Loading...
Projects / Programmes source: ARIS

Quality of Life of Social Groups

Periods
Research activity

Code Science Field Subfield
5.03.00  Social sciences  Sociology   
5.01.00  Social sciences  Educational studies   

Code Science Field
S215  Social sciences  Social problems and welfare, national insurance 

Code Science Field
5.04  Social Sciences  Sociology 
5.03  Social Sciences  Educational sciences 
Evaluation (rules)
source: COBISS
Researchers (10)
no. Code Name and surname Research area Role Period No. of publicationsNo. of publications
1.  23425  PhD Maša Filipovič Hrast  Sociology  Researcher  2014 - 2016  379 
2.  15257  PhD Valentina Hlebec  Sociology  Researcher  2014 - 2016  625 
3.  32353  Jasna Jugovič    Technical associate  2015 
4.  28323  PhD Matic Kavčič  Sociology  Researcher  2014 - 2016  124 
5.  09975  PhD Srna Mandič  Sociology  Head  2014 - 2016  439 
6.  34363  PhD Anja Mohorko  Sociology  Researcher  2014 - 2015  13 
7.  32324  Maja Mrzel  Sociology  Technical associate  2014 - 2016  58 
8.  14757  PhD Majda Pahor  Sociology  Researcher  2014 - 2016  409 
9.  26113  PhD Tatjana Rakar  Sociology  Researcher  2015 - 2016  172 
10.  10888  PhD Zdenka Šadl  Sociology  Researcher  2014 - 2016  237 
Organisations (1)
no. Code Research organisation City Registration number No. of publicationsNo. of publications
1.  0582  University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences  Ljubljana  1626957  40,385 
Abstract
The 'quality of life' concept was originally defined as a framework for empirically examining individuals’ well-being, allowing the registering and analysis of an individual's resources and life chances across domains like material security, employment, health, housing, family etc. (see Titmuss, Erikson, Allardt). More recent approaches see well-being as a result of welfare-mix or welfare regimes (Esping-Andersen 1999, 2009, Vogel 2003, Taylor-Gooby 2004), comprising the welfare state, market, NGOs and the family; they constitute the social context of an individual's quality of life and impact the availability of their resources and their life chances (Daly 2007). In post-modern societies, characterised by diversification and individualisation (Beck 1994), the issue of the individual's command over resources is raised and related to the need to address common concerns (Rorthstein 1998, Culpit 1999). This relational component of quality of life is also maintained by the concept of 'empowerment', denoting processes where efforts to exert control are central; control implies decisions that affect an individual's life, organisations and communities (Parsons 1995, Zimmerman 2006). The concept’s normative basis suggests goals and strategies for implementing (organisational) change that would increase the control and participation of those with a weaker position and resources. Empowerment has mainly been accepted as a desired course of development across welfare state programmes, part of efforts for better quality services and for democratising public policies (Parsons 1995, Colebatch 2005), implying various processes and practices. Post-socialist countries have also generally recognised this principle. However, their key social reforms have chiefly focused on the macro, system level, with much less attention paid to the meso, organisational level, which however has an important role for the future course of development (Offe 2007, Kovacs 2000). Also in Slovenia empowerment in social services and in the local community has mostly been a minor issue. While the pre-transitional institutional arrangements of participation have largely been abolished, not much is known about the performance of the new mechanisms, despite a 'democratic deficit' having been noticed (Mandič 2012). An insight into this issue is also needed due to signs of an ever more conflictive climate in Slovenian society, further aggravated by the current economic crisis. In this research programme, we focus on three welfare domains – the community (including housing and neighbourhoods), health care and elderly care. Besides observing general developments in these domains, the key focus will be on processes of empowerment and participation, taking account of the peculiarities of the domains and their specific practices.
Significance for science
The program largely contributes to a systematic account of developments in quality of life in areas of local coomunity(including housing), healthcare and old-age care, with specific regard to empowerment of welfare state actors. This is an under-researched issue in Slovenia inspite of the fact, that the control over quality of life of individuals and communities is among the key challenges in todays social sicences. rocesses and practices of citizen cooperation and empowerment in three domains of welfare state in Slovenia – healthcare, care for elderly and community (including housing). The programme would allow these processes and practices to be observed and comprehended both within the present Slovenian social context as well from the international comparative perspective. Considering the 'democratic deficit' that was found across new member states, Slovenian case could be used for testing hypothesis about the specific features of 'post-socialist countries' in comparisons to other countries and groups of countries/welfare regimes. The programme would develope inovative methods and also provide for a stock of knowledge, on which a variety of applied studies can be based for particular users.
Significance for the country
An insight into processes and practices of empowerment in three welfare state domains - our programme is the first to provide this - can add to efforts to reduce the 'democratic deficit' in the functioning of welfare state in Slovenia. Our findings with regard to good practices as well as to obstacles to empowerment could serve as guidelines for setting more responsive and democratic arrangements on organisational level, where the voice of users/citizens is significant for better services and better communities. For Slovenia the results of our programme is significant also in terms of access to wider knowledge; namely, the programme would secure a critical mass of knowledge that is needed to follow developments in social sciences with regard to empowerment issues.
Most important scientific results Annual report 2014, 2015, final report
Most important socioeconomically and culturally relevant results Annual report 2014, 2015, final report
Views history
Favourite