Copyrighted material 978 1 137 29361 9 · v Contents List of Tables, Figures, and Maps ix...

Editorial matter, introduction, conclusion, and selection © Laura Camfield 2014Remaining chapters © Contributors 2014

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission.

No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmittedsave with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publicationmay be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published 2014 byPALGRAVE MACMILLAN

Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.

Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.

Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world.

Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.

ISBN 978–1–137–29361–9

This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fullymanaged and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India.

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–29361–9


v

Contents

List of Tables, Figures, and Maps ix

Acknowledgements xii

Notes on Contributors xiii

1 Introduction 1 Laura Camfield 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Quality of research in international development 2 1.3 Chapter outlines 10

Section I Relationships

2 Ethics, Intimacy, and Distance in Longitudinal, Qualitative Research: Experiences from Reality Check Bangladesh 19

Malin Arvidson 2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 Reality Check Bangladesh 21 2.3 Intimacy in qualitative research and in RCA 23 2.4 Intimacy and competing realms of ethics 26 2.5 Intimacy, distance, and voice 30 2.6 Concluding remarks 34

3 What’s in it for us? Consent, Access, and the Meaning of Research in a Qualitative Longitudinal Study 38

Rebecca Taylor, Malin Arvidson, Rob Macmillan, Andri Soteri–Proctor, and Simon Teasdale

3.1 Introduction 38 3.2 Real Times: project methodology and ethical

practice 39 3.3 The literature: access, consent, gatekeepers,

and politics 42 3.4 Recruiting the cases 46 3.5 Reflecting on recruitment and building

relationships 50 3.6 Discussion and conclusions 54



vi Contents

4 Going Back to Re-study Communities: Challenges and Opportunities 59

Graham Crow 4.1 Introduction 59 4.2 Problems in the field 59 4.3 Conclusion 70

5 Taking a Well-being Approach to Fisheries Research: Insights from a Sri Lankan Fishing Village and Relevance for Sustainable Fisheries 76

Sarah Coulthard, Lahiru Sandaruwan, Nasheera Paranamana and Dilanthi Koralgama

5.1 Introduction – taking a well-being approach to fisheries research 76

5.2 A three-dimensional framework for researching well-being 79 5.3 Assessment of basic human needs 81 5.4 Exploring needs and establishing thresholds 82 5.5 Governance Relationship Assessment 86 5.6 Measuring subjective well-being – the

“Global Person Generated Index” 90 5.7 Linking well-being to fisheries policy 92

Section II Time and Changes over Time

6 Researching Social Change and Continuity: A Complexity-Informed Study of Twenty Rural Community Cases in Ethiopia in 1994–2015 103

Philippa Bevan 6.1 Introduction 103 6.2 The Foundations of Knowledge Framework 104 6.3 The WIDE3 research domain and research questions 110 6.4 Theory 111 6.5 Research strategy 119 6.6 Fieldwork process and the making of the database 123 6.7 Interpretation and analysis process 123 6.8 Research answers 124 6.9 Rhetoric and praxis 136

7 Patterns of Socio-economic Mobility in Rural Bangladesh: Lessons from Life History Interviews 141

Peter Davis 7.1 Introduction 141 7.2 Methods 142 7.3 Conceptualizing socio-economic mobility 146



Contents vii

7.4 Findings 153 7.5 Concluding remarks: learning about poverty

dynamics from life histories 169

8 Household Surveys – Using Qualitative Data to Enhance Our Understanding of Household Dynamics over Time 175

Pamela Nasirumbi, Janet Seeley, and Sian Floyd 8.1 Introduction 175 8.2 Background to the General Population Cohort 176 8.3 Definitions of household and family 177 8.4 “The household” in the GPC 179 8.5 Household creation in the Ganda society 181 8.6 Tracing households 182 8.7 Tracing GPC households 184 8.8 Comparison of our findings with those of other studies 189

9 Using Qualitative and Panel Data to Create Durable Measures of Child Poverty and Well-being across Childhood 194

Keetie Roelen 9.1 Introduction 194 9.2 Mixed method approaches in longitudinal and

child poverty research 196 9.3 Monetary and multidimensional child poverty

in Vietnam 197 9.4 Chronic child poverty in rural Ethiopia 203 9.5 Discussion and conclusion 209

Section III Analysis and Representation

10 Epistemology and Ethics in Data Sharing and Analysis: A Critical Overview 217

Joanna Bornat 10.1 Introduction 217 10.2 What do we mean by secondary analysis,

re-use, or sharing? 218 10.3 Debates in re-use 224 10.4 Conclusions 234

11 Replication of Quantitative Work in Development Studies: Experiences and Suggestions 238

Maren Duvendack and Richard Palmer-Jones 11.1 Introduction 238 11.2 Experiences with replication in social sciences 239



viii Contents

11.3 Motivation for replication 240 11.4 Prominent examples in replication in economics 243 11.5 Modelling incentives for replication 245 11.6 Replicatory behaviours 246 11.7 Conclusions 251

12 Replicating “Sources of Slow Growth in African Economies” 261

Graham Davis 12.1 Introduction 261 12.2 Data used to explain growth 264 12.3 Theoretical background 266 12.4 The problem of missing countries 271 12.5 Policy implications 274 12.6 Concluding remarks 278

13 Reflexive Relations and the Contested Creation of Epistemic Diversity in the Safe Motherhood Initiative 283

Dominique Béhague and Katerini Storeng 13.1 Introduction: denouncing “evidence-based

advocacy” 283 13.2 Roots of exceptionality 286 13.3 Theorizing the boarders of normative epistemologies 287 13.4 Early historical insight: the comprehensive agenda 289 13.5 The public health lens: identifying “modifiability” 292 13.6 Cost-effectiveness and the search for political clout 295 13.7 Defending epistemic flexibility 296 13.8 Interest in “context” 299 13.9 The ethics of epistemological power 302

14 Conclusion 309 Laura Camfield 14.1 Defining and measuring poverty 309 14.2 Studying poverty over time 310 14.3 Generating evidence 312 14.4 Cross-cutting issues 312 14.5 Conclusion 320

Index 325



1

1IntroductionLaura Camfield

1.1 Background

When leading UK politicians commit to spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on overseas aid from 2013 and the main distributor of this, the UK Department for International Development (DFID), states its commitment to the “three pillars” of research, evidence and evaluation, surely there has never been a better time to be a devel-opment researcher? Yet while in the UK and North America there is increasing demand for research presented in the form of “evidence” or “key messages” and pressure on researchers to demonstrate their policy “impact,” what is the quality of the research that underpins their claims? The chapters in this volume recognize that research quality may be compromised by donor interests, short timescales, and limited reflection (Humphrey, 2007; Behague and Storeng, this volume). They present conceptual frameworks and methodologies that represent new directions for development research, alongside examples of good prac-tice in other fields such as sociology and anthropology (for example, qualitative secondary data analysis and “revisits,” Bornat and Crow this volume). By bringing together scholarship from the Global North and South, the contributors challenge the assumed separation between developed and developing countries (cf. Humble and Smith, 2007). These examples are valuable to development researchers since there is a growing expectation that data will be available for analysis/re-analysis and that development policy will be based on evidence of all types, appropriately assessed for quality.

The volume arises from a concern with the quality of data and its interpretation, which is framed around a discussion of the relationships involved in gathering data, analysing them, and addressing particular



2 Methodological Challenges in Int. Development

audiences. For example, the relationship of the development researcher to the people they research, the people they work with (peers, students, etc.), the people who fund them (donors, tax payers, etc.), and the people who use their analyses (policymakers, practitioners, activists, journalists, etc.). In thinking about what constitutes quality in terms of data and analysis, or how relationships shape research, we see three main challenges: maintaining research relationships and developing appropriate methodologies for studying the relational dimensions of poverty (Section I); time and changes over time (Section II); and analy-sis and representation (Section III). Section I looks primarily at research relationships, drawing on papers by Arvidson, Taylor et al. and Crow, but also at how the relational dimensions of poverty can be taken into account in resource-poor communities (Coulthard et al.). Section II addresses longitudinal studies at individual, household and community levels and the particular challenges posed by changes in the object of study as households disperse and reform (Nasirumbi et al., P. Davis), communities change in response to policy and intervention (Bevan) and children develop (Roelen). Finally, Section III focuses on analysis and representation, exploring the implications of the growth in data deposit, which enables secondary data analysis and re-analysis/replica-tion of influential analyses, and the power of evidence derived from Randomised Controlled Trials.

1.2 Quality of research in international development

In the remainder of the introduction I describe problems particularly apparent in development research (aka the “global poverty research industry,” Green and Hulme, 2005). These include the absence of theo-rization (Harriss-White, 2007) and challenges in establishing the quality of research due to lack of methodological documentation and access to datasets (Camfield and Palmer-Jones, 2013). I then outline the contents of the chapters in more detail. I argue that the problems I describe arise from the funding and structure of development research and are com-mon to both applied and basic research. They include neglect of the researcher’s positionality (Lewis and Opoku-Mensah, 2006; Bakewell, 2007), unreflective assumptions about the quality of large datasets (see Duvendack and Palmer-Jones, this volume) or the (in)complete-ness of interview transcripts (Jackson, 2012), failure to acknowledge the mediating effects of transcription and translation (Temple et al., 2006), and disconnects between data production, analysis and theori-zation. These problems could be treated as a social fact that needs to



Introduction 3

be located in a deeper understanding of how the development sector works (e.g. Behague and Storeng, this volume, ask whose interests are served by particular epistemological standpoints). However, it may also be possible to treat them as a practical problem that can be partially addressed using some of the approaches outlined in this volume. For example, Baillie-Smith and Jenkins (2012, p. 75) propose “considering the potential contribution that emotional methodologies may make to generating alternative knowledges of development” through “key concepts of responsibility and solidarity,” building on earlier work on the “boundaries and borders” that are negotiated in doing qualitative research on development (Smith, 2007). For this reason the volume has dual and potentially competing goals – both doing development research better and seeing the field of knowledge in development as tell-ing us something about that world and the interests that define what is important or understandable in it.

