Figure 6.3 Geographical locations of the 10 interviewees
6.2 Part A: Individual values
6.2.1 Schwartz’s 19 basic individual values
Note.
All respondent names are pseudonyms.
6.2 Part A: Individual values
The first part of the interview focussed on individual values (Section 4.2.3) and addressed research objective 3 (Section 3.3). Schwartz’s 19 values measured in the survey questionnaire through the PVQ-R3 instrument were presented on a series of cards with a simplified textual description of each value (Appendix IV). Interviewees were asked to order these cards according to how the values described were important for them as guiding principles in their life. As part of the exercise, they were invited to think and comment aloud. Specific values of interest from the online questionnaire were further assessed at this stage (i.e. universalism-nature, power-resources, achievement, face, stimulation). Finally, interviewees were asked to reflect on any change in values occurred during their life and what led to those changes (Appendix III).
The resulting arrangements of cards, representing interviewees’ value priorities, were assessed against findings from previous quantitative research (Table 5.2). This form of data triangulation was used to verify the consistency across results and control possible social desirability bias in verbal responses (i.e. the tendency of respondents to answer questions in a socially acceptable direction).
6.2.1 Schwartz’s 19 basic individual values
This section presents the interviewees’ accounts of Schwartz’s basic individual values in order to determine whether they understood the 19 values as intended by
Schwartz, what importance they attributed to each value, and whether their stated importance confirmed results from the questionnaire. Conceptual discrepancies between the definitions provided in the cards (Appendix IV) and the interviewees’
understandings of those values are pointed out, as well as possible inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results. The analysis also reveals interviewees’
intimate struggle with specific values and their reasons.
1. Autonomy of thought: being free to develop your own ideas and abilities
• ‘Autonomy of thought’ was generally considered a positive and important value.
Interviewees associated ‘Autonomy of thought’ with thinking critically and being able to make their own decisions, or to independence and places where there is freedom of thought. Connie, for example, described it as a “background” condition embedded in the geographical, social and cultural environment where she lives in.
As such, she tends not to consider it as one of her values (or as a value to pursue).
‘Autonomy of thought’ was also related to particular occupations, or work positions and roles. For instance, Martha considered ‘Autonomy of thought’ to be more relevant in her job than at home (“Me, as a person, outside of the work environment, I don’t tend to impose my ideas on other people ... and sometimes I keep quiet when I shouldn’t. Not so much in a work environment: I am a director of a company and I would do what it is necessary”).
2. Autonomy of action: being free to determine your own goals and purposes
• Most interviewees suggested a similarity, both in terms of understanding and importance assigned, between ‘Autonomy of action’ and ‘Autonomy of thought’.
As with ‘Autonomy of thought’, interviewees further related the value with different settings, such as the home environment or work-related situations. For example, the value was associated by Thomas with the ability to determine his desired career path and the possibility to fully express himself in his job. In contrast, Amy suggested that ‘Autonomy of action’ can sometimes be “stifled” by external factors or significant others. In particular, her family and teachers strongly influenced and limited her career choices in the past.
3. Stimulation: having excitement, novelty, and change in your life
• Half of the interviewees considered ‘Stimulation’ as not particularly important, appreciating it “in small ways” or “in small things”.
• This is consistent with results from the previous quantitative analysis, where the value presented the second highest standard deviation among measured items.
Interviewees provided quite diverse perspectives and views on ‘Stimulation’. Linda suggested an interpretation of ‘Stimulation’ in terms of “movement and dynamism as a source of energy” in her life. Notions of “being challenged” and “doing something different” have a role to play as an antidote to getting bored easily for Thomas, and in avoiding “sink[ing] back into the same old, same old”, in his work and personal life, for Brian. ‘Stimulation’ appeared quite important also for James, who particularly likes “to try new things and experiment”, and Connie, who sees and approaches her life “as an adventure”.
4. Hedonism: having pleasure and sensuous gratification in your life
• Most interviewees described ‘Hedonism’ as not important.
• Brian’s account partially contradicts his scores for this value in the PVQ-R3 questionnaire.
James associated ‘Hedonism’ with the positive idea of enjoying life. Similarly to Isabel, Holly identified a connection between ‘Hedonism’ and ‘Stimulation’ further explaining the importance of “tak[ing] pleasure in small things”, something that later on in the interview she related more explicitly with the experience of being ill and subsequently disempowered. The perceived discrepancy between how Holly pursues ‘Hedonism’ and ‘Stimulation’ in her mundane life and the way she thinks other people appreciate these values (“in the big ways, the way some people may think of [them]”) made it difficult for her to position ‘Hedonism’ as more or less important.
Connie revealed a similar existing tension between the definition provided of this value and her grasp of it (“Now that’s interesting because you call that ‘Hedonism’
and I would say that hedonism isn’t important for me, but actually ‘having pleasure’
is”). This internal conflict, perceived also by Thomas, may be caused by the negative connotation that ‘hedonism’ appeared to convey to the interviewees. In particular, Thomas described it as a “selfish, or maybe even more borderline moral value”, as opposed to the previous “good values” (i.e. ‘Autonomy of thought’, ‘Autonomy of
action’ and ‘Stimulation’), which “could be seen as selfish values [but] they could be also seen as values that help improve change”. This categorisation in positive and negative values was reiterated by Linda, who linked ‘Hedonism’ to her “self-indulgent part”, and Brian, who suggested how “there is more to life [than] just seeking ‘gratification’ all the time”.
5. Achievement: achieving success according to social standards
• ‘Achievement’ was regarded as a “tricky” value and a “tough one” to evaluate.
• The discomfort showed with the proposed definition of ‘Achievement’ in relation to ‘social standards’ may explain the higher priority assigned to this value in the questionnaire by Brian, Connie, James and Linda.
Isabel judged ‘Achievement’ “quite important”, as did Amy, who recalled a sense of positive surprise associated with realising that other people see her as more successful than she does. The idea of being successful “on other people’s eyes” led Brian to a series of considerations on how the value is subject to different, and not necessarily consistent, perceptions (“From a social perspective, one person’s achievement might look better than somebody else’s, but that doesn’t tell the story of the people”).
In particular, there seemed to be a common understanding of what the
‘social standard’ of success is, which was largely rejected by interviewees. Linda explicitly positioned herself against the dominant, culturally constructed and shared view of ‘Achievement’ (“More and more success to me is not related to what the social standard of success is”). Conversely, the value seemed to be appreciated more as a matter of “personal satisfaction” than as a “measurable” and “comparative” “social benchmark” by Thomas (“Achieving in ways that maybe the world or society doesn’t necessarily recognise as important is also an important achievement”).
Moreover, Connie struggled to evaluate ‘Achievement’ as more or less important due to her internal conflict between the desired attainment of success and her negative evaluation of the need for social recognition. Thomas mentioned instead the importance of getting “respect” from others, an idea reiterated by Martha (“I am not a social animal, I don’t need approval from other people, I don’t seek that, but I do like having the respect for my qualifications and abilities”).
6. Dominance over people: having power to exercise your control over others
• ‘Dominance over people’ was perceived as not important by most interviewees.
Brian attributed a negative connotation to ‘Dominance over people’ (“Nobody should have dominance over other people. It leads to all sorts of problems. A job contract doesn’t give people the right to kind of dominate or control other people”). Notions of equality and social justice play a strong role in the formation of his judgement (“It’s a ridiculous idea! We are all equal”) as well as his personal work experience.
Similarly, the value was connected with particular occupations and roles by Thomas (“Part of the reason why I am in Education is that there is a bit of a power trip, if I need to be honest. I love winding the students up sometimes. But part of it is also wanting to share knowledge”) and James (“I would not say ‘dominance’, but there is a degree of sharing and informing and educating others … , leaving them free to make their own choices at the end of the day”).
7. Material resources: having power to control events through your material possessions
• ‘Material resources’ was considered of low importance by most interviewees.
‘Material resources’ seemed to convey a negative or slightly undesired connotation to several interviewees, such as Amy (“It’s one of those things I wish it was less important than it is”) and Isabel (“I’d say not [important] at all, but actually that’s probably not true”). Connie struggled to position the value in relation to her ability to influence sustainable change (“That isn’t important to me, apart from the fact that
‘being wealthy’ can help you to influence things, and I do want to be able to influence things”). In particular, she recognised a displeasing discrepancy between the ideal and real state of affairs (“I don’t think that how rich you are should make a difference to how much influence you have, but in reality it does”). Similarly, Holly admitted that
‘Material resources’ can provide choices and opportunities. On the contrary, Linda commented on the idea of ‘having power through material possessions’ as
“something not so real” (“I think it’s more of a blurry deceit that we are getting into thinking that this actually happens when it doesn’t”), a view further supported by Brian (“I really don’t like people who think that somehow having material resources, driving a Range Rover, makes you.. What? Stupid? In my book!”).
8. Face: having security and power through maintaining your public image and avoiding humiliation
• Interviewees often attributed low importance to ‘Face’, being “fairly relaxed” or not particularly worried about it.
• The definition of ‘Face’ seemed to contain two distinct constructs needing to be separated (i.e. ‘public image’ and ‘humiliation’). This might have affected the interviewees’ interpretation and explain the different importance attributed to the value by Brian and Emma in the PVQ-R3 questionnaire.
Thomas suggested that the importance of ‘Face’ depends significantly on the particular vocation (“How you are seen and how you are perceived is very important, let’s say you are a politician. I think it’s of high importance because I am a lecturer and because I am active in the research field”). Similarly to Thomas, Amy considered
‘Face’ quite important. However, she analysed ‘humiliation’ and ‘public image’ in two different moments (“I don’t like ‘humiliation’. And yes, you don’t want people to think the worst of you for whatever reason”). Martha suggested that ‘public image’
and ‘humiliation’ are, indeed, two distinct concepts (“I feel those could be split in two different ones. I certainly don’t want ‘humiliation’, I get embarrassed very easily, but the ‘public image’ aspect of it: not bothered”). According to Emma “this [value] is worded interestingly, because I would like to ‘avoid humiliation’, obviously, I think most people would. I don’t seek ‘power’, though, ‘through any public image’”. The same position is reinforced by Brian, although his account shows a less concerned position with respect to ‘humiliation’ and a more negative view of ‘public image’
(“That’s a negative for me … . Too many bad things happen when people try to
‘maintain a public image’. Avoiding ‘humiliation’? Well, nobody likes ‘humiliation’ but sometimes it happens and you dust yourself off and you get on with that”).
9. Personal security: feeling safe in your immediate environment
• ‘Personal security’ was considered positive and important by most interviewees.
In some cases this value was not seen as particularly relevant, as suggested by Connie (“It is not something I think of when I think about my values”) and Holly (“It doesn’t feel like a very live issue”), who felt that they live in a safe environment or are able to defend themselves. ‘Personal security’ was mainly considered a “basic”
condition necessary to “then go for the rest”, as explained by Brian (“If you don’t ‘feel
safe’ you can’t go on to explore the world around you, if you are scared it kind of inhibits all these other [values] and all your other [forms of] growth and expression”).
Thomas was the only interviewee who assigned a low priority to ‘Personal security’, although this value recently gained more importance in his life since becoming a father (“This is an interesting one because, personally, I don’t care, but now [that] I have got a child I do. So this is kind of a shift in values”).
10. Societal security: having safety and stability in the wider society
• Interviewees often discussed ‘Societal security’ in relation to ‘Personal security’, considering the two values similar, or recognising the former as more important.
• ‘Societal security’ seemed to be judged significantly more important in most of the interviewees’ verbal accounts than results from the online questionnaire suggested.
Thomas identified a reason for the higher priority associated to ‘Societal security’
compared to ‘Personal security’ in the wider spatial and temporal horizon of the former (“If you don’t feel ‘personally secure’ you can make a move to another environment, but to have ‘stability in society’ is kind of where you are, your job, the ability to bring income”). ‘Societal security’ was also held to be quite important by Connie, Emma, Holly and Martha. Emma, however, seemed to fundamentally question the idea of ‘stability’ putting it in relation (and as a possible barrier) to societal change (“I don’t want ‘stability’ in the sense of.. a sort of rule that doesn’t admit change. I believe that you should always have the ability to change society. So, I don’t mean ‘stability’ in that sense, but just so that I feel safe and I feel [that] my money in the bank isn’t going to disappear tomorrow as it has for many people”). The concept of change was also prompted by Linda, downsizing the negative connotation of
‘Societal security’ to a personal level of action (“I believe that I need to shake myself from that, from the ‘safety’ and ‘stability’, in order to push other things through”).
11. Tradition: maintaining and preserving your cultural, family, or religious traditions
• ‘Tradition’ was considered of low importance by most interviewees.
• Interviewees seemed to assign a slightly higher importance to this value in the interview than in the PVQ-R3 questionnaire.
Although considered of low importance by most interviewees, ‘Tradition’ tended to be perceived as a positive value, or as a value important to other people, as suggested by Martha’s account (“I don’t give a monkey’s about my own [traditions],
but I think people should be able to do that [i.e. to maintain and preserve their cultural, family, or religious traditions]. As long as we respect each other and don’t harm each other, then we should allow people to express their views, their religion whatsoever it is. It’s when it actually causes harm to other people, either directly or indirectly, that I think it’s totally intolerable”).
Following the definition provided, the value was often discussed separately in terms of ‘family’, ‘religious’ and ‘cultural’ traditions. Family traditions were considered of some importance by Amy (“I do think there is a nice place for certain traditions in life, and sometimes creating your own traditions and sticking to those instead”) and Emma. On the contrary, they both considered religious traditions of no relevance. An opposite view was offered by Thomas, who held religion as of high importance and having a significant effect on his value system (“A part, or what underlies a lot of my values, is the fact that I am Christian. And my faith, actually, affects that quite a lot. If someone has a faith, his values can always be moulded by that in some ways”).
In terms of cultural traditions, Amy and Linda showed a strong sense of belonging to their countries of origin and customs (Amy: “I’m from New Zealand, I am British though, my parents are British, so I’ve kind of got this dual culture that I live within, I think. Both of them are important to me in a certain sense”; Linda: “I come from a place where we are really attached to our culture. I am from Argentina:
it’s a massive country and it has a lot of issues, but still we are very proud of it, and of who we are, and our rituals as Argentinians”). Conversely, Thomas struggled to give particular importance to cultural traditions because of his nationality (“I can’t really see that, being English-British. We actually haven’t much more cultural traditions. It’s very, very diluted, if there is any at all. But I am aware of where I come from, of my roots”).
Notions of ‘tradition’ as connection and continuity with the past, verbalised in the expression “coming from”, recurred also in Brian’s account (“We need to be reminded of where we come from, and also that our parents have lived the same lives as we have. We always think we are such innovators: they’ve all been there and done it before us”). In particular, Brian brought up the living tension between tradition and innovation, a point further discussed by James (“As much as having the new stuff and experimenting with that, there is also a degree of familiarity”), leading to some considerations about how tradition itself may, or should, according to Connie,
“evolve” (“I think that tradition should evolve rather than just be exactly the same as it always was”).
12. Compliance with rules: being compliant with rules, laws and formal obligations
• The importance attributed to ‘Compliance with rules’ varied significantly in the interview.
• This is in line with results from the PVQ-R3 questionnaire where conformity-rules scored the highest standard deviation among measured constructs.
The importance attributed to ‘Compliance with rules’ ranged from being very high to Martha (“I do that a lot. I don’t like breaking rules at all”) to being low to James (“I like to sort of bend the rules. Not necessarily breaking them, but pushing the boundaries and knowing where things are”). The image of either “breaking” or
“bending the rules” also recurred in Amy and Thomas’s accounts, where ‘Compliance with rules’ was further put in relation to occupations and roles. In particular, specific vocations could reinforce the endorsement of this value, as suggested by Amy (“Being honest, this is quite important to me. I used to be a lawyer, [laughs] but I like breaking little rules sometimes”), or challenge it, as in the case of Thomas (“It’s an interesting one because as designers, we are rules breakers. It’s almost designers’ job to try to bend rules and find ways around doing things. However, as a person, I think rules and laws are quite important”).
An internal conflict, which made this value difficult to evaluate, was also articulated by Brian (“I don’t know. I park on double yellow lines because I think sometimes it gets a bit ridiculous. Having said that, I want people to pay my bills on
An internal conflict, which made this value difficult to evaluate, was also articulated by Brian (“I don’t know. I park on double yellow lines because I think sometimes it gets a bit ridiculous. Having said that, I want people to pay my bills on