Practicing citizenship: creation and validation of a measurement scale

Abstract

This work aims to develop a scale to measure the citizenship practices of individuals in the Brazilian context. Citizenship is a popular concept, but it is difficult to measure and operationalize due to its complex and multidimensional nature. It is one of the effects desired by society, social organizations, and more participatory management. Thus, the development of a scale of citizenship practices enables a deeper understanding of this construct, supporting public and private studies and actions aimed at collective well-being. Supported by Marshall’s (2017) classical theory of citizenship and its extensions, the scale was based on a picture of variables traced from the literature and confirmed by experts on the subject. Statistical validation was performed using both factor analysis and bases of structural equation modeling with two samples of 207 and 522 research subjects. As the main result, a statistically validated scale was created with seventeen items classified into four dimensions of citizenship practices: civil, political, social, and environmental.

Keywords:
Citizenship; Individual practices; Measurement scale; Validation; Management tool

Resumo

Este trabalho objetiva desenvolver uma escala para mensurar as práticas de cidadania de indivíduos validadas no contexto brasileiro. Cidadania é um conceito popularmente utilizado, mas de difícil mensuração e operacionalização dada sua natureza complexa e multidimensional. Ela é um dos efeitos almejados pela sociedade, por organizações sociais e gestões mais participativas e, assim, o desenvolvimento de uma escala de práticas de cidadania possibilitará a expansão da compreensão desse constructo, apoiando estudos e ações públicas e privadas voltadas para o bem-estar coletivo. Amparada na teoria clássica da cidadania de Marshall (1967) e suas ampliações, esta pesquisa parte de um quadro de variáveis rastreadas da literatura e confirmadas por especialistas no tema. Em seguida, houve a validação estatística, com o uso tanto da análise fatorial como de bases da modelagem de equações estruturais, com duas amostras de 207 e 522 sujeitos de pesquisa. Como principal resultado, alcançou-se uma escala inédita, validada estatisticamente por 17 itens classificados em quatro dimensões das práticas de cidadania: civil, política, social e ambiental.

Palavras-chave:
Cidadania; Práticas individuais; Escala de mensuração; Validação; Instrumento de gestão

Resumen

Este trabajo tiene como objetivo desarrollar una escala para medir las prácticas de ciudadanía de los individuos, validada en el contexto brasileño. La ciudadanía es un concepto de uso popular, pero difícil de medir y operacionalizar dada su naturaleza compleja y multidimensional. Es uno de los efectos deseados por la sociedad, las organizaciones sociales y la gestión más participativa, por lo que el desarrollo de una escala de prácticas ciudadanas permitirá la ampliación de la comprensión de este constructo, apoyando estudios y acciones públicas y privadas centradas en el bienestar colectivo. Basada en la teoría clásica de la ciudadanía de Marshall (1967) y sus ampliaciones, esta investigación parte de un cuadro de variables rastreadas en la literatura y confirmadas por expertos en el tema. Luego, se realizó la validación estadística, utilizando tanto el análisis factorial como las bases del modelado de ecuaciones estructurales, con dos muestras de 207 y 522 sujetos de investigación. Como resultado principal, se alcanzó una escala sin precedentes, validada estadísticamente con diecisiete ítems clasificados en cuatro dimensiones de las prácticas de ciudadanía: civil, política, social y ambiental.

Palabras clave:
Ciudadanía; Prácticas individuales; Escala de medición; Validación; Herramienta de gestión

INTRODUCTION

Citizenship refers to living in society, and it encourages individuals to be responsible for their community, to participate in the construction of their realities, to live in harmony, and deal on a daily basis with different aspirations and demands that are often conflicting. Therefore, citizenship has a public and impersonal nature towards building prosperous projects for the future. According to Mills and Waite (2017) and J. Pinsky and C. B. Pinsky (2016), in generic terms, citizenship can be conceived as a condition linked to the relations between individuals and the community to which they belong towards collective well-being.

Although citizenship is a widely used term, it is rarely conceptually or operationally defined (Morais & Ogden, 2011). Such a difficulty is due to the polysemic and multidimensional nature of the concept. Since life is not a constant, citizenship is a historical conception, and its meaning varies over time and space: being a citizen in Germany is different from in Brazil, since rules, rights, duties, and culture change both across different geographical contexts and over time (Carvalho, 2016; J. Pinsky & C. B. Pinsky, 2016).

In addition, citizenship covers several themes, and it is surrounded by many terms, some of which are: equality, freedom, inclusion, exclusion, belonging, participation, politicization, rights and obligations, shared identity, civic virtue, and emancipation. This breadth makes it difficult to set its definite boundaries.

According to the classic Theory of Citizenship of Marshall (1967), getting involved in community issues relies on citizenship equal rights and duties linked to three contents: civil, political, and social. The “civil” content refers to living in society and respecting individual freedoms. The “political” content ensures community participation in the government. Finally, the “social” content focuses on justice and social equity to guarantee the minimum conditions of survival. Besides those three dimensions, over time, modern society has become highly complex due to the daily reconstructions that generate new realities and interests that transcends the classic division of Marshall (Carvalho, 2016; Dagnino, 2004) to, therefore, build a new set of rights and duties.

Given the multiple dimensions inherent in the concept of citizenship, quantitative studies or studies with a more functionalist bias are hardly found, which makes balancing simplicity and comprehensiveness a challenge. The very concept, meaning and conceptual consensus of what citizenship is a gap pointed out by researchers such as Lie, Baines, and Wheelock (2009), and Mills and Waite (2017) because it is a historical-cultural concept. Despite such difficulties, citizenship remains a condition and an effect to be achieved by individuals, organizations, and governments concerned with civil participation and involvement in public and collective issues. Developing instruments that can measure citizenship practices can help managers and researchers detect public and private policies, segments, projects, or programs, and that are really promoting citizenship.

A scale for measuring citizenship practices can also provide support to organizations aligned with social management that care for promoting citizenship as they rely on dialogical management processes. Social management is a more participatory form of management in which the decision-making power is shared by the members of a given action in any type of social system - whether public, private, or third sector organizations (Tenório, 1998). Social management can be effective not only in public sector institutions but also in environments where decisions are a result of dialogue (Salgado, L. F. Santos, Resende, & W. J. Souza, 2019) - whether state public organizations or private organizations; as long as these organizations rely on participation, they can become a way of promoting citizenship.

In this context, this work aims to develop and validate a scale to measure citizenship practices, relying on a comprehensive concept (based on Marshall and the enhancements proposed thereof), applied to the individual level of analysis and consistent with the Brazilian context. Creating this instrument is necessary due to the difficulty of finding a legitimate scale to measure citizenship practices based on individual actions in its several fields (civil, political, social, and environmental) and aligned with the Brazilian local context, since there are cultural and historical influences. This difficulty was observed in the search conducted on the Capes and Scopus research bases and it was also pointed out by Amorim (2018) and Ferraz, Caldas, and Cavalcante (2021).

Such a scale will make way for further research with the aim of expanding the understanding of citizenship and relating it to other themes, such as volunteering, which has been recognized for its potential to promote active citizenship practices by both National Programs (such as the National Volunteering Incentive Program - Programa Nacional de Incentivo ao Voluntariado, in Portuguese) and International Programs (such as the National Citizen Service promoted by the United Kingdom). With a scale, it is possible to identify areas (health, education etc.) and types of activities in which volunteering has fostered citizenship, to provide justification for funding and public policy focus.

CITIZENSHIP AND RESEARCH OUTLINING

To think about citizenship is to reflect on ways of living in community, and on social order. According to Carvalho (2016) and Pais (2005), citizenship involves the relationships between individuals and the State towards living in society, covering both individual and group identities, in which some resemble “others” that differ from them. In this perspective, citizenship seeks freedom, equality, justice, fraternity, and many other aspects necessary for living in community.

Despite the universal nature of the ideals of citizenship and participatory public life, it is recognized that they can only be interpreted in the light of the time and space individuals live in (Costa, 2009). Andrenacci (2019) adds that, in contemporary Latin America, citizenship can be perceived as a material status (a position in social stratification, part acquired, part assigned) and a symbolic status whose universalities and relative equalities depend on concrete historical situations.

Citizenship is also considered a multidimensional concept (O’Connell, Clayton, & Rowe, 2017), and an object of study of several fields of knowledge, which covers several distinct terms. Therefore, citizenship can be addressed both in a narrower and broader manner; derive from more normative and empirical views; focus on both the most macro, global, and structural analysis, and the micro, local, and individual analysis.

To deepen the discussion about citizenship, we rely on the work of Marshall (1967), a classic reference and the most cited work on the subject, even in Brazil (Clemente, 2015). Marshall (1967) discusses the compatibility between equal participation in society and the inequalities embedded in the class structure of a capitalist order, based on the legal equality of individual rights. For him, citizenship is a status granted to those who are members of society, who are fully involved in the community by equally respecting both rights and obligations, classified into three dimensions: civil, political, and social.

The “civil” dimension refers to individual freedom, which is fundamental for living in society and involves personal rights and duties - among others, the right to come and go as one pleases, to speak one’s mind and profess their faith, the right to private property, justice, and to associate with others. Meanwhile, the “political” dimension is related to the exercise of political power and the involvement of society in the government, whether as a member of a body vested with political authority or as a voter. Finally, the “social” dimension focuses on social equity and justice, and it advocates for minimum equality considering economic inequality and different opportunities. The social dimension, among other rights, encompasses the right to education, health, work, leisure, and security.

Making these rights and duties effective depends on elements such as reciprocity, trust, cohesion, organization, and social capital, which need educational systems, social services, and the Executive Power to develop them (Carvalho, 2016; Putnam, 2006). The specific social capital increases the likelihood of social actors to collaborate with collective and coordinated actions and, therefore, to foster citizenship, as the cement that keeps institutions in contact with each other and binds them to the citizens, towards producing the common good (D’Araújo, 2003; Putnam, 2006).

Marshall (1967) states that, ideally, rights should be gained according to a sequence: civil-political-social, as happened in England. However, such an order was not followed in some places, such as in Brazil, where social rights preceded the others in many historical moments, such as in dictatorial periods (Carvalho, 2016). According to V. A. Souza (2006), in England, the tripod that makes up citizenship was conquered by the English people, while, in the Brazilian case, it was “given”.

For Andrenacci (2019), although the process of citizenship expansion in Latin America did not occur in the same order as in the United Kingdom, as described by Marshall (1967), it is not unreasonable to make comparisons. According to that author, the construction of citizenship in Latin America seems to have derived from the (gradual or abrupt) expansion of political participation that paved the way for a more egalitarian civil right and improved material living conditions of the majority. According to that author, the keys to the positive continuity of the expansion of Latin American citizenship seem to lie in its political system, by keeping the issue of citizenship at the center of public policy agendas, and by legitimizing polyarchies with inclusive processes as effective as possible.

