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

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


  • 83 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 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)


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

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


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

hierarchical cluster analysis(Ward‘s method)

threetypesofpoliticalparticipation

fourclusters


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

Activists


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

Disengaged


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

Onlycivic


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

Only online


Gender

Gender


Gender1

Gender

79.7

124.3

expectedfrequencies


Gender2

Gender

79.7

124.3

χ2 (1) = 1.10, p = .29

malesandfemalesrepresentedequally


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

Age


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

Age

60.7

140.3

expectedfrequencies


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

Age

60.7

140.3

χ2 (1) = 3.23, p = .07

youngerandolderrepresentedequally


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

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


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

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


Trust2

Trust


Trust3

Trust

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


Trust4

Trust

t(615) = 0.59, p = .56

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


Trust5

Trust


Trust6

Trust

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


Trust7

Trust

t(618) = 0.57, p = .57

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


Trust8

Trust


Trust9

Trust

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


Trust10

Trust

t(615) = 0.57, p = .57

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


Trust11

Trust


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


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

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?


Jan erek zuzana petrovi ov hana mach kov petr macek

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

Thankyou!

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


  • Login