along the entire innovation cycle, we draw inspiration from the conceptual framework developed by Meinzen-Dick et al. (2011) to map the gender tools, methods and analytical studies according to five innovation stages: (i) priority-setting, (ii) research and development (R&D), (iii) extension, (iv) adoption and (v) evaluation (this stage is considered cross-cutting) (figure 1). 2 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Figure 1. Integrating social and gender consideration into the agricultural innovation cycle. Figure by authors, inspired by Meinzen- Dick et al. (2011) The first phase of priority-setting addresses whether the needs of both women and men are considered when priorities are set, and what kinds of research and research questions receive attention and funding, which may reflect the level of diversity and gender balance in management. The latter further relates to the second stage of R&D, which asks who influences and conducts research and development; to what extent they are cognizant of gender issues and dimensions; and put this awareness and knowledge into practice through an interactive, inclusive and participatory research process. Additionally, R&D is concerned with what institutional factors affect the incentives and capacity of researchers and scientists to integrate gender and social dimensions into the innovation process. In turn, gender considerations in the third stage of extension entails addressing who is reached, by whom and how, including how gender-blind and gender-intentional extension and delivery approaches may reach, benefit and empower women and men differently (Johnson et al. 2018). The fourth stage of adoption considers how the foregoing stages, along with additional factors (e.g., gender-differentiated access to productive resources), affect who can and will adopt agricultural technology, and reasons for dis- adoption. Finally, the fifth stage of evaluation includes considerations of how the cost and benefits of technologies are delineated along lines of gender, and how such impacts should be monitored and evaluated. Importantly, information from evaluation should inform future priority-setting and design through feedback loops, thus we consider the stage of evaluation to be cross-cutting. We further screen the tools and analytical studies according to whether they integrate an intersectional lens, meaning that they consider ways in which gender intersects with other social factors and systems of inequality—such as age, race, caste, ethnicity, marital status, class, education, ability and regionality—to shape vulnerabilities, marginalization and domination (e.g., Leder and Sachs 2019). Relatedly, in further acknowledging the multifaceted and heterogenous roles and responsibilities of women and men in agriculture and food systems, we consider the extent to which the tools and studies address a variety of users and user groups—including producers, consumers, processors, marketers, traders, retailers and industry. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 3 3. Methods In the paper, we differentiate between gender tools and analytical studies. We consider gender tools to: • be stand-alone innovation products • help guide a research or development activity or activities in a gender-intentional way • distinctly referred to as a tool, toolbox, framework, guide, guideline, methodology, method or similar. Such tools may, for instance, provide questionnaires and templates for gender-intentional data collection and analysis; or provide questions that help guide scientists, researchers, practitioners and other people through the design, deployment and/or evaluation of technologies in gender-intentional ways. Analytical studies in turn, constitute studies in which other standard methods for data collection and analysis (e.g., individual interviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, household surveys, randomized controlled trials, content analysis, regression analysis, and so on) are used to inform gender analysis of technological innovation. They are not promoted as distinct tools nor categorized as methodological or methods papers, but may provide analytical techniques or measurements that are useful for gendered assessments. Tools and analytical studies were collected through a combination of open calls to gender and CGIAR networks, and keyword searches in search engines including Google Scholar. The latter included a combination of the key words “gender”/“gender-sensitive”/“gender- responsive”, “agriculture”/“agricultural”, and “tools”, “technology”, “mechanization”, “crop breeding”, “trait preferences”, “livestock”, “aquaculture”, “fish”, “information and communication technology”/“ICT”, “irrigation technology”, “postharvest technologies”, “agronomic practices”, “impact” and “adoption”. In terms of tools, there were only a few starting candidate tools identified for curation, despite aiming to be inclusive rather than exclusive in our selection. Fifteen tools were initially identified that address the intersection of gender and technologies, four of which were excluded because they focused on markets and value chains, or climate-smart agricultural management practices, and thus could more appropriately be addressed by the other working groups of the CGIAR GENDER Platform (i.e., climate change, markets and value chains, institutions and norms, landscape and biodiversity). Ultimately, 11 tools were identified as fulfilling the definition of gender tools stated above (i.e., a distinct product as tool, guide, method or methodology; and explicitly address the intersection of gender and specific agricultural technologies). In terms of analytical studies, the aim was not to do a systematic review nor exhaustive search, but rather select a few illustrations of useful and innovative analytical techniques and measurements in analytical studies that look at the intersection of gender and technologies. We selected those we deemed to be high-quality or innovative (e.g., with respect to the measurements or indicators used, or the context or the technology to which the study was applied) and that would complement the 11 tools identified above. We did not employ a strict cutoff point with respect to the date of publication. However, given the emphasis on innovative elements, most analytical studies had been published during the last five to seven years. Additionally, while we included both gray literature and peer-reviewed papers, most of the analytical studies fell into the latter category. 4 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Over 100 papers were initially identified with both gender or women and a specific agricultural technology or innovation cycle stage in the title or abstract. Most of these studies have a narrow focus on the differences between female- and male-headed households, and only a few studies look more critically at intrahousehold relations, gender gaps within the household, and intersectionality. Focusing on the latter, we showcase around 40 studies as illustrations of analytical techniques and measurements for other researchers in their studies of gender and agricultural technologies. 4. Overview of the tools An overview of the 11 tools is provided in table 1, while detailed descriptions are available in appendix 1, and the online annex. Most of the tools identified can be categorized as an assessment methodology, followed by an equal number of tools identified as guiding questions, a training manual for practitioners, and a decision-support tool (figure 2). Distribution of tools by type 6 5 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 Assessment Guiding questions Training manual Decision support tool methodology for practitioners (including data collection and analysis guide and templates) Figure 2. Distribution of tools by type A majority of the tools address the stages of priority-setting and evaluation, followed by R&D and adoption, and finally extension (some tools cover multiple innovation stages) (figure 3). Most of the tools address crop improvement and seed delivery, followed by tools that are applicable to any type of technology (figure 4). Additionally, one of the tools can be applied to any crop or livestock product; one tool addresses livestock feed; another addresses small- scale irrigation; and the final tool addresses mechanization related to roots, tubers and banana crops. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 5 Figure 3. Distribution of tools by innovation cycle stage. Some tools cover multiple innovation stages A large majority of tools have been piloted/used, or are meant to be used, in African countries—Nigeria is the country where most tools have applied (figure 5). Beyond the African continent, tools have been used in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal and Peru. Distribution of tools by technology 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 Crop Any crop or Livestock feeds Small-scale Mechanization Any technology improvement livestock irrigation and seed product delivery Figure 4. Distribution of tools by technology 6 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Distribution of tools by location 7 6 6 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Figure 5. Distribution of tools by location. Some of the tools have been piloted/ applied in several countries, or may have been used in several cases within the same country, while some tools have yet to be piloted Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 7 Be B n u in rkina Faso Cameroon Ethiopia Ghana Nige S r i i e a rra Leone Tanzaniia Uganda Zamb Z ia imbabwe Bangladesh Bhutan India Nepal Peru 8 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Table 1. Overview of tools [online annex has full details]. Key innovation Key area(s) of Tool Type of tool Technology Description Innovative elements, advantages and gaps stage(s) investigation Gender- Training Priority-setting, Gender Maize Contains six manuals that provide • Thoroughly addresses several aspects Responsive guide for research and differences in breeding, seed information on gender-intentional related to enhanced adoption of improved Approaches practitioners development, preferences delivery and participatory varietal selection maize seeds, including the need for a for Enhancing extension and demand; extension (PVS), demonstration plots and gender-responsive organizational culture the Adoption integration of field days, budgeting, and training of Improved gender into R&D manuals for seed companies and • Easy to use, well-illustrated, and well Maize Seed in agro-dealers as it relates to maize referenced; contains checklists, attendance Africa Toolbox breeding and seed systems forms, data collection sheets, budgeting (Gender-Maize) templates, self-reflection questions, etc.; promotes participatory methods, thus strengthening the role, voice, and power of users; discusses intersectionality; could possibly be adapted to other (grain) crops • Does not consider other users beyond farmers; does not address how to integrate an intersectional lens in the analysis of preference data Participatory Training Priority-setting, Gender Potato Provides a guide on how to conduct • Considers a variety of user groups; emphasize Varietal guide for research and differences in breeding gender-intentional PVS using a post-harvesting and consumption; includes Selection of practitioners development preferences mother and baby trial (MBT) design organoleptic assessments Potato Using the and demand; in potatoes Mother & Baby integration of • Provides a thorough step-by-step Trial Design: gender into R&D participatory varietal selection protocol A Gender- across vegetative development, responsive product, and post-harvesting; promotes Trainer’s Guide participatory methods, thus strengthening (Gender-Potato) the role, voice, and power of users • The gender tips are somewhat general/ generic; limited intersectional lens Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 9 Key innovation Key area(s) of Tool Type of tool Technology Description Innovative elements, advantages, and gaps stage(s) investigation G+ Toolbox (The Decision- Priority-setting, Gender Crop breeding The G+ Customer Profile Tool • A comprehensive decision-support tool in G+ Customer support tool research and differences in assists multidisciplinary breeding assessing and selecting customer segments Profile Tool and development preferences teams in creating a customer and product profiles from a gender the G+ Product and demand; profile that describes the user(s) of perspective, resulting in the creation of Profile Query integration of a particular crop variety, including a gender informed customer profile and Tool) gender into R&D their preferences and demand, product profile from a gender perspective. The G+ Product Profile Query Tool, in turn, • Applicable across crops and breeding interrogates product profiles, which context; could possibly be adapted to describes the traits of an ideal crop livestock and aquaculture breeding; variety, from a gender perspective considers several types of users to indicate whether and how the traits listed may impact women and • Based on secondary and market data, which men in positive or negative ways. may not be readily available to some crop breeding programs; limited intersectional lens An Decision- Priority-setting, Gender Crop breeding A participatory, interdisciplinary, • Allows the creation of food product profiles interdisciplinary support tool research and differences in 5-step methodology that helps that includes a gender perspective; adopts and participatory development preferences identify gender-differentiated a full food chain perspective methodology and demand; demands and preferences for to improve user integration of quality characteristics along the • Interdisciplinary and participatory; focuses acceptability of gender into R&D food chain for roots, tubers, and on food quality characteristics of importance root, tuber and bananas. to producers, processors, retailers, and banana varieties consumers; includes consultation with a (Food Product range of different stakeholders and user Profile) groups; includes processing diagnosis and consumer testing • Limited intersectional lens Gendered Feed Assessment Priority-setting, Gendered Livestock feed Identifies which aspects of gender • Only tool that addresses livestock feed Assessment Tool methodology adoption drivers of or relations in households affect Considers household structure and (G-FEAST) constraints to animal feeding practices and the intrahousehold dynamics; provides technology uptake of feeding interventions, as questionnaires and spreadsheets for both adoption well as differences in opportunities group and individual interviews; based on a and constraints associated with farmer-centered diagnosis approach animal feeding between male- headed and female-headed • Does not consider other users beyond households. Includes guides for farmers; limited intersectional lens sex-disaggregated focus groups and individual interviews that contain gender-related questions 10 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Key innovation Key area(s) of Tool Type of tool Technology Description Innovative elements, advantages, and gaps stage(s) investigation Gender in Guiding Priority-setting, Various Mechanization Provides case studies and guiding • Only tool to address mechanization Provides Agricultural questions adoption, evaluation in roots, questions meant to stimulate a useful tool for researchers to think with, Mechanization: tubers, and researchers to think about the both with respect to actual and possible Key Guiding bananas gendered implications of actual or interventions; addresses a wide range of Questions possible interventions involving gender dimensions across the innovation (Gender- machinery or that may depend on cycle; could be adapted for mechanization Mechanization) existing machinery as it relates to beyond roots, tubers, and bananas roots, tubers, and bananas • Does not consider other users beyond farmers; limited intersectional lens Considering Guiding Priority-setting, Various Small-scale Provides a guide and structured • Only tool to address irrigation; explores Gender when questions extension, irrigation set of questions that help address three stages of adoption Promoting adoption, evaluation gender dynamics across the stages Small-Scale of awareness, initial adoption, • Provides practical advice on how to ensure Irrigation and continued use of small-scale gender responsiveness across three stages Technologies: irrigation technology. It further of adoption, as well as providing suggestions Guidance suggests gender-intentional for indicators; discusses intersectional for Inclusive approaches and indicators that can perspectives; attends to intrahousehold Irrigation be used or adapted for monitoring, relations Interventions evaluation, and learning across the (Gender- three stages of technology adoption • Does not consider other users beyond Irrigation) farmers Gender Control Assessment Evaluation Gendered Crops and Helps measure gender- • Focuses on gendered dimensions of control Tool methodology impacts of livestock disaggregated control over and decision-making technologies management, sale, and income for specific commodities (those related • Simple and easy to use; can be employed to, e.g., crops and livestock), and is for both qualitative and quantitative data suitable for focus group discussions collection and quantitative household surveys • Does not consider other users beyond farmers; limited intersectional lens; frames commercialization as a zero-sum game Participatory Assessment Evaluation Gendered Any Assesses and compares the level • Focuses on dimensions of drudgery; Drudgery Score methodology impacts of technology of drudgery associated with adapted from ergonomic studies + Activity Profile technologies various agricultural activities and (Drudgery technologies • Allows comparative assessment; easy to Scoring Tool) use; can be used as part of a participatory (yet to be set-up or a survey Does not consider other published) users beyond farmers Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 11 Key innovation Key area(s) of Tool Type of tool Technology Description Innovative elements, advantages, and gaps stage(s) investigation Assessing How Assessment Evaluation* Gendered Any Uses sex-disaggregated qualitative • A comprehensive and widely applicable tool Agricultural methodology impacts of technology and quantitative data to analyze that investigates several gendered impacts Technologies can technologies gendered impacts of agricultural of technology, as well as identifying Change Gender technology as it pertains to three opportunities to overcome gender-based Dynamics and areas of inquiry: (i) Time and Labor; constraints and improve men’s and women’s Food Security (ii) Food Availability, Access, Quality, access to and use of technologies Outcomes and Safety; and (iii) Income and (INGENAES) Assets. The tool contains several • Provides several templates for use in data templates for data collection collection and analysis; the questionnaires and analysis. Moreover, the tool can be modified for use at different points helps identify opportunities to in the technology development process; overcome gender-based constraints can be conducted alongside, or integrated and improve men’s and women’s into, other analyses to select appropriate access to and use of technologies technologies for specific value chains and that can inform technology design dissemination pathways and dissemination. The INGENAES tool has been piloted in several • Although the tool refers to “clients” countries (i.e., Bangladesh, Zambia, of the technology, including farmers, Nepal and Sierra Leone) and for entrepreneurs and laborers along the value several technologies (i.e., rice chain, it is largely concerned with farmers as processing, mini-tillers, fish feed, the main user group; limited intersectional fertilizer deep placement, Aflasafe, lens beehives, improved storage bags, conservation practices, ponds and gardening). Gender analysis Assessment Evaluation Gendered Any Participatory technology • Based on the Sustainable Intensification in farming methodology impacts of technology assessment tool which compares a Assessment Framework and Matrix Scoring systems and technologies conventional practice or technology action research: to novel ones according to five • Uses participatory methods, thus A training sustainability domains (productivity, strengthening the role, voice, and power of manual profitability, environment, human users; easy to use; comparative (MS-SIAF) condition, and social domain), each of which integrates a gender • As it is an evaluation tool, it assumes prior perspective knowledge and use of technologies/ practices in question, which may in some contexts mostly include men who have access to and control over the technologies in question; does not consider other users beyond farmers; limited intersectional lens *The INGENAES tool can be adapted for use before the technology is released 5. Review of tools and analytical studies by innovation stage The review revealed that, for each innovation stage, the available tools and analytical studies tend to address a particular area of investigation: 1. For priority-setting, tools and analytical studies address gendered differences in preferences and demand for technologies. 2. For R&D, tools and analytical studies address the integration of gender dimensions, most notably the participation of women and men, into R&D processes. 3. For extension, tools and analytical studies address the design and impact of gender- blind and gender-intentional technology deployment and scaling. 4. For adoption, tools and analytical studies address gendered drivers of and constraints to technology adoption. 5. For evaluation, tools and analytical studies address gendered impacts of technology. 5.1 Tools 5.1.1 Priority-setting: Addressing gendered differences in preferences and demand for technologies Eight of the 11 tools identified help address the stage of priority-setting. In one way or another, these tools provide guidance on how to gain an improved understanding of who the users are and what their challenges, needs, preferences and demands are from a gender perspective. Four of the tools (hereafter referred to by their abbreviated names) address crops and crop breeding: the Gender-Potato tool, the Gender-Maize tool (more specifically, the training manual for plant breeders and technicians; appendix 1), the G+ Toolbox, and the Food Product Profile tool. However, the G+ Toolbox and the Food Product Profile tool could possibly be adapted to livestock and fish breeding, where analyzing product profiles or food profiles might be relevant. While examples of the use of the Gender-Maize tool are not evident from the literature, the Gender-Potato tool has been used in several settings, including Bhutan (Bajgai et al. 2018), Ethiopia (Jafar, Degefa, Benti and Wakgari 2020), India (Elango and Kawarazuka 2019) and Peru (Zúñiga et al. 2020; Gastelo et al. 2021; Salas et al. 2021). For instance, through the use of the tool, Elango and Kawarazuka (2019) ensured women’s active participation in participatory varietal selection (PVS) in potatoes in India, which included a range of stakeholders such as farmers, consumers, traders, researchers and extension agents. As a result of using the tool, gender-responsive clones expressing disease resistance, short duration and user- preferred traits were forwarded in the product pipeline. The Food Product Profile tool has thus far been used for plantain, cassava, sweet potato and yams in countries such as Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda (Amah et al. 2021; Chijioke et al. 2021; Honfozo et al. 2021; Mwanga et al. 2021; Ndjouenkeu et al. 2021; Ngoh Newilah et al. 2021; Otegbayo et al. 12 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 2021; Ssali et al. 2021; also see Akankwasa et al. 2021; Dery et al. 2021; Iragaba et al. 2021). The G+ Toolbox is currently being used by multidisciplinary breeding teams in five breeding programs globally, where it is informing the creation of G+ Customer Profiles and gender- impact scores to help guide gender-responsive breeding decisions (Polar et al. forthcoming). Beyond tools to address crop improvement, the G-FEAST tool contains several questions that provide insight into who the [potential] users of livestock feed are, and their constraints and needs in the context of animal husbandry and livestock feed. The tool has been used in Uganda to gain an improved understanding from a gender perspective of livestock production systems and the potential for increasing productivity through improved access to forage (Lukuyu et al. 2021a, b, c, d), which can in turn inform priority-setting. Additionally, both the Gender-Mechanization and Gender-Irrigation tools contain questions that are meant to help people think about and address gendered differences in challenges, needs and demand with respect to mechanized and irrigated technology, respectively. While the uptake of the Gender-Mechanization and Gender-Irrigation tools are not quantitatively measurable, the former has contributed to increasing gender awareness in technology adoption among biophysical scientists and development practitioners (N. Kawarazuka, personal communication). It has been introduced through an international conference and university seminars, and used in collaboration with local partners and international donors in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (ibid). Finally, while the INGENAES toolkit is first and foremost an assessment tool designed to be applied after a technology has been introduced (thus, its uptake and use is discussed in section 5.1.5), the questionnaires can be modified to be used to assess user needs and preferences. Few of the tools, however, engage meaningfully with intersectionality. Several of the tools— including the Gender-Potato, Gender-Maize and the Food Product Profile tools—acknowledge the need to include a diversity of women and men when collecting data. For example, the Food Product Profile tool and the G+ Toolbox contain templates with separate tables for input of various and intersecting sociodemographic variables, but they do not provide guidance on how to perform an intersectional analysis of the data (see Amah et al. 2021 and Otegbayo et al. 2021 for analysis of how gender intersects with state/region when using the Food Product Profile). The Gender-Irrigation tool is the only tool to explicitly address intersectionality; its questions are meant to help capture how intersecting forms of identity differentiate women’s experiences and needs—such as marital status, household structure, age, ethnicity, caste/ class, religion, and whether women have young children who require care and supervision or older/adult children who assist with some of the labor of running the household and farming. 5.1.2 Research and development: Addressing the integration of gender in R&D Four of the 11 tools address the innovation stage of R&D; namely, the Gender-Potato, Gender-Maize, the G+ Toolbox, and the Food Product Profile (table 1). In addition to identifying sex-disaggregated trait and varietal preferences, and demand (i.e., priority- setting), the tools further engage with the technical and biophysical research process by suggesting ways of incorporating such aspects into the breeding cycle. This is specifically suggested for developing product profiles, food product profiles, and carrying out PVS. The Food Product Profile tool states that the profiles created can inform biochemists about important quality characteristics that are useful for effective trait selection by breeders. The G+ Toolbox is to be used by a multidisciplinary breeding team consisting of plant breeders and social scientists who, together, identify how a set of proposed traits might be harmful or beneficial to women and men, and the trade-offs between different breeding objectives that this involves. This ultimately generates gender-impact scores that can inform product profiles and varietal design. The Gender-Potato and the Gender-Maize tools provide detailed steps on how a team of social scientists and breeders can engage and target women in PVS. As addressed in the previous section, there are examples of where using the Gender-Potato tool has led to the development of clones that express traits preferred by both women and men. It remains to be seen to what extent the food product profiles developed using the Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 13 Food Product Profile tool, G+ Customer Profiles, and gender-impact scores generated using the G+ Toolbox will come to inform the practices of biochemist and plant breeders. 5.1.3 Extension: Addressing gender-intentional design and gendered impact of technology deployment and scaling The Gender-Maize tool and the Gender-Irrigation tool are the only tools that address the stage of extension (excluding the INGENAES tool, which can be adapted to inform extension). Several of the manuals of the Gender-Maize tool suggest ways of integrating gender into dissemination efforts and extension services as it relates to research institutions, seed companies, agro-dealers and agro-businesses. Importantly, these manuals stress the need to accommodate a wide diversity of women and men from various socioeconomic and sociocultural backgrounds when designing extension and marketing interventions. The Gender-Irrigation tool poses such guiding questions as: • How do farmers learn about the technology and build trust to try it? • Are women and men receptive to different kinds of information, demonstrations, types of learning events, or who the extension agent/lead farmer is? • How does the relationship with the information provider affect uptake? 5.1.4 Adoption: Addressing gendered drivers of and constraints to technology adoption Among the tools available for addressing the stage of adoption are the Gender-Irrigation tool, the Gender-Mechanization tool, the G-FEAST and the INGENAES tool (table 1). The Gender- Irrigation tool addresses gendered constraints to awareness, initial adoption and continued use of small-scale irrigation (see Theis, Lefore, Meinzen-Dick and Bryan 2018b for a study related to, but not fully implementing, the tool), while the Gender-Mechanization tool asks such guiding questions as who owns machinery, who the non-users are and why; who can access the machinery and how; and what some potential barriers for some users may be. All of these questions can help reveal constraints to and drivers of adoption. The G-FEAST tool helps identify which aspects of gender relations in households affect the uptake of feeding interventions, and differences in opportunities and constraints in animal feeding between different household types. Finally, the INGENAES tool can help identify how gender-based constraints shape technology use and dissemination, as well as identifying opportunities to overcome gender-based constraints that shape the adoption process and dissemination efforts. As previously indicated, the Gender-Irrigation tool is the only one of these tools to engage with intersectionality to a significant extent. 5.1.5 Evaluation: Addressing gendered impacts of technologies Tools for evaluating gendered impacts of technologies include the INGENAES tool, the MS- SIAF tool, the Drudgery Scoring Tool, the Gender Control Tool, the Gender-Mechanization tool, and the Gender-Irrigation tool (table 1). The INGENAES tool helps assess the gendered impacts of an agricultural technology as it pertains to time and labor; food availability, access, quality and safety; and income and assets. The INGENAES tool has been piloted in several countries (i.e., Bangladesh, Zambia, Nepal and Sierra Leone) for several technologies (i.e., rice processing, mini-tillers, fish feed, deep placement of fertilizer, Aflasafe, beehives, improved storage bags, conservation practices, ponds and gardening) (also see Jones 2019). The MS- SIAF tool uses participatory matrix scoring to assess and compare the impacts of conventional and novel technologies or practices according to the five domains of sustainability, which include gender perspectives. The tool was piloted in Tanzania where it was used to compare machetes to electric and petrol-driven forage chopper machines against the following indicators: ‘animal productivity’ (productivity), ‘profitability’ (profitability), ‘feed quality’ (environment), ‘dietary diversity’ (human), and ‘female labor’/’reduced labor time’ (social) (Fischer, Wittich and Fründt 2019, 87–9; also see Fischer et al. 2018). 14 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 The Drudgery Scoring Tool enables people to assess the perceived drudgery associated with various agricultural activities and technologies. The creators of the tool have used the tool to assess and compare the perceived drudgery associated with maize shelling by hand, stick and machine in Tanzania; and with maize mono-cropping and maize with living mulch in Ghana. Results of the former were published in Fischer, Kotu and Motungi (2021), where they employed the tool as part of a mixed methods approach consisting of both a survey and semi-structured interviews with key informants. Importantly, the data (including the drudgery scores) were analyzed based on a Social Relations Framework to help identify changes needed to facilitate more equitable and sustainable mechanization, including through the use of gender-transformative work. Finally, the Gender Control Tool helps people assess technology impacts related to women’s decision-making power. The tool has been piloted for groundnuts in Zambia and for goats in Zimbabwe as part of a mixed methods approach (Orr et al. 2016; Orr, Tsusaka, Kee-Tui and Msere 2014; also see Tsusaka et al. 2016). The authors found that commercialization did not necessarily disempower women, and that some women experienced increased control over groundnuts and goats after the introduction of mechanized shelling and improved market access, respectively. As before, few of the tools engage meaningfully with intersectionality. However, the Gender- Mechanization tool asks such guiding questions as: • What are the impacts of the intervention on different socioeconomic groups and their roles in the community? • Are there any risks or unintended consequences? • Does the intervention create additional labor or financial burdens for men and/or women farmers? • Are there changes in gender division of labor in other farming and non-farming activities? • Are there differences in women and men’s perceived benefits and positive/negative changes they face? The Gender-Irrigation tool aids people to assess differential effects of the technology on direct and indirect beneficiaries. It asks questions about how the benefits from the technology are distributed within the household and who controls the proceeds. The tool further suggests approaches and indicators for measuring inclusion in irrigation projects, stressing how these should be disaggregated by gender and other intersecting social differences. 5.2 Analytical studies 5.2.1 Priority-setting: Addressing gendered differences in preferences and demand for technologies Many studies investigating gender differences in preferences and demand for crop traits and varieties often do so using a type of preference scaling or scoring (e.g., best-worst scaling, magnitude scales, hedonic scales or pairwise comparisons) and increasingly include organoleptic testing (assessing the flavor, odor, appearance and mouthfeel of food) and processing diagnosis (e.g., Setimela et al. 2017; Mudege et al. 2021; Teeken et al. 2018 and 2021; Tegbaru et al. 2020; Martey, Etwire, Adogoba and Tengey 2020; Nanyonjo et al. 2021; Okello et al. 2021). With a few notable exceptions, such studies rarely incorporate an intersectional lens. Teeken et al. (2018) however, considered how gender intersects with location/regionality and religion to produce different preferences for cassava traits in Nigeria. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 15 Comparably fewer studies using preference scoring/scaling and/or organoleptic and processing analysis have been conducted for livestock, poultry, and fish and aquaculture (see Ramasawmy, Galiè and Dessie 2018). More recently, however, Murphy et al. (2020) used household surveys and ranking exercises to investigate household expenditure, fish consumption, and morphometric and organoleptic trait preferences in tilapia among women and men consumers in Egypt. Results were analyzed using hierarchical logistic regression that included seven independent variables (i.e., sex, age, education, household size, presence of children, food and non-food expenditure, and location), but without considering how these intersected. Another method for investigating preferences and demand that may serve some advantages over other ranking methods are discrete choice experiments and experimental auctions (e.g., Bennett and Adamowicz 2001; Hynes, Campbell and Howley 2011; Fonta, Sanfo, Kedir and Thiam 2018), because these offer quantitative measures of preferences and willingness-to- pay for a particular technology or trait (e.g., Magnan, Hanson and McPake 2009).1 These are particularly useful for new technologies or traits being developed or introduced. However, few of the studies we identified included an intersectional lens. Arora and García (2019) implemented discrete choice experiments as part of PVS to investigate sex-disaggregated differences in preferences between higher yielding and more nutritious varieties of rice among farmers (who are also consumers) in Colombia, as well as gender differences in adoption decisions of high-yielding varieties that increase labor demand in production and/ or post-production activities. In Western Kenya, Marenya, Wanyama, Alemu and Woyengo (2021) used discrete choice experiments to “force” household heads and their spouses to choose and make a trade-off between varieties with varying levels of desirable agronomic or consumption traits, and they analyzed the data using a mixed logit model.2 Notably, Demont, Custodio, Villanueva and Ynion (2015) developed a digital investment game app to elicit varietal preferences in rice among women and men farmers, which was pre-tested in the Philippines.3 Beyond crops and crop improvement, Chiwaula et al. (2018) investigated willingness-to-pay for fish solar-tent dryers among 382 randomly selected women and men fish processors in Malawi, where willingness-to-pay was modeled as a two-step decision process. Magnan, Spielman, Gulati and Lybbert (2013) used a non-competitive auction design where survey participants bid on laser land leveling to elicit willingness-to-pay at the level of households in India. The authors also investigated the effect of social networks and intrahousehold relations on bidding (e.g., the role that female co-heads and their social networks played in how much the male head of household would bid in the auction). While the authors did not explicitly discuss intersectionality, the study does demonstrate how gender intersects with social networks and poverty (as there were differences in social networks of poor, compared to relatively wealthy women and men) to produce different outcomes with respect to technology adoption. 5.2.2 Research and development: Addressing the integration of gender in R&D Two studies are worth mentioning that help inform R&D through gender-intentional design of PVS and farmer research committees. Firstly, Njuguna, Liani, Beyene and Ojiewo (2016) used vignette-based interviews to understand the factors constraining women’s participation in PVS and group training in Ethiopia, finding that the decision to attend PVS training was based on complex and intricate intrahousehold negotiations and literacy level. Such information 1. Willingness-to-pay measurements can either take the form of revealed or stated preference. In investigating the former, market data or experiments (laboratory experiments, field experiments or auctions) can be used. For the latter, direct (expert judgements and customer surveys) or indirect surveys (conjoint analysis and discrete choice analysis) are employed (Breidert, Hahsler and Reutterer 2015). 2. A mixed logit model is when parameters are assumed to vary from one individual to another, therefore taking the heterogeneity of the population into account. 3. We did not include the digital investment app developed by Demont, Custodio, Villanueva and Ynion (2015) among our lists of tools, as it is not a gender tool per se. 16 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 could in turn inform gender-intentional practices of PVS. Secondly, Humphries et al. (2012) used a mixed-method approach consisting of focus group discussions, structured interviews, life/project histories, and a survey to examine the gendered impacts of a long-term farmer research project in Honduras. The findings provided an improved understanding of who influences and conducts research, including men’s attitudes towards their wives’ involvement in the project, as well as how differences in household-level patterns of participation influenced gendered patterns of behavior at the household level. 5.2.3 Extension: Addressing gender-intentional design and gendered impact of technology deployment and scaling While several studies demonstrate that women are reached less (and disproportionately) by extension services compared to men (Ragasa 2014; Abate, Bernard, De Brauw and Minot 2018; Davis, Babu and Ragasa 2020), relatively few studies explore gender-intentional design and evaluation of extension service provision. Still, some studies are worth highlighting. Quaye, Fuseini, Boadu and Asafu-Adjaye (2019), for instance, conducted a case study investigation of the Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement (ADVANCE) project in Ghana which aimed to reach more female farmers through their extension and rural advisory services (e.g., by using women extension agents), including services related to seed delivery (maize, rice and soy). Comparing project beneficiaries (‘treatment’) with non- project beneficiaries (‘control’) through the use of focus groups and individual interviews, Quaye, Fuseini, Boadu and Asafu-Adjaye (2019) demonstrated that gender-intentional extension services improved women’s access to seeds. While Quaye, Fuseini, Boadu and Asafu-Adjaye (2019) did state an intention of seeking to explore how gender intersects with other socioeconomic factors in agricultural extension delivery, the intersectional lens was less evident in the actual analysis of the findings. Ragasa, Aberman and Alvarez-Mingote (2019) used a mixed-methods approach (including survey data and focus group discussions) to investigate whether agricultural and nutrition information given to both women and men within the household improved crop diversification, technology adoption, production, productivity and dietary diversity indicators. Their findings show that receipt of agriculture advice by both women and men within the household was associated with greater technology adoption, and better agricultural outcomes and dietary diversity compared with only women, only men, or no one receiving advice within the household. Their findings suggest three gendered typologies of households: 1. households in which only women attend nutrition-focused training and meetings, and only men attend about agriculture and markets, consistent with stereotyped gender roles—and this was commonly found in more remote communities 2. households in which women and men discuss and decide jointly and, in most cases, both attend training and meetings 3. households in which the women more frequently attend agricultural or nutrition training and meetings than men. The third type was most commonly described across respondents, especially by women. However, rather than being viewed as an empowering opportunity to participate in more training than their husbands or other men in the community, it was described as a burden placed on them by busy or disinterested husbands. This has implications for the limits of using sex-disaggregated attendance or participation in training or meetings as output or outcome indicators in technology-promotion programs and other agricultural projects. Randomized controlled trials have also been used to evaluate the impact of training programs on technology-adoption decisions by women and men.4 Dar et al. (2020) used randomized controlled trials to evaluate the impact of extension services on the adoption of drought-tolerant rice seeds by women and men in India. Villages from which participants 4. Guidelines on how to conduct randomized controlled trials can be found in Methods Guides—EGAP. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 17 were randomly selected were randomly allocated to one of two groups: those where both drought-tolerant seeds and quality seed production training were provided, and those where training was not provided (i.e., seeds only). The impact of quality seed production training was evaluated by comparing the adoption behavior (adoption of salt cleaning and seeds) of farmers from the different treatment groups during the follow-up survey. As each of the treatment and control groups consisted of both women and men, this allowed the identification of gender-differentiated effects, which were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a fixed-effect regression model. In a study from Uganda, Lecoutere, Spielman and Van Campenhout (2020) used randomized controlled trials to assess whether gender-responsive, ICT-enabled extension services had an impact on women’s empowerment and outcomes related to maize cultivation (i.e., knowledge accumulation, intrahousehold decision-making, adoption of maize cultivation practices, maize outputs and fields, and maize marketing). Male co-heads, female co-heads, and couples were shown randomly assigned videos in which male, female, or both male and female actors were featured. This enabled the researchers to investigate whether involving women as recipient of information increased their participation in household decision- making and production choices (i.e., the intrahousehold information asymmetry hypothesis), as well as any potential role-model effects—meaning whether having women acting as the information messenger helped challenge the idea that decision-making is customarily a male domain, which in turn may influence women’s outcomes. Similarly, Kondylis, Mueller, Sheriff and Zhu (2016) used randomized controlled trials and regression models to evaluate the impact of having additional female extension workers on the awareness, knowledge and adoption of sustainable land-management techniques among female farmers in Mozambique. While the authors collected data on other socioeconomic factors in addition to gender, the study did not consider how these intersected to produce different outcomes. Finally, Buehren, Goldstein, Molina and Vaillant (2019) used panel data on 1,485 geographically dispersed households in project and control kebeles (i.e., wards) to evaluate the gendered impacts of a large rural capacity- building project in Ethiopia which aimed to increase female participation by mainstreaming gender in all aspects of the extension system. Most of the outcome variables were at the household-level (comparing female- and male-headed households) while access to extension and perception of the quality of extension services was done at the individual level (comparing women and men respondents within the male-headed households). The study found that female-headed households benefited equally from the project (e.g., in terms of adoption of marketable crops), but that gender gaps in agricultural outcomes were not reduced. 