- Email: [email protected]
Women's decision-making role in small ruminant production: The conflicting views of husbands and wives
Agric. Admin. & Extension 24 (1987) 91-98
Women’s Decision-making Role in Small Ruminant Production: The Conflicting Views of Husbands and Wives Sri Wahyuni,
H. C. Knipscheer
Research Institute (Received
for Animal
16 September
Production,
and M. Gaylord Bogor, Indonesia
1985; accepted 23 October
1985)
SUIMMARY Part of a questionnaire addressed to wives of sheep and gout farmers in Cirebon, Indonesia, was later administered to their husbands. The results of both surveys showed husbands and wives reporting signijicantly (ANOVA) diferent levels of participation in small ruminant management. A Spearman rank correlation test indicated consistency between the two data sets as wives and husbands tended to rate similarly the wife’s role in decision making relative to that of other wives. The study illustrates that careful selection of sampling units and survey instruments is needed to minimize sex bias in survey results.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there have been many studies of the role of women in rural development. In the area of small ruminant production, previous research4 showed that 43 per cent of the women in the district (kabupaten) of Cirebon, Indonesia, participated in some aspects of small ruminant production. Additionally, it was found that women in Cirebon played an important role in the decision making process surrounding small ruminant production.6 In fact women were reported to play a larger decision making role than that of their husbands for certain aspects of small ruminant production. For example, in the area of animal health women considered themselves the primary decision makers. These reports suggest that women are important agents in small ruminant production. However, the extent of women’s participation in 91 Agric. Admin. & Extension 0269-7475/87/$03.50 England,
1987. Printed
in Great
Britain
NJ Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers
Ltd,
92
Sri Wahyuni, H. C. Kizipscheer, M. Gaylord
decision making, relative to men’s participation, is still debated. For example, the results obtained from female respondents by Sri Wahyuni6 deviated from monitoring data obtained from male respondents by Muljadi et al3 This paper explores husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of the relative participation of wives in the decision making process for the production of sheep and goats among small holders in West Java. Part of a questionnaire administered to wives of small ruminant farmers in Cirebon was later administered to their husbands. The objective of the study was to compare the results of both surveys and to measure the difference between the responses of husbands and wives. This study is part of the Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program, a joint undertaking by four USA universities, sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development, and the Research Institute for Animal Production in Bogor, Indonesia.
METHODS Twenty-four farm households previously involved in small ruminant research monitoring activities in the villages of Kartasura and Purwawinangun near Cirebon, West Java were used as respondents. The wives were questioned by two female enumerators in December 1982 and their husbands were questioned by two male enumerators in January 1983. Questions were asked about the participation of women in the decision making process concerning nine areas of sheep and goat production. For example, respondents were asked who decided that the family should keep small ruminants, who decided how the animal barns should be constructed, and who decided how the daily management of small ruminants should proceed. To measure the extent of women’s participation in decision making in small ruminant production, a decision scale was developed. The wife and husband in each household were asked who they perceived had the major decision making responsibility for each of the nine areas (Table 1). The response categories were: (1) wife, (2) wife and children, (3) wife and husband, and (4) husband. As each successive answer was assumed to reflect less responsibility for women, 3, 2, 1, and 0 points were allocated, respectively. A total score of 27 points (9 x 3) represented the maximum score and indicated the respondent perceived the wife as having complete responsibility for decision making for each of the nine areas. A score of 0
Women’s decision-making
role in small ruminant
production
TABLE 1 on the Role of Women in Decision Making Enterprise (Women’s Perception)
Score Distribution
in Small
93
Ruminant
P
0
c
M
H
CG
F
W
HC
Total score
Farm’s rank
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
1 1 1 2 1 2 0 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 0 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 0
1 0 1 2 2 3 0 1 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 0 3 1
1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 0 1 0 2 3 3 3 1 2 0 3 1
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 0 0 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 1
3 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 0 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 0 2 1
19 20 19 21 20 22 19 20 19 24 20 21 13 20 16 20 24 22 16 14 21 5 13 11
15.5 10-5 15.5 6.0 10.5 3.5 15.5 10.5 15.5 1.5 10.5 6.0 21.5 10.5 18.5 10.5 1.5 3.5 18.5 20.0 6.0 24.0 21.5 23.0
Total
38
36
45
37
59
49
54
59
62
439
Farm iTO.
