Social Indicators Movement Research Articles

A Macro Social Report

The routes to a macro social report are the social indicators movement, the refinements in national income accounting, and the increasing role of accounting in achieving economic development. This article examines each of these routes.

Replies to Our Commentators

This paper is written to briefly summarize comments made on our paper “Fifty years after the social indicators movement: Has the promise been fulfilled? An assessment and an agenda for the future”, including additional ideas suggested by our reflections on the commentators’ remarks.

Societal Transformations and Their Implications for Social Indicators Research: Comments on “Fifty Years After the Social Indicators Movement: Has the Promise Been Fulfilled?” of K. Land and A. Michalos

The paper discusses Kenneth C. Land and Alex C. Michalos’ review and assessment of the evolution of research on social indicators, quality of life and well-being over the past fifty years. The contribution deals with the impacts of three major societal changes on the future research agenda of social indicators research: firstly, impacts of the changing class structure of post-industrial society, secondly, globalization impacts, including its economic, political, cultural and institutional dimensions, and thirdly, the impacts of an increasingly networked digitalization of production and consumption.

Fifty Years After the Social Indicators Movement: Has the Promise Been Fulfilled?

This paper reviews the origins, promise, and subsequent development of social indicators/quality-of-life/well-being conceptualizations and research since the 1960s. It then assesses the state of this field in the 2010s and identifies four key developments—the development of professional organizations that nurture its conceptual and empirical development; the widespread political, popular, and theoretical appeal of the quality-of-life (QOL) concept; a new era of the construction of composite or summary social indicators; and a recognition of the key role of the QOL concept in connecting social indicators to the study of subjective well-being—that have evolved over the past five decades and that are very much with us today. The final section of the paper poses the question of where the field should focus its energies. Beyond carrying on the existing research program, it argues that the field needs to recognize the substantial changes in the social and economic organization of contemporary societies as compared to the mid-1960s launch period for the Social Indicators Movement and develop new research foci for the years to come.

Social Indicators Movement and Human Agency: Comment on Land and Michalos

This paper offers a critical comment on Land and Michalos (Soc Indic Res, 2017) and suggests a relay perspective to see the past achievements and future directions in the social indicators movement. In accordance with Land and Michalos, it suggests bringing the issue of human agency to the foreground, and offers an example using an index of the mother’s wellbeing for global comparison.

Co-development of Happiness Research: Addition to \u201cFifty Years After the Social Indicator Movement\u201d

Social Indicators Research covers many topics, which each have their own history. Happiness research is one of these included topics. Longstanding interest in happiness revived since the 1960s together with the emergence of the social indicator movement. Happiness became a prominent issue in the movement and the movement has fostered the development of happiness research in several ways.

Quality of Life and Personality Development: A Reply to Land and Michalos

Land and Michael’s (this issue) offer an excellent overview of the evolving status of the social indicators movement, with thoughtful recommendations for future research. I argue that QOL researchers may want to consider paying increased attention to advances in the science of personality development, such as those articulated in McAdams' (The art and science of personality development. Guilford Press, New York, 2015), in conceptualizing comprehensive assessments of the QOL. Specifically, McAdams' synthesis of the literature on personal agency should provide a useful beginning for developmentally-informed discussions of the potential evolving nature of QOL and its antecedents, correlates, and consequences, with the goal of ensuring greater relevance of QOL evaluations to all age groups.

The Social Indicators Movement: Progress, Paradigms, Puzzles, Promise and Potential Research Directions.

This paper is a response to the article entitled “Fifty years after the Social Indicators Movement: Has the promise been fulfilled?” by Ken Land and Alex Michalos (2015) which constitutes a careful review of the historical development of the Social Indicators Movement, utility of social indicators in shaping the concept of quality of life and subjective well-being, and issues deserving social indicators research in future. In this response paper, we join in the discussion by highlighting five issues—progress, paradigms, puzzles, promise, and potential research directions of social indicators research. In terms of progress, while we have accomplished many tasks proposed by Solomon et al. (The quality of life, Sage, London 1980), some of them are yet to be achieved. Regarding research paradigms surrounding social indicators, researchers have primarily used positivistic or post-positivistic orientation to conduct and interpret social indicators research, with relatively fewer studies using interpretive, constructionist or critical theory perspective. There are also several puzzles deserving consideration. These include (a) the use of “other types of evidence”, particularly qualitative data; (b) evaluation of social programs; (c) feasibility of assessing “social progress”; (d) choice of social indicators; (e) interpretation of findings; (f) methodological debates; and (g) explanations for social change. Finally, the promise of social indicators research to promote quality of life and potential future research directions of social indicators research are discussed.

The Social Indicators Movement at 50: Onwards in Unity or Divided?

