Dissertation Annotated Bibliography for..... (Due date - Monday 5th February, 2018 DUE IN 10 HOURS FROM NOW)

Civicengagement_Generationaldifferencesinengagementofcitizensintheircommunities.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help > Dissertation Annotated Bibliography for..... (Due date - Monday 5th February, 2018 DUE IN 10 HOURS FROM NOW)

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN ENGAGEMENT OF

CITIZENS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES

A Dissertation

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Justin A. Tatar

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

December 2017

ProQuest Number:

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest

Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

10640336

2017

iii

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

School of Graduate Studies and Research

Department of Professional Studies in Education

We hereby approve the dissertation of

Justin A. Tatar

Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Education

_________________ ____________________________________

David Piper, D.Ed.

Professor of Employment and Labor Relations,

Advisor

________________ _____________________________________

Kelli Paquette, Ed.D.

Professor of Professional Studies in Education

_________________ ____________________________________

Sue Rieg, Ed.D.

Professor of Professional Studies in Education

ACCEPTED

____________________________________________ ____________________

Randy L. Martin, Ph.D.

Dean

School of Graduate Studies and Research

Title: Civic Engagement: Generational Differences in Engagement of Citizens in Their

Communities

Author: Justin A. Tatar

Dissertation Chair: Dr. David Piper

Dissertation Committee Members: Dr. Kelli Paquette

Dr. Sue Rieg

This study set out to examine if a difference existed among three generations and

citizenship and/ or between town vitalities and citizenship. Prior work (Putnam 2000) declared

that younger generations lack a civic inclination compared with preceding generations. As

examples, two American traditions are experiencing an all-time low in volunteer support. First,

volunteer firefighters have experienced a decrease from 300,000 to just 50,000 in Pennsylvania

over the last generation (Brittain, 2015). Second, church attendance has declined over the last 40

years (Jansen, 2011).

Additionally, this study examined if generation is influenced by citizenship. In order to

determine if a difference or relationship does indeed exist, statistical tests were conducted along

with interviews. Citizenship was considered with the five following subsets: personal beliefs,

competence for civic action, personally responsible citizenship, participatory citizenship, and

justice-oriented citizenship (Westheimer & Kahne 2004). Each of these citizenship attributes

were tested for significance with generation (Baby Boomer, Generation X, and Millennial). It

was discovered that Millennials are passionate about personal beliefs, Baby Boomers expressed a

competence for civic action, and all generations value responsible citizenship. Baby Boomers

expressed the importance of participatory citizenship and justice-oriented citizenship. Also it

was found that personally responsible citizenship differs by town vitality, as one community had

a significant mean score difference from another of the three in this study.

The findings in this study have implications for community leaders. First, community

leaders must establish community based programs or maintain existing programs to build a

stronger citizen base. Attributes and passions of all citizens must be utilized to better connect

communities. Community leaders must develop a citizenship education plan and educate

citizens on the value of citizenship. Westheimer and Kahne (2004) and Musil (2003) described

the need to incorporate citizenship service learning in the classroom. By doing so, will be

prepared for the next generation to experience the benefits of an efficacious community.

DEDICATION

Without reserve I owe all gratitude to my Savior for providing me with the ability to

accept knowledge and ideas beyond my own. For without that capability I would not even have

considered such an endeavor. To my family, Jenny, Jacob, Bella, Lizzy, and Abby, words

cannot express my love for you.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

From the beginning of my doctoral studies (and I am not sure when that would have

been) I was willing to embrace the struggle of this journey. A professor said early on in my

studies that a person does not need to be a genius to become a doctor – I have proven that fact –

but instead, they must persist. The professor said not to give up the struggle but instead to

embrace it. Great advice.

The experience of earning a doctorate created a family of colleagues all chasing the same

end. Fellow students from Cohort 14 have provided endless support in my academic journey,

including Luke, Danielle, and Aaron. I cannot thank Luke enough for the countless texts and

phone calls – I think we kept the phone companies in business! Your support was invaluable;

nothing but love and respect – you made a friend for life. Additionally, I have to acknowledge

Diana, a colleague and friend. Many hours were spent bouncing ideas and thoughts with you

concerning my study; I cannot thank you all enough for your contributions. On many occasions

you helped me with clarity when I needed it most. All of your gifted academic minds will

continue to bless you in your professional careers. I wish you all the best in all you do.

My committee, with your expertise and with your patience, thank you. I can only

imagine that committee members are perhaps just as excited to see a student graduate as the

student. The dedication of the dissertation committee including the endless read- throughs,

recommendations, and discussions were accepted with appreciation. My chair, Dr. Piper,

became a friend in this process; your knowledge and guidance taught me how to become a better

professional – thank you.

I could not continue without acknowledging my wife, Jennifer. Graduating with my

doctorate and completing a successful dissertation defense would not have happened without

viii

your unwavering support. Many hours proofreading and listening to my thoughts have now led

to this moment. To my wife and family, and all that had a part in this moment, thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................2

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................3

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................5

Operational Definitions and Terms ..........................................................................6

Justification ..............................................................................................................7

Research Questions ..................................................................................................8

Null Hypothesis .......................................................................................................9

Research Design.....................................................................................................10

Limitations .............................................................................................................11

Delimitations ..........................................................................................................12

Summary ................................................................................................................13

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................14

A Historical Account of Community and Citizenship ...........................................15

A Renewed Cause for Citizenship .........................................................................17

Development of a Civic Mind................................................................................18

Engaged Civic Community: Different From the Past ............................................19

A New Era of Civic Community ...........................................................................21

Community Engagement Redefined ......................................................................22

The Living Generations: The Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers,

Generation X, and Millennials ...............................................................................24

The Greatest Generation, Born Between 1910 and 1940 (Brokaw, 1998) 24

Baby Boomers, Born Between 1946 and 1964 (Taylor, 2014)..................25

Generation X, Born Between 1965 and 1980 (Gaylor, 2002) ...................26

Millennials, Born Between 1980 and 2000 (Taylor, 2014) .......................27

Differences in Generation, Life Cycle or a Generational Pattern?........................29

Civic Responsibility and Town Vitality… ............................................................31

Citizenship Models ................................................................................................35

Citizenship Development Model ...............................................................35

Three Models of Citizenship ......................................................................38

Visions of Good Citizens ...........................................................................39

Case Studies of Citizenship ...................................................................................42

Madison County Youth in Public Service ............................................................43

Bayside Students for Justice ..................................................................................44

Comparison of Citizenship Models .......................................................................46

Education for Democracy ......................................................................................48

Civic Ethos .................................................................................................49

Civic Literacy.............................................................................................49

Civic Inquiry ..............................................................................................49

Chapter Page

Civic Action ..........................................................................................................50

Summary ................................................................................................................51

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................52

Research Questions ................................................................................................53

Null Hypothesis .....................................................................................................54

Research Design.....................................................................................................55

Target Population and Participant Selection ..........................................................57

Instrument ..............................................................................................................60

Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement, 2007:

Reliability of Measures ......................................................................................... 60

Survey Sections ..................................................................................................... 62

Subset One: Personal Beliefs .....................................................................62

Subset Two: Competence for Civic Action ...............................................62

Subset Three: Personally Responsible Citizenship ....................................62

Subset Four: Participatory Citizenship ......................................................62

Subset Five: Justice-Oriented Citizenship .................................................63

Procedures ..............................................................................................................63

Pilot Study ..................................................................................................64

Non Expert Review ....................................................................................64

Data Analysis .........................................................................................................65

Expected Findings ..................................................................................................67

Summary ................................................................................................................67

4 ANALYSIS OF DATA .........................................................................................69

Description of the Survey Sample (Quantitative) ..................................................69

Description of the Interview Sample (Quantitative) ..............................................72

Details of Analysis and Results .............................................................................72

Generation, Independent Variable, Analysis, and Findings ..................................73

Personal Beliefs .........................................................................................74

Competence for Civic Action ....................................................................77

Personally Responsible Citizenship ...........................................................83

Participatory Citizenship ............................................................................87

Justice-Oriented Citizenship ......................................................................94

Research Question One: Conclusions ..................................................................100

Town Vitality: Analysis and Findings .................................................................102

Personal Beliefs .......................................................................................102

Competence for Civic Action ..................................................................106

Personally Responsible Citizenship .........................................................111

Participatory Citizenship ..........................................................................118

Justice-Oriented Citizenship ....................................................................123

Research Question Two: Conclusions .................................................................131

Chapter Page

Research Questions Three ....................................................................................133

Knowledge of Agencies ...........................................................................135

Ability to Reach Key Individuals ............................................................135

Ability to Identify Resources ...................................................................136

Ability to Make Decisions .......................................................................137

Ability to Make a Difference ...................................................................139

Ability to Share Perspective.....................................................................141

Ability to Solve a Problem .......................................................................142

Ability to Volunteer to Help People ........................................................144

Ability to Correct Problems .....................................................................147

Ability to Change Policy or Law .............................................................148

Ability to Work on a Political Campaign ................................................149

Willingness to March in a Protest or Demonstration ...............................149

Conclusion: Research Question Three .................................................................150

Summary ..............................................................................................................151

5 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS .............................153

Discussion of Results ...........................................................................................153

Research Question One ........................................................................................154

Research Question Two .......................................................................................159

Research Question Three .....................................................................................162

Implications..........................................................................................................164

Limitations ...........................................................................................................169

Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................................170

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................171

Summary ..............................................................................................................173

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................175

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................183

Appendix A - Survey Consent Form ...................................................................183

Appendix B - Interview Consent Form ...............................................................184 Appendix C - Survey ...........................................................................................185

Appendix D - Interview Protocol ........................................................................189 Appendix E - What Is Niche? ..............................................................................190

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Kinds of Citizens................................................................................................................42

2 Pre/Post Test: Madison and Bayside Case Study ..............................................................46

3 Connections Among Citizenship Models ..........................................................................48

4 Research Questions and Research Method ........................................................................56

5 Colleges and Universities ..................................................................................................60

6 Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement

Scale Items and Reliability Levels .....................................................................................61

7 Communities and Participant Totals ..................................................................................71

8 Overview of Research Questions, Data Collection, and Analysis Method .......................73

9 Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Personal Beliefs ....................................75

10 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Personal Beliefs ..........................................75

11 ANOVA, Generation and Personal Beliefs .......................................................................76

12 Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Generation and Personal Beliefs .............................................76

13 Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Competence for Civic Action ...............79

14 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Competence for Civic Action .....................80

15 ANOVA, Generation and Competence for Civic Action ..................................................81

16 Welch Test of Equality of Means, Competence for Civic Action .....................................81

17 Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Generation and Competence for Civic Action ........................82

18 Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Personally Responsible

Citizenship .........................................................................................................................85

19 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Personally Responsible Citizenship ...........85

20 Welch Test of Equality of Means, Personally Responsible Citizenship ............................86

xiii

Table Page

21 Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Participatory Citizenship .......................88

22 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Participatory Citizenship ............................89

23 ANOVA, Generation and Participatory Citizenship ..........................................................90

24 Welch Test of Equality of Means, Generation and Participatory Citizenship ...................91

25 Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Generation and Participatory Responsible Citizenship ...........92

26 Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Justice-Oriented Citizenship .................96

27 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Justice-Oriented Citizenship .......................97

28 ANOVA, Generation and Justice-Oriented Citizenship ....................................................97

29 Welch Test of Equality of Means, Justice-Oriented Citizenship .......................................98

30 Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Generation and Justice-Oriented Citizenship ..........................98

31 Research Question One: Are There Generational Differences Regarding Citizenship? .101

32 Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Personal Beliefs ..............................103

33 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Personal Beliefs ........................................103

34 Pearson Correlation, Town Vitality and Personal Beliefs ...............................................105

35 Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Competence for Civic Action.........108

36 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Competence for Civic Action ...................109

37 Pearson Correlation for Town Vitality and Competence for Civic Action .....................110

38 Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Personally Responsible

Citizenship .......................................................................................................................112

39 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Personally Responsible Citizenship .........113

40 ANOVA, Town Vitality and Personally Responsible Citizenship ..................................114

41 Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Town Vitality and Personally Responsible Citizenship........115

42 Pearson Correlation for Town Vitality and Personally Responsible Citizenship............116

xiv

Table Page

43 Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Participatory Citizenship ................119

44 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance and Participatory Citizenship ....................120

45 Pearson Correlation Between Town Vitality and Participatory Citizenship ...................121

46 Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Justice-Oriented Citizenship ..........125

47 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Justice-Oriented Citizenship .....................126

48 ANOVA, Town Vitality and Justice-Oriented Citizenship .............................................127

49 Pearson Correlation Between Town Vitality and Justice-Oriented Citizenship ..............128

50 Stepwise Multiple Regression Models for Town Vitality and Justice-Oriented

Citizenship .......................................................................................................................129

51 Research Question Two: Are There Town Vitality Differences or Relationships

Regarding Citizenship? .....................................................................................................132

52 Utilized Citizenship Attributes ..................................................................................…..134

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Frequency, participants by generation ...............................................................................71

2 Frequency, participants by town vitality ............................................................................72

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The United States of America’s civic culture has evolved over generations and has been

influenced by many historical events (Brokaw, 1998). Some of these events include a fight for

independence, the abolition of slavery, severe economic depression, public servant assignation,

and world wars. People become products of their generation and, therefore, speak with a similar

voice (Wilson & Simson, 2006). It is each generation’s voice that will define the people’s

beliefs, values, and citizenship (Brokaw, 1998).

The uniqueness of each generation presents political and social challenges that result in

differences in thought and community action from one generation to the next (Wilson & Simson,

2006). A confounding event often contributes to the personality of a generation; for example,

World War II brought cohesiveness to the Greatest and Silent Generations (Brokaw, 1998),

whereas the Vietnam War divided public opinion between government trust and mistrust (Boyte

& Kari, 1996). The Millennial Generation was introduced to war overseas, a great recession, and

corporate mistrust. The Millennials generally support social justice and equality for all people in

America. Generations have distinctive features (Wilson & Simson, 2006). Even so, Baby

Boomers and Millennials have several strands of commonality. For example, both generations

have endured government mistrust, war overseas, and political scandal. Both generations are

comparable in size as the Baby Boomers peaked at 78.8 million in 1999 and the Millennials will

peak at 81.1 million in the year 2036 (Fry, 2016). The commonalities lead one to wonder if the

two generations will have comparable results in this study.

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate if a difference existed

between generation and citizenship as identified by Westheimer and Kahne’s Visions of Good

Citizens Model (2004) and if a difference or relationship existed between town vitality as defined

by NICHE (Carnegie Mellon University [CMU], 2002) and citizenship among the Baby

Boomers, Generation X, and the Millennials. In this mixed-methods study, citizens were

surveyed and interviewed to better understand their citizenship practices and beliefs based on

commitment to civic community engagement. The geographic location of this study consisted of

citizens who resided in three counties in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

Statement of the Problem

The problem examined in this study was generational apathy toward politics and civic

community engagement (Taylor, 2014; Wilson & Simson, 2006). Specifically, today’s young

adults are not as civically inclined as preceding generations (Putnam, 2000). According to the

research of Berg, Melaville, and Blank (2006) and Musil (2003), young adults are not civically

involved, thus creating a lack of civic participation in community organizations and nonprofit

sectors. The national decline in volunteerism and engagement is a critical problem for the

country (Hartnett & Matan, 2014). “This decline represents millions of people who are no

longer contributing their time and effort to organizations where it is so essential for success”

(Hartnett & Matan, 2014, p. 3).

Examples of this downward trend can be found in two institutions. Since the early 1970s,

state and local governments have been concerned with the declining numbers of volunteer

firefighters. Since that time, across the state of Pennsylvania, the number of volunteer firefighters

has declined from 300,000 to just 50,000 (Brittain, 2015). Such a decline has created a major

problem for communities; a decrease in volunteers has led to longer response times, especially

during daytime hours (Miller, 1998). Not only is it becoming challenging to sway people to

volunteer, but it is also becoming more difficult to retain current volunteers.

A second example is the decline in church attendance over the last 40 years (Jansen,

2011). Religious institutions directly support a wide range of social activities beyond the walls

of the church (Putnam, 2000). Church involvement remains a strong predictor of community

based volunteering; according to Putnam (2000), those who attend church regularly volunteer

twice as often as those who do not attend. The population of the United States is expected to be

520 million by the year 2050, but the percentage of the population that will attend churches in

that year is estimated to be almost half of what it was in the 1990s (Barnes & Lowery, 2016).

Decline in church membership affects not only individual churches but also the community

involvement so central to church (Jansen, 2011).

Purpose of the Study

The first purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate if generational

differences exist regarding citizenship as identified by Westheimer and Kahne’s Visions of Good

Citizens Model (2004). The second purpose of the study was to investigate differences or

relationships between town vitality, as defined by NICHE (CMU, 2002), and citizenship. The

National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2012) recognized that the

more citizens who engage in civic opportunities in college, the greater their growth along many

civic dimensions, including greater levels of community commitment. This study revealed the

citizen attributes which are utilized by citizens and patterns that exist by generation and town

vitality.

Analyses of this study were drawn based on citizens’ responses to the survey instrument

“Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement” (The Pennsylvania State

University, 2007), which measured how civic and community participation contribute to

citizenship models based on the conceptual framework of Westheimer and Kahne’s model

(2004). The opportunity to examine the results of the three generational cohorts revealed

differences and similarities in terms of their attitudes toward civic engagement. Town vitality

was defined by Hoffer as a collective group of citizens from a defined community that take part

in shared responsibilities and duties (1931). Finally, the work of Grigsby (2001) defined town

vitality as a team approach to identifying issues, establishing plans, and acting on those plans.

The study revealed relationships between town vitality and two citizenship

characteristics. The results were analyzed and conclusions and recommendations for further

study are presented in Chapter 5. A goal of this study was to support research (Musil, 2003;

Putnam, 2000; and Westheimer & Kahne 2004) that indicates a need for younger Americans to

discover the importance of civic community not only for themselves but for the benefit of their

communities. Civic engagement encourages a knowledgeable, community-serving citizen

(Grigsby, 2001).

Another goal of this research was to present findings to the nine communities studied.

Opportunities exist for communities to develop citizenship skills among their citizenry, including

educational institutions that may teach their citizenry to become more involved and to provide

learning opportunities (Musil, 2003). Additionally, community and education leaders should

focus on civic education in their communities, regardless of town vitality (Musil, 2003). Results

of this study could be used to encourage stakeholders of secondary and post-secondary

institutions to add community and citizen education in curricula.

This study relies on three theoretical models to quantify and analyze the generational

cohorts to determine citizen engagement. The theoretical models include Musil’s Citizenship

Development Model (2003), Boyte and Kari’s Three Models of Citizenship (1996), and

Westheimer and Kahne’s Visions of Good Citizens (2004):

1. Citizenship Development Model is a framework that assimilates citizenship into the

school curriculum. It suggests that citizenship education must be woven into the fabric of

all courses in all colleges, not just as an elective course or a single act of citizenship

(Musil, 2003).

2. Three Models of Citizenship emphasize citizen ownership and leadership for

nondominant communities (Smist, 2006).

3. Visions of Good Citizens Model is grounded in a multi-year study of school-based

programs that aim to teach democratic citizenship. The framework differentiates between

a good citizen and a civically engaged citizen (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Theoretical Framework

Westheimer and Kahne’s Vision of Good Citizens Model (2004) was chosen as the

theoretical framework for this study. This framework was selected based on the following

criteria: First, the Model includes three phases of citizenship (personally responsible citizenship,

participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship), allowing for a higher level of

accuracy among survey participants. Second, this information can then be disseminated to the

communities where the participants live. Community leaders could share the information with

their citizens to better engage them in community events and to meet specific needs of the

people. Third, Westheimer and Kahne’s model is designed with civic education in mind.

Citizens must be able to move beyond civic education learned in a classroom and, therefore,

learn to serve and nurture their communities (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Recommendations

derived from the study could influence community and citizen education in the classroom as well

as in the community at large. A theoretical position of this study posits that civic education can

begin to change the way younger generations view their community (and their roles in their

community). Young adults, regardless of town vitality, can understand the importance of

becoming high-engaged citizens. Instead of young people viewing their community simply as a

place to live, they can transcend this outlook and view community as a place to engage

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Operational Definitions and Terms

Baby Boomers: Born between 1946 and 1964. Led the countercultural upheavals of the 1960s

(Taylor, 2014).

Civic Engagement: Citizens who work to build a stronger community by utilizing their inherent

and tangible skill sets for community improvement (Ehrlich, 2000).

Civic Life: The actions of a citizen that extend beyond his own concerns and extending to needs

of the community (Musil, 2003).

Community Service: Work done with or through a community organization to provide direct

service to individuals. Any work in a community and other related activities (Boyte & Kari,

1996).

Generation X: Born between 1965 and 1983. Key descriptors Gaylor uses to describe

Generation X include: loyal to relationships, serious about life, stressed, self-reliant, skeptical,

highly spiritual, and survivors (Gaylor, 2002).

Justice-Oriented Citizens: Citizens who wish to find causes of and solutions to systemic

community injustice and social ills (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Millennials: Born between 1980 and 2000. Taylor describes Millennials as “liberal, diverse,

tolerant, narcissistic, coddled, respectful, confident, and broke” (Taylor, 2014, p. 26).

Participatory Citizens: In tune with community happenings and focused on effecting change

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Personally Responsible Citizens: Knowledgeable about problems and sometimes get involved in

efforts to address issues or concerns (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Service Learning: Linked primarily to two educational theorists: John Dewey and Paolo Freire.

Emphasis on collaboration, real world problem solving, and reflection (Nadan & Scott, 2011).

Social Capital: Distinguishes between safe and organized cities from unsafe and disorganized

ones, including the connections of individuals through common values (Jacobs, 1961). Can

maintain connections among its citizens; lends to high levels of trust and citizen participation

(Putnam, 2000).

Town Vitality: Level of agreement a community shares regarding community issues, goals to

address the issues, and implementation of plans (Grigsby, 2001).

Town A: As defined by NICHE, a community with a town vitality score of 90 percent or greater

(CMU, 2002).

Town B: As defined by NICHE, a community with a town vitality score of 80 to 89 percent

(CMU, 2002).

Town C: As defined by NICHE, a community with a town vitality score of 70 to 79 percent

(CMU, 2002).

Justification

Communities and their citizens can benefit from understanding civic engagement

variances among the three generations and town vitalities analyzed in this study. Educators may

use this data to engage young students in the classroom on the role of effective citizenship.

Persons representing these particular generations can better understand how to become civically

engaged citizens. Most importantly, a justification for this study is the potential use of the

findings to prepare the next generation for informed citizenship in their communities.

The need is strong to reinforce the importance of civic-minded engagement in

communities. A civically engaged citizen at the highest level can lead communities,

organizations, teams, households, families, schools, commerce, government, churches, and

individuals to serve.

Research Questions

This study’s purpose is 1) to establish if there are differences among generations related

to citizenship and 2) to determine the relationships or differences for town vitality and

citizenship. Communities can use the findings to understand 3) which citizenship attributes are

most utilized by citizens. More specifically, the study asks the following through surveys and

interviews:

Surveys

1. Are there generational differences regarding citizenship?

A. Are there generational differences regarding personal beliefs?

B. Are there generational differences regarding competence for civic action?

C. Are there generational differences regarding personally responsible

citizenship?

D. Are there generational differences regarding participatory citizenship?

E. Are there generational differences regarding justice-oriented citizenship?

2. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding citizenship?

A. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding personal

beliefs?

B. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding competence

for civic action?

C. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding personally

responsible citizenship?

D. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding participatory

citizenship?

E. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding justice-

oriented citizenship?

Interviews

3. Which citizenship attributes are utilized by citizens?

Null Hypothesis

1. Ho. There are no generational differences regarding citizenship.

A. There are no generational differences regarding personal beliefs.

B. There are no generational differences regarding civic action.

C. There are no generational differences regarding personally responsible

citizenship.

D. There are no generational differences regarding participatory citizenship.

E. There are no generational differences regarding justice-oriented citizenship.

2. Ho. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding citizenship.

A. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding personal

beliefs.

B. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding competence

for civic action.

C. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding personally

responsible citizenship.

D. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding

participatory citizenship?

E. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding justice-

oriented citizenship.

Research Design

A mixed-methods study was decided upon as the best approach for this study. Such an

approach increases the overall strength of a study compared to a stand-alone quantitative or

qualitative study (Creswell, 2007). A combination of quantitative and qualitative measures was

used to gather the necessary data. A survey was used to address research questions one and two

with the instrument, Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement by

Flanagan, Syvertsen, and Stout (2007); additionally, interviews were used to collect qualitative

data.

In their work on civic engagement, Flanagan, Syvertsen, and Stout (2007) employed a

mixed-methods study. They developed a set of civic measures that built on the work of

Westheimer and Kahne’s, Good Citizen, framework included both qualitative and quantitative

data, as mirrored by this study. Their reason for a mixed methods followed what Datta (1997)

suggested to be a logical approach for a study design, that is, a mixed-methods design allowed

for blended tactics for their study.

Research question three was addressed qualitatively with seven interviews consisting of

12 interview questions each. Interview subjects were selected from the pool of participants who

completed the survey instrument. Participants had the opportunity to select “yes” or “no” on the

survey to indicate their willingness to interview.

All three research questions were studied in municipalities selected by town vitality.

Town vitality was measured using letter grades: A = high vitality, B = medium vitality, and C =

low vitality as defined by NICHE (Carnegie Mellon University, 2002). Each letter grade was

assigned a percentage for the purpose of this study, which required percentages for statistical

analysis. For example, a letter grade of A, equaling high vitality, was assigned a percentage of

90 percent; a letter grade of B, equaling medium vitality, was assigned a percentage of 80

percent; and a letter grade of C, equaling low vitality, was assigned a percentage of 70 percent.

Only towns with 4,000 residents or more were used in this study in order to increase the

likelihood of completed surveys. Table 3 provides a listing of the nine municipalities within the

communities selected, along with their vitality scores and town populations. The municipalities

were chosen from Beaver, Washington, and Westmoreland counties in the state of Pennsylvania,

as they all share comparable characteristics and demographics. The survey instrument was

distributed to citizens of all nine municipalities. An equal number of high, medium, and low

scoring town vitalities were sought for consistency. Due to the minimum population parameters

set for the study, Beaver County does not have a municipality with a C or C- score, with a

population of 4,000 citizens or greater. The other two counties do have equal representation for

all scores.

Limitations

Several limitations of the study should be noted:

Limitation 1: This study may not be a true indicator of the pulse of all citizens that reside in these

selected counties. Citizens could have varying thoughts of citizenship from each

county. With the Visions of Good Citizens theoretical model, it is possible

that the three citizenship models could have different meanings for the

individual citizens taking the survey. In turn, this variance of thought could alter

the study.

Limitation 2: The overall aptitude of citizens in regards to citizenship is also a limitation to this

study. It can be assumed that if community engagement is not important to a

citizen, then that citizen may not partake in this study. If citizens who are already

engaged are more inclined to take the survey, the results may be skewed.

Limitation 3: This study included interviews to identify which community attributes were

utilized by citizens of different generations and town vitalities. Just seven citizens

were interviewed, suggesting that the small number may not be a true indicator of

all citizens who reside in these communities.

Limitation 4: This study only considered citizens’ views on citizenship.

Delimitations

It should be noted that this study is limited to three counties with a total combined

population of over one million citizens. Communities chosen for this study have a minimum

population of 4,000 residents. It was believed that this delimitation would allow for a stronger

survey pool per community. The researcher accepts the fallibility of capturing all citizens that

reside in a specific community or from a certain generation.

The counties were restricted to Beaver, Washington, and Westmoreland, as these counties

are located in Western Pennsylvania and are comparable by population bases and town vitalities.

A further delimitation to this study is that the participant pool will only consist of those citizens

who are members of Chambers of Commerce, currently enrolled in post-secondary institutions,

and/or who are engaged with social media and who attend community events. It is also

recognized that this research may not reflect other communities in the nation.

The study only considered Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. Participant

ages range from 18 to 70 years. The study omitted the Greatest Generation (those born before

1946) based on the belief that at their advanced age, it might be difficult to reach a significant

yield. Lastly, this study only considered two independent variables, generation and town vitality.

Therefore, no demographic information was captured including gender, race, income, and/or

education level.

Summary

This study differentiates from others similar to it by investigating if potential differences

between generation and citizenship and potential relationships between town vitality, as defined

by NICHE (Carnegie Mellon University, 2002), and citizenship. This study sought to measure

attitudes and civic behaviors of three distinct generations from nine municipalities across Beaver,

Washington, and Westmoreland Counties.

The future of democracy in America hinges on a new generation of applied democracy

(The National Task Force, 2012). The time has come to stop the trend of youth apathy towards

community and citizenship. A new movement toward serving, with commitment to community

and solving issues that plague communities, must now begin (Poindexter, 2012). Without a new

movement, the country might suffer a setback in a lack of engagement that it cannot politically

or civically afford. Our youth are plentiful and diverse, and they desire a sense of belonging.

Community leaders and educators should channel their positive energy for the betterment of the

future (Poindexter, 2012). This study assumes the necessity of cultivating skills, attitudes, and

behaviors at an early age. It also assumes that, if successful, society might benefit from greater

involvement and engagement of its citizenry (Gaeke, 2009; The National Task Force, 2012).

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The challenge for America is to reinvigorate the young citizenry to become once again

involved in their communities (Putnam, 2000). America has experienced a decreased

commitment to citizenship and a lack of commitment to community (Musil, 2003; Putnam,

2000). The strongest indicator of civic disengagement is by age or generation. Putnam, the

author of Bowling Alone (2000), argues that middle-aged and older people participate more

frequently in almost all civic categories, including attending church, voting, reading and

watching the news, engaging in philanthropy, getting involved in politics, committing to

community projects, and volunteering (Putnam, 2000).

Today’s youth occupy time in ways that vary widely from prior generations. Many

Millennials have two sets of parents (Rotz, 2016), have access to entertainment in the palm of

their hand, rely on quick remedies to solve “problems,” and desire constant change in their lives

(Poindexter, 2012). This way of thinking differs from the Greatest Generation in every way.

The Greatest Generation lived through the Great Depression, World War II, a presidential

assassination, and a Cold War (Brokaw, 1998). Today’s Millennial Generation has also

experienced tragedies in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the country’s financial woes, the housing

market crash, and partisan politics (Poindexter, 2012); however, there remains a contrast

between these two generations separated by about 80 years. This literature review will include a

historical account of citizenship, a generational comparison of civic engagement among the

generations, and the importance of civic education in the classroom to prepare civic minds for

future generations.

A Historical Account of Community and Citizenship

In 1776, the collective colonies on the North American continent declared independence

from the British Empire (McCullough, 2001). This action involved immense risk as all 56

signers of the Declaration of Independence were viewed as traitors by the British government

and could be sentenced to death (McCullough, 2001). This decision did not come easily; many

statesmen did not agree with such a declaration. Some felt it was better to live under the scrutiny

of foreign rule and an unfair taxation system. Leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams,

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and George Washington desired a better future for the colonies

and voted to fight the British for independence, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.

Under the British, the colonies were subjected to an authoritative rule that limited the colonists’

control of their communities. The British placed governors in each colony who adhered to

British authority, including British expatriates policing the colonies and water ports. In Franklin,

Srodes (2002) described how Parliament closed the port of Boston to international commerce

until payment was received for the tea famously destroyed in the Boston Harbor. So many

troops landed that one out of five Boston inhabitants wore a red coat, and General Gage was

named the colony’s acting governor. The Revolution Movement, which included the new

America preparing to seek independence from Great Britain, dramatically increased the assembly

of people who considered themselves capable of thinking about issues of freedom, equality,

sovereignty, and representation (Skocpol and Fiorina, 1999). At this time, Congress chose

Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson to draft a declaration that would define American independence

to the world (Srodes, 2002). For the leaders of the colonies, nothing was of more importance

than a separation from tyranny and the pursuit of freedom that included the creation of a new

self-governing nation (McCullough, 2001). Adams began the journey of independence with

excitement and enthusiasm for the future (Wood, 2011). It was this motivation that spurred the

eight-year-long Revolutionary War that forced the British to surrender at the hands of General

Washington. This struggle led to the birth of a new nation that promoted a new civic beginning

for its citizens and its communities (McCullough, 2001).

Much like today, communities during the Revolution both struggled and thrived. The

patriots of the Revolutionary War provided a path for the rights of Americans (Wood, 2011).

