The following tools, practices and mindsets have been highlighted in this story, however, there are many more which are evident and may become apparent to you as you engage with this story. Which other tools, practices and mindsets can you identify?
Read the Blog post by Sanna Rau (2022) “Gender Design and Innovation”, which is the central resource for this Story.
Groundnuts are the same as peanuts.
For this story we prefer the word groundnut as this is the more widely used term in West Africa, where this story originates.
Groundnuts are one of Africa’s most important cash and subsistence crops, with West Africa accounting for 55% and areas in Nigeria and Senegal having the highest productivity (Njoki, 2024). After harvest, much of the crop is processed locally into oil and other by-products that supply household food needs and informal markets. Processing is typically done on a small scale using rudimentary, labour-intensive methods—roasting, pounding, pressing, and filtering oil by hand or with simple mechanical presses. Women dominate this segment of the value chain, often forming small cooperatives or home-based ventures that provide crucial supplemental income (Gitonga, et al., 2025).
Because groundnut oil processing is seen as a “female” livelihood within household and village economies, any intervention that improves its profitability or efficiency can unintentionally disrupt established gender relations. When improved presses or motorised extractors are introduced, men—who often control household assets and public spaces—may take over the new technology, relegating women back to unpaid or peripheral roles. Studies across Nigeria (Umeukeje, 2026) show that increased mechanisation can shift ownership and profits away from women unless projects deliberately safeguard women’s control and adapt designs to their social realities (for example, locating machines where women can access them safely, or framing technologies as “women’s tools”). Thus, gender-blind innovation risks reinforcing existing inequalities, while gender-responsive design—anchored in women’s lived contexts—can preserve their economic agency and promote more equitable household dynamics.
A key insight is that the problem framing determines the solution space, and if the problem framing is inadequate, then the subsequent solution design may not work. It seems as though their 'How Might We' statement assumed a technology solution, rather than focusing on the intended outcome of income generation for women. (i.e. technology-centred rather than human-centred). From Rau’s blog it seems that these questions may have been asked:
First iteration: "How can we improve the technology?"
Second iteration: "How can we improve women's income opportunities?"
To better understand the challenge, a more substantive and deeper question could have been asked:
"Why do women have limited economic opportunities because of their gender?"
When men saw the successful technology, they took it over from women, completely defeating the women's empowerment goal. "Being human-centred" must include understanding gender power structures and social hierarchies, not just individual user needs or usability. Gender context is an integral part of user context, so design must anticipate power dynamics and who will control successful innovations.
Technical solutions without social analysis can worsen inequality. The improved extraction tool, seemingly benign and helpful, actually transferred economic power from marginalised women to already-privileged men. This mirrors broader patterns where "women dominate groundnut oil processing in West Africa but face structural barriers in ownership, finance, and technology access. When external actors introduce improved tools without embedding them in women-centred organisational frameworks, men often appropriate both equipment and income."
It appears that not enough was done to understand gender roles and power structures and include women in the design process, leading to a gender-insensitive solution. We need to deeply understand the problem and its context, including the gendered power dynamics of which users are part, before a solution is rolled out.
How we frame problems reveals whose needs we centre and what change we believe possible. Framing as "improve technology" vs "improve women's opportunities" vs "address gender inequality" leads to fundamentally different solutions. We need to acknowledge the power of design and its impact on society.
Even though the second iteration created "appropriate technology" that fitted within the women's existing constraints, we need to ask whether we should design to fit limitations or challenge the systems that create those limitations in the first instance. The designers of the second iteration interviewed women and studied the cultural context, yet Sanda's conclusion – that "technology must fit limitations women already live with" – accepts gender constraints as unchangeable. Rau (2022) challenges this: true human-centredness requires asking why those limitations exist and whether design should reinforce or challenge them.
Designers actively shape how their products contribute to or challenge social inequalities. "Doing gender" (Rau, 2022) happens in every design decision – either reinforcing existing cultural norms or challenging them.
This teaching example was suggested by project advisory group member Hoda Mostafa (American University in Cairo, Egypt) who has used it in her teaching. This format of a story - pointing to an existing resource on the web - is a proposed prototype we want to test out with our community.
Authors: Rael Futerman and Jenni van Niekerk (d-school Afrika, University of Cape Town)
Project management and overall curation: Jenni van Niekerk (d-school Afrika, University of Cape Town)
Story review, resource development, testing and subject matter expertise: Rael Futerman (d-school Afrika, University of Cape Town)
Learning Design: Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams, Catherine Fortune
Special thanks to Sanna Rau for sharing her insights in her blog post around gender, design, and innovation.
Gitonga, A., Rutsaert, P., Khaemba, C., Kitoto, V., Muindi, P., and Bunter, D. 2025. Regional context in plant breeding priorities: The case of groundnuts in West and Southern Africa. CGIAR Market Intelligence Brief Series 29, 1-8. Montpellier: CGIAR. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/d54f4b6a-c729-492b-b10d-c2a903c9e8ff/content#
Njoki, L., Okoth, S., Wachira, P., Ouko, A., & Kagot, V. (2024). Status of groundnut production in Africa: a review from 2012 to 2022. Journal of Agricultural Science, 16(10), 50-64. .https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387264798_Status_of_Groundnut_Production_in_Africa_A_Review_From_2012_to_2022#
Rau, S. (2022, August 11). Gender, design, and innovation. UX Collective. Retrieved from https://uxdesign.cc/gender-design-and-innovation-eec6f56dcd2e
Umeukeje, A. P. (2026). Socio-Economic Constraints to Gender Participation in Groundnut Value Chain under the USAID-GUP Initiative in Selected Rural Communities in Sokoto State, Nigeria. UKR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences (UKRJAVS), 2(1), 1-13. https://ukrpublisher.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/UKRJAVS-1003-2026.pdf
Umeukeje, A. P., Umar, B. F., Osuafor, O. O., & Anarah, S. E. (2024). Gender Participation in Groundnut Value Chain among USAID Groundnut Up-scaling Project’s Participants and Non-Participating Households in Sokoto State, Nigeria. UNIZIK Journal of Agricultural Economics and Extension, 1(2), 274-287. https://ukrpublisher.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/UKRJAVS-1003-2026.pdf
Reve AI Inc. (2026). A female African storyteller in traditional dress. Reve (Version 1.0) [AI-generated image].
Futerman, R. & van Niekerk, J. (2026). Gender sensitivity in design and innovation — Groundnut Oil extraction in Nigeria: Commentary on Sanna Rau's blog post: Gender, design, and innovation (2022). In J. van Niekerk (ed.). Afrikan Design Thinking Stories. Afrikan Design Thinking Network.
🏷️Tools: Critical reflection frameworks, Power structure analysis
🏷️Practices: Appropriate technology design, Ethnographic research, Gender-responsive design, Problem framing
🏷️Mindsets: Be Human-Centred, Frame and Re-frame, Purposeful Reflection
🏷️General: Africa, Nigeria, Groundnut, Peanut, Gender, Agroprocessing, Agriculture