澳大利亚的幸福框架:它真的是“衡量重要的东西”吗?

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL ISSUES
Kate Sollis, Paul Campbell, Nicholas Drake
{"title":"澳大利亚的幸福框架:它真的是“衡量重要的东西”吗?","authors":"Kate Sollis,&nbsp;Paul Campbell,&nbsp;Nicholas Drake","doi":"10.1002/ajs4.70029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Australia's newly established wellbeing framework, ‘Measuring What Matters’ (MWM), seeks to measure social progress and influence policy by reporting on 50 wellbeing indicators within five ‘themes’. In this article, we assess whether the MWM framework adequately measures what people in Australia value for their wellbeing by examining both the process of the framework's development and its content. Firstly, we consider whether the consultation process undertaken was adequate. Secondly, we examine whether the MWM indicators align with existing research on what people in Australia value for their wellbeing. We identified limitations across all aspects of the consultation examined: its comprehensiveness, reach, transparency and extent to which it genuinely incorporated community feedback into the framework. While the MWM framework was found to broadly align with existing research on what Australians value for their wellbeing, there were some notable divergences. We urge the Australian Government to undertake a comprehensive, wide-reaching, transparent and genuine consultation across Australia. Furthermore, we recommend that the Australian Government develop new indicators in consultation with the public. Enhancing the MWM framework will help establish it as a cornerstone of government decision making, and importantly, ensure that it does what it purports to do: measure what Australians value for their wellbeing.</p>","PeriodicalId":46787,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Social Issues","volume":"60 2","pages":"511-531"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajs4.70029","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Australia's Wellbeing Framework: Is It Really ‘Measuring What Matters’?\",\"authors\":\"Kate Sollis,&nbsp;Paul Campbell,&nbsp;Nicholas Drake\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ajs4.70029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Australia's newly established wellbeing framework, ‘Measuring What Matters’ (MWM), seeks to measure social progress and influence policy by reporting on 50 wellbeing indicators within five ‘themes’. In this article, we assess whether the MWM framework adequately measures what people in Australia value for their wellbeing by examining both the process of the framework's development and its content. Firstly, we consider whether the consultation process undertaken was adequate. Secondly, we examine whether the MWM indicators align with existing research on what people in Australia value for their wellbeing. We identified limitations across all aspects of the consultation examined: its comprehensiveness, reach, transparency and extent to which it genuinely incorporated community feedback into the framework. While the MWM framework was found to broadly align with existing research on what Australians value for their wellbeing, there were some notable divergences. We urge the Australian Government to undertake a comprehensive, wide-reaching, transparent and genuine consultation across Australia. Furthermore, we recommend that the Australian Government develop new indicators in consultation with the public. Enhancing the MWM framework will help establish it as a cornerstone of government decision making, and importantly, ensure that it does what it purports to do: measure what Australians value for their wellbeing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46787,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Social Issues\",\"volume\":\"60 2\",\"pages\":\"511-531\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajs4.70029\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Social Issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajs4.70029\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Social Issues","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajs4.70029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

澳大利亚新建立的幸福框架“衡量重要的事情”(MWM)旨在通过报告五个“主题”中的50个幸福指标来衡量社会进步并影响政策。在本文中,我们通过检查框架的发展过程及其内容,评估MWM框架是否充分衡量了澳大利亚人对其福祉的重视。首先,我们考虑所进行的协商过程是否充分。其次,我们检查了MWM指标是否与澳大利亚人对他们的幸福的价值的现有研究相一致。我们在审查的咨询中发现了所有方面的局限性:它的全面性、覆盖面、透明度以及它真正将社区反馈纳入框架的程度。虽然MWM框架被发现与澳大利亚人对幸福的重视程度的现有研究大体一致,但也存在一些明显的分歧。我们敦促澳大利亚政府在澳大利亚各地进行全面、广泛、透明和真诚的磋商。此外,我们建议澳大利亚政府与公众协商制定新的指标。加强MWM框架将有助于将其建立为政府决策的基石,重要的是,确保它能做到它所声称的:衡量澳大利亚人对他们的福祉的重视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Australia's Wellbeing Framework: Is It Really ‘Measuring What Matters’?

Australia's Wellbeing Framework: Is It Really ‘Measuring What Matters’?

Australia's newly established wellbeing framework, ‘Measuring What Matters’ (MWM), seeks to measure social progress and influence policy by reporting on 50 wellbeing indicators within five ‘themes’. In this article, we assess whether the MWM framework adequately measures what people in Australia value for their wellbeing by examining both the process of the framework's development and its content. Firstly, we consider whether the consultation process undertaken was adequate. Secondly, we examine whether the MWM indicators align with existing research on what people in Australia value for their wellbeing. We identified limitations across all aspects of the consultation examined: its comprehensiveness, reach, transparency and extent to which it genuinely incorporated community feedback into the framework. While the MWM framework was found to broadly align with existing research on what Australians value for their wellbeing, there were some notable divergences. We urge the Australian Government to undertake a comprehensive, wide-reaching, transparent and genuine consultation across Australia. Furthermore, we recommend that the Australian Government develop new indicators in consultation with the public. Enhancing the MWM framework will help establish it as a cornerstone of government decision making, and importantly, ensure that it does what it purports to do: measure what Australians value for their wellbeing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
45
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信