Policy Studies
ISSN: 0144-2872 (Print) 1470-1006 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpos20
Political participation and citizen engagement: beyond the mainstream David Marsh & Sadiya Akram To cite this article: David Marsh & Sadiya Akram (2015) Political participation and citizen engagement: beyond the mainstream, Policy Studies, 36:6, 523-531, DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2015.1109616 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2015.1109616
Published online: 12 Jan 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 30
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cpos20 Download by: [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram]
Date: 19 January 2016, At: 07:43
POLICY STUDIES, 2015 VOL. 36, NO. 6, 523–531 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2015.1109616
Political participation and citizen engagement: beyond the mainstream Downloaded by [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram] at 07:43 19 January 2016
David Marsha and Sadiya Akramb* a
Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia; bIGPA, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
There is no doubt that the nature of political participation is changing in liberal democracy. At first, many researchers argued that the main feature of this change was an increase in political apathy (for a discussion of this literature see Marsh, O’Toole, and Jones 2007). To support that view, they pointed particularly to a decline in voting, where it was not compulsory, and in political party membership; often together seen in terms of a process of partisan dealignment (Dalton and Wattenberg 2000). However, more recently this view has been critiqued, with many suggesting that political participation has not declined, rather the forms that it takes have changed and that the mainstream literature underestimates the extent of these changes (see e.g. Marsh, O’Toole, and Jones 2007). This issue of Policy Studies addresses some of the key questions involved in these debates and in this introduction we want to provide the background for what follows, by outlining the main concerns of the recent more critical literature, many of which are explored in the articles in this volume. More specifically, we focus upon four crucial issues discussed in this literature; how we conceptualise the ‘political’ when talking of ‘political participation’, how we can conceptualise the links between connective and collective action and online and offline ‘political’ activity; the relationship between duty norms and engagement norms and between project identities and oppositional or legitimating identities; and the putative rise of what Henrik Bang terms as Everyday Makers (EMs).
Has more changed than the mainstream thinks? Perhaps the key issue in the literature revolves around how large, and how fundamental, the changes in political participation have been. Most mainstream approaches see the decline in traditional forms of political participation as the key problem that needs to be addressed. In doing so, they often see other forms of ‘political’ participation, particularly, but not exclusively, those where the Internet is the main ‘repertoire’, as being ‘inauthentic’. From this perspective ‘authentic’ action is collective and involves face-toface interaction; so much online activity is dismissed as ‘clicktivism’ or ‘slackivism’ (for a critique of this view see Halupka 2014). In contrast, our view is that there is a significant difference in the new forms of political participation which goes beyond Norris’ (2002) identification of new agencies, repertoires and targets. This is an argument particularly CONTACT David Marsh
[email protected] * Present address: School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London. © 2016 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram] at 07:43 19 January 2016
524
D. MARSH AND S. AKRAM
strongly developed by Bang (2009, 2011), who contends that, in ‘late modernity’, the interaction between citizens and political authorities has been changing in a way which, in part, is reflected in these new forms of participation. For Bang, in late modernity, individuals are seen as more reflexive and risk-taking. As such, individual identities are no longer linked to pre-constituted interests/organisations, such as class and political party affiliation. Instead, individuals are free to debate and choose their identity; an identity which is fluid (there are clear links here with the identity politics literature – see Brubaker and Cooper 2000; Butler [1990] 1999). In addition, for Bang, there has been a concomitant shift from a polity operating in a politics–policy framework to one operating in a policy-politics framework (an idea developed by Jensen and Bang 2015). In politics–policy the focus is on how pre-constituted political agents gain access to, and recognition in, political decision-making processes. This framework emphasises sectional and partisan competition over practical policy consideration; and, in Bang’s view, in late modernity such competition is disappearing, to be replaced by a politics in which ‘the personal is political’. As such, in policy-politics the focus is upon how political decisions emerge through consultation with people. Bang contends that his move from politics–policy to policy-politics helps explain the decline in traditional forms of participation, and the concomitant rise of alternatives. Individuals chose which political projects to engage in and which aspect of their identity to express through those projects. To put it another way, discussed further below, these individuals have project identities, not identities which are rooted in support for, or opposition to, political