Development Research Methods
Group Project
Lecturer
- Dr Joyce Wu
Group Members:
Muhammad Kholis Hamdy (u3135540)
Dendup Chophel (u3135901)
Nur Arifina Vivinia (u3149668)
Saherman Saherman (u3140569)
Vo Ngoc Thanh Thai (u3132379)
Words count: 4,935
Student
declaration
I certify that this essay is
entirely my own work, except where I have given fully documented references to
the work of others, and that the work contained in this essay has not
previously been submitted for assessment in any formal course of study.
1. Introduction
What
we think, we become! This is the inspiration that we took while designing this
study to assess the University of Canberra’s (UC) Master of International
Development (MID) students’ awareness of and disposition towards the concept of
‘community vitality’. A part of the ‘nine domains of Gross National Happiness,
which is Bhutan’s famous middle-path development philosophy that seeks to
balance material improvement of people’s living condition with the concern for
their living culture and the earth’s ecology, community vitality - or variants
thereof - is a mainstay of the wider global discourse on development (Ura &
Penore, 2009). This approach to development puts the people at the centre of
policy and programme agenda and articulates the socio-economic and
environmental dynamics that make people and their communities stronger,
investing in them the anthropological ‘agency’ in bringing about improvements
in their living conditions as they deem necessary and desirable. The United
Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals dwells on this thematic and
practical concern in development.[1]
What this study seeks to achieve is to understand the level of awareness among
student of MID on this concept. The concept began with a simple concern for the
people’s life choices which became constraint under supposedly enhanced levels
of development because quite contrary to the ideals espoused by this model -
now seen as an alternative development paradigm - international development was
fixated on the dominant development model of Gross Domestic Product that was
promoted since development cooperation began with President Truman’s Point Four
agenda (Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi,
2008; Halle, 1964). As disenchantment sets in with
GDP as a viable model of development, which the growing volume of detractors
argue ‘measures everything but which counts in life’, community vitality with
its accompanying development ideals like education, health, conservation, etc.
has gained increased methodological sophistication to complement, if not completely
supplant, GDP as the right guide of people’s progress.
Therefore,
it is important to see the level of engagement of the MID students with this
concept and other alternative models of development as what they are aware of,
will most likely shape their approach once they become development
professionals, that is if they are already not one. Different research methods
have been adopted for this study based on feedbacks from our rigorous testing
schedule. It is rightly observed that development research is still a dynamic
field where dogmatic methodological posturing has yet not been adopted in
conducting both theoretical and applied development studies. So, on the one
hand, researchers have more flexibility in choosing their preferred and
appropriate approach, while on the other, because they do not have resort yet
to set principles and standard, they have little option but to be heuristic and
fluid in their use of methodologies. This study has consequently used Focus
Group Discussion, which was the preferred approach in order to elicit in-depth
views, and individual interview was used to validate the research questions and
design. Questions were self-critically tested, and where complications were
identified, changes were incorporated based on findings and feedbacks. This
report is restricted to discussing the rationale, objective, goal and context
of the study; and clearly elucidating the process of research design and
question testing. Discussion of findings and results are beyond the scope of
this report. Discourse analysis has been considered for this research because
of the discursive approach we took in the design and structure of the questions
though no effort was made at rigorously adhering to its methodological
principles (Philips & Hardy, 2002).
2. Goal
2.1 Solicit educated
opinions and judgements of MID students as post-graduate scholars with
background in development or future potential to be in the field on Community
Vitality as a concept and as a viable model that can be replicated universally.
3. Objective
3.1 To explore students’
cognitive level on the concept of community vitality that consists of knowing, understanding,
applying, analyzing, evaluating, and last, creating elements.
3.2 To seek students’
appreciation of the concept as a way of identifying possible application of the
concept in later policy decisions and implementation because what they are
aware of and believe in, they act on; Cogito ergo sum, as stated in the Latin philosophical
propositions.
4. The thick
description of Community Vitality and research background
Without benefit of the ontological and epistemological premise on
which this group of Happiness researchers[2]
based our research and question design, the subject matter under
consideration, namely community wellbeing, may well seem discordant with the
choice of participant sample, or even the research method adopted. That is why
we propose to introduce here an epistemological approach to outline the context
within which we can understand why Community Vitality (CV) assumes significance
in the wider development discourse on alternative development paradigms and how
gaining an understanding of this development framework will enable development
students to take cognizance of sustainable development issues, which has gained
prominence since the adoption of Sustainable Development Goals as the UN’s post
2015 agenda. Having this awareness will help the students to imbibe alternative
sensibility in their work as development scholars and practitioners.
British philosopher Gilbert Ryle has propounded thick description as a way of meaningfully conceptualizing research
subject so that it becomes not only accessible and intelligible, but also
relevant and interesting to outsiders (refer Geertz, 1973). Without a statement
of its background, CV will meet indifference or mere cursory interests within
the broader development discourse, and hence, be relegated to lowly policy
priority for development thinkers and policy makers. The world is becoming ever
more aware of the limitation, indeed the danger, of following the conventional
development model of gross domestic production, with its misguided valorization
of consumerism and exploitative tendencies. GDP as a development measure and
indicator misleads policy makers across the world into thinking economic
progress as development of the people.[3]
Recognizing this, world leaders have been exploring alternative development
indicators and models. The high profile
Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission on the Measurement
of Economic Performance and Social Progress was one such valiant attempt at
remodeling the development of this world along values and aspirations of
sustainability (2008). As momentous as the recommendations of this commission
was on measuring and valuing the ‘well-being of the people’ was, the world was
introduced into this line of thinking, albeit less successfully, by the reports
What Now: The 1975 Dag Hammarskjöld
Report on Development and International Cooperation and 1987 World Commission on
Environment and Development on Towards Sustainable Development. Both
these reports pushed sustainable development agendas into mainstream
development planning and programming, and culminated in the adoption of the
Sustainable Development Goals by the UN. The concept of Community Vitality is
both a harbinger and product of these alternative development movements, and
will be discussed briefly here in this context.[4]
4.1 Gross National Happiness Index
Although the first quantitative Gross National Happiness (GNH) index
was released in 2008, the concept of GNH was first proposed in 1970s by the
fourth King of Bhutan. Indeed, because of the missing of social and
environmental aspects in the popular Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index, the
GNH was developed in term of focusing on non-economic aspects of well-being
rather than increasing in economy statistics in development paradigm (Ura &
Penjore, 2009). Moreover, the raising awareness in changing living environment
might lead to the need of searching for an alternative measurement in order to
capture the whole picture of the development process in order to achieve
sustainable development. As a result, GNH has been put to wider application
since the Millennium Development Goals was set by the United Nations. According
to Munro (2016), there are four pillars in GNH, which are (1) good governance, (2)
sustainable socio-economic development, (3) cultural preservation and (4) environmental
conservation, that are more specifically classified into nine domains, which
are (1) psychological well-being, (2) health, (3) education, (4) time use, (5) cultural
diversity and resilience, (6) good governance, (7) community vitality (CV), (8)
ecological diversity and resilience, and (9) living standards. In addition,
within each domain, there are several indicators which are used to measure the
degree of change in the people’s perceived and actual wellbeing.
4.2 Definition of Community Vitality and its
indicators
Among these domains, CV appears as more debatable as there are few
discrepancies in its definition and conceptualisation depending on the
discipline of the proponents (Dixon, 2006; Givel, 2015). However, it is as the
popularly accepted as the community’s collective capacity to respond to change
with an enhanced level of participation with aspirations for a healthy and
productive community. In other words, it is the relationship between each
individual with their family and their community in the context of living
within such community in the period of time. Moreover, it shows the strength of
community when facing with the changing livelihood. CV has been assessed based
on seven indicators, which are the (1) length of stay, (2) volunteering, (3) donation,
(4) the sense of belonging, (5) the sense of trust, (6) family relationship, and
(7) crime and safety.
