Online civic participation among youth: An extension of traditional participation, or a new quality? Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

National and Regional Variations in Electoral Participation in Europe: Evidence from The European Social Survey Ed Fieldhouse and Mark Tranmer Cathie Marsh.

Advertisements

Using Digital Media to Engage Young Citizens ~ Lance Bennett Center for Communication and Civic Engagement University of Washington, Seattle, USA ~ Prepared.

ICT Nye bruksmønstre i online communities. Jan Heim Petter Bae Brandtzæg SINTEF IKT.

Using Digital Media to Engage Young Citizens ~ Lance Bennett Center for Communication and Civic Engagement University of Washington, Seattle, USA ~ Prepared.

Young Citizens and Political Entertainment in Post-Communist Romania Bianca Mitu Ph.D. University of Bucharest.

The gap between ‘rhetoric’ and ‘reality’: Portuguese immigration policies and the visions of associations’ leaders and young Angolans Ribeiro, N., Malafaia,

Quality of Life and Quality of Government: Survey based evidence on the connections Robert Manchin.

Anna Ševčíková David Šmahel The presented research was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MSM and 1P05ME751). MASARYK.

Understanding Portuguese- Canadian Civic Identity within Multicultural and Cosmopolitan Contexts Robert A. Kenedy, PhD Associate Professor Department of.

DOES GENDER MATTER FOR YOUTH PARTICIPATION? Naciye Gizem Danışan, Tülin Şener, Figen Çok, University of Ankara, Turkey Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP.

MAPPING THE VARIETIES OF PERSPECTIVES ON CIVIC AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF YOUTH, WOMEN AND MINORITIES/IMMIGRANTS IN TURKEY Çok F.; Bozkurt Ş.; Şener.

A-LIST FILIPINO POLITICAL BLOGGERS AND THEIR READERS: WHO THEY ARE, WHY THEY ACCESS BLOGS, & HOW THEY PERCEIVE, & PARTICIPATE IN, POLITICS Mary Grace Mirandilla-Santos.

Digital Citizenship & Safety General Characteristics of Ukraine General Characteristics of the UAnet Digital Access and Activities Behavioral Online Trends.

Comparing Political Activism Worldwide Democratic Phoenix.

EUROPEAN UNION’S NEW STRATEGY FOR YOUTH: INVESTING & EMPOWERING.

Researching Online Risks and Opportunities Across Europe: Emerging Patterns from a European Project Joke BAUWENS, Bojana LOBE, Katia SEGERS and Liza TSALIKI.

Institutional partner of and supported by the European Commission Reconnecting UK Youth to Europe Raising Awareness toFoster Civic Engagement.

NEXT STEP Informing young people about civic engagement and youth participation in Europe youth community service volunteerism in Germany and abroad EVS.

The PIDOP Project Martyn Barrett University of Surrey, UK Posters presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April.

PIDOP WORK PACKAGE 5 The extent and nature of political and civic participation across Europe Dr Ian Brunton-Smith, Department of Sociology, University.

Active citizens? Presentation by the Vienna team: Claire Wallace, Georg Datler and Reingard Spannring Youth, Citizenship & European Identities European.

The PIDOP Project: Achievements and Recommendations Martyn Barrett PIDOP Project Coordinator Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, UK Keynote.

What does Culture mean?. Political Culture widely shared beliefs, values and norms concerning relationships of citizens to government and to one another.

Local Strategy for the Integration of the Youth and new employment opportunities Back to the future Connecting the Younger and Older Generation through.

EAVI Founding Conference „Advancing the European Viewers Interests“ Session I: Television Viewers Participation in Europe Uwe Hasebrink.

Networking Technologies for Collective Action: Two Opposing Models of Activism Presentation to the Greek Politics Specialist Group Conference Athens, 4-5.

Political Disengagemen t and Trust in Europe. 1 Do patterns of engagement and trust differ across countries? And what about between different generations?

Developing the Citizenship-rich school as a context for addressing duties relating to cohesion, race equality, well-being and engagement Tony Breslin Chief.

Y OUNG C YPRIOT I NTERNET USERS : A QUANTITATIVE SURVEY IN THE CONTEXT OF EU K IDS O NLINE (Co-authors: Tatjana Taraszow & Yiannis Laouris) May 2008.

Part Four: Citizens, Society & the State

(CoP on) Partnership: what’s in a name? Benedict Wauters COP coordinator Deputy Director ESF Flanders.

Explaining women’s civic and political participation: the role of political, social and psychological factors. Maria Fernandes-Jesus, Norberto Ribeiro,

(In)Visible Women in Political and Civic Life in Slovakia Alexandra Bitusikova EGG Project SERD Prague, 20 June 2005.

1 General Social Survey (GSS) Cycle Content 1 st series2 nd 3 rd Health1985 (1)1991 (6) Time Use1986 (2)1992 (7)1998 (12) Victimization 1988 (3)1993.

2009, The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved Participatory Budgeting Introduction to Participatory Budgeting.

REALISING POTENTIAL Social services and active inclusion John Halloran Director European Social Network Social Services In Europe

Affective-Behavioural Domains and Contextual Framework National Research Coordinators Meeting Amsterdam, October

Elections in the Digital Age 4 th International Electoral Affairs Conference Professor Rachel K. Gibson (University of Manchester)

Cross-national attitudinal research

Cross-national attitudinal research The International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) and European Social Survey (ESS)

Civic Engagement in Georgia: Explaining lack of political participation of young people Tamar Khoshtaria, Tinatin Zurabishvili, CRRC-Georgia 11 th ESA.

Cinzia Albanesi, Elvira Cicognani, Bruna Zani, Department of Sciences of Education “G.M. Bertin” University of Bologna (Italy) YOUTH CIVIC AND POLITICAL.

Women’s and Young People’s Participation in Local Politics in the UK: Barriers and Facilitators Dr Evanthia Lyons Social Psychology European Research Institute.

Applied Research Seminar—UM-St. Louis April 9, 2014.

Elena Aristodemou Cyprus Neuroscience & Technology Institute (co-authors: Tatjana Taraszow and Yiannis Laouris) Child and Youth Research in the 21 st Century:

Sunbelt XXX, July 3 rd, Riva, Italy Integration in Social Networks as a form of Social Capital: Evidence from a survey on Social Cohesion Bram Vanhoutte.

Young adults and politics today Disengaged and disaffected or engaged and enraged? Emerging findings from the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study.

Topic 3: ARE CITIZENS IN BRITAIN DISENGAGED FROM THE POLITICAL SYSTEM?

Personal Values and Youth Involvement S. Mark Pancer, Wilfrid Laurier University and The Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Representation of the European Commission in Romania 1 Active Citizenship through European theme-years Petre Dumitru Information and Communication Officer.

Constantza Romania 1 – 3 June 2011 CENTRAS CONSTANTZA – THE VOLUNTEERING CENTRE Sharing Experience Workshop: "Volunteer Mentoring as an Efficient and Effective.

Differences between Genders And Age groups. Hypothesis: Male students believe they perform better in traditional classes over online classes while female.

Social Media: The New Note Home Does Age Effect Responsiveness and acceptance to Social Media? By: David Yarbrough EDTC 5130.

Center for Information and Communication Studies Shaping the Future of Scholarly Communication Carol Tenopir University of Tennessee (Visiting University.

NAVCA CONFERENCE 2009 WORKING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO EMPOWER LOCAL COMMUNITIES Isobel Mills, Deputy Regional Director Government Office for Yorkshire.

The EU Kids Online Project Leslie Haddon 10th Forum for Social Trends: Youth and Social Exclusion, Madrid, 12th-14th March, 2008.

Extremes of Online Interpersonal Relationships Brian Coleman Angela Lutheran April

1 Lifestyle, participation, identity and life satisfaction Nick Buck Institute for Social and Economic Research

Comparing Britain with other nations: problems of measuring if and how we differ Roger Jowell, City University Director, European Social Survey Gresham.

College Student Political Engagement and the Internet An in Depth Analysis of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Community By: Alex Fox.

What does Culture mean?. Political Culture widely shared beliefs, values and norms concerning relationships of citizens to government and to one another.

Powered by BALKAN REGIONAL PLATFORM FOR YOUTH PARTICIPATION AND DIALOGUE Mostar, 29 October 2015.

Office of Overseas Programming & Training Support (OPATS) Organizational Environment in the Host Country Global Community Economic Development Sector Training.

HOW A CIVICS CLUB CAN CULTIVATE A CIVIC LIFE ACTION RESEARCH—ARI LEARNING INNOVATION GRANT LAURA COOLEY, PIKEVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS.

Comparing Online and Offline Political Participation:

Jakub Macek & Alena Macková Masaryk University

European-Comparative Effectiveness Research on online Depression Treatment E-COMPARED is funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework.

