Ethical Trade Gender Sustainable Livelihoods Kenya Mixed Methods

Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in
Kenya: Mixed Methods for Women's Participation
Contributors: Kiah Smith

Pub. Date: 2014
Access Date: September 14, 2018
Academic Level: Postgraduate
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
City: London
Online ISBN: 9781473946811
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305013509769
©2014 SAGE Publications, Ltd.. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods Cases.
SAGE SAGE Research Methods Cases
©2014 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This article provides an overview of a sociological study of ethical sourcing, gender and sustainable
livelihoods in Kenya, undertaken as a PhD in 2006–2009. It presents an in-depth exploration of how
both theoretical and methodological ‘gaps’ in previous ethical trade and gender research can be
addressed via the careful selection of methods that aim to improve the participation of women in
data collection. The article describes the logic of good research design: from identifying gaps in the
literature and designing research questions to addressing these gaps; developing a context-specific,
gender-sensitive methodology that links the local level of livelihoods to the global level of ethical
trade; and implementing a mix of qualitative methods that are participatory and inclusive of women
farmers on the ground. I also reflect on two main methodological challenges that I experienced in
the course of field work in Kenya: enhancing the participation of women through workshops and
field walks and working with non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Each reflects some of the
practical challenges of ensuring fairness and ‘voice’ in gender research. The article concludes with
an analysis of the success of the project in meeting its objective of bringing women's perspectives of
local livelihoods together with the global understandings of ‘ethicality’ in formal ethical/fair trade
standards.
Learning Outcomes
Illustrate the link between theory and method at key points of the research process, from
formulating research questions that address a ‘gap’ in knowledge to the overall research design
and selecting specific methods
Describe how participatory workshops and other action-oriented methods in particular were used
to explore women farmers' own accounts of their food systems
Show how mixed methods were used to include different types of participants and to answer
particular aspects of the research questions
Highlight some of the practical and ethical challenges in including and empowering women as
participants in the research
Discuss some of the benefits and limitations of working with non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) in the field, and how this might enable or limit women's ‘voice’
The Research Problem
Multi-stakeholder ethical sourcing initiatives – like Fair Trade and the United Kingdom's Ethical
Trading Initiative (ETI) – are an influential part of the reshaping of global fresh food production,
trade and consumption networks occurring today. By incorporating environmental and social
sustainability into trade regulations, ethical trade is commonly described in terms of its benefits for
poorer workers and farmers in the global ‘South’: such as increasing market access and improving
food quality, farmer health and well-being and environmental sustainability. But for social scientists
Page 2 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Methods for Women's Participation
interested in sustainability, justice, global trade and agri-food relations, there is intense debate over
the capacity of Northern-led ethical trade schemes to enhance the livelihoods of Southern farmers
on whose labour the export of high-value horticultural foods depends. According to economic
geographers Jeff Neilson and Bill Pritchard, ethical trade standards are highly ‘partial and selective
as to whose ethical interests they serve’. Catherine Dolan and Michael Blowfield (anthropologists
specialising in ethical trade and corporate social responsibility in African–European food chains)
have long argued that Southern food producers rarely participate in defining, implementing and
monitoring ethical trade standards, and as a consequence, ethical sourcing rarely matches with the
norms, values and priorities of producers in the South.
In Kenya, where the horticultural industry has a poor track record in labour rights and
environmentally sustainable production, smallholders – defined here as producers who grow
relatively small volumes of produce on relatively small plots of family-owned and managed land,
often combining production of an export commodity with other livelihood activities – have been
inundated with many ‘ethical’ codes and standards for environment, food safety, social welfare,
labour practice and quality, which must be met if they wish to export their fresh products to Europe.
But it is often taken for granted that the processes for designing, implementing and monitoring
ethical trade, as well as the ethical values embedded in ethical trade, will benefit the producers
involved. In reality, ethical sourcing has had mixed effects on smallholder livelihoods, with
researchers having highlighted (among other things) the difficulties in matching ethical values with
market realities for smallholders, as well as the ‘injustice’ of ethical standards that have exacerbated
inequality and vulnerability for many poor farmers. Stephanie Barrientos and Catherine Dolan
provide a good overview of these issues in relation to the ETI; Chris Bacon and associates consider
similar issues in relation to Fair Trade; Suzanne Freidberg explores these themes in the context of
French beans; and Borot de Battisti et al. provide an excellent overview of issues facing farmers
across Africa.
Ethical trade is also widely criticised for being highly gendered. Central work in this area by UK-
based ethical trade researchers Stephanie Barrientos, Catherine Dolan and Anne Tallontire (among
others) generally agrees that
(a)women are the majority of workers in Southern food production, providing over 80% of the
labour in African export agriculture. However, they often have little control over the income
gained, and rarely participate in decisions affecting the food supply chain.
(b)women's employment in horticulture is commonly characterised by low job security, low wages,
excessive hours, occupational segregation, environmental health concerns and limited
opportunities for skill development, which further exacerbates the ‘double burden’ of balancing
farm (and increasingly, off-farm) work and care work.
(c)women are rarely advantaged by the emerging rules and processes of ethical trade.