P = planning 0 = organization C = controlling M = marketing H = herding
CG = cutting grass F = feeding HC = health care W = watering
would indicate the respondent perceived the husband to be totally responsible for making decisions about the household’s small ruminant enterprises. The scores of each sex group are reported in Tables 1 and 2. To examine the difference between women’s and men’s perceptions, the data were analyzed by an analysis of variance.2 To determine the correlation between the wives’ and husbands’ perceptions, Spearman Rank correlation was used.5
94
Sri
Wahyuni,
H.
C. Knipscheer,
Farm no.
P
0
C
M
H
0* 0* 0* 0* 0*
0
1 0 0 0 0* 0* 0 0* 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0* 0* 0* 3 0* 0*
0 0 0* 0 0 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0* 0* 0 0 0* 0* 0* 0
0 0* 0* 0* 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0* 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0* 0* 0* 0 0* 0*
1 0 0 0 1 0” 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0* 0 0
4
0
13
0
9
1.
1
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1
Total
13
Gaylord
TABLE 2 on the Role of Women in Decision Enterprise (Men’s Perception)
Score Distribution
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
M.
P = planning 0 = organizing C = controlling
The hypotheses H, = There men’s H, = There men’s H,, = There men’s H,, = There men’s
1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0* 0 1 3 2 0
M = marketing H = herding CG = cutting grass
CG
Making
in Small
Ruminant
F
W
HC
Total score
1 3 0 3 0 0* 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0* 3 3
1 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 3
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0
5 8 2 8 1 6 0 3 3 8 6 2 4 5 0 0 0 1 7 8 3 15 7 7
32
13
109
25
F = feeding HC = health care W = watering
Farm’s rank
12.0 3.5 17.5 3.5 14.5 10.0 22.5 15.0 15.0 3.5 10.0 17.5 13.0 12.0 22.5 22.5 22.5 19.5 7.0 3.5 15.0 1.0 7.0 7.0
* = no answer
are: is no difference between perception scores. is a difference between perception scores. is no correlation between perception scores. is a correlation between perception scores.
women’s
perception
scores and
women’s
perception
scores and
women’s perception
scores and
women’s
scores and
perception
Women’s decision-making
RESULTS
role in small ruminant
AND
95
production
DISCUSSION
The analysis of the data indicates husbands and wives have very different perceptions of the wife’s relative participation in the decision making process concerning the management of sheep and goat small holdings. The women’s participation in decision making, as reported by men (Table 2) was markedly lower than the women’s participation as reported by women (Table 1). The difference in perception scores was statistically significant. The analysis of variances indicates that women perceived they played the major role in decision making for small ruminant production while men perceived just the opposite. Perception of the wife’s role in decision making depended strongly on whether the respondents were men or women (e = O-74). For most of the nine categories of sheep and goat production, husbands and wives are in total disagreement (R, = O-17; P > 0.01 = 0.78). As shown in Table 3, most of the women reported that they alone were responsible for decision making concerning herding. In this instance women decide what must be done (e.g., where and when to graze the animals) and then they delegate the actual work to their children. In this respect the women see themselves as the main decision makers. On the other hand, husbands may not consider this exercise of decision making their wives’ main household duty, and therefore the husbands will understimate their wives’ responsibility for decision making concerning herding. Health care is another instance in which women believe they make the major decision. They believe they are responsible for deciding when to provide remedies, such as traditional medicine, when animals get sick. In such cases, however, only eight per cent of the husbands reported that their The
Role
of Women
Activities
Planning Organizing Controlling Marketing Herding Cutting grass Feeding Watering Health care
TABLE 3 Making in Small Perception)
in Decision
Wife
W$e and children
Wife and husband
30 25 41 25 63 34 54 61 15
16 16 17 13 21 41 21 12 13
38 43 29 54 16 21 21 21 8
Ruminant
Enterprise
Husband
16 16 13 8 4 4 4
(Women’s
Total WI
N
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
96
Sri Wahyuni, H. C. Knipscheer,
The Role of Women in Decision Activities
Planning Organizing Controlling Marketing Herding Cutting grass Feeding Watering Health care
W(fe
21 37 8
Making
M. Gaylord
TABLE 4 in Small Ruminant
Enterprise
(Men’s Perception)
Wjf;7 and children
Wif;? and husband
Husband
