Participatory Gender Auditing: a Challenging Process of Learning and Change

PGA, 2002, Hettie Walters, G&DTC

PARTICIPATORY GENDER AUDITING: A CHALLENGING PROCESS OF LEARNING AND CHANGE

Introduction

In this paper I discuss the experiences gained since 1999 using the participatory gender audit (PGA) methodology developed by the Gender and Development Training Centre.

PGA is a methodology that enables organisations to assess, learn from and improve their working practice on gender equality and women’s empowerment. It combines insights from feminist and gender and development theory and practice with new insights on organisational learning and change based on constructivist evaluation and learning organisation theory and practice. It is a learning process designed on the basis of experiential/adult learning.

A participatory gender audit is not an impact assessment of the outcome of the work being done by a development organisation, but an organisational self-assessment: it examines whether and to what extent the organisation has created the organisational conditions and standards to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment.

This PGA methodology has so far been used by two of the main Dutch development agencies – SNV and HIVOS – and the International Labour Office for self- assessment of the implementation of their organisational gender policies.[1] They have learnt many lessons on aspects such as ownership of gender equality principles, the opening up of space for true self-assessment by all those involved in the organisation (from drivers and cleaners to managing directors), the consequences for wider organisational learning and change, and the creation of common understanding in the organisations concerning what is meant by gender equality and women’s empowerment.

This paper focuses on the methodological aspects and the lessons learned concerning the methodological underpinning of PGA. The methodology was designed at the request of SNV Netherlands Development Organisation in 1999. Since participation ranks high in SNV’s corporate values and in its practice in development programmes and projects, this methodology needed be participatory as well. Unlike the usual target groups, the intended public for the methodology was SNV’s own personnel and the personnel of some of its partner organisations.

Since its inception three years ago, the PGA has been used by four organisations: SNV, HIVOS (a Dutch co-financing agency), the International Labour Office (ILO) and the Programme for Local development Zoundwéogo ( Burkina Faso), at this moment we are in the process of executing a gender audit of the Espace Associatif in Marocco funded by GTZ Morocco’s Gender programme.. All in all, some 25 different work units have used the PGA to do their self-assessment: in the case of the ILO and HIVOS, the PGA has been employed in the framework of a larger, organisation-wide gender audit, while in that of SNV it has formed part of more independent field operations. All three organisations have adapted the methodology to their particular situations and to the means at their disposal for carrying out an organisational assessment and learning exercise. This paper discusses the lessons learned through using, reflecting upon, and adapting, PGA in three very different organisations and in very diverse locations. I ask four major questions:

·  What are the non-negotiable requirements for doing a PGA which will allow learning and change to happen?

·  Does the methodology itself live up to its in-built assumption: that it is possible to promote a profound learning experience for the participants in a PGA, leading to improved understanding and practice concerning the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment of the participants?

·  Can organisations carry out this process by themselves? Is the necessary quality of facilitation team members available in the organisation, or can or must they be hired in from the outside? In either case, what are the consequences in terms of ownership of the process?

·  Do other organisational issues apart from gender equality come up when doing a PGA, and how can they be dealt with?

This paper is organised as follows:

·  In Part 1 I discuss the methodological premises underpinning the PGA. At appropriate points in the text I give, in italics, some observations based on experiences with the PGA in relation to the four guiding questions above.

·  In Part 2 I discuss the methods used in the PGA and give, in italics, some of the lessons learned from a methodological perspective, bearing the four questions in mind. Through application of the PGA we have learned some lessons concerning the way the methods are described in the manual we have developed for the PGA. Some methods need to be adapted to make them more practical: for example, the sequences of steps to be taken when using a method can be improved, questions can be formulated better, the purpose of some of the methods can be explained better. However, this paper does not aim to elaborate those changes: they will need to be made in a revision of the existing manual.

·  Part 3 contains a synthesis of experiences and conclusions related to the four guiding questions.

