stall-feeding projects, their care fell to women (Spring, 1986a).
Agricultural development projects increased the amount of time in hours per day and in days per month that both men and women ha'd to work (Clark, 1975). The agricultural services provided by integrated development and localized projects that included such services as training, input, and credit programs, and agricultural extension mostly by-passed women. For many households this meant that the efficiency of their farming was reduced. There were some women who were able to participate in development programs in order to increase their productivity. There were some male extensionists who included women farmers with the male farmers they targeted for training, credit and visits (Spring, Smith and Kayuni, 1983b).
The WIADP documented the delivery of agricultural extension services to men and to women in a variety of ways. First, the WIADP analyzed the extension survey that was part of a large national multi-instrument survey conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and financed by the World Bank. Second, the WIADP interviewed and observed extension personnel in the field in terms of the way they worked with clients. Third, the WIADP conducted FSR/E surveys and trials and studied the ways the extension personnel were utilized to identify and to work with farmers. Fourth, meetings and interviews were held with the staff and management of agricultural projects who supervised extension and research efforts to examine their procedures.
The results from the national s- :vey- (The National Sample Survey of Agriculture or NSSA) showed that farmers' contact with extension workers in terms of personal and field visits, attendance at group meetings and demonstrations, and participation in training courses were differential by sex (Table 7). The data showed that contact with extension workers was the major source of advice for both men and women farmers, but that men received more personal visits and more advice than women. Group meetings tended to reach more farmers than personal visits, but men were the primary participants. Relatively few farmers of either sex viewed extension demonstrations, but more men than women learned from this method. Field visits reached even fewer women and the WIADP observed that many male extensionists simply dismissed the women working in the fields while they concentrated on the men.
The WIADP disaggregated the NSSA data into three categories: male household heads, female household heads, and wives of the male household heads. The data showed that men received more services than women and often wives received more services than female household heads. The data also showed that very few wives received agricultural information from their husbands. The presumed transfer of technology from husbands to wives and from men to women in the household did not take place. The asssumption that if men are trained or assisted that other family members learned or were assisted was not confirmed by the data (Spring, Smith and Kayuni, 1983b).
In terms of the practice of FSR/E surveys and trials it was the uncommon situation where women farmers were contacted by reconnaisance or survey teams or where they were part of the recommendations domains discerned. There was a tendency for the host country and expatriate researchers to ignore the women in the fields during rapid reconnaisance surveys. When production and social scientists relied on the extension workers, which they often did, the extension workers tended to take them to interview and work with the men. In terms of on-farm farmer managed trials, only male cooperators were selected.