Upload
genene-belayneh
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The ‘development community’ broadly shares the conviction that the primary objective of development research is to help the fight against poverty and improve well-being in the developing world. However, consensus is lacking as to what kind of research can help promote development. The main objective of this rather short paper is to appraise the nature of research in development studies (DS) and to address the topic under discussion the paper employed secondary sources gathered through the method of systematic literature review. This paper holds the argument that a social constructionist epistemology and a qualitative approach is more suitable development research, where the problems of development and the solution they demand are context specific, than a pure positivist/quantitative approach
Citation preview
Research in Development Arena: A synthesis
Genene Belayneh Hayle
November 23, 2012
Research in Development Arena Page 0
Table of Contents
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................2
1. The Role of Applied Research in Development Arenas..................................................................3
2. Epistemology in Development Research..........................................................................................5
3. Boundary Setting in Development Research...................................................................................7
4. Competing Conceptions of Validity in Development Studies.........................................................9
5. Choice of Research Methods: Which, When and How?...............................................................11
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................13
References.................................................................................................................................................14
Research in Development Arena Page 1
Introduction
The ‘development community’ broadly shares the conviction that the primary objective of
development research is to help the fight against poverty and improve well-being in the
developing world. However, consensus is lacking as to what kind of research can help promote
development. The main objective of this rather short paper is to appraise the nature of research in
development studies (DS) and to address the topic under discussion the paper employed
secondary sources gathered through the method of systematic literature review. This paper holds
the argument that a social constructionist epistemology and a qualitative approach is more
suitable development research, where the problems of development and the solution they
demand are context specific, than a pure positivist/quantitative approach.
The paper consists of five sections. The first section explores the role of research in development
arenas. The second section presents the issue of epistemology in research by summarizing the
basic assumptions underlying the dominant epistemological approaches in development research.
Section three discusses the nature of boundary setting in development research by linking the
discussion with epistemology. Section four critically examines the issues of rigor and validity in
development research. The last section of the paper summarizes some of the debates associated
with the choice of research methods in development research. Finally, the paper concludes by
summarizing the main points raised in the text.
Research in Development Arena Page 2
1. The Role of Applied Research in Development Arenas
Research can be defined as ‘any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge’ (Pollard
and Court, 2005:3). In the context of development studies, it involves a systematic process of
‘critical investigation and evaluation, theory building, data collection, analysis and codification
related to development policy and practice’ (Pollard and Court, 2005:3). Much of the research
conducted in DS can be categorized into basic or applied based on the goal of the research.
While the goal of basic research is to create knowledge for its own sake, the aim of applied
research is to inform policy or practice in development work (Sumner and Tribe, 2008). In this
respect, Sumner and Tribe (2004:7) argued that research in development ‘[…] is not concerned
with knowledge creation for its own sake, but as an instrumental means of contributing to the
improvement of natural and social conditions for the sake of improved welfare’. Thus, much of
the research in the field of development falls in to the category of applied research.
As Laws et al. (2005) argued, in development work research is mainly undertaken either to
inform a program or policy. As they design and implement programs development practitioners
carry out research in various areas which includes among other things, need assessment,
stakeholder analysis, baseline study, program monitoring and evaluation (Sumner and Tribe,
2008; Thomas, 1998). The argument for applied research in development work lies in its
perceived capacity to provide development practitioners with the knowledge and skills that
enables them to define and address key issues and problems in development. Research in this
context can be broadly understood as the learning process and the associated investigative tools
employed for policy and action (Potter and Subramanian, 1998).
On the other hand, the role of research in development arenas can also be discussed from a
policy angle (Laws, et al., 2005). Policy research in development begins with an issue or
question, evolves through a research process in which alternative policy actions for dealing with
the problem are developed, implemented and evaluated against pre-implementation conditions
(Dukeshire and Thurlow, 2002). In this respect, policy investigations are vital to evaluate the
impact of existing policies and propose for policy change if the current policy did not meet
anticipations. The finding of policy research may be used as a justification for policy change in
the context of competing policy stances by indicating not only the need for change, but also by
outlining the content and the direction of change (Potter and Subrahmanian, 1998).
Research in Development Arena Page 3
Thus, research in development is part of “the policy cycle”. At every stage of policy
development research is undertaken either to improve the quality of policy decisions or to
evaluate the impact of policies and to justify changes in policy (Thomas, 1998). This
underscores the enormous role research plays in development arena as the development
community reflects on its own policy and practice and also searches for alternative course of
action. Through research organizations not only develop their capacity to deliver developmental
outcomes and become better organizations themselves, but also their ability to influence other
development actors (Pollard and Court, 2005).
Research in Development Arena Page 4
2. Epistemology in Development Research
According to Sumner and Tribe (2004:3), epistemology is ‘the branch of philosophy that is
concerned with the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge and ‘how we know what we know’.
Arguably, research in development studies or any field of inquiry involves some claim about the
world and the power to define reality (Laws et al., 2005). As Sumner and Tribe (2008) noted,
this raises fundamental questions as to what is the nature of reality (ontology), and what can be
known. The responses given to these questions over the course of half a century since
development studies emerged as a discipline has given birth to a range of epistemological
stances.
In this respect Kanbur and Shaffer (2007:3) noted that, ‘differences in epistemological approach
underlie a standard distinction in the philosophy of social science between
empiricism/positivism, hermeneutics/interpretive approaches and critical theory/critical
hermeneutics’. These distinctions are based on three important issues, notably: the way they
understand the nature of reality, define the goal of research, and consider the relationship
between the researcher and the researched (Sumner and Tribe, 2008).
Positivism, whose history can be traced to the logical-positivism school of the early 20 th century,
has a close affinity with the methodology of natural sciences. It came to existence in the context
of the search for a ‘value free’ social science capable of explaining a social phenomenon.
Positivism assumes that a universal ‘truth’ exists and accordingly the objective of any academic
exercise is to search for these ‘truths’. It calls for a quantitative approach, logical reasoning and
empirical evidence capable of being verified through observation. Positivists believe that, the
researcher is an objective and independent actor uninfluenced by his/ her own values and
assumptions (Schwandt, 1994; Sumner and Tribe, 2004).
The non-positivist tradition, which includes interpretvism, philosophical hermeneutics and Social
constructionism, represents an alternative to the positivist epistemological stance in DS. What
unites these approaches is their conviction that social sciences are different in form and purpose
from the natural sciences such that any attempt to replicate the methodology of the natural
sciences is misguided. Ontologically, while radical social constructionists and philosophical
hermeneutics deny the very existence of reality, interpretvism argues for a more nuanced
Research in Development Arena Page 5
understanding of reality which upholds the existence of multiple realities constructed through
dialogue and negotiation (Schwandt, 1994).
Rather than looking at reality through a framework the researcher herself/ himself created, the
non-positivists tradition is aimed at reconstructing the self-understanding of the social being in
the context of human actions, interpretation and shared meaning. They allege that, human action
is different from the movement of physical objects in that the former involves intention and
meaning (Schwandt, 1994). They also dismissed the possibility of an objective reality
independently from human experiences as the observers view point affects what is observed at
every level. Accordingly, the best that the social sciences can do is to account for this multiple
and negotiated truths through the involvement of the researcher and the researched (Sumner and
Tribe, 2004). In doing so, they stress up on the need to build on local knowledge and the
perspective of the poor as an important element of development research (Chambers, 2010).
Having critically analyzed the positivist and the non-positivist epistemological foundations, I
believe that the latter is more appropriate for development research for the following reasons. At
the very outset, it is questionable whether an independent and objective reality exists regarding
issues of development. It is also questionable whether many of the issues involved in
development policy and practice could be understood without reference to the immediate context
in which development work takes place.
Positivism, owing to its technocratic and top-down orientation, tends to downplay contextual
factors and power dynamics in development research. The enterprise of development, as
understood today, is a guided process of social change. It entails a decision about a “better
tomorrow”. However, what constitutes a better tomorrow is not only subjective but also
contentious. Development is a multi-actor process in which multiple actors with divergent
interests, who rarely agree on what is a desirable development policy, are involved. The
existence of different perspectives requires the negotiation of ideas, as the decisions to be taken
are subject to conflicting interests, which I believe the social constructionist tradition better
addresses this concerns.
Research in Development Arena Page 6
3. Boundary Setting in Development Research
Development work is mostly carried out in the context of complex realities which cannot be
adequately understood without resort to compartmentalization and boundary setting. Boundaries
are ideals that guide thinking and practice in development. In any development work boundaries
play a considerable role by separating the important from the less important. However, there are
no hard and fast rules as to how boundaries should be delineated. Among the many questions
raised in this regard, some of the most important are who should set the boundary? Is objectivity
possible and if so how? Are we looking for one objective truth or multiple negotiated truths?
How do we account for this reality? Who should participate? There are no easy answers to these
questions as they raise broader ontological and epistemological issues (Blackmore and Ison,
1998).
In their day-to-day work, development practitioners make a decision that involves some form of
boundary setting exercise. Among the many decisions they make, some of the most important are
how and when to use research in their work. These decisions are embedded in certain
epistemological and ontological assumptions that inform the purpose of the investigation
(Blackmore and Ison, 1998). This has been clearly illustrated by chambers (2010) in his
discussion of ‘the things’ and ‘the peoples’ paradigm, who seems to associate positivism with
former and the non-positivist tradition with the latter.
As Laws, et al. (2003) argued, there are two approaches to boundary setting in development
research, viz. the engineering approach and the participatory approach. This categorization
broadly coincides with ‘the things’ and ‘people paradigm’ dichotomy chambers (2010) proposed.
In the engineering approach, the power to define a social problem is the prerogative of a
recognized expert. The purpose of research is to acquire an informed understanding the problem
better and to effect policy changes in light of the findings (Laws, et al., 2003).
In this framework, development work is carried out in the context of closed boundaries in which
people at the receiving end of the research are defined as passive recipients. The “reality” as to
what works and what does not, who should involve and who should not is pre-defined in a top-
down fashion (Chambers, 2010). Once an “expert” with a monopoly of knowledge puts the
magic plan in place, modifications are seldom considered as reality is assumed to be stable or
independent from changing views and conditions on the ground (Blackmore and Ison, 1998).
Research in Development Arena Page 7
However, scholars working form the participatory research tradition question the elitist and top-
down orientation of the blueprint approach. They argue that there are complex realities in
development work that cannot be adequately captured by this approach. Neither there are
agreements on the nature of the problem nor does policy change automatically result from
research. In the participatory research tradition, ordinary people are considered to be actors and
research is aimed at empowering them. Research is basically considered as an instrument
through which the ideas of the people are solicited and incorporated (Laws, et al. 2003)..
A development work is mostly undertaken under conditions of time and resource scarcity in
which policy decisions have to be made quickly and at times with limited resources and data
(Thomas, 1998). Consequently, the definition of when a research approach is appropriate and
which method to use depends up on the values of those making the decision (Laws et al. 2003).
Often, professionalism constrains the choices made in this regard and also the belief about how
change should take place. Whichever way the research is conducted one had to be conscious
about the framework in which decisions about research are made ((Blackmore and Ison, 1998)
In development work boundaries of research and knowledge are in a state of flux requiring
continuous conceptualization and reconceptualization of development policy and practice in light
of changing circumstances. In this regard I agree with Blackmore and Ison (1998:50) who
argued that, development work should move away from ‘[…] the notion of projects as closed
systems to towards more open systems’. Particularly, in the developing world context where
many people do not write and read, development research benefits from a participatory research
approach than the engineering approach (Laws, 2003). Moreover, if the very purpose of
development is to change the reality of the people at the receiving end of the policy, participation
of the poor is not only a means to achieve an informed understanding of development, but also
an end in itself. Given that development research is part and parcel of a dynamic social process
the maintenance of open and permeable boundaries requires a continuous process of
reconceptualization of boundaries (Blackmore and Ison, 1998). In this respect, I strongly believe
that, the participatory and bottom-up approach of the ‘people’s paradigm’ best the nature of DS.
