Measuring gender transformative change and intersectional equality

[Ranjani K.Murthy]

Photo credit: CB India

There is a gap between the emergence of the concept of gender transformative change and assessing gender transformative change in evaluations. This presentation defines gender transformative change and intersectionality; introduces the process of assessing the extent of gender transformative change, if any; and shares examples from evaluations to assess gender transformative change.

Gender transformative change addresses the imbalances in power rela... LGBTIQ+ groups, as well as the visible and invisible imbalances of resources, structures and n... power relations. Gender transformative change also challenges the norms, power relations and resources between women, based on other intersecting identities. The term intersectionality (as applied to gender) refers to an analytical framework for understanding how various aspects of an individual’s identity interact to create distinct experiences, exclusion, or privilege. Intersectional discrimination can be distinctive or compounding. It can be political or social–cultural.

Evaluating extent of gender transformative change, if any, that has happened entails going beyond assessing whether projects have benefitted beneficiaries, households, and beneficiary groups. It is essential to look beyond assessing project impact to whether deep-rooted causes of gender/ social inequalities have been addressed; whether social norms and power relations are changing; whether institutional structures and laws/ policies are changing in favour of women; and finally, whether gender gaps and disparities amongst women based on individual/ community identities are being reduced. The stakeholders who must be met to assess gender transformative change are not just project participants, but inter-generation groups, local government, policy makers and service providers, local markets, religious leaders, and traditional leaders.

The presentation then takes on an evaluation of interventions to prevent girl child marriage in India to illustrate what a gender transformative and intersectional theory of change would look like; how quantitative and qualitative data can be interwoven to explore key evaluation questions like: a) does incidence and causes of girl child marriage differ across communities? b) how effective have these strategies been in preventing and addressing girl child marriages and which strategy works better? c) for which community groups? d) recommendations to address child marriage in a gender transformation manner, while addressing intersectional difference in reasons. Adolescent girls and boys, parents, child protection committees, child marriage prohibition committees, those who had married as a child, indirect marriage-related stakeholders were met. 

The methodologies adopted included participatory estimates, ranking, fox and crane story, stand on status line and attitudinal mapping. A minimum of 30 groups were covered in the blocks selected in two districts. In one district, the NGO focuses on empowerment of the different rights holders, while in the other, the focus was on strengthening duty bearers.

There was wide difference in reported incidence of child marriage; for example, in one district the  reported figure was 30% amongst Chenchus (primitive tribal groups), 20% amongst Madigas, 15% amongst Lambanis, 15% amongst Yadavas and 10% amongst Muslims.

Quantification of qualitative data is important. For example, percentage who felt like a crane in the story, and percentage across different reasons (some may have given two reasons). Percnetage of the reasons that could have a bearing on girl child marriage. The child marriage related reasons that emerged for feeling liking the crane in the story, uncle wanting to marry her now,  drop out to help in house/farm work and fear that parents would not accept their boy- friends.

The ranking of different reasons for child marriage, revealed that common reasons across communities included poverty and fear of inter-caste relations, but also residence in forests, polygamy, and bride prices (Chenchus); landlessness and migration (Dalits). Inadequacy of residential schools was a common factor amongst PTGs and Dalits. That is social cultural norms and policies shaped child marriage in different communities differently.  

Several actions were taken by adolescent boys and girls, like using child help lines, teachers, parents, panchayat leaders and at times the Child Protection Committees/Child Marriage Prohibition and Monitoring Committees (CMPMC), with efforts being partially successful. The reduction in child marriage over five years was more when the strategy of bottom-up empowerment was adopted, and less when strategy of strengthening duty bearers was adopted, calling for the need to adopt both the strategies together.

The findings were codified and analysed using Excel sheets, and compared with secondary data and quantitative surveys. When there was discrepancy between data from interviews with different stakeholders, greater weightage was given to voices of adolescent girls/boys. The outcomes of qualitative analysis went deeper than quantitative ones.

Recommendations were formulated using force-field analysis, which entails assessing strengths and challenges in preventing child marriage at family, community, market, and state levels; and strategies for using strengths to combat challenges. Solutions reflected anti-poverty (e.g., increasing number of days MGNREGA ), equality (e.g., banning polygamy), efficiency (increase budget for CMPMC) empowerment (adolescent girls/boys and women’s groups preventing child marriage) and transformative. (challenge norms on polygamy and dowry). Some of the recommendations from the evaluation were accepted by the government within months of completion.

To sum up, assessing gender transformative change and intersectionality entails using evaluation methods that can capture gender transformative change in an intersectional way; analysing gender norms from an intersectional lens; identifying variation across communities, root causes and institutional structures; map force field-of facilitating and hindering factors for each institutional level and intersectional group. Use any framework that works for you for these analyses. Identify howConclave%20Presentation%20Ranjani%20K%20Murthy.pptx facilitating factors can be used to address hindering ones, preferably with women/girls marginalised by intersecting identities. Longitudinal studies are required to assess whether norms are changing or reduction in girl child marriages is just due to girl child education incentives.