001

Table of Contents
 
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contributors
Preface: Promoting Research on Youth Civic Engagement
PRODUCTION PROCESS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Introduction
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
THE NATURE OF RESEARCH ON YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION OF THIS HANDBOOK
GOALS FOR THE HANDBOOK
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
 
SECTION I - MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH: CONCEPTUAL AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
 
CHAPTER 1 - Toward a Political Theory of Political Socialization of Youth
 
BACKGROUND
THE NATURE OF POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT
THEORY OF POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 2 - A Political Science Perspective on Socialization Research: Young ...
 
ANTICIPATED POLITICAL BEHAVIOR AMONG YOUNG ADOLESCENTS: TURNING THE EUROPEAN ...
FOUR HYPOTHESES ON CROSS-NATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN ADOLESCENTS’ PARTICIPATORY INTENTIONS
EXPLAINING THE PARTICIPATORY INTENTIONS: EXPLORING EMPIRICAL RESULTS
REPORTED POLITICAL ACTIVITY IN LATE ADOLESCENCE AND EARLY ADULTHOOD: RESHAPING ...
FORMATIVE YEARS OF EMERGING STAND-BY CITIZENS
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 3 - The Sources of Adolescent Activism: Historical and Contemporary Findings
 
PROTESTS, RIOTING, AND ORGANIZING
ORIGINS OF YOUTH ACTIVISM
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
INTERVENTIONS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 4 - Youth Civic Engagement in the Developing World: Challenges and Opportunities
 
THE CONTEXT FOR YOUTH CITIZENSHIP AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
YOUTH BULGES, HUMAN CAPITAL, AND CITIZENSHIP
THE CIVIC DOMAIN
MEDIATING INSTITUTIONS AND YOUTH CITIZENSHIP
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 5 - Youth Civic Engagement: Normative Issues
 
THE RELEVANCE OF NORMATIVE PHILOSOPHY TO YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES
WHAT NORMATIVE POSITIONS ARE EMBODIED IN ACTUAL PROGRAMS?
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 6 - Youth Civic Engagement in Mexico
 
INTRODUCTION
POLITICAL CONTEXT AND TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA
POLITICAL CULTURE AND YOUTH IN MEXICO: CHANGE IN INSTITUTIONS WITH LITTLE ...
CONCLUSIONS
IMPLICATIONS OF THESE FINDINGS FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 7 - Citizenship Education: A Critical Look at a Contested Field
 
INTRODUCTION
MODELS OF DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION—THE CHALLENGES
CONTESTED CITIZENSHIP STATUS AND IDENTITY
CITIZENSHIP IN THE GLOBAL WORLD; THE PARADOXES OF GLOBALIZATION
THE MCDONALD AND DISNEY “WORLD CITIZEN”?
CONTESTED CITIZENSHIP PRACTICES: THE NATURE OF “DEMOCRACY”
CONTESTED PRACTICES: CIVIC ACTION
CATEGORIES OF CIVIC PARTICIPATION
CITIZENSHIP PRACTICES: THE ROLE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY
NEW TECHNOLOGY: A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE
CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS ON CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
THE POLITICAL AGENDA
A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE (LIKELY) FUTURE
REFERENCES
 
SECTION II - GROWING INTO CITIZENSHIP: DEVELOPMENT, SOCIALIZATION, AND DIVERSITY
CHAPTER 8 - The Relation between Developmental Theory and Measures of Civic ...
 
BACKGROUND
DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
THEORIES SPECIFIC TO CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
MEASUREMENT OF CIVIC AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
AN INTERNATIONAL STUDY OF ADOLESCENTS’ CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: THEORY, METHODOLOGY, ...
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 9 - Social Cognitive Development and Adolescent Civic Engagement
 
PROSOCIAL REASONING
RESEARCH ON POLITICAL BELIEFS
CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON ADOLESCENTS’ CIVIC AND POLITICAL BELIEFS
CIVIC BEHAVIOR AND CIVIC REASONING
CONCLUSIONS
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 10 - Early Childhood as a Foundation for Civic Engagement
 
THE HISTORY OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT RESEARCH WITH YOUNG CHILDREN
EARLY CHILDHOOD COMPETENCES AND LATER CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS AND PROSOCIAL SKILLS: PRECURSORS TO LATER CIVIC ENGAGEMENT?
EARLY CHILDHOOD SETTINGS AS A CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
CHILDREN AS CITIZENS
CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO PLAY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
CHALLENGES TO OPPORTUNITIES FOR PLAY
RESEARCH, PRACTICE, AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 11 - Civic Engagement during the Transition to Adulthood: ...
 
CIVIC DEVELOPMENT DURING ADOLESCENCE AND THE TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD
GENERATIONAL DIVIDES IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT CIVIC ENGAGEMENT DURING THE ...
CONCLUSIONS: POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 12 - Schools and Social Trust
 
RELATIONAL TRUST AND EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PREVENTION PROJECT
SCHOOLS AS MINI POLITIES
REFLECTIONS ON THE DEMOCRATIC ROLE OF SCHOOLS
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 13 - The Civic Empowerment Gap: Defining the Problem and Locating Solutions
 
CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC EMPOWERMENT GAP
DE FACTO SEGREGATED MINORITY SCHOOLS
WHAT WE CAN DO
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 14 - Communication and Education: Creating Competence for ...
 
THE DEMOCRACY DIVIDE
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE AS A CENTRAL CONCEPT
THE ROLE OF SCHOOLS IN CREATING COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE
MEDIA USE, NETWORK DISCUSSION, AND THEIR INFLUENCES
CHANGES AND CHALLENGES IN THE MEDIA ENVIRONMENT
UNDERSTANDING USAGE AND EFFECTS ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE
EFFECTS OF SCHOOL ACTIVITIES, MEDIA USE, AND POLITICAL DISCUSSION ON CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
CAN COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE DIMINISH THE DEMOCRACY DIVIDE?
IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 15 - Changing Citizen Identity and the Rise of a Participatory Media Culture
 
AN OVERVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY MEDIA ENGAGEMENT TRENDS
CHANGING CITIZEN IDENTITY AND THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT
THE PARTICIPATORY MEDIA SHIFT IN YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
CIVIC LEARNING AND CITIZENSHIP STYLES IN THE YOUTH CIVIC WEB
POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING ONLINE YOUTH COMMUNITIES
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 16 - Immigrant Youth in the United States: Coming of Age among Diverse ...
 
RATES OF PARTICIPATION
MOTIVES FOR PARTICIPATING
DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
DEVELOPMENTAL CONTEXTS
CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND POLITY
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 17 - The Civic Life of Latina/o Immigrant Youth: Challenging Boundaries ...
 
GROWTH AND DISPERSAL OF LATINA/O IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES
INCLUSIVE DEFINITIONS OF IMMIGRANT YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
DIVERSITY OF LATINA/O IMMIGRANT YOUTH
METHODS, THEMES, AND VOICES
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL STUDIES
QUALITATIVE PERSPECTIVES
SUMMARY: IMMIGRANT YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT YOUTH: METHODOLOGIES AND THEMES
SCHOOL MEMBERSHIP AND GRADUATION AS TRAUMA
THE PARADOX OF SOCIAL REJECTION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS AND THE IN-STATE TUITION MOVEMENT
ENFORCEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS AND OTHER POLICY STRUGGLES
SUMMARY: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AMONG UNDOCUMENTED YOUTH
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 18 - LGBT Politics, Youth Activism, and Civic Engagement
 
LGBT CITIZENSHIP, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, AND ACTIVISM
YOUTH, ACTIVISM, AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
SCHOOLS AS SITES OF EDUCATION AND RESISTANCE
GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES AS CIVICS EDUCATION
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
 
SECTION III - METHODOLOGICAL AND MEASUREMENT ISSUES IN STUDYING YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
CHAPTER 19 - A Conceptual Framework and Multimethod Approach for Research on ...
 
INTRODUCTION
SURVEY RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
IMPROVING RESEARCH IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT BY IMPROVING THE FRAMEWORK FOR ...
IMPROVING RESEARCH IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT BY USING MULTIPLE METHODS
CONTRASTING QUANTITATIVE (SURVEY) AND QUALITATIVE (FOCUS GROUP) METHODS IN ...
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 20 - Political Agency and Empowerment: Pathways for Developing a Sense ...
 
INTRODUCTION
PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICAL EFFICACY FROM POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY
THEORETICAL ROOTS: POLITICAL AUTONOMY, POLITICAL COURAGE, AND DEMOCRATIC EXPERIENCE
SENSE OF POLITICAL EFFICACY IN RELATION TO PARTICIPATION, SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, ...
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-EFFICACY
EXAMINING POLITICAL LEARNING AND POLITICAL EFFICACY IN UNDERGRADUATES
APPLYING A PSYCHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK TO POLITICAL LEARNING: FOUR PATHWAYS TO A ...
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 21 - The Transdisciplinary Nature of Citizenship and Civic/Political ...
 
INTRODUCTION
THE GROWING RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION RESEARCH: A BRIEF ...
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BETWEEN SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
SUMMARY OF ROBUST RESEARCH FINDINGS
NATIONAL EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
CURRENT EXAMPLES OF EVALUATION RESEARCH IN CIVIC EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT
CONCLUSIONS
EVALUATION IN THE FIELD OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
CONCLUSIONS
BUILDING EVALUATION CAPACITY
CHAPTER SUMMARY
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 22 - Conceptualizing and Evaluating the Complexities of Youth Civic Engagement
 
THE GOLD STANDARD DEBATE
EVALUABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVES
ALTERNATIVE YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT THEORIES OF CHANGE
SIMPLE VERSUS COMPLEX MODELS
A YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT EXAMPLE: INNOVATIONS IN CIVIC PARTICIPATION
COMPLEX, DYNAMIC SYSTEMS MAPS TO UNDERSTAND YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES
INTERDEPENDENT AND INDIVIDUALIZED OUTCOMES
DEVELOPMENTAL EVALUATION
EVALUATING INNOVATION
COMPLEXITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
CONCLUSION: WHERE METHOD AND THEORY INTERSECT
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 23 - Critical Youth Engagement: Participatory Action Research and Organizing
 
CRITICAL YOUTH ENGAGEMENT: A CONCEPTUAL AND POLITICAL FRAMEWORK
GROUNDING OUR WORK IN THE PRACTICE OF YPAR AND YOUTH ORGANIZING
CRITICAL YOUTH ENGAGEMENT CORE COMMITMENTS
CRITICAL YOUTH ENGAGEMENT AS RESEARCH METHOD: PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AND METHODS ...
CRITICAL YOUTH ENGAGEMENT, ORGANIZING, AND PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH: ...
REFERENCES
 
CHAPTER 24 - Informed Social Reflection: Its Development and Importance for ...
 
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTEGRATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE
REFLECTIONS ON ADOLESCENT INFORMED SOCIAL REFLECTION: THE CASE OF SOCIAL ...
HOW PRACTICE-INSPIRED RESEARCH EVIDENCE IS INCORPORATED INTO A THEORY OF ...
THE EVOLUTION OF TOOLS TO ASSESS PROGRAMS THAT PROMOTE INFORMED SOCIAL REFLECTION
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
Author Index
Subject Index

001

Contributors
Jo-Ann Amadeo
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
 
Erik Amnå
Örebro University
Örebro, Sweden
 
Molly Andolina
DePaul University
Chicago, IL
 
Jennifer Astuto
New York University
New York, NY
 
Elizabeth Beaumont
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
 
W. Lance Bennett
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
 
Charmagne Campbell-Patton
World Savvy
Minneapolis, MN
 
Sergio Cardenas
Col. Lomas de Santa Fe
México, D.F.
 
Jason Lee Crockett
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
 
Michelle Fine
The Graduate Center, City
University of New York
New York, NY
 
Andrea Finlay
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
 
Constance Flanagan
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA, and
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
 
Madeline Fox
The Graduate Center
City University of New York
New York, NY
 
Deen Freelon
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
 
Rebecca Lakin Gullan
The Children’s Hospital of
Pennsylvania and
Gwynedd-Mercy College
Gwynedd Valley, PA
 
Daniel Hart
Rutgers University
Camden, NJ
 
Helen Haste
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA, and
University of Bath
Bath, United Kingdom
 
Diana Hess
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI
 
Ann Higgins-D’Alessandro
Fordham University
Bronx, NY
 
Lene Arnett Jensen
Clark University
Worcester, MA
 
Ronald Kassimir
The New School
New York, NY
 
Janet Kwok
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
 
Carolyn Laub
Gay-Straight Alliance Network
San Francisco, CA
 
James Lauckhardt
Fordham University
Bronx, NY
 
Nam-Jin Lee
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI
Peter Levine
Tufts University
Medford, MA
 
Meira Levinson
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
 
Hugh McIntosh
Consultant
Oakton, VA
 
Jack McLeod
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
 
Kavitha Mediratta
Brown University
New York, NY
 
Aaron Metzger
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV
 
Michael Quinn Patton
Utilization-Focused Evaluation
Saint Paul, MN
 
Fernando Reimers
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
 
Martin D. Ruck
The Graduate Center, City
University of New York
New York, NY
 
Jessica Ruglis
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health
Baltimore, MD
 
Stephen T. Russell
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
 
Hinda Seif
University of Illinois at Springfield
Springfield, IL
 
Robert L. Selman
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
 
Dhavan Shah
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI
 
Seema Shah
International Baccalaureate
New York, NY
 
Lonnie R Sherrod
Society for Research in Child
Development
Ann Arbor, MI and
Fordham University
Bronx, NY
 
Judith G. Smetana
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
 
Tara M. Stoppa
Eastern University
St. Davids, PA
 
Brett Stoudt
John Jay College
City University of New York
New York, NY
 
Michael Stout
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO
 
Amy K. Syvertsen
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
Search Institute
Minneapolis, MN
 
Russell B. Toomey
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
 
Judith Torney-Purta
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
 
Chris Wells
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
 
Britt Wilkenfeld
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
 
Laura Wray-Lake
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
Claremont Graduate University
Claremont, CA
 