Some rights occurred right away, such as the abolitionist movement and religious freedom, while

other rights took more time to develop, such as emancipation of slaves and suffrage for women

(Wood, 2011).

American attitudes were changing. Victory in the Revolutionary War gave the new

America an opportunity to write their own legislation, a new direction on how to live free from

tyranny (Wood, 2011). No more did British law govern the new America; American victory

ultimately ensured communities could grow and flourish for generations to come. Though

adversity thrived in the early years of the country, citizens had the ability to represent their

beliefs, and people from the same communities spoke in a similar voice (Wood, 2011). The

word “people” took on a very different definition than it had in England. In the new America,

the word “people” included the whole community and included all residents in the society. In

England, ”the people” was a more challenging concept to describe (Wood, 2011). The new

country was acknowledged to possess the distinctions that nature had made, to include a range of

talents, abilities, and virtues (Wood, 2011).

Present-day America may not be the perfect product the Founders had planned, but it is

still a land of opportunity (McKnight & Block, 2012). Each community is comprised of citizens

representing different generations from various town vitalities. The fabric of each community

lies in the efforts of each citizen (Berg, Melaville, & Blank, 2006). A town might flourish in one

aspect of vitality, based on the collective efforts of its citizens, but lack in another (Berg,

Melaville, & Blank, 2006).

A Renewed Cause for Citizenship

In 1776 Virginia was the first to separate church and state (Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999).

Under British bondage, the Colonials had to worship as directed by authoritative rule or risk

persecution. The young country proclaimed separation of religion and state and included the

freedom to worship under the umbrella of any religious faction.

Thus began a renewed cause for a spirited community eager to spread religious

denominations across the new country (Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999). Traveling organizers and

preachers, especially Methodists and Baptists, spread across the land. Established religious

hierarchies were challenged and bypassed by wildfire movements that appealed to the religious

passions and aspirations of ordinary Americans. With the continued influx of immigrants and

people moving westward, new ideas and ventures began to flourish in America’s communities

(Putnam, 2000). Community-engaged citizens began to take hold across the country with the

development of community-based associations (Putnam, 2000).

Communication, such as mailing letters, took mere days (Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999). This

unusually efficient and inclusive means of social communication allowed Americans, from early

national times onward, to create interconnected groups for political, religious, and moral

purposes. Newspapers increased from 90 to 370 from 1790 to 1810, and the postal service

developed into the most efficient mode of mail delivery in the world (Putnam, 2000). The post

office institution accounted for about 74 percent of all U. S. federal employees (Skocpol &

Fiorina, 1999) and permitted citizens to have a voice in their community. The populace had

created a medium to promote or chastise a cause, allowing for freedom of speech and active

participation in civic engagement.

Development of a Civic Mind

Putnam (2000) stressed the value of group membership to positively influence society.

From an early age, children, with the assistance of their parents, must find their role in society

(Cherry, 2013). The development of a child’s civic awareness at a young age enables him or her

to lend his or her voice and to speak with confidence (Flanagan & Levine, 2010).

The development of a civically responsible adult begins early in the person’s

development; however, younger children are competing for social dominance in school, on the

playgrounds, in sports, and at the dinner table (Cherry, 2013). Philosopher John Dewey talked

about education as a cultivating process that fosters ideals and educational growth (1976). Erik

Erikson (1950, 1963) developed a theory of crisis that corresponds to stages of human

development from infancy to death. His theory is important as it links early child development

with possible future civic engagement. He defined crises as an opportunity to grow

psychologically and improve in one’s life. He described eight stages of psychological growth

from infancy to death; for example, young children aged six to 12 are defined as “School Age”;

children in this stage are endeavoring to discover acceptance of the course of one’s life and

unfilled hopes (Erikson 1950,1963). Ultimately, they are trying to figure out who they are and

what authority they hold over both their peers and parents.

Today’s youth have a variety of options with which to occupy their time (Cherry, 2013).

Children seek the next attraction to entertain them, usually consisting of the latest fad.

Problematically, children lose interest quickly based on changing tastes or, most likely, the peer

influence. They desire acceptance from each other to fit in and to be a part of something

(Erikson 1950, 1963). Young adults should learn to assert control and power over community by

taking initiative through planning activities, accomplishing tasks, and facing challenges (Cherry,

2013). Today’s young citizens should understand how civic community occurred in the past so

that they have an appreciation for community today.

Engaged Civic Community: Different From the Past

Civic community engagement has transformed over the generations (Rainer & Rainer,

2011). Today’s Millennial Generation is involved in very different civic community actions as

compared to the distant Greatest Generation or the Baby Boomers (Rainer & Rainer, 2011).

Research shows the Millennials are engaged and advocate for causes, but the research also shows

that the civic engagement does not look much like the involvement of the Greatest Generation

(Musil, 2000; Putnam, 2000; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Dewey argued in Democracy and

Education that a society that changes will improve the next generation. Different standards will

emerge and take hold of society, and citizens should embrace the nature of the present social life

(Dewey, 1916).

One argument for the differences is that young people of the Millennial Generation are

not involved in the civic community – that is, they do not care, are lazy, self-focused, and require

instant gratification (Putnam, 2000). Eighty years before the Millennials, the Greatest

Generation was recognized for their hard work, dedication, loyalty, and servanthood (Skocpol &

Fiorina, 1999). Many different historical events have separated the Millennials from the Greatest

Generation’s shared beliefs; these include a cold war, corrupt politics, the Vietnam War,

government mistrust, and assassinations (Brokaw, 1998). These events began to separate the

Baby Boomer Generation from the greatness of their parents. Instead, the Baby Boomers grew

up learning not to trust the government or government institutions. As Baby Boomers grew into

adulthood, their way of thinking about community grew apart from their parents. A change in

community had occurred; instead of the same characteristics that described the Greatest

Generation, the Baby Boomers had become disenchanted with the government. This change led

to an apparent decrease in activities such as advocacy, volunteering, and civic participation

(Wilson & Simson, 2006).

Examples of this downward trend can be found in two American traditions. The fire

department is an American institution that dates from Benjamin Franklin in 1736 (Srodes, 2002).

Just like in the past, most fire departments in Pennsylvania are completely reliant on volunteers.

Since that time, across Pennsylvania, the number of volunteer firefighters has declined from

300,000 to just 50,000 (Brittain, 2015). The problem is twofold: It has become a challenge to

persuade people to volunteer, but it is also becoming more difficult to retain current volunteers.

To combat these problems, both legislative and non-legislative efforts have occurred. An

example of a non-legislative effort involves community colleges; around the country, they now

offer tuition exemption to volunteer firefighters. Pennsylvania community colleges offer tuition

exemption as a way to attract new volunteers. States have enacted various legislative measures

to retain volunteer firefighters; for example, Pennsylvania now offers volunteers a tax cut of

$1,000 to help retain firefighters (Zapf, 2009).

A second example of the civic engagement problem in America can be attributed to the

decline in church attendance over the last 40 years (Jansen, 2011). Religious institutions directly

support a wide range of social activities beyond the walls of the church (Putnam, 2000). Church

members volunteer more frequently than those who do not attend church at all (Putnam, 2000).

This sense of altruism is responsible for the generosity of the church. Churchgoing is one of the

best predictors of giving blood, donating money, and participating in community affairs. Thom

Rainer, author of Autopsy of a Deceased Church (2014), notes that the failure of churches to

keep up with population growth is one of the churches’ greatest future challenges. Church

attendance has decreased every year since 1960 as each generation has become more

disconnected from church than every previous generation since the Greatest Generation (Rainer,

2014). Both of these examples highlight the decline of modern-day civic participation.

Community engagement still occurs through traditional means, albeit to a lesser extent;

most citizens are civically engaged through social outlets (Rainer & Rainer, 2011). The social

media movement began in 1994 (Digital Trends, 2012) and continues to evolve. Social media,

including platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, is a way for people to

communicate with each other all over the world to share common hobbies, outlooks, or political

views (Rainer & Rainer, 2011). It is a method used to connect and participate in a community

(Rainer & Rainer, 2011). In comparison, the Greatest Generation did not have computers or

social media. Instead, they met at social halls in their towns and played cards, or they met in

places like the Eagles Club, veterans hall, Slovak club, or bowling allies (Putnam, 2000). While

convening at these places, people discussed politics and advocated for causes. Indeed, the civic

community is very different for each generation.

A New Era of Civic Community

Westheimer and Kahne (2004), Musil (2003), and Putnam (2000) revealed a lack of

engagement with the Millennial Generation. Millennials do not read newspapers, watch the

news, participate in civic matters, or vote with the same frequency as the Greatest Generation

(Musil, 2003); therefore, the Millennial generation appears to be the least engaged of the modern

era (Rainer & Rainer, 2011). Millennials have only known computer-based technology in their

lives, unlike the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers, who had to learn and adapt to this new

technology.

The Greatest Generation, though admirable, might be considered narrow-minded when

studying wide-ranging topics compared to the Millennial Generation (Zukin, Andolina, & Delli

Carpini, 2006). The Millennials are far more tolerant than the Greatest Generation when it

comes to social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, or single-parent homes (Zukin, Andolina,

& Delli Carpini, 2006). The country during the Greatest Generation was unified and very

focused on a few similar causes (Brokaw, 1998).

While Musil (2003) and Putnam (2000) argue that there is a decline in civic engagement,

others (Hartnett & Matan, 2014) argue that both generations are civically engaged. Today is

very different – not better, but different. The point to consider and to evaluate is that both

generations are civically engaged, just in different ways. Both generations have their place in

society and serve their communities honorably (Hartnett & Matan, 2014). The next section will

offer a new definition of community engagement.

Community Engagement Redefined

Social media is the thread that links and has transformed the notion of community

(Digital Trends, 2012). The commonly accepted definition of community engagement is no

longer viable for today's generation. A new definition should not hold to the traditional sense of

community engagement but must include the use of social media as a community engagement

tool (Flanagan & Levine, 2010). In a customary sense, the current Millennial generation does

not hold to the same community values compared to previous generations, but that does not

make this current generation out of touch (Brokaw, 1998; Flanagan & Levine, 2010). The

traditional definition provided by Clayton State University (2014) referred to the process by

which a community benefits from organizations and individuals by building ongoing, permanent

relationships for the purpose of applying a collective vision. Community, or civic community, is

no longer restricted to municipal borders or local jurisdictions.

Definitions of community engagement should include social media, which permits a

citizen to become connected to a cause even if separated by distance (Department of

Environment and Primary Industries, 2014). This new community engagement includes

individual connections through the use of social media (Department of Environment and Primary

Industries, 2014). The linking of the term “community” to a physical location must now include

a virtual social medium. The concept of engagement must also broaden in scope, shifting the

focus from the individual to the collective, to ensure consideration is made for the diversity

within any community (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, 2014).

Today citizens are involved in causes all over the world, no longer restricted by the

communities in which they live (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, 2014). In

the past, a person could live in a small community with limited civic community options and,

hence, have little chance to be involved. That same person today can now advocate for a cause,

such as raising awareness about the need to continue cancer research and raising money for that

research through social media (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, 2014).

Another individual, limited by zip code or nearby community, may not have the opportunity to

learn or become involved with a particular movement. This person now can invite others via

social media to learn and talk about a shared passion. Social media has created a broader scope

of civic community engagement than ever before (What is Community Engagement?, 2014).

Internet access has changed the world and will continue to influence America and its

communities.

The Living Generations: The Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and

Millennials

This section will provide a historical account of each of the three generations

participating in this study (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials). Though this section

will discuss the Greatest Generation, it will not be included in the analysis. A deeper

understanding of the major generational attributes will be discussed to explain the characteristics

that identify each of the generations.

The Greatest Generation, Born Between 1910 and 1940 (Brokaw, 1998)

The Greatest Generation represents a broad group of people significantly more engaged

in community matters and more trusting than younger generations (Putnam 2000). The dilemma

is that the Greatest Generation has not been replaced with a similar generation of encouraged and

engaged citizens. This generational cohort is exceptionally civic-minded, votes more, joins

more, reads more, trusts more, and gives more (Putnam 2000). They are the least educated; yet,

they are the most civically engaged of all other generations (Boyte & Kari, 1996). They are also

the most trusting of all other living generations. The Greatest Generation won a two-front world

war, which encouraged intense patriotism between the citizenry and civic activism across the

country (Brokaw, 1998).

The Greatest Generation mostly built their livelihoods through hard work. Agriculture

and farming were no simple tasks, but people worked and developed self-reliance for

sustainability (Boyte & Kari, 1996). They witnessed the fruits of their labor, which directly

benefited their communities. People cared about the well-being of their neighbors and wanted to

see them prosper. The country and its citizens were unified. After the war, returning soldiers

flocked to the country’s colleges and universities as they were eligible for the GI Bill of 1944

(Brokaw, 1998). This bill allowed for financial support to pay college tuition. An economic

boom was then spurred for an entire generation, as Americans earned college degrees that led to

sustainable jobs.

Baby Boomers, Born Between 1946 and 1964 (Taylor, 2014)

The authors of Civic Engagement and the Baby Boomer Generation (Wilson & Simson,

2006) argued that citizenship has become optional and, when given a choice to utilize our civic

obligation, Baby Boomers too often choose to remain quiet rather than argue and any sense of

loyalty to their own generation has disappeared (Wilson & Simson, 2006). The Baby Boomers

grew up in a tumultuous era of foreign wars, government distrust, and political unrest (Zukin,

Andolina, & Delli Carpini, 2006). The generation accounted for one-third of the population and

was the best-educated generation in American history until the Millennials (Putnam, 2000).

With the guidance of their parents, Boomers in their early days experienced community vitality

but gradually lost engagement as they lived many trying times (Wilson & Simson, 2006).

Politically, this generation was fearful due to events such as the Civil Rights Movement,

Kennedy and King assassinations, the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Watergate.

They have become distrusting of institutions, distanced from politics, and disconnected with

civic community life (Zukin, Andolina, & Delli Carpini, 2006). Boomers are less

knowledgeable about politics than their parents had been at a comparable age (Putnam, 2000).

The work of Zukin, Andolina, and Carpini found that Baby Boomers as a group are not very

politically involved or motivated. Now a mature generation, a civic principles of Baby Boomers

include descriptions such as team focused, self-worth, an emphasis on personal health and

wellness, and personal development (Gaylor, 2002; Reaves & Oh, 2007).

In summary, Baby Boomers chose not to make politics a priority in their everyday lives

which differs from prior generations (Putnam, 2000). Baby Boomers instead discard the

institutions of the political American platform rather than embrace it. This generation might best

be distinguished by its dislikes for the government system (Putnam, 2000).

Generation X, Born Between 1965 and 1980 (Gaylor, 2002)

This generation was molded by a handful of historical events that had a part in molding

them. Generation X experienced and developed opinions on ethical and moral misconducted in

social institutions including, religious affiliations, education, and corporate America (Brown,

1997). Generation X, as young adults, were faced with limited career choices as the economic

template changed drastically from the previous generation (Theifoldt & Scheef, 2004). The

perception of the workforce for this generation was changed; they no longer valued professional

loyalty. Generation X felt mistreated and suspicious of corporations and, therefore, became less

loyal to organizations where they worked (Theifoldt & Scheef, 2004). Today, Generation X

citizens are aware that they must continue their education to succeed. They desire meaningful

relationships, and, when gaining additional knowledge, Generation X demands that

responsibilities are meaningful to their work, as to give it purpose (Brown, 1997). In contrast to

Baby Boomers, Generation Xs’ philosophy on work and home life is to strike a balance. They

believe spending time at home is of more value than working overtime (Gaylor, 2002; Spectore

et al. 2007); (Thielfodt & Scheef, 2004). Unlike the Boomers before them, Generation X is not

marked with any triumphant historical events: no Great War victory, no liberating marches on

Washington, and no overthrow of dictatorships (Putnam, 2000). This cohort has not had the

opportunity to share in a collective celebration, a bonding experience. As a result, Generation X

are more inward thinkers and consider the individual before the group. They are less trusting of

other generations (Boyte & Kari, 1996). They are less likely to march for a cause and less

probable to have political interests than Boomers. They do not see themselves as political but,

instead, as outsiders of the political community. They do not necessarily dislike the political

process or politicians, but they do not believe that their votes matter (Boyte & Kari, 1996).

Millennials, Born Between 1980 and 2000 (Taylor, 2014)

Millennials have been influenced by historical events such as the Columbia Space Shuttle

disaster, Gulf War, the Columbine High School shooting, September 11th, and the wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq. All of these events have enhanced this generation’s sense of fear (Denham

& Gadbow, 2002). Additionally, they have experienced violence, readily available illegal and

legal drugs, and gang violence (Reeves & Oh, 2007).

Millennials are the technology generation, they have grown up parallel to computer and

smartphone technology advancements. They are also recognized as the helicopter generation;

their parents assist them with responsibility and decision making through adulthood. The

Millennial generation can also be described in ways that contrast the Greatest Generation

(Taylor, 2014). This generation of students will overtake the Baby Boomer generation as the

most educated generation (Howe & Strauss, 2000). Teaching citizenship to these students is

much different in comparison with previous generations. Young students tend to be more

concerned with immediate self-gratification. They tend to make quick decisions, seeking little

guidance in the process. Respect and trust between peers do not come quickly (Howe & Strauss,

2000). Millennials are open minded when it comes to accepting differences among people.

(Rainer & Rainer, 2011). Rainer and Rainer, authors of The Millennials (2011), argue that this

generation learns, understands, communicates, shops, and entertains differently than all previous

generations. Millennials are marrying later in life, if at all. In 1970, about 44 percent of 18- to

25-year-old Baby Boomers were married. In comparison, only 15 percent of Millennials in that

age group were married in 2011 (Rainer & Rainer, 2011). Millennials feel empowered to take

responsibility for issues; they are civic in thinking and are a community-first generation (Howe

& Strauss, 2000).

Community leaders must consider that the Millennial Generation has a higher proportion

of disengagement than past generations; therefore, it is time to consider a change to both

secondary and early secondary democracy education (Musil, 2003; National Task Force on Civic

Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012). In the past citizenship education focused on such

items as an understating of government, the rights and expectations of citizens, and developing a

national perspective (Cogan, 1997). Citizen education that emphasizes civility, ideals, attitudes

and knowledge are no longer adequate. Instead, citizenship education ought to explore a

multiple approaches that combines civic knowledge with community engagement practices in

this way; a citizen will develop action-oriented civic behaviors (National Task Force on Civic

Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012).

Millennials tend to be more driven and possess a positive outlook on life. Millennials

have conquered the college ranks more than past generations. In doing so, they have become

tolerant and accepting of various races and ethnicities (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Reeves & Oh,

2007). Millennials tend to be better at multi-tasking and more interested in workplace

collaborations than other generations (Sujansky, 2002).

Differences in Generations, Life Cycle or a Generational Pattern?

Each of the three generations analyzed for this study possess their unique

characteristics and traits. Baby Boomers at this stage of their lives tend to be idealistic,

ambitious, materialistic, and self-absorbed (Gaylor, 2002; Reaves & Oh, 2007). Generation X

can be defined as inward thinkers, considering the individual before the group, desiring

meaningful relationships to their work, and caring about creating a work-life balance.

Millennials are vested in technology, coddled by parents averse to conflict and comfortable with

race and social issues (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004; Musil, 2003; Reeves

& Oh, 2007). Reeves and Oh (2007) discussed the importance of understanding the

characteristics that best explained each generation when they were younger, for example 20 to 30

years old. A better understanding of these characteristics will further display the differences in

civic qualities for each generation, showing if an individual matures civically or a generation is

more civically minded from young adulthood. More specifically, it is important to decide if a

person moves through a life cycle pattern or a generational pattern (Putnam, 2000). This clarity

will allow for an equal evaluation of all three generations.

Each of the two patterns are characterized by distinct attributes. Life cycle behaviors

can be classified in several ways. Several examples of a life cycle behavior would include; a

person who competes in extreme sports as a young adult only, family demands that connect

individuals to schools or communities while their children are school aged, time availability to

certain issues, and overall skill and knowledge levels (Putnam, 2000). In short, life cycle

behaviors show that people change their civic activities over their lifetime. Individuals change

their life patterns throughout their lives, but society does not alter.

A generational pattern reflects societal changes while people do not change. In

contrast to a life cycle pattern, generational patterns will show the same civic behavior as it

pertains to a particular attribute over the course of a person’s life (Putnam, 2000), therefore

reflecting a change in civic habits over time. An example of a generational pattern would

include a situation where young adults, typically 20 to 30-year-olds, began to vote more

frequently as compared to the same age bracket a generation prior. A generational pattern would

suggest that this same cohort would not only vote more often in their 20s or 30s but throughout

their lives (Putnam, 2000). The outcome would preserve a generation that would vote more

frequently than other generations before it.

Putnam, with the support of hypothetical social engineering, argued that Baby Boomers

should be more civically active at this current point in their lives, but they are not as civically

engaged according to Putnam (2000). Additionally, the work of Wilson and Simson (2006) have

also suggested that Baby Boomers are not as civically engaged at this current stage of their lives.

This anomaly is difficult to see as Baby Boomers are a large generation, nearly equal to the

Millennials. Wilson and Simpson's work supported the idea that Baby Boomers were as equally

in tune to civic matters while in their twenties and thirties as compared to Millennials and

Generation X at the same ages (2006). Wilson and Simpson (2006) contend that as a result,

Baby Boomers should have carried their civic intuitiveness throughout their adult lives, but

instead, they have not done so; therefore, Boomers at this current stage of their lives are inert to

civic matters.

The civic life cycle of a Baby Boomer would suggest increased civic involvement after

retirement, but this is not occurring (Putnam 2000). Putnam (2003) drew a parallel to the decline

of civic participation in the shrinking church attendance in America. This premise helps to

explain the decline in civic engagement as it has continually dropped from the Greatest

Generation to the Millennials (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004; Musil, 2003;

Reeves & Oh, 2007). Making this link between the generations is an important detail for the

sake of this study. Scholarly research has established a parallel between the Baby Boomers and

Millennials as being civically comparable during their young adult years, just in different ways

(Putnam, 2000; Wilson & Simson, 2006). When taking into consideration this similar

generational characteristic, the analysis allows for an equal platform for comparing the

generations as either experiencing a life cycle or a generational pattern (Putnam 2000).

Civic Responsibility and Town Vitality

Families during the Greatest Generation’s youth consisted mainly of middle and upper-

class families (Brokaw, 1998). Children knew their place in the home; they were cared for and

disciplined (Brokaw, 1998). Respect for parents was prevalent as children revered their elders;

mothers worked hard at raising their children, and fathers worked hard and earned respectable

paychecks (Brokaw, 1998). Children recognized the father as the authority figure of the home.

The time between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers experienced changing

family dynamics. For example, the divorce rate more than doubled from 24 percent in 1950 to

50 percent in 1970 (Rotz, 2016). The increased divorce rate led to both broken and mixed

families. More children now had two sets of parents and four sets of grandparents (Rotz, 2016).

As parenthood moved away from the Baby Boomers to Generation X, the social aspects

of home began to differ from the traditional structure, resulting in fatherless or motherless homes

(Wilson & Simson, 2006). More mothers also entered the workforce, leaving homes empty of

parents upon children’s arrival from school. A very different culture emerged as children

became “latch-key kids,” allowing themselves into the home and preparing dinner for their

parents (Shumow, 2014). Life became more about working and paying bills instead of spending

adequate time teaching traditional family values (Shumow, 2014). Generation X children

become disenchanted with the government, as the 1970s experienced much government scandal

and corruption (Flanagan & Levine, 2010). Unlike their grandparents before them, who trusted

the government and believed in service, Generation X had little to no interest in civic community

life (Wilson & Simson, 2006).

The civic-minded cultural change was not sudden; the mindset change transpired over the

course of a generation and varied by community. Out of necessity, citizens chose to take

responsibility for their households and, therefore, devotion to their professional careers all but

eliminated any civic attributes (Wilson & Simson, 2006).

Much of this transition among the citizenry resulted in communities of varying vitalities.

For the purpose of this study, town vitality was measured by the use of NICHE, which assesses

the strength and values of the community at the town level (Carnegie Mellon University, 2002).

The NICHE grade takes into account key factors, including community location, volunteer rates,

crime rates, public education, diversity, and higher education rates and provides a quantitative

score based on those factors (Carnegie Mellon University, 2002). The concept of town vitality is

a variable that should be considered when measuring citizenship among generations.

Researcher Jane Jacobs, author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961),

coined the term “social capital” to distinguish safe and organized cities from unsafe and

disorganized ones. She argues that the connective engagement of individuals through common

values results in increased social capital. A town with increased social capital would thrive as a

community, and a town that thrives will engage more in urban planning and renewal (1961).

Jacobs argued for improvements such as the configuration of streets to best maximize

communication among citizens. She believed in human connections as a way to unite a town

and to create opportunities for citizens to spend meaningful time together. Jacobs’ concept of

social capital will provide context on the vitality of selected towns and citizenship among the

citizens in this study.

Putnam (2000) also used the term social capital to describe some of a town’s resources.

A community that is “connected” provides overlapping networks that produce socially desirable

outcomes. A town with increased social capital can maintain connections among its citizens;

increased social capital lends to high levels of trust and citizen participation (Putnam, 2000).

Similarly, Dewey used the term society, arguing that it is a mere word but encompasses

many things (Dewey, 1916). He expressed the value of diversified language, religions, moral

codes, and traditions in a community, which enables a permeating community of action and

thought (Dewey, 1916).

Without adequate social capital, a town’s vitality might become bleak and limited in

community connections. McKnight and Block, in The Abundant Community (2012), describe

the importance of citizens sharing three properties with their communities: gifts, the raw

material for community; associations, the process through which the gifts are exchanged; and

hospitality, which widens the inventory of gifts (McKnight & Block, 2012). Each of these

properties feeds into the other; one does not necessarily come in front of the other. When a

community focuses on its gifts, associations are created; when there is a strong association,

hospitality will flourish. Like social capital, gifts, associations, and hospitality are the

competencies and core elements that must be visible and manifest to create an abundant

community (McKnight & Block, 2012).

One finding of Putnam’s Better Together (2003) is that people thrive in small groups.

This observation of small groups flourishing and adding to the dynamics of a larger group was

also described by Jacobs (1961). Jacobs declared that people are “charming” in small numbers

and “harmful” in large numbers. Jacobs believed town vitality is improved when people are

gathered in concentrations, and density is considered a positive attribute. The vitality is

observable when the population expresses an exuberant richness of differences and their

presence is not just physical; ultimately, vibrancy serves as an asset to the community (Jacobs,

1961).

To learn more about community dynamics, Putnam observed a large church in California,

the Saddleback Church, which had over 45,000 parishioners. The congregation of a church,

whatever the size, is a community by definition. The idea of being a part of a “community” of

45,000 signifies the real relationships among people who know one another well enough to share

some trust and understanding (Putnam, 2003). Putnam wanted to understand how a church of

this size maintains and grows its congregation. The answer was determined to be small groups.

A town or city, no matter the size, has the capability of connecting its citizenry (Putnam, 2003).

Head Pastor Warren understands the gifts of his congregation, their associations, and the power

of hospitality. Saddleback Church recognizes that they are a congregation of congregations

(Putnam, 2003). As a result, Pastor Warren appreciates the power of community and connecting

people with comparable passions and interests. Bible and fellowship groups are implemented for

every conceivable need and talent. Putnam learned from Saddleback Church that people do not

need to know everyone in their community to feel a sense of belonging, but an individual does

have to know some people (Putnam, 2003).

Citizenship Models

The importance of this study is the ability to determine the level of citizenship a person

experiences based on his or her level of community engagement. To that end, three models of

citizenship are examined: Educating for Citizenship (Musil 2003), Three Models of Citizenship

(Boyte and Kari, 2000), and Visions of Good Citizens (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Each

model presents similarities across the frameworks as far as ranking citizenship. All three models

are analyzed for how they stratify layers or phases of citizenship, and from that evaluation,

Westheimer and Kahne’s Visions of Good Citizens (2004) was chosen as the model to utilize for

this study.

Citizenship Development Model

Musil discusses a framework that assimilates citizenship into the school curriculum

(2003). Rather than elective courses or a single act of citizen engagement, citizenship education

must be woven into the fabric of all courses in all colleges. Civic learning should coalesce with

hands-on learning experiences. Musil explains how civic learning must move beyond just a brief

passing course and instead ought to be a central component of the curricula (Musil, 2003). It is

now time to merge both curricula and service learning so that citizens will develop the skills to

make a meaningful difference in their communities (Musil, 2003).

There are six phases of citizenship according to Musil’s framework. The concept of the

six phases is for each one to act as a stepping stone to the next phase. As a citizen progress

through the phases, they will develop cognitive and moral development (Musil, 2003).

A young person in the Exclusionary Phase is an individual whose idea of community is

only of their own. There is no thought of volunteering, and his or her civic scope is void. A

citizen in this phase “is distinguished by a monocultural sensibility” (Musil, 2003, p. 5). Thus,

there is no talk of civic involvement or politics at all, or such conversation is disregarded. The

Exclusionary Phase yields benefits to no one but the young person.

An individual in the Oblivious Phase is someone whose idea of community is a resource

to use but not something to which the individual can contribute. Musil referred to this stage as

the “drive-by” service-learning experience (Musil, 2003, p. 5). The civic attitude for this

particular individual is one of civic detachment. The person is not actively seeking engagement

in the activity and, therefore, does not choose to relate to its mission. Musil illustrated this point

when describing a group of predominantly white college students who were bused into an inner

city food kitchen that serves the homeless and citizens that suffer from food insecurities. A

student was asked by a homeless man why he was visiting the food kitchen, “I guess I am here to

watch you,” the student said (Musil, 2003, p. 6). The student's response angered the man, and

the man left. The student and her classmates were not well-prepared for this particular service

learning exercise. Under this phase of citizenship, the community is viewed as a resource to

scavenge, a self-service approach. People in this phase of citizenship can still learn, but a

potential danger could reinforce existing stereotypes while at the same time not increasing the

cultural lens of society (Musil, 2003).

The third phase of citizenship is called the Naïve Phase. This phase recognizes citizens

as thoughtless to civic issues in their communities (Musil, 2003). In this phase, the person may

not be well-versed in the community residents or the culture that it presents. There is a lack of

historical knowledge about the community, and the person in this phase is not concerned. Musil

describes a particular example of a citizen who worked alongside an urban student while

planning an event for all of the families a yacht club. Disappointed, the student could not

“understand why more parents did not show up for the event” (Musil, 2003, p. 6). His words

help to express his acultural viewpoint, meaning, in the student’s mind, his community is

superior and should be accepted by others.

The fourth phase is the Charitable Phase. This phase is commonly found at post-

secondary institutions today. Citizens recognize the needs of their community in this phase and

seek to address them accordingly (Musil, 2003). Examples of this phase would include

campuses delivering food to the needy, college students tutoring inner-city children, food

donations, and clothing drives. Students in this phase gain an understanding of community needs

based on their own experiences; this knowledge brings awareness of community issues and in

turn citizens develop compassion toward those they are helping (Musil, 2003). With well-

designed courses that include both classroom and service learning opportunities, a citizen who

begins to move past the charitable phase will begin to develop an increased civic skill set and

will become ready to move to the next phase (Musil, 2003). The students will gain knowledge in

this phase that will enhance their awareness of deprivations; increased knowledge will effect

kindness and respect for others. This phase offers benefits to both the student and to the

community.

A young person in the Reciprocal Phase gains the most value in civic engagement.

Through participation, citizens learn and develop skills that permit them to understand various

perspectives of “legacies of inequalities”, “the historical narratives of resistance”, “the moral

debates of the day” (p. 7), and the importance of understanding differing points of view (Musil,

2003). Students develop more expansive multicultural knowledge and hone their intercultural

competencies. In this phase, the combination of civic skills learned in a classroom and the

community will lend to citizens making a positive community difference (Musil, 2003).

The sixth and final phase of Musil’s Citizenship Development Model is the Generative

Phase (Musil, 2003). This citizenship framework concludes by attempting to interlace a shared

citizenship perspective that desires a prosperous future. Citizens see the community as central to

their lives. The perspective of a citizen in this phase does not separate their life from the

communities, but instead, they are intertwined. In this phase, citizens desire the well-being of all

community citizens to benefit with opportunities. This phase also depends on a citizen’s

adaptive ability to understand societal differences as they impact citizens, but this phase goes

further in that citizens begin to deepen their understanding of historical perspectives. Hence,

citizens yearn for a connected community that provides equality and justice for all citizens

(Musil, 2003).