The ideas presented in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author. No formal evaluation of the methodology has taken place involving the three organisations which have used it. In most cases, regular contacts were maintained during the audits between the organisations and the author, who also facilitated the execution of a number of the audits and was involved in the preparation and capacity-building process and in the evaluation and report-writing phases. Contacts were also maintained with other (lead) facilitators involved in PGAs. No reference will be made in this paper to identifiable situations or cases from gender audits in any of the participating organisations. Most of the lessons learned are based on experiences in more than one of these organisations.

Part 1: The methodology of the participatory gender audit

What is a participatory gender audit?

A participatory gender audit is a methodology for self-assessment of policy implementation by development programmes and organisations. The main aim of the participatory gender audit is that participants learn about:

·  what they are doing concerning gender equality and women’s empowerment in their work,

·  how they do it,

·  how they relate what they are doing to what others are doing, and

·  how they can improve what they are doing and place it in the context in which they work.

The assumption is that this learning will lead to proposals for change that can translate the learning into action.

The difference between this participatory audit and a normal gender evaluation is that the focus of the participatory gender audit is on self-assessment, not on external evaluation. The people who are employed in an organisation or are associated to it as partner organisations or donors are considered as empirical experts, able and motivated to assess themselves and their organisation or their partner organisations in order to improve the organisation’s performance on gender equality and women’s empowerment.

The first assumption here is that the organisation involved has a gender policy of which its employees are aware and which they are striving to implement. This can cause – and has caused – difficulties in the execution of a PGA. We have noticed that this is not always the case. Either the policy does not exist, or it exists but is not known about, or it is known about but not implemented for different reasons.

The second question to be asked is whether participants will assume their role as experts and subjects or are more at ease with a role as the passive objects of an external evaluation. In the latter case, what are the conditions leading to this attitude and how can it be changed to an attitude of openness to learning and active participation in the context of a PGA?

The methodology

The methodology[2] of the participatory gender audit rests on a combination of four methodological pillars of current thinking on gender and organisational change.

1 Gender and development

Gender and development methodology has as its basis the recognition that societies are organised around a ‘male’ norm, and that it is through reflection and action that women and men can question this male norm and formulate proposals in order to change societal and individual relations so that they become equal. This process of reflection and action is participatory and empowering. It recognises that women and men are key actors in social change. Gender and development methodology assumes that, although gender relations are in most situations unequal, change towards equality is possible. Gender inequality originates in patriarchal ideology, which underpins most of the institutional arrangements on which today’s societies are based. Change towards gender equality and women’s empowerment therefore requires a change at the level of the institutions that govern our daily life, structure our social relations and create and maintain societies where unequal (power) relations are expressed in existing gender relations as well as through class, caste, religion and ethnicity.

Over the years a body of theory and a range of tools and instruments for the analysis and change of gender relations have been developed. These tools and instruments are basically geared towards promoting an understanding of:

·  the sexual division of labour;

·  the allocation of, and control over, the resources for labour and the benefits derived from it;

·  the ways in which decisions are taken at different levels of societies and institutions, and the extent of women’s and men’s participation in, or exclusion from, these decision-making processes;

·  the causes of physical and psychological abuse and different forms of protection against it;

·  the processes and relations that construct gender in different cultures and the role of institutions and organisations in this construction;

·  the ways in which privilege and marginalisation are maintained and expressed;

·  strategies for change towards gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Gender and development (GAD) has evolved into a sound professional field in which the organisational issues involved in changing gender relations have received increasing attention. It has become evident that implementing GAD policy in development organisations implies organisational change. The need for this change is neatly expressed in the adage: “Practise what you preach”. Organisations cannot promote gender equality and women’s empowerment for their “target groups” and at the same time not recognise the need to change themselves.