A brief discussion on the indicators, which are used as the primary
basis for the construction of our questions, shows that the length of stay indicates
how long an individual live in that community. This is an important
consideration since empirical findings present a strong correlation between
longer stay and more intense sense of belonging to the community, and thus the
willingness to contribute towards its wellbeing. The volunteering (in terms of
services) and donation (money) indicators gauge the network of social support
existent in the community. In good times as in desperation, strong social
support gives people hope and confidence which are crucial components of their
wellbeing. Measuring sense of belonging is perhaps the most important
indicators as it may be argued that the outcome of all other indicators rest on
this in as much as sense of belonging conditions a person’s outlook and
disposition towards meaningful engagement within and outside the community. Sense
of trust is an important building block of belonginess and as such, it
indicates the ease with which a person can reasonably feel supported by the
community in times of need while reciprocating such support in return. Crime
and safety illustrates the effectiveness of local authorities in term of
protecting their citizens and this is a critical indicators as widespread
perception of lawlessness and chaos can be detrimental to community vitality. Family
relationship as an indicator and means of mutual support and affection is vital
as it present an unconditional source of wellbeing. Taken together, we can see
a strong interdependence among all these indicators suggesting that, a person’s
sense of wellbeing, and feeling of and aspiration for accomplishment (or
development) are conditional and incumbent upon a holistic measure of Community
Vitality.
5. Methodology
This research is inductive in its theory
orientation, and attempts to use interpretative and constructivist
considerations in order to assess the educated opinions and perspectives of the
our interviewees and participants who are selected from among graduate students
of Master of International Development (193JA).[5]
The choice of this sample population is linked to our Research Goal which has
been stated above.
Homogeneity of background of researchers,
participants and interviewees is thoughtfully considered to leverage the
quality of the intended result in this research. However, researchers fully
realise the potential biases not only during the implementation of data
collection but also in the process of analysis, interpretation and report
writing. In choosing of sampling for interviewees, researchers use a purposive
sampling; a non-probability with gender perspective as a thoughtful
consideration (Neuman,
2011). We
employed qualitative approach, and Focus Group
Discussion (FGD) as a technique to test our research design and questions while
semi-structured interviews were preferred as a means of validation in tandem
with further FGD sessions. In depth and diverse data were sought on the key
concept of community vitality in particular, and alternative development
frameworks in general. For meaningful discussion and informed policy
recommendations on this important subject, FGD is chosen in light of the researchers’
recognition of our selected participants as having the requisite educational
background and related experience in development studies; with appropriate
exposure to development theories and practice during their academic encounters
at campus. In addition, we intended to use FGD as a means of dynamic discussion
that may bring to fore the issues participants deemed important and significant,
without having too much power to instigate topic or questions. In this way,
researchers serve as facilitators, guiding discussion flexibly but within the
grid of our stated research purpose. One important limitation is the laborious
nature of the transcribing process. There are several steps in the actual
performing of FGD. First, the discussion starts with introduction, expressing
appreciation for coming and introducing the stakeholders. Second, the goal of
the discussion is articulated, and statutory disclamation is made on the use of
recording and other ethical considerations. Guarantee of privacy of respondents
and their right to limit the use of any data deemed sensitive by the
researchers were issued. Actual discussions then ensued, followed lastly by
felicitation and expression of gratitude.
