1 / 78

Jan Šerek, Zuzana Petrovičová , Hana Macháčková & Petr Macek

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 ,

ornice
Télécharger la présentation

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. 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. 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

  2. Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey • cross-country comparison • ethnicminorities

  3. Strengths of the PIDOP WP6 survey • cross-country comparison • ethnicminorities • items on differenttypesofparticipation, includingnonconventional online activities

  4. 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)

  5. 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)

  6. 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)

  7. 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)

  8. Canweidentify a patternofparticipationthatischaracterized by a strongemphasis on online participation?

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

  10. 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

  11. hierarchical cluster analysis(Ward‘s method) threetypesofpoliticalparticipation fourclusters

  12. Activists

  13. Disengaged

  14. Onlycivic

  15. Only online

  16. Gender

  17. Gender 79.7 124.3 expectedfrequencies

  18. Gender 79.7 124.3 χ2 (1) = 1.10, p = .29 malesandfemalesrepresentedequally

  19. Age

  20. Age 60.7 140.3 expectedfrequencies

  21. Age 60.7 140.3 χ2 (1) = 3.23, p = .07 youngerandolderrepresentedequally

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

  23. What is the difference between activists and people who participate only online? • psychologicalempowerment • trust • socialviews • politicizedsocialenvironment

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

  25. Psychologicalempowerment t(636) = 0.11, p = .91 F(3,636) = 22.71, p < .01

  26. Psychologicalempowerment

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

  28. Psychologicalempowerment t(633) = 1.04, p = .30 F(3,633) = 12.34, p < .01

  29. Psychologicalempowerment

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

  31. Psychologicalempowerment t(609) = 1.84, p = .07 F(3,609) = 9.96, p < .01

  32. Psychologicalempowerment

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

  34. Psychologicalempowerment t(609) = 0.22, p = .83 F(3,609) = 0.66, p = .58

  35. Psychologicalempowerment

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

  37. Trust t(618) = 1.13, p = .26 F(3,618) = 2.97, p = .03

  38. Trust

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

  40. Trust t(615) = 0.59, p = .56 F(3,615) = 1.91, p = .13

  41. Trust

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

  43. Trust t(618) = 0.57, p = .57 F(3,618) = 1.97, p = .12

  44. Trust

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

  46. Trust t(615) = 0.57, p = .57 F(3,615) = 2.69, p = .05

  47. Trust

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

  49. Socialviews t(604) = 0.87, p = .38 F(3,604) = 2.91, p = .03

More Related