Political activism and civic education among Australian secondary school students.

Political activism and civic education among Australian secondary school students

Lawrence J. Saha The Australian National University 

This paper investigates the impact of school variables on student political knowledge and political activity. The study is based on survey questionnaire data from 1311 secondary school students in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. The analysis focuses on the importance of civic knowledge, democratic values and dispositions towards normative and nonnormative political activity. The findings show that many Australian students have had experience with normative forms of political activity, such as signing petitions or writing letters. Fewer indicate that they have engaged in forms of non-normative political behaviour, such as occupying buildings or participating in violent demonstrations. Students oriented to normative political activism tended to be female and more supportive of human rights and freedoms, whereas those oriented to non-normative political activism were generally male, alienated from school, and not supportive of rights and freedoms. Exposure to civics instruction was positively related to political knowledge and normative forms of political activity.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between civics education and political activity among Australian secondary school students. The assumption underlying this investigation is that, already in secondary school, students not only acquire cognitive skills related to academic knowledge, but also skills related to the adult social positions they will occupy later in life. One such life skill relates to participation in the social and political culture of society. The legitimisation of this participation is, in the first instance, related to the notion of citizenship. This notion, in turn, is related to the goals and content of courses that teach about government, civic competence and citizenship.

Concept of active citizenship 

The concerns about citizenship have a long history in political and social thought. Whether one examines the classical writings of Greece and Rome, the enlightenment writers of the 18th and 19th centuries, or the recent 20th century advocates of suffrage, human fights or civic duties, one finds that the notion of citizenship has always been seen as a complicated and multifaceted concept (Riesenberg, 1992).

There are many meanings attributed to the notion of citizenship. Perhaps the most common sociological conception is derived from Marshall (1965) who saw citizenship as `a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the fights and duties with which the status is endowed' (p. 92). However, throughout the centuries, the possession of these rights and duties has been interpreted as freedom from despotism and tyranny, and not applicable to a person who is a political subject (Adler, 1952). Thus a `citizen' who can be manipulated, coerced or intimidated by a government is a citizen in name only, and is no different from the person who is subject to despotism and tyranny.

It is in this context that the distinction made by Kant (1952) in his work, The science of right, between `active' and `passive' citizenship becomes relevant. Kant was of the view that three juridical attributes are necessary for a person to be a citizen: (a) constitutional freedom, (b) civil equality, and (c) political independence. He saw the third as problematic with respect to members of society who were constitutionally free and equal, but who were in some way subject to the will of others. His examples of the latter included the 'apprentice', the employed `woodcutter', and the `resident tutor as distinguished from a schoolmaster' (pp. 436-437). Indeed Kant surmised that `the latter conception [a citizen who is a subject] appears to stand in contradiction to the definition of citizen as such' (p. 437). In other words, a `subject' citizen is a `passive' citizen, and as such is a citizen in name only, and in practice is no different from a person living under political despotism or tyranny.

It follows from the above that, although all citizens in a democracy enjoy constitutional freedom and civil equality, only the politically active citizens enjoy full political independence. They alone possess the full fights and powers to determine the conditions of their own existence and continuance, and do not leave it to the arbitrary will of others. Thus, in many ways, political ignorance and political apathy are contributing factors to passive citizenship because, although enjoying freedom and equality, persons with these attributes cannot have a meaningful say in the conditions of their own existence and continuance in society.

This concern about types of citizenship has a legacy as old as the concept itself, and the distinction between active and passive citizenship is part of this legacy. These concepts are especially linked to that of democracy (Braungart & Braungart, 1997), particularly since a democracy can be defined as a form of political power and governance in which its members must be knowledgeable, participative and active citizens (Minogue, 1985).

The notion of active citizenship has its origins in the Aristotelian, neoclassical tradition that emphasises participatory democracy and the public sphere of citizenship.(1) In this context, citizenship rests at the core of life, relates to citizen duties, responsibilities and practices, communitarianism (Gemeinschaft), and civic humanism. Conversely passive citizenship originates from a more liberal, `bourgeois', urban tradition which sees citizens as law abiding, private, individualistic (Gesellschaft), and entitled to fights. In this latter context, citizenship is a status to be enjoyed, but it forms the outer frame of life rather than the core (Burchell, 1995).

The above discussion is relevant for understanding the relationship between citizenship, political activism, and education, and in particular what is referred to as civic education or citizenship education. The concern of civic education is `the development of citizenship or civic competence by conveying the unique meaning, obligation, and virtue of citizenship in a particular society or the acquisition of values, dispositions, and skills appropriate to that society' (Hursh, 1994, p. 767). Given the above discussion, it seems clear that active citizenship is a desirable social good. This is the position adopted in the Australian Civics Expert Group Report (1994) which stated that education for active citizenship `should be to enable Australians to discharge the formal obligations of citizenship ... [and] should ensure that all Australians are able to make an informed judgement about the extent of their civic participation' (p. 6).

Political activism and schooling

Young people do not grow up to be `good' citizens by means of their innate intelligence. They not only must be given information about the rights and duties of citizenship, but they also must experience what it is like to be citizens. In school, a person becomes a future citizen by learning to act like one. In other words, social learning may be as important as cognitive learning when it comes to political socialisation and political learning (Braungart & Braungart, 1997). It is not enough to teach young people about their rights and duties as citizens; it is also necessary to enable them to behave like citizens (Conrad & Hedin, 1977; Janowitz, 1988).

However research has shown that the inculcation of political values and attachments to the nation-state (what Janowitz calls `civic consciousness') is not always uniform (Janowitz, 1988). Education for citizenship, or citizenship education, does not guarantee the production of adults who will always agree unquestionably with government decisions.(2) On the contrary, citizenship education produces informed adults who, knowing their rights and duties, may choose to disagree with political authorities and will know how to voice their dissent both legally and effectively. Citizenship education or political literacy `is about raising the levels of participation by trying to reveal the political dimensions of everyday life. It is about empowering people' (Lewis, cited in Ichilov, 1994, p. 4569).

Citizenship education thus is a two-edged sword because it produces politically knowledgeable adults, and also adults to whom politicians must be more accountable for their own decisions and behaviour. In short, it produces adults who are politically active.