Before we can move forward with new topics in quality of life research, it would be useful to settle a number of issues that have been a source of debate over the last 50 years. Broadly speaking, this leads to seven principles for measuring and describing quality of life: the central focus is on people; quality of life is about more than just economics; a full measurement must incorporate both objective and subjective indicators; quality of life incorporates several dimensions; the outcome must be viewed separately from the determinants; there must be attention for distribution and difference; the domains can be combined into an index (though this is not essential). The main debate is perhaps about whether or not there should be an index. An index is necessary if we wish to give social indicators the same status as economic indicators have through GDP. In my view, that is desirable. Once these principles are established, the agenda for future social indicators research can be shaped using a model-based approach incorporating several recommendations from Land and Michalos.

Whatever Happened to Social Indicators in Africa? Whatever Happened Indeed! A Developing World Perspective on the Kenneth C. Land and Alex C. Michalos Report on ‘Fifty Years After the Social Indicators Movement’

Africa is a latecomer to the Social Indicators Movement. The first social indicators for Third World countries were developed by outsiders and covered almost exclusively topics related to basic needs and development. In response to Kenneth Land’s and Alex Michalos’ historical assessment and their agenda for future ‘social indicators/quality of life/well-being’ research, the commentary traces how South Africa and sub-Saharan countries—with a little help from many friends who are pioneers in the movement—have succeeded in developing their own home-grown social indicators movement. Addressing some of the themes outlined in the agenda that Land and Michalos set for future research, the commentary discusses the importance of monitoring social change occurring in African society in a ‘post-industrialized and much more globalized, and digitized-computerized-roboticized’ era: How will new values and norms impact on the quality of life of future generations of African people?

Comments on: Fifty Years After the Social Indicators Movement

Comments on: Fifty Years After the Social Indicators Movement

Testing the Comparability of Different Types of Social Indicators Across Groups

The social indicator movement has realized a considerable increase in importance during the last 50 years. This happened not the least by the publications in the journal Social Indicators Research. Social indicators have been developed for many aspects of life. The scores on these indicators often are compared through time and across groups. An essential requirement for such research is that the measures used are comparable through time and across groups. The comparability through time is not such a big problem but the comparability of measures across groups is not so obvious. This requires harmonization of indicators based on objective variables and invariance testing for indicators based on subjective and objective variables. In this paper we discuss how the comparability of different types of social indicators based on subjective and objective variables can be tested using invariance testing. This is a relevant issue because the existing testing procedure is designed for only one type of social indicators and this test is not directly applicable on the other types of social indicators.

Indicators of People’s Well-being

This paper provides some thoughts on Alex Michalos and Ken Land’s manuscript entitled Fifty years after the Social Indicators Movement: Has the promise been fulfilled? An assessment and an agenda for the future. The paper is structured on the basis of a retrospective exercise, a prospective exercise, and a main consideration. The retrospective exercise states that there is substantial value in knowing and recognizing the important work developed by previous scholars in the field of Social Indicators. The prospective exercise states that adjustments need to be implemented in order to enhance the policy relevance of the Social Indicators Movement. The main consideration states that we must never forget that the final aim is not about indicators but about people’s well-being; thus, it warns about the risk of making of the construction and monitoring of indicators an end in itself, and it argues in favor of judging the relevance of indicators on the basis of their ability to provide information about people’s experience of being well and about the design and implementation of policies to enhance this experience.

Raymond A. Bauer: A Pioneer in the Use of Sample Surveys to Assess Quality of Life

Raymond Augustine Bauer (1916–1977) was a Pioneer of the social Indicators movement who symbolized the best in the use of sample surveys in conducting quality of life and well-being research. The movement itself emerged in the United States in the mid 1960’s, in response to NASA’s interest in measuring and monitoring the impact of the American Space Program on U.S. society and its citizens. Asked by NASA to design and lead a national social indicators research program, Bauer set out to define and quantify a basic set of qualities and characteristics that reflect society, and to obtain a reading on where society was in relation to them. Stemming from his work with NASA, Bauer is well known as the editor of the seminal book ‘Social Indicators’ (1966), which outlines the importance of using research and statistics to help Bassess where we stand and are going with respect to our values and goals^. Social Indicators

The happiness turn? Mapping the emergence of “happiness studies” using cited references

This article analyzes “happiness studies” as an emerging field of inquiry throughout various scientific disciplines and research areas. Utilizing four operationalized search terms in the Web of Science; “happiness”, “subjective well-being”, “life satisfaction” and “positive affect”, a dataset was created for empirical citation analysis. Combined with qualitative interpretations of the publications, our results show how happiness studies has developed over time, in what journals the citing papers have been published, and which authors and researchers are the most productive within this set. We also trace various trends in happiness studies, such as the social indicators movement, the introduction of positive psychology and various medical and clinical applications of happiness studies. We conclude that “happiness studies” has emerged in many different disciplinary contexts and progressively been integrated and standardized. Moreover, beginning at the turn of the millennium, happiness studies has even begun to shape an autonomous field of inquiry, in which happiness becomes a key research problem for itself. Thus, rather than speaking of a distinct “happiness turn”, our study shows that there have been many heterogeneous turns to happiness, departing in a number of different disciplines.

Farewell to Lawrence Schlemmer: Initiator of Quality-of-Life Studies in South Africa

Professor Lawrence Schlemmer, affectionately known as Lawrie, was the father of South Africa’s quality-of-life studies and social indicators movement. He died on 26 October 2011 at the age of 75 after a short illness. In 1978, Lawrence marched into my office at the Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Natal, brandishing two books. We need to do some work on quality of life in South Africa, he announced, before handing me the volumes. At the time, South Africa’s leaders assumed that smiling black faces meant that South Africans were happy with their lot in life under apartheid. Our surveys were to prove otherwise. That weekend was spent reading cover to cover the classic works by Frank Andrews, Angus Campbell and their colleagues. The next week we pored over lists of concerns voiced by South Africans which we later put to test in the field. In 1982, we submitted our findings by ‘slug’ post to the editor of Social Indicators Research. We received a letter by return mail from Alex

The Evolution of Eupathics: The Historical Roots of Subjective Measures of Wellbeing

This paper traces the historical roots of subjective measures of wellbeing, that is, measures designed to represent happiness, satisfaction, or other “positive” or desirable mental states. While it is often suggested that these measures are a modern invention, I argue that they have a long and rich history that conforms to Theodore M. Porter’s general account of measurement in social and behavioral science. Subjective measures emerged in marital success studies, educational psychology, and personality psychology in the 1920s and 30s, and were further shaped by the epidemiology of mental health, gerontology, and the social indicator movement in the 1960s and 70s. Consistent with Porter’s account, these measures emerged in applied rather than theoretical branches of social and behavioral science, and they did so not as a result of physics envy, but rather as a result of a moral impulse to improve society; quantification was intended to make up for perceived deficiencies in unaided human judgment; and radical disagreements about the nature of wellbeing did not impede efforts to measure it – indeed, in time, there was considerably more agreement about how to measure wellbeing than about how to define it.

Interdependence of world markets: Economic growth and social well-being

This paper considers the socio-economic world context in 2009 and is aimed at achieving two goals: on one hand, to carry out an economic quantitative analysis of interdependence of the world markets; on the other hand, to investigate the relationship between economic growth and social well-being. In order to reach the first aim, we use, as a starting point, Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory (1982) presenting a hierarchical but unfixed division of the world in three levels ( core, semi-periphery and periphery ); then we consider a group of 124 countries and assign each of these country to one of the three areas. The assignment has been realized by looking at the total score achieved by each country, with the addition of the partial scores based on the position occupied in three different rankings which consider three distinct economic indicators each of them has been divided by the population size (real GDP, exports and debt-external). Therefore we proceed by reaching our second goal concerning the examination of the nature of the relationship existing between the level of each country’s participation in the world economy and its social well-being. We have decided to calculate the Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI) in order to show the level of well-being gained by each country considered. The PQLI was created by M. D. Morris (1979) to satisfy the need of constructing new indexes to overcome the limitations of economic parameters for measuring human development, which were highlighted by the social indicators movement of the 1960s and by very important works produced by Amartya Sen (1985, 1987, 1999). The construction of PQLI for each country has given us the possibility of comparing the results of the first part of our work with those coming from the second part, in order to focus on the relationship between economic growth and well-being. The results obtained have further been underlined by using a selected group of 9 countries reflecting the main trends which characterize the entire group of countries. In conclusion, the findings of this study reveal that the relationship between a high level of economic growth and an advanced degree of social well-being is not necessarily a cause/effect relationship because it may not occur in consequence of historical, cultural, social and/or political contingencies.

Towards an Understanding of Educational Indicators

The role of international organisations (IOs) in educational policy making at all levels of governance has increased in recent history due in part to the creation and dissemination of educational indicators. It is the purpose of this article to introduce the concept of indicators, briefly explain indicators’ history and how IOs are involved with indicator collection, and propose one theory toward explaining the increased use of indicators within IOs. In order to facilitate this understanding, the article first attempts to define indicators. It then moves to a brief history of the social and educational indicator movement. This will allow for a better understanding of where education indicators are placed in time and their connection to economic policy knowledge and utility. Finally, the article explores possible motivations for IOs to collect indicators and promote them as valid sources of understanding. While not an exhaustive account, the basis to collect and disseminate indicators includes a desire for comparative information, an aspiration to establish benchmarks, and an ambition to become the sole collectors of information. This list collectively suggests a culture of performativity as described by Lyotard.

The Child Indicators Movement: Past, Present, and Future

The effort to measure and monitor children’s well-being and the use of child well-being indicators is not new. However, recent years have brought new and growing attention to the field, and some argue, the revival of the children’s social indicators movement. Much of this new activity can be traced back to the 1960s social indicators movement and be accounted for by UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children annual report, as well as other international and national initiatives and projects. The United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, through its global ratification and its reporting and monitoring mechanism, has also played a major role in increasing interest in the field. This paper presents the history and development of the field, identifies current trends, and predicts where the field is headed.