Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Published byMarianna McKenzie Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

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

1 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

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

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

4 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)

5 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)

6 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)

7 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)

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

9 Sample & procedure N = 732 ethnic majority 61 % females Age 15-28 questionnaire-based survey

10 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

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

12 OnlineDirectCivicN Type 12.871.131.98204 Type 23.071.533.2983 Type 31.651.031.54368 Type 41.681.172.7280

13 OnlineDirectCivicN Type 12.871.131.98204 Type 23.071.533.2983 Type 31.651.031.54368 Type 41.681.172.7280 Activists

14 OnlineDirectCivicN Type 12.871.131.98204 Type 23.071.533.2983 Type 31.651.031.54368 Type 41.681.172.7280 Disengaged

15 OnlineDirectCivicN Type 12.871.131.98204 Type 23.071.533.2983 Type 31.651.031.54368 Type 41.681.172.7280 Only civic

16 OnlineDirectCivicN Type 12.871.131.98204 Type 23.071.533.2983 Type 31.651.031.54368 Type 41.681.172.7280 Only online

17 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal males873014227286 females1175322452446 Gender

18 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal males873014227286 females1175322452446 Gender 79.7 124.3 expected frequencies

19 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal males873014227286 females1175322452446 Gender 79.7 124.3 χ 2 (1) = 1.10, p =.29 males and females represented equally

20 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal 15 – 19492710537218 20 – 281525525641504 Age

21 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal 15 – 19492710537218 20 – 281525525641504 Age 60.7 140.3 expected frequencies

22 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicTotal 15 – 19492710537218 20 – 281525525641504 Age 60.7 140.3 χ 2 (1) = 3.23, p =.07 younger and older represented equally

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

24 psychological empowerment trust social views politicized social environment

25 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,636) = 22.71, p <.01

26 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,636) = 22.71, p <.01 t(636) = 0.11, p =.91

27 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment

28 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy 3.503.653.033.343.26 Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,633) = 12.34, p <.01

29 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy 3.503.653.033.343.26 Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,633) = 12.34, p <.01 t(633) = 1.04, p =.30

30 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy 3.503.653.033.343.26 Community change Community opportunities Psychological empowerment

31 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy 3.503.653.033.343.26 Community change 3.353.553.073.313.23 Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,609) = 9.96, p <.01

32 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy 3.503.653.033.343.26 Community change 3.353.553.073.313.23 Community opportunities Psychological empowerment F(3,609) = 9.96, p <.01 t(609) = 1.84, p =.07

33 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy 3.503.653.033.343.26 Community change 3.353.553.073.313.23 Community opportunities Psychological empowerment

34 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy 3.503.653.033.343.26 Community change 3.353.553.073.313.23 Community opportunities 3.493.523.383.393.42 Psychological empowerment F(3,609) = 0.66, p =.58

35 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy 3.503.653.033.343.26 Community change 3.353.553.073.313.23 Community opportunities 3.493.523.383.393.42 Psychological empowerment F(3,609) = 0.66, p =.58 t(609) = 0.22, p =.83

36 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Internal political efficacy 3.393.402.702.512.95 Youth collective efficacy 3.503.653.033.343.26 Community change 3.353.553.073.313.23 Community opportunities 3.493.523.383.393.42 Psychological empowerment

37 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,618) = 2.97, p =.03

38 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,618) = 2.97, p =.03 t(618) = 1.13, p =.26

39 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust

40 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians1.811.861.701.711.75 Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,615) = 1.91, p =.13

41 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians1.811.861.701.711.75 Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,615) = 1.91, p =.13 t(615) = 0.59, p =.56

42 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians1.811.861.701.711.75 Trust in media Interpersonal trust Trust

43 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians1.811.861.701.711.75 Trust in media2.812.862.712.802.76 Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,618) = 1.97, p =.12

44 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians1.811.861.701.711.75 Trust in media2.812.862.712.802.76 Interpersonal trust Trust F(3,618) = 1.97, p =.12 t(618) = 0.57, p =.57

45 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians1.811.861.701.711.75 Trust in media2.812.862.712.802.76 Interpersonal trust Trust

46 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians1.811.861.701.711.75 Trust in media2.812.862.712.802.76 Interpersonal trust 2.452.372.202.392.32 Trust F(3,615) = 2.69, p =.05

47 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians1.811.861.701.711.75 Trust in media2.812.862.712.802.76 Interpersonal trust 2.452.372.202.392.32 Trust F(3,615) = 2.69, p =.05 t(615) = 0.57, p =.57

48 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Trust in political institutions 2.882.972.812.712.84 Trust in politicians1.811.861.701.711.75 Trust in media2.812.862.712.802.76 Interpersonal trust 2.452.372.202.392.32 Trust

49 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,604) = 2.91, p =.03

50 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 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

51 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views

52 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights 4.334.384.104.084.19 Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,596) = 3.73, p =.01

53 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights 4.334.384.104.084.19 Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,596) = 3.73, p =.01 t(596) = 0.41, p =.68

54 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights 4.334.384.104.084.19 Support for cultural rights Support for affirmative action Social views

55 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights 4.334.384.104.084.19 Support for cultural rights 3.043.332.993.05 Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,595) = 1.89, p =.13

56 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights 4.334.384.104.084.19 Support for cultural rights 3.043.332.993.05 Support for affirmative action Social views F(3,595) = 1.89, p =.13 t(595) = 1.91, p =.06

57 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights 4.334.384.104.084.19 Support for cultural rights 3.043.332.993.05 Support for affirmative action Social views

58 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights 4.334.384.104.084.19 Support for cultural rights 3.043.332.993.05 Support for affirmative action 1.722.311.882.131.91 Social views F(3,598) = 10.76, p <.01

59 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights 4.334.384.104.084.19 Support for cultural rights 3.043.332.993.05 Support for affirmative action 1.722.311.882.131.91 Social views F(3,598) = 10.76, p <.01 t(598) = 5.10, p <.01

60 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Social well-being3.093.212.883.012.99 Support for equal rights 4.334.384.104.084.19 Support for cultural rights 3.043.332.993.05 Support for affirmative action 1.722.311.882.131.91 Social views

61 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,618) = 33.16, p <.01

62 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 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

63 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment

64 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate 1.912.211.501.861.73 Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Social environment F(3,612) = 12.61, p <.01

65 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate 1.912.211.501.861.73 Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,612) = 12.61, p <.01 t(612) = 2.01, p <.05

66 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate 1.912.211.501.861.73 Not asked to participate Not been persuaded Politicized social environment

67 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate 1.912.211.501.861.73 Not asked to participate 3.653.293.933.653.75 Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,648) = 3.96, p <.01

68 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate 1.912.211.501.861.73 Not asked to participate 3.653.293.933.653.75 Not been persuaded Politicized social environment F(3,648) = 3.96, p <.01 t(648) = 1.71, p =.09

69 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate 1.912.211.501.861.73 Not asked to participate 3.653.293.933.653.75 Not been persuaded Politicized social environment

70 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate 1.912.211.501.861.73 Not asked to participate 3.653.293.933.653.75 Not been persuaded 2.652.163.103.122.87 Politicized social environment F(3,650) = 21.77, p <.01

71 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate 1.912.211.501.861.73 Not asked to participate 3.653.293.933.653.75 Not been persuaded 2.652.163.103.122.87 Politicized social environment F(3,650) = 21.77, p <.01 t(650) = 2.22, p <.05

72 OnlineActivistsDisengagedCivicMean Friends participate 2.813.132.002.142.37 Parents participate 1.912.211.501.861.73 Not asked to participate 3.653.293.933.653.75 Not been persuaded 2.652.163.103.122.87 Politicized social environment

73 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

74 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

75 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

76 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?

77 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 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)

78 Thank you! serek@fss.muni.cz petrovic@fss.muni.cz machacko@fss.muni.cz macek@fss.muni.cz

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

Similar presentations

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

National and Regional Variations in Electoral Participation in Europe: Evidence from The European Social Survey Ed Fieldhouse and Mark Tranmer Cathie Marsh.
Using Digital Media to Engage Young Citizens ~ Lance Bennett Center for Communication and Civic Engagement University of Washington, Seattle, USA ~ Prepared.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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 (MSM0021622406 and 1P05ME751). MASARYK.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparing Political Activism Worldwide Democratic Phoenix.
EUROPEAN UNION’S NEW STRATEGY FOR YOUTH: INVESTING & EMPOWERING.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Similar presentations

Ads by Google