Chapters 4, 9, 10

In the chapter In Theory and in Practice: Women Creating Better Accounts of the World, Louise Fortmann explores how "theory and practice rooted in situated knowledges can be used to develop better accounts of the world (192)." There seems to be two levels of contextualized knowledge. The first deals with looking at women's interaction within the environment, women are often represented as "victims, perpetuators, or managers/stewards (193)." Then, Fortmann discusses situating knowledge of women in the North and South. Rather than thinking of women's experiences in the North and the South as divergent, there are more similarities than one would expect. For example, poor women in the North and South have more in common with each other than they would with upper class women.. Taken together, the author argues "for the practice of an interdependent science that eschews hierarchal notions of whose knowledge counts and what kinds of voices are permitted (193)." "Interdependent knowledge" is the collaboration of civil and conventional sciences in order to "develop better accounts of the world (198)."

Fortmann presents "interdependent knowledge" as a means of bridging the gap between theory and practice because it presents a more nuanced image of the world, especially gender, based on formal (conventional science) and informal (civil science) experiments and observations. In her conclusion Fortmann states, "This chapter has shown that women's research and practice has led to better accounts of the world through making neglected social actors and social relations visible, by bringing actors and social relations thought to be distinct into conversation with each other and by embracing and utilizing difference and collaboration rather than hierarchy" in her conclusion (200). I believe this is a good example of my main critique of the book so far because it demonstrates the authors' desire to compensate for the weaknesses of having a developmental orthodoxy by infusing this orthodoxy with a more nuanced picture. However, the picture of women's experience is so vast and varied that I do not believe that universalism can even begin to account for these differences without losing its appeal as a universal.

In the article Women's Work: The Kitchen Kills More Than the Sword Kirk Smith looks at the affect of poverty on women's and children's health [Smith defines health in terms of the "years lost given the life expectancy of a person of that particular age and sex (204)"]. The biggest cause of lost years for women and children in developing countries is acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI, old SARS), which is caused by "exposure to indoor pollution resulting from poor fuels and unvented cookstoves". Because it is difficult to treat old SARS once it has infected the individual, prevention is the only way of stopping the disease (202-203). Much of Smith's article is informed by his research in Guatemala in which he studies the impact of indoor air pollution on the health of women and children (209). His research focuses on the benefits of improved wood stoves with chimneys on the health of women and children living in the village. Besides the health benefits of these stoves, Smith's research noted additional non-health benefits such as reduced fuel consumption, improved household hygiene, and improved quality of life. Smith's researchers found that households often re-built their kitchens in anticipation of a new stove (212). These benefits all improve the quality of life, not just health, for women in the household.

However, Smith identifies the burden in having to empirically prove the health dangers of indoor pollution in order to secure funding for prevention rather than treatment. Also, researchers must show demonstrate benefits in different areas (212). This demonstrates that the relationship between donors and recipients in not one based on need alone. Rather, requests for funds must be articulated in such a way as to demonstrate their cost effectiveness. This highlights another major flaw of a universal paradigm. Universal paradigms award too much power to donors, individuals and agencies, who are more interested in perpetuating their own agendas rather than listening to micro-level analysis, like the research that individuals like Kirk Smith are undertaking.

Sylvia Chant discusses the "contributions of a gender perspective on the analysis of poverty ()." Conceptually, this chapter follows the same train of thought as Fortmann and Smith's pieces because of its emphasis on contextualizing knowledge. Rather than looking at poverty from the macro-level, Chant looks at poverty in terms of gender and the effect of economic policies on women's lives. Chant discusses "feminization of poverty" in which she points to the unequal effects of SAPs on female and male headed households. Female headed households are described as being among the poorest of the poor (90).

These articles have focused on a move away from the singular. Fortmann calls for collaboration between two kinds of science, while Smith looks studies the health effects of micro-level policies and Chant speaks about the movement away from income as the main determinant of poverty. The nuanced and contextualized image of women and their social duties is very interesting and the author's recommendations for improving their quality of live seem well-suited to the needs of these women. However, as the Smith article demonstrated it is difficult to secure funding from donors before establishing the cost effectiveness of these measures.