YOUTH AND CITIZENSHIP
A report for NYARS
Ben Manning and Roberta Ryan
of Elton Consulting
March 2004
ii
Youth and Citizenship
THE NATIONAL YOUTH AFFAIRS RESEARCH SCHEME (NYARS) was established in 1985 as a cooperative funding
arrangement between the Australian, State and Territory Governments to facilitate nationally-based research
into current social, political and economic factors affecting young people. The Scheme operates under the
auspices of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA).
Reports from NYARS studies released since the early 1990s are available free-of-charge on the web site of the Australian
Government Department responsible for youth affairs. At the time this report was published, the web site address was:
http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/youth-nyars.htm
Copyright © 2004, National Youth Affairs Research Scheme
ISBN 0 9752498 2 7
This paper was prepared by the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS) and is intended to promote
background research and other information as a basis for discussion. The views expressed in this paper are those
of the authors and are not necessarily those of the NYARS Steering Committee; the Ministerial Council on Education,
Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA); or individual Australian Government, State or Territory Youth
Ministers or Departments responsible for Youth Affairs.
Published by Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services on behalf of NYARS
Printed by National Capital Printing, Canberra
Contents
Contents
Executive summary
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
13
Chapter 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Methodology
Key stakeholder consultations
Literature review
Civics audit
Reference group
National survey
Qualitative research
15
15
15
16
16
17
19
Chapter 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Chapter 4
4.1
Chapter 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
Chapter 6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Chapter 7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
Literature review
Defining citizenship
Conceptualising young people as citizens
Independence and autonomy
Youth political engagement
Social change and citizenship
Cosmopolitanism
Summary and research directions
Summary of audit of education-based citizenship initiatives
Key findings
Survey results
Indigenous and non-Indigenous samples
Discussion of survey results
Conclusion
Qualitative findings
Introduction
Findings
Interpretations of survey data
Conclusion
Conclusion and recommendations
Citizenship and young people
Young people’s perception of citizenship
Young people as citizens: experiences and perceptions
Recommendations
Further research
21
21
23
25
26
29
30
32
33
33
37
37
38
61
63
63
64
81
83
85
85
86
88
91
94
iii
iv
Youth and Citizenship
Appendices
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Detailed audit of schools-based civics and citizenship education initiatives
Survey
Survey demographics
Focus group demographics
Focus group first definitions of citizenship
Focus group final definitions of citizenship
References
97
97
115
125
132
134
138
144
Executive summary
Introduction
This report was commissioned by the
National Youth Affairs Research Scheme to:
1. critically analyse the concept(s) of
citizenship and its implications for young
people;
2. ascertain young people’s perceptions of
citizenship and determining factors; and
3. identify what strategies could be utilised
to advance empowering concept(s) of
citizenship amongst young people.
The research was carried out by Elton
Consulting between November of 2002 and
December of 2003 using a multi-method
approach incorporating qualitative and
quantitative methods.
Methodology
The study involved four main phases of
research:
• a review of the Australian and
international literature;
• a national audit of schools-based
citizenship education;
• a national survey of young people; and
• focus groups in three States.
An extensive review of the literature on
“youth” and “citizenship” was undertaken
from both Australian and international
sources. This review was later summarised
and used both to inform the project
methodology and for distribution to the
project Reference Group and key stakeholders. The summary document provides
the rationale for the issues identified for
inquiry in the study and the methodology
for investigation of those issues.
An audit of schools-based civics and
citizenship education was carried out using
a combination of methods which included
a literature review of previous research, a
review of key documents in jurisdiction, and
interviews with key stakeholders in each
State and Territory. The findings were written
up in the form of a report on the activities
2
Youth and Citizenship
of the Australian Government in civics
education, a report on the information
from each State and Territory, and a matrix
based on key curriculum documents.
A quantitative survey was developed to
explore the perceptions and experiences
of young people relating to citizenship.
The literature review indicated that
quantitative studies in this field may
produce results of questionable validity
because the researchers and the young
participants are “speaking a different
language”. For these reasons, the survey
avoids using the term “citizenship”.
The survey was piloted with a number of
young people including all of the members
of the Reference Group as well as other
young people in different age groups, of
different social backgrounds and levels of
education. This helped refine the survey,
and its final version was available in a
web-based format as well as traditional
paper-based format. A total of 755 surveys
were analysed using SPSS software.
Qualitative research, involving phone
interviews and focus groups, was used to
validate and interrogate the survey data
as well as to explore the themes of the
research in greater detail. Focus groups
were carried out in a range of locations in
Western Australia, New South Wales and
Tasmania with a total of 92 young people
ranging in age from 13 to 25. Additionally,
interviews were carried out with Indigenous
young people in Cape York. Each focus
group lasted for two to four hours, with
an average time of two hours, and was
composed of a facilitator and up to ten
participants. Focus groups were structured
around a deliberative process and were
also used to examine or interpret some of
the survey data.
Literature review findings
Theoretical perspectives on young people
as citizens
The terms “youth” and “citizenship”
are both highly contested and can be
understood in a variety of ways. Despite
the vast literature on citizenship, there
exists no single agreed definition of the
term. Some definitions tend to be narrow
and focus on a conferred legal status with
associated rights and responsibilities. Other
attempts to define the concept are broader
and describe citizenship as a practice which
includes participation at many levels of
political, economic and civil society.
Citizenship clearly has strong links with
democracy. The role of the citizen in ancient
Athens was very much to participate directly
in the decision-making processes that
assisted in the governance of the state. The
role of the “citizen” became the key status
in that society, indicating a genuine ability
to influence the affairs of the state for the
privileged elite who held it. The modern
conception of citizenship is one in which the
superior status of citizenship is common to
all, and the idea of universal citizenship is
central to our contemporary understanding
of democratic government.
Trying to apply theories of citizenship to
young people is problematic. One of the
key notions of contemporary citizenship
theory is the idea that all citizens are
equal. The definition of youth as a category
which includes people aged 12 to 25,
presents difficulties in the consideration
of citizenship as there are substantial
differences in the citizenship status of
young people within the category at both
a formal and substantive level. The most
obvious distinction is between those aged
under 18 and those who have reached the
Executive summary
age of “legal majority”. Many writers have
pointed out that young Australians do not
have equal civil or political rights. Judith
Bessant, for instance, critiques Victorian
law by comparing it to the Articles in the
United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child, to which Australia has been
a signatory since 1990, and concludes that
“young Australians do not enjoy or have
access to full citizenship rights” (Bessant
1996, p. 30). In many ways the position
of citizens aged under 18, in relation to
political and civil rights, is more like that
of a subject.
The problem of inequality and youth
citizenship does not lie just with the
restricted rights and the concept of legal
adulthood. Although full citizenship rights
are granted automatically upon reaching
the age of 18, there is a distinction to be
drawn between the formal granting of rights
and the ability to exercise them (Hall et al.
1999, p. 503; Jenkins 1990, p. 135). The lack
of economic independence for many young
people is a significant issue that impacts
their level of autonomy, and therefore their
experiences of citizenship. Essentially, the
lack of equality in terms of social rights
stems from the limited independence and
autonomy held by young people. In this way
the literature on youth as a social category
and the literature on youth and citizenship
begin to coincide.
Furthermore, there is an issue that emerges
with widespread social change. Whereas
once young people would usually have
gained significant economic independence,
and possibly have begun their own families,
by the time of gaining their legal majority,
the time of achieving independence no
longer coincides with the time of achieving
autonomy in the routine way of the postwar political economy on which many of the
assumptions of citizenship are based.
Understanding the citizenship status of
young people presents significant problems
for the existing and emerging theoretical
literature. This highlights the importance
of researching the perceptions that young
people hold about their own citizenship
status, and citizenship as a concept.
The young people taking part in this study
are living at a time of widespread and rapid
social change. Much of the existing and
influential literature on citizenship is based
on a worldview which may not necessarily
be shared by young people today. One of the
most influential theories of citizenship, that
of social citizenship as articulated by T.H.
Marshall, formed the philosophical basis of
the post-war welfare state. Marshall argued
that there are three sets of rights which
enable people to participate equally in
political life, and therefore are requirements
of citizenship. The first of these is civil
rights, the second is political, and the third
is social rights. Marshall argued that civil
and political rights are not substantive
rights if some people lack the resources to
be able to exercise those rights. This view
of citizenship appears to be absent from
the dominant neo-liberal emphasis of public
discourse which has shifted from “universal
entitlement” to “mutual obligation”.
Traditional
political
and
social
understandings of citizenship in western
liberal democracies are founded on a notion
of citizenship born out of the rise of the
nation-state and the birth of the modern
political arrangement. As the sovereignty
and monopoly on regulatory powers of the
nation-state is challenged by global forces,
a territorially-bounded nation-state and
its relationship to a territorially-bounded
populace also becomes problematic. An
emerging literature on citizenship argues that
a new conceptualisation of cosmopolitan
citizenship is required. Some commentators
3
4
Youth and Citizenship
see democratic potential in the trends toward
globalisation and advocate acceptance of
it. They argue that an ability to imagine
community beyond the nation is required
in order to comprehend these tendencies
and instigate a positive transition towards
global civil society. Such a perspective on
self-identity and belonging could, as is the
cosmopolitan hope, open citizens to the
idea and a consideration of the feasibility of
citizenship beyond borders: to the idea of
global citizenship.
Citizenship and the political engagement of
young people
The substantial literature on youth and
citizenship looks at the political engagement
of young people in Australia and other liberal
democracies. Among this literature is an
argument that a democratic crisis is looming
as young people are becoming increasingly
disengaged from politics and therefore
failing to be active citizens. In Anglophonic
countries where voting is optional, the
number of young people voting has reached
record lows in recent years and this has
been taken to be a baseline indicator of
disengagement. Many authors argue that
young people, having lived in a period of
relative peace and prosperity, are lethargic
or lazy citizens who fail to accept the
responsibility of citizenship to participate.
On a broader level, an argument that a lack
of citizenship education, or “civics deficit”,
renders young people unable to be engaged
with political processes has been influential
in Australia.
More recently there has been a turn away
from the assumption that an unwillingness
to vote for a political party, or to join a party,
equates with a lack of interest in politics per
se. Many writers are beginning to argue that
the deficit lies not in democracy or civics,
but rather in the quantitative methodological
approaches that dominate social sciences
and on which such conclusions have been
based.
Henn, Weinstein and Wring (2002) point
out that researchers and subjects are
sometimes talking a different language.
They point to qualitative research that
shows that young people tend to think
of “politics” merely as what goes on in
parliament rather than “things that effect
my life” and to discount their own political
involvement and activities. Whereas when
they are encouraged to talk about politics
in their own terms, a wider definition of
politics emerges and there is evidence of
a much higher level of interest and activity
(Henn et al. 2002, p. 169). Recent qualitative
research in other countries has found that in
fact young people are highly interested and
concerned with political issues, and keen to
participate, but that their concerns are not
echoed by major parties or that they feel that
their input is discouraged and discounted.
Research directions
Based on this literature review, the research
questions were redefined to explore how
young people perceive citizenship in several
senses:
• What does the word “citizenship” mean to
young people? Methodological debates
have identified the need for qualitative
research that engages with young
people through meaningful discourse,
to ensure validity of findings.
• How do young people relate to the
concepts of citizenship as intended
by researchers – are perceptions of
citizenship limited to political citizenship
or other notions of citizenship?
• What is the level of historical/theoretical
knowledge of citizenship among young
people?
Executive summary
• What are young people’s experiences of
citizenship and how do they relate to
perceptions of citizenship?
• Theory testing: How do post-war theories
of citizenship (such as Marshall) and
contemporary theories of citizenship
(such as cosmopolitanism) relate to
young people’s actual perceptions
and lived experiences of citizenship?
With the decline of the welfare state,
do notions of citizenship make sense
in a neoliberal context? How does the
emergence of globalisation impact on
perceptions of citizenship? Is there a
need to reconceptualise citizenship or
review the current policy context?
Civics audit findings
At key periods there have been major
reviews of civics education, because of a
perceived “civics deficit”, which have led to
major changes in the content and teaching
of civics education. Civics seems to have
gone into decline in the 1950s and 1960s
around Australia and was not revised until
the 1990s. The present interest in civics
education can be traced to the inquiries of
the Senate Standing Committee at the end
of the 1980s, and the report of the Civics
Expert Group in 1994.
Following the report of the Civics Expert
Group, and the commitment of the new
Federal Coalition Government, agreement
was struck between the States and
Territories and the Australian Governments
to encourage and facilitate a greater degree
of civics education in schools. In order
to encourage the uniformity of approach
and content the Australian Government
has committed significant funding to the
Discovering Democracy program, which
provides resource materials and teacher
support for civic and citizenship education.
There is a great deal of change under
way in most States and Territories as a new
emphasis has been placed on civics and
citizenship education around Australia. In
summary, it seems that all of the States and
Territories have recently made attempts to
reform or reintroduce civics and citizenship
education. While citizenship education
is being integrated across curricula,
NSW is the only State in which civics is
a compulsory and examined part of the
curriculum. At this point, it is very difficult
to draw conclusions about its effectiveness
in most places as the initiatives have not
yet been completely implemented.
In that so many of these changes are
very new, and have often not been fully
implemented, it is difficult to tell to what
extent these reforms will be “successful”
in assisting students in the transition to
citizenship. It should also be noted that
due to the novelty of these changes, in
most cases, the respondents that will be
surveyed and interviewed as part of this
research project will not have experienced
the civics and citizenship education that is
documented in this audit.
Quantitative findings
Defining citizenship
The survey asked respondents how they
conceived of citizenship in an abstract
sense. The greatest level of support was
for the two statements which defined
citizenship as a set of rights and duties
concerned with participating in society.
There was also a great deal of support for
the statement which defined citizenship as
being about membership of a community,
and participating in decisions which
affect you. There was also a great deal
of support for the idea that citizenship is
an ongoing process, the maintenance or
5
6
Youth and Citizenship
achievement of which is something towards
which we constantly work. The lowest
levels of support were for the statements
that defined citizenship as being about
discrimination and exclusivity, and for the
idea that citizenship is only about rights,
and not about duties. The conception of
citizenship as a birth right is much more
prominent among Indigenous respondents.
Politics, participation and citizenship
In the first question of the survey
respondents were asked what issues they
thought were important to young people.
The top five issues were education,
relationships, employment, money and
youth suicide. The survey inquired into
respondents’ perceptions of where power
lies. The survey went on to ask how
reciprocal that relationship is perceived
to be. That is, to what extent are those
groups perceived to exert power over
young people seen to be responsive to
the views of the young people themselves?
The power relationships were found to be
universally perceived as unequal, with
every group seen to have much more
power over young people, than young
people have over those groups. Those
that were seen to have the most power
over young people were those with whom
young people could be said to have a
more direct personal relationship. The
two most frequently reported were the
family and educational institutions such
as schools. Government and business
groups are seen as the most remote and
those over which young people exercise
the least influence.
Eighty-nine per cent of respondents said
that young people do want to participate
in influencing politics and government.
The methods of participation which
were seen to be the most effective were
voting in elections, youth and student
representative organisations and through
community groups. Writing to politicians
or newspapers, signing petitions and
calling talkback radio were seen to be the
least effective.
Theoretically, citizenship and democracy
are inextricably linked. Yet, when asked
to what extent they agreed with the
statement that “Australia is a democratic
country”, less than 55% of respondents
in the general sample, and less than 44%
of the Indigenous sample either agreed or
strongly agreed. Furthermore, support for
the statement declines with age.
Education and sources of information
The vast majority of respondents agreed
that students should be taught about
Australia’s legal and political system at
school (92%) and that students should
be taught about citizenship (85%).
However, only 52% of the total sample
of respondents said that they had been
taught about citizenship at school.
Respondents were also asked who they
thought were trustworthy sources of political
information. The most trusted source was
teachers (75%) followed by family (73%). The
media (36%) and politicians (34%) were seen
as the least trustworthy sources respectively,
with friends in the middle at 54%.
Rights and duties
Citizenship is often defined as a set of
rights and duties. A majority of respondents
in this survey agreed with this definition. The
highest level of support is given to those rights
which are civil or social, rather than political.
The right to a good education and to good
quality health care are in the top three with
almost unanimous support. The lowest level of
support, though still high, is given to the right
Executive summary
to protest (88%) and to go on strike (83%).
A common feature of all the questions asked
about social and civil rights is the correlation
between age and the responses given.
The respondents were asked if Australian
society is fair. In all age groups only a minority
of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
that society is fair. Respondents aged 12 to
14 were the most likely to agree that it is
fair (40%). This perception of fairness seems
to decline with increased age. Respondents
aged 18 to 21 were the least likely to report
that Australia is a fair society.
Spatial dimensions of citizenship
A number of questions were asked to
ascertain how respondents perceive the
spatial boundaries of citizenship. Fortythree per cent of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that citizenship “is about
nationalism – about sharing a common
culture and identity with people in your
community”. However, 67% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that citizenship
is international, that “we are all members
of a global society . . . and citizenship
is about our relationship with all of the
people in the world”. The data suggests
that a cosmopolitan (internationalist) view
of citizenship correlates with increases in
age. While a minority of under-14s support
a cosmopolitan view of citizenship (49%), a
substantial majority of over-21s (75%) see
citizenship as international.
The survey also investigated the relationship between subjective feelings of duty or
obligation towards others as citizens, and
political boundaries or spatial proximity. The
results presented in Table 33 (see Chapter 5)
indicate that although there is a perception
of cosmopolitan duty of citizenship, in that
a majority feel some level of obligation to
uphold the rights of others in other countries,
there is a strong correlation between the
spatial proximity of others and the perceived
duty to uphold their rights.
Respondents were asked to what extent
young people in Australia are affected by
decisions made by governments at different
levels ranging from local government to
the international political arena, as well as
the domestic and international business
arena. The highest level of perceived impact
is from the State/Territory Governments,
followed by the Australian Government.
Nineteen per cent of respondents felt that
young people are affected “a great deal” by
the international political arena. This was
greater than the perceived power/impact
of the Australian business community, but
substantially lower than the perceived
impact of domestic government.
Qualitative findings
The findings from the focus groups revealed
a clear lack of a shared definition of the
term citizenship, and that the participants
did hold some expected perceptions about
what citizenship means. There is no shared
coherent understanding of citizenship among
the sample. Not only do the perceptions
that different participants hold sometimes
contradict one another, but also individuals
frequently hold conflicting views.
When participants were asked at the
beginning of the focus groups to list the
things they think of when they hear the
word “citizenship” and what “citizenship”
means to them, they usually communicated
ideas which can be categorised as follows:
• national identity;
• rights and duties;
• participation;
• formal status; and
• belonging and community.
7
8
Youth and Citizenship
National identity
Most groups mentioned national identity. For
some this was just about “being an Australian”,
for others it was to do with national pride.
Many people mentioned pride in the sporting
achievements of famous individual Australians
or national teams. Some of these people felt
a sense of collective shame, while others did
not associate the actions of other Australians
with their own sense of pride or shame at all.
The matter of state-based identity was also
explored. The sense of a state-based identity was
strongest among the Tasmanian participants.
Many of them commented that they think of
themselves as Tasmanians first and Australians
second. Many of the West Australians also felt
a strong sense of state-based identity. None of
the NSW participants commented on feeling a
sense of state-based identity.
Rights and obligations
Every group mentioned rights and
obligations (or duties or responsibilities) as
being one of the most prominent aspects
of citizenship. When asked to name these
rights and obligations, the first responses
were usually the right to vote, the right to
free speech and the right to protest. The
next set of rights raised by participants
were usually either specific social rights,
notably health care and education, or in
fact simply “welfare”. This was usually
followed by more civil and political rights,
particularly the right to a fair trial. The
single most frequent and readily mentioned
obligations were “to obey the law” and
to vote, followed by variations on the
obligation to “respect others”. Others were
the obligation to treat people with respect
and to uphold the rights of others.
Participation
While many of the participants could list
various methods of political participation
that exist and are open to young people,
there was little confidence in most of these
being effective. Many participants were highly
pessimistic about the ability of any citizens,
and young people in particular, to really
effect change through participation. There
was particular discussion around several
methods of participation. These included
voting, street protesting, youth advisory
groups or representation and writing letters.
None were seen as particularly effective on
a national level, but there was a generally
agreed belief that participation on a local
level can be effective. Most participants saw
voting as important in theory, yet ineffective
in practice because of the two party system.
The participants were divided on the issue
of youth participation. Some felt that official
youth representation and consultation is an
effective means of youth participation, while
others saw it as tokenistic and ineffective.
Social citizenship
While most participants agreed with
Marshall’s idea that social rights, or
resources, are needed to enable people
to act on civil and political rights, many of
them baulked at the idea that people could
be considered non-citizens, even if they are
deprived of the rights of citizenship. Even
though all of the focus groups mentioned
social welfare as a right of citizenship, many
participants also claimed that variations on
“not to rort the system” is a responsibility
of citizenship. There was distinct correlation
between lower socio-economic background
and propensity to believe that there are a
large number of citizens who are “cheating
the system” or “bludging”.
Although there was a pronounced
difficulty for many participants to accept
the proposition that some people in the
community might be considered noncitizens, almost every focus group felt
Executive summary
more comfortable in asserting that there
are classes of citizens. There is a strong
perception that there are different classes
of citizens, based primarily on their capacity
to participate, and the limitations of that
capacity whether it derives from social
disadvantage, disability or age. Most groups
were content to say that there are first and
second class citizens.
Democracy and citizenship
One of the clearest findings from the
qualitative phase of research is that while
some of the participants see the link
between democracy and citizenship that
forms the basis of much of the citizenship
literature and theory, this was by no means
universal. The participants tended to hold
very different understandings of the word
“citizenship”. The failure to share a mutually
understood definition of citizenship is a very
significant issue. Many of the participants
found it very difficult to distinguish in their
thinking between citizenship as a nationality
or the legal right to live in a country (and the
related ideas of immigration, multiculturalism
and asylum), and the meaning of citizenship
as a political status of people living within a
democracy. A great many participants define
citizenship as “membership of any group
and/or groups” which carries implications
for interpreting people’s statements.
Cosmopolitanism
The participants were introduced to
the idea of cosmopolitan citizenship. Few
participants supported the idea. This was
mainly for two distinct reasons: for some
the traditional idea of citizenship being
related to the nation-state, and what they
saw as impractical ideas of international
democratic government having yet to emerge,
citizenship remains spatially bounded by
the nation-state; for others, their concept
of citizenship was too closely tied to ideas
of national identity to allow for notions of a
cosmopolitan citizenship.
Interpretations of survey data
The participants were asked for their
comments or interpretations of some of the
data, which were very revealing. One point
discussed was the question of why so few
survey respondents agreed with the statement that “Australia is a democratic country”.
Some of the younger participants said that
they did not know what “democracy” means,
but it sounded positive so they would agree
with the statement. Others said that they
thought that democracy means “fair” and
that they would therefore disagree with the
statement. Others, particularly those aged
over 20, said that their understanding of the
complexity of democracy had developed as
they had grown older and while they would
have been likely to agree with the statement
when they were younger, they would be
more ambivalent now that they were older.
As with “citizenship”, once again there is
a problem arising from a failure to share a
widespread definition of “democracy”.
The focus group participants were
asked to comment on why so few survey
respondents had agreed that citizenship is
about exclusion and discrimination. Most
participants commented that although they
recognise that citizenship is about exclusion
in one sense, it sounds negative so they
don’t like to say that. It was also agreed
by most participants that an important
part of citizenship is exclusion, and they
support that exclusion. Many participants
also said that they would have chosen the
international or cosmopolitan definition of
citizenship in the survey rather than the
nationalist definition even though it directly
contradicts their real perceptions, because
they thought it sounded better.
9
10
Youth and Citizenship
This finding is very important. It indicates
that some of the survey data from this study
as well as others may be unreliable, and
underscores the importance of qualitative
research in this field.
Conclusion and recommendations
The study found that even within the
literature there is no single agreed definition
of citizenship. While there are a range of
established definitions, the study found
that it is difficult to apply many of them
to young people because they often entail
criteria which actively exclude some or all
of the people aged 12 to 25. This research
has found that young people themselves
hold varied, sometimes contradictory, and
often overlapping perceptions of what
citizenship is. Importantly, although this lack
of consensus reflects the lack of a single
definition of citizenship in the literature,
a great many young people understand
citizenship to mean things that are quite
contradictory to the literature, and seem
to contradict the philosophical basis of the
established definitions of citizenship.
Apart from the participants who were still
at school, most of the older participants
expressed concern that they had not been
sufficiently educated to be considered
competent citizens. The survey responses
indicate that education is seen as the single
best way for young people to feel that they
are meaningfully involved in society. For
those participants who were still at school,
the level of knowledge varied greatly. There
does seem to be a correlation between
the study of history and the perceptions
of citizenship. For instance, many people
referred to their studies of the Nazi Germany
as a lens through which to view the rights
of citizenship, and others drew on their
knowledge of ancient history.
These research findings suggest that
many young people feel that they have an
obligation to participate in political activities,
but that they also tend to feel that they
have little power to do so.
Based on the findings of this study,
recommendations have been developed to
guide the broad directions of strategies to
advance empowering concepts of citizenship
in each of the following areas:
1. Education
The concept of democratic citizenship,
as intended in political or philosophical
literature, is in itself extremely empowering. The most obvious conclusion
from this research is that there is a very
poor understanding of citizenship in this
sense. The failure to perceive democratic
citizenship as a political status and
identity that is vastly different from, indeed
antithetical to, the status of a slave or a
subject is the single greatest impediment
to young people holding an empowering
concept of citizenship. The survey explicitly
asked what the respondents thought would
be helpful to support young people to be
meaningfully involved in society. The most
common was education.
As was revealed in the audit of educationbased initiatives, programs of citizenship
and civics education are being introduced
into Australian schools. However, the vast
majority of young people who participated
in this study will miss out on this education
as they have already left school, or will
have left school before the programs are
implemented for their age group. It follows
that other programs of education, beyond
formal school education, are needed for
young people to develop empowering
conceptions of citizenship. Many participants
made reference to the “Edmund Barton” ads
Executive summary
that were screened during the Centenary
of Federation and commented that similar
campaigns on the meaning and history of
citizenship would be informative.
2. Youth unemployment
Many of the participants felt that young
people who do not have paid employment
are considered by older people, particularly
baby boomers, to be “second-class citizens”
who do not contribute to society. They felt
that they were not respected as worthwhile
members of society, with equal rights and
equal status. The second dimension to
this issue that many young people argue,
is that without employment they do not
have the economic resources to be active
participants in society. They feel that they
are marginalised, powerless and lowergrade citizens than employed people. It
was also clear from the qualitative research
that the most economically disadvantaged
participants were also the least interested
in the topic. It is difficult to make practical
recommendations to address this issue.
These are very difficult issues to tackle in
isolation from broader economic and cultural
change.
3. Formal participation
The third most common response to the
survey question on what the respondents
thought would be helpful to support young
people to be meaningfully involved in society,
was for programs that encourage youth
participation in government and in schools
to be more widespread and more genuinely
participatory. The quantitative data revealed
a strong correlation between involvement in
formal participation practices such as youth
advisory councils and a belief that these
were effective ways for young people to
have influence. Very few of the participants
in the qualitative research recalled ever
having been consulted about anything else
before and seemed to value the process.
Some of those participants in the qualitative
research who had been involved in youth
participation or consultation claimed to have
felt empowered by their involvement. Others
who had a negative experience were very
unlikely to participate again in a different
program, and were also likely to discourage
others from participating. It would seem that
it is very important that if such programs are
to be implemented, that they are devised
with extensive youth consultation and
tokenism is carefully avoided.
Implications for further research
Methodological issues
There is a clear methodological issue
arising from the use of youth as a social
category for investigation. Many of the
participants expressed surprise at the range
of the category and argued that there was
little in common between the perceptions of
people at each end of the category. Future
research should be more tightly targeted to
specific age groups.
Some of the recent international research
reviewed at the beginning of the research
indicated that there may be methodological
issues arising from the fact that the discourse
of citizenship theory, the way that the
terminology is used, is either not used in
everyday language, or is used in such a way
that words actually have different meanings.
In international research, this had led to
quantitative findings which were invalidated
by subsequent qualitative research. This
was echoed in this study. These findings
are methodologically very important from
the point of view of interpreting the results
of previous research and in planning future
research. A recommendation for future
researchers, would be to emphasise the
11
12
Youth and Citizenship
qualitative research even more, and to
conduct the qualitative research before the
quantitative work.
The perceptions and experiences of
Indigenous young people
The wide scope and limited resources of
this project prevented sufficient inquiry into
the perceptions held by, and experiences
of, Indigenous young people and young
people living in remote areas. The limited
research conducted with Indigenous young
people revealed that their perceptions
were significantly different from the nonIndigenous samples, demonstrating a need
for rigorous research focusing on the views
of young Indigenous people.
Comparative study
As this research was carried out into
the perceptions of young people, it is
impossible to know to what degree those
perceptions are limited to young people,
and to what degree those perceptions are
held generally across the population. A
valuable contribution to knowledge and
policy could be made testing these findings
against similar research undertaken with
other demographic groups. It would also
be very useful to conduct comparative
research in other countries in order to
see to what degree the perceptions of
Australian young people are similar to or
different from other populations, and the
correlating factors
1
Introduction
In recent times, the Australian Government
and the State and Territory Governments,
as well as many local governments, have
increasingly incorporated into youth-related
policy and initiatives the ideals of youth
citizenship. Typically, this is based on
notions of some form of active participation
in community life. Often, these ideals
are not specifically identified in terms of
“citizenship”. In this context, citizenship is
conceived as participation and the rights,
skills and opportunities to do so.
On another level, there has been a move
towards the reinstatement of civics and
citizenship education in schools. Following
several decades of diminished interest
in civics, the Australian Government has
resourced the States and Territories with
materials and training, and most of the
States and Territories have recently reemphasised the importance of civics and
citizenship education in curricula. This is
done in the belief that people must be
equipped with a certain level of knowledge
to be able to participate as active citizens.
The word “citizenship” has been used
to emphasise the public discourse on
citizenship in the context of migration. For
instance, there have been drives to convince
permanent residents to take up citizenship,
debates over immigration and high profile
news items such as the detention of
Australian citizens at Guantanamo Bay. In
this context, citizenship is portrayed as a
formal status associated with the right to
live in this country. There have also been
high profile international affairs such as
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and high
profile “anti-globalisation” protests which
have provoked discussion of a loss of
national sovereignty, or on the other hand,
a move towards supranational citizenship.
Meanwhile, other social changes have
implications for conceptualising citizenship.
Throughout the post-war era, citizenship
has been strongly connected to state
14
Youth and Citizenship
welfare and the discourse of universal
entitlement. As neoliberalism has become
dominant, there has been a relatively
recent shift of emphasis from universal
entitlement based on citizenship, to the
idea of mutual obligation and conditional
contracting with individuals.
All of these things raise the question of
what we understand citizenship to be. Given
these changes in emphases in policy and
philosophy, given widespread significant
and rapid social change, and given that
there are different ideas of citizenship
associated with the topics discussed above,
it is timely to investigate how young people
in Australia perceive citizenship, and any
correlating factors.
How do young people understand the term
“citizenship”? Is it merely the right to live in a
country, or does it involve active democratic
participation in decision-making? Does
citizenship hold the same meaning for them
as it does for policy makers? Beyond that,
regardless of how they understand the term,
how do young people perceive citizenship
as a concept, and how do they see their
place in the world? Are there barriers that
prevent young people from feeling that they
can participate effectively?
This publication reports on research
which used quantitative and qualitative
methods to investigate the way that young
people in Australia perceive citizenship. It
inquired into the way that young people see
citizenship as an idea, and how they use the
term. It inquired into their understanding
of citizenship and democratic theory, their
perceptions of Australia as a democratic
state and their level of interest in and
support of Australian political practices and
institutions. This research also introduced
participants to some influential theory on
citizenship to see not only how they relate
to that theory conceptually, but how it sits
with their own lived experience.
This research also inquired into how
young people in Australia perceive their
place in the world as political actors and
how they perceive ability to influence the
decisions that effect them, their perceptions
of power and influence, of democracy and
participation, of rights and responsibilities,
of community and the correlating and
determining factors thereof.
The young people who participated in this
study came from a range of backgrounds in
every State and Territory. The findings show
that young people hold a range of complex
views on citizenship. Views that are often
contradictory and often overlapping, and often
views which do not accord with established
conceptions of what citizenship means.
2
Methodology
This chapter outlines the methodology
used for the Youth and Citizenship project,
as revised and submitted to the NYARS Steering Committee in March 2003. The research
methodology was refined following the initial
stage of the project in response to findings
from the literature review and consultations
with the Reference Group and stakeholders.
The focus of the multi-method study was
shifted from being primarily quantitative, to
incorporate significant qualitative research,
in order to reflect the increased validity of
qualitative methods in this subject area.
The research involved the following
elements:
2.1 Key stakeholder consultations
The process of consultation with state
agencies and peak organisations commenced
through phone and email contact. These
contacts led to the establishment of an
advisory body comprising representatives of
government agencies and non-government
organisations representing young people.
This group of “experts” or key stakeholders
was involved in reviewing project outputs at
key stages of the project.
2.2 Literature review
An extensive review of the literature on
“youth” and “citizenship” was undertaken
from both Australian and international
sources. This review was later summarised and
used both to inform the project methodology
and for distribution to the project Reference
Group and key stakeholders. The summary
document provides the rationale for the
issues identified for inquiry in the study and
the methodology for investigation of those
issues. A review of previous research indicated
that there may be many difficulties with
survey-based research, as other researchers
found that the young people they had studied
had been unfamiliar with the discourse of
citizenship, leading to problems with validity.
16
Youth and Citizenship
2.3 Civics audit
An audit of civics and citizenship education was carried out using a combination
of methods which included a literature
review of previous research, a review of key
documents in jurisdiction, and interviews
with key stakeholders in each State and
Territory. The findings were written up in
the form of a report on the activities of the
Australian Government in civics education,
a report on the information from each State
and Territory, and a matrix based on key
curriculum documents.
Literature review
The literature on civics education,
“civic literacy”, research on the political
attitudes of young people, literature on
the perceptions of citizenship of young
people and literature on the history of
civics education was reviewed from both
Australian and international sources.
Interviews
Telephone interviews were carried out
with key stakeholders in the Catholic
and State education offices of each State
and Territory, as well as with Discovering
Democracy officers in most States and
Territories. Initially, finding the interviewees
was sometimes difficult. Frequently the
interviewees would recommend other key
stakeholders or local experts who were
also interviewed if contact could be made.
Unfortunately the time of year made reaching stakeholders very difficult. In all, 13
people were interviewed.
Review of key documents
Based on information from interviews
as well as from general searches, key
curriculum policy documents on civics and
citizenship education were reviewed from
each State and Territory, as well as the
Australian Government. These documents
were used to form a matrix which allows
for the comparison of the different civics
and citizenship education initiatives in each
jurisdiction, at each stage of schooling.
Report
The findings were written up in the form of
a report that included a section on national
research on civics and citizenship education,
projects and programs undertaken by the
Australian Government, a summary of civics
and citizenship education in each State
and Territory, and a matrix presenting the
information contained in key curriculum
documents drawn from each State and
Territory.
2.4 Reference Group
Purpose and role
A project Reference Group was established involving 12 young people located in
NSW, Victoria, Western Australia, ACT and
Tasmania. Members of the Reference Group
were selected from a pool of nominations
by young people and organisations
working with young people. Initial contacts
with nominees by the project team were
made through key stakeholders and also
through direct contacts with schools, youth
services, youth organisations, peak bodies,
and State and local government in each
State and Territory.
Interviews
The qualitative research commenced
with 12 in-depth telephone interviews
conducted with the project Reference
Group. Data obtained was used to inform
the development and distribution of the
survey used in the national survey and in
the development of the later qualitative
Chapter 2
Methodology
research. The Reference Group was
consulted at each key stage of the research
and provided comments and guidance on
the project, ranging from specific ideas to
general comments on the direction and
scope of the research.
2.5 National survey
The survey was piloted with a number of
young people including all of the members of
the Reference Group as well as other young
people in different age groups, of different
social backgrounds and levels of education.
Each of these people were interviewed after
completing the survey and their feedback
was incorporated as much as possible into
the development of the survey.
Survey
A survey was developed to explore the
perceptions and experiences of young
people relating to citizenship. The term
“citizenship” is not widely used in colloquial
English in the sense that it is used in the field
of citizenship studies, and as demonstrated
in the literature review, the meaning of
citizenship is highly contested. The literature
review revealed that often in this kind of
research quantitative studies may produce
results of questionable validity because the
researchers and the young participants are
“speaking a different language”. For these
reasons, the survey avoids using the term
“citizenship”. It does, however, attempt
to identify the boundaries of citizenship
through a series of questions aimed at
its various elements on the continuum of
citizenship, using Marshall’s typology of the
three spheres of citizenship.
The questions explore each of the
three aspects of Marshall’s typology: legal
citizenship, political citizenship and social
citizenship. They also seek to explore
respondents’ perceptions of citizenship as an
abstract concept and the spatial boundaries
of citizenship, as defined spheres of power
and influence, rights and responsibilities.
Survey promotion and distribution
The survey was promoted and distributed
through a number of channels and networks.
These included using email discussion lists
such as YARN and YouthGas to contact
people who work with young people as
well as young people themselves. Links
to the web survey site were posted on
youth oriented web sites such as those
administered by some State Governments,
the Australian Government’s site “The
Source”, web sites run by youth oriented
NGOs and also youth-run web-based
media. These sites provided a hyperlink to
the survey using an icon.
Other methods used to reach the largest
possible number of young people from each
State and Territory, and from a diverse range
of backgrounds include:
• through our network of contacts,
including the Reference Group (including
a group of Indigenous young people
from Cape York and Brisbane) (web and
written format);
• at youth events such as Youth Week and
entertainment venues (web and written
format);
• through youth media including print,
broadcast and new media (web and
written format); and
• through schools, universities and TAFE
colleges (web and written format).
Direct approaches were made to
individuals and organisations that might
be able to introduce young people to the
survey. These included youth and community
welfare organisations; student unions; high
schools, TAFEs and teachers from around
Australia (chosen randomly); youth media
17
18
Youth and Citizenship
workers in print, radio and new media;
and youth arts organisations, sport and
community organisations.
500 business cards were printed and
distributed to promote the web survey.
These double-sided business cards were
coloured bright orange, grey and white.
One side of the card had the words “youth
& citizenship” printed along the top and in
very large letters an invitation to “say what
you think” along with the NYARS and Elton
Consulting logos. On the other side of the
card was an invitation “to tell us what you
think about citizenship go to www.elton.
com.au/citizenship.htm”. There was also
a freecall number to be used to order a
paper copy of the survey or for more
information. These cards were distributed
by the Reference Group members, interested
contacts and Elton Consulting staff. They
were distributed at venues such as youth
cultural events, youth drop-in and service
centres, public libraries, college and
university student contact or information
points and through personal networks.
Visitors to the survey site were invited to
complete the survey online, or otherwise
to print-off a hard copy of the survey which
could be posted to us. Additionally, there
was an email link to request a number of
hard copies to be posted out. Many people
also used that link to request that Word
version be emailed to them, so that they
could email it on to other people they knew
and thought might be interested.
Some contacts were particularly helpful
and became “champions” of the survey,
volunteering to help us to access young
people in remote or disadvantaged
communities who would have been very
difficult to reach otherwise. For example, the
National President of United Nations Youth
Association took surveys to their national
conference and invited the delegates who
had travelled from all around Australia
to complete them, and then sent them
back to us; a youth worker in Western
Australia’s wheat belt carried copies of
the survey around with her on her travels
and collected responses from very isolated
young people; and a film maker travelling
to isolated Aboriginal communities in
Cape York took surveys and invited young
community members to complete them.
The nature of the methods of promotion
and distribution that were used – networks,
word of mouth, new media – make it
impossible to quantify or track exactly
how many people were made aware of
the survey. However, by monitoring the
demographics of respondents throughout
the process of the survey, we were able to
target promotion of the survey to groups
of people that were under-represented in
the sample. For example, by increasing
our effort at targeting respondents from a
particular region or age group.
Limitations of the survey
A limitation of the survey research
is the small sample size relative to the
population and the use of “self-selection”
rather than random sampling of survey
respondents. The small sample size makes
it difficult to provide a reliable comparison
between the responses of young people
of different cultural backgrounds, ages,
genders etc. Self-selection also resulted in
over-representation of certain groups. For
example, there were a very high proportion
of survey respondents from the ACT.
An attempt was made to address these
limitations in the qualitative phase of the
research by targeting particular groups
who were under-represented in the survey
sample.
Chapter 2
Methodology
The web-based method of survey
distribution could also be viewed as
a limitation of the research, as it is
acknowledged that many young people
do not have access to the Internet. In an
attempt to overcome this problem, hard
copies of the survey were available both
from the web site and from other sources.
However, a large number of the surveys
were distributed by contacts and completed
in hard copy form.
Significant quantitative data on young
people’s perspectives of citizenship was
obtained in the initial stage of the research
through the national survey. The survey was
also used as a means of identifying the key
issues to be explored during the qualitative
phase.
2.6 Qualitative research
Qualitative research involving phone
interviews and focus groups enabled the
researchers to explore the perspectives of
participants in much greater depth than the
national survey.
Method
Focus groups were carried out in a range
of locations in Western Australia, New South
Wales and Tasmania with young people
ranging in age from 13 to 25 (including a
group of Indigenous young people from
Cape York and Brisbane).
Focus group participants were recruited
using a variety of means including:
• cold calling schools, community groups
and youth services to invite them to
take part;
• posting invitations on email lists (such
as YouthGas);
• using networks of contacts in the youth
field; and
• developing networks of young people.
Fifty-seven per cent of focus group
participants were aged either 15 or 16years-old, and this may relate to the use
of “self-selection” as a method of recruiting
participants.
Each focus group lasted for two to four
hours, with the average session lasting
for around two hours. Focus groups were
structured around a deliberative process in
which participants were first asked to give
their understanding of the meaning(s) of
citizenship. For most groups this involved
writing down three or four points or phrases.
In groups where literacy was an issue, this
was done through discussion. This process
of listing ideas was followed by more indepth discussion, drawing out the details
and consequences of participants’ ideas.
As each group came to discuss the issue
of rights and responsibilities, participants
were asked to name all the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship. These were
recorded by the facilitator. This was followed
by a discussion of the consequences of,
and interaction between, each of the rights
and responsibilities. There was often some
deliberation about the difficulty of balancing
the rights of one citizen against another’s,
or of the difficulty in deciding which rights
are more or less important in the case of a
conflict.
Participants were also invited to discuss
their educational experiences in civics and
citizenship. Participants were asked to
share their own experiences as citizens in
various contexts such as: participation in
forms of governance such as SRC, local
government consultation; participation in
voluntary associations and experiences with
contributing to decision-making; experience
as political citizens such as voting, lobbying,
protesting, etc.; experience as legal citizens
19
20
Youth and Citizenship
Participants were then informed of some
of the survey results and were asked to
comment on this data or to offer their own
interpretations.
the three spheres of citizenship, and the
cosmopolitan view. As all groups listed
social welfare as a right of citizenship, the
discussion of Marshall’s theory of social
rights followed easily. Cosmopolitanism was
rarely mentioned, and usually had to be
introduced by the facilitator.
Some of the major theories of citizenship
were also explored. Participants were asked
to respond to these theories and to identify
how these relate to their lived experience and
their perceptions of citizenship. Participants
were introduced to two prominent schools
of citizenship theory: Marshall’s theory of
Finally, participants were asked to name
what they saw as the underlying spirit behind
the idea of citizenship, and to compose
a definition of citizenship. There was a
verbal recapping of the discussion and an
agreed summing up of what citizenship is
all about.
such as contact with the police and
courts; experiences in civil law situations;
experiences as consumers, etc.
3
Literature review
The terms “youth” and “citizenship”
are both highly contested and can be
understood in a variety of ways. The meaning
of citizenship is particularly contested.
This literature chapter summarises some
of the leading theoretical perspectives on
citizenship before trying to apply them to
young people. It also reviews some previous
research in this area and outlines some key
findings of relevance to this research.
3.1 Defining citizenship
Despite the vast literature on citizenship,
there exists no single agreed definition of
the term. Some definitions tend to be narrow
and focus on a conferred legal status with
associated rights and responsibilities. Other
attempts to define the concept are broader
and describe citizenship as a practice which
includes participation at many levels of
political, economic and civil society.
It is important to define and set some
limits around the concept as we will investigate it. This will frame the targeted questions
about the extent to which young people feel
they enjoy the status of citizens. They will
need to be flexible enough to be asked across
a variety of diverse groups in vastly different
geographical locations. The nature and scope
of citizenship is the subject of a variety of
debates, however a concise definition is not
possible. The variance in definition actually
reveals important perspectives on what it
means to be a citizen in a world where the
political sovereignty of the nation-state is
increasingly under question.
Citizenship clearly has strong links with
democracy. Our contemporary understanding
of democracy is linked to the rights of
individuals and their place in nation-states,
whereas the birth of democracy is usually
attributed to the form of government initiated
in 5th century BC Athens, and hence relates
to a city state. The role of the citizen in
5th century BC Athens was very much to
22
Youth and Citizenship
participate directly in the decision-making
processes that assisted in the governance
of the state. However, this communitarian
form of direct democracy is no longer a
practical means of exercising democratic rule
amongst the large populations of modern
nation-states.
Pearl and Knight (2001) describe democracy
as being an ideal towards which we move,
but never achieve. This helps to dispel the
ideal that particular forms of democracy are
somehow inherently superior to others. As
much as communitarian democracy was a
participatory process, encouraging a range
of opinions prior to decisions being made,
it was also an exclusionary process in so
far as participation in the process was
only available to free-born males, to the
exclusion of all women and slaves. Thus,
the role of “citizen” became the key status
in that society, indicating a genuine ability
to influence the affairs of the state for those
who held it, but doubly disenfranchising
those who did not through exclusion from
such processes, and reinforcing their status
as “other” in a strictly hierarchical society.
The modern conception of citizenship is one
in which the superior status of citizenship
is common to all.
Currently our system of government is run
according to principles of representative
democracy. In this system the people are
able to vote into government members
of parliament who will best represent
their issues. Governments are formed by
the affiliation of members of parliament
into political parties. The political party
which has the most members forms the
government, which is then carried out
on an executive basis by the Cabinet.
This process is called representative
democracy because of the power vested
in the members to act on behalf of the
people, not only those who elected them,
but all of those in the constituency they
represent. Individual decisions and actions
are not actively debated by the people
and voted on one by one. Rather, this
system of government allows for decisions
to be taken without consultation with
the people – it is assumed that people
voted for one member rather than another
because certain actions were promised by
that member. Ryan (1996) indicates that
this model of representative democracy
stems from the liberal-individualist view
of politics. Liberalism values liberty, which
is defended by free political institutions,
rights to religious freedom and freedom
to own property. The political system of
representative democracy that serves this
view also limits the role of individuals to
one of being passive recipients of specific
rights conferred via particular legal status
(Ryan 1996, p. 11).
Debates during the Enlightenment
era focused on whether representative
democracy could ever match the “ideal”
of the direct democracy of ancient Athens,
with Rousseau expressing concern over
the passivity of citizens who have become
subject to a sovereign state, and are therefore
vulnerable to the possibility of totalitarianism (Davidson 1997). Arguments against
altering the mechanisms of governance,
however, came from those who advocated
that the free-will of the individual, and
her/his sense of community were the best
safeguard for democracy (Davidson 1997,
p. 27). In the modern democracies of the
19th century concern for the ability of
representative democracy to adequately
provide a say according to principles of
egalitarianism led to consideration of the
conditions under which people lived, and
their ability to consider and exercise the
vote. This concern underpins notions of
human rights and active citizenship.
Chapter 3
Literature review
This approach to citizenship can be
contrasted with what Ryan (1996) refers
to as the civic-republican view. This views
politics as a process of people reasoning
together to promote a common good,
that transcends the sum of individual
preferences. Talking and thinking about
issues transforms those involved away from
their sectional interests toward the common
interest, and for this reason is referred to
as “participatory democracy” or “active
democracy”. Citizenship, expressed in this
form, is very much about the distinction
between private, economic and ultimately
individual activities, and those which take
place within the “public sphere”, and hence
apply to the collective as opposed to the
individual. The notion of the public sphere:
citizenship” is based on European, rather
than Anglo-Saxon, tradition and aims to
ensure that the right to vote and participate
meaningfully in political life is actually
practised rather than theoretical. Unlike the
liberal democratic vision of citizenship which
views conflict as something to be managed
or tolerated, conflict in a participatory
democracy becomes an occasion for learning
and for actively creating consensus where
none existed before (Sparks 1997). Citizens
learn through democratic participation with
other citizens, how to enlarge their own
freedom and interests to include others,
resulting in a form of democratic life
that respects both individual and mutual
purposes (Sparks 1997, p. 79).
“is the space in which people deliberate
about their common affairs, and hence
an institutionalised arena of discursive
interaction. It is the site for the production
and circulation of discourses that can
in principle be critical of the state. It
remains distinct from the economy, and
helps us to keep in view the distinctions
among state apparatuses, economic
markets, and democratic associations.
The purpose of discussing and debating
issues within this public sphere is to
institutionalise democracy. In the ideal,
the public sphere is open to all, it is
a place where people communicate
as peers, where they come to talk
as citizens, not representatives of
professions, interest groups or members
of governments.” (Ryan 1996, p. 3–4).
3.2 Conceptualising young people as
citizens
Many contemporary participatory theorists
join the communitarians in finding the liberal
conception of citizenship too limited and
adversarial (Lister 1990). They argue that it
is only through the active participation of
citizens that democracy becomes legitimate
(Sparks 1997, p. 78). The notion of “active
The definition of youth as a category
which includes people aged 12 to 25,
presents difficulties in the consideration
of citizenship as there are substantial
differences in the citizenship status of
young people within the category at both
a formal and substantive level. The most
obvious distinction is between those aged
under 18 and those who have reached the
age of “legal majority”. As people age they
acquire a range of rights such as the right
to drive a car, the right to vote, the right to
purchase alcohol, the right to have sex, the
right to marry, and apply independently for
a passport. The age at which these rights
are granted can be changed by law without
the consent of the young people affected.
Contemporary examples of this are the
debates over the age of consent for sexual
relations being raised to 18 or the voting
age lowered to 16. In some ways the formal
citizenship status of those under 18 is one
defined by rights to protection by the State,
whereas that of those aged over 18 is closer
23
24
Youth and Citizenship
to the classical idea of a citizen who has
both rights and responsibilities.
autonomy and therefore their experiences
of citizenship.
Hall et al. (1999) have noted that the
unsatisfactory idea of youth as a period
of transition has led to a widespread
introduction of the idea of citizenship as a
way of recognising how young people attain
social majority despite the social changes
that have inhibited independence. However,
they point out, those same sets of social
changes challenged the citizenship paradigm
of post-war welfare statism (Hall et al. 1999,
p. 503).
Apart from economic inequality, many
writers have pointed out that young
Australians do not have equal civil or
political rights. Judith Bessant, for instance,
critiques Victorian law by comparing
it to the Articles in the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child,
to which Australia has been a signatory
since 1990, and concludes that “young
Australians do not enjoy or have access
to full citizenship rights” (Bessant 1996,
p. 30). She lists several examples of agebased discrimination in relation to the
rights of young Australians:
• the right to hold property is limited;
• social rights in relation to employment
have been restricted by both law and
practice since the 1980s;
• many young people do not have the
right to freedom of association (they
are frequently “moved on” from public
spaces);
• young people no longer have the right
to withhold their name and address
from police, and are legally required to
answer a number of questions;
• young people do not have freedom of
movement, in some jurisdictions they
can be picked up by police without even
having been suspected of committing
an unlawful act;
• along with the space they inhabit,
those under 16 do not have the right to
control their own bodies (they are legally
required to attend school, forbidden to
marry or have sex);
• young people are denied the right to be
free from emotional, psychological and
institutional coercion;
• young people can be legally assaulted by
One of the key principles of citizenship
is the idea that all citizens are equal. This
presents some problems in theorising
youth citizens as they are clearly not equal
in late modern liberal democracies such as
Australia, in terms of formal participation
at least. The franchise has gradually been
extended from a category of citizen that
excluded women, children and “resident
aliens”, to a broader franchise, called the
“universal franchise”, which nonetheless
excludes minors as they are currently
defined. According to Giovanni Sartori:
. . . words such as democracy are
shorthand reports intended to convey
ideas about how we are to behave as
experienced people in matters regarding
which each generation starts by having
no experience (Maddox 1996, p. 73).
The problem of inequality and youth
citizenship does not lie just with the
restricted voting franchise and the concept
of legal adulthood. Although full citizenship
rights are granted automatically upon
reaching the age of 18, there is a distinction
to be drawn between the formal granting of
rights and the ability to exercise them (Hall
et al. 1999, p. 503). The lack of economic
independence for many young people is
a significant issue impacting their level of
Chapter 3
Literature review
their parents or others in loco parentis;
and
• young people under the age of 18 do
not enjoy political citizenship.
In many ways the position of citizens aged
under 18, in relation to political and civil
rights, is more like that of a subject. While
they are expected to behave in accordance
with the law, and can be punished by the State
for failing to do so, Bessant demonstrates
that the laws to which they are subject are
more restrictive than the adult population.
For young people then, Camilleri and Falk’s
argument that “subjection to the sovereign is
the defining characteristic of citizenship” may
be accurate (Camilleri and Falk 1992, p. 18).
3.3 Independence and autonomy
While the situation of formal political and
civil rights changes for young people when
they reach the age of 18, the arena of social
rights is less clear cut. Essentially, the lack of
equality in terms of social rights stems from
the limited independence and autonomy
held by young people. In this way the
literature on youth as a social category and
the literature on youth and citizenship begin
to coincide. The literature reviewed above
on transitions to adulthood links social and
economic change with an extension of the
period of youthful dependence, particularly
economic dependence, even once aged over
18. Drawing on feminist perspectives, many
writers have emphasised the importance of
economic independence in the achievement
of full citizenship status, and therefore the
importance of the labour market position
which has either been extended to youth,
or can easily be applied to the position of
youth. These writers argue that in capitalist
democratic societies access to secure
employment is of paramount importance
(Ellefsen and Hamel 2000; Gauthier 2000;
Banks 1992; Jones and Wallace 1992, and
Lister 1990).
Judith Bessant argues that young people
and children are often assumed to be
vulnerable, naive, innocent, fragile and in
need of protection. State welfare provided
to children and youths, such as child
endowment payments, health care, social
security payments and education and
training have increased considerably over the
last century. However, Bessant argues that
for many young people these entitlements
have not extended citizenship, particularly
the long years of education and training.
Rather, these “protective” institutions have
preserved and maintained inequality and
dependence “by sanctioning social and
institutional power relations that accentuate
regulation over their lives” (Bessant 1996,
p. 34).
Further, Bessant argues that contemporary
writers such as Irving (1995), Hindess
(1987), Pateman (1988), Yeatman (1994),
Walby (1994) and Pixley (1993) (all cited
in Bessant 1996) are seeking to extend the
notions of citizenship which they feel have
been traditionally exclusionary of certain
groups. They challenge the sexist and racist
assumptions upon which traditional notions
of citizenship have been based. However,
she argues:
these advocate for extending citizenship
continues (sic) the very exclusionary
logic of the position of which they are
critical by omitting young people from
their own apparently inclusive accounts
of citizenship (Bessant 1996, p. 32–3).
Not only are young people simply not
referred to in their work, but the criteria of
meeting social obligations such as labour
market participation (Pixley 1993) directly
exclude young people. This not only applies
to children who are too young to work, but
25
26
Youth and Citizenship
also the large number of post-school young
people who are unemployed as well as those
who are undergoing a long period of postschool education in order to be employable
in the post-industrial political economy.
The barriers to youth achieving
independence have been noted by
observers in other countries too. The
European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions warned
in 1990:
It should be made explicit that young
people have the citizenship right to the
material and non-material conditions to
enable them to participate in society. In
particular, the right of young people to
autonomy, to leave the parental home
and set up an independent household,
should be acknowledged (Beauvais
2001, p. 12).
As with classical definitions of citizenship,
Bessant argues, these contemporary agespecific definitions of citizenship rest on
assumptions of the aged-based dependency
of children and young people. The effect is
that such definitions of citizenship are largely
irrelevant for youth-related policy issues.
Furthermore, the time of achieving
independence no longer coincides with the
time of achieving autonomy in the routine
way of the post-war political economy
on which many of the assumptions of
citizenship are based. This literature on
the socio-economic changes that have
prolonged the period of “youth”, or in other
words rendered young people economically
dependent for much longer periods of
their lives before attaining the traditional
markers of adulthood, combined with the
theories of citizenship suggests that both
of these sets of ideas, and the relationship
between them, needs to be explored and
perhaps redeveloped.
3.4 Youth political engagement
There is quite a lot of literature that
explores the assertion that young people are
apathetic or disengaged from politics, not
just in Australia, but also in the other liberal
democracies with which we often compare
ourselves. In countries where voting is not
compulsory, the universally low turnout
of younger voters is frequently cited as
evidence of this phenomena. As one report
put it, the apparent disinterest in election
politics exhibited by many 18–24-years-old
abstainers signals a direct challenge to the
citizenship project over the coming years
(TEC 2002, p. 8).
This literature assumes that a reluctance
to vote equates with political apathy or
disinterest. This in turn is often attributed
to a lack of knowledge about democratic
government, or a “civics deficit”.
While this literature may seem irrelevant
in Australia where voting is compulsory, it
is in fact germane for a number of reasons.
Firstly, as this seems to be a trend that is
universal in advanced industrial democracies
in which voting is optional, it is highly
likely that the same phenomenon would be
occurring here if voting were not compulsory.
Secondly, the direct impact which this lack
of voting has had on the legitimacy of
democratic governments has stimulated a
greater degree of research than has been
carried out here and this research explores
themes which are important for the study of
young people’s perceptions of citizenship in
Australia. Thirdly, the turn that this research
has taken has challenged the validity of
other research which primarily relies on
the quantitative methodologies of political
science and the dominant assumptions of
citizenship and political participation that
underlie it.
Often these quantitative studies on
Chapter 3
Literature review
voter turnout are accompanied with other
quantitative data on other indicators of
political and civic engagement. These
include church-going, membership of formal
voluntary organisations, and membership
of political parties. These studies find
similar decreasing levels of membership
and argue that there is a link between the
two phenomena and that they indicate a
democratic decline. Voter apathy is equated
with a lack of civic duty on the part of
young people, whereas it might be more
accurate to say that the refusal to vote for a
party which does not represent their views
is a rational decision and an indication of
the failure of representative democracy to
represent the demos. Bhavnani argues that
many published, predominately quantitative
studies have tended to contribute to an
understanding of politics that is tied far
too narrowly to the domain elections and
parliamentary activity leading the political
activity that young people do take part in
to be overlooked both by the researchers
and the young people themselves (Henn &
Weinstein 2001, p. 3).
In any case, there has recently been
a turn away from the assumption that a
unwillingness to vote for a party, or join
a party, equates with a lack of interest in
politics per se. Many writers are beginning to
argue that the deficit lies not in democracy
or civics, but rather in the quantitative
methodological approaches that dominate
social sciences. Henn, Weinstein and Wring
(2002) point out that researchers and
subjects are sometimes talking a different
language. They point to qualitative research
that shows that young people tend to think
of “politics” merely as what goes on in
parliament rather than “things that effect
my life” and to discount their own political
involvement and activities. Whereas when
they are encouraged to talk about politics
on their own terms, a wider definition of
politics emerges and there is evidence of
a much higher level of interest and activity
(Henn et al. 2002, p. 169).
Some interesting qualitative research
has been sparked by the low rate of young
voter turn out in recent British elections
which is much more revealing than the
quantitative studies. Following a low level
of youth participation in local government,
the London-based Institute for Public Policy
Research conducted discussion groups with
41 young people aged 10 to 20 in various
locations around the UK to explore young
people’s understanding of and engagement
with political processes and decisionmaking. They found that the young people
they listened to were not apathetic, nor
disengaged from the issues that form the
foundations of political decision-making.
However, in common with many older
citizens, they are alienated by the processes
of politics. There was little sense of
government as a positive force for bettering
people’s lives, and instead a tendency to
see politics as a kind of soap-operatic stage
of deception and disputes. The respondents
reported feeling estranged from political
processes, powerless, unrepresented and
not listened to (Edwards 2001).
The Electoral Commission report agues
that the low level of young people voting
does not mean that young people are not
engaged and interested in politics. Of all
groups, young people, although the least
likely to vote, were the most likely to have
discussed political issues with friends and
family during the election, and were the most
likely to complain that they were given too
little information on candidates and policies
on which to base a decision. The report also
found an interesting distinction between
young citizens and their older counterparts
on the motivation to vote. Whereas the
27
28
Youth and Citizenship
electorate at large is likely to cite a sense
of civic duty as their motivation to vote,
young people were more likely to note a
sense of participation, of “having a say”
(TEC 2002, p. 7). In fact, it is possible to
draw similarities between the perception of
active citizenship and a reluctance to vote.
For instance, Cloonan and Street (1998)
argue that traditional quantitative focus on
party membership or identification conflates
uncritical loyalty with participation, when in
fact young people are less likely to have an
unreflexive identification with any party and
are in fact more likely to think deeply about
issues and their political responses. They
argue that party politics is in fact passive
rather than participative. In critiquing the
Rock the Vote campaign, they argue that:
It does not seek to create new forms
of political involvement. In this respect
it mirrors the movement within certain
political parties, most notably [UK]
Labour, towards cultivating supporters
and donors rather than activists. It
reinforces a more passive, consumerist
politics (Cloonan & Street 1998,
p. 36–7).
This notion that by not voting young
people are perhaps indicating that they
are more desirous of active participation
rather than passive consumption is echoed
in other qualitative data. For instance,
drawing on various sources the Young
People and Politics report quotes various
respondents expressing a desire to be
informed about party policies and seriously
consulted by politicians before they are
willing to give them their vote. For instance,
one respondent expressed a desire to go
to public meetings to meet candidates,
“providing it was an active and involving
event rather than just MPs sitting there.
Another commented that “politicians seem
remote, aloof, arrogant even . . . You have no
direct access where they share what they
are up to” (Children and Young People’s
Unit 2002, p. 32). As the British Children
and Young People’s Unit concluded:
All of this conflicts with the idea of an
apathetic younger electorate. Research
evidence seems to support this: young
people do have ways of engaging with
political issues, albeit not through
traditional forms of political engagement
such as joining political parties, writing
letters to newspapers about social and
political concerns, and being a candidate
for a local or national office. Rather,
young people are open to non-traditional
forms of involvement in civic life such as
petition-signing, taking part in boycotts,
campaigning on local issues, carrying
out charitable/voluntary activities and
joining campaigning groups (Children
and Young People’s Unit 2002, p. 17).
In fact there is consistent evidence that
the number of issues which people are
concerned about has increased. And, while
many political scientists argue that young
people have deserted economic issues in
favour of post-materialist politics, Bently
et al. (2000) argue that most people are
still concerned with economic issues,
but that other areas have simultaneously
become more important with consistently
increasing concern for issues such as the
environment, women’s rights and animal
welfare across the Western world. However,
as the number of issues has increased, it
becomes harder for people to identify with
a single slate of policies, particularly where
the diversification of interest has been
compounded by a fuzziness in what parties
stand for. These changes, they argue, have
both driven and been accelerated by the
growing emphasis on candidate-centred
politics which diminishes the heuristic value
of parties (Bently et al. 2000, p. 6).
Chapter 3
Literature review
3.5 Social change and citizenship
The last few decades have seen a great
degree of significant social change which may
have important ramifications for the ways that
young people perceive citizenship. There are
two sets of highly influential theory which
need to be tested against the perceptions
and lived experience of people. The first is
the established theory on citizenship and
the welfare state which is associated with
Marshall. How does the apparent decline
in state welfare sit with this set of theory
and to what extent does it accord with
the views of young people? Secondly, the
process of “globalisation” has caused some
theorists to question the assumptions of
traditional citizenship theory, and to develop
a cosmopolitan view of citizenship. How do
young people relate to this view of the world
and their place in it?
Social rights
One of the leading theorists of citizenship in the post-war era was T.H. Marshall.
While many definitions of citizenship are
based around a system of rights enabling
citizens to participate in government as
equals, Marshall’s powerful insight was
that there is a distinction to be drawn
between the formal granting of rights
and the ability to exercise them. Marshall
argued that any number of formal rights
are meaningless in a context that renders
people unable to exercise those rights.
Marshall’s very influential argument was
that citizenship rests on a degree of equality.
He argued that there are three components
of citizenship rights – civil, political and
social – which are all interrelated and the
development of which he traces over time
from pre-modern society to modernity.
Political rights are the rights to participate
in democratic activity, civil rights are the
set of legal freedoms required for that
participation, and social rights are the
minimum level of resources needed to
participate. From Marshall’s perspective, a
person who has all the nominal rights of
citizenship but does not have the resources
to exercise those rights is not really a
citizen.
Marshall argued that the development of
capitalism caused the erosion of a previous
set of rights and that the development of
capitalism also depended upon a new set
of rights evolving over time. Citizenship, he
argued, is an institution that has evolved
over time but which was always based on
the idea of equality. Civil rights were the
first to spread, as they were necessary for
the growth of capitalist economic life based
on contracts and the law of torts.
Thus although citizenship, even by the
end of the nineteenth century, had done
little to reduce social inequality, it had
helped to guide progress into the path
which led directly to the egalitarian
policies of the twentieth century. It
also had an integrating effect, or, at
least, was an important ingredient in
an integrating process. In a passage I
quoted just now, Maine spoke of prefeudal societies as bound together by
a sentiment and recruited by a fiction.
He was referring to kinship, or the
fiction of common descent. Citizenship
requires a bond of a different kind, a
direct sense of community membership
based on loyalty to a civilisation which
is a common possession. It is a loyalty
of free men endowed with rights and
protected by a common law. Its growth
is stimulated both by the struggle to
win those rights and by their enjoyment
when won (Marshall 1965, p. 92).
Marshall argues that the formal rights of
equality before the law were acknowledged
29
30
Youth and Citizenship
to be meaningless without affordable
access to that law, and later affordable
justice was made available. In other words,
economic inequality had to be overcome
for civil rights to be truly universal. This
followed the extension of political rights
to all citizens from the aristocracy to the
middle classes and eventually to the poor.
Similarly, social rights were first extended
only to the destitute (under the Poor Law),
then to the working classes and finally to
the whole population as a universal right
of citizenship (Mishra 1981, p. 27). As this
was the philosophical underpinning of the
universal post-war welfare state, it is timely
to investigate whether young people who
have grown up in an age of neo-liberalism
in which the emphasis of public discourse
has shifted from “universal entitlement” to
“mutual obligation” share Marshall’s view of
citizenship.
While Marshall was focusing on the
economic inequality of adults in the context
of citizenship, in essence his insight is that
citizenship is premised on an ideal of equality
based on autonomy and independence, an
ideal which many writers have commented
does not accord with the situation of
youth.
3.6 Cosmopolitanism
Traditional political and social understandings of citizenship in western liberal
democracies are founded on a notion of
citizenship born out of the rise of the nationstate and the birth of the modern political
arrangement. The concept of citizenship, its
practice and application, may be affected
by processes of globalisation and potential
concomitant challenges to the sovereignty
and autonomy of the liberal democratic
nation-state. The ramifications of these
changes may affect the understanding and
practice of citizenship for all people and the
experience of, and rights to citizenship, of
young people.
The nation-state is the primary unit of
internal organisation within western liberal
democracies and is currently also the central
available political, economic and cultural
resource in global processes. So we can see
that changes to the material and conceptual
constitution and function of the nation-state
will have a significant impact on our ideas
about and the articulation of citizenship. The
state is a political/administrative apparatus
which is supposed to defend the territorial
boundaries of the nation and “to facilitate
and concentrate [the] social, political and
economic activities of its citizens” (Beck,
2000, p. 103). However, some argue that
the nation is fast becoming just one in a
number of affiliations and memberships any
given individual might feel and experience.
Processes and developments that are beyond
the scope of individual nations to control
are challenging the reign of the nation as
the governor of identity.
The modern state is politically and
economically negotiating within a number
of different spheres of affiliation and
influence: through trade and human rights
agreements, international treaties and the
like. Held argues that the effect of processes
of globalisation is that we increasingly live
in a world of deepening interdependence,
or, “overlapping communities of fate”
(cited in Guibernau, 2001, p. 431); which
suggests diffusion of sites of control and
power; existing in contradistinction with the
centralising tendencies of global institutions
and structures of power. As the sovereignty
and monopoly on regulatory powers of the
nation-state is challenged by global forces,
a territorially-bounded nation-state and
its relationship to a territorially-bounded
populace also becomes problematic.
Chapter 3
Literature review
Central to the negotiation of existing and
potential forms of citizenship within and
across borders in the contemporary order is
the issue of sovereignty, which for so long
has been a territorially-bounded notion.
The threat to the sovereignty of the nationstate has presented a serious challenge to
the great nineteenth and twentieth century
traditions of social and political philosophy
of liberalism, conservatism, social democracy
and nationalism. They are caught amidst the
disjuncture of a conceptual base derived from
the system of sovereign and semi-sovereign
states, while attempting to come to grasps
with the theoretical demands of “a future
global society” (Hankiss 1998, p. 146).
These national frontiers or borders “are
no longer localisable in an unequivocal
fashion” (Balibar, 1998, p. 219), rather, they
are a vacillating phenomenon. They are, in
fact, an extension of the collective imagining
foundational to the constitution of the
nation, they have become, “things within the
space of the political itself ” (Balibar, 1998,
p. 220). Within liberal democratic thinking
and practice, there exists the traditional
assumption of a “direct and symmetrical
correspondence between government and
the (demos) governed” (Held, 1993, p. 12).
Territorial boundaries demarcate the
basis on which individuals are included
and excluded from participation in
decisions affecting their lives (however
limited that participation might be), but
the outcomes of these decisions often
“stretch” beyond national frontiers (Held
1995, p. 19).
Decisions made within the nation-state
now have clearly discernible impacts and
ramifications beyond the territoriallybounded limits of the individual State.
The effect of a country’s decision to test
biological or nuclear weapons within its
borders or territories can evidently not be
expected to be restricted to those same
borders. Obviously then we are confronted
with the inadequacy of existing democratic
organising principles within and beyond
the spatially delimited boundaries of the
nation-state. So might this rapid social
change impact the way that young people
perceive citizenship?
Some commentators see democratic
potential in the trends toward globalisation
and advocate acceptance of it. They advocate
a shift from perceiving the relationship
between the local and the global as an
antagonistic binary and come to understand
it as a dialectical moment in which individual
citizens come to have a sense of “participation both in large-scale global processes
and in particular communities” (McGrew
1997, p. 19). Therefore an ability to imagine
community beyond the nation is required
in order to comprehend these tendencies
and instigate a positive transition towards
global civil society. Such a perspective on
self-identity and belonging, could, as is the
cosmopolitan hope, open citizens to the
idea and a consideration of the feasibility
of, citizenship beyond borders: to the idea
of global citizenship.
If the unity of a society is crystallised
around its constitution, then a territoriallybounded notion of sovereignty becomes
both arbitrary and transferable. The social
boundaries of an abstract legal association
are “perfectly contingent” (Habermas 1999,
p. 116). It is only once our unity is conceived
through a common political culture that the
ideal of inclusive democratic citizenship
within the nation-state and beyond might
be realised. This logic is internally consistent
but does assume a desire amongst citizens
to actively participate in the public political
sphere. The low participation rate in elections
in many liberal democracies suggests that
31
32
Youth and Citizenship
the prevailing form of democracy and mode
of citizenship is in need of revision. Access to
the political process must be democratically
institutionalised if we are to retain any
hope in a participatory and inclusive form
of citizenship, for as Habermas claims,
“[D]emocratic self-determination . . . has the
inclusive meaning of self-legislation which
involves all citizens equally” (1999, p. 139).
The validity of rights in the constitutional
state then operates from two important
presuppositions: that every human being
has the right to have rights (Kant) and
that those subject to the laws that protect
and enforce rights are also their authors
(Habermas). The unifying force of a system
of basic human rights enshrined in law, is
of a universalistic quality, as the idea of
human rights pertains to all people in their
otherness. Habermas views this foundation
as a potential basis for legitimate authority
at the supranational level, yet it also
serves as an important modification at
the national level. National unity based on
shared descent is an inflexible model, as
membership rights are restricted to those
who share in a “pre-existing” condition.
Whereas a model of national citizenship,
derived from consensually agreed upon
code of basic human rights, makes no claim
to the existence of a pre-existing order.
These different approaches to citizenship
in the conditions of post-national sovereignty and globalisation, which can be
broadly categorised as cosmopolitan,
may accord with the views of young Australians, and this needs to be tested.
3.7 Summary and research directions
Based on this literature review, the
research questions were redefined to explore
how young people perceive citizenship in
several senses:
• What does the word “citizenship” mean
to young people? Methodological
debates have identified the need for
qualitative research that engages with
young people through meaningful
discourse, to ensure validity of
findings.
• How do young people relate to the
concepts of citizenship as intended
by researchers – are perceptions of
citizenship limited to political citizenship
or other notions of citizenship?
• What is the level of historical/theoretical
knowledge of citizenship among young
people?
• What are young people’s experiences of
citizenship and how do they relate to
perceptions of citizenship?
• Theory testing: How do post-war theories
of citizenship (such as Marshall) and
contemporary theories of citizenship
(such as cosmopolitanism) relate to
young people’s actual perceptions
and lived experiences of citizenship?
With the decline of the welfare state,
do notions of citizenship make sense
in a neoliberal context? How does the
emergence of globalisation impact on
perceptions of citizenship? Is there a
need to reconceptualise citizenship or
review the current policy context?
4
Summary of audit of
education-based citizenship
initiatives
4.1 Key findings
The idea of a “civics deficit”, that schools
are failing to provide students with sufficient
knowledge to be citizens in a democratic
society, has been identified many times and
at various periods since before Federation.
This conclusion is usually drawn from a
demonstrated or perceived low level of
interest in formal politics on the part of
young people.
At key periods there have been major
reviews of civics education, which have
led to major changes in the content and
teaching of civics education. The key
periods are the 1890s, the 1930s, the 1950s
and the 1990s. The present interest in civics
education can be traced to the inquiries of
the Senate Standing Committee at the end
of the 1980s, and the report of the Civics
Expert Group in 1994.
Civics seems to have gone into decline
in the 1950s and 1960s around Australia
and was not revised until the 1990s. The
proposed reasons for this decline include
widespread political radicalisation of
teachers, a dull pedagogy unappealing to
students and teachers alike, and the failure
to maintain civics as a distinct discipline.
“Civics literacy” surveys have repeatedly
found low levels of knowledge about the
formal institutions of government on the
part of the whole community, but particularly
in the youth cohort. Such research has also
found declining interest in participating in
formal politics on the part of respondents.
There are methodological and definitional
disputes that call into question the validity
of a conclusion of a “civics deficit”, and the
definition of citizenship which is implied in
traditional quantitative surveys. It is possible
that researchers who have concluded a
“civics deficit” may be confusing a lack
of interest in party politics with a lack of
political engagement. It would seem that
34
Youth and Citizenship
the perception of citizenship either held by
young people, taught in civics or constructed
by these surveys is rather narrow and
focusing on the duties of citizenship.
Following the report of the Civics
Expert Group and the commitment of the
new Federal Coalition Government, agreement was struck between the Australian
Government and the State and Territory
Governments to encourage and facilitate
a greater degree of civics education in
schools.
In summary, it seems that all of the States
and Territories have recently made attempts
to reform or reintroduce civics and citizenship
education. In that so many of these changes
are very new, and have often not been fully
implemented, it is difficult to tell to what
extent these reforms will be “successful”
in assisting students in the transition to
citizenship. It should also be noted that
due to the novelty of these changes, in
most cases, the respondents that will be
surveyed and interviewed as part of this
research project will not have experienced
the civics and citizenship education that is
documented in this audit.
Most of the States and Territories seem
to have taken on board the criticisms that
dogged civics since the 1930s, including
a narrow focus on formal institutions
and a lack of “real world” applicability.
They have sought to combine a study of
formal institutions with a fresher focus
on active participatory citizenship. Most
curricula cover the basic information need
to reverse a perceived “civics deficit”.
They also appear to seek to encourage
students to see two things: the impact
that formal institutions have on the lives of
people; and the impact that active citizens
can have on political institutions. In other
words, there has been a national move
towards making civics and citizenship seem
more accessible and interesting. That being
said, there is considerable emphasis on the
“duties of citizenship”, which the literature
suggests has in the past engendered a
narrow view of citizenship which students
find boring, though this is usually now
accompanied with a study of the “rights of
citizenship”, which the literature suggests
had been lacking in the past and which
accords with the values and priorities of
young people today.
Schools are a State matter so the
approach to civics and citizenship education
varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
NSW is the only State in which civics is
a compulsory and examined part of the
curriculum. There is a great deal of change
underway in most States and Territories
as a new emphasis has been placed on
civics and citizenship education around
Australia. At this point, it is very difficult
to draw conclusions about its effectiveness
in most places as the initiatives have not
yet been completely implemented.
In order to encourage the uniformity
of approach and content the Australian
Government has committed significant
funding to the Discovering Democracy
project which provides learning materials
and teacher support around Australia. This
is a fairly new project. A review of the
project found that its level of implementation varies considerably, and often
depends upon the level of interest on the
part of individual teachers.
It had been hoped to review programs
of active student participation in schools
through organisations such as school
councils and parliaments. However, it
was found that this was not a centralised
initiative which made finding data difficult
and beyond this report.
Chapter 4
Summary of audit of education-based citizenship initiatives
Previous
research
findings
have
disappointed political and educational
experts who felt that the level of knowledge
of political theory and institutions found was
too low for young people to become active
citizens, and the concept of citizenship
that they found was too narrow. It would
seem that on the whole there has been a
move towards encouraging “active” and
“participatory” citizenship in civics and
citizenship around the country. At this
stage it is too early to tell if this has been
successful, or even to what extent the policy
has been implemented.
The full audit
Appendix A.
report
is
located
in
35
36
Youth and Citizenship
5
Survey results
A national survey was conducted between
March of 2002 and November of 2003. The
survey was available in both paper and
web-based formats. A copy of the survey
is attached in Appendix B. The design,
promotion, distribution and analysis of the
survey is described in section 2.5 of the
methodology (Chapter 2).
The survey was designed to gather a large
amount of data about a range of aspects of
possible perceptions of citizenship. It was
not expected that the survey would provide
conclusive answers to the research question,
nor that it would be possible to adequately
capture the complexity of such a topic.
The survey was designed more as a tool
for directing and developing the qualitative
stage of the research which will follow it.
The survey was designed to investigate
several aspects of the perceptions of
citizenship including:
• the basic definitions of citizenship as
•
•
•
•
•
an abstract idea to which young people
might relate;
citizenship as a political identity and
status;
political and governmental power
relationships and the citizenship status
of young people;
the perceived rights and duties of
citizenship;
social rights and the perceived relevance
of Marshall’s three spheres of citizenship
to young people in the 21st century; and
the spatial boundaries of citizenship.
A detailed analysis of the demographics
of respondents is located in Appendix C.
5.1 Indigenous and non-Indigenous
samples
Among the sample of 687 self-selected
respondents, there were 20 respondents who
identified themselves as Indigenous. While
38
Youth and Citizenship
as a percentage of the overall population
this figure is proportionate to the number
of respondents, the absolute number of
responses is far too low to be considered
statistically significant or representative. For
this reason, efforts were made to include
Indigenous respondents by specifically
targeting young Indigenous people from
a remote community in Cape York, and
young Indigenous people attending a
conference in Brisbane. The data from these
two groups has been reported separately
because interviews with the Indigenous
groups revealed that their interpretation of
the surveys was considerably different to
the young people in the general sample,
meaning that to combine the data would
skew the results for the general sample, and
misinterpret the data from the Indigenousspecific sample. For example, when asked
if they thought Australia was “fair”, some
of the Indigenous respondents from Cape
York and Brisbane answered yes. However,
interviews revealed that this was because
they interpreted “fair” as meaning “white”
rather than “just”. To have included these
responses would have led to a possible
over-representation of the overall perceived
fairness of Australian society, and to have
completely misrepresented the perceptions
of the Indigenous group.
particularly difficult concept to explore in a
quantitative survey.
The survey asked respondents how they
conceived of citizenship in an abstract sense.
Some of the different definitions are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. Respondents
were asked to indicate the degree to which
they agreed or disagreed with a series of
statements rather than to nominate a single
definition. The statements are listed below
(table 1) in order of total level of support.
Much of the previous quantitative research
in this field has found high levels of support
for definitions of citizenship that emphasise
symbols of nationalism such as flags, or
symbols of formal status such as passports.
The answers to these questions and the
way that they were phrased in this survey
present us with an interesting, and rather
complex, view of citizenship. This could
be partially attributed to the fact that this
question was deliberately positioned quite
late in the survey, at question 12, after more
substantial issues had been presented.
5.2 Discussion of survey results
The greatest level of support was for the
two statements which defined citizenship
as a set of rights and duties concerned
with participating in society. There was also
a great deal of support for the statement
which defined citizenship as being
about membership of a community, and
participating in decisions which affect you.
Defining citizenship
As was explored in the literature review,
there is no single accepted definition of
citizenship. There are many, and sometimes
conflicting, definitions of citizenship to be
found in the literature. It is a disputed
term, and one which can carry several,
sometimes conflicting, meanings for any
given individual. Citizenship as an idea
is complex and nuanced. This makes it a
Interestingly there was a higher level
of support for the idea that citizenship is
international rather than national, although
some people agreed with both statements.
The idea that citizenship is about national
culture and identity had the highest level
of ambivalence (people who said they
neither agreed nor disagreed), very closely
followed by the ambivalence towards the
idea the citizenship is something that you
are born with.
Chapter 5
Survey results
Table 1: Defining citizenship
Citizenship is about . . .
Strongly
agree
Agree
41.4
45.8
8.9
1.7
0.7
36.9
48.0
10.9
1.9
0.4
27.4
53.3
11.9
4.2
0.6
28.4
42.8
20.0
5.1
0.7
28.9
37.9
18.4
8.9
3.5
25.3
41.5
25.9
3.8
1.8
13.1
29.6
26.4
22.2
6.9
6.1
15.8
26.9
32.7
16.4
2.5
6.6
16.5
39.3
32.5
1.8
6.4
10.8
21.9
56.4
1.3
5.6
15.0
38.9
37.2
Citizenship is about duties and responsibilities that people have to participate
in society and to uphold the rights of
their fellow citizens.
Citizenship is about the rights that
people have to be protected by the law
and to participate in society.
Citizenship is about being a member of
a community. It is a mutual relationship
between members of the community.
Citizenship is about participating in
decisions which affect you.
Citizenship is international – we are all
members of global society as well as a
local society, and citizenship is about our
relationship with all of the people in the
world.
Citizenship is something that we are
always working to achieve or maintain.
It’s an ongoing process.
Citizenship is about nationalism – it is
about sharing a common culture and
identity with people in your country.
Citizenship is something you are born
with.
I don’t really care about citizenship. It
is something that I have never thought
about before.
Citizenship is about discrimination. It is
about excluding people from a privileged
group.
There are no duties, citizenship is only
about rights.
However, this leaves us with a problem of
interpretation, to be further explored in the
qualitative phase. The wider acceptance of
an internationalist view of citizenship than
a nationalist or exclusive view of citizenship
is perplexing. On the one hand, it could
Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
be interpreted as, seeming to represent
a normative, or ideal, form of citizenship
rather than a description of actuality.
On the other hand, it could be interpreted as
a rejection of national boundaries altogether
and an acceptance of a borderless global
39
40
Youth and Citizenship
Table 2: Perceptions of citizenship (Indigenous sample)
Citizenship is about . . .
Strongly
agree
Agree
32.4
41.2
26.5
0
0
30.9
29.4
29.4
8.8
1.5
27.9
27.9
35.3
4.4
4.4
26.5
36.8
25.0
10.3
1.5
22.4
28.4
38.8
7.5
3.0
22.4
16.4
26.9
22.4
11.9
22.1
44.1
30.9
2.9
0
19.7
24.2
40.9
12.1
3.0
19.1
39.7
30.9
8.8
1.5
12.3
23.1
35.4
24.6
4.6
11.9
22.4
38.8
22.4
4.5
Citizenship is about the rights that
people have to be protected by the law
and to participate in society.
Citizenship is something that we are
always working to achieve or maintain.
It’s an ongoing process.
Citizenship is about nationalism – it is
about sharing a common culture and
identity with people in your country.
Citizenship is about being a member of
a community. It is a mutual relationship
between members of the community.
Citizenship is international – we are all
members of global society as well as
a local society, and citizenship is about
our relationship with all of the people in
the world.
Citizenship is about discrimination.
It is about excluding people from a
privileged group.
Citizenship is about duties and responsibilities that people have to participate
in society and to uphold the rights of
their fellow citizens.
Citizenship is something you are born
with.
Citizenship is about participating in
decisions which affect you.
I don’t really care about citizenship. It
is something that I have never thought
about before.
There are no duties, citizenship is only
about rights.
civil and political society. Or it may merely
imply a rejection of the terminology of
nationalism and discrimination. These are
issues which were further explored in the
qualitative phase (see Chapter 6).
Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
There was also a great deal of support
for the idea that citizenship is an ongoing
process, the maintenance or achievement
of which is something towards which
we constantly work. The lowest levels of
Chapter 5
Survey results
support were for the statements that defined
citizenship as being about discrimination
and exclusivity, and for the idea that
citizenship is only about rights, and not
about duties.
Testing for correlations between answers
to this question and personal characteristics
of respondents, or between the answers
to these questions and others within the
survey, revealed no significant patterns from
which to draw conclusions about correlating
factors. However, there were differences
between the responses of the general
sample and the Indigenous sample.
More Indigenous respondents (34.3%)
either strongly agreed or agreed with
the statement that “there are no duties,
citizenship is only about rights” than in
the general sample (6.9%). Additionally,
the number of Indigenous respondents
who remained neutral about the statement
(38.8%), was more than double that among
respondents overall (15%).
The conception of citizenship as a birth
right is much more prominent among
Indigenous respondents. More than twice as
many respondents in the Indigenous sample
(43.9%) either strongly agreed or agreed with
this idea than the general sample (21.9%).
More Indigenous respondents said they
had never thought about citizenship before
(35.4%) compared to the general sample
(9.1%). The ratio of neutral responses to this
statement is also greater among Indigenous
responses (35.4%) than in the general
sample (16.5%).
These disparities in Indigenous and nonIndigenous views are interesting, but without
further investigation it is unclear what they
represent. It could be that the two groups
simply use the word “citizenship” differently,
or it could be that this is an indication of a
very different point of view.
Politics, participation and citizenship
One key aspect of citizenship is the political
status of citizenship within democracy. The
survey explored this theme in a number of
ways by looking at the way respondents
perceived power – both in terms of their
own power and the power that others have
over them. It also explored their experiences,
expectations and perceptions of political
participation, and also looked at sources of
political education and information.
Issues that are important to young people
In the first question of the survey
respondents were asked what issues they
thought were important to young people.
One of the reasons for asking questions
about issues of importance was that much
recent research conducted overseas found
that many young people feel disenfranchised
or undervalued by the political system. Other
researchers have found this to be because
governments and political aspirants ignore
the issues in which young people are most
interested, and concentrate instead on
issues in which young people have little
or no interest. This leads young people to
feel that their views are unrepresented by
the political system and that, as they are
apparently not considered important to the
decision-making processes of democratic
government, they are not really members
of the polity. Another reason for asking this
question at the beginning of the survey
was to encourage respondents to think
politically.
The question was phrased as “what issues
are important to young people”, rather than
“what issues are important to you”, in order
to reduce the likelihood that respondents
would focus on issues of particular current
and personal importance to themselves,
and concentrate on what they perceived to
be issues of importance to young people
41
42
Youth and Citizenship
in general. Nonetheless, the results seem
to indicate that the prevalent issues of
perceived importance are perhaps best
described as issues which have a clear and
direct personal impact on the lives of young
people. This interpretation was confirmed in
the interviews that were carried out in the
piloting of the survey.
The top five issues were education,
relationships, employment, money and youth
suicide. Testing the data for correlations
between characteristics and responses, or
for patterns between certain responses,
did not reveal many significant patterns.
For instance, there was little difference in
responses according to gender or location.
However, in some cases age does seem to
be a correlating factor. This was particularly
noticeable in that increased age appeared
to correlate with increased concern about
issues expressed in a less personal and
more abstract form. For instance, there was
a correlation between increased age and
concern for “international politics”, “local
community issues” and “rural and regional
issues”. There were differences between
the responses from different States and
Territories. However, further analysis reveals
that these differences can be attributed
to the different age demographics of
respondents in those States, rather than
other factors relating to the States and
Territories themselves.
Table 3: Importance of issues to young people
Very Important
important
Education
Relationship
Employment
Money
Youth suicide
Family relations
Human rights
Affordable housing
Racism
Health
Transport
Drugs
Environment
Crime and personal safety
Govt income support provisions
Aboriginal reconciliation
Local community
Regional and rural issues
International politics
The economy
61.8
58.7
58.3
55.5
54.0
43.7
42.9
40.5
39.6
38.2
37.4
35.3
34.5
34.0
31.1
22.4
19.5
19.5
17.5
14.9
28.3
32.2
31.2
35.5
31.2
38.0
35.2
38.2
33.9
42.6
39.0
42.3
46.8
45.8
33.3
37.1
38.0
33.3
35.1
30.7
Neutral
7.2
6.3
9.2
7.4
9.6
14.0
16.1
13.00
19.3
13.9
18.4
11.4
13.1
14.8
21.5
26.5
31.2
30.1
28.1
34.0
Not
Not
very important
important
at all
2.5
0.1
1.9
0.7
0.78
0.1
1.2
0.1
3.4
1.6
3.9
0.1
4.5
1.2
6.0
2.2
5.3
1.6
4.2
0.9
3.4
1.6
5.4
5.4
5.3
0.1
4.2
1.0
8.7
5.3
9.8
6.0
8.7
2.5
13.1
3.5
14.3
4.8
16.3
4.0
Chapter 5
Survey results
As in the case of the general sample,
the issue nominated as most important
by the Indigenous sample was education
(very important 72.1%). However, there
are some distinct differences in the
ranking between the general sample and
Indigenous respondents. While the second
highest ranking for the general group was
relationships (very important 58.7%), the
Indigenous respondents ranked family
relations second (very important 67.6%),
possibly reflecting strong kinship ties among
Indigenous communities.
Aboriginal reconciliation was ranked third
(very important 64.2%), whereas the overall
population ranked the issue 16th (out of
20 issues in total). Racism was also ranked
higher among the Indigenous sample (very
important 59.7%) compared to the general
sample (39.6%).
For the Indigenous group, crime and
personal safety was also a very important
issue, and was ranked fourth (very important
62.7%). However, the same issue was
considered very important by only 34% of
the general sample.
Perceived political power
The survey inquired into respondents’
perceptions of where power lies. It did so
partly by asking respondents whom they
perceived to have power over young people,
and did so by asking to what extent young
Table 4: Importance of issues to young people (Indigenous sample)
Very Important
important
Education
Family relations
Aboriginal reconciliation
Crime and personal safety
Youth suicide
Health
Racism
Human rights
Money
Drugs
Employment
Environment
Local community
Relationship
Affordable housing
Transport
Govt income support provisions
Regional and rural issues
The economy
International politics
72.1
67.6
64.2
62.7
61.2
60.3
59.7
55.9
52.9
50.0
47.1
47.0
41.8
39.7
34.8
34.8
27.3
22.4
21.2
10.8
25.0
26.5
34.3
23.9
22.4
38.2
22.4
36.8
35.3
19.1
42.6
45.5
35.8
41.2
45.5
39.4
40.9
50.7
33.3
50.8
Neutral
2.9
5.9
1.5
10.4
13.4
1.5
9.0
5.9
11.8
13.2
10.3
6.1
17.9
14.7
18.2
13.6
18.2
23.9
33.3
27.7
Not
Not
very important
important
at all
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
3.0
6.0
1.5
0
0
0
2.9
14.7
0
0
1.5
0
3.0
1.5
4.4
0
1.5
0
10.6
1.5
10.6
3.0
3.0
0
9.1
3.0
7.7
3.1
43
44
Youth and Citizenship
people feel “affected by decisions made by”
certain groups. The survey went on to ask
how reciprocal that relationship is perceived
to be. That is, to what extent are those
groups perceived to exert power over young
people seen to be responsive to the views
of the young people themselves? It did so
by asking to what extent young people feel
“they have influence over the decisions
made by” each of those groups of people
in question.
The next most powerful were perceived as
being the media (entertainment followed by
news). Governments were ranked relatively
low, with State and Territory Governments
seen as having slightly more influence over
the lives of young people than the Federal
Government. Local government ranked lower
than both these and the police and justice
system. Churches and religious groups were
seen as having the least influence over the
lives of young people.
The power relationships were found to
be universally perceived as unequal, with
every group seen to have much more power
over young people, than young people have
over those groups. Those that were seen
to have the most power over young people
were those with whom young people could
be said to have a more direct personal
relationship. The two most frequently
reported were educational institutions such
as schools and the family.
Government and business groups are seen
as the most remote and those over which
young people exercise the least influence.
The reasons for this difference were drawn
out in the qualitative phase.
The responses from the Indigenous
sample paint a rather different picture of
perceived power and influence. Family was
thought to be the most influential decisionmaker by the Indigenous respondents (“a
great deal” 82.1%). Considering that the
Table 5: Extent that young people feel affected by the decisions made by . . .
Educational institutions
Family
Entertainment media
News media
Employment sector
State/Territory Government
Australian Federal Government
Police and justice system
Local government
Local community
Global/international politics
Australian business community
Global/international business
community
Religious groups/churches
A great
deal
77.9
68.2
60.5
58.1
57.2
49.1
46.8
33.6
32.1
20.4
18.7
15.3
Somewhat
18.4
26.3
30.3
32.5
35.3
35.7
33.8
44.8
41.7
55.0
32.4
41.0
Not
much
2.0
3.9
6.4
6.4
5.0
10.8
14.4
14.7
22.0
20.1
36.1
34.7
Not
at all
0.6
0
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.3
1.0
4.1
2.0
2.9
9.3
4.8
Don’t
know
0.4
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.5
3.6
1.6
1.6
1.0
2.9
3.5
12.3
5.4
30.3
30.0
40.7
41.5
11.3
18.7
4.5
3.8
Chapter 5
Survey results
general sample placed it as the second most
influential (68.2%), the importance of family
among the Indigenous sample is clear.
Educational institutions were ranked second
most powerful (60.3%) by the Indigenous
sample, whereas they were considered to
be the most influential decision-maker by
general sample (77.9%).
Local government was ranked the third
most influential decision-making body
among the Indigenous respondents (52.3%),
an interesting contrast with the general
results that ranked entertainment media
third (60.5%) and local government ninth
(32.1%). This difference might be related
to the level of exposure to entertainment
media in remote areas such as Cape York
where half of the Indigenous respondents
live, or by the greater perceived importance
of local government in a small community,
or a combination of both. Local community
was also ranked higher by Indigenous
respondents (46.3%) than by the general
sample (20.4%).
Half the Indigenous respondents thought
that decisions made by police and the justice
system affect young people to a great extent
(50%), compared to one third of the general
sample (33.6%). The over-representation of
Indigenous youth with the police and justice
system may be reflected in this finding.
Only a small number of respondents in the
general sample regarded “decisions made
by police and the justice system” as a
factor affecting them. However, this could
be a result of the socio-economic profile of
respondents. Presumably the group of nonIndigenous young people who self-select
to complete surveys on citizenship are the
least likely to have contact with police and
the justice system.
While the ranking itself is quite low (tenth),
decisions made by religious groups/churches
Table 6: Extent that young people feel affected by the decisions made by . . .
(Indigenous sample)
Family
Educational institutions
Local government
Police and justice system
Entertainment media
Local community
News media
Employment sector
State/Territory Government
Australian Federal Government
Australian business community
Religious groups/churches
Global/international politics
Global/international business
community
A great
deal
82.1
60.3
52.3
50.0
48.5
46.3
43.3
40.3
40.3
39.7
35.4
30.8
21.2
Somewhat
10.4
26.5
27.7
38.2
30.9
37.3
38.8
40.3
32.8
29.4
27.7
35.4
40.9
Not
much
6.0
11.8
15.4
8.8
19.1
13.4
13.4
10.4
16.4
16.2
24.6
24.6
19.7
Not
at all
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.9
1.5
3.0
3.0
4.5
4.5
4.4
6.2
7.7
9.1
Don’t
know
0
0
3.1
0
0
0
1.5
4.5
6.0
10.3
6.2
1.5
9.1
15.6
34.4
29.7
12.5
7.8
45
46
Youth and Citizenship
were thought to influence young people to
a great extent, by more of the Indigenous
respondents (30.8%) than those in the
general sample of young people (5.4%).
Of all of these relationships, young people
saw themselves as having most influence
within the family. The second greatest level
of young people’s power is perceived as
being over the entertainment media. This
could be interpreted as an indication of a
perception of consumer power, or “consumer
sovereignty”, however it could also merely
reflect a perception that the entertainment
media is speaking directly to young people,
about young people. This question was
further explored in the qualitative phase
(see Chapter 6).
Both Indigenous and general respondents
considered the global/international business
community,
the Australian
business
community and global/international politics
as the decision-making bodies over which
they have very little influence.
Family and educational institutions were
respectively ranked by 48.5% and 36.8%
of Indigenous respondents as the bodies
whose decisions they have influence over to
a great extent. This is similar to the overall
trend of ranking educational institutions the
third and family the second.
As previously, there is a different
perception between Indigenous and general
sample regarding entertainment media. The
general sample ranked it second whereas
the Indigenous group ranked it 11th.
Table 7: Extent that young people have influence in the decisions made by . . .
Family
Entertainment media
Educational institutions
Local community
News media
Religious groups/churches
Employment sector
Local government
Police and justice system
Australian Federal Government
Global/international business
community
State/Territory Government
Australian business community
Global/international politics
A great
deal
41.2
23.0
19.4
11.8
11.0
6.3
5.7
4.7
3.5
3.2
Somewhat
48.2
37.9
37.9
50.2
34.0
29.7
28.2
41.2
17.7
9.1
Not
much
7.2
23.8
23.8
30.7
35.9
32.9
41.5
37.4
40.4
45.8
Not
at all
1.5
13.3
7.3
4.4
16.6
21.1
17.8
14.3
35.5
40.3
Don’t
know
1.2
0.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
9.1
2.9
1.3
2.0
0.7
2.2
1.8
1.5
1.0
6.7
20.0
12.7
6.6
26.0
50.4
40.7
33.3
59.2
25.9
40.1
55.5
5.0
1.0
1.0
2.8
Chapter 5
Survey results
Table 8: Extent that young people have power in influencing the decisions made by . . .
(Indigenous sample)
Family
Educational institutions
Police and justice system
Religious groups/churches
Local community
News media
Employment sector
Australian Federal Government
State/Territory Government
Local government
Entertainment media
Global/international business
community
Australian business community
Global/international politics
A great
deal
48.5
36.8
35.3
30.3
29.4
25.8
25.0
20.9
19.1
17.6
16.2
Somewhat
29.4
29.4
25.0
27.3
38.2
22.7
30.9
22.4
26.5
32.4
33.8
Not
much
13.2
19.1
25.0
21.2
20.6
31.8
26.5
32.8
30.9
29.4
27.9
Not
at all
7.4
13.2
14.7
18.2
10.3
16.7
14.7
17.9
17.6
14.7
22.1
Don’t
know
1.5
1.5
0
3.0
1.5
3.0
2.9
6.0
5.9
5.9
0
14.9
11.9
10.8
26.9
35.8
32.3
28.4
26.9
27.7
17.9
19.4
16.9
11.9
6.0
12.3
Power and government
The imbalance of power felt by
young people in their relationship with
governments is quite clear from the results
in tables 8 and 9. The respondents indicate
that governments at all levels have a much
greater level of power over them than they
have over governments. The extent that
they feel they have power in influencing
government is highest at local level, though
still very low with only 5% reporting a great
deal of influence and 41% some influence.
Table 9: Extent that young people feel affected by decisions made by . . .
State/Territory Government
Australian Federal Government
Local government
A great
deal
49.1
46.8
32.1
Somewhat
35.7
33.8
41.7
Not
much
10.8
14.4
22.0
Not
at all
1.3
1.0
2.0
Don’t
know
2.5
3.6
1.6
Table 10: Extent that young people feel they have power in influencing decisions made by . . .
Local government
State/Territory Government
Australian Federal Government
A great
deal
4.7
1.8
3.2
Somewhat
41.2
20.0
9.1
Not
much
37.4
50.4
45.8
Not
at all
14.3
25.9
40.3
Don’t
know
1.3
1.0
0.7
47
48
Youth and Citizenship
The survey also asked respondents to
what extent they thought that governments
are responsive to the views of young people,
whether society values the views of young
people, and whether young people really
want to be actively involved in decisionmaking processes. Overwhelmingly the
respondents felt that young people did
want to be involved, but that society in
general, and governments particularly, were
not responsive to young people.
The perceived desire of young people
to participate in decisions about issues
that affect their lives was quite high
(strongly agree and agree 74.7%) among
the Indigenous respondents, but not as
high as among the general respondents
(88.8%). Again, this result is likely to be
a reflection of the fact that about half the
Indigenous respondents were not accessed
through youth-related organisations, whose
members often have close contact with
politics and other opportunities related to
decision-making.
In terms of governments’ responsiveness
to the views of young people, 30.9% of the
Indigenous respondents either strongly
agreed or agreed with the statement.
This figure is almost three times greater
than the overall result (12%). Combined
with the perceived greater influence over
local government by Indigenous young
people previously discussed, this result
may show closer connections between
Indigenous youth and local government.
The Indigenous sample also had a more
Table 11: Participation and responsiveness (general sample)
Young people want the opportunity
to participate in making decisions
about the issues which affect their
lives.
Governments are responsive to the
views of young people.
Society increasingly values the views
of young Australians
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
57.1
31.7
6.0
2.3
0.3
1.2
10.8
27.2
40.9
18.0
3.1
33.8
23.0
29.3
8.6
Table 12: Participation and responsiveness (Indigenous sample)
Young people want the opportunity
to participate in making decisions
about the issues which affect their
lives.
Governments are responsive to the
views of young people.
Society increasingly values the views
of young Australians
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
44.8
29.9
17.9
7.5
0.0
7.4
23.5
19.1
29.4
20.6
11.8
38.2
26.5
17.6
5.9
Chapter 5
Survey results
positive view of society regarding the
level at which it is perceived to value
the views of young Australians (50% as
opposed to the overall 36.9%). This is
probably a reflection of the fact that many
of the respondents from the Indigenous
sample live in small remote communities,
where local government is composed of
personally known community elders.
Because of the federal system, and
the way that the question addressed the
generic “governments”, responses were
cross-tabulated against the home State or
Territory of respondents. We found that
respondents in NSW, the ACT and Western
Australia were the most supportive of the
idea that governments are responsive
to young people, though at only a total
rate of around 16% in each State, and
that Queensland residents were the least
supportive (6%). However, these differences
are not statistically significant, implying
that the feeling that governments are
unresponsive to the views of young people
is widespread across the nation rather than
particular to any State or Territory. It would
be interesting to know if this perspective is
unique to young people, or whether it is a
general perception.
Given that 89% of respondents felt that
young people do want to participate in
influencing politics and government, it
is important to understand how young
citizens feel that they can effectively do
this. Respondents were also asked about
strategies for political participation. The
survey asked firstly which methods of
political participation were seen to be
effective, and secondly which of these the
participants had taken part in.
The activities which were seen to be the
most effective were voting in elections, youth
and student representative organisations
and through community groups. The
methods which are probably those most
commonly thought of such as writing to
politicians or newspapers, signing petitions
and calling talkback radio, were seen to be
the least effective. A very high number of
respondents had participated in community
Table 13: Level and effectiveness of young people’s participation . . .
Participated?
Type of activity
Through community groups
Student representative bodies
Petitions
Youth rep panels/organisations
Street protest
Voting in elections
Consumer action
Though the arts
Calling talkback radio
Industrial action
Writing to politicians
Writing to newspapers
Yes
72.1
69.4
74.2
64.6
56.6
50.8
46.3
43.1
25.4
13.8
47.7
46.9
No
26.3
28.7
24.0
33.6
41.5
46.4
51.2
54.3
72.3
83.4
50.4
51.5
How effective is it?
Very Effective Slightly Not at all Don’t
effective
effective effective know
19.7
45.2
26.6
5.1
1.5
28.4
43.1
20.1
5.1
1.3
5.1
38.3
41.4
10.8
2.9
30.4
39.7
20.6
4.2
3.2
14.2
33.9
35.0
13.4
1.3
34.8
32.9
23.0
6.1
1.2
17.2
24.5
32.0
17.7
6.7
12.5
25.1
34.8
20.4
5.5
8.3
27.8
42.0
18.5
1.6
15.1
31.3
34.7
12.2
4.8
5.4
20.1
49.1
22.3
1.3
6.3
36.6
46.2
8.6
0.6
49
50
Youth and Citizenship
groups (72%), student representative bodies
(69%) and youth representative panels
(65%). A high number had also participated
in petitions (74%) and a smaller majority
had participated in street protest (57%).
With the exception of petitions, industrial
action and writing to politicians, there is
some correlation between what is perceived
to be effective and what activities people
have participated in. The high rate of
participation among the respondents in
the general sample in community groups,
petitions and protests may also be related
to the fact that those young people who
completed the survey (through self-selection)
are more likely than other young people to
also participate in these types of activities.
The Indigenous sample was actively recruited because of low numbers of selfselected Indigenous participants. This is
reflected in the overall levels of formal
participation among the Indigenous
sample. Additionally, because many of
these respondents in the sample live in
remote communities, there are probably
fewer opportunities to participate in
formal organisations or to engage in
street protest.
Democratic?
Theoretically, citizenship and democracy
are inextricably linked. The status of
citizenship, as opposed to subjection,
implies democratic government. Yet, when
asked to what extent they agreed with the
statement that “Australia is a democratic
country”, less than 55% of respondents in
the general sample and less than 44% of
the Indigenous sample, either agreed or
strongly agreed.
It might be that increased life experience
diminishes the perception that Australia is a
democratic country, or that the conception
of democracy becomes more complicated as
people grow older. This is a very difficult result
to analyse. Another issue that is not clear is
how the sample would define “democratic”.
The differences might be accounted for by
the application of different standards to
measure democracy. This question was
Table 14: Level and effectiveness of young people’s participation (Indigenous sample)
Participated?
Type of activity
Student representative bodies
Through community groups
Though the arts
Writing to politicians
Youth rep panels/organisations
Street protest
Voting in elections
Writing to newspapers
Calling talkback radio
Petitions
Consumer action
Industrial action
Yes
42.6
40.3
34.3
32.4
31.8
30.9
29.9
27.9
25.0
23.5
19.1
13.4
No
55.9
59.7
64.2
66.2
68.2
69.1
70.1
70.6
73.5
76.5
79.4
85.1
How effective is it?
Very Effective Slightly Not at all Don’t
effective
effective effective know
27.9
38.2
19.1
7.4
7.4
27.9
36.8
20.6
8.8
5.9
20.9
32.8
25.4
16.4
4.5
30.9
27.9
23.5
14.7
2.9
32.8
28.4
20.9
10.4
7.5
20.6
33.8
29.4
10.3
5.9
26.5
33.8
22.1
10.3
7.4
23.5
29.4
33.8
10.3
2.9
20.6
36.8
27.9
11.8
2.9
19.1
25.0
38.2
10.3
7.4
17.6
33.8
25.0
13.2 10.3
17.6
33.8
23.5
19.1
5.9
Chapter 5
Survey results
Table 15: Australia is a democratic country
12 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 21
22 to 25
Total
Strongly
agree
Agree
3.1
15.7
11.0
6.6
11.0
62.5
45.1
42.9
35.8
42.4
further explored in the qualitative phase with
some surprising results (see Chapter 6).
Education and sources of information
A strong theme identified in the literature
review is the belief that there is a “civics
deficit” in Australia, meaning that young
people do not have sufficient education
in civics and citizenship to enable them to
become “effective” participants in political
life. The survey asked respondents about
civics and citizenship education, and sources
of political information. The respondents
were also asked whether they recalled having
been taught about citizenship at school,
Neither
agree nor
disagree
34.4
28.2
27.3
25.0
27.3
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0.0
6.7
16.9
25.5
14.9
0.0
1.6
1.3
7.1
3.2
and whether they believed that civics and
citizenship should be taught at school.
The vast majority of respondents agreed
that students should be taught about
Australia’s legal and political system at
school (92%) and that students should be
taught about citizenship (85%).
Only 52% of the total sample of
respondents said that they had been taught
about citizenship at school. Given that the
renewed interest in civics and citizenship
education is relatively recent, it is not
surprising that increased age correlates with
not having been taught about citizenship at
Table 16: Citizenship education
Should students be taught about Australia’s legal and
political system at school?
Should students be taught about citizenship at school?
Have you been taught about citizenship at school?
Yes
No
Don’t
know
91.7
84.8
52.2
4.2
6.6
39.0
2.9
7.6
7.9
Yes
No
Don’t
know
66.2
71.6
54.4
10.3
6.0
30.9
23.5
22.4
14.7
Table 17: Citizenship education (Indigenous sample)
Should students be taught about Australia’s legal and
political system at school?
Should students be taught about citizenship at school?
Have you been taught about citizenship at school?
51
52
Youth and Citizenship
school. 51% of 21 to 25-year-olds claimed
not to have been taught about citizenship,
compared to 39% of 12 to 14-year-olds. It is
also possible that as citizenship is not taught
as a discrete subject, but rather as a topic
covered in many subjects, respondents may
not have been aware that they had covered
related topics in subjects such as SOSE.
Generally, the Indigenous responses
follow the trend of the general sample,
except that they are more uncertain about
all of these questions which is evidenced by
a very much greater proportion of people
who chose “don’t know”.
Perceived value of the education received,
the teaching approaches employed, and
how educational experience correlates to
broader perceptions of citizenship, were
explored further in the qualitative research.
Respondents were asked who they
thought were trustworthy sources of
political information. The most trusted
source was teachers (75%) followed
by family (73%). The media (36%) and
politicians (34%) were seen as the least
trustworthy sources respectively, with
friends in the middle at 54%.
The most trustworthy source of accurate
information about politics was regarded as
family (91.2%), followed by friends (80.6%)
and teachers (58.2%). The least trustworthy
source was politicians (37.3%) and media
Table 18: Have you been taught about citizenship at school?
12 to 14
51.5
39.4
9.1
Yes
No
Don’t know
15 to 17
62.1
29.7
7.4
18 to 21
57.1
35.7
7.1
22 to 25
39.2
50.9
9.9
Total
53.0
38.5
8.2
Table 19: Who do you think are trustworthy sources of accurate information about politics?
Teachers
Family
Friends
Media
Politicians
Very
trustworthy
13.6
16.1
7.1
2.5
3.9
Somewhat
trustworthy
61.4
57.1
46.6
33.8
29.7
Not sure
9.5
11.2
22.0
13.6
10.2
Not very
trustworthy
11.4
13.6
18.8
35.1
32.2
Not at all
trustworthy
3.2
0.7
4.4
14.0
22.3
Table 20: Who do you think are trustworthy sources of accurate information about
politics? (Indigenous sample)
Family
Friends
Teachers
Politicians
Media
Very
trustworthy
69.1
37.3
23.9
10.4
7.5
Somewhat
trustworthy
22.1
43.3
34.3
26.9
35.8
Not sure
7.4
16.4
31.3
35.8
34.3
Not very
trustworthy
1.5
3.0
6.0
9.0
13.4
Not at all
trustworthy
0.0
0.0
4.5
17.9
9.0
Chapter 5
Survey results
(43.3%). The only difference with the general
sample is that teachers were not as trusted,
as the general sample placed teachers as
the most trustworthy source (75%), even
above family (73%). It is also noted that the
levels of trust to family and friends are a lot
higher among the Indigenous respondents.
Rights and Duties
Citizenship is often defined as a set of
rights and duties (or obligations). Indeed, as
detailed above, a majority of respondents in
this survey agreed that it was such.
Table 21: Perceptions of citizenship
Citizenship is about . . .
Citizenship is about the rights that
people have to be protected by the
law and to participate in society.
Citizenship is about duties and responsibilities that people have to
participate in society and to uphold
the rights of their fellow citizens.
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
36.9
48.0
10.9
1.9
0.4
41.4
45.8
8.9
1.7
0.7
The survey asked respondents to list
which rights they agreed were the rights of
citizenship. In every case, a large majority of
respondents agreed that each of the rights
named or described was a right to which
citizens should be entitled. These rights are
listed below in order of support, and with a
further indication of whether the rights fall
into the category of social, civil or political
rights according to Marshall’s typology.
The highest level of support is given
to those rights which are civil or social,
rather than political. Given current debates
on funding of services, it is notable that
the right to a good education and to good
quality health care are in the top three with
almost unanimous support. The lowest
level of support, though still high, is given
to the right to protest (88%) and to go on
strike (83%).
A common feature of all the questions
asked about social and civil rights is the
correlation between age and the responses
given. For this reason all of these results are
presented in a format which details the age
group of the respondents.
The respondents were asked if
Australian society is fair. In all age groups
only a minority of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that society is fair. There
was, however, an interesting pattern which
emerged showing that respondents aged
12 to 14 were the most likely to agree
that it is fair (40%). This perception of
fairness seems to decline with increased
age, before rising again slightly in the 22
to 25-year old age group, though still at
only 21%. Respondents aged 18 to 21 were
the least likely to report that Australia is
a fair society at 18%.
In a more targeted question, respondents
were asked whether men and women have
equal opportunities in Australia. Again,
only a minority believed that they did, and
the perception of fairness decreases with
age. Cross-tabulation of gender with this
question revealed no significant differences,
53
54
Youth and Citizenship
Table 22: Entitlement of citizens
Citizens should be entitled to the right to . . .
A good education
To voice an opinion, even if others disagree with it
Good quality health care
To legal protections (such as a fair trial or fair treatment by employers)
A good standard of living
Decent housing
Vote in elections
Participate in political life by trying to change things or trying to stop
changes
A good job
Participate in protests
To go on strike
Agree
97.9
97.1
97.0
97.0
95.4
94.8
93.0
Type*
S
C
S
C
S
S
P
92.6
90.8
88.2
83.1
P
S
P
P
* S = social right, C = civil right, P = political right according to Marshall’s typology
Table 23: Australian society is fair
12 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 21
22 to 25
Strongly
agree
Agree
Combined
positive
6.1
3.1
1.9
2.4
33.3
23.3
16.2
18.9
39.4
26.4
18.1
21.3
Neither
agree nor
disagree
42.4
22.2
25.3
18.9
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
15.2
34.6
39.0
31.1
3.0
14.0
17.5
28.8
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
27.3
30.4
39.0
42.5
6.1
8.6
15.6
22.2
Table 24: Men and women have equal opportunities in Australia
12 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 21
22 to 25
Strongly
agree
Agree
Combined
positive
15.2
9.3
5.8
3.8
15.2
28.8
23.4
16.5
30.4
38.1
29.2
20.3
indicating that both male and female
respondents perceive gender inequality in
Australian society.
As outlined in the literature review (see
Chapter 3) Marshall argued that people
cannot really be considered citizens, if they
do not have equal access to civil rights,
Neither
agree nor
disagree
36.4
21.0
14.9
15.1
particularly access to the legal system.
Respondents were asked whether they
thought that everyone has equal access
to the legal system, and the resounding
response was “no”. Again there is a
correlation between increased age and
perception of inequality, with just 22% of 22
Chapter 5
Survey results
Table 25: Everyone has fair and equal access to the legal system
12 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 21
22 to 25
Strongly
agree
Agree
Combined
positive
6.1
12.8
7.8
9.9
24.2
17.8
13.7
12.3
30.3
30.6
21.5
22.2
to 25-year-olds agreeing that everyone has
equal access to the legal system compared
to 30% of 12 to 14-year-olds.
Further questions looked into the
perceived reasons for inequality: is it caused
by individual choices or failings, or is it
caused by broader structural factors? One
method was to ask respondents whether
they believe that homelessness (one highly
visible indicator of inequality) was caused
by personal choices. Only a very small
minority agreed that it was. Again there was
a correlation between age and response with
those aged 12 to 14 the most likely to agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
30.3
11.2
16.3
9.4
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
39.4
44.6
39.2
38.2
0
22.9
22.9
30.2
that homelessness was a choice (21%) and
42% were undecided or ambivalent. Older
respondents were much more opposed to
this idea with only a very slight difference
between each of the other age groups where
only 8% to 12% agreed.
Another question which showed the
varied perceptions of different age groups
was a question which asked respondents to
what extent they agreed that unemployment
was an individual choice. Again the 12 to 14year-old group was the most likely to agree
that unemployment was an individual choice
(49%) or to be undecided (27%). The 22 to
Table 26: People are homeles because they choose to be.
12 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 21
22 to 25
Strongly
agree
Agree
Combined
positive
9.1
3.5
3.2
0.9
12.1
7.8
8.4
6.6
21.2
11.3
11.6
7.5
Neither
agree nor
disagree
42.4
21.3
14.3
11.4
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
18.2
28.0
29.2
32.2
15.2
36.8
44.8
47.9
Table 27: Unemployed people should help themselves. There are plenty of jobs out there
and they could find them if really wanted to.
12 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 21
22 to 25
Strongly
agree
Agree
Combined
positive
21.2
9.7
14.3
4.2
27.3
20.2
9.7
12.3
48.5
29.9
24.0
16.5
Neither
agree nor
disagree
27.3
25.6
21.4
22.6
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
21.2
25.6
30.5
33.5
3.0
17.1
24.0
26.4
55
56
Youth and Citizenship
25-year-old group were the least likely to
agree (17%) or be undecided (23%). Of course
both homelessness and unemployment are
complex issues, with complex causes that
cannot be fully developed in a couple of
survey questions. The purpose of these
questions is to gain a very basic overview
of trends which could be explored in the
focus groups.
The perception that inequality exists is
clearly evident. The next question is to ask
whether the perception of inequality carries
any implications for the way that young
people perceive citizenship. According to
Marshall’s post-World War II conception
of citizenship, basic inequality must be
overcome through State intervention in order
for the residents of a country to truly be
considered as equals in terms of citizenship.
One of the aims of this research is to see if
these views of citizenship, which provided
an important philosophical basis for the
construction of the post-war welfare state,
remain valid for young people in Australia
today.
In order to gain some insight into this
question, respondents were asked who
they saw as responsible for addressing
the problem of youth unemployment. Is it
government, business, community groups
or individuals themselves?
The greatest support (82%) was for
the statement that business should
be responsible for overcoming youth
unemployment, which is starkly different
from Marshall’s emphasis on the role of the
State. As employment is a key to overcoming
economic inequality, and respondents
see that the greatest responsibility for
overcoming unemployment lies with
business rather than government, this
raises the question of whether social rights
Table 28: Australia has a high level of youth unemployment. In relation to this issue, to
what extent do you agree with the following statements? (general sample)
Strongly Agree Combined
Neither Disagree Strongly
positive agree nor
agree
disagree
disagree
BUSINESSES should make more
effort to create job opportunities
and training for young unemployed people.
GOVERNMENTS should make sure
there are enough jobs for everyone and that people are suitably
educated, trained and qualified.
COMMUNITY groups could solve
this problem if they made more effort to create training opportunities
for young people.
UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE should help
themselves. There are plenty of
jobs out there and they could find
them if they really wanted to.
33.6
48.2
81.8
12.4
2.3
0.7
27.9
36.9
64.8
21.9
8.8
1.8
12.6
37.8
50.4
29.9
14.7
1.9
6.3
17.7
24.0
19.3
31.5
22.8
Chapter 5
Survey results
Table 29: Australia has a high level of youth unemployment. In relation to this issue, to
what extent do you agree with the following statements? (Indigenous sample)
Strongly Agree Combined
Neither Disagree Strongly
positive agree nor
agree
disagree
disagree
BUSINESSES should make more
effort to create job opportunities
and training for young unemployed people.
COMMUNITY groups could solve
this problem if they made more effort to create training opportunities
for young people.
GOVERNMENTS should make sure
there are enough jobs for everyone and that people are suitably
educated, trained and qualified.
UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE should help
themselves. There are plenty of
jobs out there and they could find
them if they really wanted to.
33.8
50.0
83.8
16.2
0.0
0.0
26.5
42.6
69.1
22.1
8.8
0.0
25.0
41.2
66.2
26.5
5.9
1.5
23.5
26.5
50.0
22.1
23.5
4.4
are still seen as aspects of citizenship at
all, or whether indeed there is a perception
of corporate citizenship which places on
business a sense of obligation as corporate
citizens to guarantee social rights.
As in the case of the general responses,
businesses were also identified by the
Indigenous respondents as the institution
that should be most responsible for
overcoming youth unemployment. The
Indigenous sample attributed slightly
greater responsibility to community groups
than governments (69.1% and 66.2%
respectively). This emphasis on community
groups may be due to the high proportion
of Indigenous respondents living in remote
communities.
The sharpest distinction between the
Indigenous and general samples is in the
attribution of personal responsibility with
50% of the Indigenous sample strongly
agreeing that Individuals should help
themselves compared to just 24% of the
general sample.
Spatial dimensions of citizenship
The survey investigated the perceived
spatial boundaries of citizenship. Much
of the recent theoretical literature on
citizenship stresses a “cosmopolitan”
view of citizenship, as something that
transcends national boundaries. Given the
rising profile of international organisations
and international political and economic
events, and particularly the apparently high
proportion of youth participation in “antiglobalisation” protests, it was thought
that the perception of citizenship might
well extend beyond national boundaries
in accordance with the cosmopolitan
conception of citizenship. A number of
57
58
Youth and Citizenship
questions were asked to ascertain how
respondents perceive the spatial boundaries
of citizenship. These were directed at asking
respondents about their perceptions of the
spatial dimensions of political power and
influence, the political issues in which they
were most interested, and their perceptions
of the spatial boundaries of the obligations/
duties of citizenship.
The perceived spatial boundaries of
citizenship
Respondents were asked directly about
their perceptions of the spatial boundaries
of citizenship. Respondents were asked to
indicate to what degree they agreed with
a series of statements about citizenship,
which included statements about the
spatial boundaries of citizenship. Fortythree per cent of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that citizenship “is about
nationalism – about sharing a common
culture and identity with people in your
community”. However, 67% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that citizenship
is international, that “we are all members
of a global society . . . and citizenship is
about our relationship with all of the
people in the world”.
Table 30: Perceptions of citizenship – internationalism and nationalism
Citizenship is . . .
INTERNATIONAL – we are all members of
a global society as well as a local society,
and citizenship is about our relationship
with all of the people of the world.
ABOUT NATIONALISM – about sharing a
common culture and identity with people in
your country.
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral Disagree
Strongly
disagree
28.9
37.9
18.4
8.9
3.5
13.1
29.6
26.4
22.2
6.9
Neutral Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Table 31: Perceptions of citizenship – internationalism and nationalism
(Indigenous sample)
Citizenship is . . .
INTERNATIONAL – we are all members of
a global society as well as a local society,
and citizenship is about our relationship
with all of the people of the world.
ABOUT NATIONALISM – about sharing a
common culture and identity with people in
your country.
Strongly
agree
Agree
22.4
28.4
38.8
7.5
3.0
27.9
27.9
35.3
4.4
4.4
Chapter 5
Survey results
Of the Indigenous respondents 50.8%
strongly agreed or agreed with the statement
that citizenship is about internationalism,
while 55.8% strongly agreed or agreed
with the statement that citizenship is about
nationalism. 32.8% of those who strongly
agreed or agreed with the internationalist
conception of citizenship also strongly
agreed or agreed with the nationalist
conception of citizenship. The figure is
slightly lower than among the general
sample (40.5%).
The data suggests that a cosmopolitan
(internationalist) view of citizenship
correlates with increases in age. While a
minority of under-14s support a cosmopolitan
view of citizenship (49%), a substantial
majority of over-21s (75%) see citizenship
as international.
Table 32: Perceptions of citizenship – internationalism and age groups
Citizenship is international – we are all members of a global society as well as a local
society, and citizenship is about our relationship with all of the people of the world
22 to 25 18 to 21
Agree or strongly agree.
Neither agree nor disagree.
Disagree or strongly disagree.
74.5
12.7
11.9
Interesting data emerges from crosstabulating responses to each of these
questions. 40.5% of respondents who
agreed or strongly agreed that citizenship
was international, also agreed or strongly
agreed that it was national. The same number
saw citizenship as purely internationalist.
There was also a substantial degree of
ambivalence.
The survey also investigated the
relationship between subjective feelings of
duty or obligation towards others as citizens,
and political boundaries or spatial proximity.
67.5
13.6
17.5
15 to 17
12 to 14
63.4
24.9
9.4
48.5
27.3
18.2
Respondents were also asked to what extent
young people in Australia have a duty to
uphold the rights of others within different
spatial areas: in their own local community,
in their State or Territory, in Australia and
in other countries. The results presented
in the table below indicate that although
there is a perception of cosmopolitan duty
of citizenship, in that a majority feel some
level of obligation to uphold the rights of
others in other countries, there is a strong
correlation between the spatial proximity
of others and the perceived duty to uphold
Table 33: Extent that young people feel they have a duty to uphold rights of other people
Local community
Australia
State or Territory
Other countries – developing
Other countries – developed
A great
deal
64.1
52.7
48.9
39.0
30.4
Somewhat
27.2
29.8
36.9
30.5
36.4
Not
much
5.0
11.7
9.6
14.7
19.0
Not
at all
1.0
1.9
1.2
10.2
9.9
Don’t
know
1.2
2.5
1.8
3.8
2.9
59
60
Youth and Citizenship
Table 34: Extent that young people feel they have a duty to uphold rights of other people
(Indigenous sample)
Local community
Australia
State or Territory
Other countries – developed
Other countries – developing
Somewhat
28.6
37.5
33.3
36.5
28.6
A great
deal
58.7
46.9
44.4
25.4
22.2
their rights. While 64% of people feel that
they have a great deal of obligation towards
those in their local community, only 39%
feel that way towards people in developing
countries, and 30% for those in other
developed countries.
Interestingly, there is a correlation between
age and the perception of the duties of
citizenship, with older respondents more
likely to perceive a duty towards others at
all levels.The results from the Indigenous
sample are very similar to the general
results, except that developed countries
were placed higher (25.4%) than developing
countries (22.2%).
The perceived spatial dimensions of
political power
The survey sought to investigate the
perceptions of the spatial dimensions
of political power. Respondents were
Not
much
9.5
9.4
17.5
23.8
23.8
Not
at all
0.0
4.7
3.2
3.2
7.9
Don’t
know
3.2
1.6
1.6
11.1
17.5
asked to what extent young people in
Australia are affected by decisions made
by governments at different levels ranging
from local government to the international
political arena, as well as the domestic and
international business arena. The highest
level of perceived impact is from the State/
Territory Governments, followed by the
Australian Government. Nineteen per cent
of respondents felt that young people are
affected “a great deal” by the international
political arena. This was greater than the
perceived power/impact of the Australian
business community, but substantially lower
than the perceived impact of domestic
Government. The international business
community was perceived as having the
least impact on the lives of young people.
The survey also investigated the level of
perceived political power that young people
feel that they have on the same institutions.
With the exception of local government
Table 35: Extent that young people feel affected by decisions made by . . .
State/Territory Government
Australian Federal Government
Local government
Global/international politics
Australian business community
Global/international business community
A great
deal
49.1
46.7
32.0
18.6
15.3
12.2
Somewhat
35.7
33.8
41.6
32.3
40.9
30.1
Not
much
10.8
14.4
22.0
36.0
34.6
40.5
Not
at all
1.3
1.0
2.0
9.3
4.8
11.2
Don’t
know
2.5
3.6
1.6
2.9
3.5
4.5
Chapter 5
Survey results
Table 36: Extent that young people feel they have in influencing decisions made by . . .
Local government
State/Territory Government
Australian Federal Government
Australian business community
Global/international politics
Global/international business community
A great
deal
4.7
1.7
3.2
1.5
1.0
2.2
these are uniformly very low, with a link
between spatial proximity and perceived
levels of influence.
The perceived power of young people in
Australia to influence all levels of business
and government is low, but it is much
higher at the level of local government than
for any other. The lowest level of perceived
power is in the international arena, which
is significantly lower than that attributed
to the domestic arena. How this perceived
powerlessness in the international arena is
reconciled with the feeling that citizenship
is international, was further explored in the
qualitative phase of research.
5.3 Conclusion
The survey was designed to gather a
fairly large amount of data on a range of
issues which could be interrogated in the
qualitative phase of research, rather than
to find conclusive answers to the research
questions. Nonetheless, the survey data
reveals some interesting insights into how
young people perceive citizenship.
No clear single agreed definition of
citizenship emerges from the data. The
highest level of support seems to be for
conceptions of citizenship as a system of
rights and duties. However, there is also very
high support for a conception of citizenship
as being about community and about
Somewhat
41.0
19.9
9.0
12.7
6.6
6.7
Not
much
37.3
50.2
45.7
40.5
33.2
25.9
Not
at all
14.3
25.8
40.2
39.9
55.5
59.0
Don’t
know
1.3
1.0
0.7
4.1
2.8
4.9
participation. These ideas are not mutually
exclusive, so it is possible to hold all of
these views concurrently. The interaction
between different aspects of these ideas,
and indeed the reasons for rejecting many
of the other conceptions is something that
can only be explored qualitatively.
The picture of citizenship as a political
identity or status that emerges from the data
is unclear. There seems to be a high level of
support for engagement and participation,
but a very low level of perceived social and
political power. There is clear support for the
idea that young people want to be involved
in decision-making, and want to be taken
seriously as active citizens. However, there
is an equally clear perception that they are
not influential citizens, and that decisionmakers generally do not respond to their
views. This low level of perceived influence
in decision-making has implications for the
perceived citizenship status of young people
which is explored in the qualitative data.
There is very high support for all of
the rights listed in the survey. While the
respondents tended to rank social rights
as very important rights to which citizens
should be entitled, it is unclear where the
corresponding duty to guarantee these rights
is seen to rest. Furthermore, it is not clear if
the awareness of inequality and the apparent
support for social justice is necessarily seen
61
62
Youth and Citizenship
as an inherent aspect of citizenship itself,
or whether these issues are perceived as
separate in total or to some degree.
The survey data suggests a somewhat
contradictory sense that citizenship is
in some way international, national and
local. There is a clear rejection of the
idea that citizenship is about exclusivity
and nationalism. However, it is unclear
whether this rejection simply emerges as
an unreflexive response to the discourse of
nationalism and discrimination, or whether
it is a considered view that indicates a
possible future move away from the 20th
century definition of citizenship based
on nation-states towards a borderless
idea of citizenship as suggested by the
cosmopolitan literature. Clarification comes
from the qualitative process where these
ideas are picked up again.
6
Qualitative findings
6.1 Introduction
The review of previous research in this
field, particularly recent research from the
UK (Bhavnani 1994; Edwards 2001; Henn &
Weinstein 2001; Henn, Weinstein & Wring
2002; Lister et al. 2001; TEC 2002), indicated
that the use of quantitative instruments
such as surveys to investigate the ways in
which young people perceive citizenship
might be problematic because research
had shown that often the researchers
and subjects were not speaking the same
language. The use of terminologies and
discourses and the definition of terms is
very important, and some of the previous
research reviewed as well as the piloting
undertaken for this project suggested that
discourse of citizenship as used in the
literature and by professionals is either
not used in current everyday and public
discourse, or the same terms have different
meanings. For this reason it was important
to carry out substantial qualitative research
in order to verify and interrogate the survey
data, and also to openly explore perceptions
that may not have been anticipated by the
researchers.
A total of 13 focus groups were held in New
South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia
with a total of 92 young people participating.
The focus groups participants ranged in
age from 13 to 25. The methodology of the
focus groups is detailed in the methodology
chapter (section 2.6).
The findings revealed that indeed there
is a clear lack of a shared definition of the
term citizenship, and that the participants
did hold some expected perceptions. There
is no shared coherent understanding of
citizenship among the sample. Not only do
the perceptions that different participants
hold sometimes contradict one another, but
also individuals frequently hold conflicting
views. Many of the participants commented
that they had never thought about citizenship
64
Youth and Citizenship
before, which may explain the lack of clarity
in their thinking. The participants were
able to move between detailed discussions
of aspects of democratic citizenship and
citizenship as something that is not linked to
democracy. Nonetheless, the findings show a
very interesting range of perceptions about
citizenship and some correlating factors.
6.2 Findings
When participants were asked at the
beginning of the focus groups to list the
things they think of when they hear the
word “citizenship” and what “citizenship”
means to them, they usually communicated
ideas which can be categorised as follows:
• National identity: including ideas such
as feeling a sense of national pride or
shame (that the actions of all Australians
reflect on you); patriotism; a sense of
national identity deriving from your
birthplace; shared culture and values.
This was expressed through the use of
phrases such as: “national identity”,
“nationalism”, “your country”, “pride”,
“patriotism”,
“united”,
“culture”,
“loyalty”, “race”, “religion”.
• Rights and duties: a large number of
respondents in every group agreed with
the simple phrase “rights and duties”.
Many responses also related citizenship
to particular rights, for example “human
rights”, “equality”, “democracy”, “vote”,
“free speech”, “freedom”, “justice”,
“enfranchised”.
• Participation: being involved; cooperating with others; performing community
service; having a say; voting. Examples
include “help your country”, “actively
involved”, “active participation”.
• Formal status: a formal/legal status
given by the nation-state; holding a
passport which allows you to move
to some places and restricts what you
can do in others; a title to be obtained
or given by birthright; references to
immigration and refugees. A small
number of responses identified more
technical aspects of citizenship such as
“tax”, “abiding by laws”, “title obtained”,
“little certificate”, “visas”. Other less
commonly used responses included
“migrants”, “refugees”, “exclusion”, and
“legitimate”.
• Belonging and community: being a
member of a group; being accepted;
identifying with that group. Words and
phrases that were commonly used were
“belonging”, “part of community”, “part
of country”, “community”, “country”,
“acceptance”, “participation”, “member
society”, “home”.
National identity
Most groups mentioned national identity.
For some this was just about “being an
Australian”, for others it was to do with
national pride and sense of obligation to
be positive and encouraging about one’s
country and one’s fellow citizens. Many
people mentioned pride in the sporting
achievements of famous individual Australians or national teams. Some said that
they did not think that Australians were
obliged to be proud of others, or even to
feel that they identified with other people
who happen to be Australian. Others were
still more critical and made comments such
as “who could be proud of Australia in these
times?” Some of these people felt a sense
of collective shame, while others did not
associate the actions of other Australians with
their own sense of pride or shame at all.
The matter of state-based identity was
also explored. The sense of a state-based
identity was strongest among the Tasmanian
participants. Many of them commented that
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
they think of themselves as Tasmanians
first and Australians second. Many of the
West Australians also felt a strong sense
of state-based identity. None of the NSW
participants commented on feeling a sense
of state-based identity.
Rights and obligations
Every group mentioned rights and
obligations (or duties or responsibilities) as
being one of the most prominent aspects
of citizenship. When asked to name these
rights and obligations, the first responses
were usually the right to vote, the right to
free speech and the right to protest. The
next set of rights raised by participants
were usually either specific social rights,
notably health care and education, or in fact
simply “welfare”. This was usually followed
by more civil and political rights, particularly
the right to a fair trial.
It was very noticeable that the groups in
Western Australia were more able to clearly
identify civil and political rights in a manner
which indicated that they had thought about
them before, than the groups in Tasmania,
Table 37: Rights and obligations identified by participants
Rights
Right to vote
Free speech
Equality of opportunity
Freedom
Welfare
Civil rights
Fair trial
Safety
Freedom of religion
Access to health care
Legal rights
Education
Right to protest
Freedom of thought
To participate democratically
To be free from discrimination
Human rights
To be informed
The right to equitable treatment
The right to a decent lifestyle
The right to infrastructure and services
Obligations
To vote
To take part in decisions that affect you
To obey the law
To contribute economically
To stand up for others
To voice an opinion
To continually enhance citizenship
To treat people with respect
To follow the rules of society
To fulfil society’s expectations
To uphold democracy
To use welfare responsibly
Not to rort the system
To pay tax
To look after the less well-off
Ensure that rights exist
Defending rights of others
Individualism
To participate politically
To be patriotic
To not be racist
To respect others
To make the community nice for
everyone – not pollute etc.
65
66
Youth and Citizenship
who in turn were generally more able than
the groups in NSW. They were also more
likely to use terminology, such as “freedom
of association”, which indicated that they had
been formally taught about these rights.
In many cases the discourse which was
used to describe or name those rights
suggested that the knowledge of these
rights was derived from American popular
culture rather than from formal Australian
education. For instance, some participants
listed among their rights, the right to make
a phone call when arrested. Few participants
were familiar with the term “civil rights”
except for in the context of the American
civil rights movement, and they therefore
tended to think of civil rights as being equal
rights for black and white people. The rights
and obligations that were identified at the
focus groups are listed in the table above.
Some groups used the term “obligations”,
while others used the terms “duties”
or “responsibilities”. There was a lot of
repetition and some rights were described
in many ways, but the table represents a
summary of each one.
The single most frequent and readily mentioned obligations were “to obey the law”
and to vote, followed by variations on the
obligation to “respect others”. Others were
the obligation to treat people with respect
and to uphold the rights of others. The
participants were divided on what upholding
the rights of others entails; whether it merely
requires personally refraining from abusing
the rights of others, or whether it means
standing up for others when their rights
are infringed by third parties, and to what
extent citizens were actually obliged to act.
The following discussion among some law
students illustrates this point:
Julian: I don’t believe in forcing the act of
defending the rights of others on other
people. People don’t have a responsibility
to uphold the rights of others, as long as
they don’t infringe the rights of others
then the people who care will act and
those who don’t will not.
Pippa: But theoretically whenever anyone
else’s rights are challenged, yours are
too. You live in a system and if someone’s
rights are able to be impinged, then
yours are too. But I don’t think that every
person should be acting to do something
about defending these rights. In a
collective sense it is an obligation, but
not an individual one.
Paul: I think there is a moral responsibility
to do as much as you can to defend the
rights of others. If you are in a better
situation than other people you should
do anything you can to help them.
Julian: I don’t think citizenship really
coincides with morality and moral rights
and obligations. It’s anterior to that.
Human and constitutional rights are
codified – stuff that’s become legalistic,
although it may extend from moral
obligations. So beyond that I don’t think
citizenship involves moral claims. It’s got
to come from something that is already
entrenched.
Paul: Our rights derive from consensus
– a general value system. But a lot of
the rights that are well established are
necessary for us to participate in the
system. If we don’t defend them, the
system decays along with the rights.
There was some discussion about freedom
and how absolute liberty on the part of the
individual can in fact impinge upon the
rights of others. There was discussion on
how these rights must be limited in the
sense that one is free to exercise their rights,
until the point where others are having their
rights abused. Difficult examples were raised
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
such as when the exercise of free speech on
the part of one group silences another, and
when the exercise of free expression by one
person causing offence or embarrassment to
another. Participants were generally unable
to solve these philosophical dilemmas, but
were aware of them and the need to strike
a balance.
Similarly, there was discussion about
the difficult concept of the duty to abide
by the law when the law is a bad law.
One example frequently raised was asylum
seekers, whom many participants argued
were deprived of their rights and therefore
were not obliged to abide by rules. The
position of asylum seekers was often
raised in the focus groups as a point of
comparison, as non-citizens.
Participation
While many of the participants could list
various methods of political participation
that exist and are open to young people,
there was little confidence in most of these
being effective. Many participants were
highly pessimistic about the ability of any
citizens, and young people in particular, to
really effect change through participation.
Typical comments included:
“But for young people it is hard to be
effective. Not just for young people. A lot
of people want to make changes and are
passionate about issues, but they don’t
want to devote their lives to it.”
A great many participants also argued
that they thought that most young people
either do not want to participate at all, or
else are not sufficiently motivated to do so
in preference to leisure activities.
I mean I know that I should do more, and
there are things that I feel strongly about.
But really, when it comes to going to a
party or the movies or something, and
having a meeting to organise something
political, I’d rather go to a party. Actually,
to be honest I’d rather even do nothing.
– Cassie, 17, Sydney
There was particular discussion around
several methods of participation. These
included voting, street protesting, youth
advisory groups or representation and
writing letters. None were seen as
particularly effective on a national level,
but there was a generally agreed belief
that participation on a local level can be
effective. There was seen to be a nexus
between the importance or scale of the
issue, and the ability to effect change.
Voting
Most participants saw voting as important
in theory, yet ineffective in practice because
of the two party system. Many said that they
could see little appeal in either of the major
parties, and so little difference between
them that voting becomes largely irrelevant.
Although virtually every participant saw
voting as both a right and a responsibility,
generally they did not feel that their vote
had much value.
The issue of compulsory voting, and
of the exclusion of people aged under 18
from the franchise, was raised at every
focus group. The majority of participants
supported compulsory voting, though
they acknowledged the philosophical
contradiction
of
compulsion
within
democracy. A large minority were opposed
to compulsory voting as they felt that either
it was a citizen’s valid right not to vote, or
that people who were forced to vote were
very likely to complete a “donkey vote”
and thus invalidate the considered vote of
concerned citizens.
Only one group contained members
who chose not to vote. This was a group
67
68
Youth and Citizenship
of unemployed young men aged 17 to 25,
none of whom had ever voted, and none
of whom ever expected to vote. They felt
completely unrepresented by political
parties and saw their votes as irrelevant.
Two members of this group, aged 24 and
25, said that they prefer to try to create
change at the local community level by
raising the self-esteem of young people
through the arts. They felt that this was
much more important than voting.
The participants were divided on the
question of a vote for under-18s. None of the
participants aged 18 or over were in favour
of compulsory voting for under-18s. Some
of the participants aged 14–17 felt that they
should have the vote. Interestingly, these
participants usually thought that while they
were old enough to vote, people a year
younger than them would not be. It was
noticeable that those who were most keen
to vote were also those who had thought
least about citizenship or democracy, and
who also tended to have the lowest levels
of understanding of how the democratic
system works. In other words, higher levels
of civics education correlate with a lower
propensity to endorse lowering of the
voting age.
Some participants suggested that an
optional vote for people aged 16–18
would allow those who are interested to
participate without forcing others to do so.
One group of Year 11 students in Sydney
suggested that they would like to see a
poll introduced at elections in which those
aged 16–18 could register their vote which
would be recorded and reported, but
which would not be counted towards the
election result. They felt that this would be
empowering in that politicians would be
made aware of their views, and also that
it would be a good exercise in training for
participating in elections in that it might
inspire young people to become more
interested in current affairs and in policy
proposals.
On the whole though, the majority of
participants were opposed to voting for
people aged under 18. Generally, they felt
that people were not sufficiently educated
or informed to vote responsibly until they
were 18, as this conversation between
members of a group of Year 10 students
from Hobart illustrates:
Jenny: I really don’t mind that we can’t
vote under 18.
Everyone : Yeah.
Alan: You’ve got more experience when
you are 18.
Alice: And you’ve had a full education by
then. I mean you’ve got all these people
who are 15 or 16 and say they want to
vote –
Tom: I’ve never heard anyone say that.
Alice: There are loads of people who say
that. I will be 18 soon and I don’t think I
could vote properly because I don’t think
I really have enough knowledge. I don’t
trust myself to vote.
Anna: And that’s once they are 18, and
there are loads of people like that. Some
of them would be even less informed.
Jenny: But after 18 you’ve seen so much
more.
Anna: You are more informed. But if you
allow under 18s to vote, then lots of
people could make the wrong decision
because they don’t know enough. I don’t
think it should be less than 18. You’ve
got to start somewhere.
Anna: I don’t think that you can make
judgements about things that you
haven’t experienced.
This kind of comment often led to a
discussion about whether adults were
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
really much more informed. This usually
led to an agreement that there are a lot of
uninformed adults who vote too, but merely
increasing the pool of uniformed voters is
not a suitable solution. Many people called
for more education in civics and citizenship
at this point of discussion.
I think Australians should have to be
educated on Australian government and
politics and the way it all works. I mean
I know for myself that I know hardly
anything about it. I think it would be a
valuable thing to have in school.
– Jenny, 22, Sydney
I would never let 16-year-olds vote
because even masses of people who
have been voting for years, young and
old alike, don’t know about the processes
and the policies, whatever. I don’t think
people really know. At 18 you start to
develop your opinions. Until that time
you are still developing your values and
opinions on things. Some people will
become interested, but some just don’t
care. That’s why you need education.
– Cathy, 20, Sydney
Letter writing and petitioning
Most groups mentioned letter writing and
petitioning as an avenue of participation that
is open to both younger and older citizens
alike. However, the participants placed
important caveats on its effectiveness. The
first was that they felt that a letter which
was written by a young person would be
less influential than one written by an older
person. Some even commented that this
was a cultural issue which impacted the
perceptions of young people themselves, as
they themselves would take a letter written
to a newspaper by a 50-year-old more
seriously than one written by a 15-year-old.
The second caveat, and the one almost
commonly mentioned, was that letter writing
would only be really effective if it was
carried out in concert with a large number of
other people. So, they felt that a mass letter
writing campaign might be effective, but that
individuals writing letters would have no
effect on decision-makers. For this reason,
it was suggested that the most effective
way to use letter writing would be through
established organisations such as Amnesty
International or through smaller community
groups in the case of local issues.
Similarly, some commented that even
though a right exists, and that the method
of participation might be effective in theory,
it does not mean that it is actually available
to them in practice. As one participant
commented:
While they might feel strongly about
something, it’s not easy for a kid to get a
petition together.
– Ed, 15, Perth
When two participants, who had both been
active in youth participation, were asked
how they thought that an individual young
person who wanted to bring about policy
change could go about it, they answered:
I think that it would be to find other
people who share your view. You get
taken a lot more seriously when, well look
at the power of unions – they get taken
seriously because they are a collective
voice.
– Jenny, 24, Perth.
It is also knowing how to play the game. A
lot of people go with good intentions, but
because they don’t know the processes
and the protocols – how government
works, they fall flat on their face. So if
they know how to approach it they’d get
a lot more respect.
– Danielle, 25, Perth.
69
70
Youth and Citizenship
Protesting
All of the participants listed the right
to protest as one of the key rights of
citizenship. However, they were not united
in their support for people who actually do
protest. There seems to be a weak, and by
no means universal, correlation between
disdain for protest and activity engagement
in formal youth participation.
I don’t approve of street protesting. I
think it is sensationalist. It attracts media
attention, but other than that, how can it
effect decision-makers? How can you get
to the guts of changing policy by waving
a flag on the street? I think that for young
people in particular the effective way
to influence policy is to do what we do.
Coming to these focus groups, sitting
on panels. It’s responding to the call for
input.
– Jenny, 24, Perth.
This sentiment was echoed by another
participant who had never participated in
youth consultation activities, but does have
strong civil society links through Christian
groups.
At uni there are always people
protesting. I think it’s ridiculous, because
government doesn’t give a stuff about
what uni students think. It’s the wrong
way to go about it. You should use the
channels that exist – contacting your
political representatives. They’re there to
be our voice, we might as well use it. That
is what really works for young people.
– Claire, 22, Sydney.
The issue of the perceived power of
protesting was particularly pertinent as the
majority of participants had participated
in protests opposing the war in Iraq. This
has had quite an effect on many of the
participants. For some, the experience was
very depressing and disempowering. They
argued that the protest movement was
greater than they could have ever imagined,
and yet it failed to stop the war. Some said
that they had never felt strongly enough
to protest about anything else before, and
because this action was seen as ineffective
they were unlikely to do so again. Others
viewed the experience more positively,
arguing that the protest movement should
not be seen as a failure, as it probably
did have some effect, even if it did not
immediately stop the war. Many felt that
they were satisfied that they had at least
tried to stop the war, and that they would
therefore engage in future protest. Typical
comments include:
I don’t think the Iraq protests failed. It
didn’t make a big difference, but at least
people were doing something about it.
– Catherine, 16, Hobart
I felt that at least we’re trying to do
something about it, even though it wasn’t
really working.
– Margaret, 17, Hobart
Others commented that big issues such as
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had made
them more generally politically aware. They
felt that their peers were more interested
in current affairs and were more likely to
discuss political issues, including local
issues, than they had previously. They said
that either the media had begun to cover
more political issues, or that they were now
more aware of them.
One particular form of protest that
was frequently mentioned, though rarely
discussed in detail, was the right to strike.
In one instance, at a school in Perth, a
group of Year 10 students was inspired
by a teachers strike to examine their own
citizenship status through the lens of the
right to strike. They noted that though they
had included the right to strike among the
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
rights of citizenship, this was not a right to
which they have access as they are legally
compelled to attend school.
This observation provoked a discussion
on many of the other rights which are not
available to minors and how this impacts
their citizenship status which will be
discussed below. These included not only
the political rights such as voting, but also
civil rights such as the right to freedom of
movement and association. The participants
concluded that while they are citizens in
some senses, their rights are limited and
that they cannot be considered to be “full”
citizens in the sense that they do not enjoy
the full rights of citizenship. In most cases,
here the example of youth curfews and
freedom of movement were mentioned, this
was felt by the participants to be appropriate
as they thought that these restrictions on
their rights were placed there for their own
protection. However, in other cases, such
as the proposal to restrict the issuing of
Medicare cards to minors, they felt that these
restrictions on their rights were dangerous
and offensive.
Youth representation and formal
participation
The participants were divided on the issue
of youth participation. Some felt that official
youth representation and consultation is an
effective means of youth participation, while
others saw it as tokenistic and ineffective.
The attitude of most participants towards
student representative school councils
were derisory. Most participants felt that
school councils could do very little beyond
organising social events. However, others
thought that this was a valuable experience
for those involved, but saw little benefit
for other students. As one former student
representative council member put it:
School councils are effective in that they
engage the individuals involved, they
feel empowered. But at the end of the day
there is not much you can do. You can’t
change the system. You can organise
fun days, or change jumpers. But that’s
about it.
Some participants who had also been
active in such processes disagreed. On the
contrary, they argued that formal youth
participation was the most effective means for
young people to influence decision-makers.
Of all the participants, these were the young
people who felt most empowered.
One group, all of whom had experience
in youth advisory groups, argued that
youth advisory panels are tokenistic and
ineffective. They argued that a glaring
problem with youth participation is that it
seems to always be concerned with “youth
issues”.
They never have youth participation on
policy matters that are not youth-specific.
As if young people are not effected by
other policy.
A group of homeless and street-frequenting
young people, at a council-run youth centre
in Tasmania, raised some important points
in their argument against the effectiveness
of youth representation/participation. These
young people, who use the youth services
provided by Council, argued that this was
just about the only place for young people
to go locally if they have nowhere else to
go. Council has a youth advisory council. Yet
the youth representatives had never visited.
The participants argued that the youth
representatives could hardly represent their
needs to Council, when they had never
asked them what they were. Furthermore,
they implied that there was likely to
be a significant difference between the
backgrounds and concerns of the service
71
72
Youth and Citizenship
users and the young people involved in
the advisory body. In raising this point,
these participants have raised a significant
philosophical issue, which impacts their
perceptions of their own status as citizens.
Social citizenship
One of the objectives of the focus groups
was to test theory. One of the theories to
be tested was Marshall’s theory of the three
spheres of citizenship. Marshall’s thesis was
that there are three spheres of citizenship
rights: political rights, civil rights and social
rights. Social rights are the resources which
people need to be able to act on civil and
political rights. People who have nominal
civil and political rights, but who cannot
act on them because they do not have
social rights, he argued, cannot really be
considered citizens.
The focus groups participants were
introduced to this body of theory and asked
to reflect on it. While most participants
agreed with Marshall’s idea that social
rights, or resources, are needed to enable
people to act on civil and political rights,
many of them baulked at the idea that
people could be considered non-citizens,
even if they are deprived of the rights of
citizenship. This issue is illustrated by an
excerpt from discussion in Perth below. The
participants were aged 18–22, all but Jessica
were Law students.
Jessica: I think that if you are a person
who can’t access their rights, you are still
a citizen, but you are citizen being denied
your rights. The concept doesn’t get
taken away from you. It’s not something
that you can define and say “this is what
it is to be a citizen”. I think everyone’s
citizenship is at different levels and the
aim is to try and equalise that, but it’s
a constant battle. There will always be
1
people who have more money or power.
Citizenship exists and the aim is to try to
equalise it through social welfare etc.
Brad: If you’re defining citizenship by
rights, and people don’t have them, then
surely they are not really citizens.
Jessica: No, but that’s the thing. If you
have a right, it’s your right. The fact that
you can’t do it, doesn’t mean you lose
your right. You are a citizen unable to
participate, but you are still a citizen.
Brad: What about refugees? You seem
to think that they are citizens, who don’t
have rights. I think they are not citizens.
John: They’re not citizens. They can claim
rights on the basis of humanity, but no
State claims responsibility for them.
Jessica: If you have a right that you are
unable to access, you are still a citizen,
but your rights are being infringed upon.
It’s a bad form of citizenship, but they are
still a citizen because if they are given
social rights, then they can participate.
Brad: I would argue that people like
1
David Hicks , even though he is classified
as a citizen. He’s not a citizen who has
lost his rights, he has actually lost his
citizenship.
Jessica: I disagree. His rights are being
challenged. The government is not
upholding his citizenship. It’s there,
but it is not being used. For instance, if
you have no welfare and are then given
it, it’s not that you are suddenly given
citizenship.
Brad: I disagree.
John: Well homeless people have freedom of speech, freedom of religion.
Brad: I differentiate between human
rights and citizenship rights. Citizenship
rights are defined by the relationship with
others and the relationship with the State.
David Hicks is an Australian citizen who was detained by US forces in Afghanistan in late 2001. Hicks has been held in solitary confinement in a small cage in a US military prison in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. All normal legal procedures have been suspended as Hicks continues to be held without charge and has been refused the status of prisoner of war. At the time of
the focus groups he’d been allowed no legal representation and there was no indication of when, if ever, he could expect either trial or release. The Australian Government did not act to
safeguard the rights of one of its citizens, which is what the participants are referring to here.
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
If you remove the State’s obligations
towards you, you still have human rights
to freedom of speech or whatever, but
you do not have citizenship rights.
Jessica: But then is the concept that you
can get it back and then lose it and then
get it back?
Brad: Yes, I think that’s perfectly true.
Jessica: No, you always have it. It’s
like if you are a vegetable and can’t
communicate, you still have freedom of
speech but you just are unable to enjoy
that right. There is a responsibility to
try to ensure that people’s rights are
substantive. As soon as you simply say
they are not a citizen, you take away that
responsibility. Once you say they are not
a citizen in your head you take away that
responsibility.
Brad: I see that point of view but to me
it’s the exact opposite. If you can say
this person’s a citizen, even though we
have denied them all their rights they
still have these rights, we don’t need to
do anything. Whereas, if you say no, this
person is not a citizen because they are
denied the rights of citizenship therefore
we must work to make them a citizen. By
denying citizens their rights, the State
loses its legitimacy.
Jessica: I would argue that it’s unequal
citizenship. The aim of any government
should be to equalise it. But there are
different levels of engagement.
Brad: I think that there has been a
move away from equality of outcomes
to equality of opportunity and that has
significant consequences for citizenship.
Even though all of the focus groups
mentioned social welfare as a right of
citizenship, many participants also claimed
that variations on “not to rort the system”
is a responsibility of citizenship. There was
distinct correlation between lower socioeconomic background and propensity to
believe that there are a large number of
citizens who are “cheating the system”
or “bludging”. Whereas the most socially
advantaged and highly educated participants
tended to stress the rights of the individual
to the provisions of social welfare, the most
disadvantaged and least highly educated
would tend to stress the belief in widespread
welfare fraud and a resulting fiscal crisis,
despite the fact that they themselves were
social welfare recipients. The following
extract is from a discussion between Year 10
students at a state school in Perth:
Rodney: You’ve got to go out and do
things for yourself. If you are trying to
find a job, or at TAFE and trying to get
your skills up and trying to find a job,
then maybe that’s unfair. But the majority
of people, I would suggest, don’t try hard
enough or know they don’t have the
skills to get jobs and don’t go and get
training.
Kate: Yeah, people that sit at home all
day.
Kevin: Even if you create jobs there will
always be a percentage of people who
are so slack they don’t want to go out.
Eric: That’s right, they just want to
cheat the system and go on the dole.
They won’t work and just say they want
money from the government.
While participants such as these agreed
with Marshall’s thesis in theory, their belief
that there are many citizens who would take
advantage of welfare and “rort the system”
meant that they felt that this right should
be highly limited and conditional. They
recognised that there are implications for
citizenship, but felt that the first priority
should be fiscal constraint. These participants
tended to stress individual moral failings,
73
74
Youth and Citizenship
whereas older, more highly educated and
economically advantaged participants of
the same age tended to stress the structural
causes of inequality and hence prioritise the
States’ obligations to its citizens.
you participate”? No, “you’re a citizen
because you belong”. So probably we
should define citizenship as different
levels.
Classes of citizens
Although there was a pronounced difficulty
for many participants to accept the proposition
that some people in the community might be
considered non-citizens, almost every focus
group felt more comfortable in asserting that
there are classes of citizens. There is a strong
perception that there are different classes of
citizens, based primarily on their capacity to
participate, and the limitations of that capacity
whether it derives from social disadvantage,
disability or age. Most groups were content
to say that there are first- and second-class
citizens. However, others claimed that it was
even more stratified than that. A Tasmanian
group identified six levels of citizenship, with
themselves in the lowest position. Many
groups argued that juveniles are second-class
citizens because they only have some of the
rights and obligations of citizenship.
The perception that there are different
levels of citizenship, and the tension over
whether citizenship is defined by capacity for
participation or merely a status of belonging,
was common and is further developed in
the following excerpt.
Inga: There’s different levels of
citizenship. Different citizens have
different rights. If someone has
nominal rights that they can’t access,
then government would consider them
a citizen, but perhaps they are not.
They might be a citizen, but they are
not the same type of citizen as a white
middle class person. There are certainly
second-class citizens.
Naomi: But just because you can’t really
participate, doesn’t make you less of a
citizen. I don’t influence the running of
this country, but that doesn’t make me
less of a citizen. I have less rights than
other people.
Inga: Yeah, but if you were unable to
participate would you consider yourself
as a citizen of some group if you were
personally unable to influence the
decisions of that group. Because I
wouldn’t.
Naomi: So you see citizenship as
influencing the way things go? Because
I see myself as a citizen of Australia, but
I have no control over our government’s
direction.
Inga: But you are still able to vote and
protest.
Naomi: Yes, but I don’t think necessarily
those rights enable you to adequately
Maybe there’s different levels of
citizenship. I don’t think that you can
say that people who cannot participate
in the country because of a lack of social
rights is not a citizen. Because you
need to have some identity and being
a citizen of a country is that identity. So
maybe there are levels of citizenship.
But you just can’t say someone who is
born in a country is not a citizen. It’s like
being born into the Jones family. If you
walk away and never have anything to
do with them, it doesn’t change the fact
that you are always part of the Jones
family.
– Belinda, 20, Sydney.
Is this based on “you’re a citizen because
– Stephen, 19, Sydney.
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
participate and change and impact
things. There are different ways to
participate that don’t always come back
to voting and protesting.
Inga: But what if you can’t participate?
Naomi: Everyone participates. You can’t
live without affecting the people around
you, so you are at least participating
with them.
Democracy and citizenship
One of the clearest findings from the
qualitative phase of research is that while
some of the participants see the link
between democracy and citizenship that
forms the basis of much of the citizenship
literature and theory, this was by no means
universal. The participants tended to hold
very different understandings of the word
“citizenship”. The failure to share a mutually
understood definition of citizenship is a
very significant issue.
Many of the participants, particularly
the younger participants but also many
of the older participants, found it very
difficult to distinguish in their thinking
between citizenship as the legal right to
live in a country (and the related ideas
of immigration, multiculturalism and
asylum), and the meaning of citizenship as
a political status of people living within a
democracy. Many others had a much more
nebulous definition of citizenship which
is based on membership of a community
or a group, which can be much larger
or smaller than the State and is not
necessarily related to politics.
Whereas much of the literature on
citizenship, and certainly for theorists such
as Marshall, the definition of citizenship is
inherently linked to the status of people living
within a democratic system, the young people
who took part in this study did not generally
see that connection. For social theorists
such as Marshall, the status of citizenship is
historically specific and is antithetical to the
idea of a subject. It exists in particular parts
of the ancient world in some form, and again
in the modern world. The participants seem
to find it hard to relate to this view because,
on the one hand, they did not seem to have
the same historical understanding, and on
the other, there was confusion over the ideas
of citizenship and nationality.
When asked if citizenship had existed
all through history, one group of Year 10
answered:
Kristen: There was citizenship in the past,
but on a different level. Not as defined.
Facilitator: What if you lived in medieval
England, would you be a citizen?
Jeremy: You would be the equivalent.
Facilitator: So why would you be
considered a citizen?
Kristen: You’re part of the community.
You abided by their laws.
Facilitator: Would you have any say in
what those laws were?
Luke: Not really.
Gemma: No.
Facilitator: Is that still citizenship, if you
don’t have any say?
Kristen: No.
Luke: No. It’s half of citizenship.
Jeremy: It’s not democracy.
Lisa: That’s because citizenship has
changed over the years.
Others: Yeah, it has.
Gemma: I think if you had the right to have
a say and then it was taken away from
you, that would be a problem. But, if you
never had it in the first place, unless you
were passionate about something, I don’t
think you’d care. I don’t think I’d care.
75
76
Youth and Citizenship
A similar discussion was held by another
group:
Bronwyn: Citizenship emerged over
time. Because Aboriginals didn’t have
citizenship till about 1970s.
Cameron: But wouldn’t they be citizens
of their own clans?
Bronwyn: Yes they would. But our laws
were forced upon them till the 1970s,
without them being citizens.
Cameron: Before Australia was colonised,
and Aboriginals had their own nations,
would they not be citizens of their own
nations? Culturally speaking.
Bronwyn: Yes. Because they go through
initiation to become members of the
tribe.
Facilitator: Can you be a citizen of an
Aboriginal tribe? Is there a difference
between being a citizen and being a
member of any kind of community?
Cameron: Yeah, what about in Soviet
Russia?
Bronwyn: Citizenship is not linked to
democracy. Even if you are born into a
different system, like a caste system, you
still have rights within those cultures.
Facilitator: What about women in the
19th century who didn’t have the right to
vote, were they citizens too?
Rebecca: Yes.
Cameron: I’d have said it is linked.
Because you have choice because you
are a citizen.
The following excerpt is from a discussion
between another group of Year 10 students
which began with the group asserting that
citizenship has its origins in Ancient Greece.
The group suggested that this form of
citizenship was both racist and sexist as
it was restricted to free Greek males. This
level of historical knowledge was unusual.
However, when asked if a resident of France
in 1400 would be considered a citizen, the
participants answered that they would be a
French citizen, though they probably would
not have used that word. Citizenship, they
argued, has always existed. Then this was
qualified: “well, maybe not in caveman
times, but ever since people had rights”.
Facilitator: When did people get rights?
Angie: Maybe when they had
governments.
Angie: When they wanted to do things
and found they had no rights, they probably thought they would become citizens
so that they would be free to do things.
Belinda: Well, it wasn’t apparent in the
Bible because you had Pharaoh and then
the tribes and the slaves. They didn’t
have rights.
Angie: But slaves were citizens of their
slave tribes.
Facilitator: Can you be a citizen and a
slave?
Jack: Well, you could be a citizen of
somewhere else.
Angie: The slaves were like their own
country. They got to make decisions
within their group. They voted for leaders.
It was a democracy.
Tim: But “slave” and “citizen” does not
come with the same rights. Because if
you are a slave of a country, say Greece,
then you wouldn’t really be a citizen of
Greece. But you would be a citizen of the
slave community. Because citizen means
belonging.
Facilitator: Has citizenship always
existed?
Tim: Yes.
Tim was asked whether, as he said that
citizenship has always existed in the past,
it would definitely continue in the future, or
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
whether we have to do anything to maintain
citizenship.
Tim: To answer that question you need to
define whether citizenship is to be part of
a group, just a title or to have the same
rights. Because if you are saying that
you are a citizen of Germany when Hitler
was around, even if he is killing you then
that’s different.
Claire: They weren’t citizens. Because
they didn’t have a democracy, they were
just like slaves.
Miranda: I still think that they were
citizens.
Angela: Isn’t citizenship only classed as
which country you belong to, not the
system of government?
Jenny: Yeah, that’s what I think. Even
though Hitler was being mean and all
that, I still think the people were citizens.
Angela: Well what about the Jews? They
weren’t really considered citizens. They
were Germans, but they were considered
an inferior race of Germans.
Tim: Are we saying that to be a citizen
is just to be part of a country – you’re a
German therefore you’re a German citizen,
or are you part of a community, are you
involved in decisions, do you have a say
or whatever? Because before we said you
could be a citizen within a group of slaves,
which therefore would suggest that you
could be a citizen of Germany at that time
even though you have no rights.
Ed: No, that’s not a citizen because you’re
not part of . . .
Miranda: Citizenship is belonging.
Therefore if you belong to a community
of people, therefore you are a citizen of
that group.
Belinda: If you’re a slave you are more
like a member of a group than a citizen.
Miranda: Well it’s just like you get a
certificate saying you are a citizen of
Australia but because of something or
other you move somewhere else, does
that make you not a citizen any more just
because you’re somewhere else?
Tim: Well if you are a slave in Germany,
but you are from France, does that make
you a French citizen?
Miranda: Yes, because you didn’t move
and set up residency yourself.
Tim: So if you’re a slave you can still be a
citizen, but a citizen of somewhere else?
Miranda: Yes.
Amy: If you were in a concentration camp
in World War II or something, you are
considered an Australian. Even though
you are a member of that concentration
camp community in another country, you
are still an Australian citizen.
Miranda: So in other words you are a
citizen if you call yourself an Australian.
Alex: So you can move to Australia but
call yourself South African or whatever.
Then citizen just boils down to a slip of
paper saying you can live here, work
here, vote here.
Amy: What if there is a husband and a
wife, and the husband can be considered
a citizen because he can vote and work
and everything, but the wife is not
allowed because she is a woman, so she
can’t be considered a citizen.
Tim: So that’s like saying, are you a
citizen or are you a member of that
community? That’s the whole point, to
define citizenship. But there are so many
different ways you can define it.
This difficulty of defining terms and
the resultant conflicting and sometimes
contradictory perceptions that are held, is
also illustrated by the discussion between
77
78
Youth and Citizenship
Grace, a postgraduate Sociology student,
and Emily, a final year Law student, in
Tasmania:
Grace: For me citizenship is very
problematic. Because you can see over
time that the people who were citizens
of their country have varied over time.
For example, women weren’t citizens,
Aboriginal people weren’t citizens. But
when I think about citizenship I think of
rights, I think about access, but I also
think about inequality. I think about
people who don’t have rights. There’s an
ideal type of citizenship, but then there’s
every opposite of that ideal type. There’s
different levels of citizenship. Different
citizens have different rights. If someone
has nominal rights that they can’t access,
then government would consider them a
citizen, but perhaps they are not. They
might be a citizen, but they are not the
same type of citizen as a white middleclass person. There are certainly secondclass citizens.
Facilitator: Is it linked to democracy?
Grace: I think it is. Specifically, I think it
is to be subject to the law. Secondly, that
you can affect politically what the country
does by right of vote.
Emily: So if you are a juvenile and unable
to vote, that reduces the extent of your
citizenship? But I have always thought
of citizenship, not as how I can impact
government, but where I feel at home,
where I can identify with people. If we
take the example of South Africa during
apartheid, although they could not vote,
the native Africans were part of their own
groups and tribes and so they had their
own form of citizenship without having a
democratic system. So they were citizens
in that respect, but they weren’t citizens
of the State without the rights to vote and
participate in that government structure.
The legal definition of a citizen of a nationstate is too narrow a view. I don’t think
the world works like that any more. With
so much interaction between countries,
residents of countries without becoming
legal citizens – they still feel they belong to
the country or to the community they live
in within that country. I think it devalues
our other relationships and our other
group structures if you see citizenship as
some legal right in a democratic country.
Grace: It depends how you look at it. At
Federation there was citizenship, but only
for white males. But then if you tie it to the
right to vote, it was in 1907 that women
got the right to vote and tied to the right
to vote was the right to stand for office,
which is important. But it was a long time
before people took up that right.
Jane: Well according to my definition of
citizenship which I tie to nation-states,
it began with the Treaty of Westphalia in
the 15th century.
Emily: It depends on how you define
citizenship. In terms of the feeling of
citizenship it is something that has
always been there as long as people have
been around, in terms of the community
and the family – on all different levels and
different facets.
Grace: Well, I put it to you that in Australia
it wasn’t until 1967 that we actually had a
cohesive sense of citizenship, and that was
when Aboriginals were given the vote.
Emily: The word and the legal concept
of citizenship link with democracy as
an internal, but I think that humans are
social beings and forming groups
and belonging to groups, and having
identifying factors is an eternal that we
have now called “citizenship”. We have
formed countries to say “this is the
boundary of our group”. But I would link
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
citizenship with free choice, and freedom
to choose who you interact with. So when
you talk about citizenship of a group
other than a nation-state, you actively
participate in the interactions with other
people in that group. People have a choice
not to be a citizen of a group, even though
they may have characteristics that others
might consider identify you as a member
of a group. Even on a national level, you
may not consider yourself an Australian
citizen even though you were born here.
Grace: So, by your definition, can you be
a citizen of any group? Say a citizen of a
terrorist group?
Emily: Yes. If you abide by its policies and
beliefs and feel part of that group, and
are recognised as part of that group, you
are a citizen of that group. Citizenship
is a self-chosen membership of a group
with which you identify, and with which
you are identified by others. So there has
to be mutual recognition between group
members. Otherwise it doesn’t work
because citizenship has to be interaction
between people, it can’t be just you
choosing something yourself.
Grace: So you can be a citizen of twenty
or thirty groups?
Emily: Yes.
Grace: How can you delineate that
citizenship of groups from membership
of groups?
Emily: Well, you can be a member of
a group which people would identify
you as but with which you don’t
identify yourself. For example, I am
a law student, and a person of Dutch
heritage. But those groups have values
and culture that I don’t share. So,
although I am objectively a member of
those two groups, I don’t identify with
them. So I don’t feel that I am a citizen
of those groups, but I am a citizen of
many other groups.
This is just one example of a discussion
that took place in nearly all of the focus
groups. The significantly different definitions
of citizenship that are held represent a
significant barrier to communication. The
unexpected finding that many people
define citizenship as membership of any
group and/or groups is widespread and
carries implications for interpreting people’s
statements.
As this Perth group of Year 10 students
group put it:
Facilitator: So, will citizenship always
exist then?
Sarah: No. Not when we globalise.
Amelia: Then we will become citizens of
the world.
Harry: Become one.
Sophie: I think that citizenship means
less now, because transport has changed
so much for one thing. So people are
travelling all over the world. So where
would you say you’re a citizen of? Where
you were born, or where you’re currently
living, even if you are going to move
again next week?
Geoff: Well, there’s already people who
have dual citizenship. Or even more.
The participants at the focus groups
were introduced to cosmopolitan theory
and asked how it sat with their own
perceptions. Few participants supported
the idea. This was mainly for two distinct
reasons: for some the traditional idea of
citizenship being related to the nation-state,
and what they saw as impractical ideas of
international democratic government having
yet to emerge, citizenship remains spatially
bounded by the nation-state; for others,
their concept of citizenship was too closely
79
80
Youth and Citizenship
tied to ideas of national identity to allow for
notions of a cosmopolitan citizenship. But
there were a variety of views.
Some participants expressed a pragmatic
and highly localised view of citizenship
that might be phrased “small cogs in a big
machine”, rather than a cosmopolitan view:
Not something I have ever thought of
before, it’s never crossed my mind. I
guess I have always thought that if
you are just an average person and
you want to make a difference, the
first step would be to do something in
your local community. If enough people
in local areas did that at a State level,
it builds up to a national level. But to
leapfrog that in to the international
arena, felt very alien. It didn’t seem to
fit the picture that is painted by funding
bodies, or decision-makers.
– Kylie, 24, Perth.
For others, the difficulty deriving from
definitions re-emerged, is citizenship merely
to be part of a community? For some people
the idea of community is global, and therefore
citizenship is global. For others, the idea of
a global community does not imply a global
citizenship. Some participants looked at it
as a membership of a democratic polity,
and argued that Australian representatives
to international organisations are appointed
by elected governments and that therefore,
Australian citizens do have some role to
play in appointing representatives who are
ultimately answerable to the electorate.
Tim: We are a part of the world
community.
Brian: But that’s not citizenship. Because
we are not allowed in to other countries,
we don’t have their rights, and we don’t
have to abide by their laws unless we are
in their country.
Michael: There are two sets of citizenship
now. There is the country citizenship,
and then international citizenship like
the UN which in theory represents us.
So I belong to that community too,
so I should have some input. With the
Internet and news services available, we
have a lot more knowledge about what is
going on around the world and are able
to act against the actions that foreign
governments take against their citizens,
for instance the stoning of that woman in
Nigeria. On the other hand, I resent that
our government seems to be dominated
by foreign powers.
Sandra: I think it is both national and
international. Can you be both? A citizen
of your own country and then also have
citizenship rights on a global scale. We
should stand up for the rights of other
people, but you have to respect their
wishes and just be able to facilitate it if
they want help.
Philip: But a lot of these rights are cultural
issues. How can we interfere in other
people’s policies when they express their
cultures just as ours express ours. We
wouldn’t want other countries to insist on
female circumcision for instance, so what
right have we got to tell them to stop?
Beyond the ethics and power of
international politics, there were also
concerns about the practicalities that the
policies of the international arena are too
complex to allow people to participate,
that an international democracy would
be too cumbersome, and that the idea of
cosmopolitanism is contrary to the nature
of citizenship. However, it was felt that the
national government is already too remote
to be considered representative, let alone
the international arena.
Paula: Citizenship is both national and
international.
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
Greg: You can’t be a citizen of the world.
It exists within the confines of the nationstate.
Paula: I agree with the concept of an
elected international government, but
the numbers make it impossible. How
could it be representative?
Lisa: It’s a concept of deliberative
democracy. If an institution makes
decisions which affect you, you should
have some say. But how do you do it on a
practical level?
Joe: I don’t think it would be any more
representative than a federally appointed
representative. Because it is unlikely that
the electorate would vote differently in
the federal election and the international
elections, so you get the same result.
Greg: People don’t have the requisite
level of expertise to decide on these
issues anyway.
Joe: Surely there would be a big debate
that would lead to public education if
there was a big issue to be decided on.
Paula: I think that eventually it would
be a good idea to have international
government, but by trying it now you’d
shoot yourself in the foot because it
would probably fail. So, I think further
down the track it will happen, change will
occur.
6.3 Interpretations of survey data
The participants were asked for their
comments or interpretations of selected
sections of the data. Their comments were
very revealing.
Is Australia democratic?
One point discussed was the question
of why so few survey respondents agreed
with the statement that “Australia is a
democratic country”, and why there was a
correlation between age and responses (with
younger respondents much more likely to
agree with the statement). The participants
offered different interpretations. Some of
the younger participants said that they did
not know what “democracy” means, but it
sounded OK so they would just agree with
the statement. Some others aged around 15
to 17 said that they were unsure of how to
interpret the question because they thought
that “democratic” means institutions and
processes like elections and courts, but that
it also means “fairness” (meaning social
justice). So they would choose “neither
agree nor disagree” because while they
agree that Australia does have democratic
institutions and processes, they do not see
the resulting society as fair, or they feel
that the institutions are only nominally or
moderately democratic.
Others, particularly those aged over
20, said that their understanding of the
complexity of democracy had developed as
they had grown older and while they would
have been likely to agree with the statement
when they were younger, they would be
more ambivalent now that they were older.
At a school in Hobart, the following
discussion on the philosophical justification
for social rights arose from discussion on
the survey. These Year 10 students were
discussing the survey question which asked
whether participants believed that Australia
is a democratic country.
Chris : But democratic means fairness,
and is it fair that people who can’t afford
housing live in bad places?
Matt : They’ve got housing commission.
Chris: Yeah, and they’re infected with
cockroaches.
Samantha: Poverty is a cycle you can
never break from. They don’t get the
education we get.
81
82
Youth and Citizenship
Chris: The rich get richer and the poor
get poorer, and they can’t get out of the
cycle unless they win the lottery.
Samantha: They are stuck. So that’s not
democratic. But there’s nothing you can
do about it. You’ve got to have a society
made up of different people. That’s how
it works.
Jerome: But it’s extreme when we have
millionaires and others who don’t have a
buck.
Catherine: And all those people who have
bankrupt companies who get paid millions.
That’s not fair, that money should go to
people who actually need it, like homeless
people, to help them get out of that rut.
Saskia: I don’t even think about it like
that when I did the survey, I just said yes.
Now I would answer differently.
Matt: How does not giving people
housing not make it a democratic? It’s
still democratic.
Chris: Because it’s not fair.
Matt: They still have all the rights of a
democracy.
Chris: That’s why I answered “neither
agree nor disagree” on the survey,
because it’s too broad.
Matt: It’s still democratic.
Chris: I’d like to see how you turned
out if you had a completely different
life, a different education and fewer
opportunities.
Matt: But it’s still democratic, you still get
a vote, get education, get welfare.
Samantha: It’s different standards.
Matt: How does different standards in
society decrease the democratic nature,
they still get all the rights.
Catherine: They probably don’t even
know what their rights are, let alone have
access to them.
Matt: They still have them. That’s
democratic.
As with “citizenship”, once again there is
a problem arising from a failure to share
a widespread definition of “democracy”.
Whether it be at a high philosophical level,
or at the most basic level, the failure to share
a definition of democratic raises questions
of interpretation for the quantitative data in
this and other studies.
Discrimination and exclusion?
The focus group participants were
asked to comment on why so few survey
respondents had agreed that citizenship is
about exclusion and discrimination. Most
participants commented that although they
recognise that citizenship is about exclusion
in one sense, it sounds bad so they don’t
like to say that. It was also agreed by
most participants that an important part of
citizenship is exclusion, and they support
that exclusion because the participants
felt that the maintenance of the economic
position of current Australian citizens/
residents is threatened by the unregulated
immigration. “If you let everyone in who
wanted to come here, they would take our
jobs and use up all the welfare money”.
Rather than helping individuals, we should
help the whole populations of those
countries, so they won’t want to leave.
This was also thought to be the reason
for preference for internationalist versus
nationalist conceptions in the survey
data which contradicted the findings from
the qualitative work. Many participants
said that they would have chosen the
international or cosmopolitan definition
in the survey rather than the nationalist
definition even though it directly
contradicts their real perceptions, because
they thought it sounded better.
Chapter 6
Qualitative findings
This finding is very important. It indicates
that some of the survey data from this study
as well as others may be unreliable. Young
respondents may be disinclined to express
their true perceptions because they think it
sounds too negative.
Media
Most participants were not surprised by
the results that indicated that young people
felt that they had a high degree of influence
over the media because young people see
themselves as a powerful consumer group.
Some participants gave examples such as
being able to phone Channel V (a music
station on cable TV) and speak live on-air
to the presenters to express their opinions
and request songs, have their letters
printed in magazines and so on. Further
discussion indicated that many participants
thought this was an immediate feeling of
influence, but that in reality the media has a
greater influence over young people. Many
commented that although you can choose
your favourite song, the media tell you
which songs you can choose between and
they are all pretty similar anyway.
The participants were surprised that so
many survey respondents had indicated that
young people have a high level of influence
over the news media. Many thought that
the high level of this was probably due to
having misread the questions and failing to
notice the distinction in some cases.
Final review
At the end of the focus groups, the
participants were asked to answer two
questions. The first was what they saw as
the underlying spirit of meaning or spirit
of citizenship. The second was to provide
a short definition of citizenship. These are
listed in the table in Appendix F. Generally
they followed the pattern of answers
given at the beginning of the focus group,
but they were often more considered or
articulately expressed.
6.4 Conclusion
The qualitative research provided valuable
insights which were not gained through
the quantitative research. They revealed
a complex and layered set of perceptions
that were frequently contradictory. There is
no single agreed definition of citizenship
among the participants, and many of the
participants are able to hold two or more
conflicting definitions at once. Particularly
clear, and directly contradictory to
established understandings of citizenship,
is the very strong trend towards conceiving
citizenship as the membership of any type
of group including a slave group.
