Empowerment or democratic divide? Internet-based ...

Information Polity 17 (2012) 115–127 DOI 10.3233/IP-2012-0268 IOS Press

115

Empowerment or democratic divide? Internet-based political participation of young immigrants and young natives in Germany Viktoria Spaiser University of Bielefeld, PO Box 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany Tel.: +49 160 36062003; E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. In this paper, young people’s political participation on the Internet in Germany will be analyzed by statistical means and on the basis of survey data, comparing two groups: Germans (the majority group) and a minority group, consisting of young people from Turkey and various Arab countries, who share a religious afÞliation. The young people from a Turkish or Arab background turned out to be particularly politically active online and ofßine, despite being rather socioeconomically disadvantaged. Statistical models presented in this paper show that this is probably related to their grievances caused by discrimination experiences because of their religion. Generally, the results suggest that disadvantaged minority groups may appropriate the Internet in order to raise their voice, although with some constraints. Keywords: Political online participation, young people, minority groups, second-level digital divide

1. Introduction Since their very beginning, information and communication technologies have been associated with new possibilities for political participation [14]. New longitudinal studies show that young people in particular use the Internet increasingly to communicate and participate politically [10]. However, with the growing importance of the Internet for (young) citizens’ political participation, the question arises whether all social groups are able to beneÞt from this ongoing process. It is often suggested that especially socioeconomically advantaged groups are the beneÞciaries while disadvantaged groups are increasingly left behind [4,35]. While access to technology (Þrst-level digital divide) is no longer a problem, nowadays the focus lies on Internet skills and usage divide (second-level digital divide) [28, 30,31]. A speciÞc form of second-level digital divide is the democratic divide, which is the gap between those who actively use the Internet for politics, and those who do not [30,33]. Researchers are usually well aware of the digital divide debate, which suggests that socioeconomically disadvantaged groups like immigrants are being increasingly left behind in the information society [4,29]. But, there are also several researchers like Elias and Lemish [9], Hugger [20] or Kissau [22] who claim that the Internet plays an important role in empowering immigrants. The Internet gives people from immigrant backgrounds opportunities, such as getting information and an (informal) education. It is part of their socialization environment and may ease the arrival of immigrants in their new country. The Internet 1570-1255/12/$27.50 2012 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

116

V. Spaiser / Empowerment or democratic divide?

enhances the economic chances of people from immigrant backgrounds, supports communication, and, therefore, makes it easier for them to socialize with other people, immigrants and non-immigrants. They build support networks on the Internet, and therefore acquire social capital [9,20,22]. Studies also show that the Internet helps immigrants to build and sustain their transnational identities [16,34]. This strengthening and empowerment contributes to immigrants’ integration in their new home country [22]. One important part of integration is political integration, which includes granting people from immigrant backgrounds civil rights as well as political participation. The Internet may play an important role in the political participation of immigrants. Kissau and Hunger [23] claim that the Internet helps minority groups to draw attention to their niche agendas and to participate in political discourses. This is considered to be important because minority agendas are usually ignored due to the fact that public agenda providers (mainly the mass media) only issue mainstream agendas. Kissau and Hunger [23] have found some empirical support for their assumptions. Immigrants have built new political public spheres on the Internet and seize the chance to get involved in debates [23]. They challenge the mainstream images of immigrants and struggle to be accepted as citizens with a political voice [23]. However, it remains an open question whether those immigrants who participate politically online represent the immigrant communities or whether they constitute an immigrant elite, while the majority of immigrants remain politically disengaged on the Internet? This paper will take up this question. On the basis of survey data, young people’s political participation on the Internet in Germany will be analyzed, focusing in particular on two groups: the majority group of young native Germans and the minority group of young people with Turkish and Arab origins, with a belonging to Islam in common. Most studies of Internet access in Germany show that there are only minor differences between people from immigrant backgrounds and natives [27]. However, some studies suggest that there is a second-level digital divide for instance in terms of immigrants being less skilled in using computers [39]. The question therefore is what is the relation between empowerment through political online participation on the one hand and digital divide on the other hand? This paper will look at young people’s different political activities online, and identify signiÞcant differences between the two focus groups. The study is based on sociological rational-choice and resource models, adapted to explain political participation on the Internet and to analyze the relation between empowerment and digital divide. In Section two, theoretical assumptions on which statistical analyzes are based, will be described. The data basis and statistical methodologies will be explained brießy in Section three, giving also a description of the two focus groups. In Section four, different forms of political participation on the Internet and the differences between the two groups regarding political participation online will be presented. Statistical models derived from theoretical assumptions will be presented in Section Þve to explain political participation on the Internet and group differences. Finally, some conclusions from reported Þndings will be made. 2. Theoretical considerations Young people are said to prefer unconventional forms of political participation. Only a minority of them is afÞliated to political parties or ofÞcial political organizations. They prefer to become active in loose political networks and small grassroots political groups [7,11]. The Internet seems to meet these preferences. There are now many different forms of political Internet use, and the spectrum of possibilities is growing every day. To grasp the phenomenon seven categories of political participation and action on the Internet were identiÞed, which encompass various options of political activities on


117

Fig. 1. Theoretical model explaining political participation on the Internet.

the Internet: 1) search and reception of political information online; 2) production of political online content; 3) participation in political online discussions; 4) coordination of political activities online, online networking and online mobilization for political action; 5) institutionalized political participation online; 6) political campaigning online; and 7) “digital civil disobedience”. By “political” I mean every socially relevant activity that intends to change or to stabilize the societal structure, and thus the power relations among social groups, organizations, or institutions [26]. Political participation on the Internet is considered to be a form of unconventional political participation, which itself is a form of social action. In the research Þeld of political participation, rational-choice [25, 37] and resource models [3,29] were found to be capable of explaining political activities. Figure 1 shows the theoretical model explaining political participation on the Internet. Rational-choice models assume that there must be incentives for becoming involved in politics. The two most important incentives are discontentment with the political and/or societal situation, and social incentives. Discontentment with the political and/or social situation is often considered to be a starting point for political action in order to change the situation. However, empirical results on this “original” motivation for political participation are mixed, depending on the operationalization of discontentment [37]. Furthermore, in theoretical and empirical discussions it is assumed that discontentment itself is not enough; people must have the conviction that their political activities can make a difference in order to become involved. This attitude is called political efÞcacy. Some rational-choice models replace or complement the discontentment factor with a more direct form of incentive that drives people to demand changes – grievance [36]. Grievance is, traditionally, linked to relative deprivation. However, grievance may also originate in discrimination experiences. Minority groups are particularly affected by discrimination. There has been resentment against immigrants in some segments of the German population [1]. However, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks xenophobic prejudices have turned in particular against immigrants from Muslim countries. Representative, longitudinal research shows rising values for Islamophobia in the German population, even in the middle and upper social classes [19]. Thus, in Germany, it is currently the Muslim minority that is most likely to face severe discrimination, and this is one reason why this focus group was chosen for the study. Both, discontentment and grievance may result in anger or indignation – feelings which have potentially mobilizing effects. As already mentioned, rational-choice theories consider a second incentive to be important for political participation – social incentives. Social incentives refer to people’s political milieu. It is supposed that

118


individuals who are embedded in social networks with people that are politically interested and active are more likely to become politically engaged themselves. In such political milieus and networks people are rewarded for political commitment. This theoretical concept is closely related to the network aspect of the social capital theory described by Coleman [6] and Putnam [38]. Rational-choice models can be complemented by resource models to raise explanation power. The resource model assumes that political engagement may be explained by the availability of resources, such as socioeconomic status, education, skills, and social capital in terms of membership in groups, associations, and organizations, for example. In almost all studies one of the most important resources that were found to affect political participation was socioeconomic status, and usually related to this education [2,29,37]. Other resources such as skills are closely linked to these two central resources. For political participation on the Internet, I considered Internet skills to be an important resource. Finally, social capital has to be taken into account. As already mentioned, social capital is closely connected to social incentives. People involved in politicized milieus not only get rewards for political participation but can also beneÞt from knowledge, experience, and other resources (material and ideal) usually available in such networks. 3. Data and methodology Data was collected in the context of a survey among 2,082 young people of the ages of 15 to 26 in school classes, including four different types of German schools representing different educational levels. The distribution of these various types of schools in the sample is nearly consistent with representative statistical Þndings on the nationwide distribution of young people with different immigrant and nonimmigrant backgrounds to different types of schools [13]. Data collection took place from November 2009 to March 2010, in four German cities: Berlin, Bielefeld, Cologne, and Frankfurt. A printed questionnaire was used for the survey. Prior to the main survey, a pretest was conducted with 286 people to evaluate the survey questionnaire. The sample of the main survey is clustered, as the survey was conducted within school classes; that is, the individuals are clustered within school classes. For that reason, and because the survey was conducted in four major cities and mainly in schools located in city districts with high numbers of inhabitants with immigrant backgrounds in order to survey a sufÞcient number of different immigrants, the sample is not representative. Young Germans are therefore underrepresented in the sample. Weighting was omitted because the aim of the study was not to get representative descriptive results for the overall population of that age in the four cities, or even for the whole of Germany, but rather to conduct group comparisons by multigroup analyses. For this purpose, weighting is not useful, especially as weighting usually poses new problems, e.g. regarding the estimation of standard errors [p. 163][21]. In this paper, only some results from multigroup analysis focusing on two groups (Germans and German-Muslims) will be presented. Both groups were established based on origin: 1. Young Germans (Ger) without an immigrant background (N = 771) 2. Young people with Turkish or Arab (TuAr) background (N = 626) It is acknowledged that people with Turkish and Arab origins must be distinguished for language and cultural differences reasons. When merging these two groups, it is not the purpose to deny these differences. However, what both groups do share is their religious origin and similar experiences as German-Muslims because of these religious origins. These shared experiences turned out to be of much higher importance than the differences, at least in the context of political online participation.


