200 students at the University of Maryland when media free for 24 hours. According to survey authors, people felt alone, depressed, disconnected. Students described being disconnected in similar terms that addicts use when withdrawing from drugs.
Lisan Jutras has an article in today’s Globe and Mail about how those pesky Facebook pages for “causes” don’t mean a thing. Labeling Facebook-style list joining as “slacktivism,” she writes:
While it feels good, it basically replaces other, more hackneyed expressions of what sensitive souls we are, such as “I like kittens and walks on the beach.” What it doesn’t replace is volunteer hours or money in the pockets of real charities.
For the sake making an argument, Jutras sets up a helpful straw man: you know, the one that isn’t volunteering or isn’t donating to charity because they’ve smugly done their bit highlighting a cause on their Twitter account.
If Jutras can find said straw man, I would love to see this person say as such in one of her columns. Some research would be nice. Recent DECODE research finds that, contrary to stereotype, people who engage in some form of online activism are, in fact, MUCH MORE likely to donate money or volunteer their time. Our recent Life Stage DNA study of those aged 15-39 found that 56% of those who are “digitally engaged” donated money in the last year. Only 32% of those who were not “digitally engaged” donated money. Similarly, 41% of those who are digitally engaged volunteered for a charity. Only 23% of those were not “digitally engaged” did.
This does not necessarily mean that participating in some sort of online engagement causes people to engage. We don’t know enough about what is likely a complex series of factors that encourage civic engagement.
A more likely explanation, however, is that those who are community-oriented are more likely to be active in both their digital and “real” lives. Joining a Facebook group doesn’t mean that you will also make a donation, or write a letter to an MP, or attend a protest as an immediate result. But it does likely mean that that issue is on your radar and that you might be more inclined - at some point - at least, to do something.
It’s a complex and emerging field of study. If only “lifestyle commentators” would treat it as such.
If there’s anyone or anything TED lectures were made for, its statistics guru Hans Rosling and his fabulous Gapminder charts. Rosling’s latest lecture at the U.S. State Department is up here. Rosling’s major thesis is that human beings in the developed world have made remarkable progress on several key measures. The more sophisticated point is that we too often conflate regions of the world as having similar characteristics, when in fact they are quite different (Yemen is an impoverished volatile country, yet it’s neighbor the United Arab Emirates is stable and prosperous).
Rosling’s clearly loves data. And he’s a very clear advocate for having governing bodies around the world open up and publicize the reams of data they collect on their citizens for independent analysis. This could be a very tangible realization the “Government 2.0″ movement — after all, the policy implications of Rosling’s datasets are enormous.
James Surowiecki is one of the smartest business writers around, and his latest debunking of commonly-held myths about the American consumer shows why. According to data he cites, the high debt-level of the American consumer is not because of their fondness of gadgets, SUVs, or flat screen TVs — no the main culprit is the high cost of housing and medical care.
Citing Elizabeth Warren, he notes:
Most interestingly, as Elizabeth Warren has argued, the idea that most Americans have been spending frivolously on consumer goods actually isn’t true. Instead, a hefty chunk of the increase in consumption in recent decades has been the result of higher housing prices, the rising cost of medical care, more spending on education, and childcare. A generation ago, Warren says, basics (housing costs, health insurance, transportation, education, and taxes) accounted for fifty-four per cent of the average family’s income. Today, they account for seventy-five per cent of it.
Surowiecki speculates that the average American consumer doesn’t actually have much room to save more. And while he’s not specifically talking about youth populations, stories like these are of particular resonance around DECODE offices, as we’ve spent much of our recent years trying to highlight the issues facing Young Independents (those living away from home and who have not started families of their own). Many wonder as to why young people have been putting off taking on many of the trappings of adulthood. Could it be that it’s just really expensive?
In Canada we’re insulated (to a certain degree) from the rapid explosion in health care costs in the U.S. But the explosion in housing costs is something that afflicts just about every major urban centre in the country. For almost 50 years, the notion that families live in homes they own has been almost sacrosanct. Could this expectation cause people to defer starting families?
That’s according to latest figures from Gallup.
Harvard Business School professor asked this question and came up with a painfully banal answer: To look at pictures.
“I just wondered why people spend so much time on these sites; what do they do?”
The biggest discovery: pictures. “People just love to look at pictures,” says Piskorski. “That’s the killer app of all online social networks. Seventy percent of all actions are related to viewing pictures or viewing other people’s profiles.”
Why the popularity of photos? Piskorski hypothesizes that people who post pictures of themselves can show they are having fun and are popular without having to boast.
Another draw of photos (and of SN sites in general) is that they enable a form of voyeurism.
Given that the primary interest people have in social networking sites is voyeurism, it is difficult for organizations looking to leverage social networking tools for their own purposes. Few people click on advertising on social networks, or visit corporate organizational zones.
Rather, people look to communicate. If you have something to engage in a two-way conversation about, well, that’s a start - but it is hardly the transformational tool that will help you attract young people to your cause or buy more of your knick knacks.
Using the Pew Internet and the American Life’s latest data, two perspectives on online activities drive greater civic engagement, one from The Hill and one from Arts Technica. Hat Tip to Justin Stayshyn, whose Twitter feed is becoming like the radio.
Pew found (as we are also finding in Canada) that those who participate in online engagement activities are more likely to participate in “real-life” civic engagement. The study also found that 18-28 year-olds are twice as likely as the rest of the adult population to participate in online engagement activities. But, as both the Hill and Arts Technica note, socio-economic background is also a strong indicator of both people’s inclinations towards being online AND their overall level of civic participation.
Pew tried their best to get at what are the driving points behind the data, but you can see it straining under the weight of its setup: When comparing highest and lowest income earners, it found a relatively tiny gap between those who did and did not engage in online activities, but an enormous gap between those who engaged in real-world activities. But… those who are young are less likely to be affluent… but… less affluent are less likely to be online… but those young people are more likely to be online…but also less affluent?
You can see a somewhat broken mobius strip of “research speak” here. What would be most helpful is to study the larger sample of those aged 18-29. This would allow us to compare and contrast the various demographics more rigorously. As Pew itself notes, this means using research tools that reach young people on devices they use (such as cell phones or online panels). Pew admits their research was gathered using landline-only calls.
… Which leads to the convenient setup that DECODE has this data, for the U.K., the U.S., and Canada. Watch this space.
According to the Pew Research Centre, Americans think think that the generation gap has gotten wider. They just don’t think it’s as big of a deal. Interesting tidbit: pretty much everyone thinks older adults have superiour moral values.
More troubling news from the U.K: one out of every six British people aged 18-24 is both out of work and not in school.
The British have a handy acronym for this group: NEET (not in education, employment or training), and it’s been a long-standing public policy concern for both the left and the right. The prescriptions seem easy enough to grasp. Government needs increase access to post-secondary education. Business need to invest more in jobs and training. But as we noted in our article in the Mark News, these are long-term investments that don’t seem to be major public or industrial policy concerns. The irony is that anti-deficit, short-term-growth-at-any-cost logic that prevents countries from treating these issues seriously creates nagging public lags on our economies and societies.
Civic Participation, Generation X, Generation Y, United Kingdom, Youth Trends
More grim news on rising student loan applications in Ontario. Applications for provincial government student aid are up almost 6% this year.