عنوان مقاله [English]
Political Participation is one of the main discussions in political sociology and political development in all countries. It is considered as an aspect of political development that can also support the political organizations to achieve democracy. In fact, the degree of political participation is a mean to know whether governments are logical or not.
The main goal of this study is to examine social-psychological causes influencing political participation of Isfahan University teachers. The factor of political tendency and membership in organs are based on Huntington’s and Nelson’s Views. They considered social superiority and a person’s capability on a person’s tendency on political participation. They believed that if a person tends to be a member of group and councils, they will perform political participation more. On the other hand, there are other factors such as age, education, earning, race, tribe, religion which are based on Budwell’s View.
It is necessary that some factors such as media and political effects are based on Olson’s theory.
First hypothesis: There are some relations between demographic factors (people’s age, sex, single / marriage, member in organs) and political Participation.
Second hypothesis: There are some relations between political environment and political Participation.
Third hypothesis: There are some relations between individualism and political Participation.
Fourth hypothesis: There are some relations between political knowledge and political Participation.
Fifth hypothesis: There are some relations between collective media and political Participation.
Sixth hypothesis: There are some relations between political tendency and political Participation.
Seventh hypothesis: There are some relations between political effects and political Participation.
Eighth hypothesis: There are some relations between relative abandonment and political Participation.
Ninety hypothesis: There are some relations between sense at political powerless and political Participation.
Sense at political powerless and political Participation.
Matherial & Methods
Methodology of this study has done on quantity based on examination. Data is collected by questionnaire. The statistical society were teachers in Isfahan university based on the last statistics of Instruction Organ in 1388-89 among 511 teachers. They have chosen by these factors including: Isfahan University itself which is large, it contains a great amount of teachers and scholars in internal and external, political movements. The second, it is easy to political movements. The second, it is easy to access teachers to gather data fine by researchers in Foresaid University. It is necessary that University teachers are more realism than other common people; they can teach us the dominant realities on political environment in the University.
In order to collect example, Cooker an formula has been used, they were 119, which were added also to 120. They have chosen randomly in the systematic system. The main factors are examined in the following ways:
The dependant factors of same study are political Participation . They constitute: political decision, choice of leaders (vote), revolution, coup d’état, scholar councils, lecture sessions and political debate, general crowds, walking, vote, crowds, Participation in informal political discussions (among family members, family, friends or office), member in groups, accessing political post in the offices. There were 11 points which were examined by Likert 5 degree. The choice of 2 is absolutely opposite, and 5 is absolutely agree.
There were 6 items in political knowledge, and 7 in political environment, 11 in individualism, 7 in political tendency, 9 in political effects, and 12 in relative abandonment which were based on Likert 5 degree,
Discussion of Results & Conclusions
According to this study, there is meaningful relation between collective, media factors (r=0.53), political knowledge (r=0.27), political environment (r=0.77), political effects (r=0.37), political tendency (r=0.28), relative abandonment (r=-0.24), political sense of powerless (r=0.28) and political Participation.
The results show that collective media has the mast meaningful relations to dependant factor. The results of multi-level Regression show that there is direct dependence between collective media factors (Beta= 0.31), political environment (Beta= 0.29), political knowledge (0.15), relative abandonment (Beta= 0.18), political effect (Beta= 0.22) and political tendency (Beta= 0.17). As whole, these factors can assign the dependant factors (R2= 0.39).
Data of political Participation among University teachers show that middle of political Participation in 50/48 for every person in the study which is high comparing the range of marks (55 to 11). It shows high Participation among University teachers. The results of previous studies and theoretical studies show that political Participation of University teachers are based on changeable, different factors.
The results show if feeling of political, lack self-confidence in political powerless, people’s relative abandonment will increase, such factors can decrease social, political Participation , of University teachers. The results show that political tendency of those who have answered, political knowledge, application of collective media and political environment can influence University teachers to increase political Participation.
The results of same study and Moradi et al (2009) were based on meaningful membrane in organs, were aligned with the studies of Dianati (2003) about political knowledge, but it was not aligned with Chaboki (2003) about sex. It is necessary that it was aligned with Kavoosi’s studies (2007) about psychology such as political tendency. Besides, one of factors which has influenced on political Participation meaningfully but it is contrary is sense of political powerless. The results show, if a person feels political powerless more, he will accompany in the political trends less. It is aligned with Hashemi’s studies et al (2009).
The results of study about political Participation of University teachers are aligned relatively with Milbrat and Goel’s political tendency and political Participation. Milbrat and Goel emphasize that if a person was influenced on political tendency more (including political discussions, membrane in organs and political information) he will also accompany in politics more.
For them, political environment is also important in political Participation , hence political culture may accelerate Participation councils, or vice versa it may not
There for, the principles of play such as rote rights, rote frequency, political agents, the views to street crowds, political movements, pressure groups are the main factors.
Besides, the results of study about political Participation of University teachers are based on Vakari’s and Olson’s views which are agreeable. Vakari believes collective media plays key and influencing roles in voting and political Participation. For him, collective media is located in the center political issues; it can call people to accompany in politics to increase political Participation . Media is the pulse of power, because people who access it are able to influence others. For Olson, the effect of politics is based on change, and revolution of politics range. When people accompany in a choice more, they will deserve their choices and effects.
اینگلهارت، رونالد. (1373). تحول فرهنگی در جامعه پیشرفته صنعتی، ترجمه مریم وتر، تهران: کویر.
جعفری نیا، غلامرضا. (1389). بررسی عوامل اقتصادی – اجتماعی مؤثر بر میزان مشارکت سیاسی شهروندان شهر خورموج، مجله علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، سال هفتم، ش 1، بهار و تابستان 1389: 127-147.
پاپلی یزدی، محمد حسین.(1382). "نظریه شهر و پیرامون"، تهران: شابک.
چابکی، ام البنین. (1382). "مشارکت سیاسی و جنسیت: بررسی مقایسهای مشارکت سیاسی دانشجویان دختر و پسر در تهران". فصلنامه علمی- پژوهشی علوم انسانی الزهرا(س)، سال دوازدهم و سیزدهم، ش 44 و 45: 108-128.
دیانتی، جواد. (1382). بررسی عوامل اجتماعی مؤثر بر میزان مشارکت سیاسی دانشجویان دانشگاه تبریز، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تبریز، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی.
دوورژه، موریس. (1369). جامعهشناسی سیاسی، ترجمة ابوالفضل قاضی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران ، چاپ دوم.
رایش، مایکل. (1381). جامعه و سیاست، ترجمه منوچهر صبوری، تهران: سمت.
صبوری، منوچهر. (1384). جامعهشناسی سیاسی، تهران: سخن.
صدیقی، بهرنگ، لینا، ملکمیان و مهدی اجاقی ازبری. (1389). بررسی تأثیر اعتماد سیاسی بر مشارکت سیاسی، فصلنامه پژوهش اجتماعی، سال دوم، ش 4: صص27-41.
قوام، عبدالعلی (1382). چالشهای توسعه سیاسی، تهران: نشر قومس.
کرلینجر، فردریک نیکولز. (1366). رگرسیون چند متغیری در پژوهش رفتاری، ترجمه: حسن سرایی، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
گر، تد رابرت. (1377). چرا انسانها شورش میکنند، ترجمه: علی مرشدیراد، تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
مرادی، گلمراد، محسن صفاریان و زهره آذرگون. (1388). "بررسی عوامل اجتماعی و اقتصادی مرتبط با مشارکت سیاسی جوانان: مطالعه موردی شهر ساری"، فصلنامه علمی- پژوهشی علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد خلخال، سال چهارم، شماره هیجدهم، پاییز 1378: 149- 169.
هاشمی، سیدضیا، مجید فولادیان و زینب فاطمی امین. (1388). بررسی عوامل اجتماعی و روانی مؤثر بر مشارکت سیاسی مردم شهر تهران، پژوهشنامه علوم سیاسی، سال پنجم، ش 1 (پیاپی 17): 199-226.
وثوقی، منصور و عبدالرسول هاشمی. (1383). روستاییان و مشارکت سیاسی در ایران: مطالعه موردی روستاهای حومه شهرستان بوشهر. (چاه کوتاه، آبطویل، تل اشکی). پژوهش نامه دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ش. 42 و41: 161 - 186.
Beck, A.P.M. Jennings .(1982). Path ways to participation. American political science review Vol 76. No 24.
Broadwell, W. (2004). "Political Participation", Georgia Perimeter College Rockdale/ Newton Campus, www.gpc.edu/ wbroadwe.
Christopher T. Dawes, Peter J. Loewen, James H. Fowler (2008). "Social Preferences and Political Participation", Political Behavior, Vol. 12. No 3, pp 289-314.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: CT: Yale University Press.
Dahl, Robert A .(1974). Who Governs?. new Haven : Yale University Press .
Dahl, Robert A .(1984). Modern Political Analysis . New jersey: Prentice Hall.
Gaiser, W. & Rijke, J. D.(2007). “Political participation of youth. Young Germans in the European Context”. Published online: 4 December 2007.
Ginieniewicz, J. (2007). “The Scope of Political Participation”, Journal of Community Development, Vol. 31. No. 2, pp 157–172.
Heelsum, A .V. (2002). “The Relationship Between Political Participation and Civic Community of Migrants in the Netherlands”. Journal of International Migration and Integration: Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.179- 200.
Huntington. S. & Nelson, J.M. (1978). No Eas Choice: Political Participation in Developing Countries, Cambridge: Harvard university Press.
Lipset, S.M .(1963). Political Man . New York : Anchor Books.
Olson, E. C. (2005). Political Participation. http://www.angelo.edu/dept/ government/online%20lectures.htm.
Robert, Holton & Bryan Turner (1989), Max Weber on Economy and Society. London: Rutledge.
Rush, M.(1992). Politics and Society, An Introduction to Political Sociology. London: Harvester Weat Sheaf, Chapter G, Political Participation.
Shapiro, R. (2008). "Political Participation And Quality Of Life". Journal Inter American Development Bank, Columbia University. Springer-Verlag. pp 541-555.
Stacy, G. Ulbig & Carolyn L. Funk. (1999). “Conflict Avoidance And Political Participation”, Political Behavior, Vol. 21. No 3,pp 265-282.
Vaccary, C. (2003). The Present and Future of Democracy and Civic Engagement in the Age of Mass Communications Lecture I: Introduction to political participation and mass communications. University of Denver.
Verba , Sidney & Noman H Nie (1979) Particippation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality, New York, Hper and Row.
Wangc, T. (2004). Political Participation and Voting. http://www.unc.edu/- Wangc/ Class %205.doc.