119

Concerning the methodology, frequencies of different forms of political participation on the Internet will be explored. Secondly, structural equation models that serve to explain political participation on the Internet will be presented, taking into consideration different factors of inßuence. Structural equation modeling is a powerful multivariate statistic method, combining different statistical analysis methods into one statistical model. In its most common form it is a combination of conÞrmatory factor analyses and structural or path analysis. Factor analysis is used to explore and test the interrelation between two or more observed (manifest) variables, based on the assumption that interrelation indicates an unobserved (latent) factor that explains the relation between the observed variables. Thus, a factor analysis estimates the latent variables. A path analysis encompasses various regression relations between independent latent variables, and towards the dependent latent variable(s) [24]. The effect that one variable has upon another variable is measured in regression coefÞcients. Beta coefÞcients are standardized regression effects and therefore comparable in their size: the higher the Beta coefÞcient the bigger the impact of one variable upon the other. The structural models in Section Þve consist only of signiÞcant Beta coefÞcients; numbers above the arrows in the graphical displays of the models. Structural equation models are assessed in their validity and reliability using various model Þts. The most common measures of Þt are Chi-Square (a test of statistical signiÞcance with degrees of freedom (df) required for the test), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; good models should have an RMSEA of 0.05 or less), SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Residual; good models should have an SRMR of 0.05 or less as well), and CFI (Comparative Fit Index; good models should have a CFI of 0.9 or more) [24,41]. Additionally the R-Square serves as a measure to assess the explanation power of the model as it gives the proportion of variability of a dependent variable that is accounted for by the statistical model. The clustered data structure was taken into consideration by computing a “COMPLEX MODEL” [32, p. 233ff]. All models were estimated with the Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) Estimator. Missing data was handled with Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimation. 4. Political participation on the Internet Table 1 shows the seven categories for political online participation that were discussed in Section two with corresponding items. Young people were asked to specify how often they have undertaken the particular activity on the Internet, having the option to choose between four answer categories: never; once; several times (two to four times); often (Þve times or more), with some adjusted answer categories for reading online news, using the Internet for coordination of political activities, and subscribing to a political mailing list/newsletter. The reference to young people with immigrant backgrounds in general shall only provide a comparison template, to make it easier to assess the differences between young Germans and young people from Turkish and Arab countries. For more details on political online participation of young people with immigrant backgrounds in general please see [40]. Generally, the results depicted in Table 1 tell us that the Internet is particularly important for politically interested young people in terms of information gathering and for coordinating political activities. However, there is still a considerable number of people who use the Internet in more diverse ways for political purposes, taking part in political online discussions, writing political blogs or articles, writing emails to politicians, taking part in online protest campaigns, and even a few who reported so-called digital civil disobedience activities, such as virtual sit-ins. Table 1 also shows clearly that immigrant minorities, in general, and German-Muslims, in particular, are not the ones lacking behind; on the contrary, in many aspects the minority group of young people with Turkish and Arab origins is even more politically active on the Internet than the majority group

120

V. Spaiser / Empowerment or democratic divide? Table 1 Political participation on the Internet (frequencies in percent) Germans Immigrants Turkish/Arab (N = 771) (N = 1304) (N = 626) search and reception of political information online reading online news several times a week/daily 57.9 56 55.3 total (at least rarely) 96.3 92 93.2 production of political online content writing political weblogs, several times/ often 6.3 11.2 12.8 online-articles total (at least once) 14.7 21 24 participation in political online discussions participation in political several times/ often 20.5 22.1 27 online discussions total (at least once) 36 37.9 41.9 coordination of political activities online, online networking and online mobilization for political action Internet for coordinating frequently/permanently 42.8 52.1 57.3 political activities total (at least infrequently) 55.2 68 75.5 subscription to political several/many 3.7 5.3 5.6 mailing list/ newsletter total (at least once) 13.2 13.6 16.9 online-mobilizing people several times/ often 10.9 15.3 19.4 for political activities total (at least once) 22.8 30.4 35.9 institutionalized political participation online participation in several times/ often 14 10.7 10.1 online-petition total (at least once) 33.1 25.7 25 contacting a politician / several times/ often 3 5.3 6.8 political group online total (at least once) 10.5 12 14.6 political campaigning online participation in protestseveral times/ often 6.6 10.1 11.2 email campaign total (at least one time) 19.4 20.3 22.5 digital civil disobedience digital civil disobedience several times/ often 3.2 3.5 3.4 (virtual sit-ins) total (at least once) 5.9 7.3 8.1 The given frequencies sum up those individuals who chose either the answer category “several times” or “often”, unless otherwise noted. The bold numbers give the frequencies for those who have undertaken the speciÞed activity at least once, thus summing up all individuals who answered “several times”, “often”, or “once”.

of Germans. This is related to the fact that, generally, these young people are more active politically than the young Germans. Political activism in general (ofßine) was computed from 16 items, asking young people whether and to what extent (never; occasionally; often, that is, at least once a month) they are active in particular political issues; for instance, environmental issues, data security, human rights, fundamental political changes, and so forth. These issues should depict the speciÞc political interests of young people. Most of these items have been used in the German longitudinal and representative Shell Youth Study [2] to measure, in a differentiated manner, political and civil society activities of young people in Germany. While 25.1% of young Germans reported being very active in the political or civil society context (36.9% more are active on an occasional basis), 55.2% of young people with Turkish or Arab origins reported this (26.4% more occasionally). As young people from Turkey and Arab countries are the most socioeconomically disadvantaged in German society [12,13,18], what could explain this unexpected Þnding? Rational-choice model argumentation would put forward that young people from a minority background are more likely to be politically active, because they are more likely to be discontent with the social and/or political situation, and/or they are more aggrieved because of their experiences of discrimination in society. Thus, they


121

have more incentive to take up political action. This would apply particularly to young Muslims – that is, to young people of Turkish or Arab descent – because they are particularly perceived as foreigners and therefore discriminated against in Germany.

5. Models explaining political participation on the Internet Corresponding to theoretical assumptions, seven latent constructs were taken into consideration as variables explaining political participation online. Before analyzing interrelations of the model variables, the measurement model, based on factor analyses, will be presented brießy. As already mentioned, latent variables are constructed via factor analyses with manifest variables that are used to operationalize the latent constructs and, therefore, the theoretical constructs, which the latent constructs represent. Table 2 shows the latent constructs with their respective manifest variables and factor loadings,1 as well as the measure for internal consistency of latent variables, Cronbachs Alpha.2 Political participation on the Internet was constructed on the basis of Þve manifest items (see Table 2), because these items best operationalize political participation on the Internet. Items for the two other categories of political Internet use (information consumption and digital civil disobedience) were left out because Þrst, political information is gathered by the majority of young people, including those who are not active politically, and, second, digital civil disobedience is a form of political online protest that is known only to a very small minority, and thus not appropriate for measuring political online activities across a broader base. The socioeconomic status, which is one of the latent constructs, but not listed in Table 2, was computed beforehand on the basis of parents’ educational level (years spent at school and, where applicable, at university), and of parents’ occupation prestige according to Ganzeboom and Treiman [15]. In the structural equation model it was, therefore, used like a manifest interval variable and not like a latent construct resulting from factor analysis. Factor and reliability analyses show mostly satisfying results for both groups (exceptions are highlighted in Table 2). Therefore the latent constructs, which are used to explain political online participation, work essentially for both groups, and conÞgural invariance is veriÞed.3 The results for the two latent constructs, discontentment and discrimination, are only given for the respective single group, because discontentment was used to explain political participation on the Internet for the German group, while discrimination works best for the group of young people from Turkey and Arab countries, as will be explained later. While conÞgural variance could be approved in multiple group conÞrmatory factor analysis, metric invariance of factor loadings could not be established for all latent constructs,4 thus a 1

Factor loadings which are one of the main results of a factor analysis are correlation coefÞcients between the variables and factors. The higher the factor loading (preferably > 0.500), the more variance of the observed (manifest) variable is explained by the (latent) factor [8]. 2 Cronbachs Alpha is obtained by computing a reliability analysis for the respective latent construct. If a set of items is closely related as a group, a high value (preferably > 0.600) of alpha is obtained, indicating that the items measure the latent construct reliably [8]. 3 ConÞgural invariance is given if the structures of the factor loading matrices are equivalent across groups. ConÞgural invariance is tested by computing the same unrestricted conÞrmatory factor analysis for all groups separately [41]. 4 Metric invariance is tested by constraining the factor loadings of the same items to be equal across groups in a single multigroup conÞrmatory factor analysis. The model Þts of the restricted model must not be considerably worse than the model Þts of the unrestricted model. In this way, not only the structural but also the metric equivalence of the latent constructs across groups is veriÞed [41].

122

V. Spaiser / Empowerment or democratic divide? Table 2 Factor analysis and reliability test results: Factor loadings and Cronbachs Alpha

Items (manifest variables)

Ger (N = 771) Whether the respective persons are political active (in political party, political group, association, else) parents’ political activities 0.693 siblings’ political activities 0.513 relatives’ political activities 0.670 friends’ political activities 0.501 Internet friends’ political activities 0.578 religious community’s political activities 0.711 α (political milieu) 0.657 Self-assessment based on degree of agreement/disagreement (4-Likert-Scale) to: “I know which online information sources are reliable and where to be cautious.” 0.614 “I use anonymizing technologies to protect my privacy on the Internet.” 0.642 “I am an active Internet user, e.g. posting my own contributions online.” 0.679 “I know what TCP and IP protocols are and what they are used for.” 0.782 α (self-reported Internet skills) 0.609 Degree of agreement/disagreement (4-Likert-Scale) to: “People like me can have an impact on Government’s decision-making.” 0.823 “I think it makes sense to take political action.” 0.607 α (political efÞcacy) 0.523 Frequency (see Table 1): protest email campaign participation 0.667 e-petition participation 0.620 online political debates participation 0.706 writing political blogs, online articles, . . . 0.715 using Internet for coordinating political activities 0.608 α (political online participation) 0.653 Frequency (never – infrequently (1–2x) – often (3–9x) – very often (10 times or more) of: you/your female family members have been treated badly because of head scarf – having been called a terrorist (even if it was meant to be a joke) – Islam having been insulted in front of you – not getting job/internship because of you being Muslim – α (discrimination because of denomination) – Degree of agreement/disagreement (4-Likert-Scale) to: “In Germany more and more people are being marginalized” 0.837 “In Germany the rich get richer and richer, and the poor get poorer and poorer” 0.597 α (societal/political discontentment) 0.573 Feelings of anger (never – infrequently (1–2x) – often (3-9x) – very often (10 times and more) rage 0.762 annoyance 0.638 anger 0.877 testiness 0.620 α (feelings of anger) 0.816

TuAr (N = 626) 0.793 0.782 0.812 0.789 0.747 0.703 0.859 0.620 0.655 0.708 0.707 0.596 0.803 0.622 0.450 0.647 0.599 0.718 0.746 0.618 0.675 0.776 0.755 0.792 0.655 0.732 – – – 0.715 0.639 0.676 0.697 0.783

single multigroup structural equation model is not advisable as relations in such a model would not be entirely comparable across groups. This suggests computing separate models for the groups. Separate models are also supported by the fact that not only do political online participation levels differ across the two groups but also the mechanisms explaining political participation, as the following results will show. Thus, a single overall model for both groups will not be presented, but can be looked up in Spaiser [40]. Before discussing the two single models for Germans and for young German-Turks and GermanArabs, a look at means, standard deviations and Etas of the various latent constructs in Table 3 might be

123

V. Spaiser / Empowerment or democratic divide? Table 3 Central model variables (means and standard deviation SD in the brackets) Germans Immigrants Turkish/Arab (N = 771) (N = 1304) (N = 626) Discontentment M 1.84 1.83 1.82 (scale 0 to 3) SD 0.65 0.72 0.74 Discrimination M – – 1.57 (scale 0 to 3) SD – – 2.23 Feelings of anger M 1.79 1.81 1.78 (scale 0 to 3) SD 0.74 0.77 0.77 Political milieu M 0.57 0.68 0.81 (scale 0 to 7) SD 0.96 1.34 1.43 Socioeconomic status M 59.49 51.37 47.86 (scale 0 to 100) SD 13.42 14.75 14.18 Internet skills M 1.48 1.42 1.38 (scale 0 to 3) SD 0.69 0.69 0.66 Political efÞcacy M 1.42 1.35 1.45 (scale 0 to 3) SD 0.79 0.80 0.78 Political participation online M 0.56 0.65 0.70 (scale 0 to 3) SD 0.56 0.59 0.59 Eta refers to comparison of Germans and young German-Turks/German-Arabs. ∗∗ : p < 0.01 (ANOVA). ∗ : p < 0.05 (ANOVA). n.s.: not signiÞcant.

Eta n.s. – n.s. 0.103∗∗ 0.387∗∗ 0.062∗ n.s. 0.118∗∗

important, to understand the differences regarding the various variables between the two focus groups.5 The means are based on sum indices for the constructs, computed on the basis of manifest variables that were used in factor analysis as indicators for the latent constructs. Means are to be interpreted against the scaling background; generally, the higher the value, the stronger the feature characteristic in the respective group. Table 3 shows what was already visible from Table 1, that young people from Turkish and Arab regions are signiÞcantly more likely to use the Internet politically than young Germans, and are also more likely to grow up in rather politicized social milieus. However, at the same time, they are clearly disadvantaged when it comes to their socioeconomic situation and their Internet skills. The Þrst model in Fig. 2 shows mechanisms explaining political participation on the Internet for young Germans. Based on R-Square, 55.2% of the original variability of political online participation is explained by this model. First of all, the model shows that the theoretical assumptions expressed in Section two may well explain political participation on the Internet. The two most important factors are Internet skills and political milieu. That is, if young people are embedded in a politicized social environment, and if their Internet skills are high, they are more likely to become politically active on the Internet. Another important factor explaining political activities on the Internet is political efÞcacy, which again is more likely to be of high value in a politicized social environment. The more young people believe that their action can make a difference the more likely they are to become politically active on the Internet. The discontentment factor is also signiÞcant, even if the effect size is not very big. Thus, those young Germans who are generally dissatisÞed with the political and social situation are more likely to become politically active on the Internet. But it is not only discontentment combined with 5 Eta is measured in the context of an analysis of variance (ANOVA), a test of strength of the relationship between two variables. The independent variable must be a categorical variable (e.g. group) and the dependent variable must be an interval or ratio variable (e.g. socioeconomic status) [5, p. 693]. Eta is a number between zero and one indicating the effect size: The bigger the Eta, the more the studied groups differ in a particular feature.

124


Fig. 2. Empirical model explaining political participation on the Internet for young Germans.

Fig. 3. Empirical model explaining political participation on the Internet for young people with Turkish and Arab backgrounds.

subjective rationality expressed in political efÞcacy that is having an effect. Emotions (anger feelings) also play a role. And emotions of anger and indignation are caused partly by societal or political discontent. Finally, there is another factor having an indirect impact; socioeconomic status. On the one side, politicized milieus are more likely to be rather socioeconomically well-off. On the other side, the socioeconomically disadvantaged are more likely to be discontent with the societal and political situation. Thus, socioeconomic status has, in this case, somewhat oppositional effects. We get a different picture though if looking at the model for young people of Turkish or Arab origin (see Fig. 3). Grievance in terms of experiences of discrimination owing to religion plays a major role here to explain political participation on the Internet. Indeed, grievance is the second most important inßuence factor after Internet skills. Discontentment would work in this model too, but doesn’t have such a big impact. This Þnding supports the assumption that one reason for this group being politically


125

most active online and ofßine is their high level of grievance, as a result of discrimination experiences they themselves have had in society. Such experiences also breed feelings of anger among these young people, and this anger may feedback to political online participation, additionally to the direct effect of grievance on political Internet use. As for the Germans, Internet skills represent the most important factor in this model. However, in the case of young people from Turkey and Arab countries, this indispensable resource is related to their socioeconomic situation; that is, young German-Turks and German-Arabs are more likely to acquire Internet skills if their socioeconomic status is rather well-off. Interestingly, this is not the case for the young Germans. In their case, Internet skills are only related to the frequency of Internet usage, something that is also relevant for young people from Turkey and Arab countries. This alarming interdependence between Internet skills and socioeconomic status in the case of young German-Turks and German-Arabs may, indeed, prohibit an even greater use of the Internet for political activities, because of the low socioeconomic status in this group on average. Another difference between the two models is that, although the socioeconomic status inßuences Internet skills in the case of young people from Turk and Arab countries, it doesn’t have an impact on the politization of their social environment, nor on the likelihood of experiencing discrimination. Apart from this, the mechanisms explaining political online participation are rather similar in both groups, with variables of inßuence and their interrelations like political efÞcacy and political milieu. Altogether, 40.5% of the original variability of political participation on the Internet of young people with Turkish and Arab origin is explained by the variables in this model. 6. Conclusions The results of the study clearly show that not only do groups of advantaged young people beneÞt from the new opportunities of political participation on the Internet, but it seems that there is also a chance that the Internet may also help to empower more marginalized groups to take up action, and to raise their voice on the Internet. Thus, this study supports results from those previous studies that were assuming empowerment effects of immigrants’ Internet usage, additionally showing that it is not only a tiny immigrant elite that is able to use the Internet for political empowerment. The digital divide is not inevitable. Indeed, research on the digital divide shows that there is no simple divide between distinct groups. Rather, gaps are constantly shifting [17]. The marginalized are also able to appropriate the Internet for their purposes. However, there are still disadvantages that prohibit marginalized groups from exhausting all the new possibilities. Internet skills are important qualiÞcations; indispensable for self-empowering appropriation of the Internet. However, these skills are amongst others linked to socioeconomic status and therefore to education [23,28,42], particularly among the marginalized. Low socioeconomic status, and usually related to this a low educational level, may still be an obstacle for political activities online, thus contributing to the democratic divide, as anticipated by the digital divide research. However, disadvantaged people have the chance to overcome this obstacle to some extent, as long as they are highly motivated, supported by their social networks, and able to acquire at least some necessary Internet skills. The results show furthermore that theoretical rational-choice and resource models originally developed to explain political participation ofßine are also applicable to the new context of political participation online. Thus, it may be reasonable to conduct further research using these theoretical concepts to advance our understanding of political participation on the Internet and to elaborate these theories. One practical question that arises from the results is how government institutions can make use of young people’s political online participation? First of all, it is necessary to be aware of the fact that

126


(young) people only invest time and resources in political actions if there is something that is really bothering them, that makes them angry. Strong discontentment or even indignation is often a trigger. And if discontentment or grievance meets the attitude that people are able to change things if they become involved in politics, then political action becomes more likely. The advantage of the Internet is that it provides easier access to political action for (young) people who have reached the point of being motivated to act, which is more likely to happen if they are surrounded by people that encourage their political interest and participation. If the aim is to enhance participation on the Internet, it is Þrst of all necessary to show (young) people why respective political issues might be important to them. Equally, it is necessary to know about the speciÞc concerns and discontentment of different social groups, in order to detect those issues that are relevant to (young) people, and that may drive them to become involved. In each case, people’s motivation to participate will increase once they are able to see that their action leads to meaningful results. Furthermore, government institutions must learn from what is already happening politically on the Internet, and learn to adapt to these practices, and take up ideas formulated and tried out by young people regarding online participation. If young people are interested in participating they will Þnd ways of online participation but, at the same time, politicians must Þnd ways to respond to these new forms of participation, such as protest email campaigns or online debates. One problem is probably that online participation is often not appreciated and is considered to be of lesser value than conventional participation, or even unconventional ofßine participation, and this is one reason why government institutions haven’t yet succeeded in making reasonable use of online participation. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

R. Alba, P. Schmidt and M. Wasmer, Germans and Immigrants: Friends, Strangers or Foes? Empirical results and theoretical explanations. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2000. (in German) M. Albert, K. Hurrelmann and G. Quenzel, Youth 2010. 16th Shell Youth Study: A pragmatic generation asserts itself. Frankfurt: Fischer, 2010. (in German) H.E. Brady, S. Verba and K.L. Schlozman, Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation, American Political Science Review 89 (1995), 271–294. J. Brundidge and R.E. Rice, Political engagement online. Do the information rich get richer and the like-minded more similar? in: Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, A. Chadwick and P.N. Howard, eds, London and New York: Routledge, 2009, pp. 144–156. A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. J.S. Coleman, Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988), 95–120. P. Dahlgren, Young Citizens and New Media. Learning for Democratic Participation, New York and London: Routledge, 2007. P.P. Eckstein, Applied statistics with SPSS: A practical introduction for scientists, Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2008. (in German) N. Elias and D. Lemish, When all else fails. The Internet and adolescent-immigrants’ informal learning, in: Informal learning and digital media: Constructions contexts and consequences, K. Drotner, H.S. Jensen and K.C. Schroder, eds, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008, pp. 138–154. M. Emmer, G. Vowe and J. Wolling, Citizens online. The Evolution of political Online-Communication in Germany, Konstanz: UVK, 2011. (in German) E. Fahmy, Young Citizens. Young People’s Involvement in Politics and Decision Making. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2006. Federal OfÞce for Migration and Refugees, Advances in integration. The situation of Þve biggest immigrant groups in Germany, Nürnberg, 2010. (in German) FGCMRI (Federal Government Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration), 7th Report of the Government Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration on the situation of immigrants in Germany, Berlin, 2007. (in German) P. Ferdinand, The Internet, democracy and democratization, London: Frank Cass, 2000. H.B.G. Ganzeboom and D.J. Treiman, Internationally Comparable Measures of Occupational Status for the 1988 International Standard ClassiÞcation of Occupations, Social Science Research 25, (1996), 201–239. V.M. Gonzales and L.A. Castro, Keeping Strong Connections to the Homeland via Web-based Tools: The Case of Mexican Migrant Communities in the United States, Journal of Community Informatics 3(3) (2007).

V. Spaiser / Empowerment or democratic divide? [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

127

D. Gunkel, Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide, New Media and Society 5 (4) (2003), 499–522. M. Harring, C. Rohlfs and C. Palentien, Perspectives in education. Children and adolescents in formal, non-formal and informal education processes, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2007. W. Heitmeyer, Deutsche Zustände. Folge 9, Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2010. K.U. Hugger, Young Immigrants Online. Looking for acceptation and afÞrmation of belonging, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2009. (in German) B. Jann, Einführung in die Statistik, Munich: Oldenbourg, 2005. K. Kissau, The potential of the Internet for integration of immigrants, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008. (in German) K. Kissau and U. Hunger, Immigrants’ political spheres on the Internet. New chances in the “long tail” of politics, Erfurt: Nomos, 2009. R.B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, (3rd Ed.), New York: Guildford Press, 2010. J.E. Leighley, Attitudes, Opportunities and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political Participation, Political Research Quarterly 48 (1995), 181–209. K. Lenk, Politische Soziologie. Strukturen und Integrationsformen der Gesellschaft. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988. C. Lins, Immigrants’ Internet usage in Germany. Results from a special analysis of (N)ONLINER Atlas 2008, in: Internet and immigration. Theoretical approaches and empirical Þndings, U. Hunger and K. Kissau, eds., Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2009, pp. 151–172. (in German) S. Livingstone, Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide, New Media & Society 9(4) (2007), 671–696. C. Lüdemann, Political participation, incentives and resources. Testing different social action models and afÞliated theories with ALLBUS 1998, in: Political participation in Germany. Empirical results and theoretical explanations, A. Koch, M. Wasmer and P. Schmidt, eds, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2001, pp. 43–72. (in German) S.-J. Min, From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest, and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7(1) (2010), 22–35. K. Mossberger, Toward digital citizenship. Addressing inequality in the information age, in: Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, A. Chadwick and P.N. Howard, eds, London and New: York Routledge, 2009, pp. 173–185. L.K. Muthén and B.O. Muthén, Mplus. Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables. User’s Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén, 2010. T. Nam, Whither Digital Equality?: An Empirical Study of the Democratic Divide, Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2010. C. Navarrete and E. Huerta, Building Virtual Bridges to Home: The Use of the Internet by Transnational Communities of Immigrants, International Journal of Communication, Law and Policy 11, (2006). P. Norris, Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. K.D. Opp, Grievances and Participation in Social Movements, American Sociological Review 53 (1988), 853–864. K.D. Opp and S.E. Finkel, Political protest, rationality and life styles. An empirical comparison of alternative theoretical models, in: Political participation in Germany. Empirical results and theoretical explanations, A. Koch, M. Wasmer and P. Schmidt, eds, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2001, pp. 73–108. (in German) R.D. Putnam, Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. M. Senkbeil and O. Walter, Digital divide among adolescents from immigrant background, Schools going online 2 (2009). (in German) V. Spaiser, Young People’s Political Participation on the Internet in Germany: Empowered Ethnic Minority Groups?, Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference (dg.o 2011) Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, 2011. J. Reinecke, Structural equation modeling in social sciences. Munich and Wien: Oldenbourg, 2005. (in German) J.A.G.M. van Dijk, One Europe, digitally divided, in: Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, A. Chadwick and P. N. Howard, eds, London and New York: Routledge, 2009, pp. 288–304.

1. Spaiser, Viktoria/Hedström, Peter/Sumpter, David J.T./Jansson, Kim/Nordvik, Monika K. (2014): “Identifying Complex Dynamics in Social Systems: The Case of School Segregation.” Sociological Methods & Research (in review). 2. Spaiser, Viktoria/Ranganathan, Shyam/Mann, Richard P./Sumpter, David J.T. (2014): “The dynamics of democracy, development and cultural values.” PLoS ONE. (accepted, will be published in May 2014). 3. Ranganthan, Shyam/Spaiser, Viktoria/Mann, Richard P./Sumpter, David J.T. (2014): “Bayesian Dynamical Systems Modeling in Social Sciences.” PLoS ONE 9(1): e86468. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086468 4. Ranganthan, Shyam/Spaiser, Viktoria/Mann, Richard P./Sumpter, David J.T. (2013): “bdynsys. R package for Bayesian Dynamical Systems Modeling.” On: CRAN: http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/bdynsys/index.html (a follow up paper in the Journal of Statistical Software is work in progress currently) 5. Spaiser, Viktoria (2013): „Neue Partizipationsmöglichkeiten? Wie Jugendliche mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund das Internet politisch nutzen.“(In English: New Participation possibilities? How Young people with and without immigrant background use the Internet politically.) Beltz Juventa. 6. Mansel, Jürgen/Spaiser, Viktoria (2013): „Ausgrenzungsdynamiken. In welchen Lebenslagen Jugendlichen Fremdgruppen abwerten.“ (In English: Dynamics of exclusion. In what life situations do young people discriminate against out-groups) Beltz Juventa. 7. Spaiser, Viktoria (2013): “Young Immigrants’ Internet Political Participation in Germany. Comparing German East Europeans and German Turks.” International Journal of E-Politics, Vol. 4(1), 1-17. 8. Spaiser, Viktoria (2012): “Empowerment or democratic divide? Internet-based political participation of young immigrants and young natives in Germany.” Information Polity, Vol. 17(2), 115-127.