Category Archives: Graduate Coursework

Women and Children in Bangladesh: The Effects of the Grameen Bank, the World Bank, and the Global Partnership for Education

This is a paper I completed on 2018-03-01 for Dr. Judit Szente‘s course, EDF 6855: Equitable Educational Opportunity & Life Chances: A Cross-National Analysis, at University of Central Florida.

Women and Children in Bangladesh: The Effects of the Grameen Bank, the World Bank, and the Global Partnership for Education
Richard Thripp
University of Central Florida

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of three institutions at improving educational and financial outcomes for women and children in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, a densely populated South Asian country that borders India. It is a United Nation’s “least developed country,” with many of the 163 million residents living in poverty.

The Grameen Bank

The Grameen Bank was founded by Dr. Muhammad Yunus in the 1970s to provide small loans to poor Bangladeshis living in rural areas. Billed as the “bank for the poor,” in 2006, the bank and its founder won a Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. In particular, the bank focuses on loans to women so they can start or further their small businesses. Unlike other banks, Grameen lends to the poor without collateral at a lower interest rate (16% per year). A mandatory component is regular meetings with a support group of four other prospective borrowers—the bank builds “collective responsibility” by requiring a pilot test with two of five borrowers from each support group before the other three are allowed to borrow (Grameen Bank, 2018). As of 2006, the bank claims it had loaned a total of $24 billion USD to nine million borrowers.

In 1996, Pitt and Khandker administered questionnaires to loan recipients in Bangladesh, and found that although Grameen loans improved household wealth for both males and females, the loans especially helped girl’s schooling and empowered women to participate in the labor force. The authors looked at micro-loans to men as well, finding that such men were more likely to enroll their children in school and to use contraceptives. The Grameen Bank can be seen as a “three-in-one,” so to speak—an anti-poverty program, a pro-education program, and a women’s empowerment program. However, the authors note that in addition to the micro-loans themselves, the support groups with four other borrowers might contribute to positive outcomes for Grameen loan recipients. Regardless, both components are important parts of the Grameen program, which has shown excellent results in benefitting the poor. At the same time, it has managed to be cash-flow positive while lending to people who are seen as undeserving of credit by traditional banks and lenders.

Kabeer (2001) provides an account that factors in the nuances of a patriarchal culture and gender differences. In particular, even wealthy women may be discouraged from pursuing entrepreneurial efforts due to sexist stigmas in Bangladesh. A prime finding of importance, however, is that women who receive micro-loans are more likely to share it with their family, benefiting their children’s education and their partner, in addition to their business venture. However, men are less likely to share the micro-loan. Therefore, lending to women has the inherent benefit of an increased chance of benefiting the entire household rather than just the husband, father, or man.

A dissenting viewpoint is Karim’s (2008), who blasts the Grameen Bank for its 98% loan recovery rate. Karim argues that the rural poor are being subjugated by Grameen, which is only cemented by their 2006 Nobel prize award—specifically, that “Bangladeshi rural women’s honor and shame are instrumentally appropriated by micro-credit NGOs in the furtherance of their capitalist interests” (p. 5). Nonetheless, Grameen inarguably offers collateral-free loans to those who would not typically qualify, at interest rates that are relatively fair—16% per year. Even a creditworthy borrower in the US might be charged a higher interest rate on a credit card. Like educational stipends which provide direct support for rural girls to go to school (Hahn, Islam, Nuzhat, Smyth, & Yang, 2018), micro-loans can support women’s capital expenditures needed to jump-start a successful business, such as purchasing equipment or inventory.

The World Bank

The World Bank provides loans and grants to poor and developing countries for projects that alleviate poverty and promote economic growth (World Bank, 2018e). It has two main branches: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which offers loans with interest to countries able to repay, and the International Development Association (IDA), which, via subsidies and donations from member countries, offers interest-free loans to the poorest countries (World Bank, n.d.). IDA recipients must have growth national income (GNI) of about $1,200 USD per person or less, on average—a threshold Bangladesh is about to cross which will make it an IDA/IBRD “blend” country subject to 2% annual interest on its many existing IDA loans rather than 0.75% as it paid in the 2017 fiscal year and before (Dhaka Tribune, 2017). While $1,200 per person is low compared to the US, it is an important milestone for Bangladesh and other poor-but-developing countries.

