Women extension workers and their unique contributions to reaching female farming populations

Introduction

In much of rural Mali, a male extension worker knocking on a farmstead door will be greeted by men even if the person who makes most day-to-day farming decisions is a woman working in the field behind the house [2] . Contrast this with a woman extension worker arriving at the same household: she's more likely to speak directly with the female farmer, enter the kitchen garden, and discuss topics that male agents rarely cover, such as nutrition-sensitive crop choices and post-harvest processing [3] . This contrast captures a structural problem that has persisted for decades in agricultural extension systems across West Africa. Women make up roughly half of the agricultural labor force in Mali, yet they receive a fraction of the advisory services that flow to male farmers [4] . The reasons are well documented: cultural norms that discourage women from interacting with male professionals, extension schedules that conflict with women's domestic responsibilities, and content designed around cash crops rather than the food crops women tend to manage [5] . Hiring more women extension workers is frequently proposed as a solution, but evidence on whether gender-matched service delivery actually improves outcomes for female farmers remains surprisingly thin [6] . What specific advantages do women extension workers bring? Are the benefits about cultural access getting through the door or do they also involve content relevance, trust dynamics, and role modeling effects that shape adoption behavior [7] ? And are these advantages large enough to justify the policy investments needed to recruit, train, and retain women in extension roles where they currently represent less than 15% of field staff in Mali [4] ? This research addressed these questions by comparing the reach, trust relationships, and delivery outcomes of women and male extension workers serving female farming populations in two regions of southern Mali.

Instrument Development and Validation

Three instruments were developed for this research. The Extension Reach Assessment (ERA) recorded client demographics, visit frequency, topics covered, and service delivery modality for each extension worker over a sixmonth period. The Farmer Trust Scale (FTS) measured female farmers' trust in their extension worker across five dimensions: reliability, competence, openness, care, and cultural sensitivity, using a five-point Likert format [8] . The Technology Adoption Checklist (TAC) tracked adoption of 12 recommended practices over the research period. All instruments were reviewed by four experts in gender and extension and pilot-tested with 28 farmers in a non-sample commune. Cronbach's alpha values were 0.86 (FTS) and 0.81 (TAC), confirming adequate reliability [9] .

Material and Methods

Material

This research was conducted from February through December 2022 at the Institut d'Economie Rurale, Bamako, Mali. Ethical approval was granted by the Institut's Research Ethics Committee (Protocol IER-REC/2021-067, approved December 10, 2021). All participants provided informed consent. The research used a comparative crosssectional design surveying all active extension workers (34 women, 58 men) in four cercles across Koulikoro and Sikasso regions, selected for having both women and male workers deployed. A stratified sample of 387 female farmers was drawn from extension worker client lists 212 served by women workers and 175 served by male workers [10] . Additionally, 24 focus group discussions (6-8 participants each) were conducted with female farmers to explore trust and access dynamics qualitatively.

Methods

Extension workers completed monthly ERA forms from March through August 2022, documenting all client interactions. The FTS and TAC were administered to female farmers through face-to-face interviews by trained female enumerators between September and November 2022.

Focus groups were conducted in Bambara with audio recording and subsequent French translation and transcription. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 27 with independent samples t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d. Qualitative data were analyzed through thematic coding following an inductive approach [11] . Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Ethical Considerations

All participants gave informed consent in Bambara or French. Female enumerators conducted all farmer interviews to minimize gender-related discomfort. Focus group participants were assured that their comments would remain anonymous and wouldn't affect their access to extension services. Extension worker performance data were aggregated and never linked to individual evaluations. Data were stored in encrypted databases accessible only to the research team. 6.9 ± 2.2 4.8 ± 2.6 All differences significant at p < 0.001. Cohen's d = 1.83 for overall trust, 0.84 for adoption rate.

Results

Comprehensive Interpretation

Women extension workers served dramatically more female farmers than their male counterparts (Figure 1). The 68.4% female client ratio among women workers was 2.5 times higher than the 27.3% ratio for male workers. This wasn't simply about access women workers also visited female farmers more frequently (14.7 vs. 5.8 times monthly), covered nutrition topics four times more often, and organized women-only groups at nearly six times the rate of male workers (Table 1). Trust scores showed the largest effect size in the research (Cohen's d = 1.83), with cultural sensitivity showing the widest gap (4.4 vs. 2.3). This trust advantage translated into measurably higher technology adoption: female farmers served by women workers adopted 6.9 of 12 recommended practices versus 4.8 for those served by male workers (Table 2). Focus group data confirmed that trust was rooted in both cultural accessibility and content relevance women workers discussed topics that female farmers cared about in settings where they felt comfortable speaking openly.

Discussion

The reach advantage of women extension workers documented here exceeds what has been reported in most comparable research. Ragasa and colleagues found a 1.7:1 ratio advantage in Ethiopia, while our results showed 2.5:1 [6] . The stronger effect in Mali likely reflects more conservative gender norms that restrict male-female professional making the gender match particularly valuable. The trust scores reinforce this interpretation the cultural sensitivity sub-score showed the largest gap of any measure (2.1 points on a 5-point scale), suggesting that gender concordance operates through cultural comfort rather than technical competence alone [12] . The contribution pathway model (Figure 3) identifies four mechanisms: cultural access, content relevance, role www.extensionjournal.com modeling, and feedback loops. Focus groups repeatedly confirmed all four. Women described their female extension workers as people who "understand what we actually need" and "come to where we work, not where the men sit" [13] .

The role modeling dimension seeing a professional woman in an agricultural role was mentioned spontaneously in 19 of 24 focus groups, suggesting aspirational effects beyond immediate service delivery [14] . The 41.8% adoption rate advantage carries real economic implications. If each additional adopted practice improves household food production by even 5-8%, as prior research in the region suggests, the cumulative effect of women workers' higher adoption rates represents meaningful gains for food security at the community level [15] .

Practical Applications

These findings have direct implications for extension system staffing decisions. Increasing the share of women extension workers from the current 15% toward gender parity would likely double or triple the effective reach of extension services to female farmers. Recruitment strategies should target women from rural backgrounds who understand local farming systems and cultural contexts. Training curricula should include nutrition-sensitive agriculture and womenonly group facilitation skills. Retention incentives including safe transportation, flexible scheduling, and mentorship programs are essential given that women agents face additional mobility and safety barriers in rural postings [16] .

Limitations

The comparative design can't rule out self-selection women extension workers may be inherently more motivated to reach female farmers. The research covered two regions and may not represent northern Mali where security concerns limit extension operations. Trust is measured at a single time point, so we can't track how it develops over repeated interactions. Male worker performance with female farmers may improve with gender-sensitivity training, which wasn't tested here.

Conclusion

Women extension workers reached 2.5 times more female farmers, earned significantly higher trust scores, and produced 41.8% greater technology adoption among female clients compared to male counterparts in southern Mali. These advantages operated through cultural access, content relevance, role modeling, and feedback mechanisms that male workers couldn't easily replicate. The gender extension gap won't close by training male workers alone it requires deliberate investment in recruiting, training, and retaining women as extension professionals.

Given that female farmers produce most of the food in Mali yet receive a fraction of advisory services, closing this gap through gender-matched service delivery represents one of the highest-return investments available to agricultural development planners.

References

1. World Bank. Gender in agriculture sourcebook: Closing the gap in agricultural extension. World Bank Publications. 2009;1(1):1-764.
2. Doss CR. Women and agricultural productivity: Reframing the issues. Development Policy Review. 2018;36(1):35-50.
3. Peterman A, Behrman JA, Quisumbing AR. A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. IFPRI Discussion Papers. 2014;1375:1-72.
4. Direction Nationale de l'Agriculture Mali. Rapport annuel sur les services de vulgarisation agricole: Personnel et couverture. DNA Statistical Reports. 2021;9(2):1-84.
5. Meinzen-Dick R, Quisumbing A, Behrman J, Biermayr-Jenzano P, Wilde V, Noordeloos M, Ragasa C, Beintema N. Engendering agricultural research, development, and extension. IFPRI Research Monographs. 2011;176:1-76.
6. Ragasa C, Berhane G, Tadesse F, Taffesse AS. Gender differences in access to extension services and agricultural productivity. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2013;19(5):437-468.
7. Manfre C, Rubin D, Allen A, Summerfield G, Colverson K, Akeredolu M. Reducing the gender gap in agricultural extension and advisory services. USAID Discussion Papers. 2013;2:1-36.
8. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review. 1995;20(3):709-734.
9. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2011;2:53-55.
10. Institut National de la Statistique Mali. Recensement general de l'agriculture: Koulikoro et Sikasso profiles. INSTAT Publications. 2020;5(3):1-172.
11. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.
12. Lahai BA, Goldey P, Jones GE. The gender of the extension agent and farmers' access to and participation in agricultural extension in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2000;6(4):223233.
13. Cornwall A. Beneficiary, consumer, citizen: Perspectives on participation for poverty reduction. SIDA Studies. 2000;2:1-94.
14. Beaman L, Duflo E, Pande R, Topalova P. Female leadership raises aspirations and educational attainment for girls. Science. 2012;335(6068):582-586.
15. Kassie M, Shiferaw B, Muricho G. Agricultural technology, crop income, and poverty alleviation in Uganda. World Development. 2011;39(10):1784-1795.
16. Mbo'o-Tchouawou M, Colverson KE. Increasing access to agricultural extension and advisory services: How effective are new approaches in reaching women farmers in rural areas? ILRI Research Reports. 2014;1(1):1-48.
17. Quisumbing AR, Pandolfelli L. Promising approaches to address the needs of poor female farmers. World Development. 2010;38(4):581-592.
18. FAO. The state of food and agriculture: Women in agriculture closing the gender gap for development. FAO Publications. 2011;1(1):1-160. www.extensionjournal.com
19. Agarwal B. Gender and green governance: The political economy of women's presence within and beyond community forestry. Oxford University Press. 2010;1(1):1-488.
20. Mudege NN, Nyekanyeka T, Kapalasa E, Chevo T, Demo P. Understanding collective action and women's empowerment in potato farmer groups in Ntcheu and Dedza in Malawi. Journal of Rural Studies. 2015;42:91-101.