1

National School of Political Science and Public Administration

Doctoral School of Communication Sciences

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION

The new generation of Europeans

How do high school students perceive the European Union?

- abstract -

Scientific coordinator:

PhD. Paul Dobrescu

Doctoral candidate:

Oana Ludmila Popescu

Bucharest

2016

2

The historic referendum after which the United Kingdom will leave the European

Union has brought to the fore the role of citizens as determinants of the European project,

reminding many of them that the future and continuity of the European Union depend not

only on decisions of officials from Brussels and Strasbourg. Voting in favour of the European

project given by the young British people is encouraging and increases the interest both in the

political environment and in the academic area to how young people from different parts of

Europe perceive the European Union.

Various voices in specialty literature (Flanagan 2009; Franklin, 2004) argue that the

younger generation acts as a catalyst for change because young people "might be open to new

ideas and new styles that would later be widely accepted" (Datler et al., 2005, p. 3). Given

that, at European level, "the public is not (anymore) just a passive spectator, but integrates its

assessments to the political process" (Rauh, 2016, p. 1) - the future of the European Union

being now decided by referendums – the more assertive interest towards the attitude of young

people regarding the increasing political convergence and the European cooperation is

therefore justified. Theoreticians note the willingness of the European officials to have access

to updated information to make informed decisions, decisions "that aim at the new contexts

and challenges facing democracy and citizenship at local, national and European level" (Kerr

et al., 2010, p. 19), challenges that, as indicated by the most resounding referendum in the

history of the European project after which the United Kingdom will leave the European

Union, cannot be ignored.

The reputed Professor Alistair Ross (2015) argues that more and more young people

from different parts of the European Union experience, along with national identity, at least

one partial European identity and the extent to which they acknowledge the existence of this

European identity varies by nationality, sex, social class and age. The results of the

referendum held in the United Kingdom confirm this trend, given that most young people

voted against Brexit. More than that, the teacher notes the tendency of young people to build

themselves antithetical to their parents and an important part of the process of differentiation

seems to refer to another way "of being European", which emphasizes the need to learn how

they relate to the younger generation in the EU compared to the adult population. The

difference between generations is exemplary illustrated in the case of the referendum in the

United Kingdom. This time, the younger generation positioned itself in opposition to the older

generations, voting for the United Kingdom to remain in the EU. But how much support

enjoys EU among the young people in a country like Romania, where the majority of the

3

adult population still experience a pro-European attitude? How does in this case manifest the

generation gap, reported by Ross (2015)?

Most studies of European identity among young people focuses on students who have

accumulated cross-border experience through mobility programs (Fligstein, 2008; Favell,

2009 Sigalas, 2010; Van Mol, 2013), the most widely used program of its kind in the

European space being Erasmus. Students who are part of the "generation Erasmus" remain in

the spotlight nationally too, the research on the relationship between the national identity and

the European identity among young people and on the circumstances that favour emphasizing

one particular branch of the identity, are based on analysing the experiences and perceptions

of this segment of the population (Braşoveanu, 2010; Udrea & Corbu, 2011; Udrea, 2012;

Manea, 2013). However, some theorists believe that students who choose to study abroad are

already pro-Europeans (Wilson, 2011; Van Mol, 2013) or have previous experience abroad

(Carlson, 2013) suggesting that young people's attitude to the European space starts to

crystallize earlier. This hypothesis is also supported by the theorists who argue that studying

how teens relate to the EU is justified by the fact that the basic socialization processes

deployed at home or at school, have already led to the formation of social identities

(Quintelier et al. 2014).

The doctoral dissertation "The new generation of Europeans. How do high school

students perceive the European Union?" focuses on a different age segment, the protagonists

of the research being students in grades XI and XII from the Bucharest high schools. The

teenagers aged between 17 and 18 represent a segment of the population that is usually

integrated into a larger group - 15-24 years for Eurobarometer surveys - or ignored, given

that, as noted above, most of the studies focus on students’ attitude towards the EU.

Therefore, the doctoral dissertation aims to present how the European Union is perceived by

young people who have recently gained the right to vote or hey will gain it in the near future

and have not yet benefited from internships to study abroad.

So, using a method of quantitative research – the sociological survey based on

questionnaire – the main objective of this paper was to identify how students in grades XI and

XII perceive the European Union. I watched in particular the confidence they have in the

European project, the awareness of the influence of EU, the commitment to the European

Union, the development of a European identity and assuming the status of citizen of the

European Union, the assessment of belonging to EU through the advantages and

disadvantages felt personally, associating the European Union with certain values and, not

4

least, the overall picture that young people have of the EU. To identify possible relationships

and conditionings, the relationships and correlations were found between the data that

compose the youth perspective. Also, the data were included in a national and European

context to identify and present the trend of the new generation of Europeans from Romania in

parallel with the trends of the adult population.

The second objective focused on the presentation of certain factors that may influence

how Romanian students relate to the European Union. These factors relate to the frequency of

engaging in discussions with friends, family and colleagues about issues related to the

European Union, sources of information used in general and to obtain information about EU,

the trust of young people in the main information sources in Romania, self-assessment of the

knowledge about EU, exposure at school to information about EU, contact with the European

space, the intention to participate in the European elections and involvement in political and

social activities at local and national level. There were found correlations between these

factors and the relationships between them and certain perceptions of young people.

The third objective was to identify and compare the factors that have a significant

influence on the image that young people have about the EU, the confidence in the European

project, the attachment to the EU, the identification as a European in general and as a citizen

of the European Union. To achieve this objective, the linear regression has been used and the

five variables listed above will be included in the analysis as dependent variables.

The first theoretical chapter of the paper presents aspects of belonging to the European

construction in the sense of the young Europeans emphasizing the possibility of multiple

identities and starting from the assumption that identity is a social construct subject to the

influence of contextual factors and social interactions. The European identity is presented as a

secondary identity that does not abrogate or diminish the national identity, but manifests itself

in certain circumstances, being felt, usually, by those who enjoy lesser or greater, the benefits

of EU membership. Supporting this idea, theorists believe that elites and young people with

cross-border experiences are those who typically acknowledge the status of EU citizen

(Fligstein, 2009; Favell, 2009), they being generally "the winners of the global and regional

integration processes" (Kuhn, 2016, p. 267). This chapter also includes a description of

different types of European identity from the cultural one, referring to the European continent

as a whole, to the instrumental one, based on the pragmatic analysis of the costs and benefits

of EU membership. Since the school environment influences the formation of social identities

of young people, both through access to information and through the fact it constitutes one of

5

their major social environments, there is also presented the role of education in fostering the

European awareness, starting from the premise that youth exposure at school to information

about the European Union and their contact with Europe through travels, both for educational

purposes and tourism, enables them to transform an abstract concept - Europe - into a tangible

reality that acquires certain meanings depending on the individual experiences of each one

and the knowledge accumulated.

Stressing the importance of education in shaping the next generation of Europeans, the

next chapter aimed the civic and citizenship education in the European context. In the context

of globalization, the civic and citizenship education undergoes significant changes, the focus

moving from the traditional concept of citizenship based on the nation-state, to "the supra-

national concepts of citizenship (global)" (Schulz et al., 2016 p. 4) and theorists noted the

necessity of a European education, which involves educating for active citizenship in the

European context (Ross, 2008). In this chapter, the effects of the civic and citizenship

education on the behaviour of youth people were presented, and the enclosing of the civic and

citizenship education in the education system in Romania. Numerous studies indicate the

positive effects of active participation in the school environment and of an open school

climate to the democratic ability of young people, stimulating both knowledge accumulation

and especially the political effectiveness and the voting intention of young people (Campbell,

2008; Pasek et al., 2008; Gainous & Martens, 2012). In the Romanian educational system, the

civic and citizenship education - included in the curriculum "Man and society" - was studied

to date as a compulsory subject of the core curriculum for four years, being allocated one hour

per week. In the primary classes III-IV, the matter in question was taught under the name

"Civic education" and in secondary schools, classes VII-VIII, the name has changed, being

preferred the name "Civic culture" (Ministry of national education, 2009; 2014).

The third chapter discusses the sources of information of the young Europeans starting

from the theorists’ observation that their identity and behavior are significantly influenced not

only by family and school environment, but also by media consumption. As citizens, in

general, and youth, in particular, lack the direct experience regarding the European matters

and in school and family environment the discussions on this subject are an exception, the

national media organizations have the task of emphasizing the EU's presence in people's lives

and enhancing the visibility of European topics (Maier & Risse, 2003), thus becoming the

primary means of communication between the European Union and its citizens. This chapter

presented the way the media, both traditionally and digitally, influences the political

6

participation among young people and highlighted the removal of the younger generation

from the traditional media and its reorientation towards the online environment. After

reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of the new media, it was illustrated the role of

the media as a link of communication between the EU and its citizens.

