Youth Activism, Engagement and the Development of New Civic Learning Spaces

Youth Activism, engagement and the development of new civic learning spaces

A review of Australian literature

Andrew Peterson, Canterbury Christ Church University and University of South Australia

Brief introduction, scope and aims

This review of Australian literature is written in a complex context. First and foremost, youth participation has been repeatedly and consistently viewed as a key goal for education and youth services. In their National Strategy for Young Australians, for example, the Australian Government (2010) made clear that it ‘respects and understands the value and contributions young people offer as citizens of today, not just the leaders of tomorrow’ (2010). Yet, at a policy level, the benefits of youth participation has often been located on the accompanying view that young Australians’ levels of civic knowledge and understanding are generally low and would benefit from being increased. While there clearly many examples of youth civic activism and engagement operating within Australian, as this literature review will suggest significant concerns have been raised regarding (1) whether civic activism and engagement is a feature of all young Australian’s lives and (2) the form which such activism and engagement actually takes. With regard to this second concern, and for example, Black et al. (2011) suggest that such participation is framed mostly in terms of having a say, rather than necessarily challenging and changing structural issues (Black et al, 2011).

Surveying the literature identified a number of themes or points of analysis were identified, and these are now considered in turn.

Motivation vs Reality and the changing patterns of youth activism/engagement

A resounding feature of the literature reporting on actual existing practices of youth activism and engagement was that, and contrary to the earlier reports cited in the introduction, young Australians are motivated to actively participate within their communities, both now and in the future (Black, 2010; Gidley, 2010). Citing a range of structural and logistical barriers (we return to these in latter sections), a number of authors, however, identify a significant mismatch between this desire to participate and the actual opportunity for young people to practice activism. Gidley (2010) presents research from 128 secondary students at three largest Steiner schools in Australia. Respondents were positive about the need for activism, and their potential to act.

In a small-scale piece of research focusing on the activism and participation of 12-24 year olds in relation to environmental issues, Fielding and Head (2012) reports that respondents in the 12-17 age range were neither likely or unlikely to engage in pro-environmental behaviour in the future, while those in the 18-24 were more likely to. For both age groups, pro-environment intentions were positively correlated with pro-behaviour and negatively with harmful behaviour. Beliefs such as the environment is a community responsibility and a sense of locus of control correlated with higher levels of environmental knowledge and concern. Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour were reported as laziness, time, lack of knowledge, lack of belief it will make a difference.

In their study of 15-18 year olds, funded by the Australian Research Council, Harris et al. (2010) draw on data collected from surveys and follow-up interviews to suggest that whole young people evidence low levels of formal political participation, they do seek to be included through engaging in deliberative process. Harris et al. identify a gap between these young Australian’s perceptions of Politics and their everyday engagements, suggesting an ‘ordinariness’ in participants’ everyday experiences and actions, such as recycling, donating money. They also argue that, for these young people, being heard was in itself viewed as participatory.

Much of the literature is concerned with identifying nuances which sit between broad notions of civic in/action and/or to consider ways in which the aims and scope of young Australian’s activism was changing. At a general level, Tranter (2010) reports that young Australians are increasingly viewing protests as passe and as a result are moving to forms of activism focusing on online forums and the giving of donations.Drawing on International Social Survey Programme Citizenship data with regard to Australia in 2006, Martin (2012) found that young Australians are engaging less in non-electoral forms of participation than older Australians (supports previous evidence from Vromen, 2003). The study reports that young people were more likely than older people to sign a petition and boycott products. Young people were also more likely to attend a protest or join a political forum on the internet, but these latter two were much less common activities generally compared to the first two, which Martin conceives as more individualised acts. Martin (2012: 222) concludes that for today’s young Australians ‘political activity occurs in a much more fluid way than before through groups that appear and disappear rather than political activity occurring through well-institutionalised channels such as political parties and trade unions.In their research, Harris et al. (2010) suggest a need to look at ‘ordinary’ young people too, i.e. those who sit between young people who are deeply apathetic and young people who engage in unconventional forms of activism.

Focus on disadvantaged and marginalised students

A significant aspect of recent literature on the civic activism and engagement of young Australians is the experiences of disadvantaged and marginalised students. Setting the scene, Black (2010) speaks of the complex relationship between community as a space of activism and a real and/or potential distrust of communities held by young people (Black, 2010). In another study, Black (2011) cites a raft of evidence in 2000s that evidenced that low socio-economic status affects a range of attitudes to, and capacities, for participation (Black, 2011). Black et al (2011) outline a range of projects –such as the Building Bridges project focused on outer North Melbourne and the Western Young People’s Independent Network – through which young people in socio-economically disadvantaged areas have engaged critically with and in their communities.

Research in this area typically consists of small-scale studies which focus on a specific margnialised group. Correa-Valez, et al. (2010) report on an intervention with young refugees, detailing how for these young people linking activities which help to connect young refugees to their wider communities are crucial in both making attaching and contributing to networks. In their study, Pavlidis and Baker (2010) focus on homeless youth and suggest that for these young Australians particular concerns related to notions of risk are at play – including day-to-day, immediate risks. According to these authors, risk for homeless youth is embodied rather than external, and impacts on their activism in important ways. Land (2011: 47) considers activism undertaken by non-Indigenous youth in support of Indigenous struggles, and raises concerns regarding the extent to which such activism can remain shaped by ‘colonialist attitudes and behaviours’. For Land, appropriate activism must be shaped and informed by a critical engagement with decolonisation.

Why participate?

A further theme which developed out of the review of the literature is the extent to which the question of why be active in the first place was either assumed or left implicit. To put this more clearly, beyond the general idea that being an active participant in one’s community was a general good, there was little exploration of the motivations, values or relationships which might underpin youth civic activism and engagement in Australia. This means that the bonds and relationship between people were frequently not attended to.

Often, where values and motivation were mentioned, these were rather general in nature and remained under-developed. In her research, Gidley (2010) refers to values and spirituality in relation to the Steiner school children whom participated in her study, but only rather loosely (e.g. students mentioned some values) or by referencing a general commitment to concepts like socially equitable futures/social justice/just relationships. What precisely is meant by social justice, and indeed the ethical basis of relationships between humans and/or humans and their environment was not detailed. Similarly, Head (2011) suggests that there have been three main rationales for more participation of Australian youth: (i) rights; (ii) efficiency and better services; and, (iii) development benefits – individual (self-esteem etc) and social. Again, the precise meaning(s) of key terms here such as rights or social benefits remain elusive.One area of writing in which the focus on underpinning relationships and values receives greater attention is that which relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. In her research, for example, Land (2011) draws out are explores ideas relating to decolonisation and solidarity as key in shaping appropriate and meaningful youth activism.

Technology

When considering ‘new’ civic learning spaces in relation to young Australian’s activism, a clear corpus of work has developed in relation to the impact, use and possibilities of technology. Presently, such research provides a rather mixed picture, with some studies welcoming the positive impact of technologies on youth civic activism, and others adopting a more cautious approach.

In setting out the positive possibilities of technology, Kral (2011: 5) reports on practices undertaken by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth, suggesting that ‘through their rapid adaptation to and adoption of digital media technologies, young people are transforming their visibility by engaging in new forms of cultural production’. For Kral, access to new media resources is allowing Indigenous youth to be ‘the controllers of productive processes that generate unique resources and new forms of cultural production leading to agentive participation in public domains’ (9).

A more hesitant approach to the role of technology is provided by Harris et al. (2013: 27) who suggest that while the internet offers a ‘space for social connection and self-expression’, activism using new technologies has an ordinariness to it which replicates what young people might do in person – such as discussing issues in chat rooms. Gidley (2010) found that secondary age students attending a Steiner school were broadly sceptical of technologies. Pavlidis and Baker (2010) are more sceptical and suggest that youth, particularly those who are marginalised, are in fact at risk from new technologies.

What works?

Many commentators have sought to focus on the positive practices involved in youth activism, identifying particular features regarding what works in terms of effective practice. While not necessarily an exhaustive list, the following is indicative of what is viewed as good practice:

-The availability and commitment of dedicated professionals (Black et al., 2011);

-A focus on young peoples’ strengths and working with and on these (Black et al. 2011). The Foundation for Young Australians have, for example, adopted this tone in Unlimited Potential: A commitment to young Australians (2013: 1): ‘Our collective role is to be relentlessly optimistic about the young people of this country and about their capacity and capability to envision and create the nation and world in which they want to live and work’ (cited in Callingham, 2013);

-The recognition and embracing of the self-expression and creativity of young people (Black et al. 2011);

-Working to overcoming barriers concerning a lack of agency and locus of control (Harris et al. 2013);

-Positioning youth as co-researchers, such as through Youth Participatory Action Research (Callingham, 2013);

-Adopting a situational approach (Head, 2011);

-Focusing on positive cases rather than deficiencies (Kral, 2011).

Conclusions and areas for further research

The current literature evidences a complex and mixed picture of young Australians’ activism and engagement in ways which in turn raises important questions about ‘new’ civic learning spaces and educational practices. While a widespread goal of education, schooling and youth services, current literature points to a range of factors which act as barriers to youth activism and engagement in civic communities, including social, economic, political and cultural factors, mixed opportunities, and apathy. Current literature also, however, presents a positive picture of what has been, and can be, achieved in this space – detailing the benefits of approaches which intrinsically involve young people and which embrace the knowledge, skills and attributes which they bring to their activism. Existing research regarding ‘new’ forms of civic learning presents a mixed picture, not least as to whether (1) the advent of new technologies enable positive and specifically new forms of, and forums for, activism (as opposed to either negative impacts and/or replicating already existing practices through a different media) and (2) the type of activism with which young Australians are engaging are shifting from traditional forms of political participation towards more individualised, issue and identity-based forms of activism. Both of these areas appear particularly apt for further research.

References

Australian Government (2010) National Strategy for Young Australians. accessed 1st September 2016.

Black, R. (2010) ‘Promise or practice? Student participation in low socio-economic communities’, in Youth Studies Australia. 29 (2). 9-15.

Black, R. (2011) ‘Student participation and disadvantage: limitations in policy and practice’, in Journal of Youth Studies. 14 (4). 463-474.

Black, R., Walsh. L. and Taylor, F. (2011) ‘Young people on the margins: What works in youth participation’. Youth Studies Australia. 30 (1). 42-48.

Callingham, M. (2013) ‘Democratic youth participation: A strength-based approach to youth investigating educational engagement’, in Youth Studies Australia. 32 (4). 48-56.

Corra-Valez, I, Gifford, S. M., and Barnett, A. G. (2010) ‘Longing to belong: Social inclusion and wellbeing among youth with refugee backgrounds in the first three years in Melbourne, Australia’, in Social Science & Medicine. 1399-1408.

Fielding, K. S. and Head, B. W. (2012) ‘Determinants of young Australians’ environmental actions: the role of responsibility attributions, locus of control, knowledge and attitudes’, in Environmental Education Research. 18 (2). 171-186.

Gidley, J. M. (2010) ‘Holistic education and visions of rehumanized futures’, in Research on Steiner Education. 1 (2). 139-147.

Harris, A., Wyn, J. and Younes, S. (2010) ‘Beyond apathetic or activist youth: ‘Ordinary’ young people and contemporary forms of participation’, in Young: Nordic Journal of Youth Research. 18 (1). 9-32.

Head, B. (2011) ‘Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation’ in Children and Youth Services Review. 33. 541-547.

Kral, I. (2011) ‘Youth media as cultural practice: Remote Indigenous youth speaking out loud’, in Australian Aboriginal Studies. 1. 4-16.

Land, C. (2011) ‘Decolonising activism/deactivating colonialism’, in Action Learning Action Research Journal. 17 (2). 47-68.

Martin, A. (2012) ‘Political participation among the young in Australia: Testing Dalton’s good citizen thesis’, in Australian Journal of Political Science. 47 (2). 211-226.

Pavlidis, A. and Baker, S. (2010) ‘Who participates? Differing perceptions of risk by young people and the impact on strategies for youth participation’, in Youth Studies Australia. 29 (1). 27-34.