authorities. Our point to date is that this different take on the nature of, and reasons for, new forms of political participation provided by Bang and others suggests that there have been more fundamental changes than those highlighted by Norris and others. Here we want to explore some of the issues which seem to us to be at the forefront of these contemporary debates, many of which are taken up by the contributors to this volume. Contemporary issues in political participation research Putting the ‘politics’ into political participation Before discussing political participation we need to be clear about our understanding of the ‘political’, particularly given a common criticism is that the mainstream literature operates with a narrow view of the ‘political’ (see, as just one example, Marsh, O’Toole, and Jones 2007). In discussing ‘politics’, the most common distinction is between arena and process definitions (Leftwich 2004, 3). Arena definitions sees politics as occurring within certain, limited ‘arenas’; historically, Parliament, the executive, the public service, political parties, interest groups, elections and so on (Hay 2007; Leftwich 2004). More recently Norris’s (2002) work has broadened the focus of ‘arena’ politics significantly, to consider areas previously seen as non-political. However, Norris (2002), whose work has been important because it emphasises the extent to which contemporary political participation involves new agencies, repertoires and targets, still focuses upon the impact of action on the formal political arena. For her, social movements are involved in ‘politics’ because they combine ‘traditional acts such as voting and lobbying with a variety of alternatives modes, such as internet networking, street protests, consumer boycotts and direct action’ (Norris 2002, 190–191). In
Downloaded by [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram] at 07:43 19 January 2016
POLICY STUDIES
525
contrast, she argues that many activities, which are often termed ‘lifestyle politics’, such as helping at women’s shelters or raising funds for voluntary organisations, are important socially and economically, but are not ‘political’. In our view, like that of Bang and others, this is a mistake and we need a broader understanding of politics. At the same time, process definitions of politics are too loose (Leftwich 2004, 3), with politics seen as occurring in all organisations and contexts, and thus wherever people interact. This presents a major boundary problem, given that, if everything is political, then the term loses any definite focus. If we return to Norris’ example, for us a women’s shelter may not be in and of itself ‘political’, in Norris’ sense, because the individual acting is not attempting to change policy. However, it may well be what Rowe et al. (2015) term a ‘proto-political’ action, so that, in a particular context, given a particular stimulus, it may develop into action within the political arena (see Rowe’s piece 2015). One way forward, as Rowe et al. (2015) suggest, it to think in terms of a continuum between ‘non-political’ actions in the broader social arena and actions in the specifically political arena. Here, proto-political actions are located at various points towards the centre of the continuum. They can sometimes be social, in this case involving providing shelter and care for abused women, but will become political if, and when, those involved attempt to change legislation, judicial attitudes or police behaviour. As such, the idea of a proto-political action is a potentially important concept because it can help bridge the dualism inherent in mainstream understandings of ‘political’ participation. In our view, the interaction between ‘politics’ inside and outside the political arena is an interactive and iterative one; we are thus dealing with a duality, not a dualism. Citizens do not engage either in the political arena or outside that arena in ways which some mainstream literature would see as non-political. As such, and this is a point we return to below, arena actors, and mainstream scholars, can no longer dismiss much online activity as clicktivism, or slacktivism, that is as not being significant political action, because so many people are acting in this way, are doing it together and, in some instances, moving from such activity into the political arena (this is an argument developed at more length by Rowe et al. 2015; see also Halupka 2015). Our understanding of the nature of the ‘political’ then has three crucial features. Firstly, normatively it gives more agency to citizens, who increasingly have the capacity to develop and use new and different action repertoires to bring the views of their ‘political’ community, often, perhaps usually, a thin, rather than a thick, community, into the public sphere. Secondly, we emphasise that ‘political’ activity can, and does, occur outside the political arena. Here, we are taking an important step away from Lasswell’s (1958) classic view of politics as involving ‘who gets what’, ‘when’ and ‘how’, because we, like Rowe et al. (2015), acknowledge that politics is involved in the development of awareness, as the precursor to action. As such, in our view it is useful to think of a proto-political sphere in which there is activity which would be seen as social, although collective, but which, under certain circumstances can become engaged in the political arena. Indeed, we would suggest that this is a common feature of the contemporary world. Thirdly, and following from the last point, we suggest that it is these interactions on the boundaries between the social, proto-political and political, that are crucial when we are examining many contemporary forms of political participation.