Given that the role of the citizens in supporting the European project gradually

acquires its due share, the apparent lack of involvement of the young generation in social and

political life arouses interest in the academic area and concern on the political scene. The

concern is determined by the theorists’ observation that the European identification is stronger

among young people socially and politically active at local and national level. Chapter four -

"The younger generation and the political participation" - questions the crisis of the youth

participation in democratic life and presents both their attitudes towards the forms of electoral

participation and the new forms of participation agreed by the younger generation. The theory

that young people are not apathetic to politics is supported, but the political and social

activities spectrum was diversified and the younger generation is attracted to new forms of

participation.

The last chapter briefly presents the areas of action and initiatives proposed under the

EU Youth Strategy 2010-2018. Because "economic recessions like the one that began in

2008, tend to have a significant negative impact on young people and the effects risk being

long term" (Council Resolution 2009 / C 311/01, p. 1), promoting active citizenship, social

inclusion and solidarity among all young people is one of the two general objectives of

European cooperation in the youth field set out in the EU youth strategy. The other major

objective aimed at creating more equal opportunities for all young people in education and the

labour market.

The second part of the doctoral dissertation presents the results of the research

undertaken - through sociological survey based on questionnaires – among students in classes

XI and XII of six high schools in Bucharest, to identify how adolescents perceive the

European Union and the factors that influence this perception. The six schools are located in

different areas of Bucharest and occupy various positions in the top of the high schools in

Bucharest presented on the website admitereliceu.ro, from the 3rd

position (National College

"Mihai Viteazul") to position 31 ("Tudor Vladimirescu" High School). The top is based on the

admission average (40%), the BAC exam average (30%), the BAC graduation (20%) and the

average of the results obtained at the Olympics (10%). The six schools are: National College

"Mihai Viteazul", National College "Cantemir Vodă", "Jean Monnet" High School, National

7

College "Elena Cuza", National College "Matei Basarab", "Tudor Vladimirescu" High

School. The high schools are situated in different neighbourhoods.

In each school, the questionnaire was applied in six classes: three classes XI and three

class XII, the first three classes, at each level, had the homeroom class scheduled in the

timetable when the questionnaires were submitted to the director of the high school. The

questionnaires were therefore applied during school hours - at the homeroom class - which

ensured a high response rate, 94.6%, calculated on the assumption that in every classroom

there are 30 pupils. In total, the questionnaire was applied in 36 classes, 13 classes XI and 13

classes XII, and it was completed by 1,022 students, which provided a margin of error of +/-

3%. The respondents were aged between 16 and 19 years old, the vast majority (87.5%) being

in the 17-18 group. The duration of completing the questionnaires, applied between

November 24 to December 5, 2014, was 15 minutes.

The results of the referendum held in the UK – where the majority of young people

voted against Brexit – confirm the trend reported in the specialty literature regarding the

support of the young people for the EU. This time, the young generation has shown the

different way of "being European", that Professor Alistair Ross was talking about (2015),

voting, unlike older generations, for Britain to remain in the EU. The results of the present

research indicate, however, that in Romania – a euro-enthusiast country, according to the

European statistics – supporting the European project is provided by the adult population, the

younger generation developing a more reserved attitude towards the European Union.

The data indicate that the evaluation of belonging to the EU from utilitarian

perspective is the main factor that influences how young people report to the EU. However,

most respondents thought that belonging to the European Union has brought them advantages

and disadvantages equally, placing them in a position of neutrality and avoiding taking a pro-

or anti-European attitude. The number of students who do not have enough information about

the effects of Romania’s belonging to the EU to assess them - positively or negatively - is

however quite high. As with other questions, the large number of responses "do not know"

may suggest either a lack of interest or a lack of information about the European project and

its effects. Both the lack of interest and the lack of information – otherwise related

phenomena - among students in grades XI and XII, however, show some weaknesses in the

education system and the Romanian media.

8

The weighted attitude reported in the evaluation of belonging to the EU in terms of

costs and benefits is accompanied by an emphasized critical spirit, given that the confidence

in EU, the attachment to this structure and assuming the status of EU citizen are much lower

among young people than among the adult population in Romania. Moreover, the values

reported for students in grades XI and XII are closer to the European average than to the

national average, suggesting a clear difference between the euro-enthusiasm of the adult

population and the reserved attitude of the new generation of Europeans from Romania.

This attitude may be a consequence of the economic crisis and in particular of how it

has affected the labour market, causing a high rate of youth unemployment in many European

countries. Being in the moment to decide to what faculty to go, students in grades XI and XII

need to assess their chances of finding a job - either in Romania or abroad - after graduating

from a particular faculty or a specific specialization. So, these young people are now forced to

anticipate and compare the difficulties they will face in the labour market depending on the

career they will choose. The current socio-economic context may put many in the face of

difficult choices: to move towards a trade that can bring financial stability or the one that can

bring personal fulfilment, but also the risk of becoming the representatives of the "boomerang

generation"? In specialty literature, the "boomerang generation" is a label attributed to those

young people who are unable to support themselves for the long term and are forced to return

for some period of time, to their parents' house (Cruz & Poultney, 2009). Also, the specialty

literature has noted that due to the current context, the path to economic independence is often

fragmented and young people arrive later than their parents to specified thresholds marking

acquiring the adult status such as: graduation, finding a stable job, buying a home and starting

a family (Westlund & Bjur, 2014). Therefore, further research can determine if the weighted

attitude of young people towards the European Union is influenced by their uncertainty about

the future and the difficulty of predicting how the labour market will evolve.

Also how young people perceive the European Union can be influenced by the fact

that they are the first generation of Romanian who would consider EU membership a given,

watching it with detachment, since in 2007 they were too little to share the excitement

specific to pre- and post-adherence periods. Therefore, unlike the adult population, who has

experienced both the period of EU pre-adherence and the period of communism, young

people of 17-18 years old of today have a concrete basis for comparison. Thus, they can

compare the current conditions in Romania with those of the developed countries in Western

Europe, which can cause frustration and dissatisfaction with the work of the European Union.

9

More than that, they can associate certain advantages currently enjoyed - such as freedom of

movement - with the benefits of moderate world and not necessarily with EU membership.

Again, further research can determine whether the moderate attitude of young people towards

the EU is determined by these issues.

Starting from the theories according to which identity is outlined based on

membership or exclusion from certain groups (Bruter, 2005; Fligstein, 2009), the image that

other Europeans have about Romania may also influence how young Romanian perceive the

European Union. Since the perspective of others - often felt as discriminatory - is frequently

expressed in the context of discussions on the entry into the Schengen area and intra-

European migration, young people can develop an inferiority complex towards other

European citizens. This may stress the differences between us (Romanian students) and them

(true Europeans from more developed countries) and the European identity can be seen as an

ideal towards which young Romanian people can only aspire (Ross, 2015). Data analysis

seems to support this hypothesis given that the reservations expressed by young people in

terms of assuming the EU's European status are not removed by simply intensifying the

contact with other European countries and cultures. On the contrary, emphasizing this contact

can sometimes highlight differences - economic, social or cultural - between Romania and the

developed countries of western Europe which prevents many young people feel EU citizens.

The research suggests that how the new generation of Europeans from Romania

perceives this supranational political structure is influenced by many factors, like a mosaic

composed of many small pieces. Such theories are confirmed that the behaviour and attitudes

of young people are influenced not only by the school environment, but also by the

consumption of media, the circle of friends and the family environment. More than that,

certain factors influence certain attitudes in different proportions. Therefore, the evaluation of

the European Union from the utilitarian perspective has less influence on the development of

feelings of attachment to the EU than on the image that young people have of the EU or on

the confidence in this structure. In addition, data analysis suggests that the confidence of

young Romanian people in the EU is determined by a complex set of factors given that both

the attachment to the EU and the positive assessment in terms of costs and benefits of EU

membership are positively correlated with the level of confidence in the European project.

However, the link between attachment and confidence, two attributes that fall into the

emotional sphere, is slightly stronger than that between the pragmatic assessment, from the

utilitarian perspective, of EU membership and the confidence in the European mechanism.

10

This confirms the theory that the social implications - which create friendships and

attachments - have greater relevance than economic ones in the process of stimulating certain

aspects of European identity.

Therefore, the results indicate that certain attitudes and behaviours of young people

are influenced quite heavily by factors that go beyond the material advantages. The contact

with Europe materialized through personal experiences (trips, interaction with people of

different nationalities, reading materials in foreign languages) has positive consequences on

the confidence that young people have in the EU and stimulate the development of feelings of

attachment. It is therefore reconfirmed the importance of mobility, knowledge of foreign

languages and socializing with people from other countries for the development of certain

aspects of European identity (Kuhn, 2015). Engaging in discussions on European issues with

their parents, friends or colleagues do not contribute significantly to building trust in the EU

but positively influence the image that young people have of the European project. Data

analysis suggests that the positive image of the EU is a first step towards strengthening the

European identity, this image building easier than their confidence in the EU and being easier

to assimilate than the status of EU citizen. The results also indicate that while the image of the

European Union can be built based on media reports or on the experiences shared by relatives,

friends or colleagues, to develop the trust in the EU and the attachment to this project, young

people need to build some personal experiences and direct contact with other cultures in the

European space. The data therefore confirms the belief of Jacques Delors, former European

Commission president, that "people do not fall for a market" (Castano 2004, p. 41).

