790 likes | 969 Views
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 ,
E N D
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
Gender 79.7 124.3 expectedfrequencies
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 F(3,636) = 22.71, p < .01
Psychologicalempowerment t(636) = 0.11, p = .91 F(3,636) = 22.71, p < .01
Psychologicalempowerment F(3,633) = 12.34, p < .01
Psychologicalempowerment t(633) = 1.04, p = .30 F(3,633) = 12.34, p < .01
Psychologicalempowerment F(3,609) = 9.96, p < .01
Psychologicalempowerment t(609) = 1.84, p = .07 F(3,609) = 9.96, p < .01
Psychologicalempowerment F(3,609) = 0.66, p = .58
Psychologicalempowerment t(609) = 0.22, p = .83 F(3,609) = 0.66, p = .58
Trust F(3,618) = 2.97, p = .03
Trust t(618) = 1.13, p = .26 F(3,618) = 2.97, p = .03
Trust F(3,615) = 1.91, p = .13
Trust t(615) = 0.59, p = .56 F(3,615) = 1.91, p = .13
Trust F(3,618) = 1.97, p = .12
Trust t(618) = 0.57, p = .57 F(3,618) = 1.97, p = .12
Trust F(3,615) = 2.69, p = .05
Trust t(615) = 0.57, p = .57 F(3,615) = 2.69, p = .05
Socialviews F(3,604) = 2.91, p = .03
Socialviews t(604) = 0.87, p = .38 F(3,604) = 2.91, p = .03