Although some ethical trade standards reflect the concerns of women smallholders, most do not.
This paradox informed the research design for my own 2006–2009 doctoral study of gender and
ethical trade in Kenyan smallholder French bean production. First, I needed to develop a set of
research questions that would address a number of ‘gaps’ in how ethical trade had been theorised
in the past. These questions would then point to an appropriate methodology, understood here as
‘theory + method’.
Conceptual ‘gaps’
Few existing studies reflected the fact that livelihoods for women farmers at the local level go
beyond the ethical trade food supply chain. That is, they include much more than simply
producing food for global supermarkets – livelihoods also depend on growing food for local
consumption and local trade (i.e. local food security), working outside the farm and improving
family well-being. All of these activities are shaped by cultural and gender norms, and the local
environment.
While much of the existing research into gender in ethical trade has employed key concepts
from agri-food political and/or cultural economy, the theoretical insights offered by sustainable
livelihoods approaches have been relatively neglected. Few studies have attempted to connect
agri-food approaches with theory or methods from development studies.
Although many studies of ethical sourcing have reinforced the conceptual and methodological
relevance of linking livelihoods to broader regulatory and cultural contexts, gender has not often
been a specific focus.
A better understanding of the experiences of Southern participants and those engaged in, or
affected by, the production of ‘ethical’ food in the South was clearly needed. To do this, I developed
a ‘hybrid theoretical framework’: I combined the concepts of food networks and conventions (from
political–cultural economy and agri-food studies), situated knowledge and participation (from gender
theory), and the livelihood strategies and outcomes components of the sustainable livelihoods
framework. These theories fit together ontologically: they all contribute to unpacking power
relations, knowledge flows and gender relations in ways that go beyond a food supply chain
analogy, by placing gendered livelihoods as the starting point for analysis.
Methodologically, I would need to focus on the subjective experiences, attitudes, priorities and
knowledge of women farmers at the local level, alongside analysis of the global structures that
shape those experiences. Taking a gender standpoint also required methods that would enable
women to participate, and be empowered, within the research process.
Research Questions
No previous studies had compared women smallholders' perspectives on ethical trade and
livelihoods with those of other key actors shaping global food networks (i.e. regulators, non-

governmental organisations (NGOs) and companies), or against the ethical content of standards
themselves. My aim was therefore to provide a sociological understanding of how women
smallholder farmers in Kenya experience diverse ethical trade standards, or whether and how
standards reflect their values, local cultural and environmental contexts, or priorities for achieving
sustainable livelihoods.
The main research question was ‘How do women smallholders construct ‘ethicality’ in their food
networks in relation to sustainable livelihoods, and how do these understandings compare with
those currently prioritised in regulatory ethical trade models?’ In this study, ethicality refers to the
specific livelihood issues of well-being, income, food security and environmental sustainability that
capture the host of new ‘ethical’ values permeating mainstream and alternative food networks today.
It encompasses both the values and the processes by which behaviours are judged to be ‘ethical’ or
not. This draws on work by Jeff Neilson and Bill Pritchard, and the perspective of international
development and business researchers Kate Macdonald and Shelley Marshall, who argue that in
the context of ethical trade standards, ‘ethicality’ represents the ‘broad project of promoting a more
just global economic order’ (p. 25).
Developing the Methodology
Previous studies also had a number of methodological gaps to overcome:
topics for research have often been limited to asking about issues covered by existing
standards, that is, impact assessment approaches tend to dominate. While useful for exposing
direct impacts (positive or negative) of ethical trade on women workers, impact assessment does
not question the content or construction of standards themselves (such as which ethical values,
or whose voices, they include or exclude).
many studies have been conducted on behalf of companies or regulators involved in ethical or
fair trade, with samples that have already been exposed to the processes and values of ethical
trade. This might influence the values of participants or restrict the information they choose to
share.
women farmers themselves are often not part of the data collection, even though some key
studies have emphasised the need for ‘gender-sensitive auditing’.
smallholder farmers differ from ‘workers’ employed in horticultural industries and do not feature
strongly in existing research into gender and ethical trade. Fair trade research has been
stronger on this.
most studies of local ‘livelihoods’ remain separate from studies of both ethical trade and gender;
they lack a holistic approach that considers the local level and the global level together.
not many studies include NGOs, even though they play a key role in shaping the meanings and
processes of ethical and fair trade.