Also, how high school students surveyed relate to locality, region, Romania and the

EU reflects the trends registered at national and European level, although the values differ

substantially, suggesting the reduction of the attachment of young people in geo-political

units in general. This trend may be due to the high degree of mobility of young people, who

are willing to move anywhere their interest bears them, being no longer attached to a certain

geographical area. Thus, the analysis indicates that the European identity among young

Romanian people does not include an emotional dimension. More than that, the correlation

between the attachment to Romania and the attachment to the EU proves to be rather weak,

refuting theories according to which, in general, citizens of member states who feel attached

to the nation, also develop feelings of attachment to the EU. In addition, data analysis attests

that the development of feelings of attachment among those who tend to trust the EU is a real

trend, but not a rule.

11

Another analysis indicates a positive correlation between the trust in the EU and the

desire for it to play a greater role in the future, but the correlation is quite weak, suggesting

again the weighted attitude of youth and moving towards the European Union in the absence

of better attractive options. More than that, the pragmatic perspective of the younger

generation on the European project, a perspective lacking the emotional component, is

confirmed by the great number of pupils who claim they would feel the same if the EU

disappeared.

The research indicates that while most students identify themselves - to a greater

extent than the adult population - as Romanian and as Europeans, this type of identification

can symbolize the openness to Western Europe and distancing from the communist past

dominated by the Russian influence. More than that, the data suggests that identifying as a

European in general may refer to the European continent as a whole and belonging to the

European civilization as a whole, indicating therefore a cultural identity independent of the

political structure represented by the EU. The relatively low value of the correlation

established between the trend to identify as European and to assume the status of citizen of

the EU confirm this hypothesis. In addition, the confidence level in the EU - which is

generally quite low - is slightly higher among youth who feel EU citizens than among those

who feel European in general. The fact that the results recorded among the Romanian students

surveyed are very close to those recorded at European level for the socio-professional

category of managers confirms Fligstein theory (2009) on the likelihood that young people

and elites - who benefit from the advantages of mobility, speak foreign languages and interact

with people from other countries - identify as Europeans more easily than the rest of the

population.

Regarding the overall positive image that Romanian students have of EU, the results

show that it is determined in large part by the awareness of the benefits of EU membership.

As expected, young people associate the European Union primarily with the freedom to

travel, study and work in another country. Taking into account the age-specific enthusiasm

and, especially, the prospect of development in the near future of the freedom of movement,

the positive image that the European mechanism enjoys is somewhat understandable.

Asked to what extent are they interested in information about the European Union, the

majority of students surveyed have declared again their neutrality stating that obtaining

information about the EU does not concern them either in small or large extent. Therefore, the

results confirm the specialty literature which argues that European issues generally fail to

12

arouse interest to young people. The causes of lack of interest can be multiple. One reason

may be the way in which European issues are handled in the traditional media. They are

presented either in specialized or abstract terms, which, placing the European Union in an

inaccessible, elitist sphere, maintain distance between it and the ordinary citizens, either

superficially, while not giving the due importance to the European issues. Another trend,

reported in the specialty literature, that can substantiate the lack of interest in European issues,

is presenting them from a national perspective - an approach that may lead to the loss of the

European dimension of the subject and its perception as an internal problem. More than that,

as regards the transmission of information about the EU in the digital sphere, the inability to

adapt the message, both in terms of form and content, to the characteristics of new channels of

communication and the inability to distance the classic style, propaganda, from the

unidirectional communication may remove the youth from the European issues failing to get

their attention and arouse their interest.

Regarding the students, the lack of interest in information about the European Union is

not caused only by the style of approach of these issues in traditional and digital media. So, as

signals by theorists, the debating of European subjects in family and school environment

largely determines the attitude and interests of young people towards the European Union.

Therefore, the lack of addressing these topics in discussions with parents and friends or

classmates and teachers has implications on the extent to which young people are interested in

what happens in the European Union and on the training skills to inform about the matter.

Given the importance of evaluation in positive terms of EU membership for how

young people perceive the European Union, the communication of advantages of EU

membership becomes essential. Although the data show that engaging in discussion on

European issues influences how young people relate to the EU and the interest in this

structure, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, EU is not a popular topic of discussion

neither in the family, nor at school. This reinforces the role of the media as the main means of

communication between the EU and its citizens. As expected, the Internet and social

networking enjoy an unquestionable popularity among Romanian students. However, while

both theorists and European officials recommend the approach of young people through the

channels that they use most often, the data seem to indicate that the European Union failed to

develop an effective strategy of connecting with the younger generation through the new

media. Thus, the majority of respondents admitted that they do not share or post information

about the European Union on the social networks and neither do their friends.

13

As regards the traditional sources of information, the results show that news bulletins

on TV are still being tracked by a large number of young people, confirming the theories

according to which they are not apathetic, but want to keep abreast of what's happening in the

country and in the world (Cammaerts et al., 2016). However, the fairly low impact of media

consumption on how young people perceive the European Union suggests the insufficient

playing of European topics in traditional and digital media in Romania or treating them from

a perspective strictly national that causes blurring or loss of the European dimension of topics.

In addition, the effects of news consumption vary depending on the channel used.

Thus, if watching news bulletins on TV influences positively - though to an extent quite low -

how to report to the EU in the online environment, which allows their selections, young

people seem to turn to information that either do not influence their perspective on the

European Union or affect it adversely. However, according to data analysis, students

appreciate that the autonomy offered by the digital environment in terms of choosing

information sources and selection of topics is well capitalized and leads to enhancing the

knowledge on the EU. It requires again the deployment of further research to indicate how

developed are the media skills of young people in Romania and how vulnerable are they to

the handling of the online environment. Most young people have already mastered the digital

skills, learning from an early age to operate a computer and surf the internet, but media

competences also involve critical assessment of various sources of information, assessing the

quality of information received and awareness of the risks involved in accessing the online

environment (Lunt & Livingstone, 2012).

Developing the critical thinking among young people in Romania is one of the main

objectives of civic and citizenship education. Although, nationally, the Romanians' trust in

information sources generally exceeds the European average, the fact that the students

surveyed showed a rather reserved attitude towards the messages conveyed in the media

seems to indicate that this goal has been achieved. The tendency of students to question the

veracity of the messages transmitted by the media also reflects how the European Union is

perceived, as the trust in the main sources of information is positively correlated with how

young people relate to the EU.

In addition, the data show that involving in non-electoral forms of participation at

local and national level contributes to increase the critical spirit of the young generation.

Thus, participating in demonstrations or discussions, expressing opinions about public issues

on the Internet and on social networks or signing petitions reduces the feeling of young

14

people that they are citizens of the European Union. Further research may determine what

aspects that prevent the young people feel EU citizens are evident by engaging in such

activities.

Although, with the exception of assuming the status of EU citizen, the analysis

suggests that involvement in alternative forms of participation do not influence the perception

of the younger generation on the European Union - thus contradicting the specialty literature –

the availability of students to engage in traditional forms, electoral of participation has

positive consequences on the image enjoyed by the European Union. Thus, the perception of

the vote as an essential form of democratic participation and the intent of recovery of this

constitutional right seems to determine the development of civic attitudes whose effect also

influences how the European Union is perceived. As regards the European elections,

however, the number of those who say they would definitely vote is significantly lower

proving that young people are more interested in what happens on the national political scene

and give less importance to the European elections.

The critical spirit of the young generation does not manifest itself only on the sources

of information and on the European Union. The critical attitude of students to the school

system in Romania is illustrated by the fact that activities in schools and aimed to familiarize

teens with the values and the functioning of the European Union are not perceived by them as

being sufficiently relevant to significantly influence their perception about the EU. Moreover,

data analysis attests that the European activities carried out in schools - courses, information

seminars and various European projects and programs - do not have a significant impact on

the perception that young people have of the EU. Therefore, these activities are either

insufficient or ineffective or, at worst, insufficient and ineffective in helping young people

understand both the operating mechanism and the EU principles and values. In conclusion,

the results raise questions about how the educational system in Romania contributes to

strengthening the European identity of young people and train them to become actively

involved in society, both nationally and at European level. The data is all the more worrying if

you consider that the study was conducted only in urban areas and the probability of carrying

out European projects and programs increases exponentially given the resources enjoyed by

these schools located in the capital compared to those in rural areas. In addition, data analysis

attests that the occasional debate of European issues at school, except the European activities

mentioned above, is not sufficient to awaken and maintain students’ interest to the EU. Thus,

the results of the research raise questions about the success of the integrated approach that

15

involves the collaboration of all teachers to achieve the objectives of civic and citizenship

education raised at European level. These objectives relate to the acquisition of knowledge

and the development of understanding capacity, of critical thinking and of independent

reasoning through which young people can be actively involved in public life at local,

national, European and global level (Georgi, 2008).

A first step to address these issues could include introducing mandatory courses about

the EU, possibly in secondary school and increasing the number of European projects and

programs - with a high degree of interactivity and application - in high school. Coordination

between the hours of instruction in classical style and the interactive activities would allow

students to harness in various contexts the information acquired and the values learned in the

classes. The influence of the stock of knowledge on the behaviour of young people is reflected

in the fact that the average knowledge of the EU is higher for students who tend to believe

that they would vote in the European elections or are convinced of this, than with those who

argue that perhaps or sure will miss. Data analysis indicates, however, that the perception of

young people on their own level of knowledge about the EU plays a greater role in

determining their behaviour than the level of knowledge itself. This confirms the relevance of

the level of political efficacy experienced by young people and stimulated by active

participation in school (Gainous & Martens, 2012). The concept of effective policy refers to

the confidence of young people in their ability to meet the challenges posed by active

participation in society. Thus, students who intend to express their choices in the European

elections have a significantly better opinion about their level of knowledge about the EU than

those who say that probably or definitely would not vote.

A second measure relates to the need for teachers that teach information about the EU

and those coordinating European programs and projects, to have access to appropriate training

courses and modern teaching materials. Thus, mandatory courses in the secondary school

mentioned in the previous paragraph can be taught by teachers of civic education but after

following training courses. Also in the high school environment, coordinating European

programs and projects can be carried further by different teachers depending on the specific

activities (history, geography, foreign languages, informatics), if teachers have prior attended

the information classes about the EU. Regarding the available teaching materials, they must

allow the application of active learning techniques such as role play (can be simulated

sessions of the European Parliament or meetings of the ministers from various EU countries),

case studies or team research projects. Teaching courses about the EU in classes equipped

16

with multimedia projector and computers with internet access would allow watching movies

and documentaries or projecting video materials on a specific topic made even by the students

(possibly in high school). In addition, the new technologies can enable real-time interaction

with students from other countries (Skype conferences). Enhancing collaboration of schools

in Romania with schools in other EU countries can also lead to increasing educational

mobility of students and teachers by engaging in activities based on exchanges.

Intensifying the exposure of young people to information about the EU in schools may

nevertheless have an unexpected effect on how young people perceive the European Union

given that students who consider themselves well informed about the EU tend to have a less

positive image of the European project than those who consider that they do not know much

about the functioning of the European mechanism. The risk that the new generation of

Europeans in Romania to be more reserved to the European Union than the current generation

is maintained also under current conditions. The research results suggest that the way young

people perceive the European Union depends largely on the pragmatic analysis of costs and

benefits of EU membership and most students associate the European project with the

freedom to study, to work and to live in another country. Given that young people have less

confidence in the EU, are less attached to this project and have more hesitations regarding the

ownership status of EU citizen, how will they perceive the European Union in a few years

when the excitement specific to their age and the perspective of harnessing the EU

membership in the near future will decrease?

17

Bibliography:

1. Agirdag, O., Huyst, P. & Van Houtte, M. (2011). Determinants of the Formation of a

European Identity among Children: Individual- and School-Level Influences, JCMS:

Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 50 (2), p. 198-213.

2. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. London: Verso.

3. Arnett, J. (2004). Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from Late Teens through

the Twenties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

4. Arts, W. & Halman, L. (2006). Identity: The case of the European Union. Journal of

Civil Society, 2 (3), p. 179-198.

5. Bakker, T.P. & de Vreese, C.H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people,

internet use, and political participation. Communication Research 38(4), p. 451–470.

6. Banaji, S. & Buckingham, D. (2013). The Civic Web: Young People, the Internet and

Civic Participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

7. Barnett, S. (2008). On the road to self-destruction. British Journalism Review, 19 (2),

p. 5-13.

8. Barrett, M., Wilson, H. & Lyons, E. (2003). The Development of National In-Group

Bias: English Children’s Attributions of Characteristics to English, American and

German People. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21 (2), p. 193–220.

9. Bayat, A. (2013). Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Change the Middle East.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

10. Baycroft, T. (2004). European Identity. In G. Taylor and S. Spencer (eds.). Social

identities: Multidisciplinary approaches. New-York: Routledge, p. 145-161.

11. Beetham, D. (1994). Defining and Measuring Democracy, London: Sage/ECPR.

12. Beetham, D. and Lord, C. (2001). Legitimising the EU: is there a Post-parliamentary

basis for its Legitimation? Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(3), p. 443-462.

13. Beetham, D., Bracking, S., Kearton, I. & Weir, S. (2002). International IDEA

Handbook on Democracy Assessment. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

14. Bekhuis, H., Meuleman, R. & Lubbers, M. (2013). Globalization and support for

national cultural protectionism from a cross-national perspective. European

Sociological Review, 29, p. 1040–1052.

15. Bennett, L. (2007). Civic Learning in Changing Democracies: Challenges for

Citizenship and Civic Education. In P. Dahlgren (ed.), Young Citizens and New

Media: Learning and Democratic Engagement. New York: Routledge, p. 59–77.

16. Berger, P. & Luckman T. (1966). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.

18

17. Bischoff, K. (2016). The civic effects of schools: Theory and empirics, Theory and

Research in Education, Vol. 14(1), p. 91–106.

18. Blekesaune, A., Elvestad, E. & Aalberg, T. (2012). Tuning out the World of News and

Current Affairs—An Empirical Study of Europe’s Disconnected Citizens. European

Sociological Review, 28 (1), p. 110-26.

19. Boulianne, S. (2009). Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of

research. Political Communication 26(2), p. 193–211.

20. Brandenburg, H. (2006). Pathologies of the Virtual Public Sphere, În S. Oates, D.

Owen și R. Gibson (eds): The Internet and Politics: Citizens, Voters and Activists, p.

207–22. London: Routledge.

21. Brașoveanu, A. (2010). ERASMUS – European Educational Mobility Program and

Cross-Cultural Shared Experience and Identity. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai,

Studia Europaea, LV(4), p. 85-104.

22. Brubaker, R., Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond ‘Identity. Theory and Society, 29 (1), p. 1-47.

23. Bruter, M. (2005). Citizens of Europe? The Emergence of a Mass European Identity.

Palgrave: Macmillan.

24. Bruter, M. (2008). Legitimacy, Euroscepticism & Identity in the European Union –

Problems of Measurement, Modelling & Paradoxical Patterns of Influence, Journal of

Contemporary European Research, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 273-285.

25. Bruter, M. & Harrison, S. (2014). Memory, Emotion, and Ergonomics: The Electoral

Psychology of Voters in Perspective. Paper presented at LSE for the ECREP

Workshop Series, London, March 2014.

26. Brüggemann, M. & Königslöw, K. (2009). `Let’s Talk about Europe’: Why

Europeanization Shows a Different Face in Different Newspapers. European Journal

of Communication. 24(1), p. 27–48.

27. Byram, M. & Dervin, F. (2008) (Eds.). Students, Staff and Academic Mobility in

Higher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge Schoolars Publishing.

28. Cammaerts, B., Bruter, M., Banaji, S., Harrison, S. & Anstead, N. (2016). Youth

Participation in Democratic Life. Stories of Hope and Disillusion, UK: Palgrave

Macmillan.

29. Campbell, D. (2006). Why We Vote: How Schools and Communities Shape our Civic

Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

30. Campbell, D. (2007). Sticking Together Classroom Diversity and Civic Education.

American Politics Research, Vol. 35, Number 1, p. 57-78

31. Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the Classroom: How an Open Classroom Climate

Fosters Political Engagement Among Adolescents, Political Behavior, Vol. 30 (4), p.

437–54.

19

32. Carlson, S. (2013). Becoming a mobile student: a processual perspective on German

degree student mobility. Population, Space and Place, 19, p. 168–180.

33. Carpenter, S. (2010). A study of content diversity in online citizen journalism and

online newspaper articles. New Media & Society 12(7), p.1064–1084.

34. Castano, E. (2004). European identity: a social-psychological perspective, In R.

Herrmann, T. Risse și M. Brewer (eds), Transnational identities. Becoming European

in the EU. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

35. Checkel, J. T. & Katzenstein, P. J. (2009). European Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

36. Communication from the Commission, COM 2009 (200) final. An EU Strategy for

Youth – Investing and Empowering A renewed open method of coordination to address

youth challenges and opportunities, Brussels: Commission of the European

Communities.

37. Council of the European Union (2009/ C 311/01). Council Resolution of 27 November

2009 on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-

2018), Official Journal of the European Union.

38. Council of the European Union (2012/C 326/49): Consolidated Version of the Treaty

on the Functioning of the European. Official Journal of the European Union.

39. Corbu, N., Ștefăniță, O., Oprea, D., & Udrea, G. (2015). The European Union – From

Agenda Setting and Media Frames to Citizens’ Conversations. Revista română de

comunicare și relații publice, vol. 17, nr. 1 (34), p. 41-57.

40. Copsey, N. (2015): Rethinking the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

41. Copsey, N. (2015): Rethinking the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

42. Council Resolution of 27 November 2009 on a renewed framework for European

cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018) (2009/C 311/01). Official Journal of the

European Union.

43. Council Resolution (2015). Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of

the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on a European

Union Work Plan for Youth for 2016-2018 (2015/C 417/01).

44. Cruz, J. & Poultney, J. (2009). Europe 2014: Young voices in Europe – whose

generation are we? Available at: http://www.euractiv.com/section/social-europe-

jobs/opinion/europe-2014-young-voices-in-europe-whose-generation-are-we/

45. Cynthia Carter (2013). Children and the news: rethinking citizenship in the twenty-

first century. In Dafna Lemish (ed.). The Routledge International Handbook of

Children, Adolescents and Media, Oxon and New York: Routledge, p. 255-263.

46. Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven CT: Yale

University Press.

20

47. Dahlgren, P. (2013). The Political Web: Media, Participation and Alternative

Democracy, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, 2013.

48. Dalton, R.J. (2008). Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation.

Political Studies, vol 56, p. 76-98.

49. Dalton, R. J. (2009). The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation is Reshaping

American Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Revised edition.

50. Dalton, R. J. (2013). Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in

Advanced Industrial Democracies (6th edition). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

51. Datler G., Wallace C. & Spannring R. (2005). What leads young people to identify

with Europe? An exploration of ‘exposure’ to Europe and resources for identification

among young Europeans. Reihe Soziologie, 69.

52. Davis, A. (2010). New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation.

New Media & Society, 12(5), p. 745-761.

53. Davies, R. (1999). The Web of Politics: The internet’s impact on the American

political system. New York: Oxford University Press.

54. Davies, C., Coleman, J. & Livingstone, S. (eds) (2014). Digital Technologies in the

Lives of Young People. London: Routledge.

55. Delhey, J., Deutschmann, E. & Cirlanaru, K. (2015). Between ‘class project’ and

individualization: the stratification of Europeans’ transnational activities. International

Sociology, 30, p. 269–293.

56. Delli Carpini, M.X. (2004): Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of

communications on citizens’ involvement in political life. In: Kaid, L.L. (ed.)

Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, p.

395–434.

57. Denters, B., Gabriel, O. & Torcal, M. (2007). Norms of Good Citizenship. In J. van

Deth, Ramón Montero J. & Westholm, A. (eds), Citizenship and Involvement in

Europe. London: Roudletge, p. 88-108.

58. Du Bois-Reymond, M., (1998). European Identity in the Young and Dutch Students’

Images of Germany and the Germans, Journal of Comparative Education, vol. 34, nr.

1, p. 27-40.

59. Du Bois-Reymond, M. (2002). Lernfeld Europa. Chancen für Schülern und Lehrer im

21. Jahrhundert. In U. Bracht & D. Keiner (Eds.), Jahrbuch für Pädagogik 2001.

Munich, Germany: Waxmann.

60. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, (2012). Citizenship Education

in Europe, EACEA P9 Eurydice and Policy Support.

61. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (2013). Political

participation and EU Citizenship: Perceptions and Behaviours of Young People.

European Commission.

21

62. Engel, L. C. & Ortloff, D. H. (2009). From the local to the supranational: curriculum

reform and the production of the ideal citizen in two federal systems, Germany and

Spain. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 41(2), p. 179–198.

63. European Commission (2001). Communication from the Commission, COM (2001)

428 final. European governance - A white paper. 2001/C 287/01. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0428&qid=1433313042154

&from=EN

64. European Commission (2005). Action Plan to Improve Communicating Europe by the

Commission, SEC (2005) 985, 20 July 2005. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/2/2005/EN/2-2005-985-EN-F-0.Pdf

65. European Commission (2006). White Paper on a European Communication Policy,

COM (2006) 35 final, Brussels, 1 February 2006. Available at:

http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com2006_35_en.pdf

66. European Union (2012). EU Youth Report 2012. Luxembourg. Publications Office of

the European Union.

67. European Union (2016). EU Youth Report 2015. Luxembourg. Publications Office of

the European Union.

68. Eurydice/EACEA and Eurostat, 2012. Key Data on Education in Europe 2012.

Brussels: Eurydice.

69. EU Youth Report (2012). Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union.

70. Eveland, W.P. (2005). Information processing strategies in mass communication

research. In: Dunwoody S., Becker L.B., McLeod D.M. & Kosicki, G.M. (eds). The

Evolution of Key Mass Communication Concepts. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, p.

217–250.

71. Favel, A. (2009). Immigration, Migration, and Free Movement in the Making of

Europe. In J. Checkel and P. Katzenstein (eds.), European identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, p. 167-189. 13.

72. Ferencová, M. (2006). Reframing Identities: Some Theoretical Remarks on ‘European

Identity’ Building. International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs. 1, p. 4-17.

73. Fesnic, F. (2015). Can Civic Education Make a Difference for Democracy? Hungary

and Poland Compared. Political Studies, Available at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280874719

74. Fico F, Lacy S, Wildman S.S., Baldwin, T., Bergan, D. & Zube, P. (2013). Citizen

journalism sites as information substitutes and complements for United States

newspaper coverage of local governments. Digital Journalism, 1(1), p.152–168.

75. Finkel, S. E. (2003). Can Democracy Be Taught?, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 14 (4),

p. 137-51.

22

76. Flanagan, C. (2009). Young People’s Civic Engagement and Political Development. In

A. Furlong (ed.), Handbook of Youth and Young Adulthood. Abingdon: Routledge,

p. 293–300.

77. Flanagan, C. A. & Stout, M. (2010). Developmental Patterns of Social Trust Between

Early and Late Adolescence: Age and School Climate Effects, Journal of Research on

Adolescence, Vol. 20 (3), p. 748–73.

78. Fligstein, N. (2009). Who are the Europeans and how does this matter for politics? In

J. Checkel and P. Katzenstein (eds.), European Identity, p. 132-166, Cambridge

University Press.

79. Franklin, M. (2004). Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition since

1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

80. Flash Eurobarometer of the European Parliament (EP EB395) (2014). European Youth

in 2014. European Parliament, Available at

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/eurobarometre/2014/youth/eb_395_synthesis_yout

h_en.pdf

81. Fligstein, N. (2008). Euroclash. The EU, European Identity, and the Future of Europe.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

82. Fligstein, N. (2009). Who are the Europeans and how does this matter for politics? In

J. Checkel and P. Katzenstein (eds.), European Identity, p. 132-166, Cambridge

University Press.

83. Franklin, M. (2004). Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition since

1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

84. Frieden, J. (2016). How did the EU become so unpopuar? Debating Europe,

13.04.2016. Available at http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/04/13/how-has-eu-

become-so-unpopular/#.V1bV8I9OI2z

85. Furlong, A. & Cartmel, G. (2011). Social Change and Political Engagement Among

Young People Generation and the 2009/2010 British Election Survey. Parliamentary

Affairs, 65, p.13-28.

86. Gabel, M. J. (1998). Interests and Integration: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion,

and European Union. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

87. Gainous, J. & Martens, A.M., (2012). The Effectiveness of Civic Education: Are

“Good” Teachers Actually Good for “All” Students?. American Politics Research,

Vol. 40(2), p. 232–266.

88. Gaiser, W., De Rijke, J. & Spannring, N. (2010). Youth and Political Participation.

Empirical Results for Germany within a European Context. Young, (18) 1, p. 427-450.

89. Geissel, B. (2008): Reflections and findings on the critical citizen: Civic education –

What for? European Journal of Political Research, 47 (1), p. 34–63.

23

90. Gerhards, J. & Hans, S. (2013). Transnational human capital, education, and social

inequality. Analyses of international student exchange. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 42,

p. 99–117.

91. Gibson, R., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. (2005). Online participation in the UK: Testing a

“contextualized” model of Internet effects. Policy Studies Association, 7(4), p. 561-

583.

92. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern

Age. Cambridge: Polity.

93. Georgi, V.B (2008). Citizens in the Making: Youth and Citizenship Education in

Europe, Journal Compilation, Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 2, no.

2, p. 107-113.

94. Gould, J. (Ed.). (2011). Guardian of democracy: The civic mission of schools.

Washington, DC, USA: National Conference on Citizenship. Available at:

http://www.ncoc.net/guardianofdemocracy.

95. Guest, R. (2016). Generation Uphill. The Economist, 23-29 ian, 2016. Available at:

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21688591-millennials-are-brainiest-

best-educated-generation-ever-yet-their-elders-often

96. Guibernau, M. (2011). Prospects for a European Identity. International Journal of

Politics, Culture and Society 24, p. 31-43.

97. Habermas, J. (2012). The Crisis of the European Union. A Response. Malden: Polity

Press.

98. Hadler, M., Tsutsui, K. & Chin, L. G. (2012): Conflicting and Reinforcing Identities in

Expanding Europe: Individual- and Country-Level Factors Shaping National and

European Identities, 1995–2003. Sociological Forum, Vol. 27, No. 2.

99. Hakhverdian, A., Van Elsas, E., Van der Brug, W. & Kuhn, T. (2013). Euroscepticism

and Education: A Longitudinal Study of Twelve EU Member States, 1973–2010,

European Union Politics, 14, p. 522–541.