For 20 years now, organisations have been adopting GAD approaches, which have evolved from former women in development (WID) approaches. GAD principles have been translated into policy objectives that nearly always foreground the assurance of gender equality and women’s empowerment, each organisation choosing its own point of entry. Organisations have developed sectoral and thematic policies and specific strategies on how to “ mainstream”[3] gender equality into their overall organisational policy. They have developed and executed specific activities and have also made many efforts in building the capacity of their staff; they have created ‘specialist’ posts or ‘gender units’, and have promoted the appointment of women to positions of power in the organisation. Gender analysis, planning, monitoring and evaluation instruments have been applied and sometimes included in the project and programming systems. In some instances there has been a growing recognition of the need to question the organisational culture as an important site of resistance to change and the persistence of unequal gender relations.

The gender audit looks into organisational issues such as policy, strategies, activities and organisational structures and systems, and also pays attention to the organisational culture. The key organisational issues dealt with in a participatory gender audit are:

A: Analysis of gender issues, gender debate and the women’s movement in the context in which the organisation’s programme is executed;

B: Mainstreaming of gender equality and women’s empowerment in policy and programme development;

C: Mainstreaming of gender equality and women’s empowerment in strategy and activities;

D: Existing gender expertise and investment in competence and capacity building;

E: Information and knowledge management;

F: Systems and instruments for analysis, planning, monitoring and evaluation;

G: Structure and process of decision making in the organisation;

H: Organisational culture;

I: Staffing and human resource development policies;

J: Products and public image;

K: Choice of partner organisations and their level of information about the organisation’s gender policy;

L: Perception of achievement.

It should be kept in mind that the gender audit is not an impact evaluation at the level of the population or the organisations at whom the activities of the audited organisation are directed.

In our experience so far it has become evident that the evolution of thinking on gender and development has by-passed most of the participating organisations. It seems that in most cases gender equality and women’s empowerment are still considered a separate box of activities that need to be implemented by “specialists”. Gender equality has not been truly mainstreamed in all activities and does not, in general, inform overall organisational policy, nor does the existence of a gender policy necessarily lead to the required changes in organisational structure, systems and culture. Good practice depends very much on individuals (mostly women) who really engage themselves and try to make the organisation move forward on the issues.

Another observation is that the PGA can be used best when an organisation has some practice and experiences related to gender mainstreaming that it can assess. The PGA cannot be used very effectively in organisations that are still in a start-up phase regarding gender policy. The methods used all aim to bring to the surface experiences already gained so that these can then be used in further reflection. Using the PGA in a situation where nothing or very little has yet been done can be quite demotivating for the participants.

2 The learning organisation

The learning organisation approach is based on the recognition that learning and change in organisations takes place at three levels: individual, team and the organisation as a whole. In their learning organisation model, Watkins and Marsick locate learning in an organisation at four levels: individuals, teams, organisations and the global level.[4] The role of teams is seen as the interlinking level between individual agency and organisational policy.

Individual level: / Individual learning is the way in which people make meaning – how members of the organisation acquire knowledge and skills.
Team level: / Team learning is the mutual construction of new knowledge and the capacity for concerted collaborative action.
Organisational level: / Organisational learning is captured in standard operating procedure, policy, culture, work processes and the information systems that connect virtual teams and maintain the memory of the organisation. This learning is exhibited as a new vision of what the organisation might be or by new knowledge of the organisation’s strategies, its new products or markets, or new ways to conduct business.
Global level: / Learning at the global level means thinking globally – crossing boundaries of environmental or societal impacts, including those that affect the quality of life afforded to an organisation’s members by the organisation.

Organisations set the agenda for learning through their objectives, vision and mandate. From individuals to teams, and from teams to organisational levels, actual learning can take place and can be interlinked. If individuals and teams do not learn, organisations will never be able to adapt to the multiple demands that a fast-changing environment makes of them. Special attention is given in a PGA to the different teams operating in organisations, as they are considered the crucial link in the learning process between individuals and the organisation as a whole.