Diversity in civic and political participation: participation experiences among young people, immigrants and women

Diversidade na participação cívica e política: experiências de participação de jovens, imigrantes e mulheres. Diversity in civic and political participation: participation experiences among young people, immigrants and women. Idalina Maria Fernandes de Jesus Tese apresentada da Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação da Universidade do Porto para obtenção do grau de Doutor em Psicologia; sob a orientação da Professora Doutora Isabel Menezes e Professora Elvira Cicognani. [Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Psychology and Education Science, University of Porto, for the degree of Doctor of Psychology; under the supervision of Professor Isabel Menezes and Elvira Cicognani]. Porto, Outubro, 2013 2 3 Trabalho financiado pela Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, com a referência SFRH / BD / 62567 / 2009 [Research financed with a PhD Grant with the reference SFRH / BD / 62567 / 2009 from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology] 4 5 Resumo Reconhecendo a necessidade de estudos que incluam formas emergentes de participação e que atendam à (crescente) diversidade nos/as jovens, esta tese parte do pressuposto de que existe diversidade nos processos e dinâmicas participativas. Deste modo, analisa-se a participação cívica e política de jovens em Portugal, em termos de formas, preditores e impacto da qualidade das experiências de participação. Jovens, mulheres e imigrantes são estudados como grupos em risco de exclusão e em desvantagem nas questões da participação. A investigação foi desenhada considerando os aspectos psicológicos, sociais e políticos e implicou duas fases empíricas: a primeira de cariz qualitativo (grupos de discussão focalizada) e a segunda de cariz quantitativo (inquéritos por questionários). Os resultados são apresentados de forma sequencial em cinco artigos publicados ou submetidos. O primeiro manuscrito apresenta uma caracterização dos padrões de participação e o impacto do género, origem imigrante, idade e capital cultural nas formas de participação. No segundo artigo analisa-se o papel das experiências de participação em termos de eficácia política e disposições para o envolvimento futuro. No terceiro artigo testamos um modelo preditivo de duas formas de participação, online e offline. Por fim, nos dois últimos artigos apresenta-se uma análise aprofundada das percepções e experiências de participação cívica e política de jovens imigrantes brasileiros/as em Portugal. De forma geral, os resultados mostram a diversidade na participação cívica e política a três níveis i) as formas de participação cívica e política variam de acordo com o sexo, origem, idade e capital cultural dos/as participantes; ii) a qualidade das experiências de participação influencia os níveis de eficácia política e as disposições para o envolvimento futuro; iii) a relevância das dimensões que predizem a participação varia de acordo com as formas de participação e o grupo em análise. Por fim, especificamente no caso de jovens imigrantes brasileiros/as, os resultados sugerem a necessidade de reconhecer os direitos políticos para a integração das comunidades imigrantes, e enfatizam a relevância das dimensões relacionadas com as percepções de eficácia na explicação da (não) participação. 6 7 Abstract Recognizing the need for studies that include emerging forms of participation and that meet the (increasing) diversity in young people, this thesis is based on the assumption that diversity exists in participatory processes and dynamics. Hence, this study consists of an analysis of how young people in Portugal participate in society, in terms of forms, predictors and outcomes of civic and political participation. Young people, women and immigrants are considered as groups at risk of exclusion and at disadvantage in issues relating to civic and political participation. This study was designed considering the psychological, social and political aspects and involved two empirical phases, the first of a qualitative nature (focus group discussions) and the second quantitatively oriented (questionnaires). The results are presented in five papers that are published/in press or submitted. The first manuscript provides a characterization of participation patterns and the impact of gender, migrant origin, age and cultural capital on forms of participation. In the second article, the role of quality of participation experiences in terms of political efficacy and dispositions for future involvement are analysed. The third article tests a predictive model of online and offline participation. Finally, the last two articles present a detailed analysis of the political and civic participation of young people of Brazilian origin living in Portugal. Overall, results show the diversity in civic and political participation at three levels i) forms and levels of civic and political participation vary according to the participants‟ age, gender, migrant origin and cultural capital; ii) the quality of participation experiences influence the levels of political efficacy and dispositions for future involvement; iii) the relevance of the dimensions that predict participation vary according to the forms of participation and the group. Specifically in the case of young people of Brazilian origin, the results suggest the need to recognize the value of political rights for the integration of immigrant communities, and emphasise the relevance of dimensions related to perceived effectiveness in explaining (non) participation. 8 9 Résumé Reconnaissant la nécessité d‟études qui incluent les formes émergentes de participation et qui tiennent compte de la diversité (croissante) chez les jeunes, cette thèse part du présupposé qu‟il y a une diversité dans les processus et les dynamismes participatifs. Ainsi, elle analyse la façon comment les jeunes au Portugal participent effectivement dans la société, en tant que formes, prédictions et conséquences de la participation civique et politique. Les jeunes, les femmes et les immigrants sont étudiés en tant que groupes à risque d‟exclusion et en désavantage en ce qui concerne les questions de participation. Cette recherche a été élaborée en considérant les aspects psychologiques, sociaux et politiques et a contemplé deux phases empiriques: la première du type qualitatif (groupes de discussion focalisée) et la deuxième du type quantitatif (questionnaires). Les résultats sont présentés de forme séquentielle sous cinq articles publiés ou soumis. Le premier manuscrit présente une caractérisation des modèles de participation et l‟impact du genre, de l‟origine immigrante, de l‟âge et du capital culturel dans les formes de participation. Dans le deuxième article, le rôle des expériences de participation est analysé selon l‟efficacité politique et les prédispositions pour l‟engagement futur. Dans le troisième article, nous avons testé un modèle prévisible de deux formes de participation online et offline. Finalement, les deux derniers articles présentent une analyse approfondie des perceptions et des expériences de participation civique et politique des jeunes immigrants(es) brésiliens(nes) au Portugal. D‟une façon générale, les résultats montrent la diversité de la participation civique et politique à trois niveaux i) les formes de participation varient en fonction du sexe, de l‟origine et du capital culturel des participants; ii) la qualité des expériences de participation influence les niveaux d‟efficacité politique et les prédispositions pour un engagement futur; iii) l‟importance des dimensions qui prédisent la participation varie selon les formes de participation et le groupe analysé. Finalement, dans le cas spécifique des jeunes immigrants(es) brésiliens(nes), les résultats suggèrent la nécessité de reconnaître les droits politiques pour l‟intégration des communautés immigrantes et accentuent l‟importance des dimensions qui relèvent des perceptions de l‟efficacité tout en expliquant la (non) participation. 16 17 List of Figures Figure 1. Klandermans´s model of participation in collective action 96 2. SIMCA Social identity model of collective action 105 3. Predictive model of online and offline participation 117 Paper 1 1. Effect of books at home on participation 138 2. Effect of age on participation 139 3. Effect of age*books at home on participation 139 4. Effect of immigrant background on participation 140 5. Effect of gender*immigrants background on participation 141 6. Effect of immigrant background on political interest & attentiveness 142 7. Effect of age on political interest & attentiveness 143 8. Effect of books at home on political interest & attentiveness 143 Paper 3 1. Online participation of young people of Portuguese origin 191 2. Online participation of young people of Brazilian origin 191 3. Offline participation of young people of Portuguese origin 192 4. Offline participation of young people of Portuguese origin 192 18 19 Introduction The political nature of the human action (Aristotle, trans. 2000; Mouffe, 1999) and the difficulty in dissociating people from the context/societies (Elias, 1987), pose participation as a form of connection between the individuals and the political systems, social institutions, groups and communities. Psychology has increasingly come to recognize the relevance of the political nature of all individuals, mainly in the past decades with the establishment and development of Political Psychology – discipline which entails the interface between both, psychology and politics (Stone & Schaffner, 1988; Sullivan & Transue, 1999). This thesis integrates the domain of Political Psychology, as it follows the assumption that participation illuminates the relationship between individuals and society, and that current societies continue characterised by several inequalities and by an increasing exclusion of individuals and groups at all levels, from the local to the global (Bang, 2004; Etzioni-Halevy, 1999). Young people, migrants and women have been identified as being at risk of exclusion from civic and political participation (e.g. Delli Carpini, 2000; Martiniello, 2005; Picker, 2008; Putnam, 2000), hence they are the target group of this research. The focus is in the diversity of civic and political participation in terms of forms, contexts, predictors and outcomes of participation of young people (migrant and non-migrant). The research was designed considering psychological, social and political aspects, in order to capture the multiple layers of civic and political participation. Overall, this thesis consist of a theoretical framework, five papers (two already published, one accepted for publication, and two under review) in which empirical results are reported and discussed, and followed by a general discussion. The theoretical framework provides the reader an overview of the most relevant literature on the field and is presented in two chapters. In the first chapter, a critical appreciation of the concept of participation, in terms of boundaries, measures and typologies is included. Hereafter, various theories on participation of young people, women and immigrants are explored. In addition, a revision of the main arguments given by scholars concerning the consequences and outcomes of participating in civic and political issues is presented. In the second chapter, the concepts of agency and structure are confronted, and the impact of both in terms of civic and political 20 participation is examined. Thus, the role of political opportunities (mainly on young people, women and migrants participation), resources and socio-psychological determinants of civic and political participation are examined. Following the theoretical framework, there is an overview of the five papers that make up this research. The first paper is an article entitled “Participation among youth, women and migrants: findings from Portugal”, and characterise patterns of civic and political participation among young people, women and migrants. The second paper is entitled “The many faces of Hermes: the quality of participation experiences and political attitudes of migrant and non-migrant youth”, and explores whether and how the quality of participation experiences is associated with political efficacy and dispositions to future participation. In the third paper “Action without a name?: the need for diverse predictive models of online and offline participation”, a predictive model of online and offline participation was tested. The fourth and fifth papers focus on the specific case of young people of Brazilian origin. More specifically, the fourth paper “From participation to integration: structure and opportunities, discrimination and gender regarding civic and political participation of young Brazilian” discourses about how youth are explored in terms of experiences of participation, meanings about integration, immigration policies, prejudice and discrimination. In turn, the fifth paper is entitled “Civic and political participation: young people of Brazilian origin in Portugal” and examined views, levels and experiences of participation of young people of Brazilian origin. The following is a list of all the papers developed among this research:  Fernandes-Jesus, M., Malafaia, C., Ribeiro, N. & Menezes, I. (in press). Participation among youth, women, and migrants: findings from Portugal. In Barrett & B. Zani, (Eds). Routledge. (This manuscript has been accepted for publication as book chapter).  Fernandes-Jesus, M., Malafaia, C., Ferreira, P. D, Cicognani, E., Menezes, I. (2012).The many faces of Hermes: The quality of participation experiences and political attitudes of migrant and nonmigrant youth. Human Affairs, 22(3), 434-447. doi: 10.2478/s13374-0120035-y  Fernandes-Jesus, M., Ferreira, P. D, Cicognani, E., Menezes, I. (submitted). „Action without a name?‟: The need for diverse predictive 21 models of online and offline participation. This manuscript was submitted to the Journal of Adolescence.  Fernandes-Jesus, M., Ribeiro, N., Ferreira, P.D., Cicognani, E., Menezes, I. (2011). Da participação à integração: Estruturas e oportunidades, discriminação e género no contexto da participação cívica e política de jovens imigrantes brasileiros/as. Revista Ex aequo, 24: 105 - 119.  Fernandes-Jesus, M., Cicognani, E. & Menezes, I. (submitted) Atitudes e participação cívica e política: jovens brasileiros/as em Portugal. Revista Psicologia e Sociedade. Lastly, there is a general discussion of the main findings, followed by a conclusion where academic, social and political implications of the results were discussed, limitations of the research are indicated, and further research is proposed. On the whole, this thesis found that forms of participation, predictors of participation and the impact of quality of participation experiences vary depending on the age, gender and migrant origin. In the end, academic, social and political implications of the main results are presented. 22 23 Chapter I Patterns of participation among young people, migrants and women 24 In the past decades, citizen participation became one of the most common topics among academic discussions across many fields, such as Political Science, Sociology and Psychology. Two main aspects seem to explain the exponential interest in people‟s participation: on the one hand, the supposed crisis in participation, caused by the decline in levels of participation across the world (e.g. Putnam, 2000); and on the other hand, the importance attributed to the quality of democracies (e.g. Snell, 2010; Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1995). Yet, as Sydney Verba explained in the 1960s “participation (…) is in acute crisis because three matters are being raised at the same time: new people want to participate, in relation to new issues and in new ways” (1967, p. 54). In addition, considering that any society fully promotes the equality of participation for all citizens (Hallet, 1987; Verba, 1967), there is a need to consider patterns of participation among various groups, such as young people, women and migrants, as they have been recognized as at risk of exclusion. Picker (2008) pointed out that similar to youth, women could be seen as marginalized parts of the population “as they share similarities regarding the report of less experiences of participation and concerning the noninclusion on the standard model, which is implicitly adult-male oriented” (p. 107). Also immigrants have been for several decades “invited not to get too involved with their hosts‟ political and collective affairs. Migrants just had an economic role in the host society: to work and to produce” (Martiniello, 2005, p. 1). Thus, for different reasons young people, women and migrants have been continuously mentioned as excluded (or at risk of exclusion) from participation, yet, civic and political participation of these groups remains understudied. We start this chapter presenting a critical appreciation of the concept of participation, in terms of boundaries, measures and typologies that have been proposed by the literature. Secondly, we explore how scholars have examined and characterised the participation of young people, women and immigrants, in the last decades. Where appropriate, we will consider the specificities of the Portuguese context. In addition, this chapter is also about the importance and relevance (mainly at the individual level) attributed to participation, and includes a revision of the main arguments given by scholars concerning the benefits and outcomes of participation. 25 1. A note on the concepts: civic and political participation The efforts made to define what participation is about, represent an advantage to a complex and full understanding of participation as phenomenon that is simultaneously psychological, political and sociological. Yet, defining the boundaries of participation is, very often, a complex matter, in the sense that too many concepts are being used to say the same things and sometimes to express different things. There are two main difficulties in determining a clear conceptualization of participation. The first difficulty is related to the distinction between “engagement and participation” and the second one with the boundaries between “civic and political”. The distinction between engagement and participation is demonstrated by the etymological origin of participation, which derived from Latin: “pars” meaning “part” and “capere” meaning “to take”. Thus, participation “denotes the act of taking part in, engaging in, as well as sharing” (Spannring, Ogris, & Gaiser, 2008, p. 11). As regards the discussion surrounding the boundaries, the difficulty is mainly related with the feasibility of a clear differentiation between what constitutes civic and political, as both domains tend to overlap. Many attempts have been made to have a clear definition of participation, yet there is a strong lack of consensus regarding boundaries and measurement of participation (Livingstone & Markham, 2008). 1.1. Political participation and civic engagement For a long time voting was considered the primary and most important way for a citizen to express his/her own citizenship (Ekman & Amnã, 2012) and scholars used the concept of “political participation” specifically to describe voting behaviour (Brady, 1998; van Deth & Elff, 2004). One of the common definitions of political participation was proposed by Verba, Nie and Kim (1971) as: “the means by which the interests, desires and demands of the ordinary citizen are communicated (...) all those activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the decisions that they make” (p. 9). 32 to understanding new forms of participation that might be emerging. Classical definitions of civic engagement are included in latent forms of participation, with the addition of another aspect, namely, attention to action and action – similar to the proposal by Berger (2009). The inclusion of forms of non-participation is also an advantage of this typology, as disengagement can be active (anti-political) or passive (apolitical). The discrimination between individual and collective modes of participation is also an important aspect, and reflects an integration of the proposals of previous typologies. Thus, as this typology recognises several modes of disengagement, involvement, civic engagement and political participation, the result is an integrative typology of participation. Table 1 presents the full typology, with examples of types of action in each category of non-participation and participation. Table 1 Typology of different forms of disengagement, involvement, civic engagement and political participation (Ekman & Amnã, 2012) Passive forms (apolitical) Collective forms Individual forms Political participation (manifest)Participation (latent–political) Non-participation (disengagement) Activism (extra-parliamentary political participation) Formal or conventional political participation Active forms (antipolitical) Deliberate nonpolitical lifestyles, e.g. hedonism, consumerism In extreme cases: random acts of nonpolitical violence (riots), reflecting frustration, alienation or social exclusion Non-voting Actively avoiding reading newspapers or watching TV when it comes to political issues Avoid talking about politics Perceiving politics as disgusting Political disaffection Civil disobedience actions Sabotaging or obstructing roads and railways Squatting buildings Participating in violent demonstrations or animal rights actions Violence confrontations with political opponents or the police Involvement in new social movements or forums Demonstrating, participating in strikes, protests and other actions (e.g. street festivals with a distinct political agenda) Being a member of a political party, an organisation, or a trade union Activity within a party, an organisation or a trade union (voluntary work or attend meetings) Volunteering in social work, e.g. to support women’s shelter or to help homeless people Charity work or faithbased community work Activity within community based organisations Belonging to a group with societal focus Identifying with a certain ideology and/or party Life-style related involvement: music, group identity, clothes, et cetera For example: veganism, right-wing Skinhead scene, or left-wing anarchopunk scene “Non-reflected”nonpolitical lifestyles Civil disobedience Politically motivated attacks on property Buycotting, boycotting and political consumption Signing petitions Handing out political leaflets Voting in elections and referenda Deliberate acts of non-voting or blank voting Contacting political representatives or civil servants Running for or holding public office Donating money to political parties or organisations Writing to an Editor Giving money to charity Discussing politics and societal issues, with friends or on the Internet Reading newspapers and watching TV when it comes to political issues Recycling Taking interest in politics and society Perceiving politics as important Non-voting Perceiving politics as uninteresting and unimportant Political passivity Illegal protests or actions Legal/ extraparliamentary protests or actions Civic engagement (action) Social involvement (attention) Passive forms (apolitical) Collective forms Individual forms Political participation (manifest)Participation (latent–political) Non-participation (disengagement) Activism (extra-parliamentary political participation) Formal or conventional political participation Active forms (antipolitical) Deliberate nonpolitical lifestyles, e.g. hedonism, consumerism In extreme cases: random acts of nonpolitical violence (riots), reflecting frustration, alienation or social exclusion Non-voting Actively avoiding reading newspapers or watching TV when it comes to political issues Avoid talking about politics Perceiving politics as disgusting Political disaffection Civil disobedience actions Sabotaging or obstructing roads and railways Squatting buildings Participating in violent demonstrations or animal rights actions Violence confrontations with political opponents or the police Involvement in new social movements or forums Demonstrating, participating in strikes, protests and other actions (e.g. street festivals with a distinct political agenda) Being a member of a political party, an organisation, or a trade union Activity within a party, an organisation or a trade union (voluntary work or attend meetings) Volunteering in social work, e.g. to support women’s shelter or to help homeless people Charity work or faithbased community work Activity within community based organisations Belonging to a group with societal focus Identifying with a certain ideology and/or party Life-style related involvement: music, group identity, clothes, et cetera For example: veganism, right-wing Skinhead scene, or left-wing anarchopunk scene “Non-reflected”nonpolitical lifestyles Civil disobedience Politically motivated attacks on property Buycotting, boycotting and political consumption Signing petitions Handing out political leaflets Voting in elections and referenda Deliberate acts of non-voting or blank voting Contacting political representatives or civil servants Running for or holding public office Donating money to political parties or organisations Writing to an Editor Giving money to charity Discussing politics and societal issues, with friends or on the Internet Reading newspapers and watching TV when it comes to political issues Recycling Taking interest in politics and society Perceiving politics as important Non-voting Perceiving politics as uninteresting and unimportant Political passivity Illegal protests or actions Legal/ extraparliamentary protests or actions Civic engagement (action) Social involvement (attention) 33 In summary, a good definition of civic and political participation should consider that participation is “a bundle of many different things: from public and community participation to civic or political participation, it involves many somewhat distinct and sometimes overlapping kinds of actions, contexts (...)” (Ferreira, Coimbra & Menezes, 2012, p. 125). Thus, participation is, more than anything, viewed as a multilevel phenomenon, related to “individual, social and collective, aspects, with special consequences on individuals and the collective” (de Piccoli, Colombo, & Moso, 2005, p. 265). Understanding participation of diverse groups in society (such as young people, migrants and women), in a multiplicity of contexts, might be possible if we keep in mind this broader conception of participation. 2. Young people's participation in a changing world The powerful thesis about a crisis in participation levels has been considered very often as an unquestionable fact for many researchers, policy makers and citizens (Morales, 2005). Putnam‟s characterization of American society as disconnected from family, friends, neighbours and democratic structures, contributed largely to this vision about society (Putnam, 2000). Also in Portugal, the tendency is to highlight low political development and the fragile political culture in terms of political interest and political information (Braga da Cruz, 1985), and disconnection from the political system (Cabral, 1997). The differences in terms of levels of participation across the life cycle, makes “generation” one of the most common explanations for the decline in levels of political participation. This explanation reveals a strong discourse that tends to routinely criticize and castigate young people for the decline in political life (Andolina, Jenkins, Keeter, & Zukin, 2002; Bessant, 2003; 2004). Putnam‟s perspective on Bowling Alone (2000) is a clear example of this perspective, as he says that much of the decline in civic engagement in America is due to the replacement of an unusually civic generation by several generations that are less embedded in community life. This perspective was supported by several studies in many countries that found that youth are less engaged nowadays, than in the past generations. For example, in Canada it was found that young people are voting less than similar generations in the past and even in countries where voting is compulsory – such as Australia and Brazil – there are some signs that youth turnout is in decline (Blais, Gigendil, Nadeau & Nevitte, 2001). Also Brazilian youth are characterised as more apathetic and disengaged from forms of political life than earlier generations (Carrano, 2012; IBASE/PÓLIS, 2005). Indeed, the tendency is to strongly blame young people for the decline in participation, as they have been characterised as “apathetic,” “disconnected” and “disengaged” regarding civic and political issues (e.g. Delli Carpini, 2000; Putnam, 2000; Zukin et al., 2006). Nonetheless, it should be noted that this vision is not consensual and some scholars believe that young people are or can become mobilized (Youniss et al., 2002) as several events had recently shown. For example, a very recent research study (Datafolha, 2013) conducted with participants in a Brazilian protest, started on the 6th of June 2013 against the increased price of public transport, reports that protests involved a large number of young people with no interest in or affiliation to political parties. In addition, even though the initial reason for the protest was being against increases in bus, train, 35 and metro ticket prices in some Brazilian cities, the protest rapidly took several directions: corruption, politicians, police violence, health and education (Datafolha, 2013). The events in Egypt in 2011 also showed how young people can be suddenly mobilized even when the indicators suggest that they do not care about political issues (Youniss, Barber, & Billen, 2013). Even Putnam seems to agree that some events have the potential to increase young people's involvement, as he found that in the United States “the years since 9/11 have brought an unmistakable expansion of youth interest in politics and public affairs” (Sander & Putnam, 2009, p.11). Likewise, not all research has concluded that youth participate less than earlier generations or participate less than adults. Indeed, in Europe, Fieldhouse, Tranmer and Russell (2007), using data from the European Social Survey 1 , from 22 national elections in 2002-2003, conclude that young people tend to report significantly lower rates of voting than older generations. However, they also found that the lowest levels for young people coincide with the lowest levels for the entire electorate. In fact, only in two countries with lower turnout (Britain and Switzerland), turnout tended to rise with age (Fieldhouse et al., 2007). In this respect, Lister (2007) reminds us that even the decline in turnout is not universally experienced, and countries such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany continue to enjoy high levels of electoral participation. As regards Portugal, studies suggest there is some scepticism about the effectiveness of conventional political participation, a lack of trust in politics (Magalhães & Moral, 2008), and a generalized decline and disengagement in relation with politics (Magalhães, 2005; Magalhães & Moral, 2008). Still, young people are more participatory than adults (Magalhães & Moral, 2008; Veiga, 2008). Another argument used to explain levels of youth participation is related to the forms in which youth get involved in civic and political issues, reflecting the particular characteristics of this life phase (Finlay, Flanagan, & Wray-Lake, 2011). Thus, age is especially relevant for political behaviour because “each stage of life is associated with its own orientations, needs and interests (Braungart & Braungart, 1986). As Arnett (2006) said “the period from the late teens through at least the mid-twenties is, for most 1 The European Social Survey (the ESS) is an academically-driven social survey designed to chart and explain the interaction between Europe's changing institutions and the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour patterns of its diverse populations. Portugal has been a participant since 2002. 36 people in industrialized societies, a period not of settling into enduring (if not permanent) adult roles but a period that is highly unstructured and unsettled “(p. 113). Because civic and political engagement is a part of people's personal development it might also suffer a postponement, as it is not surprising that youth are sorting out their educational, romantic and career paths (Finlay et al., 2011). Thus, according to lifecycle theories, stable patterns of civic engagement take hold once individuals have settled into adult roles, such as steady jobs, marriage, and parenting, that build up their stake in community affairs (Flanagan & Levine, 2010, p. 160). Data collected in three European value surveys (1982 to 1999/2002) support the need to rethink the thesis that decline in levels of participation is due to a generational change (Spannring, 2005). Indeed, results indicate that there is not always a significant effect of age, and that people tend to change their behaviour over their life time according to their conditions (Spannring, 2008). Moreover, data collected in the “IEA: civic education study”, report that half of the upper secondary students across countries expressed an interest in politics, and the degree of interest appeared to be greater among the upper secondary students than among the 14 years-old (Amadeo, Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Husfeldt, & Nikolova, 2002). Menezes (2003) further analysed data in six countries: Portugal, Norway, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Sweden regarding students' experiences of participation and their impact on dimensions of civic concepts, attitudes and engagement. The results showed a trend for more diversity in participation experiences particularly in the older group (Menezes, 2003). In addition, only 9% had no involvement at all across countries, even if this involvement is mostly related to enrichment activities (sports, art, music, drama) – that seems to represent aspects directly connected with young people's lives . Furthermore, trends in voting provide evidence that at least some of the change is a matter of delay, not a permanent generational decline – as each generation moves toward the same high level of turnout over the life course (Flanagan & Levine, 2010; p. 161). This delay is particularly marked by the social, economic and political condition of the era in which young people live. The conditions characterised by de-structured, individualised transitions from youth to adulthood and the instability of the labour market might limit the time and energy to invest in politics (Spannring, 2008). Thus, 37 participation must be seen in the context of changing social, economic and political conditions. Nevertheless, studying civic engagement in adolescence (and youth) is important because this is a formative phase for civic attitudes and behaviour into midlife (Finlay et al., 2011). Life-cycle theories represent an advanced analysis of young people's participation, integrating “youth” issues and challenges. Thus, if emerging adulthood is characterised by portraying the diversity of circumstances and pathways (Arnett, 2004, 2006), young people's patterns of civic and political participation may be also characterised by a diversity of forms and contexts. 2.1. Reconfigurations of patterns of civic and political participation Until now, we saw that the participation of young people is influenced by challenges of the youth life-stage, and thus age needs to be taken into account in the studies about participation. In this sense, several scholars have sought to understand the nature of young people's participation, considering their own features. For example, Snell (2010), unlike the majority of scholars, analysed political involvement according to a typology of political (lack of) involvement. Based on phone interviews with American young people aged 13 to 17 (N=4.161), six different patterns were identified; two types correspond to those who rate themselves as a political person – semi-political and political; and four types include a categorisation of the non-politically interested - apathetic, uninformed, distrustful, and disempowered. The “political” represents 4% of the sample, and include those that believe that it is important to be aware of civic and political issues; they are politically informed and actively participate in political issues. The semi-political (27%) express political interests; they would rate themselves as a political person but they defined being political as watching the news or participating in some political events sometimes. In turn, the apathetic (27%) are completely disinterested in politics, report indifference and apathy, and lack of motivation for being engaged in the future. Also the uninformed (13%) define themselves as disconnected from politics but come with the justification that they do not know enough about politics to become engaged. The distrustful (19%) avoid politics, as they do not trust in the political system, politicians, or other American civil participants. Finally, the disempowered (10%) seem interested and informed about politics but described 38 themselves as disengaged, because they do not believe they, or any one, have the power to affect change in the political system. Overall, the results indicated that young people are lacking clear moral convictions and few feel equipped to participate confidently and constructively in public, civic, or political life (Snell, 2010). Also Finlay et al. (2011) analysed participants who were 19 to 29 years old, unfolding distinct patterns of civic engagement: inactive, voting involved, and highly committed. They also defined each of the categories based on the levels of involvement, with the highly committed corresponding to those who are involved in several forms of participation in the political and civic domain. The voting level entail being interested only in electoral participation and the inactive level is related with people who do not show any political activities. Both typologies have in common the inclusion of civic and political domains of participation and also different levels of participation, which represent a further step towards comprehensive typologies of young people's participation. In addition, both typologies represent the most recent trend in the literature on the field. Indeed, in the last two decades several studies have been questioning the decline in civic and political participation, highlighting that research is limited in its ability to understand participation (Edwards, 2007; Vromen, 2003). On one hand, this lack of understanding is due to the non-existence of studies including non-institutionalized forms of participation (Harris, Wyn, & Younes, 2010; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). On the other hand, the research seems to be dominated by quantitative methodology, which assumes a common understanding about politics and participation between the researcher and the research participants (Henn, Weinstein, & Wring, 2002). Therefore, it seems that without a clear understanding of how youth define politics it is difficult to prove that young people are apathetic and disengaged (Farthing, 2010; O´Toole et al., 2003). In this regard, there is a need to explore how young people themselves conceive politics, preferentially through the use of qualitative methods (O‟Toole et al., 2003) or using both quantitative and qualitative approaches (Vromen, 2003). Based on this line several studies have been questioning the legitimacy of criticisms regarding young people, exploring the meaning of politics and participation through mixed methodology. For example, Andolina et al. (2002) did a multiphase study of civic engagement in America to find out meanings of politics and participation 39 of youth. They conducted 11 focus group discussions stratified by age (18-24 and 25-34 years old), level of education and level of activism. Empirical findings reveal that politics is described as a broad and critical concept, particularly by the younger groups (Andolina, et al., 2002). In addition, as the same authors later state, “the pathways to participation are too wide and too varied” (Andolina, et al., 2003, p. 279). Indeed, participation of young people seems to go beyond participation in traditional politics (Zukin et al., 2006) and the type of activities varies among different age groups. Zukin, et al. (2006) present evidence that American youth, when compared with the older groups, are more engaged in civic life but significantly less in political life. From the perspective of O´Toole et al. (2003) “we need to rethink the claim that individuals who do not participate in politics in conventional, orthodox ways are politically apathetic” (p. 54). Overall, these authors argue that there are many motives for non-participation that go beyond lack of interest in politics and in participation. For example, Gauthier (2003) concludes, after a brief overview of recent research on Canada, that contemporary young people are far from apathetic and that they are involved in community life. Concerning the situation in the UK, recent data reveal that young people do care about democracy, politics and public affairs - especially emerging global issues (Gerodimos, 2005, 2008). Haste and Hogan (2006) conducted a study also in UK, with 1136 young people aged 11 to 21 years, based on the assumption that the roles of less conventional political activities demonstrate how young people define a “good citizen”. These results clearly indicate that young people care about social issues, particularly regarding topics such as health care, better facilities, controlling crime, drugs, social justice, the environment, women's rights, immigrants, animal rights. As regards Portuguese youth, Augusto (2008) proposed that the apparent disinterest and disconnection of young people from the political system do not mean that young people are politically apathetic; rather, it represents a distrust concerning the formal and conventional mechanism of participation. Based on empirical findings, he concluded that in several forms of participation, political mobilisation and relationships with political institutions are clearly evidence of “deinstitutionalization” from the traditional political systems. Forms of conventional participation are often rejected and are less frequent than unconventional ones (such as petitions, boycotting, and online 40 participation). He calls attention to this problem of institutionalization, as there is a tendency to reject participation in institutions (including civic associations). Participation through non-conventional forms increases as the level of education of youth is higher – and the increase in personal resources does not translate into more political mobilisation (Augusto, 2008). Henn et al. (2002) examined how young people were engaged in Britain, combining quantitative (surveys) and qualitative methods (focus groups). The results show that young people are interested in politics; they have their own agenda, particularly related with immediate and localized issues. They conclude that young people are far from apathetic or apolitical. Instead, they have their own definition of politics; they are unhappy with “formal politics” and distrustful regarding those who are elected. Likewise, the project EUYOUPAT, carried out between 2003 and 2005 in eight European countries (Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Slovakia and the UK), was developed to access indicators for political participation of young people. Data show a considerable level of political engagement, yet a relatively strong number of young people are involved in individualised forms of participation (signing a petition and boycotting certain products). These forms are more attractive for young people perhaps because they are low-cost, do not demand long term commitment and do not endanger the integrity of the individual by imposing ideologies (Spannring, 2008). All these studies support the idea that “simple claims that today´s youth are apathetic and disengaged from civic life are simply wrong” (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 189) and one short review of the literature can elucidate it. Society is visible and constantly undergoing changes, which inevitably leads us to a reconfiguration of citizenship (Micheletti, Stolle, & Berlim, 2012). In fact, we have several indicators that forms of participation can differ in many ways: “in the goals, the targets of activity, the institutions or places in which they take place, the level of effort entailed” (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 51). These new political identities constitute a challenge for democracy (Strong, 1994) and recent research on participation has found evidence of it. Bang and Sørensen (1999; 2001), based on data collected in Denmark, introduce two new political identities: the Expert citizens and the Everyday Makers. These new political identities were found in a world of growing individualization of politics and of 41 declining support and membership of conventional modes of collective participation – such as political parties, interest organizations, new social movements or voluntary associations (Bang, 2005). Expert Citizens and Everyday Makers represent two ways of dealing with politics: while the expert citizens opted to be engaged in formal volunteering groups, as leaders or representatives, the others are citizens that invent a variety of everyday tactics and narratives about how one can make a political difference as an „ordinary‟ political citizen (Bang & Sørensen, 2001). Overall, the everyday makers are a response to the expert activist, as they challenge the tendency of expert activists to place full-scale professional engagement, as everyday makers tend to act for fun and part-time. Yet, expert citizens and everyday makers do not have an oppositional identity; instead they have some things in common. Both are extremely critical of organizational life in political parties, and their interest in party politics is minimal. Nevertheless they vote and keep themselves informed about politics at governmental level. Both believe that action needs to be taken concretely instead of ideologically and that people, essentially, need to act more. The main differences are that everyday makers recognize that voluntary organizations are becoming part of the system and prefer to act to indirectly influence agents of the state in the day-to-day world (Bang, 2005). Li and Marsh (2008) tested the existence of both political identities, everyday makers and expert citizens, and explored the demographic characteristics associated with each category. They also included two additional categories, political activists and non-participants. In a sample of 1547 respondents living in England and Wales over the age of 16 years, they could identify four categories: Expert Citizens (14.5%), Everyday Makers (37.3%), Political Activists (8.4%) and Non-Participants (39%). In terms of demographic characterization of the categories, results show that there are some demographic differences between the groups. For example, Political Activists (people engaged in party politics and trade unions) and Expert Citizens (leaders or representatives in formal volunteering groups) tend to be male, middle-aged, and highly-educated; Everyday Makers are more likely to be younger, female and unmarried. Instead, non-participants are likely to be found amongst the elderly, divorced, separated, widowed, minorities, working-class and poorly educated. These research studies support the concept of “everyday makers” defined as behaviour that is 48 3. Women's civic and political participation Gender differences in political behaviour are a source of interest for scholars particularly in the past 20 years (Paxton, Kunhovich, & Hughes, 2007), even though the literature recognized women‟s underrepresentation in politics since the middle of the last century (e.g. Duverger, 1955) and women were in fact excluded from political systems for many centuries. Several research investigations conducted during the past two decades support the thesis of a persistent gender gap in politics, in many countries. Indeed, it was found that women have less contact with political candidates (Verba et al, 1995; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993), discuss political issues less frequently (Huckfeldt & Sprague 1995), know less about politics (Gidengil, Goodyear-Grant, Nevitte, Blais, & Nadeau, 2003) and have lower levels of political knowledge (Atkeson & Rapoport, 2003). Research in the United States also stresses the existence of gender gaps in party affiliations, vote choices, and policy preferences (Manza & Brooks, 1998; BoxSteffensmeier, DeBoef, Lin, 2004). A few studies have emphasized that there are certain elements missing in the literature about women‟s participation, which may explain gender inequalities in politics. For example, Schlozman, Burns and Verba (1994) summarized the three main gaps in the literature on political participation of women: 1) the very limited definition of what constitutes political activity; 2) the ignorance of the role of political resources such as education, time and money, and 3) the forgetfulness that the process of politicization might be different for men and women. In this line of research, several studies have shown that the gender gap in participation might be explained in terms of contexts of participation (Coffé & Bolzendahl, 2010; Paxton et al., 2007), suggesting the need to look towards diversity in women's participation and considering it within a broader definition of participation (Vromen, 2003). Coffé and Bolzendahl (2010) found that gender inequalities can be explained in terms of contexts of participation, with women participating more in the private sphere. Indeed, the dichotomy between the public and private space has been systematically discussed and denounced by feminists. These theories stress the existence of public spaces dominated by the old conception of gender, which tends to give more power to men than to women (Paxton et al., 2007; Kofman, Phizaklea, Raghuram & Sales, 2000; Lister, 1998). Feminists insist that 49 society needs to rethink this dichotomy, particularly in issues related to unpaid work and the gendered division of domestic work (Lister, 1998, 2007). This last dimension seems particularly related with the time necessary for participation, which cropped up repeatedly as a relevant resource to women's political participation (Paxton et al., 2007). Thus, considering that women are still mainly responsible for domestic work and childcare, it comes as no surprise that they might have less free time to participate in political affairs, compared to men (Paxton et al., 2007; Burns, Schlozman & Verba, 2001). In so far as labour market issues are concerned, despite the increased presence of women, jobs still segregate in terms of gender. Indeed, women are very often less likely to work in environments that promote their own participation in the political system (Atkeson & Rapoport, 2003). Moreover, Marcelo, Lopez and Kirby (2007) found that women were more likely to be volunteers than men - and this gap was even higher among whites, when compared to African-American, Latino and Asian Americanyouth. In Portugal, as far as we know, studies about women‟s levels of civic and political participation are quite rare; however, one study reports that the inequalities in terms of gender are only significant in non-conventional participation, while in electoral and extra-electoral forms there are no significant differences between men and women (Espírito-Santo & Baum, 2004). In this regard, the last two IEA studies about political knowledge in young people suggested profound changes in the civic and political participation of boys and girls. As regards the IEA Civic Education Study (CIVED) conducted in 1999, the results suggest the non-existence of gender differences on political knowledge in young people (Torney-Purta, 2002). In terms of levels of participation, results confirm that men, more than women, are likely to engage in protest activities such as spray painting slogans on walls, blocking traffic, and occupying buildings (Amadeo et al., 2002). Nevertheless, only in half of the countries significant gender differences were found. In the other countries women reveal more willingness to vote, to collect money for a charity and collect signatures for a petition, compared with male students. However, gender differences in willingness to participate in a non-violent protest march were found in only four countries. In three of these countries - Denmark, Norway, and Sweden - higher percentages of females than males expressed their willingness to participate, and in the other country - the Czech Republic - the reverse was found 50 (Amadeo et al., 2002). These changes in patterns of civic and political participation in terms of gender are even more obvious when we analyse the results of the third IEA study conducted in 2009, The International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS). Indeed, as regards civic knowledge, it was found that females had higher scores than males in all participating countries, and in the majority of these countries differences were statistically significant (Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, & Losito, 2010). Concerning political interest, results suggest that the gender gap is narrowing, as results were contrary from the earlier IEA studies, showing higher levels of political interest among females. Additionally, in terms of intention to participate in political activities, statistically significant gender differences were again found in about half of the participating countries, with females reporting higher dispositions. Only in a few cases (Chinese Taipei, Indonesia, and Thailand) males were more likely than females to say they would participate in legal protests. In terms of voting intentions, gender differences were insignificant (Schulz et al., 2010). Picker (2008) examined what girls and boys actually do in the political arena in several European countries, and reported few gender differences, as both had equal experience in political parties and similar participation rates with respect to voting and non-voting. This research has also indicated one exception across most countries: buying products for political reasons was a domain of young women (Picker, 2008). The non-existence of gender differences in terms of attitudes and values was founded as well, as young women are equally idealistic when it comes to the constructive potential of politics, and they are equally bitter with respect to experiences of corruption and broken promises. Also, European girls and boys are similarly distrustful and sceptical, when it comes to politicians and political parties. Cicognani, Zani, Fournir, Gravray and Born (2012) also investigated young people's levels of political interest and political activities (such as voting intentions and internet participation) in two European countries: Belgium and Italy. Results indicate some gender differences, with males showing higher levels of political interest and participation through the internet. In turn, no gender differences were found in the levels of involvement in political activities in the community and also in voting intentions. Hooghe and Stolle (2004) found that younger girls reported a higher intention to participate than boys in the same age group. 51 One explanation for this reduction in the gender gap in participation is given by Hooghe and Stolle (2004): “girls may belong to a generation that has already overcome the main gender gaps in participation, whereas these differences are still in the current adult population” (p. 10). Thus, socialization processes are one of the explanations for the decreased gap in participation (Atkeson & Rapoport, 2003). This perspective is supported by several studies which indicated that having a women candidate promoted the political involvement of women in political processes (Atkeson & Rapoport, 2003; Burns et al., 2001; Hansen, 1997). Nevertheless, Nogueira (2009) highlights that “a mere increase in the number of women in decision-making roles will do nothing but increase the number of „club members‟ or „special‟ women” (p. 85), and thus suggests that, to have a social impact, women need to publicly acknowledge the challenge of a women having a decision-making role and share their experiences of discrimination. She based her thesis on the discourse analysis of 18 women in positions of power in Portugal: aged 35 to 57, all at the top of their employer‟s hierarchies. Two major discourses were identified: an Essentialist Discourse and a Resistance Discourse. The first discourse was express by 14 women, and the main characteristic is the tendency to deny any personal experience of discrimination, and at the same time, to stress their own personal competencies that make them feel that there is no discrimination against them. This discourse tends to reproduce the image of a super-woman, a „special‟ woman who has never felt discrimination, and thus is unlikely to be identified as a role-model for other women, particularly young women (Nogueira, 2009). In turn, the Resistance Discourse was expressed by only four women and is characterised by the explicit recognition of some competencies acquired through the experience of being faced with explicit discrimination (Nogueira, 2009). The importance of social representations of women has also been suggested in other Portuguese studies. For example, Poeschl, Múrias and Ribeiro (2003) examined women and men's representations of gender differences and explanations for these differences. Concerning women‟s participation in politics, it seems that females perceive a gender gap in the political system. This perceived gap is explained, on the one hand, by cultural and historical reasons that lead to barriers to access to political systems; and on the other hand, by women's lack of motivation, interest and time to be politically engaged. In addition, this perceived gap also seems to have influence on the actual involvement of women in politics. 52 In conclusion, it seems that social and cultural obstacles preventing women from participating in civic and political participation still exist today, and this explains in part why women remain largely distant and disengaged from formal political systems across many countries (Frith, 2008). Nonetheless, barriers were primarily structural and women “as committed and accountable citizens, have stridden to play an influential role in determination of society‟s fate, but they have been faced by several deprivations and limitations in the path toward playing such a role” (Sardari, 2011, p. 534). The role of political opportunities given by the political system still need to be analysed even if, in the twentieth century, we witnessed profound social, cultural and political changes toward equality in terms of gender (we will return to this issue on chapter II). In addition, we still need to shorten some gaps, such as how to integrate women from different cultures into the political system. Indeed, this is something that needs more attention by scholars, as the number of immigrants (and women immigrants in particular) has been dramatically increasing across the world. 53 4. The challenges of immigration The idea of a country that share the same languages, habits, customs, colour of skin or religious belief is no longer a reality in most of the countries in the world. Immigrants assume a crucial source of population replacement in most of the advanced industrial states (White, Nevitte, Blais, Gigengil, & Fournier, 2008) and particularly in Europe that in the past decades was confronted with an exponential increase in immigrants from countries outside the European Union. At the same time, mobility inside Europe has been increased in such a way that cultural homogeneity within national borders is no longer a reality for most of the European nations (Chryssochoou, 2011). Thus, migration is increasingly coming into sharp focus on the global agenda, and it has been recognized as a powerful vehicle for boosting development in both countries of origin and destination (European Commission, 2011; 2012). However, even if there is an official effort to boost integration in Europe, European integration remains a project by political elites, which tends to benefit only political elites (Koopmans & Statham, 2011) – and immigrants are not part of the political elites. Indeed, the public discourses (politicians and media) very often claim that the co-existence of ethnic minorities is incompatible (Wiley & Deaux, 2011). Therefore, immigration is the main challenge in Europe as there are many different interpretations of citizenship and national identity (Hoikkala, 2009). Moreover, civic and political participation of immigrants is part of these challenges, as an important characteristic of these generations of immigrants is their “potential” to get involved and be political actors (Azzi, 2011). As Simon (2011) pointed out, migrants' civic and political participation deserves particular appreciation because it represents a way of expressing citizenship. Political involvement and interest of immigrants become crucial aspects of political integration, and of crucial value for multicultural societies (Eggert & Giugni, 2010). Martiniello (2005) defines political integration as having four main dimensions. The first dimension is related with the political rights that immigrants enjoy, and there is a positive relationship between political rights and integration in the host societies. The second dimension suggests that the more immigrants feel identification with the host society, the more they are integrated. The third dimension concerns the adoption of democratic values and norms and is strictly related with the fourth dimension, political 54 participation of immigrants. Tillie (2004) also distinguishes three dimensions of political integration: political trust, adherence to democratic values and political participation; other authors add a fourth aspect, political interest (Berger, Galonska, & Koopmans, 2004; Jacobs, Phalet, & Swyngedouw, 2004). To fully represent the political involvement of migrants, more than electoral participation needs to be taken into account. Indeed, very often they are excluded from electoral participation. Thus, immigrants can (eventually) vote or run for election, participate in trade unions, in ethnic/immigrant associations or in community organizations (Couton & Gaudet, 2008; Vogel & Triandafyllidou, 2005). Immigrants can boycott certain products for ethical or environmental reasons, can sign a petition or donate money to a social organization. In addition, immigrants can also be engaged in their own communities and countries of origin and simultaneously with the hosting civic life, what has been called “civic binationality” (Fox & Bada, 2009). Recently there seems to be an increase in the discussion about various forms of civic and political participation among immigrants in Europe and beyond (Jensen & Flanagan, 2008; Wiley & Deaux, 2011). The relevance of immigrants‟ participation is also due the fact that the quality of our democracy as well depends on the integration of citizens in the life of their community, particularly in the context of multicultural societies (Eggert & Giugni, 2010). A multicultural democracy implies that minorities participate actively in the process (Fennema & Tillie, 1999). Despite this priority, most of the research on European migrants focused on the macroeconomic labour market and the demographic effects of migration (Ireland, 2011) and few studies paid attention to immigrants' participation (Stoll & Wong, 2007). For instance, in Portugal the studies on immigrant populations are merely descriptive in terms of statistical characterization of the migrant population or related to the evolution of the associative movements (Carita & Rosendo, 1993; Garcia, 2000; Peixoto, 1993; Teixeira & Albuquerque, 2005). Notwithstanding the lack of studies, traditionally immigrants were considered as apathetic and apolitical in relation to politics, not giving them space to get involved in political issues in the hosting communities (Martiniello, 2005). Concerning women of immigrant background, the research gap is even wider, as there is very little attention to the role of gender in migration (Miranda, 2009). Several studies suggest a “feminization 55 of migration” (Castles & Miller, 2003) due to a growing increase of migrant women around the world (Yamanaka & Piper, 2006; Kofman et al., 2000). Yet, in spite of the recognized need to include the voice and concerns of women from several domains of public and private life (Kofman et al., 2000; Lister et al., 2007) there is insufficient exploration of the gender dimension of immigrants' civic and political participation (Martiniello, 2005). In addition, it should be noted that, in spite of a tendency for all European countries to assume political integration of minorities as a priority, each country has its own political agenda and thus there is a need to analyse in depth how each country sees and treats people of immigrant origin. 