Prelims-Desai-3367.

qxd 2/13/2006 5:59 PM Page iii

Doing Development Research

Edited by
Vandana Desai and Robert B. Potter

SAGE Publications
London ● Thousand Oaks ● New Delhi
13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 115

13
Quantitative, Qualitative or Participatory?
Which Method, for What and When?

Linda Mayoux

• • Quantitative, qualitative or participatory research methods? • • Different approaches

and tools • • Which method for what? Relevance, reliability and ethics • • Which
method when? Integrated research process

Introduction • the relevance of the information to the

Research methods are conventionally divided
into quantitative, qualitative and participatory
research methods, each with differing under-
lying approaches, tools and techniques.1 Faced
with the glowing claims of proponents and
often strident critiques and counter-claims of
opponents, one would be forgiven for think-
ing that they belong to ‘different worlds’.
Traditional disciplinary divides are, however,
becoming increasingly breached. Moreover,
new tools and new solutions to the short-
comings of old tools are continually being
developed.
This chapter focuses on how the different
methods can be integrated into a coherent
research process which builds on the relative
strengths and weaknesses of each. Underlying
the discussion are assumptions about the
main criteria for choosing between methods:
questions being asked and to the context
• the reliability and credibility of the infor-
mation and analysis
• the ethical considerations in both means
and ends of research
• the manageability in relation to skills,
resources and time available
The main focus here is on small-scale
research projects of the type in which
students are likely to be involved. The first
section presents the conventional wisdoms
about the main lines of division between the
different methods in terms of underlying
disciplines, goals, questions and specific tools
and techniques. The second section then
challenges some of the claims and counter-
claims of relative strengths and weaknesses in
the light of recent innovations.The final sec-
tion proposes an integrated research process
13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 116
DOING DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH
building on participatory methods as a means
of linking and focusing qualitative and quan-
titative methods.
Quantitative, qualitative or
participatory research methods:
worlds apart?
Quantitative, qualitative and participatory
approaches have different disciplinary origins,
and have developed distinctive tools (see
Table 13.1), and each has developed its critique
of the other approaches.2 In development
research, quantitative methods have typically
been the main focus, with qualitative and par-
ticipatory methods often relegated to desirable
‘frills’. This is partly because of the overwhelm-
ing emphasis in many development agencies
on economic growth and the economic
dimensions of poverty. In many development
agencies, the concern with quantification
intensified during the 1990s, with requirements
116
for performance assessment and targets in logi-
cal frameworks. Although some development
agencies are also concerned with more ‘qualita-
tive’ social goals, like empowerment and civil
society development, there are pressures to
quantify impacts to feed into the mainstream
assessment process. Pressures for quantification
have further intensified to demonstrate progress
on the Millennium Development Goals, and the
‘scaling up’ of impacts and macro-level change.
Quantitative methods, as they are com-
monly conceived, derive from experimental
and statistical methods in natural science.
Positivist scientific method is based on the
underlying philosophical assumption that real-
ity is composed of unambiguous facts which
await discovery by the observer. The main con-
cern is with rigorous objective measurement in
order to determine the truth or falsehood of
particular predetermined hypotheses. Analysis
of these observed facts is deductive and linear
to reject or not the null hypothesis. Although
this is somewhat of a caricature even of current
practice and knowledge in natural science,
these philosophical assumptions underpin
claims of the superior rigour of quantitative
methods in economics and development
research.The main focus is on measuring ‘how
much is happening to how many people’.
The main tools are large-scale surveys
which are analysed using statistical techniques.
The quantitative measurable indicators that are
relevant to the predetermined hypotheses are
identified and combined into questionnaires.
These questionnaires are then conducted for a
random sample or stratified random sample of
individuals, although individuals may be
assumed to be representatives of larger units
such as households or social groupings. The
sample also commonly includes a control
group, which is selected to be identical to the
main sample apart from those particular vari-
ables under investigation. Causality is assessed
through a comparison of the incidence of
the variables under consideration between the
main sample and the control group and/or the
degree to which they co-occur.
In large-scale research projects, teams
are composed of a number of skilled research
designers and analysts who are assisted by teams
of local enumerators.Questions can be iterative
and repeated over time and samples can be
large, enabling sophisticated statistical model-
ling using advanced techniques. In most stu-
dent field research, given very limited funds,
questions will typically be confined to small
samples, therefore enabling only limited statis-
tical analysis. More sophisticated analysis could,
however, be conducted on existing data sets.3
Qualitative methods have their origins in
the humanities: sociology, anthropology, geo-
graphy and history.4 Each of these distinctive
disciplines has developed its own tools of inves-
tigation and methods of analysis. However,
they differ from quantitative methods in
aiming not primarily at precise measurement
of predetermined hypotheses, but at a holistic
13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 117

QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE OR PARTICIPATORY? WHICH METHOD, FOR WHAT AND WHEN?

Table 13.1 Quantitative, qualitative and participatory: different worlds?

Quantitative Qualitative Participatory

Underlying Natural scientific Social science: Development

disciplines method and anthropology, activism, systems
economics sociology, geography analysis and
and history anthropology

Development Numerical data: how Holistic understanding ‘Grassroots’ views

questions much are things of complex processes and priorities
happening to how
many people?

Main process Large-scale surveys Micro case studies Participatory focus

and methods based on individual based on informal groups and
questionnaires interviews, participant workshops
observation and Diagram and oral
visual media tools
Diaries

What: questions Hypotheses and Open-ended and Derived from

and indicators measurable cumulative participatory
indicators determined formulation of discussion in relation
at the start of the questions and scope to local priorities
investigation 117

Who: sampling Large random or Small purposive Open participation or

and representation stratified random
samples with control
group
samples targeted invitees
Key informants Careful facilitation of
the participatory
‘Contingent’ sampling
in chance encounters process to ensure
views are heard

Why: causal Deductive statistical Inductive causal Participatory

analysis and analysis of ‘before
attribution and after’ and/or
comparison of main
sample with control
group
inference from exploration using
detailed systematic specific tools
analysis of patterns
of difference and
similarity between
the various accounts
and case studies

Implementation Skilled research Individual ‘immersed’ Team of skilled

designers/analysts and skilled facilitators
assisted by local researcher/s
Local people
enumerators
themselves following
training
13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 118
DOING DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH
understanding of complex realities and
processes where even the questions and hypo-
theses emerge cumulatively as the investigation
progresses. The possibility of ‘objectivity’ is
questioned and instead the aim is to under-
stand differing and often competing ‘subjec-
tivities’ in terms of very different accounts
of ‘facts’, different meanings and different
perceptions.
Qualitative research typically focuses on
compiling a selection of micro-level case stud-
ies which are investigated using a combination
of informal interviews, participant observation
and more recently visual media like photogra-
phy and video. Questions are broad and open-
ended, and change and develop over time to fill
in a ‘jigsaw’ of differing accounts of ‘reality’,
unravelling which may be said to be generally
‘true’ and which are specific and subjective,
and why. Different sampling methods are com-
bined depending on the particular dimension
of the issue being considered: different purpo-
sive sampling techniques, identification of key
118
informants who possess the particular know-
ledge sought and also ‘random encounters’ to
cross-check information and/or highlight yet
more differing perspectives on the problem.
Causality and attribution are directly investi-
gated through questioning as well as the quali-
tative analysis of data. Computer programs
may be used to deal systematically with large
amounts of data.5 Qualitative research typically
requires the long-term immersion of a skilled
researcher in the field who engages in a reflex-
ive process of data collection and analsysis.
Participatory methods have their origins
in development activism: non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and social movements.6
Here the main aim is not so much knowledge
per se, but social change and empowerment –
and this wherever possible as a direct result of
the research process itself. In particular, it
seeks to investigate and give voice to those
groups in society who are most vulnerable
and marginalized in development decision-
making and implementation.The participatory
process may involve small focus groups, larger
participatory workshops or individual diaries
and diagrams which are then collated into a
plenary discussion. Participation (and hence
sampling) may be open or carefully targeted
to particular social groups. Larger meetings
may be subdivided into what are assumed to
be more ‘homogeneous groups’ or groups
with complementary information.
Participatory research typically uses and
adapts diagram tools from farmer-led research,
systems analysis and also oral and visual tools
from anthropology, though many commonly
used tools have also been developed by
NGOs and participants in the field.The use of
diagram and oral tools makes both discussion
and analysis accessible to non-literate partici-
pants and across language groups. Through
sharing their different sources of information,
participants themselves may increase their
understanding of development issues and the
problems they face, and develop solutions, as
well as giving more reliable and representative
information to researchers. In some cases
local people themselves conduct research fol-
lowing an initial design of specific tools and
training. Some recent NGO innovations pro-
pose doing this on a large scale (Mayoux
et al., 2005).
Which method for what?
Relevance, reliability and ethics
In recent years, however, these ‘different
worlds’ have begun to merge.7 There is an
increasing awareness of the extreme complex-
ity and political contingency of even defini-
tions of many development problems, notably
poverty and empowerment but also health/
well-being and literacy/knowledge, and hence
also the inevitable complexity of the informa-
tion needed to find solutions. Interdisciplinary
courses in development studies have become
more common. Development agencies com-
monly require multidisciplinary teams. This
13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 119
QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE OR PARTICIPATORY? WHICH METHOD, FOR WHAT AND WHEN?
has led to constructive cross-fertilization of
tools and more integrated methodologies
to build on the complementarities between
different methods.
Traditional disciplinary boundaries are in any
case far less rigid than the above account
would indicate:
• Quantitative information can be obtained
through participatory and/or qualitative
methods.8
• Qualitative information can be obtained
as part of quantitative surveys and/or
using participatory methods.
• Participatory diagram tools can be used
with individual respondents to get both
qualitative and quantitative information,
and participatory meetings can be used as
a forum for conducting these.9
Moreover, new tools and new solutions to
shortcomings of old tools are continually
being developed.
What is now emerging is a much more
nuanced approach. Strengths and weaknesses
are not always absolute, but depend very
much on how particular methods and tools
are used and whether they are used ‘well’ or
‘badly’. Unfortunately also, what may be
potential strengths in relation to one context
or purpose, may be potential weaknesses in
others. A summary of the main potential
pros and cons of the different methods is
attempted in Table 13.2, although many of
these are inevitably contentious.What follows
focuses mainly on comparing the ‘cons’ and
the ways in which they might be addressed.
The first key area of debate and contention
concerns identification of issues to be investi-
gated and definitions of development prob-
lems. On the one hand, the specificity and
clarity of the questions and hypotheses that are
required for rigorous quantitative research
lay it open to challenges of ‘measuring the
irrelevant’ and/or ‘trying to measure the
immeasurable’ (Hulme, 2000). On the other
hand, the very openness and flexibility of
qualitative methods create problems of a lack
of focus.The participatory solution of relying
on local priorities raises the question of ‘whose
local priorities?’ as these are often diverse
and open to manipulation by powerful vested
interests. Balancing inherent tensions between
specificity and flexibility and competing views
from the field will inevitably be a difficult task.
The second challenge is translating these
broad questions into a workable research
frame. In all types of research, considerable
thought must be given to the potential effects
of precisely which questions are asked, how,
from and by whom.10 Even (or perhaps par-
ticularly) in quantitative research, assumptions
of ‘objectivity’ must be continuously ques-
tioned.11 It should not be assumed that ‘more
information is necessarily better information’.
Very long interview schedules may give very
inaccurate responses because of both respon-
dent and interviewer fatigue. Very precise
questions may not give precise answers
119
because people simply do not know or recall,
or they are suspicious of the amount of detail
required. Conducting ill-thought-out ques-
tionnaires, even for large samples, will not
improve the reliability of the information.
Any statistical analysis based on these will also
be potentially misleading.
In deciding when and how to use quanti-
tative methods, the critical questions will be:
1 For which questions is quantification
needed, and with what degree of preci-
sion? For which questions is qualitative
information more useful or sufficient?
2 For how many people is information
required to draw reliable practical conclu-
sions? Which particular people are most
important for the analysis or are likely to
be able to give reliable information?
In many cases, particularly in small student
research projects, high levels of precision will
not be either possible or necessary. More
in-depth discussions from a smaller number of
 13-Desai-3367.qxd
Table 13.2 Summary pros and cons of different methods

