|
Introduction
"Between the mortar and the pestle, the chilli cannot last. We poor are like chillies - each year we are ground down, and soon there will be nothing left" (Hari, two weeks before his death quoted in Hartmann and Boyce 1983:172.)
The study of poverty dynamics has largely been dominated by the quantitative analysis of panel datasets collected by questionnaire survey (Baulch and Hoddinott 2000; McKay and Lawson 2002). With increasing numbers becoming available for developing countries (Shahin 2003; Baulch and Masset 2003, McCulloch 2003, and Sen 2003) alongside the development of more powerful methods of analysis the number of such studies seems likely to continue to grow rapidly. However, research based on such data and
analysis, while they can arguably describe patterns and correlates of economic and social mobility, have proved less effective at 'explaining' why these occur (Shahin 2003). These analyses tend to be 'lifeless' and contrast with more qualitative approaches that in deepening the understanding of why some people are poor and cannot 'escape' poverty while others can, are more 'life full'. That is, that they provide a wealth of data about people and their experiences rather than aggregated classifications, categories and characteristics of poverty.
This paper explores how qualitative research methods, and in particular life history methodologies, can provide a means for pursuing explanations of poverty dynamics. While these have been used more extensively in understandings of poverty in the West, (Bourdieu et al 1999) they remain relatively rare in studies of poverty dynamics in developing countries. In Bangladesh, with few notable exceptions (see Hartmann and Boyce 1983), analyses of poverty have utilised large scale quantitative datasets and
materials gathered from group-based participatory exercises. The 'Voices of the Poor' study recently carried out by the World Bank (Narayan 2000) presented testimonies from a varied group of poor people but these were presented as a compilation of pieces of information from different people rather than a detailed life history of any specific individual or household.
Similarly, although the World Bank (2000) presents 'Basrabai's Story' this is as much a story of a village than a personalised account of an individuals life.
While recognising the importance of the technical process of collecting information and the significance of the complex and culturally specific relationship between the interviewer and interviewee, this paper does not examine the specificities of the tools and skills of life history methodologies which have been well developed elsewhere (see Slim and Thompson 1993). Instead, the paper considers in the following section, the issues raised by using qualitative evidence, focusing on the interconnectedness between individual narratives and understandings of wider social contexts, and the role of life histories in providing significant insights into the lived realities of the poor and the dynamics of poverty. To explore the strengths and limitations of
this approach, the third section presents the life history of a poor household in Bangladesh made up of two people, Maymana and Mofizul. The fourth section provides preliminary interpretations and analysis of their story which is followed by a discussion of how life history methods can complement and counter more official and institutional sources and explanations of change while at the same time illuminating and providing heterogeneity to more 'conventional' data collection methods. In the final section, we examine the relevance of life histories to studies of poverty dynamics and, following Bourdieu, suggest that life histories are not simply 'tales', they are narratives that can help motivate public action and influence policy (Bourdieu et al 1999). Thus, understanding poverty dynamics necessitates the adoption of multiple methodologies used flexibly to supplement, complement and counter one another.
|
|
- 353Kb ~ 2 min (41 pages)
