See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322852511

The Value of Cleanliness in the view of the Students of Two Higher Education
Institutions

Article · January 2018

DOI: 10.18686/ahe.v2i1.1059

CITATIONS READS

0 9,171

4 authors, including:

Adem Öcal Laima Kyburiene

75 PUBLICATIONS   227 CITATIONS   
Kauno Kolegija
10 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Gemma Navickiene
Kauno kolegija / University of Applied Sciences
6 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Establish a New Cooperation to Let Obtain Social Inclusion in Europe (E.N.C.L.O.S.E) View project

Education for Nature in Ihlara Valley (Aksaray) and its Environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adem Öcal on 27 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Value of Cleanliness in the view of the Students of Two Higher

Education Institutions
Adem ÖCAL1*, Süleyman YİĞİTTİR2, Laima KYBURİENE3, Gemma NAVİCKİENE4

1.Assoc. Prof. Dr., independent researcher, TURKEY, ocadem@gmail.com

2.Assoc. Prof. Dr., independent researcher, TURKEY, szzyigit@gmail.com
3.Assoc. Prof. Dr., independent researcher, LITHUANIA, laima.kyburiene@gmail.com
4.Lecturer, Kaunas University of Applied Sciences, LITHUANIA, gemma.navickiene@yahoo.com

Abstract: Education is definitely related to values; therefore, in order to nurture them, it is necessary to initially
determine the perception of values by individuals and groups. This study investigates the importance of the value
of cleanliness as understood by the students in higher education in Turkey and Lithuania. It is based on a case
study, the data being selected from the research conducted in both countries in 2011–2012 using the qualitative
research methods, the semi-structured interview (Öcal, Kyburiene, & Yiğittir, 2012). The respondents included 32
students from Lithuania, and 40 students from Turkey. The study explores how the value of cleanliness was
understood by students in both countries. The findings of the research not only reveal the difference in the
perception of the value of on individual and social platforms but also the dependence of this perception on the
society the respondents represented as well as the religion, traditions, and culture. However, the study revealed
that in certain aspects, the perception of the value of the students from two different countries of different religion
and culture has some features in common.

Keywords: values; the perception of values; social studies; Turkey; Lithuania.

1. Introduction
People from different cultures have different customs, obey different rules. Their values also differ from time to time.
Globalization brings not only positive changes. It is also a source of negative effects, as traditional cultural links among
nations become weaker, isolation among ethnos related to national territorial signs deepens, which creates favourable
conditions for ethnic and inter-confessional conflicts. Thus, no wonder that the rapid global changes in recent decades
increased the interest in intercultural interaction as well as the willingness to find out, on one hand, the basic values that
predetermine cultural identity, and on the other hand, the possibilities of communication and co-operation with the
representatives of different cultures (Friedman, 2001).
A specific environment forms certain peculiarities of individuals that shape different values, value systems and
scenarios of behaviour. Child’s growth and socialization, his or her relations with values and their sources change
(Lepeškienė, 1997). Beliefs combine knowledge, emotions and attitudes (Jonušaitė, 2011).
The value is everything people appreciate, what is dear to them. In this context, it can say about material and spiritual
values, consumption and creation values etc. (Bitinas, 2004). Values can be described as “… emotions about the significance
Copyright © 2018 Adem ÖCAL et al.
doi: 10.18686/ahe.v2i1.1059
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Unported License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work
is properly cited.

