Etiology of Poverty: A Critical Evaluation of Two Major Theories

Stephen W. Stoeffler, R. Joseph
{"title":"Etiology of Poverty: A Critical Evaluation of Two Major Theories","authors":"Stephen W. Stoeffler, R. Joseph","doi":"10.15453/0191-5096.4269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to appraise two competing frameworks related to poverty attribution: individualistic theories and structural theories. Using the Theory Evaluation Scale (TES)—an empirically validated nine-criterion measure—this paper scrutinizes the aforementioned theories for coherence, conceptual clarity, philosophical assumptions, connection with previous research, testability, empiricism, limitations, client context, and human agency. Results revealed that, at the scale level, both perspectives are of excellent quality. However, at the item-level, the structural perspective was found to be significant-ly stronger than the individual perspective. Therefore, the structural perspective is an epistemologically sounder framework for informing antipoverty interventions.","PeriodicalId":245868,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.4269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to appraise two competing frameworks related to poverty attribution: individualistic theories and structural theories. Using the Theory Evaluation Scale (TES)—an empirically validated nine-criterion measure—this paper scrutinizes the aforementioned theories for coherence, conceptual clarity, philosophical assumptions, connection with previous research, testability, empiricism, limitations, client context, and human agency. Results revealed that, at the scale level, both perspectives are of excellent quality. However, at the item-level, the structural perspective was found to be significant-ly stronger than the individual perspective. Therefore, the structural perspective is an epistemologically sounder framework for informing antipoverty interventions.
贫困的病因学:对两大理论的批判性评价
本文的目的是评估与贫困归因相关的两个相互竞争的框架:个人主义理论和结构理论。本文使用理论评估量表(TES)——一种经过实证验证的九标准测量方法——仔细检查了上述理论的连贯性、概念清晰度、哲学假设、与先前研究的联系、可测试性、经验主义、局限性、客户背景和人类代理。结果表明,在尺度水平上,两个视角都是优秀的质量。然而,在项目层面上,结构视角明显强于个体视角。因此,结构视角是为反贫困干预提供信息的认识论上更健全的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信