BIGMAC 3: 2006 EMAC/ANZMAC

Research Symposium

Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Australia

Wednesday 6 December 2006

What is the Set of Essential Australian Values?

Prof. John Rossiter, University of Wollongong

First we need to agree on the concept of a value – that is, what is a value? Milton Rokeach, a Yank rather than an Aussie, but let’s be value-free and open-minded here, has provided the most widely accepted definition of a value as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct [an “instrumental” value] or end-state of existence [a “terminal” value] is… preferable” (Rokeach 1973, p. 5). Instrumental values (how we should behave) and terminal values (what we should aspire to as goals for daily life) fit in general the sorts of abstract objects that Australian values are, as we shall see.

Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration, Andrew Robb, who is charged with designing the citizenship test and released the September 2006 discussion paper on behalf of the Australian Government, refers colloquially to values as “what makes Australia [Australians] tick” (Shanahan and McGarry 2006, p. 1). What the Australian Government and Mr Robb may not have realized, and what has not been widely publicized, is that an Australian Government department (the Department of Education, Science and Training, DEST has, last year in fact, already identified a list of nine values for “education in Australian schools” (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005). If these values, which I shall refer to as Australian Schooling Values, or ASVs, have been approved by the Australian Government for instilling in our school children, how could the values that we want prospective migrants to learn be any different?

But there are two problems with the ASVs. Firstly, the nine values are admirable but they are not specific to Australia. Secondly, as I will argue, they are not “what makes Australians tick.” To identify the real Australian values, I argue, following the view put forward by the patriotic Australian organization, the Eureka Council (2006), we have to look back to the first 80 years or so of rule of Australia by England – the so-called Convict Era – from whence came most of our “Real Aussie Values,” with just a few modern additions.

Rokeach’s Values compared with Australian Schooling Values. Rokeach (1973) identified and defined 18 instrumental values and 18 terminal values but what is little known is that he divided these theoretically into sub-classes (1973, p. 7-8). The sub-classes most relevant for comparison with the proposed Australian Schooling Values (2005) are the instrumental-moral values (as distinct from instrumental-competence values) and the terminal-social values (as distinct from the terminal-personal values). Instrumental-moral values are those that make you feel guilty if you behave counter to them. Terminal-social values are goals that affect other people, not just you. In Table 1, I’ve listed Rokeach’s eight instrumental-moral values and seven terminal-social values. I have also noted in the table which of these values are missing from the Australian Schooling Values list, which is given in Table 2 subsequently.

 Table 1. Rokeach’s (1973) instrumental-moral values and terminal-social values.

[M = missing from Australian Schooling Values, 2005.]

 Instrumental-moral values

1. Clean (i.e., neat, tidy) [M]

2. Forgiving (i.e., willing to pardon others)

3. Helpful (i.e., working for the welfare of others)

4. Honest (i.e., sincere, truthful)

5. Loving (i.e., affectionate, tender) [M]

6. Obedient (i.e., dutiful, respectful) [M]

7. Polite (i.e., courteous, well-mannered)

8. Responsible (i.e., dependable, reliable)

Terminal-social values

1. Equality (i.e., brotherhood, equal opportunity for all)

2. Family Security (i.e., preservation and happiness of the family unit*) [M]

3. Freedom (i.e., independence, free choice)

4. Mature Love (i.e., between husband and wife*) [M]

5. National Security (i.e., protection from attack) [M]

6. Social Recognition (i.e., respect, admiration by others) [M]

7. True Friendship (i.e., close companionship) [M]

* Explanations modified by author. Rokeach’s original explanations were, for Family Security, “taking care of loved ones,” which is off the focus on the family unit, and for Mature Love, “sexual and spiritual intimacy,” which mixes classically (back to Plato) lower and higher moral states.

 Table 2. Australian Schooling Values (2005), relation to Rokeach’s values, and relation to “Real Aussie” values.

4 2006 EMAC-ANZMAC Research Symposium

 Missing from the Australian Schooling Values list are the Rokeach instrumental-moral values of:

• Clean (neat, tidy), an omission which won’t make parents or city and neighbourhood residents too pleased;

• Loving (affectionate, tender), which is a privately okay but publicly “wimpy” value for Australians – except, apparently, on the sporting field;

• Obedient (dutiful, respectful), which, as we will see, is far too simplistic and unqualified to serve as a “Real Aussie Value” because we value disrespect of certain occupations.