The use of semi-structured interview offers interviewer
a set of guiding questions, while at the same time providing significant leeway
for interviewees to reply. Necessary flexibility in data collection is a
quintessence of qualitative research approach with use of varying preliminary
and supplementary probing questions. The limitation of this is quite similar
with FGD; namely transcribing issues (Bryman, 2012). Semi-structured interviews emphasize how interviewees frame and
understand issues, topic, and concepts. Therefore, as a primary source of data
collection, semi-structured interview will be specifically designed to answer
research questions. Community vitality, both as concept and research subject,
will be examined through selective indicators derived from the Gross National
Happiness Survey 2015. This survey questionnaire is used as a companion text
for our principle questions[6]. The adaptation is based on the different
method researchers employ, which is qualitative; leaning towards conceptual
comprehension. The selected indicators were expected as an instigating approach
towards general conception of community vitality. For example, the length of
stay is not specifically designed to obtain quantitative data on how long
individual actually live in the community as that will make our research only a
replication of GNH survey, which is primarily a concern of quantitative
approach and hence, will not lead to any value addition. At best, it will lead
to a heuristic exploration of the universality or applicability of the GNH
survey in diverse socio-cultural background. While this is also an attempt of
the research, the real information we seek goes beyond that, which is to
explore ‘cognitive’ of respondents and participants (knowing, understanding,
applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating elements) on the indicator and
its relational meaning with the research subject. The same approach goes to the
rest of the indicators; volunteering, donation, sense of belonging, family
relationship, sense of trust and crime and safety.
Upon finishing the data collection phase, the
research process moves onto data analysis, interpretation of findings and then
wrap up with the final report writing. Researchers propose not to utilise any
program for analyzing the data thus as the discursive nature of data collected
will lend itself more favourably to and narrative reporting on the recurrent
trends and patterns. The analytical approach and interpretation will use
postmodernism as a theoretical lens since this research topic intends to
contest and discuss with the established metanarrative regime in development
thought, policy and practices (Rist, 2014).
6. Focus Group Discussion
Since
the primary research method employed is Focus Group Discussion, it will be
discussed in a little detail here. FGD is a particular research technique in qualitative
research to interview some informants in an informal way (Neuman, 2006). It has
been suggested that focus group discussion engages participants from homogeneous
background who do not necessarily have close relations and the discussion
itself can be conducted for about 90 minutes. A moderator should not be
directive and instead facilitate the discussion to ensure that all group members
can participate in free and open discussion (Bryman, 2012).
Within
this broad framework, we will now discuss the theoretical and practical
considerations we made while we conducted our FGD. In our FGD sessions, although
participants are moderately homogeneous, it was important to understand that
they can be reluctant to share their beliefs and opinions. Therefore, care was
taken to provide moderate privacy and space within which to express their
views. We also realised that it was important to record and transcribe the focus
group process. Therefore, the following four measures were taken. First, we noted
who said what and how because it was not easy to write down during the
discussion process with some participants. Second, we analysed the ranges of
opinion which came from one or some participants who dominated the forum, and
often, from all stakeholders. Third, our record and transcription enabled us to
keep the dynamism of the process which cannot be done by note taking when the
FGD was in session. Lastly, this documentation enabled us in recording the
nuance of the language used by participants.
In
determining the right size of our group discussions and the research schedule,
we took into account suggested how many discussions were needed and feasible within
the temporal and spatial limits besides resources. As Calder (1997; as cited in
Bryman, 2012) suggested, our conceptual and
practical awareness enabled us to fairly predict the range of data that has
been collected and determine if that was enough for the purpose of the research
especially at the stage of research design and question testing. In view of
research ethics, consent forms were administered, and demographic information
were collected selectively.
7. The Research Process
The
group Happiness research scheduling
included dividing the work into several components such as topic selection and
preparation, the development of term of reference (TOR) and questionnaire, research
methodology designing, testing and consultation, validation, data collection
and findings. This schedule began with a brainstorming session on the several
prospective topics.[7]
The primary consideration while choosing the research topic or subject, which
was community vitality from a variety of others, was the fact that this course
unit Development Research Methods (9429) was on conducting research on
development issues.[8]
Thus, community vitality was a natural choice since it is an emergent
development issue. The topic was duly deliberated and final approval sought
from the Unit Convenor, Dr Joyce Wu. Other secondary considerations included
availability of literature on the topic besides the feasibility of primary data
collection. Therefore, exploration of materials and texts, and preliminary
conceptualisation and selection of indicators were also conducted during this
research cycle.
