































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 2, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Mary T. Rodriguez, Associate Professor, Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Rd, 200E Ag Administration Bldg, Columbus, Ohio 

43210, rodriguez.746@osu.edu,   https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8716-2787 
2. Rebecca J. Williams, Assistant Professor, Brooks College of Interdisciplinary Studies, Grand Valley State University, 213 

Lake Ontario Hall, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, Michigan 49401, williarj@gvsu.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3849-9348 
3. Jera E. Niewoehner-Green, Assistant Professor, Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Rd, 200G Ag Administration Bldg, 

Columbus, Ohio 43210, niewoehner-green.1@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0340-1956 
4. Sarahi Morales, Directora Departamento de Currículo General, Zamorano Pan-American Agricultural School, PO Box 93, 

Km 30 highway from Tegucigalpa to Danlí, Valle de Yeguare, Municipality of San Antonio de Oriente, Francisco Morazan, 

Honduras, CA, morales@zamorano.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1331-2375 
27 

 

Integrating Gender in Research and Development: A Case 
Study of How Organizations Working in Honduras Approach 

Participatory Gender Analyses in Agrifood Systems 
 

M. T. Rodriguez1, R. J. Williams2, J. E. Niewoehner-Green3, S. Morales4 

 
 

Article History 
Received: June 1, 2023 
Accepted: August 14, 2023 
Published: January 31, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
gender analysis; Honduras; 
participation; empowerment; 
masculinity; systems approach  

Abstract 
Gender assessments are often used to inform gender mainstreaming in 
agriculture for development programming and practices. However, they 
often lack true community engagement, integration of critical 
perspectives for structural transformation, and a systems approach to 
support gender equality. In our qualitative case study, we conducted a 
content analysis of gender policies and approaches for the largest funding 
and implementing organizations working in Honduras. Our findings 
indicate that some organizations address the known gaps in the 
effectiveness of gender analyses such as inclusion of masculinities and 
moving beyond economic empowerment to address other important 
domains for women’s empowerment. However, the majority of 
organizations continued to approach participation as extractive rather 
than transformative, over-relied on the economic domain as the sole 
indicator of empowerment, failed to integrate critical contemporary 
theories such as intersectionality and masculinities, and inadequately 
addressed the fundamental structural inequalities in the systems that 
reinforce normative gender roles. Improving practices for participatory 
gender assessments and addressing dominant social norms during 
research is necessary to have significant gender transformative and 
sustainable impacts on agrifood systems. 

mailto:rodriguez.746@osu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8716-2787
mailto:williarj@gvsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000--0000-0000-0000
mailto:niewoehner-green.1@osu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000--0000-0000-0000
mailto:morales@zamorano.edu
https://orcid.org/0000--0000-0000-0000


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   28 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Gender relations in Honduras are shaped by socioeconomic and cultural context of the country. 
As the second poorest country in the region, an estimated 62% of the Honduran population 
lived below the poverty line in 2020 (United Nations Development Program [UNDP], 2020). 
Over the years, Honduras has been characterized as a predominantly patriarchal society, where 
men have decision-making authority at the household and community levels (Humphries et al., 
2012). The Honduran government has made international commitments to gender 
mainstreaming in policy including those in sectoral levels such as agriculture, but 
implementation is lagging (Howland et al., 2021). However, the reality of poverty, outmigration 
of men, and the demands of building sustainable food systems, requires development 
organizations to adopt approaches that effectively promote women’s empowerment and 
address gender dynamics in implementation. According to Njuki et al. (2022), agri-food systems 
have structural inequalities directly linked to gender, such as access to knowledge and 
information as well as technological, financial, and natural resources, reinforcing social gender 
norms and impacting livelihoods. A holistic view of agrifood systems provides a pathway for 
sustainable agricultural intensification to ensure food security and nutrition in an equitable and 
resilient manner (Campanhola & Pandey, 2018).  

Gender analyses are a key component of agrifood systems projects due to the work of feminist 
scholars and development practitioners who brought attention to the importance of analyzing 
gender roles and norms to understand the social constructs that influence agrifood projects 
(Connelly et al., 2000). At their simplest, gender analyses are conducted to understand the 
normative roles and responsibilities of men and women to ensure that agricultural 
development initiatives are appropriately targeted (Connelly et al., 2000). At their most 
complex, gender analyses can support understanding the values, norms, and systems that 
oppress women. The latter approaches aim to transform systems to empower women to live 
the lives they desire (Kabeer, 1999). Since gender analyses are essential to highlight gender 
dynamics of different contexts and programmatic areas, we sought to explore how major 
organizations integrate these perspectives into their work. In this study, our objective is to 
examine gender policies and frameworks of development organizations in Honduras, 
specifically focusing on definitions and measurements of empowerment, levels of analysis, 
incorporation of critical perspectives, and community participation. 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Critiques of gender analyses in development practice are rooted in part in the lack of clarity in 
theoretical underpinning and the complexity of incorporating a gender lens in a meaningful way 
(Tavenner & Crane, 2022; Warren, 2007). Approaches to gender analyses range in purpose from 
addressing women’s practical needs to addressing women’s strategic needs or women’s ability 
to make the life decisions that were previously denied to them (Mayoux, 1995; Warren, 2007). 
This is also termed transformational empowerment. The theoretical underpinnings of these 
analyses can differ significantly resulting in different strategies for change (Chilisa & Ntseane, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   29 
 

2010; Connelly et al., 2000). Understanding theoretical underpinnings of gender analysis 
frameworks is important to appraise approach, assumptions, and how women’s roles and 
norms versus women’s subordination are understood.  

