1. law, govt and politics
2. legal issues
3. civil rights

WHO CAN WHO SHALL, WHO MAY?
YOUNG PEOPLE’S OPINIONS ABOUT SUFFRAGE CRITERIA
PAPER TO BE PRESENTED AT THE ECPR GENERAL CONFERENCE,
REYKJAVIK, 25-27 AUG, 2011
Work in progress – please do not quote or circulate without permission!
Florian Walter, Aleksandra Ptaszyńska1
Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a study conducted in three Austrian cities among 16 to 18-year-olds in
2010. Using both quantitative (face-to-face survey) and qualitative (focus groups) methods of data
collection the study aimed at adopting a new approach to the examination of young people’s political
attitudes. Instead of asking about their degree of interest or trust in political parties, politicians, and
institutions, 374 adolescents were interviewed about their opinions concerning a specific political issue,
namely the distribution of voting rights. Additionally 13 focus groups were conducted, where opinions
concerning criteria for the distribution of voting rights were discussed in detail.
Our findings suggest that, when deciding who should have the right to vote and who should not, young
people independent of their social status do not only follow the legal status quo that draws mainly on
citizenship and maturity as preconditions for the suffrage. Instead they set up rules according to criteria
regarding both community-based (citizenship, residence, language) as well as competence-based
(knowledge, ability) criteria. Additionally, however, the data reveal highly divergent opinions between
groups from different social backgrounds concerning the question who should have the right to cast a
ballot. Especially when it comes to more restrictive community-based criteria like sharing a common
culture and descent, education, ethnicity and regional provenance have proven to be relevant explanatory
factors: apprentices, native Austrians and youngsters from rural areas argue far more exclusive than
students, immigrants and the urban or small-town youth.
Introduction
The study of young people’s political socialization traces back to a long tradition in political
science
(Hyman 1959; Greenstein 1960, 1965; Merelman 1969; Marsh 1971; Sears 1975;
Niemi/Sobieszek 1977; Stacey 1978). If we look at the history of political socialization research,
investigations of “the process of interaction through which an individual … acquires the
[political] norms, values, beliefs, attitudes, and languages characteristic of his or her group”
1
E-mail addresses: [email protected]; [email protected]
1
(Gecas 2001: 2855) have long been dominated by a focus on the stability of political systems
inspired by Almond and Verba’s Civic Culture study (Almond/Verba 1963) as well as Easton’s
work on the role of public support (Easton 1965; Easton/Dennis 1969). As Meyer (2003) argues,
there is obviously a nexus between the literature on political socialization and research about
political culture and public opinion. Recently, however, political socialization studies have
focused on other issues than system stability: Scholars increasingly take into account the process
of socialization and scrutinize where and how young people develop attitudes (Hooghe 2004;
Torney-Purta 2004) – an approach that has long been more common in social psychology than
political science (Sears 1975: 95).
In this paper we follow a different approach to studying the political socialization of young
people: we are not interested in adolescents’ attitudes towards democratic institutions and elites –
as we have mentioned above, a substantial amount of research has been dedicated to this topic
during the past decades – but in their attitudes towards certain policies2, more precisely
“democracy policy”. Therefore we do not investigate the question whether young people support
democracy and democratic values or the polity enough to guarantee system stability. Instead we
analyze their opinions relating to a phenomenon called the “problem of inclusion” (Dahl 1989),
the “boundary problem” (Whelan 1983) or the “problem of constituting the demos” (Goodin
2007), i.e. the question who should legitimately be part of the people and therefore be granted
political rights and, conversely, who should not. Specifically we will examine the features of
young people’s attitudes about the distribution of voting rights, look for similar patterns among
adolescents and try to find differences between youth subgroups concerning their opinions about
suffrage criteria. By taking this approach to the study of political socialization we hope to find
out whether (a) there is a discrepancy between public opinion and existing law when it comes to
suffrage criteria and it is therefore potentially possible for political parties to mobilize young
people as voters referring to the “boundary problem” (Do young people think differently about
the question who should be entitled to vote than lawmakers? Can the question who should be
entitled to vote be used as a campaign issue?) as well as (b) whether there are differences in the
mobilizing potential of different youth subgroups in terms of class, gender, ethnicity, and
2
Almond differentiates between system culture (attitudes towards institutions and the regime), process-culture
(attitudes towards political agents’ activities) and policy-culture (attitudes towards political outputs) (Almond 1987;
see also Gabriel 2008).
2
regional provenance (Which attitudes are “universal” among youngsters? Which are specific?).
Both aspects provide insights in both the role core democratic issues (like the distribution of
political rights) play in young people’s life worlds and the potential for democratic reform hidden
in public opinion. The findings of this paper therefore contribute to fundamental aspects of
political socialization research.
This paper proceeds as follows: In the following section we elaborate our approach to the data
in both descriptive and analytical terms. Then we introduce the data we use for the empirical
analysis as well as our approach to analyzing it. The presentation of our results builds the main
section of this paper before, in a concluding section, we interpret these results.
When adolescents evaluate suffrage criteria: descriptive and analytical issues
Before we turn towards the empirical investigation of young people’s opinions about suffrage
criteria, it seems useful to set up a research framework that helps us fulfill this requirement. We
therefore base this section’s discussion on different strands of literature located within both
empirical and theoretical traditions and pragmatically pick out the respective classifications and
rationale that help us meet our analytical purposes. As the topic we have focused on has not yet
been investigated in former studies, our deeper concern in this paper is twofold: First, our aim is
to understand the opinions expressed by the young, learn which ones they consider more or less
important and by compare the investigated opinions with the effective set of franchise laws in
Austria in order to assess whether the legal situation is challenged by young people’s orientations
(descriptive task). Additionally, we also want to give explanations3 for the opinions of youngsters
in general and youth subgroups defined along social characteristics like gender, class, and
ethnicity. To this end we give a cursory overview of what the existing literature can tell us about
attitudinal and behavioral (dis)similarities between “the youths” and discuss both the axes of
difference along which we expect variation and the theoretical assumptions about why this
variation occurs (analytical task). Though discussed consecutively within the theoretical remarks
of this section, both tasks will not be treated separately in different chapters but have to be
considered as two aspects of the same concern throughout the presentation and discussion of the
empirical results of our study.
3
For the differentiation between evaluative and explanatory research purposes cf. Beckman 2007: 40.
3
Types of suffrage criteria
As we have elaborated comprehensively in an earlier version of this paper (Ptaszyńska/Walter
2011) various efforts have been made to classify the different criteria along which voting rights
can be distributed. Referring to Katz (1997) – Andre Blais and his colleagues distinguish two
major types of empirical restrictions to the franchise: those based on competence and those based
on community (Blais et al. 2001).
1. Competence can be seen as a necessary precondition for the franchise as it permits voters to
make an informed decision at the ballots. Regarding competence, three subcategories of
widely-used restrictions to the franchise arise. Every democracy in the world has enacted an
age-limit for elections, the “universal” suffrage in established democracies is thus a universal
suffrage for adults (Rosenberger/Seeber 2008). Age-limits exist in order to assure that only
informed decisions enter the electoral decision-making process. The age-limit therefore acts
as a proxy for a criterion that can best be labeled maturity. Alongside age-related restrictions
exclusions from the vote based on mental deficiency are common and accepted in many
democracies worldwide. We label this form of limitation the criterion of ability. However, in
contrast to age-related restrictions that are temporary and the boundaries established through
age-limits are usually crossed automatically, restrictions related to mental deficiency are in
most instances permanent. Another set of restrictions is related to literacy or, more generally,
knowledge. Katz (1997: 231) mentions the option of testing people’s skills in reading, writing
and communicating in the official language as a legitimate way to guarantee compliance with
the competence criterion.
2. Besides competence, restrictions based on community are equally common in democratic
polities. According to Blais et al. (2001: 42), discussing suffrage criteria based on community
“raises the question of whether only those who have formal citizenship should have the right
to vote and whether one should have resided and should still be residing in the political
community in order to be qualified to vote”. Blais and his colleagues point to the fact that
with respect to community-based suffrage criteria one can distinguish approaches
emphasizing the role of citizenship for the distribution of voting rights from those that
repudiate its importance for the franchise. The former can be further differentiated into
ethnoculturalist (community based on ‘blood’; ius sanguinis) and civic republican approaches
4
(community based on ‘fate’; ius soli); the latter comprise – most prominently – the coercion
or all subjected principle (eligibility for residents who are subject to the law) and the all
affected interests principle (eligibility to all those whose life chances are affected, also nonresidents).4
Figure 1: Criteria for the franchise set up by young people
Source: own illustration (following Katz 1997, Blais et al. 2001)
How can we systematize different (empirically and theoretically important) criteria for the
distribution of voting rights? Can these criteria be classified as distinct types of criteria? Figure 1
summarizes the discussions of this section and notes down two major types of criteria: those
related to competence ant those related to criteria. With respect to competence we identified three
subtypes of criteria, namely maturity (as measured by age) and ability (in terms of mental health).
For community we defined two subtypes of criteria: those that define citizenship as a prerequisite
of political rights and can further be differentiated in ethnic-nationalist (or ethnocultural)
arguments highlighting the role of culture and descent as a condition for citizenship and civic
republican arguments emphasizing political rather than national belonging as a condition for
citizenship; and those that repudiate the role of citizenship and can be again differentiated in
approaches considering all residents who are subject to the law and fulfill their legal duties as
eligible to vote and approaches who think that everybody whose life chances are considerably
affected by a decision should be able to participate in the decision in question. Additionally, the
dotted line indicates that language cannot only be interpreted functionally (as a pathway to
making an informed voting decision) but also culturally (as a pathway to integration into a
community). In the following, this theoretically informed framework shall help us understand and
systematize young people’s opinions about suffrage criteria. To this end it will be confronted
with both our quantitative and qualitative data. If the theoretical classification proves to be
4
For further elaboration please refer to the abovementioned paper by Ptaszyńska and Walter (2011).
5
empirically sound, we can further use the differentiation between competence- and communitybased criteria in order to find explanations for adolescents’ attitudes. Our theoretically informed
expectations in terms of these explanations are presented in the following section.
Political socialization and adolescent opinion formation
What form does political socialization, defined as the acquisition of political values, beliefs, and
attitudes (cf. Greiffenhagen 2002), take? Or, put differently, where do political opinions of
adolescents originate from? Many studies about the political attitudes and participation of young
people build on the implicit assumption that some abstract idea of at least partly homogenous
“adolescent” opinions and behavior exist and are empirically accessible (Henn et al. 2002;
Forbrig 2005; Fahmy 2006; Harris et al. 2010; Albert et al. 2010). Critical (political) socialization
research, however, suggests that an abstract conception of “youth” neglects the impact of social
factors on young people’s attitudes and actions (e.g. Tamke 2008, Bauer 2010, Tillmann 2010).
Both considerations, those stating attitudinal commonalities and those emphasizing differences,
are well grounded in the literature and will therefore be considered in this paper. In the following
we thus want to cursorily outline the theoretical basis of our approach to analyzing young
people’s opinions about suffrage criteria.
Political socialization research offers different pathways to answering this question. One is to
differentiate between various “agents” (Wunder 2011) of political socialization that have an
effect on juvenile opinion formation: As primary agents the literature refers to the family and
friends (peer-groups) who are said to be the first ones to influence political socialization in early
childhood. School and the workplace are commonly labeled secondary agents of socialization.
Under tertiary agents of socialization both meso-level institutions like parties, unions, and
churches as well as macro-level institutions like the legal and economic system and the mass
media are subsumed. While socialization effects of the family and meso-level institutions seem to
decline in times when the whole concept of family is floating (detraditionalization) and young
people are decreasingly involved in parties, unions and churches (Fahmy 2006), the mass media
are considered to develop into an increasingly important agent of socialization (Schorb et al.
2002; Muzzatti 2011) while the impact of law an economy remains unchallenged even in modern
societies.
6
This classification into three types of agents must not be interpreted as any kind of
chronological or hierarchical order. As Meyer (2003: 522) argues, the agents are rather to be seen
as interactive as well as interdependent (see also Grundmann 2006: 45f.). Therefore the agents
and their mutual interactions have to be considered when formulating presuppositions concerning
the development of young people’s opinions about who should be entitled to vote and who
should not.
Two seemingly contradictive presuppositions regarding adolescents’ attitudes about the adequate
prerequisites for the distribution of voting rights can be formulated in reference to these cursory
remarks on theoretical literature:
(1) Young people’s opinions about suffrage criteria mainly reflect the legal status quo
independent of their social status. Homogenous orientations can only exist when all
adolescents underlie the same source of attitudes to the same extent. This is the case if
attitudes (understood as policy-preferences) are shaped by institutions which in a similar way
exert validity for the lives of all people in a polity. In these terms, the legal system – or, more
specifically, effective electoral law – as a tertiary agent of socialization narrows down the
options for preference formation and makes it most likely that people prefer the option that
already exists. In political science the mechanism underlying this form of preference
formation is described in the literature about the so called “new institutionalism”
(March/Olsen 1984; Peters 2005). Its protagonists argue along different strands: Scholars
committed to rational choice theory emphasize the reduction of transaction costs as the
explanatory basis of preference formation (and the strategic behavior resulting from it). In
their view it is the “cheapest” solution for the (benefit maximizing) individual to stick to the
existing institutional framework. Others who align with a more sociologically inspired strand
of the theory argue that institutions influence the processes of preference formation not
(mainly) by reducing the costs of decisions but by adding meaning and providing orientation
to individuals. Attitudes endorsing the idea of established institutions are considered
appropriate as they meet societal role expectations and can therefore rely on extensive
acceptance. (cf. Hall/Taylor 1996) Independent of the specific mechanism underlying the
effect that institutions have on the development of political attitudes (policy preferences),
7
however, the logic of the institutional argument seems clear: reinterpreting a well-known
legal concept introduced by Georg Jellinek, we build on the assumption that the “actual”
(effective law) exerts its “normative power” on the attitudes of young people.
According to these considerations, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that the youngsters’
opinions about which criteria are important for the distribution of voting rights and which are
not are basically identical with the existing legal situation and that there are no differences
between subgroups. We should assume that young people in Austria consider those criteria as
decisive for the franchise, that are also established in Austrian constitutional law, i.e.
citizenship, maturity (as measured by age5), and some basic amount of law-abidance. As the
acquisition6 of formal citizenship in Austria is also linked to meeting certain demands (10
years of permanent residence, legal integrity, secure income, German language skills, basic
knowledge of the political system and history, affirmative attitudes towards the state, etc.), we
also have to consider these factors in our analysis.
