巴西农村食品消费行为的社会意义:认同与文化差异

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
L. Weaver, N. Henderson, C. Hadley
{"title":"巴西农村食品消费行为的社会意义:认同与文化差异","authors":"L. Weaver, N. Henderson, C. Hadley","doi":"10.1177/1525822X21992162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Food insecurity (FI) is often assessed through experienced-based measures, which address the number and extent of coping strategies people employ. Coping indices are limited because, methodologically, they presuppose that people engage coping strategies uniformly. Ethnographic work suggests that subgroups experience FI quite differently, meaning that coping strategies might also vary within a population. Thus, whether people actually agree on FI coping behaviors is an open question. This article describes methods used to test whether there was a culturally agreed on set of coping behaviors around FI in rural Brazilian majority-female heads of household, and to detect patterned subgroup variation in that agreement. We used cultural consensus and residual agreement analyses on freelist and rating exercise data. This process could be applied as a first step in developing experience-based measures of FI sensitive to intragroup variation, or to identify key variables to guide qualitative analyses.","PeriodicalId":48060,"journal":{"name":"Field Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1525822X21992162","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Social Meaning of Food Consumption Behaviors in Rural Brazil: Agreement and Intracultural Variation\",\"authors\":\"L. Weaver, N. Henderson, C. Hadley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1525822X21992162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Food insecurity (FI) is often assessed through experienced-based measures, which address the number and extent of coping strategies people employ. Coping indices are limited because, methodologically, they presuppose that people engage coping strategies uniformly. Ethnographic work suggests that subgroups experience FI quite differently, meaning that coping strategies might also vary within a population. Thus, whether people actually agree on FI coping behaviors is an open question. This article describes methods used to test whether there was a culturally agreed on set of coping behaviors around FI in rural Brazilian majority-female heads of household, and to detect patterned subgroup variation in that agreement. We used cultural consensus and residual agreement analyses on freelist and rating exercise data. This process could be applied as a first step in developing experience-based measures of FI sensitive to intragroup variation, or to identify key variables to guide qualitative analyses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Field Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1525822X21992162\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Field Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X21992162\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Field Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X21992162","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

粮食不安全(FI)通常通过基于经验的措施进行评估,这些措施涉及人们采用的应对策略的数量和程度。应对指数是有限的,因为从方法论上讲,它们假设人们一致地采用应对策略。民族志研究表明,亚组对FI的体验截然不同,这意味着应对策略也可能在人群中有所不同。因此,人们是否真的同意FI应对行为是一个悬而未决的问题。本文描述了用于测试在巴西农村占多数的女性户主中,是否存在一套文化上一致的应对FI行为的方法,并检测该一致性中的模式亚组差异。我们对自由名单和评级练习数据进行了文化共识和剩余一致性分析。这一过程可以作为开发对组内变异敏感的FI的基于经验的测量的第一步,也可以作为确定关键变量以指导定性分析的第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Social Meaning of Food Consumption Behaviors in Rural Brazil: Agreement and Intracultural Variation
Food insecurity (FI) is often assessed through experienced-based measures, which address the number and extent of coping strategies people employ. Coping indices are limited because, methodologically, they presuppose that people engage coping strategies uniformly. Ethnographic work suggests that subgroups experience FI quite differently, meaning that coping strategies might also vary within a population. Thus, whether people actually agree on FI coping behaviors is an open question. This article describes methods used to test whether there was a culturally agreed on set of coping behaviors around FI in rural Brazilian majority-female heads of household, and to detect patterned subgroup variation in that agreement. We used cultural consensus and residual agreement analyses on freelist and rating exercise data. This process could be applied as a first step in developing experience-based measures of FI sensitive to intragroup variation, or to identify key variables to guide qualitative analyses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Field Methods
Field Methods Multiple-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.
×
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