A primary concept underlying gender analysis approaches is that of empowerment. However, 
understandings of empowerment are often grounded in institutionalized terminology that 
ignore local agency and context, resulting in an oversimplification of local gender relations 
(Batliwala, 2007; Cornwall et al., 2004; Jupp et al., 2010; McOmber, 2021; Tavenner & Crane, 
2022), as well as an overreliance on economic factors in the determination of an empowered 
woman (McOmber, 2021; Tavenner & Crane, 2022; Warren, 2007). Critiques of empowerment 
approaches point out a lack of focus on how social interactions mediate gender, particularly in 
terms of masculinized household leadership responsibilities and the role of men and 
masculinities in women’s empowerment efforts (Tavenner & Crane, 2019; Tavenner & Crane, 
2022). Additionally, in keeping with contemporary understandings of gender, taking an 
intersectional approach to gender analyses is needed to understand the relationship between 
gender and other identities including race, ethnicity, class, and sexual identity (Bojin, 2013; 
Crenshaw, 1989; Das & Singh, 2014; de Mel et al., 2013; Tavenner et al., 2022). For example, 
Honduras boasts nine indigenous groups, including two afro-indigenous groups, all of whom 
experience high levels of poverty (Tauli-Corpuz, 2016). In addition, it is well documented that 
the LGBTQ+ community in Honduras face high levels of discrimination (Villeda, 2012). How 
issues such as indigeneity, poverty, and sexual identity intersect with gender dynamics is not 
well studied in terms of gender analyses in the Global South (Fundación ETEA, 2022).  

Another important aspect of gender analysis approaches are participatory processes (e.g. 
Participatory Rural Appraisal and Participatory Action Research). Participatory gender analysis 
processes began in the 1990’s in part due to the need to unpack the relationship between 
men’s and women’s normative roles (Guijt & Kaul Shah, 1998; Mayoux, 1995). The work of 
Arnstein (1969) and Biggs and Farrington (1991) demonstrate the challenges of participatory 
process by categorizing participation from lack of farmer participation to collective decision 
making and collaborative communication. Although participatory processes are rooted in 
critical and later feminist theory, like gender analyses, the practical application of participatory 
processes do not always reflect these theoretical underpinnings. Similarly, not all gender 
analysis processes use participatory methodologies, resulting in a lack of understanding of the 
role of power dynamics, responsiveness, and understanding of cultural contexts in these 
approaches (Thomas et al., 2022). Negative impacts to the agrifood system in Honduras can 
disproportionately impact women (CARE Honduras & UN Women, 2020), thus participatory 
methodologies would center women’s lived experiences and allow for nuanced programming 
and research. 

Finally, a major critique of participatory processes is that they can neglect the complexity of 
communities and divert attention from the broader systems that are affecting them (Cornwall, 
1998; Lilja & Dixon, 2008). Systems approaches consider the interconnected and dynamic 
nature of various systems affecting a specific problem or phenomenon (Meadows, 2008; Rosas, 
2017) and in practice can be a useful tool to explore the level of power that people have in 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   30 
 

issues related to their own food systems (Washington, 2016). Applying a systems approach to 
agrifood systems pushes back against reductionist considerations of agricultural issues and 
instead includes food systems activities, cultural, economic, and social, drivers, and 
environmental effects (Borman, et al., 2022; Ericksen, 2008). Further, food sovereignty or 
agroecology movements emphasize the world’s relational aspects, acknowledging the 
interconnections among local knowledge, human culture, and nature while centering gender 
equality (Portman, 2018).  

Purpose 
 
Gender analysis frameworks vary in their theoretical underpinnings; therefore, we employed a 
feminist lens to critically analyze them, focusing on definitions and measurements of 
empowerment, community involvement in the process, levels of analysis from utilitarian to 
transformational, and evidence of systems informed interventions. Drawing on feminist 
approaches that aim to question the dominant discourse, we purposefully moved beyond 
considering gender analysis as a means to just include women by applying contemporary 
approaches to analyzing gendered contexts such as the role of masculinities, intersectionality 
and systems approaches, and the integration of women and men, girls and boys, in agrifood 
system development efforts. As previously mentioned, gender assessments are often used for 
the benefit of the funder as opposed to being a participatory tool used by and for the 
community. Therefore, we sought to understand how organizations are approaching the 
measurement of gender constructs such as empowerment, participation, equality, and power-
sharing as well as how they engage the community through participatory processes and 
understanding of social, political, and cultural systems. We identified Honduras as the context 
of interest for this case study as authors have done extensive gender research in the country. In 
addition, despite multiple organizations working for decades on gender issues, the country’s 
inequality in development continues to deepen the feminization of poverty and limit women’s 
access to basic services, resources, and economic opportunities as well as participation at 
political and organizational levels (CARE Honduras & UN Women, 2020). Further, Honduras has 
the highest femicide rate in Latin America (Economic Commission for Latin America and the 
Caribbean [ECLAC], 2021), indicating that substantive gender equity work is imperative.   

Methods 
 
Research Design 
A collective case study research strategy was employed wherein we explored multiple gender 
analysis processes from development organizations to understand the approach and intended 
outcomes (Stake, 1995). We utilized qualitative content analysis as the method of data 
collection and analysis, defining our case or bounded system as the process of conducting a 
gender analysis in the context of Honduras (Creswell, 2018). A directed content analysis of 
development agencies’ gender inclusion strategy documents focused on establishing an 
integrated view of text and their contexts through a systematic classification process of coding 
and identifying patterns (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Zhang & Wildemuth, 2005). Therefore, our 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   31 
 

analysis sought to use a feminist lens to identify and name the predominant concepts around 
gender and development in agriculture that guide data collection, outreach, and extension 
practices.  

Data Collection 
Our sampling frame was identified through a list of registered development organizations 
working in Honduras (N=82). We sampled the larger organizations working in the agricultural 
sector that influence the processes of smaller funders and implementers (n=19), then searched 
for publicly available gender analysis documents in agricultural development. Larger 
organizations were categorized as those who were recognized worldwide implementers and 
who were registered or funding projects in Honduras. From the sample, 14 organizations had 
published documents that described their approach to addressing gender through assessments 
and evaluations (see Table 1).  

