Youth 'at the margins': critical perspectives and experiences of engaging youth in research worldwide 9789463000505, 9789463000512, 9789463000529, 946300050X, 9463000518

Citation preview

Youth ‘At the Margins’

NEW RESEARCH – NEW VOICES Volume 4 Series Editor Halla B. Holmarsdottir, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway International Advisory Board Karen Biraimah, University of Central Florida, USA Heidi Biseth, Buskerud University College, Norway Joan DeJaeghere, University of Minnesota, USA Zubeida Desai, University of the Western Cape, South Africa Alawia Farag, Ahfad University for Women, Sudan Fatma Gok, Bogazici University, Turkey Lihong Huang, Norwegian Social Research (NOVA) Institute, Norway Suzanne Majhanovich, University of Western Ontario, Canada Diane Napier, University of Georgia, USA Vuyokazi Nomlomo, University of the Western Cape, South Africa Gerald Ouma, University of Pretoria, South Africa Adila Pašalić-Kreso, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina Yusuf Sayed, University of Sussex, UK New Research – New Voices involves two strands, leaving open the possibility of others as the series grows: Strand 1: New Voices and New Knowledge in Research Methodology This strand in the book series is dedicated to producing cutting-edge titles focusing on Research Methodology. While it might be generally acknowledged that educational researchers often tend to import methods developed in neighboring disciplines, this is not always acknowledged in the literature on methodology. This series intends to contribute to the knowledge foundation in educational research by specifically seeking out those who work both across disciplines and inter-disciplinary in terms of their methodological approaches. The overall focus is to develop a series focusing on those methods which are appropriate in dealing with the specific research problems of the discipline. The series provides students and scholars with state-of-the-art scholarship on methodology, methods and techniques focusing on a range of research topics. It comprises innovative and intellectually rigorous monographs and edited collections which bridge schools of thought and cross the boundaries of conventional approaches. The series covers a broad range of issues focusing on not only empirical-analytical and interpretive approaches, but moreover on micro and macro studies, and quantitative and qualitative methods. Strand 2: New Voices and New Knowledge in Educational Research This part of the series will focus on theoretical and empirical contributions that are unique and will provide important insights into the field of educational research across a range of contexts globally. This part of the series will collectively communicate new voices, new insights and new possibilities within the field of educational research. In particular the focus will be on scholars, students and communities that have often been excluded or marginalized within educational research and practice.

Youth ‘At the Margins’ Critical Perspectives and Experiences of Engaging Youth in Research Worldwide

Edited by Sheri Bastien University of Calgary, Canada and Halla B. Holmarsdottir Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway

SENSE PUBLISHERS ROTTERDAM / BOSTON / TAIPEI

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-94-6300-050-5 (paperback) ISBN 978-94-6300-051-2 (hardback) ISBN 978-94-6300-052-9 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands https://www.sensepublishers.com/

Cover image by Tyler Blackface

Printed on acid-free paper

All rights reserved © 2015 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

vii

About the Cover

ix

1. Growing up Global: Towards the Critical Engagement of Youth and Youth Voices in Research to Address Global Wicked Problems Sheri Bastien and Halla B. Holmarsdottir

1

Section I: (Re)visiting Critical Epistemological and Methodological Perspectives on Engaging Youth in Research 2. Youth at the Margins of Citizenship: A Review of European Youth Policy Lihong Huang and Halla B. Holmarsdottir

23

3. Epistemological and Methodological Challenges in Research Concerning Youth at the Margins Joron Pihl

41

4. The Experiential Bond: The Impact of Research with At-Risk Youth – The Relational and Ethical Challenges of Qualitative Research Michael Wearing

65

5. Understanding the Ethical Requirement for Parental Consent When Engaging Youth in Research Danielle Kennan

87

6. The Voice of the Voiceless: Limitations of Empowerment and the Potential of Insider-Activist Methodologies with Anarcho-Punk Youth Sarah Grace Fessenden

103

Section II: Case Studies of Youth and Community Empowerment and Activism 7. Bengali Youth Speak out for Change: Knowledge and Empowerment of Youth in West Bengal, India Amrita Roy and Rupayan Roy

125

8. Kenyan Youth Left to Stand Alone? Engagement, Solidarity and Meaningful Exchange Laura M. Lee

153

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9. Conducting Fluid and Timely Research in Youth Activism: Understanding Lessons from India Supriya Baily and Sydney A. Merz

175

10. Uncanny Insight in Withdrawn Voices: Structural Violence, Aboriginal Hauntings and Youth-Powered Documentary in Western Canada Rita Isabel Henderson, Leeanne Ireland and Wilfreda E. Thurston

195

Section III: The Relationship between Youth, Institutions and Structures 11. Research with Children of Prisoners: Methodological Considerations for Bringing Youth in from the Margins Catherine Flynn and Vicky Saunders

219

12. Fieldwork Dilemmas: Conducting Qualitative Research with Orphanage Youth in Ukraine Alla Korzh

241

13. Research as Play: Discovering Roots of Educational Marginalization through Participatory Research with Indigenous Baka Youth in Cameroon Sarah Strader

261

14. Stand by Me: Empowerment of Immigrant Youth in Urban Japan June A. Gordon

277

Section IV: Dispatches from the Field 15. Youth Researching Youth: Reflections from a Multi-Country Study of Youth Claiming Rights to Education and Sexual Reproductive Health Máiréad Dunne, Naureen Durrani, Barbara Crossouard and Kathleen Fincham

299

16. Our Margins, Their Frontlines: Research with Child Soldiers and Armed Groups in Syria, Myanmar and Uganda Will Plowright

317

17. Youth as Researchers and Participants: Engaging Marginalized Voices in Rural India Noel L. Shadowen

339

18. Visualizing Abjection: The Making of a Photo Documentary in the ‘Other’ Worlds of Girlhood Stephanie Skourtes

359

About the Contributors

385

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The editors would like to express their immense gratitude to the many people who have contributed to the development of this volume in one way or another. We would like to acknowledge the authors for their scholarly contributions, and for their hard work and enthusiasm for the volume. All the manuscripts included here went through a peer-review process. The result is a volume that showcases a variety of critical approaches and experiences from around the world with respect to engaging youth in research. We would like to extend our appreciation to all the reviewers for their comprehensive peer reviews and valuable comments. Their insightful and constructive feedback contributed substantially to the quality of this publication. We are also grateful to Michel Lokhorst and the staff of Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who took responsibility for the production process. In addition we thank Oslo and Akershus University College for their generous financial and administrative support. We would also like to acknowledge the tremendous work done by a graduate assistant at Oslo and Akershus University College, Galina Shavard, who provided editorial support throughout the entire editing process. We are most grateful to her for her untiring work and dedication to this volume. We would like to extend our thanks and appreciation for the artwork by Tyler Blackface that is showcased on the cover of the book. Tyler is Blackfoot and a young member of the Siksika First Nation in Alberta, Canada. His artwork presents powerful imagery and symbolism associated with his struggles following removal from his community as a child by the child welfare system, as well as with sobriety and wellbeing as a young adult. We are proud and honored to be able to include his work in this volume. Finally, we are very grateful to the owners (Michael and Michel) and staff at the Riad al Massarah in Marrakesh, Morocco (especially to Khadooj for her wonderful meals) who provided us with an inspiring setting in which to finalize the volume. We very much appreciate the care and thoughtfulness that was extended to us during our stay. We hope that this volume will be useful and valuable for you as a researcher, graduate student or as a scholar particularly interested in engaging youth in your research endeavors.

vii

ABOUT THE COVER

FRONT COVER

The cover art was produced as part of an arts-based advocacy partnership developed between University of Calgary researchers, community partner the Urban Society for Aboriginal Youth (USAY), and more than twenty young people (aged 18-28) with prior experiences of child welfare involvement. Daniela Navia, a master’s student in anthropology, played a visionary role in bringing together youth to convey through art their resistance and resurgence to ongoing settler colonialism and displacement in their lives. The initiative was sponsored by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council's Urban Aboriginal Knowledge Network. INSPIRATION FOR THE COVER ART

I originally started with a blue background because I find this color to be somehow emotional. I was in a dark state of mind when painting this. The black represents my heritage, Blackfoot. And the white represents being raised in a foster home and the two colliding into something more beautiful, the grey. – Tyler Blackface

ix

SHERI BASTIEN & HALLA B. HOLMARSDOTTIR

1. GROWING UP GLOBAL Towards the Critical Engagement of Youth and Youth Voices in Research to Address Global Wicked Problems

INTRODUCTION

This volume comes at a time when there is a great need to take stock. With the 25th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in November 2014 and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which formed the blueprint for the majority of the world’s countries and development institutions coming to a close in 2015, it is an important time to assess and reflect. Critical appraisal is needed, not only of the achievements that have been made regarding important targets and indicators related to youth and children worldwide, and to what extent they have been involved in efforts to improve their prospects in life; but also to identify areas in need of improvement and recommit to efforts to reduce disparities and enhance empowerment. There is also a concomitant need for action – innovative, evidencebased approaches to addressing entrenched global challenges and engaging youth in those efforts. The recent State of the World’s Children Report 2015, which focuses on innovation for every child, draws attention to the potential of harnessing fresh, innovative community and youth-driven strategies to overcome intractable global issues (UNICEF, 2014). To that end, we feel that UNICEF’s efforts to develop principles for inclusive innovation may further contribute to efforts to ethically engage youth and children in the development and implementation of strategies and programs not only in international development work, but also in scholarly research efforts. The objective of this volume is to present both critical reflections and empirical examples of scholarship in order to further develop our understanding of the challenges and possibilities of youth-engaged research. Reflective contributions and empirical data are needed to effectively shape the research agenda going forward and to generate novel ideas and approaches to involving youth. As editors, our own research agendas seek to address some of the challenges and possibilities of engaging youth in research. For instance, Project SHINE (Sanitation and Hygiene INnovation in Education) aims to engage Maasai youth in Tanzania as change agents to catalyze a process for increased community capacity to develop and sustain locally relevant strategies to improve sanitation, hygiene and health outcomes (Bastien et al., forthcoming). Another example is research that focuses on adult education programs, which meet the learning needs for youth at risk of social exclusion (Holmarsdottir, 2014). Overall, we hope that in this volume we

S. Bastien & H.B. Holmarsdottir (eds.), Youth ‘At the Margins’, 1–19. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

BASTIEN & HOLMARSDOTTIR

have managed to achieve a balance of these parallel foci and by doing so open up for new discussions about the importance of including youth in the research process. It is our hope that this volume will be particularly useful for emerging and seasoned scholars with interest in developing an understanding of the potentialities and pitfalls associated with engaging youth in research processes and who share a commitment to advancing such research and action. We begin by setting the stage through a discussion of the global context in which youth are currently transitioning to adulthood. In this section, we draw on a range of international reports to highlight just a few examples of the “wicked problems” currently influencing youth transitions globally, such as increased urbanization, poverty, poor health, social exclusion and inequity, radicalization of youth, violence, civil war, and un- and under-employment. We also present a brief discussion of how the terms youth and children are conceptualized in diverse ways in the literature and argue for the need to embrace appreciative inquiry approaches and those which positively frame and position youth as assets to be nurtured and developed. The notion of “wicked problems” as complex social issues is then problematized in greater detail with emphasis on the need to move towards transdisciplinarity and systems thinking in order to adequately engage with and tackle the global challenges currently facing youth and impacting youth transitions. Through a discussion of the capabilities approach and the “right to research”, we explore current debates surrounding the engagement of youth in research. We subsequently present a brief discussion of youth-engaged methodologies, before presenting an overview of the volume. THE GLOBAL CONTEXT

The effects of the global economic crisis have left few countries unscathed and the impact on youth has also been felt worldwide, with respect to livelihood and educational opportunities, health, and (un- or under-) employment status. From a life-course perspective, these impacts are of substantial importance given that events that transpire during this stage in life affect and are affected by events in other phases in life (WHO, 2014). Thus, the livelihood, educational and health prospects of the current generation of youth will affect not only the adult lives of these youth, but also the development prospects of the next generation. Progress that has been made in the past decades includes increased primary school enrollments worldwide, reductions in childhood mortality and morbidity due to increased vaccination coverage for key diseases such as measles, reduced maternal mortality ratios, and other important health and education indicators (WHO, 2014). However, there continues to be substantial challenges facing youth and children worldwide, with wide disparities remaining both within and between countries and regions. As the deadline for meeting the Education for All goals was 2015, it has become apparent that the most marginalized groups still lack access to quality education and that none of the goals will be met (UNESCO, 2013/4). In terms of health challenges, globally, the leading causes of death among adolescents are road injury, HIV (particularly in Africa where it is the number two cause of 2

GROWING UP GLOBAL

death among adolescents, although there is uncertainty surrounding these data), suicide, lower respiratory infections and interpersonal violence (WHO, 2014). Mental health is increasingly recognized as an issue of global importance given that it influences social and economic outcomes across the lifespan (Barry, Clarke, Jenkins, & Patel, 2013). With respect to challenges associated with livelihoods, recent European Union (EU) figures show that youth unemployment was 24 per cent in January 2013, which is more than double the adult rate (Eurostat, 2013). Often referred to as NEETs (neither employed nor enrolled in education or training), youth who fall into this category currently comprise an estimated 7.5 million young Europeans (aged 15-24). Not only are the youth unemployment figures in Europe alarming, but the global youth unemployment rate which has long exceeded that of other age groups is also cause for concern. The global youth unemployment figures saw the largest annual increase on record in 2009; at its peak, 75.8 million young people were unemployed (UN, 2011a). Ultimately, youth unemployment has long-term implications for both young people and the societies in which they live, for instance political and economic instability and also “scarring” effects such as the deterioration of skills and lack of work experience. The importance of skills and qualifications is becoming increasingly important in the knowledge-based economy and as a result, low-skilled workers have fewer prospects (European Commission, 2013). Further, we are reminded that during this life stage fundamental decisions are made relating to …transitions out of school, into work, into sexual relations, into marriage, into parenting and, generally, into assuming adult roles in communities in which individuals will spend their early adult years. Although these transitions onto various trajectories are not immutable…[they considerably affect the possibilities and opportunities] over the rest of people’s lives and, indeed, the context in which their children are born and raised. (Lloyd, Behram, Stromquist & Cohen, 2005, p. 1) Posing an added challenge to the current state of global affairs is the high percentage of youth residing in the Global South, with figures estimating that 1.2 billion youth worldwide aged 15-24 (87 per cent) now live in low- and middleincome countries (World Economic Forum, 2013). Accordingly, between 2010 and 2015 the number of youth living in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is expected to increase by 19.4 million, which translates to an increase in the region from 14 to 15 per cent (ILO, 2010). Thus, many low- and middle-income countries are experiencing a “youth bulge”. In Africa (both sub-Saharan and North Africa), about 40 per cent of the population is under the age of 15 and nearly 70 per cent is under 30 years of age (UN, 2011b). This youth bulge has the potential to become either a dividend or dilemma; a dividend that can be either demographic or economic while a dilemma can be in terms of political unrest such as in France, Sweden, Tunisia and Egypt in recent years (see also Pihl this volume). In addition to these crises, youth today are also confronted with an increasingly interconnected world with new global challenges. In this globalized world, some of 3

BASTIEN & HOLMARSDOTTIR

the most visible challenges include, for example, accelerated advances in technology, economics, environment, culture and education, all of which are restructuring social relations and social networks. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), established in the year 2000 constitute the most recent attempt to define and tackle the world’s most pressing social challenges, which include among other issues, education, health, gender, poverty, food security, environmental sustainability, and a global enabling environment. Environmental issues, which affect youth livelihood prospects and health through access to resources such as water are, for example, one of the most critical global challenges of our time, something that also threatens our cultural heritage (UN, 1987) and will profoundly affect future generations. Current discussions on the post-2015 MDGs, now referred to as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), appear to include the majority of the objectives above, but they are likely to be tackled from a different perspective such as through new partnerships and by engaging citizens as advocates for the SDGs, taking account of MDG lessons, global change and new priorities (Sachs, 2012). Some of the new priority areas under discussion for the post-2015 agenda include under prioritized health issues such as sanitation, as well as energy, peace and stability, governance, technology, urbanization, youth and skills training and social inclusion. Such wicked problems will not only require a transdisciplinary approach, but will also need to include current and future stakeholders and leaders, many of whom are today’s youth. THE INCLUSION OF YOUTH PERSPECTIVES

Globally, the circumstances of youth, the opportunities afforded them and the challenges they face differ substantially. Similarly, the extent to which young people have been marginalized in research processes, which often tend to be “expert driven”, varies considerably. The inclusion of youth perspectives, particularly those considered by many to be “at the margins” of societies, is increasingly on the agenda of international agencies. For instance, the United Nation’s International Year of Youth in 2011 focused on youth perspectives vis-àvis promoting the ideals of peace, freedom, progress and solidarity and the achievement of the MDGs. At the policy level, this increased focus on youth involvement in decisions that affect their lives has been spurred by a number of international declarations, such as the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and most recently the Colombo Declaration on Youth 2014. Global reports focusing on youth include UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children, UNESCO’s 2012 Global Monitoring Report entitled Youth and Skills: Putting education to work, in addition to the United Nations World Report on Youth 2013, with a specific focus on migrant youth. Action towards achieving the goals set forth by international declarations and policy documents invariably differs from country to country and is impacted by factors such as the global financial crisis, fiscal responsibility and governance, which among other factors have led to high unemployment rates particularly among youth (ILO, 2014). 4

GROWING UP GLOBAL

Within academic discourse, the perspectives and participation of youth in decision making processes and research has long been debated (Todd, 2012). For many scholars, meaningful involvement of youth can increase the validity of data, by helping to contextualize issues that affect youth, especially among marginalized groups. Youth can then use the knowledge gained through their experience in research processes to be change makers in their communities. Engaging youth can also serve an accountability function and give youth voice to participate in civic society on a broader stage and challenge their leaders to bring about change. A strengthened evidence base may also support advocacy and action, in addition to more effective programming and subsequent policy responses (UN, 2013). Other scholars, however, raise concern over challenges such as how to move beyond tokenism (see Baily and Merz this volume) towards authentic participation, how to address power imbalances and achieve empowerment and whether youth can or even should be expected to make change happen (Hart, 1992; O’Donoghue, Kirshner, & McLaughlin, 2003). On many levels we can argue that efforts to actively draw attention to the importance of youth voices and incorporate youth in research and policy processes has progressed in the last two decades. One example relates to a paradigm shift from a deficit model of viewing youth as “broken” or on the verge of becoming broken, or as “problems to be managed”, towards appreciative, inquiry-based and positive youth development (PYD) perspectives and approaches (Lerner et al., 2006; Reason & Bradbury, 2001). This development has influenced not only the vocabulary used to describe youth, but also the theoretical and empirical bases for the field of youth studies (see Lerner et al. 2006 for a thorough discussion of historical developments). At the policy level, it has been noted that youth are now considered to be legitimate stakeholders in many public policy arenas (Zeldin, Camino, & Calvert, 2003). Yet, we are now faced with the next challenge, which is identifying best practices to ensure youth involvement is both meaningful and effective. Kara (2007) points out that “…initial barriers to youth involvement were often conceptual (e.g. why engage youth?), whereas now the challenge now is often procedural, and even process oriented (e.g. how to meaningfully and effectively engage youth?)” (p. 564). Thus, the current challenges have more to do with the researcher’s ability to design, conduct and engage in high quality, meaningful participatory research that is able to capture and measure impact. In recognition of these issues that are currently still contested in the literature and for which more empirical evidence is needed, we caution that youth participation should not be perceived or presented as a panacea, nor will a one size fits all approach be an effective means of engaging youth in the research process. Ensuring the quality of youth participation will be contingent on adopting a nuanced, relevant and contextually appropriate strategy, as a number of chapters in this volume suggest. Strader (this volume) in particular, adopted a play-based approach to engaging Baka youth in Cameroon, after her initial research strategy failed to yield the richness she had hoped for. By immersing herself in their daily activities, including

5

BASTIEN & HOLMARSDOTTIR

play, Strader was able to establish trust and build relationships with the children and more effectively engage with them. Similarly, Henderson and colleagues (this volume), in working with Aboriginal youth in Canada on structural violence, recognized the need to relinquish control over the direction of the project in order to build analytical capacity and reflexivity among the youth to critically think about structural violence and to achieve the objectives of setting youth on a path of intergenerational partnership and social network-building. TOWARDS CONTEXTUALIZED UNDERSTANDINGS OF “CHILDREN” AND “YOUTH”

Youth are as diverse as the challenges they face. For instance, where local definitions vary widely, many scholars opt to utilize an age-based definition of youth. “Youth” may also appear to be a concept exclusively related to age. However, youth as a concept is highly dependent on context. To define a person as a youth requires consideration of a multitude of factors, some of which may be more influential in certain contexts. For instance, youth may be defined based on their relationship to their family, their ability to support themselves and their relation to educational institutions. For example, a 28 year-old student will be regarded as a youth in many contexts whereas a 28 year-old married mother will fall into another category. Many organizations such as the World Bank (2007), UN (2011a) and UNESCO operationally define youth as the period between 15 and 24 years of age. This boundary can be perceived as being fluid, to accord with local traditions and contexts. For instance, UNESCO notes that “for activities at the national level, for example when implementing a local community youth program, youth may be understood in a more flexible manner” and as such “the definition of youth… can be based for instance on the definition given in the African Youth Charter where youth means every person between the ages of 15 and 35 years” (UNESCO, n.d.). Yet, as is evident in a number of studies within the social sciences (i.e. anthropology, sociology, psychology and education) and in some of the chapters in this volume, the concept of youth is often conceptualized as a developmental and liminal phase in life, a transition between childhood to adulthood (see for example the volume by Christiansen, Utas & Vigh, 2006 and Furlong, 2009). Thus, youth are neither children nor adults, but instead they occupy a liminal position. For many young people, liminality “…has become a permanent phenomenon” a kind of “…postmodern liminality” (Kahane & Rapoport, 1997, p. 31). Kahane and Rapoport (1997) for instance, assert that liminality is a fusion between two or more social categories that is “betwixt and between” in which: the informal context enables…[youth] to overcome their marginal status and live within different worlds [adult and childlike] at the same time, to feel that they belong in both rather than in a vacuum between them. (Kahane & Rapoport, 1997, p. 31)

6

GROWING UP GLOBAL

For the authors in this volume, this in-between stage is central to conceptualizations and discourse concerning youth. Further, some authors use the term children and youth interchangeably in this volume, particularly given the fact that “borders between all phases of the life course have become fuzzy, the timing and duration of transitions between childhood, adolescence, youth, adulthood and old age are less age-dependent” (Heinz, 2009, p. 3) than have previously been the case. As mentioned, there is also the need to recognize that these life phases are dependent on local context and realities. Conversely, some of the authors in this volume engage in nuanced debates not only around the concept of youth, but also the implications of how we define it. Dunne and colleagues, for instance, highlight the multiples axes of identification [that] are in play in the ongoing discursive construction of our subjectivities, the category of “youth”…[and the need to] consider the complexities of the different relations which contribute to the social realities produced by the research. (p. 305 in this volume) As editors, we strove to respect and honor the diversity of conceptualizations among the contributors to the volume by not forcing our own understandings or preferences on authors. Rather, by showcasing a range of approaches and lenses for understanding and representing youth, we hope that readers will get a sense of the diversity of the literature on youth. Increasingly recognized in the literature and in this volume, youth are not merely passive social actors, they also have agency – not understood here simply as having the capacity to act autonomously, but the sort of agency that is subject to different possibilities and positionalities. This is evident in several chapters in this volume, but particularly so in the chapters by Fessenden and Henderson and colleagues who have presented a more nuanced interpretation of youth agency and various forms of resistance. Ultimately, in this volume we attempt to contribute to understandings of youth as “both social being and social becoming: as a position in movement” (Christiansen et al., 2006, p. 11). Overall, in understanding youth and their position in society, both the authors in this volume and we as editors are equally concerned with recognizing that youth have a critical role to play as future leaders in their respective communities and societies in confronting wicked problems. WICKED PROBLEMS AND THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF YOUTH IN ADDRESSING GLOBAL CHALLENGES

We cannot solve the problems with the same thinking we used in creating them. (Albert Einstein) The term wicked problems was first coined in the early 1970’s (Rittel & Webber, 1973) to illustrate the intractability of the plethora of social issues facing the world, such as those described earlier in this chapter. Unlike “tame” problems which tend to be more easily defined and solved through the application of linear approaches, 7

BASTIE EN & HOLMARS SDOTTIR

starting with probleem identificattion and workking towards a “solution”, wicked probleems are difficuult to define, highly compllex and multi-causal, unstaable, lack clear solutions or mitigation strategies annd may givee rise to unnintended conseqquences; they go beyond tthe capacity of o any one orrganization orr body to responnd to, and do not respect aacademic silos (Rittel & W Webber, 1973;; Hunter, 2009).. Although noot all scholarrs are likely to embrace the notion off wicked probleems framed ass such and maay argue it is too alarmist, we found thee concept useful for framing sseveral aspectts of the workk we set out too accomplish with this me. Firstly, w we recognize that youth are a frequentlyy conceptualiized and volum represeented as wickked problems to be solvedd or managedd, by those w who work primarrily within a ddeficit model. Although we note that shiffts have takenn place in this reegard, one couuld argue that research fundding is still largely directedd towards studiess that focus oon risk factorrs and minimiization of succh factors, ratther than researcch that stemss from an assets or appreeciative inquirry-based apprroach. In additioon, we use thee term wickedd problems as a useful conceeptual tool to illustrate the com mplexity of thhe issues youthh around the gglobe currentlyy face. Lastly and most centrall to our disscussions, wicked problem ms and the concomitant call for transdiisciplinarity aand systems thhinking highliight the imporrtance of youtth as key stakehholders to be acctively engageed in research processes.

We argue that enngaging youth in research iss a wicked prooblem in itselff, as each o challenges,, but also attemppt to involve yyouth in reseaarch presents a unique set of opporttunities. As Riittel and Webbber (1973) pooint out there iis no single soolution or one seet of criteria, no single appproach or meethod and therre is always rroom for improvvement. As thhe chapters inn this volume will show, eaach attempt too involve youth in research, w whether it is inn terms of deffinition (i.e. who w are the yoouth, how “ the marginns”) or if it deelves into are theey defined andd understood and are they “at how tto include theem in researrch (i.e. as pparticipants, cco-researchers or peer 8

GROWING UP GLOBAL

researchers) will bring about a new set of issues that must be tackled. For us the wicked problems are not just about the issues that are dealt with in research itself, but also about how to meaningfully include youth as important stakeholders in the process. Further, we are reminded that given the highly complex and ambiguous nature of wicked problems, holistic, multi-level, systems-based approaches have been advocated as a means for both grasping and tackling the multifaceted and interconnected issues facing the world. Systems thinking represents a way of perceiving and understanding the world, through the application of a framework within which to organize information in order to understand its complexity (Leischow et al., 2008; Richmond, 2000). More specifically, systems thinking is …a paradigm or perspective that considers connections among different components, plans for the implications of their interaction, and requires transdisciplinary thinking as well as active engagement of those who have a stake in the outcome to govern the course of change. (Leischow & Milstein, 2006, p. 403) Thus, systems thinking is an approach which explicitly aims to both account for and engage with the interrelated issues which feed into wicked problems, and to incorporate the multiple and often conflictual perspectives of relevant stakeholders. For example, the challenges related to the integration of immigrant youth in schools in Europe, North America or in Japan (see Gordon, this volume), or increasing school enrolment in low- and middle-income countries. With respect to understanding school enrolment for instance, collaboration across a wide range of disciplines is essential, including not only education, but also medicine to understand the underlying causes such as malnutrition that may contribute to school drop-out and absenteeism; economics, to shed light on rates of return to education and perceptions which may influence parental decision making with respect to sending children to school or the decisions made by youth to stay in school; and anthropology and sociology to understand the impact of gender norms and the relevance of education to the setting as it influences enrolment. Each discipline has a unique, but perhaps insufficient body of evidence to contribute to address global challenges. Underpinning and implicit in a systems approach is a commitment to transdisciplinarity, which has yet to be defined in a universally accepted manner, but which some scholars argue is a “process in which team members representing different fields work together over extended periods to develop shared conceptual and methodological frameworks that not only integrate but also transcend their respective disciplinary perspectives” (Stokols, Hall, Taylor, & Moser, 2008, p. 474). The importance of “breaking down silos” or disciplinary boundaries in academia has become increasingly emphasized. This is also something we have actively sought to achieve in this volume. Indeed, as discussed below, scholars are increasingly advocating for other paradigm shifts as well, including a rights-based approach to youth participation in research processes.

9

BASTIEN & HOLMARSDOTTIR

A RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO RESEARCH

Appadurai (2006) persuasively argues that research should be considered within a human rights-based framework. By this he is suggesting a deparochialization and democratization of the right to research by ensuring that the capacity to carry out research is within the reach of ordinary citizens, in particular youth. Appadurai (2006) argues that, …asserting the relevance of the right to research, as a human right, is not a metaphor. It is an argument for how we might revive an old idea, namely, that taking part in democratic society requires one to be informed. One can hardly be informed unless one has some ability to conduct research, however humble the question or however quotidian its inspiration. This is doubly true in [a] world where rapid change, new technologies and rapid flows of information change the playing field for ordinary citizens every day of the week. (p. 177) Drawing on his experience with a grassroots NGO in India, he describes efforts to train teachers and students using the principle of “documentation as intervention” as a means of inquiry-based skill development with an aim of fostering capacity to engage in action oriented efforts to achieve social change. Such an approach holds potential to develop the triple capacity to inquire, to analyze and to communicate. Appadurai argues that it is essential to make research a process that is more accessible to youth of a wide range of interests, as research is: …not only the production of original ideas and new knowledge (as it is normally defined in academia and other knowledge-based institutions). It is also something simpler and deeper. It is the capacity to systematically increase the horizons of one’s current knowledge, in relation to some task, goal or aspiration. (Appadurai, 2006, p. 176) Intimately connected with this notion of conceptualizing research as a right, is the capabilities approach, articulated by Sen (1999) and Nussbaum (2000). This framework is predicated on two pillars, namely that the freedom to achieve wellbeing is of primary moral importance, and second, that freedom to achieve wellbeing is to be understood in terms of people's capabilities, or their real opportunities to do and be what they have reason to value. This freedom to achieve well-being is something that the authors and we as editors strove to uncover in this volume, by showcasing the ways in which the inclusion of youth in research can contribute in this regard. In this volume, we showcase four examples of researchers that demonstrate a commitment to the meaningful and active engagement of youth as partners in research. In chapters that elucidate the potential, but also the challenges associated with involving youth as co-researchers, Dunne and colleagues, Henderson and colleagues, Skourtes and Shadowen (all in this volume) illustrate that youth have the desire and capacity to substantially enrich and enlighten research processes.

10

GROWING UP GLOBAL

Although it is beyond the scope of this introductory chapter, and indeed this volume, to give these important and interlinked concepts such as wicked problems, trasndisciplinarity and systems thinking, research as a right and the capabilities approach, a detailed and fulsome discussion, they framed our editorial discussions and decisions. It is our hope that future research efforts to tackle the most pressing and persistent challenges facing youth worldwide will build on our discussion in this introduction and embrace the messiness associated with wicked problems, using approaches which may be informed by the guiding principles of transdiciplinarity and systems thinking, to the extent that it is feasible and appropriate. YOUTH-ENGAGED METHODOLOGIES

Youth are frequently studied and perceived as being passive subjects rather than active agents. As mentioned above, they are also often perceived and portrayed as being wicked problems to be solved or managed, and not often invited to actively and meaningfully engage in the research process. Indeed, research is often done for or on children, but less commonly with them. However, an increasing number of scholars advocate for moving beyond traditional approaches or models of research that view participants as subjects, towards engaging with youth participants as social actors, collaborators, and agents of change. Such efforts are in line with approaches such as participatory action research (PAR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR), which aim to build on local knowledge and strengths and foster participation by all affected stakeholders, including youth. Efforts to involve children and youth in research are evolving and exist on a continuum (see Figure 1). For instance, youth may to varying degrees, be engaged in defining the research questions, designing and/or implementing an intervention, and/or assessing the outcome of an intervention through data analysis. In this volume, we see authors engaging youth in their research along this continuum to demonstrate the diversity of approaches that can be found in youth-engaged research. In all approaches, serious consideration of the complex ethical issues concerning research with children and youth is important to ensuring they are safeguarded from both short-term and long-term harm. Researchers must also be cognizant that there may be discord between approaches, which conceptualize children and youth as autonomous, rights-bearing citizens, and local understandings and norms, which may position children and youth as dependants. As evidenced in this volume, scholars adopting participatory approaches to engaging youth in research may discuss at length the epistemological and theoretical bases for involving youth, such as social constructivism and critical theory, or they may adopt a more pragmatic standpoint and focus on PAR as a methodological choice, a tool for collecting data or a means of increasing the relevance and validity of data.

11

12 As respectful researcher… Ensuring that children/youth are in a position to give informed consent. Valuing children’s/youth’s time and contribution.

As active listener… Providing authentic opportunities for children/youth to give their views on research topic and process. Listening to children’s/youth’s views on the research outcomes.

As facilitator… Creating opportunities for children/youth to participate in creating meaningful data and in decision-making around research process.

As co-researcher… Collaborating in every stage of the research, from planning to publication of outcomes. Critical reflection on process of research and identity as researcher.

Researcher

© Fionnuala Waldron (reproduced with permission)

Informed about the purpose and process of the research and their role within it. Informed about each stage in the research including outcomes. Given right to withdraw from process at any stage.

Use of methodologies that allow children/youth to share their views and opinions. Children/youth consulted about their experience of the research and their views of the research outcomes.

Use of methodologies that provide opportunities for children/youth to create meaningful data. Providing opportunities for engaging in decisions around the research and the research agenda.

Collaboration in the framing and in the planning of the research process. Participating in gathering and interpretation of data. Participating in decisions about outcomes.

Research characteristics

Sharing of decision-making

Participation in decision-making

Figure 1. Continuum of children and youth participation in research.

As research subject… Informed about the process and outcomes.

As contributor… Consulted about the process and product but with no decision-making role.

As participant… Participating in decision-making and/or agenda setting through task oriented and/or problematizing methodologies.

As co-researcher… Collaborating in every stage of the research, from planning to publication of outcomes. Critical reflection on process of research and identity as researcher.

Child/youth

BASTIEN & HOLMARSDOTTIR

Access to decision-making

GROWING UP GLOBAL

Whilst it is our hope that this volume makes a contribution towards the advancement of youth scholarship, we must acknowledge that there continues to be a lack of sufficient empirical evidence relating to youth engagement in research processes. It is our hope that this volume will contribute to the growing literature in this regard, however in recognition that significant gaps in our understanding remain, we strongly encourage researchers to publish findings that demonstrate successful and unsuccessful examples of youth engagement in research such that opportunities for learning are not missed. As is clear from this volume, additional research is needed which investigates the potential risks, benefits and barriers to meaningfully and effectively engaging youth in research processes, and which sheds light on the contextual factors at play that require attention when planning ethical and methodological approaches to youth-engaged research. Ideally, a convergence in terms of adopting standardized definitions and methods of measuring outcomes such as empowerment would facilitate comparison across studies; however we do recognize that this can be challenging, particularly in light of the semantical challenges associated with defining youth and children as discussed above. Moreover, in many instances, it is likely that the outcome measures are more driven by and reflective of researcher perspectives with respect to program effects. This represents an additional area of scholarship in need of further development. Researchers that work closely with youth as collaborators and stakeholders in defining outcome parameters would make a substantial contribution towards setting the bar in terms of relevant, meaningful engagement in research. OVERVIEW OF THE VOLUME

This volume emerged out of a shared commitment on the part of the editors to expand the knowledge base for understanding the role that youth and youth voices can play within research and on the global stage with respect to addressing the complex socio-cultural, economic and political challenges of our time. Authors contributing to this volume come from a range of academic disciplines including education, social work, psychology, medicine, nursing, anthropology, political science, and the humanities; several of the chapters represent transdisciplinary collaborations. A range of what could be considered wicked problems are dealt with in this volume, including poverty, war, conflict and structural violence, access to education, stigma and discrimination. There are a number of other timely and complex issues facing youth today that are not featured in this volume including the radicalization of youth, mental health and suicide among youth (suicide now ranks number three among causes of death during adolescents), social media and “cyber-bullying”, as well as many other important challenges. In terms of geographical coverage in this volume, author contributions span a number of continents and countries with representation from sub-Saharan Africa (Cameroon, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Senegal), Europe and Eastern Europe (Spain and Ukraine), Asia (Japan, India, Pakistan and Myanmar), the Middle East (Syria and the Occupied Palestinian Territories), Oceania (Australia), and North America (Canada). Although this is an impressive range, insights from research 13

BASTIEN & HOLMARSDOTTIR

among youth in the Circumpolar North and in Latin and South America, and other regions of the world would have presented an even more comprehensive view of efforts worldwide to actively engage youth in research endeavors. We structured the volume in such a way that foundational concepts and issues that are central to engaging youth and youth voices in research are presented in Section I. In Section II, we contextualize some of the important issues raised in the first section by showcasing studies from around the world that have focused on youth and community empowerment and activism. Section III illustrates the relationship between youth and the institutions and structures they may have to navigate. A selection of insightful case studies is presented from diverse contexts in institutionalized settings such as prisons and orphanages, but also studies that highlight the school as an institution that is not always relevant or inclusive of all students. Finally, we include a series of contributions that constitute case examples from the “field.” These studies provide detailed methodological accountings, which may serve as useful reflective reference points for those researchers who are particularly interested in the challenges and opportunities associated with field research. To varying degrees, each of the chapters presented in this volume weaves together critical insights concerning the epistemological and methodological challenges associated with engaging youth in research, which is the foundation that this volume is built upon. Following our introduction to the volume, we offer chapters that examine macro level issues associated with marginalized youth. Huang and Holmarsdottir, for instance, offer critical reflection and consideration of youth and youth policy in the European context. Although this chapter focuses on Europe, the authors take up a number of issues that are relevant to youth worldwide, such as the need to overcome structural barriers to equality and justice. To enhance understandings of important epistemological and methodological aspects associated with research concerning marginalized youth, Pihl’s contribution interrogates the implications of the epistemology, theory and methodology for how we conceptualize, represent and ultimately understand youth. Wearing builds on this discussion of how youth tend to be conceptualized and represented in the literature and attends to the inherent power/knowledge inequalities, for instance demarcated by status and class, which exist between researchers and marginalized youth. He shares important reflections concerning the ethics and collective impact of qualitative research on marginalized youth and argues that researchers must be reflexive when it comes to examining important ethical and relational aspects of the research process in order to ensure adequate protection of research participants who may be particularly vulnerable, and also to safeguard integrity in the production of “knowledge”. In the next chapter, Keenan offers nuanced insights into the consent process as it pertains to involving minors in research, with a particular focus on the role of parents and proxies. She illustrates the complexities associated with obtaining informed assent from children and youth and highlights the need for research protocols to be flexible and responsive to the local context, whilst ensuring that youth are safeguarded from harm. Challenging the assumption that a participatory research approach is a kind of “silver bullet” for the ethical 14

GROWING UP GLOBAL

complexities of working with youth at the margins, the next chapter by Fessenden offers an insightful and critical analysis of the limitations and potential of “engaged, insider methodologies” to foster empowerment through a case example of anarcho-punk youth and dumpster-divers in Spain. Her research efforts, which have her straddling and negotiating insider-activist-researcher positionalities, describe how she did not empower the anarcho-punk youth. Fessenden’s contribution highlights both the complexities and the nuances of insider ethnographies and also the potential for co-empowerment among researchers and participants. This chapter serves as an important segue to the next section in the book where the contributions also contend with the notion of empowerment within the research context. In section II, a series of chapters offer rich and insightful case studies concerning youth and community empowerment and activism from such diverse contexts as Asia, Africa and North America. Here, we include authors who challenge assumptions that engaging youth in research necessarily leads to empowerment and social change, whilst exploring the potentialities of the method by presenting case studies and lessons learned from the field. An interesting example of an insider-outsider research endeavor is presented by Roy and Roy (Canadian born siblings of Bengali heritage) who find that youth in India desire opportunities and resources which would enable them to become active and effective change agents for health promotion and social justice. Their work highlights the importance of building relationships not only with youth, but also with the wider community, which includes important gatekeepers for accessing youth. Among youth in Kenya, Lee explores the challenges and opportunities of employing a participatory community-based approach to engage marginalized youth in action research and ground-up policy-making. She finds that whilst power differentials among researchers and youth are not fully transformed or transcended when using a participant engaged approach, there is tremendous potential in adopting participatory action research methodologies which can create space and opportunities for youth to critically reflect on structural inequality, and consider ways in which they might harness their creativity and skills to be change makers within their communities. Baily and Merz also grapple with this process of engaging youth as change agents in their study that focuses on youth activism in India. Drawing on a wealth of experience as youth activists themselves, the authors reflect on the challenges associated with ensuring that youth participation is authentic and transcends tokenism. They also offer lessons learned concerning the importance of endogenous research or research that emerges from within. Shifting to more of a focus on structural violence and serving as a bridge to the next section in the volume, Henderson, Ireland and Thurston present the development of a youth-powered documentary among Aboriginal youth in Canada as a case study in digital participatory methodologies, which has become increasingly popular as a means of critically engaging marginalized populations in research. The authors offer up a number of important caveats to be considered when using digital media approaches, including ethical and pedagogical considerations around engaging youth as co-researchers. In an interesting development, the youth in this study 15

