Using gender-analysis frameworks:

theoretical and practical reflections

Hannah Warren

While gender research methodologies, such as gender-analysis frameworks, can

contribute to ensuring that development practice promotes gender equality, their use
is only one element in the process, and cannot alone ensure that gender considerations
are integrated into development practice. Their use needs to be combined with,
and based on, clear political and theoretical underpinnings and specific goals and
objectives. This article reflects on the challenges experienced when training in
and using these frameworks, examining the importance of the theories underlying
various frameworks, the necessity for clear objectives for such work, and ultimately the
need to be mindful of the challenges experienced if attempts are made to reduce ‘the
political project of gender and development . . . to a ‘‘technical’’ fix’ (Cornwall et al.
2004, 4).

Introduction
Since the 1970s, the issue of women, and later gender, in development has assumed an
ever-increasing prominence and popularity within the development community.
However, despite (or perhaps because of) numerous theoretical and practical advances
and variations, there is much confusion and debate concerning the means by which
‘gender’ considerations can be integrated into development practice. These debates
concern not only the theoretical approach undertaken and intended goals and
objectives, but also the practical strategies and methods which can be used to
implement these and incorporate ‘gender’ into development projects and pro-
grammes. In response to the demand for easy-to-use practical tools by which ‘gender’
can be systematically incorporated into development practice, various gender-analysis
frameworks have been developed.
This article provides reflections on the training in and use of gender-analysis
frameworks, drawing on my experiences while working in Ghana for two local non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) from 1999 to 2001, and more recently for a UK-
based civil society support organisation, the International NGO Training and Research
Centre (INTRAC) from 2005 to 2007. It considers the challenges and limitations as well

Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007

ISSN 1355-2074 print/1364-9221 online/07/020187
12 – Oxfam GB 2007
187
DOI: 10.1080/13552070701391847
 Hannah Warren

as the value of using such frameworks in development practice, and highlights some
of the issues faced in training others to do so.
In order to analyse my experiences and understand some of the issues and
challenges which occur when using, and training others to use, gender-analysis
frameworks, it is necessary first to provide a brief background regarding the
emergence and origins of these frameworks, an overview of the different frameworks
which exist, and an analysis of how these fit more generally into the various theories
and approaches to gender in development. This will provide background information
which is crucial to acknowledge and understand when designing and facilitating
gender-analysis training. The article will go on to discuss various challenges faced in
incorporating gender-analysis frameworks into gender training courses when training
others to use these frameworks in their work, and issues related to their application.

Gender-analysis frameworks
Gender-analysis frameworks have been used in development practice, to varying
degrees, since the mid-1980s. They aim to provide methods by which to gather and use
sex-disaggregated and gender-related data and information to inform development
interventions at various stages, from project/programme conception and design
through to evaluation. They aim to promote gender-aware development practice by
ensuring that gender is taken into consideration at every stage of programme
implementation.

The demand for and emergence of gender-analysis frameworks

Gender-analysis frameworks emerged initially in response to the realisation of the
significance to development of the differing roles of men and women and the social
construct of gender2. Until the 1970s, development was generally assumed to be
gender-neutral and of equal benefit to men and women (Karl 1995; Rao 1991).
However a number of studies3 illustrated not only the varying impacts of development
on men and women (often citing negative effects on women), but also the failures of
development interventions (what Kabeer terms ‘project misbehaviour’ (1994, 268)).
These failures were identified as having occurred as a result of ignoring or making
erroneous assumptions regarding the differing roles and activities undertaken by men
and women in the variety of contexts in which development projects were being
implemented. As Karl states, ‘The high rate of failure of development policies,
programmes and projects is attributable at least in part to the neglect or lack of
knowledge of women’s productive and reproductive roles’ (Karl 1995, 94, emphasis
mine). Thus, the demand emerged for methods which could assist development
planners to gather data from which to make informed decisions for the benefit of both
men and women, prevent possible negative effects, and make development more

188 Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007

 Using gender-analysis frameworks: theoretical and practical reflections

effective and efficient (Longwe 1991; Rao 1991; Gianotten et al. 1994; Kabeer 1994; Karl
1995).
There was also a growing political desire, led principally by feminists in the
development sector, and later adopted throughout the majority of development
agencies (at least in rhetoric), to address and transform unequal gender relations
and ‘empower’ women. Thus gender equality became an objective of development.
However, this desire for gender equality alone was not sufficient and as Smyth
points out, ‘For a long time, [development] agencies have been decrying the lack of
expertise and methodologies that prevents them from achieving their objectives’
(Smyth 1999a, 14).
The need for appropriate methodologies was, and still is, felt by many to be the
missing factor in translating the desire among those committed to ‘incorporating
women/gender into development’ into practice. For instance, as Moser (1993, 5) has
argued ‘many of those committed to integrating gender into their work at policy,
programme or project levels still lack the necessary planning principles and
methodological tools. This issue is critical; planners require simplified tools which
allow them to feed the particular complexities of specific contexts into the planning
process’.

Theoretical perspectives and goals of incorporating gender into development

One of the key issues often plaguing development organisations in relation to gender is
the multiplicity of meanings and goals that this concept encapsulates. Thus, to a large
extent, what development organisations mean by ‘a focus on gender’ or ‘a gendered
approach’ and what it means to their work is often undefined and even contested. This
combines with a ‘lack of clarity and precision’ (Smyth 1999b, 20) in the use of gender
terminology, which is compounded by an often simultaneous tacit assumption of
commonality. As a result, as Porter and Smyth point out, ‘Development institutions
differ very widely in the extent to which they are committed to gender equity, what
that commitment entails and the means they propose to adopt in order to achieve
related goals’ (Porter and Smyth 1999, 326). The roots of these differences relate, in
part, to the underlying ideologies and values of different institutions, for example the
resource and economic focus of the World Bank, compared to the rights and equality
agendas of NGOs such as ActionAid and Oxfam. In addition, such variances exist not
only between but also within these institutions.
My intention is not to go into detail regarding the various theoretical perspectives
and approaches to women/gender in development4. However, it is important to
highlight the very differing (and arguably incompatible5) rationales and goals for
incorporating ‘gender’ into development, as this not only provides the foundations on
which any work is undertaken, but has a bearing on the type of gender analysis
framework used. Rationales may vary, for example, from making development more
efficient, to targeting women in their ‘traditional’ roles6 or empowering women and

Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007 189

 Hannah Warren

striving for gender equality. The different frameworks themselves have not only
emerged in response to these divergent rationales, but consequently address and
incorporate the issue of women/gender in development in different ways.

Different frameworks and their theoretical underpinnings

A number of accepted and well known frameworks have been developed over the
years including: the Harvard Analytical Framework (HAF) (or gender roles frame-
work); the Moser Framework (also known as the triple roles framework and
Moser
/Levy framework); the Social Relations Approach (or framework) (SRA); the
Gender Analysis Matrix (GAM); the Women’s Empowerment (Longwe) Framework;
and the Capacities and Vulnerabilities Analysis Framework (Kabeer 1994; Mahama
2001; March et al. 1999; Tsikata 2001). In addition there are a number of less well known
methods, including participatory rural appraisal (PRA) (Humble 1998) and rapid rural
appraisal techniques (RRA) (Munro 1991), and others developed for use in specific
sectors and/or in the South (Smyth 1999a). No doubt others are being continuously
developed (Mahama 2001).
However, as indicated above, these are not neutral frameworks which merely
provide different methods for achieving the same goal. They do not simply represent
different ways of collecting and analysing data in order to make informed decisions
regarding ‘incorporating gender’ into development initiatives, since this can in fact
reflect a number of different objectives. Gender analysis frameworks have evolved in
tandem with the evolution of ‘gender’ in development and are thus ‘based on very
different understandings of the nature of power and inequality’ (Kabeer 1994, 270). As
a consequence they differ (in some cases significantly) regarding their assumptions of
what needs to be analysed and addressed. As Kabeer argues ‘There is . . . an intimate
relationship between ways of thinking and ways of doing’ (1994, 303).
It is important to note that significant differences exist between the various gender-
analysis frameworks, although I will not attempt to provide a detailed and
comprehensive account and comparison here7. For example some, such as the HAF,
focus principally on the gender division of labour and the activities and roles of men
and women, whereas others, for instance the SRA, give a more central place to the
analysis of relationships between men and women (Kabeer 1994). This links back to
the rationales on which the frameworks are premised and, for example, whether they
have efficiency or empowerment objectives (see Smyth 1999a, 25). As Boateng claims,
‘The theoretical background of a framework determines which aspects of a situation it
seeks to identify and the nature of the changes that are possible’ (Boateng 2001, 216).
This understanding of the origins and theory behind gender-analysis frameworks, I
argue, is crucial when using such methods and facilitating gender training which aims
specifically to impart skills and tools by which development personnel can
‘incorporate gender’ into their work.

