Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 14 November 2014, At: 19:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Ethnography and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reae20
Researching marginalised young peopleLisa Russell aa School of Education and Professional Development , Universityof Huddersfield , Huddersfield , UKPublished online: 20 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Lisa Russell (2013) Researching marginalised young people, Ethnography andEducation, 8:1, 46-60, DOI: 10.1080/17457823.2013.766433
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2013.766433
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Researching marginalised young people
Lisa Russell*
School of Education and Professional Development, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
Young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) are not a static,homogenous group. For most, being NEET is a temporary state as they movebetween different forms of participation and non-participation. This paperexplores how the complexities of defining NEET, the re-structuring of the careersservice and the nature of post-16 provision shape the way young people areidentified, accessed and participate in ethnographies. Data drawn from a studyexploring the experiences of being NEET are used to investigate the complexitiesinvolved when doing ethnography with ‘hard-to-reach’ young people. Challengesinclude gaining and maintaining access; conducting multiple site ethnography;and taking account of the socio-political context. Working with NEET youngpeople across multiple sites and using various data collection techniquescompound the issue of consent. This paper reveals how ethics, power andconsent were experienced by the ethnographer and the young people. There is aneed to understand how ethnographies are done in order to clarify how specificissues can be avoided and overcome.
Keywords: NEET; ethnography; ethics; consent
Introduction
No two ethnographies are the same. Each one has its own individual fingerprint that
is developed by the interaction of the ethnographer, the participants and the site(s)
under investigation. The social, cultural and political context contributes to how the
ethnography is designed, conducted and disseminated. There are important practical,
methodological and ethical issues that must be thought through when researching
‘hard-to-reach’ young people such as those not in education, employment or training
(NEET). Ethnographers penetrate people’s lives, and consequently the specifics
involving the participants need contemplation. Their individual circumstances and
characteristics can have an impact upon how and why they participate.
The research process does not follow an ideal, logical approach that can be
carried out as a pre-defined set of procedures (Walford 1991). The researcher needs
to contend with the unanticipated behaviour and views of participants. How the
researcher deals with these is dependent upon their personal dispositions, the role
they adopt (Skeggs 1997), the participants and the site(s) of investigation � all of
which influence the collection and interpretation of data (Walford 1991; Russell
2005). Here, the ‘hidden history’ of what really happened during the ethnography is
revealed and discussed with reference to the complexities involved when working
with young people. Handling the unpredictable and managing the emergence of
‘sensitive issues’ surface as significant themes.
*Email: [email protected]
Ethnography and Education, 2013
Vol. 8, No. 1, 46�60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2013.766433
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
It is widely acknowledged that researching young people poses specific
methodological challenges (Blackman 2007; Valentine, Butler, and Skelton 2010).
Young and Barrett (2001) claim that there are important ethical issues that must be
considered when conducting research with children, and they describe how flexibilityis needed to contemplate the individual circumstances of the young people involved,
particularly when they are marginalised. In their study of street children they depict
the importance of the researcher being prepared to confront difficult ethical issues
that cannot be anticipated. Involving young people throughout the research process
is viewed as key. The ethics of undertaking research with young people raise
particular problems when discussing sensitive topics, yet issues around what is meant
by ‘young people’ and ‘informed consent’ can vary between different disciplines,
institutions and organisations.The socio-political environment and the broadness of the concept NEET make it
difficult to identify young people, gain and maintain access. Participant observations
over multiple sites are needed as these young people move in and out of different
sites, consequently short-term observations are unavoidable. While valuable data are
obtained, data revealing how a particular individual behaves in one certain site is not
always longitudinal. Furthermore, there are specific ethical concerns around
informed consent and dealing with sensitive issues that the ethnographer must
manage.
The project
Data are drawn from the first eighteen months of a three-year ethnography that
explores the experiences of young people as they remain NEET or move between
sites of learning and employment. It contributes to understanding the needs and
behaviour of these ‘hard-to-reach’ young people and the effectiveness of interven-
tions aimed at moving them into education or employment.The experiences of 23 young people identified as NEET or at risk of becoming
NEET are explored. These include thirteen females and ten males, aged between 15
and 20 years, located across two local authorities in the north of England. Young
people were accessed from a range of sources, including YOT (Youth Offending
Team), parent groups, a housing charity, Connexions1 and word-of-mouth. The
NEET group represents a broad range of people, and diverse sources were necessary
to gain access. The main corpus of data includes over 150 hours of participant
observation conducted in young people’s homes, schools, colleges, training providers,benefit offices, charity events, work placements, car journeys and fast food
restaurants. Field notes detail the young people’s use of space and time; referral
procedures and pathways, learner behaviour and relations with tutors, Connexions,
benefit office staff, social workers, friends and family. Young people’s activities are
mapped, alongside their aspirations. Fieldwork commenced in October 2010 and
comprised 50 interviews, including 2 employers, 14 practitioners, 1 parent and 33
young people. Each of the 23 young people have been interviewed at least once and
have been re-interviewed once or twice thereafter dependent upon their transitions orcritical life moments that have arisen throughout the research. Photographs taken by
the researcher and the young people, combined with official documents detailing
local NEET statistics, NEET Strategy Group Meeting Minutes and local provision
data have been analysed.
