What Does Recent Research Suggest about Civic Learning & Civic Action in Young Adults 18-30?: Some Insights and Foundations for Further Work Elizabeth Beaumont University of Minnesota Introduction The Spencer Foundation s New Civics initiative centers on several overarching questions: - What influences young people s civic engagement? - How and why do individuals become committed to civic action? - What kinds of practices, programs, and policies are most promising for promoting civic action across all adolescents and young adults? One important condition for guiding the TNC initiative, making informed decisions about where to focus attention, and interpreting its impact is to gain a baseline understanding of current knowledge and research. This paper cannot provide a comprehensive review of the vast literature related to civic and political development and engagement in young adults. Rather, it focuses particularly on one slice of the contemporary terrain: academic research published in the past two years (2007-2009) and focused explicitly on civic action as an outcome, as identified through an initial research scan performed by RTI International. i This report considers how current research identified by the RTI scan, other recent research commissioned or published by the Center for Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), and some important earlier studies bears on four sets of major concerns regarding research examining how and why young adults 18-30 become civically engaged: Section I. Civic Actors and Actions: Which civic actors and actions are represented in recent research and who and what is missing? Section II. Civic Influences: Which influences on civic learning and action are being examined and which need further exploration?
Section III. Research Approaches: What kinds of theoretical, methodological, and disciplinary lenses are most commonly employed? Section IV. Challenges and Opportunities for Moving Forward: Which issues and problems need greater attention? What kinds of research questions and approaches could build additional knowledge? I. Civic Actors and Actions: What Kinds of Civic Actors and Actions Are Represented in Recent Research? Who and What Is Missing? A. Young Adults As Civic Actors Recent studies identified by RTI, as well as the collection of studies and working papers posted on the CIRCLE website suggest that research that explicitly considers issues of civic learning and civic action gives most attention to teens and junior high and high school students in the United States, considerably less to the young adults (18-30) who are the focus of this paper, and the least attention to young adults who are working or who are not on the college track (Hyman and Levine 2008; Jarvis et al. 2005; Daniels and Gillespie 2005; Flanagan et al. 2009). When we look within work that does focus on young adults civic action, we see two patterns. The first has been to identify broad, aggregate, cross-national patterns or historical trends including trend-lines showing low levels and/or generational declines or differences in many forms of civic action among members of Generation X (the youngest of whom are now 30) and what some call the DotNet generation (now in their teens and twenties) (Zukin et al. 2006). Such work helps identify how and why new generations of young people differ from older adults or from past generations. (Notably, while young adults are included in most general studies of adults civic and political involvement, such as major national surveys like the General Social Survey, in most cases, exploring young people s civic action has not been a main focus of these studies.) A second pattern that includes many studies of civic action in young adults is a focus on college students, especially those attending 4-year institutions in the US. Several large-scale, ongoing research studies of college students include some attention to civic learning and civic 2
action, although often the focus is on intentions or plans for future civic action rather than civic actions recently undertaken. These include the on-going annual research on higher education sponsored by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) group at UCLA, and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (see, for example Astin 1993, Astin et al. 2006, and Kuh et al. 2005). In addition, the Harvard Institute of Politics conducts polls of college students on their political views and actions, focusing not only on voting and other conventional political activities, but also on undergraduates use of new media the Internet, Twitter, blogs, cell phones, etc. As the discussion of civic education in Section II describes, there are also many snapshot and small-scale studies of college students civic learning and action, including studies of service-learning among college students (Eyler and Giles 1999), research drawing on the national Baccalaureate and Beyond Database (Hillygus 2005), and the Carnegie Foundation studies of moral, civic, and political learning and engagement in college students (Colby et al. 2007; Beaumont et al. 2006; Beaumont 2010). The general lack of attention to civic learning and civic action in young adults 18-30 is problematic. Research from several disciplines indicates that this is a critical juncture for individual and civic development. Far from being fully formed as civic actors, young adults are still gaining important understandings, motivations, and experiences. Indeed, many psychologists now include late adolescence and emerging adulthood, beginning around 18 and ending in the late 20s, as one of the critical periods in which the learning, maturational, and developmental processes of adolescence occur (Smetana, Campione-Barr, Metzger 2006). This is a particularly important period for neurological and cognitive development affecting decision-making processes, for identity formation spurred by social and contextual transitions, and for forms of political socialization, civic experience, and civic habit formation with long-term effects (Erickson 1968; Jennings et al. 2001, Plutzer 2002; Smetana et al. 2006, p. 256). One study suggests, for instance, that attitudes regarding political participation are usually formed starting at age 18, during the first three elections of one s adult life (Ellis 2004). More work is needed to tease out the complex developmental pathways to civic participation, but there is already evidence that the period from 18-30 serves as important transition to mature adulthood and to meaningful civic life, and that civic learning and action during these years can form an important gateway to life-long civic engagement. 3
