Investigating Competencies of Home Economics among Rural Women Carpet Weavers in Darian Township, Shiraz County

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• M. Sharifzadeh
• N. Kazemi

Yasouj University

https://doi.org/10.22067/jead2.v31i1.47383

Abstract

Introduction: Home Economics activities provide a useful framework to reduce inconsistencies of livelihood in development geography. The term 'livelihood' describes the means – 'capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities – required for living'. Rural women capabilities, assets and activities and the major aspects of family living are the most important means of providing opportunities for rural households to match with their ever changing communities. These assets and activities are known as the means of making a living or surviving and denote the abilities to maintain or build long-term well-being. Rural women as the half of human population in rural areas are the guardians of holding diversified portfolios for rural households and equipping them in the social change process. They play significant role in social and cultural realms along with economic roles in rural areas. Women economic roles indoor their house and applying scientific principles to domestic situations are called home science, domestic economic and later home economics. Home economical activities identify rural women' livelihood aspirations and the barriers that make livelihood creation difficult within the rural context. Home economic activities include all the products and services which produce a community that is healthier, wiser, freer, motivated, challenged and empowered. But the main question here is that what are the home economic competencies of rural women? Do the women in regions with different levels of development experience different home economics competencies? And which factors determine these competencies among rural women? This research aims to investigate the determinants of home economics competencies among rural women in Darian township, Shiraz county, Iran.
Materials and Methods: The study depends on primary data collected from rural women in rural regions of Darian township, Shiraz county, Iran. In this study, a survey was conducted using structural questionnaire. Questionnaire was designed to cover four basic household-based measures of home economics; life competencies and skills; life priorities; family support and home economics competencies. Demographic characteristics of respondents were also questioned. Face validity of questionnaires was confirmed by a panel of experts. The calculated Cronbach’s alpha for the different measures of the instrument were 0.69 to 0.94. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 22) and Super Decision software were used to treat and analyze the obtained data. Multi-stage random cluster sampling technique was used to select 200 rural women from developed and semi developed villages of Darian township.
Results and Discussion: Results revealed that, rural women in developed and semi developed rural areas weren’t significantly different regarding their life priorities (child development, family life, etc.). This may imply that rural women living in developed villages tend to experience similar competencies comaring to their counterparts in semi-developed villages. The results showed that while rural women in developed and semi developed villages were significantly different with respect to their family life competencies and skills, home management competencies and home employment activities; there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the other competencies achieved by women living in developed regions. It may be interpreted that most of the women in villages with different levels of development had similar home economics competencies (housing and home furnishing, foods and nutrition, clothing and textile, and child development competencies). However, the results shed light on the impact of development on family life skills, managerial skills and the necessity of earning money in home activities. The other important difference between the study areas was the level of family support. Results revealed that rural women in developed villages experience significantly more family supports in comparison to their counterparts in semi developed regions. The perception of support of family members (spouse, child and other household members) provided a facilitative environment to promote home economics competencies. Hierarchical regression results also indicated that life skills, perceptions of family supports, craft weaving experience and the level of rural development could predict 70 percent of variation in home economics competencies among rural women.
Conclusion: The researchers would like to propose possible suggestions to provide applied opportunities for women in semi developed regions. As indicated by the results, family members couldn’t provide necessary support for women to play their economical roles in their homes. Cultural support would be important to provide the supporting context for women in semi and under developed regions.

Keywords

• Darian township
• Home economics
• Life competencies
• Life priorities
• Rural women

20.1001.1.20084722.1396.31.1.1.3

References

1. Abeygunawardena P. and Jayatilake W. 2003. Changing role of non-timber forest products (NTFP) in rural household economy: The case of Sinharaja world heritage site in Sri Lanka. Environmental Management, 32(5): 559-571.

2. Aiga H., and UmenaiT. 2002. Impact of improvement of water supply on household economy in a squatter area of Manila. Social Science & Medicine, 5: 627-641.