Old and New Media and Participation: Czech Republic in 2014

Gabriella Melis (UCL Institute of Education)

Presentation transcript:

Online civic participation among youth: An extension of traditional participation, or a new quality? Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16 th -17 th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK Jan Šerek, Zuzana Petrovičová, Hana Macháčková & Petr Macek Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey cross-country comparison ethnic minorities

Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey cross-country comparison ethnic minorities items on different types of participation, including nonconventional online activities

Online participation internet is an important source of social capital (Ellison et al., 2009) debates about its potential for political and civic engagement (Gurak, 2005) ▫ efficient place for discussion, information sharing, planning, or even quick mobilization ▫ spreading of inaccurate information, no effective control over aggressive comments no conclusive evidence on the differences between online and offline participation (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)

Online participation internet is an important source of social capital (Ellison et al., 2009) debates about its potential for political and civic engagement (Gurak, 2005) ▫ efficient place for discussion, information sharing, planning, or even quick mobilization ▫ spreading of inaccurate information, no effective control over aggressive comments no conclusive evidence on the differences between online and offline participation (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)

Online participation internet is an important source of social capital (Ellison et al., 2009) debates about its potential for political and civic engagement (Gurak, 2005) ▫ efficient place for discussion, information sharing, planning, or even quick mobilization ▫ spreading of inaccurate information, no effective control over aggressive comments no conclusive evidence on the differences between online and offline participation (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)

Online participation internet is an important source of social capital (Ellison et al., 2009) debates about its potential for political and civic engagement (Gurak, 2005) ▫ efficient place for discussion, information sharing, planning, or even quick mobilization ▫ spreading of inaccurate information, no effective control over aggressive comments no conclusive evidence on the differences between online and offline engagement (Couldry et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2010; Byrne, 2007)

Can we identify a pattern of participation that is characterized by a strong emphasis on online participation?

Sample & procedure N = 732 ethnic majority 61 % females Age questionnaire-based survey

Forms of participation online – linking social or political content, discussing, visiting a political website, Facebook, online protest/boycott direct – demonstration, political graffiti, illegal action, boycott/buying civic – volunteering, donating money, fundraising events, wearing a symbol

hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward‘s method) three types of political participation four clusters

OnlineDirectCivicN Type Type Type Type

OnlineDirectCivicN Type Type Type Type Activists

OnlineDirectCivicN Type Type Type Type Disengaged

OnlineDirectCivicN Type Type Type Type Only civic

OnlineDirectCivicN Type Type Type Type Only online

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal males females Gender

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal males females Gender expected frequencies

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal males females Gender χ 2 (1) = 1.10, p =.29 males and females represented equally

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal 15 – – Age

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal 15 – – Age expected frequencies

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal 15 – – Age χ 2 (1) = 3.23, p =.07 younger and older represented equally

What is the difference between activists and people who participate only online?

psychological empowerment trust social views politicized social environment

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,636) = 22.71, p <.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,636) = 22.71, p <.01 t(636) = 0.11, p =.91

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,633) = 12.34, p <.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,633) = 12.34, p <.01 t(633) = 1.04, p =.30

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,609) = 9.96, p <.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,609) = 9.96, p <.01 t(609) = 1.84, p =.07

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,609) = 0.66, p =.58

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,609) = 0.66, p =.58 t(609) = 0.22, p =.83

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,618) = 2.97, p =.03

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,618) = 2.97, p =.03 t(618) = 1.13, p =.26

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,615) = 1.91, p =.13

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,615) = 1.91, p =.13 t(615) = 0.59, p =.56

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,618) = 1.97, p =.12

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,618) = 1.97, p =.12 t(618) = 0.57, p =.57

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,615) = 2.69, p =.05

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,615) = 2.69, p =.05 t(615) = 0.57, p =.57

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,604) = 2.91, p =.03

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,604) = 2.91, p =.03 t(604) = 0.87, p =.38

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,596) = 3.73, p =.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,596) = 3.73, p =.01 t(596) = 0.41, p =.68

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,595) = 1.89, p =.13

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,595) = 1.89, p =.13 t(595) = 1.91, p =.06

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,598) = 10.76, p <.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,598) = 10.76, p <.01 t(598) = 5.10, p <.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,618) = 33.16, p <.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded F(3,618) = 33.16, p <.01 t(618) = 2.06, p <.05 Politicized social environment

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Social environment F(3,612) = 12.61, p <.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,612) = 12.61, p <.01 t(612) = 2.01, p <.05

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,648) = 3.96, p <.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,648) = 3.96, p <.01 t(648) = 1.71, p =.09

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,650) = 21.77, p <.01

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,650) = 21.77, p <.01 t(650) = 2.22, p <.05

OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment

Conclusions young people who are generally politically active and young people who are active only online do not differ in their psychological empowerment and trust

Conclusions young people who are generally politically active and young people who are active only online do not differ in their psychological empowerment and trust those who are generally active report a more politicized social environment

Conclusions young people who are generally politically active and young people who are active only online do not differ in their psychological empowerment and trust those who are generally active report a more politicized social environment we may speculate that the support for affirmative action is an expression of certain deeper value orientation

Conclusions online participation more impersonal? „low-cost fullfilment of civic duty“ „activists“ and „online activists“ seem to be the same, except for social environment causality?

The PIDOP project is supported by a grant received from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme, FP7- SSH , Grant Agreement no: , Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) awarded to the University of Surrey (UK), University of Lie ̀ ge (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)

Thank you!