7.1 Research and questionnaire design
The
second session of the group deliberation focused on the development of term of
reference (TOR) and drafting of the preliminary questionnaire.[9]
A Consent Form was also prepared at this stage to fulfil statutory ethical
prerequisites in conducting such research on human subject. It may be noted
here that several rounds of deliberations were needed to refine the question,
with each session providing new insights and exposing new flaws and loopholes
in our research model and key questions. The questions themselves were, as
discussed in the preceding sections, were based on the companion Gross National
Happiness survey questionnaire. An important point to be noted here was that
our first set of questions (presented in Annexure 1) was primarily focussed on
the seven indicators (emphasis
added). This was later found to be inadequate, if not counterproductive for the
purpose of in-depth discussion and conversation-style interviews.
7.2 Testing: Indicator bias
The
third project cycle of the collaborative group research was the questionnaire
testing and consultation.[10]
It is considered as one of the most significant phase of this process since the
questionnaire was the primary tool of data collection. The TOR and draft of the
questionnaire are sent to the target participant, along with the companion GNH
survey questionnaire, before the consultation and testing day. This was to
allow the participants to get a better understanding of the topic and its
objectives. The testing and consultation were divided into several phrases,
which were generally focused on the Master of International Development (MID)
students as the target participants. The first stage of the testing and
consultation process was limited to a group of six Bhutanese students whose
demographic details, including names, were coded into anonymity for ethical
considerations. The group was composed of mixed gender, namely male and female
students. The main reason to target the Bhutanese students was because
Community Vitality is a concept predominantly inspired by their development
philosophy of GNH and hence, it was hoped that they will be the entry point to
further deliberations which were meaningful and informative. This students
group, by default also, represented the Asian perspective with its distinctive
socio—cultural sensibilities and aspiration. The first consultation and testing
session with Bhutanese group went very well and positive feedbacks were received
which were incorporated partially, or in full where appropriate, to refine the
research method design and questions. However, the process dominated by the
male participants with female participants being rather meek. It was felt that
the lone female facilitator should encourage female participants to speak more
during this session.
In
order to have conveniently differentiated and meaningfully opposing views, the
second step of consultation and testing was targeted to the western students composing
of females only.[11]
As expected, this participant group (composed of one female Australian student
and one Spanish student) were vocal and expressive in stating their opinions clearly and firmly,
and provided positive feedbacks on our process. They also exposed flaws and
other areas for improvement, including the lopsided attention on indicators
which prevented meaningful discussions and deliberation on the concept of
Community Vitality and its desirability as a alternative development model, which
of course was our primary research objective. Therefore, the testing sessions
were generally very meaningful and constructive experience having two different
perspectives and views from the different cultural background, nationality and
gender to discuss the community vitality indicators.
7.3 Validation: Conceptually Holistic
The
feedbacks received from these sessions, and our own reflections, resulted in a
comprehensive, but constructive revision of our questions and the way of
administering them. Displaying what we would like to believe is impressive
self-reflexivity, a hallmark of great researchers, we were humble in admitting
that our first question diverted our attention towards an ungainly replication
of the GNH survey. It was felt that discussion structured around the seven
indicators, enumerated earlier, restricted time and focus from what could
otherwise become more meaningful deliberations on the development students’
informed and educated opinions and views (refined by advance preparation
allowed by the research design and process) on the concept of Community Vitality.
We observed a profusion of views on the indifference in dominant development
research on these alternative development paradigms. We also noticed that the
students were palpably frustrated with the fact that our own course, MID, did
not have a course unit on alternative development paradigm, though it made
tokenistic gestures by including units on agro-forestry and micro-finance, for
example, though these subjects can at best be seen as palliative care of the
symptoms of the disease that is afflicting the development landscape. Our
participants informed us that what was required was structural and systematic
change to what is now called ‘development industry’, and this could only be
effected by changes at the level of ideology and policy, which the discourse on
Community Vitality seeks to do. Unfortunately, our question design failed to
make these observations possible because it was inadequate for the purpose we
sought, and was rather too rigid.