2/14/2006
Quantitative methods Qualitative methods Participatory methods

Pros Cons Pros Cons Pros Cons

Relevance Clear focus on External and a priori Holistic May lack focus Based on local May be too

7:22 PM
specific focus may miss relevant understanding of Still filtered by perceptions and context-specific
questions and questions and issues complex issues subjective external priorities May be
hypotheses Not everything can be and processes analysis over-influenced by
measured meaningfully Flexibility and power relations

Page 120
cumulative
understanding
Captures
underlying
meanings, the
unexpected and
sensitive issues

Representation Random In practice the sample Captures different Small-scale, open Can rapidly collect May be
and freedom samples actually interviewed is local perceptions to bias large amounts of over-influenced by
from bias decrease often non-random data power relations
likelihood of Choice of control group Purposive sampling Generalizability of Captures diversity Difficult to control
bias presumes the relevant enables close findings are often who attends
Careful targeting
variables are already focus on cases and difficult to prove and collective Participation in
known issues of interest discussion discussion depends
May under-represent increases the voice on the skill of the
minorities in aggregate of the most facilitator
conclusions vulnerable

(Continued)
 13-Desai-3367.qxd
Table 13.2 (Continued)

Quantitative methods Qualitative methods Participatory methods

2/14/2006
Pros Cons Pros Cons Pros Cons

Reliability of Objectivity of Objectivity may be only Captures May be Collective Depends on who
information measurement apparent subjectivity over-influenced by discussion enables participates
Depends on precisely In-depth the biases of the more reasoned Depends on the

7:22 PM
which questions are longitudinal researcher responses and skill and
asked, how and by investigation immediate understanding of
whom decreases the cross-checking of the facilitator
likelihood of different accounts

Page 121
Problems of respondent Difficult to sift all
motivation and falsification Diagram captures the information and
falsification non-linear complexity record it at the time
of the exercise

Credibility of Objectivity of Difficult to ‘prove’ Cumulative Difficult to ‘prove Collective and Difficult to
analysis analysis causality ‘jigsaw’ anything’ beyond immediate analysis aggregate
Depends very much Good at uncovering anecdotes of information May be over-
on the relevance of processes and May be enables immediate influenced by power
the questions and causality over-influenced by cross-checking of relations and
hypotheses and the the biases of the different accounts expectations
reliability of the researcher Diagrams can Diagrams may be
information represent a clear difficult to interpret
analysis of
complex issues It is often the
process rather than
the diagram product
which is key

(Continued)
 13-Desai-3367.qxd
2/14/2006
7:22 PM
Table 13.2 (Continued)

Quantitative methods Qualitative methods Participatory methods

Page 122
Pros Cons Pros Cons Pros Cons

Ethics Collection of Direct benefits for Empathy and Aim at Concerns about Empowerment may
‘hard data’ to respondents are understanding non-interference empowerment are be assumed rather
convince policy generally not integral to the than actual
May give people a Even the presence
makers considered process
chance to discuss of an investigator May raise
The very questions and things they have has an impact People learn from unrealistic
ways in which questions never been able to each other and expectations
are asked has an tell anyone before reach new
May make some
impact understandings
people more
vulnerable
13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 123
QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE OR PARTICIPATORY? WHICH METHOD, FOR WHAT AND WHEN?
people will get more reliable information.
These people may also be able to give a rough
estimate of how general their responses are,
and these estimates from different people can
then be compared to arrive at an approximate
figure. More time- and energy-consuming
tasks of questioning a larger number of people
can then be reserved for those specific ques-
tions where it is really needed.
Qualitative and participatory researchers
have more often been consciously aware of
these issues, and in some cases treated them as
a subject of investigation in themselves.
Nevertheless even these researchers have
often been less than open about the subjectiv-
ity of their analysis, and their role in influen-
cing the outcomes of research processes. It
is crucial that whatever methods are used,
researchers engage in in-depth reflection and
acknowledgement of their own biases, and
seek ways of countering these which take
account of both their privileged ‘overview’
knowledge and the diversity of local views
and perceptions.12
All researchers are at least to some extent
dependent on the enthusiasm and coopera-
tion of respondents in conducting their
research. Ethical issues are therefore practi-
cally as well as morally central to the research
process. In quantitative and qualitative
research, as well as participatory research, con-
siderable thought needs to be given to how
questionnaires and qualitative investigation
can be designed to benefit respondents: par-
ticularly how to facilitate a progression of
thinking through issues important to them,
sharing information to which the researcher
has had access, and the dissemination of the
findings back to those who contributed to the
research.13
Participatory research has commonly
claimed the ‘empowerment high ground’.
However, participatory research may merely
extract what everybody already knows for the
benefits of the researcher, rather than generat-
ing new knowledge for participants or helping
them develop ways forward. Moreover, the
very act of organizing group discussions may
raise unrealistic expectations. People may be
made even more vulnerable if they express
their views and problems publicly. Both these
factors may lead to unreliable information
being obtained as well as undesirable conse-
quences for all concerned. In participatory
research, as much as other forms of research,
benefits for participants need to be strategi-
cally planned rather than assumed (Johnson
and Mayoux, 1998). In all types of research,
researchers should consider the types of
organization, network and support agency
which participants might approach in order to
take forward issues raised by the research.
Which method when? An
integrated research process
There are therefore no easy answers. All
research, even that with claims to ‘objective
123
truth’, is inevitably fraught with complexity
and sources of bias and error. Even the sub-
jective biases in analysing competing subjec-
tivities need to be examined. Ethical concerns
must always be an integral and planned ele-
ment in research design rather than assumed
outcomes.
Wherever possible, most research will use
an integrated methodology. Using comple-
mentary methods enables researchers to
consolidate strengths, and cross-check and
triangulate any information which is central to
the particular research questions concerned.
An integrated methodology also helps to dis-
seminate information in different ways for dif-
ferent audiences to ensure, as far as possible,
beneficial outcomes for the participants.
Figure 13.1 gives an outline of a possible
research process, the questions which each
stage must seek to address and the possible
ways in which different methods can be integ-
rated. As can be seen, participatory methods
play a central role at all stages from conception,
 13-Desai-3367.qxd
KEY : METHODS

PARTICIPATORY

2/14/2006
KEY KEY QUALITATIVE
OUTPUTS TASKS
QUANTITATIVE
AT EACH AT EACH
STAGE STAGE

7:22 PM
participant
STAGE 1: observation
SCOPING exploratory interviews
main questions/ literature review with possible key
brainstorming
issues and gathering of informants
exploratory modelling

