This article outlines the process of developing a quantitative instrument and livelihood asset index. The intent of the index was to assess household perspectives of the impact of the removal of explosive remnants of war on livelihoods. Conducted in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the study used a sequential mixed methods design. It began with a qualitative component, which informed instrument development. The article discusses the instrument development process and some of the challenges faced. These included developing a reliable livelihood asset index and finding the limitations of quantitative indexes in this setting. Another challenge was reconciling tensions in mixing methods informed by different worldviews.
AlexanderB. C.HalbrendtC.SalimW. (2006). Sustainable livelihood considerations for disaster risk management: Implications for the government of Indonesia’s tsunami recovery plan. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15, 31-50.
2.
AlexanderK. S.MillarJ.LipscombeN. (2010). Sustainable development in the uplands of Lao PDR. Sustainable Development, 18, 62-70.
3.
AlexanderK. S.MogliaM.AustinJ. (2008). Regional and country scale water assessment. Informing investments in future water supply in the Asia Pacific region—A decision support tool. Clayton South, Victoria, Australia: CSIRO-AusAID Alliance.
4.
AlexanderK. S.MogliaM.MillerC. (2010). Water needs assessment: Learning to deal with scale, subjectivity and high stakes. Journal of Hydrology, 388, 251-257.
5.
AnderssonN.Palha de SousaC.ParedesS. (1995). Social cost of land mines in four countries: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia, and Mozambique. British Medical Journal, 311, 718-721.
6.
AshleyC.CarneyD. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience. London, England: Department for International Development.
7.
BirdK. (2007). The intergenerational transmission of poverty: An overview. London, England: ODI, CPRC.
8.
BondR.KapondamgagaP. H.MwenebandaB.YadavR. P. S.RizviA. (2007). Monitoring the livelihood platform: Reflections on the operation of the livelihood asset-status tracking method from India and Malawi. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25, 301-315.
9.
BondR.MukherjeeN. (2002). Livelihood asset tracking: An impact monitoring tool?Journal of International Development, 14, 805-815.
10.
BondR.PrinceH. K.RagubendraP. S. Y. (2003, November). Monitoring the livelihood platform: Reflections on the operation of LAST. Paper presented at the New Directions in Impact Assessment for Development: Methods and Practice conference, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.
11.
ChambersR. (1997, Summer). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Bath, England: Bath Press.
12.
ChenH. (1997). Applying mixed methods under the framework of theory-driven evaluations. In GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (Vol. 74, pp. 61-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108.
14.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
DellingerA. B.LeechN. L. (2007). Toward a unified framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309-332.
16.
DeVellisR. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
EpprechtM.MinotN.DewinaR.MesserliP.HeinimannA. (2008). The geography of poverty and inequality in the Lao PDR. Berne, Switzerland: Vientiane Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, North-South, Geographica Bernensia.
19.
EremencoS. L.CellaD.ArnoldB. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28, 212-232.
20.
FieldA. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
21.
Galasin´skiD.KozlowskaO. (2010). Questionnaires and lived experience: Strategies of coping with the quantitative frame. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 271-284.
22.
Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. (2005). Mine action: Lessons and challenges. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
23.
Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. (2007). A guide to mine action and explosive remnants of war. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
24.
GibsonJ.BarnsS.CameronM.LinS.ScrimgeourF.TresslerJ. (2007). The value of statistical life and the economics of landmine clearance in developing countries. World Development, 35, 512-531.
25.
Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. (2004). National growth and poverty eradication strategy. Vientiane, Laos: Committee on Planning and Investment.
26.
GreeneJ. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
27.
Handicap International. (1997). Living with UXO, final report, national survey on the socio-economic impact of UXO in Lao PDR. Vientiane, Laos: Author.
28.
HarpikvenK. B.IsaksenJ. (2004). Reclaiming the fields of war: Mainstreaming mine action in development. New York, NY: UNDP/PRIO.
29.
HarpikvenK. B.MillardA. S.KjellmanK. E.SkaraB. A. (2003). Measures for mines: Approaches to impact assessment in humanitarian mine action. Third World Quarterly, 25, 889-908.
30.
HenninkM. M. (2008). Language and communication in cross-cultural qualitative research. In LiamputtongP. (Ed.), Doing cross-cultural research: Ethical and methodological perspectives (pp. 21-35). London, England: Springer.
31.
HodgkinS. (2008). Telling it all: A story of women’s social capital using a mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(4), 296-316.
32.
HorwoodC. (2003). Ideological and analytical foundations of mine action: Human rights and community impact. Third World Quarterly, 24, 939-954.
33.
HoweG.McKayA. (2007). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in assessing chronic poverty: The case of Rwanda. World Development, 35, 197-211.
34.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines. (2009). Landmine monitor report 2009: Toward a mine-free world special ten-year review of the Mine Ban Treaty. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
35.
JohnsonA. J.OnwuegbuzieA. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed method research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
36.
KanburR.ShafferP. (2007). Epistemology, normative theory and poverty analysis: Implications for Q-Squared in practice. World Development35, 183-196.
37.
KingG.WandJ. (2007). Comparing incomparable survey responses: Evaluating and selecting anchoring vignettes. Political Analysis, 15, 46-66.
38.
KochT.HarringtonA. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28, 882-890.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1997). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
41.
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond. Journal of Counseling and Development, 88, 61-70.
42.
LiamputtongP. (2008). Doing research in a cross-cultural context: Methodological and ethnical challenges. In LiamputtongP. (Ed.), Doing cross-cultural research: Ethical and methodological perspectives (pp. 3-20). London, England: Springer.
43.
LindenburgM. (2002). Measuring household livelihood security at the family and community level in the developing world. World Development, 30, 301-318.
44.
MaqueenD. (2001). Measurement malaise: Is the SL approach inoperable?Chatham Maritime, England: NRI Pembroke.
MertensD. M. (2010b). Transformative research and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
47.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
48.
NastasiB. K. (2007). Mixed methods in intervention research: Theory to adaptation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 164-182.
49.
OnwuegbuzieA.BustamanteR. M.NelsonJ. A. (2010). Mixed research as a tool for developing quantitative instruments. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 56-77.
50.
ParkerB.KozelV. (2007). Understanding poverty and vulnerability in India’s Uttar Pradesh and Bihar: A Q-squared approach. World Development, 35, 296-311.
51.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
RaelinJ. A. (2001). Public reflection as the basis of learning. Management Learning, 32, 11-30.
54.
SammanE. (2007). Pshychological and subjective well-being: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford, England: Department of International Development, Oxford University.
55.
SchonD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London, England: Temple Smith.
56.
ScoonesI. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36, 171-196.
57.
SharpK. (2007). Squaring the “Q”s? Methodological reflections on a study of destitution in Ethiopia. World Development, 35, 264-280.
58.
SinghR. K.MurtyH. R.GuptaS. K.DikshitA. K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9, 189-212.
59.
SricharoenaT.BuchenriederbG. (2005, October). Principal component analysis of poverty in northern Thailand. Paper presented at the conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany.
60.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
61.
TeddlieC.YuF. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
62.
TonerA. (2003). Exploring sustainable livelihoods approaches in relation to two interventions in Tanzania. Journal of International Development, 15, 771-781.
