外文翻譯--城市社區(qū)中社區(qū)活動(dòng)者對(duì)于公民角色的感知影響社區(qū)參與的態(tài)度的個(gè)案研究

1、<p>　　1900單詞，3168漢字</p><p>　　出處：journal of urban affairs, volume 29, number 4, pages 401–424.</p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b&g

2、t;</p><p>　　COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP ROLES IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY: A CASE STUDY OF ATTITUDES THAT AFFECT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT</p><p>　　R. ALLEN HAYS</p><p>　　C

3、IVIC ENGAGEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION</p><p>　　The recent increase in research on social capital and civic engagement has benefited urban scholarship by refocusing attention on a problem with which urb

4、anists have long been concerned; namely, how citizens can be engaged and mobilized to exert effective influence on community decisions. With the exception of a few who have argued that too much participation may have a n

5、egative impact on urban policy making (Yates, 1980), most urban scholars believe that increasing citizen involvement is desira</p><p>　　The civic engagement literature has also broadened our concern from str

6、ictly political participation (defined here as participation intended to directly influence public policy or electoral outcomes) to include other forms of civic engagement (defined as participation in voluntary, communit

7、y-based organizations and associations.) These scholars have identified “civil society” as a realm of informal ties and relationships distinct from both the market and the state. In their view, the absence of </p>

8、<p>　　Civic engagement has been linked to political engagement in at least four ways: (1) Civic engagement draws the citizen out of strictly personal concerns and into a greater awareness of shared, community needs

9、; (2) civic engagement develops skills in organizing and mobilizing people that are transferable to the political realm; (3) civic engagement develops individual feelings of confidence and efficacy that make political ac

10、tivism more likely. (4) civic engagement develops networks of relationsh</p><p>　　RESEARCH DESIGN</p><p>　　Propositions</p><p>　　The present research consists of an exploratory case

11、 study, utilizing embedded data consisting of the activities and attitudes of a group of community activists in Waterloo/Cedar Falls, Iowa, a metropolitan area of 125,000 (Yin, 1994). Based on the literature review just

12、provided, five propositions have been developed for preliminary exploration utilizing what Yin (1994) refers to as the “pattern-matching” research design. The purpose of this research is to gain a qualitative understandi

13、ng of th</p><p>　　Proposition 1: Abehavioral boundary exists between civic and political involvement. The patterns of involvement of community activists will reflect a clear boundary between civic activities

14、 and political activities to the extent that a different group of community activists is involved in each realm. If persons identified as active in the private, voluntary realm are also active in the local political real

15、m (and vice versa) this will indicate a boundary that is less rigid.</p><p>　　Proposition 2: An attitudinal boundary exists between civic and political engagement. A clear boundary between civic and politica

16、l activities will be reflected in the extent to which activists experience different rewards and frustrations from participating in each realm. Also, a clear boundary will be reflected in the extent to which participants

17、 in each realm view participation in the other realm in a negative light.</p><p>　　Proposition 3: A motivational boundary exists between civic and political participation. A clear: boundary between the civic

18、 and political realm will be reflected in somewhat different motivations for activity in each realm.</p><p>　　Proposition 4: The skills and attitudes acquired through civic participation will be somewhat dif

19、ferent than those acquired through political participation.</p><p>　　Proposition 5: An attitudinal boundary exists between active political and civic participants and those who do not participate in communit

20、y affairs.</p><p><b>　　Methods</b></p><p>　　In-depth, in-person interviews utilizing open-ended questions were conducted with 40 individuals who are active in various aspects of comm

21、unity life in the metro area. The interviewers made an effort to elicit the most detailed and complete answers possible from each subject. Interviews ranged in length from 45 to 90 minutes, depending on the extent to whi

22、ch the subjects chose to elaborate. While the interviews were structured to explore the propositions listed above, the questions allowed the s</p><p><b>　　Sample</b></p><p>　　In this

23、 study, a community activist is defined as a person who has displayed active involvement or leadership in at least one private, voluntary organization or in at least one political organization during the last five years.

