What do respondents mean when they report to be “citizens of the world”? Using probing questions to elucidate international differences in cosmopolitanism

  • Michael Braun
  • Dorothée Behr
  • Juan Díez Medrano
Article

Abstract

The measurement of cosmopolitanism, i.e. the feeling of being a citizen of the world and the corresponding openness towards other cultures and peoples, has proved to be challenging and several scholars have questioned its validity. In this paper, we use web probing, i.e. implementing probing techniques of cognitive interviewing in web surveys, to elucidate the meaning of a frequently used direct measure of cosmopolitanism that asks respondents to what extent they feel they are “a citizen of the world”. As a single-item measure, it cannot be analyzed by statistical approaches such as confirmatory factor analysis. We compare results from Spain, Denmark, Hungary, Germany, Canada, and the U.S. Though the majority of the respondents show an understanding of the item which corresponds to the intention of the researchers, a large part of them does not. In addition, some country differences in the open answers make sense but other differences between countries are hard to explain. We conclude that asking people to what extent they feel they are “a citizen of the world” does not capture well the concept of cosmopolitanism as used in the literature.

Keywords

Cosmopolitan attitudes International comparisons Open answers Web probing 

References

  1. Baker, R., Blumberg, S.J., Brick, J.M., Couper, M.P., et al.: AAPOR report on online panels. Public Opin. Quart. 74, 711–781 (2010). doi:10.1093/poq/nfq048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, U.: The Cosmopolitan Vision. Polity Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U., Grande, E.: Kosmopolitisches Europa. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main (2004)Google Scholar
  4. Behr, D., Braun, M., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.: Item comparability in cross-national surveys: results from asking probing questions in cross-national web surveys about attitudes towards civil disobedience. Qual. Quant. 48, 127–148 (2014). doi:10.1007/s11135-012-9754-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, M., Behr, D., Kaczmirek, L.: Assessing cross-national equivalence of measures of xenophobia: evidence from probing in web surveys. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 25, 383–395 (2013). doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calcutt, L., Woodward, I., Skrbis, Z.: Conceptualizing otherness: an exploration of the cosmopolitan schema. J. Sociol. 45, 169–186 (2009). doi:10.1177/1440783309103344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calhoun, C.: The class consciousness of frequent travelers: Towards a critique of actually existing cosmopolitanism. In: Vertovec, S., Cohen, R. (eds.) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice, pp. 86–100. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  8. Delanty, G. (ed.): The Routledge Handbook of Cosmopolitan Studies. Routledge, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  9. Duchesne, S., Frazer, E., Haegel, F., Van Ingelgom, V.: Citizens’ Reactions to European Integration Compared. Overlooking Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmill (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duchesne, S., Haegel, F., Frazer, E., Van Ingelgom, V., Garcia, G., Frognier, A.-P.: Europe between integration and globalisation. Social differences and national frames in the analysis of focus groups conducted in France, francophone Belgium and the United Kingdom. Politique européenne 1(30), 67–105 (2010). doi:10.3917/poeu.030.0067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission: Eurobarometer 71.3. TNS Opinion & Social [Producer]; GESIS. Cologne [Publisher]. ZA4973, dataset version 3.0.0, (2012). doi: 10.4232/1.11135 (2009)
  12. EVS: European Values Study 2008: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2008). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4800 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.12458 (2016)
  13. Gaxie, D., Hubé, N., Rowell, J. (eds.): Perceptions of Europe. A Comparative Sociology of European Attitudes. ECPR Press, Wivenhoe Park (2011)Google Scholar
  14. Haller, W., Roudometof, V.: The cosmopolitan local continuum in cross-national perspective. J. Sociol. 46, 277–297 (2010). doi:10.1177/1440783310371401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Held, D.: Democracy and the Global Order. Polity Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  16. ISSP Research Group: International Social Survey Programme: National Identity III. ISSP 2013. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5950 Data file Version 2.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.12312 (2015)
  17. Kaldor, M.: New and Old Wars. Polity Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  18. Latcheva, R.: Cognitive interviewing and factor-analytic techniques: a mixed method approach to validity of survey items measuring national identity. Qual. Quant. 45, 1175–1199 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11135-009-9285-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mau, S., Mewes, J., Zimmermann, A.: Cosmopolitan attitudes through transnational social practices? Glob. Netw. 8, 1–24 (2008). doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2008.00183.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Olofsson, A., Öhman, S.: Cosmopolitans and locals: an empirical investigation of transnationalism. Curr. Sociol. 55, 877–895 (2007). doi:10.1177/0011392107081991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pichler, F.: How real is cosmopolitanism in Europe? Sociology 42, 1107–1126 (2008). doi:10.1177/0038038508096936 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pichler, F.: “Down-to-earth” cosmopolitanism: subjective and objective measurements of cosmopolitanism in survey research. Curr. Sociol. 57, 704–732 (2009). doi:10.1177/0011392109337653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pichler, F.: Cosmopolitanism in a global perspective: an international comparison of open-minded orientations and identity in relation to globalization. Int. Sociol. 27, 21–50 (2012). doi:10.1177/0268580911422980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roudometof, V.: Transnationalism, cosmopolitanism and globalization. Curr. Sociol. 53, 113–135 (2005). doi:10.1177/0011392105048291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rumford, C.: Cosmopolitan Borders. Palgrave, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinnott, R.: An evaluation of the measurement of national, subnational and supranational identity in crossnational surveys. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 18, 211–223 (2005). doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skey, M.: We need to talk about cosmopolitanism: the challenge of studying openness towards other people. Cult. Sociol. 6, 471–487 (2012). doi:10.1177/1749975512445434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Skrbis, Z., Woodward, I.: The ambivalence of ordinary cosmopolitanism: investigating the limits of cosmopolitan openness. Sociol. Rev. 55, 730–747 (2007). doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00750.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szerszynski, B., Urry, J.: Cultures of cosmopolitanism. Sociol. Rev. 50, 461–481 (2002). doi:10.1111/1467-954X.00394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vertovec, S., Cohen, R.: Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social SciencesMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Universidad Carlos III de MadridGetafe (Madrid)Spain

Personalised recommendations