printStudents’ Participation in the Socio-Cultural Development of the City:
Socio-Cultural Agency Issues
(International Research Perspectives)
Pevnaya M.V.
Dr. Sci. (Sociol.), Head of department, Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg, Russia m.v.pevnaya@urfu.ru
Shuklina E.A.
Dr. Sci. (Soc.), Prof., Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia e.a.shuklina@urfu.ru
Cernicova-Buca M.
Ph. D., Assoc. Prof., Politehnica University, Timisoara, Romania mariana.cernicova@upt.ro
The research was supported by RFBR, project № 20-011-00471.
Pevnaya M.V., Shuklina E.A., Cernicova-Buca M. Students’ Participation in the Socio-Cultural Development of the City: Socio-Cultural Agency Issues (International Research Perspectives). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2022. No 5. P. 101-113
The article tackles the issue of youth agency, understood as desire and ability of young people to engage in the socio-cultural development of their cities of choice for pursuing higher education. This contribution tries to clarify factors to be considered in analyzing youth agency in an international perspective. It is based on an internationally conducted survey in 2020, among students in regional centers from Russia, Armenia, Poland and Romania (target sample N = 1272). Across their different socio-cultural backgrounds and context of living and studying, young people share similarities regarding their readiness to get involved in projects of territorial development but also display significant distinctive features to be considered in international comparisons. The cross-country comparison highlighted existence of four models of agency. Russian youth is characterized mainly by an “escapist” model of agency, with a low level of readiness for social participation and a lack of experience in such activities. Two models dominate in Armenia: “active” with a high level of readiness and real involvement, as well as the model of “potential development”. In Poland, the level of social participation among students is much higher than in other countries, but it is predominantly passive. Romanian students demonstrate an actualized “active” model of socio-cultural agency. At the same time, the potential for its development is low. These findings help explain the variations in students’ readiness to participate in urban socio-cultural development projects.
Antonova N., Abramova S., Polyakova V. (2020) The right to the city: Daily practices of youth and participation in the production of urban space. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i social’nye peremeny [Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes]. No. 3: 443–462. (In Russ.)
Cahill H., Dadvand B. (2018) Re-conceptualising Youth Participation: A Framework to Inform Action. Children and Youth Services Review. No. 95: 243–253.
Huntington S. (2004) Who are we? The Challenges to American’s National Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kisilenko A.V. (2018) Volunteering: the self-organization potential of Russian youth. Nauchnyj rezul’tat. Sociologiya i upravlenie [Research result. Sociology and Management]. No. 4: 63–71. (In Russ.)
Lalli M. (1992) Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 12. No. 4: 285–303.
Lawler S. (2014) Identity. Sociological perspectives. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity press.
Litvina S.A., Muravyeva O.I. (2018) Questionnaire of identity with the city: development, validation, reliability check. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Science for Education Today] No. 1: 73–91. (In Russ.)
Lukov V.A., Lukov S.V. (2020) Subjectivity of youth in the processes of socialization and inculturation. Gorizonty gumanitarnogo znaniya [Horizons of humanitarian knowledge]. No. 1: 3–20. (In Russ.)
Michels A. (2012) Citizen Participation in Local Policy Making: Design and Democracy. International Journal of Public Administration. 2012. Vol. 35. No. 4: 285–292.
Nikovskaya L.I., Skalaban I.A. (2017) Civic participation: features of discourse and trends of real development. POLIS. Politicheskie issledovaniya [POLIS. Political Studies]. No. 6: 43–60. (In Russ.)
North D.C., Wallis J.J., Weingast B.R. (2009) Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ozerina A.A. (2016) Urban identity as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of Volgograd State University]. No. 4 (34): 135–139. (In Russ.)
Paolini G., Horváth A., Motiejūnaitė А. (2018) Situation of Young People in the European Union Commission. Brussels: EС.
Shkurko T.A., Balakina A.A. (2014) Socio-psychological features of attitudes towards other people and the attitude of residents of megalopolis, large and small cities. Rostov-on-Don: YuFU.
Tajfel H., Turner J.C. (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.
Ushamirsky A.E. (2016) The problem of subjectivity of youth. Rossiya: tendencii i perspektivy razvitiya [Russia: trends and prospects of development]. No. 11: 628–630. (In Russ.)
Wirth L. (1938) Urbanism as a way of life, The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 44, No. 1: 1–24.
Yadov V.A. (1995) Social and socio-psychological mechanisms of formation of a person’s social identity. Mir Rossii [Universe of Russia]. No. 3–4: 158–181. (In Russ.)
Zubok Yu.A., Chuprov V.I. (2017) Threats in a transforming living environment as a factor of social risks: forecasting and regulation. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies] No. 5: 57–67. (In Russ.)