Quote
U. Fischer and S. Liebermann, What contribution can "qualitative" research make to the discussion about an unconditional basic income and its consequences for care activities? 2023.
Content
After a long public debate, the proposal of an unconditional basic income has established itself as a socio-political alternative. This is accompanied by the question of what social science research has to say about any preconditions or consequences of a UBI, and how it can help to identify or understand challenges or even risks. A look at the research on the UBI has so far taught us above all that it is dominated by a certain understanding of methods. Standardized methods of data collection and evaluation, as known from quantifying social research and used in field experiments, are apparently considered the gold standard. To date, non-standardized methods, such as those used in qualitative social research and which have been used there for decades, have hardly been used. This needs to be explained insofar as it is precisely these methods that allow precise methodological access to people's concrete action-guiding convictions, patterns of interpretation and habitus, which make it possible to understand why decisions are made and how they are made. Understanding these processes is central to the possible effects of a UBI. Based on different types of material, the workshop aims to show what UBI research could gain if it were expanded to include these methods. In particular, the decisions between family, civic and professional activities, which are virulent in the care issue, are the focus of the material analyses as well as an examination of the widespread assumption that incentives are of great importance for the genesis of action and consequently for decisions for a certain field of action.
Keywords
Concept of work
Unconditional basic income
Care activities
Performance ethics
Reconstructive research