What are key characteristics of rural innovators? How are their experiences similar for women and men, and how are they different? To examine these questions, this study draw on individual interviews with 336 rural women and men known in their communities for trying out new things in agriculture. The data form part of 84 GENNOVATE community case studies from 19 countries. Building on study participants’ own reflections and experiences with innovation in their agricultural livelihoods, we combine variable-oriented analysis and analysis of specific individuals’ lived experience.
There is widespread need for gender-responsive agricultural research, yet the question of how this kind of research can be implemented and its success measured needs further interrogation. This paper presents a framework, developed on the basis of literature and validated by experts, for tracking the gender responsiveness of agricultural research throughout the research cycle, from the research plan to the dissemination of research findings. The framework was tested in Uganda and Rwanda on 14 research projects considered to be gender-responsive.
This paper employs the concepts of gender norms and agency to advance understanding of inclusive agricultural innovation processes and their contributions to empowerment and poverty reduction at the village level. Is presented a community typology informed by normative influences on how people assess conditions and trends for village women and men to make important decisions (or to exercise agency) and for local households to escape poverty.
Capacity development interventions are considered critical entry points for advancing gender equality in agricultural research systems. However, the impacts of capacity development programs are often difficult to track. Academic reviews highlight that insufficient attention is paid to the suitability of gender training programs to increase capacity and limited evidence is available on their longer-term impacts.
The timeline tool is generally put to use when stakeholders embark upon the self-assessment phase of their innovation partnership. Stakeholders are asked to recall moments they feel were significant for the partnership, from its beginning to the present and to reflect upon how the partnership has evolved since it began.
The capacity-focused problem tree pinpoints a core capacity issue, along with its causes and effects. It helps clarify the precise capacity-development objectives that the intervention aims to achieve. The focus should be on functional capacity, but room should be left to acknowledge technical capacity issues too.
This tool enables participants to become cognisant of the functional capacities discovered through the capacity scoring questionnaire, and test the limits of these capacities through simulations or role-playing (e.g. problem-solving, collaboration, information sharing, and engagement). The simulation game leads to an intuitive understanding of innovation capacities and of the importance of the enabling environment, helping participants to learn about the significance of these capacities.
This tool is a simple tool to map out the current status of the AIS, and to discover where the actors want to go. The rich picture tool can be used both to describe the current situation and to illustrate future plans. A rich picture opens up discussions and helps participants reach a broad and collective understanding of the situation.
The Action Planning is a tool that formalizes commitments and plots the route to their implementation. An action plan is intended for the use of the core actors, who will have been identified beforehand in the visioning phase. It determines who does what and when, and is therefore essential to ensuring that things get done and that the goals and visions set out in the capacity development strategy are achieved.
This tool was designed to assess innovation capacities, identify strengths and weaknesses and monitor capacity changes over time. The scoring tool makes it clear which functional capacities are going to be needed to promote, lead or successfully participate in innovation processes. The tool evaluates capacities on the basis of 21 indicators (each of which is graded on a scale from 0 (low capacity) to 3 (high capacity), and build on the key innovation capacities identified in the capacity needs assessment.