Bangladesh receives many IDA loans, including ones that benefit women and children. The IDA committed $510 million in December 2017 toward the Transforming Secondary Education for Results Operation (World Bank, 2018d), dedicated to addressing Bangladesh’s education gap—less than a quarter of its 57 million workers have completed secondary education. The IDA has also specifically benefitted out-of-school children via a $130 million loan in 2013 that helped blanket one-third of the country with 20,400 learning centers in rural and disadvantaged areas, which have enrolled 690,000 students (World Bank, 2017b). While academic publications on the IDA’s recent efforts are scant, it would appear the IDA has made a powerful impact to benefit children and women in Bangladesh. For example, another $500 million IDA loan aims to establish “safety net systems for the poorest” (World Bank, 2018a), and a $29 million loan targets women’s economic empowerment in Bangladesh’s poor northern region (World Bank, 2018b).

Sarker and Salam (2011) performed a gender-based literature review of the impacts of the World Bank and UNESCO toward primary education in Bangladesh. Overall, they speculated that the bank’s efforts toward alleviating poverty had resulted in increased primary school enrollment—76% in 1991 compared to 98% in 2008 (91% net)—because poverty is a prime reason for failure to enroll in school. The authors also commended the World Bank for recommending focusing on girls’ education, and noted that Bangladesh’s culture is a limiting factor because it may discourage girls from going to school. Further academic research is needed to examine the World Bank’s substantial recent efforts toward education, gender equality, and poverty alleviation in Bangladesh.

The Global Partnership for Education

The Global Partnership for Education’s (GPE) efforts in Bangladesh focus on implementing a World Bank IDA-funded project called the Primary Education Development Program III (World Bank, 2018c), a $9.8 billion program to improve primary education equality, quality, and participation. The project is primarily funded by Bangladesh’s government, along with loans from the IDA and other organizations, plus a $100 million grant from the GPE for “implementation of the entire program as budget support” (GPE, 2018b), which Bangladesh began receiving in 2016. Disbursement of the grant is tied to nine key indicators including distribution of textbooks and increasing completion rates of Grade 5 primary exams.

Founded in 2002, the GPE funds education in developing countries around the world, focusing on primary and pre-primary education, girls, out-of-school children, and disadvantaged children in general (GPE, 2018a). Bangladesh was the 60th country to receive funding, and $100 million is the maximum amount a country can receive. Use of the money is wide-ranging within the IDA-funded project, and the GPE’s contribution has aided large progress for children in Bangladesh. Primary enrollment increased from 84.7% in 2010 to 98.0% in 2017, with completion rates increasing from 54.9% to 80.8% in the same timeframe (GPE, 2018b; World Bank, 2017b). Now, 32.8% of schools meet the Primary School Quality Level Indicators as compared to 17% in 2010, which is still low, but much better than before. The vast majority of schools receive their textbooks within the first month of the school year now, and 2,032 teachers have been recruited or trained.

Although the GPE is a small part of educational funding in Bangladesh that began funding the country only two years ago, its focus on rigor and standards and its experience working in other developing countries has likely contributed greatly to the wellbeing of women and children in Bangladesh, by improving educational access and quality. If they continue to be sustained, these efforts will have a positive impact for many decades to come.


The efforts of the Grameen Bank, World Bank, and Global Partnership for Education synergize. Grameen focuses on micro-loans to poor people in rural areas to start or further their business ventures. Although these people are often uneducated and do not gain education directly from the micro-loans, their financial standing tends to improve, which can allow them to provide better nutritional and educational opportunities to their children. The World Bank’s focus is broad and wide-ranging, including infrastructure and electrification projects not relevant here, but also many educational and poverty-mitigating initiatives, such as constructing a social safety net. These projects are quite important toward equity of chances and outcomes for poor women and children. The GPE, through both its organizational capital and direct financial support administered by the World Bank, improves the scope and quality of primary education in Bangladesh which further enables upward economic mobility for the poor. Overall, the efforts of these three organizations, along with many other stakeholders including a substantial commitment from the Bangladesh government, are helping to move Bangladesh from the list of least-developed countries toward the list of middle-income countries.


Dhaka Tribune (2017, October 13). World Bank loan to be costlier for Bangladesh from next FY. Retrieved from

Global Partnership for Education (2018a). About us. Retrieved from

Global Partnership for Education (2018b). Education in Bangladesh. Retrieved from

Grameen Bank (2018). Credit delivery system. Retrieved from

Kabeer, N. (2001). Conflicts over credit: Re-evaluating the empowerment potential of loans to women in rural Bangladesh. World Development29, 63–84.

Karim, L. (2008). Demystifying micro-credit. Cultural Dynamics, 20, 5–29.

Pitt, M. M., & Khandker, S. R. (1996). Household and intrahousehold impact of the Grameen Bank and similar targeted credit programs in Bangladesh. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

Sarker, M. F. H., & Salam, M. A. (2011). The roles of the World Bank and UNESCO in primary education in Bangladesh: A gender based analysis. Society & Change, 5(4), 7–20.

World Bank (n.d.). Where does the World Bank get its money? Retrieved from

World Bank (2017a, June 22). Bangladesh: Primary education development program III: Implementation status & results report. Retrieved from

World Bank (2017b, October 15). Bangladesh: Reaching out of school children II: Implementation status & results report. Retrieved from

World Bank (2018a). Bangladesh safety net systems for the poorest project. Retrieved from

World Bank (2018b). Northern areas reduction-of-poverty initiative project: Women’s economic empowerment project. Retrieved from

World Bank (2018c). Primary education development program III. Retrieved from

World Bank (2018d). Transforming secondary education for results operation. Retrieved from

World Bank (2018e). What we do. Retrieved from

Youjin, H., Islam, A., Nuzhat, K., Smyth, R., & Yang, H.-S. (2018). Education, marriage, and fertility: Long-term evidence from a female stipend program in Bangladesh. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 66, 383–415.

On gender parity, equality, and equity; the UNESCO Education for All initiative; and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal #5

This is a discussion post I wrote on 2018-02-23 for Dr. Judit Szente‘s course, EDF 6855: Equitable Educational Opportunity & Life Chances: A Cross-National Analysis, at University of Central Florida.

The fifth Education for All (EFA) goal seeks gender parity and equality in both primary and secondary school (UNESCO, 2015). Although this was originally targeted for 2015, less than half of countries reached gender parity by this time. Nonetheless, progress toward parity and equality is accelerating.

Before proceeding, I think it is important to understand differences between parity, equality, and equity. Parity merely focuses on equal enrollment and completion rates—in this case, between males and females. If a country had 10% of males and 10% of females enrolled in school, it would have achieved gender parity even though 80% of children are not going to school (a horrible outcome!). Equality means treating everyone the same. Equity means giving everyone equal opportunities by catering to their needs (see Sun, 2014 for a more thorough explanation including a cartoon!). In part, this is likely why UNESCO (2016) focuses on equity, which is more holistic. On the other hand, the United Nations (2017) goal for gender equality promotes equality via equal access, which is less useful due to its limited scope.

Counter-intuitively, equity is achieved through inequality, but in a manner opposite to the inequality we typically see. Countries that allow the poorest families equal access to schools without fees or onerous paperwork requirements (e.g., producing a birth certificate) may have achieved equality, but to achieve equity you have to give extra support to the poorest families, particularly if they have girls. This might involve offering transportation, text messages or home visits to address their needs and encourage them to go to school, providing sanitation and hygiene products, and even in-home teaching. The goal is not equality, but to “level the playing field,” so to speak, via equitable practices. In golf, giving a less-skilled player a “handicap” (i.e., extra points) makes the game equitable by counter-acting the players’ underlying inequalities of skill by introducing countervailing inequality. The poorest families, and particularly the poorest girls, need disproportionately high levels of funding and support to countervail the advantages that boys and wealthier families receive. Thus, paradoxically, equity is achieved through inequality.

UNESCO (2016) recognizes this paradox by focusing on equity for those with disabilities, language barriers, and victims of “forced displacement” (p. 271; e.g., refugees and those who have moved due to natural disasters, unfavorable political or economic climate, etc.). Someone with a language barrier, for instance, might require an interpreter to achieve equity with other students, even though this means the student receives an unequally high amount of school resources. In principle, this reminds me of the phrase popularized by Karl Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Those with more abilities produce more and should provide more for others, while those who need more due to disadvantages (e.g., poverty, disability, etc.) should receive what they need to succeed. Of course, this ideal has never been realized for humans at a wide scale, but it does summarize what equity would look like. At the same time, equity is undesirable if it results in everyone being poor or disadvantaged.

Overall, potent criticisms of the sustainable development goals are their focus on economic growth, lack of ambition and cohesiveness, and lack of sustainability with respect to earth’s resources and climate change (Koehler, 2016). One example Koehler gives of a lack of ambition in the preceding Millennium Development Goals is to reduce “at least by half, the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimension”—even when a proportional reduction would preserve the underlying unequal proportions (i.e., more women than men in poverty). Moreover, not prioritizing planetary sustainability and climate change unfairly impacts women, in part because they are more likely to work the rural farmland and fisheries that will be decimated by climate change, and also because they are more impacted by natural disasters and other ecological damage that anthropogenic climate change produces.


Koehler, G. (2016). Tapping the Sustainable Development Goals for progressive gender equity and equality policy? Gender & Development, 24, 53–68.

Sun, A. (2014, September 16). Equality is not enough: What the classroom has taught me about justice [Blog post]. Retrieved from

UNESCO. (2015). “Chapter 5: Goal 5: Gender parity and equality.” EFA global monitoring report 2015: Education for all 2000–2015: Achievements and challenges. Retrieved from

UNESCO. (2016). “Chapter 14: Target 4.5: Equity.” Global education monitoring report 2016: Education for people and the planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Retrieved from

United Nations. (2017). Sustainable Development Goals: 17 goals to transform our world. Retrieved from

Why Apple should fight childhood hunger and poverty

This is a discussion post that I completed on 2018-01-11 for the class, EDF 6855: Factors Affecting Equitable Educational Opportunity and Life Chances: A Cross-National Analysis, taught by Judit Szente, Ph.D. at University of Central Florida.

Please reflect on the possible cause and effect of a specific issue and how it affects children’s life chances (e.g., reasons of poverty and hunger, effects of poverty and hunger, how poverty and/or hunger may affect children’s life chances).

The UNICEF (2016) chapter on children and poverty repeated emphasizes the need for multidimensional measurement of child poverty. In Sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia, even a household making more than 5.00 USD per day may still be poor in terms of their access to education, sanitation, electricity, et cetera. Infrastructure and access is critical to combating child hunger and poverty. For instance, many Chinese rural–urban migrants are denied access to education and other services in their new cities of residence (UNICEF, 2016), meaning their children are still experiencing poverty on many critical dimensions.

Last month (December 2017), I visited family in Shenyang, Liaoning, China for three weeks, which included a 10-day road trip visiting many tourist sites such as the Great Wall, Beijing Palace Museum, Yellow River, Longmen Grottoes, and Terracotta Army. Although the opportunity to visit such tourist sites is restricted to the relatively wealthy, with admission fees ranging from 50–150 RMB (7.50–22.50 USD) plus costs of travel, around such sites it was clear that many sellers of fruit, trinkets, and “tour guide” services are poor or at least struggling. At the Yellow River (Hukou Falls), a woman trying to sell a bag of a dozen apples for 10 RMB (1.5 USD) followed us. Although my family protested, I tried giving her one USD as a gift, but due to the language barrier, she placed the apples in the trunk of our car and accepted the dollar bill as payment. I felt bad, but my family assured me that at 10 RMB she was over-charging compared to other apple sellers and that one USD (6.5 RMB) was sufficient. Regardless, it is clear that many of these sellers are part of the “informal” economy (UNICEF, 2016), along with the associated disadvantages. Occasionally, I would even see children working with their parents to sell fruit or package incense sticks—time the children could be using to complete homework or play with friends. Although children may enjoy selling items, for poor families, child labor often becomes a necessity that inhibits educational progress and subsequent life chances. In fact, a recent longitudinal study of poor U.S. children showed a lack of brain and cognitive development stemming from poor nutrition and lack of cognitive stimulation (Hair, Hanson, Wolfe, & Pollak, 2015). Poverty is more likely to persist across generations when from an early age, poor children are malnourished and suffer wasting, stunting, rickets, and other maladies and disadvantages.

The United Nations (2017) first two Sustainable Development Goals focus on ending extreme poverty and malnutrition by 2030. These ambitious targets are unlikely, yet their promulgation stimulates public interest and support. However, they are simultaneously quite restrained. Individuals making more than 1.25 USD per day are not considered “extremely” poor, yet over a billion of them are actually still quite poor (UNICEF, 2006). While we often look to governments and NGOs to fight childhood hunger and poverty, it can easily be argued that corporate citizens should also play their part. Yesterday (January 17, 2018), Apple Inc. announced it will be repatriating its vast overseas cash hoard under the newly reduced U.S. tax rates. Their press release says they will pay $38 billion in tax, which means at the new 15.5% rate they will bring $250 billion home—a massive, almost incomprehensible sum. Sadly, in their press release, there is no mention of hunger or poverty. The only mention of education is computer programming (“coding”) and science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM) in the US. While many excuse public corporations from charitable responsibilities due to the supposedly preeminent responsibility to provide maximum profits to their shareholders, this may be misguided or even ridiculous. In China, iPhones have a following despite being more expensive than in the US when considering exchange rates—and several times more pricey when considering relative wages. Arguably, Apple should be investing heavily in Sub-Saharan Africa for future profitability via sales there. However, chasing inflated quarterly earnings and higher stock valuations in the short-term often inhibits corporations from long-range planning—such as developing the South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa markets by confronting childhood hunger and poverty head-on.


Apple Inc. (2018, January 17). Apple accelerates US investment and job creation [Press release]. Retrieved from

Hair, N. L., Hanson, J. L., Wolfe, B. L., & Pollak, S. D. (2015). Association of child poverty, brain development, and academic achievement. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 822–829.

UNICEF. (2016). The state of the world’s children 2016: A fair chance for every child. New York, NY: UNICEF. Retrieved from

United Nations. (2017). Sustainable Development Goals: 17 goals to transform our world. Retrieved from

School attendance in Sub-Saharan Africa

This is a discussion post that I completed on 2018-01-11 for the class, EDF 6855: Factors Affecting Equitable Educational Opportunity and Life Chances: A Cross-National Analysis, taught by Judit Szente, Ph.D. at University of Central Florida.

What is your reflection on the goals of the Education for All initiative? What are some major areas in which we urgently need some growth internationally?

The goals of the Education for All (EFA) initiative (World Bank, 2014) revolve around equitable access via a focus on disadvantaged populations, such as girls and women, minorities, the poor, and those living in war zones and other conflict-stricken areas. Although females earn a majority of high school diplomas and postsecondary degrees in the United States (Kirst, 2013), in developing nations females’ access to education is impeded by many factors. Despite the costs and challenges, improving education and access is a moral imperative that produces great human and economic gains. While the EFA does little without practical action from signatory nations and organizations, it sets the tone, and the accompanying analyses and policy work guide funding priorities and debates.

One area where growth is needed internationally is in school attendance (UNESCO, 2014). From 2007 to 2012 the global rate of primary school attendance (Ages 6–11) has not increased beyond 91%, although great gains were made prior to 2007. The 9% of primary-age children not in school is a considerable figure—58 million, 43% of which have not and will probably never attend school. The lack of growth in school attendance is concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, where slightly more than half (29.6 million) of non-attending primary aged children reside. While in 2000–2012, the proportional decline in primary out-of-school rate was the same in sub-Saharan Africa (39% to 21%) as in the rest of the world (10.5% to 5.5%), in the same timeframe the primary school age population increased by 35% in sub-Saharan Africa as compared with a 10% decrease elsewhere. Based on 2012 data, UNESCO (2014) expects this population explosion to continue in sub-Saharan Africa, which means this region will continue needing urgent attention.


