Content uploaded by Hillary Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hillary Smith on Jan 18, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Emma Rice
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emma Rice on Jan 18, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Fish and Fisheries. 2024;00:1–8.
|
1wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faf
Received: 5 Septem ber 2023
|
Revised: 13 Decemb er 2023
|
Accepted: 3 January 2024
DOI: 10.1111/faf.12814
GHOTI
The future of gender research in small- scale fisheries: Priorities
and pathways for advancing gender equity
Emma D. Rice1 | Edith Gondwe1 | Abigail E. Bennett1 | Patrick Asango Okanga2 |
Nimah F. Osho- Abdulgafar3 | Kafayat Fakoya4 | Ayodele Oloko5 | Sarah Harper6 |
Patrick Chimseu Kawaye7 | Ernest O. Chuku8,9 | Hillary Smith10
This is an op en access arti cle under the ter ms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License , which permits use, dis tribu tion and reprod uction
in any medium, provided the original work is properl y cited an d is not use d for comm ercial purposes.
© 2024 The Aut hors. Fish and Fisheries published by Jo hn Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Ghoti papers: Ghoti aims to s erve as a forum fo r stimulating a nd pertinen t ideas. Ghoti p ublishes succi nct comment ary an d opinion that ad dresses
impor tant areas in fi sh and fisheri es science. Gho ti contributi ons will be innova tive and have a per spect ive that may lead to f resh and produ ctive insight of
concept s, issues and r esear ch agend as. All Ghoti co ntribu tions will be sel ected by the edi tors and peer re viewed .
Etymology of Ghoti: George Ber nard Sha w (1856–1950), polym ath, pl aywri ght, Nobel pri ze winner, and the mo st prol ific let ter writer in hi stor y, was an
advoc ate of Engl ish spel ling reform. He w as reportedl y fond of pointin g out its a bsurdities by p roving that ‘fi sh’ could b e spelt ‘ghoti’. Tha t is: ‘gh’ as in
‘rough’, ‘o’ as in ‘ women’ and ‘ti’ a s in palat ial.
1Depar tment of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Center for Systems Integration and
Sustainability, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, USA
2Depar tment of Develop ment Stu dies,
St. Paul's Univer sity, Limuru, Kenya
3Depar tment of Coast al Sciences,
University of Souther n Mississippi,
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
4Depar tment of Fisher ies, Lagos States
University, Ojo, Nigeria
5Instit ute for th e Oceans a nd Fisheries,
University of British Columbia, Victoria,
British Columb ia, Canada
6School of Environmental Studies ,
University of Victoria, Vic toria, Britis h
Columbia, Canada
7Depar tment of Agric ulture a nd Applied
Economics, Lilongwe University of
Agriculture a nd Natur al Resources,
Lilongwe, Malawi
8Instit ute for Marine and Antarctic
Studies , Univer sity of Tasma nia, Hobart ,
Tasmania, Australia
9Centre for Coast al Management , Afric an
Centre of E xcelle nce in Coastal Re silience,
University of C ape Coast, Cape Coas t,
Ghana
10School of Marine Scien ces, Uni versit y of
Maine, Orono, Maine, USA
Abstract
This paper presents an agenda for the future of gender research in small- scale fisher-
ies (SSF). Building on expert insight from scholars who gathered during the 4th World
Small- Scale Fisheries Congress Africa (4WSFC) with a synthesis of existing literature,
we identify six topics that warrant future investigation in SSF, along with method-
ological considerations for addressing them. Research priorities include identifying
pathways towards (1) equitable participation in governance and decision- making, (2)
valuing all actors' contributions to aquatic food systems, (3) increasing access to fi-
nancial services, (4) inclusive infrastructural development, (5) livelihood diversifica-
tion and (6) reducing occupational health hazards. Several important methodological
considerations include (i) using multiple methodologies, (ii) applying participator y
methods, (iii) collecting gender- disaggregated data, (iv) integrating gender into a food
systems approach in fisheries, (v) engaging an intersectional approach and (vi) opera-
tionalising equity.
KEYWORDS
agenda, equity, gender, methods, small- scale fisheries
2
|
RICE et a l.
1 | INTRODUC TION
Nearly 120 million people depend on small- scale fisheries (SSF) for
their livelihoods globally (FAO et al., 2023). These livelihoods are
shaped by gender norms, which influence actors' participation in
the sector, access to resources, opportunities and lived experiences.
Gender, which is different from sex, refers to the sociocultural roles,
norms and expectations ascribed to members of society and is pro-
duced through social relations, discourses and institutions, shaping
access to resources and benefits; sex is based on biological attri-
butes (Lau et al., 2021; Probyn, 2016).
While recent global initiatives recognise gender equality and eq-
uity as guiding principles in SSF (e.g., SSF Guidelines), most work in
the sector remains gender- blind and/or conflates ‘gender research’
with ‘women's studies’ (FAO, 2015; Lawless et al., 2021). There is a
need for more gender research in SSF to recognise the contributions
of all genders, especially women and other gender minorities (e.g.,
nonbinary), whose contributions throughout the fish food system
are often unacknowledged (Fisk et al., 2023; Gondwe et al., 2022;
Harper et al., 2013; Kleiber et al., 2015).
2 | AN AGENDA FOR GENDER RESEARCH
IN SMALL- SCALE FISHERIES
SSF gender research is a growing field that aims to illuminate how
gender as a social relation shapes labour, knowledge and power in
the sector. We propose a research agenda and methodological tools
for the field. While applicable globally, this paper focuses on priori-
ties relevant to the African continent, which has been underrepre-
sented in the literature on this topic.
First, we identify key thematic research areas based on the
expertise and experience of scholars working on gender research
in African SSF who attended the 4th World Small- Scale Fisheries
Congress Africa (4WSFC) in 2022. Following the session, Doing
Gender: Pushing the Boundaries on Gender Research in Small- Scale
Fisheries, all participants completed an online survey with demo-
graphic and open- ended questions (Appendix S1). The open- ended
survey responses were qualitatively analysed using content analysis,
revealing six priority areas and five methodological considerations.
The survey participants, who are co- authors (eight female; three
male), conduct research across five African countries (Ghana, Kenya,
Malawi, Nigeria and Tanzania) and provide a range of perspectives
from across academic career stages (six graduate students; two
post- doctoral researchers; three faculty).
Seco nd, to elaborate on the 11 themes identified from the sur-
vey responses, a semi- systematic literature review was conducted
for each priority area and methodological consideration. Using
the search string (‘Small- scale fisher*’ OR ‘Artisanal fisher*’) AND
(‘ Gen der ’ OR ‘Wome n’ ) AND (‘X ’ ) on tit les , abst r act s and key words
in Scopus, we identified articles published within the last 10 years
(2013 onward) for each theme (see Appendix S2). Select articles
were included for each theme from the Scopus search result s
based on the relevance and depth of empirical results. Additional
articles (31 in total) deemed relevant by subject experts were
included.
2.1 | Priority areas for gender research in SSF
2.1.1 | Pathways toward equitable participation in
governance and decision- making
Including all genders in decision- making processes can improve eq-
uity in governance by recognising the legitimacy of all genders' rights,
knowledge, values and needs and ensuring their participation in de-
cisions that affect them (de la Torre- Castro, 2019; Dias et al., 2023;
Golo & Erinosho, 2023; Koralagama et al., 2 017). Research has
shown that progress on recognitional and procedural gender eq-
uity can yield policies and inter ventions that are more effec tive
and improve the sector for all actors (Galappaththi et al., 2022). For
instance, women's participation in the governance of West African
shellfisheries has resulted in successful user- led co- management
that improves resource sustainability (Chuku et al., 2022). Despite
these benefits, women and other gender minorities continue to
be underrepresented in SSF governance and decision- making (Fisk
et al., 2023; Galappaththi et al., 2022; Kleiber et al., 2015; Pedroza-
Gutiérrez & Hapke, 2022).
In some cases, formal barriers exclude specific genders from
participating in SSF governance activities (e.g., Galappaththi
et al., 2022). In such instances, quotas, formal rules in which a fixed
number of participants on a governing body are required to repre-
sent a designated identity (e.g., women), are often used to ‘tinker’
with participation (Lawless et al., 2022). While quotas are effective
at increasing gender representation, they do not address systemic
gender power imbalances or social norms that undermine effec tive
participation of women and other gender minorities (Galappaththi
et al., 2022; Rabbitt et al., 2022); nor do they change the system
itself, potentially limiting implementation of existing gender strat-
egies and overlooking more transformative possibilities (Lawless
et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2024).
Gender issues are context- specific, requiring further empirical
work to understand how gender shapes participation in governance
and decision- making activities in specific places while working on a
local level to address them. Research questions addressing this issue
include: What gender barriers persist once quota- based approaches
Correspondence
Emma D. Rice , 1405 Sout h Harrison Road ,
East Lansing, MI 48823 , USA.
Email: riceemma@msu.edu
14672979, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12814, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
|
3
RICE et al.
are implemented? Which factors shape different genders' participa-
tion and influence in fisheries governance bodies? What governance
transformations are needed to realise more equitable SSF futures?
2.1.2 | Valuing all actors' contributions to aquatic
food systems
The work of women and other gender minorities in SSF is of te n in -
formal, unpaid or underpaid and invisible in SSF systems (Akintola
& Fakoya, 2017; Fisk et al., 2023; Kleiber et al., 2015; Smit h
et al., 2024; Thorpe et al., 2014). Activities like net mending and
fish cleaning, which are conducted primarily by women, are often
unpaid (Freeman & Svels, 2022). In fish processing and marketing,
women often earn less money than men. For instance, in Zanzibar,
women traders have been found to be offered the same species
for higher prices than men (Smith et al., 2024) and earn a lower
overall income than men (Fröcklin et al., 2013). In Malawi, women
fish traders earn lower per- unit marketing margins than men (Rice
et al., 2023).
Future work must address inequitable earnings in SSF and
identify opportunities to strengthen women's and other gender
minorities' collective power in fish food systems (e.g., organisa-
tions, associations) (Alonso- Población & Siar, 2018; Aswathy &
Kalpana, 2018). Addressing issues of unpaid/underpaid work for
marginalised groups benefits the wider food system. Improved
earnings for women are linked to improved empowerment on
an individual level, food security and nutrition at the household
level, and economic activity at the community level (Frangoudes
et al., 2019; Freeman & Svels, 2022; Harper et al., 2020;
Kawarazuka & Béné, 2010). Research questions to pursue on this
topic include: How do power relations, social norms, and political
economy influence earnings? How can informal contributions to
SSF be valued? What role can fisheries organisations play in sup-
por ting gen der equity? Whic h strategie s su pp or t marg inali sed and
informal fish workers to receive fair pay and decent work?
2.1.3 | Pathways towards increased access to
financial services
A challenge for all genders in SSF, especially women, is lack of access
to financial services (e.g., credit, insurance), which constrains actors'
ability to own productive resources and invest in and grow their fish
businesses (Matsue et al., 2 014; Moreau & Garaway, 2021; Thorpe
et al., 2014).
Women often address this challenge by using social capital to
obtain informal financial services, borrowing money from friends,
relatives and traditional saving groups (Oloko et al., 2022; Rice &
Gondwe, 2022). Women in fisheries organisations sometimes pool
their resources to collectively buy fish and processing equipment
(Nwosu et al., 2021; Oloko et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2024). However,
women who utilise social capital to obtain access to collective
resources may still have less access to productive resources than
men (Nwosu et al., 2021).
Future work is needed on strengthening existing informal fi-
nancial structures and increasing access to formal financial ser-
vices. Research questions addressing this priority area include:
How does gender influence access to formal and informal finan-
cial services? How can existing informal financial structures be
strengthened? What are the limitations of microfinance institu-
tions in providing gender- equitable access to formal financial
services?
2.1.4 | Pathways towards inclusive infrastructural
development
Infrastructural development can improve food system functioning
an d bene fit al l ge n d ers in SS F. Many SS F co m muni tie s lac k inf ras truc-
ture such as storage facilities, electricity and telecommunications
networks, limiting access to market information and contributing
to fish spoilage and reduced earnings (Jensen, 20 07; Moreau &
Gara wa y, 2021; Mramba & Mkude, 2022; Rice et al., 2023). Equitable
infrastructural development can improve the livelihoods of SSF ac-
tors and the rura l po or broadl y wi th out exa ce rb at in g exist in g in equi-
ties (Haambiya et al., 2020).
Future work focused on this topic should investigate: How does
improved access to supporting infrastruc ture (e.g., storage, pro-
cessing facilities, electricity and telecommunications) impact SSF
livelihoods? How do these impacts differ between genders? What
is the role of collective action in accessing or maintaining infrastruc-
ture? What is the role of government , NGOs and the private sector
in developing, maintaining and ensuring gender- equitable access to
infrastructure?
2.1.5 | Pathways towards livelihood diversification
Livelihood diversification is relevant for all genders engaged in SSF,
amplified by climate change and overfishing. While women's liveli-
hoods are often most vulnerable (Appiah et al., 2021), women have
been found to be most likely to diversify their livelihood activities
(Freeman & Svels, 2022; Salgueiro- Otero et al., 2022).
Promotion of literacy is one strategy to provide more employ-
ment opportunities and increase access to formal financial ser vices
for all genders engaged in SSF (Chikalipah, 2017). However, many
rural youths forgo schooling to engage in subsistence activities like
fishing at a young age. While subsistence activities can develop a
sense of purpose and identity in children, they can also deter literacy
(Bukari, 2022). Research has found that school feeding programmes,
which increase school attendance, increase literacy and participa-
tion in more economic activities (Jomaa et al., 2011).
Workshops and training on additional technical skills and ac-
tivities such as handicraft products, value- added food products,
mechanics and information technology can also support livelihood
14672979, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12814, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4
|
RICE et a l.
diversification (Stacey et al., 2019). These livelihood diversification
strategies are most successful when formal financial services are
available to suppor t them (Avila- Forcada et al., 2020).
Future research on livelihood diversification in SSF should in-
vestigate research questions such as: How can institutions provide
access to livelihood diversification programmes for all genders? Do
training programmes and workshops have differential impacts be-
tween genders? Which additional livelihoods best complement par-
ticipation in SSF across and between genders, particularly in the lean
season? What are the potential unintended consequences of shifting
from subsistence to market- oriented livelihoods across and between
genders?
2.1.6 | Pathways towards reduced occupational
health hazards
All genders in SSF are exposed to occupational health hazards
(Macnaughton & Rainville, 2016). Fish processors, who are primarily
women, are exposed to smoke from traditional fish smoking equip-
ment, causing deterioration and infections of the respiratory tract,
eyes and skin over time (A kintola & Fakoya, 2017 ). Women fish tr ad-
ers and processors are also often exposed to HIV/AIDS through
gender- based violence when purchasing fish at beach sites (Béné
& Merten, 2008; Rice et al., 2023). Men fishers are often exposed
to occupational hazards (e.g., drowning) through extreme weather
events, which are becoming a greater concern as climate change
intensifies their severity (Adewale et al., 2017). Although women
fishers often harvest in different habitats (e.g., estuarine), target dif-
ferent species (e.g., seaweed and shellfish) and utilise different meth-
ods (e.g., wading in chest- deep water), they also face the threat of
drowning as they often cannot swim (Fröcklin et al., 2012). Further,
women shellfishers have been found to have high rates of lower back
musculoskeletal disorders (Barreto Moreira Couto et al., 2019).
Future work focused on reducing occupational health hazards
should explore research questions such as: What role can edu-
cational campaigns play in reducing occupational health hazards
in SSF? Which communication strategies are most effective at
reducing occupational health hazards in SSF across and between
genders? How can information and communication technologies
(ICT) be used to reduce occupational health hazards? How does
gender shape vulnerability to climate- related health hazards? Do
development projects adequately address occupational health
hazards?
2.2 | Pushing the boundaries on gender research in
SSF: Methodological considerations
2.2.1 | Multiple methodologies
To address the priorit y research areas above, we encourage scholars
to use multiple methods that triangulate findings by building diverse
types of knowledge upon one another (de la Torre- Castro, 2019).
We encourage scholars to consider integrating western scientific
knowledge – quantitative and qualitative – and traditional ecological
knowledge (TEK).
Gender research has led the way in incorporating qualitative and
mixed methods into fisheries science, along with other growing fields
that recognise the importance of social dimensions of fisheries (e.g.,
fisheries governance, social- ecological systems, transdisciplinary
and indigenous research) (Cohen et al., 2016; Nyboer et al., 2023;
Reid et al., 2021; Shellock et al., 2022). While quantitative methods
are valuable for testing hypotheses and producing generalisable
knowledge, they may mask individual realities; qualitative meth-
ods can root findings in lived experiences, illuminate motivations
and mechanisms explaining quantitative observations, and develop
concepts, hypotheses and theory more broadly (Ragin, 2014; Rice &
Gondwe, 2022).
Participator y research methods that align with human rights-
based approaches can facilitate the co- production of knowledge
and the integration of TEK (Golo & Erinosho, 2023). Participatory
research methods are an important step towards decolonis-
ing methodologies by providing participants opportunities to
meaning fully engage and influence the research process and are
grounded in an ethical commitment to transparency, consent and
recognition that all knowledge is situated and shaped by cultural
context, morals, ethics and values (Dias et al., 2023; Hakkarainen
et al., 2020; Haraway, 1988; House et al., 2023; Ngwenya
et al., 2012).
2.2.2 | Gender- disaggregated data
SSF research should at minimum collect gender- disaggregated
data (FAO et al., 2023; Harper et al., 2020; Kaminski et al., 2020;
Kleiber et al., 2015; L awless et al., 2021), including those outside
of the colonial gender binary, to inform more ef fective policy (Fisk
et al., 2023).
The lack of existing gender- disaggregated data perpetuates the
lack of gender research in SSF (Szymkowiak & Rhodes- Reese, 2020).
The collection of gender- disaggregated data enables SSF research to
challenge assumptions about the roles of all genders. For example,
a recent study of West African shellfisheries found that women not
only play a si gn if ica nt rol e as proces so rs an d tr ade rs, as is lar ge ly dis-
cussed in the literature, but also as harvesters (Chuku et al., 2022).
Without gender- disaggregated data, the important contributions of
women and other gender minorities will continue to be overlooked,
and the policies and programs shaped by these data will continue to
be gender blind.
2.2.3 | Food systems approach
We encour age SSF scholars to integrate a gender lens into food sys-
tems research. SSF research is often built on narrow definitions of
14672979, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12814, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
|
5
RICE et al.
the sec tor, which focus on harvest activities dominated by men and
overlook pre- and post- harvest activities and consumption practices
(Smith & Basurto, 2019). A food systems approach moves beyond
attention to discrete value chains and recognises multidirectional
relations and flows between interrelated sets of production, provi-
sioning, and consumption activities that constitute the food system
(Tezzo et al., 2021).
Applications of a food systems approach are increasing in fisher-
ies and aquaculture (Hicks et al., 2022; Kamau- Mbuthia et al., 2023;
Simmance et al., 2021; Tezzo et al., 2021); however, most work on
fish food systems to date lacks sufficient attention to gender, rep-
licating general fisheries research patterns of gender- blindness
(Gondwe et al., 2022; Hicks et al., 2022; Simmance et al., 2021).
Given the central role of gender in shaping production, provisioning
and consumption in food systems (Smith et al., 2024), a food systems
approach in SSF must bring greater attention to gender in SSF food
systems.
2.2.4 | Intersectional approach
SSF scholars should engage in an intersectional approach to under-
stand how gender interacts with other identities to shape access and
use of resources, power relations, and embodied practices in the
sector (Ferguson, 2021; Galappaththi et al., 2021). Intersectionality
is a framework that recognises that different social categories such
as gender, race, ethnicity, age, caste, class, religion, sexual orienta-
tion and migration status interact to produce unique experiences
and positions within existing power structures (Crenshaw, 1989;
Frangoudes et al., 2019; Galappaththi et al., 2021). While intersec-
tional approaches in SSF have been applied (e.g., Ferguson, 2021;
Galappaththi et al., 2021), analyses that treat all individuals within
a gender category as homogenous remain dominant (Koralagama
et al., 20 17; Probyn, 2016).
2.2.5 | Operationalising equity
Future gender research in SSF should operationalise gender equity
in addition to gender equality. While gender equalit y focuses on
equal opportunities for women, men and other gender identities,
gender equity goes beyond equal opportunity and acknowledges
the unique needs required for individuals to succeed in a system
and compensates accordingly (FAO, 2015). While most gender
work in SSF to date has focused on gender equalit y, operational-
ising the recognitional, procedural and distributional dimensions
of equity in gender research can bet ter facilitate progress in the
sector, indicating a need for a shift in focus from gender equal-
ity to equity (Ferguson, 2021; Frangoudes et al., 2019; Lawless
et al., 2021, 2022; McDermott et al., 2013; Pascual et al., 2014;
Rice & Gondwe, 2022).
3 | CONCLUSION
While most literature on gender and SSF focuses on one key area
(e.g., governance) or methodology (e.g., participatory methods),
we bring together diverse topics and approaches to propose a
comprehensive agenda for the future of gender research in SSF.
Building on the expert insights of 4WSFC attendees with a syn-
thesis of existing literature, we identify topics that warrant future
investigation and methodological considerations for addressing
them (Table 1).
Implementing the proposed agenda for gender research in SSF
requires the engagement of fishers, fish workers, fisheries organi-
sations, academia, non- governmental organisations, governments
and the private sector. In working towards the identified prior-
ities, multi- sectoral collaboration, centring the perspectives of
those most directly affected by processes or policies developed,
is essential.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Abigail E. Bennett: conceptualisation (equal); investigation (equal);
methodology (equal); writing – original draft (supporting); writing –
review and editing (equal). Ernest O. Chuku: writing – review and
editing (equal). Kafayat Fakoya: writing – review and editing (equal).
Edith Gondwe: conceptualisation (equal); investigation (equal);
methodology (equal); writing – original draft (supporting); writing –
review and editing (equal). Sarah Harper: writing – review and edit-
ing (equal). Patrick Chimseu Kawaye: writing – review and editing
(equal). Patrick Asango Okanga: writing – review and editing (equal).
Ayodele Oloko: writing – review and editing (equal). Nimah F. Osho-
Abdulgafar: writing – review and editing (equal). Emma D. Rice: con-
ceptualisation (equal); formal analysis (lead); investigation (equal);
methodology (equal); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review
and editing (equal). Hillar y Smith: methodology (equal); writing – re-
view and editing (equal).
TAB LE 1 Agenda for gender research in SSF.
Priority areas
Methodological
considerations
Pathways towards equitable
participation in governance and
decision- making
Multiple methodologies
Valuing all actors' contributions to
aquatic food systems
Participatory methods
Pathways towards increased access
to financial ser vices
Gender- disaggregated data
Pathways towards inclusive
infrastructural development
Food systems approach
Pathways towards livelihood
diversification
Intersectional approach
Pathways towards reduced
occupational health hazards
Operationalising equity
14672979, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12814, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6
|
RICE et a l.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
All authors have no conflict of interest to report.
DATA AVAIL AB I LI T Y STATE MEN T
Semi- systematic literature review data is provided in the supple-
mentar y material. Sur vey data is available upon reasonable request
from the authors.
ORCID
Emma D. Rice https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8812-2368
Abigail E. Bennett https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9356-8014
REFERENCES
Adewale, T. A., Fregene, B. T., & Adelekan, I. O. (2017). Vulnerability
and adaptation strategies of fishers to climate change: Effects
on livelihoods in fishing communities in Lagos state, Nigeria.
In W. Leal Filho, S. Belay, J. Kalangu, W. Menas, P. Munishi, &
K. Musiyiwa (Eds.), Climate change adaptation in Africa. Climate
change management. Springer. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 3 -
3 1 9 - 4 9 5 2 0 - 0 _ 4 6
Akintola, S. L., & Fakoya, K. A. (2017). Small- scale fisheries in the
context of traditional post- harvest practice and the quest for
food and nutritional security in Nigeria. Agriculture & Food
Security, 6, 34.
Alonso- Población, E., & Siar, S. V. (2018). Women's participation and
leader ship in fisher folk organizations and collective action in fish-
eries: A review of evidence on enablers, drivers and barriers. FAO
Fisheries & Aquaculture Circular, C1159.
Appiah, S., Ant wi- Asare, T. O., A gyire- Tettey, F. K., Abbey, E., Kuwornu,
J. K., Cole, S., & Chimatiro, S. K. (2021). Livelihood v ulnerabilities
among women in small- scale fisheries in Ghana. The European
Journal of Development Research, 33, 1596–1624.
Aswathy, P., & Kalpana, K. (2018). Women's work, survival strategies
and capitalis t modernization in south Indian small- scale fisheries:
The case of Kerala. Gender, Technology and Development, 22(3),
20 5–22 1.
Avila- Forcada, S., Martinez- Cruz, A . L ., Rodriguez- Ramirez, R., &
Sanjurjo- Rivera, E. (2020). Transitioning to alternative livelihoods:
The case of PACE- Vaquita. Ocean and Coastal Management, 181,
10498 4.
Barreto Moreira Couto, M. C., Rocha Falcão, I., dos Santos Müller, J.,
Batista Alves, I., da Silva Viana, W., Maria Cadena Lima, V., Gilvane
Lopes Pena, P., Georgette Woods, C., & Franco Rego, R. (2019).
Prevalence and work- related factors associated with lower back
musculoskeletal disorders in female shellfish gatherers in Saubara,
Bahia- Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 16(5), 857.
