Cargando…

Are We All Agreed? Consensual Methods and the ‘Necessities of Life’ in the UK Today

In recent decades, consensual approaches to poverty measurement have been widely adopted in large-scale survey research both in the UK and internationally. However, while ascertaining the extent of public agreement on the ‘necessities of life’ has been central to this approach, long-standing critiqu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: FAHMY, ELDIN, SUTTON, EILEEN, PEMBERTON, SIMON
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4462200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26139948
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279415000033
_version_ 1782375630100234240
author FAHMY, ELDIN
SUTTON, EILEEN
PEMBERTON, SIMON
author_facet FAHMY, ELDIN
SUTTON, EILEEN
PEMBERTON, SIMON
author_sort FAHMY, ELDIN
collection PubMed
description In recent decades, consensual approaches to poverty measurement have been widely adopted in large-scale survey research both in the UK and internationally. However, while ascertaining the extent of public agreement on the ‘necessities of life’ has been central to this approach, long-standing critiques have questioned the nature of public consensus on poverty derived using survey methods. By drawing on new primary research preparatory to the 2012 UK Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey, we consider the contribution of qualitative methods in understanding public views on necessities and discuss their implications for survey-based poverty measurement. Our findings raise some important conceptual and measurement issues for consensual poverty measures within large-scale social surveys. Firstly, our research suggests that public understandings of the term ‘necessity’ are diverse and may not always be consistent with researchers’ interpretations or with wider usage of this term within consensual poverty measurement. Secondly, a better understanding of the considerations which inform survey respondents’ deliberations is needed. Thirdly, our findings have important implications for how we should interpret the concept of ‘consensus’ within the context of consensual poverty surveys, and emphasise the need for the application of more deliberative methods in determining public views on the ‘necessities of life’.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4462200
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44622002015-06-30 Are We All Agreed? Consensual Methods and the ‘Necessities of Life’ in the UK Today FAHMY, ELDIN SUTTON, EILEEN PEMBERTON, SIMON J Soc Policy Articles In recent decades, consensual approaches to poverty measurement have been widely adopted in large-scale survey research both in the UK and internationally. However, while ascertaining the extent of public agreement on the ‘necessities of life’ has been central to this approach, long-standing critiques have questioned the nature of public consensus on poverty derived using survey methods. By drawing on new primary research preparatory to the 2012 UK Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey, we consider the contribution of qualitative methods in understanding public views on necessities and discuss their implications for survey-based poverty measurement. Our findings raise some important conceptual and measurement issues for consensual poverty measures within large-scale social surveys. Firstly, our research suggests that public understandings of the term ‘necessity’ are diverse and may not always be consistent with researchers’ interpretations or with wider usage of this term within consensual poverty measurement. Secondly, a better understanding of the considerations which inform survey respondents’ deliberations is needed. Thirdly, our findings have important implications for how we should interpret the concept of ‘consensus’ within the context of consensual poverty surveys, and emphasise the need for the application of more deliberative methods in determining public views on the ‘necessities of life’. Cambridge University Press 2015-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4462200/ /pubmed/26139948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279415000033 Text en © Cambridge University Press 2015 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Articles
FAHMY, ELDIN
SUTTON, EILEEN
PEMBERTON, SIMON
Are We All Agreed? Consensual Methods and the ‘Necessities of Life’ in the UK Today
title Are We All Agreed? Consensual Methods and the ‘Necessities of Life’ in the UK Today
title_full Are We All Agreed? Consensual Methods and the ‘Necessities of Life’ in the UK Today
title_fullStr Are We All Agreed? Consensual Methods and the ‘Necessities of Life’ in the UK Today
title_full_unstemmed Are We All Agreed? Consensual Methods and the ‘Necessities of Life’ in the UK Today
title_short Are We All Agreed? Consensual Methods and the ‘Necessities of Life’ in the UK Today
title_sort are we all agreed? consensual methods and the ‘necessities of life’ in the uk today
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4462200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26139948
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279415000033
work_keys_str_mv AT fahmyeldin areweallagreedconsensualmethodsandthenecessitiesoflifeintheuktoday
AT suttoneileen areweallagreedconsensualmethodsandthenecessitiesoflifeintheuktoday
AT pembertonsimon areweallagreedconsensualmethodsandthenecessitiesoflifeintheuktoday