PROMEDIO DE LOS PUNTAJES DE LOS ESTUDIANTES DE 3ER. GRADO DE LA PRIMARIA EN LA PRUEBA DE LECTURA LLECE/UNESCO

Any researcher engaging in the task of appraising poverty more broadly, and selecting capabilities more precisely, has to face not only the discussion surrounding the appropriate determination of poverty, but also the discourse about the methodology or methodology mix being chosen to gather, analyse and interpret poverty related information. Each research methodology has implicit assumptions about the nature of reality (ontology) and the best way of accessing that reality to formulate knowledge

about it (epistemology). Albeit a direct derivation from the chosen methodology on the researcher‟s ontological and epistemological stance should be perceived as an inadequate venture, it is, however, as well inaccurate to deny any interdependence. The following chapter will thus aim to present the gist of the various epistemological and ontological viewpoints of the quantitative and qualitative research approaches105. This will firstly serve to frame a research context which draws the strengths of each position, and secondly will ground the appraisals to come on a solid philosophical foundation.

Quantitative poverty assessments are usually associated with the philosophy of

logical positivism (Christiaensen, 2001: 70). In its broadest sense this school of thought

is a “rejection of metaphysics” (Trochim, et al. 2007), in which the belief is hold that there exists a single, external reality (Christiaensen, 2001: 70). The world and the universe are deterministic, that is, they operate by laws of cause and effect. Logical positivism establishes an objective ontology by asserting that all phenomena are observable and exist independently of the observer (Trochim, et al. 2007). Hence, the task of the (neutral) analyst is to capture that reality as closely as possible by increasing the likelihood of gaining objective and unbiased answers (Christiaensen, 2001: 70). Discerning the laws of cause and effect is done by empiricism, using deductive

reasoning to postulate theories and to validate and verify hypothesises (Trochim, et al.

2007). The study design (experimental, quasi-experimental, representative sampling) and structure is thus based on (non-contextual) statistical principles, standardization and quantification of the data collected. Applying these principles intends to guarantee representativeness, to permit generalization of results and “to solve problems of bias and variability in the interviewer-interviewee interaction” (Tourangeau, 1990 in Christiaensen, 2001: 70). Logical positivism, which holds its origins in the 1920s and

105

For a deeper discussion which goes beyond the emblematic vignette of this chapter please see Kanbur and Shaffer (2006).

1930s in post-World War I Vienna, became widely popular within social sciences in the 1950s and 60s as it offered the prestige of scientific status. The analyst turned into a provider of “objective” information to the decision maker.

“Qualitative research methods on the other hand are rather associated with the interpretivist and constructivist tradition” (Christiaensen, 2001: 70) of post-positivism (Trochim, et al. 2007). Emerging as a response to logical positivism, post-positivists essentially believe in the absence of a shared, single reality and in the presence of a multitude of realities (Christiaensen, 2001: 70). Whereas logical positivists aim to ultimately uncover what is believed to be the one universal reality, post-positivists see the goal of science in the mere pursuit of grasping the multitudes of reality (House, 1994; Hedrick, 1994 in Christiaensen, 2001: 70), although this is never achievable (Trochim, et al. 2007). It is further believed that knower and known cannot be separated and that thus human knowledge is conjectural. Observations and measurements are fallible and theory is revisable. Observations are fallible, because they are theory-laden. Scientists are inherently biased by their cultural upbringing, experiences, etc. and hence not able to produce value-free science (Trochim, et al. 2007). To understand the topic of interest it is thus necessary to study it in its context. The purpose of inquiry methods is “to involve many stakeholders and to obtain multiple perspectives on the subject of research and the meaning of concepts, through semi- or unstructured, exploratory data collection” (Christiaensen, 2001: 70), hence trhough inductive reasoning (Trochim, et al. 2007). The triangulation across multiple (errorful) sources and observations turns the process of truth seeking from an individual task into a “social phenomenon”. By criticising each other‟s work within and across epistemic communities, knowledge goes “through a process of variation, selection and retention”. This “natural selection of

only possibility to minimise inherent errors by individual analysts. Knowledge which survives this scrutiny has “adaptive value” and is probably the closest human beings can get in approaching objectivity and understanding reality (Trochim, et al. 2007 (Italics and bold in original)). In the constructivist tradition it is also believed that “the analyst should not only aim to provide and facilitate an understanding of the subject, but also to bring about change and empowerment of the stakeholders involved in the process” (Christiaensen, 2001: 71).

House summarised the differences between the quantitative and qualitative paradigm as dichotomies of “objectivity versus subjectivity, fixed versus emergent categories, outsider versus insider perspectives, facts versus values, explanation versus understanding, and single versus multiple realities”. To explore the subject of interest through one particular methodological approach the analyst yields implications of a certain ontological assumption about reality (1994 in Christiaensen, 2001: 71). This poses essential questions any researcher should face before, during and after exploring his/ hers subject of interest. Christiaensen (2001) sets up six questions concerning the assessment of poverty:

What do we want/allow our findings about a population's poverty to be? Are we assuming and looking for an objective, singular and universal kind of poverty which we can be externally defined? Or is poverty in essence a context specific, subjective reality to be defined by each subject herself? Is feeling poor, being poor? Or can we be poor, without even knowing it (Christiaensen, 2001: 71)?

The discussion above aimed at illustrating that ontological and epistemological considerations play their part in the choice of a research methodology. Analysing poverty through quantitative or qualitative studies is thus not only a question of methodological preference, but also about the analyst‟s perception of the nature of reality and the way of accessing it (though this is only a necessary, not a sufficient condition in the causality between philosophical worldviews and applied research

methodologies. Many practical considerations for the choice of methodology are influential as well, including, among others, human resources, financial constraints and time)106. Despite the outlined fundamental philosophical dichotomies, a growing epistemic community is canvassing for a combination of quantitative and qualitative inquiry techniques in the design of studies and in the collection of data. However, in using various techniques from both traditions the researcher needs to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses each approach has in revealing a particular kind of reality and “watch the extent to what the use of a particular inquiry methods confounds his findings about the reality he actually wants to obtain” (Christiaensen, 2001: 73). Turning the reader‟s attention to this fundamental philosophical issue was the aim of this sub-point, which will be picked and rounded up at a later stage of this chapter. For now however, the analysis will strive to elaborate deeper on the Q-squared research debate by posing two basic questions: Why combining and How?