OBLIGACIÓN TRIBUTARIA ADUANERA

In both of the two PAR projects I facilitated, the central method by which research was conducted was through discussion. As outlined briefly in the methods chapter (section 3.4.2.4), these discussion groups covered a range of topics. In the school project, this included:

 Gender in schools (run by myself)

 Gender and sport (run by myself)

 Gender and transgender issues (run by myself)

 Gender and mental health (run by myself)

 Gender and race (run by myself)

 Gender and revenge porn (run by myself)

 Gender and violence

98

 Gender and street harassment

 Gender and language

 Gender and naming

 Gendered identities

 Gender and families

 Gender and employment

 Gender and feminism (run by myself, at the end of the project)

In the youth group, these topics included:

 Gender and school (run by myself)

 Gender and language (run by myself)

 Gender and transgender issues (run by myself)

 Gender and clothing

 Gender and religion

 Gender and psychology

 Gendered identities

 Gender and feminism (run by myself, at the end of the project)

As is clear from these lists, there were places of both divergence and convergence between the two projects. Some of the topics run by myself as the facilitator were common to both projects, including the first and last discussion group of each project. However, in each group the other topics varied depending on the interests of the group.

As discussed in the participation section of this chapter (section 4.2.2), the ways in which the young people ran these sessions differed somewhat between the two groups. In the school project, relatively formal preparation took place of the triggers used to begin discussion, whereas in the youth groups a more casual approach was taken to beginning conversations. For example, the discussion groups in the school project generally began with a YouTube video or slide show presentation showed by the young people. In contrast, the youth group sessions often began simply with a topic or question posed by one of the participants. Despite this, in other ways the discussion groups took a similar form in both projects. They generally lasted between 20 and 40 minutes per topic, (although one particularly animated discussion between members of the school project ran all the way through the morning meeting and through the following break time). While the themes of each discussion group were generally quite broad, all of the debates surrounding them pertained to the lives and experiences of the young

99

people in the group. Notes were made on the whiteboard as the group spoke, and these notes were photographed at the end of the session to create a record of the knowledge created.

F I G U RE T W O : E X A MP L E O F P A R N O T E S

In these discussion groups, the young people used the act of speaking to create knowledge about their own lives and experiences. Cahill has argued that speech can be a site of collective action and knowledge in PAR projects (Cahill 2007c). She argued that talking can be a way for young people to process their thoughts, and to shape them into coherent ideas or arguments (Cahill 2007a). In these arguments she drew upon the work of Fulwiler, who argued that language can be a tool used by the speaker to process or assimilate information. He argued that often speech is used for the benefit of the speaker, in order to shape their own experience, rather than for the benefit of the listener (Fulwiler 1983). Britton described this process as 'shaping at the point of utterance' (Britton 1970, p.53).

Winston: I think that’s completely different, though. If you get hacked and somebody’s stolen then - if you like, then there’s, like, a lot more issues. But if you sent it to people – like, if you sent it to one person it stayed with them forever, they never shared it, then fair enough. But, like...

In this quote from the school group, Winston can be seen trying to work through and construct his own views through speech. The discussion group in question was surrounding the issue of 'revenge porn' - explicit images that are taken by an individual, but then shared without their consent. This discussion group was one of the most animated and controversial ones that took

100

place in the school project, as the young people grappled with their own discomfort, fears and conceptions surrounding this topic. Here, Winston can be seen working through his thoughts about this topic. As he spoke, he broke off and then restarted as he thought of other potential elements of the complex situation, and engaged in turn with these different scenarios. In this piece of speech, Winston did not seem to be speaking for the benefit of the listening group, but rather for himself as he tried to resolve his own thoughts on the subject.

Kristian: It's not wrong. I mean, some people might see it as wrong ‘cause why would you expose your body like that on the internet, of all places, or - Winston: Especially when you’re taught from, like, Year 6 about e-safety [laughs]

and all that stuff, and don’t trust people. To then think – you get taught that anything you put online is there forever.

Monica: What if it’s not online?

Facilitator: Yeah, what if you’ve just privately sent it to someone? Monica: Yeah, like your girlfriend?

Winston: But like you said, then, somebody can hack into it and that’s doing it on…

In this second section of dialogue, which followed several seconds after the former quote, Winston can be seen discussing this topic with some of the other members of the group. In this section, another of the benefits of speaking for creating knowledge can be seen. As well as using speech to learn, by working through his own thoughts, Winston was also able to learn by responding to speech from other members of the group. Kristian and Monica were both arguing that sending photos privately to someone you trust was not a 'wrong' thing to do. By doing so, Kristian and Monica both encouraged Winston to re-conceptualise his views in different ways. Kristian did this by airing his own opinions and views ("It's not wrong"). By doing this, he challenged and opposed Winston's views, while simultaneously offering a different position for Winston to take up. Monica did this through questioning ("what if it's not online?"). Winston was forced to respond to her questions, and through this, was forced to speak and work through further issues with which he had not previously engaged. In this sense, discussion groups and dialogue allowed the participants to learn through themselves and through each other in multi-faceted ways.