Search Results

This chapter summarizes the methods available for collecting data about people's motivations for natural resource use, thus providing information on the social and economic facets of sustainability. The key methods covered include questionnaire surveys, participatory methods, direct observations, experimental economics, cost-benefit analysis and the use of existing databases such as government records. The emphasis is on effective sampling in order to provide representative quantitative results, but qualitative methods for understanding resource users' motivations are also covered. Research on people can cause significant harm if not carried out sensitively, and ethical issues are examined, outlining the steps needed to avoid any negative impacts of the research. Understanding social and economic sustainability generally requires a case-specific combination of techniques, and a set of case studies is used to illustrate a range of possible approaches.

The sixth and seventh chapters that make up Part II of the book consist of one practical and much narrower application of the capability approach, namely, a discussion of how economic analysis (cost‐benefit analysis) and systematic qualitative information on human impacts can be combined in order to assess the relative effectiveness of particular development activities in expanding human capabilities. This seventh chapter comprises case studies of three small Oxfam activities in Pakistan on which both cost‐benefit analysis and the further assessment of impacts were applied. The methodology described in Ch. 6 was developed, and these case studies were conducted, over nine months of field research in Pakistan with non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) that undertake income generation activities among poor communities using participatory methods. The aim was to develop a participatory method for evaluating development activities (at different stages of implementation) that field staff could implement themselves, and that would facilitate the kind of self‐direction and scrutiny of values issues advocated by Amartya Sen's capability approach. The three case studies were of women's income generation activities in Pakistan: loans for goat‐rearing, involving the local NGO the Rural Women's Welfare Organization; adult literacy and community development—the Khoj literacy activity project; and rose cultivation, involving the Marvi Women's Organization in the village of Arabsolangi, Sindh.

This chapter studies children and young people in families. Throughout most of the twentieth century, psychology and its associated field of child development were lead disciplines in the study of children and childhood, just as psychology led the way in youth studies. In the 1980s and early 1990s, interest in childhood as a field of study was already firmly established among Scandinavian and US social scientists; the UK was a relative latecomer to the field. These social scientists afforded children ‘conceptual autonomy’, identified children as a distinct group in society, and viewed childhood as socially constructed. They considered children as social actors within a diversity of social contexts, not only as family members. The approach of Danish researcher Jens Qvortrup and his colleagues was path breaking. It drew attention to three social processes shaping children's lives: institutionalisation, familialisation, and individualisation. The chapter then considers the use of participatory research methods in childhood research.

This chapter outlines the mixed-methods methodology used in the research in Uganda. It explains the original features of the research design in order to enable others to understand, adapt, and replicate this approach. The work in Uganda had a number of defining features. First, it established a sound contextual understanding of the research area, sequentially undertaking both qualitative and quantitative research, beginning with semi-structured interviews, focus groups, transect walks, and participant and non-participant observation. Second, on the basis of this in-depth understanding, a survey across the selected sites was designed and implemented based on original sampling methods, which resulted in an unprecedented dataset of over 2000 respondents. A key feature was the use of participatory research methods: the research team that was built and trained included peer researchers and enumerators from within the refugee communities. The chapter reflects on these methods and their strengths and weaknesses.

The conclusion of the book moves from consideration of specific examples of involvement to reflect on the extent to which such developments as a whole can be considered to have led to a transformation in policy and services, and to have contributed to the achievement of social justice for those who use health and social care services. It suggests what we have learnt that might contribute to the positive realisation of aspirations for such practices. This chapter approaches this topic from rather different perspectives; from a position as a health practitioner then researcher committed to participatory methods; the other as a social scientist who has both studied user involvement and user movements, and been an ally of user and carer group and involvement initiatives. The chapter reflects on how these different perspectives influence thinking about this topic and considers the value of critical engagement between academics, practitioners and service users as a means of developing both practice and understanding.

This chapter explores how journey mapping as a qualitative research method allows young people on the edge of society to reflect upon and make sense of their engagement in different youth projects. The method provides the young people with the time, space and means to explore the participatory activities they engage in and to map the multiple ways they play into the often messy, multi-sensual and frictional youth life on the edge of society. This approach to journey mapping is inspired by cultural researcher Roz Stewart-Hall, who developed the method along with other participatory-driven visual methods in a critique of how project evaluation seldom carried any meaningful insights into what makes a difference to the participants in different projects as well as in broader explorations of what it means to be a young person on the edge of society (Hall, 2005; Hall, 2015).

The conclusion offers suggestions for incorporating the research conclusions into policy and future study. The book’s findings on community relationships suggest that women’s cooperatives, a development practice for empowerment, and problem solving in low-income international communities must account for the potential for abuse within these relationships. Community-based participatory methods, frequently utilized in public health and celebrated in anthropology, should be adapted for populations that, despite shared poverty and health risks, are highly fragmented. Healthcare policy could build on the health-seeking strategies commonly employed by women in slums. Finally, several methodological recommendations and future research directions are offered.

Ward looks at changing family structures in modern society, in this case Britain, and asks the theoretical questions: how might turning points help public-private analyses?; what constitutes a turning point?; who has the right to define turning points? Ward takes a material discursive approach, and applies it to the biographic-narrative participatory method. A life story interview and a stage two analytic interview were conducted with nine women between the ages of 26 and 49 who identify as lesbian. Aiming to ascertain respondents’ starting points, Ward examines the narratives of lesbians in terms of their imagined life course trajectories, experienced contradictions, and their agentic responses. While she argues that turning points provide a useful focus of analysis in research that seeks to explore the interaction between public and private discourses and identity, she also contends that we need to consider ethically whether scholars, in contrast to participants, have the right to define turning points.