Downloaded by [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram] at 07:43 19 January 2016
526
D. MARSH AND S. AKRAM
Collective and connective action The dualism between collective and connective action highlighted by Bennett and Segerberg (2012) and that between arena and process definitions of politics just discussed are clearly linked. Indeed, many authors see politics as involving collective action. For example, Stoker (2006; see also Hay 2007) views thick collective capacity as necessary for responsive, effective and accountable democratic government. In this view, politics is a collective enterprise involving the development of strong, thick, deliberative ties between citizens. Bennett and Segerberg (2012) theory of ‘connective action’ takes issue with this focus on collective action. In their view, the growth of digital technologies means that connective action has replaced collective action as the main way in which the young particularly engage in politics. For them, individuals have ‘personal action frames’ and become involved in specific projects that interest them, or impact them directly; here we can see clear synergies with Bang’s work (2009, 2011) discussed below. From this perspective, contemporary political participation is not individualised, rather it is personalised. Here it is also important to draw a distinction between personalisation and individualism. Personalisation is not individualism, because the personal project maybe geared towards collective action and shared ideals, such as preserving the environment or creating community, whereas individualism makes the well-being of the individual the ultimate goal (Castells 2012, 230). Similarly, in Bennett and Segerberg (2012) view, communication, and the means of communication, can lead to the development of organisational structures, allowing for the development of personalised connective action frames. Digitalised technology then results in loosely interconnected, interpersonal networks which create outcomes that ‘resemble collective action, yet without the same role played by formal organisations or the need for exclusive, collective action framings’ (Bennett and Segerberg 2012, 35). So, connective action involves a community, but it is not based upon the strong, face-to-face interaction associated with collective organisations. For Bennett and Segerberg, such personalised action frames and project identities result in forms of citizen engagement which reflect a decoupling of individuals from political authorities and institutions which traditionally encouraged social and political aggregation. Consequently, what develops is a ‘thin community’; so, connections are virtual, not face-to-face, and driven by common concerns and engagement norms, rather than by ideology and duty norms. In our view, it seems of limited utility to see connective and collective action as a dualism for at least two reasons. First, as Bennett and Segerberg (2012) themselves acknowledge, connective action has a collective dimension; such action often, in fact usually, involves a thin community in which individuals exchange information. Second, this connective action often results in collective action in both the virtual realm (think Anonymous, see Halupka 2015), but also in the formal political arena (think Getup!, Vromen and Coleman 2011, 2013). Consequently, it is important to recognise both that connective action can become collective action and that collective action often utilises online repertoires. This problem is acknowledged by arguments that the distinction between online and offline activity is an inadequate, and often false, one (Chadwick 2007; Karpf 2010). However, in our view it is important to go further and acknowledge that, while connective action is online
POLICY STUDIES
527
Downloaded by [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram] at 07:43 19 January 2016
and often involve fairly loose communities, there is always the strong possibility that such connective action will generate collective action in the formal political arena which aims to influence government policy (see, e.g. the article by Tormey and Feenstra 2015). Duty norms and engagement norms Dalton (2008) argues that citizenship norms shape political behaviour and identifies a shift from a duty-based citizenship to a more engaged citizenship. Duty norms encourage people to participate as a civic duty in activities such as voting or reporting a crime. Conversely, engaged citizenship involves an expressive, participatory emphasis on individualised and direct forms of action. The engaged citizen is willing to act on her principles, be politically independent and address social needs. More broadly, Bang (2009) argues that this shift to engagement norms means that individuals’ political participation reflects their project identities, rather than legitimating or oppositional identities. He, like Bennett and Segerberg (2012), sees citizens as increasingly focused upon their personal projects, their personal action frames. As such, they do not identify themselves in relation to political authorities, as either supportive of them or in opposition to them; although they may support or oppose these political authorities in relation to any particular political project they are pursuing. Once again, these distinctions between duty norms and engagement norms and between project identities and legitimating or oppositional identities may be too stark.1 So, it is quite possible to posit that people may vote largely out of a sense of duty, but engage in other political actions which reflect their personal action frames. Similarly, it is difficult to deny that many of those involved in Occupy had both a project identity and an oppositional one. Expert Citizens and Everyday Makers Henrik Bang’s most discussed contribution to the literature, is his identification of two new types of political participator, the Expert Citizen (EC) and the EM. It is the EMs which have attracted researchers’ attention, because they represent a possibly new form of political participation. However, we also need to briefly consider the ECs, as, in an important sense for Bang, EMs define themselves as against ECs. Bang contends that both EMs and ECs have a project identity, which means that they pursue projects that interest/concern them. Whether they engage in protests, collaborate in public, private or state and civil society partnerships or do voluntary work in their neighbourhoods, EMs and ECs repeatedly engage in concrete not ideologically driven projects. EMs and ECs can be pro-system, anti-system or both in different contexts, as this flexibility enables them to better pursue their own projects. For Bang, ECs are strategic individuals who use their expert knowledge and understanding of traditional political processes to influence outcomes. They will probably be new professionals, particularly in voluntary organisations. As such, ECs do sometimes engage in the traditional processes of representative democracy, which Bang sees as input politics, but they deliberately attempt to make a difference outside of the formal institutions of democratic government, often by pursuing small, local, projects. They represent a new form of political participation in which they use their knowledge and skills to influence others, building networks of negotiation and co-operation with politicians, administrators, interest groups and the media.
Downloaded by [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram] at 07:43 19 January 2016
528
D. MARSH AND S. AKRAM
ECs focus instead on output politics, aiming to be competent partners in the exercise of good governance. For Bang, political authorities often need ECs and, consequently, aim to incorporate them into expert networks as representatives of the opinions of citizens, thus seeking to ‘incorporate to emasculate’, which can exacerbate the existing problem of the uncoupling between the state and lay people (Bang and Sorensen 1999). In addition, while ECs usually claim to speak for lay people, they often do not listen to them. As such, for Bang, the emergence of the EC reflects a demo-elitist ethos in which the key principle of democracy becomes the need to rationalise and legitimate the discourses of the experts, who are controlling policy-making in an increasingly complex economy and polity. For Bang then, EMs are reflexive individuals aware that ECs often claim to speak on their behalf and, as such, the EMs, in part, define themselves as against the ECs. For Bang, EMs engage with the world as it directly affects them, usually acting locally, although they may also think globally. EMs will engage with the state if it is necessary to pursue their particular concerns on a given issue, but that engagement is not generalised or generalisable, because they have engagement norms, rather than duty norms, and project identities, rather than legitimating, or oppositional, ones. Crucially, Bang argues that, for EMs, the boundaries between their politics and their lifestyle choices may not be clear, because they do not make a distinction between participating to feel engaged and develop oneself and participating to forward specific causes. Consequently, EMs favour more spontaneous and less-organised forms of involvement than the ECs. While they may act collectively, their commonality does not build on an idea of common good, but rather on the acceptance and recognition of their common capacities for making a difference. For Bang then, the EMs have a number of key mantras: . . . . . . .
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it
yourself. where you are. for fun, but also because you find it necessary. ad hoc or part time. concretely, instead of ideologically. self-confidently and show trust in yourself. with the system if need be (Bang 2009, 132).
