Abstract
The potential benefits associated with sociopolitical group involvement for participating youth have been well documented in the existing literature. Yet, little is known about what motivates voluntary participation in such programs among youth. The purpose of this study is to explore what environmental factors influence youth civic engagement through participation in sociopolitical groups (e.g., service-learning or community service programs). To do this, several independent variables captured in The Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge Youth Post Election Survey 2012 dataset and the respondents’ reported participation in social or political groups while in high school were observed. Binary and ordinal logistic regression modeling were used to analyze the data. The results indicate that several factors in the home and school environment are related to an increased probability of youth joining a sociopolitical group at school, away from school, or both. These findings suggest that the messages crafted to encourage youth participation in sociopolitical groups should account for the demographic (i.e., racial, gender, and cultural) and experiential (i.e., civics education quality) differences present within the target population.
Keywords
Introduction
Sociopolitical groups can serve a number of functions in youth development depending on their objectives and the way in which they are implemented. Some provide opportunities for participants to enhance their knowledge about political, social, and economic systems (Meirick & Wackman, 2004; for example, politically oriented groups like High School Democrats of America). Some give participants a chance to engage the community in productive ways that are intended to confront an important social issue or meet a critical need (Giddings, 2003; for example, community service and volunteering opportunities). Other sociopolitical groups supplement community service by incorporating one or more specific learning objectives (Giddings, 2003; for example, service-learning programs).
The benefits of participation in sociopolitical groups, including those that involve community service, volunteer experiences, and service-learning programs, can be far reaching and enduring. For instance, it has been found that service-learning leads to adolescents and emerging adults changing their orientation toward their communities (Markus, Howard, & King, 1993), especially regarding how they view poverty (Seider, Rabinowicz, & Gillmor, 2011a). It has also been related to the pursuit of careers in helping professions (Reed, Jernstedt, Hawley, Reber, & DuBois, 2005), increased political involvement (Glanville, 1999; Seider, Gillmor, & Rabinowicz, 2012), increased prosocial decision making (Batchelder & Root, 1994), and commitments to community service and volunteerism that endure well into adulthood (Giles & Eyler, 1994; Lakin & Mahoney, 2006; Lay, 2007; Seider, 2007).
Many schools have adapted their existing curricula to include mandatory community service or service-learning participation. This requirement is often met through sociopolitical group involvement. Such opportunities allow students to explore concepts and aspects of the larger society to which they may not have otherwise been exposed (Meirick & Wackman, 2004).
The positive outcomes associated with sociopolitical group involvement have been observed in youth ranging from middle school to college students. In their exploratory study of required service-learning participation for college students, Giles and Eyler (1994) found that students who participated in a required 13-week service-learning experience developed an increased understanding of those in need and the social systems that create disparities for marginalized groups. Respondents also came away with a heightened sense of social responsibility and an increased commitment to social service. Seider et al. (2012) found similar results when exploring the impact of a service-learning program on college students. Participants showed a significantly increased commitment to civic engagement as well as a positive shift in their expected political voice. The program also contributed to students’ understanding of political issues and their desire to work for social change.
Positive findings have also been found for younger participants. One study looked at the impact of a required community service program on the development of urban sixth graders and found that participating students became more empathetic, were more intent on becoming involved in future community service, and felt a sense of empowerment (Lakin & Mahoney, 2006). The authors of each of the aforementioned studies expressed a need for further research in the area of service-learning/community service and youth development. However, their findings collectively point to the potential of such programs in educating youth about how societal problems are created and maintained by existing social systems.
Conrad and Hedin (1982) have discussed the benefits of experiential education, which they operationalized as “[a part of the school curriculum] where the emphasis is on learning by doing with association reflection” (p. 58). They found that students stand to be positively affected in their psychological, social, and intellectual development by participation in such curricula. Knowing that sociopolitical group involvement can positively influence adolescents’ development, it would be prudent for school administrators to create environments that support their students becoming part of a sociopolitical group while they are still in high school (Camino & Zeldin, 2002; Conrad & Hedin, 1982). Doing so would help to fulfill the mission of many schools across the United States, in that they are arguably one of the main institutions responsible for the political socialization of their students (Flanagan, Bowes, Jonsson, Csapo, & Sheblanova, 1998; Hess & Torney, 1967; Lay, 2007). Unfortunately, little research exists on the most effective ways to encourage and/or increase the voluntary involvement of adolescents in sociopolitical groups (Ballard, 2014). As a result, the specific factors that contribute to youth participation in such groups remain unclear.
The purpose of this article is to add to the discourse related to civic education by exploring what environmental factors influence youth civic engagement through participation in sociopolitical groups (e.g., service-learning programs or community service opportunities).
Literature Review
Demographic Factors
Understanding how individual and family demographics might be related to youth participation in sociopolitical groups may be important in that it would allow administrators and program directors to effectively promote participation by crafting messages that speak directly to their intended audience. For instance, gender differences in community service participation have been noted in the literature, with females being generally more inclined to be involved in community service than males (Flanagan et al., 1998; Miller, 1994).
Differences have also been observed in racial groups regarding type of community engagement and level of civic understanding (Frisco, Muller, & Dodson, 2004). Kawashima-Ginsberg and Levine (2014) found that among older adolescents and emerging adults, “African Americans were more electorally engaged and vote in an informed way . . . but less likely to have high levels of political knowledge” (p. 681). This finding speaks to racial differences in civic engagement and civic knowledge.
Such racial differences are related to socioeconomic status (SES) in that minorities living in poverty are often targeted by organizations that promote political action among marginalized groups (Kawashima-Ginsberg & Levine, 2014). Levinson (2007) had illuminated the negative consequences associated with the current civic achievement gap between poor and minority youth and their White, wealthier peers. This gap in civic knowledge is often reflected in a fatalistic view of political systems, a lack of governmental/institutional trust, and an increased vulnerability to disenfranchisement. She concluded that these [a]ttitudes matter . . . because they constitute the motivational precondition for civic engagement . . . [I]f one doesn’t believe that civic and political participation in general can make a difference . . . then one is not going to participate. (Levinson, 2007, p. 9)
Morimoto and Friedland (2013) speculated that SES is tied to disparities in civic engagement because youth with fewer resources (more likely to be minority students) hold a different view of achievement and social capital. The authors connected this perspective to a reduced likelihood of becoming involved in their communities through civic engagement. Similarly, Ballard (2014) found that student motivation and barriers to students’ civic engagement varied depending on the amount of resources available to their school (i.e., highly resourced vs. lower resourced schools). Given that schools are often reflective of the communities they serve, mindfulness of these demographic factors should not be overlooked when considering the viability of instituting sociopolitical programs that can be used to enhance or supplement existing curricula.
Family Political Socialization
Family engagement and encouragement can influence youth participation in sociopolitical groups. Dill (2009) had noted that “[p]arents play a key role in creating and sustaining the social capital networks that have normative power for civic engagement later in life” (p. 1283). Kawashima-Ginsberg and Levine (2014) illustrated this point when they found that having parents who encourage their children to voice their opinions and discuss politics was predictive of electoral engagement, informed voting, and political knowledge in young adults.
Adolescent civic and political attitudes have also been found to be influenced by their parents’ civic engagement and political involvement (Oosterhoff, Metzger, & Babskie, 2015; Zaff, Malanchuk, & Eccles, 2008). Warren and Wicks (2011) had provided evidence that parents’ political and civic engagement was a strong predictor of teen’s political and civic engagement. Seider (2007) found that having service-oriented parents and possessing a strong religious faith were prominent among factors contributing to the likelihood of adolescents and emerging adults developing a commitment to community service.
There is little research that draws a direct connection between parents’ religious activity and the civic engagement of their children. However, research has shown that there is a link between the religiosity of parents and the religiosity of their children (Barton, Snider, Vazsonyi, & Cox, 2014; Flor & Knapp, 2001; Kim-Spoon, Longo, & McCullough, 2012). And religious affiliation has been found to influence civic engagement and attitudes in adolescents and emerging adults (Seider, 2007). Ludden (2011) found that students who reported higher rates of religious service attendance and religious youth group participation were more likely to be involved in extracurricular activities and community service. Zaff et al. (2008) also found that participation in religious activities in early adolescence predicted civic engagement in early adulthood.
High School Democratic Environment
Students’ willingness to participate in sociopolitical groups may be a function of how much they are encouraged to participate in discussions related to political and societal issues while at school. Currently, there is little research that explores this connection. Schools that incorporate student feedback into decision making, encourage students to share and discuss differing opinions, and thereby engender a sense of community among their students may likely influence those students’ desires to engage communities outside of their school in some way. Flanagan et al. (1998) noted that American students with classroom experiences where they were encouraged to express their opinions were associated with the importance they attached to public interests. These findings lend themselves to the notion that the extent to which students are given space to have their voices heard and their opinions challenged may act as an impetus for them to become more involved in their communities through community service, volunteerism, or service-learning (Evans, 2007).
Racial Composition of High School
The racial composition of a school may also contribute to its’ democratic climate in that students who are in the majority may feel more enabled to voice their opinions relative to students who are in the minority. This may be especially true for students speaking from a position of privilege (Otoya-Knapp, 2004). Thus, it is not surprising that participation diminishes significantly within groups that are racially mixed (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2000). Consequently, “racially pluralistic schools [i.e., schools with no true majority] can be particularly challenging to the civic learning and development [of adolescents]” (Kawashima-Ginsberg & Levine, 2014, p. 408) due to students’ uncertainty of what topics can be discussed “safely” among their diverse peers.
Quality of High School Civic Education
The quality of civic education provided across the nation varies depending on the educational jurisdiction (Kawashima-Ginsberg & Levine, 2014). In fact, some have deemed the lack of consistency across classrooms, in addition to the absence of civics content in some curricula, as being problematic (Kahne & Westheimer, 2003). Bachner (2011) noted that formal civic education is a method of increasing civic engagement and political participation that has not received enough attention from society’s stakeholders. Kahne and Westheimer (2003) have argued that if democracy is to thrive, schools must take more responsibility for providing civic education to America’s youth so that they can enter adulthood informed and prepared to join the political discourse related to how communities and social institutions function.
Kiousis and McDevitt (2008) demonstrated this when they observed how agenda setting in a classroom, a form of political socialization, influenced voter turnout among adolescents. They found that participants who engaged in political discussions at school in addition to further issues-driven conversations with parents at home led to higher voter turnout within that group upon reaching voting age. Kawashima-Ginsberg and Levine (2014) found that participating in some type of extracurricular group and receiving an interactive, high-quality civic education in high school increased informed political participation among emerging adults.
Research Question
The research question that this study seeks to answer is as follows:
Are specific components of students’ home and school environments related to their voluntary participation in sociopolitical groups inside and outside of school?
To accomplish this, students’ demographic characteristics, their parent’s civic engagement, their high school environments, and the influence these factors have on sociopolitical group participation will be explored.
Method
Data Source and Sample
The data for this study are taken from The Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge Youth Post Election Survey 2012 dataset (Levine, 2014). The study was conducted over a 6-week period, beginning one day following the 2012 presidential election in the United States (Levine, 2014). The sample was obtained through random digit dialing conducted by Universal Survey, Inc. Two thirds of the respondents were drawn from cell-phone numbers and the remainder from landline numbers. There was an oversample of African American and Latino/Hispanic respondents (Levine, 2014). A total of 4,483 participants aged 18 to 24 were surveyed about their political participation and their educational experiences. Forty-nine percent of the respondents were male (n = 2,218). Sixty-one percent of the respondents were White (n = 2,633), 21% were Black (n = 927), 3% were Asian (n = 148), and 14% identified as “Other” (n = 622). In addition, 19% of the respondents were identified as Latino/Hispanic (n = 849).
Measures
Dependent variables
Sociopolitical group participation in school
This is a dichotomous variable associated with an item that asked participants if they participated in any groups concerned with social or political issues at their high school.
Sociopolitical group participation out of school
This is a dichotomous variable associated with an item that asked participants if they participated in any groups concerned with social or political issues outside of their high school.
Sociopolitical group participation in and out of school
This variable was created to indicate which respondents participated in sociopolitical groups both while at school and away from school. Because respondents could have joined a sociopolitical group in high school and/or outside of high school, ordinal logistic regression was used to model the “degree” or “level” of involvement in sociopolitical group membership. Concretely, the ordinal dependent variable used in that particular analysis was operationalized by coding participants as having joined no groups (“0”), joined one “type of group” (i.e., a sociopolitical group in school or outside of school; “1”), or joining a sociopolitical group in both contexts (“2”).
Independent variables
Demographic factors
To get a sense of participants’ cultural and socioeconomic background, indicators of parental SES, gender, and race/ethnicity were assessed. Participants self-reported their gender as male or female. Participants’ race was reported as Black, White, Asian, or “Other.” They also reported whether or not they were Latino/Hispanic.
