IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Development of the Good Relations Measurement Framework in Britain: A Template for Experiential Social Measurement

Listed author(s):
  • Andrea Wigfield


  • Royce Turner
Registered author(s):

    This article explores the development of the Good Relations Measurement Framework (GRMF), the first attempt in Britain to create a framework designed to measure how people experience their lives, specifically in relation to their interactions with each other. It provides a reference point for others seeking to construct social indicator measurement frameworks which capture the experiential in the social policy field. In a wider sense, it provides a case study of the use of social indicators within the policy process in the modern polity. The overall objective of the GRMF is to measure the state of Good Relations in Britain. Seven key areas emerged as being crucial for the development of measurement frameworks during the construction of the GRMF. Firstly, a decision has to be taken about the extent to which social measurement frameworks are confined to measurement only or are to have a normative element. Secondly, a working definition of the subject area is needed early in the process. Thirdly, an element of consultation with the public is important. A fourth issue relates to the practical method of construction through the use of ‘long lists’ of potential indicators, and finding a balance between an ‘ideal’ list of potential indicators emerging from public consultation and a second list of existing indicators drawn from existing surveys. A fifth issue relates to the availability of social indicator data at an appropriate geographical level. A sixth issue is that social indicators drawn from different surveys are not always comparable. A final factor is that while quantitative indicators are useful as a tool of social measurement, qualitative research adds a further dimension which is especially important in particular circumstances. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Social Indicators Research.

    Volume (Year): 114 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 2 (November)
    Pages: 655-686

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:114:y:2013:i:2:p:655-686
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-012-0167-9
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Easterlin, Richard A, 2001. "Income and Happiness: Towards an Unified Theory," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 465-484, July.
    2. Felicia Huppert & Nic Marks & Andrew Clark & Johannes Siegrist & Alois Stutzer & Joar Vittersø & Morten Wahrendorf, 2009. "Measuring Well-being Across Europe: Description of the ESS Well-being Module and Preliminary Findings," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 301-315, May.
    3. Natalia Letki, 2008. "Does Diversity Erode Social Cohesion? Social Capital and Race in British Neighbourhoods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56, pages 99-126, 03.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:114:y:2013:i:2:p:655-686. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.