This becomes especially truer in the context of the failure of development policy informed by the
‘things paradigm’ in the 1970’s and 1980’s (chambers, 2010).
Research in Development Arena Page 8
4. Competing Conceptions of Validity in Development Studies
As Hammersley (quoted in Winter, 2000:3) argued, ‘[a]n account is valid or true if it represents
accurately those features of the phenomena that it is intended to describe, explain or theorize’. In
the same vein, Maxwell (2005) defined validity as the relationship of once conclusion to reality.
Rigor in this context refers to ‘the ability to back once conclusion by strong evidence’ (Thomas,
1998:12). The issues surrounding the nature of validity and the mechanism through which rigor
is maintained in social research is a subject of heated debate (Winter, 2000). The answer to this
question time and again has pitted the positivist/ quantitative approach and the
non-positivist/qualitative approach to development research.
Within the positivist tradition, validity is considered to be the result of rigorous application of
‘the scientific method’ (Seale, 1999), which involves empirical evidence, measurement and
quantification (Winter, 2000). For proponents of qualitative research, the notion of a single,
static and objective truth is a myth. Instead, research has to account for multiple and negotiated
truths discernable from a series of individual and group accounts and personal experiences
(Winter, 2000; Maxwell, 2005; Sumner and Tribe, 2004).
While some qualitative researchers acknowledge the necessity of having some qualifying criteria
to judge the validity of research, others have rejected the notion of 'validity' as entirely
inappropriate (Seale, 1999; Winter, 2000). Nevertheless, the necessity of having some measure
of validity in a research seems to be widely accepted both in quantitative and qualitative
enquiries. In this respect Sumner and Tribe (2008) identified four areas, viz. validity, reliability,
replicability and generalizability against which the quality of social research is appraised.
Nevertheless, in the qualitative tradition still consensus is lacking as to the means by which
validity is ensured (2000; Maxwell, 2005; Seale, 1999).
As Maxwell (2005) argued, the measure of validity check in quantitative researchers is ex-ante
as researchers usually plan in advance to address validity threats. This is primarily accomplished
by specifically defining the concept indicator (construct validity) on the basis of which data is
collected (Seal, 1999). In quantitative research, internal validity refers to whether the findings the
research relate to the issue under investigation. The measure of external validity is the extent to
which the results can be generalized and thus applied to other populations (Winter, 2000). In
quantitative research, thus, the finding of a research is valid if the above criteria are fulfilled.
Research in Development Arena Page 9
Unlike quantitative research whose validity depends upon the strict observance of pre-set
standardized rules, the validity measures of qualitative research involve a vast array of
techniques which will be used in the course of the research process. The validity of the research,
it is argued, resides with the nature of the actors, the purposes of the research and
appropriateness of the processes involved. Thus, although qualitative researchers care about the
internal validity of their research, they fall short of establishing cause and effect. Furthermore,
external validity is not an importance criterion of quality as research findings are not expected to
be generalizable to wider population in qualitative research (Winter, 2000; Maxwell, 2005).
Research in Development Arena Page 10
5. Choice of Research Methods: Which, When and How?
Broadly speaking research methods in social sciences are divided in to quantitative and
qualitative. The basic differences between this two research approaches lies in their
ontological/epistemological grounds and in what they attempt to research. In terms of
epistemology quantitative approaches are informed by positivism, whereas qualitative
approaches generally follow the non-positivist tradition. Accordingly, quantitative research
focuses on what can be measured or quantified, while qualitative research is aimed an in depth
description of the unquantifiable social aspects of the world (Winter, 2000; Kanbur and Shaffer
2007).