100. Hall, S. (1996). The Question of Cultural Identity. In Stuart H., Held, D., Hubert, D.,

Thompson K. (eds.) Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies, Cambridge:

Blackwell.

101. Hart, D., Donnelly, T., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community

service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Education Research

Journal, Vol. 44(1), p. 197–219.

102. Held, D. (2006). Democracy, the Nation-State and the Global System. In Models of

Democracy. Third Edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.

103. Hepp, A. (2013). The communicative figurations of mediatized worlds: Mediatization

research in times of the ‘mediation of everything’. European Journal of

Communication, 28 (6), p. 615–629.

24

104. Harris, A., Wyn, J. & Younes, S. (2010). Beyond apathetic or activist youth. Young,

18(1), p. 9-32.

105. Hermes, J. (2006). Citizenship in the Age of the Internet. European Journal of

Communication, Vol 21(3), p. 295–309.

106. Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of religion: A theory of the media as agents of

religious change. In Northern lights 2008. Yearbook of film & media studies, vol. 6

(1), p. 9–26.

107. Hoikkala, T. (2009). The diversity of youth citizenships in the European Union.

Young, 17(1), p. 5-24.

108. Holt, K., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J. & Ljungberg, E. (2013). Age and the effects of

news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do

social media function as leveller?. European Journal of Communication, 28(1), p. 19–

34.

109. Hooghe M. & Wilkenfeld, B. (2008). The stability of political attitudes and behaviors

across adolescence and early adulthood: A comparison of survey data on adolescents

and young adults in eight countries, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol 37 (2), p.

155-67.

110. Hoskins, B., Germen Janmaat, J & Villalba, E. (2012). Learning citizenship through

social participation outside and inside school: an international, multilevel study of

young people’s learning of citizenship. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38,

No. 3, p. 419–446.

111. Hutter, S. & Grande, E., (2014): Politicizing Europe in the national electoral arena: A

comparative analysis of five West European countries, 1970–2010. Journal of

Common Market Studies, 52(5); p. 1003-1018.

112. Huyst, P. (2008). “We have made Europe, now we have to make Europeans“:

Researching European Identity among Flemish Youths, Journal of Contemporary

European Research, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 286-302

113. Huyst, P. (2009): The Europeans of tomorrow: researching European identity among

young Europeans, Centre for EU Studies, Ghent University, Available at

http://aei.pitt.edu/33069/ .

114. Igarashi, H. & Saito, H. (2014). Cosmopolitanism as cultural capital: exploring the

intersection of globalization, education and stratification. Cultural Sociology, 8, p.

222–239.

115. Inglehart, R. (1970): Cognitive mobilization and European identity. Comparative

Politics 3(1), p. 45–70.

116. Inglehart, R. & Welzel, C, (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy:

The Human Development Sequence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25

117. Jackson, A. & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the

21st century. A report of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York: Teachers

College Press.

118. Jackson, N. (2003). Vote Winner or a Nuisance: Email and British MPs Relationships

with their Constituents, Lucrare prezentată la Political Studies Association, Leicester,

17 April.

119. Jamieson, L., et al (2005). Orientations of Young Men and Women to Citizenship and

European Identity. Website of the University of Edinburg, Sociology Department,

Available at http://www.sociology.ed.ac.uk/youth/.

120. Jenkins, R. (2000/1996). Identitatea Socială (Social Identity). trad. Alex Butucelea.

Bucharest: Univers.

121. Kamphausen, G. (2006). European Integration and European Identity: Towards a

Politics of Difference? International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs. 1, p. 24-

31.

122. Katz, E. & Scannell, p. (Eds.) (2009). The End of Television? Its Impact on the World

(So Far), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.

625, SAGE Publications.

123. Karantzeni, D. & Gouscos, D. G (2013). eParticipation in the EU: Re-focusing on

social media and young citizens for reinforcing European identity, Transforming

Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 7 Iss: 4, p.477 – 500

124. Keating, A., & Janmaat, J. G. (2015). Education through citizenship at school: Do

school activities have a lasting impact on youth political engagement? Parliamentary

Affairs, gsv017. Available at

http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/05/24/pa.gsv017.full

125. Kerr, D., Sturman, L., Schulz, W. & Burge, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 European Report,

Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower secondary students in 24

European countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational

Achievement (IEA), Netherlands.

126. Kerr, D., Sturman, L. & Friedman, T. (2011). Priorities for Civic and Citizenship

Education in Europe. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American

Educational Research Association (AERA) in New Orleans, 8-12 April 2011.

Disponibilă la http://research.acer.edu.au/civics/15

127. Kimberlee, R. (2002). Why Don’t British Young People Vote at General Elections?,

Journal of Youth Studies 5(1), p. 85–98.

128. King, J. (2006). Democracy in the information age. Australian Journal of Public

Administration, 26 (2), p. 16-32.

129. Kleinsteuber, H. J. (2001). Habermas and the Public Sphere: from a German to a

European Perspective. The Public, Vol. 8, p. 95-108.

26

130. Koopmans, R. & Erbe, J. (2003): Towards a european public sphere? Vertical and

horizontal dimensions of europeanised political communication.

Veröffentlichungsreihe der Arbeitsgruppe Politische Öffentlichkeit und Mobilisierung

des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin für Sozialforschung, No. SP IV 2003-403.

131. Koopmans, R. (2007). Who Inhabits the European Public Sphere? Winners and

Losers, Supporters and Opponents in Europeanized Political Debates, European

Journal of Political Research, 46, p. 183-210.

132. Kuhn, T. (2015): Experiencing European Integration: Transnational Lives and

European

133. Kuhn, T. (2016): The Social Stratification of European Schoolchildren’s Transnational

Experiences: A Cross-Country Analysis of the International Civics and Citizenship

Study. European Sociological Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 266–279.

134. Kuhn, T., van Elsas, E., Hakhverdian, A. & van der Brug, W. (2016): An ever wider

gap in an ever closer union: Rising inequalities and euroscepticism in 12 West

European democracies, 1975–2009. Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 27–45

135. Kunelius, R. & Sparks, C. (2001). Problems with a European Public Sphere. The

Public, Vol. 8, p. 5-20. Identity, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

136. Lauristin, M. (2007). The European Public Sphere and the Social Imaginary of the

‘New Europe’. European Journal of Communication. 22(4), p. 397–412.

137. Lievrouw, L. & Livingstone, S. (2009). Introduction. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone

(Eds.), New Media. Sage Benchmarks in Communication (xxi-xl). London: Sage. p. 1-

18.

138. Livingstone, S. (2007). The Challenge of Engaging Youth Online. Contrasting

Producers’ and Teenagers’ Interpretations of Websites, European Journal of

Communication, vol. 22(2), p. 165-184.

139. Livingstone, S. (2009). On the Mediation of Everything: ICA Presidential Address

2008. Journal of Communication, 59 (1), p. 1–18.

140. Livingstone, S. (2013). Children’s internet culture: power, change and vulnerability in

twenty-first century childhood. In Dafna Lemish (ed.). The Routledge International

Handbook of Children, Adolescents and Media, Oxon and New York: Routledge, p.

111-120.

141. Livingstone, S. & Bober, M. (2005). UK Children Go Online: final report of key

project findings. London: LSE Research Online. Available at

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/399/

142. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A. and Olafsson, K. (2011). Risk and Safety on

the Internet: The perspective of European children. Full Findings. LSE. London: EU

Kids Online.

143. Lundby, K. (2009). Introduction: ‘Mediatization’ as a key. In: Knut Lundby (ed.)

Mediatization: Concept, Changes, Consequences. New York: Peter Lang, p. 1–18.

27

144. Lunt, P. & Livingstone, S. (2012). Media Regulation: Governance and the interests of

citizens and consumers. London: Sage.

145. Lupia, A. & Philpot, T.S. (2005). Views from inside the net: How websites affect

young adults’ political interest. Journal of Politics 67(4), p. 1122–1142.

146. Maier, M. & Risse, T. (2003). Europeanization, Collective Identities and Public

Discourses. Available at

http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/82608121EN6.pdf

147. Manea, M. (Ed.) (2013). SMART Diaspora, Liga Studentiilor Romani din Strainatate,

Bucuresti (SMART Diaspora, The League of Romanian Students Abroad, Bucharest).

148. Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In Mannheim, K. Essays on the

Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

149. Mau, S. & Verwiebe, R. (2010). European Societies: Mapping Structure and Change.

Bristol: Policy Press.

150. McCombs, M. (2005). Research review. A Look at Agenda-setting: past, present and

future. Journalism Studies, 6 (4), p. 543 – 557.

151. McCombs, M., Llamas, J.P., Lopez-Escobar, E. & Rey, F. (1997). Candidate images

in Spanish elections: Second-level Agenda-setting Effects. Journalism and Mass

Communication Quarterly, 74 (4), p. 703-717.

152. Meyer, J.-H. (2010). The European Public Sphere. Media and Transnational

Communication in European integration 1969-1991, Stuttgart: Franz SteinerVerlag.

