Introduction介紹

幾十年來(lái)貧困已吸引了政府和市民的關(guān)注�，F(xiàn)在，它已成為世界各地的一個(gè)國(guó)際問(wèn)題（世界銀行，2000）。這也許就是為什么那么多的努力已投入研究，從研究中心、會(huì)議和研討會(huì)，，以了解這個(gè)問(wèn)題的所有方面–性質(zhì)、原因、影響、政策設(shè)計(jì)等。Poverty has attractedgovernments and citizens’ attentions for decades. Nowadays, it has become an international problem around the world(World Bank, 2000). That is perhaps why so much effort has been put intostudying it, ranging from research centers, conferences, and seminars so as to understandthisissuesin all aspects – natures, causes, impacts, policy designs and so on. In addition, since it is a complexity of both contextualities and numbers, poverty has increasingly been recognised as multifaceted concept that can be explained through both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
然而，傳統(tǒng)上，一些研究人員普遍支持使用定量研究，認(rèn)為這種方法是更嚴(yán)格的比其他社會(huì)科學(xué)方法，顯然是指應(yīng)用程序的定性方法，這是假定為不嚴(yán)格。本文挑戰(zhàn)這個(gè)假設(shè)認(rèn)為唯一依賴的定量或定性的方法對(duì)貧困影響的研究可能比結(jié)合兩不可取。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，沒(méi)有單一的方法可以抓住各個(gè)方面的貧困，這是值得注意的，在貧困研究的兩種方法混合在最近的文獻(xiàn)中已被大力提倡（白，2002，jeanty和希貝爾，2011）。本文將提供定量和定性的方法，通過(guò)分析貧困世界銀行的貧困評(píng)估概述（撒哈拉以南非洲），認(rèn)為兩種方法的結(jié)合將提供可靠的、豐富的和可靠的數(shù)據(jù)，因此，更好的結(jié)果。However, traditionally, some researchers commonly supported the use of quantitative research, arguing that this approach is more rigorous than other social science methods –obviously referring to the application of qualitative approach, which is presumed to be less rigorous. This essay challenges this assumption and argues that sole reliance on either the quantitative or qualitative approach in poverty impact research is likely to be less desirable than combining the two.Undoubtedly, no single method can seize all the importantdimensions of poverty, andit is noteworthy that the mixture of two methods in poverty study has been strongly advocated in recent literature (White, 2002, Jeanty and Hibel, 2011). This essay will therefore provide an overview of quantitative and qualitative methods to poverty studythrough analysing Word Bank’s Poverty Assessment (Sub-Saharan Africa) and argues that the combination of two methods would provide reliable, rich and robust data, and therefore, better results.

Ontology and Epistemology

Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative and Quantitative Approach 
Combination of Quantitative and Qualitative Approach &Its Advantages and Challenges

Conclusion總結(jié)

This essay examines and highlights the main characteristics of quantitative and qualitative methodsin studying poverty. There are limits to a pure qualitative approach as well as a pure quantitative approach to poverty analysis and measurement. Each approach should be used in an appropriate place and time, while at many times, both approaches will be required to address the problem which the other approach cannot answer. 

The major problem in mixing is that the qualitative method is associated with depth while the quantitative method is related to breadth. Therefore, when applying the ways discussed above to bridge the two methods in poverty study, it is best to depend on the nature of the subject area. Although the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods are being increasingly used in poverty study, there remains scope tostrengthen their links.

