Sociological analysis through the Culture of Encounter Index: Methodological Insights
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/empiria.67.2026.48248Palabras clave:
Social cohesion, democratic health, inequality, sustainability, civic engagementResumen
This article presents the design, validation, and empirical application of the Culture of Encounter Index (CEI), a sociological tool for analysing social cohesion and democratic health. The CEI integrates primary survey data with secondary structural indicators on inequality, poverty, and unemployment, and is organised around five dimensions: socio-structural equality, recognition of diversity, intergenerational relations, civic culture, and sustainable development. Drawing on nationally representative surveys conducted in Spain in 2021 and 2023, the analysis reveals a moderate but statistically significant increase in the overall CEI score. This evolution is mainly driven by improvements in structural conditions, while sustainability-related attitudes remain stable and civic engagement shows modest growth. In contrast, intergenerational relations deteriorate, highlighting persistent challenges in generational equity, particularly affecting younger cohorts. The sociodemographic analysis shows systematic differences in the distribution and evolution of the CEI by age, educational attainment, social class, and habitat type, including a reduction in the traditional urban–rural gap. Validation procedures, including reliability tests and sensitivity analysis, confirm the robustness and stability of the index over time. Overall, the CEI provides a theoretically grounded and empirically robust framework for capturing key dimensions of social cohesion and democratic quality. Its longitudinal and multidimensional design makes it a valuable instrument for sociological analysis and for informing public debate and policy discussions on inclusion and democratic sustainability.
Este artículo presenta el diseño, la validación y la aplicación empírica del Índice de Cultura del Encuentro (ICE), una herramienta sociológica para el análisis de la cohesión social y la salud democrática. El ICE integra datos primarios de encuesta con indicadores estructurales secundarios sobre desigualdad, pobreza y desempleo, y se organiza en torno a cinco dimensiones: igualdad socioestructural, reconocimiento de la diversidad, relaciones intergeneracionales, cultura cívica y desarrollo sostenible. A partir de dos encuestas representativas a nivel nacional realizadas en España en 2021 y 2023, el análisis muestra un incremento moderado, pero estadísticamente significativo del valor global del ICE. Esta evolución está impulsada principalmente por la mejora de las condiciones estructurales, mientras que las actitudes relacionadas con la sostenibilidad permanecen estables y el compromiso cívico registra un crecimiento moderado. En contraste, las relaciones intergeneracionales presentan un deterioro, poniendo de relieve desafíos persistentes en materia de equidad generacional, que afectan especialmente a las cohortes más jóvenes. El análisis sociodemográfico revela diferencias sistemáticas en la distribución y evolución del ICE según la edad, el nivel educativo, la clase social y el tipo de hábitat, incluyendo una reducción de la brecha tradicional entre ámbitos urbanos y rurales. Los procedimientos de validación —que incluyen pruebas de fiabilidad y análisis de sensibilidad— confirman la robustez y estabilidad del índice a lo largo del tiempo. En conjunto, el ICE ofrece un marco teóricamente fundamentado y empíricamente sólido para captar dimensiones clave de la cohesión social y la calidad democrática. Su diseño longitudinal y multidimensional lo convierte en un instrumento valioso tanto para el análisis sociológico como para orientar el debate público y la formulación de políticas en materia de inclusión y sostenibilidad democrática.
FUNDING SOURCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the José María Martín Patino Chair of the Culture of Encounter. The statistical software used for data processing and analysis included Gandia Barbwin v7.5, RStudio and SPSS v28.0. In addition, ChatGPT (OpenAI) was used as a support tool for language editing and revision, and for reviewing and improving R code. All methodological decisions, interpretation of results, and final writing were carried out and verified by the authors.
Descargas
Citas
ALEXANDER, J. (2007): The Civil Sphere. New York: Oxford University Press.
ALEXANDER, J. (2020): Breaching the Civil Order: Radicalism and the Civil Sphere. New York: Cambridge University Press.
ALMOND, G. & S. Verba (1963): The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
ALMOND, G. & S. VERBA (Eds.). (1989): The civic culture revisited. California: Sage Publications.
ATKINSON, A. B. (2015): Inequality. What can be done?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Beckford, J. A. (2014): “Re-thinking religious pluralism”. In G. GIORDAN & E. PACE (Eds.), Religious pluralism. Framing religious diversity in the contemporary world. Switzerland: Springer, pp. 15-29.
