Social, cultural and gender-based constraints to adoption
Haven D. Ley Senior Program Officer, Agricultural Development
Contexts, solutions and what you can do to improve impact
September 1, 2012
Narrative arc
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 2
Resolution
Tens
ion
Impact
Adoption Gender
Examples Solutions Action
Focus on the staple crops and livestock with the greatest impact on the poor
Focusing Our Strategy
September 4, 2012 © 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 4
Building on the previous work of others
Learning from our work to date
Input from experts, partners,
grantees, donors, farmers, and
critics
Our theory of how change occurs for farmers
Challenges to technology adoption
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 6
Focus on adoption has generated new thinking and methodological interests
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 7
§ Context matters more than ever § Geographic § Political § Cultural
§ Centering the farmer § Borrowing from good design processes
Global
Nation
Ecosystem
Community
Farm Family
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 8
Poor design may be a supply failure . . .
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 9
. . .but adoption can be simple if demand dictates
Going a layer deeper. . .
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 10
The resource gap between women and men farmers undermines adoption and agricultural impact
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 11
Ø Women farmers have less access than men to productive assets
Ø Closing this gender
gap could increase yields on their farms by 20–30%, and raise total agricultural output in developing countries by 2.5–4%
Gender provides an important framework for understanding adoption challenges
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 12
§ Women, typically, have less access to the enablers of adoption: § Land § Credit § Education or information § Labor
§ Preferences in determining beneficial technologies are distinct
§ Women’s preferences are less likely to be taken on board in priority-setting and beta design § Not considered farmers § Political and time constraints § Representation in R & D efforts
Note: The household economy complicates decisions about adoption
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 13
Who influences design and who adopts as a result?
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 14
Women’s technology preferences align with their household responsibilities
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 15
Good design processes can increase adoption
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 16
Solutions already at work upstream
September 4, 2012 © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 17
§ Linking farmers into the innovation process
§ Training staff on participatory design methods
§ Conducting gender analysis of preferences and responsibilities prior to trait prioritization
§ Increasing women’s representation in priority setting
Jeanie Borlaug Laube Women in Triticum (WIT) Award for early-career women wheat researchers
Our expectations for good design:
September 4, 2012 © 2010 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 18
Ø Analytical research:
Know her
Ø Design measures: Design for her
Ø Feedback and accountability: Be accountable to her
Thank You
© 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. All Rights Reserved. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a registered trademark in the United States and other countries.
Top Related