While EMs do not engage directly with the state in their politics, Bang argues that they are political and are engaged in political processes, albeit these processes are different from the ones that are the focus of the mainstream participation literature. Bang contends that ECs and EMs demonstrate the way in which political participation is moving from the input to the output side and away from a focus on the formal arenas of government towards more direct forms of action, which, as we saw above, the mainstream literature would often not consider to be ‘political’. The EM concept has been explored empirically, although to date there has only been one attempt to identify and analyse EMs quantitatively. Li and Marsh (2008) used the UK 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey data to establish the number and characteristics of the EMs. They acknowledge that their data has major limitations, because they do not have attitudinal data and so cannot establish whether individuals’ actions are nonideological or whether they participate for fun, two characteristics of EMs. Despite
Downloaded by [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram] at 07:43 19 January 2016
POLICY STUDIES
529
these limitations, their results are interesting and they identify 14.5% of the respondents as ECs and 37.3% as EMs. Unsurprisingly, Li and Marsh also found two further categories of political participants, political activists and non-participants. Given this finding, Li and Marsh argue that more work needs to be done to refine Bang’s characterisation of alternative forms of political participation and examine how citizens’ activities relate to the porous boundary, or duality, between traditional and new forms of political participation. There have also been a number of qualitative attempts to identify EMs, however they also suggest that there is room for refinement of the concept (Blakely and Evans 2009; Hendriks and Tops 2005; Marsh and Vromen 2013; and see also Rowe 2015). As one example, Marsh, O’Toole, and Jones (2007) found evidence of EMs in a qualitative study of young people and politics in the UK. Few of their respondents were involved or even interested in formal politics, but some became involved in local issues, which concerned them; in Bang’s terms their activity was local, ad hoc and non-ideological. So, the authors highlight the case of two single mothers in a hostel for the homeless who led a protest to the local council about the poor state of the local park, which was unsafe for their children. However, Marsh, O’Toole, and Jones (2007) argue that, although some of their young respondents exhibited characteristics of EMs, many, and especially the more disadvantaged ones, were involved with the state, largely because they had no choice as recipients of benefits. As such, Marsh, O’Toole, and Jones (2007) suggest that some EMs may, consistently, have more contact with the state than Bang envisages. In a similar vein, Marsh and Vromen (2013) argue more broadly that it is important to recognise that there are many participating citizens who demonstrate some, but not all, of the characteristics of EMs, and there is a need to distinguish between different types of EMs, or alternatively to recognise that we need more categories. Overall, our argument here is that Bang’s idea of the EM has considerable resonances with the new forms of political participation which are the focus of this volume. In addition, the work of Bang and others suggest explanations for the growth of these new forms and the emergence of EMs. However, the EM concept needs more development and, in particular, we need to establish, pace Li and Marsh, how common EMs are and explore the possibility that there are different types of EM.
Conclusion No one collection could deal with all the issues raised to date. While the contributors to this volume have addressed different aspects of the literature discussed above and have used different methodologies to approach the issues raised, all the work reflects what we have termed the more critical literature Ariadne Vromen, Brian Loader and Michael Xenos examine the political engagement of young people, drawing upon representative samples of 16–29-year-olds in Australia, UK and USA to address widespread claims that it is individualised not collectivist, issue-driven, not ideological-driven and post-materialist, not materialist. They show that there is a complex interdependence between individualised, everyday understandings of economic change and an identity-based politics of equal rights. In contrast, Francesco Bello focuses on the online environment within which much contemporary political participation is occurring. In particular, he analyses the discussion forum of Italy’s Five Star Movement. He applies network analysis to map the relations
Downloaded by [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram] at 07:43 19 January 2016
530
D. MARSH AND S. AKRAM
between forum users and develops a typology which allows for a better understanding of how these online sights of political engagement operate. The next two articles deal with the very interesting Spanish case. Michael Jensen and Henrik Bang compare those involved in the Indignados, involved in the 15 May 2011 demonstrations, now termed 15M, with those involved in the nationwide strike organised by the trade unions thirteen months later. Using theoretical insights taken from Bennett and Segerberg and Bang, they utilise big data methods analysing tweets to compare the discursive differences between the two groups of activists. Simon Tormey analyses the reinvention of political parties in Spain over the last few years in the aftermath of 15M. Using content analysis and interviews with almost a hundred activists and party members, he analyses the characteristic of these new parties and considers their impact on democracy in Spain, and indeed beyond. Mark Chou, Jean-Paul Gagnon and Lesley Pruitt’s article broadens the discussion of what can be regarded as political participation. They explore the capacity of participatory theatre to be an alternative site of political participation, surveying three applications of participatory theatre and show how they can prefigure a more participatory political community. Pia Rowe provides another example of the way in which we need to broaden our understanding of the political and political participation. She provides a case-study of MamaBake, a small, Australian, women-only, group using Bang’s discussion of EMs as the frame. She examines the ways in which MamaBake is political, arguing that the organisation members exhibit many of the characteristics of EMs, showing that in many cases the ‘political is personal’.
Note 1. In addition, the decline in duty norms has been questioned, see Hooghe and Oser (2015).