Total W)
N
4
34 92
4
38
4 12 4
30 17 21 21
38 4 100 54 100 66 50 42 67
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
wives played the major role in decision making (Table 4), while seventy-five per cent of the wives reported that they were the main decision makers (Table 3). As husbands are absent from home part of the day, they may be simply unaware that their wives are making animal husbandry decisions in their absence. Only in regard as to whether the family should keep small ruminants or not and whether they should sell the animals or not did both wives and husbands have the same perception of their joint role in making decisions. As shown in Table 3, 38 per cent of the wives reported that the decision to keep animals was the decision of both wives and husbands. Table 4 also reports that 34 per cent of the husbands perceived that the decision to keep animals was made by both husband and wife. Perhaps this case can be explained by the fact that before deciding to raise or sell animals the wife and husband sat down together and discussed this question seriously. In order to determine if there was any consistency between the decision making scores of husbands and wives, a Spearman correlation test was conducted.5 The conclusion was that although husbands and wives report different levels of participation in decision making, scores among all households are correlated. Thus the households were ranked according to wives’ and husbands’ perceptions (Tables 1 and 2). The correlation between the ranking by wives and husbands was statistically significant (R, = O-68), despite nearly opposite ranking on farms No. 17 and No. 22. The positive correlation seems to indicate that in spite of the large difference in perception between husbands and wives, if a wife rated her role in decision making highly, relative to the other wives, then her husband was likely to rate her participation in decision making highly, relative to other husbands. This study illustrates that it is important to get data from both husbands
Women’s decision-making role in small ruminant production
91
and wives in a family. The choice of sample unit (husband or wife) can significantly alter the impression one forms of the relative degree of participation of husbands and wives in small ruminant production. It is essential to identify correctly the sociological factors which affect agricultural production and the adoption of new technology. One of these factors, certainly, is the target population to whom new technologies will be aimed. This study suggests that wives of small ruminant smallholders may be equally as important as their husbands in the decision making process concerning this sector of mixed farming systems in West Java.
CONCLUSION The above study confirms the likelihood of a sex bias in survey research.l The reported difference in perception among different sampling units is probably compounded by the sex differences of enumerators as men were interviewed by men, and women by women. Whatever the source of difference in observation, the above example illustrates how careful anyone conducting rural surveys should be determining sample units (husband or wives), instruments (questionnaire and enumerator) and, consequently, in the interpretation of the results. By the same token, agricultural administrators and development planners using survey results should be aware of the possibility of a substantial sex bias in their reference materials.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful for the comments van Eys on an earlier draft.
of J. Perkins, M. Nolan
and J.
REFERENCES 1. Chambers,
R. Rapid
Administration
rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire. Public and Development, 1, (1981), 955106. W. & Scheaffer, R. L. Mathematical statistics with application.
2. Mendenhall, North Scituate, Massachusetts, Duxbury Press, 1973, pp. 458-67. 3. Muljadi, A., Knipscheer, H. C. & Mathius, I. W. The characteristics of small ruminants farming in West Java: Labor aspects. In: Sheep and Goats in Indonesia, (Rangkuti, M., Soedjana, T. D., Knipscheer, H. C., Sitorus, P. & Setiadi, A. (Eds)). Center of Research Institutes for Animal Sciences, Bogor, 1984, pp. 197-201.
98
Sri Wahyuni, H. C. Knipscheer, M. Gaylord
4. Sabrani, M., Sitorus, P., Rangkuti, M., Subandriyo, I., Mathius, W., Soedjana, T. D. & Semali, A. Report of baseline survey on sheep and goat. Center of Research Institutes for Animal Sciences, Bogor, 1982, 88pp. 5. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behaviorial sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956, pp. 202-13. 6. Sry Wahyuni. Women’s role in small ruminant production in Cirebon, West Java. SR-CRSP Working Paper No. 14. Research Institute for Animal Production, Bogor, 1983.
