Gender responsive programming has become recognized as a critical component of highly impactful humanitarian and development projects. In fact, many international organizations and government bodies have created criteria and requirements on gender responsive programming which must be satisfied to be eligible for their funding. Nevertheless, despite these advances, many programs are still launching \u201cgender blind\u201d \u201cgender exploitative\u201d and \u201cgender accommodating\u201d projects – either due to ignorance, lack of capacities, minimizing the importance of gender programming, or intentional exploitation of gender dynamics to further objectives. A \u201cgender blind\u201d program simply fails to recognize the need for any programming or analysis specific to gender dynamics, while a \u201cgender aware\u201d program may be gender exploitative, accommodating, or transformative. In its worst form, \u201cgender exploitative\u201d programs recognize power dynamics between genders and take advantage of them, such as exploiting traditional values of male dominance to encourage strict family planning. Many programs fall within the \u201cgender accommodating\u201d category, recognizing that gender dynamics exist and doing the bare minimum – like capturing gender disaggregated data, but failing to challenge power dynamics and offering adaptive programming. Programs that reach this level of challenging power dynamics and taboos are called \u201cgender transformative.\u201d<\/p>
Gender responsive monitoring systems and evaluations can identify weaknesses in programming, opportunities, and help a program grow from \u201cgender blind\u201d to \u201cgender transformative.\u201d Unfortunately, even many evaluation experts fall into the trap of weak gender responsive analysis, providing minimal evidence-based feedback on gender components of interventions. Therefore, evaluations and programs can be brought one step closer to being \u201cgender transformative\u201d by debunking three of the greatest myths in gender responsive evaluation.<\/p>
Myth #1: \u201cNot Seeing Gender\u201d will lead to a more unbiased evaluation.<\/strong><\/p> One argument that is made for performing gender blind evaluations or having gender blind programs is that giving special consideration to gender will make it biased. However, in this attempt to create objectivity in an intervention, the evaluator is actually reinforcing harmful dynamics due to power inequalities between men and women. Ignoring a problem will not make the problem go away; in reality, it will limit a program in its potential to have a sustainable impact for everyone. Misinformation about womens\u2019 empowerment and gender responsive programming has led many to believe that womens\u2019 empowerment comes at the detriment to the empowerment of others, a harmful mindset that truly limits empowerment for all.<\/p> As an evaluating firm, we see the importance of addressing weaknesses in programs as a result of \u201cgender blind\u201d program design. Our previous experience in the design of monitoring and evaluation systems help us guide organizations on the best ways to make their programs gender transformative. This includes the development of gender responsive objectives, outcomes, outputs, activities, and gender specific indicators; participant selection strategies that involve all genders; developing terms of reference for impact assessments on gender equality, gender-responsive situation analysis; and gender analysis recommendations. An effective monitoring and\/or evaluation system focused on gender-inclusive indicators and questions has the ability to grow a \u201cgender blind\u201d program into a \u201cgender transformative\u201d program.<\/p> Myth #2: When 50% of Participants are Female, the Program has Gender Equality<\/strong><\/p> This measurement is often cited as evidence that a program is effective in achieving objectives of gender equality – pointing out that there is equal opportunity for both men and women to join the program. However, although it is important to have female representation in a program, a measure of representation does not sufficiently capture all elements of gender equality. Other measures that must be considered to evaluate gender equality in a program include the level of participation of women (ex. Gender disaggregated data on frequency of missed training, with open ended questions to understand factors contributing to absences), the number of women in leadership roles in a program (ex. Savings Group Presidents, Treasurer, Secretary, etc.), or the gender responsiveness of activities (ex. Providing additional security for women travelling through insecure areas to distribution sites). Both gender exploitative and gender accommodating programs can also capture the gender of registered participants and represent the proportion of the population, without actually indicating anything about women’s empowerment within the program.<\/p> Myth #3: Gender lens is a methodology or a tool<\/strong><\/p> A weakness among evaluators is to state that they will be \u201capplying a gender lens\u201d to an evaluation, without actually implementing any practical methodologies or tools. A gender lens, more accurately described, is an approach to evaluation that takes gender into consideration during the entire evaluation process – leading to the development of gender responsive evaluation questions, sampling techniques, and tools. Gender responsive evaluation questions go beyond asking \u201cwhat were the genders of the participants\u201d towards \u201cWhat major gender stereotypes and cultural norms existed in the community at the start of the program – how have these changed as a result of the program?\u201d A gender responsive sampling strategy may include strategic stratification of participants by the gender of the head of household. Gender responsive tools include Harvard’s Gender Analytical framework, the gender planning framework, and women\u2019s empowerment frameworks.<\/p> Octopus Consulting and Insight utilizes its global network of Gender Specialists to design evaluations that are gender-responsive and appropriate to the region of implementation. We have worked with organizations in the past which specialize in gender transformative programming, such as Women for Women International and the Nobel Women’s Initiative – which reinforced our commitment to gender responsive evaluations.<\/p> Works Referenced:<\/p> Fletcher, G. (2015) Addressing Gender in Impact Evaluation: What Should Be Considered? <\/em>Methods Lab. odi.org\/methodslab<\/p> UN Women. (2015) How to Manage Gender-Responsive Evaluation; Evaluation Handbook<\/em>. UN Women Independent Evaluation Office. https:\/\/www.unwomen.org\/sites\/default\/files\/Headquarters\/Attachments\/Sections\/Library\/Publications\/2015\/UN-Women-Evaluation-Handbook-en.pdf<\/a><\/p> Fletcher, G. (2015). Addressing gender in impact evaluation. A Methods Lab Publication. London: Overseas Development Institute & Melbourne: BetterEvaluation.<\/p>