Diagnóstico y determinación de necesidades

In this PAR study I sought to create a ‘collaborative intergenerational space’ (Percy-Smith 2006:168) that entailed a shift to the researcher becoming ‘a co-inquirer or interpretive learner with children and young people’ (ibid.). There are tensions and opportunities inherent in this co-inquirer role, accentuated by my position as a researcher- manager/practitioner for the final two and a half years of the study when Voice Against Violence was in existence. These tensions and opportunities are explored in this section with a particular focus on researcher/manager tensions; adult/child relationships; insider/outsider status; researcher/participant relationships; researcher-manager/young participants relationships in particular protectionism and reward, and ownership and dissemination including tensions such as ‘whose findings?’. My role in relation to data analysis is explored fully in the next section.

142

Researcher/manager

From the early stages of Part 2 of the study, and all of part 3 of the study, I was paid by the Scottish Government to be Voice Against Violence manager. Therefore I was no longer an independent researcher focused only on the study. Although the job description included ‘pieces of work that are aimed at promoting, reviewing or evaluating the effects of children and young people’s active participation in policy and practice development’, this did not cover, and the Government did not fund, the PhD. The main purpose of the job was the meaningful participation of CYPEDA in policy and to ensure that work was undertaken with the best interests, views and wishes of the young people being paramount.

From the beginning, the Government agreed that the review work could be part of the PhD. Indeed, that was one of the reasons that they recruited me. They felt the PhD, based at Warwick University, supervised by Professor Audrey Mullender, added an extra level of credibility and independence to the review of the pilot. My line manager decided that one day a week should be for research-focused work, to allow time for the researcher role of managing the research design process, stepping back, keeping objectivity, reviewing the literature. We were, however, very naïve in terms of the amount of time and resources a national participation project needed and the amount of support a group of young people with experience of domestic abuse would need. There was a constant tension between managing the project and undertaking PhD research work, particularly standing back and reviewing progress or updating literature.

I tackled this through a research design that incorporated regular focused reviews of progress during the VAV residential weekends, in relation to issues, policy-making and the PAR process itself. This maintained a focus on the research process and there were distinct parts of each residential where I was researcher or co-inquirer, and my role in reflection and data management and analysis was clear. However, I did not have one day a week to

143

prepare for these sessions, I did this mainly in my own time, in evenings, familiarising myself with the data and preparing the sessions. As the review process became more collaborative, I managed to integrate research into work-time through working alongside individual young people to sort and synthesise data and develop review sessions. I constantly worked outside of my paid time to manage the research process. There was very little writing-up as we went along, my field-notes kept me up to date, as did digital recordings of the young people, discussing key issues, capturing the interaction and challenges – there was a great deal of data to manage due to the ongoing and intense nature of the project and the PAR process.

As researcher, I would also have preferred more time to individually interview the young participants at key stages about their own feelings about participation. This, I felt, would enrich the data significantly and also inform future action. However, as manager, I did not have enough time to support them at key times in their lives – bereavement, homelessness, trauma and therefore it was difficult to prioritise their thoughts on the research question! I felt there was a tension in both roles in relation to lack of individual time, this is discussed further in relation to the manager role in Chapter 7. In terms of the researcher role, I worked with the young political advisor help address this gap in personal data, and helped her to devise a video exercise that enabled each young expert to reflect on their own personal political journey.

An open, honest relationship with my Scottish Government line manager was helpful in managing the tensions between my manager and researcher role. This resulted in more staff for the project, increased funding, a child protection advisor from the adult board (who the young people knew and trusted), She was appointed for the manager/young person to discuss any support/protection issues as and when they arose. However, day to day, the preparation for direct contact with Ministers, and the support for young people, took

144

precedence over the study and at times the academic endeavour of a PhD was extremely difficult to pursue.

As Voice Against Violence came to an end, I requested extra time for a final review that involved time solely as researcher - for preparation, data management and synthesis, descriptive and exploratory analysis. The Government agreed to six months part –time work - I had time and resources to step back, be critical, focus on the data and research questions two and three. I brought together five years of policy review, focused on the research question, the preliminary analyses and data on identified themes. I had time to ensure that I was up to date and informed by the literature relating to real and token participation. Two and a half years of debate and development relating to ethical and participation standards were brought together and anonymised for the standards co- analysis, VAV production and final discussion. I applied for funding for the young people to come together and be involved, if they opted to be. This funding was granted on condition the young peoples’ version of lessons learned were presented to the Government/others in their own, chosen medium, at the end of six months. This was resource intensive (e.g. design time and working with a web company) but an inherent part of the PHD in terms of young people finding their own voice. Again this time was hugely interrupted by time-consuming additional demands, such as the winning of an award and a celebratory event in Parliament and Downing Street, which meant I reverted to a rather practical role as manager. Nevertheless, the VAV Final Review was a focussed series of day workshops and a final review weekend in my researcher role.

The writing up was then undertaken mainly out-with the paid time, which in some ways helped me with the possible tension of whose research it was – in relation to the Government and the young participants. It was my study, I was undertaking the full write up and exploratory analysis, and managed the whole research process including Part 1. Helpfully, the Government and University collaborated to ensure I had subsidised physical

145

space for the write up once I was unemployed. The Government has requested (paid) research briefings relating to all three findings chapters, and academic advice is mixed as to what I get out of that in terms of furthering my academic career – there is a constant tension between academia and policy and practice. However, a key tenet for my study is to bring research, practice and policy closer together, as others now demand – putting research into practice (for example, www.rip.org.uk) and for these findings a Government /University briefing is a key way to influence future policy, particularly as there is a new Violence Against Women Strategy underway.

Adult/child relationships

My role as an independent researcher in the development of the plan was to ensure CYPEDA were ‘empowered to set and pursue their own agenda for change’ (Shier, 2010: 224). I used creative methods to alleviate adult: child power differentials, to encourage interaction and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and power between participants rather than child to adult. I encouraged young people’s own use of their decision-making powers, such as a ‘dragons den’ exercise to sell ideas to each other and co-decide which to take forward –their findings. The Voice Against Violence phase of the study was unusual in that it was set up by young people with a ‘repositioning’ of adults involved, directed by young people, as advocated by Tisdall and Davis (2004:140). Young people were the VAV members, I was their staff : I, with my co-facilitators, was ‘lending my skills and resources’ (ibid.) to the young people to ‘enhance their status’ (ibid.). This young person-led repositioning was helpful in reducing potentially power-full roles of adults and researchers. It not only recognised young participants’ expertise and therefore help neutralise power differentials, but elevated the expertise of the young participants over that of the adult. Nor was the adult role negated, the young participants requested a manager/researcher – they wanted the skills – groupwork, facilitation, support, training, policy, research and evaluation, that an adult could bring. They very much wanted to work with the adult ‘to co-

146

create new spaces…acutely aware of the necessary presence of adults to provide support or facilitate the activities’ (Mannion, 2010:333).

Due to the sustained nature of the study there was time to develop skills, confidence and ability in relation to PAR, so that young people began to lead and facilitate in relation to reflection and action, using more interesting and innovative methods than the researchers skillset, such as art and IT, as well as providing new insights. I endeavoured in the project as manager to limit my role, in meetings, media and public appearances, whereas in the process of reflection, as researcher, I maintained a ‘critical facilitatory role’ (Davis, 2009:163). As young people’s critical abilities developed they often co-facilitated review sessions. The study became a more developmental emancipatory process for all through co-learning and co-creating, swapping expertise, developing into a force – ‘a reciprocal linking of roles that will constantly change’ (Mannion, 2010:338). By the end of the project, I noticed a change in the young people’s discourse on VAV: ‘we’, as VAV, was no longer just the young people but ‘we’, VAV, was the young people with the adult staff/researcher. By this point both adult and young people were ‘becomings’ (Lee, 2001).

Insider/Outsider Status

In the PAR study, the background of the researcher was very important to the young people, most importantly that she was a skilled and experienced practitioner in children’s support work in Women’s Aid. This immediately put young participants at ease. It was vital to these young participants to know that the researcher, unlike many adults (see Chapters 2 and 5), understood domestic abuse and the risks and need for confidentiality involved. Also, that she was experienced in individual and groupwork with CYPEDA helped young people ‘feel comfortable to open up’ (Raya, VAV Directives 2008). They were all aware of Women’s Aid standards relating to children’s rights and participation and became quickly confident that the researcher could ‘build an environment where we were constantly

147

surrounded by support and understanding plus utmost care for our rights and beliefs’ (Lola, S5). Tensions inherent in meeting other adults (see Chapters 5, 6 and 7) were greatly diminished because of the researcher’s background, almost akin to insider status.

However, the researcher’s background as national representative in relation to CYPEDA in Scottish Women’s Aid and Scottish Government, as well as position as independent researcher and then researcher/ manager did result in tensions when other adults such as Ministers, government officials, adult boards, Scotland’s Commissioner and journalists, requested that the researcher-manager to speak on behalf of VAV in relation to preliminary findings: ‘they think you’re the “real” expert’ (Karen, Big Bang Review). The researcher and young people agreed at an early stage that any requests for young or adult involvement went to the group first, following tension caused by the researcher delivering findings to the adult delivery group in the development of the plan. A key tenet of my approach was to ‘encourage autonomy and reduce dependency on adult facilitators’ (Shier, 2010:225) which young people felt was achieved gradually until ‘Claire disappeared from view’ (Karen, VAV Final Review). The young people also felt it was very helpful that the researcher had experience in Government: ‘insider knowledge of the politics involved because it’s a different world to us’ (Chloe, VAV PP Review).

Researcher/participant

The study was affectionately described as ‘Claire’s PhD’ throughout and young people were clear about the wider academic study from the start and au fait with the research questions. The researcher involved the young people in discussion about the questions, the young people wanted include issues of real and token participation in question 2 and consider impact and the young people themselves added question 3. The PAR approach enabled the study to be seen as helpful and integral to the work, which took precedence over any academic study and reduced possible tensions on researcher/researched. My role was

148

recognised as akin to ‘principal investigator’ with the overall research, design and focus, funding, administration and management my role but the regular reflection and action became more collaborative and intrinsic:

It was better because you were more in-depth in the sense that you knew what you needed from us but were helping us at the same time … [using] the PhD to say “what do you think of that?” … got a better response…we needed to reflect regularly on whether we were effective to do our best – I didn’t feel like a research participant’ (Chloe, VAV Final Review)

Researcher-manager/young participants’ relationships

As the young people’s manager, (and a responsible researcher), the young people’s welfare and safety was of utmost importance. Alongside the development and exploration of ethical standards as Part 3 of the study, there were of course, ethical dilemmas that presented themselves through the course of the work and needed resolved. Of course safety issues were not only interesting and complex subjects for exploration but needed to be resolved immediately. My role as manager was to keep the young people safe and at times individual young people felt I was guilty of protectionism, for example, making the decision for blanket anonymity despite a vulnerable young person and his mother being happy for him to speak out publicly. However, I was privy to information, not only about him but how other participants would feel, as well as having experience of unintended consequences of public appearances (discussed fully in Chapter 7). There was some tension in film-making in relation to issues of recognition as I would err on the safest measures, for example insisting faces were further blurred, despite the young people and mothers accepting risks. By the end of the project most of these tensions were resolved, minds were changed, and young people advocated for a manager for such issues and training on consequences for future young participants.

149

As manager I was also aware of a tension in that young people were getting little reward for their involvement (fuller discussion in Chapter 7) and personally I could not help but compare this to myself, both in terms of financial and academic rewards. I involved the young people in decisions about participation fees and they were satisfied with that (see, for example, Alderson and Morrow, 2011). I employed a facilitator to take them through Youth Achievement Awards which they all achieved. We discussed my role, and what was involved in the whole PhD study, and they were either not interested in academic research or were aware of the huge endeavour it was and of which they were proud to be part: ‘happy to have helped you while helping ourselves’ (Marc, VAV Final Review).

Ownership and Dissemination

Davis (2009) writes about the tensions between adult and child researchers/participants: adult researchers who feel they own the analysis and are wedded to pen and computer, ‘whereas children may feel more suited to presenting their findings in a dramatic, musical or artistic format’ (Davis, 2009: 163-4). This begs the question, and possible tension, ‘whose findings are they?’ Ownership and authorship I felt was a tension to be managed during the PAR part of the study and a critical question in relation to how participatory a study is.

Although I was clear, as were my supervisors, that conventionally I could claim authorship of reports and outputs of preliminary findings, it felt uncomfortable to be sole author, yet for use in the PhD that was the advice. In the development of the plan, the Making a Difference Report was published by the Government (Houghton, 2008b), traditionally I had facilitated this originally as ‘one off’ qualitative study and authorship was clear from the onset; I had managed and analysed the data with young people providing key themes, similar to Part 1 of the study. When involvement continued, I facilitated two residentials in which young people devised their own directives for the Government. The second

150

residential was requested by the young people so that the young people could edit, rewrite sections, agree additions, feel a sense of ownership of the report: the young people were beginning to take more of a role in analysis and writing up findings/recommendations. Although I was uniquely familiar with all the data, facilitated and designed the process as well as analysing for the report, I felt this report should at least be ‘Houghton with the young people’. The supervisors advised I should be sole author, which I then discussed with the young people, they came up with a solution that they felt OK that I was author of the report (Houghton, 2008c), so long as it stated that the directives were from the young experts.

The Voice Against Violence project provided valuable time to consider these tensions fully with the young experts, for various research outputs. As researcher, I facilitated discussions about their ‘legacy’ and gave young people the choice (or young people had ideas such as a legacy film) about how far they were involved in the data analysis process (see next section) and the medium in which they presented their preliminary findings and any research outputs. In relation to Davis’ (2009) concern about the tensions between adult researchers and academia versus child-friendly/creative presentation of findings, my dual role was very helpful in managing that tension. As PhD researcher, in this study I was necessarily wedded