On gender norms, innovation, and smallholder farming: patterns and processes of change in rural Uganda Anne M. Rietveld Thesis committee Promotor Dr Jeroen C.J. Groot Associate Professor, Farming Systems Ecology Group Wageningen University & Research Co-promotors Dr Margreet van der Burg Assistant Professor, Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group Wageningen University & Research Prof Dr Pablo A. Tittonell Professor Agroecology and Sustainable Landscapes University of Groningen Other members Prof Dr Katrien Descheemaeker, Wageningen University & Research Dr Hale Ann Tufan, Cornell University, United States of America Dr Amon Ashaba Mwiine, Makarere University, Uganda Prof Dr Bettina Bock, Wageningen University & Research This research was conducted under the auspices of the C.T. de Wit Graduate School for Production Ecology and Resource Conservation. On gender norms, innovation, and smallholder farming: patterns and processes of change in rural Uganda Anne M. Rietveld Thesis Submitted in fulfillment if the requirements for the degree of doctor at Wageningen University by the authority of the Rector Magnificus, Prof. Dr C.Kroeze, in the presence of the Thesis Committee appointed by the Academic board to be defended in public on Tuesday 29 October 2024 at 1 p.m. in the Omnia Auditorium Anne M. Rietveld On gender norms, innovation and smallholder farming: patterns and processes of change in rural Uganda, 226 pages PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands (2024) With references, with summary in English ISBN: 978-94-6506-422-2 https://doi.org/10.18174/670274 Contents Chapter 1 General introduction 11 Chapter 2 Separate and joint interests: gendered innovation processes in Ugandan farm systems 29 Chapter 3 Predictable patterns of unsustainable intensification in Western Uganda 49 Chapter 4 Rural young women and men’s livelihood pathways in Central Uganda 73 Chapter 5 Diversity in gender norms within a farming community in Western Uganda 99 Chapter 6 Anticipating social differentiation and unintended consequences for responsible scaling of agricultural innovations 129 Chapter 7 General Discussion 163 Appendices References 187 Summary 211 Acknowledgements 214 About the author 216 Selected publications 217 PE&RC Training and Education Statement 221 Funding 226 7 Preface I was never interested in gender studies. Growing up, gender inequality was a distant reality, irrelevant to me. As a child and adolescent, I never thought I could not do anything because of my sex. I was brought up in a single-parent household consisting of my mother and twin sister in a large city in the Netherlands. My mother worked full-time and raised us without much support from my father or other men. Independence and self-reliance defined our upbringing. Being a bookworm, I read about women’s lives and gender relations elsewhere and devoured the feminist novels on our bookshelves. Although deeply concerned about poverty and inequality in the world, gender inequality specifically, never really spoke to me. When in university, I was studying international development, a minor in gender studies was offered but I did not bother. I preferred a minor in Farming Systems, to deepen my recently found interest in agriculture. In Mali, doing my first fieldwork for an internship, I was happily interviewing only heads of households – men – without ever doubting the legitimacy of my data. I lived in Mali during and after my studies, and noticed the absence of (Malian) women from certain domains in life (nightlife!, farmer meetings) but it did not occupy my mind. Cracks in my vision of the world (women can do everything they choose to) only appeared after I landed my first professional job. In September 2009, I moved from Bamako to Niamey in the neighbouring country of Niger with my Senegalese partner, to start working as a junior advisor for the Dutch development organization SNV. I will never forget a field visit to a farmer producers’ group of onions during my first month in Niger. My colleagues and the representing farmers were all (elder) men. I was introduced and one man did not shake my hand. They had prepared lunch for us, and a woman brought me my plate. The men were set up some 100 meters away. They ate together crowding around one large plate, chatting and laughing, whilst I ate my lunch alone. I knew women and men often ate separately but it was the first time I was isolated. I literally felt marginalized and wondered how I as a young woman, could work as an advisor in this environment. Becoming a mother not much later, opened the metaphorical box of Pandora of gender norms which, so unjust in my view, did not apply much to my partner and father of my child. Or so he thought. I remember my fury and loneliness in this time, when my partner would often go out and come back late at night, without an excuse or explanation because men ‘should not have to explain themselves’ while I stayed at home with our child. I remember interviewing Josephine in Uganda. In her late 20s, she was not bright nor particularly beautiful. She was breastfeeding a baby who, she told, had been conceived in the bushes, with a married man who gave her money and presents. She had her first child as a teenager and was chased out of her paternal home and dropped out of school because of it. She married another man shortly after and had two children with him. He knowingly died of AIDS when she was 22 years old but had never told her he had AIDS. Unsurprisingly, 8 Josephine turned out to be HIV+ as well. She continued living in her late husband’s house but was chased away by her parents-in-law after she fell pregnant from a new boyfriend. She then went to live with him, the father of this baby, leaving her elder three children with their respective grandparents. This man had an alcohol problem and regularly beat her up. After a few years she left their child with its grandmother and moved back to her parents’ house where she was living at the time of the interview with her mother and sisters. She was surviving by cultivating the land she and her eight sisters inherited from their father. Josephine’s destitute situation struck me deeply, but I will also remember her because of the unease I felt about her actions and choices. Leaving her children, having unprotected sex whilst HIV+ and not taking the freely available antiviral drugs during her pregnancy to avoid her baby from contracting HIV+. How irresponsible! And yet, what options did she really have, what agency? Over the years, there have been many more defining moments and experiences that raised my consciousness o Bioversity International n the many ways that gender inequality affects women’s and men’s lives. My personal experiences living and working in several African countries, being married to (and divorced from) an African man, having and raising (partly alone) two children of mixed heritage in different cultures, not in the least. My career with SNV was short-lived as I accepted a job as junior researcher with Bioversity International in Uganda at the end of 2010. As of today, I am still working for what is now called the ‘Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT’. After seven years in Uganda, I am living in the Netherlands again. I have been a gender researcher for over a decade, since, in 2012, I was asked to become Gender Focal Point for a CGIAR research program. Next to conducting research myself, this appointment required me to build capacities of colleagues on integrating gender in their research, and to ensure that our research portfolio was gender-responsive (to an extent). Especially in the first years of my gender researcher career, I worked primarily with researchers from other disciplines; agronomists, plant pathologists, agricultural economists and so forth. Researchers that were often not interested in gender nor saw its relevance. Some vehemently opposed gender research, calling it imperialistic “Why should we change people’s cultures?” and “Did I think all men were bad?” etc. Doing gender research was often lonely. I have been working on this PhD, next to my regular work as researcher, since 2015. A memorable year as I delivered my second son, suffered a stroke in its wake and divorced. Only in 2018, after I had moved back to the Netherlands, did I finalize and submit my PhD proposal. I since remarried, became a stepmother of two girls, birthed my third son and continued working through a renovation and the COVID 19 pandemic, moving closer slowly, step by step, towards the distant goal of gaining a PhD degree. It often seemed improbable that I would ever reach here and yet I never really doubted that I would. I have two reasons for narrating this. One is to emphasize that “Once you have seen it, you cannot unsee it”. What I mean is that once you start actively noticing gender inequality and the norms which drive and guide this inequality in a certain context, you 9 will see it everywhere, in every context. Looking back on my own childhood and young years, I understand now that gender inequality was never actually a distant reality. The discriminatory practices were rather hidden in the normalcy of our daily routines and behaviour and went undefined as inequality. I also see that my stern self-confidence is not just my character alone. I never doubted it because I always knew it was possible. Through hardship, illness, and loneliness, if not whilst living in Uganda, then when living in the Netherlands, married or unmarried, I always had options and a believe, engrained in me at a young age, that I could do pretty much everything I aspired. I wish for all girls (and boys!) to believe this. With this thesis, I hope to open eyes and make gender inequality more visible. What it is, what it means and how it manifests in the particular contexts of my study areas. Furthermore, my journey taught me that no research, including gender research, is value-free – objective – but gender research is a bit special in the sense that it tends to be extremely personal for almost everyone. From my ‘gender capacity building’ efforts I learnt that people, including (bio-physical) researchers and their research subjects, take gender personal. It is virtually impossible to detach ourselves from our own gender norms, also when addressing gender in a professional context. Apart from personal, gender research tends to be political as well. Gender is about power. And gender norms, which prescribe how power should be distributed, are deeply engrained in our institutions. These personal and political dimensions of gender research are prone to creating tensions with research built on epistemological ideas of objectivity. These ideas form, usually, the basis of academic teaching and methodological design of scientific disciplines such as agronomy and economy which in their turn are dominating my professional domain of work; Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D). Following in the footsteps of many great feminist authors, I want to emphasize the value of connecting to one’s own lived experience and (gender) identity while doing research (Jackson, 2006). Being more aware and upfront about our own gender norms and experiences and connecting to our research subjects on basis of this, would benefit AR4D in my opinion. And it is because of this that I offer a glimpse of my positionality in this preface. I echo the words of Takacs (2002) who wrote that: “No one ever challenged the norms that have always enveloped them. ‘Norms’ are called norms for a reason. You have to first be aware that your positionality might bias your epistemology before you can conceive of a more equitable world, before you can listen to understand, before you can admit other voices and other ways of knowing the world around you. And you have no choice but to continuously examine these connections if you want a fair, pluralistic society and an enlightened, expansive view of the planet around you”. For me, it was the growing awareness of my positionality, challenged by the set of different norms I encountered in my early professional career, that sparked my interest in gender studies and solidified my commitment