BOTTONI, G. (2018): “A multilevel measurement model of social cohesion”, Social Indicators Research, 136(3), 835–857. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1470-7
BURAWOY, M. (2005): “For public sociology”. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28. doi:10.1177/000312240507000102
CABELLO, J. M., F. RUIZ & B. PÉREZ-GLADISH (2021): “An alternative aggregation process for composite indexes: An application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index”. Social Indicators Research, 153, 443–467. doi:10.1007/s11205-020-02511-8
CATALDI S., FLORIDI F. & M. PALMIERI (2024): “Methodological Challenges: From the First to the Second Wave of the World Love Index”. Social Sciences, 13 (7), 334. Doi: 10.3390/socsci13070334
CAVALLETTI, B. & M. CORSI (2018): “Beyond GDP’ effects on the national subjective well-being of OECD countries”. Social Indicators Research, 136(3), 931–966. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1477-0
CAVICCHIA, C. & M. VICHI (2021): “Statistical model-based composite indicators for tracking coherent policy conclusions”. Social Indicators Research, 156(2–3), 449–479.
doi:10.1007/s11205-020-02318-7
CHAN, J., TO, H.-P., & E. CHAN (2006): “Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research”. Social Indicators Research, 75(2), 273–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2118-1
DALY, M. (2020): Gender inequality and welfare states in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
EUROSTAT. (n.d.a.): At-risk-of-poverty rate by sex. Disponible en https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/TESSI010/default/table?lang=en [consulta: 24-02-2025].
EUROSTAT. (n.d.a-): Gini coefficient of equivalised disposable income - EU-SILC survey. Disponible en
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/TESSI190/default/table?lang=en [consulta: 24-02-2025].
FRASER, N. (2008): Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York: Columbia University Pres.
FRASER, N. (2022): Cannibal Capitalism: How Our System Is Devouring Democracy, Care, and the Planet—and What We Can Do About It. New York: Verso Books.
GAN, X., I. C. FERNANDEZ, J. GUO, M. WILSON, Y. ZHAO, B. ZHOU & J. WU (2017): “When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators”. Ecological Indicators, 81, 491–502. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.068
GARCÍA-SÁNCHEZ, I. M., T. A. ALMEIDA & R. CAMARA (2015): “A proposal for a Composite Index of Environmental Performance (CIEP) for countries”. Ecological Indicators, 48, 171–188.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.004
GIORGI, A. (2021): “European Union, populism and religious minorities: complex entanglements”. European Politics and Society, 22:4, 538-549.
doi: 10.1080/23745118.2020.1801184
GONZÁLEZ, E., A. CÁRCABA & J. VENTURA (2018): “Weight-constrained DEA measurement of the quality of life in Spanish Municipalities in 2011”. Social Indicators Research, 136(3), 1157–1182.
doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1426-y
GREEN, M., J. HARMACEK, M. HTITICH & P. KRYLOVA (2024): Social Progress Index. Executive Summary. Disponible en
https://www.socialprogress.org/social-progress-index#Methodology [consulta: 24-02-2025].
HABERMAS, J. (1992): Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp [Between Facts and Norms].
HABERMAS, J. (2022): “Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere”. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 145–171.
doi:10.1177/02632764221112341
HARPER, T. (2017): “The big data public and its problems: Big data and the structural transformation of the public sphere”. New Media & Society, 19(9), 1424–1439. doi:10.1177/1461444816642167
HONNETH, A. (1996): The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
INE (2021): España en cifras 2021. Instituto Nacional de Estadística [Spain in Figures]. Disponible en http://www.ine.es/prodyser/espa_cifras [consulta: 24-02-2025].
KRAUS, S., P. JONES, N. KAILER, A. WEINMANN, N. CHAPARRO-BANEGAS & N. ROIG-TIERNO (2021): “Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research”. SAGE Open, 11(3)
doi: /10.1177/21582440211047576
LEGATUM INSTITUTE FOUNDATION (2023): The 2023 Legatum Prosperity Index. Disponible en https://docs.prosperity.com/7116/7757/0247/The_2023_Legatum_Prosperity_Overview_report.pdf [consulta: 24-02-2025].
MAGGINO, F. (Ed.). (2017a): Complexity in society: From indicators’ construction to their synthesis. Switzerland: Springer.