Advances in Higher Education Volume 2 Issue 1 | 2018 | 1

of things and phenomena for personalities and groups” (Jacikevičius, 1995). Following this attitude, the authors classify
values not only according to the field of individual activities (economic, ethical, aesthetic) but also group them in each
field according to their importance within an individual.
Maslow (1979) argues that the physiology of values is evidenced by the fact that their realization is as necessary for
human well-being and health as meeting human needs. The values can be classified in views of their origin: scientific,
economic, aesthetic, social, political and religious (Güngör, 1993). According to Šalkauskis (1991) and Maceina (2002)
values are related by comparing them with the wealth: education, legislation, arts, religion, and the good, which are the
result of an active performance of people.
Values are the most important parameter of determining the quality of human and social development as they embody in
the spiritual nature of human existence (Medelienė, 2010).
In the context of socio-cultural aspect values classified into terminal and instrumental (Rokeach, 1973, 1976; 1979).
The terminal values include vital human needs, general aims and results, the essence of human existence, personal and
social ideals. The instrumental values are related to human behaviour and behavioural techniques. Terminal values form
the basis for the structure of personal values (Vasiliauskas, 2005). Aramavičiūtė (2005, 2010, 2011) classifies values
according to the rank. The lowest rank in the scale of values includes the values of feelings and pleasures; then go vital
and life values; still higher are spiritual values; whereas the values of sanctity and holiness are at the top.
The research interest lies in determining the perception of the value of cleanness by the young people surveyed in two
countries. The aim of the research was to determine how the respondents, Lithuanian and Turkish students in higher
education.
2. Methodology
The study was designed as a case study by using the qualitative research approach. Methods of the research include the
study of scientific references, a semi-structured interview, and content analysis. The respondents were Turkish and
Lithuanian students. The study involved 72 students in total, 32 being from Lithuania, and 40 from Turkey. The
demographic data of the respondents suggest that 40 (55.6%) of the students live in Turkey, while 32 (44.4%) are the
residents of Lithuania. 62 (86.1%) of the respondents were female, and 10 (13.9%) were male. It has been noticed that
in both of the countries the number of the females was equal, and exceeded the number of the males.
TR LT Total
Variables Classification
f % f % f %
Female 31 77.5 31 96.9 62 86.1
Sex
Male 9 22.5 1 3.1 10 13.9
19–20 3 7.5 7 21.9 10 13.9
21–22 22 55 9 28.1 31 43.1
Age
23–24 12 30 7 21.9 19 26.4
25 and over 3 7.5 9 28.1 12 16.6
Total 40 55.6 32 44.4 72 100
Table 1: Demographical data about the respondents
The distribution of the students according to the age factor reveals that there were 10 respondents (13.9%) between
19–20 years of age, 31 respondents (43.1%) aged between 21–22, 19 respondents (25.4%) between 23–24, and 12
respondents (16.6%) over 25 years of age. It has also been observed that 85% percent of the students from Turkey
were between 21–24 years of age, and that the range of the age of the respondents from Lithuania was narrower (Table 1).

3. Measures
The study was conducted using the qualitative data collection method. A semi-structured interview was used to gather
the data. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first section included personal information, whereas the

2 | Adem ÖCAL et al. Advances in Higher Education

second included the questions regarding the value statements. The following issues were investigated in the study:
 How important is the value of cleanliness to you? Why?
 How can it be understood that the value of cleanness is important in the society? Please explain.
 What do you do to be a clean person?
The data collection devices were used in the mother tongue of the respondents, that is, in Lithuanian and Turkish.
The questions were asked face-to-face during an interview. The respondents filled in the forms in their own
hand-writings. The data were processed in 2015.

4. Analysis
The data acquired were analysed using the technique of content analysis. The information was first divided according to
the themes, then reunited under categories.

5. Findings
The findings revealed by the study are presented in the order they were presented to the respondents.
How important is the value of cleanliness to you? Why?
The respondents' replies regarding their caring about the value of cleanliness revealed that 65% of them consider the
value of cleanliness to very important to them, while 32% noted that it was important (Table 2).
Very important Important Uncertain Total
TR 31 (77.5%) 7 (17.5%) 2 5%) 40 (100%)
LT 16 (50%) 16 (50%) - 32 (100%)
Total 47 (63.75%) 23 (33.75%) 2 (5%) 72 (100%)

Table 2: The extent the respondents care about the value of cleanliness
It should be noted that 50% of the Lithuanian students consider the value of cleanliness to be very important, while
the other 50% stated that it was important. However, 77.5% of the Turkish students remarked that it was very important,
whereas 17.5% said it was important.
Even though it is obvious that the respondents from both countries care very much about cleanliness, several
differences related to the reasons that influence their caring about the value of cleanliness can be seen depending on the
country (Table 3).
TR LT Total
Category Theme
f f f %
Irritability 2 -
Health 16 6
Specific/hygienic