(2) There are differences in the opinions of youth subgroups according to their social status.
While the legal system (as a tertiary agent of socialization) might be equally valid for all
adolescents in Austria, it seems reasonable that primary and secondary agents (family, peers;
school, workplace) which are closer to the life-worlds of young people can have a very
differential socializing impact depending on individual factors. Is it really probable that a 16year-old female high school student of Austrian descent living in a rural environment has the
same political attitudes like a coeval male apprentice with immigrant background
in a
metropolitan area? Drawing on a recently booming body of literature resurrecting the socalled “stratum-specific” or “inequality-oriented” strand of socialization research (Bauer
2010) we argue that socio-demographic, socio-economic, and socio-cultural factors affect the
development of adolescents’ opinions and attitudes. Especially the works of Pierre Bourdieu
(1977, 1984) and his concept of the habitus help us understand the interrelation between
social structure and political opinion formation through socialization. Bourdieu defines the
habitus as a
5
voting age in Austria is 16!!
In Austria two major pathways two citizenship exist: acquisition by descent (at least one parent is an Austrian
citizen ; ius sanguinis) and as acquisition by award (naturalization according to the abovementioned criteria). (cf.
Austrian Citizenship Law, BGBl. Nr. 311/1985 idF BGBl. I Nr. 4/2008)
6
8
“system of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function
as structuring structures, that is, as principles of the generation and structuring of practices
and representations.... [T]he practices produced by the habitus [are] the strategy-generating
principle enabling agents to cope with unforeseen and ever-changing situations.”
(Bourdieu 1977: 72)
Two important features are part of this definition: First, Bourdieu defines the habitus as a
“system of dispositions”, a “structuring structure” that comprises three analytically distinct
aspects: schemes of perception (the “sensual aspect of practical cognition”; Schwingel 2005:
62, own translation), schemes of thought (patterns of classification and norms), and schemes
of action (the basis of individual and collective practices of actors). Together these schemes
form the “generative principle” (Bourdieu 1984: 170) of social practices, i.e. the foundation
of people’s political opinions, attitudes and actions. Second, the definition of the habitus as
“structured structure” refers to the formation of these schemes. Bourdieu suggests that the
habitus develops through socialization, more precisely through the internalization of external,
material and cultural, terms of being, and is therefore significantly predetermined by social
structure (Krais/Gebauer 2008: 37).
What does this imply for group differences in opinions about suffrage criteria? Bourdieu links
the development of attitudes and actions to influences of material inequality. In his view, the
opportunity of individuals to freely choose between different courses of action is
fundamentally restricted by the individual’s habitus which again is structured by its social
background (family, class, gender, etc.). While a person’s options to act are not determined in
Bourdieu’s theory (in terms of being restricted to one single option) the scope of action for a
person is delimited by the habitus (in terms of being restricted to a certain set of options)
(Schwingel 2005: 69). Based on Bourdieus concept of the habitus, we expect structural
factors like gender, class, ethnicity, and regional provenance to exert significant impact on
young people’s opinions about suffrage criteria.
In the following we want to approach these two presuppositions and examine whether we can
find proof for either (or even both) of them. Before we enter the empirical analysis, however, let
us briefly go into some crucial data and measurement issues.
9
Data and Methods
The study at hand draws on a mixed method/triangulation approach to analyzing young people’s
opinions and attitudes towards politics using both quantitative and qualitative methods of data
collection and analysis (cf. Denzin 1970; Tashakkori/Teddlie 2010; Flick 2011). The research
underlying this study was carried out in three Austrian cities selected due to their geographical
locations and population: Vienna represents urban surroundings in a large city in the east of
Austria; Wels (Upper Austria) stands for a medium-sized town in central Austria; Telfs in Tyrol
exemplifies a small village in Western Austria, a mostly rural and conservative environment. All
three locations are considerably shaped by immigration.7
On the quantitative side, a peer-survey was conducted among 16 to 18-year-olds. Peer-surveys
are characterized by the face that young people not only appear as objects but also as subjects of
research: in our study teenagers interviewed teenagers. This approach is also methodologically
grounded. When grown-ups interview teenagers, an often distant and impersonal as well as
mostly hierarchical relationship emerges between interviewer and interviewee. As shown in
recent studies, this can have a major effect on response behavior (cf. Bourdieu 2005). In our
survey we decided to reduce the hierarchy between interviewers and interviewees by involving
young people and – after proper interview training – letting them conduct the interviews. Due to
time and organizational constraints associated with other sampling methods, quota sampling was
used. Each interviewer was required to interview six peers – three of them needed to be still
attending some form of high school and three of them were supposed to be outside of the higher
educational system (apprenticeship, working, unemployed, etc.). There was also a quota
concerning gender (three female, three male). The given quotas were mostly achieved resulting in
a sample of 376 respondents as described in table 1. Besides the main question concerning young
people’s criteria for the distribution of voting rights, a number of other questions were contained
in the questionnaire. Those included questions on political behavior (information, participation),
friends and peer group, perceptions of the future, (local, national, European, other) identities and
social status.
7
Foreign population in Austria (non-citizens, 2011/01/01): 11%;Foreign population in our cities: Telfs 13.6%; Wels
17.7%; Vienna 21.5% (Source: Statistics Austria; www.statistik.at).
10
Table 1: Composition of Peer-Survey Sample
GENDER
Female
Male
n
%
196
180
47,9
52,1
REGIONAL PROVENANCE
Telfs
Wels
Wien
118
136
122
31,4
36,2
32,4
236
91
48
62,8
24,2
12,8
OCCUPATION
Student
Apprentice
Other
IMMIGRANT BACKGROUND
Born Austrians
Immigrants
287
89
76,3
23,7
376
100
TOTAL
Source: GLO-PART Survey 2010, own illustration
The qualitative analyses carried out in our study are based on focus groups carried out between
April and June 2010. As with the survey, the focus groups were also carried out in the three
Austrian cities – four focus groups were conducted in Wels and Vienna, five in Telfs, summing
up to a total of 13. Great attention was paid to the selection of participants, where theoretical or
purposive sampling rather than probabilistic sampling was applied (Morgan/Scannell 2003,
Krueger/Casey 2008). We aimed at ensuring diversity not only with regard to regional
provenance, but also with regard to gender, class, and ethnicity. Groups were composed of young
people from similar social backgrounds in order to be able to assess their common lifeworlds (or
“conjunctive experiences”; Mannheim 1982). All focus group participants were aged between 14
and 21 years8, each of the groups was composed of 5 to 8 discussants and altogether 95 young
people were involved in the focus groups. Depending on the size of the group and their
volubility, the discussions lasted between 27 and 70 minutes (for details see table 2 below).
8
As with the survey our aim when recruiting focus group participants was to reach young people aged 16 to 18.
Whenever it seemed more difficult to find people fitting into our scheme we loosened these criteria and accepted
also younger and older participants. The final “sample” comprises 5 people older than 18 (four 19, one 21), and 20
people younger than 16 (eighteen 15, two 14). 70 of 95 participants (about 73%) are 16 to 18 years old.
11
Table 2: Details of focus group composition
Vienna BAKIP
No. of
Participants
8
Duration
(min.)