4.1. Immigration in Portugal - the specific case of people of Brazilian origin Historically a country of emigration, after the collapse of the dictatorial regime and the independence of the Portuguese colonies in Africa (1974), Portugal has exponentially increased the number of immigrants, especially those coming from former African colonies. By the 1990s, Portugal also became attractive for Brazilian immigrants, and more recently, the migration fluxes from Eastern Europe quickly increased (SEF, 2008). By the end of 2011 (SEF, 2012) the foreign population residing in Portugal totalled 436,822 people. About half (47.9%) are native from Portuguesespeaking countries, such as Brazil (25.5%), Cape Verde (10.1%), Angola (4.9%) and Guinea-Bissau (4.2%). The other relevant nationalities are Ukraine (11%) and Romania (9%). The last report demonstrated a decrease in the number of foreign population resident in Portugal (less 1.90% than in 2010) explained by the economic crisis. Brazilian citizens in Portugal are 111.445 people (119.363 in 2010). Despite the decrease in the last year, Brazilians are the more representative nationality in Portugal, and in terms of gender, statistics report that the foreign population is equally distributed. Regarding age, the majority of immigrants in Portugal are 20 to 39 years old (representing 46.8% of the foreign population). Currently, despite the slight decrease in terms of number of Brazilian immigrants in Portugal, this community remains the most representative foreign community in this country (SEF, 2012). Due to a larger presence of Brazilians in Portugal, and the historical relationship between both countries, several bilateral agreements have contributed to stabilisation and strengthening of the migration 56 systems between Portugal and Brazil (Baganha, 2009). The existence of these agreements is a “good example of the strength of a formal control system that helps to hold the lusophone migratory system” (Baganha, 2009, p. 10). Regarding migration issues, these agreements cover areas such as illegal migration, the labour market and visas. The “Lula Agreement” might be the most well-known regarding Brazil and Portugal, and seems to have an important role in the integration of Brazilians in Portugal. Various scholars have conducted studies in order to characterise Brazilian immigration. For example, in terms of levels of education of people of Brazilian origin, the literature tends to highlight two patterns, which correspond to the two mains waves of Brazilian immigration to Portugal. During the 1980s and 1990s, Brazilian immigrants who came to Portugal had levels of qualification and professional experiences higher than the Portuguese population. Thus, these immigrants were well-integrated in the labour market in skilled careers (e.g. dentist, designer). After the 2000s, there are strong signs of a new wave of immigration, as people of Brazilian origin tend to integrate mainly in the catering sector (Bogús, 2007). In addition, even if the academic qualifications of Brazilians are medium, the social origins of Brazilian immigrants tend to be medium to low status (Peixoto & Figueiredo, 2007). As regards attitudes of the majority towards people of Brazilian origin, overall the historical, cultural and linguistic links between Portugal and Brazil have contributed to the development of a positive representation, and the attitude of majority groups towards people of Brazilian origin is, often, better than the representation of other minority groups (Padilla, 2007). So, people of Portuguese origin and also other Europeans, characterise people of Brazilian origin as sociable, happy, sensual and communicative (Santos, 2008). Regarding attitudes toward minority groups, Nata (2007) conducted a study with 519 adolescents (14 to 19 years old) with the aim of understanding how they support the rights of gypsies and immigrants at three levels: individual rights, cultural rights, and affirmative action. He found that girls are stronger supporters of minorities‟ rights than boys - particularly concerning rights related with cultural expression, such as the right to maintain their traditions and cultural heritage or to preserve their language. In terms of predictors of support of minority rights, he found 57 that the perception that a particular minority group is discriminated against increases the support of minorities‟ rights. In addition, to perceive similarity in terms of values, cultural tradition and religious faith is found to be a predictor of support of minority rights, while perceived threat (higher for gypsies than for immigrants) is relevant to explain how the majority perceive the rights of minority groups. Yet, people of Brazilian origin, as other immigrants who live in Portugal, are the target of many prejudices and discrimination. For example, there is a strong and negative perception about their personal and professional silks. Indeed, there is some evidence that people of Portuguese origin believe that people of Brazilian origin are neither good people, nor competent, nor are they serious and honest (Silva & Schlitz, 2007). Moreover, particularly women of Brazilian origin are victims of prejudice, and they are very often associated with prostitution (Lages & Policarpo, 2003; Malheiros, 2007; Silva & Schlitz, 2007). Concerning the citizenship status of Brazilians immigrants in Portugal, the statistical characterization of Brazilian immigrant groups in terms of country of family origin is difficult, especially because some of the migrants who come to Portugal are descendants from the Portuguese. However, we know that since 2007, the number of migrants requesting Portuguese nationalization has increased, and in 2011, 7.155 people from Brazilian origin requested Portuguese nationality - and 5.779 actually have had this request accepted. In terms of civic and political participation very few studies considered participation of Brazilian immigrants and thus we do not have much information about the levels of Brazilian participation in Portugal. Yet, we known that the number of registered voters is very low (Zobel & Barbosa, 2012) and that immigrants‟ associations have a far more significant presence in African communities in Portugal (Albuquerque, 2005). 4.2. Patterns of participation among young people of immigrant origin A detailed analysis of national and international migration fluxes suggest that young people are the principal actors, and today´s youth are more diverse as group than they were in the past (Marcelo et al., 2007; SEF, 2012), in part due to immigration. 64 bullying, physical fighting, alcohol and tobacco use (Vieno, Nation, Perkins & Santinello, 2007). The results showed that adolescents who are involved in community associations reported less fighting and alcohol and tobacco use. Youniss (2009) suggests that political participation can also be important to facilitate the development of young people's moral identity. Hence, when moral concern is being expressed through collective action, it allows the confrontation of moral positions of others who are equally committed to their own moral positions. This potentially opens individuals to exchanges of argument and counter-arguments, creating a dynamic in which the parties can clarify their views as they discover others who share and others who differ in terms of moral perspectives (Youniss, 2009). Finkel (1985; 1987) examined the effects of four modes of political participation, voting, campaigning, peaceful protest and aggressive behaviour, on two political attitudes, political efficacy and regime support. They used longitudinal data collected in West Germany. Results suggest that different modes of participation might promote different effects on political attitudes and for different types of citizens. For example, voting has a positive impact on supporting the political system, but this effect is minimal on the individual´s political efficacy. This result was also found for the United States (Finkel, 1985). In turn, campaign activities were the only action with a positive impact on political efficacy. In Finkel‟s perspective, this last action is more cognitively demanding than voting. High efficacy and high support were negatively correlated with aggressive behaviour. In addition, the impact of peaceful protest was insignificant for political efficacy and system support. Finkel (1985; 1987) also confirm the expectation that different groups react differently to various forms of political action (Finkel, 1985; 1987) and “ leave open the possibility that different models of participation have stronger effects on these or other attitudes under different conditions or among different people” (Finkel, 1985). The extreme relevance of Finkel‟s (1987) works is that he highlights the diverse range of impact of forms of participation on individuals. Indeed, he has stressed that conventional participation, such as voting and campaigning, seems to foster positive efficacy, while non-conventional forms of participation, such as peaceful protest, but also violence, could foster the opposite. In this sense, he introduces the idea that participation is not all the same, and we need to consider the specificities of each form of action. 65 5.2. The “dark side” of participation Although seemingly paradoxical, some studies also suggest that participation is not always a good thing and might have a “dark side” (Fiorina, 1999). Two related and complementary explanations have been presented to sustain the existence of a dark facet to participation. The first perspective is based on the type of organizational characteristics more favourable to the benefits of participating, and the second argument expresses the need to make a distinction between the quantity and quality of participation experiences. As regards the first argument, voluntary organizations have been one of the participation contexts more studied (Stolle & Hooghe, 2005), and there is also a growing discussion about the role of organizational characteristics in the benefits of participation (Putnam, 2000; Maloney, van Deth, Robteutscher & 2008). These studies assume that the benefits of participation are not independent of the organizational structure of the associations. Even Putnam (2000) draws a crucial distinction between which kind of civil associations can make democracy work, when he reports some characteristics of the organizations in the south of Italy, such as horizontal, democratic, and commitment to equality (Putnam, 1993). Also, in the distinction between “bonding” and “bridging” social capital, the different potential of activities is stressed: bonding activities “tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups”, whereas bridging activities “encompass people across diverse social cleavages” (Putnam, 2000, p. 22). Paxton (2002) seems to argue that associations, which teach tolerance, promote compromise and stimulate political participation can reduce the ability of the state to promote oppression. Theiss-Morse and Hibbing (2005) did a systematic review of the literature focusing on three arguments about the positive effects of volunteering: civic values (such as social trust and political efficacy) enhance political behaviour and improve democracy and society. Based on the amount of studies, firstly they contested the evidence that being part of a voluntary association, whether homogenous or heterogeneous, increases civic values. Indeed, people seem to express a tendency to join homogenous groups, although it is when people interact with those who are different, that they become more tolerant in relation to the others. Secondly, they claim, that 66 despite the evidence of the link between civic and political participation, it is a mistake to assume a causal relationship between voluntary association and political participation. In fact, people who join both are more likely to be involved per se. Thirdly, not all associations are democratic and tolerant, and if the argument is that organizations that work democratically help to create tolerant citizens, when such organizations are intolerant and undemocratic they are propagating such values. In light of all these arguments, Theiss-Morse and Hibbing (2005) question that participation always leads to positive outcomes. In the same vein, van Deth (2010) analysed if membership in voluntary associations promote positive feelings toward democracy and political engagement, in 19 European countries (including Portugal). He concludes that members of voluntary associations are characterised by higher levels of satisfaction with democracy and higher levels of political engagement than non-members. Simultaneously he found great potential for bad social capital in European countries, in the sense that some members of these organizations report lower levels of political saliency than non-members. In this way, these organizations promote bad capital (only in this sense, as they are also more interested in politics and have higher levels of satisfaction with democracy). So, if some organizations have potential for “bad capital” (van Deth, 2010) higher levels of participation may not, necessarily, lead to benefits. Long before, Menezes (2003), as regards the impact of participation in civic concepts, attitudes and engagement of young people found a positive impact of participation in terms of political interest, trust in government and intentions to become involved in future. Despite this trend, consistent across many countries and age groups (up to 14-years old and secondary students), she found that in some situations participation might generate negative outcomes. For example, in upper secondary students, in some countries, those whose involvement takes place on a monthly basis have more political interest, expected political participation and positive attitudes towards immigrants, than those with a weekly involvement. These results seem to support the idea proposed by Fiorina (1999) that: “intermediate levels of civic engagement may well lead to outcomes that are inferior not just to outcomes produced by higher levels of civic engagement but also to those produced by lower levels” (p. 394). Thus, “more is not always better” (Menezes, 2003, 67 p. 404), and some scholars have starting to consider that participation itself does not always lead to positive outcomes. 5.3. The Quality of Participation Experiences The theoretical perspective that proposes that participation is not always good is in line with perspectives that consider development flows through the process of participation in socio-cultural activities (Rogoff, Baker-Sennett, Lacasa, & Goldsmith, 1995). Supported by several empirical findings, with Portuguese adolescents, young adults and adults (Azevedo, 2009; Ferreira, 2006; Veiga, 2008; Ferreira, Azevedo & Menezes, 2012) the importance of psychological factors that rest on classical contributions from developmental psychology, educational theory and political science to determine the quality of participation experiences, have been emphasized. The argument is that “the elements of challenge and support, of action and reflection may be an important part of experiences such as getting involved in political parties, unions, social movements, volunteer work in the community, religious or recreational associations” (Ferreira et al., 2012, p. 3). Quality of Participation Experiences (QEP) combine a descriptive analysis of experiences in groups, organizations and social movements (and its durability), with data related to the most significant experiences of engagement in terms of action and reflection (Ferreira, 2006). The quality of participation entails a combination between opportunities for action and reflection in a supportive environment where pluralism and dissent are valued. In this regard, several studies have indicated that these conditions seem not only to characterise many current civic and political experiences, but also to foster relevant attitudes, dispositions and behaviour (Azevedo, 2009; Carneiro, 2006; Ferreira, 2006; Veiga, 2008). The argument that the “quality of participation experiences” matters, was tested in several studies in the Portuguese context, and the results are very consistent. For example, Ferreira (2006) analysed the impact of the quality of participation experiences in a cross-sectional and correlational model with 626 adolescents. Results suggest that only when participation achieves high quality is it possible to observe complex modes of thinking about politics, flexibility, commitments and critical thinking. Azevedo 68 (2009) conducted a longitudinal study also considering the impact of participation on the political attitudes of 963 adolescents. These results show that the developmental quality of civic and political participation during adolescence predicts dispositions for future political engagement. Veiga (2008), in her research with university students, found that those who participated for longer and in diversified activities reported higher levels of perceived empowerment. Yet, even if the result suggests that students who engage in activities/groups with medium and higher involvement have an increased probability to report high levels of psychological empowerment, the type of activity influences the level of empowerment. The results also indicated that organizations characterised by homogeneity, unfavourable to promoting confrontation of opinions and discussion, were associated with low levels of quality of participation experiences. Summary In this chapter, we saw that societies are becoming more diverse each day, and this constitutes a new challenge for the study of civic and political participation. Indeed, participation has a multifaceted nature, implies a diversified range of activities that can be developed in various contexts, with several levels of involvement. In addition, participation can vary across different groups in society such as young people, immigrants, and women. The need to consider patterns of diversity in civic and political participation is even wider, considering that these groups are frequently excluded from formal mechanisms of participation (e.g. Martiniello, 2005; Picker, 2008). Moreover, the attention to a broader conception of participation allowed us to realise that the thesis about a “crisis in participation” is becoming more and more non-consensual. The large numbers of studies that suggest that the gap in participation is much better explained in terms of contexts of participation support this assumption (e.g. Andolina et al., 2003; Coffé & Bolzendahl, 2010; Harris et al., 2010; Lopez & Marcelo, 2008; Lopez et al., 2006; O´Toole et.al, 2003; Paxton et. al, 2007; Snell, 2010; Watts & Flanagan, 2007) such as recent social movements and protests that have a significant presence of youth. Moreover, participation can perform many functions and may produce different outcomes, depending, in part, on the quality of participation experiences. Overall, 69 despite the dominance of the perspective that participation is good in itself, a careful analysis of the literature reveals some potentially negative consequences of these experiences such as stereotypes, conformity, scepticism and distrust (e.g., de Piccoli, Colombo & Mosso, 2005; Menezes, 2003; Theiss-Morse & Hibbing, 2005). In this regard, a recent perspective that proposes that “developmental change takes more than mere involvement in civic and political participation” (Ferreira et al, 2012, p.11) highlighted the need for a deeper understanding of the contexts and experiences of participation. In addition, we believe that contexts of participation are also different regarding the opportunities they offers to groups in society, and thus the developmental quality approach needs to go further and extend the analysis to other groups, such as women and immigrants. 70 71 Chapter II From structure to agency – Predictors of Civic and Political Participation 72 73 Why people become politically active has been one of the most recurring questions across the studies about citizens' participation. In this debate the classical problem of “agency-structure” has had implications for the understanding of participation. The theory of structuration proposed by Giddens (1984) stresses that agency means “being able to intervene in the world or to refrain from such intervention, with the effect of influencing a specific process or state of affairs” (p. 14), whereas structure implies “rules and resources, or sets of transformation relations, organized as properties of social systems” (p. 25). In his definition of structure, rules (e.g. such as laws or bureaucratic rules) cannot be conceptualized apart from resources, which refer to the modes whereby transformative relations are incorporated into the reproduction of social practices. Despite some lack of consensus about the relationship between structure and agency - some claim that agency and structure are two separable phenomena (e.g. Archer, 1995), whereas others believe in the dualism of structure (e.g. Giddens, 1984) – what seems more consensual, and also relevant for our discussion in this chapter, is that structure is objective, whilst agency entails subjectivity (Archer, 2003). The goals of this chapter are to examine the impact of political opportunities (mainly on young people's, women's and migrants' participation), as well as the role of resources in participation. Moreover, considering that structure indicates “the difficulty or ease [with] which certain projects could be accomplished, by groups of people standing in given relations to part of society” (Archer, 2003, p.8), understanding why people participate, independently from structures (Letki, 2003, p.3) will also be explored in this chapter. In this regard, we will examine several studies that have demonstrated the relevance of various dimensions (social, psychological, motivational and cognitive) to the explanation of specific forms of participation. It should be noticed that the main focus of this chapter is the literature on the predictors of participation, but more than presenting models on specific forms of participation, we intend to explore the predictive power of specific dimensions across various forms of participation. 80 role of income is even more important regarding minority groups. Indeed, Nata (2007) conducted a qualitative study with leaders of ethnic organizations in Portugal, and found that, in their opinions, minority groups tend to have lower levels of political participation, in part because they have low income. Thus, the effect of inequalities in terms of rates in political participation is related to economic segregation (Schroeder, 2009) and the socioeconomic gap has been found in several studies (e.g. Oxendine, 2004; Torney-Purta, 2002; Uslaner & Dekker, 2001).The notion that income and income inequality is important to democratic processes and to the quality of democratic outcomes is also widely accepted (Anderson & Beramendi, 2005) and need to be taken into account in studies of participation. As regards education, it has been assigned the role to invert the exponential decline in conventional participation, as it is one of the most important predictors “of many forms of social participation: from voting to associational membership, to chairing a local committee to hosting a dinner party to giving blood” (Putnam, 2000, p. 186). Marien et al. (2010) questioned if non-institutionalized forms of participation (such as demonstrations, petitions or political consumerism) can reduce patterns of inequality in society. They conclude that non-institutionalized forms of participation promote inclusiveness, as they tend to be more appealing to young people and female participants than institutionalized forms. However, education is even a stronger predictor for non-institutionalized forms of participation, which means that noninstitutionalized forms of participation can strengthen inequalities based on education (Marien et al., 2010) – but not in terms of income. Also Hadjar and Schlapbach analysed the role of education in West Germany and Switzerland and found that education seems to have a strong effect on political interest in both countries (Hadjar & Schlapbach, 2009). Concerning youth participation, Brynner and Ashford (1994) conducted a study with young people in Britain, and found that political apathy was negatively associated with level of education. Specifically, they found that the longer a person stays in the education system the more he/she will find the means for political expression. Nevertheless, considering that during the last decades, levels of education have grown substantially across the world, but levels of conventional participation have not, 81 the persistent importance attributed to education is surprising. Indeed, it is necessary to consider that despite the high increase in average levels of education, there has not been an increase in conventional forms of participation (Campbell, 2009; Nie, Junn, & Stehlik-Barry, 1996; Putnam, 2000). Nie et al. (1996) provide a convincing explanation based on the sorting social model. These authors proposed that education serves as a sorting social mechanism, so that the impact of education is not determined by one‟s education level, rather the relation to others' levels of education must be considered – one‟s own age cohort. In this vein, even if more education means higher status, average levels of education have increased, so people need more education to be positioned at the top of the class hierarchy. This theory was tested using data from the General Social Surveys and from the National Election Surveys from 1972 to 1994 in the United States. The authors used measures to access the absolute years of educational attainment and the relative educational environment (measured as the mean years of education attained by all respondents aged 25 to 50 years at the time the respondent was 25). The results showed that both the absolute and the relative effects of education increase participation such as voter turnout, while the positive effects of absolute levels of education on civic engagement are neutralized and even overwhelmed by the decreasing relative value of education (as a social sorting mechanism) over time. Despite the recognition of clarity and relevance of the “sorting model” to explain why education is not a direct predictor of participation, researchers have presented some improvements of this model. For example, Tenn (2005) criticized the measure to assess relative education that was used by the authors – as they can only be estimated due to restrictions on the effects of age, generation, and state of residence. He proposes an alternative definition in which education is measured relative to those born in the same year. Campbell (2009) adds that the “sorting model” does not apply to everyone, having more impact on men than on women, and works better on electoral political activity. In spite of some critiques, the sorting social model has contributed to a good understanding of how higher levels of education do not necessarily mean more participation. Brady et al. (1995) criticize the SES model, as it fails in the identification of the mechanism through which political participation links to social status. Thus, they propose adding resources such as time, money and civic skills to the “SES model” of political participation. Civic skills (educational attainment, participation in high school, 82 government, language ability, and reported activities in adult institutions) was measured through activities, such as writing a letter, attending a meeting where decisions were made, planning or chairing a meeting, or giving a presentation or speech. The advantage of this proposal is the expansion of the analysis of resources not only based on socioeconomic position, but derived from the SES position of the person. Thus, it explains better the link between social status and participation, as civic skills, time and money are dependent on levels of education, occupation and income. Furthermore, the work of Brady et al. (1995) revealed that different resources are differentially available to various politically relevant groups and differentially critical for various kinds of activity: for example, political interest is important for turn-out; civic skills for acts requiring an investment of time; money for activities implying financial investment (Brady et al., 1995). Torney–Purta (2002) stressed the need to also consider parental resources (e.g. number of books at home, education of parents) in explanations of youth participation. The influence of parental cultural resources was found in the last two editions of the IEA Civic Education Studies, with differences in civic knowledge and participation reported being associated with education and familial resources (Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001; Schulz et al., 2010). For example, the impact of home resources on civic knowledge and expressed willingness to vote was one of the main results, with those students from homes with few literacy or educational resources at a disadvantage. The impact of education and home resources was particularly substantial in countries such as Denmark, Switzerland, and the United States (TorneyPurta et al., 2001). Also Verba, Burns and Schlozman (2003) found an effect of parental education on political activity of youth and that higher resources of parents have an influence in the reduction of participatory inequalities among Latinos, AfricanAmericans, and Anglo-Whites. As regards the impact of resources in groups with different background, Stoll and Wong (2007) found that Whites, Blacks, Latinos and Asians in the United States have different rates of participation. Whites have the highest levels of engagement followed by Blacks, Latinos and Asians. The explanations of these differences also vary according to the group. Indeed, personal characteristics and socioeconomic status fully 83 explain differences between White and Latinos and Black, but not the differences between Whites and Asians. These results highlight the importance of paying attention to a broader range of variables in order to arrive at a more complex picture of civic participation among diverse racial and ethnic groups (Stoll & Wong, 2007). Blasco (2008) compares political orientations of young immigrants (Greeks, Italians, Turks) and young Germans, as well as their readiness to participate in political processes. In terms of young people‟s level of participation, the results indicate that the most common form of action among Germans is also the most common action among foreign young adults. The differences between each nationality are explained by the linguistic advantages of Germans and by their higher level of education. This work highlights the advantage of education even in groups with no immigrant background. Indeed, both groups – young people with immigrant background and young Germans with low levels of education– are not interested in politics, state opinions that are less oriented towards democracy, show lower levels of acceptance of political institutions, and exhibit less contact with political participation. Yet, the situation of young immigrants can lead to higher levels of disadvantage when they show low levels of education and a labour situation that is not favourable (Blasco, 2008). Furthermore, Schlozman et al. (1994) tested whether disparities in terms of levels of participation can be explained by inequalities in terms of resources, and whether these resources work differentially for men and women. Using part of the data from the citizen participatory study conducted in 1989, with American adults (N= 2.517), results show that men were more active in politics than women in activities such as: frequency of contributing to a campaign, contacting an official, and belonging to a political organization. On the contrary, there is no significant difference in terms of membership, yet to be affiliated tends to facilitate the involvement of women in political life. In terms of time, the results suggest that women have as much free time as men, but this does not seems to be critical to the decision to take part. Nevertheless, among activists free time seems to significantly affect the amount of time that is given to politics. Money seems to be particularly important for activities involving political contribution, with women having less money than men, therefore presenting lower levels of political contribution. With regard to the gender gap in participation the lack of resources has been one of the main arguments to explain gender differences in 84 participation (Atkeson & Rapoport, 2003). The explanation was that because women had less resources than men they were less engaged (Atkeson & Rapoport, 2003; Verba, Burns, & Schlozman, 1997). In the same vein, Lopes, Benton and Cleaver (2009) conducted a study with young people in England, and found that being a female and having high economic status were associated with greater intention to participate. Other studies reveal that male adolescents are more involved in social networks, having greater opportunities to learn and practise skills, play significant roles and to build relationships with other people (Cicognani et al., 2012). Thus, civic skills seem to be more influential in male political participation and, in turn, family participation is particularly relevant for enhancing participation among girls. 1.2.1 Networks and social capital When Brady et al. (1995) proposed to measure civic skills through social activities, they were suggesting the relevance of social resources to explaining participation. In this vein, Pattie et al. (2003) found that mobilisation influences most types of participation. From their point of view, it is crucial to mobilize people, simply asking them to become active citizens (Pattie & Johnston, 2008). Moreover, those more socially engaged, with more conversations and social contact with others (Pattie & Johnston, 2008) showed greater involvement in voluntary activities and political activism. The relevance of these dimensions has been also continuously highlighted by theories of social capital, as social capital constitutes a particular kind of resource available to a person (Coleman, 1994). Coleman presented a definition of social capital considering its function, “it is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure” (Coleman, 1990, p. 302). In addition, Bourdieu (1985) also defined social capital as an individual position in various interconnecting networks, and hence as an individual capacity that results from occupying a particular position in the context of power structures. However, as Bourdieu views social capital as a medium to perpetuate destructive inequalities, he does not view it as necessarily a good thing for society (Hays & Kogl, 2007). Overall, Bourdieu's definition of social capital tends to highlight 85 the role of the individual in social networks, whilst Coleman defines social capital emphasising the role of social networks. Putnam (1993; 2000) following Coleman's strand of research, presented an alternative definition of social capital, as he considered social capital as “connection among individual – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam, 2000, p. 19). Since “Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy” (1993), Robert Putnam reintroduced the concept of social capital, in such a way that very often social capital is linked to civic and political participation. He explains the economic differences between “the north" and "the south” of Italy, insofar as they differ in terms of social capital: “Some regions of Italy, such as Emilia-Romagna and Tuscany, have many active community organizations. Citizens in these regions are engaged by public issues, not by the patronage. They trust one another to act fairly and obey to law. Leaders in these communities are relatively honest and committed to equality. Social and political networks are organized horizontally, not hierarchically. These “civic communities” value solidarity, civic participation, and integrity and here democracy works.” (Putnam, 2000, p. 345) Social capital is, mainly since then, considered a key element to democracy. Yet, Letki (2003) tested the model of social capital propagated by Putnam (1993; 2000) in post-communist countries in the middle - 1990s, and did not find the same inspiring results. Indeed, he found limited “usefulness of the concept of social capital in explaining the levels and patterns of political activism in the democratizing countries.” (p. 26). In his view, skills and attitudes acquired in participation in groups – for example in voluntary associations or the Communist party – and the exposure to the democratic political processes are far more important for the “civicness” of a community than interpersonal and social trust. Hays and Kogl (2007) suggested that we need a more detailed understanding of how various forms of social capital impact neighbourhoods and communities. Dutch political scientists Fennema and Tillie (1999; 2011) explore the relation between civic communities and political participation of minorities groups (Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese and Antilleans) living in Amsterdam. Civic community is seen as the amount of participation in ethnic associational life of the particular ethnic group, 86 and thus represents the “ethnic social capital” of the group. They found that the denser the networks of ethnic associations the more political trust the group members have and the more politically active and politically interested they are. Several authors extend the study conducted by Fennema and Tillie to other European cities. For example, Heelsum (2002) examined the relationship between different forms of political participation and the civic community in organizations of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands (in the main city and also in small cities). Similarly, it was found that lower levels of interest in politics and electoral apathy among ethnic minorities were explained by varying degrees of civic integration, measured here by the number of ethnic associations. The relationship between trust and civic participation in minority groups was also studied by Kelly (2008). Data collected under CIRCLE National Youth Survey were used, which consisted of a sample of 1.000 young people between 15 to 25 years old in the United States. She found that participation (volunteering and voting) promote trust in others, trust in government and also in social institutions among minority youths. Kelly (2008) proposes that for youth, especially minority youth, being involved in community service or volunteerism is crucial. Bousetta (2000) reported empirical findings of three European countries (France, the Netherlands and Belgium), regarding the presence of immigrant communities in the public socio-political sphere. The results indicate that groups have weak levels of mobilisation in relation to the general political agenda, but intense levels of mobilisation within community organization. More recently, Eggert and Giugni (2010) focused on political interest and political participation of Italians, Kosovars and Turks. Overall, results indicate that more than political interest, the political participation of migrants largely depends on their associational involvement. Yet, the relationship between immigrants‟ participation in ethnic associational life and political participation is not linear, as some studies have shown. Berger et al. (2004) also analysed whether migrants (Turks, Italians and Russians) who are active in German and/or ethnic organizations are better integrated politically. They found that participation (including attitudinal and behaviour dimensions) towards the country of origin is a powerful predictor of political participation in Berlin and German politics. However, people who are involved in ethnic organizations tend to be less interested in German politics. Thus, contrary to the expectations, empirical results reported that people who are active in organizations (both ethnic and German) do not tend to be more 87 politically integrated than people who are active in non-political organizations. In addition, socio-demographic variables (language, education) seem to be more relevant to explaining interest than activities, which seems to suggest that they are two separated elements of political integration (political behaviour and attitudes in relation to politics). Also, Jacobs et al. (2004) expand the study to the cases of the Moroccans and Turks in Brussels, and, unexpectedly, the results reveal opposite evidence, as Turks have less political interest than Moroccans - but Turks had higher levels of (ethnic) membership. The authors claim that social capital does not necessarily enhance political participation, and other dimensions need to be taken into account, such as language proficiency, gender and citizenship status (van Londen, Phalet, Hagendoorn, 2007). Overall, these studies suggest that different minority groups report different rates of participation, and this is true for several European countries and cities. What appears less consensual is the result found by Fennema and Tillie (1999, 2001) about a positive relationship between levels of involvement in associations, political trust and political participation. What the majority of studies pointed out was that other dimensions must be taken into account, such as gender and language proficiency (Jacobs et al., 2004) or citizenship status (van Londen et al., 2007), as these dimensions might influence the impact of associational life and political participation. These models show that resources are important for citizens‟ civic and political participation and an unequal distribution of political resources may lead to a situation where certain groups of society are repeatedly less successful than others in expressing their political preferences (Bernhagen & Marsh, 2007). Nevertheless, participation is not only about resources, and people´s civic and political participation is also influenced by subjective and individual dimensions. 88 2. Agency and civic and political participation Why people decide to be engaged and participate actively, independently from resources and political opportunities, “is n ot only interesting, but also salient - especially in the context of new democracies” (Letki, 2003, p.3), which are, as we saw in chapter one, characterised by diversity. Several studies have demonstrated the relevance of various dimensions (social, psychological, demographical, motivational and cognitive) to the explanation of specific forms of participation. The centrality of each dimension depends on the field of study and also on the type of participation under examination. Nevertheless, the trend has been to look toward integrative models of participation, a domain where psychology has made important contributions. 2.1. Psychological involvement Psychological involvement has been defined “as the degree to which one is interested in or concerned about politics and believes political participation is worthwhile” (Mangum, 2003, p. 41). Thus it includes dimensions related to political interest, attentiveness, and political efficacy, all associated very often with voting behaviour (e.g. Bennulf & Hedberg, 1999; Brady et al., 1995; Mangum, 2013; van Deth & Elff, 2004). In regard to political interest, “the extent to which politics is attractive to someone” (Dostie-Goulet, 2009, p. 406) represents “one of the most important norms from a democratic perspective” (Strömbäck & Shehata, 2010, p. 575). Therefore, political interest has been pointed out as a necessary condition for any democratic political system (van Deth & Elff, 2004). As the lack of political interest has been identified as a common phenomenon in most countries (e.g. Gabriel & van Deth 1995; van Deth, 2000), particularly among young people (Lupia & Philpot, 2005), it not surprising that the there is an increasing number of studies exploring dimensions related to political interest and also attentiveness. Political interest is defined in terms of curiosity and attentiveness to politics (van Deth, 1990; van Deth & Elff, 2004). Therefore, it represents “the degree to which politics arouses a citizen´s curiosity (van Deth, 1990, p. 278). Hence, “without a minimum level of curiosity about politics, 89 citizens would not even be aware of the political process or of opportunities to defend their well-being and contribute to collective decisions” (Van Deth & Elff, 2004, p. 478). Several research studies reveal that there is a strong link between political interest and many dimensions of political behaviour, such as political knowledge (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Eveland & Scherufele, 2000), political participation (Oskarson, 2007; Verba et al., 1997), political talk and voting (Pan, Shen, Paek, & Sun, 2006) voting (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996) and attentiveness to political information and media use (Lupia & Philpot, 2005). Moreover, political interest and attentiveness are almost consensual predictors of electoral participation, with information that is received through the media clearly influencing participation (Chaffee, Ward, & Tipton, 1970; Hahn, 1998; Torney-Purta, 2001; Zukin et. al., 2006). Political attentiveness and political interest are strongly related and some studies clearly showed this relationship. For example, Strömbäck and Shehata (2010) examined the role of new media in rising political interest, concluding that there is a causal and reciprocal relationship between political interest and attention to political information, as new media appear to have a negative impact on political interest. Livingstone and Markham (2008) claim the need to consider media in explaining civic and political participation. In an analysis of the role of television, radio, the press and the Internet, in a sample of 1017 participants in the UK, older than 18 years of age, they found that civic participation is influenced by media use. Yet, different media influence participation differently, and media use appears to be a strong influence of political interest, but it is irrelevant or even negative in relation to taking action. Van Deth (2000), based on empirical evidence available for Western European countries in 1990 and 1998, proposes two aspects of political interest: subjective political interest and political salience. Subjective political interest was defined as being curious about what is going on in politics, and political salience as considering politics to be relevant to one´s own life. This theory proposes that even people who do not have any curiosity about politics, might feel obliged to consider politics as important and relevant to their own lives. Combining these two aspects of political interest, van Deth (2000) proposes a typology of political involvement (see table 2). Thus, people who have high subjective political interest and also high levels of political salience are 96 “the extent to which individual sympathizers end up participating in an instance of collective action depends on the specific circumstances, on the nature of the specific form of action, on each individual's particular characteristic and experiences, and his or her social environment, to mention some of the key determinants” (p. 7). Based on these various aspects, he proposes an explanation of collective action that includes three concepts: injustice, efficacy, and identity (Klandermans, 1997; 2000). The three dimensions have a direct effect on collective action, as illustrated by figure 1. Figure 1Klandermans´s model of participation in collective action (1997; 2002) Perceived injustice in Klandermans‟ model is related to the perception of social inequalities, which pushes people to act collectively in order to reduce these inequalities. In this sense, perceived injustice often arises together with illegitimate inequality, but also with imposed grievance, or with the conviction that some moral principles have been violated (Klandermans, 1997; 2002). The introduction of perceived injustice to explain collective action implies the subjective experiences of a group regarding social deprivation (van Zomeran, Postmes & Spears, 2008). In turn, perceived efficacy refers to the belief that it is possible to promote change through collective action, and at reasonable costs (Klandermans, 2002). Therefore, it implies a balance between the potential costs and benefits of getting involved. Klandermans (1986) examined the willingness to participate among 180 union members, and the results Sense of injustice Instrumentality or efficacy Identity Collective action 97 suggest that willingness to participate depends on the expected consequences of participation, increasing if people perceive benefits of participation as big and the costs as low. As regards the third dimension on Klandermans‟ model, social psychological approaches to collective action use the notion of collective identity 2 . Klandermans considered the definition of identity proposed by Simon (1998b; 1999) that has metaphorically defined identity as a place shared in the social world. Place means any position on any socially relevant dimension such as gender, age, ethnicity, trait and attitude – thus identity is measured as group identification. Following the indications given by Klandermans (1997) that the importance of these motives may vary with the specific type of social model and that components have different consequences for participation (Klandermans et al., 2002), several studies extended the analysis of the impact of these three dimensions on many forms of participation. Indeed, these three dimensions have received great scholarly attention over the past few decades (e.g. Gamson, 1992; Klandermans, 1997; 2004), mainly perceived efficacy and identity. Below we present some of studies that focus on the role of this dimension in collective action. Moreover, when appropriate we explore studies that pay attention to related socio-psychological dimensions, even if these studies concern other forms of participation (e.g. volunteering, voting, etc.). In accordance to the relevance of collective identity for participation, a theoretical model for the Politicization of Collective Identity (PCI) was developed (Simon & Klandermans, 2001) 3 . PCI is defined as a form of collective identity that underlies group members' explicit motivations to engage in such a power struggle. Members of group identity are politicized to the extent that those members self2 Erik Erikson was one of the earliest psychologists to be explicitly interested in identity. For Erikson (1968) identity includes both internal and social-contextual dimensions, and an intersection of self and context. The personal dimension of identity implies goals, values, and beliefs, while social identity implies a sense of identification with a group. For instance, the identification with a country of origin can be considered as social identity (Schwartz, 2001). Adams (1997) proposes a clarification of the two distinct forms of identity in Erikson´s theory: personal identity and collective identity. Personal identity represents those aspects of self that have been differentiated and self-created and that set one apart from others. Conversely, collective identity represents aspects of self that have been integrated from the social system, those that identify an individual with the group (or cultural context) to which he/she belongs. 3 It is important to note that this approach uses collective identity instead of social identity – more traditional in the psychology field, because they believe that collective identity is a characteristic of a group and social identity is a characteristic of an individual (Klandermans & Simon, 2001). 98 consciously engage in a power struggle on behalf of their group. This process starts with the awareness of shared grievances, and for collective identity to become politicized these grievances must be experienced as widely shared among the members of groups. The politicization process implies that group members “intentionally engage, as a mindful and self – conscious collective in a power struggle knowing that it is the wider, more inclusive societal context in which this struggle takes place and needs to be orchestrated accordingly” (Simon & Klandermans, 2001; p. 323). This theory is based on three main assumptions: people act as members of a social group; people are involved in a power struggle with an immediate antagonist; struggles about control and power involve third parties. It is clearly assumed that these processes and stages may often overlap and interact (Simon & Klandermans, 2001). Several studies seem to support the PCI model. For example, analysing the specific case of the gay movement, Simon et al. (1998) conclude that identification with the members of a group/movement (the gay movement) is more relevant to protest behaviour than identification with the general category that the movement represents (e.g. gay men). Also De Weerd and Klandermans (1999) shown that membership in protest movements affects the willingness to participate more than identification with the group in general. Simon, et al. (2008) examined the role of identification in the peace movement, concluding that people who strongly identified themselves with this movement show more willingness to participate. In this vein, Thomas, McGart and Mavor (2009) focus on how identities might be actively shaped for the future to create long-term support action. In this sense, the theory of “politicized collective identity” (Simon & Klandermans, 2001) presupposes that identification as an activist and with the movement is more relevant than group identification (Simon et al., 1998) and there are some types of identities more favourable to future action than others. In addition, Simon et al. (1998) also studied the relevance of perceived efficacy, as they claim to explain social movements based on two of the three pathways proposed by Klandermans. Thus, two independent pathways (of willingness) to participate in social movements were proposed: the first pathway involves costs–benefits as suggested by traditional social movement research (Klandermans, 1984; 1987), while a second pathway involves collective identification. In this perspective the pathways operate independently, in such a way that “group members are pulled towards collective action 99 by the expected external rewards while simultaneously being pushed toward this activity an inner obligation to enact their politicized collective identity” (Stürmer & Simon, 2004, p. 93). Also, Stürmer, Simon, Loewy and Jorger (2003) found validation for the dual-pathway model in their study about the fat acceptance movement in the U.S.A. Kelly and Breinlinger (1996) seem to agree with this dual-path model; however, they do not believe that these paths are not completely independent. They looked into the role of collective identity in involvement in the labour as well as the women´s movement and found that the instrumental route is particular relevant when group identification is also present. Klandermans et al. (2002), based on a qualitative study on farmers´ protest, have suggested that a sense of collective identity promote similar participation in two different contexts (the Netherlands and Galicia) – the stronger identities foster participation in collective action on behalf of the group. They also suggest that there is an interactive and dynamic relation between participation and collective identity – as Klandermans has suggested before (1997; 2002). These studies indicated a dual pathway to social movement participation: one guided by instrumentality about costs and benefits of participation, and the other influenced by processes of identification (Klandermans, et al., 2002; Simon, 1998; Stürmer et al., 2003). Still, authors do not seem to agree on the independent relationship between these two paths. Indeed, Klandermans and Kelly indicate a dynamic relationship between these two paths, while Simon and colleagues stress that these pathways operate independently. In the context of women´s rights, previous studies have suggested that identification with feminism is a predictor of collective action on behalf of women (Zucker, 2004; Nelson et al., 2008) but also considered the role of other dimensions. For example, Nelson et al. (2008) explore how women´s life experiences influenced their beliefs and how those beliefs influence feminist self-identification. The study reveals that life experiences including exposure to feminism and experiences of sexism predicted beliefs, which in turn predicts self-identification with feminism. Duncan (1999) proposes a meditational model of motivation for collective action to explain feminist activism. From his perspective, feminist identification mediated the relationship between activism and several personality and life experience variables. In this regard, Deaux, Reid, Martin and Bikmen (2006) focusing on collective identity, 100 examined the relationship between ideology, identification and willingness to participate in collective action in four groups of college students: white natives (n=113), white immigrants (n=90), Black and Latino natives (n=114) and Black and Latino immigrants (n= 93). The goal was to analyse this model in diverse groups in the United States that vary in immigrant status and in colour. The empirical findings reveal that, for all groups, group identification mediated the relationship between ideology and collective action. In addition, ethnic identification and ideology are also important to explain minorities‟ collective action; however, their respective roles depend upon both the ethnic group and immigrant status. Indeed, for White natives, results show only one significant (indirect) path: endorsement of social inequality is positively related with social identification, which is in turn associated with willingness to participate. White immigrants‟ identification mediated the relationship between social diversity and collective action. In the absence of social diversity, social inequality predicted neither ethnic identification nor collective action. For Black and Latino natives, social inequalities were negatively associated with strength of identification (none of the others paths was significant). Finally, for Black and Latino immigrants identification mediated the relationship between social diversity and collective action. Despite the societal relevance of immigrants‟ participation, there is little research regarding collective action of immigrants (Klandermans, van der Toorn & van Stekelenburg, 2008). However, migrant groups can make political claims and mobilize for their claims (Simon & Grabow, 2010; Simon & Ruhs, 2008). Simon and Ruhs (2008) developed a study about politicization among Turkish migrants in Germany, and Simon and Grabow (2010) extended the study to Russian migrants also living in Germany. Both studies indicated that politicization of immigrants' identity is a nested or dual identity, which implies identification with the immigrant group and also with the more inclusive entity. Dual identification was positively related to support for moderate in-group organizations but not for support of in-group organizations with a radical or nationalist agenda or for the acceptance of violent protest. Immigrants who strongly identified with their migrant groups and simultaneously with the country of residence were very sceptical of radical agendas (Simon & Ruhs, 2008). Dual identification in migrants´ participation and social integration is particularly relevant because it could facilitate the acceptance of immigrants as members of the same country/society. 101 Specifically related to efficacy and instrumentality of participation, several studies have been stressing the relevance of this dimension in the prediction of participation. For example, the collective interest model, developed to explain protest behaviour and social movement participation (Finkel & Muller, 1998; Finkel, Muller, & Opp, 1989) posits that people will participate in a collective action, when the expected value of participation is greater than the expected value of non-participation. Another example is Lubell, Zahran and Vedlitz (2007) expanding the model to explain collective action in environment issues, and finding that those who believe the risk from global warming is high, believe their actions will make a significant difference in collective outcomes, and those who defend environmental values are more likely to take action and support global warming policy. Two additional conclusions were made: first, the authors highlight that in order to fully understand collective action against global warming we need to consider how people are embedded and related to policy elites and other citizens; second, the results suggest that the model is not equally relevant for every type of environmental behaviour, as the impact of collective interest is weak for specific behaviour, because sometimes people are not aware of the consequences of their behaviour, with implications for the decision to participate. Moreover, some studies on volunteering propose that people decide to become a volunteer based on their motivations, and thus they expect to obtain benefits from their own participation – in this case they expect to satisfy their needs. In this regard, Clary et al. (1998), based on several empirical studies with volunteers, report a model of six motivational functions served by volunteerism: value, understanding, social, career, protective and enhancement. The first motivation, value, suggests that people decide to volunteer if they perceive that volunteerism provides opportunities to express their values (altruism, goodness, humanism). A second function is related to the perceived opportunities for new learning experiences and the chance to exercise knowledge and skills. A third function that may be served by volunteering reflects the motivation to be in relationships with others (to be with old friends, meet new people) or to show that they are engaged in an activity that is socially relevant to others. A fourth function is related to the achievement of professional benefits from participation in volunteer work. A fifth function concerns motivations involving processes associated with the functioning of the ego (improve self-esteem for example). Lastly, enhancement derives from 102 indications that there may be more to the ego, and especially the ego's relation to affect, than protective processes (Clary et al., 1998). Also, Collom (2011) conducted a survey in a local Time Bank, to understand participants' motivations to join it. More than 50% of the members answered the survey and results suggest that the vast majority of the participants in the Time Bank are motivated by their own needs. The first reason to join a time bank is economical. Yet, most of the respondents also report values and willingness to create a better society as reasons to join the group. The author concludes that reasons of “instrumentality” and “ideology/values” are stronger predictors of participation. In addition, the results indicate that those who were joining for social reasons and those more motivated by values are more likely to give time or money to the time bank, and those joining because of their needs are also more likely to be committed to this time bank. Moreover, others forms of participation related to participation in the community suggest the need to consider the role of dimensions, such as psychological sense of community, in the motivations for participation. The very first definition of sense of community is presented by Sarason (1974) who defines sense of community as the feeling of membership to a community, based on ties of relationships. Sense of community is a dynamic process that implies a reciprocal relationship between the individual and the community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Sarason, 1974). McMillan and Chavis (1986) added that sense of community is based on four dimensions: membership; opportunities for influence; integration and fulfilment of needs; and shared emotional connection. Specifically, the dimension “opportunities for influence” has been considered as a relevant predictor of participation in communities. Indeed, opportunities to influence represent the opportunities for individuals to participate and contribute to the community life (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Albanesi, Cicognani and Zani (2009) have found that psychological sense of community is relevant for participation of adolescents only on the sub-scale of perceived opportunities for influence, which affects non-conventional participation such as protests and boycotts. Several scholars suggest that perceptions of opportunities to influence decision-making tend to encourage participation (Butterfoss, Goodman & Wandersman, 1996; Wandersman, Florin, Friedmann & Meier, 1987; Wells, Ford, Holt, McClure & Ward, 103 2007). In this sense people decide to engage in participatory behaviour if they perceive to have an influence and to be taken into consideration (Finkel, et al., 1989). A more recent research line highlights the role of emotions, particularly negative emotions such as anger, in the explanation of civic and political participation. The main argument proposed is that collective disadvantage makes social identity work, resulting in group-based appraisal and emotion (van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). This proposal criticizes the lack of considering the role of emotion in Simon et al. (1998) and Klandermans' (1997) approaches, and offers an emotion-focused coping route to collective action. Following the claim to introduce the role of emotions in explanations about participation, several authors tried to fill this gap. For example, Leach, Snider and Iyer (2002) suggested that feelings of guilt and anger are likely about unfair in-group advantage; however, these two emotions act differently on promoting willingness to participate. Anger has been found to be associated with action in participation in several studies, as the more angry people felt about their own disadvantage, the more they were willing to write letters, give money and demonstrate (Leach, Iyer & Pederson, 2006; Smith, Cronin, & Kessler, 2008; van Zomeren, et. al. 2004). Smith et al. (2008) based on a study conducted with faculty members in a collective protest, concluded that the faculty members that react with anger are more likely to supported collective protest. On the other hand, those who react with sadness reported less organizational loyalty. As van Zomeren et al. (2004) also suggested, the absence of moderation effects for group efficacy supports the argument that group efficacy is an indicator that this path of collective action is independent from emotional reactions (Smith et al., 2008). Moreover, Parker and Isbell (2010) have also noted the importance of emotions on voters´ decision-making. Specifically they suggest that feelings of anger may promote voting for candidates who are well-recognized, regardless of their beliefs about certain issues. Alternately, fear may encourage voters to choose candidates whose position on specific issues are congruent with their own, thus leading to more thoughtful, meaningful, and self-relevant choices. Other research found that when fear is not assessed the importance of anger as a predictor of action is underestimated, while the importance of efficacy is overestimated (Miller, Cronin, Garcia, & Branscombe, 2007). Also, fear is a powerful inhibitor of collective action. In turn, guilt did not directly predict the willingness to participate (Leach, et al., 2006). 104 Furthermore, although less in number, some research examined the role of positive emotions in predicting citizen participation. In this regard, Mannarini, Fedi and Trippetti (2009) conducted a study to test the role of cost/benefit, emotions, need for cognitive closure, trust in institutions and sense of community in predicting willingness in experiences of civic engagement. The findings suggest that specifically related to emotions, positive feelings (that is, being satisfied with the experience) reinforced the willingness to undertake participatory behaviour in the future. In addition, though the results emphasize that anger is the most relevant emotion, emotional reactions to collective disadvantage also predicted reactions (Mannarini et al., 2009) and thus there is a need to consider emotions other than anger and actions other than protest (Smith, Cronin, & Kessler, 2008). Searching for a more integrative model, van Zomeren, Spears and Leach (2008) did a meta-analysis of the quantitative research synthesis of psychological predictors of collective action, in order to integrate the three socio-psychological perspectives on collective action that focus on subjective injustice, identity and efficacy as key predictors of collective action. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, they propose the Integrative Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA). This model defines social identity as central to collective action, because it directly motivates collective action and simultaneously bridges the injustice and efficacy explanations of collective action. Van Zomeren et al. (2008) identified three types of disagreement among researchers of collective action. First, there is no consensus about the usefulness of all three predictors. Other models include the three constructs; however, there is disagreement about their interrelationships. The last disagreement considers whether all three factors uniquely predict collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008). Overall, SIMCA proposes that social identity predicts collective action directly, as well as indirectly, through the injustice and efficacy variables. Thus, identity, injustice, and efficacy all provide unique explanations of collective action, but collective identity bridges the injustice and efficacy explanations of collective action in so far as it predicts perceptions of both. Thus, collective identity is not only a unique predictor of collective action, but it is also a psychological mediator of the influence of both injustice and efficacy in participation (van Zomeren et al., 2008). According to this theory, social identity helps relatively powerless individuals to perceive and emotionally experience 105 incidental and structural disadvantages as unjust, as well as to feel empowered in order to challenge those in power. Injustice Affective vs non affective injustice Collective action Collective efficacy Social identity Politicized vs. non politicized identity Disadvantage Strucutural or situational disadvantage Figure 2 - SIMCA Social identity model of collective action (van Zomeren et al.,2008). On the basis of proposals an integrative model of participation, Klandermans, van der Toorn and van Stekelenburg (2008) propose an explanation of immigrants' participation, based on five antecedents: 1) grievances; 2) efficacy; 3) identity; 4) emotions and 5) social embeddedness. Grievances are defined as a sense of indignation about the way authorities are treating a problem (Klandermans, 1997). Efficacy represents the instrumental path to participation. The role of identity implies that more identification with a group involved, the more likely one is to take part in that activity. Emotions, particularly anger, are also considered as having an impact on collective action. Finally, social embeddedness is linked with how immigrants are relating to civil society. They conducted three separate studies using identical measures: two in the Netherlands among Turkish and Moroccan immigrants and one among Turkish immigrants in New York. Collective action was measured by asking whether they had participated in several activities (in the past 12 months): petitions, hanging up political posters, painting slogans on walls, meetings or rallies about politics, demonstrations or marches, strikes, blocking traffic, occupying a building, consumer or tax boycotts, and violent action against humans or property. The results suggest that involvement in civil society increased the feeling of efficacy among immigrants, and also the levels of collective action. In addition, immigrants who feel more efficacious are also more 112 motives have on the levels of civic and political participation and also on political interest and attentiveness? 2) To explore whether and how the quality of participation experiences are associated to the dispositions in becoming involved and to the political efficacy (second paper). RQs - Does participation always lead to positive changes in political attitudes such as political efficacy or dispositions to become involved in the future? Are there relevant psychological criteria associated with the variations in these experiences? Do these criteria apply to culturally diverse groups of young people? 3) To analyse predictors of online and offline participation among migrant and non-migrant youth (third paper). RQs - What motivates and hinders online and offline participation? The predictive model varies across young people of migrant and non-migrant origin for both forms of participation, online and offline? Age and parental cultural resources are predictors of participation for both groups? Different conceptions of citizenship predict participation differently? 4) To deepen the knowledge about perceptions, opinions and experiences of young people of Brazilian origin in Portugal (fourth and fifth paper) RQ – How do young people of Brazilian origin perceive opportunities for participation? What is the relevance of participation? How do they perceive their integration in Portugal? Do they feel discriminated? Why? What kind of participation do they prefer? Are they interested in politics and participation? In terms of research design, we combined qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of civic and political participation, and contradict the tendency to study participation using 113 only one method (Henn et al., 2002). Specifically, our study was organized into two empirical phases: the first phase was qualitative where we conducted focus group discussions, and the second phase was quantitative with data collected through surveys. This combination was chosen considering surveys as the primary method and focus groups serving in a preliminary capacity (Morgan, 1996). Results from both methods allow us to have a more comprehensive understanding of our data, as consider several dimensions using diverse approaches. In addition, focus groups were also relevant for the design of our second phase of the research, as they helped to clarify the concepts used in the research, and promoted a mutual understanding between the participants and the researchers about the concepts under discussion (Tonkiss, 2006). During phase one, the method for data collection was focus groups discussion that facilitated the emergence of subjective opinions and perceptions (Tonkiss, 2006). Morgan (1996) defines focus groups “as a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher” (p. 130). Here, focus groups were used to produce more in-depth information on the topic at hand and also to provide data on how the respondents themselves talk about the topics (Morgan, 1996). In order to facilitate de the focus groups discussion, a script was developed (cf. Appendix 1), including five blocks of topics, each of them with a main question and secondary questions that the moderator could use to stimulate the discussion and explore relevant information. The blocks of questions were constituted by five blocks. 1) An ice breaker, where participants were shown a series of images depicting young people participation in a variety of situations and issues (e.g. conventional/non-conventional; environmental/ human rights/ gender/ immigrants). Each participant was invited to choose an image and make a very brief comment (1-2 minutes) about it. 2) Questions about the relevance of participation for young people (perception on opportunities / resources to participate (civic and politically) and identification of groups of people excluded from participation; 3) Questions concerning the identification of sources of information and knowledge. 4) Questions about personal and group experiences of participation. 5) Proposals to increase inclusion of young people‟s participation. The second phase was quantitative and intended to characterise contexts of participation, the impact of quality of participation experiences and the predictors of 114 civic and political participation. The instrument was a self-administered questionnaire and involved the adaptation of existing items/scales. A preliminary version was applied in various countries (cf. Appendix 2). The instrument has a wide set of items and scales of attitudes, behaviors and dispositions towards civic and political participation. In most of them, participants positioned themselves on a 5-point Likert-type scale. We performed a series of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify the factor structure of the set of observed variables. The Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using AMOS 19 - Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) package, and, for all the dimensions, a satisfactory goodness fit was obtained. Stochastic regression imputation was chosen for dealing with missing values and we used Maximum likelihood parameter estimation method. To check the stability of the model we randomly divided the sample into two sub-samples, using the IBM SPSS Statistics 20 Program. In fact, in order to overcome capitalizing on chance problem, cross-validation of the fitted model was needed (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000), therefore the full sample was randomly assigned to two subsamples of (n=507) and (n=503) using SPSS random selection algorithm. Sample 1 was used to investigate the structure of scales, and sample 2 was used to cross-validate the factorial structure from sample 1. Finally, to check the internal consistency/reliability of our scales we calculated the Cronbach´s alpha, which is the most common measure of scale reliability (Field, 2009). Indicators were computed using the weighted means of the values for scale items. This thesis is focused on forms, contexts, predictors and outcomes of civic and political participation of young people, specifically in the Portuguese context. In addition, this thesis aims to analysis the specific case of young people of Brazilian origin. Five papers were developed in the course of the research. Each paper has specific research questions, and the research was designed considering psychological, social and political aspects, in order to capture the multiple layers of civic and political participation. The five papers are sequential in terms of the dimensions analysed: we started to characterise forms of participation and psychological involvement and the impact of gender, migrant origin, age and cultural capital on forms and levels of civic and political participation; then we analysed the role of the quality of participation experiences; thirdly, we tested a predictive model of online and offline participation; 115 and finally, in the last two papers, we specifically considered the case of young people of Brazilian origin. In the first paper we aimed to characterise patterns of civic and political participation among young people, women and migrants. Three groups of young people were considered in this paper: of Portuguese origin, of Brazilian origin and of Angolan origin. Based on the focus groups, we identified factors that young people considered as motives for discrimination and disadvantage. The sample was constituted of 94 young participants, 14 focus groups, each one with 6 to 8 participants, balanced in terms of gender, and organised in terms of age (16 to 18 years; 20 to 26 years old) and origin background (five with Angolan origin, five with Brazilian origin and four with Portuguese). Subsequently, we used data collected during the quantitative phase (N=1010); we explored the effect of motives on civic and political participation and political interest and attentiveness through multiple analyses of variances. As political interest and political attentiveness have been strongly associated with levels of participation, we also explored the impact of this factor on the levels of interest and attentiveness. Our findings reveal that gender, age, immigrant´s background and family resources were perceived as factors of discrimination and disadvantage by youth during the focus group discussions. Moreover, results from the survey show that these motives also influenced levels of civic and political participation across migrants and nonmigrants. On the second paper we addressed the quality of participation experiences and political attitudes of migrant and non-migrant youth. Thus, we explored whether and how the quality of participation experiences is associated with political efficacy and dispositions to future involvement for three different groups of young people living in Portugal: of Portuguese origin, of Brazilian origin and of Angolan origin. Data were collected through the survey, and the sample used includes 1010 participants aged between 15 to 29 years old. We started from the assumption that participation may produce different outcomes, depending of the quality of participation experiences. Quality of participation experiences is measured by combining action and reflection dimensions of participation (Ferreira et al., 2012). Based on both dimensions, participants were grouped in four different clusters: 1) No participation (N=327); 2) low 116 quality of participation (N=118), with low scores on both dimension; 3) medium quality (N=289), with medium scores in action and reflection dimension; 4) and high quality of participation experiences (N=255), with high scores on both dimensions. In order to explore how the quality of participation experiences was related to the scores of political efficacy and dispositions to become involved we conducted a series of multivariate analyses of covariance. The quality of participation experiences (no participation, low, medium and high) was used as the differentiating factor. The results reveal that the quality of participation experiences is related to political efficacy and dispositions to become involved, but different groups seems to react differently to various forms of political action. The third paper aims to be a contribution to the research on the predictors of civic and political participation. We tested the same predictive model in two samples (young people of Portuguese origin and young people of Brazilian origin) and two forms of participation. Participants (N=603) were aged 16 to 25 years old (M=19.96). The decision to focus on both groups was influenced by the fact that young people of Brazilian origin reported similar levels of online participation in comparison to young people of Portuguese origin. Age, parental cultural resources, political interest, political attentiveness and perceived efficacy were entered as predictors because, in spite of being consistently mentioned in the literature (see point 1.2 of chapter 2), they have been rarely tested in samples of young people and immigrants. Instead, opportunities for influence, norms of citizenship and social wellbeing are underexplored predictors of participation, particularly on online contexts. The figure below (figure 3) represents the model that has been tested. Overall, findings suggest that instead of a general predictive model of civic and political participation, more specific models are needed for the different forms of participation and groups. Moreover, our results suggest the usefulness of including norms of citizenship as predictors of participation. 117 age Parental Resources Political interest and attentiveness Perceived effectiveness Oportunities for influence Online/offline participation Social Well-being Figure 3 – Predictive model of online and offline participation In the fourth and fifth paper, we broadly analysed civic and political participation, considering the specific case of young people of Brazilian origin. The purpose is to contribute to the understanding of meanings, experiences and perceptions of young people of Brazilian origin about civic and political participation in Portugal. By following the assumption that political opportunities that are promoted by the political system do not equally facilitate citizens‟ civic and political participation (Hallet, 1987), there is a need for rethinking how diverse group use the resources and opportunities and participate in the society. Both papers are written in Portuguese and both include results of the five focus group discussions conducted with young people of Brazilian origin; in the fifth paper we extended the analysis to the quantitative results. In regard to the focus discussion, three of them were inserted in the range of 20 to 26 years and two in the range of 16 to 18 years of age. Altogether 29 youngsters (12 boys and 17 females) participated in the study. We used purposive sampling in diverse contexts to achieve participation from people with a wide range of opinions and backgrounds. Participants were recruited from diverse contexts, such as immigrant‟s organizations (House of Brazil), schools, universities and informal contacts. In relation to the focus group with young people aged 16 to 18 years old, participants were balanced in terms of gender. All of them were high school students in secondary schools located in Porto downtown, with a rather heterogeneous student audience in terms of socio-cultural background. In terms of years living in Portugal, this ranged between 1 and 7 years. Regarding the group aged 20 to 26 years old focus groups were also balanced in terms 118 of gender. Two of them were conducted in Porto and one in Lisbon. In both focus groups conducted in Porto, the majority of the participants were students at the university, yet some of them were part-time workers. Others had scholarships for doing post-graduate studies and also considered themselves as workers. Most participants did not know each other and came from different regions of Brazil. Most are in Portugal, on average, for three years. One participant is living in Portugal for 12 years and another for 10 years. In relation to the focus group conducted in Lisbon, three participants were employed: one in construction one construction worker, one in a restaurant one waiter and one in the delivery of publicity one publicity delivery boy. The other participant called himself a "Virtual Traveller Student Artist", and was in Portugal only for few months. In the fourth paper, taking into consideration the assumption that civic and political participation is crucial for the integration of immigrants (Sonn, 2002), we sought to analyse the discourse of young people of Brazilian origin on civic and political participation. More specifically, we explored experiences of participation among young people of Brazilian origin and perceptions about the importance, relevance and opportunities for participation. In addition, we analysed how they perceive their own integration in Portugal, how they characterise Portuguese immigration policies, and how they perceive prejudice and discrimination. By following the theory that civic and political participation is crucial for the integration of immigrants, we explored perceptions concerning their own integration at a social, psychological and political level, and also their perceived political opportunities. Results suggest that young people of Brazilian origin have scarce civic and political experiences; even though they consider participation important for their integration, they find it lacks efficiency; they identify institutional and political opportunities to participate, although there are complaints that those opportunities were not being put into practice; youth mentioned the existence of strong prejudice against Brazilian women. In the fifth paper we continued to explore results of the focus groups, focusing on youth views, meanings of participation, knowledge about their rights and main sources of influence for civic and political participation. Experiences of civic and 119 political participation were examined using data from the quantitative phase of the study. Participants were young people aged 15 to 29 years old. In addition, we discussed political attitudes such as political interest, attentiveness and perceived effectiveness of participation. We also explored the role of age, gender and number of books at home on levels of participation and political attitudes. The results are discussed through a broad conception of civic and political participation, contrasting the focus groups and survey results. Based on the above results, we conclude that participation of young people of Brazilian origin is a complex issue that includes cognitive dimensions and varies according to age, gender and cultural capital. 120 121 Paper 1 Participation among youth, women, and migrants: findings from Portugal. Fernandes-Jesus, M., Malafaia, C., Ribeiro, N. & Menezes, I. (In press). Participation among youth, women, and migrants: findings from Portugal. In Barrett & B. Zani, (Eds). London: Routledge. (This manuscript has been accepted for publication as book chapter). 128 The Migration Background and the Civic and Political Participation in Portugal Historically a country of emigration, after the collapse of the dictatorial regime and the independence of the Portuguese colonies in Africa (1974), Portugal has exponentially increased the number of immigrants, especially those coming from former African colonies. In the 1990s, Portugal also became attractive for Brazilian immigrants, and more recently, the migration fluxes coming from Eastern Europe quickly increased (Foreigners and Border Services (SEF), 2012). By the end of 2011 (SEF, 2012) the foreign population resident in Portugal totalized 436,822 people. About half (47.9 %) are native from Portuguese-speaking countries, such as Brazil (25.5%), Cape Verde (10.1%), Angola (4.9%) and Guinea-Bissau (4.2%). The other relevant nationalities are Ukraine (11%) and Romania (9%). The integration of immigrants from former colonies has been favoured in some countries (Vogel & Leiprecht, 2008), including in Portugal. For example, several bilateral agreements between Portugal and Brazil have contributed to stabilisation and strengthening of the migration systems between Portugal and Brazil (Baganha, 2009). The promotion of civic and political participation of immigrants is a recent topic on the Portuguese context; however it seems that Portuguese policies have been already creating favourable contexts and opportunities for participation (Ramalho & Trovão, 2010). Yet, it is not clear how immigrants in Portugal are using the opportunities to be involved. It seems that in the civil society sphere, the main actors encouraging immigrants‟ civic participation are immigrants‟ associations (Teixeira & Alburquerque, 2005), but there is not enough research on how immigrants engage in these associations. In addition, as far as we know, before PIDOP there was no research on civic and political participation of Brazilian and Angolans in Portugal, two representative communities of immigrants that are relevant to understand the way these communities are living in Portugal. The strong migration systems between Portugal and Brazil (Baganha, 2009), and the large presence of Brazilians in Portugal clearly justify the choice to include the Brazilian group in our analysis. In addition, the option to study youth of Angolan origin was determined by the relatively recent history of decolonization (Grillo & Mazzucato, 2008), and the fact that many young Angolans are, in fact, second and third generation immigrants who have Portuguese citizenship. 129 Thus, let us consider the qualitative and quantitative data collected with young people with immigrant (Brazilian origin and Angolan origin) and non-migrant background living in Portugal exploring the interplay between immigrant status, gender, books at home (as an indicator of cultural capital), and age and differences in civic and political participation, political interest and attentiveness. Data and Methodology Participants Data were collected under the PIDOP Project and the results reported are from two phases developed under the Work Package 6 . On phase one, we conducted focus groups discussions with young people from Portuguese origin, Angolan origin (mostly second and third generation migrants), and Brazilian origin (from a more recent wave of immigration, the majority of whom were not born in Portugal), all aged from 16 to 26 years old. Altogether, 14 focus groups involving 94 young participants (44 male, 50 female) were carried out: 5 groups of Angolan immigrants, 5 groups of Brazilian immigrants, and 4 groups of Portuguese nationals. On phase two, 1010 young people participated in the study. Participants were from the three backgrounds (Portuguese origin=388; Angolan origin=255; Brazilian origin=367) from both gender (Portuguese origin: Female=222; Male=166; Angolan origin: Female=134, Male=121; Brazilian origin: Female=209, Male=158) and between two age ranges: young people aged 15 years old to 18 years old (young adolescents = 375) young people aged 19 years old to 29 years old (young adults=635). Both age groups were also represented in all the sample groups (Portuguese origin: adolescents=158, young adults=230; Angolan origin: adolescents=125, young adults=130; Brazilian origin: adolescent=92, young adults=275). Regarding the citizenship status, 29.4% of young people of Angolan origin have Portuguese nationality, 14% double citizenship (Portuguese and Angolan) and 55.3% have Angolan citizenship. In turn, 85.6% of young Brazilians are citizens of Brazil and 13.6% have double citizenship (Portuguese and Brazilian). 130 Procedures and instruments On both moments, data were collected mainly in the two main Metropolitan Areas, Lisbon and Porto, in a variety of contexts: religious associations, immigrant associations, youth organizations, regular and vocational schools and higher education institutions. For the questionnaire we also collected data on the National Centres of Immigrant Support (C.N.A.I.), where immigrants usually go to deal with bureaucratic issues, recruiting individual immigrants while they were in the waiting room. In the first phase of this study, in order to facilitate the discussion and to focus the participants‟ attention and discussion on certain topics, we used a script in all focus groups (Tonkiss, 2006). This script was divided into different blocks: relevance of civic and political participation for young people; sources of information and knowledge; personal and group experiences; and proposals for inclusion. All the focus groups were taped, transcribed and analysed with the software NVivo9. Based on the qualitative study, we have elaborated a survey to explore forms of participation and political attitudes among young people. During the procedures of collecting data, we have started by presenting the aims to participants, and obtaining their consent. We also had an online version of the questionnaire that was disseminated through online social networks. Groups‟ background, age, books at home and gender were added as factors that might influence the levels of civic and political participation (as participants report during the focus groups discussion). Gender (1 = male; 2= female) and the group membership (1= Portuguese origin, 2= Angolan origin, and 3= Brazilian origin) were nominal variables, so they were added as such. In addition, we have transformed „age‟ variable into a nominal variable (1= adolescents 15 to 18 years old; 2= young adults 19 to 29 years old). The inclusion of age (adolescence and young adults) as a factor that might differentiate patterns of participation was also based on some studies that show that participation is lower during young adulthood compared with adolescence and later adulthood (Jennings & Stoker, 2004; Planty, Bozick, & Regnier, 2006; Snell, 2010). Indeed, adolescence is an important phase of life regarding the development of cultural orientations (Vollebergh, Iedema & Raaijmakers, 2001), such as those related with political issues. Furthermore, our goal was to compare patterns of participation across 131 young people who were old enough to legally engage in all types of participation and young people who were less than 18 year-old. Finally, we also include books at home as a factor. The number of books at home has been suggested as a strong indicator of parental resources and cultural capital, and has been used in international studies (Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald & Schulz, 2001). Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were run for current civic and political participation and also for political interest and attentiveness. We should add that indicators were computed using the weighted means of the values for scale items. Current civic and political participation (X²(60)=225.267; p=.000; X²/df=3.754; CFI=.943; GFI=.932; RMSEA=.074; P(RMSEA<=.05)=.000): four forms of participation emerge in our analysis: online (Portuguese: α=.76; Angolan, α=.91, Brazilian: α=.84) social (Portuguese α=.76; Angolans α=.78 ; Brazilian α=.60) activism (Portuguese α=.77; Angolans α=.85; Brazilian α=.67), and the single-item “vote in elections”. Online participation includes four items: discuss social or political issues on the internet; visit a website of a political or civic organization; participate in online based petition, protest or boycotting; connect to a group on Facebook (or similar online social networks) dealing with social or political issues. Social participation is composed by three items: volunteer work; boycott or buy certain products for political, ethical or environmental reasons; and donate money to a social or political cause/organization. The activism scale comprises five items and covers a range of activities such as: attend a public meeting or demonstration dealing with political or social issues; distribute leaflets with a political content; take part in concerts or a fundraising event with a social or political cause; write political messages or graffiti on walls; and participate in political actions that might be considered illegal. Political interest and attentiveness (X²(4)=17.931; p=.001; X²/df=4.483; CFI=.991; GFI=.986; RMSEA=.083; P RMSEA<=.05)=.066): Political interest comprises the following two items (Portuguese r= .749, p≤.0001; Angolan r=.762, p≤.0001 ; Brazilian r=.742, p≤ .0001): I discuss social and political issues with friends and acquaintances; I bring political and social issues into discussions with others. In turn, political attentiveness is constituted of three items (Portuguese α=.78; Angolans α=.87; Brazilian α =.83): I follow what is going on in politics by reading articles in 132 newspapers or magazines; I watch television programs or listen to radio broadcasts that deal with political issues; I pay attention to information on the internet that is about politics. Findings from the Focus Group discussions We will focus here on the perceptions about the main disadvantages regarding civic and political participation reported by the participants. During the focus groups discussions gender, age, immigrant´s background and family resources have emerged as factors of discrimination and disadvantage that could influence civic and political participation. Below, we present some of the discourses of young people expressing these perceptions of disadvantage. Age The feeling that societies do not take young people seriously into account and that age is one factor of discrimination is shared by all groups of adolescents and young people. Discrimination is visible in several contexts and dimensions such as the criminality, the employment and also the participation. One of the adolescents of Portuguese origin said that “with the increase of criminality in Portugal, people associate it to youth… I am walking in the street and people look at me in a strange way…and only because I am young” (male, 18 years old). Additionally, some of the youth do not feel citizens of full rights, and claim that youth “are not fully represented; I think that people and the state (…) look at us as mere adolescents that are protesting just as an excuse to missing classes” (male, 18 years old) because “we have a low status, we don´t have much influence, we don’t have a direct impact on the state, that is the reality” (female, 18 years old). An adolescent of Angolan origin adds that “concerning youth, people listen and realize they are right, however they pretend not to hear, and it is necessary to repeat several times for to people hear you” (male, 19 years old). One young adult of Brazilian origin agreed that age creates disadvantages and obstacles to participation “the question is to speak for whom; because if you need more information you have access to it, youth don´t have access to how to do things. There has to be a way to get such information, because young people themselves will hardly 133 be able to reach it” (male, 23 years old). On one hand, Brazilian adolescents seem to agree that there are few opportunities for young people participation but on the other hand there is also a lack of interest in political issues: “not all of them, but I think that many youth are not interested” (female, 16 years old). Simultaneously, young people of Portuguese origin criticize youth especially because sometimes “young people don´t have enough knowledge about politics” (female, 18 years old), which in part is due to the low contact with politics: “we don´t have enough direct contact with politics” (female, 18 years old). For some of the participants this fact leads to political actions developed by young people being “poorly organised and cohesive” (female, 18 years old). An adolescent of Portuguese origin emphasizes the fact that there are few opportunities in school to discuss these kinds of topics: “the debate that we are having here might be the first in the school (…). On the other hand, I think that few people join this (…) and the reason is laziness…but simultaneously there are not so many opportunities…” (male, 18 years old). Young adults of Angolan origin adults seem to agree saying that “we have both: youth that invest in participation, but we also have youth that easily accept things and don´t want more, do not fight” (female, 25 years old). Immigrant’s background Racism, prejudice and discrimination are topics that arise very frequently from the focus groups discussions, especially with the young people from immigrant background. Although immigrants of