The book consists of five parts and a concluding chapter. Part 1 covers general problems and presents solutions for the harmonisation of data from different national and/or cultural contexts. In the second part EUROSTAT and ESOMAR present their established standard instruments. Tested instruments each covering one variable (i.e. occupation, education) are presented in the third part. The fourth part again includes suggested tools for the harmonisation of single variables for which standardised instruments are not yet available (i.e. age, religion, ethnicity, household, family, income). The last part presents selected empirical analyses demonstrating the use and fruitfulness of instruments presented before. This book is mainly written for two groups. First, researchers and practitioners involved in comparative research in Europe. Second, researchers working with data of the statistical offices of European countries and data from institutions of the European Union.

In November 2000, the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education (BICSE) held a symposium to draw on the wealth of experience gathered over a four-decade period, to evaluate improvement in the quality of the methodologies used in international studies, and to identify the most pressing methodological issues that remain to be solved. Since 1960, the United States has participated in 15 large-scale cross-national education surveys. The most assessed subjects have been science and mathematics through reading comprehension, geography, nonverbal reasoning, literature, French, English as a foreign language, civic education, history, computers in education, primary education, and second-language acquisition. The papers prepared for this symposium and discussions of those papers make up the volume, representing the most up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of methodological strengths and weaknesses of international comparative studies of student achievement. These papers answer the following questions: (1) What is the methodological quality of the most recent international surveys of student achievement? How authoritative are the results? (2) Has the methodological quality of international achievement studies improved over the past 40 years? and (3) What are promising opportunities for future improvement?

A new and updated definitive resource for survey questionnaire testing and evaluation Building on the success of the first Questionnaire Development, Evaluation, and Testing (QDET) conference in 2002, this book brings together leading papers from the Second International Conference on Questionnaire Design, Development, Evaluation, and Testing (QDET2) held in 2016. The volume assesses the current state of the art and science of QDET; examines the importance of methodological attention to the questionnaire in the present world of information collection; and ponders how the QDET field can anticipate new trends and directions as information needs and data collection methods continue to evolve. Featuring contributions from international experts in survey methodology, Advances in Questionnaire Design, Development, Evaluation and Testing includes latest insights on question characteristics, usability testing, web probing, and other pretesting approaches, as well as: Recent developments in the design and evaluation of digital and self-administered surveys Strategies for comparing and combining questionnaire evaluation methods Approaches for cross-cultural and cross-national questionnaire development New data sources and methodological innovations during the last 15 years Case studies and practical applications Advances in Questionnaire Design, Development, Evaluation and Testing serves as a forum to prepare researchers to meet the next generation of challenges, making it an excellent resource for researchers and practitioners in government, academia, and the private sector.

In the post-World War II era, the emergence of 'area studies' marked a signal development in the social sciences. As the social sciences evolved methodologically, however, many dismissed area studies as favoring narrow description over general theory. Still, area studies continues to plays a key, if unacknowledged, role in bringing new data, new theories, and valuable policy-relevant insights to social sciences. In Comparative Area Studies, three leading figures in the field have gathered an international group of scholars in a volume that promises to be a landmark in a resurgent field. The book upholds two basic convictions: that intensive regional research remains indispensable to the social sciences and that this research needs to employ comparative referents from other regions to demonstrate its broader relevance. Comparative Area Studies (CAS) combines the context-specific insights from traditional area studies and the logic of cross- and inter-regional empirical research. This first book devoted to CAS explores methodological rationales and illustrative applications to demonstrate how area-based expertise can be fruitfully integrated with cutting-edge comparative analytical frameworks.

This book reports on a study that compared the responses of leaders from six European Union countries and the United Sates about their perceptions of the work-related values of effective leaders and team members. The results not only yield a profile of effective leadership for those working in cross-national teams in the European Union, they also provide a framework for thinking about how to develop effective cross-national alliances everywhere. The findings focus on comparisons and perceptions of effective leadership, effective leaders as team members, effective membership, and effective leadership when working across Europe. The similarities and difference among effective leaders are likewise detailed, along with leader-member differences and potential conflicts on cross-national teams. A striking consensus emerged on what will be required of leaders and members of cross-national teams, such as a balance of approachable, democratic, and moderately dominant leadership that blends stability with creativity. (RJM)