Table 1  

Sample of Funding and Implementing Organizations Operating in Honduras 
Type of 
Organization Organization Name 

Organization 
Acronym 

Funders Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation* 
Canada Aid* 
United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth & Development 

Office (formerly termed the Department for International 
Development) * 

Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations* 
Japan International Cooperation Agency * 
United Nations Population Fund 
United States Agency for International Development* 
World Food Program* 

BMGF 
CA 
FCDO (DFID) 
 
 
FAO 
JICA 
UNFP 
USAID 
WFP 

Implementers Action Against Hunger* 
CARE International* 
Catholic Relief Services* 
ETEA Foundation of Loyola University Lutheran World Relief* 
PLAN International* 
Save the Children* 
World Relief 
World Vision* 

AAH 
CARE 
CRS 
LWR 
PLAN 
STC 
WR 
WV 

Both  Heifer International 
OXFAM International* 

 
OXFAM 

Note. *denotes the organizational documents were included in the data analysis 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   32 
 

Data Analysis 
Deductive coding was employed utilizing NVivo v.12. The use of this software allowed for 
coding schemes to be tracked and to conduct searches for key terms when revisiting the data. 
Provisional coding was employed to establish the code list. Provisional coding begins with a 
predetermined “start list” of codes based on what previous investigation suggests might appear 
in the data (Saldaña, 2021). Our code list was derived from the review of the literature on 
gender assessments and researcher’s experience in gender and development research; 
however, as data are collected, coded, and analyzed, codes can be revised or expanded to 
include new codes (Saldaña, 2021). The practices, policies, and guidance that influence gender 
analysis were coded, while background information (e.g. demographics) were not coded. The 
original codebook consisted of 15 a priori codes derived from the literature and our conceptual 
framework. During data analysis, seven more codes arose. Codes were then placed into 
categories and then themes to create consolidated meaning of how organizations engage in 
gender and development work.  

Evaluating the rigor and trustworthiness of the research was done throughout the process. 
Credibility was upheld through the transparent development of the data collection and coding 
process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Research team members collaborated throughout to review 
and interpret the data. Further, to improve dependability, researchers kept an audit trail during 
the data analysis through NVivo and shared documents which included theoretical and process 
notes. The findings should not be considered generalizable due to the focus on organizations 
working within Honduras; however, the broad influence of these organizations allow the 
findings to be transferable to gender and development work in other contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 
1985). The provisional coding process supported confirmability by documenting the codes that 
were first established and tracking additional codes that arose through the analysis.  Finally, 
conducting a document analysis subverted some threats to trustworthiness such as reactivity, 
researcher bias, and respondent bias (Bowen, 2009).  

Subjectivity Statement 
All four authors have engaged in gender and development work for 48 years, collectively. 
Prominent themes in our research have been food security, gender and leadership, community 
and household resilience, masculinities, youth leadership, irregular migration, and youth and 
gender-based violence. We all seek to transform communities and livelihoods of marginalized 
people through the integration of critical perspectives and sustainable, community driven 
approaches and practices. The authors addressed potential biases through memoing, audit 
trails, and ensuring that all four authors agreed on the analysis and findings (Flick, 2009). 

Findings 
 
Four main themes emerged from the data analysis: 1. Approaches to empowerment; 2. 
Practical application of gender in development work; 3. Incorporation of contemporary critical 
perspectives; and 4. Transformation of structure and systems (see Table 2).  

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   33 
 

Table 2 
 
Data Themes and Subthemes 
Theme 1: Empowerment Defining Empowerment  

Measuring Empowerment  
Leadership 
Decision Making 

Theme 2: Practical Application of 
Gender in development work 

Gender Mainstreaming 
Gender Assessment/Analysis/Eval 
Supporting Frameworks 
Assessment/ Gender Inclusion Methods 
Participatory Engagement 

Theme 3: Incorporation of 
contemporary critical perspectives 

Intersectionality 
Men & Boys 
Masculinity 
Power 

Theme 4: Transformation of 
structure and systems 

Transformation 
[Cultural] Systems 
Systems Approaches 

 
Theme 1: Approaches to Empowerment - Subthemes: Defining Empowerment; Measuring 
Empowerment; Leadership; and Decision Making  
Every organization mentioned the needs for women’s empowerment. However, the way they 
defined it, measured it, or tied in concepts such as leadership or decision-making differed 
amongst the organizations. Empowerment was defined similarly amongst the majority (12 of 
14) of participants. AAH stated, “Empowerment is about women, men, girls and boys taking 
control over their lives: setting their own agendas, developing skills (including life skills), 
building self-confidence, solving problems and developing self-reliance” (p. 16). Interestingly, 
none of the organizations co-define empowerment in collaboration with the local people. 
Rather, empowerment is defined by the organization and informed by the local context.  

All organizations mentioned empowerment in their documents, with nine including direct 
reference to men and boys. CRS mentioned that “improvement of [women’s] political, social, 
economic status is a highly important end in itself but also essential for sustainable 
development.” This sentiment was echoed by LWR, where they added that investing in 
women’s empowerment by increasing their “productive economic activity and decision-making 
at the household, community and government level, their contributions have the potential to 
grow their local economies exponentially” (p. 1).   

The majority (8 of 14) used the domain of economic empowerment as a way to define and 
measure women’s empowerment. WFP stated, “Economic empowerment is a cornerstone of 
gender equality that refers to both women’s ability to succeed and advance economically and 
to their power to make and act on economic decisions” (p. 20). The focus on control of 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   34 
 

resources was prominent in the measurement of empowerment, even as it relates to 
disempowerment of women:  

Globally, women tend to have far more roles and responsibilities than men particularly 
with regard to household and reproductive work. This imbalance disempowers women 
and girls from participating fully in economic, education, and governance opportunities, 
further contributing to their marginalization and subordinate status (CRS). (p. 5)  

Furthermore, leadership and decision-making emerged as subthemes. They were often tied 
together when described as a component of empowerment or failing to empower. Leadership 
was most consistently described as positional leadership such as community leadership and 
governmental representation. As one organization reported, “Women and girls generally face 
inequality in participation and leadership, particularly in terms of decision-making or leadership 
roles in public fora and governance entities” (p. 5). (CRS). Similarly, DFID mentioned that 
women also lack leadership opportunities “at every administrative level, and in leadership 
positions in business” (p. 7). 

