Quote
U. Fischer and S. Liebermann, “What Can ‘Qualitative’ Research Contribute to the Debate on a Universal Basic Income and Its Implications for Care Work?” 2023.
Content
After a long public debate, the proposal for a universal basic income has established itself as a social policy alternative. This raises the question of what social science research has to say about the potential prerequisites or consequences of a UBI, and how it can help identify and understand challenges or even risks. A look at the research on the UBI teaches us, above all, that a particular understanding of methodology has dominated the field thus far. Standardized methods of data collection and analysis—as are familiar from quantitative social research and used in field experiments—are apparently regarded as the gold standard. Non-standardized methods—such as those used in qualitative social research, where they have been employed for decades—have hardly been utilized to date. This requires explanation, as it is precisely these methods that allow for a precise methodological approach to the specific beliefs, patterns of interpretation, and habitus that guide people’s actions—enabling us to understand why decisions are made and how they are reached. Understanding these processes is central to assessing the potential impacts of a UBI. Drawing on various types of data, this workshop aims to demonstrate what UBI research could gain by incorporating these methods. In particular, the material analyses will focus on the decisions—which are particularly contentious in the context of care—between familial, civic, and professional activities, as well as an examination of the widespread assumption that incentives play a major role in the genesis of action and, consequently, in decisions regarding a specific field of action.
Keywords
Concept of work
Unconditional basic income
Care activities
Performance ethics
Reconstructive research