In this perspective, over time, the concept of citizenship of Marshall (1967) was an object of criticism and suggestions to complement it. New times suggest new conflicts and demands to satisfy the changing circumstances of life. Brazil’s territory and culture are especially as heterogeneous as they are broad: many are the peoples, interests, and conflicting needs, which result in a varied and diffuse set of rights and duties. Thus, the concept of citizenship needs to encompass new types of questions.

According to Dagnino (2004), there are rights that emerge from specific groups that must be approached from the perspective of difference to achieve equal living conditions. Bobbio (1992) advocates integrating discussions that affect human integrity, such as advances in genetic engineering, cloning, abortion, and weaponry. Abahussain (2006) and Sachs (2002) highlight the struggles related to the environment, its sustainability, and the conservation of natural resources in the sustainable context of environmental awareness, attitudes, and practices. Atif and Chou (2018) address digital citizenship, ethics, digital literacy, and the participation in several contexts to develop opportunities and broader engagement in social actions.

Another pertinent discussion that authors highlight when they address citizenship is related to the active versus passive behavior. There is a demand for citizens to go beyond the sphere of “status”, to go beyond the possession/receipt of rights, and to move towards more active involvement and participation in public causes. Such a more active conduct involves effort, integration, cooperation, and social capital. In this way, the concept of “active citizenship” is restored, which is related to the responsibility of individuals before community issues. According to Hoskins (2006) and Hoskins and Mascherini (2009), active citizenship is acting in civil society, community and/or political life towards supporting the continuing more participatory and representative democracy, reducing the gap between citizens and government institutions and strengthening social cohesion. Besides rights, there are also duties, in a win-win relationship: not receive-only or give-only - both must perpetuate.

Specifically on the discussions of citizenship in the local/Brazilian context, we may take the analysis of what W. G. S. Santos (1987) calls “regulated citizenship”. According to that author, the roots of citizenship “lie not in a code of political values, but in a system of occupational stratification [...] defined by a legal norm” (Santos, 1987, p. 68). This way, the State defines those who are citizens and those who are not based on their professions, which reproduces inequality, injustice, and violence, and the discussion of who is entitled to rights (Dagnino, 2004).

Given the above, we may see that citizenship can build a complex and open framework. Operationalizing this concept is not an easy task; rather, it requires theme cutouts and outlining. First, we chose to develop the items for the scale classified in the three dimensions (civil, political, and social) as indicated by Marshall (1967). A fourth dimension was added, at first called citizenship “diffuse practices”, which encompasses the perceived enhancements and brings the concept closer to present-time demands. Box 1defines each of them.

Box 1
Dimensions of citizenship practices

Another concern is to measure how citizenship is practiced by individuals in reality, towards a more active and participatory behavior. According to Costa (2009), we refrain from treating citizenship only as a theoretical concept or one that exists in legislation alone. Therefore, we care to generate items that represent citizenship in practice and with a focus of analysis on individuals, so as to portray how they can, in their daily lives, engage with the collectivity. We also select the measurement of observable behavioral practices, not only what individuals think or believe but what they do indeed, getting close to active and experienced citizenship, to how citizenship is experienced and staged in the various contexts of real life (Kalio, Wood, & Häkli, 2020).

By conducting a bibliographic survey on classic authors on citizenship, and studies stored in databases such as Capes and Scopus, we identified 101 descriptors that characterize citizenship actions at an individual level of application. Next, we conducted a process of qualification, reduction and categorization of the descriptors in four dimensions: Civil Practices (CP), Political Practices (PP), social practices (SP), and diffuse practices (DP). With an intellectual and creative effort, we came down to a sample of 20 themes to characterize citizenship practices (see Box 2).

Box 2
Citizenship practice themes resulting from bibliographic survey

Now that the concept of citizenship and its outlining have been introduced, next come the notes on the main procedures adopted in the research.

METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

The process of developing measurement scales requires considerable effort to ensure their validity. To this end, we observed the assumptions of the C-OAR-SE model of Rossiter (2010) and the enhancements evidenced by Costa (2011), and we applied both qualitative and quantitative methods (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Procedures for constructing and validating the scale

The qualitative part involved: 1) bibliographic research to identify citizenship dimensions, themes, and practices; 2) semi-structured interviews with 18 experts (including professors; members of the State Council of Human Rights; members of the Center for Citizenship and Human Rights; personnel from the Regional Prosecution Office; participants of non-governmental organizations; advisors of the Legislative and Executive Powers linked to citizenship issues) selected according to the Snowball sampling technique (Merrian, 2009). The interviews were conducted in September and October 2018, either individually or in groups, recorded and transcribed for content analysis, and for generating and writing items and, 3) focus groups with researchers for face and content validation.

The quantitative phase included the statistical validation of two drafts of the scale, by using surveys with two samples, one for cleaning the scale and the other for validating it. In the first phase, conducted in January and February 2019, we applied the first draft of the 28-item scale to 207 subjects; the procedures were as follows: 1) exploratory analysis of the database; 2) Pearson’s bivariate correlation analysis; 3) exploratory factor analysis (EFA), checking commonalities, factor loadings, variance, and KMO; and 4) reliability analysis by using the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient.

In the second sample, conducted in April and June 2019, 522 subjects answered the second draft of the 27-item scale. We applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and analyzed the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability, composite reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and convergent and discriminant validation. CFA aims to test whether the behavior of the structured items in the EFA is confirmed, by using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique. Details about the samples and the instruments are informed as they are presented in the analysis of the results, as suggested by Costa (2011).

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Step 1 - Generating the items

Generating the items of the scale derives from the previous qualitative and theoretical effort based on Marshall (1967) and further studies that update the concept (review Box 2, which contains 20 themes that characterize citizenship practices). Following the instruction of Costa (2011), we opted for adding the following procedures: 1) interviewing experts to ensure that the meanings adopted are consistent with the identified citizenship practices, and 2) focus groups for adjusting and validating face and content.

About the interviews, 18 experts in the field of citizenship were consulted. Due to space limitations, we decided to present only a summary of this phase (see details in Caldas, 2020; Caldas & Cavalcante, 2019). In general, all experts shared a notion of citizenship aligned with the concepts of Marshall (1967) and the enhancements proposed thereof, which relate citizenship with collectivity, and associates rights and duties with the civil, political and social dimensions, although this rigid classification was criticized by some interviewees, since many items depend on each other to be put in practice and, at times, some practices can be classified into two or more groups at the same time (for example, associating with others - although it is a civil right, it often ends up defending social or political rights). Some interviewees also suggested attention to the differences between perception (“I think”) and action (“I do”) in the final assertions. They also recommended new themes or dismembering old themes (such as environmental citizenship).

Based on the experts’ perceptions and remarks, it was necessary to rethink, merge, reclassify and exclude items that, in theory, were adequate but which, in the interviewees’ perceptions, were deficient according to the reports. For example, voting in Brazil is considered a political citizenship practice but there are reservations linked to its mandatory nature and its relationship with particular interests (and, thus, not citizenship-related). Another example is “assuming leadership and membership roles in organizations with public and social purposes”, which was perceived as a citizenship practice depending on the engagement and the active participation in the decision-making process with collective impacts, according to respondents.

It should be noted that the attempt to define an item or construct is both a responsibility and a possibility - there is always the risk of being partial and generic or too specific -, which can interfere with the validation of the scale and respondents’ understanding of the theme. We are aware of the losses that the definition entails for the understanding of each particular case under different epistemological lenses. However, following the strictness of the scientific method is an attempt to mitigate inherent risks.

Based on the perception of the interviewees, the thematic box was expanded both quantitatively (from 20 to 28 themes) and qualitatively to make it more consistent with the reality being researched. The new items draft underwent face and content validation, which led to a new format (see Box 3).

Box 3
Citizenship practices after expert analysis

This is the first version of the research instrument containing 28 items. We used the 11-point Likert scale, whose degree of agreement ranges from 0 (I never do this) to 10 (I always do this). We also cared to present the items randomly arranged in the questionnaire; respondents could answer either a virtual form (Google Forms) or a physical form. Next, we present the first sample.

Step 2 - First sample: factor structure formation and scale cleaning

With the data from the first sample of 207 individuals, we applied the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). For exploratory purposes, Costa (2011) recommends a sample between 150 and 200 elements. For Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2009), to be satisfactory, the sample must contain at least five times the number of items. We used non-probabilistic sampling for convenience.

Regarding the characteristics of the sample individuals, there are slightly more female subjects (50.72%), they are aged from 35 to 44 years (33.82%), single (42.03%), have a postgraduate degree (41.06%) and an average family income from R$ 5,000.00 to R$ 8,000.00 (51.21%).

After running the EFA several times on the SPSS software to verify the most adequate factor structure respecting the empirical behavior and content of the items, the structure chosen followed the theoretical model defended, linked to the four citizenship dimensions: civil, political, social, and diffuse. The first Bartlett sphericity and KMO tests were satisfactory (p < 0.05; KMO > 0.6). However, weak, and insignificant correlations and reliability below 0.7 indicated the need for adjustments. Next is the analysis per dimension.

In the “civil” dimension, some weak correlations (< 0.2), low Cronbach’s Alpha (0.6) and factor scores divided into three indicate adjustment problems (see Table 1). After exclusions, only three items (CP2, CP4, and CP8) remained in a single factor, but both reliability (α = 0.6) and KMO (0.6) were close to acceptable limits. Then, other items that could be moved to the “civil” factor were verified, observing their correlations. We identified that items DP2 (on human discrimination) and DP9 (on human integrity) of the “diffuse” dimension could be reclassified because they relate to individual freedom, with a focus on the “civil” factor. Since both items also had correlation issues in their source dimension, we decided to recategorize them. We added CP3 once again to allow more satisfactory indications.

Table 1
AFE of civil citizenship practices

Items	1st extraction				2nd extraction		3rd extraction
	Score			Comp.	Score	Comp.	Score	Comp.
	Comp. 1	Comp. 2	Comp.3
CP1			0.829	0.690	-	-	-	-
CP2	0.843			0.726	0.855	0.731	0.739	0.546
CP3			0.432	0.398	-	-	0.585	0.343
CP4	0.700			0.546	0.741	0.549	0.730	0.533
CP5		0.602		0.400	-	-	-	-
CP6		0.774		0.662	-	-	-	-
CP7		0.531		0.435	-	-	-	-
CP8	0.678			0.522	0.668	0.446	-	-
DP2	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.770	0.593
DP9	-	-	-	-	-	--	0.775	0.600
Variance	54.74%				57.54%		52.30%

• Source: Survey data.

In contrast to the statistical analysis, we must raise the issue of the difficulty of forming the “civil” dimension, as indicated by Amorim (2018). In Brazil, civil rights were restricted in many historical moments marked by dictatorial regimes, so they were often donated rather than conquered (Andrade, Castro, & Pereira, 2012). Moreover, for civil rights to be exercised, they need to be known and depend on an independent, efficient, and accessible justice system. Brazil still faces problems of access to justice, and issues with impunity, security, and disbelief in some public institutions (Carvalho, 2016), which hinders the full exercise of citizenship. According to Guimarães, Paugam, and Prates (2020), Brazil lacks bonds of interpersonal trust, which would improve citizen action aimed at the collective well-being.

In the “political” dimension, PP3 showed weak correlations (< 0.2) and low commonality and, therefore, it had to be excluded (see Table 2).

Table 2
AFE of political and social citizenship practices

Political Practices					Social Practices
Items	1st extraction		2nd extraction		Items	1st extraction		2nd extraction
	Score	Comp.	Score	Comp.		Score	Comp.	Score	Comp.
PP1	0.797	0.635	0.834	0. 695	SP1	0.730	0.533	0.728	0.530
PP2	0.763	0.499	0.789	0.449	SP2	0.766	0.587	0.780	0.608
PP3	0.707	0.229	-	-	SP3	0.754	0.569	0.763	0.582
PP4	0.638	0.583	0.670	0.623	SP4	0.618	0.382	-	-
PP5	0.478	0.407	0.665	0.442	SP5	0.623	0.388	0.654	0.438
					SP6	0.644	0.414	0.662	0.428
Variance	47.05%		55.23%		Variance	47.88%		51.73%

• Source: Survey data.

Also in Table 2, in the “social” dimension, all correlations between the items were from moderate to significant. In a global analysis, this dimension was found to be well correlated with the others. However, the cumulative variance extracted was lower than expected (> 50%), indicating that SP4 had to be excluded because it had the lowest commonality.

Finally, in the “diffuse” dimension, identifying low and insignificant correlations indicated the exclusion of DP1 and DP3. It was also multidimensional (see Table 3). After several item-by-item exclusions and attempting to use items from other dimensions, only three items had the factor structure in satisfactory levels.

Table 3
AFE of diffuse citizenship practices

Items	1st extraction				2nd extraction			3rd extraction
	Score			Comp.	Score		Comp.	Score	Comp.
	Comp. 1	Comp. 2	Comp. 3		Comp. 1	Comp. 2
DP1			0.842	0.712	-	-	-	-	-
DP2	0.792			0.632		0.824	0.688	-	-
DP3		0.658		0.483	-	-	-	-	-
DP4	0.460			0.348	0.483		0.315	-	-
DP5		0.569		0.587	0.786		0.661	0.818	0.670
DP6		0.780		0.710	0.847		0.730	0.792	0.627
DP7	0.537			0.352	0.475		0.365	0.651	0.423
DP8	0.481			0.507		0.472	0.324	-	-
DP9	0.789			0.631		0.829	0.692	-	-
Variance	55.13%				53.94%			57.31%

• Source: Survey data.

The difficulty to format an acceptable factor structure in “Diffuse Practices” perhaps derives from the very nature of that dimension: they are new practices, related to issues that society is still incorporating into its routines, many of them are still under discussion. Questions about the environment, discrimination, human diversity, and racism, for example, are yet to be well defined in people’s cognitive or behavioral realms, and this has an impact on the results. Moreover, the conception of the initial “diffuse” dimension itself was based on themes with distinct theoretical content, which could also suggest that that dimension is segregated. In some moments, the theoretical construction, and the way the items were worded indicate that classification was done differently from the empirical path, however, statistical techniques help to reduce the impact of that decision towards attempting to adapt and validate the scale. In this sense, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) suggested this separation, which was accepted.

Based on the EFA we conducted, it can be seen that the items that remained (DP5, DP6 and DP7) address themes related to the environment and, therefore, that dimension was renamed “environmental citizenship practices”.

After such adjustments were made, the measurements indicated good correlation (p > 0.05), sample fit (KMO > 0.6) and reliability (α > 0.7), except for the “environmental” dimension, which needs to be strengthened (α = 0.6). Box 4 below shows 27 variables to be validated.

Box 4
Breakdown of the item “Civil Citizenship Practices” for the second sample

In Table 4, in addition to the items validated by the EFA, other items were added to strengthen the explanatory power of the factors. In the “civil” dimension, the following items were added: CP9, on ethical and moral behavior (Bole & Gordon, 2009; Hoskins & Mascherini, 2009); CP10, on people equality (Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988; J. Pinsky & Pedro, 2016); and CP11, which focuses on fighting human exploitation (Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988; Rowe et al., 2012).

In the “political” dimension, two items were added: PP6, on the monitoring of government revenues and expenditures (Choi et al., 2017; Ledet, 2016), and PP7, which addresses the participation in social groups with influence in politics (Misoczky, 2002; Putnam, 2006).

In the “social” dimension, item SP7 was added on the participation in discussions on public social issues (education, health, security, and transport), extracted from Morais and Ogden (2011), Purdam and Tranmer (2014) and Singer (2016).

Finally, in the “environmental” dimension, the following items were added: DP10 (pollution); DP11 (environmental crime); DP12 (animal protection) and DP13 (public property protection), all derived from Abahussain (2006), Metzger et al. (2016) and the interviews. After a new round of face and content validation, a second sample followed.

Step 3 - Second sample: scale validation

This sample included 522 individuals; its size is deemed adequate according to Costa (2011) and Hair et al. (2009), which suggest five to ten times the number of items. About the sample profile, female subjects are slightly more numerous (55.9%), individuals are aged from 14 to 24 years (37%), single (53.8%), have a postgraduate degree (35.8%) and an average family income above R$ 8,000.00 (26.7%). Sampling was non-probabilistic.

We proceeded to the EFA and obtained the same factor structure of the first sample, except for the “social practices” dimension, in which SP6 was excluded and SP7 was added. In the CFA, by using the R software and the Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation method, at first, a good overall fit was observed, but the software indicated improvements to the model. Once the improvements were implemented, a second model (M2) was created, with two correlations between items of the same construct (between CP2 and DP9C of civil practices, and between PP1 and PP5 of the political dimension) (see Table 4).

Table 4
Adjustment measures

Indices	Results		Acceptance Level
	M1 Model	M2 Model
Chi-square (χ2)	432.169	389.118	-
Degrees of freedom (df)	113.000	111.000	> 1
Probability level	0.000	0.000	< 0.05
Absolute adjustment measures
SRMR	0.041	0.039	< 1
GFI	0.908	0.918	> 0.9
Normalized chi-square (χ2/df)	3.824	3.505	< 5
Incremental adjustment measures
CFI	0.929	0.938	> 0.9
NFI	0.907	0.916	> 0.9
TLI	0.914	0.924	> 0.9
IFI	0.929	0.938	> 0.9
Parsimony-adjusted measures
PGFI	0.671	0.677	> 0.60
PNFI	0.753	0.720	> 0.60
Population discrepancy measures
RMSEA	0.074	0.069	< 0.08

• Source: Survey data.

Factor loadings are at acceptable levels (CP4 = 0.5) and equal to or above 0.6 (all others). Regarding reliability (Table 5), globally, the scale presents acceptable indices (CC = 0.9; α = 0.9). In individualized observation, “Environmental Practices” is at the parameter threshold (CC = 0.665; α = 0.663) and lacks further improvements.

Table 5
Validity and reliability indices

Factors	1	2	3	4	Total
1. Civil Practices	0.698
2. Political Practices	0.934	0.742
3. Social Practices	0.987	0.992	0.722
4. Environmental Practices	0.618	0.554	0.619	0.632
Alpha	0.813	0.840	0.842	0.663	0.928
CC	0.835	0.814	0.844	0.665	0.935
AVE	0.487	0.550	0.521	0.400	0.500

• Source: Survey data.

Regarding the AVE, the “Civil Practices” measures were at the threshold (AVE = 0.487) and “Environmental Practices” (AVE = 0.400) were slightly below the reference. Due to this occurrence, a square matrix was generated according to Fornell and Larcker (1981), to verify if the square root of the AVEs of each factor is greater than the correlations with the others. Due to these parameters, the model is yet to be validated, and due to the strong correlations found, with an indication of collinearity, three new models (M3, M4, M5) were created to evaluate the association between the factors based on the chi-square difference test (χ2): 1) M3-M2: ∆χ ² (3) = 252,25; p = 0,00; 2) M4-M2: ∆χ ² (3) = 248,23; p = 0,00; 3) M5-M2: ∆χ ² (3) = 155,41; p = 0,00. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) between the models created and M2, but we cannot assume that they are equal. Since the free model (M2) is a better fit (below χ2), there is discriminant validity.

It should be noted that independence between items is not a sine qua non condition for acceptance, given the polysemy and complexity involved in the concept of citizenship, in which practices are correlated and interdependent with each other. This characteristic had been noticed in bibliographic studies (O’Connell et al., 2017) and in the interviews.

Finally, the definitions of all 17 items were verified, which reaffirms the good theoretical validity of the scale. In the process of improving the manuscript according to the evaluation by the reviewers of the journal, the authors considered that some small text adjustments could be made to increase accuracy, without changing the meaning of the items. The final assertions are shown in Box 5.

Box 5
Citizenship practices validated after the second sample

Regarding the recommendations for use, this scale should be used to measure the citizenship practices of individuals, preferably those residing in Brazil. Applying it in other countries is possible since it is based on international works. However, we suggest that each practice be reanalyzed to verify the meanings applied to each reality. Answering takes around 5 minutes.

For application, we recommend that the items be randomly arranged in the questionnaire, split into blocks with no more than 10 items each to prevent respondents from getting tired and answers from being discontinued.

We recommend that the scale contain many points (7 to 11 points), although other numbers of points may be used, especially if the Likert scales are used. Finally, it should be noted that measurement scales are constantly evolving and need to be subjected to new validations in different contexts to achieve a good level of psychometric maturity. We also indicate reinforcing the items of the “environmental” dimension, so that they achieve a stronger factor structure.

CONCLUSION

This work has achieved its objective of developing a valid scale to measure citizenship practices based on the actions of individuals. It focused on the Brazilian reality, and we considered the perceptions and meanings of experts about citizenship practices found in the literature, based on current conceptual delimitations, and taking into account all dimensions of Marshall’s theory and the enhancements proposed thereof.

We have made all efforts to approach citizenship in an applied/behavioral bias, and we tried to highlight, in the assertions, actions that individuals practice in their daily lives, and not only what they think is important. In addition, we approached citizenship in an individual and local analysis level and used a functionalist/quantitative lens to support the study. This study sought to fill gaps in the development of a valid scale to measure citizenship in the Brazilian and broader context, in the sense of addressing several dimensions of the concept, which is a vacuum pointed out by Amorim (2018), Ferraz et al. (2021) and Morais and Ogden (2011).

As the questionnaires were applied, some respondents shared reflections on the roles they had; answering the questions led them to realize the numerous existing arenas of action to promote social well-being. Some reported that they thought they had been doing a lot for the collective welfare and were amazed at the large number of “zeros” they marked. Others spoke of Brazil’s political moment and how easy it was to point out culprits, and the weak involvement of citizens. Considering the comments we got, we consider that the scale would be worthy to make people reflect on their actions.

For further studies, we recommend improving this scale in the environmental field, since only three indicators have been statistically validated. This limitation stems from the fact that these practices are still new in people’s routines. However, we believe that Structural Equations Modeling helps reduce this limitation, since it creates a model that supports the explanation of causal relationships across variables.

As another suggestion for improvement after the evaluation process, we suggest reflecting on the inclusion of items, considering adding digital citizenship or social media items to the scale, given the importance of these themes today. For item SP4, even if it did not make the final scale, we recommend adjusting it: instead of “I enter into partnerships [...]”, which refers to something more formal, it could be worded as “I regularly collaborate with government officials (or civil servants) to plan and produce public services [...]”.

We emphasize that the concept of citizenship is collective and that there is no good and/or bad citizen: there are citizens, some more active than others, who recognize, exercise, fight for and/or protect their rights and duties as members of a society. These individuals can alter relationships within the community and redefine principles, identities, and the redistribution of communal goods, and encourage others to help change realities.

Finally, we acknowledge that citizenship depends on people, but also on other public and private agents capable of intervening and meeting the demands of society. We hope that this scale will help these subjects to measure and suggest strategies for improving citizenship practices in our country.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), especially the Academic Unit of Business Management, for granting the author Patrícia Trindade Caldas a leave from teaching activities during her full doctoral studies period.

• 5
  [Translated version] Note: All quotes in English translated by this article’s translator.