My discussion of the background to these problems is informed by Bourdieu’s concept of “epistemic reflexivity” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992), which extends from the individual researcher to encompass scientific practice and the organization of disciplines and fields. Bourdieu argues that a rigorous approach to social science requires us to “constantly scrutinize … the collective scientific unconscious embed-ded in the theories, problems, and … categories of scholarly judgment” (ibid., p. 40). This involves not only reflecting on our practice as devel-opment researchers, but also understanding the social and economic forces within and outside our field that shape categories of thought and action, including “the constructed and highly political nature of the boundaries, borders and identities on which the development pro-ject and idea has rested” (Smith, 2007, p. 3) (see also Duvendack and Palmer-Jones and Behague and Storeng, this volume). The relevance of these points will become apparent in the next section as I discuss the problems evident in development research.

The quality of research in international development, as in many applied fields, is extremely variable. There often seems to be an inverse relationship between the strength of the evidence base and the vehe-mence with which findings are asserted. This point is made respectively by Duvendack and Palmer-Jones in relation to micro-finance, G. Davis on governance, and Behague and Storeng on emergency obstetric care (this volume). These disconnects reflect the political economy of research in international development (Mohan and Wilson, 2005; Bakewell, 2007; Harriss-White, 2007) (for example, the particular nexus between DFID, the World Bank1 and research in some UK universities).




A similar critique is made of US poverty research in O’Connor (2001) who suggests that its professionalization in the latter half of the 20th century moved it further away from the experience of poverty and closer to the interests of national government and private foundations such as Rockefeller. This change was signalled by its increased dependence on human capital theory, econometric methods, large datasets, and experimental programme designs, which has resonances with contem-porary development studies. Harriss-White (2007, p. 48) sees a similar rationale behind the increase in commissioned policy research due to the outsourcing of core policy functions by bureaucracies such as DFID. This creates “commodified policy,” “result[ing] both in a decline in the quality of evidence used in policymaking and in an increase in the dif-ficulty with which the residual bureaucracy processes and interprets the outcome of this process.” The increase in funding for commissioned research, at a time when research councils and universities are reducing their expenditure on research, has supported an exponential expansion of consultancies and self-funding research institutes in developed and developing countries (Lewis and Opoku-Mensah, 2006, p. 669). Due to the competitiveness of the sector there is little coordination between funders or researchers, which can lead to multiple simultaneous evalua-tions of high profile programmes with no collaboration or data sharing ( Jones and Young, 2007). Harriss-White (2007, p. 48) argues that “what is most striking about the lists [of research topics generated in the ple-nary of the IDS 40th anniversary conference] is that these are themes in search of theories. Development studies is increasingly defining itself in relation to policy … and it is the impetus coming from policy that makes us define development problems as themes rather than as prob-lems for theory” (see also Lewis and Opoku-Mensah, 2006, p. 671). In another paper she expresses concern that the emphasis on “relevance” by research funders constrains the types of research that can be done as what is considered relevant reflects “cyclical fashions” among policy-makers and entrenched local interests (Harriss-White and Harriss, 2007, p. 20). These problems are known and structural, so this volume is intended as a constructive engagement with those involved in data collection and analysis.

As discussed above, there are strong incentives for development researchers to “present a smooth ex post account of research methods (often airbrushing dead ends and false starts)” (Prowse, 2010, p. 211), although this phenonmenon is not confined to development. Prowse suggests that these accounts do a disservice to policymakers as well as other researchers because fully describing the context of primary



Introduction 5

research (for example, the way the research team was structured) and its philosophical standpoint “can help to explain how research find-ings are generated, how robust findings are, and how findings can or cannot be extrapolated” (ibid., p. 211; see also Crow and Bornat, this volume). Sumner (2012) makes a similar point in his blog in relation to the depoliticization of mainstream poverty research which he says cannot be blamed on the “measurement obsession,” but relates instead to a reluctance to “embed poverty research within an analysis that includes distribution, social differentiation and the process of economic development – in short the political economy of poverty.” The exam-ples he gives are lack of attention to inequality (for example, failing to ask “‘who are the rich?’ and ‘why are they rich?’”) and a tendency to treat poverty as a residual rather than a structural outcome.

So what is going wrong? Giri and Van Ufford (2004) suggest there is a clear distinction between the research priorities of what they call the “world of action,” where manageability is the central concern of those commissioning development research (e.g. the results-based manage-ment agenda, critiqued in Eyben, 2013), and the “world of reflection” (academia). They suggest this distinction is relatively recent as “in the past development sociologists and anthropologists had stressed the importance of their academic research for improving development interventions. But now critical scholars tend to focus on analysing the hegemonic relations which development entailed” (ibid., p. 8). The result of this is that “the domains of critical understanding and devel-opmental action became increasingly separated from each other” and researchers engage in “sustained scientific criticism … not accompanied by a passion of reconstructive responsibility” (ibid., p. 3).

One example of this tension was the reception of David Mosse’s account of his experiences working with a rural development pro-gramme in India, which Eyben (2009) suggests illustrate some of the fundamental differences between academic research and consultancy. Ex-colleagues of Mosse felt they could ask for changes in the typescript because they saw the book as a form of project report, i.e. a consensus document that aimed to define “the truth” of what the project was about. The ensuing debate (see Mosse, 2006; Sridhar, 2005) supported Eyben’s (2009) conclusion that “development organisations may be par-ticularly competent at exercising the privileges of power … because of their quasi-religious function whereby power is legitimated by reference to ‘the poor’ for whose sake the organisation exists” (pp. 93–4).

Although Giri and Van Ufford (2004) distinguish between applied and basic or “pure” research, Harriss-White and Harriss (2007) argue




persuasively that no research is “pure” and well-funded research centres face many of the same pressures, in addition to challenges that relate to the way development research is structured. For example, as I discuss later, research centres frequently operate with a “data extraction” model where data are collected in the study countries and analysed in the UK. There is little support given to the professional development of junior researchers in country teams and limited space and resources for more senior researchers in country to analyse the data they have collected. Norton (2012) suggests in his blog that this relates to a lack of research capacity (or incentives to develop it) “with southern researchers pulled into consultancy for aid agencies or advising wealthy businesses how to make higher profits” (a point also made by Lewis and Opoku-Mensah (2006) in relation to NGO research). He argues that “serious capac-ity building [in the social sciences] will need significant support from development partners … a major initiative and not sticking plasters.”

But while social sciences departments in African universities undoubt-edly receive little financial support, and the support they do receive is often tied to other people’s agendas and/or framings of problems, this does not let individual research programmes off the hook. The same separation of data production/ management and analysis can be seen within UK teams and UK-based projects, which maps to hierarchies within research teams and the social science more broadly. Mauthner and Doucet (2008) suggest that collaborative and team-based research “relies on a division of labour that creates divisions and hierarchies of knowledge, particularly between researchers who gather embodied and contextual knowledge ‘in the field’ and those who produce textual knowledge ‘in the office’” (p. 971). Textual knowledge is seen as more objective and thus has higher status than knowledge gained through participating in fieldwork and is rewarded accordingly. However, by focusing solely on the interview transcript and demoting the embodied knowledge of the fieldworker to “background information” much of the context that gives meaning to the transcript, and that the interviewer would be aware of, is lost. As Bourdieu et al. (1999 in Mauthner and Doucet, 2008, p. 976) suggest “everything that came up in the inter-view – which cannot be reduced to what is actually recorded on the tape recorder … tends to be stripped away by writing … everything that often gives the real meaning and the real interest.”

The dependency on survey and transcribed interview data is particu-larly common in development research where there is a stark separa-tion between field workers (contract researchers and/or students in the study country who carry out the fieldwork), field researchers (typically



Introduction 7

UK-based contract researchers, who manage the fieldwork and the data), and academic researchers (UK-based grant holders, who play a more strategic role in the management of the research and often write the papers). These hierarchies are justified by a perception that field-work is “a technical activity that can be done by anyone, rather than an intellectual process in which meaning and knowledge are being shaped and created by subjective researchers” (Mauthner and Doucet, 2008, p. 979). Recognizing field staff as “intellectual partners … equally engaged in the production entails a radical shift in power relations and dynamics within research teams” (ibid.). While this would be a radical shift in development research practice, the debates around the viability of secondary analysis of qualitative data – see Bornat, this volume – suggest that the “cultural habitus” acquired through partici-pating in fieldwork is essential to data analysis. Without it researchers can succumb to what Mauthner et al. (1998) call “naive realism” where transcripts or extracts of multiple transcripts coded in a qualitative data analysis programme become the data, divorced from both fieldwork-ers and respondents. There are clear limits to the interpretations that can be made from these data and these cannot be easily circumvented. Decontextualization is not inevitable as some UK-based studies also draw on detailed field notes and/or oral or written debriefings, although these require a different relationship with field workers, as described in Bevan, this volume. These data provide some of the specificity of the encounter between interviewer and respondent and the knowl-edge gained through actually being present, which allows for a more nuanced and delimited approach to data analysis.

Further mediation of the data by transcription and translation is often overlooked, even though Temple et al. (2006) argue that the double removal of the analyst from the data by not participating in its produc-tion and not understanding the language in which it was produced effec-tively makes it “tertiary” rather than “secondary” data analysis. Given that most development researchers are not anthropologists and have experience of multiple countries, use of translators is common, whether this involves translating a questionnaire or a narrative. Maclean (2007) draws on her work on citizenship in Bolivia to argue that “translation of others’ words without understanding the way in which they are embedded in their linguistic, social, and cultural context perpetuates privileged theories and concepts” (p. 768). In Maclean’s case this applies to both translating loaded concepts such as citizenship into Spanish and Aymara and translating respondents’ accounts into other languages for analysis. She suggests that unless this process is problematized, and




used as a source of data in itself, the subtlety, ambiguity, and sense of how a particular word relates to other words will be lost. Further distor-tion in meaning can occur due to the convention of producing what Temple et al. (2006) call “easy to read English texts in which the process of production is not apparent” (i.e. the “translatese” derided by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak). While many researchers would feel uncomfortable with the position advocated by Venuti (1998) of having translations that are “estranging” in style and draw attention to their own produc-tion, alternatives would be including words in the source language, maintaining the same sentence structure, and using notes to discuss possible meanings.

