This post is part of the continuing mini-series on RQ–RH–D–M across fields. Its purpose is to provide a compact, practical toolkit showing how research questions, research hypotheses or working propositions, data, and methodology can be aligned in one specific discipline.
Socio-economic poverty is especially suitable for this exercise because it naturally combines income deprivation, material hardship, employment vulnerability, housing precarity, food insecurity, social exclusion, intergenerational disadvantage, public assistance and local inequality. It also supports quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods designs, making it ideal for showing how the same poverty-related issue can be studied through household surveys, administrative data, deprivation indices, interviews, community narratives and integrated designs.
In poverty research, theoretical and conceptual starting points often include income-based poverty models, relative and absolute poverty frameworks, multidimensional poverty approaches, deprivation theory, social exclusion frameworks, human capability approach, vulnerability and resilience models and broader theories of inequality, welfare and social stratification. These frameworks define constructs such as deprivation, hardship, exclusion, persistence of poverty, material insecurity, capability loss or household vulnerability, which are measured through income indicators, deprivation indices, labor-market variables, hardship scales, administrative records, life-course data, interviews or integrated household-level evidence.
Note: The entries in the Methodology are intentionally general and indicative. They are meant to illustrate plausible methodological directions, not to exhaust the full range of possible methods, model variants or analytic choices available to the researcher. Researchers are not expected to apply all of the methodological tools listed in column Methodology in a single study. The entries are intended to indicate suitable methodological options or families of approaches from which the researcher selects those that best fit the research question, hypothesis, data, and design.
Poverty – quantitative research
Descriptive questions
-
RQ: What is the average poverty gap among low-income households in urban municipalities?
RH: The average poverty gap among low-income households in urban municipalities exceeds 20% of the poverty line.
D: Poverty gap (% or continuous ratio); household income (continuous); municipality type (categorical: urban); household ID.
M: Descriptive statistics, one-sample t-test against benchmark, confidence intervals, weighted household survey estimation.
-
RQ: What proportion of households experience food insecurity at least once per month?
RH: More than 30% of households experience food insecurity at least once per month.
D: Food insecurity occurrence (binary/ordinal); household ID; region; household composition.
M: Frequencies, proportions, binomial test, confidence intervals, subgroup summaries.
-
RQ: What is the average number of material deprivation items reported by households below the poverty threshold?
RH: Households below the poverty threshold report more than 3 material deprivation items on average.
D: Number of deprivation items (count); poverty status (binary: below/above threshold); household ID.
M: Descriptive statistics, one-sample tests, Poisson/negative binomial summaries, interval estimation.
-
RQ: How many months of unstable employment are experienced on average by working poor adults over a year?
RH: Working poor adults experience more than 4 months of unstable employment on average over a year.
D: Months of unstable employment (count); working-poor status (binary/categorical); respondent ID; year.
M: Descriptive statistics, one-sample tests, count-model summaries, panel summaries if repeated.
Comparative questions
-
RQ: Do single-parent households differ from two-parent households in poverty risk?
RH: Single-parent households have higher poverty risk than two-parent households.
D: Poverty risk or poverty status (binary/continuous probability); household type (categorical: single-parent/two-parent); household size; region.
M: t-test if using predicted risk, chi-square test, logistic regression, multilevel regression.
-
RQ: Do rural and urban households differ in material deprivation scores?
RH: Rural households report higher material deprivation scores than urban households.
D: Material deprivation score/index (continuous/count); settlement type (categorical: rural/urban); household ID.
M: Independent-samples t-test, Mann–Whitney U test, OLS regression, count regression.
-
RQ: Are households receiving social assistance different from non-recipient low-income households in food insecurity rates?
RH: Households receiving social assistance have lower food insecurity rates than comparable non-recipient low-income households.
D: Food insecurity measure (binary/ordinal); social assistance receipt (binary); household income; household ID.
M: t-test after coding, logistic regression, propensity score matching, multilevel modeling.
-
RQ: Do employed poor adults differ from unemployed poor adults in subjective financial stress?
RH: Employed poor adults report lower subjective financial stress than unemployed poor adults.