This research is an empirical study of the legitimacy of economic inequality with a focus on the case of Chile. Chile is an appealing case study in this regard because it has been one of the countries with the highest indexes of economic inequality over the past several decades. Theoretical perspectives based on the rational interest of the median voter have pointed out a negative association between high levels of inequality and legitimacy. Nevertheless, empirical evidence indicates that an unequal distribution of income is not necessarily challenged by the majority of a society, a phenomenon associated with the concept of legitimacy of economic inequality. Most empirical studies of this topic to date have considered social contexts that are not characterized by (comparatively) high levels of income inequality; thus, the impact of the level of inequality on its legitimacy remains largely unclear. The present study aimed at bridging this research gap, guided by the question: How do high levels of income inequality in a society influence the legitimacy of economic inequality? Using data obtained by comparative public opinion projects including the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) and the International Social Justice Project (ISJP), this research considered individual preferences for occupational earnings inequality (the just earnings gap) as the main object of study. The central hypothesis was that individual preferences are strongly influenced by contextual standards such as the current income distribution, leading individuals of countries with high levels of inequality to have stronger average preferences for economic inequality (the so-called existential argument). Empirical evidence of legitimacy was related to two central dimensions based on David Beetham's multidimensional concept of legitimacy: (a) consensus regarding the inequality in the distribution of earnings in Chile and (b) the impact of the country level of income inequality on individual preferences for a larger just earnings gap. The empirical analysis provided partial evidence regarding the consensus about inequality in Chile, whereas in an international comparative framework, countries with higher levels of income inequality showed a stronger preference for a larger just earnings gap.

Uses the information gathered by the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 1995 to examine the connection between curriculum and achievement in the teaching of science and mathematics.

Survey Methodology is becoming a more structured field of research, deserving of more and more academic attention. The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology explores both the increasingly scientific endeavour of surveys and their growing complexity, as different data collection modes and information sources are combined. The handbook takes a global approach, with a team of international experts looking at local and national specificities, as well as problems of cross-national, comparative survey research. The chapters are organized into seven major sections, each of which represents a stage in the survey life-cycle: Surveys and Societies Planning a Survey Measurement Sampling Data Collection Preparing Data for Use Assessing and Improving Data Quality The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology is a landmark and essential tool for any scholar within the social sciences.

Survey Data Harmonization in the Social Sciences An expansive and incisive overview of the practical uses of harmonization and its implications for data quality and costs In Survey Data Harmonization in the Social Sciences, a team of distinguished social science researchers delivers a comprehensive collection of ex-ante and ex-post harmonization methodologies in the context of specific longitudinal and cross-national survey projects. The book examines how ex-ante and ex-post harmonization work individually and in relation to one another, offering practical guidance on harmonization decisions in the preparation of new data infrastructure for comparative research. Contributions from experts in sociology, political science, demography, economics, health, and medicine are included, all of which give voice to discipline-specific and interdisciplinary views on methodological challenges inherent in harmonization. The authors offer perspectives from Europe and the United States, as well as Africa, the latter of which provides insights rarely featured in survey research methodology handbooks. Readers will also find: A thorough introduction to approaches and concepts for survey data harmonization, as well as the effects of data harmonization on the overall survey research process Comprehensive explorations of ex-ante harmonization of survey instruments and non-survey data Practical discussions of ex-post harmonization of national social surveys, census and time use data, including explorations of survey data recycling A detailed overview of statistical issues linked to the use of harmonized survey data Perfect for upper undergraduate and graduate researchers who specialize in survey methodology, Survey Data Harmonization in the Social Sciences will also earn a place in the libraries of survey practitioners who engage in international research.

Divergence: A Source of Creative Thinking The outstanding job accomplished by Bernard, Gary, and Gilles is really praiseworthy: not only did they succeed in completing within a remark ably short span of time the editing of the contributions to the conference that marked the 20th Anniversary of the European Institute for Ad vanced Studies in Management; they have also managed to elicit numerous insightful comments from a host of dashing young scholars as well as from the fortunate few established authorities whose findings have long be come leading articles in the best academic journals, who now chair those journals' editorial boards, and after whom great scientific awards have been named. In so doing, our dedicated triumvirate has blended together pieces of diverse research traditions-some of them quite puzzling-and mixed significantly differentiated styles of expression. The controversial display of self-confidence by some distinguished colleagues, the amazingly emo tional "good old" memories revived by their peers, the scapegoat-finding and moralizing confessions produced by some of their disciples together with the detached systematic rigidity of some others all combine to pro duce a multivarious patchwork that may well prove the existence of a marketing scholar lifecycle. This cartoon-like four-class typology might even make it worth the reader's while to indulge in some guesswork to discover the sequence of the four stages as an exercise and then partition the author population accordingly.