A great many participants claimed that
they had never really thought about
citizenship before and that the focus group
had caused them to think more deeply
about it. The emphasis of the definition
that the participants gave at the beginning
of the process did not generally change by
the end of the process (e.g. Community,
nationality), however the latter definitions
tended to be broader and more considered.
In general there are two sets of views of
what citizenship is about, and people are
able to hold them concurrently. The first is
that citizenship is about community and
membership to various sorts of groups,
and the second is that citizenship is
democratic participation and political, civil
and social rights.
83
84
Youth and Citizenship
7
Conclusion and
recommendations
This research was conducted using a multimethod approach consisting of an extensive
and critical review of the literature, a national
quantitative survey of young people, and indepth qualitative research with young people.
The purpose of this research was to:
1. critically analyse the concept(s) of
citizenship and its implications for
young people;
2. ascertain young people’s perceptions
of citizenship and determining factors;
and
3. identify what strategies could be utilised
to advance empowering concept(s) of
citizenship amongst young people.
The findings cover a range of topics from
the conceptualisation that young people
have about what citizenship means and how
they relate to themselves, to trying to apply
the established definitions and theories of
citizenship to the lives of young people, to
identifying barriers to young people feeling
that they are citizens in the sense that is
intended by policy makers, and in the sense
that young people themselves say what
they would like.
7.1 Citizenship and young people
The study found that even within the
literature there is no single agreed definition
of citizenship. While there are a range of
established definitions, the study found
that it is difficult to apply many of them
to young people because they often entail
criteria which actively exclude some or all
of the people aged 12 to 25. The basic
powerful concept which underlies citizenship
is equality. Yet all citizens are clearly not
equal, and young people are not equal with
older people in terms of citizenship. At a
basic level, there are a range of citizenship
rights, including many basic civil and
political rights, which are not extended to
minors. While at a more subtle level, the
study found that there are limitations on
86
Youth and Citizenship
the citizenship status of young people that
derive from factors such as limited economic
independence. Other theory suggests that
there is a basic level of knowledge of civics
which is required for a person to be able
to participate in civic life. This study found
that although there are currently education
initiatives in civics and citizenship education
being implemented in schools, many of the
participants in this study did not have a high
level of knowledge of civics. This idea was
echoed by politically active young people
who asserted that, from their experiences,
they have learnt that in order to be effective
in creating change or influencing decisionmakers, it is necessary to understand how
government works.
So, from a variety of perspectives, the
citizenship status of young people is unclear.
It is clear that the category of “youth” is
problematic, even if we accept that age
itself is category, as the position of young
people within different age groups within the
category of youth differs substantially. The
citizenship status of those aged under 18 is
particularly difficult to analyse. They do not
have the franchise, and in some cases they
are denied the rights of freedom of assembly
and movement, and yet they are officially
considered citizens. Beyond this, there are
a range of perspectives on citizenship which
are less prescriptive, and which stress active
involvement in community life, and these
could be more easily applied to young
people. However, this research found that
again there are impediments, principally
deriving from the limited independence of
many young people, to this perspective
being adopted successfully.
7.2 Young people’s perception of
citizenship
This research has found that young
people themselves hold varied, sometimes
contradictory, and often overlapping
perceptions of what citizenship is.
Importantly, although this lack of consensus
reflects the lack of a single definition of
citizenship in the literature, a great many
young people understand citizenship to
mean things that are quite contradictory
to the literature, and seem to contradict
the philosophical basis of the established
definitions of citizenship.
Generally, this research found that the
perceptions that young people hold of what
the term “citizenship” means can be seen
as falling into five broad categories. These
categories seem to reflect the different
contexts in which the terms “citizen” or
“citizenship” are used in public discourse.
They are:
1. National identity;
2. Formal legal status;
3. Participation;
4. Rights and duties; and
5. Belonging to a group.
1. National identity
Many of the participants in this study
identified national identity as part of their
perception of what citizenship means. This
perception includes sub categories which
range from a general idea of a shared culture
or an identity deriving from country of birth or
place of residence, to a sense of nationalism
bordering on jingoism and includes such
practices as respecting the national flag and
being under an obligation to avoid criticism
and emphasise the positive aspects of
Australia at all time. This sense of citizenship
as a national identity is very established
while the idea that being a citizen, being a
member of a democratic community, might
influence identity in a range of ways such as
how one relates to others in daily life, how
one sees one’s place in the world and so
Chapter 7
Conclusions and recommendations
on, is not at all established and very few of
the participants thought that citizenship was
an important part of their identity beyond
national identity.
2. Formal legal status
Many participants included formal legal
status among their perceptions of citizenship.
For some participants this was a separate
meaning to the word “citizenship” which
existed alongside other meanings, while for
others it was lens through which all notions
of citizenship were viewed – anything that
did not fit within the legal definition of
citizenship was classified as something
else, such as human rights. For some
people this perspective seems to be derived
from a particular education, such as a legal
education. While for others, and particularly
for the younger participants, this was used as
a touchstone with which to assess whether
something should be categorised as related
citizenship, and which can be distorting. For
example, because someone is termed to
be a “citizen” of a non-democratic country,
it follows that citizenship is not related to
democracy.
Furthermore, the idea that people
have always lived somewhere, and the
country in which one lives is generally the
country of which they are now seen to
“have” citizenship, is taken to mean that
people must always have been citizens of
somewhere, and therefore have always been
citizens. This interpretation of citizenship,
which derives from the modern use of the
word “citizen” for a status which might once
have been termed “subject” represents a
significant barrier for many young people to
think about citizenship as a political status.
3. Participation
Many of the young people who contributed
to this study saw participation as a part of
citizenship. The actual acts of participation,
or levels of involvement that were considered
to be parts of citizenship varied. It could
include any type of activity in civil society
such as membership of sporting clubs or
social activity, or it could include community
service. Or it could include being active in
terms of engaging with ideas and political
or policy debates, or engaging in political
activism, or simply voting. Some people
had difficulty reconciling the participation
they saw as part of the ideal type of
citizenship and the actual lived experience
of many citizens, including themselves.
It was often noted that many people do
not participate very much, or at all, and
yet were still objectively and subjectively
citizens. Others argued that it is impossible
to live without engaging with other people
and influencing them at some level, and
that this can be considered participation.
Many of the participants felt that it was very
difficult for young people to participate in
political activity and in civil society. They
felt that young people lack the required
resources, knowledge and respect to be able
to participate effectively. There does seem
to be a correlation between socio-economic
advantage and the feeling of being able to
participate with the most marginalised the
least likely to report that they feel that they
can participate.
4. Rights and duties
Rights and duties were seen as
part of citizenship by nearly all of the
participants. Some emphasised rights,
while others emphasised duties. Most saw
a clear relationship between the two and
perceived a need for each to be balanced
by the other. The rights that were identified
included political and civil rights as well
as social rights. The duties that were
87
88
Youth and Citizenship
emphasised tended to be those that could
be characterised as related to formal
political participation and the respect for,
or upholding of, the rights of others. Many
identified the avoidance of discrimination
or the support of multiculturalism as a duty
of citizenship, with reference to the rights
of people to be respected as citizens and
not to be discriminated against. Young
people perceived that they had fewer rights
than older citizens, but most thought that
this was appropriate as they thought that
the granting of rights should be done with
regard to the level of maturity considered
necessary to use those rights responsibly.
Some however did feel marginalised and
resentful, particularly with reference to
social rights rather than political rights.
Particular emphasis in this area was placed
on youth unemployment and the attitude
of older citizens to unemployed young
people. The most marginalised participants
were very resentful at what they perceived
as violations of their civil rights, particularly
on the part of police.
5. Belonging to a group
Many participants in this study identified
membership of a group or groups as a
definition of citizenship. This perception of
citizenship varied, but was often associated
with the idea of “community” and was
often perceived to apply to any sort of
membership of any sort of social group.
This perception represents a significant
problem in applying established theories of
citizenship because the category of group
membership is so broad as to include
any group at all, including groups such as
slaves which are antithetical to the received
concepts of citizenship. Another difficulty
with this category is that it is so broad as to
allow for any type of activity or identity or
status to be viewed as citizenship.
7.3 Young people as citizens:
experiences and perceptions
Participation and political power
These research findings suggest that
many young people feel that they have
an obligation to participate in political
activities, but that they also tend to feel
that they have little power to do so. As this
research was confined to the perceptions
of young people, it is not clear whether
this perception is unique to young people
or whether in fact is a common perception
held by citizens in other age groups.
Of the means of participation that
were identified by participants as being
available to citizens in Australia, the
participants are divided on which (if any)
are effective for young people. Voting is
seen to be important, but not particularly
effective. Other activities, such as letter
writing, lobbying and protesting, are seen
to be effective only if they are carried out
in large groups.
The participants in this study are divided on
the perceived power of formal participation
in youth advisory groups. Most have never
thought about it beyond student councils
which are generally dismissed as ineffective
and powerless. Of those who had participated
in youth advisory groups for government and
non-government organisations, some derided
the process as tokenistic, while others felt
empowered by it.
A significant question was raised by
a small number of participants about
the claim that any young people can be
considered representative of all other
young people. These participants argued
that a lack of consultation on the part of
youth representatives meant that there was
a failure to overcome the barriers created
by social class in terms of needs and
Chapter 7
Conclusions and recommendations
perceptions. “How”, they asked, “can these
yuppy kids represent street kids? They don’t
know what we want or need, or what our
experiences are.”
Additionally, among those participants
who have been involved in such bodies,
there was a feeling that they had become
“professional young people” in the sense
that participation in one group had led
to participation in many others and they
tended to see many of the same faces
at different forums. These perceptions
indicate the pool of young people who are
engaging in formal participation is small
which represents a problem in terms of
representative democracy and the ambition
to encourage large numbers of young people
to participate in influencing the decisions
that effect their lives.
Extension of the franchise
Some of the participants under 18
years of age expressed a feeling of
disenfranchisement which they felt could be
somewhat overcome by being allowed to
vote. Most of the participants were opposed
to lowering the voting age. Propensity to
desire the lowering of the voting age seems
to correlate to lower levels of knowledge
about political processes. Many of the
participants who wanted to be able to
vote did not know what democracy is,
while many participants who had a good
understanding of the democratic theory and
practice felt unprepared to take on such a
great responsibility.
Some suggested that an optional vote
should be introduced for over 16s and
others suggested a vote which does not
count towards elections, but which is
recorded and reported. On the whole,
there is great resistance to the lowering of
the voting age on the grounds that young
people are not sufficiently knowledgeable
to vote responsibly.
Civics and citizenship education
This study has found that there is no
agreed definition of the word citizenship,
and that this lack of shared understanding
makes it difficult for young people to
discuss citizenship in a clear and consistent
manner. The failure on the part of many of
the participants to differentiate between
membership of any kind of group, and
citizenship as membership of a democratic
society with rights and the ability to
participate, is striking, particularly in the
cases where young people asserted that
slaves are citizens. There appears to be
very little recognition of the subject-citizen
dichotomy, which seems to stem from a lack
of historical knowledge.
Apart from the participants who
were still at school, most of the older
participants expressed concern that they
had not been sufficiently educated to be
considered competent citizens. The survey
responses indicate that education is seen
as the single best way for young people
to feel that they are meaningfully involved
in society. The review of civics education
carried out as part of this study found that
although there are many new initiatives to
promote the study of civics and citizenship
in schools, the participants in this study
would be unlikely to have benefited from
these as most of them are either in the very
early stages of implementation, have only
just been implemented, or target younger
age groups than those who participated in
the study.
For those who were still at school, the
level of knowledge varied greatly. For
instance, at one Sydney school, of twenty
Year 10 students who participated, no
89
90
Youth and Citizenship
student knew what “democracy” meant, and
some students asserted that Australia is not
a republic so it could not be a democracy.
While at other schools, students of the
same age were able to engage with
discussions of democratic process and the
philosophical foundations of democratic
citizenship at quite a sophisticated level.
There does seem to be a correlation
between the study of history and the
perceptions of citizenship. For instance, many
people referred to their studies of the Nazi
Germany as a lens through which to view
the rights of citizenship, and others drew on
their knowledge of ancient history.
On the other hand, particular forms
of tertiary education seem to have an
influence on the perceptions of citizenship.
For instance law students tended to hold
a narrow legal definition of citizenship
which they had learnt, but which did not
accord with their own perceptions of the
true meaning of citizenship which they
held concurrently.
Social rights and citizenship
The participants were introduced to
Marshall’s theory of citizenship and asked
whether they agreed with it. The majority
of the participants supported Marshall’s
theory of the three spheres of citizenship.
Welfare was often among the first rights to
come to mind. However, they did also tend
to baulk at the idea that people could be
considered non-citizens because they are
unable to access their rights. Rather, the
participants preferred to think of different
classes of citizenship. Although the
concept of second-class citizenship could
be considered a contradiction in terms,
the essence is the same: that the lack of
resources resulting from a denial of social
rights impedes the ability of people to be
active participants.
However, the agreement with Marshall’s
thesis did not necessarily include support
for enhanced state welfare. There was also a
great deal of suspicion of welfare recipients
that are perceived to be “bludgers” who
“rort the system”. Most notably this view
tended to be strongest among the youngest
participants, and among welfare recipients
themselves. There is a clear correlation
between socio-economic disadvantage and
the perception of widespread welfare fraud.
At a philosophical level, the contradiction
between the acceptance of Marshall’s ideas
of universal benefits and the concurrent
acceptance of “mutual obligation” was often
not resolved, with participants frequently
asserting that a balance must somehow be
struck between the two.
Cosmopolitanism
The participants tended to be less
interested in international politics, which
was reflected both in the quantitative and
qualitative data. They had usually thought
little about the connection between
international politic-economic power and
the concept of citizenship. However, when
presented with the idea of cosmopolitanism
some embraced it enthusiastically. Others
were more cautiously enthusiastic, claiming
to like the idea in theory but remaining
skeptical of the practicalities. Others
rejected the idea outright.
Again the failure to share a definition of
citizenship causes difficulties for discussion
of this topic because some people were
able to perceive themselves as global
citizens, in the sense that they are part
of the worldwide community of humans,
and yet reject the idea of supranational
government. There did not appear to be any
consistent correlating factors associated
with this.
Chapter 7
Conclusions and recommendations
7.4 Recommendations
One of the objectives of this research was
to identify strategies that “could be utilised
to advance empowering concept(s) of
citizenship amongst young people”. Based on
the findings of this study recommendations
have been developed for broad directions
for the development of strategies to advance
empowering concepts of citizenship in each
of the following areas:
1. Education
The concept of democratic citizenship as it
is intended in the political or philosophical
literature is in itself extremely empowering.
The most obvious conclusion from this
research is that there is a very poor
understanding of citizenship in this sense.
The failure to perceive democratic citizenship
as a political status and identity that is
vastly different from, indeed antithetical
to, the status of a slave or a subject is the
single greatest impediment to young people
holding a concept of citizenship which is
empowering. The fact that many young
people are unable to differentiate between
membership of any sort of group and equal
membership of a democratic community is
a significant issue.
It is difficult to determine cause and effect,
and they are probably mutually reinforcing,
but this seems to be due to both education
and public discourse.
Public discourse is problematic in
two senses. Firstly, the use of the word
“citizen” to describe both political status
in the sense of being a democratic citizen
rather than a subject, and the status of a
person who has a right to live in a certain
country (for example “a citizen of North
Korea”) is very confusing for many young
people when they are trying to conceive
of democratic citizenship. Secondly, it is
the latter use of the term which is most
common in Australian public discourse. It
is very rare, for instance, that citizenship is
explicitly referred to by governments and
in the media, other than in the context of
immigration. The participants in this study
were much more confident and competent
in using the word “consumer” than “citizen”,
and this probably reflects public discourse.
In terms of discursive practices, it might be
helpful if governments began to explicitly
address young people as citizens.
The participants who were best able
to differentiate between citizenship and
subjection were usually able to do so
through comparison, usually historical, with
other social-political systems. For some, the
experience of their migrant parents who had
lived under less or non-democratic political
systems was helpful, as was experiences
derived from foreign travel. But on the whole,
it was from history that most participants
who were able to distinguish these ideas
had gained their insight. Many commented
that they had never really thought about
citizenship in this sense before and reflected
that if Australia had had a revolution in its
history, or otherwise if they were French or
American, they probably would have thought
about it before.
The need for education goes beyond the
defining of terms though, and includes the
perceived need for more education about the
processes of government and politics, as well
as more education about policy and current
affairs. Many participants felt their ability
to participate meaningfully was inhibited
by their perceived lack of understanding of
both political and governmental processes,
and issues of policy.
The survey explicitly asked the
respondents what they thought would be
helpful to support young people to be
91
92
Youth and Citizenship
meaningfully involved in society. There were
a range of answers, but the most common
was education. This phrased in a variety of
different ways ranging from specific civics
and citizenship education in schools, to
general calls for increased funding for
universities. But overall, the message that
education is vital was clear.
As was revealed in the audit of educationbased initiatives, programs of citizenship and
civics education are being introduced into
Australian schools. If that were not happening
it would certainly be a recommendation of
this report. However, the vast majority of
young people who participated in this study
will miss out on this education as they have
already left school, or will have left school
before the programs are implemented
for their age group. It follows that other
programs of education, beyond formal
school education, are needed for young
people to develop empowering conceptions
of citizenship. In terms of understanding
and exploring citizenship conceptually,
these might involve popular culture, for
instance films set in revolutionary France, or
documentaries that examine the movement
for women’s suffrage. Many participants said
that they had gained their understanding
of the rights of citizenship from American
television. So perhaps Australian television
could be a source of information. Many
participants made reference to the “Edmund
Barton” ads that were screened during the
anniversary of Federation and commented
that similar campaigns on the meaning and
history of citizenship would be informative.
2. Youth unemployment
The second most common set of replies
were calling for greater employment
opportunities,
arguing
that
youth
unemployment is a serious impediment
to the meaningful involvement of young
people in society. This issue was also raised
repeatedly in the focus groups as a source of
inter-generational resentment. Many of the
participants felt that young people who do
not have paid employment are considered
by older people, particularly baby boomers,
to be “second-class citizens” who do not
contribute to society. They felt that they
were not respected as worthwhile members
of society, with equal rights and equal
status. There was some resentment that the
baby boomer generation were seen to be
blaming the young people who could not
find jobs, yet they did not seem to use their
considerable political power to pressure
governments to create job opportunities for
young people, or to improve educational and
training opportunities for young people.
The second dimension to this issue that
many young people argue is that without
employment they do not have the economic
resources to be active participants in
society. They feel that they are marginalised,
powerless and lower-grade citizens than
employed people.
It was also clear from the qualitative
research that the most economically
disadvantaged participants were also the
least interested in the topic. They tended
to feel that these issues when discussed in
abstract terms were remote from their lives
and unimportant. This was the only group
of participants that were disinclined to vote.
Many of those over 18 had not voted and did
not intend to do so, arguing that their vote
was unimportant and election results would
have no impact on their lives. Those aged
16 and 17 had no intention of registering to
vote for the same reasons. They were not
inspired to political activism.
It is difficult to make practical recommendations to address this issue. One
might be to eradicate youth unemployment,
Chapter 7
Conclusions and recommendations
or to increase welfare payments. Another
might be to improve education and training
opportunities. Another approach might be
to tackle the perceptions. Young people are
quite possibly correct in their perception that
older and wealthier Australians perceive them
as lower class and less worthwhile citizens.
This would have to be tested with further
research. If it were found to be the case, the
recommendation could be attempt to alter
the perceptions of older Australians through
community education which encouraged
them to understand the plight of young
unemployed people. Another approach
might be to target the young unemployed
people themselves and to attempt to raise
their self-esteem by emphasising their status
as equal citizens. However, these are very
difficult issues to tackle in isolation from
broader economic and cultural change.
3. Formal participation
The third most common response to the
survey question on what the respondents
thought would be helpful to support young
people to be meaningfully involved in society,
was for programs that encourage youth
participation in government and in schools
to be more widespread and more genuinely
participatory. There were a lot of comments
in the quantitative research suggesting that
these programs are tokenistic and would be
more effective if the participants felt that
they had been more genuinely influential,
as they would be more likely to want to
continue to be involved, and they would
encourage others to participate.
The quantitative data revealed a strong
correlation between involvement in formal
participation practices such as youth
advisory councils and a belief that these
were effective ways for young people to
have influence. Very few of the participants
in the qualitative research recalled ever
having been consulted about anything else
before and seemed to value the process.
Many of those participants in the qualitative
research who had been involved in youth
participation or consultation claimed to
have felt empowered by their involvement,
partly because their experience of witnessing
decision-making processes had given them
a different perspective on the process and
a belief that it is actually more consultative
and considerate of young people than they
had previously thought.
This is a vexed issue. Although there
were positive comments, there were also
negative perspectives. Participants who had
participated in such activities held divided
opinions on whether they were actually
effective and substantial, or whether they
were merely tokenistic. Those who had had
a negative experience were very unlikely to
participate again in a different program, and
were also likely to discourage others from
participating. It would seem that it is very
important that if such programs are to be
implemented, that they are devised with
extensive youth consultation and tokenism
is carefully avoided.
There are also other concerns. One is the
small pool of people who participate. This
was mentioned by participants with both
positive and negative perceptions. It would
seem that the small number of young people
participating might lead to the result that
a small number feel very empowered, but
also that their views are over-represented.
There would also seem to be class issues
in the recruitment of participants, which
may indicate that those who do participate
are likely to also be the same people who
are least disenfranchised, thus limiting
the effectiveness of youth participation
in advancing empowering concepts of
citizenship. Perhaps steps need to be taken
to actively recruit less engaged young people
93
94
Youth and Citizenship
who are less likely to participate without
specific encouragement.
Another very common complaint is that
there is a perception that youth participation
programs seem only to apply to “youth
issues” or “youth policy”. Many people ask
why other issues of general significance are
included as topics. These include issues
such as health, education and economic
policy, which participants argued impact
their lives just as much, if not more than,
youth specific policy.
In sum, the results of this research
would seem to be that youth participation
is positive experience for the small
number of people who are involved,
provided that it is not tokenistic and the
participants do really have influence. The
recommendations would therefore be to
increase the level of youth participation
across different fields of policy, expand
the pool of participants and ensure that
these are not tokenistic measures.
7.5 Further research
This study has made a valuable
contribution to a very important field of
research. There are of course limitations on
any research project and the research has
revealed significant methodological issues
as well as the need for further research in a
number of areas.
Methodological issues
There is a clear methodological issue
arising from the use of youth as a social
category for investigation. Many of the
participants expressed surprise at the range
of the category and argued that there was
little in common between the perceptions
of people at each end of the category.
Related issues arose in the sense that
younger participants had a great deal of
trouble understanding some of the issues
and discourse leading to problems with the
validity of data. Future research should be
more targeted to specific age groups.
Some of the recent international
research reviewed at the beginning of
this study indicated that there may be
methodological issues arising from the fact
that the discourse of citizenship theory,
the way that the terminology is used, is
either not used in everyday language, or
is used in such a way that words actually
have different meanings. In international
research, this had led to quantitative
findings which were invalidated by later
qualitative research. The subjects had either
not understood the researchers’ questions,
or the researchers had interpreted their
answers in a way which was not intended
by the respondents. This is a very serious
methodological flaw, and one which seems
likely to have occurred with previous
Australian research.
These experiences of other researchers,
together with piloting of the survey, caused
us to redesign the research methodology
for this project and place greater emphasis
on qualitative research. It turned out to be
a very good decision for two reasons.
Firstly, as was anticipated, there
were problems with terminology and
misinterpretation. For example, some
respondents reported having agreed with
questions that they did not understand
such as “is Australia a democratic country”,
or else to have interpreted the questions
in an unanticipated way. The Indigenous
respondents in particular had interpreted the
questions in a very different way to the nonIndigenous respondents. For example, they
interpreted “fair” to mean “white” rather
than “just”. They also interpreted questions
intended to be about national politics to be
Chapter 7
Conclusions and recommendations
about their very small localised communities.
Failure to test these data qualitatively could
have led to serious misinterpretation.
Secondly, in focus groups participants
were able to express points of view,
perceptions or definitions which were
unanticipated by the researchers and would
not have been apparent from quantitative
research. Furthermore, the use of qualitative
techniques allowed us to explore these
perceptions and gain a much deeper
understanding of their nuances and context.
These findings are methodologically very
important from the point of view of interpreting the results of previous research and
in planning future research. A very common
finding in both Australian and international
quantitative research in this area is that
young people are politically disengaged and
apathetic. In the few cases where this has been
tested qualitatively, it has been found to be an
inaccurate interpretation of data. Theory has
then been informed by inadequate methods
and is then further perpetuated. A lesson
learnt from this project, or a recommendation
for future researchers, would be to emphasise
the qualitative research even more, and to
conduct the qualitative research before the
quantitative work.
The perceptions and experiences of
Indigenous young people
The wide scope and limited resources of
this project prevented sufficient inquiry into
the perceptions held by, and experiences
of, Indigenous young people and young
people living in remote areas. The limited
research conducted with Indigenous young
people revealed that their perceptions
were significantly different from the nonIndigenous samples, demonstrating a need
for rigorous research focusing on the views
of young Indigenous people.
Testing the youth factor against older
population groups
As this research was carried out into
the perceptions of young people, it is
impossible to know to what degree those
perceptions are limited to young people,
and to what degree those perceptions are
held generally across the population. A
valuable contribution to knowledge and
policy could be made testing these findings
against similar research undertaken with
other demographic groups. A longitudinal
study such as that carried out by Lister
et al. (2003) in the UK would also be a
valuable contribution as it could track
changes that occur over time as people
age and have different experiences.
Increasing the sample size
Budgetary constraints and timing were
impediments to getting a larger and more
representative sample for this study.
Unfortunately the timing of the focus
groups coincided with end of year exams
which limited the number of students who
participated.
International comparisons
It would be very interesting to conduct
comparative research in other countries
in order to see to what degree the
perceptions of Australian young people
are similar to or different from other
populations, and the correlating factors.
For example, are the participants in this
research correct to suppose that if they
had grown up in France and learnt the
history of the revolution they would have
a different understanding of citizenship?
Are the perceptions of young people in
post-communist societies significantly
different or similar? Such research would
make another important contribution.
95
96
Youth and Citizenship
Appendices
Appendix A:
Detailed audit of schools-based
civics and citizenship education
initiatives
Civics education – An overview
Defining civics
The Civics Expert Group argued that civics
education is critical in laying a foundation
for citizenship, but they cautioned that
civics education is a much narrower concept
than citizenship education. Civics, they
suggest, is a fundamental foundation, but
not enough to promote active citizenship.
Basing their definition on a submission from
the NSW Cabinet Office, the Civics Expert
Group defined civics as:
an identifiable body of knowledge,
skills and understandings relating to
the organisation and working of society,
including Australia’s political and
social heritage, democratic processes,
government, public administration and
judicial system (Macintyre et al. 1994,
p. 7).
Jaine Dickson draws on Abraham Lincoln’s
famous description of democracy as
“government of the people, by the people
and for the people” to assert that for
democracy to survive it requires an active
citizenship. Active citizenship requires a
citizenry who:
“are adequately equipped with
knowledge and understanding of
their civic institutions so that they
can make informed decisions about
civic life. It is therefore incumbent on
every democratic society to educate
its young people in such a way as to
assist them to acquire the necessary
skills, knowledge and understanding
they need to operate effectively as
citizens” (Dickson 1998, p. 2).
98
Youth and Citizenship
While these definitions invoke the idea of
“active citizenship”, they seem to imply that
a knowledge of political and government
institutions is sufficient, or perhaps
minimum, requirement. Other writers have
sought to expand the idea of civics in the
direction of a more general culture. Charles
N. Quigley (2000) agues that ultimately, if
democracy is to work, it must be in the
hearts and minds of its citizens. Democracy,
he asserts, needs a political culture to
support it and civics education is about
building and nurturing that culture. Quigley
identifies three interrelated components of
civics and civics education. These are:
Civic knowledge: the fundamental ideas
and information that people need in
order to be effective and responsible
citizens in a democracy.
Civic skills: the intellectual skills needed
to understand and evaluate the principles
and practices of governments, and the
participatory skills that enable citizens
to influence policies.
Civic virtues: the character traits,
disposition and commitments necessary
to preserve and improve democratic
governance and citizenship such as civility
and respect for the rights of others.
Smart et al. have concentrated on the
idea of “civic mindedness”. For these
writers, political civics is just one part of
a wider cultural phenomenon that cannot
be separated from the whole. They argue
that civic mindedness is a force that has
developed historically and can be traced from
the medieval concept of “noblesse oblige”,
to the nineteenth century abolition of slavery
and twentieth century civil rights movement.
They see it as both a psychological and
sociological phenomenon which includes the
identity formation in adolescence whereby
one sees one’s place in the world in relation
to others, and which contributes to the culture
of trust and reciprocity which facilitates civic
engagement and democratic social forms.
These authors identify several forms of
civic mindedness which they argue can be
considered a prerequisite for democratic
societies. Essentially these are manifestations
of a belief system through which individuals
understand their place in the world as one
of capacity and responsibility towards their
local as well as the global community (Smart
et al. 2000, p. 4–6).
Civics and active citizenship
More and more the literature stresses the
importance of cultivating active citizenship
for the survival and flourishing of democratic
culture. Lawrence Saha argues that the
concept of active citizenship has its origins
in the Aristotelian neo-classical tradition
that emphasises the participation of citizens
in the public sphere. In this conception, he
asserts, citizenship rests at the very core of
life and relates to duties, responsibilities
and practices, commutarianism, and civic
humanism. On the other hand, he argues
that passive citizenship originates from
a more liberal “bourgeois” tradition that
emphasises individual negative rights and
sees citizens as law abiding. In this sense,
citizenship is seen as the outer frame of life,
rather than its core (Saha 2000, p. 156).
The history of civics in Australia
Civics was generally held to be an important part of the curriculum in Australian
schools for the first half of the twentieth
century, but fell into decline in the 1950s. The
post-war decline of civics has not yet been
fully investigated but suggested reasons
include: poor teaching practices that failed to
attract students, and failure to be accepted
as a distinct subject – which caused it to
be incorporated into “social studies” and
Appendices
precipitated its disappearance (see Dickson
1998, p. 1–2). However, Krinks argues that
the reason was that the nationalism of the
courses came under increasing criticism
after the 1930s (Krinks 1999).
The civics deficit
Interest in the level of civic knowledge
began to re-emerge in the late 1980s,
sparked partly by the 1988 Bicentennial and
a generally heightened interest in Australian
identity. From that time onward civic literacy
surveys have repeatedly found low levels
of civic literacy as well as a low level of
interest in politics. The recent literature
on civic literacy has been “compellingly
condemnatory” in declaring that students
“simply don’t possess acceptable levels
of political knowledge and understanding
to become effective citizens” (Print 1998,
p. 2). For example a 1987 survey of NSW
Year 11 students found that only 50% could
name the House of Parliament in which the
Prime Minister sits, and only 21% could
explain what the Constitution is (for further
examples see Krink 1999).
While levels of civics knowledge in the
general population have been found to
be low overall, the Prime Minister’s Civics
Expert Group found that people aged 15 to
19 who had received little formal education
in civics, were the least knowledgeable
group in the community. Older people
who had been educated when civics was
a formal part of the curriculum were the
most knowledgeable. The Civics Expert
Group compiled a highly influential report
for Prime Minister Keating in 1994 entitled
“Whereas the people . . .”. The report found
that on nearly all subjects only a minority of
people would qualify as “informed citizens”.
For example, only 10% felt they knew what
the Constitution is or how it can be changed;
only 15% understood what was meant by
“the division of powers”; only 21% felt they
knew what the rights and responsibilities of
citizens were; and only 23% knew the voting
procedures for the House of Representatives
(14% for the Senate). It was at this time
that a “civics deficit” was identified in the
literature, and a commitment to a return to
formal civics education was established at
the Australian Government level.
It is important to note that this concern
about a civics deficit coincided with a concern
on the part of political actors about the general
level of political disenfranchisement on the
part of young Australians. In a study of the
political attitudes of 18–24-year-olds, Vromen
concluded that the respondents conveyed:
A strong sense of powerlessness, a
conviction that either they lacked the
skills to understand the relevance of the
system and/or that they lacked faith in
its ability to produce tangible outcomes
(Vromen 1997, p. 80).
Civics literacy and perceptions
of citizenship
Whether narrow or broad, active or
passive, these ideas of citizenship entail an
understanding of the institutional framework
of the society on the part of individuals as
a basic precondition of citizenship. Much of
the literature in this field has been concerned
with testing the level of this knowledge, of
“civic literacy”. Many have been alarmed by
the perceived “deficit” of civic knowledge in
the community at large, and among young
people in particular. These reactions have
been based on research that was itself often
initiated by a perceived lack of interest on
the part of young people in politics. The
research literature reviewed in this section
has been primarily concerned with testing
levels of knowledge about the institutions
of government. A couple of examples of
99
100
Youth and Citizenship
research have looked more closely at the
perceptions of citizenship.
As the history of civics education in Australia
(discussed below) reveal, the idea that there
is a “civics deficit”, that Australian students
do not acquire sufficient knowledge from their
schooling to be effective citizens, is not new,
and in fact seems to be almost a perpetual
feature of the Australian social landscape.
These issues were being discussed prior to
federation and have continued intermittently
ever since. Mellow et al. draw on the work
of Rayner (1951) to show that surveys in the
post-war period revealed that young people
did not understand simple terms like “prime
minister” and concluded with the familiar
warning that “pupils continue to leave school
without a knowledge of the social terms
essential for civic competency” (Rayner 1951
cited in Mellow et al. 2001, p. 6).
Krinks (1999) provides a good review of
many of the recent studies that have been
carried out on the “civic literacy” and interest
in politics on the part of young Australians.
She cites a 1987 Newspoll study that found
only 30% of 18–24-year-olds were aware of
the Constitution’s existence (Krinks 1999,
p. 4). She also cites another report on the
knowledge of NSW Year 11 students which
was submitted to the Senate Standing
Committee Inquiry into civic knowledge in
that same year. That report found that only
34% could name the federal electorate in
which they lived, that only 50% knew in
which House of Parliament the Prime Minister
sat, and that only 21% could explain what
the Constitution is (Krinks 1999, p. 4–5).
In 1993 Ariadne Vromen conducted a study
on the governmental knowledge of final year
school students. The study focused on the
formal strands of government and asked
respondents a range of questions ranging
from who particular ministers were to
which level of government was responsible
for various services, and what the policy
platforms of major parties were. Vromen
found low levels of knowledge. For instance,
46% could not name the Treasurer and 57%
could not name the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, 63% did not know which party went
to the election of that year with a policy of
free higher education, and 44% did not know
which level of government was responsible
for unemployment benefits. Vromen also
found low levels of interest in Australian
politics (Vromen in Krinks 1999, p. 5).
The Report of the Civics Expert Group
contains some of the results of their study
examining levels of civic knowledge in
the community. They found the level of
knowledge of the system of government
and its key institutions to be generally low.
Some of the key findings include:
• only 34% felt they knew something
about the division of powers;
• only 19% showed some understanding
of the effect of Federation of Australia’s
system of government;
• only 41% knew that the Constitution
could be changed, despite the fact that
a large majority of respondents had
voted in a referendum;
• only 40% of respondents could name
both houses of parliament;
• only 24% were aware that the Senate
represents the States;
• only 50% knew that the High Court is
the “top” court, with 29% incorrectly
nominating the Supreme Court; and
• only 23% knew that judges are appointed
by government, and only 28% perceived
judicial independence.
The report further found significant
difference in perceived levels of knowledge
among different segments of the population.
Appendices
Young people were more likely to report a
lack of knowledge, and women reported
lower levels of knowledge than men. People
born in non-English speaking countries
felt that they knew very little about the
Australian system of government, however,
migrants who had become citizens knew
more than the Australian born respondents
on a number of subjects (Macintyre et al.
1994, p. 20–1).
A 1997 survey of 18–24-year-olds commissioned by Edith Cowan University found
that low levels of interest in politics was
correlated with low levels of knowledge in
politics, and was also correlated with low
levels of participation in formal political
institutions (including strikes and protests).
