Presentation by Michelle Adato on using qualitative methods for gender analysis

1. Using qualitative methods for gender
analysis in program evaluations
Michelle Adato
IFPRI
Tool Pool Seminar on Identifying Gender
Dimensions in your Research
April 28, 2010

2. Why use qualitative methods?
Use of qualitative methods responds to reality that:
Whether interventions are successful—and who
benefits—is affected by social dynamics in households,
communities, and institutions
- Social relationships, norms, values, culture, beliefs,
experience, interests, etc.
And, that these dynamics are not simple to uncover and
understand

3. Gender issues in Conditional Cash
Transfer (CCT) programs
• CCT programs aim to empower women through
cash transfers; health services; training; and
girls education
• Policy interest in
• Impacts on women‟s and girls‟ human capital and
empowerment, and impact pathways
• Why impacts are not greater
• Unanticipated negative impacts
Page 3

4. Types of gender issues studied via qualitative methods:
Conditional Cash Transfer program evaluations
• Sociocultural norms, and how they affect
program reception and outcomes
• Why do women not participate in some health
services, despite strong messages and cash
incentives?
• Why do girls not attend school despite the CCT?
• Do cash transfers provide incentives to have more
children?
• Social norms may be more powerful than financial
incentives
Page 4

5. Types of gender issues studied, cont.
• Program efforts to promote women‟s
empowerment
• Does giving money to women reduce or increase tensions
between couples?
• What types of empowerment effects and what are the
pathways? (money, training, discourse?)
• Why do programs with similar designs have different impacts
• Gendered interactions with institutions (e.g.
government, banks, markets, health centers)
• How do women‟s experiences affect their confidence
and program participation?
Page 5

6. Advantages of qualitative methods
• Qualitative methods are effective at capturing
these issues because
• Elaboration, and sometimes several tries and lengthy
follow-up and probing, are needed to convey the
questions adequately and understand answers
• People do not always tell the truth: Getting candid
information often requires time, trust, rapport,
triangulation, observation
• Discover unanticipated issues
• Solicit local solutions to problems
Page 6

7. How qualitative research adds value to
quantitative research
• Identifies issues and questions for surveys and
hypotheses for testing
• Identifies response options for survey questions
• Clarifies terms/language for use in surveys
• Confirms validity of constructs and proxies
• Triangulation, confirmation, contradiction
• Explanation/interpretation of survey findings
• Depth, texture, context
• Impact pathways, and reasons for lack of impact

8. How quantitative research adds value to
qualitative research
• Identifies stratification strategy
• Provides community and household
characteristics for sampling
• Identifies issues for investigation
• Triangulation, confirmation, contradiction
• Determines prevalence of qualitative findings in
wider population
• Reveals representation of qualitative sample
Page 8

9. Methods: Focus Groups
Advantages Disadvantages
• Cost- and time-efficient— • Less time to explore and
cover more people probe
• Can be a safe space for • Inability to triangulate data
discussion of sensitive on individuals/households
issues • Louder and quieter voices,
• Early identification of peer pressure
important issues
• Discussions trigger ideas,
recollections, opinions
Page 9

10. Methods: Semi-structured interviews
Advantages Disadvantages
• Depth and detail • More time consuming
• Rapport and costly, so smaller
• Analytic power: Ability sample sizes
to relate data to other • No trigger and
data at individual, interaction effects of
household, and group
community levels
• No peer pressure
Page 10

11. Methods: Ethnography
• Local researchers live in cmtys for 4-5 months
• HH case studies: Interview all members; observe
activities in HH, cmty, program
• Builds trust, rapport, motivation
• Increases opportunity for privacy
• Reduces reactivity
• Discover unanticipated behaviors
• Increases understanding through iteration,
triangulation
• Attention to gender of researcher—depends on
topics and context

12. Qualitative sampling using survey data:
(-) (+) (-) (+)
health health education education
Children X X
0- 5 years
Primary X X
school
girls/boys
Secondary X X
school
girls/boys

13. Selected findings on Gender and
CCTs in Latin America
Mexico (Adato, de la Briere, Mindek, & Quisumbing 2000; Adato and
Roopnaraine 2009)
Nicaragua (Adato and Roopnaraine 2004; 2009)
El Salvador: (Adato, Roopnaraine, Pleitez, Morales, Calderon, et al.
2009)

14. Findings on gender relations:
Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador
• Potential for intra-household conflict but minimal (M, N,
ES)
• Contrary to rumor, little evidence of domestic violence
• Reduced social strain due to new household resources
• Women seen as making „better‟ spending decisions
• Program for „women and children‟ so non-threatening to
male identity as breadwinner (N, ES)
• However, women must negotiate program and domestic
responsibilities (M, N, ES)