153. Ministerul Educației, Cercetării și Inovării (2009). Programe școlare. Cultură civică.

Clasele a VII-a – a VIII-a. Anexa nr.3 la ordinul ministrului educaţiei, cercetării şi

inovării nr. 5097/09.09.2009. Available at

http://programe.ise.ro/Portals/1/Curriculum/progr_gim/OS/Cultura%20civica_clasele

%20a%20VII-a%20-%20a%20VIII-a.pdf

154. Ministerul Educației Naționale (2014). Programa școlară pentru disciplina „Educație

civică”, clasele a III-a – a IV-a. Anexa nr. 2 la ordinul ministrului educației naționale

nr. 5003 / 02.12.2014. Available at

http://www.edu.ro/index.php?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=20307

155. Ministerul Educației și Cercetării, Consiliul Național pentru Curriculum, (2006).

Programă școlară pentru disciplina opțională „Educație Europeană”. Available at

http://www.edu.ro/index.php/articles/6699

156. Ministerul Educației și Cercetării și Cercetării Științifice (2016). Planul-cadru pentru

gimnaziu. Available at http://www.edu.ro/index.php/pressrel/24187

157. Mitchell, K. (2012). Student mobility and European Identity: Erasmus Study as a civic

experience? Journal of Contemporary European Research. 8 (4), p. 490-518.

28

158. Montgomery, K., Gottlieb-Robles, B. & Larson, G.O. (2004): Youth as E-Citizens:

Engaging the Digital Generation. Washington, DC: Center for Social Media, School

of Communication, American University; Available at:

http://civicyouth.org/PopUps/YouthasECitizens.pdf

159. Mummendey, A. & Waldzus, S. (2004). Inclusion in a super-ordinate category, in-

group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 40, p. 466–477.

160. Nie, N. H, Hillygus D. S, & Erbring L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations,

and sociability. In B. Wellman and C. Haythorn-thwaite (Eds.), The Internet in

everyday life, p. 215-243. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

161. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the

internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

162. Norris, P. (2002). Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

163. Norris, P. (2004). Young People & Political Activism: From the Politics of Loyalties

to the Politics of Choice?. Lucrare prezentată la conferința Civic engagement in the

21st Century: Toward a Scholarly and Practical Agenda, University of Southern

California, Oct 1-2, 2004.

164. O’Toole, T. (2004). Explaining Young People’s Non-participation: Towards a Fuller

Understanding of the Political. Lucrare prezentată la European Consortium for

Political Research Joint Sessions of Workshops, Universitatea din Uppsala.

165. Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2003): Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: theoretical

debates and young people’s experiences. Educational Review, Vol. 55, No. 3.

166. Pagden, A.(ed.) (2002). The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to the European Union.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

167. Pancer, S. M. (2015). The psychology of citizenship and civic engagement. New York,

NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

168. Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of

Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books.

169. Papes, A. & Stoycheva, K. (2013). Media and Young Citizens’ Engagement in the

EU – Final Report. European Association for Viewers Interests (EAVI). Brussels.

170. Papaioannou, T. (2013). Media and civic engagement: the role of Web 2.0

technologies in fostering youth participation. In Dafna Lemish (ed.). The Routledge

International Handbook of Children, Adolescents and Media, Oxon and New York:

Routledge, p. 351-359.

171. Pasek, J., Feldman, L., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2008). Schools as incubators of

democratic participation: Building long-term political efficacy with civic education.

Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 12(1), p. 26-37.

29

172. Pattie, C., Seyd, P. & Whiteley, P. (2004). Citizenship in Britain: Values,

Participation and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

173. Păunescu, M. & Precupețu, M. (2007). Erasmus Students’ Mobility. Insights from

Bulgarian, Polish and Romanian experiences. București: Ericom.

174. Philippou, S., Keating, A. & Ortloff, D. (2009). Conclusion: Citizenship education

curricula: comparing the multiple meanings of supra-national citizenship in Europe

and beyond, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 41, no. 2, p. 291-299.

175. Polyakova, A., & Fligstein, N. (2013). Is European Integration Causing Europe to

Become More Nationalist? : Evidence from the Recent Financial Crisis. Lucrare

prezentată la Intâlnireile anuale ale American Sociological Association, New York

City, August 9-12, 2013.

176. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

177. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American

community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

178. Polyakova, A., & Fligstein, N. (2013). Is European Integration Causing Europe to

Become More Nationalist?: Evidence from the Recent Financial Crisis. Lucrare

prezentată la întâlnireile anuale ale American Sociological Association, New York

City, August 9-12, 2013.

179. Quintelier, E. & Vissers, S., (2008). The Effects of Internet Use on Political

Participation. An Analysis of Survey Results for 16-Year-Olds in Belgium. Social

Science Computer Review. 26 (4), p. 411–427.

180. Quintelier, E., Verhaegen, S. & Hooghe, M. (2014). The intergenerational

transmission of European identity: the role of gender and discussion within families.

JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52, p. 1103–1119.

181. Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Europeanisation: Solution or problem?, European Integration

Online Papers (EIoP). 8(16). Available at http://www.eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2004-

016.pdf.

182. Rauh, C. (2016): A Responsive Technocracy? EU politicisation and the consumer

policies of the European Commission, ECPR Press, United Kingdom.

183. Recchi, E. (2014): Pathways to European identity formation: a tale of two models.

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 27, No. 2.

184. Resolution of the European Parliament (2015). European Parliament resolution of 25

November 2015 on the prevention of radicalisation and recruitment of European

citizens by terrorist organisations (2015/2063(INI)).

185. Rico, G. & Jennings, M.K. (2012). The Intergenerational Transmission of Contending

Place Identities. Political Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 5, p. 723–42.

30

186. Risse, T. (2002). How Do We Know a European Public Sphere When We See One?

Theoretical Clarifications and Empirical Indicators. The IDNET Workshop

“Europeanization and the Public Sphere”, European University Institute, Florence,

February 20-21.

187. Risse, T. (2004). European Institutions and Identity Change: What Have We Learned?,

In R. Herrmann, T. Risse and M. Brewer (eds), Transnational identities. Becoming

European in the EU. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

188. Risse, T. 2010: A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public

Spheres, Ithaca, New York: Cornwell University Press, 287 p.

189. Ross, A. (1999). What Concepts of Identities Lie Behind “European Citizenship”?

Why are Those in European Higher Education Institutions Concerned with Children’s

Changing Ideas of Citizenship?. In Ross, A. (ed.) Young Citizens in Europe. London:

Cice.

190. Ross, A. (2008). A European education – citizenship, identities and young people.

Trentham Books Limites: USA.

191. Ross, A. (2015). Understanding the Constructions of Identities by Young New

Europeans: Kaleidoscopic Selves, Londra și New York: Routledge.

192. Ruiz Jimenez, A.M., Gorniak, J.J., Kosic, A., Kiss, P., & Kandulla, M. (2004).

European and National Identities in EU’s Old and New Member States: Ethnic, Civic,

Instrumental and Symbolic Components. European Integration online Papers (EIoP).

8 (11).

193. Scheerens, J. (Ed.) (2009). Informal learning of active citizenship at school. An

international comparative study in seven European countries. Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Springer-Verlag.

194. Scheufele, D.A. & Nisbet, M.C. (2002). Being a citizen online. The Harvard

International Journal of Press/Politics 7(3), p. 55–75.

195. Schifirneț, C., Boțan, M., Cârlan, A., Corbu, N., Frunzaru, V., Stavre, I., Suciu, A.

(2011). Europenizarea societății românești și mass-media. Comunicare.ro

196. Schlesinger, P. (2007). A Cosmopolitan Temptation. European Journal of

Communication, 22 (4), p. 413–426.

197. Schlesinger, P. & Foret, F. (2007). Political Roof and Sacred Canopy? Religion and

the EU Constitution. In J. K. Fossum, P. K. Schlesinger & O. Geir (eds.), ARENA

Report No 2, p. 113-139.

198. Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2006). Between risk and opportunity: News

framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of

Communication, 21(1), p. 5-32.

31

199. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J. (2013). Student participation at school and future

civic engagement: Results from ICCS 2009, Lucrare prezentată la IEA Research

Conference, Singapore. Disponibilă la https://iccs.acer.edu.au/files/IRCpaper-Civic-

Participation-At-School(31May13).pdf

200. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito B. & Agrusti, G. (2016). IEA International

Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 Assessment Framework, Amsterdam:

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)

201. Shin, C. I. & Jackson, R. L. (2003). A Review of Identity Research in Communication

Theory. Reconceptualizing Cultural Identity. In Starosta, W. J. And Chen G.-M.

(eds.). Ferment in the Intercultural Field. Axiology/Value/Praxis. International and

Intercultural Communication Annual. XXVI. Thousand Oaks: Sage, p. 211-242.

202. Shore, C. (1993). Inventing the ‘People’s Europe’: Critical Approaches to European

Community ‘Cultural Policy’. Man. New Series. 28 (4), p. 779-800.

203. Shore, C. (2000). Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration,

London: Routledge.

204. Sigalas, E. (2010). The Role of Personal Benefits in Public Support for the EU:

Learning from the Erasmus Students. West European Politics, 33(6), p. 1341-1361.

205. Silverstone, R. (2005). The sociology of mediation and communication. In C. J.

Calhoun, C. Rojek, & B. S. Turner (Eds.): The SAGE handbook of sociology, p. 188–

207. London: Sage.

206. Simeunovic, N (2009). The Role of Media in European Identity Formation:

Understanding the Complexity of Today’s European Media Landscape. CEU Political

Science Journal, 4 (4), p. 501-519.

207. Slavtcheva-Petkova, V. & Mihelj, S. (2012): Europe – a default or a dream? European

identity formation among Bulgarian and English children. Ethnicities, 13(5), p. 565–

583.

208. Sloam, J. (2012). Youth, Citizenship and Politics. Parliamentary Affairs, 65:1 (special

issue), p. 4–12.

209. Sloam, J. (2013). 'Voice and Equality': Young People's Politics in the European Union.

West European Politics, 36(4), p. 836-858.

210. Smith, A. D. (1992). National Identity and the Idea of European Unity. International

Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-). 68 (1), p. 55-76.

211. Smith, A. D. (1993). A Europe of Nations. Or the Nation of Europe?. Journal of Peace

Research. 30 (2), p. 129-135.

212. Spannring, R., Ogris, G. & Gaiser, W. (2008). Youth and Political Participation in

Europe. Results of the Comparative Study of EUYOUPART, Opladen: Barbara

Budrich.

32

213. Speer, M. (2015). Get them Traveling! The European, 24.06.2015. Available at

http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/martin-speer--5/10308-how-traveling-fosters-

european-integration

214. Standard Eurobarometer 82 (2014). Public Opinion in the European Union. European

Commission. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDe

tail/instruments/STANDARD/surveyKy/2041

215. Standard Eurobarometer 83 (2015). European Citizenship. European Commission.

Available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_en.htm.

216. Standard Eurobarometer 84 (2015). Public Opinion in the European Union. European

Commission. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDe

tail/instruments/STANDARD/surveyKy/2098

217. Strategia Națională în domeniul politicii de tineret 2015-2020. Available at:

http://mts.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Strategia-tineret-2015-2020.pdf

218. Tkatch, D. (2014). Overqualified and Underpaid. The European, 19.03.2014.

Available at http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/daniel-tkatch--4/8242-youth-

unemployment-and-europes-brain-drain

219. Tajfel, H. (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

220. Tholl, M. (2014). Home is where the hardship is. The European. Available at:

http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/max-tholl--2/8433-europes-lost-generation

221. Tobin, K. (2010). Civic education in emerging democracies: Lessons from post-

Communist Poland and Romania, Journal of Research in International Education ,

Vol. 9(3), p. 273–288.

222. Torney-Purta, J. (2004). Adolescents’ Political Socialization in Changing Contexts:

An International Study in the Spirit of Nevitt Sanford, Political Psychology, Vol 25

(3), p. 465–78.

223. Torney-Purta, J. & Wilkenfeld, B.S. (2009). Paths to 21st Century Competencies

Through Civic Education Classrooms: An Analysis of Survey Results from Ninth-

Graders. (A Technical Assistance Bulletin). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association

Division for Public Education.

224. Trandafoiu, R. (2006). The Whole Greater than the Sum of Its Parts: An Investigation

into the Existence of European Identity, Its Unity and Its Divisions. Westminster

Papers in Communication and Culture. 3 (3), p. 91-108.

225. Trenz, HJ. (2005). Review Essay: The European Public Sphere: Contradictory

Findings in a Diverse Research Field. European Political Science, 00, 1-14.

33

226. Trenz, HJ. (2008). In Search of a European Public Sphere. Between Normative

Overstretch and Empirical Disenchantment. RECON Online Working Paper No. 07,

p. 1-16.

227. Tsafos, N. (2006). Growing up a European?, Sais Review, XXVI (2), p.181.

228. Turner, J., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering

the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

229. Udrea, G. (2011). European Identity and Otherness. Theoretical Perspectives. In I.

Horga and A. Popoviciu (coord.), European Union between the constraint of the

borders and global competition. Oradea: Editura Universităţii din Oradea, p. 117-130.

230. Udrea, G. (2012). European Identity and Erasmus mobility: Insights from Romanian

Students’ Experiences. Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations.

14(5), p. 21-32.

231. Udrea, G. & Corbu, N. (2010). “The Building of a European Identity and its

Challenges”. Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations, 12(3), p. 63-

83.

232. Udrea, G., & Corbu, N. (2011). Cultural Adaptive Patterns in European Contexts. In

A. Lesenciuc (Ed.). Redefining Community in Intercultural Context (p. 157-162).

Brașov: Henri Coandã Air Force Academy Publishing House.

233. Udrea, G,. Udrea, M. & Țugmeanu, A. E. (2013). National and European Identity: An

empirical research on how Romanian students experience identities during their long-

term studies abroad. Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations, Vol.

15, 1 (28), p. 17-35.

234. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.

Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

235. Upson, R. (2006). Connecting with Citizens – Does the EU have the will to Tackle its

Information Deficit?. European Citizen Action Service, Brussels, p. 4-5.

236. Van de Steeg, M. (2004). Does a Public Sphere Exist in the European Union? An

Analysis of the Content of the Debate on the Haider-Case. EUI Working Paper SPS,

No. 5, p. 1-21

237. Van Deth, J.W. (2000). Interesting but irrelevant: Social capital and the saliency of

politics in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research 37(2), p. 115–

147.

238. Van Mol, C. (2011). The Influence of European Student Mobility on European

Identity and Subsequent Migration Behavoiur. In F. Dervin (Ed.), Analysing the

Consequences of Acdemic Mobility and Migration. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars

Publishing. p. 29-50.

239. Van Mol, C. (2013). Intra-European Student Mobility and European Identity: A

Successful Marriage?. Population, Space and Place, Vol 19, p. 209–222.

34

240. Varsori, A. & Petricioli, M. (2004). Europe, Its Borders and the Others. In Frank, R.

(ed.). Les identités européenes au XX siècle: diversités, convergences et solidarités.

Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, p. 81-99.

241. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism

in American Politics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

242. Verhaegen, S., Hooghe, M. & Quintelier, E. (2014). European Identity and Support for

European Integration: A Matter of Perceived Economic Benefits? Kyklos, Vol. 67,

No. 2, p. 295–314.

243. Vīķe‐Freiberga, V., Däubler‐Gmelin, H., Hammersley, B., Pessoa Maduro, L.M.

(2013). A free and pluralistic media to sustain European democracy. The Report of

the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, p. 1-51. Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/hlg/hlg_final_

report.pdf

244. Vromen, A. (2008). Building virtual spaces: Young people, participation and the

Internet, Australian Journal of Political Science 43(1), 79-97.

245. Walker, N., 2001. The White Paper in Constitutional Context. In: C. Joerges, Y. Meny

and J.H.H.Weiler, eds. Symposium: Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the

Commission White Paper on Governance, Jean Monnet Working Paper No.6/01

Available at: http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/archive/papers/01/011001.html

246. Warwick, C., Rimmer, J., Blandford, A., Gow, J., Buchanan, G. (2009). Cognitive

economy and satisficing in information seeking: A longitudinal study of undergraduate

information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 60 (12), 2402–2415.

247. Watson, J. (2003). Media Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Process.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

248. Westlund, O. & Bjur, J. (2014). Media Life of the Young. Young 22(1), p. 21-41.

249. Wilson, I. (2011). What Should We Expect of ‘Erasmus Generations’? Journal of

Common Market Studies, 49(5), p. 1113-1140.

250. Wintle, M. J. (2011). Ideals, Identity and War: The Idea of Europe, 1939–70. In M.

Wintle & M. Spiering (ed.). European Identity and the Second World War. Palgrave:

MacMillan, p. 1-18.

251. Yamamoto, M., Kushin, M. J. & Dalisay, F. (2014). Social media and mobiles as

political mobilization forces for young adults: Examining the moderating role of

online political expression in political participation. new media & society 2015, Vol.

17(6), p. 880–898.

35

* http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21688856-worlds-young-are-oppressed-

minority-unleash-them-young-gifted-and-held-back

* http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/04/13/how-has-eu-become-so-

unpopular/#.V1bV8I9OI2z

* https://storify.com/europarl_en/radicalisationconference

* http://www.debatingeuropolitics/#.VVe.eu/2015/05/12/social-media-pxh9_ntmkr

* http://www.euractiv.ro/extern/jean-claude-juncker-avem-prea-multi-europeni-part-

time-4321

* http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/martin-speer--5/10308-how-traveling-

fosters-european-integration

* http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/daniel-tkatch--4/8242-youth-unemployment-

and-europes-brain-drain

* http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/eu-lithuania-british-

society-values

* http://alistairross.eu/my-2000-2013-project-constructing-identities-in-the-new-

europe.html