This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 09 September 2014, At: 12:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Journal of Political SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajp20

Building virtual spaces: Young people,participation and the InternetAriadne Vromen aa University of SydneyPublished online: 21 May 2008.

To cite this article: Ariadne Vromen (2008) Building virtual spaces: Young people, participation andthe Internet, Australian Journal of Political Science, 43:1, 79-97, DOI: 10.1080/10361140701842581

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10361140701842581

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Building Virtual Spaces: Young People,

Participation and the Internet

ARIADNE VROMEN

University of Sydney

The Internet is often portrayed as a democratising force that facilitates newparticipatory practices. It is often assumed that young people have been thebig ‘winners’, even the leaders, in the advent of participation via theInternet. It is argued here that an in-depth analysis of existing participatoryspaces is able to expand our understanding of how Australian young peopleare being mobilised into new Internet-based political practices. The articleprovides case studies of three non-government organisations with partici-patory Internet sites – Vibewire Youth Services, Inspire Foundation andGetUp!. The novelty of these youth-led, Internet-based political spaces isevaluated, and the differences between the sites reveals varied approaches toliberal, communitarian and deliberative forms of participation. The level ofinteractivity, capacity for agency by young people, and possibilities forcommunity building, are all explored.

Introduction

We typically look at society as silos: there’s school and there’s work and there’ssport and there’s social activities and there’s family and there’s the on-line stuff,but it’s actually much more fluid than that. So, if anything, a site of the kindthat ActNow is will hopefully start to break down the silos and reveal a richersort of tapestry of social connections that exist between those different areas oflife and that cut across background and age as well, but place young people atthe centre of that process rather than at the extremities of it (Interviewee one).

This article evaluates the potential and novelty of youth-led, Internet-basedautonomous political spaces. The Internet can be seen as a distinctive politicalspace that entails practices that both adapt and expand established forms ofparticipation, as well as encouraging the development of new forms ofcommunity building, participation and political expression. Examination of theInternet also provides opportunity to look for young people’s agency inchoosing their preferred forms of political engagement and participation.

Ariadne Vromen is a Senior Lecturer in Government and International Relations at theUniversity of Sydney. She would like to acknowledge the insightful and thorough researchassistance provided for this paper by Claire Chivell.

Australian Journal of Political Science,Vol. 43, No. 1, March 2008, pp. 79 – 97

ISSN 1036-1146 print; ISSN 1363-030X online/08/010079-19 � 2008 Australasian Political Studies Association

DOI: 10.1080/10361140701842581

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

This is in addition to identifying the efficacy of a small but distinctive group ofyoung people who have created new Net-based political opportunities.Analysis of how the Internet acts as a new arena for political participation

occurs within the context of debates on young people’s apathy, disillusionmentwith mainstream institutions and possibilities for alternative modes of politicalexpression. The new research approach to young people’s political engagementtries to unpack the idea that young people are apathetic by either explainingwhy they feel distant from formal political institutions, such as parties (e.g.Henn, Weinstein and Forrest 2005), or broadens the understanding of politicsto be more inclusive of young people’s everyday political experiences (e.g.Maloney 2006; Marsh, O’Toole and Jones 2007). The shift in ways of thinkingabout participation, beyond formal institutionalised arenas, to look at the waysyoung people choose to engage with politics and community, both collectivelyand as individuals, has also been examined empirically in the Australian context(e.g. Bolzan 2003; Vromen 2003; Bessant 2004). As reflected in the interviewquote at the beginning of this paper, the Internet is a potential space forfacilitating alternative modes of political engagement for young people becauseit is integrated into their everyday life experiences.Evaluating debates on whether the Internet facilitates political engagement,

Pippa Norris (2001, 96 – 8) differentiates between ‘cyber optimists’ and ‘cybersceptics’. Cyber optimists believe that the unlimited information availablethrough the Internet will foster an increase in political knowledge, that peoplewill express their views freely on email, lists and in chat rooms, and willsubsequently become more active in community politics. This view encapsulatesthe mobilisation thesis, which sees that the Internet has the capacity to engagethose currently on the periphery of traditional political systems (Norris 2001,218). Cyber sceptics see that the Internet will be used politically for reinforcementby those citizens already active and knowledgeable about political andcommunity affairs. Therefore, those with this view suggest that the Internetwill not change existing levels of participation, and could even widen the gapbetween the engaged and those who are politically indifferent (Norris 2001, 218,98). Furthermore, there is a risk that the attempted use of the Internet bypolitical elites will further alienate citizens through their significant use oftop – downmethods of communication (see Delli Carpini 2000, 348 – 9; Coleman2005, 207). Early research suggests that the possibility of web sites being createdby institutionalised political actors to provide the ‘technological fix for youthdisengagement’ has not yet occurred (Bennett and Xenos 2004, 28).Others have argued that the Internet provides new ways of participating in

political processes and, thus, merits distinctive analysis. For example, the rapiduptake of mobile phones, digital television and the Internet has all occurred inthe past decade, and Stanyer argues that this has created opportunities for anincrease in individualised political expression and participation (2005, 21).These individualised forms of participation include traditional modes, such asvoting, writing letters to MPs and donating money, and non-traditional modesthat are facilitated by new technology, including petition signing, boycotts,blogging, chat rooms, email chain letters and SMS (e.g. to media andpoliticians). Non-traditional modes of individualised participation are oftenquicker, require little time commitment and are often convenient for expressinga political viewpoint (Stanyer 2005, 22).

80 A. VROMEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Other developments in this area investigate how the Internet facilitates youngpeople’s community building and/or political expression. For example,Coleman and Rowe found that to engage young people effectively in decisionmaking, they must have real power to influence and change decisions.Consequently, opportunities to be acknowledged, recognised, and respectedon-line, as well as to be actively involved in creating site content, are valuedhighly by young people. Young people avoid one way, top – down information.In their study, participants were particularly attracted to two forms of on-linecivic interactivity: sites for novel, mixed media forms of political expression,and peer-to-peer networks and discussion fora (Coleman and Rowe 2005,iii – 10; see also Valaitis 2005). Conversely, other research has noted that thequandary for these types of youth-led sites, which are preferred by youngpeople and foster civic engagement and political expression from the‘bottom–up’, is their tenuous capacity to generate sustainable funding(Montgomery, Gottlieb-Robles and Larson 2004).In terms of thinking more specifically about the Internet as a political space

for participation, we can see that it has three primary uses:

(1) As an information source, whereby sites provide information about politicalissues, existing political groups and campaigns (Karakaya Polat 2005, 436;see also Montgomery, Gottlieb-Robles and Larson 2004).