Béné, C., & Mer ten, S. (2008). Women and fish- for- sex: Transac tional
sex, HIV/AIDS and gender in African fisheries. World Development,
36, 875–899.
Bukari, S. (2022). Working experience among school- going children in
the Ekumfi- Narkwa f ishing and farming community, Ghana. Cogent
Social Science, 8(1), 2076793.
Chikalipah, S. (2017). What determines financial inclusion in sub- Saharan
Africa? African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 8, 8–18.
Chuku, E. O., Effah, E., Adotey, J., Abrokwah, S., Adade, R., Okyere,
I., Aheto, D. W., Kent, K., Osei, I. K., Om ogbemi, E. D., Adité,
A., Ahoedo, K., Sankoh, S. K., Soro, Y., Wélé, M., Saine, D. F., &
Crawford, B. (2022). Spotlighting women- led fisheries livelihoods
toward sustainable coastal governance: The estuarine and man-
grove ecosystem shellfisheries of West Africa. Frontiers in Marine
Science, 9, 884715.
Cohen, P. J., Lawless, S., Dyer, M., Morgan, M., Saeni, E., Teioli, H., &
Kantor, P. (2016). Understanding adaptive capacity and capacity
to innovate in social- ecological systems: Applying a gender lens.
Ambio, 45(3), S309–S321.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A
black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist the-
ory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8),
13 9 –16 7.
de la Torre- Castro, M. (2019). Inclusive management through gen-
der consideration in small- sc ale fisheries: The why and the how.
Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 156.
Dias, A. C. E., Armitage, D., Nayak, P. K., Akintola, S. L., Arizi, E. K.,
Chuenpagdee, R., Das, B. K., Diba, S. A., Ghosh, R., Isaac s, M., Islam,
G. M. N., Kane, A., Li, Y., Manase, M. M., Mbaye, A . A., Onyango, P.,
Pattanaik, S., Sall, A., Susilowati, I., … Singh, S. (2023). From vulner-
ability to viabilit y: A situational analysis of small- scale f isheries in
Asia and Africa. Marine Policy, 155, 105731.
FAO. (2015). Voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small- scale fish-
eries in the context of fo od security and poverty era dicatio n. FAO.
FAO, Duke University, & WorldFish. (2023). Illuminating hidden harvests –
The contributions of small- scale fisheries to sustainable development.
FAO, Duke University, WorldFish.
Ferguson, C. (2021). A rising tide does not lift all boats: Intersectional
analysis reveals inequitable impacts of the seafood trade in fish-
ing communities. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 625389. h t t p s : / / d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 8 9 / f m a r s . 2 0 2 1 . 6 2 5 3 8 9
Fisk, J., Matagi, N., & Kleiber, D. (2023). Gleaning the expanse: Gender
and invisibilised dimensions of fisheries in America Samoa. Women
in Fisheries Information Bulletin, 37, 7–10.
Frangoudes, K., Gerr ard, S., & Kleiber, D. (2019). Situated transforma-
tions of women and gender relations in small- scale fisheries and
communities in a globalized world. Maritime Studies, 18 , 241–248.
Freeman, R ., & Svels, K . (2022). Women's empowerment in small- scale
fisheries: The impac t of fisheries local action groups. Marine Policy,
136, 104907.
Fröcklin, S., de la Torre- Castro, M., Lindström, L., & Jiddawi, N. S. (2013).
Fish traders as key actors in fisheries: Gender and adaptive man-
agement. Ambio, 42, 951–962.
Fröcklin, S., de la Torre- Castro, M., Lindström, L., Jiddawi, N. S., &
Msuya, F. E. (2012). Seaweed mariculture as a development project
in Zanzibar, East Africa: A price too high to pay? Aquaculture, 356,
30 –39.
Galappaththi, M., Armitage, D., & Collins, A. M. (2022). Women's experi-
ences in influencing and shaping small- scale fisheries governance.
Fish and Fisheries, 23, 1099–1120.
Galappaththi, M., Collins, A. M., Armitage, D., & Nayak, P. K. (2021).
Linking social wellbeing and intersectionality to understand gender
relations in dried fish value chains. Maritime Studies, 20, 355–370.
Golo, H. K ., & Erinosho, B. (2023). Tackling the challenges of confronting
women in the Elmina fishing community of Ghana: A human rights
framework. Marine Policy, 147, 105349.
Gondwe, E., Bennett, A., Muhonda, P., & Rice, E. (2022). Inland fish-
eries and the four pillars of food security in Sub- Saharan Africa:
Assessing current research trends. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and
Management, 25(3), 42–54.
Haambiya, L., Mussa, H., & Mulumpwa, M. (2020). A review on the use of
information communication technology (ICT) in fisheries manage-
ment: A case Mb enji Island small- scale fisheries in Malawi. African
Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and D evelopment, 20(7),
17113–17124.
Hakkarainen , V., Daw, T. M., & Tengö, M. (2020). O n the other end of re-
search: Exploring community- level knowledge exchanges in small-
scale fisheries in Zanzibar. Sustainability Science, 15, 281–295.
Harper, S., Adshade, M., Lam, V. W., Pauly, D., & Sumaila, U. R . (2020).