REFERÊNCIAS

• Abahussain, A. A. (2006). Indicators measuring the achievement of environmental citizenship. Journal of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 37-57.
• Amorim, A. F. A. (2018). Semeando no voluntariado para colher cidadania: um estudo sobre motivações para o trabalho voluntário e atitudes cidadãs com voluntários da saúde no Estado da Paraíba (Dissertação de Mestrado). Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB.
• Andrade, D. M., Castro, C. L. C., & Pereira, J. R. (2012). Cidadania ou “estadania” na gestão pública brasileira? Revista de Administração Pública, 46(1), 177-1790. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122012000100009
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122012000100009
• Andrenacci, L. E. (2019). Um ensaio sobre a história da cidadania na América Latina a partir de uma perspectiva de longo prazo. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 17(Especial), 703-716. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395174321
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395174321
• Atif, Y., & Chou, C. (2018). Guest Editorial: Digital citizenship: innovations in education, practice, and pedagogy. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 152-154.
• Awang, M. M., Alfitri, Ahmad A. R., Ulu N. L. (2016). Measuring multi-ethnic students citizenship competence: domains and indicators. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(1), 123-130. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2016.123.130
  » https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2016.123.130
• Bobbio, N. (1992). A era dos direitos Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Elsevier.
• Bole, B. E., & Gordon, M. (2009). E pluribus unum: fostering a new era of citizenship by teaching civic engagement and healthy civic discourse. Journal of Public Affairs: an International Journal, 9(4), 273-287. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.337
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.337
• Caldas, P. T. (2020). Relações entre voluntariado e cidadania à luz das motivações (Tese de doutorado). Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB.
• Caldas, P. T., & Cavalcante, C. E. (2019). Sentidos e percepções de especialistas sobre práticas de cidadania. In Anais do 43º Encontro da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, São Paulo, SP.
• Carvalho, J. M. (2016). Cidadania no Brasil: o longo caminho Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Civilização Brasileira.
• Choi, M., Glassman, M., & Cristol, D. (2017, abril). What it means to be a citizen in the internet age: development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Computers and Education, 107, 100-112. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.00
• Clemente, A. J. (2015). O conceito de cidadania nas Ciências Sociais brasileiras: uma análise a partir do Scielo (1989-2013) (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS.
• Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 (1988). Brasília, DF. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
• Costa, M. C. C. (2009). Direitos humanos, cidadania e liberdade de expressão. Revista Comunicação & Educação, 14(2), 53-60. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9125.v14i2p53-60
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9125.v14i2p53-60
• Costa, F. J. (2011). Mensuração e desenvolvimento de escalas Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Ciência Moderna Ltda.
• D’Araújo, M. C. S. (2003). Capital social Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Jorge Zahar Editor.
• Dagnino, E. (2004). ¿ Sociedade civil, participação e cidadania: de que estamos falando? In D. Mato (Coord.), Políticas de Ciudadanía y Sociedad Civil en Tiempos de lobalización (pp. 95-110). Caracas, Venezuela: FACES.
• Demant, P. (2016). Direitos para os excluídos. In J. Pinsky, & C. B. Pinsky (Eds.), História da cidadania São Paulo, SP: Contexto.
• European Social Survey. (2002). Documentation report the ESS data archive 2002 Bergen, Norway: Norwegian Centre for Research Date.
• Ferraz, T. V., Caldas, P. T., & Cavalcante, C. E. (2021). Evidências empíricas de impacto positivo no Brasil. Revista BASE, 18(2), 159-193. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.4013/base.2021.182.01
  » https://doi.org/10.4013/base.2021.182.01
• Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
• Guimarães, N. A., Paugam, S., & Prates, I. (2020). Laços à brasileira: desigualdades e vínculos sociais. Tempo Social, 32(3), 265-301. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2020.174291
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2020.174291
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise multivariada de dados Porto Alegre, RS: Bookman.
• Hoskins, B. L. (2006). Draft framework on indicators for active citizenship Ispra, Italy: CRELL.
• Hoskins, B. L., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90(3), 459-488. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9271-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9271-2
• Jones, L. M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2016). Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media and Society, 18(9), 2063-2079. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577797
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577797
• Kallio, K. P., Wood, B. E., & Häkli, J. (2020). Lived citizenship: conceptualising an emerging field. Citizenship Studies, 24(6), 713-729. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2020.1739227
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2020.1739227
• Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, B., & Zalewska, A. M. (2015). Contemporary contexts and trends in citizenship studies. In A. Skaržauskienė (Ed.), Social technologies and collective intelligence Vilnius, Lithuania: Mykolas Romeris University.
• Ledet, R. (2016). Studying the quality of democracy: two cross-national measures of democratic citizenship. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 11(1), 3-18. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197915626077
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197915626077
• Lie, M., Baines, S., & Wheelock, J. (2009). Citizenship, volunteering and active ageing. Social Policy & Administration, 43(7), 702-718. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2009.00690.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2009.00690.x
• Marshall, T. H. (1967). Cidadania, classe social e status Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Zahar.
• Metzger, A. M., Syvertsen, A. K., Oosterhoff, B., Babskie, E., & Wray-lake, L. (2016). How children understand civic actions: a mixed methods perspective. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(5), 507-535. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558415610002
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558415610002
• Mills, S., & Waite, C. (2017, janeiro). Brands of youth citizenship and the politics of scale: national citizenship and the politics of scale: Nacional Citizen Service in the United Kingdom. Political Geography, 56, 66-76. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.11.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.11.007
• Misoczky, M. C. A. (2002). Mudanças na administração municipal: possibilidades de uma formação político-organizacional. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 6(2), 99-121. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552002000200007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552002000200007
• Morais, D. B., & Ogden, A. C. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 445-466. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315310375308
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315310375308
• O’Connell, M. J., Clayton, A., & Rowe, M. (2017). Reliability and validity of a newly developed measure of citizenship among persons with mental illnesses. Community Mental Health Journal, 53(3), 367-374. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-016-0054-y
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-016-0054-y
• Pais, J. M. (2005). Jovens e cidadania. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 49, 53-70. Recuperado de https://scielo.pt/pdf/spp/n49/n49a04.pdf
  » https://scielo.pt/pdf/spp/n49/n49a04.pdf
• Pateman, C. (1996). Críticas femininas a la dicotomia public/privado. In C. Castells (Ed.), Perspectivas femininas en teoría política Barcelona, España: Paidós.
• Pattie, C., Seyd, P., & Whiteley, P. (2003a). Citizenship and civic engagement: attitudes and behaviour in Britain. Political Studies, 51(3), 443-468. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00435
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00435
• Pattie, C., Seyd, P., & Whiteley, P. (2003b). Civic attitudes and engagement in modern Britain. Parliamentary Affairs, 56(4), 616-633. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsg106
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsg106
• Pinsky, J., & Pinsky, C. B. (2016). História da cidadania São Paulo, SP: Contexto .
• Pinsky, J., & Pedro, J. M. (2016). Mulheres: igualdade e especificidade. In Pinsky, J., & Pinsky, C. B. (Eds.), História da cidadania São Paulo, SP: Contexto.
• Purdam, K., & Tranmer, M. (2014). Expectations of being helped in return for helping - citizens, the state and the local area. Population, Space and Place, 20(1), 66-82. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1756
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1756
• Putnam, R. D. (2006). Comunidade e democracia: a experiência da Itália moderna Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Editora FGV.
• Rede Interamericana para a Democracia. (2005). Índice de participação cidadã na América Latina (Relatório Regional). Bueno Aires, Argentina: Fundación de Investigaciones Económicas y Socieales.
• Rossiter, J. R. (2010). Measurement for the social sciences: the C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
• Rowe, M., Clayton, A., Benedict, P., Bellamy, C., Antunes, K., Miller, R., … O’Connell, M. J. (2012). Going to the source: creating a citizenship outcome measure by community-based participatory research methods. Psychiatric Services, 63(5), 445-450. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201100272
  » https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201100272
• Sachs, I. (2002). Caminhos para o desenvolvimento sustentável Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Garamond.
• Salgado, R. J. S. F., Santos, L. F., Resende, T. C., & Souza, W. J. (2019). Cidadania deliberativa e gestão social: revisão sistemática de literatura no Brasil. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 17(Especial), 817-831. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395176139
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395176139
• Santos, W. G. S. (1987). Cidadania e justiça: a política social na ordem brasileira Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Campus.
• Singer, P. (2016). A cidadania para todos. In Pinsky, J., & Pinsky C. B. (Eds.), História da cidadania São Paulo, SP: Contexto .
• Souza, V. A. (2006). Direitos no Brasil: necessidade de um choque de cidadania. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 27, 211-214. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-44782006000200016
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-44782006000200016
• Tekiroğlu, M. (2016, novembro). Development of scale of attitude about social studies class, citizenship, human rights, respect for diversity and tolerance issues for middle school students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Special, 682-690. Recuperado de http://acikerisim.pau.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11499/9366
  » http://acikerisim.pau.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11499/9366
• Ten Dam, G., Geijsel, F., Reumerman, R., & Ledoux, G. (2011). Measuring young people’s citizenship competences. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 354-372. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01485.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01485.x
• Tenório, F. G. (1998). Gestão social: uma perspectiva conceitual. Revista de Administração Pública, 32(5), 7-23.
• Whiteley, P. F., Pattie, C., & Seyd, P. (2005). Citizen audit of Great Britain, Colchester Colchester, UK: UK Data Archive.

Data availability

Data citations

Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 (1988). Brasília, DF. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Sept 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  16 May 2022
• Accepted
  21 Sept 2022