A scale was created to assess parental SES of participants while they were in high school. Respondents answered three questions related to the number of books in the home, the educational attainment of their mother or a female caregiver who raised them, and the number of newspapers delivered to their home per week (Kawashima-Ginsberg & Levine, 2014). The reliability of the scale was relatively low (Cronbach’s α = .42).
Family political socialization
Participants reported the frequency of their parents’ religious activity and community involvement through volunteerism in their responses to the following items: “your parents were active in a religious congregation” and “your parents did volunteer work in the community.” Participants also reported how much their parents encouraged their involvement in political discussions at home in their response to the following item: “your parents wanted to hear your opinions about current events and politics, even if they differed from their own.” Possible responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time). The resulting three-item scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .57.
High school democratic environment
Participants responded to items related to their school’s democratic environment by reporting how much of a voice they felt they had while in high school. The scale assessing student voice consisted of four items: “Students had a say in how the high school was run”; “in general, students could disagree with teachers, if they were respectful”; “in general, students were encouraged to express opinions”; and “students felt like they were part of a community where people cared about each other.” Possible responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The resulting scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .63.
Racial composition of high school
Participants were asked about the demography of their high school. An aspect of the school environment regarding the racial makeup of the school was assessed. Participants were asked to describe their high school’s racial composition as (a) mostly or all White students, (b) mostly or all Black students, (c) mostly or all Latino/Hispanic students, (d) mostly students of color but mixed, (e) all racial groups divided evenly, or (f) Other.
Civic education quality in high school
Participants were asked if they recalled taking any classes in high school related to civics, government, politics, or social issues. If they had taken such a course, the quality of that experience was assessed through six questions that asked about the level of student involvement in class discussion, material covered during the class, and what students got out of their participation in that class. Participants were asked, “In that course, did you spend much time discussing current events?” “Did teachers encourage in that class to discuss political and social issues in which people have different opinions?” “Did you do research on social, political, or community issues for that class?” “Did you do a project in the community for that class?” “In that class, were you required to keep up with politics or government, either by reading the newspaper, watching TV, or going onto the internet, or not?” and “Would you say that knowledge that you got from that class is useful in your current, everyday life?” All variables related to this scale were dichotomous with yes/no responses. The resulting scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .67. The distribution of each variable can be seen in Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics.
Note. SES = socioeconomic status.
Data Collection
Participants were contacted by telephone and asked to participate in an interview consisting of approximately 75 questions and lasted about 18 min (Levine, 2014).
Data Analysis
Binary and ordinal logistic regression modeling was used to analyze the data depending on whether the dependent variable was dichotomous or ordinal. The substantive models were constructed to coincide with participants’ experiences over their life course starting in early childhood through their adolescence. Accordingly, demographic information (i.e., parental SES, gender, and race/ethnicity) was entered first. Family political socialization was then added in Model 2 because respondents were likely to be influenced by their families well before they began high school. This was followed by high school democratic environment and school racial composition in Model 3. The composite variable of high school civic education quality was then added in Model 4. This variable was added last because it required participants to reflect on their completed high school experience. All analyses were performed using STATA software.
Results
Joining a Sociopolitical Group in School
As can be seen in Table 1, parental SES, race, gender, and high school civics education quality were found to be statistically significant predictors of joining a sociopolitical group in high school. Parental SES was found to be a statistically significant predictor across all four models. Moreover, the magnitude of its influence remained essentially undiminished across the four models indicating that its effect is largely direct rather than mediated by the variables that appear subsequent to it in Models 2 and 3. More specifically, and after accounting for all of the other independent variables, in Model 4 each unit increase in parental SES is associated with a 38% increase in the predicted odds of joining a sociopolitical group in high school.
Being female is associated with an increased likelihood of joining a sociopolitical group at school in Models 1 and 2, but this effect was no longer present after high school democratic climate and school racial composition were introduced into the analysis in Model 3. After all independent variables were entered in Model 4, Black participants were found to be 76% more likely to join a sociopolitical group in school compared with their White peers. This effect persisted undiminished across all four models suggesting that the effect of being Black as opposed to White is essentially unmediated.
Family political socialization did not significantly factor into the likelihood of participating in sociopolitical programs in school. High school democratic climate appeared to be marginally influential, but that influence was no longer significant after high school civics education quality was considered. Students who received a higher quality civics education were slightly more inclined to join a sociopolitical organization at their school.
