Concurrent historical shifts in feminist and development theory reflect calls to include men more fully in gender and development work. In this article, we explore the participation of men and women in Taru, a multilayered and participatory entertainment–education based gender and development (GAD) communication initiative in the Indian state of Bihar. The Taru project, co-designed and implemented by one of the present authors with on-the-ground partners, embodied the specific intent of including both females and males in an initiative that would promote better reproductive health, foster more gender equality and spur literacy. By analyzing ethnographic data collected through participatory photography, in-depth and focus interviews and participatory theatre, we work to understand how gendered identities of men and women shift in tandem amidst particular socio-historical, economic and material contexts. As we listened to participants, the politics of space emerged as central to understanding how participants both reproduce and resist hegemonic gendered identities. Adopting a postcolonial feminist stance, we work to understand the gendered politics of space, including tensions between freedom and restriction in movement, and fluid and fixed boundaries.
Ashcraft, K.L. & D.K. Mumby . (2004) Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
2.
Barker, D.K. (2000). Dualisms, discourse, and development. In U. Narayan & S. Harding (eds), Decentering the center: Philosophy for a multicultural, postcolonial, and feminist world (pp. 177–88). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press .
3.
Boal, A. (1979) The theater of the oppressed. New York: Urizen Books .
4.
Burke, K. (1935) Permanence and change. Berkeley: University of California Press .
5.
Buzzanell, P.M. (1994). Gaining a voice: Feminist organizational communication theorizing . Management Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 339–83 .
6.
Chant, S. (2000). From ‘Woman-blind’ to ‘Man-kind.’Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 31(2), 7–17 .
7.
Chant, S. & Guttmann, M.C. (2000). Mainstreaming men into gender and development: Debates, reflections, and experiences. Oxfam Working Papers, Oxford, Great Britain .
8.
Cheney, G. (2000). Interpreting interpretive research: Toward perspectivalism without relativism. In S.R. Corman & M.S. Poole (eds), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (pp. 17–45) New York: The Guilford Press .
Connelly, M.P. , T.M. Li , M. MacDonald & J.L. Parpart . (2000). Feminism and development: Theoritical perspectives. In J.L. Parpart , M.P. Connelly & V.E. Barriteau (eds), Theoretical perspectives on gender and development (pp. 51–159). Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre .
11.
Cornwall, A. (1997). Men, masculinity and ‘gender in development’ . Gender and Development, 5(2), 8–12 .
12.
Cox, A.M. , F. Johnson , A. Newitz & J. Sandell . (1997). Masculinity without men: Women reconciling feminism and male-identification. In L. Heywood & J. Drake (eds), Third wave agenda: Being feminist, doing feminism (pp. 178–206). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
13.
Davenport-Sypher, B. , M. McKinley , S. Ventsam & E.E. Valdeavellano . (2002). Fostering reproductive health through entertainment-education in the Peruvian Amazon: The social construction ofBienvenida Salud! Communication Theory, 12(2), 192–205 .
14.
de Certeau, M. (1984) The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press .
15.
Fontana, A. & J.H. Frey . (1998). Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 47–79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
16.
Glaser, B.G. & A.L. Straus . (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine .
17.
Greig, A. , M. Kimmel & J. Lang . (2000). Men, masculinities & development: Broadening out work towards gender equality. Gender in Development Monograph Series, 10. New York: United Nations Development Programme .
18.
Harding, S. (1998) Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press .
19.
Harter, L.M. (2004). Masculinity(s), the agrarian frontier myth, and cooperative forms of organizing: Contradictions and tensions in the experience and enactment of democracy . Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 89–118 .
20.
Hegde, R.S. & R. Shome . (2002). Postcolonial scholarship—productions and directions: An interview with Gayatri Chakrovorty Spivak . Communication Theory, 12(3), 271–86 .
21.
Heywood, L. & J. Drake . (1997). Introduction. In L. Heywood and J. Drake (eds), Third wave agenda: Being feminist, doing feminism (pp. 1–20). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
22.
Hooks, B. (1984) Feminist theory: From margin to center. Cambridge, MA: South End Press Classics .
23.
Huberman, A.M. & M.B. Miles . (1998). Data management and analysis methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, (pp. 179–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
24.
Kabeer, N. (1994) Reversed realities: Gender hierarchies in development thought. London: Verso .
25.
Kumar, R. (1993) The history of doing: An illustrated account of movements for women’s rights and feminism in India, 1800–1990. New Delhi: Kali for Women .
26.
Kumar, S. (2002). Gains and stagnation in Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. In D. Narayan & P. Petesch (eds), From many lands (pp. 147–80). Washington, DC: Oxford University Press and the World Bank .
27.
Marchand, M. & J. Parpart (eds). (1995) Feminism/Postmodernism/Development. London: Routledge .
28.
Massey, D. (1994) Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
29.
Massey, D. (1995). Places and their pasts . History Workshop Journal, 39(1), 182–92 .
30.
Massey, D. (1999). Spaces of politics. In J. Allen & P. Sarre (eds), Human geography today (pp. 279–94). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press .
31.
McKerrow, R. (1999). Space and time in the postmodern polity . Western Journal of Communication, 63(3), 271–90 .
32.
Mcllwaine, C. & K. Datta . (2003). From feminising to engendering development . Gender, Place and Culture, 10(4), 369–82 .
33.
Mishler, E.G. (1986) Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
34.
Mohanty, C.T. (2003) Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press .
35.
Morgan, D.L. (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
36.
Moser, C.O.N. (1989). Gender planning in the third world: Meeting practical and strategic gender needs . World Development, 17(11), 1799–825 .
37.
Mumby, D.K. (1998). Organizing men: Power, discourse, and the social construction of masculinity(s) in the workplace . Communication Theory, 8(2), 164–82 .
38.
Narayan, U. (1997) Dislocating cultures: Identities, traditions, and third world feminism. New York: Routledge .
39.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul .
40.
Olesen, V. (2000). Feminisms and qualitative research at and into the millenium. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 215–57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
41.
Parpart, J. & M. Marchand . (1995). Exploding the canon: An introduction/conclusion. In M. Marchand & J. Parpart (eds), Feminism/Postmodernism/Development (pp. 1–22). London: Routledge .
42.
Population Foundation of India. (2002) District profile: Bihar. New Delhi, India: Author .
43.
Rathgeber, E.M. (1995). Gender and development in action. In M. Marchand & J. Parpart (eds), Feminism/Postmodernism/Development (pp. 204–20). London: Routledge .
44.
Shome, R. (2003). Space matters: The power and practice of space . Communication Theory, 13(1), 9–56 .
45.
Shome, R. & R.S. Hegde . (2002). Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging the intersections . Communication Theory, 12(3), 249–70 .
46.
Siegel, D.L. (1997). Reading between the waves: Feminist historiography in a ‘postfeminist’ moment. In L. Heywood & J. Drake (eds), Third wave agenda: Being feminist, doing feminism (pp. 55–82). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
47.
Singhal, A. , D. Sharma , M.J. Papa & K. Witte . (2004). Air cover and ground mobilization: Integrating entertainment-education broadcasts with community listening and service delivery in India. In A. Singhal , M. Cody , E.M. Rogers & M. Sabido (eds), Entertainment-Education and social change: History, research, and practice (pp. 351–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
48.
Singhal, A. & E. Rattine-Flaherty . (2006). Pencils and photos as tools of communicative research and praxis: Analyzing Minga Peru’s quest for social justice in the Amazon . International Communication Gazette, 68(4), 313–30 .
49.
Spitzack, C. (1998a). Theorizing masculinity across the field: An interdisciplinary conversation?Communication Theory, 8(2), 141–43 .
50.
Spitzack, C. (1998b). The production of masculinity in interpersonal communication . Communication Theory, 8(2), 143–63 .
51.
Sweetman, C. (ed.). (2001) Men’s involvement in gender and development policy and practice. Oxford: Oxfam Great Britain .
52.
Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus groups: A feminist method. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & M.L. Yaiser (eds), Feminist perspectives on social research (pp. 271–95). New York: Oxford University Press .