 The following Rokeach terminal-social values are missing from the Australian Schooling Values list:

• Family Security (preservation and happiness of the family unit), which is a value that is widely shared by Australians, although it is not distinctly an “Aussie” value;

• Mature Love (between husband and wife), which is pretty much a universal value despite the legal recognition of gay marriages in some countries;

• National Security (protection from attack), which is a universal value and has become more so in the current world climate of fear of terrorism;

• Social Recognition (respect, admiration by others), which I would say is not an Australian value and is actually contradictory to one of the “Real Aussie Values” of discouraging “tall poppies”;

• True Friendship (close companionship), which is the basis, albeit a simple one, of the “Real Aussie Value” of Mateship.

 It may be noted that the Rokeach Values have explanatory components (the words in brackets – see Table 1 previously) but these explanatory components of the object (Rossiter, 2002) don’t actually serve any purpose because the importance ratings of the Rokeach Values are the same with or without the qualifying explanations (see the data in Rokeach, 1973, p. 32, on the re-test stability of values). The theoretical problem is that human values are far more abstract and complex than can be captured with one or two brief qualifying explanations.

 The Australian Schooling Values, as spelled out by the Department of Education, Science and Training, have the “opposite” problem. As shown in Table 3, in which the list of Australian Schooling Values is reproduced together with their “explanatory” accompaniments, the good author(s) at DEST have put their own particular “spin” on most of the values such that the explanations invoke other values in the Rokeach sense. Three obvious examples of this are:

• “Fair Go”: Pursue and protect the common good (which is Collectivism, a Hofstede cultural value, see Hofstede 1991, rather than one of Rokeach’s) where all people are treated fairly for a just society (Rokeach’s terminal-social value of Equality – of opportunity, which is indeed what “fair go” means).

• “Freedom”: Enjoy (!) all the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship (whatever they are) free from unnecessary interference or control (what is “unnecessary” if not unlawful interference and control?) and stand up for the rights of others (which is an instrumental-moral value, though it does not appear in Rokeach’s list, and which goes well beyond Freedom, which is a terminal-social value).

• “Responsibility”: Be accountable for one’s own actions (which seems to overlap with the explanation of the ASV of Integrity in Table 3); resolve differences in constructive, non-violent and peaceful ways (a complex mixture of three different Rokeach-type instrumental-moral values indicating how to act); contribute to society and to civic life (Collectivism again); take care of the environment (a vague, so-called “ecological” instrumental value which, incidentally, is not on any social scientist’s list of cultural values).

 Table 3. Australian Schooling Values with their explanatory components

(DEST, 2005)

1. Care and Compassion (care for self and others)

2. Doing Your Best (seek to accomplish something worthy and admirable, try hard, pursue excellence)

3. Fair Go (pursue and protect the common good where all people are treated fairly for a just society)

4. Freedom (enjoy all the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship free from unnecessary interference or control, and stand up for the rights of others)

5. Honesty and Trustworthiness (be honest, sincere and seek the truth)

6. Integrity (act in accordance with principles of moral and ethical conduct, ensure consistency between words and deeds)

7. Respect (treat others with consideration and regard, respect another person’s point of view)

8. Responsibility (be accountable for one’s own actions, resolve differences in constructive, non-violent and peaceful ways, contribute to society and to civic life, take care of the environment)

9. Understanding, Tolerance and Inclusion (be aware of others and their cultures, accept diversity within a democratic society, being included and including others)

 Obviously, understanding of, let alone adherence to, the Australian Schooling Values cannot be validly measured until these problems with their conceptual components are cleaned up.

Real Aussie Values. In Table 4, I have attempted to identify and articulate a tentative set of “Real Aussie Values,” or RAVs, that I, as an Australian social scientist and older Australian citizen, believe “really make Australians tick,” which is the criterion sought by Immigration Secretary Mr Andrew Robb. Most, but not all, were drawn from my interpretations of the values identified by the Eureka Council (2006) and by the informative website article on “convict era” values (authored as Convict Creations, 2006) as well as lots of readers’ comments and columnists’ opinions in our daily newspapers (see especially Evans, 2006). I propose these for your subjective evaluation as an audience, today, but I have a more systematic study planned in which Australian sociologists and social anthropologists will serve as expert judges to verify that each is a value held by the majority of Australian citizens. The tentative RAVs are categorized in terms of Rokeach’s four types of values (instrumental-moral, instrumental-competence, terminal-social, and terminal-individual) and, thereunder, are listed alphabetically.

 Table 4. Tentative “Real Aussie Values” (listed alphabetically under Rokeach’s headings)

Instrumental-moral	Instrumental-competence
• Defiant non-conformity (rebel, lovable larrikin)  • Disrespect academics  • Disrespect politicians  • Don’t be self-righteous (a wowser)  • Encourage those less able (underdogs, battlers)  • Help all others always (lend a hand, pitch in)  • Honesty (but “white” lying and “Robin Hood” cheating, such as tax evasion by little people or small businesses but not the rich or big businesses, are acceptable)  • Mateship (“mates” are close friends, other than family: be undyingly loyal in support, never betray them)  • Modesty in clothing is unimportant  • Religious privacy is important  • Respect the police  • Respect schoolteachers	• Don’t overworship symbols or monuments (though overworship is acceptable in the sporting arena)  • Laugh at yourself publicly (self-deprecating humor)  • Laugh at the misfortunes of others (sledging)  • Laugh at tragedies (gallows humor)  • Show fortitude and courage (ANZAC spirit)  • Show initiative  • Try your hardest at most things (see Work) • Work: (a) don’t work below the average expectation (don’t “bludge”); (b) average work is acceptable (“a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay”); (c) if you do work harder than average and achieve more, don’t boast about it (don’t be a “tall poppy”)
Terminal-social	Terminal-individual
• Censorship of “socio-politically incorrect” speech • Equal opportunity (“fair go”) • Equal outcomes (egalitarianism, no social prestige hierarchy)	• Be an optimist (“she’ll be right,” “no worries,” and believe that Australia is the “lucky” country) • Openly enjoy leisure (Australian psychologist Ronald Conway’s “land of the long weekend”)
• Freedom of assembly • Freedom of scatological, sexual, and blasphemous speech • Humanitarianism (“love thy neighbour, even if he’s thine enemy, as thyself” – metaphorically, of course) • Justice (equal punishment for crimes judged identical regardless of who commits them and equal compensation for those absolved of crimes regardless of who is absolved)  • National pride (patriotism)  • Not multiculturalism (most Australian citizens believe that no citizens should be “culture dualists” or “hyphenated Australians”)

How can they be defined for measurement purposes such as on a test?

 The Real Aussie Values are complex and subtle, as I think the descriptions in Table 4 demonstrate. They cannot be measured directly but can be measured in the form of situational behavioural scenarios representing several manifestations of each of the values. It has been reported by Australian newspaper columnists (e.g., Devine, 2006) that this approach has been employed in the citizenship test used by The Netherlands, which describes scenarios such as a topless young lady running out from the surf and two men kissing and then gives several multiple-choice alternatives as to what the “typical Dutch” person’s reaction would be. This is not true; such scenarios (and these are the two most extreme ones) are in fact on a DVD received by applicants to give them an overview of Dutch customs, or life in The Netherlands, and nothing in this DVD is covered in the actual test (see www.ind.nl/EN/verblijfwijzer, a posting current from January 2004). However, the Australian test, presumably, would ask “what most Australians would do” in these situations.

 How should the test be scored?

 Good question! Does one qualify as a suitable migrant if one understands (gets the “correct” answer on) 50% of the values items? Or does it require 100%, allowing for a couple of misses, to claim that one fully understands what it means to be a “Real Aussie”? This is an extremely important practical question that Mr Robb will have to answer. Ironically, it implies values in deciding the criterion: if you “Try your hardest” (a RAV) or “Try your best” (an ASV), then presumably any score would qualify one as long as one testified to “trying hard”!

References

Australian Government (2006). Discussion Paper: Consideration of the Merits of Introducing a Formal Citizenship Test. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, September.

Convict Creations (2006). Convict legacy (www.convictcreations.com).

Department of Education, Science and Training (2005). National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Devine, F. (2006). “Proposed citizenship quiz a double dutch trivial pursuit.” The Australian, September 29, p. 13.

Eureka Council (2006). What are Australian values? Web document, accessed September 19, 2006 (at www.eurekacouncil.com.au).

Evans, L. (2006). “Tolerance is cheap takeaway when Strine comes at face value.” The Australian, September 19, p. 13.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Newspoll Market Research (2006). Survey on a proposed Australian citizenship test, conducted September 22-24 (available at www.newspoll.com.au).

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

Rossiter, J.R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305-335.

Shanahan, D. and McGarry, A. (2006). “No value in migrant English tests, says Petro.” The Australian, October 5, p. 1.

Spillane, R. (2006). Australian values: management and mateship. Talk delivered at Macquarie Graduate School of Management, April 7 (summary available at www.mgsm.edu.au).