1 / 22

DOES GENDER MATTER FOR YOUTH PARTICIPATION ?

DOES GENDER MATTER FOR YOUTH PARTICIPATION ?. Naciye Gizem Danışan , Tülin Şener , Figen Ç ok, University of Ankara, Turkey. Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16 th -17 th , 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.

anne-cash
Download Presentation

DOES GENDER MATTER FOR YOUTH PARTICIPATION ?

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DOES GENDER MATTER FOR YOUTH PARTICIPATION? Naciye Gizem Danışan, Tülin Şener, Figen Çok, University of Ankara, Turkey Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16th-17th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

  2. The equal access to participation resources by all segments of societyis extremelyimportant in ordertoendureandequalizetheparticipation of youth, ethnicitiesandwomenintodecisionmakingprocesses!! • Beinginactivemight risk to be ignoredwhenpoliciesaremade. Sowomen’sparticipation is importanttobettercommunicatethepreferencesandneeds of womentopublicofficials • not onlybecause of theimpact on policy but also of bringingwomenrecognition as fullmembers of community, educationaboutsocial, politicalworldandcontactsthatareuseful in othersocialpursuits(Burns N. et. al. 2001, 6). PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  3. FACILITATORS OF PARTICIPATION What factors facilitating or inhibiting the equal civic and political participation of women and youth are necessary ?? • Institutionalfactors: electoralor legal systems • Contextualfactors: culturalandsocio-economicexternalresources • Individualfactors: willingnessormotivationshowed • Aretheconditionsandpoliciesempoweringwomenforparticipation(Iwanaga K. 2008) • Intheabsence of anyfacilitator, women’sadvancement in politicsmay not takeplaceorbecomeuneven PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  4. INHIBITING FACTORS: • Time limitsforwomenduetoextrahouseholdworkloadwithkidsandduties • Theabsorbedmentalenergyduetoraisingtoddlers • Patriarchalstructure of in-familyrelationswithhusband • Socio-economiclimitations • Discriminationin societyamongwomen’sparticipation • Thechildhoodandadultsocializationwhichimpliestheimportance of a one’senvironmentin relationtopolitics Thesearetheinhibitingfactorsexplainswhywomencontinuetolagbehind men in politicalactivity(Burns N. et. al. 2001) PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  5. HistoricalPerspective • Just after the Turkish war of indipendence (1919-1922) the population includeed 7 million women and 5 million men in Turkey where almost 90% of the population was not lettered. • During the first reforms there were successful empowering women role-models such as • Sabiha Gökçen (1913-2001) who is the first women war pilot in the world • Afet İnan (1908-1985) the Turkish historian and sociology professor PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  6. TheyoungTurkishRepublicthatAtatrükengendered, had thesupportingelementsforwomenparticipationeducationandemployment. • A series of reformsfollowedby Atatürk who is thefounder of Republic of Turkey, including : • Clothingreforms, educationalrights of womenandtheimprovements on civilcode. • Turkishwomen had theelectoralrightsduetotheAtatürk’sreformsIn 1934 which is eralierthanmany of thedevelopedEuropeancountriestoday

  7. ParadoxalGenderGap in Turkey • Intoday’sTurkey, therearealsoefforsttheerodethegendergapespecially in educaton. • Turkishwomenshowsuptakingactivepart in key-positions in manyinstitutionssuch as: • Thehead of Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association is a women (Ümit Boyner) • Thepresident of Turkeywas a women (Tansu Çiller) in1993-1996 • Thenumber of womenacaddemicians is higherthan men in Turkey • On thecontrary, in bureaucracyandpoliticstheamount of women is muchlessthan men in Turkey. PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  8. AIM Theaim of thispaper is toinvestigate: • The gender differences among different types of civic/political participation and the possible explanatory factors for the association between gender and the level of civic/political participation. • Does being from an ethnic minority or being young matter for civic/political participation in a gendered manner in Turkey? • Whether gender appears as a gap on the types and level of civic/political participation in Turkey? PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  9. ParticipantsandMethod • Results arise from the data gathered for the Process Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) Project within the scope of Work Package 6 by Turkey team. • 732 young participants aged between 16 and 26 and having diverse ethnic backgrounds from Bulgarian resettlers, Roma and Turkish origin took part in the study. PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  10. ParticipantsandMethod • In the process of composing the groups, the research team attempted to recruit participants having different characteristics in terms of their socio-economic and educational statuses. • Several associations and organizations set up by Bulgarian Turks and the Roma people and institutional actors such as the directors of several non-governmental organizations working on minority issues were collaborated with the data collection process. PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  11. ParticipantsandMethod The results from the ‘PIDOP Questionnaire’ including • direct participation, • participation on the net and • civic engagement scales with 15 items, • ‘Participation and Involvement in Civic/political Organizations Questionnaire with 8 items’ and • ‘Quality of Participation Questionnaire’ including action and reflection scales with 8 items are presented. • Results are considered according to gender and age differences among a group of participants divided into two categories as 16 to 19 years old and 20 to 26 years old.

  12. Analyzes In this study, significant associations between : • the three different types of participation (in terms of direct participation, participation on the net, civic engagement), • quality of participation (in terms of action, reflection scales) and • genderand age represented. • Also group of civic/political organizations and the frequency of participating in these organizations among the study groups represented.

  13. Significant Multivariate Effects of Participation and Quality of Participation by Gender PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  14. Significant Multivariate Effects of Participation and Quality of Participation by Age PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  15. Frequencyof participation in civic/political organizations among Turkish youth according to gender. PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  16. Frequencyof participation in civic/political organizations among Roma youth according to gender. PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  17. Frequencyof participation in civic/political organizations among the Bulgarian resettler youth according to gender. PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  18. RESULTS & IMPLICATIONS • When it comes to differences in participation frequency in a gendered manner, methodologically significant associations missing, yet a persistent trend where young girls are participating less than boys obviously show that gender does matter for youth participation!! • Statistically significant age effect on the level of participation exist where the youth aged between 15 and 19 is more active in terms of civic/political participation than the ones aged between 20 and 26. • As the individuals grow older toward adulthood the interest and activity in participation tend to decrease while the trend of less participating women stays persistent by widening.

  19. RESULTS & IMPLICATIONS • As the socio-economic conditions become better, education level and employment increase, gender starts to become more matter for civic/political participation. • As this study show, with the negative effect of age toward twenties in civic/political participation might be doubled with the effect of being women or belonging to an ethnic minority in Turkey. • When the sample of this study widened to the Turkish society level and when the today's youth become the adults, workers, policy makers and the roots of society in the future, then gender gap in participatory action and civic engagement do matter much more!!!

  20. Consideringgender as an important factor while encouraging youth into participatory action, analyzing, defining or implementing the policies related to youth participation rights, is crucial!! PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

  21. 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) PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

More Related