TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 I Click, Therefore I am: The Internet and the Political Participation of Young People in Turkey Solmaz Filiz Karabağ and Bezen Balamir Coşkun Linköping University, Zirve University, (corresponding author), bezenbalamir@yahoo.com Abstract Based on a survey that inquires the link between the Internet and young people’s political par- ticipation, this study seeks answers to the following research questions: Does the use of the Inter- net trigger young people’s political participation? Is there a connection between (1) being active in live politics and online politics, and (2) being politically informed and politically active for both on- line and offline participants? Throughout the study differences between online and offline politics are examined to provide a better understanding about changing types of political participation in an emerging country which has relatively limited experience with democracy. It also aims to extend our understanding of online participation by analyzing how this can be related to offline political participation and to the level of Internet use. Keywords The Internet, Online Political Participation, Offline Political Participation, Turkey. 113 TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 Introduction Above all, since the young people spend an increasing amount of time on the Inter- It is a general belief that young peo- net, for them, the Internet emerges as a ple are not as much involved in politics as crucial domain within which they can par- elder generations were. Existing studies ticipate in the civic and political life of the underline this argument such as those of transforming contemporary society (Bachen Mindich (2005) and Putnam (2000). Mind- et al. 2008, Livingstone 2007, Loader 2007). ich’s analysis shows that the indifference of In general, the Internet offers numerous op- young generation toward political participa- portunities for acquiring social and political tion can be explained with the changing at- behaviors. titude towards politics as a result of a more individualistic, or even hedonistic, attitude Previous studies have highlighted the (Mindich 2005, 18-33). Overall, young peo- role of Internet on the political participation ple only follow the outlines of politics; thus, of the young people, but most of these stud- their knowledge of politics is assumed to be ies focus on only certain aspects of political participation. These studies mainly focused limited. In a similar vein, there is a decline in on the developed/Western countries such as the turnout of youth in elections. Over the the UK, United States of America and Aus- past forty years, the participation of young tralia (see Calenda and Mosca 2007, Collin people between the ages 18 of and 24 in 2008, Davis 1999, Gibson et al 2005, Krue- the American presidential elections has de- ger, 2002). This paper, however, explores creased from 50.9 per cent in 1964, to 32.3 various forms of political participation of per cent in 2000 (Mindich 2005, 22). Similar young people on the Internet in an emerg- trends are also seen in Canada, Western Eu- ing country, Turkey. For the purpose of this rope, Japan and Latin America (Niemi and research, Turkey portrays an interesting Weisberg 2001, Blais et al. 2004). case, as she has the eleventh largest Internet Scholars like Della Porta and Mosca use in the world; that means, over 35 million (2005), DiMaggio et al. (2001) and Nor- people in the country are online. Moreover, ris (2002a, 2002b) argue that low politi- Turkish people are the third largest group on cal participation by young people reflects a Facebook. In this article, the connection be- transformation in politics. It is claimed that tween offline and online political character- istics of young people in Turkey is discussed. young people are interested in politics, but in a different way than previous generations. This study will seek answers to the follow- Rather than being getting involved in con- ing research questions: Does the use of the ventional politics, they prefer participating Internet trigger young people’s political par- in single issue movements and networks. ticipation? Is there a connection between (1) According to Norris (2002a and 2002b), being active in live politics and online poli- disengagement from conventional forms tics, and (2) being politically informed and of participation have led to the creation of politically active for both online and offline new unconventional forms of participation. participants? Finally, differences between These new forms of political participation online and offline politics will be examined reflect a rise of networked individualism, a in this study. This examination will provide a trend in which people form transitory alli- better understanding about changing types ances according to dynamic ever changing and extentions of political participation in interests (Wellman et al. 2001). an emerging country which has relatively 114  TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 limited experience with democracy. It also publications that are focused on the impact aims to extend our understanding of online of the Internet on political activity has been participation by analyzing how this can be observed (Boulianne 2009, Brants 2005, related to offline political participation and Bimber 2001, Castells 1997, Davis 1999, van to the level of Internet use. Lastly, we will de Donk et al. 2004, Norris 2001, 2002a, present survey results which offer an ana- 2002b, Gibson et al. 2005, Polat 2005, Kru- lytical approach, instrumental or psycho- ger 2006, Xenos and Moy 2007, Anduzia et logical, that explains the link between the al. 2007 and 2009). Even though the find- Internet and young people’s political partici- ings about the effects of the Internet on po- pation most obviously. litical participation are often contradictory, there is also a consensus that the Internet We believe that this research will allow has emerged as a powerful alternative venue us to explain both online and offline politi- for political activities which are beyond the cal participation of university students. The classical political channels. The Internet also first section of the article will review the offers new participation repertoires that literature on the Internet and political par- contain different forms and contexts of po- ticipation. This section will be followed by an litical participation (Anduiza et al. 2007). overview of studies on the Internet and the political participation of young people. After The extensive use of computer-mediat- the literature review section, results of the ed communication means1 by individuals, surveys conducted at Zirve University will groups, social networks, and movements has be presented. triggered an expansion in the opportunities and scope for political participation. In their review of studies on political participation The Internet and Political and the Internet, Anduiza et al. (2007 and Participation 2009) conclude that Internet communica- tion extends opportunities for political par- In less than two decades, the Internet ticipation, lowers the barriers of participa- has increasingly become a common venue tion, improves the quality of participation, for political participation. Advances in increases the level of participation among computer-mediated communication have some segments of society, and provides new stirred debates over the political and social means for mobilization. In a similar vein, implications of Internet access. It is widely Margolis and Resnick (2000, 14) argue that argued that Internet technology is having a “there is an extensive political life on the profound effect on regular political activity Net, but it is mostly an extension of politi- by either offering new channels for partici- cal life off the Net.” This new venue for poli- pation or modifying the existing ones. tics is characterized by personal rather than The Internet has facilitated “the exten- collective engagement, and puts a stronger sion of the aims of participation, broad- emphasis on single issues than on ideolo- ening their territorial scope and enabling gies (Bennett 1998). Online political activity coordination and political influence on a transnational scale to occur with an ease 1 By the end of 2010, there were 1.97 billion Internet users worldwide, 2.9 billion e-mail addresses, which was virtually unknown until a decade 600 million Facebook users and 175 million Twit- ago” (Anduiza et al. 2009, 861). As a conse- ter account (http://ekonomi.haberturk.com/teknoloji/ quence of this phenomenon, an increase in haber/593618-iste-2010un-internet-haritasi). 115 TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 appears as spontaneous, less dependent on mation rapidly and cheaply. It also enables traditional political institutions, and based users to send information to multiple users on decentralized networking. The develop- at no extra costs.” However, Polat found out ments in web-based forms of political par- that better educated people, who have gen- ticipation open the door for new ways of in- eral knowledge on the issues of political af- volvement in the political landscape. Online fairs, are more able to use and interpret the politics has challenged traditional politics. specific media information. Studies show that the people who make good use of on- As an example of the various uses of the line political information tend to be those Internet and the web, blogs, as forms of self- who are already interested in politics (Bim- expression and self-presentation (Trammell ber 1999, Norris 1999). In summary, it is ar- and Keshelashvili 2005), are increasingly gued that people who actively participate in becoming community forums (Nardi et al. online political activities are more likely to 2004), political outlets (Kerbel and Bloom, be people who are already active in political 2005, Sweetser and Kaid 2008, Trammell participation. According to Wellman et al.’s et al. 2006), and interactive spaces within (2001) findings, most of the active people in a given political website. The Pew Internet online politics are already active in normal and American Life Project estimated that by politics. Even though the comforts provided the end of 2004, 8 million Americans would by the computer-mediated communication have created blogs and 32 million Americans may lead to an increase in the amount of would have read blogs, with a 58 percent in- participation, the diversity of participation crease in less than a year, (Pew Internet and has not changed considerably because most American Life Project 2008). By the end of of the participants are the usual suspects. As 2010, the number of blogs reached 152 mil- Dahlberg (2001) notes, online deliberation lion according to BlogPulse, a blog search en- is dominated both quantitatively and quali- gine. Regarding the blogs, Zuniga and Rojas tatively by a few people, which is an exten- (2009, 555) argue that “blogs may constitute sion of the inequalities in the offline social themselves as an alternative source of infor- world. mation and political action organization, resulting in increased political engagement.” In the second facet of the Internet as a communication medium, the decentralized According to Graber et al. (2002, 93-94) nature of the Internet encourages various “...the literature on interest networks and civil society groups, particularly the issue- global activism seems particularly rich in based ones, to communicate with both oth- examples of how various uses of the Inter- er groups and their members via electronic net and the Web have transformed activism, newsletters, email lists, and web-boards (Po- political pressure, and public communica- lat 2005, 442). By enabling common people tion strategies.” In her detailed study, Polat to set up their own websites and broadcast deconstructs the Internet into three facets, their political positions on certain issues, and then explores the links between the In- the Internet provides different kinds of ternet and political participation. Accord- expressive forms of political participation ing to this, the Internet is an information (Polat 2005, 445). In this regard, the Inter- source; a communication medium; and a vir- net offers more “convenient, cheap and in- tual socializing public sphere. Polat (2005, novative methods of communication” for 437)’s study affirms that the Internet “ena- the political participation of such segments bles dissemination of a high volume of infor- of society as youngsters and those who are 116  TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 house-bound due to disability, illness, age or related to political engagement. Similarly, lack of social skills (Polat 2005, 443). Tolbert and McNeal (2003) also found out that access to the Internet is positively as- Polat (2005, 452) considers the third sociated with voting and other forms of po- facet of the Internet as the virtual public litical participation. In this vein, Weber et al. sphere. It offers certain opportunities for point out that the Internet makes it easier issue-based groups to come together online. to obtain political information by mediating Thanks to the Internet, these groups have a political organizations, direct government huge potential for “capacity building, get- web sites, and information sharing through ting support and information from other via email, listservs, and chat rooms (Weber like-minded people and encouraging them et al. 2003, 39). involving in further political participation.” The psychological approach, on the other The research on the political implications hand, argues that the political effects of the of the Internet has so far generated impor- new ways of using media are contingent on tant theoretical insights. While at one end individuals’ levels of sophistication, mo- of the spectrum of theoretical models are tives, and social context (Bimber 2003). instrumental models that emphasize the Scholars who apply a psychological approach relationships between the costs of commu- in their studies argue that the effect of the nication and participation; at the other end Internet is contingent on media preferences of the spectrum, there are models that adopt and social context. In regard to political en- a psychological approach in which motives, gagement, the level of people’s interest in characteristics, and social contexts of users politics and public affairs