This chapter begins by providing an overview of the study and explaining the background context and rationale for the study’s methodological approach. The research design and approach are presented, with the sample information, data collection methods, data analysis methods, ethical considerations and limitations of the methodological approach being discussed. The chapter discusses the advantages and issues of the study’s methodological approach. The study employs three main methods of data collection: surveys with young people encountered during outreach work; participant observations of young people’s leisure spaces and recorded conversations with young people in these spaces; and interviews with young people recruited from outreach work and the study’s partners. It is argued that in relation to the research aims and questions, the methodological approach undertaken in this study provides a holistic understanding of the participants’ substance use practices, and how the risks, harms and pleasures of their substance use are perceived, experienced and managed.
3.1.1 Study Overview
Data was collected using three main methods: the Outreach Survey (a targeted survey of young people encountered during outreach work in three locations (the town centre, a poor rural area, a middle income area));34 participant observation (observation of leisure practices in the spaces young people were known and found to be frequenting, and recorded
conversations with young people in these spaces); and interviews (with young people recruited from: the study’s partners (a Youth Offending Team (YOT)); and outreach work).
YOT Clients (age 14-18) Outreach Work (age 16-24)
Outreach Survey Participant Observation
Interviews Interviews
Data collection commenced in April 2015 and ended in January 2016; the study’s findings reflect the substance use perceptions and practices of this time. The study draws on 24 in-
34 These were selected in consultation with the study’s partners to represent different socioeconomic localities.
However, data collection predominantly focused upon the town centre following a shift in the study’s partner’s priorities (see below, Section 3.3.1).
39 depth interviews with 27 young people aged between 16 and 23,35 around 120 hours of
observations and informal conversations with young people, and 104 surveys of young people (68 male, 36 female) aged between 16 and 24.36 Overall, the majority of the sample were male, with many completing education or beginning to seek employment. The majority of the sample were living at their parental homes. Due to the localised scope and the focus on ‘hard-to-reach’ young people, it is believed that the sample generated was robust enough to provide a valuable and rare insight into the perspective of a socioeconomic disadvantaged and ‘hard-to-reach’ population. The male dominance of this sample must be noted (see below), as this neglects the perspectives of young women in the area. It is important to note that the sample cannot be said to be representative of the general population or of young people across the wider data collection site; there were more disadvantaged (e.g., problematic substance users engaged in treatment services) and less disadvantaged (e.g., more affluent) young people that my study did not explore. However, the sample represents a specific level of disadvantage and focuses on a specific group of young people (those with a visible and often stigmatised and presumed problematic presence). This highlights a crucial aspect of my study, as the data provides timely insights into the practices of a typically ‘missed’ and relatively neglected sample of disadvantaged young people, and highlights how there are nuanced variations of disadvantage within and across disadvantaged localities (see below). The illicit and clandestine nature of youth substance use often results in associated practices remaining covert, and thus absent from prevalence estimations and treatment data. This is further problematised by the majority of prevalence studies being large quantitative
population studies which unintentionally omit ‘hidden’ and ‘hard-to-reach’ populations, as well as missing local variations and thus localised emerging trends. My study targeted an underexplored population, one which is typically missed, and which is rarely the focus of research. ‘Hard-to-reach’ groups can be defined as marginalised and socially excluded groups, overlooked and invisible groups, or those who are not willing and not engaging in services (Walker and Donaldson, 2011). Gaining access to ‘hard-to-reach’ young people is difficult for both services and researchers, as they are both difficult to define and engage with
35 25 of these young people were males and 2 females, with 5 participants (all males) being recruited from the
YOT, and 22 from outreach work. 7 of the participants were in education, 9 were NEET and 11 were
‘employed’ (5 in part-time work, and 6 described themselves as being in fulltime work) (see Appendix Four).
36 The mean participant age was 17, with a range of 16-22. 103 (99%) defined their ethnicity as white British
(echoing the field site’s ethnic makeup (see below)). 70 (67%) were in some form of education, 18 (17%) were in some form of employment or training (2 in fulltime employment, 10 in part-time/zero-hours contracts, 2 in an apprenticeship, 4 in a training scheme), and 16 (15%) were NEET.
40 (La Placa and Corlyon, 2014). Research with such young people is also compounded by issues around access, pre-development work to gain trust, participant volunteerism, recruitment procedures and various ethical issues (Matthews and Cramer, 2008; Mayock, 2000). These were challenges I had to overcome, but the existing relationships that I possessed from my previous professional YOT role helped me to address many of these issues.37 For example, I saved considerable time by having access to several influential gatekeepers who in turn provided access to young people. Furthermore, my professional experience provided me with knowledge and experience of working with young people in challenging situations and around sensitive topics (e.g., substance use, being NEET).
3.1.2 Field Site Overview
Located in South Yorkshire, ‘The Town’38 is a large sized town with a traditional heritage rooted in working-class industries. It has a population of around 230,000, and its ethnic makeup is predominantly White-British (around 95% of the population). Previously reliant upon the coal mining industry, the socioeconomic and cultural changes of the past few decades have had a considerable impact upon the local labour market. While the number of jobs within The Town’s Borough have not changed considerably since 1999 (Beatty et al., 2011), the types of jobs appear to have altered significantly, being replaced with low skilled and low paid service sector jobs, echoing national trends.39 The Town has higher than the national average levels of unemployment, extremely high levels of youth unemployment (higher than 25% (see Crowley and Cominetti, 2014)), and poor educational attainment when compared to the English, and Yorkshire average (ONS, 2016b). These issues have been further problematised following the austerity cuts to many national and local services, with data showing Northern localities to be disproportionally subject to the impacts of such issues (Adfam, 2016; Beatty and Fothergill, 2013; Clayton, 2015; 2016; Iacobucci, 2016; O’Hara, 2014; Townshend, 2013; Wylie, 2015). The Town’s Metropolitan Borough is generally a working-class area which experiences considerable levels of poverty and deprivation. The Town falls within the top 15% most deprived local authorities and has higher than average levels of child poverty (ONS, 2016b). Young people growing up in The Town are exposed to a range of interconnected deprivations, typically echoing those associated with growing up in lower-class and disadvantaged localities: poverty, high levels of unemployment; poor
37 Before undertaking this PhD I worked for three years in a youth offending team (YOT).
38 In order to protect the participants involved in this study, the geographic location of the research has been
anonymised and referred to throughout as ‘The Town’.
41 educational attainment; high crime rates; and poor health profiles (e.g., O’Gorman, 2016). In respect to the socioeconomic indicators and overall Index of Multiple Deprivation ranking The Town appears to be a ‘risky’ place for young people to grow up in, with many being exposed to severe, complex, multiple and compounding issues. These conditions of poverty, deprivation and social inequality are crucial in contextualising and understanding the sample of young people in my study, and their practices, abilities and experiences.