Towards a phenomenology of poverty: Defining poverty through the lived experiences of the ‘poor’

Abstract

This article argues for the importance of defining poverty from the perspective of those who experience poverty. How poverty is defined and operationalised is critical to policy and academic debates, as this is intertwined with explanations, causes, and possible solutions. Yet current definitions are typically provided by the ‘non-poor’. What we lack is knowledge of whether these definitions of the concept are similar to or different from those understood and conceptualised by those experiencing poverty. Australian poverty research has typically relied on panel data, administrative data, or surveys to construct and define ‘poverty’. We propose that Australian poverty scholars embrace phenomenology as a way to highlight the voices of those experiencing poverty.

Keywords

Australia lived experiences phenomenology poor poverty

How poverty is defined and operationalised is critical to policy and academic debates, as this is intertwined with explanations, causes, and possible solutions; definitions of poverty are value laden (Lister, 2004). Indeed, definitions of poverty or, as Desmond and Western (2018) observe, how we describe its nature, cannot be decoupled from how societies try to solve it, if at all. Definitions of poverty, moreover, are mediated through the disciplinary and theoretical lens of the observer: be it economic, sociological, psychological, or developmental (van der Merwe, 2006). The Australian poverty debate has largely used an economic lens and has ‘proceeded without giving explicit consideration to the meaning of poverty’ (Saunders, 2000: 15). As Saunders and Naidoo (2018: 336) point out, ‘Australian poverty research is dominated by an income-based, poverty-line approach that is divorced from the experience of poverty and disconnected from the reality of people’s lives and living conditions.’ For many sociologists, the term ‘poverty’ is typically used in relation to money: for example, income levels (Deeming, 2010; Halladay, 1972); financial stress (Higgs and Gilleard, 2006); monetary and economic measures alongside sociological measures of deprivation (Deeming and Gubhaju, 2015); and material wellbeing (Walter, 2002). Contributing to the knowledge generated through economic perspectives, this article illustrates the importance of examining poverty as experienced by individuals. We propose the utility of a phenomenological conceptualisation of poverty that is grounded in the first-hand experiences of individuals who experience poverty and thus has the potential to drive a social and policy agenda that meaningfully reflects their perspectives and sense-making.

Definitions of ‘poverty’

The meaning of poverty, according to Saunders (2000: 15), can be understood in two ways: (i) a definitional sense, which focuses on what poverty means to those who study it; or (ii) an outcome-orientated sense, which explores what poverty means to those who experience it. In order to advise on the latter, we must first understand the former. In both policy and scholarly discourse, the term ‘poverty’ has been viewed through an economic lens and has referred almost solely to income level; the oft-referred-to poverty line is relatively easy to measure and is used to compare groups both within and across countries (Martinez Jr and Perales, 2017). These poverty lines were originally based on definitions of poverty as absolute poverty, where poverty is understood as lacking sufficient income to meet basic needs (Lister, 2004). Those with incomes below this line were thus considered to be poor (Johnson, 1987). For international comparisons, the World Bank has developed an absolute international poverty line (IPL), based on purchasing power parity (PPP), which was revised to US$1.90 per day in 2015. By comparison, Australia’s national poverty line is US$28.14 – almost 15 times as much as the IPL (Jolliffe and Prydz, 2016). However, although it is intended to be global in scope (World Bank Group, 2017: 14), this measurement looks only at the minimum required for an individual’s basic consumption, and thus is generally not considered a useful tool for determining poverty levels in high-income countries (Roser and Ortiz-Ospina, 2017). In high-income countries, such as Australia, allowances are generally made in poverty-line estimates for household composition and thus consumption. However, other non-wage or salary financial resources (e.g. savings, government welfare benefits, loans, or borrowing) are typically more substantial than in many low-income countries, and therefore measurements based on consumption are not necessarily equal to income (Roser and Ortiz-Ospina, 2017; for further discussion on measurements of income and consumption, see Atkinson, 2015: 35–7). In addition, it is generally considered more useful in high-income countries to use relative rather than absolute means for measuring poverty (Johnson, 1996; Lister, 2004). Relative measurements of poverty contain a comparative element, which means they relate to other people in the same society at the same point in time (Lister, 2004). As such, high-income countries, including those in the Irganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and in the European Union, use a measurement of between 50 and 60% of the country’s median income, rather than referring to the IPL (ACOSS and Social Policy Research Centre, 2016; Saunders, 2015b). This approach also means that poverty lines – or who counts as poor – rise and fall with changes in a country’s income (ACOSS and Social Policy Research Centre, 2016).

The Henderson Poverty Line (HPL), first developed in 1973, is still used in Australia to determine income support payment rates. It sets the benchmark level of disposable income necessary to support the basic needs of a so-called typical family – a household consisting of two adults, one of whom is working, with two dependent children (Johnson, 1987, 1996). Levels for alternative family compositions are determined using equivalence scales. The HPL is reviewed quarterly by the Melbourne Institute and, as of December 2017, set at $973.26 per week (Melbourne Institute, 2018). Those with household incomes below this threshold are considered to be experiencing poverty. Researchers and non-government organisations in Australia typically refer to those earning either 50% or 60% below the median income level as experiencing poverty. Indeed, based on this measurement (i.e. earning below 50% of the median income level), almost 3 million people (or 13.3% of Australia’s population) were considered poor in 2014 (ACOSS and Social Policy Research Centre, 2016). This increases to just over 4.5 million people (or 24.9% of Australia’s population) if the measurement is based on the European standard of 60% of median income level (ACOSS and Social Policy Research Centre, 2016). Focusing solely on household income levels, however, does not accurately reflect the realities of disadvantage – those on low incomes may be able to access other resources, or those on higher incomes might experience other forms of disadvantage, such as poor health or social exclusion (Derby, 2015: 4; McLachlan et al., 2013). Recognising these shortfalls, the term ‘poverty’ has been relegated to the sidelines, trapped in its narrow income-driven definition, and concepts around multidimensional poverty, deprivation, disadvantage, and social exclusion have gained prominence in the poverty and social policy literatures.