The
refining process thus involved comprehensive change on the focus of our
questions. From a limited focus on indicators,
our semi-structured questions now focussed on conceptual concerns and sought to truly draw out intelligent
deliberations from current and prospective development scholars that MID
students are. Since the group mainly met on a weekly regular basis, before the
data collection was conducted, the group member also discussed the report
outline and individual tasks and responsibilities that was not only limited to the
conduct of interview and FGD, but also on writing up the final report.
The
last two steps of the group research process focussed on validation of the
questions and research design. It was agreed that semi-structured interviews
will be held with our questions serving as guides, rather than fixed points of
analysis. The name of respondents was selected and listed during the group
meeting.[12]
Ten individual interviews were scheduled to be conducted by the five
researchers, with one researcher conducting two interviews. Considerations were
made for gender and cultural representativeness, or decomposability in research
lexicon. However, while the interviews were actually conducted, six individual
interviews were conducted besides another session of FGD with six participants.[13]
Thus, from the target participant sample, two extra respondents were included
at this stage of the research schedule. Various convenience research ploys were
used. Interviews were conducted by the researcher as both interviewer and
note-taker, though this modality was swiftly replaced by adding an assistant
who took the interview note. All interviews were systematically recorded and
documented using voice-recorder, photographs, and in some case, videography.
All respondents were given advance briefing on interview backgrounds with
appropriate materials. The flow of interviewing went very well and easy as
facilitator asked the questions by using the open-ended questions with the
keywords as well as using the probing strategy that helped to get more data and
information beyond the bare minimum.
The
other researchers jointly conducted a FGD session with the mixed group of male
and female participants.[14]
It was felt that both male and female could be safely interviewed together
because of an gender insensitive questions. The consent letter was distributed
and signed by the participants before the FGD started. The female facilitator
has facilitated the discussion with the support of the other two researchers
who helped to co-facilitate and record the process. The number of male
participants was less compared to females even though the male continued to
assert more dominance. Therefore, the decision of mixing the male and female participants
into a discussion may not have bee that sound after all. Cultural background
might be assumed to be the main reason of the male predominance in the
discussion that assured them of having more rights to talk in public forum compared
to women. It is sad to notice that even with the benefit of a Masters degree in
development and gender studies, this stereotype continue to persist. Moreover,
the other challenges include one male participant hijacking the space and time
with what seemed like monologue rather than discussion. However, facilitators
duly interjected so that no major digression occurred. In addition, the
facilitator also encouraged women participants to engage more. Overall, this
was an enriching experience that helped the discussion and growing
understanding on this subject among our participants and us.
7.4 Working modalities and tools
Finally,
it was found that during the process of the research, intensive meeting and discussion
was essential to achieve the overall goal of group work. Furthermore, the
effective use of technology such as email, Google Doc., Facebook Group Chat and
WhatsApp was very helpful to maintain regular and real time communication. It
must be maintained that shared and collaborative drafting and editing of all
our documents, including this final report, were done using Google Doc.
application.
8. Conclusion
Through
a fluid use of qualitative development research methods, our study has created
a research design that has inbuilt a set of questions that act as prompts and
talking points in extracting exhaustive discussions on the critically important
development issue of community vitality. From a preliminary questionnaire draft
that narrowly limited the discussion to the indicators, our revised questions enabled
meaningful concept and indicator level discussions on community vitality, which
is subsequently situated within the broader discourse on alternative
development paradigms like the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Bhutan’s
Gross National Happiness. As conceded by the renowned anthropologists James
Clifford and George E. Marcus (1986), our report inevitably reconciled
inconsistencies and probable contradictions that not only challenged its
logical structure, but also made reading the report difficult to access for its
unacquainted readers (p. 10). It was for this reason that ethnographic writings
were considered ‘new novels’, which were pleasant to read, but within its
stylistic conventions, withheld inconvenient facts and analysis. Notwithstanding
inherent ‘ex-post rationalisation’[15],
as discussed by Gobo (2008), we have made every effort to present our
experience of the research process as accurately and coherently as possible.
