Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38947195›Full record

ArticleJournal of rural studies2024

Enhancing agency and empowerment in agricultural development projects: A synthesis of mixed methods impact evaluations from the Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project, Phase 2 (GAAP2).

Agnes R Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Hazel J Malapit, Greg Seymour, Jessica Heckert, Cheryl Doss, Nancy Johnson, Deborah Rubin, Giang Thai, Gayathri Ramani and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of rural studies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Agnes R QuisumbingInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Ruth Meinzen-DickInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Hazel J MalapitInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Greg SeymourInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Jessica HeckertInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Cheryl DossTufts University, Medford MA, USA.
Nancy JohnsonIndependent consultant, Minneapolis, MN USA.
Deborah RubinCultural Practice, LLC, Bethesda, MA, USA.
Giang ThaiUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Gayathri RamaniInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Emily MyersInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
GAAP2 for pro-WEAI Study Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Development interventions increasingly include women's empowerment and gender equality among their objectives, but evaluating their impact has been stymied by the lack of measures that are comparable across interventions. This paper synthesizes the findings of 11 mixed-methods impact evaluations of agricultural development projects from South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa that were part of the Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project, Phase 2 (GAAP2). As part of GAAP2, qualitative and quantitative data were used to develop and validate the multidimensional project-level Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI), which was used to assess the impact of GAAP2 projects on women's empowerment. This paper assesses the extent to which: (1) a two- to three-year agricultural development project can contribute to women's empowerment; and (2) a suite of methods comprising a standardized quantitative measure of women's empowerment and a set of qualitative protocols, can evaluate such impacts. Our synthesis finds that the most common positive significant impacts were on the instrumental and collective agency indicators that comprise pro-WEAI, owing to the group-based approaches used. We found few projects significantly improved intrinsic agency, even among those with explicitly stated objectives to change gender norms. Unsurprisingly, we find mixed, and mostly null impacts on aggregate pro-WEAI, with positive impacts more likely in the South Asian, rather than African, cases. Our results highlight the need for projects to design their strategies specifically for empowerment, rather than assume that projects aiming to reach and benefit women automatically empower them. Our study also shows the value of a suite of methods containing a common metric to compare empowerment impacts and qualitative protocols to understand and contextualize these impacts.

Identifiers

PMID38947195
PMCPMC11211976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.