Competing Paradigms in the Development
of Social and Economic Indicators
Summary of a paper by Clifford Cobb and Craig Rixford prepared for the Conference on the State of Living Standards and the Quality of Life in Canada, October 30-31, 1998, Ottawa. Click here for full version. Acrobat Reader required.
It is often stated that increasing public awareness of an issue will also increase the likelihood of better policies and personal decisions. However, Cobb and Rixford argue that it is not possible simply to provide information and insist that those who are communicating facts and figures must be clear about why they are doing so.
The authors investigate the link between indicators and reform in the field of socio-economics. They contend that indicators by themselves offer no guidance on how to respond to social problems such as poverty or homelessness. The primary value of indicators is to organize information in support of various frameworks and theories. The authors acknowledge that "this view runs directly counter to those who regard indicators as instruments for social change".
Using the somewhat awkward labels of "historicism" and "positivism", the authors examine two approaches for presenting information. The purpose of data collection for the historicist is to determine the extent of a problem and create support for an action. The historicist will generally believe that data are value-neutral and that a description of past and current condition is useful for consciousness raising. The authors believe that this approach can lead to unconscious support of the status quo.
The positivist collects data to determine which actions will actually work. The purpose of data collection is made clear from the on-set and focuses on knowledge of causal relationships and problem solving within an explicit framework. The positivist sees indicators as technical tools only.
|
Home
Cutting Edge
News & Views
|
