Edinburgh Research Explorer Researching youth political participation in Australia: arguments for an expanded focus Citation for published version: Fyfe, I 2009, 'Researching youth political participation in Australia: arguments for an expanded focus' Journal of Youth Studies Australia, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 37-45.
Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Published In: Journal of Youth Studies Australia Publisher Rights Statement: © Fyfe, I. (2009). Researching youth political participation in Australia: arguments for an expanded focus. Journal of Youth Studies Australia, 28(1), 37-45.
General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact
[email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 26. Jan. 2019
Researching youth political participation in Australia Arguments for an expanded focus
The distinct political lives and lifestyles of young people provide a rich arena for social research. This paper traces the origins of contemporary definitions of political participation, which are often at odds with the real experiences and aspirations of young citizens. Despite a growing body of empirical evidence in this field, researchers are still challenged to represent the unique contribution young people make to political life. This paper suggests that expanding the research focus of the study of youth political participation in Australia would offer scope for generating new knowledge and meaning.
by Ian Fyfe
A
strong and vibrant democracy relies on the active participation of its citizens. To this end, the attention of many governments of the West, including Australia, has recently turned to the political participation of young people. Consequently, a vibrant field of study has opened up, providing a focal point for social research and academic commentary. This heightened activity has been stimulated by, among other factors, rising public concern about a perceived generational slide toward democratic disengagement. Young Australians are persistently accused of turning away from traditional political institutions, a phenomenon reportedly marked by lower levels of membership and a widespread weakening of social and civic engagement. Comparative evidence related to electoral participation points to a downward trend in voter registration among younger age cohorts. As a result, the notion of a civics or democratic deficit has taken hold as a rhetorical precursor to any critical investigation of the relationship between young people and politics. In this paper I argue for the need to expand the research paradigm applied to this area of study in order to fully understand the political experiences and aspirations of young citizens. The discussion draws on a breadth of international literature in order to build a definition of contemporary youth political participation. A review of recent Australian research in this field highlights gaps in knowledge and understanding. In response, the paper proposes a research focus that acknowledges the multi-dimensional nature of youth political participation in Australia.
Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 28 NUMBER 1 2009
Political participation – towards a definition Political participation is a contested term. A review of the literature confirms contemporary definitions began to take shape in the USA during the 1960s. The seminal study undertaken by Milbrath and Goel (1977) defined political participation as “those actions of private citizens by which they seek to influence or to support government and politics” (p.2). This account was bolstered by the work of Verba and Nie (1972), who suggested that the actions of private citizens were directly aimed at “influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions they take” (p.2). Together, these studies identified a distinct “separation” of the citizen from the structures and processes of government, whereby political participation primarily took the form of casting an electoral vote. However, Verba and Nie (1972) also argued that participation went beyond merely communicating the needs and desires of citizens to government through the ballot box. They suggested that political participation held more than instrumental value and offered a platform for the learning of the virtues and responsibilities that underpin democracy. These embryonic definitions were principally concerned with representative democracy and presented political participation in hierarchical terms; holding public office being the ultimate form of action. fi Description of activity
Form of action
Gladiatorial
Holding public and party office Becoming candidate for office Soliciting political funds Attending a caucus or strategy meeting Becoming an active party member Contributing time in a campaign
Transitional
Attending a political meeting or rally Making a donation to a party or a candidate Contacting a public official or a political leader
Spectator
Wearing a badge or displaying a sticker/poster Convincing someone else which way to vote Initiating a political discussion Voting Following political issues and debate
Adapted from Milbrath & Goel 1977 and Rimmerman 2001
38
Active
Inactive
