From theory to practice: how to apply van Deth’s conceptual map in empirical political participation research

Original Article

Abstract

In a time when digitally networked and unconventional activities challenge our understanding of political participation, van Deth (Acta Polit 49(3):349–367, 2014) has developed a map to consolidate previous attempts at conceptualizing political participation. He suggests a framework operating with four distinct types of political participation that apply across time and context and therefore potentially may lead to higher comparability of results in participation research. However, his map faced criticism for not accounting for digital and other recent participatory activities, and so far, it remains a theoretical endeavor that needs to prove its utility when applied to the diverse set of participatory activities. Our study empirically tests how recently emerging participatory activities, such as crowdfunding or urban gardening, can conceptually be combined with more traditional forms of participation. We use 27 participatory activities from a national survey conducted in Denmark (N = 9125) to test van Deth’s framework. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrates the existence of four distinct types of political participation, based on the sphere, the target, and the intention of activities. Our model furthermore indicates that the distinction between online and offline activities has decreased in relevance and that new and unconventional participation activities can be subsumed under van Deth’s four types of political participation.

Keywords

Political participation Digital networked participation Civic engagement Unconventional participation CFA 

References

  1. Adler, R.P., and J. Goggin. 2005. What Do We Mean By “Civic Engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education 3 (3): 236–253. doi:10.1177/1541344605276792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, A.A., D. Brossard, D.A. Scheufele, M.A. Xenos, and P. Ladwig. 2014. The “Nasty Effect:” Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (3): 373–387. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J.C., and D.W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anduiza, E., E.A. Perea, M.J. Jensen, and L. Jorba. 2012. Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, R., S.J. Blumberg, J.M. Brick, M.P. Couper, M. Courtright, J.M. Dennis, et al. 2010. Research Synthesis: AAPOR Report on Online Panels. Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (4): 711–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakker, T.P., and C.H. de Vreese. 2011. Good News for the Future? Young People, Internet Use, and Political Participation. Communication Research 38 (4): 451–470. doi:10.1177/0093650210381738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banaji, S., and D. Buckingham. 2013. The Civic Web. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, W.L., D.G. Freelon, M.M. Hussain, and C. Wells. 2012. Digital Media and Youth Engagement. In The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication, ed. H. Semetko, and M. Scammell, 127–140. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brady, H.E. 1999. Political Participation. In Measures of Political Attitudes, ed. P.R. Shaver, L.S. Wrightsman, and J.P. Robinson, 737–800. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, T.A. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, H. S. 2011. Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means? First Monday, 16(2). http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3336. Accessed October 28, 2015.
  12. CivicWeb. 2008. Uses of the web for civic participation. http://www.civicweb.eu. Accessed March 17, 2016.
  13. Dalton, R.J. 2008. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation is Reshaping American Politics: How a Younger Generation is Reshaping American Politics. New York: SAGE.Google Scholar
  14. Danmarks Statistik. 2014. It-anvendelse i befolkningen 2014. Kbh. http://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelser/GetPubFile.aspx?id=18686&sid=itbef. Accessed October 28, 2015.
  15. Danmarks Statistik. 2015. Turnout Danish election 2015. http://www.dst.dk/valg/Valg1487635/valgopg/valgopgHL.htm. Accessed October 28, 2015.
  16. Delli Carpini, M. 2004. Mediating Democratic Engagement: The Impact of Communications on Citizens’ Involvement in Political and Civic Life’. In Handbook of Political Communication Research, ed. L.L. Kaid, 395–434. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Downs, A. 1957. An economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. The Journal of Political Economy 65: 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekman, J., and E. Amnå. 2012. Political Participation and Civic Engagement: Towards a New Typology. Human Affairs. doi:10.2478/s13374-012-0024-1.Google Scholar
  19. Ekström, M., T. Olsson, and A. Shehata. 2014. Spaces for Public Orientation? Longitudinal Effects of Internet Use in Adolescence. Information, Communication & Society 17 (2): 168–183. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.862288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ekström, M., and J. Östman. 2013. Information, Interaction, and Creative Production: The Effects of Three Forms of Internet Use on Youth Democratic Engagement. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650213476295.Google Scholar
  21. Foweraker, J. 1995. Theorizing Social Movements. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fox, S. 2014. Is it Time to Update the Definition of Political Participation? Parliamentary Affairs 67 (2): 495–505. doi:10.1093/pa/gss094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson, R., and M. Cantijoch. 2013. Conceptualizing and Measuring Participation in the Age of the Internet: Is Online Political Engagement Really Different to Offline? Journal of Politics 75 (3): 701–716. doi:10.1017/S0022381613000431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gil de Zúñiga, H., N. Jung, and S. Valenzuela. 2012. Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17 (3): 319–336. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gil de Zúñiga, H., L. Molyneux, and P. Zheng. 2014. Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships. Journal of Communication 64 (4): 612–634. doi:10.1111/jcom.12103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. GLES. 2013. Documentation of Questionnaire. http://www.gesis.org/en/elections-home/gles/data-and-documents/documents/. Accessed March 17, 2015.
