Introduction
Political efficacy is an individual’s belief that politics
are accessible and worth taking part in, as well as trust in the government and
political system. Political efficacy is vital to a democracy, as it encourages
participation in politics, facilitating a democratic system. The degree of
political efficacy an individual has can vary on many factors, including age,
background, and participation in politics. Studies have found that
participation requires citizens to believe they have the ability to influence
politics (Schulz, 2005). If citizens truly believe they can make a difference by
voting, donating, or volunteering with campaigns, they will do these things and
the democratic system will work as it should. The relationship between political efficacy and
participation has been researched before, with results showing that
participation is directly linked to democratic life (McCluskey, Deshpande,
Shah, & McLeod, 2004). This study focused on the differences between
desired efficacy, how much influence individuals think they should have, versus
actual efficacy, how much influence individuals do have.
On the other hand, other research has studied internal
efficacy, the degree to which an individual believes a change or
influence can come from one’s own behavioral attributes, determined by the
individual’s belief that participating in politics could have some desirable
outcome, and external efficacy, the
degree to which individuals believe the government will uphold their side of
the democratic process (Hamza E. G. A., Helal, A.M., 2015). This study
found that political efficacy and voting behavior have no correlation. However,
other research has found that they are linked (McCluskey, Deshpande, Shah, & McLeod, 2004). Similar
research has studied specifically external efficacy, finding that external efficacy is separate from political
trust (Craig, Niemi, & Silver, 1990). Although research has been done on both internal and
external efficacy and focusing on just external efficacy, it is still unclear
whether political efficacy is correlated to political participation because of
contradicting studies. This study focuses on determining the relationship between
internal and external political efficacy and participation in politics.
Methods
Participants
To study the relationship between internal
and external efficacy and political participation, 30 University of Iowa
Freshmen were surveyed.
Procedure
Participants who were surveyed were asked
eight questions about internal and external efficacy (if they trust the
government, believe the government is benefitting them, believe voting is
important, and believe their vote makes a difference) and political
participation (if they are planning to vote, volunteer for a political party,
or participate in politics in some other way). Students were asked these
questions by the researcher.
Data
analysis
Participation in politics was determined by
three questions, “Are you planning to vote in the 2016 election?”, “Do you
participate in or volunteer for a political party?”, and “Do you participate in
politics in some other way?” Then, percentages were calculated based on the
number of “yes” responses, and an average was calculated from the three
questions to determine total participation. Internal efficacy was determined in
the same way, using “Do you believe it is important to vote?” and “Do you
believe your vote makes a difference?” as the two determining questions.
External efficacy was determined with two questions “Do you believe the
government is working in a way that benefits you?” and “Do you trust our
political system?”
Your IMRaD report had a few areas that were really good, but also a few areas that could greatly benefit from revision. A few suggestions for revision include:
ReplyDelete1. formatting (notes on hard copy of paper).
2. results section. Some of the information in the results section might be more pertinent to the discussion section. Moving it there might make the results a little clearer and easier to understand.
3. use of tables. This correlates with the results section being slightly confusing. If you used graphs or charts instead of exclusively tables, then the information might be easier to understand.
4. discussion section. Your discussion section is one big paragraph, and doesn't seem to include all the aspects that should be included in a discussion. Also, the information gets kind of dense at times; breaking it up into smaller paragraphs might help with that, as well.
I can tell you put a lot of work into this report- keep up the good work!
1. The paper flows very well. The transitions between ideas and sections are very clear.
ReplyDelete2. Generally, the language use is good. There are no major grammatical errors, and the paper does not use first or second person. It fulfills the length requirement and has the necessary references and appendix pages. There are no problems with APA format.
3.) The abstract has all necessary information. At the end of the introduction section, you could go into a little more detail explaining how current research will help fill the gap that was described. The methods section has no problems. The results section does a good job relating data back to overall theme in all tables. I think you could expand on the discussion section a little bit. It may be helpful to separate this section into separate paragraphs- one summarizing the findings, one acknowledging problems in the study, one explaining the implications of what was found, and one suggesting further research. Separating the discussion section into multiple paragraphs would make the paper easier to read, and would also add length.
4. The survey has sufficient data for a good report. I think you could refer to how the experiment affects our understanding of the topic more in the discussion section.
5.)
- My first suggestion is to eliminate some of the repetition in the abstract and introduction sections. You define political efficacy several times. To be more concise, only define it once at the beginning of the paper.
- My second suggestion is to expand more upon what was found during the study in the discussion section. You have one sentence describing a negative correlation. I think it would be helpful to expand on that.
- Lastly, I would break up you discussion section into multiple paragraphs. It will be more clear and will flow better I think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete