Methodological fallacies and perceptions of rural disparity: How rural proofing addresses real versus abstract needs

dc.contributor.authorSherry, Erin
dc.contributor.authorShortall, Sally
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-01T15:34:02Z
dc.date.available2020-05-01T15:34:02Z
dc.date.issued2019-05-01
dc.descriptionPublication history: Accepted - 11 December 2018; Published online - 20 December 2018; Published - 1 May 2019.en_US
dc.description.abstractIn 2016, the EU committed to 'rural proofing' its policies. Rural proofing has now become a priority across Europe. Prior to this, rural proofing or mainstreaming, the reviewing of universal policies to ensure comparable treatment of rural areas, was relatively unique to England and Northern Ireland. The first case of legislating rural proofing has occurred with The Rural Needs Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. Qualitative data was collected from civil and public servants with experience of pre-legislative 'rural proofing', as well as those facing new responsibilities under the Act. Additional data was obtained from key informants active in agricultural, environmental, and rural organisations. Several key findings emerge, all underpinned by a central issue: that the approach entirely stands on an assumption of rural disadvantage, the nature of which is never articulated. We argue that this is not driven by a lack of evidence, but by a more fundamental problem: the pervasiveness of viewing rural issues through a lens tinted by methodological fallacies. Failure to correct for these weaknesses by means of a dynamic theory of rural leads to flawed policy, because it is designed to treat disparity rather than accommodate diversity. In other words, it is premised on a binary of urban/rural. The findings of this research will inform the development of rural proofing policies going forward.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis paper is based on research funded by the Northern Ireland Department of Agricultural and Rural Development Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Evidence and Innovation Project Number 15/2/02).en_US
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12518/131
dc.identifier.citationSherry, E. and Shortall, S. (2019) ‘Methodological fallacies and perceptions of rural disparity: How rural proofing addresses real versus abstract needs’, Journal of Rural Studies. Elsevier BV, 68, pp. 336–343. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.12.005.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0743-0167
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.12.005
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rights© 2019 The Authors. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).en_US
dc.subjectRural mainstreamingen_US
dc.subjectRural proofingen_US
dc.subjectEthnographic fallaciesen_US
dc.subjectRural policyen_US
dc.titleMethodological fallacies and perceptions of rural disparity: How rural proofing addresses real versus abstract needsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-12-11
dcterms.dateSubmitted2017-12-04
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Methodological fallacies and perceptions of rural disparity - How rural proofing addresses real versus abstract needs.pdf
Size:
559.42 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Final Published Version
Collections