Short Abstract:

This article provides a new strategy combining capabilities approach–based questions with techniques from quantitative survey methodology to empower participants. This innovative method gives participants simple tools to work with esoteric concepts. In a pilot study, it enables richer qualitative responses from participants as we calibrate a capabilities list for migrant descendants in Barcelona.

Long Abstract:

This article pilots a new technique, participatory concept calibration, in the context of qualitative interviews involving 20 migrant descendants aged 21–39 in Barcelona, Spain. The purpose of the research was to define quality of life in the context of people with a migration background in a large European city.

Taking as a starting point Martha Nussbaum’s Central Human Capabilities, a set of ten purportedly universal capabilities that all human beings ought to be able to do or to be, I apply an innovative approach that combines capabilities-based questions with techniques from quantitative survey methodology to elucidate richer qualitative responses from research participants as we calibrate the concept of quality of life for this population. This article reflects on the opportunities this methodological borrowing offers for involving participants in the calibration of concepts that are then applied to their same populations in both research and policy.

After recounting the study population selection methodology, I provide a detailed account of the interview question design, the construction and use of flashcards, and the application of quantitative framing within the qualitative study. This paper includes the actual interview questions, as well as original translations of Nussbaum’s central human capabilities into Spanish and Catalan as flashcards, as an aid to future researchers. To illustrate the utility of this combined method, I present some of the migrant descendants’ responses to questions about quality of life and capabilities both when answering only open-ended questions and after applying the quantitative framing.

Notably, this study finds that participants generally validate Nussbaum’s Central Human Capabilities as relevant to their quality of life, but when using the quantitative framing they adjust and expand her proposed capabilities to highlight experiences of violence and discrimination, as well as their (lack of) access to housing. This calibration allows for the creation of a new list that is based on Nussbaum’s universal list but is tailored to participants’ context, all drawn from their own engagement with the concepts.

Based on these data, I suggest that participatory concept calibration, including the use of quantitative framing to elucidate qualitative data as discussed here, can be a powerful tool to incorporate research participants in the production of knowledge, as intended in participatory action research. Furthermore, of particular interest to capabilities researchers, participatory concept calibration allows researchers to bridge the divide between universalist capabilities lists (Nussbaum, Anand) and context-based capabilities research (Sen, Robeyns). Finally, I argue that quantitative framing gives participants an entry point through which to analyze and engage with seemingly esoteric ideas like those used in the capabilities approach and potentially applicable to other complex concepts. This expands their abilities to participate in decision-making that affects their own lives, from research to policy.