Valuing invisible catches: Estimating the global contribution by
14672979, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12814, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
|
7
RICE et al.
women to small- scale marine capture fisheries production. PLoS
One, 15(3), e0228912.
Harper, S., Zeller, D., Hauzer, M., Pauly, D., & Sumaila, U. R. (2013).
Women and fisheries: Contributions to food security and local
economies. Marine Policy, 39, 56–63.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in femi-
nism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3),
575–599.
Hicks, C. C., Gephar t, J. A., Koehn, J. Z., Nakayama , S., Payne, H. J.,
Allison , E. H., Belhbib, D., Cao, L., Cohen, P. J., Fanzo, J., Fluet-
Chouinard, E., Gelcich, S., Golden, C. D., Gorospe, K. D., Isaacs , M.,
Kuempel, C . D., Lee, K. N., MacNeil, M. A., Maire, E., … Naylor, R.
L. (2022). Rights and represent ation suppor t jus tice across aquatic
food sys tems. Nature Food, 3(10), 851–861.
House, J., Kleiber, D., Steenbergen , D. J., & Stacey, N. (2023). Participatory
monitoring in community- based fisheries management through a
gender lens. Ambio, 52, 300–318.
Jensen, R. (2007). The digital provide: Information (technology), mar-
ket performance, and welfare in the south Indian fisheries sector.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 879–924.
Jomaa, L. H., McDonnell, E., & Probart, C. (2011). School feeding pro-
grams in developing countries: Impacts on children's health and
educational outcomes. Nutrition Reviews, 69, 83–98.
Kamau- Mbuthia, E., Lesorogol, C., Wamukota, A., Humphries, A.,
Sarange, C., Mbeyu, R., Cheupe, C., Cheupe, J., Nunez- Garcia,
A., B lackmore, I., & Iannotti, L. (2023). Sust ainable aquatic food
systems: Multisectoral analysis of determinants of child nutri-
tion in coastal Kenya. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7,
10 91 339.
Kaminski, A. M., Cole, S. M., Al Haddad, R. E., Kefi, A. S., Chilala, A.
D., Chisule, G., Mukuka, K. N., Longley, C., Teoh, S. J., & Ward,
A. R. (2020). Fish losses for whom? A gendered assessment of
post- harvest losses in the barotse floodplain fishery, Zambia.
Sustainability, 12, 10091.
Kawarazuka, N., & Béné, C. (2010). Linking small- scale fisheries and
aquaculture to household nutritional security: An overview. Food
Security, 2, 343–357.
Kleiber, D., Harris, L. M., & Vincent, A. C. (2015). Gender and small- scale
fisheries: A case for counting women and beyond. Fish and Fisheries,
16, 547–562.
Koralagama, D., Gupta, J., & Pouw, N. (2017). Inclusive development
from a gender perspective in small- scale fisheries. Current Opinion
in Environment Sustainability, 24, 1–6.
Lau, J. D., K leiber, D., Lawless, S., & Cohen, P. J. (2021). Gender equal-
ity in climate policy and practice hindered by assumptions. Nature
Climate Change, 11, 186–192.
Lawless, S., Cohen, P. J., Mangubhai, S., Kleiber, D., & Morrison, T. H.
(2021). Gender equalit y is diluted in commitments made to small-
scale fisheries. World Development, 140, 1053 48.
Lawless, S., Cohen, P. J., McDougall, C., Mangubhai, S., Song, A. M., &
Morrison, T. H. (2022). T inker, tailor or transform: G ender equality
amidst social- ecological change. Global Environmental Change, 72,
102434.
Macnaughton, A. E., & Rainville, T. K. (2016). Gender transformative
approaches with socially and environmentally vulnerable groups:
Indigenous fishers of t he Bolivian Amazon. In Transforming
gender and food security in the Global South (978131556 4111).
Routledge.
Matsue, N., Daw, T., & Garrett, L. (2014). Women fish traders on the
Kenyan coast: Livelihoods, bargaining power, and participation in
management. Coastal Management, 42(6), 531–554.
McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining
equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in pay-
ments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, 33,
416– 4 2 7.
Moreau, M. A ., & Garaway, C. J. (2021). Trading fast and slow: Fish
marketing networks provide flexible livelihood oppor tunities on
an East Africa floodplain. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems,
5, 742803.
Mramba, R. P., & Mkude, K. E. (2022). Determinants of fish catch and
post- har vest fish spoilage in small- scale marine fisheries in the
Bagammoyo district, Tanzania. Heliyon, 8(6), e09574.
Ngwenya, B. N., Mosepele, K. K., & Magole, L. (2012). A case for gender
equity in governance of the Okavango Delta fisheries in Botswana.
Natural Resources Forum, 36, 109–122.
Nwosu, F. M., Fakoya, K. A., Akintola, S. L ., & Abiodun- Solanke, A. O.
(2021). Women in fisheries and aquaculture in Nigeria: Introducing
the bootstrap in the roadmap. International Journal of Food Science
and Agriculture, 5(4), 570–573.
