Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cinzia Albanesi, Elvira Cicognani,Bruna Zani,
Department of Sciences of Education “G.M. Bertin”University of Bologna (Italy)
YOUTH CIVIC AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE LENS OF
GENDER: THE ITALIAN CASE
Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16th-17th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
The empirical research upon which this paper is based was supported by a grant received from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme, FP7- SSH-2007-1, Grant Agreement no: 225282, Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) awarded to the University of Surrey (UK), University of Liege (Belgium), Masaryk University (Czech Republic), University of Jena (Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), Orebro University (Sweden), Ankara University (Turkey) and Queen’s University Belfast (UK).
The Italian “gap” Italian girls are expected to earn less, to have less important positions in the job market and to be less represented in politics compared to their male peers (Istat, 2010).
“juvenile ageism” (Westman, 1991) institutional, interactional, and individual discrimination against young people perpetuated by adults in powerful positions
THE GENDER GAP INDEX (TRENDS)
Aims and hypotheses • “Traditional” differences
– more male traditional political manifest participation (H1), – more girls and young women’s involvement in civic engagement and
consumerism (H2)• “ Reduced gap”
– We expected similar levels of net participation and vote across genders (H3)– What about gender gap in political interest and knowledge? a small or non
significant disadvantage for girls (“the web effect”) (H4),
• Parental support/modelling for participation should have a different impact on boys and girls (H5), being higher for females
– Does family influences (through education and support for participation) in a gendered way the concept of citizenship?
– What about public citizenship conceptions? Do they predict political interest, civic engagement and political participation?
– What about private citizenship? (any relationship with women’s absence in the public sphere?)
Participants
When you were under 14 years old. about how many books were there in your home?
voting vs non voting age Mean S. D.
16-17 years old 3.07 1.310
18 and older 3.81 1.459
male
Total 3.62 1.457
16-17 years old 3.52 1.200
18 and older 3.94 1.342
female
Total 3.88 1.329
16-17 years old 3.23 1.286
18 and older 3.88 1.397
Total
Total 3.75 1.399
Research Instruments
Results
Results
Results gender x age group interactions
2,00
2,10
2,20
2,30
2,40
2,50
2,60
2,70
2,80
2,90
3,00
Non Voting Voting
Political interest Male
Political interestFemale
2,00
2,10
2,20
2,30
2,40
2,50
2,60
2,70
2,80
Non Voting Voting
Political attentivenessMale
Political attentivenessFemale
1,00
1,20
1,40
1,60
1,80
2,00
2,20
Non Voting Voting
Political knowledgeMale
Political knowledgeFemale
F(1) = 6,752 p = .01
F(1) = 7,126 p = .008
F(1) = 5,149 p = .024
The process of participation
Which differences for which forms of participation (cf. Ekman & Amna, 2010)?
Results from a set of Multiple Regression Analysis
Individual latent forms of participation
Individual manifest forms of participation
Vote Consumerism
Male Female Male Female
Family education .14* *
Cultural capital .20* * * .13* * .30* * * .29* * *
Parental support .17* * *
Private citizenship .11* * .14* *
Law- abiding citizen .11* *
Active citizen .14* .11*
R2 .16 .08 .14 .16
F 11.915 5.676 10.248 13.061
DF 6, 390 6,399 6,390 6, 402
Sign .000 .000 .000 .000
Collective latent forms of participation
Net participation Civic engagement
Male Female Male Female
Family education .16* * .12* *
Cultural capital .15* * .25* * * .13*
Parental support .17* * * .28* * *
Private citizenship
Law- abiding citizen
Active citizen .17* * * .14* *
R2 .20 .20 .07 .02
F 16.842 16.987 4.700 2.786
DF 6,394 6,404 6,392 3,406
Sign .000 .000 .000 .001
Collective manifest forms of participation
Manifest political participation
Participation to a public meeting
Male Female Male Female Family education .15* * Cultural capital .12* Parental support .13* .18* * * .23* * * Private citizenship
Law- abiding citizen
-.19* * *
Active citizen .14* .16* * R2 .05 .14 .10 F 5.549 10.207 7.407 DF 6,390 6, 394 6,404 Sign .000 n.s. .000 .000
Conclusions
• Differences across gender on civic engagement and “radical” manifest political participation have been confirmed (H1; H2)
• Similarities on vote and net participation across gender have been confirmed (H3; H4)
• The role of family education and support for youth participation have been “partially” confirmed (H5)
Some critical remarksIs citizenship still a
male issue?
The web: new political platform, new (female) faces in politics?
Parents: obstacles, catalysts or both?
