Combining the Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Poverty Measurement and Analysis

H. White
{"title":"Combining the Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Poverty Measurement and Analysis","authors":"H. White","doi":"10.1596/0-8213-3955-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper highlights the key characteristics of the quantitative and qualitative approaches to poverty measurement and analysis, examines the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and analyzes the potential for combining the two approaches in analytical work on poverty. The main conclusion of this paper is that sole reliance on either only the quantitative approach or only the qualitative approach in measuring and analyzing poverty is often likely to be less desirable than combining the two approaches. This is because there are limits to a purely quantitative approach as well as a purely qualitative approach to poverty measurement and analysis. Each approach has an appropriate time and place, but in most cases both approaches will generally be required to address different aspects of a problem and to answer questions which the other approach cannot answer as well or cannot answer at all. The need to combine the two approaches in analytical work on poverty cannot be overemphasized. There are three key ways to combine the quantitative and qualitative approaches: (i) integrating methodologies; (ii) confirming, refuting, enriching, and explaining the findings of one approach with those of the other; and (iii) merging the findings of the two approaches into one set of policy recommendations. Some ways in which the integration of methodologies can be achieved are: using quantitative survey data to determine the individuals/communities to be studied through the qualitative approach; using the quantitative survey to design the interview guide of the qualitative survey; using qualitative work to determine stratification of the quantitative sample; using qualitative work to determine the design of the quantitative survey questionnaire; using qualitative work to pretest the quantitative survey questionnaire; and/or using qualitative analyses to refine the poverty index. 'Confirming' or 'refuting' are achieved by verifying quantitative results through the qualitative approach. 'Enriching' is achieved by using qualitative work to identify issues or obtain information on variables not obtained by quantitative surveys. 'Examining' refers to generating hypothesis from qualitative work for testing through the quantitative approach. 'Explaining' involves using qualitative work to understand unanticipated results from quantitative data. In principle, each of these mechanisms may operate in either direction -- from qualitative to quantitative approaches or vice versa. 'Merging' involves analyzing the information provided both by the quantitative approach as well as the qualitative approach to derive one set of policy recommendations. The quantitative and qualitative approaches are being increasingly combined in analytical work on poverty, but there remains scope for further strengthening the links between them.","PeriodicalId":341672,"journal":{"name":"Development and Comp Systems","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"105","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development and Comp Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-3955-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 105

Abstract

This paper highlights the key characteristics of the quantitative and qualitative approaches to poverty measurement and analysis, examines the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and analyzes the potential for combining the two approaches in analytical work on poverty. The main conclusion of this paper is that sole reliance on either only the quantitative approach or only the qualitative approach in measuring and analyzing poverty is often likely to be less desirable than combining the two approaches. This is because there are limits to a purely quantitative approach as well as a purely qualitative approach to poverty measurement and analysis. Each approach has an appropriate time and place, but in most cases both approaches will generally be required to address different aspects of a problem and to answer questions which the other approach cannot answer as well or cannot answer at all. The need to combine the two approaches in analytical work on poverty cannot be overemphasized. There are three key ways to combine the quantitative and qualitative approaches: (i) integrating methodologies; (ii) confirming, refuting, enriching, and explaining the findings of one approach with those of the other; and (iii) merging the findings of the two approaches into one set of policy recommendations. Some ways in which the integration of methodologies can be achieved are: using quantitative survey data to determine the individuals/communities to be studied through the qualitative approach; using the quantitative survey to design the interview guide of the qualitative survey; using qualitative work to determine stratification of the quantitative sample; using qualitative work to determine the design of the quantitative survey questionnaire; using qualitative work to pretest the quantitative survey questionnaire; and/or using qualitative analyses to refine the poverty index. 'Confirming' or 'refuting' are achieved by verifying quantitative results through the qualitative approach. 'Enriching' is achieved by using qualitative work to identify issues or obtain information on variables not obtained by quantitative surveys. 'Examining' refers to generating hypothesis from qualitative work for testing through the quantitative approach. 'Explaining' involves using qualitative work to understand unanticipated results from quantitative data. In principle, each of these mechanisms may operate in either direction -- from qualitative to quantitative approaches or vice versa. 'Merging' involves analyzing the information provided both by the quantitative approach as well as the qualitative approach to derive one set of policy recommendations. The quantitative and qualitative approaches are being increasingly combined in analytical work on poverty, but there remains scope for further strengthening the links between them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
定量与定性相结合的贫困测量与分析方法
本文强调了定量和定性方法在贫困测量和分析方面的主要特点,考察了每种方法的优缺点,并分析了将这两种方法结合起来进行贫困分析工作的潜力。本文的主要结论是,在衡量和分析贫困时,仅仅依靠定量方法或定性方法往往可能不如将这两种方法结合起来更可取。这是因为纯数量方法和纯质量方法对贫穷的衡量和分析都有局限性。每种方法都有合适的时间和地点,但在大多数情况下,通常需要两种方法来解决问题的不同方面,并回答其他方法无法回答或根本无法回答的问题。在关于贫穷的分析工作中将这两种方法结合起来的必要性怎么强调都不为过。将定量和定性方法结合起来有三个关键方法:(i)综合方法;(二)用一种方法的发现来证实、反驳、充实和解释另一种方法的发现;(三)将两种方法的研究结果合并为一套政策建议。可以实现方法一体化的一些方法是:利用定量调查数据确定要通过定性方法研究的个人/社区;运用定量调查设计定性调查的访谈指南;用定性工作确定定量样本的分层;利用定性工作确定设计定量调查问卷;采用定性工作对定量调查问卷进行预测;和/或使用定性分析来完善贫困指数。“确认”或“反驳”是通过定性方法验证定量结果来实现的。“丰富”是通过使用定性工作来确定问题或获得定量调查无法获得的变量信息来实现的。“检验”是指从定性工作中产生假设,然后通过定量方法进行检验。“解释”包括使用定性工作来理解定量数据中意想不到的结果。原则上,这些机制中的每一个都可以在两个方向上运行——从定性方法到定量方法,反之亦然。“合并”涉及分析定量方法和定性方法提供的信息,以得出一套政策建议。在关于贫穷的分析工作中,数量方法和质量方法越来越多地结合在一起,但仍有进一步加强它们之间联系的余地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Canaries and Vultures: A Quantitative History of Monetary Mismanagement in Brazil Trade Liberalisation and Poverty in Nepal: A Computable General Equilibrium Micro Simulation Analysis A Test of the Controversial Assumptions in the McKinnon-Shaw Hypothesis versus Neo-Structuralist Propositions : An Empirical Test From a Field Survey in the Congo Slave Redemption When it Takes Time to Redeem Slaves Construction of CPIX Data for Forecasting and Modelling in South Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1