Figure 1 illustrates the distinct steps of this formative model that pivots between notions of active and inactive forms of participation. Interestingly, the act of voting is viewed as a “spectator” activity, suggesting minimal engagement with the processes and institutions that typify forms of political action. The shift towards a more active participation is characterised by recognisable elements of campaigning, membership, and representation that fall into the “transitional” and “gladiatorial” descriptions. The work of Inglehart (1977) defined a landmark change in values confirmed by the declining importance accorded to hierarchical authority and a mounting challenge to the dominance of traditional political structures. His influential book The silent revolution documented a growing interest and understanding of political issues across Western democracies, and a desire to participate in decision-making geared toward “elite-challenging” as opposed to “elitedirected” activities (Inglehart 1977, p.3). Also, Inglehart (1997) argued that the ascendancy of the post-industrial society heralded a growing potential for citizen participation in politics. He observed that “the new mode of political participation is far more issue-specific than voting is, and more likely to function at the higher threshold of participation” (p.171). The perceived expansion of the wider political domain was also evidenced by the emergence of new social movements. Norris (2002) recognised that these channels of citizen involvement emerged as “an alternative mechanism for activists” (p.190). The new movements were seen to be structurally fluid and decentralised, typified by an open membership. They tended to be concerned more with lifestyle issues and achieving social change through forms of direct action and community building, alongside formal decision-making processes. Contemporary social movements are primarily engaged with issues such as globalisation, human rights, debt relief and world trade, and potentially “signal the emergence of a global civic society” (Norris 2002, p.190). These issues, and the campaign activities that support them, hold the attention of young people in particular. So what evidence exists of a new era of youth political participation? Norris (2002, 2003) observes that a diverse range of activities have been utilised
fi
Individual activist (16%) Election candidate (64%) Involved in student politics (55%) School student rep council (68%) Joined an advocacy group (75%) Joined a union (65%) Joined community org (80%) Joined political party (47%) Voted in an election (85%) 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% of survey respondents (n=75)
for political expression over recent decades, particularly within new social movements, where a mixed repertoire of actions is often adopted as part of a strategy for change. This multi-dimensional approach to political participation appears to have been embraced by young people. Vinken (2005) suggests that the classic indicators of citizen participation may have less significance to young people who are more likely to prefer alternative forms of engagement that are both meaningful and practical to them. In his opinion, “sticking to the old parameters leads to serious misperceptions of what is going on in youth’s citizenship” (p.149). This position is supported by Dalton (2006) who states that participation “is not limited to voting, nor is voting necessarily the most effective means of affecting the political process” (p.36). He concludes that democratic participation can take many forms and proposes that “the spread of protest politics not only expands the repertoire of political participation; it also represents a style of action that differs markedly from conventional politics” (Dalton 2006, p.64). In the Australian context, evidence from a recent study of young activists provides a snapshot of contemporary forms of youth political participation. Figure 2 reflects the range of engagement among a sample group of 75
young people aged between 15 and 24 living in the state of Victoria, and all actively involved in politics (Fyfe 2006). Through an online survey conducted between 2006 and 2007, respondents were asked to record their involvement across nine indicators of activism. The data collected portrays a sample cohort who is actively involved across the gamut of conventional and non-conventional politics. The versatile nature of the political participation of the young people studied provides up-to-date evidence of a citizenry that goes beyond merely voting. The responses confirmed high levels of membership of political parties, unions, social movements and community organisations among the research cohort. Similar to other studies of the associational life of young Australians in civic and public life, this investigation profiled a generation of “joiners” of institutions (Harris, Wyn & Younes 2007, p.23). In the case of the young political activists studied, they are predominantly aligned with the campaign activities of specific political parties, organisations and groups. The profile of the sample cohort matches that described by Verba and Nie (1972, p.86) as “Complete Activists”, those who combine all modes of political activity with combined allegiance to conventional and non-conventional forms of
Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 28 NUMBER 1 2009
participation. The young people surveyed also demonstrated similar characteristics to those described in a similar UK-based study. Haste (2005) described a young political activist as someone “very likely to become involved in all kinds of community activity, and in voting, joining a party and making their voices heard” (p.3). Clearly, youth political participation has become an activity that straddles both conventional and non-conventional politics. Young citizens are actively engaging in the political process through a diversity of mobilising platforms and agencies. These include the traditional institutions of political parties, unions and organisations, as well as the plethora of new social movements and community organisations that occupy civil society. Young people draw on a range of repertoires to express themselves politically. Their chosen forms of participation reflect a broader knowledge and skills base that enables new and creative political activities within both civic and public domains. The diversity of their engagement with politics demands a broader understanding of political activism.
Redefining youth political participation: International perspectives In research, use of the term “activist” can be problematic. It has strong connotations with the politics of the left, and has become increasingly associated with violent street protest and acts of vandalism. Through media coverage, young people’s political engagement is often described in pejorative terms that question the validity and legality of their actions. Against this backdrop, Todd Gitlin, a prominent student activist in the USA during the 1960s, professes that: An activist refuses to take the world for granted. Faced with pain and evil, the activist is not content to deplore or rage or regret, does not just believe or wish or declare but thinks: I’m not an outsider to the world, and the world – with all its persecutions, endangerment and wonders – is not an outsider to me. History is not (or not only) something that other people do. My action and yours are the heart of the matter (Gitlin 2003, pp.4-5).
Here, Gitlin portrays (young) activists as critical, thoughtful and considerate individuals who clearly see themselves as social actors
4
working towards “good” in the world, their world. Through their participation, Gitlin suggests young activists are making history, and in doing so are transforming the future. Berger, Boudin and Farrow (2005), three young activists, recently wrote that “effective activism is rooted in an understanding of the events of the past, strategies for the present, and a vision for the future” (p.xxxii). For Kovacheva (2005), young people’s engagement in public life “holds out some great promises” (p.20). There is mounting international evidence that records an emerging new civic culture driven by the social and political interests of young people (for example White, Bruce & Ritchie 2000; Kerr et al. 2002; Roker & Eden 2002; Cunningham & Lavallette 2004; Kovacheva 2005). New forms of organisation and action are being shaped by issues of concern in the everyday lives of a new generation of young activists. Empirical evidence suggests that young people are increasingly looking to social movements and community organisations as platforms for their political interests and subsequent action (Koffel 2003; Norris 2003). Also, electronic technologies are offering young people an alternative political arena for organisation and additional repertoires for action. Young activists are accessing peerled online platforms for critical discussion, exploring alternative forms of cultural expression through internet blogging and downloading online resources to support active participation (Coleman & Rowe 2005; Owen 2006). Young people are generating a discourse constructed around new global alliances and extending the boundaries of political expression and participation across the virtual world. For most young people today, the internet is an intrinsic part of their everyday lives and they are at the forefront of its use and evolution as an arena for political mobilisation and action. Youth political participation continues to push the boundaries of longstanding definitions of social and political action and, by its nature, promises “democratic innovation in society” (Kovacheva 2005, p.28). The emerging paradigm being shaped by the active involvement of young citizens profiles political participation as “not only the action structured through political institutions and non-government organisations but also
involvement in less structured, looser networks and friendship circles” (Kovacheva 2005, p.27). As a result, new forms of participation surface which appear less institutionalised and more flexible. These changes represent an alternative concept of democracy, one that is “based on participation and distance from the political parties and their individualisation”, bringing about “a detachment from and a calling into question of institutions” (Pleyers 2005, p.141). In other words, the participation of young people in social and political action promotes a new understanding of active citizenship through new and different forms of social interaction and active involvement in civic and public life. Their political participation relies more on a multi-dimensional approach rather than the traditional hierarchy that has dominated academic research and commentary.
Researching youth political participation in Australia Over the past decade some key debates have been generated from the findings of research surrounding the political knowledge and participation of young Australians. The topics investigated have included political interest and knowledge (Civics Expert Group (CEG) 1994; Vromen 1995), and young people’s engagement with political issues (Beresford & Phillips 1997; Aveling 2001). Others have concentrated on the impact of political knowledge on levels of political efficacy and participation (McAllister 1998; Mellor 1998). Similar themes have been explored with specific relation to the learning outcomes arising from civics and citizenship education (Mellor, Kennedy & Greenwood 2002). Studies have also concentrated on the impact of social and structural factors on young people’s perceptions and experience of politics (Threadgold & Nilan 2003). While within the wider political sphere, researchers have focused on the agency of young people and their roles and responsibilities as active citizens (Vromen 2003; Manning & Ryan 2004; Harris, Wyn & Younes 2007). Recent studies have been more concerned with political literacy and learning for activism (Fyfe 2004, 2007), as well as the motivational factors affecting the electoral participation of young Australians (Edwards, Saha & Print 2005). The subject of young people, politics and the media, particularly the use of the internet
