Search

In this paper, I examine whether generalized trust and education, as well as social security policies of welfare state institutions matter for cross-national differences in subjective well-being (SWB), because knowledge on this issue is still lacking. For this purpose I integrated the insights of two sociological theories: Social Function Production theory and Actor-Centred Institutionalism. Based on these theoretical notions we derived several hypotheses, which I tested using multilevel analysis of the data from the European Social Survey (2006), in a sample of 37,237 respondents from 22 European countries. My findings indicate that various extensiveness of social security policies matter for the level of SWB, and for the impact of education on SWB. I found negative impact of low education on SWB in all countries, except in Northern and Western European countries. This might suggest that social security policies of the latter countries have diminished the negative impact of low education on SWB. Moreover, my findings indicate positive relationship between individual education and generalized trust; as well as between generalized trust and SWB in countries with all five types of social security policies.

This paper, based on interviews conducted for the "Early Childhood Oral History Project," draws on oral life-history interviews with 14 prominent early childhood researchers who have been active since the 1970s within diverse European countries. A common theme across the interviews is the key role that collaborative research between academics and early childhood practitioners played in the construction of theories and innovative practices. The interviewees reflect on personal, social-political, epistemological and practical factors that underpinned their engagement in collaborative research, and the challenges they encountered. They give insight into the role practitioners played in the construction of education as a social-historical science--contextualised knowledge that is intrinsically related to ethics, values and innovation.

Purpose: This paper aims to explore structural and systemic influences in the development of competence models and qualifications systems at sectoral and national levels across Europe, considering the influences of different socio-economic models of skill formation on the processes of design and provision of qualifications. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is based on a meta analysis of three European projects that used literature review, documentary analysis and interviews with practitioners and policy makers. Findings: The main methodological and practical challenges posed by varieties of competence and qualifications to inter-country comparability of qualifications are shown to be related to different socio-economic models of skill formation. Research limitations/implications: The research is limited to 13 countries and four sectors but these were carefully selected to maximise coverage of European diversity with respect to competence models, training regimes and approaches to qualifications. There is clearly a need for further research involving more countries and sectors. Practical implications: The paper offers recommendations for improving the potential of the European Qualifications Framework to promote comparability of qualifications and hence mobility of labour. These recommendations will be of interest to policy makers and practitioners involved in using the EQF and similar instruments. Originality/value: This is the first systematic attempt to explore the methodological and practical difficulties of establishing comparability between qualifications. (Contains 4 tables.)

This article presents seven reports on the interviews about reception and use of international indicators among respondents from Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom. The first report is based on interviews with 5 respondents occupied with different aspects of the macro level of the Flemish educational system. It focuses on the content of the interviews and is structured upon seven headlines referring to the BEQUAD interview schedule. The second report is based on six interviews with respondents placed at different levels of the Danish educational system. This report is written on the basis of the interviews and the structure of the report is built upon seven headlines referring to the guideline of interview headings including a summary and a conclusion. The third is based on six interviews conducted during the months of May and June, 2002, with a union representative with the SNES (secondary education teachers) (A), the Director of School Education (B), a Counsellor at the "Cour des Comptes" and Chairman of the Higher Council for School Assessment (C), a counsellor and Director of Programming and Development (D), a Senator (E) and a Deputy Director of Higher Education (F). Most of the interviewees expressed their views on the best-known publications by the OECD and French education system. All interviews give emphasis on the use of indicators to serve specific ends. The fourth is based on interviews with 6 people engaged in key positions in the Italian Educational system. The fifth is based on interviews with six people occupying different key positions in the Dutch educational system. The report summarises the content of the interviews and is based on the seven headings of the BEQUAD interview schedule. Next is a report based on interviews with 6 people occupying key positions in the Spanish educational scene. The interviews aimed at getting relevant information about their perceptions on the possible influences of international indicators to decision-making processes and public information. The last report is based on interviews with three groups of respondents in the UK. The report summarises the content of the interviews and the Department of Education and Skills (DFES) written response and is structured using the seven section headings of the BEQUAD interview schedule. (Contains 2 footnotes.)