Introduction
Poverty sands out to be a social aspect characterized by inadequate resources that are important for fundamental survival. These resources do not qualify to attain minimum living standards levels. The low-income earners wallow in poverty, and they lack access to food, shelter, and clothing. This emanates from the biased distribution of wealth and income within the country and in the global sphere. However, poverty serves as an unequal social aspect because most people of color are the ones who suffer most as compared to the whites (Sensoy Bahar, 2017). It can either be relative or absolute a discussed by the social scientists. In this paper, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed poverty-related research methods will be explored through analysis and comparison of the academic articles focused on poverty.
Methodologies used in Researching Social Aspects of Poverty
The three primary strategies used in researching poverty as a social theme consists of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (Browne & Nash, 2010). Notably, the quantitative approach emphasizes numeric data analysis and objective measurements through surveys, questionnaires, and secondary data. This has been explored by Brott et al. (2019), whose main objective is to offer a solution about the homeless families living in rural set ups.
In comparison, qualitative methodology constitutes collecting and analyzing pictures, language, or audio to comprehend the experiences or opinions. The methods, such as interviews, case studies, and focus groups, are used for this methodology. This can be used to identify the in-depth insights into a context or develop newer ideologies for the research work. This methodology has been clearly illustrated by Daugherty, Birnbaum & Clark (2019) to demonstrate the food insecurity issues for the poverty-stricken students on the campus.
More importantly, sociologists’ mixed-method approach is mostly preferred to demonstrate poverty-related issues (Veronese, Pepe & Vigliaroni, 2019). They tend to capitalize on the advantages of this method and reduce the limitations by adopting qualitative and quantitative methods. The sociologists may choose to broadly adopt a quantitative approach and use the qualitative form to enrich the data by offering extensive information revolving around the study topic. However, the gaps in this methodology are that it is likely to be a time-consuming and costly option. This strategy has been used by Brott et al. (2019) to elicit the needs and solutions of homeless individuals within rural communities.
To determine the research goals, the three strategies are employed. In quantitative studies, the fundamental goal is to analyze data that help study relationships of cause and effect of the occurrences. For instance, the support offered to homeless individuals by the service providers is quantified by collecting data from demographic surveys and informant interviews. This fulfills the research goal to explore the establishment of patterns and associations concerning the poor people living within rural communities.
The aspects of photo-elicitation and observations are depicted through the adoption of qualitative studies. This offers rich details of the phenomena used in the study. For example, the central argument in the study is the food insecurity issues among the campus students. The research goal was to use the massive data that is already present to balance with the actual experiences of the campus students.
Mixed methods are fundamentally dependent on the participant’s point of view. In the Brott et al. (2019) study, identifying the barriers and facilitators to guide the execution of the service providers’ duties to support the homeless is the goal of the research. Adopting the combined efforts from the qualitative and quantitative methods offers findings based on the experiences of homeless individuals living in rural geographies.
Regarding the methodology used by the researchers, the quantitative approach had a sample size of 92 participants who resided within the area of study (Brott et al., 2019). These were recruited through a series of visits and surveys in rural areas to obtain homeless individuals’ experiences. The information was processed through logical binary regression to provide the basis for discussing and attaining conclusive remarks.
On the other hand, qualitative research majorly focuses on the context, detail, and depth. Adopting smaller sample sizes is common here because it depends on the kind the researcher chooses to adopt. The studies conducted by Daugherty, Birnbaum & Clark (2019) depict on the 8 participants used to collect the information used for the research were contacted through e-mail. Data was collected through photo-elicitation, semi-structured interviews, and journaling. Iterative processes of analysis were used in analyzing information obtained from the participants.
In terms of the research results, the quantitative approach produces numeric data that is analyzed through appropriate software statistically. In the case of studies by Brott et al. (2019), qualitative coding and binary logistic regression were used to obtain the results. On the other hand, the qualitative approach is based on the translation of the thematic concern to a language understood by the partakers of the study. The results obtained by Daugherty, Birnbaum & Clark (2019) mentioned that having enough, development of budget priorities and use of pantry strategically helped to solve the food insecurity issues among the campus students. In this regard, poverty prevalence within the campus was significantly reduced.
Benefits and limitations of using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach
The use of methodological approaches is dependent on the reasons that make the researchers choose them. This is based on relevance to the content and proper understanding of their benefits and limitations. Quantitative research is adopted when a broad range of population trends is used. For instance, Brott et al. (2019) used this approach to interpret the numerical data into findings for the poverty aspect. However, the reliance on this objective approach with minimal human touch can be disadvantageous to the researchers. Access to large populations is costly and time-consuming, which makes the quantitative system less reliable.
Since poverty is a sociological theme, using a qualitative approach will be more valuable because it addresses the participants (Grey et al., 2017). However, applicability may be minimal because of the broader context that proves to be challenging to generalize. Additionally, in Daugherty, Birnbaum & Clark’s (2019) literature, there was only a need for eight participants that make it easy to tackle the smaller research teams hence less use of resources. There is insightful research when the qualitative approach is used because it is subjective, and a sense of human touch is felt throughout the study. It becomes more beneficial when mixed methods are adopted because the qualitative approach’s advantages balance the quantitative methodology limitations.
Conclusion
Poverty is a broader context and requires a mixed methodology approach to help address the gaps that could present from either of the other two methodologies. Social scientists can choose to use these strategies depending on the research contexts and situations from the discussion. Even though no method is perfect, combining both methodologies can yield imperative findings in poverty’s sociological aspect. Combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches act as an alternative strategy to produce reproducible results in research. Equitable distribution of resources to the homeless and poor campus students can be ascertained by conducting adequate research to win over the research implementers. Addressing poverty needs can, therefore, be solved through intensive research that uses a mixed methodological approach.
Conclusion
References
Brott, H., Kornbluh, M., Incaudo, G., Banks, L., & Reece, J. (2019). Placing a spotlight on rural homelessness: Identifying the barriers and facilitators to successfully supporting homeless families within rural communities. Journal of Poverty, 23(3), 179-201.
Browne, K., & Nash, C. J. (2010). Queer methods and methodologies: Intersecting queer theories and social science research. Taylor & Francis.
Daugherty, J. B., Birnbaum, M., & Clark, A. (2019). ‘Having Enough’: Students’ Understanding of Food Insecurity and Campus Food Pantry Use. Journal of Poverty, 23(7), 600-620.
Grey, C. N., Schmieder-Gaite, T., Jiang, S., Nascimento, C., & Poortinga, W. (2017). Cold homes, fuel poverty, and energy efficiency improvements: a longitudinal focus group approach. Indoor and Built Environment, 26(7), 902-913.
Sensoy Bahar, O. (2017). “The Name Says It All, It’s Saraybostan”: Low-Income Kurdish Migrant Women’s Experiences with Life in a Poverty-Impacted Urban Neighborhood. Journal of Poverty, 21(6), 543-571.
Veronese, G., Pepe, A., & Vigliaroni, M. (2019). An exploratory multi-site mixed-method study with migrants at Niger transit centers: The push factors underpinning outward and return migration. International Social Work, 0020872818819736.