CIVIC EDUCATION AND COMPETENCES FOR ENGAGING CITIZENS

IN DEMOCRACIES

CIVIC AND POLITICAL EDUCATION

Series Editor:
Murray Print, University of Sydney, Australia

This series of publications addresses a wide range of key issues in the
increasingly important area of civic and political education. Fundamentally the
series is concerned with the preparation of future citizens but that in itself
raises issues. What role should civic education play in developing future
citizens? What forms of civic and political education are needed to prepare
citizens for the future? What curriculum is appropriate? What role does the
informal curriculum play? How can civic and political education be assessed?
There are cognate questions as well. What do young people understand as
democracy? What interest do they have in politics? And are they concerned
with civic participation?

In this series the key topic of civic and political education will be written from
multidisciplinary perspectives by groups of international scholars, representing
a range of disciplines from political science, to education, to sociology and
youth studies. The publications will present new evidence as well as reflect
and argue previous international research on civic and political education.
They will present best practices and innovations that can inform nations as
they consider how they educate their next generations of young citizens.

The publications will be of value to academics, researchers, students as well as
policy makers and practitioners such as those engaged with electoral and
intergovernmental agencies.

Civic Education and Competences for
Engaging Citizens in Democracies
Edited by
Murray Print
University of Sydney, Australia
and
Dirk Lange
Leibniz Universitt Hannover, Germany
SENSE PUBLISHERS
ROTTERDAM / BOSTON / TAIPEI
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978-94-6209-147-4 (paperback)
ISBN 978-94-6209-171-9 (hardback)
ISBN 978-94-6209-172-6 (e-book)
Published by: Sense Publishers,
P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/
Printed on acid-free paper
All rights reserved 2013 Sense Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microlming, recording or otherwise, without written
permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specically for the purpose
of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement

Introduction
Murray Print and Dirk Lange

Part I: Competences for Democratic Citizens

1. Competences for Teaching, Learning and Living Democratic Citizenship 3
Gerhard Himmelmann

2. Citizenship and the Civic Realities of Everyday Life 9
Jan W. van Deth

3. What Does Democracy Need from Its Citizens? Identifying the Qualities
Needed for Active Citizenship and Making the Values Explicit 23
Bryony Hoskins

4. Competencies for Democratic Citizenship in Europe 37
Murray Print

5. Civic Competences: Some Critical Reflections 51
Jan Germen Janmaat

6. Political Socialization, Civic Consciousness and Political Interests of
Young Adults: Empirical Evidence from Germany and Some Theoretical
Implications 65
Dirk Lange and Holger Onken

Part II: Civic Education Applications and Programs

7. Learning How Society Is and Might and Should Be Arranged: Necessity
and Outcome of Interactive and Controversial Teaching Strategies 79
Andreas Petrik

8. Teaching for Democratic Learning 99
Sibylle Reinhardt

TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
9. Competences, Stabilization of the Democratic System, and
Self-Empowerment 111
Batrice Ziegler

10. Using Critical Incidents for the Assessment of Citizenship
Competence 125
Herman J. Abs and Tina Pyka

11. Conceptualizing Competences for Democratic Citizenship: A
Delphi Approach 149
Murray Print

Contributors 163

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The editors wish to acknowledge the significant contribution made by the authors,
first to contributing to an invited symposium in Hannover and then subsequently
reworking their papers to become chapters in this book.
We also wish to acknowledge the support from the Volkswagen Stiftung for its
assistance with this project.
The project also received support and encouragement from the AGORA
Politische Bildung at the Leibniz Universitt, Hannover in Germany and from the
University of Sydney in Australia.

Murray Print
University of Sydney

Dirk Lange
Leibniz Universitt Hannover

ix
MURRAY PRINT AND DIRK LANGE
INTRODUCTION
Democracy depends on all of us: the price of liberty is not just eternal
vigilance, as Abraham Lincoln said, but eternal activity. (Sir Bernard Crick,
2008)
Modern democracies face many challenges including the ability to sustain
themselves particularly in times of crises. Over the past few years Europe has faced
many challenges to sustaining democracy across a diverse range of cultures,
countries and political traditions. Yet a common theme to all democracies in
Europe is the need for active, informed citizens who will sustain democracy.
In acknowledging that the future of their democracy rests with educating the
young, European societies have engaged in some form of educative experience to
prepare their future democratic citizens. Evidence abounds that young citizens,
though generally supportive of institutions such as parliament and the courts, are
distrustful of politicians and political parties. They are supportive of the idea of and
need for government, but invariably perceive governments as unresponsive,
inflexible and ideologically driven by political party ideologies and special
interests.
Many elements of traditional representative democratic processes are ignored by
the young potentially preparing them for poor citizenship. Young people vote less
than previously, rarely join political parties, dont contact politicians and they dont
support them at election times. What competences do young Europeans need to be
active citizens in the 21st Century?
An invited research symposium drew together leading civic and political
educators from Europe as well as social scientists and educational administrators to
address the above question through two key issues:

1. Identify key competencies required for active citizenship of young people in
Europe of the future.
2. Translate those competencies to school-based activities in the form of curricular
and pedagogical strategies.

To address these issues a group of invited researchers participated in a three-day
symposium in Hannover, Germany funded through a program by the Volkswagen
Stiftung. The participants then engaged in a modified Delphi Method (explained
later in this book) to determine the amount of consensus achieved on the
competences. This book is about exploring what those competences are and how
they relate to civic and citizenship education in schools, particularly in the context
of Europe.
The task of the participants for this book was to prepare, in conjunction with
their participation in the symposium and the Delphi, a chapter on an aspect of
INTRODUCTION
x
competences for European citizens in the context of civic education in European
schools. The book has been divided into two sections: the first contains an
overview of significant issues addressing youth participation in politics. The
second section includes several approaches to civic and citizenship education from
an education perspective.
To commence the publication Gerhard Himmelmann helps set the scene through
his chapter titled Competences for teaching, learning and living democratic
citizenship. He argues that the work of the shift symposium reflected two key
factors: First, the shift within the field of citizenship education towards active
democratic citizenship as a preferred outcome and second, a new understanding of
democratic theory useful to citizenship education.
In Chapter 2 Jan van Deth from Mannheim grounds the notion of citizenship in
the participation of citizens in everyday life. He argues from a set of propositions
that participation of citizens should be enhanced and elaborated through citizenship
education in order to strengthen democracy
The experience of working in the field of competences for some time is clearly
evident in the chapter from Bryony Hoskins. Provocatively, Hoskins asks in
Chapter 3: What does democracy need from its citizens? In this chapter she
identifies the qualities needed for active citizenship with a focus on the explicitness
of the required values. In the process she reviews key models of citizenship to
produce an inventory of civic competence that explicitly states the values needed
for active citizenship.
In Chapter 4 Murray Print addresses the key issue of what is a competence and
second, what competences are needed for citizens in a democracy. Reviewing the
literature he identifies three main groupings revolving around knowledge, skills,
values, attitudes and dispositions. Research in the field has identified some areas of
agreement within these groupings as to what should constitute the components of a
competent citizen.
Germ Janmaat from the Institute of Education, London University has critically
reflected on competencies in Chapter 5. He has identified the contested nature of
civic competences and he employs the 1999 IEA Civic Education Study to help
make his case. He also makes suggestions for citizenship education in the light of
the issues raised.
In Chapter 6 Dirk Lange and Holger Onken explore the effects of social
characteristics and social psychological factors on political attitudes of young
people and their civic consciousness. On the basis of a survey with about 1200
respondents they show that socioeconomic status has major impact on attitudes and
consciousness. Another outcome of the analyses implicates great importance of
personal expectations for the future and aspired educational achievement on
political interest.
Part II examines applications of the concept of competences to aspects of civic
education in schools. In Chapter 7, Andreas Petrik from Martin-Luther-University,
Halle-Wittenberg, links an alternative approach to competences with citizenship
education and then links with knowledge, skills and values required for those
INTRODUCTION
xi
competences. He then applies these concepts to the pedagogical strategy of
simulations to build democratic learning.
Another German educator who argues for teaching for democratic learning is
Sibylle Reinhardt. She argues that democracies need specific teaching strategies to
help students become competent democratic citizens. In Chapter 8 she draws upon
the Beutelsbach Consensus of the 1970s for strategies to teach citizenship
education including three basic principles for democratic learning.
In Chapter 9 Beatrice Ziegler, co-director of the Zentrum fr Demokratie, Aarau
ZDA (Center for Democracy, Aarau) examines the relationship between
competences, stablization in democracies and self-empowerment. She argues that
competences in citizenship education are linked to the disciplines and then
modeled for the school curriculum. Ziegler posits eight provocative ideas about the
nature of citizenship education, distinguished from civic education, based on
competences.
Using critical incidents for the assessment of citizenship competence is a
challenging task taken on by Hermann Abs from the University of Giessen and
Tina Pyka, a postgraduate student. In Chapter 10 they apply the critical incident
methodology devised a half century ago to modern issues in citizenship education.
The final chapter by Murray Print reports on the use of the Delphi Method as a
research tool in this project. The Delphi was modified in two key ways: First
through an intensive symposium and publication requirement of all participants,
and second through the use of modern technology namely the internet and email, to
conduct the process of the Delphi development of statements.
REFERENCES
Crick, B. (2008). Democracy. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education
for citizenship and democracy. London: Sage Publications.

PART I

COMPETENCES FOR
DEMOCRATIC CITIZENS
M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 37.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

GERHARD HIMMELMANN
1. COMPETENCES FOR TEACHING, LEARNING AND
LIVING DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
This chapter would like to draw attention to two basic aspects addressed by the
symposium in Hannover. As such it serves as an introduction to the remaining
chapters in this book. First, the shift of concerns and concepts in the field of
citizenship education towards active democratic citizenship and second, the new
understanding of the underlying theory of democracy useful for democratic
citizenship education.
CHANGE OF EPOCH
In the last ten to fifteen years we have witnessed some remarkable efforts to
revise or revitalize the tradition of citizenship education within schools and
education systems. There have even been demands to reinvent or recivilize
civic education. Often they deplored the still existing neglect and disregard in the
field of citizenship education and asked for a new and specified form of
democratic citizenship education beyond just civics, for a new way of
teaching democracy beyond teaching institutional political settings or a new
education of, for and through democracy beyond mere teacher-centered
instruction in politics.
Thus, the European Union pointed out the leading term of active citizenship,
the Council of Europe highlighted the model of democratic citizenship and the
Eurydice-network pleaded for the guiding term of responsible citizenship. Since
1995 many countries around the world have passed new educational laws and new
national curricula confirming democratic citizenship education.
All these efforts and initiatives reflect in each special way the disturbing
developments in the real world of politics, economics and ethics as well as
religious fundamentalism.
The collapse of the European communist regimes set up the agenda in 1989 and
thereby deeply challenged eastern as well as western countries. Other factors were
the extension of globalization in economics and cultures, new forms of media
communication and new risks of terrorism, of social fragmentation, of racism and
of xenophobia. All these developments caused insecurities and ambiguities in the
moral, ethical and civic self-interpretation of western democracies though they
still serve as models for democratization of the newly developing countries.
The new affirmations of democratic citizenship education claim on the one hand
to be a strong response to the far-reaching changes in politics and economics since
HIMMELMANN
4
1989 on the other hand they want to meet the undesired shortcomings and deficits
of our own traditional political, social and cultural life as well. In fact, the central
point is: we are in search of new forms of social cohesion balancing
individualism and common needs, preserving individual human rights as well as
public security of the society as a whole.
The changing use of terminology in the field of citizenship education
correspond to the changes in concerns and concepts of citizenship as conceived
to meet actual and future challenges of democratic societies. Over and beyond the
different vocabulary and approaches the focus of modern citizenship education has
shifted from mere state-centered, nation-centered or even narrow political
instruction to a broader citizenship education, more specially, to a new
education for democratic citizenship.
This development reflects two types of conceptual change in civic education,
firstly, the transition from an approach in which the main priority in teaching was
knowledge and instruction particularly about local, regional or national political
institutions to an approach that emphasizes personal attitudes and individual,
moral and social behavior as well as common values and dispositions of the
citizens themselves showing due regard for human rights and democratic living
together in a world full of conflicts. Secondly, the change mentioned brings about
a considerable extension of contents in this field of education. No aspect of
community life is considered being irrelevant to citizenship education though
political institutions and the process of democratic decision making in politics still
remain of high priority. But the call for democratic citizenship education highlights
at the same time the moral and affective approach often neglected in citizenship
education. This demand goes far beyond the school and beyond a single subject in
school to which citizenship education has traditionally been confined.
Instead of fostering passive and affirmative learning we find emphasis on active,
social, cooperative and critical learning. Instead of call for more obedience and
loyalty to the ruling powers, new concepts strive for experimental and practical, for
social, moral and responsible self-government and participation of the learners in
the society they belong to. Instead of nationalistic, patriotic, ethnic, tribal, racial or
even mono-religious learning we find the call for intercultural and environmental
education, of peace education, moral and social as well as media learning. Instead
of accumulation and testing of mere knowledge, future citizenship education
should stress equal efforts on (1) democratic knowledge and understanding, (2)
democratic values, attitudes and common awareness. These competencies should
be accompanied by (3) practical skills like problem solving, conflict solution,
service learning, entrepreneurial or project learning and civic engagement.
So we find the triplets of competences as follows:

Cognitive social and affective competencies,
knowledge, skills and understanding,
knowledge skills and attitudes,
knowledge and understanding skills and attitudes and values and dispositions,
knowledge (what/about) awareness (why) and skills (how).
COMPETENCES FOR TEACHING, LEARNING AND LIVING DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
5
Many concepts of modern citizenship education follow not only a forementioned
triplet of competences to be achieved but also try to set up:

more or less detailed content standards and
variable performance standards.

These standards should cover at least

four key stages with each specified focus.

The latter is evidently necessary to relate the established standards of learning to
the talents, abilities and capabilities of the learners in different classes from
primary school to secondary school I, secondary school II and even college. In
literature the least discussed problem has been that of

standards for teachers.
RELATED THEORY OF DEMOCRACY
The rising international interest in education for democracy has stimulated fresh
thinking including the question what the essential elements of good education for
democracy are.
I repeat in this paper an interpretation of democracy already published in 2001
adopted by the Council for Cultural Cooperation (CDCC) of the Council of Europe
(CE) in 2004.
The first topic of education for democracy is a systematic and continual
emphasis on teaching and learning knowledge of democracy set up by a
democratic constitution, confirmed by human rights and organized by a democratic
government based on the sovereignty of the people. This includes peoples
representatives in government elected in free, fair, open, equal and competitive
elections. It includes the rule of law, the rule of majority and the protection of
minorities. And it includes the separation and the balance of powers, effective
party-system etc.
This institutional interpretation of democracy is a rather thin, a minimal or an
elementary interpretation of democracy. It concentrates important enough on
the high institutions of democracy and the democratic procedures of political
decision making on the different levels of local, regional and national politics.
It may be appropriate to describe these institutions and procedures of political
democracy by the term of Democracy as a form of government.
But serious interpretation cannot interpret and teach democracy without
including the broader level of society. This broader interpretation of democracy
should include the social pre-conditions underlying the institutional democracy.
These preconditions can be identified as a pluralistic system of parties, interest
groups or civic initiatives; as a free, pluralistic and manifold media-system; as a
broad public sphere of civil society activities; as a social moderated system of free
HIMMELMANN
6
market economy; as a peaceful conflict system in the industrial relations sector and
at last some self government in social security systems.
It may again be appropriate to name these social preconditions of political
democracy by the term Democracy a form of society. Political democracy cannot
really and enduringly function without the basis of a democratic form of society.
Effective democratic government depends on democratic society.
In third position we should remember that neither democracy as a form of
government nor democracy as a form of society will really and enduringly function
without the basic human factor that combines democracy with the personal
attitudes and relationships of the citizens themselves. In this respect civic virtues
and responsibilities come into sight. Democracy as a practical and daily living
together of citizens needs democratic habits and dispositions as there are
tolerance, courage, fairness, charity, compassion for others, civility and respect in
dealing with others. These characteristics of behaviour constitute the moral of
democratic citizenship and of democracy as a whole.
It may again be appropriate to characterize this third level of democracy by the
term Democracy as a form of living.
I should stress: none of these levels of democracy should be over- or
underestimated, none level should be isolated or separated from the others.
These three levels or forms of democracy can easily be transformed into a concept
of teaching democracy on primary, secondary I and secondary II level with
differentiated emphasis for competencies or aims of Democracy Learning. These
competencies should combine:

self-learning and self-competence with focus on the primary level,
social learning and social competence with focus on the secondary I level, and
political learning and democratic competence with focus on the secondary II
level.
REFERENCES
Duerr, K. (2004). The school A democratic learning community. Council of Europe, DTIV/EDU/CIT
(2003) 23 Final, Strasbourg, 26 April.
Himmelmann, G. Expertise zum Thema Was ist Demokratiekompetenz? Ein Vergleich von
Kompetenzmodellen unter Bercksichtigung internationaler Anstze. In ders.: Leitbild
Demokratieerziehung (pp. 120-187). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.
Himmelmann, G., & Lange, D. (Eds.). (2005). Demokratiekompetenz. Beitrge aus Politikwissenschaft,
Pdagogik und politischer Bildung. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
APPENDIX
Forms of democracy, application to citizenship education

CO
Figur
The sc
Table 1
The sc

OMPETENCES F
re 1. Democrati
chool A democ
1. Forms of dem
chool A democ
FOR TEACHING
ic competencies
cratic learning c
23 Final, Str
mocracy as elem
cratic learning c
23 Final, Str
G, LEARNING AN
s in the educatio
community. Cou
rasbourg, 26 Ap
ments of the lear
community. Cou
rasbourg, 26 Ap
ND LIVING DEM
onal context. So
uncil of Europe
pril (pp. 17-19)
rning process. S
uncil of Europe
pril (pp. 17-19)
MOCRATIC CIT
ource: Duerr, K.
e, DTIV/EDU/CI

Source: Duerr, K
e, DTIV/EDU/CI

TIZENSHIP
7
K. (2004).
CIT (2003)
K. (2004).
CIT (2003)

A Form of Living

Tolerance pursuit of happiness
Solidarity Fairness Self-
determination
A Form of
Government/Governance

Human Rights Rule of Law
Parliamentarianism Balance of powers
A Form of Society

Pluralism Peaceful conflict resolution

Civil Society
Democracy as a form of living a form of society a form of governance
Aims of Democracy Learning
School levels Self-Learning:
self-competence
Social Learning:
social competence
Political Learning:
democratic competence
Primary level xxx xx x
Secondary I level xx xxx x
Secondary II level x x xxx
x = Degree of Focus
M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 921.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
JAN W. VAN DETH
2. CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC REALITIES OF
EVERYDAY LIFE
ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP
Democracy doesnt deserve its name without citizens participation. Ever since
Pericles this claim has been defended and discussed. The question is not whether
citizens should be involved in democratic decision-making processes, but how
much engagement and participation is required for a vibrant democracy. Citizens
involvement, however, cannot be taken for granted but depends heavily on
resources, motivations, and social contacts. Orientations and activities of citizens
that strengthen democracy and which, in turn, are strengthened by democratic
experiences are summarized under the label active citizenship. The Council of
Europe defines active citizenship briefly as the power of people to exercise and
defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, to value diversity and
to play an active part in democratic life.
1
Citizens cannot fulfil these ambitious
tasks adequately without specific competences; that is, citizens need to have a
combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values at their disposal enabling
them to become an active citizen (Hoskins, Barber, Nijlen et al., 2011, p. 84).
Extensive programmes for citizen education have been developed in order to
promote these competencies in many countries in recent years.
Empirical research shows considerable distinctions between the ideals of active
citizenship and active citizens on the one hand and the political orientations and
activities of average citizens in advanced democracies on the other. In this
contribution some of these empirical findings are briefly summarized in order to
link citizenship with the civic realities of everyday life (Kennedy, 1997, p. 3). Of
the extensive list of political knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and activities
required for active citizens the focus here is on norms of citizenship and political
and social participation as important attitudinal and behavioural aspects of
citizenship respectively. What images do citizens have of citizenship? How are
norms of citizenship distributed in democracies? Still, not much empirical
information is available to answer these questions. The picture looks better for
social and political participation. Yet available evidence on political orientations
and behaviour is strongly focused on liberal democracies in Europe and North
America. The last part of this chapter discusses briefly the various opportunities
and challenges for citizenship education with respect to the empirical findings
presented.
VAN DETH
10

NORMS OF CITIZENSHIP
Normative aspects of citizenship from a citizens perspective can be explored by
looking at the support for so-called norms of citizenship. These norms refer to the
images of a good citizen, which is characterized by support for such divergent
norms as being active in public life, being open and tolerant towards other people,
and showing solidarity. Support for more practical norms such as paying taxes and
fees, and obeying laws and regulations also can be considered features of a good
citizen. The question is not whether people indeed are tolerant or actually obey the
laws. Instead, attention is paid here to normative considerations about the attitudes
and activities of citizens in democratic political systems (cf. van Deth, 2007).
Which norms characterize a good citizen? Are these norms widely spread
among the citizenries of mass democracies? Pamela Johnston Conover and her
collaborators relied on focus groups to explore ideas about citizenship among
British and American citizens (Conover, Crewe, & Searing, 1991, 2004; Conover,
Leonard, & Searing, 1993). The results of these studies provide very interesting
information about the ways citizens think about citizenship and the language they
use to articulate normative ideas in this area. A good citizen understands his or
her rights mainly as civil rights (US) or social rights (Britain) and does not
consider political rights to be equally important (both countries). Duties are mainly
conceived as responsibilities required to preserve civil life. A good citizen surely
values social engagement and active involvement in community matters, but
citizens do not agree about the reasons for these activities. This liberal
understanding of citizenship is remarkably limited since citizens rights and duties
are mainly understood as individual rights and duties. However, it should be noted
that more sophisticated arguments about the need for social concern and collective
actions are also frequently mentioned by the British and American discussants.
As Conover and her collaborators showed support for norms of citizenship can
be fruitfully explored by using focus groups. By definition this approach does not
provide information about the distribution of support for various aspects of norms
of citizenship in mass democracies. Only representative surveys and structured
interviews can convey this kind of evidence. Here, too, the amount of available
empirical evidence is rather disappointing. Major examples of international studies
covering at least some aspects of norms of citizenship among the populations of
democratic politics are the Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy project (CID) and
the first wave of the European Social Survey (ESS).
2
Both studies are based on
national representative samples. In these studies, from the beginning a
straightforward question directs the attention of the respondents to the contested
meaning of the concept citizenship as well as to his or her personal opinions about
the good citizen:
As you know, there are different opinions as to what it takes to be a good
citizen. I would therefore like to ask you to examine the characteristics listed
on the card. Looking at what you personally think, how important is it .
On the
solidar
organi
11-poi
The
numbe
sets of
and la
respon
60 per
in vol
suppor
is the
politic
is ge
Figur
As
someo
politic
democ
laws, a
suppor
people
partici
Rosste
Deth,
Denter
being
countr
are see
e showcard us
rity with peop
isations are li
int scale rangin
e results obtai
er of European
f countries the
aw obeying
ndents, wherea
r cent. On the
luntary associ
rted by about
clear lack of
cs: only ten pe
enerally speaki

re 1. Aspects of
scoring 8, 9 or
Figure 1 ma
one who visits
cal affairs. Re
cratic polities
and autonomy
rt is available
e are reluctan
ipation as core
eutscher, 2004
2007). Analy
rs and van der
one who is ac
ries (2008, p.
en as a rather u
CITIZEN
sed a number o
ple who are w
isted. Respond
ng from very
ined with the
n countries. In
e results of th
are unreserve
as voting and
other hand we
iations is an
one out of eve
support for th
r cent of the r
ing a politic
f being a good c
r 10. Weighted w
akes clear, in
s the ballot bo
epresentative s
support norm
y both from an
for the partici
nt to place
e aspects of b
4, p. 184; Th
ysing similar
r Kolk conclud
ctive in politic
138). The fac
unimportant a
NSHIP AND THE
of aspects of a
worse off tha
dents express
y unimportant
ese questions
n spite of the
he two studies
edly supporte
solidarity are
e see that the
important as
ery four respo
he idea that a
respondents su
al active citize
citizen (CID an
with design weig
the eyes of
ox not some
surveys show
ms and obliga
n individual an
ipatory aspect
much value
being a good
heiss-Morse &
outcomes for
de that the
cs is, on avera
ct that especia
aspect of citize
E CIVIC REALIT
a good citizen
an yourself o
their opinion
(0) to very
are summariz
use of differe
s are remarkab
ed by about
considered to
Tocquevillean
pect of being
ondents only. E
a good citize
upport the norm
en beyond vot
nd ESS-1). Perc
ghts and weight
many citizen
eone who is e
that large m
ations related
nd a societal p
ts of citizensh
on both soc
citizen (cf.
& Hibbing, 20
r a number o
e general state
age, least supp
ally political ac
enship is also r
TIES OF EVERY
n such as
or to be
n for each aspe
important (10
zed in Figure
ent items and
bly similar. A
70 per cen
be important
n idea that eng
g a good cit
Even more rem
n should be
m that a good
ting.
centages of resp
ts for country si
ns a good ci
engaged in pu
ajorities of ci
to solidarity,
perspective. M
hip; that is. Ap
cial and on
Dekker & Ha
005, pp. 242-
of European
ement of a goo
ported in all E
ctivities beyon
reflected in th
YDAY LIFE
11
to show
active in
ect on an
0).
e 1 for a
different
Autonomy
nt of the
by about
gagement
tizen, is
markable
active in
d citizen

pondents
ize
itizen is
ublic and
itizens in
obeying
Much less
pparently,
political
art, 2002;
245; van
countries
od citizen
European
nd voting
e reasons
VAN DETH
12

US-political activists give for political inactivity: the neutral response I dont have
enough time is followed immediately by I should take care of myself and my
family before I worry about the community or nation and the important things in
my life have nothing to do with politics (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995, p.
129). Dalton, on the other hand, stresses the rise of Engaged Citizenship as
opposed to Duty-based Citizenship among American citizens, but his results also
clearly show the lowest levels of support for be active in social or political
associations and for choose products for political, ethical or environmental
reasons (Dalton, 2008, p. 30). All these findings suggest that many citizens
support a remarkably restricted conception of citizenship or at least a conception
that is far away from ideas presented by political theorists from Pericles and Plato
to Benjamin Barber and officials at the Council of Europe.

PARTICIPATION
As mentioned, democracy does not deserve its name without citizens
participation. In all established democracies the modes of participation expanded
rapidly since the 1950s, reflecting the growing relevance of government and
politics for citizens in modern societies, the rise of skills and competences among
citizens, as well as a continuing blurring of the distinction between political and
non-political spheres. In the 1940s and 1950s political participation was mainly
restricted to casting a vote and campaign activities. By the early 1960s it was
broadly understood as activities concerned with campaigning by politicians and
parties, and contacts between citizens and public officials. In the late 1960s and
early 1970s the modes were further expanded due to the growing relevance of
community groups and direct contacts between citizens, public officials, and
politicians. Besides, the idea was challenged that political participation only
consisted of widely accepted forms: protest and rejection joined the domain of
participation as activities used by all kind of grass-root groups and social
movements. In the 1990s the disappearing borderline between political and non-
political spheres and the revival of neo-Tocquevillean and communitarian
approaches ushered in an expansion of political participation to include civil
activities such as volunteering and social engagement. The most recent expansion
has been characterized by the spread of individualized, ethically- or morally-based
acts of participation such as political consumption, flash mobs or guerrilla
gardening. From voting and campaigning in the 1940s political participation in the
21
st
century now includes almost every conceivable form of activity (cf. Norris,
2002; van Deth, 2010).
The rapid expansion of the political action repertoire of citizens in democratic
societies does not imply that political activities beyond voting have become a
major concern of many people. On the contrary, Table 1 summarizes the survey
results in many countries, starting in 1974 and presenting more detailed
information for the last decade. As can be seen casting a vote still is the only
widely spread mode of participation with usually about seventy per cent of the
population voting in national elections. All other modes remain minority-
CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC REALITIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE
13
phenomena with only a few per cent of the citizens participating in party activities
or attending demonstrations (cf. Teorell, Torcal, & Montero, 2007, p. 349; van
Deth, 2010, 2012, pp. 118-121). The limited spread of new modes of
participation in underlined by the fact that the percentages of people using at least
one mode of participation are only slightly higher than those who casted a vote in
the last election. Although numerous cross-national studies on political
participation are available conclusions about long-term developments are not easy
to validate empirically. Table 1 shows that between 1974 and 2002 only the use of
boycotts for political reasons has increased strongly and significantly. The recent
stabilization at a relatively high level, however, casts doubts on the expectation of a
continuous rise in the use of this kind of actions as a political activity. For all other
modes of participation the percentages of active citizens declined sharply between
1974 and 2010. Sophisticated analyses of the developments in many countries
show that especially young people nowadays participate less in institutional
(voting, party-related activities etc.) and more in non-institutional (protesting,
political consumption etc.) modes of participation. Yet both modes of participation
display lower levels of participation among young people now as compared to the
1970s. As a result, average levels of participation are going down in many
countries since the use of non-institutional modes of participation does not
compensate the decline in institutional activities (Garca Albaceta, 2011).
Table 1. Forms of participation in Europe (Political Action Study and ESS)

Percentages have done of the total number of respondents. ESS weighted with design
weights and weights for country size; PA not weighted. ESS-5: first release with twenty
countries (November 2011)

Following the neo-Tocquevillean revival in the last two decades the expansion
of the action repertoire also includes voluntary activities in associations, clubs or
movements (cf. Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Putnam, 2000; van Deth,
Montero, & Westholm, 2007). As we have seen in Figure 1 the support for
PA ESS 1-5
1974 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Voted in last election 77 73 71 69 72 67
Contacted politician 28 15 12 12 11 12
Worked in political party 15 4 4 4 3 4
Worked in another organisation 14 12 11 10 13
Worn badge/sticker 8 8 6 5 6
Signed a petition 26 26 21 20 17 20
Demonstrated 9 9 10 7 7 7
Boycotted products 3 17 14 13 13 15

At least one mode used 86 83 81 77 79 77
None of the modes used 14 17 19 23 21 23

N (weighted) 10,869 37,793 47,799 49,207 58,456 45,819
VAN D
14
associa
suppor
being
engage
(cf. Ro
presen
active
as re
organi
spread
are ev
involv
low le
accoun
disting
integra
Europa
differe
sugges
engage

Figu
The
rise of
for som
brands
such d
certain
can all
ETH
ational engage
rt for others
g active in volu
ement in volu
ossteutscher, 2
nts the percen
in one or mor
ligious organ
isation was p
d especially am
vident and in m
ved in one or m
vels of engag
nt the degree
guish between
ated in civil
a where inv
ences between
st the releva
ement.
ure 2. Engagem
e most recent
f modes of pa
me form of org
s in order to e
does not requi
nly helpful tha
l act individua
ement as a fea
aspects of ci
untary organis
untary associa
2008; Wolleb
ntages of peop
re associations
nisation, spo
presented). As
mong citizens
many countrie
more associatio
ement. Based
and breath o
n northern a
society and
volvement is f
n these two g
ance of cont
ment in voluntary
active in at l
development
articipation tha
ganisation or
express discon
ire any organi
at a large num
ally and separ
ature of being
itizenship b
sations are at
ations varies s
k & Strmsn
ple in various
s listed (a tota
ort or recreati
can be seen,
in North-west
es somewhat
ons, with Fran
on much mor
of associationa
and central E
d newer dem
far lower (Mo
groups ar
textual factor
y associations (
least one volunt
in the action
at are used ind
coordination.
ntent, say, wi
isation or coll
mber of people
rately. Internet
a good citize
both being a
t the bottom-e
strongly betwe
nes, 2008; Mo
s countries in
al of eight or n
ional organisa
associational
tern Europe. Y
more than ha
nce and Germa
re sophisticate
al involvemen
Europe where
mocracies in
orales & Geur
re dramatic (
rs for expla
(WVS-4). Percen
tary association
n repertoire of
dividually; tha
Refuting to bu
th the destruc
lective action
e behave in a s
t technologies
en is much lo
active in polit
end of the list.
een different
orales, 2009).
ndicating that
nine organisati
ation and a
engagement i
Yet country di
alf of the popu
any showing r
ed analyses ta
nt Morales an
e citizens ar
eastern and
rts, 2007, p. 1
(ibid.). These
anations of v
ntages of people
n
f citizens conc
at is, without
uy specific pro
ction of rain f
. To be effect
similar way
s make these m

ower than
tics and
Besides,
countries
Figure 2
they are
ions such
any other
is widely
fferences
ulation is
relatively
aking into
nd Geurts
re highly
southern
153). The
findings
voluntary

e being
cerns the
the need
oducts or
forests as
tive, it is
but they
modes of
CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC REALITIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE
15
participation very attractive and conventional modes of coordination and
organisation even more obsolete. The strong reduction of organisational costs by
using these modes of participation allow all kind of concerns and aims to be
articulated which would not have been voiced before. Micheletti (2003) coined the
phrase individualized collective action for modes of participation especially
political consumption used by single citizens and driven almost completely by
ethical and moral reasoning. Important for these modes of participation is that they
are more aimed at venting opinions than taking part in decision-making processes
(Newman & Bartels, 2010) and allow individual citizens to express their sense
of justice as citizens of the world (Follesdal, 2004, p. 19).
A closer look at citizens using individualized modes of participation reveals a
remarkable aspect: relatively low levels of support for norms of citizenship
characterize these participants (van Deth, 2012, p. 134). Their idea of
responsibility taking is evidently self-centred and based on clear support for the
norm to form your own opinions and a reluctance to support solidarity and social
engagement. As a consequence, the spread of individualized modes of participation
probably comes with a weakening of support for norms of citizenship. In spite of
fashionable (post-modern) claims about the evaporation of the borderline between
private and public affairs, people using individualized modes of participation seem
to be characterized by exactly this distinction; that is, they have more in common
with the stereotypical consumer than the image of a good citizen. Yet a simple
distinction between political participation and shopping or between political and
private actions is not of much help here. What is needed is more attention to the
similarities and distinctions between the two phenomena. As Schudson reminds us
most clearly:
The distinction between citizen and consumer remains a stand-in for the
difference between the self-centered and the public-spirited. But this is
misleading. Both consumer choices and political choices can be public-
spirited or not; both consumer behavior and political behavior can be
egalitarian and tolerant and respectful of others, or not. (Schudson, 2007, p.
247)
The rapid and considerable expansion of the action repertoire available to citizens
in democratic countries has been documented extensively. In a similar way, one of
the most well established findings in empirical research on participation has been
confirmed over and over again: social inequality is a persistent feature of
participation. Any type of participation still is more common among better-
educated groups or, more generally, among citizens with a higher socio-economic
status. Besides, women still participate less than men; citizens with a migration
background less than autochthones (Verba & Nie, 1972; Schlozman, Verba, &
Brady, 1999; Stolle & Hooghe, 2010). Remarkably, the rapid expansion of the
action repertoire in the last decades has not resulted in an accompanying rise of
participation among less privileged groups. The evident social inequality related to
the older modes of participation seems to be somewhat less clear for newer, non-
institutionalised modes of participation, which especially contribute to a reduction
VAN DETH
16

of gender- and age-based inequalities (Marien, Hooghe, & Quintelier, 2010).
Recently, Stolle and Hooghe summarize their empirical evidence in strong terms:
Overall, the emerging political action repertoires are certainly not more exclusive
than the conventional political action repertoires have been (2010, p. 139).
Especially differences in skills and competences next to cultural and mobilizing
factors seem to account for these persistent social and political differences. This
conclusion is underlined by the restricted function of the Internet as a new means
for participation: the new opportunities are mainly used for mobilization and hardly
as a new mode of participation; that is, a Net Delusion (Morozov, 2011) seems
more likely than a radical change in participation habits among average citizens.
OPPORTUNTITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
In general, empirical research on citizenship orientations and political participation
among citizens in advanced democratic societies show that not many people meet
the ambiguous ideal of being an active citizen. In its attempts to promote active
citizenship the Council of Europe strongly stresses the need to develop
Education for democratic citizenship. Whether this need is based on the rather
limited support for active citizenship among citizens in many countries as
documented in the brief overview presented here cannot be clarified. For the
Council Education for democratic citizenship, too, is a very broad and aspiring
concept including:
education, training, awareness-raising, information, practices and
activities which aim, by equipping learners with knowledge, skills and
understanding and developing their attitudes and behaviour, to empower
them to exercise and defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in
society, to value diversity and to play an active part in democratic life, with a
view to the promotion and protection of democracy and the rule of law.
3

Scarce empirical research on the consequences of citizenship education suggests
that these programmes have an indirect effect on young citizens intentions to
participate only (cf. Lopes, Benton, & Cleaver, 2009; Schwarzer & Zeglovits,
2009). Besides, formal education and not necessarily citizenship education has
an impact on democratic orientations (cf. Dee, 2004; Milligan, Moretti, &
Oreopoulos, 2004; Hoskins, DHombress, & Campbell, 2008). These rather modest
empirical corroborations of the expectations of citizenship education might be a
fruitful starting point to refocus the main goals of these efforts. For that purpose,
the empirical findings on citizenship orientations and political participation among
average citizens in advanced democratic societies presented here can be used to
formulate a few discussion points for future developments. In combination with the
continued social inequality in participation, especially the increasing self-
understanding of people as consumers instead of citizens seems to imply the most
important challenge. The main points for discussion on the further development of
democratic citizenship can be summarized in six propositions.
CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC REALITIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE
17
Firstly, we have seen that in current democracies important aspects of the image
of a good citizen are widely shared and supported. Yet social and political
involvement beyond voting hardly belongs to this image. Only relatively small
parts of the population support the norms that a good citizen should be politically
active or be involved in voluntary associations. Besides, individual-centred norms
seem to be more important than norms referring to social rights and duties.
Apparently, many citizens lack the competences and knowledge to deal with the
tensions between individually and socially centred norms and obligations.
Education for democratic citizenship should include attempts to challenge the
rather limited visions citizens have about the main characteristics of a good
citizen. Using the terminology of the Council of Europe, especially education,
training, awareness-raising, information, practices and activities could be used for
this purpose:
Proposition 1: Support for norms of citizenship should be improved by
increasing the understanding of the concept, especially for (a) the importance
of forms of democratic decision-making beyond voting, and for (b) the
coherence and tensions between distinct norms.
A second point concerns the active involvement of citizens in democratic decision-
making procedures. Although many modes of political participation are available,
most citizens still rely on voting only. The rapid and extensive expansions of the
action repertoire in current democracies in the last decades hardly resulted in the
recruitment of new parts of the population to become active. This seems to apply
for many new modes of participation. No matter how the concept active
citizenship is defined, it is clear that democratic political and social activities
cannot be restricted to visiting a ballot box every four or five years. Besides, a
much broader understanding of political and social engagement could provide
opportunities to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of specific modes of
participation for a democratic society. For that reason, a second proposition reads
as follows:
Proposition 2: Since political participation still is mainly restricted to voting,
available other modes should be emphasized. Besides the coherence and
tensions among distinct modes of political participation (and other forms of
engagement).
The recent rise of individualized modes of participation especially boycotting and
buycotting presents the third challenge for citizenship education. Since these new
forms are strongly based on ethical and moral reasoning a strengthening of
normative citizenship orientations can be expected. Yet first empirical results show
that the rise of individualized modes of participation comes with a reduction in
support for norms of citizenship. Remarkably, the normative orientations of
citizens using individualized modes of participation have more in common with
consumers than with citizens. Citizenship education should not uncritically support
new modes of participation. Instead this spread offers a unique opportunity to
strengthen important aspects of active citizenship by dealing with potential
VAN DETH
18

tensions between different modes of political participation and its consequences for
democracy:
Proposition 3: Stimulating individualized modes of participation should be
accompanied by attention for the potential disruptive aspects of these actions.
Individualized modes of participation are to be seen as extensions not as
alternatives to other modes of participation.
Fourthly, engagement in voluntary associations in democratic societies is an
important aspect of citizenship. Stressing the relevance of social engagement and
civil society conventional, institutional-oriented ideas of citizenship and politics
can be avoided. However, not many citizens attach much importance to
engagement in voluntary associations as an aspect of a good citizen. Actual
engagement in voluntary associations appears to widely spread, but covers about
sixty per cent of the population at most. Moreover, large country differences in this
mode of participation are evident with remarkably high levels of participation in
North-western European countries and much lower levels in eastern and southern
Europe. Exploring reasons for these dramatic cross-national differences offer good
opportunities to strengthen support for social engagement and to avoid the evident
geo-political bias:
Proposition 4: Since engagement in voluntary associations varies widely
between countries not much is gained by idealizing the situation in North-
western Europe. Instead, contextual factors cultural as well as institutional
should be taken into account to strengthen support for social engagement.
A fifth important empirical finding has been long established. In spite of the rapid
and extensive expansions of the action repertoire of citizens it is clear that social
and political participation are still distributed unequally: less privileged groups still
lack skills, competences and networks to become active. General programmes to
reduce these inequalities have not been very successful. Citizenship education
offered without any differentiation even runs the risk of strengthening and
sanctioning these inequalities. Especially Education for democratic citizenship
should be based on the recognition of actual inequalities and the social and political
consequences for democracy on the one hand, and a strong focus on disadvantaged
groups in society on the other:
Proposition 5: Social and political participation are still highly biased and
reproduce social inequality. Citizenship education should emphasize the
development of special programs for disadvantaged groups (groups with low
socio-economic status, migrants, girls etc.).
A final proposition is not directly based on empirical findings on citizenship
orientations and participation. By definition, the concept of citizenship addresses
people in their role as citizen. The limited interpretations of citizenship and politics
among the populations of democratic societies underline the relevance of other
roles people perform (parent, commuter, sport fan, vegetarian, etc.). Increasingly,
people are confronted with new roles and a continuous fragmentation of societal
CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC REALITIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE
19
areas (so-called functional differentiation). As we have seen, especially citizens
using new, individualized modes of participation tend to conceive their role as
consumer and not as citizen or more specific: tend to reject a clear line of
demarcation between the two roles and between the political and economic spheres
in society. Citizenship education, then, should avoid a restricted view of people in
their role as citizens only:
Proposition 6: Citizenship education should not only deal with the position of
citizens, but also with other types of self-understanding (especially
consumerism) and explain the tensions between these distinct types as well as
the opportunities for citizenship.
The tasks for citizenship education summarized in these six propositions are
immense and realizing only parts of it will be already very difficult. Yet these tasks
are much more limited and much less ambitious than the goals for Education for
democratic citizenship as presented by the Council of Europe. Although the value
of attempts to strengthen democracy by stimulating active citizenship cannot be
overestimated, not much is gained by presenting extremely ambitious goals without
considering empirical evidence about actual democratic orientations and
engagement. Instead, a policy of muddling through based on the civic realities
of everyday life could contribute much more to the development of a vibrant
democracy and its active support among its citizens.
NOTES
1
Council of Europe, Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights. See
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/1_what_is_edc_hre/what_%20is_edc_EN.asp.
2
Detailed information and data for the studies used in this article can be obtained from the following
sources:
ESS: http://ess.nsd.uib.no/index.jsp?year=-1&module=download&country=
CID: http://info1.gesis.org/dbksearch13/SDesc2.asp?no=4492&search=CID&search2=&db=E
PA: http://info1.gesis.org/dbksearch13/SDesc2.asp?no=0765&search=political%20action&search2
=&db=E
WVS: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org
3
Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education. Adopted in the
framework of Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 7 of the Committee of Ministers, pp. 5-6. Notice
that concepts such as citizen education or civic education are highly contested (cf. Callan, 2004,
p. 73).
REFERENCES
Callan, E. (2004). Citizenship and education. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 71-90.
Conover, P. Johnston, Crewe, Ivor M., & Searing, Donald D. (1991). The nature of citizenship in the
United States and Great Britain: Empirical comments on theoretical themes. Journal of Politics,
53(3), 800-832.
Conover, P. Johnston, Leonard, Stephen T., & Searing, Donald D. (1993). Duty is a four-letter word:
Democratic citizenship in the liberal polity. In George E. Marcus & Russell L. Hanson (Eds.),
Reconsidering the Democratic Public (pp. 147-171). Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University
Press.

