Qualitative Methods - Essay Example

?How Could Qualitative Methods Be Used to Explore the Connections between Poverty and Climate Change? By Introduction to the Topic As the new millennium approached, scientists warned of climate change predicting that it would cause extreme temperatures and weather conditions, rising water levels and would generally contaminate soil needed for agriculture, increase mortality rates and contaminate water supplies (Tol, 2002; Berrang-Ford, Ford & Paterson, 2011). According to Archer and Rahmstorf (2010), so far the evidence supports these predictions as extreme weather conditions and rising water levels are a serious concern globally. Archer and Rahmstorf (2010) also noted that over half of the climate change occurring is caused by human conduct. The most common human activity contributing to climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon (Desonie, 2008). Greenhouse gases are emitted via the consumption of fossil fuels, deforestation and the burning of forests as a means of creating agricultural and/or ranch lands (Desonie, 2008). A review of literature suggests that some scholar believe that there is a link between poverty and climate change. For example, Dessler (2009) argued that while developed states have targeted key dates for the reduction of carbon emissions, a vast majority of developing countries have no such plans. In addition, it is argued that there is connection between poverty and environmental damages because the poor spend their time and efforts attempting to relieve hunger (Gray & Moseley, 2005). This often means overusing natural resource (Gray & Moseley, 2005). Gray and Moseley (2005) argud, however, that a link between poverty and climate change is difficult to make when one considers the environmental damages attributed to industries. Davy (2009) also pointed out that the middle and upper classes have far more access to land and thus natural resources, than the poor does. Studies testing or analysing the connection between poverty and climate change have produced mixed results. For example, a study conducted by Martuzzi, Mittis and Forasteire (2010) showed a link between poverty and poor waste management in the US and Europe since 1983. The study, however, was based on secondary evidence comprised of reports in the literature demonstrating that disadvantaged areas usually reflected poorer waste management than other areas (Martuzzi, et al., 2010). A study conducted by Xenopoulos, Lodge, Alcamo, Marker, Schulze, and Van Vuuren (2005) established a link between fish and river biodiversity and the poor. In this study, Xenopoulos et al. (2005) examined fish and river water loss. The results of the study indicated that fish loss is due to river water loss and this was more prevalent in poor countries where river water was a source of drinking water (Xenopoulos et al., 2005). The combination of climate change and water consumption contributed to water and fish loss in poor countries indicating that the poor, contributed to climate change. Scherr (2000) asserted that ‘recent micro-scale empirical research’ showed that poor areas are able to adapt to environmental policies, and thus there is no realistic empirical basis for claiming that there is a connection between poverty and climate change. According to Scherr (2000), marginalisation and a lack of economic resources expose the poor to environmental damages. In other words, the poor are victims of climate change as opposed to the contributor to climate change. As qualitative case study conducted by Brouwer, Akter, Brander and Hague (2007) supported this conclusion. Brouwer et al. (2007) conducted a survey on 700 low-income homes in a flood prone area of Bangladesh. The results of the study found that the lower the income of the family, the higher the risk of flood damages. The poorer families lacked the resources to mitigate the risk of flood damages (Brouwer et al., 2007). Qualitative case studies on residents in four UK coastal communities using interviews of residents and a workshop with various community stakeholders, also found a link between poverty and climate change (Zsamboky, Fernandez-Bilbao, Smith, Knight & Allan, 2011). In particular, it was found that residents in the UK’s coastal community were vulnerable to flood damages in both a direct and indirect way. In addition to suffering physical damages, residents who relied on coastal resources as a means of earning a living were likely to fall into poverty following a flood. In addition, those who could not afford to secure their homes or move away were more vulnerable to coastal floods (Zsamboky et al., 2011). A study on coastal residents’ vulnerability to floods in Vietnam had similar results indicating a link between vulnerability to climate change and poverty in that improved economic planning was linked to reduced vulnerability (Adger, 1999). A review of literature, therefore, suggests that the link between climate change and poverty is two-dimensional. The poor are either more vulnerable to the damages associated with climate change and/or they are contributors to climate change. Demetriades and Esplen (2008) broadened the link between poverty and climate change by expanding the definition of poverty to include not only the economically depressed but also those without a political voice and those who are generally disadvantaged in a number of ways typically on the basis of disability, age, class, race, gender and sexuality. These different characteristics of poverty relate to knowledge and capacity to adapt to climate change (Demetriades & Esplen, 2008). While much of the literature on the link between poverty and climate change focuses on the knowledge/capacity link and therefore vulnerability to either causing environmental damage or becoming victims of