70
Girls
(%)
75
Current
occupation
school
Students
(%)
100
Immigrants
(%)
12,5
Vienna BSIT1
8
34
12,5
apprentice
0
25
Vienna BSIT2
Vienna IFS
8
8
58
39
12,5
87,5
apprentice
school
0
100
100
100
Wels YC
6
44
0
mix
16,7
100
Wels BS1
Wels BS2
7
7
27
38
100
0
apprentice
apprentice
0
0
14,3
14,3
Wels HBLA
5
39
100
school
100
0
Telfs POLY
Telfs PUITE
7
7
46
44
57,1
28,6
school
mix
100
57,1
14,3
28,6
Telfs YC1
8
32
100
mix
75
100
FG Name
8
36
0
mix
37,5
100
Telfs YC2
8
43
75
mix
87,5
0
Telfs WIDUM
Legend: BAKIP = College for the Training of Nursery School Teachers, BSIT1, BSIT2 = Vocational School for
Information Technology, IFS = Islamic Vocational School for Care Professions, YC, YC1, YC2 = youth clubs, BS1 =
Vocational School for Hairdressing, BS2 = Vocational School for Glazier, HBLA = College for Business
Administration, POLY = Pre-vocational Training, PUITE = deprived residential area in Telfs/Tyrol, WIDUM =
parsonage.
Source: GLO-PART Focus Groups 2010, own illustration
When discussing the criteria young people set up for the distribution of voting rights it was
important for us to leave the question which criteria were going to be formulated as open as
possible. In contrast to surveys, qualitative methods like narrative interviews or focus groups
allow for respondents to co-determine the issues being discussed (Lamnek 2005; Flick 2009).
Though researchers have a set of questions which they can draw on, it is mostly the arguments
given by participants that shape the course of discussion. To make it easier for the participating
young people to talk about criteria for voting rights and to be able to focus on the research
questions we wanted to answer, we worked with vignettes9 showing eight fictitious characters
with different attributes (see table 3). Some of them were Austrian citizens, some were not, and
they varied with respect to factors such as age, gender, language skills, country of residence,
political attitudes or cognitive skills. The participants were free to refer to the characteristics the
fictitious people had or define new characteristics that were not mentioned on the vignettes –
which they often did.
9
For the use of vignettes in focus groups cf. O’Toole et al. 2003, Marsh et al. 2007 or, more generally,
Bauer/Gaskell 2000, Wilks 2004.
12
Table 3: Vignettes containing fictitious characters used in focus groups (in order of discussion in focus groups)
JENNY (15), Austrian citizen, first year as an apprentice as a hairdresser
MICHAEL (67), Austrian citizen, Professor at Oxford University, living in England for more than 30 years
AYSE (48), Turkish citizen, manages a company in Austria with 75 employees
MIKA (39), Finnish citizen, computer specialist, living in Austria for four years, does not speak German
RENATE (36), Austrian citizen, mentally disabled, works at a sheltered workshop
BASCHIR (31), Chechen citizen, asylum seeker with university degree
MAGDA (51), Polish citizen, has been coming to Austria each spring as a seasonal farm worker for 20 years
KURT (28), Austrian citizen, unemployed, rejects democratic values
Source: GLO-PART Focus Groups 2010, own illustration
In our focus groups, young people discussed whether these people should be allowed to vote in
Austrian regional and national elections, as well as elections to the European Parliament. For
each of them, the discussants decided whether he or she should be allowed to vote and if not,
what he or she should change in order to gain the franchise. As our intentions were to find out
which criteria are central and which are negligible to young people – a comparatively “closed”
approach in qualitative terms –, we decided to use a rather focused method of analysis.
Before the analysis was conducted, the focus groups were transcribed and coded, beginning
with key issues and proceeding with subcodes. Reliability was guaranteed by reference to
“consensual coding” (konsensuelles Kodieren), where discussions within the research team about
the used codes and an iterative process of re-analyzing the data according to the thereby
developed “code manual” (Kodierleitfaden) ensures the quality of analysis (for details cf. Hopf et
al. 1995). In order to extract the orientations present within each group, we followed both Philipp
Mayring’s (2003, 2010) content analysis and Christiane Schmidt’s (2003, 2007) material-related
analysis. We decided on Mayring’s and Schmidt’s approaches because they both provide
strategies to cut down the material to a manageable amount and they both combine theory-based
and inductive elements in their analytical strategies.10 The first core results of these analyses are
presented in the following section.
10
We decided to go without a more detailed description of our method here. An exhaustive discussion of the single
analytical steps and methodological background of Mayring’s and Schmidt’s approaches can be found in the cited
literature.
13
Results
Before we turn to the results related to the presuppositions guiding our empirical analyses, we
first have to reconsider some conceptual issues. Put differently, let us see how our data fit into the
classification of suffrage criteria elaborated above. In accordance to Andre Blais and his
colleagues (Blais et al. 2001) we distinguished two major types of restrictions to the franchise:
community-based and competence-based. Based on these considerations, we used the items “be
intellectually able to understand political processes” and “be informed about politics” to measure
competence-based criteria. “Speak German well” can be placed between community and
competence – as shown in the focus group results, language skills not only represent interest in
the country and its residents (community), but also are a means of gathering information
necessary to make a well-grounded voting decision (competence). Community based criteria
included in the survey were “be an Austrian citizen”, “have a permanent residence in Austria”,
“live in Austria for at least 5 years”, and “be born in Austria” as well as “pay taxes in Austria”,
“make a contribution to society” and “approve democracy”11.
Table 4: Factor analysis of suffrage criteria (Principal Components, Varimax Rotation)
FACTOR 1
FACTOR 2
speak German well
pay taxes in Austria
,735
,706
,219
live in Austria for at least 5 years
,700
be born in Austria
have a permanent residence in Austria
,608
,585
be an Austria citizen
,536
be informed about politics
be able to understand political processes
,770
,667
make a contribution to society
,647
approve democracy
,644
variance explained by a factor (% of total variance)
Note: Factor loadings < .200 omitted
Source: GLO-PART survey 2010
25,59
19,68
11
“Pay taxes in Austria” as a criterion for the franchise was included referring to the claim “no taxation without
representation” raised by the inhabitants of the American colonies against the government in London during the US
War of Independence in their struggle for political participation. “Make a contribution to society” was included as a
general measure standing for a duty-oriented (as opposed to rights-oriented; cf. Kalicki 2009), community-based
approach to suffrage. “Approve democracy” measures compliance with basic values of the community.
14
In order to assess the empirical structure underlying the suffrage criteria included in the survey
we conducted an exploratory factor analysis. The detailed results of this analysis (PCA, varimax
rotation) are presented in Table 4. Corresponding to our theory-based assumptions, the items
“understand political processes” and “informed about politics” load highly on the same factor
while the items “speak German well”, “pay taxes”, “5 years”, “born in Austria”, “permanent
residence” and “Austrian citizen” load on the other. However, two results of the empirical
classification demand deeper examination: First, the language item loads highly on the first factor
comprising the community-based criteria but also shows a marginal loading on factor 2. This
mainly conforms to the theoretical considerations outlined above. Nevertheless the context that
this item was placed in (the item was preceded by items related to community) has the effect that
its community-part is definitely stronger than its competence-part. Therefore in the analysis of
the survey-data we classify it as a community-based suffrage criterion. Secondly, the items
“make a contribution to society” as well as “approve democracy” load on the second factor
although based on our theoretical considerations we would have expected the contrary. This is
probably the case because factor 2 empirically does not exclusively cover the competence-aspect
of suffrage criteria (maturity and ability) but also political attitudes and behavior.