5.2.4 Adoption: Addressing gendered drivers of and constraints to technology adoption Many of the analytical studies that analyze factors affecting technology adoption are quantitative in nature and employ various types of regression models to analyze factors affecting technology adoption and diffusion (i.e., the outcome variable), whereby explanatory variables may include human-capital variables, technology characteristics, biophysical and socioeconomic variables, tenure system, access and control of assets, risk and uncertainty, social capital, and sociopsychological factors (e.g., Leagans 1979; Feder, Just and Zilberman 1985; Buttel, Larson and Gillespie 1990). While most studies we identified included a range of different socioeconomic and sociodemographic factors in their analysis, the factors’ impact on technology adoption were often investigated independently of each other or simply used as controls or to describe the typical type of respondent(s). Therefore, we found that only some papers analyze and discuss how such factors intersect to produce different adoption outcomes for different intersectional groups of women and men. Encouragingly, however, most studies now employ intrahousehold dynamics indicators and individual plot- level regression, instead of assuming a unitary household model and the problematic use of ‘head of household’ as an analytical category. 18 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 For instance, Gilligan et al. (2020) used regression analysis to investigate the role of gendered intrahousehold bargaining and decision-making power in the adoption and diffusion of biofortified orange sweet potato in Uganda, as well as on the dietary intake of vitamin A by children aged three to five years old. Teklewold, Adam and Marenya (2020) explored differences in adoption behavior of improved maize varieties between individually and jointly managed plots in Uganda and Tanzania. Ndiritu, Berresaw and Shiferaw (2014), Muriithi, Diiro, Berresaw and Muricho (2018), and Theriault, Smale and Haider (2017) studied the adoption of various sustainable intensification technologies and practices according to the gender of the plot manager (female, male or jointly) in Kenya and Burkina Faso. Theriault, Smale and Haider (2017) further discusses how sociodemographic characteristics interact to produce different probabilities of adoption, including the high status of elderly and married women in society. In the case of fertilizers, Marenya, Kassie and Tostao (2015) employed several regression models to understand how rates of fertilizer applications at the plot level were correlated with the gender of the plot operator in Mozambique. Using mixed methods, including a quantitative household survey, a village survey, focus groups and stakeholder interviews, Lambrecht, Vanlauwe and Maertens (2016) investigated the impact of female, male and joint participation in agricultural extension on plot-level adoption of mineral fertilizers, improved legume varieties, and row planting in Democratic Republic of Congo. The authors found that joint participation results in the highest rates of adoption of all three technologies, while female participation is conducive for the adoption of technologies that depend on resources that are relatively more accessible to women (i.e., row planting that depends on labor), instead of capital-intensive technologies such as applying mineral fertilizer. However, some regression models may not be appropriate when decisions are made separately and are influenced by different factors (e.g., Gebre et al. 2019). Gebre et al. (2019) used Cragg’s (1971) double-hurdle model (appendix 2) when studying the role of gender- based decision-making (female, male and jointly) in the adoption of improved maize varieties in Ethiopia. Cragg’s model relaxes the underlying assumptions of probit/logit and tobit models,5 allowing for different sets of variables to influence decision-making. The Heckman sample selection model also relaxes the assumptions of certain regression models,6 while assuming that those that are aware of technologies are not randomly selected, but that there is a self-selection bias that needs to be controlled for (Kassie et al. 2013; Lambrecht, Vanlauwe, Merckx and Maertens 2014). Bernier et al. (2015) used this model to examine awareness and likelihood of adoption of a wide range of climate-smart agricultural practices and technologies at the individual level in Kenya. They further discussed how gender interacted with certain sociodemographic factors, such as land ownership and access to credit. In terms of adoption studies using qualitative methods, we draw attention to studies by Achandi et al. (2018) and Badstue et al. (2020). Achandi et al. (2018) collected mostly qualitative data using focus groups and individual interviews to explore constraints to adoption of rice technologies among women in Ethiopia, Tanzania and Madagascar. Badstue et al. (2020) investigated demand articulation and adoption of two-wheel tractors in Ethiopia and Kenya using focus group discussions, semi-structured individual interviews and key informant interviews, which included intersectional perspectives from diverse individuals (e.g., different ages/life-cycle stages and position of wives in polygamous households) within male-headed households, and female-headed households with and without access to male labor. They found that a combination of forces worked against women’s demand articulation and adoption, including a number of gender norms (e.g., about good women working hard and long hours, about assuming farmers are men, and against women’s independence and ability to voice concerns about their well-being), low recognition of women’s labor, time poverty, limited access to productive resources and limited bargaining power. 5. Non-linear models used to provide predictable probabilities for binary or continuous variables 6. A method for estimating regression models that suffer from sample selection bias Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 19 5.2.5 Evaluation: Addressing gendered impacts of technologies Studies for evaluating gendered impacts of agricultural technologies employ both qualitative and quantitative methods, sometimes in combination. Examples of the former include a study by Brugere et al. (2020) which investigated—using individual interviews and descriptive statistics—attitudes towards, and the transformative potential of, tubular nets on women engaged in seaweed farming in Tanzania. Nagoli et al. (2020) used a combination of questionnaires and focus groups to investigate the impact of fish solar-tent dryers on labor requirements, market access and profitability among both young and elderly women in Malawi. Using semi-structured life history interviews and focus groups, including seasonal calendar focus groups, Bryan and Garner (2020) traced how the introduction of small-scale irrigation contributed to women’s empowerment in Ghana. They also demonstrate how opinions regarding joint decision-making often intersected with the age of respondents and the household composition, and encouraged further studies that employ an intersectional lens to better understand how women’s agency may be experienced by different women. Otte et al. (2018) also used a variety of qualitative and participatory methods to investigate, among other factors, cost and benefits of solar fruit dryers for women and men in Mozambique—including daily schedules, Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats analysis, transect walks, difficulty and technology requirement assessment, assessment of gender division of labor in the solar fruit drying process, and PhotoVoice (appendix 2). Furthermore, Otte et al. (2018) explicitly discuss intersectionality, including how gender intersects with age, educational level and social status. Kansanga et al. (2019) investigated the impact of mechanized technologies on gendered labor practices and divisions in Ghana using in-depth, qualitative interviews. Importantly, Kansanga et al. (2019) pays attention to how gender intersects with other vulnerabilities—which, in this case, worsened the labor burden for some women more than others (i.e., women who belonged to monogamous households with relatively low labor capacity, and those without female children). Farnworth et al. (2020) also employed an intersectional lens when using the GENNOVATE-developed Ladder of Power and Freedom and the Ladder of Life to explore trends in Nigerian women’s and men’s relative empowerment (Petesch 2018; Petesch and Bullock 2018; Petesch, Badstue and Prain 2018), including potential links with the adoption of improved maize varieties.7 They found that, for some respondents, gender and ethnic norms intersected. However, the authors showed how being a man trumped other forms of intersectionality, with respect to the benefits accrued from improved maize varieties. Quantitative impact assessments commonly include the use of surveys that may be analyzed using, for example, Difference-in-Difference, Propensity Score Matching (see definitions in appendix 2) or other matching techniques, and regression analyses (appendix 2). Gichungi et al. (2021) used a tobit Difference-in-Difference model and indicators adapted from the Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) (Alkire et al. 2013) to investigate the impact of integrated pest management technology on intrahousehold gender roles and decision-making in mango production and marketing in Kenya.8 They further investigated other socioeconomic factors in relation to gender, finding, among other results, that the participation of women in decision-making decreased with age, arguing that younger women were more likely to adopt novel technologies. Belete and Melak (2020) also used WEAI indicators, along with Propensity Score Matching, to investigate the impact of small-scale irrigation technology on women’s empowerment in Ethiopia. Similarly, Kassie et al. (2020) also used WEAI indicators and regression analysis to investigate the impact of women’s empowerment individually and in combination with the adoption of push–pull technology on women’s dietary diversity score in Kenya. To reduce selection bias, the authors included several explanatory variables that affected both treatment (i.e., women’s empowerment and household push–pull technology adoption 7. https://gennovate.org/ 8. https://www.ifpri.org/project/weai 20 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 status) and outcome variables (i.e., women’s dietary diversity score), as well as an endogenous switching regression framework to control for selection bias (Maddala 1983). Endogenous switching regression uses conditional expectations to estimate counterfactual outcomes while controlling for observed and unobserved heterogeneity (e.g., self-motivation and business acumen). Diiro et al. (2021) also used a household survey and endogenous switching regression to investigate the impact of push–pull technology on intrahousehold distribution of costs and benefits in Kenya, including effects on workloads associated with harvesting of maize, ploughing, weeding and monetary spending on children’s schooling and household public goods. Finally, a pilot study by Daum, Capezzone and Birner (2020) is worth mentioning: it used an innovative, digital method for comparing the impact of different levels of agricultural mechanization (manual labor, animal traction and tractors for land preparation) on the time use of women, men and children in Zambia. Notably, the researchers used the smartphone app Timetracker which is based on visual tools and allows real-time recording of time-use. 6. Discussion The study identified 11 gender tools and several analytical studies in which said tools or other standard methods of data collection and analysis were used to support gender analysis of agricultural technologies in particular contexts. The tools and analytical studies were mapped according to five agricultural innovation stages, which further helped reveal five main corresponding areas of investigation that the tools and studies helped explore: (i) gendered differences in preferences and demand, which inform the stage of priority-setting; (ii) the integration of gender dimensions into R&D, which informs the stage of research and development; (iii) gender-intentional design and gendered impacts of technology deployment and scaling, which inform the stages of extension; (iv) gendered drivers of and constraints to technology adoption, which inform the stage of adoption; and (v) gendered impacts of technologies, which inform the stage of evaluation. The next sections summarize and discuss scopes, complementarity, use and uptake, and gaps and areas for future development of tools and analytical studies. 6.1 Innovation cycle–scope and gaps Taken together, the 11 gender tools address all five innovation stages, with some tools covering multiple stages—a majority address priority-setting or evaluation, while relatively fewer tools address the stage of R&D, adoption and (in particular) extension (figure 3). Furthermore, within each stage, there are gaps in the tools available to address particular issues. In priority-setting, many studies are available on gendered assessments of preferences, needs and demands for plant traits, seeds and other technologies, and there are decision- support tools and methodological guides to help organize the data for use by breeding and research teams. Nonetheless, there are gaps in tools and studies that assess whether and how the identified preferences and needs of both women and men are considered when priorities are set, and what kinds of research and research questions receive attention and funding. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 21 In the R&D stage, few tools briefly recommend gendered composition of the research teams and few studies assess women and men farmers’ engagement in R&D, such as through PVS or through farmer research committees. However, there is a gap in tools and studies on the R&D stage—in particular, tools to address who influences and conducts research and development, to what extent they are cognizant of gender issues and dimensions and put this awareness and knowledge into practice, and what institutional factors affect the incentives and capacity of researchers and scientists to integrate gender and social dimensions into the innovation process. Indeed, the Gender-Maize tool is the only tool to explicitly address the need for gender- responsive and gender-transformative institutional norms and cultures at the organizational level. For instance, the gender-responsive training manual for plant breeders and technicians includes a section on how to create a gender-responsive organizational culture for breeders (Adam, Kandiwa, David and Muindi 2019a). The section addresses such things as cultural perceptions, gender-responsive research agendas and programs, recruitment, mentoring and gender-equitable workplaces. Moreover, the training manuals for seed companies and agro-dealers address the necessity of building gender-equitable seed- and agro-dealer operations and industries. The former includes, among others, a “Gender Responsiveness Self-Assessment Tool for Seed Companies.” Additionally, the manual for gender-responsive approaches for the promotion of improved maize seeds considers the need for gender- balanced extension teams. In the extension stage, one tool provides guidance to practitioners (e.g., seed companies, input suppliers and agribusinesses) and some of the tools briefly mention ways to improve the reach to women farmers, including having more women extension agents. Still, there are limited tools that provide guidance on how to assess who is reached, by whom, and how; and how to understand the perceptions and experiences of farmers and other users in terms of the content and delivery. There are also limited tools that assess how gender-blind and gender-intentional extension and delivery approaches may reach, benefit and empower women and men differently, and how these data feed back into the design of technology and design of extension approaches. In the adoption stage, several tools and analytical studies address gender-specific constraints in technology adoption, or show how greater equity or joint management and decision-making within the household can improve adoption of agricultural technologies by the households. Some of the tools and studies look at adoption as a stepwise and dynamic process, and a few address factors contributing to dis-adoption of technologies. Nonetheless, some of the tools and studies continue to measure adoption at the household level, except for some datasets and studies that look at the gender of plot managers. Even in these datasets and studies, often only one respondent is interviewed and asked about plot management and decision-making, but we know from various studies that women and men within the household can have different interpretations and responses on “who decides” (Liaqat et al. 2021). There are also limited tools and studies that design and evaluate interventions and approaches to accelerate adoption of agricultural technologies by gender and intersectional groups. Finally, in the evaluation stage, several tools are available that evaluate the feasibility and impact of technologies. However, most of the tools and studies look at ex-post impact of technologies promoted at-pilot or at-scale, and very few assess the ex-ante feasibility and likely impacts of the technologies being developed or designed, or on-station or on-farm, and their gender implications. We also found no tools or studies on the processes and approaches that bring the information from evaluation to inform future priority-setting and design of innovations. 22 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 6.2 Innovation cycle and complementarity of the tools The tools may further complement each other so as to cover the innovation cycle to a greater extent and depth than either can if used in isolation. Firstly, because evaluation is cross-cutting (figure 1), information generated from evaluation tools such as INGENAES and MS-SIAF can help inform other innovation stages, including priority-setting, extension and adoption. For instance, the MS-SIAF tool can help reveal aspects related to the five sustainability domains that may help explain a potential lack of adoption (e.g., an increase in female labor associated with the technology), while the Gender Control Tool can help illuminate the role that decision-making power plays as a constraint to or driver of adoption. Such information can further help inform priority-setting and extension. Moreover, the INGENAES technology-assessment tool also yields suggestions for ways to improve women and men’s access to and use of agricultural technologies, which can inform priority-setting and technology design, as well as extension and advisory services. Secondly, once a gender tool that supports gender-intentional priority-setting and R&D has informed the creation of a (now supposedly) gender-responsive or gender-transformative technology, this technology can later be evaluated using one or more of the evaluation tools. For instance, once a plant variety has been designed and developed based on a product profile screened using the G+ Product Profile Query Tool or based on a Food Product Profile, the variety can be evaluated using the INGENAES tool, the MS-SIAF, the Drudgery Scoring Tool, and/or the Gender Control Tool. Also, tools that provide more general guidelines and guiding questions, such as the Gender-Mechanization and Gender-Irrigation tools, can be combined with more in-depth tools such as the INGENAES tool (e.g., the questionnaires used in the INGENAES tool can be adapted to include questions informed by the Gender- Mechanization tool or Gender-Irrigation tool). However, as mentioned, there are few or no examples of where information generated from the various tools identified in this paper has been used to inform other innovation stages or where the gender tools have been used to complement each other. This can partly be explained by the fact that most of these tools have been developed more recently, leaving little time for such a feedback mechanism to have taken place. Results from the analytical studies can further provide valuable information when using the gender tools. For instance, the evaluation study by Daum, Capezzone and Birner (2020) on mechanization and by Bryan and Garner (2020) on irrigation can provide relevant data for tool users employing, respectively, the Gender-Mechanization and Gender-Irrigation tools in similar contexts. Additionally, studies on crop trait and varietal preferences can and have informed the use of the G+ Product Profile Query Tool—for example, during piloting of the G+ Toolbox in cassava in Nigeria, the study by Teeken et al. (2018) was used (appendix 2). 6.3 Technological scope Of the tools reviewed, the INGENAES, MS-SIAF, and the Drudgery Scoring Tool were applicable to any agricultural technology (table 1; figure 4). One tool, the Gender-Irrigation tool, addresses the intersection of gender and irrigation, while the Gender-Mechanization tool addresses mechanization as it pertains to roots, tubers and bananas (table 1; figure 4). Most of the tools, however, address crops and crop improvement (including maize; and roots, tubers and bananas), one of which is applicable across crops and breeding contexts (i.e., the G+ Toolbox) (table 1; figure 4). One tool addresses livestock—more specifically, livestock feed—(i.e., the G-FEAST), while the Gender Control Tool can be used for both crops and livestock (table 1; figure 4). In terms of the analytical studies showcased, the majority were Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 23 conducted in crops, particularly those addressing the innovation stages of priority-setting, research and development, and extension. However, the adoption and evaluation studies did address a wider variety of technologies, such as agronomic practices, pest management, solar dryers for fruit and fish, tubular nets, crops, fertilizers, and irrigated and mechanized technologies. Consequently, there appears to be a lack of tools and studies for addressing livestock, agroforestry, aquatic species and commodities, chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, and digital technologies. However, several of the tools could possibly be adapted to a wider variety of technologies, products and commodities. For instance, the Gender- Maize, the Gender-Potato, and Food Product Profile tools could possibly be adapted to other crops, while future adaptations to the G+ Toolbox and possibly also the Food Product Profile could make them amenable for use in livestock and aquaculture breeding and commodities, where product profiles are relevant. Additionally, the Gender Control Tool could potentially also be adapted to other technologies or commodities in which gendered decision-making with respect to production, sales and use of income are relevant to explore. 6.4 Gender-dimension scope Most of the tools build on long-standing and well-established research on gender gaps and dimensions in agriculture and food systems. For instance, the INGENAES, G+ Toolbox, Gender-Mechanization and Gender-Irrigation tools consider gendered aspects related to time poverty; drudgery; labor relations; income patterns; and access to, control over and ownership of assets and resources. Other tools focus on one or a few gender dimensions in particular: the Drudgery Scoring Tool looks at drudgery, the Gender Control Tool at decision-making power, and the Gender-Potato and parts of the Gender-Maize tool at sex- disaggregated trait and variety preferences. While most of the tools are explicit that they assess individual-level indicators, some are not explicit on how the sampling for the data collection should be done. For example, it is at times unclear whether all adult members or whether two primary decision-makers (female and male, or husband and wife) within the household are included in the sampling frame and in the actual sample. Based on the experience of the authors, if the sampling frame does not include female and male members of the household, the actual sample runs the risk of selecting one participant within a household—which is often the male in dual-headed households—and female participants are often from the female-headed or female-adult-only households. More of these tools should include guidance on good sampling practices to ensure that different women from different household types, including in male-headed or dual-headed households, and other intersectional groups, are included in the sampling frame and in the actual sample. Tools can also provide guidance on whether sampling should include both women and men participants within the household to enable intrahousehold analysis. The analytical studies highlighted in this paper, by design and focus of the selection process, are already screened by their gender analysis that goes beyond unitary household approach and beyond simply comparing female- and male-headed households. Most of the studies collected data from both women and men (often, husband and wife) within the household; some collected data from one respondent and asked about the gender of the plot or enterprise manager or decision-maker; while others collect data from individual women and men from different households, for example, as members of producer groups or as beneficiaries of an intervention or training. The gender analyses include intrahousehold relations, differences between women and men (or husband and wife) within dual-headed households, gendered plot management, or differences between individual women and men members of producer groups or organizations. Similar to the tools above, while some studies claim to assess individual-level indicators, they are not clear about what the sampling frame was and whether their listing included individual members of the household or one per household. 24 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 With the exception of several of the evaluation studies (such as those including WEAI indicators), what most tools and analytical studies did not explicitly consider, however, were gender-transformative approaches and women’s empowerment. In other words, most tools and studies only address a few dimensions of empowerment, while few consider all the three domains of gender-transformative change: individual capacities; social relations; and institutional structures, norms and practices (e.g., Wong, Vos, Pyburn and Newton 2019). While most of the tools and analytical studies deal with the former two—results of which can contribute to gender-transformative change, such as by reducing time constraints and drudgery experienced by women in association with a particular technology—few address all three and, in particular, the third institutional domain (also see Elias et al. 2021). As mentioned, the Gender-Maize tool is the only tool to explicitly deal with organizational and institutional structures and norms. Additionally, the Gender-Irrigation tool contains examples of project approaches and indicators that can help capture gender-transformative and normative change and progress towards women’s empowerment. For instance, it proposes the need to “initiate household and community dialogues for men and women to reflect on distribution of labor and control over income generated from irrigation” and to “promote financial products and services that facilitate women’s control over income (e.g., mobile money platforms)”, and suggests including indicators such as “changes in attitudes regarding women’s control over income and use of SSI [small-scale irrigation] technology” and “% increase of women reporting control over income generated by irrigation”. 6.5 Methodological scope Of the gender tools that aid in data collection, most can be applied as part of a mixed- methods approach to capture both qualitative and quantitative data (e.g., INGENAES, Food Product Profile, the PVS guides, the Gender Control Tool and the Drudgery Scoring Tool), while the MS-SIAF is the only tool of a strictly qualitative nature (originally, the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework was highly quantitative, but it is here combined with a qualitative, participatory tool). A wide variety of qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the analytical studies for data collection and analysis, and sometimes in combination. While gender studies have a tradition of being qualitative, as such research is most appropriate for unpacking “the meaning of gender for women in different circumstances, [and] deconstructing layered norms and practices behind gender differences” (Tickmayer & Sexsmith 2019, 66), mixed methods are advisable as they can provide both breadth (quantitative) and depth (qualitative) of analysis. The former can further be important in facilitating cooperation and communication across disciplines, as most agricultural economists and biophysical researchers are quantitatively inclined. However, challenges associated with mixed-methods approaches include higher costs, which can be challenging in a donor and disciplinary environment where gender research receives relatively little funding. Worth noting in this regard is the use of digital tools, such as TimeTracker (Daum, Capezzone and Birner 2020) and citizen science (e.g., Moyo et al. 2021) for collecting and analyzing large data samples. 6.6 Intersectionality and user scope Consistent with scholars’ arguments elsewhere (e.g., Tavenner and Crane 2019; Leder and Sachs 2019), a majority of tools and analytical studies did not fully incorporate a thorough understanding or analysis of intersectionality. With some notable exceptions, while most of the tools acknowledged the need to include a diversity of users of various socioeconomic and sociocultural backgrounds when collecting data or designing interventions, few engaged with the question of how these may intersect and how to carry out an intersectional analysis Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 25 of the data. Encouragingly, however, we did identify an increasing number of adoption and evaluation studies in particular that address intersectionality (e.g., Bernier et al. 2015; Kansanga et al. 2019; Otte et al. 2018; Teeken et al. 2018; Badstue et al. 2020; Bryan and Garner 2020; Farnworth et al. 2020; Gichungi et al. 2021). Additionally, a growing number of analytical studies that are particularly concerned with gendered preferences for crop traits and varieties now include a wider range of user groups beyond farmers and the production node (which in some cases is due to the use of such tools as the Food Product Profile tool and Gender-Potato tool). However, most tools and analytical studies still limited their scope and analysis to farmers. For instance, while use of the INGENAES and Gender-Maize tools involve engagement with a variety of stakeholders— including agricultural researchers, input suppliers, manufacturers, extension officers, traders, agro-dealers and seed companies—it is with the intention of ultimately serving women and men farmers. Conceptual complexity, practicalities and costs attached to studies that include an intersectional lens and a variety of users may challenge the opportunity and capacity of carrying out such studies (e.g., Tegbaru, FitzSimons, Kirscht and Hillbur 2015; Colfer, Sijapati Basnett and Ihalainen 2018; Tavenner and Crane 2019). This further supports the need for new gender (or, rather, intersectional) tools that guide researchers in integrating an intersectional lens and a broader user scope across the agricultural innovation cycle. However, as most of the tools are not blueprints but meant to be adaptable, including in ways that may allow for a wider set of user groups and an intersectional lens to be included, it may in some cases be sufficient to adapt or expand on existing tools. 6.7 Uptake, use and geographical scope This paper has demonstrated that several analytical studies have been carried out using standard methods that, despite not being gender-intentional in and of themselves, have supported gender analysis of various technologies. As we have seen, some studies have also used the gender tools identified in this paper, most notably the Gender-Potato and the Food Product Profile tools. In terms of the wider application of the remaining tools (i.e., beyond piloting) (appendix 1), the INGENAES tool has been used in the assessment of an improved, mechanized planter in Burkina Faso (Jones 2019), while the Gender Control Tool has been used to analyze the impact of commercialization and mechanization of food crops and goats on intrahousehold gender relations in Zambia and Malawi (Tsusaka et al. 2016). However, these studies have been carried out by actors involved in the creation of the tools themselves and/or in contexts similar to the ones in which the tools were piloted, which may indicate limited uptake of the tools by the next users and partnering institutions. The G+ Toolbox is currently being used by multidisciplinary breeding teams in five breeding programs globally (V. Polar, personal communication). Furthermore, some of the breeding programs that participated in the piloting of the G+ Toolbox are exploring ways of scaling the tools, including by incorporating these into university curricula and in other projects. As further mentioned, while the uptake of the Gender-Mechanization tool is not measurable in a quantitative way, the tool has contributed to increasing gender awareness in technology adoption among biophysical scientists and development practitioners (N. Kawarazuka, personal communication). Similarly, the uptake of the Gender-Irrigation and Gender-Maize tools is not measurable in quantitative terms. Finally, little information exists on the wider use of the MS-SIAF tool, and the Drudgery Scoring Tool has yet to be published. A potential lack of uptake of the tools prompts questions about whether incentive structures are in place for research and development actors to make use of the tools and incorporate their findings in their work. This reiterates the importance of tools and analytical studies for investigating the whole suite of gender-intentional questions related to the innovation 26 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 stages of priority-setting and, in particular, R&D. Furthermore, several of the tools (figure 5) and a large majority of analytical studies have been piloted/used and carried out in sub- Saharan African countries which is consistent with related studies (e.g., Akter et al. 2017; Weltzien et al. 2019; Leveraging Evidence for Access and Development 2021). Thus, there is a need to expand the use of the tools and analytical studies to address a wider variety of geographical contexts, such as North Africa, South and Latin America, parts of Asia, and the Middle East. 7. Concluding remarks and recommendations Failing to address gender and other intersecting social factors in agricultural technology priority-setting and R&D risks developing technologies that, at best, are irrelevant to particular groups of women or men and, at worst, cause harm to particular groups of women or men, such as by increasing time constraints and drudgery, and/or displacing important resources and opportunities. There is a need to consider how choices made during technology design and development shape the extent to which users can make meaningful and potentially empowering choices downstream (Polar, Ashby, Thiele and Tufan 2021). Incorporating gender in agricultural technology innovation needs to address who is being reached, by whom, and how, as well as gendered drivers of and constraints to adoption. Finally, once a technology has been adopted, its impacts from a gender and intersectional perspective need to be measured and monitored. By reviewing and discussing gender tools and analytical studies that address the intersection of gender and technology along the agricultural innovation cycle, this paper has identified innovative and good practice elements, as well as gaps that need to be addressed in order to render the cycle fully gender-intentional. This has led us to make the following recommendations, which will be important in directing future research and investment decisions, as well as informing the development of new gender tools and methods. 7.1 Innovation cycle–scope, gaps and complementarity • Develop tools and conduct studies that address gender-intentional questions that have largely been left unexplored, including: • for priority-setting: whether the needs of both women and men are considered when priorities are set, and what kinds of research and research questions receive attention and funding Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 27 • for research and development: (i) who influences and conducts research, (ii) to what extent are the ones who influence and conduct research cognizant of gender issues and dimensions, (iii) to what extent do they put their awareness and knowledge into practice through an interactive, inclusive and participatory research process, and (iv) what institutional factors affect the incentive and capacity of researchers and scientists in integrating gender dimensions into technology design • Design tools for addressing gender-intentional design and gender-impact evaluation of the deployment and scaling of technologies (extension stage). • Consider the potential of combining the use of various tools and findings from analytical studies across the innovation cycle. 7.2 Technological and gender-dimension scope • Expand the application and use of tools and analytical studies to include a broader range of technologies and technical solutions, products and commodities (e.g., livestock, aquaculture, chemical inputs, agronomic practices and digital technologies). • Include guidance on good sampling practices to ensure that different women from different household types, including in male-headed or dual-headed households, and other intersectional groups, are included in the sampling frame and in the actual sample. • Strive to collect data from at least one woman and at least one man member within the household to allow for intrahousehold analysis, better measure of intrahousehold inequalities and gender gaps, and better control for heterogeneity across households. • Include culturally and context-specific gender impact assessment criteria and empowerment indicators related to, for example: time use; drudgery; control over income and other productive resources; and other indicators of intrinsic, instrumental and collective empowerment such as those used in the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries (WEFI), or Women’s Empowerment in Livestock (WELI) family of indicators.9 • Aspire to address all three dimensions of gender-transformative change when designing, developing, disseminating and evaluating agricultural technologies, including individual capacities; social relations; and institutional norms, structures and practices. 7.3 Methodological scope • Use tools as part of a mixed-methods approach and carry out mixed-methods studies, potentially including, where relevant and possible, digital tools and citizen science for data collection. • Employ rigorous impact-evaluation methods, such as randomized controlled trials, to evaluate gendered impacts of technologies and approaches in technology design, deployment and extension. If randomization is not possible, quasi-experimental design and other evaluation methods can be used, such as regression discontinuity, difference- in-difference, household fixed effects and matching techniques. 9. https://www.ilri.org/products/womens-empowerment-livestock-index-weli 28 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 7.4 Intersectionality and user scope • Integrate an intersectional lens into existing tools or create novel tools dedicated to intersectional analysis of technology design, dissemination and evaluation; as well as incorporating an intersectional lens in analytical studies. • Broaden the user scope of tools and studies to include producers, processors, consumers, traders, marketers, industry, input suppliers and other relevant actors. This further implies an investigation of needs, preferences and impacts beyond the production stage, such as those associated with post-harvesting activities (including, for instance, organoleptic and processing assessments of new food products), as well as the need for a multidisciplinary and multisectoral approach, which includes perspectives and input from gender specialists, food processing, nutrition science, post-harvesting science, the private sector and so on. 7.5 Uptake, use and geographical scope • Ensure that gender tools are widely promoted and disseminated, preferably alongside awareness- and capacity-building measures (e.g., information and learning workshops). • Address how institutional culture, norms and structures may enable or constrain gender- intentional technology innovation, as well as the need to create incentive structures advancing a gender-intentional innovation process—including for employing gender tools and methods—such as by ensuring that the costs of data collection and analysis are covered and training is provided. • Broaden the geographical scope of tools and analytical studies, including those from North Africa, South and Latin America, parts of Asia, and the Middle East. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 29 References Abate, G.T., Bernard, T., De Brauw, A., and Minot, N. 2018. “The impact of the use of new technologies on farmers’ wheat yield in Ethiopia: Evidence from a randomized control trial.” Agriculture Economics 49: 409–21. Achandi, E. L., Mujawamariya, G., Agboh-Noameshie, A. R., Gebremariam, S., Rahalivavolvolona, N. and Rodenburg, J. 2018. “Women’s access to agricultural technologies in rice production and processing hubs: A comparative analysis of Ethiopia, Madagascar and Tanzania.” Journal of Rural Studies 60: 188–98. Adam, R. I., Kandiwa, V., David, S. and Muindi, P. 2019a. Gender-responsive approaches for enhancing the adoption of improved maize seed in Africa—a training manual for plant breeders and technicians. Mexico: CIMMYT. Adam, R. I., Kandiwa, V., David, S. and Muindi, P. 2019c. Gender-responsive approaches for enhancing the adoption of improved maize seed in Africa—a training manual for seed companies. Mexico: CIMMYT. Adam, R. I., Kandiwa, V., David, S. and Muindi, P. 2019d. Gender-responsive approaches for enhancing the adoption of improved maize seed in Africa—a training manual for agro-dealers. Mexico: CIMMYT. Adam, R. I., Kandiwa, V. and Muindi, P. 2019b. Gender-responsive demonstration plots and field days for the promotion and enhanced adoption of improved maize seed in Africa. Mexico: CIMMYT. Adam, R., Kandiwa, V. and Muindi, P. 2018. Gender-Responsive Budgeting Tool for the Promotion of Improved Maize Seed in Africa. Mexico: CIMMYT. Akankwasa, K., Marimo, P., Tumuhimbise, R., Asasira, M., Khakasa, E., Mpirirwe, I., Kleih, U., Forsythe, L., Fliedel, G., Dufour, D. and Nowakunda, K. 2021. “The East African highland cooking bananas ‘Matooke’ preferences of farmers and traders: Implications for variety development.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1124–34. Akter, S., Rutsaert, P., Luis, J.,Htwe, N. M., San, S. S., Raharjo, B. and Pustika, A. 2017. “Women’s empowerment and gender equity in agriculture: A different perspective from Southeast Asia.” Food Policy 69: 270–79. Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A.R., Seymour, G. and Vaz, A. 2013. “The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index.” World Development 52: 71–91. Amah, D., Stuart, E., Mignouna, D., Swennen, R. and Teeken, B. 2021. “End-user preferences for plantain food products in Nigeria and implications for genetic improvement.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1148–59. Arora, D. and García, M.A. 2019. Use of discrete choice experiments in gendered participatory varietal selection in Bolivar, Colombia. Cali, Colombia: International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), HarvestPlus. Ashby, J. and Polar, V. 2021a. User Guide to the G+ Product Profile Query Tool (G+ PP). Lima, Peru: Gender Breeding Initiative (GBI), CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). GBI User Guide. No. 2021–1. Ashby, J. and Polar, V. 2021b. User guide to the standard operating procedure for G+ tools (G+SOP). Lima, Peru: CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). Gender and Breeding Initiative (GBI) User Guide. No. 2021–3. Ashby, J., Polar, V. and Thiele, G. 2018. Critical Decisions for Ensuring Plant or Animal Breeding is Gender- Responsive. GBI Brief 1. Lima, Peru: CGIAR Gender and Breeding Initiative. Badstue, L., van Eerdewijk, A., Danielsen, K., Hailemariam, M. and Mukewa, E. 2020. “How local gender norms and intra-household dynamics shape women’s demand for labor-saving technologies: insights from maize-based livelihoods in Ethiopia and Kenya.” Gender, Technology and Development 24, no. 3: 341–61. 30 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Bajgai, Y., Dochen, T., Wangchuk, P., Kadian, M. S., Felde, T. Z., Lefebvre, M., Lobzang, Arya, S., Sangay, Wangdi, T., Gyeltshen, T. and Wangdoi, N. 2018. “Participatory varietal selection of potato and agronomic performance with farmers’ feedback on new varieties.” Bhutanese Journal of Agriculture 11: 1–12. Belete, B. and Melak, S. 2020. “Impact of small scale irrigation technology on women empowerment in Amhara national regional state of Ethiopia.” Cogent Economics and Finance 8 (1): 1837440. doi: 10.1080/23322039.2020.1837440. Bennett, J. and Adamowicz, V. 2001. “Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling.” In: Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, edited by J. Bennett and R. Blamey: 37– 69. Cheltenham: Edward Algar Publishing Limited. Bernier, Q., Meinzen-Dick, R., Kristjanson, P., Haglund, E., Kovarik, C., Bryan, E., Ringler, C. and Silvestri, S. 2015. Gender and Institutional Aspects of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices: Evidence from Kenya. CCAFS Working Paper No. 79. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Blackden, C.M. and Wodon, Q. (Eds.) 2006. Gender, time use, and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank working paper no. 73. Washington, DC.: World Bank. Breidert, C., Hahsler, M. and Reutterer, T. 2015. “A Review of Methods for Measuring Willingness-to- Pay.” Innovative Marketing 1, no. 4: 8–32. Brugere, C., Msuya, F. E., Jiddawi, N., Nyonje, B. and Maly, R. 2020. “Can innovation empower? Reflections on introducing tubular nets to women seaweed farmers in Zanzibar.” Gender, Technology and Development 241: 89–109. Bryan, E. and Garner, E. 2020. What does empowerment mean to women in northern Ghana? Insights from research around a small-scale irrigation intervention. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1909. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Buehren, N., M. Goldstein, E. Molina, and J. Vaillant. 2019. “The impact of strengthening agricultural extension services on women farmers: Evidence from Ethiopia.” Agricultural Economics, 50 (4): 407–19. Buttel, F.H., Larson, O.F. and Gillespie, G.W. 1990. The Sociology of Agriculture. New York: Greenwood Press, Inc. CGIAR Gender and Breeding Initiative 2020. Knowledge Sharing and Piloting Tools for Gender Responsive Product Profile Development. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR Gender and Breeding Initiative (GBI) Workshop Report No. 2020–1. CGIAR Gender and Breeding Initiative and the CGIAR Excellence in Breeding Platform. 2020. RTB Meeting Report: Piloting the G+ Tools. Lima, Peru: CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). CGIAR-IEA 2017. Evaluation of gender in CGIAR research and in the CGIAR workplace. Rome, Italy: Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA. of the CGIAR). Chijioke, U., Madu, T., Okoye, B., Ogunka, A.P., Ejechi, M., Ofoeze, M., Ogbete, C., Njoku, D., Ewuziem, J., Kalu, C., Onyemauwa, N., Ukeje, B., Achonwa, O., Forsythe, L., Fliedel, G. and Egesi, C. 2021. “Quality attributes of fufu in South-East Nigeria: guide for cassava breeders.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1247–57. Chiwaula, L.S., Chirwa, G.C., Binauli, L.S., Banda, J. and Nagoli, J. 2018. “Gender differences in willingness to pay for capital-intensive agricultural technologies: the case of fish solar tent dryers in Malawi.” Agricultural and Food Economics 6: 1. Colfer, C., Sijapati Basnett, B. and Ihalainen, M. 2018. Making Sense of ‘Intersectionality’: A Manual for Lovers of People and Forests. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Cragg, J.G. 1971. “Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods”. Econometrica 39 (5): 829–44. Dar, M. H., Waza, S. A., Nayak, S., Chakravorty, R., Zaidi, N. M. and Hossain, M. 2020. “Gender focused training and knowledge enhances the adoption of climate resilient seeds.” Technology in Society 63: 101388. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 31 Daum, T., Capezzone, F. and Birner, R. 2020. “Using smartphone app collected data to explore the link between mechanization and intra-household allocation of time in Zambia.” Agriculture and Human Values 38: 411–29. Davis, K, Babu, S.C. and Ragasa, C. (Eds.) 2020. Agricultural Extension: Global Assessment and Performance in Selected Countries. Washington, DC: IFPRI. De Haan, S., E. Salas, C. Fonseca, M. Gastelo, N. Amaya, C. Bastos, V. Hualla and Bonierbale, M. 2019. Participatory varietal selection of potato using the mother and baby trial design: A gender-responsive trainer’s guide. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center. De Haan, S., Salas, E., Fonseca, C., Gastelo, M., Amaya, N., Bastos, C., Hualla, V. and Bonierbale, M. 2017. Selección participativa de variedades de papa (SPV) usando el diseño mama y bebe: una guía para capacitadores con perspectiva de género. Lima, Peru: Centro Internacional de la Papa. Demont, M., Custodio, M., Villanueva, D. and Ynion, J. 2015. Investment Game Application (IGA.: A new app for prioritizing rice farmers’ preferences for varietal trait improvements. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Transforming Rice Breeding (TRB). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29992.72961. Dery, E.K., Carey, E.E., Ssali, R.T., Low, J.W., Johanningsmeier, S.D., Oduro, I., Boakye, A., Omodamiro, R.M. and Yusuf, H.L. 2021. “Sensory characteristics and consumer segmentation of fried sweetpotato for expanded markets in Africa.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56, no. 3: 1419–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14847. Diiro, G. M., Fisher, M., Kassie, M., Muriithi, B. W. and Muricho, G. 2021. “How does adoption of labor saving agricultural technologies affect intrahousehold resource allocations? The case of push- pull technology in Western Kenya.” Food Policy 102: 102114. Doss, C. R. and Morris, M. L. 2001. “How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations?: The case of improved maize technology in Ghana.” Agricultural Economics 25 (1): 27–39. Doss, C. R. 2001. “Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience.” World Development 29 (12): 2075–92. Elango, D. and Kawarazuka, N. 2019. Gender responsive participatory varietal selection for sustainable seed potato systems in Assam, India. Assam Agribusiness and Rural Transformation Project (APART). Lima, Peru: International Potato Center. Elias, M., Cole, S. M., Quisumbing, A., Valencia, A. M. P., Meinzen-Dick, R. and Tryman, J. 2021. “Assessing women’s empowerment in agricultural research.” In Advancing Gender Equality through Agricultural and Environmental Research—Past, Present and Future, edited by R. Pyburn and A. van Eerdewijk. Washington, DC: IFPRI. FAO 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture: Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Farnworth, C.R., Badstue, L., Williams, G. J., Tegbaru, A. and Gaya, H.I.M. 2020. “Unequal partners: associations between power, agency and benefits among women and men maize farmers in Nigeria.” Gender, Technology and Development 24 (3): 271–96. Feder, G., Just, R.E. and Zilberman, D. 1985. “Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 33: 255–98. Fischer, G., Kotu, B. and Mutungi, C. 2021. “Sustainable and equitable agricultural mechanization? A gendered perspective on maize shelling.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: 1–9. doi: 10.1017/S1742170521000016. Fischer, G., Wittich, S. and Fründt, S. 2019. Gender analysis in farming systems and action research: A training manual. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA. Fischer, G., Wittich, S., Malima, G., Sikumba, G., Lukuyu, B., Ngunga, D. and Rugalabam, J. 2018. “Gender and mechanization: Exploring the sustainability of mechanized forage chopping in Tanzania.” Journal of Rural Studies 64: 112–22. Fonta, W.M., Sanfo, S., Kedir, A.M. and Thiam, D. R. 2018. “Estimating farmers’ willingness to pay for weather index-based crop insurance uptake in West Africa: Insight from a pilot initiative in Southwestern Burkina Faso.” Agricultural and Food Economics 6 (11). https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40100–018–0104–6. 32 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Forsythe, L., Tufan, H., Bouniol, A., Kleih, U. and Fliedel, G. 2021. “An interdisciplinary and participatory methodology to improve user acceptability of root, tuber and banana varieties.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1115–23. Gastelo, M., Burgos, G., Bastos, C., Perez, J. M., Otiniano, R., Cabrera, H., Ccanto, R., de Scurrah, M. M. and Felde, T. Z. 2021. “Identification of Elite Potato Clones with Resistance to Late Blight Through Participatory Varietal Selection in Peru.” Potato Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11540–021–09495-z. Gates, M. F. 2014. “Putting women and girls at the center of development.” Science, 345 (6202): 1273– 75. Gebre, G. G., Isoda, H., Rahut, D. B., Amekawa, Y. and Nomura, H. 2019. “Gender differences in the adoption of agricultural technology: The case of improved maize varieties in southern Ethiopia.” Women’s Studies International Forum 76: 102264. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2019.102264. Gichungi, H., Muriithi, B., Irungu, P., Diiro, G. and Busienei, J. 2021. “Effect of Technological Innovation on Gender Roles: The Case of Fruit Fly IPM Adoption on Women’s Decision-Making in Mango Production and Marketing in Kenya.” The European Journal of Development Research 33: 407–26. Gilligan, D.O., Kumar, N., McNiven, S., Meenakshi, J.V. and Quisumbing, A. 2020. “Bargaining power, decision making, and biofortification: The role of gender in adoption of orange sweet potato in Uganda.” Food Policy 95: 101909. Honfozo, L., Adinsi, L., Bouniol, A., Adetonah, S., Forsythe, L., Kleih, U., Hounhouigan, J.D., Fliedel, G. and Akissoe, N.H. 2021. “Boiled yam end-user preferences and implications for trait evaluation.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1447–57. Humphries, S., L. Classen, J. Jimenez, F. Sierra, O. Gallardo and Gomez, M. 2012. “Opening Cracks for the Transgression of Social Boundaries: An Evaluation of the Gender Impacts of Farmer Research Teams in Honduras.” World Development 4010, 2078–95. Hynes, S., Campbell, D. and Howley, P. 2011. A choice experiment versus a contingent valuation approach to agri-environmental policy valuation (Working paper no. 173). Galway: Department of Economics, National University of Ireland. Iragaba, P., Hamba, S., Nuwamanya, E., Kanaabi, M., Nanyonjo, R.A., Mpamire, D., Muhumuza, N., Khakasa, E., Tufan, H.A. and Kawuki, R.S. 2021. “Identification of cassava quality attributes preferred by Ugandan users along the food chain.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1184–92. Jafar, M., Degefa, G., Benti, G. and Wakgari, G. 2020. “Participatory Variety Selection of Improved Potato (Solanium tuberosum L) Varieties in Harari People Regional State and Eastern Hararghe Zone.” Journal of Plant Sciences 8 (6): 208–13. Johnson, N., Balagamwala, M., Pinkstaff, C., Theis, S., Meinzen-Dick, R. and Quisumbing, A. 2018. “How do agricultural development projects empower women? Linking strategies with expected outcomes.” Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 3 (2): 1–19. Jones, M. 2019. “Gender Technology Assessment: Appropriate Scale Mechanization Consortium.” In Feed the Future summary. PDF available here. Kandiwa, V., Adam, R., Lweya, K., Setimela, P., Badstue, L. and Muindi, P. 2018. Gender-Responsive Approaches for the Promotion of Improved Maize Seed in Africa. Mexico: CIMMYT. Kansanga, M.M., Antabe, R., Sano, Y., Mason-Renton, S. and Luginaah, I. 2019. “A feminist political ecology of agricultural mechanization and evolving gendered on-farm labor dynamics in northern Ghana.” Gender, Technology and Development 23: 207–33. Kassie, M., Fisher, M., Muricho, G. and Diiro, G. 2020. “Women’s empowerment boosts the gains in dietary diversity from agricultural technology adoption in rural Kenya.” Food Policy 95: 101957. Kassie, M., Jaleta, M., Shiferaw, B., Mmbando, F. and Mekuria, M. 2013. “Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: evidence from rural Tanzania.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (3): 525–40. Kawarazuka, N., Prain, G., Forsythe, L., Mayanja, S., Mudege, N.N., Babini, C. and Polar, V. 2018. Gender in Agricultural Mechanization: Key guiding questions. Lima, Peru: CIP. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 33 Kerr, R. B. 2017. “Gender and agrarian inequities.” In Agricultural systems: Agroecology and rural innovation for development 2nd ed., edited by S. Snapp and B. Pound: 333–70. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Kondylis, F., Mueller, V., Sheriff, G. and Zhu, S. 2016. “Do Female Instructors Reduce Gender Bias in Diffusion of Sustainable Land Management Techniques? Experimental Evidence From Mozambique.” World Development 78: 436–49. Lambrecht, I., Vanlauwe, B. and Maertens, M. 2016. “Agricultural extension in eastern democratic republic of Congo: does gender matter?” European Review of Agricultural Economics 43 (5): 841–74. Lambrecht, I., Vanlauwe, B., Merckx, R. and Maertens, M. 2014. “Understanding the process of agricultural technology adoption: mineral fertilizer in eastern DR Congo.” World Development 59: 132–46. Leagans, P.J. 1979. Adoption of Modern Agricultural Technology by Small Farm Operators: an Interdisciplinary Model for Researchers and Strategy Builders. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Lecoutere, E., Spielman, D. J. and Van Campenhout, B. 2020. Women’s empowerment, agricultural extension, and digitalization: Disentangling information and role-model effects in rural Uganda. Project Note. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Lecoutere, E., van den Berg, M. and de Brauw, A. 2021. Effective Food Systems Innovations An Inventory of Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Viet Nam, and Other Low- and Middle-Income Countries. IFPRI Discussion Paper 02022. IFPRI, Washington, DC. Leder, S. and Sachs, C. 2019. “Intersectionality at the gender–agriculture nexus: relational life histories and additive sex-disaggregated indices.” In Gender, Agriculture and Agrarian Transformations: Changing Relations in Africa, Latin America and Asia, edited by C.E. Sachs. New York: Routledge. Leveraging Evidence for Access and Development 2021. Gender in agriculture and food systems: An Evidence Gap Map. Chennai, India: LEAD, KREA University. Liaqat, S., Donald, A., Jarvis, F., Perova, E. and Johnson, H. 2021. “Lost in Interpretation: Why Spouses Disagree on Who Makes Decisions.” Paper presented at the Midwest Economic Association Annual Meeting and the Annual Meeting of the Society of the Economics of the Household. Lukuyu, B., Eerdewijk, A. Van, Kinati, W., Sultana, N., Mulema, A. and Duncan, A. 2019a. Gendered Feed Assessment Tool (G-FEAST) focus group discussion guide. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. Lukuyu, B., Eerdewijk, A. Van, Kinati, W., Sultana, N., Mulema, A. and Duncan, A. 2019b. Gendered Feed Assessment Tool (G-FEAST) individual farmer interview questionnaire. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. Lukuyu, B., Maina, K., Namutebi, P., Allen, M., Nanyenya, W., Faitwa, W. and Chrisbonus, O. 2021a. An assessment of livestock production systems and local feed resources, used to inform feed utilization and livestock production in the Mbarara District of Uganda. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. Lukuyu, B., Maina, K., Namutebi, P., Allen, M., Nanyenya, W., Faitwa, W., Kalungi, F. and Marunga, C. 2021b. Characterisation of the livestock production system and potential for enhancing productivity through improved access to forage seed value chain in Wakiso District, Uganda. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. Lukuyu, B., Maina, K., Namutebi, P., Allen, M., Nanyenya, W., Faitwa, W. and Kalungi, F. 2021c. Characterisation of the livestock production system and potential for enhancing productivity through improved access to the forage seed value chain in Mukono District, Uganda. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. Lukuyu, B., Maina, K., Namutebi, P., Allen, M., Nanyenya, W., Faitwa, W., Kalungi, F. and Ismael, B. 2021d. Characterisation of the livestock production system and potential for enhancing productivity in Kiboga district, Uganda. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. Lukuyu, B.A., Kinati, W., Sultana, N. and Mulema, A.A. 2016. “A FEAST for women and men: Genderizing a feed-assessment tool.” In A different kettle of fish? Gender integration in livestock and fish research, edited by R. Pyburn and A van Eerdewijk. Volendam: LM Publishers. Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 34 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Magnan, L. J., Hanson, K. and McPake, B. 2009. “How to do (or not to do): Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country.” Health Policy and Planning 242: 151–58. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czn047. Magnan, Nicholas; Spielman, David J.; Gulati, Kajal and Lybbert, Travis J. 2013. “Gender dimensions of social networks and technology adoption: Evidence from a field experiment in Uttar Pradesh, India.” In Learning from eight agricultural development interventions in Africa and South Asia, edited by Quisumbing, Agnes R.; Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela; Njuki, Jemimah and Johnson, Nancy: 49–52. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Manfre, C., Rubin, D. and Nordehn, C. 2017. Assessing How Agricultural Technologies can Change Gender Dynamics and Food Security Outcomes: Part Two. Washington, DC.: USAID (INGENAES). Marenya, P., Kassie, M. and Tostao, E. 2015. “Fertilizer use on individually and jointly managed crop plots in Mozambique.” Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 12: 62–83. Marenya, P., Wanyama, R., Alemu, S. and Woyengo, V. 2021. “Trait preference trade-offs among maize farmers in western Kenya.” Heliyon 7 (3): 6389. Martey, Edward, Prince M. Etwire, Desmond Sunday Adogoba & Theophilus Kwabla Tengey. 2021. “Farmers’ preferences for climate-smart cowpea varieties: implications for crop breeding programmes.” Climate and Development, doi: 10.1080/17565529.2021.1889949. Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Behrman, J., Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Wilde, V., Noordeloos, M., Ragasa, C. and Beintema, N. 2011. Engendering agricultural research, development, and extension. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://dx.doi. org/10.2499/9780896291904. MOPAN 2020. MOPAN Assessments. CGIAR. 2019 Performance Assessment. PDF available here. Moyo, M., Ssali, R., Namanda, S., Nakitto, M., Dery, E.K., Akansake, D., Adjebeng-Danquah, J., van Etten, J., de Sousa, K., Lindqvist-Kreuze, H., Carey, E. and Muzhingi T. 2021. “Consumer Preference Testing of Boiled Sweetpotato Using Crowdsourced Citizen Science in Ghana and Uganda.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.620363. Mudege, N.N., Mayanja, S., Nyaga, J., Nakitto, M., Tinyiro, S.E., Magala, D.B., Achora, J.C., Kisakye, S., Bamwirire, D., Mendes, T. and Muzhingi, T. 2021. “Prioritising quality traits for gender-responsive breeding for boiled potato in Uganda.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56 (3): 1362–75. Muriithi, B., Diiro, G., Berresaw, M. K. and Muricho, G. 2018. Does Gender Matter in the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Technologies? A Case of Push-Pull Technology in Kenya. Partnership for Economic Policy Working Paper No. 2018–05. Murphy, S., Charo-Karisa, H., Rajaratnam, S., Cole, S., McDougall, C., Nasr-Allah, A. M., Zead, M. Y. A., van Brakel, M., Banks, L. K. and Ibrahim, N. 2020. “Selective breeding trait preferences for farmed tilapia among low-income women and men consumers in Egypt: Implications for pro-poor and gender-responsive fish breeding programmes.” Aquaculture 525. Musumba, M., Grabowski P., Palm, C. and Snapp, S. 2017. Sustainable Intensification Assessment Methods Manual. Kansas: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Sustainable Intensification. Mwanga, R.O.M., Mayanja, S., Swanckaert, J., Nakitto, M., zum Felde, T., Grüneberg, W., Mudege, N., Moyo, M., Banda, L., Tinyiro, S.E., Kisakye, S., Bamwirire, D., Anena, B., Bouniol, A., Magala, D.B., Yada, B., Carey, E., Andrade, M., Johanningsmeier, S.D., Forsythe, L., Fliedel, G. and Muzhingi, T. 2021. “Development of a food product profile for boiled and steamed sweetpotato in Uganda for effective breeding.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1385–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14792. Nagoli, J., Magalasi, M., Binauli, L., Chijere, A. and Chuwayka, L. 2020. Solar tent dryers lead to gender equality in the fish value chain. Canada: International Development Research Centre (IDRC). http://hdl.handle.net/10625/58511. Nanyonjo, A.R., Kawuki, R.S., Kyazze, F., Esuma, W., Wembabazi, E., Dufour, D., Nuwamanya, E. and Tufan, H. 2021. “Assessment of end user traits and physicochemical qualities of cassava flour: a case of Zombo district, Uganda.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1289–97. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 35 Ndiritu, S. W., Berresaw, M. K. and Shiferaw, B. 2014. “Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Lessons from Kenya.” Food Policy 49: 117–27. Ndjouenkeu, R., Ngoualem Kegah, F., Teeken, B., Okoye, B., Madu, T., Olaosebikan, O.D., Chijioke, U., Bello, A., Oluwaseun Osunbade, A., Owoade, D., Takam-Tchuente, N.H., Biaton Njeufa, E., Nguiadem Chomdom, I.L., Forsythe, L., Maziya-Dixon, B. and Fliedel, G. 2021. “From cassava to gari: mapping of quality characteristics and end-user preferences in Cameroon and Nigeria.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1223–38. Ngoh Newilah, G., Kendine Vepowo, C., Takam Ngouno, A., Bouniol, A., Rolland-Sabaté, A., Meli, V., Yong Lemoumoum, J.S., Forsythe, L., Dufour, D. and Fliedel, G. 2021. “Analysis of consumer- oriented quality characteristics of raw and boiled plantains in Cameroon: implication for breeding.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1135–47. Njuguna, E. M., Liani, M. L., Beyene, M. and Ojiewo, C. O. 2016. “Exploration of cultural norms and practices influencing women’s participation in chickpea participatory varietal selection training activities: A case study of Ada’a and Ensaro districts, Ethiopia.” Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 01 (03): 40–63. Okello, J.J., Shiundu, F.M., Mwende, J., Lagerkvist, C.J., Nyikal, R.A., Muoki, P., Mburu, J., Low, J., Hareau, G. and Heck, S. 2021. “Quality and psychosocial factors influencing purchase of orange- fleshed sweetpotato bread.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1432–46. Orr, A., Kee-Tui, S. H., Tsusaka, T., Msere, H., Dube, T. and Senda, T. 2016. “Are there “women’s crops”? A new tool for gender and agriculture.” Development in Practice 26 (8): 984–97. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2016.1226264. Orr, A., Polar, V. and Ashby, J. 2021. User Guide to the G+ Customer Profile Tool (G+ PP). Lima, Peru: Gender Breeding Initiative (GBI), CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). GBI User Guide. No. 2021–2. Orr, A., Tsusaka, T.W., Kee-Tui, S. H. and Msere, H. 2014. What do we mean by ‘women’s crops’? A mixed methods approach. PDF available here. Otegbayo, B., Madu, T., Oroniran, O., Chijioke, U., Fawehinmi, O., Okoye, B., Tanimola, A., Adebola, P. and Obidiegwu, J. 2021. “End-user preferences for pounded yam and implications for food product profile development.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1458–72. Otte, P.P., Tivana, L.D., Phinney, R., Bernardo, R. and Davidsson, H. 2018. “The importance of gender roles and relations in rural agricultural technology development: a case study on solar fruit drying in Mozambique.” Gender, Technology and Development 22 (1): 40–58. doi: 10.1080/09718524.2018.1444442. Peterman, A., Behrman, J. A. and Quisumbing, A. R. 2011. A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technologies, and services in developing countries. doi: 10.1007/978–94–017–8616–4_7. Petesch, P., Badstue, L. and Prain, G. 2018. Gender norms, agency, and innovation in agriculture and natural resource management: The GENNOVATE methodology. Mexico: CIMMYT. Petesch, P. 2018. Ladder of Life: Qualitative data collection tool to understand local perceptions of poverty dynamics. GENNOVATE resources for scientists and research teams. Mexico: CIMMYT. Petesch, P. and Bullock, R. 2018. Ladder of Power and Freedom: Qualitative data collection tool to understand local perceptions of agency and decision-making. GENNOVATE resources for scientists and research teams. Mexico: CIMMYT. Polar, V., Ashby, J.A., Teeken, B., Mutiso, J., Nchanji, E., Najar, D., Cole, S., Mayanja, S. and Okello, J. (Forthcoming). Gender differences in trait preferences across crops: What do they tell us? Polar, V., Ashby, J.A., Thiele, G. and Tufan, H. 2021. “When Is Choice Empowering? Examining Gender Differences in Varietal Adoption through Case Studies from Sub-Saharan Africa.” Sustainability 13 (7): 3678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073678. Pretty, J. 1995. “Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture.” World Development 23 (8): 1247–63. 36 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Quaye, W., Fuseini, M., Boadu, P. and Asafu-Adjaye, N. Y. 2019. “Bridging the gender gap in agricultural development through gender responsive extension and rural advisory services delivery in Ghana.” Journal of Gender Studies 28 (2): 185–203. Quisumbing, A.R., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T.L., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J.A. and Peterman, A. (Eds.) 2014. Gender in agriculture: closing the knowledge gap. Springer Science and Business. Ragasa, C. 2014. “Improving gender responsiveness of agricultural extension.” In Gender in agriculture, edited by A. R. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick, T. L. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. A. Behrman, and A. Peterman: 411–30. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Ragasa, C., Aberman, N. L. and Alvarez-Mingote, C. 2019. “Does Providing Agricultural and Nutrition Information to Both Men and Women Improve Household Food Security? Evidence from Malawi.” Global Food Security 20: 45–59. Ramasawmy, M., Galiè, A. and Dessie, T. 2018. “Poultry Trait Preferences and Gender in Ethiopia.” Working Paper. No. 3. In State of the Knowledge for Gender in Breeding: Case Studies for Practitioners, edited by H.A. Tufan, S. Grando, C. Meola. Lima, Peru: CGIAR Gender and Breeding Initiative. Raney, T., Doss, C., Anríquez, G., Croppenstedt, A., Gerosa, S., Lowder, S., Matuscke, I., and Skoet, J. 2011. The role of women in agriculture. ESA Working Paper No. 11–02. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Salas, E., Bastos, C., Maccera, C., Cevallos, D., De Boeck, B., Burgos, G., and Campos, H. 2021. Potenciales nuevas variedades de papa biofortificada con altos contenidos de hierro y zinc, para contribuir a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en agricultura familiar alto andina. Reporte Final STC. Lima, Peru: Centro Internacional de la Papa. Setimela, P., Magorokosho, C., Lunduka, R., Gasura, E., Makumbi, D., Tarekegne, A., Cairns, J., Ndhlela, T., Erenstein, O., and Mwangi, W. 2017. “On-Farm Yield Gains with Stress-Tolerant Maize in Eastern and Southern Africa.” Agronomic Application of Genetic Resources 109: 1–12. Ssali, R., Carey, E., Imoro, S., Low, J.W., Dery, E.K., Boakye, A., Oduro, I., Omodamiro, R.M., Yusuf, H.L., Etwire, E., Iyilade, A.O., Adekambi, S., Ali, A., Haliru, M., and Etwire, P.M. 2021. “Fried sweetpotato user preferences identified in Nigeria and Ghana and implications for trait evaluation.