A Research On Happiness In Big Data Era With The Aim Of Participation In Policy-making

The issue of happiness has always been a question of great concern in sociology.Taking the Dutch sociologist Ruut Veenhoven’s study on happiness as an example,this dissertation analyses the concepts and method adopted in current research ofhappiness in Europe. Ruut Veenhoven’s definition of happiness as a self-report ofone’s satisfaction about life as a whole has gained wide acknowledgement in the west,especially in European society. His study is a contemporary extension of life qualitymeasurement arose in the social indicator movement, characteristic of participation inpolicy-making just as the latter. China’s domestic sociology has accomplished a lot inpractical indicators research, but been confined on the level of the completion ofeconomic index, without taking much notice of social indicator movement and doingprofound discussion about the influences social indicator movement has exerted onsociology. Ruut Veenhoven advocates a revolution of thinking in this big data era,makes use of the technical means this era brings to sociological research, and attachesgreat importance on the reusing of data. He carries out a state-based comparativestudy on the surveys of happiness on a foundation of a world happiness database toanticipate the trend of development of society in future and provide constructivesuggestions towards policy-making and policies’ perfection. Ruut Veenhoven’ssociological thinking features not only experimental research on data but also aprofound and solid underpinning from sociological theories. His researches andthoughts embody an inheritance of the Enlightenment and a strong belief in humanhappiness, which is not a simple study on happiness itself but a concern about humanhappiness aimed to bring more happiness to more people. Ruut Veenhoven’sdiscussion pays much attention to partial social problems but more to the society as awhole. This dissertation begins with a general discussion about the relation betweeneconomic income and happiness, then specifies into a comparative analysis betweenRuut Veenhoven’s research on economic income and happiness and China’s way ofhappiness research, and then goes further to propose some suggestions to China’s happiness study and sociological research.The first chapter analyses the background of social indicator movement with theaim of illustrating questions from four angles: firstly, the rise of social indicatorsresearch and the theoretical background and major contents of social indicatormovement’s formation and development; secondly, the background of the rise ofsocial indicator movement in Europe its current situation of development; thirdly, thedirection-change towards sociology of social indicator movement and its focus onhappiness; fourthly, the evaluation of social indicator movement as an embodiment ofparticipation in policy-making and prediction of trends of social development.The second chapter comprises explanations about the relevant concepts in RuutVeenhoven’s happiness study. It begins with an introduction to Ruut Veenhoven’s lifeand his main academic experiences and then evolves into the expounding of twocrucial issues concerning the formation of his academic thoughts, which are the socialbackground of cultural lag and his ever increasing attention to the issue of happiness.In the second section an elaboration on the development of the conception ofhappiness in the west precedes the highlighting of the temporal sequence of RuutVeenhoven’s post-utilitarianism conception of happiness and its fundamental meaning,thereafter an analysis is made to distinguish happiness from its synonyms. Then itproceeds to expound Ruut Veenhoven’s definition of happiness, the essentials of lifeand the condition of happiness.The third chapter makes an analysis about the theoretical context of RuutVeenhoven’s research. His sociological thoughts are deeply engraved in westernintellectual heritage. While his study on happiness reveals his staunch belief in theEnlightenment, his concern with happiness is not limited on the level of individual butdedicated to the comparison of happiness among countries, which is characteristic ofComte’s concern with human being as a whole. This dedication to humankind bestowsupon his sociology a sense of mission. His definition of the ultimate task ofsociological research and happiness study as bringing more happiness to more people,as well as his identification of the aim of sociological research as participation inpolicy-making, reveals his standing a utilitarian one which partakes Bentham butoversteps the latter’s study on happiness in respect of methods and viewpoints.Although Parsons confers some elements of empirical research on modern sociology,it is still principally a narrative as far as the study on happiness is concerned, so it is worthwhile to identify Ruut Veenhoven’s indebtedness to Inglehart’s experimentalsociology.The fourth chapter starts with a discussion about the relationship betweeneconomic income and happiness, then proceeds into a discussion of Ruut Veenhoven’sstudy of happiness. Veenhoven points out that Easterling paradox is put forwardwithout sufficient sample analysis and thus is unrepresentative because it covers onlythe developed countries in Europe. Michael R. Hagerty and Ruut Veenhoven made ananalysis based on data between1975and1996from21countries and came to adifferent conclusion from that of Easterling, i.e. there is indeed positive causalitybetween economic income and happiness, which can be built with the data of the ratesof economic growth and the measurements of people’s happiness one year after.The fifth chapter evaluates Ruut Veenhoven’s research on happiness. While hisresearch embodies a different understanding of happiness from the previous ones, hismethod represents an approach in big data era with its adoption of experimentalresearch and excellence in the organization and analysis of data. His long-term andlarge-scale investigation about the same issue presents a macroscopic vision ofresearch as well as reveals a practical purpose of involving with policy-making, whichencounters questioning in many respects.The sixth chapter makes a comparison between researches on economic incomeand sense of happiness domestic and abroad. China’s sociological research has its ownadvantage compared with Ruut Veenhoven’s investigation, but lacks consistency interms of the definitions of concepts, the issues of measurement, the analyses ofquestionnaire and the approaches of exploration. Besides, it would be beneficial if adialogue with economy, psychology and other subjects be carried out to make possiblea cross-disciplinary exploration about happiness. Moreover, a mindset of big data erashould be formed to serve the task of participating in policy-making and the analyzingof the complicated social and cultural phenomena erupted in china’s transition period.