Research on democratic participation

Large-scale and small-scale research

Large scale statistics and survey studies are useful for painting a broader picture, while small scale studies can be useful for describing democratic participation among individuals representing smaller groups or when researching democratic participation in specific contexts. Both can be useful for describing processes. For example, small-scale in-depth studies based on non-directive interviews or participant observation, can be important for understanding the drivers or obstacles in democratic participation at the local level. Whereas, large scale research looking, for example, at the labour market, can give an impression that some professions are dominated by one gender: the assistant nurse is commonly dominated by women and work associated with vehicles and transportation is dominated by men. Research can suggest how to address such obstacles. In this case, for example, in Vocational Education and Training and workplace practice, small changes can take place in order to increase participation of the opposite sex in such professions (Ledman et al. 2021).

Trends and inequalities identified by research

Research has expanded our understanding of democratic participation by exploring the evolving ways in which citizens engage with both formal and informal democratic processes. Studies show that participation in traditional forms, such as voting, remains crucial but often correlates with socio-economic factors like education and income. Citizens from more privileged socio-economic backgrounds tend to be more politically active, creating a participation gap that can marginalise underrepresented groups. At the same time, informal participation – such as involvement in civil society organisations and workplace decision-making – is increasingly recognised as vital for fostering democratic engagement, especially among younger and more diverse populations (Bherer, Gauthier & Simard, 2021). This research highlights the importance of broadening the understanding of participation beyond just voting to include other civic and community-based actions.

In the previous paragraph it is argued that participation in traditional forms, such as voting often correlates with socioeconomic factors. When reviewing such research it is important to ask if this is due to what is learned in the family or through education? The most influencing actors in socialising an individual in participation in democratic practices, are the communities around that person, most often the closest family. This is also common when it comes to choosing educational and vocational paths. Research has shown middle class young people more commonly choose VET, which includes less content and training for democratic participation compared Higher Educational Preparatory Programmes, more chosen by upper class youth (Nylund et al. 2017: Wheelahan, 2018). Such finding demonstrates how class and social environments can affect the amount of information and opportunities one is offered.

Findings on digital participation

Digital participation has been a focal point in recent studies, with social media and online platforms becoming powerful tools for political engagement. Scholars like Theocharis and van Deth (2018) have noted how digital tools enable new forms of activism, where individuals can participate in movements and campaigns without the need for formal political affiliation. However, there are concerns about digital inequality, as citizens without access to technology may be excluded from these forms of participation (Boulianne & Theocharis, 2020). Additionally, research by Freelon, et al. (2022) underscores the risks of misinformation and online polarisation, which can undermine the quality of democratic discourse. These studies underscore the dual nature of digital participation, both as a powerful enabler and a potential source of fragmentation in democratic processes.