does gender matter for youth participation? naciye gizem danışan, tülin Şener, figen Çok,...

DOES GENDER MATTER FOR YOUTH

PARTICIPATION?

Naciye Gizem Danışan, Tülin Şener, Figen Çok, University of Ankara, Turkey

Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16th-17th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

The equal access to participation resources by all segments of society is extremely important in order to endure and equalize the participation of youth, ethnicities and women into decision making processes!!

Being inactive might risk to be ignored when policies are made. So women’s participation is important to better communicate the preferences and needs of women to public officials ◦ not only because of the impact on policy but also of

bringing women recognition as full members of community, education about social, political world and contacts that are useful in other social pursuits (Burns N. et. al. 2001, 6).

PIDOP-Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation

FACILITATORS OF PARTICIPATIONWhat factors facilitating or inhibiting the equal civic and political participation of women and youth are necessary ??

Institutional factors: electoral or legal systemsContextual factors: cultural and socio-economic external resources Individual factors: willingness or motivation showed

◦ Are the conditions and policies empowering women for participation (Iwanaga K. 2008)

◦ In the absence of any facilitator, women’s advancement in politics may not take place or become uneven


INHIBITING FACTORS:INHIBITING FACTORS: Time limits for women due to extra household

workload with kids and duties The absorbed mental energy due to raising toddlers Patriarchal structure of in-family relations with

husband Socio-economic limitations Discrimination in society among women’s

participation The childhood and adult socialization which implies

the importance of a one’s environment in relation to politics

These are the inhibiting factors explains why women continue to lag behind men in political activity (Burns N. et. al. 2001)


Historical PerspectiveHistorical PerspectiveJust after the Turkish war of indipendence

(1919-1922) the population includeed 7 million women and 5 million men in Turkey where almost 90% of the population was not lettered.

During the first reforms there were successful empowering women role-models such as

◦ Sabiha Gökçen (1913-2001) who is the first women war pilot in the world

◦ Afet İnan (1908-1985) the Turkish historian and sociology professor PIDOP-Processes Influencing

Democratic Ownership and Participation

The young Turkish Republic that Atatrük engendered, had the supporting elements for women participation education and employment.

A series of reforms followed by Atatürk who is the founder of Republic of Turkey, including :

◦ Clothing reforms, educational rights of women and the improvements on civil code.

◦ Turkish women had the electoral rights due to the Atatürk’s reforms In 1934 which is eralier than many of the developed European countries today

Paradoxal Gender Gap in Paradoxal Gender Gap in TurkeyTurkey

In today’s Turkey, there are also efforst the erode the gender gap especially in educaton.

Turkish women shows up taking active part in key-positions in many institutions such as:◦ The head of Turkish Industrialists' and

Businessmen's Association is a women (Ümit Boyner)

◦ The president of Turkey was a women (Tansu Çiller) in1993-1996

◦ The number of women acaddemicians is higher than men in Turkey

On the contrary, in bureaucracy and politics the amount of women is much less than men in Turkey. PIDOP-Processes Influencing


AIMAIM The aim of this paper is to investigate:

The gender differences among different types of civic/political participation and the possible explanatory factors for the association between gender and the level of civic/political participation.

Does being from an ethnic minority or being young matter for civic/political participation in a gendered manner in Turkey?

Whether gender appears as a gap on the types and level of civic/political participation in Turkey?PIDOP-Processes Influencing


Participants and Participants and Method Method Results arise from the data gathered for the Process Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) Project within the scope of Work Package 6 by Turkey team.

732 young participants aged between 16 and 26 and having diverse ethnic backgrounds from Bulgarian resettlers, Roma and Turkish origin took part in the study.


Participants and Method Participants and Method In the process of composing the groups, the

research team attempted to recruit participants having different characteristics in terms of their socio-economic and educational statuses.

Several associations and organizations set up by Bulgarian Turks and the Roma people and institutional actors such as the directors of several non-governmental organizations working on minority issues were collaborated with the data collection process.


Participants and Method Participants and Method The results from the ‘PIDOP Questionnaire’ includingdirect participation, participation on the net and civic engagement scales with 15 items,

‘Participation and Involvement in Civic/political Organizations Questionnaire with 8 items’ and

‘Quality of Participation Questionnaire’ including action and reflection scales with 8 items are presented.

Results are considered according to gender and age differences among a group of participants divided into two categories as 16 to 19 years old and 20 to 26 years old.

AnalyzesAnalyzes In this study, significant associations between :

◦ the three different types of participation (in terms of direct participation, participation on the net, civic engagement),

◦ quality of participation (in terms of action, reflection scales) and

◦ gender and age represented.

◦Also group of civic/political organizations and the frequency of participating in these organizations among the study groups represented.

Significant Multivariate Effects of Participation and Quality of Participation by Gender


Male FemaleF (1, 728) = 1.918, p< 1.25

Mean Mean

Direct Participation

69,288 52,144

Participation On Net

71,874 54,864

Civic Engagement 78,18 67,742

F (1, 577) = 2.609, p< .07Action 9,051 8,852Reflection 11,721 12,367

Significant Multivariate Effects of Participation and Quality of Participation by Age


16-19 years old 20-26 years old

F (1, 728) = 3000, p< .03*

Mean Mean

Direct Participation 72,399 51,741

Participation On Net 77,347 52,579

Civic Engagement 88,093 61,168

F (1, 577) = 5.965, p< .003*

Action

8,252 9,485

Reflection 11,344 12,561

Age groups

Type of participation Gender

Turkishmean

Roma peoplemean

Bulgarian resettler mean

16-19 years

direct part. male 9,04 135,76 52,69 female 30,84 139,84 21,75 total 23,45 137,11 33,94Part. on net male 14,11 144,00 44,27 female 38,10 140,30 28,13 total 29,98 142,77 34,48civic eng. male 18,16 147,79 45,88 female 45,92 173,55 48,58 total 36,52 156,31 47,52

20-26 years

direct part. male 18,55 130,25 30,43 female 15,23 127,98 32,94 total 16,72 129,31 31,57part on net male 22,84 133,44 28,25 female 15,47 138,30 28,53 total 18,79 135,45 28,38civic eng. male 29,08 143,75 36,65 female 17,52 155,86 38,70 total 22,72 148,76 37,58

Frequency of participation in civic/political organizations among Turkish youth according to gender.


Frequency of participation in civic/political organizations among Roma youth according to gender.


Frequency of participation in civic/political organizations among the Bulgarian resettler youth according to gender.


RESULTS & IMPLICATIONSRESULTS & IMPLICATIONS When it comes to differences in participation

frequency in a gendered manner, methodologically significant associations missing, yet a persistent trend where young girls are participating less than boys obviously show that gender does matter for youth participation!!

Statistically significant age effect on the level of participation exist where the youth aged between 15 and 19 is more active in terms of civic/political participation than the ones aged between 20 and 26.

As the individuals grow older toward adulthood the interest and activity in participation tend to decrease while the trend of less participating women stays persistent by widening.

RESULTS & IMPLICATIONSRESULTS & IMPLICATIONS As the socio-economic conditions become better,

education level and employment increase, gender starts to become more matter for civic/political participation.

As this study show, with the negative effect of age toward twenties in civic/political participation might be doubled with the effect of being women or belonging to an ethnic minority in Turkey.

When the sample of this study widened to the Turkish society level and when the today's youth become the adults, workers, policy makers and the roots of society in the future, then gender gap in participatory action and civic engagement do matter much more!!!

Considering gender as an important factor while encouraging youth into participatory action, analyzing, defining or implementing the policies related to youth participation rights, is crucial!!



The PIDOP project is supported by a grant received from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme, FP7- SSH-2007-1, Grant

Agreement no: 225282, Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) awarded to the University of Surrey (UK), University of Liege (Belgium), Masaryk University (Czech Republic),

University of Jena (Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), Orebro University (Sweden), Ankara University

(Turkey) and Queen’s University Belfast (UK)

does gender matter for youth participation? naciye gizem danışan, tülin Şener, figen Çok,...

Documents