from Prof. Dr. Peter Mohler, Director ZUMA
Challenges of Comparative Surveys -
A case for professionalized cross-cultural survey methods
Introduction
Democratic policies respect peoples intentions and preferences. To understand such intentions and preferences, policy makers as well as the general public have to know what people think, how they live and what they plan. Systematic knowledge about what people in Europe think, how they live and what they plan is based today on sample surveys conducted in all European cultures and nations. The themes and types of surveys already conducted span large scale socio-economic surveys (ECHP, Labour Force Surveys), health surveys (WHO, SHARE), behaviour, attitudes, opinions and value surveys (EVS, ESS (European Social Survey), ISSP, EUROBAROMETER), or market research surveys (GFK, INRA, NFO, MORI etc.).
The increasing weight given by policy makers to findings from sample surveys increases also the demand for high quality data (ESS-LEG Quality - European Statistical System). Survey methodologist acknowledged this demand already in the past. Much effort was put on improving the quality of household surveys (Google keywords: Groves, Couper, nonresponse). However, there are no generally agreed protocols how to design, implement and analyse national and international surveys. Still protocols and procedures are either project centred (ESS-European Social Survey, ECHP) or agreed for only one of the three branches of survey research (official statistics, academic social research, and the market research industry). Turning to comparative surveys, there is an obvious lack of a canonized cross-cultural survey methodology even in one of the three branches. Almost all protocols and procedures available for cross-cultural surveys today, are straight forward copies of within nation survey methods. They are not based on a generic cross-cultural survey methodology. Finally, even in the national case it is only recent that one can study 'survey methodology' as a proper subject.
Moreover, up to date researchers doing cross-national, comparative surveys have to 're-discover the wheel' over and over again. The term 're-discover' points to the fact that comparative projects inevitably discovered in the past numerous problems never mentioned in the literature. Among them are basic issues such as that 'back-translation' never worked in as a puristic method and was always mitigated by common sense, ad hoc improvements, or, that quota sample are useless in comparative research. In most cases researchers were stuck with such problems in the middle of their ongoing project and thus had no chance to change their design properly. Instead, they spent days and months to find work arounds as unsatisfactory that would have been. What they all lacked were a stock of profound, evidence based literature and professionals to whom they could turn for advice. In the case of up to date literature the situation is improving. But the professionalization of the field is still in its infancy.
A case for methods
Obviously, all scientific statements must be based on an acknowledged methodology to be called scientific statements. Thus methodology is a necessary, yet not sufficient integral part of all scientific statements. There must also be a correspondence between up to date or state of the art substantive statements and their up to date methodological base. Ignoring new methodological insights devaluates a substantive statement.
A case for professionalized survey methods
Sample survey production is a complex process: in a typical sample survey, a fielding team of about 200-400 interviewers plus back-office staff will contact more than 3000 respondents to achieve the net 2000 respondents (with about 2-3 contact trials on average). The questionnaire contains about 400 variables/characteristics per respondent. In the end about 800.000 single data points or measurements make up the data file of such a survey. To design, implement and successfully conduct such a survey, a number of quite distinct methods have to be combined into a single streamlined survey methodology. Among these are communication and cognition methods which allow the transfer of substantive research questions into appropriate survey items. Sample statistics which govern the design, implementation, and assessment of actual samples. Logistics and process quality methods which guarantee transparent fielding processes. Content analyses as a special field for all open-ended items. Documentation methods which relate numerical information with 'what it means', and statistical analyses combined with other quality measures to assess the validity and reliability of the data obtained.
It is still a standard believe in the social sciences that 'asking questions' is an art mastered by anyone, not requiring a specific methodology. Similar to the believe about asking questions, scientist believe in their intrinsic ability to translate items. Drawing samples are often not done by trained statisticians but by social scientists with some basic statistical training. Directing fields of interviewers is a craft learned by doing. etc. Often one person fulfilled all these functions.
In short survey methods were and still are often applied by semi-professionals at best. In the light of new evidence, especially in the fields of cognition and survey research, translation and communication, sample statistics, and logistics and quality control this practice should not continue.
One can conclude from this that survey research methodology has grown from a lay or semi-professional activity to a full fledged profession. High quality surveys like the GSS, ALLBUS, Household ISR, ESS in academia as well as numerous others in official statistics or the private sector already employ professional survey methodologists. One can expect that the new influx of systematically trained survey methodologists will enforce this trend, which in turn is necessary to meet the ever increasing demand on quality and accuracy of survey data.
A case for cross-cultural survey methods
Truly, cross-cultural surveys always have to rely on separate surveys produced in each culture (not taking into account for a moment the case of 'sub-cultures' sharing a common institutional frame as it is the case, for instance, in the United States). Thus it has been argued that cross-cultural surveys do not require a methodology of their own. This view is, however, not correct. There are at least two counter-arguments:
1. the jump in complexity from a single culture survey to a multi-culture survey results in a new quality. Take for example the above case of 800.000 data points and 200-400 interviewers. In an all European survey across, say, 20 countries everything has to be multiplied by twenty, i.e. there will be 16.000.000 data points in the file, all in all 4000-8000 interviewers will be involved in this enterprise, about 60.000 people will have been contacted and 20 different field organisations have to be co-ordinated. This cannot, by any means, be understood just as an addition of 20 surveys. Cross-cultural surveys are produced in a totally different context than national surveys.
2. To ensure that the substantive hypotheses are operationalized in 20 different cultures (with 20 different socio-economic, cultural and legal contexts and often more than 20 languages) equivalently, requires very special methods. That cross-cultural studies require a special methodology to ensure equivalent measurement has been proven over and over again in cross-cultural psychology (van de Vijver & Leung, 1996, International Test Commission 2000). It is timely that sample surveys also recognise their insights and accept the necessity of special cross-cultural methods.
