2010
Preliminary Report
v. 10-4-10, 3705 words
UCR Transnational Social Movements Research Working
Group[1]
Gary Coyne, Juliann Allison,
Ellen Reese, Katja Guenther, Ian Breckenridge-Jackson, Edwin Elias, Ali Lairy,
James Love, Anthony Roberts, Natasha Rodojcic, Miryam Ruvalcaba, Elizabeth
Schwarz, and Christopher Chase-Dunn
University of California-Riverside
Institute for Research on World-Systems
Irows
Working Paper # 64 at https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows64/irows64.htm
Short Summary of
Results: Five
hundred sixty-nine of the attendees at the 2010 USSF in
There were more students (25% of
respondents) and fewer full-time employees (33%) than one might expect. The
group was highly educated, with more than one participant in four having a
graduate or other advanced degree. The median household income of respondents
is very similar to that of the
Comparing the surveyed attendees
at the USSF10 with those surveyed at the USSF07 in
How this
Report Was Generated
Seven members of our UCR research
team, with help from volunteers from the Documentation and Evaluation
Committee, collected a total of 569 written surveys[2]
from attendees of the 2010 U.S. Social Forum from June 22-26 2010 in
A more detailed description of
the sampling procedure can be found in the Appendix.
We have made an effort here to
compare our survey results with the general population of the
How Did People Hear
about the USSF? Why did they Come?
Table
1 shows the results of an item that was requested by the USSF10 National
Planning Committee to find out how attendees found out about the USSF10. A
similar question is included on the post-meeting web survey, so we will be able
to compare our results with the results obtained from the web survey.
|
Table 1: How Did
Participants Find Out About the 2010 |
||
|
|
Number of Respondents |
Percent * |
|
(Fellow) members of an organization or association |
303 |
54% |
|
Friends and/or acquaintances |
263 |
47% |
|
People at your school or work |
157 |
28% |
|
Alternative online media |
151 |
27% |
|
Online social networks (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) |
131 |
23% |
|
Advertisement, flyers, and/or posters |
69 |
13% |
|
Family member and/or partner |
57 |
10% |
|
Newspapers(s) (print or online) |
38 |
7% |
|
Radio or television |
27 |
5% |
|
Note: Respondents
were allowed to select more than open option, so actual responses may not sum
to 100%. |
||
* Respondents were allowed to select more than one option, so responses do not sum to 100%.
When asked which of the channels of information above was
most important, respondents placed
the most importance on fellow members of organizations or associations (20%),
and friends or acquaintances (16%). While some respondents rated people at
school or work (9%) or online social networks (5%) as most important, no other
choices were selected by more than 4% of respondents.
Networking and information-sharing and learning the
biggest reasons why the respondents say they attended the USSF10.
|
Table 2: Reasons for
Attending the 2010 |
||
|
|
Number of Respondents |
Percent* |
|
Learn about the issues and share information |
450 |
81% |
|
Network, meet people, or join a group |
419 |
75% |
|
Organize, plan actions, or carry out
joint initiatives |
327 |
59% |
|
Get inspiration |
305 |
55% |
|
Learn about other cultures or enjoy performances |
226 |
40% |
|
Fun or leisure |
177 |
32% |
|
Research |
141 |
25% |
|
Work |
125 |
22% |
|
Recruit new members |
88 |
16% |
|
Document it or cover the story |
89 |
16% |
|
Help with interpreting |
38 |
7% |
|
Other |
48 |
9% |
|
Note: Respondents
were allowed to select more than open option, so actual responses may not sum
to 100%. |
||
* Respondents were allowed to select more than one option, so responses do not sum to 100%.
Who Attended the
Forum?