British sociologist Peter Townsend’s work inspired poverty researchers to (re)conceptualise poverty in more sociological and relative terms (Lister, 2004; van der Merwe, 2006). Although viewing poverty as a relative concept was not a new idea (Ringen, 1988), Townsend defined poverty not only as a lack of income or material goods, but also a deficit in access to resources and thus the right to engage in – and be included as part of – broader society. In particular, Townsend’s deprivation approach forced the question about whether people’s living standards were consistent with prevailing social norms (Saunders, 2015a; Townsend, 1979). The deprivation approach identifies the essential items needed to maintain an acceptable standard of living, and those who cannot access them are considered to be experiencing deprivation (for a recent discussion of the deprivation approach, see Saunders and Naidoo, 2018). The significance of Townsend’s deprivation approach notwithstanding, it is a consensus view of the community that is used to establish what items are essential, and the consensus is rarely informed by community members who live in poverty. Nevertheless, Townsend’s work is ground-breaking by refuting the belief that poverty could be conceptualised or understood without reference to and understanding of the context in which it is found (Hick, 2014). Townsend’s approach thus popularised the notion of relative deprivation – although this has still largely had an income-driven focus in the way it has been operationalised (Hick, 2014). Almost three decades later, economists Anand and Sen (1997) proposed a multidimensional approach to understanding and comparing levels of poverty, recognising that the criteria might differ between nations. They argued that for ‘those who are forced to live deprived lives … the lack of progress in reducing the disadvantage of the deprived cannot be “washed away” by large advances – no matter how large – made by the better-off people’ (Anand and Sen, 1997: 1). We must, therefore, understand the different dimensions of deprivation and poverty that affect their lives, beyond simply income levels.

There is an overlap between the relative deprivation approach and the seminal work of Amartya Sen (1999). Development as Freedom (Sen, 1999) further developed what is now referred to as the capability approach. Seen through a developmental lens, poverty can be defined as a lack of economic, political, social, transparency, and/or security freedoms. These freedoms, according to Sen (1999), affect one’s ability to participate or take part in society. The argument then follows that we should focus on what people can be and do, not just on what they (don’t) have (Hick, 2014). Some have argued that this approach differs from poverty perspectives because it takes on more of an ethical perspective, asking ‘what is important’ rather than ‘what is needed’ (Hick, 2014). The constraints that impede participation in society may be more than simply a lack of resources. Other factors, such as discrimination, also affect one’s ability to participate.

The concept of social exclusion further builds on Sen’s freedoms and Townsend’s deprivation approach (Lister, 2004). Social exclusion is typically defined in terms of relational rights, and ‘necessarily involves a relationship with the wider society or subsections of society from which an individual or group is excluded’ (Lister, 2004: 88). Therefore, as with deprivation, there cannot be an ‘absolute’ version of social exclusion; it can only be understood and measured with respect to the specific society of which an individual is a member (Bossert et al., 2007). Its importance in poverty discourse is exemplified in a special communication from the Commission of European Communities (CEC), which highlighted the need to include social exclusion in any and all discussions concerning poverty (CEC, 1992). Experiences of social exclusion may include a lack of social integration or participation, and may prevent access to certain rights or privileges available to other members of a society or group (Lister, 2004). In this way, social exclusion’s relativity is consistent with relative poverty, whereby poverty relates to a lack of access to the minimum goods and services compared to others in a society (Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos, 2002). Its claim to legitimacy, however, centres on the notion that it is a more multidimensional – and thus more comprehensive – concept than poverty, again constraining poverty to narrow conceptualisations of income or wealth (CEC, 1992; Levitas et al., 2007; Nolan and Whelan, 1996). In Australia, the Melbourne Institute operationalised social exclusion to include 25 indicators across 7 domains (Scutella et al., 2009), and this approach has been employed using panel data (e.g. Kostenko et al., 2009; Scutella et al., 2013).

More recently, scholars have argued that these three concepts of poverty, deprivation, and social exclusion are different but overlapping, and that together they cover the concept of social disadvantage. Saunders et al. (2007: 81, italics in original) argue that ‘deprivation and social exclusion are fundamentally different in a conceptual sense from poverty as conventionally defined in terms of low-income, [and they are also] different in practical terms’. Indeed, the authors define these concepts as follows:

Poverty is a situation in which someone’s income is so inadequate as to preclude them from having an acceptable standard of living. It exists when people’s actual income is below a poverty line. Deprivation exists when a lack of resources prevents people from accessing the goods and activities that are essential. Following international convention, it is defined as an enforced lack of socially perceived essentials. Social exclusion exists when people do not participate in key activities in society. Whereas deprivation focuses on what people cannot afford, what matters for exclusion is what people do not do. (Saunders et al., 2007: viii, italics in original)

Poverty, social exclusion, and deprivation are often combined under the term ‘disadvantage’. Those individuals and households experiencing deep and persistent disadvantage are of particular interest to both academics and policymakers, especially in identifying who is most at risk and how to break the cycle of disadvantage or poverty (Derby, 2015; McLachlan et al., 2013). Thus, the way that we conceptualise and subsequently measure poverty not only affects how we understand the challenge(s), but also influences the types of solutions or policy actions needed to address it (Saunders, 2015a). As has been demonstrated above, although the concept of poverty has been meaningfully extended to take account of the consequences of deprivation vis-à-vis other people in society, the question that remains largely unanswered through these debates is how is poverty defined and understood by the people about whom these texts are written?