Women’s Decision-making Role in Small Ruminant Production: The Conflicting Views of Husbands and Wives Sri Wahyuni,
H. C. Knipscheer
Research Institute (Received
for Animal
16 September
Production,
and M. Gaylord Bogor, Indonesia
1985; accepted 23 October
1985)
SUIMMARY Part of a questionnaire addressed to wives of sheep and gout farmers in Cirebon, Indonesia, was later administered to their husbands. The results of both surveys showed husbands and wives reporting signijicantly (ANOVA) diferent levels of participation in small ruminant management. A Spearman rank correlation test indicated consistency between the two data sets as wives and husbands tended to rate similarly the wife’s role in decision making relative to that of other wives. The study illustrates that careful selection of sampling units and survey instruments is needed to minimize sex bias in survey results.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there have been many studies of the role of women in rural development. In the area of small ruminant production, previous research4 showed that 43 per cent of the women in the district (kabupaten) of Cirebon, Indonesia, participated in some aspects of small ruminant production. Additionally, it was found that women in Cirebon played an important role in the decision making process surrounding small ruminant production.6 In fact women were reported to play a larger decision making role than that of their husbands for certain aspects of small ruminant production. For example, in the area of animal health women considered themselves the primary decision makers. These reports suggest that women are important agents in small ruminant production. However, the extent of women’s participation in 91 Agric. Admin. & Extension 0269-7475/87/$03.50 England,
1987. Printed
in Great
Britain
NJ Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers
Ltd,
92
Sri Wahyuni, H. C. Kizipscheer, M. Gaylord
decision making, relative to men’s participation, is still debated. For example, the results obtained from female respondents by Sri Wahyuni6 deviated from monitoring data obtained from male respondents by Muljadi et al3 This paper explores husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of the relative participation of wives in the decision making process for the production of sheep and goats among small holders in West Java. Part of a questionnaire administered to wives of small ruminant farmers in Cirebon was later administered to their husbands. The objective of the study was to compare the results of both surveys and to measure the difference between the responses of husbands and wives. This study is part of the Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program, a joint undertaking by four USA universities, sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development, and the Research Institute for Animal Production in Bogor, Indonesia.
METHODS Twenty-four farm households previously involved in small ruminant research monitoring activities in the villages of Kartasura and Purwawinangun near Cirebon, West Java were used as respondents. The wives were questioned by two female enumerators in December 1982 and their husbands were questioned by two male enumerators in January 1983. Questions were asked about the participation of women in the decision making process concerning nine areas of sheep and goat production. For example, respondents were asked who decided that the family should keep small ruminants, who decided how the animal barns should be constructed, and who decided how the daily management of small ruminants should proceed. To measure the extent of women’s participation in decision making in small ruminant production, a decision scale was developed. The wife and husband in each household were asked who they perceived had the major decision making responsibility for each of the nine areas (Table 1). The response categories were: (1) wife, (2) wife and children, (3) wife and husband, and (4) husband. As each successive answer was assumed to reflect less responsibility for women, 3, 2, 1, and 0 points were allocated, respectively. A total score of 27 points (9 x 3) represented the maximum score and indicated the respondent perceived the wife as having complete responsibility for decision making for each of the nine areas. A score of 0
Women’s decision-making
role in small ruminant
production
TABLE 1 on the Role of Women in Decision Making Enterprise (Women’s Perception)
Score Distribution
in Small
93
Ruminant
P
0
c
M
H
CG
F
W
HC
Total score
Farm’s rank
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
1 1 1 2 1 2 0 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 0 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 0
1 0 1 2 2 3 0 1 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 0 3 1
1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 0 1 0 2 3 3 3 1 2 0 3 1
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 0 0 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 1
3 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 0 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 0 2 1
19 20 19 21 20 22 19 20 19 24 20 21 13 20 16 20 24 22 16 14 21 5 13 11
15.5 10-5 15.5 6.0 10.5 3.5 15.5 10.5 15.5 1.5 10.5 6.0 21.5 10.5 18.5 10.5 1.5 3.5 18.5 20.0 6.0 24.0 21.5 23.0
Total
38
36
45
37
59
49
54
59
62
439
Farm iTO.
