<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<XML><RECORDS>
<RECORD>
	<REFERENCE_TYPE>0</REFERENCE_TYPE>
	<AUTHORS>
		<AUTHOR>Pfeiffer, Jeanine M.</AUTHOR>
		<AUTHOR>Butz., Ramona J.</AUTHOR>
	</AUTHORS>
	<YEAR>2005</YEAR>
	<TITLE>Assessing Cultural and Ecological Variation in Ethnobiological Research: The Importance of Gender</TITLE>
	<SECONDARY_TITLE>Journal of Ethnobiology</SECONDARY_TITLE>
	<VOLUME>25</VOLUME>
	<PAGES>240-278</PAGES>
	<KEYWORDS>
		<KEYWORD>gender</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>balance,</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>research</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>design,</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>sampling</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>design,</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>informant</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>choice</KEYWORD>
	</KEYWORDS>
	<NOTES>
Pfeiffer and Butz undertake a literature search of 296 articles in the Journal of Ethnobiology and 424 articles in Economic Botany. The authors focus only on field studies and ?defined ?gendered? analyses as those studies explicitly including both female and male respondents, accompanied by some form of qualitative or quantitative analysis differentiating between the two genders? (26). The search reveals that only 4% of articles in The Journal of Ethnobiology and 2.8% of those in Economic Botany substantively engage gender based variation in ethnobiological knowledge and practice. The authors then contrast this predominant, gender blind analysis with 220 interdisciplinary articles that include gender in their analyses. In summarizing the variety of ways that gender is important to the constitution of ethnobiological knowledge the authors make several methodological suggestions. These include the need for gender balanced research teams and attention to the gendered dynamics of research topics and design, particularly regarding sampling, informant choice, and translation.

Prepared by: David Crawford [DLC], Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Fairfield University, Connecticut, July 2006.
</NOTES>
</RECORD>
</RECORDS></XML>