Poor versus non-poor

Before proceeding, clarification of what we mean by the ‘poor’ versus the ‘non-poor’ is required. It is well established that the experience of poverty may be temporary or entrenched (see, for example, McLachlan et al., 2013; Wilkins, 2017: 36). People move in and out of poverty over the life course, and only a minority experience deep and persistent disadvantage (McLachlan et al., 2013). This article does not distinguish between individuals experiencing temporary versus entrenched poverty, however there is certainly scope for any conceptualisation arising from phenomenological research to be further refined for different groups. We would encourage further research to do so. Of course, this still raises the question of how to identify those who have (or have not) experienced poverty. Given the challenges in defining poverty identified above, we propose that, in line with the phenomenological approach, it is useful for individuals to self-identify as poor – or not – as this will help us to further understand how the term ‘poverty’ is defined and how people who see themselves as poor make meaning of their poverty and identity. We acknowledge that this approach is difficult operationalise; as Ringen (1988: 360) pointed out 30 years ago, ‘many who are not poor may well feel poor [and] some who are poor may not feel poor’. Nonetheless, we hope that this article will start a discussion about how to identify those experiencing poverty more accurately and appropriately.

As with those who are poor or have previously experienced poverty, the non-poor are also heterogeneous. There may be individuals who would be classified as non-poor who have previously experienced poverty, or who may experience poverty in the future. For the purposes of this article, we use the term ‘non-poor’ to refer to individuals – or organisations – who are engaged in discussions about poverty rather than currently experiencing poverty. This includes academics and researchers, policy makers, political advisers, and politicians, among other groups. Indeed, we would classify ourselves as non-poor. These groups have an interest in defining poverty, and this definition is then operationalised to determine a range of social policies and programs, including eligibility for welfare benefits.

Australian poverty research

Poverty-related research in Australia has largely focused on the different factors that can affect whether – and how – an individual experiences poverty. Geography, or the locale of where one lives, has particularly dominated Australian poverty research (Derby, 2015; Pawson et al., 2015; Vinson, 2007; Vinson and Rawsthorne, 2015). Employment opportunity and wages have also been prominent in Australian social policy and poverty research (e.g. Gregory and Sheehan, 1998; Saunders, 2006; Scutella and Wooden, 2004; Watts, 2010), as has housing availability and homelessness (e.g. Burke, 1998; Parsell and Marston, 2012; Yates and Bradbury, 2010). Finally, educational attainment, both P-12 schooling or tertiary education opportunities, has become increasingly recognised as an important factor in whether an individual is likely to experience poverty (e.g. Callander et al., 2012; Foster and Hawthorne, 1998; McNamara et al., 2019). However, these studies have been focused – and necessarily so – towards specific manifestations of poverty, rather than exploring how people experience and make sense of poverty itself.

Other aspects of Australian poverty research have extensively drawn on panel and administrative data in order to understand and identify trends and the prevalence of poverty. Kostenko et al. (2009), for instance, used data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey to measure the extent of poverty and social exclusion in Australia (see also Martinez Jr and Perales, 2017; Saunders and Naidoo, 2018). Azpitarte and Bodsworth (2015) similarly used HILDA survey data to determine the socioeconomic factors that affect the likelihood of someone remaining in poverty. Vinson (2007) and Vinson and Rawsthorne (2015) drew on national census data as well as state and territory human service agencies to identify the most prominent factors of disadvantage. The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) used the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Survey of Income and Housing (SIH) data to identify trends of people living below the poverty line and/or groups most at risk of poverty (ACOSS and Social Policy Research Centre, 2016). While these sources can provide invaluable data for identifying trends, panel and administrative data typically omits or under-represents those most at risk of social exclusion, including homeless people, Indigenous Australians, and recent immigrants (Kostenko et al., 2009: 12). As such, conceptualisations of social exclusion derived from this data do not allow for the perspectives, experiences, and meaning making of those who are defined as living in poverty.

Similarly, surveys designed to capture perceptions of poverty, rather than identifying prevalence or trends, have typically gained general perspectives rather than the perspectives of those experiencing poverty. Saunders and Matheson (1992) analysed data from a survey, originally undertaken by Professor Elim Papadakis, which tried to understand community perceptions of poverty. The authors’ analyses focused on determining a ‘consensual poverty line’, particularly drawing on respondents’ answers to the key minimum income level needed to ‘make ends meet’. They found that there was little consensus on a minimum income level among the sample, and the amount varied depending on the actual income of respondent, the number of adults and children in their family, and the age of the respondent (Saunders and Matheson, 1992). However, due to the survey sample, the authors’ analyses focused on general perspectives rather than specifically targeting the perspectives of those experiencing poverty. In 2000, the Brotherhood of St Laurence conducted telephone interviews with 400 Australian adults to further understand how Australians perceived the causes of and responses to poverty (Johnson, 2000a). The report analysed attitudes towards poverty, the severity of poverty, and who was responsible for reducing poverty based on the participants’ demographics (age, gender, highest level of educational attainment, household income level, resident locale, and nation of birth). The Brotherhood of St Laurence found that that were some differences in perceptions, impacts, and causes of poverty between genders, household income levels, and residential location (e.g. urban versus rural, as well as between states) (Johnson, 2000a). Again, however, the sample was designed to be representative of the adult population of the geographical areas covered and did not specifically target those experiencing poverty.

The SPRC has also conducted a number of surveys to try to understand how poverty can be reconceptualised. The SPRC surveyed Department of Social Security (DSS, now Department of Social Services) clients in the 1990s about which option best described poverty to them (Saunders, 1998: 13–15; see also Saunders, 2000). However, the survey design meant that the possible responses were income-driven and, as such, there was limited space for alternative meanings to be sought. Less than a decade later, Saunders and his colleagues (2007) conducted the Community Understanding of Poverty and Social Exclusion (CUPSE) survey. This survey was developed based on information obtained through focus groups with welfare clients and, although the CUPSE survey was designed to obtain the perspectives of the general population, rather than targeted towards those experiencing poverty, the researchers did compare the views between general community members (approximately 2700) and welfare service users (approximately 700). The authors found that while there were differences in levels of deprivation and economic exclusion between the two groups, several of the essential items were consistent across both groups, demonstrating that there was some consistency across the community and welfare recipients (Saunders et al., 2007). The Poverty and Exclusion in Modern Australia (PEMA) survey built on the finding of the CUPSE survey; however, while it did not distinguish between ‘poor’ and ‘non-poor’ respondents, the findings identified that views on essential items – a substantial meal at least once a day, ability to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor, and warm clothes and bedding if cold – had remained stable (Saunders and Wong, 2012). However, both the CUPSE and the PEMA studies found that there was ‘relatively little overlap between those with incomes below the poverty line and those identified as being either deprived or excluded’ (Saunders and Wong, 2012: 1; see also Saunders et al., 2007).

In 2010, the Salvation Army (2010: 34–47) commissioned Roy Morgan Research to undertake telephone interviews with 669 Australians. This research was targeted at understanding the attitudes of the broader Australian community, rather than targeting those experiencing poverty. While more than half of the respondents thought that taking action to reduce poverty was important or should be a high priority, there was a high level of polarisation between those who thought structural issues were to blame for poverty and those who blamed individual actions (Salvation Army, 2010: 37). However, while the survey did obtain general attitudes towards poverty and those experiencing poverty, the survey did not distinguish between those who had or currently were experiencing poverty and those who had never experienced poverty. The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) includes questions relevant to perceptions of poverty, but once again respondents are randomly drawn from the electoral roll and thus the research is not specifically targeted towards the perspectives of those experiencing poverty. In addition, those experiencing poverty (e.g. individuals experiencing homelessness, recent migrants, youth) are unlikely to be on the electoral role and, as such, are unlikely to be recruited into the survey. Thus, although there have been attempts to do otherwise, much of this survey research seeks to understand perceptions of poverty, including what should be done about it, as defined by the non-poor.

In an attempt to address this gap, there has been some research in Australia to understand poverty from the view of those experiencing poverty (e.g. Murphy et al., 2011; Peel, 2003; Taylor, 2014; Taylor and Challen, 1998; see also Saunders et al., 2007, described above). Many of these qualitative studies were conducted around the turn of the 21st century, and were led by non-profit or charity organisations (such as the Brotherhood of St Lawrence) who drew on their existing client base for participant recruitment (e.g. Catholic Social Services, 2001; Johnson, 2000b, 2002; Salvation Army, 2010). In contrast to the research described above, these studies drew on qualitative research methods – particularly ethnography, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews – with those individuals who were experiencing poverty. The intimate and in-depth nature of qualitative research methods, particularly ethnography, helped the researchers to capture the perspectives of those experiencing poverty. All of these studies found that those experiencing poverty had developed a number of strategies to help them survive but felt left out of the decisions that most affected them (e.g. Peel, 2003). Those experiencing poverty spoke about the inability to afford certain material possessions – or, as Murphy et al. (2011) call it, being left out – and how this affected not only how they saw themselves but also how they thought others saw them (Taylor and Challen, 1998; see also Saunders et al., 2007). This is an argument consistent with Walker (2014), where stigma and shame appear to be prevalent among those experiencing poverty, and also with the findings from the Salvation Army (2010), where respondents felt sorry for those experiencing poverty and thought those experiencing poverty would be stressed or depressed. It is clear, therefore, that there have been ‘far too few qualitative studies that seek to improve understanding of how poverty is experienced, how people cope and adapt, and its consequences’ (Saunders, 2015b: 24).

Thus, while the past few decades have seen an increase in qualitative research in Australia examining manifestations of poverty, such as homelessness, unemployment, poor health, crime rates, or social exclusion (see, for example, Parsell and Phillips, 2014), the focus has rarely been on understanding what poverty means for those who are categorised as impoverished. The need to understand the lived experiences of those experiencing poverty, in its many forms, is thus one that needs to be urgently addressed.