(2) As a communication medium, in four distinctive sub-types: conversationsthat are one-to-one dialogue, such as email; the aggregation of informationwhere many people communicate with a single agency, such as on-linevoting, and on-line petitions; as a form of broadcast from one centre tomany people, such as personal web sites and blogs; and as group dialoguewhere there is interaction among a large group of senders and receivers,such as in forums and on-line chat (Christopher Weare, as cited inKarakaya Polat 2005, 446).

(3) As a virtual public sphere – here, Internet sites are ‘providing a platformfor rational critical debate rather than simple registration of individualviews through information aggregation tools, such as polls or surveys’(Karakaya Polat 2005, 448). The focus is on the processes involved inopinion formation and sharing, rather than chiefly on how opinions areexpressed.

Lincoln Dahlberg (2001) has provided a more critical theoretical typology foranalysing Internet-based communication and participation. He categorises sitesas either liberal, communitarian or deliberative, based on the forms ofdemocratic process that it creates. Liberal sites assist the expression ofindividual interests, enabling individuals access to government information andmeans to communicate with institutionalised political actors (Dahlberg 2001,619 – 20). Many e-government initiatives would fit here as they represent atop – down consumer model of politics and, often, simply provide electronicaccess to government off-line services (see Geiselhart 2004, 87). Communitariansites enhance communal values and build communities of interest, in effectserving to connect people with similar values and concerns. The focus incommunitarian sites is the exchange of information through decentralisedinteraction (Dahlberg 2001). Other Internet analysts liken this community

YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

building to a form of bonding social capital found in like-minded communities(Chen, Geiselhart and Gibson 2006).Dahlberg’s third type of site is labelled as deliberative, and is based on a

normative Habermasian ideal whereby the Internet is the means for anexpansion of the (non-exclusive, centralised, relevant to all) public sphere forrational – critical citizen discourse. Discourse on deliberative sites is reflexiveand respectful, reaching collective agreement for the public good. To beclassified as deliberative by Dahlberg, these sites need to be autonomous fromstate and corporate power (2001, 616). This kind of deliberative focus has thepotential for some authors (see Chen, Geiselhart and Gibson 2006) to create asuperior form of bridging social capital that, potentially, transcends essentialcommunity differences through debate.In Table 1, I have synthesised the key theoretical distinctions drawn by

Dahlberg for understanding Internet-based participation. The typologyprovides a very useful basis to begin categorising and analysing web sitesoriented toward political action, as this article demonstrates. However, it isimportant to note at this stage that certain key elements of the participatoryprocess are missing or not fully represented in this schema. The first apparentgap is the lack of conceptual space for sites that primarily use the Internet as aninformation-sharing conduit based on user-generated content to then facilitateoff-line participation. The approach of these kinds of sites needs to beconsidered as more community oriented than the information collection andaggregation elements of Dahlberg’s liberal sites. A second missing element isthat the scheme does not provide a clear basis for understanding use of theInternet as a site or tool for the collective expression of contention and dissent.Both deliberative and communitarian views see a focus on commonality andconsensus building in political exchange, avoiding reference to disruption orprotest as a function of Internet use. Bearing these limitations in mind,therefore, I proceed with the empirical application of the schema in each of thethree case studies.

Framework for Analysis

Pippa Norris has argued that generational difference in adaptation and use ofnew technologies is ‘perhaps the most significant for the future diffusion of theInternet, and yet the most taken for granted in policy circles’ (Norris 2001, 84).This suggests that particular attention needs to be paid to how diffused Internet

Table 1. Categorising participatory web site functions

Participatory Concept Communication Approach Method of Use

Liberal Information sourcing Information collectionConversation

Liberal Individual-led communication Information aggregation

Communitarian Group-led communication BroadcastGroup dialogue

Deliberative Virtual public sphere Debate and consensus

Adapted from ideas in Karakaya Polat (2005) and Dahlberg (2001).

82 A. VROMEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

use is among young people, and what they use the Internet for, to be able togauge the democratising potential for Internet use and for political participa-tion in general. Frequent Internet use and on-line access at home has astraightforward class dimension, in that those who are better educated andresourced are more likely to use the Internet and more often (see Vromen 2007).Contexts of use (such as home or school), social biographies and life trajectorieshave been noted as shaping the way young people engage with the Internet, andthis is combined with significant structural influences, such as culture, socialand technological changes (Lee 2005, 315; Livingstone, Bober and Helsper2004). Despite this, there are only a small group of young people in Australiawho do not have access to the Internet – 12% of 18 – 24 year olds, and 28% of25 – 34 year olds (ABA 2001, 83 – 5), suggesting that, as time passes, the Internethas become a fundamental component of the everyday lives of young people(Mcmillan and Morrison 2006). Furthermore, as Internet access at homeincreases, a far more diverse proportion of the population is likely to be using itfrequently (see ABS 2005; Denemark 2005, 226).In this article, I move beyond the mobilisation versus reinforcement debate

to, instead, focus on Internet-based practices (site itself and level ofinteractivity) and processes (the creators of the site and external discussion ofsite), rather than on users of sites, as does most of the existing research onyoung people and the Internet. This is similar to the research focus ofMontgomery, Gottlieb-Robles and Larson (2004, 12), but on a much smallerscale, using mainly qualitative rather than quantitative methods, and within theAustralian rather than US context. Thus, I am starting from a point of seeingexisting Internet-based participation as novel, but arguing that we need to focuson the diversity of practices between sites to get a better understanding of howyoung people are using the Internet in politically distinctive ways (see, forexample, Lupia and Philpot 2005, 1138). I do, however, fully acknowledge thelimitations of the Internet in fostering democracy and creating new, moreuniversal, participatory practices. Any medium that has a largely commercialintent is unlikely to simultaneously create the ideal space for public deliberationand active participation envisioned by democratic theorists (see Dahlgren 2005,151; Wilhelm 2002). Despite this, it is worthwhile to focus on successful casestudies where young people have set the agenda in creating new spaces andpractices of participation and engagement.