is one of the most play important roles (Bimber 2003). Within important factors As indicated by Xenos and the context of the instrumental approach, Moy, in every area of political engagement, scholars “expect to find direct relationships there is a “critical difference between those between changes in the cost and variety of who chronically pay attention to politics and information available and political engage- public affairs, and those who attend to such ment” (Xenos and Moy 2007, 705). The information with only a passing interest” psychological approach, on the other hand, (Xenos and Moy 2007, 708). broadens the theoretical scope and includes Considering that the Internet is used more nuanced views on the effects of the In- widely by young people, several studies on ternet. The psychological approach focuses the Internet and its effects on political par- on interactions between the technology it- ticipation also focus on this generation. The self and user characteristics (Bimber 2003). literature on the Internet and political par- The instrumental approach concludes ticipation of youth and the results of these that the Internet, for people who have basic studies will be reviewed in the next section. access to it, dramatically reduces the costs of accessing information and communica- The Internet and the Political tion. Studies done within the context of the Participation of Young People instrumental approach have shown that on- line political communication has generated It is argued that the low political partici- a greater political engagement and partici- pation of young people reflects the existence pation. Among all, Johnson and Kaye (2004) of a transformation in politics (Della Porta found that the Internet use is substantially and Mosca 2005, DiMaggio et al. 2001 and 117 TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 Norris 2002a, 2002b). According to these enced by traditional canvassing methods” studies, young people no longer get involved (2004, 11). Similarly, Kann et al.’s study in conventional politics; instead, they par- shows how the use of the Internet changes ticipate in single issue movements and net- the attitudes of young people towards poli- works. Coleman and Rowe (2005), in their tics (2007). The pattern of their Internet use study on democracy and young people, find is reflected in their hobbies, social contacts, out that young people express their political education, and online political participa- stands through cause-related networks. EU- tion (Calenda and Meijer 2009, 882). Many YOPART (2003-2005) research, which was authors discuss the fact that access to the conducted in 8 European countries among Internet is generally concentrated among the young people whose ages varied between young people. Thus, some research has in- 18 and 25, concluded that the young Euro- dicated that the Internet promotes young peans do not trust traditional politics but people’s political involvement even though supported the idea of participating in civil they are considered as the least participa- society activities.2 As pointed out by Norris tive section of society in traditional political (2002a), this disengagement from conven- activities (Krueger 2002, Delli Carpini and tional political participation has caused the Keeter1996). Colins’ study of the Internet creation of new forms of political partici- and the development of the young people’s pation. Young people tend to be active and political identities finds that “Internet is sig- express their opinions about specific issues nificant in the development of young peo- in non-governmental groups (Calenda and ple’s political identities” by providing a plat- Meijer 2009, 880). form for the realization of project-oriented political identities, by helping them to get As mentioned, the Internet offers nu- organized through online networks, and by merous opportunities for adopting various offering opportunities for their engagement social and political behaviors. Since young in spontaneous forms of everyday politics people spend a considerable amount of their (Colins 2008, 539). time on the net, the Internet emerges as the main domain where their political participa- Studies that explore the role of the Inter- tion takes place. The flexible, hypertexual, net on the political participation of young and networked structure of the Internet people mainly focus on certain aspects of appeals to young people since it fits young this issue. In their study conducted in 2005 people’s informal, peer-oriented and anti- upon the online participation in the UK, authority approach (Bentivegna 2002). Gibson et al. find evidence for a genuine mo- bilization among the young people thanks to Iyengar and Jackman’s study proves that the Internet. According to Gibson et al. “po- young Americans’ enthusiasm for digital litical activity is actually found to be most technology provides opportunities to en- likely among younger people and those with gage them in normal politics. Iyengar and a high level of Internet familiarity, regard- Jackman argue that using digital technol- less of socio-economic status” (Gibson et ogy “raised interest in the election and civic al. 2005, 562). However, there is no consen- mindedness, neither of which can be influ- sus on this point. For example, Shah et al. (2001) argue that young people use the In- ternet mainly for non-political purposes. On 2 SORA EUYOPART 2005 Project Reports, http://www.sora.at/en/topics/political-culture/euy- the other hand, in their analysis of how web- oupart-2003-2005/en-reports.html sites affect young adults’ political interests, 118  TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 Lupia and Philbot (2005, 1138) conclude Methodology that the Internet “can increase young adults’ interest in politics.” In this vein, the studies It is assumed that the university stu- conducted on young people’s online political dents, both undergraduates and postgradu- participation agree on that those who are ac- ates, constitute the most appropriate sample tive and/or interested in online politics are group in researching the effects of the Inter- already active and/or interested in politics net on political participation. University stu- in general. Calenda and Mosca(2007, 39)’s dents, in general, tend to follow and use the findings in 2007 indicate that there are two newest technologies, and they have access connected relationships between offline and to technology at their university campuses. online politics, “people who are already en- They are much better educated and also tend gaged in offline social and political networks to be more politically active than the other use the Internet to consolidate their par- young members of the society. During the ticipation” and “the general characteristics survey, we explored whether these students of offline participation among students are use the Internet for political participation reproduced online.” In their research on stu- or not. This preliminary research was con- ducted at Zirve University, Turkey. Located dents from Spain, the Netherlands and Italy, in Gaziantep, southeastern Anatolia, Zirve Calenda and Meijer (2009, 892)’s regression University has 1500 students each of whom analysis results affirm that “more offline po- are provided personel laptops when they litical participation corresponds with more had enroll at the university. online political participation” and “the type of online participation mirrors the type of For this study, four hundred surveys were offline political participation.” Vromen’s distributed; 205 responses were received. studies in Australia also affirm that the In- However 10 of them had to be discarded as ternet reinforces the existing political inter- they were not useful for the analysis. 