D: Financial stress score (continuous/scale); employment status (categorical: employed poor/unemployed poor); respondent ID.
M: t-test, ANOVA, OLS regression, ordinal regression if categorized.
Relational / correlational questions
-
RQ: Is household income associated with material deprivation among low-income households?
RH: Higher household income is associated with lower material deprivation among low-income households.
D: Household income (continuous); deprivation score/index (continuous/count); household size; household ID.
M: Pearson/Spearman correlation, OLS regression, count regression, GAM as alternative.
-
RQ: Is job insecurity associated with food insecurity among working poor households?
RH: Greater job insecurity is associated with higher food insecurity among working poor households.
D: Job insecurity score (continuous/scale); food insecurity score or status (continuous/ordinal/binary); respondent ID; sector controls.
M: Correlation, OLS regression, logistic/ordinal regression, SEM as alternative.
-
RQ: Is housing cost burden associated with poverty persistence across years?
RH: Higher housing cost burden is associated with greater poverty persistence across years.
D: Housing cost burden ratio (continuous); poverty persistence indicator (continuous/count/binary longitudinal); household ID; year.
M: Correlation, panel regression, survival/event-history analysis, logistic regression.
-
RQ: Is access to local services associated with lower multidimensional poverty?
RH: Better access to local services is associated with lower multidimensional poverty.
D: Service accessibility index (continuous); multidimensional poverty index (continuous); neighborhood/locality ID; household ID.
M: Correlation, OLS regression, multilevel regression, spatial regression as alternative.
Causal / experimental-style questions
-
RQ: What is the effect of a cash-transfer program on household food security compared with a control condition?
RH: Households receiving the cash-transfer program will show greater improvement in food security than households in the control condition.
D: Program treatment status (binary); food security score pre/post (continuous/ordinal); household ID; locality ID.
M: Randomized or quasi-experimental design, difference-in-differences, ANCOVA, multilevel regression.
-
RQ: Does subsidized rent support reduce housing insecurity among low-income households?
RH: Low-income households receiving subsidized rent support will report lower housing insecurity than comparable households without support.
D: Rent support status (binary); housing insecurity score/status (continuous/ordinal/binary); household ID.
M: Quasi-experimental design, logistic/OLS regression, matching, difference-in-differences.
-
RQ: What is the effect of a job-training intervention on earnings among adults below the poverty line after twelve months?
RH: Adults below the poverty line who participate in job training will have higher earnings after twelve months than non-participants.
D: Training participation (binary); earnings pre/post or follow-up earnings (continuous); respondent ID; follow-up period.
M: Experimental or quasi-experimental design, ANCOVA, difference-in-differences, panel regression.
-
RQ: Does access to school meal support reduce child-level deprivation in poor households?
RH: Children in poor households with access to school meal support will show lower child-level deprivation than children without such access.
D: School meal support status (binary); child deprivation indicator/score (continuous/count); child ID; household ID.
M: Multilevel modeling, ANCOVA, quasi-experimental analysis, matching as alternative.
Poverty – qualitative research
Everyday life under poverty
-
RQ: How do low-income households describe the everyday experience of making ends meet?
WP / RH: Low-income households are likely to describe everyday survival as a constant process of prioritizing, postponing, borrowing, and emotional restraint.
D: In-depth interviews, budgeting diaries, household narratives, daily coping reflections.
M: Thematic analysis, phenomenological analysis, narrative inquiry, qualitative case study.
-
RQ: How do parents describe the effect of poverty on daily decision-making for children?
WP / RH: Parents are likely to describe child-related decisions as shaped by trade-offs between necessity, dignity, social participation, and guilt.
D: Interviews, family budgeting notes, parenting narratives, reflective accounts.
M: Thematic analysis, narrative inquiry, phenomenological analysis, framework analysis.
-
RQ: How do adults living in persistent poverty describe time, uncertainty, and future planning?
WP / RH: Adults living in persistent poverty are likely to describe the future as constrained by short-term problem-solving, unpredictability, and interrupted planning horizons.
D: Interviews, life-course narratives, planning reflections, poverty diaries.
M: Thematic analysis, phenomenological analysis, narrative inquiry, qualitative life-course study.
Work, insecurity, and precarious livelihoods
-
RQ: How do working poor adults describe the meaning of employment when work does not lift them out of poverty?
WP / RH: Working poor adults are likely to describe employment as necessary but insufficient, mixing effort, exhaustion, and frustration.
D: Interviews, employment narratives, work diaries, financial stress reflections.
M: Thematic analysis, narrative inquiry, phenomenological analysis, case study.
-
RQ: How do people in unstable employment describe the relationship between labor insecurity and household wellbeing?
WP / RH: People in unstable employment are likely to describe insecurity as producing stress, constrained planning, and spillover into family life.
D: Interviews, job-history narratives, household reflections, scheduling diaries.
M: Thematic analysis, narrative inquiry, phenomenological analysis, qualitative case study.
-
RQ: How do informal workers describe economic vulnerability in periods of reduced demand?
WP / RH: Informal workers are likely to describe vulnerability through income volatility, weak protection, and dependence on social networks.
D: Interviews, work histories, income narratives, community reflections.
M: Thematic analysis, narrative inquiry, ethnographic case study, framework analysis.
Housing, deprivation, and place-based poverty
-
RQ: How do households describe housing insecurity in high-cost low-income neighborhoods?
WP / RH: Households are likely to describe housing insecurity through overcrowding, arrears, instability, and constant fear of displacement.
D: Interviews, housing narratives, rent reflections, household notes.
M: Thematic analysis, phenomenological analysis, case study, narrative inquiry.
-
RQ: How do residents of deprived neighborhoods describe the relationship between place and poverty?
WP / RH: Residents are likely to describe poverty as intensified by local service gaps, stigma, insecurity, and environmental neglect.
D: Interviews, neighborhood walks, community narratives, field notes.
M: Thematic analysis, place-based case study, phenomenological analysis, qualitative content analysis.
-
RQ: How do homeless or precariously housed individuals describe the search for stability?
WP / RH: Homeless or precariously housed individuals are likely to describe stability through shelter, routine, recognition, and administrative access.
D: Interviews, housing trajectories, service-use narratives, reflective accounts.
M: Thematic analysis, narrative inquiry, phenomenological analysis, case study.
Social assistance, bureaucracy, and stigma
-
RQ: How do welfare recipients describe the experience of applying for and maintaining social assistance?
WP / RH: Welfare recipients are likely to describe the process as bureaucratically demanding, emotionally taxing, and shaped by uncertainty and stigma.
D: Interviews, benefit application narratives, service-contact reflections, administrative notes used qualitatively.
M: Thematic analysis, narrative inquiry, institutional case study, framework analysis.
-
RQ: How do low-income households describe stigma in interactions with welfare institutions?
WP / RH: Low-income households are likely to describe stigma through surveillance, judgment, loss of dignity, and unequal treatment.
D: Interviews, service interaction narratives, complaint reflections, agency-related notes.
M: Thematic analysis, phenomenological analysis, discourse analysis, qualitative case study.
-
RQ: How do frontline social workers describe barriers to helping households in deep poverty?
WP / RH: Frontline social workers are likely to describe barriers through limited resources, fragmented systems, administrative rules, and cumulative client disadvantage.
D: Interviews, case reflections, service notes, local program records.
M: Thematic analysis, practitioner inquiry, case study, framework analysis.
Intergenerational poverty, aspiration, and mobility
-
RQ: How do young people from poor households describe educational aspiration under economic constraint?
WP / RH: Young people are likely to describe aspiration as shaped by ambition, realism, family obligation, and perceived barriers.
D: Interviews, school-to-work narratives, family reflections, aspiration diaries.
M: Thematic analysis, narrative inquiry, phenomenological analysis, qualitative youth case study.
-
RQ: How do parents describe hopes and fears about intergenerational mobility for their children?
WP / RH: Parents are likely to describe mobility hopes through education and stability, while fearing repetition of insecurity and blocked opportunity.
D: Interviews, family narratives, parenting reflections, community notes.
M: Thematic analysis, narrative inquiry, framework analysis, case study.
-
RQ: How do adults who experienced childhood poverty describe its lasting effects later in life?
WP / RH: Adults are likely to describe childhood poverty as leaving long-term marks on confidence, security, habits, and opportunity perception.
D: Interviews, life histories, reflective narratives, retrospective accounts.
M: Narrative inquiry, thematic analysis, life-history approach, phenomenological analysis.
Poverty – mixed methods
Income, deprivation, and lived poverty
-
RQ: How is household income associated with material deprivation, and how do households describe the everyday mechanisms through which low income becomes deprivation?
RH / WP: Lower household income will be associated with higher material deprivation; households are likely to describe deprivation through accumulated trade-offs, delayed payments, and reduced participation; integration is expected to explain why similar income levels can produce different deprivation profiles.
D: Quantitative: household income, deprivation index, household size, employment status; Qualitative: interviews, budgeting narratives, coping reflections.
M: Explanatory sequential design, regression/count models plus thematic analysis, joint display integration.
-
RQ: What is the relationship between poverty persistence and psychological distress, and how do households interpret the lived burden of long-term poverty?
RH / WP: Greater poverty persistence will be associated with higher psychological distress; households are likely to interpret long-term poverty through exhaustion, uncertainty, and narrowed life horizons; integration is expected to connect duration-based poverty measures with lived emotional burden.
D: Quantitative: poverty persistence indicator, distress score, household characteristics; Qualitative: interviews, life-course narratives, poverty reflections.
M: Convergent mixed methods design, panel/logistic/regression analysis plus thematic analysis, merged interpretation through joint displays.
Work, precarity, and poverty dynamics
-
RQ: How is job insecurity associated with food insecurity, and how do working poor households describe the pathways linking insecure work to food hardship?
RH / WP: Greater job insecurity will be associated with higher food insecurity; households are likely to describe pathways through income volatility, irregular schedules, debt, and disrupted budgeting; integration is expected to explain variation in food insecurity across similar insecurity scores.
D: Quantitative: job insecurity score, food insecurity measure, employment type, income controls; Qualitative: interviews, work diaries, household food narratives.
M: Explanatory sequential design, logistic/regression models plus thematic analysis, integrated interpretation.
-
RQ: What differences exist in deprivation between workers with stable and precarious employment, and how do workers explain those differences in lived experience?
RH / WP: Workers in precarious employment will report higher deprivation than workers in stable employment; workers are likely to explain those differences through unpredictability, low control, and cumulative strain; integration is expected to refine interpretation of employment-based deprivation gaps.
D: Quantitative: deprivation score, employment contract type, work hours, earnings; Qualitative: interviews, employment narratives, financial reflections.
M: Convergent mixed methods design, group comparison/regression plus thematic analysis, joint display and subgroup integration.
Poverty, services, and intergenerational disadvantage
-
RQ: How is access to social assistance associated with household hardship, and how do households describe the practical value and limits of that assistance?
RH / WP: Better access to social assistance will be associated with lower household hardship, though not necessarily with full economic stability; households are likely to describe assistance as necessary but partial, bureaucratic, and uneven in dignity; integration is expected to explain why formal receipt does not always reduce lived hardship substantially.
D: Quantitative: assistance receipt/access, hardship indicators, household profile variables; Qualitative: interviews, benefit narratives, service reflections.
M: Explanatory sequential design, regression/matching models plus thematic analysis, matrix-based integration.
-
RQ: What differences exist in aspiration and educational outlook between young people in poor and non-poor households, and how do they describe the social conditions behind those differences?
RH / WP: Young people in poor households will report lower educational confidence and constrained aspirations compared with peers in non-poor households; they are likely to describe those differences through cost pressure, family obligation, and perceived barriers; integration is expected to clarify the mechanisms behind observed intergenerational disadvantage.
D: Quantitative: aspiration or educational expectation score, poverty status, school and family variables; Qualitative: interviews, youth narratives, family reflections, school-context notes.
M: Convergent mixed methods design, group comparison/multivariable regression plus thematic analysis, integrated interpretation using joint displays.
Director of Wellington based My Statistical Consultant Ltd company. Retired Associate Professor in Statistics.
Has a PhD in Statistics and over 45 years experience as a university professor, consultant, international researcher and government advisor.