What do these findings imply for the further empirical analysis? We decided to stick to our
theoretical considerations and exclude the items “approve democracy” and “make a contribution
to society” in the further calculations and interpretations. The language criterion “Speak German
well” is combined with the other community-based criteria under the initial term.
Young people’s suffrage criteria - a reflection of the legal status?
As described earlier in this paper, we assume that young people in Austria consider those criteria
as decisive for the franchise that are defined in Austrian electoral law, particularly Austrian
citizenship and maturity (age). In the survey we proposed a list of criteria that should be met by a
person to be eligible to vote in Austria. Numerous community- and competence-based criteria
were rated by the respondents. Table 5 gives an overview of the responses.
15
Table 5: Who wants to be eligible to vote in Austria, has to…12
be an Austrian citizen
pay taxes in Austria
be able to understand political processes
have a permanent residence in Austria
speak German well
be informed about politics
live in Austria for at least 5 years
be born in Austria
n= 376, in percent
Source: GLO-PART Survey 2010
not
important
(1)
5
2
5
4
3
7
5
22
2
3
4
5
5
6
6
13
11
13
25
10
16
14
16
20
18
22
26
18
21
23
27
24
27
28
10
very
important
(5)
62
53
50
46
39
34
29
15
d.k./n.
a.
1
3
2
1
1
3
4
2
What appears the most important prerequisite for voting is Austrian citizenship. Almost two
thirds of the respondents rate it as very important for voting rights. In this respect, our
presupposition is confirmed by the data. However, as we will see in the focus group results, when
going deeper into this criterion and discussing alternatives to it, it loses a big part of its
importance. Also, when we examine the rest of the table, it shows that the criteria are not ranked
according to the existing law. Even criteria that are not at all set in electoral law – such as
approval for democracy or being informed about politics – are ranked important or very
important by more than half of the respondents, which clearly contradicts our hypothesis.
What is surprising is the importance placed on the competence-based criteria ability and
information-based political knowledge, given that these are not included in Austrian electoral law
at all. 73% of the respondents place importance on the intellectual ability to understand political
processes (answer categories 4 and 5 summed up) and 51% say that it is important to be informed
about politics in order to be entitled to vote. When looking at community-based criteria, those
that are relatively easy to fulfill rank highest, while the most unchangeable criterion – being born
in Austria – is rated as the most unimportant by the respondents.
To sum up the quantitative results, so far our hypothesis can only partly be corroborated:
although citizenship is rated as most important among adolescents in Austria, thus reflecting the
legal status quo, many other criteria that are not at all set by law rank high as well. Not only
12
Full question wording: “In your opinion, which requirements should a person comply with to be allowed to vote in
Austria? Please do not think of the actual legal situation in Austria, but tell us your personal opinion. I will read out
some statements. Please rate them on a scale from 1 “not important at all” to 5 “very important”, you can gradate
using the numbers in between. Who wants to be eligible to vote in Austria, has to…”
16
community-based criteria but also competence-based criteria play an important role for young
people. But let us take a closer look at the qualitative results, before we conclude.
In a quantitative survey not every possible prerequisite for voting can be included. In addition to
the survey we therefore conducted focus groups where prerequisites for voting were discussed
more openly. By this means, we left more room for the teenagers’ own suffrage criteria. Based on
our focus group results, we can say that, first of all, community- and competence-based criteria
are not alternative but rather complementary preconditions for granting suffrage. And citizenship
may not be as important as it seems in the quantitative data. Figure 2 below illustrates the
complex relationship between criteria named by our young discussants.
Figure 2: Criteria for the franchise set up by young people
Source: own illustration
The focus groups showed that permanent residence is very important for young people with
regard to the distribution of voting rights. Being a permanent resident does not only mean that a
person resides somewhere currently for a limited period of time. It also involves certain duration
of residence (at least 5 to 10 years) and the intent to remain there permanently. Residents, in these
terms, fulfill three important criteria that qualify them for the franchise:
a) They bear the positive and negative consequences of an election (subject to decisions);
therefore they do not decide carelessly whom they will vote for.
17
b) They experience the situation in a country first-hand, so they know what is really going on in
a country.
c) Being a permanent resident means that you are interested in the country itself as well as in its
politics.
Language skills are important insofar as they not only represent interest in the country and its
residents (cultural aspect), language is also a means of gathering information necessary to make a
well-grounded voting decision (functional aspect). A certain voting age implies being mature on
the one hand (developmental aspect), which young people in Austria associate with a growing
interest in politics and the ability to understand politics at all. On the other hand, having reached
voting age is connected to being informed about politics (educational aspect), because young
people enjoy civic and citizenship education at school after reaching a certain age. These factors
contribute to having a formed opinion and thus being less susceptible to manipulation by parents,
peers and politicians. As evident from the figure above, pro-democratic attitudes (as well as a
broader idea of contributing to society) are not seen as an absolute precondition for the franchise
by our discussants. If an Austrian citizen rejects the basic principles of democracy, she still does
not lose the right to vote – if she has anti-democratic attitudes, she will not cast a ballot anyway.
Further, the discussants argued that one should never exclude someone based on his or her
personal beliefs. Only some discussants say that anti-democratic attitudes should lead to
disenfranchisement, but the main argument basically stays the same: the anti-democrat would not
vote anyway, so she does not “need” to be disentitled.
Is citizenship really as important as it seems in the survey data? Some say yes, citizenship
combines a bundle of other prerequisites such as permanent residence, information and language
skills. In these terms citizenship is deemed necessary in a civic republican rather than a ethnic
nationalist conception. For others citizenship is dispensable for voting rights. It enfranchises nonresidents citizens and excludes non-citizen residents. In the view of many youngsters
participating in our discussions, if other criteria such as permanent residence apply, a person
should have voting rights even as a foreign citizen. This notion of granting voting rights is
oriented towards the so called “all subjected principle” (Näsström 2011) that grants voting rights
to everybody who has to live with the consequences of political decisions and is therefore subject
to the law.
18
Different groups – different opinions?
The second assumption presented in the theoretical introduction stated that there are differences
in the opinions of youth subgroups according to their social status. To be more precise, we
assume that gender, class, ethnicity, and regional provenance have an impact on young people’s
opinions about suffrage criteria. We will start this section with analyses by examining selected
criteria – one community-based and one competence-based – and try to find out how the opinions
of youth subgroups differ on a bivariate level.
At first, let us take a look on the most restrictive prerequisite – “be born in Austria”. In total, only
15% of the respondents say that this is very important in order to be allowed to vote in Austria.
But are there differences in the subgroups? Table 6 6 presents the ratings of being born in Austria
as a precondition to voting rights for youth subgroups (gender, educational level13, ethnicity, and
regional provenance).
Interestingly there is hardly any difference with regard to gender – the results do not differ for
male and female teenagers. Large differences appear when looking at the educational level of
young people: while only one out of ten students says that being born in Austria is very important
for the franchise, it is almost a fourth of the apprentices that says so. Vice versa, 28% of the
students claim that it is not important at all and only 10% of the apprentices share this opinion.
