Gender, taboo and deceit: The alternative truths of household research

GeoJournal

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 33-45

  Cloke, Jonathan ^a,b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bargaining; Development; Economics; Gender; Household; Nicaragua; Taboo

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBLEM SOLVING; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

GEOGRAPHY; HOUSEHOLD RESEARCH; SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSES;

TABU SEARCH;

BARGAINING; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; GENDER; RESEARCH;

CENTRAL AMERICA; MASAYA; NICARAGUA;

EID: 41549155475     PISSN: 03432521     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10708-007-9096-6     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Agarwal, B. (1997). "Bargaining" and gender relations: Within and beyond the household, FCND discussion paper No. 27. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.
2. Allan, G. (1980). A note on interviewing spouses together. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(1), 205-210.
3. Bailey, C. (2001). Geographers doing household research: intrusive research and moral accountability (Comment). Area, 33(1), 107-110.
4. Banks, J., Blundell, R., & Lewbel, A. (1997). Quadratic Engel curves and consumer demand. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 527-539.
5. Becker, G. (1981). A treatise on the family. London: Harvard University Press.
6. Becker, G. (1996). Accounting for tastes. Cambridge: Massachussetts: Harvard University Press.
7. Bidegain, A. (1989). Women and the theology of liberation. In E. Tamez (Ed.), Through her eyes: Women's theology from Latin America (pp. 15-36). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
8. Blundell, R., & Robin, J.-M. (2000). Latent separability: Grouping goods without weak separability. Econometrica, 68, 53-84.
9. Browning, M., & Chiappori, P. (1998). Efficient intra-household allocations: A general characterization and empirical tests. Econometrica, 66(6), 1241-1278.
10. Carr, E. (2005). Development and the household: Missing the point? GeoJournal, 62, 71-83.
11. Carter, M., & Katz, E. (1997). Separate spheres and the conjugal contract: Understanding the impact of gender-biased development. In L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott, & H. Alderman (Eds.), Intrahousehold resource allocation in developing countries: Methods, models, and policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
12. Chambers, R. (1995). Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? Environment and Urbanization, 7(1), 173-204.
13. Cloke, J. (2003). The political economy of microfinance: A Nicaraguan case study. Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University.
14. Ellsberg, M., Peña, R., Herrera, A., Liljestrand, J., & Winkvist, A. (1996). The reality of battered women in Nicaragua. Sweden: University of Umea.
15. Equipo Nizkor (1999). Informe sobre la situación de Los Derechos Humanos en Nicaragua en el año 1999. Managua: Centro Nicaraguense de Derechos Humanos (CENIDH).
16. Faune, M. (1995). Familias: Violencia y sobreviviencia, Envio No. 162. Universidad CentroAmericana, Managua.
17. Haddad, L., & Hoddinott, J. (1994). Woman's income and boy-girl anthropometric statues in the Cote D'Ivoire. World Development, 22, 543-553.
18. Haddad, L., & Kanbur, R. (1990) How serious is the neglect of intra-household inequality? The Economic Journal, 100, 868-881.
19. INPYME/INEC/PROMICRO-OIT. (2001). La Mujer Microempresaria en Nicaragua: Situacion y Caracteristicas hacia finales de los anos noventa, Cuadernos de Trabajo No. 9, San Jose, Costa Rica.
20. IPEA/UNDP. (2000). Pobreza y Desigualdad en Nicaragua: Resultados Preliminares. Managua: United Nations Development Program.
21. Jarvis, H. (1999). The tangled webs we weave: Household strategies to coordinate home and work. Work, Employment and Society, 13(2), 225-247.
22. Jarvis, H. (2005). Moving to London time: Household co-ordination and the infrastructure of everyday life. Time and Society, 14(1), 133-154.
23. Jarvis, H. (2006). 'Households'. In I. Douglas, R. Huggett, & C. Perkins (Eds.), Companion encyclopaedia of geography (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
24. Jordan, B., Redley, M., & James, S. (1994). Putting the family first: Identities, decisions, citizenship. London: UCL Press.
25. Langbroek, J. (1998). Poder, independencia y desarrollo: Un desafio para las mujeres en actividades colectivas de generacion de ingresos, Puntos de Encuentro. Managua: Universidad de Mujeres.
26. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4), 139-158.
27. Malinowski, B. (1913). The family among the Australian Aborigines: A sociological study. London: University of London Press.
28. Marston, S., & Smith, N. (2001). States, scales and households: Limits to scale thinking? A response to Brenner. Progress in Human Geography, 25(4), 615-619.
29. Mayoux, L. (2001). Impact assessment of microfinance: Towards a sustainable learning process, EDIAIS Application guidance note, October 2001.
30. Mbilinyi, M. (1992). Research methodologies in gender issues. In R. Meena (Ed.), Gender in Southern Africa: Conceptual and theoretical issues. Harare: Shapes Books.
31. McDowell, L. (1992). Doing gender: Feminisms, feminists and research methods in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17(4), 399-416.
32. Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing time: Children's narratives and differential access to literacy. Language and Society, 10, 423-442.
33. Michaels, S. (1985). Hearing the connections in children's oral and written discourse. Journal of Education, 167, 36-56.
34. Moser, C., & Winton, A. (2002). Violence in the Central American region: Towards an integrated framework for violence reduction, ODI Working Paper 171. London: Overseas Development Institute.
35. Motz, M. (1998). The practice of belief. The Journal of American Folklore, 111(441), 339-355.
36. Nunkoosing, K. (2005). Pearls, pith, and provocation: The problems with interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 15(5), 698-706.
37. Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Cambridge: Polity Press.
38. Pini, B. (2005). Interviewing men: Gender and the collection and interpretation of qualitative data. Journal of Sociology, 41(2), 201-216.
39. Quisumbing, A., & de la Briere, B. (2000). Women's assets and intra-household allocation in rural Bangladesh: Testing measures of bargaining power, FCND discussion paper no. 86. Washington: International Food and Policy Research Institute.
40. Quisumbing, A., & Maluccio, J. (1999). Intrahousehold allocation and gender relations: New empirical evidence. World Bank Development Research Group Working Paper Series No. 2.
41. Quisumbing, A., & Maluccio, J. (2000). Intrahousehold allocation and gender relations: New empirical evidence from four developing countries, FCND Discussion Paper No. 84. IFPR, Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.
42. Reisman, C. (1987). When gender is not enough: Women interviewing women. Gender and Society, 1(2), 172-207.
43. Schwalbe, M., & Wolkomir, M. (2001). The masculine self as problem and resource in interview studies of men. Men and Masculinities, 4(1), 90-103.
44. Sen, A. (1991). Gender and cooperative conflict. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent inequalities: Women and World Development (pp. 123-150). New York: OUP.
45. Sternberg, P. (2000). Challenging machismo: Promoting sexual and reproductive health with Nicaraguan men. Gender and Development, 8(1), 89-99.
46. Udry, C. (1996). Gender, agricultural production and the theory of the household. Journal of Political Economy, 104(5), 505-520.
47. UNDP. (1995). Human Development Report 1995. New York: UNDP.
48. Valentine, G. (1999). Doing household research: Interviewing couples together and apart. Area, 31, 67-74.
49. Verma, R. (2001). Gender-based research methodology, chapter 2 in gender, land and livelihoods in East Africa: Through farmers' eyes. Canada: IDRC.
50. Vermeulen, F. (2002). Collective household models: principles and main results, occasional paper. Center for Economic Studies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, available at http://www.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/ces/discussionpapers/Dps00/ DPS0028.pdf, last accessed 15/9/06.
51. Wheelock, J., & Oughton, E. (1996). The household as a focus for research. Journal of Economic Issues, 30(1), 143-159.
52. World Bank. (2001). Nicaragua Poverty Assessment: Challenges and opportunities for poverty reduction, Report No. 20488-NI (Vol. 1, Main Report), Poverty reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit. Washington: World Bankm, p. i.