The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThis paper illustrates the value of using an action research methodology to improve understanding of gendered patterns of adoption and non-adoption of Intermediate Means of Transport (IMTs) and similar gender-related transport issues. It presents results from a novel action research project undertaken in five farming villages in southern Ghana, a region where IMT usage is currently low. The participatory action research study not only revealed important issues around differences between stated preferences and actual gendered patterns of adoption and non-adoption in the particular context of southern Ghana, but offers a methodology which may have value in many other gender and transport contexts across sub-Saharan Africa and beyond.

In the construction of an academic thesis, the lived and multi-voiced experiences of fieldwork have to be condensed and distilled into a single, coherent narrative thread. This article discusses the problematic and delicate situation of attempting to select (and thereby exclude) materials and stories, and of representing faithfully but through analytical lenses, while juggling the intricacies of the author's own positionalities and multiple levels of interpretation. In its discussion, this article makes explicit the complications of translating and transposing lived encounters and experiences into text and the written word, and unpacks the inexorable exercise of power involved in this process.