in youth political participation, has also become a key area of investigation (Collin 2007; Fyfe & Wyn 2007; Vromen 2007). Altogether, this research forms an important body of work that has provided essential new knowledge. Common themes to emerge from this collective work have included a perception that young people are less interested in the machinations of conventional forms of representative democracy than their adult counterparts. This is a core argument that shapes one of the pillars of the dominant civics deficit discourse. Also common across many of the studies cited above, is evidence of young people’s unabated commitment to action on a range of social issues that are of specific interest to them. This is confirmed through both their current participation, and expressed intentions to be politically involved in the future. Although, all too often the markers of their intended participation tend to follow more traditional forms such as voting, party membership and contacting politicians. Many of the cited actions of the young people involved in recent Australian studies lie outside the normal channels of conventional democracy. For Vromen (2006), the existence of a range of forms of participation “demonstrates that young people are not a homogeneous category with the same political experiences or policy needs” (p.1). Her arguments reveal that some forms of youth political participation are more acceptable than others. Those political activities that tend to be more community-orientated, creative, informal and issue-based are considered less important. Hence, Vromen (2006) concludes, “there appears to be an unwritten hierarchy of acceptable actions that characterises appropriate citizenship behaviour (p.1). As a consequence, the actions of some young people are not validated in the spectrum of political action. Those who choose to participate in ways viewed to be non-conventional are potentially in danger of merely fuelling the perceived civics deficit that persistently permeates discussion on the political agency of young people. Contemporary research also suggests an apparent lack of trust and respect of politicians and the broader process of representative democracy. For example, the important findings of the Youth electoral study have highlighted that “young people in Australia feel excluded from the democratic process” and “they consider that their voices
The existence of a range of forms of participation ‘demonstrates that young people are not a homogeneous category with the same political experiences or policy needs’.
Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 28 NUMBER 1 2009
are not heard and that few are willing to listen” (Edwards, Saha & Print 2005, p.5). Despite this growing body of work, some key identified research gaps remain. In a recent review of available evidence on young Australians and political participation, Collin (2008) concluded that “while there is a considerable body of literature looking at the nature and forms of participation, there is little if any considering the impact (comparative or otherwise) of these respective activities” (p.6). Also, the political interests, motivations and aspirations of Australian youth require further investigation. Collin (2008) observes “there is no specific research on what young people would like democracy to look like” (p.20). The recent deficit approach to young people’s knowledge and understanding of political processes and structures has generated a range of data. However, Edwards (2007) proposes it is now time: For the research agenda around youth participation to shift from consideration of young people’s knowledge about or interest in politics towards an analysis of the way that youth participation is framed by the modern state (p.552).
Increasingly, Australian researchers have acknowledged the emerging importance of the internet as a platform for political information, discourse and action. In spite of this shifting agenda, Vromen (2007) concludes that “there is still much to learn about the way that young people use the internet, and the potential relationships with political and community engagement” (p.65). She proposes that a starting point for further research in this field could be “the political acts and organisations that are known to be attracting young people” with the goal “to examine more comprehensively the relationship between the internet and real-world participation” (Vromen 2007, p.66).
Arguments for an expansion of the research focus The wave of research attention across many countries of the West has been driven by the common indicator of dwindling electoral participation among the cohort of eligible first-time voters (e.g. Kimberlee 2002; Milner 2005; Phelps 2005). I would contend that the
42
process of compulsory voting renders this focus less relevant in the Australian context. Not only does this seem an unjustifiable starting point for the study of youth political participation, it also narrows the field of investigation to the conventional political sphere. Another common practice adopted by many researchers has been the application of an uncontested definition of politics, often without cognisance of the perceptions and experiences of young people themselves. As Vromen (2003) suggests, “research on political participation ought to be inclusive of participation undertaken around the issues that we already know young people to be interested in” (p.81). From their work in the UK, O’Toole et al. (2003) concluded that the imposition of a researcher’s conception of politics “is, at best, poor research design and, at worst, risks seriously misunderstanding political participation” (p.47). Also in the UK context, Henn, Weinstein and Forrest (2005) found that today’s youth “consider by a large majority that other methods and styles of political participation – such as protest politics and direct action – are important and justified” (p.570). While avoiding the potential pitfall of assuming homogeneity among the youth of Australia, there does appear to be a growing need to target young people as a specific group. This is on the key basis of recognising their relative interests, concerns, aspirations and actions. For Bessant (2003), recent Australian initiatives designed to augment democratic youth participation such as youth parliaments and councils merely “have the effect of extending the governance of young people” and as a result overlook “the problem of young people’s negligible political status” (p.87). The findings of the UK-based work of O’Toole, Marsh and Jones (2003) confirmed that politics is generally something that is done to young people, not something they can influence. They argue that if research is genuinely concerned with encouraging young people to become active citizens “the specific views and experiences of young people need to be much better understood” (2003, p.350). This is an argument taken up in Australia by Melville (2005), who stresses that research needs to ask “broader questions about the way in which young people define and experience political