P = planning 0 = organization C = controlling M = marketing H = herding
CG = cutting grass F = feeding HC = health care W = watering
would indicate the respondent perceived the husband to be totally responsible for making decisions about the household’s small ruminant enterprises. The scores of each sex group are reported in Tables 1 and 2. To examine the difference between women’s and men’s perceptions, the data were analyzed by an analysis of variance.2 To determine the correlation between the wives’ and husbands’ perceptions, Spearman Rank correlation was used.5
94
Sri
Wahyuni,
H.
C. Knipscheer,
Farm no.
P
0
C
M
H
0* 0* 0* 0* 0*
0
1 0 0 0 0* 0* 0 0* 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0* 0* 0* 3 0* 0*
0 0 0* 0 0 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0* 0* 0 0 0* 0* 0* 0
0 0* 0* 0* 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0* 0* 0 0* 0 0* 0* 0* 0* 0 0* 0*
1 0 0 0 1 0” 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0* 0 0
4
0
13
0
9
1.
1
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1
Total
13
Gaylord
TABLE 2 on the Role of Women in Decision Enterprise (Men’s Perception)
Score Distribution
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
M.
P = planning 0 = organizing C = controlling
The hypotheses H, = There men’s H, = There men’s H,, = There men’s H,, = There men’s
1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0* 0 1 3 2 0
M = marketing H = herding CG = cutting grass
CG
Making
in Small
Ruminant
F
W
HC
Total score
1 3 0 3 0 0* 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0* 3 3
1 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 3
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0
5 8 2 8 1 6 0 3 3 8 6 2 4 5 0 0 0 1 7 8 3 15 7 7
32
13
109
25
F = feeding HC = health care W = watering
Farm’s rank
12.0 3.5 17.5 3.5 14.5 10.0 22.5 15.0 15.0 3.5 10.0 17.5 13.0 12.0 22.5 22.5 22.5 19.5 7.0 3.5 15.0 1.0 7.0 7.0
* = no answer
are: is no difference between perception scores. is a difference between perception scores. is no correlation between perception scores. is a correlation between perception scores.
women’s
perception
scores and
women’s
perception
scores and
women’s perception
scores and
women’s
scores and
perception
Women’s decision-making
RESULTS
role in small ruminant
AND
95
production
DISCUSSION
The analysis of the data indicates husbands and wives have very different perceptions of the wife’s relative participation in the decision making process concerning the management of sheep and goat small holdings. The women’s participation in decision making, as reported by men (Table 2) was markedly lower than the women’s participation as reported by women (Table 1). The difference in perception scores was statistically significant. The analysis of variances indicates that women perceived they played the major role in decision making for small ruminant production while men perceived just the opposite. Perception of the wife’s role in decision making depended strongly on whether the respondents were men or women (e = O-74). For most of the nine categories of sheep and goat production, husbands and wives are in total disagreement (R, = O-17; P > 0.01 = 0.78). As shown in Table 3, most of the women reported that they alone were responsible for decision making concerning herding. In this instance women decide what must be done (e.g., where and when to graze the animals) and then they delegate the actual work to their children. In this respect the women see themselves as the main decision makers. On the other hand, husbands may not consider this exercise of decision making their wives’ main household duty, and therefore the husbands will understimate their wives’ responsibility for decision making concerning herding. Health care is another instance in which women believe they make the major decision. They believe they are responsible for deciding when to provide remedies, such as traditional medicine, when animals get sick. In such cases, however, only eight per cent of the husbands reported that their The
Role
of Women
Activities
Planning Organizing Controlling Marketing Herding Cutting grass Feeding Watering Health care
TABLE 3 Making in Small Perception)
in Decision
Wife
W$e and children
Wife and husband
30 25 41 25 63 34 54 61 15
16 16 17 13 21 41 21 12 13
38 43 29 54 16 21 21 21 8
Ruminant
Enterprise
Husband
16 16 13 8 4 4 4
(Women’s
Total WI
N
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
96
Sri Wahyuni, H. C. Knipscheer,
The Role of Women in Decision Activities
Planning Organizing Controlling Marketing Herding Cutting grass Feeding Watering Health care
W(fe
21 37 8
Making
M. Gaylord
TABLE 4 in Small Ruminant
Enterprise
(Men’s Perception)
Wjf;7 and children
Wif;? and husband
Husband
Total W)
N
4
34 92