Learning to be politically active in secondary school

Although the literature on student political activity is extensive, most of it concentrates on university or tertiary students. Virtually no attention has been directed to the study of political activity among secondary school students. In the handbook on student activism in 30 countries (see Altbach, 1989), only in the discussion of South Africa was there an explicit and lengthy reference to secondary school students (Bundy, 1989).

There are good reasons why most research on student activism has concentrated on university students. First, these studies have focused primarily on political activist behaviour rather than on political learning. Although studies of university student activism have included the social backgrounds and other socialisation experiences of the activists, little attention has been given to the learning experiences at the secondary level as a part of these socialisation experiences. Second, it is often assumed that young people at the primary and secondary school levels lack the political competence needed to act in a politically meaningful manner. Thus the attitudes, predispositions and actions of secondary school students often are not regarded as interesting or important in a political sense and therefore are of marginal relevance for understanding university and adult political activism.

Yet in 1990 the incoming first year university students in the United States were reported to have higher levels of political activity experience in high school than their counterparts in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Astin, Korn, & Berz, 1990). Verba, Schlozman, & Brady (1995) found among American adults that there was continuity between participation in high school activities and political participation later in life. Finally there were demonstrations and protests by secondary school students in France in 1998 over government cuts to education. So there is evidence to support the need to study activism during secondary school because of its possible social and political consequences.

Research has demonstrated that, at an early age, children begin to acquire the foundation for political knowledge and to form politically meaningful concepts. Studies by Greenstein (1969) in the United States, Stephens (1982) in the United Kingdom, and Connell (1970) in Australia consistently demonstrate that, already in primary school, children form images of political persons such as the President or Queen. These manifestations of early political socialisation and political learning form the basis for the later development of political attitudes and behaviour (Furnham & Stacey, 1991; Patrick, 1977).

Although the family is probably the most important agent for the political socialisation of young people, the school is also a significant factor during adolescence. The literature on the relative impact of the family and school on political socialisation and knowledge is extensive (Jennings & Niemi, 1974). The school, and educational institutions generally, provide important settings for various forms of political socialisation and political activity because young people come into contact with each other where social influence and social pressures operate. We know that interpersonal interaction is an important factor in the decision to participate in any kind of political activity (Altbach, 1989; Klandermans, 1997).

However schools do more than provide the setting for political socialisation to take place; they also formally transmit politically related knowledge. The debate about the effectiveness of school civic educational programs is not always conclusive (see Langton & Jennings, 1968) and it continues to be controversial (Torney-Purta, 1985). Yet a recent study of the determinants of civic commitment in seven countries, including Australia, argued that `schools are settings where children develop ideas about the rights and obligations of citizenship' (Flanagan, Bowes, Johnson, Csapo, & Sheblanova, 1998, p. 462). The results of the study supported this argument, and particularly so for the Australian students in the sample. Thus there is empirical evidence that the school can be an important instrument for political education and civic consciousness.(3)

Many studies of political socialisation, political learning, and citizenship education have concentrated on the acquisition of political knowledge and the relationship between the political preferences of parents and children (Jennings & Niemi, 1974). Some studies have focused only on political attitudes. Almost none have studied political activism. Thus, although the active political participation of adults is regarded as the basis for an effective democratic society (Almond & Verba, 1963; Verba et al., 1995), little research attention has been directed to the training ground for that participation.

Problems in the study of student political activism

Studies of student political activity at whatever age level have identified a number of characteristics that typify the political activist, that is the citizen who is moved to some form of action in contrast to the citizen who remains uninvolved or passive. Although some of these characteristics may be psychological in nature, most are closely related to the sociological contexts of political activity. Furthermore these characteristics have been related to socialisation experiences (Gergen & Ullman, 1977).

The manifestations of active citizenship behaviour are wide ranging, and include both the minimal forms of citizenship responsibilities and the extreme and sometimes violent forms of political protest. Some of the personality characteristics associated with political activity are level of aggression (hostility), optimism and group affiliation. Less clear are the attributes of alienation, autonomy, conformity, the need for power and dominance, trust of government, self-esteem and altruism. Other variables that have been found to relate to student political activity have been intellectual ability, religious background, economic background, and parental political preference (Gergen & Ullman, 1977).

Some forms of political activity can be interpreted as the exercise of empowerment skills through which individuals, or groups of individuals, make their voices heard as responsible citizens in a democratic society. This would apply to actions such as voting, letter writing, signing petitions and, perhaps less frequently, participating in peaceful protests and demonstrations. Other extreme forms of activity may border upon civil disobedience and be interpreted as confrontationist, potentially violent, and a serious challenge to the stability of a political system. This would apply to actions such as occupying buildings, causing damage or harm to property or people, and other similar forms of violence. Throughout this paper, the first of the above will be labelled as 'normative activity' and the second as `non-normative activity'.(4)

In this context, the normative form of political activism is one that conforms to the behavioural rules of society, whereas non-normative activism is a form which violates the rules of society (Piven & Cloward, 1995). Within the first, we include signing petitions, writing letters, and participating in non-violent demonstrations. In the second, we include violent demonstrations, occupation of buildings, and causing damage as a form of protest. As Piven and Cloward point out, the distinction between the two is not always easy because norms themselves are sometimes ambiguous. However the conceptual distinction is based on empirical analysis which conforms to the reasonable classification of items. As will be clear in the analysis section of the paper, the data are consistent with this conceptualisation.

This distinction does raise the question about the judgement of these two forms of political activity. Does it necessarily follow that normative political activity is the only preferred form in every circumstance? Likewise, can it be assumed that non-normative forms of political activity are always to be avoided and to be discouraged? Clearly the issue is a complex one and beyond the scope of this paper. However, given that most research has been conducted in democratic societies with many avenues open for expressing even highly dissenting views about political matters, the position taken here is that normative forms of activity are more representative of active citizenship than the non-normative forms. This is an issue, however, that merits research in its own right.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate factors that determine actual behaviour and predisposition to behave in terms of normative and non-normative forms of potential activity. It will also establish to what extent the exposure to civics education affects political knowledge and political activity.(5)

The study

The data for this study are drawn from the second Schools, Work and Politics project which was conducted in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and Adelaide and Whyalla, South Australia, in 1991 and 1992.(6) The study included students from Years 10, 11 and 12 in 35 schools. The schools were selected on a stratified random basis to be representative regarding school type (government/private) and regions of the respective cities. Of the 1311 students surveyed, 73 per cent attended government schools and 27 per cent attended private schools. The students were almost evenly distributed by state, with 54 per cent from the ACT and 46 per cent from South Australia. The questionnaires were administered by the researchers during class periods, and required about 35 to 50 minutes to complete. The sample provides a reasonable cross-section of the Canberra and South Australian secondary school population.