Methodology and Data

In general, youth-led Internet spaces are provided by non-profit, non-government organisations, and either run by young people for young peopleor have significant youth input into the strategic focus of the site. It is nearlyimpossible to estimate what proportion of sites aimed at young people areactually youth-led and encourage participation and ownership by youngpeople. This is because it is impossible to create an overall census of youth-serving organisations with Internet sites to use as a base. With the absence ofany possibility for random selection, I purposively selected three sites foranalysis that have been well recognised off-line through non-Internet mediaattention and competitive funding. The three sites are, arguably, the most well-known and valued Internet sites by engaged young Australian citizens today;

YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET 83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

moreover, the young site creators tend to network informally and share ideas. Iwas also keen to compare three cases that have different frames and differentconstructions of political and civic engagement.The study employed a range of primarily qualitative methodologies to collect

and analyse a variety of in-depth data on the site content, operation and thewider social and media context surrounding them. This included three researchtechniques:

(1) Interviews with eight initiators or major creative influences on theorganisations/sites. All eight interviews were conducted in person in mid-2006, and they were recorded and transcribed. The interviewees ranged inage from 22 to 35 years, and comprised four men and four women. Directquotes from the interviews are used to illustrate analysis throughout.1

(2) In-depth qualitative analysis of the three relevant web sites, focusing on thetypes of interactivity found on the site, recent organisational issues andcampaigns, as well as an analysis of how the site represented itself as aparticipatory site. The period of analysis was July –August 2006.

(3) Collection and review of news reports in the mainstream media and relevantblog sites featuring references to the organisations and individuals withinthem. Mainstream news reports were compiled using the Factiva mediasearch engine over a year-long period prior to September 2006. Discussionsof the organisation on high-profile blogs and in broadcast media transcriptswere also monitored. As these media outputs were used primarily tocontextualise the case studies, systematic quantitative content analysis wasnot undertaken. Their main value was in providing important backgroundinformation on the organisations and to extract quotes from prominentpolitical actors about them. The media reports proved particularly useful inthis regard in the analysis of GetUp!, as it has proved quite controversialand generated an increasing amount of media coverage.

The three organisations are outlined in Table 2 and represent both acontinuum of most explicitly youth led (Vibewire) to least explicitly youth led(GetUp!); and most focused on creating special communities (Vibewire) to afocus on changing existing political institutions (GetUp!). The three cases willbe analysed separately following a similar format of, first, evaluating what theorganisation does, including an overview of recent actions and campaigns;and, second, describing how the organisational protagonists and the sites claimthat the Internet creates distinctive contributions in the political engagementand participation of young people. The conclusion will compare theorganisations and evaluate the usefulness of theoretical site classifications forunderstanding young people’s participation through the Internet in contem-porary politics.

1All fieldwork involving human subjects gained Human Research Ethics approval from TheUniversity of Sydney Ethics Committee in March 2006. All interviewees have been anonymisedfor the purposes of this paper.

84 A. VROMEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Table

2.Comparingorganisationsthatprovideyouth-led

internet

spaces

Organisational

characteristics

Vibew

ire(est.2001)

Inspire(est.1998)

GetUp!Ltd

(est.2005)

Internet

site

Vibew

ire.net

ActNow

(launched

5/2006)

GetUp!

Other

services

Reelife

Film

Festival

Square

One

PrintProjects

Reach

Out!

BeanBag

–

Revenue

$65,000(2004)

$2,213,000(2006)

Notknowna

Sources

ofrevenue

Philanthropicfoundations(e.g.Foundation

forYoungAustralians)

Government(e.g.DIM

IA,AEC)

Corporate

sponsors

(e.g.SMH,Lonely

Planet)

Donations

Corporate

sponsors

(e.g.LionFund)

Philanthropic

foundations

Governmentgrants

(e.g.DFACS)

100%

donations

How

youth

led?

Allcontentbyandallvolunteer

administrators

are

aged

16–30years

old

(*100youngpeople,incl.25

Vibew

ire.net

editors)

Youth

advisory

boards(i.e.ActNow

incubators

anduniversity

interns);

contentwritten

byyoungmem

bers;

most

paid

staffare

aged

under

35

years

–butnotmandated

Allpaid

staffandmost

of

Board

are

aged

35years

or

under

–butnotmandated

Target

users

ofsite

Youngpeople

16–30years

Youngpeople

aged

16–25years

ProgressiveAustralians

Estim

atednumbersof

users

Approx.7500users

700mem

bers;22,000site

visitors

150,000site

users

Sources:InspireFoundation(2006)andVibew

ire(2004)organisationweb

sitesasatDecem

ber

2006.

aNote:An

article

on

WorkersOnlinestated

thatGetUp!had

raised

$1.5

million

by

August

2005,seeURL:5http://w

orkers.labor.net.au/275/

new

s6_getup.htm

l4.

YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET 85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Case 1: Vibewire

Vibewire Youth Services was established in 2001 to provide a primarilyInternet-based youth media space. Its main plank Vibewire.net went live inApril 2002 as a portal for youth culture and political expression. It provides arange of different sections in which articles are posted and forums areconducted. Topics covered include: politics, policy and public issues; andcultural commentary on the areas of art, music, poetry, literature, film andtheatre. In 2004, Vibewire was funded by the Foundation for YoungAustralians and the Australian Electoral Commission to run electionTracker,whereby four young people wrote articles on the 2004 federal electioncampaign. These on-line journalists wrote daily entries on the web site fromthe campaign trails of either John Howard or Mark Latham. Opinion pieces bythe four electionTrackers were also referred to in mainstream print media (seeWoods 2004; MacLean 2004; Gough 2004), and there were several radio andtelevision stories featuring the project (see ABC 2004; SBS 2004). These storieswere all positive reports on the engagement of young people in electoral politics.In 2004 and 2005, Vibewire ran Sanctuary, in partnership with Auburn MigrantResource centre. This program focused on the idea of multiculturalism and wasaimed at giving young people from non-English speaking backgrounds thechance to publish creative work that challenged the views of society on migrantsand refugees. The most recently funded project, by the Foundation for YoungAustralians, is Square One, which aims to establish an off-line and affordablecreative space for young people to share ideas and develop projects.The emphasis at Vibewire is that young people are the producers of media

and information. But it is not a passive broadcasting medium of ideas. Instead,it demonstrates how ‘[t]he Internet is inherently interactive, it’s almostimpossible to contain its interactivity’ (Interviewee three). The web site isstructured around three areas:

(1) Create – written word, and film.(2) Life – technology, travel and entertainment; theatre, film, gigs, and CDs.(3) Pulse – political and social issues, both domestic and international; global

poverty, sustainability and climate change, and identity.

The site uses forums extensively. For example, the e-Festival of Ideas is anannual discussion-based virtual event, lasting for five days, that includes bothexperts (sometimes acting as moderators) and site users to create debate oncontentious issues. The 2006 e-festival topics were grouped around the threeVibewire ‘themes’ of Create, Life and Pulse. This last theme included topics of‘global poverty’; ‘sustainability and climate change’; and ‘identity’. Thesubtopic of ‘film’ in the Create section actually attracted the most posts(closely followed by global poverty, then sustainability) but also includedseveral debates on the industry and funding, which gave it a more overtlypolitical edge in looking at the role of young people as producers andconsumers of Australian culture. However, the number of posts in theseforums, alone, is not sufficiently indicative of the wide-ranging participation;for example, there was an average of 250 views for every thread of debate thatincluded an average of five actual posts.

86 A. VROMEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

The construction of community on Vibewire clearly differs for different usersand even among those who have had a major stake in the organisationaldevelopment. One interviewee suggested that the ‘community of interest’mobilised depends on the issue or project being run:

Vibewire is not a clear discreet community. You can’t really draw a boxaround it. There are people who are more at the centre, and people who aremore at the periphery and there are people who are moving in and out. Eachtime we run a new project, then you have a different community (Intervieweefour).

Similarly, Interviewee three suggested that Vibewire broadens its basethrough demonstrating the interconnectedness between things not traditionallyconsidered as politics (arts, music, and comedy) and politics, and using those asaccess points to get people who are not traditionally political to examine theissues that they care about. Conversely, Interviewee five observed that Vibewireis generally accessed by those people who are probably already politicallyengaged – university students and urban dwellers.Vibewire has sought to provide writing and journalism opportunities to

young people that may not have been able to have their voices heard in moretraditional print and broadcast media, thus demonstrating the centralityof user-generated content in analysing youth-led Internet sites. One ofthe original instigators of Vibewire saw this as a deliberate strategy of con-necting the media through facilitating conversations, or dialogue, among youngpeople:

I became very aware that media was the marketplace of ideas in our society,and the Internet is clearly the most focused on conversation rather thanbroadcast. This led to the idea for a web site that would create a moredemocratic, youth-controlled, media outlet for younger people to express andexamine and communicate and converse around their ideas and cultures.(Interviewee three)

The Internet is also presented as the most porous form of media and the mostappropriate for young people as it has become such a part of their everydaylives. Interviewee five argued that it is ‘socially disadvantageous’ to not be on-line, thus bridging the connection between young peoples’ public, political livesand their private, social lives.The Vibewire interviewees pointed out that Vibewire provides an alternative

political space that is welcoming to young people and they contrast this withestablished political institutions that are portrayed as less amenable to youngpeople’s involvement. This theme of young people needing alternative ordistinctive space is an important undercurrent to justification within the threecase study organisations:

Far too often young people are told they are allowed to participate politically,socially and culturally but they have to do so on terms set out by otherorganisations. You’re more than welcome to be involved in politics so long asyou do it in the ways that they expect you to. So long as you organise the

YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET 87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

meeting with your MP, so long as you join a political party, or so long as youturn up to a protest. (Interviewee four)

Interviewee four takes this idea of alternative political space further by alsoarguing that young people actually use the Internet differently to older people,who use it mainly to source information. Instead, young people use the Internetto build community:

Older people use the Internet like they use the Yellow Pages and newspapers:to access information, and really all they’ve done is move real things virtually.My demographic, yes we do those things, but we can also create communityaround them in the same way that older people have local community. Wehave local community and we also have some form of on-line community.(Interviewee four)

Using the categorisations in Table 1, Vibewire is clearly a communitarian-themed site that uses both broadcast and group dialogue functions. It relies onuser-generated media content and conversation-like forums to sustain itself.The analysis here suggests that there are tensions between a communitarianapproach of youth-led Internet sites and a potentially broader and inclusivedeliberative approach. The internal and external pressure on sites to broadenthe base of young people involved potentially produces unrealistic expectationsfor successful community building.

Case 2: ActNow

ActNow was started to encourage and facilitate young people’s activeparticipation in politics and society, and thus lead to empowerment throughcivic engagement. ActNow’s organisational practice is linked explicitly toyoung people’s ongoing health and well-being. The Inspire Foundation wasalready well established in providing participatory on-line services for youngpeople’s mental health through the award-winning ReachOut site. ActNowprimarily provides easily accessible information for young people, importantly,written by young people. In the near future, the creators plan to focus onbuilding off-line communities of shared interest. In the development of ActNowit was initially constructed as on on-line protest site, then a matching sitebetween volunteers and NGOs. Neither really worked. The current focus is onremoving the barriers to young people in having a say and participating more insociety:

In the last 12 months [we have] worked with over one hundred young people,through the youth advisory board program, the internship program andfounding members to not go back to the drawing board, but to incorporate allthe research that’s happening over the past five years. A new model, where wesay to young people: ‘What does action mean to you?’ and ‘What are thebarriers to you participating?’ (Interviewee two)

Thus, young people have been explicitly at the centre of the construction ofthe site’s content and its ongoing development. Of the three, this makes it the

88 A. VROMEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

most self-consciously youth-led site – as young people have been sought out and‘captured’ into structured site development programs. The other two sites donot systematically seek out a range of young people or have formal programs inthis way. To a large extent, this is due to funding and resources as the InspireFoundation is a much larger non-government organisation and can properlycommit to this capacity-building work.The site is based upon the creation of a personal profile and then

communication both through on-line postings, discussion boards and personalemails with other users. Each issue-based page makes links to people who arealso interested in that issue and taking action related to it, and offersopportunities to engage with that person. Users must be a member in order tocontact other users through the site or post material, either written or non-written. Interviewee one, similarly to the Vibewire interviewees, describes it as aprocess of providing a distinctive space for young people:

[A] space where young people are creating that content and sharing theirstories of taking action, to create a space where that process becomes part ofthe reflective process of thinking about, learning about and taking action onsocial issues. (Interviewee one)

In addition, an aim of the site is to assist young people in becoming moreinvolved in their community. Hence, the site provides information about andlinks to organisations acting on certain issues and shows users how they canbecome involved both in on-line and off-line action. At the end of 2006, therewere links to 128 organisations and groups that are involved with working onthe issues identified by the site. The use of ‘action stories’ outline what otheryoung people are doing when they become involved with certain organisationsand this is meant to draw young people into taking action by making them feelpart of a group.Similarly, the site has links to 124 ‘Things to do’ (action and events), which

outline ways that users could become involved in activity occurring aroundparticular issues. Each section includes a series of overarching ways in which totake action such as volunteer, donate, raise awareness, advocate, take actionagainst State, national and international bodies, and change the rules. There arethen links to relevant NGOs that are involved in specific issues, such asAmnesty International and Oxfam. Pages then provide links to specific eventsthat are happening; for example, under ‘Human Rights’ there is information onhow to become involved in ‘World Refugee Day’.There is a mixture of types of engagement defined as ‘action’ on ActNow.

Some involve encouraging young people to simply change their personalbehaviour; for example, being aware of the items they are buying, and theamount of energy they are using. Other actions call for collective action eitherorganised by the individual or acting as part of an established organisation. Italso seems that the aim of some of the actions is not to entice activeparticipation but to induce awareness and provide advice for young people.Some actions relate to specific events, whereas others are an overarchingcollection of actions to achieve a redistributive goal; for example, HomelessnessAction does not outline simply one course of action to be pursued but a varietyof ways to engage with the issue. There is also a combination of on-line and

YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

off-line opportunities for engagement. In summary, there is not a cleardefinition of what an ‘action’ beyond ActNow involves, leaving the user roomto pick and choose what suits them. This can be interpreted as constructingpersonal preferences for action types, as well as issues, as most actions, whenselected, lead to other related actions; thus, there are active linkages betweenactions, not just issues and actions.Table 3 demonstrates how ActNow presents this multiplicity of both issues

and potential actions that young people are being encouraged to engage in byusing two examples. It is also important to note that ActNow is both breakingdown issues into accessible pressure points and addressing their inherentcomplexity. As seen in Table 3, global poverty is a large issue, but the ActNowstrategy addresses it from a number of angles: local, national to global;individual to collective experiences; and the economic, environmental, politicaland social consequences of poverty.In the Inspire Foundation’s Annual Report, ActNow is described as focusing

on ‘creating opportunities, promoting active participation and buildingmeaningful connections’; and that ActNow creates both bonding and bridgingsocial capital, as ‘people from different backgrounds forming ties is the key to

Table 3. ActNow: Examples of connecting actions and organisations

Global Poverty Actions Global Poverty Organisations

1. Make Indigenous Poverty History.2. Forum on how to make the world a better place.3. On-line Activism Action – adding name to petitions,

writing to world leaders, or letting friends and familyknow how they can help make a difference. Possibleorganisations – Greenpeace, World Wild Life PandaPassport, Oxfam, Amnesty International.

4. Oxfam Trailwalker Action – fundraising event.5. Australian Aid Overseas Action – find out more

information from organisations like Aidwatch, writeto your MP.

6. Fair Trade Action – gain information and joinorganisations focusing on this issue.

7. Global Poverty Action – donate, visit sites oforganisations working around issue, visit developingcountries, learn about political parties approach toissues.

Indian Ocean Aid AgencyFair WearAidwatchFair Trade Association ofAustralia and NZ

Jubilee Australia

Homelessness Actions Homelessness Organisations1. Access to Public Space Action – create street art,

contact local council to find out where graffiti wallsare located, support events like ‘Reclaim the Streets’,get to know your local area, throw a street party.

2. Homelessness Action – donate money, clothes, foodto organisations helping the homeless; buy a copy ofThe Big Issue; volunteer at local social services;become involved in Anti-poverty Week and NationalHomeless Persons Week (research, discussion, planevents); become involved with organisations workingaround the issue.

Baptist Community ServicesNSW and ACT.

Mission AustraliaYWCA NSWAustralian Red CrossCREATE FoundationArdoch Youth FoundationYWCA AustraliaCambridge Youth Services, WAOpen Family, Vic.Good Shepard Youth andFamily Service, Vic.

90 A. VROMEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

increasing the likelihood of becoming more actively involved in the community’(Inspire Foundation 2006, 29). In the interviews there was recognition of thedifficulties associated with trying to create this deliberative and broad-rangingideal:

One of the challenges for a site like ActNow is how does it contribute to socialconnectedness and involvement of a whole range [of young people],particularly the most marginalised members of the community? So throughworking in partnership with other organisations that work with young peoplefrom marginalised backgrounds or diverse backgrounds or Indigenousbackgrounds, that will hopefully help us to better understand what a sitelike ActNow needs to be for those young people. (Interviewee one)

However, there was major optimism that the Internet can transcend thesedifferences between young people, provide new political opportunities (similarto the thoughts of Vibewire’s Interviewee four) and potentially challengeexisting power imbalances: ‘It brings people together in really interesting ways,and a lot of the judgements and assumptions that we make about the people wecome into contact with face-to-face occur differently on-line’ (Interviewee one).Initially, I classified ActNow as a liberal site. However, its aspiration to

enable young people to form off-line communities and take both individualisedand collective off-line action encapsulates more than a liberal individualistoutlook. It is also clear that ActNow instigators want to extend the site intoa Habermas-ian public sphere, where differences can be transcendedthrough debate and rational discussion of important political and social issues.It has the potential to move into being a communitarian or even deliberativesite, but there is little evidence at this early stage of its development that itdirectly facilitates both off-line and on-line deliberation by young people. Anychance of this occurring tends to be indirect, or only applicable to the smallnumber of people who have an active role in directing the site as ActNow‘incubators’.

