Gender Analysis of Uptake of Trichogramma chilonis to Control Helicoverpa armigera on Tomato Crops in Pakistan
, Muhammad Danish 2, Shah Faisal 2, Keith A. Holmes 3, Belinda Luke 4 and Frances Williams 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study is qualitative in nature; utilizing a qualitative survey approach to assess gendered barriers to uptake of the bio-control method for management of the Helicoverpa armigera among tomato growers in selected regions in Pakistan. The paper is well written; it flows well from the introduction, methods, results, and conclusion. I enjoyed reading the article. The selection of the tools is also well done as well as the discussion of the triangulated responses.
My main concern is quantifying the qualitative survey responses. Qual vs Quan analysis warns against the use of percentages in qualitative (qual) analysis and instead recommends the use of numbers e.g. number of FDG that reported an issue (see Tong et al. 2007). It also encourages the use of quotes from the interviewees.
The impact results- section 3.4.1: I would change the sub-section title to "Perceived change in production and income". As this was a qualitative survey, it was not sufficient to conduct comprehensive quantitative interviews to measure actual impact but rather to report perceived impact. In addition, I would be hesitant to relate second-level impacts (i.e. food availability and nutrition) to the technology using qualitative data. A counterfactual (control) group is required to make the comparison
Author Response
Point 1: My main concern is quantifying the qualitative survey responses. Qual vs Quan analysis warns against the use of percentages in qualitative (qual) analysis and instead recommends the use of numbers e.g. number of FDG that reported an issue (see Tong et al. 2007). It also encourages the use of quotes from the interviewees.
Response: This is noted. The percentages are now changed by number of in-depth interview respondents.
Point 2: The impact results- section 3.4.1: I would change the sub-section title to "Perceived change in production and income". As this was a qualitative survey, it was not sufficient to conduct comprehensive quantitative interviews to measure actual impact but rather to report perceived impact. In addition, I would be hesitant to relate second-level impacts (i.e. food availability and nutrition) to the technology using qualitative data. A counterfactual (control) group is required to make the comparison.
Response: This is noted. The sub-title 3.4.1. is now changed to perceived change in production and income. The section on food and nutrition is cut and all references to improvement in food and nutrition are taken out of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall I find the paper compelling and the paper makes a meaningful contribution to gender studies in agriculture. The research methods are clear and the findings have applicable value-- how to better improve bio-control methods, reduce pesticides and be inclusive of women farmers in these programs.
It is a very long paper, so revisions should focus on concision and avoiding redundancy.
Two items that need clarification:
1) the breakdown of farmers in your study indicates that there are far more women tomato farmers than men tomato farmers. Please indicate the gender ratios for all tomato farmers in all regions.
2) Why was IRB/informed consent not required?
Please note on typo on line 130, should be "Feed the Future."
Author Response
Point 1. It is a very long paper, so revisions should focus on concision and avoiding redundancy.
Response: This is noted. We have tried to cut repeated statements in the Results section. For example, we have tried to summarize the findings for the three provinces under some of the sub-titles, instead describing findings for each province.
Point 2. 1) the breakdown of farmers in your study indicates that there are far more women tomato farmers than men tomato farmers. Please indicate the gender ratios for all tomato farmers in all regions.
Response: There is no data available on the proportion of men and women tomato farmers in each province. However, both men and women participate in tomato production. Women are mainly responsible for tomato production, when it is a kitchen garden. In our sample, we included more female respondents, because we wanted to further divide the women farmers in to two groups: women in male headed households and women heads of households and compare their experiences. However, during data collection, it was not possible to find single women heads of households, as the proportion of single women heads of households in Pakistan is very low. Except for one or two cases, all the respondents were women in male headed households.
Point 3: 2) Why was IRB/informed consent not required?
Response: We have actually sought oral consent before conducting the interviews. An oral consent form was attached to the in-depth interview and focus group discussion questionnaires, which was read out and explained by enumerators. The interview proceeded only after consent is obtained from the interviewees. This is now mentioned in the informed consent statement of the manuscript. It was an oversight in the previous draft submitted, which is now added.