Moreover, we see the same troubling gap in studies of young adults 18-30 that we see in studies of civic action, generally (Verba, Nie, and Kim 1978; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995). That is, there is insufficient attention to young adults with fewer civic resources or from disadvantaged backgrounds and little research focused on questions about what can or should be done to address existing civic inequalities and stratifications. Because this gap is such a deep and persistent problem for individuals, for democracy, and for research on civic action, I discuss it separately below. The Troubling Democratic Divide: Acknowledged but Too Rarely Confronted There is widespread acknowledgement of inequality in civic action among young adults, including a large democratic divide or civic action gap between those with greater and fewer social advantages and civic resources. Most research on civic action recognizes that socioeconomic status, race, gender, and recent immigration tend to play stratifying roles. However, scholars often do not go beyond controlling for these factors when trying to explain patterns of civic and political participation. There remains little work explicitly about the civic learning and civic action of the disadvantaged young adults who are least likely to be civically involved during their lifetimes those who are not white, who are poor, who are less welleducated, who are immigrants, whose parents were not civically engaged, or who are not on the college track (See Gimpel et al. 2003, Jarvis et al. 2005; Hyman and Levine 2008; Flanagan et al. 2009). One factor that contributes this neglect is that some of the databases from which much ongoing survey research draws do not include sufficient numbers of relevant populations or enough detailed information to support more careful study of the forms of, catalysts for, and barriers to participation among the civic and political have nots. When scholars do study less advantaged groups, their findings often point to the need for policy-oriented remedies as well as further study. One important recent study, for example, uses the 1988-2000 National Educational Longitudinal Survey to explore the effects of economic and social disadvantages for young adults voting (Pacheco and Plutzer 2008). The authors examine influences stemming from family, community, and school contexts, and from major events and life transitions, showing different ways that disadvantages can have cumulative effects on voting. 4
Hardships rooted in the family, such as poverty, have similarly negative influences on all groups of young people, while the effects of other hardships facing young people early parenthood, arrest, and school dropout have differential effects by race. For Whites and Hispanics, dropping out of high school has the greatest negative influence on voting, while for Blacks, getting arrested has the greatest negative influence. On a promising note, this research finds that attending a community college, even part-time, can function as civic leveler ; attending a community college greatly increases the likelihood that disadvantaged young people, particularly Blacks, will vote. Such findings align with a larger body of research showing that negative indicators of social and economic well-being poverty, school dropout, and arrest are risk factors for civic disengagement. A recent white paper provides some information on civic engagement among first- and second-generation immigrants, using the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Setzler and McRee 2005). At age 18, immigrant youth in the survey did not exhibit the disproportionately low levels of civic action that studies often find in older adult immigrants. It is possible that newer generations of immigrants are being socialized into civic life differently, and more inclusively, than were prior generations of immigrants. Or, less optimistically, these findings may suggest that the civic gap for immigrants does not become pronounced until some after high school, when they are far less likely to attend college than their non-immigrant peers. Among 18-30 year olds who are not part of the college track, there are a range of other institutions that may shape their civic lives, including military service, unions, and the penal system. The U.S. military, for example, included 1.2 million enlisted personnel in 2008. Nearly two-thirds were 18-30 years of age, over a quarter were non-white, and nearly one fifth were Black (DOD 2008). However, scholars have not generally considered how the military track influences young adults civic learning and civic action. Nor is there systematic research on how juvenile incarceration or release and reintegration programs affect young people s civic lives, despite the fact that the US has the largest prison population in the world over 2 million a disproportionate share of which is young people. As of 2008, one in every 53 adults in their 20s, one in 30 men aged 20-34, and one in 9 Black men 20-34, was behind bars (Pew 2008). These are just a few examples of important populations of young people and institutional settings that often remain invisible in research on civic engagement. As Pacheco and Plutzer s 5
(2008) work indicates, when young Blacks are arrested, regardless of whether they are proven guilty or given criminal sentences, this has a particularly pronounced effect on their civic action. This has several policy implications. It adds further weight and an additional rationale to the need for early interventions that provide young people with positive experiences and role models and reduce their risk of criminal behavior. It similarly reinforces the need to ensure that the people and institutions involved with the criminal justice system are appropriately trained, supervised, and evaluated to contend with ongoing problems of racial bias in policing, arrest patterns, and penal outcomes, which have not only have unacceptable ethical and legal implications, but also negative impacts on civic equality and political voice. The history of political socialization research shows that there is a great deal to be learned from studying civic action among different groups. Early studies of Blacks political participation, for example, were crucial for revealing that these groups often participated more than socio-economic status alone would predict, showing that other influences, particularly motivations, have the power to outweigh the civic disadvantages involved in having fewer financial resources and less formal education. These studies were also important for demonstrating that sense of political efficacy, trust and other motivations for political action are more complex than many political researchers assumed, and that feelings of distrust, frustration, and anger can lead to civic action if they coincide with feelings of hope, desire for justice, sense of solidarity and commitment (See, for example Abramson 1977). In contrast with this earlier work, newer studies suggest less political participation among Asians-Americans than their status alone would predict, perhaps because they do not benefit from the same kinds of political socialization experiences that spur other groups to get involved (Cho 1999). Meanwhile, studies of Latinos and new immigrants suggest patterns of civic and political engagement that are often distinct from those of other groups and opportunities to promote their greater involvement (DeSipio et al. 2003, Michelson 2004; Ramakrishnan 2005; Torney-Purta, Barber, and Wilkenfeld 2007). A small but important body of research on political socialization provides promising evidence that some basic components of the civic action gap are malleable and open to positive social and educational influence. There are opportunities to narrow the gaps in civic knowledge, skills, and motivations that often stem from differences in opportunities for civic learning and 6
development during younger years (see, for example, Gimpel et al. 2003, Campbell 2006, Pacheco and Plutzer 2008, Beaumont 2010). The need continues for work that explicitly addresses inequalities in civic action across different groups, especially research that goes beyond evidence gained from a single program, set of experiences, or population and can be used to develop policy recommendations. B. Civic Actions: An Emphasis on Voting and Volunteering In recent decades, many scholars have begun emphasizing that civic action can take many different forms, and that young adults may be particularly likely to engage in forms of civic action that do not fall neatly into conventional notions of good citizenship, such as obeying the law and voting on election day (Haste 2004). What do we know about the broad range of behaviors and activities that promote and comprise civic action, which may range from voting and involvement in electoral politics to creating and working in a community garden or producing art with social themes, such as neighborhood murals, to choosing careers with civic missions? Following TNC s focal areas, we might identify four somewhat distinct categories of civic action: 1) associational activities and civic voluntarism (memberships in groups and community volunteering); 2) conventional electoral activities (voting and involvement with campaigns); 3) political voice activities (such as contacting political officials or media or engaging in political discussions with others) and 4) non-electoral, direct, or problem-solving political activities (such as demonstrating, protesting, and civil disobedience, boycotting, or working collectively with others to achieve a political goal or solve a community problem) (See Keeter et al. 2002, Boyte 2004 for examples of related, though somewhat different ways of categorizing civic actions). Clearly, these four sets of civic activities may often overlap or reinforce each other, and much research shows that there tend to be correlations between different forms of civic and political involvement, suggesting that when people are civically involved, they tend to be involved in multiple ways. For example, a young person might belong to a church or local 7
community group, become involved in its varied civic activities e.g., setting up a neighborhood watch program, lobbying the city government to create a program of community-oriented policing and support political candidates who are concerned with issues related to these activities. In this sense, associational, voice, direct, and electoral political activities may be interwoven, but they need not be. For example, another member of the same church may be involved in its community service programs, but not take part in its civic and political activities. While it seems useful to think of civic action as including four broad types of activities, the RTI research scan operated from only two categories, electoral activities and political voice activities, and included community-problem solving activities within the latter. Although this is somewhat problematic, conceptually and empirically it mirrors a general pattern in research on young people s civic engagement, which tends to focus on just two forms of civic action: voting and community voluntarism. A strong focus on voting is not surprising. The 18-30 age group has reached voting age in most countries, and because elections are a crucial method of popular control over political decisions, leaders, and institutions, understanding voting behavior is a leading concern, particularly for political scientists. Thus, in many studies, young people s voting is the primary, if not sole, measure of their civic activity. For example, recent research using the Australian Youth Electoral Study, a crosssectional national survey of Australians aged 17-25 in school and non-school sites, examines the relationship between civic education and voting behavior (Print 2007). This study finds that many young adults viewed voting as important. At the same time, nearly half said they would not vote if it was not compulsory, two-thirds described voting as boring, and about half said it was a waste of a Sunday. Furthermore, despite being exposed to civic education efforts during high school, about half did not think they had the political understanding needed to understand issues. In keeping with much other research on the importance of political knowledge, the study suggests that young people s lack of political understanding helps explain the disconnect between believing voting is normatively important, yet failing to find it either interesting or a good use of their own time (Print 2007, p. 334). Although research on young people s voting behavior sometimes attends to other aspects of civic learning and action, the primary research questions in most large studies usually revolve 8
around identifying influences on individual s inclinations to vote and/or voting preferences. As a result, to the extent that other aspects of civic engagement are considered, they are usually treated as predictors, precursors, or mediating influences for voting, and as given, rather than being studied as important civic outcomes in their own right. Strong emphasis on voting likely emerges from a confluence of data availability and research norms regarding what kind of civic action is important for young people. Historically, voting is the outcome for which information has been most consistently collected. And, from a methodological perspective, voting is most easily comparable among different time periods and populations. Other forms of civic action are generally harder to study, to compare, and to generalize about. The less consistent inclusion of other forms of civic action in major surveys, and the different kinds of questions, indicators, and information needed to understand the complexities of civic action beyond voting, often constrains the kinds of questions scholars ask and the ways in which they can try to answer them. The second prominent focus of recent research on civic action in 18-30-year-olds centers on associational activities, especially volunteering and community service. Such work sometimes operates from a concern for young people s personal, pro-social, and civic development, and sometimes from concerns for social capital, or the interpersonal bonds of trust and networks of relationships that are important for thriving communities and strong political institutions (Youniss et al. 1997; Verba et al. 1995; Putnam 2000). Such studies examine young people s involvement with volunteering and memberships in civic groups, including religious organizations, community groups, and unions. A recent study of Italian adolescents (high school students 14-19) in two cities found, similar to other research, that those who were members of groups had a greater sense of community and were more actively involved in community life (Albanesi, Cicognani, and Zani 2007). In this study, students who participated in sport, volunteering, or religious groups were significantly more likely to be involved with charity and cultural events and festivals than those who did not participate. Notably, however, neither this study nor most other work on young adults civic voluntarism takes up questions about how civic associations may relate to the types of action on which the TNC Initiative expresses particular interest: efforts toward achieving civic goals or social or political change. Rather, volunteering and group membership among 18-30 year olds is 9
more often studied in relation to other important outcomes such as the extent to which they build norms of trust, reciprocity, desire for future community seprvice or involvement, or appreciation for diversity or the extent to which they predict voting or other conventional electoral activities. Within the RTI research scan on young adults, there is least work studying categories of civic activities related to political voice activities and non-electoral or direct action protests, boycotting, participating in social movements, community problem-solving, etc. and this tends to be true of research on civic action more generally (Haste 2004; Gibson and Levine 2004). These are lost opportunities, since various scholars have found that younger generations of adults often express preferences for forms of and venues for civic action other than those closely tied to campaigns, elections, and national institutions (Longo and Meyer 2006). By examining new forms of political participation as well as more conventional forms, we gain greater insights into how demographic, experiential, and motivational variations contribute to different forms of involvement. For example, a 2001 study of civic practices of 16,000 British residents 16 and up shows that differences in socio-economic status, demographics and culture, political efficacy and trust are all related to particular patterns of civic involvement, helping to define whether one will be a Political Activist (those involved with conventional politics), an Expert Citizen (those who lead civic organizations), an Everyday Maker (those involved in some way, such as volunteering, but not leading civic groups or participating in politics), or a Non-Participant (Li and Marsh 2008). Given the importance of pluralism for political life, and the extent to which civic inequalities often fall along lines of class, race, and gender, it is important to understand the complex relationships among different influences, different civic goals, and different forms of civic action. II. Civic Influences: What Types and Levels of Influences on Civic Learning and Action Are Being Examined and Which Need Further Exploration? The TNC initiative focuses attention on the role of three broad sets of civic influences: (1) the role of motivations, dispositions, values, and psychological processes; (2) the role of sociopolitical learning contexts, experiences, and relationships; and (3) the role of broader institutional 10
and systemic influences, including political institutions, economic conditions, culture, historical events, and generations. We can also think of these three sets of influences as operating at somewhat different levels. The first type of influence is largely internal that is, processes operating at a micro, intra-individual level. The second type involves proximal or immediate influences of personal contexts, experiences, and relationships, which we might generally describe as middle or meso-level influences. The third category of influence refers to more distal influences emerging from broader groups, institutions, and events, or what we might call macro-level influences. Scholars generally recognize that these categories and levels of influences are not discrete but overlapping, and, increasingly, scholars seek to examine more than one category or level of influences in studies of civic action. At the same time, we can loosely map out some of the ways that recent research sheds light on each category or levels of civic influence. A. Motivational, Psychological, and Intra-individual Processes and Development Political studies of civic action in adults often emphasize the importance of what we might consider pro-civic or pro-social motivations and dispositions: individual interest, knowledge, and political preferences or opinions, feelings of group solidarity or civic duty, a sense of political identity or efficacy, social and political trust, norms of reciprocity and cooperation (see, for example, Milbrath and Goel 1977; Verba et al. 1995; Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996; Putnam 2000). In general, young adults and older adults who possess such motivations tend to be more civically active, while people who lack them are less likely to participate. A range of research also shows that some civic motivations and attitude emerge at a relatively young age and tend to remain stable over time (Jennings and Stoker 2004). One study of eight European countries, for example, shows that country-wide patterns for levels of social trust and attitudes toward immigration among 18-30-year-olds are already evident at age 14 (Hooghe and Wilkenfeld 2008). Among motivations for civic action, a sense of political agency or political self-efficacy is recognized as particularly important, since people are not likely to be civically active if they do not feel capable of participating (Bandura 1993). A sense of civic efficacy is among the 11
strongest and most consistent predictors of many forms of civic and political involvement in young people as well as older adults (Langton and Karns 1969, Beaumont 2010). One recent national UK study shows sense of political efficacy was important for predicting three types of civic involvement: volunteering, playing an active role in local organizations, and voting (Livingstone and Markham 2008) Possessing a sense of civic or political identity is also recognized as providing important motivations for civic life (Youniss et al. 1997; Colby et al. 2007). Civic identity often includes multiple dimensions a sense attachment to one s neighborhood, city, or nation; a sense of solidarity with others who share an important trait, such as religion, or race, or social class; a feeling of affinity for a particular political party or ideology; or simply a feeling that one is (or is not) the kind of person who acts to improve the community, works for social justice, or pays attention to and participates in political life. Scholars have used different elements or definitions of identity to explain motivations for diverse forms of political involvement, including involvement in various social movements and conflicts (Bernstein 2005). Scholars often suggest aspects of identity formation and expression are important for understanding historical and contemporary instances of civic action. More work is needed examining how and why specific elements of identity may come to shape young adults civic lives, such as more work examining the extent to which gender and/or race are experienced as salient elements of civic identity, and the different ways in which this may affect the political socialization of different groups (Sears and Levy 2003). The role of political information, knowledge, and cognition, and their relation to political interest forms a third important set of motivating influence on young adults civic action. These factors are particularly important for cognitive engagement and rational choice models of civic engagement that stress that individuals need to understand and be interested in political information and choices and how they bear on their own lives and concerns (Delli Carpini and Keeter 2006). Young people often have relatively low levels of relevant political knowledge, and their self-perceived lack of political understanding helps explain lower levels of voting; this problem is also cited by young people themselves as one reason they do not vote (Kaid et al. 2007, p. 1095). Political interest itself is also consistently one of the most important influences 12
on voting in young people as well as older adults, a pattern that holds true within and outside the US (Esser and Vreese 2007). B. Experiential, Associational, Contextual, and Relational Influences Research on civic action suggests several major groups of settings and relationships that can influence young people s political development. These include some basic aspects of family; schools; peers; and neighborhood and community settings (Sigel and Hoskins 1981; Beck and Jennings 1982; Jennings and Stoker 2004, Campbell 2006). These contextual and relational influences do not operate independently, but intersect and overlap in important ways. One important early study, for example, used path analysis to show the interconnected web of relationships between parents SES and civic engagement, youth s high school activities, civic orientations, and educational attainment (Beck and Jennings 1982). These socialization pathways or mechanisms can promote political involvement later in life, directly or through mediating effects. Family background, particularly parents educational attainment and family income levels are among the strongest and most persistent influences on young people s civic lives and civic development. But growing up in a family that stimulates civic engagement is often even more important. Having parents who vote and talk about politics, for example, greatly influences the likelihood that one will vote as soon as one is eligible, even when controlling for other influences (Plutzer 2002). Recent research also suggests that civic role modeling within families can also work in reverse, from children to parents; some research suggests that when youth become civically stimulated for instance, by participating in a civic learning program it can influence their parents and other family members, because they go home and talk about the ideas and issues they are learning about. A recent study showed that two years after participating in the KidsVoting interactive civics curriculum, youth who participated were more likely to talk about politics with parents during campaigns and to vote in elections (Kiousis and McDevitt 2008). Neighborhood contexts are often important for promoting civic action, too. Wealthier neighborhoods and those in which more adults vote, for example, foster higher rates of voter 13
