The document discusses strategies for incorporating gender considerations into research on forests and natural resource management. It recommends forming diverse gender-inclusive teams, addressing topics of interest to both women and men, using participatory methods, comparing findings across locations, and taking a long-term approach to test hypotheses about gender impacts. Challenges may include lack of women in some fields, traditional gender roles, and tensions between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Patience, cooperation, and learning from successes are important principles.

1. Carol J. Pierce Colfer
CIFOR/Cornell
(+ E. Mwangi, D. Catacutan, R. Jalonen)

2.  Developing a congenial atmosphere
 Gender in communities
 Gender in research teams

3.  Links with radical feminists (some seen to
‘hate men’)
 Buildup of defensiveness (due to
longstanding discrimination)
 Shortage of women in some relevant fields
(due to traditional gender stereotyping)
 Global value systems that prioritise men’s
work

4.  Acknowledge importance of both women
and men in accomplishing Component 2
goals
 Seek and use variety of gender expertise
(local, Consultative Group or CG, partners)
 Keep longer term goals in mind when
confronted with
antagonism, defensiveness, etc. – be
patient, polite, persistent

5.  Form/use effective interdisciplinary teams to
address gender issues (various levels)
 Start with good cooperation/communication
among ourselves
 Monitor results, learn and adapt, as needed
(build on what works)
 Address gender issues at multiple scales

7. Gender needs to be incorporated into, or
complement, our other research
NOT replace existing methods and approaches

8.  Assess who does what, who knows about
what, who has power over what/whom
 Develop research strategies that address
topics of local interest to both genders
 Form voluntary community groups to
examine and address these research topics
 Facilitate a cyclical process — goal setting,
analysis, planning, implementation,
monitoring, re-evaluation

9.  Develop research frameworks that compare
location-specific findings across regions
 Expand assessments beyond the economic
(e.g. governance, equity, voice, subsistence
benefits/impacts) across sites
 Test hypotheses about women, men, forests
and trees in long-term sites (Sentinel sites?) –
both involvement and impact

10.  Women may have less time, more domestic
responsibilities – requiring care in scheduling
 Women (and some men) may not know
national language – requiring use of local
language or translation

11.  ;
Many women (and some men) may be illiterate –
requiring creative use of graphics
 Many women (and some men) may be unused to
interacting with strangers – requiring time to
accustom them (and their family) to your presence
 ;
Husbands may
disapprove – requiring
negotiation

12.  Non-timber forest
products
 Health-related
concerns
 Food and nutrition
 Agriculture/agro-
forestry/swiddens
 Marketing of
‘women’s products’

13. ?
 Assumption: ‘Men are no problem’
but…perhaps only true for elites…
 Soldiers, HIV/AIDS victims, domestic
abusers…???
[Surely more positive characteristics
than that!]
 Children (sons)?

15.  Female research team members tend to have
better access to women’s views/lives
 Male research team members tend to have
better access to men (though female
outsiders are sometimes seen locally as
‘male’)
 Social scientists are trained to study people’s
perspectives/lives – many have gender
expertise

16.  May require qualitative and descriptive
approaches [invisible] – lower prestige in CG
 May require location-specific research – lower
prestige in CG
 May work best with lon
May work best with long
term participatory
approaches – [historically]
unpopular in CG

17.  Maintains ability to be ‘grounded’
 Provides opportunities to test technologies,
tools, approaches of use to both sexes
 Benefits a broader population base,
mobilising under-recognized human
resources

18.  In-depth nature of research can help shed
light on dynamics/interactions not easily
revealed via broad surveys
 Can be a good basis for generating
hypotheses
 May improve quantification of qualitative
results – leading to better impact assessment

20.  How are you imagining incorporating gender
concerns into your work?
 What are your hopes, fears, worries about it?
 What sorts of roadblocks/opportunities do you
anticipate?
 What kinds of solutions have worked in the past,
or do you envision working in upcoming research?