Towards a phenomenological approach

Phenomenology offers a frame through which to understand the outcome-orientated view of poverty from the perspective of those experiencing it. While phenomenology originated in philosophy, it has broad application in the social sciences. It asks us to view the experience of our participants as a source of knowledge, with ‘experience’ as a broad and rich concept (Crotty, 1996). Phenomenology requires us to separate what we understand, and what we directly experience, in order to determine the difference between the two. This difference is important, as we need to understand how people make meaning of a phenomenon before we can address it. As Lister (2004: 51) states, individuals ‘who experience poverty do so as active agents who will react in different ways and forge their own lives within the structural constraints facing them’. Phenomenology offers a framework through which to better understand these agents. Viewing human beings as active agents, phenomenology aims to ‘emphasize the importance of examining the world, including social reality, just as we experience it in everyday life’ (Overgaard and Zahavi, 2009: 93).

While phenomenology itself originates in the work of Hegel (1977 [1807]), Heidegger (1996 [1927]), and Merleau-Ponty (2012 [1945]), phenomenological sociology is based in the work of Alfred Schutz (Crotty, 1996; Overgaard and Zahavi, 2009). Schutz (1962) argued that we need to move beyond what Max Weber regarded as ‘meaningful action’ and examine the fundamentals behind social meaning. Phenomenology overlaps with ethnographic and interpretive sociology in that phenomenology considers the individual as the primary unit of analysis, and that their actions must be located in the context in which that individual acts and interacts. However, it focuses more deeply on trying to understand ‘how social reality structures itself in our immediate consciousness and experience of it’ (Crotty, 1996: 145). It asks us to ‘call into question … our manner of seeing the world and being in the world’ (Wolff, 1984: 192). Phenomenologists emphasise examining the social world as we experience it in everyday life, questioning our assumptions and expectations (Overgaard and Zahavi, 2009). In this way, phenomenological analysis can be viewed as double hermeneutic – the participant is trying to make sense of their own world, and the researcher is trying to understand the participant’s sense-making (Smith and Osborn, 2008). Phenomenology thus encourages strong reflective thought and reflexivity from the researcher (Larrabee, 1990). Participants are seen as co-researchers rather than subjects (Pollio et al., 1997), which also disrupts the interviewer–interviewee dynamic commonly used in qualitative interviewing. This requires a different way of approaching research, one that contrasts with paradigms that are more positivistic in nature.

In Australia, phenomenology has been used extensively in public health and nursing (e.g. Cartledge et al., 2018; King et al., 2017; Liersch-Sumskis, 2013; Watts et al., 2013). In sociology more broadly, it has been recently used to explore meanings of motherhood among teen mothers (Aparicio et al., 2015); how third culture kids transition into life in Australia (Purnell and Hoban, 2014); and Muslim civil society engagement with their communities (Amath, 2015), among others. However, it has yet to be widely applied to poverty sociological research in Australia. The only example of a similar approach in Australia is that of Mark Peel, who conducted his research for The Lowest Rung in the mid 1990s. In the two decades since, there has been no similar research – at least none widely published. An exception is the work of Sue Turale (1998), however, her doctoral research drew on an operationalised definition of poverty based on income levels; that is, a definition of poverty as defined by the non-poor.

Internationally, phenomenology has been used to explore the lived experiences of individuals and families who have experienced – or are currently experiencing – poverty. Karen van der Merwe (2006), for instance, conducted phenomenological interviews across seven provinces in South Africa. In each instance, van de Merwe found that participants felt that a series of events led to their poverty (rather than a specific instance), and that being poor became a label that obscured the identity of the individual (an experience similar to that made by individuals in Australia experiencing homelessness, see Parsell, 2018). Kayleigh Garthwaite (2016) has drawn on this approach to understand the phenomena of food bank usage in the UK. Using a mix of participant observation and in-depth interviews over four years, she found that fear, embarrassment, and shame manifested among foodbank users. Also in the UK, Lisa Russell (2016) explored the lives of young people in post-industrial Britain through participant observations. She followed 24 youth over 2.5 years, ensuring that the data was driven by the participants. In the USA, leading poverty sociologists have drawn on phenomenology (both implicitly and explicitly) to draw out the perspectives and lived experiences of those experiencing poverty. Matthew Desmond (2016) sought to understand housing evictions and the social processes in which evictions are embedded in Milwaukee through a long-term ethnography, involving participant observation and interviews with both tenants and landlords. Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer (2015) conducted extensive interviews with individuals living on less than US$2.00 per day. All of the empirical examples highlighted above delivered research findings which reflected the experiences of their participants. However, while there are cases of such research being undertaken in Australia (e.g. Parsell, 2018), this type of research is not the norm.

There is, therefore, definitely scope for more phenomenological research to be undertaken in Australia, particularly within poverty sociological research. This could take the form of researchers exploring particular types of poverty, such as urban or rural poverty, or poverty experienced by particular ethnic or cultural groups. Researchers could spend extended periods engaging with particular individuals or communities experiencing poverty, moving beyond surveys or one-off semi-structured interviews to identify and understand the various factors that impact not only on the prevalence or on intergenerational elements of poverty, but how different aspects and types of poverty are experienced on a daily basis. This type of data would provide a much deeper and more nuanced understanding of the experiences of poverty, which may help us to develop more appropriate and realistic social and policy agendas for specific groups that reflect their realities of poverty. An approach to examining poverty that understands people who are poor as active agents (Lister, 2004) opens up opportunities to tease out how people actively make sense of poverty, themselves, and their circumstances. It is this understanding of the meaning of poverty – the phenomenological understanding – that can be drawn on to change our systems, policies, and practices for addressing poverty. Rather than focusing on the individual to blame them for their poverty and to change them (Katz, 1986), or ignore their agency to counter conservative critiques (Wilson, 2012), a phenomenological understanding of what poverty means from those (self-)defined as impoverished can be used to ensure change in what we do for the poor so they can engage with and benefit from social interventions in ways that make sense to them.