turnout generally, even when controlling for individuals own levels of wealth (Gimpel, Cho, & Dyck 2006; Huckfeldt and Sprague 1995). Within research on family, school, and community settings, there is also attention to the influence of various kinds of experiences and socialization processes, some of which map onto specific settings or environments, such as civics courses in schools, some of which might occur within or cut across different settings, such as political discussions or civic skill development. Below, I discuss four sets of major experiential and contextual influences on civic action in young adults: 1) education and civic education, 2) groups and community involvement, 3) political discussion, deliberation, and disagreement, and 4) media and communication channels. 1) The Role of Education and Civic Education In the US and elsewhere, schools, including colleges, are often expected to help prepare young people for civic learning and action, and research has long indicated that college attendance provides one of the biggest civic advantages for young adults civic action (Flanagan et al. 2009). The 43% of the US population from 18-29 with no college experience are generally less engaged in civic activities, from voting to volunteer work, than their college-attending peers (Jarvis et al. 2005). They are also less civically engaged than their counterparts in prior generations, indicating that this gap is not likely to close as young adults progress to later life stages. Most scholarship on schooling and civic action emphasizes the beneficial effects of education, but there are reasons to interpret this relationship with caution. Many stratification processes occur before college, so identifying the general effect of college attendance on civic participation is difficult (Jennings and Niemi 1981, Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). Some recent work re-examining the large Political Socialization and High School and Beyond panel studies uses matching methods to try to tease this relationship out, with results suggesting that it is the prior influences predicting college attendance, not college itself, that contributes to distinct differences in attendees political participation years and decades later (Kam and Palmer 2008). Such findings do not suggest that college is unimportant for civic life, but rather that its effects are not independent of what occurs prior to enrollment, and that there is great need to identify 14
and promote the individual-level factors motivations, experiences, relationships, etc. that may lead some people both to pursue higher education and to pursue an active civic life. Furthermore, college students themselves are not homogeneous in their experiences. Some research peeks into the black box of education by identifying how varying curricular or extracurricular experiences may lead some graduates to be more civically active than others. This research indicates that studying academic topics related to society and politics often predicts future voting, as do opportunities for political discussion in classes (Hillygus 2005, Keeter et al. 2002). Research on higher education, like research on K-12 education, also suggests that teaching approaches that stress collaborative and experiential work and projects, including group inquiry, political internships, simulations, and open and critical discussion, are often important for promoting civic learning and civic action in college students (Kuh et al. 2005; Astin 1993; Battistoni and Hudson 1997). One major study of students who participated in political learning courses and programs shows gains in many civic outcomes, including political efficacy, sense of politically engaged identity, development of civic and political skills, and intentions to participate in politics, and explores the relationship between these outcomes and the kinds of intensive and active teaching and learning approaches used in the programs (Colby et al. 2007, Beaumont et al. 2006, Beaumont 2010). Other, smaller studies suggest that some kinds of intensive political experiences, such as political internships or politics courses taken in the state capital may help promote various kinds of political knowledge, skill, and interest (Eyler and Halteman 1981; Jensen and Hunt 2007). There is also promising evidence that participating in service-learning can enhance civic engagement in community college students and students in 4- year programs, although much of this research emerges from studies of individual programs (Eyler 1999, Prentice 2007). Finally, there is some research supporting the idea that college learning opportunities that use special methods to engage students with diverse others can promote civic engagement (Gurin et al. 2004). At the same time, there are worries that civic education may not work as well as it could or should in college settings (Galston 2004). The National Study of Student Engagement shows, for example, that first-generation college students are far less likely to participate in any extracurricular groups and that college students initial expectations of college influence their experiences, and tend to differ by group (Pike and Kuh 2005, Cole and McCormick 2009). At the 15
same time, undergraduates initial expectations are not destiny personal and social factors, including peer influences and academic experiences, advising, and other structured opportunities can affect the kinds of civic opportunities students experience in college (Cole and McCormick 2009). 2) The Role of Groups and Community Involvement For young adults, as for their older counterparts, group membership and involvement are a basis for civic life. In studies of general civic participation, past involvement in high school student government and other school groups are often among the best predictors of adults civic and political engagement (Keeter et al. 2002, Kirlin 2002, Verba et al. 1995, Putnam 2000; Zukin et al. 2006). Scholars emphasize that important motivations and dispositions can emerge from young people s group memberships and community affiliations, including interpersonal trust and group solidarity, sense of community, civic identity, and civic commitment (Youniss et al. 1997, Putnam 2000). Other work suggests that participation in groups helps spur civic action in younger and older adults by building relevant civic knowledge, skills, social networks, sense of political efficacy, and other mobilizing civic resources (Verba Schlozman and Brady 1995). At the same time, different group or community affiliations do not always provide similar or interchangeable motivations for civic involvement, nor do they necessarily promote similar types of civic action. Robert Putnam s work, for example, suggests that involvement in different kinds of civic groups might contribute to different kinds of social capital: inward-looking (concern with the exclusive good of its own members), outward looking (concern with benefiting others beyond the group), bridging (bringing different kinds of people together) and bonding (bringing similar people together) social capital (Putnam and Goss 2002). Other work indicates that groups that provide opportunities for expressive activities that are less likely to involve civic dimensions, such as sports-, music-, or language-based groups, tend to be less important for civic and political participation than groups that provide instrumental activities and have more overt civic dimensions, like student newspapers, student governance, and many student clubs (Kirlin 2002, Keeter et al. 2002). In the study of Italian adolescents noted above, 16
for example, participation in sports, religion, and volunteering all promoted pro-social involvement with charities and cultural life (Albanesi, Cicognani, and Zani 2007). However, these forms of civic association did not consistently predict involvement with more overtly political activities, such as protesting, nor did the data reveal impacts on conventional political participation like voting. In the 18-30 age group, many studies of involvement with civic groups overlap with research on civic education, taking the form of studies of service-learning among college students, in which they work with community groups as part of an academic course. Large-scale studies of service-learning among college students have suggested important benefits for civic action, such as a RAND study of participants in Learn and Serve America-funded programs, which found a strong correlation between participating in service-learning and desire to take an active role in working on social problems (Gray et al. 1999). Another line of research, often employing qualitative research methods, looks at the ways in which involvement with specific groups affects civic development. A study of Canadians aged 18-30 who were active in one of a set of different civic groups or in a political party found, through interviews, that most of these young adults had been civically active or volunteered in the education, politics, and community development sectors throughout their adolescence (Queniart 2008). Another recent study examined two community-based organizations in urban communities that helped young people 15-21 develop a sense of civic agency by giving them access to networks, ideas, and experiences that build individual and collective capacity to struggle for social justice the chance to engage in critical civic praxis (Ginwright and Cammarota, 2007, 694). In one program, Young Black Leaders, young people joined a Books Not Bars campaign to prevent passage of a state ballot proposition that would levy heavier sentences on juvenile offenders. When the group thought about how to reach out to other youth, they decided to work with a political rap group and offer political concerts with music and political education in local parks, strip malls, and street corners where many young people socialize. In another program, the El Pueblo Community Center, youth focused on violence prevention. Students who participated in this work often became more engaged in other areas of their lives, such as a participant who, on learning that AP courses were often important for college, organized with other students at her school to have an AP physics course taught at her 17
high school for the first time. Similarly, a recent study of group involvement in China looked at students, aged 15 to 24, who participated in a Roots and Shoots program for environmental activism. The participants were subsequently motivated to work to benefit their environments, communities, and themselves (Johnson, Johnson-Pynn, and Pynn 2007). However, just as not all research on the role of civic education is rosy, not all research on community and group involvement paints a uniformly positive view. Some scholars point out that, for young adults, community service and group membership often operate somewhat differently than it does for older adults. Being linked to life stage, they are often channeled through schools and tend to drop off as soon as youth exit school environments. Perhaps more problematically, a range of research shows that young adults who participate in community volunteering often view this as an alternative to other forms of civic action and political involvement. As a result, strong emphasis on non-political volunteering during younger years may sometimes lead young people to prefer personalized acts with consequences they can immediately see to developing other civic skills, participating in collective action, or working for more systemic forms of social change (Boyte 2004, Galston 2004, Longo and Meyer 2006). One recent article further warns that joining is a woefully inadequate path to active citizenship for three reasons: people tend to join groups that are homogeneous, not all groups promote democratic values, and this form of civic involvement does not lead to and can, in fact, turn people away from political participation (Theiss-Morse and Hibbing 2005). These scholars suggest that voluntary associations do not teach realistic views or, more specifically, that democracy is messy, inefficient, and conflict-ridden. 3) The Role of Political Discussion, Deliberation, and Disagreement Political discussions are also among the most important influences on young people s civic action. Talking about politics in some settings or within some relationships may be particularly important. Political discussion in the home, while young people are growing up, for example, is among the most important influences on future civic action (Verba et al. 1995). The particular experience of parent-child political discussion promotes civic participation by increasing levels 18
of political knowledge, interest, and efficacy in young people, which, in turn, increases voter turnout in young adulthood (Gimpel et al. 2003, Verba et al. 2005). Other types of political discussion, including discussions in classrooms with open climates, discussions focused on current political events, and discussions with friends or peers are also important for civic learning and civic action (Niemi and Junn 1998; Amadeo et al. 2002). In one study based on focus groups with young adults, for example, 29% of participants identified political discussion as their primary source of political information, while on 15% cited the Internet (15%) (Wells and Dudash 2007). Such discussions not only build valuable knowledge and communication skills, but also encourage young people to develop their own political judgments and perspectives and to see civic issues and problems as relevant to their own lives. Recent cross-national research shows that young people who discussed the European elections with friends and family were especially likely to vote in those elections and that this influence was much greater than media use of any kind (Esser and de Vreese 2007). Much contemporary research on political discussion is concerned with political deliberation, a particular type of political discourse that emphasizes the importance of listening to and thoughtfully considering multiple perspectives on issues, sometimes with a goal of promoting group consensus or compromise. Among adults, there is evidence that engaging in face-to-face political deliberation can increase participation in some kinds of civic activities, though it does not tend to increase participation in electoral politics (Jacobs, Cook, and Delli Carpini 2009). One major longitudinal project now underway has begun to study the influence of deliberating controversial issues for young adults civic action (Hess 2009). 