15. Findings on gender issues, cont.
• Sociocultural norms affect participation in health
services: Shame, religion, tradition (M, N, ES)
• Need more attention to men, especially with
regard to health issues (M,N,ES)
• Increased confidence through participation in
training and collective activities, but varies
greatly by program (more so in M, ES)
• New gender discourses (M, N, ES)
• Changes in power relations are modest, but cash
provides some independence
• Spending without asking permission (M,N,ES)
• Freedom to leave spouse (ES)
Page 15

16. Women’s empowerment
“Beneficiaries defend themselves better since PROGRESA. [Q: why?]
Because of pláticas, because they speak with each other...beneficiary
with beneficiary... For example, in my community I hold a meeting and
we begin to talk, and they have more experience. Now they know how
to speak more. Because they ask each other…how do you handle
something, how did you do it? That is how, one to the other, we open
our minds” (promotora, Guerrero, Mexico)
“Before I was so timid, even talking to him, and because he was quite
stern, I was ashamed. But now, I have more strength to speak to him,
because of all they‟ve taught us: that we‟re also important and that we
should feel supported and strong enough to speak with him . Before, if
he did something which I didn‟t like, I just let it go but now, no…to say
that I‟m boss in the house, like he used to say, made me a little bit
afraid, not that he‟d hit me, but that he would make a big deal out of it,
but even he says I have changed a lot” (Beneficiary, Las Pacayas, El
Salvador)
Page 16

17. Selected Findings on
Gender and CCTs in
Turkey
(Adato, Roopnaraine, Smith, Altinok,
Çelebioğlu, & Cemal, et al. 2007)

18. CCTs in southeastern Turkey
• Impact on women‟s empowerment depends on program
objectives, and sociocultural context
• No gender discourse
• Some expression of new independence in spending and
interaction with institutions, but limited
• Money sometimes turned over to men
• No collective activities: women can not gather in groups
• No women‟s leadership (complex social tensions)
• Survey found no impact on pregnancy; qualitative study
explained why: financial incentive overshadowed by
economic and social pressures

19. Survey findings from Turkey
• CCT had significant impacts on secondary
enrollment at national level: increased by 10.7%
for girls aged 14-17 (Ahmed, Gilligan, Kudat, Colasan, Tatlidil, &
Ozbilgin, et al. 2006)
• But large regional differences

20. Primary and secondary school
enrollment: 3 provinces in Turkey
Net Enrollment*
Province Boy Girl All
Primary school enrollment (grade 1-8)
Diyarbakir 97.5 95.6 96.7
Samsun 92.3 100.0 95.9
Van 90.7 81.1 86.1
Secondary school enrollment (grade 9-11)
Diyarbakir 78.7 63.9 71.3
Samsun 58.8 70.0 64.9
Van 47.4 15.5 32.2
(Note: Survey data not representative at provincial level)

21. Reasons why children do not attend
school in Turkey (qualitative study)
Percent of all households 120
100
80
(n=87)
60
40
20
0
Factors affecting decisions
Diyarbakir Samsun Van

22. Gender and Schooling Decisions
• Women‟s primary identity as wife and mother
• Education irrelevant or counterproductive
• Inappropriate for women to work
• Bride price
• Honor, reputation, sexuality
• Fear of damage to family reputation and honor by girls
contact with men and boys
• Physical maturity and appearance of girls a factor
• Transportation and location of schools
• No secondary schools in communities
• Objection to girls walking to school, riding on buses with
boys, or being driven by man

23. Girls and education in Van,
Turkey
• “the girls have only their honor as a valuable thing
in the village and it is my duty to prevent any bad
words about that… No one sends their daughters
to school anyway. Why should I send mine? They
will look at them in a bad way.”
• “Let’s say someone fools her, abducts her, who will
clean my name? Are you or is the teacher going to
clean my name?.... I would not send her for any
money.”
• “Now I can say to my husband that the
government is paying me money for my daughters
and I am sending them, it is none of your business
now.”

24. Conclusions from CCT evaluations
• Significance of country and region specific norms for women
(incl sanctions associated with non-conformity) that impact
the interests and desires of males and females
• Relevance of ethnic and religious differences
• Influence of authority (e.g. tribal leaders, elders, nurses)
• Financial incentives powerful, but not necessarily
• Training and discourse powerful, but not necessarily
• Implications for program design, complementary program
needed, regional variations, flexibility—not blueprints!
• Not static: Values and practices do change over time;
interventions can influence these

25. Cautions
• Allocate sufficient time and budget for
• Iterative research phases
• Dialogue, analysis, and integration through
• Instrument design
• Data analysis
• Research quality: Don‟t cut corners or loses
value
• Iteration with panel surveys
Page 25