Measuring Social Connectedness in Multidimensional Poverty Surveys

Nearly 250 years ago, in 1776, the social philosopher Adam Smith argued in The Wealth of Nations that a person’s wealth or poverty can only be evaluated in terms of the prevailing norms and standards of the period in which they live. Smith gave the example of a person who could not afford a pair of leather boots and a linen shirt-two standard articles of clothing in 18th century England. Such a person, he argued, would be acutely deprived because they would not be able to participate in society without facing stigma. Centuries later, in 1983, the Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen argued that participation in society without experiencing shame or humiliation may be a universally valuable freedom – a categorisation that Sen is typically hesitant to make.

Social connectedness includes the absence of not only loneliness and isolation but also factors including shame and stigma. Today, there is growing recognition that this concept is an important basis for human flourishing, and that it is deeply interlinked with other aspects of multidimensional poverty, such as living standards and health.

The case for measuring social connectedness is growing. Yet the work of integrating such indicators into multidimensional poverty indices (MPIs) is only just beginning. We draw upon the work of of Kim Samuel, Diego Zavaleta, China Mills, and their colleagues at OPHI to posit that an individual is deprived in social connectedness when they experience an ‘inadequate quality and quantity of social relations with other people at the different levels where human interaction takes place (individual, group, community and the larger social environment).’ This concept of social connectedness includes factors such as shame and humiliation and extends beyond the interpersonal, relating to larger social units, such as communities or labour organisations.

An emerging field

To date, only Chile has integrated an indicator of social connectedness into a national MPI programme. Still, agencies with the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and World Health Organisation (WHO) have taken steps to measure social connectedness, and relevant questions are now emerging across various community surveys, social barometers, and clinical scales. Diego Zavaleta, Kim Samuel et al. have proposed a survey module to estimate an individual’s level of social connectedness, including indicators on the measurement of internal social isolation (such as satisfaction with social relationships, relational habits, feelings of belonging, loneliness, or trust) and external social isolation (frequency of social contact, presence of discussion partner, social network and support, reciprocity and volunteering, among other factors).

 

Challenges for measurement

There are three major methodological issues to be overcome in the expansion of this work. Firstly, there is still a general lack of consensus in the definition of social connectedness.

Secondly, different populations and subpopulations perceive their experiences of connectedness in different ways.

Thirdly, the tools used to measure social connectedness are often incomparable. Whereas, for example, some tools measure subjective feelings of loneliness (the emotional domain), others gauge perceived adequacies of social support (the social domain).

 

What is the way forward?

We have identified several best practices for developing the social connectedness dimension in population-based surveys to support the expansion of this important work.

To better trace how factors such as stigma and gender manifest themselves in the data, we recommend multiple item measures over single item measures for social connectedness.

Social connectedness indicators should include questions related to external conditions (the tacit number of interactions in which an individual partakes) and internal circumstance (an individual’s perceived subjective satisfaction with his or her social situation).

To minimise the time burden on surveying agencies, social connectedness modules should take less than one minute to administer.

While research suggests there is a potential role for digital technologies in promoting social connectedness, the evidence is still inconclusive at population scale. We recommend a focus on in-person social connection.

Building on these guidelines, we propose the following preliminary list of questions to capture durable social connectedness:

External/Structural Connectedness:

Question 1: How often do you have contact with family, friends, or neighbours who do not live with you?

1. Every day 2. Several times a week 3. Once a week 4. Every 2–3 weeks 5. Once a month or less 6. Never

 

Internal/Functional Connectedness:

Question 2: How often do you feel lonely or isolated?

1. Hardly ever 2. Some of the time 3. Often

 

Social Support:

Question 3: Do you have friends or relatives whom you can count on in times of trouble?

Yes/Probably/Probably not/No

 

As global awareness grows around the importance of social connectedness for health, wellbeing, and other elements of human flourishing, there is now a vital opening for integrating social connectedness indicators into MPIs. The time is ripe for new research on social connectedness that can inform policy, measurement, and practice.

 

 

This article was published in Dimensions 16