Notes on contributors David Marsh is Professor of Public Policy at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. He was previously Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Birmingham and Strathclyde and Director of the Research School of Social Science at the Australian National University. He is the author or editor of 10 books and the author of over 120 articles. For his sins he is a Bristol Rovers fan. Sadiya Akram is a Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University of London. She conducts research in alternative forms of political mobilisation. In addition, she has research interests in the work of Pierre Bourdieu, conceptions of agency and the neglect of the pre-conscious as a capacity of agency.
References Bang, H. P. 2009. “‘Yes We Can’: Identity Politics and Project Politics for a Late-Modern World.” Urban Research and Practice 2 (2): 117–137. Bang, H. P. 2011. “The Politics of Threat: Late-Modern Politics in the Shadow of Neo-Liberalism.” Critical Policy Studies 5 (4): 434–448. Bang, H. P., and E. Sorensen. 1999. “The Everyday Maker: A New Challenge to Democratic Governance.” Administrative Theory and Practice 21 (3): 325–341.
Downloaded by [Queen Mary University of London], [Sadiya Akram] at 07:43 19 January 2016
POLICY STUDIES
531
Bennett, L. W., and A. Segerberg. 2012. “The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics.” Information, Communication and Society 15 (5): 739–768. Blakely, G., and B. Evans. 2009. “Who Participates, How and Why in Urban Regeneration Projects? The Case of the New City of East Manchester.” Social Policy and Administration 43 (1): 15–32. Brubaker, R., and F. Cooper. 2000. “Beyond Identity.” Theory Culture and Society 29 (1): 1–47. Butler, Judith. [1990] 1999. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Castells, Manuel. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope. Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chadwick, A. 2007. “Digital Network Repertoires and Organizational Hybridity.” Political Communication 24: 283–301. Dalton, R. 2008. “Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation.” Political Studies 56 (1): 76–98. Dalton, R., and M. Wattenberg. 2000. Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halupka, M. 2014. “Clicktivism: A Systematic Heuristic.” Policy and Internet 6 (2): 115–132. Halupka, M. 2015. “Anonymous and the Theory of the Everyday Maker: Understanding the Changes of Contemporary Political Participation.” Hay, C. 2007. Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hendriks, F., and P. Tops. 2005. “Everyday Fixers as Local Heroes: A Case Study of Vital Interaction in Local Governance.” Local Government Studies 31 (4): 475–490. Hooghe, M., and J. Oser. 2015. “The Rise of Engaged Citizenship: The Evolution of Citizenship Norms among Adolescents in 21 Countries between 1999 and 2009.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 56 (1): 29–52. Karpf, D. 2010. “Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group’s Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism.” Policy and Internet 2 (4): 7–41. Jensen, M. J., and H. Bang. 2015. “Digitally Networked Movements as Problematization and Politicization.” Policy Studies 36 (6): 573–589. Lasswell, H. 1958. Politics: Who Gets What When How? With Postscript. London: Meridian Books. Leftwich, A. 2004. What is Politics? Cambridge: Polity Press. Li, Y., and D. Marsh. 2008. “New Forms of Political Participation: Searching for Expert Citizens and Everyday Makers.” British Journal of Political Science 38: 247–72. Marsh, D., T. O’Toole, and S. Jones. 2007. Young People and Politics in the UK: Apathy or Alienation? London: Palgrave Macmillan. Marsh, D., and A. Vromen. 2013. “Everyday Makers with a Difference? Contemporary Cases of Political Participation.” Norris, P. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowe, P. 2015. “MamaBakers as Everyday Makers: The political is personal.” Policy Studies 36 (6): 623–639. Rowe, P., S. Ercan, M. Halupka, and D. Marsh. 2015. “Beyond Dualisms in the Study of Political Participation.” Stoker, G. 2006. Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Tormey, S., and R. A. Feenstra. 2015. “Reinventing the Political Party in Spain: The Case of 15M and the Spanish Mobilisations” Policy Studies 36 (6): 590–606. Vromen, A., and C. Coleman. 2011. “Online Movement Mobilisation and Electoral Politics. The Case of GetUp!” Communication, Politics and Culture 44 (2): 76–94. Vromen, A., and C. Coleman. 2013. “Online Campaigning Organisations and Storytelling Strategies: GetUp! in Australia.” Policy and Internet 5 (1): 76–98.
