research in dvelopment areanas

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


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.


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).


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).


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


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.


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).


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).


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.


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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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 dvelopment areanas

Documents