Joining a Sociopolitical Group Outside of School
As seen in Table 2, parental SES was found to be influential in increasing the likelihood of joining a sociopolitical group outside of school in the first two models, but this variable was no longer significant after high school democratic climate and school racial composition were added to the analysis in Model 3. Race also appeared to have a limited influence on participating in sociopolitical groups outside of school. The odds of Asian youth joining a sociopolitical group outside of school were initially found to be 73% lower than their White peers in Model 2, but that effect was confounded or mediated in some way once high school democratic climate and school racial composition were added to the analysis in Model 3. Respondents who identified their race as “other” were 73% less likely to have joined a sociopolitical group outside of school compared with White respondents. This effect was present when controlling for high school democratic climate, school racial composition, and high school civics education quality.
Joining a Sociopolitical Group in High School.
Note. Exponentiated coefficients: p values in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Higher levels of family political socialization were found to increase the likelihood of participants having joined a sociopolitical group outside of their high school by 65% in Model 3, but this effect was no longer significant after considering high school civics education quality. Civics education quality in high school was found to be marginally influential in increasing the likelihood of joining a sociopolitical group outside of high school (Table 3).
Joining a Sociopolitical Group Outside of High School.
Note. Exponentiated coefficients: p values in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Joining Sociopolitical Groups Inside and Outside of School
The ordinal logistic regression model can be “decomposed” into a series of contrasts or comparisons between the categories that comprise the ordinal dependent variable. In the context of the current model, two such contrasts or comparisons are modeled. The first of these involves predicting having joined a sociopolitical group in one context or the other (“1”) or both (“2”) as compared with not having joined a sociopolitical group at all (“0”). The second contrast or comparison involves predicting having joined a sociopolitical group in both contexts (“2”) as compared with not having joined a sociopolitical group at all (“0”) or having joined in one context or the other (“1”). 1
Joining one or both types of groups versus joining no groups
Table 4 presents data showing the influence of race and civics education quality on students joining some type of sociopolitical group. Specifically, the odds of Black students having joined one or both types of sociopolitical groups were 182% higher than White respondents after accounting for all other independent variables. Receiving a better quality high school civic education was also somewhat influential in raising the likelihood of respondents participating in some type of sociopolitical group as opposed to joining no groups or only one type of group. 2
Joining a Sociopolitical Group In and Outside of High School (Joining One or Both Types of Groups vs. Joining No Group).
Note. Exponentiated coefficients: p values in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Joining both types of groups versus joining one type of group or no groups
Table 5 indicates that parental SES and high school civics education quality play some role in increasing the likelihood of students having participated in both types of sociopolitical groups as opposed to one type of group or no groups. In fact, participants reporting higher parental SES were nearly 3 times more likely to be in both types of sociopolitical groups when compared with their less affluent peers. This effect was highly significant across all four models. In addition, respondents who received a better quality high school civics education were 28% more likely to join both types of sociopolitical groups. Race and family political socialization were influential to an extent, but their influence was confounded or mediated in some way once high school democratic climate and school racial composition were added to the analysis.
Joining a Sociopolitical Group In and Outside of High School (Joining Both Types of Groups Versus Joining One or No Group).
Note. Exponentiated coefficients: p values in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Discussion
The potential benefits associated with sociopolitical group involvement for participating youth have been well documented in the existing literature. Yet, little is known about what motivates voluntary participation in such programs among youth. In addition, the specific factors that contribute to youth joining those groups are not clearly delineated. This is important if educators and school administrators aim to increase youth participation in various types of sociopolitical groups. The purpose of this article is to explore whether selected environmental factors influence an increased likelihood of youth participation in sociopolitical groups (e.g., service-learning or community service programs). To do this, several independent variables captured in a secondary dataset and their relationship to participants’ voluntary participation in sociopolitical groups while in high school were studied. Findings indicate that several factors in the home and school environments of the participants, and some of the respondents’ demographic characteristics, were indeed related to an increased probability of joining a sociopolitical group at school, away from school, or both.