The variables

The dependent variables are types of student political activity, both actual and expected. The questionnaire included items that asked about nine types of political activity, and whether the student would participate in those activities in the future.(7) The items were intended in part to replicate those which appeared in the first School, Work and Politics study (SWAP1) in 1987 and the 1983 Australian Values Survey (AVS). The frequencies for these political activities for the 1992 student survey, the 1987 student survey (in italics), and the AVSS adults are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Frequency distributions of students who have or would
participate in forms of activism, 1992 (1987 percentages in italics)

                                Have done

Type of activism(a)            %         N(T)(c)

Signing a petition         64.5 (61.5)   (1231)
Help collect               27.4 --       (1172)
signatures for a
petition
Taking part in a           19.7 (18.7)   (1170)
rally/demonstration
Occupying buildings        5.7 (3.6)     (1152)
as a protest
Damaging things as a       5.2 (3.2)     (1157)
protest, like breaking
windows
Using violence like        5.0 (3.7)     (1151)
fighting with police or
other demonstrators
Writing or contacting      15.7 (9.8)    (1162)
the Prime Minister
Writing or contacting      17.0 (12.6)   (1164)
a politician
Writing or contacting      18.6 (12.1)   (1168)
a newspaper, TV or
radio station
                                                     Adults who
                                                      have done
                                 Would do             (AVS)(b)

Type of activism(a)          %           N(T)(c)          %

Signing a petition         85.3 (84.5)   (1164)          69.7
Help collect               61.0 --       (1214)           --
signatures for a
petition
Taking part in a           57.1 (56.9)   (1218)          12.2
rally/demonstration
Occupying buildings        31.0 (22.2)   (1237)           2.0
as a protest
Damaging things as a       12.6 (7.0)    (1241)           1.1
protest, like breaking
windows
Using violence like        10.8 (7.0)    (1240)           0.7
fighting with police or
other demonstrators
Writing or contacting      62.0 (72.0)   (1241)           --
the Prime Minister
Writing or contacting      62.7 (73.6)   (1236)           --
a politician
Writing or contacting      68.9 (74.0)   (1233)           --
a newspaper, TV or
radio station

(a) The items are worded exactly as in the two school questionnaires.

(b) AVS: The Australian Values Survey conducted on a sample of
adults in 1983

(c) N (T): Indicates the total number responding to the question
in the 1992 survey

Frequency of activist experiences and predispositions

The data show considerable differentiation in types of political activity, both in terms of past activist experience and predispositions to activism. Clearly, for the Australian students in 1987 and 1992, and for the adults in the Australian values survey, signing petitions is a common type of political activity, with over 60 per cent acknowledging that they have done so. A larger percentage of students in both surveys, about 85 per cent, said they would be willing to sign a petition in the future. The second most frequently mentioned form of activist experience was to participate in some form of demonstration, with about 19 per cent of the students in both student surveys, and 12 per cent of the AVS adults, indicating that they had done so.

Students also admit to having written letters to politicians or the media, with those in the 1992 survey more experienced in this regard than those in the 1987 survey. The figures for letter writing are fairly consistent, the range for the 1992 students being between 15.7 and 18.6 per cent; this compares with 9.8 and 12.1 per cent for the 1987 survey. These letter writing items were not included in the Australian Values Survey.

However far fewer of both students and adults have or would be prone to engage in the non-normative forms of activism, such as occupying a building, protesting with damage or protesting with violence. In the 1987 student survey a little over 3 per cent of the students admitted to having engaged in one or more of these kinds of activities, compared with about 5 per cent for students in the 1992 survey. The comparable figure for the 1983 adults was between 1 and 2 per cent.

However, among the students, we find in both surveys a larger number who indicate their predisposition to engage in these behaviours in the future. In particular, the prospect of occupying a building in protest was seen as possible for 22 per cent of the 1987 sample, compared with 31 per cent of the 1992 sample. The other forms of non-normative protest behaviours were not seen as likely, with the figures of around 7 per cent and between 10 and 12 per cent for the 1987 and 1992 samples respectively.

Overall it appears that the students in 1992 were more likely to have experienced some form of activist behaviour than those in the 1987 sample. However, even though there were variations between the two student surveys, there appears to be no clear pattern in predisposition to activism between the two samples. The apparent increase in actual political activity in the two surveys is consistent with the already noted overseas findings which suggest that the participation in political activity during secondary school has increased in recent years.

Dependent variables: Types of political activity

The dependent variables in this analysis are derived from the types of political activity in which the students have or would participate. In order to reduce the eight activity items into more meaningful variables, a factor analysis of the `have done' and `would do' items was performed. Two identical factors emerged for each the have done and the would do items which are labelled normative and non-normative, as described earlier. From this analysis, four scale variables were formed to measure the experience of, and predisposition to, the types of political activity.