Finally, every organization discussed the need to improve women’s decision-making power as 
an essential part of empowerment. Most organizations did not discuss decision-making in terms 
of specific domains. However, the few that did typically framed decision-making in the 
economic domain (CRS, FAO, WFP, WV), or in terms participation and leadership in the 
community through the political domain (DFID, WFP, JICA, USAID). FAO stated: 

Participation alone, however, might not be sufficient to ensure that women’s needs and 
demands are effectively addressed and translated into action. [We must] enhance 
women’s leadership and decision-making power within institutions and governance 
mechanisms at all levels and increase their involvement in the formulation of legal 
frameworks, policies and programmes. (p. 6) 

Similarly, WFP centers decision-making capacity as central to their work stating they “support 
self-determination such that all people have increased power to take up leadership roles and 
make decisions about their personal, household, community and societal food system, food 
security and nutrition needs and experiences” (p.12). Ultimately, no matter the organization, 
women’s empowerment was at the core of their analysis approaches although it differed 
greatly in practice.  

Theme 2: Practical Application of Gender in Development Work - Subthemes: Gender 
Mainstreaming; Gender Assessments; Supporting Frameworks; Assessment/Gender Inclusion 
Methods; and Participatory Engagement 
The concept of gender can be integrated into an organization’s practices ubiquitously or 
minimally. We explored how gender was practically applied throughout the organizations’ 
work. Gender mainstreaming was described as a strategy to ensure “the needs and interests of 
all genders are an integral part of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of any 
planned action or procedure, so that everyone has the opportunity to benefit equally, and 
inequality is not perpetuated” (BMGF, p. 3). Several organizations (5 of 14) stated that this 
purposeful integration of gender is necessary to ensure progress towards gender equality.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   35 
 

Every document mentioned the need to begin with a gender assessment/analysis. A gender 
analysis was described as a method to “understand the relationships between men and 
women, their access to resources, their activities, and the constraints they face relative to each 
other” (CA, p. 1). Organizations such as STC stated that these assessments/analyses “generate 
evidence that enables the design of programmes that contribute to advancing gender equality 
and social justice” (p. 3). Some documents gave specific details for how they should be planned, 
conducted, and used; however, most did not go into this level of detail. Multiple frameworks 
were mentioned to provide guidance for how to integrate gender into development efforts: the 
socio-ecological model (CRS, STC), CRS’s integral human development (IHD) framework, 
Harvard Analytical Framework (CA), and the Six Domains of Gender Analysis (USAID). WV stated 
that these types of assessments go beyond just providing a superficial view of the realities of 
men and women/boys and girls, recognizing the potential of analyses to create a broader 
picture of people’s realities. As WV states:  

[Gender analyses can] identify the root causes upholding negative gender and social 
norms and practices (social relations, institutions, and structures)... [and] uncover 
potential positive and negative consequences of program activities on men, women, 
boys, girls, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. (p. 17)  

Methods described to conduct assessments and integrate gender into their work varied 
amongst the organizations. USAID encourages beginning by “consult[ing] with gender experts 
at NGOs, donors, and other organizations who may be able to outline key gender issues in the 
countries and the sector that will be the focus of your project” (p. 3). Others mentioned the 
purposeful inclusion of gender must include a thorough literature/desktop review, preceding 
quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. When it came to data collection, JICA 
stated the best method was to conduct a survey to “collect and analyze gender-disaggregated 
data and related information in the target countries and areas to understand the current 
situation and issues of each gender” (p. 15). However, most supported the use of mixed data 
collection methods. In addition to the literature review and the primary data collection from 
key stakeholders, STC included the importance of “[examining] laws, policies, regulations, and 
institutional practices to determine if direct or indirect biases exist, how they may reproduce 
inequitable power relations, and how they impact different populations” (p. 30). This view 
would provide a critical look at the reality of participant livelihoods.  

Finally, community participation was stated to be an important component of integrating 
gender into the organization’s work. For example, AAH stated “[AAH] recognizes that 
community driven approaches, collaboration and long-term partnerships are critical in the 
journey to empower women and girls, transform gender relations and build gender equitable 
systems” (p. 9). Furthermore, several organizations state that engagement is essential for 
sustainability of their efforts. STC specifically speaks about the importance of youth 
engagement through their child-centered approach saying “[this approach] puts children’s safe, 
meaningful, and equitable participation at the centre and enables us to examine how age 
discrimination intersects with gender inequality and other forms of oppression” (p. 10). It is 
important to note that although the majority of organizations recognize and state the 
importance of participatory methods or integration of community voice, participation was 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   36 
 

relegated to their inclusion as participants in the research and not in active decision making of 
programming efforts. Participation is an essential approach to challenge the way gender has 
been integrated into programming leading to our exploration of how other contemporary 
critical perspectives are integrated into this work.  

Theme 3: Incorporation of Contemporary Critical Perspectives - Subthemes: Intersectionality; 
Masculinity; Men & Boys; and Power 
Incorporating critical perspectives is essential for the transformative changes needed to make a 
difference in gender dynamics in Honduras. Here we explored an organization’s expressed 
integration of feminist perspectives. Only half of the organizations (7 of 14) articulated the 
need to adopt the critical perspective of intersectionality. AAH gives the most in-depth 
definition:  

[Intersectionality] describes the complex ways that different aspects of identity overlap 
and intersect with structures and systems of power and oppression. It recognizes that 
our identities are made up of multiple interrelated attributes (such as race, gender, 
ability, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, sexual identity, socio-economic status and 
a history of colonialism and dispossession)... [exposing] people to multiple forms of 
discrimination, disadvantage, cultural and structural oppression, and violence. (p. 17)  

The organizations that mention the need for this critical perspective, also mention how 
incorporating intersectionality can challenge power structures (WV), systems of oppression 
(STC), and injustices that create “deep rooted barriers to equality and justice…” (AAH, p. 17).  