In response, my study explicitly sought (1) to link the local level of livelihoods and gender relations
to the global level of ethical trade and (2) to open up spaces for Southern women's voices to take
centre-stage in a field where their voices have been largely missing. The research design was based
on the core assumption that knowledge generated through diverse, context-dependent interactions,
settings and situations is multidimensional. It also operationalised the theoretical framework
developed above, by moving beyond supply chain and impact assessment methodologies to
encompass the broader context of gendered smallholder livelihoods.
Research Design
I decided that an interpretivist–constructivist approach using mixed methods would be the best way
for me to do this. Mine is an actor-oriented methodology that draws on a range of participatory
methods. I would aim to emphasise smallholders' own accounts, which, as exemplified by Angela
Hale and Maggie Opondo (academic and NGO-based researchers in Kenya/Africa), would best
‘ground’ research priorities in the lived experiences of women in local food networks, focusing the
analysis on the needs of those whose livelihoods ethical trade is designed to improve. The study is
characterised by
case study approach;

mixed methods;
qualitative analysis, using NVivo software;
participatory and actor-oriented methods;
gender-sensitive methods;
6 months' field work in Kenya and 1 month in the United Kingdom;
access to participants facilitated via collaboration with NGOs in the field;
4 years (2006-2009) to complete the entire study;
resources limited to modest PhD stipend for living and study expenses, and approximately
AUD$4000 in travel funding.
Using Mixed Methods
Qualitative data from two case studies were generated through mixed methods: (1) participatory
workshops with 184 women smallholder farmers; (2) semi-structured interviews with 40 smallholders
and representatives of organisations involved with ethical trade in Kenya and Europe; (3)
observation in the form of field transect walks, conference attendance, taking photographs and
living in the community; and (4) qualitative analysis of standards documents (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of mixed methods.
Participatory Methods
Considering the research questions for the study, methods were chosen that enable smallholder
women to express their own realities. As Valerie Nelson and colleagues at the Natural Resources
Institute write, ‘workers’ priorities do not always mirror code provisions' (p. 541). Interviews,
participatory workshops and action research methods do not limit participant responses to
previously determined categories (as do survey questionnaires or audit approaches), but create
opportunities for women collectively to pursue new ideas of their own making. In this way, qualitative
and participatory research methods fit closely with the developmental aspirations underpinning the
sustainable livelihoods framework.

Workshops and interviews with women farmers were designed to be highly participatory, with
interviews with other food network actors designed to supplement the main body of data collected
from the women themselves. Observational methods – such as field transect walks (where farmers
took me on a walking tour of their farms, explaining key issues or places to me as we walked) and
taking photos – were also driven by the issues of importance to participants. Interview questions
were designed to follow up issues raised by women during workshops; a few questions regarding
specific aspects of ethical trade codes or the history of women's participation were directed to actors
in NGOs or regulatory bodies.
This type of reflexive research design proved very successful in enabling women to talk about their
food systems, because even for farmers involved in ethical trade supply chains, knowledge of
specific aspects of ethical trade codes was very low. In fact, most women did not know about the
global supply chains they were a part of, or that they were regulated by ethical trade at all. Beyond
hygiene rules (such as washing hands or not cooking after handling pesticides), it was almost
impossible to discuss more complex ethical issues in the codes, such as those around labour rights
or ‘fair’ practices. I tried this in early workshops, but soon needed to change my approach. Many
participants commented privately to me that they were surprised to learn about the range of ethical
standards and regulations that applied to their supply chains.
Choosing Case Studies
According to Jeff Neilson and Bill Pritchard, ethical trade should be explored not just where it is
being implemented but also where it is not. This is because
(a)community definitions of well-being may have already been influenced by familiarity with ethical
trade's expectations;
(b)not all definitions of well-being or sustainability fall within the radar of formal ethical trade
systems;
(c)women are key stakeholders in a wide variety of food networks, not just those certified as fair or
ethical.
I therefore chose a comparative case study design, including women who were and were not part of
ethical trade food networks. The choice of case studies was central for broadening my
understanding of ‘food networks’ beyond just ethically traded export horticulture. Each location
provided a rich context for exploring the full diversity of women smallholders' knowledge, strategies
and values surrounding their food networks and helped unpack how a range of ethical trade
regulations connect local livelihoods with globalised export networks. Both case studies were
located in the Machakos district, Kenya:
case A comprised women smallholder farmers from five export farming cooperatives in the Eveti
Hills, many of whom have been involved in horticultural export for decades. The women grew

French beans, courgettes and baby corn on their small, family-owned farms under different
kinds of ‘ethical’ sourcing regulations (multi-stakeholder codes such as the ETI, company codes
of conduct and sectoral codes such as KenyaGAP). In addition to export crops, they were also
producing local crop varieties for local sale and family consumption and were under
consideration for accreditation to Fair Trade. Access to participants was through an informal
collaborative agreement with an international NGO, who linked me with a large horticultural
export company in Kenya (de-identified for privacy and confidentiality).
case B was characterised by subsistence farming of maize and other vegetables for
personal/family consumption and for local market sale in Tala. Although women farmers were
not producing food under any ethical regulations, they provided important insights into the
livelihoods of women in the Machakos area and crucial baseline information about both the
current and desired structure of local food networks in the area. Access to this group was via my
position as a volunteer with a local sustainable development NGO.
Rather than describe each method – this is detailed in my thesis – the remainder of this article will
focus on two aspects of the methodology that came to define the strengths and weaknesses of my
approach: (1) enhancing women's participation and (2) collaborating with NGOs. On the one hand,
these issues were highly practical ones: who would participate in the research, how would I access
them and who would benefit from the research and how. On the other hand, both raised numerous
ethical and political challenges.
Enhancing Women's Participation
The main challenge was how to ensure meaningful participation by a range of actors, but especially
for women farmers. Data collection methods were chosen for their potential to provide the kinds of
experiences that gender expert Patricia Cornwall suggests are crucial for enabling the participation
of marginalised women:
strategies to reach women and enable them to speak, such as wider consultation processes,
adding gender balance to the research team/facilitators and choosing locations in which women
feel able to speak (rather than which might restrict particular groups of women from attending or
speaking up);
including women in all stages of the research from design, implementation, analysis and
communication of findings;
including feminist researchers and NGOs in field research and collaborating with a range of
actors sympathetic to the structural constraints facing women in distinct contexts;
going beyond disaggregation of data by gender/sex, by moving away from asking questions
about what policy makers want to know and towards including women's analyses of their
priorities.

Workshops
Actor-oriented workshops and semi-structured interviews provided the main methods for achieving
these aims, as I was interested in women smallholders' own perspectives on ethical trade and their
food networks: in their own words and with their own ‘voices.’ Each workshop was attended by
between 6 and 15 participants, held in locations convenient for them: at the farm cooperative shed
(case A) or at the local primary school (case B). Participation was voluntary, and everyone gave their
written and verbal ‘informed consent’. Participants were encouraged to discuss the project aims and
to mutually agree upon the best ways for the research to be implemented, in ways that would
minimise any social/cultural conflict. They determined how many workshops would be held, where
and when these would be conducted, and how I should communicate results back to the
community. All workshop materials were left with a representative of the women's groups or
cooperatives for their further use, as a reciprocal gesture for sharing knowledge and resources.
Workshops were informed by the ‘appreciative inquiry’ model of participatory action research. As
Elliot explains, appreciative inquiry aims to reveal local achievements, strengths, dreams and
aspirations through focusing on positive situations, rather than focus on defining problems with
regard to developmental needs. The workshops asked the following questions:
How would you ‘map’ all of the parts of your local food system – the people, the places, the
activities and the relationships?
What are the best things about participating in women's groups, the local food system and/or
farmers' cooperatives?
Thinking beyond the food system, what does a ‘good quality of life’ mean to you?
In your ‘vision’ for a better food system in the future, what would be the ideal environmental, social
and economic improvements?
Participants told me that this was a novel format compared to other meetings they had attended
with the NGO or export company. Usually, it was men who attended meetings, or meetings
resembled an information session or one-way conversation between ‘expert’ and the ‘community’.
Participants were eager to discuss their views, some even expressing how rare it was for them to be
invited to share their opinions. I believe this was evidence that the workshops had at least some
potential for women's empowerment.
Visual Tools and Hands-on Activities
Many of the smallholder participants were illiterate, did not speak fluent English or spoke only
Swahili or Kikamba (the local language). In order to enable participants to explore and report on
their experiences in a participatory environment, I used visual tools such as mapping and wheel
diagrams to accompany discussions held in a mix of languages, translated by the participants
themselves. Visual data were later transferred into written form to become part of the textual data,

