The impact of agricultural extension programs on women’s empowerment in agriculture and food systems in the global south: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review examines the best agricultural extension methods in the context of women’s empowerment, centering improvements in agency, achievements, and resources. Agricultural extension programs use projects and trainings to improve a community’s agriculture system by disseminating information through individual or group trainings, focus groups, on-farm demonstrations, or through the transfer of technologies. Many extension programs work in rural, impoverished communities. Unfortunately, extension practitioners often overlook women’s roles, failing to consider how the program may affect them, despite women being the primary farm laborers [2]. In this thesis research, I analyzed studies published since 2000 with the coding assistance of other students and my advisor. The studies included in this systematic review include at least one dimension of women’s empowerment (or disempowerment). In this review, I investigated the extension practices with highest retention rates, adaptability, and consideration for cultural and social realities to understand how agricultural extension empowers women. Most studies in this review involved communities in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia and provided training on the several different types of agriculture topics: irrigation, climate change resilience, inputs and fertilizer, plant breeding, and more. Using online databases like SCOPUS and Agricola, I gathered 62,517 papers and narrowed them down to the 90 final papers analyzed in this systematic review, through an extensive series of reviewing and coding. Using Naila Kabeer’s multidimensional empowerment research [7] as a theoretical framework, I found that most studies that measured women’s empowerment had indicated some level of empowerment while some did have unintended consequences provoking disempowerment while others showed empowerment in unintended areas. In this systematic review, I offer insight to understand women’s roles in agricultural communities and the significant socio-economic implications that may occur as a result from empowerment agendas in extension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".