Angolan origin emphasize a double disadvantage due to the immigrants‟ status and the black skin it seems consensual that immigrant status by itself is a motive for discrimination. For instance, a young adult of Angolan origin said “Ukrainian people suffer much more than the Africans especially because of the language” (male, 23 years old). However the main bias recognized by all youngsters of Angolan origin youth is the association between the Angolan people and theft: “if someone is black/African he/she is a robber” (female, 25 years old), and in the case of Brazilians young people acknowledge the tendency to consider the Brazilian women as prostitutes - “the society has these prejudices and bias” (female, 25 years old), 134 In turn, adolescents of Brazilian origin believe that all the immigrants from China, Africa and Japan suffer racism which is not only because the “black colour”: “the ones who suffer more are the ones that you look and you can see that they are immigrants; for example, the Japanese have that eyes’ shape” (female, 17 years old). In terms of participation, young people of Brazilian origin believe that young immigrants have the same opportunities for participation as the others groups in society. One of the participants say that “prejudice exists in any place, but I don´t believe that if you wanted get involved politically you cannot because of that (being immigrant), I believe you have the same rights and opportunities” (male, 24 years old). Some of young people of Angolan origin also believe there are opportunities to participate in political and civic organizations, but others reported some obstacles, namely regarding the participation in sport groups. A youngster of Angolan origin said “the opportunities are not the same, there are always differences” (female, 17 years old). Regarding the right to vote, adolescents of Angolan origin advocate that everybody should have the right to vote “because, I know that foreign people could not vote in Portugal, (…) while you are in an irregular situation” (male, 19 years old). Family resources For young people of Portuguese origin not all youth are equal. For some, young people are only taken into consideration if they are from a high status “if I am the son of the prime minister and if you are the son of a poor person, who is heard? The son of the prime minister, for sure! He has the power, even if he doesn’t have any ideas” (male, 20 years old). Young adults of Brazilian origin reported that even between the immigrant groups “there is segregation” due to education: “Africans are the ones who might suffer from more discrimination in any place of the world (…) culturally Africans are less educated, and have less access to education and culture” (male, 26 years old). Some of them related these factors with the “colour of the skin” (male, 21 years old), and others with the fact “they are coming from a poor country” (female, 25 years old). Adolescents of Angolan origin said that “even Portuguese young people suffer a lot; especially those who haven´t studied” (male, 21 years old). But even so, “they prefer to 135 give a job to a white person without studies than to a black person educated” (female, 18 years old). Gender Gender differences are recognized in all groups. In general, women are seen as having less power and influence in several fields, such as: employment, salary, and leadership positions and domestic tasks. The adolescents of Portuguese origin recognize the history evolution in terms of women rights, however all of them agree that women suffers more discrimination than men: “Our rights are segregated comparing with men’s rights, in politics there is a higher number of male deputies in the Parliament”(female, 18 years old). The young adults of Portuguese origin tend to naturalize the discrimination against women: “it’s like racism, such things could be attenuated, but there will always be some, because it is a cultural issue” (male, 24 years old); they emphasize that even if women have the same political opportunities as men and if “they can run for a political position like a men”, they are “not taken seriously” (male, 20 years old). Young adults of Brazilian origin also reported discrimination against women, especially because they are associated with sexual work: “I think that in practical terms there is more prejudice against women” (male, 24 years old) 136 Findings from the Survey In order to explore group‟s differences on civic and political participation and political interest and attentiveness we run several analyses of variance, using books at home, immigrant background, age and gender as differentiating factors – that is, the factors that young people mentioned in the focus-groups as motives for discrimination and disadvantage. Civic and political participation Multivariate tests reveal a significant effect of number of books at home (Pillai'sTrace=.069; F(8,1850)=8.207; p≤.0001), age (Pillai'sTrace=.073; F(4,924)=18.100; p≤.0001), group background (Pillai'sTrace=.067; F(8,1850)=8.051; p≤.0001) and gender (Pillai's Trace=.012; F(4,924)=2.775; p=.026). There are also significant interaction between books at home*age (Pillai's Trace=.022; F(8,1850)=2.532; p=.010) and gender*group background (Pillai's Trace=.018; F(8,1850)=2.105; p=.032). Tests of between-subjects effects show this effect is significant for all the forms of participation in analysis for the following factors: age, books, group and books at home*age (see Table 1). Concerning the effect of gender, there is a significant effect only for social participation. The interaction between gender and group is significant for vote and activism. 137 Table 1 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – civic and political participation Source Dependent Variable df Mean Square F Sig. Intercept Social 1 903,328 1999,282 ,000 Activism 1 402,967 1812,771 ,000 Internet 1 543,090 1473,891 ,000 Vote in elections 1 2108,732 921,965 ,000 Gender Social 1 3,795 8,398 ,004* Activism 1 ,632 2,844 ,092 Internet 1 ,545 1,480 ,224 Vote in elections 1 1,396 ,610 ,435 Group Social 2 11,468 25,381 ,000* Activism 2 2,708 12,181 ,000* Internet 2 4,853 13,171 ,000* Vote in elections 2 8,526 3,728 ,024* Age Social 1 22,150 49,022 ,000* Activism 1 2,927 13,166 ,000* Internet 1 6,235 16,920 ,000* Vote in elections 1 96,421 42,157 ,000* Books at home Social 2 12,865 28,474 ,000* Activism 2 1,143 5,140 ,006* Internet 2 3,512 9,531 ,000* Vote in elections 2 18,306 8,004 ,000* Gender * group Social 2 ,195 ,431 ,650 Activism 2 ,740 3,328 ,036* Internet 2 ,593 1,610 ,200 Vote in elections 2 10,507 4,594 ,010* Age * books Social 2 2,770 6,130 ,002* Activism 2 ,883 3,970 ,019* Internet 2 1,610 4,369 ,013* Vote in elections 2 7,121 3,114 ,045* *p ≤.050 144 Discussion Based on findings from both the qualitative and the quantitative study of PIDOP project, we tried to understand patterns of civic and political participation among young people of Portuguese, Angolan and Brazilian origin living in Portugal. First we analyzed the discourses of young people in order to identify some perceptions of disadvantages and discrimination on civic and political participation. Secondly, we test the variance of levels of participation and political interest across these factors. According to the results presented in this chapter, discrimination based on age is mention by all the three groups (young people of Portuguese, Angolan and Brazilian origin). All of them stress that young people are usually perceived as having no credibility on the public sphere, which leads to the feeling of having no opportunities to participate. This is in line with the notion of citizenship based on an adulthood standard (Castro, 2001) viewing youth as an age-group that is still under construction. In fact, young people stress the need to promote access to more information and to stimulate the contact of youth with the political sphere, diluting the institutionalized forms of relationship with politics (Augusto, 2008). However, youth discourses show ambivalence on this issue, as the three groups also say that young people are instable, always changing their minds, and showing lack of interest for civic and political matters. Therefore, it is important to understand this ambivalence that might reflect (or cause) the internalization of a concept of youth conveyed by society related with the lack of „political competence‟ (Silva, 2012a) and the difficulty in articulating rights and responsibilities (Lister, Smith, Middleton & Cox, 2003). Moreover, as youth have been defined as an important stage for the development of political attitudes and behaviours (Braungart & Braungart, 1986) age related patterns of political behaviour have been studied. In this regard, our quantitative findings suggest that young adults participate more than adolescents in all forms of participation, and they also exhibit the highest levels of political interest and attentiveness. Contrary to some studies, that show that participation is lower during young adulthood compared with adolescence and later adulthood (Jennings & Stoker, 2004; Planty, et al., 2006; Snell, 2010), our data reveals young people are delaying the experiences of civic and political participation. Indeed, considering that young people daily struggle with 145 uncertainty in all contexts and aspects of their lives – Arnett has been arguing that we should considered this period of live as “emerging adulthood” (2004) – this might lead to a postponement of the first experiences of civic and political participation. Moreover, young adulthood is the time when people are old enough to legally engage in all types of participation, and as some studies have hypothesized that those who participate on formal and conventional setting are much more likely to invest in other forms of civic and political activism (Bakker & Vreese, 2011; Smith, Schlozman, Verba & Brady, 2009; Van den Bos & Nell, 2006). Thus, we suggest that different forms of participation might be related, emerging and rising simultaneously. At the same time, the effect of age seems to be influenced by other factors, such as the resources that each individual and her/his family have. In other words, the three groups of this study consider that economic and educational resources have a significant impact on their self-conception as political actors – however, this is clearly stronger in the discourse of young people of Portuguese origin. Thus, opportunities to participate are perceived as influenced by socio-economic status, as already suggested by other studies (Gibson, Lusoli, & Ward, 2005). This correlation between the cultural capital resources of youngsters‟ family and their political and civic participation is clearly demonstrated by the quantitative study: the more books at home, the more they participate (on all its forms) and the more interested and attentive to civic and political issues. However, despite the groups of Angolan and Brazilian origin acknowledging this influence, both groups agree that any drawback caused by low levels of social, cultural and economic resources is definitely supplanted by the disadvantages related to the discrimination they suffer for being of immigrant origin. An adolescent of Angolan origin illustrates this point giving the example of the situations of applying for a job, in which the black person will always be disadvantaged, when compared with white people, regardless of their level of education. As some of the young people argue, discrimination might also lead to obstacles in terms of civic and political participation. Results from the survey are consistent with previous work that demonstrated ethnic heterogeneity in developmental patterns of civic engagement across young adulthood (Finlay, Flanagan & Wray-Lake, 2011). In fact, our findings show different levels of civic and political participation – and also political interest and attentiveness - 146 among non-migrants and migrants in Portugal. These disparities do not represent a clearly disadvantage of migrants, but instead reveals that patterns of involvement change across groups. Youth of Portuguese origin exhibits the highest levels of activism, social participation and political interest. However young people of Brazilian origin are the ones who vote more – which may be primarily due to the fact that vote in Brazil is compulsory – and also participate more on the internet. This might be calling the attention to the important role that alternative political spheres have to groups that feel strongly discriminated in traditional public spaces, as young people of Angolan and Brazilian origin emphasize concerning their immigrant background. Nevertheless, young people of Angolan origin appear clearly less engaged in all forms of participation, and also less interest in political and civic issues, which might be related with discrimination and racism. In fact, some research found that participation might be influenced by the levels of discrimination and racism (Cesari, 2006). In Portugal the immigration fluxes from the former colonies strengthened the colonial hierarchies, with Brazil occupying an intermediate place between Africans and Portuguese (Machado, 2006). In addition, some studies suggest that acceptance of African immigrants is lower that of white and poor immigrants, such as those who recently came from Eastern Europe (Lages & Policarpo, 2003). Still, these theories are not enough to fully explain these results, and more research is necessary to achieve a full understanding of the factors which explain civic and political participation of migrant youth in Portugal. Furthermore, we found the same patterns on political interest and political attentiveness as in levels of civic and political participation, suggesting the link between these dimensions and levels of civic and political participation, as reported in previous research (Chaffee, Ward & Tipton, 1970; Torney-Purta, et al., 2001; Zukin, et. al. 2006). But, despite the lower levels of participation, it should be stressed the substantial higher levels of political interest and attentiveness, suggesting that young people care about civic and politic issues, even if they do not participate (yet). Interestingly, and although some studies stress the double disadvantage of women of immigrants background (Kofman, et al., 2000), our outcomes show a decrease – and even a reverse – of gender gaps. In fact, women of all groups show higher levels of social participation and similar levels of political interest and 147 attentiveness. In addition, women of immigrant´s background report higher levels of activism than men of immigrant origin, and women of Angolan origin tend to vote more frequently than men. Marien, Hooghe and Quintelier (2010) suggested that noninstitutionalized forms of participation reduce or even reverse gender inequalities – which we believe, might happen in this context. In conclusion, our findings reveal that perceptions of discrimination and disadvantage identified by youth during the focus groups discussions were also linked to levels of civic and political participation across migrants and non-migrants. Considering that participation is a “the civic glue that bonds those who would otherwise be divided along racial and ethnic lines” (Putnam, 2000, p. 362), further investigation should continue to strive for a deeper understating of the multiple factors than seem to interact to explain the patterns of civic and political participation among young people from diverse backgrounds in our society. References Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the Twenties. New York: Oxford University Press. Atkeson, L., & Rapoport, R. (2003). The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same: Examining Gender Differences in Political Communication by Men and Women, 1952 through 2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 495-521. Augusto, N. M. (2008). A juventude e a(s) política(s): Desinstitucionalização e individualização. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 81, 155-177. Baganha, M. I. (2009). The Lusophone Migratory System: Patterns and Trends. International Migration, 47(3), 5-20. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00522~ Bakker, T.P. & Vreese, C.H. (2011). Good News for the Future? Young People, Internet Use, and Political Participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451-470. doi: 10.1177/0093650210381738 Bang, H. (2005). Among everyday makers and expert citizens. In J. Newman (ed.), Remaking Governance: peoples, politics and the public sphere (pp.159-179). Bristol: Policy Press. 148 Beaton, A. M, & Deveau, M. (2005). Helping the Less Fortunate: A Predictive Model of Collective Action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(8), 1609–1629 Braga da Cruz, M. (1985). A participação política da juventude em Portugal. Análise Social, XXI (87-88-89), 3/4/5, 1067-1088. Braungart, R. & Braungart, M. (1986). Life-course and Generational Politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 205-231. Castro, L. R. (2001). Subjectividade e Cidadania. Rio de Janeiro: Lidador. Cesari, J. (2006). Securitization and religious divide in Europe: Muslims in Western Europe after 9/11: why the term islamphobia is more a predicament than an explanation. (Submission to the Changing Landscape of Citizenship and Security 6th PCRD of European Commission). Retrieved from http://www.libertysecurity.org/rubrique20.html Chaffee, S., Ward, S. & Tipton, L. ( 1970). Mass Communication and Political Socialization. Journalism Quarterly, 47, 647-659. Couton, P. & Gaudet, S. (2008). Rethinking Social Participation: The Case of Immigrants in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 9(1), 21-44. doi:10.1007/s12134-008-0046-z Dávila, A. & Mora, M.T. (2007). Do Gender and Ethnicity Affect Civic Engagement and Academic Progress (Working Paper 52). Retrieved from Tufts University, The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED495764.pdf Eggert, N. & Giugni, M. (2010). Does Associational Involvement Spur Political Integration? Political Interest and Participation of Three Immigrant Groups in Zurich. Swiss Political Science Review, 16(2), 175-210. Espírito-Santo, A. & Baum, M. (2004). A participação feminina em Portugal numa perspectiva longitudinal. Actas do V Congresso Português de Sociologia - Sociedades Contemporâneas - Reflexividade e Acção. Braga: Universidade do Minho. European Commission (2001). Livre Blanc de la Commission Européenne: un nouvel élan pour la jeunesse européenne. Bruxelles. Farthing, R. (2010). The politics of youthful antipolitics: Representing the issue of youth participation in politics. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(2), 181-195. doi: 10.1080/13676260903233696 149 Fennema, M. & Tillie, J. (1999). Political participation and political trust in Amsterdam: civic communities and ethnic networks. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25(4), 703726 Finlay, A., Flanagan, C. & Wray-Lake, L. (2011). Civic Engagement Patterns and Transitions Over 8 Years: The AmeriCorps National Study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1728–1743. doi:10.1037/a0025360 Forbrig, J. (Ed.) (2005). Revisiting Youth Political Participation. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217-34. Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. (2005). Online Participation in the UK: Testing a 'contextualised' model of Internet effects. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7(4), 561-583. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856x.2005.00209.x Grillo, R. & Mazzucato, V. (2008). Africa <> Europe: A Double Engagement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(2), 175-198. Harris, A., Wyn, J. & Younes, S. (2010). Beyond apathetic or activist youth: „Ordinary‟ young people and contemporary forms of participation. Young, Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 18(1), 9-32. doi: 10.1177/110330880901800103 Haste, H. & Hogan, A. (2006). Beyond conventional civic participation, beyond the moral political divide: young people and contemporary debates about citizenship. Journal of Moral Education, 35(4), 473-493. doi: 10.1080/03057240601012238 Huckfeldt, R. & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, Politics, and Social Communications: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2004). Social trust and civic engagement across time and generations. Acta Politica, 39, 342-379. Juris, J. S., & Pleyers, G. (2009). Alter-activism: Emerging cultures of participation among young global justice activists. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(1), 57-75. doi: 10.1080/13676260802345765 Kelly, C. (2009). In Preparation for Adulthood: Exploring Civic Participation and social trust among youth minorities. Youth & Society, 40(4), 526-540. doi: 10.1177/0044118X08327584 150 Kofman, E., Phizacklea, A., Raghuram, P. & Sales, R. (2000), Gender and international migration in Europe: employment, welfare and politics. London: Routledge. Lages, M. & Policarpo, V. (2003), Atitudes e Valores Perante a Imigração, Lisboa: Alto Comissariado para a Imigração e Minorias Étnicas. Lister, R., Smith, N., Middleton, S. & Cox, L. (2003). Young People Talk about Citizenship: Empirical Perspectives on Theoretical and Political Debates. Citizenship Studies, 7(2), 235 – 253. doi: 10.1080/1362102032000065991 Machado, I. J. (2006) Imigração em Portugal. Estudos Avançados, 20(57), 119-135. Magalhães, P. & Moral, J. S. (2008). Os Jovens e a Política. Lisboa: CESOP. Marcelo, K. B, Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. H. (2007). Civic engagement among young men and women. Retrieved from Tufts University, The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS07_Gender_CE.pdf Marien, S., Hooghe, M. & Quintelier, E. (2010). Inequalities in Non-Institutionalised Forms of Political Participation: A Multi-level Analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies, 58(1), 187-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00801.x Martiniello, M. (2005). Political participation, mobilisation and representation of immigrants and their offspring in Europe. Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations (1/05). Malmö, Sweden: Malmö University. Menezes, I. (2003). Participation experiences and civic concepts, attitudes and engagement: Implications for citizenship education projects. European Educational Research Journal, 2(3), 430-445. Miranda, J. (2009). Mulheres imigrantes em Portugal. Memórias, dificuldades de Integração e projectos de vida. Lisboa: Observatório da Imigração. Munro, D. (2008). Integration through Participation: Non-Citizen Resident Voting Rights in an Era of Globalization. International Migration & Integration, 9, 43–80. doi: 10.1007/s12134-008-0047-y~ Myrberg, G. (2011). Political Integration through Associational Affiliation? Immigrants and Native Swedes in Greater Stockholm. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(1), 99-115. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2011.521366. 151 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, 9(1), 45-61. doi: 10.1080/1356977032000072477 Pais, J. M. (1990). A construção sociológica da juventude – alguns contributos. Análise Social, XXV, 139-165. Paxton, P., Kunovich, S., & Hughes, M. (2007). Gender in Politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 263-284. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131651 Perliger, A., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Pedahzur, A. (2006). Democratic attitudes among highschool pupils: the role of played by perceptions of class climate. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(1), 119-140. Planty, M., Bozick, R., & Regnier, M. (2006). Helping because you have to or helping because you want to? Sustaining participation in service work from adolescence through young adulthood. Youth & Society, 38, 177–202. doi:10.1177/0044118X06287961 Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster. Ramalho, S., & Trovão, S. (2010). Repertórios Femininos em Construção num Contexto Migratório Pós-Colonia. Modalidades de Participação Cívica. Lisboa: Observatório da Imigração. Rosenstone, S. & Hansen. J. (1993). Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan. SEF - (Foreigners and Border Services) (2012). Relatório de Imigração Fronteiras e Asilo 2011. Oeiras: SEF. Retrieved from http://sefstat.sef.pt/Docs/Rifa_2011.pdf Silva, S. M. (2012a). Contributos do PIDOP para uma reflexão sobre as juventudes em tempos de descrença. In I. Menezes; N. Ribeiro; M. Fernandes-Jesus; C. Malafaia; P. D. Ferreira (Eds.) Agência e participação cívica e política: Jovens e imigrantes na construção da democracia (pp.155-157). Porto: Livpsic. Simon, B. & Grabow, O. (2010). The politicization of Migrants: Further evidence that politicized collective identity is a dual identity. Political Psychology, 31(5), 717-738. doi:101111/j.1467-92221.2010.00782.x Simon, B. (2011). Collective Identity and Political engagement. In A. E. Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B. Klandermans, & B. Simon (Eds.) Identity and Participation in 152 Culturally Diverse Societies: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (pp. 89-93). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Smith, A., Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (2009). The Internet and Civic Engagement. Washington: D.C: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Snell, P. (2010). Emerging Adult Civic and Political Disengagement: A Longitudinal Analysis of Lack of Involvement with Politics. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(2), 258– 287.doi: 10.1177/0743558409357238 Stepick, A., Stepick, C. & Labissiere, Y. (2008). South Florida‟s Immigrant Youth and Civic Engagement: Major Engagement: Minor Differences. Applied Development Science, 12(2), 57-65. doi: 10.1080/10888690801997036 Stoll, M. & Wong, J. (2007). Immigration and Civic Participation in a Multiracial and Multiethnic context. International Migration Review, 4(4), 880-908. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00104.x Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26, 245-269. Sullivan, J. & Transue, J. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 625-650. Teixeira, A. & Albuquerque, T. (2005). Active Civic Participation of Immigrants in Portugal. (country report). University of Oldenburg: POLITIS. Tonkiss, F. (2006). Using focus groups. In C. Seale (ed.), Researching society and culture, pp. (p. 193-206). London: Sage Publications. Torney-Purta, J., Lehman, R., Oswald, H. & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: I.E.A. Van den Bos, M., & Nell, L.(2006). Territorial Bounds to Virtual Space.Transnational Online and Offline Networks of Iranian and Turkish-Kurdish Immigrants in the Netherlands. Global Networks, 6, 2, 201-220. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00141.x Van Deth, J.W. & Elff, M. (2004). Politicisation, economic development and political interest in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 477–508. 153 Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L. & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Vogel, D. & Leiprecht, R. (2008). Part II: Europe as the Positive Other for Immigrants? In Final Activity Report – POLITIS (pp. 25-32). University of Oldenburg: POLITIS. Vogel, D., & Triandafyllidou A. (2005). Civic activation of immigrants - An introduction to conceptual and theoretical issues (working paper 1).University of Oldenburg: POLITIS. Vollebergh, W. A., Iedema, J. & Raaijmakers, Q.A. (2001). Intergenerational Transmission and the Formation of Cultural Orientations in Adolescence and Young Adulthood, Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 1185-1198. doi: 10.1177/110330880901800107 Vromen, A., & Collin, P. (2010). Everyday youth participation? Contrasting views from Australian policymakers and young people. Young, 18(1), 97-112. doi: 10.1177/110330880901800107 Yamanaka, K. & Piper, N. (2006). Feminised Migration in East and Southeast Asia: Policies, Actions and Empowerment. UNRISD Occasional Paper No. 11. UNRISD, Geneva. Youniss, J., McLellan, J. & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity. The American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 620-631. Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K. & Delli Carpini, M.X. (2006). A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. New York: Oxford University Press. 256 Conclusions “As politics insists in (re)emerging in the space between different people, as a relationship between equals in their (inevitable) diversity” (Arendt, 1950 [1995], p. 43) civic and political participation assumes particular relevance in the actual contexts where diversity is growing each day. Thus, rather than considering participation a simple question, in this thesis participation emerges as having multiple faces and forms, in a social context that is becoming each day more diverse. This dissertation has tried to capture the diversity in civic and political participation, in terms of experiences, quality of participation experiences and predictors of civic and political participation. Moreover, participation in this study also recognizes young people as a heterogeneous and diverse group. This recognition of diversity in civic and political participation is potentially a major strength of this dissertation, but might simultaneously generate some of the limitations of our research. As a matter of fact, in considering several groups and forms of participation, we might have lost some specificity that could be relevant for improving empirical knowledge in specific forms of participation and in specifics groups. However, our decision took into account the need to deepen the knowledge on broader concepts of participation. Further investigation should consider the need to look at specific forms of participation, their predictors, and their quality, but recognise the diversity under each group (women, minorities and migrants, young people, etc.). Furthermore, we also found limitations in terms of our questionnaire. Firstly, as the instruments were developed in a European project, they had to be appropriate to all the countries participating in the study, in order to capture the reality of each one. This lead to a very large survey, which in turn contributed to the many complaints received from participants, as they found the instrument extensive, which may have had some influence on the participant´s answers. Secondly, the questionnaire did not represent the full range of possible forms of participation among youth, in part due to the difficulty in measuring all the dimensions. Thus, more research is needed, using different methodologies and wider measurements of participation in order to fully understand young people‟s participation. The study, by its nature, also presents some initial dimensions that should also be mentioned, such as the fact of it being a cross-sectional study. This limitation is 257 already discussed in the second paper however; the need to developed longitudinal designs in order to understand developmental changes due to civic and political participation should be emphasized. At the same time, longitudinal design would also be more appropriate for the study of predictors of civic and political participation, as it would allow to understand not only the predictors for a initial participation but also the motives for a commitment across time. There is a need to develop more longitudinal design in order to understand when and why participation promotes developmental changes and when and why some people keep committed to participation while others quit. Furthermore, this study does not analyse the contexts in which participation takes place; even though we found results that indicate that quality of participation experiences matters, we continue to have insufficient information concerning the specific contexts that promote opportunities high quality participation experiences. Further research should attend more to the contexts and their specificities. Despite the limitations, this study has academic, social and political implications, since it questions the way we have dealt with issues of civic and political participation in Portugal and beyond. Firstly, by including various dimensions of civic and political participation, and taking into account the existence of groups who are often in risk of exclusion, this study presents itself as a groundbreaking study in Portugal. Moreover, the study of the predictors of participation of young immigrants is also an important aspect of this work, in the sense that it deepens the understanding of the role of some dimensions (e.g, perceived efficacy) that have been studied mostly in the context of majority groups. In social and political terms, this research presents itself as an important contribution to the discussion on youth civic and political participation. Thus, we strongly believe that the emphasis in the diversity of forms of participation among young people, migrants and gender is relevant to a deeper discussion on this issue. Ultimately we hope to contribute to a development of policy on youth participation that takes in consideration the diversity implicitly in this social phenomenon. In fact, in spite of the emphasis on the need to promote young people participation by formal public discourses, several barriers to effective participation of young people on the current political processes continue to persist. The European Union has been very concerned about the supposed decrease of young people participation and proposed several guidelines to increase youth participation, as the programme Youth in Action. However, 258 the focus continues to be in formal and institutionalized forms of participation. In the same way, there is a generalized public discourse to illegitimate certain forms of participation. For example, in Portugal, very often, citizens publicly defend the idea that those who do not vote should not have the right to question the governments‟ political decisions. This discourse was very present during the campaigns for the municipal elections that occurred last month (September of 2013). In the same vein, the recent criminalization of graffiti in Portugal demonstrates the tendency to moral and political prioritization of some forms of participation (such as voting) over others, such as graffiti, demonstrations, etc. We believe that this tendency results in “to undermine the legitimacy of young people‟s new political forms of participation, what is yet another way of silencing their voice in society” (Farthing, 2010, p. 187). Thereby, we propose that policies in the field of youth participation need to explicitly consider young people‟s voices and visions about civic and political issues, and the way they are expressed, instead of defining the mechanisms and instruments that should be used by young people to express their civic and political perspectives. Likewise, as we saw, perceived effectiveness of participation is extremely important to explain and understand young people participation, and it is still mandatory to answer to claims of youth regarding to this. There is a need to transform participation more into something more effective, and this depends, in part, on the youth, but also on the current political system and the decisions makers. Thus, participation of young people should be valorized, not only in theory but also in practical terms. This entails challenging the tendency to see youth´s participation as something naive, inconsistent and in lack of defined and oriented goals and purposes. In a context where we observe an increase in European youth immigration, it continues to be necessary to address the existence of groups that are most disadvantaged, and therefore at risk of exclusion. While minority political rights continue not be recognized as a priority and equal rights are not put into action, inequalities and risk of discrimination will continue among these groups. In this sense, the focus should be on promoting immigrants‟ political rights. This is undoubtedly a complex issue, especially in an era where some of the rights have been taken away - namely in terms of labor conditions and social rights - which, in turn, also have significant influences on all the other types of rights, and greater implications for groups already in risk of exclusion. Yet, political rights are even more relevant if we consider 259 that the actual economic paradigm has a profound implication on the quotidian lives of young people: there are fewer jobs, no professional stability, no security and rights, and youth show a greater uncertainly and insecurity in relation to their future. This instability also has implications on young peoples free-time, dispositions and willingness to civic and political participation. This might actually be the ideal time time to question the current paradigms, and look at civic and political participation in terms of a mechanism to (re)create news ones. 260 261 References Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. American Political Science Review, 76, 502–521. Adams, G. R. (1997). Identity: Abrief critique of a cybernetic model. Journal of Adolescent Research ,12 , 358-362 . Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”?. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236-253. doi:10.1177/1541344605276792 Albanesi, C., Cicognani, E. & Zani, B. (2007). Sense of community, civic engagement and social well-being in Italian adolescents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 387-406. Albuquerque, R. (2008). Associativismo, capital social e mobilidade: Contributos para o estudo da participação associativa de descendentes de imigrantes africanos lusófonos em Portugal. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://repositorioaberto.uab.pt/handle/10400.2/1271 Alto Comissariado para a Imigração e o Diálogo Intercultural (ACIDI). (2010). II plano para a integração dos imigrantes: 2010-2013. Retrieved from http://www.acidi.gov.pt/_cfn/4d346c9b80687/live/Consulte+a+vers%C3%A3o+ do+Plano+2010-2013+em+portugu%C3%AAs Amadeo, J., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V., & Nikolova, R. (2002). Civic knowledge and engagement among upper secondary students in sixteen countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. American Psychological Association (2009). Civic engagement. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/slce/civicengagement.html Anderson, C. J., & Beramendi, P. (2005). Economic inequality, redistribution, and political inequality. Paper prepared for presentation at the Conference on “Income Inequality, Representation, and Democracy: Europe in Comparative Perspective.” Maxwell School, Syracuse University. 262 Andolina, M. W., Jenkins, K., Keeter, S., Zukin, C., (2002). Searching for the Meaning of Youth Civic Engagement Notes From the Field. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4) 189-195. Andolina, M. W., Jenkins, K., Zukin, C., & Keeter, S. (2003). Habits from home, lessons from school influences on youth civic engagement among young people who are eligible to vote. PS: Political Science & Politics, 36(2), 275-280. Aouragh, M., & A. Alexander (2011). The Egyptian experience: Sense and nonsense of the internet revolution. International Journal of Communication, 4, 1344-1358. Araújo, H. C. (2005). Dando palavras às palavras dadas. Ex-aequo, 12, 109-113. Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres Archer, M. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press. Aristotle, (2000). Tratado da política (M. Campos, Trad.). Nem Martins: Publicações Europa-América, Lda. Arnestein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of participation. AIP Journal, 35(4), 216-224. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press. Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood in Europe: A response to Bynner. Journal of Youth Studies, 9(1), 111-123. Atkeson, L., & Rapoport, R. (2003). The more things change the more they stay the same: Examining gender differences in political communication by men and women, 1952 through 2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 495-521. Augusto, N. M. (2008). A juventude e a(s) política(s): Desinstitucionalização e individualização. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 81, 155-177. Azevedo, C. (2009). Experiências de participação dos jovens: Um estudo longitudinal sobre a influência da qualidade da participação no desenvolvimento psicológico (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 263 Azzi, A. E. (2011). From identity and participation to integration or radicalization. In A. E.Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, Bert Klandermans, & Bernd Simon (Eds.), Identity and participation in culturally diverse societies: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 359–368). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Baganha, M. I. (2009). The lusophone migratory system: Patterns and trends. International Migration, 47(3), 5-20. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00522. Bakker, T. P., & Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, internet use, and political participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451470. doi:10.1177/0093650210381738 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78. Bang, H. (2005). Among everyday makers and expert citizens. In J. Newman (Ed.), Remaking governance: peoples, politics and the public sphere (pp. 159-179). Bristol: Policy Press. Bang, H. P. (2004). Everyday makers and expert citizen: Building political not social capital. Retrieved from https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/42117/2/Henrik.pdf Bang, H. P., & Sørensen, E. (1999). The everyday maker: A new challenge to democratic governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21(3), 325-342. Bang, H. P., & Sørensen, E. (2001). The everyday maker: Building political rather than social capital. In P. Dekker & E. M. Uslaner (Eds.), Social capital and participation in everyday life (pp. 148-161). London/New York: Rutledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science. Barber, T. (2009). Participation, citizenship, and well-being: Engaging with young people, making a difference. Young, 17(1), 25-40. doi: 10.1177/110330880801700103 Beck, U. (2001). Living your own life in a runaway world: Individualisation, globalisation and politics. In W. Hutton and A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge: Living with global capitalism (pp. 164-175). London: Vintage. 264 Beiner, R. (1995). Introduction. In: R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing citizenship (1-28). Albany: State University of New York. Bekkers, R. (2005). Participation in voluntary associations relations with resources, personality, and political values. Political Psychology, 26(3), 439-454. Benhabib, S. (1999). Citizens, residents and aliens in a changing world: Politicalmembership in the global era. Social Research, 22, 1-24. Berger, B. (2009). Political theory, political science and the end of civic engagement. Perspectives on Politics, 7(2), 335-350. doi:10.1017/s153759270909080x Berger, M., Galonska, C., & Koopmans, R. (2004). Political integration by a detour? Ethnic communities and social capital of migrants in Berlin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 491-507. doi:10.1080/13691830410001682052. Bernhagen, P., & Marsh, M. (2007). Voting and protesting: Explaining citizen participation in old and new European democracies. Democratization, 14(1), 4472. Bessant, J. (2003). Youth participation: A new mode of government. Policy Studies, 24(2-3), 87-100. Bessant, J. (2004). Mixed messages: Youth participation and democratic practice. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 384-404. Bilewicz, M., & Wójcik, A. (2010). Does identification predict community involvement? Exploring consequences of social identification among the Jewish minority in Poland. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20, 7279. doi:10.1002/casp.1012 Bimber, B. (1999). The internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter?. Political Communication, 16(4), 409-428. doi:10.1080/105846099198569 Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nadeau, & Nevitte, N. (2001). “Measuring party identification: Britain, Canada, and the United States”. Political Behavior, 23, 5-22. Blasco, A. L. (2008). Young people of immigrant origin and their attitudes towards political participation: A comparative study with Greeks, Italians, Turks and 265 Germans. Young People’s Studies Magazine, 81, 185-197. Retrieved from http://www.injuve.es/sites/default/files/2013/05/publicaciones/INJUVE_0.pdf Bogús, L. (2007). Esperança além-mar: Portugal no “arquipélago migratório” brasileiro. In J. Malheiros (Ed.), Revista comunidades: A imigração brasileira em Portugal (pp. 39-58). Lisbon: ACIDI. Bolzendahl, C., & Coffé, H. (2009). Citizenship beyond politics: The importance of political, civil and social rights and responsibilities among women and men. The British Journal of Sociology, 60(4), 763-791. doi:10.1111/j.14684446.2009.01274.x Bolzendahl, C., & Coffé, H. (2013). Are “good” citizens “good” participants? Testing citizenship norms and political participation across 25 nations. Political Studies, 61(S1), 45-65. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12010 Boulianne, S. (2009). Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 193-211. doi: 10.1080/10584600902854363 Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258).Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Bousetta, H. (2000). Institutional theories of immigrant ethnic mobilisation: Relevance and limitations. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 26(2), 229-245. doi:10.1080/13691830050022785 Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., DeBoef, S., & Lin, T. M. (2004). The dynamics of the partisan gender gap. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 515-528. Brady, H. (1998). Political participation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 737-801). San Diego: Academic Press. Brady, H., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. The American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271-294. Braga da Cruz, M. (1985). A participação política da juventude em Portugal. Análise Social, XXI(87-88-89), 1067-1088. 272 Ferreira, P. D., Coimbra, J. L., & Menezes, I. (2012). Diversity within diversity: Exploring connections between community, participation and citizenship. Journal of Social Science Education, 11(3), 120-134. Fieldhouse, E., Tranmer, M., & Russell, A. (2007). Something about young people or something about elections? Electoral participation of young people in Europe: Evidence from a multilevel analysis of the European Social Survey. European Journal of Political Research, 46(6), 797-822. doi:10.1111/j.14756765.2007.00713.x Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy a panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891-913. Finkel, S. E. (1987). The effects of participation on political efficacy and political support: Evidence from a West German panel. The Journal of Politics, 49(2), 441-464. Finkel, S. E., & E. N. Muller. (1998) Rational choice and the dynamics of collective political action: Evaluating alternative models with panel data. American Political Science Review, 92, 37-4. Finkel, S. E., & Opp, K. D. (1991). Party identification and participation in collective political action. The Journal of Politics, 53(2), 339-371. Finkel, S. E., Muller, E. N., & Opp, K. D. (1989). Personal influence, collective rationality, and mass political action. The American Political Science Review, 83, 885-903. Finlay, A., Flanagan, C., & Wray-Lake, L. (2011). Civic engagement patterns and transitions over 8 years: The AmeriCorps National Study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1728–1743. doi:10.1037/a0025360 Fiorina, M. P. (1999). Extreme voices: A dark side of civic engagement. In T. Skocpol & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 395425). Harrisonburg Virginia: Brookings Institution Press. Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. Future Child, 20(1), 159-179. Flanagan, C., & Sherrod, L. R. (1998). Youth political development: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 447-456. 273 Fox, J. A., & Bada, X. (2009). Migrant civic engagement. UC Santa Cruz: Center for Global, International and Regional Studies. Freeman, J. (2009). The women movements. In J. Goodwin & J. M. Jasper, The social movements reader: Cases and concepts (pp. 24-33). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. The Economic Journal, 110(466), 918-938. Friedman, M. (1999). Consumer boycotts: Effecting change through the marketplace and the media. New York: Routledge. Frith, R. (2008). Cosmopolitan democracy and the EU: The case of gender. Political Studies, 56(1), 215-236. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00684.x Gabriel, O. W., & Van Deth, J. W. (1995). Political interest. In J. W. Van Deth & E. Scarbrough (Eds.), The impact of values (pp. 390–411). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gamson, W. A. (1992). The social psychology of collective action. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Muller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 53–76). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Garcia, J. L. (2000). Portugal migrante. Oeiras: Celta. Gauthier, M. (2003). The inadequacy of concepts: the rise of youth interest in civic participation in Quebec. Journal of Youth Studies, 6(3), 265-276. Gerodimos, R. (2005). Democratic engagement and media uses amongst the inter-net generation. Paper presented at the 55th annual conference of the Political Studies Association (PSA), Leeds. Gerodimos, R. (2008). Mobilising young citizens in the UK: A content analysis of youth and issue websites. Information, Communication & Society, 11(7), 964988. doi:10.1080/13691180802109014 Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Gidengil, E., Goodyear-Grant, E., Nevitte, N., Blais, A., & Nadeau, R., (2003). Gender, knowledge and social capital. Retrieved from 274 http://www.ceseec.org/pdf/Gender%20Knowledge%20and%20Social%20Capita l.pdf Goldfinger, J. (2009). Democracy plaza: A campus space for civic engagement. Innovative Higher Education, 34(2), 69-77. doi:10.1007/s10755-009-9096-1 Goodwin, J. & Jasper, J. M. (2009). The social movements reader: Cases and concepts. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Hadjar, A., & Schlapbach, F. (2009). Educational expansion and interest in politics in temporal and cross-cultural perspective: A comparison of west Germany and Switzerland. European Sociological Review, 25(3), 271-286. doi:10.1093/esr/jcn047. Hahn, C. (1998). Becoming political: Comparative perspectives on citizenship education. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hallet, C. (1987). Critical issues in participation. Newcastle: Association of Community Workers. Hansen, S. (1997). Talking About Politics: Gender and Contextual Effects on Political Proselytizing. The Journal of Politics, 59(1),73-103. Harris, A., Wyn, J., & Younes, S. (2010). Beyond apathetic or activist youth: “Ordinary” young people and contemporary forms of participation. Young, Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 18(1), 9-32. doi:10.1177/110330880901800103 Haste, H., & Hogan, A. (2006). Beyond conventional civic participation, beyond the moral political divide: Young people and contemporary debates about citizenship. Journal of Moral Education, 35(4), 473-493. doi:10.1080/03057240601012238 Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D.,& Zahidi, S. (2012). The global gender gap report 2012. Cologny/Geneva: World Economic Forum. Hays, R. A. (2007). Community activists‟ perceptions of citizenship roles in an urban community a case study of attitudes that affect community engagement. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(4), 401-424. 275 Hays, R. A., & Kogl, A. M. (2007). Neighborhood attachment, social capital building, and political participation a case study of lowand moderate-income residents of Waterloo, Iowa. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(2), 181-205. Heelsum, A. V. (2002). The relationship between political participation and civic community of migrants in the Netherlands. JIMI/RIMI, 3(2), 179-200. Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Wring, D. (2002). A generation apart? Youth and political participation in Britain. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 4(2), 167-192. doi:10.1111/1467-856X.t01-1-00001 Hoikkala, T. (2009). The diversity of youth citizenships in the European Union. Young, 17(1), 5-24. Hooghe, M. & Stolle, D. (2004). Gender Differences in Anticipated Political Participation Among US 14 Year Olds. Paper presented at the 3rd BelgianDutch Political Science Conference. Retrieved from http://www.politologischinstituut.be/PE2004/documents/3HoogheStolle.pdf Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communications: information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. Huddleston, T., Niessen, J., Chaoimh, E. N., & White, E. (2011). Migration integration policy index: Portugal. Retrieved from: http://www.mipex.eu/sites/default/files/downloads/portugal_abridged_migrant_i ntegration_policy_index_mipexiii_2011_pt.pdf Human Development Report (HDR). (2010). The real wealth of nations: Pathways to human development. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint.pdf IBASE/PÓLIS (2005). Juventude Brasileira e democracia: Participação, esferas e políticas públicas. Relatório Final de pesquisa. Rio de Janeiro: Pólis. Retrieved from http://api.ning.com/files/9LEZh33H3ibl3un0RnlRGtGE9cGJBYZ7gu*6TsHksIk _/juventude_democracia.pdf Inter-Parliamentary Union (2011). Women in National Parliaments. Retrieved from http://www.ipu.org/english/home.htm 276 Ireland, P. (1994). The policy challenge of ethnic diversity: Immigrant politics in France and Switzerland. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Ireland, P. R. (2011). New ways of understanding migrant integration in Europe. In A. E. Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B. Klandermans, & B. Simon (Eds.), Identity and participation in culturally diverse societies: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 114-136). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Jacobs, D., Phalet, K., & Swyngedouw, M. (2004). Associational membership and political involvement among ethnic minority groups in Brussels. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 543-559. Jacobs, T., & Tillie, J. (2011). Ethnic social networks, social capital, and political participation of immigrants. In A. E. Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B. Klandermans, & B. Simon (Eds.), Identity and participation in culturally diverse societies: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 296-314). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Janoski, T. (1998). Citizenship and civil society: A framework of rights & obligations in liberal, traditional, and social democratic regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, K., Andolina, M., Keeter, S., & Zukin, C. (2003). Is civic behavior political? Exploring the multidimensional nature of political participation. Chicago: Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association. Jennings, M. K., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 311-333. Jensen, L. A., & Flanagan, C. A. (2008). Immigrant civic engagement: New translations. Applied Developmental Science, 12(2), 55-56. doi:0.1080/10888690801996996. Jugert, P., Eckstein , K., Noack, P., Kuhn, A. & A. Benbow, B. (2013). Offline and Online Civic Engagement Among Adolescents and Young Adults from Three Ethnic Groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 123–135. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9805-4. Juris, J. S., & Pleyers, G. (2009). Alter-activism: Emerging cultures of participation among young global justice activists. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(1), 57-75. doi:10.1080/13676260802345765 277 Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). Improving the measurement of political participation. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois. Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1996). The social psychology of collective action: Identity, injustice and gender. London: Taylor & Francis. Kelly, D. C. (2008). In preparation for adulthood: Exploring civic participation and social trust among young minorities. Youth & Society, 40(4), 526-540. doi:10.1177/0044118x08327584 Kenski, K. (2004). The reciprocal effects of external and internal political efficacy: Results from the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election. Paper presented at the World Association for Public Opinion Research Conference, Phoenix, Arizona. Keyes, C. L. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121-140. Kieffer, C. H. (1981). The emergence of empowerment: The development of participatory competence among individuals in citizen organizations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Michigan. Kissau, K., & Hunger, U. (2008). Political online-participation of migrants in Germany. German Policy Studies, 4(4), 5-31. Klandermans, B. (1986). Perceived costs and benefits of participation in union action. Personnel Psychology, 39, 379-397. Klandermans, B. (1989). Union commitment replications and tests in the Dutch context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 869-875. Klandermans, B. (1993). A theoretical framework for comparisons of social movement participation. Sociological Forum, 8(3), 383-401. Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Klandermans, B. (2002). How group identification helps to overcome the dilemma of collective action. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 887-900. Klandermans, B. (2004). The demand and supply of participation Social psychological correlates of participation in social movements. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & 278 H. Kries (Eds.), The blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 360-380). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Klandermans, B., Sabucedo, J. M., Rodriguez, M., & de Weerd, M. (2002). Identity processes in collective action participation Farmers‟ identity and farmers‟ protest in the Netherlands and Spain. Political Psychology, 23(2), 235-251. Klandermans, B., Van der Toorn, J., & Van Stekelenburg, J. (2008). Embeddedness and identity: How immigrants turn grievances into action. American Sociological Review, 73(6), 992-1012. doi:10.1177/000312240807300606 Klar, M., & Kasser, T. (2009). Some benefits of being an activist: Measuring activism and its role in psychological well-being. Political Psychological, 30(5), 755-777. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00724.x Kofman, E., Phizacklea, A., Raghuram, P., & Sales, R. (2000). Gender and international migration in Europe: employment, welfare and politics. London: Routledge. Koopmans, R. (2004). Migrant mobilisation and political opportunities: Variation among German cities and a comparison with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 449-470. Koopmans, R., & Statham, P. (2000). Migration and ethnic relations as a field of political contention: An opportunity structure approach. In R. Koopman & P. Statham (Eds.), Challenging immigration and ethnic relations politics: comparative European perspectives (pp. 13-56). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koopmans, R., & Statham, P. (2011). Winners and losers in the Europeanization of public debates: Empowering the already powerful?. In A. E. Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B. Klandermans, & B. Simon (Eds.), Identity and participation in culturally diverse societies: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 93-113). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Koopmans, R., Statham, P., Giugni, M. & Passy, F. (2005). Contested citizenship: immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. London: University of Minnesota Press. 279 Kosic, A. (2007). Motivation for civic participation of immigrants: The role of personal resources, social identities and personal traits (Working paper 11). Oldenburg : University of Oldenburg. Krueger, B. S. (2002). Assessing the potential of internet political participation in the United States: A resource approach. American Politics Research, 30(5), 476498. doi:10.1177/1532673x02030005002 Lages, M., & Policarpo, V. (2003). Atitudes e valores perante a imigração. Lisbon: Alto Comissariado para a Imigração e Minorias Étnicas. Leach, C. M., Iyer, A., & Pederson, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. personality and social psychology bulletin, 32(9), 1232-1245. doi:10.1177/0146167206289729 Leak, G. K., & Leak, K. C. (2006). Adlerian social interest and positive psychology: Aconceptual and empirical integration. Journal of Individual Psychology, 62, 207–223. Letki, N. (2003). Explaining political participation in East-Central Europe social capital, democracy and the communist past (Working Paper 2). Oxford: Nuffield College Politics,. Li, Y., & Marsh, D. (2008). New forms of political participation: Searching for expert citizens and everyday makers. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 247–272. doi:10.1017/S0007123408000136 Lister, R. (1998). Citizenship and difference: Towards a differentiated universalism. European Journal of Social Theory, 1(1), 71-90. Lister, R. (2007). Inclusive citizenship: Realizing the potential. Citizenship Studies, 11(1), 49-61. doi:10.1080/13621020601099856 Lister, R., Smith, N., Middleton, S., & Cox, L. (2003). Young people talk about citizenship: Empirical perspectives on theoretical and political debates. Citizenship Studies, 7(2), 235-253. Lister, R., Willians, F., Antonnem, A., Bussemaker, J., Gerhard, U., Heine, J., Johansson, Stina, L., A., Siim, B., Tobío, C., & Gavanas, A. (2007). Gendering citizenship in Western Europe: New challenges for citizenship research in a cross-national context. United Kingdom: Bristol. 280 Livingstone, S., & Markham. T. (2008). The contribution of media consumption to civic participation. British Journal of Sociology, 59(2), 351-371. doi:10.1111/j.14684446.2008.00197.x. Livingstone, S., Bober, M., & Helspe, E. (2005). Active participation or just more information? Young people‟s take up of opportunities to act and interact on the internet. Information, Communication & Society, 8(3), 287-314. Lopes, J., Benton, T., & Cleaver, E. (2009). Young people‟s intended civic and political participation: Does education matter?. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(1), 1-20. doi:10.1080/13676260802191920 Lopez, M. H., Levine, P., Both, D., Kiesa, A., Kirby, E., & Marcelo, K. (2006). The 2006 civic and political health of the nation: A detailed look at how youth participate in politics and communities. College Park, MD: CIRCLE. Lopez, M. K., & Marcelo, K. B. (2008). The civic engagement of immigrant youth: New evidence from the 2006 civic and political health of the nation survey. Applied Development Science, 12(2), 66-73. doi:10.1080/10888690801997051 Lubell, M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2007). Collective action and citizen responses to global warming. Political Behavior, 29, 391-413. doi:10.1007/s11109-006-90252 Lupia, A., & Philpot, T. S. (2005). Views from Inside the net: How websites affect young adults‟ political interest. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1122–1142. Magalhães, P. (2008). Redes sociais e participação eleitoral em Portugal. Análise Social, XLIII(3), 473-504. doi: 10.1080/01402380500310626 Magalhães, P. C. (2005). Disaffected democrats: Political attitudes and political action in Portugal. West European Politics, 28(5), 973-991. Magalhães, P., & Moral, J. S. (2008). Os jovens e a política. Lisbon: CESOP. Malafaia, C. (2012) Capital social e económico numa “escola de democracia”: Um estudo comparativo entre a amnistia internacional em Portugal e na Suécia (Unpublished masters thesis). University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. Malafaia, C., Fernandes-Jesus, M., Ribeiro, N., Neves, T., Fonseca, L., & Menezes, I. (2012). Perspectivas e subjetividades sobre a participação política e cívica: 281 Jovens, família e escola. In I. Menezes, C. Malafaia, M. Fernandes-Jesus, N. Ribeiro, & P. D. Ferreira (Eds.), Agência e participação cívica e política: Jovens e imigrantes na construção da democracia (pp. 59-94). Porto: Livpsic. Malheiros, J. (2007). Os brasileiros em Portugal: A síntese do que sabemos. In J. Malheiros (Ed.), Revista comunidades: A imigração brasileira em Portugal (pp. 11-38). Lisbon: ACIDI. Maloney, W., Van Deth, J., & Robteutscher, S. (2008). Civic orientations: Does associational type matter?. Political Studies, 56, 261-287. Mangum, M. (2003). Psychological Involvement and Black Voter Turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 41-48. doi:10.1177/106591290305600104 Mannarini, T., Fedi, A., & Trippetti, S. (2009). Public involvement: How to encourage citizen participation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 262-274. doi:10.1002/casp.1030 Manza J., & Brooks, C. (1998). The gender gap in U.S. presidential elections: When? Why? Implications?. American Journal of Sociology, 103(5), 1235-1266. Marcelo, K. B., Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. H. (2007). Civic engagement among minority youth. College Park, MD: CIRCLE. Marien, S., Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2010). Inequalities in non-institutionalised forms of political participation: A multi-level analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies, 58(1), 187-213. Marshall, T. H. (1950/1992). Citizenship and social class. In T.H. Marshall & T. Bottomore (Eds.), Citizenship and social class (pp. 3-51). Pluto: London. Martiniello, M. (2005). Political participation, mobilisation and representation of immigrants and their offspring in Europe: Willy brandt series of working papers in international migration and ethnic relations. Malmö, Sweden: Malmö University. McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 401-425. doi:10.1177/000312240607100303 288 Schwartz, S. T. (2001). The Evolution of Eriksonian and Neo-Eriksonian Identity Theory and Research: A Review and Integration. Identity: An Internationaljournalof Theory And Research, 1(1), 7–58 Serviço de Estrageiros e Fronteiras (2012). Relatório de imigração fronteiras e asilo 2011. Oeiras: SEF. Retrieved from http://sefstat.sef.pt/Docs/Rifa_2011.pdf Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras (2008). Relatório de imigração fronteiras e asilo 2007. Oeiras: SEF. Retrieved from http://sefstat.sef.pt/Docs/Rifa_2008.pdf Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141-162. Shah, D. V., McLeod, D. M., Kim, E., Lee, S. Y., Gotlieb, M. R., Ho, S. S., & Breivik, H. (2007). Political consumerism: How communication and consumption orientations drive: Lifestyle politics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 217-235. Shah, D., Mcleod, J., & Yoon, S. (2001). Communication, context, and community: An exploration of print, broadcast, and internet influences. Communication Research, 28(4), 464-506. Shah, D., Schmierbach, M., Hawkins, J., Espino, R., & Donavan, J. (2002). Nonrecursive models of internet use and community engagement: Questioning whether time spent online erodes social capital. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 964-987. doi:10.1177/107769900207900412 Simon, B. (1998b). The self in minority-majority contexts. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 1-31). Chichester, England: Wiley. Simon, B. (1999). A place in the world: Self and social categorization. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 47-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Simon, B. (2011). Collective identity and political engagement. In A. E. Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B. Klandermans, & B. Simon (Eds.), Identity and participation in culturally diverse societies: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-93). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 289 Simon, B., & Grabow, O. (2010). The politicization of migrants: Further evidence that politicized collective identity is a dual identity. Political Psychology, 31(5), 717738. doi:101111/j.1467-92221.2010.00782.x Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319-331. Simon, B., & Ruhs, D. (2008). Identity and politicization among Turkish migrants in Germany: The role of dual identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1354-1366. doi:10.1037/a0012630 Simon, B., Loewy, M., Sturmer, S.,Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., Kampmeier, C., & Spahlinger, P. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 646-658. Simon, B., Trotschelz, R., & Dahne, D. (2008). Identity affirmation and social movement support. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 935-946. doi:10.1002/ejsp.473 Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284. Smith, A. (2013). Civic engagement in the digital age. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Smith, A., & Rainie, L. (2008). The internet and the 2008 election. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Smith, A., Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (2009). The internet and civic engagement. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Smith, H., Cronin, T., & Kessler, T. (2008). Anger, fear, or sadness faculty members' emotional reactions to collective pay disadvantage. Political Psychology, 29(2), 221-246. Smith, N., Lister, R., Middleton, S., & Cox, L. (2005). Young people as real citizens: Towards an inclusionary understanding of citizenship. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(4), 425-443. 290 Snell, P. (2010). Emerging adult civic and political disengagement: A longitudinal analysis of lack of involvement with politics. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(2), 258-287. doi:10.1177/0743558409357238. Sonn, C. C. (2002). Immigration adaptation: Understanding the process through sense of community. In A. T. Fisher, C. C. Sonn, & B. J. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications and implications (pp. 205-223). New York: Kluwer Academic. Spannring, R. (2008). Understanding (non-) participation: meanings, forms and reasons. In R. Spannring, G. Ogris, & W. Gaiser (Eds.), Youth and political participation in Europe: Resuls of the comparative study EUYOUPART (pp. 56-85). Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Spannring, R. (2005). Social capital and political participation of young people in western Europe. Unpublished manuscript, University of Vienna, Vienna. Spannring, R., Ogris, G., & Gaiser, W. (2008) Youth and political participation in Europe: Resuls of the comparative study EUYOUPART. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Stephen, L. (2007). Transborder lives: Indigenous oaxacans in Mexico, California, and Oregon. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Stepick, A., Stepick, C., & Labissiere, Y. (2008). South Florida‟s immigrant youth and civic engagement: Major engagement: minor differences. Applied Development Science, 12(2), 57-65. doi:10.1080/10888690801997036 Stoll, M., & Wong, J. (2007). Immigration and civic participation in a multiracial and multiethnic context. International Migration Review, 4(4), 880-908. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00104.x Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2005). Shifting inequalities? Patterns of exclusion and inclusion in emerging forms of political participation. Paper prepared for presentation at the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC. Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245-269. 291 Stone, W. F., & Schaffner, P. E. (1988). The psychology of politics. New York: Springer-Verlag. Strömbäck, J., & Shehata, A. (2010). Media malaise or a virtuous circle? Exploring the causal relationships between news media exposure, political news attention and political interest. European Journal of Political Research, 49(5), 575-597. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01913.x Strömbäck, J., & Shehata, A. (2010). Media malaise or a virtuous circle? Exploring the causal relationships between news media exposure, political news attention and political interest. European Journal of Political Research, 49(5), 575-597. Strong, T. B. (1994). Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Politics of the Ordinary. London: Sage. Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 59-99. doi:10.1080/10463280340000117 Stürmer, S., Simon, B., Loewy, M., & Jorger, H. (2003). The dual-pathway model of social movement participation: The case of the fat acceptance movement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 71-82. Sullivan, J., & Transue, J. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 625-650. Teixeira, A., & Albuquerque, R. (2005). Active civic participation of immigrants in Portugal. Country Report prepared for the European research project POLITIS. Retrieved from http://www.politis-europe.uni-oldenburg.de/ Tenn, S. (2005). An alternative measure of relative education to explain voter turnout. The Journal of Politics, 67(1), 271-282. Teorell, J., Torcal, M., & Montero, J. R. (2007). Political participation: Mapping the Terrain. In J. W. van Deth, J. R. Montero, & A. Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in european democracies: A comparative analysis (pp. 334357.). London/New York: Routledge. Theiss-Morse, E., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 227-249. 292 Thomas, E. F., McGart, C., & Mavor, K. I. (2009). Aligning identities, emotions, and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 194-218. doi:10.1177/1088868309341563 Tillie, J. (2004). Social capital of organisations and their members: Explaining the political integration of immigrants in Amsterdam. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30, 529-41. Tonkiss, F. (2006). Using focus groups. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching society and culture (pp. 193-206). London: Sage Publications. Torney-Purta, J. (2002). The school‟s role in developing civic engagement: A study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4). 203-212. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Torres, L. (2008). The role of Latin Americanness for immigrant activism in Europe: An exploration of qualitative interviews with Latin-American leader (Working paper 14). Oldenburg: University of Oldenburg. POLITIS. Trickett, E. J. (1994). Human diversity and community psychology: Where ecology and empowerment meet. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 583-592. Uslaner, E. M., & Dekker, P. (2001). The “social” in social capital. In P. Dekker & E. M. Uslaner (Eds.), Social capital and participation in everyday life (pp. 176178). London/New York: Rutledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science. Van Deth, J. (2000). Interesting but irrelevant Social capital and the saliency of politics in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 37, 115-147. van Deth, J. W. (2001). Studying Political Participation: Towards a Theory of Everything? Paper presented at the Joint Sessions of Workshops of the European Consortium for Political Research, Grenoble. 293 Van Deth, J. W. (2007). Norms of citizenship. In R. J. Dalton & H. D. Klingemann (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political behaviour (pp. 402-417). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Deth, J. W. (2010). Participation in voluntary associations: Dark shades in a sunny world?, American Behavioral Scientist, 53(5), 640-656. doi:10.1177/0002764209350828 Van Deth, J. W., & Elff, M. (2004). Politicisation, economic development and political interest in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 477-508. van Deth, J.W. (1990). Interest in politics (pp. 275–312) in M.K. Jennings, J.W. van Deth et al., Continuities in political action: A longitudinal study of political orientations in three western democracies. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter and Aldine. Van Londen, M., Phalet, K., & Hagendoorn, L. (2007). Civic engagement and voter participation among Turkish and Moroccan minorities in Rotterdam. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(8), 1201-1226. Van Stekelenburg, J., Klandermans, B., & Van Dijk, W. W. (2009). Context matters explaining how and why mobilizing context influences motivational dynamics. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 815-838. Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2),353-372. doi: 10.1348/014466607X231091 Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through groupbased anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649-664. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649 Veiga, S. (2008). O impacto do envolvimento dos estudantes universitários em actividades extra-curriculares no empowerment psicológico e no desenvolvimento cognitivo-vocacional (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Porto, Portugal. 294 Verba, S. (2003). Would the dream of political equality turn out to be a nightmare?. Perspectives on Politics, 4, 663-679. Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1051-1072. Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (2003). Unequal at the starting line: Creating participatory inequalities across generations and among groups. The American Sociologist, 34(1-2), 45-69. Verba, S., Nie, N. H., & Kim, J. (1971). The modes of democratic participation: A cross-national comparison. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Verba. S. (1967). Democratic participation: American academy of political and social science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 373(1), 53-78. Vieno, A., Nation, M., Perkins, D., & Santinello, M. (2007). Civic participation and the development of adolescent behavior problems. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 761-777. doi:10.1002/jcop.20177 Vogel, D. & Leiprecht, R. (2008). Part II: Europe as the positive other for immigrants?. In POLITIS Final Activity Report (pp. 25-32). Oldenburg: University of Oldenburg. Vogel, D. (2008). Becoming active in a new country: In search of favourable activation conditions. In D. Vogel (Ed.), Highly active immigrants: A resource for European civil societies (pp. 109-127). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Vogel, D. (Ed.). (2006). Building Europe with new citizens? An inquiry into the civic participation of naturalised citizens and foreign residents in 25 countries Retrieved from http://www.politis-europe.unioldenburg.de/download/POLITISpolicybrief.pdf Vogel, D., & Triandafyllidou, A. (2005). Civic activation of immigrants: an introduction to conceptual and theoretical issues. Retrieved from http://www.politis-europe.uni-oldenburg.de/ 295 Vráblíková, K. (2013). How context matters? Mobilization, Political Opportunity Strucutres and Nonelectroral Politcal Participation in Old and New democracy. Comparative Political Studies, XX(X) 1-27. doi: 10.1177/0010414013488538 Vromen, A. (2003). People try to put us down … participatory citizenship of generation X. Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 79-99. doi:10.1080/1036114032000056260 Vromen, A., & Collin, P. (2010). Everyday youth participation? Contrasting views from Australian policymakers and young people. Young, 18(1), 97-112. doi:10.1177/110330880901800107 Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Friedmann, R., & Meier, R. (1987). Who participates, who does not, and why? An analysis of voluntary neighborhood organizations in the United States and Israel. Sociological Forum, 2(3), 534-555. Warren, M. E. (2001). Associations and democracy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Watts, R.J. & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779-792. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20178 Wells, R., Ford, E., Holt, M., McClure, J., & Ward, A. (2007). Community-based coalitions‟ capacity for sustainable action: The role of relationships. Health Education & Behavior, 34, 124-139. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9182-z Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). Educating the “good” citizen: Political choices and pedagogical. PS: Political Science & Politics, 2, 241-247. White, S. Nevitte, N., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., & Fournier, P. (2008). The political resocialization of immigrants: Resistance or life-long learning?. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 268-281. doi:10.1177/1065912908314713 Wiley, S., & Deaux, K. (2011). The bicultural identity performance of immigrants. In A. E.Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B. Klandermans, & B. Simon (Eds.), Identity and participation in culturally diverse societies: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 49-68). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Wolfsfeld, G. (1986). Political action repertoires: The role of efficacy. Comparative Political Studies, 19, 104‐129. 296 Wright, S. C., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Collective action in response to disadvantage: Intergroup perceptions, social identification, and social change. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 200-236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 994-1003. Yamanaka, K., & Piper, N. (2006). Feminised migration in east and southeast Asia: Policies, actions and empowerment (UNRISD Occasional Paper No. 11). Geneva: UNRISD. Yang, K., & Pandely, K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes?. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880-892. Young, I. M. (1995). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. In R. Beiner (Ed.). Theorizing citizenship (pp. 175-207). Albany: State University of New York. Youniss, J. (2009). When morality meets politics in development. Journal of Moral Education, 38(2), 129-144. doi:10.1080/03057240902792660 Youniss, J., Bales, S., Cristmas-Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen, T. (2002). Youth civic engagement in the twenty-first century. Journal of Research on Adolescent, 12(1), 121-148. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.00027 Youniss, J., Barber, B. K., & Billen, R. M. (2013). Children in the garden of democracy: The meaning of civic Egypt. Journal of Social Science Education, 12(1), 6-13. Youniss, J., McLellan, J., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity. The American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 620-631. Zappalà, G. (1999). The phases of the political participation of ethnic minorities in Australian politics. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 20(1), 65-79. Zimmerman, M. A. (1989). The relationship between political efficacy and citizen participation: Construct validation studies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 554-566. 297 Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43-63). New York, NY: Plenum. Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment Theory: Psychological, organizational and Community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43-64). New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen particpation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725-750. Zobel, C., & Barbosa, C. E. (2011). O acesso dos imigrantes ao voto e aos cargos eleitorais nas autarquias portuguesas. Migrações, 8, 57-76. Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I‟m not a feminist, but...”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 423-435. Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. New York: Oxford University Press. 304 Caro participante, Na Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação da Universidade do Porto estamos a realizar um estudo de modo a compreender como é que os jovens pensam relativamente a diferentes assuntos públicos e em que medida participam nesses assuntos. Este estudo está a ser realizado simultaneamente em oito países europeus e se o desejar poderá obter informações mais pormenorizadas sobre o projecto através do seguinte site: http://www.fahs.surrey.ac.uk/pidop/. Leia atentamente as frases que se seguem e responda da forma mais sincera possível. Não existem respostas certas ou erradas. Tente responder de acordo com aquilo que realmente pensa e sente e não de acordo com a forma como acha que deveria pensar e sentir ou como outras pessoas pensam. Não tem um tempo limite para o preenchimento do questionário, mas procure dar a resposta mais imediata a cada uma das questões/afirmações. No fim do questionário verifique se respondeu a todas as questões. Todas as suas respostas são totalmente confidenciais. Desde já, agradecemos a sua participação. Se quiser contactar-nos pode fazê-lo através do e-mail [email protected] Isabel Menezes Norberto Ribeiro Carla Malafaia Maria Fernandes-Jesus 305 Primeiro, vamos pedir-lhe algumas informações pessoais … 1. Qual a sua idade? ______ anos 2. Qual o seu sexo? Feminino.......... Masculino........ 3. Qual das seguintes situações melhor se aplica a si? [A]. Nasci em Portugal, e os meus pais também [B]. Nasci em Portugal mas um dos meus pais nasceu noutro país (Qual?_______________________________) [C]. Nasci em Portugal mas os meus pais nasceram noutro país (Qual?_______________________________) [D]. Nasci noutro país (Qual?_______________________________) mas os meus pais nasceram em Portugal [E]. Nasci noutro país (Qual?_______________________________) mas um dos meus pais nasceu em Portugal [F]. Nasci noutro país, (Qual?_______________________________) tal como os meus pais 3.1. P ________________________________________________________ 4. Se não nasceu em Portugal, que idade tinha quando veio para cá? Tinha _______ anos. 5. Com que frequência fala português em casa? Escolha apenas uma das seguintes opções Nunca............... Às vezes............... Sempre ou quase sempre............ 6. Quando tinha 14 anos, quantos livros existiam em sua casa? Não contar com jornais, revistas ou livros escolares; escolha apenas uma das seguintes opções Nenhum................... 1 – 10 (alguns livros numa prateleira)……................... 11 – 50 (uma ou mais prateleiras)................................ 51 – 100 (uma estante) ...................................................... 101 – 200 (duas estantes) ................................................. Mais de 200 (várias estantes cheias de livros)………... 7. Se ainda está a estudar que nível de escolaridade espera atingir? Se já deixou de estudar, qual o seu grau de escolaridade? Escolha apenas uma das seguintes opções. Ensino básico (até ao 9 º ano) Ensino secundário (até ao 12º ano) 306 8. Actualmente, qual é a sua principal ocupação? Estudante a tempo inteiro Estudante a tempo parcial À procura do primeiro emprego Trabalhador/a (menos de 20 horas por semana) Trabalhador/a (mais de 20 horas por semana) Desempregado/a 9. Qual o seu estado civil? Escolha apenas uma das seguintes opções. Solteiro/a Sou casado/a ou vivo com um/a companheiro/a Sou divorciado/a Sou viúvo/a 10. Qual a escolaridade dos seus pais? Mãe Pai Nunca frequentou a escola 1 1 Não terminou o 1 º ciclo (antiga 4 º classe) 2 2 Terminou o ensino básico (até ao 9 º ano, antigo 5 º ano) 3 3 Não terminou o ensino secundário (até ao 12 º ou antigo 7 º ano) 4 4 Terminou o ensino secundário (até ao 12 º ou antigo 7 º ano) 5 5 Curso de formação técnico-profissional 6 6 Ensino superior (Bacharel) 7 7 Ensino superior (licenciatura ou mais) 8 8 11. Até aos 14 anos, apercebeu-se que na sua casa havia problemas financeiros que dificultavam pagar as contas ou a comida (habitação, educação, saúde…)? Escolha apenas uma das seguintes opções. Nunca…………………….. …… Às vezes………………………… Muitas vezes…………………….. Não sei………………….………. 12. Com quem vive? Escolha apenas uma das seguintes opções. Curso profissional Ensino superior (licenciatura, bacharelato) Mestrado Doutoramento 307 Vivo com os meus dois pais………………………………………………………… Vivo com um dos meus pais…………………………................................................ Vivo com outro familiar (tio/a, irmão/irmã, primo/a)……………………………….. Vivo sozinho/a………………………………………………………………………… Vivo com o meu companheiro/cônjuge………………………………………………. Vivo com outras pessoas que partilham comigo a habitação…………………. Vivo com o/a meu/minha marido/mulher/companheiro/a e filhos/a…………………... Vivo com os/as meus/as filhos/as………………………………………………………. 13. Os rendimentos da sua família são suficientes para tudo o que a família precisa? Escolha apenas uma das seguintes opções. De maneira nenhuma …………………….............. Em parte ………………………........................... Quase sempre ………………………………………. Totalmente………………..…………………………. 14. Já alguma vez se sentiu excluído/a ou discriminado/a? Não, nunca 1 2 3 4 5 Muito frequentemente 15. Se respondeu sim, acha que foi excluído/a ou discriminado/a devido a quê? Pode escolher mais do que uma opção Idade……………………………..................... Educação…………………………………… Religião……………………………………… Sexo…………………………………………… Orientação sexual….......................... Estatuto económico......................... Etnia/Raça......................................... Outra razão………………………............... 16. Se respondeu sim, onde é que isso aconteceu? Pode escolher mais do que uma opção. Escola…………………………….......................................................................... Trabalho………………………………………………………………………….. Instituição (hospital, câmara municipal/junta de freguesia)………………… Espaço público (rua, café, restaurante, …)……………………………………. Outro....................................................................................................................... Onde? __________________________________________________________ 17. Como se situa politicamente? Extrema Esquerda 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extrema Direita 308 Agora, gostávamos de conhecer as suas opiniões e experiências. Na maior parte das vezes, vamos pedir-lhe para responder usando uma escala de 1 a 5. Se escolher “1”, significa que não concorda nada com a frase; se escolher “5” significa que está totalmente de acordo. Assinale com uma cruz o número que melhor corresponde à sua opinião. Se se enganar, risque por cima e volte a assinalar com uma cruz o número que deseja. 1. Por favor, indique o seu grau de concordância com as seguintes afirmações, usando a escala disponível Discordo Concordo totalmente totalmente Converso sobre questões sociais e políticas com os/as meus/minhas amigos/as e conhecidos/as 1 2 3 4 5 Trago assuntos sociais e políticos para a conversa com outras pessoas 1 2 3 4 5 Tenho interesse na política 1 2 3 4 5 Nunca Quase todos os dias Acompanho o que se passa na política através de jornais e revistas 1 2 3 4 5 Acompanho programas na televisão ou na rádio que abordam assuntos políticos 1 2 3 4 5 Presto atenção à informação política que circula na internet 1 2 3 4 5 309 2. Nesta secção, considere a lista de actividades e pense sobre as seguintes questões: Eu fiz isto no último ano? Considero que isto é uma forma eficaz de mudar as coisas? E farei isto no futuro? Depois, deve assinalar na escala disponível o número mais apropriado à sua opinião. Quanto mais elevado o número for, mais concorda que fez a actividade, mais pensa que a acção é eficaz e está mais disposto a fazer a actividade no futuro. Fiz esta actividade nos últimos 12 meses? Considero que esta actividade é eficaz para mudar as coisas (no governo, na sociedade…)? No futuro acho que irei fazer esta actividade? Nunca Muito frequentemente Nada Muito eficaz eficaz Concerteza Concerteza não sim 1. Participar numa reunião pública ou manifestação relacionada com questões sociais ou políticas 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. Fazer voluntariado 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3. Usar um símbolo ou emblema para mostrar apoio a uma causa social ou política (uma pulseira, um crachá, uma t-shirt com uma mensagem política …) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4. Distribuir panfletos com conteúdo político 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5. Dar dinheiro para uma causa/organização social ou política 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6. Comprar (ou não comprar) produtos por razões políticas, éticas e ambientais 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 7. Escrever mensagens políticas e/ou grafitar paredes 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 8. Participar em acções políticas que possam ser ilegais (ex., queimar uma bandeira, atirar pedras, …) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9. Participar em concertos ou eventos de angariação de fundos para uma causa social ou política 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. Enviar para os meus contactos notícias, músicas ou vídeos com conteúdo social e político 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 11. Discutir questões sociais e políticas na internet 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12. Visitar um site de uma organização cívica ou política 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 13. Participar ou boicotar um protesto online 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. Votar nas eleições 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15. Ligar-me a um grupo do facebook (ou outra rede social online) que lida com questões sociais e políticas 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 310 3. Já fez algumas das actividades referidas em cima em relação ao seu país de origem/país de origem da sua família? Sim □ Não □ 3.1 Se sim, quais? _______________________________ 4. Tenciona fazer algumas das actividades referidas em relação ao seu país de origem/país de origem da sua família? Sim □ Não □ 4.1 Se sim, quais? ________________________________ 5. Colaborou ou esteve, alguma vez, ligado a: Nunca Ocasionalmente De forma contínua: Menos de 6 meses 6 meses ou mais A. Associações de Estudantes ou de Trabalhadores? B. Partidos políticos ou juventudes partidárias? C. Voluntariado ou grupos de caridade (associações de solidariedade social)? D. Grupos ou associações juvenis? E. Grupos ou associações religiosas? F. Associações para a protecção dos direitos humanos (direitos humanos; racismo; paz; …)? G. Associações ambientais ou grupos dos direitos dos animais? H. Grupos e associações recreativas e de lazer (música, arte, desporto...)? 6. Pense no envolvimento mais importante/significativo que teve nessas organizações… Qual foi? _________________ (por favor especifique o tipo de organização usando a lista acima referida) 7. Como avalia o seu nível de envolvimento? Pouco activamente envolvido 1 2 3 4 5 Muito activamente envolvido 8. Está actualmente envolvido nessa organização? Sim □ Não □ 9. Enquanto colaborou, realizou alguma das seguintes actividades: a) Procurar informação em livros, nos média ou junto de pessoas com mais experiência Não, nunca 1 2 3 4 5 Muito frequentemente b) Participar em actividades (como por exemplo protestos, petições, assembleias, reuniões, festas, debates, etc.). Não, nunca 1 2 3 4 5 Muito frequentemente c) Organizar actividades (como por exemplo petições, protestos, festas, reuniões, assembleias, debates, tomadas públicas de posição, etc.). Não, nunca 1 2 3 4 5 Muito frequentemente d) Tomar decisões (sozinho ou em grupo) Não, nunca 1 2 3 4 5 Muito frequentemente 311 10. Enquanto colaborou, com que frequência sentiu que: a) havia diferentes pontos de vista em discussão. Não, nunca 1 2 3 4 5 Muito frequentemente b) os conflitos de opinião davam origem a novas formas de ver as questões. Não, nunca 1 2 3 4 5 Muito frequentemente c) eram abordados problemas reais e/ou do seu quotidiano. Não, nunca 1 2 3 4 5 Muito frequentemente d) a participação era muito importante, para si. Não, nunca 1 2 3 4 5 Muito frequentemente 11. Agora, pense nas suas experiências diárias, na sua família, na escola, no trabalho e no local onde vive. Nunca … Muito frequentemente Decidi por mim mesmo/a utilizar (ou não) métodos contraceptivos 1 2 3 4 5 Posso escolher os meus amigos 1 2 3 4 5 Posso escolher o/a meu/minha namorado/a 1 2 3 4 5 Posso escolher a minha escola ou o meu trabalho 1 2 3 4 5 12. Por favor indique em que medida concorda com as seguintes afirmações, utilizando a escala disponível: Discordo Concordo totalmente totalmente Participaria numa causa política… … se acreditasse mesmo nela 1 2 3 4 5 … se sentisse que poderia aprender coisas novas 1 2 3 4 5 … se sentisse que poderia influenciar pessoas 1 2 3 4 5 … porque gosto de ajudar as outras pessoas 1 2 3 4 5 … porque é uma boa forma de conhecer novas pessoas 1 2 3 4 5 … se isso ajudasse a criar uma sociedade melhor 1 2 3 4 5 Não me envolvo em causas políticas porque sou muito novo 1 2 3 4 5 Nunca ninguém me perguntou se me queria envolver numa causa ambiental 1 2 3 4 5 Nunca ninguém me perguntou se me queria envolver numa organização política 1 2 3 4 5 312 Nunca ninguém tentou convencer-me a votar a favor ou contra um determinado candidato nas eleições 1 2 3 4 5 13. Por favor, indique o seu grau de concordância com as seguintes afirmações usando a escala disponível: Discordo Concordo totalmente totalmente Sei mais de política do que a maioria das pessoas da minha idade 1 2 3 4 5 Quando estão a ser discutidos assuntos políticos, normalmente tenho algo a dizer 1 2 3 4 5 As pessoas importantes do governo preocupam-se muito pouco com as opiniões das pessoas 1 2 3 4 5 No nosso país, uma minoria de pessoas tem muito poder político enquanto a maioria tem pouco poder 1 2 3 4 5 As coisas podem mudar para melhor se os jovens trabalharem em conjunto 1 2 3 4 5 Se os jovens trabalharem em conjunto podem influenciar as decisões do governo 1 2 3 4 5 As coisas podem mudar para melhor se os jovens da minha etnia/ nacionalidade trabalharem em conjunto 1 2 3 4 5 Se as pessoas da minha etnia trabalharem em conjunto podem influenciar as decisões dos governos 1 2 3 4 5 As coisas podem mudar para melhor se as pessoas do meu sexo trabalharem em conjunto 1 2 3 4 5 Se as pessoas do meu sexo trabalharem em conjunto podem influenciar as decisões dos governos 1 2 3 4 5 Das seguintes questões seleccione a alternativa que lhe parece correcta. 14. Qual das seguintes medidas é mais provável ser apoiada por uma pessoa de direita/conservadora? □ impostos mais altos para pessoas da classe alta □ controlo do Estado sobre os serviços públicos (água e electricidade) □ forte protecção dos direitos dos imigrantes □ menor gasto do Estado em questões sociais (saúde, educação, segurança social) 15. Qual dos seguintes países não é actualmente um país membro da União Europeia? □ Dinamarca □ Letónia □ Suíça □ Estónia 16. Qual das seguintes afirmações corresponde à diferença entre uma democracia e uma ditadura? □ numa democracia as pessoas têm direito à propriedade privada □ numa democracia os juízes fazem e mudam as leis □ numa democracia o governo é eleito pelos cidadãos/ãs □ numa democracia as pessoas não estão autorizadas a criticar o governo 313 17. Por favor, indique o seu grau de concordância com as seguintes afirmações, usando a escala disponível: Discordo Concordo totalmente ……. totalmente Os/as meu/minhas amigos/as aprovariam se eu participasse politicamente 1 2 3 4 5 Os/as meu/minhas amigos/as estão envolvidos em acções políticas (usar um crachá, participar numa manifestação pública, boicotar determinados produtos, assinar petições,…) 1 2 3 4 5 Os/as meu/minhas amigos/as concordam que participar em acções políticas é a única forma de mudar alguma coisa na sociedade 1 2 3 4 5 Os meus pais aprovariam se eu participasse politicamente 1 2 3 4 5 Os meus pais estão envolvidos em acções políticas (usar um crachá, participar numa manifestação pública, boicotar determinados produtos, assinar petições,…) 1 2 3 4 5 Os meus pais concordam que participar em acções políticas é a única forma de mudar alguma coisa na sociedade 1 2 3 4 5 18. Frequenta alguma igreja (ou mesquita, sinagoga…) ? Sim □ Não □ 18.1 Se sim, por favor responda às duas seguintes questões: As pessoas da minha igreja aprovariam se estivesse envolvido em causas sociais 1 2 3 4 5 As pessoas da minha igreja aprovariam se estivesse envolvido politicamente 1 2 3 4 5 19. Por favor, indique em que medida confia nas seguintes instituições, usando a escala disponível Que nível de confiança tem nas seguintes instituições? Total Total desconfiança confiança União Europeia 1 2 3 4 5 Governo 1 2 3 4 5 Poder local (e.g.: câmaras municipais, juntas de freguesia) 1 2 3 4 5 Escolas e Universidades 1 2 3 4 5 Tribunais 1 2 3 4 5 Polícia 1 2 3 4 5 Partido políticos 1 2 3 4 5 Bancos 1 2 3 4 5 Grandes empresas 1 2 3 4 5 Igrejas ou instituições religiosas 1 2 3 4 5 Jornais 1 2 3 4 5 Internet 1 2 3 4 5 Televisão 1 2 3 4 5 Organizações não-governamentais/ de solidariedade social 1 2 3 4 5