VAN DETH
20


Conover, P. Johnston, Crewe, Ivor M., & Searing, Donald D. (2004). Elusive ideal of equal citizenship:
Political theory and political psychology in the United States and Great Britain. Journal of Politics,
66(4), 1036-1068.
Dalton, Russell J. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Dee, Thomas S. (2004). Are there civic returns to education? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9-10),
1697-1720.
Dekker, P., & de Hart, J. (2002). Burgers over burgerschap. In R. P. Hortulanus & J. E. M. Machielse
(Eds.), Modern Burgerschap Het Sociaal Debat Deel 6 (pp. 21-35). The Hague: Elsevier.
Denters, Bas, & van der Kolk, Henk (2008). What determines citizens normative conceptions of their
civic duties? In Heiner Meulemann (Ed.), Social Capital in Europe: Similarity of Countries and
Diversity of People? (pp. 135-157). Leiden: Brill.
Follesdal, Andreas (2004). Political consumerism as chance and challenge. In Michele Micheletti,
Andreas Follesdal, & Dietlind Stolle (Eds.), Politics, Products, and Markets Exploring Political
Consumerism Past and Present (pp. 3-22). New Brunswick, London: Transaction.
Garca Albaceta, Gema M. (2011). Continuity or Generational Change? A Longitudinal Study of Young
Peoples Political Participation in Western Europe. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitt Mannheim.
Hoskins, Bryony, DHombress, Beatrice, & Campbell, Joann (2008). Does formal education have an
impact on active citizenship behaviour? European Educational Research Journal, 7(3), 386-402.
Hoskins, Bryony Louise, Barber, Carolyn, Van Nijlen, Daniel, & Villalba, Ernesto (2011). Comparing
civic competence among European youth: Composite and domain-specific indicators using IEA
civic education study data. Comparative Education Review, 55(1), 82-110.
Kennedy, Kerry J. (1997). Citizenship education in review: Past perspectives and future needs. In Kerry
J. Kennedy (Ed.), Citizen education and the modern state (pp. 1-5). London/Washington DC: The
Falmer Press.
Lopes, Joana, Benton, Thomas, & Cleaver, Elizabeth (2009). Young peoples intended civic and
political participation: Does education matter? Journal of Youth Studies, 12(1), 1-20.
Marien, Sofie, Hooghe, Marc, & Quintelier, Ellen (2010). Inequalities in non-institutionalised forms of
political participation: A multi-level analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies, 58(1), 187-213.
Micheletti, Michele (2003). Political virtue and shopping. Individuals, consumerism and collective
action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Milligan, Kevin, Moretti, Enrico, & Oreopoulos, Philip (2004). Does education improve citizenship?
Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9-10),
1667-1695.
Morales, Laura (2009). Joining political organizations: Instituitions, mobilization, and participation in
western democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Morales, Laura, & Geurts, Peter (2007). Associational involvement. In Jan W. van Deth, Jos Ramon
Montero, & Anders Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A
comparative analysis (pp. 135-157). London: Routledge.
Morozov, Evgeny (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Allen Lane.
Newman, Benjamin J., & Bartels, Brandon L. (2010). Politics at the checkout line: Explaining political
consumerism in the United States. Political Research Quarterly (August 25).
Norris, Pippa (2002). Democratic phoenix. Reinventing political activism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Rossteutscher, Sigrid (2004). Die Rckkehr der Tugend? In Jan W. van Deth (Ed.), Deutschland in
Europa (pp. 175-200). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Rossteutscher, Sigrid (2008). Social capital and civic engagement: A comparative perspective. In Dario
Castiglione, Jan W. van Deth, & Guglielmo Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 208-
240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC REALITIES OF EVERYDAY LIFE
21

Schlozman, Kay L., Verba, Sidney, & Brady, Hanry E. (1999). Civic participation and the equality
problem. In Theda Skocpol & Morris P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy
(pp. 427-459). Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Schudson, Michael (2007). Citizens, consumers, and the good society. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 611, 236-249.
Schwarzer, Steve, & Zeglovits, Eva (2009). Wissensvermittlung, politische Erfahrungen und politisches
Bewusstsein als Aspekte politischer Bildung sowie deren Bedeutung fr politische Partizipation.
sterreichische Zeitschrift fr Politikwissenschaft, 38(3), 325-340.
Stolle, Dietlind, & Hooghe, Marc (2010). Shifting inequalities: Patterns of exclusion and inclusion in
emerging forms of political participation. European Societies, 13(1), 119-142.
Teorell, Jan, Torcal, Mariano, & Montero, Jos Ramn (2007). Political participation: Mapping the
terrain. In Jan W. van Deth, Jos Ramon Montero, & Anders Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and
involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis (pp. 334-357). London, Routledge.
Theiss-Morse, Elisabeth, & Hibbing, John R. (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Review
of Political Science, 8, 227-249.
van Deth, Jan W. (2007). Norms of citizenship. In Russell J. Dalton, & Hans-Dieter Klingemann (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 402-417). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
van Deth, Jan W. (2010). Is creative participation good for democracy? In M. Micheletti & A. S.
McFarland (Eds.), Creative participation responsibility-taking in the political world (pp. 146-170).
Boulder: Paradigm.
van Deth, Jan W. (2012). New modes of participation and norms of citizenship. In Jan W. van Deth, &d
William Maloney (Eds.), Professionalization and individualized collective action: Analyzing new
participatory dimensions in civil society (pp. 115-138). London: Routledge.
van Deth, Jan W., Montero, Jos Ramn, & Westholm, Anders (Eds.) (2007). Citizenship and
involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis. London: Routledge.
Verba, Sidney, & Nie, Norman (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social
equality. New York: Harper & Row.
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay L., & Brady, Henry E. (1995). Voice and Equality. Civic Voluntarism
in American Politics. Cambridge, MA/ London, England: Harvard University Press.
Wollebk, Dag, & Strmsnes, Kristin (2008). Voluntary associations, trust, and civic engagement: A
multilevel approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 249-263.

M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 2335.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
BRYONY HOSKINS
3. WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY NEED FROM
ITS CITIZENS?
Identifying the Qualities Needed for Active Citizenship and
Making the Values Explicit
INTRODUCTION
According to Putnam (1993, 2000), Almond and Verba (1963), and De Tocqueville
(1863) democracy requires active citizens to maintain the checks and balances on
democratic life. In this chapter I will focus on establishing the qualities that are
needed to be an active citizen. The term competence will be used to refer to the
qualities needed. A competence reflects the complex combination of knowledge,
skills, understanding, values, attitudes and desire which lead to effective, embodied
human action in the world in a particular domain (Hoskins & Deakin Crick, 2010,
p. 120). In this case the domain is active citizenship.
Most inventories of civic competences have focused on knowledge, skills and
dispositions towards engagement. In this chapter, I will discuss the various aspects
of civic competence from an examination of citizenship theory with a particular
emphasis on values. I will argue that the values behind participation are crucial for
democracy and that these values need to be made self-confidently explicit. This
chapter is aimed at establishing the normative grounds for defining the values
dimension of civic competence.
The chapter begins with explaining the needs of citizens within a democracy. In
the next step, I reflect on the qualities required for active citizenship drawing from
three different theoretical models of citizenship: the Liberal, the Civic Republican
and the Critical model. At each stage I highlight the values and norms that each
model implicitly or explicitly advocates. In a final step I develop an inventory for
civic competence describing the qualities including the values that are needed for
active citizenship.
NEEDS OF DEMOCRACY
The academic literature from both theory and empirical research has highlighted
the fact that legal rights and institutions alone are rarely sufficient for a democracy
to flourish (Honohan, 2002), and that the quality of democratic governance relies
on the civic virtues and engagement of their citizens (Putnam, 1993, 2000; Almond
& Verba, 1963; De Tocqueville, 1863). Vibrant democracies require active citizens
both inside and outside the political system to monitor the process, and to be
HOSKINS
24
willing and able to act to create or resist change (Crick, 2003). Active citizens
outside the representative political system within civil society in the form of non-
governmental organisations play an important role in assuring government
accountability. They are able through their structures to mobilise citizens through
campaigns, petitions and protest activities to create change based upon social
justice aims. These activities are promoted by those who support participatory
democracy (Barber, 2003). In addition, representative democracy plays an
important role in maintaining the democratic process. Actions such as voting,
standing as candidates for elections and contacting members of parliament are
equally necessary to maintain the democratic system and to continue to maintain
laws that are just.
The term active citizenship combines the participatory and representative
elements and has been defined as follows; Participation in civil society,
community and/or political life, characterised by mutual respect and non-violence
and in accordance with human rights and democracy (Hoskins, 2006). This
definition highlights an important element of active citizenship, that it is not
participation per se, as active people who do not hold democratic values or not
respect human rights can actually be harmful to the democratic institutions and to
different social groups. But instead the definition refers to participation based on a
certain set of principles based on democratic values and human rights. The quality
of active citizenship is also based on the knowledge and skills of the individual to
be able to influence a decision. The qualities of a competent active citizen are
referred to as civic competence and this will be the focus for discussion within this
chapter.
There has been a concern amongst western democracies that active citizenship is
in decline and the lack of political engagement poses a risk to democracy (Putnam,
2000). Those who participate less are usually identified as the younger generations
and they are described as no longer being ready to perform the duties that is
necessary for democracy to thrive, in particular the act of voting (Wattenberg,
2012). This story has been partly contested by Dalton (2009) who suggests that
norms of youth participation have changed with younger citizens turning away
from the older generation activities of voting, political parties and trade unions and
has moved towards volunteering and protest activities. Nevertheless both positions
suggest that young people are participating less in traditional politics and these
traditional democratic processes remain where most of the policy decisions are
taken. In addition, Wattenberg (2012) notes that as a result of the generally held
belief that young people participate less then politicians tend to ignore the needs
and political issues of the younger generations.
The difference in levels of engagement between the younger and older
generations has been exacerbated in Europe by the reduction of numbers of young
people and the decline in opportunities for young people in terms of employment,
education, health and secure retirement (Willetts, 2010). The conflict for resources
between generations has been emphasised with the economic crises and the
realisation in much of Europe that previous amounts spent on the public sector are
no longer affordable. If the state cannot afford to pay the weight on individual and
WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY NEED FROM ITS CITIZENS?
25
civil society responsibilities is discussed as becoming greater. As with all cases of
scarce resources, the potential for conflict, in this case intergenerational conflict,
has become more likely (Willetts, 2010). Within this context, the younger
generations need to become more politically savvy so as to not lose out on all the
benefits the older generations have had. In addition, the voices of younger people
would be more productive within a political dialogue rather than suffering
alienation. Thus we can argue that for a variety of reasons, as stated above, that
there is a need to establish the civic competences required for active citizenship in
order to be able to facilitate the learning of this competence.
THEORIES OF CIVIC COMPETENCE
It is relatively common place for politicians to call for the education system to be
better oriented towards the needs of the labour market and to discuss how to better
connect employers with head-teachers and with curriculum development. It is
perhaps less common, in particular within an economic crisis in 2011, to hear calls
for civil society and representatives from politics to be more involved in schools
and for them to be involved in describing the competences required for democracy.
Moreover, space in the curriculum for thinking critically about current social and
political issues is being challenged (at least in the UK and the US) with the focus
being placed on passing specific tests and qualifications for work in the knowledge
economy (Westheimer, 2008). This move has dangers for the continuation of
democracy and unless there is a desire to move towards a more authoritarian
regime action needs to be taken. Like those who are reflecting on the needs of the
labour market from its workers, this chapter will reflect on the needs of democracy
from its citizens.
Establishing and teaching civic virtues of citizens is not without controversy and
does not always sit comfortably with liberal thinking in terms of tolerance,
neutrality and diversity of values. At the same time, the teaching of knowledge,
skills and values for the labour market is, however, rarely questioned. It is less
likely, for example, to reflect on the socio-political values of PISA when
establishing the competences that should be measured. Nevertheless, such an
exercise would be interesting. For example, do such tests hold liberal market
orientated values? And if so should this be made explicit?
Establishing civic competence is contested for a number of reasons. Not least
that it can be understood to be comparatively different between countries and
dynamic and evolving across time (Fratczak-Rudnicka & Torney Purta, 2003, p.
71). In non democratic regimes such as within the former communist countries
within Eastern Europe a different type of competence was sort that aimed towards
teaching citizens to become the building blocks of communism (Buk-Berge, 2006).
Within authoritarian regimes and some democracies a nationalistic citizenship
education agenda has been present to ensure that citizens play a patriotic role in
maintaining the nation state. However, within some liberal democracies in Western
Europe citizenship education has been more complex and has had a tendency to
explicitly state (if not actually achieve) value neutrality. Within western
HOSKINS
26
democracies there have been various attempts to define civic competence. There
have been three theoretical approaches that have underpinned the description of
competences and values required for active citizenship: liberal model, civic
republican model and critical model.
THE LIBERAL MODEL OF CITIZENSHIP
The liberal model of active citizenship is typically considered the least demanding.
In its original meaning, liberal democracy is typically considered thin democracy.
This means that citizens involvement in public life is minimal, and is primarily
enacted through the vote (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996). However, even this
political activity is not an obligation and, in elections, the choice is often made
from a small number of reasonably minded parties. The government within a
purely liberal democracy would have a mandate generally limited to the protection
of rights and property.
In such an environment, citizens are encouraged, but not obliged to vote. And
education for active citizenship is focused on creating autonomous citizens who
can act towards supporting their own self interest, and on enhancing individuals
basic level of political knowledge and skills to be able to be able to achieve this
end (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996). One of the greatest concerns of liberal thinkers
towards allowing universal suffrage has been their concern over the lack of
capacity for citizens to understand decisions for either public or even self-interest
which is why citizenship education based on this philosophy has focused on
knowledge and skills. In addition, more recent liberal thinking has been concerned
about the uneven spread of knowledge and skills of democracy across the society
citing that this severely reduces the capability of democracy as decisions are then
rarely based on what is in the best interest for most people (Delli Carpini & Keeter,
1996).
Active citizenship within the liberal model emphasizes the right of individuals
to participate politically, or not as the case may be. But it posits that, if the state is
kept to a minimum, civil society will flourish. However, liberal ideals from the
notion of the atomized individuals have been re-interpreted in recent years. Recent
liberal thinkers have criticized the earlier liberal notions of citizenship as focusing
only on the relationship between the individual and the state, and emphasised how
such notions miss out on how humans interrelate with each other in groups built on
the foundations of trust (Norman, 2010). Hence, the liberal model has in recent
years been influenced by Putnams theories of social capital. Within the UK, for
example, the recent debates regarding the Big Society can be understood as an
outcome of such reinterpretations. From the perspective of the Big Society,
citizens participate in associations, not only out of a feeling of obligation, but a
feeling of pleasure from enjoying forming relationships, and building a sense of
emotional attachment or belonging to a group (Norman, 2010). Citizenship
education from this perspective often focuses primarily on doing activities to help
others in the community including various volunteering programmes and collecting
WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY NEED FROM ITS CITIZENS?
27
money for charity with less focus on developing deep reflections on society,
politics and critical thought.
The implications of the liberal approach on civic competences have been to
focus on knowledge, skills and dispositions towards engagement. In this sense
there has been an emphasis on more objective or value neutral knowledge
(Halstead, 1996, p. 27) and engagement rather than an explicit teaching of values.
The only values explicitly stated are of conformity to the procedural rules of liberal
democracy (including acceptance/tolerance of a diversity of values) and the value
of equality before the law. The values that one could posit to be implicitly taught
through an approach that focuses on knowledge and skills to enable the
understanding of self-interest are individualism and ones own individual human
rights. More recently there has been a greater emphasis on facilitating the learning
of dispositions towards engagement but this engagement has focused on supporting
young people to volunteer in the local community and much less on engagement in
politics or critical thought around issues of social injustice.
Research that can be argued to be positioned within the stand point of liberal
thinking has analysed the degree to which individuals can identify self-interest
within policy options of political parties (Galston, 2001; Delli Carpini & Keeter,
1996). The capabilities approach (Sen, 1980) also can be placed in the position of
advocating value neutral education emphasising equality of citizens to function
through utilising their capabilities (competences + access to resources). Perhaps
even Deweys work could be considered to be positioned as value neutral
education, as he suggested that it is the democratic learning process within a just
community that should be the aim of the education process, and not transmission of
certain values. Dewey stressed that instead of deciding upon which values to teach,
the importance lay with including a diversity of opinions within a democratic
decision making process.
I would argue, however, that that neither research nor education can actually be
value neutral. All choices of knowledge and skills within a curriculum and the
methods of how they are taught are based on and teach young people values
(Halstead, 1996; Sandstrm Kjellina, 2010). Liberal education that develops
individuals capacity to weigh up arguments based on strengths, weaknesses and
reasonableness of alternatives develops a self consciously critical individual
whose world view is indistinguishable from a comprehensive moral liberal (Parry,
2003, p. 41). Does this matter? If you come from a conservative religious position
it might. However, the main purpose of this discussion is to understand that liberal
citizenship education is not value free.
Recent debates within citizenship education have called for the normative values
behind citizenship education to be made explicit (Haste, 2010; Levine & Higgins-
DAlessandro, 2010). National curriculums, schools (in the form of value
statements) and within inventories of key competences often explicitly state values
(Trier, 2003). Trier (2003) when summarising OECD national positions on key
competences, highlighted that many European countries including the Nordic
countries and Germany and Austria explicitly stated the values required as a part of
key competences for these countries. Haste (2010) describes the implicit attitudes
HOSKINS
28
and values embraced by western citizenship education as being primarily liberal in
content as well as form. She describes the content as focusing on concern about
the under-privilege, diversity, rights, freedom of choice and the environment
(Haste, 2010, p. 182). There are two challenges to this position. First, Haste herself
cites that with the current economic crises could produce a shift in values towards a
more conservative and anti immigration agenda. Would an explicitly liberal
content led citizenship education still be acceptable in such an environment?
Second, some conservative and religious groups (both within majority population
and migrant communities) within western democracies do not hold basic liberal
values regarding equality or democratic processes (Kymlicka, 2003). If there is no
acceptance of democratic procedural values and equality then I would argue that
these values would need to be explicitly taught. A final question to be asked of the
liberal position, is at what point does the liberal notion of tolerance of different
opinions lend itself to cultural relativism and thus ignoring and dissolving
responsibility regarding issues of power relationships and social injustices based on
gender and class within social groups?
I do not attempt within this chapter to answer all these questions regarding the
liberal approach to citizenship education. However, from this position I would like
to take forward for the discussion on civic competence, the qualities of the need for
knowledge and skills on democracy and the values of equality within democratic
decisions making. However, I continue to question the liberal approach towards
tolerance of all values as in such circumstances who are the citizens who will
defend democracy and our human rights? These values I argue need to be openly
taught. I also continue to question an explicit agenda that emphasises individualism
and self-interest.
THE CIVIC REPUBLICAN MODEL OF CITIZENSHIP
Within western democracies, the development of the concept of active citizenship
is sometimes also derived from civic republican traditions (Crick, 2003). This
approach places higher demands on the citizen in terms of the maintenance of the
democratic processes and institutions that in turn assure greater freedoms (Lovett,
2010). From this perspective, citizens become the actors of positive laws for social
change, and the instruments to prevent corruption (Lovett, 2010). Based on Greek
and Roman philosophical thought, civic republicanism has emphasized the need for
citizens to act politically within the public sphere, and to be actively engaged
within a political community as equal and free citizens. Thus the notion of civic
responsibility developed from this view. Compared to the liberal tradition, this
approach places more of an obligation and value in political engagement and
involvement in political decision making. Thus in terms of civic competence the
qualities of knowledge, skills values and attitudes to enable political engagement
are of the highest importance, for example, the qualities needed to evaluate the
performance of government, the skills needed to recognise and prevent corruption
and the dispositions and skills to participate in public discourse.
WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY NEED FROM ITS CITIZENS?
29
The civic republican approach also highlights the need for citizens to learn civic
virtues, including emphasising the values of public spiritedness, solidarity, and the
responsibility to act for the common good (Honohan, 2002, p. 147). Honohan
(2002) asserts that, without civic virtues, too much self-interest, that is associated
with the liberal model, can lead to corruption. Putnams (1993) early work on
defining the competences necessary for the civic community in Italy also borrows
from civic republicanism traditions. Putnam cites Banfields example of a poverty
stricken village called Montegrano in which he attributes their economic situation
to the fact that the villagers were unable to work together for a common purpose,
and were unable to transcend beyond their own family interests (Putnam, 1993, p.
91). Putnam therefore uses the example to highlight the need for citizens to work
towards the common good.
Interesting some liberal scholars have also contributed to the debates on civic
virtues highlighting some of the difficulties of liberal notions of acting only in self-
interest and emphasising a need for the public to be reasonable in their demands.
For example, Galston (1991, p. 224) cites the need for the qualities that enable
citizens to demand only what can be paid for from government highlighting the
consequences of voting for tax breaks for oneself and at the same time voting for
higher spending from government towards ones own needs. Thus the need for
some core notions of solidarity with others seems to have resonance beyond the
civic republican model.
In contrast to the traditional liberal model, within the civic republican model
values are explicit and at the core. These values are public spiritedness, solidarity,
and the responsibility to act for the common good and a belief in the importance of
political engagement. These values can be contrasted with the implicit values of
individualism and self-interest that I argued to be implicitly behind the liberal
model. However, the conception of the value of the common good has been
critiqued and these debates will be visited within the following model on critical
citizenship.
THE CRITICAL MODEL OF CITIZENSHIP
Critical citizenship has been a catch all title for various new theories that try to
frame active citizenship in different terms (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006), for
example, by focusing on critiquing and improving society through social and
political action based on the ideas of empowerment and social justice as expressed
by Paulo Freire, among others (Johnson & Morris, 2010). These models focus on a
more dynamic view on democracy that is grounded in critical and engaged citizens
and there is an explicit values agenda towards improving social justice
(Westheimer & Kahne, 2003) and reducing inequalities in particular power
relationships (Mouffe, 2005). The critical models are predominately, explicitly
based on values of equality and are critical of the current status quo. The ideas for
critical citizenship have been predominantly theoretical and debated in academic
literature but have yet to have an extensive influence on civic education in schools
(Abowitz & Harnish, 2006). The aspects of civic competence that are described as
HOSKINS
30
being needed for critical citizenship are the ability to critically analyse social
issues and injustices, for example, learning to ask why people are homeless not
only collect money to feed them (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 4) and other
social values such as empathy and care (Veugelers, 2011). Within the critical
model of citizenship collective action is generally promoted but is situated in the
context of social movements to create social change rather than individualistic
action.
All these critical forms of citizenship oppose the civic republican notions of
citizenship in two ways:
First, the concept of the common good is said to promote nationalistic values
and has been used by leaders during difficult circumstances such as war to promote
loyalty whilst compromising human rights (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006). Due to the
historic use of the term there have been applications of the common good that have
supported war; however, the common good does not have to be applied in a
nationalistic manner. Equally the opposite side of the spectrum is self-interest
which can also be considered to be harmful. As was stated within the earlier
section on civic republicanism, by the common good we are referring to the
individuals ability to see beyond their own self-interest and to be able to reflect on
the impact of decisions on other people. This type of common good does not need
to refer to geographical boundaries whether at the local, regional, national or
international level.
The second major critique of civic republicanism is that the notion of citizenship
has historically privileged the dominant group, usually white, males, and has
neglected the rights or freedom of other groups (Honohan, 2002; Abowitz &
Harnish, 2006). The Crick report (1998), that developed a concept for citizenship
education to be introduced in England, has been critiqued for failing to recognise
that representative politics is still dominated by white men, and that there is a
social justice issue in terms of creating change to greater equality (Arnot, 2003).
Thus any conception of active citizenship would also need to be critical, in that it
would need to critique existing unjust conditions, and include the need for greater
representation and engagement of women, lower social classes, and minority and
immigrant groups, within decision making and representative politics.
In the next step I will draw from these diverse models an inventory of civic
competence that explicitly states the values needed for active citizenship.
CIVIC COMPETENCE MODEL
A plethora of inventories of the qualities needed for active citizenship have been
described (Hoskins, 2008; Council and European Parliament, 2006; Abs &
Veldhuis, 2006; Torney Purta, 2003; Audigier, 2000; Crick, 1998; Veldhuis, 1997),
however, from the above discussion of civic republican, liberal and critical
citizenship models I would argue that there is a basic set of values, attitudes,
dispositions, knowledge and skills that are needed. In this chapter I have focused
on values but I will also mention the other qualities where relevant. To develop this
inventory I begin by borrowing from the liberal traditions the qualities of valuing
WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY NEED FROM ITS CITIZENS?
31
equal rights for participation, human rights and respecting the democratic process
but I will add a more explicit focus on these values. Next I draw from the civic
republican perspective the need for the value given to, and interest in political
engagement and the high level qualities needed to be able to engage including the
competence to evaluate government performance, the knowledge, skills and
attitudes needed to recognise and prevent corruption and the dispositions and skills
to participate in public debates. Building from this and from a critical citizenship
model, I suggest that the value and disposition towards collective action towards
dismantling social injustice is also needed. Next, and borrowing again from the
civic republican tradition, the qualities of solidarity, awareness of others and public
spiritedness should be included within the list. This is clearly not referring to a
nationalistic concept of solidarity and the common good but more of a concern for
others and an appreciation of how your own actions will affect other people. Next,
from the critical model, there is a need for the social values that aim for social
justice and equality for all social groups and the qualities of empathy and care. And
finally, again from critical model, the qualities needed for critical reflection on
social structures and power relations.
In addition to the qualities outlined above which have been based upon theory, it
would be necessary to add the further aspects derived from empirical research and
relating to key challenges of the modern world. First, regarding empirical research
it would be necessary to add knowledge, skill, values and attitudes derived from
analysis that has shown to enhance engagement. An example of this would be, self-
efficacy/the belief that you can make a difference, which has been shown to be an
important element in facilitating engagement (Haste, 2004; Veugelers, 2011).
Second, additions would be necessary that thematically relate to the key challenges
of the modern world. These include new skills for using social media that are
crucial today towards the mobilisation of people onto the streets and informing
others about political actions. They also include thematic knowledge orientated
towards major challenges, for example, climate change. Also the economic crisis
has highlighted the economic dimension of citizenship and raised the importance of
skills to ensure the accountability of banks and individual and government
finances. This chapter and inventory of competences, however, has been based
upon theory and is a basic framework that can be built upon according to the
current socio-political context and the needs of the researchers, learners and
practitioners who choose to use it.
In the process of creating this inventory, I have deliberately not separated the
qualities of civic competence into knowledge, skills, attitudes and values as all
these aspects are complexly tied together. This also follows from the logic of this
chapter in which I have argued that it is not really possible to extract knowledge
and skills from the values and attitudes contained within them.
The proposed inventory for civic competence is given below.

HOSKINS
32
Civic Competence Inventory
Values and knowledge of Human Rights
Values and knowledge of equal rights for engagement
Values and attitudes towards the importance and interest in political engagement
Knowledge and respect for the democratic process
Having the higher levels of knowledge and skills combined with the disposition
to be able to actively engage in politics including being able to:
evaluate government performance,
to recognise and prevent corruption and
to participate in public debates
The qualities needed for organising or joining collective action towards
dismantling social injustice
Social values
Solidarity, awareness of others and public spiritedness
empathy and care
The qualities needed for critical reflection on social structures and power
relations.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I have argued that the values dimension of civic competence needs
to be highlighted and made explicit. I have critiqued the liberal model as
advocating openly cultural relativism, whilst implicitly valuing self-interest.
Neither of these values I would argue is beneficial for democracy. A culturally
relativist position does not establish the necessary and fundamental values of
democracy, human rights and public spiritedness that are required for democracy to
flourish. An implicit focus on self-interest does not promote consideration of
actions on others.
The civic republican citizenship and the critical citizenship models are more
explicit about their values. In one sense these positions are not as different as they
proclaim. Both advocate the need for active engagement of citizens in decision
making and a type of social values. Veugelers (2011) describes these social values
as being articulated in different ways: empathy, care and orientation to social
justice. The range of values he describes builds from openness to the other, through
concern for others, to realizing justice for the others. This interpretation of social
values does not indicate a very clear distinction between solidarity and social
justice. However, as has been noted earlier in the chapter, the values of solidarity
and the common good from the civic republican citizenship has been critiqued by
the critical citizenship model due to the fact civic republicanism had led to
implementation of the common good in terms of nationalistic policies. This cannot
be denied. However, the nationalistic method of applying the common good is
more of a result of the historical implementation and development of civic
republicanism that can be addressed and changed rather than an unresolvable
caveat. The critical citizenship model advocates more clearly the values of social
WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY NEED FROM ITS CITIZENS?
33
justice and equality but I do not see an irreconcilable difference. The critical
citizenship model has had limited influence, to date, on the formulation of national
civic education and national inventories of civic competences (Abowitz & Harnish,
2006). To begin to address this caveat, I have made a first step by explicitly
including these values in the above inventory of civic competence. We have also
completed research using a similar inventory to create indicators to monitor the
levels of young peoples civic competence across Europe (Hoskins, Villalba, &
Saisana, 2012). The next step is to work with practitioners towards developing
methods for teaching these values.
REFERENCES
Arnot, M. (2003). Citizenship education and gender. In A. Lockyer, B. Crick, & J. Annette (Eds.),
Education for democratic citizenship (pp. 90-103). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Abowitz, K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review of Educational
Research, 76(4), 653-690.
Abs, H. J., & Veldhuis, R. (2006). Indicators on active citizenship for democracy The social, cultural,
and economic domain. Paper for the CRELL-Network on Active Citizenship for Democracy at the
European Commissions Joint Research Centre. Ispra, Italy.
Almond, Gabriel, & Verba, Sydney (1963). Civic culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Audigier, F. (2000). Basic concepts and core competencies for education for democratic citizenship.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Barber, B. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. California: University of
California Press.
Borgonovi, F., dHombres, B., & Hoskins, B. (2010). Voter turnout, information acquisition and
education: Evidence from 15 European countries. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy,
10(1). DOI: 10.2202/1935-1682.2463
Buk-Berge, Elisabeth (2006). Missed opportunities: The IEAs study of civic education and civic
education in post-communist countries. Comparative Education, 42(4), 533-548.
Crick, B. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools: Final report of the
Advisory Group on Citizenship 22 September 1998 (London, Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority).
Crick, B. (2003) The English citizenship order 1999: Context, content and presuppositions. In A.
Lockyer, B. Crick, & J. Annette (Eds.), Education for democratic citizenship (pp. 15-29). Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Dalton, R. (2009). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics.
Washington: CQ press.
Delli Carpini, M., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New
Haven, CT: Yale University.
de Tocqueville, A. (1863). Democracy in America. Cambridge: Sever and Francis.
Education Council (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18
December 2006 on key competencies for lifelong learning. Brussels: Official Journal of the
European Union, 30 December.
Fratczak-Rudnicka, B., & Torney-Purta, J. (2003). Competencies for civic and political life in a
democracy. In D. Rychen, L. Salganik, & L. McLaughlin (Eds.), Contributions to the second
DeSeCo Symposium. Neuchtel: Swiss Federal Statistical Office.
Galston, W. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement and civic education. Annual Review of
Political Science, 4, 217-234.
HOSKINS
34
Haste, H. (2010). Citizenship education: A critical look at a contested field. In L. Sherrod, J. Torney-
Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of civic engagement in youth. New Jersey: John Wiley and
Sons.
Hoskins, Villalba, & Saisana (2012). The 2011 Civic Competence Composite Indicator (CCCI-2):
Measuring young peoples civic competence across Europe based on the IEA International
Citizenship and Civic Education study. CRELL Research Paper, EUR 25182 EN. Ispra: European
Commission.
Hoskins, B., Barber, C., Van Nijlen, D., & Villalba, E. (2011). Comparing civic competence among
European youth: Composite and domain-specific indicators using IEA civic education study data.
Comparative Education Review, 55(1). http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/656620.
Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J., & Villalba, E. (2011). Learning citizenship through social practice outside and
inside school: Multilevel analysis of the learning of citizenship. British Education Research Journal
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.550271.
Hoskins, B., & Deakin Crick, R. (2010). Learning to learn and civic competence to sides of the same
coin? European Journal of Education Research, 45(1).
Hoskins, B., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a
composite indicator. Social Indicator Research, 90, 459-488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-
9271-2.
Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., Van Nijlen, D., & Barber, C. (2008). Measuring civic competence in Europe:
A composite Indicator based on IEA civic education study 1999 for 14 years old in School. CRELL
Research Paper, EUR 23210. Ispra: European Commission.
Hoskins, B. (2006). Draft framework on indicators for active citizenship. Ispra: CRELL.
Honohan, I. (2002). Civic republicanism. London: Routledge.
Johnson, L., & Morris, P (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. Curriculum
Journal, 21(1), 77-96.
Kerr, D., Sturman, L., Schulz, & Burge (2010). Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among
lower-secondary students in 24 European countries. ICCS 2009 European Report. Amsterdam: IEA.
Kymlicka (2003). Two dilemmas of citizenship education in pluralist societies. In A. Lockyer, B. Crick,
& J. Annette (Eds.), Education for democratic citizenship (pp. 47-63). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Levine, & Higgins-DAlessandro (2010). Youth civic engagement: Normative issues. In L. Sherrod, J.
Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of civic engagement in youth. New Jersey: John
Wiley and Sons.
Lovett, Frank (2010). Republicanism. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia
of philosophy (Summer 2010 edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/
republicanism.
Norman, J. (2010). The big society: The anatomy of the new politics. Buckingham: The University of
Buckingham Press.
Parry, G. (2003). Citizenship education: Reproductive and remedial. In A. Lockyer, B. Crick, & J.
Annette (Eds.), Education for democratic citizenship (pp. 30-46). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon
and schuster.
Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values, Volume I.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/University of Utah Press.
Turner, B. (1997). Citizenship studies: A general theory. Citizenship Studies, 1(1), 5-18.
Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical-democratic citizenship education: Empowering humanity and
democracy in Dutch education. Compare, 37(1), 105-119.
Veugelers, W. (Ed.) (2011). Education and humanism: Linking autonomy and humanity.
Rotterdam/Boston/Taipeh: Sense Publishers.
Veugelers, W. (in press). The moral and the political in global citizenship education. Globalisation,
Societies and Education.
WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY NEED FROM ITS CITIZENS?
35
Veldhuis, R. (1997). Education for democratic citizenship: Dimensions of citizenship, core competences,
variables and international activities. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
Wattenberg, M. (2012). Is voting for the young? New York: Longman.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of education of democracy.
American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237-269.
Westheimer, J. (2008). No child left thinking: Democracy at-risk in American schools. Democratic
Dialogue Series, No. 17, Inquiry into Democracy, Education, and Society. Ottawa: Ottawa
University.
Willetts, D. (2010). The pinch: How the baby boomers took their childrens future And why they
should give it back. London: Atlantic Books.
M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 3749.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
MURRAY PRINT
4. COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC
CITIZENSHIP IN EUROPE
What competences do citizens need in order to contribute to a healthy democracy?
This is a problematic question that has challenged governments, policy makers,
researchers and many others for decades. In the context of modern Europe the
question is even more challenging as Europeans nations seek to forge an effective,
broad based, unified democracy across countries with different languages, cultures
and historical enmities. Central to addressing the question above is the role that
education, in particular schooling, may have on building more engaged, active
citizens with the competencies necessary to sustain healthy democracies.
In 2011 an invited symposium was held in Hannover, Germany to raise issues
about democratic citizenship education and the competencies needed by citizens to
sustain democracy in a European context. It was designed to stimulate thinking
about what competencies are important for democratic citizens in Europe now and
for the future and to raise issues about what it means to be a democratic citizen in a
modern European democracy. Further, the symposium addressed the building of
competencies for democratic citizenship in schools in general and civics and
citizenship education in particular.
Before we can consider competences for young people and their relationship to
civic education and building democratic citizenship, it is important to clarify
concepts and consider what might constitute competencies for active citizenship in
Europe.
1

WHAT IS A COMPETENCE?
For the purposes of the symposium it was important to achieve some consensus as
to key concepts that constitute the competencies for democratic citizenship. While
achieving consensus is problematic we worked from the following definitions
taking into account variations across cultures and countries. This was somewhat
difficult though a reasonable consensus was achieved partly reflecting a sense of
agreement across European countries and partly reflecting current research in
citizenship.
A competence is a capacity, a potential and the ability or means to engage in a
phenomenon. It refers to a complex combination of knowledge, skills,
understandings, values, attitudes and desire which lead to effective, embodied
human action in a particular domain. Achievement at work, in personal
relationships or in civil society is based on a combination of this knowledge with
skills, values, attitudes, desires and motivation and its application in a particular
PRINT
38
human setting at a particular point in a trajectory in time. Competence implies a
sense of agency, action and value.
The term civic competence refers to the knowledge, attitudes, values and
skills needed for a participation in civic and political life, that is, necessary to be
able to play the role of a citizen and that enables a person to become an active
citizen. For Audigier (2000) the core competences associated with democratic
citizenship are those called for by the construction of a free and autonomous
person, aware of his rights and duties in a society where the power to establish the
law, i.e. the rules of community life which define the framework in which the
freedom of each is exercised, and where the appointment and control of the people
who exercise this power are under the supervision of all the citizens (p. 17).
Do we assume that all competences are positive and lead to democratic
citizenship? And will these competences lead to good citizenship as compared
with negative or destructive citizenship? One way to address this conundrum is to
consider active citizenship, defined in a particular, positive way.
For the European Commission, active citizenship is defined by Hoskins as
participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterized by
mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and
democracy (2006, p. 6). In this context active citizenship is interpreted very
broadly where participation is not restricted simply to the political dimension as
expressed in the traditional forms of voting, political lobbying and membership in
parties and NGOs. Rather it also includes cultural and political environmental
activities, undertaken at local, national (and regions within nations), European and
international levels as well as less conventional forms of active citizenship, such as
cyber participation, one-off issue politics and social and environmental
responsibility. This understanding of active citizenship is ethically-driven where
activities should support the community and should not contravene principles of
human rights and the rule of law. Therefore, as seen by the European Commission,
groups that promote intolerance and violence should not be included in this
definition of active citizenship.
Active citizenship is also a contested concept. However, reviewing the literature
across many continents (Audigier, 2000; Dalton, 2009; Hoskins & Deakin-Crick,
2010; Hoskins et al., 2011; Print et al., 2008) suggests that active citizenship
includes:
Engagement and participation of people in their society
Participation is not only political but also about civic and civic society
Learning in school is part of a lifelong experience
Includes both active and passive elements
Involves active dimensions of citizenship from skills development as well as a
base of knowledge and understanding
Citizenship based on theoretical approaches from liberal, communitarian and
civic republican traditions where activity ranges from individualistic and
challenge driven approaches to more collective actions and approaches.
In this
as co
democ
dysfun
as com
contrib
citizen
citizen
positiv
positiv
summa
progra
citizen
and cr
the typ
meanin


The
respon
Rather
people
and wh
s chapter, as in
mpetences fo
cracies seek ci
nctional or ba
mpared with fa
bute to that d
ns will contrib
nship, such as
ve outcomes i
ve ways. Wha
arized two ap
am. They arg
nship educatio
ritical-democra
pes of citizen
ng is similar th
Figure 1. C
e suggestion th
nsibly, are ob
r, it can be ar
e, democracies
ho are critical
COMPE
COMPETEN
n the Hannove
or democrati
itizens who ar
ad citizens. T
ail or become
democracy in
bute in positiv
civics or citiz
in students so
at might such
pproaches to
gue that Veug
n as three cate
atic citizens as
ns from West
hough the labe
Conceptualizatio
Source:
hat democraci
bedient and h
rgued on the
s require enga
l-democratic c
ETENCES FOR D
NCES FOR GO
er symposium,
c citizenship
re good withi
That is, for dem
dysfunctional
positive way
ve ways. Nev
zenship educa
o that they ma
h citizens appe
building citiz
gelers (2007)
egories adap
s seen below.
theimer and K
els are differen
on of citizenship
Johnson & Mo
ies need more
have good ma
grounds of im
aged citizens
citizens, motiv
DEMOCRATIC C
OOD CITIZEN
, civic compet
p. The assum
in that democ
mocracies to w
to citizens, th
ys. This is an
vertheless a p
ation for schoo
ay contribute
ear as? Johns
zens within a
conceptualiz
pting citizens,
These could t
Kahnes (2004
nt.
p within citizens
orris (2010)
than passive c
anners resona
mproving the
who participa
vated to chang
CITIZENSHIP IN
S
tences were re
mption is m
racy as compa
work and to be
hen the citizen
n aspiration a
program in de
ols, seeks to en
to their demo
son and Morri
citizenship e
zed citizenshi
individualistic
then be compa
4) research w
ship education.
citizens, those
ates in moder
e quality of li
ate actively in
ge society for t
N EUROPE
39
eferred to
made that
ared with
e sustain,
ns need to
as not all
emocratic
ncourage
ocracy in
is (2010)
education
ip within
c citizens
ared with
where the


e who act
rn times.
fe of the
n society
the better
PRINT
40
and are concerned for social justice. Westheimer and Kahn (2004) make this
argument well and in a similar way to Veugelers (2007) critical-democratic citizen.
To become such citizens, it may be further argued, young people need to acquire
the competences that will enable them to be active and participate effectively,
particularly in the adult society they experience after school. In turn, the school is a
logical, and historically experienced, source for educating the next generation of
adult citizens and hopefully the source of some form of a non-partisan, critically
reflective citizenship education program.
What then might we see as being a good citizen? Another way of addressing
this is to identify key groups of active behaviours:
1. Engage and participate in traditional political activities such as voting,
joining political parties and being a candidate for election.
2. Engagement in the form of voluntary community activities. This might be
working with welfare agencies such as a homeless shelter, collecting for
charities or contributing to your local community clean-up.
3. Participating in activities and movements that seek to make changes to
social and political directions. Mostly these are seen in a positive sense
such as signing petitions or joining a legal demonstration on a social issue.
Some may be negative or illegal such as illegal demonstrations or
damaging property.
4. Participating in self-directing, beneficial behaviours such as financial self-
sufficiency and creative problem-solving such as saving water in ones
home or being energy efficient.
Some would argue that all of the above types make an important contribution,
that they are not mutually exclusive and that a good citizen would reflect some
combination of these. However, a somewhat different view of a good citizen, and
its implications for citizenship education, might be found in most Asian countries
where greater emphasis exists on a different set of understandings and behaviours
which include aspects of public order, community good, respect for older
generations, maintaining a healthy lifestyle, good manners, politeness and similar
characteristics. This approach to citizenship education, substantially different from
a more Western perspective with greater emphasis upon political education, is seen
even in democratic states such as Japan and Thailand as well as non-democratic
states across the region.
Another important dimension of the good citizen could be how they relate to
their fellow human beings. Reviewing the literature suggests that there is strong
support for considering a good citizen as one who displays the interest and
willingness to understand, accept, and tolerate cultural differences, the capacity to
think in a critical and systemic way, to interact with others in a cooperative manner
and to take responsibility for ones roles and duties within society, a willingness to
adapt ones lifestyle and consumption behaviour to protect the environment; a
preference to resolve conflict in a non-violent manner; and the ability to be
sensitive towards and to defend human rights (see ACARA, 2012). These attributes
reflect a notion of the good citizen in the autonomy perspective of Johnson and
Morris
for soc
Usi
Compo
compe
attitud
This w
good
compe
How
analys
knowl
the dat
taking
level d
the ISS
such a
F

s model (201
cial justices an
ng the ICCS
osite Indicato
etences. Conta
des, with ident
work reinforce
citizen by p
etence.
wever the fun
sis. The ICCS
edge and attit
ta is sophistica
too much cre
data (apart fro
SC data as a b
as civic engage
Figure 2. Civic
COMPE
0). They sugg
nd motivated t
S data Hoski
r 2 (Hoskins
aining 15 scale
tified emphasi
es the argume
premising its
ndamental wea
S data set, lik
tudes of 14 ye
ated and valid
edence of the
om the observa
baseline for c
ement, then th
Competence Co
ETENCES FOR D
gest that such
to change soci
ins and othe
et al., 2011)
es (see Figure
is on social ju
ents above an
structure on t
akness of this
ke the earlier
ear old studen
d it does not ov
views of 14 y
ation of what
omparing late
he data would b
omposite Indica
DEMOCRATIC C
h a citizen is c
ety for the bet
rs created th
in presenting
2) the model
ustice as a key
nd further sup
three affectiv
s approach is
CivicEd data
nts. While the
vercome the fu
year olds and
14 year olds s
er changes in y
be more valua
ator. Source: Ho
CITIZENSHIP IN
cooperative, c
tterment of pe
he Civic Com
another view
emphasizes va
y organizing i
pports the not
e dimensions
the database
a set, is base
e statistical an
fundamental co
d extrapolating
say). If one w
youth civic be
able.
oskins et al. (20
N EUROPE
41
oncerned
ople.
mpetence
w of civic
alues and
indicator.
tion of a
of civic
used for
d on the
nalysis of
oncern of
g to adult
was to use
ehaviour,

011)
PRINT
42
BASELINE FOR CIVIC COMPETENCIES
To clarify key concepts and identify the competencies needed for active citizenship
that could be addressed through citizenship education in schools it was essential to
have a starting point. While both good citizens and competence are contested
concepts there is significant consensus that civic competencies, those needed to be
an active and effective citizen in a democracy, and those that should therefore be
addressed in schools are drawn from a base of four or five categories. In a recent
study completed for the European Commissions Directorate General for Education
and Culture on this subject (Regioplan, 2005) some of the knowledge, skills and
competencies for active citizenship have been identified as:
Knowledge: background, factual and functional knowledge;
Skills: critical reading, debating, writing, critical listening, empathic and social
skills;
Values: tolerance, non-violence, acknowledgement of human rights and
acknowledgement of rule of law;
Attitudes: political efficacy, political trust and political interest.
There is also discussion that civic competences, particularly in the context of civic
and citizenship education, should include the dimension of intended behaviour/
dispositions. These consist of a distinct intention (as compared with a vague idea)
to be active within society in some acceptable ways in order to nourish and sustain
democracy. Such a person would be considered as an active citizen as distinct from
a passive citizen.
In developing a new civics and citizenship curriculum for all Australian schools
as part of the Australian Curriculum, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority (ACARA) has recently identified two key areas for students to
learn knowledge and skills, both underpinned by values, attitudes and
dispositions (2012). The Australian curriculum for citizenship is particularly
appropriate for consideration in this analysis as it reflects the most developments in
the field and represents a successful, highly multicultural society and as such
provides valuable guidelines and opportunities for insights for the demographically
changing countries of Europe.
The well established and recognized CRELL Research Network on Active
Citizenship for Democracy (Hoskins et al., 2006, 2008), with funding support from
the European Commission, has proposed the following list of knowledge, skills and
competences, attitudes and values as necessary for active citizenship:

Knowledge: human rights and responsibilities, political literacy, historical
knowledge, current affairs, diversity, cultural heritage, legal matters and how to
influence policy and society;
Skills and competences: conflict resolution, intercultural competence, informed
decision-making, creativity, ability to influence society and policy, research
capability, advocacy, autonomy/agency, critical reflection, communication,
debating skills, active listening, problem solving, coping with ambiguity,
working with others, assessing risk;
COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP IN EUROPE
43
Attitudes: political trust, political interest, political efficacy, autonomy and
independence, resilience, cultural appreciation, respect for other cultures,
openness to change/difference of opinion, responsibility and openness to
involvement as active citizens, influencing society and policy;
Values: human rights, democracy, gender equality, sustainability, peace / non-
violence, fairness and equity, valuing involvement as active citizens.
Identity: sense of personal identity, sense of community identity, sense of
national identity, sense of global identity.
In the context of the European Commissions key competencies for lifelong
learning categories have been identified in terms of knowledge and skills.
Knowledge of the concepts of democracy, citizenship, and civil rights, including
how they are expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union and international declarations and applied by various institutions at the
local, regional, national, European and international levels. Knowledge of main
events, trends and agents of change in national, European and world history and
present, with a specific view on European diversity is essential, as is knowledge of
the aims, values and policies of social and political movements.
Skills relate to the ability to engage effectively with others in the public domain,
display solidarity and interest in solving problems affecting the local and wider
community. It involves critical and creative reflection and constructive at all levels
from local to national and European level, in particular by voting.
Earlier Ruud Veldhuis (1997), in the context of education for democratic
citizenship had posited four dimensions of competencies:
the political and legal dimension covers rights and duties with respect to the
political system and the law. It requires knowledge concerning the law and the
political system, democratic attitudes and the capacity to participate, to exercise
responsibilities at all levels of public life;
the social dimension covers relations between individuals and requires
knowledge of what these relations are based on and how they function in
society. Social competences are paramount here. This dimension is connected to
others, in particular the following one, through the weight of values such as
solidarity;
the economic dimension concerns the world of production and consumption of
goods and services. It opens directly on labour and the way it is organised, on
the fruits of labour and their distribution. It requires economic competences, i.e.
knowledge on how the economic world functions, including the world of work;
the cultural dimension refers to collective representations and imaginations and
to shared values. It implies, like the others and sometimes more than them,
historical competence, recognition of a common heritage with its varied
components, a mobile heritage, a heritage to exchange with others. Culture is
also connected with the capacities which form the basis of schools in Europe,
reading and writing, the capacity to move about in one linguistic universe and to
acquire another.
Similarly, in reviewing education for democratic citizenship Audigier (2000)
identified three categories of competences cognitive, affective and capacities for
PRINT
44
action. The core competences associated with democratic citizenship are those
called for by the construction of a free and autonomous person, aware of ones
rights and duties in a society where the power to establish the law, i.e. the rules of
community life which define the framework in which the freedom of each is
exercised, and where the appointment and control of the people who exercise this
power are under the supervision of all the citizens.

1. Cognitive competences:
1.1. competences of a legal and political nature (knowledge concerning the rules
of collective life and democratic conditions of their establishment; knowledge
concerning the powers in a democratic society, at all levels of political life; in
other words, knowledge about democratic public institution and the rules
governing freedom and action )
1.2. knowledge of the present world ( to be able to take part in the public debate
and make valid decision on choices offered in a democratic society, it is
necessary to know what is being talked about incl. the capacity for critical
analysis of society )
1.3. competences of a procedural nature ( ability to argue and the ability to
reflect in the light of principles and values of human rights on conflict of
values and of interests, etc.)
1.4. knowledge of principles and values of human rights and democratic
citizenship ( conception of the human being based on freedom and equal
dignity of each individual).

2. Affective competences:
ethical competences and value choices ( citizenship cannot be reduced to a
catalogue of rights and duties (it) includes a personal and collective emotional
dimension the values involved are centered on freedom, equality and solidarity.
They imply the recognition and respect of oneself and others, the ability to listen,
reflection on the place of violence in society and how to control it (by) the
resolution of conflicts ).

3. Capacities for action:
3.1 sometimes known as social competences ( in everyday personal and social
life to take initiative and to accept responsibilities in society),
3.2 the capacity to live with others (to cooperate, to construct and implement joint
projects, to take responsibilities this capacity contributes to inter-
culturalism)
3.3 the capacity to resolve conflicts in accordance with the principle of democratic
law ( mediation producing an agreement according to judicial principles)
3.4 the capacity to take part in public debate (to argue and choose in real-life
situation).

COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP IN EUROPE
45
DIMENSIONS OF CIVIC COMPETENCE
Reviewing the above contributions to the debate, set within the parameters
identified by the literature (Veldhuis, 1997; Audigier, 2000; Westheimer & Kahn,
2004; Abs & Veldhuis, 2006; Johnson & Morris, 2010, Hoskins et al., 2011) we
might argue that civic competences, those important to being an active citizen,
could be tentatively identified within five dimensions. These dimensions could
then become the basis of an integrated approach to education for democratic
citizenship that aims to encourage active citizenship in a European context. As
such the competences identified would logically form a basis for education for
democratic citizenship within schools, particularly through the formal and informal
school curriculum. These dimensions would tentatively, given they are subject to
debate and contestation, include:

Knowledge of:
Key elements of the political and legal system (parliamentary government, the
importance of voting; local, national, European, international levels)
Basic institutions of democracy, political parties, election programs, and the
proceedings of elections
Rights and responsibilities of citizens (incl. human rights, social rights and
duties)
Media literacy and the role of the media in personal and social life
Social relationships between groups in society (e.g., social class)
History and cultural heritage of own country; predominance of certain norms
and values
Different cultures that exist in the local, regional, and national context
Knowledge of current political issues
Main events, trends, and change agents of national, European, and world history
The function and work of voluntary groups and civil society
Key financial matters and associated economic literacy
Sustainable development locally and internationally

Skills:
To be able to evaluate a position or decision, take a position, and defend a
position
To distinguish a statement of fact from an opinion
To resolve conflicts in a peaceful way
To interpret media messages (interests and value systems that are involved, etc.;
critical analysis of the media)
To be capable to critically examine information including financial information
To possess communication skills (to be able to present in verbal and/or written
manner your ideas)
To be able to monitor and influence policies and decisions, including through
voting
PRINT
46
To use the media in an active way (not as consumer but as a producer of media
content)
To build coalitions and to cooperate
To be able to live and work in a multicultural environment

Attitudes:
To feel responsible for your decisions and actions, in particular, in relationship
to other citizens
To feel confident to engage politically
To trust in and have loyalty toward democratic principles and institutions
To be open to difference, change of own opinion, and compromise

Values:
Acceptance of the rule of law
A belief in social justice and the equality and equal treatment of citizens
Respect for differences including gender and religious differences
Reject prejudice, racism and discrimination.
Respect for human rights (equality, dignity and freedom)
Tolerance towards difference
A belief in the importance of democracy
A belief in the need to preserve the environment and sustainable development

Intended behaviour/dispositions
The intention to participate in the political community
The intention to be active in the community
The intention to participate in civil society
TEACHING CITIZENSHIP
A logical corollary to the development of competences for engaged, democratic
citizens is the application of those competences to schools generally and civic and
citizenship education specifically. The connection between these is important as
the school provides an opportunity, free from partisan politics and away from the
influences of the family and home. The school is also the most powerful influence
over student learning after the effect of the family is factored out. However, any
teaching of citizenship within the context of schools will require a formal
curriculum to be constructed. This might take the form of a curriculum in
citizenship education such as that in England (Keating et al., 2009) or as is being
devised in Australia (ACARA, 2012). Such a curriculum might well be based on
the competences for an engaged, democratic citizen identified above.
From research on European education systems Eurydice has noted that formal
citizenship education is orientated to teaching political literacy, critical thinking,
the development of certain attitudes and values and active participation (Eurydice,
2005). One of the tasks of the symposium was to identify and elaborate on this
observation in the context of education in Europe. To achieve that participants in
COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP IN EUROPE
47
the symposium were asked, in the context of the emerging competences, to review
how citizenship education and the competencies for active citizens may be
addressed through the school curriculum.
There are many studies that examine aspects of democratic citizenship within
the school curriculum including the longitudinal study of citizenship education in
England (Keating et al., 2009), the IEA Civics study (1995-2002) and the current
ICCS research by the IEA which has recently released preliminary findings (Kerr
et al., 2010; Schulz et al., 2010). There are also studies that examine the impact of
the informal curriculum on building young citizens and included in these studies
are links with competences for active citizens (Print, 2008; Saha & Print, 2010).
In teaching democratic citizenship various pedagogical approaches exist, and
many have been studied, though the depth and rigour of that research is
problematic. These include (but are not limited to) project-based learning,
community service learning, simulations and workshops, exposure to activist role
models, developing communities of support and of civic practice, and examining
contemporary social problems and conflicts or controversial issues. Considerable
literature from the United States has argued this last example has been shown to be
particularly effective and yet is often the least pursued in schools. Two of several
reasons why teachers avoid a pedagogy that credits political conflict and problem-
solving is its potential to create division and discord in the classroom, and the
complexity of such teaching strategies. Another reason is that teachers report
deficits in their own knowledge base of political process and pedagogy. Clearly,
both pre- and in-service teacher education is an important site for the improvement
of instructional practices, deserving further attention by government, the academic
community and, very importantly, teachers associations.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has sought to identify appropriate competences for democratic
citizens in Europe and which could be translated into a school curriculum for
building engaged citizens. Theory and research on this topic has been touched upon
through the models identified but a more substantive analysis is to be found in
other chapters in this book as considerable contestation over the concept of
competences exists. Identifying a set of competences for active citizenship in a
modern democracy is a complex, often confusing and challenging task. There will
undoubtedly be critics to both this approach and to the products identified above.
Yet it is reasonable to argue that citizenship education has an important role to play
in preparing the next generation of adult citizens and as such it is essential to know
what competences these citizens might aspire to achieve.
Research, by participants in this symposium and elsewhere, indicates that
citizens in a democracy should be knowledgeable about their democracy, possess
skills to enable them to participate and to possess a set of attitudes, values and
dispositions that are the very essence of democracy and which will guide their
actions as citizens. Hopefully these citizens will use their competences in positive
PRINT
48
ways and to this end the school can play a significant role in building active,
engaged citizens.
NOTES
1
The author wishes to thank the Volkswagen Stiftung for the funding to conduct the invited
symposium. A group of experienced and expert civic educators, political scientists and social
scientists were invited to Hannover through the support of Professor Dirk Lange and his group at
AGORA at the Leibniz University of Hannover. He also acknowledges the work of Bryony Hoskins
upon which much of this chapter is based.
REFERENCES
Abs, H. J., & Veldhuis, R. (2006). Indicators on active citizenship for democracy The social, cultural,
and economic domain. Paper for the CRELL-Network on Active Citizenship for Democracy at the
European Commissions Joint Research Centre. Ispra, Italy.
Audigier, F. (2000). Basic concepts and core competencies for education for democratic citizenship.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2012) Civics and citizenship. Draft Shape
Paper. http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/civics_and_citizenship_1.html.
CRELL Research Network on Active Citizenship for Democracy including multiple research papers by
Hoskins et al. (2006, 2008).
Crick, B. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. London: QCA.
Dalton, R. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics.
Washington: CQ press.
Eurydice (2005). Citizenship education at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.
Fratczak-Rudnicka, B., & Torney-Purta, J. (2003). Competencies for civic and political life in a
democracy. In D. Rychen, L. Salganik, & L. McLaughlin, Contributions to the second DeSeCo
Symposium. Neuchtel: Swiss Federal Statistical Office.
Hoskins, B. (2006). Active citizenship for democracy. Ispra: CRELL.
Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., Van Nijlen, D., & Barber, C. (2008). Measuring civic competence in Europe:
A composite indicator based on IEA civic education study 1999 for 14 years old in school. CRELL
Research Paper, EUR 23210. Ispra: European Commission.
Hoskins, B., & Deakin-Crick, R. (2010). Competences for learning to learn and active citizenship:
Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal of Education, 45(1), Part II. e
Hoskins, B., Barber, C., Van Nijlen, D., & Villalba, E. (2011). Comparing civic competence among
European youth: Composite and domain-specific indicators using IEA civic education study data.
Comparative Education Review, 55(1). http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/656620.
Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. Curriculum
Journal, 21(1), 77-96.
Keating, A., Kerr, D., Lopes, J., Featherstone, G., & Benton, T. (2009). Embedding citizenship
education in secondary schools in England (2002-08): Citizenship education longitudinal study
seventh annual report. DCSF Research Report 172. London: DCSF.
Kerr, D., Sturman, L., Schulz, W., & Burge, B. (2010). Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement
among lower-secondary students in 24 European countries. ICCS 2009 European Report.
Amsterdam: IEA.
Norris, Pippa (2002). Democratic phoenix. Reinventing political activism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Print, M. & Milner, H. (Eds.) (2009). Civic education and youth political participation. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.

COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP IN EUROPE
49

Print, M., Saha, L., & Edwards, K. (Eds.) (2007). Youth participation in democracy. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Regioplan (2005). Indicators for monitoring active citizen ship and citizenship education. Amsterdam:
Regioplan.
Saha, L., & Print, M. (2010). Student school elections and political engagement: A cradle of
democracy? International Journal of Educational Research, 49(1), 22-32.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). Initial findings from the IEA
international civic and citizenship education study. Amsterdam: International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
van Deth, Jan W. (2007). Norms of citizenship. In Russell J. Dalton & Hans-Dieter Klingemann (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 402-417). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Veldhuis, R. (1997). Education for democratic citizenship: Dimensions of citizenship, core
competencies and international activities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical-democratic citizenship education: Empowering humanity and
democracy in Dutch education. Compare, 37(1), 105-119.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy.
American Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 237-269.

M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 5163.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
JAN GERMEN JANMAAT
5. CIVIC COMPETENCES
Some Critical Reflections
INTRODUCTION
Civic competences are generally seen as critical for democracy and social
cohesion. Equally widespread is the assumption that schools have an important role
to play in fostering these competences. The Council of Europe (2011a) for instance
believes that
Education plays an essential role in the promotion of the core values of the
Council of Europe: democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as
in the prevention of human rights violations. More generally, education is
increasingly seen as a defence against the rise of violence, racism, extremism,
xenophobia, discrimination and intolerance.
However, this paper will argue that the notion of civic competences is problematic
in a number of ways. The advocates of citizenship education need to address these
problems in order to make a convincing case for the introduction or continuation of
such education. The paper will identify four major problems and offer suggestions
as to how these challenges might be taken up by supporters of citizenship
education. The problems will be discussed one by one and concern the following:
(1) the contested nature of the concept; (2) the diversity of qualities it refers to; (3)
the relevance of civic competences for democracy and social cohesion; (4) the
impact of citizenship education on civic competences.
CIVIC COMPETENCES: A CONTESTED CONCEPT
Many scholars agree that citizens should have certain competences in order to
function well in a liberal democratic society (Verba, Scholzman, & Brady, 1995;
Galston, 2001). There is also broad consensus on the idea that a substantial part of
the citizenry needs to have these qualities for democracy itself to operate
effectively and survive (Putnam, 1993; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). In other words,
democracy is not sustainable if it has to rely on a disengaged and politically
alienated population.
Disagreement starts however when it comes to identifying and defining these
competences. Some scholars attach great value to conventional ways of political
and civic participation, such as voting and active membership of a political party, a
JANMAAT
52
union or a religious community. In their view, these forms of participation act as a
kind of training ground for democracy, fostering qualities like trust, moderation,
conflict resolution, solidarity, cooperation and public spiritedness (e.g. Putnam,
1993). They are also seen as crucial for politicians to come to know the policy
preferences of the people and act as their true representatives. It is argued that from
the 1960s these traditional forms of participation have declined dramatically,
primarily as a result of individualization, secularization and the privatization of
forms of entertainment (Bellah et al., 1985; Putnam, 2000). According to Crozier,
Huntington and Watanuki (1975), this process has had destabilizing effects for
democracy.
Others, however, have argued that this gradual fall in traditional ways of
participation has been compensated by the rise of new, more informal and
egalitarian forms of collective action, which, as an alternative to voting and party
membership, rely on strategies like petitions, demonstrations, boycotts and
occupations (Lichterman, 1996). The new social movements of the 1960s and
1970s, campaigning for gender and racial equality, human rights, the protection of
the environment and global peace, are seen as the typical representatives of these
new forms of civic associations, improving democratic systems by making them
more responsive to their electorates, not less (Inglehart, 1990). The advocates of
these new forms of participation often point to civic equality and tolerance as key
virtues supporting democracy. In their view, a democracy needs a citizenry
believing in civic equality and willing to act on the matter to ensure that democracy
does not degenerate into a system privileging a certain ethnic or religious group
and excluding other groups. Tolerance is held to be crucial for democracy in that it
is difficult to see how conflicts can be resolved peacefully if citizens cannot
tolerate people with different ideas, lifestyles, interests and/or ethnic backgrounds.
Yet again others see critical engagement as a key civic virtue, as that enables
citizens to scrutinize public policy and to hold politicians accountable (Kymlicka,
2002). In this regard, Gamson (1968) noted that not trust but a healthy dose of
scepticism towards politicians contributes to the quality of democracy. Again
others propose that political knowledge and skills and not so much attitudes and
behaviour are the key civic competences (Galston, 2001). Summing up all these
different qualities suggested by the aforementioned scholars and others we arrive at
a motley collection of competences which includes a cognitive component
(political knowledge and skills), an affective or values component (tolerance, civic
equality, trust, solidarity, public spiritedness, sense of belonging) and a behavioural
component (cooperation, conventional and alternative forms of participation).
Policy makers are equally divided on this issue. While the political left often
mentions critical engagement, civic equality and alternative forms of participation
as critical civic competences, conservative politicians tend to emphasize a feeling
of belonging, respect for authority, trust and a sense of duty. The need to arrive at a
compromise between these opposing views on good citizenship has invariably led
to the adoption of very elaborate understandings of civic competence which
include many of the aforementioned qualities. For instance, according to the
Council of Europe (2011b), democratic citizenship is:
CIVIC COMPETENCES
53
a skill that everyone needs. In its most practical form, it is the knowledge
about how a country and society works why government functions as it
does, where to get information and how to vote. But democratic citizenship is
more than just the ballot box it is also the skill we need to live well in a
family and community. It shows us how to resolve disputes in a friendly and
fair way, how to negotiate and find common ground, and how to make sure
that our rights are respected. A democratic citizen knows about the ground
rules of the society they live in and the personal responsibilities they need to
respect.
Likewise, Eurydice (2005, p. 14), the information service on education systems of
the European Commission, sees responsible citizenship as:
embodying issues relating to the knowledge and exercise of civic rights and
responsibilities. All countries also link the concept to certain values closely
associated with the role of a responsible citizen. They include democracy,
human dignity, freedom, respect for human rights, tolerance, equality, respect
for law, social justice, solidarity, responsibility, loyalty, cooperation,
participation, and spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development.
In a similar vein, the CRELL Research Centre of the European Commission
considers civic competences to be a complex mix of knowledge, skills,
understanding, values and attitudes and dispositions, which requires a sense of
identity and agency (Hoskins & Crick, 2008, p. 8).
Though understandable from a political point of view, these elaborate
approaches are problematic for educational practitioners seeking to promote civic
competences among youngsters. They as a rule do not prioritize competences
leaving practitioners guessing which competence to address most urgently and
intensively. More seriously, their contested nature makes practitioners vulnerable
to the criticism that they pursue a hidden political agenda in case they make a clear
choice for some competences. Schools putting a great emphasis on volunteering, a
sense of responsibility, and common identities and values are likely to be branded
as right-wing, while schools fostering equality, tolerance and critical thinking will
be accused of promoting a left-wing ideology.
CIVIC COMPETENCES: A DIVERSE LOT
The contested nature of civic competences also raises the question whether they
can be fostered simultaneously. If some competences are unrelated to one another,
or worse, mutually exclude each other, it is unlikely that pedagogical approaches
can be developed which benefit these competences all equally.
On the basis of common sense one can already suspect tension between some
competences. How can critical thinking and trust in institutions for instance be
reconciled when the former must rely on a detached posture towards the object
under scrutiny? Similarly, is it possible to combine strong national solidarities,
which are likely to involve the privileging of one own nation over others, with
JANMAAT
54
ethnic tolerance and civic equality? Lastly, is it not problematic to foster respect
for politicians and democratic institutions on the one hand and civic equality on the
other when the former inevitably involves the recognition of hierarchical relations
and inequalities of power? Research has indeed confirmed that some competences
are unrelated to one another and that others rule each other out e.g. national pride
and ethnic tolerance (Green et al., 2006; Jackman & Miller, 2005; Janmaat, 2006,
2008).
Furthermore, observers have found marked intra- and inter-regional variations in
strength of civic competences. Hoskins et al. (2008), for instance, found that while
Eastern and Southern Europe did relatively well on participatory attitudes and
views on good citizenship, Western Europe and Southern Europe scored higher on
social justice values. They moreover found large differences within each region:
while Poland did well on all four dimensions of citizenship competences, Estonia
had below average scores on these dimensions. These differences suggest that
educational programmes tailored to the strengths and weaknesses of a distinct
country or region are more effective than some uniform pan-European programme.
Yet, it is precisely the last-named programmes that are often adopted and promoted
(e.g. the Council of Europes Education for Democratic Citizenship programme).
Adding to the complexity is that civic competences may not only vary in
aggregate levels across time and space but also in how they are interrelated. I
illustrate this with an analysis of survey data from the 1999 IEA Civic Education
Study. This study collected data on the civic knowledge, skills and attitudes of 14
year olds in 28 countries with national samples of as many as 3000 students. I
correlated expected future political participation to a number of other concepts seen
as core civic virtues (institutional trust, patriotism, gender equality, ethnic
tolerance) in countries representing various regions in Europe (see Table 1).
Table 1. Correlations of expected future political participation with other civic virtues
Institutional
trust
Patriotism Gender
equality
Ethnic
tolerance
Denmark .13** -.03 .02 .14**
England .21** .02 .00 .06**
Germany .14** .05** -.02 .06**
Greece .09** -.14** -.12** -.09**
Slovakia .11** .02 .09** .01
** significant at the .01 level
NB: the correlations are based on samples between 2600 and 3500 respondents
Source: Survey data of the 1999 IEA Civic Education Study.

Results show that expected future political participation is positively correlated
with institutional trust across the board but is related differently to the other
concepts. While it is positively related to gender equality in Slovakia, it shows a
CIVIC COMPETENCES
55
negative link with gender equality in Greece. Similarly, while expected future
political participation goes together with ethnic tolerance in Denmark, England and
Germany, it is again in Greece that the two are negatively related. While
participation is positively linked to patriotism in Germany, it is unrelated to
patriotism in England and it is negatively related to patriotism once again in
Greece. More generally, the correlations between the concepts are not particularly
strong indicating that civic competences are a very loose collection of qualities and
certainly dont travel as a package as is suggested by some scholars (Rice &
Feldman, 1997, p. 1150). Of course the attitudes at age 14 are still quite volatile,
which means that it cannot be ruled out that civic competences form a more
coherent set of values when youngsters become adults. It is interesting, however, to
see that broadly the same pattern of correlations emerges when analysing data of
the 2009 International Civics and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS the
successor to Cived), which suggests a high degree of inter-generational stability in
how civic competences are interrelated.
1

The possible tension between some civic competences, their different strengths
across Europe and geographical variations in their interrelationships all have
serious policy implications. They suggest that it is next to impossible to develop a
teaching programme that benefits all civic competences equally. A programme, for
instance, that aims to foster political participation may well contribute to
institutional trust, but it is unlikely to affect gender attitudes much or ethnic
tolerance. Moreover, such a programme is likely to have differential side effects
across countries (positive ones in some; negative ones in others).
CIVIC COMPETENCES: RELEVANCE FOR DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL COHESION
Advocates of citizenship education often ignore the question whether the
promotion of civic competences is at all relevant as they deem it to be patently
obvious that democracy and social cohesion crucially depend on civic
competences. This particularly applies for the link with democracy, as is illustrated
by the aforementioned Education for Democratic Citizenship initiative of the
Council of Europe. To be sure, these advocates have good reasons to assume a link
with democracy given the theoretical case that can be made for it (as highlighted in
the first section) and the empirical support that several scholars have found for this
idea (e.g. Almond & Verba, 1963; Inglehart, 1990; Putnam, 1993). Inglehart
(1990) for instance found that countries with high average levels of political
efficacy, political trust and interpersonal trust have longer histories of stable
democratic rule than countries with low levels of these civic culture attitudes.
However, a close link between civic competences and democracy does not
necessarily imply that the former caused the latter. Indeed, some scholars have
argued that causality runs in the opposite direction: democracy shaping civic
competences rather than the other way around (e.g. Barry, 1978; Schmitter & Karl,
1991). They contend that the institution of democracy was the outcome of a power
struggle between interest groups and that its persistence has given rise to civic
attitudes and behaviour as rational, learned responses to the experience of living in
JANMAAT
56
a democracy. There would certainly not seem to be more empirical support for the
civic culture shaping democracy argument than for its counterpart. Testing a
number of civic attitudes and controlling for a number of macrosocial factors such
as economic development, income inequality and ethnic heterogeneity, Muller and
Seligson (1994), for instance, found that only support for gradual reform, as key
civic attitude, had a positive impact on democratic change. However, the strength
of this effect paled by comparison to that of income inequality. Moreover, while
having no effect on democratic change, interpersonal trust in its turn was
influenced by democratic tradition. The authors thus concluded that their findings
are not supportive of the thesis that civic culture attitudes are the principle or even
major cause of democracy (Muller & Seligson, 1994, p. 647). Obviously, if civic
competences are the product rather than the cause of democracy, and it cannot be
demonstrated that they have positive effects on other desirable outcomes either, it
can legitimately be asked why they should be promoted at all.
CIVIC COMPETENCES: THE IMPACT OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
Another problematic issue is the widespread assumption, particularly in policy
circles, that particular education programs help to enhance civic competences.
Proceeding from this assumption both international agencies and national
governments have advocated, adopted and expanded citizenship education
programs since the mid 1990s. However, the research literature is far from
conclusive about the effectiveness of citizenship education. Not only is there
disagreement about what kind of citizenship education would be most beneficial,
some scholars would argue that citizenship education hardly makes a difference at
all (e.g. Hagendoorn 1999). Complicating this diversity of opinions is the fact that
scholars are usually talking about different competences when assessing the impact
of citizenship education.
The impact of citizenship education (and education more generally) has broadly
been investigated with regards to three main civic competences (1) civic
knowledge and skills, (2) participation and the intention to participate, and (3)
ethnic tolerance and intercultural understanding. Scholars focussing on civic
knowledge and skills have disagreed on the kind of citizenship education that is
most effective. While some have argued that formal civics lessons (both in terms of
content and volume) greatly enhance the civic knowledge of disadvantaged groups
such as African Americans (Langton & Jennings, 1968) or civic knowledge in
general (Niemi & Junn, 1998), others have argued that civic knowledge and skills
can best be learned in environments stimulating discussion, interaction and
participation. Among the latter Torney-Purta (2002), for instance, found that an
open climate for classroom discussion on social and political issues and
participation in school parliaments showed strong positive relationships with civic
knowledge and skills in a study based on the 1999 CIVED data. Similarly, Hoskins
et al. (2011), making use of the same data, found that talking about politics and
societal matters with parents and friends positively impacted on civic knowledge
and skills in a variety of national contexts.
CIVIC COMPETENCES
57
Dialogue, interaction and learning by doing have certainly been advanced as the
main ways in which youngsters develop an intention and commitment to
participate. For the US, Kahne and Sporte (2008) for instance found that
volunteering, extra curricular activities, exposure to civic role models and open
debates were the best predictors of the intention to participate in the community. A
positive impact of volunteering on participation levels in later life was also found
in other US studies (Verba, Schlozman, & Bardy, 1995; Campbell, 2006). In
Britain too, participatory teaching styles and out of school participation have been
found to be positive predictors of a willingness to participate (Benton, 2008).
Finally, Hoskins et al. (2012) found that discussions about politics and societal
matters with parents, friends and teachers and participation in a school council
showed strong positive links with participatory attitudes across the board in five
very different European countries, which suggests that the positive effect of
dialogue and learning by doing on participation is universal.
However, there seems to be little evidence for the idea that specific education
programs can also help foster ethnic tolerance and intercultural understanding. As
Hagendoorn (1999, p. 5) wryly remarks: Although there is no empirical evidence
that education programmes on racial tolerance have been counterproductive, there
is no evidence that they have been especially effective either. Moreover, in spite of
such programmes data from the US shows that recently educated youth are no
more racially tolerant than their post-war peers.
Instead, most educational research on ethnic tolerance has examined the effects
of mixed schooling and of educational attainment in general. Based on the premise
of contact theory that frequent and intensive cross-cultural interaction among peers
on the basis of equality should enhance positive feelings towards the ethnic other
and diminish prejudice (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), most research
examining the impact of mixed schooling has indeed found a positive relation
between diversity on the one hand (which may be assumed to lead to more cross-
cultural contact) and intercultural understanding and tolerance on the other. Recent
studies in the US by Frankenberg et al. (2003) and Holme et al. (2005), for
instance, found that the experience of racially mixed schools left graduates with a
better understanding of different cultures and an increased sense of comfort in
interracial settings (ibid., p. 14). Research by Ellison and Powers (1994) and
Sigelman et al. (1996), moreover, shows that the tolerant attitudes and interracial
friendships developed in racially integrated schools persist into adulthood. Holme
et al. (2005) further claim that the daily experience of interracial schooling is much
more effective in this regard than multicultural curricula or student exchange
programs.
Studies in the United Kingdom have also found support for the contact
perspective. For instance, Bruegel (2006), investigating inter-ethnic friendships
among pupils of 12 primary schools in London and Birmingham, reaches
conclusions similar to Holme et al. In her view, the day-to-day contact between
children has far more chance of breaking down barriers between communities, than
school twinning and sporting encounters (ibid., p. 2), which supports the notion
JANMAAT
58
that it is through contact rather than specific programs that tolerance can be
enhanced.
Yet not all studies inspired by contact theory have found positive effects of
cross-cultural interaction. In a review study on the topic, Ray (1983), for instance,
found remarkable differences across English-speaking countries. While studies
conducted in America and Canada produced evidence in support of the notion that
inter-racial contact helps to break down stereotypes, the evidence from Britain and
Australia pointed in the reverse direction (contact with blacks leading to more
prejudice among whites). Similarly, Janmaat (2010, 2011) did not find a relation
between the ethnic diversity of classrooms and the ethnic tolerance levels of
individual pupils in England, controlling for many other individual- and classroom-
level conditions. Moreover, he found that in diverse classrooms the better ethnic
minority students performed on average in terms of civic knowledge and skills, the
lower the tolerance levels of their white classmates appeared to be. However, in
Germany and Sweden classroom diversity and ethnic tolerance were positively
related and no relation could be observed between the average performance of
ethnic minority students and the tolerance levels of their native classmates.
Janmaats results suggest that in environments where students experience
competition and rivalry diversity does not contribute to tolerance but actually
undermines it. Together with Rays findings they more broadly indicate that there
is not a standard formula for promoting ethnic tolerance that works everywhere
under any kind of condition.
Lastly, many studies have noted the strong link between educational attainment
and tolerance in the sense that more highly educated people express more tolerant
attitudes (Putnam, 2000; Emler & Frazer, 1999; Haegel, 1999). According to
Hagendoorn (1999), this positive effect is understandable as education may be
assumed to improve the knowledge and cognitive skills of people, allowing them to
grasp new phenomena, such as immigration, and not interpret them as
unpredictable and dangerous. Education further may be said to enhance tolerance
by transmitting ideas about desired states of the world (ibid., p. 2), in other
words by promoting certain norms and values the acceptance and positive
appreciation of immigrants being one of them. Thus, the shorter the period people
have been exposed to formal education (as expressed in a lower education levels),
the less they are able to make sense of changes in their environment and the less
they have been socialized in the value of tolerance and therefore the more
intolerant their attitudes are likely to be.
However, despite these sound theoretical reasons to expect a close link between
education and tolerance, the effect of educational attainment on tolerance has been
found to vary significantly across time and space (Green et al., 2006). In Italy, for
instance, this effect has been found to be remarkably small (Peri, 1999). Thus,
similar to the effect of diversity, the effect of educational attainment appears to be
highly context-specific. Moreover, at the societal level, there is no correlation
between education and tolerance (Green et al., 2006). In other words, societies with
high aggregate levels of education do not show higher mean levels of tolerance
than poorly educated societies. This implies that raising the education level of the
CIVIC COMPETENCES
59
population is not likely to be an effective strategy to enhance overall tolerance
levels.
In sum, there is not a single citizenship education program, nor any other aspect
of education, that benefits all civic competences simultaneously everywhere.
Interaction and learning through practice would seem to be effective strategies to
promote a commitment to participate but they do not necessarily contribute to
tolerance. Ethnic mixing and educational attainment are usually positively related
to tolerance but they do not show a positive effect in all contexts or under all
circumstances. Designers of citizenship education programs need to take these
limitations into account in developing programs intended to foster civic
competences.
A particularly striking omission in the body of research on education and civic
competences is the paucity of studies examining the effects of citizenship
education on disparities of civic competences. It may be argued that inequalities of
civic competences are at least as important for policy makers, particularly if they
coincide with ethnic and social divisions, as overall levels of civic competences. If
there are large gaps between ethnic and social groups in civic engagement,
tolerance and trust, and if these are expressed geographically as severely deprived
no go areas, social cohesion is likely to be as much at risk as under conditions of
low mean levels of civic competence. Examining disparities of civic competences
is all the more urgent in view of the increasing popularity of programs relying on
interaction and participation as means to promote civic competences. These new
teaching strategies may well exacerbate inequalities as they rely on pre-existing
knowledge and an intrinsic motivation to learn, qualities which youngsters of
deprived backgrounds are unlikely to have. They may thus only benefit youngsters
of middle and upper class backgrounds, who have grown up in families where
education and the acquisition of knowledge is valued. In addition, the voluntary
nature of interaction and participation means that youngsters of deprived
backgrounds can easily opt out and thus not acquire the competences that come
with these strategies. In this regard, traditional teaching and assessment styles,
relying on mild forms of coercion and imposing a uniform pace and body of
knowledge on students, may well be more effective in fostering civic competences
among this group. Perhaps it is the politically incorrect nature of such forms of
pedagogy that has discouraged researchers from exploring this intriguing
proposition.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ADVOCATES OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
How can the supporters of citizenship education address the four problems
discussed above? To begin with the problem of social relevance (i.e. the third
problem), there are two ways in which advocates of citizenship education could
seek to demonstrate the importance of civic competences. First, if their necessity
for the establishment and preservation of democracy cannot be demonstrated,
advocates could explore whether they are essential for enhancing other desirable
macro-social outcomes, such as social cohesion or economic growth. Research has
JANMAAT
60
demonstrated that social capital, an important civic quality in some understandings
of civic competences, is strongly related to longevity (Kennedy et al., 1998),
economic growth (Knack & Keefer, 1997) and juridical efficiency (LaPorta et al.,
1997). Advocates of citizenship education could refer to this and other research
showing the functionality of civic competences.
However, rather than focussing on civic competences as a means to achieve
some other end to demonstrate their importance, it may well be equally productive
to argue that civic competences constitute a desirable social outcome in and of
themselves, just like democracy, social cohesion, prosperity etc. Given the
conceptual overlap with democracy and social cohesion, there is every reason to do
so (participation is considered an essential element of democracy in many
definitions of democracy, just as are trust, tolerance and participation are seen as
key components of social cohesion in many understandings of that concept). More
simply, it could be argued that a society composed of intolerant, distrustful and
disengaged people is not a very pleasant place to live in and that for this reason
alone civic competences need to be fostered.
The politically contested nature of civic competences, i.e. the first problem
discussed above, means that advocates of citizenship education have to be sensitive
to and open about the political agenda(s) behind citizenship education initiatives. A
critical analysis of who proposes a new programme, for what reasons, what
outcomes it is intended to achieve and in whose interests it is needs to accompany
any new initiative in the field of citizenship education. Indeed, it is difficult to
image how citizenship education can promote critical thinking skills if its architects
have not been trained in and applied this key civic virtue themselves.
Finally, regarding the second and fourth problem discussed above, advocates of
citizenship education should abandon the assumption that a single citizenship
education program can foster all civic competences simultaneously and is equally
effective in all geographical contexts. Citizenship education needs to be tailored to
local needs, which vary from context to context. To do so, advocates of citizenship
education would do well to first make an inventory of civic competences and their
interrelations for each context and then develop a citizenship education program
targeting the competences found wanting in this inventory. Such a program needs
to take local conditions impinging on efforts to foster civic competences into
account. In any case, it should not be assumed that good practices tried and tested
elsewhere will be equally effective in ones own country. In addition to fostering
overall levels of civic competence, advocates of citizenship education should aim
to diminish disparities of civic competences across social and ethnic groups.

NOTES
1
The results of these analyses can be obtained from the author.

CIVIC COMPETENCES
61

REFERENCES
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Barry, B. (1978). Sociologists, economists and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bellah, R., Madon, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swindler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Benton, T., Cleaver, E., Featherstone, G., Kerr, D., Lopes J., & Whitby, K. (2008). Citizenship
Education Longitudinal Study (CELS): Sixth annual report young peoples civic participation in and
beyond school: Attitudes, intentions and influences. London: DCSF.
Bruegel, I. (2006). Social capital, diversity and education policy. Paper prepared for Families and
Social Capital ESRC Research Group, http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/families/-publications/
SCDiversityEdu28.8.06.pdf, accessed on 3 June 2008.
Campbell, D. (2006). What is educations impact on civic and social engagement? In R. Desjardins & T.
Schuller (Eds.), Measuring the effects of education on health and civic engagement, Proceedings of
the Copenhagen Symposium. Paris: CERI, OECD.
Council of Europe (2011a). Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights
Education, http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?-action=ajoutepdf&idaction=2552&valueaction
=101548&quantite=1& PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=2552.
Council of Europe (2011b). Education for Democratic Citizenship. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/
edc/.
Crozier, M., Huntington, S., & Watanuki, J. (1975). The crisis of democracy. New York: New York
University Press.
Eurydice (2005). Citizenship education at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.
Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among black
Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 75(2), 385-400.
Emler, N., & Frazer, E. (1999). Politics: The education effect. Oxford Review of Education, 25(1-2),
271-272.
Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (2003). A multiracial society with segregated schools: Are we
losing the dream? The Civil Rights Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Galston, W. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement and civic education. Annual Review of
Political Science, 4, 217-234.
Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Green, A., Preston, J., & Janmaat, J. G. (2006). Education, equality and social cohesion: A comparative
analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haegel, F. (1999). The effect of education on the expression of negative views towards immigrants in
France: The influence of the republican model put to the test. In L. Hagendoorn & S. Nekuee (Eds.),
Education and racism: A cross-national inventory of positive effects of education on racial tolerance
(pp. 33-46). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hagendoorn, L. (1999). Introduction: A model of the effects of education on prejudice and racism. In L.
Hagendoorn & S. Nekuee (Eds.), Education and racism: A cross-national inventory of positive
effects of education on racial tolerance (pp. 1-20). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Holme, J., Wells, A., & Revilla, A. (2005). Learning through experience: What graduates gained by
attending desegregated high schools. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38(1), 14-25.
Hoskins, B., & Crick, R. D. (2008). Learning to learn and civic competences: Different currencies or
two sides of the same coin? Luxembourg: European Communities.
Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., van Nijlen, D., & Barber, C. (2008). Measuring civic competence in Europe:
A composite indicator based on the IEA civic education study 1999 for 14 years old in school.
Luxembourg: European Communities.


JANMAAT
62

Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J. G., & Villalba, E. (2012). Learning citizenship through social participation
outside and inside school: An international, multilevel study of young peoples learning of
citizenship. British Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 419-446.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial societies. Princeton: Princeton Universit Press.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human
development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackman, R. W., & Miller, R. A. (2005). Before norms. Institutions and civic culture. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Janmaat, J. G. (2006). Civic culture in Western and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Sociology/
Archives Europennes de Sociologie, 47, 363-393.
Janmaat, J. G. (2008). The civic attitudes of ethnic minority youth and the impact of citizenship
education. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(1), 27-54.
Janmaat, J. G. (2010). Classroom diversity and its relation to tolerance, trust and participation in
England, Sweden and Germany. LLAKES Research Paper 4. Available at: http://www.llakes.org/
Home/llakes-research-papers.
Janmaat, J. G. (2011). Diversiteit in de klas: Kweekvijver voor verdraagzaamheid onder alle
omstandigheden? Mens en Maatschappij.
Kahne, J., & Sporte, S. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on
students commitment of civic participation. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738-
766.
Kennedy, B., Kawachi, I., & Brainerd, E. (1998). The role of social capital in the Russian mortality
crisis. World Development, 26(11), 2029-2043.
Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country
investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXII, 1251-1288.
Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Langton, K. P., & Jennings, M. K. (1968). Political socialisation in the high school civic curriculum in
the United States. American Political Science Review, 62, 852-867.
LaPorta, R., Lopez de Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). Trust in large organizations.
American Economic Review, 87, 333-338.
Lichterman, P. (1996). The search for political community: American activists reinventing commitment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muller, E. N., & Seligson, M. A. (1994). Civic culture and democracy: The question of causal
relationships. The American Political Science Review, 88(3), 635-652.
Niemi, R., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. Yale: Yale University Press.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of inter-group contact theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
Peri, P. (1999). Education and prejudice against immigrants. In L. Hagendoorn & S. Nekuee (Eds.),
Education and racism: A cross-national inventory of positive effects of education on racial tolerance
(pp. 21-32). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Ray, J. J. (1983). Racial attitudes and the contact hypothesis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 3-
10.
Rice, T. W., & Feldman, J. L. (1997). Civic culture and democracy from Europe to America. The
Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1143-1172.
Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is and is not. Journal of Democracy, 2, 75-
88.

CIVIC COMPETENCES
63

Sigelman, L., Bledsoe, T., Welch, S., & Combs, M. W. (1996). Making contact? Black-white social
interaction in an urban setting. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1306-1332.
Torney-Purta, J. (2002). Patterns in the civic knowledge, engagement, and attitudes of European
adolescents: The IEA civic education study. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 129-141.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American
Politics. London, Harvard University Press.
M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 6576.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
DIRK LANGE AND HOLGER ONKEN
6. POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION, CIVIC
CONSCIOUSNESS AND POLITICAL INTEREST OF
YOUNG ADULTS
Empirical Evidence from Germany and Some Theoretical Implications
INTRODUCTION
Little is known about the outcome of political socialization processes among
youths and young adults of the age between 17 and 24 in Germany. Our central
aim is to identify which individual social conditions lead to a certain degree of
interest in politics and satisfaction with democracy. A survey conducted by the
Universities of Oldenburg and Hannover among young adults regarding their
political attitudes is the core data base for this analysis.
Political socialization is a learning process in which individuals acquire their
social identity, personal habits, values, knowledge and capabilities. These
characteristics structure the individual civic consciousness and the political
attitudes of young people (Greiffenhagen, 2002, p. 408). The intergenerational
transfer of political values, political orientation and political interest varies under
different political and social circumstances as well as under different and changing
possibilities of gaining information through the media. However, the major
importance of the transitional period between youth and adulthood remains
constant for political socialization.
There are two perspectives for the analysis of political socialization, each with a
general question. The first question aims at the results of political socialization:
what are the materialized outcomes of such processes (e.g. the measured individual
interest in politics, support for the political system, party affiliation)? The second
question asks for the reasons of such appearances: Which societal or political
circumstances and individual living conditions lead to certain political attitudes?
This article analyses the subject in three steps: This introduction is followed by a
summary of the research design, where the sample and the operationalization of
parameters are outlined. In the second part evidence from other empirical German
youth studies will be presented in the context of our research. The third and main
part of the article presents results from our sample regarding three issues: the first
is concerned with the interest in politics, the second is focussing on the confidence
in democracy of those polled, and the third paragraph deals with the gathering of
political information by young adults. All three sections are concerned with the
question which social and political conditions lead to certain political attitudes or
LANGE & ONKEN
66
political behaviour. This aspect is especially interesting regarding civic education.
The contribution ends with the attempt to generalize conclusions.
SAMPLE AND OPERATIONALIZATION
The empirical basis of this chapter is a sample of some 1200 people between 17
and 24 from Lower Saxony in North-western Germany. It has been conducted in
eleven different high schools and vocational schools. The survey has been carried
out by questionnaire in October and November 2009, and took place just after a
German federal election.
Two classical approaches are used in this empirical analysis. The first one, a
sociological approach, broadly known as the Columbia School, studies the
connection between individual objective social characteristics (such as income,
religious denomination, educational achievement etc.) and political attitudes. The
authors following this concept came to the often cited conclusion that a person
thinks politically as he is socially (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944, p. 27).
The second model, based on a social psychological approach, frequently called the
Michigan School, derives political attitudes and behaviour indirectly: Individual
attitudes depend on the subjective interpretation of social characteristics and the
socio-political environment (Campbell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954). Both models have
been deployed in many electoral studies and related research fields in various
variants, but their core is widely unchanged to the present day.
The independent variables of this study can be distinguished between a
sociological and a social psychological approach. From the sociological
perspective the youngsters surveyed have been divided into two groups regarding
education, (a) those who aspire a high-level formal education (a high school
diploma, permitting access to university), and (b) those who aspire a medium-level
formal educational degree (a professional qualification without academic
requirement). 54.5% of our survey aspire a medium, 45.5% a high educational
qualification. Two additional sociological aspects have been inquired: vocational
background of the parents and household income.
Three more items of the study are social psychological: First, those polled have
been asked for a self-positioning within the social stratification. Secondly,
satisfaction with the way democracy works in Germany. The third item consists of
two questions, both of them asking for future expectations. One question asked
individual future expectations in general, the other for personal career expectations.
For both questions a five-point scale has been used, ranging from 1 indicating the
most positive expectations to 5 indicating the most negative expectations.
Summing up this grading we assigned the following Index values:
2 to 5 denote positive expectations,
6 to 10 indicate negative expectations.
A vast majority of those interviewed (63.5%) had positive expectations, only
36.5% held negative expectations.
Apart from confidence in democracy, the central dependent variable of this
investigation is young adults degree of interest in politics. Political interest of
POLITICAL INTEREST OF YOUNG ADULTS
67
youths and young adults is an important factor for a positive attitude towards the
democratic political system and for civic involvement (Reinhardt 2005: 39). A
minimum of attention to political questions, i.e. political interest, is necessary for a
learning process regarding political developments. Thus a minimum of attention
can lead to a self-reinforcing process.
For the political interest an index based on three questions has been developed.
The three items were general interest in politics, those polled were asked how close
they followed the election campaign for the German general election in 2009, and
how well they estimate their knowledge to be about the German political
institutions. This approach presumes a positive correlation between a wide ranging
political knowledge, high attention towards political campaigns and political
interest among the respondents (Ingrisch, 1997, p. 164). All three questions also
had a 5-point scale, with 1 indicating the questioned person is not interested in
politics to 5, indicating strong interest in politics.
Index value 3 to 7: low interest in politics
Index value 8 to 11: moderate interest in politics
Index value 12 to 15: strong interest in politics
The distribution of answers in our sample comes close to a normal distribution:
20.6% low interest in politics
61.1% moderate interest in politics
18.3% strong interest in politics.
NATIONWIDE POLITICAL ATTITUDES AND POLITICAL INSTEREST
AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE
In the Shell youth studies, conducted by the German youth institute (Deutsches
Jugendinstitut, DJI), the young generation is asked regularly, how important
politics is for them personally. The general picture shows that, compared to other
spheres of life, politics does not play a major role in the life of most youths and
young adults, (Gille, Kleinert, & Ott, 1995, p. 47; Gille, 2000, p. 177). During this
life period partnership, vocational qualifications and the process of gaining
independence from home are in the focus of attention. In 1992 34% of those
interviewed held that politics is important for them personally. In the following
survey waves the percentage went up to 41% in 1997 and 43% in 2002 (Gille,
2006, p. 201).
The numbers of young people who are interested in politics differ from those
for whom politics is of personal importance. 20.6% of those polled in 1992 in the
western states of Germany (the old Federal Republic of Germany before 1990)
stated a strong interest in politics, 40.6% showed a moderate and 38.6% a low
interest in politics. There was little difference compared with the new eastern
states of Germany (located in the territory of the German Democratic Republic)
(Schneider, 1995, p. 279). This changed in 1997 survey, when 25% of the young
people in West Germany indicated a strong interest in politics, but only 17% of
those in East Germany (Gille, Krger, & de Rijke, 2000, p. 211). In 2003 there
LANGE & ONKEN
68
were only 20% of youths and young adults with a strong political interest
nationwide (Gaiser & de Rijke, 2006, p. 255).
In a different survey the sample was divided into two subgroups, persons
interested in politics and those not interested. Over the last two decades there was a
sharp nationwide decline in the number of political interested youths. In 1992, 57%
of the sample indicated they were interested in politics, in 2002 that number shrank
to 34%; in the following surveys, conducted in 2006 (39%) and 2010 (40%) the
number showed a marginal increase (Schneekloth, 2010, p. 130).
Further results indicated that social status determines the degree of political
interest. The correlation shows that, the lower the social status, the lower the
relevance of politics for the individual. Social aspects of the parents home
(educational degree, job situation, household income, housing situation) were
summarized in different social classes. The composition of the sample showed that
10% of those surveyed belonged to the underclass, 24% to the lower middle class,
30% to the middle class, 22% to the upper middle class and 14% to the upper class.
In 2010 only 16% the share of young people belonging to the underclass, were
interested in politics. Among those of the lower middle class the share was 26%.
Among youths assigned to the middle class 36% were interested in politics.
Significantly higher results were recorded for the upper middle class (48%) and the
upper class with 51% (Schneekloth, 2010, p. 130).
Another notable aspect from the German youth studies is the trend of politically
interested individuals among different social classes. The numbers show a
widening gap since 2002. While the shares of politically interested persons within
the underclass and the lower middle class stagnated, the shares within the upper
middle class and the upper class increased: from 34% to 48% respectively from
43% to 51%.
POLITICAL INTEREST, ATTITUDES AND SOICIAL CONTEXT:
RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY
This section begins with a discussion of social background as determinant for
the degree of interest in politics, continues with the link between individual
expectations for future, political interest and the confidence of young Germans
in their democracy, and closes with an analysis of the youths information
behaviour.
POLITICAL INTEREST AND SOCIAL CONTEXT
In our survey we used a subjective approach to ascribed social status. Table 1
shows that there is little impact of the subjective social status on the degree of the
individual interest in politics. The deviation of the three groups from the overall
result is very slight.


POLITICAL INTEREST OF YOUNG ADULTS
69
Table 1. Subjective social status and political interest
Overall
result
Low political
interest

Medium
political
interest
Strong political
interest

Underclass*/ lower
middle class
13.7% 15.1% 13.7% 13.5%

Middle class 58.1% 58.1% 57.9%

56.0%

Upper middle class/
Upper class*
28.2% 26.8% 28.5% 30.5%
n = 924; * Cases belonging to the categories underclass respectively upper class have been
added to the category lower middle class respectively upper middle class, due to a small
number of cases.

A similar picture emerges when we take a look at the vocational background of
the parents. A noticeable exception is the underrepresentation of children coming
from households of public servants in the low interest group.

Table 2. Vocational background of parental home and interest in politics
Household occupation Overall
result
Low political
interest

Medium
political
interest
Strong
political
interest

Blue-collar household 28.0% 29.2% 26.9% 29.0%
Self-employed / business
owner
20.7% 20.8% 22.1% 18.8%
Public servant 16.1% 12.5% 16.2% 18.8%
White-collar 33.2% 34.4% 33.4% 31.7%
Others * 1.9% 3.1% 1.4% 1.6%
n= 965; * mostly dependent on social benefits

Another interesting aspect is the distribution of those assessing their parental
household as blue-collar. This subgroup is underrepresented among the medium-
interested, but slightly overrepresented among those dedicated to the two fringe
groups. The young generation from business owner families tends to be
overrepresented in the group with medium interest and underrepresented among
those with low interest and the strongly interested. While youths from white-collar
households are overrepresented among persons with low interest in politics and
LANGE & ONKEN
70
underrepresented among those with a strong interest in politics. But all these
correlations are rather weak.
Table 3. Net household income and interest in politics
Net household income Overall
result
Low political
interest

Medium
political
Interest
Strong
political
interest

Less than 1000 6.2% 12.6% 5.2% 4.0%
1000 up to 1999 28.8% 31.1% 27.3% 26.5%
2000 up to 2999 31.2% 33.8% 30.1% 32.5%
3000 and more 33.8% 22.5% 37.4% 37.1%
n= 791
This is significantly different regarding the household income. There is a clear
link between a high household income and a strong interest in politics and vice
versa. Particularly striking is the overrepresentation of young people living in the
poorest households in the group of the least interested youths. Those from
households with less than 1000 euro income per month represent only 6.2% of the
sample, but 12.6% of the faction of politically low interested. The general result of
table 3 is the tendency that young people coming from a high income household
show a stronger political interest.
Overall the sociological variables have a higher explanatory value for the degree
of political interest than the social psychological variable. All three independent
variables show that a higher socioeconomic status tends to lead to stronger political
interest.
FUTURE PERSPECTIVES, TARGETED QUALIFICATION, POLITICAL
INTEREST AND SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY
Table 4 indicates a strong relationship between political interest and satisfaction
with democracy. This correlation is in line with the hypothesis that stronger
political interest leads to greater satisfaction with democracy (Reinhardt, 2005).
Particularly relevant is the group displaying low political interest. It is the only
group that shows a lower degree of satisfaction with democracy than the overall
survey result, on every single point of the scale. The proportion of youths with low
interest in politics among those who are not satisfied with democracy at all is with
13% more than twice as high as the survey average (5.3%).


POLITICAL INTEREST OF YOUNG ADULTS
71
Table 4. Political interest and satisfaction in democracy
Satisfaction
with
democracy
Overall
result
Low political
interest

Medium
political
interest
Strong
political
interest

1 not at all 5.3% 13.0% 3.7% 2.4%
2 20.8% 22.6% 20.4% 18.5%
3 45.2% 50.0% 44.2% 43.9%
4 23.8% 13.0% 26.4% 28.4%
5 very
satisfied
4.9% 1.4% 5.3% 6.8%
n= 1088

Before the impact of the aspired educational qualification and the subjective
future expectation of young people on political interest and satisfaction with
democracy is analysed, the question how strong household income and vocational
background of the family determines these variables, has to be investigated.
Table 5. Subjective future expectations, aspired educational achievement and
net household income
Subjective future
expectations
Aspired educational
achievement
Overall
result
Negative Positive Medium High
Less than 1000

6.2% 9.0% 4.6% 9.7% 2.3%
1000 up to
1999
28.8% 31.4% 26.3% 28.9% 26.3%
2000 up to
2999
31.2% 34.3% 30.9% 31.8% 31.5%
3000 and
more
33.8% 25.3% 38.3% 29.6% 39.9%
n= 745 respectively 772

The income of the household a young person lives in is an important factor for
their expectations concerning chances in life and educational and professional
career prospects. Young people living in high-income households, with 3000 and
more per month, are overrepresented in the group with positive future expectations
and among those targeting a high educational qualification. Vice versa, young
people from a low-income background are overrepresented in the group with rather
negative expectations. This is also the case among those aspire a non-academic
professional qualification.
LANGE & ONKEN
72
Table 6. Subjective future expectations, targeted educational achievement and vocational
background of parental household
Subjective future
expectations
Aspired educational
achievement
Overall
result
Negative Positive Medium High
Blue-collar household 28.0% 30.9% 25.1% 34.8% 19.6%
Self-employed/
business owner
20.7% 15.1% 24.6% 16.2% 26.0%
public servants 16.1% 17.5% 15.1% 10.6% 22.4%
White-collar 33.2% 34.4% 33.0% 37.0% 30.1%
Others* 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 1.4% 1.8%
n= 840 respectively 892; * mostly dependent on social benefits
With regard to political interest and satisfaction with democracy this
suggests, that important social characteristics have an influence on both, at
least indirectly. Corresponding to that, there seems to be a chain of causality:
higher social status demonstrated by vocational background and household
income lead to greater satisfaction with democracy and stronger interest in politics
through a higher education level and more positive expectations for life and vice
versa.
Finally, the question whether the objective education level or the subjective
future expectation has a larger impact on the dependent variables political interest
and satisfaction with democracy is explored.
Education matters more than future expectations for young peoples interest in
politics. Only 12.4% of young people targeting an academic degree show a low
interest in politics, compared to 27.4% of those without an academic degree. The
difference is not equally large for the subjective future expectations. Here only
16% of those with positive expectations show a low interest in politics, while
23.1% of the young with negative expectations do. However, on the other end of
the scale the difference is much smaller: the groups with positive expectations and
higher educational aspirations comprise with about 23% of those with strong
political interest.
Explaining satisfaction with democracy shows a similar result as the one
presented above. But in this case the subjective future expectations seem to be
more important than the aspired educational degree.




POLITICAL INTEREST OF YOUNG ADULTS
73
Table 7. Subjective future expectations, aspired education achievement and political interest
Subjective future
expectations
Aspired educational
achievement
Overall
result
Negative Positive Medium High
Low political
interest
20.6% 23.1% 16.0% 27.4% 12.4%
Medium political
interest
61.1% 63.1% 60.7% 59.3% 64.6%
Strong political
interest
18.3% 13.8% 23.3% 13.3% 23.0%
n= 960 respectively 1006
Table 8. Subjective future expectations, aspired educational achievement and
satisfaction with democracy
Subjective future
expectations
Aspired educational
achievement
Satisfaction with
democracy
Survey
result
Negative Positive Medium High
1 not at all 5.3% 7.9% 2.6% 6.4% 3.8%
2 20.8% 25.3% 18.2% 22.1% 20.1%
3 45.2% 44.4% 44.7% 47.3% 40.8%
4 23.8% 19.4% 28.5% 21.0% 28.3%
5 very satisfied 4.9% 2.9% 6.0% 3.3% 6.9%
n= 944 respectively 996

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR AND INTEREST IN POLITICS
This section is dealing with the link between political interest and information
behaviour of those polled in the survey. The results show the major importance of
the traditional media, television and newspapers. Particularly television is of
overwhelming importance for all three groups. The two most frequently mentioned
sources of information, television and newspapers are most frequently stated as
sources of information by those with a moderate interest in politics. This is also the
case for political discussions among family members.

LANGE & ONKEN
74
Table 9. Important sources for political information and political interest*
Overall
result
Low political
interest
Medium
political interest
Strong political
interest
Television 74.1% 73.2% 78.0% 66.0%
Newspapers 54.5% 43.1% 58.0% 56.6%
Internet pages 37.7% 21.8% 41.3% 48.1%
Civic education 28.8% 38.5% 27.0% 23.1%
Political discussions
with family
members
25.6% 21.8% 27.4% 24.1%
Political discussions
with friends
19.6% 14.2% 20.9% 23.1%
Internet-blogs 6.1% 3.3% 5.6% 10.8%
Other sources 3.2% 2.1% 3.2% 5.2%
n= 1054; * multiple answers were possible

Interestingly, young people with a strong political interest seem to have circles
of friends with whom they discuss about politics more often than the other
subgroups. On the other hand, youths with a low interest in politics mentioned
political discussions with friends comparatively less often as sources of
information.
In summary, there are several noticeable tendencies regarding information
behaviour:

Generally the traditional media (television, newspaper) are by far still more
important than the new media (Internet) as sources of information.
Sources requiring active searching for information with political content, such
as internet-blogs, internet-pages and to a lesser extend newspapers, are used
predominantly by the more politically interested individuals.
Civic education is an important source of political information for an above-
average number of young people with low interest in politics.
Discussions about politics in the personal area seem to have a minor impact, in
particular for those with low political interest.

The last of these points must be evaluated differently, after looking at the
connection between political interest and the frequency of discussions with
political content at home.


POLITICAL INTEREST OF YOUNG ADULTS
75
Table 10. Frequency of political discussions in parental homes
Frequency of
political
discussions
Overall
result
Low political
interest
Medium
political
interest
Strong
political
interest
1 never 7.7% 22.5% 3.5% 2.4%
2 26.6% 45.3% 24.1% 11.8%
3 33.8% 23.3% 39.2% 30.3%
4 24.5% 8.5% 27.6% 34.6%
5 very
frequently
7.4% 0.4% 5.6% 20.9%
n= 1140

The group that is strongly interested in politics has more discussions with
political content at home than the other two groups. Most of them discuss politics
with their parents frequently or very frequently. A large majority of those with low
political interest never or rarely discuss political issues at home.
CONCLUSION: OLD SOCIAL PATHWAYS IN FAMILIES AND
NEW MILIEU FRAGMENTATION
Most of the results show a fairly strong connection between important socio-
economic characteristics and political attitudes of young people. There is valid
evidence that both, social characteristics and political attitudes are still transferred
to a high extent from one generation to the next. This transfer, characterised as the
social milieu pathway 30 years ago (Dalton 1982), seems largely intact. What has
changed is the intra-generational condition for political socialization since then.
Social circles are less stable and more fragmented. Another important change is the
often unclear transition between education system and the labour market (De Grip,
Hoevenberg, & Willems, 1997, p. 49). As a consequence the expectations, habits
and attitudes of the young generation have changed. Generally the conditions for
political socialization have shifted to more and more fragmented personal and
public circles. However the outcome of political socialization processes is still
largely determined by individual socio-economic living conditions. It seems that
Lazarsfeld is still correct; a person tends to be politically what he is socially. What
has changed is the variety of social circumstances and political attitudes.
Nevertheless further conclusions will require longitudinal studies.
REFERENCES
Campbell, A. & Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and
Company.
Dalton, R. (1980). The pathways of parental socialization. American Politics Quarterly, 10, 139-157.
LANGE & ONKEN
76
De Grip, A., Hoevenberg, J., & Willems, E. (1997). Atypical employment in the European Union.
International Labour Review, 136(1), 49-71.
Gaiser, W., & de Rijke, J. (2006). Gesellschaftliche und politische Beteiligung. In M. Gille et al. (Eds.),
Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene in Deutschland. Lebensverhltnisse, Werte und gesellschaftliche
Beteiligung 12- bis 29-Jhriger (pp. 213-276). Wiesbaden: VS.
Gille, M. (2000). Werte, Rollenbilder und soziale Orientierung. In: M. Gille & W. Krger (Eds.),
Unzufriedene Demokraten. Politische Orientierungen der 16- bis 29jhrigen im vereinigten
Deutschland (pp. 143-203) Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Gille, M. (2006). Werte, Geschlechtsrollenorientierung und Lebensentwrfe. In M. Gille et al. (Eds.),
Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene in Deutschland. Lebensverhltnisse, Werte und gesellschaftliche
Beteiligung 12-29-jhriger (pp. 131-212). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Gille, M., Kleinert, C., & Ott, S. (1995). Lebensverhltnisse. In U. Hoffmann-Lange (Eds.), Jugend und
Demokratie in Deutschland (pp. 23-83). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Gille, M., Krger, W., & de Rijke, J. (2000). Politische Orientierungen. In M. Gille & W. Krger (Eds.),
Unzufriedene Demokraten. Politische Orientierungen der 16- bis 29jhrigen im vereinten
Deutschland (pp. 205-266). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Greiffenhagen, S. (2002). Politische Sozialisation. In M. Greiffenhagen & S. Greiffenhagen (Eds.),
Handwrterbuch zur politischen Kultur in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 408-418).
Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Ingrisch, M. (1997). Politisches Wissen, politisches Interesse und politische Handlungsbereitschaft bei
Jugendlichen aus den alten und neuen Bundeslndern: Eine Studie zum Einfluss von Medien und
anderen Sozialisationsbedingungen. Regensburg: Roderer.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The peoples choice. How the voter makes up his
mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Reinhardt, S. (2005). Politikdidaktik Praxishandbuch fr die Sekundarstufe I und II. Berlin:
Cornelsen.
Schneider, H. (1995). Politische Partizipation Zwischen Krise und Wandel. In U. Hoffmann-Lange
(Ed.), Jugend und Demokratie in Deutschland (pp. 275-335). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Schmid, C. (2004). Politisches Interesse von Jugendlichen: Eine Lngsschnittuntersuchung zum
Einfluss von Eltern, Gleichaltrigen, Massenmedien und Schulunterricht. Wiesbaden: Deutscher
Universitts-Verlag.
Schneekloth, U. (2010). Jugend und Politik: Aktuelle Entwicklungstrends und Perspektiven. In Shell
Deutschland (Ed.), Jugend 2010 (pp. 129-164). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.






PART II

CIVIC EDUCATION
APPLICATIONS AND
PROGRAMS
M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 7997.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
ANDREAS PETRIK

7. LEARNING HOW SOCIETY IS AND MIGHT AND
SHOULD BE ARRANGED
Necessity and Outcome of Interactive and Controversial
Teaching Strategies
FIVE KEY COMPETENCES WITHIN THE POLICY CYCLE
The primary purpose of civic education can be defined to develop the ability to
make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a
culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world (NCSS, 1992).
Or, as Joseph Adelson (1971) phrases it in his famous study the political
imagination of the young adolescent: The development of a political identity as
process of struggling to formulate a morally coherent view of how society is and
might and should be arranged. So we have to pursue two major tasks: First to
show the variety of political perspectives, as there is no objective, common shared
public good, especially in a culturally and sub-culturally diverse society. Second to
show that democratic values, principles and procedures are the best-known
political way of coping with, negotiating and coordinating ideological diversity
without making war.
What are the political or civic competencies going along with these tasks?
English-speaking countries mostly conceptualize strands of civic competency that
encompass civic-related knowledge, cognitive and participative skills as well as
values, attitudes and civic dispositions (see e.g. NCSS, 2010). The items that
concretize these strands are mostly familiar to the German discussion (see GPJE,
2004; Behrmann, Grammes, & Reinhardt, 2004). But there, we find a more
concrete approach to competencies by referring to the Swiss scholar Franz Weinert
(2001): He defines competencies as cognitive dispositions or skills required for the
mastery of demands in specific domains that go along with values, attitudes and
emotions. In other words: Competencies are cognitive tools to solve specific
problems in concretes situations. Therefore, to define and distinguish political or
civic competencies, we first have to consider typical situations related to the
resolution of social, economic and political problems.
The so-called policy cycle (Senesh, 1966) describes different stages of political
decision-making. In civic education a simplified version is used to model the four
stages conflict negotiation solution (remaining or new) conflict as ideal-
typical process of social problem-solving. The initial conflict is often times a social
problem like poverty, minority rights, immigration, economy crisis or climate
PETRIK
80
change. As all social problems lead to controversial ideas about their dimensions
and adequate solutions, the term conflict is more appropriate to mark the starting
point of political interaction. Each stage of the policy cycle needs specific
competencies to cope with its requirements.
What is the connection between those stages of social conflict resolution and
necessary competencies? To become aware of urgent social problems that dont
concern us directly we ought to take the perspectives of people from other social
classes, cultures, world regions and so on. Thus, perspective-taking becomes the
initial competency to get rid of a self-centered world-view, incenting us at least to
accept the necessity to look closer at the problem. At this point, analytical tools and
methods seem indispensable to reveal the conflicts causes and consequences.
Then, this new understanding leads us to debate different views about working
solutions. Here the interactive competency of arguing and compromising becomes
necessary. By analyzing and debating political conflicts, our prejudices get a
chance of being transformed into knowledge-based critical judgments. A critical
judgment shows the competency of weighing up underlying value systems and
typical consequences of controversial approaches. Having found our own well-
founded viewpoint, we are prepared and hopefully motivated to participate in the
process of problem solving and conflict resolution. Participatory skills describe the
individual and collective possibilities to interfere politically on a local, state or
international level, from community service up to the engagement in political
parties or (inter)national NGOs.
As a consequence, the five competencies we distinguish in the German
discussion (based on Behrmann, Grammes, & Reinhardt, 2004) can be ordered
with the policy cycle as shown in Figure 1 (see Petrik, 2010a).
The competencies may be defined as:
1. Perspective taking: Ability to perceive and recognize the existence of urgent
social, political, economical and ecological problems even without being
concerned through self-distancing
2. Analytical thinking: Ability to use social scientific categories, models and
methods to deeply understand the problem and resulting conflicts (causes and
impacts of the underlying problem, involved parties and their interests,
strategies and means of power to enforce their interests)
3. Conflict resolution: Ability to debate controversial claims and solutions for the
conflict by founding ones own claims, by accepting or refuting controversial
reasoning, by persuading and being persuaded and by compromising.
4. Critical judgment: Ability to develop a personal value system as political
identity by distinguishing and weighing up different ideological orientations.
5. Participation: Ability to participate in the implementation of political solutions
or in the setting of a new agenda through public activities and mobilizing.
Participation is often times a reaction to political decisions by those who are
negatively affected by the decision this is what causes the cyclical character
of politics.

LEARNING HOW SOCIETY IS AND MIGHT AND SHOULD BE ARRANGED
81

Figure 1. Five key competencies for active citizenship (Petrik, 2010a)
Since skills or competencies are defined as cognitive tools to manage concrete
and challenging situations, knowledge, values, attitudes and dispositions are not to
be considered on the same level. They outline necessary dimensions or sub-
competencies. To bring some order in endless lists of skills, values, attitudes and
dispositions, we need to cluster them according to the five competencies above.
We have to ask: Which knowledge is needed to analyze or judge a political event,
which is needed to participate in an effective manner? Which values and
dispositions go along with non-violent conflict resolution? Especially in order to
measure competencies empirically, we need this concentration to a few and concise
competencies.

POLITICAL
CONFLICT
1. Perspective taking
Perception and recognition of
urgent social problems through
self-distancing
2. Analytical thinking
Using social scientific
methods to understand
the conflict
NEGOTIATION
3. Conflict resolution
Debating of controversial
claims and solutions for the
conflict; arguing and
compromising
SOLUTION
4. Critical judgment
Reasoned decision by
weighing up controversial
value systems
5. Participation
Implementation of political
solutions or agenda setting
through public activities
and mobilizing
PETRIK
82










C
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
i
e
s

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

t
a
k
i
n
g

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g

C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n

S
k
i
l
l
s

R
o
l
e
-
t
a
k
i
n
g
,

i
n
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

s
e
l
f
-
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
i
n
g
,

d
i
s
p
l
a
y

s
o
l
i
d
a
r
i
t
y

a
n
d

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

i
n

s
o
l
v
i
n
g

(
f
o
r
e
i
g
n
)

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,

i
n
t
e
r
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
l
y

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
,

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

&

c
r
i
t
i
q
u
e

o
f

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

o
f

s
o
c
i
a
l

s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

a
n
d

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

(
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
,

i
m
a
g
e
s
,

T
V
-
n
e
w
s
,

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

.
.
.
)

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

s
k
i
l
l
s
,

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

i
n

v
e
r
b
a
l

m
a
n
n
e
r

y
o
u
r

i
d
e
a
s

b
y

u
s
i
n
g

g
r
o
u
n
d
e
d

c
l
a
i
m
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

d
e
b
a
t
i
n
g
,

n
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g

D
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h

f
a
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

o
p
i
n
i
o
n
s
,

c
o
p
e

w
i
t
h

a
m
b
i
g
u
i
t
y
,

a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

o
n
e

s

o
w
n

(
o
r

a
n

o
p
p
o
s
e
d
)

o
p
i
n
i
o
n
,

g
i
v
e

a

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

w
r
i
t
t
e
n

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

A
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

m
o
n
i
t
o
r

a
n
d

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

v
o
t
i
n
g
.

A
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

b
u
i
l
d

c
o
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
o

c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
e

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

B
i
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

a
b
o
u
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

s
o
c
i
a
l

m
i
l
i
e
u
s
,

s
o
c
i
a
l

r
o
l
e
s
,

c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
,

c
a
u
s
e
s

o
f

v
a
l
u
e

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

&

s
o
c
i
a
l

c
h
a
n
g
e

K
e
y

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
,

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

&

l
e
g
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
,

k
e
y

e
v
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

i
s
s
u
e
s
,

h
i
s
t
o
r
y

&

c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e

A
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,

d
e
b
a
t
i
n
g

&

c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,

t
h
e
o
r
i
e
s

o
f

(
n
o
n
-
v
i
o
l
e
n
t
)

c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

v
a
l
u
e

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,

s
o
c
i
a
l

c
l
e
a
v
a
g
e
s
,

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

i
d
e
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
,

p
a
r
t
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
,

s
o
c
i
a
l

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

C
i
v
i
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,

p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

l
i
k
e

v
o
t
i
n
g
,

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
s
,

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

e
d
i
t
o
r

e
t
c
.

a
t

t
h
e

l
o
c
a
l
,

n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

&

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

l
e
v
e
l

V
a
l
u
e
s
/

A
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s

E
m
p
a
t
h
y
,

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
,

r
e
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
e
j
u
d
i
c
e
,

s
e
x
i
s
m
,

r
a
c
i
s
m

a
n
d

d
i
s
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

c
u
r
i
o
s
i
t
y
,

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

a
s

k
e
y

t
o

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
o
c
i
a
l

c
h
a
n
g
e
,

a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

r
u
l
e

o
f

l
a
w
,

d
e
m
o
c
r
a
t
i
c

p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s

&

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s

B
e
l
i
e
f

i
n

n
o
n
-
v
i
o
l
e
n
t

s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

t
o

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
,

o
p
e
n
n
e
s
s

t
o

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
e

a
n
d

t
o

s
e
l
f
-
c
r
i
t
i
q
u
e
,

d
e
f
e
n
s
e

o
f

o
n
e

s

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

a
d
v
e
r
s
a
r
y

s

r
i
g
h
t

o
f

f
r
e
e

s
p
e
e
c
h

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
,

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

o
n
e

s

o
w
n

v
a
l
u
e
s
,

s
e
e
i
n
g

c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

e
q
u
a
l

v
a
l
u
e

o
f

a
l
l

d
e
m
o
c
r
a
t
i
c

i
d
e
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

V
a
l
u
i
n
g

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
s

a
c
t
i
v
e

c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
,

f
e
e
l
i
n
g

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

a
n
d

c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t

f
o
r

y
o
u
r

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

D
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
a
k
e

u
n
k
n
o
w
n

f
o
r
e
i
g
n

p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

t
o

g
e
t

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

t
o

o
v
e
r
c
o
m
e

o
n
e

s

o
w
n

p
r
e
j
u
d
i
c
e
s

I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

t
o

r
e
s
o
l
v
e

c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s

i
n

a

p
e
a
c
e
f
u
l

m
a
n
n
e
r

I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

t
o

j
u
d
g
e

f
a
i
r
l
y

a
n
d

b
e
i
n
g

o
p
e
n

t
o

b
e
i
n
g

j
u
d
g
e
d

I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

t
o

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e

a
n
d

t
o

l
e
a
d

a

s
o
c
i
a
l
l
y

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

l
i
f
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

2
.

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
,

s
k
i
l
l
s
,

v
a
l
u
e
s

a
n
d

d
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

a
s

d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

c
i
v
i
c

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
i
e
s

LEARNING HOW SOCIETY IS AND MIGHT AND SHOULD BE ARRANGED
83
The skill-dimension in the table describes the core of a competency as a
concrete ability (see the definitions above). By adding knowledge to our five
competencies, we can more easily perceive gaps in our curriculums: The important
role of sociological and ethnological knowledge for perspective-taking becomes
visible. Likewise non-violent conflict resolution cannot be learned without
knowledge about argumentation patterns and conflict research. A differentiated
political judgment has to be based on knowledge about social and political
cleavages, participation is impossible without knowledge about civil rights and
duties (see also next chapter). The value- and attitude-dimension clarifies the
inseparable link between cognition and emotions: Perspective-taking requires and
strengthens empathy, analytical thinking curiosity, conflict resolution self-critique,
judgment tolerance and participation responsibility. Finally, the disposition-
dimension tells us about the chances for individuals to put a competency developed
at school or elsewhere into practice.
CORE CONCEPTS: FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS, IDEOLOGY GAP AND THE
POLITICAL COMPASS
Core concepts build the basic curriculum. They embody the necessary knowledge
for the five competencies. As the competency of value-based judgment remains
often times neglected in civic education (see e.g. Hess & Ganzler, 2007; Niemi &
Niemi, 2007), I will focus on social cleavages and democratic ideologies. The
following nine questions represent a core concept of civic learning as they raise
highly controversial topics that every society, government, political party and
social movement has to cope with. Moreover, each individual answers these
questions at least indirectly by his or her life style and lived values. Every
society and every social group has to cope with decision-making, conflict
resolution, the usage, allocation and redistribution of (natural) resources, with the
integration of foreigners and deviants, with motivation for achievement and
progress as well as with the maintenance or modification of traditions. The
following nine topics cover at the same the basic items used in questionnaires on
value change and democratization (see Welzel & Inglehart, 2009).
Nine fundamental controversial questions as core curriculum for civic
education:
1. Decision making & change: Which persons and agencies should be in charge of
decision-making, government? How should social change be organized?
2. Conflict resolution & security: How do we solve personal, educational, national
and international conflicts and breaches of the rules?
3. Common value base: What is the value base of our society? Which role should
religion play?
4. Inclusion & cultural identity: How should we include strangers and social
minorities in the mainstream culture?
5. Private life styles: How should politics influence private life styles, gender
relations and sexual behavior?
PETRIK
84
6. Property rights & economic leadership: What impact should the state have on
economy and property rights?
7. Resource allocation & redistribution: How should people get endowed with
resources?
8. Innovation & achievement: Which are the leading principles to motivate people
for innovation and achievement and how do they impact on the educational
system?
9. Ecology & economy: What role should the use of ecological resources play for
the economic system?

These questions help teachers to choose controversial topics that foster critical
judgment skills. But in civic education, political opinions are generally merely
asked for or remain superficial, non-committal statements that dont get analyzed
to foster identity development, perspective-taking and tolerance. Most civic
education programs emphasize value-neutral, objective thinking and analytical
skills. The international IEA Civic Education Study (see Torney-Purta et al., 1999)
focuses on basic characteristics of democratic societies, like the willingness to vote
and to participate, but also on democratic skills like tolerance, compromise and
cooperation. Attitudes are related to students trust in institutions, their country,
opportunities for immigrants, the political rights of women, and future prospect.
There we find indeed traces of political ideology, but they are neither
systematically asked for nor properly interpreted. A couple of classroom studies
reveal a lack of exposure to political partisanship and conflict (see Niemi & Niemi,
2007; Hess & Ganzler, 2007). This is what I call the ideology gap in Civic
Education (see Petrik, 2010c). Recent misconception research showed the crucial
role of belief systems to analyze and understand political facts (Nyhan & Reifler,
2010). The false belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, for example
remains resistant until today among conservative adherents of ex-president Bush.
False or unsubstantiated beliefs can even endure corrections, depending on
ideological orientations and partisan beliefs. A further study with US-American
college students in the field of political science reveals that the students efforts
highly depend on their perception of their professors political orientation (Kelly-
Woessner & Woessner, 2008).
The ideology gap can be filled by the use of the influential Kitschelt model of
political cleavages (see Kitschelt, 2003), distinguishing left-libertarian, market-
liberal, democratic-socialist and conservative answers to the nine fundamental
questions I listed above. Kitschelt developed his model to classify Eastern
Europeans new democratic party programs after the decline of Stalinist
communism. Those four orientations are broadly considered as basic political
ideologies at least in all Western democracies shaping individual value-systems,
social movements and political parties. Kitschelts coordinate system can be seen
as a renewal of Karl Mannheim's (1936) classical model of utopian and ideological
thinking published in 1929. From a perspective of Sociology of Knowledge he
identified the same four historical ideal types of political consciousness. Hence, the
coordi
horizo
The
each s
resour
actors,
questio
and the
collect

F
commu
define
to vo
describ
and eq
that ex
should
The
which
Kitsch
LEAR
inate system,
on of possible p
e horizon of p
society has to
rce allocation
, power and d
ons I raised ab
e consumption
tive agency (t
Figure 3. The po
unes, in the le
d as the view
oluntary comp
bes the idea th
qual participat
xisting hierarc
d be followed t
ere are a c
are, after
helts version:
RNING HOW SO
shown in Fig
political thoug
political judgm
take position
and the proce
decision-makin
bove. The left
n of (ecologic
the state, in a
olitical compass
eft-libertarian
that economy
peting indivi
hat personal (c
tion should be
chies and dom
to guarantee a
couple of re
all, scient
The Smalle
OCIETY IS AND
gure 3, based
ght in an ideal
ment is charact
n on: the distri
edural, commu
ng. Both dime
t equality-po
al) resources s
a democratic
s as horizon of p
or anarchist t
y and ecology
iduals and o
cultural, sexua
e maximized.
minant religiou
a stable society
esembling co
tifically less
est Political Q
D MIGHT AND S
on Kitschelts
l-typically way
terized by two
ibutive or eco
unitarian or so
ensions compr
ole is defined
should be regu
socialist trad
political judgm
tradition). The
should be left
organizations.
al etc.) freedom
Authority i
us or secular
y.
ordinate syst
correct an
Quiz (www.
SHOULD BE ARR
s model comp
y.
o major cleav
onomic cleava
ocio-cultural o
rise the 9 fun
as the view th
ulated by a coo
dition or a ne
ment (Petrik, 201
e right liberty
ft to the marke
Self-determ
m as well as v
is defined as t
traditions and
tems and co
nd appropria
.theadvocates.
RANGED
85
prises the
vages that
age about
one about
damental
hat assets
operative
etwork of

10c)
y-pole is
et system,
mination
voluntary
the belief
d leaders
ompasses
ate than
org), the
PETRIK
86
Political Compass (http://politicalcompass.org), the Electoral Compass
(www.electoralcompass.com) and the Moral Matrix (www.moral-politics.com).
Following Kitschelt, the four poles of the coordinate system refer to ultimate
political values. As the terms equality and liberty are used in many different
ways, the supplements social and economic seem necessary. Second, the terms
politically driven versus market-driven economy should be added to make
clear that the economic conflict is not only about redistribution but also about the
role of the state to foster an ecological or a growth-oriented economic system. Self-
determination is the logical opposite of authority in the sense of heteronomy. Self-
determination can be a collective choice so the term Individualism isnt
appropriate. Second, the term authority is compatible with democracy whereas
the term totalitarianism (that some compasses use) isnt. The concepts of self-
determination and authority cover at the same time antithetical decentralized and
hierarchical political systems, and opposed emancipative and traditional socio-
cultural norms of everyday life.
The anarchist or left-libertarian idea represents a historical source of modern
anti-authoritarian, socially just, post-materialist, feminist, multicultural, anti-
militarist and ecological grassroots politics. This concept of a strong democracy
envisions neighborhood assemblies, national initiatives and referendums on
congressional legislation, experiments in workplace democracy, and public
institutions as models for economic alternatives. In contrast to Benjamin Barbers
(1984, pp. 68ff., 98ff.) misinterpretation, the basic anarchist idea based on
Proudhon doesn't mean anti-politics but instead order without leadership. At
the same time Barbers use of the term can be understood as the undemocratic
extreme of left-libertarian thought: It can become purely hedonistic, conflict-
denying, generating chaos and isolation through individual self-sufficiency
whenever self-determination is detached from equality and collective
responsibility.
Democratic socialism consists of the idea that global and national deregulation
as well as an increasing social inequality can only be overcome by a strong
government, which would set new rules to control, reduce and occasionally
expropriate big business, in order to redistribute incomes and to supply social
welfare and at least a minimal income for every citizen. Enlightenment against
traditional religious and other prejudices is seen as the central instrument to
abolish injustice and exploitation. Other than in Stalinist communism, regulations
are conducted by a democratic government within the legal frame of the
constitution.
The liberal idea of the invisible hand is a free market system that guarantees
common wealth by competition without major state invention. The truly
understood liberalism doesn't distinguish between economic and personal freedom.
Private life style, sexual or religious orientations should never become subject to
political intervention unless it is used to harm somebody. Private property and
economic growth are the major sources of social, cultural and economic
development. Pushed forward to its extreme we would get a Manchester-
LEARNING HOW SOCIETY IS AND MIGHT AND SHOULD BE ARRANGED
87
Liberalism as pure capitalist market system without any social protection, a system
automatically excluding many people from political participation.
The conservative idea is strongly rooted in Hobbes view of Homo homini lupus
(man is a wolf to [his fellow] man). People need strong directives by traditional
authorities to establish a peaceful, stable and well-ordered society. The government
should at the same time protect individual property rights as well as control
individual behavior in public and private life. Important moral values are supported
and represented by religious authorities. The natural human inequality and
destructive urges need a hierarchical order, in order to maintain justice and safety.
National Socialism and Fascism represent an extreme form of a socially unequal,
hierarchical and nationalist society.
Kitschelt (2003) mentions the linguistic convention to label the libertarian-
authoritarian cleavage also left-right conflict, but he sticks to the convention to
reserve the two terms to the economic dimension. I for myself consider two
dimensions of left and right. Nevertheless, I will continue, for practical reasons,
like Kitschelt does, to talk about left-libertarian and right-authoritarian orientations
etc. Thus, these adjectives clearly distinguish both dimensions.
On the basis of the nine fundamental questions raised above we can now specify
the ultimate values of the political compass. The following version opens up the
landscape of political controversy within democratic societies. The grey fields
represent the corporate values of two adjacent ideologies while on the contrary the
white ones refer mainly to one ideology that typically fills one quadrant (see Figure
4). This political map allows us at the same time to consider the possibilities of
coalitions and the contrasts between two ideologies sharing one ultimate value like
authority, social equality, economic liberty or self-determination. It represents the
important value-bricks of political ideology.
TEACHING STRATEGIES: GENETIC METHOD AND THE
FOUND-AVILLAGE SIMULATION
The IEA study considered only 25 per cent of students across all countries were
often encouraged to state their own point of view. While in theory many teachers
favor critical thinking and values development, in practice they mostly deliver
factual information using textbooks, worksheets and teacher talk (Torney-Purta et
al., 2001). So there seems to be a methodical lack of action-orientated and
interactive methods. Though, participation or civic engagement cannot only be
taught through learning by doing, it needs analytical and negotiation skills as
well to become aware of the necessity to participate and to be able to act tolerantly
and to empower ones own position at the same time. So we can distinguish three
modes of strategies, which should be used equally:

1. Analytical methods: e.g. case studies, (simplified) quantitative surveys or
qualitative interviews etc., scenario planning technique, reading of social
science literature

PETRIK
88

Figure 4. The core curriculum of controversial distributive and sociocultural values

2. Simulative methods: e.g. institutional simulations (e.g. Model United
Nations), social role games (e.g. family, peer or intercultural conflicts),
debating clubs, social experiments (e.g. Milgrams obedience to authority or
the Found-a-village project)
3. Political action methods: e.g. projects as political interventions (in Deweys
sense of the term), future workshops, service learning

All those methods are grounded by learning principles: they are problem-oriented,
conflict-oriented, action-based or genetic (in the sense of discovery-orientated) etc.
Those principles lead to distinct learning phases in the civic education classroom
(see also Sibylle Reinhardts chapter in this book). According to my own
experience, simulative methods should get a key role in civic education as they are
able to bridge personal experiences and the abstract and barely accessible world of
political institutions. On a methodological level, role games, social experiments
and institutional simulations also reveal the crucial role of the social scientific
methods to understand society, value building and social change. Simulations
mostly involve students into activities they wouldnt or couldnt do in real life. I
would like to introduce my Found-a-village-simulation as an example for a
social experiment-strategy especially designed to fill the ideology gap.
LEARNING HOW SOCIETY IS AND MIGHT AND SHOULD BE ARRANGED
89
The village-project (Petrik, 2007, 2010b, c)
i
simulates the migration of a whole
class to a deserted and isolated mountain village in the French Pyrenees in order to
found a new (micro-)society. Hence, the project follows the idea of the genetic
method, allowing students to study social issues in their process of formation
(Dewey, 1966; Wagenschein, 1991; for English translations, see Westbury, 2000
and http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/mw/index.htm). Therefore, the village re-
presents a point zero, a political vacuum provoking the students to fill it with
their own political, economical and cultural ideas. This starting point supports
students to discover their latent ideologies and the necessity of democratic rules
and institutions to coordinate controversial claims. Thus, the simulation can be
grouped within the tradition of island-scenarios or so-called Robinsonades.
Adelson (1971) asked adolescents to imagine a thousand people venture to an
island to form a new society. Through the village project, students can enhance
their perspective taking skills, conflict resolution skills, critical judgment skills and
participation skills. As we know from previous research in Germany, especially
political tolerance gets developed. To foster those competencies, the village-
scenario is based on interactive student-to-student debates and provides an
institutional scaffolding through traces of a traditional three-class structure, a
market place, a town hall, a prison and a church:


Figure 5. Scenario of the Found-a-Village-Simulation (Petrik, 2007, 2010b, c)
Act one: (Self-) Discovery Controversial Political Values & Democratic Rules
The students gather around for several town meetings to develop their own
economic, political and cultural system. Those meetings are mostly highly
controversial, inducing the students to establish basic debating rules. Some of the
fundamental issues such as decision-making and the distribution of incomes are
raised automatically, without the teacher having to introduce them. Later the

House 1
Former mayor &
big landowner
School & community
center with prison cell
House 5 & 6
Former farm workers
& shepherds
Barn
Workshop
Montrjeau 31 km
(6 km narrow path,
then country road)
Market
square

Cropland

House 2, 3 & 4
Former cheese dairy,
butcher & carpenter
PETRIK
90
teacher confronts the students with potential village situations that systematically
launch the nine fundamental issues (see above):

1. Government: Should we elect a strong leader to solve personal conflicts and our
economical crisis?
2. Conflict resolution: What should we do with a villager who stole 1000 out of
the common cash box?
3. Value base: Might we transform the church into a secular cultural center?
4. Inclusion: Should we accommodate four traditional Moslems from Tunisia?
5. Private life: Who should decide about a village girls request to have an
abortion?
6. Property rights: Do we accept an investors offer to buy one of the houses,
transforming it into a hotel, building a road out of the small path, a
parking on the market place, a telephone and internet line to attract more
tourists?
7. Redistribution: Should the whole village pay for the reparation of the
rotten roof of one of the houses?
8. Economic principles: Should villagers who are economically successful
by inventing new cultivation methods, computer games etc. pay a special
wealth tax?
9. Ecology: Do we want to invest in a wind powered generation and
ecological farming by neglecting other possible investments?
Act Two: Systematization From Values to Ideologies
Now the village inhabitants get to know the four founding fathers of market-
liberalism, conservatism, democratic socialism and anarchism (resp. left-
libertarianism, see above) Smith, Burke, Marx and Proudhon by original text
passages. The students engage in role-plays (how would a liberal, socialist etc.
village look like?) in order to learn to perform their different argumentation
patterns. Later they work on developing a political compass integrating the four
ideologies to compare it afterwards to Kitschelts coordinate system.
Act Three: Transfer From Ideologies to Current Political Debates
Finally, the villagers use a talkshow setting to discuss controversial political issues
following fundamental controversial issues like homosexual marriage, healthcare,
welfare, climate change and military interventions. First, by taking the four
ideologies' perspectives and second, by stating a personal viewpoint. So they pass
through a learning path from the discovery of their proper values to political
ideologies, orders and recent political issues.
LEARNING HOW SOCIETY IS AND MIGHT AND SHOULD BE ARRANGED
91
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ON LEARNER DEVELOPMENT BY
ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS
I am currently using the village scenario to do case studies on politicization types
as heuristics to deal with differently motivated political learning problems (see
Petrik, 2010b, 2011). A politicization type shows a typical argumentative and
conflict resolution behavior depending on his or her basic political value
orientation: An example might be latent conservative student who refuses to justify
her/his claims since he/she views them as natural or a latent left-libertarian
student who insults dissident villagers because of their unexpected opposition to
egalitarian policies.
To weigh up arguments is a genuine peaceful way of reification of conflicts by
finding common grounds and by creating mutual understanding, compromise or
consensus. Thus, argumentation analysis in the tradition of Toulmin is the genuine
method for needed studies on the development of students conceptual
knowledge and attitudes through discussions in the open classroom (Hahn, 2010,
p. 17). The basic parts of Toulmins model claim, warrant, ground, and backing
or premise can easily be used to re-describe assimilation and accommodation
processes of conceptual change in the tradition of Piaget (see Miller, 1987). A
simple claim shows an individuals assimilation to a certain point of view, inducing
individuals not to pay much attention to developing alternative ways of arguing.
This confirmatory bias and weak situational modeling of everyday
argumentation (Davies, 2009) can be perturbated (disturbed) by rebuttals,
provoking either changes of opinion or the search for a better and deeper judgment
as accommodation. When students are encouraged by the teacher or by their
classmates to look for evidence against their own ideas and to consider
alternative possibilities, they normally ameliorate their argumentation. This is also
the outcome of one of the few argumentation studies within the domain of Social
Studies (see Nussbaum, 2002).
Argumentation analysis can be assigned to reconstructive educational research
following the framework of the so-called Documentary Method (Bohnsack, 2010).
By analyzing narrative interviews, group discussions, pictures etc. researchers want
to reconstruct how social reality is produced in accordance to the actors
perspective. So we deal with a constructivist stance. The genesis or ongoing
negotiation and accomplishment of meaning gets examined by focusing on tacit
knowledge implied in practice.
My approach for a content-based gradation for political reasoning is based on
Lawrence Kohlbergs (1981) stages of moral development and the five-
competencies-model I outlined at the beginning of my article (Behrmann,
Grammes, & Reinhardt, 2004; see also Davis, 2009, for the field of business
studies and geography). In the following, I will outline my proposition of four
levels of argumentation that equally apply to critical judgment and conflict
resolution skills, which I see, according to my previous research, in a dialectical
relationship. The more students reflect on their own and conflicting value
orientations, the better they can argue with dissenters; the more they are open for
PETRIK
92
constructive conflict resolution, the faster they will be able to question and
elaborate their personal value system.
Private Level (1): The Unfounded Claim as Pre-political and Dissociating
Value-orientation
This level is defined by unfounded, only individually valid claims revealing a
mostly unreflecting, often deeply emotionally rooted value orientation. It remains
private, pre-political in so far as the speaker isnt willing or able (yet) to justify his
or her concern to others. This stage involves a peer-centered perspective of
dissociation with controversial opinions, leading either to the ignorance of existing
conflicts or to verbal attacks of dissidents. Though this stage is indispensable for
finding peer-membership and developing a political orientation, it mostly results in
unfounded dissents or verbal fights.
Public Level (2): Relevant Grounds as Basis for the Constructive Exchange of
Political Viewpoints
Using grounds with relevant warrants represents the base of political exchange,
because an individual statement gets plausibly connected to collectively accepted
insights. As to political judgment, a substantiated viewpoint is reached. Combined
with the openness to understand others stating their views a founded dissent can
be achieved. So we could distinguish between two public sublevels: the ability a)
to use relevant reasons to state ones own view, b) to reconstruct opposed reasons
of others.
Institutional Level (3): Reflection of Premises as Coordination of Conflicting
Claims
On the third level, ones own arguments and relevant counter-arguments get
examined for underlying premises. Those are mostly unstated basic assumptions or
backings as justifications of the justification. The first sublevel is the ability to
disclose and contrast ones own and opposing values and assumptions that underlie
the formal warrant, taking a wider viewpoint. Since hidden ideological structures
of the argumentation get considered, we can talk about a conceptual level of
judgment ability. The second sublevel represents the ability to coordinate
conflicting ideological concepts by rebuttal, compromise or consent. Here a
procedural or deliberative level is reached, implying the insight into the need to
find common principles and methods to establish common decisions. This
procedural orientation leads me to call this the institutional level, since democratic
institutions have mainly the task to peacefully negotiate and deliberate opposed
political concepts.
LEARNING HOW SOCIETY IS AND MIGHT AND SHOULD BE ARRANGED
93
Systemic Level (4): Meta-reflection as Emphatic Intellectual Perspective
This fourth level needs theoretical knowledge about ideologies and conflict
resolution. The highest level of political judgment can be described with Rortys
(1989) Liberal Ironist, a person able to combine the consciousness of the contin-
gency of their own ideology with the will to stand up for their values. The
tolerance of ambiguity coming along with this stance is the self-ironic distance to
oneself, necessary to stay open for liberal (in the sense of deliberative) dialogue.
Basic knowledge about typical political cleavages and possible coalitions of poli-
tical ideologies (see above) is indispensable for this intellectual level. On the other
hand, to be able to evaluate political discussions on this level, basic knowledge
about argumentation strategies (claim, ground, warrant, premise) is required.
Figure 6 summarizes the four levels of argumentation explained above both for
political judgment and for conflict resolution skills. The more elements of
Toulmins model are explicitly actualized in an individual political statement the
higher is his or her level of argumentation. At the same time, a low-level or
indistinct argumentation can be analyzed for underlying, not actualized parts like
hidden premises. Conflict resolution refers to the formal ability to contribute to
common solutions by coordination, political judgment shows the content-related
ability to weigh up different value systems and models of democratic organization.


Figure 6. A Toulmin-based model for the development of political judgment and conflict
resolution skills
1. Controversial claim
Individually valid statement
(Thesis, demand, conclusion,
attack)
2. Ground/Data
Collectively valid statement
(adequate, true or probable evi-
dence, rebuttal of counter-claims)
3. Premise (Backing, underlying assumptions, concepts & procedures)
Founding of the ground(s), political values & common principles
Warrant
Argument strategy
Subsumptive, functional,
exemplary, causal, analo-
gical, normative
Political judgment level 1:
Private dissociation
Bias, opinion, unreflecting
value-orientation
Political judgment level 2:
Public exchange
Substantiated political
viewpoint
Political judgment level 3:
Institutional perspective, coordination of conflicting claims, ideology
Procedure-oriented reflection of one s own and opposing value-systems
4. Meta-analysis as theoretical, systemic approach
Evaluation by means of social science-based knowledge
Conflict resolution level 2:
Founded dissent (tolerance)
Conflict resolution level 1:
Unfounded dissent (fight)
Conflict resolution level 3:
Negotiation & deliberation: compromise, consent or majority decision
Conflict resolution level 4:
Evaluation of the discussions failure & success by analyzing claims, grounds, warrants & premises
Political judgment level 4:
Intellectual perspective, Liberal ironist (self-criticism & political compassion)
Coordination of conflicting ideologies by using theoretical knowledge (e.g. cleavage-theory)
PETRIK
94
The method of argumentation analysis seems indeed to be an adequate way to
capture the dynamic formation process of political judgment and conflict resolution
abilities in interactive settings. Above all, the quality of argumentation can be
specified often against our first impression. Especially unstated or slightly
realized arguments can mislead us to devalue a students argumentation.
At the same time, our comprehension of pre-political, often times very
emotional claims can be strengthened: By analyzing latent premises we get closer
to students basic social values as fundamental parts of their identity formation. It
is important to clearly distinguish between our diagnosis of a formally incomplete
or implausible argumentation and our reconstruction of political emotions as latent
point of views. This is what I would call a synthesis between a deficit- and a
difference-oriented approach. The deficit-perspective is important for assisting
students to progress in their ability to convince others and to change their views
themselves in other words: to become democratic citizens. The difference-
perspective is important in so far as it enables teachers and scholars to recognize
the students very individual approaches to develop political orientation.
I will continue my research using the Found-a-Village-Project for case studies
to compare political argumentation patterns in different countries, starting with
(East) Germany, The United States and France. My first explorative study with
(West) German high school students led me to a first heuristics of seven
politicization types which will I will differentiate and supplement in further
studies (see Petrik, 2011):
1. Emotional left-wing opposition: Deeply rooted left-libertarian orientation with
verbal attacks on dissidents and some authoritarian socialist deviations due to
political frustration
2. Open quest for a political identity: Anti-authoritarian approach open to counter-
arguments, wavering between social equality and meritocracy
3. Pre-political support of tradition: Harmony seeking conservative community
orientation, refusal to debate the natural status quo
4. Intellectual opposition: Highly developed and tolerant left-libertarian position
going along with great moderation skills during debates
5. Pragmatic system loyalty: Pluralist and market-liberal approach claiming short
debates and quick decisions
6. Initial politicization: First discovery of personal politically relevant values,
strong peer group orientation
7. Authority seeking system loyalty: Reserved behavior, overwhelmed by heated
and contested debates, going along with the demand for stronger teacher
governance, a narrow task structure and clear rules and hierarchies in society.
CONCLUSION: DEBATING AND REFLECTING CONFLICTS AS
CORE OF CIVIC EDUCATION
In which direction should civic education be developed in favor of social and
political participation? Above all we have to define competencies as concrete tools
to solve real social and political problems. Those problems need to be managed by
LEARNING HOW SOCIETY IS AND MIGHT AND SHOULD BE ARRANGED
95
perspective-taking, analytical thinking, conflict resolution, critical judgment and
participation skills. Knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and dispositions represent
the necessary dimensions of these five competencies, helping to operationalize
them.
Unfortunately, the competency of critical judgment has been neglected so far in
the civic education classroom and in scientific studies as well. While international
studies focus on consensual democratic values and attitudes, controversial values
and resulting sociocultural cleavages remain a black box. This is a very
problematic finding, as controversial ideas about governance, conflict resolution,
distribution of wealth, different life styles, religion, ecology and immigration build
the emotional core of political identity. Without overcoming this ideology gap in
civic education the most important democratic value of tolerance cannot be
fostered. A clear understanding of democracy depends on a deep-rooted acceptance
of pluralism.
This is why we need to promote action-orientated and interactive teaching
strategies that engage students in controversial debates, obliging them to justify,
reflect and elaborate their own opinions. Especially the educational power of
simulations should not be underestimated: By adopting different social, cultural
and institutional roles students learn to feel and to think in so far unthinkable
manners. The Found-a-village project is a special kind of simulation offering a
learning trip to the individual political self. Ones own perspective onto the social
world gets shaped, at the same time politicized and democratized.
Here empirical research comes into play: Our knowledge about learner
development, about conceptual changes in interactive learning environments
remains limited. In addition to prevalent quantitative questionnaires we should
concentrate on qualitative case studies to reconstruct individual political
argumentation patterns and learning paths.
Qualitative research with the village-simulation in German classes identifies
various politicization types. Those prototypes mark already the inseparable link
between political values, judgment abilities and conflict resolution skills. They can
help teachers to diagnose typical learning problems and to support active
citizenship in two ways: First they can help students to strengthen their personal
values and argumentation patterns to build a well-founded political identity as
coherent view of how society is and might and should be arranged (Adelson).
Second they can show or let discover democracy as the only political system where
all people have the right to live and express those values as far as they grant this
right to everybody else. Taking other perspectives can even change a students
political orientation. In most cases, their tolerance gets developed even towards
the hard and necessarily conflicting work of politicians. Along with that, the
students ability and readiness to solve social problems and ideological conflicts
can grow. This is one of the major outcomes of the Found-a-village project to be
verified in further studies: Participation seems very much to depend on critical
judgment and conflict resolution skills.
PETRIK
96
NOTES
i
English translations of the material are available from the author.
REFERENCES
Adelson, Joseph (1971). The political imagination of the young adolescent. Daedalus, 100, 1013-1050.
Barber, Benjamin (1984). Strong democracy. Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley/Los
Angeles/London: University of California Press.
Behrmann, Gnter C., Grammes, Tilman, & Reinhardt, Sibylle (2004). Politik: Kern-Curriculum
Sozialwissenschaften in der gymnasialen Oberstufe. [Core Curriculum for Social Studies in High
School Education] In Heinz-Helmar Tenorth (Ed.), Kerncurriculum Oberstufe II: Biologie, Chemie,
Physik Geschichte, Politik (pp. 322-406). Weinheim u.a.: Beltz.
Bohnsack, Ralf (2010). Documentary method and group discussions. In Ralf Bohnsack, Nicole Pfaff,
& Vivian Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method (pp. 99-124).
Opladen/Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Davies, Peter (2009). Improving the quality of students arguments through assessment for
learning. Journal of Social Science Education, 8(2), 94-104. http://www.jsse.org/2009/2009-
2/davies-improving-the-quality-of-students-arguments-jsse-2-2009.
Dewey, John (1966). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New
York: Macmillan u.a.
GPJE Gesellschaft fr Politikdidaktik und politische Jugend- und Erwachsenenbildung (Eds.) (2004).
Nationale Bildungsstandards fr den Fachunterricht in der politischen Bildung an Schulen
[National educational standards for civic education in schools]. Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau.
Hahn, Carole L. (2010). Comparative civic education research. What we know and what we need to
know. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 5-23.
Hess, Diana, & Ganzler, Louis (2007). Patriotism and ideological diversity in the classroom. In Joel
Westheimer (Ed.), Pledging allegiance: The politics of patriotism in Americas schools (pp. 131-
138). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kelly-Woessner, April, & Woessner, Matthew (2008). Conflict in the classroom. Considering the
effects of partisan difference on political education. Journal of Political Science Education, 4(3),
265-285.
Kitschelt, Herbert (2003). Diversification and reconfiguration of party systems in postindustrial
democracies. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/02608.pdf.
Kohlberg, Lawrence (1981). The philosophy of moral development. Moral stages and the idea of justice.
San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Mannheim, Karl (1936). Ideology and utopia. An introduction to the sociology of knowledge. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Miller, Max (1987). Argumentation and cognition. In M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional
approaches to language and thought (pp. 225-250). New York: Academic Press.
National Council for the Social Studies (1992). A vision of powerful teaching and learning in the social
studies: Building social understanding and civic efficacy. http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/
powerful.
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) (2010). National curriculum standards for social
studies: A framework for teaching, learning, and assessment. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS,
www.socialstudies.org.
Niemi, Nancy S., & Niemi, Richard G. (2007). Partisanship, participation, and political trust as taught
(or not) in high school history and government classes. Theory and Research in Social Education,
35(1), 32-61.

LEARNING HOW SOCIETY IS AND MIGHT AND SHOULD BE ARRANGED
97

Nussbaum, E. Michael (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social
Studies, 93, 79-83.
Nyhan, Brendan, & Reifler, Jason (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political mis-
perceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330.
Petrik, Andreas (2007). Von den Schwierigkeiten, ein politischer Mensch zu werden. Konzept und
Praxis einer genetischen Politikdidaktik [On the difficulties of becoming a political human being.
Conception and practice of a genetic approach in civic education]. Opladen/Farmington Hills:
Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Petrik, Andreas (2010a). Ein politikdidaktisches Kompetenz-Strukturmodell. Vorschlag zur Aufhebung
falscher Polarisierungen unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Urteilskompetenz. [A model of
competencies for civic education. Proposal to overcome unnecessary frontlines focussing on critical
judgment abilities]. In Ingo Juchler (Ed.), Kompetenzen in der politischen Bildung. Schriftenreihe
der Gesellschaft fr Politikdidaktik und politische Jugend- und Erwachsenenbildung (pp. 143-158).
Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau.
Petrik, Andreas (2010b). Two kinds of political awakening in the Civic Education classroom. A
comparative argumentation analysis of the constitutional debates of two Found-a-village
projects with 8th graders. Journal of Social Science Education, 3, 52-67. http://www.jsse.org/2010/
2010-3/petrik-jsse-3-2010.
Petrik, Andreas (2010c). Core concept political compass. How Kitschelts model of liberal, socialist,
libertarian and conservative orientations can fill the ideology gap in civic education. Journal of
Social Science Education, 4, http://www.jsse.org/2010/2010-4/petrik-jsse-4-2010.
Petrik, Andreas (2011). Politisierungstypen im Lehrstck Dorfgrndung. Eine Bildungsgangstudie zur
Entwicklung der Urteils- und Konfliktlsungskompetenz im Politikunterricht [Politicization types
within the Found-a-village project]. In Horst Bayrhuber et al. (Eds.), Empirische Fundierung in
den Fachdidaktiken. Fachdidaktische Forschungen [Empirical foundation of subject matter
didactics], Vol. 1 (pp. 159-184). Mnster: Waxmann.
Rorty, Richard (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Senesh, Lawrence (1966). Organizing a curriculum around social science concepts. In Irving Morissett
(Ed.), Concepts and structure in the new Social science curricula (pp. 21-38). New York.
Torney-Purta, Judith, Schwille, John, & Amadeo, Jo-Ann (Eds.) (1999). Civic education across
countries. Twenty-four national case studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam:
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehman, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-
eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Wagenschein, Martin (1991). Verstehen lehren: Genetisch Sokratisch exemplarisch [Teaching
comprehension: Genetically socratically exemplarily]. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.
Weinert, Franz E. (2001). Competencies and key competencies: Educational perspective. In Neil J.
Smelser & Paul B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences,
Vol. 4 (pp. 2433-2436). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Welzel, Christian, & Inglehart, Ronald (2009). Political culture, mass beliefs, and value change. In:
Christian W. Haerpfer (Ed.), Democratization (pp. 126-144). Oxford: University Press.
Westbury, Ian, Hopmann, Stefan, & Riquarts, Kurt (Eds.) (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice. The
German didaktik tradition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 99109.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
SIBYLLE REINHARDT
8. TEACHING FOR DEMOCRATIC LEARNING
INTRODUCTION
The democratic system needs specific teaching strategies to help students become
competent democratic citizens. As the reader will notice, none of the outlined
strategies would be used for political learning in an authoritarian system.
Citizenship education (politische Bildung) tries to help students to acquire
adequate competencies to participate in a democratic political system. It is
especially important to learn how to deal with political conflicts since democracy
(different from authoritarian and totalitarian systems) respects divergent interests
and/or values and gives room to their competition before a decision is come to.
Research on political socialization shows how difficult the task is: students often
mistakenly try to apply to politics categories that only fit the private lives of
people.
All this must have consequences for teaching strategies. Most important, the
Beutelsbach Consensus outlines the principle of controversy (political issues are
controversial issues). Different didactic principles put the Consensus to work and
aim at different dynamics of learning when dealing with politics: Is the teaching
and learning centered around a conflict, a problem or a case? Or does it involve the
students with political action, judgement, or future-oriented scenarios? Or do they
found their own system or do they go for a scientific orientation?
Each of these didactic principles emphasizes some normative aspect of
democracy, requires the seeking of (scientific) knowledge and information, takes
the students own approaches into account and articulates the method(s) of
teaching and learning that are appropriate. The method of problem-solving, for
example, corresponds to the principle of problem-orientation under the Teaching
Strategies section of this paper and is carried through by answering six questions:
Definition(s) of the problem? Possible causes? Divergent interests involved?
Possible solutions? Consequences and side-effects of the solutions? My/our
standpoint?
These strategies of teaching give an over-all picture of the philosophy and the
techniques of the school-subject.
AIMS OF DEMOCRATIC LEARNING
The competent citizen in the political system of democracy
understands the system: its functioning and its meaning
shares the beliefs and values of democracy: e.g. freedom, solidarity, tolerance,
equal rights
REINHARDT
100
takes part actively in the process of public discussion and political decision
(Detjen, 2000).
This well-informed, humanistically-minded and participating individual
incorporates a high degree of personal autonomy and responsibility. Of course, this
ideal picture does not describe reality but it renders the direction and goal of
citizenship education (politische Bildung). In order to break the idea down to more
precise aims and means of teaching and learning and to the evaluation of these
processes, five competencies for the learning of democracy follow (Behrmann,
Grammes, & Reinhardt, 2004, pp. 337f., 387-391). These competencies are meant
to describe the competent citizen in the specific domain of democracy, to give an
idea of the developmental learning process, to relate to teaching methods and to
link to research findings.
The competent democratic citizen is able to:
1) Take others perspective roles: The views and expectations of others, also of the
generalized other, are seen and integrated.
2) Handle conflicts: Conflicting interests, values and identities are approached with
tolerance and resolved responsibly.
3) Use social sciences: Institutions, structural frameworks and individual actions in
society (e.g. in politics, economy, law and other partial systems) are analyzed by
employing social sciences.
4) Use moral and political reasons: Judgements on political issues need two sorts
of criteria, those referring to the functioning of the political system and those
referring to individual and / or collective terms of morals/ethics.
5) Participate in democracy: Everyday face-to-face life, work life, civil society and
the over-all democratic state give the opportunity for and are dependent on the
participation of citizens.
These competencies break the idea of the competent democratic citizen down and
render a more precise and concrete notion to our thinking about teaching and
learning democracy.
The one competence out of the five that is perhaps the most characteristic to the
democratic political system and that is probably most difficult to learn by
individuals is the competence to handle conflicts. The ability to handle conflicts of
interests, values and political orientations in a productive and legitimate matter is
specifically part of the democratic political system it does not fit an authoritarian
or totalitarian regime. These non-democratic systems tend to hide or suppress
conflicts. Often this is done in the name of national unity, out of respect for the
leader of the country, or in order to hold up collective we-feelings (Gemeinschaft).
This ability to accept and deal with conflicts is (historically) a new citizens
competence, it is (systematically) the psychic equivalent to democracy and it is
(biographically) most difficult to learn. The logic of democratic politics is
competition for the best answers and fight for power all carried out in institutions
and in a civil manner (Streitkultur). The logic of private life is seeking harmony
and well-being. Therefore handling conflicts on a macro-level of society/state is
not learned in everyday life; it needs to be taught in a specific school subject
(Reinhardt, 2006, 2010a).
TEACHING FOR DEMOCRATIC LEARNING
101
Meta-analyzing 13 studies I found that I could demonstrate that participation on
the micro-level of face-to-face-interactions and/or stating pro-social values for
living together in everyday groups does not automatically lead to the understanding
of and participation in democracy on the macro-level of society and its political
organisation (Reinhardt, 2010b).
CONDITIONS OF LEARNING
Research on political socialization gives an idea of the complex learning task of
becoming a political subject. Two hopes and illusions must be destroyed: First,
social learning is not automatically also political learning. Second, learning about
democracy and its institutions does not automatically imply the understanding of
its meaning. Both aspects refer to the ability to handle conflicts.
It is not surprising that it is most difficult to develop the ability to handle
conflicts, not only for private well-being (by mediation for example), but for the
sake of the democratic system with its logic of conflicting opinions and interests.
This difficulty is not only typical for young people but is probably typical for
adults too. A few data might demonstrate the enormous task of understanding the
meaning of democracy.
The first scholar to put the following question to students was Helmut Fend
(1991, p. 174). He asked: If all the parties formed the government what would be
the worst disadvantage for democracy? The so-called Sachsen-Anhalt-study
(Krger et al., 2002) gave two options to the young persons to choose from: 1)
There would be constant quarrelling within the government between the members
of the different parties; or 2) There would be less criticism of the work of the
government in parliament. This item refers to the understanding of the
competition for answers and the fight for the legitimate power to carry on a certain
political solution. This fight is carried out in parliament. The formation of an all-
parties-government would reduce chances of conflicts in public and in parliament.
Only 20% of the 1.400 students of grades 8, 9 and 11 responded that there would
be less criticism of government and 80% responded that there would be constant
quarrels in the government.

If all the parties formed the government disadvantage for democracy? Choose
one.
items %

less criticism of government


20%


quarrels within government


80%

(Reinhardt & Tillmann, 2002, p. 62)

REINHARDT
102
Another item is a classic one in political science. The item asks for the meaning
of political opposition. It asks if the person approves or disapproves of the
following statement: The task of the political opposition is not to criticize the
government but to support its work. (The statement is completely false, somewhat
false, mostly correct, completely correct.) Quite evidently the statement fails the
meaning of opposition, but even so, almost 70% of the young students between the
ages of 13 and 18 (some were older) identified it to be correct (mostly or
completely).

The opposition should support the government but not criticize it
items %

The statement is false (somewhat, completely)


31%

The statement is correct (mostly, completely)


69%
(Reinhardt, Tillmann, 2002, p. 61; see also Krappidel & Bhm-Kasper, 2006, p.
45)

I suggest that the interpretation of these data concentrates on the students lack
of competence of understanding and handling conflicts and not on a lack of
knowledge in the sense of knowing and reproducing words. Everybody in
Germany knows that a central element of democracy is opposition; almost
everybody agrees. But if an item gives a description of the process of opposition
many people are actually against opposition, because opposition means to oppose
the opinions of others and to fight for the right answer. However (this is my
interpretation) this logic of democratic conflict is not well liked by normal human
beings who are unlikely to make clear distinctions between their private lives and
the processes and actions that go on in a democracy. In summary, the conditions of
learning must influence the teaching arrangements.
A META STRATEGY FOR TEACHING: THE BEUTELSBACH CONSENSUS
In 1976 the state agency in charge of citizenship education in the state of Baden-
Wrttemberg called on a group of well-known thinkers in the field of democratic
learning to discuss aims and strategies of the school subject. They met in the small
town of Beutelsbach where they discovered a consensus on principles of teaching
political issues. This Beutelsbacher Konsens emerged out of lectures and
discussions. The consensus was not voted on but written in the form of a summary
by Wehling (1977). The three basic principles of democratic learning are:
1) It is forbidden to overwhelm learners.
Teachers are not allowed to overwhelm students by whatever means - in
the direction of wanted opinions and thereby prevent students from gaining
their own judgements. This marks the difference between democratic
TEACHING FOR DEMOCRATIC LEARNING
103
learning and indoctrination. Indoctrination does not conform with the
teachers role in democracy and the widely accepted aim of students
personal autonomy.
2) Issues that are controversial in politics and society must show up as
controversies in teaching-learning-arrangements.
This requirement is closely linked to the first demand: if differing points of
view are hidden below the table, if options are suppressed, if alternatives
are not openly discussed then the path to indoctrination is chosen. The
question is raised whether the teacher should not compensate, e.g., bring up
opinions and alternatives that are distant to students (), because of their
social and political background. This second principle shows clearly why
the teachers personal point of view, his origin in a certain philosophy of
science and his political opinion, are of rather little interest. His own
specific understanding of democracy for example [does it mean a way of
life or does it constitute the form of the state?] renders no problem since
opposing views come into the picture.
3) The student must be enabled to analyze a given political situation and his
own personal interests and to look for the means and instruments to
influence this political situation according to his vested interests. This aim
includes pragmatic operations that also follow out of the first two
principles. (Numbers 1-3 quoted from Wehling, 1977, p. 179f., translated
by S.R.)
The inhibition to overwhelm addresses the teacher, the commandment of
controversy addresses the learning arrangement, and the right to pursue individual
interests addresses the student. This trinity of principles has been widely respected
not only in Western Germany but also in Eastern Germany after the peaceful
revolution in 1989. Any civic-education-curriculum quotes the Beutelsbacher
Konsens. (Modifications were suggested to the third point to include a more
universal perspective, cf. Wehling, 1987.)
The Beutelsbach consensus proved very helpful in the transformation process in
Germanys eastern states after the reunion of the two Germanys in 1990.
Nowadays the principle of controversy has even generally come to be regarded as a
main principle of academic work.
All of the three principles can be discovered in any of the didactic principles
listed below.
Teaching Strategies for Democracy
The question is how to put the above mentioned aims (competencies), the strategic
consensus of Beutelsbach, and the knowledge about learning difficulties into
teaching practice.
The professional knowledge of and for teachers does not need to be reduced to
teaching methods, but each so-called didactic principle gives a frame that includes
normative aspects of democracy, refers to the (social) sciences, takes into account
everyday thinking and feeling of students and transforms all this into diverse
REINHARDT
104
methods of teaching that describe a sequence of steps in the teaching-/learning
arrangement.
The German discussion about democratic learning since World War II has
brought about a whole range of didactic principles that integrate four dimensions of
knowledge: normative goals of learning, the sources of social sciences, everyday
approaches of learners, and professional teaching strategies (see below, see
Reinhardt, 2005). Each of these strategies emphasizes a different aspect of the
process of democracy and the learning of democracy: conflicts, problems, moral
and political judgements, participation etc. And each of them pursues conflicting
views.
As can be seen, quite a few different strategies (teaching methods) can be named
that are embedded in didactic principles. The strategies combine personal, social
and political learning by processing the micro-level (interpersonal), the meso-level
(institutional) and the macro-level (system-bound). These different levels of
society are used by sociologists for analysis and for the purpose of pedagogy they
are helpful for bridging the gap between the learners subjective life and the
systems distant perspective.
These teaching strategies or methods set specific dynamics of learning into
motion. In the best case the learners engage in their own movement of spontaneous
learning rather than needing the teacher to push them on.
CONFLICT ORIENTATION
Normative dimension: Learning democracy and constructive debate, acquiring a
culture of controversy
Scientific approaches: The contribution of the social sciences to the analysis of a
current conflict, for example, regarding welfare policy
Common approaches: Conflicts are interesting and captivating, evoke opinions,
positions
Professional knowledge: Conflict analysis as a teaching-method

1. Conflict analysis
Confrontation first contact with the conflict, controversy, possible vote by the
learners
Analysis the conflict is analyzed with the aid of categories/central questions
Response learners take up positions and may debate:
Controversial process Arrangements like verbal dispute, debate, role-play
enact the conflict
Generalization the conflict in question may stand for a more general structural
conflict
PROBLEM ORIENTATION
A. Normative dimension: Democratic politics strives to find a solution to
problems using legal and legitimate decisions
TEACHING FOR DEMOCRATIC LEARNING
105
B. Scientific approaches: (according to problem)
C. Common approaches: Agitation and concern about the problem
D. Professional knowledge: Problem study as a teaching-method
Problem Study
What is the problem? (Definition)
How did the problem emerge? (Causes)
Whose interests are affected? (Interests)
What are the possible solutions for the problem? (Solutions?)
What significance do these solutions have for ? (Consequences)
Where do we/I stand? (Decision)
ACTIVE LEARNING ORIENTATION
A. Normative dimension: Political competencies to participate in society and
politics
B. Scientific approaches: (according to situation and problem)
C. Common approaches: Wishes for change and intervention exist
D. Professional knowledge: Project and civic action as teaching-methods (as well
as procedures of role-play, verbal dispute, debate, talk-show)

1. Project 2. Civic action
Setting a common goal Setting conditions
Agreement on how to proceed Wishes and visions
Execution of the project Planning the work
Utilisation of the product Execution of the work
Appraisal and reflection Reflection and possible action
CASE ORIENTATION
A. Normative dimension: The aim of democracy is the regulation of the
coexistence of people, their lives are the purpose (politics is not an end in itself
or bound to a transcendental objective)
B. Scientific approaches: (according to case)
C. Common approaches: Politics relates to people as concrete cases
D. Professional knowledge: Case analysis and case study as teaching-methods

1. Case analysis 2. Case study
Exterior observation Confrontation with the case
Interior observation Information
Political judgement Exploration and resolution regarding action
Generalisation Disputation of the decision
Collation with the reality
REINHARDT
106
FUTURE ORIENTATION
A. Normative dimension: The tasks of politics concern the present and the future.
Decisions bring about effects and side effects in the long term
B. Scientific approaches: Prognoses dont only update the present, but try to
comprehend qualitative changes
C. Common approaches: Looking to the future can cause anxieties, awake hopes
and bring about plans
D. Professional knowledge: Strategy game, future workshop, scenario-technique

POLITICAL-MORAL ORIENTATION
1. Strategy game 2. Future workshop 3. Scenario technique
Introduction and
organisation
Preparation Limitation of the object
in question
Information + role
clarification
Critical review phase Definition of influential
factors and descriptors
Decide + plan Imagination phase Development of
scenarios
Interaction (Game) Realisation phase Strategic planning
Evaluation Post-processing


A. Normative dimension: Democracy aspires to value-based and objectively
informed political action and pursues human dignity as its highest axiom
B. Scientific approaches: Factual knowledge and notions of what should be done,
empirical and normative statements, rationalities of means and values
C. Common approaches: Everyday life and politics evoke moral reactions such as
outrage
D. Professional knowledge: Political decision making and dilemma method

1. Political Decision making

2. Dilemma Method
Start and planning Confrontation
Analysis of the situation Structuring of the dilemma
Consideration of possibilities Reflection on the arguments
Judgement + Decision discussion Politicalisation of the dilemma
Final observations
GENETIC ORIENTATION: BECOMING POLITICAL
A. Normative dimension: Democracy was invented by humans and is dependent on
their implementation
B. Scientific approaches: The theoretical manifestations of human inventions in
history are theories for the construction of society, economy and politics
TEACHING FOR DEMOCRATIC LEARNING
107
C. Common approaches: Young people discover the political world, possibly they
suffer from it and want to create their lives, those of others and society
D. Professional knowledge: Foundation as teaching-method
Foundation
Stimulus: Learners want to simulate a foundation in a fictional, open situation
Foundation: Models of society are discovered and conflictually debated
Systematisation/ Theoretisation: Theories of society help with decisions
Application: Knowledge is applied to current conflicts and problems
Reflections: Individual standpoints and learning processes are observed
SCIENTIFIC ORIENTATION
A. Normative dimension: Responsible judgement will use results and insights of
science, so that contact with science contributes to the rationality of enlightened
citizens
B. Scientific approaches: Epistemology, logics of different sciences, inter-
disciplinarity and scientific propaedeutics
C. Common approaches: Everyday world approaches point beyond the
concrete/subjective to the search for the abstract and the inter-subjective.
Scientific propaedeutics points back to the concrete and the subjective
D. Professional knowledge:

1. Reading of an original
scientific writing
2. Reflexive employment of
instruments and processes
3. Learning research

Reinhardt, Sibylle: Politik-Didaktik. Praxishandbuch fr die Sekundarstufe I und
II. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor 2005 (3. edition 2009, Nr. 7 will be included in the
revised version coming in 2012)
THE RESEARCH TASKS
It is not surprising that teaching controversies are difficult and probably disliked by
many teachers, especially those who teach the subject without having studied
social sciences and its didactics thoroughly. There are many indications that
students seldom get the chance to deal controversially with controversial subjects
(cf. Henkenborg, 2008), but there are also hints by empirical research that teachers
do try to give their students the possibility to express opinions that are
controversial to the teachers or the other students opinions (Ktters-Knig, 2002).
This is remarkable and encouraging! But it does not automatically mean that
controversies do take place in the classroom, but it means that there is an important
prerequisite for controversies. Research is needed to show the impact of the
different strategies shown above on the development of competencies.
REINHARDT
108
A strong hypothesis can be stated that social learning on a face-to-face-level
needs to be transformed into political learning that includes the macro-level of
society and politics. How could this take place? My suggestion is that the meso-
level of institutions in combination with theoretical reflections in a school subject
could help: for example, student council is such an institution that surpasses the
private level of seeking well-being in class; political action in the community in
favour of some special interest would involve citizens with conflicts of interest and
beliefs. Research is needed to measure the gain of competencies set about by this
sort of learning.
CONCLUSION
This thinking about democratic learning draws a line from the idea of democracy
and the competencies that the citizen needs to different teaching strategies. In that
way the competence of handling conflicts and the principle of teaching politics as
controversial issues are important steps that are backed by research data on
political socialization.
All the teaching strategies incorporate the Beutelsbach consensus and thereby
the principle of controversy and they all set a learning process in motion that is
self-dynamic and cooperative rather than instruction-driven und teacher-directed.
So far only little empirical research (surpassing teachers experiences) is available
to trace the positive outcomes of this sort of teaching.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance in editing the English version of
this paper by Dr. Amy Pfeil, USA.
REFERENCES
Behrmann, Gnter C., Grammes, Tilman, & Reinhardt, Sibylle (2004). Politik: Kerncurriculum
Sozialwissenschaften in der gymnasialen Oberstufe. In Heinz-Elmar Tenorth (Ed.), Kerncurriculum
Oberstufe II Biologie, Chemie, Physik, Geschichte, Politik (pp. 322-406). Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.
Detjen, Joachim (2000). Die Demokratiekompetenz der Brger. Herausforderung fr die politische
Bildung. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 25, 11-20.
Fend, Helmut (1991). Identittsentwicklung in der Adoleszenz. Entwicklungspsychologie der Adoleszenz
in der Moderne, Vol. II. Bern/Stuttgart/Toronto: Huber.
Henkenborg, Peter, Krieger, Anett, Pinseler, Jan, & Behrens, Rico (2008). Politische Bildung in
Ostdeutschland. Wiesbaden: Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften.
Ktters-Knig, Catrin (2002). Handlungsorientierung und Kontroversitt im Sozialkundeunterricht. In
Heinz-Hermann Krger et al. (Eds.), Jugend und Demokratie Politische Bildung auf dem
Prfstand. Eine quantitative und qualitative Studie aus Sachsen-Anhalt (pp. 115-144). Opladen:
Leske+Budrich.
Krappidel, Adrienne, & Bhm-Kasper, Oliver (2006). Weder rechts noch politisch interessiert?
Politische und rechte Einstellungen von Jugendlichen in Sachsen-Anhalt und Nordrhein-Westfalen.
In Werner Helsper et al. (Eds.), Unpolitische Jugend? Eine Studie zum Verhltnis von Schule,
Anerkennung und Politik (pp. 53-52). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften.
TEACHING FOR DEMOCRATIC LEARNING
109
Krger, Heinz-Hermann, Reinhardt, Sibylle, Ktters-Knig, Catrin, Pfaff, Nicolle, Schmidt, Ralf,
Krappidel, Adrienne, & Tillmann, Frank (2002). Jugend und Demokratie Politische Bildung auf
dem Prfstand. Eine quantitative und qualitative Studie aus Sachsen-Anhalt. Opladen:
Leske+Budrich.
Reinhardt, Sibylle, & Tillmann, Frank (2002). Politische Orientierungen, Beteiligungsformen und
Wertorientierungen. In Heinz-Hermann Krger et al. (Eds.), Jugend und Demokratie Politische
Bildung auf dem Prfstand. Eine quantitative und qualitative Studie aus Sachsen-Anhalt (pp. 43-74).
Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
Reinhardt, Sibylle (2005/2009). Politik-Didaktik. Praxishandbuch fr die Sekundarstufe I und II (3rd
ed.). Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.
Reinhardt, Sibylle (2006). Die Demokratie-Kompetenz der Konfliktfhigkeit lsst sie sich messen? In
Axel Rdiger & Eva-Maria Seng (Eds.), Dimensionen der Politik: Aufklrung Utopie
Demokratie. Festschrift fr Richard Saage zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 501-520). Berlin: Duncker &
Humblot.
Reinhardt, Sibylle (2010a). Die domnenspezifische Kompetenz Konfliktfhigkeit Begrndungen
und Operationalisierungen. In Ingo Juchler (Ed.), Kompetenzen in der politischen Bildung (pp. 125-
141). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.
Reinhardt, Sibylle (2010b). Was leistet Demokratie-Lernen fr die politische Bildung? Gibt es
empirische Indizien zum Transfer von Partizipation im Nahraum auf Demokratie-Kompetenz im
Staat? Ende einer Illusion und neue Fragen. In Dirk Lange & Gerhard Himmelmann (Eds.),
Demokratiedidaktik. Impulse fr die politische Bildung (pp. 125-141). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fr
Sozialwissenschaften.
Wehling, Hans-Georg (1977). Konsens la Beutelsbach? In Siegfried Schiele & Herbert Schneider
(Eds.), Das Konsensproblem in der politischen Bildung (pp. 173-184). Stuttgart: Klett.
Wehling, Hans-Georg (1987). Zehn Jahre Beutelsbacher Konsens Eine Nachlese. In: Siegfried Schiele
& Herbert Schneider (Eds.), Konsens und Dissens in der politischen Bildung (pp. 198-204).
Stuttgart: Metzler.


M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 111123.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
BATRICE ZIEGLER
9. COMPETENCIES, STABLIZATION OF THE
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, AND SELF-EMPOWERMENT
In the past few years, we have seen a progressively greater public discussion about
linking citizenship with duties, on both the national and European levels. After the
extremely tedious ratification process for a constitution in some of the member
states, the European Union made it clear that the institution European Union
would not be viable without a European consciousness among citizens of the
member states. Such a European consciousness would and should create ties that
could promote interest and engagement in European politics, thereby legitimating
the unification process as well as the institution as such.
i

The attempt to create a European corpus of lieux de mmoire, along with the
effort to establish a view of the two World Wars as shared events conjointly
suffered, and even to see them as civil wars, aim in the same direction (Khberger
& Sedmak, 2009). In the same vein comes the proposal that a school book in
European history be made available to history teachers in European countries
(1998), or the discussions of a strong Europe that must prove itself competitive
with the USA and China. All these examples display elements of historical and
power-political thinking which should help to create a pan-European
consciousness. Likewise, when Europe is commonly defined as a continent of
migrants, the heterogeneous inhabitants of Europe, whether citizens or not, feel
obliged to engage in politics and civil society in order to confront difficulties in
mutual cultural, religious and political understanding. (Astonishingly, social
understanding rarely appears in such circumstances: see Migration in Europa 2008.
Only the most recent developments have now become a subject of scientific
debate. These are discussed in the media and press increasingly in terms of the
threat posed by the financial sector, that is, the rich in the economic systems of
the nation-states, that is, the European Union, as well as in terms of the well-being
of those who are already worse off.
ii
)
The same arguments on behalf of participation occur in nation states, both
among politicians and political scientists: the legitimacy of national democracies is
seen to be at risk if citizens do not participate. In this view, the first duty of
citizenship is to exercise political rights, and second to do so in a way that
legitimizes democracy, i.e., reinforces democratic order.
In Switzerland, several factors the declining number of persons who engage in
parties and political discussion, and who vote and do voluntary work, as well as the
results of the international study about Citizenship Education organized by IEA
have nourished preoccupations concerning the functioning of democratic life and
the quality of direct democracy (Oser & Biedermann, 2003). Discussions follow
ZIEGLER
112
the line that it is absolutely important to reinforce the conviction that being active
in both society and politics is part of adult life and a preeminent social obligation
(see especially Quesel & Oser 2007). These ideas are not new: the young nation
states of the 19
th
- and early 20
th
centuries claimed national identity of their citizens
and their participation in democratic processes (above all elections); it has been a
relatively brief phase in which the National Welfare State has not formulated duties
in recompense for social security (for Switzerland, see Furrer 2004). In the 19
th

century as today, deficit-analysis did not aim at the systems of state and economy,
but at the shortfalls in the participation and commitment of citizens. Such an
outlook is highly normative without showing people why it might also be in their
interest to see themselves as members of a society. It fails to take into account the
motivational aspects of acting, neglecting to take into consideration that, in the
long run, people will not engage in civic processes unless they see them not only as
duties but also fields in which they can trace the effects of their effort in one way
or another.
This is the point at which the discussion of the importance of competencies in
Political Learning or Citizenship Education begins. My argument is that only by
defining the disciplinary competencies of Citizenship Education, especially the
competency of judgement, can we systematically account for anyones capacity to
recognize him-/herself as a member of society, not by virtue of choosing to be
social but by being human. With that kind of definition, the importance of these
disciplinary competencies becomes more evident, in spite of the fact that nearly
every discussion about Citizenship Education stresses the importance of competent
judgement. My own argument will draw on the Swiss discussion about Citizenship
Education and its competencies, which started some ten years ago and took on
added value with the developing new Curricula since 2010.
I begin with the definitions of competencies in relation to goals of Citizenship
Education (I), Citizenship Education in German-speaking Switzerland (II), the
possibilities given by the curriculum for the German-speaking part of Switzerland
(LP21), actually under construction to further competencies in Citizenship
Education (III), and I end with some remarks which elaborate upon a graph which
helps to describe performance with respect to the competencies in Citizenship
Education (IV). I conclude with a brief remark about Citizenship Education in and
for Europe (V).
COMPETENCIES IN CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
The capacity to make up ones mind after a certain period, and after the efforts
made to inform oneself and interpret and evaluate things, is a fundamental element
of (adult) life. Decision-making is basic to the organization of ones life. In this
understanding, the skill belongs to the so-called personal capacities as one of the
transdisciplinary capacities that define a mature adult life (Rychen & Salganik,
2003). Therefore, it is hardly surprising that in the social sciences the competency
of judgment appears essential to the discipline itself. Yet, when discussed in this
way, there still remains the task of gaining a disciplinary view of this competency.
STABILIZATION OF THE DEMOCRACTIC SYSTEM AND SELF-EMPOWERMENT
113
Only when embedded in the perspective of action the contents and situations for
acting in this disciplinary approach may we speak of a disciplinary competency.
Quite clearly, then, judgement must be linked to the questions discussed by the
discipline, if we wish to consider disciplinary competencies. Nor does it help to
simply declare that in Citizenship Education the judgement made is about politics.
The discussion about the disciplinarity of competencies is ongoing. In Germany,
for instance, the discussion of expertise by Klieme et al. (Bundesministerium,
2003), which underlined the importance of disciplinary competencies, closed off
not only an alternative way of formulating competencies as transdisciplinary, but
also ways of organizing research around the idea of existing transdisciplinary and
disciplinary competencies. According to these authors, ongoing research has
concentrated on disciplinary competencies and their respective models (in the
context of Citizenship Education, see the latest discussion in Sander, 2011). In
German Citizenship Education, the GPJE proposed a model with three domains of
competencies: Capacities of Judgement; Capacities of Political Acting; Capacities
of Methods (GPJE, 2004). The authors stress the idea that competencies are
intimately linked with conceptual Deutungswissen or basic knowledge, which is
deeply marked by schemata, scripts, and mental models (ibid., p. 14);
competencies therefore should strengthen this conceptual knowledge, and are not
aiming at facts and figures. The model of GPJE is not empirically tested, or else
is only in certain respects.
CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN GERMAN-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND
Citizenship Education as a research-discipline barely exists in Switzerland, because
the tertiarization of disciplinary didactics has started only recently, more or less
when teacher training itself was tertiarized, with the founding of Teacher
Universities in 2003 (for this process, see Criblez, 2009). Since Citizenship
Education has not been a nation-wide school subject until now, theoretical
discussion and empirical work have received only a weak stimulus (see Allenspach
& Ziegler forthcoming). Reflections about competencies, models of competence
and standardisation have begun in reaction to the project HarmoS, which aimed
at the definition of nation-wide standards for First Language, Mathematics, First
Foreign Language and Sciences (Criblez, 2010). Those advocating school subjects
not integrated into this project of standardization, such as Citizenship Education,
were of two minds: on the one hand, they were grateful because of a fundamental
critique of measuring outcomes, and on the other hand, they feared a possible
devaluation of the subject.
Citizenship Education has attracted increasing interest, however, in part because
of the IEA Study (Oser & Biedermann, 2003), in which Swiss pupils were not as
successful as many politicians, professionals, and the administration of the
educational system would have hoped. The publication of the results caused a
media stir: the knowledge of Swiss youths about and their interest in politics were
below average. Even if their attitude towards gender equality stood out, their
overly negative stance towards immigrants was cause for additional concern, since
ZIEGLER
114
over 20% of the Swiss population are foreign nationals.
iii
While Switzerland took
part in the ICCS Study, the studys results no longer found the same echo, even if it
confirmed relevant findings of the IEA Study. Thus, while the study revealed that,
compared to other countries, Swiss youth possessed average knowledge, the
performances of one-third of the participating Swiss pupils were extremely weak.
The lack of interest and the unwillingness to engage in politics later in life were
once again noted with concern (Biedermann et al., 2010). Attitudes came under
even closer scrutiny precisely because while it seemed possible to enhance
knowledge, such enhancement had no positive bearing on the foreseeable
abstaining from politics. Given the meagre performance of Swiss youths, the
initiative to create a manual for teachers helping them to teach Citizenship
Education (Politische Bildung) in an action-oriented way was welcomed by the
Erziehungsdirektoren-Konferenz (EDK), the Swiss Conference of Cantonal
Ministers of Education (EDK). In this manual (Gollob et al., 2007), competencies
are mentioned; the manual follows the competencies defined by the GPJE (2004).
In order to aid teachers in preparing their lessons, their analyses of actual political
developments and the subsequent preparation for school, the manual links the
competencies to the idea of the policy-cycle (see also www.politikzyklus.ch) and to
the three dimensions of politics policy polity. This instrument evidently makes
it possible to organize learning in Citizenship Education on a pragmatic level.
However, this work did not include research on competencies. Instead, it used
known ideas, adapting them for the manual, opening up a future project that would
elaborate the competencies as well as their gradation, if necessary. It saw politics
as a multilevel process tied to the existing levels of Community, Canton, and the
Federal State of Switzerland, and opening up systematic relations to the supra- and
transnational levels in Europe and the world.
THE CURRICULUM (LP21) UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THE COMPETENCIES
OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
In the ongoing project Deutschschweizer Lehrplan (LP21), a unified curriculum
for the whole German-speaking part of Switzerland (www.lehrplan.ch), there was a
decisive will to integrate Citizenship Education, a discipline judged as necessary
for a democratic society which had not been implemented in all the cantons until
then (Ziegler, 2012; Basic Report, 2010). Only a few decisions about the weight
and the position of this domain have been taken definitely until now. Following the
basic report (Geschftsstelle, 2010), the basic structure of the new curriculum,
Grobstruktur Lehrplan 21, was officially approved as a second document on 28
October 2011 (Geschftsstelle D-EDK, 2011).
iv

First, the theme human rights and democracy has been integrated into the
group of transdisciplinary themes under the umbrella of Education for Sustained
Development (Ziegler, 2011, in press). With the mention of themes like human
rights and democracy, to a certain degree the curriculum draws the attention of
teachers and the developers of manuals to these contents. On the other hand, while
integrating these transdisciplinary themes, the experts of the transdisciplinary
themes
domain
specifi
are in
milesto
profes
particu
time.
develo

Figur
Sec
above
study d
Geogr
Zeiten
level (
Educat
politic
curricu
STABILIZ
s should not
n-specific com
ic work-group
nvited only to
ones presented
sionals attend
ularly since th
Likewise, wo
opments, and n
re 1. See the tra
(Rum
cond, the basic
graph is take
during compu
aphy and Hi
n, Rume, Ge
(referred to as
tion as basis f
cians and scien
ulum. In addit
ZATION OF THE
formulate co
mpetencies by
ps include no
o comment o
d by the doma
ding to trans
hese themes w
orking-groups
none at all on t
nsdisciplinary t
me, Zeiten, Gesel
c report (Gru
en (which sho
ulsory educatio
istory, Staats
esellschaften
s Cycle 3 in
for the mentio
ntists/professi
tion, in the dom
E DEMOCRACTI
mpetencies so
y the didacts a
professionals
on the propos
ain-specific wo
sdisciplinary
would not hav
s could not h
the relevant co
themes on the ri
llschaften) on
undlagenberic
ows the struct
on), mentions
skunde or C
(times, space
the graph). W
oned domain,
ionals to integ
main for the fi
IC SYSTEM AND
o as to simpl
and delegated
s for transdisc
sals on certai
ork-groups. Th
themes shou
ve received m
have based v
ompetencies.
ight side and S
the secondary o
cht) of the pr
ture of school
as disciplinar
Civic Educati
es, societies)
With this expl
the project re
grate Citizensh
first two cycles
D SELF-EMPOW
lify the elabo
teachers. The
ciplinary them
in specially o
herefore, the i
uld be rather
much attention
very much o
Spaces, Times, S
one-level
v

roject, from w
l subjects and
ry resources, a
ion, with the
on the second
icit inclusion
esponds to dem
hip Education
s (see graph: t
WERMENT
115
oration of
domain-
mes. They
organized
impact of
limited,
n by that
n earlier

Societies
which the
d areas of
alongside
e domain
dary one-
of Civic
mands by
n into the
these two
ZIEGLER
116
cycles refer to two years of kindergarten and the first two years of primary school
(= Cycle 1) and four more years of primary school (= Cycle 2), Natur, Mensch,
Gesellschaft (NMG) or nature, human being, society (NMG), foundations
should be laid in all subjects mentioned explicitly on the secondary one-level. The
basic structure of the curriculum (Geschftsstelle, 2011, p. 11) offers further details
on these requirements: it mentions seventeen topics to be discussed in NMG
classes (nature, human being, society). One of these is Staat und Gesellschaft
(state and society), another is Ich und Gemeinschaft (individual and society).
Times, spaces, societies in Cycle 3 includes eleven topics, amongst others,
Politics, Democracy, Human Rights. With this a certain space is opened for
Citizenship Education right from the beginning. On the one hand, these
denominations create a space for Citizenship Education, which will allow
fulfilment of the contents and competencies relevant to Citizenship Education,
depending on the working-group and later the political process. In the working-
groups on nature, human being, society and times, spaces, societies, there is no
professional for Citizenship Education. Perhaps there might be a concentration on
polity-aspects of Citizenship Education, remaining far behind the theoretical
discussion in the field. On the other hand, as all domains must be oriented to the
promotion of competencies, action-oriented learning can still take place.
Theoretically, this might open a field for aspects of the competencies important to
Citizenship Education (Ziegler, 2011b).
The situation outlined above has made it advisable
vi
to present a short paper
including the understanding of Citizenship Education for the curriculum being
elaborated. This was done by a group of scientists / professionals who have formed
a network concerned with Citizenship Education (Ziegler et al., 2009). The paper
explained their understanding of Citizenship Education and mentioned explicitly
how it should be integrated into the Curriculum. In this paper, the competence of
judgement again was granted high relevance, particularly with its ability to
strengthen a multi-perspective outlook on political questions, interests and values,
and ones positioning in social and political action. This process of analysis,
interpretation and judgement is called judgement overall. It contains elements of
both factual interpretation and value-based judgement. The Competence of
Judgement in Citizenship Education was declared by the paper as contributing to
transdisciplinary competences, and seen as intimately linked to the Competence of
Acting. Therefore, the paper declared that the general parts of the curriculum
should stress the importance of democratic and human-rights-based school life and
rules, in order to promote judgement in action and to reflect judgement in the
results of actions.
The paper took a position once again on the question of defining disciplinary
competencies. In order to strengthen the disciplinarity of the competencies, they
were referred to the model of the policy-cycle and its process stages. Therefore, the
denomination of competencies underwent a slight change in comparison with the
model of the GPJE, as follows:

STABILIZATION OF THE DEMOCRACTIC SYSTEM AND SELF-EMPOWERMENT
117
Competence of political analysis and judgement
being able to analyze and judge political events, problems and controversies
as well as questions of economic and social developments by taking into
account factual and value aspects.
Competence of methods
having capacities and skills in the domains of dealing with information and
communication, which are especially important for the participation in
political life in civil society and the state.
Competence of political decision-making and acting
being able to formulate ones opinion, convictions and interests, to hold these
views adequately in front of others, to participate in an active way in
processes of decision-making and to compromise.
(Ziegler et al., 2009; http://www.jugenddebattiert.ch/politische-bildung/
kompetenzen.html)
HOW TO MODEL THE COMPETENCIES FOR CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
What the paper (Ziegler et al., 2009) could not do was to elaborate a model with an
accompanying graph of competencies for Citizenship Education. As Citizenship
Education has not existed as a domain-specific didactic discipline in Switzerland
until recently, and since the curricula were not oriented to competencies,
systematic formulations of competencies for Citizenship Education do not exist at
this time, not yet having become the object of systematic scientific theoretical
work. Swiss researchers have participated in international surveys, such as the IEA,
but the theoretical work preliminary to empirical studies was not debated outside
the project, and therefore could not lead to a scientific theoretical discussion
(Biedermann & Reichenbach, 2009).
Without question, it is important that definitions and modelling be carried out in
the next few months the official installation of the curriculum is planned for
August 2014 if teachers are to be able to teach Citizenship Education. This
modelling cannot yet provide a basis for empirical research, as it will not be able to
draw on the resources necessary for such work. None the less, it must be carried
out with a pragmatic aim, and hopefully will be followed by more sophisticated
efforts.
Below eight preliminary ideas are presented about how the competencies for
Citizenship Education should be defined and modelled. These notions of
competency modelling in Switzerland reflect a personal point of view, which has
been developed mostly within the framework of subject-specific didactics, but
partly also within the interdisciplinary debate on the matter. Wherever possible,
reference is made to possible links.
It seems quite evident that current theoretical work on competencies will not
limit them to the goals of fostering participation in the nation-state. Competencies
ZIEGLER
118
in Citizenship Education are much broader: they have to implement the idea of
creating and recreating civil society and political processes all over the world,
taking into account the structuring effects of national borders and regional
communities in the EU as well in nation-state regions. Certainly, the multilevel
system, in which politics are treated, has to be taken into account.
vii

In elaborating a common view of transdisciplinary themes in the working
group on BNE+, Education for a Sustained Development+, which should
include Citizenship Education under the theme of Human Rights and
Democracy (Geschftsstelle, 2010, p. 22), which was later modified to
Politics, Human Rights, and Democracy, global issues and discourses were
referred to. Besides human rights, Global Learning should also be
mentioned here.
viii

It is not the task of Citizenship Education to form a collective identity for a defined
entity, neither for the nation-state nor for larger units like the EU. The goal of
learning consciously to be a social being and to survive as such is quite different
from forming a national or regional identity.
In the theoretical literature on Citizenship Education in German-speaking
Switzerland, a conception of such education linked normatively to the
formation of a collective identity has hardly played any role over the last
thirty years. Thus, the fact that Global Learning, which by all means on
the basis of sound arguments also aims to raise awareness of One World
(Global Society), forms part of the LP21 together with the other BNE+
interdisciplinary themes only as a subtheme and not as an actual
perspective, plainly reveals that no prominent role should be assigned to
collective responsibility and its normative anchoring within the educational
system. (Ziegler, 2011, forthcoming)
The status of a social being is confronted mainly with two interpretations. At the
beginning of this article, I argued that Citizenship Education oscillates between the
two ideas of Citizenship Educations aims: on the one hand, competencies are built
up based on the idea of those rights that individuals have and should be able to
enjoy for their own sake. On the other hand, competencies are acquired because
society needs competent individuals who see their rights as a duty, and who
consequently have and practise a public spirit (Gemeinsinn) in order to help
society and state function. As long as this awareness of responsibility for society is
alien to the competency itself, this argument for Citizenship Education has a
totalitarian aspect, reminding one of nationalistic educational schemes.
While it is easy to state that the duty to think and act in order to serve a
community, a state or larger entity is not obviously a legitimate goal, it is far more
difficult to give a systematic, rather than a strictly normative place to that
consciousness which is aware of being necessarily social and therefore political.
The competencies of political analysis and judgement, methods, decision-
making and acting are well accepted with good reason, but in actual understanding
are still not sufficient. The curriculum discussed above demonstrates this. While
STABILIZATION OF THE DEMOCRACTIC SYSTEM AND SELF-EMPOWERMENT
119
Citizenship Education is a perspective, the particular contents are power, human
rights and societies (Geschftsstelle, 2010, p. 20). When times, spaces,
societies include Civic Education, then it aims inevitably at knowledge of
institutions. This aim has a rather long tradition. For a long time History Education
was in charge of teaching about Swiss governmental institutions, that is, the
national parliament, court, executive, and the division of powers. Elections were
used as the occasion for explaining the voting system, in order to enable the future
electorate to take part in it. Even in the knowledge-domain of competencies, the
curriculum was quite restricted: it did not ask for a deeper understanding of
democracy, nor for a reflection about citizens rights and the power of the state as
eventually opposed forces. Nor did it encourage debate about how powerless
individuals might be led into the political process by joining associations, and so
forth.
ix
In contrast to this outlook, the two themes mentioned in times, spaces,
societies are human rights and power, which let one enlarge the contents of
Civic Education. But even so, one must ask if it is still understood that pupils
should know the various human rights by heart. What is meant by power? Does
it allude to the confrontations of states, or does it invite discussion of the fragility
of public life, and how it might be strengthened and stabilized by citizens
themselves? The competence of judgement involved in such questions in itself is
no guarantee of a self-reliant citizenry in the future. Only a specific understanding
of this competence strengthens the participants in democracies. Such competence
of judgement may not be reduced to an anonymous objective analysis of
situations and factors in decision-making, but must be oriented to a personal value-
and interest-based judgement which, at the same time, takes into account what
proper well-being means for others and for the community. Only in that way will
such competence reflect the fact that compromises last only when all participants
have been respected.
Traditionally, the domain of skills for the competencies was restricted to the
process of voting and electing (included within methods of information-
gathering). As a rule, there was no idea about how to influence attitudes, but
only a normative understanding of what it means to be an adult voter and
elector. Were this new curriculum to interpret competencies in the same way,
simply enabling good citizenship, then little would be gained. Citizenship
Education in school should encourage a necessary learning, so that students
become aware that they are political beings for whom being indifferent is not
an option, because social and political processes do not leave individuals
alone, no more than the economic system does (Ziegler, 2011a). If young
people are meant to have a political perspective on the world, and if they are
meant to have the incentive to put forward their own point of view in the
social give and take, then classes in Citizenship Education cannot be confined
to subject-specific contents. Instead, school must become a sphere where
political culture is lived on various different levels the individual class,
school at large, and possibly school in relation to the municipality as a
ZIEGLER
120
deliberative culture, one that both presupposes community and also
invariably creates it.
The competencies of political analysis and judgement, methods, decision-making
and acting, as understood until now, do not advance this kind of consciousness,
which I call public spiritedness (Gemeinsinn), following the wording of
Biedermann and Reichenbach (2009). Certainly, the competencies will have to
follow the dimensions of knowledge, dispositions, attitudes and skills, but they will
also have to be constructed in such a way as to systematically or logically include
public spiritedness as a rational element of graduated political competency.
Biedermann and Reichenbach (2009), referring to Arendt and Kant, develop the
idea of a meta-competency, namely, the political competency of judgement, and
they see this as being intimately linked with public spiritedness. This argument
seems quite promising.
Biedermann and Reichenbach do not, however, discuss the position of the
political competency of judgement regarding the other two competencies usually
used, the competency of acting and the competency of methods. They state that the
political competency of judgement is the heart and soul (Herzstck) of
Citizenship Education. What this signifies for the other competencies remains
unclear or is left open. As they link the political competency of judgement
exclusively with public spiritedness, they leave the other two competencies without
a link to this form of consciousness. Unfortunately, this would create two different
types of competencies for Citizenship education. Instead, we will need to construct
all competencies, including public spiritedness, as rational elements capable of
systematic differentiation.
Citizenship Education must be able to formulate competencies which will let
students make decisions concerning individual (non-)engagement a matter of
informed acting. Free will must not be a matter of individualistic irresponsibility
but of informed relinquishment. Therefore, education should try to give all young
people the opportunity to learn about the importance of participation in all its forms
and possibilities, but also of the consequences of (non-)participation. In
formulating this, it will be necessary to define participation clearly, distinguishing
it from the idea of sheer activism, which is insufficient for the performance of
political competency (see discussions in Quesel & Oser, 2007).
CITIZENSHIP EDUCTAION IN AND FOR EUROPE
The grave and acute problems faced by European society and its constituent
national groups lead to the widely-accepted idea that the pan-European population
should identify itself more with the EU and the EC. Individual Europeans should
be more interested in political affairs on the European level, in this view, and want
to be informed as well as to engage in the civil society and politics of Europe. The
assumption is that Europeans as a whole should participate!
This assumption creates dangers, however: the EU may not simply replicate
processes of identification and morale typical of the nation-states, which have
STABILIZATION OF THE DEMOCRACTIC SYSTEM AND SELF-EMPOWERMENT
121
created a strong identification and at the same time strong feelings against
enemies which could be manipulated. On the other side, without such
identification, societies function poorly, opening themselves to internal aggression
because their members do not behave as members of a community.
Therefore, Citizenship Education needs to guarantee this feeling of membership,
all the while combining it with the knowledge that in our present-day world
political processes are global. In that perspective, the EU is an important actor for
every European, and even for non-Europeans indirectly. Citizenship Education
ought to promote an understanding of this perspective that transcends regional- and
nation-state-dimensions, so that EU identity becomes not simply a matter of
political position but also a matter of political competency, with all its attendant
skills and their ultimate reference to public-spiritedness.
However, there is good reason for Citizenship Education not to create this
awareness of the general interdependence between societies and their members by
way of a normative formation of collective identity, but rather by fostering a well-
argued understanding of the prevailing political mechanisms, of the threat posed to
the individual failing the establishment and constant affirmation of a supranational,
binding system of rules, and of the necessity of integrating and tying power and its
bearers into democratic and international legal processes. The competencies of
Citizenship Education should develop both this understanding and the capacity for
taking corresponding action. It is aimed at bringing forth adults capable of
recognising, classifying, and attending to their interests and values in civil society
and on the national and supranational levels, that is, adults capable of analysing
and assessing political events in terms of their interests and values, and capable of
acting accordingly. But such education is also aimed at adults, who, subject to their
possibilities, are actually interested in and committed to shaping politics
accordingly, because they have understood that in the long term human beings may
enjoy a good life only as social and political creatures. It is therefore indispensable
that competencies are formulated so that these insights result as far as possible not
only from an intellectual thought process but also from lived practice. To what
extent formulating such competency descriptions will be possible in the near
future, and whether they will actually gain acceptance, remains to be seen.
NOTES
i
In the same way in the Council of Europes program to bring forward European Citizenship, all
the papers and entries in its website make these ideas clear. For a recent formulatation (updated
3 December 2010), see http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/1_What_is_EDC_HRE/What_%
20is_EDC_en.asp. See further the paper of the steering committees president at
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/improving/docs/ser_citizen_pureza.pdf. The same views are expressed
on the European Union's website, which stresses the necessity of citizen participation.
ii
Issues believed to have been forgotten have suddenly become prominent; see, for instance, the 2012
Congress of the Swiss Association of Education Research on Educational Inequality and Justice
Challenges for Science and Society (http://www.sgbf.ch/jahreskongresse/jahreskongresse_de.html).
iii
Meanwhile, official information on statistics is readily available. http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/
portal/de/index/dienstleistungen/forumschule/them/02/03a.html.

ZIEGLER
122

iv
Lehrplan 21 auf Kurs. Press release dated 14 November 2011. For the press release and the basic
structure, see http://www.lehrplan.ch/sites/default/files/grobstruktur_lp21.pdf.
v
My thanks go to Francesca Moser, Co-leader of the project Deutschschweizer Lehrplan, for
sending me the graph in a quality to be printed.
vi
The author of this text is the official expert for Citizenship Education in the working-group
BNE+ of the LP21 project; see www.lehrplan.ch/arbeitsgruppen (last retrieved 31 October 2011).
vii
Implicitly, this suggests that Civic Education is understood to correspond more or less to Civics
(that is, the study of the state and of government), that is, a form of Political Education focused on
state institutions and which considers participation in elections and ballots the principal citizen
actions. Citizenship Education, however, refers to a form of Political Education aimed at enabling
the members of civil society to take action within that society and on the different levels of political
decision-making.
viii
Even if the Swiss Peoples Party (SVP), an important political force in Switzerland, continues to
systematically make the case for an isolationist policy, it nevertheless permanently invokes the
importance of a clearly negative attitude towards the European Union. Moreover, the Swiss media
are full of contributions on international events and their relations to Swiss politics and the countrys
economy. It goes without saying that in such a highly networked economic area as Switzerland, life
is not confined to national boundaries.
ix
No up-to-date overview of the conceptions of Political Education in Switzerland exists. The key
publication in this area is Moser, Kost, and Holdener (1978). However, preliminary work on an
annotated edition on the source history of Political Education suggest this point of view. See further
the project Reader Politische Bildung (20102012) http://www.fhnw.ch/ph/pbgd/projekte.
REFERENCES
Allenspach, D. & Ziegler, B. (forthcoming). Einleitung. Wissenschaftliche Tagungen zu politischer
Bildung: Ein kurzer Abriss. In D. Allenspach & B. Ziegler (Eds.), Forschungstrends in der
politischen Bildung. Beitrge zur Tagung Politische Bildung empirisch 2010 (pp. 7-13).
Glarus/Chur: Ruegger.
Bundesministerium fr Bildung und Forschung (Ed.) (2003). Zur Entwicklung nationaler
Bildungsstandards. Eine Expertise. Bonn: Bundesministerium.
Biedermann, H., Oser, F., & Quesel, C. (Eds.) (2007). Vom Gelingen und Scheitern Politischer Bildung.
Studien und Entwrfe. Zrich: Ruegger.
Biedermann, H., & Reichenbach, R. (2009). Die empirische Erforschung der politischen Bildung und
das Konzept der politischen Urteilskompetenz. Zeitschrift fr Pdagogik, 6, 872-885.
Biedermann, H., Oser, F., Konstantinidou, L., & Widorski, D. (Eds.) (2010). Staatsbrgerinnen und
Staatsbrger von morgen: Zur Wirksamkeit politischer Bildung in der Schweiz. Ein Vergleich mit 37
anderen Lndern. Freiburg: Universittsverlag. http://www.unifr.ch/pedg/iccs/bericht1.pdf.
Criblez, L. (2009). Fachdidaktik in der Schweiz: von der normativen Lehrdisziplin zur empirischen
Unterrichtsforschung? In J. Hodel & B. Ziegler (Eds.), Forschungswerkstatt Geschichtsdidaktik 07.
Beitrge zur Tagung geschichtsdidaktik empirisch 07 (pp. 21-37). Bern: hep.
Criblez, L. (2010). Harmonisierung im Bildungswesen Bildungspolitik zwischen nationalen Reform-
aspirationen und fderalistischen Autonomieansprchen. In A. Auer (Ed.), Herausforderung
HarmoS. Bildungspolitik, Fderalismus und Demokratie auf dem Prfstein (pp. 1-21). Zrich/Basel/
Genf: Schulthess.
Furrer, M. (2004). Die Nation im Schulbuch zwischen berhhung und Verdrngung. Leitbilder der
Schweizer Nationalgeschichte in Schweizer Geschichtslehrmitteln der Nachkriegszeit und Gegen-
wart. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
Geschftsstelle (Ed.) (2010). Geschftsstelle der deutschsprachigen EDK-Regionen, Grundlagen fr
den Lehrplan 21, verabschiedet von der Plenarversammlung der deutschsprachigen EDK-Regionen
am 18. Mrz 2010. www.lehrplan.ch/sites/default/files/Grundlagenbericht.pdf.
Geschftsstelle (Ed.) (2011). Geschftsstelle der D-EDK. Grobstruktur Lehrplan 21, verabschiedet von
der DeutschschweizerErziehungsdirektoren-Konferenz an der Plenarversammlungvom 28. Oktober

STABILIZATION OF THE DEMOCRACTIC SYSTEM AND SELF-EMPOWERMENT
123

2011als Arbeitspapier zur Verffentlichung freigegeben. http://www.lehrplan.ch/sites/default/files/
grobstruktur_lp21.pdf.
Gollob, R. et al. (2007). Politik und Demokratie Leben und lernen. Bern: schulverlag.
GPJE (2004). Anforderungen an nationale Bildungsstandards fr den Fachunterricht in der Politischen
Bildung an Schulen. Ein Entwurf. Schwalbach. www.gpje.de/media/bildungsstandards.pdf.
Khberger, Ch., & Sedmak, C. (Eds.) (2009). Europische Geschichtskultur Europische
Geschichtspolitik. Vom Erfinden, Entdecken, Erarbeiten der Bedeutung von Erinnerung fr das
Verstndnis und Selbstverstndnis Europas. Innsbruck/Wien: Studienverlag.
Migration in Europa (2008). Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (APuZ), pp. 35-36. http://www.bpb.de/
publikationen/JPGHDB,0,Migration_in_Europa.html.
Moser, H., Kost, F., & Holdener, W. (1978). Zur Geschichte der politischen Bildung in der Schweiz.
Stuttgart: Metzler. (Politische Bildung im europischen Ausland)
Oser, F., & Biedermann, H. (Eds.) (2003): Jugend ohne Politik. Ergebnisse der IEA Studie zu
politischem Wissen, Demokratieverstndnis und gesellschaftlichem Engagement von Jugendlichen
in der Schweiz im Vergleich mit 27 anderen Lndern. Zrich: Ruegger.
Quesel, C., & Oser, F. (Eds.) (2007). Die Mhen der Freiheit. Probleme und Chancen der Partizipation
von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Zrich: Ruegger.
Rychen, Dominique S., & Salganik, Laura H. (Eds.) (2003). Defining and selecting key competencies.
Theoretical and conceptual foundations. Gttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.
Sander, W. (2011): Kompetenzorientierung in Schule und politischer Bildung Eine kritische
Zwischenbilanz. In Autorengruppe Fachdidaktik, Konzepte der politischen Bildung. Eine
Streitschrift (pp. 9-25). Reihe Politik und Bildung 64.
http://www.jugenddebattiert.ch/politische-bildung/kompetenzen.html (31.10.2011).
www.lehrplan.ch, Kommunikation Lehrplan 21 (ed.): Projekt Lehrplan 21 (31.10.2011).
www.politikzyklus.ch (2007). Allenspach, Dominik & Brgler, Batrice, PH FHNW.
Ziegler, B. (2011a). Politische und konomische Bildung im Lehrplan 21. In D. Kbler & Ph. Koch
(Eds.), Finanzkrise und Demokratie. Herausforderung fr Politik, Recht und Bildung. Schriften zur
Demokratieforschung Band 2 (pp. 93-105). Zrich: Schulthess.
Ziegler, B. (2011b). Welche politische Bildung wollen wir? Die Arbeiten zur Integration von politischer
Bildung im Lehrplan 21. vpod Bildungspolitik, 170, 4-6.
Ziegler, B. (2011, forthcoming). Leducation la citoyennet au sein dune Education au
Dveloppement Durable+ dans le Lehrplan 21 (Plan dEtudes 21) pour la Suisse almannique.
Revue HEP 2011.
Ziegler, B. (2012, forthcoming). Politische Bildung im Deutschschweizer Lehrplan (Lehrplan 21). In D.
Allenspach & B. Ziegler (Eds.), Forschungstrends in der politischen Bildung. Beitrge zur Tagung
Politische Bildung empirisch 2010 (pp. 29-48). Glarus/Chur: Ruegger.
Ziegler, B. et al. (2009). Grundsatzpapier der Echogruppe politische Bildung, vom 9. Mai 2009.
www.politischebildung.ch (31.10.2011).


M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 125148.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
HERMAN J. ABS AND TINA PYKA
10. USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
INTRODUCTION: LIMITS OF CURRENT RESEARCH TOOLS FOR
CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCES
The conviction that citizenship education is vital for democratic societies has
increasingly been reflected in planned curricula (Brza, 2004; Eurydice, 2005;
ICCS, 2010) and quality assurance of schools (Edelstein et al., 2007; Abs, 2009);
nonetheless, there remain difficulties for their implementation and assessment.
First, the definition of citizenship education is highly debated. Beyond a
multitude of labels unfolds an even larger number of approaches and objectives.
Johnson and Morris (2010) review the various concepts of critical thinking and
pedagogy that have flourished in the literature. From this, they propose a
framework allowing for comparative analysis of curricula and teaching materials.
They synthesise the literature by crossing curricular categories whose labels they
have drawn from Cogan et al.s definition of citizenship/civics education as the
formation of the knowledge, skills, values and dispositions of citizens (Cogan et
al., 2002, p. 4). They point out the distinctive categories in which critical
pedagogy is declined. Accordingly, the table runs a horizontal line through the
following categories: politics/ideology, social/collective, self/subjectivity and
praxis/ engagement.
While this work sets a foundation for future studies, it does not generate a
consensus on what should be taught in schools or on how to interpret citizenship
competences. On the contrary, the last decade was marked by several alternative
concepts of citizenship competence. Recent examples are systemised in Eis (2010,
p. 120), even more recently in the alternative model of Weieno et al. (2010), and
most recently the contributions of Petrik (2012) and Reinhardt (2012). In this case,
the Delphi-Study in this volume can be considered an acceptable approach to build
a consensus in the open debate.
Second, both policy makers and teachers need methodological guidance to assist
them in implementing citizenship education in curricula and the classroom. In
addition to teaching methods that need to be continuously advanced, diagnostic
tools are required to help teachers identify real student competencies. Then,
educationalists are needed to determine how students can efficiently assimilate the
desired competencies followed by policy to shed light on problematic systemic
structures in schooling.
Operationalizing a concept as vast and multidimensional as citizenship into an
instrument is a difficult feat. To date, the assessment of citizenship competencies
ABS AND PYKA
126
has been accomplished through the use of increasingly more sophisticated
standardised diagnostic tools (ICCS, 2009; Schulz et al., 2010), and through
integrating the gathered information into composite indicators (Hoskins et al.,
2008, 2009, 2011). However, both approaches up to now omit the linkage to the
teachers who must decipher the citizenship competencies of their students
individually. Assessment tools for their daily routines need to be interpretive to
allow teachers to pinpoint students shortcomings and provide realistic objectives
for further growth. For this purpose, not only quantitative degrees of competence
but theoretical ideas on how citizenship develops are beneficial.
Against this backdrop, the chapter will analyse critical incidents as an
alternative diagnostic tool for citizenship competence. This approach has been
prepared in association with the EU-Project The Development of Active
Citizenship on the Basis of Informal Learning at School (Scheerens, 2009). The
further piloting process of the current tool has been launched in a small scale study
analysing citizenship education in upper secondary schools of four European
countries (Pyka, 2010).
The body of this chapter is divided into three main sections. Following a brief
introduction in critical incident methodology and its application in psychology and
social sciences, this chapter reviews current research approaches employing critical
incidents in the area of citizenship education, namely the measurement of
intercultural competences (Hesse & Gbel, 2007). Focus will then turn to the
process of creating critical incidents as diagnostic tools in the context of
developing citizenship competence based on informal learning at school
(Eckensberger, Abs, & Breit, 2009). Lastly, the results of the piloting phase (Pyka,
2010) let us draw conclusions on the necessary improvements in standardising
critical incidents as diagnostic tools for citizenship competencies.
THE CRITICAL INCIDENT METHODOLOGY
By the end of World War II in the Aviation Psychology Program of the US Army
Air Forces, J. C. Flanagan developed and used a research method which quickly
was coined the critical incident technique. Primarily it generated functional
descriptions of behaviour in professional activities. The technique served to collect
data for measures of the typical performance in these situations (Flanagan, 1954,
p. 346). At that point, Flanagan defined an incident as any observable human
activity that is sufficiently complete in itself to permit inferences and predictions to
be made about the person performing the act (1954, p. 328). He considers an
incident critical that occurs in a situation where its consequences are sufficiently
definite to leave little doubt concerning its effect (ibid.). In other words, the
technique collects data on behaviour within specific scenarios of broad
professional activities.
In his studies, the technique was meant to provide answers to specific military
questions: why people failed flight training, why bombing missions failed and in
the situations pilots suffered from vertigo and disorientation during combat. The
concept was to gather behavioural and emotional information about failures or
USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
127
difficulties arising from the army personnels descriptions of their experiences
(Flanagan, 1954). The technique consisted in collecting Army personnels accounts
of particular incidents (1954, p. 343). Flanagan further explains that the incidents
were mostly reports of extreme behaviour, either outstandingly effective or
ineffective with respect to attaining the general aims of the activity (1954, p. 337).
Flanagan demonstrates that the critical incidents technique is flexible in that it
can and needs to adapt to the object studied (1954, p. 335). First, the researcher
must know both the general aim of the professional activity under consideration
and the various background factors conditioning the achievement of a general aim.
For example, the aim may be to successfully bomb a target; the background factors
may include height and speed a plane needs to fly to be able to reach the target.
The interviewed personnel are then encouraged to actively observe their behaviour,
feelings and sensations attentively during the activity. Later, during the interview,
they report their experiences within each professional scenario. In other words, at
its inception, the CI technique collected detailed reports from memory of the
personnels behaviour, feelings and observations. The accounts are made from
within, as well as their evaluation of, a recent specific situation within their global
professional activity. By combining detailed accounts of incidents of a broader
(professional) activity, thorough functional descriptions or measures of proficiency
could be established. The processes can then be broken down into meaningful units
to improve proficiency and success of the activity.
Flanagan sees the objectivity more robust if observers are given precise
instructions (1954, p. 337). He pointed out that the inductive approach of data
analysis he employed as part of the CI technique was a major problem. He
conceded that it is never possible in practice to obtain an ideal solution for each of
the practical problems involved in obtaining a functional description of an activity
(1954, p. 345).
Chell (2004) joins Flanagans opinion that the inductive classification of the
initial proceedings is prone to limitation; the outcome of Flanagans research was
a set of descriptive categories critical requirements of effective combat
leadership (Chell, 2004, p. 46). At present, she identifies two main versions of the
technique: Flanagans inductive and incomplete method, and an interpretative or
phenomenological method Chell and others have developed further (2004, p. 45).
The data collection in Chells approach aims to identify the context of
emotionally laden critical events [] from which experiential learning takes place
(2004, p. 45).
In Chells understanding the reliability of the critical incidents technique is
deeply rooted in the quality and coherence of the interview process (2004, p. 57).
The interviewer must elicit a comprehensive picture from the interviewee; the
exchange must be sensitive, honest and focused (ibid.). The point is that one is
trying not to find a single truth but to understand the respondents perspectives
and actions (ibid.). Chell stresses potential triangulation the CI technique through
other means of data collection. However, she reaffirms the techniques benefits in
explorative phases of studies. It allows the researcher to draw progressively closer
to the interviewee as they can relate context, strategy and outcomes, and look for
ABS AND PYKA
128
repetition of patterns and commonalities in themes (2004, p. 47). It gives the
ability to analyse data either through grounded theory approach by verifying
existent theory or by taking a multiparadigm approach. According to Chell
(2004, p. 56), the critical incidents technique allows to both develop [] case
based theory grounded in actual critical events (2004, p. 58) and test the extent
and relevance of the theory itself.
This argument further vindicates what Butterfield (2005) noted in his article
about the growing number of diverse academic fields with the critical incidents
technique as a key feature. The fields range from industrial and organizational
psychology to counselling psychology, nursing, education, and medicine
(Butterfield, 2005, p. 489).
Butterfield also takes up on the issue of scientific validity and objectivity. He
underlines that many challenges of the validity of the technique arise due to the
wide scope of research objects and interpretative traditions of the critical incidents
technique (2005, pp. 483, 485). Butterfield recommends a consistent terminology
and proposes a set of best practices for future studies employing the critical
incidents technique. The guiding principles embody on the one hand external,
independent coding techniques and on the other hand sufficient representativeness
and exhaustiveness of the data (2005, p. 489).
Butterfield maps out how the usage of the critical incidents technique has
evolved from Flanagans initial approach. The evolution took place on several
levels. One is a clear move towards a more objective data analysis process in line
with the principles of Butterfield. Further evolution regards data collection
methods: researchers shift from memory to direct observation i.e. researchers
prefer direct observations than interviewees accounts. Researchers also shift from
oral accounts of past events towards written assessments and critical considerations
of the incident by the interviewees (2005, p. 479).
CRITICAL INCIDENTS AS ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Critical incidents have also found application as assessment tools in the evaluation
of citizenship. In a first section, the research design by Hesse and Gbel (2007) to
measure intercultural competence is reviewed with particular attention to its
utilisation of the critical incidents technique. In the second section, we will explore
critical incidents as a tool for assessing informal citizenship learning at school
(Eckensberger et al., 2009). Last, the focus turns to the results of Pykas (2010)
pilot study analysing citizenship education in upper secondary schools.
Critical Incidents for the Measurement of Intercultural Competence
Within the framework of the DESI study that assesses learning English as a foreign
language in Germany (DESI-Konsortium presided by Klieme, 2008), Gbel and
Hesse employ the critical incidents technique to develop a measurement tool for
intercultural competence (Gbel, 2007; Hesse, Gbel, & Jude, 2008; Hesse &
Gbel, 2009). The authors process of operationalizing intercultural competences
USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
129
and developing an instrument based on the critical incidents technique is a valuable
example showing how to use the technique to assess mental, emotional and
psychological dispositions.
As one of the objectives of citizenship education, intercultural competence has
recently gained a lot of attention and importance in curricula (Eurydice in prep.).
Teaching foreign languages provides plenty of opportunities for intercultural
learning experience. The classroom of English as a foreign language facilitates the
nurturing and practice of intercultural competence. Like citizenship, intercultural
competence evokes a broad scope of meanings. Its diffuse definition is accentuated
by a profound conceptual transformation since the 1980s. Instead of referring to an
offset of stylized facts, intercultural competence has evolved to include
individuals capacity to critically reflect and react to behaviour, feelings and
attitudes. These reflections should come from the point of view of themselves and
others (Gbel, 2007, p. 22). This functionalist vision of curricular requirements
holds the capacity to interact successfully beyond cultural differences in a
potentially infinite number of different situations (ibid., emphasis added).
The overarching curricular objective in Germany is to help students attain a
culture-general level of intercultural competence. This translates as the ability to
cope successfully in any situation of cultural difference. The learning process
however takes place via practicing how to address culture-specific situations. The
measurement tool Gbel and Hesse develop takes both dimensions into account.
To measure culture-general attitudes, Gbel and Hesse submit a 20 item
questionnaire that is analogous to the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) by
Hammer and Bennett (1998) but adapted to the age of the sample. The IDI consists
of 50 to 60 items developed by Bennett and Hammer (1988). It was developed on
the theoretical foundations of Bennetts (1993) model of subjective constructions
of cultural differences in the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
(DMIS). Bennett deduced that the way an individual deals with cultural difference
follows consistent psychological patterns. He then identifies six stages of
intercultural sensitivity. As experience of intercultural contact increases, an
individual increases their intercultural sensitivity. The model describes three
ethnocentric and three ethno-relative dimensions: denial, defence, and
minimisation on the one hand and acceptance, adaptation, and integration on the
other hand. There is no need to go into further detail for the purpose of this article;
it suffices that the IDI replica questionnaire by Gbel serves to complement and
externally validate the second, culture-specific component of the measurement
tool: two critical incidents with 42 items (Gbel, 2007).
Gbel describes critical incidents as recurrences of intercultural contact which
are a source of irritation or conflict (Gbel, 2007, p. 32). In preliminary
investigations, Gbel finds it proves most successful to actualise intercultural
awareness (of people) through actual or imagined intercultural conflicts (ibid.).
Hesse and Gbel choose a set of age appropriate critical incidents from the pool of
critical incidents experienced by students and students in Great Britain and
collected by Schmid and Thomas (2003). After a group of external experts
ABS AND PYKA
130
validated the choice, Hesse and Gbel assigned four questions to each critical
incident:

1. What happened? (cognitive analysis of the situation)
2. How do the participants feel? (affective analysis of the situation)
3. How would you react? (analysis of action strategies)
4. What can be learnt from this incident? (transfer) (2007, p. 267)

For each question, 6 to 8 closed-ended response items are presented. The
respondents then evaluate the degree of accuracy of the items on a four point scale.
The responses represent the stages of Bennetts DMIS and proceed from a prior
assessment of curricula and the most current school books used in Germany. The
curricular assessments analytical categories also derive from the DMIS.
Just as Gbel and Hesse had expected, the results highlight a correlation
between culture-general and culture-specific attitudes. Too high of a correlation
would suggest the culture-specific tool to be superfluous (Hesse & Gbel, 2007, p.
271). The results corroborated that the critical incidents are sufficient for the
representation of the theoretical construct of culture-specific intercultural
sensitivity and therefore intercultural competence. Hesse and Gbel interpret
sensitivity as a necessary precondition for competence. The authors stress the need
for a reliable classification along Bennetts DMIS categories. This can only be
achieved when the entire set of items is taken into account, hence the
multidimensional nature of intercultural competence.
The development of this instrument is relevant in the evolution of the critical
incidents technique. Differing from Flanagans initial approach, Gbel and Hesse
do not proceed inductively. They follow an approach inspired by Butterfield, who
preferred a pencil-and-paper instrument where respondents critically reflect on
their opinions and attitudes toward a meaningful and realistic scenario over an
interview-based account of past events.
The preconceived code that Gbel and Hesse apply ties closely to existing
theory, thereby making the data analysing process more objective. The validity of
the instrument and the reliability of the collected data are augmented in two ways.
First, the critical incidents were obtained from an explorative study and revalidated
for instrument development by external experts with curricula and school books in
mind. Second, critical incidents technique data was complemented by other data
from Gbels adaptation of the IDI questionnaires by Hammer and Bennet.
Gbel and Hesses development of a critical incidents based instrument for
intercultural competences provides an example of the benefits of the technique,
namely its capacity to assess even complex mental, emotional and psychological
dispositions. It can exploit this benefit while still providing precise data coding.
Since coding is built on existing theory, it is inevitably up for scientific debate. As
Chell noted, critical incidents prove to be useful instruments in confirming or
extending existent theory while allowing departures from individual cases (2004,
pp. 47, 50).

USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
131
Critical Incidents as a Basis for Informal Learning of Citizenship at School
The EU Project The development of active citizenship on the basis of informal
learning at school (Scheerens, 2009) aims at generating a set of critical incidents
that show and help to exploit potential of informal learning. The study was
conducted in seven countries (Cyprus, Denmark, England, Germany, Italy,
Romania, the Netherlands). Scheerens starts by assuming citizenship competencies
are at least partly transmitted through the informal learning process. He defines
critical incidents as informal learning situations that occur unexpectedly with some
element of conflict. They have high potential of significance to illustrate aspects
of citizenship, in terms of civil behaviour at school (Scheerens, 2009, p. 429).
Moreover critical incidents have also been conceptualised as unexpected or
unforeseen situations in schools with the potential for self-reflection by the student,
dialogue, or discourse. The situations aid students understanding of basic human
rights, fair play, democracy, personal efficacy, morality, trust, and social skills
(Scheerens, 2009, p. 26).
The various critical incidents that have been catalogued by the report can be
differentiated by looking at the different dimensions of informal learning situations
in which critical incidents can occur and at the very meanings of critical and
incident themselves (Abs, 2008).
To better understand the measurement potential of the critical incidents in the
context of the EU-Project (Scheerens, 2009), it needs to be said that informal
learning here refers to learning opportunities occurring alongside formal education
and in the same setting. It is important to distinguish two symptomatic situations:
critical incidents can be either (1) intended or unintended by the teacher and (2) be
systemic and institutionalised or occur inadvertently. Table 1 describes which
informal learning opportunities arise from the conjuncture of the two dimensions.
Table 1. Different types of critical incidents in informal education at school
(see Abs, 2008)


Situation made up or pre-
established by the system
(institutionalised)
Original situation, not
systematically planned for in
advance
Unintended by
the teacher
Hidden curriculum of schools or
of a national education system in
general
Perceptions of single events (e.g.
bullying of a student) that in sum
constitute a school climate
Intended by the
teacher
Extracurricular activities
organised by the school
Pedagogical reaction to
spontaneously occurring (inter-)
actions of students or other
members of the school
ABS AND PYKA
132
As to the definitions of the terms critical and incident, incident is used
referring to both a single event and to a manifestation of a latent structure in a
paradigmatic situation. Critical then can assume four distinct meanings: necessary
conditions, worth being criticised, providing criteria and requiring but not
implying a judgement. In the first definition, a CI is a synonym for an opportunity
to learn (informally), the second and third definitions refer to modelling standards
of the field (e.g. standards for being a good citizen). The fourth meaning is the
most relevant for our analysis. It suggests that an incident that is critical will be
controversial or dilemmatic. When focussing on critical incidents for assessing
citizenship competences we will use the last definition.
The same EU-Project further developed a qualitative measurement tool
consisting of nine hypothetical critical incidents (Eckensberger et al., 2009). They
connect to the implementation of democratic principles to teacher-student
interaction and citizenship competences. For example, a teacher, who is a member
of a certain political party, explains the position of his party during lessons. The
positions of other parties are not reported. Each critical incident is accompanied
by four analytic questions.

1. Could this happen at your school/in your country?
2. Is it generally ok to act this way?
3. Why is it ok/ why not?
4. How should one act/how should a teacher act?

The critical incidents are settled in the school environment and consider
paradigmatic situations of informal learning as outlined above. They generally
present interpersonal or intergroup conflicts, but most are also related to
controversial moral and political issues (Hess 2004, 2009). However, the relatively
short EU-Project made further instrumental development more difficult. Piloting
work as a first step to improve and standardise the tool and to investigate inter-
individual and transnational differences could had to be postponed to another
study, which will be described in the next chapter.
Critical Incidents as a Diagnostic Tool: Development of an Instrument for
Citizenship Competences
The first piloting of the critical incidents developed by Eckensberger, Abs and
Breit (2009) has taken place in a comparative study conducted by Pyka (2010). In
2009 and 2010, her field study analysed citizenship education in upper secondary
schools of four European countries. Pyka assesses how citizenship attitudes and
knowledge are shaped and conveyed through both formal and informal learning in
national education systems. The study covers upper secondary schools in Spain
(Barcelona), England (Manchester), Sweden (Stockholm) and Poland (Krakow).
Data was collected through classroom observations, interviews with teachers of
citizenship education, and questionnaires administered to students. In this chapter,
USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
133
we focus on two critical incidents incorporated into the questionnaires. Figure 1
reproduces the critical incidents as used in the questionnaires.

Please think about the following incidents and give your opinion.
Critical incident 1
(Barcelona wording) A teacher, who has some disciplinary problems in his class,
uses individual grading as a means of punishment against bad behaviour.
(Post-Barcelona wording) Imagine a teacher doesnt like a student in your class
and therefore gives a good piece of work by this student a bad mark.

Critical incident 2
(Barcelona wording) Imagine the speaker of all students in your school is in deep
conflict with the principal. In the end the principal decides to suspend the speaker
and to proclaim re-elections
(Post-Barcelona wording) Imagine the spokesperson of all students in your
school is in deep conflict with the head teacher. In the end the head teacher decides
to suspend the spokesperson and to proclaim re-elections.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
A This can also happen at my school.
B It is justifiable to act in that way.

C Why is it justifiable or not? (free text)
D How would you as a student react? (free text)
Figure 1. presentation of the two Critical Incidents as delivered in Pykas questionnaire
(see Pyka, 2010); adapted from Eckensberger et al. (2009)
For the first two items, students had to rate their agreement with the statements
on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
These two items seek to gain information about the impression of their school
climate that students perceive and about their stance on the justness of behaviour
and attitudes depicted in the critical incident. The next two are open questions, they
leave room to the respondents to elaborate on and explain their point of view.
When Eckensberger, Abs and Breit proposed critical incidents as an assessment
instrument, they formulated nine CIs with exclusively open format questions. In
the piloting phase with two CIs, two Likert scale questions and two open-ended
questions were used instead. This change was done in order to simplify data
analysis for the first two questions and to focus students writing on those aspects
ABS AND PYKA
134
that could not be answered in a closed format. Only after rating It is justifiable to
act in that way can respondents reason freely about Why is it justifiable or not?
Opting for justifiable rather than generally ok resulted meant to encourage
students to reflect their vision of what is morally acceptable in a school setting.
Since the questionnaire was addressed to students only, respondents were asked
How would you as a student react?
The wording of the incidents themselves changed post data collection in the first
stage of the research (Barcelona, Spain). The change came due to numerous
enquiries from the respondents regarding the context of the incidents.
Analytical framework
The role of the critical incidents in the questionnaire is to assess:
1. Whether the depicted interaction could take place at the respondents
school (school and classroom climate);
2. Whether the depicted interaction was justifiable (first insight into
respondents moral judgment);
3. How the respondents motivate their previous evaluation of what is right.
4. What kind of responsibility respondents feel for acting in comparable
situations.
The initial idea was to analyse the data obtained with the critical incidents
instrument without previously fixed sets of categories. Nevertheless, the theoretical
framework that underpinned the design of the entire study derived from the
citizenship models of Wiel Veugelers (Veugelers, 2007; Leenders, Veugelers, &
De Kat, 2008), Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne (2004) and Lawrence
Kohlbergs theory on the Stages of Moral Development (1984).
Influenced by the theoretical work of Jean Piaget, Kohlberg (1984) identifies six
stages of individual moral development. Kohlberg considers the reasoning about
justice the basis of moral behaviour. The process of moral development reflects
progress in an individuals perception of justice. He conducts interviews in which
he presents moral dilemmas to identify the stages in which respondents reason.
Dilemmas are situations requiring a moral decision. For instance, in the Heinz
Dilemma, a man steals a drug to cure his deadly sick wife. He steals because the
pharmacist charges an unaffordable price, making money off the drug
disproportionately (Kohlberg, 1984). Then the interviewees justify how they would
react in that scenario. For stage classification, Kohlberg did not focus on the result
of the interviewees moral reasoning but on how they reasoned.
The six stages are divided into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional and
post-conventional. In the pre-conventional level, the individual observes right and
wrong in respect to their primary interest. Characteristic concepts include
punishment, authority, and reciprocity. In the conventional level, the individual
observes rules while pondering them with regard to necessary loyalty to their
group, characteristic concepts are group acceptance, law, and order. In the post-
conventional level, individuals define and follow universal moral values and
principles which are valid beyond individual interests or group belongings.
USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
135
Piloting the Instrument: Qualitative Results
The field study by Pyka (2010) was a means to examine the practicability and
pertinence of the critical incidents instrument and to explore different paradigms of
interpretation. The study covered 351 students in upper secondary schools (public
and private) between the ages 15 and 19 with an average age of 16.6. The number
of cases per country varied due to different local possibilities of data collection:
187 from Barcelona, 39 from Manchester, 62 from Stockholm and 63 from
Cracow.
The questionnaire was in English to avoid errors induced by translation
discrepancies. The age control allows for a sufficient proficiency in English to
complete the questionnaire. Consequently, all students, except those from
Manchester, completed the questionnaire in their first foreign language.
As previously mentioned, the wording of the critical incidents was changed after
data collection in Barcelona when respondents experienced some confusion and
explanations during data collection have been necessary. While this led to a loss in
direct comparison, it lent a hand in the objectives of the piloting process. We can
now analyze the effect of changing the wording of critical incidents by comparing
two similar groups: 187 respondents from Barcelona and 164 from Manchester,
Stockholm and Cracow.
Analysing data collected with critical incidents involves typical difficulties of
open question formats. Coding means simplification which becomes particularly
arduous when answers:
Are too short or are not phrased clearly enough to detect underpinning
reasoning;
Appear to be contradictory in themselves;
Imply too many single elements to be definitely classified.
Still, as Chell pointed out, data collected through critical incidents allows to look
for commonalities in theme in a context-rich framework (2004, p. 47). For the
piloting of critical incidents as a diagnostic tool, we match Kohlbergs Stages of
Moral Development with patterns detected in the data. This gave the analysis a
flexible deductive approach. Kohlberg seems to provide the most suitable coding
framework as the critical incidents depict conflict-laden interactions occurring in a
school setting and incite them to decipher right from wrong.
A first pattern stood out when looking through the responses to the first open
answer question (Why is it justifiable or not?) of critical incident 1. Students
argued often in terms of correct or wrong behaviour of either students or teachers.
At first, dichotomous coding of teacher versus student behaviour appeared
plausible but was too reductive. Some respondents added a third dimension,
namely a more general assessment of the situation without judging either the
teacher or the student behaviour. This suggests three core categories: expectations
towards the teacher (fairness, objectivity, and professionalism), the student
(attentiveness and disruptiveness) and the school structure (independence of grades
from behaviour).
ABS AND PYKA
136
Nonetheless, these categories still fail to cover the entire set of nuances of the
answers. In fact, many respondents argued in terms of rights and duties within the
expectations they held for the three actors (teacher, student, school). The coding,
however, lacks to emphasise the interactive element that is naturally part of an
individuals assessment of a situation; the categories presented at this point only
depict closed regards on single actors. They do not take into account the
interactional context in which the actors evolve.
To mitigate this shortcoming, we coded our data according to the three levels of
Kohlbergs Stages of Moral Development, and found a satisfactory set of
categories. In terms of pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional moral
reasoning, we found we can pinpoint many subtleties in the respondents
explanations (Table 2). We split the pre-conventional and conventional level into
two subcategories: (1) power/hierarchy relationship between the teachers and
students perspective, and (2) the (non)compliance to ones role between the
teachers and the students perspective. The post-conventional level relates to
arguments that invoke universal ethical principles.
A question arises of how one should evaluate an answer that condemns a teacher
who justifies their behaviour with hierarchy. Students condemn this because they
are used to argue on a higher level of morality. But with our coding (cf. table 2),
there are two options for moral levels: either principles of the common good or
(non)-compliance to role/expectations. For example, if a student writes teachers
arent kings or teachers dont have absolute power without stating what rule,
principle or expectation they are following. We have a good intuition this student is
beyond the pre-conventional level because s/he is able to criticise the
corresponding statement. However, we do not know his conventional or post-
conventional reasoning for doing so.
Due to the relative shortness, or sometimes worse, the lack of detailed
argumentation in the available data, allocating each reply to Kohlbergs stages is
subjected to limited reliability. So we succeeded in showing the potentiality in
students reflections with respect to different levels of moral reasoning (see Table
2) but we failed in developing an instrument that provides sufficient information
for a reliable individual assessment of Kohlbergs levels or stages.
Kohlberg and Candee (1984) identify moral judgement as one necessary but not
sufficient basis for adequate activities. The current idea of citizenship competence
by the European Commission is characterised by the need to go beyond estimates
of what is just or unjust. Like in the Delphi study presented in this volume (Print,
2012) active participation is conceptualised as a core idea of citizenship (Hoskins,
2006). Therefore, the critical incidents within this study should not only provide
information about moral reasoning but about planning actions, too. The second
question in each critical incident, How would you as a student react? provides
data to help address this. The coding pattern selected takes into account if an active
reaction takes place and the motives for the decision. The following categories for
coding have been developed (Table 3).
USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
137
Table 2. Coding adopted for critical incidents, first open answer question. For an earlier
version of this table, see Pyka (2010)
Codeword Description Examples
Level
according to
Kohlberg
Power /
hierarchy
(teacher
perspective)
An action is legitimised by
agents authority/hierarchical
position
Because the teacher has the
right
It is the head teachers
decision as they run the
school.
Pre-
conventional
Power /
hierarchy
(student
perspective)
An action is legitimised by
agents authority/hierarchical
position
Because this way the student
calms down without being
thrown out of class
Pre-
conventional
(Non-)
Compliance to
role (student
perspective)
The (head) teachers decision
is justified or not, depending
on whether the student has
complied to the rules of
conduct inherent in his role.
If you dont respect the rules,
you have to be punished,
because were all equal
Because student doesnt do
his work and disturbs the
others
You have to be attentive and
listen to the lesson
We must behave well with
teachers
If speaker isnt able to talk
right / behave well, its
normal they suspend him
Students chose him/her to
represent their opinion
Conventional
(Non-)
Compliance to
role (teacher
perspective)
The (head) teachers decision
is justified or not, depending
on whether the teacher has
thereby complied to the rules
of conduct inherent in his
role.
No personal feelings at work;
feeling/personal grudge
should not affect mark
Teachers have to be fair,
objective, professional, treat
everybody the [same]
Conventional
Principles of the
Common Good
An action is legitimised when
it serves the community
(class, school). Importance to
preserve everyones rights
and democratic values.
Democratic structures which
allow for negotiation between
administration, teachers and
students must be respected.
Grades can be given only for
exam performance, not for
behaviour
Because everybody else is
disturbed and cannot learn
Peace is most important
[It is] not justifiable because it
is not democratic.
Post-
conventional
ABS AND PYKA
138
Table 3. Coding adopted for critical incidents, second open answer question. For an earlier
version of this table, see Pyka (2010)
Takes
action
Solution oriented.
Action is taken to achieve a change of
the initial situation which is considered
wrong.

Complain (being the speaker / being one of the
other students)
Help the speaker / Stand up for the speaker
Argue with the head master
Talk to parents, ask them for help
Try to reach an agreement with the
headmaster, make him change his mind
Vote for the same speaker again
Present myself again to the elections
Expression of agitation.
Action is taken in a more organised,
perhaps even violent way, hence
showing a greater degree of agitation
than in the solution oriented approach.
Organise a manifestation
Complain (being the speaker / being one of the
other students)
Mobilise fellow students and protest
Badly because would prefer a different
punishment
Shout
Protest because teacher doesnt have the right
to do this
Tell teacher to shut up
Outrage
Riot
Revenge oriented.
Action is taken not to impede the
situation, but to punish the actor.
Try to make teacher get fired
Hate him
Bash him in front of other students and
teachers
doesnt
take
action
No possibility to act.
Student does not act because he resigns
or sees no possibility to act, for instance
because he fears receiving a more
important punishment.
Students cant do anything
Students dont care about that
I dont talk about it because its dangerous
Acceptance.
Student does not act because he sees the
action as justified or simply because he
obeys.
Remain silent and accept
Dont do anything
Conform
Obey the teacher
Never do it again, be quiet next time
Accept punishment and think about it
USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
139
Internal agitation.
Student does nothing, but is upset
(angry, disappointed, furious). This
agitation is not translated into any form
of exterior action.
Get angry
Disappointed

Piloting the Instrument: Quantitative Results
Concurrent with the analysis of the qualitative data we applied statistical analysis
on the quantitative data. Table 4 gives an overview of the quantitative results from
the two Likert Scale items. The results show that across the four countries the
critical incidents are not perceived as typical everyday situations. Students do not
overwhelmingly believe the event could occur at their schools. On the other hand,
they dont clearly disagree on the potential occurrence of such situations. The
situations seem to be sufficiently realistic. Additionally, the item describing the
incident as justified is generally rejected by the students. Therefore, the critical
incidents appear sufficient to elicit critical positioning.
Table 4. Quantitative results for first two items asked for each
critical incident (see Pyka, 2010)
Critical Incident 1 Critical Incident 2
Item N Mean (STD) N Mean (STD)
This can also happen at my school. 332 2.6 (.85) 306 2.1 (.76)
It is justifiable to act in that way. 324 1.9 (.97) 294 2.0 (.88)
coding categories: 4 = strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, 1= strongly disagree

The quantitative results of the coding for the open questions are summarised in
Tables 5 and 6. For the second open question we found more variation between
students from different countries. Therefore, we present the data subdivided into
country groups. Since the level of missing data is considerably higher for open
ended items, the sample size is much smaller in some countries. Moreover, there is
a drop in participation from the first critical incident to the second. When we
calculate percentages for certain codings we report the number of students from a
ABS AND PYKA
140
certain country that answered to the respective item as the base population. If a
students answer contained enough detail to be allocated to more than one coding
category, we allowed for multiple coding. Therefore the answers per critical
incidents do not equal the sample size.
Table 5. Coding of students answers to the first open question regarding justice oriented
reasoning (sensu Kohlberg) (see Pyka, 2010)

Pre-conventional
level
Conventional level
Post-conventional
level
Country
Crit.
Inc. 1
Crit.
Inc. 2
Crit.
Inc. 1
Crit.
Inc. 2
Crit.
Inc. 1
Crit.
Inc. 2
Spain -
Barcelona
4%
(N 121)
2%
(N 96)
73%
(N 121)
60%
(N 96)
42%
(N 121)
47%
(N 96)
England -
Manchester
0%
(N 34)
10%
(N 30)
62%
(N 34)
53%
(N 30)
50%
(N 34)
60%
(N 30)
Sweden -
Stockholm
0%
(N 49)
0%
(N 31)
78%
(N 49)
71%
(N 31)
29%
(N 49)
74%
(N 31)
Poland -
Krakw
0%
(N 55)
0%
(N 40)
66%
(N 55)
90%
(N 40)
40%
(N 55)
50%
(N 40)

Despite slightly different wording in the critical incidents between cities,
students display consistent results in their moral judgment of the situations. As one
would expect for upper secondary level students, they dont usually argue in a pre-
conventional way. Interestingly, the assessed level of justice related reasoning is
not independent from the content of the critical incidents (Table 5). While with
respect to the first critical incident, all countries students show more conventional
ethical reasoning as opposed to post-conventional. In the second critical incident,
students put an additional emphasis on principles connected to the common good.
The differences due to content seem to be at least as significant as country
differences. One possible explanation for higher reasoning in the second critical
incident could be that it is less probable (Table 4), because it is less structured by
fixed regulations in schools. Therefore, students cannot refer to established rules
requiring a higher degree of post-conventional reasoning.
The coding for the second open question of each critical incident did not
assimilate student answers to existent theory. Instead, we reconstructed new
categories on the basis of the data provided by the students. It provides an
interesting picture of the mind-set of the population. Again, answers have
been multiply coded if elements of different categories were present in
the argumentation. The inability to ask for clarification of incomplete or
USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
141
ambiguous answers makes it more difficult to properly assign a student to a
category.
For the second question of each critical incident, students describe how they
would react (as a student) if they found themselves in the given situation. Again,
an interesting pattern manifests (Table 6). For both CIs, a majority of students
declare they would take action in order to find a solution to the situations, i.e. they
would try to talk with the teacher. Only in the first CI where the Barcelonan
students had a different wording was it that a majority consider doing nothing; they
simply accept the event and its consequences. In the other countries, a portion of
the students would not do anything about the incident either. They do mention,
however, that they would be angry or disappointed. Students from Poland show a
contradictory pattern for the second CI (head teacher suspends spokesperson
because they do not get along). The students are very heterogeneous in the attitudes
of their responses. The second most declared reaction is not taking action out of
resignation. The degree of perceived resignation is considerably higher in Poland
than in the other student groups.
DEVELOPING AN INSTRUMENT FOR CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCES: DISCUSSION
Reducing Missing Values
To aid in student participation, the questionnaire in Pyka (2010) was shorter than in
other international studies at just six pages. Unfortunately, the results for the first
city, Barcelona, show an alarmingly high number of missing values for open-ended
questions. One reaction was to move the critical incidents from the end to the
middle of the questionnaire. This explains the differences between the missing
values in Barcelona and the other cities (Table 7).
Another difference in the missing values is apparent in the comparison of the
critical incidents. The response rate reduces by approximately half from the first to
the second critical incident. During the study no variation of the sequence for the
two Critical Incidents took place, but as a result we recommend changing their
position for half of the population in order to gather sufficient information for both
Critical Incidents. In addition one could place another questionnaire format in
between.
The short length of answers in the pilot study leads us to suggest using the
critical incidents in an even shorter, more prepared questionnaire. In other words, it
seems respondents either did not attribute enough time and effort in fear they might
not finish or because the importance of consistent and full-bodied answers was not
sufficiently explained beforehand.



ABS AND PYKA
142
T
a
b
l
e

6
.

C
o
d
i
n
g

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

a
n
s
w
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

s
e
c
o
n
d

o
p
e
n

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
y
p
e
s

o
f

a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
.

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

t
w
o


c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s

(
C
I
)

(
s
e
e

P
y
k
a
,

2
0
1
0
)


1

a
c
t
i
o
n


s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

2

a
c
t
i
o
n


a
n
g
e
r

3

a
c
t
i
o
n

r
e
v
e
n
g
e
4

n
o

a
c
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
i
g
n

5

n
o

a
c
t
i
o
n

a
c
c
e
p
t

6

n
o

a
c
t
i
o
n

a
g
i
t
a
t
e
d

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

C
I

1

C
I

2

C
I

1

C
I

2

C
I

1

C
I

2

C
I

1

C
I

2

C
I

1

C
I

2

C
I

1

C
I

2

S
p
a
i
n

-

B
a
r
c
e
l
o
n
a

3
1
%

(
N

1
2
4
)

4
0
%

(
N

9
5
)
2
2
%

(
N

1
2
4
)
2
2
%

(
N

9
5
)
0
%

(
N

1
2
4
)
3
%

(
N

9
5
)
6
%

(
N

1
2
4
)
1
4
%

(
N

9
5
)

4
5
%

(
N

1
2
4
)
1
5
%

(
N

9
5
)
2
9
%

(
N

1
2
4
)
2
4
%

(
N

9
5
)
E
n
g
l
a
n
d

-

M
a
n
c
h
e
s
t
e
r

7
4
%

(
N

3
6
)

5
8
%

(
N

3
3
)
1
5
%

(
N

3
6
)
2
3
%

(
N

3
3
)
0
%

(
N

3
6
)
0
%

(
N

3
3
)
0
%

(
N

3
6
)
1
3
%

(
N

3
3
)

0
%

(
N

3
6
)
3
%

(
N

3
3
)
2
1
%

(
N

3
6
)
2
6
%

(
N

3
3
)
S
w
e
d
e
n

-

S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m

5
7
%

(
N

3
6
)

2
6
%

(
N

4
4
)
1
3
%

(
N

3
6
)
1
3
%

(
N

4
4
)
5
%

(
N

3
6
)
3
%

(
N

4
4
)
4
%

(
N

3
6
)
6
%

(
N

4
4
)

4
%

(
N

3
6
)
6
%

(
N

4
4
)
3
6
%

(
N

3
6
)
6
3
%

(
N

4
4
)
P
o
l
a
n
d

-

K
r
a
k

w

5
8
%

(
N

6
0
)

5
8
%

(
N

4
3
)
3
%

(
N

6
0
)
1
7
%

(
N

4
3
)
7
%

(
N

6
0
)
3
%

(
N

4
3
)
1
7
%

(
N

6
0
)
2
5
%

(
N

4
3
)

7
%

(
N

6
0
)
6
%

(
N

4
3
)
2
0
%

(
N

6
0
)
1
9
%

(
N

4
3
)
USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
143
Table 7. Missing values in open ended questions (see Pyka, 2010)

First Open Question:
Why is it justifiable or
not?
Second Open Question:
How would you as a student
react?
Country Crit. Inc. 1 Crit. Inc. 2 Crit. Inc. 1 Crit. Inc. 2
Spain - Barcelona
26.2% 38.0% 33.7% 49.2%
England -
Manchester
7.7% 10.3% 7.7% 15.4%
Sweden - Stockholm
17.7% 24.2% 8.1% 29.0%
Poland - Krakw
6.3% 25.4% 4.8% 31.7%

Selecting Appropriate Languages
The quality and length of answers to the open questions indicate the importance of
language for the efficiency of the critical incident instrument. The questionnaire
was deliberately submitted to all subsamples in English only. Controlled
translations were not feasible for this small scale study. The choice of English as
lingua franca for the data collection process seemed to be the safest warrant that all
subsamples would complete an identical questionnaire.
These circumstances generated a number of obstacles during the data collection.
In Barcelona, respondents were visibly strained by the meaning of most items and
struggled translating their opinions and reasoning into comprehensible sentences.
Consequently, to allow for a satisfactory data collection many translations into
Spanish were provided on the blackboard. Respondents were also allowed to
complete the questionnaire in Spanish which only partially improved the
legibility of answers. A good share of students visibly struggled to employ correct
Spanish orthography since they normally write in Catalan. Except for the
Manchester subsample, respondents should not be expected to be able to provide
answers as elaborate and profound in English as their mother tongue. Naturally,
individuals are more at ease evaluating and discussing critical incidents in rich
detail in their native language or one theyve mastered to a bilingual level.
Ensuring Ecological Validity
The hypothetical scenarios depicted in the critical incidents must imitate as much
as possible ones reality and educational context. The efficiency of the instrument
depends on the appropriateness of the dilemmatic situation the respondents are to
ABS AND PYKA
144
comment on. This refers to the notion of ecological validity, questioning whether
[an] effect is representative of what happens in everyday life (Brewer, 2000). The
critical incidents need to depict a realistic situation of the respondents lifeworld
(Lebenswelt), so that they are capable of thinking through the implications,
consequences and underlying motives of the hypothetical incident.

In Order to account for this demand, the wording of the critical incidents was
changed after data collection in Barcelona. Moreover, a native British expert
judiciously highlighted the inappropriateness of the first critical incident for the
English context. Originally, a teacher punishes several students by lowering their
grade as a reaction to disciplinary issues. This phenomenon is unlikely in England
where the grading of exams, long essays and papers is incumbent to the exam
board. Teachers only have occasional grading responsibilities for small in-class
assignments. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to change the first critical
incident into one where a personal grudge or antipathy of a teacher towards one
student is reflected in the grading of a single assignment not seen by the board. A
similar problem of ecological validity occurred with the Swedish subsample, this
time too late to adapt the questionnaire accordingly: The majority of Stockholm
students never have had a student representative at school. Many wrote this as part
of their answer (We dont have representatives here). However, some still
imagined how they would evaluate the incident, if it happened at their school. Even
so, it is more likely to grasp students genuine reasoning on right and wrong, if
they can do so for an incident that is likely in their Lebenswelt.
Assuring Unambiguity of Phrasing
The piloting of the critical incidents instrument reveals several weaknesses of the
item phrasing. In particular, the wording of the two open questions requires a
thoughout decision.
The phrasing of the second open question (How would you as a student
react?) turns out to be equivocal, because it yields three different types of
answers. One share understood the question to be how any random student should
ideally react. Another share thought that they should put themselves into the
position of the student in the critical incident. A marginal share reasoned in both
ways, showing an interesting contrast between what they consider to be the ideal
reaction and how they imagine themselves to behave. This heterogeneity in
interpretation adds to the difficulty of categorizing and comparing the data. The
instrument will gain in efficiency if this phrasing is better specified. One may
consider several ways to split up this question to make it more precise:
How should the student in this situation react?
How would you react, if you were the student in this situation?
As addition also possible: How should a teacher/head teacher react in such a
situation?

USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
145
Adjusting the Format of Data Collection
The quantity and quality of data yielded by the critical incidents instrument in the
piloting study suggests that the pencil-and-paper format is a difficult method. The
conditions of data collection in large scale studies are certainly different, because
schools in at least some countries more readily acknowledge the importance of the
research. These schools tend to prepare their students and urge them to be as
exhaustive, precise and authentic as possible in their responses. The experience
from the piloting study brings us to a few suggestions:
Chell (2004) recommends using the critical incidents instrument in an interview
setting allowing the researcher to elicit sufficiently complete and complex
answers.
If the instrument will be conducted in a pencil-and-paper format, the types of
items used should be reconsidered; if an open format is conserved, the phrasing
must be unequivocal. This ensures that all respondents can adopt the same
perspective or reasoning toward the critical incidents. This alleviates some of
the strain of the categorisation and analysis phase.
If open question format items are not indispensable, standardisation of the
instrument can be obtained more easily. Gbels (2007) method of developing a
critical incidents instrument for measuring intercultural competence is a key
example of how closed-questions can allow a multifaceted construct. This
implies pre-determining the theoretical foundations on which categorisation will
build.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this chapter was to discuss an alternative approach to the assessment of
citizenship competence. The critical incidents methodology was introduced as an
approach to supplement the existing measures of citizenship competence. The
existing methods are considered incomplete as they define degrees of competence
without orientating teachers on sufficient degrees of competence to be attained,
further without providing information on the logical next step in a students
development, and the most conducive learning environment for such development.
In this regard, the critical incidents approach presented several advantages. First,
critical incidents can be easily integrated into classroom routines by the teacher.
They can be used as an integral part of lecturing and provide a basis for both
discussions by the students and assessment by the teacher. Reactions to critical
incidents can be interpreted with existing theory (as a baseline here, Kohlbergs
social-cognitive theory for the development of moral judgement). This background
in development theory enables the teacher to design a development supportive
learning environment. Alternatively, reactions to critical incidents can be
interpreted in a more constructivist way. Teachers can use open questions (or use
predefined questions) and analyse them against educational objectives that are
provided by the curriculum (the example used here has been the objective of
active, participatory citizenship). Finally, using critical incidents as assessment
ABS AND PYKA
146
tools for competences shows potential for integrating social-cognitive aspects of
competence and the aspect of action motivation.
We also have to accept that working with critical incidents needs further
exploration. Besides the technical issues brought up in the discussion, we have put
forth a few topics for future discussion and research. Our examples of critical
incidents are restricted to the school context. Both examples show consistency in
their results. This consistency should be further investigated by using statistical
techniques and by applying critical incidents to other sectors of society. Next, the
external validity of critical incidents as assessment tools for citizenship needs to be
tested through comparison to other forms of measurement. Then, more
standardised analytic frameworks need to be developed for different aspects of
citizenship competence. Lastly, teacher training on the use of critical incidents
requires development in order to enable them to analyse student needs and to
design their own teaching environments accordingly.
REFERENCES
Abs, H. J. (2008). Critical incidents in citizenship learning. Paper presented at the ECER 2008
Conference at the University of Gothenburg.
Abs, H. J. (Ed.) (2009). Introducing quality assurance in education for democratic citizenship.
Comparative study of 10 countries. Strasbourg (Council of Europe Publishing).
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In:
M. R. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71). Yarmouth, MN:
Intercultural Press.
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaption. In J. W. Berry et al. (Eds.), Handbook of
cross-cultural psychology. Vol. 3. Social behaviour and applications (pp. 291-366). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Brza, C. (Ed.) (2004). All-European study on education for democratic citizenship policies.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Brewer, M. B. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.),
Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 3-16). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A.-S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the
critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475-497.
Chell, E. (2004). Critical incident technique. In C. Cassel & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to
qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 45-60). London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cogan, J. J., Morris, P., & Print, M. (2002). Civic education in the Asia-Pacific region: Case studies
across six societies. New York/London: RoutledgeFalmer.
DESI-Konsortium presided by Eckhard Klieme (Ed.) (2008). DESI-Sammelband II: Die Qualitt des
Deutsch- und Englischunterrichts in der Sekundarstufe [DESI-anthology II: Quality of the German
and English language teaching in secondary education]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Eckensberger, L., Abs, H. J., & Breit, H. (2009). Dimensions of citizenship. Working paper. In J.
Scheerens (Ed.), Informal learning of active citizenship at school. An international comparative
study in seven European countries (pp. 36-49). Lifelong Learning Book Series, Vol. 14. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Edelstein, W., Eikel, A., de Haan, G., & Himmelmann, G. (2007). Qualittsrahmen Demokratie-
pdagogik Heft 2: Demokratische Handlungskompetenz [Quality framework paedagogy of
democracy, Issue 2: Democratic agency]. Weinheim: Belz.
USING CRITICAL INCIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENSHIP COMPETENCE
147
Eis, A. (2010). Europische Brgerschaftsbildung. Die Neukonstruktuion der Brgerrolle im
Europischen Mehrebenensystem [European citizenship education. Re-constructing the role of
citizens within the European multilevel system]. Schwalbach: Wochenschau Verlag
Eurydice (2005). Citizenship education at schools in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
Eurydice (in preparation). Citizenship education at schools in Europe. 2
nd
edition. Brussels: European
Commission.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.
Gbel, K. (2007). Entwicklung eines Verfahrens zur Erfassung von interkultureller Kompetenz im
Projekt DESI [Development of an assessment technique for intercultural competence in the DESI
project]. In J. Schattschneider (Ed.), Domnenspezifische Diagnostik (pp. 21-36). Schwalbach:
Wochenschau Verlag.
Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (1998). The intercultural development inventory manual. Portland,
OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.
Hess, D. (2004). Controversies about controversial issues in democratic education. Political Science and
Politics, 257-261.
Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York:
Routledge.
Hesse, H.-G., & Gbel, K. (2007). Interkulturelle Kompetenz [Intercultural competence]. In B. Beck &
E. Klieme (Eds.), Sprachliche Kompetenzen Konzepte und Messung [Linguistic competencies:
Concepts and assessment] (pp. 256-272). Weinheim: Beltz.
Hesse, H.-G., Gbel, K., & Jude, N. (2008). Interkulturelle Kompetenz im Kontext des Englischen
[Intercultural competence in the setting of the English language]. In DESI-Konsortium presided by
Eckhard Klieme (Ed.), DESI-Sammelband II: Die Qualitt des Deutsch- und Englischunterrichts in
der Sekundarstufe [DESI-anthology II: Quality of the German and English language teaching in
secondary education] (pp. 180-190). Weinheim: Beltz.
Hoskins, B. (2006). Draft framework on indicators for Active Citizenship. Ispra: CRELL.
Hoskins, B., & Mascherini, E. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a
composite indicator. Social Indicator Research, 90(3), 459-488. DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9271-2.
Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., Van Nijlen, D., & Barber, C. (2008). Measuring civic competence in Europe:
A composite indicator based on IEA civic education study 1999 for 14 years old in school. CRELL
Research Paper, EUR 23210. European Commission: Luxembourg.
Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., & Saisana, M. (2011). The civic competence composite indicator CCC-2.
Ispra: CRELL.
Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. Curriculum
Journal, 21(1), 77-96.
Kohlberg, L. (Ed.) (1981). The philosophy of moral development. Moral stages and the idea of justice.
San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg, L. (Ed.) (1984). The psychology of moral development. The nature and validity of moral
stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg, L., & Candee, D. (1984). The relationship of moral judgment to moral action. In Lawrence
Kohlberg (Ed.), The psychology of moral development. The nature and validity of moral stages (=
Essays on moral development 2) (pp. 498-581). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Leenders, H., Veugelers, W., & De Kat, E. (2008) Teachers views on citizenship education in
secondary education in the Netherlands. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(2), 155-170.
Nohl, A. M. (2006). Konzepte interkultureller Pdagogik. Eine systematische Einfhrung [Concepts of
intercultural pedagogy. A systematic introduction]. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Petrik, A. (2012). Learning how society is and might and should be arranged. In M. Print & D. Lange
(Eds.), Civic education and competences for engaging citizens in democracies. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers (this volume).
Print, M. (2012). Conceptualizing competences for democratic citizenship: A Delphi Report. In M. Print
& D. Lange (Eds.), Civic education and competences for engaging citizens in democracies.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers (this volume).
ABS AND PYKA
148
Pyka, T. (2010). Citizenship education in upper secondary schools. Research Project Report for the
Bachelor Degree at Sciences Po Paris.
Reinhardt, S. (2012). Teaching for democratic learning. In M. Print & D. Lange (Eds.), Civic education
and competences for engaging citizens in democracies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers (this volume).
Scheerens, J. (Ed.) (2009). The development of active citizenship on the basis of informal learning at
school. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schmid, S., & Thomas, A. (2003). Beruflich in Grobritannien. Trainingsprogramm fr Manager,
Fach- und Fhrungskrfte [Being in Great Britain for their job: Training programme for managers,
specialists and executives]. Gttingen: Vandehoeck & Rupprecht.
Schulz, W., Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Losito, B., & Kerr, D. (2008). International civic and citizenship
education study. Assessment framework. Amsterdam: IEA.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (= ICCS 2010) (2010). ICCS 2009
International report: Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower secondary school
students in 38 countries. Amsterdam: IEA.
Thomas, A. (1996). Analyse der Handlungswirksamkeit von Kulturstandards [Analysis of the action
efficieny of cultural standards]. In A. Thomas (Ed.), Psychologie Interkulturellen Handelns (pp.
107-135). Gttingen: Hogrefe.
Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical-democratic citizenship education: empowering humanity and
democracy in Dutch education. Compare, 37(1), 105-119.
Weieno, G., Detjen, J., Juchler, I., Massing, P., & Richter, D. (2010). Konzepte der Politik Ein
Kompetenzmodell [Concepts of politics A competency model]. Bonn: bpb.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). Educating the good citizen: Political choices and pedagogical
goals. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37(2), 241-247.
M. Print & D. Lange (eds.), Civic Education and Competences for Engaging Citizens in
Democracies, 149162.
2013 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
MURRAY PRINT
11. CONCEPTUALIZING COMPETENCES FOR
DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
A Delphi Approach
Democratic societies, in acknowledging that a sustainable future for their
democracy rests with educating the young, engage them in some form of educative
experience to prepare them for adult citizenship. In modern democracies this
educational experience takes many forms but the most commonly found, generally
the most acceptable, and potentially one of the most influential, experience is
found in schools and in particular in the school curriculum. Yet evidence abounds
that young citizens, though generally supportive of institutions such as parliament
and the courts, are distrustful of politicians and political parties. They are
supportive of democracy as well as the idea of and need for democratically elected
governments, but invariably perceive governments as unresponsive, inflexible and
obsessively driven by the ideologies and special interests of political parties (Crick,
1998; Dalton, 2004; Norris, 2002; Print, 2007; Print, Saha, & Edwards, 2007 ; Print
& Milner, 2009; Saha & Print, 2010; Wattenberg, 2007; Westheimer & Kahne,
2004).
Consequently traditional representative democratic processes are frequently and
significantly ignored by the young as they disengage from traditional politics.
Traditional forms of representative democracy appear to be fading for the young,
increasingly recognized as inefficient, unresponsive to issues and problems and
most importantly, inextricably entwined with distrusted politicians, political
parties, wealthy pressure groups and the despised modern apparatchiks, the spin
doctors. Young people vote less than previously, rarely join political parties, dont
contact politicians and they dont support them at election times (Dalton, 2004;
Franklin, 2004; Galston, 2004; Print, Saha, & Edwards, 2007; Print & Milner,
2009; Putnam, 2000; Wattenberg, 2007).
There are some significant questions that arise from this situation. Are we
moving towards a period of new democratic processes, and to a new form of
democratic citizenship one for the technologically-driven 21
st
century? Will it be
a form of monitory democracy where citizens participate in limited ways and
simply monitor the media or social networks to determine their political views? Or
transformed democracies as represented in Ingleharts cultural shift in modern
industrialized societies and Putnams social capital? If so, are our young people
competent to participate even in this limited manner?
Nowhere is this message clearer than in European Parliamentary elections. All
of these indicators are amplified in the young, who, in most countries have shown
PRINT
150
even less interest and participation in politics and democracy than older
generations. However, it is upon the shoulders of the young that the future of
democracy rests.
Our basic question is now refined. What do young Europeans need to know and
do in order to become effective democratic citizens? And how do young Europeans
understand and practice modern democratic citizenship? The answers to these
fundamental questions will help explain much of the future of European
democracy. The answers will have potentially significant impact on government
policy, the administration of educational systems and the practice of schools
throughout Europe.
A useful approach to examining what young Europeans need in order to be
effective democratic citizens is to research the competences that will achieve that
goal. What competences do young Europeans need to be active citizens in the 21st
Century? In Hannover in 2011 an invited research symposium of leading civic and
citizenship educators as well as political and social scientists addressed this issue
through a workshop and subsequent Delphi method to:
1. Identify key competencies required for active citizenship of young people in
Europe of the future.
2. Translate those competencies to school-based activities in the form of curricular
and pedagogical strategies.
3. Produce publications that demonstrate the competences identified for young
people, the curriculum needed for schools, the pedagogy to engage the
curriculum, the research base and the policy initiatives and processes needed for
effective implementation.
This chapter addresses the first task through the means of a Delphi research
method.
The international symposium on building democratic citizenship through civic
engagement in schools was held at the Leibniz University in Hannover (LUH),
Germany in 2011. The task for the participants, invited from throughout Europe,
was to identify and examine the civic competencies needed for engaged European
citizens that could be developed and nurtured through civic education programs in
schools.
The symposium was sponsored by the International Civic Education (ICE)
program at AGORA, LUH and funded by a grant from the Volkswagen Stiftung.
i

CURRENT RESEARCH
Classical political theory argues that democracy is fundamentally based on the
concept of public participation in political matters. Indeed participation is a core
feature of democracy, one that gives it legitimacy (Crick, 2002; Norris, 2002).
Dewey (1916) went further arguing that participation was democracys very raison
detre, what he referred to as creative democracy, a way of living with others.
However, recent research has sought to explain why participation is in decline in so
many democracies, especially among the young (Dalton, 2004; Franklin, 2004;
Galston, 2004), and why, as many claim, democracy is at risk. Indeed, Dalton
CONCEPTUALIZING COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
151
has identified declining participation as a major challenge to contemporary
democracy, coming from democracys own citizens, who have grown
distrustful of politicians, sceptical about democratic institutions, and disillusioned
about how the democratic process functions (2004, p. 1).
Many theorists (Crick, 2002; Dalton, 2004, 2008; Dewey, 1916; Norris, 2002;
Patrick, 1999; Putnam, 2000) have argued that democratic societies need people
who can appreciate, understand, and participate in being a citizen by implementing
an enlightened democratic perspective. Such participation is based upon an
understanding of and an acceptance of key concepts of an enlightened democratic
way of life that include popular sovereignty, representative democracy, the rule of
law, human rights, citizen rights and responsibilities, civic participation in a civil
society and some form of a market economy. But what exactly does this mean?
And what does it mean in terms of competencies for a democratic Europe in the
future?
Modern communication technology potentially changes traditional views on
democratic participation and the competences young citizens apply to participate
effectively. In what is increasingly becoming known as e-democracy, in an age of
the internet, young citizens may participate in alternative ways. Through SMS, the
mobile phone, blogs, You Tube, and Facebook, people can engage with politicians,
political parties, parliaments and governments in varied and responsive ways. Once
we have an idea of what people need to have in terms of knowledge, skills and
values for democratic citizenship an essential question arises how do people learn
about democracy and seek to become participating citizens? And how do young
people particularly acquire the competencies of an effective citizen for the future?
Regardless of whether the young participate, or not, in civic and political
processes through traditional or more recent technologically-driven ways, we need
to be able to identify what young people need to know and do in order to become
effective citizens in their democracies. We also set this in the context of Europe
although the needs are far more widely relevant.
PROCESS
The symposium at LUH posed a key question:

What competences are needed by young people to be an active citizen in a
democratic Europe?

The task of participant discussion, stimulated by keynote addresses on
competences, curriculum and pedagogy for building democratic citizenship, was to
identify competences that would address the key question. This was followed up
with a modified Delphi where the selected group responded to competence
statements through emails, disseminated and maintained with participants from
LUH. The statements of key concepts and necessary competencies were first
formalized and then later disseminated electronically to the group. Responses to
PRINT
152
the wording and intent of the statements was then required of the group. These
were returned, reviewed and then reworded as necessary before being sent out
again for comment, again using email. Given the high level of initial input from
participants at the symposium, it was anticipated that two waves of the Delphi
would be needed before a high level of consensus would be reached and this was
the case. It is possible to continue the Delphi through many waves though each
time the change becomes more marginal and the risk of losing participants
becomes higher. At some point those conducting the Delphi needed to decide
where to cease the waves. In this case, due in part to the preliminary work
conducted before and during the invited symposium, an acceptable level of
consensus was achieved after two waves.
DELPHI METHOD
The Delphi is premised on the active participation of a special group, usually
specially formed for the research purpose and consisting of experts in the field,
who contribute to building consensus on a set of statements about a research topic.
Usually a Delphi is a form of survey involving a set of statements over two or more
'rounds' where the second and subsequent rounds build on the results of the
previous round. Feedback and modification of statements is provided by
participants in each round with the aim to reach closer to consensus. Therefore, the
experts answer from the second round under the influence of their colleagues
opinions. Hder and Hder argue that the Delphi method is a relatively strongly
structured group communication process, in which matters, on which naturally
unsure and incomplete knowledge is available, are judged upon by experts (1995,
p. 12).
The essential features or characteristics of a Delphi are:
1. It is a type of survey involving experts participating in two or more rounds or
waves in order to gain consensus.
2. Experts provide feedback on the statements under consideration.
3. The expert assessments are influenced by the opinions of the other experts.
4. Delphi studies are often about topics where relatively incomplete knowledge
exists.
5. The participants are involved on the basis of their knowledge/expertise to assess
the research topic.
However, with the application of modern technology the Delphi method is
frequently adapted in different ways. In our modified Delphi method groups of
experts were invited to participate in a seminar over three days during which they
interacted, based on previously prepared papers, to develop democratic citizenship
competences for young European citizens. The group consisted of leaders, and
future leaders, in the fields of civic education, educational administration, political
science, public policy and social science. The groups primary task was to
conceptualize of the nature and scope of future democratic citizenship and then to
achieve consensus as to the competences needed by the young in order to become a
democratic citizen.
CONCEPTUALIZING COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
153
A key feature was the interdisciplinary nature of the groups within which
individuals participated. Each group consisted of a civic educator, administrator,
political scientist, policy maker and social scientist. This produced a more balanced
approach with specialists required to relate to other disciplines and then, after
discussion, to produce a consensus outcome.
Undertaking this task raised many complications. Definitions of concepts was
problematic. What does it mean to be a democratic citizen? What is a competence?
Does being a democratic citizen imply one must also be an active citizen? While
these were problematic questions to resolve it was realized that the discussion
could not proceed unless agreement was reached on some basic terms. For the
purposes of the study the following definitions were employed:
A competence refers to a combination of knowledge, skills, understanding,
values, attitudes and desire which potentially enable effective, embodied human
action in the world in a particular domain.
In the European Union, active citizenship is defined as participation in civil
society, community and/or political life, characterized by mutual respect and non-
violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy (Hoskins, 2006).
Drawing from these dimensions would then constitute the basis of competences
for engaged citizens. The group further acknowledged that not everybody in a
society can have/would achieve the same standard of competences and
consequently the level of competence will vary with individuals. For example, to
be able to do something, such as critical judgement, one uses certain knowledge,
skills, values, attitudes and dispositions. So making a critical judgement about a
political issue within ones democracy, as evidence of being competent as an
engaged or active citizen, one would use knowledge about democracy, citizens
rights, national history, etc.; skills of evaluating and taking a position, critical
reflection, etc.; draw upon ones values of the importance of democracy, respect
for individual difference, etc.; attitudes of responsibility to engage, trust in
democratic institutions, etc.; and dispositions to participate in the political
community.
After the symposium was completed the work of participants was analysed,
pooled and organized into the four categories outlined above. The following
directions were then sent to the symposium particpants.
DELPHI DIRECTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS
The modified Delphi process we are using for this project will take at least two
phases. In the first phase you are asked to review the competency statements and
reword them as you feel necessary. You may accept the statement as is and not
reword it, or make some minor changes or reword the statement completely. The
statements are in Word documents so that changes can be made.

Then return the statements to us through email. We will integrate all the responses
into a revised set of competences.

PRINT
154
If there is sufficient consensus we will proceed directly to the quantiative task of
the Delphi. If not, we will send out the revised set and request your comments on
them as part of the consensus-building phase.

Then in the second phase we will ask you to review the competences and give each
a score on a 10 point scale. Your score reflects the amount of your agreement with
each of the revised statements.

Then return the statements with their scores to us.

We will then review the scores to identify the degree of agreement amongst all
participants.

Finally we will send the final statements to you, with the scores, and release them
to relevant agencies.
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of the study we use the following definitions.
A competence refers to a complex combination of knowledge, skills,
understanding,values, attitudes and desire which lead to effective, embodied
human action in the world in a particular domain.
In the European Union, active citizenship is further defined as participation in
civil society, community and/or political life, characterized by mutual respect and
non-violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy (Hoskins,
2006). Based on the feedback from the symposium we are also using the term
engaged as a qualifying descriptor to citizenship as the term active presented some
problems to some participants. Essentially an engaged citizen is one who
participates, in a variety of ways, in civic and political society.
CIVIC COMPETENCVES FOR ACTIVE EUROPEAN CITIZENS
What competences do young Europeans need to become engaged/active citizens in
the future?
The following competencies are a composite list from the discussions in
Hannover and the literature. They are presented in list form for convenience in
conducting the Delphi. However, they should be considered more comprehensively
and not just as a list.

We also wish to acknowledge that not everybody in a society can have/achieve the
same standard of competences and the level of competence will vary with
individuals.
Our discussions and research has identified FOUR sets of civic competences for
engaged / active citizenship that can be applied to future European citizens:

CONCEPTUALIZING COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
155
Knowledge
Skills
Attitudes / values
Dispositions

KNOWLEDGE of:

[Knowledge implies a conceptual understanding of phenomena including
factual understanding of related material. For example understanding,
supported by factual knowledge, of parliamentary democracy in ones country,
state / local area, European Union and United Nations.]

1. Key elements of the political system and the processes of parliamentary
government at local, national, European, international levels.
2. Basic institutions of democracy, political parties, election programs, voting and
the proceedings of elections
3. Key elements of the legal system and legal processes including constitutional
limitations and ones legal rights.
4. Rights and responsibilities of citizens (incl. human rights, social rights and
duties) including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and
international declarations
5. The media and the role of the media in personal and social life
6. Social relationships between groups in society (e.g., social class)
7. History and cultural heritage of ones own country including the predominant
norms and values
8. Different cultures that exist in the local, regional, and national context
9. Knowledge of current political issues at national, European and international
levels.
10. Main events, trends, and change agents of national, European, and world
history
11. The function and work of voluntary groups and civil society
12. Economic literacy and financial matters
13. Sustainable development locally and internationally
SKILLS
[Skills relate to the ability to do something in the civic domain engage such as
effectively engage with others in the public arenas, and displaying critical and
creative reflection on all political levels from local to national and European level.]

1. An active European citizen of the future should have skills which make them:
2. Capable of reflective-critical thinking, i.e. take conditions into consideration; be
aware of power-relations in a society; critique information including financial
and economic information (Financial and Economic literacy in relation to
citizenship)
PRINT
156
3. Capable of multiple belongings i.e. see themselves, as appropriate, as citizens
of a locality, a state, a country, Europe and globally.
4. Able to evaluate a position or decision, take a position, and defend a position
5. To distinguish a statement of fact from an opinion
6. Display solidarity and interest in solving problems and conflict resolution
affecting the local and wider community in a peaceful way
7. Media competent to interpret and critique media messages (interests and
value systems that are involved, etc.; critical analysis of the media
8. To possess communication skills (to be able to present in verbal and/or written
manner your ideas) including critical reading, debating, writing, critical
listening, empathic and social skills; critically deconstruct history and culture.
9. To be able to monitor and influence policies and decisions, including through
voting
10. To build coalitions and to cooperate
11. Intercultural competence to live and work in a multicultural environment
12. Research capability, critical reflection and coping with ambiguity
VALUES/ATTITUDES
Values are deep, long-term, influential factors affecting behaviour sustained over
time and under differing conditions e.g. the value of human rights applied to all
people or the value of democracy as a way of governing people.

Values are seen as a basis for democratic engagement and are an important
precursor to democratic decision-making.

Attitudes reflect more topical conditions and may be influenced by many factors,
included embedded values, which can then influence behaviour. E.g. support for a
carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions or support for a political party on a
particular issue.

Values:
1. Acceptance of the rule of law
2. A belief in social justice and the equality and equal treatment of citizens
3. Respect for differences including gender and religious differences
4. Reject prejudice, racism and discrimination.
5. Acceptance of and respect for human rights (equality, dignity and freedom)
6. Tolerance towards difference
7. A belief in the importance of, and practice of, democracy
8. A belief in the need to preserve the environment
9. The responsibility for the common good and for communal solidarity.
10. A belief in non-violent solutions to differences
11. Valuing involvement as active citizens
12. A sense of identity- personal, community, national and global identity.

CONCEPTUALIZING COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
157
Attitudes:

1. To feel responsible for your decisions and actions, in particular, in relationship
to other citizens
2. To feel confident to engage politically
3. To trust in and have loyalty toward democratic principles and institutions
4. To be open to difference, change of own opinion, and compromise
5. To feel that you can make a difference in political deciiosn-making (political
efficacy)
DISPOSITIONS
Dispositions to behave are the likelyhood of or intention of behaving in a way that
is influenced by the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes acquired as an active,
demcoratic citizen.

1. The intention to participate in the political community
2. The intention to be active in the community
3. The intention to participate in civil society
4. Intention to participate in social issues, civil society, political life, community
life, global issues
5. Intention to improve society as guided by civic values and attitudes
DELPHI OUTCOMES
Over two successive waves the participants modified the above competences and
later scored them on a 10 point scale to indicate their final level of agreement with
the statements. The following list represents the final statements that were accepted
by the group with each statement receiving an average score of least eight out of
ten. That is, sufficiently high levels of agreement to represent an acceptable level
of consensus, though very rarely complete agreement. The accepted statements are
presented in four domains, each explained in italics in the context of this study
knowledge, skills, values & attitudes, and dispositions.

KNOWLEDGE of:

[Knowledge implies a conceptual understanding of phenomena including
factual understanding of related material. For example understanding,
supported by factual knowledge, of parliamentary democracy in ones country,
state / local area, European Union and United Nations.]

1. Key elements of the political system and the processes of democratic
government at local, national, European, international levels.
2. Basic institutions of democracy, political parties, election programs, voting and
the proceedings of elections.
PRINT
158
3. Key elements of the legal system and legal processes including constitutional
limitations and ones legal rights.
4. Rights and responsibilities of citizens (incl. human rights, social rights and
duties) including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and
international declarations.
5. The media and the role of the media in personal and social life.
6. History and cultural heritage of ones own country including the predominant
norms and values.
7. Different cultures that exist in the local, regional, and national context
8. Knowledge of current political issues at national, European and international
levels.
9. Main events, trends, and change agents of national, European, and world
history.
10. The function and work of voluntary groups and civil society.
11. Economic literacy and financial matters.
12. Sustainable development locally and internationally.

SKILLS

[Skills relate to the ability to do something in the civic domain engage such as
effectively engage with others in the public arenas, and displaying critical and
creative reflection on all political levels from local to national and European level.]

An active European citizen of the future should have skills which make them:

13. Capable of reflective-critical thinking, i.e. take conditions into consideration; be
aware of power-relations in a society; critique information including financial
and economic information (Financial and Economic literacy in relation to
citizenship).
14. Capable of multiple belongings i.e. see themselves, as appropriate, as citizens
of a locality, a state, a country, Europe and globally.
15. Able to evaluate a position or decision, take a position, and defend a position.
16. Able to distinguish a statement of fact from an opinion.
17. Display solidarity and interest in solving problems and conflict resolution
affecting the local and wider community in a peaceful way.
18. Media competent to interpret and critique media messages (interests and
value systems that are involved), to provide a critical analysis of the media.
19. Possess communication skills (to be able to present in verbal and/or written
manner your ideas) including critical reading, debating, writing, critical
listening, empathic and social skills; critically deconstruct history and culture.

20. Able to monitor and influence policies and decisions, including through voting.
21. Able to build coalitions and to cooperate in addressing civic issues.
22. Interculturally competent to live and work in a multicultural environment.
23. Capable of research capacity, critical reflection and coping with ambiguity.
CONCEPTUALIZING COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
159
VALUES/ATTITUDES

Values are deep, long-term, influential factors affecting behaviour sustained over
time and under differing conditions e.g. the value of human rights applied to all
people or the value of democracy as a way of governing people.

Values are seen as a basis for democratic engagement and are an important
precursor to democratic decision-making.

Attitudes reflect more topical conditions and may be influenced by many factors,
included embedded values, which can then influence behaviour. E.g. support for a
carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions or support for a political party on a
particular issue.

Values:

24. Acceptance of the rule of law.
25. A belief in social justice and the equality and equal treatment of citizens.
26. Respect for differences including gender and religious differences.
27. Reject prejudice, racism and discrimination.
28. Acceptance of and respect for human rights (equality, dignity and freedom).
29. Tolerance towards difference.
30. A belief in the importance of, and practice of, democracy including the process
and outcomes of democratic decision-making.
31. A belief in the need to preserve the environment
32. The responsibility for the common good and for communal solidarity.
33. A belief in non-violent solutions to differences.
34. Valuing involvement as active citizens.
35. A sense of identity- personal, community, national and global identity.

Attitudes:

36. To feel responsible for your decisions and actions, in particular, in relationship
to other citizens.
37. To feel confident to engage politically.
38. To trust in and have loyalty toward democratic principles and institutions.
39. To be open to difference, change of own opinion, and compromise.
40. To feel that you can make a difference in political deciiosn-making (political
efficacy).
DISPOSITIONS
Dispositions to behave are the likelihood of or intention of behaving in a way that
is influenced by the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes acquired as an active,
demcoratic citizen.
PRINT
160
41. The intention to participate in the political community.
42. The intention to be active in the civic community.
43. The intention to participate in civil society.
44. Intention to participate in social issues, civil society, political life, community
life, global issues.
45. Intention to improve society as guided by civic values and attitudes.
CONCLUSIONS
In the case of this Delphi technique it was possible to confirm four sets of
competencies for engaged democratic citizens in Europe. These were devised and
reviewed in the context of preparing young Europeans for future adult citizenship
in Europe. Strong support existed amongst the Delphi participants that it was
important for young Europeans to be knowledgeable about their democracy, ist
institutions and their role as citizens. Similarly there was strong support for future
European citizens possessing a set of skills around engagement, communication,
resolution and informed critique. Values and attitudes that supported social justice,
equity, tolerance and sustainablility were equally strongly supported. Finally there
was muted support for the concept of dispositions from many of the participants.
However, there was general agreement that engaged/active citizens needed to
display their values and attitudes through forms of behaviour and that statements of
values alone was insufficient to assume that those values would be translated into
behaviour.
The final outcome of the Delphi was to confirm a set of competences for future
European citizens that could be applied to educational policy documents and
school curricula. These competences would serve as extremely useful guides and
directions to educational systems and schools that see their task as preparing
democratic citizens for the future. It is further hoped in a more general way that the
work of the symposium and Delphi participants will contribute to enhancing
democracy in Europe through the building of more engaged / active democratic
citizens.
NOTES
i
The organizers wish to acknowledge the support and assistance of the VW Stiftung for the
international symposium in Hannover.
REFERENCES
Abs, H. J., & Veldhuis, R. (2006). Indicators on active citizenship for democracy The social, cultural,
and economic domain. Paper for the CRELL-Network on Active Citizenship for Democracy,
European Commissions Joint Research Centre. Ispra, Italy.
Audigier, F. (2000). Basic concepts and core competencies for education for democratic citizenship.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2012). Civics and citizenship draft shape
paper. http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/civics_and_citizenship_1.html.

CONCEPTUALIZING COMPETENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
161

Creswell, J (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. 2nd ed. London: Sage
Crick, B (Chair) (1998) Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of democracy in Schools. London:
QCA
Crick, B (2002) Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Dalkey, Norman C. (1969): The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion, prepared for
United States Air Force Project Rand, Santa Monica.
Dalkey, Norman C. and Helmer, Olaf: An Experimental Application Of The Delphi- Method To The
Use Of Experts, Management Science, 9. Jg. (1963) S. 458-467.
Dalton, R (2004) Democratic challenges, democratic chloices: The erosion of political support in
advanced industrial democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R. (2008) The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics.
Washington: CQ press.
Dewey, J (1916) Democracy and education. New York: Free Press
Eurydice (2005) Citizenship education at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.
Franklin, M. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of of electoral competition in established
democracies since 1945. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fratczak-Rudnicka, B., & Torney-Purta, J. (2003). Competencies for civic and political life in a
democracy. In D. Rychen, L. Salganik, & L. McLaughlin (Eds.), Contributions to the Second
DeSeCo Symposium. Neuchtel: Swiss Federal Statistical Office.
Galston, W. (2004). Civic education and political participation. PS: Political Science and Politics, 263-
266.
Hder, Michael, & Hder, Sabine (1995). Delphi und Kognitionspsychologie: Ein Zugang zur
theoretischen Fundierung der Delphi-Methode.: ZUMA-Nachrichten, 37, 12.
Hoskins, B (2006) Active citizenship for democracy. Ispra: CRELL.
Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., Van Nijlen, D., & Barber, C. (2008). Measuring civic competence in Europe:
A composite indicator based on IEA civic education study 1999 for 14 years old in school. CRELL
research paper, EUR 23210. Ispra: European Commission.
Hoskins, B., & Deakin-Crick, R. (2010). Competences for learning to learn and active citizenship:
Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal of Education, 45(1), Part II. e
Hoskins, B., Barber, C., Van Nijlen, D., & Villalba, E. (2011). Comparing civic competence among
European youth: Composite and domain-specific indicators using IEA civic education study data.
Comparative Education Review, 55, 1. http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/656620.
Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. Curriculum
Journal, 21(1), 77-96.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.) (1975). The Delphi method Techniques and applications.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Norris, P. (2002). Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Patrick, J. (1999). Education for constructive engagement of citizens in democratic civil society. In C.
Bahmueller & J. Patrick (Eds.), Principles and practices of education for democratic citizenship.
Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse.
Print, M. (2007). Citizenship education and youth participation in democracy. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 55(3), 3245-345.
Print, M., Saha, L., & Edwards, K. (Eds.) (2007). Youth participation in democracy. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Print, M., & Milner, H. (Eds.) (2009). Civic education and youth political participation. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Regioplan (2005). Indicators for monitoring active citizen ship and citizenship education. Amsterdam:
Regioplan.

PRINT
162

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis.
International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353-375.
Saha, L., & Print, M. (2010). Student school elections and political engagement: A cradle of
democracy? International Journal of Educational Research, 49(1), 22-32.
Van Deth, Jan W. (2007). Norms of citizenship. In: Russell J. Dalton & Hans-Dieter Klingemann
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 402-417). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Veldhuis, R. (1997). Education for democratic citizenship: Dimensions of citizenship, core
competencies and international activities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Wattenberg, M. (2007). Is voting for young people? New York: Longman.
Wechsler, Wolfgang (1978). Delphi-Methode, Gestaltung und Potential fur betriebliche Prognose-
prozesse. Schriftenreihe Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Forschung und Entwicklung. Munchen.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy.
American Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 237-269.
Woudenberg, F. (1991). An evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 40,
131-150.

163

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Dr Hermann J. Abs is Professor of education research and director of the Institute
for School Pedagogy and Citizenship Education at the University of Giessen. For a
decade he is involved in research projects on citizenship education both on national
and European level. He led studies for the Council of Europe, for the German
Ministry of Education and for several foundations. Up to 2002 he worked as a
teacher at grammar schools, and then as a researcher and project leader at the
German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF) until 2009. He is
still an associate of the DIPF and a counsellor to the German agency for
developmental cooperation (GIZ).

Professor Gerhard Himmelmann recently retired from his chair as Professor of
Political Science and Citizenship Education (political education) at the Technical
University of Braunschweig, Germany. His special interest is to transform
political education in Germany into a broader sense of democratic citizenship
education, which includes more modern, practical, and experience-based teaching
and learning democracy in schools. He is member of the new association German
Society of Democracy Pedagogy. His research interests focus on modern
challenges of individualization in contrast to globalization and the demands of
social cohesion, democratic cooperation, and mental consciousness for democracy
in schools. His theoretical references go back to the inspiring works of John Dewey
on Democracy and Education.
Dr Bryony Hoskins is an internationally recognised expert on Learning
Citizenship. She is most widely known for the creation of indicators on Active
Citizenship and Civic Competence that she developed for the European
Commission to monitor policy implementation across Europe. Bryony started her
career working in international organisations on Active Citizenship working both
at the Council of Europe and European Commission. Since then she has led
international and European research projects from the Institute of Education,
University of London and the University of Southampton where she is now based
as a Senior Lecturer. Her current EU project that she is leads is called Active
Citizenship in the EU and maps policy and practice from across Europe in the
context of the economic crises.

Jan Germen Janmaat is Reader in Comparative Social Science at the Center for
Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES) of
the Institute of Education, University of London. He has published widely in the
field of civic identities and values and has written two books, co-authored with
Andy Green, on social cohesion. He is interested in the ability of education broadly
CONTRIBUTORS
164
conceived to promote civic values and investigates these issues in a cross-national
comparative manner. His latest research focuses on the link between educational
differentiation and inequalities of civic engagement.

Professor Dirk Lange, PhD, is a professor for Politische Bildung (civic education)
at the Leibniz University Hannover, where he actually develops a research focus
called Brgerbewusstsein (citizenship awareness), which he wants to analyse
through pupils mental perception of socio-political reality. Other current focuses
include political educational research, historical-political didactics, political
teaching and learning research, everyday orientation and migration policy
education. Prof. Lange has been involved in numerous projects, so e.g. in the EU-
Projects MIRACLE. Migrants and Refugees A Challenge for European
Schools and MiLES Migration Learning in European Schools, that deal with a
main research interest of Lange, which is to develop a concept for European
citizenship education under the circumstances of migration and intercultural living
and learning. Lange is also director of the Agentur fr Erwachsenen- und
Weiterbildung Niedersachsen and holds the position of the head of the scientific
organisation Deutsche Vereinigung fr Politische Bildung/DVPB (German
Association for Civic Education).

Holger Onken is a research and teaching assistant at the universities of Hannover
and Oldenburg (Germany). His research is concerned with political participation
with a focus on political parties and party systems. The emphasis is on western
democracies but his studies also deal with transition states having party-
competition. He is furthermore concerned with political socialization, in this
context he developed concepts of empirical research and carried out various
surveys.

Professor Andreas Petrik, PhD, is a researcher and teacher educator in civic
education and social studies at Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg,
Germany. His work adapts the genetic method (Dewey, Wagenschein) to political
learning because this method promises to involve students into the discovery of the
political as every day phenomenon. He creates best practice examples like role
games, workshops and simulations that foster political identity formation and does
qualitative research about learner developments within such learning arrangements.
His newest project aims at fostering democratic value building among
underprivileged East German teenagers. In addition he worked for several German
curriculum committees.

Professor Murray Print, PhD, is a recognized nationally and internationally as a
leader in Civics and Citizenship Education. As chief investigator he has directed
many research projects including Values, Policy and Civics Education in the Asia-
Pacific Region; Civics Education Assessment and Benchmarking; the Consortium
Project in Civics and Citizenship Education; and the Volkswagen Stiftung funded
project on competencies for democratic citizens in Europe. For 2012-14 he has
CONTRIBUTORS
165
been awarded an Australian Research Council Discovery grant to investigate
national educational goals, schools and building democratic citizens for the future.
He was awarded the Centenary Medal for his contributions to civic education and
the community by the Australian Government in 2003. In 2011 Professor Print was
invited to lead the development of the Civics and Citizenship Curriculum in the
new Australian Curriculum.

Tina Pyka finishes her MSc European Studies: Ideas and Identities at the London
School of Economics and Political Science in 2012. This degree is obtained in a
double degree with the Master Affaires Europennes from Sciences Po Paris. Her
fields of study at the LSE encompass European history of ideas, political theory,
and multiculturalism, as well as social exclusion and inequalities, economics of
social policy, and education policy. Pyka earned her BA in political science and
European studies from the French-German undergraduate college of Sciences Po
Paris in 2010. Pyka currently works as research assistant for the Paris based charity
Agir pour lcole that develops literacy promotion programmes in early childhood
education.

Professor Dr. Sibylle Reinhardt, a retired professor at the Martin-Luther-
Universitt in Halle (Germany), had been a teacher at the Gymnasium for more
than 20 years before going to Halle. Her work combines theory and practice and is
meant to enact professionalization. She also did research on students beliefs and
opinions on democracy and looked into the reality of democratic education in
schools of the state (Sachsen-Anhalt-study).
Her book on the Didactics of politics is by now a classic and will have its fourth
edition this year. Sibylle Reinhardt: Politik-Didaktik. Praxishandbuch fr die
Sekundarstufe I und II. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor 2005 (3rd edition 2009).

Jan W. van Deth is Professor of Political Science and International Comparative
Social Research at the University of Mannheim (Germany). His main research
areas are political culture (especially social capital, political engagement, and
citizenship), social change, and comparative research methods. He was Director of
the Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES), convenor of the
network Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy (CID), and Book Series Editor of
the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). He is a Corresponding
Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) and
national coordinator of the German team for the European Social Survey (ESS).
Recent publications include New Participatory Dimensions in Civil Society
(Routledge, 2012; edited with William Maloney).

Professor Batrice Ziegler, PhD, is co-director of the Zentrum fr Demokratie
Aarau ZDA (Center for Democracy Aarau) and organizes the Center of Citizenship
and History Education of the University of Teacher Education of Northwestern
Switzerland. As chief investigator she has directed projects in the fields of the
theory and empirical examination of citizenship education, of the teaching-learning
CONTRIBUTORS
166
processes and on professions, in citizenship and history education. In the actual
development of the curriculum of the German-speaking cantons of Switzerland she
is responsible for Citizenship Education.