Foregrounding the presence of the translator in this way brings us back to the earlier discussion of the structure of research teams and whether one could give appropriate weight to the roles of participant, researcher, interpreter, translator, and in many cases transcriber (Davidson, 2009), as well as the author, in the production of the final text.2 Unfortunately the “Fordist” research model of many research centres involves specialization and separation of different roles so it is not uncommon for three or four different people to collect the data, transcribe, and translate them, with little interaction between them, or with the people who then analyse the data and write about them. This process can produce data that are light on context, history, and politics, as Rademacher and Patel (2002, pp. 180–1) claimed was case with the World Bank’s “Consultations with the Poor” project.3 Paradoxically this may make it easier for the findings to speak to an international audience, even if it does not actually say very much.

Even though most development research is essentially second-ary analysis (the analysis of data collected by others), there is a great reluctance to deposit qualitative data for others’ use (and in some case quantitative datasets, see Duvendack and Palmer-Jones, this volume). This may reflect what Lewis (2009, p. 33) describes as the tendency of development to live in the “perpetual present.” It could imply a different relationship to data, for example, seeing them as support for recommen-dations that may have been drafted before the fieldwork started, rather than a public good that could be productively re-analysed by future researchers. More cynically, it might indicate a reluctance to expose fragile data to public scrutiny – as McCullough et al. (2006, p. 1093 in Davis, 2013) observe in relation to the lack of enthusiasm for replication among economists: “If Pons and Fleischman had published their cold fusion results in an economics journal, the world would still be awaiting lower utility bills.” The main reason given for failure to archive is lack of



Introduction 9

resources. However, while producing archival quality data is a resource-intensive activity, it can be accomplished with sufficient planning and acknowledgement of the potential burden that can fall on early career researchers, as well as researchers in the countries where fieldwork took place (Bishop, 2011).

The failure to archive data prompted one of the main recommen-dations of the DFID (2012) report on understanding poverty and well-being which is related to the availability of high quality data, specifically longitudinal qualitative and quantitative datasets. Panel data offer great potential for studying poverty dynamics, experiences across the life course, and the impact of interventions (see Roelen and Nasirumbi et al., this volume), however, its collection presents many challenges. As Ellis (2012) observes in a different context, “there are many poor countries that have difficulty producing routine household income and expenditure surveys on a regular basis, let alone going the extra mile to ensure that these comply with panel data requirements.” As I discuss in the concluding chapter, cost and technical expertise are probably the main constraints as few funders are able to make invest-ments of this size and duration in a panel dataset. Other challenges are the initial country and site selection, as donors’ priorities shift4 but panel studies cannot.

Panel studies also suffer from problems common to all survey research, summarized in Harriss-White and Harriss (2007). For example, the insta-bility of both the term “household” and actual households which split and reform in new configurations (see Nasirumbi et al., this volume), the lack of reliable sample frames, and the organization of research where “surveys by hierarchically organised paid field assistance face problems of supervision, of incentives and of closed, a priorism in institutionalised enquiries” (Harriss-White and Harriss, p. 17). Harriss-White and Harriss observe that survey research gives a misleading impression of rigour by “making the complicit or selective responses of informants harder to rec-ognise, a point revealed most clearly by innocent-looking but sensitive questions about gender relations and demography [or] about savings and credit” (p. 21). This sleight of hand causes readers to forget that “even large databases have microfoundations” (ibid., p. 21).

My final point in this section relates to a common criticism of devel-opment research: lack of theorization. This is due to both the failure of mainstream theories to explain many of the changes of the past 20 years (Martinussen, 1997) and a “theory-lag between development studies and social science” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2001, p. 4 in Mohan and Wilson, 2005). I draw on Green and Hulme (2005) to consider




whether the methodological innovation in poverty research, some of which is celebrated in this volume, has concealed a lack of theorization and encouraged a focus on the effects of poverty rather than the causes. Green and Hulme (2005) claim that poverty is currently represented “as an entity to be attacked external to the social relations that generate it” (p. 868) with a focus on the characteristics of the poor rather than on the relations in which they are embedded (for example, concentration on the proximal causes of poverty at individual and household levels rather than national or global causes and a near-pornographic attention to the experience of poverty). This tendency persists in mainstream writing on poverty despite a growing emphasis on people’s relationships (Coulthard, this volume) and other structural forms of disadvantage, for example, power relations based on class and gender (Bevan, this volume). By seeing poverty in political as well as economic terms and recognizing how social relations are “contingent on specific and cultur-ally diverse notions about the social constitutions of different categories of persons, about the boundaries of the social and of the kinds of obli-gations toward others entailed by this positioning” (Green and Hulme, 2005, p. 870), it is possible to explain why, for example, being a widow is more problematic for women in South Asia than in Tanzania. This is the approach taken by chapters in the second section of this volume on understanding poverty over time, which propose “middle range” theo-ries as an alternative to the “grand narratives” critiqued by Martinussen (1997) (see Bevan, P. Davis, this volume).

1.3 Chapter outlines

The first chapter in the section on “relationships” draws on the author’s experiences as a qualitative researcher in a Reality Check Approach longitudinal study in Bangladesh. The Reality Check Approach fore-grounds intimacy, immersion, and consensus in order to build ethical relationships and “give voice” to people living in poverty. The chapter explores the challenges experienced in translating these principles and ideals to practice. The second chapter by Taylor et al. continues the theme of maintaining relationships over time by describing the process of recruiting 15 UK third sector organizations to a qualitative longitu-dinal study, which took place over three years of government cutbacks. They explore the challenges posed in recruiting organizations, retaining participants, and navigating changing organizational structures, which will be familiar to students of the NGO sector in developing countries. Perhaps surprisingly they found that ease of initial recruitment was not



Introduction 11

a guide to the quality of the relationship overtime. In fact the hardest organization to access initially could be the most rewarding as they had carefully thought through the implications of their participation, underlining the importance of genuinely informed consent. Return visits highlighted how recruitment was not a “stage” but an ongoing process, especially when key personnel changed. The chapter by Crow describes how restudies of communities in the global North and South provide disconcerting information to researchers about the way in which participants’ understandings and expectations of research differ from their own and consequently how their efforts are perceived. While researchers restudying communities may be able to repair relationships, participants’ perceptions that they and their communities have been exposed to external scrutiny and their trust betrayed – perhaps because expectations of material benefit raised by the researcher’s visit were not then met – colour future interactions, making it harder for other researchers to engage them. Crow’s account reinforces the impres-sion given by Arvidson (this volume) of the “ethical precariousness” inherent in the role of researcher, regardless of where they are located (Staples, 2007). The final chapter in this section by Coulthard et al. addresses the implications of using a “three-dimensional wellbeing approach,” which looks at material, relational, and subjective factors, to understand the impact of the global crisis in fisheries management on a Sri Lankan fishing community. The authors contrast the abstract notion of sustainability with the daily efforts of fishers and their families to sustain their livelihoods and explore the structures and relationships that support and constrain them.

The second section in the volume looks at time and changes over time, starting with a detailed description of a longitudinal study of 20 Ethiopian communities which focuses on change and the impact of development in relation to this (Bevan). The study is framed within a complex realist ontology that recognizes communities as dynamic open complex and nested social systems, which are best studied using a com-parative, case-based, longitudinal research approach. Davis’s study of socio-economic mobility in rural Bangladesh focuses instead on individ-uals and their households, drawing data from life histories that explore interactions between endowments (assets, capabilities, liabilities, and disabilities) and life events (upward opportunities and downward pressures). The life-history interviews show how – not unexpectedly – people with low levels of key endowments were less able to cope with common downward pressures or exploit opportunities and were more likely to employ destructive coping strategies such as selling land. In




Nasirumbi et al.’s study the longitudinal dimension comes not from self-report, but from repeated surveys of a population cohort in Masaka District, Uganda, which was established in 1989 to study the epidemiol-ogy of the HIV epidemic. In 1991 the cohort data provided a sampling frame for the purposive selection of 27 households to study their lives and livelihoods using qualitative methods. Data collection began by monthly visits to household members over the course of one year from local people trained in participant observation. The cohort was followed up using similar methods in 2006–2007. This chapter examines how the qualitative data collected through the two year-long studies illuminate the quantitative data from the annual surveys and in particular the methodological problem of defining households and tracking them over time. Finally, Roelen shifts our focus from the household to the children within it and the question of how to create durable measures of child well-being across the life course. The chapter uses case studies from Vietnam and Ethiopia to argue that the combination of qualitative and quantitative panel data is crucial in gaining insight into the dynam-ics of child poverty, their underlying mechanisms and the potential to break such mechanisms. The case studies also highlight challenges in measuring children’s well-being over time and across different stages of childhood.

The final section on analysis and representation begins with a chap-ter by Bornat on secondary analysis of qualitative data. This is both a new area for development practitioners (Lewis, 2009) and commis-sioned researchers and a perennial problem for large-scale studies where research design and analysis are separated from data collection. Archiving of interview data opens up exciting possibilities for qualitative researchers, if they can get access to them; for example, new empiri-cal enquiries, theorization, and methodological scrutiny (assuming that the data have been archived in a form that enables engagement with the practice, mindsets, and biographies of previous researchers). Nonetheless, this practice presents epistemological and ethical debates and dilemmas, many of which will be familiar to development research-ers, for example, the knowability of context. The following two chapters focus on economic replication, providing both an overview (Duvendack and Palmer-Jones) and a detailed example of what is involved (G. Davis).