Case 3: GetUp!

GetUp! is an overtly political campaign-based web site. It is auspiced andfunded by donations from individuals and the Australian union movement, andacts in coalition with progressive NGOs. It does not provide direct services oraccept funding from political parties or governments. It represents itself asacting on behalf of ‘progressive Australians’ over issues currently being debatedby the federal government. It is different from ActNow and Vibewire in twomain ways: (1) It is not overtly aimed at young people, although all of its staffand most of the Advisory Board are aged 35 years or under; and (2) it mobilisesaround a narrower space for political action, as its campaigns are based onissues that are in current political debate at the federal level. Nevertheless, wecan see from this quote that GetUp! provides processes that attract youngpeople:

People don’t say this is the youth thing and this is where I belong, they justhave to feel a part of it, and I think that the kind of imagery and the framing

YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

and the new technology stuff and the functionality, all of that contributes tothe way in which we’re able to engage with young people (Interviewee seven).

GetUp!’s primary tactics are also different to the other two cases because it isfocused on using the Internet to take action rather than, at this stage, creatingcommunal space for forums, discussion or deliberation. Similar to otherpolitical campaigning organisations, GetUp! focuses largely on media work:creating advertisements for the Internet and television (e.g. using the highprofile Australian actor Jack Thompson for a television ad on children indetention), doing broadcast and print interviews, and funding photograph-worthy stunts (e.g. sky message over Federal Parliament on legislation onoffshore processing of asylum applications). The on-line and off-line politicalrelationships, as well as distinctive campaign issues, are seen as fundamental tothe organisation:

The on-line creates a network and off-line provokes discussion. It’s like themedia in a way – the on-line puts issues on the agenda, and off-line they aredebated and discussed and people maybe are politicised. And the beauty ofhaving a multi-issue thing is even if the issue of refugees isn’t the thing thatactivates you, it might be ABC funding, or it might be the ‘Rights At Work’campaign. (Interviewee six)

Most of the campaigns have been based on facilitating communicationbetween MPs and their constituents, through the information aggregationcapacity of web sites to send emails and petitions. Where these campaigns differfrom off-line forms of individualised action, such as petitions, is in theirsometimes disruptive, protest orientation. For example, one intervieweecharacterised it as an alternative form of protest organisation that has a largerreach:

The number of people who participate in a rally or organise a rally is certainlydifferent to the membership base of GetUp!, which is much broader, becauseits got a very low threshold for participation. You don’t need to know theright organisation or to have been involved in the student movement for yearsor have an activist identity to get involved in GetUp!. You just need to have avery broad concern and probably get introduced to the organisation on theWeb or through the media, or through a common interest concern.(Interviewee six)

This is a similar argument to that of the creators of Vibewire and ActNow:the Internet can mobilise and involve more people than traditional forms ofparticipation, and can include a more diverse group. However, GetUp!prioritises the Internet as it provides timeliness and ease of access for doingpolitics rather than for creating community-specific space. The intervieweebelow emphasised that GetUp! provides a more time-convenient and flexiblealternative to being an activist:

GetUp! has a role in developing more flexible modes of participation thatenable a broader group of people to become involved by lowering the barriers

92 A. VROMEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

for political engagement. . . .In today’s structure of work and life people needmore flexible opportunities for political participation. Not everyone wants tobe an activist, but a lot of people want to be involved on a less regular and amore informal basis. (Interviewee eight)

There were approximately 20 GetUp! campaigns in their first year ofoperation. Once GetUp! has decided upon an issue, they seek out experts in thefield and gain assistance in running the campaign. Interviewee seven describedthese relationships as providing intellectual capacity to the organisation andgiving GetUp! greater legitimacy, with organisations bringing the brand nameand the expertise, and GetUp! reframing the issue and creating action.Background information is provided on issues and members are advised toeither write an email, letter or make a phone call either to their local MP, MPsand Senators relevant for the particular issues or individuals such as, recently,Senators Barnaby Joyce and Steve Fielding. There is very little prescription onthe exact content of emails. Politically successful campaigns in the first yearincluded a campaign calling on Federal members of parliament to endministerial veto over RU486, and a campaign aimed at stopping proposedchanges to refugee laws concerning offshore processing that would have aneffect on children. Other campaigns have had a less straightforward effect onlegislative processes but have been agenda-setting through receiving widespreadmedia and public attention, including the successful campaign to have DavidHicks released from Guantanamo Bay and returned to Australia.There has been substantial mainstream media interest in the organisation and

a lot of debate about its legitimacy as a political actor. GetUp! has beencharacterised as providing a ‘hi-tech political campaign’ with a ‘new Internetlobbying tool’ (Farr 2005); and also a ‘highly organised and well-funded lobbygroup’ (Dodson 2005). There have been fiery and hostile reactions fromCoalition politicians (as befits disruptive movement-oriented politics), andsuspicion from existing progressive groups (mainly through on-line blogs, seeBahnisch 2005). For example, Liberal MP Andrew Robb described their actionsas ‘irresponsible and it’s spam’ (Kelly 2005); Senator Eric Abetz stated thatchanges in campaigning style from emails to TV ads were an admission byGetUp! that their ‘spam campaign’ had been ‘ineffective’ (Karvelas 2005).Senator Abetz also unsuccessfully referred the organisation to the AEC to forceit to disclose its donors by claiming that it was an Associated Entity of the ALP(AEC 2005).The participatory role of members in directing the organisation toward, and

the process on, specific campaigns is less clear-cut. Interviewee eight sees a placefor more interactive on-line engagement, gaining member input on issuecreation, and increasing a sense of involvement. In late 2006, the organisationconducted its first poll of site users to establish future campaign priorities.The poll asked the users to rate their priority level for about 15 campaigns.Based on subsequent action, climate change was overwhelmingly seen as theissue for GetUp!’s next major campaign. However, interviewee eight alsosuggested that being more interactive and member-oriented must fit withthe organisation’s mandate. Some form of top – down structure will need toremain, as GetUp! does not intend to become ‘another on-line community ofinterest’.

YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET 93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

GetUp! is best classified as a liberal site, using the Internet for bothindividual-focused conversation and information aggregation functionsthrough targeted email and petition campaigns and blogging. Most otherliberal sites tend to be top – down e-governance initiatives that enable citizensto contact decision makers. GetUp!, however, has a broader protestorientation that is more akin to highly organised, direct-action campaignsundertaken at the grassroots (similar to media-savvy Greenpeace stunts). Theorganisation sets up the campaign agenda and its coordinated input at a largescale is often unwelcome and disruptive, as was seen in some media andpolitical commentary above. Its creators are wary of facilitating an inward-looking communitarian-focused site, and are more interested in a broad-basedmovement for change rather than on-line space for deliberation and consensusbuilding.

Conclusions: Building Virtual Spaces – Deliberative Individuals or Collective

Communities?

The three case studies analysed a range of existing practices in Internet-based participation that are created by young people, for youngpeople. There are two main conclusions to be made: (1) To emphasise theimportance of the Internet in facilitating young people’s political spaces; and(2) to question the normative ideal of deliberation as a goal for young people’sparticipation.

I think that sometimes on-line forms of political participation can circumventthe power structures that exist within other off-line forms of politicalparticipation, such as political parties and structures like that, which tend tohave really strong . . . if not age-based, then age-influenced, hierarchies inplace. (Interviewee eight)

Interviewees from all three cases highlighted the importance of young peoplehaving access to distinctive space to express their point of view and argued that,in general, young people continue to be excluded from most traditional avenuesof participation. What I have shown in this research is that young people arecreating spaces based on both Dahlberg’s classifications of liberal andcommunitarian functions of the Internet. It is clear from these three casestudies that young people connect and form on-line and off-line communities incomplex and myriad ways. It has also been shown that they are engaged bypolitical information that has been generated by young people themselves. Thiscontradicts common assertions about the individualism of young people’sparticipation and political expression today (e.g. Norman 2006), or stories ofapathy and cynicism.What does it mean to have diversity of participation in the formation of an

Internet-based public sphere? Interviewees from both ActNow and Vibewireexpressed concern about the lack of diversity among the highly educated youngpeople who use their site. What is less explored is whether or not this is agenuine problem. It may simply mean that we should never expect one site to berepresentative and inclusive of all young people because of both their diverseeveryday experiences and the multiplicity of virtual spaces they choose to

94 A. VROMEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

inhabit and engage with. Instead, we ought to continue focus on the barriers toparticipation for those new to political expression. This is the intention ofActNow and what makes its future development both distinctive andpromising.Peter Dahlgren has made a similar point in his earlier research. He suggests

that we should value people’s desire to participate and that on-line politicalengagement is allowing people to engage in democratic practice (2005, 158 – 9).However, he critiques the Habermasian position that the deliberative value ofdiscussion determines its democratic value, as this privileges elite modes ofcommunication. Dahlgren sees that on-line public spheres are important mainlybecause of how they draw in a wider array of people to form communities and,thus, subsequent mobilisation and debate is more noteworthy than deliberativeconsensus (2005, 155 – 7).Some ‘cyber optimists’ see that the Internet changes all of our social and

political interactions. I am sceptical of an Internet-led public sphere that isuniversal and encourages debate and deliberation. The liberal and commu-nitarian functions of the Internet are important and deserve more scrutiny tosee how they reflect young people’s political agency. Setting up a normativeideal of youth-led Internet spaces as a democratic public sphere is possiblyanother benchmark that will interpret young people’s political engagement andbehaviours as deficient. Instead, we can continue to focus on how young peopleare using the Internet as a broad-ranging tool for autonomous communitybuilding, debate and dissent, as well as user-generated information sourcing andsharing.

References

Australian Broadcasting Authority [ABA]. 2001. The Internet at Home. Canberra. URL:5http://www.aba.gov.au/newspubs/documents/InternetAtHome.pdf4. Consulted 1 September 2006.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC]. 2004. ‘A Young Person’s Media Guide to Politics:The Media Report.’ Radio National, September 23, Sydney. URL: 5http://www.abc.net.au/rn/mediareport/stories/2004/1203687.htm4. Consulted 1 November 2007.

Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. 2006. Year Book 2005. Canberra. URL:5http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/68BD1499D3221CE3CA256F720083304B4. Consulted 1November 2007.

Australian Electoral Commission [AEC]. 2005. ‘GetUp! and Bennelong Institute.’ AECPolitical Disclosures. URL: 5http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Political_Disclosures/AEC_Advice/Getup.htm4. Consulted 1 November 2007.

Bahnisch, M. 2005. ‘Will GetUp! Influence Political Debate?’ OnLine Opinion, August 24.URL: 5http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article¼19314. Consulted 1 November2007.

Bennett, W. L. and M. Xenos. 2004. ‘Young Voters and the Web of Politics: Pathways toParticipation in the Youth Engagement and Electoral Campaign Web Spheres.’ WorkingPaper 20, CIRCLE, Seattle. URL: 5http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/assets/documents/WP42BennettXenos.pdf4. Consulted 1 November 2007.

Bessant, J. 2004. ‘Mixed Messages: Youth Participation and Democratic Practice.’ AustralianJournal of Political Science 39(2): 387 – 404.