Masculinity is another critical perspective mentioned in the data. Half of the organizations (7 of 
14) mentioned the need to engage men and boys, in addition to women and girls, into gender 
mainstreaming efforts. Men and boys play key roles in ensuring that women and girls have 
access to the resources they need (LWR). They must be included to address gender inequality, 
leading to changes in societal norms and transformation of unequal power dynamics (AAH, 
BMGF, PLAN, WFP). However, when it came to addressing the social construct of masculinity, 
only half of the organizations specifically mention men and masculinity. These organizations 
range in approach including focusing on raising men’s awareness of women’s roles (FAO), 
changing men’s attitudes about and participation in household responsibilities (CRS, FAO), 
engaging men as allies (BMGF, CRS, FAO WFP), and working to fundamentally shift the 
performance of masculinity including men’s roles and responsibilities, power, social 
relationships, and structures (BMGF, CRS, PLAN, STC). Several organizations (5 of 14) state that 
masculinity and gendered norms of manhood can have significant effects in how societies treat 
and relate to women (CRS, FAO, PLAN). However, if gender-equitable masculinities could be 
adopted, it could “transform gender norms and unequal power dynamics” (CRS, p. 8). AAH 
went as far as to mention patriarchy as the root of inequality and leads to harmful perspectives 
“based on stereotypes … and underlies many kinds of gender-based discrimination that impact 
the way women and men engage in society” (p. 17). 

Finally, the construct of power is mentioned by the majority of organizations (10 of 14) as 
related to either the empowerment of women or the aforementioned critical perspectives. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   37 
 

Women’s power was often associated with economic decision-making: “women and girls lack 
decision-making power relative to men (and boys) in several areas…from how to spend income 
earned by women or the family to what a family should produce, sell or buy” (CRS, p. 5). FAO 
states that “enhancing women’s control over resources is essential to ensure that they can reap 
the benefits of their work in agriculture and have more control over household resources” (p. 
7). This focus on control or decision-making reduces a woman’s power to the role she plays in 
the household. BMGF brings a shift in focus “from seeing women and girls as beneficiaries to 
viewing them as active agents of change” (p. 9). Acknowledging women’s important role in 
decision-making combined with the integration of masculinity, men and boys, and 
intersectionality, moves toward theoretical underpinnings for sustainable, transformative 
change. 

Theme 4: Transformation of Structure and Systems - Subthemes: Transformation; [Cultural] 
Systems; and Systems Approaches 
This final theme incorporates perspectives geared to create structural and systemic change. The 
majority of organizations (9 of 14) recognize the need for gender transformation. WFP states: 
“a gender transformative approach focuses on transforming (e.g. changing) unequal gender 
relations by challenging deeply entrenched gender norms, biases and stereotypes in order to 
promote shared power, control of resources, decision-making and support for women’s 
empowerment” (p. 19). To create this type of change, organizations must work closely with all 
stakeholders across multiple dimensions. FAO states:  

Discriminatory sociocultural norms affect how policies and legal frameworks are 
formulated and implemented; who participates in decision-making processes and 
governance mechanisms; how rural institutions are managed; how service providers 
target their clients and prioritize their needs; and, ultimately, how resources are 
allocated and decisions are taken within households and communities. (p. 3)  

The influence of sociocultural norms on women’s empowerment calls for addressing the root 
causes of inequality: unequal power relations, discrimination, policies, and practices (LWR, STC, 
WFP, WV).  

CRS demonstrates that to have fair and just structures and systems, we must create an enabling 
environment including laws and policies, culture and norms, and institutions that “respect and 
promote equality, freedom and the dignity of all people” (p. 5). Some organizations recognize 
the need for a significant shift in their approaches. DFID claims they will “[take] an even more 
consistent and systematic approach…[tackling] the discrimination and barriers that prevent 
individuals from reaching their potential, and that further entrench gender inequalities” (p. 13). 
Furthermore, organizations can use gender analyses to shed light on gender and intersectional 
realities and lay the groundwork to “address disparities, challenge systemic inequalities…and 
build efficient and equitable solutions” (CA, p. 2). All efforts will require broader perspectives 
and impact.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   38 
 

Despite the need for a broader perspective, systems approaches were only implicitly 
mentioned. A few organizations (3 of 14) described how programming for women and girls 
could have significant effects in many areas of their lives. For example, DFID stated:  

When [a girl] is not empowered to finish school or to get a job; to decide who to marry, 
who to have sex with and when, and how many children to have; and when she is not 
safe at home, in school, outside or at work, she cannot participate fully in society, or 
realise her potential.... Evidence shows that combinations of interventions are needed 
to respond to these interlinked challenges. (p. 7) 

To achieve gender equality, more integrated and inclusive approaches aimed at changing the 
reality of marginalized groups on multiple levels are needed. 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
Gender transformation requires pushing the envelope in how we challenge systems for 
sustainable, impactful change. This includes the integration of critical perspectives, 
participatory engagement, and systems thinking. The evidence found in our content analysis 
suggests that greater efforts are needed to achieve a sustainable, gender-responsive food 
system. First, most organizations focus on economic empowerment at the household level as 
the primary domain, or area, of women’s empowerment, using decision-making as an indicator. 
Although economic empowerment is important, the hyperfocus on this domain ignores the 
cultural context and local views of empowerment (Cornwall & Anyidoho, 2010; Doss & 
Meinzen-Dick, 2015), potentially sidelining more holistic, culturally nuanced gender 
empowerment strategies. For example, the indigenous Lenca of Honduras, place a high value 
on collective action, decision-making, and leadership at the community level as a route to 
women’s empowerment (Accerenzi & Duke, 2023; Fundación ETEA , 2023; Niewoehner-Green 
et al., 2019). However, gender norms around domestic roles, lack of self-esteem, mobility, and 
participation, remain as limitations to women’s leadership (Niewoehner-Green et al., 2019). A 
narrow economic perspective of empowerment undermines the capacity for transformative 
change, underscoring the need to address local understandings of empowerment, as well as the 
cultural, psychological, and social domains of empowerment (Costa et al., 2023).  
 

Additionally, we found the participatory approaches used by most organizations were 
extractive in nature rather than integrative and empowering. The organizations included 
women and girls’ voices in their data collection but then would not include them in co-
development of programs and interventions. This extraction of women’s and girls’ voices flies in 
the face of the spirit and purpose of participatory approaches, resulting in colonial-minded and 
organizationally driven agendas embedded in gender interventions. Furthermore, although 
many organizations discuss the importance of addressing structures and systems, their 
interventions use a top-down approach simply informed by participants rather than meaningful 
engagement throughout all project aspects. Classen et al. (2008) demonstrates the potential of 
integrated participatory processes in Honduras, finding that intentionally building capacity, 
promoting inclusiveness, building social capital, and taking a long-term approach with 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   39 
 

communities both results in positive project outcomes and empowers participants. The 
intentionality and integration of meaningful participation throughout a project cycle can have 
significant transformative results for communities.  

Another major gap area in the gender analyses was the lack of critical perspectives including 
intersectionality and masculinities. Although all organizations recognize the need to understand 
both men and women’s gender norms, roles, and responsibilities, few organizations are 
working towards transformation. Intersectionality encourages organizations to address multiple 
systems of oppression linked to a person’s various cultural and social identities rather than 
treating them as one-dimensional (Crenshaw, 1989). Without this perspective, organizations 
risk narrowly addressing the realities of gender dynamics. Additionally, a growing body of 
evidence suggests that masculinities must be addressed as part of gender justice for women 
(Bojin, 2013; Das, 2014; de Mel, et al., 2013; Howland et al., 2021). This is particularly true in 
Honduras, where masculinity can result in gender-based violence including backlash for 
economic empowerment initiatives (Sanín, 2023; Vonderlack-Navarro, 2010) and control over 
women’s mobility, reproductive decisions, and assets (Speizer et al., 2005). We must also 
acknowledge how masculinity affects men and reinforces gender norms, as demonstrated in 
the high levels of male-on-male violence in Honduras (Williams & Castellanos, 2019).  

Organizations working on gender in Honduras continue to highlight the need to transform 
systems but only express this implicitly. For example, Howland et al. (2021) critiqued gender 
mainstreaming approaches in Honduran agriculture, finding gaps in transforming gender 
systems such as poor translation of policy from the international to national levels, lack of 
knowledge and capacity, lack of solutions addressing structural racism and machismo, and 
censorship of civil society. Further, Pastran (2017) found many of these systemic barriers 
negatively influenced women’s ability to fully participate in agricultural cooperatives. Arguably, 
systems are difficult to shift within the life of a project cycle but organizations must do more 
than simply building capacity and providing financial support to address the systemic barriers.  

Finally, our analysis shows that there have been advancements in organizational approaches to 
gender. Several are addressing the major critiques of gender mainstreaming through their 
analysis approaches, including a few organizations who are integrating intersectionality and 
masculinities such as BMGF, CRS, PLAN, and STC. Similarly, some organizations are moving 
beyond the economic domain to address other important domains of women’s empowerment 
such as WFP and STC. These efforts must be scaled across organizations and expanded to focus 
on participatory approaches that empower women and communities throughout the life of a 
project to fundamentally address their needs. In addition, organizations should use systems 
approaches to understand the interconnections of factors that influence gender equality such 
as food systems activities, social and cultural practices and broader environmental and 
institutional influences.  

Researchers also have the opportunity to further integrate critical perspectives, participatory 
methods, and systems thinking into their work in transforming agrifood systems. Research with 
a gender lens must include women’s voices throughout the process more so than just as passive 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   40 
 

participants in the research. This helps the community to feel ownership over the process and 
the data, enhancing the potential for the research to benefit the community. Researchers must 
recognize the importance of understanding masculinity as a key component of gendered 
cultural systems, how masculinity influences men and women’s agency and participation, and 
how men and masculinity must be addressed as part of gender equity and women’s 
empowerment goals. Finally, researchers must consider the intersectional nature of social 
systems and power dynamics that affect how women navigate systems of access and decision 
making. 

Acknowledgements 
 
Author Contributions: M. T. Rodriguez – idea generation, data analysis, writing, review and 
editing; R. J. Williams – idea contribution, literature review, writing, editing; J. E. Niewoehner-
Green – methods design, data validation, writing, editing; S. Morales – writing, review and 
editing.  
 

References 
 
Accerenzi, M., & Duke, K. (2023). Empoderamiento de las mujeres en el sector café en 

Honduras. Revista de Fomento Social, 45–71. 
https://doi.org/10.32418/rfs.2023.305.5246  

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of 
Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225   

Batliwala, S. (2007). Taking the power out of empowerment – an experiential account. 
Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469559  

Biggs S., & Farrington J. (1991). Agricultural research and the rural poor: A review of social 
science analysis. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada. 

Bojin, K. (2013). Feminist solidarity: No boys allowed? Views of pro-feminist men on 
collaboration and alliance-building with women’s movements. Gender & Development, 
21(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2013.802879  

Borman, G.D., de Boef, W.S., Dirks, F., Gonzalez,Y.S., Subedi, A. Thijssen, M.H, Jacobs, 
J.,Schrader, T., Boyd, S., ten Hove, H.J., van der Maden,E., Koomen, I., Assibey-Yeboah, 
S., Moussa, C., Uzamukunda, A., Daburon, A., Ndambi, A., van Vugt, S., Guijt, J., … van 
Berkum, S. (2022). Putting food systems thinking into practice: Integrating agricultural 
sectors into a multi-level analytical framework. Global Food Security, 32(100591). 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100591  

Bowen, G. A. (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research 
Journal, 9(2), 27-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355
https://doi.org/10.32418/rfs.2023.305.5246
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469559
https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2013.802879
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100591
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100591
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100591
http://dx.doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   41 
 

Campanhola, C., & Pandey, S. (Eds.). (2018). Sustainable food and agriculture: An integrated 
approach. Academic Press. 