Page 124
key stakeholders: different information initial contacts with respondents
beneficiaries, and hypotheses institutional links
participants,
informants,
audience exploratory
broad hypotheses participatory
... focus groups and
workshops

focused use of
STAGE 2: contextual information
qualitative methods:
REFINEMENT identification of differing views
purposive observation,
AND PILOTING and perspectives
more interviews
focusing questions who may know or say what? participatory
with key informants
or how do different people respond stakeholder
and purposive sample
hypotheses to different questions and tools? analysis
sampling frame how do initial observed processes participatory
process and tools relate to original models and modelling
to be used hypotheses piloting
participatory tools

revisiting literature
critical examination of
existing statistics

(Continued)
 13-Desai-3367.qxd
KEY KEY
OUTPUTS TASKS
AT EACH AT EACH
STAGE STAGE

2/14/2006
cross-checking
carefully designed and
triangulation
targeted participatory
interim reports
STAGE 3: tools to get quantitative
and analysis
’RESEARCH and qualitative
anticipated or quantitative
PROPER’ information

7:22 PM
unexpected findings survey for
main investigation
new questions specific
and analysis
and hypotheses? measurable
indicators
with random or

Page 125
stratified sample
statistical analysis
ongoing qualitative
observation and interviews
STAGE 4:
qualitative follow-up of
DISSEMINATION
interesting case studies,
AND LINKS
outliers and/or typical cases
final write-ups and
dissemination for
different audiences
consolidating links
discussion of findings with key informants/purposive
between respondents
sample
and relevant
gauging initial reactions to findings and presentation of
development
findings
agencies
further participatory questionning of hypotheses
steps for the future
further participatory identification of ways forward
clarification of gaps and limitations

Figure 13.1 An integrated research process

13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 126
DOING DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH
through piloting and refinement to the
research proper and then finally dissemination.
It is the view of the author that using par-
ticipatory methods as the ‘first port of call’ has
many advantages in terms of rapidity and reli-
ability of collecting many types of qualitative
as well as quantitative information, manage-
ability in terms of time and resources, and also
its potential for contributing to the develop-
ment process. In this the author must confess
to be highly influenced by her early work in
the late 1970s to late 1980s doing long-term,
in-depth qualitative and quantitative field-
work in India, based on anthropology but also
working with economists. Subsequent experi-
ence of using and developing participatory
methods have shown many ways in which
these could have yielded far more reliable
information far more quickly. Participatory
methods are not necessarily a substitute for
other methods, but enable much more cost-
effective targeting of everyone’s time and
energy on those areas of the research for
126
which participatory methods are rather more
problematic.They are also generally an essen-
tial component of research dissemination to
those participating in the research, a stage
which is commonly ignored and omitted.
The research process suggested is applica-
ble in many, and probably most, research con-
texts, both in individual student research and
in multidisciplinary research teams. It will
nevertheless be important to adapt both
process, and particularly specific tools, to the
types of question, the context, the skills,
understanding and motivation of respondents
and the skills and resources available to the
researcher. In particular, the relative emphasis
on participatory, qualitative and quantitative
methods in the main research stage will
depend very much on the outcomes of the
prior two stages. In some contexts also it may
not be advisable to do any participatory
research before in-depth qualitative research
has overcome sensitivities and/or established
networks which could be used as the basis for
bringing people together. In some contexts
and for some purposes, quantitative surveys
may also be a very useful introduction and
pretext for contacting a range of different
people. People may be more familiar with the
idea of questionnaires, providing a structure
which can then be an opportunity for quali-
tative methods like participant observation
and unstructured conversation. This ‘random
exposure’ may also then provide a good basis
on which to design a more rigorous parti-
cipatory process.
The research process suggested is therefore
more of a ‘rough guide to be adapted or thrown
to circumstance’ than a rigid prescription.
Particular care must be taken when using par-
ticipatory methods in conflict or highly polit-
ically charged environments and/or where
the prime intended beneficiaries of the
research are very vulnerable. Examples of the
latter include, for example, research on child
labour, domestic violence and labour relations
if it is difficult for victims to meet without the
knowledge of those with power over them.At
the same time participatory methods can be a
very valuable means of helping resolve misun-
derstandings and conflict, and identify realistic
ways forward. Any research on such issues,
participatory or otherwise, should also as far as
possible liaise with organizations which can
follow up on at least serious cases of abuse
identified.
Notes
1. In this chapter the term ‘approach’ is used to
refer to underlying philosophies, goals and dis-
ciplines, the term ‘tools’ to the practical and
specified ‘best practice’ ways in which informa-
tion is obtained and/or analysed,‘techniques’ to
ways in which tools may be adapted or applied
to particular circumstances or challenges, and
the term ‘method’ is used as a generic term
encompassing all three.
2. For overviews of claims and counter-claims see
Hulme (2000) and Kanbur (2003).
3. For a useful short summary of the issues and
pitfalls of statistics in development studies,
see Mukherjee and Wuyts (1998). For a more
13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 127

QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE OR PARTICIPATORY? WHICH METHOD, FOR WHAT AND WHEN?

detailed discussion and introduction to the
methods, see Mukherjee et al. (1988). For easily
accessible overviews of the strengths and pitfalls
of different statistical techniques, see the website
for Statsoft:http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/
stathome.html. For access to many further
resources, see the quantitative methods, statis-
tics and quantitative database sections on the
University of Amsterdam’s SocioSite: http://
www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/topics/research.
html
4. For an overview of qualitative methods, see
Denzin and Lincoln (1994) and relevant chap-
ters in this volume. For access to many further
resources, see the qualitative methods sections
on the University of Amsterdam’s SocioSite:
http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/topics/rese
arch.html.
5. For detailed discussion and links to trial ver-
sions of the different computer-aided qualita-
tive data analysis (CAQDAS) packages, see
Lewins and Silver (2004).
6. For a detailed introduction and overview
of participatory methods, see Chambers
(1994).
7. See, for example, the debates between
eminent development researchers at the 2001
‘Qual-Quant’ workshop held at Cornell
University (Kanbur, 2003).
8. For a discussion of quantification and partici-
patory methods, see Mayoux and Chambers
(2005).
9. For suggestions on how some recent particip-
atory tools can be used for quantitative and
qualitative investigation, see Mayoux (2003a).
10. For a critical overview of research on women’s
empowerment in micro-finance, see Kabeer
(2001).For an overview of issues and questions
in relation to different methods, see Mayoux
(2002).
11. For a convincing gender critique of inherent
biases in quantitative research on poverty,
social cost–benefit analysis and population
policy, see Kabeer (1994).
12. For a very thoughtful self-questioning com-
bination of quantitative and qualitative research
on changing gender relations, see Kabeer
(2000).
13. See, for example, Mayoux (2003b) and
Chapter 3 on ethics in this volume.
127

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

Relevance and reliability check

1. What are the questions and issues which the research is designed to address? Whose
questions and issues are they? What are the underlying assumptions and biases?
2. For which questions is quantification needed, and with what degree of precision? For
which questions is qualitative information more useful or sufficient?
3. For how many people is information required to draw reliable practical conclusions? Which
particular people are most important for the analysis or likely to be able to give reliable
information? Is information likely to be more reliable in private or in a group discussion?
4. What are the implications of the answers to these questions for the conclusions which
can be drawn?

Ethics check

5. Does the research process help build the capacity, skills and learning of those
‘researched’ and increase their understanding?
6. What are likely to be the practical consequences? Who will use the information
generated and how? Are the most disadvantaged and vulnerable participants
adequately represented and protected at all stages?
13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 128

DOING DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

Websites

The Social Science Resource website of the University of Amsterdam has lists of resources and
other web links for different types of research method: http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/ topics/
research.html
Discussion of quantitative methods, including use of qualitative and participatory methods for quan-
tification, can be found at: www.ssc.reading.ac.uk
The Statsoft website has comprehensive materials on the strengths and weaknesses of different
tools for statistical analysis: http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html
The Forum for Qualitative Research website brings together resources and debates in English and
other European languages: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm
Chronic Poverty Research Centre has links to research methodologies and a toolbox: http://www.
devinit.org/CPRC/CPall/www_cprc/www_cprc/default.html
The Monitoring and Evaluation (MandE) website has detailed practical discussions on the use of
different qualitative, quantitative and participatory tools in development agencies: http://www.
mande.co.uk

Further reading and References

Chambers, R. (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal, World Development,
22(7): 953–969.

