Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology

Abstract

Reviewing the literature on political participation and civic engagement, the article offers a critical examination of different conceptual frameworks. Drawing on previous definitions and operationalisations, a new typology for political participation and civic engagement is developed, highlighting the multidimensionality of both concepts. In particular, it makes a clear distinction between manifest "political participation" (including formal political behaviour as well as protest or extra-parliamentary political action) and less direct or "latent" forms of participation, conceptualized here as "civic engagement" and "social involvement". The article argues that the notion of "latent" forms of participation is crucial to understand new forms of political behaviour and the prospects for political participation in different countries. Due to these innovations it contributes to a much-needed theoretical development within the literature on political participation and citizen engagement.

Genes, psychological traits and civic engagement

“…B 370: 20150015 non-political civic behaviour. But these activities also differ in essential ways, such that it is important to make clear distinctions between various forms of political and non-political engagement [27].…”

Aspects of students’ civic engagement

“…According to Ekman and Amnå (2012), we need to distinguish civic participation (latent political participation) from manifest political participation. Latent involvement includes characteristics such as interest and attentiveness, while manifest political participation takes the form of active engagement and involves activities undertaken either individually or collectively.…”

All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance

“…Even though the 'supply' of new formats demonstrates an extensive variety of new tools, the experimentation with and adoption of novel participatory formats by the 'demand side' is not straightforward. Many planners address the lack of sufficient education and training in participatory methods (Ekman & Amnå, 2012;Handley & Howell-Moroney, 2010;Innes & Booher, 2004). Others report on the limitations posed by existing regulatory frameworks which enforce the use of specific methods and fail to follow the pace of technological development of innovative engagement tools (Houghton, Miller, & Foth, 2014).…”

“…Instead of attending another community meeting people would rather spend their 'leisure-time' on activities they appreciate and truly enjoy (Lerner, 2014). Other authors emphasise that citizens still engage but the ways of communication have changed drastically, complementing and partly even replacing community meetings and co-located participatory action with digital tools and social media (Ekman & Amnå, 2012;Gordon & Mihailidis, 2016;Hay, 2007;Kleinhans, van Ham, & Evans-Cowley, 2015;Macafee & De Simone, 2012;Marichal, 2013;Skocpol, 1997;Tufekci & Wilson, 2012). In different planning and design-related disciplines, digital tools for online participation, such as e-democracy portals, online consultations, e-voting, crowdsourcing, blogging, social network platforms, mobile apps, community GIS, and online deliberation, have gained increased attention as instruments to involve citizens and actor groups who either are too busy or not interested to participate in co-located meetings (e.g., Ahmed, Mehdi, Moreton, & Elmaghraby, 2015;Belluci et al, 2015;Kelley & Johnston, 2011;Prandi, Roccetti, Salomoni, Nisi, & Jardim Nunes, 2017).…”