公民教育是政治参与不平等的解药?英国中学教育的新证据。

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE British Politics Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4
James Weinberg
{"title":"公民教育是政治参与不平等的解药?英国中学教育的新证据。","authors":"James Weinberg","doi":"10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Entrenched inequalities in political participation have made the questions of who participates and when, why, or how some of the most frequently asked and researched in political science. Building on existing comparative research, this article focuses on civic education in English secondary schools and, in particular, the ability of related interventions to close participation gaps normally seen by sex, ethnicity and socio-economic status. Analysing original survey data collected from more than 350 students in 17 maintained secondary schools located in six regions of England, this article evaluates the impact of four types of civic education (curricula lessons; open classroom climate; participatory activities; and political contact) on three participatory outcomes (expressive political behaviours; voting intentions; and anticipated high-intensity participation). Descriptive and inferential analyses suggest (a) cumulative quantities of civic education are positively associated with youth political participation; (b) open classroom climate may close known inequalities in young people's expressive and electoral participation whilst political contact with politicians and political institutions may widen those inequalities; and (c) civic education may currently accelerate inequalities in young people's political ambition. These findings raise important and immediate challenges for policy-makers who are concerned with improving young people's civic engagement in England and elsewhere.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4.</p>","PeriodicalId":46067,"journal":{"name":"British Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253685/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Civic education as an antidote to inequalities in political participation? New evidence from English secondary education.\",\"authors\":\"James Weinberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Entrenched inequalities in political participation have made the questions of who participates and when, why, or how some of the most frequently asked and researched in political science. Building on existing comparative research, this article focuses on civic education in English secondary schools and, in particular, the ability of related interventions to close participation gaps normally seen by sex, ethnicity and socio-economic status. Analysing original survey data collected from more than 350 students in 17 maintained secondary schools located in six regions of England, this article evaluates the impact of four types of civic education (curricula lessons; open classroom climate; participatory activities; and political contact) on three participatory outcomes (expressive political behaviours; voting intentions; and anticipated high-intensity participation). Descriptive and inferential analyses suggest (a) cumulative quantities of civic education are positively associated with youth political participation; (b) open classroom climate may close known inequalities in young people's expressive and electoral participation whilst political contact with politicians and political institutions may widen those inequalities; and (c) civic education may currently accelerate inequalities in young people's political ambition. These findings raise important and immediate challenges for policy-makers who are concerned with improving young people's civic engagement in England and elsewhere.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253685/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政治参与中根深蒂固的不平等现象,使得 "谁参与、何时参与、为什么参与或如何参与 "成为政治科学中最常被问及和研究的问题。在现有比较研究的基础上,本文重点关注英国中学的公民教育,尤其是相关干预措施缩小通常因性别、种族和社会经济地位而出现的参与差距的能力。本文分析了从英格兰六个地区的 17 所公立中学的 350 多名学生收集到的原始调查数据,评估了四种类型的公民教育(课程、开放的课堂氛围、参与性活动和政治接触)对三种参与结果(表达性政治行为、投票意向和预期的高强度参与)的影响。描述性和推论性分析表明:(a) 公民教育的累积量与青年的政治参与呈正相关;(b) 开放式课堂氛围可能会缩小青年在表达性参与和选举参与方面已知的不平等,而与政治家和政治机构的政治接触则可能会扩大这些不平等;(c) 公民教育目前可能会加速青年在政治抱负方面的不平等。这些研究结果为英格兰和其他地区关注提高年轻人公民参与度的政策制定者提出了重要而紧迫的挑战:在线版本包含补充材料,可查阅 10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Civic education as an antidote to inequalities in political participation? New evidence from English secondary education.

Entrenched inequalities in political participation have made the questions of who participates and when, why, or how some of the most frequently asked and researched in political science. Building on existing comparative research, this article focuses on civic education in English secondary schools and, in particular, the ability of related interventions to close participation gaps normally seen by sex, ethnicity and socio-economic status. Analysing original survey data collected from more than 350 students in 17 maintained secondary schools located in six regions of England, this article evaluates the impact of four types of civic education (curricula lessons; open classroom climate; participatory activities; and political contact) on three participatory outcomes (expressive political behaviours; voting intentions; and anticipated high-intensity participation). Descriptive and inferential analyses suggest (a) cumulative quantities of civic education are positively associated with youth political participation; (b) open classroom climate may close known inequalities in young people's expressive and electoral participation whilst political contact with politicians and political institutions may widen those inequalities; and (c) civic education may currently accelerate inequalities in young people's political ambition. These findings raise important and immediate challenges for policy-makers who are concerned with improving young people's civic engagement in England and elsewhere.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41293-021-00186-4.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Politics
British Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: British Politics offers the only forum explicitly designed to promote research in British political studies, and seeks to provide a counterweight to the growing fragmentation of this field during recent years. To this end, the journal aims to promote a more holistic understanding of British politics by encouraging a closer integration between theoretical and empirical research, between historical and contemporary analyses, and by fostering a conception of British politics as a broad and multi-disciplinary field of study. This incorporates a range of sub-fields, including psephology, policy analysis, regional studies, comparative politics, institutional analysis, political theory, political economy, historical analysis, cultural studies and social policy. While recognising the validity and the importance of research into specific aspects of British politics, the journal takes it to be a guiding principle that such research is more useful, and indeed meaningful, if it is related to the field of British politics in a broader and fuller sense. The scope of the journal will therefore be broad, incorporating a range of research papers and review articles from all theoretical perspectives, and on all aspects of British politics, including policy developments, institutional change and political behaviour. Priority will, however, be given to contributions which link contemporary developments in British politics to theoretical and/or historical analyses. The aim is as much to encourage the development of empirical research that is theoretically rigorous and informed, as it is to encourage the empirical application of theoretical work (or at least to encourage theorists to explicitly signify how their work could be applied in an empirical manner).
期刊最新文献
The OBR and the unintended economic consequences of Mr Osborne Government decision-making and the site of power in New Labour’s ‘levelling up’: reconsidering economic regionalism A policy framework of convenience: on Covid-19 and the strategic use of resilience in the UK ‘Mr Rules’: Keir Starmer and the juridification of politics The Downing Street Chief-of-Staff: a case study in political management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1