Kirst, M. W. (2013, May 28). Women earn more degrees than men; Gap keeps increasing [Blog post]. Retrieved from

UNESCO Institute for Statistics and Education for All Global Monitoring Report (2014, June). Progress in getting all children to school stalls but some countries show the way forward. Retrieved from

World Bank (2014, August 4). Education for all. Retrieved from

Qualitative Research Proposal on Attitudes Toward the Working Poor

This is a research proposal that I completed on 2017-12-06 for the class, EDF 7475: Qualitative Research in Education taught by David Boote, Ph.D. at University of Central Florida. Note that I do not intend to conduct this research.

EDF 7475 Qualitative Research Proposal on Attitudes Toward the Working Poor
Richard Thripp
University of Central Florida

Financially, many Americans are not only unprepared for retirement, but also the day-to-day surprises of life. When Americans are asked whether they can “come up with” $2000 within 30 days, nearly half say they could “probably not” or “certainly not” do so (Lusardi, 2011). While this is troubling, one way we can shed light on this phenomenon is to research Americans’ approach to saving and perceptions toward others who are financially struggling.


My proposed study is to conduct semi-structured interviews with working-class and privileged Americans about their approach toward saving and their perceptions of others who are struggling financially. My interest here was crystallized from analyzing employee–employer reviews of Rent-A-Center (Glassdoor, 2017) that I selected for complaints about taking advantage of customers (e.g., repossessing children’s beds). However, to my surprise, when coding these interviews, there were more statements deriding the customers as “liars and thieves,” the “worst specimens of humanity,” and as deserving their fates due to their lack of personal responsibility. While in part, this may be due to racism toward African Americans (Gilens, 1996), surprisingly, welfare recipients themselves may tend to consider other welfare recipients “dishonest and idle” (Bullock, 1999). The purpose of this study is to learn, via qualitative methods, about attitudes toward people with financial difficulties from individuals of two socioeconomic strata. A semi-structured interview approach will yield richer data and useful insights that would not appear in a simple questionnaire.

Research Questions

1. What are privileged and working-class Americans’ thoughts toward others who are financially struggling, and how do these attitudes differ between group?
2. How do privileged and working-class Americans differ in their approaches to saving?

Significance of the Project

This study will contribute to research on financial psychology, such as with respect to spending behavior (e.g., Soman, 2001). A wealth of survey data shows a lack of financial literacy in the United States, Europe, and beyond (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014). Educators and policymakers erroneously presume that financial education is efficacious (Fernandes, Lynch, & Netemeyer, 2014). Meanwhile, inequity in the United States is growing at a breakneck pace, which financially disenfranchises a large proportion of the population (Lusardi, Michaud, & Mitchell, 2017). Looking at differences between the rich and poor in their beliefs about the financially downtrodden may yield useful insights.

Literature Review

When comparing the working poor to the financially privileged, it is important to recognize the two groups are not at all on equal footing. For instance, while using a tangible or immediate payment method like cash or a debit card results in reduced spending (Soman, 2001), the tendency for the working poor to use debit cards, rather than credit or charge cards, engenders delinquency and overdraft fees. Stango and Zinman (2009, 2014) lament that consumers pay an annual average of about $150 per checking account in overdraft fees, and more than half of these are “avoidable,” meaning the consumer has funds available elsewhere that could have paid for their purchase. Moreover, the working poor are disproportionately affected, which may be due to a lack of attention due to many other pressing financial concerns (Stango & Zinman, 2014), and because a $35 overdraft fee does not scale with financial privilege. In fact, banks may be more willing to refund such a fee for those who need it least.

Lusardi and Mitchell (2014) discuss a saddening finding from the U.S. Financial Capability Study ( While 70% of Americans rate their financial knowledge highly, only 30% can actually answer a small number of quite basic financial questions correctly. Less education and being in a vulnerable group, such as African Americans, women, young or old, and rural residence, are all correlated with less financial literacy and by consequence, financial struggles. At a macro level, this undermines American economic stability and perpetuates wealth inequality, including the subjugation and disenfranchisement of vulnerable and protected groups (Lusardi et al., 2017).

Sadly, financial education courses, at least in their present form, do not have lasting beneficial impact on financial behaviors (Fernandes et al., 2014; Mandell, 2012). On the other hand, regulatory reforms (Grubb, 2015) and “nudging” the working poor toward better choices (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008) have merit. However, a complete analysis of the plight of the financially disadvantaged must include our attitudes and attributions. Financial education may implicitly embody these perceptions, thereby patronizing and alienating its intended population, or at the very least, lacking relevance.