195 ests and practices of young people, rather surveys were eventually used for the final than mobilizing them as active political ac- statistical analysis. The general demographic tors (Vromen 2003). features of the partcipants are shown in Ta- ble 1. The average age of the students is 20. For this study a survey is administered to The number of participants from different the students at Zirve University, Gaziantep, faculties were well-distributed among the Turkey. Considering the highly active char- students of all the faculties. Approximately, acteristic of Turkish politics, particularly those in the south- Table 1. Demographic features of participants (n=195) (in %) eastern Anatolian region of the Male Female country, it is assumed that the Gender 48% %52 university students in this re- 18 19 20 21 22 or more gion have a high interest in poli- Age (years old) 10% 37% 31% 9% 13% tics. The results of this survey Faculty Edu. Eco Eng Voc which reveal the relationship 34% 24% 23% 15% between the Internet and po- Turkish Kurdish Arabic Others litical participation will be de- Mother tongue of 87% 10% 2% 1% students’ mother scribed in the next section. Mother tongue of 83% 12% 3% 2% students’ father 119 TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 15 percent of the students’ parents had a activities and inclinations were also asked. mother tongue other than Turkish, such as Their replies are shown in Table 2. As can be Kurdish, a fact which reflects the ethnic di- seen, approximately 28 percent of the stu- versity of the region. dents have a family member who is active in formal or informal political life and approxi- In addition to the general demographic mately 12 percent of the participants them- features of the participants, their political selves are members of political parties. Table 2. Other Features of Participants Yes No Having a family member who is active in the Turkish formal political life 28% 72% Having a family member who is active in a non- profit organization 28 72% Officially being a member of a political party 12% 88% Officially being a member of a non-profit organization 6% 94% Being a subscriber of a political web-side 13 87% Having internet, where to live 74% 26% The empirical analysis is built on a com- al. 2001, Xenos and Moy 2007). prehensive survey, which contains two parts. The first part of the survey aims to reveal demographic features of the partici- Results and Findings pants (See Table 1 and Table 2). The second A one way ANOVA is employed to com- part contains items determining how and pare the differences between females and where the Internet is used, offline and on- males in terms of their online active and line interests of students, and the level of passive political participations. As seen in their political participation. These items, Table 3, the online political participation measured with the Likert type of scale differs significantly between the genders. which was developed using the existing In both types of online political participa- empirical studies. For example, the types tion, males have significantly higher mean of Internet use were measured with eight scores than the females have. items, gathered from earlier studies (see Gibson et al. 2005, Pasek et al. 2006, Quin- This finding, however, is not in con- telier and Vissers 2008), while offline polit- formity with the findings of the previ- ical interest level is inquired about with six ous studies. For example, Xenos and Moy items, and online political interest is tested (2007) and Zhang et al. (2010) find that with five items. All of these eleven items the gender is not significant in online po- were adapted from previous emprical stud- litical activity of young people, Zuniga et ies (i.g. Best and Krueger 2005, Calenda al. (2009), Best and Krueger’s (2005) and and Meijer 2009, Calenda and Mosca 2007, Gibson et al.’s (2005), Quintelier and Viss- Quintelier and Vissers 2008, Wellman et ers’s (2008) studies show that females are 120  TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 more active in online political world than of online politics. This study, on the other males, and Tolbert and McNeal (2003) and hand, indicates that gender is still a sig- Calenda and Mosca (2007) report that there nificant matter for the Turkish participants is no difference between genders in terms even in the online political world. Table 3: One-way ANOVA Results for Comparison of Online Political Participation Means, by Gender Active political participation Passive political participation Female Male Female Male Features df df (M) SD (M) SD (Within F (M) SD (M) SD (Within F Groups) Groups) Gender 1.81 1.11 2.14 1.43 191 3.07* 2.10 1.16 2.53 1.26 191 6.00** ***p<0.01 ; **p<0.05; p<0.10 df (Between Groups)= 1 Abbreviations: M: Mean A one way ANOVA is employed to ex- 2006, Quintelier and Vissers, 2008 in their plore the differences in active and passive respective research in different countries electronic political participation among dif- such as in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and ferent ethnic groups such as Turkish, Kurd- the USA. ish, Arabic and Others (Zaza). As can be seen in Table 4, the respondents’ ethnic groups A one way ANOVA was also used to do not impose much difference upon online find out whether the faculties in which the active or passive political participation. students are attending courses have any influence over their political participation Table 4 also shows that the relationship (Table 5). The Tukey post-hoc comparisons between the time spent on the Internet and conducted in these four faculties indicates the online active and passive political par- that there is a significant difference between ticipation is not very significant as was also the students of the Faculty of Engineering found by Best and Krueger, 2005, Calenda (Mean = 2.55 95 % CI [2.20, 2.91]) and the and Meijer 2009, Krueger 2002, Pasek et al. students of the Faculty of Education (Mean Table 4: One-way ANOVA Results for Comparison of Online Political Participation Means, by Ethnic Active political participation Passive political participation df (Between df (Within df (Between df (Within F F Groups) Groups) Groups) Groups) Mother tongue of students’ mother 3 188 0.91 3 188 0.42 Mother tongue of students’ father 3 188 0.26 3 188 0.61 Average time spend on the 8 178 1.56 8 178 0.79 internet in a day (in hours) ***p<0.01 ; **p<0.05; p<0.10 121 TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 = 2.11, 95% CI [1.81, 2.41]). It is observed ever, cannot be overestimated. This differ- that political participation levels of the ence might also be because that Engineering students of the compared faculties are sig- students have better Internet skills than the nificantly different, but this difference, how- students of Education Faculty have. Table 5: One-way ANOVA Results for Comparison of Online Political Participation Means, by Faculty Active Political Participation Passive Political Participation df df df df Edu Eng Eco Voc Edu Eng Eco Voc (Between (Within F (Between (Within F (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) Groups) Groups) Groups) Groups) Faculty 1.72 2.36 1.84 2.20 3 188 2.74** 2.12 2.43 2.55 2.18 3 188 1.41 ***p<0.01 ; **p<0.05; p<0.10 Eng students are more active in the online active political participation than Edu students. Abbreviations: M: Mean, Eng: Engineering, Edu: Education, Eco: Economics, Voc: Vocational Another one way ANOVA is conducted to are significantly more active in both passive see if online active and passive political par- and active online politics than the others ticipation of students with different demo- who are not official members of any political graphic features show different inclinations party. Similarly, the students who are official (See Table 6). According to these statistics, members of non-profit organizations are the students who “have family members significantly more engaged in online passive who are active in formal political life,” are and active politics than the students who are significantly more engaged in online active not members of such organizations. What is and passive politics than the students who more, the students who subscribe to politi- do not have such family members. Howev- cal websites are more active in online passive er, the results are more mixed for having “a and active politics than those students who family member who is active in a non-profit are not subscribed to any political website. organization.” In this case, while F value of online passive political participation is sig- The results of the survey show that some nificant (p<0.05), the F value of online ac- demographic factors have influence over tive political participation is insignificant online political participation. For example, (0.898, p>0.10). In other words, students, participants who are members of a political who have family members active in non- party and/or non-profit organisations and profit organizations, are significantly com- who subscribe to a political website, partici- mitted in online passive politics than the pate in both active and passive online poli- other students. Contrary to the online pas- tics more than the others who do not have sive political participation among the stu- such memberships. These results are very dents, having such family members do not similar to the study conducted by Calenda create a significant difference in online ac- and Mosca (2007) on Italian students. These tive political participation. findings can be interpreted to say that the students who are already active in offline po- When “official membership in a political litical life also actively participate in active party” is considered, it is found that the stu- and passive online political activities. dents who are members of political parties 122  TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 Table 6: One-way ANOVA Results for Comparison of Online Political Participation Means, by Selected Demographic Features Active political participation Passive political participation Yes No Yes No df df (M) SD (M) SD (Within F (M) SD (M) SD (Within F Groups) Groups) Having a family member who is active in the Turkish 2.25 1.45 1.88 1.21 188 3.22* 2.75 1.31 2.15 1.16 188 9.48*** formal political life Having a family member who is active in a non- profit 2.12 1.41 1.93 1.23 189 0.90 2.67 1.25 2.18 1.19 189 6.31** organization Being an official member of a 2.80 1.51 1.86 1.21 191 11.30*** 3.64 1.19 2.13 1.11 191 36.04*** political party Being an officially member of 2.89 1.55 1.91 1.25 191 6.68** 3.78 1.05 2.22 1.18 191 20.08*** a non-profit organization Subscription to political 3.11 1.28 1.78 1.18 189 26.67*** 3.99 0.86 2.04 1.05 189 77.60*** websites Internet access at home 1.94 1.24 2.06 1.39 191 0.31 2.29 2.37 1.14 191 0.16 ***p<0.01 ; **p<0.05; p<0.10 df (Between Groups)= 1 A conclusive one way ANOVA is carried significantly different from the mean score out to test whether the use of the Internet of the respondents who “sometimes use the for different purposes creates any effect Internet for research” and the mean score of upon active and passive online political par- the respondents who “always use Internet ticipation among the respondents. As can be for research”. seen in Table 7, “using Internet for research” produces mixed results for online active and Significant differences in online passive passive political participation. According to and active political participation are ob- the results, while the F value of online active served when the respondents “use Internet political participation is significant (2.967 for finding friends” (Table 7). The post-hoc p<0.10) for “using Internet for research,” comparison using the Tukey HSD test for “ac- the F value of online passive political par- tive online political participation” indicates ticipation is insignificant (2.142). The post- that the mean score for students who “always hoc comparison employing the Tukey HSD use Internet for finding friends” (3.17, SD= test for online active political participation 1.65) is significantly higher than the mean indicates that the mean score of the stu- score of those who “sometimes use Internet dents who “sometimes use the Internet for for finding friends” (1.93; SD= 1.19) and the research” (1.57, SD= 1.03) is significantly mean score of those who “never use Internet lower than the mean score of the students for finding friends” (1.85, SD= 1.20). Similar who “always use the Internet for research” results are also obtained for online passive (2.06, SD= 1.31). However, the mean score political participation when the respond- of the respondents who “never use the In- ents “usage of Internet for finding friends” ternet for research” (2.39, Sd= 1.56) is not is considered. On one hand, the post-hoc 123 TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 comparison of the Tukey HSD test for the following results were found. The F value of “use Internet for finding friends” suggests the ANOVA test results of online active po- that the mean score of the respondents who litical participation is significant (see Table “always use Internet to find friends” (2.28 7). The post-hoc comparison of the Tukey SD= 1.45) is significantly higher than the HSD test for the “using Internet for chat- mean score of the respondents who “never ting” indicates that the mean score of the use the Internet for finding friends” (1.58, respondents who “always use the Internet SD= 1.19) and those who “sometimes use for chatting” (2.23 SD= 1.49) is significantly the Internet for finding friends” (1.64, Sd= different from the mean score of the stu- 1.13). On the other hand, the same test dents who “never use the Internet for chat- shows that there is not any significant dif- ting” (1.67 SD= 1.07). However, there is not ference in online passive political participa- any significant difference is observed among tion among the students who “sometimes the students who “sometimes” or “never use use Internet for finding friends” and “never Internet for chatting.” In addition to the use the Internet for finding friends”. In the significant F value of online active political light of these findings, it might not be wrong participation, a significant F value of online to say that the students who “use the Inter- passive political participation is obtained net for finding friends” are more engaged to when the students “usage of Internet for both online active and passive politics than chatting” is tested. According to the results the other students who do not use Internet of the post-hoc comparison of the Tukey for this purpose. HSD test for the “usage of Internet for chat- ting” the mean score of the students who The mean score of the online active po- “always use the Internet for chatting” is sig- litical participation of the students who, nificantly higher than the mean score of the “use the Internet for reading e-newspapers,” respondents who “sometimes use the Inter- is significantly higher than the mean score net for chatting” and of those “never use the of others who “do not use Internet for read- Internet for chatting.” However, there is not ing e-newspaper” (See Table 7). The Tukey a significant difference between the mean test for “using the Internet for reading e- scores of online passive political participa- newspapers” shows that there is an obvious tion of the students who “sometimes use the difference between the mean score of the re- Internet for chatting” and those “never use spondents who “always use the Internet for the Internet for chatting.” reading e-newspapers” (2.17, SD= 137) and the mean score of those who “sometimes In addition to these, the results show use the Internet for reading e-newspapers” that the students who “regularly write a (1.71; SD= 1.07). However, the mean score blog” participate (both passive and active) of the students who “never use the Internet online politics more than the students who for reading e-newspaper” insignificantly dif- “never write a blog” (see Table 7). The ob- fers from the mean score of the respondents servation of the post-hoc comparison of who “sometimes use the Internet for reading the Tukey HSD test for the active online e-newspaper” and of those who “always use political participation display that the mean the Internet for reading e-newspaper” for score of the respondents who “always write both type of online political participations. a blog” (3.81 SD= 1.50) is significantly dif- ferent from the mean score of the respond- When the students “usage of Internet for ents who “sometimes write a blog (3.16, chatting” is taken under consideration, the SD= 0.89) and those who “never write a blog 124  TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 (2.02 SD= 0.97). Further significant differ- for listening to music, communicating and ences are also noticed between the mean playing games do not show a considerable score of the respondents who “write a blog high level of online political participation “(3.16, SD= 0.89) and “never write a blog than the others who do not use the Internet (2.02 SD= 0.97). The post-hoc comparison for such purposes. of the Tukey HSD test results for the pas- sive online political participation point out These findings show similarities with the that the mean score of students who “always studies of Quintelier and Vissers (2008), write a blog” (3.83 SD= 1.02) is significantly Pasek et al. (2006). What is more, in the higher than the mean score of students who online political life, the bloggers are much “sometimes write a blog” (3.16 SD= 1.03) more active than the participants who do and “never write a blog” (2.02 SD= 1.06). not write a blog. The findings of this study related to the bloggers are parallel to those As a summary, we can say that the stu- of Zuniga et al.’s (2009) and Quintelier and dents who use the Internet for research, Vissers (2008). Interestingly, the results reading e-newspapers, finding friends, chat- show that the participants who use the In- ting and/or writing a blog exhibit signifi- ternet to find friends and for chatting are cantly higher participation in online active more active in the online political life than and/or passive politics than the others who the others who do not use the Internet for do not use the Internet for such activities. these purposes. The students who use the Internet mainly Table 7: One-way ANOVA Results for Comparison of Online Political Participation Means, by Type of Internet use Active political participation Passive political participation Never Sometimes Always Never Sometimes Always df df The frequency of (M) SD (M) SD (M) SD (Within F (M) SD (M) SD (M) SD (Within F internet use Groups) Groups) How often do you use 2.39 1.56 1.57 1.03 2.06 1.31 189 2.97* 2.33 0.98 1.97 1.09 2.41 1.26 189 2.14 internet for research? How often do you use internet for reading 1.93 1.46 1.71 1.07 2.17 1.37 189 2.78* 2.15 1.25 1.96 1.01 2.58 1.29 189 5.98*** e-newspapers or magazines? How often do you use internet for listening to 2.11 1.48 1.80 1.08 2.05 1.35 189 0.80 2.02 0.83 2.35 1.23 3.35 1.27 189 0.48 music? How often do you use internet for 2.00 1.30 1.75 1.16 2.12 1.36 189 1.78 2.26 0.97 2.25 1.15 2.38 1.32 189 0.26 communication? How often do you use internet for finding 1.85 1.20 1.93 1.19 3.16 1.66 189 8.06*** 1.64 1.13 1.58 1.19 2.28 1.45 189 8.37*** friends? How often do you use internet for playing In order 2.01to see1.81 1.33 whether 1.17 the 2.19offline 1.40 political 188 participation 1.21 2.32 1.14of2.22 the students 1.20 2.49 differs 1.43 from 188 their0.64 games? online political participation, paired sample tests have been carried out (See Table 8). The How often do you use show that there is an insignificant difference between the mean score of the students’ of- tests 1.67 1.07 2.01 1.26 2.23 1.49 185 2.59* 2.11 1.06 2.21 1.19 2.73 1.36 185 4.23** internet for chatting? fline passive (M=2.46, SD=1.28) and online passive (M=2.31, SD=1.22) political participation, Do you have a blog where which you can write t (192) your is 1.85 2.02 0.97 3.16 (p=0.065). This shows 0.89 3.81 1.50 188 that there 49.49*** are1.06 2.02 not 3.16 any strong differences 1.03 3.83 1.02 between 188 34.81*** comments ***p<0.01 ; **p<0.05; p<0.10 df (Between Groups) = 2 125 TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 these two types of political participation of tween the offline and online active political the students. However, a significant differ- participation of the students, the differ- ence can be seen between the mean scores ences in levels of their offline and online po- of offline active (M=1.45, SD=0.89) and on- litical interest were also observed. The test line active (M=1.98, SD=1.29) political par- results point out that there is a significant ticipation, where t (191) is -5.887 (p=0.000), difference in scores of offline political inter- which indicates that the students are much est (M=3.32, SD= 1.17) and online political more actively participating in online poli- interest (M=2.60, SD=0.97), where t (191) is tics, than the offline-real life politics. With 12.99 (p<0.00). this test, in addition to the differences be- Table 8: The results of paired sample test for political interest and participation 95% Confidence Paired Pair Interval of the differences Difference Mean SD Lower Upper t df Normal Political Interest-Online 0.717 0.76 0.61 0.83 12.99*** 191 Political Interest Passive normal political participation-Passive online 0.15 1.13 -0.01 0.31 1.85* 192 political participation Active normal political participation- Active online -0.51 1.22 -0.63 -0.34 -5.90*** 191 political participation ***p<0.01 ; **p<0.05; *p<0.10 Discussion the results of this study have a historic than scientific value and the relationship between This study provides several interesting the studied variables will presumably evolve. results about young people’s political par- ticipation levels and insights that determine The paired sample tests, which attempt their political participation levels in the to understand whether there are any differ- online world. In overall, in its field, this re- ences between the offline political behaviour search presents the first systematic empiri- and online political behaviour of the partici- cal study in Turkey, and it is the one of the pants, point out that the political interest very few non-western studies performed of the participants is normally higher in the upon the online political participation of normal life than in the online world. Addi- university students. As DiMaggio et al. tionally, the study shows that the passive (2001) and Xenos and Moy (2007) pointed political participation of the participants is out in their studies, as long as the technol- also higher in the normal life than in the on- ogy continues to change, the political life line world. The findings support our claim will also continue to change in time. Thus, stating that the most of the participants 126  TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 who are active in online politics are already offline politics. active in normal politics. This also indicates that, although the Internet has the capacity Like many similar researches, this study to reduce cost of political participation and is not immune from limitations, either, and activating political interest, there is still a there is still a need for further researches to need for basic political motivation for the be performed in this field. The current study individuals to use the Internet for political did not focus on daily political interests and purposes. the relative political participation of the students. It would be interesting to see the The results display that the students are online and offline political activity of the significantly more active in the online word students during political elections time or which means that they are actively writing during an extraordinary political environ- petitions, joining boycotts or hacking. Here, ment such as voting for changing the con- it can be said that although the Internet do stitution, or discussing about taking a part not increase the political interest or passive in a military operation of NATO in a specific political participation, it enables the users country (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan), or discuss- to show their direct participation in politics. ing EU membership. A second drawback is In brief, the Internet provides a venue for that the data for this study was gathered political activity which can be considered as from the students who are mainly from the an extention of the actual political life. The southeastern Turkey where social environ- study shows us that the students are mostly ment is, arguably, more conservative than interested, and hence participate, in the of- the western part of the country. Therefore, fline politics. However, they prefer to show it would be more fruitful to observe the on- their political participation more freely in line political participation of students from online world than normal life. several cities of Turkey such as Istanbul, Izmir and Kayseri. Lastly, political and/or One of the aim of this study was to ex- ideological preferences of the students have plore which of the theoretical models better not been taken into account in this research. explains the relation between the Internet This aspect of the matter could provide an- and the political participation of the young other valuable variable which would help us people. According to the results of the study, to define the type and the magnitude of the the time spent on the net or having Internet online political participation. access at home or at the university do not make any difference in terms of the online political participation. Therefore, this study References points out a psychological approach which highlights the influence of the motives, Anduiza, E. et. al. 2007. “Political Par- characteristics, and social contexts of Inter- ticipation and the Internet: Descriptive Hy- net users upon their political participation potheses and Causal Mechanisms.” Paper (Bimber 2003). As the results prove, politi- presented at the Symposium on Changing cal effects of the Internet is contingent on politics through digital networks: The role political inclinations, motives and social of ICTs in the formation of new social and context of the participants. The interest in political actors and actions, Florence, Octo- politics and public affairs is one the major ber 5-6. motivation that gives the participants an incentive to get involved in both online and Anduiza, E. et al. 2009. “Political partici- 127 TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 pation and the Internet.” Information, Com- Political Communication 22: 143-146. munication and Society 12(6): 860-878. Calenda, D. and Mosca, L. 2007. “The Po- Bachen, C. et al. 2008. “Civic Engage- litical use of Internet: Some Insights from ment, Pedagogy, and Information Technol- two Surveys of Italian Students” Informa- ogy on Web Sites for Youth.” Political Com- tion, Communication and Society 10(1): 29- munication 2: 290-310. 47. Bennett, W. L. 1998. “The Un-civic Cul- Calenda D. and Meijer, A. 2009. “Young ture: Communication, Identity, and the Rise People, the Internet and Political Participa- of Lifestyle Politics.” Political Science and tion.” Information, Communication and So- Politics 31(4): 741–61. ciety 12(6): 879-898. Bentivegna, S. 2002. “Rethinking Poli- Castells, M. 1997. The Power of Identity. tics in the World of ICT’s.” European Journal Oxford: Basil Blackwell. of Communication 21.3:331-344. Coleman, S. and Rowe, C. 2005. Remix- Best S.J. And Krueger B.S. 2005. “Analyz- ing Citizenship: Democracy and Young ing the Representativeness of Internet Polit- People’s Use of Internet, London: Carnegie ical Participation.” Political Behavior 27(2): Young People Initiative. 183-216. Collin, P. 2008. “The Internet, Youth Par- Bimber, B. 1999. “The Internet and Citi- ticipation Policies, and the Development of zen Communication with Government: does Young people’s Political Identities in Aus- the Medium Matter?” Political Communica- tralia.” Journal of Youth Studies 11(5): 527- tion, 16(4): 409–428. 542. Bimber, B. 2001. “Information and Polit- Davis, R. 1999. The Web of Politics: The ical Engagement in America.” Political Com- Internet’s Impact on the American Political munication 54(1): 53-67. System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bimber, B. 2003. Information and Ameri- Dahlberg, Lincoln. 