190 Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007

 Using gender-analysis frameworks: theoretical and practical reflections

Training in gender-analysis frameworks

Gender training
‘Gender training is a range of activities which seek to inform, raise consciousness and
equip different categories of persons with the skills to enable them to address gender
inequalities in their work, their lives, and in society at large’ (Acquaye-Baddoo and
Tsikata 2001, 61). It has been used in the development sector for the past 20 years or so,
and a variety of courses have emerged, with differing objectives. These include gender
awareness and sensitivity training; gender analysis and planning training; training for
policy-makers; and skills training for women (Karl 1995; Acquaye-Baddoo and Tsikata
2001). In addition to these, training has also been categorised according to the
underlying approach taken to gender issues and may focus on and aim towards
different goals including, for example ‘gender subordination, equity or efficiency [of
development]’ (Acquaye-Baddoo and Tsikata 2001, 61; see also Mukhopadhyay and
Appel 1998).

Gender-analysis training
Gender training, similar to the desire for gender analysis frameworks, is often
undertaken in response to the demand among development organisations to equip
personnel with necessary skills and tools. Thus it is often seen as a technical solution to
the difficulties of incorporating gender into development (Porter and Smyth 1999; Seed
1999), particularly in the case of gender-analysis (and planning) training. For example,
in my experience of facilitating gender training courses, particularly those with a focus
on gender analysis, such as the INTRAC training course ‘Gender Planning in
Development’, there is often a high demand from participants for a package of tools
and frameworks which enable them to ‘do gender’8. This has led to the ongoing
observation, criticism, and dilemma that gender training risks being divorced from
theory, becoming no more than a technical fix (Seed 1999; Tsikata 2001).
However, as outlined above, the frameworks and tools which are conveyed in
gender training are themselves premised by, and interwoven with, theory and political
ideology. Therefore it is crucial in any training to ensure that these practical tools are
combined with a sound understanding of the values and ideology which underpin
them, as well as providing participants with a necessary critical consciousness
regarding the differing approaches which can be adopted in relation to gender in
development. To ensure this, trainers need to be fully conversant with the theory
underpinning gender-analysis frameworks.
When I facilitated my first gender training courses in Ghana in 1999, although I was
familiar with theories surrounding ‘gender and development’, my understanding of
the nuances of the various frameworks and their differing theoretical underpinnings
was not fully developed. As a result, while my own philosophy behind incorporating
‘gender’ into development was based on a feminist desire to transform gender

Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007 191

 Hannah Warren

relations and combat gender inequalities, this was no doubt counterbalanced and
confused by my use of the Harvard Analytical Framework (HAF) in order to provide
others with the tools to facilitate this. I used the HAF in this instance as it provided a
simple way of enabling participants to gather data regarding men’s and women’s
activities, and access to and control over resources. What I did not fully appreciate was
that when used in practice, taking this information into consideration may do little
more than ensure that an intervention is more efficient, with no overt focus on the
intersections and relationships between men and women and the power relations
which exist (see Kabeer 1994).
At the time my inexperience and ignorance surrounding these frameworks meant
that I, like others9, thought it as simple as selecting one of the numerous frameworks
by which participants would be able to gather and analyse the necessary data in order
to make their work ‘gender sensitive’. But the use of frameworks demands an
appreciation of their underlying principles, as well as a clear understanding of the
aims of the work being undertaken. As Porter and Smyth point out ‘if gender training
is seen only in terms of the access to technical skills, the concepts and tools will be
misunderstood and ineffective’ (1999, 332).
I would not say that these training courses were unsuccessful. On the contrary, they
appeared to have profound effects on the participants in relation to their beliefs and
attitudes, and realisation that gender, and hence many of the roles performed by men
and women, are circumscribed by society and societal norms. But this does highlight
the limitations and potential hazards of inexperienced trainers who lack a firm grasp
of the history and intricacies of gender-analysis frameworks. Although at the time I
was aware that something was amiss, without the necessary knowledge and under-
standing I was unable to identify and remedy it. Despite being pleased to be able to say
that my subsequent experience and education in the theories and practices of ‘gender
and development’ have greatly assisted and influenced my successive gender training
practice, they have also added an awareness of an extra level of complexity regarding
the training of others in gender-analysis frameworks. This has highlighted a number of
dilemmas, at times even tempting me away from the enterprise. However, as the
saying goes, I firmly believe that ‘it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness’.

Training individuals within institutions

In addition to the trainer’s knowledge and understanding of the theory underpinning
gender-analysis frameworks, other challenges are faced in the training of others in
these methods. These mirror some of the more general problems experienced in
gender training. Some of these relate back to both the lack of coherence within, and
between, development organisations regarding the goals of ‘incorporating gender’ and
the varying theoretical underpinnings of these frameworks.
Although it is generally acknowledged that gender training needs to be part of an
organisation-wide strategy (Mukhopadhyay and Appel 1998; Seed 1999; Acquaye-

192 Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007

 Using gender-analysis frameworks: theoretical and practical reflections

Baddoo and Tsikata 2001), this is often not the case, and training is frequently
undertaken by only a selection of staff, often from the lower ranks in an organisation
(Mukhopadhyay and Appel 1998). However, training a few staff in the application of
frameworks will never be adequate, or appropriate, particularly if there is a lack of
direction or coherence in terms of an overall policy in which this work can be framed
and on which informed decisions regarding the choice of framework can be based. As
Smyth argues ‘Clarity about their gender-specific objectives and strategies is essential
to clarify the ‘‘why’’ and ‘‘what’’ an individual organisation is trying to achieve, before
they can make informed choice on the ‘‘how’’, in terms of the methodologies they
promote’ (Smyth 1999a, 14, emphasis mine). In addition the ad hoc training of a
selection of staff is unlikely to address the lack of necessary understanding,
commitment and skills among other staff, doing nothing to aid a widespread
organisational adoption of these methods and consequent changes in practice.
However, even if organisational policies and goals of gender work are clear,
difficulties are still likely to occur, as training often takes place with individuals from a
range of institutions attending the same course. While this has benefits in terms of
enabling participants to share experiences, the existence of different approaches and
beliefs among the different participants and organisations represented poses a
particular challenge for the trainer in terms of identifying the appropriate frame-
work(s) to use.
To tackle the above, a potential solution in training can be to provide participants
with the necessary knowledge to make their own choices regarding the most
appropriate frameworks to use, depending on the gender-related goals they hope to
achieve. This would entail a different kind of pedagogy, involving experiential
learning10 and enabling participants to assess frameworks based on the extent to
which they suit their organisation’s ideology. However, participants will remain
constrained by their organisation’s goals and approaches to gender or the lack of
clarity on these.
Perhaps the only truly appropriate solution is to provide more organisational-wide
long-term capacity building support, which includes focusing on the why and the what
in addition to the how, as opposed to one-off trainings for individual staff. But, as
Wallace and Wilson illustrate, an organisational approach does not necessarily solve
these issues. They highlight the resistance to a reflective and analytical approach in
their work with WaterAid, and the demand for tools, packages, and immediate
solutions (Wallace and Wilson 2005).

Beyond training: the application of gender-analysis frameworks

Beyond the training setting, issues and challenges also exist regarding the practicalities
and potential complexities of using such frameworks in development practice.
In addition to simply understanding the theory, methodologies, and limitations of
gender analysis frameworks, it is also crucial to develop the necessary skills needed to

Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007 193

 Hannah Warren

use them effectively and appropriately. These include the ability to listen to, consult
with, and learn from the communities about, and for whom, information is being
gathered. Munro (1991), for example details various methods which can be used to
enable women [and men] to identify their needs, including discussions around
photographs and the documentation of life histories, stressing the importance of
factors such as the style of discussions, and location, size, and composition of the
group. Stress has also been placed on the need to involve men and women in the
planning and evaluation of projects and programmes (Longwe 1991; Munro 1991),
rather than simply extracting information, analysing and interpreting this, and
developing and imposing interventions.
Combined with this, care needs to be taken in relation to the specific data to be
collected and analysed. Although many of the frameworks suggest the kinds of data to
be sought, whether these concern roles and activities (i.e. in the HAF), or relationships
(i.e. in SRA), adequate care and consultation need to be employed in order to avoid
privileging certain information, or excluding other data, and ensuring shared under-
standing between those collecting as well as those supplying information. For
example, in my experience of using the GAM, during a project evaluation in Ghana,
confusion arose due to a misunderstanding around assessing the impact of the project
on different members of the community. The way in which this concept was translated
and interpreted meant that initially, impacts on what had, prior to the project, been
considered ‘leisure time’ were ignored. Once realised this was remedied by further
explanation and discussions; however, this indicates the care and attention which need
to be exercised. Frameworks are by no means universal (Smyth 1999a), despite often
being presented as such, and their use in different cultures has been noted to be
problematic due to their outside origins, clashes with local perceptions and beliefs, and
difficulties relating to translation (Mukhopadhyay and Appel 1998; Wendoh and
Wallace 2006).
In addition, the use of any framework or methodology to facilitate the gathering of
data is only part the process. As Smyth points out ‘it is essential to remember that no
framework will do the work for you. It may help you plan the work that can be
done . . . [but] the work must still be done’ (Smyth 1999a, 22). The challenge remains to
use the information gathered appropriately. For example, in my experience, although
using the GAM meant that the current (and future potential) impacts of the project on
men and women became clearer, how this knowledge could be translated into concrete
practice aimed at addressing gender inequalities was less clear. Thus, while the
framework provided an adequate methodology for gathering data, it provided us with
no easy answers.
Therefore, despite claims (in this case on behalf of the HAF) that frameworks may
‘provide a sufficient basis for designing and implementing projects that can best benefit
women and benefit by women’s participation’ (Rao 1991, 11, emphasis mine) alone
they are insufficient, and need to be combined with other skills and knowledge, along

194 Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007

 Using gender-analysis frameworks: theoretical and practical reflections

with a clear strategy and a commitment to implementing this. If organisations and

implementers are not clear on what they hope to achieve in terms of ‘gender’ related
goals, no amount of frameworks will assist. As Mahama argues: ‘Achieving gender
sensitivity implies analysing gender concerns and incorporating them throughout the
process . . . Even where planners are able to gather some gender-sensitive data using
appropriate . . . tools, they still fall short of incorporating this information adequately
in the design, implementation and monitoring process’ (2001, 414). Indeed, a number
of other stages also are required for achieving ‘gender sensitivity’ in the planning
process (ibid.).

Conclusions
This article argues that training development practitioners in the use of gender-
analysis frameworks is a complex process. It is not a question of simply teaching
methods by which practitioners can gather and analyse sex-disaggregated data,
thereby ensuring that their work ‘takes gender into consideration’ or ‘promotes gender
equality’. Ultimately, the challenge in training is to ensure that a balance is reached
between raising participants’ awareness of the different theoretical approaches which
have emerged, and can be adopted, with reference to gender, and providing them with
the necessary skills and frameworks in order to assist them to incorporate whichever
approach they choose to follow. In addition, an understanding of the limitations of
these methods is needed, and due regard to the fact that the use of such frameworks is
only part of the process. It is also crucial to remember that these participants are
members of organisations whose particular philosophy in relation to gender, and
clarity (or lack of it) about the subject, will frame and/or constrain the potential
approaches taken and frameworks adopted. Training a few staff will not alone
promote the organisational-wide adoption of such frameworks.
While many of the challenges discussed and highlighted are not easily resolved,
acknowledging and analysing them at least means that my practice may benefit from
being informed and aware. The demand for tools and methodologies, including
gender-analysis frameworks, among participants and development organisations keen
to increase their capacity to incorporate ‘gender’ into their work remains, as does my
desire for promoting gender equality. Ultimately, what is clear, and what needs to be
kept in mind, is that no technical tools or frameworks can take the place of, or be
used in the absence of, clear objectives in relation to gender, and a commitment to
these. It is hoped that this will help to avoid the situation uncovered by recent research
undertaken in the Gambia, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia, which found that methods
used in gender work were ‘often mechanical, focusing more on ticking boxes
and recording numbers than addressing values, beliefs and culture’ (Wendoh and
Wallace 2006, 30), resulting in ‘a preponderance of checklists of who does what, when

Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007 195

 Hannah Warren

and where at the expense of undertaking actual practical work with the communities’
(ibid, 73).

Hannah Warren is an independent consultant, currently working for WaterAid. At the time of
writing this article she worked as a Researcher at INTRAC (www.intrac.org), where she was a
member of the Gender Working Group and facilitated gender training courses. (For information
regarding INTRAC’s gender related work contact Indrani Sigamany: [email protected].)
Hannah previously worked in Ghana (1999
/2001) for two local NGOs where she was involved in
a range of gender-related work including designing and facilitating gender training courses. Email:
[email protected]

Notes
1 I am grateful to Indrani Sigamani and Sara Methven for their comments on an earlier
draft of this paper.
2 By the social construct of gender I refer to the idea that gender roles and relations are
not fixed, but vary between different contexts both geographically and temporally.
3 Initiated by Esther Boserup in 1970 with the book entitled Women’s Role in Economic
Development. See also Kabeer (1994) for examples of other such studies.
4 This is done adequately elsewhere. For detailed accounts of the history and differing
perspectives of women/gender in development, including women in development
(WID), women and development (WAD) and gender and development (GAD), and
approaches from ‘welfare’ to ‘empowerment’ see for example Moser (1993) or Kabeer
(1994).
5 As Tsikata points out ‘the two goals of social justice [gender equality] and efficiency are
neither similar nor necessarily compatible’ (Tsikata 2001, 21).
6 By ‘traditional’ roles I refer to roles/tasks which women traditionally undertake within
a specific setting. In some locations this may include activities such as handicraft
production or responsibility for water provision.
7 There is a range of literature which provides detailed descriptions, analysis and
comparisons of various gender analysis frameworks and methodologies, some in the
form of guides and manuals aimed to assist development personnel in selection and
use. See for example Rao et al. (1991), Wallace and March (1991), Moser (1993), Kabeer
(1994), Humble (1998), March et al. (1999), Boateng (2001) and Mahama (2001).
8 This experience is by no means unique and has been noted by others including
Mukhopadhyay and Appel (1998), Porter and Smyth (1999), Seed (1999) and Tsikata
(2001).
9 This includes staff in development institutions, participants in gender training courses,
as well as other trainers. For example as Boateng contends ‘I believe that my case is not
unique and that there are quite a few people engaged in gender training in Ghana who
lack systematic knowledge of and training in the necessary concepts, tools [frame-
works] and their underlying theoretical frameworks’ (2001, 230). Research in Ghana
indicates that this may well be the case, finding that ‘. . .very few people involved in

196 Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007

 Using gender-analysis frameworks: theoretical and practical reflections

gender training . . . had a strong background in gender studies’ (Acquaye-Baddoo and

Tsikata 2001, 85). And this is no doubt likely to be true elsewhere.
10 Experiential learning (or learning by doing) would enable participants to apply a range
of different frameworks in the context of real situations in order to assess the value of
each, also providing an appreciation of their differences. This could be undertaken
either in a training course or as part of a longer-term supported learning process, such
as modular training over a period of time, during which participants would come
together for follow-up sessions to share experiences.