The conditions under which knowledge is constructed and the influ-ence of both the subjectivity of the researcher and the institutions of which they are a part are an important theme for Duvendack and Palmer-Jones who look at replication of authoritative quantitative works in development studies. They set this in the context of increased adoption of medical models of development policy research – a theme also addressed



Introduction 13

in the last chapter in this section – and explore the paradox that while replication has been widely advocated to strengthen our knowledge of what works in development, replications remain very limited and spo-radic. They explain this through an analysis of the sociological features of quantitative social science, which include lack of incentives to under-take replications related to the role of “original” journal publications in academic careers and disincentives to challenge professional peers. The chapter by G. Davis extends the argument for the benefits of replication by describing in detail how he replicated (or failed to replicate) Sachs and Warner’s influential paper on growth in Africa. He argues persuasively that their attribution of Africa’s slow growth to poor economic policies rather than to geographic or health effects misdirected the attention of funders and may have paradoxically further slowed growth.

The final chapter in this section by Behague and Storeng draw together all the questions raised in this section, and in the volume as a whole, by looking at how evidence is used within the sub-field of maternal health. Behague and Storeng echo du Toit’s (2012) proposal that to understand the role of evidence in development we need to look at how it is used or ignored. The example du Toit gives is of Mbeki’s articulation of the “two economies” doctrine in South Africa, which allowed the African National Congress to “reframe” key social facts (e.g. rising inequality) and make it possible for these facts to be read in a new way. The result was that “evidence that previously had been awkward, dangerous, or not ‘useful’ in the discussion of possible policy changes could now be invoked, and valuable political space was created for for-mulating policies that sought to engage with the ways in which central processes and institutions in the core economy worked to marginalise poor and powerless people” (ibid., p. 8). In Behague and Storeng’s exam-ple, the growing demand for experimentally derived evidence of the impact and cost-effectiveness of proposed interventions appears to be undermining one of epidemiology’s core strengths, namely the interest in multivariate understandings of the interconnected biological, social, political, and economic determinants of health. However, others recog-nize its strategic importance, even though the interventions prescribed by this form of evidence tend to be technocratic, single component, and divorced from influential social and economic contexts. Behague and Storeng attribute this shift to the infiltration of neoliberal market prin-ciples in global public health over the past 20–30 years and the need for major donors to more accurately calculate the “returns” from their investment. This language will be familiar to “British taxpayers” who have heard the current Secretary of State for International Development promise that he will “squeeze every last ounce of value from [every




penny of every pound of your money]” and demand “hard evidence of the impact your money makes” (A. Mitchell, 2010).

Notes

1. One of the largest actors in development research is the World Bank, which presents itself as a “knowledge bank” and perhaps understandably wishes to construct this knowledge in ways that represent its own interest (Mosse, 2004, Bayliss et al., 2011, see also Wade, 2002, p. 233 in Duvendack and Palmer-Jones, this volume). Toye (2009, p. 302), for example, notes that “[while] international public organizations can become powerful propagators of ideas, if they invest sufficiently in the mechanisms of intellectual propagation … it is almost impos-sible for them to operate successfully as creative intellectual actors in areas where their managers are already committed to maintaining an economic doctrine.”

2. The limited role of those closest to the data in its analysis is often overlooked as there is little information about how researchers do research and analysis, either individually or as a team, and little guidance from funding agencies or disciplinary organizations on appropriate practice.

3. “The very act of transferring PPA [Participatory Poverty Assessment] find-ings from a local to a global scale lends an external ordering that contains the political [and] decontextualises voices and experience … the differences between local reports and the global synthesis reveal as much about the insti-tution and the confines within which it can digest knowledge, as they do about human suffering and its causes.”

4. For example, countries become less interesting as they develop – see the 2011 revision of the list of DFID’s priority countries.

References

Baillie-Smith, M. and Jenkins, K. (2012). Editorial: Emotional methodologies – the emotional spaces of international development. Emotion, Space and Socieity, 5:75–77.

Bakewell, O. (2007). Breaching the borders between research and practice: Development NGOs and qualitative data. In: Smith, M. (ed.). Negotiating Boundaries and Borders (Studies in Qualitative Methodology, Volume 8). UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 217–238.

Bayliss, K., Fine, B., and Van Waeyenberge, E. (2011). The Political Economy of Development: The World Bank, Neoliberalism and Development Research. UK: Pluto Press.

Bishop, E. (2011). Challenges in archiving qualitative longitudinal data: Lessons from Timescapes, Presentation, “As well as the subject” seminar series, UEA-London.

Bourdieu, P. and Loïc J. D. W. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Camfield, L. and Palmer-Jones, R. (2013). Editorial: As well as the subject: Additional dimensions in development research ethics. Progress in Development Studies, 13(4): 255–65.

Davidson, C. (2009). Transcription: Imperatives for qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(2): 1–52.



Introduction 15

Davis, G. (2013). Replicating Sachs and Warner’ Working papers on the resource curse. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(12): 1615–1630.

DFID (2012). Understanding poverty and wellbeing: A note with implications for research and policy. Unpublished report.

Du Toit, A. (2012). Making sense of “Evidence.” Notes on the discursive politics of research and pro-poor policy making. PLAAS Working Paper No. 21.

Ellis, F. (2012). Book review: Tackling chronic poverty: The policy implications of research on chronic poverty and poverty dynamics. Progress in Development Studies, 12: 86–88.

Eyben, R. (2009). Hovering on the threshold: Challenges and opportunities for critical and reflexive ethnographic research in support of international aid practice. In: Hagberg, S. and Widmark, C. (eds, 2009). Ethnographic Practice and Public Aid. Methods and Meanings in Development Cooperation. Sweden: University of Uppsala.

Eyben, R. (2013). Uncovering the politics of evidence and results: A framing paper for development practictioners, http://bigpushforward.net/wp- content/uploads/2011/01/Uncovering-the-Politics-of-Evidence-and-Results-by-Rosalind-Eyben.pdf, downloaded 24/08/13.

Giri, A.K. and van Ufford, Q. (2004). A moral critique of development: Ethics, aesthetics and responsibility. Working Paper No. 128, Research Center on Development and International Relations.

Green, M. and Hulme, D. (2005). From correlates and characteristics to causes: Thinking about poverty from a chronic poverty perspective. World Development, 33(6): 867–879.

Harriss-White, B. and Harriss, J. (2007). Green revolution and after: The “North Arcot Papers” and long-term studies of the political economy of rural develop-ment in South India. QEH Working Paper No. 146.

Harriss-White, B. (2007). Development research and action: Four approaches. IDS Bulletin, 38(2): 46–50.

Humble, D. and Smith, M. (2007). What counts as development research? In: Smith, M. (ed.). Negotiating Boundaries and Borders: Qualitative Methodology and Development Research. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 13–34.

Humphrey, J. (2007). Forty years of development research: Transformations and reformations. IDS Bulletin, 38(2): 14–19.

Jackson, C. (2012). Speech, gender and power: Beyond testimony. Development and Change, 43(5): 999–1023.

Jones, N. and Young, J. (2007). Setting the scene: Situating DFID’s Research Funding Policy and Practice in an International Comparative Perspective. A scoping study commissioned by DFID Central Research Department. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Lewis, D. (2009). International development and the “perpetual present”: Anthropological approaches to the re-historicization of policy. European Journal of Development Research, 21(1): 32–46.

Lewis, D. and Opoku-Mensah, P. (2006). Moving forward research agendas on international NGOs: Theory, agency and context. Journal of International Development, 18: 665–675.

Maclean, K. (2007). Translation in cross-cultural research: An example from Bolivia. Development in Practice, 17(6): 784–790.

Martinussen, J. (1997). Society, State and Market: A Guide to Competing Theories of Development. Halifax: Fernwood Books.




Mauthner, N. S. and Doucet, A. (2008). “Knowledge once divided can be hard to put together again”: An epistemological critique of collaborative and team-based research practices. Sociology, 42(5): 971–985.

Mauthner, N., Parry, O., and Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). The data are out there, or are they? Implications for archiving and revisiting qualtative data. Sociology, 32(4): 733–745.

Mitchell, A. (2010). ‘Giving UK taxpayers value for money in aid’, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mitchell-full-transparency-and-new-independent-watchdog, downloaded 07/03/14.

Mohan, G. and Wilson, G. (2005). The antagonistic relevance of development studies. Progress in Development Studies, 5: 261–277.

Mosse, D. (2006). Anti-social anthropology? Objectivity, objection, and the eth-nography of public policy and professional communities. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.), 12: 935–956.

Mosse, D. (2004). Social analysis as product development: Anthropologists at work in the World Bank. In: Giri, A. K., van Harskamp, A., and Salemink, O. (eds). The Development of Religion/the Religion of Development, Delft: Eburon, pp. 77–88.

Norton, A. (2012). http://www.odi.org.uk/opinion/6511-poverty-research-wellbeing-poverty-dynamics-andrew-norton.

O’Connor, A. (2001). Poverty Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Oyen, E. (2005). The polyscopic landscape of poverty research. Report prepared

for the Research Council of Norway.Prowse, M. (2010). Integrating reflexivity into livelihoods research. Progress in

Development Studies, 10: 211–231.Rademacher, A. and Patel, R. (2002). Creating Global Poverty – Reading Local

Experiences, Creating Global Discourse: Reflections on Re-Contextualizing Participatory Research Data for Global Policy. In: Brock, K. and McGee, R. (eds). Knowing Poverty: Critical Reflections on Participatory Research and Policy, London: Earthscan.

Smith, M. (2007). Negotiating Boundaries and Borders: Qualitative Methodology and Development Research. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Staples, J. (2007). When things are not as they seem: Untangling the webs of a South Indian NGO. In: Smith, M. (ed.). Negotiating Boundaries and Borders: Qualitative Methodology and Development Research. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 131–153.

Sridhar, D. (2005). Ethics and development: Some concerns with David Mosse’s “Cultivating Development.”Anthropology Today, 21(6): 7–19.