Americans tend to have negative attitudes toward the poor. If they believe in the Protestant work ethic or the “just-world” hypothesis, which claims that good and evil actions are eventually rewarded or punished, they may be more likely to blame the poor for their situation (Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, & Tagler, 2001). Individuals who are homeless have been shown to be stigmatized as much or more than the mentally ill, with a general attitude that they should blame themselves for their situations (Phelan, Link, Moore, & Stueve, 1997). “Black welfare mothers” are stigmatized and derided far more than their white counterparts, in part because of availability bias due to politicization (Gilens, 1996). While welfare recipients tend to blame structural rather than individual factors for poverty, they surprisingly view other welfare recipients as dishonest and lazy to a greater extent than middle-class respondents (Bullock, 1999). This finding is in line with my observation of Rent-A-Center employees’ (Glassdoor, 2017) derogatory views toward customers, given Rent-A-Center is not a high-paying job and thus most employees could be classified among the working poor. Attitudes toward poverty, including differences between the poor and financially advantaged, deserve further inquiry.

Research Methods

My research will be organized around in-person semi-structured interviews from purposefully sampled participants who volunteer for this research by responding to solicitations.

Research Site

The research site will be my office, Education Complex, Room 123L, at the University of Central Florida. I share an office with other doctoral students, but will coordinate with their schedules to conduct interviews when I have the room to myself. Because personal finances can be a sensitive topic, this setting may be preferable to a public setting (e.g., a cafeteria) because it offers more privacy. In the office, I will interview participants across a small desk. I will use an audio recording app on my smartphone and a printed interview protocol attached to a clipboard, with space to jot down notes with a pen. This is much less intrusive than taking notes on computer or mobile device during the interview.

Researcher’s Role

I will be interviewing the participants using a semi-structured interview protocol that I developed, conducting brief follow-up contacts with participants for member checking, and conducting analysis and interpretation of the data which will include my rough notes, field notes, and audio recording of the interviews (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Overall, my positionality is as a financial expert and researcher who advocates for educational interventions and industry reforms that benefit the working poor. One weak spot is that I am not personally familiar with having financial difficulties, so it is somewhat challenging to relate to the working poor.

Sampling Method

I will solicit participants via advertisements posted in the Education Complex at UCF and at a nearby country club or other place where privileged people congregate. I may also use email or web solicitations. All solicitations will funnel prospective participants into a Qualtrics questionnaire which will use deception (with approval from the UCF Institutional Review Board) to hide the primary purpose of the research; namely, searching for differences in attitudes toward the financially disadvantaged between working class and privileged individuals. The Qualtrics questionnaire will frame the purpose of the research in general terms about Americans’ attitudes toward saving. Several questions about prospects’ financial and work situations will be included, ostensibly to gauge the financial situation of Americans. I will use responses to these questions to select a number of privileged and working-class participants to contact.

To define the construct of privileged versus working class, I will ask these questions:

1. What is your annual income?
a. $1 – $29,999
b. $30,000 – $74,999
c. $75,000 – $149,999
d. $150,000 or more

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? [Each question will be on a 1-5 Likert-type scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree]

2. I could come up with $2000 within 30 days (Lusardi, 2011).
3. I could stop working for a year and live comfortably on either accumulated savings or income from a pension, gifts from family, et cetera without going into debt.
4. I have not had significant financial difficulties in life.

Participants who have higher incomes and agree who tend to agree with the latter three questions will be considered privileged, while others will be considered working class. Participants may be any age 18 or older. I may aim for rough parity in age between groups, but am not specifically interested in age differences (nor gender, ethnicity, etc.) so this would not be preeminent.

Data Collection Methods

When contacting prospects, I will offer participants an incentive of $20 to participate in a 30-minute face-to-face interview at my UCF office. This will be explained as furthering research on financial literacy, education, and attitudes for the public’s benefit. I would likely invite 10 participants per group (privileged and working class) with a goal of five final interviews per group. Because these would already be “warm” prospects who completed a Qualtrics questionnaire that mentioned an in-person interview, conversion rates should be relatively high. For certain participants on an as-needed basis, I may conduct some interviews via recorded telephone call or Skype video chat.