Basic Demographics
Regarding age, Table 5 shows
that 60% of the attendees in 2010 were between the ages 18 and 35 years old,
and half of all respondents were between the ages of 18 to 29. Compared to the
|
Table 3: Age Structure of 2010 and
2007 |
|||
|
|
USSF 2010 |
USSF 2007 |
US Census 2000 |
|
18-19 |
4% |
4% |
7%* |
|
20-24 |
28% |
20% |
7% |
|
25-34 |
28% |
31% |
14% |
|
35-44 |
12% |
15% |
16% |
|
45-54 |
9% |
12% |
13% |
|
55-59 |
5% |
7% |
5% |
|
60-64 |
6% |
6% |
4% |
|
65-74 |
6% |
4% |
7% |
|
75-84 |
1% |
2% |
4% |
|
85> |
<1% |
0 |
1% |
|
Median Age |
29 |
31 |
35 |
|
Note: *Includes
the age group 15-17; those under the age of 15 make up 21% of the |
|||
Women’s representation in the
2010 US Social Forum sample is slightly higher than the
|
Table 4: Gender of 2010 and
2007 US Social Forum Participants |
|||
|
|
USSF 2010 |
USSF
2007 |
US
Census 2000 |
|
Female |
56% |
61% |
51% |
|
Male |
41% |
37% |
49% |
As mentioned in the summary
above, significantly more women than men attended the USS10. But this
difference was even greater among our respondents at the 2007 USSF meeting in
Regarding sexual orientation Table 4 shows a similar pattern at
both the 2010 and 2007 USSF, but reliable data for the in the U.S. as a whole
is lacking.
|
Table 5: Sexual Orientation Gender of 2010 and 2007
US Social Forum Participants |
||
|
|
USSF 2010 |
USSF 2007 |
|
Heterosexual |
66% |
68% |
|
Queer |
11% |
12% |
|
Bisexual |
5% |
6% |
|
Homosexual |
5% |
6% |
|
Other/Declined to Answer |
13% |
8% |
Family and Household Information
Regarding household type and size, most
respondents at the 2010 USSF reported being single, as we can see in Table Six.
|
Table 6: Current Relationship Status of 2010 US
Social Forum Participants |
|
|
|
USSF 2010 |
|
Single |
54% |
|
Married |
16% |
|
Cohabitating |
12% |
|
Divorced |
6% |
|
Widower |
2% |
|
Separated |
2% |
|
Note: Respondents were allowed to select more
than open option, so actual responses may not sum to 100%. |
|
* Respondents were allowed to select more than one option, so responses do not sum to 100%.
The pattern in current
relationship status for 2010 USSF respondents was very similar to that of
respondents for 2007, although there were slightly different options. In 2007,
single remained the most common (55%), followed by married (24%), although no
option of cohabitating was offered to respondents in 2007. Direct comparisons
to the US population as a whole are somewhat difficult, but we can say that
significantly more individuals, over 15, in the general population (54%) are
married, and that not as many individuals fall into categories that would
correspond to “single” - the never married (25%) or separated (2%).
A large majority respondents at the 2010 USSF (81%)
reported having no children under the age of 18. Respondents who did have
children typically had just one or two, with only a handful of respondents
having three or more children. These
figures are similar to the 2007 USSF (82% had no children), but appear to
differ from the
The average number of persons
in the 2010 USSF respondent’s household was 3.19. This is a little larger
than the mean household for the
Patterns in Work and Levels of Income
Respondents at the 2010 USSF were
less likely to indicate they were employed full-time, and somewhat less likely
to be employed part-time or self-employed than were respondents at the 2007
USSF. The increase in unemployed respondents does not, however, seem to account
for this decrease. Effects of the economic recession are dealt with in more
depth in the last section of this report.
|
Table 7: Current Employment Status of 2010 and 2007 |
||
|
|
USSF 2010 |
USSF 2007 |
|
Employed
Full-time |
33% |
46% |
|
Student |
25% |
28% |
|
Employed Part-time |
16% |
18% |
|
Unemployed |
13% |
9% |
|
Self-employed |
11% |
16% |
|
Employed Temporarily |
9% |
10% |
|
Dependent on Family income
or savings |
6% |
10% |
|
Volunteer |
12% |
15% |
|
Note: Respondents
were allowed to select more than open option, so actual responses may not sum
to 100%. |
||
The median household income was
between $40,000 and $51,000. (Respondents were given categories, as opposed to
being asked to report a specific dollar amount.) This is very similar to the
Education Levels
The attendees of the 2010 USSF
show a high level of education when compared to the US population as a whole,
and the differences are most apparent in the fact that almost three times as
many individuals with graduate or professional degrees are at the 2010 USSF
(and 2007 as well) when compared to the population at large. Differences are striking at the other end of
the spectrum as well: those with high school diplomas or less make up nearly
half of the
|
Table 8: Level of Education of 2010 and 2007 US Social Forum
Participants |
|||
|
|
USSF 2010 |
USSF
2007 |
US
Census 2000 |
|
High school diploma, or less |
11% |
11% |
48% |
|
Some college, no degree |
16% |
20% |
21% |
|
Bachelors |
30% |
25% |
16% |
|
Graduate or professional degree |
28 % |
28 % |
9% |
In terms of field of study,
most USSF attendees have had training in the social sciences (38%), while the
arts (9%) and the “Other” (14%) were the next most common fields of study. This
is very similar to the 2007 USSF, but data for the
Race and Ethnicity
African American, Indigenous,
and Asian representation in the USSF closely resemble their representation in
the general
|
Table 9: Race and Ethnicity
of 2010 and 2007 |
|||
|
|
USSF 2010 |
USSF 2007 |
US Census 2000 |
|
Black |
11% |
13% |
12% |
|
Middle Eastern |
<1% |
1% |
- |
|
South Asian |
2% |
3% |
- |
|
Indigenous |
<1% |
<1% |
1% |
|
Latino/Hispanic |
14% |
15% |
13% |
|
East Asian |
3% |
1% |
4% |
|
White |
54% |
49% |
69% |
|
Pacific Islander |
<1% |
<1% |
<1% |
|
Multiracial |
10% |
10% |
2% |
|
Other |
3% |
6% |
6% |
Religious
Preferences and Orientations
When asked about their
religious preferences those sampled at the 2010 USSF most often chose Spiritual
(20%), followed by Catholic (12%), Agnostic (11%), and Atheist (11%). The
combined choices of Protestant and “Other Christian,” make up just less than
10% of respondents, and no other single answer (including Islam, Judaism,
Buddhism and Hinduism) was chosen by more than 5% of respondents.
Although it might be fair to
characterize the 2010 USSF attendees as an unreligious group based on the fact
that just under half the respondents (49%) said religion was extremely, or very
unimportant, it should also be pointed out that a fair number of respondents
(18%) fell at the other end (saying religion was very important).
At the
2007 USSF the pattern was much the same, although the questions asked were
somewhat different, so the results are not be strictly comparable. Agnostic (13%) and Atheist (10%) were common,
as was Catholic (15%) and Protestants and other Christian (12%). In terms of
intensity, most (50%) said they were not religious, with some (32%) being
somewhat religious and few (12%) being very religious.
Points of Origin
The
vast majority (87%) of our sample reported being US residents, although there
certainly were attendees from other countries, with Canada (2%) and Mexico (1%)
being the next two most common. A small but notable number (8%) reported being
from the greater
At the same time, however, the 2010
US Social Forum saw a higher proportion of foreign-born participants (at 18% of
attendees) than in the
How has the Financial
Crisis Affected USSF Attendees?
Three questions asked about how events, largely stemming
from the recent economic crisis, had affected respondents, their households,
and their organizations since 2007. These questions were not asked
in 2007, and comparing to the
|
Table 10: Impact of US Recession on Individuals
Attending the 2010 US Social Forum |
|
|
|
Percent |
|
Unemployed |
35% |
|
Reduced Working Hours |
22% |
|
Reduced/Skipped Meals |
18% |
|
Changed Home |
17% |
|
Pay Cut |
16% |
|
Increased Working Hours |
14% |
|
Eviction |
5% |
|
Home Foreclosure |
3% |
|
Note: Respondents were
allowed to select more than open option, so actual responses may not sum to
100%. |
|
|
Table 11: Impact of US Recession on Households of 2010 US Social Forum Participants |
|
|
|
Percent |
|
Unemployed |
51% |
|
Reduced Working Hours |
36% |
|
Pay Cut |
29% |
|
Changed Home |
20% |
|
Increased Working Hours |
16% |
|
Reduced/Skipped Meals |
12% |
|
Home Foreclosure |
11% |
|
Eviction |
10% |
|
Note: Respondents were
allowed to select more than open option, so actual responses may not sum to
100%. |
|
We also asked respondents how the economic downturn had affected
their organizations, and not surprisingly many repotted losing resources or
shifting the types of issues that they were working on.