128 Chataway, J. and Joffe, A. (1998) Communicating results, in A. Thomas, J. Chataway and M. Wuyts
(eds), Finding Out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and Development (pp. 221–236), London:
Sage.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Helberg, C. (1995) Pitfalls of data analysis (or how to avoid lies and damned lies). Paper presented
to workshop at the Third International Applied Statistics in Industry Conference, Dallas. Available
at: http://my.execpc.com?#helberg/pitfalls/
Hulme, D. (2000) Impact assessment methodologies for microfinance: theory, experience and
better practice. World Development, 28(1): 79–88.
Johnson, H. and Mayoux, L. (1998) Investigation as empowerment: using participatory methods, in
A. Thomas, J. Chataway and M. Wuyts (eds), Finding Out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and
Development (pp. 147–172), London: Sage, Open University.
Kabeer, N. (1994) Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought, London: Verso.
Kabeer, N. (2000) The Power to Choose: Bangladeshi Women and Labour Market Decisions in
London and Dhaka, London: Verso.
Kabeer, N. (2001) Conflicts over credit: re-evaluating the empowerment potential of loans to women
in rural Bangladesh, World Development, 29(1): 63–84.
Kanbur, R. (ed.) (2003) Q-squared: qualitative and quantitative methods of poverty appraisal,
New Delhi: Permanent Black.
Lewins, A. and Silver, C. (2004) Choosing a CAQDAS (Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis)
Package: a working paper. Available at: http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/Choosing%20a%20
CAQDAS%20package%20–%20LewinsandSilver.pdf
13-Desai-3367.qxd 2/14/2006 7:22 PM Page 129

QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE OR PARTICIPATORY? WHICH METHOD, FOR WHAT AND WHEN?

Mayoux, L. (2001) Whom do we talk to? Issues in sampling, EDIAIS. Available at: http://www.
enterprise-impact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/sampling.shtml
Mayoux, L. (2002) What do we do with the information? From practical conclusions to influencing
change, EDIAIS. Available at: http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/
whatdowedo.shtml
Mayoux, L. (2003a) Thinking it through: using diagrams in impact assessment: EDIAIS. Available at:
http://www. impact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/thinkingitthrough-usingdiagramsinIA.shtml
Mayoux, L. (2003b) Empowering enquiry: a new approach to investigation, EDIAIS. Available at:
http://www.enterpriseimpact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/empoweringenquiry.shtml
Mayoux, L., Andharia, J., Hardikar, N., Thacker, S. and Dand, S. (2005) Participatory action learn-
ing in practice: experience of Anandi, India, Journal of International Development, 17: 211–242.
Mayoux, L. and Chambers, R. (2005) Reversing the paradigm: quantification and participatory
methods and pro-poor growth, Journal of International Development, 17: 271–298.
Mukherjee, C. and Wuyts, M. (1998) Thinking with quantitative data, in A. Thomas, J. Chataway and
M. Wuyts (eds), Finding Out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and Development (pp. 237–260),
London: Sage.
Mukherjee, C., White, H. and Wuyts, M. (1988) Econometrics and Data Analysis for Developing
Countries, London: Routledge.
Thomas, A. (1998) Challenging cases, in A. Thomas, J. Chataway and M. Wuyts (eds), Finding Out
Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and Development (pp. 307–332), London: Sage.
Thomas, A., Chataway, J. and Wuyts, M. (1998) Finding Out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and
Development, London: Sage and The Open University.

129