  27. Hamlin, A., and C. Jennings. 2011. Expressive Political Behaviour: Foundations, Scope and Implications. British Journal of Political Science 41 (03): 645–670. doi:10.1017/S0007123411000020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hargittai, E., and A. Shaw. 2013. Digitally Savvy Citizenship: The Role of Internet Skills and Engagement in Young Adults’ Political Participation around the 2008 Presidential Election. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57 (2): 115–134. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.787079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hay, C. 2007. Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hill, C.R., and J.N. Hughes. 2007. An Examination of the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. School Psychology Quarterly 22 (3): 380–406. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirzalla, F., and L. van Zoonen. 2011. Beyond the Online/Offline Divide How Youth’s Online and Offline Civic Activities Converge. Social Science Computer Review 29 (4): 481–498. doi:10.1177/0894439310385538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hooghe, M., B. Hosch-Dayican, and J.W. van Deth. 2014. Conceptualizing Political Participation. Acta Politica 49 (3): 337–348. doi:10.1057/ap.2014.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hu, L., and P.M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen, J.L. 2013. Political Participation Online: The Replacement and the Mobilisation Hypotheses Revisited. Scandinavian Political Studies 36 (4): 347–364. doi:10.1111/1467-9477.12008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kenny, D.A., and D.A. Kashy. 1992. Analysis of the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 112 (1): 165–172. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linssen, R., H. Schmeets, P. Scheeper, and M. te Grotenhuis. 2014. Trends in Conventional and Unconventional Political Participation in Europe, 1981–2008. In Political Trust and Disenchantment with Politics: International Perspectives, ed. Ch. Eder, I. Mochmann, and M. Quandt, 31–58. Leiden: BRILL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lipsky, M. 1968. Protest as a Political Resource. The American Political Science Review 62 (4): 1144–1158. doi:10.2307/1953909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Micheletti, M., and A.S. McFarland (eds.). 2011. Creative Participation: Responsibility-Taking in the Political World. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Morozov, E. 2009. From Slacktivism to Activism. Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/05/from-slacktivism-to-activism/. Accessed December 2, 2012.
  40. Neel, R., D.T. Kenrick, A.E. White, and S.L. Neuberg. 2015. Individual Differences in Fundamental Social Motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi:10.1037/pspp0000068.Google Scholar
  41. Norris, P. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfeiffer, J., and Garrett, R. K. 2014. Best Practices for Working with Opt-In Online Panels. http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/Opt-in_panel_best_practices.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2015.
  43. Portney, K.E., and L. O’Leary. 2007. Civic and Political Engagement of America’s Youth: A Report from the Tisch National Survey of Civic and Political Engagement of Young People. Medford: Tufts University.Google Scholar
  44. Putnam, R.D. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  45. Ratto, M., and M. Boler. 2014. DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rosol, M. 2010. Public Participation in Post-Fordist Urban Green Space Governance: The Case of Community Gardens in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34 (3): 548–563. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00968.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosseel, Y. 2012. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software 48 (2): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosseel, Y., Oberski, D., Byrnes, J., Vanbrabant, L., Savalei, V., Merkle, E., et al. 2015. Package ‘lavaan’. http://cran.md.tsukuba.ac.jp/web/packages/lavaan/lavaan.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2015.
  49. Schumaker, P.D. 1975. Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands. The Journal of Politics 37 (2): 488–521. doi:10.2307/2129004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stolle, D., M. Hooghe, and M. Micheletti. 2005. Politics in the Supermarket: Political Consumerism as a Form of Political Participation. International Political Science Review 26 (3): 245–269. doi:10.1177/0192512105053784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tarrow, S.G. 1988. Old Movements in New Cycles of Protest: The Career of an Italian Religious Community. In From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research Across Cultures, ed. B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, and S.G. Tarrow, 247–280. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  52. Teorell, J., Torcal, M., and Montero, J. R. 2007. Political Participation: Mapping the Terrain. In J. van Deth et al. (Eds.), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Perspective (Vol. 17, pp. 334–357). London: Routledge. http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/778040.
  53. Theocharis, Y. 2015. The Conceptualization of Digitally Networked Participation. Social Media + Society. doi:10.1177/2056305115610140.Google Scholar
  54. Theocharis, Y., and J.W. van Deth. 2016. The Continuous Expansion of Citizen Participation: A New Taxonomy. European Political Science Review, 1–24. doi:10.1017/S1755773916000230.Google Scholar
  55. van Deth, J.W. 2014. A Conceptual Map of Political Participation. Acta Politica 49 (3): 349–367. doi:10.1057/ap.2014.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Verba, S., and N.H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  57. Visconti, L.M., J.F. Sherry, S. Borghini, and L. Anderson. 2010. Street Art, Sweet Art? Reclaiming the “Public” in Public Place. Journal of Consumer Research 37 (3): 511–529. doi:10.1086/652731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xenos, M., A. Vromen, and B.D. Loader. 2014. The Great Equalizer? Patterns of Social Media Use and Youth Political Engagement in Three Advanced Democracies. Information, Communication & Society 17 (2): 151–167. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.871318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yndigegn, C., and Levinsen, K. 2015. Unge og politisk deltagelse i Danmark Ungdomspolitiske overvejelser på baggrund af MYPLACE projektet [Adolescents and Political Participation in Denmark. Youth Policy Recommendations on the Basis of MYSPACE Project]. http://www.fp7-myplace.eu/documents/policy-forum/National-Policy-Denmark.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2016.
  60. Yu, C.-Y. 2002. Evaluating Cutoff Criteria of Model Fit Indices for Latent Variable Models with Binary and Continuous Outcomes. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
  61. Zukin, C., S. Keeter, M. Andolina, K. Jenkins, and M.X.D. Carpini. 2006. A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations