Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Laura Camfield
(Kings College London)
Julian Quan (University of Greenwich)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Sarah White
(University of Bath)
- Formats:
- Roundtable
- Stream:
- Impactful development?
- Location:
- Berrill Theatre
- Sessions:
- Thursday 20 June, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
How can Development Studies take a lead role in advancing interdisciplinary research? We present findings from the DSA workshop series 2018/19 and invite others to present their own experience and discuss how it challenges, confirms or complements these.
Long Abstract:
From October to April 2018/19 workshops brought together development researchers with those from other disciplines and policy makers, practitioners and activists, to capitalise on existing strengths and build future capacity for addressing global challenges. Workshop topics were: One Health and zoonoses (IDS); Ethics of research in contexts of post-conflict and displacement (Reading/Bath); Frontiers in urban infrastructure research and action (Manchester/Sheffield); Responding to environmental change (UEA); Water and sustainable development (Bradford); Educational inequality, poverty and development (Bristol); and Towards more equitable research partnerships (SOAS).
Key issues for discussion include: promoting social science leadership in shaping interdisciplinary design; shifting social science to be seen as devising solutions rather than simply adding complexity; developing genuine integration rather than simply grouping distinct methods or work-packages; overcoming entrenched inequalities between researchers based in North and South; promoting interdisciplinary practice in teaching; developing a common language for discussion, joint writing and publication; raising the academic status of interdisciplinary outputs; and building in time to learn new ways to work together.
Workshop convenors will present brief summaries of emerging issues, with interdisciplinary experts from the Anthropology and Development studies and Social Policy REF panels invited to respond. A roundtable of the convenors and discussants will review common and divergent findings, and their implications for development studies’ role in future interdisciplinary research. The roundtable will be structured so as to encourage active participation of all present. Researchers beyond the series are invited to present summaries of their work and use these to challenge or extend the series’ findings.
Accepted paper:
Session 1 Thursday 20 June, 2019, -Oscar Siu (University of Aberdeen)
Paper short abstract:
In China, there is a gap between the claim of commitment to well-being and equality by policy makers and their practice in political reality. This article discusses the challenges concerning the introduction of well-being to development policy to mitigate the gap between the poor and rich in China.
Paper long abstract:
Despite its economic growth, China maintains a high degree of the gap between the poor and rich. According to a report released by Beijing University in 2016, about one-third of the nation's wealth is possessed by merely one percent of households. By contrast, only one percent of the wealth is owned by the poorest 25 percent of grassroots households. The Gini coefficient has already increased to 0.465 in 2016, according to data provided by the National Bureau of Statistics.
On the other hand, since 2006, the happiness index, subjective well-being, mental health issues and positive psychological language has gained its popularity and become a hot topic in Chinese academia of public policy and development studies, gaining attention of policy makers at all levels. For instance, the "Happiness Index" has been introduced by certain provinces to measure the well-being of the people regarding their subjective experience and objective living conditions.
Based on the literature review of the relation between well-being and income in Chinese context, it has been argued that there is a gap between the claim of commitment to well-being and equality by policy makers, and their actual practice of those policies due to various public administrative reasons. Thus, this article seeks to explore the contextual challenges regarding the introduction of "well-being" to mitigate the problem of income inequality in China. It is hoped that this research can contribute to the interdisciplinary dialogue between public administration and positive psychology to mitigate the income inequality in the Chinese development context.