Ethnography and Education 47
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Defining and identifying the NEET category
Reducing the number of NEET young people is a priority for policy-makers and
practitioners in England. Official discourse in the UK and many other Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries emphasises
education and training as a vehicle for social inclusion and economic growth.
Accordingly, those who do not participate are seen to be at risk of long-term
exclusion. Youth transitions have altered radically since the 1970s, and nowadays it is
relatively rare for a young person to enter full-time work or to leave education at the
earliest opportunity (Simmons 2008). In England, 88% of those who had completed
compulsory schooling in the summer of 2010 were in full-time education at the end of
that year (DfE 2011), and this situation is paralleled in other OECD countries, with
the great majority having 15-19 participation rates in excess of 80% (OECD 2011).
The NEET population is not a static group, and the boundaries of NEET status
are porous (Bynner and Parsons 2002; Simmons and Thompson 2011). However,
many have low-level, few or no qualifications; have had negative experiences of
schooling; come from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds; and face complex
barriers to engagement such as homelessness, disability, teenage pregnancy or
parenthood, mental health issues, youth offending and drug misuse (Maguire and
Thompson 2007; Simmons 2008; Spielhofer et al. 2009). As a result, NEET young
people are susceptible to experiencing multiple exclusions.
In the late 1980s in England, changes in the benefit system rendered most under
18 year olds without access to unemployment benefits and limited the entitlement of
those under the age of 25 years (Furlong 2006). Researchers and government officials
began to adopt new means of estimating the numbers of young people not in work.
Istance, Rees, and Williamson (1994) used the term Status Zero to refer to a group of
people who were not covered by any of the main categories of labour market status
(employment, education or training). For political reasons, to clarify meaning
and attempt to avoid negative connotations, policy-makers started to use the term
NEET � an all encompassing term that includes 16�24 year olds not in employment,
education or training. This broad definition includes teenage parents, those travelling
or doing volunteer work, young people with learning and physical disabilities,
independent livers, people who have left care or those who drop out of college or lose
their employment. The term has become increasingly contentious and stigmatised as
it arguably has a tendency to essentialise certain behaviours (Furlong 2006).
Some practitioners interviewed in this study expressed frustrations with the
broadness of the term NEET. CM, a local careers service manager, points to how it
can hold negative connotations despite the fact that it includes young people who are
doing something positive such as volunteer work:
CM: The term is helpful to a degree, but it can also be quite negative, this idea that it’ssomehow wrong to be in NEET. If we all look back on our careers then everybody hasbeen NEET at some point or other. So being NEET isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
The local head of careers services (HC) typifies practitioners’ experiences of working
with the definition while also revealing how it is sometimes misconceived:
HC: I worry about the term as a label as if the NEETs were a group of people comingunder one label because they are not. It is a convenient label for a status which for some
48 L. Russell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
people is quite short lived and for some is actually very long lived . . .The bureaucracyassociated with it is irritating, there are seventeen different categories of NEET andsome of these categories are positive, such as volunteering, so you can be doingsomething that is perfectly positive, but you’re still categorised as NEET. But, in termsof the focus, it has forced upon us . . . it has probably been good. It’s painful; it’s difficult;it requires specific resources up front; it’s been very target driven and my way ofrationalising beyond the target is to think ‘well it’s not just about the money; it’s aboutyoung people’.
All of the young people in this research were unfamiliar with the term NEET. Manyyoung people move in and out of NEET status and intersperse it with periods of
activity, including training, voluntary or paid work. Despite its broad definition,
there are some common characteristics, as a Connexions Area Operations Manager
(AOM) details:
AOM: Probably one of the more general things you could say about the NEET is theirlack of qualifications or the low level of qualifications. Most people we are working withare Level 1 or below . . .There are obviously certain areas of deprivation where there areclusters of NEET young people; however, the characteristics of NEET are many andvaried and very individual.
Despite some common characteristics, there remain differences in who is definedNEET. Some young people have relatively high levels of qualification and the
definition varies over time and within different local authorities, influenced by local
and national government agendas (Simmons and Thompson 2011). Researchers have
identified problems with defining NEET. Furlong (2006) states that the all-
encompassing nature of the term and its lack of agreed definition make it difficult
for researchers to identify trends or make international comparisons. While NEET
can be used as a concept for representing problematic transitions, Furlong (2006)
maintains it places a misleading emphasis on voluntarism. He argues that torepresent vulnerable youth effectively a narrower set of definitions should be used.
Arguably, there are benefits associated with the term; most notably it brings political,
media and academic attention to this group.
For the ethnographer, time is needed to understand the specifics of the local
NEET population in order to contextualise individual participants. Given the
problematic nature of the category, how young people are identified needs careful
consideration. A recognised problem in ethnography is that the list of those who may
become participants is not definitive from the start (Walford 2008b); this is morechallenging when there are contested issues with definitions before entering the field.
Subsequently gaining access to NEET young people, some of which are ‘hard-
to-reach’ and notorious at hiding from official channels, can be problematic. They are
not easy to define and not easy to find. They may move in and out of NEET status
within days and, over time, access numerous forms of provision across multiple sites.
Gaining and maintaining access
The success of doing ethnographies with NEET young people is dependent on the
researcher developing and maintaining positive relationships with participants. Trust
and the skill of listening must not be underestimated (Walford 2008a). Young people
may move residence, alternate friend and family relationships and spend periods
Ethnography and Education 49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
of time in training, education and work. Thus, access needs to be constantly
(re)negotiated with numerous gatekeepers and across various sites as young people
move between and within institutions.
During successive Labour governments, Connexions became increasingly focused
on the delivery of targeted services to those young people most in need of help, such
as the NEET group. Following the formation of the Conservative/Liberal DemocratCoalition in 2010, the future of Connexions was uncertain. The changing political
context had implications upon gaining access. The Connexions and careers service
landscape � the main and initial gatekeepers � were in constant flux; people were
moving positions and leaving posts. The ethnographer working in such climates
needs to be prepared to take time to gain access to young people and be particularly
aware of the political dynamics present in the field. The researcher’s offer of ‘free’
input and time spent with young people may not be viewed positively during a time
of institutional restructuring when people are fearful of losing jobs. This context may
act as a barrier to access, and the ethnographer needs to be acutely aware of their
position in the field and how they may introduce themselves and the research to the
professionals and young people.
In this research the ethnographer was described as a researcher exploring young
people’s experiences of being NEET, emphasising that it was the young people’s
experience they were interested in, taking care to ‘drop names’ of important people
already met. Referred leads and snowballing techniques (Bryman 2001) wereexploited. Many avenues were explored using the links already made. Eighteen
meetings with adults and over forty telephone conversations and email correspon-
dences were conducted before a single young person was met. Persistence and
resilience were needed. Gaining knowledge about the field, including who worked
where and what provision was on offer, eased the process of gaining access but took
time. Many of the young people introduced the researcher to their practitioners as
‘the lady from the university’ or ‘key worker’. Some mistook the researcher as
working with Connexions despite being informed on several occasions about who the
researcher was and what they were doing. Many were happy to talk about their life,
their aspirations and their problems. Indeed some like Hailey, a sixteen-year-old
parent of a seven-month-old baby looked forward to the fieldwork visits, as this
provided one of the few opportunities for her to interact with another female adult
on a regular basis. Five young people failed to keep in contact during the fieldwork
over a sustained period. Given the nature of the group under exploration the sample
of participants alters with time, with some leaving while others join. This flexibility
needed to be part of the methodology, like other professionals working with young
people the ethnographer needs to be prepared for the unanticipated behaviour of theyoung people. They may not always be present and available as pre-arranged; they
may even go missing for months at a time; indeed, contact may be lost as they change
resident addresses, education and employment statuses and contact telephone
numbers.
Being clear about what benefits the research process and findings could offer the
young people is essential (Walford 2008b). Practitioners may certainly ask about this
and suggest the use of financial incentives, such as vouchers to entice young people
to participate. However, it is possible to gain young people’s trust and time without
such financial incentives. During the initial stages the ethnographer must promote
the research by explaining that it is a privilege to take part as they are given the
50 L. Russell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
opportunity to voice their opinions and hopefully change things for other young
people in their position in the future.
In addition to the more practical implications around the need for the researcher
to gain a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) clearance and ensuring the researcher’s
own safety working in the field, there are other specific issues around maintaining
access. This research is led by the young people; they dictate when and where they are
seen. Some prefer to be seen more often than others; this depends upon their
circumstances at the time, such as where they are living, working or studying. While
some young people will be happy for the researcher to enter their home, college,
benefit office meetings and other social spheres, others may not. Exploiting
opportunistic meetings is essential when working with NEET young people. The
field note extracts below reveals the opportunistic nature of gaining access and shows
how the researcher may have to find places to do research.
L.R. arranged to meet a number of young people via a Leaving Care Team
Advisor. She met Johnny by accident; he was not on the list, but was introduced to
her via the advisor:
Johnny
18 November 2010 � Meeting at Connexions
I (L.R.) first meet Johnny at the Connexions Centre; he has come in to speak withone of the advisors; he has no appointment but has just moved into the area and isseeking support. I run through some life history information with him and ask if he’shappy to meet again. Johnny is 16 years of age; born in another northern town andlived in another major northern city for several years. A few days ago he was movedfrom a southern town, where he had a paid job working in a kennel. He was in afoster home but was forced to leave ‘by the social’ due to a break down in therelationship. He consequently has been moved to this town, has no job and is living ina local bed and breakfast, which he hates. He expresses a desire to move back southas soon as he can; he has a long-term girlfriend there and can return to his paid job atthe kennels.
02 December 2010 � Phone conversation
I ask Johnny where he’d like to meet next and he says he isn’t bothered; I suggest hisbed and breakfast, and he says he doesn’t want to meet there as he wants to find anyexcuse to leave the place, so I suggest meeting in McDonald’s in town.
