Advertisement

Methodologies in Development Studies: An Overview

  • Laura Camfield
Chapter
Part of the EADI Global Development Series book series (EADI)

Abstract

The interdisciplinary nature of Development Studies makes it hard to indicate a ‘signature’ methodology. Different development challenges bring different ideas about what the problem is (ontology) and how researchers can know about it (epistemology), as well as different research methods. The differential weight placed on the data generated by certain methods and lack of critical attention to how it was actually produced shows the importance of a focus on methodology. The chapter focuses on the types of sample and combinations of methods typically used by researchers within Development Studies to construct credible arguments around questions of policy or practice. It asks what people who generate and use Development Studies research could do to increase its rigour and relevance and how the political economy of development research funding militates against this.

References

  1. Attanasio, O., et al. (2009). Human Development and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-167-25-0124. Swindon, UK: ESRC.Google Scholar
  2. Bédécarrats, F., Guérin, I., & Roubaud, F. (2015). The Gold Standard for Randomized Evaluations: From Discussion of Method to Political Economy (Working Papers DT/2015/01, DIAL [Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation]).Google Scholar
  3. Camfield, L. (Ed.). (2014). Research in International Development: A Critical Review. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Camfield, L., Duvendack, M., & Monteith, W. (2016). ESRC-DFID Joint Fund for Poverty Alleviation Research Evidence ‘Synthesis Research Award (ESRA) for Research Methods’. Report, International Development: University of East Anglia. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/research/international/research-methods-esra-report/. Accessed 27 November 2017.
  5. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Copestake, J. (2015). Whither DS? Reflections on Its Relationship with Social Policy. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 31, 100–113.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21699763.2015.1047396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummings, S., & Hoebink, P. (2017). Representation of Academics from Developing Countries as Authors and Editorial Board Members in Scientific Journals: Does This Matter to the Field of DS? The European Journal of Development Research, 29(2), 369–383.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-016-0002-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eyben, R. (2013). Uncovering the Politics of ‘Evidence’ and ‘Results’: A Framing Paper for Development Practitioners. Sussex: IDS.Google Scholar
  9. Ferguson, J. (2005). Anthropology and Its Evil Twin: ‘Development’ in the Constitution of a Discipline. In M. Edelman & A. Haugerud (Eds.), The Anthropology of Development and Globalization: From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism (pp. 140–154). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Guijt, I., & Roche, C. (2014). Does Impact Evaluation in Development Matter? Well, It Depends What It’s for. The European Journal of Development Research, 26(1), 46–54.  https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2013.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Irwin, S., & Winterton, M. (2011). Qualitative Secondary Analysis in Practice: An Extended Guide (with Reference to Concepts, Contexts and Knowledge Claims) (Timescapes Working Paper). http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/resources-for-ql-research/publications.php. Accessed 16 November 2017.
  12. Lewis, D. (2009). International Development and the ‘Perpetual Present’: Anthropological Approaches to the Re-historicization of Policy. European Journal of Development Research, 21, 32–46.  https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2008.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marcus, A., & Asmorowati, S. (2006). Urban Poverty and the Rural Development Bias. Journal of Developing Societies, 22(2), 145–168.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X06065800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  15. Prowse, M. (2008). Locating and Extending Livelihoods Research (BWPI Working Paper 37).Google Scholar
  16. Roelen, K., & Camfield, L. (2015). Mixed Methods Research in Poverty and Vulnerability: Sharing Ideas and Learning Lessons. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sumner, A., & Tribe, M. (2004). The Nature of Epistemology and DS: What Do We Mean by ‘Rigour’? (Unpublished paper, presented ESRC DSA Postgraduate Training Workshop). Abbey Centre, London, 14 December 2004.Google Scholar
  18. Wiles, R., Pain, H., & Crow, G. (2010). Innovation in Qualitative Research Methods: A Narrative Review (NCRM Working Paper Series, 03/10). Swindon, Borough of, GB, Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
  19. Woods, M. (2009). Rural Geography: Blurring Boundaries and Making Connections. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), 849–858.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508105001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Camfield
    • 1
  1. 1.University of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations