Surmising the ViVo Age Survey: The quest for extension Trainings and exchanges in ViVo offered possibilities for young people to share their realities and learn from each other. Collaborative media productions included in their programmes were not just upgrading their media literacy and technical skills but were seen as opportunities for personal development. Gradually developed and shared motivation to pursue some meaningful action through media brought about intensive experience which are not really transferrable without face-to-face interactions. As in any human interaction, the more intensive you get the more limited number you can reach. One of the ways to compensate for the lack of broader outreach is to publish a book like this and ensure the good practice is shared more extensively. Another way is to combine your intensive work involving just the few with a broader, albeit less intensive, interaction involving many. Collecting insights, even if scattered and unrepresentative, from people you cannot interact with directly, may eventually cultivate your personal interactions and improve your intentional training interventions. These were the reasons to go beyond the limits of participants始 lists and capture the views of other people on youth work, social participation and media usage. Research activities of ViVo included quantitative survey and qualitative focus group discussions which involved youngsters, youth workers, media experts and practitioners in the five participating countries. Main findings from the survey are summarized in this chapter while summaries of focus groups are presented in the next one. Sur-why? Aims and topics The ViVo survey aimed to provide broader insights into the use of media by youth and in youth work, including with youngsters having fewer opportunities. We explored the frequency, ways, purposes and routines of using traditional, online and social media and their linkage to participation and involvement in public life. We were also interested in the ways and motivations for contributing to existing media and the creation of people始s own media productions. The survey was designed as an online questionnaire with 19 multiple choice questions. One question also offered space to add personal views and insights. Additional 7 questions were included to account for gender, age, level of education, professional area, occupational status, country of residence and size of participants始 municipality. The survey was promoted in local, national and international youth networks and distributed online via emails and social media. The questionnaire was accessible for more than three weeks (from 6 of March to 29 of March 2012).
Sur-vivors: Participant profile Altogether 471 individuals participated in the survey and 414 completed it. The response rate differed from question to question and on average reached 434 respondents. All five countries of the ViVo project were represented and no quota was applied to account for different sizes of country populations. From each country at least 50 participants completed the survey, with Greece, Italy and Slovakia just about reaching the limit, Hungary passing it and Spain being overrepresented (35% of all survey participants). As the questionnaire was distributed online, participants from other than ViVo countries also joined and represented 14% of survey participants. Almost the same ratio did not indicate their country of residence. Almost two thirds of respondents (64%) in the survey were females and little above one third males (36%). About 10% of respondents did not indicate their gender. Age composition of participants reflects the chosen way of survey distribution. No respondents above 55 years participated and only one indicated less than 15 years of age. Two categories with the highest representation were 26-35 year olds and 20-25 year olds. Altogether they represent more than 77% of respondents. In regard to educational level the survey is dominated by university graduates (68% indicated bachelor, master or doctoral degree). More than one fifth of respondents completed secondary education. Vocational training or elementary school as the highest level of education was attained by less than 10% in both categories. More than half of respondents (55%) participating in the survey lives in a city with more than 100 thousand inhabitants. The least populated groups live in small towns up to 20 thousand inhabitants and in small villages with less than 5 thousand inhabitants. The survey thus primarily catches urban youth from the largest residential areas. From the offered list of professional areas one fifth of participants are active in youth and/or social work and almost the same ratio in education and research. The other professionals came from arts/culture and media/marketing (around 10%). Minor representation was declared in the areas of health care, trade/commerce and politics. One quarter of participants is involved in some other professional area not offered in the list. In the time of filling in the questionnaire almost one third of respondents were students. Around 15% were employed in public/state offices, the same ratio also in business companies and non-profit organizations. Almost 10% were unemployed and a little less self-employed. In general, we can conclude that the survey was dominated by females, people aged between 20 to 35 years and university graduates. More than half of participants were employed or self-employed and one third was still studying. More than half lives in a large city. Youth workers and Spanish participants were overrepresented in the sample.
Sur-reality: Methodological constraints All interpretations of the collected data must be read in line with the described profile of participants. In itself it clearly indicates what is perhaps the most likely participant profile if a survey is conducted and promoted via online channels. As a result, some categories of respondents are not populated enough to be statistically relevant. This applies to certain age categories (below 15 and above 46 years), some educational categories (elementary and vocational), unemployed participants, individuals not working or studying with young people at all, people working in some areas (health care, trade, politics) and respondents living in municipalities with less than 5 thousand inhabitants. Besides being unrepresentative of the given country population there are also other methodological limits which should be accounted for when “reading” the results. As several survey responses are based on subjective measures the indicated frequency of different media usage depends on personal assessment of what is often/occasional/rare or active/passive use. In addition, even if the research focus was not controversial or highly sensitive some level of responsiveness (answering in the line with what is generally expected or “proper”) might have occurred. This may apply especially to questions dealing with the intensity of youth and social participation. The participant profile and methodological constraints indicate that potential future research could employ quota sampling and also more traditional ways of collecting data besides the online distribution. This way data representative of country populations could be received. However, if findings of the presented survey are read carefully they can still provide several interesting insights. The following subchapters cluster them into four areas: 1. uses of different types of media, 2. relation between youth work and the use of media, 3. links between creating media, sharing them and having impact, 4. possible effects of using and creating media on participation. Sur-face: Uses of traditional, online and social media Daily experience shows there are differences in the ways people use traditional, online and social media. Their usage varies in frequency, duration, main purposes and the level of interaction. Unsurprisingly, the survey confirmed the use of media is an everyday practice for the vast majority of people. More than two thirds of participants use traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers) every day or at least three times a week, regardless their age, gender or level of education. The proportion of online and social media users was even higher and reached 90% which is most probably the result of distributing the survey online. At the same time, promotion via social media most likely resulted in the overrepresentation of participants aged 20-35 years and with university degree.
Interesting comparison is offered by the levels of active/passive media use. We assumed the ratio of “pure consumers”, e.g. people not actively contributing or creating their own productions would be higher for the traditional media which generally enable lower level of activity. For traditional media this category indeed represented more than 50% of all users while for online and social media it was 40% and 13% respectively. The proportion of people occasionally or regularly contributing increases analogically from traditional to online and social media. However, it is social media only whose active users outnumber the passive ones. Possible activities of online media users, which were mentioned in the survey included writing articles and blogs and engaging in online discussions. Activities on social media included posting, sharing and commenting ideas, uploading oneʼs own work and the like. The relation between higher activity and age was not confirmed in the survey. Gender and level of education also did not play a role. However, in comparison to other countries lower self-declared activity was noticed among Greek and Slovak social media users. Possible explanations may be that surveyed participants in the two countries are “objectively” less active than their peers elsewhere or, to the contrary, they are stricter in assessing their own activity. No medium is used for a single purpose and different purposes are characteristic for different types of media. Moreover, purposes differ from user to user and for a single user also in different times and situations. In the survey we were particularly interested in the primary purpose of using social media and the questionnaire offered four alternatives: Just having fun / Sharing personal issues / Sharing opinions publicly / Posting my work. Without any judgment we expected that youngsters use social media mostly for fun and if they intend to pursue “more serious” purposes they turn to other means. The results showed that having fun is the primary purpose for most of social media users. However, as multiple answers were allowed, the vast majority participants indicated other purposes on a very similar level. Users who consider themselves “rather passive” declared having fun more often than other purposes. Users who regard themselves “rather active” use social media equally for fun and sharing personal issues with friends. And those who described themselves as “very active” more often declare to use social media for posting their work and sharing opinions on public issues. What most of the survey participants declared about themselves clearly differs from what they think about the “other” users. In their eyes the most prevalent use of social media is for having fun and sharing personal issues (86% of responses). Public sharing of opinions dropped to 10% and posting work was attributed only by a negligible number of respondents. Boys attributed fun as the primary purpose for other users more often than girls. Interestingly, lower praise for the use of social media by others is the same among occasional and everyday users as well as active and passive ones.
Sur-prises? Youth work and the use of media There is no obvious reason to assume that people working with youth would as individuals differ from the general patterns and habits applicable to all media users. At the same time, extensive use of media has become almost a necessity in contemporary youth work. For research purposes it was thus useful to distinguish youth workers as private media users and youth workers using media within their professional activities. Within the survey we did not restrict ourselves to inquire only among youth workers by profession but offered the participants several options to position themselves according to the frequency and type of contacts with young people. More than one third of survey participants are in close contact with young people as they are students at secondary schools or universities. For one third youth work is a regular job. For more than one quarter it is a part of their professional activities and about the same proportion is engaged with youth in their free time. These proportions indicate that a number of participants relates to youth work in more than one way, e.g. works with youth during free time while still studying. Only a marginal number of survey respondents do not engage with young people at all. In regard to the youth with fewer opportunities the picture is rather different: almost one third does not work with this category of youngsters at all and another third just occasionally. One fifth works with disadvantaged youngsters quite often while those working or studying with them every day do not reach 10% in each category. Use of media by those for whom youth work is a regular job or at least one of their professional activities differs by the type of media. Social and online media are used more than traditional ones. 84% of youth workers by profession use social media every day but traditional media are used in the same frequency by only 61% of them. However, high usage of social media does not differ between those who are in one way or another involved in youth work and those who have nothing to do with it. Full-time, part-time and free-time “youth workers” consider themselves as “rather active” or “very active” social media users and in this way differ from people who have nothing to do with youth work. They also regard their own participation as much more balanced between fun and serious activities while “others” in their eyes use social media mostly for fun. Youth workers do not create their own media more often than the rest of the sample. And in comparison to other professionals, they are no more inclined to say that young people around them actively participate in public life. Majority of survey participants believed that social media increase awareness but do not necessarily increase participation of young people in the society. This applied similarly to youth in general and youngsters with fewer opportunities. This view outnumbered more skeptical voices which regard social media as “just for fun” but also more optimistic opinion that social media easily motivate people to participate.
On the other hand, people not involved in youth work or involved only partially believed more often that video/media-making may increase participation of youngsters in the society. It thus appears that professional youth workers are more skeptical about the mobilization potential of video-making. This cautious opinion was held by people working with youth in general and also by people working with youngsters having fewer opportunities. Sur-feit: Creating, sharing and having impact Within the survey, creation and sharing of oneʼs own productions was considered as the highest level of participation through media. Productions were broadly understood as photographs, videos, short movies, illustrations, blog articles and the like. The proportion of respondents who declared they create media was high – 80%. However, the frequency varied – majority (60%) creates few times a month while the rest more times during a week or even daily. As the same results appeared also for sharing of the media online we can conclude that creation is primarily meant for dissemination to other people. According to the data, media production is neither gender- nor age-specific and also has nothing to do with the level of attained education (completed secondary and university education). Media creators differ according to the primary purpose of their productions. Most of them indicated self-expression (38%). Almost one fifth creates media for fun and 12-16% does it for educational purposes, as a part of their job or for some other, unspecified reason. Data reveal that age plays some role here: with higher age the prominence of creating media for fun decreases while production for educational purposes slightly increases. However, creation for self-expression remains the highest and stable across all age groups. Involvement in a specific professional area does not influence the primary purpose for creating oneʼs own media. More than 80% of media creators believe that sharing media has an impact on online and offline society – no matter how often they do so. However, conviction about the impact does not mean one will automatically start to create. On the other hand, those who create just for fun believe in impact much less than creators for self-expression or educational purposes. Attained education also seems to play some role here: those believing in impact are more represented among university graduates than among participants with other level of education. Many participants took opportunity to comment on the impact of sharing their media/video-productions. Altogether 181 statements ranged from the most skeptical to absolutely positive. Here is a small selection of opinions clustered by the type of arguments used.
ʻSureʼ statements Variations of taken-for-granted or goes-without-saying opinions regarded media and their impact as an omnipresent feature of our lives: - “Any information we get influences the way we think or perceive the world, at least unconsciously.” - “There is no shared content without impact, bigger or smaller, but with effect.” Other views used analogies between online and offline worlds: - “I believe that online content may have the same or in some occasions (e.g. public life) even greater impact as the content distributed through traditional ones.” - If something has an impact during "personal" sharing it has an impact during online sharing as well because connection of humans is happening virtually these days. Some statements went on to explicate the “nature” of sharing: - “I firmly believe that the very meaning of media is encapsulated in the 'sharing' process. Any media is created with the purpose of sharing…. No matter how small or big, this media sharing has an impact even as an imperceptible, passively received byte of information that at some point may become active in the receiver's mind...” - “At the very basis of the idea of sharing, there is the idea of getting in touch with other people, stimulating dialogue and confrontation. It is obvious that this has an impact on online society as well, exactly as it happens between people communicating face to face without filters.” “Surrebut” statements Several participants conditioned impact by specific requirements: - “If media have an important goal, identify motivation of young people and are made in a creative way, they will have a huge impact.” - “Impact depends on the kind of relationship you have with those you share your opinions with and the influence you usually have on them.” - “After a certain critical mass it raises debates.” - “It is usually only a very short-term effect. People watch every message for entertaining themselves, but the meaning – even if it reaches them – is forgotten in two days, resulting in the lack of actions taken.”
