衡量不同文化和背景下的福祉--我们做对了吗?评估世界各地福祉概念的差异

IF 2.8 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Social Indicators Research Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1007/s11205-024-03382-z
Kate Sollis, Nicholas Biddle, Herdiyan Maulana, Mandy Yap, Paul Campbell
{"title":"衡量不同文化和背景下的福祉--我们做对了吗?评估世界各地福祉概念的差异","authors":"Kate Sollis, Nicholas Biddle, Herdiyan Maulana, Mandy Yap, Paul Campbell","doi":"10.1007/s11205-024-03382-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Researchers, practitioners, and policy makers have been increasingly interested in measuring wellbeing over the last two decades. However, with many measurement tools and frameworks being replicated in contexts distinct from where they were developed, it raises the question as to whether we are measuring the right things. This study draws on data collected through a systematic review of participatory wellbeing frameworks to better understand how wellbeing conceptualisations differ based on country context throughout the world. This analysis is one of the first of its kind, enabling a deeper and more comprehensive insight into cross-cultural understandings of wellbeing. The findings indicate that while there is some degree of universality in how wellbeing is conceptualised in different country contexts, cross-cultural variation is also evident. These findings have important implications for wellbeing measurement throughout the world, indicating that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers should exercise some caution when utilising wellbeing measurement tools and frameworks that were developed in contexts distinct from the population of interest. Furthermore, this study highlights the value of participatory approaches in better understanding these nuanced conceptualisations of wellbeing within different population groups throughout the world. Having greater awareness of cross-cultural differences in wellbeing conceptualisations will help ensure that we are more closely measuring what matters to people.</p>","PeriodicalId":21943,"journal":{"name":"Social Indicators Research","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Wellbeing Across Culture and Context – are we Getting it Right? Evaluating the Variation in Wellbeing Conceptualisations Throughout the World\",\"authors\":\"Kate Sollis, Nicholas Biddle, Herdiyan Maulana, Mandy Yap, Paul Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11205-024-03382-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Researchers, practitioners, and policy makers have been increasingly interested in measuring wellbeing over the last two decades. However, with many measurement tools and frameworks being replicated in contexts distinct from where they were developed, it raises the question as to whether we are measuring the right things. This study draws on data collected through a systematic review of participatory wellbeing frameworks to better understand how wellbeing conceptualisations differ based on country context throughout the world. This analysis is one of the first of its kind, enabling a deeper and more comprehensive insight into cross-cultural understandings of wellbeing. The findings indicate that while there is some degree of universality in how wellbeing is conceptualised in different country contexts, cross-cultural variation is also evident. These findings have important implications for wellbeing measurement throughout the world, indicating that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers should exercise some caution when utilising wellbeing measurement tools and frameworks that were developed in contexts distinct from the population of interest. Furthermore, this study highlights the value of participatory approaches in better understanding these nuanced conceptualisations of wellbeing within different population groups throughout the world. Having greater awareness of cross-cultural differences in wellbeing conceptualisations will help ensure that we are more closely measuring what matters to people.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21943,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Indicators Research\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Indicators Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03382-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Indicators Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03382-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过去二十年来,研究人员、从业人员和决策者对衡量福祉的兴趣与日俱增。然而,随着许多测量工具和框架在不同于其开发地的环境中被复制,人们不禁要问,我们是否在测量正确的东西。本研究利用通过对参与式福祉框架进行系统审查收集到的数据,更好地了解福祉概念是如何根据世界各地的国情而有所不同的。这项分析是同类研究中的首创,有助于更深入、更全面地了解不同文化对福祉的理解。研究结果表明,虽然不同国家背景下的幸福概念具有一定程度的普遍性,但跨文化差异也是显而易见的。这些发现对全世界的幸福感测量具有重要影响,表明研究人员、从业人员和决策者在使用在不同于相关人群的背景下开发的幸福感测量工具和框架时,应谨慎行事。此外,本研究还强调了参与式方法在更好地理解世界各地不同人群中这些微妙的幸福概念方面的价值。更深入地了解福祉概念的跨文化差异,将有助于确保我们更密切地衡量对人们来说重要的东西。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring Wellbeing Across Culture and Context – are we Getting it Right? Evaluating the Variation in Wellbeing Conceptualisations Throughout the World

Researchers, practitioners, and policy makers have been increasingly interested in measuring wellbeing over the last two decades. However, with many measurement tools and frameworks being replicated in contexts distinct from where they were developed, it raises the question as to whether we are measuring the right things. This study draws on data collected through a systematic review of participatory wellbeing frameworks to better understand how wellbeing conceptualisations differ based on country context throughout the world. This analysis is one of the first of its kind, enabling a deeper and more comprehensive insight into cross-cultural understandings of wellbeing. The findings indicate that while there is some degree of universality in how wellbeing is conceptualised in different country contexts, cross-cultural variation is also evident. These findings have important implications for wellbeing measurement throughout the world, indicating that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers should exercise some caution when utilising wellbeing measurement tools and frameworks that were developed in contexts distinct from the population of interest. Furthermore, this study highlights the value of participatory approaches in better understanding these nuanced conceptualisations of wellbeing within different population groups throughout the world. Having greater awareness of cross-cultural differences in wellbeing conceptualisations will help ensure that we are more closely measuring what matters to people.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1974, Social Indicators Research has become the leading journal on problems related to the measurement of all aspects of the quality of life. The journal continues to publish results of research on all aspects of the quality of life and includes studies that reflect developments in the field. It devotes special attention to studies on such topics as sustainability of quality of life, sustainable development, and the relationship between quality of life and sustainability. The topics represented in the journal cover and involve a variety of segmentations, such as social groups, spatial and temporal coordinates, population composition, and life domains. The journal presents empirical, philosophical and methodological studies that cover the entire spectrum of society and are devoted to giving evidences through indicators. It considers indicators in their different typologies, and gives special attention to indicators that are able to meet the need of understanding social realities and phenomena that are increasingly more complex, interrelated, interacted and dynamical. In addition, it presents studies aimed at defining new approaches in constructing indicators.
期刊最新文献
How to Assess Livelihoods? Critical Reflections on the Use of Common Indicators to Capture Socioeconomic Outcomes for Ecological Restoration workers in South Africa Quantifying Turbulence: Introducing a Multi-crises Impact Index for Lebanon A Machine Learning Approach to Well-Being in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence: The Children’s Worlds Data Case Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: Perceived (In)Equality and Demand for Democracy in Africa An Evaluation of the Impact of the Pension System on Income Inequality: USA, UK, Netherlands, Italy and Türkiye
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1