A critical mass of methodologists
A prosperous field of science always needs both, inventions and a fair number of scientists dedicated to that field. In the social sciences and humanities methods are the field of inventions which facilitate substantive discoveries. Methods are and should be multi-functional and multi-usable, while discoveries are single acts. Thus the number of methodologists can be small compared to the number of substantial scientists and still serve the greater community. While there may be ten thousands of survey practitioners who seek for new discoveries, the number of professional survey methodologists is less than a couple of hundred people. An optimistic count in cross-cultural survey methodology will reveal two or three dozens in sample survey methodology and plus a number of specialists in the field of official statistics. That is a critical mass already, located mostly in Europe, but dispersed over numerous institutions and countries. Professionalization of cross-cultural survey methodology thus means firstly to form that critical mass into a European research structure and, secondly, to teach their knowledge to the wider scientific public in order to systematically increase that mass.
Conclusion
Comparative surveys face numerous challenges, which most of them more or less successfully counter. However, most challenges or problems faced are identical for each and every survey. To re-discover their existence and to re-invent more or less appropriate measures is a waste of talents, money and time.
Professionalized survey methods will definitely free talents to investigate conceptual and substantial problems into much more detail. Canonized protocols (which are of course evidence based and scientifically sound) will allow for improved comparison across surveys. Finally, evidence based comparative methods will help to overcome the myths of 'one size fits all' and 'do not change a punctuation mark' which dominated and devastated comparative research for much too long.
Prof. Peter Ph. Mohler is Director of ZUMA (Centre for Survey Research and Methodology) and head of its European Centre for Cross-cultural Surveys. He is also member of the Board of Directors of GESIS (the German Social Science Infrastructure Association) and professor at Mannheim University. He is a member of the German council for Social- and economic data. His academic training includes Sociology, Philosophy and Linguistics (PhD). His major research interests are comparative survey methodology and computer-assisted text analysis. His most recent publications are on comparative research, background demographics and survey documentation.
· Description of the Project
· Main Results
· Chronology of the Project's Progress
· The EUYOUPART-Team
Editorial by editor Susanne John
English Version
Deutsche Version
Editorial
"Die jungen Menschen wollen sich nicht mehr mit Haut und Haaren für eine Partei verhaften lassen. Sie wollen sich in konkreten Projekten engagieren, wo sie merken, dass sie etwas ausrichten können," sagte Familienministerin Renate Schmidt (SPD) anlässlich des Politikfestivals BERLIN 05. Die Großveranstaltung, an der 11.000 Jugendliche teilnahmen, war ein Testballon, um herauszufinden, ob sich Jugendliche so für Politik interessieren lassen.
Auslöser für derlei Maßnahmen ist, dass den Jugendorganisationen der deutschen Parteien die Mitglieder weglaufen. Gerade zwei Prozent der 12- bis 29-Jährigen, hat der DJI-Jugendsurvey ermittelt, sind heute Mitglied. Früher waren es doppelt so viele. Kein Sonderproblem der Bundesrepublik - auch in den anderen EU-Staaten zeichnen sich ähnliche Entwicklungen ab.
Eine wichtige Voraussetzung, um mehr über die Hintergründe, die Einstellungen der europäischen Jugendlichen zu Parteien, Politik, Demokratie oder der Europäischen Union zu erfahren, ist ein Messinstrument, das die länderübergreifende Vergleichbarkeit von Umfrageergebnissen gewährleistet. Knapp drei Jahre lang hat deswegen ein ForscherInnen-Team aus acht EU-Ländern (das DJI für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) daran gearbeitet, vergleichende empirische Jugendforschung auf europäische Füße zu stellen. Auf dem Abschlusskongress in Brüssel wurde im Juli 2005 nicht nur der Modell-Fragebogen vorgestellt, es konnten auch schon erste Erhebungsergebnisse präsentiert werden.
Über Aufbau, Geschichte und Ergebnisse des Projekts EUYOUPART informiert im DJI Online Thema, das einmal pro Jahr - diesmal im August - als englische Ausgabe erscheint, das Übersichtskapitel Overview. Professor Peter Mohler, der langjährige Direktor des renommierten Mannheimer Zentrums für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen (ZUMA), erläutert im Outside View, worin die besonderen Herausforderungen und möglichen Schwierigkeiten vergleichender Surveyforschung bestehen.
Im Interview mit Dr. Franziska Wächter (DJI) erfahren wir spannende Details zu den Untersuchungsergebnissen der Befragung von 1.000 Jugendlichen in Deutschland. Die liegen mit erfreulichen 51 Prozent Politikinteressierten übrigens an der Spitze.
Wählen zu gehen ist für die meisten jungen Europäerinnen immer noch die wirkungsvollste Form der politischen Partizipation. Obwohl, und das trifft auf alle europäischen Länder mehr oder weniger zu, den politischen Parteien nur noch geringes Vertrauen entgegengebracht wird. Regierungsunabhängige Einrichtungen (NGOs) wie Greenpeace, Amnesty International oder Attac erfreuen sich weitaus größerer Beliebtheit. Wer da von Wahlmüdigkeit oder gar allgemeiner Politikverdrossenheit spricht, liegt also nicht ganz richtig.
Interview 
with Dr. Franziska Wächter, DJI
"Young Germans' interest in politics and their attitude towards democracy"
Young Germans' interest in politics and their attitude towards democracy
Dr. Wächter, the main goal of the EUYOUPART Project was to develop indicators for a questionnaire, which allows to compare political behaviour and attitudes across all countries in Europe. Can you describe the main steps of the project work?
The first step was a secondary data analysis, followed by qualitative research, which meant in all eight partner countries interviews with politically active young people and group discussions with politically non-active young people were conducted. The qualitative research provided an insight into youth's understanding of key concepts related to political participation. These results served as a good basis for the "almost" final draft of the questionnaire.
Did the results of the interviews and group discussions bring about any new ideas for your quantitative work?
Yes, indeed they did. For instance it became fairly clear that the young people did not associate non-governmental organisations like Green Peace or Attac with "politics". This impacted on the phrasing of questions and answer categories.
On the other hand activities in (non-political) institutions, such as the church or sports clubs, young people themselves quoted as conducive for developing social skills. This was taken into account by inquiring about "functions" in clubs, associations or other organisations in our questionnaire.
Another example: Also the place of residence, its size and location proved an opportunity for or barrier to political participation. Therefore, it seemed to be important to include questions on this subject.
Another key point was that our research tended to show that young people are interested in political issues, but not the political system. We therefore had to clearly differentiate the two by assessing how important young people feel specific political issues to be.
And the third step …?
After the qualitative research in the involved eight countries quantitative studies were conducted as well. In each country approximately 1.000 young people from 15 to 25 years were interviewed.
By the way: I like the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. It is always very interesting how this different ways of empirical work complement one another. This procedure makes EUYOUPART special.
Let's talk about some of the results. What does "Politics" mean to young Germans?
The first thing that strikes one when you look at results of the qualitative study, is that the young people interviewed used the terms "politics" and "politicians" almost synonymously. They define politics and political action almost exclusively as "party politics". As I said, even large, internationally known and active non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International or Attac, were not seen as vehicles for exerting an influence on politics, or only after prompting. Informal groups and new social movements, such as civic action groups and peace initiatives, are not recognised as political players at all. "Politics", parties and politicians are viewed sceptically. In addition "politics" for the most young people interviewed is a male domain - for both male and female interviewees.
If politics have such a negative image, do young people nevertheless find it worthwhile engaging in politics?
On the whole they don't. Approximately half of the 15- to 25-year-olds interviewed stated in the quantitative research that they were very or fairly interested in politics. Young men by the way were decidedly more interested in politics than young women (58% vs. 42%).
However, despite their interest in discussing politics the majority of them did not see any incentive for political participation. Active participation in an area that is considered "dull" and "boring", is associated with abuse of power and lies and seems to hold little appeal. Most of the young people interviewed did not have a strong desire to change the criticised structure and situation either. They did not see any meaningful way of influencing politics and hold no hopes of achieving anything.
What is the main reason for their feeling of resignation and helplessness?
Most of them consider it too "strenuous" and "time-consuming" to inform themselves about political matters. Approximately one-third of young respondents find politics so complicated that they really cannot understand what is going on either always or often. Only approximately one in four young people rarely or never experience problems when it comes to following political events. Surprisingly there are no age-related effects but confidence in one's personal ability to understand politics increases with the level of education.
If they regard education as crucial, whom in their view is to be blamed for their knowledge deficit? School?
Well, that is actually very often the case. Young people feel uninformed and criticise the fact that they are too little prepared or "trained" for democratic action. For example they consider it their "civic duty" to vote to the best of their knowledge and belief, but feel inadequately prepared to do so. And school is blamed for this situation first of all. They argued that they would be more interested, if politics was a more important subject at school. The majority of interviewees across all levels of education agree that they do not get enough political training at school.
A different tone is adopted, when the young people, looking at themselves, realize that they do not play an active role in the political life because they are "too lazy" or because "they have too many other things to do". This can be observed uniformly across all different levels of education. Even if people with a higher level of education reflect more about their "laziness", this self-awareness does not change the result, namely their non-participation at all.
Well, participation in a democracy in not compulsory … Do the Youths have any concept of democracy?
When confronted with the term democracy in the qualitative focus groups most of the young people with a higher level of education mention its derivation from Greek. They tried to reproduce the origin of the word, which they had heard or learnt in school. Participants found it harder, however, to describe what democracy means, as implemented in the Federal Republic of Germany, and what it means for them, in particular.
Do they regard voting as an opportunity to participate in politics?
Young people are aware that it is important to join in and play an active role, but, at the same time, they do not feel entitled to do so because of their lack of knowledge. This dilemma is valid for almost the entire relationship between young people and politics. Therefore it is not surprising that - as the quantitative study shows - out of ten alternatives the young people considered voting in elections the most effective activity for influencing decisions within society.
In addition we found a positive correlation between the parental level of education and voter turnout. And there was a difference between participants in the discussion groups with a higher and a lower level of education. Participants with a higher level of education tend not to surrender their responsibility as quickly. They affirm that they always vote and, in doing so, try their best to do the right thing. However, they are not absolutely sure of themselves. Participants with a lower level of education, in contrast, admit their lack of knowledge and take the offensive by quoting it as a reason for not voting.
In Germany in the late 1960-ies the youths' reflex to the rigid political climate was quite an aggressive one and culminated in the students' revolts of 1968. How large is the present risk of having the prevailing feeling of resignation resolve into acts of violence?
Illegal actions or violence, for example, which are also frequently defined as new forms of political participation, did not come up at all in the discussions. These forms of participation were out of the question for the interviewees. Their attitude is not in the least aggressive. They do not wish to bring something about by force; instead they tend to be resigned and simply do not know how they can bring about changes.
Was there a difference between male and female interviewees?
Yes, there are still differences, for example in interest and competence. With regard to participation the quantitative survey shows that young men were more inclined than young women to be active in political parties or in trade unions (men 6%, women 3%). Women, by contrast, tend to be more active in religious/church organisations (women 19%, men 14%), cultural organisations (women 31%, men 20%), environmental or animal protection organisations, charity or social welfare organisations and human rights organisations.
This pattern was also detected in the qualitative interviews: Asked about the necessary qualities for a good politician male interviewees saw being a good speaker and the ability to sell yourself as "useful". In this context the comment of a young man who is active in party politics sees political participation from a cost-benefit perspective was quite remarkable. He was contradicted by a politically inactive young woman, who considers selfless thinking and acting as particularly important prerequisites for social and also political commitment. If they engage in politics female interviewees want to "do a good job", without admittedly thinking on improving their own career prospects. A glance at the politically active young women and their motivations for political participation also reveals more empathetic, emotional factors as compared with the politically active young man interviewed. This observation is confirmed by empirical results, according to which women not only put more time and energy into social movements but also apparently do so for other or additional reasons than men.
At present the European Union is in a very critical phase. How do young people see the EU?
Primarily young people are interested in national politics (62%), closely followed by interest in international politics, which comes second with 57%. Interesting enough they are even more interested in European politics (48%) than in local politics with only 40%! Of those who were eligible to vote, 56% did so in the European Parliament elections in 2004. This is a fairly high turn out. By the way respondents with left-wing tendencies are more interested in European and international politics than "right-wing" respondents.
Europe was also an important issue in the discussion groups. However, it should be noted that we introduced this issue even if it was not mentioned by the young interviewees themselves. Generally they tended to express a favourable opinion about Europe. Some even reported that according to their own experience, Europe has a positive image with young people.
In Brussels first results of the main surveys in eight EU countries were presented. What was the common denominator or the prevailing general impression?
Well, in short one could summarize that - with regard to political participation - young people have a sense of realism, of objectives and the matching of resources to ends. This is the crucial factor in the chain of events that leads to participation. First of all, interest in politics largely depends on the perception that politics "matters"'. If the channels of participation are open for the expression of these interests, then participation may happen. The likelihood of any participation would be greatly increased if the young people could feed a real impact from their participation.
Could you detect an aspect concerning political awareness that could be described as "typically German"?
From the German researchers' point of view, a "typically German feature" was not to be detected. But we had in Germany the possibility to go a bit more into the depth towards the left-right-scheme. And this was really fruitful!
Are "right" and "left" still relevant political terms for young people?
When questioned about their own political position approximately 3% of young respondents in each group stated that they did not know where to position themselves on the political right-left-scale. In other European countries these percentages were even higher! In the United Kingdom for example 44% of the young people interviewed replied "I don't know". A large number, approximately half of the respondents, placed themselves at the centre of the scale.
It was especially surprising that there were quite a few interviewees to whom the terms left and right meant practically nothing. They asked a couple of times what this scale on the questionnaire was all about. In these cases, the terms left and right were not associated with parties or political contents at all. Interviewees also stated clearly that for them the terms left wing and right wing are rather unimportant. In fact, left- and right-wing positioning seems to have lost its meaningfulness.
If at all young adults would associate left and right with ideological concepts like socialism and capitalism, attitudes towards migrants, nationalism and right wing extremism rather than with political parties. For them political parties apparently have lost their clear-cut profiles. I have elaborated further on this topic in my article "Links und rechts kann man nicht verwechseln", which was published in DISKURS 1/2004.
Will the final report tell us how good the chances are for the future of democracy in Europe?
The final report will contain the main results from the several parts of EUYOUPART. There you will find a lot of topics concerning conventional and unconventional forms of participation and attitudes of young people in Europe in detail.
But we have to keep in mind that the main goal of the project was to develop new indicators for comparative research across Europe. During all phases of the project it turns out, that there are a some areas which are not comparable. Think for example of the differences in the educational systems. One conclusion from the analysis is: neither the structure of political participation in school nor the structure of political participation at work are directly comparable across countries. There are in some cases possible explanations for the lack of comparability. This should be used as background information for interpretation but also for a further work on the instrument. To that end an exchange with experts from SORA (Institute for Social Research and Analysis in Austria), DJI (The German Youth Institute) and the EUROBAROMETER as a potential partner is planned in the near future.
Dr. Wächter, thank you very much!
DJI Online: 1.8.2005
Dr. Franziska Wächter 
Profile of Dr. Franziska Wächter, DJI
Ms. Wächter, how do you feel about voting? Do you see it as something you want to do?
Of course, I am glad I can go to the polls, because- unlike what I experienced in the past - no party here will automatically get 99.8% of all votes. Yet voting is neither fun nor pleasure, which in a way is a pity. Going to the polls is simply the most conventional form of political participation. Somehow, it is a kind of duty. However, in the present phase of German politics, the next elections will definitely be exciting, because the parties have understood that they must take a more definite stand. This is a claim also voiced by the young people we interviewed!
On 11 January 1969, Franziska Wächter was born in Gardelegen, a small town halfway between Wolfsburg and Potsdam in present-day Saxony-Anhalt. She grew up in Hermannswerder, a peninsula surrounded by Potsdam's Havel Lakes. Franziska Wächter completed her compulsory ten-year polytechnical education with distinction. Nevertheless, unlike many of her peers, at age 16 she was not admitted into the extended polytechnical school leading to the Abitur (end of school examination).
The official reason given for rejecting her was that the children of workers and farmers should be given priority in such schools. Franziska Wächter - whose father was a graduate engineer - came from an 'academic' family background. However, the true reason was probably that she was not a member of the FDJ (Free German Youth) but instead was committed to the church and hence confirmed instead of partaking in the Jugendweihe (youth consecration).
In this situation, the only way out was the Kirchliche Oberseminar Potsdam-Hermannswerder, one of the two denominational secondary schools in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), and, in fact, the place where most of the rising theological generation of the GDR was trained. After having passed through a selection procedure, she managed to attain one of the 20 places this school assigned every year. She did her Abitur there, which, incidentally, matched the curriculum of North-Rhine Westphalia. In Hermannswerder, her favourite subject was sociology, and she became 'acquainted' with Max Weber and Erving Goffman.
Graduation from this particular school basically determined her future career. First of all, her Abitur was only recognised by the denominational universities of the former GDR; and second, Hermannswerder was considered as a school that prepares its students for theological studies. She actually went to Berlin to study theology at the Sprachenkonvikt, but her wish to study sociology was so strong that she dropped out after just three months.
However, if she wanted to study sociology, she had no other alternative but to flee to the West. Finally, at the end of 1989 - before the fall of the Berlin Wall - an opportunity came up: the 70th birthday of her grandfather in Rosenheim. Franziska Wächter and her parents were granted the long-desired permit for a journey that ended up one-way. After the Wende (end of divided Germany), Franziska Wächter stayed in the West and in 1990 enrolled at Ludwig-Maximilians University (LMU) in Munich. She knew right from the start what she would focus on: methods and techniques of empirical social research, supplemented by psychology and business administration as additional subjects.
Parallel to her main line of studies, she also took supplementary courses at Munich University's Deutsche Forschungszentrum für Direktmarketing (German Research Centre for Direct Marketing). In her last paper, she analysed options for social marketing in the health sector. Shortly afterwards, in 1995, she wrote her diploma thesis on the determinants for accepting locally subsidised self-help and counselling offers in the health area.
Besides working as a research assistant to the Chair of Professor Allmendinger and as tutor for empirical methodology, Franziska Wächter also gained some practical knowledge during her studies, for example in the editorial offices and marketing departments of publishing houses or at Siemens in their Communications Unit.
For her doctoral studies, Franziska Wächter moved on to Rostock University's Faculty of Business Administration, Economics and Social Sciences in 1996, joining the scientific faculty and working with Professor Preisendörfer, who had already taught her at LMU. At his Chair for general sociology and microsociology, she collaborated in several projects on environmental awareness and choice of means of transportation in Germany, commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment. The results of these projects were to become an integral part of her doctoral thesis: Determinants for the choice of means of transportation. Results of two empirical studies in the Hanse town Rostock. She obtained her doctorate (Dr. rer. pol.) in summer 2000.
Shortly after graduation, she joined the scientific staff at the German Youth Institute in Munich. Initially, she worked on a project analysing youth development and opportunities for young people in social 'hotbeds'. Netzwerke im Stadtteil (neighbourhood networks) was a three-year project scientifically evaluated by the German Youth Institute. Its aim was to identify institutional structures that are beneficial to neighbourhoods and thus also for children and adolescents in poor urban areas in Germany.
Besides working for the German Youth Institute, Franziska Wächter has also been keen to continue her education, particularly on methodological issues, in courses offered by the Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA) in Mannheim, Germany, and by the Summer School in Social Science of Essex University, England. In addition, the expert on empirical sociology has also taken courses on moderation methods in research and counselling processes.
Since 2003, Franziska Wächter has been a lecturer at the Social Services Department of the Fachhochschule (College for Higher Professional Training) in Munich. She primarily teaches courses on empirical methodology and co-ordinates small-scale studies with her students, e.g. on xenophobia among their peers.
Besides Germany (represented by the German Youth Institute), seven other countries were participating in the EUYOUPART project, in which Franziska Wächter and her colleagues endeavoured to find out whether and how young people in Europe currently participate in democratic processes. In this connection, and upon request by the European Union, the international research team has developed a common system of indicators for a questionnaire to be used all across Europe to enable the comparison of youth participation. This new measuring tool was presented at the project's final meeting in Brussels in July 2005, along with the preliminary results of the empirical surveys from the individual countries.
DJI Online: 1.8.2005
Meeting 14. Juli 2005 in Brüssel "Why participate?"
| SYMPOSIUM - EUYOUPART Thursday, July 14th 2005 | |
| Focal Point 1: EUYOUPART and the need for comparative research | |
| 9:00-10:30 | Opening of the Symposium by Günther Ogris, SORA Presentation of EUYOUPART and the aim of the project Presentation of the EUYOUPART consortium + guests Dius Lennon, EU Commission, DG Research EU support for social science research and the focus on youth Pierre Mairesse, EU Commission, DG Education and Culture Youth, politics and the role of the EU Maria Berger, Member of the EU Parliament (Austria) Welcome address Ruth Picker, Sabine Westphal, SORA Analysis of the EUYOUPART project results on youth political participation across Europe |
| 10.30 - 11.00 | Coffee break |
| 11:00 - 12:30 | Franziska Wächter, German Youth Institute (Deutsches Jugendinstitut) EUYOUPART Measurement Instrument: Advances and further challenges Michael Buckup, EUROBAROMETER The importance and challenges of comparative research in Europe Peter Mohler, Director, ZUMA - Centre for Survey Research and Methodology, Mannheim The challenges of comparative surveys |
| 12:30-14:00 | Lunch break |
| Focal Point 3: The Future of European Democracy | |
| 14:00 - 16:00pm | Anne Muxel, CEVIPOF, Political Research Centre, Sciences Po, Paris Which factors can motivate youth participation in European democracy? Hans Joachim Schild, Coordinator of the Partnership between European Commission and Council of Europe in the Youth Field What can the COE and the EU do to foster youth political participation? Philippe C. Schmitter, European University Institute, Florence The future of European democracy and the role of youth in the future democracy. How should young people participate in Europe? Claire Wallace, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna The EUYOUPART project in comparative perspective |
| 16.00-16:15 pm | Closure of symposium |
|
| |
**EUYOUPART was funded under the European Commission Fifth Framework Programme (1998-2002)
Improving the Human Potential - Key Action: "Improving the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base"
DJI Online: 1.8.2005
Menschen im Profil Dr. Franziska Wächter, DJI
English Version
Deutsche Version
Profil von Dr. Franziska Wächter, DJI
Frau Dr. Wächter, gehen Sie gern wählen?
