REFLECTION ON THE RESEARCH METHODS

Reflection on the Research Methods

Reflection on the Research Methods

The advantages of quantitative approaches to program evaluation are well known. Conducted properly, they permit generalizations to be made about large populations on the basis of much smaller (representative) samples. Given a set of identifying conditions, they can help establish the causality of the impact of given variables on project outcomes. And (in principle) they allow other researchers to validate the original findings by independently replicating the analysis. By remaining several steps removed from the people from whom the data has been obtained, and by collecting and analyzing data in numerical form, quantitative researchers argue that they are upholding research standards that are at once empirically rigorous, impartial, and objective.

In social science research, however, these same strengths can also be a weakness. Many of the most important issues facing the poor their identities, perceptions, and beliefs, for example-cannot be meaningfully reduced to numbers or adequately understood without reference to the immediate context in which they live. Most surveys are designed far from the places where they will be administered and as such tend to reflect the preconceptions and biases of the researcher; there is little opportunity to be "surprised" by new discoveries or unexpected findings. Although good surveys undergo several rounds of rigorous pre-testing, the questions themselves are usually not developed using systematically collected insights from the field. Thus, while pre-testing can identify and correct questions that show themselves to be clearly ill suited to the task, these problems can be considerably mitigated by the judicious use of qualitative methods in the process of developing the questionnaire.

Qualitative methods can also help in circumstances where a quantitative survey may be difficult to administer. Certain marginalized communities, for example, are small in number (the disabled, widows) or difficult for outsiders to access (sex workers, victims of domestic abuse), rendering them unlikely subjects for study through a large representative survey. In many developing country settings, central governments (let alone local nongovernmental organizations or public service providers) may lack the skills and (especially) the resources needed to conduct a thorough quantitative evaluation. Moreover, external researchers with little or no familiarity with even the country (let alone region or municipality) in question often draw on data from context-specific household surveys to make broad "policy recommendations," yet rarely provide useful results to local program officials or the poor themselves. Scholars working from qualitative research traditions in development studies like to proclaim that their approaches rectify some of these concerns by providing more detailed attention to context, reaching out to members of minority groups, working with available information and resources, and engaging the poor as partners in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data (in all its many forms);'

Qualitative approaches on their own, of course, also suffer from a number of important drawbacks. First, the individuals or groups being studied are usually small in number or have not been randomly selected, making it highly problematic (though not impossible) to draw generalizations about the wider ...