MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Public Perceptions of International Development and Support for Aid in the UK: Results of a Qualitative Enquiry

2010· article· en· W2068142475 on OpenAlexaff
Spencer Henson, Johanna Lindström, Lawrence Haddad, Rajendra Mulmi

Bibliographic record

VenueIDS Working Papers · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusterityPovertyGovernment (linguistics)SkepticismMillennium Development GoalsEconomic growthDevelopment aidExtreme povertyPolitical scienceDeveloping countryPublic relationsQualitative researchDevelopment economicsSociologyEconomicsSocial sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Aid budgets face immense pressure – despite overseas aid being critical for poverty alleviation in developing countries and the explicit commitments of the world's industrialised countries to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Public support for international development and aid will play a key role. Will the public become unsure about the UK's aid budget when they begin to feel cuts in government expenditure at home? How well equipped are we to ‘sell’ the UK's aid programme to a sceptical public in times of economic austerity? This working paper presents the results of a qualitative enquiry into public perceptions of international development and aid in the UK. Using data from the Mass Observation Project (MOP) at the University of Sussex, the authors investigate the views of 185 members of the general public. The study finds that, while people can conjure up ideas of why poverty exists, they know very little about the confluence of factors that actually drive poverty and/or the daily lives of the poor. Thus, poverty is seen as caused primarily by bad governments and natural disasters, almost as a stereotype. People have major doubts about the effectiveness of aid, perhaps reflecting the fact that they tend to be much better at picturing aid ‘failure’ than aid ‘success’. Nonetheless, there is support for aid in principle; people think that the UK has a responsibility to help the poor in developing countries, primarily on ethical grounds. This research has clear implications for the way in which the UK communicates with the British public about aid and development and the authors suggest a more considered approach that recognises the complexities of aid and is honest about what works and what doesn't. The paper concludes with a call for further research to fill the knowledge gaps that still exist about the drivers of public support for development and how those drivers can be influenced.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIDS Working PapersSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207