Sumner (2012). Deprivation, distribution and the political economy of poverty: Is poverty research about the non-poor as much as the poor?. http://www.ids.ac.uk/news/deprivation-distribution-and-the-political-economy-of-poverty-is-poverty-research-about-the-non-poor-as-much-as-the-poor, downloaded 02/02/14.

Temple, B., Edwards, R., and Alexander, C. (2006). Grasping at context: Cross language qualitative research as secondary qualitative data analysis. FQS, 7(4) art. 10.

Toye, J. (2009). Social knowledge and international policymaking at the World Bank. Progress in Development Studies, 9: 297–310.

Venuti, L. (1998). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London: Routledge.



325

academic research, 5–7, 13, 72Ethiopia, 135–6maternal mortality, 285–6misrepresentation, 63–6romanticism, 61–3

access, organizational research, 42–5, 50–1, 55, 56–7, 314

accountability, 241, 283–4Action Aid International, 19Action Learning and Planning

System, 19adaptation to hardship, 93–4advocacy coalitions, 284, 293, 320

competition between, 295ineffectiveness, 286, 293

affective space, 24, 25, 27, 30Affluent Worker study, 232Africa, 13

demography, 276f, 277f, 278economic growth, 261–4, 273f,

278–9geography of, 276f, 277f, 278universities, 6see also Ethiopia; South Africa;

UgandaAfrican Americans, 71age factors, 22

causal variables, 138ngenerational research, 142, 221,

223–4, 311poverty transmission, 148–51

agencycommunity level, 21in relationships, 86, 87well-being, 92

agentsof change, 20, 29–30people in poverty, 19, 20

aggression, 62, 70, 94

agricultureBangladesh, 161–2, 170Ethiopia, 103–4, 129, 131–2, 133irrigation, 129, 133, 134f, 136fUganda, 176

aid, 1, 244to Africa, 262–3, 264consultancy, 4, 5, 6

alcohol abuse, 90–1, 94, 310Alma Ata Declaration, 289ALPS (Action Learning and Planning

System), 19American Economic Association, 252American Economic Review, 240analysis, case-based methods, 108–9analysis, of data, 2, 6, 14n, 108–9,

312, 319–20bias, 271–4, 279nmeaning, 115software, 123, 146, 173n, 227, 319Wellbeing and Illbeing in Ethiopia,

123–4see also secondary analysis, of data

animals see livestockanonymization, 41, 48, 53–4, 69

ethics, 230, 231failure of, 61, 67, 69, 313friendship, 72

answers, in research, 105, 109, 124–9, 132–3

ante-natal care, 290anthropology, 5, 20, 45, 70–1, 319

fieldnotes, re-use, 219–21archiving, of data, 1, 2, 8–9, 12,

217–19, 252 informed consent, 313–14see also research, quality

argument, as rhetoric, 249–50Aristotle, 249

Index

f denotes figures, tables and mapsn denotes end of chapter notes



326 Index

assets, 146–8, 147f, 316, 317and capabilities, 151, 155division or sale, 167protective, 173nretention of, 170tangible, 169and well-being, 146

assumptions, 59audit, of research, 238austerity programmes, Europe, 261Australia, 63, 66authors, and replication, 246–8,

250–1

Bangladesh, 11, 20, 172n coping strategies, 163–9, 168fdevelopment programmes, 156,

169, 170distancing, 32–3ethics of support, 28–30heath and education services, 21language, 25, 35n, 143–4, 145life history research, 141–6maternal mortality, 301poverty dynamics and change,

169–72poverty indicators, 198rapport, 24–6socio-economic mobility, 141–2,

146–63well-being, 145, 146, 149f, 153f,

165f, 166f, 316work-related activities, 162, 169,

171see also Reality Check Approach

behaviourauthors, 246–8, 250–1human, 77–8, 310, 316

benefitsenvironmental, 76of research, 59, 68, 70–2

Better Life Initiative, 77bias, in analysis, 271–4, 279nbiographies, 219blurring of boundaries, 26–30, 315body language, of researcher, 25Bolivia, 7Botswana, 261Bott, Elizabeth, 223

Bourdieu, Pierre, 3, 69, 242bricolage, 127British Association of Social Workers,

231, 235nBritish Sociological Association, 231,

235nbusiness and marketing studies, 254nbusiness opportunities, 154, 158–9,

170

capabilities, 78, 81, 85, 170and well-being, 146

capacity, for research, 6care-based approach, 30case-based methods, 119, 288, 317

analysis, 108–9causal mechanisms, 148maternal mortality, 299–302Wellbeing and Illbeing in Ethiopia,

103, 108–9causation, 108

counterfactual ideas, 141socio-economic mobility, 148

change and continuity, 103–4, 111, 115, 318

Ethiopia, 129–32, 130fpoverty dynamics, Bangladesh,

169–72see also Wellbeing and Illbeing in

EthiopiaChicago School of Sociology, 141children, 2, 12, 310

early years programmes, 311education, 83, 85experiences and responses, 197health programmes, 289–90, 293,

295income from, 161, 170mental health, 224perceptions of, 209–10poverty, 194–5, 209–10

Ethiopia, 203–10, 205fmethodology, 196–7Vietnam, 197–203, 209Young Lives project, 77, 203–4

well-being, 12, 77, 318Chronic Poverty Research Centre,

172ncities, 129–30



Index 327

clans, 183classification, in analysis, 108climate change, 129, 321codes of ethics, 231, 235n, 251cognitive dimension, to well-being,

80collaboration, 70–2

lack of, 4colonialism, 232–3, 271communities, 2, 116, 117–19, 118f

analysis of, 63–4, 115–17betrayal of trust, 60–1, 313change in Ethiopia, 130–3, 134f,

135–6dissatisfaction in, 90–2and diversity, 72norms of support, 29, 30participatory approaches, 19–20,

33–4, 70–2relationships in, 20, 21, 24, 68–9research benefits, 59, 68, 70–2re-study issues, 59–61, 70–2as social systems, 11, 86, 117–19,

118fstructure and dynamics, 109

community based strategies, 129–30, 290

child and reproductive health, 295complexity framework, 103, 104–10,

317control parameters, 111, 115

complexity theory, 103, 111complex systems, 317, 321computational studies, 238, 239, 241,

244, 253nconceptual approach (interviews),

148–54confidentiality, 230, 231consensus

among participants, 19and intimacy, 31

consent, 43, 230of community, 24informed, 11, 230, 314of organizations, 41–2, 49–51, 54–5,

56–7villages (UK), 49

constructive coping strategies, 164, 165f, 168f, 169

consultancy, 4, 5, 6Consultations with the Poor, 8context, 12, 226–30, 315, 316

maternal mortality, 299–302Convention on the Rights of the

Child, 197coping strategies, 11, 169, 170

constructive, 164, 165f, 168fdestructive, 163–4, 166f, 167

copyright, 230cost-benefit analysis, 241cost-effectiveness, 13–14, 283–4, 292

concerns with, 296–7, 302maternal mortality, 294–6neoliberalism, 285

costsdata collection, 9replication, 245

counterfactual ideas, 141, 144credibility, of research, 27, 238, 320credit services

Bangladesh, 162, 170Sri Lanka, 85, 89

cultural context, 7–8, 227, 229–30access, 45disconnects in Ethiopia, 125–9human needs, 80–1, 83, 86

cyclical fashions, 4

data, 1, 319–20 access to, 2availability, 264, 266collection of, 4, 6–7, 9epistemological issues, 225–6mining, 253nownership, 221, 230quality, 1–2, 30–2research data management, 8–9research process, 45, 109, 123fsampling methodology, 62, 198,

317see also analysis, of data; archiving,

of data; secondary analysis, of data

Data Analysis and Technical Assistance (DATA) Ltd, 142, 172n

databases, 109, 123data extraction model, 6



328 Index

datasetslongitudinal, 9, 318for training, 319

data sharing see secondary analysis, of data

death of relatives, 167debt, 170declining circumstances, 154, 155–6,

156f, 159, 160f, 162–3key reasons, 167, 170–1

definitions, problems with, 309–10, 316–17

democratization, of research, 70demography, in Africa, 278Department for International

Development (DFID), 1, 3, 172narchiving data, 9, 318outsourcing, 4

dependency theory, 60, 315design, research projects, 4, 104–5,

109, 119, 312, 315developed countries

poverty dynamics studies, 195poverty mismatch, 198

developing countries, 280n change and continuity, 103economic growth, 261, 265fexperimental design, 302poverty mismatch, 197–8, 201, 203see also economic growth, Africa

development studies, 1–4models, 128–9and policy, 279replication, 12–13, 242–3, 246, 261

DFID see Department for International Development

diachronic analysis, 108, 115, 124, 318

cultural change, 126–7synchronic-diachronic research

frameworks, 115–17diaries, 219–21disabilities, 146–8, 147fdisconnects, in research, 2, 3–4, 126,

319cultural in Ethiopia, 126–8

dissemination, of research, 109–10, 135–6, 320–1

distancing, from researched, 32–3

doctors, from South Asia, 218, 223–4, 226, 232–3

documentary evidence, 41domain, of research, 105, 110–11donors see fundersdownward pressures

child poverty, 207social mobility, 156f, 160f, 162–3,

170dowry, 152, 162–3, 164, 167, 170dress codes, in fieldwork, 24due diligence, and replication, 243dynamic open complex systems, 103

Early Childhood Development programmes, 311

Econometrica, 240econometric studies, 312

and evidence, 263methodology, 4, 241, 242, 279nrhetoric, 250

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), 41, 79, 95n, 172, 191n

maternal mortality study, 304nQualitative Data Archive Resource

Centre, 218see also Qualidata; Wellbeing in

Developing CountriesEconomic Development and Cultural

Change, 246economic growth, Africa, 13, 130–1,

135, 261–4, 273f, 278–9bias, missing countries, 271–4, 273f,

279ndata, 264–6, 265fpolicy implications, 274–8, 276f,

277f, 278fregression analysis, 267–71, 268f,

269ftheoretical background, 266–7

economic measures, 76, 309–10economics, 320

behavioural, 253npower dynamics, 242–3professionalization of, 242replication, 12, 238, 239–40, 243–5,

