Abstract
Social scientists have the freedom to adopt different methodological
approaches when researching development. This article illustrates how
four common social scientific methodologies (positivism, social
constructivism, action research, and normative political theory)
differently conceptualise the effects of sustainability certification on
Indonesian smallholder farmers. It shows that each approach results in
different insights, offering a web of information to practitioners. Better
understanding the different methodologies may help practitioners to
take position in dilemmas, not in a linear process of knowledge
accumulation, but in an iterative process of research consultation and
practices.
approaches when researching development. This article illustrates how
four common social scientific methodologies (positivism, social
constructivism, action research, and normative political theory)
differently conceptualise the effects of sustainability certification on
Indonesian smallholder farmers. It shows that each approach results in
different insights, offering a web of information to practitioners. Better
understanding the different methodologies may help practitioners to
take position in dilemmas, not in a linear process of knowledge
accumulation, but in an iterative process of research consultation and
practices.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1078–1090 |
Number of pages | 13 |
Journal | Development in Practice |
Volume | 27 |
Issue number | 8 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2017 |
Keywords
- Methods
- Environment (built and natural) - Agriculture
- Civil society - Partnership
- Governance and public policy
- SUSTAINABILITY CERTIFICATION
- COFFEE
- IMPACT