Factores clave de las culturas innovadoras

A four-month period o f in-depth data collection (July-November 2001) progressed from the extensive participant observation, ethnography and the formation o f contextual profiles o f the structured phase to gathering insights into young people’s thoughts and experiences o f

‘inclusion’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘community’. Prior to data collection, issues of access and the vulnerability of some o f the YIP participants were re-visited with the YIP managers, as were ethical issues, such as consent. Ideas o f consent were openly discussed in order to gauge the most appropriate way forward. Formal consent was gained through the YIPs and the role of their staff in acting in loco parentis for each o f the participants during project sessions.

Informed consent by individual members o f the research group was a prerequisite to data collection and as far as possible, and in terms meaningful to the participants, the research was clearly explained to ensure a continual process of consent (Young & Barrett 2001: 150). From this point onwards, each young person decided if, how and when they wanted to participate. In this way, young people were able to shape and control their involvement and identify their own approach to data collection. The research also attempted to reach those young people who lacked the confidence to express their views in more structured mechanisms, such as Leeds City Council’s network o f youth forums. Approaches to data collection were strengthened by continuing to engage with young people through structures that they were familiar with and

where relationships of trust already existed. Throughout, young people were encouraged to speak for themselves and convey their experiences o f their social worlds.

The discussion o f ‘community’ in the literature review and during the early research phases revealed how understandings o f ‘community’ were multiply formed and were socially and/or geographically interpreted. Concerns about the origins o f definitions of ‘community’, especially their adult-defined nature, led to the decision that young people should play a vital role in describing what they saw as their ‘community/communities’ and the extent to which they subscribed to them. This enabled an insightful and flexible appreciation of ‘community , especially as some of those involved did not live in what they perceived to be their home

‘communities’. This was often the result of parental separation, by being placed in local authority care or by their decision to leave the neighbourhoods in which they had grown up. The use o f inverted commas around ‘community’ denotes both its problematic nature and its multiple meanings.

3.5.1. “Letting young people speak for them selves”: research experiences o f focus groups w ith young people ‘at risk’ o f crime

During summer SPLASH (July-August 2001) and the months immediately following it, focus groups were used to explore how young people experienced their everyday lives and the

‘communities’ of which they were a part. A lengthy period of participant observation assisted in the preparation o f the focus groups and usefully overcame the possibility that some young people might lack the confidence to participate or feel ‘over researched . T he relationships established during the structured phase of the methodology meant that young people were less likely to feel that they were giving up their time to answer research questions for little in return.

The timing o f the focus groups within the life cycle o f the case-study projects was often crucial.

For example, as Shaun (17 years, Bradford) explained, “I feel more confident with words [now].

If you’d have come twelve weeks ago [i.e. before his involvement with the Prince s Trust Volunteers], I wouldn’t have spoken to you.”

To preserve their anonymity, the identity o f the respondents remained confidential. To reduce any further stigmatisation and to be able to adapt to the fact that other young people could participate in the YIP’s activities, a decision was taken which meant that it was unnecessary to know whether the participants in the YIP activities were part o f the YIP’s ‘core group o f fifty youngsters. As Sieber (1992: 163) has suggested, care is needed when engaging with what she terms ‘community intervention research’. In this type o f research, recipients are targeted because of the risks that they are deemed to face. Therefore, simply identifying a young person with a particular type o f intervention can be stigmatising. During the process o f informed consent, young people’s engagement with the research process centred on the prevention of any

further social harm. The research did not explicitly mention young people’s vulnerability to crime and was not structured around particular ‘problems’, such as concepts o f social exclusion, marginalisation or ‘youth’ disaffection. Other issues addressed at this time focused on balancing confidentiality with responsibilities of child protection. For ethical reasons, young people were not accessed outside of the case-study projects.

The focus groups presented a number o f challenges in the definition and use of focus groups with marginalised young people. A flexible approach to focus groups was essential in overcoming any remaining power imbalances between young people and the research. The following discussion summarises the research’s approach to focus groups with young people and reveals the socially constructed nature of research methodologies (Oakley 1999. 165).

The focus groups were organised with the permission o f the YIP project workers and were structured around existing activities delivered through the summer SPLASH programme (July- August 2001). Although Matthews and Tucker (2000: 300) have warned of the possibility of low response rates in such settings, the focus groups successfully engaged those young people attending the YIPs’ activities. The organisation o f groups was, however, not without problems and it was frustrating when activities, which possibly could have yielded focus groups, were cancelled due to staffing problems and, more importantly, when young people chose not to attend. Matthews and Tucker (2000: 300) also suggested that by engaging young people through existing mechanisms, the views of those who are less confident are concealed and those who choose not to participate are further marginalised. However, arranging the focus groups through existing structures respected young people’s choices to be involved with the YIPs, especially as their participation with the YIPs was voluntary. In a bid to minimise possible tensions between different groups o f young people, I also continued to work with all young people regardless of their age and circumstances. For example, at this time, I was a BARCA volunteer on summer SPLASH with young people living in west Leeds and assisted on a SPLASH project working mainly with Kosovan young people living throughout Bramley and Rodley. Although my efforts were directed towards data collection, it was important to continue engaging with all young people.

The focus groups took place with 52 respondents and were generally formed o f young people who knew each other. It was felt to be inappropriate to impose my views on the form of focus groups. Some young people clearly preferred individual interviews to group discussions, hence this phase of data collection yielded five focus groups in south Leeds, four focus groups and two semi-structured interviews in west Leeds and two focus groups and six semi-structured interviews in Bradford. The small size o f the Leeds groups, in particular, sought to reduce the effects o f peer pressure, especially young people’s feelings o f ‘needing to be heard by their

friends and the pressure to ‘say the right thing’. An informal atmosphere was promoted to encourage all young people to share their thoughts and the conversations were a useful tool in identifying shared knowledge, attitudes and experiences. The focus groups were organised around a limited number o f discussion topics (refer to Appendix One for the discussion themes covered in the focus groups with young people). This reduced the amount o f time that the young people felt they would have to commit to the discussion and maintained their interest in the research. The question asked by many respondents was “how long will it [the focus group] take and how many questions have you got?”

