Introduction Although PEA policy and guidance notes do contain some gender questions, this is rarely reflected in the degree to which gender features in completed PEA studies.34 A recent review of PEA studies found that consideration of gender issues was mostly limited to women’s rights in law (formal and customary), women’s asset ownership, women in positions of power and influence, and representation and influence of women’s groups. A gender analysis suggests additional questions, including differences in how men and women can access power and institutions and how gender dynamics contribute to or block change. These lines of inquiry do not appear to be addressed in most PEA studies.35 This study attempts to encompass all of these issues to deepen understanding of the intersectionality of power dynamics relevant to the gender digital divide in Myanmar today. Given the rapid pace of reforms, there is significant potential to embed GDD-focused policies and activities into ongoing changes and programs and thus close the gap. Methodology and Limitations Within these frameworks, the research presented here combines previously published data and new data from focus group discussions and key informant interviews conducted in Myanmar to examine the extent to which evidence exists for gender-based differences in access, use, and perceived benefits, and in turn, awareness among stakeholders of how such differences deepen gaps in digital skills acquisition and real benefits derived from ICTs. Based on the key findings, recommendations are made for effective ways to address the gap before it expands, as predicted by global trends.36 Field research was conducted in Yangon Region and Shan State in September and October 2016. Following PEA lessons learned,37 the field research team represented diverse areas of expertise relevant to the study question, including an international development expert with a background implementing ICT4D programs in Georgia, Myanmar, and Tunisia; an international development expert with experience on PEA teams in Jordan and Ukraine; and a Myanmar economist with a minor in human rights advocacy. The field research team conducted twenty-six semi-structured Key Informant Interviews with representatives from the government, CSOs, INGOs, and multilateral donors as well as entrepreneurs, app developers, and educators (see Annex A—Questionnaire). Also, nine semi-structured focus groups discussions involving students, factory workers, parents and a women’s savings group were held with a total of fifty participants (see Annex B—Consultation List). The sixtyone women and fifteen men interviewed represented urban, periurban, and rural locales. Transcripts were coded and analyzed for gender-based access and control along fourteen dimensions related to ICTs using open-source software designed for qualitative and mixedmethods research. In addition, a literature review was conducted to supplement findings with data from various regions (areas in which ethnic Bamar constitute the majority of the population) and states (areas in which various ethnic minorities predominate) (see Annex F—Bibliography). Browne, “Gender in Political Economy Analysis.” Ibid. ITU, ICT Facts and Figures 2016. 37 USAID and Integra Government Services International, Lessons Learned Using USAID’s Applied Political Economy Analysis Framework (Washington, DC: USAID, September 2016). 34 35 36 Ending the Gender Digital Divide in Myanmar: A Problem-Driven Political Economy Assessment | 15