GENÇLİKTE TOPLUMSAL KATILIM VE ANABABANIN ROLÜ

Öz

Toplumsal katılım gençlerin yaşamında insanlarla ve toplumla olan etkileşimi sağlaması ve kolaylaştırması açısından önemli bir role sahiptir. Bu karışık desenli kesitsel çalışma, gençlerin katılımlarını yaş ve cinsiyete göre incelemek ve anne ve babanın bu katılım üzerindeki etkisini belirlemek üzere yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla 16-26 yaş aralığındaki 278 gence anket uygulanmıştır. Anket çalışmasından sonra, farklı cinsiyetleri ve yaş aralıklarını temsilen seçilen gençlerin anne ve babalarıyla 6 anne ve 6 baba olmak üzere toplamda 12 görüşme yapılmıştır. Analizler, gençlerin katılımında yaşın, cinsiyete oranla daha önemli bir etmen olabileceğini göstermektedir. Katılıma ilişkin anne ve babayla olan paylaşıma bakıldığında cinsiyet ve yaş farkı olmaksızın gençlerin katılım konularında babayı anneden daha bilgili ve yetkili gördükleri ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu bulgularla tematik analiz sonrasında anne ve babalarla olan görüşmelerden elde edilen bulgular birleştirildiğinde, anne ve babalarla olan paylaşımın gençlerin yaşam sorunlarının farklılaşması dolayısıyla yaşla beraber değiştiği görülmüştür. Annenin katılım konusuna yaklaşımı gencin yaşadığı sorunların çözümüyle ilişkili olarak değişirken, babanın gençlerin katılımından beklentisi daha çok kendi ailesine ve ülkesine yararlı olmaları yönündedir. Bu durumun sosyo-kültürel ve tarihsel etmenlerden kaynaklandığı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Katılım,Ergenlik,Ana baba,Toplumsal bağlam

YOUTH PARTICIPATION AND PARENTS’ ROLE

Öz

Social participation plays an important role in young people’s lives as it ensures and facilitates their interaction with people and society. Participation shows how much a society is developed. It also has a great positive impact on an individual’s life (Sherrod, 2007). This mixed designed cross-sectional study aims to understand the effect of mother and father roles on social participation, as parents seem to be the main source of influence on the daily life of young people.  For this purpose a questionnaire was used to measure different factors that could affect young people's social participation. 278 people, aged between 16 and 26 (cross section age profiles are determined as 16-19; 20-22; 23-26 year-olds), participated in the study. Later on, 12 individual interviews were performed with 6 mothers and 6 fathers, representing genders and age range.  Independent samples t-test, one way ANOVA and descriptive statistics were used in SPSS 17. packet program to analyze the data. As result, age variance has been found statistically significant in most of the sub dimensions that relate to social participation while gender has been found less important. Moreover, it was revealed that irrespective of age and gender of the young people, fathers were seen as more sophisticated and competent compared to mothers with regard to sharing about participation. These findings have integrated with the findings that were obtained from the thematic analyses of interviews with mothers and fathers. However, it has been observed that sharing with parents about participation changes as young people’s problems change with age. While a mother approaches her child’s participation to seek a solution for his/her problems, a father expects to see benefits by his child’s participation in terms of family and country. This result is thought to be caused by cultural structure, and thus is found to be quite different from Western literature that refers parents’ equal roles in respect to source of influence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Participation,Adolescence,Parental Influence

