Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 111, Issue 3, pp 683–708 | Cite as

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

  • Sachie Mizohata
  • Raynald Jadoul
Article
  • 498 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Quality of life in old age Capability approach Operationalization eSocial Science ICT 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We have been very fortunate in receiving comments, suggestions, and encouragement from numerous people. For their stimulating comments, we are profoundly grateful to Guy Palmer, Alan Walker, Paul Chatin, Marilyn Binkley, Fabiola de Falco, Muriel Foulonneau, Anne-Marie Guillemard, Nicole Kerchen, Kentaro Yamamoto, Irwin S. Kirsch, Robert Cummins, Agnes Nemenyi, Lars Andersson, Sabina Alkire, an anonymous referee, and to the participants of ISA World Congress of Sociology, HDCA annual conference, and of a workshop at the University of Cambridge, where earlier versions of this paper were presented. For technical and logistical support, we would like to thank Géraldine Vidou, Damien Arcani, Marie Rossy, Solange Wirtz, Stefan Leidner, Romain Martin, Nathalie Bourgeois, Mireille Ramiandrisoa, Gilles Kayser, Ulrich Keller, Mari Yamaguchi, Isao Sawai, Nui Iwabuchi, Okuji Nishijima, Kimie Kitanaka, Tooru Kitanaka, and the members of the TAO team at Tudor and at the University of Luxembourg. Finally, we owe a debt of gratitude to those who took part in our research.

References

  1. Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30(2), 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkire, S. (2005a). Why the capability approach? Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 6(1), 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2007). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. OPHI working papers ophiwp7. Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2009). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement (revised and updated). OPHI working papers ophiwp32. Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Allemang, D., & Hendler, J. (2008). Semantic web for the working ontologist: Effective modeling in RDFS and Owl (p. 352). Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. Anand, P., & van Hees, M. (2006). Capabilities and achievements: An empirical study. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 268–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Antoniou, G., & Van Harmelen, F. (2004). A semantic web primer (1st ed., p. 258). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Atkinson, T., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E., & Nolan, B. (2002). Social indicators: The EU and social inclusion. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowling, A. (2004). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (3rd ed., p. 221). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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.
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Crocker, D. A. (2005). Sen and deliberative democracy. In A. Kaufman (Ed.), Capabilities equality: Basic issues and problems (pp. 155–197). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. De Roure, D., & Goble, C. (2009). Software design for empowering scientists. IEEE Software, 26(1), 88–95.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster, J. E., & Handy, C. (2008). External capabilities. Oxford. Retrieved from http://ophi.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pubs/OPHI_WP8.pdf.
  21. Foster, I., & Kesselman, C. (2006). Scaling systems-level science: Scientific exploration and IT implications. Computer, 39(11), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fukuda-Parr, S. (2003). The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gruber, T. (2009). Ontology. In L. Liu & M. T. Özsu (Eds.), The encyclopedia of database systems (pp. 1963–1965). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. Hawkins, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2005). On intelligence. New York: Holt Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  27. Hilbert, M., & López, P. (2011). The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332(6025), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofweber, T. (2011). Logic and ontology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/logic-ontology/.
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ibrahim, S. S., & Alkire, S. (2007). Agency and empowerment: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 35(4), 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal wellbeing index—Adult. Melbourne. Retrieved from http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/instruments/wellbeing_index.htm.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krueger, A. B., & Schkade, D. A. (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8–9), 1833–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morgan, M. S. (2012). The world in the model. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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 systemsTheory and application AISTA2004. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Qizilbash, M. (2004). On the arbitrariness and robustness of multi-dimensional poverty rankings. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 5(3), 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Resnyansky, L. (2008). Social modeling as an interdisciplinary research practice. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 23(4), 20–27. doi: 10.1109/MIS.2008.72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 6(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sen, A. K. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 6(2), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sen, A. K. (2006). What do we want from a theory of justice? Journal of Philosophy, 103(5), 215–238.Google Scholar
  54. Sen, A. K. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  55. Srinivasan, T. N. (1994). Human development: A new paradigm or reinvention of the wheel? American Economic Review, 84(2), 238.Google Scholar
  56. 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.
  57. 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).Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(1), 1–39. doi: 10.1023/A:1010072010360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.
  61. Walker, A. (2005). Growing older in Europe. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  62. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.social-issues.org, 2b, rue Albert Borschette (K2)LuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Public Research Centre Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations