Gender-responsive participatory research for social learning and sustainable forest management
Gender-responsive participatory research for social learning and sustainable forest management
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/14728028.2016.1247753
复制
发表时间：
2017-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Elias;R. Jalonen;M. Fernández;Alessandra Grosse
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Elias;R. Jalonen;M. Fernández;Alessandra Grosse
关于森林的参与性研究因促进社会学习、创新、社区赋权、社会包容和导致更可持续的资源管理而受到赞扬。然而，对参与式方法的批评--以及对它们有时被用来解决性别和社会排斥问题的简单化方式的批评--也比比皆是。这些要求制定新的战略，使社会不同的男子和妇女有意义地参与自然资源管理研究。本期特刊侧重于性别与森林和林地管理中的参与性研究之间的关系。报告审查了：(1)通过使用促进性别平等的参与性办法，在依赖森林的社区中，利益攸关方与森林有关的知识、技能、需求和优先事项的多样性；(2)研究设计方面的选择，可促进社会群体内部和之间的包容性参与、知识分享和社会学习。在这份介绍性文件中，我们将这一特殊问题与对参与性研究中缺乏对性别的关注的批评相联系。然后，我们总结了作者在四个非洲和亚洲国家的背景下的经验发现，以及它们对于从研究人员和研究参与者的角度理解参与方法的价值、机会和挑战的重要性。这些论文表明，传统的生态知识既不均匀地分布在社区内，也不集中在社会上更强大的群体中，在缺乏促进性别平等的方法的情况下，这些群体往往被选为研究参与者。两位作者对以促进性别平等的方式应用参与性方法分享知识和促进有关森林和树木资源的包容性社会学习的潜在参与性方法持乐观态度。论文表明，有必要仔细考虑何时为参与者创造隔离或混合空间--甚至两者兼而有之--以创造在不同社会群体内和跨不同社会群体进行社会学习的情景。
Abstract Participatory research on forests has been commended for fostering social learning, innovation, community empowerment, social inclusion, and leading to more sustainable resource management. Yet, critiques of participatory approaches – and of the simplistic ways they are, at times, employed to address gender and social exclusion – also abound. These call for new strategies to meaningfully engage socially differentiated men and women in research on natural resource management. This special issue focuses on the nexus between gender and participatory research in forest and woodland management. It examines: (1) the diversity of stakeholders’ forest-related knowledge, skills, needs and priorities in forest-dependent communities through the use of gender-responsive participatory approaches, and (2) choices in research design that can foster inclusive participation, knowledge sharing and social learning within and among social groups. In this introductory paper, we position the special issue in relation to critiques regarding the lack of attention to gender in participatory research. We then summarize the authors empirical findings, contextually rooted across four African and Asian countries, and their importance for understanding the value, opportunities and challenges of working with participatory methods, both from the perspective of the researchers and of the research participants. The papers illustrate that traditional ecological knowledge is neither homogeneously distributed within communities nor concentrated among socially more powerful groups who, in the absence of a gender-responsive approach, are often the ones selected as research participants. The authors offer an optimistic view of the potential participatory methods hold, when applied in a gender-responsive way, for sharing knowledge and promoting inclusive social learning on forests and tree resources. Papers demonstrate the need to carefully consider when to create segregated or mixed spaces – or indeed both – for participants to create situations in which social learning within and across diverse social groups can occur.