Research Proposal from Suzanne and Ariadne
Hello all,
I am posting the excellent memo from Suzanne and Ariadne that kicked off our discussions a couple of weeks back
This contains the beginning of an agenda for us, and lots of issues that we can develop
There is also a plan at the end for two different types fo studies — one of schools and another of sites.
We may wish to divide the labor around this and then come together to discuss policy as a group?
– Lance
Networking Young Citizens- Draft research proposal 9th Feb, 2009
(Suzanne and Ariadne)Preamble
In order to know more clearly what might enhance the likelihood of young people’s political/civic engagement, we need to know more about what they already know and bring to political/civic engagement/participation activities, and how they relate to existing opportunities to engage.
The central tenet for the Networking Young Citizen’s WUN Group is that for this cohort the appeal of ICT-based participation is an additional incentive/assistance to political and civic engagement.
Thus in order to suggest what kinds of policies (including for both government and NGOs) could support enhanced political/civic engagement/participation in USA, UK and Australia we would need to collect indicative data on: young people’s experiences of and attitudes toward uses of ICT, the types of online and offline based opportunities available for civic/citizenship/political engagement/participation of young people within each national context; and a focus on a range of different environments to investigate how they encourage civic, political and digital engagement, on how constrained young people feel by existing participation models.Research Issues
1. The distinctions between ‘civics’ and ‘citizenship’ understandings
Suzanne defines ‘civics’ as relating to knowledge of how a citizen’s system works, and ‘citizenship’ as relating to the attitudes/disposition to engage in that system, and argues research indicates that capacity in both assists in effective participation. Ariadne confirms the essential role and significant impact of ‘interest’ in particular issues in engagement/participation.
2. The operationalisation of dutiful and self actualising notions of citizenship through ICTs (from Lance and Michael’s work).
Here we have concepts that have been empirically and quantitatively examined in the US through studying existing internet based sites, but not to large extent in Australia or the UK.
3. The distinctions and interplay between understandings/knowledge and skills (digital literacy?) as they pertain to citizenship ICT-based activities.
This would be relevant in school based civics and citizenship teaching and learning and in other engagement/participation environments. We could follow up with students who had experienced a digital C&C education program and seek to ascertain the level of impact that had the preferences they had for online participation over the more ‘dutiful’ forms of engagement advocated in conventional civics participation. We would also be interested what differences young people see as significant in different models of participation, and if/how they integrate them in their practices.
4. The distinctions between ‘policy’ and ‘policy outcomes’ are deemed important because in this project we are ostensibly suggesting that a cause and effect relationship exists, though manifestly they are interconnected and play out differently, according to the context.
We think the project would be able to advise that certain policies might have the effect of increasing young people’s engagement in a self actualising form of citizenship. [We are only going to be able to report on presumed outcomes from the participation activities we observe, but we would hope that we can hypothesise that some programs/facilities can be put in place that might/will increase the likelihood of young citizens participating]. We would hope that the project would also provide us with the opportunity to focus on how the structural policy environment shapes outcomes and opportunities for young people’s engagement, as well.Proposed Research Methodology
1. case studies of schools
For example, we propose locating a primary and secondary school in each of two large states (NSW & Vic) which have programs (general, or preferably Civics & Citizenship) with a strong emphasis on online delivery. These case-study schools would be visited and observed for the participation culture within the school, and how it is supported. Students in Yr 9 would be observed and surveyed with a view to getting a handle on how they learn, and how they relate online to civic knowledge, and to citizenship attitudes. We would gain considerable (albeit very small scale) indication of how the distinctions listed above play out in those schools. We would be able to report on how online cultures and programs can support student learning and attitudes to participation per se and to differing modes of participation, and also speak to the unique (or not) role of the online delivery in that participation.
2. internet site analysis
To provide a large scale quantitative, comparative understanding of how existing sites facilitate either dutiful or self actualising citizenship styles; and an assessment of whether the sites are managed, autonomous or democratic (using Stephen’s typology) in their structural base. This would also include replication/expansion in the three countries of the experimental work Mike has been doing with young people’s use of particular sites (this would also surely relate to Sonia Livingstone’s existing research in the UK?). Thus bringing together a survey of what exists, how we would examine it contextually, and the dimension of what young people do and their attitudes towards engagement.
3. policy analysis (two-fold)
First: provide a thorough comparative background on the existing policy context (building on Kathryn’s work) in the three places for both approaches to C&C learning and digital engagement . This would include documentary analysis and interviews with policy makers.
Second: based on all of the above, to create a model for facilitating self-actualising, democratic citizenship through both school and online environments.
I’m really pleased to be able to read these very interesting and valuable comments. I think the process of clarifying our ideas is the key part of the work at this stage. But I wonder if I could ask the organising group if it is too early to think about a programme with tasks pre, during and post our Seattle meeting? I know our schedules are a bit packed so I’m wondering if it might help to get some tasks in the headlights. If this is not a fair request of the organising group (I don’t want to suggest that we’ve got different levels of input) then please tell me to make some suggestions! best wishes, ian
idavies5
March 1, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I too think that this is a really helpful basis upon which to start working up some research bids. I wonder if Ian’s suggestion could help us divide up some tasks in preparation for the Seattle meeting. One of the strengths of Suzanne and Ariadne’s framework is that it both encompass’ the groups wider interests and therefore offers a very comprehensive approach but also enables us to start exploring each of the three dimensions in more detail without them becoming isolated.
I would be happy as I suggested before to start work on an outline proposal with Ian on the schools dimension.
A couple of questions/issues I would like to throw in with reference to the framework.
1. I like the case-study approach (with all their limitations) but I wonder if we could do this through first undertaking a comparative survey to get a picture of how new media is perceived by teachers as a resource for citizenship/civic education (CE). I’m not sure that findings exist at the moment to give us an idea of how much new media is embedded in CE. The results could also help us identify appropriate case-studies.
2. Whilst it is not fashionable these days to refer to socio-economic status or class I would also like to embed our research within such structural conceptions. What I would suggest however is that we explore geodemographic software classifications such as ACORN or MOSAIC which are international and used commercially as well as by political parties and policy makers. We have close connections with MOSAIC and a license for their database.
This data would help us detect any geographical segmentation of our findings and socio-cultural factors influencing both online/offline media usage and political/civic engagement.
bl506
April 29, 2009 at 10:52 am
Hi Brian
I love the idea of using geodemographic software – that sounds very fun (I’ve never used them before). And of course I’m also very interested in the class/diversity dimension of our whole project – that is part of why i liked the Marsh, O’Toole, Jones (2007) book on young people’s participation as it qualitatively stresses young people’s structured lived experiences, rather than simply looking for differences based on their demographic categories.
I terms of existing survey data – I think Ian and Suzanne are most likely to know about that. I have a hunch that there is some ACER data on school aged young people’s use of ICT? But probably not with schools or teachers as survey respondents. A new survey of teachers across our 3 countries would be great.
ariadnev
May 6, 2009 at 5:44 am