Optimistic arguments à la half-full glass: - “It could be just one person who will read or watch my creation but this person will have some thoughts about my work. That's a good beginning.” - “It will always catch someoneʼs eye and he or she will comment on it.” - “On the society itself it has not really impact, but I believe it has impact on individuals which is the reason why I do so.” Skeptical arguments à la half-empty glass: - “I do not believe that anyone except for my friends would be interested.” - “It impacts only those who are reached by it and who can connect to what I post.” - “One person may not affect the whole online community.” “Information overflow” arguments: - “I believe online media are way too big, within them the impact one creates is totally random.” - “Nowadays there is so much shared that it gets lost in mediocrity.” - “On internet there are so many things, websites, videos, so my video or photo is practically invisible.” “Surmount” statements Statements from this cluster invariably reflect the position that if you are aware of different media options, understand their functions and master their features you influence other people: - “It's a way to stay connected and to connect people. It's also a way of sharing opinions and stimulating debate, and to provoke people to question things / life.” - “When reporting about events in other countries it can show people views of other cultures.” - “Some political blogs may influence some local policies.” - “Other young people join our activities, as they saw on FB how cool it is what we are doing with others. Young volunteers have started to use the social media with other purposes than just for having fun (creating community, sharing opinion, recruiting people for different occasions).” - “I am doing my EVS project right now and I am convinced that the blog I am writing inspires other people to try and apply for their own EVS project. If not, it definitely shows more about the city I live in.” - “Through my messages several people found something that develops them (summer schools, volunteering opportunities).” - “I'm creating a webpage for the disabled. They can learn a lot there about their diagnosis and its cure.”
Sur-cease: Media and (increased) youth participation The last area we focused on in our research dealt with the impact of media on youth participation. Interestingly, the largest number of survey participants (almost half) thinks that only few young people around them are active in public issues. Higher level of participation was indicated by slightly more than 20% of participants while almost the same ratio responded that younger people are aware about public issues but do not directly engage. Only a marginal number of participants indicated that young people around them do not care about public issues. Participants who are involved in youth work (as their regular job, as a part of their activities or in their free time) declared slightly higher participation of youngsters than those who have nothing to do with youth work. In cross-country comparison the highest level of participation was declared in Slovakia, Spain and Hungary while lower levels were indicated in Greece and Italy. In these two countries we can also see the largest proportion of people who regard youth as aware about public issues but not directly engaging. Participants from Italy most frequently indicated the largest ratio of youngsters who do not care about public issues. Age, educational level and occupational status did not influence the nature of responses. From the listed areas of participation sports and leisure activities featured the highest (80%) followed by art production (70%), environmental and social issues (65% and 60%). The survey also dealt with the potential effect of social media on youth participation. Only a marginal number of survey participants held the view they do not increase participation because they are used only for fun. Majority opinion was rather cautious – according to 60% of respondents social media definitely increase awareness but not necessarily participation. Almost one quarter of participants sees social media as easily motivating people for participation and little more than 10% think that the use of social media is participation in itself. Neither frequency nor habits in using social media or relation to youth work influence the views of survey participants. Participants who are themselves creators tend to believe slightly more in the positive effect of social media on participation. In cross-country comparisons participants from Italy and Greece seem to be more skeptical about the influence of social media, although dominant view in all participating countries regards them as tools for increasing awareness, but not necessarily involvement. There was no significant variation in this conviction in relation to age categories, levels of attained education, size of residence or professional area. Effect of video/media making on youth participation was the last area of our interest. Almost 58% of respondents do not have experience with video/media-making but believe that it may increase youth participation. Video/media making is thus not widely used for this purpose but its potential is widely recognized. Only a marginal number of
respondents think it cannot work because young people are generally disinterested in public issues. Out of those participants who do have experience with video/mediamaking (more than 38%) two thirds declared it really increased participation while one third indicated the opposite. Interestingly, people who do not have experience with video/media-making believe more often it may increase participation than those who have already tried it. Stronger believers are also among those who never created their own media/videos and are only passive users of social media. Sur-over: Closing remarks Main findings of our survey indicate that social media are widely used but do not necessarily increase participation. Main purposes of their usage are fun and sharing information with friends. However, self-assessments of social media users differ from the views about others and tend to put more emphasis on “more serious” activities. People working with youth hold neither more skeptical nor more optimistic views about social media and their impact on youth participation. Individual media productions are created as means of self-expression and for sharing with others. Creators widely believe in their impact, even if in a limited scope. Educational motivations are not completely absent from media/video-making but they are far from featuring prominently. In fact, they are not widely used in youth work, even if they are (already) believed to have significant mobilization potential. Further research in this area could test the presented findings on a larger and more representative sample in order to get insights about youth work and the use of media across populations. In other words, we surmise the age of Video Volunteers is coming but in assessing its potentials and effects we still have to rely more on intensive work with the few than on extensive research among the many. Peter Drálʼ and Gyula Sándor