CARE Honduras and United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of 
Women. (2020). Rapid gender analysis in Honduras. An overview in the face of COVID-
19 and Eta / lota. https://careevaluations.org/wp-content/uploads/Rapid-Gender-
Analysis-Honduras-2020.pdf  

Chilisa, B., & Ntseane, G. (2010). Resisting dominant discourses: Implications of indigenous, 
African feminist theory and methods for gender and education research. Gender and 
Education, 22(6), 617–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2010.519578  

Classen, L., Humphries, S., FitzSimons, J., Kaaria, S., Jiménez, J., Sierra, F., & Gallardo, O. (2008). 
Opening participatory spaces for the most marginal: Learning from collective action in 
the Honduran hillsides. World Development, 36(11), 2402–2420. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.04.007  

Connelly, P. M., Li, T. M., MacDonald, M., & Parpart, J. L. (2000). Feminism and development: 
Theoretical perspectives. In J. L. Parpart, P. M. Connelly & V. E. Barriteau (Eds.), 
Theoretical perspectives on gender and development (pp. 51-156). International 
Development Research Center.  

Cornwall, A., (1998). Gender, participation and the politics of difference. In I. Guijt& M. Kaul 
Shah (Eds.), The myth of community: Gender issues in participatory development. (pp. 
46–57). Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd. 

Cornwall, A., & Anyidoho, N. (2010). Introduction: Women’s empowerment: Contentions and 
contestations. Development, 53(2), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2010.34  

Cornwall, A., Harrison, E., & Whitehead, A. (2004). Introduction: Repositioning feminisms in 
gender and development. IDS Bulletin, 35(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-
5436.2004.tb00149.x  

Costa, J. C., Saad, G. E., Hellwig, F., Maia, M. F. S., and Barros, A. J. D. (2023). Measures of 
women's empowerment based on individual-level data: a literature review with a focus 
on the methodological approaches. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1-15. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1231790  

Creswell, J. W. (2018) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches 
(4th ed). Sage Publications Inc. 

Das, A., & Singh, S. K. (2014). Changing men: Challenging stereotypes. Reflections on working 
with men on gender issues in India. IDS Bulletin, 45(1), 69–79. 
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/7303 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355
https://careevaluations.org/wp-content/uploads/Rapid-Gender-Analysis-Honduras-2020.pdf
https://careevaluations.org/wp-content/uploads/Rapid-Gender-Analysis-Honduras-2020.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2010.519578
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.04.007
https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2010.34
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2004.tb00149.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2004.tb00149.x
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1231790
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/7303


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   42 
 

de Mel, M., Peiris, P., & Gomez, S. (2013, April). Broadening gender: Why masculinities matter. 
Attitudes, practices and gender-based violence in four districts in Sri Lanka.  CARE 
International Sri Lanka. https://www.care.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/Broadening-Gender_Why-Masculinities-Matter.pdf   

Doss, C. R., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2015). Collective action within the household: Insights from 
natural resource management. World Development, 74, 171–183. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.001  

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean [ECLAC]. (2023). Femicide or 
feminicide. Gender Equality Observatory for Latin America and the Caribbean. 
https://oig.cepal.org/en/indicators/femicide-or-
feminicide#:~:text=Of%20these%20countries%2C%20the%20highest,2.4%20cases%20p
er%20100%2C000%20women%20  

Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. 
Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 234-245. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002  

Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage Publications.  

Fundación ETEA. (2022). Estudio sobre la violencia de género como factor impulsor de la 
migración irregular entre mujeres jóvenes indígenas Lenca y Maya-Chortí en el occidente 
de Honduras [A study on gender violence as a driving factor of irregular migration 
among young indigenous Lenca and Maya-Chortí women in western Honduras]. 
https://fundacionetea.org/2022/09/01/estudio-sobre-la-violencia-de-genero-como-
factor-impulsor-de-la-migracion-irregular-entre-mujeres-jovenes-indigenas-lenca-y-
maya-chorti-en-el-occidente-de-honduras/    

Guijt, I., & Kaul Shah, M. (Eds.). (1998). The myth of community: Gender issues in participatory 
development. Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd.  

Howland, F., Acosta, M., Muriel, J., & Le Coq, J.-F. (2021). Examining the barriers to gender 
integration in agriculture, climate Change, food security, and nutrition policies: 
Guatemalan and Honduran perspectives. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 
664253. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.664253  

Humphries, S., Classen, L., Jiménez, J., Sierra, F., Gallardo, O., & Gómez, M. (2012). Opening 
cracks for the transgression of social boundaries: an evaluation of the gender impacts of 
farmer research teams in Honduras. World Development, 40(10), 2078–2095. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.008  

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. 
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355
https://www.care.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Broadening-Gender_Why-Masculinities-Matter.pdf
https://www.care.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Broadening-Gender_Why-Masculinities-Matter.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.001
https://oig.cepal.org/en/indicators/femicide-or-feminicide#:~:text=Of%20these%20countries%2C%20the%20highest,2.4%20cases%20per%20100%2C000%20women%20
https://oig.cepal.org/en/indicators/femicide-or-feminicide#:~:text=Of%20these%20countries%2C%20the%20highest,2.4%20cases%20per%20100%2C000%20women%20
https://oig.cepal.org/en/indicators/femicide-or-feminicide#:~:text=Of%20these%20countries%2C%20the%20highest,2.4%20cases%20per%20100%2C000%20women%20
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002
https://fundacionetea.org/2022/09/01/estudio-sobre-la-violencia-de-genero-como-factor-impulsor-de-la-migracion-irregular-entre-mujeres-jovenes-indigenas-lenca-y-maya-chorti-en-el-occidente-de-honduras/
https://fundacionetea.org/2022/09/01/estudio-sobre-la-violencia-de-genero-como-factor-impulsor-de-la-migracion-irregular-entre-mujeres-jovenes-indigenas-lenca-y-maya-chorti-en-el-occidente-de-honduras/
https://fundacionetea.org/2022/09/01/estudio-sobre-la-violencia-de-genero-como-factor-impulsor-de-la-migracion-irregular-entre-mujeres-jovenes-indigenas-lenca-y-maya-chorti-en-el-occidente-de-honduras/
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.664253
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.008
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   43 
 

Jupp, D., Ali, S. I., & Barahona, C. (2010). Measuring empowerment? Ask them: Quantifying 
qualitative outcomes from people’s own analysis. Sida Studies in Evaluation. 
https://www.oecd.org/countries/bangladesh/46146440.pdf  

Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of 
women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435–464. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00125  

Lilja, N., & Dixon, J. (2008). Operationalising participatory research and gender analysis: New 
research and assessment approaches. Development in Practice, 18(4–5), 467–478. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520802181202  

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.  

Mayoux, L. (1995). Beyond naivety: Women, gender inequality and participatory development. 
Development and Change, 26(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
7660.1995.tb00551.x  

McOmber, C., McNamara, K., Riley, T. D., & McKune, S. L. (2021). Investigating the conceptual 
plurality of empowerment through community concept drawing: Case studies from 
Senegal, Kenya, and Nepal. Sustainability, 13(6), 3166. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063166  

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.  

 Niewoehner-Green, J., Stedman, N., Galindo, S., Russo, S., Carter, H., & Colverson, K. (2019). 
The influence of gender on rural Honduran women’s participation and leadership in 
community groups. Journal of International Agricultural Extension and Education, 26(2), 
48–63. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347173895_The_Influence_of_Gender_on_
Rural_Honduran_Women%27s_Participation_and_Leadership_in_Community_Groups  

Njuki, J., Eissler, S., Malapit, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Bryan, E., & Quisumbing, A. (2022). A review 
of evidence on gender equality, women’s empowerment, and food systems. Global Food 
Security, 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100622  

Pastran, S. H. (2017). The paradoxes and potentials for women’s empowerment in Latin 
American agricultural co-operatives: The case of Honduras. International Journal of 
Cooperative Studies, 6(1), 1–15. 
https://worldscholars.org/index.php/ijcs/article/view/800  

Portman, A. (2018). Food sovereignty and gender justice. Journal of Agricultural and 
Environmental Ethics, 31(4), 455-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9739-2  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355
https://www.oecd.org/countries/bangladesh/46146440.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00125
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520802181202
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00551.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00551.x
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063166
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347173895_The_Influence_of_Gender_on_Rural_Honduran_Women%27s_Participation_and_Leadership_in_Community_Groups
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347173895_The_Influence_of_Gender_on_Rural_Honduran_Women%27s_Participation_and_Leadership_in_Community_Groups
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100622
https://worldscholars.org/index.php/ijcs/article/view/800
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9739-2


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   44 
 

Rosas, S. R. (2017). Systems thinking and complexity: Considerations for health promoting 
schools. Health Promotion International, 32(2), 301-311. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dav109    

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage Publications 
Inc.  

Sanín, J. R. (2023). Women’s empowerment and fight against violence in Latin America. Current 
History, 122(841), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2023.122.841.43  

Speizer, I. S., Whittle, L., & Carter, M. (2005). Gender relations and reproductive decision 
making in Honduras. International Family Planning Perspectives, 31(3), 131–139. 
https://doi.org/10.1363/3113105 

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Inc. 

Tauli-Corpuz, V. (2016). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples on 
her visit to Honduras. United Nations Human Rights Council. 
https://un.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/2021-
11/UNSR_VTC_Country_Report_Honduras_2016_English.pdf  

Tavenner, K., & Crane, T. A. (2019). Beyond “women and youth”: Applying intersectionality in 
agricultural research for development. Outlook on Agriculture, 48(4), 316–325. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727019884334  

Tavenner, K., Crane, T. A., Bullock, R., & Galiè, A. (2022). Intersectionality in gender and 
agriculture: Toward an applied research design. Gender, Technology and Development, 
26(3), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2022.2140383 

Tavenner, K., & Crane, T. A. (2022). Hitting the target and missing the point? On the risks of 
measuring women’s empowerment in agricultural development. Agriculture and Human 
Values, 39(3), 849–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10290-2  

Thomas, S. N., Weber, S., & Bradbury-Jones, C. (2022). Using participatory and creative 
methods to research gender-based violence in the Global South and with indigenous 
communities: Findings from a scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(2), 342-
355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020925775  

United Nations Development Program. (2020). Honduras. SDG Integration. 
https://sdgintegration.undp.org/countries/honduras    

Villeda, S. P. (2012). 'Outing' Honduras: Human rights catastrophe in the making. NACLA Report 
on the Americas, 45(3). 
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A311051658/IFME?u=anon~f70c6279&sid=googleSchol
ar&xid=719b9072  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dav109
https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2023.122.841.43
https://doi.org/10.1363/3113105
https://doi.org/10.1363/3113105
https://doi.org/10.1363/3113105
https://un.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/2021-11/UNSR_VTC_Country_Report_Honduras_2016_English.pdf
https://un.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/2021-11/UNSR_VTC_Country_Report_Honduras_2016_English.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727019884334
https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2022.2140383
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10290-2
https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020925775
https://sdgintegration.undp.org/countries/honduras
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A311051658/IFME?u=anon~f70c6279&sid=googleScholar&xid=719b9072
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A311051658/IFME?u=anon~f70c6279&sid=googleScholar&xid=719b9072


Rodriguez et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355   45 
 

Vonderlack-Navarro, R. (2010). Targeting women versus addressing gender in microcredit: 
Lessons from Honduras. Affilia, 25(2), 123–134. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109910364356 

Warren, H. (2007). Using gender-analysis frameworks: Theoretical and practical reflections. 
Gender & Development, 15(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070701391847  

Washington, O. (2016). Food security, food sovereignty and food democracy: Elevating our 
power to be architects of change [White paper]. Sustainable Environmental Systems 
Pratt Institute Brooklyn, NY.  

Williams, R. J., & Castellanos, P. (2019). Youth perceptions of violence in Western Honduras. 
Third World Quarterly, 41(3), 397–414. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1672528  

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2005). Qualitative analysis of content. University of Texas. 
https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~yanz/Content_analysis.pdf  

 
 
 
© 2024 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.355
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109910364356
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109910364356
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109910364356
https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070701391847
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1672528
https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~yanz/Content_analysis.pdf