environmental damages, there is another link based primarily on theoretical assumptions: food security. For example, Gregory, Ingram and Brklacich (2005) theorised that demands for biofuels have put pressure on ‘food systems’ which increase the price of food. The poor are especially vulnerable because they already have a difficulty paying for and finding food. With the reduction in food and the increased price of food, the poor are expected to be further disadvantaged and slip further into poverty (Gregory et al., 2005). This research plans to further investigate the link between poverty and climate change by providing empirical evidence of the link between climate change and food security for the poor. This area of study will not only contribute to theoretical assumptions of the link but will also provide additional evidence on the knowledge/capacity link. For example, Ewing and Msangi (2009) suggested that the demand for biofuels can help to alleviate poverty in providing poor farmers in developing countries with opportunities to increase production and exports and generally improve purchasing power. However, Runge and Senauer (2007) argued that poor farmers in developing countries do not have the knowledge or capacity to compete with the government subsidised farmers in developed countries. Moreover, this lack of knowledge and capacity can contribute to the problem of climate change with deforestation practices in order to compete (Runge & Senauer, 2007). Boddiger (2007) also pointed out that although poor farmers may obtain welfare gains from the production of biofuel crops, the poor consumer is disadvantaged. The poor consumer will be faced with higher food prices and a sacrifice in nutrition in an attempt to fill the void left from a lack of access to food at reasonable prices (Boddiger, 2007). Therefore, the food versus fuel debate is an important and complex issue and provides an understanding of the link between poverty and climate change. The food versus fuel debate suggests, as elsewhere in the literature on poverty and climate change, that knowledge and capacity expose the poor to a greater risk of harm from climate change. A qualitative study is therefore proposed on the link between climate change and poverty by investigating the impact of biofuel production on food prices and availability in the UK. The focus of this study will be on consumer capacity to satisfy the price of food and how this impacts their standard of living. As reported by Murphy’s (2008) edited version of The First Report of the Roundtable on Climate Change and Poverty in the UK, the poor are already disadvantaged, lacking the capacity to provide satisfactory living conditions, insurance and purchasing flexibility. The cost of climate change will only put the poor at a greater disadvantage. Unless we understand exactly how climate change is linked to poverty, we cannot devise constructive and effective plans for reducing poverty and the risk of climate change (Murphy, 2008). This research proposal will therefore be guided by the following research questions: What is the link between climate change and the vulnerability of the poor? What are the vulnerabilities of the poor? How are the poor victims of climate change? How are the poor contributors to climate change? Research Methodology This proposed research will take an interpretive qualitative approach to the collection and analysis of the data collected. An interpretive qualitative approach involves gathering data with a view to understanding the perspectives of individuals who are experiencing the phenomenon under investigation (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011). In an interpretive qualitative research, the researcher wants to understand what and how the participants in the study interpret and perceive the phenomenon (Hennink et al., 2011). The interpretive approach to qualitative research therefore seeks participants who have experienced or are experiencing the phenomenon under investigation (Hennink et al., 2011). There are three central themes in qualitative research: self-reflexivity, context and detail descriptions (Tracy, 2013). Self-reflexivity refers to the researcher’s own subjective experience and this usually refers to the researcher using his or her own personal experiences in the collection of the data. The researcher becomes a part of the research or a “research instrument” in the gathering of data (Tracy, 2013, p. 3). Context refers to the researcher participating in the research by conducting face-to-face interviews or focus group discussion or observations. Rich descriptions refers to the volume of data collected (Tracy, 2013). The main weakness of qualitative data is the fact that since rich and detailed data is collected, samples are usually small. In quantitative research, the sample is much larger and thus a larger quantity of data is collected. The strength of qualitative data is the fact that the data is rich and detailed (Tracy, 2013). This interpretive qualitative research will involve the collection of primary and secondary data. The primary data is collected through face-to-face semi-structured interviews. This method is selected because it will allow the researcher to collect rich and detailed data on the experiences of the poor with the rising cost of food and how they are impacted by it. By taking this approach, this research will provide empirical evidence of the connection between poverty and climate change. In particular, this research will provide empirical evidence of the lived experienced of the poor with respect to how climate change impacts their standard of living and thus further exacerbates their lives. Statistical descriptions via quantitative research is not suitable to this research as it does not provide sufficient details which will allow for a greater understanding of how climate change impacts the poor. Quantitative research methods do not allow for free expression as the research instruments are usually in the form of surveys and questionnaires that are close-ended (Punch, 2005). A qualitative research is open-ended, and permits the participants to provide details that are lacking in quantitative research methods (Punch, 2005). Secondary data will be collected for content analysis. In this regard, content analysis involves the collection of secondary data or data that was not collected by other researchers. The source of the secondary data is usually in the form of press or other reports that are central to the research question (Schutt, 2012). Therefore, the secondary data for the content analysis will include press reports and official reports on the demand and supply of foods that are also used in the production of biofuels. This is directly related to the impact of climate change on the poor and provides data for understanding the experiences of the poor in relation to climate change with respect to the price and availability of food. How the Qualitative Research Methodology Will Be Put in Practice Prior to scheduling the interviews, a pilot test will be conducted to determine the best time to fix for the interview and the best location in the interest of efficiency in scheduling. The pilot study will also be used to run a test on the interview questions and how they might be received by the respondents. The researcher wants to determine whether or not the interview questions will open up free communications with the respondents. As Yin (2011, p. 37) explains, pilot studies are useful for helping the researcher ‘test and refine one or more aspects of the final study’. The sample size will consist of between 10 and 15 subjects. The initial sample size targeted will be 25 with a view to having at least 10 individuals agree to participate in the study. The sample will be a non-probability purposive approach in which individuals who live in a disadvantaged area of the UK will be contacted personally from a door to door approach. This approach is necessitated by the nature of this study. Purpose sampling is suited to this study because it is ‘designed’ to include ‘all key groups and constituencies, and units’ which are ‘selected on the basis of symbolic representation’ (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 107). This is because the purposive sample holds ‘a key characteristic that is known or expected to be salient to the research study’ (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 107). The participants will be selected on the basis that they are primarily responsible for purchasing food for the family. It is expected that individual adults responsible for food in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are poor and have experience with escalating food prices, availability of certain agricultural foods, and how this has impacted the standard of living within the home. Although the target sample size is 25 with a view to obtaining at least 10–15 interviews, the interviews may stop if it gets to a point of saturation. As Newing (2011, p. 75) states, the researcher usually examines the data collected as it is collected and identifies patterns and ‘consensus’. If an observable pattern or consensus arises making it clear what further responses will be, the researcher should stop the data collection process (Newing, 2011). Likewise, if the interviews result in very different responses, the researcher will continue going until a pattern arises (Newing, 2011). The data will be linked together as a set of interviews in which commonalities and differences will be evaluated side by side and categorised. The results of the interviews will also be linked in a similar way to the literature and the secondary data to observe and analyse commonalities and differences. The idea is to determine ‘how far the data sets can be combined and how far one analysis influences the other’ (Bryman & Burgess, 2002, p. 222). Data Analysis Since qualitative research involves the collection of rich and detailed data, the researcher will typically end up with far more data than can be used in the research (Stroh, 2000). As Stroh (2000, p. 210) suggested, the researcher will sort through the data and use that which is useful and relevant and will ‘discard’ that which is irrelevant. Since the researcher is not testing a theory or analysing the data by reference to a theory, but merely looking for perspectives and experiences, a ‘grounded’ approach to the data analysis will be taken (Stroh, 2000, p. 210). The grounded theory involves letting the data speak for itself. In this regard, the researcher is looking for themes in the data (Stroh, 2000). A coding system will be used to divide and distinguish the data in terms of common themes and divergences. The coding system will be commensurate with the themes or divergences identified (Stroh, 2000). For example, if a common theme is “peas purchased instead of corn”, the data will be coded Ps4C. If another product is identified, it will be labelled similarly with 4C showing a common theme and the preceding letters will show the divergence. An inductive-deductive approach will be taken to the data analysis. In this regard, themes and patterns can reveal that a certain state of affairs is occurring and from that induction, trajectories can be deduced (Smith, 2000). In taking this approach, the researcher will study the research results with a view to determining what the data is saying. Ethical Consideration In complying with ethical standards of research, only adults of the legal age of consent will be interviewed. Therefore, all of the participants are old enough to agree to participate in the consent (Ali & Kelly, 2012). The participants will only be recruited on the basis that they are voluntarily participating in the study. Therefore, in addition to informing the participants of their right to withdraw from the study at any time after consenting, no rewards or coercion will be used (Ali & Kelly, 2012). The participants will also be informed that their privacy and confidence will be protected (Ali & Kelly, 2012). In this regard, the participants will be assured of anonymity. This means that the participants will only be identified by initials that cannot be linked to them. The researcher will further protect the privacy of the participants by ensuring that the interview notes and transcripts. Research Time Table Research Step Time NEEDED Conduct a preliminary review of literature Week 1 Draft proposal Week 2 Obtain university approval and commence Research Week 3 Conduct research/Literature review Week 4 Prepare interview questions Week 5 Conduct interviews Weeks 6-8 Analysis Results Week 9-10 Write first draft of Research report Week, 11-15. Conclusion It is anticipated that the results of this study will provide an understanding of the capacity of the poor to cope with and adjust to emerging climate change casualties. If we can gain a greater insight into the experiences of poor families arising out of climate change, we can devise appropriate policies that respond more satisfactorily to their vulnerabilities. This research, however, has its limitation. This research will only cover families living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This does not accurately depict the plight of all the world’s poor. Therefore, the results of this study may only be relevant to poverty in the UK. Bibliography Adger, W. N. 1999. ‘Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal Vietnam.’ World Development, 17(2): 249-269. Ali, S. and Kelly, M. 2012. ‘Ethics and Social Research.’ In Seale, C. (Ed.) Researching Society and Culture. London: SAGE. Archer, D. and Rahmstorf, S. 2010. The Climate Crisis: An Introductory Guide to Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Berrang-Ford, L.; Ford, J. and Paterson, J. 2011. ‘Are We Adapting to Climate Change?’ Global Environmental Change, 21: 25-33. Boddiger, D. September 2007. ‘Boosting Biofuel Crops Could Threaten Food Security.’ The Lancet, 370(9591): 923-924. Brouwer, R.; Akter, S.; Brander, L. and Hague, E. April 2007. ‘Socioeconomic Vulnerability and Adaptation to Environmental Risks: A Case Study of Climate Change and Flooding in Bangladesh.’ Risk Analysis, 27(2): 313-326. Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. G. 2002. ‘Reflections on Qualitative Data Analysis.’ In Bryman, A. and Burgess, B. (Eds.) Analysing Qualitative Data. Oxon: Routledge. Davy, B. 2009. ‘The Poor and the Land: Poverty, property, planning’, Town Planning Review, 80(3): 227-265. Demetriades, J. and Esplen, E. September 2008. ‘The Gender Dimensions of Poverty and Climate Change Adaptation.’ IDS Bulletin, 39(4): 24-31. Desonie, D. 2008. Climate: Causes and Effects of Climate Change. New York, NY: Chelsea House. Dessler, A. 2011. Introduction to Modern Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ewing, M. and Msangi, S. June 2009. ‘Biofuels Production in Developing Countries: Assessing Tradeoffs in Welfare and Food Security.’ Environmental Science & Policy, 12(4): 520-528. Gray, L.C. and Moseley, W.G. March 2005. ‘A Geographical Perspective on Poverty-Environmental Interactions.’ Geographical Journal, 171(1): 9-23. Gregory, P.J.; Ingram, J.S.I. and Brklacich, M. November 2005. ‘Climate Change and Food Security.’ Philosophical Transactions, 360(1463): 2139-2148. Hennink, M.; Hutter, I. and Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. London: SAGE. Martuzzi, M.; Mitis, F. and Forastiere, F. (2010). ‘Inequalities, Inequities, Environmental Justice in Waste Management and Health.’ European Journal of Public Health, 20(1): 21-26. Murphy, M. 2008. ‘Tackling Climate Change, Reducing Poverty’. The First Report of the Roundtable on Climate Change and Poverty in the UK, New Economic Foundation, 1-44. Newing, H. 2011. Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice. Oxon: Routledge. Punch, K.F. 2005. Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: SAGE. Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. 2003. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE. Runger, C.F. and Senauer, B. May-June 2007. ‘How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor.’ Foreign Affairs, 86(3): 41-53. Scherr, S. J. August 2000. ‘A Downward Spiral? Research Evidence on the Relationship between Poverty and Natural Resource Degradation.’ Food Policy, 25(4): 479-498. Schutt, R.K. 2012. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Smith, P. K. 2000. ‘Philosophy of Science and its Relevance for the Social Sciences. In Burton, D. (Ed.) Research Training for Social Scientists: A Handbook for Postgraduate Researchers. Stroh, M. 2000. ‘Qualitative Interviewing.’ In Burton, D. (Ed.). Research Training for Social Scientists: A Handbook for Postgraduate Researchers. London: SAGE. Tol, R. S.J. 2002. ‘Estimates of Damage Costs of Climate Change.’ Environmental and Resource Economics, 21: 47-73. Tracy, S.J. 2013. Qualitative Research Methods: Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Xenopoulos, M.A.; Lodge, D.M.; Alcamo, J.; Marker, M.; Schulze, K. and Van Vuuren, D. P. October 2005. ‘Scenarios of Freshwater Fish Extensions from Climate and Water Withdrawal.’ Global Change Biology, 11(10): 1557-1564. Yin, R.K. 2011. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Zsamboky, M.’ Fernandez-Bilbao, A.; Smith, D.; Knight, J. and Allan, J. March 2011. ‘Impacts of Climate Change and Disadvantaged UK Coastal Communities.’ Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1-63. Read More