@article{aup:/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2016.2.HOUW, author = "van Houwelingen, Pepijn", title = "Indicatoren voor sociale cohesie", journal= "Mens & Maatschappij", year = "2016", volume = "91", number = "2", pages = "153-171", doi = "https://doi.org/10.5117/MEM2016.2.HOUW", url = "https://www.aup-online.com/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2016.2.HOUW", publisher = "Amsterdam University Press", issn = "1876-2816", type = "Journal Article", keywords = "case study", keywords = "methodology", keywords = "Japan", keywords = "Social cohesion", keywords = "operationalization", abstract = "Abstract Indicators for social cohesion. Japan as a special case and its implications. How to measure social cohesion? There are, in the literature, two main methods for measuring social cohesion: one can measure trust or one can measure civic participation in different kinds of groups. It will be argued that both methods appear to suffer from two biases. First, universal forms of social cohesion are prioritized. Second, in general, perceptions are measured instead of actual behaviour. These two biases are not without consequences, especially with regard to comparative research. Using Japan as an example it is shown that these biases indeed exist and that the use of other indicators would result in quite different outcomes.", }