251–2economic security, 82f, 85, 89, 92



Index 329

Economist, The, 241, 262economy, local, 132, 133ecosystems see natural resourceseditors, and replication, 246education, 92

Bangladesh, 151, 169, 301Ethiopia, 209primary services, 21, 22Sri Lanka, 83–4, 85training, of researchers, 6, 319, 320

Embree, John, papers of, 220–1emic concepts, 315–17EmOC (emergency obstetric care),

292–4, 320emotional

attachment, 27–30context, 228, 229

emotions, in research relationship, 26–8empathy, in research, 24, 27endowments

and events, 148–54, 149f, 153fand opportunity, 154–8, 155f, 156f,

157fepidemiology, 13, 320

impact research, 283maternal mortality, 290

epistemology, 2, 105, 107, 283, 312ethics, 12, 302–3flexibility, 296–9historical case studies, 295–6impact research, 283–6methodology, 315–16normative, 287–9replication, 239secondary analysis, of data, 221–2,

227ESRC see Economic and Social

Research Councilethics, 11, 12, 312

care-based approach, 28–30codes of, 231, 235ndilemmas, 20, 34–5epistemology, 302–3funding methods, 321giving voice, 19, 30–4health care, 42intimacy concept, 20–1, 25–30, 315motivation, 25passive role, of researcher, 22–3

and publication, 70Real Times project, 41–2and replication, 252secondary analysis, of data, 221,

230–4statement of, 72

Ethiopia, 11, 12 child poverty, 195, 203–10development in, 129–32fieldwork, 109, 137ngovernment, 118f, 119, 125,

127–30, 132, 137nProductive Safety Net Programme,

207religion, 126–7, 128, 132research programmes, 103–4rural communities, 106–7see also Wellbeing and Illbeing in

EthiopiaEthiopian Rural Household Survey,

104, 137nethnicity, 69, 70, 271, 281n

African Americans, 71Uganda, 176

ethnographical approach, 42, 311relationships, 44–5

ethnography, 20, 62 cultural context, 227development of, 220fieldnotes, re-use of, 220–1para-ethnographic reasoning,

288–9, 297, 315–16see also Safe Motherhood Initiative

Europe, 198, 261evidence, 1, 2, 312

quality of, 4use of, 13, 226

evidence base, 107advocacy, 284policy, 2, 124, 251, 319–20

health issues, 283–5, 295limitations of, 289, 297

research, 304nexceptionality, 286–7expectations, 11

of funders, 110, 322nof governments, 110of patronage, 29–30in relationship responses, 93



330 Index

experimental approach, 251, 254n, 302, 312

see also evidence baseexploration, in analysis, 108

falsification, 240, 246families, 170–1, 223, 227–8

childrens’ income, 161, 170definitions, 178fand trust, 24–6, 88in Uganda, 181–3see also children; households

fatherhood, 224feminist approaches, 23, 287, 292fields of action, 116–17fieldwork, 6–7, 9, 318–19

diaries, 144, 219–21media misrepresentation, 65–6mutual misunderstandings, 68–70overpromising, 66–8planning, 109researcher misrepresentation,

63–5fisheries

Northern Ireland, 83Sri Lanka, 11, 77–9, 80

competition, 89cultural aspects, 83–4development policy, 92–5dissatisfaction in, 90–2education, 83–4, 85exploitation, 89–90household surveys, 82–6management, 88sustainability, 89–90, 94well-being methodology, 79–80

Uganda, 83, 85focus groups, 144, 172nfood research, 223, 227–9Foundations of Knowledge Framework

(FoKF), 104–10, 105f, 315Framework of Research Ethics, 41frameworks, for research

analysis, 70complexity, 103, 104–10, 317ethics, 41Foundations of Knowledge

Framework (FoKF), 104–10, 105f, 315

theoretical, 107–8, 115–19, 124–5

fraud, 164, 167, 238friendship, with researched, 27, 71–2funders, 1, 2

cost-effectiveness, 13–14, 283–4, 292

credibility of research, 320–1Ethiopia, 104, 135–7, 137nevidence-based policy, 284expectations, 110, 322ninstitutions, 321–2finterests, 4, 9, 319misinformed, 13public health, 289–90selective approaches, 293–4

Ganda households, 181–2gatekeepers, in research, 43, 55Gates Foundation, 320gender issues, 22, 60, 65

causal variable, 138nchild poverty, 206–7, 208fheads of household, 82, 207, 316human needs assessment, 82rural Bangladesh, 143

General Population Cohort, Uganda, 177

households, 179–81, 182–9, 185f, 186f, 187f

and similar studies, 189–91geriatric medicine, 218, 223–4, 232–3,

313Glandon Replication Accuracy Rating

System, 264Global Person Generated Index, 90–2,

93Global Positioning System

technology, 176goals, of research, 70GOBI approach, 289–90, 293Governance Relationship Assessment,

80, 86–90, 93, 95ngovernments

Ethiopia, 118f, 119, 125, 127–30, 132, 138n

expectations, 110interaction, 128–9, 136–7interests, 4, 319

Government Statistical Office, 198GPC see General Population Cohort,

Uganda



Index 331

GPGI see Global Person Generated Index

GPS technology, 176GRA see Governance Relationship

Assessmentgross domestic product, 76

calculation errors, 265–6government debt, 261

GSO (Government Statistical Office), 198

happiness question, 310harm

definition, 81thresholds for, 83

Harvest Plus, 172nheads of households, 179–81, 184, 185f

gender, 82, 207, 316health care research, 42, 44, 288

see also Safe Motherhood Initiativehealth issues, 13, 285

in Africa, 262, 263, 274, 278, 279children, 209determinates, 283as human need, 81intervention and impact, 283, 290life trajectories, 148–51, 152, 162,

167maternal care, 285, 286, 290poverty reduction, 163, 170primary services, 21, 22, 289quality of life, 90, 92and responsibility, 322nsmoking, 223Sri Lanka, 92, 93, 94see also maternal mortality

hierarchies, in research teams, 5–7, 8, 23–4, 242

historical studies, 223, 226context, 229, 320maternal mortality, 290–2, 295secondary analysis, 218, 219, 221

HIV research, 12, 130, 176, 177, 182, 191

households, 2, 9, 116, 117–18, 190–1in Africa, 130, 175–6, 177, 178f,

189–91challenges for research, 311–12,

316–17changes in, 12, 117–18, 182–3, 210

continuation of, 189–90definitions, 177, 178f, 179, 316Ganda society, 181–2General Population Cohort survey,

179–81heads of, 82, 179–81, 184, 185f,

207, 316as hosts, 35nsocial mobility, 191tracing of, 183–9, 186–7f

household surveysBangladesh, 142–6, 143f, 171, 172nSri Lanka, 82–6Uganda, 12, 175–7, 184–9

human behaviour, 77–8, 310human capital theory, 4Human Development Index, 309human needs, 79–80, 92–3, 94

assessment, 81–6, 84f, 95ndefinition, 81theory of, 81–2

human rights, 289, 319

ideas, community domain, 117, 126identity, 7, 183, 232ideology, 104, 106, 322n

Ethiopia, 127–8maternal mortality, 287public health, 289–92

IMF (International Monetary Fund), 241, 242

impact, 1, 283–5assessment, 77–8, 316evaluation of, 141factors, 246, 251modernization, 111

India, 5, 45, 60individuals

in community, 117–18and poverty, 310and trust, 24–6see also human needs

inequality, 5, 117, 169, 170inflation, in Africa, 265, 266informed consent, 11, 41–2, 230, 314Institute of Community Studies, 62institutions

of development, 321–2fquality in Africa, 262, 263see also IMF; World Bank



332 Index

interactive governance theory, 87interests

of funders, 4, 9, 319governments, 4, 319

interests, in research, 3–4, 315international development, 42, 43, 45

change and continuity, 103organizational research, 57poverty issues, 309–12research quality, 2–10see also funders; Safe Motherhood

InitiativeInternational Monetary Fund, 241, 242interpretation, 109, 318–19intervention, 2, 13, 142, 317

in Bangladesh, 21, 22, 171–2cultural disconnects, 126cultural relationships, 86differences made, 110ethical, 22–3in Ethiopia, 110–11, 118f, 119, 125evidence base, 295–6and households, 191and impact, 283obstetric care, 292–3process evaluation, 296selective, 289–90, 291, 292–3

interviews, 6, 229about relationships, 86assumptions about, 31conceptual approach, 148–54as conversations, 22, 25data from, 2, 6, 12digital recording, 144as giving voice, 32–3public and private accounts, 62–3Real Time project, 40semi-structured, 119, 121–3

intimacy, as research concept, 19, 20–1, 23–4, 314, 315

ethics, 26–30trust, 24–6

intuition, 288Ireland, 60

Northern Ireland, 83irrigation, 129, 133, 134f, 136f

Japan, 220Journal of African Economies, 262, 263

journals, 13citations in, 262–3, 279neconomic, 240–1, 243, 246

knowledge context, 316, 318generation of, 12–13, 104–10see also epistemology

land assets, 159, 161–2sale of, 164, 167use of, 182–3

language issues, Bangladesh, 25, 35n, 143–4, 145

legal implications, 230liabilities, 146–8, 147f, 169life expectancy, in Africa, 266, 267,