Some of the results included: 17% had
joined a protest movement, 5% had joined
a strike, 2% had joined a political party, and
65% had not participated in any political
activity at all (Krinks 1999, p. 6).
Phillips and Moroz’s (1996) research
asked Western Australian students in Year
7 and Year 11 about their perceptions of
citizenship and their sources of information.
The research was conducted in 1994 and
included responses of 800 students. The
survey asked the students their views on
a range of political issues, their views on
the political system, their perceptions of
the important qualities of a “good citizen”,
what knowledge a politically aware person
should acquire, and how schools can better
prepare students for good citizenship. As
the researchers commented, the findings
“provide a challenge to those who regard
the political dimension of citizenship as one
of its core components” (Phillips and Moroz
1996, p. 15).
On the characteristics of a “good citizen”,
the students describe an extremely passive
citizenship. With the exception of acting to
protect the environment (number 8), the top
13 reponses were all concerned with obeying
laws and polite or respectful treatment of
others. In other words, obedience is seen
as the main characteristic of citizenship.
To be well-informed about the political
system and the Constitution were ranked
very low on the scale of importance. In
fact, even “buying Australian goods” and
“knowing all the words to the national
anthem” were ranked as more important
than civic literacy. In a qualitative section
students were asked to write the “three
most important features of being a good
citizen”. Knowledge about government
was given a fairly high frequency, but not
as high as “being involved in sport” and
“sportsmanship qualities”.
When asked what political topics
should be taught in schools, the students
overwhelmingly nominated the “rights of
citizens”. The authors note that rights had
rarely featured in civics education where
the focus has tended to be on the duties
of citizens. The respondents also wanted
information about the rudimentary mechanics
of how the electoral legislative processes
work, and gave precedence to local and State
Government over Federal Government. When
asked how schools could better prepare
students, overwhelmingly the respondents
said that politics and government should be
taught in an interesting way (Phillips and
Moroz 1996).
Susan Mellor (1998) surveyed Victorian
Year 11 students on their perceptions of
how government works, political trust, and
how they perceived their own capacity to
influence government through participation. She found overwhelming distrust
of politicians and their motivations. Yet,
there was also more positive perception
about political efficacy. For instance,
although only 23% of respondents agreed
101
102
Youth and Citizenship
that “people in government care about
what people like me and my family think”,
44% felt that once they became adults
they could influence how government runs
things. There was also a positive attitude
towards voting and political action to
influence government policy.
Mellor, Kennedy and Greenwood (2001)
sampled 3 331 fourteen-year-old Australian
students and 352 staff as part of the
International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement study being
conducted in 24 countries. In accordance
with the methodology that was designed
to allow for cross-national comparisons,
the researchers looked at four main areas:
the civic knowledge of students, the civic
engagement of students, the civic attitudes
of students, and school approaches to
civics education.
Mellor et al. found that only half of the
students had “a grasp of the essential
preconditions for a properly working
democracy”. Only 2% correctly answered
every question, and 10% could not
answer any of the 38 questions correctly.
In reflection of the emphasis given in
Australian pedagogical approaches, the
students were more competent in interpretative tasks than in content knowledge.
Worryingly though, the items with which
the respondents had the greatest difficulty
were those which dealt with the purposes
and forms of democracy. The researchers
concluded that although the students had a
strong sense of “natural justice” and equity,
they did not have a grasp of the theoretical
precepts of basic democratic structures such
as the role of criticism in a democracy and
the function of periodic elections. They also
found that the students did not have a grasp
of the impact of economic issues in the
functioning of a democratic system (Mellor et
al. 2001, p. xviii).
Civic engagement
The Australian students scored significantly below the international mean on
three of the four scales of civic engagement.
The researchers stated that “it appears
Australian students do not endorse action
by citizens”. Of the five items on the
“conventional citizenship” scale, only two,
voting and showing respect for government
representatives, were positively endorsed.
The students regarded knowledge of the
country’s history, following political affairs in
the news media, and, especially, engaging in
political discussion as relatively unimportant
(Mellow et al. 2001, p. xix).
In terms of social movements, the
majority of students believed in the
importance of citizens “participating
in activities that benefit people in the
community”, taking part in protection of
the environment and promoting human
rights. Just over half believed it is important to protest against unjust laws, which is
significantly lower than their international
peers. The Australian students also had
lower regard for conventional forms of
civic participation other than voting than
their international peers. Only 40% would
be prepared to join a non-violent protest
march, 89% intended to join a political
party and 76% did not expect to write
letters to newspapers. Only 86% intended
to vote, presumably unaware that voting is
compulsory. Interestingly, the researchers
found that participation in a school council
was positively related to civic knowledge,
although only one third had participated
in them. The researchers also found that
the respondents had a more positive
view of what students could achieve in a
school than what adults could achieve by
active participation in the political process
(Mellow et al. 2001, p. xix).
Appendices
Civic attitudes
The Australian students were less likely
than the international cohort to support
notions of government having economic
responsibilities. Although the majority felt
government should control inflation and
guarantee full employment, there was less
support for government roles in industry
development, wealth re-distribution and
provision of decent living standards for the
unemployed. There was greater support for
government responsibility in social policy.
The majority thought that governments
should provide free health care and
education, ensure equal political opportunities for men and women, and guarantee
peace and order (Mellor et al. 2001, p. xx).
In terms of patriotism and trust in government institutions, the Australian students
were average in the international cohort.
The vast majority are sure they don’t want
to live anywhere else and believe Australia
should be proud of its achievements.
The flag was not important to only a quarter
of them. Although the majority of students
trusted courts, police and local government,
the lowest level of trust was reserved for
political parties (Mellor et al. 2001, p. xx–xxi).
Concluding comments
The research literature presented here
demonstrates that there has been an ongoing
concern about the level of civic literacy
which has generally been found to be low.
This has led to concern about the education
of Australian school students in the areas
of civics and citizenship. There are perhaps
some methodological concerns which have
been highlighted in recent international
work reviewed elsewhere in the literature
review which suggests that there may be
a problem with surveys concentrating on
the political knowledge and attitudes of
young people. One of the problems that
has emerged from qualitative research is
that researchers and subjects may not be
speaking the “same language”. What the
researcher might perceive as an interest in
politics might be perceived by the subject
as a common interest in the everyday life of
the individual and the family.
Where research uses questions that
concentrate on formal political institutions
and emphasise notions of citizenship that
are predominantly concerned with voting
and perceptions of formal elite political
institutions, conclusions that a lack of
knowledge or interest in these institutions
is equated with an inability to engage
in active political participation may be
misplaced. Qualitative research, particularly
that carried out in the United Kingdom, has
discovered that in fact young people have
very high levels of interest in political issues,
frequently higher than those in the general
population, but a disinterest in party politics
which they see as disinterested in them and
unconcerned with the political issues they
consider the most important.
It would seem therefore that a low level
of interest in joining a political party or
participating in optional voting is not
necessarily related to a general disinterest
in civic engagement, but rather as a
response to a sense of disengagement and
disenfranchisement from formal party politics
and a movement towards different forms of
political interest and of civic participation. It
might be argued that a belief that a person
could have a significant influence in party
politics would emerge from a deficit of
knowledge of Australian politics rather than
the reverse.
Lawrence Saha (2000) has looked at
the relationship between civics education
and political activism among high school
students in the ACT. He found rather higher
103
104
Youth and Citizenship
levels of political participation than might
be expected from drawing on the results of
traditional civic literacy surveys. He compared
results from 1987 and 1992 and found that
the level of participation in terms of political
activism among high school students had
increased. Saha found that large numbers
of students had participated in action such
as signing partitions and writing letters
to politicians or media. However, he also
found that the number of respondents who
expressed a willingness to engage in nonnormative political activity such as occupying
a building or engaging in violent protest to
be very low.
Saha also found a strong relationship
between civics education and a propensity
to engage in active political participation. Of
the total sample, 52 per cent reported that
they had taken a course that involved learning about Australian government. The first
pattern to emerge was a significant positive
relationship between civics education and
knowledge about Australian government.
These students engaged significantly more in
reading about and discussing political affairs
(Saha 2000, p. 169). However, he also found
that civics education that was associated with
an empowered, but non-normative, political
activity was correlated with males who feel
alienated and disengaged from politics and
government (Saha 2000, p. 171).
State of civics by State or Territory
Note: The following audit of civics
education initiatives by State or Territory
was undertaken prior to February 2003.
Civics and citizenship in the
Australian Capital Territory
The ACT is a special case because there
is no compulsory syllabus in the ACT for
any subject at all. Each school sets its own
curriculum and examination process.
According to interview data, the
Discovering Democracy materials are used,
but it is impossible to tell how or to what
extent. There are materials to be used in
Grades K to 10. They are not prescribed for
any particular subject in high school, but are
most probably used in history and geography.
These materials have been in schools for the
past five years, and there were no formal
materials available before that time.
That being the case, it is beyond the scope
of this report to include the ACT in the audit
as it would require a different methodology
that would include surveying a large number
of schools from every sector at primary, high
and secondary college levels.
Civics and citizenship in Queensland
There is currently strong interest in civics
and citizenship education on the part of the
State Government in Queensland where, as
with NSW, the interest of the Premier has
been the key to raising the profile of civics
in schools. The State Government is in the
process of setting up a “think tank” to look
at citizenship in education.
Although there is no distinct civics subject,
except as an elective within Studies of
Society and Environment (SOSE) in Years 9
and 10, and civics is not a compulsory part
of the curriculum, the system is outcomesbased and some of the SOSE outcomes
relate directly to civics and citizenship.
However, there was no civics taught prior
to 1998 and the current SOSE curriculum is
new and only just being introduced.
According to the syllabus, SOSE “promotes
critical thinking in the development of
optimistic future visions. This key learning
area encourages young people to be active
participants in their world”. The key values
of SOSE as stated in the syllabus for Years
1–10 are:
Appendices
• democratic process;
• social justice;
• ecological and economic sustainability;
and
• peace.
claims that civics education has two major
roles. The first is the creation of sense of
belonging between students and a number
of groups and institutions. The second is the
creation of a sense of how to live together.
The syllabus further states that:
Students look at these key values in both
abstract, theoretical and real contexts.
Civics study provides the framework
for exploring and examining the main
characteristics and principles of collective
life. How governments are constructed
and how they function through various
instrumentalities and agencies provide the
major focus of civics with special attention
given to Australian governments at local,
state and federal levels. Knowledge of civics
will equip young people to understand,
participate in and benefit from their status
as Australians and members of the wider
world community (Years 9 and 10 Civics
Syllabus, p. 51).
The learning outcomes of SOSE are
organised into four strands. These are:
• Time, Continuity and Change;
• Place and Space;
• Culture and Identity; and
• Systems, Resources and Power.
Within each strand are key concepts which
are revisited at each stage of development.
Each of these strands applies each of the
key values in different and various ways.
Many of the learning outcomes in SOSE can
be seen as related to civics and citizenship
in some way, or at least in developing skills
that are related to developing civic and skills
(such as critical thinking and viewing issues
from the perspectives of others). However,
within the Systems, Resources and Power
strand there are three key concepts which are
particularly relevant. These are: Participation
and Decision-Making, Citizenship and
Government, and Access to Power.
Civics elective in Years 9 and 10
Within SOSE, at Years 9 and 10, there is
an optional civics subject available which
includes active citizenship. The syllabus
claims that this elective relates strongly to
two of the SOSE strands. Firstly Systems,
Resources and Power focuses on the
traditional civics subject areas of public
institutions and the use of power. Secondly,
Culture and Identity which emphasises
the primacy of culture in the construction
of identity and institutions. The syllabus
Civics and citizenship in New South Wales
NSW is the only State in which the
Discovering Democracy material is a
mandated part of the curriculum. There is
no formal civics course, but civics is a major
focus of the curriculum in both history and
geography in Years 7 to 10, and was added
to the primary syllabus in 2000. Although
civics and citizenship is not formally part of
the senior secondary curriculum, Discovering
Democracy materials have been used for
senior readers in English.
There was some resistance from teachers
of geography, where the majority of the
civics emphasis is placed, as they feel that it
is inappropriate. However, the introduction
of an external exam raised the profile of
civics considerably. In Year 10 students sit
an external State-wide exam on the civics
material from history and geography in
a combined exam which has raised the
profile of civics considerably. Because of
105
106
Youth and Citizenship
this inclusion within
examinable studies,
thus arguably more
educational pathways
schools.
the mainstream of
civics education is
integrated into the
of New South Wales
Recently, a further element, the Stage 6
Citizenship and Society Life Skills course
has been introduced at HSC level. This
is a more practically oriented course for
senior students which explicitly emphasises
participation in democratic processes, and
that is designed to reflect the life contexts
and needs of individual students planning
the transitions which face them.
Civics education takes place through the
medium of teaching in:
• Human Society and its Environment
(K–6);
• Geography, stages 4–5;
• History, stages 4–5; and
• Citizenship and Society Life Skills,
Stage 6.
The primary school syllabus provides a
grounding in principles of democracy and a
knowledge of governmental processes and
structures. At the primary school stage, the
emphasis is on introducing a background
for active and informed citizenship, and the
recognition of social and cultural diversity.
The values that underlie this approach
are the valuing of difference and fairness
– “treating people equitably, regardless
of their gender, ethnicity, disability, age,
religion or beliefs”.
Particular issues and groups are thus
given prominence, notably the changing
status of women and gender, and the social
and historical importance of Aboriginal
people and their struggles for recognition
and citizenship. The syllabus stresses
learning based on knowledge of historical
and institutional contexts such as British
colonisation and the evolution of political
institutions. Primary school history courses
thus explicitly incorporate questions of the
British notions of citizenship and how they
were established in Australia, and the impact
this had on Aboriginal citizenship.
Civics education within history and
geography syllabuses in high school offer
the opportunity for a deeper investigation
of issues of democracy, citizenship and
participation as they are reflected in the
history and the spatial development of
specific communities, nations and in
emerging global relationships between
nations and cultural groups. History courses
move from examining the Australian political
and democratic context to a comparative
examination of multiple issues affecting
access to citizenship and human rights in
other countries and regions.
The inclusion of civics education into
mainstream examinable studies in New
South Wales is a strategy which ensures
students come into contact with civics as an
integral part of their studies, rather than an
additional and extra-curricular activity which
may be perceived by some as marginal
and non-essential. The question remains
as to whether the incorporation into civics
education into the specific disciplines
generally encourages a greater appetite
for active questioning and participation,
or whether this becomes more narrowly
defined within specific subject areas and
students’ particular interest and aptitude in
history and geography.
The Board has developed a draft
document Citizenship Education Framework
K–10, which is now being discussed by the
Board’s committees. The major purpose
of Citizenship Education, as stated within
the Framework, is “to develop in students
the ability to participate with others in
Appendices
a constructive way in the life of their
community, society and environment”.
Civics and citizenship in the
Northern Territory
It appears that the Northern Territory
curriculum is being completely re-written with
the new curriculum scheduled to be introduced
in 2003. There is currently no formal civics and
citizenship as either a discrete discipline, nor
as a compulsory part of the Northern Territory
curriculum. There are aspects of the SOSE
curriculum, particularly in Social Systems and
Structures strand, in which the Discovering
Democracy materials can be used. However,
interview data suggests that if teachers do
not feel confident about teaching these
topics, they simply skip over it. This problem
was noted in the evaluation of Discovering
Democracy by Erebus Consulting (1999).
This would suggest a need for extensive
teacher training and support, that there
are no Territory staff assigned to civics and
citizenship education and once the funding
for Discovering Democracy is withdrawn
(scheduled for 2004) it is expected there will
be no civics staff at all.
Until 2002, a little civics was taught to
Grades 4 and 5. Years 8–10 followed the
Discovering Democracy material in some
strands. In senior school there are a variety
of elective courses in which civics and
citizenship might play a large part. These
include legal studies, history, politics,
economics, women’s studies and so on. As
there are a great many of these courses, and
as they are electives that not all students
take, they have not been audited here.
The rest of this section concentrates on
the SOSE Learning Area as described in the
new curriculum. In the new curriculum, the
SOSE Learning Area is organised into three
strands: Social Systems and Structures,
Environments, and Enterprise. Social
Systems and Structures has been organised
into five elements:
Time, Continuity and Change
– explore how the past shapes the present,
contributes to identity and influences the
future;
– research the development and shaping of
Australia to modern times;
– examine the development of Australia as
a multicultural nation and the place of
Indigenous Australians as the First People;
and
– explore a range of global communities and
the events that have shaped them.
Indigenous Studies
– examine the cultural diversity of a range
of Indigenous groups;
– advocate for and take action towards
reconciliation; and
– analyse past current issues for their impact
on Indigenous groups/societies.
Civics, Governance and Social Justice
– investigate rules, rights and responsibilities
and institutional law and order in
Australia,
– explore how legal and political systems
impact on society;
– examine a range of political structures;
– demonstrate active citizenship;
– explore the concepts of social justice and
fair play at a local, national and global
level;
– examine a range of situations where social
inequality exists; and
– examine a range of organisations that have
been established to protect human rights.
Values, Beliefs and Cultural Diversity
– assess the presence of core values in
Australia;
107
108
Youth and Citizenship
– explore cultures for different viewpoints,
life choices and ways of living;
– examine relationships within and between
individuals, families, groups and society;
and
– investigate the influence of values and
beliefs on attitudes, actions, behaviour
and interaction within and between
groups, communities and societies.
Enterprise
– examine the difference between needs
and wants, and explore how these are
satisfied within their local community;
– explore personal strengths and preferences
and the factors that influence individuals
to form groups and communities; and
– investigate aspects of the world of work,
the foundations of consumerism and the
link between consumers and producers.
schools are apparently involved in adopting
this new curriculum.
Five “Essential Learnings” are integrated
across the whole curriculum. They are:
Futures, Identity, Interdependence, Thinking
and Communication. Specifically these
Essential Learnings foster the capabilities
to:
• develop the flexibility to respond to
change, recognise connections with the
past and conceive solutions for preferred
futures (Futures);
• develop a positive sense of self and
group, accept individual and group
responsibilities and respect individual
and group differences (Identity);
• work in harmony with others and for
common purposes, within and across
cultures (Interdependence);
• be independent and critical thinkers,
with the ability to appraise information,
make decisions, be innovative and
devise creative solutions (Thinking);
and
• communicate powerfully (Communication).
As this is a new curriculum that has yet
to be implemented, and there is not yet
sufficient information available to judge the
extent of implementation, there is very little
that can be drawn in terms of conclusions or
assessments. From the very basic curriculum
documentation available, it would seem that
the Territory is trying to provide a balance
between the formal institutional focus of
“old civics” and the newer emphasis on
active participation.
Within each of these Essential Learnings
are objectives or aspects which could be
considered as related to the study of civics
and citizenship.
Civics and citizenship in South Australia
Although aspects of civics have always
been taught in South Australia it was not
part of the formal curriculum until 2001.
It is now included in the Society and
Environment strand of the curriculum to
Year 10, and is a part of the compulsory
Australian Studies subject in Years 11 and 12.
Interview data suggest that the adoption of
this in independent schools is not uniform
and is at the school’s discretion. Catholic
The curriculum is divided into the following
Learning Areas:
• Arts;
• Design and Technology;
• English;
• Health and Physical Education;
• Languages;
• Mathematics;
• Science; and
• Society and Environment.
Appendices
Although what could be interpreted as
aspects of civics and citizenship can be
found in various Learning Areas at different
stages, the predominant focus for civics
and citizenship is Society and Environment.
The stated aim of this Learning Area is to
prepare students for active citizenship.
In summary, the ultimate goal of learning
through society and environment is that
children develop the knowledge, skills
and values which will enable them
to participate, in a range of ways, as
ethical, active and informed citizens in
a democratic society within a global
community (Curriculum Standards and
Accountability Framework, Introduction
to Society and Environment).
Society and Environment is said to involve
the study of how the life experiences and
relationships of individuals and groups are
shaped and characterised by particular social,
cultural, religious, historical, economic,
political, technological and ecological
systems and structures which develop in
different ways and places and at different
times. The learners’ own experiences and
knowledges are starting points in the
challenge of discussing and taking new
perspectives on ideas and issues, and
there is an emphasis on understanding and
participating in ethical issues concerning
societies and environments.
According to the Curriculum Standards
and Accountability Framework, the Society
and Environment Learning Area aims to
develop in all children:
• knowledge, understanding and appreciation of:
– societies locally, nationally and
globally, and of changing environments
and systems (natural, sociocultural,
economic, legal and political), over
time;
– the nature, causes and consequences
of
interactions
between,
and
interdependence of, environments
and societies;
– power, power relationships, inequality
and the distribution of wealth in
society;
– cultural diversity and social cohesion,
and the different perspectives people
have, acknowledging that these
develop and change over time; and
– new careers emerging from the creation
of new knowledge, technologies and
demographic patterns;
• the skills of:
– critical social inquiry; and investigation
and reflection on historical contexts,
spatial patterns and relationships,
social and cultural interactions and
relationships, and social systems;
– environmental observation, fieldwork,
appraisal, analysis and action;
– constructive criticism of various
perspectives from contexts of the
past, present and future;
– evaluation of alternatives, decisionmaking and collaborative effort to
plan and implement actions;
– identification,
initiation
and
management of personal, work and
community opportunities; and
– constructive and positive interaction
with people and environments in
preparation for future opportunities
in vocation, education, training and
other activities;
• a capacity to examine issues relating to
values and attitudes in society, locally and
globally, in order to enable learners to:
– understand
and
evaluate
the
implications of various decisions,
actions and relationships;
109
110
Youth and Citizenship
– critically examine and clarify the values
and attitudes implicit and explicit in
democratic processes, social justice
and environmental sustainability;
– respect and value diverse perspectives
and the cultural and historical
backgrounds of people, and work
toward peaceful relationships;
– recognise and counter prejudice,
racism, sexism, discrimination and
stereotyping; and
– envisage probable, possible and preferred futures, imagine and evaluate
alternatives, and experience and
appreciate their ability to influence
the present and the future;
• a capacity for socially responsible
action:
– as a result of increasing awareness of
living in an interdependent biosphere
shared with all life forms, and in a
local sociopolitical economy with
increasing global connections; and
– as learners develop social and
environmental consciousness and
awareness of how active citizenship
can lead to contributing to improving
the world around them.
The curriculum explicitly states that it
aims to inculcate certain values. It asserts
that Society and Environment promotes
three clusters of shared values:
• Democratic
processes
such
as:
commitment to individual freedom
and the rights and responsibilities
associated with participating in a
democracy; respect for law and for
legitimate and just authority; respect
for different choices, viewpoints
and ways of living; and commitment
to ethical behaviour and equitable
participation
in
decision-making.
These values contribute to learners’
understanding of what constitutes a
fair and just society.
• Social justice such as: concern for the
welfare, rights and dignity of all people;
empathy with peoples of diverse
cultures and societies; fairness and
commitment to redressing disadvantage
and oppression, and to changing
discriminatory and violent practices in
home and work environments. These
values contribute to learners’ analysis
and understanding of what is involved
in achieving a fair and just society.
• Ecological sustainability such as:
environmental
stewardship
and
conservation;
a
commitment
to
maintaining biological diversity; and
a recognition of the intrinsic value of
the natural environment. These values
contribute to learners’ understanding
of how ecological sustainability can
be achieved, in ways that redress
environmental damage caused by past
and present generations and safeguard
the inheritance of future generations.
Civics and citizenship in Tasmania
Civics is not a discrete discipline in
Tasmania, nor is it compulsory. However,
Studies of Society and Environment in
Tasmania has been positioned as primarily
concerned with civics and citizenship
education. Interview data suggests that
most students take social sciences at high
school Years 7–10 as it is often compulsory
in schools. In Years 11 and 12 there are a
variety of subject choices that would contain
strong elements of civics and citizenship
such as Politics, Australia in the Asia Pacific,
Legal Studies and History.
In 1989 the National Goals for Schooling
agreed by the Australia Education Council
Appendices
ratified ten goals for schooling. Goal Seven
gives SOSE its primary purpose:
• To develop knowledge, skills, attitudes
and values which will enable students
to participate as active and informed
citizens in our democratic Australian
society within an international context.
a framework for curriculum development.
The Statement, which is the result of
national collaboration, provides teachers
with a foundation for courses that will
meet students’ needs. It reflects advances
in understanding both of SOSE and of how
students learn.
In 1994 the publication of the National
Statement and Profile redefined the SOSE
area, and stated its general purpose as being
to “help students to be informed, responsible
and active citizens”. The Statement outlines
the key elements of the learning area
– broad outcomes, values, strands and
essential learnings. It also described student
experiences in the four bands of schooling.
The Profile details a sequence of typical
learning outcomes for students from Years
1 to 10.
Underpinning the Statement are the core
groups of values of social justice, democratic
process and ecological sustainability.
These values, it is asserted, are crucial if
students are to become active, informed
and responsible citizens.
During 1995–1997 SOSE Priority curriculum
implementation, curriculum implementation
officers supported schools to bring about
change in their SOSE programs. With
a representative in each of the seven
districts, this team worked collaboratively
with groups of teachers. They conducted
professional development, led planning
sessions, workshopped strategies and
techniques, and devised a range of
materials to address teachers’ and schools’
needs. The publication 50 SOSE Units from
Tasmanian Schools resulted from products
developed by schools, guided by the senior
curriculum officers.
In 1998 a reference book, Taking Action,
was published and the following year
Discovering Democracy Civics and Citizenship materials were published with funding
from the former Australian Government Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA).
Statement on Studies of Society and
Environment for Australian Schools provides
The SOSE curriculum is divided into six
strands. These are:
• Time, Continuity and Change;
• Place and Space;
• Culture;
• Resources;
• Systems; and
• Investigation,
Communication
and
Participation.
Teachers can select appropriate focuses
and topics by using the SOSE Organisers.
These are derived from the perspectives and
values described in the SOSE Statement
and are elaborated upon on the SOSE
Planning Grid. Civics and Citizenship is one
of the six organisers.
The Civics and Citizenship organiser is
described as encompassing:
• the knowledge, beliefs, skills and actions
that our society considers to be essential
for good citizenship. By interacting with
others to discuss issues, make decisions
and solve problems, students come to
value other viewpoints and perspectives
and share civic responsibility.
The overview of the Civics and Citizenship
organiser includes some discussion about
the definition and approach to civics and
111
112
Youth and Citizenship
citizenship. It notes that while there are a
number of definitions given to civics and
citizenship education, “civics and citizenship”
is said here to be the phrase currently used
“as a shorthand way of talking about the
knowledge, beliefs, and skills citizens need
in order to act as good citizens”.
The overview stresses interdependence
from the local to international level, and
asserts that a central purpose of civics and
citizenship education is to highlight our
connections to each other as members of
the public. It is further asserted that:
• underpinning this organiser are the
values of democratic process and
social justice. These values contribute
to students’ development of active
citizenship.
The three key questions offered as a
summary of the Civics and Citizenship
organiser in the Planning Grid form the
foundation for planning a teaching and
learning program that purports to concentrate
on developing citizens with the knowledge,
skills and concern necessary for them to
act as informed and active members of our
community. These questions are:
• What does it mean to act as an informed,
deliberative member of the public in a
democracy?
• What are the formal processes and
institutions necessary to further develop
democratic government in Australia?
• What are the personal and public beliefs
and actions essential to the further
development of democratic process and
social justice?
Importantly, and unusually, the Tasmanian
SOSE overview includes a passage on the
school itself as a political environment
in which citizenship as participation in a
community is learned:
Many fundamental lessons about what
it means to be an effective citizen are
taught through the culture of the school
community: the ways problems are
solved, how power is used and how
learners live their normal lives within
the formal and informal rules of the
school. Civics and citizenship education,
therefore, is integral to all educational
and pastoral-care programs of a healthy
school community.
The curriculum is perceived to be
overcrowded and in need of an overhaul. The
present school curriculum is based on the
National Curriculum Statements and Profiles
which were introduced in 1994. No other
State or Territory is continuing to use these
frameworks in their original form and all
States have engaged, or are presently
engaged in a curriculum review. The major
emphasis for the immediate future is to
undertake a comprehensive consultation
about the curriculum and determine a new
curriculum for Tasmanian schools. This
curriculum review commenced with consultation with schools and the community
around establishing the core values and
purposes for education and implementing
a process of “co-construction” of the new
curriculum framework. Interview data
suggests that civics and citizenship education is currently in a state of change and
will probably form one of five essential
learning pathways. This pathway will be
called Social Responsibility.
The key elements of this pathway are
listed as:
• building social capital;
• valuing diversity;
• acting democratically; and
• understanding the past and creating
preferred futures.
Appendices
Acting democratically
The Essential Learnings Framework asserts
that:
In our pluralist, liberal, democratic society
an essential component of being socially
responsible is to participate actively as
a citizen for the collective benefit of the
community. Learners need to understand
their rights and responsibilities as
participants in civic life and act on these
understandings. These actions are equally
important to the formal and informal
decision-making processes we participate in at work, in clubs and societies,
and during the work we do as citizens in
the course of political decision-making.
Active citizenship also includes having
the motivation, means and opportunity
to take appropriate democratic action
to pursue our own interests and
those of others, and to improve the
organisations that protect and represent
us. That requires all learners to develop
a personal understanding of their own
beliefs about fundamental concepts
such as power, freedom, democracy,
equality, the rule of law and the public
good. Active citizenship needs to be
built and practised from a young age,
so that learners recognise the ways in
which they can already contribute to
the deliberations and decisions of their
communities and the actions they can
take to make a difference.
Under the element of “acting democratically”, there are some key questions
posed for educators to consider. These are:
• What does it mean to be a citizen in this
democracy?
• What understandings of rights and
responsibilities, freedom, power, equality
and the public good are required for a
democracy to be effective?
• When and for which purposes can
cooperation, discussion and collaboration with others be practised?
• What does it mean to be part of an
interacting, deliberating community with
responsibility for making hard choices?
• How can a sense of connection to and
responsibility for others be developed?
• How can individuals act on the
fundamental ethical principles that
underpin democratic systems of
decision-making?
The Culminating Outcomes describe a
small set of valued learning performances
linked to each of the Essential Learnings.
They represent the teaching and learning
goals towards which education is working.
The Culminating Outcome for Social
Responsibility
describes
“Responsible
Citizens prepared to participate actively in a
democratic community, valuing diversity and
acting for a just and equitable society.”
Expectations for student achievement
from approximately four years of age to
sixteen years of age are described for each
of the elements which make up the five
Essential Learnings. It would seem from
these documents that the direction of civics
and citizenship education in Tasmania will
continue to emphasise a reflective study
of citizenship in a broad sense and to
encourage participative, active citizenship
on the part of students.
Civics and citizenship in Western Australia
There is no distinct civics subject taught
in Western Australian schools. However the
“Active Citizenship” strand in Natural and
Social Systems forms part of Studies of
Society and Environment (SOSE). Natural
and Social Systems is taught at Levels 1–8
and comprises three areas:
1. Natural Systems
113
114
Youth and Citizenship
2. Political and Legal Systems
3. Economic Systems
The major outcome for this program is
“the extent to which students behaviours,
practices and actions are in accordance
with the underlying principles and values
associated with democratic process, social
justice and ecological sustainability”.
Several of the key values of the Active
Citizenship Learning Area Outcome, as stated
in the syllabus, relate closely to civics and
citizenship. These are:
Democratic Process –
• the student values and participates in
the political process;
• the student values and participates in
community life; and
• the student respects legitimate and just
authority structures and the role of the law.
Social Justice –
• the student upholds the equality of
all people whilst appreciating and
respecting their differences.
The Curriculum Framework comprises
13 Overarching Learning Outcomes, of
which two specifically relate to civics and
citizenship. These are:
• Outcome 8: Students understand their
cultural, geographic and historical
contexts and have the knowledge,
skills and values necessary for active
participation in life in Australia.
• Outcome 13: Students recognise that
everyone has the right to feel valued and
be safe, and, in this regard, understand
their rights and obligations and behave
responsibly.
These two outcome areas extend across
the following subjects:
• Health and Physical Education;
• English;
• Science;
• Society and Environment; and
• The Arts.
The level of implementation of civics
education varies at different schools,
and assessment of outcomes achieved is
observation-based and conducted by the
individual teacher.
Appendices
Appendix B: Survey
Youth and citizenship: Questionnaire
This project is an independent initiative funded by the National Youth Affairs Research
Scheme and is being conducted by Elton Consulting. All the information you provide will
be treated as completely confidential. In reporting the information it will not be possible to
identify any individuals. No individual data will be passed on to any other organisation.
The study aims to identify perceptions of citizenship held by young people. It also seeks
to identify barriers to young people developing a sense of citizenship and will make
recommendations to government on strategies to overcome these.
What matters here is your opinion – there are no right or wrong answers. This project
aims to find out the views of young people on a range of issues related to youth and
citizenship. We are interested in finding out if there are differences in views depending on
your experiences, where you come from, etc. which is why we are asking questions about
you at the end of the survey.
Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey. Your views are important to us.
Please return the survey to (no postage stamp is required):
Elton Consulting
Reply Paid 1488
Bondi Junction NSW 1355
If you have any questions or require any kind of assistance or support in completing the
questionnaire please feel free to contact Lucy Greig or Ben Manning on 1800 888 374. Email:
[email protected]
This questionnaire is also available electronically.
Please visit http://www.elton.com.au/citizenship.htm to complete the questionnaire online.
115
116
Youth and Citizenship
1. How important do you think the following issues are to young people today?
Please tick the appropriate column for each issue.
Very
important
Important
Neutral
Not very
important
Not important
at all
Environment
Health
Education
International politics
Aboriginal reconciliation
Employment
Family relations
Affordable housing
Racism
Transport
Money
Human rights
Regional and rural issues
Economy
Government income support
provisions
Relationships
Crime and personal safety
Youth suicide
Local community issues
Drugs
2. To what extent do decisions made by the following groups affect young people?
Please tick the column next to each question.
A great
deal
Australian Federal Government
State/Territory Government
Local government
Australian business community
Global/international politics
Global/international
business community
School/TAFE/University/other
educational institution
Employment sector
Churches, and religious groups
News media (newspapers,
TV, radio)
Entertainment media
(movies, magazines etc.)
Family
Local community
Police and justice system
Somewhat
Not much
None at all
Don’t know
Appendices
3.
How much say do you think young people have in influencing decisions made in each
of those areas?
Please tick the most appropriate column next to each question.
A great
deal
Somewhat
Not much
None at all
Don’t know
Australian Federal Government
State/Territory Government
Local government
Australian business community
Global/international politics
Global/international
business community
School/TAFE/University/other
educational institution
Employment sector
Churches, and religious
groups
News media (newspapers,
TV, radio)
Entertainment media
(movies, magazines etc.)
Family
Local community
Police and justice system
4.
To what extent do you feel that young people in Australia have a duty to try to uphold
the rights of other people?
A great
deal
In your local community
In your State/Territory
In Australia
In other western/
developed countries
In developing/“third”
world countries
Somewhat
Not much
None at all
Don’t know
117
118
Youth and Citizenship
5.
Which of the following do you think are effective ways for young people to influence
how decisions are made?
Please tick the appropriate column next to each option.
Very
effective
Effective
Slightly
effective
Not at all
effective
Don’t know
Writing letters to politicians
Writing to newspapers
Calling talkback radio stations
Through community groups
Using petitions
Participating in street
protest/demonstrations
Voting in elections
Student representative bodies
(in schools or unis)
Through the arts
Youth representative
panels/organisations
Industrial actions (such
as strikes)
Consumer actions (such
as boycotting brands)
Other (please specify)
6. Have you ever participated in any of these?
Please tick the appropriate column next to each option.
Yes
Writing letters to politicians
Writing to newspapers
Calling talkback radio stations
Through community groups
Using petitions
Participating in street protest/demonstrations
Voting in elections
Student representative bodies (in schools or unis)
Through the arts
Youth representative panels/organisations
Industrial actions (such as strikes)
Consumer actions (such as boycotting brands)
Other (please specify)
No
Appendices
7. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.
Please tick the appropriate column next to each statement.
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Everyone has fair and equal access to the
legal system
Young people are at higher risk of physical or
sexual violence than older members of the
community
Australian society is fair
Society increasingly values the views of young
Australians
Unemployed people should help themselves.
