The research on public activists’ values under the conditions of current transformations in Ukraine

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The research on public activists' values under the conditions of current transformations in Ukraine

Rus-Poltavskaya A.V., postgraduate student, Department of Sociology, Zaporizhzhia National University

The article presents the research results on the values of the members of the public movement “Centres for Civic Initiatives” (CCI). The research was conducted in the fall of2021. The activities of these CCI are done through the self-organisation of citizens at the local level. The activists themselves identify socially significant issues, set goals, and their implementation. This is the most branched public organisation with its centres throughout Ukraine. The research geography covers all regions of Ukraine (10 regions and the city of Kyiv). Research in such public organisations (scale, self-organisation, self-sufficiency) has not been previously conducted. This is the uniqueness of this study. In this research, it was assumed that the respondents selectedfor the survey (leaders and ordinary members of the organisation) are the most conscious and decisive part of Ukrainians, who, by their actions, claim to solve complex problems of social construction in the context of the general socio¬economic crisis. Therefore, they were chosen as information providers for the issues under study. The study was conducted based on M. Rokeach's methodology (list of terminal and instrumental values). The study shows the hierarchy of respondents ' values. Most of the members of the public movement “Centres for Civic Initiatives” believe that the value system is the moral norms and priorities of the individual, which serve as a motivating factor in their lives. According to respondents, the top ten values include the following: health, material well-being, family, love, life wisdom, responsibility, efficiency in business, honesty, responsiveness, and cheerfulness. The study focuses on the fact that such public organisations as CCI, which are considered here, are necessary for the conditions of global socio¬economic transformations since their activities are aimed at protecting the interests of the country and individual groups of citizens; these activities are of practical importance and produce socially significant results at the local level. The study highlights that to implement of socially significant tasks, suprapersonal rather than individual values must dominate a person participating in social activities. The researcher puts forward a working hypothesis: among civic activists, suprapersonal values (responsibility, responsiveness, happiness of others) dominate over individual ones. The article gives definitions of the concepts “system of values”, and “suprapersonal values”. This study was carried out in order to determine the dominant values of socially active citizens of Ukraine -- the members of the CCI in the context of global socio-economic transformations.

Keywords: the system of values, suprapersonal values, self-organisation of citizens.

ДОСЛІДЖЕННЯ ЦІННОСТЕЙ ГРОМАДСЬКИХ АКТИВІСТІВ В УМОВАХ СУЧАСНИХ ПЕРЕТВОРЕНЬ В УКРАЇНІ

Рус-Полтавська А.В., аспірантка кафедри соціології Запорізького національного університету

Наведено результати дослідження цінностей учасників громадського руху “Центри громадянських ініціатив ”, проведеного в Україні восени 2021 р. Діяльність громадського руху “Центри громадянських ініціатив” здійснюється завдяки самоорганізації громадян на місцях. Виявлення соціально значущих проблем, постановка та реалізація завдань здійснюється силами самих активістів. Дослідження у таких громадських організаціях (масштаб, самоорганізація, самоокупність) раніше не проводилися. У цьому унікальність даного дослідження. Нині це найбільш розгалужена громадська організація, центри якої розташовані по всій Україні. Географія дослідження охоплює 10 областей України і м. Київ. У цьому дослідженні передбачалося, що відібрані для опитування респонденти (керівники та рядові члени організації) є найбільш свідомою та рішучою часткою українців, які своїми діями претендують на вирішення складних проблем соціального будівництва в умовах загальної соціально-економічної кризи. Тому вони були обрані постачальниками інформації з питань, що вивчаються. Дослідження проведено на основі методики М. Рокіча (перелік термінальних та інструментальних цінностей), показує ієрархію цінностей опитаних. Більшість учасників громадського руху “Центри громадянських ініціатив” вважають, що система цінностей -- це моральні норми та пріоритети особистості, які є мотивуючим фактором у їхньому житті. На думку респондентів у першу десятку входять такі цінності: здоров'я, матеріальне благополуччя, сім'я, любов, життєва мудрість, відповідальність, ефективність у справах, чесність, чуйність, життєрадісність. У дослідженні акцентовано увагу на тому, що громадські організації (наприклад, громадський рух “Центри громадянських ініціатив”) необхідні в умовах глобальних соціально-економічних перетворень, оскільки їхня діяльність спрямована на захист інтересів країни та окремих груп громадян, має практичне значення та дає соціально-значущі результати на місцях. Зазначено, що для реалізації суспільно значущих завдань необхідно, щоб людина, яка бере участь у громадській діяльності, мала домінуючі надособистісні (альтруїстичні), а не індивідуальні цінності. У дослідженні запропонована робоча гіпотеза, що у громадянських активістів для успішної реалізації соціально значущих завдань надособистісні цінності (відповідальність, чуйність, щастя інших) домінують над індивідуальними. Наведено співвідношення надособистісних та індивідуальних цінностей, які увійшли до першої десятки пріоритетних цінностей учасників громадського руху “Центри громадянських ініціатив”; визначення понять “система цінностей”, “надособистісні цінності”. Дане дослідження проводилося з метою визначення домінуючих цінностей соціально активних громадян України -- членів громадського руху “Центри громадянських ініціатив ” у контексті глобальних соціально- економічних трансформацій.