Bolzan, N. 2003. ‘Kids Are Like That! Community Attitudes to Young People.’ National YouthAffairs Research Scheme, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra.URL: 5http://www.facs.gov.au/Internet/facsInternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/youth-kids_that.htm4. Consulted 1 November 2007.

Chen, P., K. Geiselhart and R. Gibson. 2006. ‘Electronic Democracy? The Impact of NewCommunications Technology on Australian Democracy.’ Report No. 6, Democratic Audit ofAustralia, Canberra. URL: 5http://arts.anu.edu.au/democraticaudit/focus.htm4. Consulted1 November 2007.

YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET 95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Coleman, S. 2005. ‘The Lonely Citizen: Indirect Representation in an Age of Networks.’ PoliticalCommunication 22: 197 – 214.

Coleman, S. and C. Rowe. 2005. ‘Remixing Citizenship: Democracy and Young People’s Use ofthe Internet.’ Research report, Carnegie Young People’s Initiative, London. URL: 5http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/remixing_ citizenship4. Consulted 1 November2007.

Dahlberg, L. 2001. ‘The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring the Prospects of OnlineDeliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere.’ Information, Communication and Society4(4): 615 – 33.

Dahlgren, P. 2005. ‘The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion andDeliberation.’ Political Communication 22: 147 – 62.

Delli Carpini, M. X. 2000. ‘Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New InformationEnvironment.’ Political Communication 17: 341 – 9.

Denemark, D. 2005. ‘Mass Media and Media Power in Australia.’ In Australian Social Attitudes:The First Report, eds S. Wilson, G. Meagher, R. Gibson, D. Denemark and M. Western.Sydney: UNSW Press.

Dodson, L. 2005. ‘Lobbyist GetUp! Gears Up for the Senate.’ Sydney Morning Herald, August1: 3.

Farr, M. 2005. ‘Pollies Feel the Email Heat.’ Daily Telegraph August 3: 16.Geiselhart, K. 2004. ‘Citizen Engagement: The Next Horizon for Digital Government.’ In TheVocal Citizen, ed. G. Patmore. Fitzroy, Vic.: Arena Publishing.

Gough, D. 2004. ‘On the Trail for the Y-Gen.’ The Age, October 7: 2.Henn, M., M. Weinstein and S. Forrest. 2005. ‘Uninterested Youth? Young People’s AttitudesTowards Party Politics in Britain.’ Political Studies 53(3): 556 – 78.

Inspire Foundation. 2006. 2005 – 2006 Annual Report. Sydney. URL: 5http://www.inspire.org.au/uploads/files/pdfs/2006_annual_report_bookmarked.pdf4. Consulted 1 November2007.

Karakaya Polat, R. 2005. ‘The Internet and Political Participation: Exploring the ExplanatoryLinks.’ European Journal of Communication 20(4): 435 – 59.

Karvelas, P. 2005. ‘Poll Body Seeking GetUp! Lowdown.’ The Australian August 25: 2.Kelly, P. 2005. ‘GetUp! To Stand Up.’ The Australian August 13: 30.Lee, L. 2005. ‘Young People and the Internet: From Theory to Practice.’ Young: Nordic Journalof Youth Research 13(4): 315 – 26.

Livingstone, S., M. Bober and E. Helsper. 2004. ‘Active Participation or Just More Information?Young People’s Take Up of Opportunities to Act and Interact on the Internet.’ Project Report.London School of Economics and Political Science, London. URL: 5http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000396/4. Consulted 1 November 2007.

Lupia, A. and T. S. Philpot. 2005. ‘Views from Inside the Net: How Websites Affect YoungAdults’ Political Interest.’ The Journal of Politics 67(4): 1122 – 42.

Maclean, S. 2004. ‘Cyber Generation Calls Tune.’ The Australian September 23: 17.Maloney, W. 2006. ‘Political Participation Beyond the Electoral Arena.’ In Developments inBritish Politics (8th edn), eds P. Dunleavy, R. Heffernan, P. Cowley and C. Hay. Basingstoke:Palgrave.

Marsh, D., T. O’Toole and S. Jones. 2007. Apathy or Alienation? Young People and Politics in theUK. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

McMillan, S. J. and M. Morrison. 2006. ‘Coming of Age With the Internet: A QualitativeExploration of How the Internet has Become an Integral Part of Young People’s Lives.’New Media and Society 8(1): 73 – 95.

Montgomery, K., B. Gottlieb-Robles and G. O. Larson. 2004. Youth as e-Citizens: Engaging theDigital Generation. Report from Center for Social Media, School of Communication,American University, Washington, DC. URL: 5http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/youth_as_e_citizens_engaging_the_digital_generation/4. Consulted 1November 2007.

Norman, J. 2006. ‘Howard’s Young People are Shallow and Disengaged.’ The Age February23: 19.

Norris, P. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the InternetWorldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SBS. 2004. ‘First Timers.’ Insight September 28. URL: 5http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/archive.php3?archive¼1&artmon¼9&arty¼2004#4. Consulted 1 November 2007.

Stanyer, J. 2005. ‘The British Public and Political Attitude Expression: The Emergence of aSelf-expressive Political Culture?’ Contemporary Politics 11(1): 19 – 32.

Valaitis, R. K. 2005. ‘Computers and the Internet: Tools for Youth Empowerment.’ Journal ofMedical Internet Research 7(5): 1 – 17.

Vibewire. 2004. Vibewire Youth Services Annual Report 2003 – 2004. Sydney (provided viapersonal correspondence with Vibewire).

96 A. VROMEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Vromen, A. 2003. ‘‘‘People Try to Put Us Down. . .’’ Participatory Citizenship of‘‘GenerationX’’.’ Australian Journal of Political Science 38(1): 79 – 99.

Vromen, A. 2007. ‘Australian Young People’s Participatory Practices and Internet Use.’Information, Communication and Society 10(1): 48 – 68.

Wilhelm, A. G. 2002. ‘Wireless Youth: Rejuvenating the Net.’ National Civic Review 91(3):293 – 302.

Woods, J. 2004. ‘On Track.’ Sydney Morning Herald September 15: 28.

YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICIPATION AND THE INTERNET 97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

20 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2014