Rapid Gender Analysis (RGA) is a practical tool designed for humanitarian emergencies that allows aid workers to quickly understand how a crisis affects women, men, boys, and girls differently. Because there is often no time for long, detailed studies when lives are at risk, RGA provides a practical method to gather “good enough” information immediately to ensure that aid is safe, fair, and effective. It works by using existing data and progressively gathering new insights to help decision-makers respond to gender-specific risks without delaying urgent life-saving action.
This analysis examines the reference article on Rapid Gender Analysis (RGA) by Isadora Quay, using a decolonial feminist framework proposed by Udenigwe Ogochukwu, Aubel Judi, and Abimbola Seye. These authors argue that many gender equality initiatives in the Global South unwittingly host oppressive forces by reinforcing colonial and capitalist hierarchies.
The following sections evaluate RGA against the four key themes identified by Udenigwe and her colleagues hierarchical knowledge praxis, the culturalization of violence, the framing of work, and the universalization of rights.
Keenly aware of public, political attacks against equity, this reflection is offered in solidarity with practitioners whose advocacy carved out space for Rapid Gender Analysis (RGA). It is precisely because of its established use and prevalence that humanitarian leaders stand to gain by analyzing it through a decolonial lens.
Hierarchical knowledge praxis
Udenigwe et al. critique the tendency of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to prioritize Western knowledge systems while viewing local communities through a deficit lens. They argue that this practice silences knowledge originating from the Global South.
Quay’s account of the origins of RGA reveals tensions regarding knowledge hierarchy. She notes that RGA was born because standard gender analysis tools failed in the Syrian humanitarian context. However, the justification for creating new tools relies on a deficit framing of local partners. Quay writes that local partners had “limited development or humanitarian experience and no gender analysis skills”. She describes a situation where a local gender focal point asked, “How do I find the answers to these questions?” as the catalyst for the toolkit.
From a decolonial perspective, this framing delegitimizes local knowledge. It assumes that because local actors did not know how to use specific humanitarian assessment tools, they lacked gender analysis skills entirely. Udenigwe et al. argue that such narratives ignore the fact that women in the Global South have long possessed their own methods of organizing and understanding their social worlds. By standardizing the RGA into a “toolkit” designed by specialists in an international NGO and rolled out globally, the approach risks reinforcing the epistemic hierarchy where the international NGO defines what counts as valid gender analysis.
Culturalizing violence
A central critique by Udenigwe et al. is the “culturalizing of violence,” where violence and inequality are attributed to the culture or traditions of the Global South. This narrative obscures the roles of colonialism, conflict, and global structural inequality in exacerbating violence.
Quay’s analysis frequently attributes gender limitations to local culture. The RGA reports cite “cultural limitations on mobility” in Bangladesh and describe decision-making in Kurdish areas as being perceived “culturally and traditionally as men’s business”. While these observations may reflect immediate realities, Udenigwe et al. warn that identifying “culture” as the primary problem suggests that the Global South is inherently backward or patriarchal compared to the West.
The RGA approach focuses on how “traditional gender roles” play out in crises. It does not appear to deeply interrogate how the crises themselves – often fueled by geopolitical and colonial histories – reshape or weaponize these cultural norms. Udenigwe et al. argue that a decolonial approach must look beyond culture to see how structural violence and imperialist histories create the conditions for gender-based violence.
The vision of work and labor
Udenigwe et al. challenge the neoliberal assumption that integration into the market and paid work is intrinsically liberating for women. They argue that this perspective ignores the exploitative nature of global capitalism and the reality that work does not always equal empowerment.
Quay’s report touches on labor primarily through the “gendered division of labour” and the protection risks associated with unemployment. She notes that in displacement camps, men struggle with “having nothing to do” and the inability to fulfill their role as providers. This analysis aligns with the critique that development narratives often center on economic productivity as a primary human value.
While the RGA acknowledges the burden of unpaid care work increasing during crises, the solution implies a restoration of “productive” roles or a better management of time. It does not explicitly critique the global economic systems that create poverty, which Udenigwe et al. identify as a critical missing piece in standard gender programming.
Universalizing human rights discourses
Udenigwe et al. argue that international NGOs often apply universal human rights discourses that reflect Western individualistic values, ignoring local understandings of rights and community.
Quay explicitly frames CARE as a “rights-based organisation”. The RGA is celebrated for its inclusion in the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Gender Handbook, a global standard for humanitarian action. This standardization allows for rapid deployment across “more than 50 crises”.
However, this universal application risks flattening local contexts. By using a standardized toolkit and templates, the RGA may prioritize data that fits into global humanitarian reporting structures over local, nuanced understandings of justice and rights. Udenigwe et al. suggest that such universalism arrogates the position of “dispensers of rights” to experts, justifying intrusion into the lives of populations in the Global South.
Comparative overview
The table below contrasts the RGA approach described by Quay with the decolonial feminist critiques provided by Udenigwe et al.
| Theme | Rapid Gender Analysis (Quay) | Decolonial feminist critique (Udenigwe et al.) |
| Knowledge production | Developed by INGO experts because local partners lacked “gender analysis skills”. Knowledge is standardized into a global toolkit. | Views local populations as knowledge holders. Critiques the deficit lens that assumes locals lack capacity. |
| Culture and violence | Identifies “cultural limitations” and “traditional” norms as key barriers to mobility and decision-making. | Rejects “culturalizing violence” as it stereotypes Global South cultures as inherently violent or backward. |
| Labor and economy | Focuses on the gendered division of labor and the risks of male unemployment. Highlights time burdens on women. | Critiques the assumption that market participation is the solution to poverty. Highlights the role of global capitalism in structural violence. |
| Rights and standards | Relies on global frameworks like the IASC Gender Handbook. Aims for standardized reports across diverse crises. | Critiques universal human rights for imposing Western values. Advocates for “delinking” from universal narratives to value local epistemologies. |
Is Rapid Gender Analysis a tool of colonization?
Isadora Quay presents Rapid Gender Analysis as a necessary innovation to bridge the gap between complex gender theory and the urgent needs of humanitarian response. It succeeds in making gender analysis “fast, easy to administer” and practical for decision-makers. When viewed through the decolonial feminist lens of Udenigwe et al., RGA reveals the tensions inherent in the humanitarian sector. By prioritizing speed and standardization, RGA may inadvertently reinforce hierarchical knowledge practices that center the INGO as the expert and the local population as the subject of analysis.
RGA’s reliance on global standards and its framing of culture as a barrier align with the “coloniality of knowledge” that Udenigwe et al. seek to dismantle. While Quay argues that the tool allows for “imperfection” and aims to support local actors, the decolonial perspective suggests that true support requires a fundamental shift: moving away from viewing communities as lacking skills and towards recognizing them as producers of their own solutions and knowledge.
Can we reimagine a decolonial RGA?
If we recognize the premise that local women are the primary agents of their own survival, the practical application of a Rapid Gender Analysis shifts from extraction to amplification. In the chaotic constraints of a sudden-onset emergency, a decolonial RGA does not require an international specialist to land, hire a translator, and conduct focus group discussions to “discover” needs. That approach wastes precious time and assumes the knowledge does not yet exist.
In a decolonial model, the “Rapid” aspect relies on the fact that women and men who support them are already analyzing the context. Because they are there every day, they know which shelters are unsafe, where food distribution excludes female heads of households, and how social norms are shifting under pressure. Furthermore, when there are women-led organizations, known as “WLOs” in humanitarian jargon, they may be able to articulate a collective perspective.
Here is a sketch of how we might reimagine RGA as part of decolonial practice:
- Immediate resource transfer: Instead of deploying an assessment team, the international agency deploys flexible, unrestricted cash to pre-identified WLO partners within 24 hours, allowing them to mobilize their own networks without the burden of writing a proposal first.
- The role of the scribe: The international specialist stops being the “analyst” and becomes the “translator of systems.” Their job is to receive the raw intelligence coming from WLOs – often via WhatsApp, voice notes, or brief phone calls – and repackage that reality into the bureaucratic language required by donors. The international actor absorbs the administrative burden so the local actors can focus on the response.
- Knowledge validation: The final report explicitly credits the WLOs as the authors of the analysis. The international organization uses its branding not to claim ownership of the findings, but to lend its institutional credibility to the local voices, ensuring that the funding appeals that follow are shaped directly by those living the reality.
This approach does not ignore the urgency of the emergency. Rather, it acknowledges that the fastest way to understand a crisis is to listen to the women who are already managing it.
The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) offers the Certificate peer learning programme for gender in emergencies that is explicitly decolonial, intersectional, and grounded in the lived experience of humanitarian practitioners based in local communities. Learn more about the programme…
References
Quay I. Rapid Gender Analysis and its use in crises: from zero to fifty in five years. Gender & Development. 4 May 2019;27(2):221–36. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13552074.2019.1615282
Udenigwe O, Aubel J, Abimbola S. A decolonial feminist perspective on gender equality programming in the Global South. Meudec M, editor. PLOS Glob Public Health. 7 January 2026;6(1):e0005556. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005556