This publication presents the findings of a study on Brazilian youth and the public dialogue methodology associated with it. The details of the project's origins, its framework and results, and the evaluation of its methods will make it of particular interest to young people themselves as well as researchers and policymakers.
The project took shape following President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's decision to set up an inter-ministerial group on youth policy in 2004. Spurred on by this interest at the top, a network of Brazilian NGOs, coordinated by Ibase and Pólis, proposed a survey of youth opinion that would feed into the process. Drawing on similar work done by the Canadian Policy Research Network and funded by the Canadian-based International Development Research Centre (which provided similar support to the Brazilian project), the study went beyond conventional forms of public opinion surveying to encompass a more deliberative and participatory approach, including 8,000 interviews and 40 focus groups across eight metropolitan areas.
The report is divided into two parts, the first providing a descriptive and analytical survey of the study's findings and the second an overview and evaluation of the research methods used. Chap. 1 shows that youth involvement in group activities never exceeds 30 per cent, although the form of association varies: the younger and more affluent engage in religious, sport and cultural groups, while older and poorer youth tend to participate in community associations.
The authors of chap. 2 note the importance of television in young people's access to information and the failure of schools to play this role or provide sufficient participatory space. The research shows that Brazilian youth do keep themselves informed politically and are committed to solidarity and voluntary activities, even as they shun organised political activity as unresponsive to their needs. However, the authors of chap. 3 observe that when tested on their knowledge of public affairs, youth are extremely selective in their information gathering. Television does not play as significant a role in educating as do other sources: newspapers, magazines, the internet and radio among A/B social groups, and the internet for D/E groups.
The second part of the report will be of particular interest to researchers. It reviews the dialogue group methodology used in the survey, including researchers' and participants' evaluations and the challenges posed by the choice of method, especially when adapting the model used in Canada to Brazil. In chap. 4 the authors note the three benefits of using dialogue groups, namely education, deliberation and research. At the same time, there were several limitations and challenges. These included insufficient funding to evaluate the use of the findings by the group participants and policymakers; trade-offs between socially homogeneous or heterogeneous groups (the former enabling more discussion, less inhibition and more exploration of attitudes, the latter offering more educative and deliberative scope between people); and the uncertain definition of what ‘participation’ means (p. 96).
Chap. 5 provides feedback from the dialogue group participants themselves. Young people appreciated the fact that they had a chance to speak and were being listened to. They also felt the social dimension of the project was important: as well as expressing their own views they were impressed by the opportunity to meet and engage with new people in new settings (that is, in a non-school environment). This contributed to greater learning and reflection by all involved, with some admitting to having changed their minds several times during the day based on what they had heard from their peers.
Chap. 6 provides a comparative account of the Canadian and Brazilian experiences and the decision to adopt a more decentralised approach in the latter. Chap. 7 offers a review of some of the risks associated with this choice, such as the potential differences in methods and results and their incomparability. Despite these concerns, researchers concluded that building a network of regional NGOs was a worthwhile endeavour, since it strengthened their organisational and leadership capacities in their regions while Ibase and Pólis played an influential role in coordinating the project. Chap. 8 offers an interesting insight into the role that the media play in publicising research and advocacy. It is a useful account of the systematic way in which a strategy and series of campaigns was established, including identification of the target audience (young people and policymakers), the role that regional organisations would play, and a breakdown of the three campaigns that took place over the course of the project's final year.
Throughout the report, the researchers' concern is to demonstrate that young people are not apathetic. Rather, they reject traditional or ‘adult’ forms of participation such as involvement in political parties or organised labour for those that they perceive as neither containing nor constraining them – for example, voluntary activities and religious, sporting and cultural groups. In this respect young people are more likely to pursue alternative forms of public engagement, as their role in initiating the anti-corruption protests and demonstrations against President Collor in 1992 demonstrates (indeed, the authors' omission of the pintados, the term used to describe the young protesters and their painted faces, is surprising). That young people can and do engage makes it all the more essential that policymakers heed the report findings and adopt changes to enable greater participation by young people in formal settings, including at the local, school and national levels.