17 December 2010 � Meeting at McDonald’s
Johnny sits upstairs waiting for me. I order lunch. He seems happy to see me. He isstill in the bed and breakfast � this was supposed to be a temporary accommodation.
In March 2011, Johnny moved south with the help of his social worker. He lived on
his own and worked at the kennels. He applied for an animal management course
ready for September 2011; started this and gained a day release from the kennels to
go to college as part of an apprenticeship. In November 2011 he moved to a Midland
town and left his apprenticeship and paid job; he says this was a mutual decision
taken with the kennel manager as he was having difficulty coping with work and
college simultaneously. Johnny is currently NEET. I now meet him in the Midlands
and maintain regular contact through phone and email.
Ethnography and Education 51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
When researching young people, the ethnographer has to be flexible. Some, like
Johnny, move residences; their social and physical places of being can change.
Although researching the different ‘social sites’ in which they operate remains vital to
understand their culture and experiences, the ethnographer becomes less attached toa single site and instead has to increase the rapport with the young people and adapt,
as they do, to different environments. This constant working across multiple sites has
implications for the ethnography.
Working across multiple sites
This research provides insight into the young person’s varying places of ‘being’,
combining an exploration of formal sites (education, employment and training) andmore informal spheres (social, home, peer group). Ethnographic, longitudinal
information about a young person’s trajectories and educational circumstances
allow the experience of being NEET to be contextualised and better understood.
In ethnography, ‘place’ is very important, and usually, ‘ethnography demands a
focus on one or a very small number of sites’ (Walford 2008b, 17), so the ethnographer
can reveal important contextual information to understand the topic(s) and partici-
pant(s) under investigation. ‘Place’ is crucial to understand the experiences of NEET
young people; however, their places of being can be various. The majority of partici-pants have experienced short-term vocational education programmes lasting between
ten and thirty weeks, these young people move in and out of provisions, change their
friendship allegiances and in some cases (like Johnny) move residence several times
within a few months. Family networks can alter, with some members (including parents
and siblings) being estranged. Working across multiple sites can be problematic, but
is necessary to understand the nature of some NEET young peoples’ lives.
Conducting the ethnography across multiple sites inevitably means that short-
term participant observations are impossible to escape. This research is participant-led; the focus is on the young person, as such the researcher ‘hangs around’ with
them as they move in and out of education, training and employment sites to
understand what triggers this transition, how they are referred from one place to the
next, how they experience this movement and how and why this ‘churning’ occurs.
Some young people attend a placement for a matter of hours, and as such time spent
with them in one particular site can be short. This is not always the case, and some
attend volunteer placements working in charity shops or training providers for
several months; however, it is a significant recurring theme with some of the youngpeople in this research. Jasmine for example has been in two training providers, one
hospital volunteer placement and one paid home care assistant post, in between
months of being NEET and engaging with charity work within a twelve-month
period. One lad, Jed, attended one training provider for less than one day. Even
within one training programme, ‘getting into work’, there can be multiple places of
training. Cayden completed this eight-week ‘getting into work’ programme and spent
time in two separate buildings working with nine different professionals and tutors
and working on placement in a care home for one week.Spending short periods of time across multiple sites has consequences for the
ethnography. Brockmann (2011) in her study of apprentices in England and
Germany points to some of the difficulties a short-term participation may ensue.
Negotiating the researcher’s role, passing through numerous ‘gatekeepers’, prolongs
52 L. Russell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
gaining consent and causes problems within the wider methodology. Although these
observations yield important information about how the young people experience
different training and work placements and why they move from various institutions,
organisations and return to their NEET status, a long-term field note log of how that
particular young person behaves, interacts and experiences being in one specific place
for a sustained period is not always achievable.
Participant consent
There are layers of consent that need to be (re)negotiated in educational research.
Formal hierarchical layers of consent may include the funding body guidelines,
research institution, research site(s) and participants. However, more informal means
such as through conversation are also necessary.
Education and employment institutions, universities and funding bodies are
hierarchical organisations that demand different ethical procedures and forms of
participant consent. The ethnographer who works across multiple sites must manage
these different requirements via official and sometimes unofficial means. The
experienced ethnographer is all too aware that a heads or parents/carers agreement
to participate with research does not necessarily mean that the young people are
completely happy to be involved. Different participants may be more comfortable
with some parts of the research and ways of gathering data than others. The ethno-
grapher must be aware of all of these issues to gain informed consent and be able to
manage the tensions between gaining official means of consent and unofficial
agreements with participants during fieldwork.
Formal institutional procedures and ethical guideline frameworks are often broad
and are not suitable to all types of research. Gaining official means of approval
represents the initial stages of gaining informed participant consent and therefore
should be carefully structured to foresee any likely ethical dilemmas. After having
satisfied funding body and university guidelines, access to certain gatekeepers in the
field needs to be negotiated before gaining consent from the young people themselves.