In the analyses conducted, parental SES was found to be influential in youth joining sociopolitical groups in school and increasing the likelihood of youth joining organizations both in and out of school. However, the influence of this variable appears to be confounded in the other two observed contexts (i.e., joining a sociopolitical group out of school and joining one or both types of groups as opposed to no groups at all). This finding is understandable considering that youth reared by parents with financial and social resources are better positioned to become involved in some form of civic engagement (Flanagan, Levine, & Settersten, 2009). It is also worth mentioning that “recruitment into most forms of civic and political action occurs via organizational contexts (e.g., work or education settings) and this selects for the socially advantaged and socially adept” (Flanagan & Bundick, 2011, p. 20). One possible reason this variable was not as influential in respondents joining sociopolitical groups outside of schools could be related to the likelihood that students from more well-off families tend to graduate from schools that have more resources, including opportunities for various types of civic engagement and sociopolitical group involvement at school.
Being female was only marginally influential in increasing the likelihood of joining a sociopolitical group in school, but not in any of the other observed contexts. Though gender was found to be more influential on sociopolitical group participation in other studies (Hart, Atkins, & Ford, 1998; Miller, 1994; Seider, Rabinowicz, & Gillmor, 2011b), it did not appear to be as salient in any of the analyses conducted in this study. This finding is somewhat peculiar because gender differences in community service and volunteerism have been found to extend from adolescence well into adulthood (Independent Sector, 2001; White, 2006). One possible explanation for this finding is that a number of respondents may have attended schools where community service or service-learning was a requirement for graduation. Another possibility is that respondents in this study may have desired to attend colleges or universities that favored applicants who have community service experience or some type of sociopolitical group participation (Morimoto & Friedland, 2013), which could have led to the more equitable gender distribution found in this study.
Of all races and ethnicities observed in this study, Black respondents were the most likely to be involved in some type of sociopolitical group when compared with their White peers. Black respondents were much more likely to join a sociopolitical group in school. They were also more likely to join one or both types of sociopolitical groups as opposed to joining no group at all. The likelihood of Black respondents having joined both types of sociopolitical group as opposed to joining one or neither type of group was marginal after considering all independent variables. Taken together, these findings lend support to an inference made by Zaff et al. (2008) after they observed “ethnic socialization [to be] a substantive predictor of civic behaviors for African American youth” (p. 48).
Family political socialization was found to have a limited influence on youth joining some type of sociopolitical group across two of the four observed contexts. When observing participants who joined a sociopolitical group out of school and those who joined both types of groups as opposed to joining one or neither type of sociopolitical group, this particular variable lost its influence once other independent variables were considered. This finding is slightly out of line with previous research that suggests a much stronger relationship between family influence and civic engagement in adolescents. For instance, Dill (2009) concluded that parents undoubtedly played a key role in the civic participation of their children. Flanagan et al. (1998) found that one of the strongest and most consistent correlates of civic commitments among males and females observed across seven countries was a family ethic of social responsibility. It is not clear why the influence of family political socialization was limited in this study. One potential explanation could be related to the tendency for adolescents to pull away from their families as they begin to form their own identities, which often involves calling into question the beliefs and ideologies of their parents.
High school democratic climate and racial composition were not found to be influential in affecting the likelihood of respondents having participated in some type of sociopolitical group. Yet high school civics quality was found to be moderately influential in increasing the likelihood of respondents having participated in some type of sociopolitical group across all four observed contexts. The latter finding is in line with the existing literature in which the influence of civic education on civic engagement in youth is noted (Dallago, Cristini, Perkins, Nation, & Santinello, 2010; Dill, 2009; Kahne & Westheimer, 2003; Kawashima-Ginsberg & Levine, 2014). Not only has the role of civic education been discussed within the context of developing a sense of citizenship within youth, but the consequences of not receiving a quality civics education have also been explicated (Levinson, 2007).
Implications
The results of this study have implications for educators and youth workers and support the claim that schools play an important role in the creation of civic-minded individuals. The findings suggest that it is important to be mindful of students’ demographic background because that will dictate the strength of the messages that youth receive related to issues of empowerment and civic engagement. Youth workers and school personnel can be very impactful in this regard in that they are instrumental in the development and implementation of curricula in their respective institutions. Schools can provide a civic education that encourages students to become more involved in their communities by teaching them about the world around them and how they can affect it through civic engagement. Schools can also facilitate adolescent civic engagement by providing opportunities for them to participate in sociopolitical groups. Considering how beneficial sociopolitical group participation can be for youth, knowing which specific factors are related to their involvement would be helpful in attracting an increased number of youth. This would be especially useful in attracting youth who would benefit most from being involved (e.g., minority and marginalized youth), but face barriers to becoming involved (Cemalcilar, 2009).
