State Youth Policy of the Russian Federation as Perceived by the “Born Digital” Generation (A Case of the Siberian Federal District)
To predict the forms and level of political activity of young people in modern Russia, the authors analyze their assessments of the current interaction of the state with young people and their ideas about ways and methods of optimizing the state youth policy. The Strauss-Howe generational theory and the two-step flow of communication model by P. Lazarsfeld, B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet are the basic methodology of the research. The empirical basis of the article is comprised of data from mass surveys conducted in the fall of 2020. The information was collected using the questionnaire method (the sample included 2,500 pupils of grades 8-11 in schools and first- and second-year university students in seven regions of the Siberian Federal District and four regions of the Far East). Cross-territorial comparison facilitated the estimation of the degree to which assessments and ideas of young people about the state youth policy have become universal. To implement the tasks set, the authors estimated current assessments of the state youth policy of the Russian Federation by the young people of the Siberian Federal District, as well as their awareness of the implemented youth programs and projects, and their ideas about the desired forms and types of state support for young people. Groups of subjects that influence the respondents in their assessment of this policy domain have also been identified. The conducted analysis has revealed a low level of young people's awareness of the state youth policy and its assessment as ineffective. The inability of the respondents to distinguish between state-supported and non-state programs and projects has turned out to be a characteristic feature. The demand of young people for state support of education and healthcare, assistance in employment and accommodation has been traced in all the studied subjects of the federal district. It is especially high among young people who have assessed the state youth policy as ineffective and who do not have sufficient information about it. Pupils and students have stated the creation of career growth environment, the financing of organizations working with young people, and the development of youth self-government as desirable forms of state support. At the same time, information support of young people has proved to be less relevant. The study has shown that, despite the specifics of the communication links of the younger generation, parents are still opinion leaders for them. Teachers, the media, and other traditional channels of government influence on young people are losing their relevance. The authors have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to move from the legal and regulatory state youth policy to a diversified one, which will consider the specific features of the communication channels of the “Born Digital” generation and their preferred formats of interaction with the state.
Keywords
youth,
state youth policy,
“Born Digital” generation,
opinion leaders,
Siberian Federal DistrictAuthors
Shashkova Yaroslava Yu. | Altai State University | yashashkova@mail.ru |
Aseeva Tatyana A. | Altai State University | tatulyasolar@mail.ru |
Kireeva Oxana S. | Altai State University | flash45@yandex.ru |
Всего: 3
References
О молодежной политике в Российской Федерации : федеральный закон № 489-ФЗ от 23.12.2020. URL: http://ips.pravo.gov.ru:8080/default.aspx?pn=0001202012300003 (дата обращения: 20.01.2021).
Strauss W., Howe N. Generations: The History of Americas Future, 1584 to 2069. New York, 1991. 538 p.
Lazarsfeld P.F., Berelson B., Gaudet H. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York : Columbia University Press, 1968. 178 p.
Попов Н.П. Российские и американские поколения XX века: откуда пришли миллениа-лы? // Мониторинг общественного мнения: Экономические и социальные перемены. 2018. № 4. С. 309-323.
Пошехонова В.А. Образовательная гуманитарная технология цифрового поколения // Педагогическое образование в России. 2018. № 5. С.13-20.
Захарова В.А. Студенты поколения Z: реальность и будущее // Научные труды Московского гуманитарного университета. 2019. № 4. С. 47-55.
Радаев В. Миллениалы: как меняется российское общество. М. : Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2020. 224 с.
Ядова М.А. Поколение миллениалов в российском обществе: в поисках другой молодежи // Полис. Политические исследования. 2020. Т. 29, №6. С. 181-188. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/ 2020.06.14
Якимова З.В., Масилова М.Г. Поколение Z как потенциальный сегмент рынка труда // Азимут научных исследований: педагогика и психология. 2017. № 4 (21). С. 341-345.
Асташова Ю.В. Теория поколений в маркетинге // Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер. Экономика и менеджмент. 2014. Т. 8, № 1. С. 108-114.
Трубникова Н.В., Порудчикова А.В. О равнозначности познавательных систем: парадигма коммуникативного континуума // Коммуникология. 2018. Т. 6, № 3. С. 93-103. DOI: 10.21453/2311-3065-2018-6-3-93-103
Палфри Дж., Гассер У. Дети цифровой эры / пер. с англ. Н.Г. Яцюк. М. : Эксмо, 2011. 364 с.
Prensky M.H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom // Innovate: Journal of Online Education. 2009. № 5 (3). URL: https://www.leam-techlib.org/p/104264/(accessed: 20.01.2021).
Nandigiri R. Standpoint: The politics of being “young”: is a “youth” category really necessary for “development”? // Feminist Africa. 2012. № 17. P. 114-117.
Fernandes-Alcantara A.L. Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies. Congressional Research Service. 2014. URL: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=721808 (accessed: 15.01.2021).
Potocnik D., Williamson H. Youth policy in Serbia. URL: https://rm.coe.int/0900001680903561 (accessed: 20.01.2021)
Dibou T. Towards a better understanding of the model of EU youth policy // Studies of Changing Societies: Youth Under Global Perspective. 2012. № 1 (5). P. 15-36.
Morciano D., Scardigno F., Manuti A., Pastore S. A theory-based evaluation to improve youth participation in progress: A case study of a youth policy in Italy // Child & Youth Services. 2016. Vol. 37, № 4. P. 304-224.
Ashworth H. Students acquisition of a threshold concept in childhood and youth studies // Innovations in Education & Teaching International. 2016. Vol. 53, № 1. P. 94-103.
Kapoor K., Weerakkody V., Schroeder A. Social innovations for social cohesion in Western Europe: success dimensions for lifelong learning and education // Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences. 2018. Vol. 31, № 2. P. 189-203.
Андрюшина Е.В., Панова Е.А. Современная российская государственная молодежная политика: эволюция, основные направления, практики // Власть. 2017. № 7. С. 60-65.
Гнездилова П.А. Государственная молодежная политика // Sciences of Europe. 2016. Т. 4, № 5 (5). С. 34-35.
Харисова З.Г. Молодежная политика в современной России // Вестник науки и образования. 2018. Т. 1,. № 5 (41). С. 39-41.
Сапарова Д.М. Молодежный совет Томска в молодежной политике города // Вестник Томского государственного университета. История. 2013. № 5 (25). С. 94-96.
Малик Е.Н., Соколов В.В. Приоритеты реализации государственной молодежной политики в Орловской области // Управленческое консультирование. 2018. № 1. С. 51-55.
Сулейманов Т.Д. Приоритетные направления реализации государственной молодежной политики Республики Татарстан // Вестник экономики, права и социологии. 2018. № 4. С. 277-279.
Ланец Т.Н., Якина О.В. К вопросу об оценке эффективности региональной молодежной политике (на примере Хабаровского края) // Вопросы управления. 2017. № 5 (48). С. 31-37.
Попова О.В., Негров Е.О. Молодежная политика глазами самой молодежи: проблема в PR? // Среднерусский вестник общественных наук. 2019. Т. 14, № 6. С. 37-58.
Шиголакова Т.Б. Эффективность государственной молодежной политики в Республике Хакасия // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Сер. Социология. 2016. Т. 16, № 1. С. 163-174.
Асеева Т.А., Шашкова Я.Ю. Оценка эффективности государственной молодежной политики и ее информационного компонента школьниками регионов Юго-Западной Сибири // Социотайм. 2020. № 1 (21). С. 66-77. DOI: 10.25686/2410-0773.2020.1.66