It was essential that the focus groups were flexible in their timing so they were not always pre­

arranged and the participants were not always pre-selected. It was a case of finding those who were present at a particular time and who were willing to talk. During the research, it was observed that young people’s commitment to time was not the same as my own. For example, it was not uncommon for young people to arrive over an hour late to organised project sessions.

For many young people, the codes of the local ‘youth’ culture suggested that it was ‘uncool’ to appear too committed to youth projects and any research involving them. It was therefore essential, in both the preparation o f the focus groups and in project work, to spend time drawing young people in. I was careful not to impose on young people’s space. However, sitting/standing outside the project building with project staff was accepted. Therefore, like considerable amounts of project work, the focus groups were preceded by informal conversations on ‘the street’.

Young people’s needs were responded to from the outset and this began when choosing the venue for the focus groups. Therefore, the choice of the venues centred on selecting locations that were situated on neutral territory (i.e. particular peer groups did not dominate them), that were non-threatening and were where young people felt safe and relaxed. The focus groups pursued a flexible approach and were not tied to one place. This proved to be useful given that some young people appeared to feel restrained in closed spaces. This may be a result o f a young person’s previous experiences, where confined and controlled spaces were symbolic o f more formal interactions with statutory agencies. It was important to let young people move freely between rooms, in and out of the room and, between indoor and outdoor spaces. Young people’s ease with certain spaces varied so sometimes we sat outside on steps, on walls, around kitchen tables and in activity rooms. This also resulted in other young people being drawn in as their friends actively involved them in the groups.

Conducting the focus groups was very much an active process. The nature of the discussion allowed young people to build on each other’s ideas and all participants were assured that their views and comments would be respected. In some cases, as Fielding (1993. 142) observed, the

groups enabled young people to discuss a number o f concerns, some o f which would have perhaps been deemed socially unacceptable in other contexts. An example o f this was the importance o f ‘race’ in young people’s daily lives in Bradford. It was also important not to raise young people’s expectations about what the research could deliver, especially as one discussion topic focused on young people’s thoughts on future change in their neighbourhoods (Matthews

& Tucker 2000: 300). However, when young people began talking, they often created their own agendas by moving on to other locally relevant topics or re-visiting issues that had already been raised. Although every effort was made to include all those present in the discussion, it was also important to accept that some young people might not want to participate in the research.

Sometimes, young people were actually more responsive when one of their own peer group was asking them the questions. The use o f reflective questions in youth work meant that prior to two o f the focus groups, a session structured around reflection was included in the activity programme (refer to Appendix Two for the reflective questions used). These sessions enabled young people to put their feelings into words and provided them with an opportunity to discuss significant themes in their lives before the focus groups.

The tape-recording o f conversations was tactfully used as it was not always accepted by the young people. In these cases, the group participants were first provided with the recorder and this allowed them to switch the machine on and off as they pleased. Others, however, opted for alternative methods of recording such as written transcripts, that either they or I recorded. One o f the focus groups also involved young people requesting to video-record their group.

Therefore, every effort was made to ensure young people’s participation in the focus groups by adopting an approach that was acceptable to them. This appeared to give young people the confidence to talk openly. The diverging and sometimes contradictory opinions of young people presented in the focus groups were accepted given that they were:

actors in their own right, with diverse, and often divergent, opinions and views about their everyday worlds.

(Matthews, Limb & Taylor 1998: 314)

At the close o f the majority of the focus groups, many young people were willing to answer further questions and, in contrast to my expectations, I was often thanked for spending time with them. The focus groups all ended on a positive note with the participants in one group closing with, “let’s give her [Julie] a song people. Come on” (Stuart, 18 years, Bradford).

3.5.2. Semi-structured interviews with agencies

Semi-structured interviews with partners o f the district-wide Crime and Disorder Act partnerships were used to explore agencies’ experiences o f engaging marginalised young people

with ‘mainstream’ opportunities and their understandings of ‘community . There was a particular interest in the role o f young people in their local ‘communities’. The semi-structured interviews built on the contacts already made during the earlier stages o f the research, whether through the participant observation or through the extensive base of informal interviews with agencies. As well as being important contacts, many o f the respondents had been engaged throughout the research, which helped to increase my awareness of their approaches to working with young people ‘at risk’ o f offending.

The sample o f interview respondents comprised agency representatives, each of whom were responsible for preventing young people’s involvement in crime in Leeds and Bradford. The respondents were drawn from the three tiers of partnership working central to this research — the district-wide Crime and Disorder Act partnerships in Leeds and Bradford, the YOTs and the YIPs. Each representative was engaged with the crime and disorder partnerships at either the district or local level. Twelve interviews were held and thirteen respondents were involved (one interview was arranged to include two respondents). A conversational approach was used and was loosely structured around a series of open-ended questions (example questions are presented in Appendix Three). The broad themes covered included respondents experiences of and reflections on partnership working, the engagement o f young people in preventative approaches to youth offending and the role o f local ‘communities in addressing crime, in particular, the opportunities available for (re-)engaging ‘at risk young people. The structure imposed by this format was not limiting as conversation flowed to elicit greater depth and understanding about agencies’ perceptions and responses to young people s involvement in crime. The interviews lasted in between one and two hours.