1. Cinzia Albanesi, Elvira Cicognani, Bruna Zani, Department of Sciences of Education “G.M. Bertin” University of Bologna (Italy) YOUTH CIVIC AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE LENS OF GENDER: THE ITALIAN CASE Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16 th -17 th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

2. The empirical research upon which this paper is based was supported by a grant received from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme, FP7- SSH- 2007-1, Grant Agreement no: 225282, Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) awarded to the University of Surrey (UK), University of Liège (Belgium), Masaryk University (Czech Republic), University of Jena (Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), O ̈ rebro University (Sweden), Ankara University (Turkey) and Queen’s University Belfast (UK).

3. The Italian “gap” Italian girls are expected to earn less, to have less important positions in the job market and to be less represented in politics compared to their male peers (Istat, 2010). “juvenile ageism” (Westman, 1991) institutional, interactional, and individual discrimination against young people perpetuated by adults in powerful positions THE GENDER GAP INDEX (TRENDS)

4. Aims and hypotheses “Traditional” differences –more male traditional political manifest participation (H1), –more girls and young women’s involvement in civic engagement and consumerism (H2) “ Reduced gap” –We expected similar levels of net participation and vote across genders (H3) –What about gender gap in political interest and knowledge? a small or non significant disadvantage for girls (“the web effect”) (H4), Parental support/modelling for participation should have a different impact on boys and girls (H5), being higher for females –Does family influences (through education and support for participation) in a gendered way the concept of citizenship? – What about public citizenship conceptions? Do they predict political interest, civic engagement and political participation? –What about private citizenship? (any relationship with women’s absence in the public sphere?)

5. Participants

6. Research Instruments

7. Results

9. Results gender x age group interactions F(1) = 6,752 p =.01 F(1) = 7,126 p =.008 F(1) = 5,149 p =.024

10. The process of participation Which differences for which forms of participation ( cf. Ekman & Amna, 2010) ? Results from a set of Multiple Regression Analysis

11. Individual latent forms of participation

12. Individual manifest forms of participation

13. Collective latent forms of participation

14. Collective manifest forms of participation

15. Conclusions Differences across gender on civic engagement and “radical” manifest political participation have been confirmed (H1; H2) Similarities on vote and net participation across gender have been confirmed (H3; H4) The role of family education and support for youth participation have been “partially” confirmed (H5)

16. Some critical remarks Is citizenship still a male issue? The web: new political platform, new (female) faces in politics? Parents: obstacles, catalysts or both?

17. thanks cinzia.albanesi@unibo.it