This article offers a critical examination of various interpretations of “political participation” and shows that there is a lack of consensus among scholars concerning the definition of this particular concept. The lack of consensus has led to various conflicting outcomes (even when applied to the same problem) in the research on political participation. The main purpose of this paper is to offer a new definition of political participation that effectively addresses the challenges facing modern civil societies and the emerging era of Web 3.0. The present study argues that “civic engagement” should be differentiated from political participation such that the former is not counted as part of the latter; civic engagement fosters political participation and refers entirely to social activities. Moreover, I argue that online political actions should be accepted as an integral part of political participation if they fulfil all of the criteria of the phenomenon as defined in this article.
The multifaceted nature of political participation has led to various ways of measuring it. This, in turn, has led to conflicting outcomes (even when applied to the same problem) in the research field. What are the contemporary challenges of measuring political participation? The main objective of this paper is to identify current challenges of measuring political participation that are common in the existing literature and empirical findings. This review paper examines different methods of measuring both online and offline political participation and shows current problems that are crucial to deal with methodological challenges in the emerging era of Web 3.0. Drawing from a careful analysis of 86 published (2012–2019) empirical research on new media and political participation, the present study finds that self-reported measures, different question-wordings, misuse of Likert scales and time frames, and the lack of clear concept of political participation are current problems of measuring political participation. In so doing, it contributes to research on political participation (1) attempting to gather various measurements and their common problems as well as (2) urging the importance of these challenges.
This article offers a critical examination of various scholarly works that attempt to study political cultures of Russia and Kazakhstan in order to explain the ways in which participatory trends are taking place. The existing literature on political cultures of these two countries is impressionistic and somehow contradictory. Reviewing recent insights into the new types of political participation both offline and online, I argue that Almond and Verba's (1963) 'civic culture' lacks contestation, a fourth form of political culture. Contestation in the forms of various protests, central to less open and more autocratic societies such as Russia and Kazakhstan, have strengthened in the emerging era of Web 3.0 and globalisation. Drawing from different surveys and recent political events, the present study argues that in order to study political cultures and participation in Russia and Kazakhstan, one needs to consider contestation along with the 'civic culture' offered by Almond and Verba.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.