Ahhhhhh! I knew this was the way it's going. After all, my field is dominated by economists. Everyone with a big voice in development is trained quantitatively. Plus, governments, donors, and thinktanks are all pulling for evidence-based policy nowadays, which is heavily slanted towards statistical, nationally-representative, large-scale research. But it's limited! Economics as a field views poverty so narrowly - as a matter of consumption and income. (Consumption because it's easier to measure and can be a more accurate indicator of "wealth" than income.) It may suit a nation to compare poverty trends and dynamics internally, but it can be hard to compare across countries. More concerning, the perspective that welfare is about meeting 2,150 calories neglects other aspects that we should be measuring - like nutritional welfare. As Ravallion put it, we are only measuring consumption deprivation, not nutritional deprivation. Yes, meeting a basic caloric standard is important, but what about making sure people are eating nutritious foods and not predominantly starches?
I have to side with Sen on this... we must look beyond meeting these indicator thresholds and allow people to make decisions which maximize their own happiness. That is, create an environment where individuals are free to pursue the life decisions which make them happy. And there are so many other forms of deprivation aside from consumption that influence poverty. What about vulnerability, human capital investment, systematic factors like intergenerational mobility, economic opportunity, or freedom from tyranny of the government? Economists have a hard time dealing with these difficult questions, like measuring what it is that makes an individual "happy". It's all a numbers game - binary, categorical, discrete... If the data doesn't fit into those forms, or the questions and responses are difficult to capture and analyze, quantitative research is discouraged from pursuing them.
Maybe after everyone shifts to quantitative skills, my mixed-methods will be in greater demand, since no one will be doing qualitative research anymore, haha.
/* Afterthought: Jeremy "Linsanity" is blazing through news and my FB feed. Here's a good article illustrating his feel good story, and for myself, some optimism. I especially love the Judy Garland quote they have: “Always be a first-rate version of yourself, instead of a second-rate version of somebody else.” So true! Must find my own niche. */
I have to side with Sen on this... we must look beyond meeting these indicator thresholds and allow people to make decisions which maximize their own happiness. That is, create an environment where individuals are free to pursue the life decisions which make them happy. And there are so many other forms of deprivation aside from consumption that influence poverty. What about vulnerability, human capital investment, systematic factors like intergenerational mobility, economic opportunity, or freedom from tyranny of the government? Economists have a hard time dealing with these difficult questions, like measuring what it is that makes an individual "happy". It's all a numbers game - binary, categorical, discrete... If the data doesn't fit into those forms, or the questions and responses are difficult to capture and analyze, quantitative research is discouraged from pursuing them.
Maybe after everyone shifts to quantitative skills, my mixed-methods will be in greater demand, since no one will be doing qualitative research anymore, haha.
/* Afterthought: Jeremy "Linsanity" is blazing through news and my FB feed. Here's a good article illustrating his feel good story, and for myself, some optimism. I especially love the Judy Garland quote they have: “Always be a first-rate version of yourself, instead of a second-rate version of somebody else.” So true! Must find my own niche. */
