individuals who are in diverse age and sex categories. A failure to look at who does what farm operations, who makes which decisions, and who receives the remuneration, and makes further investments, will affect the practive of FSR/E. For example, a higher yielding variety might require more labor in managing, harvesting, processing, and storing the cereal especially in synchronously maturing varieties (Ferguson and Horn, 1985; McKee, 1954) or a livestock intervention might target one group of producers at the expense of another. For example, in a case from Senegal, men made decisions about the planting of cereal crops, but women contributed much of the labor for the crop's weeding, harvesting, and processing. Women made decisions about legume, vegetable, and condiment crops. If women did the extra work for the new variety of cereal crop, they had less time for the crops that they managed. In livestock production male farmers favored livestock interventions that "would increase live-weight and quality of stock" because size and number were determinants of wealth. But, women controlled the milk allocation and sale of milk products and "would gain most from interventions-which increased calf survival or ... permitted an increase in the number of animals under current land or-labor constraints" (McKee, 1984:598-599).
There are specific methodologies needed to understand intrahousehold variables within the FSR/E process (McKee, 1984). *In the pre-diagnostic stage, the ethnographic literature that provides information on the household's division of labor, decision-making, and allocation of resources must be reviewed for specific recommendation domains. In the diagnostic stage, the types of household and the types of representative farmers n ed to be considered. For example, in areas where there are many households headed by women, as in the case of much of Africa and the Caribbean, it is necessary to include such households in the sample and to ask if their resources and needs are the same as or different from the households headed by men. Socioeconomic and agronomic variables have to be assessed in terms of various household members in the different types of households. The interventions have to be geared to the needs of the types of households and the constituent 'members. In the technology design stage, it is necessary to make sure that the researchers do not use incorrect assumptions about gender; McKee suggests the input of female scientists and field workers, but this is not always possible or even a guarantee tht gender issues will be considered. There is no reason why both, male and female scientists, who have their eyes open, cannot work on the problem. In the testing stage McKee says that one must monitor "how the farm household actually copes with the reallocation of resources required by the new requirements" (McKee, 1984:602). En the final 'extension stage, McKee argues that it is important "to involve women farmers and farm workers, as well as female extension agents, in diffusing technologies for crops and tasks in which women predominate" (McKee, 1984:602).
The major thrust of this paper is that men as well as women agricultural researchers and extensionists have to become involved and have to target farmers of both genders. The argument here first considers the gender-related characteristics of extension services and how these characteristics affect reaching a variety of farmers, especially women. Then a case study from Malawi shows that women are important in agriculture but tend to be neglected in extension services and in the practice of FSR/E. In order to study and correct the problem, the results of two sets of trials are considered here. In one analysis, the results of using men and women farmers in the sample shows differences in recommendation domains. In another, mechanisms by which the male staff can work with women farmers are discerned. Based on the