The Comparative Charting of Social Change Program

The Comparative Charting of Social Change Program

• A comparative program,

• Going for about twenty years,

• A series published by McGill-Queen’s University Press

http://host.gesis.org/ccsc

Reasons for Presenting the CSCS Program During this CHANGEQUAL Meeting

• Some members of the CHANGEQUAL/ EQUALSOC networks are involved in the CCSC program.

• The CCSC program provides descriptions of national contexts and social changes which could be useful for our comparative analysis.

• The basic units of the program, the trends, are rather similar to social indicators :

In both cases, the aim is to assess the changes in a limited domain of society;

The domains are: “policy”-driven for the social indicators;“social scientist interested by social change”-driven for

CCSC;The two perspectives are complementary.

National Profiles and Comparative Volumes

The CCSC Series

National Profiles  

Available:Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, United States, Russia,Spain, West Germany, Quebec

Delivered 2005:

Canada

Comparative VolumesAvailable:

Langlois S. ed., Convergence or Divergence? Comparing Recent Social Trends in Industrial

Societies, Caplow T. ed., Leviathan TransformedLemel Y. & Noll H.H. eds, Changing Structures of Inequality:

A Comparative PerspectiveDelivered 2005:

European Union and United States Compared

In progress: Immigrants in Post-Industrial Societies

Other books & updatings available at other publishers (not always in English)

The National Profiles

• National Profiles are realized by national teams. All have the same format.

• For a period starting in the 1960s and ending in the 1990s, they consist of 78 Trend Reports grouped under 17 main topics.  

• “A trend report has four sections: a brief abstract, an explanatory text, a section of tables and figures, and a bibliography”(CCSC, Guidelines for Newly Admitted National Teams)

An Example of a Trend Report : 1.1 Youth(in France)

Unemployment rate before 25 is increasing from 5% in the 1960s to more than 20% in the 1990s;

Youth employment status is getting more unstable;Age of first marriage was about 23 for women in the 1960s. It is 26 in the 1990s;There were 67,000 unmarried couple households in 1968. They are about

600,000 in 1990.

From these indicators and others, the abstract can be formulated as:  

Twenty-five years ago, the majority of young people from all social categories had married and found stable employment by the age of 24.

Today there is an unstable intermediary period of unemployment and for cohabitation between the end of adolescence and the beginning of adult

life. Those in different social categories experience this period in different ways.

List of the 78 Trend Reports (1)1.1 Youth 1.2 Elders

2.1 Self-identification 2.2 Kinship Networks 2.3 Community and Neighbourhood Types 2.4 Local Autonomy 2.5 Voluntary Associations 2.6 Sociability Networks

3.1 Female Roles 3.2 Childbearing 3.3 Matrimonial Models 3.4 Women's Employment 3.5 Reproductive Technologies and Biotechnologies

4.1 Unemployment 4.2 Skills and Occupational Levels 4.3 Types of Employment 4.4 Sectors of the Labor Force 4.5 Computerization of Work

5.1 Work Organization 5.2 Personnel Administration 5.3 Sizes and Types of Enterprises 6.1 Occupational Status 6.2 Social Mobility 6.3 Economic Inequality 6.4 Social Inequality

7.l Conflict 7.2 Negotiation 7.3 Norms of Conduct 7.4 Authority 7.5 Public Opinion

8.1 Educational System 8.2 Health System 8.3 Welfare System 8.4 The State

9.1 Labor Unions 9.2 Religious Institutions 9.3 Military Forces 9.4 Political Parties 9.5 Mass Media

List of the 78 Trend Reports (2)10.1 Dispute Settlement 10.2 Institutionalization of Labor Unions 10.3 Social Movements 10.4 Interest Groups

11.l Political Differentiation 11.2 Confidence in Institutions 11.3 Economic Orientations 11.4 Radicalism 11.5 Religious Beliefs

12.1 Personal and Family Income 12.2 Informal Economy 12.3 Personal and Family Wealth 13.1 Market Goods and Services 13.2 Mass Information 13.3 Personal Health and Beauty Practices 13.4 Time Use 13.5 Daily Mobility 13.6 Household Production 13.7 Forms of Erotic Expression 13.8 Mood-altering Substances

14.1 Amount and Use of Free Time 14.2 Vacation Patterns 14.3 Athletics and Sports 14.4 Cultural Activities

15.1 General Education15.2 Professional Education 15.3 Continuing Education

16.1 Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities 16.2 Crime and Punishment 16.3 Emotional Disorders and Self-

Destructive Behavior 16.4 Poverty

17.1 Satisfaction 17.2 Perception of Social Problems 17.3 Orientations to the Future17.4 Values 17.5 National Identity

The 17 Domains

0. Context

1. Age Groups

2. Microsocial

3. Women

4. Labor Market

5. Labor and Management

6. Social Stratification

7. Social Relations

8. State and Service Institutions

9. Mobilizing Institutions

10. Institutionalization of Social Forces

11. Ideologies

12. Household Resources

13. Life style

14. Leisure

15. Educational Attainment

16. Integration and Marginalization

17. Attitudes and Values

What is a “Trend”?

A trend is a theoretical diagnosis through which meaning is given to a group of empirical developments described by indicators in one societal

domain.•An indicator corresponds to the most elementary level of apprehension of a change. It must be formulated in such a way as to be immediately measurable. It corresponds to a statistical series or to the results of successive surveys. Sometimes, for reasons of contingency, it may be only partially available. Provisional assumptions have to be made. •There is no a priori means of limiting a list of indicators for a given domain, but it is not necessary to be exhaustive in order to locate a trend. It can be identified as soon as we have found what is common to the partial developments measured by the indicators.• A trend is formulated only after sufficiently unequivocal, long (about 20 years), and massive changes have taken place. • A trend is in fact the result of multiple choices.• Having made these choices, it is then necessary, by a process of synthesis, to group together under one heading the various converging empirical developments we have retained.

Finding the List of Topics For the Trend Reports(and Finding Relationships Between Trends) :

An Inductive and Cooperative Process

• An tentative list of trends prepared by the French team.

• Discussion with domain experts in France.

• Each expert :Agrees or redefines the trends relative to her/his domain;

Imagines all the relationships between the trends related to her/his domain and the other trends: reinforcement, attenuation, no bearing;

Occasionally modifies some trends.

• 30 domain experts.

At the end, a final list of 60 trends & a matrix of the supposed relationships between trends.

Then, at three international meetings, members of four national teams revised and enlarged the initial list of tendencies and consensually agreed

upon the final list of the 78 topics for the Trend Reports.

  Lessons From an Agreement

Of course, the list of topics for the trends reports was the object of passionate discussions between the national teams at the origin of the program.

Obviously, one can discuss the result.

Nevertheless, all new teams agreed to regard it as an operational list. Taking into account the development of the program, the variety of the national experiments gathered through participating teams, one can indeed admit that this list of 78 categories constitutes a valid grid of description for describing and analysing changes for developed societies.

Practically, the experience thus shows that a list achieving consensus can be drawn up:

In an inductive process, a way of working from the bottom up,Without references to any central theme (for instance post-

modern society),And with agreement on two points: all the items of the list are

necessary and trends must be described for each item.

Is There a Single Pattern of Social Evolution ?1. Overall Degree of Similarity

• Four Profiles (Fr,Q ,USA,WG),• Informal quota sample of 45

Trend Reports,• Systematic reading following a

uniform technique,• By two readers,• Comparing their conclusions,

Produced 78 trends/assertions about elementary social changes present at least in one of the four countries

Six in ten trends similar in the four countries (likelihood of total

agreement: 12.5 %)

Highly parallel social trends:As a first approximation, a dominant pattern of

social change across the four societiesBUT

40% certainly diverges a great deal from the notion of unilinear “modernization”

Some Trends in France, West Germany, Quebec & the United States

A new transitional phase between school and work Elders becomes more important hi society Kinship grows in its significance to social ties Kinship declines in its signifïcance to social ties Centralization declines in largest cities "Gentrification" of inner cities Centralization of political authority at national level Decentralized national political authority Fertility is reduced Marriage and childbearing are disassociated Weakening of "bourgeois" marriage model Reproduction becomes voluntary Formal manpower training grows Tertiary sector and especially services grow Computerization of work New industrial-management schemes replace Taylorism New, smaller or less centralized firms Reduced self-employment; more white-, fewer blue-collar More officials and managers Intergenerational mobility increases, because occupation redistributed Inequality among women increases Income inequality diminishes More equal access to educational opportunity Age-based inequalities grow, benefiting older citizens Class is a less salient category, especially "worker" Reduced conflict, increasingly institutionalized Growth of legal and paralegal conflict settlement More tolerance of divergent opinions and behaviours Tolerance of sexual matters increases Ethnic-group tolerance increases Devolution of centralized authority structures State of authority relations is unsettled

Extended education, often together with occasional work Increased production of health-care services More hospitals State more present in public administration Labour unions less important to the working class Stability of military numbers Loss of symbolic role of army Traditional left/right bipolarity weakens More new, specialized dispute-settlement mechanisms 'Labour-union apparatus treats more social needs Management includes labour in decision making Increasingly demanding interest groups New techniques of voter mobilization; party system weakens Less confidence in political institutions, politicians Less confidence in formal rules Less confidence in educational institutions Less confidence in business More confidence in business. More confidence in the military Great national institutions lose symbolic significance Religious forms proliferate Religious forms decline With more income, household equipment increases Decline in differences in household income Increase in income brings change in consumption New ways of distinguishing life style by consumption More consumption of health care Development of alternative medical philosophies More daily mobility thanks to automobile Reduced gender differential in daily mobility Leisure time increases in amount and importance Growing amount of vacation time Sports are on upswing; many are democratized Growth in overall spread and extent of schooling Part-tune university study increases Adult education incraeses Crime, even when not increasing, becomes focal issue Specific psychological discomforts, not anomie New forms of poverty arise, in spite of state efforts

Is There a Single Pattern of Social Evolution ? 2. Areas of Similarity and Difference

Perfect similarity in trends for: 1. Age groups 3. Women 4. Labour market (5. Labour and management)

Slightly less marked but nevertheless noteworthy divergence for: 6 . Social stratification 7. Social relations (Conflict, Public opinion, Authority,…)

8. State and service institutions10. Institutionalization of social forces11. Ideologies and beliefs

Divergences particularly marked for: 2. Microsocial (Self-identification, Association, Kinship,,…)13. Life style (Health, Time-use, Mass information,…)

(16. Integration and marginalization)

We may say that trends in the basic social structures (anthropological structures, social hierarchies, and major institutions) have been more similar from one society to another than have trends in other domains of social change.

Is There a Single Pattern of Social Evolution ? 3. How Alike is the Change in Each Society ?

“Proximity" among societies, measured in terms of shared trends, excluding trends that are shared by all four societies under study

Québec United States

West Germany

France 25 21 22

Québec 24 19

US 13

WG differs more from each of the other three than they do from one another. F is less divergent from WG than are the other two societies, and shares an especially close parallel in social change with both Q and WG.

A European pole may perhaps be opposed to a North American pole. F , in this view, lies at the quite considerable juncture of the two poles, sharing much with both the distinctively "German" direction of the European pole and the distinctively "Québécois" of the North American pole.

Structural Analysis 1. “Matrix” Approaches 

A list of trends & a matrix of the supposed causal relationships between trends was prepared during the first step.

This matrix was achieved by recording the trends in a row-by-column array and ticking each box by whether a “causal” link between row-trend and column-trend could be hypothesized.

• Heuristic value of this procedure:Enabling theoretical and empirical research hypotheses to be formulated. Trends and their interconnections mutually clarify one another through an iterative process. The matrix is a sort of check-list.

• Another value, that of deploying tools with which the links between things, - here trends or groups of trends -, could be analyzed : graph and network theory tools.It is not necessarily the most pronounced trends that are the most influential, but those whose potential continuation or change will affect a large array of other trends. What can be said directly about this potential influence is very limited without specific tools.

Structural Analysis2.“Computerization” as an example 

A calculation of this kind applied to the baseline trend of “computerization” shows that:

• while “computerization” has few direct effects, it has many indirect consequences.

• new technologies directly affect work and various major institutions that rapidly induce changes in most of the other sectors of the model. For example, the decline in “church attendance” is the order 3 trend best linked to “computerization”.

Ref. Forse M., 1991, L’analyse structurelle du changement social

Structural Analysis2. Strong Connexity and Structural Model of Change

The matrix (which is, bear in mind, only the expression of all hypothesized links) is such as everything is interconnected to

everything else through intermediaries.

The derived graph is strongly connected

Notwithstanding that, a hierarchy can be constructed within which

the most “probable” indirect effects (or causes, if looking at

the antecedents of a process) can be selected by focusing on the links that are traversed by the

greatest number of paths.Ref. Langlois S., 1994, Convergence or Divergence?

ConclusionsIn opposition to theoretical and nomological approaches like the " laws of nature"

(Boudon, 1984), the CCSC program seeks to establish models of social change founded on two ideas: a. the idea of a multiplicity of the domains of social change and b. the idea of an internal dynamic of change specific to each country. It appears that such a program can meet a sufficient agreement and that a comparative grid of domains allowing the comparison between countries can be established.

The similarities of changes between countries are very large but: a. there remains enough differences for invalidating the possibility of a unique model; b. the differences more or less point to domains of society for which political and ideological orientations about the collective life matter rather directly. Moreover, the internal dynamics appear much less similar from one country to another than the changes themselves are.

Social Reporting had a normative aim: to measure the attainment of national objectives and to assess a country’s performance on the basis of them. Of course, this is different from the CCSC goals of assessing the scope and nature of social changes in each country.

Probably, the ambition as regards indicators is not to evaluate the situation only, but also to suggest the reasons of the situation. In this respect, the results of the CCSC program suggest that a very broad battery of indicators is desirable, all the more so as their impact is likely to differ from one country to another.