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1399–1409. Tavenner, K. and Crane, T. A. 2019. “Beyond “women and youth”: Applying intersectionality in agricultural research for development.” Outlook on Agriculture 48 (4): 316–325. https://doi. org/10.1177/0030727019884334. Teeken, B., Agbona, A., Bello, A., Olaosebikan, O., Alamu, E., Adesokan, M., Awoyale, W., Madu, T., Okoye, B., Chijioke, U., Owoade, D., Okoro, M., Bouniol, A., Dufour, D., Hershey, C., Rabbi, I., Maziya-Dixon, B., Egesi, C., Tufan, H., and Kulakow, P. 2021. “Understanding cassava varietal preferences through pairwise ranking of gari-eba and fufu prepared by local farmer–processors.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56: 1258–77. Teeken, B., Olaosebikan, O., Haleegoah, J., Oladejo, E., Madu, T., Bello, A., Parkes, E., Egezi, C., Kulakow, P., Kirscht, H., and Tufan, H. A. 2018. “Cassava Trait Preferences of Men and Women Farmers in Nigeria: Implications for Breeding.” Economic Botany 72: 263–77. Tegbaru, A., FitzSimons, J., Kirscht, H. and Hillbur, P. 2015. “Resolving the gender empowerment equation in agricultural research: a systems approach.” Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 3 and 4 (13): 131–39. Tegbaru, A., Menkir, A., Baco, M. N., Idrisou, L., Sissoko, D., Eyitayo, A. O., Tsedeke, A., and Tahirou, A. 2020. “Addressing gendered varietal and trait preferences in West African maize.” World Development Perspectives 20: 100268. Teklewold, H., Adam, R. I., and Marenya, P. 2020. “What explains the gender differences in the adoption of multiple maize varieties? Empirical evidence from Uganda and Tanzania.” World Development Perspectives 18: 100206. Theis, S., Bekele, R. D., Lefore, N., Meinzen-Dick, R., and Ringler, C. 2018a. Considering gender when promoting small-scale irrigation technologies: Guidance for inclusive irrigation interventions. IFPRI- REACH Project Note. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 37 Theis, S., Lefore, N., Meinzen-Dick, R., and Bryan, E. 2018b. “What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania.” Agriculture and Human Values 35: 671–84. Theriault, V., Smale, M., and Haider, H. 2017. “How Does Gender Affect Sustainable Intensification of Cereal Production in the West African Sahel? Evidence from Burkina Faso.” World Development 92: 177–91. Tickmayer, A. R. and Sexsmith, K. 2019. “How to do gender research? Feminist perspectives on gender research in agriculture.” In Gender, Agriculture and Agrarian Transformation: Changing Relations in Africa, Latin America and Asia, edited by CE Sachs: 57–1. Routledge. Tsusaka, T. W., Orr, A., Msere, H. W., Homann-Kee Tui, S., Maimisa, P., Twanje, G. H., and Botha, R. 2016. “Do Commercialization and Mechanization of a “Women’s Crop” Disempower Women Farmers? Evidence from Zambia and Malawi.” In 2016 Annual Meeting of Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (formerly the American Agricultural Economics Association), 31 July–2 August 2016. Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Vemireddy, V. and Choudhary, A. 2021. “A systematic review of labor-saving technologies: Implications for women in agriculture.” Global Food Security 29: 100541. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100541. Wajcman, J. 2004. Technofeminism. Oxford: Polity Press. Wangchuk, P., De Haan, S., and Dochen, R. 2015. Participatory varietal selection using Mother and Baby trial design in potato. Thimpu, Bhutan: Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and Forests. Weltzien, E., Rattunde, F., Christinck, A., Isaacs, K. and Ashby, J. 2019. “Gender and Farmer Preferences for Varietal Traits.” In Plant Breeding Reviews, edited by I. Goldman. Wiley Online Library. https:// doi.org/10.1002/9781119616801.ch7. Wong, F., Vos, A., Pyburn, R., and Newton, J. 2019. Implementing gender transformative approaches in agriculture. CGIAR Collaborative Platform for Gender Research. Zúñiga, N., Gastelo, M., Bastos, C., Reyes, J., Alania, E., and Ninalaya, E. 2020. “Obtaining New Potato Cultivars with Late Blight Resistance and Adapted to Climate Change Using Participatory Varietal Selection.” Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology B (10): 17–27. doi: 10.17265/2161– 6264/2020.01.003. 38 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Appendix 1: Tool descriptions Gender-Responsive Approaches for Enhancing the Adoption of Improved Maize Seed in Africa The tool at a glance Toolbox (Gender-Maize) Organization(s): CIMMYT The Gender-Responsive Approaches for Enhancing the Adoption Key innovation stage(s): of Improved Maize Seed in Africa Toolbox consists of six manuals Priority-setting, research and that assist public and private actors involved in the development development, extension, and promotion of improved maize seeds to adopt gender- evaluation responsive approaches: Agricultural technology: 1. Gender-responsive training manual for plant breeders and Maize breeding and seed technicians (Adam et al. 2019a) delivery 2. Gender-responsive demonstration plots and field day (Adam, Intended tool user(s): Kandiwa and Muindi 2019b) Crop breeders, technicians, multidisciplinary breeding 3. Gender-responsive approaches for the promotion of teams, seed companies, improved maize seeds (Kandiwa et al. 2018) agro-dealers, community based organizations, local 4. Gender-responsive budgeting tool (Adam, Kandiwa and agricultural extension Muindi 2018) service, and non- governmental organizations 5. Gender-responsive training manual for seed companies (Adam, Kandiwa, David and Muindi 2019c) Pilot countries/uptake: Yet to be piloted 6. Gender-responsive training manual for agro-dealers (Adam, Kandiwa, David and Muindi 2019d) Innovative element(s): Thoroughly addresses The gender-responsive training manual for plant breeders and several aspects related technicians provides guidance on how to carry out gender- to enhanced adoption of responsive participatory varietal selection (PVS), and how to improved maize seeds, ensure that gender concerns are considered when promoting including the need for and distributing improved maize seeds. It also addresses the a gender-responsive need for a gender-responsive organizational culture at the organizational culture level of research institutions. Advantages: Thorough, easy The gender-responsive tool for demonstration plots and field to use, well-illustrated, and days provides guidance on how to consider gender and social well-referenced; contains inclusion when designing and conducting demonstration plots checklists, attendance forms, and field days, and includes a note on how to monitor and data-collection sheets, evaluate gender-responsive demonstration plots. Similarly, the budgeting templates, manual on gender-responsive approaches for the promotion of self-reflection questions and so forth; promotes improved maize seeds address gender-responsive promotional participatory methods, thus approaches (most notably field days and demonstrations). The strengthening the role, gender-responsive budgeting tool is meant to be used alongside voice, and power of users; the gender-responsive tool for demonstration plots and field discusses intersectionality; days and is geared towards seed companies. The manuals for could possibly be adapted to seed companies and agro-dealers provide practical advice on other (grain) crops how gender can be integrated into seed business operations (i.e., multiplication, promotion and distribution of seeds) and agro- Gaps: Does not consider businesses, respectively. The former also includes information other users beyond farmers; on how to build gender-equitable seed companies. Most of the does not address how to manuals contain one or several types of forms or templates integrate an intersectional that assist the tool-users (e.g., gender checklists; data collection lens in the analysis of sheets; and forms for gender in the workplace, gender in seed- preference data related operations, gender in product positioning, and so on). Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 39 Together, the manuals provide a very thorough and nuanced approach to addressing gender as it relates to the development and delivery of improved maize seeds; and it encourages the use of multidisciplinary teams, including a social scientist and/ or a gender expert in addition to breeders, agronomists and technicians. Importantly, the tool stresses the need to include a diversity of women and men when designing PVS trials, demonstration plots, and extension and marketing approaches. However, the manual on gender-responsive PVS does not address ways of integrating an intersectional lens in the analysis of preference data. 40 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Participatory Varietal Selection of Potato Using the Mother & Baby Trial Design: The tool at a glance A Gender-responsive Trainer’s Guide (Gender-Potato) Organization(s): CIP Key innovation stage(s): Priority-setting, and research The Participatory Varietal Selection of Potato Using the Mother and development & Baby Trial Design: A Gender-responsive Trainer’s Guide Agricultural technology: provides a step-by-step guide on how to facilitate and document Potato breeding, and other gender-responsive participatory varietal selection (PVS) using root and tuber crops a mother and baby trial (MBT) design in potato and potentially other roots and tubers (De Haan et al. 2017 and 2019). The Intended tool user(s): intended users of the tools include plant breeders, researchers, Plant breeders, researchers, trainers, facilitators, development workers, field technicians trainers, facilitators, and extension workers; and the guide further encourages using development workers, field multidisciplinary teams including breeders, gender experts, technicians and extension economists and extension workers. workers Pilot countries/uptake: The objective of the tool is to support the production of Applied in Bhutan, Ethiopia, potato varieties adapted to the needs of both women and men India and Peru farmers, traders and consumers across the stages of vegetative development, production and post-harvesting. In addition to Innovative element(s): standard yield evaluation and participatory selection, the guide Considers a variety of user encourages two sets of organoleptic evaluations depending on groups; emphasizes post- the final use of the new variety (i.e., for local consumption and/or harvesting and consumption; sales). Thus, the tool draws attention to a wider set of uses and includes organoleptic user groups beyond production. assessments In addition to discussing the important role of gender in Advantages: Provides a generating and evaluating technologies, the tool provides thorough step-by-step gender-responsive recommendations across the PVS stages, participatory varietal including the need for equal participation and recruitment of selection protocol across women and men; accommodating for gender-specific needs vegetative development, product and post-harvesting; (e.g., providing transportation and meals); how to encourage promotes participatory equal participation, vocalization and expression; and sex- methods, thus strengthening disaggregated vote casting and scoring. While the guide the role, voice and power of acknowledges that preferences and adoption decisions may users reflect the different socioeconomic status of farmers and recommends that farmers of all socioeconomic groups should be Gaps: The gender tips are included in PVS, the tool does not engage with intersectionality somewhat general/generic; beyond this. limited intersectional lens other users beyond farmers; The tool has been used in several countries, including Bhutan does not address how to (Bajgai et al. 2018), Ethiopia (Jafar, Degefa, Benti and Wakgari integrate an intersectional 2020), India (Elango and Kawarazuka 2019) and Peru (Zúñiga et lens in the analysis of al. 2020; Gastelo et al. 2021; Salas et al. 2021). preference data Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 41 The G+ Toolbox: The G+ Customer Profile Tool and the G+ Product Profile Query Tool The tool at a glance Organization(s): GBI/RTB- The G+ Toolbox consists of the decision-support tools: the G+ CIP Customer Profile Tool (G+CP) and the G+ Product Profile Query Tool (G+PP), as well as the Standard Operating Procedure that Key innovation stage(s): Priority-setting, and research describes in a stepwise fashion how to use the tools (Ashby and development and Polar 2021a and 2021b; Orr, Polar and Ashby 2021). By organizing existing data available to a breeding program, the Agricultural technology: G+CP helps identify the customers of a new or existing breeding Breeding product, taking gender and other social differences into account. The end-product is a G+ Customer Profile, which provides a Intended tool user(s): comprehensive, gendered description of the customer segment Multidisciplinary breeding to be targeted by a breeding program. Some of the templates of teams, including a plant breeder and a social scientist the G+CP allow one to add information on other demographic with gender expertise attributes relevant to the customer segment in question, which could allow for other intersecting variables to be included, but Pilot countries: Nigeria, the tool does not explicitly address intersection. Uganda, Zimbabwe, Central and West Asia and North The G+PP is used to interrogate a product profile for a future Africa regions crop variety. It does so by scoring traits for their potential positive and negative effects according to a set of gender Innovative element(s): A questions on (i) use of unpaid farm labor; (ii) on-farm or off-farm comprehensive decision- employment or other forms of income generation; (iii) input use; support tool in assessing and and (iv) control over produce, by-products, sales, income or other selecting customer segments direct benefits from the crop variety in question. The resulting and product profiles from a gender-impact score thus helps identify whether and why the gender perspective, resulting trait could benefit or harm women, men or another specific in the creation of a gender- intersectional group. Notably, the G+ PP tool contains a box in informed customer profile and product profile which the tool-user can insert intersecting social categories to be used for analysis. Advantages: Applicable across crops and breeding In 2020, the toolbox was piloted in five African-based breeding context; could possibly programs; namely: beans in Zimbabwe, cassava in Nigeria, sweet be adapted to livestock potato in Uganda, banana in Uganda, and cereals and lentils in and aquaculture breeding; Central and West Asia and North Africa regions (CGIAR Gender considers several types of and Breeding Initiative 2020; CGIAR Gender and Breeding users Initiative and the CGIAR Excellence in Breeding Platform 2020). Gaps: Based on secondary and market data, which may not be readily available to some crop breeding programs; limited intersectional lens 42 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 An interdisciplinary and participatory methodology to improve user acceptability The tool at a glance of root, tuber and banana varieties (Food Product Profile) Organization(s): University of Greenwich, Cornell University, The French Agricultural Research and The methodology to improve user acceptability of roots, tubers, International Cooperation and banana varieties (Food Product Profile) is an interdisciplinary Organization and participatory five-step methodology that can help in the Key innovation stage(s): identification of gender-differentiated demands and preferences Priority-setting, and research for quality characteristics along the food chain for roots, tubers and development and bananas (Forsythe et al. 2021). Agricultural technology: The methodology starts with a ‘state of knowledge’ (SOK) Roots, tubers and banana consisting of a document review and key informant interviews, breeding which includes a food science module, gender and social context module and a demand module. This is followed by a Intended tool user(s): gendered food-mapping exercise which includes individual Multidisciplinary research and group interviews with village and community leadership; teams, including food and with people who grow, process and trade crop products. science, gender, economics Subsequently, participatory processing diagnosis with and plant breeding experienced processors and consumer testing in urban and rural Pilot countries/uptake: areas are conducted. Ultimately, a food product profile is created Several countries in sub- that summarizes the final prioritization of quality characteristics Saharan Africa for a root, tuber and banana product that reflects the demand for a variety of users along the food chain, which is meant to Innovative element(s): inform further work of biochemists and breeders in developing Allows the creation of food improved selection tools and, as such, helps inform technology product profiles that include design. a gender perspective; adopts a full food-chain perspective In terms of intersectional perspectives, the: Advantages: Interdisciplinary • methodology argues the need to explore how prioritization and participatory; focuses on may differ according to not only gender, but also region and food quality characteristics other social-economic segments of importance to producers, processors, retailers and • gender and social context module of the SOK emphasizes the consumers; includes need to collect information on the broader social context and consultation with a range gender dynamics of the region of different stakeholders and user groups; includes • consumer studies should include sampling from different processing diagnosis and urban and rural locations to increase representation of consumer testing various socio-economic and ethnic groups Gaps: Limited intersectional • food product profile contains separate tables for men, women, lens by region, and other relevant factors according to the context. Beyond this, however, there is little explicit discussion on how different socioeconomic and sociodemographic factors may intersect, or how to apply an intersectional lens in data analysis. The methodology is applicable globally and has thus far been piloted in plantain, cassava, sweet potato and yams in Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda (Amah et al. 2021; Chijioke et al. 2021; Honfozo et al. 2021; Mwanga et al. 2021; Ndjouenkeu et al. 2021; Ngoh Newilah et al. 2021; Otegbayo et al. 2021; Ssali et al. 2021; also see Akankwasa et al. 2021; Dery et al. 2021; Iragaba et al. 2021). Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 43 Gendered Feed Assessment Tool (G-FEAST) The tool at a glance The Gendered Feed Assessment Tool (G-FEAST) is a gendered Organization(s): CIAT, ILRI, version of the Feed Assessment Tool (FEAST) meant to help ICARDA (i) identify which aspects of gender relations in households affect animal feeding practices and the uptake of feeding Key innovation stage(s): interventions, and (ii) identify differences in opportunities and Priority-setting and adoption constraints in animal feeding between different household types (Lukuyu et al. 2019a and 2019b). Thus, the authors recommend Agricultural technology: Livestock feed using the tool when identifying and designing livestock feed interventions. Intended tool user(s): Not specified The tool consists of four components: Pilot countries/uptake: 1. Group discussion guide Tanzania and Uganda 2. Individual farmer interview questionnaire Innovative element(s): Only 3. FEAST data template tool that addresses livestock feed 4. FEAST data template manual Advantages: Considers During the preliminary scoping exercise, demographically household structure and representative groups of women and men farmer participants intrahousehold dynamics; according to age, wealth/land size, and type of household provides questionnaires and (male-headed, female-headed, female-managed) are identified. spreadsheets for both group and individual interviews; However, beyond this, the tool does not explicitly engage based on a farmer-centered with intersectionality. The open-ended group discussions and diagnosis approach (largely) closed individual interviews provide information on agriculture and livestock conditions in the area (including, among Gaps: Does not consider others, gender and livestock ownership, decision-making and other users beyond farmers; labor), as well as problems and potential solutions from gender limited intersectional lens perspectives. Plugging the information collected into the data templates generates reports and graphs that inform the development of gender-responsive feed intervention strategies. The tool was pre-tested in Tanzania under the auspices of the Sustainable Intensification of Maize and Legume Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA) project, after which revisions were made (Lukuyu, Kinati, Sultana and Mulema 2016). Since then, the tool has been employed by Lukuyu et al. (2021a, b, c and d) in Uganda. 44 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Gender in Agricultural Mechanization: Key Guiding Questions (Gender- The tool at a glance Mechanization) Organization(s): CIP Key innovation stage(s): The Gender in Agricultural Mechanization: Key Guiding Questions Priority-setting, adoption tool contains a set of key guiding questions and follow-on and evaluation questions that are meant “to stimulate researchers to think about the gender implications of actual or possible interventions Agricultural technology: involving machinery or that may depend on existing machinery” Mechanization in root, tuber as it relates to roots, tubers and bananas (Kawarazuka et al. and banana crops 2018). The principal questions include: Intended tool user(s): Researchers 1. Are there any machines used for your targeted crops during the whole cycle from plowing to selling? Pilot countries/uptake: Yet to be piloted 2. Does your intervention introduce new machines (e.g., for cultivating, harvesting and processing)? Innovative element(s): Only tool to address 3. Does your intervention depend on access to particular mechanization machinery? Advantages: Provides a 4. How will you monitor and evaluate visible and hidden impacts useful tool for researchers to of mechanization? guide thinking about actual and possible interventions; Answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to each question directs the tool user to a addresses a wide range set of follow-on questions which address gender-related issues of gender dimensions associated with needs, challenges, awareness, accessibility, across the innovation ownership, usership, labor relations, income generation, barriers cycle; could be adapted for to use, risks, unintended consequences (e.g., labor loss and mechanization beyond roots, burden), useability (e.g., in terms of physical strength, technical tubers and bananas know-how, and so on), perceived benefits, social targeting, and mitigation measures. The tool provides several illustrative Gaps: Does not consider examples of the interface between gender and mechanization in other users beyond farmers; roots, tubers and bananas in Uganda, Nigeria, Peru, Bolivia, and limited intersectional lens Vietnam. However, beyond acknowledging the need to consider how impacts may differ according to different socioeconomic groups, the tool does not engage with intersectionality. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 45 Considering Gender when Promoting Small-scale Irrigation Technologies: The tool at a glance Guidance for inclusive irrigation interventions (Gender-Irrigation) Organization(s): IFPRI Key innovation stage(s): Priority-setting, adoption, Considering Gender when Promoting Small-Scale Irrigation extension and evaluation Technologies: Guidance for Inclusive Irrigation Interventions Agricultural technology: provides a set of structured questions that can be used to collect Small-scale irrigation information on and assess gender dynamics in irrigation prior, technologies during or after project implementation (Theis et al. 2018a). The information can be used to, identify potential gender-related Intended tool user(s): constraints, risks, preferences and priorities with respect to Actors who are designing technology design and dissemination; set monitoring and and/or promoting irrigation evaluation targets and indicators; monitor risks and project technologies (e.g., impacts; adapt implementation strategies; evaluate differential development practitioners, effects on direct and indirect beneficiaries; and assess evidence agricultural extension agents, agribusiness companies gaps. The tool consists of two components: working with contract 1. Assessment questions: Key questions to help identify farmers, and irrigation inequity and potential risks of exclusion across each phase companies) of technology adoption (awareness, initial adoption and Pilot countries/uptake: continued use) as well as causal factors. The questions Piloted in Ethiopia, Ghana further explore how the project may affect gender and social and Tanzania during early dynamics. stages of tool development 2. Approaches and indicators for measuring inclusion in Innovative element(s): Only irrigation projects: Approaches and indicators that can be tool to address irrigation; used or adapted for monitoring, evaluation and learning explores three stages of across the three stages of technology adoption. adoption Importantly, the questions in the tool are meant to help capture Advantages: Provides how intersecting forms of identity differentiate women’s practical advice on experiences and needs, such as marital status, household how to ensure gender structure, age, ethnicity, caste/class, religion, and whether responsiveness across three women have young children who require care and supervision or stages of adoption, as well older/adult children who assist with some of the labor of running as providing suggestions the household and farming. for indicators; discusses intersectional perspectives; The intended users of the tool include actors who are designing attends to intrahousehold and/or promoting irrigation technologies, such as development relations practitioners, agricultural extension agents, agribusiness Gaps: Does not consider companies working with contract farmers, and irrigation other users beyond farmers companies. The initial set of questions developed as part of the tool were tested using qualitative research in Ethiopia, Ghana and Tanzania (Theis, Lefore, Meinzen-Dick and Bryan 2018b). The questions were subsequently refined through the REACH program using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 120 women and men irrigators and non irrigators in Ethiopia. 46 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Gender Control Tool The tool at a glance The Gender Control Tool helps measure gender-disaggregated Organization(s): ICRISAT control of management, sale and income for specific commodities (e.g., crops and livestock) and is suitable for both Key innovation stage(s): focus group discussions and quantitative household surveys Evaluation (Orr et al. 2014 and 2016). The tool is based on a conceptual framework for analyzing “women’s crops”, which takes into Agricultural technology: consideration commercialization, access, three types of Crop and livestock control (strategic, operational and financial control, which Intended tool user(s): are operationalized through decision-making), and rights and Development practitioners claims (which are operationalized in the conjugal contract and/ and researchers or gender attributes). The tool does not consider users beyond farmers, nor includes an intersectional lens. Pilot countries/uptake: Zambia and Zimbabwe The tool is particularly used for crops. It compares women’s control over specific crops; and measures the degree of women’s Innovative element(s): control over key decisions for crop production and sale, the Focuses on gendered dimensions of control and degree of control that women have over these key decisions, decision-making and the relative importance women give to these key decisions (weights). The weighted scores are aggregated to produce a Advantages: Simple and weighted gender-control index. easy to use; can be employed for both qualitative and The tool has been piloted in groundnuts in Zambia and for goats quantitative data collection in Zimbabwe (Orr et al. 2014 and 2016; also see Tsusaka et al. 2016). Gaps: Does not consider other users beyond farmers; limited intersectional lens Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 47 Participatory Drudgery Score + Activity Profile The tool at a glance Organization(s): IITA Adapted from ergonomic studies, Fischer and Jimah (forthcoming) developed a drudgery scoring tool that could be Key innovation stage(s): used either in a participatory setup or a survey to assess the Evaluation perceived level of drudgery associated with various agricultural Agricultural technology: activities and technologies. During the drudgery scoring exercise, Various each participant is provided a total of 10 beans which are to be allocated in different boxes (signifying each activity/technology) Intended tool user(s): Not to indicate the level of drudgery. The scoring exercise is followed specified, but assumed by a discussion on the overall results, considering such questions to be researchers and as: development practitioners • Why are certain labor steps more or less labor-intensive? Pilot countries/uptake: Tanzania and Ghana • For whom are they more labor-intensive? For whom are they Innovative element(s): less labor-intensive? Focuses on dimensions of • Does activity/technology x increase/decrease the labor of drudgery; adapted from women? Children? Men? ergonomic studies • Use of hired labor? Advantages: Allows comparative assessment; The creators have used the tool to assess and compare the easy to use; can be used as perceived drudgery associated with maize shelling by hand, stick part of a participatory setup and machine in Tanzania, and maize monocropping and maize or a survey with living mulch in Ghana. Results of the former were published Gaps: Does not consider in Fischer, Kotu and Mutungi (2021). Here, they employed the other users beyond farmers tool as part of a mixed-methods approach consisting of both a survey and semi-structured interviews with key informants. Importantly, Fischer, Kotu and Mutungi (2021) analyzed the data (including the drudgery scores) based on a Social Relations Framework to identify changes for facilitating more equitable and sustainable mechanization, including through the use of gender-transformative work. 48 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Assessing How Agricultural Technologies can Change Gender Dynamics and Food The tool at a glance Security Outcomes (INGENAES) Organization(s): USAID and University of Illinois-Urbana- Champaign (INGENAES Based on the Gender Dimensions Framework developed by project) Cultural Practice, LLC, and as part of the Integrating Gender and Nutrition within Agricultural Extension Services (INGENAES) Main innovation stage(s): project, the Assessing How Agricultural Technologies can Change Evaluation; can be adapted Gender Dynamics and Food Security Outcomes tool uses sex- to address other stages disaggregated qualitative and quantitative data to analyze gendered impacts of agricultural technology as it pertains to Agricultural technology: Any three areas of inquiry: (i) time and labor; (ii) food availability, access, quality and safety; and (iii) income and assets (Manfre, Intended tool user(s): Rubin and Nordehn 2017). Nutritional impacts are a secondary Researchers, extension focus of the tool. agents, input dealers and practitioners The toolkit consists of three documents: Pilot countries/uptake: 1. Part one (“Learn”) discusses the relationships between Bangladesh, Zambia, Nepal gender, nutrition and agricultural technologies with respect and Sierra Leone to the three areas of inquiry. It also notes how gender roles intersect with other factors—including age, class and Innovative element: ethnicity—to shape women’s and men’s access to and use of A comprehensive and agricultural technologies. widely applicable tool that investigates several 2. Part two (“Apply”) introduces a gender-analysis framework gendered impacts of and tools that can be used to improve the design and technology, as well as dissemination of agricultural technologies. identifying opportunities to overcome gender-based 3. Part three (“Share”) provides a guide for facilitators on how constraints and improve to design and conduct a workshop using the methodology. men’s and women’s access to and use of technologies For the purpose of this paper, part two (Apply) will be reviewed in closer detail. The part two framework consists of three main Advantages: Provides stages: several templates for use in data collection and 1. Data collection: During this stage, practitioners are meant analysis; questionnaires to use a combination of desktop research, a review of can be modified for use secondary literature, and primary data collection (including at different points in the key informant interviews and focus group discussions) technology development to: understand the background to and purpose of the process; can be conducted technology; understand the actors involved in technology alongside, or integrated design, use and dissemination; and gather information about into, other analyses to select gender roles and relations related to the technology and appropriate technologies associated agricultural value chain. for specific value chains and dissemination pathways To support data collection, several questionnaires are Gaps: Although the tool provided to be used when interviewing technology refers to “clients” of the designers, producers, cooperatives and extension officers. technology, including In relation to intersectionality, the Technology Overview farmers, entrepreneurs Questionnaire asks who is being targeted, giving examples of and laborers along the factors to consider (i.e., sex, age, size of farm/business, place value chain, it is largely in value chain). The Extension Officer/Dissemination Agent concerned with farmers as Questionnaire asks what farm or farmer characteristics are the main user group; limited prioritized when selecting participants for group activities intersectional lens and trainings (including age, sex, size of plot, choice of crop, location and degree of market-orientation). The Producer Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 49 Questionnaire captures data on sex, age and years of schooling. Beyond this, however, and despite mentions of intersecting social factors in part one of the tool, part two devotes surprisingly little attention to intersectionality, most commonly simply referring to “women” and “men” farmers, sparingly mentioning girls and boys. Still, as the questionnaires are only meant as a guide and not a blueprint, they could be adapted to include questions that help capture intersectional perspectives. 2. Interpretation: Based on the three areas of inquiry above, the objectives of this step are to organize the data collected in a systematic way, and to identify how gender-based constraints shape technology design, use and dissemination. To this end, the tool provides three worksheets: (i) Gender Dimensions Framework (to help in organizing the data); (ii) Advantages and Disadvantages (used to identify the advantages and disadvantages stated about the technology by women and men and by different actors); and (iii) General to Gender-based constraints (helps explore and capture the relationship between the purpose of the technology and gender relations to facilitate an analysis of the direct and indirect links between the technology and gender relations). 3. Opportunities for action: The objective of this step is to identify opportunities to overcome gender-based constraints and improve women and men’s access to and use of technologies. Regarding the design or selection of technologies, the tool draws attention to appropriateness, acceptability and mitigation of negative change. Regarding dissemination of technologies, the tool highlights issues of affordability, accessibility, complementary inputs, services, targeting and training. Ultimately, a technology profile can be produced that helps communicate the results. The tool has been piloted in Bangladesh, Zambia, Nepal and Sierra Leone and for several technologies (i.e., rice processing, mini-tillers, fish feed, fertilizer deep placement, Aflasafe, beehives, improved storage bags, conservation practices, ponds and gardening) (also see Jones 2019). 50 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Matrix Scoring and the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework The tool at a glance (MS-SIAF) The Matrix Scoring and the Sustainable Intensification Organization(s): IITA Assessment Framework is part of the publication Gender Main innovation stage(s): analysis in farming systems and action research: A training Evaluation manual (Fischer, Wittich and Fründt 2019, 82–92). Based on the Sustainable Intensification (SI) Assessment Framework Agricultural technology: (Musumba, Grabowski, Palm and Snapp 2017) and Matrix Any Scoring (MS) (Pretty 1995), the framework provides a tool Intended tool user(s): which guides farmers and facilitators through a process of Researchers together with participatory technology evaluation. A conventional practice/ farmers technology is compared to a new one (note that several agricultural technologies can be compared at any one time). It Pilot countries: Tanzania recognizes the need to evaluate the gender implications of an agricultural technology as essential in assessing its sustainability Innovative element(s): and potential adoption. The conventional and novel practices Based on the Sustainable Intensification Assessment or technologies are evaluated against five domains of the SI Framework and Matrix Assessment Framework, each of which includes questions for Scoring gender analysis: Advantages: Uses 1. productivity participatory methods, thus 2. profitability strengthening the role, voice and power of users; easy to 3. environment (natural resource base, pollution) use; comparative 4. human condition (nutrition) Gaps: As it is an evaluation tool, it assumes prior 5. social domain (gender, equity, social dynamics) knowledge and use of technologies/practices in Together with farmers, a specific indicator from each domain question, which may in some is selected as a criterion against which the technologies are contexts mostly include assessed (e.g., income, productivity, dietary diversity, female men who have access labor, use of chemicals, and so on). In sex-disaggregated groups, to and control over the farmers compare and assign scores to novel and conventional technologies in question; practices using stones/beans. One criterion is dealt with at a does not consider other time. A discussion guided by gender-analysis questions follows users beyond farmers; the assessment. Once all the criteria have been assessed and limited intersectional lens discussed, a final discussion on the overall results is held. While intersectionality is addressed elsewhere in the publication, intersectionality is not addressed as part of the MS-SIAF itself beyond the recommendation that groups could also be age- separated, because priorities and ideas of younger and older farmers may differ. In 2016, the framework was piloted in Tanzania to compare and evaluate machetes to electric and petrol-driven forage chopper machines against the following indicators: ‘animal productivity’ (productivity), ‘profitability’ (profitability), ‘feed quality’ (environment), ‘dietary diversity’ (human), and ‘female labor’/’reduced labor time’ (social) (Fischer, Wittich and Fründt 2019, 87–89; also see Fischer et al. 2018). Examples of questions for gender analysis included (Fischer, Wittich and Fründt 2019, 85): • Productivity: Who in the household would like the animals to produce more? Why? Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 51 • Profitability: Who in the household receives the income from the sales of milk? Why? • Environment (= feed quality): Who in the household is more affected by low feed quality? Why? • Human condition (= dietary diversity): Who in the household decides on the use of income for food purchase? Why? • Social condition (= reduced time of labor): Who in the household uses the chopper? Why?” 52 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Appendix 2: Glossary Agricultural technology: “[p]ractices or techniques, tools or equipment, know-how and skills, or combinations of the aforementioned components that are used to enhance productivity, reduce production and processing costs, and save on scarce resources or inputs, such as labor or energy” (Ragasa et al. 2014, 2). Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) framework: each participant states his or her maximum buying price, after which a selling price is randomly selected from some distribution known to the subjects (Becker, DeGroot and Marschak 1964). If the selling price is less than or equal to the buying price, the buyer pays the selling price and gets the good (if not, no sale is made) (Shogren et al. 2001). Difference-in-Difference (DID): “DID is a quasi-experimental design that makes use of longitudinal data from treatment and control groups to obtain an appropriate counterfactual to estimate a causal effect. DID is typically used to estimate the effect of a specific intervention or treatment (such as a passage of law, enactment of policy, or large- scale program implementation) by comparing the changes in outcomes over time between a population that is enrolled in a program (the intervention group) and a population that is not (the control group)”.10 Cragg’s double-hurdle model: “The double-hurdle model, introduced by Cragg (1971), embodies the idea that an individual’s decision on the extent of participation in an activity is the result of two processes: the first hurdle, determining whether the individual is a zero type, and the second hurdle, determining the extent of participation given that the individual is not a zero type. A key feature of the model is that there are two types of zero observations: an individual can be a zero type, and the outcome will always be zero whatever his or her circumstances at the time of the decision; alternatively, the individual might not be a zero type, but his or her current circumstances might dictate that the outcome is zero—this sort of zero is usually classified as a censored zero after (Tobin 1958)” (Engel and Moffatt 2014). Evaluation: “periodic assessment of the relevance, performance, efficiency, and impact (expected and unexpected) of the project in relation to stated objectives.” (World Bank 2012). Focus group discussion (FGD): “[f]ocus groups are dialogue sessions with less than 20 persons (preferably 6–10 persons) participating in the group and is quite similar to a brainstorming session. Focus groups can also be viewed as multiple interviews where questions are asked in an interactive group setting and where participants are free to talk with other group members” (Breen 2006). Framework: a system or rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something (Cambridge Dictionary). Gender analysis: “Gender analysis is a process of using socio-economic methodologies to systematically identify and interpret the consequences of gender differences, disparities, and relationships. It takes into account different roles, responsibilities, rights, services, opportunities, and resources of women and men and the legal and institutional context in which they operate to better understand human development outcomes. It examines the relative status of women and men, and the causes and consequences of inequality by collecting sex-disaggregated data and other qualitative and quantitative information on gender issues, including access to and control over assets (tangible and intangible), as well as beliefs, practices, and legal frameworks, and analyzing that data” (Manfre, Rubin and Nordehn 2017). 10. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/difference-difference- estimation (accessed 3 October 2021). Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 53 Gender norms: “[g]ender norms are unwritten social ‘rules’ which influence women’s and men’s roles and behavior. These norms can promote or limit the ability of women and men to maximize opportunities related to agricultural production, commercialization and other activities” (Adam et al. 2019a). Gender: “[t]he socially and culturally-constructed ideas about what it means to be male or female in a particular society or context” (Adam et al. 2019a). Guiding questions: questions that guide practitioners through a thinking process or practice. Indicators: “criteria or measures against which changes can be assessed (Imp-Act 2005). They may be pointers, facts, numbers, opinions or perceptions—used to signify changes in specific conditions or progress towards particular objectives” (CIDA 1997). Innovation: “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. An innovation presents an individual or an organization with a new alternative or alternatives, as well as new means of solving problems” (Rogers 2003). Impact indicators: Impacts are often evaluated according to a set of impact indicators which vary according to, among others, the technology in question and the level of assessment (e.g., individual, household, community, national, or regional level). At the individual and household level, gender impact indicators may be related to time use, labor burdens, intra- household labor dynamics and decision-making, income generation and management, resource use, health, nutrition, and empowerment. Key informant interview (KII): in-depth, qualitative interviews with 15–35 people about issues in which they have first-hand knowledge and experience. Manual: a written document that provides instruction or information. Matching: “[t]he fundamental notion behind matching is to construct a comparable group of individuals—who are similar to the treatment individuals/groups in all relevant pre-treatment characteristics X—from a sample of untreated ones. In practice, a model (Probit or Logit for binary treatment) is estimated in which participation in a treatment/ program is explained by several pre-treatment characteristics and then predictions of this estimation are used to create the propensity score that ranges from 0 to 1” (Wordofa et al. 2021). Wordofa et al. (2021) used matching to investigate adoption of improved agricultural technology and its impact on household income in eastern Ethiopia. Matrix scoring (MS): “[m]atrix scoring is a method that helps to explore different perceptions of respondents related to the advantages and disadvantages of a particular issue (Pretty 1995, 85–86, 250–52).” (Fischer, Wittich and Fründt 2019, 82). Method and methodology: a method is a research tool or data collection technique, such as qualitative key informant interviews and quantitative survey tools, while methodology provides an ontological and epistemological justification for the choice of methods. Monitoring: “the continuous assessment of project implementation in relation to agreed schedules and of the use of inputs, infrastructure, and services by project beneficiaries.” (World Bank 2012). Mother-Baby Trial (MBT): a type of participatory experimental set-up where the crop variety/ ies in question is grown both in farmers’ fields (i.e., ‘baby’ trial) and in plots managed by a technical team (i.e., ‘mother’ trial) (De Haan et al. 2019). The ‘baby’ trials allow assessment of varietal performance under farmers’ conditions, while the ‘mother’ trial allows assessment of varietal performance under researcher-recommended conditions (e.g., technical recommendations on planting distance, fertilization, or integrated crop management) (ibid). Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS): a type of crop varietal selection in which farmers or other intermediate or users of the crop variety are engaged early on in evaluating a diversity of advanced clones or candidate varieties from breeding programs (De Haan et al. 2019). 54 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 PhotoVoice: “a participatory method that has community participants use photography, and stories about their photographs, to identify and represent issues of importance to them” (Nykiforuk, Vallianatos and Nieuwendyk 2011). See, for instance, Gervais and Rivard (2013). Plot manager: “the person responsible for growing the crops and making day-to-day decisions on crop management (type of crop, when to plant, which inputs to use, etc.) (...), regardless of whether he or she was the plot owner. (...) A plot [is] considered “individually managed” if all decisions [are] made by one person or as “jointly managed” if at least two people [are] involved decision making regarding the plot (regardless of whether some of these decisions were jointly made or if different decisions were made exclusively by one individual among those involved in managing the plot)” (Marenya, Kassie and Tostao 2015). Plot: “a unique patch of land with discernible boundaries contiguous or non-contiguous with other patches; recognizable as planted with a particular crop or crop association (such as inter-crops); and under a uniform, consistent form of crop management” (Marenya, Kassie and Tostao 2015). Propensity Score Matching (PSM): “Propensity score matching (PSM) is a quasi-experimental method in which the researcher uses statistical techniques to construct an artificial control group by matching each treated unit with a non-treated unit of similar characteristics. Using these matches, the researcher can estimate the impact of an intervention. Matching is a useful method in data analysis for estimating the impact of a program or event for which it is not ethically or logistically feasible to randomize.”11 Random nth price auction: is characterized by a random but endogenously determined market-clearing price. Here, a monitor selects a random number (i.e., the n in the nth-price auction) uniformly distributed between 2 and k bidders, after which it sells one unit of the good to each of the (n−1) highest bidders at the nth-price (Shogren et al. 2001). Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT): “[a] randomized evaluation is a type of impact evaluation that uses random assignment as part of a study’s design. The randomization limits selection bias. In an RCT a program or policy is viewed as an intervention in which a treatment—the elements of the program/policy being evaluated—is tested to see how well it achieves its planned objectives, as measured by a previously predetermined set of indicators. The different comparison groups of the experimental design—similar to an agricultural experimental field design—allow researchers to determine any impacts of the treatment when compared with the no treatment (control) group, while other variables remain constant. Like all impact evaluations, the main purpose of RCTs is to determine whether a program has an impact, and more specifically, to quantify how large the impact of the intervention is.” (Dhehibi, Werner and Qaim 2018) Regression models: regression models help analyze the relationship between a dependent variable (e.g., adoption) and one or more independent variables (e.g., income level, sex, regionality, land size, climatic conditions, etc.) Several types of regression models exist, each with its different assumptions and thus scopes and uses. Scaling: “efforts to increase the impact of innovations successfully tested in pilot or experimental projects so as to benefit more people and to foster policy and programme development on a lasting basis” (Simmons, Fajans and Ghiron 2007, viii). Seasonal calendars: “give an overview of peak seasons and important recurring events and activities” (Fischer, Wittich and Fründt 2019, 65). Sex-disaggregated data: “any data that have been disaggregated by biological sex and thus present information specific to the life experiences of males and females” (De Haan et al. 2019). Stakeholders: “[a]gencies, organisations, groups or individuals who have a direct or indirect interest in the development intervention or its evaluation” (OECD 2002). 11. https://dimewiki.worldbank.org/Propensity_Score_Matching Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 55 Survey: uses a selected portion of the population from which findings can later be generalized to provide quantitative descriptions of specific aspects of a given population (Kraemer 1991). Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT): a strategic tool for investigating internal and external strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of and threats to, e.g., a business, sector, or development project, which can aid in the identification of strategies for agricultural development (e.g., Ommani 2011; Akhtar and Pirzada 2014; Sahoo et al. 2018; Laroche et al. 2019; Ali, Agyekum and Adadi 2021). Technology assessment: “systematic methods used to scientifically investigate the conditions for and the consequences of technology and technicising and to denote their societal evaluation” (Grunwald 2009). Transect walks: “walking with or by local people through an area, observing, asking, listening, discussing, identifying different zones, soils, land uses, vegetation, crops, livestock, local and introduced technologies, etc.; seeking problems, solutions and opportunities; and mapping and diagramming the zones, resources and findings” (Chambers 1994). Vickrey auction (VA): during a VA for a single item, or what is known as a second-price sealed-bid auction, bidders simultaneously make sealed bids for the item (Vickrey 1961). While the highest bidder wins the item, he or she pays the amount of the second-highest bid. The thinking is that, as a result, there will be no incentive for any bidder to misrepresent the value, thus reporting values truthfully. 56 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Appendix 3: Additional glossary references Akhtar, K. & Pirzada, and S. S. 2014. “SWOT analysis of agriculture sector of Pakistan.” Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 5: 126–34. Ali, E.B., Agyekum, E.B., and Adadi, P. 2021. “Agriculture for Sustainable Development: A SWOT-AHP Assessment of Ghana’s Planting for Food and Jobs Initiative.” Sustainability 13: 628. Breen, R.L. 2006. “A practical guide to focus-group research.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30 (3): 463–75. Becker, G., DeGroot, M., and Marschak, J. 1964. “Measuring utility by a single response sequential method.” Behavioral Sciences 9: 226–36. Chambers, R. 1994. “The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal.” World Development 22 (7): 953–69. CIDA. 1997. “Guide to Gender-Sensitive Indicators.” Minister of Public Works and government Services Canada. Quebec, Canada: CIDA. Dhehibi, B., Werner, J., and Qaim, M. 2018. Designing and Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for Impact Evaluations of Agricultural Development Research: A Case Study from ICARDA’s ‘Mind the Gap’ Project in Tunisia. Manuals and Guidelines 1. Beirut, Lebanon: The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). Engel, C. and Moffatt, P. G. 2014. “dhreg, xtdhreg, and bootdhreg: Commands to implement double- hurdle regression.” The Stata Journal 14 (4): 778–97. Gervais, M. and Rivard, L. 2013. “SMART Photovoice agricultural consultation: Increasing Rwandan women farmers’ active participation in development.” Development in Practice 23 (4): 496–510. Grunwald, A. 2009. “Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods.” In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, edited by A. W. M. Meijers, P. Thagard, D. Gabbay, and J. Woods: 1103–46). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Imp-Act. 2005. “Choosing and using indicators for effective social performance management.” Improving the Impact of Microfinance on Poverty: Action Research Programme 5. Kraemer, K. L. 1991 “Introduction.” Paper presented at The Information Systems Research Challenge: Survey Research Methods. Laroche, G., Domon, G., Gélinas, N., Doyon, M., and Oliver, A. 2019. “Integrating agroforestry intercropping systems in contrasted agricultural landscapes: a SWOT-AHP analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions.” Agroforestry Systems 93: 947–59. Nykiforuk, C.I., Vallianatos, H., and Nieuwendyk, L.M. 2011. “Photovoice as a Method for Revealing Community Perceptions of the Built and Social Environment.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 10 (2): 103–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000201. OECD (2002) Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). PDF available here. Ommani, A. R. 2011. “Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis for farming system businesses management: Case of wheat farmers of Shadervan District, Shoushtar Township, Iran.” African Journal of Business Management 5 (22): 9448–54. Ragasa, C., Sengupta, D., Osorio, M., OurabahHaddad, N., and Mathieson, K. 2014. Gender-specific approaches, rural institutions and technological innovations. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO); International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR). Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 57 Sahoo, P.P., Sarangi, K. K., Sangeetha, M., Shasani, S., and Saik, N. H. 2018. “SWOT Analysis of Agriculture in Kandhamal District of Orissa, India.” International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 7: 1592–97. Shogren, J.F., Cho, S., Koo, C., List, J., Park, C., Polo, P., and Wilhelmi, R. 2001. “Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA.” Resource and Energy Economics 23 (2): 97–109. Simmons, R., Fajans, P., and Ghiron, L. (Eds.). 2007. Scaling up health service delivery: from pilot innovations to policies and programmes. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO). Tobin, J. 1958. “Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables.” Econometrica 26: 24–36. Vickrey, W. 1961. “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” The Journal of Finance 16: 8–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02789.x. Wordofa, M.G., Hassen, J.Y., Endris, G.S., Aweke, C.S., Moges, D.K., and Rorisa, D.T. 2021. “Adoption of improved agricultural technology and its impact on household income: a propensity score matching estimation in eastern Ethiopia.” Agriculture & Food Security 10 (5). https://doi. org/10.1186/s40066-020-00278-2. World Bank. 2012. Gender Issues in Monitoring and Evaluation in Agriculture Toolkit. Washington, DC: The World Bank. 58 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Appendix 4: Further reading Adam, R.I, David, S, Cairns, E. J, and Olsen, M. 2020. Developing a gender intentional strategy for deployment of Male sterility (Ms44) mutant gene seed production technology for Africa. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Internal Discussion Paper. Mexico: CIMMYT. Adam, R. I, David, S, Cairns, J. E, and Olsen, M. 2021. “A review of the literature on gender and chemical fertiliser use in maize production in sub-Saharan Africa.” Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics 122, 1: 81–102. Addison, M, Ohene-Yankyera, K, and Aidoo, R. 2018. “Gender Effect on Adoption of Selected Improved Rice Technologies in Ghana.” Journal of Agricultural Science 10: 7: 390. Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice) 2010. Participatory Varietal Selection of Rice—The Technician’s Manual. Cotonou, Benin: AfricaRice. Afridi, F, Bishnu, M, and Mahajan, K. 2020. Gendering Technological Change: Evidence from Agricultural Mechanization. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13712. Akindola, R. B, Abiola, M.O, and Omoregbee, F.E. 2019. “Gender analysis of improved farm practices adopted by pineapple farming households in Edo State, Nigeria.” IFE Psychologia 27, 1: 187–201. Akoa Etoa, J. M, Ndindeng, S. A, Owusu, E. S, Woin, N, Bindzi, B, and Demont, M. 2016. “Consumer valuation of improved rice parboiling technology: Experimental evidence from Cameroon.” African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists 11, 1: 1–24. Akter, S, Erskine, W, Spyckerelle, L, Branco, L. V, and Imron, J. 2020. “The impact of women’s access to agricultural extension on cropping practices in Timor-Leste.” Food Security 12, 1: 449–463. Allogni, W.N, Coulibaly, O, Djade, M.K, Hounkponou, S, and Cornet, D. 2021. “Impact of mechanization of cassava and yam chip processing on households’ livelihoods in West Africa: A gender approach in Benin and Togo.” Bulletin de la recherche agronomique du Bénin 52: 32–56. Aryal, J.P, Farnworth, C.R, Khurana, R, Ray, S, Sapkota, T.B, and Rahut, B.D. 2020. “Does women’s participation in agricultural technology adoption decisions affect the adoption of climate- smart agriculture? Insights from Indo-Gangetic Plains of India.” Review of Development Economics 24: 973–990. Ayinde, O.E, Abduolaye, T, Olaoye, G, and Akangbe, J. 2013. “Gender and innovation in agriculture: a case study of farmers’ varietal preference of drought tolerant maize in Southern Guinea Savannah Region of Nigeria.” Albanian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 12, 4: 617–625. Bentley, J, A. Olanrewaju, T. Madu, O. Olaosebikan, T. Abdoulaye, T. Wossen, V. Manyong, P. Kulakow, B. Ayedun, M. Ojide, G. Girma, I. Rabbi, G. Asumugha, and M. Tokula. 2017. Cassava farmers’ preferences for varieties and seed dissemination system in Nigeria: Gender and regional perspectives. IITA Monograph. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA. Britwum, A. O. and Akorsu, A. D. 2016. Qualitative gender evaluation of agricultural intensification practices in northern Ghana. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA. Bryan, E. and Lefore, N. 2021. Women and small-scale irrigation: A review of the factors influencing gendered patterns of participation and benefits. IFPRI Discussion Paper 2025. Washington, DC.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Carey, E.E, Ssali, R, and Low, J.W. 2021. “Review of knowledge to guide product development and breeding for sweetpotato frying quality in West Africa.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology 56, 3: 1410–1418. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14934. Chi, T.T.N, Paris, T.R, Manzanilla, D. O, Tatlonghari, G. T, Labios, R. V, Tuyen, T. Q, and Lang, N. T. 2011. “Understanding farmers’ preferences through the participatory varietal selection (PVS) in the flood-prone rice areas of the Mekong Delta, Viet Nam.” Omonrice 18: 167–181. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 59 Chirwa, E, Mvula, P, Dorward, A, and Matita, M. 2011. Gender and Intra-Household Use of Fertilizers in the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme. FAC Working Paper 028. Chitsike, C, Kampanje-Phiri, J, and Sangole, N. 2017. A qualitative evaluation of gender aspects of agricultural intensification practices in central Malawi. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA. Costello, C, Demont, M, and Ndour, M. 2012. “Marketing local rice to African consumers.” Rural 21: 32–34. Debnath, B, Krishnana, M, Debnathab, B, Ananthan P.S, Sharmaa, A, and Sharmaa, R. 2015. “Gender Perspectives in Adoption of Technological Practices by Fishers and Fish Farmers in Tripura.” Agricultural Economics Research Review 28, 1: 117–125. Deji, O. F. and Koledyoe, G. F. 2013. “Gender analysis of fish farming technologies adoption by farmers in Ondo State.” Scientific research and essays 826: 1219–1225. Demont, M, Zossou, E, Rutsaert, P, Ndour, M, Van Mele, P, and Verbeke, W. 2012. “Consumer valuation of improved parboiling technologies in Benin.” Food Quality and Preferences 23, 1: 63–70. Diiro, G, Ker, A, and Sam, A. 2015. “The role of gender in fertilizer adoption in Uganda.” African Journal of Agriculture and resource Economics 10, 2: 117–130. FAO 2018. Gender and ICTs: Mainstreaming gender in the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for agriculture and rural development,. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Farnworth, C.R, Stirling, C, Sapkota, T.B, Jat, M. L, Misiko, M, and Attwood, S. 2017. “Gender and inorganic nitrogen: what are the implications of moving towards a more balanced use of nitrogen fertilizer in the tropics?” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15, 2: 136–152. Fisher M, and Kandiwa, V. 2014. “Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi.” Food Policy 45: 101–111. Giziew, A. and Mebrate, B. 2019. “Determinants of the role of gender on adoption of row planting of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] in central Ethiopia.” Ethiopian Journal of Science and Technology 121: 19–43. Grabowski, P. P, Djenontin, I, Zulu, L, Kamoto, J, Kampanje-Phiri, J, Darkwah, A, Egyir, I, and Fischer, G. “Gender- and youth-sensitive data collection tools to support decision making for inclusive sustainable agricultural intensification.” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2020.1817656. Joshi, P, Jethi, R, Chandra, N, Roy, M. L, Kharbikar, H. L, and Atheequlla, G. A. 2015. “Ergonomics Assessment of Post Harvest Finger Millet Threshing for reducing Women Drudgery.” Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 15, 1: 25–30. Kamwamba-Mtethiwa, J, Namara, R, De Fraiture, C, Mangisoni, J, and Owusu, E. 2012. “Treadle pump irrigation in Malawi: Adoption, gender and benefits.” Irrigation and Drainage 61: 583–595. Kansanga, M.M, Mkandawire, P, Kuuire, V, and Luginaah, I. 2020. “Agricultural mechanization, environmental degradation, and gendered livelihood implications in northern Ghana.” Land Degradation and Development 31: 1422–1440. Kawarazuka, N, Damtew, E, Mayanja, S, Okonya, J.S, Rietveld, A, Slavchevska, V, and Teeken, B. 2020. “A Gender Perspective on Pest and Disease Management From the Cases of Roots, Tubers and Bananas in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.” Frontiers in Agronomy 2, 7. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2020.00007. Kiyimba, F.L. 2011. Tools for women’s empowerment? The case of the forage chopper for smallholder dairy farmers in Uganda. PDF available here. Komatsu, H, Malapit, H, and Balagamwala, M. 2019. “Gender effects of agricultural cropping work and nutrition status in Tanzania.” PLoS ONE 14, 9: e0222090. Macharia, J. M, Kimani, S. K, Kimenye, L. N, and Ramisch, J. J. 2010. “Evaluation of the Gender and Social Perspectives in Choice and Profitability of Soil Fertility Management Technologies for Smallholder Maize Production in Kenya.” In Natural Resource Management: The Impact of Gender and Social Issues, edited by F. Flintan and S. Tedla (Eds.): 55–87. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. 60 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Manzanilla, D.O, Paris, T. R, Tatlonghari, G. T, Tobias, A. M, Chi, T. T. N, Phuong, N. T, Siliphouthone, I, Chamarerk, V, Bhekasut, P, and Gandasoemita, R. 2013. “Social and gender perspectives in rice breeding for submergence tolerance in Southeast Asia.” Experimental Agriculture 50: 191–215. Mayanja, S, Suleiman, I, Imoro, S, Van Mourik, T, Asfaw, F, Cherinet, M, and McEwan, M. 2020. Gender responsive communication tools and approaches for scaling the Triple S Technology in Ethiopia and Ghana. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center. Morse, S. and McNamara, N. 2018. “Factors influencing the agronomic performance of the adapted yam minisett technique in Nigeria—Planting date and gender of the farmer.” Experimental Agriculture 541: 1–15. Mudege, N. N. and Grant, F. K. 2017. Formative Gender Evaluation: technical report on the viable sweetpotato technologies in Africa—Tanzania Project. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center. Mudege, N. N, Mwange, R. O. M, Medege, N, Chevo, T, and Abidin, P. E. 2018. “Scaling up of sweetpotato vine multiplication technologies in Phalombe and Chikwawa districts in Malawi: A gender analysis.” NJAS—Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 85: 1–9. Mulunga, M. M. and Kandiwa, V. 2015. Gender Analysis of Maize Post-Harvest Management in Zambia: A Case Study of Chipata and Katete Districts. Mexico: CIMMYT. Nigussie, L, Lefore, N, Schmitter, P, and Nicol, A. 2017. Gender and water technologies: Water lifting for irrigation and multiple purposes in Ethiopia. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. Njuki, J, Waithanji, E, Sakwa, B, Kariuki, J, Mukewa, E, and Ngige, J. 2014. A Qualitative Assessment of Gender and Irrigation Technology in Kenya and Tanzania. Gender, Technology and Development 18, 3: 303–340. Ochago, R. and Yildiz, F. 2018. “Gender and pest management: constraints to integrated pest management uptake among smallholder coffee farmers in Uganda.” Cogent Food and Agriculture 4, 1. Okonkwo, I.I, Nwaru, J.C, Nwokoro, C.C, and Ukeje, B.A. 2018. “Differentials in adoption stages of improved cassava production technologies among small-holder farmers in Anambra state: A gender situation analysis.” AJOL 49, 2: 188–194. Paris, T.R, Manzanilla, D, Tatlonghari, G, Labios, R, Cueno, A, and Villanueva, D. 2011. Guide to participatory varietal selection for submergence-tolerant rice. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Rola-Rubzen, M. F, Paris, T, Hawkins, J, and Sapkota, B. 2020. “Improving Gender Participation in Agricultural Technology Adoption in Asia: From Rhetoric to Practical Action.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42: 113–125. Sheremenko, G. and Magnan, N. 2015. “Gender-specific risk preferences and fertilizer use in Kenyan farming households.” Presented at the 2015 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA: 26–28 July 2015. Sié, M, Hema, D, Ouedraogo, M, Sanon, M. J, Traore, S, Bado, L, Sanou, A, Ouattara, Z, and Ogunbayo, A. 2006. “Participatory rice varietal selection in rainfed lowland in West Africa with reference to Burkina Faso.” In Participatory Plant Breeding and Knowledge Management for Strengthening Rural Livelihoods, edited by V. Arunachalam: 41–47. India: MS Swaminathan Research Foundation. Tanellari, E, Kostandini, G, Bonabana-Wabbi, J, and Murray, A. 2014. “Gender impacts on adoption of new technologies: The case of improved groundnut varieties in Uganda.” African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 9, 4: 300–308. Theis, S, Krupnik, T, Sultana, N, Rahman, S, Seymour, G, and Abedin, N. 2019. Gender and agricultural mechanization. A mixed-methods exploration of the impacts of multi-crop reaper-harvester service provision in Bangladesh. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01837. Washington, DC.: IFPRI. Theis, Sophie; Sultana, Nasrin; and Krupnik, Timothy J. 2018. Overcoming gender gaps in rural mechanization: Lessons from reaper-harvester service provision in Bangladesh. GCAN Project Note 8. CSISA Research Note 9. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Tsusaka, T. W, Twanje, G. H, Msere, H. W, Mwakasungula, B. M, Gondwe, L. K, Madzonga, O, Dambuleni, K, and Okori, P. 2017. Ex-ante Assessment of Adoption of Small-scale Post-harvest Mechanization: The Case of Groundnut Producers in Malawi. Series Paper Number 44. Tools and Methods on Gendered Design, Deployment and Evaluation of Agricultural Technologies 61 Tufan, H. A, Grando, S, and Meola, C. (Eds.) 2018. State of the knowledge for gender in breeding: Case studies for practitioners. CGIAR GBI Working Paper. No. 3. Lima, Peru: CGIAR. https://cgspace. cgiar.org/handle/10568/92819. van Koppen, B, Hope, L, and Colenbrander, W. 2012. Gender aspects of small-scale private irrigation in Africa. IWMI Working Paper 153. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). doi: 10.5337/2013.201. 62 CGIAR GENDER Platform · Working Paper #003 Generating Evidence and New Directions for Equitable Results (GENDER) is CGIAR’s platform designed to put gender equality at the forefront of global agricultural research for development. The Platform is transforming the way gender research is done, both within and beyond CGIAR, to kick-start a process of genuine change toward greater gender equality and better lives for smallholder farmers everywhere. gender.cgiar.org CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food secure future dedicated to reducing poverty, enhancing food and nutrition security, and improving natural resources. cgiar.org