1. Introduction
In order for nations to achieve their socioeconomic development objectives, rice is essential [
1]. As a result, according to the FAO [
2], rice is the second-most consumed grain in the world after maize and the most important staple food for a significant portion of the global population. In Ghana, rice is the fastest growing food commodity, as it is consumed by almost every household, with an increasing annual per capita consumption of 40 kg per person [
3]. However, Ghana is a net importer of rice, and about 42% of its demand is met through imports totaling over USD 200 million per annum [
3]. Since 2010, production levels and areas under cultivation have increased by over 30%; however, genetic gains on farmers’ fields have been largely static. Average yields are still low: 3.3 MT/Ha as against the potential of 6–7 MT/Ha [
4].
Figure 1a,b show rice production trends and the level farmers are achieving in terms of yield per hectare in Ghana.
Agricultural technologies have been identified as one of the primary determinants of productivity, profitability, and sustainability in the food production sector [
5,
6]. Modern-day breeding efforts in sub-Saharan Africa, and for that matter, Ghana, have led to releases of over thirty-five (35) rice genotypes, such as Digang, Gbewaa rice, CRI-Mpuntuo, CRI-Kantinka, CRI-AGRA Rice, CRI-Amankwatia, Legon1, Sikamo, Wakatsuki, CRI-Dartey and CRI-Enapa, to mention but a few by Ghanaian scientists, but uptake of these new cultivars is still at a slow pace considering the year of release and the numbers exhibited publicly. When varieties and technologies are developed but not widely used by end users, it is a waste of efforts and resources given the cycles a variety goes through to be developed. Ref. [
7] attributed the slow rate of adoption of new varieties to modern breeding’s failure to incorporate end users preferred varietal characteristics. End users from various socioeconomic classes, demographic characteristics, and positions have different varietal options that must be taken into account during the breeding process [
8]. There is an urgent need to increase genetic gain on rice farms and make the rice breeding program in Ghana more responsive to the needs of stakeholders in the rice value chain. Since 2020, the rice breeding program at the CSIR–Crops Research Institute has been undergoing a modernization effort with the support of the CGIAR Excellence in Breeding (EiB) program. A major part of this effort is the definition of rice market segments and development of a robust product profile for rice breeding in Ghana. A product design team consisting of actors along the rice value chain, including a gender specialist, was established to develop a product profile. Although the actors identified six major traits that they desired that breeders focus on, they found all six traits to be gender neutral. Moreover, previous work on varietal preferences in Ghana has not been robust on gendered trait preferences and has been limited in scope mainly to the Ashanti region, which accounts for only 5% of the country’s rice production [
3,
9,
10,
11]. Before the inception of the research, the team reviewed fifteen research articles in related areas to identify gaps that could be addressed. The summary of the literature findings is presented in
Appendix A.
Consequently, there was a need for in-depth research using robust tools to incorporate gendered trait preferences into the existing product profile and expanding the study horizon for findings more representative of the country’s situation. The G+ product profile tool, which is an innovative gender-responsive breeding tool, was tested in the study. This research, therefore, sought to identify gendered trait preferences among rice producers using the G+ tools.
Specifically, this research sought to identify gendered trait preferences among rice producers, develop a rice product profile using the G+ tools, compare the use of the G+ tools versus the conventional tools, and discuss the implications of the findings for rice breeding in Ghana. Another objective was to confirm an assertion in the literature that “men focus more on production and marketing related traits as women focus on production and cooking qualities” and apply modern tools to conduct gender impact analysis to ascertain how these traits affect the various gender groups.
The G+ tools were developed by the CGIAR Gender & Breeding Initiative (GBI) in 2018 as part of an effort to complement work initiated by EiB on developing product profiles to make breeding programs more responsive to the needs of crop value chains. The tools have been created to assist social scientists and breeders in collaborating to incorporate gender issues into breeding programs from conception to implementation, increase the uptake of crop varieties, and have a greater social impact. In determining whether a product should be advanced, the tools are used to assess the gender dimensions of plant or animal traits. They help to determine whether a product profile has implications for gender equity or whether a trait satisfies minimal “do no harm” standards in accordance with an evidence-based gender analysis. They also describe the favorable benefits of a trait for end users.