James Youniss
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC
 
Pär Zetterberg
Uppsala University
Uppsala, Sweden

Preface: Promoting Research on Youth Civic Engagement
This Handbook is the final product of a consortium of researchers from multiple disciplines who focused on youth political development. This Consortium funded by the William T. Grant Foundation was formed in fall 2000, as the first editor of this Handbook left the vice presidency of the Foundation. The Foundation devoted funds to this effort, because of its recognition that citizenship is as important to adult functioning as work or family. Yet the topic of citizenship has received far less attention from researchers. The Consortium had five aims: (1) to promote research on youth civic development, (2) to identify the areas where research is needed, (3) to explore research strategies and methods, (4) to serve as a clearinghouse for research in the area and to develop networks as a means of fostering collaborations, and (5) to promote consideration of research/practice interactions in the area. This Handbook, although not specifically addressing each of these goals, represents the culmination of the Consortium’s almost 10-year history. The authors of this Handbook were asked to summarize research and especially to consider multidisciplinary work, international perspectives, and implications for policy, each of which relates to the Consortium’s goals.
Core members of the Consortium in addition to the founder and organizer Lonnie Sherrod include: LaRue Allen, New York University; William Damon, Stanford University; Constance Flanagan, Pennsylvania State University and now the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Alan Gitelson, Loyola University, Chicago; Daniel Hart, Rutgers University; Ron Kassimir, Social Science Research Council (SSRC) and now The New School; Jack McLeod, University of Wisconsin; Steven Russell, Arizona State University; Alex Stepick, Florida International University; Judith Torney-Purta, University of Maryland; and James Youniss, Catholic University. Guests at Consortium meetings included: Michael Delli Carpini, Pew Charitable Trusts and now the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania; Cynthia Gibson, Carnegie Corporation of New York; Lisa Sullivan, LISTEN; Harry Boyte, University of Minnesota; as well as graduate students from Fordham and Grant Foundation staff. The Consortium’s first goal, which was to promote research on youth civic engagement, was of most importance to the group, and we believe we have been successful in this regard.
Eight meetings were held. Practitioners and staff from interested foundations, for example, were invited or informed of meetings and their results. Many of these individuals participated in publications including authoring chapters in this Handbook. Within a few years of the establishment of the group, two major publications emerged: a special issue of Applied Developmental Science, October 2002, edited by Lonnie Sherrod, Constance Flanagan, and James Youniss; and an Encyclopedia of Youth Activism, edited by Lonnie Sherrod, Constance Flanagan, Ron Kassimir, and Amy Syvertsen, published by Greenwood Press in 2005.
One of the Consortium’s major accomplishments was the publication of the special issue of the journal Applied Developmental Science on youth civic development in fall 2002. It contained summary articles and empirical research articles in a variety of relevant areas. This issue was one of the first efforts to examine civic development in minority youth, including sexual minority youth, and it is now cited widely. Furthermore, additional copies of this journal were purchased and mailed to a list of nearly 500 policy-makers, foundation executives, program directors, and other researchers. The Foundation’s mailing list was a basic source for identifying these opinion leaders in this field.
It is of course impossible to say that these publications were the direct cause of the developments we describe for the field. Nonetheless, we believe that research on civic engagement has grown in both popularity and perceived importance during this period. When the Consortium began in 2000, the only sessions on related topics at meetings such as the Society for Research in Child Development or the Society for Research on Adolescence were those organized by Consortium members. Now sessions are numerous, there have been preconferences, and citizenship and civic engagement have become established as keywords in the submission process. Both the Annenberg and Spencer Foundations are considering or are launching initiatives in the area. Consortium members routinely receive applications from graduate students interested in the topic. Relevant items have been added to studies such as Add Health and there already have been multiple publications based on these data. Interdisciplinary and comparative studies have begun in several European nations. Several senior researchers in social development more generally have added the topic to their repertoire of research interests. In fact, we believe the field has matured to the point where this Handbook is needed.
Our publications have explicitly addressed our second goal, which is to identify areas where research is needed. Each chapter in the Handbook, for example, addresses research needs and policy implications. The project’s goal was field development, not generation of new knowledge per se. However, we have been successful in promoting research on the topic of urban disadvantaged and minority youth, immigrant youth, and sexual minority young people.
In fulfilling its third goal the Consortium has explored methods of research on youth civic engagement and has formulated a list of available datasets to support research on civic engagement; one example is the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), with which member Daniel Hart has worked. Member Constance Flanagan worked with the Add Health study to add a module on civic engagement in the last round of data collection. Since the mid-1990s Judith Torney-Purta had been leading the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study, which surveyed 140,000 adolescents in 28 countries on several dimensions of civic engagement. These data are available for use by researchers. Working with schools to conduct new data collection is proving to be difficult for researchers in all parts of the country, and the Consortium has explored vehicles for doing research with youth other than the usual survey approach. For example, Lonnie Sherrod held focus groups of youth in the Bronx in order to obtain youth input into the research agenda.
The Consortium has established lasting contacts with other relevant organizations such as the SSRC Committee on Youth Development, CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Spencer Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and others. Representatives from these organizations have attended Consortium meetings.
We believe the Consortium has been successful, and this Handbook, the first in this area, is a major reflection of that success. The purpose of this resource volume is to present the state of the field. With sections on conceptualization and definition (including international and multidisciplinary perspectives), development and developmental influences, and measurement and methods of research, the volume aims to be comprehensive. Each author was invited to address both research needs and implications for policy. A number of early career scholars who were not members of the Consortium were invited to contribute chapters. The extension of the grant allowed a meeting in New York City in May 2008 of contributors, at which summaries of chapters were presented. This meeting contributed greatly to the overall quality of the volume.
The fourth and fifth aims of the Consortium have been dealt with as we have discussed other aspects of the collaborative work. In fact, it is impossible to list all the publications of all consortium members influenced by their participation because for many it would involve listing all of their publications during the past 10 years. However, the following publications were produced by the Consortium:
Sherrod, L. R., Flanagan, C., Kassimir, R., & Bertelsen, A. (Edss.). (2005). Youth activism: An international encyclopedia. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Sherrod, L. R., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (Eds.). (2002). Growing into citizenship: Multiple pathways and diverse influences. A special issue of Applied Developmental Science, 6(4).
Sherrod, L. R., Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C. (2010). Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

PRODUCTION PROCESS

The idea for the Handbook was hatched and a skeleton outline created at a meeting of the Consortium about midpoint in its history. Authors then met at a meeting in May 2008, and presented preliminary drafts of the papers; and the current editorship trio was formed. Subsequently, a number of chapters were added to round out the coverage. Not every member of the Consortium was able to contribute a chapter but no one dropped out after their initial commitment. Quite the contrary, almost everyone we contacted to contribute a chapter willingly agreed to do so.
When chapter drafts were received, the first and third editors read each one and offered comments to the authors. This review particularly addressed the extent to which the chapter addressed multidisciplinary, international, or policy issues. These same two editors then read revisions and if no further substantive change was merited, the chapter was read by the second editor who reviewed at a more fine-grained level, checking for style, overlap across chapters, and so forth.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are numerous folks to thank. Patricia (Tisha) Rossi at Wiley was tremendously patient and understanding, and offered a wealth of information and advice. Anne Perdue on the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) staff provided absolutely invaluable administrative support helping us keep track of different versions of each chapter and generally staying on task. Robert Granger and Ed Seidman at the William T. Grant Foundation were heroic in allowing us to extend the Consortium grant to probably the longest in Foundation history, and Sharon Brewster deserves a big thank-you for dealing with the administrative headaches this inevitably created. Finally, we thank each author for tolerating our obsessive and constant requests for more work.

INTRODUCTION
Research on the Development of Citizenship: A Field Comes of Age
LONNIE R. SHERROD
Society for Research in Child Development and Fordham University
 
JUDITH TORNEY-PURTA
University of Maryland
 
CONSTANCE FLANAGAN
The Pennsylvania State University and University of Wisconsin-Madison
 
 
THE PUBLICATION OF a handbook signals that a field has come of age, that there is a sufficient body of research and a large enough cohort of researchers to merit a substantial summary of the field. We believe that the field of youth civic engagement has come of age. There are now numerous scholars across many disciplines and throughout the world working in this area. There have been a number of important publications. Most meetings of professional associations in psychology, education, political science, and sociology include sessions on the topic of civic engagement. Many peer-reviewed journals now have both theoretical and empirical research articles and there is a new generation of scholars from different disciplines committed to this topic. Policy-makers and practitioners are increasingly looking for research to guide their efforts because they recognize the importance to democracies of investing in the development of citizenship. In summary, audiences ranging from senior professors to graduate students, from those with policy-making responsibilities to advocates for changes in youth or education policy, from school or program administrators to teachers and youth workers, from journalists to publishers of educational materials need a handbook such as this. The fact that individuals in one discipline who study this field are often unaware of the work done by those in other disciplines is a compelling argument for this as an interdisciplinary volume.
While the field has come of age, it is still young. This is its first handbook. The senior editor of this publication used to begin every paper with a call for research on civic engagement: Functioning as a citizen is as important an adult behavior as working or raising a family, yet developmental science has until recently ignored civic engagement, focusing overwhelmingly on cognitive and social development leading to work or family formation.
There were surges of research on civic engagement or political socialization, as it has often been called, in the 1960s and early 1970s (reviewed by Flanagan & Sherrod, 1998). The second editor of this Handbook has been studying the topic since 1960, as a number of these waves of attention crested and then receded (Torney-Purta, 2009). The historical perspective is an explicit part of the chapters by Astuto and Ruck; Torney-Purta, Amadeo, and Andolina; and Higgins-D’Alessandro, while the contested nature of the meaning of citizenship and of civic education in the current globalizing era is discussed by Haste and by Kassimir and Flanagan.
It was a new wave of attention in the 1990s that resulted in the field coming of age. Many of the chapter authors comment on the worldwide upsurge in interest at this time in citizenship education and concerns about the engagement of youth as citizens. Concerns for the rights of children in international accords such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child demand attention to participation opportunities for children and youth (Ruck, Abramovitch, & Keating, 1998), and many governments have placed these rights high on their agendas (Torney-Purta, Wilkenfeld, & Barber, 2008).
Many scholars have argued that the current wave of attention to this area was prompted in part by Robert Putnam’s landmark declaration that many countries in the developed world, especially the United States, face a crisis in terms of declining levels of civic involvement of younger generations (1996, 2000). The fall of the Berlin Wall followed by monumental political and educational changes in Eastern Europe set the stage for attention to this area. Research increased markedly during the 1990s, and now almost two decades later, the field has come of age and this Handbook can serve to further develop the research area.
The field of youth civic engagement has been enriched by interdisciplinary work linking political science and developmental psychology. This has resulted in a broadened conceptualization of civic participation that goes beyond voting and electoral politics. In addition, the field has benefited from two theoretical perspectives in the broader field of human development: a life-span or life-course approach is one, and positive youth development is the other. We briefly review each of these issues before describing the goals and nature of this Handbook.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

A life-span perspective has not been well used in research on child and adolescent development, although it has been important to studies of adult development. We argue that it has also been important to research on youth civic development. A positive youth development (PYD) perspective is on the other hand an increasingly important force in research on adolescent and youth development. Although PYD acknowledges the importance of the development of citizenship, research on civic engagement has not been explicit about the role played by a focus on positive development.

A LIFE-SPAN OR LIFE-COURSE PERSPECTIVE

Ideas and methods from life-span research arose in the 1970s and have become increasingly popular across the succeeding decades. The life-span perspective (so-called by psychologists) or life-course perspective (so-called by sociologists) promotes a view of lifelong plasticity. In other words, growth and change continues throughout life. This perspective emphasizes a plurality of developmental paths and outcomes rather than a single model, and the interaction of person and environment. Both stand in contrast to the classic theories of development offered by theorists such as Freud and Piaget, who argue that development has a single path and is complete by early adolescence. It also recognizes multiple influences on development, for example, the importance of social-political context and the role of historical factors as well as the more typically studied age-graded or maturational factors. Because of this focus on multiple influences, the life-span view also advocated for the importance of longitudinal, and especially for cohort-sequential, research using multiple methods (Baltes, Reese, & Lipsitt, 1980; Hetherington, Lerner, & Perlmutter, 1988). Generally, it supports genuine developmental research throughout the life span. Additionally, theories such as those of Bronfenbrenner (1989), Bandura (2001), and Lave and Wenger (1991), though they are not strictly speaking life-span developmental theories, can be applied to individuals of all ages, as illustrated in chapters in this volume by Wilkenfeld, Lauckhardt, and Torney-Purta; Beaumont; and McIntosh and Youniss.
Questions of plasticity and the life course also have figured in the field of political science in studies of political socialization. With respect to plasticity, political scientists have debated the extent to which political ideas and opinions crystallize early in life or are malleable into mid- or later life (Sears & Levy, 2003). Life-course arguments also have been invoked to explain lower levels of youth engagement in electoral politics vis-à-vis that of their elders. The chapters by Amnå and Zetterberg; Finlay, Wray-Lake, and Flanagan; McLeod, Shah, Hess, and Lee; and Reimers and Cardenas consider these issues.
Since civic engagement usually reaches fruition in adulthood, the life-span approach points to the need for research on citizenship that crosses several developmental periods and continues throughout life. As we describe in the next section, it also considers multiple influences such as sociopolitical context and history graded influence. Finally, research in this volume clearly demonstrates that there are multiple pathways to diverse outcomes. These life-span conceptualizations provided tools for the research on civic engagement that began to emerge in the mid-1990s, adding further impetus to its growth (Sherrod & Lauckhardt, 2008a).

POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

This new wave of research on youth civic engagement and political socialization also benefited from a new approach to research and policy in youth development, which arose in the 1990s: Positive Youth Development (PYD). Generally, PYD is an approach, not an actual construct or theory as is a life-span approach to developmental research (Sherrod, Busch, & Fisher, 2004). It is particularly relevant here because political or civic participation can be seen as both a contributor to and an outcome of positive youth development (Sherrod & Lauckhardt, 2008b).
PYD argues that development is promoted by assets, both internal and external. There is variability in the assets individuals bring to each of their contexts for growth; furthermore, there are numerous contexts including families, schools, communities, and societies or nations that convey and promote the further development of these assets. These contexts vary in the assets they offer that promote development, especially across individual youth (Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998; Larsen, 2000). PYD arose in part because of decades of largely unsuccessful research and policy oriented to preventing negative outcomes by reducing risk. PYD examines the strengths youth possess—rather than focusing on their risks—and designs policies and programs that are oriented to promoting positive outcomes rather than preventing negative ones (Lerner, 2004; Sherrod, 2006). Recent research has continued to examine and define the specific nature of assets (Theokas, Almerigi, Lerner, Dowling, Benson, Scales, & Von Eye, 2005). Nonetheless, the PYD approach clearly highlights the need for youth policy to promote development based on the resources available to them in their families, schools, and communities, and this need is especially critical in regard to the encouragement of civic engagement. It emphasizes empowerment as an important ingredient to engaging youth successfully in their communities (Sherrod, 2007). The PYD approach offers tools for the conceptualization of civic engagement that can lead to better measurement and also to arguments for policy change that are convincing to the general public as well as specialists (Sherrod & Lauckhardt, 2008a).
The PYD perspective articulates six Cs: Character, Competence, Confidence, Connection, Caring, and Contribution. The sixth, Contribution, emerges from the first five. Youth who exemplify the first 5 Cs are likely to be productive members of their community (Damon, Menon, & Bronk, 2003), that is, they are likely to be civically engaged. Contribution, which is the sixth C, most directly relates to civic participation (Lerner, 2004). A young person who is involved in civic service or political action represents an instance of positive development, and the activity contributes to further positive development. The two aspects reinforce one another, which is why this approach is so important to research on civic engagement (Sherrod, 2007). At the same time, the field of positive youth development can benefit from greater attention to the social class and racial or ethnic divides in civic opportunities noted in the field of youth civic engagement (Flanagan, Syvertsen, & Wray-Lake, 2007; Kahne & Middaugh, 2009; Torney-Purta, Barber, & Wilkenfeld, 2007). Unequal opportunities for asset building and for civic skill development is a critical issue in need of policy attention and is a major focus of the chapters by Levinson; Finlay and collaborators; Fox and collaborators; Hart and Gullan; and Haste, Jensen, and Seif.
Together, a life-span perspective and the positive youth development approach provide frameworks for research on youth civic engagement. The firm establishment and enhancement of these approaches contributed to the maturation of the youth civic engagement field.

THE NATURE OF RESEARCH ON YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Research on civic engagement shows several qualities that may explain its appeal across a wide range of scholars, and thereby also contribute to the growth of the field. These same qualities also present challenges to research, especially in regard to methods and measures and connections to policy and programs.

MULTIFACETED CONCEPTUALIZATION

Civic engagement is certainly a multifaceted and complex phenomenon.
While this quality generates scholarly interest, it also creates challenges. The fact that research on civic engagement is both international and multidisciplinary complicates the problem of conceptualization. Political socialization has been, for example, the favored term in sociology and political science. If you ask youth the question, “What is a good citizen?” they most frequently report that citizenship is simply good behavior such as obeying laws or perhaps voting, and they will rarely offer more than one such quality (Sherrod, 2003). Few scholars would be comfortable with such a definition.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines citizenship as “the status of a citizen with its duties, rights and privileges.” The political theorist Michael Walzer (1989) defines a citizen as “most simply, a member of a political community, entitled to whatever prerogatives and encumbered with whatever responsibilities are attached to membership.” The emphasis on membership, rights, and responsibilities is useful for a developmental perspective because it helps the field conceptualize critical features to look for in formative environments (Flanagan, 2004). That is, to develop democratic competencies and dispositions, youth need opportunities to experience what it means to be a member of community organizations and institutions (schools and cultural, ethnic, faith-based, or environmental groups). And they need opportunities in those groups to exercise voice, deliberate and negotiate with fellow members of the organization, and assume responsibility for group projects and the integrity of the organization. Astuto and Ruck make the point that school is one of the first institutions to offer these opportunities to children.
Walzer also emphasizes that the words civic and political have common roots with the Latin civis and the Greek polites, referring to the political community. However, as Flanagan and Faison (2001) note, today the word political has come to mean affairs of the state, the business of government, or actions in the electoral or partisan arena. The term civic has a broader meaning associated with being a member of the polity, community, or civil society. Hence, Flanagan and Faison chose to use civic as the broader version. They then differentiate civic literacy as knowledge of community affairs and political issues, civic skills as competencies in achieving group goals, and civic attachment as a feeling or belief that the individual matters. They present evidence that social relations, opportunities for practice, and the values and behaviors communicated by adults and social institutions determine youth’s civic development in these three areas.
This is a very useful approach to definition, but Walzer’s idea of citizenship also includes membership, which is similar to but not isomorphic with the idea of civic attachment. Membership involves both rights and responsibilities. Nation is the typical body of membership, at least for those interested in politics or citizenship. Responsibilities of citizenship include generally taking an interest in and being involved in one’s country by obeying laws, voting, following current events, and taking a stand against unjust policies or laws. By virtue of their membership in the polity, individual citizens enjoy certain rights such as freedom of speech and certain benefits such as public education—although the conceptualization of prerogatives and obligations and the very meaning of citizenship vary, especially across nations (Flanagan, Martinez, & Cumsille, 2009). This is the reason that the international IEA Civic Education Study began with a series of case studies delineating conceptualization of civic education and their specific instantiations in 24 nations (Steiner-Khamsi, Torney-Purta, & Schwille, 2002; Torney-Purta, Schwille, & Amadeo, 1999). It is through the civic engagement of succeeding generations, through their exercise of rights and responsibilities, that democratic polities and the rights of citizens are sustained.
Adolescents do have opinions about the duties and rights they will acquire as adult citizens and these views map onto the differentiation of civic and political described above. High-school students in the United States see citizen responsibilities consisting of both civic ones, such as support for social justice, and political ones, such as voting (Bogard & Sherrod, 2008). They see citizen rights consisting of freedoms that relate to political participation and entitlements, which relate to supports from their community (Sherrod, 2008). Certainly membership including rights and obligations is one characteristic across most conceptualizations of civic engagement (Sherrod & Lauckhardt, 2008b).
Membership is the dimension of civic engagement that raises the most complexities in defining the citizen; one can be a member of institutions, or attached to institutions, other than the nation state or the government of the country in which one resides. Such memberships also carry both benefits and duties. As a result, the individual can express some of those same behaviors that constitute citizenship through membership in or allegiance to other institutions. Examples of other allegiances or memberships include one’s community or fellow members of one’s organization (Kirshner, 2009), family (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999), religion (Sherrod & Spiewak, 2008), or race/ethnic group (Hughes & Chen, 1997; Torney-Purta, Barber, & Wilkenfeld, 2007), and research has shown that these other allegiances relate to adolescents’ views of citizenship (Bogard & Sherrod, 2008). But the controversy in regard to the definition of citizenship is to what extent the behaviors associated with allegiances to community or family should be viewed as important to citizenship and to political behaviors such as voting. Certainly these other allegiances relate to the accrual of social capital, which is important to the civic health of the nation (Hyman, 2002). The civic side of citizenship would also relate to some of these other allegiances.
Another important issue for the definition of citizenship is whether tolerance, concern for others, and altruism should be viewed as a component of citizenship. Working for one’s community by doing service is, for example, usually seen as altruistic, and research shows a correlation between community service in youth and later civic engagement (Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1997; Youniss & Levine, 2009). Research also shows that experiences of community service vary a great deal. Qualities such as type of service (tutoring versus working in a soup kitchen, for example), being mandatory or volunteer, providing an opportunity for reflection, and the characteristics of organizing groups affect its relation to civic engagement (Reinders & Youniss, 2006; Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1997; Torney-Purta, Amadeo, & Richardson, 2007). However, altruism cannot be the only motivation underlying political action. Politics also reflects working for one’s group interests and contesting for power. Whether the motivation is contesting for power or acting on behalf of the common good, taking political action implies that an individual sees his or her life and goals connected with those of others, although the definition of others can be more or less expansive and heterogeneous.
Some consider a concern for social justice to be a critical aspect of civic engagement and view activism as an important form of participation (Ginwright & Watts, 2006); in this volume, Hart and Gullan address the importance of activism to youth in disadvantaged communities. Russell, Toomey, Crockett, and Laub describe how concern for the rights of sexual minority youth get some young people politically involved. Haste and also Metzger and Smetana discuss activism originating in concern about a political or social issue such as human rights. Reimers and Cardenas deal extensively with tolerance of diverse groups among Mexican youth. But concern for others, participation in community service, and activism for social justice are not universally acknowledged as forms of civic engagement.
The clarity and appropriateness of research questions and the value of multimethod approaches are important considerations in research on this topic, and are dealt with at length in the chapter by Torney-Purta, Amadeo, and Andolina. A research approach employing young people themselves as the researchers is found in the chapter by Fox and associates. Measures and their meaningfulness and validity are considered in relation to several theories by Wilkenfeld, Lauckhardt, and Torney and with reference to the concept of political efficacy by Beaumont.
Sherrod & Lauckhardt (2008a), in an attempt to articulate a comprehensive view of civic engagement, proposed a model involving three components: political involvement or civic activities; concern for others and tolerance; and allegiance, attachment, or membership. Their conceptualization is similar to that of Flanagan and Faison (2001). The point is that citizenship is certainly a complex domain of adult behavior (Sherrod, Flanagan, & Youniss, 2002), and this complexity may account for its increasing popularity as a research topic (Youniss, Bales, Christmas-Best, Diversi, McLaughlin, & Silbereisen, 2002). It is likely that there are multiple developmental paths to different types of civic outcomes, as advocated by life-span theorists. And civic engagement clearly exemplifies positive youth development. As a research topic, it therefore appeals to a diverse group of scholars.
These qualities also mean it is important to examine the topic carefully across the diverse population of youth in the world, and research has begun to do this across ethnicity, immigrant status, and social class (Flanagan, Cumsille, Gill, & Gallay, 2007; Flanagan, Syvertsen, Gill, & Gallay, 2009; Flanagan & Tucker, 1999; Hart, Atkins, & Ford, 1998; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1992; Jensen & Flanagan, 2008; Stepick, Stepick, & Labissiere, 2008; Torney-Purta, Barber, & Wilkenfeld, 2007). This theme is threaded throughout the chapters in this Handbook.
This Handbook, especially the chapters in the first section, addresses the nature of civic engagement from the perspective of different disciplines and from international viewpoints. There has been variability in the definitions that have framed the research. McIntosh and Youniss offer a multidisciplinary theory of political socialization. Haste describes the critical approach of European psychology in her examination of previous research and its manifestations in civic education. Levine and Higgins D’Alessandro consider explicitly how different fields, especially philosophy and psychology, address normative issues that serve as the basis for different approaches to civic education and engagement programs. Kassimir and Flanagan focus on different framings of civic engagement for youth in the developing world. Amnå and Zetterberg and Reimers focus on Swedish and Mexican youth, respectively. Throughout the book, international themes are addressed, however, by the presentation of findings from the IEA Civic Education Study (summarized in Torney-Purta, 2002) and from the study by Flanagan and her colleagues (1998).
This complexity of conceptualization also creates challenges for research. How civic engagement is defined, of course, determines what is examined in regard to development. Clarity of the research question becomes critical. Is the researcher interested in explicitly political participation, concerns for social justice and activism, or civic attachment or identity, for example? Is the researcher looking for age or gender differences or trying to examine the process of learning and development? Research questions then determine what is measured. Controversy around definition is healthy as long as the conceptualization of civic engagement and its relation to research questions and to measurement is clear. It is our hope that this Handbook will contribute to some clarification of conceptualizations and their relation to measurement.

DEVELOPMENTAL DISCONTINUITY

Developmental discontinuity means that either the behavior or the construct underlying that behavior changes in important ways across age or developmental period. Attachment, for example, is a construct that is interesting in this respect; a healthy person is typically able to show some attachment to significant others in their lives and therefore the construct of attachment shows some stability across development. The behaviors indexing attachment, however, change dramatically with age. Proximity seeking is one key indicator of attachment in infants; not needing proximity and being able to tolerate separations is an indicator at older ages. Stability in both behavior and construct is called homotypic continuity; when the behavior indexing a particular construct changes developmentally, heterotypic continuity or discontinuity is shown (Kagan, 1980). Civic engagement shows heterotypic developmental discontinuity, which enhances its appeal to developmental scientists.
One does not typically engage in behaviors that we define as active citizenship until adulthood. Eighteen years is the legal voting age in most democracies, although there is a trend toward lowering the voting age. Several chapters in this Handbook address the issue of age appropriateness for other aspects of citizenship.