Concluding thoughts

Through this article, we aim to encourage more poverty sociologists in Australia to move beyond prevalence and manifestations evident through panel data and to embrace the deep and rich data available through phenomenologically focused research. This is not to say that the current panel data or semi-structured interview-based research should stop – far from it. Instead, we argue that this additional rich data can help provide context. There is no shortage of calls to combine approaches to poverty research and measurement (see, for example, Feilzer, 2010; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Johnson et al., 2007; Saunders and Naidoo, 2018), and data obtained through these different methods can influence each other. Nevertheless, phenomenological research, really understanding the lived experiences of those whose lives we study, in a way that goes beyond surveys, interviews, and focus groups, is necessary to gain a full picture and understanding of poverty.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Laura Simpson Reeves was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Stipend and RTP Fee-Offset Scholarship.

ORCID iDs

Laura Simpson Reeves

Shuang Liu

Author biographies

Laura Simpson Reeves is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland. Her research focuses on poverty and inequality, particularly using visual methods to encourage open dialogue and critical thought. Her PhD explores cultural perceptions of ‘the good life’ among the Pasifika community in Brisbane.

Cameron Parsell is an associate professor at the School of Social Science at the University of Queensland. His primary area of research is poverty, homelessness, social services, and charity aimed at addressing social disadvantage. He has written about identity, the meaning of home, the international transfer of homelessness/housing policy, and housing as a means to foster autonomy and self-determination.

Shuang Liu is an associate professor at the School of Communication and Arts at the University of Queensland. She researches and publishes in the areas of immigration, multiculturalism, acculturation, intercultural conflicts, ageing migrants, and intergroup relations, as well as the effects of media on how people perceive themselves and others.

References

ACOSS and Social Policy Research Centre (2016) Poverty in Australia. Sydney: Australian Council of Social Services.

Amath

(2015) ‘Australian Muslim Civil Society Organisations: Pathways to Social Inclusion’, Journal of Social Inclusion 6(1): 6–34.

Anand

Sen

(1997) ‘Concepts of Human Development and Poverty: A Multidimensional Perspective’, pp. 1–20 in Poverty and Human Development: Human Development Papers 1997. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

Aparicio

Pecukonis

E.V.

O’Neale

(2015) ‘“The Love that I Was Missing”: Exploring the Lived Experience of Motherhood among Teen Mothers in Foster Care’, Children and Youth Services Review 51: 44–54.

Atkinson

(2015) Inequality: What Can Be Done? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Azpitarte

Bodsworth

(2015) ‘Persistent Disadvantage: A Duration Analysis Based on HILDA data’, pp. 33–48 in Addressing Entrenched Disadvantage in Australia. Melbourne: Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA).

Bossert

D’Ambrosio

Peragine

(2007) ‘Deprivation and Social Exclusion’, Economica 74(296): 777–803.

Burke

(1998) ‘The Poverty of Homelessness’, pp. 293–313 in Fincher

Nieuwenhuysen

(eds) Australian Poverty: Then and Now. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

Callander

E.J.

Schofield

D.J.

Shrestha

R.N.

Kelly

S.J.

(2012) ‘Sufficient Education Attainment for a Decent Standard of Living in Modern Australia’, Journal of Social Inclusion 3(1): 7–20.

10.

Cartledge

Feldman

Bray

J.E.

Stub

Finn

(2018) ‘Understanding Patients’ and Spouses’ Experiences of Patient Education Following a Cardiac Event and Eliciting Attitudes and Preferences towards Incorporating Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training: A Qualitative Study’, Journal of Advanced Nursing 74: 1157–69.

11.

Catholic Social Services (2001) ‘Surviving Not Living’: Disadvantage in Melbourne. Melbourne: Catholic Social Services Victoria.

12.

CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1992) Towards a Europe of Solidarity: Intensifying the Fight against Social Exclusion, Fostering Integration. COM(92) 542. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

13.

Crotty

M.J.

(1996) Phenomenology and Nursing Research. South Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone.

14.

Deeming

(2010) ‘Determining Minimum Standards of Living and Household Budgets’, Journal of Sociology 47(1): 17–34.

15.

Deeming

Gubhaju

(2015) ‘The Mis-measurement of Extreme Global Poverty: A Case Study in the Pacific Islands’, Journal of Sociology 51(3): 689–706.

16.

Derby

S.-J.

(2015) ‘CEDA Overview’, pp. 11–20 in Addressing Entrenched Disadvantage in Australia. Melbourne: Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA).

17.

Desmond

(2016) Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the Amercian City. New York: Crown Publishers.

18.

Desmond

Western

(2018) ‘Poverty in America: New Directions and Debates’, Annual Review of Sociology 44(1): 305–18.

19.

Edin

Shaefer

H.L.

(2015) $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

20.

Feilzer

M.Y.

(2010) ‘Doing Mixed Methods Research Pragmatically: Implications for the Rediscovery of Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4(1): 6–16.

21.

Foster

Hawthorne

(1998) ‘Poverty, Education and Training’, pp. 203–19 in Fincher

Nieuwenhuysen

(eds) Australian Poverty: Then and Now. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

22.

Garthwaite

(2016) ‘Stigma, Shame and “People Like Us”: An Ethnographic Study of Foodbank Use in the UK’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 24(3): 277–89.

23.

Gregory

Sheehan

(1998) ‘Poverty and the Collapse of Full Employment’, pp. 103–26 in Fincher

Nieuwenhuysen

(eds) Australian Poverty: Then and Now. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

24.

Halladay

(1972) ‘Predicting Poverty among Large Families in Sydney’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 8(October): 141–52.

25.

Hegel

G.W.F.

(1977 [1807]) Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26.

Heidegger

(1996 [1927]) Being and Time. Albany: State University of New York Press.

27.

Hick

(2014) ‘Poverty as Capability Deprivation: Conceptualising and Measuring Poverty in Contemporary Europe’, European Journal of Sociology 55(3): 295–323.

28.

Higgs

Gilleard

(2006) ‘Departing the Margins: Social Class and Later Life in a Second Modernity’, Journal of Sociology 42(3): 219–41.

29.

Johnson

(1987) ‘The Calculation and Use of Poverty Lines in Australia’, Australian Economic Review 20(4): 45–55.

30.

Johnson

(1996) ‘Poverty Lines and the Measurement of Poverty’, Australian Economic Review 29(1): 110–26.

31.

Johnson

(2000a) Poverty in Australia: Measuring Community Attitudes. Fitzroy: Brotherhood of St Laurence.

32.

Johnson

(2000b) The Invisible Australians: Community Understandings of Poverty. A Qualitative Research Study among Diverse Community Groups. Fitzroy: Brotherhood of St Laurence.

33.

Johnson

(2002) Poverty in Australia: Developing Community Dialogue. Report of a Qualitative Research Study. Fitzroy: Brotherhood of St Laurence.

34.

Johnson

R.B.

Onwuegbuzie

A.J.

(2004) ‘Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come’, Educational Researcher 33(7): 14–26.

35.

Johnson

R.B.

Onwuegbuzie

A.J.

Turner

L.A.

(2007) ‘Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(2): 112–33.

36.

Jolliffe

Prydz

E.B.

(2016) Estimating International Poverty Lines from Comparable National Thresholds. Policy Research Working Paper 7606. Washington, DC: World Bank.

37.

Katz

(1986) In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America. New York: Basic Books.

38.

King

A.C.

Oprin

Woodroffe

Boyer

(2017) ‘Eating and Ageing in Rural Australia: Applying Temporal Perspectives from Phenomenology to Uncover Meanings in Older Adults’ Experiences’, Ageing and Society 37: 753–76.

39.

Kostenko

Scutella

Wilkins

(2009) Estimates of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Australia: A Multidimensional Approach. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

40.

Larrabee

M.J.

(1990) ‘The Contexts of Phenomenology as Theory’, Human Studies 13(3): 195–208.

41.

Levitas

Pantazis

Fahmy

Gordon

Lloyd

Patsios

(2007) The Multidimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion. Bristol: Department of Sociology and School for Social Policy, Townsend Centre for the International Study of Poverty and Bristol Institute for Public Affairs, University of Bristol.

42.

Liersch-Sumskis

(2013) A Phenomenological Examination of the Meaning of Resilience as Described by People Who Experience Schizophrenia. PhD thesis, University of Wollongong.

43.

Lister

(2004) Poverty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

44.

Martinez

Jr Perales

(2017) ‘The Dynamics of Multidimensional Poverty in Contemporary Australia’, Social Indicators Research 130(2): 479–96.

45.

McLachlan

Gilfillan

Gordon

(2013) Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia. Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper. Melbourne: Commonwealth of Australia.

46.

McNamara

Harvey

Andrewartha

(2019) ‘Passports Out of Poverty: Raising Access to Higher Education for Care Leavers in Australia’, Children and Youth Services 97: 85–93.

47.

Melbourne Institute (2018) Poverty Lines: Australia. December Quarter 2017. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.

48.

Merleau-Ponty

(2012 [1945]) Phenomenology of Perception. Abingdon: Routledge.

49.

Murphy

Murray

Chalmers

Martin

Marston

(2011) Half a Citizen: Life on Welfare in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

50.

Nolan

Whelan

C.T.

(1996) Resources, Deprivation, and Poverty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

51.

Overgaard

Zahavi

(2009) ‘Phenomenological Sociology: The Subjectivity of Everyday Life’, pp. 93–115 in Jacobsen

M.H.

(ed.) Encountering the Everyday: An Introduction to the Sociologies of the Unnoticed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

52.

Parsell

(2018) The Homeless Person in Contemporary Society. Abingdon: Routledge.

53.

Parsell

Marston

(2012) ‘Beyond the “At Risk” Individual: Housing and the Eradication of Poverty to Prevent Homelessness’, Australian Journal of Public Administration 71(1): 33–44.

54.

Parsell

Phillips

(2014) ‘Indigenous Rough Sleeping in Darwin, Australia: “Out of Place” in an Urban Setting’, Urban Studies 51(1): 185–202.

55.

Pawson

Hulse

Cheshire

(2015) Addressing Concentrations of Disadvantage in Urban Australia. AHURI Final Report No. 247. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. URL (consulted 27 May 2019): http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/myrp704

56.

Peel

(2003) The Lowest Rung: Voices of Australian Poverty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

57.

Pollio

H.R.

Henley

Thompson

C.B.

(1997) The Phenomenology of Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

58.