Three Models of Citizenship

This section will examine Boyte and Kari’s (2000) Three Models of Citizenship, the first

of which recognizes the foundation of democracy as the civics view. Three Models of

Citizenship accurately supports the classroom civic curriculum approach. The second model of

citizenship goes beyond the civic foundation and now develops a community-first attitude based

on shared principles. This view expresses that the strength of citizens comes from the

community, by working together to accomplish meaningful tasks. This model also incorporates

civic-learning opportunities much like Musil’s (2003) framework. By doing so, citizens are

encouraged to engage their community on a more intense level. Finally, Boyte and Kari’s third

model of citizenship teaches citizens to commit to their community fully, to not only participate

and donate time but to become a transformational citizen. These citizens take ownership of

injustice and problems and empower other citizens to help with the cause. The third and final

model provides for a holistic viewpoint of citizenship that draws an individual’s personal and

civic values for the betterment of a community (Smist, 2006). Though Boyte and Kari propose

these models of citizenship, they have not conducted any formal research on these models

(Smist, 2006).

Visions of Good Citizens

“What Kind of Citizen?” brings consideration to an array of ideas about citizenship and

good citizen action (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). This model aligns with Millennial citizenship.

The framework is grounded in a multi-year study of school-based programs that teach

democratic citizenship. The framework differentiates between a “good citizen” and a “civically

engaged citizen.” Most educators, policy makers, and citizens understand that the value of

developing students’ capacities and commitments for active and democratic citizenship is critical

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). School curricula often promote service, not democracy, when

embracing a vision of citizenship devoid of politics (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

While many people interact in a civil manner, that does not mean that students are

educated to be part of the democratic process. From Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) study of

both democratic theory and program goals and practices, they develop a construct to organize

diverse perspectives. Westheimer and Kahne (2004) theorized that students are primarily taught

to be good citizens and to serve others. Confusion exists between pupils and educators on what

good citizenship means to policy-makers and politicians (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). A

student who participated in the Westheimer and Kahne study described a good citizen as “active

participant rather than passive” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 254). Another student said to be

a good citizen, one must “educated about democracy, makes decisions based on facts” (Khane &

Westheimer, 2004, p. 254). Table 1 presents an explanation of the differences among the three

citizenship models.

Personally Responsible Citizens are knowledgeable about problems and sometimes get

involved in efforts to address those issues (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Citizens that fit into

this model likely do not have a full understanding of the issues but wish to correct community

issues through community action. These citizens will volunteer to pick up litter, give blood,

recycle, and endeavor to maintain financial stability. A personally responsible citizen is

gainfully employed, pays taxes, obeys laws, and helps those in need during a crisis (Westheimer

& Kahne, 2004). This individual is indeed a good citizen as he or she contributes many

attributes to society. According to this model, the limitations of a personally responsible citizen

stop at being recognized as just a “good citizen.” This citizen will always be a responsible

individual in society, compassionate while helping and anticipating the next opportunity to serve

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

According to Westheimer and Kahne’s model (2004), participatory citizens are

knowledgeable about community issues and are actively engaged for the benefit of creating

societal change. Participatory citizenship means taking on essential leadership functions while

maintaining involvement in community service. Such citizens actively participate in civic

matters and social happenings of their community. School curricula in this model focus on

educating students regarding how the government and other institutions work. Additionally,

curricula should stress the significance of planning and participating in organized efforts.

Participatory citizens will plan, coordinate, and implement a food drive for a community, in

contrast with the personally responsible citizen who will volunteer to help serve in some

capacity. Participatory citizenship transcends personal relationships, shared understandings,

trust, and collective commitments all for the purpose to live together communally.

Justice-oriented citizenship is possibly the perspective that is least commonly pursued, in

contrast to personally responsible and participatory forms of citizenship. These citizens desire to

challenge the systems that create or exacerbate those issues. The difference between (justice-

oriented citizenship) and (participatory citizenship) is that individuals not only volunteer to a

cause but also attempt to determine their underlying origins and correct them (Westheimer &

Kahne, 2004). Justice-oriented citizenship draws explicit consideration to matters of injustice

and the importance of chasing social justice goals. For example, if personally responsible

citizens are volunteering at a food drive and participatory citizens are organizing the food drive,

then justice-oriented citizens seek out the root reasons for hunger and act on how to stop hunger

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Table 1

Kinds of Citizens

Personally Responsible

Citizenship

Participatory

Citizenship

Justice

Oriented

Citizenship

Description

-Acts responsibly in

his/her community

-Obeys laws

-Volunteers to lend a

hand

-Active member of

community

organizations and/or

improvement efforts

-Organizes community

efforts to care for

those in need, promote

economic

development, or clean

up environment

-Knows how

government agencies

work

-Critically assess

social, political, and

economic structures

to see beyond surface

causes

-Seeks out and

addresses areas of

injustice

-Knows about social

movements and how

to effect systemic

change

Sample Action -Contributes food to a

food drive

-Helps to organize a

food drive

-Explores why people

are hungry and acts to

solve root causes

Core Assumptions -To solve social

problems and improve

society, citizens must

have good character;

they must be honest,

responsible, and law-

abiding members of

the community.

-To solve social

problems and improve

society, citizens must

actively participate

and take leadership

positions within

established systems

and community

structures.

-To solve social

problems and

improve society,

citizens must

question and change

established systems

and structures when

they reproduce

patterns of injustice.

Note. Adapted from “What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy,” by

Case Studies of Citizenship

To better illustrate Westheimer and Kahne’s model, Visions of Good Citizens, the

following section will provide analysis of two case studies. The first case study involved

students from Madison County High School who learned the importance of participatory

citizenship and developed the necessary skills. The second case study included high school

students from Bayside High School who developed justice-oriented citizenship skills while

working on a project for community activists.

Madison County Youth in Public Service

A group of students from the Madison County Youth Service League explored

community members’ preferences regarding trash pickup. The goal of this project was to

develop participatory citizenship, according to Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) framework. The

project consisted of high school students from both Madison County High Schools. The high

schools are located in a suburban/rural East Coast community. A total of 61 students

participated, drawn from high school government classes (excluding the Advanced Placement

Government course). The study lasted over two academic years, and a total of four classes

participated. Table 2 presents the pre- and post-survey results captured by the students who

participated. The project required students to gather and analyze data, interact with government

agencies, write a report, and present their findings at a formal hearing in front of the county

Board of Supervisors.

The Madison students gained knowledge about small-town politics; for instance, students

saw first-hand government agencies competing for limited funds. Students realized the impact of

their efforts in the community as they were recognized in the local newspapers. The Madison

County students showed little proof of increased political knowledge gained during this civic-

learning assignment (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). In reflection of the student’s experience, it

became clear that though they did not increase political awareness, the study did demonstrate

students’ increased understanding of social capital in a community (Westheimer & Kahne,

2004).

In hindsight, the study did not elicit changes in students’ interest in politics or their

perspective on structural issues related to, for example, causes of poverty. The study did show

positive learned outcomes, such as knowledge and social capital needed for community

development and students’ sense of civic efficacy positively impacting their community. The

program did not alter students’ interest in political engagement (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

The Madison County Youth in Public Service study yielded many successful outcomes. This

opportunity afforded students the chance to learn how government operated within their

community and stressed the value of lending a hand to serve their community (Westheimer &

Kahne, 2004). The project helped students understand that civic participation can make a

difference in the lives of others. Participants reported that the project deepened their belief in

talking about a problem and actively addressed it (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). These students

were able to successfully utilize their newly learned civic engagement skills to satisfied the

participatory citizenship model, but the students learning experience did not identify with the

justice-oriented citizenship model at all (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Bayside Students for Justice

The Bayside program focused on the justice-oriented citizenship model. Students in this

program studied the creation of a five-year plan for the fire department. This study consisted of

25 students who were academically low-achieving from an urban high school on the West Coast.

A total of 21 students completed both the pre- and post-survey; 13 students were female and

eight were male. Of the total, eight students were African-American, eight were Asian, one was

Caucasian, one was Latino, and three students identified as Other. According to data reported by

the instructor, 40 percent of the students lived in public housing and reported as low-income.

Table 2 presents the pre- and post-survey results of the students who participated.

The Bayside students who participated in a justice-oriented study focused on structural

social change. Politics took center stage as this project required students to discover alternatives

and solutions. Students studied shortcomings in their community that included a healthcare

center with limited access. Additional students investigated if the “SAT exams were biased” (p.

255) and created pamphlets that highlighted their findings (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Like the Madison students, the Bayside students enjoyed working with real-life

situations where they had an opportunity to make a difference. However, the Bayside students

had different experiences that led to various lessons (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). The Bayside

students developed civic skills to address needs beyond their community. Students gained an

appreciation for the need to work as a community to accomplish tasks. In comparison to

Madison, the Bayside program had a focus on social awareness more than the actual know-how

ability to address a problem. The Bayside students gained an understanding of the how the

political process works; they were more likely to understand underlying issues. The Madison

students did not express the same outcomes about politics, but they did gain an understanding of

the value of personal civic responsibility. The Madison students did not express the same

outcomes about politics, but they did gain an understanding of personal responsibility to

contribute to society.

Table 2

Pre/Post Test: Madison and Bayside Case Study

Measures Madison County Youth in

Public Service

Bayside Students for Justice

Personal Responsibility To Help

Others

.09 (3.84/3.93)

.21* (4.00/4.21)

Knowledge/ Social Capital For

Community Development

.94** (3.95/4.89) .17 (2.76/2.93)

Leadership Efficacy .12(3.13/3.25)

.31** (3.60/3.91)

Interest in Politics

03 (3.41/3.44)

33* (2.68/3.01)

Structural/ Individual

Explanations for Poverty

-.10 (3.13/3.03)

.28* (3.88/4.16)

Civic Efficacy .34** (3.78/4.12)

.47* (3.03)/3.50)

Gov’t Responsibility For Those

in Need

.24* (3.10/3.34)

.29* (3.19/3.48)

Vision To Help 30* (2.65/2.95) .36 (2.43/2.79)

Note. Adapted from “What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy,” by Westheimer &

*p<.05; **p<.01;  pre- and post-surveys were administered to all program participants.

Comparison of Citizenship Models

All three models, the Citizenship Development Model (Musil, 2003), Three Models of

Citizenship (Boyte & Kari, 2000), and Visions of Good Citizens (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004),

strive to measure models of citizenship in a linear way. They all begin by considering

citizenship at a very basic level before a young person can grow into a fully participating citizen

engaged in the community. The citizenship models start to develop into more meaningful phases

in which the citizen either takes on more responsibility within a community or begins to

understand one’s role as a community member.

For example, the Three Models of Citizenship (Boyte & Kari, 1996) illustrate that

participatory citizens are capable of both volunteering and providing direction to other citizens in

their neighborhoods. These citizens care about the community and believe that their personal

efforts matter for the betterment of the community. Participatory citizens take the initiative to

lead others, in contrast to a citizen in Musil’s Oblivious Phase of citizenship, in which a person

only views the community as a tool for the individual to use or take from but not to give back to.

Musil’s Citizenship Development Model (2003) described six distinct phases of citizenship

citizens from Exclusionary (in which only one’s view matters and one is completely disengaged

from the community) to Generative (in which the citizen strives for civic prosperity for all

people and struggles for democracy so that all might be served).

Westheimer and Kahne’s Vision of Good Citizens Model (2004) differs from the other

models based on two elements: It is grounded in research and framework that differentiates

between a “good citizen” and a “civically engaged citizen.” Putnam (2000) reported that

communities require citizens to faithfully take care of primary responsibilities in order to fulfill

core functions of local government. However, beyond the basic duties of a good citizen is the

need to measure to what degree a citizen is civically engaged in community, and that is what

Westheimer and Kahne’s Direct Citizenship Model (2004) achieves. Table 3 shows the

connections among the three citizenship models.

Table 3

Connections Among Citizenship Models

1. Musil (2003)

Citizenship Development Model

2. Boyte and Kari (2000)

Three Models of Citizenship

3. Westheimer and Kahne (2004)

Visions of Good Citizens

Civics view

Personally Responsible Citizen

Exclusionary

Oblivious

Naive

Charitable Communitarian

Participatory Citizen

Reciprocal Public Work

Justice-Oriented Citizen

Generative

Note. 1. Adapted from “Educating for Citizenship,” by C. Musil, 2003, Peer Review: Emerging Trends

Colleges and Universities. 2. Adapted from “Building America: The Democratic Promise of Public

Work,” by H. Boyte & N. Kari, 1996, p. 171. 3. Adapted from “What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of

Educating for Democracy,” by Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, American Educational Research Journal, 41,

Education for Democracy

Education plays a significant role in building civic vitality, and, in the twenty-first

century, higher education has a distinctive role to play in renewing U.S. democracy (National

Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012). The report, National Task

Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2012), stresses the need to reinvent

curricula to include civic learning as an integral component of every level of education, from

elementary school to graduate school, across all fields of study. Without this radical change in

curricula, National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2012) suggests

that not only might the current generation become disengaged to the point of no return, but, also,

the country may never again be as civically focused. The report outlines the relevance of post-

secondary education to this generation of students as it will propel their ability to learn and

exercise a worldwide democracy. Additionally, colleges and universities are more inclusive than

ever before (National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012). This

work proposes a model to address what a civic-minded campus could look like, ranging from

ethos to action (explained in the following sections).

Civic Ethos

Campus life must include a shared philosophy of a civic-minded ethos. Schools should

encourage respect and provide spaces for active local citizenship and global awareness.

Stakeholders that serve in higher education in any capacity should demonstrate kindness on a

daily basis with the hope of encouraging others. Citizens should take the time to extend

gratitude for others accomplishments. Civic Ethos should embrace higher education’s annual

goals for the sake of their surrounding communities (National Task Force on Civic Learning and

Democratic Engagement, 2012).

Civic Literacy

A desirable focus for all students should be to achieve civic literacy. Students must grasp

basic citizen skills as to understand global concerns and democratic issues. An understanding of

Civic Literacy compels a person to appreciate the historical perspective as it relates to a changing

democratic landscape. A citizen should develop the ability to think critically about complicated

civic matters and to search and dissimilate information that have community implications

(National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012).

Civic Inquiry

This quality integrates civic inquiry within post-secondary curricula. Students should

develop knowledge that allows them to understand varying perspectives and the potential

outcomes of each. Civic Inquiry includes the effect of choices on different constituencies and

entities including a global perspective. Students should be able to passionately deliberate

differing points of views. Finally, students must gain the aptitude to dissect and discuss debates

with their peers (National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012).

Civic Action

Students must accept Civic Action as a lifelong practice. Civic Action includes the

capacity and commitment both to participate constructively with diverse populations and also to

work collectively to address common problems. Participating in a pluralistic society will

improve the quality of life and the sustainability of the planet, as citizens will demonstrate

confidence in their civic skills for the betterment of community (National Task Force on Civic

Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012).

The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2012) calls for

higher education to emphasize civic engagement consistently, in “environments where education

for democracy and civic responsibility are pervasive, not partial – central, not peripheral”

(National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012, p. 2).

Other researchers address students’ self-perceived citizenship and participation in service,

finding correlations between service and citizenship (Astin & Sax, 1998; Morrison, 2001).

Musil’s (2003) research indicates the value of student participation in community service as an

essential element of self-perceived citizenship. She claims the current generation of young

adults, Millennials, can and must learn to be active citizens of their communities.

Citizenship is not a matter that can be taught and mastered in a high school classroom

alone. Citizen education involving political culture and democracy must be experienced outside

the classroom (Musil 2003). The expectation must be greater than developing a working

knowledge of democracy and citizenship. Citizenship education must not only be taught in the

classroom but should include experiential learning with direct social involvement (Musil, 2003).

It is these experiences that will fortify a student's working knowledge of citizenship and will put

it into action. This pedagogy as articulated by Crucial Moment (The National Task Force on

Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012) can change the way young students consider

their community roles. Characteristics of citizen leaders include their ability to acquire

information and to use it for the advancement of their community in the present and beyond

(Mabey, 1992).

Summary

Young adults historically have been apathetic to civic discourse (Putnam, 2000). To slow

this apathy toward civic involvement, or to end it completely, school-aged children should learn

the importance of civic duty. The three citizenship models all express the need for civic learning

in the classroom to prepare the next generation to live a civic-minded life. The literature review

considered several citizenship frameworks that address the need for civic education. Westheimer

and Kahne’s (2004) model was selected and provides a framework that addresses three unique

stages of citizenship including the Personally Responsible Citizen, Participatory Citizen, and the

Justice-Oriented Citizen. Boyte and Kari’s (2000), Three Models of Citizenship, reflects the

typical model of civic education. This model closely aligns with more traditional civic education

centered on government, political and civil rights, and the democratic process. In the third and

final model, Musil discusses a framework that assimilates citizenship into the school curriculum

(2003). The literature expressed a great need for U.S. schools to increase the level of civic

engagement; it also demonstrates a need for a new pedagogy to develop the next generation of

citizens.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The goal of this mixed-methods study was to investigate if a difference exists between

three different generations and citizenship. The study also sought to determine if a difference or a

relationship exists between three unique town vitalities and citizenship. Town vitality is defined

by Grigsby (2001) as a community’s ability to work collectively and to come together to address

problems and issues. This process requires relationship buliding among its citizens to build

towards common goals that in turn will build a better stronger community for all citizens

(Grigsby, 2001). NICHE’s (2002) framework was used to measure town vitality by assessing the

strength and values of the community of an area at the town level. NICHE assigns a letter grade

that takes into account key factors including community location, volunteer rates, crime rates,

public education, diversity, and higher education rates (Carnegie Mellon University, 2002).

The citizenship models include personally responsible citizenship, participatory

citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Personally responsible

citizens understand the shortfalls of their community and on occasion, volunteer to assist with a

problem that matters to them. Participatory citizens consider community before self. They

desire to engage their community providing their unique attributes in the way of volunteering,

serving on a committee, speaking up, attend meetings, and running for office. Justice-oriented

citizens wish to find a source of the issue, correct it and terminate injustice and social ills of their

community.

The survey instrument used in this study, Civic Measurement Models: Tapping

Adolescents’ Civic Engagement (Flanagan, Syvertsen, and Stout, 2007), includes a set of 33

Likert scale quantitative questions. Data from the instrument explained how each generation

engages in citizenship. ANOVA analysis of research question one determined how each

generation scored, allowing for a comparison of outcomes across all three generations. Further,

aggregate results for each generation were identified. Research question two used ANOVA

analysis to compare the three generations. Additionally, Pearson Correlation 2-tail analysis was

used to measure if citizenship influences town vitality. For this reason, nine communities in

vitalities from three counties were selected to explore possible connections among citizenship

models and communities.

The interview protocol added depth to the quantitative study. The interview isolated

several participants from each generation and community to discuss their feelings on community

engagement and civic mindedness. Four questions in each of the three citizenship models were

asked of the participants, totaling 12 questions. The questions addressed specific concerns from

each citizenship level. Interviews were then analyzed, and common themes surfaced.

Research Questions

The study’s purpose was to determine if a relationship exists between generation and

citizenship and/or between town vitality and citizenship. Both generation and town vitality were

analyzed for differences in personal beliefs, competence for civic action, personally responsible

citizenship, participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship. More specifically, the

study asks the following:

Quantitative Survey Data

1. Are there generational differences regarding citizenship?

A. Are there generational differences regarding personal beliefs?

B. Are there generational differences regarding competence for civic action?

C. Are there generational differences regarding personally responsible citizenship?

D. Are there generational differences regarding participatory citizenship?

E. Are there generational differences regarding justice-oriented citizenship?

2. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding citizenship?

A. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding personal beliefs?

B. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding competence for civic

action?

C. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding personally responsible

citizenship?

D. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding participatory citizenship?

E. Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding justice-oriented

citizenship?

Qualitative Interview Data

3. Which citizenship attributes are utilized by citizens?

Null Hypothesis

1. Ho. There are no generational differences regarding citizenship.

A. There are no generational differences regarding personal beliefs.

B. There are no generational differences regarding civic action.

C. There are no generational differences regarding personally responsible citizenship.

D. There are no generational differences regarding participatory citizenship.

E. There are no generational differences regarding justice-oriented citizenship.

2. Ho. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding citizenship.

A. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding personal beliefs.

B. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding competence for civic

action.

C. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding personally responsible

citizenship.

D. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding participatory

citizenship?

E. There are no town vitality differences or relationships regarding justice-oriented

citizenship.

Research Design

A mixed-methods study was decided upon as the best approach for this study. Such an

approach increases the overall strength of a study as compared to a stand-alone quantitative or

qualitative study (Creswell, 2007). A combination of both quantitative and qualitative measures

were used to gather data. A survey was used to address research questions one and two with the

instrument, Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement by Flanagan,

Syvertsen, and Stout (2007); additionally, interviews were used to collect qualitative

information.

Flanagan, et al. (2007) employed a mixed-methods study while using Westheimer and

Kahne’s (2004) work, which combined qualitative data from observations and interviews with

quantitative analysis of pre- and post-survey data. Flanagan, et al. developed constructs to

measure Westheimer and Kahne’s “Good Citizen” conceptual framework. Their reason for a

mixed study followed what Datta (1997) suggested to be a logical approach for a study design.

That is, Flanagan, et al. (2007) employed the combination of methods they felt were best suited

to their research questions.

Research question three was addressed with qualitative analysis of seven interviews

consisting of 12 interview questions for each. Interview subjects were selected from the

participants who completed the survey. Participants had the opportunity to select “yes” or “no”

on the survey to indicate their interest in being interviewed. An equal representation of all three

generations among the interview participates was sought.

Table 4

Research Questions and Research Method

Research Question 1 Survey Questions Research Method

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, ANOVA

11,12,13,14,15,16,17, Bonferroni Post Hoc Test

18,19, 0,21, 22,23,24, Interview protocol

25,26,27,28,29,30,31,

32,33

Research Question 2 Survey Questions Research Method

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, ANOVA

11,12,13,14,15,16,17, Bonferroni Post Hoc Test

18,19,20,21,22,23,24, Pearson correlation coefficient

25,26,27,28,29,30,31, Multiple regression analysis

32,33 Interview protocol

Research Question 3 Interview Research Method

Interview protocol

All three research questions were studied in prescribed municipalities selected by town

vitality. Town vitality was measured with letter grades: Town A = high vitality, Town B =

medium vitality, and Town C = low vitality as defined by NICHE (Carnegie Mellon University,

2002). Each letter grade was assigned a percentage for the purpose of this study; percentages

were necessary for statistical analysis. For example, a letter grade of A, equaling high vitality,

was assigned 90 percent, a letter grade of B, equaling medium vitality, was assigned 80 percent,

and a letter grade of C, equaling low vitality, was assigned 70 percent. Only towns with 4,000

residents or more were used in this study in order to increase the opportunities to obtain

completed surveys. Municipalities were chosen from Beaver, Washington, and Westmoreland

counties in Pennsylvania as they all share comparable characteristics and demographics. The

survey instrument was distributed to citizens of all nine municipalities. An equal number of

high, medium, and low-scoring town vitalities were sought for the purpose of consistency. Due

to the minimum population parameters set for the study, Beaver County does not have a

municipality with C or C- score with a population of 4,000 citizens or greater. The other two

counties do have equal representation for all scores.

Target Population and Participant Selection

The sample consisted of three generations including Baby Boomers (born between 1946

and 1964), Generation X (born between 1965 and 1979), and Millennials (born between 1980

and 2000) of the nine selected communities from Southwestern Pennsylvania. The minimum age

of participants was 18 years old. All efforts to protect the subject’s identity were made. The

survey asked the subjects to identify their birth year, zip code/town, and to provide birth month,

year, and first letter of their first name. This information was used to assure no duplication of

surveyed subjects as directed by the approved IRB.

Since the purpose of this study was to compare three generations as separate entities and

against each other, participants for this study were selected in a few ways. A qualifier for each

survey participant was home zip code. Only those zip codes matched to the nine prescribed

municipalities were used; all others were discarded. An additional qualifier for participant

participation for both the survey and interview was age, as each participant had to be at least 18

years old. If a birth year was more recent than 1999, the survey was discarded. A total of 2,400

surveys were distributed using various mediums. A total of 322 were completed for a 13.4%

completion rate.

Participant participation occurred in a few ways. The Washington County Chamber of

Commerce assisted with survey distribution. The Chamber president agreed to distribute the

survey to his members. An email was prepared by the researcher inviting them to take the

survey. The Chamber president then emailed the survey request to all the chamber members.

The president sent the survey on two separate occasions to over 1,000 members. Only those

citizens who reside in one of the prescribed zip codes were used for the study.

Three community colleges were asked and agreed to assist in the distribution of the

survey. The first, Westmoreland County Community College (WCCC), accepted the IRB

request and agreed to distribute the survey. WCCC emailed the survey four times to over 900

students, faculty, staff, and administrators. Only data from students who lived in the chosen

municipalities were utilized. All other surveys were omitted from this study.

The Community College of Beaver County (CCBC) also agreed to distribute the survey.

CCBC sent the survey on two different dates to over 500 students, faculty, staff, and

administrators. Again, only those in the prescribed zip codes were used for data collection; all

others were discarded.

The Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) was also used to gather surveys.

Again, the application for the IRB was accepted and permission was granted for emailing

surveys. CCAC sent the survey on three different dates and collected surveys from students,

faculty, staff, and administrators. Although CCAC is in Allegheny County, which not a part of

the study, many of its constituents reside in the neighboring counties. CCAC was helpful in

collecting surveys from those students, faculty, staff, and administrators who reside in the

neighboring zip codes. Hence, CCAC was a very important research site for collecting data from

all three counties and nine communities. Table 5 presents colleges used for this study.

Many surveys were also collected via convenience sampling. This tactic allowed the

survey to be texted or emailed to a known citizen of a particular community. Though this tactic

did not result in a large yield, it was used in the data collection process.

Social media was also used to distribute and collect surveys. This approach was

beneficial as it allowed for a wider range of participants. In other words, participants were not

necessarily school students or employees but instead represented different parts of the

population. Surveys were collected primarily from Washington County with this tactic. Unlike

the community colleges and the Washington County Chamber of Commerce, the researcher had

control of how many times the survey was made available via social media. This effort was very

successful as many surveys were collected from residents of Washington County.

A shopping mall located in Washington County was also used to gather completed

surveys. The mall manager granted permission via email, and on two occasions surveys were

collected.

To address research question one, data were broken down for each generation; for

example, all surveys were completed by Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. At this

point, the community in which a resident lives did not matter; only generation was the focus of

analysis.

To address research question two, data were categorized only by town vitality. All

communities that shared a town vitality score of A were combined, all communities that shared a

score of B were combined, and all communities that shared a score of C were combined for the

purpose of studying research question two.

Table 5

Colleges and Universities

Beaver County Washington County Westmoreland County

Beaver County Community

College

Community College of Allegheny

County

Westmoreland County

Community College

Instrument

The survey instrument was developed by Flanagan, et al. (Civic Measurement Models:

Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement, 2007). They developed constructs to use with

Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) “Good Citizen” conceptual framework. Participants’ birth

years, zip codes, and gender are independent variables. The survey measures areas such as

community involvement, participation by activity, participation by action, and overall opinions.

It uses a four-step Likert Scale to address community participation and civic engagement in 33

questions.

The original code sheet contains a total of 14 civic measures and 152 questions. The

instrument was modified for this study to include five civic measures and 33 questions.

Questions with a focus on high school students were not deemed relevant for this study and were

eliminated. The civic measures include personal beliefs, competence for civic action, personally

responsible citizenship, participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship.

Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement, 2007: Reliability of

the Measures

The goal of the Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement

(2007) was to produce a set of civic measures with reliable psychometric properties appropriate

for use with young people ages twelve through eighteen. The goal of the Civic Measurement

Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement (2007) was to produce a set of civic measures

appropriate for high school students. Flanagan et al. collected data from high school students

that included almost 2,000 students from “88 social studies classes in the northeastern United

States” (Flanagan, Syvertsen, & Stout, 2007, p. 2).

Several statistical models were utilized to conduct an analysis including ANOVA,

Pearson correlation, and stepwise multiple regression. According to Flanagan, et al. (2007), it is

ideal for the Chi square outcome to be non-significant. Non-significant test results indicate that

the sample size behaved as expected, meaning the range of results, assuming a p-value of .05,

occurred. However, the researchers found their results to be significant, meaning the findings

are less than the predetermined alpha set by the researcher (Creswell, 2012). This result was

expected due to the large sample size. Therefore, Flanagan, et al. (2007) used both the

Comparative Fit Index and the Root Mean Square Error models, which are not sensitive to a

large sample size.

Table 6

Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement

Scale Items and Reliability Levels

____________________________________________________________________ Scale/items in the scale Cronbach alpha

______________________________________________________________________

High Low

Competence for Civic Action .80 .61

Personal Beliefs .80 .68

Personally Responsible Citizenship .88 .69

Participatory Citizenship .79 .55

Justice-oriented Citizenship .80 .67

Anger About Social Justice .87 .78

Note. Adapted from “Civic Measures Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement,”

by C. Flanagan, A. Syvertsen, and M. Stout, 2007. Copyright May 2007 by the Circle Working Paper 55.

Survey Sections

Subset One: Personal Beliefs

This subset measures a person’s understanding of his or her personal belief system.

There were five questions with a possible range including Strong Personal Beliefs (20-16),

Average Personal Beliefs (15-11), and Poor Personal Beliefs (10-5).

Subset Two: Competence for Civic Action

This subset measures efficacy for civic engagement. More specifically, it asks students

to rate their competence in various skills related to civic action. There are nine questions, with

responses scored as Strong Competence for Civic Action (45-37), Average Competence for

Civic Action (36-19), or Poor Competence for Civic Action (18-9).

Subset Three: Personally Responsible Citizenship

This subset measures a person’s level of active responsibility in his or her community

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). This person would not go beyond basic civic duties to serve his

or her community. Core assumptions regarding this citizen include good character, law-abiding

behavior, and honest and responsible actions within the community. Other traits include obeying

laws, paying taxes, recycling, giving blood, and volunteering in times of crisis (Westheimer &

Kahne, 2004). There are a total of six questions, with scores of High Achieving Responsible

Citizen (24-19), Average Responsible Citizen (18-13), or Low Achieving Responsible Citizen

(12-6).

Subset Four: Participatory Citizenship

This subset measured the amount of activity a citizen displays in a community

organization. This person not only volunteers but organizes community efforts to care for those

in need. This citizen promotes and represents issues of economic development and advocates for

the environment. Mostly, this person understands how government agencies work together and

knows key political and community leaders. In turn, this citizen has the confidence and know-

how to use strategy to accomplish collective tasks. A participatory citizen, according to

Westheimer and Kahne (2004), will actively participate and take leadership positions within

established systems and community structures. There are six questions for this category, with

scores including High Achieving Participatory Citizen (24-19), an Average Participatory Citizen

(18-13), or a Low Achieving Participatory Citizen (12-6).

Subset Five: Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Citizens defined by this level of citizenship possess a skill set unmatched by the previous

two. A justice-oriented citizen does not just volunteer for a cause but desires to find a solution.

This person seeks out and addresses areas of injustice. A justice-oriented citizen knows about

democratic social movements and how to effect systemic change. The core assumptions of the

justice-oriented citizen include solving social problems, improving society, and challenging

systems and structures that reproduce patterns of injustice over time. There are a total of seven

questions for this categories, with scores that include high achieving justice-oriented citizen (28-

22), average justice-oriented citizen (21-15), or low achieving Justice-oriented citizen (14-7).

Procedures

This section will highlight the facilitation of both the pilot study and the data analysis for

the research questions. In addition to explaining the processes for the pilot study and expert

review analysis, the statistical analyses are described for each research question and include

explanations for what information will be compared.

Pilot Study

The Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) was the site for the survey pilot

once permission was received from the Provost. The college population includes all three

generations, including Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. The Qualtrics survey

instrument was emailed to approximately 30 administrators throughout the four campuses and

four centers.

Based on feedback from the pilot, a few adjustments were made. The first change dealt

with the participant identifier. Prior to the pilot, participants were asked to provide the last four

digits of their social security numbers. Many participants expressed concern regarding cyber

security. The survey now asks participants to provide birth month, year, and first letter of their

first names. Another alteration to the survey involved the scales in section five, which did not

align with the questions. The Cronbach Alpha for all questions tested at .896, which was

deemed acceptable as the benchmark is typically .70 or greater. Research question three, which

relies on interview data, was piloted with two people at a college center.

Non Expert Review

A non-expert review was performed before the interviews in order to refine the interview

questions, as well as to provide clarification for the research design (Yin, 2003). A study is

considered reliable when the findings are consistent with the data collected (Merriam, 2002).

The interview protocol was tested with two participants. One was a Generation X citizen who

resides in a Town C community; the other was also Generation X but lived in a Town B

community. The participants represented communities and generations included in this study.

Responses were recorded with audio recorder and researcher notes. At the end of each

interview, the individuals were asked for feedback on the experience. Revisions were made

according to respondent feedback and the researcher’s own experience with the protocol and

recording responses. The non-expert reviews were audio recorded for review, critique, and

modification of the protocol once each interview was completed. Information collected from the

non-expert reviews were not included in the final study.

Data Analysis

Research question one: Are there generational differences regarding citizenship? An

ordinal scale was thought to be the most appropriate type of measurement and a 4-point scale

best for the measurement format. Each of the five survey sections measured a subset of the

dependent variable citizenship, which included personal beliefs, competence for civic action,

personally responsible citizenship, participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship.

The assessment information revealed how each generation impacted citizenship (personal

beliefs, competence for civic action, personally responsible citizenship, participatory citizenship,

and justice-oriented citizenship). The performance evaluation was done by matching the survey

results with the Visions of Good Citizens Model (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), which helped to

determine how each generation utilizes citizenship models.

Descriptive statistics were used to find the means and standard deviations for each

generation’s citizenship attributes. Additionally, ANOVAs are useful for comparing three or

more groups for statistical significance (Creswell, 2012). Finally, a Bonferroni Post Hoc Test

was used to determine if significance existed among the mean differences for the three

generations.

Research question two: Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding

citizenship? In the same way as research question one, descriptive statistics were used to find

the means and standard deviations for each town vitality and citizenship. ANOVA, Bonferroni

Post Hoc Tests, Pearson correlation coefficients, and stepwise multiple regression analysis were

used to address research question two. The Pearson statistical analysis determined if the two

variables co-vary, meaning a score can be predicted on an outcome based on knowledge about

the other score (Creswell, 2012). The correlation coefficient addressed whether a relationship

between town vitality and citizenship existed. A correlation might be determined through

Pearson statistical analysis, which might indicate if town vitality impacts citizenship. Using this

statistical analysis helped to determine if a person who lives in a lower town vitality is less apt to

engage in the community and become less of a contributing citizen or vice versa. Surveys

collected from each community by town vitality were as follows: Town A, n=38; Town B, n=68;

and Town C, n=94.

Stepwise multiple regression determined if town vitality (independent variable) could

predict citizenship (dependent variable). It is the best way to anticipate values in the independent

variable given the values of the dependent variable (Creswell, J. W., 2012). For example, in this

study it will indicate if citizenship predicts town vitality.

Research question three: What citizenship attributes are utilized by citizens? This

research question consisted of interview questions derived from the work of Flanagan, et al.

(2007). After completing the survey, participants were asked if they were interested in

participating in an interview (Figure 3.1). This approach to interviewing is referred to as

opportunistic sampling, a method undertaken after the quantitative data has been gathered

(Creswell, 2012). Adding a qualitative element to this study allowed for the incorporation of

participants’ personal values and perspectives. The formal structured interview consisted of 12

questions designed to identify which citizen attributes are important to individuals. Seven

participants were interviewed: three Millennials, three Generation X, and one Baby Boomer.

Expected Findings

This study determined how each generation is most likely to civically engage in their

communities, based on Westheimer and Kahne’s Visions of Good Citizens Model (2004). First

recommendations derived from the study could be made concerning the increased need for

community and citizen education in the classroom. Second, findings from this study will be

distributed to the communities in which the participants live. The leadership of the communities

could share the information with their citizens. By doing so, citizens can gain a better

understanding of citizenship. Third, Westheimer and Kahne’s model is designed with civic

education in mind. Citizens must be able to move beyond civic education learned in a classroom

and, therefore, learn to serve and nurture their communities (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Summary

This study sought to determine if a difference existed among three generations and three

unique town vitalities. Additionally, this study examined if a difference or a relationship existed

among three town vitalities and citizenship. The survey instrument used in this study, Civic

Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement (Flanagan, Syvertsen, & Stout,

2007), included a set of 33 Likert scale quantitative questions. Research question one utilized an

ANOVA to compare the statistical significance of the three generations mean scores. Research

question two used an ANOVA to determine if a statistically significant difference existed among

the mean scores of the three town vitalities. A Pearson Correlation test was also used to

determine if relationships existed between town vitality and citizenship. Further, multiple

regression was conducted to determine if citizenship can predict town vitality. Research

question three was addressed by an interview protocol that found which community attributes

were utilized by citizens. In all, 322 citizens from three counties and nine communities

completed surveys, and seven citizens were interviewed.

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate if a difference exists among

the three generations and citizenship and if a difference or a relationship exists between town

vitalities and citizenship. A framework for citizenship was based on Westheimer and Kahne’s

Visions of Good Citizens Model (2004). Town vitality was defined by NICHE (Carnegie

Mellon University [CMU], 2002). For the purpose of this study, the nine communities (A, B,

and C) were clustered based on their vitality score. For example, all three Town A communities

were combined to create one pool of surveys representing Town A. The same process was used

for Town B and Town C communities. Interviews were conducted to determine which citizen

attributes are utilized by citizens. The geographic location of this study consisted of citizens who

reside in three counties in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

This study was guided by three research questions. First, Are there generational

differences regarding citizenship (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials)? Second, Are

there town vitality differences or relationships regarding citizenship? Third, an interview

protocol was used to determine what citizenship attributes (civic qualities or characteristics)

were utilized by citizens? An explanation of each research question is given in this chapter,

including descriptive statistics and narratives to further explore the statistical analysis of survey

data. Research question three is addressed by analyses of qualitative data gathered from

interviews.

Description of the Survey Sample (Quantitative)

A total of 322 surveys were utilized for this research. The distribution of surveys per

generation was as follows: Baby Boomers, n = 79; Generation X, n = 83; and Millennials, n =

160. Surveys distributed by community included: Town A, n = 60; Town B, n = 165; and Town

C, n = 97 for a total of 322 responses. All participants came from nine communities covering

three different counties.

Surveys were completed from November 10, 2016, to February 15, 2017. The survey

was distributed to community residents by way of social media, referrals, Community College of

Allegheny County, Community College of Beaver County, Westmoreland County Community

College, a local mall, and the County Chamber of Commerce. Table 7 shows the numbers of

participants and their communities of residence. To validate the participants’ communities of

residence, the survey provided a listing of nine communities and asked respondents to select

their area of residence. If participants did not see their community listed, they selected “My

community is not shown.” The survey was automatically terminated for those responses. In

total, 42 participants selected the option of “community not shown.” Figure 1 presents the

frequency chart for participants by generation. Figure 2 presents the frequency chart for

participants by town vitality.

Table 7

Communities and Participant Totals

Baby

Boomers

(1946-1964)

Generation X

(1965-1979)

Millennial

(1980-2000)

Total

1 County X

Town 1 0.00% 0 14.29% 3 85.71% 18 21

2 Town 2 28.57% 4 28.57% 4 42.86% 6 14

3 Town 3 0.00% 0 100.00% 1 0.00% 0 1

4 County Y

Town 4 20.00% 3 20.00% 3 60.00% 9 15

5 Town 5 25.56% 23 26.67% 24 47.78% 43 90

6 Town 6 23.38% 18 33.77% 26 42.86% 33 77

7 County Z

Town 7 14.81% 4 29.63% 8 55.56% 15 27

8 Town 8 35.82% 24 14.93% 10 49.25% 33 67

9 Town 9 26.32% 5 26.32% 5 47.37% 9 19

81 84 166 331

Figure 1. Frequency, participants by generation.

79 83

160

100

150

200

Baby Boomers Generation X Millennials

Generation, n = 322

Figure 2. Frequency, participants by town vitality

Description of the Interview Sample (Qualitative)

In this mixed-methods study, 322 citizens were surveyed to determine if generation

and/or town vitality has an impact on citizenship. Additionally, seven citizens were interviewed

to better understand how the generations use civic attributes in their communities. In total, seven

community residents were interviewed. Participant selection encompassed each generation and

town vitality. Participants by generation were as follows: Baby Boomers, n = 1; Generation X,

n = 4; and Millennials, n = 2. Participants by town vitality were as follows: Town A, n = 1;

Town B, n = 3; and Town C, n = 3. Each participant signed an interview consent form prior to

the interview.

Details of Analysis and Results

The statistical tools used to analyze research question one included an examination of

means and standard deviation, ANOVA, and a Bonferroni Post Hoc Test. In addition, interview

transcripts were analyzed for codes and common themes. Second, the findings for research

questions one and two included a discussion of the following dependent variable subsets;

personal belief, competence for civic action, personally responsible citizenship, participatory

165

100

150

200

Town Vitality A Town Vitality B Town Vitality C

Town Vitality, n = 322

citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship. The statistical tools used to analyze town vitality

included an examination of means and standard deviation, ANOVA, Bonferroni Post Hoc Test,

Pearson correlation coefficient, and stepwise multiple regression. In addition, interview

transcripts were analyzed for codes and common themes among the citizens. The qualitative

portion of this study was incorporated into the quantitative analysis in both research questions

one and two under participatory citizenship and justice-oriented citizenship. Further, the

interview protocol will be discussed more thoroughly later in research question three. Table 8

provides details on the analysis methods used for different data sources.

Table 8

Overview of Research Questions, Data Collection, and Analysis Method

Data Collection Analysis Method

1. Are there generational

differences regarding citizenship

Visions of Good Citizens

Interview

Means and standard deviation

ANOVA

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test

Coded Interview Responses

2. Are there town vitality

differences or relationships

regarding citizenship?

Visions of Good Citizens

Interview Protocol

Means and standard deviation

ANOVA

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test

Coded Interview Responses

Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Stepwise Multiple Regression

3. What citizenship attributes

are utilized by citizens? Interview Protocol Coded Interview Responses

Generation, Independent Variable, Analysis, and Findings

Research Question One, Are there generational differences regarding citizenship? This

section outlines the use of the research tools utilized to address the independent variable of

generation. Statistical analysis of each of the five subsets (personal beliefs, competence for civic

action, personally responsible citizenship, participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented

citizenship) will also be addressed.

Personal Beliefs

This subset measured a person’s understanding of his or her personal belief system

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Personal beliefs consist of four items, described below. Table 9

presents the means and standard deviations of this subset. In comparing this subset with the

independent variable, generation, a contrast between the means appeared; for example

Millennials demonstrated a higher mean average (M = 14.55, SD = 3.12) than both Baby

Boomers (M = 13.56, SD 2.94) and Generation X (M = 13.87, SD = 3.03).

Millennials (M = 2.69, SD =.769) scored a higher mean on the first item, steady jobs,

than Generation X (M = 2.53, SD = .801) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.46, SD = .813). Baby

Boomers (M = 2.71, SD = .719) scored a higher mean on the item money to support a family than

Generation X (M = 2.88, SD = .847) and the Millennials (M = 2.88, SD = .864). Millennials (M

= 2.96, SD = .764) scored a higher mean on the third item, worse off not better, than the Baby

Boomers (M = 2.89, SD = .751) and Generation X (M = 2.83, SD = .746). Millennials (M =

3.06, SD = .738) scored a higher mean on the fourth and final item, people becoming poor than

Generation X (M = 3.01, SD = .773) and the Baby Boomers (M = 2.46, SD = .813). Millennials

scored the highest mean with the subset personal beliefs, including all four items.

The subsequent sections will include an analysis of statistical tests including ANOVA

and Bonferroni Post Hoc Tests that will determine significance among the mean scores between

generation and the subset of personal beliefs.

Table 9

Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Personal Beliefs

Baby Boomer Generation X Millennial

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Personal Beliefs 13.56 79 2.943 13.56 83 3.039 14.55 160 3.08

Steady Jobs 2.46 79 .813 2.53 83 .801 2.69 160 .769

Money to support

a family

2.71 79 .719 2.88 83 .847 2.88 160 .864

Worse, not better 2.89 79 .751 2.83 83 .746 2.96 160 .764

People becoming

poor

2.46 79 .813 3.01 83 .773 3.06 160 .738

Table 10 presents Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. As observed, all items met

the assumption of variance test (p > 0.05); therefore a Welch Test was not required.

Table 10

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Personal Beliefs

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Personal Beliefs .189 2 319 .828

Worry about jobs .488 2 319 .614

Hard to support family .843 2 319 .431

Economic changes, worse .022 2 319 .979

Poor individuals .546 2 319 .580

Steady jobs .066 2 319 .936

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically significant difference existed

among the mean scores of the three generations and the subset of personal beliefs. Table 11

presents the findings for the ANOVA test for generation and personal beliefs The first significant

finding was discovered with the subset of personal beliefs. The means for each of the three

groups were as follows: Millennials (M = 14.55, SD = 3.12), Generation X (M = 13.84, SD =

3.03), and Baby Boomers (M = 13.56, SD = 2.94); (p = .042): (F (2,319) = 3.20, p < .05). There

was a significant mean score difference based on generation and the item steady jobs; the means

for each of the three groups were as follows: Millennials (M = 3.06, SD = .85), Generation X (M

= 2.61, SD = .71) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.58, SD = .74); (p < .001): (F (2,319) = 8.59, p

<.001).

Table 11

ANOVA, Generation and Personal Beliefs

df F Value Sig.

Personal Beliefs

Steady jobs

319

322

319

322

3.200

8.59

.042

.000

A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was conducted to determine if a statistically significant

difference among the mean scores existed for the three generations and the subset personal

beliefs. Table 12 provides differences for this subset. The item steady jobs had a statistically

significant difference between the means for the Millennial generation (M = 2.69, SD = .769) and

Generation X (SD = 2.53, SD = .801), (p < .05). This item also showed a difference between the

Millennial generation (M = 2.69, SD = .769) and the Baby Boomer generation (M = 2.46, SD =

.813), (p < .05).

Table 12

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Generation and Personal Beliefs

Generation

Mean

Difference

Sig.

*Steady jobs Millennials Generation X

Baby Boomers

.348

.380

.004*

.002*

*the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

Summary: Personal Beliefs. An ANOVA and Bonferroni Post Hoc Test were

conducted to determine if statistically significant differences existed among the mean scores or

for the mean difference of the independent variable, generation, and the five items of the subset,

personal beliefs. The first significant finding was discovered with the personal beliefs subset and

generation. The means for each of the three groups are as follows: Millennials (M = 14.55, SD =

3.12), Generation X (M = 13.84, SD = 3.03), and Baby Boomers (M = 13.56, SD = 2.94); (p =

.042): (F (2,319) = 3.20 p <.05). Another significant finding was discovered with the item steady

jobs and generation. The means for each of the three groups are as follows: Millennials (M =

3.06, SD = .85), Generation X (M = 2.61, SD = .71) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.58, SD = .74); (p

= .000): (F (2,319) = 8.59 p <.001).

A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was conducted to determine if a statistically significant

difference among the mean scores existed for the generations and the subset of competence for

civic action. Millennials (p < .05) had a significant mean difference with Generation X with the

item steady jobs. It was also found that Millennials (p < .05) had a significant mean difference

with Baby Boomers.

Competence for Civic Action

The subset measured one’s competence for civic action. More specifically, it asked

participants to rate their competence in various skills related to civic action (Westheimer &

Kahne, 2004). Comparing the subset of competence for civic action with the independent

variable generation, a contrast among the means appeared. For example, Baby Boomers scored

higher with competence for civic action (M = 37.00, SD = 6.70) than Generation X (M = 35.76,

SD = 8.02) and Millennials (M = 34.58, SD = 6.80). The subset included nine items; a

description of the means and standard deviations will now follow. Table 13 presents the means

and standard deviations for competence for civic action.

Millennials (M = 2.69, SD = .769) scored a higher mean on the first item care about a

problem than Generation X (M = 2.53, SD = .801) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.46, SD .813).

Baby Boomers (M = 4.41, SD = .829) scored a higher mean on the second item organize and run

a meeting than Generation X (M = 4.22, SD = 1.27) and Millennials (M = 4.04, SD = 1.143).

Baby Boomers (M = 4.20, SD = .838) scored a higher mean on the third item call someone on the

phone than Generation X (M = 4.01, SD = 1.153) and Millennials (M = 3.50, SD = 1.149). Baby

Boomers (M = 4.41, SD = .829) scored a higher mean on the fourth item organize a petition than

Millennials (M = 4.21, SD = .963) and Generation X (M = 4.02, SD = .963). Baby Boomers (M

= 3.90, SD 1.045) scored a higher mean on the fifth item create a plan than Millennials (M =

3.88, SD = .842) and Generation X (M = 3.80, SD = .934). Baby Boomers (M = 4.16, SD = .898)

scored a higher mean on the sixth item express your views than Millennials (M = 4.05, SD =

.830) and Generation X (M = 4.01, SD = .930). Baby Boomers (M = 4.23, SD = .933) scored a

higher mean on the seventh item identify individuals than Generation X (M = 4.06, SD = 1.141)

and Millennials (M = 3.65, SD = 1.161). Baby Boomers (M = 3.96, SD = 1.115) scored a higher

mean on the eighth item write an opinion letter than Generation X (M = 3.75, SD = 1.174) and

Millennials (M = 3.65, SD = 1.161). Generation X (M = 3.72, SD = 1.040) scored a higher mean

average on the ninth and final item contact an elected official than Baby Boomers (M = 3.53, SD

= 1.23) and the Millennials (M = 3.48, SD = 1.154).

The subsequent sections will include an analysis of statistical tests including ANOVA

and Bonferroni Post Hoc Test to determine if a significant difference existed between the mean

scores on the subset of competence for civic action.

Table 13

Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Competence for Civic Action

Baby Boomer Generation X Millennial Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Competence for

civic action

37.00 79 6.699 35.76 83 8.021 34.58 160 6.806

Get other people

to care about a

problem

2.46 79 .813 2.53 83 .801 2.69 160 .769

Organize and run

a meeting

4.41 79 .829 4.22 83 1.127 4.04 160 1.143

Call someone on

the phone

4.20 79 .838 4.01 83 1.153 3.50 160 1.149

Organize a

petition

4.41 79 .829 4.02 83 .963 4.21 160 .963

Create a plan 3.90 79 1.045 3.80 83 .934 3.88 160 .842

Express your

views

4.16 79 .898 4.01 83 .930 4.05 160 .830

Identify

individuals

4.23 79 .933 4.06 83 1.141 3.91 160 1.039

Write an opinion

letter

3.96 79 1.115 3.75 83 1.174 3.65 160 1.161

Contact an

elected official

3.53 79 1.023 3.72 83 1.040 3.48 160 1.154

Table 14 presents Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. As observed, all items but

one met the assumption of homogeneity (p > 0.05) for the item call someone on the phone (p =

.006). A Welch test was used for the item call someone on the phone and did not meet

assumptions of variance test.

Table 14

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Competence for Civic Action

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Competence for Civic Action 1.433 2 319 .240

Create a plan 2.317 2 319 .709

Get other people to care .254 2 319 .776

Organize a meeting 2.709 2 319 .068

Express your views .854 2 319 .427

Identify individuals 1.657 2 319 .192

Write an opinion letter .742 2 319 .477

Call someone on phone 5.196 2 319 .006

Contact an elected official 1.961 2 319 .240

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically significant difference existed for

the mean scores among the generational groups (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials)

and the competence for civic action subset. Table 15 presents the ANOVA findings, which

discovered significant statistical findings on the subset competence for civic action. The mean

scores for the subset competence for civic action were as follows: Baby Boomers (M = 37.00, SD

= 6.699), Generation X (M = 35.76, SD = 8.021), and Millennials (M = 34.58, SD = 6.806). Two

items were also found to be statistically significant, the first significant difference was for

generation and the item get other people to care about a problem. The mean scores were as

follows: Baby Boomers (M = 4.32, SD = 1.03), Generation X (M = 4.17, SD = 1.16), and

Millennials (M = 3.87, SD = 1.13): (F (2,319) = 4.83, p < 0.05). A second significant difference

occurred with the item organize and run a meeting. The mean scores were as follows: Baby

Boomers (M = 4.41, SD = 0.83), Generation X (M = 4.22, SD = 1.23), and Millennials (M = 4.17,

SD = 1.14): (F (2,318) = 3.26, p < 0.05).

Table 15

ANOVA, Generation and Competence for Civic Action

df F Value Sig.

Competence for Civic Action

Get other people to care about a

problem.

Organize and run a meeting.

319

3.145

4.831

3.264

.044

.009

.040

A Welch test was conducted for the item call someone on the phone. The Welch test

showed a significant difference for this item (F (2,181.185) = 15.085, p < .001). Table 16

presents the results of the Welch test.

Table 16

Welch Test of Equality of Means, Competence for Civic Action

Welch Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Call someone on

phone

15.085

181.185

.000

Significance is at p < 0.05

A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was conducted to determine if there was a statistically

significant difference among the mean scores of generations and the competence for civic action

subset. Table 17 presents the Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for generation and competence for civic

action. Four of the subset’s nine items indicated a difference among the three generations’ mean

scores. For this subset, Baby Boomers (M = 37.00, SD = 6.699), (p < .05) had a significant mean

difference with the Millennials (M = 34.58, SD = 6.806). Two subset items were also discovered

to have a significant difference among the generations. The first item get other people to care

had a significant mean difference between the Baby Boomers (M = 2.46, SD = .813), (p < .05)

and the Millennials (M = 2.69, SD = .769). The second item organize and run a meeting showed

a significant mean score difference between the Baby Boomers (M = 4.41, SD = .829), (p < .05)

and the Millennials (M = 4.04, SD = 1.143).

Table 17

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Generation and Competence for Civic Action

Generation Mean

Difference

Sig.

Competence for Civic

Action

Baby Boomer Generation X

Millennial

1.241

2.419

.804

.042*

Get other people to

care.

Millennial

Generation X

Baby Boomer

.148

.448

1.00

.011*

Organize and run a

meeting

Baby Boomer

Generation X

Millennial

.193

.373

.759

.037*

*the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

Summary: Competence for Civic Action. ANOVA and Bonferroni Post Hoc Tests

were conducted to determine if a significant difference existed among the mean scores or among

the mean difference for the independent variable, generation, and the six items of the dependent

variable, competence for civic action. The ANOVA suggested significant statistical findings on

the subset competence for civic action and two items. The mean scores for the subset

competence for civic action were as follows: Baby Boomers (M = 37.00, SD = 6.699),

Generation X (M = 35.76, SD = 8.021), and Millennials (M = 34.58, SD = 6.806). The first

significant difference was for generation and the item get other people to care about a problem.

The mean scores were as follows: Baby Boomers (M = 4.32, SD = 1.03), Generation X (M =

4.17, SD = 1.16), and Millennials (M = 3.87, SD = 1.13): (F (2,319) = 4.83, p < 0.05). A second

significant difference was for generation and the item organize and run a meeting. The mean

scores were as follows: Baby Boomers (M = 4.41, SD = 0.83), Generation X (M = 4.22, SD =

1.23), and Millennials (M = 4.17, SD = 1.14): (F (2,318) = 3.26, p < 0.05). A Bonferroni Post

Hoc Test was conducted to determine if a statistically significant difference existed among the

mean differences of the three generations’ mean scores and the subset of competence for civic

action. Four of the subset’s nine items indicated a difference among the three generations’ mean

scores. For the subset competence for civic action, Baby Boomers (M = 37.00, SD = 6.699), (p <

.05) had a significant mean difference to the Millennials (M = 34.58, SD = 6.806). Two subset

items were also discovered to show a difference among the generations. The first item, get other

people to care, had a significant mean difference between the Baby Boomers (M = 2.46, SD =

.813), (p < .05) and the Millennials (M = 2.69, SD = .769). The second item, organize and run a

meeting, indicated a significant mean difference between the Baby Boomers (M = 4.41, SD =

.829), (p < .05) and the Millennials (M = 4.04, SD = 1.143).

Personally Responsible Citizenship

The subset personally responsible citizenship measured a citizen’s commitment to civic

responsibility in his or her community. However, this person would not go beyond basic civic

duties to serve his or her community. This citizen obeys laws, recycles, gives blood, and

volunteers to assist (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Table 18 presents the means and standard

deviation for participatory citizenship and subset items. The subset personally responsible

citizenship showed little difference among the three mean scores among the generations.

Generation X (M = 21.60, SD = 2.40) scored a higher mean than the Baby Boomers (M = 21.42,

SD = 2.17) and the Millennials (M = 20.89, SD = 2.34). The personally responsible citizenship

subset included six items. A description of the means and standard deviations follows.

Generation X (M = 3.44, SD = .569) scored the highest mean average on the first item,

assist those in need in comparison with Baby Boomers (M = 3.39, SD = .608) and Millennials

(M = 3.41, SD = .638). Generation X (M = 3.67, SD = .498) scored the highest mean on the

second item follow rules and laws compared to Baby Boomers (M = 3.62, SD = .514) and

Millennials (M = 3.41, SD = .638). Generation X (M = 3.48, SD = .593) also scored the highest

mean on the third item help people in need compared to Millennials (3.47, SD .537) and Baby

Boomers (M = 3.46, SD = .501). Generation X (M = 3.50, SD = .593) scored the highest mean

on the fourth item help without being paid compared to Baby Boomers (M = 3.44, SD = .500)

and Millennials (M = 3.38, SD = .581). Baby Boomers (M = 3.75, SD = .438) scored the highest

mean on the fifth item kind to other people over Generation X (M = 3.74, SD = .492) and

Millennials (M = 3.63, SD = .497). Both the Baby Boomers (M = 3.76, SD = .430) and

Generation X (M = 3.76, SD = .460) scored the highest mean on the sixth and final item in this

subset important to tell the truth in comparison with Millennials (M = 3.64, SD = .493).

The subsequent sections will include analyses of statistical tests including ANOVA and a

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test that will determine if a statistically significant difference exists among

the mean scores of the three generations and the subset of personally responsible citizenship.

Table 18

Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Personally Responsible Citizenship

Baby Boomer Generation X Millennial

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Personally

Responsible

Citizenship

21.42 79 2.176 21.60 82 2.403 20.89 160 2.346

Assist those in

need

3.39 79 .608 3.44 82 .569 3.36 160 .576

Follow rules and

laws

3.62 79 .514 3.67 82 .498 3.41 160 .638

Help people in

need

3.46 79 .501 3.48 83 .593 3.47 160 .537

Help without

being paid

3.44 79 .500 3.50 82 .593 3.38 160 .581

Kind to other

people

3.75 79 .438 3.74 82 .492 3.63 160 .497

Important to tell

the truth

3.76 79 .430 3.76 82 .460 3.64 160 .493

Table 19 Presents Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. As observed, three items of

the subset personally responsible citizenship did not meet the assumption of variance (p > .05).

The items that failed include follow rules and laws (p = .001), kind to other people (p = .002),

and important to tell truth (p = .000). A Welch test was used for the items that did not meet the

assumptions of variance test.

Table 19

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Personally Responsible Citizenship

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Personally Responsible

Citizenship

.181 2 318 .835

Assist those in need .302 2 318 .740

Follow rules and laws 6.932 2 318 .001

Help people in need 2.824 2 318 .061

Help without being paid 1.460 2 318 .234

Kind to other people 6.367 2 318 .002

Important to tell truth 7.997 2 318 .000

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically significant difference existed

between generation and the subset personally responsible citizenship. No significant findings

were discovered for generation and personally responsible citizenship.

The Levene’s Test of Homogeneity found the item follow rules and laws (p < .001) not to

meet the assumption of variance. This item was then tested using the Welch Test, and though it

did show this item as having a statistically significant difference (p < .001), it must be noted that

there was a discrepancy in degrees of freedom. Though the item was found to be significant, the

degrees of freedom dropped to 184.464, which was just 57 percent of the total survey

participants. The researcher decided not to use this finding based on the variance of the degrees

of freedom.

Table 20

Welch Test of Equality of Means, Personally Responsible Citizenship

Welch Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Follow rules and laws

6.810

184.464

.001

Significance is at p < 0.05

A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was conducted to determine a difference among means of the

three generations and the subset of personally responsible citizenship and one item of the subset.

No differences were found between the subset and any of the items.

Summary: Personally Responsible Citizenship. ANOVA and Bonferroni Post Hoc

Tests were conducted to determine if a significant difference existed among the mean scores or

among the mean difference of the independent variable, generation, and the six items of the

dependent variable, personally responsible citizenship. An ANOVA test was used to determine

if a significant difference existed between the generational groups of Baby Boomers, Generation

X, and Millennials and the subset of personally responsible citizenship. No significant findings

were discovered between generation and personally responsible citizenship. The Bonferroni Post

Hoc Test showed no statistically significant differences among the means.

Participatory Citizenship

The subset participatory citizenship model measures the amount of activity a citizen

displays in a community organization. Participatory citizenship involves being an active

member of community organizations and/or improvement efforts. For example, participatory

citizens are the ones who step up to organize efforts and inspire others to volunteer for a

community case. They have the ability to work with local government (Westheimer & Kahne,

2004). Table 22 presents the means and standard deviation for participatory citizenship and

related subset items.

Comparing the subset participatory citizenship with the independent variable of

generation revealed a contrast among the means; for example, Baby Boomers (M = 18.23, SD =

2.85) scored a higher mean than Generation X (M = 16.90, SD = 3.21) and Millennials (M =

16.28, SD = 3.07). Participatory citizenship as a subset included six items; a description of the

means and standard deviations follows.

Baby Boomers (M = 3.09, SD = .536) scored a higher mean on the first item, involvement

in the community issues, than Generation X (M =3.05, SD = .607 ) and Millennials (M = 2.82, SD

= .635). With the second item I do make a difference both Baby Boomers (M = 3.04, SD = .587),

and Generation X (M = 3.04, SD = .722) scored the same mean, followed by Millennials (M =

2.70, SD = .725 ). Baby Boomers (M = 2.97, SD = .620) scored a higher mean on the item I have

helped to make things better in comparison with Millennials (M = 2.74, SD = .750) and

Generation X (M = 2.72, SD = .690). Baby Boomers (M = 2.96, SD =.706) scored a higher mean

on the item get involved in issues like health or safety than Generation X (M = 2.55, SD = .723)

and Millennials (M = 2.43, SD =.776 ). Baby Boomers (M = 2.90, SD =.744) scored a higher

mean on the fifth item solve a problem than Generation X (M= 2.50, SD = .741) and Millennials

(M = 2.40, SD = .755). Both Baby Boomers (M = 3.27, SD = .473) and Generation X (M = 3.27,

SD = .629) scored a higher mean on the last item being concerned than Millennials (M = 3.19,

SD = .586). Baby Boomers scored the highest mean with the subset participatory citizenship,

including all six items.

The subsequent sections include an analysis of statistical tests including ANOVA and

Bonferroni Post Hoc Tests in order to determine if a significant difference exists between the

mean scores for generation and the subset of participatory citizenship.

Table 21

Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Participatory Citizenship

Baby Boomer Generation X Millennial

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Participatory

Citizenship

18.23 79 2.85 16.90 82 3.21 16.28 159 3.07

Involvement in

community issues

3.09 79 .536 3.05 82 .607 2.82 159 .635

I do make a

difference

3.04 79 .587 3.04 82 .587 2.70 159 .725

I have helped

make things better

2.97 79 .620 2.72 82 .690 2.74 159 .750

Get involved in

issues like health

or safety

2.96 79 .706 2.55 82 .723 2.43 159 .776

Solve a problem 2.90 79 .744 2.50 82 .741 2.40 159 .755

Table 22 presents Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. As observed, four items of

the participatory citizenship subset did not meet the assumption of variance test (p > .05). The

four items that failed include involvement in the community issues is my responsibility (p = .014),

I do make a difference in my community (p =.000), by working with others in the community I

have helped make things better (p = .001), and get involved in issues like health or safety that

affect your community (p = .008). A Welch test was used for the items that did not meet the

assumptions of variance test.

Table 22

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Participatory Citizenship

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Participatory Citizenship

.762

317

.468

Involvement in the

community issues is my

responsibility

4.292 2 317 .014

I do make a difference in my

community.

2.151 2 317 .000

By working with others in the

community I have helped

make things better.

8.996 2 317 .001

Get involved in issues like

health or safety that affect

your community.

4.890 2 317 .008

Work with a group to solve a

problem in the community

where you live.

1.561 2 317 .212

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically significant difference existed

between the three generations and the participatory citizenship subset. Table 24 presents the

findings for the ANOVA test for generation and participatory citizenship. The ANOVA test

showed statistically significant differences among the mean scores on two of the six items in this

section. The first significant finding was discovered with the subset, participatory citizenship

and generation. The mean scores for generation are as follows: Baby Boomers (M = 18.23, SD =

2.85), Generation X (M = 16.90, SD = 3.21), and Millennials (M = 16.28, SD = 3.07): (F

(10.735), p < .01). The second significant mean score finding was discovered for generation and

the item work with a group to solve a problem. The mean scores for generation are as follows:

Baby Boomers (M = 2.90, SD 0.74), Generation X (M = 2.50, SD = 0.74), and Millennials (M =

2.40, SD = 0.76): (F (6.785), p < .01).

Table 23

ANOVA, Generation and Participatory Citizenship

df F Value Sig.

Table 24 presents the results of the Welch test, which was conducted for the four items

that did not meet the assumption of the variance: Involvement in the community issues is my

responsibility (F (2, 177.157) = 7.125, p = .05), I do make a difference in my community (F (2,

174.929) = 7.284, p < .05), By working with others in the community I have helped make things

better (F (2, 179.013) = 4.251, p < .05), and Get involved in issues like health or safety that affect

your community (F (2, 175.343) = 14.154, p < .01).

Participatory

Citizenship

Work with a group to

solve a problem in the

community where you

live

318

10.735 .000

6.785 .000

Table 24

Welch Test of Equality of Means, Generation and Participatory Citizenship

Welch

Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

Involvement in the

community issues is

my responsibility

7.125 2 177.157 .001

I do make a

difference in my

community

7.284 2 174.929 .001

By working with

others in the

community I have

helped make things

better

4.251 2 179.013 .016

Get involved in

issues like health or

safety that affect your

community

14.154 2 175.343 .000

A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was conducted to determine if there was a statistically

significant mean score difference among the three generations and the participatory citizenship

subset. Table 25 presents the Bonferroni Post Hoc Test findings. Five items were discovered to

have a difference among the three generations. The subset of participatory citizenship had a

significant mean difference between the Baby Boomers (M = 18.23, SD = 2.85), (p < .05) and

Generation X (M = 16.90, SD = 3.21). The Baby Boomers (M = 18.23, SD = 2.85), (p < .05) also

had a significant mean difference compared to the Millennials (M = 16.28, SD = 3.07). Also, the

item work with a group to solve a problem in the community where you live had a significant

mean score difference for the Baby Boomers (M = 2.90, SD = .741), (p < .05), who had a

significant mean difference over Generation X (M = 2.50, SD .744) and Millennials (M = 2.40,

SD = .751), (p < .001).

Table 25

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Generation and Participatory Responsible Citizenship

Generation Mean

Difference

Sig.

Participatory

Citizenship

Baby Boomer Generation X

Millennial

1.325

1.951

.019*

.000*

Work with a group to

solve a problem in the

community where you

live.

Baby Boomer

Generation X

Millennial

.399

.503

.002*

.000*

*Significance is at the 0.05 level

Qualitative Findings: Participatory Citizenship. The interview portion of this study

varied widely on the topic of participatory citizenship. All three generations provided examples

of contributing to solving a problem. For example, a Generation X participant commented,

“Believe in the change you want to see.” She said this statement really expresses the attitude

necessary to be a change agent in your community. Another Generation X participant stated,

“When you have a love for where you live, that’s what you do.” The qualitative data aligns with

the Bonferroni Post Hoc Test in this instance.

In regards to the subset item, making a difference in your community, Generation X

participants provided many examples; for example, a participant explained her passion for

animals. A local pet charity only featured dogs on their website. Therefore, that pet charity was

not adopting cats as often as they would have liked. Her passion for others to adopt animals

instead of paying a breeder motivated her to speak with a marketing administrator from the pet

charity. She recommended for cats to be more prominent on their website. The administrator

took her advice and, within two weeks, the pet charity noticed a positive spike in cat adoption.

Similarly, a Millennial explained her volunteerism in her local fire department, which

involved working with others in the department to upgrade the department’s classification. She

went on to express the importance of this collective action for the community as the department

became a Bureau of Fire, which allows more calls to the department to get answered in a timely

fashion. She explained her passion for this upgrade to occur for the betterment of serving her

community and how it took a collective effort of the department.

Citizens of various generations expressed many passions and interest of importance to

them. All but one citizen, a Millennial, shared a story of working with others to solve a

community issue. The quantitative data revealed Baby Boomers as being significant on all

subset items; however, the interviews were a valuable component as they presented a different

perspective which indicated that Generation X citizens do participate in their communities.

Summary: Participatory Citizenship. An ANOVA and Bonferroni Post Hoc Test were

conducted to determine if significant differences existed among the mean scores or among the

mean difference of the independent variable, generation, and the six items of the dependent

variable, participation citizenship.

Several key findings were discovered that showed significant relationships among the

subset items. The ANOVA test showed a significant difference among the mean scores on two

of the six items in this section. The first significant finding was discovered with the participatory

citizenship subset, and generation. The mean scores for generation were as follows: Baby

Boomers (M = 18.23, SD = 2.85), Generation X (M = 16.90, SD = 3.21), and Millennials (M =

16.28, SD = 3.07): (F (10.735), p < .01). The second significant mean score finding was

discovered for generation and the item work with a group to solve a problem. The mean scores

for generation were as follows: Baby Boomers (M = 2.90, SD 0.74), Generation X (M = 2.50, SD

= 0.74), and Millennials (M = 2.40, SD = 0.76): (F (6.785), p < .01).

The Welch test also found four items to have significance among the mean scores; they

were as follows: Involvement in the community issues is my responsibility (F (2, 177.157) =

7.125, p = .05), I do make a difference in my community (F (2, 174.929) = 7.284, p < .05), By

working with others in the community I have helped make things better (F (2, 179.013) = 4.251,

p < .05), and Get involved in issues like health or safety that affect your community (F (2,

175.343) = 14.154, p < .01). Refer to Table 21, Millennials are the generation that scored the

lowest mean score with the subset, participatory citizenship and on all five items.

A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test found the participatory citizenship subset and one subset

item to have a statistically significant difference among the three generations’ mean scores. The

participatory citizenship subset had a significant mean difference between the Baby Boomers (M

= 18.23, SD = 2.85), (p < .05) and Generation X (M = 16.90, SD = 3.21). The Baby Boomers (M

= 18.23, SD = 2.85), (p < .05) also had a significant mean difference with the Millennials (M =

16.28, SD = 3.07). Also, the item work with a group to solve a problem in the community where

you live had a significant mean score difference between the Baby Boomers (M = 2.90, SD =

.741), (p < .05) and both Generation X (M = 2.50, SD = .744) and Millennials (M = 2.40, SD =

.751), (p < .001). Baby Boomers out scored the other generations on the subset participatory

citizenship and on all five items.

The interview portion of this study discovered citizens of all three generations expressed

many passions and interests of importance to them. Largely, the interviews revealed Generation

X citizens as strong contributors to participatory citizenship.

Justice-Oriented Citizenship

A justice-oriented citizen will critically assess social, political, and economic structures

to see beyond surface causes of community problems. This person seeks out and addresses areas

of injustice and knows about social movements and how to effect systemic change. These

citizens endeavor to solve social problems and improve society; they believe citizens must

question and change established systems and structures when they reproduce patterns of

injustice. A justice-oriented citizen, for example, explores why people are hungry and acts to

solve root causes (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Table 26 presents the means and standard deviation for justice-oriented citizenship and its

subset items. Comparing the justice-oriented citizenship subset with the independent variable,

generation, a contrast among the means appeared; for example, Baby Boomers (M = 18.59, SD =

3.51) had higher mean scores than Generation X (M = 17.93, SD = 3.17) and Millennials (M =

17.65, SD = 3.46). The justice-oriented citizenship subset included seven items; a description of

the means and standard deviations follows.

Baby Boomers (M = 1.74, SD = .813) scored a higher mean on the first item, worked to

change unjust laws, than Generation X (M = 1.62, SD = .624) and Millennials (M = 1.43, SD =

.711). Baby Boomers (M = 1.85, SD = .823) scored a higher mean on the second item, protest

when needed, than Generation X (M = 1.64, SD = .730) and Millennials (M = 1.52, SD = .784).

Baby Boomers (M = 2.69, SD = .726) scored a higher mean on the third item, purchase products

safe for environment, than Millennials (M = 2.58, SD = .874) and Generation X (M = 2.56, SD =

.775). Baby Boomers (M = 2.47, SD = .849) scored a higher mean on the fourth item, challenge

inequalities, than Generation X (M = 2.40, SD = .904) and Millennials (M = 2.32, SD = .939).

Baby Boomers (M = 3.31, SD = .631) scored a higher mean on the fifth item, I get angry about

conditions people live in, than Generation X (M = 3.21, SD = .666) and Millennials (M = 3.23,

SD = .726). Generation X (M = 3.46, SD = .573) scored a higher mean on the sixth and final

item, I get mad when hear people treated unjustly, than Baby Boomers (M = 3.44, SD = .656)

and Millennials (M = 3.41, SD = .662).

The subsequent sections will include an analysis of statistical tests, including ANOVA

and Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, that will determine if a statistically significant difference exists

for the mean scores between generation and the subset, justice-oriented citizenship.

Table 26

Means and Standard Deviation, Generation and Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Baby Boomer Generation X Millennial

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Justice-oriented

citizenship

18.59 78 3.518 17.93 81 3.173 17.65 155 3.173

Worked to change

unjust laws

1.74 78 .813 1.62 81 .624 1.43 155 .711

Protest when

needed

1.85 78 .823 1.64 81 .730 1.52 155 .784

Purchase products

that are safe for

environment

2.69 78 .726 2.56 81 .775 2.58 155 .874

Challenge

inequalities

2.47 78 .849 2.40 81 .904 2.32 155 .939

I get angry about

conditions some

people live in

3.31 78 .631 3.21 81 .666 3.23 155 .726

I wonder what is

wrong with this

country

3.09 78 .809 3.14 81 .737 3.14 155 .815

I get mad when I

hear people treated

unjustly

3.44 78 .656 3.46 81 .573 3.41 155 .662

Table 27 presents Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. As observed, only one item,

justice-oriented citizenship, did not meet the assumption of variance test (p > .05). The item,

protest when needed (p < .05), did not meet the assumption of homogeneity. A Welch test was

used for the item that did not meet the assumptions of variance test

Table 27

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Justice-oriented Citizenship 1.142 2 311 .321

Worked to change unjust

laws

.092 2 311 .921

Protest when needed 3.270 2 311 .039

Purchase products that are

safe for environment

.440 2 311 .645

Challenge inequalities 1.402 2 311 .248

I get angry about conditions

some people live in

I wonder what is wrong with

this country

I get mad when I hear people

treated unjustly

.887

.921

.408

311

.413

.399

.666

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically significant mean score difference

existed between the three generations and the justice-oriented citizenship subset. Table 28

presents the ANOVA findings for generation and justice-oriented citizenship. A significant

finding was discovered with the item, I have/do worked with others to change unjust laws, and

generation. The mean scores were as follows: Baby Boomers (M = 1.74, SD = .81), Generation

X (M = 1.62, SD = .62), and Millennials (M = 1.43, SD = .71): F (5.519).

Table 28

ANOVA, Generation and Justice-Oriented Citizenship

df F Value Sig.

I have/do worked with others

to change unjust laws

311

5.519 .004

A Welch test was conducted for the item protest when something in society needed

changing. The Welch test showed a significant difference among generation and the item protest

when something in society needed changing (F (2, 168.393) = 4.314, p < .05). Table 29 presents

the results of the Welch test.

Table 29

Welch Test of Equality of Means, Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Welch Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

I have/do protest

when something in

society needed

changing

4.314 2 168.393 .015

A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was conducted to determine a statistically significant mean

score difference existed for generation and the subset justice-oriented citizenship. Table 30

presents the Bonferroni Post Hoc Test findings for justice-oriented citizenship. The item worked

with others to change unjust laws had a significant mean score difference between the Baby

Boomers (M = 1.74, SD = .813), (p = .005) and the Millennials (M = 1.43, SD = .711).

Table 30

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Generation and Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Dependent Variable Generation Mean Sig.

Difference

I have/do worked with others Baby Boomer Generation X .803 .126

to change unjust laws Millennial .318 .005*

*Significant

Qualitative Findings: Justice-Oriented Citizenship. The statistical findings discovered

that Baby Boomers are more likely to have worked with others to change unjust laws than

Millennials. Interview findings differed with the quantitative findings. For example, unlike the

quantitative data, the interviews revealed that both Generation X and Millennial generations have

worked to change unjust laws in their community. For example, a Millennial citizen said she has

worked with groups to make a change approximately twice in the last year. A Generation X

citizen said he worked with his cycling group to advocate policy changes. In fact, the Baby

Boomer stated that he had no need to get involved in the past year to make a policy change.

The statistical findings discovered that more Baby Boomers perform this items more

often than the other generations: have/do protest when something in society needed changing,

than both Generation X and Millennials. The interviews revealed very different findings. All

participants except the two Millennials stated that they have not protested for a cause; the

Millennials both participated in a Women’s March.

Summary: Justice-Oriented Citizenship. ANOVA and Bonferroni Post Hoc Test were

conducted to determine if a significant difference existed among the mean scores or for the mean

difference of the independent variable, generation, and the seven items of the dependent variable,

justice-oriented citizenship. The first significant ANOVA finding was discovered with the item I

have/do worked with others to change unjust laws and generation. The mean scores were as

follows: Baby Boomers (M = 1.74, SD = .81), Generation X (M = 1.62, SD = .62), and

Millennials (M = 1.43, SD = .71): F (5.519). A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was conducted to

determine if a statistically significant mean score difference existed among the three generations

and the subset justice-oriented citizenship, including its seven items. The item worked with

others to change unjust laws had a significant mean score difference between the Baby Boomers

100

(M = 1.74, SD = .813), (p < .05) and the Millennials (M = 1.43, SD = .711). The interviews

revealed that both Millennials and Generation X citizens are committed to justice-oriented

citizenship.

Research Question One: Conclusions

Are there generational differences regarding citizenship? Analysis of the results

suggests several key findings: The ANOVA found several subsets and items to be significant

with generation; they include the subsets for personal beliefs, competence for civic action, and

participatory citizenship. The ANOVA also discovered significance among generation and the

subset items of steady jobs, get other people to care, organize and run a meeting, solve a

problem, and change unjust laws.

The Bonferroni Post Hoc Test found several key findings regarding the mean differences

of the three generations. First, Millennials had a significant mean difference with the item, steady

jobs, with both Generation X and Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers had a significant mean

difference with the subset of competence for civic action to Millennials. Baby Boomers also had

a significant mean differences with the items get other people to care and call someone on the

phone, to Millennials. Millennials had a significant mean difference with the item follow rules

and laws to both Baby Boomers and Generation X. Baby Boomers had a significant mean

difference with the participatory citizenship subset compared to both Generation X and

Millennials. Baby Boomers had a significant mean difference with the items involvement in

community issues and helped to make things better compared to Millennials; Baby Boomers also

had a significant mean difference with the items get involved in issues and solve a problem

compared to both Generation X and Millennials. Baby Boomers had a significant mean

difference with the items change unjust laws and protest when something needs changing to

101

Millennials. Four out of the five subsets rejected the null hypothesis, as a difference among the

three generations was prevalent for each.

Table 31

Research Question One: Are there generational differences regarding citizenship?

Personal Beliefs

Ho: There are no generational differences

regarding personal beliefs.

Reject the null hypothesis

Competence for

Civic Action

Ho: There are no generational differences

regarding civic action.

Reject the null hypothesis

Personally

Responsible

Citizen

Ho: There are no generational differences

regarding personally responsible citizenship.

Failed to reject the null

hypothesis

Participatory

Responsible

Citizenship

Ho: There are no generational differences

regarding participatory citizenship.

Reject the Null Hypothesis

Justice-oriented

Citizenship

Ho: There are no generational differences

regarding justice-oriented citizenship.

Reject the null hypothesis

102

Town Vitality: Analysis and Findings

Research Question Two, Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding

citizenship? This section outlines the use of various research tools utilized to address the

independent variable of town vitality. The town vitality grade takes into account key factors,

including community location, volunteer rates, crime rates, public education, diversity, and

higher education rates. NICHE makes an effort to measure the quality and strength of the

community in a quantitative way (Carnegie Mellon University, 2002). Each of the five subsets

will be addressed individually by each of the statistical tools. Interview data are provided to

explain each scenario as it addressed the research question. In the following sections, the five

subsets will be addressed and will include personal beliefs, competence for civic action,

personally responsible citizenship, participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship.

Personal Beliefs

The personal beliefs subset measures a person’s understanding of his or her personal

belief system (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Table 32 presents the means and standard deviation

findings for town vitality and personal beliefs. Personal beliefs as a subset consist of four items;

a contrast among the means appeared. For example, Town C demonstrated a higher mean (M =

14.28, SD = 3.08) for personal beliefs than both Town B (M = 14.01, SD 3.16) and Town A (M =

14.22, SD = 2.87).

Town A (M = 2.87, SD = .747) scored a higher mean on the item steady jobs than Town

C (M = 2.77, SD = .797) and Town B (M = 2.75, SD = .837). Town B (M = 2.61, SD = .802)

scored a higher mean on the second item money to support a family than Town A (M = 2.58, SD

= .787), and Town B (M = 2.58, SD = .788). Town C (M = 2.98, SD = .750) scored a higher

mean on the third item worse off not better than Town A (M = 2.95, SD = .699) and Town B (M

103

= 2.85, SD = .778). Town B (M = 3.03, SD = .736) scored a higher mean on the fourth and final

item people becoming poor than Town C (M = 3.01, .835) and Town A (M = 2.97, SD = .758).

The subsequent sections will include an analysis of statistical tests, including ANOVA

and Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, to determine if a significant difference among the mean scores

exists between town vitality and the personal beliefs subset. Also, Pearson correlation and

stepwise multiple regressions will be conducted.

Table 32

Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Personal Beliefs

Town A Town B Town C

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Personal beliefs 14.22 60 2.871 14.01 165 3.164 14.28 97 3.081

Steady jobs 2.87 60 .747 2.75 165 .837 2.77 97 .797

Money to

support a family

2.58 60 .787 2.61 165 .802 2.58 97 .788

Worse, not

better

2.95 60 .699 2.85 165 .778 2.98 97 .750

People

becoming poor

2.97 60 .758 3.03 165 .736 3.01 97 .835

Table 33 presents the Levene’s homogeneity of the variance test. As observed, all items

of the personal beliefs subset did meet the assumption of variance test (p > 0.05).

Table 33

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Personal Beliefs

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Personal Beliefs .831 2 319 .437

Worry about jobs .017 2 319 .983

Hard to support family 1.262 2 319 .284

Economic changes, worse 2.033 2 319 .133

Poor individuals .436 2 319 .647

Steady jobs 1.580 2 319 .208

104

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically significant difference existed

between the subset personal beliefs and town vitality. The test did not indicate any of the items

to have significance. A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was also conducted but showed no

significance among the mean differences for the three town vitalities and the personal beliefs

subset.

Table 34 presents the findings of a Pearson correlation test that was conducted to

discover if a relationships existed between town vitality and the personal beliefs subset and its

four items. No significant correlations were noted in the subset or its items. In fact, very weak

correlations were discovered between town vitality and personal beliefs.

105

Table 34

Pearson Correlation, Town Vitality and Personal Beliefs

Town

Vitality

Personal

Beliefs

Worry

about jobs

Hard to

make

money

Economic

change,

worse

Poor

individuals

Steady

jobs

Town Vitality 1

Personal

Beliefs .013 1

Worry about

jobs

-.005

.764**

Hard to make

money

.049

.840*

.603*

Economic

change,

worse

.027 .759** .399** .574** 1

Poor

individuals

.015

.729**

.376**

.498**

.527**

Steady jobs

-.033

.798**

.585**

.576**

.477**

.456**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailied)

106

Summary: Personal Beliefs. An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically

significant difference existed between town vitality and the subset of personal beliefs. The test

did not show any of the items to have significance. A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was also

conducted but showed no statistical significance among the mean differences of the personal

beliefs subset. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to discover if a relationships existed

among town vitality and the subset personal beliefs and its four items. No significant

correlations were noted in the personal beliefs subset or its items.

Competence for Civic Action

The competence for civic action subset measured a person’s ability to work with others

within a community. More specifically, it asked participants to rate their competence in various

skills, such as calling others on the phone, or writing an opinion piece in the local paper.

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Table 35 presents the means and standard deviation findings for

town vitality and competence for civic action.

Analyzing the subset, competence for civic action, with the independent variable, town

vitality, revealed a contrast among the means. Town A scored higher with this subset (M =

36.02, SD = 6.65) than Town C (M = 35.58, SD = 7.49) and Town B (M = 35.34, SD = 7.17).

The subset included nine items; a description of the means and standard deviations will

now follow. Town A (M= 4.15, SD = 1.071) scored a higher mean on the item care about a

problem than Town B (M = 4.07, SD = 1.121) and Town C (M = 3.98, SD 1.181). Town A (M =

4.30, SD = .944) scored a higher mean on the second item organize and run a meeting than

Town B (M = 4.18, SD = 1.085) and Town C (M = 4.09, SD = 1.146). Town B (M = 3.83, SD =

1.057) scored a higher mean on the third item call someone on the phone than Town C (M =

107

3.82, SD = 1.190) and Town A (M = 3.70, SD = 1.197). Town A (M = 4.25, SD = .876) scored a

higher mean on the fourth item organize a petition than Town B (M = 4.17, SD = 1.106) and

Town C (M = 4.16, SD = .997). Town A (M = 4.03, SD .843) scored a higher mean on the fifth

item create a plan than Town B (M = 3.83, SD = .915 and Town C (M = 4.03, SD = .873). Town

A (M = 4.17, SD = .763) scored a higher mean on the sixth item express your views than Town B

(M = 4.05, SD = .892) and Town C (M = 4.03, SD = .873). Town C (M = 4.10, SD = .984)

scored a higher mean on the seventh item identify individuals than Town A (M = 4.03, SD =

1.008) and Town B (M = 3.98, SD = 1.099). Town C (M = 3.80, SD = 1.187) scored a higher

mean on the eighth item write an opinion letter than Town A (M = 3.77, SD = 1.015) and Town

B (M = 3.72, SD = 1.015). Town A (M = 3.77, SD = 1.136) scored a higher mean on the ninth

and final item contact an elected official than Town C (M = 3.52, SD = 1.068) and Town B (M =

3.52, SD = 1.068).

The subsequent sections will include an analysis of statistical tests including ANOVA

and Bonferroni Post Hoc Tests to determine if a statistically significant difference exists for town

vitality and to determine if a difference among the three mean scores exists between town vitality

and the competence for civic action subset. Also, Pearson correlation and stepwise multiple

regression analysis will be discussed.

108

Table 35

Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Competence for Civic Action

Town A Town B Town C

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Competence for

civic action

36.02 60 6.657 35.34 165 7.170 35.38 97 7.494

Get other people to

care about a

problem

4.15 60 1.071 4.07 165 1.121 3.98 97 1.181

Organize and run a

meeting

4.30 60 .944 4.18 165 1.085 4.09 97 1.146

Call someone on

the phone

3.70 60 1.197 3.83 165 1.057 3.82 97 1.190

Organize a petition 4.25 60 .876 4.17 165 1.016 4.16 97 .997

Create a plan 4.03 60 .843 3.83 165 .915 3.81 97 .961

Express your views 4.17 60 .763 4.05 165 .892 4.03 97 .873

Identify individuals 4.03 60 1.008 3.98 165 1.099 4.10 97 .984

Write an opinion

letter

3.77 60 1.015 3.72 165 1.015 3.80 97 1.187

Contact an elected

official

3.62 60 1.136 3.52 165 1.068 3.57 97 1.126

Table 36 Presents the Levene’s homogeneity of variance test. As observed, all items of

the competence for civic action subset did meet the assumption of variance test (p > 0.05).

109

Table 36

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Competence for Civic Action

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Competence for Civic Action .633 2 319 .532

Create a plan 2.33 2 319 .099

Get other people to care .619 2 319 .539

Organize a meeting .308 2 319 .735

Express your views .107 2 319 .899

Identify individuals .019 2 319 .981

Write an opinion letter 1.555 2 319 .213

Call someone on phone 1.606 2 319 .202

Contact an elected official .510 2 319 .601

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a significant difference existed between the

three town vitalities and the personal beliefs subset. The test did not show any of the items to

have significance. A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was also conducted but showed no significance

among the mean differences between the three town vitalities and the competence for civic

action subset.

Table 37 presents the findings of a Pearson correlation test that was conducted to

discover if relationships existed between town vitality and the competence for civic action subset

and its nine items. No significant correlations were noted in the subset or its items. In fact, very

weak correlations were discovered between town vitality and competence for civic action. Since

no correlation was discovered, the stepwise multiple regression tool was not conducted to

determine if any of these items can predict town vitality.

110

Table 37

Pearson Correlation Between Town Vitality and Competence for Civic Action

Town

Vitality

Competence for Civic

Action

Create a

plan

Get other

people to

care

Organize

and run a

meeting

Express

your views

Identify

individuals

to help

with a

problem

Write an

opinion

letter

Call

someone

on the

phone

Contact

elected

official

Town Vitality

Competence for

Civic Action

-.026 1

Organize a

petition -.027 .705**

Create a plan -.074 .687** 1

Get other people

to care -.052 .845** .582** 1

Organize and run

a meeting -.065 .749** .466** .671** 1

Express your

views -.049 .779** .483** .622** .618** 1

Identify

individuals to help

with a problem

.031 .746** .396** .558** .497** .537** 1

Write an opinion

letter .016 .773** .460** .570** .494** .543** .525** 1

Call someone on

the phone .033 .765** .419** .552** .471** .513** .526** .582** 1

Contact an elected

official -.010 .776** .494** .557** .457** ..524** .591** .587** .653** 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailied)

111

Summary: Competence for Civic Action. An ANOVA test was used to determine if a

significant difference existed between the groups (Town A, Town B, and Town C) and the

personal beliefs subset. The test did not show any of the items to have significance. A

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was also conducted but showed no statistically significant mean

differences among the three town vitalities and the subset of competence for civic action. A

Pearson correlation test discovered no significant relationships in the competence for civic action

subset or on any of its items. Very weak correlations were discovered between town vitality and

competence for civic action.

Personally Responsible Citizenship

This section measured a citizen’s level of personally responsible citizenship in his or her

community. According to this definition of personally responsible citizenship, the citizen would

not go beyond basic civic duties to serve his or her community, such as obeying laws, recycling,

giving blood, and volunteering to lend a hand (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Table 38 presents

the means and standard deviation findings for town vitality and personally responsible

citizenship.

The subset of personally responsible citizenship showed little difference among the three

means among the generations. Town B (M = 21.43, SD = 2.13) scored a higher mean than Town

C (M = 21.26, SD = 2.50) and Town A (M = 20.48, SD = 2.46. Personally responsible

citizenship as a subset included six items; a description of the means and standard deviations will

now follow.

Town B (M = 3.42, = SD = .531) and Town C (M = 3.42, SD = .627) scored the same

mean on the first item, assist those in need, as Town A (M = 3.23, SD = .621). Town B (M =

3.58, SD = .530) scored a higher mean on the second item, follow rules and laws, than Town C

112

(M = 3.56, SD = .595) and Town A (M = 3.33, SD = .681). Town B (M = 3.51, SD = .537) scored

a higher mean on the third item help people in need than Town C (3.46, SD .541) and Town A

(M = 3.37, SD = .551). Town B (M = 3.47, SD = .588) scored a higher mean on the fourth item

help without being paid than Town C (M = 3.41, SD = .573) and Town A (M = 3.33, SD = .572).

Town B (M = 3.73, SD = .447) scored a higher mean on the fifth item kind to other people than

Town C (M = 3.68, SD = .513) and Town A (M = 3.60, SD = .527). Town C (M = 3.74, SD =

.464) scored a higher mean on the sixth and final item in this subset important to tell the truth

than Town B (M = 3.71, SD = .456) and Town A (M = 3.62, SD = .524).

The subsequent sections will include analysis of statistical tests including ANOVA and

Bonferroni Post Hoc Tests to determine if a significant difference among the mean scores exists

between town vitality and the subset of personally responsible citizenship. Also, a Pearson

correlation and stepwise multiple regressions will be discussed.

Table 38

Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Personally Responsible Citizenship

Town A Town B Town C

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Personally

Responsible

Citizenship

20.48 60 2.467 21.43 165 2.136 21.26 96 2.506

Assist those in need 3.23 60 .621 3.42 165 .531 3.42 96 .627

Follow rules and

laws

3.33 60 .681 3.58 165 .530 3.56 96 .595

Help other people

in need

3.37 60 .551 3.51 165 .537 3.46 96 .541

Help without being

paid

3.33 60 .572 3.47 165 .588 3.41 96 .573

Kind to other

people

3.60 60 .517 3.73 165 .447 3.68 96 5.13

Important to tell the

truth

3.62 60 .524 3.71 165 .456 3.74 96 .464

113

Table 39 presents the Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. Two items did not meet

the assumption of variance test (p > .05): kind to other people (p = .006), and important to tell

truth (p = .019). A Welch test was used for the items that did not meet assumptions of variance

test. No significance was found using the Welch test.

Table 39

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Personally Responsible Citizenship

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Personally Responsible

Citizenship

1.458 2 318 .234

Assist those in need

1.932

318

.147

Follow rules and laws

2.184

318

.114

Help people in need

.140 2 318 .869

Help without being paid

.188 2 318 .828

Kind to other people

5.261 2 318 .006

Important to tell truth

4.021 2 318 .019

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically significant difference existed

between the three town vitalities and the subset of personally responsible citizenship. The

ANOVA test showed a significant statistical difference between this subset and one item. Table

40 presents the ANOVA findings for town vitality and personally responsible citizenship. The

means for the three communities were as follows: Town B (M = 21.43, SD = 2.13), Town C (M =

21.26, SD = 2.50), and Town A (M = 20.48, SD = 2.46): (F (3.725), p < .05). The item I think it

is important for people to follow rules and laws also demonstrated significance among the three

114

town vitalities: Town B (M = 3.58, SD = .53), Town C (M = 3.56, SD = .595), and Town A (M =

3.33, SD = .53): (F (2,318) = 4.253, p < .05).

It should be noted that the Levene test failed two items: kind to other people (p < .05),

and important to tell truth (p < .05) due to not meeting the assumption of homogeneity. The

ANOVA did not indicate those two items as significant.

Table 40

ANOVA, Town Vitality and Personally Responsible Citizenship

df F Value Sig.

Personally

Responsible

Citizenship

I think it is

important for

people to

follow rules

and laws

318

3.725

4.253

.025

.015

The Bonferroni Post Hoc Test showed statistically significant mean differences among

the three town vitalities and the subset of personally responsible citizenship and one item,

importance of following rules and laws. Table 41 presents the Bonferroni Post Hoc Test results.

For the subset, personally responsible citizenship, Town B (p < .05) had a significant mean

difference to Town A. For the item importance of following rules and laws Town B (p = .05)

had a significant mean difference to Town A. The test suggest that it is more important for

Town B citizens to follow rules and laws.

115

Table 41

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test, Town Vitality and Personally Responsible Citizenship

Dependent Variable Town Vitality Mean Sig.

Difference

Personally Responsible Citizenship Vitality B Vitality C .170 .127

Vitality A .947 .021*

I think it is important for people Vitality B Vitality C .019 1.00

to follow rules and laws Vitality A .248 .014*

*Significant

A Pearson correlation test was conducted to determine if a relationship existed between

town vitality and personally responsible citizenship. Table 42 presents the Pearson correlation

findings for town vitality and personally responsible citizenship. This test discovered one

positive significant relationship for the item I think it is important for people to follow rules and

laws r(320) = .039, p < .05. This relationship indicated that it is more important for Town B

communities to follow rules and laws when compared to the other two town vitalities.

