Advertisement

A Comparative Expert Survey on Measuring and Enhancing Children and Young People’s Well-Being in Europe

  • Jessica Ozan
  • Inta Mierina
  • Ilze Koroleva
Chapter
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 19)

Abstract

The understanding of children and young peoples’ well-being varies greatly not just between different experts and scholars, but also across countries and cultures, depending on the historical and socio-economic context. However, an effective application of scholarly research to policy-making, especially at the supra-national level, requires establishing a comparable set of indicators that would allow measuring and comparing children and young people’s well-being across countries, over time and in relation to specific policy instruments. This chapter outlines the key findings from a Delphi survey, comprising a panel of 334 European experts in the fields of survey methodology, children and youth studies, well-being, and policy. Our findings reveal a strong consensus among experts that future studies should include both objective and subjective measures of well-being, potentially with an equal weight. Moreover, surveys should cover a lifespan from birth to 25 and include pre-natal information. We examine policy needs in relation to child well-being identified by the experts in different countries. The need for robust evidence in policy design and evaluation is frequently mentioned as experts identify important gaps between data coverage and policy relevance for some of the eudaimonic dimensions of well-being. Hence, this chapter not only highlights the differences in similarities between the understanding of well-being in different countries in Europe, and identifies a set of indicators to measure its different dimensions, but it also provides guidance as regards to specific steps that policy makers across Europe could take to enhance children and young people’s well-being.

Keywords

Delhi survey Child well-being Evidence-based policy Data coverage Policy evaluation 

References

  1. Abelson, R., Aronson, E., McGuire, W., Newcomb, T., Rosenber, M. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (Eds.). (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand-MacNally.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, F. M., & Crondall, R. (1976). The validity of measures of self–reported well–being. Social Indicators Research, 3, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well–being: America’s perception of life quality. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Apley (Ed.), Adaptation–level theory: A symposium (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, J. D., Trapness, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self–concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chuprov, V. I., Zobok, Y. A., & Williams, K. (2003). Youth in the risk society. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
  8. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview: Scott-Foreman and Co.Google Scholar
  9. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well–being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diener, E. (Ed.). (2009). The science of well–being, the collected works of Ed Diener, Social Indicators Research Series (Vol. 37). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well–being: Relative or absolute. Social Indicators Research, 28, 195–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well–being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. France, A. (2007). Understanding youth in late modernity. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gallup, G. H. (1976). Human needs and satisfactions: A global survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. George, L. K. (1992). Economic status and subjective well-being: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. In N. E. Cutler, D. W. Gregg, & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Aging, money, and life satisfaction: Aspects of financial gerontology (pp. 69–99). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Koroleva, I. (2011). Subjektīvā labklājība: apmierinātības un dzīves sasniegumu vērtējums jauniešu pārejā uz pieaugušo statusu. Riga: University of Latvia. Available at: https://www.szf.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/szf_faili/Petnieciba/promocijas_darbi/Koroleva%20Ilze%202011.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.Google Scholar
  19. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 352–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Michalos, A. (1991). Global report on students well–being. Volume I: Life satisfaction and happiness. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Rungule, R., & Kārkliņa, I. (2009). Jauniešu sociālā iekļaušana un sociālās atstumtības riski. No: Latvijas jaunatnes portrets: integrācija sabiedrībā un marginalizācijas riski (pp. 129–144). Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.Google Scholar
  23. Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2002). A selective history of classic and neo–social comaparison theory. Handbook of social comparison. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Veenhoven, R. (1984a). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Veenhoven, R. (1984b). Databook of happiness. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  26. Veenhoven, R. (1995). The cross–National Pattern of happiness: Test of predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 34, 33–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Veenhoven, R. (2009). Sociological theories of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 44–61). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Walther, A., & Pohl, A. (Eds.). (2005). Thematic study on policy measures concerning disadvantaged youth. Study commissioned by the European Commission, Final Report, Tubingen.Google Scholar
  29. Wilson, W. R. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67(4), 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1981). Self–perception and attitude–behavior consistency. Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 7, 252–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.Centre for Diaspora and Migration Research, Institute of Philosophy and SociologyUniversity of LatviaRīgaLatvia
  3. 3.Institute of Philosophy and SociologyUniversity of LatviaRīgaLatvia

Personalised recommendations