MAGGINO, F. (2017b): “Developing indicators and managing the complexity”. In F. MAGGINO (Ed.), Complexity in society: From indicators’ construction to their synthesis (pp. 87–114). Switzerland: Springer.
Mansouri, F. & A. Elias (2025): “Pluralist diversity governance: deepening the multiculturalism-interculturalism nexus”. Comparative Migration Studies, 13, 23 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-025-00446-y
MAZZIOTA, M. & A. PARETO (2017): “Synthesis of indicators: The composite indicators approach”. In F. MAGGINO (Ed.), Complexity in society: From indicators’ construction to their synthesis (pp. 159–192). Switzerland: Springer.
Mau, S., LUX, T., & L. WESTHEUSER (2023): Triggerpunkte: Konsens und Konflikt in der Gegenwartsgesellschaft. Warum Gendersternchen und Lastenfahrräder so viele Menschen triggern. Berlin, Germany: Suhrkamp.
MICHALOS, A. C., B. SMALE, R. LABONTÉ, N. MUHARJARINE, K. SCOTT, K. MOORE, . . . A.S. BROOKER & I. HYMAN (2011): The Canadian Index of Wellbeing. Disponible en https://uwaterloo.ca/canadian-index-wellbeing/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Canadian_Index_of_Wellbeing-TechnicalPaper-FINAL.pdf [consulta: 24-02-2025].
MÜLLER, J.W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
NEZ, H. (2012): “For a public sociology on participatory democracy. Reflexive feedback on research conducted in an association”. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 70(Extra 2), 185–208. doi:10.3989/ris.2012.02.09
NORRIS, P. & R. INGLEHART (2019): Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and the rise of authoritarian populism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OECD (2013): OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. OECD Publishing. Disponible en https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2013/03/oecd-guidelines-on-measuring-subjective-well-being_g1g28641/9789264191655-en.pdf [consulta: 24-02-2025]. doi:10.1787/9789264191655-en
PIKETTY, T. (2017): Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
PUTNAM, R. D. (2000): Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster
QUARANTA, M. (2018): “The meaning of democracy to citizens across European countries and the factors involved”. Social Indicators Research, 136(3), 859–880. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1427-x
Rawls, J. (1971): A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
SAISANA, M. & S. TARANTOLA (2002): State-of-the-art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator Development. European Commission. Disponible en https://op.europa.eu/publication-detail/-/publication/9253d939-b47b-4428-b792-619e6b6c8645 [consulta: 24-02-2025].
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9253d939-b47b-4428-b792-619e6b6c8645
SAISANA, M., S. TARANTOLA & A. SALTELLI (2005): “Uncertainty and sensitivity techniques are tools for analysing and validating composite indicators”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 168(2), 307–323. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00350.x
Shaw, A. (2019): Intergenerational fairness in post-crisis europe: A comparative study. Sheffield Political Economy Institute (SPERI)- Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS).
TERZI, S., A. OTOIU, E. GRIMACCIA, M. MAZZIOTTA & A. PARETO (2021): Open issues in composite indicators: A starting point and a reference on some state-of-the-art issues. Disponible en
http://romatrepress.uniroma3.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/open-togmp-2.pdf [consulta: 24-02-2025].
United Nations Development Program. (2022): Human Development Report 2021/2022: Uncertain Times, Unsettled lives. Shaping our Future in a Transforming World.
Disponible en https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-document/hdr2021-22reportenglish_0.pdf [consulta: 24-02-2025].
Van Uffelen, N. (2022). Revisiting recognition in energy justice. Energy Research &Amp; Social Science, 92 https://10.1016/j.erss.2022.102764
WALKER, G. (2009): “Beyond distribution and proximity: Exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice”. Antipode, 41 (4) 614–636.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00691.x
Ward, S., MCBRIDE, M., BYNNER, C., & I. CORBETT (2024): “Building recognition, redistribution, and representation in disadvantaged neighbourhoods: Exploring the potential of youth activism in Scotland”. Social Inclusion, 12 https://10.17645/si.8476
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 José A. López-Ruiz, Sara Mora, Agustín Blanco
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Los autores que publican en esta revista están de acuerdo con los siguientes términos:a) Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo al igual que licenciado bajo una Licencia Internacional Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
b) Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente las versiones pre-print (versión antes de ser evaluada) y/o post-print (versión evaluada y aceptada para su publicación) de sus obras antes de su publicación, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión más temprana y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica.