24、 Most respondents have been active in numerous organizations. Because of the small size of the metro area, a reasonable assessment of community activists with a sample of this size is possible. The sample contains indivi

25、duals whose activities span a full range of community</p><p><b>　　RESULTS</b></p><p>　　Community Service</p><p>　　Respondents were asked to list up to four voluntary com

26、munity service activities in which they had engaged in the past 3 years. Many of these individuals are also employed in community service agencies, but the focus of this question was on volunteer involvement. The initial

27、 question about involvement was open-ended, allowing respondents to define what they considered to be “community service.” Therefore, they could spontaneously mention any of the types of community activities specified, i

28、nclud</p><p>　　Reported activities were classified into three categories: political, civic, and social. A total of 24 (60.0%) of the respondents included no political activities among the four voluntary serv

29、ice activities they were asked to list. Of these, 18 (45.0% of the total) listed only civic activities, while the rest (15.0%) listed various combinations of civic and social activities.</p><p>　　This breakd

30、own suggests that most respondents, whether known as political leaders or not, chose to report all or most of their activities in the civic realm when asked about voluntary service, with relatively few political activiti

31、es mentioned, and even fewer in the social realm. They clearly identify the civic realm with voluntary service. However, these data do not reveal a distinct group of solely political activists who do not engage in civic

32、volunteerism. Those who put a lot of energy into </p><p>　　Collectively, these 40 individuals listed 149 voluntary activities in their responses to the first open-ended question about their involvement. Alth

33、ough a few listed less than four, most could have easily listed more. Of the activities listed as community involvement, 19 (12.8%) could be classified as “political or governing,” making this the largest single category

34、 of responses.</p><p>　　Nevertheless, the vast majority of activities listed by respondents fall into the category of civic involvement, rather than political involvement. Volunteer activities directed at ge

35、neral community improvement, rather than at a specific group such as the poor, are the most frequently cited. Organizations devoted to the arts and culture were the next most frequently cited.</p><p>　　In ad

36、dition to these general community service organizations, involvement in groups serving the poor is frequently mentioned, constituting 10.1% of all activities. Various human rights and social justice organizations also re

37、ceive several mentions, such as, for example, Amnesty International and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).</p><p>　　Political Engagement</p><p>　　After descr

38、ibing their volunteer involvement, respondents were asked directly about their political involvement. Most reported discussing both national and local issues frequently with family and friends. However, most said that th

39、ey try to avoid strong disagreements over political issues by backing off when opposing views are expressed or by talking mostly to people they agree with.</p><p>　　The interview divided political activities

40、 beyond voting into two types: seeking to influence particular policy decisions and involvement in election campaigns. All but two of the 40 respondents said they had been involved in trying to influence a public policy

41、decision, while 35 out of 40 said they had been actively involved in trying to elect a particular candidate to office. They were more active in local elections than in national elections, and their national election acti

42、vities were focuse</p><p>　　Participation as a Learning Process</p><p>　　The civic engagement literature views citizen involvement as a process by which citizens acquire new skills, develop self

43、 confidence, learn to manage conflict, and broaden their perspectives on the world. In contrast, Eliasoph observed that participants were learning negative attitudes that constrained the nature and breadth of their invol

44、vement. To assess the developmental aspect of participation for these activists, they were asked what they had learned from their civic engagement experiences.</p><p>　　The most frequent theme was that of pe

45、rsonal empowerment.Respondents conveyed the sense that participation teaches personal efficacy and confidence.</p><p>　　The next frequently mentioned categories of learning involved enhancement of interperso

46、nal skills. Patience and tolerance were the most frequently mentioned skills, but a variety of other interpersonal skills were also highlighted.</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　城市社區(qū)中社區(qū)活

47、動(dòng)者對(duì)于公民角色的感知：影響社區(qū)參與的態(tài)度的個(gè)案研究</p><p><b>　　作者：艾倫·海斯</b></p><p><b>　　公民參與和政治參與</b></p><p>　　近期對(duì)社會(huì)資本與公民參與的研究，更多的集中于城市規(guī)劃專家長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)一直關(guān)心的問(wèn)題；即公民如何對(duì)社區(qū)決策施加有效影響。除少數(shù)人認(rèn)為過(guò)多

48、的參與可能對(duì)城市決策有負(fù)面的影響外，大多數(shù)城市的學(xué)者提出，增加市民的參與是可取的，因?yàn)樗锌赡苁构裰g的城市生活利益分配更加公平。在社區(qū)的決策中，盡管經(jīng)濟(jì)精英不可避免地發(fā)揮強(qiáng)大的作用，但是公民參與可以提供一個(gè)與之抗衡的影響力。</p><p>　　公民參與的著作，也擴(kuò)大了我們從嚴(yán)格的政治參與（這里定義為旨在直接影響公共政策或選舉的結(jié)果的參與）到包括公民參與的其他形式（如自愿的，以社區(qū)為基礎(chǔ)的組織和協(xié)會(huì)。）學(xué)者們

49、認(rèn)為“民間社會(huì)”作為一種非正式的聯(lián)系和關(guān)系，與市場(chǎng)和國(guó)家不同。在他們看來(lái)，這個(gè)領(lǐng)域中市場(chǎng)利益和國(guó)家強(qiáng)制因素的缺乏，經(jīng)常使公民進(jìn)行決策，這是既靈活又具有公益精神的（貝拉，1985；奧尼，1998）。</p><p>　　由于其非正式性和靈活性，民間社會(huì)是社會(huì)資本發(fā)展的首要舞臺(tái)。不過(guò)，雖然定義民間社會(huì)是獨(dú)特的，但是這些學(xué)者也強(qiáng)烈主張，公民領(lǐng)域中的公民參與是與積極和建設(shè)性的政治參與密切相關(guān)的。他們斷言，如果民間社會(huì)是不

50、健康的，那么政治過(guò)程的運(yùn)作會(huì)受到損害（德胡赫，斯托爾，2003）。公民的政治參與活動(dòng)是基于他或她在社會(huì)和公民領(lǐng)域中的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。</p><p>　　公民參與與政治參與聯(lián)系，至少在四個(gè)方面：（1）公民參與要求公民減少個(gè)人關(guān)注，并加強(qiáng)社區(qū)需要和分享的強(qiáng)烈意識(shí)；（2）公民參與發(fā)展組織和動(dòng)員人民的技能，可轉(zhuǎn)移到政治領(lǐng)域；（3）公民參與培養(yǎng)了個(gè)人自信的感覺(jué)和功效，使政治活動(dòng)的可能性更大；（4）公民參與發(fā)展關(guān)系網(wǎng)絡(luò)（社會(huì)資本的人

51、際方面）和信任感（社會(huì)資本的態(tài)度方面）是至關(guān)重要的有效的政治行動(dòng)。</p><p><b>　　研究設(shè)計(jì)</b></p><p><b>　　命題</b></p><p>　　本研究由探索性的個(gè)案研究組成，利用一群在滑鐵盧/錫達(dá)福爾斯，愛(ài)荷華州，125，000的城市區(qū)域的社區(qū)活動(dòng)者的活動(dòng)和態(tài)度組成的嵌入式數(shù)據(jù)（尹，1994

52、）。在剛才所提供的文獻(xiàn)資料的基礎(chǔ)上，為初步研究“模式匹配”的研究設(shè)計(jì)制定了五個(gè)命題。這項(xiàng)研究的目的是獲得參與程度的定性的理解，了解當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)框架和理解他們政治和公民參與。全面測(cè)試和確認(rèn)這些命題，需要在更大的，隨機(jī)樣本基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)一步研究。</p><p>　　命題1：一種行為邊界存在于公民和政治參與之間。參與社區(qū)活動(dòng)的模式將在某種程度上，不同社區(qū)活動(dòng)者的團(tuán)體在涉及各個(gè)領(lǐng)域中反映公民活動(dòng)和政治活動(dòng)之間的清晰的界限。如果活

53、躍在私人的、志愿領(lǐng)域的人同時(shí)也活躍在政治領(lǐng)域，那么表明這個(gè)界限的界定是不嚴(yán)格的。</p><p>　　命題2：一種態(tài)度邊界存在于公民和政治參與之間。公民和政治活動(dòng)之間的明確界線反映在通過(guò)參與各自領(lǐng)域，經(jīng)歷不同的成功和挫折的程度上。同時(shí)，一個(gè)清晰的界限也反映在參與者在自己的領(lǐng)域中用負(fù)面的觀點(diǎn)看待別的領(lǐng)域的程度上。</p><p>　　命題3：一個(gè)動(dòng)機(jī)邊界存在于公民和政治參與之間。公民和政治領(lǐng)

