Czech civil sector face-to-face with freelance activism

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to answer following question: what is the relationship between member activism performed through civil society organizations (CSOs) and individualized freelance activism (in form of online activism, everyday making, political consumerism or checkbook activism) independent of organizational framework? Is it a relationship of mutual competition or support? Design/methodology/approach Analysis is carried out on data from 2009 questionnaire-based survey on volunteering, representative for adult Czech population. The data set allowed the authors to relate member activism with freelance activism and in case of member activism distinguish the type of organization and the level of its professionalization. Findings Dominant pattern the authors identified in data is mutual support of both types of volunteering documented by significant overlap of these forms of public engagement. The most striking is the overlap for active members of new advocacy NGOs and the weakest for traditional clubs. Regression analysis shows that on an individual level “mixed activism” (compared with “pure freelance activism”) is linked with higher education and higher confidence in civic organizations. Originality/value The civil practice of individualized freelance activism was described and analysed by various authors as an activity of specific types of activist, but there has not yet been any research giving reflection on such a large scale of freelance activism types as in the analysis. The authors set them together in contrast to the member (collective, organized) form of civic activism and also took into account the influence of professionalization and type of CSOs.

Amil Zakat as the Citizen Political Participant with Religious Philantrophy Face

“…Nevertheless, there are fifteen everyday-maker types of research, but each has a different motive. The various of everyday-maker's motives are; people's enthusiasm to collaborate with government and private sector (Sari, Sobari, & Marianti, 2020), women political participation (Rowe, 2015), celebrity politics (Marsh, Hart, & Tindall, 2010;Wheeler, 2012;Jensen, 2021), initiation to take care the economics crisis (Staiou & Gouscos in Manoharan & McQuiston (editor), 2018), migrants citizenship (Ostanel, 2012), mutual relationship between member activism and freelance activism (Frič & Vávra, 2016), do-it-ourself youth politics (Pickard, 2019), democratic disconnect in youth (Collin, 2014), citizenship norms in Facebook using by young people (Vromen et.al., 2016), dissapointment with the village government (Wafiq, 2018), social media politics to fight Trump extremism (Penney, 2019), active in social media (Özge & Bingöl, 2021), building identity of neighborhood to against Islamophobia (Elander, Fridolfsson, & Gustavsson, 2015), keeping norms in the neighborhood (Astriningtyas & Savirani, 2014), standard committee promotes local participation and good governance increasing (Lawton & Macaulay, 2014), youth understandings about politics (Vite, 2018;Kristensen in Kristensen et.al. (editor), 2022), youth identity developments (Upchurch in Arvanitakis & Matthews (editor), 2013), migrants culture (Mansouri & Mikola, 2014), sustainable environment development , pleasure to make a better environment (Van de Wijdeven & Hendriks in Duyvendak, Hendriks, & Van Niekerk (ed.…”