There are plenty of jobs out there and they
could find them if they really wanted to
Australia is a democratic country
People are homeless because they choose to
be, or because they have made their own
mistakes and they alone are responsible for
their own living conditions
Governments are responsive to views of young
people
Women and men have equal opportunities in
Australia
Young people want the opportunity to
participate in issues which affect their lives
8. Who do you think is a trustworthy source of accurate information about politics?
Please tick the appropriate column next to each option.
Very
trustworthy
Somewhat
trustworthy
Not sure
Not very
trustworthy
Not at all
trustworthy
Family
Politicians
Friends
Media
Teachers
9. Should students be taught about Australia’s legal and political systems at school?
Please tick the appropriate box.
Yes
No
Don’t know
119
120
Youth and Citizenship
10. Have you been taught about citizenship at school? (perhaps in history, geography or
legal studies)
Please tick the appropriate box.
Yes
No
Don’t know
11. Should students be taught about citizenship at school?
Please tick the appropriate box.
Yes
No
Don’t know
12. When you think about what it means to be a citizen, which of the following statements
would you agree with?
Please tick the appropriate column for each statement.
Strongly
agree
Citizenship is about the rights that people
have to be protected by the law and to
participate in society
Citizenship is about the duties and
responsibilities that people have to
participate in society and to uphold the
rights of their fellow citizens
Citizenship is about nationalism – about
sharing a common culture and identity with
people in your country
I don’t really care about citizenship. It is
something that I have never thought about
before
Citizenship is international – we are all
members of a global society as well as a
local society, and citizenship is about our
relationship with all of the people in the
world
Citizenship is about participating in decisions
which affect you
Citizenship is about discrimination – it is about
excluding people from a privileged group
Citizenship is about being a member of a
community, it is a mutual relationship
between members of the community
Citizenship is something you are born with
There are no duties, citizenship is only about
rights
Citizenship is something that we are always
working to achieve or maintain, it is an
ongoing process
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Appendices
13. Australia has a high level of youth unemployment. In relation to that issue, to what
extent do you agree with the following statements?
Please tick the appropriate column for each statement.
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Unemployed people should help themselves.
There are plenty of jobs out there and they
could find them if they really wanted to
Businesses should make more effort to create
job opportunities and training for young
unemployed people
Community groups could solve this problem
if they made more effort to create training
opportunities for young people
Governments should make sure that there
are enough jobs for everyone and that
people are suitably educated, trained and
qualified
14. When you think about the rights that citizens have in Australia, which of the following
are rights that you think that all citizens should be entitled to?
Tick as many statements as you agree with.
Please tick
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
right
right
right
right
right
right
right
right
right
right
right
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
vote in elections
participate in political life by trying to change things or trying to stop changes
voice an opinion, even if others disagree with it
legal protections (such as fair trial or fair treatment by employers)
go on strike
a good standard of living
a good education
a good job
participate in protests
good quality health care
decent housing
15. Do you think young people want to actively participate in decisions which affect them?
Please tick the appropriate box.
A great deal
Somewhat
Not much
None at all
Don’t know
16. What do you think would be helpful to support young people to be meaningfully
involved in society?
121
122
Youth and Citizenship
17. What issues would you like to have identified as part of this study? Please describe.
B – Personal background
a) Are you . . . ?
Please tick the appropriate box
Male
Female
b) How old are you?
Please write in
f ) Are you an Australian citizen?
Please tick the appropriate box
Yes
No
g) Were you born in Australia?
Please tick the appropriate box
Yes
c) Are you an Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islander?
Please tick the appropriate box
Yes
h) If no – in which country were you born?
Please write in
No
d) Are you from a non-English-speaking
background?
Please tick the appropriate box
Yes
No
i) Were your parents born in Australia?
Please tick the appropriate boxes
Yes
No
No
Mother
Father
e) If yes, do you speak a language other than
English at home? (please tell us which one)
Please write in
j) What is your present postcode?
Please write in
Appendices
k) Which of the following options best describes your current living arrangements?
Please tick one box
Living with parent(s)
Living in shared accommodation
Living alone
Living at college/boarding school
Living in care
Living with partner (married or de facto)
Living in temporary accommodation (e.g. with friends, half-way house)
Homeless
Other
l) Which of the following options best describes your current employment?
Please tick one box
Full-time student (not in paid employment)
Full-time student (working part-time/casually)
Employed on a part-time basis
Employed on a full-time basis
Employed on a casual basis (occasional only/unreliable)
Employed on a casual basis (regular and reliable hours)
Unemployed – looking for work
Unemployed – not looking for work
Stay at home carer
m) What type of educational institution are you currently attending?
Please tick all that apply
None
Secondary
TAFE
University
Other tertiary institution
Other (please specify)
n) What is the highest level of education that you have completed to date?
Please tick one box
Still at school (Year 12 and under)
Year 10 or less
Year 12 or equivalent
TAFE Certificate/Diploma/Advanced Diploma
Undergraduate university
Postgraduate university
123
124
Youth and Citizenship
o) Have you ever attended a non-Government School?
Please tick the appropriate box
Yes
p) Where do you get your income from?
Please tick all that apply
Employment
Parents/family
Partner
Youth allowance
Newstart
Austudy
Abstudy
Disability support pension
Sickness allowance
Carers allowance
Special benefit
Private investments
Other (please specify)
No
Appendices
Appendix C: Survey demographics
Data from a general sample of 687
respondents (including 20 Indigenous
respondents)
has
been
reported
separately from data received from 68
young Indigenous people living in remote
and urban communities (collected in Cape
York and Brisbane). The rationale for
separately reporting the two sets of data
is that interviews with the latter group
revealed that their interpretation of the
surveys was considerably different, and
that combining the two groups responses
would skew the results. For example, when
asked if they thought Australia was “fair”,
some of the Indigenous respondents
from Cape York and Brisbane answered
yes, because they interpreted “fair” as
meaning “white”.
All respondents were asked to provide
their postcode, from which we were able
to determine the State or Territory in
which the respondent resides.
The greatest number of responses were
from New South Wales (24.7%). Although
Canberrans make up only 1.9% of the
young people in Australia, they made
up 22.4% of the respondents. Therefore,
in terms of the representativeness of
the survey however, the ACT had the
highest response rate per capita. While
there were only 1% of survey responses
received from the Northern Territory, this
figure is roughly representative of the
proportion of Northern Territory youth
against the national youth population
(1.2%). NSW, as the most populous State,
was under-represented with 24.7% of
responses, even though 33% of young
people live in NSW; as was Victoria,
where the proportion of respondents was
only 11.6%, while 24.5% of the national
youth population live there.
Table 1: State or Territory of respondents.
VIC
QLD
WA
NSW
SA
ACT
TAS
NT
Missing
Total
Number
80
66
63
170
26
154
24
7
97
687
A total of 68 responses were received from
Indigenous young people from an isolated
community in Cape York and an Indigenous
youth conference held in Brisbane. Those from
% of survey
respondents
11.6
9.6
9.2
24.7
3.8
22.4
3.5
1.0
14.1
100
% of national
youth population
24.5
19.3
10.2
33.0
7.5
1.9
2.4
1.2
100
Queensland form 52.9% of these Indigenous
respondents. 13.2% came from Victoria and
33.8% lived in Western Australia, but travelled
to attend the conference in Queensland.
125
126
Youth and Citizenship
Table 2: State or Territory of Indigenous respondents from Cape York and Brisbane.
% of survey
respondents
Number
VIC
9
13.2
QLD
36
52.9
WA
23
33.8
Total
68
100
Age and gender
There was a gender bias, with 65%
of respondents from the general sample
being female and 33% male (2% did not
reveal their gender), which is fairly typical
of survey responses.
The age group most frequently represented
was the 15–17-year-old age group (37.6%),
followed by the 22–25-year-old age group
(31%). The least represented group was
the 12–14-year-old age group. 42% of
respondents were under 18 years of age.
Table 3: Age of respondents.
Age
Number
12
6
13
9
14
18
15
52
16
113
17
93
18
51
19
38
Table 4: Age by groups.
Age group
12 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 21
22 to 25
Missing
Total
%
0.9
1.3
2.6
7.6
16.4
13.5
7.4
5.5
There were differences in the age
profiles of respondents from the different
States and Territories, which impacted on
the results from the States. For example,
a majority of respondents from the
Northern Territory (71%), South Australia
(58%), Western Australia (59%) and
Queensland (51%) were under 18, while
the other States had a majority of over18s. Some States/Territories such as the
ACT, NSW and Victoria had comparatively
high numbers of respondents in the over
22-year-old age group.
Age
20
21
22
23
24
25
No answer
Total
Number
33
258
154
212
30
687
Number
37
28
34
52
43
83
10
687
%
5.4
4.1
4.9
7.6
6.3
12.1
1.5
100
%
4.8
37.6
22.4
30.9
4.4
100
Appendices
Table 5: Age group by State or Territory.
12 to 14
15 to 17
VIC
5.2
29.9
NSW
4.2
43.4
TAS
0.0
47.5
QLD
5.3
46.1
WA
11.5
47.4
SA
0.0
57.7
ACT
4.1
21.8
NT
0.0
71.4
Total <18
35.1
47.6
47.5
51.4
58.9
57.7
25.9
71.4
18 to 21
29.9
20.1
30.0
18.4
17.9
26.9
29.3
14.3
22 to 25
35.1
32.3
22.5
30.3
23.1
15.4
44.9
14.3
Table 6: Age of the 68 Indigenous respondents.
Age
Number
%
Age
12
0
0
20
13
9
13.2
21
14
12
17.6
22
15
9
13.2
23
16
5
7.4
24
17
12
17.6
25
18
4
5.9
No answer
19
9
13.2
Total
Number
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
68
%
5.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0
0
100
Table 7: Age by groups.
Age group
12 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 21
22 to 25
Total
Among Indigenous respondents from Cape
York and Brisbane, there were more male
respondents (67.6%) than female respondents
(32.4%). In terms of age, 14-year-olds and 17year-olds were the most highly represented
(17.6% each), followed by 13-year-olds and
15-year-olds (13.2% each).
The largest age group represented was
the 15–17-year-old group (38.2%), congruent
with the overall trend. However, the second
largest group represented was the 12–14-yearold age group. The least represented was the
Number
21
26
18
3
68
%
30.9
38.2
26.5
4.4
100
22–25-year-old group, in contrast with the high
representation of this group among the general
sample (the second largest group, 31%).
Cultural background
Indigenous young people
While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
make up 3% of the total population aged 12–
25 in Australia, there were a total of 20 (2.9%)
respondents who identified as Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander in the overall sample.
127
128
Youth and Citizenship
Table 8: Proportion of Indigenous young people in each State and Territory.
NSW
WA
TAS
QLD
VIC
NT
SA ACT
Total
Youth
population
1 109 554 342 718 80 664 648 712 824 997 39 159 251 482 63 657 3 360 943
Number of
30 043
15 113 4 344 28 550
6 347 13 700
6 013
944
105 054
ASTI youth
ATSI as %
2.7
4.4
5.4
4.4
0.8
35.0
2.4
1.5
3.1
of total youth
While as a percentage the overall population is
comparable to the proportion of respondents,
the absolute number of responses is far too
low to be considered statistically significant
or representative.
In order to address the lack of data pertaining
to Indigenous young people, an additional 68
surveys were completed by young Indigenous
people living in remote and urban communities
(collected in Cape York and Brisbane).
Migration and cultural diversity
93.3% of respondents were Australian
citizens, and 89.8% were born in Australia. Of
those born overseas, by far the largest group
are those born in other Anglophonic liberal
democratic countries, particularly New Zealand.
We do not have access to national youth
population statistics. However, some States
have published statistics that are useful. Of the
youth populations of WA and the NT, 18% and
15% respectively were born overseas, whereas
only 4.5% of Tasmania’s youth population was
born overseas. It would seem that as 9% of
our respondents were born overseas, this is
fairly close to a representative proportion for
our sample. However, the absolute numbers
are too low to be considered significant or to
test for correlations.
Thirty-three per cent of respondents
reported that their father was born overseas,
and 29% reported that their mother was
born overseas. 14.4% of respondents were
of a non-English speaking background,
while 10% reported speaking a language
other than English at home.
Table 9: Country of birth.
New Zealand
UK
Ireland
Canada
Philippines
Yugoslavia
Zambia
Poland
Germany
Greece
Netherlands
PNG
N
19
7
2
6
2
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
%
4.0
1.5
0.4
1.3
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
South Africa
India
Cameroon
Hong Kong
Korea
Somalia
Fiji
Singapore
Japan
Norway
Total
System
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
687
216
%
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
68.6
31.4
Appendices
Table 10: LOTE spoken at home.
Language
Aboriginal
Arabic
Azerbaijani
Breton
Bughotu
Bulgarian
Chechen
Chinese
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
Eskimo
N
1
2
2
4
2
1
4
7
4
4
1
1
1
%
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.8
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
Language
Estonian
Farsi
Finnish
French
German
Italian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Serbian
Spanish
Vietnamese
N
1
2
3
8
2
2
2
2
1
2
4
2
%
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.4
Education
Respondents were asked about their
highest level of educational attainment. The
largest group of respondents (30%) were
still at school. The next largest group (20%)
had completed a university undergraduate
course, as their highest level of education.
Seventy-eight per cent of respondents were
currently attending an educational institution,
with the largest groups being secondary
school (38%) and university (22%).
Table 11: Highest level of education completed to date.
Still at school (Year 12 and under)
Year 10 or less
Year 12 or equivalent
TAFE Certificate/Diploma/Adv. Diploma
Undergraduate university
Postgraduate university
Sub Total
Not answered
Total
N
205
87
125
66
138
24
668
42
687
%
31.6
12.7
18.2
9.6
20.1
3.5
97.2
6.1
100.0
129
130
Youth and Citizenship
Table 12: Currently attending educational institution.
N
160
261
42
154
17
29
663
None
Secondary
TAFE
University
Other tertiary
Other
Total
Occupation and income
Over half of general sample were fulltime students (55%), and a further 24%
were working full-time. 8% of respondents
reported that they were working parttime or casually, and 33 respondents (5%)
were unemployed.
Respondents were asked about their
sources of income. The source of income
most frequently reported was employment
(66%), followed by family (50%) and
social security (21%). However, many
respondents had more than one source of
income, with some people identifying three
or four sources.
%
23.3
38.0
6.1
22.4
2.5
4.2
96.5
While income is generally used as an
indicator of socio-economic status, this is
not so in the case of young people who are
not necessarily financially independent. This
makes it very difficult to determine the socioeconomic status of young people in a survey.
An attempt was made to address this question
in the survey by asking if the respondent
had ever attended a non-government school.
42.5% of respondents reported that they had
attended a non-government school. However,
this can only be considered as a very reliable
indication of social economic status. This issue
was addressed in the qualitative research
by selecting participants from a range of
social backgrounds.
Table 13: Current employment status.
Full-time student (working part-time/casually)
Full-time student (not in paid employment)
Employed on a full-time basis
Employed on a part-time basis
Employed on a casual basis (regular and reliable hours)
Unemployed – looking for work
Employed on a casual basis (occasional only/unreliable)
Unemployed – not looking for work
Stay at home carer
Sum total
Missing/not answered
Total
N
205
176
166
31
22
24
17
9
5
655
32
687
%
29.8
25.6
24.2
4.5
3.2
3.6
2.5
1.3
0.7
95.4
4.6
100.0
Appendices
Table 14: Sources of income.
Employment
Family/parents
Youth allowance
Other
Private investment
Partner
Newstart
Austudy
Sickness allowance
Carers allowance
Special benefit
Living arrangements
Respondents were asked about their living
arrangements. The majority (56%) were
Frequency
453
341
98
54
32
26
27
11
2
2
2
Per cent
65.9
49.6
14.3
7.9
4.7
3.8
3.9
1.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
living with their parents. The next largest
group were those living with a partner (17%)
and in shared accommodation (11.6%).
Table 15: Current living arrangements.
Living with parent(s)
Living with partner (married or de facto)
Living in shared accommodation
Living alone
Living at college/boarding school
Living in temporary accommodation
Homeless
Other
Living in care
Not answered
Total
N
385
116
80
41
23
7
7
5
2
12
687
%
56.0
16.9
11.6
6.0
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.3
3.0
100.0
131
132
Youth and Citizenship
Appendix D: Focus group
demographics
A total of 92 young people participated
in focus groups. Most participants were
asked to fill in the survey at or before the
focus group in order to be able to discuss
the results. Demographics were recorded
through that process. However, 25
participants did not record their data for
various reasons including literacy issues,
having completed the survey before, or
simply not filling in the demographics
part of the survey.
The data below represents the
demographics of those who did complete
the survey.
Gender of focus group participants.
Male
25
(37.3%)
36
(53.7%)
Female
6
Missing
Total
67
Born in Australia.
Yes
No
Total
Missing
Total
Age of participants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Total
Missing
Total
Language other than English spoken
at home.
1
2
15
23
7
3
3
0
1
3
3
2
1
64
3
67
(1.5%)
(3.0%)
(22.4%)
(34.3%)
(10.4%)
(4.5%)
(4.5%)
(0.0%)
(1.5%)
(4.5%)
(4.5%)
(3.0%)
(1.5%)
Breton
Bughotu
Chechen
Czech
Farsi
French
Georgian
Total
Missing
Total
52
8
60
7
67
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
8
59
67
Appendices
Highest level of education completed to date.
Still at school (Year 12 and under)
Year 10 or less
Year 12 or equivalent
TAFE Certificate/Diploma/Advanced Diploma
Undergraduate university
Total
Missing
Total
28
15
3
3
5
54
13
67
(41.8%)
(22.4%)
(4.5%)
(4.5%)
(7.5%)
24
20
1
2
2
2
3
54
13
67
(35.8%)
(29.9%)
(1.5%)
(3.0%)
(3.0%)
(3.0%)
(4.5%)
Current employment.
Full-time student (not in paid employment)
Full-time student (working part-time/casually)
Employed on a part-time basis
Employed on a full-time basis
Employed on a casual basis (regular and reliable hours)
Unemployed – looking for work
Unemployed – not looking for work
Total
Missing
Total
133
134
Youth and Citizenship
Appendix E: Focus group first
definitions of citizenship
Focus group participants were asked at
the beginning of the workshops to write
First response
Member of society
Nationality
Rights
down three or four words or phrases that
come to mind when thinking of what
“citizenship” is about. The following table
lists their responses.
Third response
Nationalism
Responsibilities
Your country
Fourth response
Australian
Freedom
Community
Responsibility
to contribute to
country, world
you belong to
Nationalism
Second response
Human rights
Rights
Feeling of
belonging, identity
Rights
Community
Relationship with
your fellow citizens
Pride
Participation
Rights
Duties
Being part of
something
Law
Nationalism
Australian
Member of
community
Part of a collective
Australian
National identity
Mental sense
of belonging
Being part of
a country
Belonging
Being part of a
particular country
Community
Human rights
Pride in community Nationalism
Sense of
nationalism
Involved in
community
Patriotism
Allegiance/loyalty
Community
Brotherhood
Belonging to
place or group
Acceptance
Community
Being officially
part of something,
someplace
Participation
Rights
“Good” person
Responsibility
to uphold laws,
morals, ethics
Opportunity
Active participation
Being responsible,
living up to
standards
of group
Patriotism
Pride, cultural
diversity
Nationalism
Patriotic
Sharing and caring
Having benefits
of group
Constructive criticism
Appendices
To be active
in society
Being part of
community
Rights
Country of birth
Right to vote
Participation
Person who has
been accepted by
society as citizen
Belonging to
community
Part of community
Belonging
United
Community
To belong, part of
Belonging to
a country
Togetherness
National identity
Part of country
(large scale
community)
Being part of
a community
To feel you are
contributing as
best you can
Supporting
the country
Access
Language
Member of
collective
Rights
Someone who
has done
something good
for community
Being one of many
To care for
community,
State, country
Calling Australia
home, wherever
you are
Equality, inequality
Culture
Nationalism
Family
Race
Belonging
Person with job,
responsibilities,
helps others
Interaction
Helping your
community
Citizenship
Being involved
Belonging to
something
Member of
Being a citizen
particular group
Help community
Friendship
Cooperating as one Rights and
responsibilities
Community
Part of greater
group of people
Rights and
Community
responsibilities
United
Work as a
community
Being part of
Contributing on
a society
some level to
a community
Like member of
Rights and
club, society
responsibilities
Rights and
responsibilities
associated with
community
Sense of pride
in nationality
Belonging to a place
Rights and
responsibilities
Rights
135
136
Youth and Citizenship
Living in a society,
community
Part of the country
Becoming citizen
of country
Being an Aussie
People
Home country
Rights
From overseas
when you get
Aust. citizenship
Being citizen
of country
People
Accepting of
other cultures
Being Australian
Aussie
Working as/in
a community
Involvement in
community
Part of country
(legally)
Has say in what
happens in country
Joining society,
being welcomed
Culture
Right to live
in a place
People
Culture
Changing your
nationality
Helping, being
loyal to your
country
Home
Upholding
good values
Tax
Knowing your
country
Holding up your
place in community
Awareness of
environment and
how to care for it
Legitimate
Citizen
Looking out
Get involved in
for others
actions, not just
verbalise, thinking
Pride in country, Respect
common
community
rights
of
other
Australians
People
Home country
Refugees
Boats
Having certain rights
National identity
Refugees
Rights
Migrants
People belonging
to a place
Non-migrants
People living here
Refugees
Culture
Country
Citizens don’t
kill people
Part of community
Good citizen
Doing things on
your own to help
wider project
Looking out
for others
Ships
Community spirit
Pride
Visa
Help less fortunate
Migrant
Aussie flag
Responsibility
Letting people know
when something
is wrong
Australian
Having a voice
Free speech
Refugees
Australian
Government
Immigrant
Visas
Appendices
Be actively
involved in
community
Being Australian
Patriotism
Responsibilities
Born in country
Feel equal member Caring about
of community
your country
Culture
Cultural exploration
Rights
Acquired through
government
Being actively
involved in your
community
Belong to
community,
society or group
Patriotism
Voting
Religion
Living by standards
of that community,
society or group
Belonging
Community
Race
Australian
The rights
of people
Belonging to
a country
Becoming a citizen
To be part of
a country
Abiding by laws
of country
Balance between
rights and
responsibilities
Rights
Social justice
Belonging to a
community
Belonging
Multicultural
society – accepting
Responsibilities
Political
participation
Rights
Migrant
Enfranchised
Justice
Part of country,
participate in
its activities
Voting in elections
Being able to
voice an opinion
Exclusion
Nationalism
Choices
Having rights
Community
Eligible to vote
when over 18
Being citizen
of a country
Having to be
accepted
People from
other countries
migrating to Aust.,
becoming a citizen
Boats
Planes
Democracy (to be
able to live in one)
Title obtained
Little certificate
certifying you are
of the country
Political
participation
Involvement
in process
137
138
Youth and Citizenship
Appendix F: Focus group final definitions of citizenship
When you think of the whole idea of “citizenship”, what do you think is the single
underlying meaning or spirit of the idea?
Being a part of a community and playing an
active role in society.
Belonging to a group and doing your best
to represent and uphold the values of that
group.
The ideal – NOT REALITY of equality in
society. That everyone can share in a sense
of identity and share the same civil and
social rights. Pride.
The idea behind it is people who live together and work together have equal rights
and access but also fulfil their duties to the
society they live in.
I think it is about being a proud Australian.
Equality between people within the community. Order and equality in all areas, social,
political and economic.
To be involved in your country and to embrace that culture. It is about bringing a
positive aspect into the community in which
you live and contribute beneficially.
Being part of a community in society,
strengthening democracy and showing respect for people’s rights.
Citizenship: can be about upholding morals
and values that reflect that of society.
Could you please write a short definition of
what “citizenship” means.
Citizenship relates to the rights and duties
that members of a particular society have a
role in participating in.
Mass representation of distinct ideas and
values and participation in those ideas and
values.
Citizenship is a sense of identity and the
rights of a society associated with pride and
nationalism.
Citizenship is a privilege, something that
has to be earned through dedication and
work and then allows you rights.
Citizenship is a responsibility to your country to be an active member as you can.
The belonging to and contributing to a
particular community that involves rights,
duties and equality.
Citizenship is belonging to a country and
having pride and contributing positively to
that country.
Citizenship is becoming a member of society
and obeying and following the obligations
of which it stands for.
It is being part of a community and upholding and understanding the values of that
society. Citizenship means to willingly participate and comply to the ideas presented. Citizenship is about presenting relevant
opinions.
A collective stance that’s inclusive of indi- Being part of a community and conforming
vidual ideas.
to a majority showed morality yet has room
for outside opinion.
Appendices
Being an active member of a state within Community, equality, participation, acceptsocial, civil and political spheres. To belong ance.
to a culture.
Community.
Set of ideals, rights and obligations that the
country as a whole has identified as the foundation for each individual within society.
A sense of belonging to a culture, commu- Loyalty, belonging, ownership.
nity and society and an intention to contribute to its ethics, beliefs and leadership.
An ideology whereby people’s political, The acceptance and integration of people.
social and civil rights of a certain society
is taken on.
Taking an active role in the community and Participation within a particular group, enusing civil, political and social rights if you tity, culture.
choose.
Belonging to your society – being involved in, Citizenship – belonging to a society or
responsibility towards, supporting, upholding, group.
having access to all the rights and benefits.
Involvement in a larger body that supports Being involved in a larger body that suppeople.
ports you as an individual and the larger
body as a system.
Community, social responsibility, active par- Means that you are an ambassador for the
ticipation.
positive aspects of your country and agree
to uphold the rights and duties.
To have rights and the ability to exercise Citizenship is being part of a large commuthem within our community.
nity that is governed by one body.
Equal access to a whole range of things – Citizenship is an ideal that the government
education, legal system etc.
uses to make people feel inadequate. Problematic. Different levels of citizenship.
The mutual acceptance from within a de- Association with a collective.
fined group with complete freedom and
rights stipulated by the foundation of the
group. Feeling of belonging.
Ideally – including the “feeling” of commu- Practically – “community” at the national
nity and ability to act within that to try and level insofar as rights to vote, protest and
make changes usually at the national level. work towards changes in the nation. Related
to concepts of nationalism.
Belonging to a group identifying yourself as “Legal” citizenship – democracy, right to
a citizen and that group identifying you as a vote. Idea of citizenship – belonging, idencitizen. Participation with that group.
tifying with.
139
140
Youth and Citizenship
Your State, Australia, everyone supporting, To be part of the community.
helping each other to keep community together and make it becomes a better place,
from your actions, responsibility.
Everyone having their rights and responsi- Same.
bilities within their community.
Being part of community.
Being part of community and helping each
other belong as one group.
Belonging to the human race.
Citizenship is belonging.
To be able to become fully a citizen.
Same.
To combine culture, ideas and opinions into Same.
a democratic community, cooperating as a
whole.
Unity/social responsibility.
To be part of a greater community/country, with rights and responsibilities towards
others on a social and personal level.
Access to health, education, social rights Locally – Australia. Globally – they are all
should be equal for all.
different. Having rights and responsibilities.
Equal rights, fairness and opportunity to
belong to country.
Equality.
Making community bigger.
Belonging.
Belonging to a community, be accepted by
community and having rights that go with it,
helping make sure others have them.
Community, belonging.
Citizenship is being part of a large to small
scale community and the responsibilities and
rights you have to these communities.
Belonging, being part of a wider commnity. To be accepted as a member of a country or
society and to have the rights and responsibilities of that country or society.
Acceptance.
Citizenship is living in a country, having
rights, obeying laws, and having a standard
of acceptance from other members of the
community.
Community.
Citizenship is a right you earn, it gives you
the chance to better your life by being part
of a community and growing with it. The
whole idea of citizenship is based on fairness and a fair go.
Appendices
Becoming a part of society.
Working together for a stable society.
Living in a place peacefully.
The influence of the society you join on how
you develop as a person, being welcomed
into a society, discovering new ideas and
lifestyles, respecting rights and responsibilities.
Citizenship is having responsibilities and
rights in a country.
Rights and duties for everyone to live peacefully together.
Citizenship means to be a member of a
country and have rights and privileges.
Citizenship means the rights and responsibilities that we have in order to be here in
Australia or whatever country.
Everyone working to change and help each
other.
It’s about rights, responsibilities and using
them to create and ensure a stable society
for people of every race and culture. Pride
in your country.
Being a citizen of one country, being loyal Same.
and identifying yourself with your fellow
people.
Being a citizen of a country and being loyal
to your fellow people.
Openness.
To accept others and think for yourself.
Being part of your national community.
Citizenship is a collective gathering of everybody’s input into community.
Being part of a community on both a lo- Being part of a community on both local
cal and broader scene, sharing your opinion and broader level.
and participating in citizen activity.
Citizenship, I have realised in this session, is Citizenship is defined as many things, from
more than just being responsible in your lo- being responsible in your community to helpcal community, but looking out to the world ing people in countries all over the world.
at 3rd world countries and helping them.
To be aware of and involved in the community Citizenship is a knowledge of rights and reand its needs. It is about openness, willing- sponsibilities and involvement in creating a
ness to help out, and awareness of the world better physical and social environment for
around you and your place in it.
everyone.
Community.
Citizenship means to work as a community,
helping others and making changes.
Citizenship is about equality and having Citizenship is looking out for others but
equal living conditions, with knowing your knowing your rights and being active about
rights and valuing others.
your views.
141
142
Youth and Citizenship
Community.
Caring for your community, being involved in
your community and being aware of what’s
happening in your community.
To help each other out to make a perfect Citizenship means to be part of your
society.
country.
Working together for a stable society.
Being active and responsible in your com- Citizenship is living and being actively part
munity and in the world. Having a say, hav- of a community and having rights and freeing rights, caring.
dom.
Working together for a stable society.
Being responsible and looking after your Being an active citizen and looking after
country and people of your country.
your community.
“Small cog, big machine”.
To feel confident, included and valued in
your community.
Being in the community.
Belonging to a group in the world and participating in it.
Community participation, equality.
Citizenship is when you are part of a community and contribute to it. It means you are
equal to all others and have all the rights in
accordance with being a citizen of that community.
Making an equal contribution to a country.
Citizenship is contributing to a specific
country in which you have equal rights and
duties as everyone else.
Having equal rights, and the opportunity to Citizenship means belonging to a communichoose and voice an opinion.
ty or society in which you have equal rights,
and freedom or opportunity to choose and
voice an action or opinion.
Equality.
Citizenship is the idea of giving everyone
a fair go, to exercise their rights and to
contribute. However, it is impossible to put
everyone as an equal, and some people give
up their rights through their actions.
Belonging to a community or group in which Belonging to a community in which the
the community provides for you and you community provides for you and you give
back to the community.
contribute to the community.
It’s about how people make choices and Citizenship is to become a member of a
how they can give an input into their coun- society and to have equal rights and duties
try. It’s their feelings about people and their to every other person.
country.
Appendices
You belong to that country.
To belong to a country and in some way
contribute to it.
To present to others which country gave you
rights and duties to uphold and obey.
You contribute to the country you live in and
it helps you.
Citizenship means to belong to a country, or
to be part of something.
Citizenship is the title given to a person to
certify that they are of that country, be it that
they were born there or migrated to it. It can
be taken up by any who wish to.
Belonging to a community and possessing
rights and responsibilities due to this belonging.
That regardless of the political, social
climate, regardless of an individuals race,
religion, ethnicity there are rights that they
have due to their belonging to a community.
(EQUALITY)
Rights, responsibilities to others and Citizenship is about the rights and responsiyourself.
bilities of being a member of society (whatever the society may be) to other members
of that society and the rights and responsibilities to you.
Belonging.
The nature of existence within a community
which entails the provision of rights to its
citizens.
Belonging to a community, mutual relation- To be a citizen is to be possessed of rights,
ship.
and to have responsibilities to a community.
143
144
Youth and Citizenship
Appendix G: References
Banks, M. (1992), Careers and Identities¸
Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Balibar, E. “The Borders of Europe” in Cheah,
P. & Robbins, B. (1998), Cosmopolitics:
Thinking and feeling beyond the Nation.
Minneapolis; University of Minnesota
Press.
Bentley, T., Jupp, B. & Stedman Jones,
D. (2000), Getting to grips with
depoliticisation, Demos briefing paper,
available electronically from www.
demos.org.uk/A_resch.htm.
Beck, U. (2000), What is Globalization?
Cambridge; Polity Press.
Bessant, J. (1996), “The silent consensus.
Linking citizenship and young people”,
Children Australia, 21 (4): 29–38.
Camilleri, J. & Falk, J. (1992), The End of
Sovereignty?, Aldershot.
Children and Young People’s Unit (2002),
Young People and Politics: a Report on
the Yvote?/Ynot? Project, available from
www.cypu.gov.uk.
Cloonan, M. & Street, J. (1998), “Rock the
Vote: popular culture and politics”,
Politics, 18(1): 33–38.
Davidson, A. (1997), From Subject to Citizen:
Australian Citizenship in the Twentieth
Century.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
Dickson, J. (1998), How and Why has Civics
Education Developed to its Current
Situation?, available from www.abc.
net.au/civics/teach/articles/jdickson/
currentsit.htm
Edwards, L. (2001), Politics not Parties:
Young people and political engagement,
Findings from a series of discussion
groups with young people, Institute for
Public Policy Research, London.
Ellefsen, B. & Hamel, J. (2000), “Citoyennete, jeunesse et exclusion. Lien social
et politique a l’heure de la precarite”,
Lien social et Politiques – RIAC, No. 43:
133–142.
Gauthier, M (2000), “L’age des jeunes: un
fait social instable”, Lien Social et Politiques – RIAC, 43: 23–32.
Guibernau, M. (2001), “Globalisation, Cosmopolitanism, and Democracy: An Interview with David Held”, in Constellations
Vol. 8, No. 4.
Habermas, J. (1999), The Inclusion of the
other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Hall, T., Coffey, A. & Williamson, H. (1999),
“Selfs, Space and Place: youth identities and citizenship”, British Journal of
Education, 20 (4): 501–513.
Hankiss, E. “Globalization and the End of
the Nation State?” in Cheah, P. & Robbins, B. (1998).
Held, D. (1995), Democracy and the Global
Order: from the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Cambridge; Polity
Press.
Held, D. (1993), Political Theory Today. Cambridge; Polity Press.
Henn, M. & Weinstein, M. (2001), “Youth
and Voting Behaviour in Britain”, paper
presented at the American Political
Science Association Annual Meeting, San
Francisco, 2001.
Henn, M., Weinstein, M. & Wring, D. (2002),
“A generation apart? Youth and political
participation in Britain”, British Journal
of Politics and International Relations,
4(2): 167–192.
Jones, G. & Wallace, C. (1992), Youth, Family
and Citizenship, Open University Press,
Philadelphia.
Appendices
Krink, K. (1999), Creating the Active Citizen? Recent Developments in Civics Education, Politics and Administration Group, Department
of the Parliamentary Library of Australia.
Lister, R. (1990), The Exclusive Society:
Citizenship and the Poor, Child Poverty
Action Group, London.
Macintyre, S., Boston, K. & Pascoe, S.
(1994), Whereas the people . . .: Civics
and Citizenship Education, Report of the
Civics Expert Group, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Maddox, G. (1996), Australian Democracy in
Theory and Practice, 3rd edition Longman, South Melbourne.
McGrew, T. (1997). The Transformation of Democracy? Cambridge; Polity Press.
Mishra, R. (1981), Society and Social Policy:
Theories and Practice of Welfare, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.
Pearl, A. & Knight, T. (1999), The Democratic
Classroom: Theory to Practice Guide.
London: Hampton Press.
Print, M. (1998). From Civics Deficit to Critical
Mass: the New Civics Education, Centre
for Research and Teaching in Civics, University of Sydney. Available from www.
abc.net.au/civics/teach/articles/mprint/
mprint1.htm
Ryan, R., Salvaris, M. & Weekley, K. (1996),
“Citizenship Research, a National Strategy?” in Culture and Citizenship Conference, 2 October, Griffith University,
Queensland.
Sparks, H. (1997), “Dissident Citizenship:
Democratic Theory, Political Courage an
Activist Women” in Hypatia 12 (4), Fall.
The Electoral Commission (2002), Voter engagement and young people, Research
report published July 2002.
Vromen, A. (1995), “Paul Keating is the Prime
Minister, but who delivers the mail? A
study of political knowledge amongst
young people”, Australian Journal of
Political Science, 30 (1): 74–90.
145
146
Youth and Citizenship
Appendices
147
148
Youth and Citizenship