Natürlich bin ich froh, dass ich wählen gehen darf, weil hier ja keine Partei zwangsläufig 99,8 Prozent erhält, wie ich es ja auch schon erlebt habe. Spaß oder Freude empfinde ich allerdings nicht, was ein bisschen schade ist. Wählen ist einfach die konventionellste Form der politischen Beteiligung. Da schwingt auch etwas wie Pflicht mit. Spannend versprechen sie aber zu werden, die nächsten Wahlen in der gegenwärtigen Phase der deutschen Politik. Weil den Parteien klar geworden ist, dass sie sich eindeutiger positionieren müssen. Was ja übrigens auch die Jugendlichen in unseren Interviews eingeklagt haben!
Franziska Wächter wird am 11.Januar 1969 in Gardelegen geboren. Die kleine Stadt liegt zwischen Wolfsburg und Potsdam im heutigen Sachsen-Anhalt. Aufgewachsen ist sie auf Hermannswerder, einer Insel in den Havelgewässern in Potsdam. Zehn Jahre lang besucht sie die Polytechnische Oberschule. Obwohl sie ihren Abschluss mit Auszeichnung macht, kann die damals 16-jährige Franziska Wächter nicht auf die staatliche "Erweiterte Oberschule" gehen, um dort wie viele ihrer MitschülerInnen Abitur zu machen.
Offiziell wird das damit begründet, dass vorrangig Arbeiter- und Bauernkindern der Zugang zum Abitur ermöglicht werden soll und Franziska Wächter aus einer "Akademikerfamilie" stamme. Der Vater ist Diplom-Ingenieur. Der wahre Grund liegt wohl eher darin, dass sie kein Mitglied in der FDJ (Freie Deutsche Jugend) ist, sondern sich in der Kirche engagiert und demzufolge statt zur staatlichen Jugendweihe zu gehen konfirmiert wird.
Einen Ausweg bietet das Kirchliche Oberseminar Potsdam-Hermannswerder, eines von zwei kirchlichen Gymnasien in der DDR, an denen praktisch der theologische Nachwuchs für die DDR ausgebildet worden ist. Sie erhält nach einem Auswahlverfahren einen der 20 Plätze, die jährlich vergeben werden und macht dort ihr Abitur - übrigens nach den Lehrplänen des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Besonders den Soziologieunterricht in Hermannswerder findet Franziska Wächter spannend, lernt dort Max Weber und Erving Goffman "kennen".
Mit diesem Abschluss ist Franziska Wächters weiterer Weg vorgezeichnet. Denn erstens wird ihr Abitur nur an den kirchlichen Hochschulen in der ehemaligen DDR anerkannt und zweitens gilt Hermannswerder als Vorstufe zum Theologiestudium. Sie geht tatsächlich nach Berlin, um dort Theologie am Sprachenkonvikt zu studieren - allerdings nur drei Monate lang. Zu stark ist ihr Wunsch, Soziologie zu studieren.
Um diesen Wunsch in die Tat umzusetzen, bleibt aber nur die Flucht in den Westen. Erst Ende 1989 - noch vor der Maueröffnung - bietet sich endlich eine Gelegenheit: der 70. Geburtstag des Großvaters in Rosenheim. Franziska Wächter und ihre Eltern bekommen tatsächlich die ersehnte Reisegenehmigung. Eine Reise ohne Rückkehr. Nach der Wende bleibt Franziska Wächter im Westen und schreibt sich 1990 an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München ein. Ihre Studienschwerpunkte sind von Beginn an klar: die Methoden und Techniken der empirischen Sozialforschung, ergänzt durch die Nebenfächer Psychologie und Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
Parallel zu ihrem Hauptstudium absolviert Franziska Wächter an der Universität München eine Zusatzausbildung am Deutschen Forschungszentrum für Direktmarketing. Ihre Abschlussarbeit befasst sich mit "Möglichkeiten des Social Marketing im Gesundheitssektor". Kurz darauf schließt sie 1995 auch ihre Diplomarbeit ab. Der Titel: "Determinanten der Akzeptanz von kommunal geförderten Angeboten der Gesundheitsselbsthilfe und Gesundheitsberatung".
Neben Ihrer Tätigkeit als Wissenschaftliche Hilfskraft am Lehrstuhl Professor Allmendinger und als Tutorin zur Empirischen Methodenlehre sammelt Franziska Wächter während der Studienzeit auch praktische Erfahrungen, zum Beispiel in Redaktion und Vertrieb von Verlagen oder in der Unternehmenskommunikation der Siemens AG.
