The SDG Communicator

In recent years, countries have begun to roll out foreign and development co-operation policies that are explicitly referred to as “feminist.” In 2014, Sweden became the first country in the world to do so – only to drop the word “feminist” from its foreign policy in 2021 after a change in government. France and Canada, too, were early adopters of the concept, followed by Luxembourg, Spain, Mexico, Germany, Chile and the Netherlands.

The research, conducted by Jennifer Hudson, David Hudson, Paolo Morini, Soomin Oh, Felipe Torres and Molly Anders aimed to understand:

1. What does the public think about gender equality?
2. What actions should governments take to tackle gender inequality in developing countries?
3. What areas should governments prioritise in their feminist development policy?
4. How can development professionals communicate about feminist development policy?
5. How does using gender terminology when talking about aid affect public support for development aid?

Among the key findings, survey data showed that perceptions of both “feminism” and “feminists” were more positive than negative across survey respondents. DEL also found that asking specifically about development aid to benefit “women and girls” (rather than to promote “gender equality” more broadly) changed the way respondents thought about how government aid should be spent.

We caught up with DEL director Jennifer Hudson (JH); co-director David Hudson (DH); and research lead Molly Anders (MA), to discuss these findings and take the conversation further.

Q: What were the most surprising findings from your research?  

MA: Honestly, I thought we would see worse backlash to using terms like “feminism” and “feminist.” I found the fact that we didn’t see this really encouraging, and I think it has to do with the generational evolution of the term – particularly after the #Metoo movement.  

JH:  We have seen over the last decade of our research that there’s a strong moral basis for addressing global poverty. What interests me here is that we are also seeing the sentiment that tackling gender equality is the morally right thing to do. It comes from a strong sense of inherent fairness.

I didn’t think that people would take a moral position on this. But they seem to have. The public also made the connection that ending discrimination against women and girls was necessary to ending global poverty, and that you’re not going to get rid of global poverty without addressing something as systemic as gender discrimination.

Q: What didn’t surprise you?

DH: Our survey asked about the frequency with which women face gender discrimination. The results confirmed what we thought: that people perceive it to be a very frequent occurrence. That seemed to reflect the wider discourse that this is something women face on a daily basis.

Q: For development communicators, what are some of the practical implications of this research? What would you like development communicators to understand?

MA: It’s a great question. It was clear from the research that the public do understand the interconnectedness of gender equality to global poverty, to extreme poverty. That point – that gender equality is intrinsic to ending global poverty – is a huge messaging win for development communicators.  It showsthat we can have this conversation with the public. For communicators, the challenge now is taking that conversation forward.

JH: I think not only do people get it, but they also really see the realities of gender inequalities, both across countries and in the developing world. However, on the other side, when we asked the question about their optimism about closing those gender gaps, optimism was much lower compared to people’s ability to diagnose the problem.

So I think one of the things that has to be communicated is successes, and ways to concretely do something about inequality. Of course, we don’t want to make solving the problem sound easier than it is. But there’s a real risk of people shrugging collectively and moving on to things that seem more tractable.

Q: Did your research suggest any communications strategies that can help make people feel more implicated or involved?

JH: There are two points. First, we generally know that making clear references to “women and girls” helps. It is a frame that is relatable, and helps people think clearly about this particular community.

Second, it is important to recognise where the public is at vis à vis the conversation in the sector. The term “feminist development policy” simply isn’t the language of the public. There’s a bit of a “penalty” in three of the countries surveyed when that language is used. But when we talk more broadly about policies focused on inclusion, access to maternal health, and welfare programmes that support education, employment and opportunities for investment, these are all things people intuitively understand.

The development sector has been using the term “feminist development policy.” But we need to communicate in a language that gives the public a way to connect with what is being done.

Q: Does a framing of “women and girls” – which may be more salient to the public, as you found – risk excluding the role of men and boys as actors and beneficiaries of gender equality? Does it risk excluding LGBTQ+ folks?  

MA: I think what’s most interesting is that this research opens the door for those questions. Once you get people to understand that gender is at the heart of so many sectors they deem important – but may not necessarily associate with gender issues – you can start a conversation about where men sit within them. It’s almost like women and girls get a seat at the table first, and then you can help people see that, actually, everybody’s there.

DH: There was another really interesting data point about what people think are the main barriers to gender equality. Second on the list was men and men’s attitudes, and male behavior.

People do recognize that gender inequality involves men. But if you start by talking about a more abstract concept like “gender equality,” you risk not bringing as many people into the conversation as you could if you lead with something more concrete. So it’s ok to start by talking about the problems women and girls face, but you can’t stop there.

Q: Your research revealed a slight penalty among citizens of certain countries for describing policy as “feminist.” Taking this into account, what frames could help gain support for gender inclusive policies? Should we stay away from the term “feminist,” or continue to use it?

DH: The data show that the worst thing you can do is just call a development or foreign policy “feminist” and assume people will find that compelling, or even understand what it means. You absolutely need to explain how you define it, and communicate strongly about it, because there are so many different things “feminist foreign policy” could mean.

It might be that you’re focusing on closing the gender gap and addressing women and girls’ priorities first. Ideally it means thinking about social norms and how they create inequalities between all sorts of groups, and other axes of exclusion like race, ethnicity, class, caste, etc. And of course, questions about masculinities as well.

But to imagine that an average person on the street understands what feminist foreign policy stands for would be a mistake. Using the “feminist” label without explaining exactly what you mean by it is the worst of all possible worlds.

JH: Also, we should question the reasons forusing the word “feminist” at all. Are we calling a policy “feminist” simply because we are wedded to the word intellectually?  Our goal is to build understanding and support for policies that help women and girls, while not marginalizing other identities.

Q: What new avenues for research do these findings open up?

DH: I think there is something quite radical and transformative about forcing oneself to think of a policy as “feminist.” If that’s the case, and we’re really convinced that it’s important to label a policy as feminist, how can we test whether people can be taken along on that journey? What research can we design to find out whether people’s views can soften?  

People may be initially confused or hostile to the concept or label, but once you elaborate on it or you repeat it over time, do people’s views change? I think that’s exactly the kind of generational change around feminism that Molly was describing earlier.

JH: It would also be interesting to work on the misperceptions between how people personally view gender equality, versus how they think society views it. We have done previous research into these perception disparities around development aid, asking “How much do you think is spent?” vs “How much do you think other people think should be spent?” It would be interesting to do similar research around gender.

I suspect the answers may be quite different, because people want to view themselves as more egalitarian. For example: “I might think women can work outside the house, but other people don’t think that.” It would also be interesting to see what different groups – men on the center right, religious identifiers, people from various social classes – think about different rights, where the disparity of these issue can be more polarized.

---

You can find out more about the research and survey results in the deck below. For further analysis of the DEL data, check out Molly Anders’ post, Everywhere & nowhere: Public understanding and support for reducing gender inequality on the Development Compass blog.