BASTIEN & HOLMARSDOTTIR

asserted themselves and claimed the space to disclose or not disclose perspectives or experiences associated with forms of structural violence, but rather focused on “spooky stories” and haunting, as well as withdrew from completing the film. The authors insightfully note that, “silence and refusal may be empowered voices nonetheless” (p. 212 in this volume). In section III, perceiving children and youth as capable social actors who have the right to engage in research is also the point of departure for the work of Flynn and Saunders who present two studies of children in Australia whose parents have experienced incarceration. The authors provide insights and guidance for researchers on how to meaningfully engage marginalized youth in research such that it increases the likelihood that their involvement will be both an ethically sound and empowering experience. Another example of work within an institutionalized setting, Korzh presents her research among youth living in orphanages in Ukraine. Highlighting some of the methodological and practical challenges faced in the field, she also shares critical reflections on researcher obligation to participants, raising important questions for budding and seasoned researchers alike. Strader also draws on her rich field work experience in the field with indigenous Baka youth in Cameroon to emphasize how a critical constructivist approach which employs participatory and immersive methods can contribute towards the development of a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of youth perspectives and experiences. Also facing various forms of discrimination, but in their adopted country, Gordon explores how “newcomers” to Japan struggle to survive and thrive in an educational system not well-equipped to deal with difference. She presents a case study that gives voice to youth and demonstrates how educational reforms have bolstered the resilience of immigrant youth, ultimately leading to improved academic and vocational outcomes for the students. In section IV, a series of diverse empirical cases from around the world are presented which use a participatory approach to engaging youth in research. Drawing from case studies conducted in Senegal, Pakistan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Dunne, Durrani, Crossouard and Fincham explore both the potential and problematic aspects of engaging youth as co-researchers and peer researchers. The authors’ post-structural framing of power and identity in their youth-researching-youth approach sheds light on the importance of being attentive to the range of imbalances that can arise in such relationships. Advocating a rightsbased approach to research, this chapter also highlights the strength of the method that is performative, and affords youth an opportunity to enact their citizenship. There is also a clear emphasis on methods for field research in Plowright’s contribution, which focuses on research with child soldiers in the conflict zones of Syria and Myanmar, and the post-conflict setting of northern Uganda. In his chapter, Plowright grapples with the ethics of engaging with such a vulnerable group and concludes by sharing some general guidelines based on his own work, for researchers contemplating entering a similar setting. While Plowright’s chapter focuses on youth in various fragile settings, the chapter by Shadowen looks at how youth in India are engaged across the participatory spectrum in two ways: both as 16

GROWING UP GLOBAL

surveyors (co-researchers) and as participants in an evaluation study of an afterschool program initiated by an international NGO in collaboration with the local community. Shadowen discusses how challenges related to actively involving youth in research processes, in particular in a setting where age-based hierarchies predominate and youth are typically seen but not heard. Finally, the volume concludes with a critical feminist, visual ethnography with stigmatized workingclass, out-of-school, urban females in Vancouver, Canada. Skourtes offers a wealth of insights into a wide range of key issues associated with research among marginalized populations. For instance, she engages in a discussion of epistemological concerns that were central to her study, and of power dynamics. Importantly, she also provides a detailed accounting of her application of visual methods in the study, which will be of benefit to researchers aiming to undertake similar studies. It is our hope that with this volume, we are both bearing witness to and engaging as active contributors to a burgeoning literature and paradigm shift that treat or appreciate youth as assets and creative change makers who have a contribution to make in research processes, dispelling the notion of youth as wicked problems to be merely studied as objects. REFERENCES Appadurai, A. (2006). The right to research. Globalisation, Societies, and Education, 4(2), 167-77. Barry, M. M., Clarke, A. M., Jenkins, R., & Patel, V. (2013). A systematic review of the effectiveness of mental health promotion interventions for young people in low and middle income countries. BMC Public Health, 13, 835. Bastien, S., Hetherington, E., Hatfield, J., Kutz, S., & Manyama, M. (forthcoming). Youth driven innovation in sanitation solutions for Maasai pastoralists in Tanzania: conceptual framework and study design. Christiansen, C., Utas, M., & Vigh, H. E. (2006). Introduction: Navigating youth, generating adulthood. In C. Christiansen, M. Utas, & H. E. Vigh (Eds.), Navigating youth, generating adulthood: Social becoming in an African context (pp. 9-28). Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute. European Commission. (2013). The Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC): Implications for education and training policies in Europe. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategicframework/doc/piaac_en.pdf Eurostat. (2013). Eurostat news release: Euro indicators. STAT/13/31, 1. March 2013. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/euro-indicators/news-releases Furlong, A. (2009). Handbook of youth and young adulthood: New perspectives and agendas. London: Routledge. Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Innocenti Essays, 4. Florence: UNICEF. Heinz, W. R. (2009). Youth transitions in an age of uncertainty. In A. Furlong (Ed.), Handbook of youth and young adulthood: New perspectives and agendas (pp. 3-13). London: Routledge. Holmarsdottir, H. (2014). Youth in transition: Migration, exclusion and the education of youth. Paper presented at the Comparative Education Society Conference “Revisioning Education for All”, March 10-15, Toronto, Canada. Hunter, D. J. (2009). Leading for health and wellbeing: The need for a new paradigm. J. Public Health, 31(2), 202-204. International Labour Office (ILO). (2010). Global employment trends for youth: Special issue on the impact of the global economic crisis on youth. Geneva: International Labour Office.