3. Aazami M., and Soroushmehr H. 2011. Effectives of individual-economical factors on rural women's participation in productive cooperation (Case study: Sports ball making cooperation in Paave and Uramanat district). Quarterky Journal of Rural Research, 1(4): 179-204 (in Persian).

4. Bahrami R. A. 2013. TOPSIS method to measure the development level in rural districts of the city Ravansar. Journal of Geographical Landscape, 8(23): 73-89. (in Persin).

5. Becker G. S. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Harvard University Press; ISBN 0-674-90698-5.

6. Bertini C., SchumacherA.‚ and Thompson R.L. 2006. Modernizing America's food and farm policy: Vision for a new direction. Report of Agricultural task force. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 57 P.

7. Daniels L. 1999. The role of small enterprises in the household and national economy in Kenya: A significant contribution or a last resort? World Development, 27(1): 55-65.

8. Davis J.R. 2001. Conceptual issues in analyzing the rural non-farm economy in transition economies. Natural Resource Institute, Report NO. 2073.

9. Folbre N. 1986. Hearts and spades: Paradigms of household economics. World Development, 14(2): 245-255.

10. Fontana M., and WoodA. 2000. Modeling the effects of trade on women, at work and at home. World Development, 28(7): 1173-1190.

11. Hejazi Y, Mirtorabi M., and Hosseini S. M. 2011. Factors influencing rural women’s participation in post- harvest activities: A case study (Asara, Karaj). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economic and Development Research, 42-2(1): 117-128 (in Persian).

12. Herliana S. 2014. Model of household economic behavior Bamboo creative industries: A preliminary study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 115:1-11.

13. Hogarth N. J., Belcher B., CampbellB. B. ‚ and StaceyN. 2012. The role of forest-related income in household economies and rural livelihoods in the border-region of southern China. World Development, 43: 111–123.

14. Hser Y., Hunt S.A., Evans E., ChangY.J., and MessinaN.P. 2012. Hispanic parenting women in women-only versus mixed-gender drug treatment: A 10-year prospective study. Addictive Behaviours, 37 (6): 729-735.

15. Hudson F. 1974. Evaluation of home economics competencies achived by graduates of Spearman high school. A thesis in home economics education submitted to the graduate faculty of Texas Tech University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of science in home economics.

16. International Federation for Home Economics (IFHE). 2014. Success for sustainable development through home economics education and training. Commission on the Status of Women - CSW 59, Beijing.

17. Kar S.P.‚ and Jacobson M. G. 2012. NTFP income contribution to household economy and related socio-economic factors: Lessons from Bangladesh. Forest Policy and Economics, 14: 136–142.

18. Kavanagh K. F., Habibi M., AndersonK., and SpenceM. 2010. Caregiver- vs infant-oriented feeding: A model of infant-feeding strategies among special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children participants in rural East Tennessee. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(10): 1485-1491.

19. Kumple N. F., Milner-GullandE. J., CowlishawG., and RowcliffeJ. M. 2010. Incentives for hunting: The role of bushmeat in the household economy in rural Equatori al Guinea. Human Ecology, 38: 251-264.

20. Lacuna-Richman C. 2002. The role of Abaca (Musa textilis) in the household economy of a forest village. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1(1): 93–101.

21. Lado C. 1992. Female labour participation in agricultural production and the implications for nutrition and health in rural Africa. Social Science and Medicine, 34(7): 789-807.

22. LahsaeeZadeh A.A. 1995. Role of women in rural economy of Iran. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities of Shiraz University, 21-22: 43-66(in Persian).

23. Lee H. K. 2013. “I'm my mother's daughter, I'm my husband's wife, I'm my child's mother, I'm nothing else”: Resisting traditional Korean roles as Korean American working women in Seoul, South Korea. Women's Studies International Forum, 36: 37–43.

