Abstract
Mixed Methods Research in Poverty and Vulnerability is an edited book by Keetie Roelen and Laura Camfield, two internationally recognized researchers with a wide range of quality publications. The volume offers a range of contributions about the use of mixed methods in the research of poverty and vulnerability. The book is a significant effort to create a differentiated narrative about mixed methods and points to a variety of perspectives, arguments and examples. It is an effective antidote for any predetermined ideas about the potential difficulties or drawbacks of mixed methods, particularly when researching poverty and vulnerability. Different chapters present a complete picture, using various examples and complex scenarios, to explain the scope of their use and the potential benefits that may arise from them. Individual chapters introduce readers to an extensive and representative combination of mixed methods, offering an appealing and holistic picture about the benefits of applying mixed methods.
Amongst other things, the book offers detailed analysis of the application of mixed methods to researching vital concepts such as necessities of life (Chapter 2), deprivation and social citizenship (Chapter 3) well-being (Chapters 4 and 10), resilience (Chapter 5) and poverty (Chapter 8). Although much work has already been done on the investigation of these concepts using mixed methods, gaps and challenges persist; in this book we find a mature, extensive and interesting discussion of these gaps and challenges.
The book is helpfully organized into three sections dealing with: (a) mixed methods for poverty measurement, (b) mixed methods in evaluation research and (c) turning research with mixed methods into policy. Each section includes several chapters that address the question of combined methodologies according to these various prisms, as we can see in the following discussion.
The first section includes four chapters that focus on poverty measurements using mixed methods. Chapter 2 shows that the public understanding of necessity is different from both the understanding held by researchers and the way in which the concept is used in questionnaire measurements. Consequently, the authors advise that policymakers and/or researchers should analyze and interpret data with care. I would say that Chapter 3 could usefully have been first in this section, since it presents an interesting account of the evolution of different poverty measures and indicates the importance of considering different contexts. The chapter also explores quantitative and qualitative research work in practice, which helps readers understand the potential weaknesses and strengthens of using mixed methods. In Chapter 4, the argument around the use of mixed methods is not only about distinguishing approaches, but also about achieving consistency of measurement. Using different approaches separately is not wrong, although it might be incomplete. Following the same line of thought presented in Chapter 2, the case study presented here shows that the use of different definitions (of wellbeing, poverty and inequality) can lead to different and even opposite conclusions. So, the argument is that mixed methods can more easily capture specificities and complexities of a certain context. The last chapter of this section (Chapter 5) is more difficult to follow but, nevertheless, is assertive in pointing out what it is (and what it is not) obtained with quantitative and/or qualitative methods.
The second section has two chapters. Chapter 6 shows how the impact of development can credibly be evaluated using mixed methods and mentions some of the potential limitations related to the use of combined methods, including the possibly greater time required for data collection, and the financial costs inherent to this. Chapter 7 stresses that whilst some methods can give us figures, they cannot explain the reasons behind these figures. The case study used in this chapter is about a school feeding scheme, and it is one of the most valuable aspects of this section and, I would say, of the entire book. It is easy to read and contributes to a deep understanding of the potential problems of evaluation. The chapter notes that it is vital to understand all the variables that can be linked to a specific problem, and for impact evaluations to consider how socio-cultural context affects an intervention as well as how an intervention affects a specific scenario.
Finally, the third section, with three chapters, presents the use of mixed methods as a third methodological movement. In Chapter 8, the methodology used in the case study is presented in a detailed and rigorous style. It is interesting to note that new dimensions of poverty were identified here exclusively as a result of using this mixed methodology: these included geographic isolation, domestic violence and teenage pregnancy. In addition, the use of mixed methods by the researchers in their work with local authorities was able to generate solutions that had potential to improve the use of public resources. Chapter 9 presents the Evaluation Quality Assurance System (EQUAS) in a way that is, perhaps, too detailed. The chapter is somewhat mechanical and is not always easy to follow. Despite this, the advantages of the use of EQUAS becomes clear when authors link it with the concepts of internal and external validity. Chapter 10 claims that the reliability of policies and procedures will increase if important concepts related to specific problems are considered in the broader and more inclusive format that mixed methods can offer.
In general, the book is well organized and allows the readers to follow the argument straightforwardly. Potential limitations linked to the use of mixed methods as questions such as those related to time, borderlines and financial support, are absent from the discussion, and there are also some unnecessarily lengthy descriptions. Saying this, I consider Mixed Methods Research in Poverty and Vulnerability a significant, fresh and opportune contribution. All the authors have a wide-ranging knowledge of the case studies presented, and the editors managed to bring forward a compact and coherent book which discusses mixed methods linked to the concepts of poverty and vulnerability.