4
38
4 12 4
30 17 21 21
38 4 100 54 100 66 50 42 67
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
wives played the major role in decision making (Table 4), while seventy-five per cent of the wives reported that they were the main decision makers (Table 3). As husbands are absent from home part of the day, they may be simply unaware that their wives are making animal husbandry decisions in their absence. Only in regard as to whether the family should keep small ruminants or not and whether they should sell the animals or not did both wives and husbands have the same perception of their joint role in making decisions. As shown in Table 3, 38 per cent of the wives reported that the decision to keep animals was the decision of both wives and husbands. Table 4 also reports that 34 per cent of the husbands perceived that the decision to keep animals was made by both husband and wife. Perhaps this case can be explained by the fact that before deciding to raise or sell animals the wife and husband sat down together and discussed this question seriously. In order to determine if there was any consistency between the decision making scores of husbands and wives, a Spearman correlation test was conducted.5 The conclusion was that although husbands and wives report different levels of participation in decision making, scores among all households are correlated. Thus the households were ranked according to wives’ and husbands’ perceptions (Tables 1 and 2). The correlation between the ranking by wives and husbands was statistically significant (R, = O-68), despite nearly opposite ranking on farms No. 17 and No. 22. The positive correlation seems to indicate that in spite of the large difference in perception between husbands and wives, if a wife rated her role in decision making highly, relative to the other wives, then her husband was likely to rate her participation in decision making highly, relative to other husbands. This study illustrates that it is important to get data from both husbands
Women’s decision-making role in small ruminant production
91
and wives in a family. The choice of sample unit (husband or wife) can significantly alter the impression one forms of the relative degree of participation of husbands and wives in small ruminant production. It is essential to identify correctly the sociological factors which affect agricultural production and the adoption of new technology. One of these factors, certainly, is the target population to whom new technologies will be aimed. This study suggests that wives of small ruminant smallholders may be equally as important as their husbands in the decision making process concerning this sector of mixed farming systems in West Java.
CONCLUSION The above study confirms the likelihood of a sex bias in survey research.l The reported difference in perception among different sampling units is probably compounded by the sex differences of enumerators as men were interviewed by men, and women by women. Whatever the source of difference in observation, the above example illustrates how careful anyone conducting rural surveys should be determining sample units (husband or wives), instruments (questionnaire and enumerator) and, consequently, in the interpretation of the results. By the same token, agricultural administrators and development planners using survey results should be aware of the possibility of a substantial sex bias in their reference materials.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful for the comments van Eys on an earlier draft.
of J. Perkins, M. Nolan
and J.
REFERENCES 1. Chambers,
R. Rapid
Administration
rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire. Public and Development, 1, (1981), 955106. W. & Scheaffer, R. L. Mathematical statistics with application.
2. Mendenhall, North Scituate, Massachusetts, Duxbury Press, 1973, pp. 458-67. 3. Muljadi, A., Knipscheer, H. C. & Mathius, I. W. The characteristics of small ruminants farming in West Java: Labor aspects. In: Sheep and Goats in Indonesia, (Rangkuti, M., Soedjana, T. D., Knipscheer, H. C., Sitorus, P. & Setiadi, A. (Eds)). Center of Research Institutes for Animal Sciences, Bogor, 1984, pp. 197-201.
98
Sri Wahyuni, H. C. Knipscheer, M. Gaylord
4. Sabrani, M., Sitorus, P., Rangkuti, M., Subandriyo, I., Mathius, W., Soedjana, T. D. & Semali, A. Report of baseline survey on sheep and goat. Center of Research Institutes for Animal Sciences, Bogor, 1982, 88pp. 5. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behaviorial sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956, pp. 202-13. 6. Sry Wahyuni. Women’s role in small ruminant production in Cirebon, West Java. SR-CRSP Working Paper No. 14. Research Institute for Animal Production, Bogor, 1983.