Kaynakça

1. Adler, S.A. ve Sim, B-Y J., (2005, 30 May-11 June). “Social studies in Singapore: Contradiction and control” Paper presented at the Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice Conference, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
2. Amna, E., Ekström, M., Kerr, M. Ve Stattin H. (2009). Political socialization and human agency. The development of civic engagement from adolescence to adulthood. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift. 111:1, 27-40.
3. Benson, P. L. (1990). The Troubled journey: A portrait of 6th-12th grade youth. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
4. Bilgic, E. E. ve Kafkasli, Z. (2013). Gencim, Ozgurlukcuyum, Ne Istiyorum? Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi Yayinlari.
5. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77-101
6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the development of children, 2, 37-43.
7. Bogard, K., & Sherrod, L. (2008). Allegiances and civic engagement in diverse youth. Journal of Ethnicity and Culture, 14(4), 286-296.
8. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9. Cook T.D. ve Furstenberg F.F. (2007). Explaining Aspects of the Transition to Adulthood in Italy, Sweden, Germany and the United States: A Cross-Disciplinary, Case Synthesis Approach,” In Frank. F. Furstenberg, Jr. (Ed.) Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Early Adulthood in Cross-National Perspective, 257-287. London: Sage Publications.
10. Dunham, C ve Bengston, V. (1992). The Long-Term Effects of Political Activism on Intergenerational relations. Youth and Society. 24:31-51.
11. Emler, N. ve Cassoli E. (2009) Political Engagement: Outcome or Process? A socio-developmental perspective. Yayınlanmamış makale.
12. Falbo, T., Lein L. ve Amador, N. A. (2001) Parental involvement during the transition to high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 511-529.
13. Flanagan, C. A., ve Syvertsen, A. K. (2005). Youth as a social construct and social actor. L. Sherrod, C. A. Flanagan, R. Kassimir, & A.B. Syvertsen, editörlüğünde, Youth activism: An international encyclopedia, p.11–19. Westport, Greenwood Publishing.
14. Flanagan, C. A. ve Watts, R. J. (2007). Pushing the Envelope On Youth Civic Engagement: A Developmental and Liberation Perspective. Journal of Community Psychology Vol. 35, No. 6, 779–792
15. Flanagan, C.A. ve Campbell, B. ile L. Botcheva, J. Bowes, B. Csapo, P. Macek ve E. Sheblanova.(2003). Social class and adolescents' beliefs about justice in different social orders. Journal of Social Issues, 59 (4), 711-732.
16. Fuligni, A., Tseng, V. ve Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030-1044.
17. Franz, C. E. ve McClelland, D. C. (1994). Lives of women and men active in the social protests of the 1960s: A longitudinal Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 196-205.
18. Jankowski, M. (2002). Ethnic identity and political consciousness in different social orders. New Directions for Child Development, 56, 79-93.
19. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further evidence for a reinterpretation of monitoring? Developmental Psychology, 36, 366–380.
20. Kiousis, S., McDevitt, M., and Wu, X. (2005). The genesis of civic awareness: Agenda setting in political socialization. Journal of Communication, 23, 756-774.
21. Mcdevitt, M. (2005). The Partisan Child: Developmental Provocation as a Model of Political Socialization. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1): 67-88.
22. Menezes, Isabel. (2003). Participation experience and civic concepts, attitudes and engagement: implications for citizenship education projects. European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 2. No. 3.
23. Mokwena, Steve (2003). Youth Participation-Taking the Idea to the Next Level. A Challenge to Youth Ministers. Commonwealth Youth and Development. 1; 2, 87-108
24. Mounts, N. (2002). Parental management of adolescent peer relationships in context. The Role of parenting style. Journal of Family Psychology. 16, 58-69.
25. Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990’s: Development and individual differences. Child Development, 63, 1-19.
26. Schoeni R. F. ve Ross E. K. (2005). Material Assistance from Families during the Transition to Adulthood. Ed: Richard A. Settersten Jr., Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. ve Ruben G. Rumbaut. On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. 396-416. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Sherrod, Lonnie. (2007). Civic Engagement as an Expression of Positive Youth Development. Silbereisen, K. Rainer ve Lerner, M. Richard (Eds). Approaches to Positive Youth Development. Sage Publications.
28. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., and Burns, N. (2005). Family ties: understanding the intergenerational transmission of political participation. In A. S. Zuckerman (Ed.), The Social Logic of Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
29. White R. ve Wyn, J. (2000). Negotiating Social Change. Youth & Society, Vol. 32, No.2, 165-183.