The results of this study will provide GBI feedback on the effectiveness and difficulties involved with the application of the tools, since they are new and have not been widely used in the scientific community.
Secondly, given that the initial piloting of G+ tools focused on other crops rather than rice and reported gender impact generally without disaggregating the findings [
12] and the deficit in data on gendered trait preferences in rice production, this research is extremely vital for improving rice production and the adoption of rice technologies through an enhanced gendered approach to trait identification. This has implications for adoption and marketing of rice varieties and its attendant impacts on the welfare of women and men farmers in Ghana. This study is also a contribution to policy on efficient ways to reduce the rice import bill and work toward self-sufficiency.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Definition of Gender-Related Concepts
- i.
Gendered trait preferences: Important traits disaggregated by gender.
- ii.
Gender-sensitive traits: Traits distinctively preferred or ranked by a particular gender group.
- iii.
Gender-neutral traits: Traits jointly preferred by all gender groups and not related to a specific gender.
- iv.
Gender-relevant traits: Essential traits specific to a particular gender group.
- v.
G+ tools: These are gender-responsive customer and product profile breeding tools.
- vi.
Gender trait impact analysis: An analysis of preferred traits to identify the likelihood of negative consequences associated with the trait choices for a particular gender group. Conclusions are based on the scores generated.
2.2. Ethical Statement
Despite the lack of a formal ethical clearance committee at the CSIR-Crops Research Institute, all funded projects are approved using existing local protocols. According to local guidelines, studies that do not involve the collection of medical samples from subjects do not require formal approval, but must adhere to Ghana’s Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843) and the Institute’s governing Act, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Act, 1996 (Act 521). In the absence of an ethical standing committee, the project adhered to and passed the institute’s research expectations, guidelines, and ethics, which were approved by the institute’s administration before activities began.
Participants were also given a structured informed consent form that explained the study’s objectives, the confidentiality of the data collected, voluntary participation, not revealing any respondent’s identity in the results reporting, and the use of the local language they understood to elicit their responses.
2.3. Description of Study Areas
The study was conducted in four rice-growing areas that belong to the irrigated lowlands and rain-fed lowland rice ecologies. Ghana’s Volta, Greater Accra, Central, and Ashanti regions were among the study’s regions. In terms of rice usage and research activity, the regions picked were among the top rice-growing regions. Ashanti Region comes in fifth place in terms of rice production, with a 2017 production volume of 34,718.18 MT, behind Volta Region with production volume of 234,149.78 MT [
4]. The Volta and Greater Accra regions have one of the oldest irrigation systems, where tenant farmers primarily grow rice in two seasons and only sporadically grow vegetables. All of these regions have closely collaborated with research and benefited from a number of varietal releases that have raised regional productivity. One of the major rice-growing districts was chosen from each region: Ketu North, Shai Osudoku, Assin North, and Ejura Skeyeredumase. The districts’ profiles are summarized in
Table 1. Ketu North district has the least amount of land, while Ejura Sekyeredumase has the most. Agriculture continues to be the primary source of income for farm families in all districts where the labor force is economically active, and workers are at least 15 years old. All of the districts have bimodal rainfall patterns, sufficient sunshine, and favorable weather for the growth of crops, particularly rice.
2.4. Samples and Sampling Technique
The farmers targeted for the study were chosen using a multi-stage sampling technique. The first step involved selecting one administrative district within each region purposively chosen based on the amount of rice produced and utilized and the presence of research. These included the Ketu North District in the Volta region, the Shai Osudoku District in the Greater Accra region, the Assin North District in the Central region, and the Ejura Sekyeredumase District in the Ashanti region. Secondly, from a list of rice communities compiled by the district department of agriculture and the irrigation schemes, five rice communities per district were chosen randomly. Twenty communities in total were chosen for the study’s quantitative phase.
Men farmers made up 70–75% of the sampling frame, while women farmers made up 25–30%. The research group decided to choose 70% men and 30% women. The total population for the study was 10,580. The sample size determination formula in [
18] was used because a simple random sampling technique was used, and the sample came from a finite population.
The sample size calculation indicated that the targeted sample size was 385 rice farmers, but it was rounded up to 400 for greater predictive power. The next stage of sampling involved randomly selecting 20 farmers from each of the 20 communities, yielding a total of 400 respondents, 134 women and 266 men. Because not all of the men farmers showed up for field work, their positions were filled by other women farmers, changing the previously proposed proportions of 70% men and 30% women to 66.5% men and 33.5% women, respectively. Farmers were sampled at random without replacement, so each farmer had one chance to be chosen. The qualitative stage involved 12 focus group discussions (FGDs), with 3 adult men, 3 adult women, 3 young men, and 3 young women groups participating. Separate discussions were held for adult men, adult women, young men and young women in the study districts. A young person was defined as a man or woman between the ages of 15–35 years, which is the definition accepted by the National Youth Employment Agency in the country [
19], and an adult, above 35 years. In order to allow for effective interaction, each FGD had eight participants. There were 96 active individual rice producers in the groups as a whole.
The quantitative results combined adult men and young men into “men category” and likewise for women because of the high degree of similarity in their trait choices.
2.5. Data Collection Procedure
The research was conducted in the four districts from April to July 2022. An initial desktop review was carried out to identify gaps in the literature on the topic investigated and relevant approaches to data collection that previous studies had used. A summary of some of the reviewed articles and gaps identified is presented in the
Appendix A. The study used a mixed-method approach, that is, a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection. The qualitative approach involved participatory tools such as focus group discussions with separate gender groups and the application of the G+ product profile query tool. The data gathered were mostly primary with the two approaches. The quantitative approach was followed by a qualitative approach to gain in-depth understanding of the explanations given for the varietal and trait choice rankings, as well as the negative and positive effects of the trait choices. During the survey, trained enumerators administered a well-structured interview schedule to the respondents, and a checklist was used for participatory engagement. The qualitative data were collected through age- and sex-disaggregated focus group discussions led by a facilitator and note-taker. The proceedings were audio-recorded and transcribed afterwards. The quantitative data collection process was automated with the help of the online data programming tool Kobocollect, and the data were then downloaded into the STATA 15 software.
Field enumerators were chosen based on their field project experience, knowledge of rice production, and ability to communicate in the local dialect. Sixteen (16) experienced field assistants were trained on the designed instruments, the qualitative approach, and how to ask the G+ product profile questions prior to the formal field work. The enumerators were made to practice in dummies, one as the rice farmer and the other as the interviewer. The enumerators’ roles were swapped, and the results were evaluated by the entire team. This was done to ensure that enumerators could ask the appropriate questions in the field. To assess the reliability, consistency, and validity of the questions, the survey instrument was pretested in a selected rice community, Besease in the Ashanti region, with farmers who shared characteristics similar to those of the sampled study farmers. During field administration, an interview guide written in English and translated into the local language was used to obtain the necessary information from the farmers. Individual face-to-face interviews for the quantitative and qualitative surveys were conducted at a central location within the study districts. Individual interviews lasted approximately 45 min, while focus group discussions lasting approximately 2 h. In the qualitative process, the research team was introduced, the mission was explained, the focus group discussion guidelines were established, and the participants’ consent to record the process was requested. The team collaborated closely with the directors and extension officers of the district departments of agriculture, as well as with the managers of the two irrigation schemes, who provided the study’s sampling frame and assisted during the field work.
The unit of analysis was specific rice farmers from chosen households, and the data gathered included their socio-demographics, farm level and institutional characteristics, varietal choices and related attributes, intensity of trait preferences, and trait preferences for each rice environment. The qualitative stage confirmed the varietal preferences, reasons for the choices and the disparity in the ratio of men to women rice farmers in the districts. The negative and positive impacts of the “must have traits” were elicited during the focus group discussions using the G+ product profile query tool.
2.6. Method of Data Analysis
Quantitative data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics, such as means, frequency tables, percentages, charts and
t-test. The descriptive statistics were used to summarize and describe the characteristics of sampled rice farmers. Inferential statistics such as the
t-test were used to test the intensity of the preferences for the traits among men and women in the rice value chain. The
t-test, however, was further used to test the difference between the men and women groups, while the chi-square test of independence was used to evaluate the distribution of preferences among the rice segments. The chi-square was used because of its ability to test the association between sets of categorical variables. The chi-square test statistics were computed by the expression:
where:
= chi-square
= the observed frequency (i.e., the observed counts in the cell)
= the expected frequency if the variables are independent
Thus, the chi-square was the difference between what was actually observed in the data and what would be expected if the variables were indeed independent. The results were evaluated by comparing the actual value with a critical value read in the chi-square distribution table after considering the degrees of freedom, which were calculated as the number of rows minus 1, by the number of columns minus 1. A four-point Likert scale (1 to 4; 1 = must have, 2 = important, 3 = nice to have, 4 = neutral) was presented to the respondents to elicit the essential traits that breeders needed to focus on, and during the focus group discussions, the pair-wise ranking was used to arrive at the top traits for consideration. An example of the pair-wise results is presented in
Table A2 in
Appendix A.
Additionally, qualitative data collected from each focus group were transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify emerging themes and categorize them to generate patterns for analyses using content analysis, as described by [
20] and adopted by [
21]. For the qualitative data, the primary units of analysis were adult men, adult women, young men and young women in the rice growing communities. Both investigative and descriptive approaches were used to examine gendered adoption and trait preferences among rice producers in southern Ghana, and the G+ tool was used to conduct the “Do No Harm” and “Positive benefit analysis” to identify inequalities among the gender groups as a result of the presence of some particular traits.
The G+ tool is a decision support tool that complements the efforts earlier made by the Excellence in Breeding (EiB). The tool is employed for gender-responsive crop improvement programs. It assists the breeding team to be conscious of end users’ needs and preferences and mainstream gender throughout the breeding cycle. The tool has two parts; the customer and product profiles. The customer profile identifies the end users of a new or existing product and analyzes their demographic and social differences that influence their choice of the product. The customer profile can be used to collect both primary and secondary data from a targeted market segment. Information collected can be triangulated through expert consultations. The product profile, on the other hand, investigates the attributes of a product and how these attributes could benefit or cause harm to men and women who use the product. With a set of designed questions relating to men’s and women’s perceptions of the product attributes, a decision is reached based on scores provided by the gender groups. Decisions in the form of impact scores for the preferred traits were reached by following the standard operating procedures (SOPs) outlined in seven steps, as schematically presented in
Figure 2a. The first three steps involve information gathering on a proposed product profile for the targeted market segment, which, in this study, we referred to as the “Conventional product profile”, identifying gender gaps and collecting gender disaggregated data on preferred traits. The 4th and 5th steps analyze the negative impact or positive benefits associated with the traits. When it comes to the traits that breeders must avoid and the “positive benefits” that they should include in their breeding goals, “do no harm” tries to highlight all of the disparities in these areas. A gender analysis using standardized questions is used to determine the gender impact score. To better understand farmers and obtain their perspectives on the desired traits, the questions were further broken down in the field.
The gender impact score is calculated by conducting an evidence-based gender analysis based on standard questions. “Do no harm” on one part has six negative impact questions. Each question is scored on a 3-point scale; 0 = Neutral; −1 = Avoid/ mend and −2 = Reject. The “positive benefits” side also has six questions framed in the reverse of the “do no harm” and each question scored on a 4-point Likert as 0 = Neutral; +1 = Nice to have; +2 = Important and +3 = Required (Must have) as shown on
Figure 2b. The
Appendix A contains sample scored sheets that can be used as a guide to better understand the justifications provided and the methodology used to determine the scores.