So, educational background has an effect on young people’s opinion on suffrage criteria.
Large differences can also be found when assessing the differences between young people
with immigrant background14 and those without migration in their family’s recent history. While
only 3% of does with migrant background say that being born in Austria is very important, even
19% of those without migration history say that it is very important. At the same time, the
converse picture is to be found at the other side of the scale: 30% of those without and 20% of
those with immigrant background say that being born in Austria is not important at all.
With regard to regional provenance, it is rather those from a rural area that place high
importance on the country of birth: 28% say that it is very important for suffrage, while only 10%
in the surveyed provincial town and 9% in the metropolitan area say so. To sum it up: being born
13
We use education as a proxy for measuring class, which is common in youth studies (e.g. Tamke 2008).
Immigrant background was assigned if the respondent herself/himself or at least one parent was not born in
Austria.
14
19
in Austria is a more important prerequisite for franchise for apprentices rather than students, for
born Austrians rather than immigrants, and for those in rural areas rather than in provincial or
urban ones. Gender does not have an effect on young people’s opinions on the distribution of
voting rights.
Table 6: Importance of being born in Austria, differences between subgroups
not
important
(1)
2
3
4
very
important
(5)
d.k./n.a
.
GENDER
male
female
22
22
22
28
26
25
11
10
18
13
2
2
OCCUPATION
student
apprentice
28
10
28
20
23
33
9
11
11
23
1
3
IMMIGRANT BACKGROUND
native
20
immigrant
30
21
38
27
20
11
6
19
3
1
2
21
24
30
25
24
29
24
26
14
7
9
10
28
10
9
15
2
2
1
2
REGIONAL PROVENANCE
rural area
11
provincial town
28
metropolitan area
27
Total
22
n= 376, in percent
Source: GLO-PART Survey 2010
Are those differences between subgroups a very item-specific phenomenon or can they be
observed in other items as well? Table 7 shows the results for “speaking German well” as a
suffrage criterion. Here, again, gender does not show a significant effect. All the other group
differences, nonetheless, can be found again: Apprentices place a higher importance on Germanskills than students; native youngsters emphasize language skills explicitly stronger than
teenagers with immigrant background; and young people in the selected rural area place a higher
importance on speaking German well than those who live in more urban areas.
The importance of language skills was also highly contested in our focus groups: Many
discussants from immigrant focus groups argued that one must differentiate between different
levels of language skills – if someone did not speak a language actively, it did not mean that he or
she would not understand anything. A basic passive understanding would be precondition enough
to enfranchise someone. Others argued that even when someone did not understand the language
20
at all, family and friends could help out and translate all relevant information. Some went even
further, stating that language skills were not necessary at all because residents could see what was
happening around them or if there were any problems and form their opinion about the
government independent of their command of language. In the focus groups our assumption that
being a first or second generation immigrant significantly influences your views became obvious.
This is especially the case if the discussants are “affected” by the topic discussed: for immigrant
youth language skills are clearly less relevant as a precondition for voting rights than they are for
natives.
Table 7: Importance of speaking German well, differences between subgroups
not
important
(1)
2
3
4
very
important
(5)
d.k./n.a
.
GENDER
male
female
3
3
13
13
18
21
26
23
38
39
1
1
OCCUPATION
student
apprentice
3
2
14
10
21
21
27
23
34
44
2
0
IMMIGRANT BACKGROUND
native
2
immigrant
7
11
18
17
29
26
20
44
22
0
3
7
10
21
13
13
21
26
20
21
31
20
24
56
36
25
39
1
1
2
1
REGIONAL PROVENANCE
rural area
provincial town
metropolitan area
Total
n= 376, in percent
Source: GLO-PART Survey 2010
3
1
6
3
So far we presented group differences for two community-based criteria, so let us now turn to a
competence-based criterion. Table 8 shows that there is a difference between male and female
respondents when it comes to competence-based criteria – female respondents place a higher
importance on being informed about politics as a prerequisite for voting rights. When examining
the differences between students and apprentices, no big discrepancy can be found between
groups when looking at the two end points of the scale – but there is a major difference in the
category not important (2) and important (4). Students value being informed highly, while
apprentices do not rate is as that important as students. It is interesting that in the focus groups we
21
conducted, the importance of being informed as a criterion for franchise was definitely not
something that groups with different levels of education strongly differed in – as one would
expect because of their own very different experiences at school. In fact, there is no clear pattern
of who underlines the importance of knowledge from information and who does not. In every
group one can find discussants that put a strong emphasis on information. In one way or the
other, being informed about politics is important for every group. The only difference can be
found when narrowing it down to civic and citizenship education at school. The importance of
this subject at school is only used in groups where it is part of their academic environment. Those
who did not encounter civic and citizenship education in their school career do not point out its
importance.
Table 8: Importance of being informed about politics, differences between subgroups
not
important
(1)
2
3
4
very
important
(5)
d.k./n.a
.
GENDER
male
female
10
5
13
9
17
19
27
28
31
37
3
2
OCCUPATION
student
apprentice
8
9
6
23
18
18
31
16
35
33
2
1
IMMIGRANT BACKGROUND
native
7
immigrant
9
10
12
16
22
28
26
36
28
3
2
13
10
11
11
25
13
16
18
19
29
33
27
32
40
30
34
1
1
2
1
REGIONAL PROVENANCE
rural area
provincial town
metropolitan area
Total
n= 376, in percent
Source: GLO-PART Survey 2010
9
6
7
7
There is also a difference with regard to immigrant background when it comes to the question
whether one should be informed about politics before being entitled to vote. Native teenagers
tend to say that it is very important to be informed about politics slightly more often. When
looking at the differences with regard to regional provenance, it shows that this time youngsters
from the rural area place the least importance on this criterion, while it is the provincial town that
rates it the most important.
22
As yet, we can conclude: community-based criteria are more important for apprentices, natives
and teenagers in rural areas; competence-based criteria on the other hand are more important for
girls, students, natives and respondents in urban areas. But do the differences remain when we
examine multivariate relationships?
Table 9: Different opinions of different groups - multivariate analysis
COMMUNITY
B (SE)
Beta
-,025
-,013
(,104)
COMPETENCE
B (SE)
Beta
-,042
-,021
(,117)
IMMIGRANT BACKGROUND
-,434
(,127)
-,188
-,245
(,143)
-,102
EDUCATION
(student)
-,420
(,116)
-,194
,234
(,131)
,104
REGION
(rural area)
,698
(,131)
,334
-,198
(,147)
-,092
REGION
(provincial town)
,039
(,130)
,019
,116
(,146)
,056
(CONSTANT)
,161
(,150)
GENDER
(male)
-,053
(,168)
R2
0,188
0,041
298
298
n
Note: OLS regression, dependent variables: factor scores (community/competence)
Coefficients printed bold are highly significant (p < .01)
Source: GLO-PART Survey 2010
The multivariate analysis (see 9) confirms many of the group differences observed in the
bivariate tables. The regression model for community-based criteria has high explanatory power
(R²=0,188) and three coefficients turn out to be significant: native youth place higher importance
on these criteria, so do apprentices rather than students and respondents in rural areas. Our
analysis shows that young people’s opinions towards community-based criteria can to a
considerable extent be explained by three socio-demographic variables. A more detailed analysis
of particular community-based criteria reveals that we can observe sharper contrasts between
groups regarding the more exclusionary preconditions like country of birth (descent) and
language skills (culture) than regarding the more inclusive criteria like permanent residence and
taxpaying.
23
The model for competence-based criteria does not explain a lot of variance (R²=0,041) and
only one of the coefficients (provincial provenance) is slightly significant. This does not imply
that competence-based criteria are considered negligible by young people – we have seen that ,
for example, more than two thirds deem the cognitive ability to understand political processes an
essential precondition for the franchise. What the multiple regression model shows is that
opinions towards competence-based criteria for voting do not depend on whether one is male or
female, a student or an apprentice, an immigrant or a native, a country kid or a city slicker.
Concluding Remarks
In the study this paper is based on we have tried to examine young people’s political attitudes by
asking for their opinions about relevant criteria for the distribution of voting rights. The reasons
why we chose this approach were
-
to understand whether young people can be mobilized as voters around issues concerning
the “problem of constituting the demos” and
-
to find out which of the attitudes around which mobilization efforts can be made are
“universal” among youngsters and where there are differences between youth subgroups.
In order to structure our analysis we set up two presuppositions that have been scrutinized using
data from a quantitative peer survey as well as qualitative focus group discussions in three
Austrian cities. Drawing on theories of neo-institutionalism, we assumed that young people’s
attitudes mainly replicate the legal status quo and there is little space for democratic renewal.
And referring to theories stemming from an inequality-sensitive branch of political socialization
research, we assumed that there would be major attitudinal differences between youth subgroups
differentiated by gender, class, ethnicity, and regional provenance. Both hypotheses have to be
reformulated according to the findings:
Our analysis shows that young people do not only replicate the legal status quo in their attitudes
but that they reflect the existing law thoroughly and combine it with their own experiences and
opinions. Therefore they appreciate citizenship and the ability to understand political processes as
suffrage criteria. On the other hand they also see that residence provides people with a nexus to
24
the community (they have to bear the consequences of their decisions and contribute financially
by paying taxes) as well as a certain kind of knowledge necessary to make an informed voting
decision that cannot be acquired otherwise. This clearly contradicts the existing law that
enfranchises expatriates of Austrian descent. Additionally language skills are deemed relevant
because they also express a nexus to the community (cultural aspect) and provide the
indispensable precondition for gathering the knowledge that is necessary in order to make an
informed voting decision (functional aspect). When being discussed in the context of community
and competence – obviously these two aspects are covered by all relevant criteria – also the
importance of citizenship is put into perspective: to some it can act as a proxy for the criteria
relevant to acquire suffrage; to others it seems more like an exclusionary mechanism that
prevents those from casting a ballot that should actually be entitled to vote.
Not all young people consider all criteria equally (un)important. While we find no difference
between youth subgroups in terms of competence-based criteria, criteria relating to community
and belonging, especially the more restrictive ones related to origin and culture, are rated
differently by different youths. Students, immigrants and youngsters from rural areas consider
them more important than apprentices, natives and the small-town or urban youth. Based on the
data we have collected we can merely speculate about the deeper causal explanations for these
relationships: Earlier research shows that education, which is mostly connected with parents’
socio-economic status and thereby socialization within the family, has a strong effect on the
development of (extreme) right-wing and anti-immigrant attitudes among young people (Oepke
2005; Bevelander/Otterbeck 2010). Given the resemblance of the topics we assume that similar
causal effects could be at work when it comes to exclusionary attitudes regarding the distribution
of voting rights to foreigners. The more inclusive attitudes of immigrants when it comes to
community-based suffrage criteria are comprehensible referring to them being affected directly or
indirectly (family members) by the topic. In our focus groups often private examples were put
forth in order to illustrate the perceived unfairness of existing rules by teenagers with immigrant
background. Finally, the fact that the urban youth think more inclusive about expanding the
franchise to resident aliens than youngsters from the countryside could be explained referring to
the adolescents’ ideological self-image: youngsters from rural areas place themselves far more
right on a left-right-scale than the small town or urban youth. The assumption that ideological
self-image explains the effect of regional provenance on exclusionary attitudes regarding
25
community-based suffrage criteria is supported by the fact that, when self-image is included in
the multivariate model, the effect of regional provenance diminishes. obviously it is not the local
surroundings itself but the ideology that exerts influence here.
Acknowledgments
The research underlying this paper was carried out within the research programme Sparkling
Science funded by the Austrian Ministry for Science and Research (BMWF) as part of the project
“GLO-PART. Young Participation in Glo-cal Politics. Adolescent Perceptions of and
Interventions in Europeanized and Globalized Politics.” Sparkling Science aims at the promotion
of science among young people and thus makes it possible for scientists to include young people
as scientists in research projects. We especially want to thank the project leader Sieglinde
Rosenberger for her scientific guidance and illuminative comments on our research. The project
also benefited from the collaboration, insights and advice of Boris Schuld (WISUS) and Gilg
U.H. Seeber (University of Innsbruck). Thanks as well to all student researchers, survey
respondents and focus group discussants.
References
Albert, Mathias / Klaus Hurrelmann / Gudrun Quenzel (2010) (eds.): 16. Shell Jugendstudie.
Jugend 2010, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Almond, Gabriel A. (1987): Politische Kultur-Forschung – Rückblick und Ausblick, in: Dirk
Berg-Schlosser / Jörg Schissler (eds.): Politische Kultur in Deutschland. Bilanz und Perspektiven
der Forschung, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 27-38.
Almond, Gabriel A. / Sidney Verba (1963): The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and
Democracy in Five Nations, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Bauer, Ullrich (2010): Sozialisation und Ungleichheit. Eine Hinführung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften.
Bauer, Martin W. / George Gaskell (2000) (eds.): Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and
Sound. A Practical Handbook, London. Sage.
26
Beckman, Ludvig (2007): Who Should Vote? Conceptualizing Universal Suffrage in Studies of
Democracy, Democratization 15 (1), 29-48.
Bevelander, Pieter / Jonas Otterbeck (2010): Young people's attitudes towards Muslims in
Sweden, Ethnic and Racial Studies 33 (3), 404-425.
Blais, André / Louis Massicotte / Antoine Yoshinaka (2001): Deciding who has the right to vote:
a comparative analysis of election laws, Electoral Studies 20 (1), 41-62.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977): Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984): Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2005): Verstehen, in: Pierre Bourdieu / Gabrielle Balazs / Stéphane Beaud /
Sylvain Broccolichi / Patrick Champagne / Rosine Christin / Remi Lenoir / Francoise OEuvrard /
Michel Pialoux / Abdelmalek Sayad / Frank Schultheis / Charles Soulié (eds.): Das Elend der
Welt, Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 393-426.
Dahl, Robert (1989): Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Denzin, Norman K. (1970): The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods,
Chicago: Aldine.
Easton, David (1965): A systems analysis of political life, New York: John Wiley.
Easton, David / Jack Dennis (1969): Children in the Political System: Origins of Political
Legitimacy, New York: McGraw Hill.
Fahmy, Eldin (2006): Young Citizens. Young People’s Involvement in Politics and Decision
Making, London: Ashgate.
Flick, Uwe (2009): An Introduction to Qualitative Research, London: Sage.
Flick, Uwe (2011): Triangulation. Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Forbrig, Joerg (2005) (ed.): Revisiting youth political participation. Challenges for research and
democratic practice in Europe, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Gabriel, Oscar W (2008): Politische Einstellungen und politische Kultur, in: Oscar W. Gabriel /
Sabine Kropp (eds.): Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich. Strukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte,
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 181-214.
Gecas, Viktor (2001): Socialization, in: Edgar F. Borgatta and Rhonda J.V. Montgomery (eds.):
Encyclopedia of Sociology, Volume 4, New York: Macmillan, 2855-2864.
27
Goodin, Robert E. (2007): Enfranchising All-Affected Interests, and its Alternatives, Philosophy
and Public Affairs 35 (1), 40-68.
Greenstein, Fred I. (1960): The benevolent leader: children’s images of political authority,
American Polotical Science Review 54 (4), 934-943.
Greenstein, Fred I. (1965): Children and Politics, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Greiffenhagen, Sylvia (2002): Politische Sozialisation, in: Martin, Greiffenhagen / Sylvia
Greiffenhagen (eds.): Handwörterbuch zur politischen Kultur der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 407-418.
Grundmann, Matthias (2006): Sozialisation. Skizze einer allgemeinen Theorie, Konstanz: UVK
Verlagsgesellschaft.
Hall, Peter A. / Rosemary C. R. Taylor (1996): Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalisms, Political Studies 44 (5), 936-957.
Harris, Anita / Johanna Wyn / Salem Younes (2010): Beyond apathetic or activist youth:
'Ordinary' young people and contemporary forms of participation, Young 18 (1), 9-32.
Henn, Matt / Mark Weinstein / Dominic Wring (2002): A generation apart? Youth and political
participation in Britain, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 4 (2), 167-132.
Hooghe, Marc (2004): Political Socialization and the Future of Politics, Acta Politica 39 (4), 331341.
Hopf, Christel / Peter Rieker / Martina Sanden-Marcus (1995): Familie und Rechtsextremismus:
Familiale Sozialisation und rechtsextreme Orientierungen junger Männer, Weinheim: Juventa.
Hyman, Herbert H. (1959): „Political Socialization. A Study in the Psychology of Political
Behavior.“ New York: The Free Press
Katz, Richard S. (1997): Democracy and Elections, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krais, Beate / Gunter Gebauer (2008): Habitus, Bielefeld: transcript.
Krueger, Richard A./Casey, Mary Anne (2008): Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lamnek, Siegfried (2005): Gruppendiskussion. Theorie und Praxis. Weinheim: Beltz.
Mannheim, K. (1982): Structures of Thinking, London: Routledge & Kegan.
28
March, James G. / Johan P. Olsen (1984): The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in
political life, American Political Science Review 78 (3), 734-749.
Marsh, David (1971): Political Socialization: the Implicit Assumptions Questioned, British
Journal of Political Science 1 (4), 453-465.
Marsh, David / Therese O’Toole / Su Jones (2007): Young People and Politics in the UK: Apathy
or Alienation?, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mayring, Philipp (2004): Qualitative content analysis, in: Uwe Flick / Ernst von Kardorff / Ines
Steinke (eds.): A Companion to Qualitative Research, London: Sage, 266 - 269.
Mayring, Philipp (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken, Weinheim:
Beltz.
Merelman, Richard M. (1969): The Development of Political Ideology: A Framework for the
Analysis of Political Socialization, American Political Science Review 63 (3), 750-767.
Meyer, Ulrich (2003): Politische Sozialisation, in: Uwe Andersen / Wichard Woyke (eds.):
Handwörterbuch des politischen Systems der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Opladen:
Leske+Budrich.
Morgan, David L./Scannell, Alice U. (2003): Planning focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Muzzati, Stephen (2011): “mass media and socialization”, in: George Ritzer / J. Michael Ryan
(ed.): The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 375-376.
Näsström, Sofia (2011): The Challenge of the All-Affected Principle, Political Studies 59 (1),
116-134.
Niemi, Richard G. / Barbara I. Sobieszek (1977): Political Socialization, Annual Review of
Sociology 3, 209-233.
O’Toole, Therese / David Marsh / Su Jones (2003): Political Literacy Cuts Both Ways: The
Politics of Non-participation among Young People, The Political Quarterly 74 (3), 349-360.
Oepke, Maren (2005): Rechtsextremismus unter ost- und westdeutschen Jugendlichen. Einflüsse
von gesellschaftlichem Wandel, Familie, Freunden und Schule, Opladen: Verlag Barbara
Budrich.
Peters, B. Guy (2005): Institutional Theory in Political Science: The ‘New Institutionalism’,
London: Continuum.
Ptaszyńska, Aleksandra / Florian Walter (2011): Who shall, who can, who may? Young People’s
Opinions about Suffrage Criteria, Paper presented at the NYRIS Research Symposium, June 1315, 2011
29
Rosenberger, Sieglinde / Gilg Seeber (2008): Wahlen, Wien: Facultas.
Schmidt, Christiane (2003): "Am Material": Auswertungstechniken für Leitfadeninterviews, in:
Barbara Friebertshäuser / Annedore Prengel (eds.): Handbuch Qualitative Forschungsmethoden
in der Erziehungswissenschaft, Weinheim: Juventa, 544-568.
Schmidt, Christiane (2007): Analyse von Leitfadeninterviews, in Uwe Flick / Ernst von Kardorff
/ Ines Steinke (eds.): Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt,447456.
Schorb, Bernd / Erich Mohn, Helga Theunert (2002): „Sozialisation durch (Massen-)Medien“, in:
Klaus Hurrelmann / Dieter Ulich (ed.): Handbuch der Sozialisationsforschung, Weinheim und
Basel: Beltz, 493-508.
Schwingel, Markus (2005): Pierre Bourdieu zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.
Sears, David O. (1975): Political Socialization, in: Fred I. Greenstein / Nelson W. Polsby (eds.):
Handbook of Political Science, Volume 2, Reading: Addison-Wesley, 99-153.
Stacey, Barrie (1978): Political Socialization in Western Society. An analysis from a
life-span perspective, London: Arnold.
Tamke, Fanny (2008): Jugenden, soziale Ungleichheit und Werte.
Zusammenführung und empirische Überprüfung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Theoretische
Tashakkori, Abbas / Charles Teddlie (2010) (eds.): Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social
& Behavioral Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tillmann, Klaus-Jürgen (2010): Sozialisationstheorien. Eine Einführung in den Zusammenhang
von Gesellschaft, Institution und Subjektwerdung, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Torney-Purta, Judith (2004): Adolescents’ Political Socialization in Changing Contexts: An
International Study in the Spirit of Nevitt Sanford, Political Psychology 25 (3), 465-478.
Weale, Albert (2007): Democracy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Whelan, Frederick G. (1983): Prologue: democratic theory and the boundary problem, in: J. R.
Pennock / J. W. Chapman (ed.): Liberal Democracy (Nomos XXV), New York: New York
University Press, 13-47.
Wilks, Tom (2004): The Use of Vignettes in Qualitative Research into Social Work Values,
Qualitative Social Work 3 (1), 78-87.
Wunder, Delores F. (2011): “socialization, agents of”, in: George Ritzer / J. Michael Ryan (ed.):
The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 589-590.
30