persons, and we count only those whose poverty made them homeless, we’ll find fewer than if we include disaster victims. If we count those who were without a home for thirty days in the last year, we will find fewer homeless people than if our standard is only ten days, and using ten as a standard will produce a lower number than if we agree that even a single night on the streets qualifies someone to be considered homeless.
In fact, some advocates for the homeless argue that definitions based on these elements are far too narrow, and they offer even broader definitions.20 They suggest that people who stay in the homes of friends or relatives—but who have no homes of their own—ought to be counted as homeless. Under this definition, an impoverished mother and child who never spend a night on the streets or in a shelter but who “double up” and live with relatives or another poor family ought to be counted as homeless. Obviously, using this broader standard to count cases will produce higher numbers than definitions that restrict homelessness to those living on the streets. Still other advocates argue that people whose housing is inadequate or insufficient also ought to be counted as homeless. This still broader definition will lead to even larger numbers. Calculating the number of homeless people (or illiterate people or acts of sexual violence) inevitably reflects our definitions.
In other words, statistics about social problems always depend on how we define the problem. The broader the definition, the bigger the statistic. And, because people promoting social problems favor big numbers (because they make the problem seem bigger and more important), we can expect that they will favor broad definitions. Often, advocates justify broad definitions by emphasizing the importance of being inclusive. People who spend a single night on the streets (or who have to stay with friends, or who live in substandard housing) also suffer. Who are we to decide that their suffering shouldn’t count? Clearly, advocates argue, these people deserve to be included when we speak of “homelessness.”
There are, then, two questions about definitions that ought to be asked whenever we encounter statistics about social problems. First, how is the problem defined? It is all too easy to gloss over definitions, to assume that everybody knows what it means to be homeless or illiterate or whatever. But the specifics of definitions make a difference, and we need to know what they are. Second, is the definition reasonable? No definition is perfect. Definitions that are too narrow exclude false negatives (cases that ought to be included), while definitions that are too broad include false positives (cases that ought to be excluded). It is difficult to have a sensible discussion about a social problem if we can’t define the problem in a way that we can agree is reasonable. But even if we cannot agree, we can at least recognize the differences in—and the limitations of—our definitions.
MEASURING
Any statistic based on more than a guess requires some sort of counting. Definitions specify what will be counted. Measuring involves deciding how to go about counting. We cannot begin counting until we decide how we will identify and count instances of a social problem.*
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