2001. Extending the can Democracy: Technology in the Evolution public sphere through cyberspace: The case of Political Power. Cambridge: Cambridge of Minnesota E-democracy. Available: www. University Press. firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_3/dahlberg/ index.html#note2. Boulianne, S. .2009. “Does Internet Use Affect Engagement?: A Meta-Analysis of Re- Della Porta, D. and Mosca, L. 2005. search.” Political Communication 26: 193- “Global-net for Global Movements? A Net- 211. work of Networks for a Movement of Move- ments.” Journal of Public Policy 25(1): 165– Blais, A., Gidengil, E. and Nevitte, N. 190. 2004. “Where does turnout decline come from?” European Journal of Political Re- van De Donk, W. et al. 2004. Cyberpro- search, 43(2): 221–236. test: New Media, Citizens, and Social Move- ments. London and New York: Routledge. Brants, K. 2005. “Guest Editor’s Intro- duction: The Internet and the Public Sphere.” Delli Carpini, M.X. and Keeter, S. 1997. 128  TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 What Americans Know about Politics and Krueger, B. 2002. “Assessing the Poten- Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University tial of Internet Political Participation in the Press. United States: A Resource Approach.” Amer- ican Politics Research 30: 476-498. DiMaggio et al. 2001. “Social Implica- tions of the Internet.” Annual Review of So- Krueger, B. S. 2006. “A Comparison of ciology 27: 307–336. Conventional and Internet Political Mobi- lization.” American Politics Research 34(6): EUYOUPART 2003-2005 Project Re- 759–776. ports, http://www.sora.at/en/topics/polit- ical-culture/euyoupart-2003-2005/en-re- Livingstone, S. 2007. “The Challenge of ports.html. Engaging Youth Online.” European Journal of Communication 22(2): 165–184. Gibson, R. K. et al. 2005. “Online Partici- pation in the UK: Testing a “Contextualised” Loader, D. B. 2007. Young Citizens in the Model of Internet Effects.” British Journal Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young of Politics and International Relations 7(2): 561–583. People and New Medi. Routledge: Lon- don. Graber D. et al. 2002. “The Internet and Politics: Emerging Perspectives.” In The In- Lupia, A. and Philpot, T. S. 2005. “Views ternet and the Academy, edited by M. Price from Inside the Net: How Websites Affect and H. Nissenbaum, 90-119, London: Peter Young Adults’ Political Interest.” Journal of Lang. Politics 67(4): 1122-1142. Iyengar, S. and Jackman S. 2004. Tech- Margolis, M. and Resnick, D. 2000. Poli- nology and Politics: Incentives for Youth tics as Usual: the Cyberspace ‘Revolution.’ Participation. CIRCLE Working Paper 24. London: Sage. Johnson, T.J. and Kaye, B. 2004. “Wag Mindich, D. T. Z. 2005. Tuned Out. Why the Blog: How Reliance on Traditional Me- Americans Under 40 Don’t Follow the News. dia and the Internet Influence Credibility Oxford University Press, Oxford. Perceptions of Weblogs among Blog Users.” Nardi, B.N. et al. 2004. “Blogging as So- Journalism and Mass Communication cial Activity, or Would You Let 900 million Quarterly 81(3): 622–42. People Read your Diary?” Proceedings of the Kann, M.E. et al. 2007. “The Internet and ACM Conference on Computer Supported Youth Political Participation.” First Monday, Cooperative Work, November 6-10, Chica- 12.8 go, Illinois, USA. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cg i- Niemi, R. G. & Weisberg, H. F. 2001. w rap/bin/o j s/index .php/fm/ar t ic le/ Controversies in Voting Behavior. CQ Press, view/1977/1852. Washington, DC. Kerbel, M.R. and D. Bloom .2005. “Blog Norris, P. . 1999. Critical Citizens: Global for American and Civic Involvement.” Press/ Support for Democratic Government. Ox- Politics 10(4): 3–27. ford and New York: Oxford University Press. ________. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic 129 TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 Engagement, Information Poverty, and the blogs among Readers.” New Media and Soci- Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge ety 10(1): 67–91. University Press. Tolbert, C., and McNeal, R. 2003. “Un- ________. 2002a. Democratic Phoenix: raveling the Effects of the Internet on Politi- Political Activism Worldwide. New York: cal Participation?” Political Research Quar- Cambridge University Press. terly 56: 175-185. ________. 2002b. Democratic Phoenix: Trammell, K. D. and Keshelashvili, A. Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: 2005. “Examining the New Influencers: A Cambridge University Press. Self-Presentation Study of A-list blogs.” Journalism and Mass Communication Pasek, J., Kenski, K., and Romer, D. 2006. Quarterly, 82(4): 968–982. “America’s Youth and Community Engage- ment: How Use of Mass Media is Related to Trammell, K.D. et al. 2006. “Evolution of Civic Activity and Political Awareness in 14 Online Campaigning: Increasing Interactiv- to 22-year-olds.” Communication Research ity in Candidate Website and Blogs through 33(3): 115-135. Text and Technical Features.” Mass Commu- nication and Society 9(1): 21–44. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press .2009. The Internet’s role in Cam- Weber, L. M. et al. 2003. “Who Partici- paign in 2008, http://people-press.org/ pates and Why? An Analysis of Citizens on report/?pageid=1411. the Internet and the Mass Public.” Social Sci- ence Computer Review 21(1): 26–42. Polat, R.K. 2005. “The Internet and Po- litical Participation: Exploring the Explana- Wellman, B. A., Haase, Q. J. & Hampton, tory Links.” European Journal of Communi- W. K. 2001. “Does the Internet Increase, De- cation 20(4): 435-459. crease, or Supplement Social Capital? Social Networks, Participation, and Community Putnam, R. D. .2000. Bowling Alone. The Commitment.” American Behavioral Scien- Collapse and Revival of American Commu- tist 45(3): 436–455. nity. New York: Simon & Schuster. Vromen, A. 2003. “People try to Put us Quintelier E. and Vissers S. 2008. “The down: Participatory citizenship of Genera- Effect of Internet Use on Political Partici- tion X.” Australian Journal of Political Sci- pation: An analysis of Survey Results for ence 10(1): 79-99. 16-year-olds in Belgium.” Social Science Computer Review 26: 411-427. Xenos, M. and Moy, P. 2007. “Direct and Differential Effects of the Internet on Politi- Shah, D. et al. 2001. ‘“Connecting” and cal and Civic Engagement.” Journal of Com- “Disconnecting” with Civic Life: Patterns of munication 57: 704-718. Internet Use and the Production of Social Capital.” Political Communication 18(2): Zhang W. et al. 2010. “The Revolution 141–162. will be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Sweetser, K.D. and L.L. Kaid. 2008. Behavior.” Social Science Computer Review “Stealth Soapboxes: Political Information 28(1): 75-92. Efficacy, Cynicism and Uses of Celebrity We- 130  TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 4 No. 1 Summer 2013 Zuniga, H.G, Puig-iAbril, E. and Rojas, H. 2009. “Weblogs, Traditional Sources Online and Political Participation: An Assessment of How the Internet is Changing the Politi- cal Environment.” New Media and Society, 11(4): 553-574. 131