The purpose of the survey was to analyze the factors and prevalence of solidarity practices among repatriates from CIS countries.
The object of the study is Russian-speaking returnees, the subject is solidarity practices and their determinants.
Three levels of solidarity practices are considered: the micro, meso, and macro levels. Microsocial practices of solidarity refer to informal proactive activity in solving common problems, as well as mutual assistance and support of an interpersonal nature. Mesosocial practices – proactive volunteer activities within non-state structures and movements. Macrosocial practices are understood as participation in mass public-political actions in order to influence policy and defend group interests.
The analysis of practices was carried out through the study of subjective and objective parameters of their implementation. Subjective assessments were revealed by comparing the practices of solidarity, mutual assistance, and support implemented in the “Russian community” with similar practices among returnees from other countries and sabers – Israelis born in Israel. Objective characteristics were indicated by questions about the implementation of such practices by respondents themselves and their environment.
The main hypothesis of the study concerned testing the assumption about the influence on solidarity practices:
(a) The perceptions of the Russian-speaking population of Israel about the policies implemented in the country, the ethno-national, economic and social situation and its prospects,
b) Russian-speaking Israelis’ perceptions of Russian Aliyah as a specific social group, including in the structure of Israeli society,
e) the experience of mutual aid and support,
d) material prosperity and the number of years lived in the country.
TESTING METHODS
The study was conducted by questionnaire survey (mass survey).
The prevalence of attitudes and practices of solidarity was determined by analyzing the linear distribution of the data (frequency analysis).
The determinants of practices were identified based on a correlation analysis carried out by the Spearman method. A two-way (direct (+) or inverse (-)) correlation was determined, where ** – correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, * – correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
To qualitatively characterize the identified correlations, data contingency tables were formed and analyzed.
Statistical analysis was performed using the software IBM SPSS Statisics -2011.
In order to compare heterogeneous data, indices were determined, the method of calculation of which is stipulated in the text in each case.
The questionnaire consists of 33 questions, including a passport. The questions are formulated in such a way as to minimize the possibility of influencing the respondents’ opinion. In particular, they offer an equal number of positive and negative positions (for example: “yes”, “rather yes than no”, “rather no than yes”, “no”). Virtually all of the questions do not contain language that carries only negative or positive connotations (that is, there are no questions like “Do you agree that things are worse in such and such a group than in others / is it true that others have a better situation than we do? On the contrary, if there is a negative statement in the question, then a counterbalancing positive statement is given immediately to avoid influencing the respondent’s answer choice. There is always an equal opportunity to give both a positive and a negative answer, or to mark the option “Difficult to answer”.
SELECT
The sample was quota-based, calculated on the basis of 1,000 people, which implies a sampling error of no more than 3.8%. Quoting was done according to the following parameters: gender, age in years (18-25; 26-35; 36-45; 46-55; 56-65; 66-75; 76+), place of residence (north, south, and center of the country. Samaria was regarded as the north of the country, and Judea as the center).
To calculate the sample, official data for the year 2021 were requested from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics.
Distribution of Russian-speaking Israelis by age, gender, and
regions of Israel
| Region | Paul | Respondents 18+ | 18-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46-55 | 56-65 | 66-75 | 76+ |
| Jerusalem | total | 35687 | 1359 | 4671 | 6332 | 6186 | 6038 | 5982 | 5120 |
| husband | 15340 | 612 | 2202 | 2876 | 2802 | 2578 | 2417 | 1853 | |
| wives | 20348 | 747 | 2469 | 3456 | 3383 | 3460 | 3565 | 3267 | |
| North | total | 97320 | 3707 | 12527 | 17128 | 17289 | 18126 | 16599 | 11944 |
| husband | 43043 | 1945 | 6146 | 7832 | 7909 | 7861 | 7042 | 4309 | |
| wives | 54277 | 1763 | 6381 | 9297 | 9380 | 10266 | 9557 | 7635 | |
| Haifa | total | 149085 | 6055 | 22463 | 27719 | 24859 | 25562 | 24907 | 17520 |
| husband | 65511 | 3053 | 10823 | 13067 | 11044 | 10963 | 10240 | 6323 | |
| wives | 83574 | 3002 | 11640 | 14652 | 13815 | 14600 | 14667 | 11197 | |
| Center | total | 221164 | 6863 | 30846 | 45752 | 40710 | 36344 | 36518 | 24131 |
| husband | 97979 | 3399 | 14207 | 20789 | 18880 | 16062 | 15575 | 9067 | |
| wives | 123185 | 3464 | 16640 | 24963 | 21830 | 20282 | 20943 | 15064 | |
| Tel Aviv | total | 153431 | 5960 | 28994 | 33782 | 26594 | 23190 | 20664 | 14247 |
| husband | 66971 | 2722 | 13319 | 15233 | 12034 | 9938 | 8545 | 5178 | |
| wives | 86461 | 3238 | 15675 | 18548 | 14560 | 13253 | 12119 | 9069 | |
| South | total | 188029 | 6186 | 27359 | 33282 | 33114 | 34516 | 31216 | 22354 |
| husband | 83478 | 3154 | 13260 | 15658 | 15092 | 15189 | 13016 | 8108 | |
| wives | 104551 | 3032 | 14099 | 17624 | 18023 | 19327 | 18200 | 14246 | |
| Judea, Samaria | total | 18560 | 573 | 2483 | 4015 | 3648 | 3251 | 2695 | 1895 |
| husband | 8402 | 278 | 1172 | 1820 | 1743 | 1480 | 1192 | 718 | |
| wives | 10158 | 296 | 1311 | 2195 | 1906 | 1771 | 1503 | 1177 |