Bibliography注解

BASSEY, C. 2000. Theory and research process in social sciences in Nigeria: A synthesis and evaluation of the state of debate in political science Annals of the Social Science Academy of Nigeria, 12, 17-38.
BAUER, M., GASKELL, G. & ALLUM, N. 2000. Quality, Quantity and Knowledge Interests: Avoiding Confusions. In: BAUER, M. & GASKELL, G. (eds.) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound - A Handbook. London: Sage.
BAULCH, B. 1996. Neglected Trade-offs in Poverty Measurement. IDS Bulletin, 27, 36-42.
BENBAST, I., GOLDSTEIN, D. & MEAD, M. 1987. The case research strategy in studies of information systems MIS Quarterly, 11, 369-386.
BENDASSOLLI, P. 2013. Theory Building in Qualitative Research: Reconsidering the Problem of Induction. Forum: Qualitative Research, 14, Art. 25.
BOURDIEU, P. & WACQUANT, L. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology, Chicago, University of Chicago.
BRYMAN, A. 1988. Quantity and Quality in Social Research, London, Unwin Hyman.
CHAMBERS, R. 1995. Poverty and Livelihoods: Whose Reality Counts, Brighton, IDS.
CHAMBERS, R. 2006. What is poverty? Concepts and measures, Brasilia, United Nations Development Programme.
CHATTERJEE, A. 2011. Ontology, Epistemology, and Multimethod Research in Political Science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 43, 73-99.
CHECKLAND, P. & SCHOLES, J. 1990. Soft systems methodology in action, Chichester, Wiley.
CICOUREL, A. 1964. Method and measurement in sociology, New York, Free Press of Glencoe 
CRESWELL, J. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design - Choosing Among Five Traditions, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
CRESWELL, J. 2014. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
CRESWELL, J. & MILLER, D. 2000. Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39, 124-130.
DENZIN, N. 1978. The Research Act. A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, New York, McGraw Hill.
ERZBERGER, C. & KELLE, U. 2001. Making Inferences in Mixed Methods: The Rules of Integration. In: TASHAKKORI, A. & TEDDLIE, C. (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
FIELDING, N. & FIELDING, J. 1986. Linking Data, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.
FLICK, U. 1992. Triangulation Revisited - Strategy of or Alternative to Validation of Qualitative Data. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 175-197.
GIBBS, G. 2007. Analyzing qualitative data. In: FLICK, U. (ed.) The Sage qualitativeresearch kit. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
GREENE, J. & CARACELLI, V. 1997. Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
GUBA, E. & LINCOLN, Y. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: DENZIN, N. & LINCOLN, Y. (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
HAMMERSLEY, M. & ATKINSON, P. 1983. Ethnography - Principles in Practice, London, Tavistock.
HUSSEY, J. & HUSSEY, R. 1997. Business research, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
JEANTY, G. & HIBEL, J. 2011. Mixed Methods research of Adult Family Care Home Residents and Informal Caregivers. The Qualitative Report, 16, 635-656.
JODHA, N. 1988. Poverty Debate in India: A Minority View. Economic and Political Weekly, 23, 2421-2428.
KAPLAN, B. & DUCHON, D. 1988. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in information systems research: A case study MIS Quarterly, 12, 571-586.
KAPLAN, B. & MAXWELL, J. 1994. Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems In: ANDERSON, J., AYDIN, C. & JAY, S. (eds.) Evaluating health care information systems, methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
KELLE, U. & ERZBERGER, C. 2004. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Not in Opposition. In: FLICK, U., KARDORFF, E. & STEINKE, I. (eds.) A Companion to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
KIRK, J. & MILLER, M. 1986. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, London, Sage.
KUHN, T. 1961. The function of measurement in modern physical science. Isis, 52, 161-193.
KVALE, S. 1995. The social construction of validity Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 19-40.
LEE, A. 1991. Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2, 342-365.
LEVIN, D. 1988. The opening of vision: Nihilism and the postmodern situation, London, Routledge.
LINCOLN, Y. & GUBA, E. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.
MARSH, D. & FURLONG, P. 2002. A skin, not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in political science In: MARSH, D. & STOKER, G. (eds.) Theory and methods in political science New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
MAXWELL, J. 1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-300.
MAY, J. 1996. The South African Participatory Assessment - Synthesis Report, Durban, DRA.
MAY, J. 1998. Poverty and Inequality in South Africa, University of Natal, Centre for Social and Development Studies.
MAYRING, P. 2002. Qualitative Approaches in Research on Learning and Instruction. In: RALLE, B. & EILKS, I. (eds.) Research in Chemical Education - What Does it Mean? Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
MORGAN, A. & DRURY, V. 2003. Legitimising the subjectivity of human reality through qualitative research method [Online]. Available: [Acce

本文編號(hào)：36364