[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Secondary: The respondent completed all eleven grades.Specialized secondary: The respondent attended some variety of technical school, ptu (professional no-tekhnicheskoe uchilishche [trade school]), ortekhnikum (school for skilled technical training).Higher: The respondent completed study at a university or academic institute.288Appendixes 03.Carnaghan Ch8-End 1/17/07 12:16 PM Page 289Appendix B: Demographic Characteristics of the American RespondentsAssigned Year of Age in Partyname interview Sex 2000 Education Profession affiliationAdam 1999 Male 30 Some Student Democrator under collegeBetty 2002 Female Over 60 Higher Retired RepublicanprofessionalBill 2001 Male 30 or Some Student Republicanunder collegeCaroline 1998 Female 46 60 Higher Professional NoneChris 1998 Male 30 or Higher Professional IndependentunderDaniel 2001 Male 30 or Secondary Worker DemocratunderEmily 1998 Female Over 60 Secondary Retired DemocratErnest 2002 Male 46 60 Higher Professional DemocratFred 2001 Male 46 60 Some Own Independentcollege businessGrace 1999 Female 46 60 Secondary Homemaker RepublicanHarriet 2001 Female Over 60 Less than Retired Democratsecondary workerJacob 1998 Male Over 60 Less than Retired IndependentsecondaryJane 1999 Female 31 45 Some Professional DemocratcollegeJean 1998 Female 31 45 Secondary Own NonebusinessKate 1998 Female 30 or Some Student Democratunder collegeLeo 2001 Male Over 60 Higher Retired RepublicanprofessionalRick 2001 Male 30 or Higher Professional DemocratunderSam 2001 Male 46 60 Secondary Professional RepublicanTed 1998 Male 30 or Some Student Republicanunder collegeTrish 1998 Female 30 or Some Student Republicanunder collegeVictoria 1998 Female 31 45 Higher Professional Neutral 03.Carnaghan Ch8-End 1/17/07 12:16 PM Page 290290 AppendixesAppendix C: Measures Used in the AnalysisIn order to analyze the answers that the respondents provided, it was oftenhelpful to divide the respondents into groups according to some set ofshared orientations.This was accomplished by creating measures based onrespondents answers to certain questions.For the purposes of creatingmeasures, I numerically coded each respondent s answers to relevantquestions.As described below, I either added or averaged these numbersto produce a metric by which to categorize respondents.Where possible,similar measures were used for both the Russians and the Americans.When a measure analogous to the one developed for use with the Russianrespondents did not seem to meaningfully categorize the American respon-dents, Americans were not divided into groups.This appendix describesthe measures used to divide respondents into groups.Support for DemocracyThis measure categorizes the Russian respondents according to theirdegree of support for democratic values.It was first used in Chapter 5,and it was used in most of the subsequent chapters as well.The measurewas based on five questions.I relied particularly on those parts of theanswers that expressed general values rather than assessment of particularexisting institutions.For the purposes of creating the measure, answerswere coded as shown below: In general, do you think there should be an institution like the StateDuma, or is such an institution unnecessary? 0 The respondent expressed the idea that representative insti-tutions have no value even in principle, not just in Russia.1 The respondent expressed support with qualifications.Forinstance, perhaps he or she thought a representative body hadsome value but not in all conditions or contexts.Or the respondentcould not articulate why representative bodies were worth having.2 Answers showed an explicit understanding of the role repre-sentative institutions play in a democratic system. How important is it to vote in presidential elections, in State Dumaelections, and in local elections? 0 The respondent indicated that voting was worthless.1 The respondent expressed some ambivalence, perhaps not-ing that it is worthwhile to vote in some elections but not others 03.Carnaghan Ch8-End 1/17/07 12:16 PM Page 291Appendixes 291or commenting that voting had some but not a great deal ofimportance.2 The respondent thought it was important to vote in all elections. Should the people in power care about what people like you think? 0 The respondent thought the people in power should not careabout the opinions of ordinary people.1 The respondent thought people in government should careabout the opinions of ordinary people. What in your opinion does the word democracy mean? 0 The definition of democracy offered by the respondent focusedon a negative aspect, such as growing disorder or criminality.1 The definition focused on a single, unelaborated aspect ofdemocracy, such as freedom.2 The definition was nuanced or included multiple aspects ofdemocracy. Do you think that there is too much freedom today? 0 The respondent indicated that some restriction on the amountof freedom would be a good thing.1 The respondent expressed no dissatisfaction with the level offreedom available.2 The respondent argued that there was no such thing as toomuch freedom or noted that there was insufficient freedom inRussia.Responses were added across five questions.There were no missingresponses.Possible scores varied between 0 and 9.Respondents withscores 4 or below were categorized as having low support for democracy.Scores of 5 or 6 indicated mixed support.Those with scores of 7 werelabeled moderate supporters of democracy.Scores of 8 or 9 earned thehigh support designation.In much of the analysis, the moderate and highsupport groups are combined.The American respondents were not divided into groups according tosupport for democracy, because there was too little variation in theiranswers to produce meaningful groups.Support for Market ReformThis measure was used in Chapter 5 to divide the Russian respondentsaccording to their degree of support for market reform.The measure isbased on answers to the question How do you feel about the economic 03.Carnaghan Ch8-End 1/17/07 12:16 PM Page 292292 Appendixeschanges that have occurred in Russia in the past years? The 2003 versionof the question asked about the past fifteen years. Responses werecoded on a five-point scale:1 Comments were uniformly negative.There was nothingabout market reforms that the respondent supported.2 Comments were mixed, but more negative than positive.3 Comments were evenly mixed.The respondent could see pos-itive and negative aspects of market reforms.4 Comments were mixed, but more positive than negative.5 Comments were uniformly positive.For Table 5.1, the five-point measure was used.For Table 5.2, the com-ments were coded as follows:1 Comments were overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, nega-tive.2 Comments were mixed.3 Comments were overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, positive.The American respondents were not divided into groups according totheir support for market reform, because the United States has not expe-rienced a recent move toward markets, as has Russia.Sense of Social DisorderThis measure appears in Chapters 6 and 8.The measure is based on mul-tiple questions, collapsed into three items.For the Russians, they arecoded as shown below: Tell me, please, how much are you satisfied with the activities of thepolice? Why? 0 The respondent expressed satisfaction with the police
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]