54、域之間的邊界將清楚地反映在每個(gè)領(lǐng)域中的活動(dòng)有不同的動(dòng)機(jī)。</p><p>　　命題4：通過(guò)公民參與獲得的技能不同于通過(guò)政治參與獲得的。</p><p>　　命題5：存在于活躍的政治、公民參與者和不參與社區(qū)事務(wù)者之間的態(tài)度界限。</p><p><b>　　方法</b></p><p>　　通過(guò)利用開(kāi)放式的問(wèn)題對(duì)40個(gè)活躍

55、在大城市社區(qū)生活各個(gè)方面的人進(jìn)行了深入的親身采訪。訪問(wèn)員努力征求各學(xué)科的最詳細(xì)和完整的答案。采訪從45到90分鐘的不等，依據(jù)不同程度上的精心選擇的科目而定。雖然通過(guò)結(jié)構(gòu)化采訪，探討了上述主張，但是這些問(wèn)題都受到了最大限度的他們對(duì)公民和政治領(lǐng)域的理解。此外，訪談的目的是為受試者提供多種機(jī)會(huì)，以反映他們不同角度的參與。在公民參與的情況下，受訪者談到了自己最重要的組織的參與和他們?cè)诟鹘M織中積極參與的具體項(xiàng)目。在政治參與的情況下，受訪者都被問(wèn)到

56、了有關(guān)選舉制度的導(dǎo)向問(wèn)題和政治參與。</p><p><b>　　樣本</b></p><p>　　在這項(xiàng)研究中，社區(qū)積極分子被定義為在過(guò)去的五年中至少在私人的，自愿組織或至少在政治組織中顯現(xiàn)積極參與或領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的人。大部分受訪者都積極地在眾多的組織中。由于都會(huì)區(qū)的小規(guī)模，這種規(guī)模的樣本評(píng)估是合理的。</p><p>　　該示例包含的個(gè)人活動(dòng)跨越了全

57、方位的社區(qū)經(jīng)營(yíng)。有些人一直活躍在社區(qū)協(xié)會(huì)，藝術(shù)團(tuán)體，解決貧困的組織，還有一些參加政治舞臺(tái)上的主要活動(dòng)。一些是富有的商界領(lǐng)袖，他們鏈接和影響社區(qū)性的組織，而其他受訪者則是工人階級(jí)，其主要活動(dòng)領(lǐng)域是他們的街區(qū)。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)果 社區(qū)服務(wù)</b></p><p>　　受訪者被要求列出四個(gè)在過(guò)去3年中參與的志愿社區(qū)服務(wù)。這些人許多人還受聘于社區(qū)服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)，但這

58、一問(wèn)題的重點(diǎn)是志愿者的參與。關(guān)于參與的最初問(wèn)題是開(kāi)放式的，讓受訪者界定他們認(rèn)為的“社區(qū)服務(wù)”。因此，他們會(huì)自發(fā)地提到社區(qū)活動(dòng)，其中包括純粹的社會(huì)團(tuán)體和政治活動(dòng)作為社區(qū)服務(wù)的主要形式。樣本包括一些主要被認(rèn)定為政治活動(dòng)者的人和一些主要因公民參與而被熟知的人，以便使公民和政治活動(dòng)之間的交叉水平確定下來(lái)。因此，人們可以預(yù)期，一些重要的政治活動(dòng)將在這些初步的回答中提到。人們還期待著某些公民活動(dòng)將針對(duì)而一些社區(qū)的廣泛用途將是社會(huì)性質(zhì)或娛樂(lè)。<

59、;/p><p>　　據(jù)報(bào)道的活動(dòng)分為三大類：政治，公民和社會(huì)。一共有24個(gè)受訪者（60.0％）在四個(gè)志愿服務(wù)活動(dòng)之中沒(méi)有任何政治活動(dòng)，他們要求被列出。其中，18（45.0％）只列出了公民活動(dòng)，而其余（15.0％）列出了公民和社會(huì)活動(dòng)的各種組合。這表明，大多數(shù)受訪者，無(wú)論是否是政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，當(dāng)被問(wèn)及志愿服務(wù)時(shí)選擇說(shuō)公民領(lǐng)域的全部或大部分活動(dòng)，相對(duì)較少提及政治活動(dòng)，在社會(huì)領(lǐng)域甚至更少。他們清楚地確定志愿服務(wù)的公民領(lǐng)域。然而

60、，這些數(shù)據(jù)沒(méi)有揭示不從事志愿服務(wù)的政治活動(dòng)家的獨(dú)特群體公民。那些把很大精力投入到政治中的人還報(bào)告了志愿服務(wù)的其他形式。例如，一位受訪者，一個(gè)非洲裔男性，選舉官員作為公民活動(dòng)之一，但他的其他活動(dòng)包括：對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)蒯t(yī)院和本地私立學(xué)院的非盈利機(jī)構(gòu)服務(wù)。</p><p>　　總的來(lái)說(shuō)，這40個(gè)人對(duì)于第一個(gè)開(kāi)放式的關(guān)于參與的問(wèn)題列出149個(gè)志愿活動(dòng)。只有少數(shù)人列出不到四個(gè)，大多數(shù)可以很容易地列出更多。作為社區(qū)參與所列的活動(dòng)，19

61、（12.8％）可劃分為“政治的或控制的”，使之成為回答的最大單一類型。</p><p>　　然而，受訪者列出的活動(dòng)絕大多數(shù)屬于公民參與，而不是政治參與。志愿者活動(dòng)針對(duì)一般社區(qū)的改善，而不是特定群體，如窮人，這是經(jīng)常被引用的。投身藝術(shù)及文化組織是一個(gè)最經(jīng)常提到的。</p><p>　　除了這些一般性的社區(qū)服務(wù)組織，服務(wù)于貧困群體經(jīng)常被提及，占所有活動(dòng)的10.1％。各種人權(quán)和社會(huì)正義的組織也被

62、少數(shù)人提到，例如，國(guó)際特赦組織和全國(guó)有色人種協(xié)進(jìn)會(huì)。</p><p><b>　　政治參與</b></p><p>　　在描述他們的志愿參與之后，受訪者直接被詢問(wèn)他們的政治參與。大多數(shù)人與家人和朋友頻繁地討論國(guó)家和地方問(wèn)題。但是大多數(shù)人表示，他們?cè)谡螁?wèn)題上通過(guò)對(duì)反對(duì)意見(jiàn)的退避或者通過(guò)與他們贊同的人討論來(lái)避免強(qiáng)烈的分歧。</p><p>　　訪

63、談把政治活動(dòng)分為兩種類型：試圖影響方針決策和參與競(jìng)選活動(dòng)。除了兩個(gè)受訪者說(shuō)他們?cè)噲D參與公共政策的決定，而35至40個(gè)人說(shuō)他們一直積極努力地參與政府候選人的選舉工作。他們?cè)诘胤竭x舉中比在全國(guó)選舉中更活躍，并且他們對(duì)于國(guó)家選舉的重點(diǎn)集中于當(dāng)?shù)亟M織。那些不參與競(jìng)選的人，兩個(gè)引用專業(yè)需要保持政治中立，而其他兩個(gè)引用對(duì)政治進(jìn)程的反感。（五分之一的受訪者沒(méi)有回答這個(gè)問(wèn)題。）一個(gè)非洲裔女子說(shuō)，她不介入，“我真的不是一個(gè)政治的女孩?！钡?，對(duì)于大多數(shù)

64、社區(qū)活躍分子，政治活動(dòng)以及參與私人的、志愿的組織似乎是他們社區(qū)參與的重要組成部分。這種額外的證據(jù)，進(jìn)一步破壞命題1，受訪者似乎隨意地跨越公民和政治參與之間的邊界。</p><p>　　參與作為一個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)過(guò)程</p><p>　　公民參與的著作認(rèn)為公民的參與作為一個(gè)進(jìn)程，通過(guò)公民掌握新技能，發(fā)展自我信心，學(xué)習(xí)管理沖突，并擴(kuò)大對(duì)世界的看法。與此相反，艾秋興注意到，參與者學(xué)習(xí)的消極態(tài)度制約了他們參

65、與的性質(zhì)和廣度。為了評(píng)估這些活動(dòng)者參與的發(fā)展方面，他們被問(wèn)及從公民參與的經(jīng)歷中獲得了什么。</p><p>　　最常見(jiàn)的主題是，個(gè)人的能力。受訪者表示參與意識(shí)教導(dǎo)個(gè)人效能和信心。</p><p>　　下一個(gè)經(jīng)常被提到的學(xué)習(xí)類別涉及人際交往能力的提高。忍耐和寬容是最經(jīng)常被提到的技能，但另外還強(qiáng)調(diào)了人際交往能力。（完）</p><p>　　來(lái)源：城市事務(wù)，29卷，第4號(hào)