Researching youth political
participation in Australia
Arguments for an expanded focus
Thedistinctpoliticallivesandlifestylesofyoungpeopleprovidearicharena
forsocialresearch.Thispapertracestheoriginsofcontemporarydefinitions
ofpoliticalparticipation,whichareoftenatoddswiththerealexperiences
andaspirationsofyoungcitizens.Despiteagrowingbodyofempirical
evidenceinthisfield,researchersarestillchallengedtorepresenttheunique
contributionyoungpeoplemaketopoliticallife.Thispapersuggeststhat
expandingtheresearchfocusofthestudyofyouthpoliticalparticipationin
Australiawouldofferscopeforgeneratingnewknowledgeandmeaning.
byIanFyfe
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.
YouthStudiesAustralia 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
AdaptedfromMilbrath&Goel1977andRimmerman2001
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
YouthStudiesAustralia 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’.
YouthStudiesAustralia 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
AdaptedfromNorris2003
YouthStudiesAustralia 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, <http://democratic.
audit.anu.edu.au/papers/200512_edwards_yes.
pdf>.
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, <www.
irpp.org>.
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 Fyfeisalecturer
intheDepartmentof
HigherandCommunity
Educationatthe
UniversityofEdinburgh,
Scotland.Hisresearch
interestsinclude
communitylearningand
development,education
forcitizenship,political
participation,youth
workandsocialaction
approaches.
Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 28 NUMBER 1 2009
45