supported by field notes taken during and after the workshops.
Mapping of the current food system accompanied discussions about the inputs, outputs, actors and
connections between these and were summarised in visual form on large pieces of paper (see
Figure 1). Wheel diagrams were used to identify participants' definitions of strengths and well-being,
which were then ranked in order of importance (see Figure 2). Results from each wheel diagram
were quantified, so they could be compared across workshops and case studies: from 10 being the
most important (100% coloured) to 0 being the least important (or not coloured at all). This deviates
from other studies of ethical trade that measure benefits against each principle of a code; instead,
women were able to define and evaluate their own categories. Workshops also provided an
opportunity for me to observe, first hand, the livelihood-related and ethical trade-related issues of
importance for participants.
Figure 1. Mapping.
Figure 2. Wheel diagram.
I also used field transect walks whereby participants could verbally describe, in their own language,
the issues of greatest importance as I was escorted around the farm (see Figure 3). I also observed
five farming cooperatives in case location A, as these were used as meeting places to hold
workshops and interviews. These settings were of interest for their spatial organisation (e.g. for
observing what kinds of regulatory information were being transmitted to farmers on posters

displayed in cooperative sheds) and for their broader cultural significance (e.g. which environmental
problems women chose to point out on their farms).
Figure 3. Field walk.
Working with NGOs
Undertaking this kind of participatory field work in Kenya was made possible through collaborating
(as a volunteer researcher) with two NGOs. Despite raising numerous challenges, this enabled me
to
access key ethical trade industry stakeholders, but more importantly, gain access to smallholder
farmers, women's groups and a Kenyan export company;
access other local contacts in Kenya;
share knowledge and mutual learning;
provide ‘free’ scoping research for the NGO (reciprocity);
ensure safety and logistics for the researcher.
Benefits
Although each NGO was very ‘hands off’ in terms of shaping research questions, methods and
outputs, they did connect me with their existing networks. In location A, I was introduced to an
exporter who then facilitated my visits to individual producer cooperatives, although over a limited
timeframe. In location B, I was linked up with local women's groups in a community with which the
NGO had been actively working for a number of years. But as a result, the two case studies
represented just two types of groups of women smallholders – those who were members of
women's groups, and those who were producing for one exporter – at the exclusion of other
potential participants. And while NGO collaboration was helpful in gaining access to local
gatekeepers, it was of little assistance in accessing gatekeepers higher up the vertical food network
(such as regulators or retailers).
Being affiliated with NGOs had some impact on the extent to which women felt free to participate
and share their views. I continually needed to communicate clearly to participants about my
motivations to do the research. In location A, it was important that I was not employed or connected
in any way to the export company, but more closely affiliated with an NGO that often works with the

exporter on ethical trade issues. If I had worked for the exporter, participants would have been less
likely to openly criticise or discuss their problems, and more likely to offer explanations that ‘fit’ with
the ethical trade standards that they were already aware of. Being independent did help improve my
legitimacy in the eyes of some participants, as a few women commented to me privately, although it
remained more difficult for me to establish a strong rapport here than in location B.
In location B, I was helping to conduct a ‘scoping’ project for the NGO as well as my own PhD
research, with the aim to eventually suggest appropriate, small projects for the local area. This
scoping project emerged as my way to share the knowledge I gained with this NGO, who had not
conducted any baseline research of its own but wanted to find ideas for future development
projects. Reciprocity was in the form of a detailed report into the food-related issues affecting
women in the area and the types of solutions they envisaged, given to both the NGO and local
women's groups. Beyond this, I had little power (as a student and volunteer) to influence the work
of the NGO.
Limitations
In both locations, I found that participants may have been unclear about the expected outcomes of
their involvement and may have felt obliged to attend meetings and workshops based on
established relationships between participants and the NGOs or the export company. NGOs and the
export company were particularly powerful in defining the when and where of meetings, who would
attend, and ultimately, what projects would be funded and for whom. This was a key reason for
using multiple methods – while women may or may not have had completely ‘free’ choice to attend
workshops, their participation in interviews and field walks was entirely voluntary and confidential. It
was constantly necessary that I clarify that I was not working for the NGO, but was a volunteer who
had come to learn from them. Despite my best efforts to remain as neutral as possible, this was a
significant ‘grey area’ affecting the process of building rapport.
Ensuring individual confidentiality and privacy also took on two meanings in the context of working
with NGOs. The participatory nature of the research meant that women's viewpoints and needs were
‘known’ by other participants, and participants knew each other through their community; they were
neighbours, friends or members of each other's women's groups and producer cooperatives. This
did not appear to cause problems and actually helped me to access participants through snowball
sampling.
Certainly, individual responses needed to be kept confidential from those outside of the project, but
also from the NGO representatives themselves. On one occasion, when a male representative of the
export company was present for part of a workshop, participants were silent except when prompted;
when they did respond, their answers reflected glowing accounts of the exporters. This was
problematic, as discussions changed to reveal a very vocal and critical group when the male

