Building Voice, Civic Action and...
39
Building Voice, Civic Action and Learning What can we learn from young people living in socio- economically disadvantaged communities? Interim Report September 2009 Dr Hilary Cremin (PI) University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education Dr Paul Warwick (PI) University of Leicester, School of Education Mr Tom Harrison (Project co-ordinator) CSV Dr Carolynne Mason (Research Associate) University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education
Transcript of Building Voice, Civic Action and...
Building Voice, Civic Action and Learning
What can we learn from young people living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities?
Interim Report
September 2009
Dr Hilary Cremin (PI) University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education Dr Paul Warwick (PI) University of Leicester, School of Education
Mr Tom Harrison (Project co-ordinator) CSV Dr Carolynne Mason (Research Associate) University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education
2
The authors of this report would like to thank the project advisors for their assistance with this report and with the project.
Project Advisors
Prof Madeleine Arnot , University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education Peter Hayes, Consultant, Community Service Volunteers
Contents: 1 Executive Summary 2 Introduction 2.1 Overview of the project 2.2 Rationale and background to the study 2.3 Definitions 2.3.1 Civic Engagement 2.3.2 Socio-Economic Disadvantage 2.4 Methodology 2.4.1 Literature review 2.4.2 Review of existing data sets 3 Summary of empirical studies into young people’s civic engagement 3. 1 Are young people civically engaged? 3.1.1 Introduction 3.1.2. Civic engagement as formal political participation 3.1.3 Civic engagement as formal volunteering 3.1.4 Civic engagement as informal participation 3.1.5 Summary 3.2 Are young people living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities
civically engaged? 3.2.1 Introduction 3.2.2. Civic engagement as formal political participation 3.2.3 Civic engagement as formal volunteering 3.2.4 Civic engagement as informal participation 3.2.5 Summary 4 Discussion 4.1 Conflicting evidence on civic engagement 4.1.1 Introduction 4.1.2 Measurement and analysis issues 4.1.3 Diverse political and theoretical perspectives on civic engagement
and citizenship 4.1.4 Different Theoretical Perspectives on Citizenship and Civic
Engagement 5 Ways Forward 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Developing an integrated model of young people’s civic engagement
5.3 Conclusion
References
4
1. Executive Summary
Introduction
The Project
The Building voice, civic action and learning research project has been funded by the
Society for Educational Studies (SES) in order to better understand the civic action and
learning of young people from socio-economically disadvantaged communities. It began
in April 2009, and will continue until March 2011. Two universities and CSV (Community
Service Volunteers) are collaborating in this research. It aims to prioritise the voices of
young people, and to lead to knowledge that builds capacity for civic action and learning
in new ways.
This research project builds progressively through 4 stages. With each stage the
research becomes increasingly focussed on the specific communities and groups under
investigation, and on the detail of how best to respond to the needs of young people most
at risk of social exclusion. The first stage; a systematic literature review and analysis of
existing data sets has led to this interim report. This report lays the foundations for future
empirical research and outlines a wider theoretical framework that will provide a structure
for further investigation.
Project rationale Notions of a ‘democratic deficit’ linked to the civic disengagement of young people have
become prominent in research, media and policy-making arenas in England in recent
years. This report aims to look at these notions with particular reference to young people
living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. In the report we have attempted
to take a maximal, rather than a minimal view of civic participation, drawing on a range of
studies and perspectives in order to begin to tease out the complexities. We have aimed,
above all, to avoid locating notions of civic deficit with young people alone, and to
consider new forms of citizenship and civic engagement.
Definitions Consideration is given to defining two concepts that are central to this study: civic
engagement and socio-economic disadvantage. The report finds that these terms are
problematic in that they are complex, multi-faceted and contested.
5
Methodology The initial stage of this project aimed to ensure that the research is securely underpinned
by existing literature, research and policy. There were two strands to this stage of the
project - a literature review and a review of existing datasets. This report is a summary of
these systematic reviews.
Empirical studies examining young people’s civic engagement
Are Young People Civically Engaged?
This report reviews the commonly held assumption that young people in general are not
civically engaged and that action is required to encourage them to become more so. It
identifies three dimensions of a broad notion of civic engagement; formal political
participation, formal volunteering and informal participation. The empirical studies
reviewed provide a diverse and complex picture with regard to young people’s current
levels of, and patterns of, civic engagement. Overall they present a mixed view of young
people’s orientation towards civic engagement, however broadly defined, and they also
reveal young people to be a far from homogenous group. This indicates that a recognition
of the diversity of young people, and the influence of their varied contexts, is required
particularly when examining the civic engagement of young people living in socio-
economically disadvantaged areas.
Are young people living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities civically engaged? The report recognises that challenges faced by young people living in communities
experiencing socio-economic disadvantage have implications for their levels of civic
engagement. It looks at what is currently known about the civic engagement of these
young people and identifies gaps in research in this area. Evidence is found in the
literature to suggest that these young people are less likely than other young people to be
engaged in mainstream politics, that they do benefit when they have the opportunity to
engage in formal volunteering opportunities, and perhaps most significantly, that young
people’s from socio- economically disadvantaged communities do make a significant
contribution to their families and communities, but this is often done informally and
consequently is not always recognised or acknowledged.
6
Discussion
Conflicting evidence about young peoples civic engagement
The report explores why it is that the picture of the civic action and learning of young
people generally, and particularly those from socio-economically disadvantaged
communities, is complex, and at times contradictory. The report suggests that this is due
to contrasting epistemological assumptions within different research traditions on the one
hand, and diverse political and theoretical perspectives on civic engagement and
citizenship on the other. Theories of Citizenship provide a lens through which young
people’s civic engagement and learning are viewed, so that a consideration of these
issues cannot be separated from a wider discussion of citizenship as a concept. In
particular, the report identifies four theoretical perspectives – civic republicanism, liberal
rights-based, communitarian and identity-based notions of citizenship. The report
discusses these different traditions with reference to the key themes of civic engagement
and learning amongst young people.
Ways forward
The literature review highlights the need to recognise the complex and transient context
within which young people in the 21st century are living as active social agents. It is
important that educators concerned with providing young people with engaging and apt
learning opportunities for civic engagement are aware of the diverse lived realities of their
students. This report suggests that in order to better understand the current experiences,
opportunities and barriers to young people’s civic engagement, what is required is a
broadened concept of what actually represents civic engagement.
In particular, it suggests that drives to support the civic engagement of young people from
socio-economically disadvantaged communities (and perhaps all young people) should
be initiated by young people, recognise informality and erosion of the public / private
divide in civic space, enable the expression of multiple identities and personalised values
and build on communitarian traditions of citizenship. The report recommends that a more
young person-centred approach to understanding the experiences of civic engagement is
required as are the points of resistance that in particular those from socio-economically
disadvantaged areas face. It is these approaches that will form the focus for the next
phase of this study.
7
2. Introduction 2.1 Overview of the Building voice, civic action and learning research
project
The Building voice, civic action and learning research project is a project that has been
funded by the Society for Educational Studies (SES) in order to better understand the
civic action and learning of young people from socio-economically disadvantaged
communities. It began in April 2009, and will continue until March 2011. Two universities
and CSV (Community Service Volunteers) have collaborated in this research. It aims to
prioritise the voices of young people, and to lead to knowledge that builds capacity for
civic action and learning in new ways.
The overall aims of the research project are:
• To investigate the ways in which young people from socio-economically
disadvantaged communities express their civic identities, engage with their
communities at local, national and global level, and reflect on processes of
participation
• To build the capacity of schools and voluntary agencies concerned with active
citizenship education to provide opportunities for student voice, civic action and
learning that reflect the preferences and contexts of young people from socio-
economically disadvantaged communities
This interim report consists of a literature review that will lay the foundations for further
empirical research. It seeks to present these within a wider theoretical framework that will
provide a structure for further investigation.
2.2 Rationale and background to the study
Notions of a ‘democratic deficit’ linked to the civic disengagement of young people have
become prominent in research, media and policy-making arenas in England in recent
years (Jowell & Park,1998, Putnam, 2000). The media typically portray young people as
uninterested in anything other than television and computer games (Cushion, 2007) and
as disengaged from politics.
Concern over levels of civic engagement contributed to the introduction of Citizenship
Education (CE) into the Secondary National Curriculum in England in 2002, and, more
recently, to the Government’s plans to introduce national community youth service
8
(Brown, 2009). In this latest initiative the expectation is for all young people to complete
50 hours of voluntary work in their communities by the age of 19. The Prime Minister in
his recent pledge to support thousands more young people to play a more active part in
their community stated:
“It is my ambition to create a country in which there is a clear expectation that all young people will undertake some service to their community, and where community service will become a normal part of growing up” (Gordon Brown, Cabinet Office Press Statement, 24th April 2009).
Underpinning such policy initiatives is the notion that young people need support to
become more civically engaged (McLaughlin, 2000). The Government’s Citizenship
Advisory Group, instrumental in the establishment of CE as a statutory subject in
secondary schools, stated that reform was necessary due to, “worrying levels of apathy,
ignorance and cynicism about public life’ (QCA, 1998:8).
Various commentators have tried to create a conceptual framework for understanding
apparent levels of civic disengagement amongst young people. Loader (2007) for
example, suggests that there are two different perspectives on levels of young people’s
disengagement from civic and political life. The first, the ‘disaffected citizen’ perspective
suggests that young people are characterised by growing political apathy and withdrawal
from public activity. The second, the ‘cultural displacement’ perspective suggests that,
“young people are not necessarily any less interested in politics than previous
generations but rather that traditional political activity no longer appears appropriate to
address the concerns associated with contemporary youth culture” (Loader, 2007:1).
Some commentators have gone further to suggest that young people are no different to
the adults with whom they live and that care needs to be taken to avoid scape-goating
young people for the general ills of a politically disengaged population. Krishner et al.
(2003) for example remind us that young people are no different to adults in the
complexity of their positioning and actions:
“Terms such as ‘cynical,’ or ‘alienated' that are used to categorise broad demographic groups misrepresent the complexity of youth’s attitudes towards their communities. Young people are often cynical and hopeful, or both critical and engaged” (Krishner et al., 2003:2).
In this project, we have attempted to take a maximal, rather than a minimal view of civic
participation, drawing on a range of studies and perspectives in order to begin to tease
out some of this complexity. We have aimed, above all, to avoid locating notions of civic
deficit with young people alone, and to consider new forms of citizenship and civic
engagement.
9
2.3 Definitions
Many of the terms that are used in this research project are problematic, complex, multi-
faceted and contested. Consideration is given below to two concepts that are central to
this study: civic engagement and socio-economic disadvantage
2.3.1 Civic engagement
Civic engagement is used in a variety of ways by different people to mean different
things. To a great extent, this is because the meaning of ‘civic’ is contested. Those
following a civic republican tradition of citizenship would tend to regard civic space as
formal and relating to the state as an institution. Whereas, those following a more
identity-based notion of citizenship, would tend to see it as more fluid, transitory and
complex. Already the words civic engagement and citizenship have been used
interchangeably in the above, as research and development in these areas deal with
similar issues using one or other of these terms.
The maximal view of civic engagement adopted in this study sees civic engagement as
being broadly defined as an active concern for the common good. It is generally taken as
an individuals’ participation in their communities. Participation ranges from concerned
interest and informal volunteering through to politicised direct action. In the globalised
context of high or post-modernity, civic engagement can involve local, national or
international communities of belonging.
2.3.2 Socio-Economic Disadvantage
This project is focused on the experiences of young people growing up in socio-
economically disadvantaged areas. The number of young people living in poverty in
Britain continues to be a key political issue, with recent government statistics revealing
that 2.9 million children were living in relative poverty in 2007/08 (Department for Work
and Pensions, 2009). But the term socio-economic disadvantage is one that is much
broader than the term poverty, which prioritises fiscal inequalities. Socio-economic
disadvantage reflects the fact that people who experience poverty are also likely to face a
variety of other challenges in their lives, as noted by Darton et al. (2003):
“Poverty in Britain is inextricably intertwined with disadvantages in health, housing, education and other aspects of life. It is hard for people who lack resources to take advantage of the opportunities available to the rest of society” (Darton et al., 2003:9).
It is important to recognise that children and young people living in households
experiencing poverty also experience negative outcomes which frequently persist into
adulthood. The lower a child’s socio-economic group at birth, the greater the probability of
10
them experiencing multiple deprivation in adulthood (Feinstein, 2007). There is an
established link between educational under-achievement and low income, as 11 year-
olds eligible for free school meals are twice as unlikely to achieve basic standards in
literacy and numeracy as other 11 year-olds. (Palmer, 2008). In addition, more than a
quarter of white British boys eligible for free school meals do not obtain five or more
GCSEs, a much higher proportion than any other group. (Palmer, 2008)
As Darton et al. (2003) note:
“A wide range of disadvantages in childhood and youth – from mental health problems to low educational attainment – are experienced more by people with worse-off parents. Therefore, strategies to fight poverty and to combat wider social disadvantage need to go hand in hand” (Darton et al., 2003:16).
The study in hand aims to investigate the links between disadvantage and young
people’s levels of civic engagement as part of a wider project to access excluded voices
and reduce the effects of poverty and missed life opportunities.
2.4 Methodology
The initial stage of this project aimed to ensure that the research is securely underpinned
by existing literature, research and policy. There were two strands to this stage of the
project - a literature review and a review of existing datasets.
2.4.1 Literature Review
The intention was to be systematic and inclusive. Initially in conducting the literature
review the team identified a series of key words in order to address the question:
What do we know about the civic engagement of young people, particularly young
people from socio-economically disadvantaged communities?
Keywords included citizenship, civic action, civic engagement, participation, altruism,
volunteering, public/private, change agents, local/global citizenship, fundraising and
church/mosque. The terms ‘young people’, ‘school’ and socio-economic disadvantage
were used as parameter terms with each of the identified key words. Some searches
generated a large quantity of sources. A search of Metalib using the keyword ‘community’
yielded 300 hits when linked with young people and 884 hits when linked to school, for
example. The identified hits were therefore further ‘filtered’ by date (within last 10 years),
location (UK prioritised), by title and then by reference to the abstract which was usually
accessible on-line. The result of this process yielded more than 60 relevant articles,
11
books and reports which were prioritised as being most relevant to the project. Additional
sources were also identified as the project progressed using a snowballing approach.
2.4.2 Review of existing data sets
Existing data sets which included data collected from young people were identified and
accessed via the UK government-sponsored Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS)
housed at the universities of Essex and Manchester. The datasets pertaining to young
people were restricted to those that were conducted within the last 10 years in the UK.
Findings from the most relevant ten datasets were examined for findings that would
inform this study. Additional datasets relevant to informing the research question were
identified through Google’s on-line search facilities, and the most relevant of these (e.g.
reports from the Carnegie UK Trust, v, millennium volunteers and the Youth Citizenship
Commission) were also included.
12
3. Summary of empirical studies into young
people’s civic engagement
3. 1 Are young people civically engaged?
3.1.1 Introduction
As highlighted above, there is a common assumption that young people in general are
not civically engaged and that action is required to encourage them to become more so.
This section of the report critically explores this point of view. Three dimensions of a
broad notion of civic engagement are each considered in turn: formal political
participation, formal volunteering and informal participation.
3.1.2. Civic engagement as formal political participation
A number of empirical studies indicate that young people do in fact have relatively low or
moderate levels of formal political engagement. The most recent report from the
Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS) presents young people as showing
moderately positive attitudes toward formal political engagement (Benton et al., 2008).
Drawing from data collected in 75 schools and involving 11,103 responses from Year 11
(15-16 year-old) pupils, it reports that around half intend to vote in elections, with slightly
more young people intending to vote in general (rather than local) elections. Findings
from this longitudinal study show that young people exhibited low levels of trust in both
politicians and political institutions.
Similarly a recent study carried out by the Youth Citizenship Commission found that 82%
of young people in the UK don’t trust politicians to make the right decisions for them. It
also found that 76% of young people don’t feel they can influence government decisions
(Youth Citizenship Commission press release, July 2009).
This pattern of formal political disengagement by young people can be seen to be part of
a global trend. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study provides some useful comparative data in this
area, researching 90,000 14 year-olds from 28 countries. It found that patterns of formal
political engagement in England were comparable with the other 27 countries who took
part in the study:
13
“A majority, approximately four-fifths of 14-year-olds in all countries, including England, do not intend to participate in conventional political activities, such as joining a political party, writing letters to newspapers about social and political concerns, and being a candidate for a local or municipal office”(Kerr et al., 2002:iv).
Young people may not be so different from adults in this respect, however. When civic
engagement is defined as formal political participation, findings suggest that levels of
participation amongst the population at large are low. In the government’s all-age
Citizenship Survey civic participation was defined as: contacting a local councillor,
Member of Parliament, member of the Greater London Assembly or National Assembly
for Wales; attending a public meeting or rally; taking part in a public demonstration or
protest; and signing a petition (Communities & Local Government Office, 2007). Using
this definition the survey found that 40% of people had engaged in civic participation at
least once in the past year, and only 3% had engaged in civic participation at least once a
month.
In direct contrast, a report by the Nestle Social Research Foundation (Haste, 2005) found
that young people have a different definition of what being a good citizen means, and
also what it means to be civically engaged. This report found that:
“Young people’s definition of the good citizen, as well as the pattern of their own motives, indicates a broader picture that includes both quasi-political activity related to specific issues they wish to make their voices heard on, and community involvement to help the disadvantaged and to support others. This latter kind of activity is not usually seen as explicitly ‘political’ – either by its practitioners or by political science - but it clearly plays a very important part in motivating civic involvement and perhaps in providing basic skills for action” (Haste, 2005:27).
It is to this form of community-based civic involvement that we now turn.
3.1.3 Civic engagement as formal volunteering
Based upon a broader notion of what constitutes civic engagement, a number of
empirical studies question the notion of young people’s apathy and disengagement from
public life (Roker, 1999, Haste, 2005, Clarke & Thacker 2009). Findings from these
studies support the view that there is a distinction to be made between political deficit and
civic deficit. Roker et al. (1999) for example question the predominant image of young
people as apathetic and uninvolved in their communities. In their study of young people’s
social action, gathering data from 1160 14-16 year olds, they depict young people as
being involved in a wide variety of voluntary and campaigning activities. For example
89% of those surveyed had given money to charity, 70% had signed petitions to
14
campaign about something (causes included human rights) and 59% had boycotted
something because of where, or how, it was made such as products tested on animals.
Similarly, Haste (2005) refers to a study by the Nestle Social Research Foundation which
found that the 900 young people questioned were involved in a diverse range of civic
engagement activities. For example 35% had signed a petition in the last year and 38%
had tried to influence how things were done in their school or college.
A report in 2009 by the Evangelical society argues that young people are very active
members of society. In a survey of over 700 14-18 year olds they found that 45% of
young people volunteer at least once a month and 80% donate money to charity each
month. The survey showed that young people who volunteer give on average 3.57 hours
a month. The report states that across England, if these volunteers were on the minimum
wage, it would cost £210 million a year for their time. According to the report, young
people also donate approximately £110 million to charity each year. (Clark & Thacker,
2009)
A key finding from a number of empirical studies with regard to the nature of young
people’s current civic engagement is their distinctive preference for single-issue political
action (Haste, 2005, Roker,1999). For example, at the time of the Nestle Social Research
Foundation study, 7% of the respondents had taken part in demonstrations against the
Iraq War and 9% had written to a newspaper or took part in a phone-in programme on a
topical issue (Haste, 2005).
The CELS report argues that young people’s civic engagement appears to be shifting
more towards being connected to ‘near environment’ experiences and issues (such as
family, peers, school, or neighbourhood) and away from national and European
community issues (Benton et al., 2008). They argue that this creates the potential for new
learning spaces or sites of civic engagement that are more personalised to the interests
of young people and subsequently more accessible than traditional and more formal sites
of civic engagement. This notion of personalised civic engagement is explored in the
following section.
3.1.4 Civic engagement as informal participation
An important, but often overlooked area for consideration when investigating levels of
civic engagement is that of personalised civic engagement and informal volunteering. A
distinction between formal and non-formal volunteering is made in the government’s all-
age Citizenship Survey (Communities & Local Government Office, 2007). In this survey
15
formal volunteering is defined as giving unpaid help through groups, clubs or
organisations to benefit other people or the environment. Informal volunteering is defined
as giving unpaid help as an individual to people who are not relatives. Having made this
distinction, the survey found that 63% of all adults volunteered informally compared to
45% volunteering formally.
Young people’s civic engagement through non-formal volunteering is highlighted in a
recent survey by the volunteering organisation V. Their Young People Speak Out survey
of nearly 2,000 16-25 year olds sought to determine the levels of formal volunteering (for
example, helping with fundraising through an organisation) and informal volunteering
(defined in the survey as unpaid help to any clubs, groups, organisations or neighbours).
It found that a larger proportion of young people had volunteered informally (57%) than
formally (41%) (Pye et al., 2009:14). This broader notion of volunteering as an indication
of civic engagement brings the view of young people as apathetic further into question.
The survey calculated that 68% of young people had volunteered in 2009, either through
formal volunteering placements or., informally (Pye et al., 2009). This compares
favourably with 73% of adults who had volunteered (formally or informally) in 2007.
(Communities & Local Government Office ,2007).
Therefore it is important for this ‘hidden’ aspect of civic engagement to be taken into
account, considering in particular the extent and implications of such non-formal
volunteering for people from marginalised groups. In their response to the Russell
commission for example, CSV highlight the ‘hidden volunteering’ taking place, particularly
among BME communities, which is informal and not necessarily professionally organised,
but is driven by communities or faith groups according to their needs. (Hoodless,
2005:11)
A more contestable aspect of civic engagement is that of young people participating
solely at the level of expressing concern and interest over public life issues. Empirical
studies by Holden (2007) and Warwick (2008) present young people as holding concern
over a broad range of both local and global issues. A survey commissioned by V (2007)
also discovered that whilst young people are passionate about a broad range of global
and local issues, the majority of young people do not act on these interests. One
contributing factor to this ‘voice’ engagement is young people encountering a variety of
barriers that inhibit or even prevent their civic concerns being put into action. For example
the V (2007) study found that 90% of young people surveyed felt that there were barriers
stopping them from getting involved in community action. Specific barriers to civic
16
engagement included; time pressures, a lack of knowledge about where and how to get
involved, and young people thinking that they didn’t have anything to offer. Pye et al.
(2009) found that over two million young people might consider volunteering on a full-time
basis if they were asked. Their report suggests that young people may not be self-
motivated to take on volunteering or community service opportunities – but would
seriously consider doing so if they were asked and more importantly given guidance and
encouragement to do so. This raises the issue of young people’s levels of civic
engagement being influenced by ‘mobilisation’, where they are invited to take part of
made aware that a civic engagement opportunity exists.
Thus, whilst young people appear to be disengaged from formal politics, there is
evidence to suggest that they are engaged in positive ways with their various
communities, and that they have concerns over issues of justice and public morality.
Coleman (2007) reports on a study exploring the Big Brother television programme as a
form of popular culture that engages young people in models of participation. 200 Big
Brother viewers and voters completed regular surveys during the time of the 2005
general election. The 200 Big Brother viewers and voters were neither inattentive nor
inactive citizens during the 2005 general election campaign, but their experience of the
campaign was that it was boring and did little to change their minds. Their feelings of
political efficacy were low; they did not believe that their involvement in the election could
have much impact on political consequences. Asked with whom they would most like to
have a discussion about the state of the world, 39% of the Big Brother viewers and voters
chose Tony Blair and 36% selected Jamie Oliver. Any view of re-engaging young people
in politics and public life would do well to take account of these preferences.
3.1.5 Summary
The empirical studies reviewed here have presented a diverse and complex picture with
regard to young people’s current levels and patterns of civic engagement. Overall the
studies present a mixed view of young people’s orientation towards civic engagement,
however broadly defined. So whilst Haste (2005) highlights that the Nestle Social
Research Foundation study found that around a quarter of young people in England were
very involved in their communities, it also found a similar number were disengaged and
disaffected. Similarly Roker et al. (1999) provides considerable evidence of young people
being engaged in a broad range of civic activities, but only found 13% of the sample were
involved in ‘regular’ volunteering or campaigning activities.
17
These empirical studies clearly reveal young people to be a far from homogenous group.
Instead it is suggested that the nature and extent of young people’s civic engagement is
influenced by a variety of factors. Drawing in particular from the work of Kerr (2005)
Benton et al (2008) and Pattie et al (2003) a number of interconnected personal and
contextual factors emerge as having an impact on young people’s civic engagement, and
these include:
• Personal Efficacy - a young person’s sense and feeling that their opinions and
actions matter; can have an influence on the outcome of a civic issue.
• Resources - whether or not a young person has the time to civically engage, or
has the income to cover the costs, or access to the opportunity through mobility.
• Civic capital – whether or not the young person has the knowledge, networks, and
skills to be able to act upon a civic issue of concern.
• Benefits – what the personal advantage is of taking part in a particular civic
engagement activity, and what the collective benefits will be to the
group/community the civic action is seeking to make a positive contribution
towards.
• Motivation through membership attachment - the more a young person feels
attached to a particular community or group, the more motivated out of a sense of
connection and duty they are to engage civically on its behalf.
• Social norms for participation - whether or not significant people close to a young
person through their families or social networks; value, encourage or inspire their
participation in civic engagement or not.
• Mobilisation – whether or not a young person has been asked/invited to take part
in a civic engagement activity, or made aware that the opportunity exists.
The empirical studies also reveal noticeable patterns of civic engagement depending
upon factors such as gender, ethnicity, locality, family background and religious affiliation
(Morrow 2006, Benton et al. 2008, Roker et al.1999). For example, the longitudinal study
of Citizenship Education and young people’s civic participation by Benton et al (2008)
concluded that:
18
“Those young people with the least positive attitudes and intentions (re formal and informal civic participation) tend to be boys, those of white British or Black origin and those with the lowest socio-economic status. Those young people with the most positive attitudes and the strongest intentions tend to be girls, those of Asian origin and those with the highest socio-economic status” (Benton et al, 2008:vii).
This insight into the diversity of young people and the influence of their different contexts
is of particular interest when we seek to consider the civic engagement levels of young
people from socio-economic disadvantaged areas.
3.2 Are young people living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities civically engaged?
3.2.1 Introduction
The previous discussion indicates that the evidence on young people’s civic engagement
paints a complex picture. Earlier in the report it was suggested that young people living in
communities experiencing socio-economic disadvantage face greater challenges in their
lives than those young people living in more affluent areas, and it is argued here that
these challenges have implications for the civic engagement of these young people. As
documented by the Home Office (2004)
“Those who suffer the greatest from short term funding are already most vulnerable to social exclusion and least likely to become active citizens in any context” (Home Office, 2004:6).
This section explores what is currently known about the civic engagement of those young
people living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. Despite the many
challenges facing young people living in these communities in their daily lives, it is
disappointing to report that much research on the civic engagement of young people is
conducted with little or no reference to this issue.
3.2.2. Civic engagement as formal political participation
Evidence that young people living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities are
less likely than other young people to be engaged in mainstream politics is provided by
the Young People’s Social Attitudes Survey (2003) of 663 12-19 year olds. The survey
found that young people generally are disaffected about politics but are more likely to be
interested in households where the adults in their house are interested in politics and
where those adults are both educated and wealthy. They found that young people’s
attitudes are not static, but that they vary across both time, and across age groups. Of
19
those surveyed 16% were engaged in voluntary work or charity. Socio-economic status
was more important than other factors in predicting the types of activities young people
engaged in.
Another study that identified different levels of political engagement amongst different
groups of young people was conducted by Lopes et al (2009). They explored the impact
of citizenship education through measures of young people’s future intentions. They
identified four specific future intentions: voting in general elections, voting in local
elections, volunteering time to help other people, and collecting money for a good cause.
Regardless of the reliability of these measures for predicting future action, the results
reveal some interesting differences between groups of young people. Female students
and those living in homes with more books (a proxy for socio-economic status) were
more likely to indicate an intention to participate, as were Asian students. Importantly
though, the strongest relationship identified was the relationship between perceived
benefits of participation and intention to participate in the future. The authors suggest that
future research could usefully explore the impact of both knowledge and self-efficacy on
this relationship. They concluded:
“Bringing out the personal advantages of participation through citizenship
education and other initiatives may be desirable if young people’s engagement in
civic and political life is to be stimulated” (Lopes et al, 2009:15)
3.2.3 Civic engagement as formal volunteering
In terms of formal volunteering, there is evidence that young people living in socio-
economically disadvantaged communities are excluded from formal volunteering. A
survey by the national youth volunteering charity V found, for example, that many young
people, particularly from socially excluded backgrounds, do not consider themselves as
the sort of person who volunteers. Volunteers were seen as hippies, affluent or old
people (Pye, 2009). Roker et al (1999) in their study of young people’s patterns of
volunteering and campaigning, found that participants from a school in a socio-
economically disadvantaged area consistently stated that they could not afford many of
the costs associated with formal civic engagement activities, including membership fees
and transportation costs.
Organisations that aim to facilitate formal volunteering recognise the challenges they face
in engaging young people from diverse backgrounds. Challenges arise from difficulties
associated with language, lack of financial and temporal resources and the pressures of
20
performing in a target driven culture (Institute for Volunteering Research, 2002). The
Young Volunteer Challenge project aimed specifically to recruit volunteers from more
diverse backgrounds, as defined by factors including young peoples’ socio-economic
status, ethnicity and gender. The evaluation showed that feedback from the volunteers
about the impact of programme was overwhelmingly positive. For example, 92% of
leavers said that they would take part in YVC if they had their time again and 95% that
they would recommend it to friends (GHK Consulting Ltd, 2006:3). The evaluation found
that young people who took part were more likely to progress into education and
employment.
It is important to recognise, however, that the assumption that all young people benefit
from formal volunteering may not reflect the complexity of young people’s lived
experiences. In their paper Dead end kids in dead end jobs? Quinn et al (2008) challenge
the notion that young people in ‘jobs without training’ would necessarily benefit from
being encouraged into alternative educational pathways. Their assertions are based on a
longitudinal participative, qualitative project involving 182 interviews with 114 young
people in jobs without training. The study attempted to challenge existing notions, and
respond to the lack of research that examining the complexity of these young peoples
needs, work experiences and priorities. They conclude that whilst young people in jobs
without training face serious structural inequalities, their employment status is not
necessarily seen as a problem to them. Deficit models do not take account of their
complex lives. These young peoples’ lives are not without learning, either in the
workplace or outside of it, although the learning is not in a form that schools or colleges
would easily recognise. Quinn et al therefore suggest trying to force these young people,
“into formal, linear educational pathways is anachronistic and likely to be actively
resisted” (Quinn et al: 2008:185).
3.2.4 Civic engagement as informal participation
Notions of ‘voice’ are intrinsically linked with notions of civic engagement. One way in
which young people are encouraged to civically engage is through contributing to
decision-making processes. In 2006, the Centre for British Teachers Education Trust
(CfBT) commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) to
undertake a review of the literature on young people’s voice (Halsey et. al 2008). The
evidence revealed that there is a ‘growing culture of participation’ whereby young
people’s contributions are valued as having the potential to influence decisions that affect
their lives and those of their communities. This culture of participation can have a positive
impact on young people’s sense of ‘self efficacy’ which in turn has been found to be a key
21
factor in influencing their levels of civic engagement (Benton et al 2008). Halsey et al
(2006) suggest, however, that the time has now come for organisations to move beyond
concerns with ‘participation as a process’, in order to direct attention towards exploring
the actual impact of young people’s involvement. They report that there is a paucity of
evidence about the impact of young people’s involvement, prompting them to recommend
that the outcomes of young people’s involvement are properly evaluated, and that young
people’s own perspectives are prioritised. They also recommend longitudinal research to
track the long-term outcomes of their involvement.
One study which examined the participation experiences of young people from socio-
economically disadvantaged communities is that of Morrow (2006) who explored the
nature of social networks, local identity, attitudes towards institutions and facilities in the
community. She found that participation in community decision-making for young people
in the study was limited.
“Overall, the study highlighted how a range of practical, environmental, and economic constraints were felt by this age-group; for example, not having safe spaces where they could play, not being able to cross the road because of traffic, having no place to go except the shopping center, being regarded with suspicion because of lack of money” (Morrow, 2006:145).
The report concluded that ‘linking social capital’, that is, connecting or bridging groups to
influential others, enabling access to power structures, was clearly lacking for the young
people in the study.
As noted in section 3.1.4, the informal activities that young people engage in are often
overlooked due to a focus on formal ‘civic’ engagement, which detracts from engagement
in the home. This is an even more pertinent issue for young people living in socio-
economically disadvantaged communities. In a study by of 730 11-16 year-old English
secondary pupils, Morrow (1994) found that 40% had regular home responsibilities
(minding siblings, cleaning, laundry etc) and almost as many helped in a family business
or earned money outside the home. Some European children (unpaid usually) are the
main carers of disabled parents or other family members (Becker, Dearden and Aldridge,
2001). In immigrant families children’s language skills are frequently used by the family in
dealing with officialdom (Orellana, Dorner and Pulido (2003). These valuable
contributions to family and community life must not be overlooked in attempts to formalise
young people’s volunteering and civic engagement.
22
On a final note, there has been in increasing interest in the impact of technological
advances on young people’s civic engagement (Banaji 2008, Coleman 2007). The UK
Children Go Online study explored 9-19 year olds’ use of the internet and concluded that
socio-economic differences are sizeable (UKCGO, 2005). One example of this is that
88% of middle class children and 61% of working class children had accessed the
internet at home. Since there has been considerable interest in the use of ICT by young
people to facilitate civic engagement, this statistic is important to note.
3.2.5 Summary
The review exploring whether young people from socio-economically disadvantaged
communities are civically engaged indicated that these young people are less likely than
other young people to be engaged in mainstream politics. (Young People’s Social
Attitudes, 2003). The study by Lopes et al (2009) indicated that there was a strong
relationship between the perceived benefits of participation and intended future
participation and the authors noted that future research could usefully explore the impact
of both knowledge and self-efficacy on this relationship.
Evidence was presented that supports the notion that young people from socio-
economically disadvantaged communities benefit from engaging in formal volunteering
opportunities. Several caveats were, however, identified in the ‘Evaluation of the Young
Volunteer Challenge Programme’ (GHK Consulting Ltd, 2006). Some young people are
excluded from formal volunteering by the prohibitive costs (both temporal and financial),
language barriers and target-driven cultures (Roker et al 1999, Institute for Volunteering
Research, 2002). They are also dissuaded by negative stereotypes of volunteers (Pye et
al , 2009). It was also argued that whilst young people may benefit from formal
volunteering opportunities these must reflect recognition that their lives are already likely
to involve positive learning experiences, although these may be very different from those
offered by existing voluntary organisations (Quinn et al, 2008, Lareau, 2005).
The examination of young people’s informal engagement documented that young people
from socio-economically disadvantaged communities make a significant contribution to
their families and communities (Morrow, 1994, Becker, Dearden and Aldridge, 2001,
Orellana et al 2003). It was also noted that young people are increasingly being asked to
engage in decision-making that affects their lives and their communities, although
relatively little is known about the actual impact of this. Morrow (2006) recognised that
young people living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities may struggle more
than other young people to impact on decision-making, as a result of accessing lower
23
levels of social capital. The section that follows explores the factors underpinning this
complex evidence base.
24
4. Discussion
4.1 Conflicting evidence on civic engagement
4.1.1 Introduction
There are a number of reasons why the picture of the civic action and learning of young
people from socio-economically disadvantaged groups is so complex, and at times
contradictory. These are to do with contrasting epistemological assumptions within
different research traditions leading to different forms of measurement and analysis on
the one hand, and diverse political and theoretical perspectives on civic engagement and
citizenship on the other.
4.1.2 Measurement and analysis issues
Whiting and Harper (ONS, 2003) note that qualitative methods show young people to
have higher levels of social and civic participation than are recorded through quantitative
methods:
“The quantitative and qualitative research paint conflicting pictures of young people and social capital. The quantitative evidence indicates that social and civic participation is lower among young people compared to older people while the qualitative work questions this. The reason for this disparity may be because the indicators used to measure some of the dimensions of social capital such as civic and social participation are not relevant to the lives of young people. They neglect the types of activities young people are engaged in and are often based on a geographical understanding of community, which is problematic for young people” (Whiting and Harper, 2003:14).
Whiting and Harper suggested that the definitions of social and civic participation were
too narrow and contributed to a conceptualisation of young people only as consumers of
social capital and not producers (Morrow, 2002) and failed to take account of the ways in
which young people “socialise in friendship networks, participate in local activities,
generate their own connections and make links for their parents” (Morrow in Edwards et
al. 2003:12).
Compounding the difficulties in survey design already noted is the lack of attention to
factors such as young people’s socio-economic status, gender and ethnicity. As noted
by Fahmy:
“Analysis of trends in voluntary participation both in the UK and across the Western democracies generally suggests that young people are also less likely either to join or to be actively involved in a wide range of local community,
25
sporting, religious and civic organizations compared with older citizens…. However, survey data frequently underestimate the participation of socially marginalized groups in the type of relatively fluid and unstructured forms of participation that tend to engage young people” (Fahmy, 2006:105).
A final issue permeating some data collection with young people was noted by Roche in
his work examining the experiences of young carers. Roche borrows the term ‘Adultism’
(Dalrymple and Burke 1995:141-2) which he argues is as pervasive a force as sexism
and racism. He states that in order for children and young people to gain power, others
are required to relinquish it and he suggests that the children’s rights agenda:
“Is about respecting and valuing the contribution children make and have to make to the world children and adults share: a world hitherto defined and imagined primarily in adult terms – it is about power” (Roche, 1999:487).
Other authors have suggested that much research that has been conducted examining
young people’s engagement is problematic because it fails to reflect young people’s own
viewpoints and experiences. Lister et al (2003) have responded to this criticism in their
longitudinal qualitative study of young people. They believe that a young person’s socio-
economic status is an important consideration when examining young people’s
experiences. Accordingly, they classified young people in their study as ‘insiders’ and
‘outsiders’. Among the many conclusions they draw is that there are differences between
the ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ in terms of the way they perceive themselves to be citizens.
“At each wave, ‘outsiders’ were less likely than ‘insiders’ to identify themselves as
citizens.”(Lister et al, 2003:241)
Young people in their study recognised different models of citizenship which are more or
less relevant to them and their experiences. Many felt that the link between being a ‘good’
citizen and earning money excludes them because of their age and lack of inclusion in
the job market.
Issues of epistemology and measurement, are therefore significant in explaining the
diversity of views about whether or not young people are civically engaged.
26
4.1.3 Diverse political and theoretical perspectives on citizenship and civic
engagement
As previously discussed, whether or not one believes that young people are civically
engaged also depends on whether one is taking a formal civic engagement, a formal
volunteering or an informal civic engagement perspective. Theories of Citizenship provide
a lens through with such issues are discussed and explored, so that a consideration of
young people’s civic engagement and learning cannot be separated from a wider
discussion of citizenship as a concept.
Kerr’s research into levels of civic engagement across a range of different countries
suggests that the unprecedented pace of global change has resulted in a real challenge
to static notions of citizenship (Kerr, 2003). It is certainly the case that citizenship is in a
state of flux. Contributing factors include the rapid movement of people within and across
national boundaries; a growing recognition of the rights of indigenous people and
minorities; the collapse of existing political structures and the fledgling growth of new
ones; the changing role and status of women in society; the impact of the global economy
and changing patterns of work and trade on social, economic and political ties; the effects
of the revolution in information and communications technologies; and increasing global
population and the consequences for the environment; the emergence of new forms of
community and protest. Pattie et al. (2004) identify globalisation and emerging concepts
of transnational citizenship, multiculturalism and feminism as contributing factors to this
increasingly complex picture.
It is changing and fluid notions of citizenship that inform discussion about whether or not
young people are civically engaged. Pattie et al. (2004) identify three ‘rival theories’ of
citizenship – the republican, the liberal and the communitarian models, each with their
own history and underpinning ideology. These are presented in Table 1 alongside a
newly emerging theory of citizenship that we have identified through the literature as
being related to identity politics and high or late modernity (Giddens, 1994, Arnot, 2009).
Each is shown here to be grounded in different ideas about what it means to be a citizen,
what participation looks like, and how civic engagement might be increased. They are
even grounded in different ideas about whether or not there is a civic deficit at all. The
first two columns in Table 1, civic republican and liberal rights-based notions of
citizenship relate to what we have termed here ‘formal civic engagement’. The third
column, communitarian notions of citizenship relates to what we have called ‘formal
volunteering’, and the final column relates to what we have called ‘informal civic
27
engagement’. Clearly, these distinctions matter, as action to increase civic participation
will depend on how one represents the nature of the problem, if indeed one feels that
there is a problem at all.
Table 1: Theoretical Perspectives on Citizenship and Civic Engagement
CIVIC
REPUBLICAN
LIBERAL
RIGHTS-BASED
COMMUNITARIAN
IDENTITY-
BASED
Temporal
orientation
Past / future
Present / future
Present / future
Transient
Spatial
orientation
The State
National and
global
Community-based
Local / national
/ global
View of a
Citizen
Voter
Aware of rights
and
responsibilities
Critical
Active
Multiple
identities
Personal
morality
Notions of
Participation
Action for
protecting
democracy
Action for
protecting
freedom
Action for social
justice
Volunteering
Action for self-
expression
Civic deficit?
Due to apathy
Due to lack of
education
Due to a lack of
means
No deficit
Means of
Increasing
civic
engagement
Political
education
(Education
about
citizenship)
Awareness
raising
(Education for
citizenship)
Removing barriers
(Education through
citizenship)
Facilitation
Support
Acceptance
(Education as
citizenship)
28
4.1.4 Theoretical Perspectives on Citizenship and Civic Engagement
Thus, notions of civic engagement depend on whether one is taking a civic republican, a
liberal rights-based, communitarian or an identity-based view of citizenship. Despite this
contemporary complexity, citizenship has not always been a contested subject in the UK
(Cremin & Faulkes, 2005). For much of the post-war period, there existed a good deal of
cross-party agreement that civic republican traditions of citizenship, based on civil and
political rights established before the end of the 19th Century (such as free speech and
the right to vote) should be extended in the 20th Century by the development of social
rights. Thus, for theorisits such as Marshall, (1950) the inequalities of capitalism could be
mitigated by the welfare state. Towards the end of the twentieth century, however, a
Thatcherite redefinition of citizenship, grounded in the idea of market rights (property
ownership, consumer rights, and choice between service providers) was generally seen
as more empowering than Marshall’s collectivist welfare rights (Marquand, 2004).
“The active citizen of Thatcherism was a law abiding, materially successful individual who was willing and able to exploit the opportunities created by the promotion of market rights, whilst demonstrating occasional compassion for those less fortunate than themselves – charity rather than democratic citizenship was to be the main instrument of ‘active citizenship” (Cremin & Faulkes, 2005:1).
By 1997, when the Labour government was elected in the UK, there was a perceived
crisis in citizenship (Pattie, et al., 2004) and in social and moral values amongst the
general population, especially the young. The neo-liberal model of citizenship, grounded
in the market and the rights of the individual had not delivered the kind of society that
many wished for. New Labour’s ‘third way’ attempted to find new models of citizenship,
but these in turn have been critiqued by those wishing to problematise and extend
notions of citizenship.
Whilst traditional notions of citizenship persist, there are newly emerging concepts of
citizenship that challenge and add complexity to existing ideas about what it means to be
a citizen. It is no longer tenable, for example, to universalise the citizen as white, male,
heterosexual and middle-class. Various individuals and social groups continue to
encounter barriers to claiming their citizenship rights as a result of disadvantage and / or
discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, disability, poverty, or a
combination of these and other factors (Osler, 2003, Garrett & Piper, 2008). These
struggles cast doubt on the traditional citizenship project.
Thus, although social disadvantage and discrimination are on-going, there is growing
disillusionment with the idea that the emancipation of these groups will eventually be
29
achieved through protest, education and political action. Giddens (1991) identifies this
shift in thinking as being related to a time of ‘high modernity’. In these new times, he
proposes, “Life politics’ – concerned with human self-actualisation, both on the level of
the individual and collectively – emerges from the shadow which ‘emancipatory politics’
has cast” (Giddens, 1991:9). He argues that the effects of modernity extend into all areas
of personal social and civic life, radically altering concepts of time and space in both the
inner world of individuals, and the globalised world that they inhabit.
Building on these ideas, Loader (2007) proposes that new forms of citizenship are de-
institutionalised, less stable than traditional forms of social class, religious or national
identities, and more transitory in nature. Disconnection with social class and political
institutions, “has led to a corresponding shift in social obligation and rights, such that
individuals are being required to take more responsibility for managing their own lifestyle
choices, risk assessment and life plans” (Loader, 2007:7). Selwyn (2007) argues that we
should move away from viewing young people as future citizen-workers or citizen-voters
towards recognising them as citizen-consumers or citizen-lifestylers.
In high modernity, concepts of citizenship, community, connection, progress and causality
are transformed and the ‘reflexive project of the self’ takes on a new importance.
Authenticity is key. ‘Being true to oneself’ as one goes through various life stages and
transitions is part of a process of creating a personal belief system that forms an all-
important narrative of the self. The public / private divide, once so central to concepts of
citizenship, becomes less defined. As Giddens points out, “Social circumstances are not
separate from personal life, nor are they just an external environment to them. In
struggling with intimate problems, individuals help actively to reconstruct the universe of
social activity around them” (Giddens, 1991:12).
This fusing of the public with the private extends into politics and the ways in which
politicians are judged, especially by young people. In research reviewed earlier in this
report, Coleman (2007) suggests that politicians have lost popular appeal through
attempting (and often failing) to manifest ordinariness by appearing on the public stage as
if they were offstage and being themselves. This, he proposes, is one of the reasons
why young people were more willing to vote for Big Brother contestants than for MPs.
Big Brother contestants inhabit a public / private space in which issues of morality,
fairness, communal living and justice are played out:
30
“It is precisely this offstage lifeworld that the Big Brother format illuminates,
providing its viewer with new ways to see and judge those who claim to speak for,
or as the public. The drama of Big Brother is set within the private sphere of
everyday intimacy. Although the show is but a mediated simulation of intimate
life, its emphasis upon domestic interaction and shared experience conveys an
impression of unrehearsed authenticity” (Coleman, 2007:177).
In contrast, traditional political communication valorises the public over the private
sphere, regarding the former as a space for shared rationality. The private world is seen
as, ‘atomised, feminised, emotive and inaccessible: a space of retreat from the civic and
political world’ (Coleman, 2007:178). And yet:
“Politics is moving inside: spatially, to the observed private sphere in which
duplicity cannot be sustained for long, and psychologically, towards an
unprecedented public interest in the inner strengths, struggles and frailties of their
leaders” (Coleman, 2007:179).
Perhaps the most sustained attack on traditional notions of citizenship has come from
feminist theorists (e.g. Lister, 1997, 2003, Arnot, 2009) who also question the ways in
which the public / private divide within traditional concepts of citizenship has resulted in
the marginalisation of women from the public sphere, and the exclusion of the private
sphere from discussion about rights, duties, justice and freedom. Although few feminists
wish to reject the notion of citizenship altogether, they nevertheless maintain that it needs
a radical re-think to ensure that it continues to be of use as a contemporary cultural and
social-scientific term. Lister (1997) argues that, “rejecting the false universalism of
traditional citizenship theory does not mean abandoning citizenship as a universalist goal”
(Lister, 1997:41). Traditional notions of citizenship are premised on a patriarchal notion of
civil society, statist and masculinist notions of what it means to be a citizen, and a lack of
regard for “how different types of citizen are positioned within the polity, and what they
receive from the government in terms of protection, support and provision” (Arnot,
2009:45).
For Lister (1997) communicative action is central to rescuing the notion of citizenship.
Building on Habermas’ ‘communicative ethic’, she argues for a politics of solidarity,
grounded in dialogic, deliberative or communicative democracy. Public dialogue thus
becomes a framework for the articulation of difference, which can promote the
development of views from different perspectives.
31
Others have placed active and participatory communication as central to new forms of
citizenship. Giddens (1991) recognises that in modern social world without final
authorities, even the most cherished beliefs are open to revision. Communication
between the individual and the group becomes key. Drawing on the work of Fairclough et
al. (2006) Coleman (2007) asserts that citizenship in the digital age can best be
described as a ‘communicative achievement’ which gets away from preconceptions about
what citizenship is, and looks at how it is done – at the ways in which people position
themselves as citizens in participatory events. This repositioning has three striking
characteristics. It rejects high civic decoupling of participation and pleasure, it does not
shy away from affective encounters with power and broad cultural judgements about the
performances of power-holders, and it represents informal as well as formal forms of
discursive circulation.
In thinking about ways forward, therefore, for both concepts of citizenship and related
ideas of civic engagement amongst young people, it would appear that communicative
action, personalised responses to civic issues and a fusing of the public and private are
key.
32
5. Ways Forward
5.1 Introduction This literature review has presented evidence which indicates that this study is both
timely and important. It has highlighted the need to recognise the complex and transient
context in which young people live as active social agents. There has been much
evolution in understanding what it means to be a citizen, although there is no assertion
here that a coherent concensus has been achieved in conceptualising the concept.
It is important, therefore, that educators, youth workers and others concerned with
providing young people with engaging and apt learning opportunities for civic
engagement are aware of the diverse lived realities of their students (Fahmy, 2006). We
have shown that in order to better understand the current experiences, opportunities and
barriers to young people’s civic engagement, what is required is a broadened concept of
what actually represents civic engagement. We have also shown that some of the
complexity in the picture that is painted of young people’s civic engagement (and
particularly that of young people from socio-economically disadvantaged groups) is due
to different lenses being applied to this phenomena from different theoretical positions on
the nature of citizenship. We have identified four of these theoretical perspectives – civic
republicanism and liberal rights-based, communitarian and identity-based notions of
citizenship.
5.2 Developing an integrated model of young people’s civic engagement Figure 1 shows how we have begun to make sense of some of this complexity through a
model which suggests how adult-driven formal and informal civic engagement interacts
with young-person initiated formal and informal civic engagement. We have attempted to
map this onto the various theoretical lenses through which citizenship and civic
engagement are theorised, and the approaches identified above which are most suited to
new concepts of citizenship and civic engagement that are centred around the needs and
interests of young people.
A young-person initiated approach is considered by the authors to be overdue since the
literature has predominantly focused on adult-driven formalised activities which can
understate and misrepresent young people’s perspectives, especially those of young
people from socio-economically disadvantaged communities. As Lister et al state:
33
“Young people take seriously the question of their relationship to the wider society.” (Lister et al, 2003:250)
And it is this platform on which this project will seek to build. For this reason, we do not
intend to focus our efforts on either civic republican or liberal rights-based notions of
improving civic engagement, preferring instead to focus our efforts on informal
communitarian and identity-based notions of civic engagement.
Figure 1: Modes of young people’s civic engagement
Young-person driven/initiated
Adult-
driven/initiated
Formal
Informal
Communitarian Civic Republican Liberal rights-based
Identity-based (Personalised, Fusion of public / private)
Communitarian (Communicative action)
34
5.3 Conclusion This interim report in reviewing the commonly held assumption that young people in
general are not civically engaged has highlighted a far more diverse and complex picture.
Overall the study has presented a mixed view of young people’s orientation towards civic
engagement, however broadly defined. The empirical studies have revealed noticeable
patterns in young people’s civic engagement depending upon factors such as gender,
ethnicity, locality, family background and religious affiliation. The literature review has
also highlighted a broad range of interconnected factors that could influence young
people’s civic engagement such as their sense of personal efficacy and the resources
available to them including income and time.
This report has recognised that young people living in socio-economically disadvantaged
communities face an array of challenges and that these have implications for their levels
and patterns of civic engagement. It is argued that educators, youth workers and others
concerned with supporting the civic engagement of young people in these communities
need to be aware of the influence of their diverse and complex contexts. It is also argued
that in order to encompass the worlds of young people today there needs to be greater
recognition of the informal, issue based, globalised and digitalised nature of their civic
engagement in the 21st century. It is therefore important to see the civic engagement of
young people from socio-economically disadvantaged communities through new a lens,
one that allows for a broader definition of civic engagement. It is equally important to
ensure a diverse provision of opportunities that include more personalised educational
responses, as indicated for example by the V survey:
“If we are to inspire many more young people to volunteer, we need to bring young people’s concerns and their personal passions closer together. We need to develop positive opportunities for young people which tap into the issues they are concerned about while providing an opportunity to enjoy personal passions”. (V, 2007:10)
Haste and Hogan (2006) explored the contested nature of citizenship and concluded by
saying we won’t understand what motivates young people to civic action unless we ask
them and until we know the answer how can civic education be effective? This needs a
shift ‘away from strategies to help ‘make’ young people citizens, towards ways of
supporting young people as citizens’. Therefore this research project will in subsequent
stages seek to put young people at the heart of the project and to access voices that may
otherwise have been silent.
35
References Ajegbo, k, (2007) Diversity and Citizenship. London, DfES Andolina, M.W., Jenkins, K., Keeter, S and Zukin, C. (2002) Searching for the Meaning of Youth Civic Engagement: Notes From the Field. Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, 189–195
Arnot, M. (2009) Educating the gendered citizen: Sociological engagements with national and global agendas, Abingdon: Routledge Kerr (2003) Banaji, S. (2008) The trouble with civic: a snapshot of young people’s civic and political engagements in twenty-first-century democracies. Journal of Youth Studies Vol. 11, No. 5, October 2008, 543_560 Becker, S., Dearden, C. and Aldridge, J. (2001) Children’s labour of love? Young carers and care work. In P.Mizen, C.Pole, and A.Bolton (Eds) Hidden Hands: International Perspectives on Children’s Work and labour (pp 70-87) London and Routledge/Falmer Benton, T. Cleaver, E, Featherstone, G. Kerr, D. Lopes, J. & Whitby, K. (2008) Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS): Sixth Annual Report. Young people’s civic participation in and beyond school: Attitudes, Intentions and Influences. London DfES Bould, S. (2003) Neighbourhoods and inequality: The possibilities for successful transition to adulthood. Sociological Studies of children and Youth 9: 49-66 Carneige UK (2008) Empowering Young People. Dunfurmline, Carneige
Clark, S and Thacker, J. (2009) Young People Matter: A Report and Survey of Youth Volunteering, London, Evangelical Alliance
Communities and Local Government Office (2007) Citizenship Survey: April - June 2007, England & Wales. London, Communities and Local Government Office
Connolly, P. (1998) Racism, Gender Identities and Young Children. London: Routledge
Coleman, S. (2007) How democracies have disengaged from young people. In B. Loader (Ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political engagement, young people and the new media, Abingdon: Routledge, 116-185
Cremin, H. & Faulks, K. (2005) Citizenship Education Past Present and Future: Reflections from research and practice. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association conference, Glamorgan, September 2005
Cushion, S. (2007) Protesting their Apathy? An Analysis of British Press Coverage of Young anti-Iraq War Protestors, Journal of Youth Studies. Vol. 10, No. 4, September 2007, pp. 419 _437
Darton. D, Hirsch.D, and Strelitz, J. (2003) Tackling Poverty : A 20-year enterprise. Joseph Rowntree Foundation Dalrymple, J. and Burke, B. (1995) Anti-Oppressive Practice Social care and the Law., Milton Keynes: Open University Press
36
Davies, I. Flanagan, B. Hogarth, S. & Mountford, P. (2009) ‘Asking questions about participation’ Education, citizenship and social justice. Vol 4 No. 1. P25-39 2009
Devine, D. (2002) Children’s citizenship and the structuring of adult-child relationships in the primary school. Childhood 9: 303-320 Dunnell, K. (2008) Diversity and different experiences in the UK: National Statistician's annual article on society. Newport: Office for National Statistics. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/NSA_article.pdf
Edwards, R, Franklin, J and Holland, J (2003) Families and Social Capital: Exploring the Issues. Economic and Social Research Council, South Bank University
Edwards, K. (2007) From deficit to disenfranchisement: reframing youth electoral participation. Journal of Youth Studies, 10 (5), 539_555. Fahmy, E. (2006) ‘Social capital and civic action – A study of youth in the United Kingdom’. Young 14 (2) p 101-118
Fairclough, N., Pardoe, S. and Szerszynski, B. (2006) Critical discourse analysis and citizenship. In H. Hausendorf & A. Bora (Eds.) Analysing Citizenship Talk, Amsterdam John Benjamins, 98-123Fairclough et al., 2006) Feinstein, l. Hearn, B. And Renton, Z. (2007) Reducing inequalities: realising the talents of all. London: National Children's Bureau.
Garrett, D. & Piper, H. (2008) Citizenship Education, Identity and Nationhood: Contradictions in practice? London: Continuum
GHK Consulting Ltd (2006) Evaluation of the Young Volunteers Challenge Programme. London, DfES
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press
Hall, T., Williamson, H. and Coffey, A. (1998) Conceptualizing citizenship: young people and the transition to adulthood, Journal of Education Policy, 13:3,301 — 315
Haste, H. (2005) My Voice, My Vote, My Community. Nestle Social Research Programme, ESRC
Halsey, K., Murfield, J. Harland, J.L. and Lord, P. (2006) The Voice of Young People: An engine for improvement? Scoping the evidence National Foundation for Educational Research Holden, C. (2007) ‘Young people’s concerns’ in Hicks, D. & Holden, C. (Ed) (2007) Teaching the global dimension: key principles and effective practice. London: Routledge.
37
Holman, B. (2000) Kids at the Door Revisited, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing
Home Office, Civil Renewal Unit. (2004) Active Citizenship, Active Learning. London, Home Office The Institute for Volunteering Research. (2002) UK-Wide Evaluation of the Millennium Volunteers Programme. London, DfES Jowell, R. & Park, A. (1998) Young People, Politics and Citizenship: A Disengaged Generation? , The Citizenship Foundation, London. Kenway, P. and Palmer, G. (2007) Poverty among ethnic groups: how and why does it differ? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (Ref 2042). http://www.jrf.org.uk/node/2594 Kerr, D. (2002) England’s Results from the IEA International Citizenship Education Study: What Citizenship and Education mean to 14 Year Olds, London. DfES http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR375.pdf
Kerr, D. (2003) Citizenship: Local, National and International. In L. Gearon (Ed.) Learning to teach citizenship in the secondary school, London: RoutledgeFalmer Kirshner, B. Strobel, K. and Fernandez, M., 2003. Civic involvement among urban youth: a qualitative study of ‘critical engagement’ [online]. Biennial Conference of the Society for Research on Adolescence, April 2002, New Orleans. Available from: http://gardnercenter.stanford.edu/docs/ SR conference paper [Accessed 21 September 2009]. Lareau, A. ( 2003) Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press Lister, R. (1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, Basingstoke: Macmillan, Habermas Lister, Ruth, Smith, Noel, Middleton, Sue and Cox, Lynne(2003) Young People Talk about Citizenship: Empirical Perspectives on Theoretical and Political Debates, Citizenship Studies,7:2,235 — 253
Loader, B. (2007) Young People in the digital age: disaffected or displaced? In B. Loader (Ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political engagement, young people and the new media, Abingdon: Routledge, 1-18
Lopes, J., Benton, T. and Cleaver, E. (2009) Young people’s intended civic and political participation: does education matter? Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp 1-20 Marquand, D. (2004) Decline of the public, Cambridge: Polity Press Marshall, T.H. (1950), Citizenship and social change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge McLaughlin, T. (2000) ‘Citizenship Education in England: The Crick Report and Beyond’. Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol 34, No. 4, p541-570, 2000
38
Morrow, V. (2002) Children’s experiences of ‘community’: implications of social capital discourses in Social capital for health insights from qualitative research. Health Development Agency
Morrow, V. (1994) Responsible Children? Aspects of childern’s work and employment outside school in contemporary UK. In B.Mayall (Ed), Childern’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced (pp. 128-43) London: Falmer Press National Statistics. (2002), Social Capital Matrix of surveys, Social Analysis and Reporting Division October 2001 (Updated March 2002) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/socialcapital/downloads/soccapmatrix.pdf (Accessed 10:09:09) Orellana, M.F., Dorner, L. and Pulido, L (2003) Accessing assets: Immigrant youth’s work as family translators or ‘para-phraser’ Social Problems Volume 50, pp505-24 Pattie, C., Seyd, P. & Whiteley, P. (2003) ‘Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain. Political Studies, 2003 Vol 51. 443-468 Pattie, C., Seyd, P. & Whiteley, P. (2004) Citizenship in Britain: values, participation and democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Putnam, R., (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. QCA (1998) Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools: Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship. London: QCA
Quinn, J, Lawy R, and Diment, K (2008) ‘Dead end kids in dead end jobs'? Reshaping debates on young people in jobs without training. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Volume 13, Issue 2 July, pages 185 - 194 Ofsted. (2007) TellUs2 Questionnaire Summary Sheet, London, Ofsted http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Statistics/TellUs2-children-and-young-people-survey
Osler (2003) The Crick report and the future of multiethnic Britain In L. Gearon (Ed.) Learning to teach citizenship in the secondary school, London: RoutledgeFalmer Palmer, G., Macinnes, T. and Kenway, P. (2008) Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2008. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and New Policy Institute. http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/details.asp?pubid=1041
Pye, J, Lister, C, Latter, J, Clements, C, Ipsos MORI (2009) Young people speak out: attitudes to, and perceptions of, full-time volunteering, London, vResearch
Roche, J. (1999) Children: Rights, Participation and Citizenship Childhood.1999; 6: 475-493 Roker, D., Player, K. & Coleman, J. (1999) ‘Young people’s voluntary and campaigning activities as sources of political education’ Oxford Review of Education. Vol.25, Nos. 1&2, p.185-198 1999
39
Russell, I. (2005), A National Framework for Youth Action and Engagement; Executive Summary to The Russell Commission, Norwich, HMSO Sánchez-Jankowski, M, (2002) Minority Youth and Civic Engagement: The Impact of Group Relations, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, 237–245 Selwyn, N. (2007) Technology, schools and citizenship education. In B. Loader (Ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political engagement, young people and the new media, Abingdon: Routledge, 129-142 Warwick, P. (2008) ‘The development of apt citizenship education through listening to young people’s voices’. Educational Action Research Vol 16, No. 3, September 2008 pp321-335 Whiting, E. and Harper. R, (2003) Young people and Social Capital. Office for National Statistics, December 2003 Woodward, V. (2004) Active Learning for Active Citizenship. London, Home Office Press releases: Youth Citizenship Commission Press release, July 2009 www.ycc.uk.net/news Cabinet Office Press release – 24th April 2009 www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2009/090424_dcsf.aspx
