European Proceedings Logo

Reflective Analysis Of The Subjects’ Readiness Levels For Inclusive Economic Realities

Table 2: Data from a respondent’s survey on the understanding of the "inclusive economy" and their readiness for inclusive economic realities.

Readiness level elements Respondents’answers
Economics tudents Educational workers studying in a specialty related to the management of educational processes
Before the experiment After the experiment Before the experiment After the experiment
Dominants of verbal associations to the term "inclusive economy" 87 % − disabled peopleinclusion in production13 % other point universals 52 % open economy;44% Sustainable economic growth;4 % employment problem solution 55% − special kids;40% their parents5% other point universals 70 % possibilities;10 % stability;10 % employment problem solution;10 % socialization
Associations dominants of color and shape to the term "inclusive economy" 91 % red, orange yellow, burgundy;9 % other point universals 89 % green, turquoise, sky blue, lilac, apple-green;11 % other point universals 91%red;9 % other point universals 92 % green, turquoise, sky blue, lilac, apple-green;8 % other point universals
98 % triangle, line, polygon parallelogram;2 % circles, ellipsoids, ovals, "puddle shapes", "pear-shaped" 87%- triangles squares straight lines, trapezoids, rhombuses;13% circles, ellipsoids, ovals, "puddle shapes", "pear-shaped" 98% triangle, square;2 % circles, ellipsoids, ovals, "puddle shapes", "pear-shaped" 45%- triangles, squares, straight lines, trapezoids, rhombuses;55%- circles, ellipsoids, ovals, "puddle shapes", "pear-shaped"
Dominants in determining the subjects' participation in an inclusive economy circles, ellipsoids, ovals 50 % disabled people;35 % migrants, foreign cultural segments;15 % women;5 % other, including: transgender subjectsabout – 1 %, rural segments – 2 %,Diametrically opposed psychotypes− 2%. 98 % special kids;2 % parents. 49 % disabled people;10 % bilinguists;7 % parents;34 % other, including: transgender subjects about − 1 %; rural segments − 24 %,Diametricallyopposedpsychotypes10 %
< Back to article