Fatherhood in Russia: Fertility Decisions and Ideational Factors
In the article on the basis of the psycholinguistic experimental data obtained in 2009-2010 from Russian and Swedish students (the project on Swedish Institute grant) we consider internal features of several complex values (“Harmony”, “Freedom”, “Democracy”, “Tolerance” and “Patriotism”) and analyze their external systemic organization, taking into account both specificity of the two cultures and gender specifics. We argue that value concepts are hierarchically organized, forming different generalization levels from the simple to the more complex ones with intricate overlapping among different complex values within the system.
In this study, the authors pinpoint the similarities and differences between students at a Russian university and a Swedish university regarding the students’ value systems. What similarities and what differences are there between male Swedish students and male Russian students, and what similarities and what differences are there between the female students in the two countries? The authors’ interest was directed towards the gender differences between the two countries. A method employing three phases was developed for analyses of the value systems in the two countries. Students, who, as a category, often challenge existing value systems, were chosen as informants. Student samples from each country, varying in number from 63 to 100 informants, provided data in the three sub-studies. The results indicated that similar national concepts, when translated into English, exposed significant differences in their connotations, a phenomenon which is discussed in relation to implications for intercultural communication. In particular, the concepts of democracy and gender equality are highlighted. Differences and similarities related to gender and nationality constitute the bulk of the discussion. A major finding was that concepts describing close interpersonal relations, such as friendship and love, were cross-nationally rated higher than values more distant from the individual’s private world, such as democracy and equal rights.
"How can psychology faculty and students become more involved in international psychology?" This has become a more common question inside and outside the USA, for at least five reasons. (a) Origins. From its very origins in Europe in 1879, our "scientific study of behavior and mental life" began as an international field. (b) Growth. Over 75% of the world's psychologists became concentrated in one region (North America) through most of the 20th Century, though this has dropped sharply since 1990, to under 25% in 2016, as psychological science and practice grow much faster outside North America. (c) Diversity. Since the 1970s, we psychologists have increasingly recognized the importance of human diversity (including cultural diversity) in our teaching, research, and practice. (d) Barriers. There have been barriers separating the indigenous psychologies in 194 nations and other regions of the globe (Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America). (e) Resources. These barriers are now being reduced by new resources and technologies, such as the Internet and MOOCs (Massive Open On-line Courses).
This chapter reviews why and how we can best internationalize our psychology teaching, in six parts: (a) The remarkably international origins of psychology in the late 1800s, followed by a decline in the 1900s. (b) The overdue rise of "diversity" within psychology in the 1970s, including cross-national diversity. (c) The emerging concept of "international psychology," as a new form of diversity. (d) Some challenges to a truly international psychology. (e) Twelve suggestions for U.S. and non-U.S. faculty and students to overcome these challenges. This includes a concise overview of current resources to help new and veteran faculty and their students to deepen their involvement in international psychology: organizations, conferences, publications, websites, funding, technologies.
This chapter studies how horizontal gender differences and vertical inequalities at labor market entry have been changing in Russia from Soviet to post-Soviet times. On theoretical grounds, we expect the major institutional and cultural shifts to have not been gender-neutral. We relate our discussion particularly to features of educational and employment systems, family policies, and gender-specific cultural aspects. Using retrospective data from the Russian Education and Employment Survey (EES), we analyze sex segregation across industry sectors and the gender gap in job authority for labor market entrants in the Soviet period (1965–91) and the post-Soviet period (1991–2005). Our findings reveal that horizontal gender differences and conditional vertical inequalities at labor market entry were already widespread during the Soviet period despite the proclaimed principles of equality. Withal, these gender differences and inequalities even grew after liberalization reforms, and, in recent decades, they have even counteracted women’s gains in education. We argue that the rapid changes in economic and social life have been accompanied by the emergence of new forms of gender-oriented culture. These changes, in turn, have disposed male and female entrants to enter occupational fields in a more separated way than before and they have shaped employers’ and (female) employees’ preferences and decisions. This has affected the likelihood of females entering jobs with a higher status.