Recasting Research on ‘Neighbourhood effects’: A Collaborative, Participatory, Trans-National Approach
Recasting Research on ‘Neighbourhood effects’: A Collaborative, Participatory, Trans-National Approach
复制标题
重塑“邻里效应”研究：协作、参与、跨国方法
DOI：
10.1007/978-94-007-2309-2_11
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
7.3
通讯作者：
Gabrielle Gwyther
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michael Darcy;Gabrielle Gwyther
这一章批判了一些占主导地位的话语的地方和劣势，以及他们的认识论。目前对邻里效应的关注被视为社会科学中更大的“空间转向”的一部分，这种转向试图解释集中在贫困邻里的贫困家庭的不利处境。本章批评了“贫穷文化的解释”的不利条件和相关的政策反应，通过创造混合收入的社区去集中贫困。有人认为，如果首先没有什么证据支持邻里效应，那么建立混合邻里将导致邻里居民没有什么好处，其中很大一部分人将因该政策而流离失所。本章进一步批评定量研究忽视了社区居民的声音和观点。它通过提出一种基于现象学认识论和参与式行动研究的替代方法，完全脱离了实证主义认识论。这一替代方法基于“大学-社区合作研究”设计，以了解居民对其社区和集中式公共住房的看法，以及澳大利亚混合住房的政策建议。
This chapter critiques some of the dominant discourses of place and disadvantage as well as their epistemology. The current attention given to neighbourhood effects is seen as part of a larger ‘spatial turn’ in social science, which attempts to explain the disadvantage of poor households concentrated in poor neighbourhoods. The chapter critiques the ‘culture of poverty explanation’ of disadvantage and the associated policy response of de-concentrating poverty through the creation of mixed income neighbourhoods. It is argued that if there is little evidence in support of neighbourhood effects in the first place, then creating mixed neighbourhoods will lead to little benefit for the neighbourhood residents, a large proportion of who will be displaced as a result of the policy. The chapter further critiques quantitative research for ignoring the voice and perspectives of neighbourhood residents. It distances itself completely from positivist epistemology by proposing an alternative approach based on phenomenological epistemology and participatory action research. This alternative approach is based on a ‘collaborative university – community research’ design to understand residents’ perspectives of their neighbourhood and concentrated public housing and the policy proposals for mixed housing in Australia.