‘outsider’ left. After that, I made every effort to ensure that the NGO or company representatives
were never present at workshops or interviews. Where women were employees (as in location A) or
recipients of direct help (in location B), it was important to ensure that while their participation might
have been known to others, their actual contributions to the discussions were not. Workshops were
not tape or voice recorded, and pseudonyms were used in writing up the study. Interviews were
recorded with participants' permission, transcribed and stored securely.
Collaboration also brought to light the practical difficulties in working with resource-constrained
organisations in a developing country, as well as personal conflicts and ideological differences
around the nature of participation and reciprocity. These stemmed from difficulties in balancing the
theory-driven methodological concerns (underpinning the PhD) with the need for practical,
immediate outcomes for local organisations and research participants. In writing up the final reports,
achieving a balance between researcher and participants' points of view was also challenging, as
the motivations for ensuring ‘meaningful participation’ differed between myself and the NGOs I was
working with.
Findings and Analysis
Qualitative Analysis
Ethnographers Mike Crang and Ian Cook argue that when data sources include a mix of textual and
visual materials, analysis is both a matter of informally ‘piecing things together’ and treating the data
systematically. In this study, charts, diagrams and illustrations constructed in the workshops were
read literally, for the information they contained. Network diagrams from each workshop were
combined, resulting in one final diagram that reflected my analysis of the conglomeration of
mapping data. This was interpreted further through analyses of workshop field notes. Textual data
(from interviews and notes) were systematised through coding for key themes and relationships. I
used the qualitative analysis program NVivo to assist with managing and retrieving data. I would
have liked to include the women participants more in the process of data analysis (as advocated by
action research), but this was not possible due to time and resource constraints.
Findings on Gender and Ethical Trade
By combining diverse theories (political/cultural economy, gender and sustainable livelihoods) and
methodological perspectives (i.e. feminist, cross-cultural and actor-oriented approaches) with mixed
methods for generating and analysing data, the methodology developed here has enabled a unique
insight into the perspectives of women smallholders engaged in food production, trade and
consumption in Machakos, Kenya. I found that multiple understandings or meanings of livelihoods,
social justice, environmental sustainability, fairness and well-being – or ethicality – exist in parallel to
those in ethical trade schemes. The food chain analogy – as conceptualised within ethical trade
literature as ‘producer–exporter–supermarket–consumer’ – and regulated as such – also leaves out

many of the day-to-day livelihood concerns of women farmers on the ground. As such, the ‘ethics’ of
ethical trade must be said to be incomplete, in that they do not address the full range of gender
relations, environmental conditions or even food system activities that are at the centre of
smallholders' lives. Please consult the further readings for more details on these and other findings.
Were Participants ‘Empowered’?
Mixing theoretical traditions and qualitative methods in the field meant that this study was quite
successful in opening up spaces for diverse voices and interpretations to become part of the
broader critique of ethical trade. In line with feminist and cross-cultural research, participatory
workshops were chosen for their capacity to enhance the agency of women at all stages of the
research design and implementation, in an effort to contribute to inclusion, empowerment and
positive outcomes for all involved.
I entered the field as a young, White, educated, Australian PhD student–researcher–volunteer. On

