Search

Our paper will show preliminary results of the FP7 EUCROSS project to examine the scope and nature of cross-border practices within six European nations (Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Denmark and Romania), based on a quantitative survey undertaken on a random telephone sample of more than 6,000 EU residents. The paper presents the results of two hierarchical logistic regressions assessing the extent to which cross-border practices (mobility and consumption practices) can be associated with both European and global identities (feeling European - feeling citizen of the world). We show that transnational consumption practices are crucially associated with both European and global identities, and indeed are more important than socio-demographic variables and personal experiences of mobility. The systematic comparison of the results of both regressions helps us disentangle processes of cosmopolitisation and europeanisation of daily lives in the context of globalisation. Are the most mobile the most European? Or is it only some specific practices that trigger a higher affinity with the idea of Europe? Can cross-border practices be related to a greater cosmopolitan attitude defined as openness to diversity? We show that specific cross-border practices related to Europe (e.g. purchase in the EU – and not outside the EU, preferences for European cuisines, familiarity with specifically European countries) are associated with a stronger European identity. Other practices are associated with a global identity, such as listening to global music, indicating a certain degree of differentiation between the two processes.

In this document we explore how the three key concepts of the EUCROSS project can effectively be operationalised in survey research. We see this step as an essential precondition to the development of the survey instrument itself, and as a contribution to the operationalisation of these concerns by other researchers, including outside the EUCROSS project. On the former point, our survey is only a 20 minute phone interview, and this format will necessarily constrain our question range and depth. However, our pragmatic choices should still be guided by a wider recognition of what questions might ideally be asked in view of experiences and findings from other projects. On the latter point, all three concepts are ones that interest a great many social scientists, yet there remains a stand-off between theorists of these concepts and qualitative researchers on the one hand, and those who use such concepts in survey research. We hope our operationalisation document may usefully bridge this divide, to some extent at least.