Interviews will be semi-structured, first with the icebreaker question, “what would you do if you received $10,000 unexpectedly right now?” There may be interesting differences between groups in their approach to handling a small windfall. The remainder of the interview will use these guiding questions:

1. Tell me about your approach to saving money.
2. Have you had significant financial struggles in your life?
3. How do you feel about others who are financially struggling?

I will listen carefully to what participants say. Although my research questions are the primary interest, if the interview diverges, this may also be of interest. At the conclusion I will ask them to verify what I have written down (member checking) and I will take notes or make corrections as appropriate. Immediately after I will write up field notes. Later, I will transcribe the audio recording. Subsequently, I will perform thematic coding on the interviews. I anticipate an emergent coding process whereby one or several interviews are coded prior to conducting the rest of the interviews with an interview protocol that may be revised based on prior findings.

I will also be asking participants if they are interested in an optional follow-up interview which can be in-person, by phone, or Skype. Then, I hope to conduct at least one follow-up interview per group to collect more data based on findings that emerge from initial interviews.

Analysis and Trustworthiness

Data analysis plan. I will set the stage for data analysis with detailed field notes and transcripts. Then, I will code the interviews iteratively for meaningful and noteworthy statements. These will be clustered into themes regarding participants’ attitudes toward the financially struggling, in–out group bias, approaches to saving, feelings of self-determination or external locus of control, et cetera. The goal will be to reach thematic saturation, thereby exhaustively describing the phenomenon and enabling analysis of its structure (Creswell & Poth, 2017). This will be an iterative process with revisions between interviews, as I do not expect to conduct all 10 interviews at once.

Establishing validity and trustworthiness. These will partly be established from member checking at the conclusion of interviews, iterative revisions between interviews to address shortcomings, and in at least one follow-up interview per group (privileged and working poor). Conducting interviews in a private, in-person setting may enable trustworthiness by encouraging participants to be frank about their attitudes toward the working poor. Participants will have already completed a sorting questionnaire via Qualtrics, and will be assured their responses will be kept anonymous by use of aliases and, when published, masking or alteration of information that might give away their identities. In particular, this may be important for privileged participants who may be community figures. Overall, the insights from this qualitative investigation should be both practical and entertaining, with a level of validity and trustworthiness comparable to or exceeding that of similar qualitative research.


Bullock, H. E. (1999). Attributions for poverty: A comparison of middle-class and welfare recipient attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 2059–2082.

Cozzarelli, C., Tagler, M. J., & Wilkinson, A. V. (2001). Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty. Journal of Social Issues57, 207–227.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fernandes, D., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2014). Financial literacy, financial education, and downstream financial behaviors. Management Science, 60, 1861–1883.

Gilens, M. (1996). “Race coding” and white opposition to welfare. The American Political Science Review, 90, 593–604.

Glassdoor (2017). Rent-A-Center Employee Reviews. Retrieved from

Grubb, M. D. (2015). Consumer inattention and bill-shock regulation. Review of Economic Studies, 82, 219–257.

Lusardi, A. (2011, December). Why are Americans so bad at saving? Retrieved from

Lusardi, A., Michaud, P.-C., & Mitchell, O. S. (2017). Optimal financial knowledge and wealth inequality. Journal of Political Economy, 125, 431–477.

Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 52, 5–44.

Mandell, L. (2012). School-based financial education: Not ready for prime time. CFA Institute Research Foundation, 2012(3), 107–124.

Phelan, J., Link, B. G., Moore, R. E., & Stueve, A. (1997). The stigma of homelessness: The impact of the label “homeless” on attitudes toward poor persons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 323–337.

Soman, D. (2001). Effects of payment mechanism on spending behavior: The role of rehearsal and immediacy of payments. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 460–474.

Stango, V., & Zinman, J. (2009). What do consumers really pay on their checking and credit card accounts? Explicit, implicit, and avoidable costs. The American Economic Review, 99, 424–429.

Stango, V., & Zinman, J. (2014). Limited and varying consumer attention: Evidence from shocks to the salience of bank overdraft fees. The Review of Financial Studies, 27, 990–1030.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.