to promoting gender equality and to completing this thesis. Chapter 1 General introduction Chapter 1 1 12 1.1 Introduction Persistent Gender inequality Currently there is no gender equality anywhere in the world. In varying degrees and in varying ways, women and girls are systematically disadvantaged everywhere (UNDP, 2019). This means that starting at birth and throughout their life, women tend to have fewer opportunities to fulfil their individual potential and their own aspirations. Women run high risks of experiencing sexual and partner violence in their lives (UN, 2020). Gender discrimination negatively impacts women’s self-esteem and mental health (Bleidorn et al., 2016; Kira et al., 2015). Rural women tend to have less access to land and engage less in market-oriented agriculture compared to men (Doss et al., 2018; Galiè, Njiru et al., 2022, Quisumbing et al., 2015). Women are often financially dependent on men, and they are more prone to suffer from (severe) food insecurity (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2020) partly because of gender-based food discrimination within their own household (Ragsdale et al., 2022; Pun et al., 2016). Finally, women more often live in poor households than men (Munoz-Boudet et al., 2018) underscoring the statement that “poverty still has a female face” (UN women, 2020, p. 2). Gender inequality is an injustice which plays out at individual and collective levels and gender equality is intrinsically linked to sustainable development (FAO 2020; UNDP 2019; Mullinax et al., 2018). When women will continue to be denied equal rights and opportunities, progress towards development goals will not be achieved. Related to the multilevel impacts of gender inequality, the UN Secretary-General Mr Guterres called achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls “The unfinished business of our time, and the greatest human rights challenge in our world” (UN Women, 2018). At a global level, efforts have been made to achieve gender equality. In 1948, the UN declaration of Human Rights which states that “Everyone, irrespective of gender, race, religion, etcetera, has (or should have) equal rights” (Article 2, UN 1948) was signed by 192 countries. Since then, a series of global high-level conventions around women’s rights and gender equality have been held on a regular basis. From 1975 onwards, UN member states participated on 5-yearly basis in conferences on women and gender equality. In the 1995 conference held in Beijing, UN members states reaffirmed their commitment to advance gender equality and developed an ambitious roadmap to this end which, in 2015, was aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2020). The fifth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) is ‘To achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls’ (United Nations, 2015). The Human Development Report (UNDP, 2019) taking a capabilities approach (Sen, 1980), measures inequality in global progress towards human development across multiple dimensions including gender. What stands out is that impressive progress has General introduction 1 13 been made towards human development in ‘basic’ capabilities referring to women’s and men’s freedom to make choices necessary for survival and avoidance of deprivations. Since 1975, more and more people, women and men, meet minimum achievements in health and education, for instance, girls and boys are almost at par now in accessing primary and secondary education (UNDP, 2019). Recent evaluations of progress towards SDG 5 – gender equality and women’s empowerment – show however that progress is slowing down compared to 1975-2010 and that the world is not on track to achieve gender equality in the year 2030 (UNDP, 2019; UN Women, 2020). Notwithstanding the great achievements made in reducing inequalities in ‘basic’ capabilities, UNDP (2019) measures little progress or even increasing inequality when it comes to women’s and men’s ‘enhanced’ capabilities (more advanced access to opportunities). They state that “Gender inequality tends to be more intense in areas of greater individual empowerment and social power” (UNDP, 2019, p. 148) and point at structural barriers to equality, notably to social norms and mutually enforcing gender gaps. These structural barriers can be observed everywhere in the world, also in countries with very high human development. One example of where progress in basic and in enhanced capabilities diverges is in politics. While more women around the world can vote and be elected, still only 1 in 4 seats on national parliaments is taken by women (UN Women, 2020). Another example is that although more women participate in paid work, women on average still do three times as much unpaid domestic and care work as men (UN Women, 2020). The role of social and gender norms Social norms can be structural barriers to progress, but they are essential for human interaction. They shape the nature and form of human interactions and can be considered as rules of action shared in a particular society, prescribing to its members what appropriate or acceptable behaviour is (Cislaghi and Heise, 2018). Norms literally prescribe what is ‘normal’ in a specific context. The notion of many-way interdependence; “what one does depends on what others do and what others do depends on what one does” (Mackie et al., 2015, p. 4) is important to the study of social norms. It is through these reciprocal expectations of people in society that social norms are held in place (Mackie et al., 2015). Social norms are often gender discriminatory as they prescribe different behaviours to women and men (FAO/IFAD/WFP, 2020). Generally, these norms are referred to as gender norms as they specifically define the distinct and typical, approved conduct for women and men (Pearse and Connel, 2016; Badstue et al., 2020). Gender norms tend to privilege men over women and thereby maintain and protect the patriarchy (Cislaghi and Heise, 2020). Patriarchy refers to a social system (structures and practices) in which men govern, dominate, and oppress women. Patriarchy is the historical basis of Chapter 1 1 14 most societies in the world and tends to permeate all aspects of (social) life. Examples of patriarchal gender norms are, for instance, that land is owned by men and can only be inherited by sons; that women should not participate and speak in public life; and that men are responsible for (economically) providing for their families whilst women are responsible for caring of children at home (OECD, 2021). Women and men who go against gender norms risk being penalized by other members of their community or society. Penalties can take many forms such as losing respect and social standing in the community and thereby access to social networks and company, it can hinder family formation because one is not considered a suitable candidate for marriage, and it can lead to (sexual) violence. Because of the penalties that come with breaking gender norms, most women and men will conform to gender norms and actively reproduce them, even when this compliance limits their opportunities in life and causes them physical or mental suffering (Achandi et al., 2023; Kabeer, 1999). Since gender norms are internalized at an early age, they tend to shape women’s and men’s aspirations (Elias et al., 2018) and their sense of agency as well (Rowland, 1997). Albeit notoriously hard to change, gender norms are not immune to change. Gender normative change towards more gender equality is linked to various drivers such as economic development, technological innovation, education, to shocks such as war and to favourable political and legal frameworks (Marcus, 2018; Petesch, 2022). For instance, in Fiji, traditional gender norms for iTaukei people prescribed that men should eat first, whilst women eat what is leftover. Men’s role as provider to the household justified men’s preferential treatment. When women started to increasingly participate in (formal) work however, their sense of right to food changed accordingly. Men’s former unquestioned ‘right’ to be first served and get the ‘best’ food was challenged, and practices changed (McKenzie et al., 2022). Evidence on the relation between (potential) drivers of normative change and positive change is often contradicting, uneven and very context specific though (Petesch, Bullock et al., 2018). Women in Nyanzi county, Kenya, for example, narrated how they are increasingly taking over care for cattle from their husbands as these get off- farm employment. This considerably adds to women’s workloads, to the extent that food preparation is compromised. Gender norms regarding women’s responsibility to prepare tasty and timely meals for their husband did not budge (yet) though and women risked conflict and even violence for not delivering accordingly. Women coped by stopping to prepare cooked lunch for themselves and their children, and by personally skipping the lunch meal altogether (Dumas et al., 2018). Gender norms and gender normative change processes may sometimes appear similar within and across regions, but they manifest in different ways. Because of this, in-depth and in context understanding of which gender norms impede progress towards equality in what ways where, and of how normative change happens across various contexts, is essential to advance human development. General introduction 1 15 Intersectionality Although gender is particularly determining in shaping identity and opportunities, the way a person experiences inequality or discrimination does often not depend on gender alone. People have multiple social identities; one can be young, educated, brought up in a poor family, raised in an urban area and identify as homosexual. One can be a brother, a single father, a teacher and a community leader. Intersectionality refers to the interactions of these multiple identities in one person and how they interact with external structures, norms and narratives which can be both empowering and marginalizing (Colfer et al., 2018). The weight different social identities carry varies across contexts. Not belonging to the dominant ethnic group for instance, might severely hamper one’s opportunities in one context, while it is of little influence in another. Multiple ‘marginal’ identities can also ‘layer disadvantage upon disadvantage resulting in multi-faceted discrimination’ and marginalization (Rietveld et al., 2022, p. 9). An intersectional analysis of gender enables the understanding of (drivers of) marginalization and vulnerability (Djoudi et al., 2016; Van Aelst and Holvoet, 2016) and consequently the identification of social groups which are most vulnerable or marginalized in a particular context. This is relevant not only in relation to SDG 5 on gender equality and women’s empowerment, but in relation to all SDGs as ‘To leave no one behind’ was adopted as a fundamental pledge across the whole 2030 development agenda (United Nations, 2015). Being able to construct and anticipate who is likely to be left behind is a first measure toward avoiding leaving anyone behind. Yet, protocols for systematically assessing this tend to be absent from policymakers, development professionals and researchers’ routines. Because intersectional analysis breaks down and specifies the women and men categories in their heterogeneity, it also has the potential to overcome the dichotomy embodied in the concept of gender and the common generalized framing of all women as powerless victims of men who are all powerful (Cornwall and Rivas, 2015). Intersectional analysis can show how power is distributed across gender groups and identify which social dimensions are key influencers, hence providing important nuance and avoiding generalizations. Gendered patterns and processes in the Agricultural and Rural domain The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) states in its communications (IFAD, 2023) that ‘the Rural World’ is the starting point for a world without poverty and hunger. Not only because most of the world’s extreme poor live in rural areas but also because they produce the food that feeds us all. Innovations in agricultural production and food systems