116

Table 42

Pearson Correlation for Town Vitality and Personally Responsible Citizenship

Town

Vitality

Personally

Responsible

Citizenship

Assist

those in

need

rules

and

laws

Help

people in

need

Help

others

without

pay

Kind to

other

people

Important to

tell the truth

Town Vitality

Personally

Responsible

Citizenship

.095 1

Assist those

in need

.094 .741** 1

Follow rules

and laws

.116* .561** .232* 1

Help people

in need

.043 .810** .576** .261** 1

Help others

without pay

.029 .809** .571** .249** .713** 1

Kind to other

people

.040 .743** .429** .264** .545** .579** 1

Important to

tell the truth

.084 .679** .365** .382** .414** .386** .480** 1

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailied)

Qualitative Findings: Personally Responsible Citizenship. Examples during the

interview phase of this study appeared to support the quantitative data. Four citizens from Town

B communities identified local or state grants to build playgrounds and sought financial

assistance from particular agencies for the project, e.g., the parks and recreation department

support for residents’ fundraising efforts. The one exception arose for a Town B citizen who

indicated that she was not “well aware” of resources.

117

Findings during the interviews strengthen the statistical data, which suggested that

citizens in Town B communities abide by the laws and rules at a more significant level than

Town A communities. An outlier to the statistical findings occurred during the interview phase

of this study. A citizen from a Town A community uniquely stood apart from other citizens

representing town vitality. He identified “Talking with community residents to see if they have

the same concerns” as a behavior he engages in. This was deemed significant because no other

participant proposed speaking with community residents. Instead, participants representing the

town vitality communities indicated that their interactions with other residents depend on the

project. The researcher, even with the remarks by a Town A citizen, stands by the decision

declaring personally responsible citizenship as not a significant item.

Summary: Personally Responsible Citizenship. The ANOVA test showed a

significant statistical difference for the three town vitalities and the personal responsible

citizenship subset and one item. The item, I think it is important for people to follow rules and

laws, also demonstrated significance among the three town vitalities: Town B (M = 3.58, SD =

.53), Town C (M = 3.56, SD = .595), and Town A (M = 3.33, SD = .53): (F (2,318) = 4.253, p <

.05). The Bonferroni Post Hoc Test showed significant mean differences between town vitality

and the personally responsible citizenship subset and one item, importance of following rules and

laws. First, the subset showed a significant mean difference between Town B (p < .05) and

Town A. The same item, importance of following rules and laws, had a significant mean

difference between Town B (p < .05) and Town A. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to

determine if a relationship existed between town vitality and personally responsible citizenship.

This test discovered one positive significant relationship, I think it is important for people to

follow rules and laws, r(320) = .039, p < .05). This relationship indicated Town B communities

118

have a stronger relationship than the other two when it comes to following rules. The interview

portion of this study supported the quantitative data. Participants from Town B communities

supported the qualitative data by giving examples of how they exercised personally responsible

citizenship.

Participatory Citizenship

The subset participatory citizenship measures the amount of activity a citizen displays in

a community organization. Participatory citizenship includes citizens who work to improve a

community deficit or to meet a community need. For example, participatory citizens will

intervene with local government officials when needed (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

A comparison of the subset, participatory citizenship, with the independent variable, town

vitality, revealed a contrast among the means. Town B communities (M = 17.16, SD = 3.03)

scored a higher mean than Town C (M = 16.92, SD = 3.34) and Town A (M = 16.25, SD = 3.12).

Participatory citizenship included six items; a description of the means and standard deviations

will follow in the subsequent paragraph. Table 43 presents the means and standard deviation for

participatory citizenship and subset items.

Town C (M = 2.97, SD = .640) scored a higher mean on the first item involvement in the

community issues than Town B (M = 2.96, SD = .595) and Town A (M = 2.85, SD = .633).

Town B (M = 2.87, SD = .651) scored a higher mean on the second item I do make a difference

than Town C (M = 2.78, SD = .757) and Town A (M = 2.73, SD = .756). Town B (M = 2.84, SD

= .685) scored a higher mean on the third item I have helped to make things better than Town C

(M = 2.77, SD = .718) and Town A (M = 2.70, SD = .766). Both Town B (M = 2.63, SD = .701

and Town C (M = 2.63, SD = .798) scored a higher mean on the fourth item get involved in

issues like health or safety than Town A (M = 2.43, SD = .909). Town B (M = 2.62, SD = .738)

119

scored a higher mean on the fifth item solve a problem than Town C (M= 2.52, SD = .808) and

Town A (M = 2.40, SD = .807). Both Town B (M = 3.25, SD = .580) and Town C (M = 3.25, SD

= .598) scored a higher mean on the last item being concerned than Town A (M = 3.13, SD =

.503).

The subsequent sections include an analysis of statistical tests including ANOVA and

Bonferroni Post Hoc Tests that will determine if a significant difference exists for the mean

scores of the participatory citizenship subset. A Pearson correlation and stepwise multiple

regression will also be conducted.

Table 43

Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Participatory Citizenship

Table 44 presents the Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. As observed, three items

of town vitality and the participatory citizenship did not meet the assumption of homogeneity (p

> 0.05). The three items are as follows: concerned about state and local issues (p = .017), I do

make a difference in my community (p = .049), and get involved in issues (p = .023). A Welch

test was used for the items that did not meet the assumptions of variance test.

Town A Town B Town C

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Participatory

Citizenship

16.25 60 3.122 17.16 164 3.03 16.92 96 3.399

Involvement in the

community issues

2.85 60 .633 2.96 164 .585 2.97 96 .640

I do make a difference 2.73 60 .756 2.87 164 .651 2.78 96 .757

I have helped make

things better

2.70 60 .766 2.84 164 .685 2.77 96 .718

Get involved in issues

like health or safety

2.43 60 .909 2.63 164 .701 2.63 96 .798

Solve a problem 2.40 60 .807 2.62 164 .738 2.52 96 .808

Being concerned 3.13 60 .503 3.25 164 .580 3.25 96 .598

120

Table 44

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Participatory Citizenship

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Participatory Citizenship .683 2 317 .506

Concerned about state and

local issues

Involvement in the

community issues

4.152

.546

317

.017

.580

I do make a difference in my

community

3.035 2 317 .049

I have helped make things

better

1.225 2 317 .295

Get involved in issues 3.820 2 317 .023

Solve a problem .863 2 317 .423

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically significant difference exists

between the mean scores of town vitality and the participatory citizenship subset. The test found

no significance for the item. The Welch test did not find any items to be significant. The items

tested included concerned about state and local issues (p = .297), I do make a difference in my

community (p = .401), and get involved in issues (p = .294). A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was

conducted to determine if there is a statistically significant difference among the mean scores

between town vitality and the participatory citizenship subset. Table 48 presents the Bonferroni

Post Hoc Test findings. The Post Hoc Test found no statistically significant mean differences

among the communities. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to determine if relationships

exist between town vitality and participatory citizenship. (See Table 45: Pearson Correlation

between Town Vitality and Participatory Citizenship.) This test discovered no relationships

between town vitality and participatory citizenship; in fact, all relationships in the test were

extremely weak. This finding strongly suggests no relationship for town vitality and

participatory citizenship.

121

Table 45

Pearson Correlation Between Town Vitality and Participatory Citizenship

Town

Vitality

Participatory

Citizenship

Community

Involvement

Local Issues Make a

Difference

Help Make

Things Better

Get Involved

with Issues

Work to Solve

Problems

Town Vitality

Participatory

Citizenship

.058 1

Community

Involvement

.059 .652** 1

Local Issues .062 .579** .535** 1

Make a

Difference

.011 .833** .395** .377** 1

Help Make

Things Better

.023 .828** .424** .303** .744** 1

Get Involved

with Issues

.074 .820** .379** .288** .610** .654** 1

Work to Solve

Problems

.037 .786** .334** .284** .594** .562** .670** 1

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailied)

122

Qualitative Findings: Participatory Citizenship. The interview phase of this study

yielded information that largely supported the quantitative data. For example, a Town B citizen

indicated a “strong push” in his community for citizens “to move that way.” This citizen went

on to suggest that “old people keep things the same and young people change things.” He

continued to express the importance of the next generation to transition into leadership roles in

his community.

Another Town B citizen described several agencies in her community, one in which she

is an active participant. She talked about her church, the Lions Club, and the Kiwanis Club. She

described, with no particular example, her membership on her church leadership team. She

detailed how important it is for her to serve on her church leadership team as it presents an

opportunity to serve many parishioners throughout the community.

A Town C citizen described the importance of citizens attending city council meetings

and school board meetings. He stressed that “it is in their best interest to attend these meetings

even if the topics do not pertain to you.” Another Town C citizen stated that she “did not know

of any” in regard to organizations that she can be a part of and make decisions in but went on to

say that “decisions are made during the elections.” This response might suggest that she is not a

prominent community decision maker.

Another Town C citizen took time to consider her response and, ultimately, concluded

that she was “not sure”; however, she described her involvement with community “influencers”

in and around her community as she volunteers her time twice per year to lead a youth program

aimed at promoting physical fitness.

A Town A citizen responded by talking about a “group of people that oversee things, like

the ball fields.” His response to this question indicated that his community interacts with each

123

other in some meaningful way and subsequently work together to achieve objectives that matter

to the community. Though all participants possessed some capacity to talk about organizations

in which citizens have decisions making abilities, only one person, a Town B citizen, gave

examples of her actions as an active decision maker in her community. All others simply

identified organizations.

Summary: Participatory Citizenship. An ANOVA test was used to determine if a

significant difference exists between the mean scores of town vitality and the participatory

citizenship subset. The test found no significance with the item. A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test

found no difference between the mean scores of town vitality and this subset. Finally, a Pearson

correlation test was conducted to determine if relationships exist between town vitality and

participatory citizenship. This test discovered no relationships between town vitality and

participatory citizenship; in fact, all relationships were extremely weak. All of the town vitalities

were able to support the data and explain examples of participatory citizenship.

Justice-Oriented Citizenship

A justice-oriented citizen desires to find a cause, correct it and terminate injustice and

social ills of their community. This person represents the marginalized group to address social

injustice to government agencies. Additionally, this citizen attempts to alter policy or

established systems if injustice is presented to citizens in their community (Westheimer &

Kahne, 2004).

Table 46 presents the means and standard deviation for justice-oriented citizenship and its

subset items. Comparing the justice-oriented citizenship subset , with the independent variable

town vitality, a contrast among the means appeared. For example, Town C (M = 18.27, SD =

3.43) had a higher mean score than Town B (M = 17.93, SD = 3.38) and Town A (M = 17.52, SD

124

= 3.49). Justice-oriented citizenship as a subset, included seven items, A description of the

means and standard deviations for the seven items in this subset follows.

Town B (M = 1.58, SD = .728) scored a higher mean on the first item, worked to change

unjust laws, than Town A (M = 1.57, SD = .752) and Town C (M = 1.51, SD = .717). Town C

(M = 1.71, SD = .867) scored a higher mean on the second item protest when needed than Town

B (M = 1.63, SD = .746) and Town A (M = 1.52, SD = .778). Town C (M = 2.62, SD = .871)

scored a higher mean on the third item purchase products safe for environment than Town B (M

= 2.61, SD = .789) and Town A (M = 2.55, SD = .865). Town B (M = 2.43, SD = .889) scored a

higher mean on the fourth item challenge inequalities than Town C (M = 2.38, SD = .966) and

Town A (M = 2.24, SD = .865). Town C (M = 3.39, SD = .626) scored a higher mean on the fifth

item I get angry about conditions people live in, than Town B (M = 3.19, SD = .708) and Town

A (M = 3.16, SD = .696). Town C (M = 3.20, SD = .828) scored a higher mean on the sixth item

I wonder what is wrong with this country than Town A (M = 3.14, SD = .805) and Town B (M =

3.11, SD = .770). Town C (M = 3.50, SD = .602) scored a higher mean on the seventh and final

item I get mad when I hear people treated unjustly than Town B (M = 3.41, SD = .617) and

Town A (M = 3.34, SD = .739).

The subsequent sections will include an analysis of statistical tests including ANOVA

and a Bonferroni Post Hoc Test in order to determine if a significant difference existed among

the town vitality mean scores of the justice-oriented citizenship subset. Additionally, Pearson

correlation and a stepwise multiple regression will be discussed.

125

Table 46

Means and Standard Deviation, Town Vitality and Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Town A Town B Town C

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

Justice-Oriented

Citizenship

17.52 58 3.496 17.93 163 3.381 18.27 93 3.436

Worked to change

unjust law

1.57 58 .752 1.58 163 .728 1.51 93 .717

Protest when

needed

1.52 58 .778 1.63 163 .746 1.71 93 .867

Purchase products

that are safe for

environment

2.55 58 .799 2.61 163 .789 2.62 93 .871

Challenge

inequalities

2.24 58 .865 2.43 163 .889 2.38 93 .966

I get angry about

conditions some

people live in

3.16 58 .696 3.19 163 .708 3.39 93 .626

I wonder what is

wrong with this

country

3.14 58 .805 3.11 163 .770 3.20 92 .828

I get mad when I

hear people treated

unjustly

3.34 58 .739 3.41 162 .617 3.50 92 .602

Table 47 presents Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. As observed, all items met

the assumption of variance test (p > 0.05); therefore a Welch test was not required.

126

Table 47

Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance, Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Levene

Statistic

df1 df2 Sig.

Justice-Oriented Citizenship .018 2 311 .982

Worked to change unjust

laws

.299 2 311 .742

Protest when needed 1.676 2 311 .189

Purchase products that are

safe for environment.

.856 2 311 .426

Challenge inequalities. 1.198 2 311 .303

I get angry about conditions

some people live in

I wonder what is wrong with

this country.

I get mad when I hear people

treated unjustly

.404

.192

1.973

311

.668

.141

.982

An ANOVA test was used to determine if a statistically significant difference existed for

the mean scores of the three town vitalities and the justice-oriented citizenship subset. (See

Table 48: ANOVA, Town Vitality and Justice-Oriented Citizenship.) The test discovered one

significant item, it makes me angry when I think about the conditions some people have to live

in, out of the seven subset items: Town C (M = 3.39, SD = .63), Town B (M = 3.19, SD = .71)

and Town A (M = 3.16, SD = .70): F (1.068).

127

Table 48

ANOVA, Town Vitality and Justice-Oriented Citizenship

df F Sig.

It makes me

angry when I

think about the

conditions some

people live in

311

3.043

.049

A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was also conducted to determine if a statistically significant

difference existed among the mean difference of the three town vitalities. No significant

differences among the mean differences were discovered between communities. A Pearson

correlation was run to determine significance between the town vitality (independent variable)

and justice-oriented citizenship (dependent variable). Table 49 presents the Pearson correlation

findings. A correlation was discovered with one item, makes me angry to think of conditions

some people live in: r(311) = .13, (p < .05).

128

Table 49

Pearson Correlation Between Town Vitality and Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Town

Vitality

Justice-

oriented

Citizens

hip

Work to

change

unjust

laws

Protest

when a

change

needed

Purchase

products

not

harmful

Challenge

inequalities

Makes me

angry to

think of

conditions

wonder

what’s

wrong

with this

country

Get mad

when

people

treated

unjustly

Town

Vitality

Justice-

Oriented

Citizenship

074

Work to

change

unjust laws

-.035 .551** 1

Protest

when a

change

needed

.082 .652** .552** 1

Purchase

products not

harmful

.028 .637** .277** .362** 1

Challenge

inequalities

.040 .710** .426** .472** .482** 1

Makes me

angry to

think of

conditions

.126* .643** .057 .154** .264** .201** 1

I wonder

what’s

wrong with

this

.035 .603** .023 .136** .163** .177** .682** 1

Get mad

when people

treated

unjustly

.085 .612** .054 .153** .197** .227** .639** .599* 1

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailied)

129

Of the two correlated items, only one suggested prediction ability. A multiple regression

was conducted to determine if citizenship can predict town vitality. Table 50 presents the results

of the multiple regression models of Visions of Good Citizens, including personal beliefs,

competence for civic action, personally responsible citizenship, participatory citizenship, and

justice-oriented citizenship. Model 1 held the variable I think it is important for people to follow

rules and laws and was able to predict one percent of the variance in town vitality. The variable,

I think it is important for people to follow rules and laws ( = .117), explains 1.1 percent of the

variance in town vitality. None of the correlated items has prediction ability to determine town

vitality.

Table 50

Stepwise Multiple Regression Models for Town Vitality and Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Model R R

Square

Adjusted

Square

Std.

Error of

Estimate

R Sq.

Change

df1 df2 Sig F

Change

1 .177 .014 .011 1.974 .117 2.082 1 312 .038

Qualitative Findings: Justice-Oriented Citizenship. The interview phase of this study

revealed qualitative data that provided mixed results in supporting the statistical data. For

example, a Town B citizen expressed the importance of all Americans voting in every election

“because everyone has a voice, if you do nothing – change does not happen.” She added to the

discussion by saying, “It takes people to make changes.”

A Town A citizen expressed his thoughts on a couple of points. First, he expressed how

individuals only have the ability to correct so many things on their own. Instead, they need to

work as a collaborative to correct problems. He explained, “Citizens are the front line; they

should report problems to city council to correct the issue.” In all his responses, a sense of

community collaboration was prevalent. Others responded with limitations in their responses;

130

for example, a Town C citizen said that she does love her country and people do need to work

together as they will have different ideas on how to correct problems. Another Town B citizen

responded by saying, “yes I agree, it is easy to complain about the issues otherwise.”

Perhaps the most profound response to this question came from a Town B citizen. She

professed the need for citizens “to make an investment in themselves, country, employer, and

community. By doing this, you become obligated to your community.”

Summary: Justice-Oriented Citizenship. An ANOVA test discovered one significant

item out of seven items. For the item, it makes me angry when I think about the conditions some

people have to live in, a significant difference was discovered with town vitality among Town C

(M = 3.39, SD = .63), Town B (M = 3.19, SD = .71) and Town A (M = 3.16, SD = .70): F

(1.068). A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was also run to determine if statistically significant mean

differences existed among the three town vitalities. No significant differences were discovered

between communities. A Pearson correlation was used to determine significance between the

town vitality (independent variable) and justice-oriented citizenship (dependent variable). A

correlation was discovered for one item, makes me angry to think of conditions some people live

in: r(311) = .13, (p < .05). The item I think it is important for people to follow rules and laws

was able to predict one percent of the variance in town vitality. The interview provided

information that suggested that all generations, regardless of where they live, endeavor to

implement justice-oriented citizenship.

131

Research Question Two: Conclusions

Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding citizenship?

An analysis of the results suggest several key findings: The ANOVA test found several

subsets and items to have a statistically significant mean score difference among the generations,

including the subset of personally responsible citizenship. The ANOVA also discovered

significance among the means for the three town vitalities and subset items follow rules and laws

and it makes me angry when I think about the conditions some people have to live in.

The Bonferroni Post Hoc Test found several key findings between the mean differences

of town vitality and the personally responsible citizenship subset. First, Town B had a

significant mean difference with this subset compared to Town A; several items also

demonstrated significance among the mean differences. Town B showed a significant mean

difference with the item follow rules and laws in comparison with Town A. A Pearson

correlation established a relationship among the items follow the rules and town vitality and

makes me angry to think of conditions and town vitality. Stepwise regression analysis

determined one item to have predictive behavior. The item follow rules and laws predicts town

vitality. Two subsets rejected the null hypothesis (Personally Responsible and Justice-Oriented

Citizenship), as a difference among the town vitalities was demonstrated.

132

Table 51

Research Question Two: Are There Town Vitality Differences or Relationships Regarding

Citizenship?

Personal Beliefs

Ho: There are no town vitality differences or

relationships regarding personal beliefs

Failed to reject the null

hypothesis

Competence for

Civic Action

Ho: There are no town vitality differences or

relationships regarding competence for civic

action.

Failed to reject the null

hypothesis

Personally

Responsible

Citizen

Ho: There are no town vitality differences or

relationships regarding personally responsible

citizenship.

Reject the null hypothesis

Participatory

Responsible

Citizenship

Ho: There are no town vitality differences or

relationships regarding participatory

citizenship?

Failed to reject the null

Hypothesis

Justice-Oriented

Citizenship

Ho: There are no town vitality differences or

relationships regarding justice-oriented

citizenship.

Reject the null hypothesis

133

Research Question Three

What Citizenship Attributes are Utilized by Citizens? An interview protocol was included

to identify themes that either paralleled the statistics or revealed different views. The interview

questions were derived from the work of Flanagan, et al. (2007) and sought to determine the

citizenship attributes utilized by the participants. The interviews consisted of 12 questions, four

questions in each of the three citizenship subsets: personally responsible citizenship,

participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship. Each subset identified participants’

ability to recognize important citizenship attributes in their communities. Table 52 provides data

on citizen attributes and how each generation and community utilized them. A total of seven

citizens were interviewed and represented each of the three generations and town vitalities.

Interviews were conducted from January 2017 to February 2017. Mutually convenient

locations were agreed upon for the interviews. Four interviews were conducted in a restaurant,

one in the researcher’s office, one via phone, and one at the participant’s workplace. All

interview participants completed an interview consent form (see Appendix B). The frequency

chart (Table 52) indicates how each participant responded to the interview questions. The table

identifies participants’ responses regarding which attributes they utilized in their towns.

Respondents were categorized in the following manner: M1, Millennial-Town B; M2,

Millennial-Town C; X1, Generation X-Town A; X2, Generation X-Town B; X3; Generation X-

Town B; X4, Generation X-Town C; and BB1, Baby Boomer-Town C. Table 52 presents the

citizenship attributes utilized.

134

Table 52

Utilized Citizenship Attributes

Differences in passions and citizenship attributes among the interviewees became

apparent several times during the interviews. It was clear that many participants were

knowledgeable about community resources, leaders, and agencies, but not as many residents

utilized available community resources. The following three sections will address the

participants’ responses to the 12 citizenship attributes described by Flanagan, et al. (2007) and

will be followed with a section summary. Finally, a conclusion will outline specific findings as

they relate to generation and/or town vitality.

Town

BB1

Town

Personally Responsible

Citizenship

Row

Totals

Knowledge of agencies yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 7

Ability to seek resources yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 7

Ability to identify resources no no yes yes yes yes yes 5

Ability to make decisions yes no yes yes yes no yes 5

Participatory Citizenship

Ability to make a difference yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 7

Ability to share prospective no yes yes no yes yes no 4

Ability to solve a problem yes no yes yes yes yes yes 6

Ability to volunteer to help

people

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 7

Justice-Oriented Citizenship

Ability to correct problems yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 7

Ability to change policy or

law

yes no no yes yes yes no 3

Work on a political campaign no no no no no no no 0

Ability to march in a protest

or demonstration

yes yes no no no no no 2

135

Knowledge of Agencies

What agencies do you contact when you have concerns about your community, and why

do you select those agencies? This question explored if citizens were aware of agencies in their

communities. More so, it sought to determine if citizens were able to name particular agencies

they might call for specific concerns. All citizens, no matter their generation or community,

indicated knowledge of community agencies. Participants from each vitality stated that it

“depends” as to which agency they would contact. For example, their choice of agency

depended on whether they were in distress or just needed assistance with a matter. Agencies

mentioned frequently by the participants included two citizens representing Generation X: One

from a Town A community and the other from a Town B community cited the police

department. Three participants said they would contact the borough building for concerns in

their community. When asked for examples, these respondents said they would contact the

borough building for a variety of reasons, including leaf disposal, grass clippings, a downed tree,

or concerns with abnormal behaviors. Two of these respondents were from Town C

communities; one was a Millennial and the other Generation X. All seven interview respondents

expressed their knowledge of agencies by providing examples. Knowledge of agencies, as

indicated by the participants, is an attribute of personally responsible citizenship.

Ability to Reach Key Individuals

If you have an idea for a community project, who are the key individuals to whom you

reach out? This question sought to determine if citizens know whom to contact if they have

ideas for community projects, an attribute that is characteristic of personally responsible

citizenship. In other words, can citizens identify key individuals in their communities? The

findings for this question indicated that all three generations had the ability to seek community

136

resources. The participants were closely aligned in their thoughts and responses, no matter the

community or generation. An exception to this uniformity came from a Town A participant who

uniquely addressed this question in part by asserting, “Talking with community residents to see

if they have the same concerns.” He expressed the need to reach out to his neighbors to

determine if there was consensus. This was significant as no other participant advocated

speaking with community residents.

Participants from all three generations indicated that who they would contact for

assistance would depend on the project at hand. This level of understanding is intuitive, as it

suggests a knowledge of the various agencies available in each community. A Millennial from a

Town B community was more specific as she outlined in detail examples of projects she was a

critical part of and how key community stakeholders assisted. Another participant, a Generation

X citizen from a Town C community, suggested using social media groups; her community

utilizes a community web page in order to reach out for direction on community projects. In

contrast, a Baby Boomer from a Town C community recommended asking his friends for

references. All seven participants expressed knowledge of key individuals in their communities

who could assist with a project. This question and the narrative responses provided information

on citizens’ ability to reach out to key individuals for assistance. Citizens consistently conveyed

a willingness to contact other people.

Ability to Identify Resources

What resources are you aware of that are available to help with a community project?

This question addressed participants’ awareness of what resources might be available to help

with community projects. The two Millennials were not able to answer this question; one

commented that she was not “aware” of resources. All other participants representing the other

137

two generations offered responses. For example, a Generation X citizen from a Town B

community identified local grants that are available for building playgrounds. She explained

how a person could seek financial assistance from local agencies in addition to applying for

grants. A Generation X citizen from a Town A community seemed well-versed in community

resources and gave examples on how the community could work together to fund local projects.

This participant spoke about collecting money from neighbors to build a playground. He also

talked about reaching out to those in “charge of the county who make financial decisions.” He

was astute in his responses by suggesting that residents then go to the “decision makers” once

they have resources in place for a project. Town C communities were represented by three

participants; all three were familiar with community resources and how to make the contacts or

how to utilize them. A citizen from a Town C community talked about a possible lack of

resources from her community but further explained “ways around the shortfall.” She identified

restaurants that would support a cause or charity by donating 10 percent of a customer’s total

receipt. She exercised a “never give up” attitude in her response to this question. Another

participant from a Town C community indicated that she uses the local newspaper as a resource

to "get the word out of an upcoming event.” Five participants expressed knowledge of resources

available to help with a community project. This question provided information on citizens’

attribute for personally responsible citizenship.

Ability to Make Decisions

Tell me about organizations in your community where citizens get to make decisions

about how the community operates. Citizens were asked to identify community organizations

that encourage citizen input on decisions. All but two participants were able to identify

organizations in which citizens have an opportunity to make decisions. Participants offered an

138

array of organizations ranging from church (Town B Millennial), voting, school board meetings,

and city council meetings. A Town B Generation X citizen indicated a “strong push” in his

community for citizens “to move that way.” This citizen went on to suggest that “old people

keep things the same and young people change things.” His responses continued to express the

importance of the next generation to transition into community leadership roles. A Town B

Millennial described several agencies in her community, including one in which she is active.

She talked about her church, the Lions Club, and the Kiwanis Club. She described, without

examples, her membership in her church leadership team. She explained the importance of

serving on her church leadership team as a way to serve many people throughout her community.

Another Baby Boomer from a Town C community described the importance of citizens attending

city council and school board meetings. He stressed, “It is in their best interest to attend these

meetings even if the topics do not pertain to you.” A Generation X participant from a Town C

community stated that she “did not know of any” regarding organizations in which she could

play a decision-making role. However, she went on to say that “decisions are made during the

elections.” This response suggests that she is not prominently involved in community decisions.

A Millennial from a Town C community took time to ponder her response and, ultimately, stated

that she was “not sure”; however, she described her involvement with community “influencers”

in her community and surrounding communities as she volunteers twice per year to lead a youth

running program, aimed at promoting physical fitness. The Generation X citizen who resides in

a Town A community responded by talking about a “group of people that oversee things, like the

ball fields.” His response to this question indicated that his community interacts with each other

in some meaningful way and, subsequently, work together to achieve objectives that matter to

the community.

139

Though all participants possessed some capacity to talk about organizations in which

citizens have decision-making abilities, only one person, a Town B Millennial, actually gave

examples of her actions as part of community decision making; all others simply identified

organizations. With the exception of a Millennial and a Generation X citizen, all others

discussed scenarios regarding how citizens can be involved in the decision- making process.

Citizens exercise an array of passions; it is these passions that citizens will represent when

decisions need to be made. This was the last interview question in which citizens expressed

utilization or understanding of attributes of personally responsible citizenship.

Summary: Personally Responsible Citizenship. The subset of personally responsible

citizenship contained several findings. The data provided the ability to determine trends with

generations and town vitality. For example, all seven participants, including all three

generations, articulated their knowledge of agencies and ability to seek resources. However,

only Generation X and Baby Boomers knew how to identify those resources. Millennials

indicated a lack of ability to identify resources in their communities. Two out of three Town C

citizens indicated a lack of ability to make decisions in their communities.

Ability to Make a Difference

Finish the sentence: I believe people like me can make a difference in the community and

in my perspective, this is how…. The next four questions asked about participatory citizenship

attributes. Results from all participants were compelling, as they not only identified how they

can make a difference in their communities but, more importantly, also conveyed a strong sense

of community efficacy. Citizens expressed their ideals of running for office, volunteering, and

identifying community needs. Volunteering, picking up trash, and painting the playground are

examples of participatory citizenship. This question regarding making a difference in the

140

community revealed a different way of thinking about one’s community from the other interview

questions. Interview participants celebrated their own personal experiences as to how they have

made a difference in their community. A Millennial from a Town B community said to “identify

what we see” and “keep eyes open” in order to make a difference in one’s community. A

Generation X citizen from a Town B community reported, “Do what you can do.” She gave

examples of picking up trash and volunteering time in the community as well as participating in

public meetings. Another Generation X citizen from a Town B community mentioned making a

difference by “making others aware of the problem.” This person also said to “take the initiative

to do it, take action.” Again, this citizen expressed her community efficacy by believing that she

can be a change agent in her community. A Baby Boomer from a Town C community added the

idea of “running for office if you desire or serve on a committee.” These tactics are different in

action as they involve creating or modifying policy. A Baby Boomer identified a different tactic

altogether in contrast with other generations. He spoke about serving in local government, while

others only mentioned participatory citizen tactics

Ideals that indicated efficacy included comments such as “believe in the change and

taking the initiative to take action.” A Generation X citizen from a Town A community

expressed his passion for his community by stating, “When you have a love for where you live,

that’s what you do.” His response as a citizen of a higher town vitality mirrors research by

Putnam (2000), who argued that a community that is “connected” provides overlapping networks

that produce socially desirable outcomes (2000). A Generation X citizen from a Town C

community said to “believe in the change you want to see”; she added that an upbeat attitude is

necessary to be a change agent in your community. Another theme from the interviews included

the need for a community to develop and retain participatory citizens, as the participants

141

illustrated, but the Baby Boomer stood apart from all other participants on this issue by giving

examples of serving on political boards.

Ability to Share Perspective

During the last 12 months, how often have you used the internet to share your perspective

on a social or political issue with a large group of people? Of the seven citizens’ responses to

the question, three responded by saying they never used social media for political purposes. A

Millennial from a Town B community added that she “stays away from political issues . . . how

many times have I used it (social media), six billion times.” Obviously, she was exercising

sarcasm, but the point was clear with this participant: She not only had not used social media for

political issues but had no intention of doing so in the future. A Generation X participant from a

Town B community made it clear that he “never uses social media for any reason”; he further

emphasized the point by saying, “never, anti-social media.” Both of these participants expressed

strong sentiments against using social media to express their political perspective. A Baby

Boomer from a Town C community expressed his thoughts in much the same way. He described

his social media presence as “not typically a person who voices a lot of opinions.” This

participant shared his reasons for using the internet, explaining that he does use social media and

the internet but mostly for information gathering reasons.

The other four participants discussed their usage of social media for sharing political

opinions. A Generation X citizen from a Town B community said she uses social media “maybe

once or twice for political reasons; I feel like it can cause a fight.” She expressed her desire to

use social media for other reasons besides political reasons. She also included social media

behaviors of “commenting on other people’s post.” A Generation X citizen from a Town A

community responded by testifying, “Almost daily, it’s in front of us.” He was jovial in his

142

approach to this question as he referenced the current political climate: “Politics is all that

anyone talks about right now.” His claim is that “even if you don’t want to get involved, it’s all

around u [sic] and you kind of have to.”

The last participant, a Generation X citizen from a Town C community, was elated to

address this question. She first responded by saying, “Wow, that’s kind of a loaded question

right now.” She continued by adding, “Probably 100 times over the year.” Unlike the first three

participants, she includes her thoughts and opinions aggressively on social media. Based on the

participants interviewed for this study, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions as to generation

and/or town vitality influences regarding how citizens share political thoughts on social media.

A theme that emerged went beyond both generation and community. Instead, either a strong or

weak attitude towards an expression of sharing political views on social media was prevalent. A

secondary theme was the willingness of the participants to use social media for “social” reasons

rather than political purposes. Participants seemed excited to address this question, as they all

expressed strong opinions on the topic. This attribute addressed participatory citizenship.

Ability to Solve a Problem

Tell me how you worked with a team to solve a problem in the community where you live.

This question featured six out of seven participants describing a situation regarding how they

helped solve a problem in their community. A Millennial from a Town C community was the

only participant to say “I have not” regarding working with a group to solve a problem. She

added nothing more to her comments. The remaining six participants each provided stories to

address this question. They offered a wide range of approaches of citizen participation in their

communities.

143

For example, a Generation X citizen from a Town A community discussed a situation in

his community regarding oversized vehicles coming through private property to get to the other

side of the neighborhood. He explained the harm the large, heavy vehicles caused to the

neighborhood. He talked about how signs were already in place to warn against truck travel but

were not adhered to. He and other neighbors approached city council concerning the issue, and

they instructed the citizens to track not only frequency of travel but attitudes of the drivers when

confronted and whether or not the police were called. He explained how they had to “build their

case” and present factual information established over a period of time. The citizen was asked

how long this process took and whether or not it was resolved. The citizen said the process took

almost four months and, yes, it was resolved. This participant and his neighbors exemplified

participatory citizenship to correct an issue.

A Millennial from a Town B community discussed her volunteerism in her local fire

department, which involved working with others in the department to upgrade the department’s

classification. She went on to express the importance of this collective action for the

community, as the department became a Bureau of Fire, which allows more calls to the

department to get answered in a timely fashion. She explained her passion to help the

community with the upgrade and how it took a collective department effort.

Two Generation X citizens from two different Town B communities shared stories about

working in their respective groups to solve important issues. The first citizen discussed a local

park used for recreational purposes that included dog walking, walking, and jogging. He

described owners allowing their dogs to run loose in the park and not picking up after them. He

and other residents petitioned City Council to increase police awareness of this issue by asking if

the police could patrol the park during busier times. They succeeded in reducing the nuisance as

144

a result of their efforts. The other Generation X citizen from a Town B community talked about

her “initiative to make a change” in her Home Owners Association (HOA). Since she and other

residents were on the front end of the HOA, among the first to purchase in the plan, they “formed

a committee to begin writing bylaws that they best saw fit.”

Two respondents from Town C communities addressed community issues in areas of

personal interest. A Baby Boomer from a Town C community explained his past experiences

with the school district in which his children were enrolled. He attended school board meetings

involving budgetary concerns, faculty salary, and curricula. And finally, a Generation X citizen

from a Town C community got involved with an animal rescue organization because of her

commitment to helping animals. A local pet charity organization only featured dogs on their

website. As a result, this pet charity was not adopting cats as often as they would have liked.

Her passion for others to adopt animals instead of paying a breeder motivated her to speak with a

marketing administrator from the pet charity. The administrator took her advice and, within two

weeks, the organization noticed a spike in cat adoptions.

The interview responses indicate that citizens use their passions to drive their actions.

Community organizations must harness the collective passions of its citizens; in doing so, an

engaged community will emerge.

Ability to Volunteer to Help People

How often do you volunteer to help other people? All participants discussed at least one

scenario regarding how they volunteer to help other people in their communities. A Generation

X citizen from a Town A community talked about how he and others volunteer twice a year to

maintain playgrounds and the local ball fields. This resident said, “It’s all about family and

145

kids”; he talked about how the neighborhood kids also take part in cleaning up the playground

and ball fields.

Among Town C community residents, the first, a Millennial, described her volunteer

commitment, which extends beyond her own community. She leads a local organization that

promotes running for children. This mentoring program is for children in pre-kindergarten

programs through middle school. Her duties include recruiting children to participate over a

five-week period, soliciting other volunteers to assist on a weekly basis, motivating children to

do their best, and even running alongside children. She expressed her passion for volunteering

with this program and instilling confidence in the children as they improve from week to week.

The other, a Generation X citizen, talked about her passion for animals. She claimed to

volunteer at least twice per week at a local pet charity. She was clear in saying how important it

is for these animals to have interactions with humans, explaining that “these animals were

neglected and forgotten about” and ultimately given up by previous owners. A Baby Boomer

from a Town C community is now retired from a community college; he talked about his

volunteer work at local high schools to speak with parents of potential college students. He

asserted, “It is important to educate as many parents as we can to become familiar with the

financial aid process.” A financial aid director for many years, he said with satisfaction, “This is

my way to give back to the community.”

Of the two Generation X citizens, one from a Town B community joked about her

volunteerism by stating, “Not often enough.” She explained that much of her volunteerism

comes in the form of fundraising as often as five times per year. She added that the fundraising

is to support her daughter’s participation in karate and dance. The other Generation X citizen

from a Town B community claimed to volunteer about six times per year. He added no

146

additional detail as to what kind of volunteer work, and, when prompted, only said, “A variety of

things.” The last participant, a Millennial from a Town B community, passionately discussed her

monthly volunteering with the homeless. With delight, she added that this commitment helps her

to value “her life” and how fortunate she is. She also added that she works annually with a team

to raise money for the United Way.

This question seemed to invigorate the participants as they all shared attributes in

participatory citizenship. From these responses, it is evident that community organizations

would do well to recognize their citizens’ commitment to volunteering.

Summary: Participatory Citizenship. The subset of participatory citizenship revealed

several findings. The data illuminated trends regarding generations and town vitality; for

example, all generations had an interest in making a difference in their communities, no matter

their town vitality. At least one participant from all three generations demonstrated apathy

towards the civic attribute of sharing perspective. Those communities involved two participants

from Town B and one from Town C. All participants with the exception of a Millennial (from

Town C) indicated the ability to solve a problem in their communities. All citizens indicated the

ability to volunteer to help other people in their communities.

147

Ability to Correct Problems

If you love America, you should notice its problems and work to correct them. Do you

agree? Why or why not? Participants were asked four questions regarding their justice-oriented

citizenship abilities. None of the participants said no to the question, If you love America, you

should notice its problems and work to correct them. All of them were able to articulate a way to

demonstrate their passion for America.

For example, a Generation X respondent from a Town B community expressed the

importance of voting in every election “because everyone has a voice, if you do nothing –

change does not happen.” She added, “It takes people to make changes.” Her sense of

patriotism was clear.

A Generation X citizen from a Town A community expressed his thoughts on a couple of

points. First, he expressed how individuals only have the ability to correct so many things on

their own. Instead, citizens need to work collaboratively to correct problems. He added,

“Citizens are the front line; they should report problems to city council to correct the issue.” In

his responses, a sense of community collaboration was prevalent, while other respondents

focused on individual efforts.

A Baby Boomer from a Town C community expressed an intriguing point about

generational differences by saying, “Young people are not as involved.” He was expressing his

view that Millennials are not as active in communities as older generations. He also argued, like

other respondents, that citizens should vote.

A Generation X citizen from a Town C community said that she indeed does love her

country and people do need to work together. Another Generation X citizen, this one from a

Town B community, responded by saying, “Yes, I agree; it is easy to complain about the issues

148

otherwise.” A Millennial from a Town C community also agreed that she loves America, saying,

“I live here; I want it fixed.” Perhaps the most profound response to this question came from a

Millennial from a Town B community. She professed the need for citizens “to make an

investment in themselves, country, employer, and community. By doing this, you become

obligated to your community.” She does not consider herself a Millennial; she believed her

thinking aligned more with Generation X.

Ability to Change Policy or Law

In the last 12 months, how often did you collaborate with a group to try to change a

policy of law in your community, state or nation? Describe the examples. Two participants, the

first a Millennial from Town C, responded simply with “I have not” in regard to changing a law

or policy. Likewise, so did a Generation X citizen from a Town A Community. A Millennial

citizen from a Town B community said she has worked with groups to make a change “maybe

twice” in the last year.

Other respondents did cite efforts to effect changes in policy or law. A Generation X

citizen from a Town B community said he worked with his cycling group to advocate policy

changes; in this case, policy was redesigned to reflect more meaningful guidelines for members

to understand and follow. Another Generation X citizen, this time from a Town C community,

answered the question by reporting two examples in the last 12 months. She added that her

involvement required minimal effort, such as signing a petition a couple of times throughout the

year. A Baby Boomer citizen from a Town C community said that he believes there was no need

to get involved in the last year to make a policy change. The last participant, a Town C

Generation X respondent, recalled past examples of her involvement in changing policy. While

an undergraduate at a local college, she described a time she worked with other students to make

149

viable changes in residence life. All participants expressed their ability to change a policy or law

attributed to justice-oriented citizenship. Only four citizens exercised utilization of the ability to

change a law or policy as a justice-oriented citizenship attribute.

Ability to Work on a Political Campaign

In the previous 12 months, how often have you worked on a political campaign? Describe

the examples. All seven participants answered this question very quickly by declaring that they

had not worked on a political campaign in the last year – or at all. One participant, a Generation

X citizen from a Town B community, added, “I want to stay away from the controversy!”

Evidently, none of the seven citizens utilize this attribute of justice-oriented citizenship.

Willingness to March in a Protest or Demonstration

In the previous 12 months, how often have you taken part in a peaceful protest, march, or

demonstration? Describe the examples. Almost all participants responded by saying they have

not participated in a protest. Two participants said they participated in a women’s march (both

Millennials, one from Town C and one from Town B). Another, a Baby Boomer from a Town C

community, said that he has not participated in a march or protest but added that he “would have

to feel strongly about the topics and issues.” Citizens interviewed did not express a desire to

protest; it seemed they brushed off the idea of participating in such an event. Participation in a

march or protest is a community characteristic that is lacking in the communities studied here.

Summary: Justice-Oriented Citizenship. The subset of justice-oriented citizenship led

to several findings. The data illustrated trends with generations and town vitality. For example,

no matter their generation or community, citizens had the ability to correct problems in their

communities. However, all four of the Generation X respondents and one Millennial indicated

the ability to change laws or policies in their communities, whereas the Baby Boomer from

150

Town C indicated a lack of ability to change a law or policy. The quantitative data suggested the

opposite, finding that Baby Boomers are more likely to change policy, law, and fight to change

unjust laws. No matter the generation or community, all participants indicated that they have not

participated in a political campaign. Lastly, Millennials, both from Town C, were the only

participants to participate in a protest or demonstration.

Conclusion: Research Question Three

What citizen attributes are utilized by citizens? Several trends were discovered by

interviewing citizens defined by generation and town vitality. For one, both Millennials were

comparable in utilization of citizenship attributes, although they expressed varied passions. Both

Millennials lack the ability to identify resources for community projects, make decisions, solve

problems, and share perspective. Neither expressed a willingness to work on a political

campaign. However, they can be expected to have knowledge of agencies, ability to seek

resources, a willingness to make a difference, and interests in volunteering, correcting problems,

marching, or protesting.

Generation X trends indicated by the participants in this study included knowledge of

agencies, and the ability to seek and identify resources, make decisions, make a difference, share

perspective, solve problems, volunteer, and correct problems. Three of the four Generation X

participants expressed the ability to change law or policy.

Trends could not be established with Baby Boomers since only one was interviewed;

based on this sample, an alignment with Generation X could be justified. However, both

generations expressed many of the same civic attributes during the interviews; for example, both

paralleled ability to seek resources, identify resources, make decisions, make a difference, solve

a problem, volunteer to help other people, and correct problems. Both generations agreed that

151

they could not share a perspective. The Baby Boomer participant did differ from Generation X

on the attribute of changing policy or law, as he said he has not done so.

It became apparent through the interviews that each generation, though there was overlap,

has the potential to offer specific civic attributes. A community would benefit from civically

engaged Millennials as they are most likely to participate in a march or protest. Generation X

possesses attributes that are most likely to express the ability to change a policy or law. Finally,

Baby Boomers are the generation more likely to make decisions.

An idea found in the interviews is that community (town vitality) does not seem to

influence a citizen’s perceived or measured desire to engage his or her community. This finding

was also discovered in the quantitative data, as only four items had significance with town

vitality. Another theme that occurred throughout the study was that people serve people. In

other words, efforts to change the community are a people-first initiative, a grassroots effort.

Citizens possess specific passions and desires; it is up to community leadership to harness

community members’ energies to enhance the community. Community leaders may not be

aware of issues if citizens do not raise concerns. There is a disparity among generations as to

what civic attributes are more important and utilized in each community.

Summary

The statistical tools used to analyze research question one included an examination of

means, standard deviation, and Analysis of the Variance. Also, interview transcripts were

analyzed for codes and common themes to determine which community attributes were utilized

by citizens. The ANOVA found statistically significant differences among the three generations

with three subsets and five subset items. The ANOVA also found statistically significant

differences among the three town vitalities with one subset and two subset items. Additionally, a

152

Pearson correlation test found relationships between two citizenship items and town vitality.

Lastly, multiple regression tests concluded that citizenship is not a predictor of town vitality.

Research question three was addressed by an interview protocol. Data revealed relationships

recognized with the Personally Responsible Citizenship model and both Generation X and the

Baby Boomers. Relationships were also established with the Participatory Citizenship model

and Generation X. Finally, relationships were established with the Justice Oriented Citizenship

model and both Generation X and Millennials. Data also revealed relationships with both the

Personally Responsible Citizenship and the Participatory Citizenship model and all communities.

No relationship was recognized with the Justice-Oriented Citizenship model and communities.

Chapter 5 will now discuss the implications of the findings, limitations, and future research.

153

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate the impact generation and

town vitality have on citizenship. This study was directed by three research questions. The first

research question asked are there generational differences regarding citizenship? (Baby

Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials). A framework to establish citizenship was based on

Westheimer and Kahne’s Visions of Good Citizens Model (2004). The second research question

asked, are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding citizenship? The framework

to determine town vitality was established by NICHE (Carnegie Mellon University [CMU],

2002). The third research question used an interview protocol to determine what citizenship

attributes (civic qualities or characteristics) were utilized by citizens?

In this mixed-methods study, 322 citizens were surveyed to determine if generation

and/or town vitality has an impact on citizenship. Additionally, seven citizens were interviewed

to better understand how the generations use civic attributes in their communities. The

geographic location of this study consisted of citizens who reside in three comparable counties;

each county included one of each town vitality for a total of nine towns. For the purpose of this

study, the nine communities were clustered based on their vitality, A, B, or C. For example, all

three Town A communities were combined to create one pool of surveys representing Town A.

The same process was used for Town B and Town C communities.

Discussion of Results

The quantitative findings determined generation to have an impact on citizenship. For

example, in respect to the other generations studied, Baby Boomers demonstrated competence

for civic action, participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship. Millennials reflected

stronger personal beliefs for the future in contrast with the other two generations. This research

154

also established an impact between town vitality and citizenship; for example, citizens of Town

B communities scored statistically significant mean differences compared with both Town A and

C vitalities on the subset of personally responsible citizenship.

The qualitative portion of this study presented supplemental data to support central

themes from the quantitative findings and were critical to answering the third research question.

The qualitative data also provided insight into which citizenship attributes were utilized by

citizens. The following section is organized in order of the three research questions.

Research Question One

Are there generational differences regarding citizenship? Personal beliefs, the first

subset tested using the Visions of Good Citizens Model, examined the generational outlook of a

future economic forecast. An ANOVA test discovered a statistically significant difference

among the mean scores between generation and the personal beliefs subset (F (2, 319) = 3.200, p

< .05). Additionally, the item I worry that many people in my generation will not have steady

jobs (F (2, 319) = 8.59, p < .001) also indicated a statistically significant difference among the

three generations. A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test discovered a difference in scores to this item

between the Millennial generation (M = 3.06, SD = .738) and both Generation X (M = 3.01, SD =

.773), (p < .05) and the Baby Boomers (M = 2.46, SD = .813), (p <. 05). This finding

demonstrates that Millennials are concerned about steady jobs in the future.

The next subset with significant findings was competence for civic action. Competence

for civic action was the second subset that was analyzed using the quantitative instrument. An

ANOVA test revealed statistically significant differences among the mean scores between the

competence for civic action subset and generation (F (2, 319) = 3.145), (p < .05). In addition,

three items demonstrated significantly different scores among the generations: get other people

155

to care about a problem, (F (2, 319) = 4.831); organize and run a meeting, (F (2, 319) = 3.264);

and call someone on the phone to get help with a problem, (F (2, 319) = 3.145, (p < .05). The

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test indicated that Baby Boomers (M = 2.69, SD = .769) are the generation

that can get other people to care in contrast to Millennials (M = 2.46, SD = .813), (p < .05).

Lastly, Baby Boomers (M = 4.41, SD = .829) indicated they can organize and run a meeting in

contrast to Millennials (M =4.04, SD = 1.143), (p < .05).

The next subset, personally responsible citizenship are citizens who usually do not

volunteer unless asked but they are aware of issues that matter to them (Westheimer & Kahne,

2004). There was no finding for generation and this subset. The Levene’s Test of Homogeneity

found the item follow rules and laws (p < .001) not to meet the assumption of variance. This

item was then tested using the Welch Test, and though it did show this item as having a

statistically significant difference (p < .001), it must be noted that there was a discrepancy in

degrees of freedom. Though the item was found to be significant, the degrees of freedom

dropped to 184.464, which was just 57 percent of the total survey participants. The researcher

decided not to use this finding based on the variance of the degrees of freedom.

Citizens interviewed shared examples that expressed an aptitude of personally

responsible citizenship. The interviews suggested a different perspective than the quantitative

data. For example, all four participants representing Generation X gave comprehensive

examples as to how they exercise personal responsibility. Statements included, “when you have

a love for where you live, that’s what you do,” “identify what we see and keep eyes open,”

“believe in the change you want to see,” and “take the initiative to do it, take action.” Specific

actions Generation X discussed included volunteering, picking up trash, and painting a

156

playground. In contrast to Generation X, a Millennial citizen stated she was not “well aware” of

resources available to her when considering a community project.

The next subset to be explored based on generational differences was participatory

citizenship. This subset of the survey instrument measured the amount of activity citizens

displayed in their communities. An ANOVA test discovered statistically significant differences

among the mean scores between the participatory citizenship subset and the three generations:

Baby Boomers (M = 18.23, SD = 2.85), Generation X (M = 16.90, SD = 3.21), and Millennials

(M = 16.28, SD, 3.07), (F (2, 319) = 10.735), (p < .01). An ANOVA test also discovered the

item solve a problem to have a statistically significant mean score difference among the three

generations: Baby Boomers (M = 2.90, SD =.741), Generation X (M = 2.50, SD = .744), and

Millennials (M = 2.40, SD = .751), (F (2, 319) = 6.785), (p < .001). Putnam, the author of

Bowling Alone (2000), offered a potential explanation, stating that middle-aged and older people

participate more frequently in almost all civic categories (2000). He provided clarity as to why a

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test found Baby Boomers to rank higher than the other two generations on

the subset and one item within that subset. First, the participatory citizenship subset revealed a

statistically significant mean difference between Baby Boomers (M = 18.23, SD = 2.85) and

Generation X (M = 16.90, SD = 3.21), (p <.05). The item that demonstrated significant

difference among the groups was work with a group to solve a problem in the community where

you live. Baby Boomers (M = 2.90, SD =.741) had a statistically significant mean score

difference over both Generation X (M = 2.50, SD = .744) (p <.05), and Millennials (M = 2.40,

SD = .751) (p <.001). Of the three generations, Baby Boomers had three statistically significant

mean score differences on the participatory citizenship subset. These finding support the

157

literature of Musil (2003), Putnam (2000) and Westheimer & Kahne (2004) that state Baby

Boomers do civically participate more than the other two generation.

The interviews provided additional information that suggest that other generations also

participate in their communities. For example, a Generation X citizen, in response to personally

responsible citizenship, said to “identify what we see” and “keep eyes open.” A Baby Boomer

added the idea of “running for office if you desire or serve on a committee.” The approach

recommended by the Baby Boomer was different in action as it involves creating or modifying

policy. A Millennial offered an example that differed from the quantitative data by describing

her volunteer work, which extends beyond her own community. This finding is supported by the

work of Howe and Strauss (2000), who indicated that Millennials feel empowered to take

responsibility for issues, are civic in thinking, and focus on community first. A Millennial from

a Town C community was the only participant who responded by stating “I have not” regarding

working with a group to solve a problem. In contrast, a Millennial from a Town B community

described her volunteer efforts in her local fire department, which involved working with others

to upgrade the department’s classification. She spoke about her “initiative to make a change”

with her fire department where she volunteers.

The fifth subset explored based on generational differences, justice-oriented citizenship,

assessed social, political, and economic structures to see beyond the surface causes of social

injustice. An ANOVA test found a statistically significant difference between generations and

one item in this subset: I have/do work with others to change unjust laws. The mean scores on

this particular item were as follows: Baby Boomers (M = 1.74, SD = .81), Generation X (M =

1.62, SD = .62), and Millennials (M = 1.43, SD = .71): F (5.519), (p < .01). The test suggests

that Millennials strongly disagree more than Baby Boomers. A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test found

158

Baby Boomers to have a statistically significant mean score difference with the other two

generations on one justice-oriented citizenship item. The item, worked with others to change

unjust laws, had a significant mean score difference between the Baby Boomers (M = 1.74, SD =

.813), (p < .05) and the Millennials (M = 1.43, SD = .711).

Interview data provided information that supported the Millennials’ possession of justice-

oriented citizenship qualities. The two Millennials interviewed indicated that they participated in

a march that supported women’s rights – no other citizens indicated participation in a

demonstration or protest. This finding was contrary to the research, which indicated that

Millennials are less likely to protest, march, or demonstrate for a cause and less likely to have

political interests in contrast with Baby Boomers (Howe & Strauss, 2000). In contrast to the

data, the Baby Boomer interview participant declared that he did not recognize a need to change

a policy or law. The statement by this Baby Boomer differed from the item, I have/ do protest

when something in society needed changing (F (2, 311) = 4.650, (p < .05). The analysis of the

quantitative and qualitative data suggests a difference among the generations and the justice-

oriented citizenship subset. Although the qualitative data provided insights that reached beyond

the quantitative data, it also must be noted that only one Baby Boomer was interviewed.

The findings demonstrated the impact generation has on citizenship. Particularly with the

Baby Boomer generation, they demonstrated the willingness and the civic skills necessary to

serve their communities. Literature suggests (Wilson & Simson, 2006) that each generation

since the Greatest Generation has declined in their civic pursuits. If this trend continues, society

will suffer from an individualized society, each citizen only concerned with oneself. It is the

responsibility of all constituents that comprise a community (citizens, community leaders, school

159

districts, and business owners) to reverse this apathetic civic desire. Nevertheless, generational

differences did appear in four subsets and on eight items. As a result, the null was rejected.

Research Question Two

Are there town vitality differences or relationships regarding citizenship? Town vitality

was the second independent variable examined in this study. Town vitality was used to

consider how three different vitalities might impact citizenship. Town vitality considered key

factors, including community location, volunteer rates, crime rates, public education, diversity,

and higher education rates. A community that is “connected” provides overlapping networks to

produce socially desirable outcomes (Putnam, 2000). A town with increased social capital can

maintain connections among its citizens; increased social capital lends to high levels of trust and

citizen participation (Putnam, 2000). Researcher Jane Jacobs, author of the book The Death and

Life of Great American Cities (1961), coined the term ‘social capital’ to distinguish between safe

and organized cities from unsafe and disorganized ones, including the connections of individuals

through common values (Jacobs, 1961). The framework to determine town vitality was

established by NICHE (Carnegie Mellon University [CMU], 2002).

The first two subsets on the Visions for Good Citizen Model found no statistically

significant findings. The first subset, personal beliefs, examined a citizen’s future economic

outlook perspective. To better understand if a statistically significant difference among the mean

scores existed between town vitality and the personal beliefs subset, an ANOVA test was

conducted. The test found no significant difference among the mean scores for the personal

beliefs subset or any of the items based on town vitality. The second subset, competence for

civic action, determined a citizen’s civic knowledge and willingness to serve in one’s

community. To examine the impact town vitality had on the competence for civic action subset,

160

an ANOVA was conducted. The test found no statistically significant mean score differences

among town vitality and the subset.

The third subset, personally responsible citizenship are citizens that are aware of social

problems in their communities and volunteer occasionally to meet community needs

(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). An ANOVA and Bonferroni Post Hoc Test were conducted to

determine if either a statistically significant difference existed among town vitality and this

subset or to discover a difference among the town vitality mean scores. The ANOVA found the

subset and one item to have a statistically significant difference for the three town vitalities mean

scores. The ANOVA first revealed a statistically significant difference among the three town

vitalities mean scores on the personally responsible citizenship subset: Town A (M = 20.48, SD =

2.467), Town B (M = 21.43, SD = 2.136), and Town C (M = 21.26, SD = 2.506), (F (2, 318) =

3.725), p < .05). Additionally the item, I think it is important for people to follow rules and laws

(F (2, 318) = 4.253), p < .05), was found to have a statistically significant difference among the

mean scores: Town A (M = 3.33, SD = 3.58), Town B (M = 3.58, SD = .530), and Town C (M =

3.56, SD = .595).

A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test showed Town B (M = 21.43, SD = 2.136), (p <.05) to have a

statistically significant difference among the mean scores on the personally responsible

citizenship subset over Town A (M = 20.48, SD = 2.467). The Bonferroni Post Hoc Test found

the item important to follow rules and laws to have a statistically significant difference among

the mean scores between Town B (M = 3.58, SD = .530), (p < .05) and Town A (M = 3.33, SD =

.681). The statistical data acknowledged Town B communities to have a statistically significant

difference in comparison with the other town vitalities. A relationship among town vitality and

follow rules and laws was found when a Pearson correlation test was conducted r(320) = .039, p

161

< .05. During the interview phase of this study, a Town A citizen stated a unique perspective

compared to the other generations. He spoke about the importance of communicating with

community residents to see if they have the same concerns. No other interview participant

expressed this view.

The fourth subset to be explored on town vitality differences was participatory

citizenship. This subset measured the amount of activity a citizen displayed in a community

organization. An ANOVA and Bonferroni Post Hoc Test were conducted and demonstrated no

statistically significant differences among the three town vitalities’ mean scores.

The final subset that explored differences based on town vitality was justice-oriented

citizenship. This subset assessed social, political, and economic structures to see beyond surface

causes. An ANOVA test indicated one statistically significant difference among the mean scores

of the three town vitalities with the item it makes me angry when I think about the conditions

some people live in: Town A (M = 3.16, SD = .696), Town B (M = 3.19, SD = .708), Town C (M

= 3.39, SD = .626), (F (2, 311) = 3.043, (p < .05). A Bonferroni Post Hoc Test found no

statistically significant mean score differences among town vitality and the subset of justice-

oriented citizenship. Though insignificant on the Post Hoc Test, Town C citizens did show more

concern for this item than both Town A and Town B communities. A Pearson correlation test

discovered a relationship between town vitality and the item, makes me angry to think of

condition.

While the findings were nominal, differences were discovered with subset personally

responsible citizenship and two items. The findings suggest that Town B communities are more

inclined to exercise personally responsible citizenship more that Town A and C. A point to make

beyond addressing the research question is that only one town vitality had a statistically

162

significant difference when compared to each other. Jacobs (1961) stated that towns that utilize

social capital the best are towns that were developed with community in mind. In other words,

these towns have a down town district that is simple to navigate and all the city departments are

accessible. Future research could explore why Town A and C communities do not embrace the

citizenship models. A hypothesis might include the thought that Town A or C communities are

not well laid out or that citizens do not work collectively to volunteer or collaborate on

correcting social injustice in their communities. However, for this study, evidence was brought

forth to determine that town vitality impacts citizenship; therefore, the null was rejected.

Research Question Three

What civic attributes are utilized by citizens? To answer the third research question, a

series of interviews were conducted. The interviews included seven participants who

encompassed all generations and town vitalities. This portion of the study helped to determine,

of the three citizenship models, how each model was utilized by the three generations and town

vitalities. The interviews consisted of 12 questions with four questions representing each of the

three citizenship models (personally responsible citizenship, participatory citizenship, and

justice-oriented citizenship). The interviews provided a mix of perspectives and anecdotes,

sometimes aligning with the quantitative data and other times conveying a contrast in findings.

The first citizenship characteristic to be discussed is personally responsible citizenship.

Conclusions drawn suggest that no matter the generation, participants were knowledgeable

concerning agencies in their respective communities. All interview participants identified

agencies in their communities. Selected quotes from interviews included the following: “when

you have a love for where you live, that’s what you do,” “identify what we see and keep eyes

open,” “believe in the change you want to see,” and “take the initiative to do it, take action.”

163

Residents, no matter their generation, can seek assistance for a community project. However,

they may seek information among a variety sources, e.g., in person, or with the use of

technology. Citizens from each of the communities had no trouble in identifying resources.

The second citizenship characteristic to be discussed is participatory citizenship.

Interviews found Millennials to have a strong civic participation ability. Selected quotes from

interviews included the following: “identify what we see” and “keep eyes open.” The data

provided the ability to determine trends with generations and town vitality; for example, all

generations had the ability to make a difference in their communities, no matter their town

vitality. A participant from all three generations declared a lack of ability to share perspective;

the communities included two respondents from Town B and one from Town C. All

participants, except for a Town C participant, indicated the ability to solve a problem in their

communities. All citizens indicated the ability to volunteer to help other people in their

communities.

The third and final citizenship characteristic is justice-oriented citizenship. The interview

protocol revealed trends with generations and town vitality; for example, no matter their

generation or community, citizens had the ability to correct problems in their communities, but

only Generation X and one Millennial indicated the ability to change laws or policies in their

communities, whereas the Baby Boomer (Town C) indicated a lack of ability to change a law or

policy. The quantitative data suggested the opposite, finding that Baby Boomers are more likely

to change policy, law, and fight to change unjust laws. No matter the generation or community,

all participants indicated that they have not assisted with a political campaign. Lastly, the two

Millennials, both from a Town C community, were the only participants who discussed

participating in a protest or demonstration.

164

The interviews provided anecdotal narratives that helped to explain the data. Citizens

shared perspectives that mostly aligned with the data, but, more importantly, delivered a deeper

understanding. Citizens possess citizenship skills, particularly with personally responsible and

participatory citizenship, but all three generations lacked justice-oriented citizenship.

The data collected via the interview protocol established that all generations and vitalities

take part in utilizing citizenship attributes. A hypothesis set forth to analyze research question

three was that Baby Boomers who reside in Town A communities demonstrate an unparalleled

combination of citizenship utilization. The results of the interviews did not provide evidence to

support the hypothesis; therefore, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected.

Implications

The implications of this study and other research offer insights concerning the expressed

need for civic learning at an early age for citizens, school districts, and community leaders alike.

This section will discuss what the findings and the literature provide as areas of focus for such

groups. The citizenship framework used here, based on Westheimer and Kahne’s work (2004),

identified three distinct models of citizenship: personally responsible citizenship, participatory

citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship. All three models are unique in their characteristics

and citizenship attributes. Since this study examined generation and town vitality, the

implications will be arranged by how findings from each of those sections apply to each group.

For all citizens who reside in one of the nine communities studied, the implication of

developing citizenship skills directly affects the civic climate of communities. The task is to

prepare the next generation for civic competency, participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented

citizenship aptitudes. This study showed the Baby Boomer generation to have civic qualities in

civic competency, participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship skills. Gaylor

(2002) along with Reaves and Oh (2007) identified core values of Baby Boomers to include

165

optimism, team orientation, personal gratification, money-oriented, health and wellness, personal

growth, youth, work, and involvement.

This study also discovered Millennials to score a lower mean average than Baby

Boomers in all three citizenship models. As discussed in the literature review, it is yet to be

determined if this is attributed to a life cycle pattern or a generational trend. If it is a life cycle

trend, one could expect a Millennial to lead a civic life. Research by Reeves and Oh (2007)

suggests that Millennials are every much as engaged as Baby Boomers just differently. If it

becomes a generational trend, this would not be known for another ten years or more, then it

becomes certain to make mandatory civic-service learning in each school district.

An implication for citizens suggests the need for future generations to develop their civic

capacity to include participatory and justice-oriented citizenship skills – not for the future, but

for the present so that we not suffer another civic-apathetic generation. It is important for

citizens of all generations to understand which citizenship model and attributes they possess

now.

An implication for Baby Boomers suggests the need to volunteer with Millennial and

Generation X citizens. By volunteering, communities could establish citizenship skill-building

incubators. Community organizations could volunteer to contribute to the citizenship skill

building process. In turn, Baby Boomers would teach the importance of civic action,

participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship. Baby Boomers should want to mentor

the younger generation in order to stave off an apathetic generation and to develop a meaningful

civic identity and prepare them to become a vital integral component of civic life. Civic learning

must go beyond the classroom: citizenship, an important quality of future leaders, must translate

into action and become a palatable part of life (Musil, 2012). Citizens and communities can

166

develop the citizenship skills required to create a vibrant community. Musil provided examples

on how young citizens can develop these necessary skills, they include the development of: civic

ethos, civic literacy, civic inquiry, and civic action. Musil’s work presents an opportunity for

Baby Boomers to guide Millennials by working side by side on community projects and social

injustice issues. The responsibility to develop the next efficacious generation must happen now,

and Baby Boomers must be part of the development process.

Survey data and the interview protocol both revealed Millennials’ concern about future

employment. Characteristics of Millennials include being empowered to take responsibility for

issues, civic involvement, and a community first attitude (Howe & Strauss, 2000). Millennials

concern for future employment is a concern for society. The community as a whole including

industries at the forefront of technology, should address this issue by educating young adults of

the changing workforce now and in the future. The communities of the future should do more to

provide employment opportunities to Millenials, if not, the outcome could create a workforce

limited of human capital. This study did not examine why Millennials are concerned about

future steady employment. However, scholarly works suggested that young adults are

apprehensive about the changing workforce, i.e., automation and artificial intelligence taking the

place of humans (Stubbings & Williams, 2017). The Workforce of the Future Report (Stubbings

& Williams, 2017) stated that 37% of Millennials are worried about automation or artificial

intelligence replacing the individual. This same report says that 60% of Millennials believe few

people will have stable, meaningful employment (Stubbings & Williams, 2017). The report

declares that many current jobs will indeed be replaced by automation or artificial intelligence,

but a new sector of employment will also be created to replace current occupations.

167

A take away for the community is to educate the youth on what type of employment is

obtainable for each now and in the future. Millennials and young adults need to be assured that

meaningful work will exist in the future, it is imperative that the whole of society convey this

message. When this finding and research are considered in tandem, an implication for the

Millennial generation suggests secure steady employment in the future will be obtainable

(Winsten et al., 2004) (Stubbings & Williams, 2017).

Implications for school districts include the importance of adding a civic education

component to the curriculum. The positive ramifications of doing so were highlighted in the

literature review and are also apparent in this study. The National Task Force on Civic Learning

and Democratic Engagement (2012) stresses the need to reinvent curricula to include civic

learning at every level of education, from elementary school to graduate school, across all fields

of study. Such curricula has the potential to alter the apathetic civic mindedness of a young

generation (Millennials) by facilitating participatory and justice-oriented citizenship at an early

age. Although Millennials are characterized as civic minded (Howe & Strauss, 2000), this study

found Millennials to rank lower than Baby Boomers on the participatory citizenship subset, and

last on the justice oriented citizenship item work with others to change unjust laws. These two

findings suggest, and the literature supports, that young generations are not as willing to

participate or get involved in social issues in their communities.

Several studies suggest the importance of younger generations becoming involved in

community issues. Astin and Sax (1998) reported that students who spend more time

participating in community, or civic service, can develop stronger self-perceptions of citizenship.

Communities can no longer wait for a generation to age and become civically active, as maturing

is a timely process. Several case studies, presented by Westheimer and Kahne’s, such as the

168

Madison County Youth in Public Service and Bayside Students for Justice discussed in the

literature review, showcase civic growth in students (2004). Data from both studies suggests

development of civic awareness as well as a refined ability to care and take action in their

communities. Data from this study help to affirm the need for civic service learning

opportunities to occur in all school districts.

Communities, when organized by vitality, showed few differences in this study. Findings

suggest that vitality has minimal impact on citizenship; however, a difference was discovered

with the personally responsible citizenship subset. This study did not examine the “why”

regarding Town B communities’ tendency to follow rules and laws, but, knowing they do, an

implication for community leaders should be to preserve this attribute in their communities.

Community leaders should inform the citizen base of this attribute; it should not be assumed that

citizens understand it on their own. Another implication for community leaders of Town B

communities should be to collaborate with leaders of various town vitalities. In doing so,

community leaders of Town B communities could share perspectives as to why their citizens

follow rules and laws and, in turn, help other town vitalities to duplicate the result.

The findings of this study, if addressed by citizens, school districts, and community

leaders, could help communities to understand the value of educating their citizens on how to

develop or deepen personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented citizenship skills

and to discover what the results of their actions could mean for their community. An implication

for all three stakeholders – citizens, community groups, and schools – is that all are equally

responsible for educating citizens. A comprehensive approach on teaching actionable citizenship

traits can begin to alter the outcome for future generations. Findings in this study revealed that

all three generations offer unique features and characteristics that can enhance the well-being of

169

a community. Putnam (2000, 2003) reported that all communities require citizens to faithfully

take care of primary citizenship attributes to fulfill the core functions of local government. It is

this action, of satisfying core functions of civic community and connecting social capital, that

can provide a pathway for both citizens and communities to flourish.

Limitations

This study sought to determine if differences or relationships could be established by

better understanding the role of citizenship and community. It is important to highlight several

limitations of this study.

The first limitation occurred due to the geographical limitations of utilizing three counties

in western Pennsylvania. Future scholars could increase the population pool by adding diversity

among the counties studied. Perhaps if communities were studied in the central or eastern part of

Pennsylvania as well as with the western section of the state, more palpable data could support

generalizations of the findings. The generalization ability is a limitation, as only three counties

were used in this study.

The second limitation occurred with a specific county, as it was a challenge to obtain an

adequate number of surveys based on the researcher’s distance from the county. Several efforts

were made to collect surveys, including using social media, as this county had a Facebook site to

promote news and local events. Even with sharing the survey via Facebook, few completed

surveys were submitted. Additionally, the researcher reached out to a few known residents of

the selected towns and asked for surveys. The largest source of completed useable surveys came

from the local community college, which has a student body of about 3,000 students. The

college sent the survey on two different dates to those students and to college employees who

reside in the selected communities.

170

A third limitation involved the self-reporting nature of the data. It should be recognized

that all data were controlled by the researcher. While most surveys were completed using the

Qualtrics platform, a dozen surveys were completed in person. Therefore, each survey had to be

entered into Qualtrics.

A final limitation occurred during the interview phase of this study. Generation

representation was unbalanced and small. The seven interview participants consisted of two

Millennials, four Generation X respondents, and only one Baby Boomer. Initially, two Baby

Boomers scheduled for interviews, but one did not respond to efforts to schedule a date and time.

At that point, a Generation X participant was asked to participate, hence creating an imbalance of

generations in the study. This limitation restricted the fullest potential of the interview protocol.

Generation X had four participants, which equated more than half of all participants. Further,

these four Generation X representatives expressed views and abilities that surpassed the

quantitative data. This limitation should be a recommendation for future research, the qualitative

study would contain a more stratified representation of all three generations hence allowing for a

deeper understanding of citizens and their utilization of citizenship attributes.

Recommendations for Future Research

The results from this mixed-methods study revealed several opportunities for a future

scholar. This study revealed many data points that can be used to better educate a community,

from it, ideas for future research emerged. A few recommendations will now follow.

The first recommendation for future research is to examine the relationship of both

independent variables as one; generation, and town vitality. This approach would examine for

example, Millennials that reside in Town A against Millennials that reside in Town B and against

Millennials that reside in Town C. In doing so, this research might find differences among a

171

singular generation and town vitality. The findings from this potential study might find different

results and indicate an even stronger need to educate communities of the importance of building

citizenship skills.

A second recommendation for future research is to interview the community groups to

determine if and why they are experiencing a decrease in volunteers, i.e., rotary, city council,

chamber of commerce, church leaders, and volunteer fire departments. The future scholar should

employ a qualitative study that would aim to explore needs of a community. Much like the

current study, the future scholar should consider communities by town vitality. By doing so, the

future scholar would understand if civic needs of the community vary by vitality. The

perspective of community leaders would offer insights that vary from those of community

members. It would be of value to understand where the civic gaps exist based on community

groups. Later, both studies could be examined to better understand a community’s landscape.

A final recommendation for future research is to design a qualitative study examining

why Town A communities ranked last on the Bonferroni Post Hoc Test with all seven items,

participatory citizenship. The future scholar might have the opportunity to understand why

citizens of Town A communities seemed to show an actionable disregard towards their

communities.

Conclusion

The purpose of this mixed-method study was to determine if generation or town vitality

impacts citizenship. Implications of this study include the following: community leaders should

establish community-based programs or maintain existing programs to build a better, stronger

citizen base. Attributes and passions of all citizens must be utilized to better connect

communities. Community leaders must develop a citizenship education plan and educate

172

citizens on the value of citizenship. Both Westheimer and Kahne (2004) and Musil (2003)

described the need to incorporate citizenship service learning in the classroom. By doing so, the

next generation is prepared to experience the benefits of an efficacious community.

The survey results revealed that generation is impacted by eight citizenship items from

the Visions of Good Citizens Model, as follows: personal beliefs, steady jobs, competence for

civic action, get other people to care about a problem, organize and run a meeting, participatory

citizenship, solve a problem, and work to change unjust laws. Particularly, the findings indicated

the Baby Boomer generation to demonstrate the most competence for civic action, participatory

citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship abilities in their communities. Generational apathy

was indicative in this study, as well. Millennials did not show a statistically significant mean

difference to Baby Boomers or Generation X on any of the citizenship models. Apathy cannot

persist with young generations; it is now time for young adults to develop the necessary

citizenship attributes to serve their communities. But they should not be alone in this endeavor;

citizens (particularly Baby Boomers), school districts, and community leaders should all take

responsibility in building civic identify for the future. According to the work of Berg, Melaville,

and Blank (2006) and Musil (2003), young adults are just not fulfilling their civic duty, thus

creating a lack of civic participation.

Town vitality was found to have an impact on citizenship. The ANOVA results suggest

that town vitality is impacted by three citizenship items: personally responsible citizenship,

important to follow rules and laws, and makes me angry when I think about the conditions some

people live in. The impact of the ANOVA findings helps to make sense of how community

leaders can better understand their citizen base. This study was limited to three towns with a B

vitality score, but, all three provided consistent data. Particularly, Town B communities

173

indicated a statistically significant mean difference to Town A with the personally responsible

citizenship subset. Additionally, Town B had a statistically significant mean difference with the

item follow rules and laws compared to Town A. As the impact of these two items becomes

understood, the necessity for teaching citizenship skills within each town vitality becomes more

apparent.

This research explored the impact of generation and town vitality and demonstrated their

importance regarding effects on citizenship. This study has deepened the understanding of and

has added to scholarship on citizenship. The findings in this study were based both on empirical

and interpretive data, which provided a deeper understanding of generations, town vitality, and

citizenship.

Summary

Results of the study included the quantitative data substantiating generation to have an

impact on citizenship. For example, Baby Boomers demonstrated competence for civic action,

participatory citizenship, and justice-oriented citizenship. Millennials reflected stronger personal

beliefs for the future in contrast to the other two generations. This research also established an

impact between town vitality and citizenship; for example, citizens of Town B communities

scored statistically significant mean differences compared with both Town A and Town C

vitalities on the subset of personally responsible citizenship. The qualitative data also provided

insight into which citizenship attributes were utilized by citizens.

Implications of this study suggest the following actions occur: first, community leaders

must establish community-based programs or maintain existing programs to build a better,

stronger civic-minded citizen base. Programs would allow Baby Boomers to teach Millennials

the value and importance of participatory and justice-oriented citizenship; Millennials should be

174

encouraged to be an active component of the community. Second, community groups must work

with other communities of varying vitalities. Town B communities should work with other town

vitalities to share best practices in responsible citizenship. Third, school districts should add a

civic education component to the curriculum. Such curricula have the potential to alter the

apathetic civic mindedness of a young generation by facilitating participatory and justice-

oriented citizenship at an early age. This implication is grounded in the fact that this study found

Millennials to rank lower than Baby Boomers on the participatory citizenship subset, and last on

the justice oriented citizenship item, work with others to change unjust laws. Fourth and finally,

an implication for citizens suggests the need for future generations to develop their civic capacity

to include participatory and justice-oriented citizenship skills – not for the future, but for the

present, so that we do not suffer another civically-apathetic generation.

175

References

Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation.

Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251-263.

Barnes, R., & Lowery, L. (2016). 7 Startling facts: An up close look at church attendance in

America. Retrieved from ChurchLeaders: http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-

articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-

america.html/5.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative index in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2),

238-246.

Berg, A. C., Melaville, A., & Blank, M. J. (2006). Community & family engagement: Principals

share what works. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools

Berman, S. (1990). Educating for social responsibility. Educational Leadership, 48(3), 75-80.

Bollen, K. (1983). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley

Bonewell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitment in the classroom.

Washington, DC: George Washingon University, Graduate School of Education and

Human Development.

Boyte, H. C., & Kari, N. N. (1996). Building America: The democratic promise of public work.

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Brittain, C. (2015, April 29). Decline in fire volunteers in Pennsylvania hits 'crisis stage'. Tribune

Review. Retrieved from http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/8262877-74/volunteers-s

Brokaw, T. (1998). The greatest generation. New York, NY: Dell.

Brown, B. L. (1997). New learning strategies for Generation X (Report No. 184). Retrieved from

ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education website:

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED411414

176

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen,

& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage

Cherry, K. (2017, May 10). Understanding initiative versus guilt. Retrieved from

http://psychology.about.com/od/psychosocialtheories/a/initiative-versus-guilt.htm

Clayton State University, Department of Campus Life. (2014). Volunteerism & community based

initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.clayton.edu/campus-life/Service-Learning

Coalition for Civic Engagement and Leadership. (2004-2005 Annual Report). Coalition for civic

engagement and leadership.

Cogan, J. (1997). Multidimensional citizenship: Educational policy for the twenty-first century.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Cohen, & Kisker. (2010). The shaping of American higher education. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Datta, L. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed-method designs. New Directions in Evaluation,

(74), 33-45.

Denham, T., & Gadbow, N. (2002, December). Literature review: Factors affecting the

development of Generation X and Millennials. Societal factors affecting education.

Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED478488

177

Department of Environment and Primary Industries, State of Victoria. (2014). What is

community engagement? Retrieved from http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/effective-

engagement/introduction-to-engagement/what-is-community-engagement

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Digital Trends. (2016, May 12). The history of social networking. Retrieved from

http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-history-of-social-networking/#!bgaD26

Ehrlich, T. (Ed.). (2000). Civic responsibility in higher education. Phoenix, AZ:

Onyx Press.

Erikson, E. (1950,1963). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.

Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. Future of

Children, 20(1), 159-179.

Flannagan, C., Syvertsen, A., & Stout, M.D. (2007). Civic measurement models: Tapping

adolescents' civic engagement. Retrieved from The Center for Information and Research

on Civic Learning and Engagement website:

http://www.politicipublice.ro/uploads/adolescents.pdf

Fry, R. (2016, April 25). Fact Tank news in the numbers. Retrieved from Pew Research

website: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-

boomers/

Gaeke, M. A. (2009). Exploring student motivations toward civic engagement: A application of

expectancy-value theory. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (Order No.

3355336)

Gaylor, D. (2002, April). Generational differences. Retrieved from

http://www.agts.edu/faculty/faculty_publications/articles/creps_generations_chart .pdf

178

Gibson, C. M. (2004). Thinking outside the (ballot) box: A broader political engagement strategy

for America's civic organizations. National Civic Review, 93(2), 20-30.

Grigsby, W. J. (2001, October). Community vitality: Some conceptual considerations. Retrieved

from The Pennsylvania State University, The Northeast Regional Center for Rural

Development website: http://www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu

Hampson, R. (2008, November 7). Number of volunteer firefighters is declining. USA Today.

Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-06-volunteer-

firefighters_x.htm

Hartnett, B., & Matan, R. (2014). So volunteerism is declining: Now what? Retrieved from

http://sobel-cpa.com/sites/default/files/Volunteerism%20is%20Declining.pdf

Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership development

guidebook(3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of

California.

Hoffer, C.R. (1931). Understanding the community. The American Journal of Sociology, 36,

616-624.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY:

Vintage Books.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Random House.

Jansen, J. (2011). The civic and community engagement of religiously active Americans.

Washington DC : Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/12/23/the-civic-and-community-engagement-of-

religiously-active-americans/

179

Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the

nation: A generational portrait. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498892.pdf

Khane, J., & Westheimer, J. (2003). Teaching democracy: What schools need to do. Phi Kelta

Kappan, 85(1), 34-40, 57-67.

Mabey, C. (1992). The making of the citizen leader. In Kettering Foundation, Public leadership

education: The role of citizen leaders, 10-16. New York, NY: Kettering Foundation.

McCullough, D. (2001). John Adams. New York, NY: Touchstone.

McKnight, J., & Block, P. (2012). The abundant community: Awakening the power of families

and neighborhoods. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Merriam, S. B. A. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis

(1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, J. (1998, August 2). Who will respond to the fire alarms? New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/02/nyregion/who-will-respond-to-the-fire-

alarms.html

Morrison, E. A. (2001). Exploring the relationship of undergraduates' self-preceived citizensip

and service participation (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Maryland, College

Park, MD.

Musil, C. M. (2003). Educating for citizenship. Peer Review, 5(3), 4-8.

Nandan, M., & Scott, P. (2011). Service learning and community-based partnerships: A model

for teaching macro practice social work. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 25-37.

180

National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible

moment: College learning and democracy's future. Washington DC: Association of

American Colleges and Universities.

Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1978). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill.

Poindexter, P. M. (2012). Millennials, news, and social media. New York, NY: Peter Lang

Publishing.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, R. D. (2003). Better together: Restoring the American community. New York, NY:

Simon & Schuster.

Rainer, T. S. (2014). Autopsy of a deceased church. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing.

Rainer, T. S., & Rainer, J. (2011). The Millennials. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing.

Reeves, T., & Oh, E. (2007). Generational differences. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van

Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational

communications and technology (3rd ed.), 295-230. New York, NY: Springer.

Rotz, D. (2016). Why have divorce rates fallen? The role of women's age at marriage. Journal of

Human Resources, 51(4), 961-1002.

Shumow, L. (2014). Latchkey children. Retrieved from

http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2158/Latchkey-Children.html

Skocpol, T., & Fiorina, M. P. (1999). Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington

D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Skurman, L. (2015, October 14). Find your niche. Retrieved from https://niche.com/

181

Smist, J.A. (2006). Developing citizenship through community service: Examining the

relationship between community service involvement and self-perceived citizenship

among undergraduates. (Master’s thesis). Digital Repository at the University of

Maryland. (UMI-UMD 3515).

Smith, N., Lister, R., Middleton, S., & Cox, L. (2005). Young people as real citizens: Towards

an inclusionary understanding of citizenship. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(4), 425-443.

Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Driscoll, M. (Eds.). (2007).

Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Srodes, J. (2002). Franklin: The essential founding father. Washington DC. : Regnery

Publishing.

Stubbings, C., & Williams, J. (2017). Workforce of the future: The competing forces shaping

20130.

Sujansky, J. (2002). The critical care and feeding of Generation Y. Workforce, 81(5), 15.

Taylor, P. (2014). The next Amercia. New York, NY: Perseus.

Turner, Y. S. (2014). How can corporate community engagement inspire active citizenship?

National Conference on Citizenship. Washington, DC. Retrieved from National

Conference on Citizenship website: http://ncoc.net/index.php?

Vitality. (2015). In Oxford Dictionaries.com Retrieved from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vitality

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for

democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237-269.

Wilson, L. B., & Simson, S. P. (2006). Civic engagement and the baby boomer generation.

Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.

182

Winsten, J., Stanton, F., Moses, S., Grodner, T., Roberts, M., & Gerteis, M. (2004). Reinventing

aging. Boston, MA.

Wood, G. S. (2011). The idea of America: Reflections on the birth of the United States. New

York, NY: Penguin.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Zapf, K. (2009, November 18). Lawmakers push incentives to get, keep firefighters. Tribune

Review. Retrieved from

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_580182.html

Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new engagement: Political

participation, civic life, and the changing american citizen. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

183

Appendix A

Survey Consent Form

Dear Citizen,

You are invited to participate in a research study that examines generational differences in engagement of citizens in

their communities. This survey consists of 33 total questions and should take no more than 10 to 15 minutes of your

time. This is part of my doctoral research as a student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. There are no potential

risks or burdens associated with this study.

The responses to the questionnaire will be anonymous and no personal identifying information about individual

citizens will be noted within the study. Participation in this research is voluntary and you are free to refuse to

participate and free to withdraw from the research at any time. The results of the survey will appear in the data

analysis tool without any identifying factors of the respondents.

The potential benefits from your participation in this study include identifying specific citizenship attributes that are

important among the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and the Millennial generations. This study may help school

districts and communities to better understand the importance of increased civic knowledge and engagement in our

valued communities

By completing the survey you are giving consent to participate in the research. You understand that the data

collected from your participation will be used primarily for a D.Ed. dissertation, and you consent for it to be used in

that manner. Please understand that that your participation is completely voluntary and your responses are

completely anonymous and that you have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. I will give you an

unsigned copy of the informed consent form to keep.

If you have any questions, please contact the investigator and/or faculty sponsor at the following email addresses:

Justin A. Tatar

Doctoral Student

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Department of Professional Studies in Education

[email protected]

Stouffer Hall

Indiana, PA 15705

David Piper, Ed.D.

Professor

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Department of Industrial and Labor Relations

[email protected]

434 Davis Hall

Indiana, PA 1570

I am also interested in conducting a separate interview with some participants. This interview is OPTIONAL for

those who participate in the survey. Those interested in participating in the optional interview will be provided a

separate informed consent prior to beginning the interview. Please sign up to be considered for the optional

interview in this manner:

1. For those taking the survey in paper-pencil format, provide your name and contact information on the separate sheet.

2. For those taking the survey online, you will be prompted at the end of the survey to enter your name and

phone number into a list that is NOT connected to your survey responses.” This project has been approved by the Indiana University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human

Subjects (phone number 724-357-7730).

mailto:[email protected]

184

Appendix B

Interview Consent Form

185

Appendix C

Survey

Choose your Generation

___Baby Boomer (1946 – 1964)

___Generation X (1965 - 1979)

___Millennial (1980 – 2000)

Please list your birth month, birth day and first letter of your first name. Example (0728J) This information is used as a

participant identifier. __________________

CIRCLE YOUR HOME TOWN:

Beaver County Washington County Westmoreland County

Borough of Ambridge 15003 Town of Canonsburg 15317 City of Greensburg 15601

Chippewa Twp 15010 McMurray 15317 N. Huntingdon Twp 15642

Hanover Twp 15026 City of Washington 15301 City of Jeannette 15644

186

SECTION ONE

PERSONAL BELIEFS

SECTION TWO

COMPETENCE FOR CIVIC ACTION

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree

1) When I think about the future, I worry that there will not be enough jobs to go around.

2) I think it will be hard to make enough money to support a family in the future.

3) Economic changes in our country are making the life of the average person worse, not better

4) A few individuals are becoming richer but many people are becoming poorer.

5) I worry that many people in my generation will not have steady jobs.

If you found out about a problem in your community that you wanted to do something about (for

example, illegal drugs were being sold near a school, or high levels of lead were discovered in the

local drinking water), how well do you think you would be able to do each of the following?

Definitely

Can’t

Probably

Can’t

Maybe I

Probably

Can

Definitely

Can

6) Create a plan to address the problem.

7) Get other people to care about the problem.

8) Organize and run a meeting.

9) Express your views in front of a group of people.

10) Identify individuals or groups who could help you with the problem.

11) Write an opinion letter to a local newspaper.

12) Call someone on the phone that you had never met before to get their

help with the problem.

13) Contact an elected official about the problem.

14) Organize a petition.

187

SECTION THREE

PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP (PR)

SECTION FOUR

PARTICIPATORY CITIZENSHIP (PC)

How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements?

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree

15) I think people should assist those in their lives who are in need of help.

16) I think it is important for people to follow rules and laws.

17) I try to help when I see people in need.

18) I am willing to help others without being paid.

19) I try to be kind to other people.

20) I think it is important to tell the truth.

How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements? Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree

21) Involvement in community issues is my responsibility.

22) Being concerned about state and local issues is an important responsibility for everybody.

23) I do make a difference in my community.

24) By working with others in the community I have helped make things better.

How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements?

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree

25) Get involved in issues like health or safety that affect your community.

26) Work with a group to solve a problem in the community where you live.

188

SECTION FIVE

JUSTICE-ORIENTED CITIZENSHIP (JO)

Anger about Social Justice

End of Survey

Please indicate how often you participate with the following.

Never Rarely Often Always

27) I have/do worked with others to change unjust laws.

28) I have/do protest when something in society needed changing.

29) I have/do purchase products from businesses that are careful not to harm the environment.

30) I have/do challenge inequalities in society.

How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements? Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree

31) It makes me angry when I think about the conditions some people have to live in.

32) When I think about the hard times some people are going through, I wonder what’s wrong with

this country.

33) I get mad when I hear about people being treated unjustly

189

Appendix D

Interview Protocol

Research Question 3: What citizenship attributes are important to Baby Boomers, Generation X,

and Millennials? Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement

(Flanagan & Levine, 2007)

Responsible Citizen

1. What agencies do you contact when you have concerns about your community, and why do

you select those agencies?

2. If you have an idea for a community project, who are the key individuals to whom you reach

out?

3. What resources are you aware of that are available to help with a community project, i.e.,

financial backing, agencies, individuals, etc.

4. Tell me about organizations in your community where citizens get to make decisions about

how the community operates?

Participatory Citizen

1. Finish this sentence: I believe people like me can make a difference in the community and in

my perspective, this is how: __________.

2. During the last 12 months, on average, how often have you used the internet to share your

perspective on a social or political issue with a large group of people?

3. Tell me how you worked with a team to solve a problem in the community where you live.

4. How often do you volunteer to help other people?

Justice Orientated

1. If you love America, you should notice its problems and work to correct them. Do you agree

with this statement? Why or why not.

2. In the past 12 months, how often did you collaborate with a group to try to change a policy or

law in your community, state or nation? Describe the examples.

3. In the past 12 months, how often have you worked on a political campaign? Describe the

examples.

4. In the previous 12 months, how often have you taken part in a peaceful protest, march, or

demonstration? Describe the examples.

190

Appendix E

What is NICHE?

NICHE is a research site that blends community reviews with hard data to help people

explore what a place is really like. Every year, we help millions of Americans choose a Place to

Live, College, or K-12 School.

While rankings play an important role in these major life decisions, they’re just a small

part. Our rankings help people discover and compare. They’re a springboard to more in-depth

research on NICHE’s core product - authentic, comprehensive profiles of schools and places.

NICHE Local Rankings

The goal of our Local Rankings is to provide accurate, comparable, and thorough

evaluations of places. To do so, we’ve collected and analyzed dozens of rankings factors from

federal, state, and local government datasets. We’ve combined those with proprietary NICHE

data and community reviews about K-12 schools in each area.

All NICHE reviews and data are scored and standardized so that each place is comparable. We

then assign each place to a cohort based on population and urban clustering.

Local Area

Cohorts Classification

Suburbs* A place located within a Census-defined urbanized area, but outside the

principal city with a population of at least 1,000.

Towns* A place located within a Census-defined urbanized cluster OR a principal

city for an urbanized area with a population greater than or equal to 5,000

and less than 100,000.

Cities* A principal city for an urbanized area with a population of 100,000 or more.

Counties A county with a population of 10,000 or more.

Metros The largest Census-defined metro areas, with at least one metro area per

state.

States All 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Note: Due to how the census classifies places, there may be areas that are represented by more

than one place. For example, the area of Manhattan is represented as both Manhattan and part

of New York City.

Each place is then ranked against all other places in its cohort both overall and by key

attributes.

Why do we grade and rank places?

While our rankings show the Top 100 places for each ranking, we use grades to provide

the user with some context to those rankings and also to provide insight into those that did not

make the Top 100. In each ranking, it’s important to focus on more than just the number. Given

the high number of places included in our rankings, there may not be a large gap between the

15th and 30th ranked place in a given ranking. In reality, both are exceptional when compared to

https://local.niche.com/

https://colleges.niche.com/

https://k12.niche.com/

191

the total population of all places. Grades can often provide greater context because they are

assigned based on how each place compares to all others included in the ranking. Grades are

determined using the process defined below.

How do we compute our rankings?

To compute our rankings and grades, we go through a series of steps. These steps are in place to

ensure that our rankings are statistically sound and offer the most amount of guidance to those

looking to make a school choice. In general, the process used to compute each ranking was as

follows:

1. First, we carefully selected each ranking’s factors to represent a healthy balance between statistical rigor and practical relevance in the ranking.

2. Next, we evaluated the data for each factor to ensure that it provided value for the ranking. (The factor needed to help distinguish places from each other and accurately

represent each one.) Factors built from factual information were inspected for bad data

including outliers or inaccurate values. Where applicable, this data was either adjusted or

completely excluded depending on the specific data.

3. After each factor was processed, we produced a standardized score (called a z-score) for each factor at each place level. This score evaluates distance from the average using

standard deviations and allows each place’s score to be compared against others in a

statistically sound manner.

4. With clean and comparable data, we then assigned weights for each factor. The goal of the weighting process was to ensure that no one factor could have a dramatic positive or

negative impact on a particular area's final score and that each final score was a fair

representation of the place. Weights were carefully determined by analyzing:

• How different weights impacted the distribution of ranked places;

• Industry and market research;

• Each factor’s contribution to our intended goal of the ranking, as described

in the introduction above.

5. After assigning weights, an overall score was calculated for each place by applying the assigned weights to the individual factor scores. This overall score was then assigned a

new standardized score (again a z-score, as described in step 3). This is the final score for

each ranking.

6. With finalized scores, we then evaluated the completeness of the data for each individual place. Depending on how much data the area had, we might disqualify it from the

numerical ranking or from the grading process. Here is how we distinguished these

groups using the weights described in step 4:

• Places missing the data for more than 50 percent of the factors (by weight) were

completely excluded. They did not qualify for the numerical ranking or a grade.

• Places that had at least 50 percent of the factors (by weight) but lacked one or

more of the factors or did not meet minimum population thresholds* were not

included in the numerical ranking but were assigned a grade according to the

process outlined in step 7 below.

• Places that had all of the factors (by weight) were deemed eligible for both a

grade and a numerical ranking.

7. Lastly, we created a numerical ranking and assigned grades (based on qualifications discussed in step 6). Here is how we produced these values:

192

• The numerical ranking was created by ordering each place (when qualified) based

on the final z-score discussed in step 5.

• Grades were determined for each place (when qualified) by taking the ordered z-

scores (which generally follow a normal distribution) and then assigning grades

according to the process below.

Grading Process

Grades are assigned based on how each place performs compared to all other places included in

the ranking by using the following distribution of grades and z-scores. While most rankings

generally follow this normal distribution, there are slight variances across each ranking, so the

actual counts and distribution may vary.

Grade Final Z-Score Frequency

Cumulative Frequency

(Score at least)

A+ 1.96 ≤ z 2.5% 2.5%

A 1.28 ≤ z < 1.96 7.5% 10%

A- 0.84 ≤ z < 1.28 10% 20%

B+ 0.44 ≤ z < 0.84 13% 33%

B 0.00 ≤ z < 0.44 17% 50%

B- -0.44 ≤ z < 0 17% 67%

C+ -0.84 ≤ z < -0.44 13% 80%

C -1.28 ≤ z < -0.84 10% 90%

C- -1.96 ≤ z < -1.28 7.5% 97.5%

D+ -2.25 ≤ z < -1.96 1.3% 98.8%

D -2.50 ≤ z < -2.25 0.6% 99.4%

D- -2.50 > z 0.6% 100%

Note that we intentionally did not assign a grade below D- in any rankings.