شناخت شناسی، نظریه اصولی و تجزیه و تحلیل فقر: مفاهیم برای مجذور Q در تمرین
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|21648||2007||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : World Development, Volume 35, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 183–196
The turn to the use of mixed qualitative and quantitative (Q-Squared) methods in the analysis of poverty is a welcome development with large potential payoffs. While the benefits of mixing are not in doubt, the tensions involved in so doing have not received adequate attention. The aim of this paper is to address this gap in the “Q-Squared” literature. It argues that there are important differences between approaches to poverty which operate at the levels of epistemology and normative theory. These differences have implications for the numerical transformation of data, the selection of validity criteria, the conception/dimension of poverty adopted and interpersonal comparisons of well-being.
In recent years, increasing attention has been focused on using mixed qualitative and quantitative (Q-Squared) methods in the analysis of poverty. A number of conferences1 have been devoted to this issue and a growing body of work has accumulated.2 The articles in this Symposium are examples. They were among a dozen or so empirical examples of Best Practice in combining approaches to poverty analysis selected for a conference held at the University of Toronto in May 2004 entitled “Q-Squared in Practice: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Poverty Analysis.” The conference is the second in a series of the “Q-Squared initiative,” which aims to promote a better integration of “qualitative” and “quantitative” approaches to the analysis of poverty. This recent rediscovery of mixed methods in poverty analysis is a welcome development with large potential payoffs in terms of understanding and explaining poverty. There are many examples of value-added associated with mixing found in the contributions to this Symposium, such as the use of “qualitative” information to improve household survey design (Parker and Kozel, and Jha et al.,); interpret counterintuitive or surprising findings from household surveys (Parker and Kozel, and Sharp,); explain the reasons behind observed outcomes (London et al., and Adato et al.,); probe motivations underlying observed behavior (Place et al., and Rew et al.,); suggest the direction of causality (Place et al.); assess the validity of quantitative results (Barahona and Levy); better understand conceptual categories such as labor and the household (Adato et al.); facilitate analysis of locally meaningful categories of social differentiation (Howe and McKay,, Hargreaves et al., and Rew et al.,); provide a dynamic dimension to one-off household survey data (Howe and McKay), etc. In our view, the benefits of mixing are not in doubt. It does seem, however, that the tensions involved in so doing have not received adequate attention. There is a tendency to underplay differences between approaches and consequent difficulties in fruitfully combining them.3 As Appadurai (1989) argued in the context of a similar debate 15 years ago, a certain “ecumenism” has characterized the Q-Squared debate with differences between approaches viewed in technical terms, amenable to technical solutions. The aim of this paper is to address this gap in the “Q-Squared” literature. It argues that there are important differences between approaches to poverty which operate at the levels of epistemology and normative theory.4 These differences have implications for the numerical transformation of data, the selection of validity criteria, the conception/dimension of poverty adopted and interpersonal comparisons of well-being. The Q-Squared initiative ends up embroiled in these issues because the quest of broadening the methodological framework tends to bring out contrasting perspectives which go well beyond differences of method. The format of the paper is as follows: Section 2 presents a critical assessment of an initial attempt to unpack the qualitative/quantitative distinction into five dimensions of difference. Section 3 directs attention to epistemological differences between approaches to poverty with implications for numerical transformation of data and validity criteria. Section 4 addresses contrasting traditions of normative theory with implications for the conception of poverty adopted. Throughout, the contributions in this Symposium, as well as other materials, are used to illustrate the above issues.5