References
Acquaye-Baddoo, N. and D. Tsikata (2001) ‘Gender training and trainers in Ghana’, in D.
Tsikata (ed.) Gender Training in Ghana: Politics, Issues and Tools, Accra: Woeli Publishing
Services
Boateng, A.B. (2001) ‘Training women’s groups and their leaders’, in D. Tsikata (ed.) Gender
Training in Ghana: Politics, Issues and Tools, Accra: Woeli Publishing Services
Cornwall, A., E. Harrison and A. Whitehead (2004) ‘Introduction: Repositioning feminisms
in gender and development’, IDS Bulletin 35(4): 1
/10
Denkabe, A. (2001) ‘Gender training in the rural setting’, in D. Tsikata (ed.) Gender Training
in Ghana: Politics, Issues and Tools, Accra: Woeli Publishing Services
Gianotten, V., V. Groverman, E. van Walsum and L. Zuidberg (1994) Assessing the Gender
Impact of Development Projects: Case Studies from Bolivia, Burkina Faso and India, London:
Intermediate Technology Publications
Humble, M. (1998) ‘Assessing PRA for implementing gender and development’, in I. Guijt
and M.K. Shah (eds.) The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development,
London: Intermediate Technology Publications
Kabeer, N. (1994) Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought, London and
New York: Verso
Karl, M. (1995) Women and Empowerment: Participation and Decision Making, London: Zed
Books
Longwe, S.H. (1991) ‘Gender Awareness: The Missing Element in the Third World
Development Project’ in Wallace and March (eds.) (1991)
Mahama, H.A. (2001) ‘How to Achieve Gender Sensitivity in Project Planning and
Implementation’, in D. Tsikata (ed.) Gender Training in Ghana: Politics, Issues and Tools,
Accra: Woeli Publishing Services
March, C., I. Smyth and M. Mukhopadhyay (1999) A Guide to Gender-Analysis Frameworks,
Oxford: Oxfam GB
Moser, C.O.N. (1993) Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training, London
and New York: Routledge
Mukhopadhyay, M. and M. Appel (1998) Gender Training: The Source Book, Oxford: Oxfam
GB
Munro, M. (1991) ‘Ensuring Gender Awareness in the Planning of Projects’ in Wallace and
March (1991)

Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007 197

 Hannah Warren

Porter, F. and I. Smyth (1999) ‘Gender Training for Policy Implementers: Only a Partial
Solution’, in F. Porter, I. Smyth and C. Sweetman (eds.) Gender Works: Oxfam Experience in
Policy and Practice, Oxford: Oxfam GB
Rao, A. (1991) ‘Introduction’ in Rao et al. (1991)
Rao, A., M. Anderson and C. Overholt (eds.) (1991) Gender Analysis in Development
Planning: A Case Book, Connecticut: Kumarian Press
Seed, J. (1999) ‘A History of Gender Training in Oxfam’, in F. Porter, I. Smyth and C.
Sweetman (eds.) Gender Works: Oxfam Experience in Policy and Practice, Oxford: Oxfam GB
Smyth, I. (1999a) ‘Introduction’ in March et al. (1999)
Smyth, I. (1999b) ‘NGOs in a Post-Feminist Era’, in M. Porter and E. Judd (eds.) Feminists
Doing Development: A Practical Critique, London: Zed Books
Tsikata, D. (2001) ‘Introduction’, in D. Tsikata (ed.) Gender Training in Ghana: Politics, Issues
and Tools, Accra: Woeli Publishing Services
Wallace, T. and C. March (eds.) (1991) Changing Perceptions: Writings on Gender and
Development, Oxford: Oxfam GB
Wallace, T. and P. Wilson (2005) ‘The challenge to international NGOs of incorporating
gender’, in A. Coles and T. Wallace (eds.) Gender, Water and Development, Oxford and
New York: Berg
Wendoh, S. and T. Wallace (2006) ‘Living Gender in African Organisations and
Communities: Stories from The Gambia, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia’, London:
Transform Africa. Available at www.transformafrica.org/docs/gender_research_report.
pdf (last accessed 3 April 2007)

198 Gender & Development Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2007