城市社区中社区活动者对于公民角色的感知：影响社区参与的态度的个案研究【外文翻译】.doc

本科毕业设计（论文）外 文 翻 译原文：COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS PERCEPTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP ROLES IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY: A CASE STUDY OF ATTITUDES THAT AFFECT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTR. ALLEN HAYSCIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATIONThe recent increase in research on social capital and civic engagement has benefited urban scholarship by refocusing attention on a problem with which urbanists have long been concerned; namely, how citizens can be engaged and mobilized to exert effective influence on community decisions. With the exception of a few who have argued that too much participation may have a negative impact on urban policy making (Yates, 1980), most urban scholars believe that increasing citizen involvement is desirable, in that it is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of the benefits of urban life among citizens. Even though economic elites inevitably play a powerful role in community decisions, citizen participation can provide a counterbalance to their influence.The civic engagement literature has also broadened our concern from strictly political participation (defined here as participation intended to directly influence public policy or electoral outcomes) to include other forms of civic engagement (defined as participation in voluntary, community-based organizations and associations.) These scholars have identified “civil society” as a realm of informal ties and relationships distinct from both the market and the state. In their view, the absence of the profit imperative of the market and of the coercive elements of the state in this civic realm frequently enables decision making that is both flexible and public spirited (Bellah, 1985; Etzioni, 1998). Because of its informality and flexibility, civil society is a prime arena for the development of social capital. However, while defining civil society as distinct, these scholars have also argued strongly that citizens engagement in the civic realm is strongly linked to their active and constructive political involvement. They assert that, if civil society is unhealthy, then the functioning of the political process will be impaired (Hooghe & Stolle, 2003). The citizens engagement in political activity is grounded in his or her experiences within the social and civic realm.Civic engagement has been linked to political engagement in at least four ways: (1) Civic engagement draws the citizen out of strictly personal concerns and into a greater awareness of shared, community needs; (2) civic engagement develops skills in organizing and mobilizing people that are transferable to the political realm; (3) civic engagement develops individual feelings of confidence and efficacy that make political activism more likely. (4) civic engagement develops networks of relationships (the interpersonal aspect of social capital) and feelings of trust (the attitudinal aspect of social capital) that are critical to effective political action.RESEARCH DESIGNPropositionsThe present research consists of an exploratory case study, utilizing embedded data consisting of the activities and attitudes of a group of community activists in Waterloo/Cedar Falls, Iowa, a metropolitan area of 125,000 (Yin, 1994). Based on the literature review just provided, five propositions have been developed for preliminary exploration utilizing what Yin (1994) refers to as the “pattern-matching” research design. The purpose of this research is to gain a qualitative understanding of the degree to which those involved in a local community frame and understand their political and civic involvement in the terms suggested by these propositions. Full testing and confirmation of these propositions will, of course, require further research based on larger, random samples.Proposition 1: Abehavioral boundary exists between civic and political involvement. The patterns of involvement of community activists will reflect a clear boundary between civic activities and political activities to the extent that a different group of community activists is involved in each realm. If persons identified as active in the private, voluntary realm are also active in the local political realm (and vice versa) this will indicate a boundary that is less rigid.Proposition 2: An attitudinal boundary exists between civic and political engagement. A clear boundary between civic and political activities will be reflected in the extent to which activists experience different rewards and frustrations from participating in each realm. Also, a clear boundary will be reflected in the extent to which participants in each realm view participation in the other realm in a negative light.Proposition 3: A motivational boundary exists between civic and political participation. A clear: boundary between the civic and political realm will be reflected in somewhat different motivations for activity in each realm.Proposition 4: The skills and attitudes acquired through civic participation will be somewhat different than those acquired through political participation.Proposition 5: An attitudinal boundary exists between active political and civic participants and those who do not participate in community affairs.MethodsIn-depth, in-person interviews utilizing open-ended questions were conducted with 40 individuals who are active in various aspects of community life in the metro area. The interviewers made an effort to elicit the most detailed and complete answers possible from each subject. Interviews ranged in length from 45 to 90 minutes, depending on the extent to which the subjects chose to elaborate. While the interviews were structured to explore the propositions listed above, the questions allowed the subject maximum freedom to articulate her or his own understanding of the civic and political realms. Also, the interviews were designed to provide multiple opportunities for subjects to reflect on their involvement from different angles. In the case of civic participation, subjects were asked both about their most important organizational involvements and about their involvement in specific projects for the organizations in which they are active. In the case of political participation, subjects were asked about both issue oriented and electorally oriented political involvement.SampleIn this study, a community activist is defined as a person who has displayed active involvement or leadership in at least one private, voluntary organization or in at least one political organization during the last five years. Most respondents have been active in numerous organizations. Because of the small size of the metro area, a reasonable assessment of community activists with a sample of this size is possible. The sample contains individuals whose activities span a full range of community endeavors. Some have been active in neighborhood associations, others in civic groups, others in arts groups, others in organizations addressing poverty, and still others have been primarily active in the political arena. A few are wealthy business leaders who have connections and influence within community-wide groups, while other respondents are working class folk whose primary arena of action has been their neighborhoods.RESULTSCommunity ServiceRespondents were asked to list up to four voluntary community service activities in which they had engaged in the past 3 years. Many of these individuals are also employed in community service agencies, but the focus of this question was on volunteer involvement. The initial question about involvement was open-ended, allowing respondents to define what they considered to be “community service.” Therefore, they could spontaneously mention any of the types of community activities specified, including purely social groups and political activities as forms of community service. The sample included some individuals who are primarily identified as political activists and some that are mainly known for their civic involvement, so that the level of crossover between civic and political activities could be determined. As a result, one could expect that a significant number of political activities would be mentioned in these initial responses.Reported activities were classified into three categories: political, civic, and social. A total of 24 (60.0%) of the respondents included no political activities among the four voluntary service activities they were asked to list. Of these, 18 (45.0% of the total) listed only civic activities, while the rest (15.0%) listed various combinations of civic and social activities.This breakdown suggests that most respondents, whether known as political leaders or not, chose to report all or most of their activities in the civic realm when asked about voluntary service, with relatively few political activities mentioned, and even fewer in the social realm. They clearly identify the civic realm with voluntary service. However, these data do not reveal a distinct group of solely political activists who do not engage in civic volunteerism. Those who put a lot of energy into politics also report other forms of voluntary service. For example, one respondent, an African-American male, listed his service as an elected official as one of his civic activities, but his other activities included service on the non-profit boards of a local hospital and a local private college.Collectively, these 40 individuals listed 149 voluntary activities in their responses to the first open-ended question about their involvement. Although a few listed less than four, most could have easily listed more. Of the activities listed as community involvement, 19 (12.8%) could be classified as “political or governing,” making this the largest single category of responses.Nevertheless, the vast majority of activities listed by respondents fall into the category of civic involvement, rather than political involvement. Volunteer activities directed at general community improvement, rather than at a specific group such as the poor, are the most frequently cited. Organizations devoted to the arts and culture were the next most frequently cited.In addition to these general community service organizations, involvement in groups serving the poor is frequently mentioned, constituting 10.1% of all activities. Various human rights and social justice organizations also receive several mentions, such as, for example, Amnesty International and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).Political EngagementAfter describing their volunteer involvement, respondents were asked directly about their political involvement. Most reported discussing both national and local issues frequently with family and friends. However, most said that they try to avoid strong disagreements over political issues by backing off when opposing views are expressed or by talking mostly to people they agree with.The interview divided political activities beyond voting into two types: seeking to influence particular policy decisions and involvement in election campaigns. All but two of the 40 respondents said they had been involved in trying to influence a public policy decision, while 35 out of 40 said they had been actively involved in trying to elect a particular candidate to office. They were more active in local elections than in national elections, and their national election activities were focused on local organizing. Of those who had not participated in campaigns, two cited a professional need to remain politically neutral in public, while the other two cited a dislike of the political process. (A fifth respondent did not answer this question.) An African-American woman said of her non-involvement, “Im just not a politics girl.” For most of these community activists, however, political activity appears to be an important part of their community involvement, along with participation in private, voluntary organizations. This additional evidence further undermines Proposition 1, in that respondents appear to move comfortably across the boundary between civic and political engagement.Participation as a Learning ProcessThe civic engagement literature views citizen involvement as a process by which citizens acquire new skills, develop self confidence, learn to manage conflict, and broaden their perspectives on the world. In contrast, Eliasoph observed that participants were learning negative attitudes that constrained the nature and breadth of their involvement. To assess the developmental aspect of participation for these activists, they were asked what they had learned from their civic engagement experiences.The most frequent theme was that of personal empowerment.Respondents conveyed the sense that participation teaches personal efficacy and confidence.The next frequently mentioned categories of learning involved enhancement of interpersonal skills. Patience and tolerance were the most frequently mentioned skills, but a variety of other interpersonal skills were also highlighted.Source：journal of urban affairs, volume 29, number 4, pages 401424.译文：城市社区中社区活动者对于公民角色的感知：影响社区参与的态度的个案研究作者：艾伦海斯公民参与和政治参与近期对社会资本与公民参与的研究，更多的集中于城市规划专家长期以来一直关心的问题；即公民如何对社区决策施加有效影响。除少数人认为过多的参与可能对城市决策有负面的影响外，大多数城市的学者提出，增加市民的参与是可取的，因为它有可能使公民之间的城市生活利益分配更加公平。在社区的决策中，尽管经济精英不可避免地发挥强大的作用，但是公民参与可以提供一个与之抗衡的影响力。公民参与的著作，也扩大了我们从严格的政治参与（这里定义为旨在直接影响公共政策或选举的结果的参与）到包括公民参与的其他形式（如自愿的，以社区为基础的组织和协会。）学者们认为“民间社会”作为一种非正式的联系和关系，与市场和国家不同。在他们看来，这个领域中市场利益和国家强制因素的缺乏，经常使公民进行决策，这是既灵活又具有公益精神的（贝拉，1985；奥尼，1998）。由于其非正式性和灵活性，民间社会是社会资本发展的首要舞台。不过，虽然定义民间社会是独特的，但是这些学者也强烈主张，公民领域中的公民参与是与积极和建设性的政治参与密切相关的。他们断言，如果民间社会是不健康的，那么政治过程的运作会受到损害（德胡赫，斯托尔，2003）。公民的政治参与活动是基于他或她在社会和公民领域中的经验。公民参与与政治参与联系，至少在四个方面：（1）公民参与要求公民减少个人关注，并加强社区需要和分享的强烈意识；（2）公民参与发展组织和动员人民的技能，可转移到政治领域；（3）公民参与培养了个人自信的感觉和功效，使政治活动的可能性更大；（4）公民参与发展关系网络（社会资本的人际方面）和信任感（社会资本的态度方面）是至关重要的有效的政治行动。研究设计命题本研究由探索性的个案研究组成，利用一群在滑铁卢/锡达福尔斯，爱荷华州，125，000的城市区域的社区活动者的活动和态度组成的嵌入式数据（尹，1994）。在刚才所提供的文献资料的基础上，为初步研究“模式匹配”的研究设计制定了五个命题。这项研究的目的是获得参与程度的定性的理解，了解当地社区框架和理解他们政治和公民参与。全面测试和确认这些命题，需要在更大的，随机样本基础上进一步研究。命题1：一种行为边界存在于公民和政治参与之间。参与社区活动的模式将在某种程度上，不同社区活动者的团体在涉及各个领域中反映公民活动和政治活动之间的清晰的界限。如果活跃在私人的、志愿领域的人同时也活跃在政治领域，那么表明这个界限的界定是不严格的。命题2：一种态度边界存在于公民和政治参与之间。公民和政治活动之间的明确界线反映在通过参与各自领域，经历不同的成功和挫折的程度上。同时，一个清晰的界限也反映在参与者在自己的领域中用负面的观点看待别的领域的程度上。命题3：一个动机边界存在于公民和政治参与之间。公民和政治领域之间的边界将清楚地反映在每个领域中的活动有不同的动机。命题4：通过公民参与获得的技能不同于通过政治参与获得的。命题5：存在于活跃的政治、公民参与者和不参与社区事务者之间的态度界限。方法通过利用开放式的问题对40个活跃在大城市社区生活各个方面的人进行了深入的亲身采访。访问员努力征求各学科的最详细和完整的答案。采访从45到90分钟的不等，依据不同程度上的精心选择的科目而定。虽然通过结构化采访，探讨了上述主张，但是这些问题都受到了最大限度的他们对公民和政治领域的理解。此外，访谈的目的是为受试者提供多种机会，以反映他们不同角度的参与。在公民参与的情况下，受访者谈到了自己最重要的组织的参与和他们在各组织中积极参与的具体项目。在政治参与的情况下，受访者都被问到了有关选举制度的导向问题和政治参与。样本在这项研究中，社区积极分子被定义为在过去的五年中至少在私人的，自愿组织或至少在政治组织中显现积极参与或领导的人。大部分受访者都积极地在众多的组织中。由于都会区的小规模，这种规模的样本评估是合理的。该示例包含的个