Young people’s situations change, and their status within social and educational
or employment groups and organisations can be influenced by a researcher’s
presence � all of which can shape a young person’s informed participant consent.
There can be real tensions experienced when gaining official means of informed
participant consent.
Two of the young people researched were defined as ‘at risk’ of being NEET and
were accessed in school. Official consent was gained via email conversation with the
school deputy. L.R. met their learning mentor, alongside the girls, informed them
about the research and invited them to take part. Both agreed and written consent
was achieved. After checking with the learning mentor, L.R. was under the
impression that parental consent had been obtained via the school. Saheera’s story
reveals that gaining informed consent is multi-layered, complex and open to change:
Saheera
I (L.R.) ask the English teacher if I can take Saheera out of lesson. She agrees. We find aroom and I give Saheera her interview transcript, we go through it together and I askher if there is anything she would like removed or changed.
Ethnography and Education 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
I give Saheera a disposable camera and ask if she would like to take photographs of aday in her life or of places and people that are important to her. She says she will do one,and Anita will do the other. I inform Saheera again that she must gain consent from thepeople she is taking photographs of before taking them; I say I will develop thephotographs and then we can sit down together to discuss them.
Saheera informs me that she is having issues at home. She has informed social servicesthat her father has been physically abusive; she says he has hit her around the head andneck. Social services have recently been involved. She describes being made to feel like aliar about the abuse due to the lack of marks. She asked social services if she shouldcontact them as soon as she has marks, but she was told ‘it doesn’t work like that’. Shesays her dad laughs at her attempt at informing social services.
She says things have recently got worse since she turned 16, she now wants to move outwith her 18-year-old boyfriend � she has been with him a year.
I ask her if the school knows about all this, and she says yes (I feel relieved that theschool knows, and later it becomes apparent that her learning mentor is aware as I amparty to a conversation involving just that with Saheera and her learning mentor). I takethis opportunity to inform Saheera’s learning mentor that I have gone through theinterview transcript with Saheera and I have given her a disposable camera. Thelearning mentor says this is fine � she has been informed verbally about this stage of thefield work and more formally by a written information sheet about the research.
A few minutes later I am approached by the assistant head. She sits me down in anoffice with another member of staff and says they have concerns about the girls takingphotographs in school as they need to have consent; I explain that I have consent fromthe girls, the deputy and the learning mentor. The question of parental consent isbrought up � I say I assumed the school sorted this when they agreed to participate. Theassistant head says she does not know if they have parental consent and says she needsto speak with their deputy to clarify this. I suggest the camera is returned to me. I ask tosee Saheera to explain why the camera has been taken; I say I need the camera back aswe are not clear on whether we have gained consent from everyone involved. Saheeraaccepts this no questions asked and then leaves. I explain that I have been informing thelearning mentor as agreed via the deputy. The assistant head apologises and emphasisesthat this is not my fault, she says she feels the research is important but needs to checkissues around consent. I agree and ask her to inform me about how to proceed. She saysshe will. We exchange contact details and I write her an email detailing issues raised.(Field notes 18 February 2011)
It was never made clear whether parental consent had indeed been obtained. Field
work continued with the girls in school and started to occur in their home after April
2011 as their timetable reduced and exams approached. During this time L.R. met
Anita’s mum and sister and agreed consent again verbally. By this time Saheera had
left her parental home, got married and lived with her husband. L.R. has since visited
her parent’s home and gained verbal consent from her mother. In these complex
and unusual circumstances the issue of consent was problematic � intensified by the
fact that Saheera’s father probably would not have given us informed consent and
was indeed being questioned about his parental responsibilities by social services.
Gaining Saheera’s father’s consent meant very little to her. She was trying to get away
from him and, according to her and her learning mentor, lived much of her life away
from his domineering influence. Such instances can be emotionally tiring for the
ethnographer (Blackman 2007), and one may question the ethics of continuing
fieldwork with Saheera, given the initial confusion over parental consent. In this
54 L. Russell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
instance L.R. felt the school wanted the research to continue, but their fears of
involvement with the project on that day were heightened due to the involvement of
social services and the sensitive issue of abuse. From this point L.R. started to see the
girls outside school to dissociate herself from the school’s institutional regulations
and concerns for Saheera (and Anita). This would always be a natural part of the
research, whereby the girls would be followed through to their post-compulsory
school destination. After careful consideration and a change in Saheera’s circum-stances, contact between the girls and the ethnographer remained, and their
relationship of trust intensified. Saheera has now left school and is currently
NEET; she lives with her husband and has agreed to continue to participate. Field
work is conducted mostly at her or her parents’ home.
It is customary within ethnographic research to obtain multiple datasets. The
benefits of using different ways of gathering and recording data when working with
young people have been well documented (Prosser 1992; Coffey and Renold 2006).
Multiple datasets were sought. Life-history maps (Shildrick and MacDonald 2007)
were used to plot important events that had happened to the young people, such as
family breakdowns, experiences of depression, abortion, homelessness and parent-
hood. Photographs provided another medium for participants to express themselves
and informed analysis and dissemination, while also providing an opportunity for
the young people to reflect on being involved with the research (Prosser and
Schwartz 1998; Russell 2007). In addition to the ethnographer taking photographs,
the young people were given a disposable camera and asked to take photographs ofpeople and places important to them. This provided another medium to explore the
young people’s worlds. Some did not want to take photographs; others wanted to
document time spent with friends and family. Photographs taken by the participants
were different from the ones taken by the ethnographer; they were much less formal
and revealed complex relationships and sometimes criminal behaviour such as taking
drugs � activities the researcher may not otherwise have been privy to. Others took
family holiday shots exposing data about times where it was not viable for the
researcher to be present. The photograph gave insight into important life events and
initiated discussion and analysis. Many of the young people wanted to see the
photographs as they were developed, as sometimes their friends had taken control of
the camera and taken rude shots; the young people were given the opportunity to
remove such photographs before the researcher could see � however, the young
people revealed all photographs taken. This was agreed before the photographs were
developed. To gain the young people’s trust, this level of participant autonomy and
involvement during the collection and analysis of data was insightful and mediated
power relations between the researcher and the researched.Gaining consent needed to be (re)-negotiated during times when new ways of
gathering data were introduced (including that from interview, participant observa-
tion, record/document analysis and photographs). Although written consent was
obtained, many of the young people involved had no parent or adult carer (such as
Johnny), and so gaining parental consent was impossible. The youngest members of
the NEET participant group were aged 15, and the oldest were aged 20 years. Each
had a different set of circumstances, both personally and in terms of allegiance to
formal organisations. When researching the vulnerable young people the issue of
consent needs a careful consideration, especially as one may need to manage the
emergence of sensitive issues.
Ethnography and Education 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Sensitive issues
Researchers must be prepared to confront very difficult and complex ethical issues
during the research process (Young and Barrett 2001). It is important to recognise
that young people have different experiences of being NEET, and thus the
ethnographer must be flexible and open to the use of multiple methods across
multiple sites, while also being prepared to manage unexpected ethical dilemmas. In
ethnography the relationship between the researched and the researcher can be
particularly intimate, and the ethnographers may find themselves in complex
situations. Conducting ethical research is to achieve obtaining data and disseminat-
ing results that in no way harms the participants involved.
As the ethnographers immerse themselves deeper into the field, they may find
themselves privy to certain sorts of information which may be deemed necessary to
report to official bodies such as Connexions, the YOT or even the police. When
working with vulnerable young people ‘sensitive issues’ such as domestic violence,
drug use, crime involvement and benefit fraud may arise. When discussing such
topics the ethnographer should question what mode of action would be in the best
interest of that young person. This can sometimes be a difficult decision and requires
the ethnographer to balance the tension between breaking the participant’s
confidence in the ethnographer while considering whether producing general
statements through research is a better (valid) way of advocating young people’s
positions, experiences and rights. Protecting the young people the ethnographer
works with is paramount, and this is what allows one to gain access to certain sorts
of data. Some young people are very wary of official figures; time is needed to gain
trust, and in some instances young people adopt a protective stance towards the
researcher (Russell 2005).Danny, a seventeen-year-old independent liver, revealed how he spent some of his
time drug dealing and even engaged the ethnographer in his activities. Danny lives in
a 1960s style block of flats in an area of high deprivation and criminal activity. It has
recently come to light that he has been dealing cannabis from this flat and out into
the community. The following field note extract reveals how the ethnographer
managed the emergence of this ‘sensitive issue’, and how Danny creatively managed
the sharing of this information:
Danny
I (L.R.) visit Danny at home as pre-arranged. He still lives in the flats, it is quite a walkup to his level and the corridors are cold and worn. His male friend who appears to be ofa similar age lets me in. Danny tells me he is in a lazy mode at the moment; his collegeattendance has gone right down. He is doing IT Level 1. He says the work is too easyand repetitive.
His friend has just come off a night shift, he works as an engineer. He spends a lot of timewith Danny in this flat, the two talk about parties they have here. His friend smokescannabis while washing dishes wearing yellow rubber gloves in the kitchen. Danny hasalways been open about his drug use, and this observation doesn’t come as a great surprise.
Danny rings someone and arranges to meet them; I offer to take him. He is supposed to bein college but says he isn’t going in. He says ‘I’m in a bad routine at the moment’ anddoesn’t know when he is supposed to be in. He says there is no point going in now as hehas already missed too much to gain his EMA.2
56 L. Russell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
As we drive I ask where we’re going and he says ‘Tipton’ � he describes the area as ‘rough’.I say, ‘should I ask what we’re doing?’ � thinking we might be collecting drugs for Dannyand he says, ‘not if you don’t want me to lie to you’, I say, ‘ok I won’t ask’, but thisconfirms my suspicions.