9.
Reference List
Bryman, A. (2012). Social
research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clifford, J.
& Marcus, G. E. (1986 c.a.). Writing
Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London: University of California Press.
Clough, P. & Nutbrown, C.
(2012). A student's guide to methodology: Justifying enquiry (3rd ed.).
Thousands Oaks, Calif, London: SAGE.
Dixon, F. (2006). Gross National
Happiness: Measuring What Matters. Reflections,
7(3), p. 15-24.
Geertz,
C. (1973). The Interpretation of Culture:
Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic Books.
Givel M. (2015). Gross National
Happiness in Bhutan: Political Institutions and implementation. Asian Affairs, 46(1), p. 102-117.
Gobo, G. (2008). Doing Ethnography. Milan: Sage Publication.
Halle, L. J. (1964). On Teaching International Relations. The Virginia Quarterly Review, 40 (I).
p.11-25.
Munro L. (2016). Where did
Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness come from? The origins of an invented
tradition. Asian Affairs, 47(1), p. 71-92.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social
research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th,
international ed.). Boston, [Mass.]: Pearson.
Pellegrini, L. & Tasciotti,
L. (2014). Bhutan: Between Happiness and Horror. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 25(3), p. 103-109.
Philips,
N. & Cynthia, H. (2002). What is Discourse Analysis. In (eds. Philips, N.
& Hardy, H) Discourse Analysis. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Rist, G. (2014) The History of Development: From
Western Origins to Global Faith. (4th edn). London: Zed Books.
Stiglitz,
J. E., Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J. P. (2008). Report by the
Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Accessed from www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr
United Nations.
(1975). Towards another development. In What Now: The 1975 Dag Hammarskjöld
Report on Development and International Cooperation, published as a special
edition of Development Dialogue.
Ura, K. & Penjore, D. (Eds). (2009). The Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Gross
National Happiness. Thimphu, Bhutan: Centre for Bhutan Studies.
World Commission on Environment and
Development. (1987). Towards sustainable development. In Our Common Future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[1] Refer the
UNDP website for a fuller discussion of these goals even though a brief
overview is presented in the subsequent sections. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sdgoverview/post-2015-development-agenda.html
[3] Needless to say, there is a
distinction between this two, which is the same as a mistaken equating of the
acquirement of wealth for health. GDP in fact fails to distinguish productive
economic activities from destructive human dispositions and tendencies. So, for
example, by accounting the unmistakably profitable militarization of economy or
the damaging exploitation of fossil reserve as growth and development, GDP is
holding the world’s wellbeing at ransom of the profiteering elites.
[4] Refer Brooks J. (2013).
Avoiding the Limits to Growth: Gross National Happiness in Bhutan as a Model
for Sustainable Development. Sustainability,
5(9), p. 3640-3664.
[6] The section
on Community vitality runs from questions 89 to 104; pages 18 to 21 of GNH
questionnaire booklet which is available on http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/Questionnaire/Questionnaire2014.pdf
[8] Other topics
considered included non-traditional development issues like crime, customer
satisfaction, employee retention, etc.
[12] Two sessions were held on 24 March
2016. One was conducted in UC building 1C77 between 11-12 PM and the other, in
UC Library Study Room 1 at Level A between 1-2 PM.
[13] Two
interviews, one male and one female were conducted by Hamdy on 21 April 22
April 2016 respectively in the Foyer of Building 5, while Dendup conducted two
interviews with two males on 20 April 2016 in the same venue.
[15]
Writing about drafting jury
judgment, Gobo (2008) says, “They therefore used the rules to perform an ex-post
rationalization whereby their accounts would show the good sense of any outcome,
rather than reproduce what people thought at the time of the deliberative
process” (p. 6).
