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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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]).
Camfield, L. (Ed.). (2014). Research in International Development: A Critical Review. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
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.
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.
Eyben, R. (2013). Uncovering the Politics of ‘Evidence’ and ‘Results’: A Framing Paper for Development Practitioners. Sussex: IDS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London: Pluto Press.
Prowse, M. (2008). Locating and Extending Livelihoods Research (BWPI Working Paper 37).
Roelen, K., & Camfield, L. (2015). Mixed Methods Research in Poverty and Vulnerability: Sharing Ideas and Learning Lessons. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
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.
Woods, M. (2009). Rural Geography: Blurring Boundaries and Making Connections. Progress in Human Geography,33(6), 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508105001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Camfield, L. (2019). Methodologies in Development Studies: An Overview. In: Baud, I., Basile, E., Kontinen, T., von Itter, S. (eds) Building Development Studies for the New Millennium. EADI Global Development Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04052-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04052-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04051-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04052-9
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)