Online civic participation among youth an extension of traditional participation or a new quality
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 78

Jan Šerek, Zuzana Petrovičová , Hana Macháčková & Petr Macek PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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 ,

Download Presentation

Jan Šerek, Zuzana Petrovičová , Hana Macháčková & Petr Macek

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Online civic participationamong youth:An extension of traditional participation,or a new quality?

Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16th-17th, 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

  • ethnicminorities


Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey

  • cross-country comparison

  • ethnicminorities

  • items on differenttypesofparticipation, includingnonconventional online activities


Online participation

  • internet isanimportantsourceofsocialcapital (Ellisonetal., 2009)

  • debatesaboutitspotentialforpoliticalandcivic engagement (Gurak, 2005)

    • efficientplacefordiscussion, informationsharing, planning, orevenquickmobilization

    • spreadingofinaccurateinformation, no effectivecontroloveraggressivecomments

  • no conclusive evidence on thedifferencesbetween online and offline participation (Couldryetal., 2007; Zhangetal., 2010; Byrne, 2007)


Online participation

  • internet isanimportantsourceofsocialcapital (Ellisonetal., 2009)

  • debatesaboutitspotentialforpoliticalandcivic engagement (Gurak, 2005)

    • efficientplacefordiscussion, informationsharing, planning, orevenquickmobilization

    • spreadingofinaccurateinformation, no effectivecontroloveraggressivecomments

  • no conclusive evidence on thedifferencesbetween online and offline participation (Couldryetal., 2007; Zhangetal., 2010; Byrne, 2007)


Online participation

  • internet isanimportantsourceofsocialcapital (Ellisonetal., 2009)

  • debatesaboutitspotentialforpoliticalandcivic engagement (Gurak, 2005)

    • efficientplacefordiscussion, informationsharing, planning, orevenquickmobilization

    • spreadingofinaccurateinformation, no effectivecontroloveraggressivecomments

  • no conclusive evidence on thedifferencesbetween online and offline participation (Couldryetal., 2007; Zhangetal., 2010; Byrne, 2007)


Online participation

  • internet isanimportantsourceofsocialcapital (Ellisonetal., 2009)

  • debatesaboutitspotentialforpoliticalandcivic engagement (Gurak, 2005)

    • efficientplacefordiscussion, informationsharing, planning, orevenquickmobilization

    • spreadingofinaccurateinformation, no effectivecontroloveraggressivecomments

  • no conclusive evidence on thedifferencesbetween online and offline engagement (Couldryetal., 2007; Zhangetal., 2010; Byrne, 2007)


Canweidentify a patternofparticipationthatischaracterized by a strongemphasis on online participation?


Sample & procedure

N = 732

ethnic majority

61 % females

Age 15-28

questionnaire-based survey


Formsofparticipation

online – linking social or political content, discussing, visiting a politicalwebsite, Facebook, online protest/boycott

direct – demonstration, political graffiti, illegalaction, boycott/buying

civic – volunteering, donating money, fundraisingevents, wearing a symbol


hierarchical cluster analysis(Ward‘s method)

threetypesofpoliticalparticipation

fourclusters


Activists


Disengaged


Onlycivic


Only online


Gender


Gender

79.7

124.3

expectedfrequencies


Gender

79.7

124.3

χ2 (1) = 1.10, p = .29

malesandfemalesrepresentedequally


Age


Age

60.7

140.3

expectedfrequencies


Age

60.7

140.3

χ2 (1) = 3.23, p = .07

youngerandolderrepresentedequally


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


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

  • psychologicalempowerment

  • trust

  • socialviews

  • politicizedsocialenvironment


Psychological empowerment

F(3,636) = 22.71, p < .01


Psychologicalempowerment

t(636) = 0.11, p = .91

F(3,636) = 22.71, p < .01


Psychologicalempowerment


Psychologicalempowerment

F(3,633) = 12.34, p < .01


Psychologicalempowerment

t(633) = 1.04, p = .30

F(3,633) = 12.34, p < .01


Psychologicalempowerment


Psychologicalempowerment

F(3,609) = 9.96, p < .01


Psychologicalempowerment

t(609) = 1.84, p = .07

F(3,609) = 9.96, p < .01


Psychologicalempowerment


Psychologicalempowerment

F(3,609) = 0.66, p = .58


Psychologicalempowerment

t(609) = 0.22, p = .83

F(3,609) = 0.66, p = .58


Psychologicalempowerment


Trust

F(3,618) = 2.97, p = .03


Trust

t(618) = 1.13, p = .26

F(3,618) = 2.97, p = .03


Trust


Trust

F(3,615) = 1.91, p = .13


Trust

t(615) = 0.59, p = .56

F(3,615) = 1.91, p = .13


Trust


Trust

F(3,618) = 1.97, p = .12


Trust

t(618) = 0.57, p = .57

F(3,618) = 1.97, p = .12


Trust


Trust

F(3,615) = 2.69, p = .05


Trust

t(615) = 0.57, p = .57

F(3,615) = 2.69, p = .05


Trust


Socialviews

F(3,604) = 2.91, p = .03


Socialviews

t(604) = 0.87, p = .38

F(3,604) = 2.91, p = .03


Socialviews


Socialviews

F(3,596) = 3.73, p = .01


Socialviews

t(596) = 0.41, p = .68

F(3,596) = 3.73, p = .01


Socialviews


Socialviews

F(3,595) = 1.89, p = .13


Socialviews

t(595) = 1.91, p = .06

F(3,595) = 1.89, p = .13


Socialviews


Socialviews

F(3,598) = 10.76, p < .01


Socialviews

t(598) = 5.10, p < .01

F(3,598) = 10.76, p < .01


Socialviews


Politicizedsocialenvironment

F(3,618) = 33.16, p < .01


Politicizedsocialenvironment

t(618) = 2.06, p < .05

F(3,618) = 33.16, p < .01


Politicizedsocialenvironment


Socialenvironment

F(3,612) = 12.61, p < .01


Politicizedsocialenvironment

t(612) = 2.01, p < .05

F(3,612) = 12.61, p < .01


Politicizedsocialenvironment


Politicizedsocialenvironment

F(3,648) = 3.96, p < .01


Politicizedsocialenvironment

t(648) = 1.71, p = .09

F(3,648) = 3.96, p < .01


Politicizedsocialenvironment


Politicizedsocialenvironment

F(3,650) = 21.77, p < .01


Politicizedsocialenvironment

t(650) = 2.22, p < .05

F(3,650) = 21.77, p < .01


Politicizedsocialenvironment


Conclusions

  • youngpeoplewho are generallypoliticallyactiveandyoungpeoplewho are activeonly online do not differ in theirpsychologicalempowermentand trust


Conclusions

  • youngpeoplewho are generallypoliticallyactiveandyoungpeoplewho are activeonly online do not differ in theirpsychologicalempowermentand trust

  • thosewho are generallyactive report a more politicizedsocialenvironment


Conclusions

  • youngpeoplewho are generallypoliticallyactiveandyoungpeoplewho are activeonly online do not differ in theirpsychologicalempowermentand trust

  • thosewho are generallyactive report a more politicizedsocialenvironment

  • wemayspeculatethatthe support foraffirmativeactionisanexpressionofcertaindeepervalueorientation


Conclusions

  • online participation more impersonal?

    „low-costfullfilmentofcivic duty“

  • „activists“ and „online activists“ seem to bethesame, exceptforsocialenvironment

  • causality?


The PIDOP project is 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), Örebro University (Sweden), Ankara University (Turkey) and Queen’s University Belfast (UK)


Thankyou!

serek@fss.muni.cz

petrovic@fss.muni.cz

machacko@fss.muni.cz

macek@fss.muni.cz


  • Login