nach oben

Social Indicators Research

Erschienen in:

01.05.2013

Towards International and Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration for the Measurements of Quality of Life

verfasst von: Sachie Mizohata, Raynald Jadoul

Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research | Ausgabe 3/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper focuses on three main subjects: (1) monitoring quality of life (QoL) in old age; (2) international and interdisciplinary collaboration for QoL research; and (3) computer-based technology and infrastructure assisting (1) and (2). This type of computer-supported cooperative work in the social sciences has been termed eHumanities or eSocial Science. Although QoL issues matter for all ages, given the size of population aging and the demographic outlook of developed countries, QoL in old age is one of the most pressing issues to study (Walker and Mollenkopf in Quality of life in old age: international and multi-disciplinary perspectives, Springer, The Netherlands, 2007). Despite the recognized need for good measurement methods in QoL (e.g., Stiglitz et al. in The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited. progress revisited. OFCE working documents, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE), Paris, 2009), effective mechanisms allowing cross-country comparisons are still rare. In the context of QoL or human well-being research and measurement, one of the most influential concepts is the capability approach (CA). Yet, the operationalization of the CA has long been one of the serious challenges faced by capabilities and quality of life researchers. As regards to this issue, we argue that modern technology has the potential to provide ample tools for enhancing the measurement of human well-being, and facilitating large-scale collaborative research on the QoL. This paper demonstrates a methodology, procedures, and tools that we have developed, based on the new technologies designed and developed for both governmental and intergovernmental (OECD) sponsored assessments and that are ready to be used for QoL analysis. We propose a viable alternative for facilitating international and interdisciplinary research collaboration to develop a methodology and a dashboard of indicators to monitor the progress of human well-being over the years and to formalize its multidimensional measure for international comparisons.

Vorheriger Artikel School Satisfaction Among Adolescents: Testing Different Indicators for its Measurement and its Relationship with Overall Life Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being in Romania and Spain

Nächster Artikel Filled Radar Charts Should not be Used to Compare Social Indicators

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Different terms such as e-Science, e-Research, cyber-science and the like have been used to describe the new research methods. However, we treat these terms as synonymous for the purposes of analysis in this paper. Though, in general, we adopt the term eSocial Science, eHumanities, or eResearch to be consistent.

By “general,” we mean context independent in its foundation principles and generally applicable in a scientific-oriented perspective.

For example, the Human Development Index (HDI).

As McGillivray (2007, p. 3) clarifies, some terms are distinctly different, but others have overlapping meanings. In this paper, we use the following terms synonymously and interchangeably: quality of life, human development, human well-being, and the wider approaches to human flourishing.

TAO is the French acronym for “Testing Assisté par Ordinateur” (i.e. “Computer-Assisted Testing”).

CMS or “Content Management System” is, in our case, a Web infrastructure suitable for sharing large information sets.

In accordance with the Semantic Web vision, the models produced via the platform can also be managed, “understood,” and enriched by the machines themselves using inference and other reasoning algorithms.

Meetings took place on June 5, 2007 in Shiga, Japan (a group of seven people: six seniors; one moderator/recorder), on October 19, 2008 in Metz, France (a group of five people: two seniors; one gerontology nurse; one moderator; one recorder), and on November 26, 2008 in Hupperdange, Luxembourg (a group of ten people: six seniors; one gerontology social worker; one moderator/interpreter/recorder each). Each meeting lasted for about three hours and 30 min.

We chose these countries which belong to OECD members states, and share similar living standards and welfare state arrangements (OECD 2008) as well as due to our familiarity.

The questions were: “(1) Thinking about your life as a whole, what is it that makes your life good—that is, the things that give our life quality? You may mention as many things as you like. (2) What is it that makes your life bad—that is the things reduce the quality in your life? Your may mention as many things as you like. (3) Thinking of all these good and bad things you have just mentioned, which one is the most important to you? (4) What single thing would improve the quality of your life? (5) What single thing would improve the overall quality of life for people of your age?” (Bowling 2004, p. 162).

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/ageing/madrid_intlplanaction.html The MIPAA has three main priorities: older people and development of society, advancing health and well-being into old age, and enabling and supporting environments for the elderly. Each of the priorities has 11 specific objectives with a total of 117 recommendations to achieve these objectives.

For example, in his work, José Manuel Roche justifies selecting the initial indicators drawing on general international conventions (Roche 2008, p. 431).

To evaluate health status of elderly persons, social scientists often employ ADLs and IADLs, and “if the respondent is unable to perform even one ADL or IADL, he/she is considered to be unhealthy/inactive” (Ogawa et al. 2009, p. 143). “The seven ADLs include bathing, dressing, eating, transferring from/to bed/chair, walking inside a house, going outside and toileting. The seven IADLs consist in preparing own meals, shopping for personal items, managing money, making a phone call, doing light house work, going out alone by using public transportation and taking medication” (ibid., pp. 143–144).

Including email, Skype, GoToMeeting (Web conference), TeamViewer (document sharing).

Although we do not mention them by name, numerous researchers, retirees, practitioners, and computer scientists assisted and contributed to the early stages of this work. Then, the questionnaire was reviewed and has been refined with the help of the following individuals: Alan Walker, Paul Chatin, Mari Yamaguchi, Guy Palmer, Fabiola de Falco, Mireille Ramiandrisoa, Nathalie Bourgeois, Lars Andersson, Agnes Nemenyi, Robert Cummins, Sabina Alkire, and Kentaro Yamamoto.

Difficulties in the wider uptake of eResearch have been discussed (e.g., De Roure and Goble 2009).

However, the German version was not used.

cf. the R-Project at http://www.r-project.org/.

The idea here is largely derived from Elizabeth Anderson’s work entitled “Justifying the capabilities approach to justice” in Measuring Justice (Cambridge University Press 2010, p. 93).

However, the process of elaboration of model has not yet been documented thoroughly.

This refers to the standards L10n and i18n; more details on: http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n.en.

In the CAPI version we used, critical security issues, however, remain. Namely, the security of collected data needs to be enhanced when data are stored in the CAPI, but not yet uploaded to a results server. Also, no integrity check assures that collected data stay unmanipulated while in the CAPI. Finally, data are “readable” by a third-party during the upload to the server. These issues will be addressed in 2nd version of the platform.

Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30(2), 181–205.CrossRef

Alkire, S. (2005a). Why the capability approach? Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 6(1), 115–133.CrossRef

Alkire, S. (2005b). Public debate and value construction in Sen’s approach. In A. Kaufman (Ed.), Capabilities equality: Basic issues and problems (pp. 133–154). London: Routledge.

Alkire, S. (2008). The capability approach to the quality of life. Background report prepared for the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris.

Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2007). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. OPHI working papers ophiwp7. Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.

Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2009). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement (revised and updated). OPHI working papers ophiwp32. Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.

Allemang, D., & Hendler, J. (2008). Semantic web for the working ontologist: Effective modeling in RDFS and Owl (p. 352). Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.

Anand, P., & van Hees, M. (2006). Capabilities and achievements: An empirical study. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 268–284.CrossRef

Antoniou, G., & Van Harmelen, F. (2004). A semantic web primer (1st ed., p. 258). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Atkinson, A. B. (2003). Multidimensional deprivation: Contrasting social welfare and counting approaches. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1(1), 51–65. doi:10.1023/A:1023903525276.CrossRef

Atkinson, T., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E., & Nolan, B. (2002). Social indicators: The EU and social inclusion. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Bowling, A. (2004). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (3rd ed., p. 221). London: Open University Press.

Bowling, A. (2007). Quality of life in older age: What older people say. In H. Mollenkopf & A. Walker (Eds.), Quality of life in old age: International and multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 15–30). The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5682-6_2.

Burchardt, T., & Vizard, P. (2011). “Operationalizing” the capability approach as a basis for equality and human rights monitoring in twenty-first-century Britain. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 12(1), 91–119.CrossRef

Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). London: Taylor & Francis.

Crocker, D. A. (2005). Sen and deliberative democracy. In A. Kaufman (Ed.), Capabilities equality: Basic issues and problems (pp. 155–197). London: Routledge.

Crocker, D. A. (2006). Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy—An introduction. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly, 26(1/2), 21–27.

De Roure, D., & Goble, C. (2009). Software design for empowering scientists. IEEE Software, 26(1), 88–95.

Edwards, P., Farrington, J. H., Mellish, C., Philip, L. J., Chorley, A. H., Hielkema, F., et al. (2009). e-Social science and evidence-based policy assessment: Challenges and solutions. Social Science Computer Review, 27(4), 553–568.CrossRef

Foster, J. E., & Handy, C. (2008). External capabilities. Oxford. Retrieved from http://ophi.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pubs/OPHI_WP8.pdf.

Foster, I., & Kesselman, C. (2006). Scaling systems-level science: Scientific exploration and IT implications. Computer, 39(11), 31–39.CrossRef

Fukuda-Parr, S. (2003). The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 301.CrossRef

Grewal, I., Lewis, J., Flynn, T., Brown, J., Bond, J., & Coast, J. (2006). Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities? Social Science and Medicine, 62(8), 1891–1901.CrossRef

Gruber, T. (2009). Ontology. In L. Liu & M. T. Özsu (Eds.), The encyclopedia of database systems (pp. 1963–1965). Berlin: Springer.

Harrop, A., & Palmer, G. (2002). Indicators of poverty and social exclusion in rural England (p. 118). Retrieved from http://www.npi.org.uk/summaries htm/rural indicators.htm.

Hawkins, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2005). On intelligence. New York: Holt Paperbacks.

Hilbert, M., & López, P. (2011). The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332(6025), 60–65.CrossRef

Hofweber, T. (2011). Logic and ontology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/logic-ontology/.

Hyde, M., Wiggins, R. D., Higgs, P., & Blane, D. B. (2003). A measure of quality of life in early old age: The theory, development and properties of a needs satisfaction model (CASP-19). Aging & Mental Health, 7(3), 186.CrossRef

Ibrahim, S. S., & Alkire, S. (2007). Agency and empowerment: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 35(4), 379–403.CrossRef

International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal wellbeing index—Adult. Melbourne. Retrieved from http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/instruments/wellbeing_index.htm.

Jadoul, R., & Mizohata, S. (2007). Development of a platform dedicated to collaboration in the social sciences. In Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, & P. Isaías (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in digital age (Vol. Single, pp. 265–272). Algarve: IADIS. Retrieved from http://www.iadis.net/dl/Search_list_open.asp?code=4178.

Kavanaugh, A., Zin, T., Rosson, M., Carroll, J., Schmitz, J., & Kim, B. (2007). Local groups online: Political learning and participation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 16(4), 375–395. doi:10.1007/s10606-006-9029-9.CrossRef

Krueger, A. B., & Schkade, D. A. (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8–9), 1833–1845.CrossRef

Leinonen, P., Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). Conceptualizing the awareness of collaboration: A qualitative study of a global virtual team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 14(4), 301–322.CrossRef

Matanle, P., Rausch, A., & Shrinking Regions Research Group, T. (2011). Japan’s shrinking regions in the 21st century: Contemporary responses to depopulation and socioeconomic decline (p. 566). New York: Cambria Press.

McGillivray, M. (2007). Human well-being: Issues, concept and measures. In M. McGillivray (Ed.), Human well-being: Concept and measurement (1st ed., pp. 1–22). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mizohata, S., & Jadoul, R. (2011). Modeling and monitoring well-being with the use of technology. Paper presented at 2011 annual HDCA (Human Development and Capability Association) Conference: Innovation, Development & Human Capabilities, The Hague, The Netherlands, September 5–8, 2011.

Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Széman, Z., Tacken, M., & Wahl, H.-W. (2004). Social and behavioural science perspectives on out-of-home mobility in later life: Findings from the European project MOBILATE. European Journal of Ageing, 1(1), 45–53. doi:10.1007/s10433-004-0004-3.CrossRef

Morgan, M. S. (2012). The world in the model. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (forthcoming).

Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford, CA: Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05, Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880. Retrieved from http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontology101/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Ogawa, N., Matsukura, R., & Maliki. (2009). Rapid population aging and changing intergenerational transfers in Japan. In P. Uhlenberg (Ed.), International handbook of population aging. Springer Netherlands.

Plichart, P., Jadoul, R., Vandenabeele, L., & Latour, T. (2004). TAO, a collective distributed computer-based assessment framework built on semantic web standards. International conference on advances in intelligent systems—Theory and application AISTA2004. Luxembourg.

Power, M., Quinn, K., Schmidt, S., & WHOQOL-OLD. (2005). Development of the WHOQOL-old module. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2197–2214. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-7380-9.CrossRef

Qizilbash, M. (2004). On the arbitrariness and robustness of multi-dimensional poverty rankings. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 5(3), 355–375.CrossRef

Resnyansky, L. (2008). Social modeling as an interdisciplinary research practice. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 23(4), 20–27. doi:10.1109/MIS.2008.72.CrossRef

Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 6(1), 93–114.CrossRef

Roche, J. M. (2008). Monitoring inequality among social groups: A methodology combining fuzzy set theory and principal component analysis. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 9(3), 427–452.

Sen, A. K. (1987). The standard of living. In A. K. Sen, J. Muellbauer, R. Kanbur, K. Hart, B. Williams, & G. Hawthorn (Eds.), The standard of living: the Tanner lectures on human values, Clare Hall, Cambridge, 1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. K. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 6(2), 151–166.CrossRef

Sen, A. K. (2006). What do we want from a theory of justice? Journal of Philosophy, 103(5), 215–238.

Sen, A. K. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Srinivasan, T. N. (1994). Human development: A new paradigm or reinvention of the wheel? American Economic Review, 84(2), 238.

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. K., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited. OFCE working documents (p. 292). Paris: Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE). Retrieved from http://stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm.

Sugden, R. (1993). Welfare, resources, and capabilities: A review of inequality reexamined by Amartya Sen. Journal of Economic Literature, 31(4), 1947–1962 (American Economic Association).

Thompson, E. E., & Krause, N. (1998). Living alone and neighborhood characteristics as predictors of social support in late life. Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53B(6), S354.CrossRef

Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(1), 1–39. doi:10.1023/A:1010072010360.CrossRef

Vizard, P., & Burchardt, T. (2007). Developing a capability list: Final recommendations of the equalities review steering group on measurement. CASE Paper 121. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Retrieved from http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper121.pdf.

Walker, A. (2005). Growing older in Europe. New York: Open University Press.

Walker, A., & Mollenkopf, H. (2007). International and multi-disciplinary perspectives on quality of life in old age: Conceptual issues. In H. Mollenkopf & A. Walker (Eds.), Quality of life in old age: International and multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 3–13). The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5682-6_1.

Titel: Towards International and Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration for the Measurements of Quality of Life
verfasst von: Sachie Mizohata
Raynald Jadoul
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research / Ausgabe 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0027-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2013

Social Cohesion and the Labour Market: Societal Regimes of Civic Attitudes and Labour Market Regimes

Cross-National Indices with Gender-Differentiated Data: What Do They Measure? How Valid Are They?

The Paradox of Children and Life Satisfaction

How Bullying Involvement is Associated with the Distribution of Parental Background and With Subjective Health Complaints Among Swedish Boys and Girls

Sustaining Resilience Through Local Connectedness Among Sojourn Students

Explaining Low Subjective Well-Being of Persons with Disabilities in Europe: The Impact of Disability, Personal Resources, Participation and Socio-Economic Status

Premium Partner