Comparative studies of value orientations: potential, limitations, and the logic of development

Cover Page

Cite item


The article presents an attempt to identify the current status of the comparative (or cross-cultural) studies in the sociological tradition by indicating basic contexts of discussing relevant issues in the sociological discourse. First, there is a quite ambiguous categorical apparatus of the comparative analysis even at the level of the key nominations of the subject of cross-cultural studies (the ratio of in-country and cross-country comparisons, of regional, socio-cultural, socio-economic and other aspects in the structure and size of the population, samples and sub-samples, survey techniques, etc.). Second, the history of comparative studies is highly fragmented due to the lack of a coherent tradition and a variety of bright methodological principles and techniques, which experienced modifications at the stages of collection and analysis of empirical data (especially due to the need to take into account differences in the subsamples’ worldviews and to avoid systematic biases that generate differences in data instead of measuring the existing ones). Third, there is a variety of attempts to structure the field of comparative studies on various grounds, which often leads to the opposite result - even more confusion in nominations. Finally, there are recognized since the formation of the comparative research orientation in sociology but still unresolved (partly non-resolvable in principle) problems of ensuring the equivalence of data, primarily with the standardized conceptualization and operationalization of the basic concepts of the project and use of a single method of sampling, data collection and analysis.

About the authors

I V Trotsuk

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

Author for correspondence.

Sociology Chair

E A Savelieva

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia


Sociology Chair


  1. Andreenkova A.V. Mezhstranovye sravnitel'nye issledovaniya v sotsial'nykh naukakh: metodologiya, etapy razvitiya, sovremennoe sostoyanie // Mir Rossii. 2011. № 3.
  2. Geger A.E. Vyyavlenie individual'nykh i gruppovykh tsennostei v gruppe molodezhi: relevantnye metodicheskie resheniya // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2010. № 1.
  3. Davydova M.A. Tsennosti kollektivizma i individualizma v molodezhnoi srede (opyt empiricheskogo issledovaniya) // Sotsiologicheskii diagnoz kul'tury rossiiskogo obshchestva vtoroi poloviny XIX - nachala XXI vv. / Pod red. V.V. Kozlovskogo. SPb., 2008.
  4. Emel'yanenko T.V. Metody mezhkul'turnykh issledovanii tsennostei // Sotsiologiya: 4M. 1997. № 9.
  5. Inglkhart R. Postmodern: menyayushchiesya tsennosti i izmenyayushchiesya obshchestva // Politicheskie issledovaniya. 1997. № 4.
  6. Korzh N.V. Problema tsennostei i ustanovok v sotsiologii // Voprosy sovremennoi nauki i praktiki. 2011. № 3.
  7. Kuznetsova E.G. Lichnostnye tsennosti: ponyatie, podkhody k klassifikatsii // Vestnik OGU. 2010. № 10.
  8. Magun V.S., Rudnev M.G. Bazovye tsennosti rossiyan v evropeiskom kontekste (stat'ya pervaya) // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. 2010. № 3.
  9. Magun V.S., Rudnev M.G. Zhiznennye tsennosti rossiiskogo naseleniya: skhodstva i otlichiya v sravnenii s drugimi evropeiskimi stranami // Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniya. 2008. № 1.
  10. Magun V.S., Rudnev M.G. Tsennostnyi portret rossiyan na evropeiskom fone // URL:
  11. Mel'nikov A.S. Sotsiologicheskaya interpretatsiya ekzistentsial'nykh tsennostei // Sotsiologicheskie dostizheniya. Vyp. 10. Lugansk, 2008.
  12. Publikatsii, kotorye opirayutsya na dannye ESS // URL: id=339.
  13. Rudnev M.G. Invariantnost' izmereniya bazovykh tsennostei po metodike Shvartsa sredi russkoyazychnogo naseleniya chetyrekh stran // Sotsiologiya: 4M. 2013. № 37.
  14. Samoregulyatsiya i prognozirovanie sotsial'nogo povedeniya lichnosti: Dispozitsionnaya kontseptsiya. M., 2013.
  15. Burton M.L., White D.R. Cross-cultural surveys today // Annual Review of Anthropology. 1987. № 16.
  16. Davidov E., Meuleman B., Cieciuch J., Schmidt P., Billiet J. Measurement equivalence in cross-national research // Annual Review of Sociology. 2014. № 40.
  17. de Munck V.C. Contemporary issues and challenges for comparativists: An appraisal // Anthropological Theory. 2002. Vol. 2. № 5.
  18. European Social Survey // URL:
  19. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik J.H.P. Harmonisation of demographic and socio-economic variables in cross-national survey research // Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique. 2008. Vol. 98. № 5.
  20. Inglehart R. Changing values among Western publics from 1970 to 2006 // West European Politics. 2008. Vol. 31.
  21. Khizrieva A.G., de Munck V.C., Bondarenko D.M. The Moscow School of quantitative cross-cultural research // Cross-Cultural Research. 2003. Vol. 37. № 5.
  22. Rokeach M. The nature of Human Values. N.Y., 1973.
  23. Rokkan S. The development of cross-national comparative Research: A review of current problems and possibilities // Social Science Information. 1962. Vol. 1. № 21.
  24. Scheuch E.K. Society as context in cross-cultural comparisons // Social Science Information. 1967. Vol. 6. № 7.
  25. Schwartz S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and 20 countries // Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 25 / Ed. by M. Zanna. N.Y., 1992.
  26. Schwartz S.H., Melech G., Lehmann A., Burgess S., Harris M., Owens V. Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2001. Vol. 32. № 5.
  27. World Values Survey // URL:

Copyright (c) 2015 I V Trotsuk, E A Savelieva

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies