SUBJECTIVE LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG URBAN MALAY CIVIL SERVANTS IN MALAYSIA: A QUALITATIVE STUDY

Öz

Quality of life (QOL) has two main dimensions: objective and subjective. Both dimensions are equally important in determining the overall quality of life of a person (Mahadzirah et al., 2008). Hence, a comprehensive measure of people’s life satisfaction should ideally take into account these two dimensions. Empirical data for the measure of quality of life in Malaysia however has largely employed objective indicators (MQLI, 2004) and were used mainly in quantitative research. This situation has left research on subjective life satisfaction or well-being largely unexplored or limited. In light of the above, one may ask: if the MQLI has shown high score on the objective indicators, how far does this score reflect upon the people’s subjective life satisfaction. This study thus focuses on exploring subjective life satisfaction among urban Malay civil servants in Malaysia. Being qualitative in nature, the research is concerned mainly with the emic than the etic views and perspectives (Merriam, 2009). Framed withing a modified Allardt’s model of welfare and MQLI, the study explores the subjective meaning of life satisfaction among the staff members of a Malaysian public university namely Universiti Teknologi MARA or UiTM. Sixteen respondents from four different categories of the University’s administrative staff working at its main campus in Shah Alam, Selangor were engaged in the research. Data collected via in-depth interviews were later verified through written feedback validation (WFV) form. Preliminary findings have shown that the responses centered around two main themes namely satisfying non-living needs and satisfying the living needs with the former being the main priority of the respondents. These findings have significant bearing upon development policy in Malaysia

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Subjective Life Satisfaction and Well-Being, Urban Malay Civil Servants, Malaysian Quality of Life Index (MQLI)

Kaynakça

1. Allardt, Erik (1993), “Having, Loving, Being: An Alternative to the Swedish
2. Model of Welfare Research”, (in: Martha Nussbaum, Amartya Sen Ed. The Quality of Life), Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 88-94. Andrews, Frank M. & Withey, Stephen B. (1976), Social Indicators of Well
3. Being: Americans’ Perceptions of Life Quality, New York: Plenum Press. Appleton, Simon and Lina Song (2008), "Life Satisfaction in Urban China:
4. Components and Determinants”, World Development, Vol 36, No. 11, pp. 2325
5. Bloomberg, Linda Dale & Volpe, Marie ( 2008), Completing Your Qualitative
6. Dissertation: A Roadmap From Beginning to End, USA: Sage Publications Campbell, Angus, Converse Philip E. & Rodgers, Willard L. (1976), The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7. Creswell, John W. (2007), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
8. Among Five Approaches (2 ed.), Singapore: Sage Publications. Diener, Ed & Suh, Eunkook (1997), “Measuring Quality of Life: Economic,

9. Social and Subjective Indicators”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 40, Issue 1-2, pp. 189-216. Diener, Ed and Biswas-Diener ( 2002), “Will Money Increase Subjective Well
10. Being?: A literature Review and Guide to Needed Research”, Social Indicators Research, vol. 57, pp. 119-169. Easterlin, Richard A (1995), “Will Raising the Income of all Increase the happiness of all? “, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 27, pp. 48.
11. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department (2004), Malaysian Quality of Life 2004, http:// www. epu.gov. my, ( Assessed 1.6.2010).
12. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department (2011), Malaysian Quality of Life, htpp//www.epu.gov.my , (Assessed 3.5.2012)
13. Ellison, C. G and Gay, D,(1990), “ Region, Religious Commitment and life satisfaction among Black American”, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 31, Issue 1, pp. 127-147.
14. King, Nigel & Horrocks, Christine (2010), Interviews in Qualitative Research,
15. London: Sage Publications. Liao, P.S (2009), “Parallels Between Objective Indicators and Subjective
16. Perceptions of Quality of Life: A Study of Metropolitan and County Areas in Taiwan”, Social Indicator Research, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 99–114. Liu, Li (2006), “Quality of Life as a Social Representation in China: A Qualitative
17. Study”, Social Indicator Research, Vol. 75,pp. 217-240. Mahadzirah Mohamad, Sulaiman Md Yassin and Wan Norhayati Mohamed (2008), Quality of Life- Marketing: An Introduction, Terengganu: UMT Publisher.
18. Merriam, Sharan B. (2009), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation( 2nd ed.), USA: John Wiley & Sons.
19. Miles, Matthew B. & Huberman, A. Michael (1994), An Expanded Sourcebook:
20. Qualitative Data Analysis ( 2nd ed.), USA: Sage Publications. Punch, Keith F, (2005), Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches ( 2. ed), London: Sage Publications.
21. Rapley, Mark (2003), Quality of Life Research: A Critical Introduction, London: Sage Publications.
22. Stake, Robert E. (2010), Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work, New
23. York: The Guildford Press. Tenth Malaysian Plan (2011-2015), http//www.epu.gov.my, ( Assessed 07.2010) UN http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2960.,( Assessed 3.05.2012) Happiness Report (2011),
24. Veenhoven, Ruut (2008), “Sociological Theories of Subjective Well being,”( in:
25. Eid & Larsen. The Science of Subjective Well-Being”, New York: Guilford Press. Veenhoven, Ruut (1995), "The Cross-National Pattern of Happiness: Test of
26. Predictions Implied in Three Theories of Happiness”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 34, Issue 1, pp. 33-68.