Personal cleanliness 1 3
It is more important than anything 3 - 42 52.5
Being clean and organized - 6
reasons

Viable environment 1 4
Category total 23 19
Being someone reputable in the society 6 -
Being a good person 14 -
Valuing oneself 7 -
Happiness 1 -
Being moral 2 -
Psychological disorder 1 - 38 47.5
Mirror of values 1 -
Spiritual/moral

Inner cleanliness - 1
Confidence and comfort - 2
reasons

Necessity - 3
Category total 32 6
Total 80 100
Table 3: Reasons for the respondents to care about the value of cleanliness

Advances in Higher Education Volume 2 Issue 1 | 2018 | 3

 The 16 themes provided in Table 3 and related to the reasons why the students appreciate cleanliness can be
classified under two categories, “spiritual/moral reasons” (47.5%) and “specific/hygienic reasons” (52.5%). It has been
noticed that the specific/hygienic reasons were emphasized in both countries. However, the Turkish students emphasize
spiritual/moral reasons.
The fact that the theme “health” is prominent in both countries is significant, as it manifests the
relationship between cleanliness and being healthy. In addition, among the Turkish respondents, the reasons for being
clean were in the themes “being a good person” (f = 14), “valuing oneself” (f = 7), and “being someone reputable in the
society” (f = 6), while among the reasons for the Lithuanian students to be clean, the themes “being clean and
organized” (f = 6), “viable environment” (f = 4), and “personal cleanliness” (f = 3) were indicated more often. These
findings might be interpreted in the following way: the reasons for being hygienic vary depending on the society,
whereas the phenomenon of cleanliness preserves its importance as a universal value for both societies.
What do you do to be a clean person?
The activities and behaviours related to being a clean person have also been analysed. The data in Table 4 revealed
the actions taken by the respondents in order to be a clean person, which were classified under three categories:
personal cleanliness (49.4%), spiritual cleanliness (31.8%), and social practices (18.8%).
TR LT Total
Category Theme
f f f %
Having a bath 18 8
Self-care (hand-care, nail-clipping, tooth-brushing) 28 1
Caring about one’s appearance 7 3
Using cosmetic products 1 1
Personal cleanliness

Not being in dirty settings 1 -

76 49.4
Tidying the house - 2
Washing food - 1
Caring about cleanliness - 3
Cleaning regularly - 2
Category Total 55 21
Conforming to moral codes 7 -
Being honest, not lying 2 8
Religious rites and duties (cleanliness is the half of the creed, performing ablution 9 8
5 times, going to church and praying on Sundays, obeying the 10
Commandments)
Conscientious purity, not burdening oneself with unnecessary things - 6
Listening to music - 1 49 31.8
Spiritual cleanliness

Smiling more - 1
Trying to do the right things - 3
Performing good behaviours - 2
Meditating - 1
Not hurting anyone - 1
Category Total 18 31
Environmental cleaning 14 3
Warning people 4 -
Not throwing litter on the floor 2 -
Not spitting on the floor 1 -
29 18.8
Helping others - 3
Not blaming others - 1
practices
Social

Caring for oneself and the environment - 1

Category Total 21 8
Total 94 60 154 100
Table 4: Themes and categories regarding the respondents’ cleanliness behaviours
The respondents stated that in order to stay clean, they have a bath, clip their nails, and brush their teeth. They also
perform activities related to spiritual and social cleanliness.
Considering the distribution of the answers on the basis of countries, it has been noticed that the Turkish
respondents practice personal cleanliness and prefer social practices, whereas the Lithuanian respondents emphasize the
issues of spiritual cleanliness. Among the cleanliness activities of the Turkish respondents were personal care (f = 28),

4 | Adem ÖCAL et al. Advances in Higher Education

having a bath (f = 18), environmental cleaning (f = 14), caring about their appearance (f = 7), religious rites and duties
(f = 9), and conforming to moral codes (f = 7). Meanwhile, among the hygienic behaviours of the Lithuanian students,
the themes of having a bath (f = 8), being honest (f = 8), religious rites and duties (f = 8), and conscientious purity (f = 6)
are most frequently observed.
The results of the comparison of the respondents' responses regarding the reasons to be clean and
cleanliness behaviours revealed an interesting phenomenon. It has been observed that in specific and spiritual
cleanliness categories the Turkish respondents have higher scores than the Lithuanian students (Table 3). However, in
the responses regarding cleanliness behaviours, the Turkish students have higher scores in the categories of personal
cleanliness and social practices, while the Lithuanian students outscore the Turkish students in the category of spiritual
cleanliness. In this respect, a conclusion can be drawn that there may be differences among the discourses, actions,
faiths and people's behaviours. It also suggests that a value can be perceived in various ways depending on the culture.

6. Conclusion and discussion

This comparative study was conducted with university students in Turkey and Lithuania to learn how they perceive the
values of cleanness. According to findings showed that cultural features can be effective role in internalizing of
cleanness. All participants in both countries found the value of cleanness important (65%) and highly important
(32%). 77.5% of the students in Turkey, and 50% of the students in Lithuania mentioned that cleanness was “very
important” to them.
On the reason of the importance of cleanness, the student stated “spiritual/moral reasons” (47.5%) and
“specific/hygienic reasons” (52.5%). Turkish students mostly stated hygienic reasons category, while Lithuanian
students mostly expressed spiritual/moral reasons category. This can be interpreted as the fact that the value of
cleanliness is perceived differently by cultures.
It was seen that 49.3% of the students' activities to be a clean person were in “individual cleaning”, 35.1% in spiritual
cleaning and 15.6% in “community practices”. In the distribution of this result according to the countries, Turkish
participants especially in individual cleaning and community practices; Lithuanian participants were found to perform
activities specifically in the categories of spiritual and individual hygiene. This result contradicts the conclusions of the
participants on the reasons for attaching importance to cleanliness. Because while the Turkish participants expressed the
importance for cleanliness due to “spiritual/moral reasons”, it appears that they did not take actions related to spiritual
cleaning in practice. While Lithuanian students have stated that they care for cleanliness due to “specific/hygienic
reasons”, it is understood that they are involved in actions in the spiritual /moral category in practice.
There are studies that deal with the cleaning value in Turkey. In these studies, where the value tendency of the
participants was determined, it was seen that the cleaning value has more tendency than the other values. These findings
support the results obtained from the Turkish participants in this study (Yiğittir & Öcal, 2010; Yiğittir, 2012). Also, in
Turkey, in an official primary school study “cleanliness and hygiene” as a result of the research it was clean and the
garden-school social applications also support actions in the cleaning category (Ardıç, 2010).
Values vary among societies and in a society itself. The findings showed several similarities with the studies on value
preference. The studies on value have also demonstrated that, even though the participants live in the same society,
there may be differences in their value orientations depending on their socio-economic conditions or genders (Bulut,
2012; Emre & Yapıcı, 2015).
The sources of values socio-economic factors, personality, gender, national culture, religion, age, community, and living
standards of adults are influential (Woodward & Shaffakat, 2016). In a study on the perception of the old age, it was
reported that the cognitive, physical, socio-emotional factors and the factor of age are influential in forming a

Advances in Higher Education Volume 2 Issue 1 | 2018 | 5

View publication stats

perception depending on the culture (Löckenhoff et al. 2009). Therefore, it can be assumed that it is quite normal that
the results of the study conducted in both Turkey and Lithuania were similar. This kind of studies should be done more
to more on values for societies to understand each other and tolerate the differences.

