Are We All Agreed? Consensual Methods and the 'Necessities of Life' in the UK Today
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2115697 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Eldin Fahmy (University of Bristol), Eileen Sutton (0000-0003-4105-8471, University Of Bristol Dental Hospital), Simon Pemberton (0000-0003-3485-7929, University of Birmingham) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 591-610 |
| Publication date | 2015-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Social Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0047-2794 • E-ISSN: 1469-7823 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0047279415000033 |
| PMID | 26139948 |
| PMCID | PMC4462200 |
| OpenAlex | W2169500282 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 25 |
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 the2012 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
Basic needs · Context (archaeology) · Economic growth · Economics · Geography · Measuring poverty · Political science · Poverty · Public relations · Scale (ratio) · Sociology · Homelessness and Social Issues · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Income, Poverty, and Inequality
Understanding social exclusion
Optimization of emergency allocation of necessities of life based on fractal perspective
Analysis of urban necessities reserve index and reserve quantity under emergency conditions
Co-Producing Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Indicators-repurposing the Consensual (Poverty) Approach for Out-of-School Girls
Political theory and the politics of need
Defining Minimum Income (and Living) Standards in Europe
Large-scale monitoring in the DRC’s Ituri forest with a locally informed multidimensional well-being index
Evolving approaches to the study of childhood poverty and education
Perceptions of Society's Necessary Standard of Living
Focus Groups
Poverty or preference
Social Choice and Individual Values
A Theory of Justice
Reflective Democracy
Poverty and social exclusion in Britain
The Sage Handbook of Action Research
Inclusion and Democracy
The theory of communicative action
Resources, Deprivation, And Poverty
The Poverty Line
Social Exclusion and Earlier Disadvantages
Using deprivation to assess the adequacy of Australian social security payments
The Truly Poor
Social Choice and Individual Values
Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements
Operationalizing' the Capability Approach as a Basis for Equality and Human Rights Monitoring in Twenty-first-century Britain
Consensual Approaches to the Definition of Poverty
Deprivation
Targeting Poverty
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,82 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2026 (12) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |