Demand for parenting education
PARENTS IN LOW-INCOME areas are most in favour of parenting classes, says a new study, although the stigma around using these classes combined with confidence issues can make attendance difficult. “To maximise attendance, the stigma around participating in parenting classes needs to be removed”, suggests researcher Professor Sarah Holloway. “And this can only be achieved by providing classes on a ‘universal’ rather than targeted basis.” Findings from a survey of parental attitudes to parenting classes reveal that 82 per cent of parents in low-income schools think schools should provide classes, compared to 44 per cent in higher- income schools. Moreover, 55 per cent of parents in low-income schools want to attend classes compared to 35 per cent in higher-income schools. “Parents of children in higher-income schools are more likely to rely on networks of other mothers than want to attend formal parenting education”, says Professor Holloway. “Parents in middle- income areas prefer to rely on family networks, but welcome parenting advice when it is needed.”
Overall, the researchers suggest that there is an unmet demand for sensitive parenting education aimed at parents of primary school-aged children. Parents trust schools, which are physically accessible and socially familiar to them, more than other potential providers. n
i
Contact Professor Sarah Holloway, Loughborough University Email
s.l.holloway@lboro.ac.uk Telephone 01509 222794 ESRC Grant Number RES-000-22-4095
Reality of digital media political campaigning
DIGITAL MEDIA IS not currently living up to the hope that it would enable political parties to make their modern-day electioneering more participatory and grass-roots. Researchers from the University of Manchester explored the web content of political parties as well as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook and undertook interviews and surveys with voters and party web campaigners in a new study of how the internet is affecting electoral participation and campaigning. Findings suggest that early optimism concerning the use of digital media needs to be tempered by realism. “A key question for us was whether the use of digital media is democratising campaigns by generating a more citizen-driven model that challenges the ‘top-down’ professionalised approach that dominated elections in the late 20th century”, explains researcher Professor Rachel Gibson. “Political parties in most older democracies are widely seen as having become more detached from the electorate, fewer people identify with them and are willing to take out membership. We wondered whether digital media and new technologies could help halt this trend by making campaigning more democratic and decentralised and help political parties to join forces with their
8 SOCIETY NOW AUTUMN 2013
supporters and involve them more directly in running the campaign.” The research was based on the US 2012 experience and suggests that the direction of travel in digital campaigning is not necessarily one that makes participation a priority. Despite the highly interactive campaign of US presidential candidate Howard Dean in 2004 and migration of his internet advisors to the Obama machine in 2008, social media platforms in the most recent election served largely as treasure troves of data on individuals and their personal networks. Tools such as Facebook and Twitter now allow for an even more granular picture of the electorate to be built up and thus more effective targeting during elections. In the UK, while the larger parties may view the internet as a new channel for their strategic Getting Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts, it is smaller parties such as the Greens that can benefit from putting it to organisational use by mobilising their activist base to recruit new supporters and encouraging more internal participation in party affairs. n
i Contact Professor Rachel Gibson,
University of Manchester Email
rachel.gibson@
manchester.ac.uk Telephone 0161 306 6933 ESRC Grant Number RES-051-27-0299
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32