References
1. Aramavičiūtė V. (2005). Auklėimas ir asmenybės dvasinė branda Lithuanianơ. Nurture and spiritual maturity of the person.
Vilnius: Gimtasis odis.
2. Aramavičiūtė, V. (2010). Vyresniųų klasių mokinių dvasingumas globalizacios iššūkių kontekste Lithuanianơ. The spirituality
of senior students in the challenges of globalization context. Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademios metraštis, 33: 193-210.
3. Aramavičiūtė V. (2011). Vyresniųų mokinių emocinių išgyvenimų pokyčiai: longintinis tyrimas Lithuanianơ. Changes in
emotional experiences of older students: longitudinalresearch. Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 2: 55-66.
4. Ardıç A. (2010). İlköğretim Okullarında Temizlik ve Hiyen Lithuanianơ. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Eğitimi Araştırma ve
Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlığı Yay. Cleaning and Hygiene in Primary Schools. Ankara.
5. Bitinas, B. (2004). Ugdymo filosofia Lithuanianơ. Educational philosophy. Vilnius: Kronta.
6. Bulut, S. S. (2012). Value tendencies of the students at the college of education of Gazi University. International Journal of
Turkish Literature Culture Education, 1/3: 216-238.
7. Emre Y, Yapıcı A. (2015). Value priorities of citizens of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Turkish Studies -
International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 10/2, 329-350.
8. Friedman J. (2001). Cultural identity and global process. London: Sage.
9. Güngör E. (1993). Psychology of values. Amsterdam: Holland-Turkish Academician Association Publication, No: 8.
10. Jacikevičius A. (1995). Žmonių grupių (socialinė) psichologia Lithuanianơ. Human group (social) psychology. Vilnius:
Žodynas.
11. Jonušaitė, D. (2011). 12-16 metų sportuoančių ir nesportuoančių paauglių savęs vertinimas ir vertybės Lithuanianơ. 12-16
year old athletic and non-sporting teenagers evaluation and values. Available from: http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT
eLABa/-/0001:E.02~2011~D_20110705_170924-68186/DS.005.0.01.ETD
12. Lepeškienė V. (1997). Vertybių problema humanistinėe ir egzistencinėe psichologioe Lithuanianơ.The problem of values in
humanistic and existential psychology.Psichologia, V. 17, Vilnius: VU.
13. Löckenhoff CE, De Fruyt F, Terracciano A, McCrae RR, De Bolle M, Costa P. T. Jr, Aguilar-Vafaie M E, Ahn C-K, Ahn H-N,
Alcalay L, Smith PB., et al. 2009. Perceptions of aging across 26 cultures and their culture-level associates. Psychology and
Aging, 24 (4): 941-954. Available from: http://www.psych.ut.ee/~yri/en/Loeckenhoff_etal_Psychology&Aging2009.pdf
14. Maceina A. (2002). Lavinimas ir auklėimas Lithuanianơ. Education and upbringing. Pedagogikos filosofia. Vilnius.
15. Maslow A. (1979). The farther reaches of human nature. Penguin Group.
16. Medelienė R. (2010). Sportuoančių ir nesportuoančių paauglių vertybių bei reakcios į konfliktus ryšys Lithuanianơ. The
values and reactions of sports and non-sports teenagersconflicts connection. Available from:
http://vddb.laba.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa-0001:E.02~2010~D_20100531_160635-81349/DS.005.0.02.ETD.
17. Öcal A, Kyburiene L, Yiğittir S. (2012). A comparative study on value tendency of university students: An international
perspective. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 11(1): 11-21.
18. Rokeach M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
19. Rokeach M. (1976). The nature of human values and value systems. Current perspectives in social psychology. New York:
University Press.
20. Rokeach M. (1979). Understanding human values. New York: London.
21. Šalkauskis, S. (1991). Rinktiniai raštai. Pedagoginės studios (II knyga) Lithuanianơ. Selected letters. Pedagogical Studies
(Book II).Vilnius: Leidybos centras.
22. Vasiliauskas R. (2005). Vertybių pedagogika Lithuanianơ. Values pedagogy. Vilnius.
23. Yiğittir S, Öcal A. (2010). Value tendency of 6th grade elementary school students. The Selçuk University Journal of Institute
of Social Sciences, 24: 407-416.
24. Yiğittir S. (2012). The evaluation of the 5th grade primary school students’ value tendencies according to the value
classifications of Rokeach and Schwartz. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education. 19 (1-15).
25. Woodward IC, Shaffakat S. (2016). Understanding values for insightfully aware leadership. INSEAD Working Paper No.
2016/05/OBH. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2471492

6 | Adem ÖCAL et al. Advances in Higher Education