Online civic participation among youth an extension of traditional participation or a new quality
Download
1 / 78

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


  • 125 Views
  • Uploaded on

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 ,

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Jan Šerek, Zuzana Petrovičová , Hana Macháčková & Petr Macek' - ornice


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 participation among youth an extension of traditional participation or a new quality

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 surv e y
Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey

  • cross-country comparison

  • ethnicminorities


Strengths of the pidop wp6 surv e y1
Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey

  • cross-country comparison

  • ethnicminorities

  • items on differenttypesofparticipation, includingnonconventional online activities


Online participation
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 participation1
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 participation2
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 participation3
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
Sample & procedure

N = 732

ethnic majority

61 % females

Age 15-28

questionnaire-based survey


Forms of participation
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




Onlycivic


Only online



Gender1
Gender

79.7

124.3

expectedfrequencies


Gender2
Gender

79.7

124.3

χ2 (1) = 1.10, p = .29

malesandfemalesrepresentedequally



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
Psychological empowerment

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


Psychological empowerment1
Psychologicalempowerment

t(636) = 0.11, p = .91

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


Psychological empowerment2
Psychologicalempowerment


Psychological empowerment3
Psychologicalempowerment

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


Psychological empowerment4
Psychologicalempowerment

t(633) = 1.04, p = .30

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


Psychological empowerment5
Psychologicalempowerment


Psychological empowerment6
Psychologicalempowerment

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


Psychological empowerment7
Psychologicalempowerment

t(609) = 1.84, p = .07

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


Psychological empowerment8
Psychologicalempowerment


Psychological empowerment9
Psychologicalempowerment

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


Psychological empowerment10
Psychologicalempowerment

t(609) = 0.22, p = .83

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


Psychological empowerment11
Psychologicalempowerment


Trust
Trust

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


Trust1
Trust

t(618) = 1.13, p = .26

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



Trust3
Trust

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


Trust4
Trust

t(615) = 0.59, p = .56

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



Trust6
Trust

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


Trust7
Trust

t(618) = 0.57, p = .57

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



Trust9
Trust

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


Trust10
Trust

t(615) = 0.57, p = .57

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



Social views
Socialviews

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


Social views1
Socialviews

t(604) = 0.87, p = .38

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


Social views2
Socialviews


Social views3
Socialviews

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


Social views4
Socialviews

t(596) = 0.41, p = .68

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


Social views5
Socialviews


Social views6
Socialviews

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


Social views7
Socialviews

t(595) = 1.91, p = .06

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


Social views8
Socialviews


Social views9
Socialviews

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


Social views10
Socialviews

t(598) = 5.10, p < .01

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


Social views11
Socialviews


Politicized social environment
Politicizedsocialenvironment

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


Politicizedsocialenvironment

t(618) = 2.06, p < .05

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


Politicized social environment1
Politicizedsocialenvironment


Social environment
Socialenvironment

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


Politicized social environment2
Politicizedsocialenvironment

t(612) = 2.01, p < .05

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


Politicized social environment3
Politicizedsocialenvironment


Politicized social environment4
Politicizedsocialenvironment

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


Politicized social environment5
Politicizedsocialenvironment

t(648) = 1.71, p = .09

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


Politicized social environment6
Politicizedsocialenvironment


Politicized social environment7
Politicizedsocialenvironment

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


Politicized social environment8
Politicizedsocialenvironment

t(650) = 2.22, p < .05

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


Politicized social environment9
Politicizedsocialenvironment


Conclusions
Conclusions

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


Conclusions1
Conclusions

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

  • thosewho are generallyactive report a more politicizedsocialenvironment


Conclusions2
Conclusions

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

  • thosewho are generallyactive report a more politicizedsocialenvironment

  • wemayspeculatethatthe support foraffirmativeactionisanexpressionofcertaindeepervalueorientation


Conclusions3
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)


Thank you
Thank 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 you!

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


ad