Nyboer, E. A., Reid, A. J., Jeanson, A. L., Kelly, R., Mackay, M., House,
J., Arnold, S. M., Simonin, P. W., Sedanza, M. G. C., Rice, E. D., &
Quiros, T. A . L . (2023). Goals, challenges, and next steps in trans-
disciplinary fisheries research: Perspectives and experiences from
early- career researchers. Reviews in Fish Biology an d Fisheries, 33(2),
349–374.
Oloko, A ., Fakoya, K., Ferse, S., Breck woldt , A., & Harper, S. (2022). T he
challenges and prospects of women fisherfolk in Makoko, Lagos
state, Nigeria. Coastal Management, 50(2), 124–141.
Pascual , U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin,
A., Gomez- Baggethun, E., & Muradian, R. (2014). Social equity
matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience, 64(11),
1027–1036.
Pedroza- Gutiérrez, C., & Hapke, H. M. (2022). Women's work in small-
scale fisheries: A framework for accounting its value. Gender, Place
and Culture, 29, 12.
Probyn, E . (2016). Eating the ocean. Duke Univer sity Press.
Rabbit t, S., Tibbetts, I. R ., Alber t, S., & Lilley, I. (2022). Testing a model
to assess women's inclusion and participation in community- based
resource management in Solomon Islands. Maritime Studies, 21,
465–483.
Ragin, C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyo nd qualitative and
quantitative strategies. University of C alifornia Press.
Reid, A . J., Eckert, L . E., Lane, J. F., Young, N., Hinch, S. G., Darimont, C .
T., Cooke, S. J., Ban, N. C., & Marshall, A. (2021). “Two- eyed seeing”:
An indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and man-
agement. Fish and Fisheries, 22(2), 243–261.
Rice, E., & Gondwe, E. (2022). Perspectives from fisheries social scien-
tist: Mixed methods as a DEIJ tool. Fisheries, 48(2), 47–48.
Rice, E. D., Bennett, A. E., Muhonda, P., Katengeza, S. P., Kawaye, P.,
Liverpool- Tasie, L. S. O., Infante, D. M., & Tschirely, D. L. (2023).
Connecting gender norms and economic performance reveals
gendered inequities in Malawian small- scale fish trade. Maritime
Studies, 22, 46.
Salgueiro- Otero, D., Barnes, M. L., & Ojea, E. (2022). Transformation in
times of climate change: What makes a fisher diversif y livelihoods?
Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 888288.
Shellock, R. J., Cvitanovic, C., Mackay, M., McKinnon, M. C., Bly the, J.,
Kelly, R., van Put ten, I. E., Tuohy, P., Bailey, M., Begossi, A., Crona,
B., Fakoya, K. A., Ferreira, B. P., Ferrer, A. J. G., Frangoudes, K.,
Gobin, J., Ching Goh, H ., Haapasaari, P., Hardest y, B. D., … Wisz, M.
S. (2022). Breaking down barriers: The identification of actions to
promote gender equality in interdisciplinary marine research insti-
tutions. One Ear th, 5, 687–708.
Simmance, F. A., Cohen, P. J., Huchery, C., Sutcliffe, S., Suri, S. K., Tezzo,
X., Thilsted, S. H., Oosterveer, P., McDougall, C., Ahern, M., & Freed,
S. (2021). Nudging fisheries and aquaculture research towards food
systems. Fish and Fisheries, 23, 34–53.
Smith, H., & Basurto, X. (2019). Defining small- scale fisheries and exam-
ining the role of science in shaping perceptions of who and what
counts: A systematic review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 236.
14672979, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12814, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8
|
RICE et a l.
Sm it h, H. , Ba sur to, X ., & St Mar tin, K. (2 024) . En act ing fo od syst em tr ans-
formation through the Small- Scale Fisheries Guidelines. Maritime
Studies, 23, 2. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 4 0 1 5 2 - 0 2 3 - 0 0 3 3 9 - 9
Stacey, N., Gibson, E., Loneragan, N . R., Warren, C., Wiryawan, B.,
Adhuri, D., & Fitriana , R. (2019). Enhancing coastal livelihoods in
Indonesia: An evaluation of recent initiatives on gender, women and
sustainable livelihoods in small- scale fisheries. Maritime Studies, 18,
359–371.
Szymkowiak, M., & Rhodes- Reese, M. (2020). Addressing the gender
gap: Usin g quantitative and qua lit at ive method s to illum ina te wo m-
en's fisheries participation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 299.
Tezzo, X ., Bush, S. R., Oosterveer, P., & Belton, B. (2021). Food system
perspective on fisheries and aquaculture development in Asia.
Agriculture and Human Values, 38, 73–90.
Thorpe, A ., Pouw, N., Baio, A., Sandi, R., Ndomahina, E. T., & Lebbie, T.
(2014). “ Fishing na every body business”: Women's work and gen-
der relations in Sierra Leone's fisheries . Feminist Economics, 20(3),
53 –7 7.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the
Suppor ting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Rice, E. D., Gondwe, E., Bennett, A. E.,
Okanga, P. A., Osho- Abdulgafar, N. F., Fakoya, K., Oloko, A.,
Harper, S., Kawaye, P. C., Chuku, E. O., & Smith, H. (2024).
The future of gender research in small- scale fisheries:
Priorities and pathways for advancing gender equity. Fish and
Fisheries, 00, 1–8. htt ps://doi.or g/10.1111/fa f.12814
14672979, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12814, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