Limitations
This study has some limitations that should be considered. First, relying on secondary data to explore the observed variables limited the ability to conceptualize the constructs for the purposes of this study. The ways in which some of the constructs were measured at times appeared vague. This suggests that some items may be open to interpretation by the investigators as well as participants. Brown and Smart (2007) warned that assessing racial differences in civic participation could be misleading if the observed constructs are not adequately operationalized. For example, it is never explicitly stated what constitutes a social or political group. The lack of clarity related to this variable may have called to mind certain types of groups for some, whereas others may have disregarded participation in similar groups that were, in fact, relevant to the inquiry.
Second, the questionnaire developed to collect the data was an omnibus survey designed to capture a wide range of information from participants. One of the drawbacks of that approach is that the scales created by the original researchers to operationalize the variables observed in this study were not optimal. It is well known that Cronbach’s alpha is sensitive both to the content of the items and to the number of items in any given scale. As a result, scales containing ambiguous items, or items that were not originally conceptualized to fit into measures of higher order constructs, as well as scales containing only a few items, will generally have lower reliabilities. The scales created for the purposes of this study illustrate these issues in that the scales with the fewest items (i.e., parental SES and family political socialization) were the least reliable, whereas the scale with the most items (i.e., quality of high school civic education) was the most reliable. Nonetheless, the scales used for this study were serviceable given the nature of the questionnaire and the amount of information sought by the original researchers.
A more comprehensive description of the sample such as school resources, type of school (e.g., private or public) and geographic regions of the sample may have enhanced the understanding of the study and its implications. The data utilized in this study did not indicate how well-resourced the schools attended by the participants were. Nor was the influence of the type of school (e.g., private vs. public) on youth civic education and engagement assessed. However, Dill (2009) provided evidence that even though type of school (e.g., private school) affects youth civic participation, indicators of social capital and educational environments that promote engagement mediate this effect. Family political socialization, high school democratic climate, and civic education quality were assessed in this study and, therefore, provide some insight as to how type of school may affect youth engagement. Regarding regional influences, Stuteville and Johnson (2016) observed regional trends in K-12 civic education and found that content across the country was fairly consistent. Incidentally, they did observe some regional differences in ideology, but those differences were relatively small.
These limitations are compounded by the fact that the data were collected retrospectively through self-report. Respondents may have had a very different view of their high school experience in retrospect. Life experiences following high school could have rendered their recollection more positive or negative, especially regarding the quality of their civics education. In addition, respondents may have forgotten certain aspects of their high school experience due to the amount of time that had passed since they graduated.
Future Research
Further research is needed to resolve the discrepancies between the results of this study and the current literature. More specifically, the observed minimal influences of gender and family political socialization on sociopolitical group involvement, which is a form of civic engagement, are not aligned with the current literature. Although the findings of this study showing a relationship between race and sociopolitical group participation are aligned with other studies, more research is needed to determine how civic behaviors (e.g., joining sociopolitical groups) are transmitted to youth through their interpersonal relationships (Zaff et al., 2008), which are heavily affected by race and ethnicity. And more needs to be done if we are to understand whether more complex relationships exist between high school democratic climate and sociopolitical group involvement. This variable was found to have no significant influence on participants’ sociopolitical group involvement in this study despite the literature that supports the possibility that these variables might be important.
Additional research is also necessary to more fully understand the plethora of variables that can potentially influence youth’s attraction to sociopolitical groups. Stronger measures of the variables observed in this study, along with additional, clearly operationalized constructs might illuminate the many factors that contribute to sociopolitical group participation while in high school. Future research might consider using qualitative methods to elucidate what motivates student involvement in sociopolitical groups and what mechanisms would be most effective in increasing participation among various subgroups within student populations.
Furthermore, future studies would benefit from collecting information from students as they matriculate through school rather than retrospectively. Collecting data “in real time” would eliminate biased reporting that may come with the passage of time. Also, collecting data from both teachers and parents in the investigation could help shed light on what specific home and school environmental factors contribute to sociopolitical group participation in youth. Doing so would add to our understanding of this important phenomenon and triangulate what students report.
Finally, future research should attempt to resolve the measurement issues present in the study. Questionnaire items should be more precisely crafted to the constructs directly under consideration, and more items should be incorporated into the measures that are used, so that the reliability of the scales used to measure the constructs of interest is enhanced.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant from the Faculty Research and Development Fund, Fordham University, Graduate School of Social Service.