Extracts from [[The-Personal-Is-Political-An-Activist's-Memoir]] illustrates the importance of conceptualising a problem such that it is rooted within its social context, and more so using methods that allow the greatest agency over this conceptualisation to the people in that context.....worse still if they are unfairly affected note ![[IMG_6176.jpeg]] ![[IMG_6177.jpeg]] ![[IMG_6178.jpeg]] > In the case of the 1984-85 study on 'drudgery, the research team had concluded (before the study was completed) that the use of the smokeless chulha and solar cookers must be promoted among rural women as the solution to "drudgery'. All the women friends I had made during my eight-year stay in Rajasthan told me this would not work. Neither the solar cooker nor the smokeles chulha met the requirements for making rotis from bajra (mille) and maka (maize, which was the staple diet. Both kinds of rotis required s direct flame of a much larger circumference than the smokeless of which was part of their diet. To use the smokeless chulha and the solar cooker they would have to change their diet and spend on buying rice and dal. These foods were neither easily available no affordable. Local women deemed the solar cooker and the smokeless chulha redundant, even before these could enter their kitchen. It was obvious that the research team had got both the definition and solution of drudgery wrong. > > The first demand we made as preliminary to conducting the study was that drudgery’ be defined by the women themselves. It took a great deal of persistence and contestation to finally get the DST to agree to a participatory methodology in conducting the study. If it had not been for support from the feminist economist Devaki Jain, then advisor to the DST, this would not have been possible. We wanted the questionnaire (and its yes/ no answer format) to be replaced with a focus group discussion (FGD) in eleven village clusters or groups, where women would gather to ‘define drudgery. These FGDs were recorded on a battery-operated tape recorder and later transcribed. Thanks to the FGDs, instead of a simple or ‘no’ to questions raised, the complexity of choices also became apparent. > > The rigour of the revised pattern of the study lay in its attempt to work scientifically from a given condition to possibilities within that predicament. From previous experience with health and with toilets, one knew that leading questions gave you predetermined, Politically correct answers, which did not tally with reality and possibilities. One had to accept the hiatus between our academic hypotheses and the reality of living conditions to evolve sound policy. It was important, therefore, to look at and understand women’s Predicament at work. The veracity of the statements in the FGDs spoke for themselves. The study then categorized and analysed the responses to the questions. > > The women eventually defined drudgery as hunger, arduous physical work and unemployment. Under ‘arduous physical work” they had listed ‘collecting fuel’ at the top of the list, followed by construction labour’, work related to frequently climbing-descending ladders’, weeding’ and digging’. ‘Cooking’, which the research team had included under drudgery, was considered relaxing. > > The DST’s solution-pushing a pre-determined output (solar cookers and the smokeless chulha) was not linked to addressing the real drudgery of hunger and poverty. It also became apparent that the work that women did needed to be reclaimed and valued economically. > > Last updated: 2026-01-26 19:22