Copyright This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 727066 Unless officially marked PUBLIC, this document and its contents remain the property of the beneficiaries of the WYRED Consortium and may not be distributed or reproduced without the express approval of the Project Coordinator. netWorked Youth Research for Empowerment in the Digital society Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3* * cfr. GA – Annex I Part A – 1.3.2 WT2 – list of deliverable Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 2 H2020-SC6-REV-INEQUAL-2016 Grant Agreement number: 727066 1st November 2017 – 30th September 2019 Inclusion Report 2 Deliverable number WP2_D2.3 Deliverable description Filename WYRED_WP2_D2.3 Type R Dissemination level PU DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1476479 Due Date (in months) M24 Deliverable contributors Version No. Name, Institution Role Last update v.1 Sabine Zauchner-Studnicka, MOVES Author 31.10.2018 Mairead McMullen, Early Years Comment 30.10.2018 draft Sabine Zauchner-Studnicka, MOVES Coordinator/Author 29.10.2018 Alicia Garcia Holgrado, USAL Data Analyses 22.10.2018 Danny Arati and Zuhal Yilmaz Doğan, DOĞA Comments 25.9.2018 Tamara Gojkovich, YEU Comment 21.09.2018 Mary O´Reilly, Early Years Comment 21.09.2018 Sabine Zauchner-Studnicka; MOVES Suggestions for adaptations of questions 21.09.2018 Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 3 Table of Contents 1 Inclusion in WYRED __________________________________________________ 6 1.1 Understanding of Inclusion and Diversity _____________________________ 6 1.2 Deliverable 2.3 Objectives _____________________________________________ 7 2 Final Questionnaire __________________________________________________ 8 2.1 Inclusion Questions and Benchmarks _________________________________ 8 2.1.1 Gender __________________________________________________________ 9 2.1.2 Age _____________________________________________________________ 9 2.1.3 Educational or Work Background ______________________________________ 9 2.1.4 Socio-Economic Status _____________________________________________ 10 2.1.5 Geographic Location_______________________________________________ 10 2.1.6 Migration _______________________________________________________ 11 2.1.7 Ethnic/National Background ________________________________________ 11 2.1.8 Religious Background ______________________________________________ 12 2.1.9 Disability ________________________________________________________ 12 2.1.10 Sexual Orientation ________________________________________________ 12 2.2 Questionnaire Versions______________________________________________ 13 3 Analyses of the WYRED-Project ____________________________________ 15 3.1 Questionnaire Statistics _____________________________________________ 15 3.2. Overview of Diversity in WYRED ___________________________________ 15 3.3. 1 Gender ________________________________________________________ 15 3.2.2 Age 16 3.2.3 Education or Work Background _________________________________________ 18 3.2.4 Socio-Economic Status ________________________________________________ 20 Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 4 3.2.5 Geographic Location __________________________________________________ 21 3.2.6 Migration ___________________________________________________________ 22 3.2.7 Ethnic/National Background ____________________________________________ 23 3.2.8 Religion ____________________________________________________________ 24 3.2.9 Disability ___________________________________________________________ 26 3.2.10 Sexual Orientation ___________________________________________________ 27 4 Conclusions and Further Procedure _______________________________ 28 5 References _________________________________________________________ 30 Glossary of Terms _______________________________________________________ 33 Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 5 Figures Figure 1: Percentage of inclusion questionnaires related to total participants (own source; 2018) .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2: Gender ratio in WYRED (own source, 2018) .................................................................. 16 Figure 3: Age-categories in WYRED (own source, 2018) .............................................................. 17 Figure 4: Interrelation between the categories Gender and Age (own sources, 2018) .......... 17 Figure 5: International Standards of Education (ISCED) levels in WYRED (own source, 2018) .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 6: Students in formal education (own source, 2018) ....................................................... 19 Figure 7: Activities of participants not attending formal education (own source, 2018)....... 19 Figure 8: Socio-economic status (own source, 2018) ................................................................... 21 Figure 9: Place of residence (own source, 2018) ........................................................................... 21 Figure 10: Place of work or study (own source, 2018) ................................................................. 22 Figure 11: Migration background (own source, 2018) ................................................................. 23 Figure 12: Ethnic groups in WYRED (own source, 2018); without Turkey ................................. 24 Figure 13: Religion in WYRED (own source, 2018); without Turkey ........................................... 25 Figure 14: Active participation in a religious groups (own source, 2018); without Turkey .... 25 Figure 15: Disability or long-term illness (own source, 2018) .................................................... 26 Figure 16: Sexual orientation (own source, 2018); without Turkey ........................................... 27 Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 6 1 Inclusion in WYRED 1.1 Understanding of Inclusion and Diversity The WYRED project (García-Peñalvo, 2016, 2017; García-Peñalvo & Kearney, 2016; Griffiths et al., 2017) is informed by the recognition that young people of all ages have the right to participation and engagement in the digital world. It has a strong focus on inclusion, diversity and the empowerment of the marginalised, which is realized in Work Package 2 “Inclusion” - in its transversal function covering the whole project. Inclusion in WYRED is committed to an understanding of diversity that regards differences as normal and values the idea of anyone equally participating in all aspects of life and decision-making. As a sociological term, inclusion indicates a society in which every person is accepted and regarded as equal and self-determined, irrespective of specific individual diversity criteria. Differences between individuals are regarded as an enrichment and as being normal. Inclusion values equality and equal participation of every member of society in all aspects of life, including civic, social, economic, and political activities, as well as decision-making processes. Regarding differences as being normal is the most essential proposition in the model of inclusion. The inclusion process is an integral part of the whole work process and it accompanies WYRED from the very beginning to even beyond the end of the project, as sustainability of the project is closely related to the success of WYRED’s theoretical understanding and practical implementation of inclusion. Inclusion criteria were selected within the 1st project cycle based upon internationally well-known diversity criteria (Abdul-Hussain & Baig, 2009; Loden & Rosener, 1991). Within the 1st and 2nd cycles criteria were continuously adapted to the outcomes of discussions with partners, their feedback and specific cultural needs. Last this was done in September 2018, when suggestions for the adaptation of the two questions about the ethnic/national background and religion were made by the lead partner and intensely discussed by the partners. Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 7 In the the time-period of the present report partners were provided with detailed inclusion data at four times: Within D.2.2, after the midterm meeting in January 2018, followed by the project meeting in Bath (June 2018) and this report. 1.2 Deliverable 2.3 Objectives The present deliverable D2.3 is the third WP2 inclusion report in WYRED. It is based on D2.1 v.2 (August 5th, 2017) “Inclusion criteria” (WYRED Consortium, 2017) and D2.2. “Inclusion report” (January 2018) (WYRED Consortium, 2018). D2.3 will be followed by the last inclusion report in month 36 (October 31th, 2019). While D2.1 was more technically oriented, providing the consortium with practical information about how to efficiently implement the individual criteria in their countries, D2.2 focused on the WYRED experiences with implementing inclusion criteria in the first research cycle and the partners’ definition of minority groups in their countries. The present report analyses the WYRED current status of diversity (October 22nd, 2018) as shown on the platform (García-Holgado & García-Peñalvo, 2018; García-Peñalvo & Durán-Escudero, 2017; García- Peñalvo, García-Holgado, Vázquez-Ingelmo, & Seoane-Pardo, 2018) and presents activities within the months 11/2017 and 10/2018. Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 8 2 Final Questionnaire 2.1 Inclusion Questions and Benchmarks As announced in the 2nd inclusion report, the two questions about religion and the ethnic background were revised and provided to the partners for feedback. The problem was, that these questions have been least answered by the participants. This might be related to the understandability of the term “ethnic background”, to the questions’ format as being open questions, to being non-mandatory or simply being too private to be answered. Therefore, • the question for religion was altered from an open question to a question providing choices. A short list was derived from the answers of the participants in cycle 1 and 2, the partners’ feedback and matched with European statistics. This list is displayed to them including the option of not answering and as before the participants are asked, if they were active members of a religious group (yes, no, no answer; see 2.1.8). • For the question about the ethnic background the definition of an ethnic group was explained in a more detailed and a more understandable way. The participants are asked for identification with an ethnic group (yes, no, no answer) and in case participants identify with a group, they can choose from a worldwide list (see 2.1.7). We hope that these changes will make it easier for the participants to answer. This will be seen, as soon as participants will use the new version, which will be the case beginning with November 2018. Apart from this it is clear, that these (supposed to be the last) adaptations will make analyses much easier as categories now can be counted automatically. I the following the WYRED diversity questions are presented in detail. For a more specific and evidence-based description of the criteria and the related benchmarks, please refer to D2.1_v2 from 2017/18/05. Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 9 2.1.1 Gender Which gender do you attribute to yourself? Version 1 o female o male o male Version 2 Used in all partner countries except Turkey when participant`s age is >18) o female o male o not mentioned above (if you wish, please specify): o no answer Benchmark: WYRED aims at an equal share of male and female participants and is open to diversity in also considering transgender categories. 2.1.2 Age Your year of birth: List starting with 1945 Benchmark: WYRED aims at reaching participants from the following age groups: (1) younger than 10 years old, (2) 10 to 14 years old, (3) 15 to 19 years old, (4) 20 to 24 years old and (5) 25 to 29 years old. 2.1.3 Educational or Work Background What is your highest level of education? à List of the 8 ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education)1 11 ISCED 0: Early childhood education, ISCED 1: Primary education, ISCED 2: Lower secondary education, ISCED 3: Upper secondary education, ISCED 4: Post-secondary non-tertiary education, ISCED 5: Short- cycle tertiary education, ISCED 6: Bachelors' or equivalent level, ISCED 7: Masters' or equivalent level, ISCED 8: Doctors or equivalent level Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 10 Currently, are you student in formal education? o Yes: o No: àWhat are you doing in the moment? o non-formal training, o internship, o employed, o self-employed, o unemployed Benchmarks: In line with the age groups a balanced distribution of educational levels and of youth in the workforce is aimed at. 2.1.4 Socio-Economic Status Parents´ Educational Status What is the highest school level attained by your mother? à List of the ISCED categories o I can´t answer this question What is the highest school level attained by your father? à List of the ISCED categories o I can´t answer this question Benchmark: A share of high (25%), middle (50%) and low (26%) SES (Social-economic status) per is envisaged (mean parental ISED level: 0-2=low; 3-6=middle; 7-8=high 2.1.5 Geographic Location Where do you live? o Village/rural community (< 5,000 inhabitants) o Small town (5,000-20,000 inhabitants) o Medium town (20,000-100,000 inhabitants) o Big town (> 100,000 inhabitants) Where do you study or work? o Village/rural community (< 5,000 inhabitants) o Small town (5,000-20,000 inhabitants) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 11 o Medium town (20,000-100,000 inhabitants) o Big town (> 100,000 inhabitants) Benchmark: Representation in relation to the national population in the four categories is aspired for. 2.1.6 Migration Which language is mainly spoken in your family? à List of languages Where were you born? à List of countries Where was your father born? à List of countries o I can´t answer this question Where was your mother born? à List of countries o I can´t answer this question Benchmark: A share of migrants in the first and/or second generation as related to the partner countries is aimed at. 2.1.7 Ethnic/National Background Do you identify with an ethnic/national group? An ethnic group is a group of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation. An ethnic group could for example be “Italian”, “Austrian Croat”, “Romani”, “Syrian”, “Maghrebi” “Arabic”, “Afro-Caribbean” “Indian”, “Kurd” or “Irish traveller”. o Yes o No o No Answer If yes: What is your ethnic/national group? (list of ethnic groups worldwide) o other Benchmark: The share of the specific ethnic groups as given in the partner countries in D2.2 Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 12 2.1.8 Religious Background What is your religious background? o Catholic o Protestant o Orthodox o Muslim o Jewish o Atheistic/Not-believing o Other o No answer Do you consider yourself an active part of this group? o Yes o No o No answer Benchmark: Share as related to the partner countries. 2.1.9 Disability Do you have any long-term illness, health problem or disability which limits your daily activities? o No o Yes o No answer Benchmark A share of about 15% of participants is aimed at. 2.1.10 Sexual Orientation If applicable: (depending on country, participant´s age) Do you perceive yourself as being ... o Heterosexual? o Homosexual? Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 13 o Bisexual? o No answer Benchmark: The demographics of sexual orientation vary significantly. The most common ranges of homo- and bisexuality differ from 1 to 10%. Therefore, the benchmarks for this criterion is regarded to be within this range. 2.2 Questionnaire Versions In the run of final revision of the diversity questions in September 2018, the Turkish partners decided for another reduction of items apart from sexual orientation and the gender- question without the transgender item: They also decided to no longer ask for the ethnic background and for religion and to delete all previously selected data of these questions. This is due to the fact, that they do not find these questions appropriate to be asked in their county and they also see methodological limitations in the revision of the two new questions, which are mainly related to the use of lists in the new versions of religion and ethnic background instead of open questions. This means on a practical level that there will be four versions of the inclusion questionnaire displayed on the platform, when the adaptations of the 2 questions will be implemented in November 2018. As before: 1. Version 1: Inclusion questionnaire (IQ) for participants >= 18 years. This questionnaire contains all diversity criteria as defined above. It implements the gender question in the version of asking for gender transition. 2. Version 2: Inclusion questionnaire for participants < 18 years. This questionnaire contains all diversity criteria of D2.1. v2 except the sexual orientation question and applies a simple version (Version1) of asking for the genders (male, female). Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 14 3. Version 3: Inclusion questionnaire for participants >= 14 years. This questionnaire differs from version 2 only in the introduction, which is written in an easier understandable language for the younger participants of WYRED. New: 4. Version 4: The Turkish partner uses an individual questionnaire which applies the simple (Version 1) gender question, and the questions for age, education, social economic status, migration, geographic location, and disability. Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 15 3 Analyses of the WYRED-Project 3.1 Questionnaire Statistics The percentage of participants filling in the questionnaire in relation to the total number of participants (both groups younger than 30 years) can be regarded as stable and – except the first analysis when filling in the questionnaire was mandatory – is around 50 percent (Figure 1). Though, considering that the share of partners’ percentage in regard to this share ranges from 0.5% and 65%, there is still space for achievement. Further focusing on the strategy of explicitly inviting participants to complete the questionnaire as being an important part of WYRED and to inform them about the fact, that every question has the option of not being answered, therefore still will be very helpful to increase numbers. Figure 1: Percentage of inclusion questionnaires related to total participants (own source; 2018) 3.2. Overview of Diversity in WYRED 3.3.1 Gender 70,59% 49,82% 51,38% 56,46% 57,49% 56,27% 52,66% 53,07% 51,46% Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18 Jun 18 Oct 18 Percentage of Questionnaires in Cycle 2 Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 16 As can be seen in Figure 2 there are still more females participating in the WYRED project. As already stated this might be related to the fact, we saw in the Stakeholder Questionnaire, that the educational system is more dominated by women (about 2/3), or what seems to be more convincing, that organisations, (high)schools, or students in fields of studies, which by themselves more focus on girls or young women respectively attract them to a higher extent, are participating in WYRED. Still, the fulfilment of a more gender-balanced share should be aimed at in the further run of the project like for example involving (high)schools, fields of study or other youth organisations in which a higher percentage of male young people is given. Figure 2: Gender ratio in WYRED (own source, 2018) 3.2.2 Age The WYRED age groups for children and young people apply to the European definition of Youth (Statistical Office of the European Communities, 2015). As well in the second year of the project as in the first, the age groups 15 to 19 and 20 to 24 are covered most in the project. Participants younger than 15 years therefore should be continued to be focussed on. Especially the age-group from 10 to 14 years should get more attention in the 3rd cycle. Female; 129; 61% Male; 82; 38% 2:Not mentioned above; 2; 1% 3:No answer; 0; 0% GENDER (N=213) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 17 Figure 3: Age-categories in WYRED (own source, 2018) Figure 4: Interrelation between the categories Gender and Age (own sources, 2018) As shown in Figure 4 especially the gender-ratio in the age groups 15 to 19 and 20 to 24, as well as – already mentioned – the total number of participants younger than 15 years should be addressed in cycle 3. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 <10 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 11 1 92 77 32nu m be r ( n) AGE (N=213) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 <10 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 11 1 92 77 32 5 0 52 52 20 0 0 0 0 1 nu m be r ( n) Age Categiories GENDER/AGE (N=213) female male other Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 18 3.2.3 Education or Work Background The educational respective the work background criterion is based upon three distinctive questions. All participants are asked for their educational level, which is shown in Figure 5. Currently, most participants are on a Secondary II level (ISCED 3), followed by Bachelor level (ISCED 6), Secondary I (SCED 2), Master level (ISCED 7) and Short Tertiary Education (ISCED 5). The differences in ISCED 2 and 3 can be explained by the missing participants aged 10 to 14 years. Figure 5: International Standards of Education (ISCED) levels in WYRED (own source, 2018) It is not astonishing that ISCED 4 (Post-Secondary, Non-Tertiary) is low, as e.g. in England and Northern Ireland there is no such category, whereas in Austria, education for health professions or specific Colleges are covered by this category. In most European countries, compulsory education lasts until 15 to 16 years, in several countries even until 18 – which is covered by ISCED 2 and 3 (European Commission, 2016). As shown in Figure 6, 76 % of the WYRED participants are engaged in formal education: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 28 87 13 16 39 16 1 nu m be r ( N) ISCED Level EDUCATION (N=213) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 19 Figure 6: Students in formal education (own source, 2018) Instead they are employed or self-employed, are having internships, and some are attending non-formal education (Figure 7.). Figure 7: Activities of participants not attending formal education (own source, 2018) Yes; 161; 76% No; 52; 24% STUDENT IN FORMAL EDUCATION? (N=213) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Non-formal E. Internship Employed Self-employed Unemployed 16 8 14 3 12 nu m be r(n ) WHAT ARE YOU DOING CURRENTLY? (N=53) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 20 It is clear, that an equal share of all the ISCED categories can’t be the aim of the project, especially regarding ISCED 4 to 8. ISCED 2 currently seems to be fed to a high extent by the age group of 15-19. A higher share of ISCED 2 and 1 relates to the age structure of the participants, which again supports the importance of engaging more participants aged younger than 15 years. 3.2.4 Socio-Economic Status The socio-economic status (SEC) is presented by an indicator derived from the educational status of both, the participant’s father and mother (mean). This simply calculated factor must be considered with care, as usually SEC is derived from the three factors educational level, family income and parents’ occupation. As well the latter two primary factors as other secondary factors were not applied, primarily because SEC-indices are often criticised in terms that young people cannot answer correctly, as they simply do not know the data – especially regarding family income. Also, an often-applied secondary indicator - number of books in a household – must be criticised in regard to validity when considering the use of digital media for reading books. Therefore, SEC is categorised as follows: Low: ISCED 0-2; Middle: ISCED 3-5: High: ISCED: 6-8, which as planned in the benchmarks brings the picture of the highest proportion for middle SES. Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 21 Figure 8: Socio-economic status (own source, 2018) 3.2.5 Geographic Location When considering geographic location, data reveal on the one hand that participants almost equally stem from villages, small and middle tows as related to big towns. Secondly it is seen that several inhabitants of villages and small town are moving to big towns to study or work. Figure 9: Place of residence (own source, 2018) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Low Medium High No answer 46 93 57 17 nu m be r ( n) SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (N=213) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 village small town medium town big town 46 43 31 93 nu m be r ( n) WHERE DO YOU LIVE? (N=213) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 22 Figure 10: Place of work or study (own source, 2018) As seen in in cycle 1, data sufficiently reflects the European statistics, which indicate about 70% of inhabitants for big towns and about 30 % for the rural population (Koceva u. a., 2016) with expected increases to even more that 75 % in 2050. 3.2.6 Migration According to Eurostat (2017) there were 35.1 million people born outside of the EU-28 living in an EU Member State on 1 January 2016, which is 6,9% of the total population, while there were 19.3 million persons who had been born in a different EU Member State from the one where they were resident (3,8%). 1st generation migrants in WYRED (as defined by birth- places of the participants and their parents and the main spoken language in the family) have a share of 9,79 %, which means that migrants in WYRED are even more engaged than the general European bench-mark would require. Since its first measurement for D.2.2, when the percentage was 10,38 %, it did not change essentially. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 village small town medium town big town 13 27 45 128 nu m be r ( n) WHERE DO YOU STUDY OR WORK? (N=213) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 23 Figure 11: Migration background (own source, 2018) 3.2.7 Ethnic/National Background The big share of participants not answering this question in D2.2. (41%) did not change. Therefore, still the importance of providing a more suitable version of this question is given. The reasons were already discussed in D.2, whereas D.3 announces the adaptations made. The share of minority groups rose a bit from 7% to 9% and is mainly related to the number of Romani in Italy and to persons identifying their ethnicity as being from a Balkan state or an East-European country in Austria. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 No migrant 1st generation 2nd generation 173 19 21 nu m be r ( n) MIGRATION (N=213) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 24 Figure 12: Ethnic groups in WYRED (own source, 2018); without Turkey 3.2.8 Religion Also, for this question, the high rate of 37,34% who do not answer persists. As religion is a well understood term, the changes in the format will inform us, if this low rate of answers is related to a desire for more privacy regarding issues of religion, or if for example irreligious persons did not answer due to the fact, that they might have thought, they were not meant. About 75 % of the European people are Christians (mainly catholic, but also protestant and orthodox), 6 to 8 % are Muslims and about 0,3 % Jews. About 1/3 of the Europeans describe themselves as irreligious (which means that they do not adhere to a religious group) and 5 % as atheistic (which means that they do not believe in god; see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa). Considering the high percentage of non-respondents and the fact that we no-longer analyse data from DOĞA, the figure shown below yet does not reflect European data well. Minority Group; 17; 9% Majority Group; 94; 52% No answer; 71; 39% ETHNIC GROUPS (N=182) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 25 Figure 13: Religion in WYRED (own source, 2018); without Turkey About one third of the WRED participants are active members of one of the above shown religions (see Figure 14). Figure 14: Active participation in a religious groups (own source, 2018); without Turkey 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Ch ris tia n Mu slim Ag no sti c/A the ist Or tho do x Jew Ot he r No an sw er 80 3 12 7 4 8 68 nu m be r ( n) RELIGION (N=182) Yes; 53; 29% No; 74; 41% No answer; 55; 30% ACTIVE MEMBER OF A RELIGIOUS GROUP (N=182) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 26 3.2.9 Disability Regarding the involvement of disabled participants or participants with a long-term illness, 5% of respondents fit within this category. According to the benchmarks as specified in D.2.1., the benchmark for Europe lies at about 15%, though it must be considered that this ratio accounts for the whole European population and not solely for the young. In any case, it would be reasonable to increase the number of the participants in this group. Figure 15: Disability or long-term illness (own source, 2018) Yes; 11; 5% No; 186; 87% No answer; 16; 8% DISABILITY OR LONG-TERM ILLNESS (N=213) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 27 3.2.10 Sexual Orientation Figure 16: Sexual orientation (own source, 2018); without Turkey The sexual orientation question was displayed to 141 participants older than 18 years. Interestingly for this question there were much less persons (12%) not answering the question than in 3.2.7 and 3.2.8. Currently, the share of homo- or bisexual persons lies at 6% respectively 5% which is well expected regarding the defined benchmark-range of in between 1 to 10 percent. Heterosexual; 108; 77% Homosexual; 9; 6% Bisexual; 7; 5% No answer; 17; 12% SEXUAL ORIENTATION (N=141) Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 28 4 Conclusions and Further Procedure The inclusion questionnaire as implemented on the platform is adhering to the ethnic rules of WYRED, which assure, that personal data is carefully protected within the project. The main finding currently is, that data collection has become kind of a self-running process, which no longer needs engagement of the partners apart from still having a focus on inviting participants, who are entering the platform, to complete the questionnaire. Though for some partners there might be space for the increase of numbers, the questionnaire turned out to be suitable to 1) inform about diversity-criteria in WYRED and 2) allows to identify minority groups like participants with low socio-economic status, minority ethnic groups, first generation migrants, homosexual persons, or persons with disabilities respectively long-term illness for the whole project. Although the number of questionnaires completed increased steadily as did the number of total participants, serious individual analyses for most partners cannot be done yet but are intended to be provided within and after cycle 3. Further, as advised in D2.2, still a focus should be given to the enhancement of specific age groups and the engagement of male participants when acquiring participants for cycle 3, specifically: (1) more participants in the age group of 10 to 14 years and < 10 (2) more male participants, especially in the age groups 15 to 19 and 20 to 24 years. Two partners already announced to work with groups of participants of the missing ages in cycle 3. Further, we will see latest in Spring 2019, if the adaptation of the questions for religion and the ethnic/national background will bring better results. The next information for partners on diversity in WYRED therefore is planned for March 2019. As stated several times, inclusion-criteria in WYRED continuously were adapted within the last two years of collaboration, though still it seems we are working on our common understanding of diversity on the one side and on culturally given needs and requirements for differentiation in implementation of the questionnaire on the other side. Whenever Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 29 differences in perception develop, like currently within the revision of the questions on gender and religion, it needs to be taken very seriously. WYRED could not be called a diverse project, if we just wrote about diversity and selected data instead of “doing difference” ourselves (West & Fenstermaker, 1995). It seems clear that our Turkish partners don’t feel comfortable with some of the questions and it must be fully respected that they skipped them in their individual version. Not only when considering a constructivist understanding of the perception of the world (e.g. Glasersfeld, 1996; Simon, 2006; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 2012) but also considering the view WYRED lays on diversity. It´s on us to adhere to the statement given in the first inclusion report of January 2017 (p.13) saying: “In WYRED, diversity is regarded as valuable because the differences of backgrounds that characterize people lead to different perspectives, to different understandings of the world.” Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 30 5 References Abdul- Hussain, S., & Baig, S. (2009). Diversity in Supervision, Coaching und Beratung. Wien: Facultas Verlags- und Buchhandels AG. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167. European Commission. (2016). Compulsory Education in Europe 2016-2017 (Eurydice Facts and Figures). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Eurostat. (2017). Migration and migrant population statistics. Abgerufen von http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics#Migrant_population García-Holgado, A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2018). WYRED Platform, the ecosystem for the young people. Paper presented at the HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA. https://youtu.be/TRDjN5boky8 García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). The WYRED project: A technological platform for a generative research and dialogue about youth perspectives and interests in digital society. Journal of Information Technology Research, 9(4), vi-x. García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). WYRED Project. Education in the Knowledge Society, 18(3), 7-14. doi:10.14201/eks2017183714 García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Durán-Escudero, J. (2017). Interaction design principles in WYRED platform. In P. Zaphiris & A. Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Technology in Education. 4th International Conference, LCT 2017. Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 31 Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14, 2017. Proceedings, Part II (pp. 371-381). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. García-Peñalvo, F. J., García-Holgado, A., Vázquez-Ingelmo, A., & Seoane-Pardo, A. M. (2018). Usability test of WYRED Platform. In P. Zaphiris & A. Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Design, Development and Technological Innovation. 5th International Conference, LCT 2018, Held as Part of HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 15-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 73-84). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Kearney, N. A. (2016). Networked youth research for empowerment in digital society. The WYRED project. In F. J. García-Peñalvo (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’16) (Salamanca, Spain, November 2-4, 2016) (pp. 3-9). New York, NY, USA: ACM. Glasersfeld, E. von. (1996). Radikaler Konstruktivismus. Ideen, Ergebnisse, Probleme. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Griffiths, D., Kearney, N. A., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Seoane-Pardo, A. M., Cicala, F., Gojkovic, T., . . . Zauchner-Studnicka, S. (2017). Children and Young People Today: Initial Insights from the WYRED Project. European Union: WYRED Consortium. Retrieved from http://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/990 Knapp, G.-A. (2008). „Intersectionality“ - ein neues Paradigma der Geschlechterforschung? In R. Casale & B. Rendtorff (Hrsg.), Was kommt nach der Genderforschung? Zur Zukunkt feministischer Theoriebildung. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. Koceva, M. M., Brandmüller, T., Lupu, I., Önnerfors, Å., Corselli-Nordblad, L., Coyette, C., … Europäische Kommission (Hrsg.). (2016). Urban Europe: statistics on cities, towns and suburbs (2016 edition). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 32 Loden, M., & Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America!: managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Homewood, Ill: Business One Irwin. Lutz, H., Herrera Vivar, M. T., & Supik, L. (Hrsg.). (2013). Fokus Intersektionalität: Bewegungen und Verortungen eines vielschichtigen Konzeptes (2. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Simon, F. B. (2006). Einführung in Systemtheorie und Konstruktivismus. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Statistical Office of the European Communities. (2015). Being young in Europe today: 2015 edition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Abgerufen von http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2785/59267 Walgenbach, K. (2013). Postscriptum: Intersektionalität - Offenheit, interne Kontroversen und Komplexität als Ressourcen eines gemeinsamen Orientierungsrahmens. In H. Lutz, M. T. Herrera Vivar, & L. Supik (Hrsg.), Fokus Intersektionalität: Bewegungen und Verortungen eines vielschichtigen Konzeptes (2. Aufl., S. 265–279). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (2012). Menschliche Kommunikation. Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien (12. Aufl.). Bern: Huber. West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing Difference. Gender and Society, 9(1), 8–37. WYRED Consortium. (2017). Inclusion Criteria. WP2_D2.1. Version 2. Grupo GRIAL: University of Salamanca. Retrieved from https://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/1112 WYRED Consortium. (2018). Inclusion Report 1. WP2_D2.2. Version 3. Grupo GRIAL: University of Salamanca. Retrieved from http://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/1113 Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 33 Glossary of Terms Culture A social system of meaning and custom that is developed by a group of people. These groups are distinguished by a set of unspoken rules that shape values, beliefs, habits, patterns of thinking, behavior and styles of communication. Disability Physical or mental impairment, the perception of a physical or mental impairment, or a history of having had a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities. Diversity Psychological, physical, and social differences that occur among all individuals; including but not limited to race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, socioeconomic status, education, marital status, language, age, gender, sexual orientation, mental or physical ability, and learning styles. A diverse group, community, or organization is one in which a variety of social and cultural characteristics exist. Diversity Managment A management model which describes the measures leading to acknowledgement and valuing of differences as well as regarded to be useful in an organization Equality Evenly distributed access to resources and opportunity necessary for a safe and healthy life; uniform distribution of access to ensure fairness. Ethnicity Similarly to the term culture, an ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences. Equity The guarantee of fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement while at the same time striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups. The principle of equity acknowledges that there are historically underserved and under- Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 34 represented populations and that fairness regarding these unbalanced conditions is needed to assist equality in the provision of effective opportunities to all groups. Gender The socially constructed ideas about the behavior, actions and roles of a specific sex; differentiated from sex, a system of classification based on biological and physical differences, such as primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Inclusion Creation of environments in which any individual or group can be and feel welcomed, respected, supported, and valued, to be able to fully participate. An inclusive and welcoming climate embraces differences and offers respect in words and actions for all people. Marginalization The placement of minority groups and cultures outside mainstream society. All that varies from the norm of the dominant culture is devalued and at times perceived as deviant and regressive. Migration The movement of a person or a group of persons, either across an international border, or within a state. It includes the migration of refugees and displaced persons, economic migrants, and persons moving for other purposes, including family reunification. Norm An ideal standard that is binding upon the members of a group and serves to guide, control, or regulate power and acceptable behavior. Stereotype A positive or negative set of beliefs held by an individual about the characteristics of a certain group. Sexual orientation An enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality while asexuality (the lack of sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category. Inclusion Report 2 WP2_D2.3 35 Transgender An umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from their birth gender. Transgender can refer to a range of groups including transsexual people and those who see themselves as not clearly fitting into a male or female identity. Transgender people may or may not alter their bodies hormonally and/or surgically.