ABSTRACT
Gender responsiveness in breeding programs to meet client and end user preferences for crops is essential. This case study analyzes the implementation experience of gender-responsive breeding and variety dissemination in Malawi and Ghana, focusing on good practices and challenges encountered. In Malawi, a training-of-trainers approach was employed to share knowledge among trained farmers. In Ghana, a research study was conducted to identify gender-based preferences for sweetpotato to define breeding objectives. The participation of social scientists, food scientists, and sweetpotato breeders in the GREAT (Gender Researchers Equipped for Agricultural Transformation) team provided a multidisciplinary perspective, addressing questions and responses in the field. Research efforts were strengthened by focusing on food quality through the establishment of an analytical laboratory for rapid evaluation of nutrition and food quality, including sugars. This helped develop sensory analytical capacity to better understand quality attributes and market segments, guiding breeding and improving market opportunities for women. Breeding outcomes resulting from gender inclusion led to the release of some sweetpotato varieties meeting end user and consumer preferences, as well as adoption of OFSP varieties by men and women. Other good practices for gender inclusion and responsiveness include providing funds for gender-based research and activities, engaging gender specialists and social scientists in trans-disciplinary teams, designing program activities with gender considerations, and incorporating traits in seed multiplication and dissemination decisions. Application of these gender inclusion practices resulted in adoption and development of acceptable sweetpotato varieties.
ABSTRACT
Many publications lack sufficient background information (e.g. location) to be interpreted, replicated, or reused for synthesis. This impedes scientific progress and the application of science to practice. Reporting guidelines (e.g. checklists) improve reporting standards. They have been widely taken up in the medical sciences, but not in ecological and agricultural research. Here, we use a community-centred approach to develop a reporting checklist (AgroEcoList 1.0) through surveys and workshops with 23 experts and the wider agroecological community. To put AgroEcoList in context, we also assessed the agroecological community's perception of reporting standards in agroecology. A total of 345 researchers, reviewers, and editors, responded to our survey. Although only 32% of respondents had prior knowledge of reporting guidelines, 76% of those that had said guidelines improved reporting standards. Overall, respondents agreed on the need of AgroEcolist 1.0; only 24% of respondents had used reporting guidelines before, but 78% indicated they would use AgroEcoList 1.0. We updated AgroecoList 1.0 based on respondents' feedback and user-testing. AgroecoList 1.0 consists of 42 variables in seven groups: experimental/sampling set-up, study site, soil, livestock management, crop and grassland management, outputs, and finances. It is presented here, and is also available on github (https://github.com/AgroecoList/Agroecolist). AgroEcoList 1.0 can serve as a guide for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve reporting standards in agricultural ecology. Our community-centred approach is a replicable method that could be adapted to develop reporting checklists in other fields. Reporting guidelines such as AgroEcoList can improve reporting standards and therefore the application of research to practice, and we recommend that they are adopted more widely in agriculture and ecology.
