Showing 1 – 4 of 4 results.
Curated
Eurobarometer 54.2: Impact of New Technologies, Employment and Social Affairs, and Disabilities, January-February 2001 (ICPSR 3211)
Released/updated on: 2008-08-14
Geographic coverage: Europe, United Kingdom, Portugal, Global, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Norway, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany
Time period: 2001-01-02--2001-02-06
This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from a focus on standard Eurobarometer measures, and instead assessed respondents' views on the perceived impact of new technologies, employment, moving, and issues related to people with disabilities. Interviews began by asking respondents if they felt important changes in the world were impacting them personally, how they felt about these changes, and what the impact of new technologies would be over the next five to ten years in terms of their daily lives, access to information, free time, feelings of security, risk of accidents, household chores, family and social relationships, and deterrence of criminal activities. They were asked how much they agreed that new technologies would reduce income inequalities, differences in educational and cultural opportunities, and the number of people excluded from society, as well as improve people's participation in the political process, create more possibilities for expressing one's opinions, provide more access to political representatives and the civil service via the Internet, and promote on-line voting for elections and referenda. Responses were also sought regarding who respondents felt benefited most from the Internet, if they had concerns about voting on-line, and who should deal with new ethical issues brought about by new technologies. Respondents were further questioned about whether they thought that over the next five to ten years people in general would undertake more or less work-related training, experience more or less work-related stress, change jobs more or less than today, work more or less hours per week, retire earlier or later, and what impact new technologies would have on employment opportunities. They were asked to what extent they agreed that it was necessary to master new technologies to find or keep a job, that the educational system taught new technology effectively, and that all pupils should have full access to new technologies, as well as who they thought should pay for work-related training on new technologies. Respondents with a job were asked how satisfied they were with their job in terms of earnings, job security, type of work, number of working hours, start and end times, length of travel time, how many times they had changed jobs in the last five years, how similar the skills required for their current job were to their previous job, and the reason for changing jobs. Those who thought they would change jobs in the next five years were asked if they thought the required skills would be similar or different and what would encourage them to make the change. Those who hadn't changed jobs in the last five years or didn't plan to change jobs in the next five years were asked why. All respondents with a job were also asked if they thought they would need new skills to improve future job prospects, if in the last year they had participated in training to improve their skills, and why they wanted or didn't want to improve their job skills. Respondents were next asked if they had moved in the last ten years or if they intended to move in the next five years. Those who had moved or intended to move were asked where, i.e., within the same city, different city-same region, different region-same country, different European Union (EU) country, or outside of the EU, and the reason for the move. Those not having moved and not intending to move were asked why not. All respondents were asked whether they would prefer to remain in their current region of residence or move to another region if they were unemployed, to what extent moving to a different geographical location in the next five years would improve their job prospects, if they would be willing to live in another EU country with a different language, how they felt about the number of foreigners in their country, and whether better career prospects, financial circumstances, social benefits, public services, or social life would encourage them to move. On the subject of the disabled, respondents were asked if they personally knew anyone (including a family member, friend, acquaintance, neighbor, colleague, client, pupil/student, or other) with a disability or infirmity that limited their activities, how at ease they felt in the presence of people with disabilities, and how at ease people in general felt in the presence of people with disabilities. They were asked how difficult they thought it was for certain groups of people with disabilities (i.e., blind, deaf, physically and intellectually disabled people) to access public transport and services, restaurants, university or school, their work place, sports events, and cultural events, whether access to public places for people with disabilities had improved over the last ten years, who was actually responsible for making improvements in these matters (e.g., local authorities, national government, nongovernmental organizations, the EU, etc.), and who should be responsible. They were asked to indicate how aware they were of each of 21 types of disabilities (e.g., visual, hearing, neuromuscular, skeletal, arthritis, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and others), what percent of the population in their country had a physical disability, how strongly they agreed that disabled persons should be more involved in society, that more money should be spent on removing physical barriers, and that children with disabilities should be taught in the same schools as other children, and whether they would feel at ease with a person in a wheelchair as their boss, next-door neighbor, colleague, a politician, an artist, a teacher, or a shop worker. Standard demographic information collected includes age, sex, occupation, nationality, marital status, vote intention, age at completion of full-time education, number of people in household, number of children under 15 in household, household income, size of locality, region of residence, religiousity, and language of interview (for select countries).
Curated
Eurobarometer 70.1: Globalization, European Parliament and Elections, Building Europe, Georgian Conflict, Mobility, European Union Budget, and Public Authorities in the EU, October-November 2008 (ICPSR 28182)
Released/updated on: 2011-02-07
Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Turkey, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Macedonia, Germany, Estonia
Time period: 2008-10-06--2008-11-06
This round of Eurobarometer surveys queried respondents on standard Eurobarometer measures, such as how satisfied they were with their present life, whether they attempted to persuade others close to them to share their views on subjects they held strong opinions about, whether they discussed political matters, and how they viewed the need for societal change. Additional questions focused on the respondents' knowledge of and opinions on the European Union (EU), including how well-informed they felt about the EU, whether their country had benefited from being an EU member, and the extent of their personal interest in EU matters. Further questions on the EU included the extent of EU involvement in various policy areas, further European integration, expansion of the EU, the EU budget, and opinions about the European Parliament. The survey also asked respondents about their opinions on globalization and its effect on the local community, on companies, and on the EU. Respondents were asked if they had heard about the conflict between Russia and Georgia and who they thought played the biggest role in ending the conflict. The survey then focused on employment possibilities. Respondents were asked about current employment opportunities, immigration to other countries, the reason and length of stay in the foreign country, what preparations they made to move to another country, as well as what factors could encourage a move, even if the move is not currently being planned. Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, origin of birth (personal and parental), marital status, age when stopped full-time education, occupation, left-right political self-placement, household composition, ownership of a fixed or mobile telephone and other durable goods, type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Eurobarometer 72.5: E-Communications, Agriculture, Geographical and Labor Market Mobility, and Knowledge of Antibiotic Use, November-December 2009 (ICPSR 29842)
Released/updated on: 2013-07-10
Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Estonia
Time period: 2009-11-13--2009-12-09
This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from the Standard Eurobarometer measures and queried respondents on the following major areas of focus: (1) e-communications, (2) agriculture, (3) geographical and labor market mobility, and (4) knowledge of antibiotic use. The first major area of focus, e-communications, dealt with the nature, frequency, and quality of e-communications in the household. All respondents were asked whether they owned a fixed or mobile telephone and other goods, and about the number of different types of mobile phone access in the household. For those respondents with a personal mobile telephone, the survey asked about their mobile phone subscription services and how much they pay for mobile phone service as compared to two years ago. Respondents with fixed telephone access expressed their opinion about their landline phone services, and those with no fixed telephone access were asked why they chose not to have a fixed phone line, and how often and why they use public payphones. In addition, respondents were asked which type of services the household used to receive television and Internet in their homes. Respondents with Internet access were asked about accessing the Internet anytime and through what methods, the quality of their Internet service, and whether or not they had ever considered changing Internet service providers. Those without broadband or any Internet access were asked why they had chosen not to have broadband access or any Internet access in their homes. Finally, participants were asked about the confidentiality of the data they provide to telecom companies and social networking Web sites, use of social networking Web sites and telephone directories, whether they would consider buying a technology bundle, and their opinions about communication packages and e-communications services. For the second major area of focus, agriculture, the survey queried participants on the importance of and their knowledge about agriculture, including agricultural policy, who should address certain agricultural issues and which issues should be a main priority of the European Union (EU). They were also asked to evaluate the EU's current and potential future actions on agriculture, the main responsibilities and roles of farmers, the most important reasons for maintaining agriculture in the EU, and whether or not they thought the current economic support measures in place for farmers are appropriate. The respondents were also presented questions about agriculture in relation to climate change. The third major area of focus, geographical and labor market mobility, queried participants on their opinions about moving abroad, including whether they had personally done so for education or employment, and whether family or friends had ever lived or worked abroad. Respondents who lived or worked in another country were asked how often they commuted across the border, which country they had visited, the duration of their last stay, the general type of work done, and how they found that job. Respondents who were retired were asked about whether they envisage to work outside their country in the future, how soon they would be likely to work there, and the type of employment that interests them in that country. In addition, they were asked to identify which countries they would prefer to work in, why they prefer these countries, the length of time they intend to work outside their own country, and whether they had taken any steps to move to another country. If these respondents were moving to a specific country, the survey inquired whether friends or relatives could supply them with information about the country, whether they would move there alone or with other people, and how they would go about finding a job in another country. All respondents were asked whether they would move abroad if they were unemployed and having difficulties finding a job, the income they would need in order to take a job in another country, the type of commute to work preferred, and the chances of finding a job outside their own country. Respondents were then asked about their knowledge of EURES, the Europe-wide network of public employment services, which employment service they would find useful, what reasons might encourage or discourage them from working abroad, and what difficulties they may encounter when working abroad. The survey queried respondents on their opinion of pension payments and health care after retirement, reimbursement for medical treatment by their national health service, and their awareness and use of the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC). For the fourth and final major area of focus, knowledge of antibiotic use, participants were asked if they had taken antibiotics within the last year, how they obtained the last course of antibiotics they used, and the reason for last taking antibiotics. They were asked about their knowledge of antibiotic use, whether they had received any information about not taking antibiotics unnecessarily and the source of this information, whether this information had changed their views on antibiotics and how so, and which sources would provide trustworthy information on antibiotics. Demographic and other background information includes age, gender, nationality, occupation, marital status, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, difficulties in paying bills, level in society, Internet use, type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (in select countries).
Curated
Survey of Stratification and Migration Dynamics in Russia, 1985-2001 (ICPSR 4206)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-18
Geographic coverage: Global, Soviet Union, Russia
Time period: 1985-01-01--2001-01-01
The purpose of the study was to collect survey data on the employment/work histories, family structure histories, and residential mobility histories of Russian adults from January 1985 through the end of the survey. The work histories include the following information about each job held during that time period: occupation, how the job was found, employer type, industry, and size. In addition, the survey gathered information on current residence, occupation, other job characteristics, earnings, sources of household income, household ownership of consumer goods, basic demographic indicators, and attitude measures. The data were designed to be used for multivariate analysis of the factors influencing changes in employment status, job mobility of various types, changes in marital status, fertility, and residential mobility in Russia during the period of 1985-2001. Since the period covered by the histories spans the final seven years of the Soviet era and the first decade of the post-Soviet era, the data are uniquely suited for assessing whether the transition from Soviet-style socialism has affected stratification, family formation, and migration processes. Moreover, because the data include work/employment, family structure, and migration histories, the dataset is uniquely suited for dynamic analyses of the inter-relationships among states and events in these three domains. Finally, because the data contain information on each respondent's oblast (region) of residence at all points in time from 1985-2001, data on regional characteristics can be merged with files created from the survey data, in order to measure the impact of regional characteristics on individual-level events. The data can be used to investigate job and employment transitions, union formation and dissolution, fertility, departures of children, internal migration, determinants of earnings, wage arrears, consumption, and other topics.