Conferences

Trends and explanations.

For the Austrian part of the study we already have very interesting outcomes. In all parts of the study – work, family, religious and political values – the year 1999 differs significantly from the other waves of the survey Austria took part in (1990 and 2008). At the workshop we will discuss possible explanations for some of the outcomes.

Regarding the perception of values in general: The implicit meaning of ‘value’ in the EVS is worth a discussion since it is not used in a consistent way. Values are measured in the context of socio-demographic structures – attitudes, norms, etc. However, it remains unclear what perception of value is meant. Does it follow a more philosophic-ethical or a sociological concept? A profound discussion on that matter would be crucial to the EVS itself.

Index of Authoritarianism.

In the Austrian questionnaire, out of a series of variables and with the method of factorial analysis we established an “index of authoritarianism”. In past surveys, the variables that were relevant for authoritarian attitudes remained constant. In this year’s survey, however, the nature of authoritarianism has changed. Authoritarianism today is different than ten years ago. This has many consequences. For instance, changes in political values can be explained by this shift of authoritarianism. At the workshop we will present possible explanations for this phenomenon.

Religion.

Two aspects will be discussed that mainly focus on methodological issues and might deserve attention in future surveys:

1. Religious transformation processes are happening all over Europe. However, the questionnaire does not provide variables to measure these processes. What is measured is the level of religiousness and (on the opposite) the number of people attending or leaving religious communities. Yet the questionnaire does not measure the pluralism of church-related religiousness, nor does it justice to religious pluralism itself.

2. We can see changes over the last twenty years regarding the nature of religiousness. An analytic model (on the basis of a theoretic model) shows that next to the cognitive dimension of religiousness, the religious praxis and experience is a relevant factor. Nevertheless the variables in the questionnaire concentrate on the cognitive dimension. A supplement of experience-related questions would be preferable.