participation in contemporary society” to gain a better understanding of the “complexity and range” of their involvement (p.8). By placing the political lives and lifestyles of young people at the centre of research, new opportunities take shape for alternative investigative approaches encouraging an expanded focus. From the evidence discussed, the various elements that typify the definitions of a multidimensional view of contemporary political participation are summarised in Figure 3. This paradigm tenders opportunities for an expanded research focus in relation to youth political participation in Australia. The matrix presented draws on the earlier work of Norris (2003), who suggested that young people have shifted allegiance from politics of loyalties (First dimension) to a politics of choice (Fourth dimension), and, in doing so, expanded the repertoires of action taken. The categories above have been updated to reflect emerging forms of participation and alternative fields of study; these are intended to be flexible in terms of the potential crossover of mobilising platforms and actions undertaken. The respective research focus identified in the available literature has been mapped out across the four dimensions. Arguably, despite evidence a new era of youth political participation, the core research focus remains true to the seminal definitions of political participation that have dominated the discourse internationally for almost half a century. While there is an emergent trend to include more non-conventional forms of participation, any meaningful study of the political aspirations and engagement of young people must expand across the four quadrants illustrated. A continued preoccupation with the study of conventional participation by young people in the traditional spheres of representative democracy falls short of telling the true story. A review of the available literature suggests the field of study must include alternative platforms for organisation and action already utilised by young people as well as investigating the important impact of their preferred forms of activism, which may lie outside the definitions of conventional forms of participation. The fact that young Australians are perceived to be looking more to social movements and community organisa-
tions opens up a rich arena for investigation, where important lessons can be learned about alternative repertoires of action. An updated definition of youth political participation built on empirical evidence must surely be a desirable outcome of these research endeavours.
Some conclusions
Since the 1960s, the functional definitions of political participation have continued to showcase conventional politics, in particular electoral voting, as the primary means of engagement. Existing empirical evidence confirms the ongoing legacy of youth as an innovative force whose actions extend the boundaries of our understanding and sharpen the meaning of political participation. Existing research data increasingly profiles young Australians as being actively involved across the gamut of conventional and non-conventional politics. The versatile nature of the contemporary youth political participation provides evidence of a citizenry that goes well beyond voting. The multi-dimensional political actions undertaken by young people are influenced by well-trodden forms of public protest, allied to contemporary repertoires supported by electronic technology, creative expression and alternative media. The resultant portfolio of youth political participation is a composite of traditional and new skills and supports development of the complete activist. fi FORMS OF PARTICIPATION
Conventional Voting Membership/affiliation Party campaign work Community governance Industrial action Elected representation
Non-conventional Consumer boycott Demonstrations/rallies Creative public protest Lobbying/advocacy Online activism Culture jamming
Traditional/Representative Political parties Trade unions Church organisations Youth councils/parliaments
First dimension Core research focus (Older generation)
Second dimension Peripheral research focus
Issue-based/Participative New social movements Community organisations Online platforms/networks Non-partisan activism
Third dimension Peripheral research focus
Fourth dimension Limited research focus (Younger generation)
AGENCY/FIELD OF STUDY
Adapted from Norris 2003
Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 28 NUMBER 1 2009
This situation presents major ontological considerations for future research. The distinct experience of young people within the political sphere has become a meeting point for contemporary social research. This field of study is predominantly shaped by the longstanding definitions of political participation. Potentially, a narrow research agenda runs the risk of reinforcing common assumptions of young people’s apathetic disconnection from political life – ultimately giving weight to a perceived civics deficit. The resultant discourse fails to engage with the true and diverse nature of youth political engagement. Recent studies in this area have uncovered valuable insight and meaning. However, I would argue there is a need to build on the existing body of empirical work and expand the focus for future investigations. This would tell us more about the everyday experience of young Australians in relation to politics: their motivations, how they participate and the outcomes of their actions. A failure to do so could result in a stagnation of democratic participation. As researchers, we have a responsibility to learn from the real experiences of young Australians and represent meaningfully the unique contribution they make to contemporary political life.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Lyn Tett for helpfully commenting on earlier drafts.
References
Aveling, N. 2001, ‘ “Smarter than we’re given credit for”: Youth perspectives on politics, social issues and personal freedoms’, paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Fremantle, 2–6 December. Berger, D., Boudin, C. & Farrow, K. 2005, Letters from young activists, Nation Books, New York. Beresford, Q. & Phillips, H.C.J. 1997, ‘Spectators in Australian politics? Young voters’ interest in politics and political issues’, Youth Studies Australia, v.16, n.4, pp.11-16. Bessant, J. 2003, ‘Youth participation: A new mode of government’, Policy Studies, v.24, nos.2/3, pp.87-100. Civics Expert Group (CEG) 1994, Whereas the people … civics and citizenship education, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra. Coleman, S. & Rowe, C. 2005, Remixing citizenship: Democracy and young people’s use of the internet, Carnegie Young People Initiative, London. Collin, P. 2007, ‘Policies for youth participation and
44
the development of new political identities’, in Are we there yet? Past learnings, current realities, future directions for youth affairs in Australia, conference proceedings, National Youth Affairs Conference, Melbourne, 1–3 May, pp.11-18. —— 2008, Young people imagining a new democracy: Literature review, The Whitlam Institute, University of Western Sydney, Sydney. Cunningham, S. & Lavalette, M. 2004, ‘ “Active citizens” or “irresponsible truants”? School student strikes against the war’, Critical Social Policy, v.24, n.2, pp.255-69. Dalton, R.J. 2006, Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies, 4th edn, CQ Press, Washington DC. Edwards, K. 2007, ‘From deficit to disenfranchisement: Reframing youth electoral participation’, Journal of Youth Studies, v.10, n.5, pp.539-55. Edwards, K., Saha, L.J. & Print, M. 2005, Australia’s democratic report card – young people assess democracy in Australia, viewed 19 May 2007, . Fyfe, I. 2004, ‘Civics and citizenship education in Australia: Are young people really discovering democracy?’, in Education and social action, conference proceedings, ed. R. Flowers, Centre for Popular Education, University of Technology, Sydney, pp.36270. —— 2006, ‘Blogging, blockades and the ballot box: Investigating young people’s political activism’, paper presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, University of Newcastle, 25–27 September. —— 2007, ‘Hidden in the curriculum: Political literacy and education for citizenship in Australia’, Melbourne Journal of Politics, v.32, pp.110-34. Fyfe, I. & Wyn, J. 2007, ‘Young activists making the news: The role of the media in youth political and civic engagement’, in Youth and political participation, eds K. Edwards, M. Print & L. Saha, Sense, Rotterdam, pp.113-32. Gitlin, T. 2003, Letters to a young activist, Basic Books, New York. Harris, A., Wyn, J. & Younes, S. 2007, ‘Young people and citizenship: An everyday perspective’, Youth Studies Australia, v.26, n.3, pp.19-27. Haste, H. 2005, My voice, my vote, my community (Nestlé Social Research Programme Report 4), Nestlé Trust, Croydon. Henn, M., Weinstein, M. & Forrest, S. 2005, ‘Uninterested youth? Young people’s attitudes towards party politics in Britain’, Political Studies, v.53, n.3, pp.556-78. Inglehart, R. 1977, The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
—— 1997, Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Kerr, D., Lines, A., Blenkinsop, S. & Schagen, I. 2002, Citizenship and education at age 14: A summary of the international findings and preliminary results for England, National Foundation for Education Research, London. Kimberlee, R.H. 2002, ‘Why don’t British young people vote at general elections?’, Journal of Youth Studies, v.5, n.1, 2002, pp.85-98. Koffel, C. 2003, ‘Globalisation of youth activism and human rights’, in Highly affected, rarely considered: The International Youth Parliament Commission’s report on the impacts of globalisation on young people, ed. J. Arvanitakis, Oxfam, Sydney, pp.117-27. Kovacheva, S. 2005, ‘Will youth rejuvenate the patterns of political participation?’, in Revisiting youth political participation: Challenge for research and democratic practice in Europe, ed. J. Forbig, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, pp.19-28. Manning, B. & Ryan, R. 2004, Youth and citizenship, National Youth Affairs Research Scheme, Canberra. McAllister, I. 1998, ‘Civic education and political knowledge in Australia’, Australian Journal of Political Science, v.33, n.1, pp.7-23. Mellor, S. 1998, ‘What’s the point? Political attitudes of Victorian Year 11 students’, ACER Research Monograph No.53, ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria. Mellor, S., Kennedy, K. & Greenwood, L. 2002, Citizenship and democracy: Australian students’ knowledge and beliefs, The IEA civic education study of fourteen year olds, ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria. Melville, R. 2005, ‘Individualising social and political participation – reconstituting youth in policy making’, paper presentation at Social Policy Research Centre Conference, 20–22 July, UNSW, Sydney. Milbrath, L.W. & Goel, M.L. 1977, Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics?, 2nd edn, Rand McNally, Chicago. Milner, H. 2005, ‘Are young Canadians becoming political dropouts? A comparative perspective’, IRPP Choices, v.11, n.3, viewed 19 January 2009, . Norris, P. 2002, Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. —— 2003, Young people and political activism: From the politics of loyalties to the politics of choice?, report for the Council of Europe Symposium ‘Young people and democratic institutions: From disillusionment to participation’, 27–28 November, Strasbourg. O’Toole, T., Lister, M., Marsh, D., Jones, S. & McDonagh, A. 2003, ‘Tuning out or left out? Participation and non-participation among young people’, Contemporary Politics, v.9, n.1, pp.45-61.
O’Toole, T., Marsh, D. & Jones, S. 2003, ‘Political literacy cuts both ways: The politics of non-participation among young people’, The Political Quarterly, v.74, n.3, pp.263-413. Owen, D. 2006, ‘The internet and youth civic engagement in the United States’, in The internet and politics: Citizens, voters and activists, eds S. Oates, D. Owen & R.K. Gibson, Routledge, London, pp.20-38. Phelps, E. 2005, ‘Young voters at the 2005 British general election’, Political Quarterly, v.76, n.4, pp.482-87. Pleyers, G. 2005, ‘Young people and alter-globalisation: From disillusionment to a new culture of political participation’, in Revisiting youth political participation: Challenge for research and democratic practice in Europe, ed. J. Forbig, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, pp.133-45. Rimmerman, C.A. 2001, The new citizenship: Unconventional politics, activism and service, Westview Press, Boulder, Co. Roker, D. & Eden, K. 2002, A longitudinal study of young people’s involvement in social action, Trust for the Study of Adolescence, Brighton. Threadgold, S. & Nilan, P. 2003, ‘Using Bourdieu to look at young people and politics’, paper presented at TASA 2003 Conference, University of New England, 4–6 December. Verba, S. & Nie, N.H. 1972, Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality, Harper & Row, London. Vinken, H. 2005, ‘Young people’s civic engagement: The need for new perspectives’, in Contemporary youth research, eds H. Helve & G. Holm, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp.147-57. Vromen, A. 1995, ‘Paul Keating is the prime minister, but who delivers the mail? A study of political knowledge amongst young people’, Australian Journal of Political Science, n.30, n.1, pp.74-90. —— 2003, ‘People try to put us down … participatory citizenship of “Generation X” ’, Australian Journal of Political Science, v.38, n.1, pp.79-99. —— 2006, ‘Young people’s participation and representation during the Howard decade’, paper presented at ‘John Howard’s Decade Conference’ 4 March, Australian National University, Canberra. —— 2007, ‘Australian young people’s participatory practices and internet use’, Information, Communication & Society, v.10, n.1, pp.48-68. White, C., Bruce, S. & Ritchie, J. 2000, Young people’s politics: Political interest and engagement amongst 14 to 24 year olds, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
author Ian Fyfe is a lecturer in the Department of Higher and Community Education at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. His research interests include community learning and development, education for citizenship, political participation, youth work and social action approaches.
Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 28 NUMBER 1 2009
45