CHAPTER ONE

1. Introduction

The handicraft of a country expresses the unique culture, tradition, and customs of its citizens.
Apart from agriculture, the handicraft production is the next most desirable avenues of earning
livelihood (Barber and Krivoshlykova 2006). In some, these handicrafts not only limit
themselves to the arena of exporting commodity or tourist attraction but also generate the growth
of a rural region. Handicrafts secure a significant role in the economy so to generate employment
for the vulnerably scattered population (Jena 2010; Chakraborty 2013). However, the rural
handicrafts have a mixed nature of prospects, wherein, other crafts receive the least
documentation and concern.

Likewise, artisans also struggle day and night to sustain their ancestral practices. Despite regular
hard work, these artisans fail to receive the desired attention (Das 1982).

Earlier studies recognize that the combination of innovation and traditional skill can sustain the
art, but the low socio-economic status, deprivation from welfare measures and unstable
occupation has kept them away from any progress. For the traditional artisans, their inherited
skill is the ultimate asset on which they depend entirely for their means of support. Traditional
artisans have become the victims of globalization, and it has led to the disengagement of artisans
from their art. Even the skill development schemes promoted by various regimes in India is still
unparalleled with the entrepreneurship mechanism needed for traditional artisans. MoreoveSr,
uneven information about the traditional artisans and no specific database on their socio-
economic status creates barrier in initiating any traget based recovery programmes (Handique
2010; Dash2011; Sankaran2018). Hence, the potential for upward mobility among the artisans
remains untapped. Similarly, the low capital and lack of savings affect the art financially and it
challenges to retain the relationship between the maker and their origin (Mohapatra and Dash
2011; Pollanen2013). Even no recognition for the equally hard-working female artisans (Dash
2016; Rath 2014) disrupts the path of gender equality and sustainability. As the traditional
knowledge of artisans is ‘inherited, shared, and practiced’ from micro to macro level, this makes
it challenging to implement intellectual property rights on their inherited learning and skills. No
copyright on designs severely affects the genuine work (Bendi and Pany 2017; Sankaran 2018)
by making them vulnerable to intermediaries.

Traditional handcrafts production requires little or no machinery and most often uses locally
available raw materials, thereby stimulating local demand and generating employment in other
sector. Production is usually done in the home and alongside household activities. Often,
artisenry generates more income for producers than either agriculture or wage labor. In addition,
by providing local employment it helps reduce rural to urban migration.

Take here

Handcraft working has a long history of producing the most vital utilitites associated with the
daily lives of both the rural and urban communities of Ethiopia (Mullu, 2007). Agricultural
utilities, cotton dresses, hide products and pot products were supplied by artisans.

Despite the long history and valuable role of crafts, the activity and the people who produce the
crafts have been given minimal attention. Thus, the skill of producing all sorts of crafts passed
down to posterity through genealogical line. As a result, hand craft working is believed to be the
sole possession certain groups who used to accorded the lowest status.

Therefore, this research will be attempted to discuss and analyze the source of the
marginalization and investigate manifestation of marginalization in selected kebele of Dawunt
woreda.

1.1. Statement of the problem

Marginalization has been an experience probably ever since human being began differentiating
themselves from their fellows based on different criteria like age, sex, wealth, birth, power, etc.
the experience has often been a problem: affecting any people at both individual and group level
throughout the world. It has no time and geographical limitation. It occurs in the north and sourh,
in the town and country side, in the past and present (Pankhurst, 2001).

There are so many stereotypes and discriminatory principles attached with craft workers to be
considered as aberrant. They are described as possessing of a number of attributes. The weavers,
blacksmiths and potters for instance associated with the evil eye, connoting danger and mystery.
With all these and other attributes, the craft workers are considered different and looked down up
on by other people force them to live confined in their own group (Ambaye, 1997).

Therefore, handcraft workers in Dawunt woreda produce many raw materials for the
communities. Those raw materials produced by handcraft workers are involved in daily live
activities for the local people. Meanwhile, the predominant handcraft workers in the woreda are
the potters, the blacksmith and the weavers and all of them are in relation with the evil eye. For
instance, the handcraft communities in Dawunt woreda are highly marginalized in socially,
culturally and economically due to they are considered as minority groups by the non-handcraft
communities. Therefore, no research has been conducted on the socio-cultural and economic
marginalization of the artisan in the woreda and so that the intention of this research will be
assessing the social cultural and economic marginalization of artisans.

1.2. Objective of the study

1.2.1. General objective

The general objective of this research is to investigate the socio-cultural and economic
marginalization of artisans in selected kebeles of Dawunt woreda

1.2.2. Specific objectives

 To investigate factors accounted for artisan marginalization

 To describe the social organization of artisans in light of the dominant society
 To describe forms of marginalization
CHAPTER TWO

MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Description of the study area

2.2 Data collection

2.2.1 Data source

The researcher will be used only the primary data source to collect information on the socio-
cultural and economic marginalization of artisans. The primary data will be collected through
interview, focus group discussion, questionnaire and direct field observation on the artisan’s
village.
2.2.2 Sampling technique and sample size determination
To collect data, both probability and non- probability sampling techniques will be employed.
Random sampling technique will be used to know the indigenous knowledge on the handicraft
technology and its way of marginalization. On the other hand, purposive sampling techniques
will be held on the handicraft workers. That is, the handicraft workers who are potters,
blacksmiths and tanners will be select purposively to know their social, cultural and economic
profile and to characterize their relation with non-handicraft worker.
Sample size setermination
2.2.3 Data collection procedure
As it is illustrated above, both probability and non-probability sampling techniques and primary
data source will be employed. Though, using those techniques and data source, data will be
collected in the form of interview, questionnaire, focus group discussion and direct field
observation.
Interview
Interviews for the handicraft workers and local people will be prepared in the form of close
ended and open ended according to their purpose. The interviews will be used to show forms of
marginalization, causes of marginalization, the social, cultural and economic status of handicraft
workers.
Questionnaire
Questionnaires will be prepared in the form of open-ended and closed-ended. The purpose of the
questionnaires will be to evaluate the social, cultural and economic marginalization and status of
the artisans. Questionnaires will be distributed for the informants who are the focus of the study.
The key informants for this study will be selected most from the handicraft workers and some
from non-handicraft worker. That is, the handicraft workers in Dawunt woreda are found in
locally isolated place, that is the villages for the artisans and non-artisans found separately.
Though, the researcher will be selected three kebeles which harbor a higher number of handicraft
workers and from the selected kebeles, the artisan villages will be chosen. As a result, from the
total kebeles, three kebeles, -------------will be selected and from those kebeles, six artisan
villages (………) will be selected. Therefore, after kebeles and villages selected questionnaires
will be dispatched for the informants.
2.3 Data analysis
3. Time break down

This thesis will be completed within the following five or six months.

Activity Month
March April May June July August
Preliminary survey
Proposal beginning
Proposal submission
Proposal defense
Start the actual data collection
Data analysis
Thesis writing
Submission of thesis
DEFENSE

5. BUDGET BREAK DOWN

a. Personnel costs (Expenses)

Table 1. Personnel costs

No Human No of No of Per diem total remark

resource days person
1 Field 6 2 300 3600 A person who helped the researcher
assistance during data collection
2 handcrafts 3 3 200 1800 Incentives for handcrafts
3 Total 5400

b. Transport Cost
Table 2.Transport cost
No Type of expenditure Cost per trip (birr) Total trip Total birr
1 Transport fee for researcher from Dawunt 150 3 900
woreda to WU
2 Transport fee for researcher from WU to 150 3 900
Dawunt woreda
3 Transport fee for main advisor from WU to 1000 2 4000
Dawunt woreda
Total 5800
c. Stationary costs

Table 3: stationary costs

No Item quantity unit Unit price total cost

1 Note book 1 80 80
2 Normal print 50 2 100
3 Color print 11 10 110
4 copy 70 3 210
5 Digital camera 1 1800 1800
6 Recording tape 1 600 600
7 flash 1 400 400
8 paper 1 pct 500 500
Total 3800

d. Budget Summary
Table 3.Budget summary

No Personnel Total Cost

1 Personnel costs(expenses) 5400.00
 2 Transportation 5800.00
3 Stationery 3800.00
Grand total 15000.00

Reference

Barber, T., and M. Krivoshlykova. 2006. Global Market Assessment for Handicrafts.
Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_ docs/PNADN210.pdf.

Das, D., A. Kumar, and M. Sharma. 2020. “A Systematic Review of Work-Related

Musculoskeletal Disorders among Handicraft Workers.” International Journal of Occupational
Safety and Ergonomics: JOSE 26 (1): 55–70. doi:10.1080/10803548.2018.1458487.

Das, J. P. 1982. Puri Paintings: The Chitrakara and His Work. New Delhi: Gulab Vazirani for
ArnoldHeinemann.

Das, N. 2013. “Patachitra of Orissa: A Case Study of Raghurajpur Village.” An Online Journal
of Humanities & Social Science 1 (4): 247–251. http://journaldatabase.info/articles/patachitra_
orissa_case_study.html.

Jena, P. K. 2007. “Orissan Handicrafts in the Age of Globalisation: Challenges and

Opportunities.” Orissa Review LXIV (4): 12–16.
http://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/nov-2007/engpdf/ Pages12-16.pdf.

Jena, P. K. 2010. “Indian Handicrafts in Globalization Times: An Analysis of Global-Local

Dynamics.” Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems (INDECS) 8 (2): 119–137.

Pollanen, S. 2013. “The Meaning of Craft: Craft Makers’ Descriptions of Craft as an

Occupation.” Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 20 (3): 217–227.

Rath, N. 2014. “Isolation or Integration: The Plight of the Women Craft Workers in the Era of
Globalisation.” Madhya Pradesh Journal of Social Sciences 19 (1): 53–65.
Sankaran, P. 2018. “Traditional Artisans as Stakeholders in CSR: A Rehabilitation Perspective in
the Indian Context.” Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility (Developments in Corporate
Governance and Responsibility 13: 119–141. 10.1108/S2043-052320180000013011.

Mohapatra, T. 2005. "Pattachitra – an indigenous technique." Orissa Review LXII (4): 34–36.
http://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/nov2005/novreview.htm

Mohapatra, S., and M. Dash. 2011. “Problems Associated with Artisans in Making of
Handicrafts in Orissa, India.” Management Review: An International Journal 6 (1): 56–81.

Mohapatra, H. K. 2008. "Cultural resurgence in Orissa during the post-independence era." Orissa
Review LXIV (9): 1–10.
http://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2008/april-2008/aprilreview. htm

Bendi, S. K., and T. K. Pany. 2017. “Odisha Handicrafts: A Study on Customer Perception and
Marketing Issues.” Pratibimba: The Journal of Institute of Management & Information Science
17 (2): 7–13. http://irep.iium.edu.my/60301/1/Pratibimba_July-December%202017.pdf

Barber, T., and M. Krivoshlykova. 2006. Global Market Assessment for Handicrafts.
Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_ docs/PNADN210.pdf.