4) The Role of Media and Communication Channels Many scholars are concerned with the role of media and information channels in civic participation and the extent to which these may contribute to mobilizing knowledge or demobilizing cynicism in younger as well as older adults (Esser and de Vreese 2007; Delli Carpini 2000). There are signs that younger adults differ from older adults in their media use. Research shows that young adults not only tend to have less political information than older adults, but 19
they tend to get it from different sources, including receiving more of their political information from the Internet and comedy programs like the Colbert Report (Pew 2004). In a study of young people in Blackburg, VA, DotNets (ages 16-27) reported spending nearly 7 hours a day on the Internet, far more than older generations (Kim, Kavanaugh, and Perez-Quinones 2007). There is still relatively little known about how and how much media sources mobilize or demobilize young people s civic action. Some work suggests that particular media channels and contexts are an important influence on young people: selection of or exposure to different information sources and messages helps explain differences in young people s sense of political efficacy and their voting and non-voting (Kaid, McKinney, and Tedesco 2007). These findings suggest that when young people watch presidential debates or watch the television ads for presidential campaigns two things they are significantly less likely to do than older generations exposure to these substantive campaign messages increases their information efficacy or their perception that they are well-informed about politics. As interest in the role of the Internet and social networking platforms like blogs, Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter grows, there remain many questions about how new channels of information and communication might affect young adults civic learning and civic action. Although it remains unclear how well the Internet and other new technologies will fulfill what many see as its special promise for democratic voice and growth, there is already evidence that Internet use and other on-line resources can enhance some aspects of civic engagement among young adults who are already civically minded. In the Blacksburg, Virginia study, for example, while the DotNet age group was more politically apathetic than other age groups, they were frequently involved in on-line civic activities getting local and national news online and posting comments or opinions on blogs or online forums or group discussions (Kim, Kavanaugh, and Perez-Quinones 2007). This study s results also suggested that this age group may prefer to engage in political activities through the Internet e.g., preferring emailing government officials to calling radio shows although young adult voters in the sample tended to be politically active online and off-line, and members of local groups indicated that their Internet use enhanced their involvement with local issues that interested them. 20
C. Broad Institutional and Systemic Influences: Political Institutions, Economic Conditions, Culture, History, and Generations While much research on the civic development and political socialization of young people focuses on the role of family, school, and community influences, historic events, generational or cohort experiences, and state and national political contexts can also play a role (Jennings and Niemi 1981; Verba et al. 2005, Wolfinger et al. 2005; Campbell 2006). Such broader contexts and structures may independently influence young people s civic action, but it is more likely that they interact with and modify other influences. Some research suggests, for example, that life stage differences interact with voting laws in ways that can deter young adults from voting. Because young adults tend to be more mobile, voter registration and absentee ballot requirements can present particular obstacles for this age group young voters are most likely to take advantage of same-day or election-day registration, for example (Patterson 2002). Studies of political participation sometimes include a focus on the role of various institutional rules and structures, including not only voting regulations, but the structure of electoral and party systems. Some cross-national research suggests that features like compulsory voting requirements, nationally competitive electoral districts, proportional representation, unicameralism (a single legislative body), and institutional factors that make some elections more salient and competitive than others can foster higher turnout overall (Blais 2006) One recent cross-national study comparing voter turnout in the U.S. with Europe, for example, found that young people in countries where there is little experience with democratic institutions, as well as those in poorer countries, are less likely to vote, and these broader cultural, political, and economic contexts shape young people s civic action, too (Esser and devreese 2007, p. 1209). Other research shows that politically competitive environments those in which one party does not dominate matter for motivating civic and political engagement and involvement in young adults (Gimpel et al. 2003, Franklin 2004, Pacheco 2007). There is also some work examining the role of party systems and whether the type of party system in one s country the number of parties, how polarized they are, etc. might influence the extent to which young people develop partisanship or ideological positions as strong aspects of their political identities, which, in turn, influences civic action (Percheron and 21