Being involved: Theoretical and research approaches (2008) - May 21 Reading Note - Jenn Bergen

Markoulis, D. & Dikalou, M. (2008). Being involved: Theoretical and research approaches. In F. Oser & W. Veugelers (Eds.), Getting involved: Global citizenship development and the sources of moral values (pp. 75-87). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Main Argument

Markoulis & Dikalou (2008) argue that ‘social psychological’ factors (morals and values) are key motivators for both individual and mass citizen participation. The authors describe factors that contribute to mass mobilizations, such as instrumentality, identity, and ideology, and propose that conventional and non-conventional moral reasoning abilities can help to explain the individual motivations (ideological basis) for different types of citizen participation.

Supporting Points

Markoulis and Dikalou (2008) argue that researchers generally agree about “the need of … mobilization and the involvement of citizens in social issues” (p. 77), but are split on why it is important – some believe this mobilization is needed to address gaps in services provided by governments to particular populations, while others believe mobilization is needed because it can influence public policy and educate citizens about issues (Markoulis & Dikalou, 2008, p. 76). The authors also note that mobilization is called different things in the literature, namely “being active citizens”, “social participation”, and “involvement in the community” (2008, p. 77).

Different conceptions of citizenship lead to different kinds of citizen mobilization (Markoulis & Dikalou, 2008, p. 78). As such, Markoulis and Dikalou (2008) next explain how shifts in actual citizenship practices have affected the way that citizenship has been articulated and studied. They note the move from more conservative, political participation conceptions of citizenship, to those that have conflict and activism at their core, to those based on skill acquisition, and finally to those conceptions where the citizen has little political interest (pp. 77-78) – a situation that the authors claim Europe and America are currently facing.

Markoulis and Dikalou (2008) the describe how ‘citizen participation’ is characterized in different ways, and they probe primarily two venues – individual participation in one’s community and ‘mass involvement’. In the research looking at community participation (which the authors note can be local or international participation), there are generally two approaches. The first takes an action research approach, where the researcher works with communities to disseminate information, implement programming, and raise awareness about particular issues with the citizenry. The second approach seeks to study actions that citizens have taken on themselves, in order to ascertain individuals’ motives for such actions (Markoulis & Dikalou, 2008, pp. 78-80).

Turning to ‘mass involvement’, the authors stress that large group political participation has increased in the last several decades, and this type of participation comes with different motivational factors than individual citizen action. Here, they draw on Klandermas’ additive model that claims there are three motivational factors for mass group mobilization: instrumentality (or efficacy), identity, and ideology. ‘Instrumentality’ is the belief of citizens that their actions will have political influence, ‘identity’ motivations focus on which groups citizens are willing to identify with collectively, based on individual characteristics, and ‘ideological’ motivations stem from acquired attitudes and emotions that drive political action (Markoulis & Dikalou, 2008, pp. 81-83).

Finally, the authors discuss conventional and non-conventional moral reasoning abilities, which they claim drive the ideological connections that groups of people will make, subsequently informing their political actions. Here, they claim that conventional moral reasoning focuses more on the individual than on the collective – a “generalized system perspective” (Markoulis & Dikalou, 2008, p. 83), and assert that this type of reasoning typically manifests in conservative ideology. In contrast, non-conventional moral reasoning allows for a broader perspective – “prior-to-society” (Markoulis & Dikalou, 2008, p. 83), which is typically associated with more liberal ideologies (Markoulis & Dikalou, 2008, pp. 83-84). The authors note that although research indicates “a linear positive relationship between moral reasoning and activism” (Markoulis & Dikalou, 2008, p. 84), very little theoretical rationale for such connections exists, and much more research is needed.

Assessment / Critique

Markoulis and Dikalou (2008) introduce an interesting perspective on the role that moral reasoning plays in both individual and mass political participation. Although I appreciated their elaborations on the concepts of instrumentality, identity, and ideology, I found their arguments to be convoluted descriptions of fairly simple concepts – that the way people are socialized (and develop a moral compass) impacts how they will participate politically. In addition, at no point in their discussion of ideology and moral reasoning abilities did they mention how these abilities may be developed (through the family or religion, for example), and this struck me as a major hole in their argument. In this way, I was left with the following questions: 1) Other than a loose connection between morals and political ideology, what exactly are the authors claiming about mass citizen mobilization?; and 2) Where was the discussion of migrant minority group participation that they claimed in their abstract they would discuss?