at large have the potential to increase the supply of food (amongst others) but often fail to deliver (Herrero et al., 2022; Brouwer et al., 2022). Women living in rural areas tend to fare worse in terms of development and vulnerability than their male counterparts and then women living in urban areas (FAO, IFAD and WFP, Chapter 1 1 16 2020). Although data on women’s labour contributions to agricultural production, to (household) food security and on ‘gender gaps’ in land ownership and income generation, tend to be incomplete and inconsistent, it is clear that agriculture remains crucial for most rural women’s livelihoods (Doss et al., 2018; Kawarazuka et al., 2022). In Sub- Sahara Africa, sixty-six percent of women’s employment is in agri-food systems (FAO, 2023). Women are involved in farming through agricultural wage labour, subsistence food production and commercial cultivation of cash-crops or livestock rearing. Across Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), women in agriculture face similar constraints. Women tend to have less access and control over productive resources (land, credit) and agricultural inputs (improved seed, fertilizer) compared to men (Doss and Meinzen-Dick, 2020; Burke et al., 2018; Bergman-Lodin et al., 2014). Their mobility and decision-making power are limited compared to men (O’Brien et al., 2022; Egger et al., 2022; Galiè, Najjar et al., 2022; Petesch et al., 2022). And even when women make significant contributions to agricultural production, they might not be considered as (the) farmer within their household and by society (Mudege et al., 2018; Nchanji et al., 2021). As such they are often ignored or neglected by agricultural extension workers, agricultural policies and by agricultural researchers (Lecoutere et al., 2019; Acosta et al., 2019). Meanwhile the rural space is in flux; processes of rural transformation and innovation are drastically changing the countryside across the world. In many LMICs, rural places are increasingly connected to urban centres and to global trends, both in the economic and in socio-cultural sense. ‘Off farm’ opportunities to generate income increase, for instance, because of diversifying rural economies. The nature of agricultural production changes as farming becomes increasingly commercially oriented, capital intensive and innovation driven (Berdeque et al., 2014). The demographic composition of rural workforces changes as (often young) women and men move to urban areas. The degree and ways in which women and men can benefit and take advantage of emerging opportunities in the rural space is likely to be different though and deserves research (Rola-Rubzen et al., 2023). Approaches to reducing gender inequality Gender Mainstreaming Since the Beijing 1995 UN conference on women, an increasing number of development organizations have sought to contribute to achieving gender equality by mainstreaming gender systematically in their technical and normative work (IANWGE 2020; FAO, 2020; World Bank 2015, Moser and Moser, 2010). Gender mainstreaming means that across all the legislation, policies and programming of an organization, implications for women and men are assessed and specific needs are addressed. However, gender mainstreaming as a tool to advance gender equality has had limited success (van Eerdewijk and Davids, General introduction 1 17 2014). Scholars criticize the tendency of most organizations to treat gender equality foremost as a technical problem which can be adequately addressed without changing the own organization (for instance by hiring a few gender experts). Political and cultural sensitivities are avoided with such an approach but so is the likelihood that gender mainstreaming will remove deep rooted structural barriers to gender equality (Andersson et al., 2022; Acosta et al., 2019; Davids and van Eerdewijk, 2016). When taken seriously, gender mainstreaming has implications for the internal organization as well; it requires a cultural change at the organizational level and strategic action which strengthens both support and capacity of staff vis-a-vis the organization’s gender equality agenda. There are some organizations in the agriculture and rural domain that have made efforts in this regard; FAO (2020) for example, state in their 2020-2030 agenda that all their staff have a role to play in advancing gender equality. Similarly, OXFAM has developed a guide for their own staff to apply feminist principles and practices to their work (Safier et al., 2019). Generating evidence on gender across various themes thought the conduct of gender analysis, and on ‘solutions’ to end gender inequality, is an important element of mainstreaming gender, especially for research organisations. Gender Transformative Approaches and ‘empowering women’ Apart from gender mainstreaming, governmental, non-governmental and academic development and research organizations are adopting various approaches to contribute to gender equality and to accelerate change. Some of these approaches (Figure 1.1) merely acknowledge gender differences in design and/or implementation of projects and policies, others also purposively address them. Gender transformative approaches aim to address the structural barriers, or in other words the underlying causes of gender inequality, to advance gender equality and to empower women and girls (McDougall et al., 2020; 2023; MacArthur et al., 2022; Wong et al., 2019). Gender transformative research actively seeks to correct biases in research methods whilst contributing to gender transformation in communities and society (Mullinax et al., 2018). To ‘correct biases in research methods’ requires more than technical expertise alone however, critical consciousness and a personal conviction that equality is beneficial to humans, are essential as well (MacArthur et al., 2022). Although most definitions of women’s empowerment are centred around the notion of agency1 and the process of expanding or increasing it, the concept and its use by various actors is also widely contested. In its initial use and operationalization in the 1980’s and 90’s women’s empowerment was highly political and transformative and geared towards challenging the patriarchy and improving women’s (collective) position (Batliwala, 2007). Over the years, as ‘women’s empowerment’ increasingly became part of mainstream development discourse, its meaning was largely de-politized and focus shifted to the economic dimension only. Women’s empowerment became an individualistic affair of Chapter 1 1 18 ‘self-optimalization’ which could be promoted by facilitating individual women to advance in the economic sphere (see World Bank 2011; Okali 2012; Fielding and Lepine, 2016; Cornwall and Rivas, 2015). Focusing on women’s economic empowerment – for instance by asset building – facilitated its integration into mainstream (agricultural) development projects while the status quo of the political and normative environment was hardly questioned, let alone challenged (Cole et al., 2015). Not only is the causal relation between increased assets and increased agency or decision-making power questionable (Karimli et al., 2021), fundamental questions around power and larger structures of inequality faced by women as a group in society are ignored as well (Galié and Farnworth, 2019; Cornwall, 2016; Kabeer, 2014; 2016). In addition, women’s diverse involvement in plural household enterprises, ways of income pooling and sharing, and their collaboration and interdependence with their husband and other household members is neglected (Okali, 2011). Women’s empowerment processes are intrinsically linked to gender norms, as these define negotiation spaces and informal rules which women need to comply with to maintain their sense of belonging and esteem in their communities (Achandi et al., 2023). How women (and men) in local communities understand women’s empowerment is likely to result from the interplay between external interventions and policies, individual characteristics and preferences and local gender- and other social norms (Achandi et al., 2023). FIGURE 1.1 | A continuum of gender approaches (McDougall et al., 2023). General introduction 1 19 Gender in Agricultural Research for Development ‘Gender and Agriculture’ as an applied research topic is increasingly on the agenda of international research for development organisations (van der Heijden, 2024; Farhall and Rickards, 2021; Burg van der, 2019). The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) for instance, an international non-profit agricultural research for development organization with the world’s largest global agricultural innovation network, has upped its commitment to gender considerably since 2011 when they first published a CGIAR-wide gender strategy (Lopez and Ludwig, 2022). Other examples of organizations in the Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) space, committing to gender equality both as a research topic and a value to guide practice, are the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), CIRAD and the World Resources Institute (IIED, 2020; FAO, 2020; Gender Smart, 2022; WRI, 2023). In universities focusing on agriculture and life sciences, gender studies tend to be elective and geared towards social science students (for instance at Wageningen University) although exceptions exist such as the AWARE program of Cornell University (Gender Smart, 2022). Whilst advances in integrating gender in agricultural research have been made in some areas such as in breeding (Tufan et al., 2018), diagnosing and intervening in seed systems (Bently et al., 2020) and quantitative measurements of women’s empowerment in agriculture (Quisumbing et al., 2024), barriers persist when it comes to moving AR4D from gender-blind to gender-aware research and from gender- exploitative to gender transformative (see Figure 1.1). This is problematic because when structural constraints are circumvented in and through AR4D, rather than eliminated, no significant contributions are made to achieving SDG 5 on gender equality and 10 on reduced inequalities. Since the SDGs are strongly interlinked this hampers progress towards the other SDGs that AR4D targets as well. Based on my own experience as someone that has worked with the CGIAR on gender and doing AR4D for over a decade, I identify several interlinked challenges and practices which inhibit progress in this regard. The first and major challenge associated with integrating ‘Gender and Agriculture’ as a research topic in AR4D constitutes the usually different worldviews implied in the disciplinary backgrounds of gender scientists versus agricultural scientists. The natural or biophysical sciences are based on realist ontologies (the truth exists and can be described) whereas many social science disciplines tend towards relativist ontologies (multiple truths can exist as they are constructs). These ontologies imply different epistemologies – theories of knowledge – which discuss the nature of knowledge and how it is created. Objectivist epistemology prescribes that science should be deductive, value-free and generalizable and this forms the basis of western natural science. Social science disciplines tend more towards subjectivist or constructionist epistemologies and view science as inductive, value laden and contextually unique. The way scientists think about science and answer questions such as – What constitutes good data? Can values Chapter 1 1 20 be integrated into research? – tend to be largely influenced by these epistemologies. Scientists might discard science practice which answers these kinds of questions differently, as unscientific, or meaningless. Agricultural scientists (and I am generalizing here) tend to hold objectivist epistemologies. This perspective on research, because it is not in fact considered as just ‘a perspective’ by those who have it, is not inducive to alternative science perspectives. As such it not only renders the integration of gender transformative research into mainstream AR4D unattainable but also, more broadly, the performance of interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary research (Mangheni et al., 2019; Alrøe and Noe, 2014; Bawden, 1995). In this context, it is not surprising that, according to Lopez et al. (2022), underappreciation and a lack of willingness to understand social science epistemologies is underlying the lack of integration of gender research within the agricultural sciences as performed within the CGIAR. Gender research within mainstream, objectivist AR4D is gender-accommodative (also referred to as gender-responsive) research. Such research tends to focus on ‘gender gaps’ that measure differences between women’s and men’s actions and performance, e.g., ‘crop productivity per field with management by women or men’, but does not engage with structural determinants of gender inequality (Lopez, 2022; 2023). Secondly, objectivist science tends to be reductionistic. When zooming in on a particular topic, the diverse ways in which this topic might be affecting other topics such as gender equality, might be lost out of sight or be deliberately ignored. This tendency, which is not problematized in an objectivist science performance, is another factor, underlying the lack of an impediment to designing, implementing and notably publishing ‘gender-blind’ research. This is problematic because gender-blind research (see Figure 1.1) tends to ignore perceptions of less dominant social groups (e.g. from women, young people’s and / or poor people) meaning that the specific opportunities and constraints of such (marginal) social groups are not considered. People from these groups do thus not inform research analyses nor the formulation of conclusions and recommendations and consequently neither the design of interventions nor policies. As such, these interventions and policies, although ‘evidence-based’ will likely misalign with the needs of these groups and possibly perpetuate differences in welfare, power and voice in farmers’ communities and regions. The legitimacy of such gender-blind data is limited and impedes progress towards gender equality and protects the status quo (Data2x, 2022; 2021; FAO, 2020; Mullinax et al., 2018). Gender-blind research, as part of a system that consistently ignores or undervalues gender, is deemed to deliver gender biased services (e.g. agricultural advice to farmers) that further disadvantages marginalized social groups (Buchy and Basaznew, 2005). Multiple authors call for ‘meaningfully’ mainstreaming gender in AR4D to counter gender- blind research and highlight this as a prerequisite for achieving sustainable agriculture and food systems (Farhall and Rickards, 2021; Anderson and Sriram, 2019; Drucza et al., 2019; Kristjanson et al., 2017). Meaningfully mainstreaming gender in AR4D would General introduction 1 21 consist of both internally facing changes in the values and research perspectives of individual researchers and their organizations as well as of more externally facing changes in practices, ways of engaging and methodological approaches. First, it is important that researchers and their organizations acknowledge their own positionality and are willing to engage with gender on a personal and on a political level, for instance by deliberation on gender equality as a value which underpins AR4D (Lopez et al., 2023; Moser, 2021). This requires some level of acceptance or openness regarding other, non-objectivist, research perspectives (Ison, 2010; Alrøe and Noe, 2014; Bailey et al., 2024). Secondly, mainstreaming gender in AR4D requires methodological approaches which are both acceptable by scientist of diverse disciplines and feasible regarding interdisciplinary collaborations. In other words: practical guidance is needed regarding how to do gender- aware and gender-transformative research in AR4D. Despite the challenges mentioned, there are pockets of opportunities in the AR4D space to conduct gender-aware and gender-transformative research. This thesis is the product of seeking out and utilizing those pockets within multiple CGIAR AR4D programs. 1.2 Aims, questions and research approach Aims of the Research Based on the above this thesis posits that: 1) Women and men in LMIC engage differently in agriculture, based on locally defined gender norms and roles which usually put men in advantaged positions. These differential engagements are manifestations of social systems which systematically disadvantage women vis-à-vis men. Outcomes of such systems are that women on average are poorer, more vulnerable and food insecure and less free than men. This injustice deserves correction. 2) Operationalizing gender in AR4D has the potential to find entry points to empower women and advance gender equality, and simultaneously to optimize performance and sustainability of agricultural production; 3) Researchers working in AR4D need interdisciplinary and flexible research approaches and methods for this. Within this frame, there are two broad topics, important in the rural transformation and gender discourse which this thesis will engage with. The first is about gendered processes of agricultural innovation (Galiè et al., 2022b; Lopez et al., 2022; Kawarazuka and Prain, 2019). The second interlinked topic is about commercialisation of agricultural (crop) production and gendered consequences (Pyburn et al., 2023; Shibata et al., 2020; Tavenner et al., 2019; Mudege et al., 2018). Debates on both these topics lay-out that (and how) women and men have different and often unequal opportunities to participate in and benefit from processes of rural transformation (Heckert et al., 2021; Kosec, Doss and Slavchevska, 2020). Focussing on these two debates, the first objective of this thesis Chapter 1 1 22 is: To increase understanding on processes of gender normative change and on how gender norms affect processes of (agricultural) innovation. To this purpose, I will study gender norms in two different farming systems in Central and Western Uganda respectively. The second objective of this thesis speaks to the challenges I formulated in section 1.1 which impede AR4D to mainstream gender-aware and gender-transformative approaches and research and thus to contributing deliberately and directly to gender equality and women’s empowerment. This second objective is: To adapt and design approaches and methodologies - to conduct gender research in the framework of AR4D - that have potential to contribute to gender equality and women’s empowerment, that avoid reinforcing inequalities and that raise the critical consciousness of researchers and other stakeholders of AR4D. Research questions More specifically this thesis will address the following research questions: RQ 1. How do gender norms affect local processes of rural transformation and their outcomes? (Chapters 2, 3 and 4) RQ 2. What influences or stimulates gender normative change in the context of smallholder farming communities? (Chapters 2, 3, 5 and 6) RQ 3. Which research approaches and methodologies have potential to stimulate critical consciousness on gender identities, relations and equality among the stakeholders involved and advance progress towards gender equality? (All chapters) Research approach As already alluded to earlier in this chapter, gender inequality as a ‘problem’ does not exist in isolation; gender equality is a complex, or even ‘wicked’ problem with many interconnected aspects and dimensions, multi-level impacts and feedback mechanisms. In this thesis, I address gender inequality through the study of gender norms and innovation in the context of smallholder farming. I will adopt a systems’ approach to study this topic as a whole, approaching it from different angles and zooming in and out on different aspects and interlinkages. When studying gender inequality through a systems’ approach there are multiple directions possible. It is possible to study gender inequality as an outcome of a social system. Patriarchy for instance, constitutes the configuration of a social system; a mode of thinking, doing and being which permeates all aspects of (social) life; the ways women and men organize themselves in their households, the opportunities they have in life, the General introduction 1 23 O RG AN IZ AT IO N S C O M M U N IT IE S H O U SE H O LD S IN D IV ID U AL S M AC RO EN VI RO N M EN T C on sc io us ne ss , co nf id en ce , s el f- es te em , v al ue s & as pi ra tio ns Be tw ee n sp ou se s & am on g fa m ily m em be rs In tr a- ho us eh ol d de ci si on m ak in g Am on g lo ca l v al ue ch ai n ac to rs , am on g co m m un ity m em be rs C ol le ct iv e ac tio n w /i n w om en ’s g ro up s N G O a dv oc ac y W om en ’s m ov em en ts In th e w or kp la ce Am on g ac to rs in di ff er en t f or a G en de r q uo ta s in lo ca l d ec is io n- m ak in g bo di es Ag ric ul tu ra l R & D & ex te ns io n se rv ic es Ag ric ul tu ra l & na tio na l l an d te nu re po lic ie s Re gi st ra tio n of sp ou se (s ) o n la nd tit le s Ac ce ss to h ea lt h & s oc ia l pr ot ec tio n se rv ic es At tit ud es & be lie fs G en de r d iv is io n of la bo r (In fo rm al ) or ga ni za tio na l cu lt ur e C us to m ar y la nd te nu re sy st em s G en de r a nd p ol iti cs Po w er re la tio ns Ag en cy (in di vi du al & c ol le ct iv e) In fo rm al s oc ia l in st itu tio ns (s oc ia l & g en de r n or m s) Fo rm al s oc ia l in st itu tio ns (p ol ic ie s/ la w s) FI G U RE 1 .2 | Vi su al iza tio n of h ow fo ur ke y- di m en si on s of g en de r ( Po w er re la tio ns ; A ge nc y, Fo rm al s oc ia l i ns tit ut io ns a nd In fo rm al s oc ia l i ns tit ut io ns ) p er m ea te s oc ia l l ife an d so ci et y a cr os s di ffe re nt s ph er es o f i nf lu en ce (s ca le s) in th e co nt ex t o f a gr i-f oo d sy st em s (a da pt ed fr om F AO , I FA D, W FP & C G IA R G EN D ER Im pa ct P la tfo rm , 2 02 3) . Chapter 1 1 24 composition of government bodies across levels etcetera. It is also possible to analyse the gender dimensions of a system by applying a gender lens. This can help to identify entry-points which might leverage changes in the behaviour of a system and, together with other actions and happenings, could ultimately affect the outcomes which a system produces (MacArthur et al., 2022). Across the different chapters, this thesis will both study gender as a system and apply a gender lens to study the gender dimensions of farming systems in Uganda. When adopting a systems’ approach, it is important to acknowledge that systems tend to be nested in other systems and as such they operate and interact with other systems across multiple and differently defined scales (Ison, 2010). Figure 1.2 shows how gender permeates social life across different spheres of influence (FAO, IFAD, WFP & CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform, 2023). This thesis concentrates on gender norms in the ‘individuals’, ‘households’ and ‘communities’ spheres and to a lesser degree on the ‘organizations’ sphere. Widening the scope of scientific inquiry beyond a single scientific field or discipline, or even beyond science, to enable dialogue between disciplines and other sources of knowledge, is an important element of ‘systems thinking’, the skillset associated with taking a systems approach (Tittonell, 2023). Regarding scientific discipline and methods, this thesis is built on gender studies, an inherently interdisciplinary field of inquiry, drawing mostly in this case, on sociology, anthropology, geography, philosophy and history. Across chapters there is also ‘dialogue’ with other disciplines such as ecology, economy, agronomy, and innovation studies. I also seek to bring in the lived realities of women and men with their actual experience of living in the systems studied. 1.3 Context, methods and research sites Context of the research This thesis work has not been pre-defined in the framework of an AR4D project and has never had dedicated operational funding. It has evolved gradually and on basis of modest funding provided by the CGIAR Research Program HUMIDTROPICS (Chapter 2.) and the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Banana for conducting gender- responsive research in relation to banana production (Chapter 3., 4. and 5.) and scaling of agricultural innovations (Chapter 6.). While writing Chapters 1. and 7., my time was covered by the CGIAR research initiative on Low-Emission Food Systems. All primary data was collected in Uganda between 2010 and 2020. Chapters 2-6 have been published in scientific journals between 2020 and 2024. General introduction 1 25 Research methods This thesis leans on qualitative methods of data collection and analysis but some of the chapters are informed by quantitative data as well. Figure 1.3 provides an overview of the different methods used per chapter. One source of data mentioned in most of the chapters is GENNOVATE and I will therefore elaborate on it here. Detailed descriptions of all methods are included in the respective chapters. GENNOVATE GENNOVATE, an acronym for Enabling Gender Equality in Agricultural and Environmental Innovation, was a research initiative conducted under the auspices of the CGIAR and included researchers from eight CGIAR centres. The study examined interlinkages between gender norms, agency and innovation focusing on local women and men’s own experiences. Between 2013 and 2018, 137 GENNOVATE case-studies were conducted in 26 countries in the global south. I conducted six of these GENNOVATE case-studies, in Uganda (2), in Burundi (2), Rwanda (1) and in eastern DRC (1). Each case study was conducted in one community and the method consisted of one key-informants (group) interview, three different Focus Group Discussions and two different Individual interview guidelines. The institutional context of GENNOVATE, the conceptual framework and the method itself are described in detail in Petesch (2022) and Petesch, Badstue and Prain (2018). Apart from its value as a method and for the database it generated, GENNOVATE as a project also provided a platform where gender researchers across the CGIAR came together to discuss, learn and publish findings. For quite a few researchers GENNOVATE provided a pocket of opportunity to conduct gender-aware and gender-transformative research. In my professionally isolated office environment in Uganda, it was also the first time I had the opportunity to collaborate with other social scientists on qualitative in-depth gender research and to move into a, for me, more inspiring and meaningful research direction. Research sites Empirical field data for this thesis (Chapters 2-5) was collected in the East African highlands and specifically in two sub-counties of two different districts in Uganda: 1) Kiboga district in the Central region and 2) Isingiro district in the Western region. I choose these sites to conduct a GENNOVATE case-study in 2014, but not necessarily with the idea in mind to conduct all my empirical PhD thesis research there. The sub- country in Kiboga was a site I knew, since I had been involved in an AR4D project which ran between 2010 and 2014 and it was one of the districts the CGIAR research program HUMIDTROPICS focussed on. Isingiro was a new site for me and Bioversity International. I choose it because the mode of banana production in this site (intensive and commercial) Chapter 1 1 26 contrasted with that in Kiboga (extensive and semi-commercial). Following our first activity there for GENNOVATE, quite a number of AR4D projects and studies have been conducted in this site in subsequent years, by Bioversity International and by others including Wageningen University. Figure 1.3 indicates which chapters are situated in what sites. The sites themselves are described in detail in Chapter 2., 3. and 4. 1.4 Outline of the thesis This thesis consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1. (this chapter) introduces the thesis. Chapter 2-5 are based on empirical data, Chapter 6. narrates the design and testing of a method. All chapters contribute to addressing RQ 3. Chapter 2, 3 and 4 address RQ 1 and provide insights regarding RQ 2. Chapter 5. addresses RQ 2 to which Chapter 2. and 3. also make minor contributions. More specifically: Chapter 2. studies gendered processes of agricultural innovation in both research sites and identifies influential gender norms. It takes a qualitative research approach using Focus Groups Discussions (FGDs) data collected as part of GENNOVATE. The chapter makes an explicit connection to Farming Systems Research. The third chapter applies a systems approach and a gender lens to study the sustainability (across five dimensions) of farming in the Isingiro research site, over time. Methods used are FGDs including participatory mapping, and individual interview data, complemented by a discourse analysis of newspaper articles. Chapter 4. details how young women and young men born in the same rural community in Central Uganda construct their livelihood pathways and differently engage in farming. The intersectional analysis of individual semi-structured interviews probes into structural, including normative, constraints which shape young women’s and men’s opportunity spaces differently. The analysis is supported by learnings from GENNOVATE and by quantitative survey data. The fifth chapter applies a multi-method approach centred around Q methodology and further consisting of a survey, FGDs and individual interviews, to study sets of gender norms and opportunities for normative change by grouping women’s and men’s diverse perceptions within the same community in Western Uganda. Chapter 6. describes (the development of) a methodological innovation which aims to support gender-responsive and responsible scaling of agricultural innovations. First experiences with using the method are shared and discussed. Chapter 7. synthesizes learnings from this thesis and discusses the study of gender norms, agency and opportunity space, and values in AR4D. General introduction 1 27 C ha pt er 1 . G en er al In tr od uc tio n 1. H ow d o ge nd er n or m s af fe ct lo ca l p ro ce ss es o f ru ra l t ra ns fo rm at io n an d th ei r o ut co m es ? 2. W ha t i nf lu en ce s or st im ul at es g en de r no rm at iv e ch an ge in th e co nt ex t o f s m al lh ol de r fa rm in g co m m un iti es ? 3. W ha t r es ea rc h ap pr oa ch es a nd m et ho do lo gi es h av e po te nt ia l t o st im ul at e cr iti ca l c on sc io us ne ss on g en de r i de nt iti es , re la tio ns a nd e qu al ity am on g th e st ak eh ol de rs in vo lv ed a nd a dv an ce pr og re ss to w ar ds w om en ’s e m po w er m en t an d ge nd er e qu al ity ? C ha pt er 7 . G en er al D is cu ss io n Re se ar ch Q ue st io ns C ha pt er 2 . (e m pi ric al ) C ha pt er 6 . (M et ho do lo gi ca l) C ha pt er 3 . (e m pi ric al ) C ha pt er 4 . (e m pi ric al ) C ha pt er 5 . (e m pi ric al ) St ud y si te Ki bo ga Is in gi ro Is in gi ro Ki bo ga Is in gi ro Em pi ric al M et ho ds G EN N O VA TE pa rt . m ap pi ng FG D s in d. in te rv ie w di sc ou rs e an al ys is G EN N O VA TE su rv ey in d. in te rv ie w s G EN N O VA TE Q -M et ho do lo gy su rv ey FG D s in d. in te rv ie w FI G U RE 1 .3 | Th e se t-u p of th is th es is in cl ud in g re la tio ns b et w ee n di st in ct R es ea rc h Q ue st io ns (i n pu rp le , b lu e an d ye llo w ) a nd h ow th ey e ac h re la te to C ha pt er s 2- 6. Fo r e ac h em pi ric al c ha pt er (2 -5 ), it is in di ca te d w he re th e st ud y w as c on du ct ed (S tu dy s ite ) a nd w hi ch e m pi ric al m et ho ds w er e us ed . Chapter 2 Separate and joint interests: gendered innovation processes in Ugandan farm systems Published as: Rietveld, A.M., and van der Burg, M. (2021). Separate and joint interests: understanding gendered innovation processes in Ugandan Farm systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food systems, Sec. Social Movements, Institutions and Governance, Volume 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.666051 Chapter 2 2 30 Abstract Agricultural innovation is considered paramount in solving poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition in the global south and notably in the East-African highlands. However, processes of change surrounding innovation in agriculture, and potential gender differences in their impacts, are often poorly understood. This paper resorts to principles from Farming Systems Research (FSR) and social gender analysis to study agricultural innovation processes and increase the understanding of the differential ways women and men engage with and are impacted by agricultural innovation(s). We analyse qualitative data from six Focus Group Discussions conducted in each of the two study communities located in Central and Western Uganda. These data focus on the most important agricultural innovations as perceived and assessed by women and men in their community. We list and discuss these most important innovations and further zoom in on one innovation per site: ‘Use of herbicides in maize production’ in Central Uganda and ‘New agronomic practices for intensified highland banana production’ in Western Uganda. Results show that women’s and men’s domains are not separated as superficially might appear. Women and men have both separate and joint interests and adoption of an innovation by one gender, will affect the other too. The effects are multifold, with positive and negative elements. Women’s ability to innovate is constrained as compared to men because gender norms limit women’s agency in relation to mobility and financial independence amongst others. The two innovations studied were found to alter some gender roles and relations but did not unambiguously contribute to increasing gender equality. Keywords: smallholder farming, agricultural innovation, Farming Systems Research, gender, Uganda Separate and joint interests: gendered innovation processes in Ugandan farm systems 2 31 2.1 Introduction In the East-African highlands, levels of poverty and malnutrition are high (Garrity et al., 2012). Developing new technologies or innovations for increasing agricultural productivity and profitability for smallholder farmers through Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) is often conceived as essential for alleviating rural poverty and improving food security and nutrition (Doss, 2006; GCARD, 2011; Glover et al., 2019). Agricultural innovation can be defined as “putting an idea into practice for the first time” (Fagerberg et al., 2005 cited in Kawarazuka and Prain, 2019). This idea can be a product (e.g., a fertilizer blend), a technology or practice (e.g., narrow row sowing) but also a way of organizing activities or processes (e.g., bulking produce for collective marketing) which changes existing routines and/or resource flows (Cohen et al., 2016). In this article we examine agricultural innovation in two communities in different regions of Uganda in relation to outcomes for women and men using a Farming Systems Research (FSR) approach. First, we discuss literature dealing with adoption of agricultural innovations, innovation processes, the role of gender and relevance of FSR. Adoption of agricultural technologies The extent to which technologies and innovations are taken up (or not) by smallholder farmers and are integrated into farming systems tend to be evaluated through ‘adoption’ studies (Glover et al., 2019). The body of literature on technology adoption by smallholder farmers is vast and diverse just as the target audiences/populations and the technologies in question. Agro-ecological conditions, wealth, gender and other forms of social differentiation often emerge as important factors influencing technology adoption (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Pircher et al., 2013; Addison and Schnurr, 2016). A main critique on adoption studies in general, is that farmers’ realities are not (well) captured (Thompson and Scoones, 2009; Pircher et al., 2013; Michalscheck et al., 2018). This can be because awkward assumptions on the perceived superiority of the technology are made (Doss, 2006), the wrong output of a technology is assessed and measured (Michler et al., 2018) and/or heterogeneity of either or both agro-ecological and social- economic factors are not (sufficiently) taken into account (Ndiritu et al., 2014; Addison and Schnurr, 2016; Llewellyn and Brown, 2020). Moreover, what adoption exactly entails, is not well-elaborated in many studies (Addison and Schnurr, 2016; Glover et al., 2019). It is too simplistic, for instance, to present technology adoption as a dichotomy of either adopting or not and as a linear process. The assumption that someone either adopts or not, omits the options that technology might be adapted to local context or partially adopted. Especially when technologies are more complicated and encompass several components, adaptation or partial adoption becomes more likely (Glover et al., 12016; Ronner et al., 2018). Use of newly adopted practices also does not necessarily increase Chapter 2 2 32 over time as is often assumed but instead dis-adoption, when people cease to use a certain innovation or parts of it, can take place (Doss, 2006; Grabowski et al., 2016; Ronner et al., 2018). According to Glover et al. (2019) the concept of ‘adoption study’ provides a poor basis for understanding processes and consequences of change in the first place. Not only are the technology and object of the study treated as black box, there is also not enough focus on the process of change which surrounds the ‘adoption.’ For instance, adoption studies generally show higher rates of technology adoption for men than for women (Doss, 2001; Petesch, Badstue, Camfield et al., 2018). This gender disparity is commonly attributed to women’s lack of access to essential resources and inputs, but we lack more detailed studies on causes, consequences, or impacts of (full, partial or non-) adoption of an innovation which often obscures the actual benefits (or detriments) of technological innovation for (sub-groups of) populations or the environment (Zulu et al., 2020). Agricultural innovation and gender The lack of understanding on (1) processes of change surrounding innovation and its adoption by target populations and (2) impact of technology adoption on a farming system and overall population, is especially pertinent in relation to gender. This is because innovation processes are relational and reflect the power and agency of individuals and groups involved, which tend to be highly gendered in smallholder farming systems (Cohen et al., 2016; Badstue, Lopez et al., 2018; Kawarazuka and Prain, 2019). Farnworth et al. (2019) elaborate on the difference between women and men (farming) innovators in Ethiopia by explaining that male innovators could challenge norms to some extent because they were allowed to reject the ‘technical correct way of farming’ by proposing alterations. In contrast to female innovators, men did not need to negotiate and navigate intricate social and power relations, because their gender embodied the cultural norm. The social space (between norm and sanction) for women to innovate was more limited than for men (Farnworth et al., 2019) which applies to many contexts in the global South. Since agricultural innovation is about doing things differently, it is likely to disrupt the ways women and men had been involved in farming (Sørensen, 1996). Because of this, agricultural innovation can also be a purposeful pathway to more gender equality (Padmanabhan, 2007; Badstue, Lopez et al., 2018; Petesch, Feldman et al., 2018). The opposite is also true; innovation can impact specific gender groups negatively (Bergman- Lodin et al., 2012) and reinforce or even increase existing disparities and inequality (Kansanga et al., 2019) and deprivation. For instance, a mix of positive and negative effects of innovation on gender equality is described by Bullock and Tegbaru (2019) in relation to hybrid maize innovations in Western Kenya. Here, multiple and various decision-making processes, as well as access to assets and resources both increased and restricted Separate and joint interests: gendered innovation processes in Ugandan farm systems 2 33 development toward more gender equality for specific groups of women. Women experienced, for instance, expanded opportunities to learn about agri-innovations and to put their knowledge to use but continued having limited control over productive assets such as land (Bullock and Tegbaru, 2019). Farming Systems Research In an effort to address gender and agricultural innovation processes more comprehensively we turn to Farming Systems Research (FSR). FSR was developed in the 1970s as a whole farm orientation including an ‘user’ and impact perspective in diagnostics and solutions for farming which especially allowed to serve formerly overlooked groups such as smallholders and women (Bawden, 1996; Norman and Atta-Krah, 2017; van der Burg, 2019). A key starting point of FSR was that only if technology development is “grounded in full knowledge of the existing farming system” (Merrill-Sands, 1986, p. 88) and responds to physical and technical performance and to the needs and wishes plus cultural values of the farmers concerned (Merrill- Sands, 1986; Darnhofer et al., 2012), it will be considered relevant, used and adapted by farmers. FSR was considered particularly relevant to address heterogeneity in contexts; both with regards to agro-ecology and environment and to cultural, social and economic dimensions (Merrill-Sands, 1986; Darnhofer et al., 2012). It became clear in the 1970s and after, that the successes of the green revolution were not easily replicated in less favourable contexts, such as for instance the East African highlands. As part of a multidisciplinary approach, gender analysis (GA) next to other social analyses was considered as inherently important and common practice in FSR (Poats et al., 1988; Feldstein, 2000; Bingen and Gibbon, 2012; Norman and Atta-Krah, 2017; van der Burg, 2019). Nevertheless, in more recent FSR literature such a wider approach or gender analysis is mostly absent (e.g., in most chapters of the book of Darnhofer et al., 2012). Features of FSR that resonate with a gender analysis include the farmer-oriented approach to technology development and assessment, the inclusion of farmers’ voices (Poats et al., 1988; Feldstein, 2000; Stroud and Kirkby, 2000) and the acknowledgment of the diversity of profiles and thus of farmers’ needs and opportunities (Collinson, 2000). Gender analysis specifically enables uncovering views and perspectives from others than those belonging to dominant groups (McDougall, 2017). This is integrated within a multi-scale and multi-criteria approach to assess performance, alongside the realization that farmers may compromise on optimal technical performance (Hart, 2000) because of other short and long-term (more pertinent) considerations. A farming system can be studied at different scales ranging from the individual farmer or farm, to a household and to a collective of households or farms e.g., in the form of a community or landscape (Fresco and Westphal, 1988; Poats et al., 1988; Collinson, 2000). Lastly, agricultural innovation is conceived as a co-creation Chapter 2 2 34 process shaped by plural interactions between farming systems components and the wider socio-economic environment (e.g., markets and policy) which plays out over ecological, economic, social and technological dimensions (Collinson, 2000; Norman and Atta-Krah, 2017). Research approach Processes of agricultural innovation and adoption are widely covered in AR4D literature and subject to much debate, yet still far from being understood. The atomistic fashion in which many adoption studies are conducted, is an important reason for this. With the objective to better understand agricultural innovation processes we study and compare the ways women and men in two rural communities in Uganda engage and are impacted. Gender is emphasized because it is identified by many authors as being of great influence in shaping innovation processes, and because innovation might provide a pathway to achieving more gender equality. Inspired by FSR, we explore women and men’s perceptions on specific agricultural innovation processes in their community and farm and reflect on their impact on multiple outcomes including gender equality. For our analysis we use qualitative data from two case-studies conducted in Uganda. 2.2 Methodology Case-Study sites The case-studies were conducted in 2014 and 2015, respectively in two parishes in Uganda in: (1) Kiboga district in the Central region and in (2) Isingiro district in the South- west of the Western region. In the South-west of Uganda, agriculture is generally more commercially oriented than in the Central region and gender divisions of labour are stricter in the Central region as compared to the South-West according to Addison and Schnurr (2016). Site 1–Parish in Kiboga District, Central Uganda (Kiboga) The selected parish in Central Uganda is situated 3 km away from a small trading centre along the national Kampala-Hoima road nearby the district town Kiboga. The capital Kampala can be reached by bus within a few hours. People from at least five ethnicities (tribes) live in the community. Baganda and Banyakole are in majority with about a third of total population each. The average household consists of husband and wife with their children. A minority of households is polygamous and about 10% of all households are headed by women. Agriculture is the main occupancy in the community which is characterized as a maize mixed farming system (Garrity et al., 2012). Highland banana and coffee are both important cash crops and off-farm income is important for livelihoods Separate and joint interests: gendered innovation processes in Ugandan farm systems 2 35 (Chapter 4., this thesis). Land sizes range from small plots of 0.5 acres to about 15 acres. Women tend to access land via their father or husband and commonly rent small plots from larger landowners. Maize, banana and coffee crops are usually controlled by men in this site, although women can also have (small) banana plantations of their own. Beans are an important crop for women. Often, these and other crops such as sweet potato are all intercropped, although maize can also and increasingly be found in single stands. Most available jobs in the community are related to agriculture, with farming (on own farm and/or as casual labourer) being the most prevalent for both women and men. Trading in agricultural goods is important for men. Few people in the community have legal land titles; most are tenants. Men usually rent much larger plots than women. Saving/credit and religious groups are important and most people in the community are members of such groups. Site 2–Parish in Isingiro District, Western Uganda (Isingiro) The selected parish is located in Isingiro district in Western Uganda. Isingiro district is bordering Tanzania and houses several large refugee settlements/camps with notably Nakivale refugee camp nearby. The city of Mbarara, a trading hub for highland banana and an intersection for national roads, is on 2–3 h drive. The most common ethnicity with about 75% is the Banyankole but six other ethnicities live in the community. About 25% of households are headed by a woman and about 1/3 of households is polygamous. Most households are smallholders with on average 2 acres of land. ~30% households are large landowners with land sizes up to 200 acres, and 10% of the population is landless. Few women own land and those who do, own smaller plots of around 0.75 acre. Sharecropping and renting of land is common among women. The farming system is characterized as highland perennial farming (Garrity et al., 2012). Agriculture occupies the large majority of the population and is dominantly focused on the commercial cultivation of highland banana as monocrop which is controlled by men. Other important crops include maize, beans, sweet potato and millet which are all cultivated mainly as food-crop and tend to be controlled by women. Cattle keeping is important in the area but reducing in volume; some farmers own cattle which is (partially) grazed in other communities; others keep their cattle closer-by, but a complete zero-grazing regime is rare. Methods and tools For a social gender analysis of agricultural innovations in line with the principles of FSR we resorted to a methodology which relates agricultural innovations to assessments of women and men community members. Such research methodology was developed within the GENNOVATE project (https://gennovate. org/). This project set out to study the relation between agricultural innovation and gender norms. Its methodology and conceptual framework are described in detail in Badstue et al. (2018b) and Petesch et al. (2018a). Chapter 2 2 36 For this paper, a sub-set of data collected in two GENNOVATE case-studies was used. The two case-studies were analysed using N vivo software version 10 (initially) and 12 (eventually) for qualitative data analysis. The data were collected in six Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) for each case study (three with men, three with women). The FGDs were held separately with adult women and men, of either poor or middle wealth status, and with young women and men as set by the GENNOVATE method guide (Table 2.1). For our analysis we only used data on topics similarly addressed in all FGDs. Case-study participants were selected with support from a community-based ‘mobilizer.’ FGDs were facilitated by a field data-collection team member of the same sex as the participants. Documentation of the FGD was conducted by a second person (of the same sex as the FGD participants) through notetaking. All field data-collection team members received training prior to going to the field. TABLE 2.1 | Overview of details of the three different FGDs (Petesch, Badstue and Prain, 2018). Data collection tool Target participants FGD: ‘Ladder of Life’ Age: 30 - 55 years old; wealth group: poor FGD: ‘Capacities for innovations’ Age: 25 - 55 years old; wealth group: middle FGD: ‘Aspirations of Youth’ Age: 16 - 24 years old In every FGD, participants were asked to list the main innovations in agriculture and natural resource management (NRM) that they themselves applied or were introduced to in the past 10 years. After this, participants jointly picked a top two of ‘most important innovations’ for men and for women in their community which they discussed further. 2.3 Results Important innovations in agriculture and NRM Kiboga innovations Most of the innovations mentioned (Figure 2.1), were directly related to crop cultivation or animal production. Only two innovations referred to socio-organizational or ‘soft’ innovations: (1) ‘Creation of Saving and Credit Cooperation’s (SACCO)’ and (2) ‘Women’s production orientation for both food and sales’. A SACCO allows paying members to take out loans for various purposes, for instance to pay agri-inputs or school fees. Separate and joint interests: gendered innovation processes in Ugandan farm systems 2 37 FIGURE 2.1 | Most important innovations of the past 10 years as identified and listed in six single-sex FGDs (3M, 3F). On x-axis the number of FGDs in which the innovation was listed as most important innovation for members of the own sex and/or for the opposite sex in the selected parish, Kiboga district, Uganda. The local SACCOs handled relatively small amounts of capital; savings per person per week varied between 0.6 and 3 USD per week (1 USD≈3,300 UGX in 2017) and loans had to be repaid within 2 months with 20% interest. The innovation of ‘Women’s production orientation for both food and sales’ referred to the trend of women increasingly engaging with economic or ‘productive’ activities next to their household or ‘reproductive’ roles. Women’s farming used to be focused on home consumption only but has become more commercially oriented as women sell (surplus) farm produce and control the thus derived income. ‘Herbicides’ and ‘Improved maize’ were listed most often, mostly by men or by women ‘for men’. Both innovations were not formally introduced nor promoted by external organizations but rather became available on the market through input suppliers. The two innovations are inter-linked since the ‘herbicides’ were primarily used for maize and we will henceforth refer to this innovation as ‘herbicide use in maize production’. Women explained that spraying of herbicides had greatly reduced the need for weeding, which led to both a reduction in their workload but also in an increase of land under maize cultivation. “Now men grow acres and acres of maize” said women in FGD C-Females. Some of the innovations listed were elements of an integrated mixed farming approach promoted by a research for development project which ran in the Kiboga site from 2010 to 2014. This project promoted zero-grazing of goats (improved breeds), fodder production in and around banana plantations, (goat) manure application on banana; with planting and during growth and new banana cultivars. In one FGD (C-Females) women listed an Chapter 2 2 38 innovation for men as important, which was not mentioned by men at all namely: ‘New cash crops; tomatoes, vegetables and fruits’. Men on their turn, considered ‘Improved beans’ (varieties) as important to women, whereas women had not mentioned it. Isingiro innovations In Isingiro, only ‘hard’ innovations related to crop and animal production were listed (Figure 2.2). Both women and men consistently ranked ‘New (agronomic) practices for intensified banana production’ as number 1 or 2 of most important innovations for men. In addition, ‘Control BXW’ (control of the banana crop disease Xanthomonas Wilt) and ‘Zero-Grazing cattle’ were listed by and for men as important. The innovations listed by women and men for women were more diverse; apart from cattle and banana-related innovations, innovations related to beans, maize, sweet potatoes, vegetables and chicken rearing were listed. These were each mentioned in only one FGD. Men mentioned ‘growing vegetables,’ ‘growing orange-flesh sweet potato’ as important to women, but women themselves did not mention these. FIGURE 2.2 | Most important innovations of the past 10 years as identified and listed in six single-sex FGDs (3M, 3F). On x-axis the number of FGDs in which the innovation was listed as most important innovation for members of the own sex and/or for the opposite sex in the selected parish, Kiboga district, Uganda. Herbicide use in maize production in Kiboga The agricultural innovation most consistently mentioned by women and men in Kiboga was ‘herbicide use in maize production’. From the data, further presented below, it became clear that disparities, related to the access, use and benefits derived from herbicide use in maize production, existed both between and within households, and that these were related to gender norms which prescribe how women and men should behave. Separate and joint interests: gendered innovation processes in Ugandan farm systems 2 39 Who uses the innovation, who does not and why? According to young men (FGD E-Male) everyone used herbicides in maize production at the time of the FGD, but adult women and men and young women nuanced this by saying that herbicides were mostly accessible to men (FGD C-Female). A few women in the FGD D-Females also mentioned using herbicides to clear land for bean cultivation. The costs attached to using this innovation limited poorer people from using it including young women and men who might live in wealthier households but cannot access financing (FGD E-Female; FGD C-Male). But for women, additional gender specific reasons were provided to explain why they hardly used herbicides in farming. These reasons were mostly not specific to herbicide use but also applied to the use of other agri-inputs. Young women emphasized for instance that all ‘new’ practices required some money, which they did not have access to. Apart from money, women had limited time and ability to actually purchase the inputs. Since inputs such as herbicides are mostly sold in trading centres, buying them requires travel. Not only did women often not have the time to travel, nor the money for transport, it was also normatively contested for women to travel outside or (too much) inside of the community alone. “Women who move around; they call them prostitutes” was explained in one FGD (C-Female). A more general reason why women hardly used herbicides was that its use is primarily associated with maize production which was mainly conducted by men. Who benefits from the Innovation, who does not and how? In the study site, women and men generally cultivated their own plots although men usually owned the land and choose which plots to allocate to their spouse(s). The plots allocated to women tended to be much smaller and production was oriented toward home-consumption. Where men focused on coffee, banana and maize as key-crops on their plots, women produced mainly beans and root and tuber crops on theirs. Men (FGD C&D-Males) stated that using herbicides in maize production had enabled them to increase acreage under maize which had resulted in higher yields and therefore improved household food security and availability of feed (maize bran) for animals. Young men (FGD E-males) emphasized how use of herbicides had enabled farmers to gain a lot of money from maize production. The pathways through which women benefitted or not from ‘use of herbicides in maize production’ were less straightforward. Women did provide labour to the husbands’ plot(s) next to their own plot and were also expected to prioritize their husband’s plot; “The men demand that you work on their farms first before you work on yours and you must go to their farms in the morning when you are still fresh so the only time that you have for your own crops is in the evening when you are already tired” (FGD C-Females). Since women were responsible for weeding amongst other tasks, their labour availability was limiting maize production before the use of herbicides was common practice. Consequently, the use of herbicides reduced Chapter 2 2 40 the demand on women’s labour for weeding (applying herbicides was commonly performed by men) and as such the innovation benefitted them. Women narrated diverting their labour to other livelihood activities still mostly in the agricultural domain. The economic or commercial orientation of their activities was new. This was also listed as an innovation in itself; ‘Women’s production orientation for both food and sales’ in both a male and female FGD (C-Males and C-Females), (Figure 2.1). The opportunities for women to earn an income from sales of agricultural products or from casual farm labour generally increased. “We were not allowed to work 10 years ago. Today, we can farm separate plots and earn an income” (FGD D-Females). This development was the result of changes in gender norms around women’s economic participation (which can be observed throughout the global South, e.g., Petesch, Bullock et al., 2018, Petesch, Feldman et al., 2018; Bullock and Tegbaru, 2019) and in the local agricultural economy notably increased market-access and-connectedness, next to herbicides reducing women’s workload. While women’s ability and space to earn money expanded, it was also still contested, and this reflected back on maize production using innovations such as herbicides. Women (FGD C-Females) indicated that not all women in the community were able to work for money (yet), and that it was highly dependent on the husband’s attitude. Some women mentioned they would like to grow maize (commercially) but that men generally opposed this (FGD D-Females). Apart from the difficulty they experienced in accessing information and funds to buy inputs, selling of produced maize was also a problem. They were often obliged to act via their husbands when they wanted to sell maize or any other produce because women could not travel to the market as easily as men. A lack of (appropriate) transport was provided as reason: “A woman cannot go along with her produce on top of a lorry!” (FGD D- Females). Opinions were divided as to whether it was good or not to sell produce through one’s husband. Some women mentioned advantages as men being better informed about prices and therefore less likely to be cheated by traders. Others argued that some men only give part of the revenue to their wife and keep the rest for themselves. Men mostly preferred to be engaged in the sales efforts of their wives and some even considered this as a condition for allowing their wife to sell produce; “he may allow her [to sell agri-produce] because he will be able to know how much she earns and accordingly he will plan for its use/spending” (FGD E-Males). Women, as wives and daughters of the men in their households, were frequently benefitting from outcomes such as increased yield and income from maize, both in terms of improved food security and specific investments (mostly school fees for children) which benefitted the household at large. But women also narrated a scenario through which women did not benefit from the husband’s increased income from maize. In this scenario men left responsibilities that used to be in their (male) domain, such as paying school fees for children, up to women; “A good number of men are not taking care of their homes, so you have to pay school fees, pay hospital bills and feed the children” (FGD D-Females). Separate and joint interests: gendered innovation processes in Ugandan farm systems 2 41 It was mentioned in the FGDs that for a part of the farming population, mostly wealthier men with a certain level of access to resources, there was a linear pathway via maize yield increases and expansion of area under maize to increased income from maize and thus to development outcomes such as improved food security and reduced poverty. We observed that these benefits did not always trickle down to the whole household however. While use of herbicides in maize production reduced women’s workload in weeding, and therewith increased their ability to engage in other economic activities, the local normative climate was still characterized by deep entrenched prejudice against ‘working women’ and ‘women with money.’ “Men are afraid she will grow wings” young women said in response to statements around women earning money (FGD E-Females), meaning that she would not be subservient (enough) to her husband anymore once she would have money of her own. It was generally stated that men’s status as head of the household would be threatened if their wife would make money: ‘women become stubborn when they get money; they can never respect their husbands again’ (FGD E-Males). In addition, the anticipated improved financial status of women was associated with more mobility and (thus) promiscuity: “if you give her a chance to look for money, she will 1 day disappear with other men” (FGD E-Males). The responses of male youth on the topic of ‘working women’ were more stringent and disapproving than those of adult men in general. Similarly, female youth were more outspoken about the limitations they faced then adult women were, young women also seemed more restricted in their mobility compared to older women, for instance when it came to ‘moving around in the village.’ New agronomic practices for intensified banana production in Isingiro The new agronomic practices for intensified production of highland banana in Isingiro included use of manure; de- suckering or removing corms; spacing; hand-weeding, trench digging (for water retention) and mulching. These labour- intensive practices resulted in both the production of larger bunches and thus in more commercial potential as the market favoured large bunches and in higher productivity. ‘BXW control’ was about controlling the disease and curtailing banana production losses. In this way, it was related to the first mentioned innovation as both were geared toward optimizing highland banana production and sales. Who uses the Innovation, who does not and why? All these practices were introduced through a de-centralized governmental extension program that promoted commercial farming in the district from 2004 onwards. Some of these practices (e.g., de-suckering; digging trenches) require a lot of physical strength and this was provided as a reason why these were almost exclusively performed by men. Chapter 2 2 42 Both women and men indicated that banana plantations were controlled by men “Most plantations are owned by men and the bananas are main source of income, so the men’s interest is there” (FGD C-Females). Owning a banana plantation determined man’s status in the community. A ‘good farmer’ or even ‘good husband’ owned a banana plantation by definition. A ‘good wife’ was described as someone who assists her husband with banana management, notably with weeding by hand. The only category of women who owned banana plantations in the community were widows; they were able to sell banana independently. Some widows, if they could not afford to hire labour, also applied the new agronomic practices such as de-suckering themselves. Who benefits from the innovation, who does not and how? There was a wide consensus in Isingiro that the ‘new agronomic practices for intensified banana production’ and resulting increases in production and income from banana sales had a large impact on livelihoods in the community. Banana stood out as the most important source of income for the majority of male farmers and for the households in the community as a whole. It is not surprising therefore that women also mentioned these banana-related innovations as paramount; banana was the main source of household food and income. The community leaders praised the community as follows “people in this parish have constructed good houses compared to other parishes. In addition, the parents here try to educate their children” and “many people have become rich because of the highland banana”. One of the new agronomic practices was weeding by hand without using tools to avoid damaging the shallow banana roots. This negatively impacted women as wives of men with small or middle-size landholdings because they were responsible for weeding; not only was it (more) time-consuming, but it also involved a lot more bending which caused women back pain. Women also mentioned that children were regularly required to assist with weeding when weed pressure was high and consequently missed school (FGD-C Females). Wives of the wealthiest farmers who were less represented in our study, were allegedly less hindered by this as their husbands relied on hiring labour for banana plantation management including weeding. This on its turn, created more opportunity for women from less resource-endowed households to earn money as casual labourer. Especially for poorer women such work became a main source of income over which they had more control than for instance income from food crop sales produced on their husband’s land. At the same time, casual work on other people’s farm, especially by married women, was still considered as unfavourable for the development of the own household by most in the community and therefore a topic of negotiation between spouses. With men focused on banana, women gained more opportunity to grow other annual crops: “10 years ago, the seasonal crops that were grown were the only source of income and they were controlled by men but now men are on bananas and women can get some Separate and joint interests: gendered innovation processes in Ugandan farm systems 2 43 income from the seasonal crops” (FGD C-F). However, getting access to land for women was problematic because land was predominantly owned by men. Some men gave their wife a plot to cultivate, other women resorted to renting land. The availability of cropping land had decreased rapidly though as more and more land was brought under banana mono-cropping. As a result, land rent prices increased (FGD C-Females and males). The commercial production of highland banana using the new management practices caused revolutionary changes in many people’s livelihoods, especially for those with large land holdings; their rising income enabled them to raise their standard of living significantly with larger and better built houses for instance, and by accessing better and higher education for children. Fewer households lived under the poverty-line, as defined by the community itself, and a new class of ‘super-rich’ emerged. This also led to increasing wealth differences amongst households in the area. These ‘new’ rich farmers had access to sparse resources such as land and manure, owned vehicles and trucks, kept on expanding their plantations, and often employed dozens of farm labourers. This was in stark contrast with the landless or smallholders owning <1 acre who “don’t have anything of their own” (FGD C-Males). Their only option was to ‘work for the rich’ to earn in cash or kind. Being knowledgeable about new agronomic practices for intensified banana production helped them to get more work “because the rich also want to use those who are good” (FGD C-Females). The commercial production of highland banana using the new agronomic practices boosted the local economy. The large majority of the parish (male/female, poor/rich, young/old) benefitted to some extent from this development in terms of increased income. The valuable banana plantations however were firmly controlled by men and the gender division of labour for banana practices remained strict, the only exception to the rule seemingly for widows. This was most evident when it came to harvesting and sales; this was generally performed by men. With men’s increased focus on banana production, some space was created for women to earn money through cultivation of annual crops but women’s access to inputs and land remained limited. Moreover, women, especially those married to men owning middle-large plantations, spend a lot more time working in their husband’s banana plantation. In addition, married women had less ability than their husbands to mobilize labour from other household members, such as children, as they could not ‘dictate,’ and they also generally lacked the resources to hire external labour. As such, no consolidated advances through the innovation in banana production were made regarding gender equality. Regarding other outcomes such as increased income, outcomes differed depending mostly on landownership and size of land owned. Chapter 2 2 44 2.4 Discussion We explored men’s and women’s perceptions and assessments around changes and opportunities by agricultural innovation in their community and farm and we particularly focused on innovations identified as ‘most important’ by women and men themselves. From our analysis, gender appeared to be key for understanding both the innovation processes and the impact of certain innovations on rural populations and environment. In both case studies, divisions of labour were very gendered though under pressing circumstances, especially among poor farmers and toward widows, boundaries seemed to have become more fluid, heterogeneous and negotiable. Yet the types of crops cultivated, the practices used, and the associated socio-economic dynamics proved important for defining men’s and women’s gender identities (c.f., Padmanabhan, 2007). Banana sales and income were strictly controlled by men in Isingiro and owning a banana plantation was an important indicator of success and status for men in the community. Nevertheless, women spent most of their time working on this crop and emphasized that derived revenues benefitted the household at large. Calling highland banana a ‘men’s crop’ is not useful under these conditions, since it ignores the central role this crop plays for both women and men, and the investment both make in terms of finance or labour inputs. It is rather as Meinzen-Dick et al. (2012) argue that boundaries between so-called women and men’s crops proved being less rigid than they initially appear. The same accounts for labelling farm plots as women’s or men’s; even as women often have their own plot to cultivate, the land is still owned by the husband or rented from another man. Or the revenue from the produce is managed, at least partially, by the husband, and he is consulted and gives permission on which crops to plant or what inputs to use. Taking the whole farming system and activities of all members in account thus allowed to conclude that for both case studies there is no complete gender separation of crops or plots, according to what is observed elsewhere in the region (Lambrecht et al., 2016; Rietveld and Farnworth, 2018). It implies that it is not fruitful to assume a strict separation of gender interests when there is a rather clear gender division of labour. It is important to realize, in the words of Okali (2011, p. 2) “that women and men as household members may have both separate and joint interests