Purnell

Hoban

(2014) ‘The Lived Experiences of Third Culture Kids Transitioning into University Life in Australia’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 41: 80–90.

59.

Ringen

(1988) ‘Direct and Indirect Measures of Poverty’, Journal of Social Policy 17(3): 351–65.

60.

Roser

Ortiz-Ospina

(2017) Global Extreme Poverty. URL (consulted 28 May 2019): https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

61.

Russell

(2016) ‘The Realities of Being Young, Unemployed and Poor in Post-industrial Britain’, Power and Education 8(2): 160–75.

62.

Salvation Army (2010) Perceptions of Poverty: An Insight into the Nature and Impact of Poverty in Australia. Blackburn: The Salvation Army Australia Southern Territory Social Programme Department.

63.

Saunders

(1998) Defining Poverty and Identifying the Poor: Reflections on the Australian Experience. SPRC Discussion Paper 84. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre.

64.

Saunders

(2000) ‘Defining Poverty and Identifying the Poor: Reflections on the Australian Experience’, pp. 5–25 in Bradshaw

Sainsbury

(eds) Experiencing Poverty. Aldershot: Ashgate.

65.

Saunders

(2006) A Perennial Problem: Employment, Joblessness and Poverty. SPRC Discussion Paper 146. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre.

66.

Saunders

(2015a) ‘Poverty and Social Disadvantage: Measurement, Evidence and Action’, pp. 21–32 in Addressing Entrenched Disadvantage in Australia. Melbourne: Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA).

67.

Saunders

(2015b) ‘Closing the Gap: The Growing Divide between Poverty Research and Policy in Australia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 50(1): 13–35.

68.

Saunders

Matheson

(1992) Perceptions of Poverty, Income Adequacy and Living Standards in Australia. Reports and Proceedings 99. Kensington: Social Policy Research Centre.

69.

Saunders

Naidoo

(2018) ‘Mapping the Australian Poverty Profile: A Multidimensional Deprivation Approach’, Australian Economic Review 51(3): 336–50.

70.

Saunders

Wong

(2012) Promoting Inclusion and Combating Deprivation: Recent Changes in Social Disadvantage in Australia. SPRC Final Report. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre.

71.

Saunders

Naidoo

Griffiths

(2007) Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre.

72.

Schutz

(1962) Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

73.

Scutella

Wooden

(2004) ‘Jobless Households in Australia: Incidence, Characteristics and Financial Consequences’, Economic and Labour Relations Review 14(2): 187–207.

74.

Scutella

Wilkins

Horn

(2009) Measuring Poverty and Social Exclusion in Australia: A Proposed Multidimensional Framework for Identifying Socio-economic Disadvantage. Melbourne Institute Working Paper 4/09. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.

75.

Scutella

Wilkins

Kostenko

(2013) ‘Intensity and Persistence of Individuals’ Social Exclusion in Australia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 48(3): 273–98.

76.

Sen

(1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

77.

Smith

J.A.

Osborn

(2008) ‘Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis’, pp. 53–80 in Smith

J.A.

(ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. London: Sage.

78.

Taylor

(2014) Life Chances: Stories of Growing Up in Australia. Sydney: The Federation Press.

79.

Taylor

Challen

(1998) ‘Voices of Poverty’, in Fincher

Nieuwenhuysen

(eds) Australian Poverty: Then and Now. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

80.

Townsend

(1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

81.

Tsakloglou

Papadopoulos

(2002) ‘Aggregate Level and Determining Factors of Social Exclusion in Twelve European Countries’, Journal of European Social Policy 12(3): 211–25.

82.

Turale

(1998) Living Below the Poverty Line: A Phenomenological Study of the Experiences of Students of Education at the University of Ballarat. PhD thesis, University of Melbourne.

83.

van der Merwe

. (2006) ‘The Phenomenology of Experiencing Poverty – An Exploration’, TD: Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa 2(1): 131–44.

84.

Vinson

(2007) Dropping Off the Edge: The Distribution of Disadvantage in Australia. Richmond and Canberra: Jesuit Social Services and Catholic Social Services Australia.

85.

Vinson

Rawsthorne

(2015) Dropping Off the Edge 2015: Persistent Communal Disadvantage in Australia. Richmond and Canberra: Jesuit Social Services and Catholic Social Services Australia.

86.

Walker

(2014) The Shame of Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

87.

Walter

(2002) ‘Working Their Way Out of Poverty? Sole Motherhood, Work, Welfare and Material Well-being’, Journal of Sociology 38(4): 361–80.

88.

Watts

M.C.N.C.

Liamputtong

Carolan

(2013) ‘Contraception Knowledge and Attitudes: Truths and Myths among African Australian Teenage Mothers in Greater Melbourne, Australia’, Journal of Clinical Nursing 23: 2131–41.

89.

Watts

M.J.

(2010) ‘How Should Minimum Wages Be Set in Australia?’, Journal of Industrial Relations 52(2): 131–49.

90.

Wilkins

(2017) The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey: Selected Findings from Waves 1–15. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute, University of Melbourne.

91.

Wilson

(2012) The Truly Disadvataged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

92.

Wolff

K.H.

(1984) ‘Surrender-and-catch and Phenomenology’, Human Studies 7(2): 191–210.

93.

World Bank Group (2017) Monitoring Global Poverty: Report of the Commission on Global Poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank.

94.

Yates

Bradbury

(2010) ‘Home Ownership as a (Crumbling) Fourth Pillar of Social Insurance in Australia’, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 25(2): 193–211.