Ключові слова: система цінностей, надособистісні цінності, самоорганізація громадян.

Today, the number of public associations involved in social construction is multiplying in Ukraine. The vast majority carry out their activities through financial support from the state, various funds, or grants. Therefore, it is natural when the activities of such organisations are aimed at fulfilling the goals of those structures that allocate funds. We have set the task to investigate the values of the members of the public movement “Centres for Civic Initiatives” (CCI) that were united through self-organisation, without guidance and support from any structures “from above”. The study involved members of a public movement whose activities and the setting of socially significant goals and implementation of all the events are carried out exclusively at the expense of their resources - money, time, and personal possibilities. This is the most branched public organisation with its centres throughout Ukraine. The research geography covers all regions of Ukraine (10 regions and the city of Kyiv). The author assumes that the respondents we chose (leaders and ordinary members of the organisation) are the most conscious and decisive part of Ukrainians, who, by their actions, claim to solve complex problems of social construction in the context of the general socio-economic crisis. Therefore, they were chosen as information providers for the issues under study.

Today there are many works on value understanding - the nature, functions, social and cultural aspects of values, the features of their manifestation in various spheres of human life and relationships with other people. Researchers have developed many methods to study values: “The test of meaningful life orientation” [1], “The dispositional concept of personality” [2] - the questionnaire by Sh. Schwartz [3] integrates M. Rokeach's concept (terminal and instrumental values) and his concept of the motivational goals of value orientations and the universality of values. Since 1981 the study “World Values Survey” [4], which was started by the sociologist R. Inglehart, has been conducted, as well as sociological studies: “The study of the values of citizens in the course of election campaigns” [5], the study of the values of material well-being [6] and others.

At the same time, today, there is no single study of values among members of public organisations that carry out their activities on their initiative and at the expense of their resources. This is the uniqueness of this study.

The author offers the author's definition of the value s ystem as “a system of moral norms, certain priorities that a person chooses and by which he is guided in his life”. The article also uses the term “suprapersonal values”, which should be understood as those values that are hierarchically higher than the system of personal values. Such values can be reflected in a national idea acceptable to all members of society. Such a system of values contributes to the effective interaction of citizens in social activities, making it possible to achieve a higher level of organisation in society. The topic of suprapersonal values is covered in more detail in other works of the author.

Purpose - to determine the dominant values of socially active citizens of Ukraine - the members of the CCI, in the context of global socio-economic transformations.

The methodology of this study includes the use of a quantitative data collection method and meaningful data analysis. The study involved 381 people who are members of the CCI. A complete sampling was used. The data collection method was carried out by online survey in Google Forms. The timing of the survey and information collection is September 2021. The hierarchy of value preferences of socially active citizens of Ukraine was studied with the help of M. Rokeach's (list of terminal and instrumental values) methodology. To achieve the study's goal, the author developed a sociological survey questionnaire consisting of three parts: 1) terminal values; 2) instrumental values; 3) respondents' data. Respondents were asked to rank values from the lists of terminal values (hereinafter “values -goals”) and instrumental values (hereinafter “values-means”), putting one number in front of each item from 1 (important) to 18 (not important). According to the research results, the participants chose the five most vital from the two lists of values.

To visualize the research results, values in both parts of the survey were divided into 12 subgroups, each containing 3 (less often 2-4) names of a particular value. The distribution of values by subgroups was carried out according to several conditionally similar features. When forming subgroups 1 -4 of terminal values-goals, the author based on the ideas of A. Maslow, who studied the development of personality through his/her life needs. However, we slightly modified A. Maslow's [7] original theory. In the author's opinion, the survival needs are health, a financially secure life, and a happy family, although A. Maslow refers them to as different needs - physiological, safety and social needs. Subgroups 5-12 were formed at the author's discretion. public activist condition ukraine

In conclusion, the obtained data of the first (terminal values) and the second (instrumental values) parts of the questionnaire were systematized - we introduced conditional points of significance, which are inversely proportional to the number on the priority scale. For example, the number “1” (important) corresponds to a score of 18 points, number “2” - 17 points, number “3” - 16 points, and so on until the last number “18” (not important) with o nly one point of significance. Then, we multiplied these pairs of numbers. For visualization convenience, the results were divided by 100. The final scales of priorities were conditionally divided into three parts - the left (high priority, items 1-6), the middle (items 7-12) and the right (low priority, items 13-18) parts of the scale. In such a way, the results were interpreted.

All values from Rokeach's list were divided into two groups: individual and suprapersonal. This made it possible to determine their correlation in the list of priorities of the values of socially active citizens of Ukraine - members of the CCI. Suprapersonal values are (8 out of 36): 1) life wisdom (maturity of thoughts, life experience); 2) beauty of nature and art (experience of beauty in nature and art); 3) happiness of other people (well-being, development and improvement of other people) (terminal values); 4) responsibility (a sense of duty, ability to keep one's word); 5) tolerance (to the views and opinions of others, ability to forgive others for their mistakes); 6) open-mindedness (an ability to understand someone else's point of view, to respect different tastes, customs, habits); 7) honesty (truthfulness, sincerity); 8) responsiveness (care) (instrumental values). The author conventionally classifies the rest as individual values (28 out of 36).

Designation of value scales. A list of terminal values (see Table 1): active life (fullness and emotional richness of life); self-confidence (inner harmony, freedom from internal contradictions, doubts); life wisdom (maturity of thoughts, life experience); health (physical and mental); an exciting job; beauty of nature and art (experience of beauty in nature and art); love (spiritual and physical intimacy with a loved one); financially secure life (no financial problems); having good and true friends; public recognition (respect from colleagues and the environment); cognition (the opportunity to expand education, intellectual development); productive life (the fullest possible use of capabilities, strengths and abilities); development (self-perfection, constant physical and spiritual improvement); entertainment (pleasant and easy pastime, no responsibilities); freedom (autonomy, independence in thoughts and actions); creativity (an opportunity for creative activity); a happy family life; happiness of other people (well-being, development and improvement of other people). A list of instrumental values (see Table 2): tidiness (an ability to keep things in order, order in busin ess); responsibility (a sense of duty, an ability to keep one's word); politeness (good manners); high demands (high life demands); discipline; efficiency in business (industriousness, productivity in work); cheerfulness (a sense of humour); independence (an ability to act independently, decisiveness); intolerance to personal and other people's shortcomings; education (knowledge, universal high culture); rationalism (an ability to think logically, to make well-considered rational decisions); self-control (restraint, self-discipline); courage in defending one's opinion and views; a strong will (an ability to get one's own way, not to retreat in the face of difficulties); tolerance (to the views and opinions of others, an ability to forgive others for their mistakes); open-mindedness (an ability to understand someone else's point of view, to respect different tastes, customs, habits); honesty (truthfulness, sincerity); responsiveness (care).

To visualize the research results more conveniently, all the names of values from M. Rokeach's list were divided into subgroups 1-6 (part 1 of the questionnaire, see Table 1): the survival needs, needs for recognition, needs for self-expression, needs for development, needs for independence, suprapersonal values (reaction to external influences). The second part of the questionnaire is divided into subgroups 7-12 (see Table 2): education, self-control, performance characteristics, resilience, development, and humanity.

Let us consider the blocks of the first part separately in the “Terminal values” questionnaire (see Table 1) and show their assessment (prioritization) by the respondents who participated in the survey.

Survival needs. As for this block of values, they are the values of physical and mental health, absence of financial problems and happy family life:

- Health (see Fig. 1 and 2). The majority of respondents (344 people, 90%) consider health to be the most important value in their lives and give preference to the first five items on the scale;

- Financially secure life. The range of this value ranking is like the previous one. The majority of respondents (335 people, 88%) voted for the first five items on the priority scale;

- A happy family. 314 respondents (82%) consider it an essential value in their lives, giving it the first five items on the priority scale.

Figures 1. Distribution of the value of health on the scale of priorities

Figures 2. Distribution of the value of health (chart)

The values in this subgroup (see Fig. 3) are important for most respondents (80-90%) and occupy the first 3-5 places in the list of life priorities (from 20 votes in each). The number of respondents who ticked these values in items 6-18 is only 10-18%: from zero respondents in item 18 (health and financially secure life) to 14 respondents in item 6 (a happy family).

Figures 3. Survival needs (the values of physical and mental health, absence of financial problems and happy family life)

Table 1

Importance of terminal values in respondents' life (data are given in individuals)

Importance of terminal values in respondents' life

Needs for recognition. As for this block of values, they are love (spiritual and physical intimacy with a loved one), having true friends and social recognition (respect for the colleagues and the environment):

- Love. The leading indicators are in item 8 (55 people). According to the estimates of the majority of respondents (327 people, 86%), the importance of love in their lives is displayed in the range from 1 to 10 points in the list of value priorities;

- Having true and good friends. The leading indicators are in item 9 (57 people). According to 80% of respondents (306 people), the importance of good friends in their lives is displayed in a range of items 8-16, with a distribution of 20-40 votes in each item. Another 17% of respondents (66 people) believe that good friends occupy a more important place in their lives (items 1-7). Nine people voted for item 17 (3%);

- Public recognition. The leading indicators are in item 17 (86 people). Most respondents (344 people, 90%) put this value in the second part of the priority scale (items 9-18).

Table 2

Importance of instrumental values in respondents' life (data are given in individuals)

Importance of instrumental values in respondents' life

When ranking the values of this subgroup, the respondents' assessments are not as unambiguous as in the previous one. Love and true friends are more important to the respondents than public recognition. Furthermore, love is more important than having true friends: love for most respondents (86%) occupies the first 10 places in the list of life priorities. Having good friends was placed in the second half of the scale by 80% of the respondents. The value of public recognition was also placed in the second part of the priority scale by 90% of respondents.

Needs for self-expression. This subgroup includes the values that help a person express himself/herself in everyday life. The respondents' estimates of these values were distributed as follows:

- Active life. The leading indicators are in item 8 (48 people). According to the estimates of 300 respondents (79%), the importance of this value in their lives is displayed in the range from 1 to 10 points;

- Productive life. The leading indicators are in item 12 (44 people). According to 80% of respondents, the importance of this value in their lives ranges from 5 to13 (the middle position of the indicators on the priority scale). 9% consider productive life an important value (items 1-4), another 11% of respondents - unimportant (items 14-17);

- An exciting job. The leading indicators are in item 7 (48 people). According to the estimates of the majority of respondents (82%, 296 people), the importance of this value in their lives is displayed in the range of items 2-10 in the list of value priorities;

- Entertainment. The leading indicators are in item 18 (155 people). According to the estimates of most respondents (92%, 350 people), entertainment is not an important value in their lives, and the list of value priorities occupies the extreme right 15 -18 positions on the priority scale.

The respondents' assessment of such values as active life, productive life and an interesting job occupies almost the entire scale of priorities (items 1 -17), with a predominance of the respondents' votes in the middle part of the scale with items 6-12 (44-48 people). The assessment of the entertainment value occupies the far-right positions of the priority scale with a maximum score of 155 votes in item 18 (not important).

Development needs. The following subgroup includes the values which favour the all-rounded development of personality and lead to the harmonization of relationships between the intellectual, physical, and emotional components of personality through education, creativity and self-development:

- Cognition. The leading indicators are in item 11 (42 people). According to the estimates of 351 respondents (92%), the importance of this value in their life is displayed in the range of items 5-15 in the list of value priorities;

- Development. The leading indicators are in item 11 (42 people). According to the estimates of 158 respondents (46%), the importance of this value in their life is displayed in the range of items 1-9 in the list of value priorities. Another 184 respondents (54%) put the value of development in the second part of the priority scale - items 10-17;

- Creativity. The leading indicators are in item 14 (50 people). According to the estimates of 299 respondents (78%), the importance of this value in their life is displayed in the range of items 8-16 on the scale of value priorities.

In terms of importance in the lives of Ukrainian citizens, the values of this block occupy the middle position on the scale (items 5-15). More than 20 respondents voted for each item on the scale.

Needs for independence. This subgroup combines several values-goals that reflect the individual's desire for independence and a wise attitude to life:

- Self-confidence. The leading indicator is in item 7 (65 people). According to the estimates of 268 respondents (70%), the importance of this value in their life is displayed in the range of items 2-8 in the list of value priorities;

- Freedom. The leading indicator is in item 12 (43 people). The respondents' opinions in assessing this value were divided. According to the estimates of 155 respondents (41%), the importance of this value in their life is displayed in the first part of the priority scale (items 1 - 9). Another 226 respondents (59%) put this value in the second part of the priority scale (items 10-18);

- Life wisdom. The leading indicator is in item 6 (51 people). According to the estimates of 325 respondents (85%), the importance of this value in their life is displayed in the range of items 1-9 in the list of value priorities.

The cumulative consideration of the value priorities in this block shows that such values as life wisdom and self-confidence have a higher priority than the value of freedom, the prevailing number of votes for which (59%) is placed in the second (having low priority) part of the scale.

Suprapersonal values (reaction to external influences). The last subgroup of values goals includes the ability of an individual to perceive beauty, express sympathy and empathy for another person, the ability to show care and mercy to strangers:

- Beauty of nature and art. The leading indicator is item 18 (not important) (185 people). 288 respondents (76%) consider these values less important than all the other values under consideration. The estimates range from 16 to 18 in the list of value priorities;

- Happiness of others. The leading indicator is in item 15 (53 people). According to the estimates of 339 respondents (89%), the importance of this value in their life is displayed in the range of items 8-18 on the priority scale. The happiness of others (well-being, development, and improvement of other people) compared to other values from the proposed list is not a priority for most respondents.

An analysis of the assessment spectra shows that, according to respondents, these suprapersonal values are placed along the entire scale of priorities, including items 2-5 (high priority). Only 11% of respondents (42 people) put the happiness of others in the first half of the priority scale (items 1-7); item 18 (not important) got 5 votes from the survey participants. In the comments to the first part of the survey, the respondents were asked to express their opinion on the list of values. As a result, the following comments were received: “In this list, the question about nature sounds somehow isolated. Although I love nature, but all the listed values have a higher priority compared to it”, “The beauty of nature takes only the last place since personal life is of higher priority”, “What does the “beauty of nature” have to do with it?”.

Let us take a closer look at the blocks of the second part of the “Instrumental Values” questionnaire (Table 2) and show their assessment (prioritization) by the respondents who participated in the survey.

Upbringing. This subgroup combines values that describe personality skills and culture of behaviour and which are formed from early childhood in the process of upbringing. Skills such as good manners are formed at an early age, determining a person's future behaviour in society. When ranking values in this subgroup, the respondents' votes were distributed as follows:

- Tidiness. The respondents welcome this value in their lives in a different way, marking it almost evenly (from 20 to 35 votes) over the entire range of the priority scale, except for the extreme positions (no assessments) and item 10, for which the maximum number of respondents voted (43 people). A small part of respondents (5%) believe that tidiness should occupy the important 2nd or 3rd place in their lives;

- Politeness. More than half of the surveyed respondents (65%) do not believe that good manners should be a priority in their lives (items 15 -18), with a maximum value in item 18 “the least important” (138 people). The remaining 35% of the respondents' votes were distributed relatively evenly (5-16 people) on the entire priority scale, except for the first item (important), which any participant in the survey did not choose;

- Discipline. The maximum number of those who voted was noted in item 11 (48 people). The majority of respondents (329 people, 87%) marked this value with items 6-16 on the priority scale. Four people noted that discipline is the most important (item 1), and two people - are the least important (item 18).

In this block, the respondents estimate the values of tidiness and discipline approximately the same way and occupy the centre and right side of the scale. When ranking the value of politeness (good manners), the majority of respondent s (138 people) voted for item 18 (“the least important”).

Self-control. This block of values includes the values of self-control (restraint, self-discipline), tolerance for the views and opinions of others, the ability to forgive others for their mistakes, and high life demands:

- Self-control. Most respondents (360 people, 94%) note the importance of self-control in their lives; their votes are distributed almost along the entire scale (items 2-13), with a priority in the centre and the left part of the scale. The maximum number of respondents (51 people) gave the fifth place to the considered value. The respondents did not tick item 18 (not necessary);

- High demands. Here we see that the respondents' assessments occupy the right side of the scale, with the highest indicators in item 17 (133 votes). On the priority scale, most of the respondents' votes (293 people, 77%) took the last four places (items 15-18). Only 2 respondents noted the importance of this value (item 1). The remaining 23% of the votes are distributed along the entire scale (items 1 -14);

- Tolerance. The respondents' votes are distributed over the entire range of the scale. The minimum indicators are in items 1, 2, and 18 (1 person), and the maximum ones are in items 4 and 11 (43 and 35 people).

The respondents' votes on the values of self-control and tolerance were distributed relatively evenly (17-35 people) over the entire scale of priorities, except for the extreme positions, where the number of respondents' assessments is the least (0-8 people). According to the majority of respondents, high demands for life occupy the right side of the priority scale and are not important enough in the life of the socially active part of the Ukrainian population who participated in the survey.

Activity characteristics. In this subgroup, we analyzed the value qualities and personality characteristics which can be conditionally combined with the concepts of “calculation”, “logic”, and “perfectionism”. These instrumental values were assessed diffe rently by the respondents:

- Business efficiency occupies mainly the left (high priority) part of the scale in items 1 - 5 (285 people, 75%), with the maximum value in item 3 (100 people). Up to 20 respondents voted for items 6-12. The respondents did not select almost all other items on the right side of the scale;

- Rationalism. The majority of respondents (258 people, 68%) put this value on the right side of the scale (items 10-16). Another 113 people put the priority of “rationalism” (30%) in the first half of the scale (items 2-9). The last items 17 and 18 (not important), which are of low priority, got 10 votes from the respondents (2%);

- Intolerance of personal and other people's shortcomings. According to the respondents' assessments, this value unequivocally tends to the right edge of the priority scale (items 15 - 18, 91% of respondents), with the maximum number of 167 respondents in item 18 (not important).

According to the assessments of the surveyed, this subgroup of values is as follows: business efficiency occupies the left part of the priority scale (items 1 -5), rationalism is placed along the entire length of the scale with a tendency to the right edge (items 10 -16), the value of intolerance to personal and other people's shortcomings occupies th e right part of the scale (items 16-18) which is of low priority.

Resilience. This subgroup contains values that characterize a person as courageous, resolute, and resistant to external influences. People who possess these values and use them in their life are independent; they act in response to their own needs, perceptions, or assessments, and not to the requirements of the environment or other people's opinions:

- Independence. Almost an even number of respondents placed this value in the first (items 1-6, 48% of respondents) and second (items 7-12, 40% of respondents) parts of the scale. The remaining 12% of respondents put the value of independence in the third part of the scale (items 13-17). The fourth item on the priority scale got the maximum number of votes (46);

- Strong will. The rating of this value mirrors the previous picture on the priority scale: a smaller part of respondents put this value on the left side of the scale (items 1 -6, 21% of respondents), while the rest of the respondents placed their votes in the second (39% of respondents) and third parts of the scale (40% of respondents). Items 13, 15 (35 each) got the maximum number of votes;

- Courage in defending one's opinion and views. Here we observe a more homogeneous range of respondents' assessments with a maximum value of 62 respondent votes in item 14. Most respondents (287 people, 75%) placed this value on the right, a less important part of the scale (items 10-17).

In the assessments provided by the people polled, these values occupy all the positions on the priority scale but with a different number of respondents' votes except for the value of independence which is not assessed in item 18 (“not important”).

Development. To this block of values, we conventionally refer such values as education (knowledge, universal high culture), open-mindedness (the ability to understand someone else's point of view, to respect other people's tastes, customs, habits) and responsibility (a sense of duty, the ability to keep one's word):

- Open-mindedness. Most respondents (72%) believe that open-mindedness is an important value in their lives (items 1-8). The range of assessments occupies the most significant part of the left side of the scale, with the maximum number of votes in item 8 (71 people);

- Education. The majority of respondents (90% of respondents) placed this value in the left and middle parts of the scale (items 1-12), with the maximum number of votes in item 5 (55 people);

- Responsibility. 123 respondents consider it important to be responsible for their actions and deeds (item 1). In general, 301 respondents (79%) prioritised this value on the scale (items 1-5).

The development values predominantly occupy the left (high priority) part of the scale.

Humanity. The values whose synonyms altogether are purity, sincerity, openness, warmheartedness, sensitivity, attentiveness, sympathy, optimism, and love of life are united in the humanity subgroup and include instrumental values of honesty, sensitivity and cheerfulness. There is no fundamental difference in the range of assessments of all the three values:

- Honesty. According to the estimates of 349 respondents (89%), this value occupies the left side of the priority scale (items 1-9), with the maximum number of the respondents' vo tes in item 2 (56 people);

- Responsiveness. Most of the respondents (77%) placed this value on the left side of the priority scale (items 1-8), with the maximum number of votes in item 2 (53 people);

- Cheerfulness. The importance of having a sense of humour in their lives (items 1-10) was noted by 309 respondents (81%). Item 7 received the maximum number of the respondents' votes (64 people).

As a result of the systematization of the data obtained and the introduction of significance scores, the author obtained the final spectra (see Figures 4 and 5) reflecting the significance of values in the lives of socially active citizens of Ukraine - of the members of the public movement “Centres for Civic Initiatives”. The obtained diagrams were conditionally divid ed into three parts: left (having high priority at the time of the survey), middle and right (having low priority at the time of the survey). The following results were obtained:

Terminal values (see Fig. 4). According to the displayed spectrum, it is seen that such values as health, a financially secure and happy family life, love, self-confidence, and life wisdom (the first third of the scale) are of high priority among socially active citizens of Ukraine. The second third of the scale united the following values: an exciting job, an active and productive life, development, knowledge, and freedom. The third part of the scale contains the values that were less significant for the respondents at the time of the survey: having good and true friends, creativity, the happiness of other people, public recognition, the beauty of nature and art, and entertainment.

Figures 4. Distribution of terminal values on the scale of priorities

Instrumental values (see Fig. 5). Such values as responsibility, efficiency in business, responsiveness, and independence are of high priority (the first third of the scale) among socially active citizens of Ukraine. Also, there is honesty and cheerfulness. The second third of the scale united the following values: open-mindedness, education, self-control, tolerance, discipline, tidiness. The third part of the scale consists of the following instrumental values: rationalism, strong will, courage in defending one's views, politeness, high life demands, and intolerance to personal and other people's shortcomings.

Figures 5. Distribution of instrumental values on the scale of priorities

The study showed that the top ten most significant values of the members of the public movement “Centres for Civic Initiatives” include 3 (out of 8) suprapersonal values (responsibility, responsiveness, and honesty, which partially confirm the author's hypothesis) and 7 (out of 28) individual values. Thus, a third of the dominant values are suprapersonal (3 out of 10).

In the first part of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to continue the sentence “The value system is...” or give their definitions. It was necessary to mark those of the proposed definitions with which the respondents agree. The following responses were given to this question:

The value system is.

- personality priorities (258 respondents);

- a motivating factor (211 respondents);

- moral norms (114 respondents);

- a guiding tool (50 respondents);

- an assessment tool (32 respondents);

- a limiting tool (14 respondents);

- society priorities (11 respondents);

- a tool harmonizing human relations (1 respondent).

Most of the socially active citizens of Ukraine who took part in this study believe that the value system is the moral norms and personality priorities which serve as a motivating factor in their lives.

Conclusion

The results of the study conducted in the fall of 2021 among the members of the public organisation “Centres for Civic Initiatives” showed that the members of the public organisation, in which the implementation of all activities is carried out exclusively at the expense of their resources, consider the values of health, material well-being, a happy family and love to be a priority. Thus, the top ten most significant values include physical and mental health, a financially secure life, happy family life, love, life wisdom (terminal values), responsibility, efficiency in business, honesty, responsiveness, and cheerfulness (instrumental values). The most essential terminal value of the members of the public movement “Centres for Civic Initiatives” is health. The least important is entertainment. According to the respondents' opinion, the most important instrumental value is responsibility, while the least important is intolerance of personal and other people's shortcomings.

To implement socially significant tasks, it is necessary for a person who takes part in social activities to possess dominating suprapersonal (altruistic) but not individual values. This study partly confirms this: out of the ten most significant values of the members of the public movement, “Centres for Civic Initiatives”, a third are suprapersonal values.

The socially intense activity of public organisations is of practical importance and gives positive, socially significant results. It leads to the unification of people, it is based on civil initiatives, which consolidates society, it helps to identify and solve the most pressing problems at the local level, it is implemented on its own, and it does not spend public funds. It is also essential that civic initiatives come from below, accelerating social transformation. These initiatives must work in a coordinated manner, which will increase the effectiveness of such activities.

Now, the author is unaware of other similar organisations in Ukraine, which were created at the expense of the citizens themselves and carried out their activities on their own. However, despite the importance of the stated problem, the study results cannot be extrapolated to all activists of such movements and organisations. This article can be considered a prerequisite for additional research on the stated issues.

The author draws attention to the fact that the methodology used in this paper is widely used in sociological research. However, the very fact of its use leads to the following questions. Is a person sufficient as a means of research? Is there an additional external tool that fully meets W. Ashby's requirements for control? To what extent does the subject of activity, the object of research and the research means meet the task of adequacy? In this approach, they are identical and proportional in complexity. However, it does not correspond to W. Ashby's “good regulator theorem” when meeting the adequacy conditions involves a greater-than symbol (the complexity level of the subject of activity (tool) must be greater than the complexity level of the object of research). Otherwise, the study results may be incorrect or seriously distorted, leading to severe consequences when using the obtain ed results. In the current practice, there are no answers to the questions. Therefore, this issue requires further research.

References

1. Leontev, D.A. (1992). Test of meaningful life orientations. Moscow: Smysl [in Russian]

2. Yadov, V.A. (2013). Self-regulation and prediction of social behaviorr of the person: Dispositional concept. Moscow: TsSPiM [in Russian]

3. Karandashev, V.N. (2004). Schwartz's methodology for studying the values of personality: concept and methodological guidance. Saint Petersburg: Rech [in Russian]

4. Integrated Values Surveys (1981-2021). (2021). European Value Study.

URL: https://cutt.ly/YAoLNJt

5. Czesnik, M., Mista, R. (2021). Wealth, Influence, Prestige - Socially Valued Goods from the Perspective of Polish Voters. Studia Socjologiczne, 3 (242), 57-88. https://doi.org/10.24425/sts.2021.138475 [in Polish]

6. Citizens' assessment of financial situation and issues related to the economic situation (2022, January). Razumkov Tsentr. URL: https://razumkov.org.ua/napriamky/sotsiologichni-doslidzhennia/ otsinka-gromadianamy-materialnogo-stanovyshcha-ta-pytan-poviazanykh-z-ekonomichnoiu-sytuatsiieiu- cichen-2022r...