270, 276, 278life history approach, 11–12, 141–2,

170, 172ndiagrams, 145, 149f, 153fevents, 173nhousehold classification, 209–10illness, 148–51, 162, 167methodology, 142–6poverty dynamics, 169–72, 310–12smoking, 223socio-economic mobility, 146–63

listening, to participants, 19, 21, 71, 320 and audience, 33–4children, 209–10conversations, 22, 23, 30–4and distancing, 32–3and understanding, 77villagers in Japan, 220see also Reality Check Approach

literary studies, 219literature review, 249–50livelihoods, 107, 113f, 114f, 116,

120–1f, 130livestock, 159, 161, 170, 206, 207Living Standards Measurement Survey

(LSMS), 198living with participants, 21–2

ethical intervention, 22–3loans, 167, 170local

economy, 131, 132studies, 302



Index 333

longitudinal studies, 2, 108 blurring of boundaries, 26–30, 315datasets, 9, 311, 318and households, 189–91, 311–12mixed methods, 194, 196–7panel data, 12, 103, 194, 195, 199,

203poverty studies, Bangladesh, 142and trust, 24, 55–6see also children, poverty; Reality

Check Approach; Real Times project; Timescapes; Wellbeing and Illbeing in Ethiopia

Loudon, Irvine, 290–2LSMS (Living Standards Measurement

Survey), 198

malaria, 130Malawi, 183, 184, 189–90Malinowski, Bronislaw, 220–1marginal groups, 60, 63, 66marine conservation, 77, 80, 95marriage, Ganda society, 181–2Mass Observation Archive, 219maternal mortality, 13, 286, 289

birth attendants, 290, 293, 295, 297–8, 299–300, 301

comprehensive approach, 290–2, 302–3

context, 299–302evidence informed approach,

298–9historical studies, 290–2ineffective interventions, 290measurement of, 286–7obstetric care, 292–4, 300, 301para-ethnographic approach, 288,

297–9, 315–16selective approach, 289–90, 291,

292–3, 295Sweden, 291see also Safe Motherhood Initiative

mathematization, 242, 320media coverage, 243

misrepresentation, 65–6medical issues

costs, 207geriatric care, 218, 223–4, 232–3,

313

HIV studies, 12, 176, 177, 182, 191research, 12, 218survey, Uganda, 176see also maternal mortality

Medical Research Council, 176, 191nmethodology, 2, 3, 4–5, 315–16

analysis, 312assumptions of, 34–5case-based, 108–9, 119, 288,

299–302, 317child poverty studies, 194–7contextual, 316econometric studies, 4, 241, 242,

279nempirical analysis, 253nethnographic, 285growth-regression, 262household surveys, Uganda, 176–7,

184–9innovations in, 10life history approach, 142–6Living Standards Measurement

Survey (LSMS), 198mixed methods approach, 142, 197,

201–3, 202f, 209–10participative approach, 20–1provocation, 31q-squared, 194, 210nqualitative research, 19–20Quality of Life, 79–80, 86quant-dominant, 196Real Times project, 39–42romanticism, 62–3Safe Motherhood Initiative, 285–6,

289sampling, 62, 198, 317secondary analysis, 222, 223, 226surveys, 6–7, 9, 310Wellbeing and Illbeing in Ethiopia,

104, 108–9, 135well-being research, 78–80, 86Young Lives project, 203–4

Mexico, 68migration, 131, 176, 198, 226, 311Millennium Development Goals,

284Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,

76mining communities, 64–5



334 Index

mismatchinformed consent, 313–14poverty research, 197–8, 201, 202,

310researcher and researched focus,

229, 231–2understandings, 313

misrepresentation, 63–6misunderstanding, of research, 68–70

collaborative approaches, 71–2mixed methods approaches, 142, 148,

194–7, 201–3, 316chronic poverty, children, 206–10

mobility see socio-economic mobilitymodernization, 60, 119, 120–1f

research questions, 110–11monetary poverty, 197–8, 200–1, 309moral economy, 169moral element of development,

242–3mortality, household dissolution, 189

see also maternal mortalitymotivation, intimacy concept, 25multidimensional perspectives,

194–5poverty, 197–8, 200–1, 309, 310

Multidimensional Poverty Index, 309multivariate understandings, 283Muslim societies, 24, 29–30myth, 63–4

natural resources, 76, 77, 94–5 in Africa, 278–9see also fisheries; sustainability

natural science, 238, 243, 251needs see human needsneoliberalism, 13, 242, 244, 283

cost-effectiveness, 285, 303NGOs (Non Governmental

Organizations), 6, 10–11, 38–9 Bangladesh, 162see also third sector organizations

Northern Ireland, 83

obosta (well-being), 145, 146, 316observational studies, 251

Real Time project, 40obstetric care, 292–4obtrusiveness, 31, 34

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 77

older people, 223–4, 311ontology, 105, 106–7open data, 172nopportunities, in Bangladesh, 148,

150, 154–62, 170–1oral history, 218, 221, 229Oral History Society, 231, 235nOrganisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development, 77

organizational research, 54–7 changes in organization, 51–2informed consent, 41–2, 314internal politics, 52–3methodology, 42–6see also Real Times project

outcomes assessment, 77–8overpromising, 66–8ownership, of data, 221, 230

panel data see longitudinal studiespara-ethnographic approach, 288,

297–9, 315–16participants, 313, 314–15

expectations, 11inclusion, 22perceptions of, 209–10stories of, 221

participatory approaches, 19–20, 33–4, 70–2, 141, 309

Participatory Poverty Assessment, 14npatronage, 29–30philosophy, and research, 221, 287–8pilot studies, 222Pitt and Khandker’s paper, 247–8policy

analysis, 254n, 261, 264briefings, 318journey, 125response, 194

policy implications, 13, 25, 241, 317aid, 244data sharing, 252development studies, 4economic growth, Africa, 264,

274–8, 276f, 277f, 278f



Index 335

funder priorities, 13–14, 283–4, 292, 294

research studies, 262–3political processes

Ethiopia, 132–3motivation, 25, 240, 243, 321poverty, 5, 311public health, 303research, 3, 284

political science, 254npolitical settlement, 132, 133polygyny, 179–81, 182population science, 285, 287, 296,

299positionality, of researchers, 2, 52–3,

55, 315–17positivist research, 23poverty, 2, 5, 78–9, 310

children, 195, 209–10Ethiopia, 203–9Vietnam, 197–203

classification of, 204–6, 210, 210–11n

durational aspects, 196European Union, 198experience of, 77indicators of, 198, 200flocal thresholds, 316measurement of, 194–5, 200–1,

202f, 309–10Bangladesh, 145f, 146

mismatch, 197–8, 201, 202participatory approaches, 14n,

19–20reduction in, 94, 169–72

poverty research, 5, 10, 309–12life history approach, 141–6,

169–72, 310–12mixed methods methodology, 142,

197, 201–3, 202f, 209–10United States, 4

power domains, social organization, 116–17

power relations, research, 5, 7, 10, 25, 242–3

power-distance, 23–4, 25, 28, 30praxis, 104, 105, 110, 136–7, 315

definition, 138nprejudice, and emotion, 27

primary education services, 21, 22primary health care, 21, 22, 289Prince Leopold Institute of Tropical

Medicine, 297privacy, 69process evaluations, 296process-tracing, 138nProductive Safety Net Programme,

205f, 207professionalization, 4professional risk, 238professions, expert knowledge, 242PSNP see Productive Safety Net

Programmepsychosocial factors, in poverty

research, 310publication, research results, 70, 245

and replication, 238–9, 240–1, 244–5

public good, 8replication, 238, 252

public health, 13, 283–4 global initiatives, 286, 320ideologies, 289–92modifiable determinants, 292–4para-ethnographic approach, 297–9political processes, 303scientific reasoning, 287–8see also health issues; Safe

Motherhood Initiativepublic interest, 239

q-squared methodology, 194, 210nQualidata, 218–19, 231, 235n, 318qualitative research, 103, 107

access and consent, 42–5, 50–1, 55, 56–7

and compromises, 33–4data, 12, 219intimacy concept, 19, 23–4, 25poverty dynamics, 196–7, 203secondary analysis, 8–9, 12, 217–18,

221, 234see also children, poverty;

household surveys; Reality Check Approach; Real Times project

quality of life approach, 79, 86, 90–2measures for, 80, 90, 91f, 95nand policy, 92–5



336 Index

Quality of Life methodology, 79–80, 86

quality, of research, 2–10quant-dominant methodology, 196quantitative research, 13, 107

data, 8, 217poverty, children, 194–5, 206, 208freplication, 238–9statistical analysis, 148

racial issues see ethnicityRandomised Controlled Trials, 2rapport, with participants, 24–6

blurring of boundaries, 26–30and romanticism, 61–3

realismknowledge, 111in policy, 294

Reality Check Approach, 10, 19–21, 34–5

community rapport, 24distancing, 32–4ethics, 26–8ethics of care, 28–9expectations of patronage, 29–30individual rapport, 24–6intimacy, 23–4as listening and voice, 30–2principles, 21–3, 30, 34

Real Times project, 38–9, 56–7 access, 44methodology, 39–42see also third sector organizations

reasoning, methods of, 287–9, 294reconceptualization, 226, 229recruitment, longitudinal studies, 11,

46–9, 54–5reflection, 2, 5

organizational participation, 56–7qualitative research methods, 19

reflexivity, 3, 223, 225–6, 227, 289reframing, of evidence, 13regression analysis, 262, 263, 266–71,

274–8relationships, 1–2, 314–15

among team, 5–8, 20–1, 68–9within community, 10, 63–4,

86–90, 117, 310with organizations, 50–4, 55–6

with participants, 10–11, 19, 24, 26–30, 45

and well-being, 80, 86–90, 92, 93, 316religion, 315

Ethiopia, 127, 128, 130, 132Sri Lanka, 86, 90, 91f

repetoires, 127–8replication, 2, 12–13, 319

authors, behaviour, 246–8, 250–1definitions, 252–3ndevelopment studies, 12–13, 242–3,

246disincentives, 252, 320in economics, 8, 243–5, 251–2, 263,

279nGlandon Replication Accuracy

Rating System, 264impediments to, 279nimportance of, 279models of, 245–6motivation for, 240–3quantitative social science, 238–9reluctance for, 241–2, 320rewards from, 245rhetoric, 249–50, 251sociology, 254nsee also Africa, economic growth

reputation, of researcher, 221, 231–3replication, 239, 240

research, 1–4, 6–7, 104–5, 105f, 222 answers, 105, 109, 124–9, 132–3benefits, 59, 68, 70–2credibility, 27, 238, 320design, 4, 109, 119, 312, 315dissemination, 109–10, 136–7, 318domain, 105, 110–11gatekeepers, 43, 55meaning and purpose, 47–8, 68–70,

313methods and models, 4–5, 6, 8,

148, 221perspectives, 60quality, 2–10questions, 110–11, 222strategy, 108–9, 119–24, 223teams, 6–7, 8tensions, 31, 45tools, 24, 25, 80, 119–21, 314see also methodology



Index 337

Research Council of Norway, 304nresearch councils, United Kingdom, 4

see also Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

research data management, 8–9researched

collaboration with, 70–1distancing from, 32–3power relations, 25protection of, 27, 29

researchers, 20, 315in country teams, 6, 9early career, 9intimacy, relationship concept, 24, 27misrepresentation, 63–5overpromising, 66–8positionality, 2, 52–3, 55, 315–17reputation of, 221, 231–2, 239, 240re-studies, 60–1secondary analysis, of data, 217team hierarchies, 6–7, 23–4

resources, natural, 76, 77, 94–5 in Africa, 278–9see also sustainability

re-study issues, 11, 59–61, 70–2media misrepresentation, 65–6mutual misunderstandings, 68–70researcher misrepresentation, 63–5researcher overpromising, 66–8romanticism, 61–3

results-based funding, 320re-use, of data see secondary analysis,

of datarhetoric, 104, 105

in dissemination, 110, 136–7, 315, 320–1

in replication, 249–50, 251risk

notions of, 287professional, 238

rituals, social context, 26romanticism, 61–3

Sachs and Warner’s paper see economic growth, Africa

Safe Motherhood Initiative, 284–6 emergency obstetric care (EmOC),

292–4, 320historical studies, 290–2

informants, 285–6maternal mortality measurement,

286–7reasoning behind, 287–9selective intervention, 289–90, 291,

292see also maternal mortality

salaried work, Bangladesh, 162, 169, 171

Samoa, 62sampling methodology, 62, 198, 317savings

national savings policy, Africa, 262, 266–8, 270, 279n

Sri Lanka, 85science, 241

natural, 238, 243, 251procedure, 68–9and reasoning, 287–9replications, 263

secondary analysis, of data, 7–9, 12, 210, 234, 312, 319

context, 226–30definitions, 219, 222economics, 240ethics, 221, 230–4fieldnotes, 219–21importance of, 2, 318lack of, 4meaning of, 218–24new knowledge, 225–6new questions, 223–4qualitative research, 217–19, 221reasons for, 1, 221–4

sharecropping, 162, 207, 211nshocks, cumulative effect, 207Siberia, 68Sida (Swedish International

Development Agency), 21, 322small businesses, 152, 154, 158–9,

170SMI see Safe Motherhood Initiativesocial actors, 117social change and continuity, 59–60,

103social enterprises, 54social impact assessment, 77–8, 316social justice, 196, 303social policy, 103



338 Index

social protection programmes, 163, 169–70, 171

effectiveness of, 170–1social relations, 10, 61–3, 117

implementation, 110–11well-being, 79, 86–90

social skills, 26social systems, 11, 86, 117–19

complexity of, 106–7and relatives, 156, 161

socio-economic mobility, 11, 141–2, 146–8, 160f, 170, 191

agriculture, 161–2children’s income, 161downward pressures, 156f, 160f,

162–3events, 148–54, 149f, 153fland assets, 159livestock, 159, 161opportunity, 154–8, 155f, 157fsalaried work, 162, 169, 171small businesses, 152, 154, 158–9

software, 123, 146, 173n, 227, 264, 319South Africa, 13, 183–4, 189space, affective, 24, 25, 27, 30spells approach, 200Sri Lanka, 11, 80, 82–6, 92–5

Global Person Generated Index, 90–2

relationships and well-being, 86–90see also well-being approach

States of Progress concept, 206statistics

analysis, 148, 265–6maternal mortality, 291–2regression analysis, 262, 263,

266–71, 274–8significance, 239truth-values, 287

stereotypes, 64, 65subsistence farming, 176survey research, 6–7, 9, 310sustainability, 11, 76–9

fisheries, Sri Lanka, 89–90, 94Sweden, 291Swedish International Development

Agency (Sida), 21, 322synchronic analysis, 108, 115, 124, 318

disconnects, 126

see also Wellbeing and Illbeing in Ethiopia

synchronic-diachronic research frameworks, 108, 115–17

teams, for researchattrition, 311hierarchies in, 5–8, 23–4, 242

temporality, in secondary analysis, 229–30, 233–4

Thailand, 77theories, in research, 105, 111, 115

complexity, 103substantive, 108theoretical frameworks, 107–8,

115–19, 124–5theoritization, 60, 107–8

lack of, 2, 9–10theory-lag, 9

Theory of Human Need (THN), 79, 81–2

thresholds, 82–6third sector organizations, 10–11, 57

definition, 38recruitment of, 38, 46–9see also NGOs; Real Time project

Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC), 41

three pillars, for development, 1threshold determinants, 82–3time factors, 2, 316, 318

building rapport, 24poverty research, 197

Timescapes Programme, 217–18, 222–4, 229, 234n

tools, of research, 24, 119–21 intimacy, 25, 314well-being, 80see also Global Person Generated

Index; Governance Relationship Assessment

top-down development models, 128–30

trade openness, 262, 264, 269, 270, 271, 274, 280n

definition, 279ntrade policies, in Africa, 262–3, 270,

271traditional birth attendants, 290



Index 339

training, new researchers, 6, 319, 320trajectories

chronic poverty, children, 203–4communities, 119, 131–3, 134fdownward pressures, 156f, 160f,

162–3into future, 110, 119, 130–3, 134fpast events, 141–2, 144–5of well-being, 145, 146–54, 149f,

153f, 165f, 166ftranscription, 2, 7–8translation, 2, 7–8transport issues, 91trustees, of organizations, 47trust, in research, 24–6, 69

betrayal of, 60–1, 64–5, 313and friendship, 71–2

TSOs see third sector organizationsTSRC (Third Sector Research Centre),

41

Uganda, 12fisheries, 83, 85Ganda society, 181–2households, 179–81, 184–9, 186–7fhousehold surveys, 175–7polygyny, 179–81, 182

Uganda Demographic and Health Survey, 182

Uganda Virus Research Institute, 176UK Data Archive, 41, 235

see also QualidataUK Data Service, 235nUNICEF, 310United Kingdom, 62–7, 69, 70

Northern Ireland, 83research process, 4, 6

United NationsHuman Development Report, 266,

309UNICEF, 310

United Statespoverty research, 42012 Presidential election, 261re-studies issues, 60–1, 62–3, 66–7,

68–9, 71USAID, 262, 279

universal needs, 81see also human needs

university research, 3, 4, 6urbanization, 60, 129USAID (United States Agency for

International Development), 262, 279

validation, 239, 240, 241Sachs and Warner’s paper, 263

values see ideology, in researchvariables, 108, 119, 280n, 293variates, 317

Ethiopia studes, 119, 120–1fmaternal mortality, 292, 293

VHLSS see Vietnam Households Living Standards Survey (VHLSS)

Vietnam, 12child poverty, 195, 197–203, 209, 210Vietnam Households Living Standards

Survey (VHLSS), 198–203, 199f, 210

villages, 63Asia, 70Ireland, 60

violence, 94voices see listening, to participantsVoices of the Poor, 22vulnerable groups, 162–3, 224,

310–11consent, 43fishing communities, 89and poverty, 142social programmes, 163

Washington Consensus, 263welfare state, 65well-being, 76–9, 316

definition, 79–80, 92description of, 145, 316frameworks, 107–8human needs assessment, 81–6,

84f, 95nlife trajectories, 145, 146–54, 149f,

153f, 165f, 166fmaterial dimension, 79–80objective indicators, 81policy outcomes, 92–5, 316qualitative levels, 145f, 146, 173nquality of life, 90–2relationships, 80, 86–90, 87f, 88f



340 Index

well-being – continuedreligion, 90subjective indicators, 90–2, 94,

310see also socio-economic

mobility; Wellbeing and Illbeing in Ethiopia; well-being approach; Wellbeing in Developing Countries

Wellbeing and Illbeing in Ethiopia (WIDE), 104, 110–11, 122f

communities studied, 112f, 113f, 114f

development processes, 129–32fieldwork, 123, 133interpretation and analysis,

123–4methodology, 108–9, 135research answers, 124–30synchronic-diachronic framework,

115–17theory, 111, 115

well-being approach, 11, 76–9 children, 12, 77, 318limitations of, 93–4methodology, 79–80relationships, 86–90strengths of, 92–3, 94see also well-being

Wellbeing in Developing Countries (WeD), 79–80

human needs, 81objectivity, 94

Quality of Life methodology, 79–80, 86

WHO see World Health OrganisationWIDE see Wellbeing and Illbeing in

EthiopiaWiswell, Ella, papers of, 220–1women

and interviews, 121–2lifestyles, 80, 95nmicrofinance, 247–8oppression, 170participation, 131as partners, 88patrilocal marriage, 161and violence, 94see also maternal mortality

work-related activities, 162, 169, 171World Bank, 3, 14n, 172n, 322f

Africa, 262–3, 279Consultations with the Poor

project, 8and data, 266development practice, 279economics, 242, 309findings and replication, 241Living Standards Measurement

Survey (LSMS), 198Voices of the Poor project, 22

World Health Organisation, 289, 292

Young Lives project, 77, 95n, 195, 203–4

youth, economic prospects, 131



Copyrighted material 978 1 137 29361 9 · v Contents List of Tables, Figures, and Maps ix...

Documents

Transcript of Copyrighted material 978 1 137 29361 9 · v Contents List of Tables, Figures, and Maps ix...