The choice of methods in development studies are dictated by the type of research questions at
hand (Potter and Subramanian, 1998; Sumner and Tribe, 2004). According to Sumner and Tribe
(2004), ‘[…] the methodology of the study relates to how methods combine to generate the
research data which forms the response to the research question’. If the goal is to evaluate the
impact of policies for instance quantitative methods are best suited owing to their focus on
standardized criteria for sampling, causality and generalizations. They may not be appropriate,
however, in understanding process. As Rao and Woolcock (2003: 166) argued, ‘many of the
most important issues facing the poor […] cannot be meaningfully reduced to numbers or
adequately understood without reference to the immediate context in which they live’. Scholars
working from qualitative research traditions may have an advantage to address these concerns
(Rao and Woolcock, 2003).
As the information changes from the descriptive spectrum of what and how, to the contemplative
of why and what if, Potter and Subramanian (1998) argued, the information needed to address
them and the method through which they will be accomplished also changes. Accordingly, ‘[…]
descriptive (how does x vary with y?) and explanatory (does x cause y?)’ (Sumner and Tribe,
2004:8) type of research questions are best suited to a quantitative approach. In contrast,
questions that involve the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ aspect of development will be addressed by a
qualitative approach in a better way (Sumner and tribe, 2004).
It appears that, the strengths of one approach potentially complement the weaknesses of the other
and probably this is one of the reasons why the use of mixed method is on the rise in social
research since the 1980’s (Rao and Woolcook, 2003). However, this trend was challenged by
Research in Development Arena Page 11
many scholars working from both traditions. One of the most important arguments raised in this
regard is the argument that research methods carry epistemological commitments which cannot
reconciled. In other words, qualitative and quantitative approaches are based on different
epistemological grounds, values and methods which cannot not adequately mixed in an
overarching research framework (Bryman, 2004).
Nevertheless, the argument for mixing methods, as Bryman (2004) noted, is based on a
pragmatic approach intended to address the strength and weakness of the data collection
techniques of the two approaches. In this regard the standard argument is enclosed in what is
often called triangulation, which stands for the notion that the validity of an argument can be
enhanced by measuring a concept in more than one way (Bamberger, 2004). The mixing of
methods in this sense is meant to overcome ‘[…] the validity weakness in quantitative methods
and the reliability and representative weaknesses of qualitative methods’ (Sumner and Tribe,
2004: 13).
The above discussion generally underscores that both quantitative and qualitative methodologies
have their own strong and weak points. Thus, choice of any research approach will involve some
trade-off between the strength and the weakness of the two approaches (Sumner and Tribe,
2004). This establishes a pragmatic ground for employing mixed methods in which one method
will be in the service the other at the data collection level. Methodological pluralism is the
whole-mark social research and this trend is should be welcomed in so far as some issues are
better addressed by one approach than the other. In my view in a discipline like development
studies where the problems of development and the solution they demand are context specific, a
qualitative approach is more suitable than that of pure quantitative approach. This is because a
pure quantitative approach has the tendency of downplaying the concerns of the poor and the
underprivileged owing to its focus on the measurable aspect of development. However, the data
collection tools and the descriptive statistical packages of the quantitative approach might be
employed by qualitative researchers to improve the validity of their findings.
Research in Development Arena Page 12
Conclusion
This paper has provided a synthesis of the role of research in development areans. The first
section of the paper expolored the role research plays in development polciy and practice. In this
regard the paper has demonstrated the role research plays in development policy and pratice by
defining alternative policy and courses of actions for dealing with practical problems in day to
day development work. The second and the third sections adressed the the broader issues of
research epistemology and boundery setting in development. In the fouth and fifth sections an
attempt was made to show how research epistemologies influence boundery setting, the choice of
research methods and the issues of validity and rigour in development research.
Having analyzed the strength and the pitfalls each of the dominant epistemological and
methodological approaches in development research, the paper concludes by making an
argument for a non-positivist/qualitative paradigm characterized by participatory approach and
in-depth analysis of social reality. In my view, in a discipline like development studies where the
problems of development and the solution they demand are context specific, a qualitative
approach is more suitable than that of pure quantitative approach. This is because a pure
quantitative approach has the tendency of downplaying the concerns of the poor and the
underprivileged owing to its focus on the measurable aspect of development. Particularly, in the
developing world context where many people do not write and read, development research
benefits more from a qualitative approach than a quantitative approach. Moreover, if the very
purpose of development is to change the reality of the people at the receiving end of policy,
participation of the poor is not only a means to achieve an informed understanding of
development, but also an end in itself.
Research in Development Arena Page 13
References
Bamberger, M. (2000) “Lessons Learned and Guidelines for the Use of Integrated Approaches”
in: Bamberger, M. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research in development Studies,
Washington, D.C., The World Bank: 145-164.
Blackmore, C. and Ison, R. (1998) ‘‘Boundaries for Thinking and Action’’, in: Thomas, A.,
Chataway, J. and Wuyts, M. (eds.) Finding out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and
Development, London, Sage Publications, 41-66.
Bryman, A. (2004) ‘‘Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research’’, in: Bryman, A. (ed.)
Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 451-465.
Chambers, R. (2010) ‘‘Paradigms, Poverty and Adaptive Pluralism’’ Working Paper No. 344,
Institute of Development Studies, UK.
Dukeshire, S. and Thurlow, J. (2002) “Understanding the Link Between Research And Policy”,
http://www.ruralnovascotia.ca/documents/policy/research%20and%20policy.pdf (last consulted,
October, 21 2012).
Kanbur, R. and Shaffer, P. (2007) ‘‘Epistemology, Normative Theory and Poverty Analysis:
Implications for Q-Squared in Practice’’, World Development, 35(2): 183-196.
Laws, S., Harper, C. and Marcus, R. (2003) Research for Development: A Practical Guide,
London, Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005) ‘‘How Might You be Wrong’’, in: Maxwell, J. A. (ed.) Qualitative
Research Design, An Interactive Approach, London, Sage Publications, 105-116.
Research in Development Arena Page 14
Potter, S. and Subrahmanian, R. (1998) ‘‘Information Needs for Policy Change’’ in: Thomas, A.,
Chataway, J. and Wuyts, M. (eds.) Finding out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and
Development, London, Sage Publications, 19-39.
Rao, V. and Woolcock, M. (2003) ‘‘Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in
Program Evaluation’’, in: Bourguignon, F. J. and Silva, L. P. D. (eds.) The Impact of Economic
Policies on Poverty and Income Distribution: Evaluation Techniques and Tools, New York,
Oxford University Press, 165-190.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994) ‘‘Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry’’ in: Denzin, N.
K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry, 2nd edition, London, Sage
Publications, 189-213.
Seale, C. F. (1999) ‘‘Guiding Ideas’’ in: Seale, C. F. (ed.) The Quality of Qualitative Research,
London, Sage Publications, 32-50.
Sumner, A. and Tribe, M. (2004) ‘‘The Nature of Epistemology and Methodology in
Development Studies: What Do We mean by Rigour?’’ Conference Paper, Development Studies
Association, London.
Sumner, A. and Tribe, M. (2008) International Development Studies: Theories and Methods in
Research and Practice, London, Sage Publications.
Thomas, A. (1998) ‘‘Introduction’’ in: Thomas, A., Chataway, J. and Wuyts, M. (eds.) Finding
out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and Development, London, Sage Publications, 1-17.
Winter, G. (2000) “A comparative discussion of the notion of 'validity' in qualitative and
quantitative research”, The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 4(3/4),
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html (last consulted: 24 October 2012).
Research in Development Arena Page 15
Research in Development Arena Page 16