|
Table 12: Impact of US Recession on Political
Organizations Reported by 2010 US Social Forum Participants |
|
|
|
Percent |
|
Lost Material Resources |
43% |
|
Shifted the Issues worked on |
31% |
|
Shifted Goals and Priorities |
24% |
|
Shifted the Other Kinds of Orgs. Worked with |
24% |
|
Spend More Time Responding the Members Needs |
19% |
|
Membership Participation has Increased |
13% |
|
Gained Material Resources |
5% |
|
Other/Don’t Know |
23% |
|
Note: Respondents were
allowed to select more than open option, so actual responses may not sum to
100%. |
|
Suggestions from
Respondents
The
survey also gave respondents an opportunity to suggest changes they might like
to see in how the forum was planned and conducted. Many respondents did make
such suggestions, and some of the common themes that emerged were as follow:
How
Workshops were Organized and Conducted:
-Fewer
workshops with coordination between facilitators of similar topics
-Transparent
goals about what they want to achieve
-Better
communication about canceled workshops
-Repeat
workshops
-Spread
workshops on the same topic out throughout the week
-More
large group or networking events
-YouTube
videos of workshops
-More
complete descriptions of each event/workshop
-More
diversity in active organizers not just presenters.
The
Costs of the Forum
-More
accessible transportation
-More
food options
-Cheaper
housing
-More
information about airport shuttles
Connectedness
-More
regional forums
-More
connection to WSF
-Create
socially conscious partnerships
-More
local participation (including elected officials)
Communication
and Logistics
-Use of
Smartphone app
-Make it
part of the media at global, national, and community levels and use social
media.
-Expedited
registration process
-More
volunteers/info booths
References
Chase-Dunn,
Christopher, Ellen Reese, Mark Herkenrath, Rebecca Giem, Erika Guttierrez,
Linda Kim, and Christine Petit. 2007 [forthcoming]. “North-South Contradictions and Bridges at
the World Social Forum,” in NORTH AND SOUTH IN THE WORLD POLITICAL ECONOMY,
edited by Rafael Reuveny and William R. Thompson. Blackwell.
Chase-Dunn,
Christopher and Ellen Reese 2008 “Global party formation in world historical
perspective” in Katarina Sehm-Patomaki and Marko Ulvila (eds.)
Global Party Formation. London
Smith, Jackie, Marina Karides, et al. 2007.
The World Social Forum and the Challenges of Global Democracy.
Chase-Dunn, C. and R.E. Niemeyer 2009 “The world revolution
of 20xx” Pp. 35-57 in Mathias Albert, Gesa Bluhm, Han Helmig, Andreas Leutzsch,
Jochen Walter (eds.) Transnational Political Spaces. Campus Verlag:
Frankfurt/
Chase-Dunn, C. and Terry Boswell 2009 “Semiperipheral
devolopment and global democracy” PP 213-232 in Owen Worth and Phoebe Moore, Globalization
and the “New” Semiperipheries, Palgrave.
Chase-Dunn, C
and Matheu Kaneshiro 2009 “Stability and Change in the contours of
Alliances Among movements in the social forum process” Pp. 119-133 in David
Fasenfest (ed.) Engaging Social Justice.
Reese, Ellen, Christopher Chase-Dunn, Kadambari Anantram,
Gary Coyne, Matheu Kaneshiro, Ashley N. Koda, Roy Kwon and Preeta Saxena 2008
“Research Note: Surveys of World Social Forum participants show influence of
place and base in the global public sphere” Mobilization: An International
Journal. 13,4:431-445.
APPENDIX: Data and
Survey Procedures
The
logic of statistics requires that generalizations about a whole population (the
attendees of the USSF10) require that a sample of attendees should be truly
random. But in order to select a completely random sample it would be necessary
to have a full list of all participants at these meetings. That was
unavailable. The survey was 8 1/2 pages long, and usually took more than 30
minutes to complete. Given the time and resource constraints, it was
logistically impossible to survey every fifth person as briefer surveys of
social movement participants have done. Instead, we collected as many surveys
as we could, often during times when people were waiting in lines. To maximize
the representativeness of our sample, the survey was mainly conducted at the
registration lines, but we also collected surveys at a broad range of venues
where all participants were welcome: the lobby area, workshops, evening
plenaries, the People’s Movement Assemblies, organizations’ tables, and
cultural performances.
Despite our best efforts to obtain a representative
sample, it is likely that certain sampling biases resulted, partly due to the
number of surveys that we brought with us in each language. We may have
over-sampled Spanish-speaking participants and participants with fewer
responsibilities and more free time. In a few cases, we read the survey
questions and assistes participants in responding. But we probably
under-sampled attendees that could not read, were not literate in Spanish or
English, or those who were uncomfortable with completing a written survey. Despite these sampling biases, our survey
results will provide one of the best available portraits of participants at the
2010 US Social Forum. We may correct for
sampling biases by weighting our results based on the registration data that we
have been able to obtain.