Für die Arbeit an ihrer Promotion geht Franziska Wächter 1996 an die Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Rostock. Sie bekommt dort eine Stelle als Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin von Professor Preisendörfer, bei dem sie schon an der LMU studiert hat. An dessen Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Soziologie und Mikrosoziologie wirkt sie mit bei mehreren Projekten zum Umweltbewusstsein und Verkehrsmittelwahlverhalten in Deutschland, die im Auftrag des Bundesumweltministeriums durchgeführt werden. Die Ergebnisse aus diesen Untersuchungen fließen ein in ihre Dissertation, mit der sie im Sommer 2000 zum Dr. rer. pol. promoviert: "Determinanten der Verkehrsmittelwahl. Ergebnisse zweier empirischer Studien in der Hansestadt Rostock".
Am Deutschen Jugendinstitut in München arbeitete sie zunächst in einem Projekt mit, das die Entwicklung und Chancen junger Menschen in sozialen Brennpunkten untersucht. "Netzwerke im Stadtteil" läuft über drei Jahre und wird vom DJI wissenschaftlich begleitet. Es geht darum, Strukturen von Institutionen zu identifizieren, die förderlich für den Stadtteil und damit für Kinder und Jugendliche in städtischen Armutsgebieten in Deutschland sind.
Parallel zu ihrer Tätigkeit am DJI nimmt Franziska Wächter gern Möglichkeiten der Weiterbildung vor allem in methodischen Fragen wahr: am ZUMA, dem Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen in Mannheim sowie an der Summer School in Social Science der University of Essex in England. Darüber hinaus bildet sie sich auch in der Moderationsmethode bei Forschungs- und Beratungsprozessen fort.
Seit 2003 hat Franziska Wächter einen Lehrauftrag an der Fachhochschule München im Fachbereich Sozialwesen und unterrichtet dort vorwiegend empirische Methodenlehre und führt mit den Studierenden kleine Untersuchungen durch, zum Beispiel zu fremdenfeindlichen Einstellungen unter den FH-Studenten.
In dem aktuellen Projekt EUYOUPART, an dem neben Deutschland (vertreten durch das DJI) noch sieben weitere Staaten beteiligt sind, versuchen Franziska Wächter und ihre WissenschaftskollegInnen herauszufinden, ob und wie sich junge Menschen in Europa an demokratischen Prozessen beteiligen. Dafür hat das länderübergreifende ForscherInnen-Team im Auftrag der EU ein gemeinsames Indikatorensystem für einen Fragebogen entwickelt, der in ganz Europa einsetzbar ist, um Partizipation von Jugendlichen vergleichbar zu machen. Auf der Abschluss-Veranstaltung in Brüssel im Juli 2005 werden neben der Präsentation des neuen Messinstruments die einzelnen Länder erste Ergebnisse ihrer empirischen Erhebungen vorstellen.
DJI Online: 1.8.2005
Publications and Links
1. Publications
2. Links
1. Publications
Download area of EUYOUPART
2. Links
Partners
SORA Institute for Social Research and Analysis (Austria):
www.sora.at
Austrian Institute for Youth Research (Austria):
Tallinn Pedagogical University (Estonia),
The Institute of International and Social Studies:
www.tpu.ee
Finnish Youth Research Network (Finland)
Fondation Nationale des Science Politiques (France):
www.msh-paris.fr
German Youth Institute (Germany):
www.dji.de
IARD Foundation (Italy):
www.fondazioneiard.org
University of St. Cyril and Method in Trnava (Slovakia),
Centre for European and Regional Youth Studies:
http://www.ucm.sk
University of Birmingham (United Kingdom):
www.bham.ac.uk
Related research institutes and associations
ZUMA (Centre for Survey Research and Methodology):
www.gesis.org/ZUMA
The International Test Commission (ITC) is a psychological association with useful standards and guidelines regarding adaption & translation:
www.intestcom.org
Information on European socio-economic research:
More than 300 socio-economic research projects funded by the European Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/
General information about EC-funded socio-economic research:
cordis.europa.eu/improving/socio-economic/home.htm
List of publications resulting from EC-funded projects:
cordis.europa.eu/improving/socio-economic/publications.htm
European White Paper on Youth:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/youth/whitepaper/index_en.html
Dialogue Workshops of the European Commission:
cordis.europa.eu/improving/socio-economic/mechanism.htm
European Social Survey (ESS):
www.europeansocialsurvey.org
International Social Survey Programme (ISSP):
www.issp.org
National surveys and information on youth policy:
Estonian Human Development Reports:
http://iiss.ee
German Youth Survey
Information on youth policy and youth work in Slovakia
Related EC-funded projects and networks:
"CID" (ESF Network on Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy):
www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/cid
"Demparty" (Democratic Participation and Political Communication in Systems of Multi-level Governance):
www.ucd.ie/dempart
"EUROPUB" (A European Public Space Observatory. Assembling Information that allows the Monitoring of European Democracy):
www.iccr-international.org/europub
"YOYO" (Youth Policy and Participation. Potentials of participation and informal learning
in young people's transitions to the labour market. A comparative analysis in ten European regions):
www.iris-egris.de/yoyo
Project on Orientations of Young Men and Women to Citizenship and European Identity:
www.sociology.ed.ac.uk/youth
At the Berlin 05 festival, a political consciousness-raising event, Renate Schmidt, German Minister for Family Affairs and member of the German Social Democratic party (SPD), stated that young people no longer want to devote themselves body and soul to one political party. Instead, they prefer to be involved in tangible projects where they can gain a sense of accomplishment. 11,000 adolescents participated in this mega event, the purpose of which was to sound out whether young people's interest in politics could be raised in this way.
Such measures are triggered by the fact that the youth organisations of the German political parties are losing members. Nowadays, as the DJI Youthsurvey found out, a mere two percent of all young people aged 12-29 are members; in former times, this number was twice as high. However, this problem is not limited to the Federal Republic of Germany; other countries are facing similar developments.