24. Lepine A. and StrobelE. 2013. The effect of women’s bargaining power on child nutrition in rural Senegal. World Development, 45: 17–30.

25. MacPhail J. 1993. Intergenerational caring in professional and family life: A physician father, nurse mother, a toddler, and an infant team up to form a unique home visiting service for elders. Geriatric Nursing, 14(2): 104-107.

26. Mansourabadi A., and Karami E. A. 2006. Consequences of development on economic, social and cultural condition of rural womens: A case study in Fars provinces. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities of Shiraz University, 24(2): 107-128. (in Persian).

27. Meenakshi J. V., and Ray R. 2002. Impact of household size and family composition on poverty in rural India. Journal of Policy Modeling,24: 539–559.

28. Miles M.S., Holditch-DavisF. D., ThoyreF.S., and BeeberL. 2005. Rural African-American mother parenting prematurely born infants: An ecological system perspectives. Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews, 5(3): 142–148.

29. Misselhorn A. A.2005. What drives food insecurity in Southern Africa? A meta-analysis of household economy studies. Global Environmental Change,15: 33–43.

30. Narin U., GuptaS., and VeldK. 2008. Poverty and resource dependence in rural India. Ecological Economics. 66: 161-176.

31. Nirmala G., RamanaD. B. V., and Venkateswarlu B. 2012. Women and scientific livestock management: Improving capabilities through participatory action research in semi arid areas of sought India. APCBEE Procedia, 4: 152 – 157.

32. Noori S., and Ali Mohamadi N. 2009. An analysis of rural women economical activities (case study: Baraan region_ Isfahan city). Geography and Environmental Planning, 20(2):87-104. (in Persian).

33. Nouri Zaman Abadi S.H.A., and Amini Faskhoudi A. 2007. Agricultural development contribution to rural development (case study: Isfahan province rural areas). Quarterly Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 38-2 (2): 263-275. (in Persian).

34. Odame H. H., Hafkin, N., Wesseler, G., and Boto, I. 2002. Gender and agriculture in the information society. International Service for National Agricultural Research, 55, 1-8.

35. Olyaie M.S., Rezvanfar A., and Akbari M. 2009. Study of influencing socio-economic factors on rural women contribution in household income: A case study of Divandarreh County in Kurdestan, Iran. Journal of Agriccultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 16 (Special issue 1-a): 12-22. (in Persian).

36. Pooley C. G., Turnbull J., and Adams M. 2005. Everywhere she went I had to tag along beside her: Family, life course, and everyday mobility in England since the 1940s. History of the Family, 10: 119–136.

37. Pourahmad A., Taherkhani M., and Babakhani R. 2003. The role of industrial areas in employment and decrease of rural migration (case study: Lasjerd industrial area). Geographical Research Quarterly. 34(43): 43-56. (in Persian).

38. Rahman M., Furukawa Y., and Kawata I. 2005. Homestead forest resources and their role in household economy: A case study in the villages of GazipurSadarUpazila of Central Bangladesh. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4(3): 359-376.

39. Saatchi M. 2007. Psychological tests. Virayesh Publication, Tehran, 394 p.

40. Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall, W., andOtt, L. 1996. Elementary survey sampling. Pacific Grove (CA): Duxbury press.

41. Thome M., Alder E. M., and Ramel A. 2006. A population-based study of exclusive breastfeeding in Icelandic women: is there a relationship with depressive symptoms and parenting stress? International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43: 11–20.

42. Valentine, G. 1996. A safe plase to grow up? Parenting, perception's of children safety and the rural idyll. Journal of Rural Studies, 13(2): 137-148.

43. Van der Poel P., and Van Dijk H. 1987. Household economy and tree growing in upland Central Java. Agroforestry Systems, 5: 169-184.

44. World Bank. 2008. World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

45. Zhang, Y. 2006. The household preference structure and pricing-to-market in the new open economy macroeconomics models. International Review of Economics &Finanance, 15 (4):505- 524.