Value Orientations of Young Students (Ages 18–23) in Kazakhstan: Findings from an Urban University Sample

Zhanna Khamzina, Yermek Buribayev, Amina Buribayeva

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.54609/reaser.v30i2.778
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

We analyze value orientations among urban university students (ages 18–23) in Kazakhstan using a cross‑sectional survey (n = 600) and 20 semi‑structured interviews conducted face‑to‑face on university premises in Almaty and Astana (Oct–Nov 2024). The questionnaire adapts WVS‑7 items via double translation and piloting; interviews were transcribed and thematically coded. Scope is limited to students in two cities. Results. At the individual level, students prioritize self‑enhancement: 64% name financial stability as a key goal and 81% emphasize career advancement; leisure/time autonomy is important to 83%. Health is widely valued (65% monitor it, though 33% report no systematic approach). At the social level, family remains central (e.g., 97% prioritize relatives’ health/safety; 96% intra‑family relations; 95% family prosperity; 91% intergenerational ties), while wider non‑family circles are thinner. Institutionally, ideals of transparency/fairness are endorsed, but confidence is cautious: 25% trust those in power; 29.8% report trusting no public sources at all. Civically, respondents support lawful avenues (authorized rallies) and community responsibility, yet engagement is selective (34% express interest in socio‑political life; 29% report volunteering). Environmental concern is affirmed in principle, but salience is uneven: 23.4% do not believe climate change is real. Contribution. The value profile blends enduring family‑centered norms with pragmatic individualism and critical‑loyal views of institutions. Findings inform higher‑education policy and student support (civic‑engagement infrastructure, career transition and financial‑literacy services, environmental literacy), rather than nationwide youth policy. Limitations include urban student focus and cross‑sectional design; we outline longitudinal and comparative extensions.