The first scale variable measures previous participation in normative activism (e.g. signing petitions). It consists of five items (signing petitions, demonstrate, write to the Prime Minister, write to parliamentarians, and write to the media) and is called YES/NORMATIVE. Cronbach's alpha for this scale is .68. The second scale measures previous participation in non-normative forms of activism (occupy buildings, demonstrate with damage and violence) and is called YES/NON-NORMATIVE, and has an alpha of .73. The third scale, WOULD/ NORMATIVE, measures non-violent activist intentions or predispositions and is constructed from the same five normative items, with an alpha of .79. The fourth scale, WOULD/NON-NORMATIVE, consists of the same three non-normative items, which measure activist intentions, and has an alpha of .68. The four activity scales are used as dependent variables to analyse different participation levels of, and dispositions to, political activity as defined by these items. A description and summary of these four political activity scale variables are given in Table 2.(8)

Table 2 Scales of types of political activity

Scale labels               Scale description

Normative activism

YES/            The extent to which the student has participated in
NORMATIVE       normative forms of political activity. Scale: 5 items:
                Sign Petition, Demonstrate, Write PM, MP, & Media.
                Range: S = yes to all, to 0 = no to all. (Cronbach
                alpha = .66)

WOULD/          The extent to which the student would participate in
NORMATIVE       normative forms of political activity. Scale: 5
                items: Sign Petition, Demonstrate, Write PM, MP, &
                Media. Range: 5 = yes to all, to 0 = no to all.
                (Cronbach alpha = .79)

Non-normative activism

YES/NON-        The extent to which the student has participated in
NORMATIVE       non-normative forms of political activity. Scale:
                3 items: Occupy Buildings, Protest with Damage,
                Protest with Violence. Range: 3 = yes to all, to
                0 = no to all. (Cronbach's alpha = .73)

WOULD/          The extent to which the student would participate in
NON-            non-normative forms of political activity. Scale:
NORMATIVE       3 items: Occupy Buildings, Protest with Damage,
                Protest with Violence. Range: 3 = yes to all, to
                0 = no to all. (Cronbach's alpha = .64)

Independent variables

Previous research has shown that participation in political activity does not occur randomly but is related to sociological variables which may been seen as determinants of this type of activity. There is no reason to believe that patterns relating to secondary school political activity would be different. With this in mind, the independent variables for the analysis of political activity consist of three clusters, namely demographic, school and political. They do not include, at this stage, civics studies or related curriculum variables. These latter are the object of separate analyses later in this paper. From a larger variable set, only those variables which were theoretically defensible and which correlated with one or more of the dependent variables were included. This procedure resulted in 21 independent variables. A description of these variables is given in Table 3.

Table 3 Description of independent variables in the analyses

Variable
label             Variable description

Background variables

STATE             State of student: 2 = ACT, 1 = South Australia
SEX               Sex of student: 2 = Male, 1 = Female
FATHER ED         Father's education: 7 codes with 1 = no schooling,
                  to 7 = university degree
MOTHER ED         Mother's education: same as above
FOCCANUI          Father's occupational status: ANUI scale with
                  1 = worker, to 17 = profession
PARENT            Parental interest in schoolwork: 1 = none, to
                  4 = very interested
INTEREST YEAR     Year of schooling: 1 = 10th, 2 = 11th, 3 = 12th

School variables

INTERACT          Interaction with teachers: 1 = poor, to 4 = very
TEACHER           good
LIKE SCHOOL       Like school: 1 = hate it, to 4 = yes, very much
CIVICS CLASS      Studied Australian government: 1 = no, 2 "yes
ACHIEVE INDEX     Achievement index: An index based on five recent
                  grade results, with 5 = A,and 1 = Fail. The range
                  is from 50 (highest) to 10 (lowest)
FRIEND & POL      Friend interested in politics: 4 = Always, to
                  1 = Never

Political variables

AUS IDENTITY      Indentify with Australia: 1 = not at all, to
                  5 = completely
INTEREST POL      Interest in politics: 1 = not at all, to 5 = very
                  interested
DEMO FOR          Scale: Would demonstrate for Aboriginal rights,
PEACE             against abortion, against
                  apartheid, for the environment and for peace
                  (4 = very likely, to 1 = definitely not), range from
                  20 = high to 5 = low. Cronbach's alpha = .82.
DEMO FOR          Scale: Would demonstrate for abortion and for gays
SEX LIB           and lesbians (4 = very likely, to
                  1 = definitely not). Range from 8 = high to 2 = low.
                  Cronbach's alpha = .52.
YES TO RIGHTS     Scale: 3 items: Degree of agreement to migrant
                  rights, qualifications should determine access
                  to jobs, and women have same rights as men.
                  4 = strongly agree, to 1 = strongly disagree.
                  Range from 12 = high, to 3 = low. Cronbach's
                  alpha = .58.
TRUST GOV         Trust government: 4 = all the time, to 1 = none
                  of the time.
YES TO            Scale: 3 items: degree of agreement to citizens'
FREEDOM           right to criticize govt, good for govt to be
                  criticized, and necessity of regular elections
                  (4 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree).
                   Range from 12 = high, to 3 = low. Cronbach's
                  alpha = .67.
READ POLITICS     Read politics in papers: 4 = almost every day,
                  to 1 = rarely or never.
ALIENATED         Scale:4 items: degree of agreement to how much say
                  in government, government cares about people,
                  parliamentarians lose touch quickly, and
                  parties only interested in votes (5 = strongly
                  agree, to 2 strongly disagree). Cronbach's
                  alpha = .79.

The first group of variables relates to demographic characteristics and the social background of the student. These include the state of residence (ACT), sex of student (MALE), father's and mother's educational attainment (FATHER ED and MOTHER ED), father's occupational attainment (FOCCANU1), parental interest in schoolwork (PARENT INTEREST), and the year of schooling (YEAR). Previous research has found that political activity is related to higher social background (Sherkat & Blocker, 1994).

With regard to the second variable cluster, if schooling were a positive agent in the political learning process, we would expect students with more positive attitudes and behaviour regarding school, and greater school integration, to show higher levels of politically related activity. Thus the second group of variables relates to the student's attitudes toward school. These include student interaction with teachers (INTERACT TEACHER), the extent to which the student likes school (LIKE SCHOOL), whether the student studied Australian government (CIVICS CLASS), an achievement index based on reported grades (ACHIND), and whether the student's best friend was interested in politics (FRIEND & POLITICS).

Political activity is related to the possession of opinions, attitudes and clear values regarding aspects of government and society. Thus the third group of independent variables relates to attitudes towards the government (AUS IDENTITY, TRUST GOV, ALIENATED), politics (INTEREST POLITICS, READ POLITICS), and the content of activist behaviour (DEMO FOIL PEACE, DEMO FOR SEX LIB), and values regarding human rights (YES TO RIGHTS) and political freedom (YES TO FREEDOM).

There are five scales among these latter independent variables. They are DEMO FOR PEACE, DEMO FOR SEX LIB, YES TO RIGHTS, YES TO FREEDOM and ALIENATED. Each of these was first determined by a factor analysis of all component items. Reliability analyses were conducted and found to range between .52 and .82 (see Table 3). The scale variables in the first pair are DEMO FOR PEACE and DEMO FOR SEX LIB. These scales measure the types of social movements that the students would be willing to demonstrate for, and each can be seen as a measure of willingness to become an activist for different types of causes. The first, DEMO FOR PEACE, is made up of five movements for which the student would demonstrate: Aboriginal rights, anti-abortion, anti-apartheid, environment, and peace. The second, DEMO FOR SEX LIB, includes two `radical' movements for which the student would demonstrate: the pro-abortion movement and the gay and lesbian movement. The Cronbach alphas for these two scales are .82 and .52 respectively.

The second pair of scales measures democratic values. The first, YES TO RIGHTS, measures the extent to which individual rights, particularly towards women and migrant groups, are valued, and the second, YES TO FREEDOM, measures the extent to which criticism of government and open elections are valued. The alphas for these scales are .58 and .67 accordingly. A final attitudinal scale, ALIENATED, measures the extent to which the respondent feels a sense of contact or empowerment regarding the government. This scale was adapted from Mason, House, and Martin's (1985) study of political alienation. The scale consists of the four items which measure whether the student agrees: (a) that young people have no say in government; (b) the government does not care about what young people think; (c) that parliamentarians are out of touch; and (d) that political parties are only interested in votes, and not in people's opinions. The alpha for this scale is .79.

It is expected that students who are disposed to participate in movements, who value both rights regarding government criticism and human freedoms, and who are alienated, will be most likely to have experienced some form of political activity, and are more predisposed to activist behaviour.

Predictors of political activism: Home, school and politics

Regression procedures were used to examine the relative effects of these three groups of independent variables on the four dependent variables, namely experience with, and predisposition to, normative and non-normative. The results with respect to the four types of political activity are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Multiple regression, four activity variables(*)

                           Yes Have                Yes Would
                        participated in           participate
                       normative activity     in normative activity
                            (N= 1096)              (N= 1099)

Variable label        B (SE)        beta      B (SE)       beta

SEX                                         -.391(095)     -.115
FATHER ED            .093(.018)      .141
INTEREST             .114(.045)      .077    .386(057)      .195
INTERACT TEACHER
LIKE SCHOOL
TRUST GOV
DEMO FOR PEACE       .065(.010)      .193   .144(.013)      .319
DEMO FOR SEX LIB     .161(.030)      .168
YES TO RIGHTS        .076(.022)      .098
YES TO FREEDOM                              .140(.027)      .135
AUS IDENTITY                                .150(.045)      .087
READ POLITICS        .087(.033)      .079   .140(.041)      .096
ALIENATED
FRIENDS & POLITICS

Constant                      -1.552                   -.795
[R.sup.2]
  ([R.sup.2]adj)            .18(.18)                 .29(.28)

                           Yes Have                Yes Would
                        participated in           participate
                    non-normative activity   non-normative activity
                             (N=923)                (N=986)

Variable label         B (SE)       beta      B (SE)        beta

SEX                   .167(.037)     .157    .351(.057)      .205
FATHER ED
INTEREST             -.084(.022)    -.136
INTERACT TEACHER                            -.124(.089)     -.101
LIKE SCHOOL          -.056(.023)     .082   -.091(.035)      .082
TRUST GOV                                   -.104(.040)      .087
DEMO FOR PEACE        .014(.005)     .098    .038(.008)      .168
DEMO FOR SEX LIB      .069(.014)     .173    .096(.022)      .148
YES TO RIGHTS        -.025(.010)     .085   -.030(.015)      .062
YES TO FREEDOM
AUS IDENTITY
READ POLITICS        -.032(.016)     .069
ALIENATED             .025(.007)     .120    .040(.011)      .119
FRIENDS & POLITICS    .046(.019)     .082

Constant                       -.430                   -.168
[R.sup.2]
  ([R.sup.2]adj)            .10(.09)                 .13(.12)

(*) All coefficients significant at the .05 level or better.
Empty cells indicate non-significant independent effects and
therefore the variable was not entered in the final regression
equation for the relevant independent variable. Variables in Table
3 which were not significant in any of the final models have not
been included in this table. Pairwise deletion procedures were used
throughout.

It is clear that different proportions of variance are explained by the two pairs of activism variables, and that, for each pair, more variance is explained for the predisposition to activism rather than previous activist behaviour ([R.sup.2] =. 18 and. 10 compared with .29 and. 13 respectively). With respect to normative activist behaviour (YES/NORMATIVE) the significant independent variables are high level of father's educational attainment, being interested in politics, a willingness to participate in demonstrations for peace-oriented social movements, a tendency to participate in demonstrations for more radical movements related to sex liberation, and finally an extension of human rights for women and migrants. They also spend more time reading about politics. Of these significant explanatory variables, the most important is the willingness to participate in demonstrations for peace-oriented movements and for sex liberation, both of which are fairly visible mainstream social movements.

The pattern is somewhat different with respect to the predisposition to participate in future normative political activity (WOULD/NORMATIVE). Here we find that 29 per cent of the variance is explained by being female, high interest in politics, a willingness to participate in peace-oriented demonstrations, and a commitment to critical democratic values, for example the freedom to criticise government. These students have a strong Australian identity, and they read about politics during leisure time. In summary, the typical student who manifests the highest level of predisposition to normative political behaviour is a girl who is interested in politics, who has a commitment to peace-oriented movements, who favours critical democratic freedoms, who manifests a strong Australian identity and who reads a lot about politics in leisure time.

Non-normative forms of political activity display very different patterns of predictors which suggests that different types of students are prone to this type of behaviour. Only 10 per cent of the variance is explained for those who have experienced non-normative forms of activity (YES/NON-NORMATIVE). This means either that, with such low levels of actual participation in these activities (see Table 1), there is little variance to explain, or that the variables in the analysis are not relevant in explaining these forms of behaviours. None the less the predictors are being male and holding negative feelings about school. Those who have experienced this form of activism indicate that they would attend demonstrations for many causes and are likely to have friends who are interested in politics.

Finally, turning to predisposition to non-normative forms of activism (WOULD/NON-NORMATIVE), we find that eight independent variables explain 13 per cent of the variance. As with those who have already participated in these intense forms of political activity, males are more likely to say they would participate in these activities in the future. Furthermore these males are students who do not interact well with their teachers, who do not like school, and who do not trust the government. These students are likely to join both kinds of social movement demonstrations, but they do not espouse the extension of rights to migrants or females. They are also high on the alienation scale.

A comparison between the normative and non-normative oriented students highlights some important differences. The normative oriented are likely to have an interest in politics, they are supportive of some social movements, and they espouse critical democratic values. To a lesser extent, they are likely to be female and from more highly educated parents. On the other hand, the non-normative oriented students are more likely to be male, are disaffected or alienated from school and government, are also movement prone, but they are more exclusionary with respect to sharing human rights with others.

These findings clearly differentiate between two types of Australian secondary school students with regard to forms of political activity and the exercise of active citizenship. It is also clear that the school plays a partial role in this differentiation. Whether the student likes school or interacts with teachers does not determine whether the student will be disposed towards a normative form of political activism, but it does have a negative impact on a more confrontationist or non-normative form.

The final question to be considered in this paper is whether political knowledge is related to exposure to political studies or civics education, and whether this knowledge has any impact on political activity.

Impact of civics education

The survey questionnaire included a number of political knowledge and attitudinal items. It also elicited information about whether the student had been taught about the Australian government (taken here to mean civics education), in how many courses was this subject taught, and over how many years. Of the total sample, 52 per cent of the students indicated that they had taken a course that taught about the Australian government. The courses most frequently mentioned in this context were social science (108), commerce (87) and history (83). The listing and description of the political education variables that were measured in the survey are given in Table 5.

Table 5 Description for civic education variables

Civics variables        Variable description

Civics class            Taught about Australian Government in class:
                        No = 1, Yes = 2
How many                Number of subjects in which student was taught
subjects                about government: Not taught = 1, 1 = 2 etc.
How many years          Number of years taught about government: Not
                        taught = 0, 1 = 2 etc.
Total Aus names         Total Australian political figures named:
                        None = 1, 1 = 2 etc. to 5 = 6
Total inter names       Total international figures named: None = 1,
                        1 = 2, etc. to 5 = 6
Houses Of               Name Houses of Parliament: None = 1,
Parliament              one correct = 2, two correct = 3
House PM sit            Name the House of the PM and Leader of
                        Opposition: Incorrect = 1,
                        Correct = 2
Interest politics       Interest in politics: 1 = Not at all, to
                        4 = Very interested
Read politics           Do you read politics as leisure?: 1 = Rarely,
                        to 4 - Almost every day
Pol info from teacher   Political information from teacher: 1 = No
                        info, to 4 = Much information
Talk politics           Talk politics with dad, mum and friends:
                        3 = Never, to 18 = Every day
(Scale)                 (Cronbach's alpha = .83)
Voter comp              Perceived voting competence (Four items):
                        4 = No, to 8 = Yes
(Scale)                 (Cronbach's alpha = .75)

These political education variables, which focus mostly on aspects of knowledge about the Australian government, include a number of dimensions. First, three variables measure how the student learned about Australian politics (whether the student had taken such a course and in how many courses was government taught) and for how many years. Second, there are four variables that measure factual knowledge about the Australian government and familiarity with the names of Australian and international political figures. Third, there are attitudinal variables which measure interest in politics and perceived readiness to vote in an election. Finally there are two variables that measure forms of student interaction with others, namely the extent to which the teacher is a source of political information, and the extent to which the student talks politics with family and friends.

The correlations between these civic education variables and the political activism variables are given in Table 6. Correlations of the civics education variables (CIVICS CLASS) and the political knowledge variables are also given.

Table 6: Civic education variables and activism: Correlation
coeficients

Variables                   Civics        Yes/        Would/
                            class      Normative    Normative

Civics class                1.00          .10(*)       .12(*)
How many subjects            .90(*)       .09(*)       .13(*)
How many years               .79(*)       .11(*)       .13(*)
Total Aus names              .19(*)       .12(*)       .19(*)
Total int names              .16(*)       .13(*)       .19(*)
Houses Of Parliament         .25(*)       .16(*)       .17(*)
House PM sits                .15(*)       .12(*)       .13(*)
Interest in politics         .18(*)       .20(*)       .33(*)
Read politics                .10(*)       .17(*)       .21(*)
Poi info from teacher        .18(*)       .09(*)       .13(*)
Talk politics (Scale)        .19(*)       .27(*)       .30(*)
Voter prep (Scale)           .14(*)        -.04         0.05

Variables                 Yes/Non-     Would/Non-
                          normative    normative

Civics class                -.00          .02
How many subjects           -.02         -.05
How many years               .04         -.01
Total Aus names             -.06(*)      -.03
Total int names             -.03         -.02
Houses Of Parliament        -.01         -.02
House PM sits                .01          .00
Interest in politics        -.10(*)      -.08(*)
Read politics                .02         -.01
Poi info from teacher       -.04          .00
Talk politics (Scale)       -.01         -.04
Voter prep (Scale)           .04          .02

(*) p. < .05 (two-tailed)

The first pattern emerging from the table is that having taken a civics subject in school is positively and significantly related to all political knowledge and knowledge-related variables. Furthermore, as expected, exposure to civics subjects is directly related to the number of civics-related courses and the number of years of exposure to civics. It appears that students take a lot of civics-related courses or none at all. More importantly, however, civics education is directly related to knowledge about the Australian government and to a lesser extent, about international political figures. Likewise a student with a civics subject background attributes political knowledge to teachers, and talks and reads about politics significantly more than students with no civics subject background. These findings clearly support the argument of Niemi and Junn (1996), that civics education subjects have a positive effect on the acquisition of political knowledge and knowledge-related behaviour.

A second pattern that emerges is equally striking. All of the political education variables are significantly correlated with normative forms of political activity. On the other hand, the only two significant correlations with non-normative forms of political activity are negative, namely interest in politics and the number of Australian politicians named. It is clear from these data that one consequence of civics education is to produce a knowledgeable and an empowered, but normative, form of active citizenship.

As with the demographic, school and attitude variables, multiple regression procedures were used to analyse the effects of eight of these variables from Table 6 on the four types of political activity. The variables not included in the analyses were the number of subjects and number of years of political education, talking politics with parents and friends, and perception of voter readiness. The former two were omitted because of high multi-collinearity, and the second two were omitted because they were not, strictly speaking, school related.

With respect to the experience of normative political activity, only 7 per cent of the variance was explained by four variables: naming the houses of parliament, interest in politics, political information from teachers, and reading about politics. With regard to predisposition to normative political activity, the same four variables emerged, but the variance explained increased to 13 per cent.

Most importantly, and in contrast to the above, the multiple regression procedures for the two non-normative forms of political activism did not result in any significant effects, which clearly indicates that political education and related variables have no impact on propensity to engage in non-normative political activity among secondary school students. The conclusion that might be drawn from this part of the analysis is that knowledge about government, and an interest in politics, are positively related to normative political activity, but not non-normative activity. These findings have important implications for assessing the relationship between education and active citizenship and should be the focus of future research on civics and citizenship education.

Conclusion

The findings reported in this paper clearly support the argument that already in secondary school Australian students begin to experience political activism of one kind or another. Although most students engage in activities which are normative in nature, such as signing petitions or writing letters, there is a small percentage who engage in political activities which are non-normative and fall outside the acceptable rules of society, such as occupying buildings or causing damage or violence. Furthermore the percentage of students who say they would engage in these activities in the future is higher than those who claim to have already engaged in these activities.

The determinants for these normative and non-normative forms of political activity and predisposition to activity suggest important conclusions about political learning and political activity. In the first place, the experience of and predisposition to normative forms of political activity appear to be affected by higher status home background, an interest in politics, sympathy for current social movements, and positive attitude towards the government. Normative forms of political activity are consistent with a `healthy critical' attitude towards politics and government, as manifested by views on human rights and freedoms. Interestingly, even with all other variables controlled, being female is also directly related to this form of political orientation. There is further evidence that civics education, as reflected in knowledge about government and political leaders, the role of teachers, and political interest (including reading), affects engagement with normative forms of political activity.

However the pattern for non-normative forms of political activity provides a significantly different set of determinants. The findings show that males who are disengaged from things political, and indeed who are alienated from politics and the government, are the most prone to engaging in non-normative forms of political activity. However this lack of social integration is evident in the school setting as well as in attitudes towards politics and the government. Students oriented to non-normative forms of political activity do not interact with teachers and have exclusionary views about human rights. Civics education variables appear to have little or no relation with this form of activism.

The findings reported here are but an early stage in the more detailed analysis of political learning, particularly as related to school civics curricula and the formation of active adult citizens. However it would appear that discussions of political activity at the secondary school level might contribute to the understanding of later activism among university students and adults. Active citizenship in the form of political activity does not suddenly appear without prior causal factors. Although it would be premature to conclude that these secondary students will in fact become politically active adults and, indeed, whether their activity will be normative or non-normative, the findings suggest that some political experiences and predispositions may be learned in secondary school and related to some secondary school experiences. Furthermore it is clear that the school civics curriculum does play an important role in promoting a normative form of active citizenship at an early stage in the political socialisation of young adults.

Keywords

activism                 civics                  political socialisation
citizen education        political attitudes     secondary education

Notes

(1) Aristotle defined citizen `in the strictest sense' as a person whose `special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices'. By this latter term, he meant an `indefinite office', that is, not formal administrative or political offices which are fixed term, in one way or another. Aristotle further noted that `the citizen then of necessity differs under each form of government; and our definition is best adapted to the citizen of a democracy; but not necessarily to other states' (italics added. See Aristotle, pp. 471-472.) This distinction is particularly relevant for the study of the citizen as a participant in political processes such as voting, public debate and similar activities which occur in true democracies.

(2) Citizenship education is often used interchangeably with `political education', `civic education' and `political literacy' (Ichilov, 1994).

(3) It has been argued that a true democracy depends on the active participation of its citizens. It is contended that this participation is not routine and accepting, but rather critical and challenging.

It is precisely in secondary schools that the skills for critical democratic citizenship are inculcated in youth (Giroux, 1989). Giroux argues that, through a critical pedagogy, schools should instil critical democratic values in students in order that they become participative and responsible citizens as adults.

Thus, according to many writers, education for citizenship is not simply teaching how the political system works, or how to vote. It includes, above all, teaching the skills of questioning and challenging the operations of the political system in order to break down inequalities, elitism, sexism and other forms of oppression in a democratic society (Apple, 1982; Boli, 1989; Carnoy & Levin, 1985). In a number of countries, a similar perspective has been advocated in the context of the acquisition of empowerment skills through schooling (Keeves &Saha, 1990; Land & Gilbert, 1997).

(4) The labelling of different types of activism in a meaningful way is a difficult task. For example, the signing of petitions is much different from participation in violent demonstrations and protests, and yet both are commonly regarded as forms of activism even though the latter may be considered a form of civil disobedience. In this context, it is difficult to label forms of political activity without explicitly or implicitly imputing some kind of moral or legal judgement. This is even the case with civil disobedience which can be justifiable and normative (see, e.g. Bedau, 1969).

With this in mind, a number of labels were considered, including non-violent/violent, low intensity/high intensity, low risk/high risk, low investment/high investment, non-direct/direct, non-extreme/extreme, legal/illegal and low commitment/high commitment. In the end, the normative/non-normative dichotomy was adopted along the lines advocated by Piven and Cloward (1995).

(5) The study is especially relevant for the Australian context since there are currently no required subjects in Australian schools that specifically deal with political education, civics, or citizenship education. Although it seems that civics education was much more a part of the Australian school curriculum during the early 1900s, since 1930 it has declined in importance (Civics Expert Group, 1994). Indeed, when the Australian secondary school students in this study were asked if they had been taught about the Australian political system, only 52 per cent said yes, and when asked in which academic unit, 43 different subject titles were given.

(6) An earlier study also called Schools, Work and Politics I was conducted by the author in 1987. It was limited to the Australian Capital Territory alone, and consisted of self-administered questionnaires to 1014 students from 15 schools. The 1991-1992 project, with few modifications, replicated the earlier study, but expanded it to include South Australia in order to test whether ACT students were unique with respect to the study variables.

(7) The specific question read as follows: `Given below are some different forms of political action in Australia that people can take. Which of the following best describes you? Tick the appropriate boxes for BOTH (a) and (b)'. There were nine forms of political action given, as indicated in Table 1, and for each the student was asked to tick `yes' or `no' for (a)`I have done it' and (b) `I would do it'.

(8) The factor analysis resulted in identical factors for the `have done' items and the `would do' items. The factor loadings for the `have done' normative factor ranged between .84 and .46, and the `would do' normative factor ranged between .87 and .63. The item to total correlations for the items in the resulting YES/NORMATIVE scale variable ranged between .57 and .27, and for YES/NON-NORMATIVE between .63 and .42.

(9) The factor loadings for the `would do' normative items ranged between .84 and .56, and the `would do' non-normative loadings ranged between .87 and .59. The item to total correlations for the resulting WOULD/NORMATIVE scale variable ranged between .69 to .40, and for WOULD/NON-NORMATIVE between .57 and .32.

References

Adler, M. J. (1952). Citizen. In M. J. Adler & W. Gorman (Eds.), The great ideas: A syntopicon of great books of the Western world (pp. 218-232). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

Altbach, P. G. (1989). Introduction. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), Student political activism: An international reference handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Almond, G. & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Boston: Little Brown.

Apple, M. W. (1982). Education and power. Boston: Routledge, Kegan & Paul.

Aristotle. (1952), Politics (B. Jowett, Trans.). In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.), Great books of the Western world (Vol. 9, pp. 445-552). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Berz, E. R. (1990). The American freshman: National norms for Fall 1990. Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute.

Bedau, H. A. (1969). Introduction. In H. A. Bedau (Ed.), Civil disobedience: Theory and practice (pp. 15-26). New York: Macmillan.

Boli, J. (1989). The institutionalization of citizenship. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Braungart, R.G. & Braungart, M.M. (1997). Political socialization and education. In L. J. Saha (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of the sociology of education (pp. 521-527). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Bundy, C.J. (1989). South Africa. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), Student political activism: An international reference handbook (pp. 21-36). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Burchell, D. (1995). The attributes of citizens: Virtue, manners and the activity of citizenship. Economy and Society, 24(4), 540-558.

Carnoy, M. & Levin, H. M. (1985). Schooling and work in the democratic state. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Civics Expert Group. (1994). Whereas the people ... civics and citizenship education: Report. Canberra: AGPS.

Connell, R.W. (1970). Propaganda and education: Political training in the schools. Australian Journal of Education, 14 (2), 155-167.

Conrad, D. & Hedin, D. (1977). Citizenship education through participation. In National Taskforce on Citizenship Education (B. F. Brown, Director), Education for responsible citizenship: The report of the National Task Force on Citizenship Education (pp 133-155). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Flanagan, C., Bowes, J., Jonsson, B., Csapo, B., & Sheblanova, E. (1998). Ties that bind: Correlates of adolescents' civic commitments in seven countries. Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 457-475.

Furnham, A. & Stacey, B. (1991). Young people's understanding of society. London: Routledge.

Gergen, K.J. & Ullman, M. (1977). Socialization and the characteriological basis of political activism. In S. A. Renshon (Ed.), Handbook of political socialization (pp. 411-442). New York: Free Press.

Giroux, H. A.(1989). Schooling for democracy. London: Routledge, Kegan & Paul.

Greenstein, F. I. (1969). Children and politics (Rev. ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hursh, D. (1994). Civic education. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The interna-tional encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.) (pp. 767-770). Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ichilov, O. (1994). Political education. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.) (pp. 4569-4571). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Janowitz, M. (1988). The good citizen -- a threatened species. In W.K. Cummings, S. Gopinathan, & Y. Tomoda (Eds.), The revival of values education in Asia and the West (pp. 59-71). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Jennings, M. & Niemi, R. (1974). The political character of adolescence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1952). The science of right (W. Hastie, Trans.). In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.), Great books of the Western world (Vol. 42, pp. 395-458). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica. (Original work published 1785)

Keeves, J. P. & Saha, L.J. (1990). Sociological issues for the future of Australian schooling. In L. J. Saha & J. P. Keeves (Eds.), Schooling and society in Australia: Sociological perspectives (pp. 236-251). Sydney: Pergamon Press/ANU Press.

Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford: Blackwell.

Land, R. & Gilbert, R. (1997). Acquisition of empowerment skills. In L. J. Saha (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of the sociology of education (pp. 507-511). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Langton, K. & Jennings, M. K. (1968). Political socialization and the high school civics curriculum in the United States. American Political Science Review, 62 (3) 852-867.

Marshall, T.H. (1965). Citizenship and social class. In T.H. Marshall (Ed.), Class, citizenship and social development (pp. 71-134). Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co.

Minogue, K. (1985). Democracy. In A. Kuper & J. Kuper (Eds.), The social science encyclopedia (pp. 186-187). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Niemi, R.G. & Junn, J. (1996). What knowledge for a reinforced citizenship in the United States of America. Prospects, 26(4), 663-672.

Patrick, J. J. (1977). Political socialization and political education in schools. In S. A. Renshon (Ed.), Handbook of political socialization (pp. 190-222). New York: Free Press.

Piven, F. F. & Cloward, R. A. (1995). Collective protest: A critique of resource-mobilization theory. In S. M. Lyman (Ed.), Social movements: Critiques, concepts, case studies (pp. 137-167). London: Macmillan.

Riesenberg, P. (1992). Citizenship in the Western tradition: Plato to Rousseau. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Sherkat, D. E. & Blocker, T. J. (1994). The political development of sixties' activists: Identifying the influence of class, gender and socialization of protest participation. Social Forces, 72 (3), 821-842.

Stephens, O. (1982). Children talking politics. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Torney-Purta, J. (1985). Civic education. In T. Huson and T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 725-728). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dr Lawrence J. Saha is Reader in Sociology, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200. email: [e-mail]