Communication practices of social interaction as an indicator of student youth citizenship competence
Abstract
There are described the main provisions of the theoretical framework for the investigation of communication practices of social interaction, parameters of the communication practices in the situations of youth civic self-identification, as well as findings of the survey of the youth communication practices as an indicator of citizenship competence. The study of the communication practices is conducted within the framework of the constitutive model of communication, where it is interpreted as a primary constitutive social process and a fundamental means of explaining psychological, social, cultural and economic phenomena. The parameters of the communication practices identified and used for the survey are trust, reciprocity, tolerance and mutual respect, identity, loyalty and patriotism, acceptance of the effective norms and readiness to provide for their legitimacy, responsibility, law obedience, willingness to participate and reach consent. The survey which participants were students from different regions of the county was conducted by psychosemantic and projective methods with the help of a specially designed questionnaire. The survey outcomes prove that the semantic space of student communication practices is determined by the meanings of trust, responsibility, and national identity. The main senses that regulate student social communication are tolerance, mutual understanding and respect, loyalty and law awareness. The level of trust between the communicators and the degree of their involvement in interaction determine the types of the communication practices realized by young people: they are practices of detachment, deliberation, participation, and avoidance. Most of the regional differences were identified within the “consent and taboo” scale. The “citizenship” scale turned out to be the most homogeneous. The main problem zone in the student communication behavior that hinders citizenship competence development is the gap between the degree of actualization of senses of trust, national identity, mutual understanding and law awareness, on one hand, and lack of their experience in actual situations of civic participation
References
[1] Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sotsyologiya politiki [The political Sociology]. Мoscow: Socio-Logos. (in Russian)
[2] Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, AM: Harvard University Press. (in English)
[3] Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication Theory as a Field. Communication Theory, 9 (2), 119–161. (in English)
[4] Craig, R. T. (2009). Reflection on communication theory as a field. Revue du communication cociale et publicue, 2, 7–12. (in English)
[5] Cronen, V. E. (1995). Practical Theory and the Tasks Ahead for Social Approaches to Communication. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to communication (pp. 217–242). NY: Guilford. (in English)
[6] Deetz, S. A. (2005). Future of the discipline: The challenges, the research, and the social contribution. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 17 (pp. 565–600). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (in English)
[7] Garfinkel, H (2007). Issledovaniya po etnometodologii [Studies in ethnomethodology]. St. Petersburg: Piter Publ. (in Russian)
[8] Habermas, J. (2000). Grazhdanstvo i natsionalnaya identichnost [Citizenship and national identity]. Retrieved from http://www.hrights.ru/ hrights/text/b/Chapter5.htm. (in Russian)
[9] Matiash, O. I. (2004). Chto takoye kommunikatsiya i nuzhno li nam kommunikativnoye obrazovaniye [What is communication and do we need communication education]. Zbornik nauchnykh trudov “Teoriya kommunikatsii i prikladnaya kommunikatsiya”. Vestnik Rossiyskoy kommunikativnoy assotsiatsii, 2, 103–122. (in Russian)
[10] McDougall, R. (2016). Cutting the Gordian Knot of Communication Research. The International Communication Gazette, 78 (7), 643–649. (in English)
[11] Moscovichi, S. (2007). Sotsialnaya psikhologiya [Social psychology]. (7nd ed.). St. Petersburg: Piter Publ. (in Russian)
[12] Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242–266. (in English)
[13] Parsons, Т. (1998). Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv [Sociological Theory and Modern Society]. Мoscow: Аspekt Press Publ. (in Russian)
[14] Pocheptsov, G. (2014). Тransformatsiya kommunikatsii: ot kommunikatsii imperiy do kommunikatsii grazhdan [Transformation of communication: from communication of empires to communication of citizens]. Retrieved from https://psyfactor.org/lib/media-communication-6.htm. (in Russian)
[15] Poznyak, S. I. (2013). Resursy hromadianskosti: sotsialno-psykholohichna skladova [Resources of citizenship: a socio-psychological component]. Kirovohrad: Imeks-LTD Publ. (in Ukrainian)
[16] Poznyak, S. I. (2017). Sotsialna vzaiemodiia yak chynnyk aktyvizatsii hronadianskoii uchasti molodi [Social interaction as a factor of activation of youth citizenship participation]. In V. D. Bondarenko, & I. V. Zhadan, Politychna kartyna svitu studentskoii molodi: psykholohichni problemy formuvannia. Kyiv: Milenium Publ. (in Ukrainian)
[17] Tatarko, А. N. (2012). Individualnyye tsennosti i sotsialno-psikhologichestiy kapital: kroskulturnyy analiz [Individual values and socio-psychological capital: crosscultuaral analysis]. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly psikhologii, 9, (1), 71–88. (in Russian)
[18] Weber, М. (1990). Osnovnyye sotsiologicheskiye ponyatiya. Izbrannyye proizvedeniya [Basic concepts in sociology: selected works]. Мoscow: Progress Publ. (in Russian)
[19] Zotov, V. V., & Lysenko, V. A. (2010). Kommunikativnyye praktiki kak teoreticheskiy konstrukt izucheniya obshchestva [Communication practices as a theoretical construct of studying society]. Teoriya i praktika obschestvennogo razvitiya, 3, 53–55. (in Russian)