To learn more about the background and attitudes of young Europeans vis-à-vis parties, politics, democracy or the European Union, an important prerequisite is to have a measuring tool that will guarantee internationally comparable survey results. For almost three years, an international team of researchers from eight EU Member States (with the German Youth Institute representing Germany) has been working on establishing comparative empirical youth research at the European level. At their final meeting in Brussels in July 2005, the researchers presented their model questionnaire, along with the preliminary results from the national surveys.
In Topic of the month, the German Youth Institute's online series, one issue of which is published in English each year (with the next appearing in August 2005), the Overview section provides information on the structure, development and results of the EUYOUPART project. In the Outside View section, Professor Peter Mohler, Director of the renowned Mannheim Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA) for many years, explains the challenges and possible difficulties of comparative survey research.
The Interview section covers a talk with Franziska Wächter of the German Youth Institute. It contains details about the results of the survey based on interviews with 1,000 German adolescents. Incidentally, with regard to political participation, young Germans are currently in the lead, with an encouraging 51% of all young people interested in politics.
For most young Europeans, voting remains the most effective form of political participation, although their trust in political parties is universally very low throughout Europe. For young people, NGOs like Greenpeace, Amnesty International or Attac are much more attractive. Hence, the claim that young Europeans are tired of voting or generally disenchanted with politics is not quite valid.
Description of the Project
EUYOUPART
Political Participation of Young People in Europe -
Development of Indicators for Comparative Research in the European Union
In the course of this study, 8030 Europeans between the age of 15 and 25 have been interviewed face-to-face. 53% of the sample were still in school, 34% had already joined the work force and 7% were unemployed. The main challenge of this study was to ensure comparability of the collected data despite of the different political cultures, different participation opportunities, different research traditions as well as transnational difficulties of culturally specific terms.
The measurement instrument developed during this project is a model questionnaire which builds up on the strengths and weaknesses of existing empirical studies on youth and politics. The research team was able to achieve a high level of comparability of the data on current political participation of young Europeans in the eight participating countries. This is an important success for comparative research. The comparable indicators allow for a realistic picture of the political participation of young people in all eight participating countries, which may serve as a basis for the development of a consistent European youth policy.
The main objective of this project was to arrive at indicators and dimensions of political participation of young people in Europe to improve the quality of future comparative empirical studies. Based on an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of previous empirical research - including a special focus on comparability - a "model questionnaire" was to be developed. This questionnaire was put to a test in surveys conducted in eight European countries with young people aged 15 to 25. A thorough analysis of the outcomes resulted in an evaluation and an improvement of the questionnaire's first draft.
The wide spectrum of participating countries (Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Slovakia, United Kingdom) contributed to the identification of relevant and valid indicators for young people's involvement in politics. The indicators are expected to be applicable to measure political participation of youth in many European political systems.
The project covered a period of 30 months and consisted of 11 work packages. These included the following:
1. Secondary data analysis and literature review in the field of political participation resulting in a "state of the art" report. This meta-analysis of existing research approaches and results included a focus on gender aspects and (implicit) cultural concepts on which existing studies are based.
2. Comparison of the political systems of European countries to outline opportunities, limitations and conditions for political participation of youth in Europe ("structure of opportunity" for political participation).
3. Qualitative research provided an insight into youth's understanding of key concepts related to political participation. Cultural differences in the understanding of these concepts were to be explored and analysed.
4. The results of the secondary data analysis and the qualitative research served as the basis for the development of comparable indicators for political participation of youth, their political beliefs and their understanding of democracy. These indicators were evaluated through pre-testing and through surveys carried out in all participating countries.
5. Statistical analysis of the surveys provides detailed information on reliability, validity and comparability of the identified indicators.
The interest in politics among the interviewed youth varies greatly. The most interested youth live in Germany with 51%, whereas young people in the UK (30%), Estonia (29%) and Slovakia (28%) are least interested. Italy comes second with 43% closely followed by Austria with 42%, and France and Finland rank next with 36% and 35% respectively. The study clearly shows that a majority of young people is not interested in politics (37% interested vs. 63% disinterested in total).
This study, however, gives rise to the hope that the young Europeans´ interest in politics might increase with the age. The overall majority believes that voting is the most effective form of political participation, and a comparatively high percentage also makes use of their right to vote. Although the European youth shows little trust in political parties, many feel close to a certain party. NGOs seem most trustworthy to the youth, they gain more and more importance. The young people believe working for NGOs to be more effective than working for political parties.
The youth´s perception of the future, however, differs widely: whilst young Estonians prove themselves to be optimists and their peers in the other participating countries have a mostly positive picture of their future, the Austrian and German youth fears deprivation and has an overall pessimistic attitude.
Finally, there is to say that whilst the youth shows an increasingly more critical attitude towards the prevalent political system, they still make use of their participative rights and duties within the representative democracy. As a social and political form of expressing their opinion, protest is becoming increasingly important for them. New social movements and new political organisations are well considered and are more attractive than the traditional ones. Participation in these new forms is growing.
 |
| The EUYOUPART team (almost complete) together with invited experts Janet Harkness and Peter Mohler: left to right, first row: Reinhard Zuba (ÖIJ), James Sloam (BHAM); second row: N.N., Anne Muxel (FNSP), Gloria Cornolti (IARD), Ruth Picker (SORA), Janet Harkness (ZUMA, ESS Team); third row: Franziska Wächter (DJI), Marti Taru (IISS), Wolfgang Gaiser (DJI), Günther Ogris (SORA), Johann de Rijke (DJI), Peter Mohler (Director of ZUMA) |