one hand, my status as a student and volunteer contributed to the willingness of horticultural
organisations and NGOs to speak with me, and I believe, also to women smallholders' interest in
sharing their stories with me. I believe I was able to establish rapport and trust; for example, in all of
the workshops, participants were eager to discuss their views, some even expressing how rare it
was for them to be invited to share their opinions. Working with NGOs gave me access to a unique
sample of women farmers and eased my transition to living and working in a developing country
such as Kenya. But being affiliated with those groups also raised some concerns. It was at times
difficult for me to separate myself completely from relations of dependency and obligation that
inevitably influence smallholder–NGO and smallholder–exporter power relationships.
Unfortunately, time and resource constraints meant that a more thorough evaluation using culturally
appropriate techniques was not possible; this would have been extremely helpful in clarifying
whether and to what extent the methodology fulfilled its aim of contributing an empowering and
participatory approach, or whether it can be applied to other studies of ethical trade that bring
together diverse theoretical perspectives.
Conclusion
My experiences in the field certainly demonstrated some of the ways in which research engages
both the researcher and the researched in a complex political and ethical process. Working with
NGOs and using participatory methods can certainly enhance women's ‘voice’; but issues such as
reciprocity, consent and confidentiality must be adequately addressed throughout the project for
real empowerment to occur. While not without its limitations, this methodology has provided me with
a wealth of rich and reliable qualitative data with which to explore the theoretical research questions
driving this study.

Exercises and Discussion Questions
This project was quite ambitious in terms of blending theory (cultural/political economy, gender
and sustainable livelihoods) and different methodological perspectives (feminism, cross-cultural,
ethnography and action research)? How could the overall research design be simplified?
Informal conversations during field work provided some insight into the effectiveness of workshop
methods, but there were no time or resources left for a formal follow-up or evaluation process.
Can we really ever ‘know’ whether participants were ‘empowered’ in this study? Could the women
have been ‘disempowered’ in any ways? What else might have been done to enhance reciprocity?
What might be some pitfalls of being positioned as a student–researcher and working with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) in the field? How might these issues affect the nature of the
data collected from different groups?
This article drew attention to some ethical and political issues of doing research in the field, such
as those relating to access, confidentiality, reciprocity and power relations. What other ethical
issues are important when doing research in different cultures with groups of participants who
may be classed as vulnerable or marginalised?
Further Reading
Smith, K. (2012). Gender and food security in a fair, green economy? Development, 55, 81–89. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/dev.2011.118. R e t r i e v e d f r o m http://www.palgrave-
journals.com/development/journal/v55/n1/pdf/dev2011118a.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1057/dev.2011.118
Smith, K. (2011). Contesting ethicality: Ethical trade, gender and sustainable livelihoods for
smallholder farmers in Kenya (PhD thesis). The University of Queensland, Australia, Brisbane.
Retrieved from http://library.uq.edu.au/record=b2795906
Smith, K. (2011). Contesting the values of ethical trade: Connecting political–cultural economy,
gender and sustainable livelihoods. Dialogues, E-Journal, 9(1), 1–22. R e t r i e v e d f r o m
http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au//dialogue/SmithContestingValuesEthicalTrade.pdf
Smith, K., & Lyons, K. (2011). Negotiating organic, fair and ethical trade: Lessons from
smallholders in Uganda and Kenya. In Edited by: C.Rosin & H.Campbell (Eds.), Food system
failure: The global food crisis and the future of agriculture (pp. 182–202). London, England:
Earthscan.
Web Resources
United Kingdom's Ethical Trading Initiative: http://www.ethicaltradinginitiative.org

Fair Trade International: http://www.fairtrade.net/
D F i D S u s t a i n a b l e L i v e l i h o o d s F r a m e w o r k :
http://www.efls.ca/webresources/DFID_Sustainable_livelihoods_guidance_sheet.pdf

References
Edited by: Bacon, C., Mendez, V. E., Gliessman, S., Goodman, D., & FoxJ. (Eds.). (2008).
Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and
C e n t r a l A m e r i c a. Cambridge: M a s s a c h u s e t t s I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262026338.001.0001
Barrientos, S. (2000). Globalization and ethical trade: Assessing the implications for development.
Journal of International Development, 12, 559–570. d o i : http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1099-
1328(200005)12:4<559::AID-JID691>3.0.CO;2-Ghttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1099-
1328(200005)12:4<559::AID-JID691>3.0.CO;2-G
Barrientos, S., & Dolan, C. (2006). Transformation of global food: Opportunities and challenges for
fair and ethical trade. In Edited by: S.Barrientos & C.Dolan (Eds.), Ethical sourcing in the global
food system (pp. 1–34). London, England: Earthscan.
Barrientos, S., & Smith, S. (2006). ETI labour code of practice: Do workers really benefit?Brighton,
UK: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Barrientos, S., Dolan, C., & Tallontire, A. (2001, July). Gender and ethical trade: A mapping of the
issues in African horticulture (Working paper on gender in ethical trade in Kenya, South Africa and
Zambia). London, England: Department for International Development.
Barrientos, S., Dolan, C., & Tallontire, A. (2003). A gendered value chain approach to codes of
c o n d u c t i n A f r i c a n h o r t i c u l t u r e. World Development, 31, 1511–1526. d o i :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00110-4http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-
750X%2803%2900110-4
Blowfield, M. (1999). Ethical trade: A review of developments and issues. Third World Quarterly,
20, 753–770. d o i :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436599913541http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436599913541
Blowfield, M., & Dolan, C. (2008). Stewards of virtue? The ethical dilemma of CSR in African
agriculture. Development and Change, 39, 1–23. d o i : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
7660.2008.00465.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00465.x
Edited by: Borot de Battisti, A., MacGregor, J., & Graffham, A. (Eds.). (2009). Standard bearers:
Horticultural exports and private standards in Africa. London, England: International Institute for
Environment and Development.
Cornwall, A. (2003). Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory
development. World Development, 31, 1325–1342. d o i : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-
750X(03)00086-Xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X%2803%2900086-X

Creyer, E., & Ross, W. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: Do consumers
really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 421–432. d o i :
Dolan, C. (2001). The ‘good wife’: Struggles over resources in the Kenyan horticultural sector. The
Journal of Development S t u d i e s, 37(3), 39–70. d o i :
Dolan, C. (2004). On farm and packhouse: Employment at the bottom of the global value chain.
R u r a l S o c i o l o g y, 69, 99–126. d o i :
Dolan, C. (2005a). Benevolent intent? The development encounter in Kenya's horticulture industry.
Journal of Asian and African S t u d i e s, 40, 411–437. d o i :
Dolan, C. (2005b). Fields of obligation: Rooting ethical sourcing in Kenyan horticulture. Journal of
C o n s u m e r C u l t u r e, 5, 365–389. d o i :
Dolan, C. (2008). Arbitrating risk through moral values: The case of Kenyan fairtrade. Research in
Economic Anthropology, 28, 271–296. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0190-1281(08)28012-1
Dolan, C. (2010). Virtual moralities: The mainstreaming of Fairtrade in Kenyan tea fields. Geoforum,
41, 33–43. d o i :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.01.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.01.002
Elliott, C. (1999). Locating the energy for change: An introduction to appreciative inquiry. Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Freidberg, S. (2003). Cleaning up down south: Supermarkets, ethical trade and African horticulture.
Social & Cultural Geography, 4, 27–43. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1464936032000049298
Freidberg, S. (2004). French beans and food scares: Culture and commerce in an anxious age.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Neilson, J., & Pritchard, B. (2010). Fairness and ethicality in their place: The regional dynamics of
fair trade and ethical sourcing agendas in the plantation districts of India. Environment and Planning
A, 42, 1833–1851. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a4260http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a4260
Nelson, V., Martin, A., & Ewert, J. (2005). What difference can they make? Assessing the social
i m p a c t o f c o r p o r a t e c o d e s o f p r a c t i c e. Development in Practice, 15, 539–546. d o i :



Ethical Trade Gender Sustainable Livelihoods Kenya Mixed Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Trade Gender Sustainable Livelihoods Kenya Mixed Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in

Kenya: Mixed Methods for Women's Participation

Contributors: Kiah Smith

The Research Problem

Page 2 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Page 3 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Page 4 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Developing the Methodology

Previous studies also had a number of methodological gaps to overcome:

Page 5 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

case study approach;

Using Mixed Methods

Page 6 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Table 1. Summary of mixed methods.

Page 7 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Choosing Case Studies

Page 8 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Enhancing Women's Participation

Page 9 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Visual Tools and Hands-on Activities

Page 10 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

supported by field notes taken during and after the workshops.

Figure 2. Wheel diagram.

Page 11 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Figure 3. Field walk.

Working with NGOs

Page 12 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Page 13 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Findings and Analysis

Findings on Gender and Ethical Trade

Page 14 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Were Participants ‘Empowered’?

I entered the field as a young, White, educated, Australian PhD student–researcher–volunteer. On

Page 15 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Exercises and Discussion Questions

United Kingdom's Ethical Trading Initiative: http://www.ethicaltradinginitiative.org

Page 16 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Page 17 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Page 18 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

Page 19 of 19 Ethical Trade, Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kenya: Mixed

You might also like