We stop by a garage and Danny walks down some back streets and disappears out of view,before he leaves I ask if he is ok to get home, he says yes and says, ‘are you?’ genuinelyconcerned about my lack of geographic navigation skills in a ‘rough’ area. I laughreassuring him that I am. (Field notes 16 December 2011)
A couple of weeks later I visit Danny at home again, surprised to learn he has been
broken into twice within five days. Danny enters this residence for the first time in
weeks since the incidents occurred:
Danny lets me in, the flat appears somewhat empty, I notice his bedding has been tidiedaway, his cover has been taken off and his duvet and pillow case are stacked at the topend � you can tell nobody has slept in the bed.
Danny opens the window and has a cigarette; he tells me that he hasn’t been in the flatfor around a month. He was broken into twice in five days. He suspects a mandownstairs broke into his flat. I ask what was taken, and he tells me ‘some electricalgear’, I question him at this point and ask ‘do you mean weed?’ He looks at me smilesand says ‘yes’. Danny then admits to dealing cannabis something that he refers to as‘doing business’. He explains that he thinks the man downstairs got to know his routine;he came in while he was out and threatened his friend, beat him and took the cannabis.He came back a few days later and stole some more. Danny describes how he wasexpecting the second burglary � a woman called Danny to the door to try and get him toopen it, he ignored her and later the door was kicked in, he dropped a knife he had gotfrom the kitchen and described being in ‘shock’. Danny is now £1000 in debt to the manhe sells for. He has managed to scrape together around £600 from friends but has noway of paying this back, or the rest that he owes. He says his friends won’t expect themoney back, but he needs to find the rest to pay ‘his man’. He is avoiding his flat.
He informed the police about the break-ins as he needed to get his door fixed andcouldn’t foot the bill. He told the police they took some cigarettes and some cash; hesays they knew what it was really about, but he wasn’t about to admit dealing cannabis.He says he is no longer dealing as ‘it isn’t worth it’.
I tell Danny that we can meet elsewhere next time if he prefers � we agree on our nextmeeting date and agree to arrange where closer to the time. Later that evening I text himto check he got out of the flat ok. He replied ‘Yeah, fine. Thanks for asking, even wentback to college as well’. (Field notes 10 February 2012)
Danny reveals some very intimate data about how he spends his time. During the car
‘drug run’ L.R. initially assumed he was buying cannabis and not dealing; he later
revealed to her that he was dealing. Unknowingly she had acted as an accomplice
while Danny was ‘doing business’. He purposely did not (directly at least) divulge
this information to her at the time to protect her. This was Danny’s way of showing
the researcher how he spends his time while trying to avoid putting her in an
awkward position. Participants are told that all information they provide is
confidential unless the ethnographer feels the young people are putting themselves
in danger. Informing the YOT or even the police about Danny’s situation would have
compromised the researcher and participant’s relationship of trust and might
precipitate events that would not necessarily have happened without the ethnographer’s
Ethnography and Education 57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
presence. Danny felt that he could not inform the authorities about what had actually
happened as he would be known as a ‘grass’, would still need to replace the money he
owed and this would make his life very difficult and even dangerous. Furthermore,
Danny felt the police knew what had really happened, and so it is possible that the
authorities did already have knowledge about Danny’s situation. Danny has a complete
lack of respect for the Police and the YOT. Having dealt with them in the past, he felt
sure they could not assist him with this issue.Doing ethnography with NEET young people inevitably means the researcher
spending time alone with young people. Only after a significant period of time can
the researcher use his/her own judgement about entering young people’s homes and
other social spheres of their choosing. Initial meetings should always be arranged in
public places such as restaurants to ensure the researcher’s safety. Many NEET
young people are not in any kind of training, education or employment, and so the
ethnographer must find places to meet with his/her participants that yeutralize power
relations. The ethnographer has to expect the unpredictable when working with
young people, manage the emergence of sensitive issues and really trust his/her own
judgement based on his/her ethnographic expertise about his/her own and the
participants’ safety.
Conclusions
Although the methodological, practical and ethical implications of conducting
ethnography have already been discussed, when working with ‘hard-to-reach’ young
people such as those that are NEET, some of these complexities are magnified. How
the ethnographer gains and maintains contact with vulnerable young people who
often remain elusive from official channels can be time consuming and problematic,
yet achievable and fruitful. Careful thought needs to be given to how data are
collected in addition to the layers of consent needed when working with many
different people across multiple sites. Data obtained with Saheera and Danny raiseimportant ethical questions about the ethnographer and the participants, how far
can the ethnographer form a relationship unaffected by power and truly gain
informed consent? How does the ethnographer manage sensitive information and
ensure his/her own and the young people’s safety? The answers to these questions are
very much dependent upon the participant’s circumstances, age and social site
allegiances. Working with young people across multiple sites and with various data
collection techniques compounds the issue of consent. Ethnographers often use their
own expertise to decipher informed consent, gaining a sense if the young person is
comfortable with certain parts of the research. Ethnographies are messy and
unpredictable by nature; this is what makes them so interesting and informative.
Ethnographers enter into the personal lived experiences of people and gain access to
intimate information. There is a need to understand how ethnographies are done to
clarify how specific issues can be managed and overcome.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the young people for allowing me to share their experiences and time.I acknowledge the Leverhulme Trust for funding the research and thank Robin Simmons andRon Thompson for their continued support.
58 L. Russell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Notes
1. Connexions is the integrated advice and guidance service for young people in England aged13�19.
2. EMA was a means-tested allowance of up to £30 per week payable to young peopleattending certain forms of post-compulsory education and training. It was discontinued atthe end of 2010 by the Coalition Government, but many young people still gain bursary’sand describe it as their EMA.
References
Blackman, S. 2007. ‘‘‘Hidden Ethnography’: Crossing Emotional Borders in QualitativeAccounts of Young People’s Lives.’’ Sociology 41 (4): 699�716. doi:10.1177/0038038507078925.
Brockmann, M. 2011. ‘‘Problematising Short-Term Participant Observation and Multi-Method Ethnographic Studies.’’ Ethnography and Education 6 (2): 229�243. doi:10.1080/17457823.2011.587361.
Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bynner, J., and S. Parsons. 2002. ‘‘Social Exclusion and the Transition from School to Work:
The Case of Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training.’’ Journal ofVocational Behavior 60 (2): 289�309. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1868.
Coffey, A., and E. Renold. 2006. ‘‘Hypermedia Ethnography in Educational Settings:Possibilities and Challenges.’’ Ethnography and Education 1 (1): 15�30. doi:10.1080/17457820500512721.
DfE (Department for Education) 2011. Participation in Education, Training and Employmentby 16-18 Year Olds in England. Statistical First Release SFR15/2011. London: DfE.
Furlong, A. 2006. ‘‘Not a Very NEET Solution: Representing Problematic Labour MarketTransitions Among Early School-Leavers.’’ Work, Employment & Society 20 (3): 553�569.doi:10.1177/0950017006067001.
Istance, D., G. Rees, and H. Williamson. 1994. Young People Not in Education, Training orEmployment in South Glamorgan. Cardiff: South Glamorgan Training and EnterpriseCouncil.
Maguire, S., and J. Thompson. 2007. ‘‘Young People Not in Education, Employment orTraining (NEET) � Where is Government Policy Taking us Now?’’ Youth & Policy 8 (3):5�18. http://www.nya.org.uk/information/100576/100578/109411/109730/archive/.
OECD 2011. Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en.
Prosser, J. 1992. ‘‘Personal Reflections on the Use of Photography in an Ethnographic CaseStudy.’’ British Educational Research Journal 18 (4): 397�411. doi:10.1080/0141192920180406.
Prosser, J., and D. Schwartz. 1998. ‘‘Photographs Within the Sociological Research Process.’’In Image-Based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers, edited by J. Prosser,115�130. London: Falmer Press.
Russell, L. 2005. ‘‘It’s a Question of Trust: Balancing the Relationship Between Students andTeachers in Ethnographic Fieldwork.’’ Qualitative Research 5 (2): 181�199. doi:10.1177/1468794105050834.
Russell, L. 2007. ‘‘Visual Methods in Researching the Arts.’’ Ethnography and Education 2 (1):39�55. doi:10.1080/17457820601159042.
Shildrick, T., and R. MacDonald. 2007. ‘‘Biographies of Exclusion: Poor Work and PoorTransitions.’’ International Journal of Lifelong Education 26 (5): 589�604. doi:10.1080/02601370701559672.
Simmons, R. 2008. ‘‘Raising the Age of Compulsory Education: A NEET Solution?’’ BritishJournal of Educational Studies 56 (4): 420�439. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2008.00417.x.
Simmons, R., and R. Thompson. 2011. NEET Young People and Training for Work, Learningon the Margins. Stoke on Trent: Trentham.
Skeggs, B. 1997. Formations of Class and Gender. London: Sage.
Ethnography and Education 59
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Spielhofer, T., T. Benton, K. Evans, G. Featherstone, S. Goldon, J. Nelson, and P. Smith. 2009.Increasing Participation: Understanding Young People Who Do Not Participate in Educationor Training at 16 and 17 (Research report DCSF-RR072). London: NFER.
Valentine, G, R. Butler, and T. Skelton. 2010. ‘‘The Ethical and Methodological Complexitiesof Doing Research with ‘Vulnerable’ Young People.’’ Ethics Policy & Environment 4 (2):119�125. doi:1080/13668790123540.
Walford, G. 1991. ‘‘Reflexive Accounts of Doing Educational Research.’’ In DoingEducational Research, edited by Geoffrey Walford, 1�17. London: Routledge.
Walford, G. 2008a. ‘‘The Nature of Educational Ethnography.’’ In How to do EducationalEthnography, edited by Geoffrey Walford, 1�15. London: Tufnell Press.
Walford, G. 2008b. ‘‘Selecting Sites, and Gaining Ethical and Practical Access.’’ In How to doEducational Ethnography, edited by Geoffrey Walford, 16�38. London: Tufnell Press.
Young, L, and H. Barrett. 2001. ‘‘Ethics and Participation: Reflections on Research withStreet Children.’’ Ethics Place & Environment 4 (2): 130�134. doi:1080/01629777300000151.
60 L. Russell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
9:18
14
Nov
embe
r 20
14