17

BASTIEN & HOLMARSDOTTIR International Labour Organization (ILO). (2014). Global employment trends 2014: Risk of a jobless recovery? Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/--publ/documents/publication/wcms_234107.pdf Kahane, R., & Rapoport, T. (1997). The origins of postmodern youth: Informal youth movements in a comparative perspective. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Kara, N. (2007). Beyond tokenism: Participatory evaluation processes and meaningful youth involvement in decision-making. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(2), 563-580. Leischow, S. J., & Milstein, B. (2006). Systems thinking and modeling for public health practice. Am. J. Public Health, 96(3), 403-405. Leischow, S. J. et al. (2008). Systems thinking to improve the public’s health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2Suppl), S196-S203. Lerner, R. M. et al. (2006). Towards a new vision and vocabulary about adolescence: Theoretical, empirical, and applied bases of a ‘positive youth development’ perspective. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.). Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 445-469). New York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis. Lloyd, C. B., Behrman, J. R., Stromquist, N. P., & Cohen, B. (2005). Introduction. In C. B. Lloyd, J. B. Behrman, N. P. Stromquist, & B. Cohen (Eds.), The changing transitions to adulthood in developing countries: Selected studies (pp. 1-12). Washington, DC: The National Academic Press. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Donoghue, J., Kirshner, B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2003). Moving youth participation forward. New Directions for Youth Development: Theory, Practice and Research, 96, 15-26. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. New York: Sage. Richmond, B. (2000). The “thinking” in systems thinking: Seven essential skills. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155169. Sachs, J. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet, 379, 2206-2211. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf. Stokols, D. Hall, K., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am. J. Prev. Med., 35(2S), S79. Todd, L. (2012). Critical dialogue, critical methodology: Bridging the research gap to young people’s participation in evaluating children’s services, Children’s Geographies, 10(2), 187-200. UNESCO. (2013/14). Youth and skills: Putting education to work. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (n.d.). What do we mean by ‘youth’?, Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/socialand-human-sciences/themes/youth/youth-definition/ UNICEF. (2014). The state of the world’s children. Reimagine the Future: Innovation for every child. New York: UNICEF. UN. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. UN. (2011a). UN youth report. Retrieved from http://unworldyouthreport.org/index.php?option= com_k2 &view=itemlist&layout=category&task=category&id=2&Itemid=68 UN. (2011b). World population prospects: The 2012 revision, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/wpp/ WHO. (2014). Health for the world’s adolescents: A second chance in the second decade. Geneva: WHO. World Bank. (2007). World development report: Development and the next generation. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Economic Forum (2013). Global agenda councils-youth unemployment visualization 2013, Retrieved from http://www.weforum.org/community/global-agenda-councils/youth-unemploymentvisualization-2013

18

GROWING UP GLOBAL Zeldin, S., Camino, L., & Calvert, M. (2003). Toward an understanding of youth in community governance: Policy priorities and research directions. Social Policy Report, 17(3).

Sheri Bastien Global Health & International Partnerships, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary, Canada Halla B. Holmarsdottir Faculty of Education and International Studies Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway

19

SECTION I (RE)VISITING CRITICAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ENGAGING YOUTH IN RESEARCH

Photo credit Sheri Bastien

LIHONG HUANG & HALLA B. HOLMARSDOTTIR

2. YOUTH AT THE MARGINS OF CITIZENSHIP A Review of European Youth Policy

INTRODUCTION

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English the noun “margin” appears to be objective and uni-dimensional (horizontal). The word describes an object in our physical world: at “an edge or border of something”, “a line determining the limits of an area”, “a boundary line or the area immediately inside the boundary”, or “the blank space that surrounds the text on a page” (Thompson, Fowler, & Fowler, 1995). The word becomes abstract with dimensions such as quantity, amount, and direction when describing phenomena that are human-related activities: margin of profit in commerce or economy, margin of safety in engineering or construction, margin of a normal behavior in psychology. In sociological studies, the term “marginalization” describes both a social process of becoming or being made marginal as a group within the larger society and an intermediate position between social inclusion and exclusion (Hammer, 2003) in different dimensions such as education, economy, labor market, housing, social and political participation in a local community or the national government, in which young people often find themselves disproportionally overrepresented. Correspondingly, marginalization is not only linked to inclusion and exclusion, it is also linked to issues of human rights. In June 2014, six years into the economic recession in Europe, the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe claimed that youth human rights are at risk and called for a “rights-based approach” in European youth policy to raise “awareness of the lack of specific attention afforded to young people in most European and international human rights instruments” (Muižnieks, 2014). A word search through the significant international human rights related declarations adapted by international organizations and agencies since the end of the World War II reveals that neither youth as a term nor young people as a group have ever been specifically mentioned. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) states the rights of “all human beings” (Article 1) and “everyone” (from Article 2 and onwards); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) includes “everyone under 18 years of age” (Article 1); the European Social Charter (CoE, 1961 and revised 1996) specifically mentions “the rights of children and young persons to protection” (Article 7) but it limits the age of children and young persons to 18 years old and younger; and the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU, 2009, legally binding on the Treaty of the European Union) has one entry S. Bastien & H.B. Holmarsdottir (eds.), Youth ‘At the Margins’, 23–40. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

HUANG & HOLMARSDOTTIR

mentioning “young people” in Article 32 “Prohibition of child labor and protection of young people at work”. In order to understand why and how European youth’s human rights are at risk and why it is necessary to call for rights-based youth policy, this chapter reviews and analyses policy documents relevant to youth published by the two European intergovernmental institutions, namely, the Council of Europe and the European Union. Two reasons make this study of the two European institutions interesting and relevant to young people as marginalized citizens in Europe. First, both institutions were established on the principle of human rights and democracy. Founded in 1949 (the Treaty of London) and currently having 47 member states, the Council of Europe (CoE)1 is “the continent’s leading human rights organization” ever since it adopted the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950. Formally established in 1992 and currently having 28 member states, the European Union is based on the rule of law as “every action taken by the EU is founded on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by all EU member countries”.2 Second, young people as a specific social group have long been “claimed” to be a common policy concern by both European institutions which is made evident by the works of EU-CoE Youth Partnership3 since 1998. The Partnership aims to foster synergies between youth policies of the two institutions as well as of the member states on themes specifically relevant to European youth: participation/citizenship, social inclusion, recognition and quality of youth work. This policy review will focus on one of the key themes of European youth policy: citizenship, with the aim to contribute to understandings of this concept as documented in European policies and its relevance to the current human rights ‘atrisk’ situation currently facing many youth in Europe. In a layman’s understanding, citizenship denotes the legal link between a person and a state. The possession of citizenship is normally associated with the legal right to work and live in a country and to participate in political life. As young people are first of all citizens of a state in Europe or in the world, does it mean that European young citizens also enjoy the rights associated with their citizenship? If young citizens enjoy equal status and rights as every other citizen, why is citizenship a specific focus in European youth policies? What is the meaning of citizenship in the European youth policies? In the following, this chapter first provides an account of the facts of young people’s marginal positions in European society, followed by a discussion of citizenship from the research literature. The section entitled “Data and methods” gives a brief description of the data collection process of policy documents and analytic approach applied. The results of the review and analyses are presented in two accounts of policy development: 1) a chronological account of the development of the citizenship concept in European policies after the World War II and 2) European youth policies on citizenship. At the end of the chapter, we offer a tentative definition of citizenship for European youth policy together with critiques on the focus of some of these policies.

24

YOUTH AT THE MARGINS OF CITIZENSHIP

YOUTH AT THE MARGINS

In the following, we present some factual accounts of the marginal position currently occupied by young people in Europe and other parts of the world. In doing so, we can classify these into three arenas namely, civil, political and social. These three arenas in the lives of youth are also related to law, human rights and democracy, and to health, education, wealth and citizenship. We will come back to this link later on in this chapter. First in terms of the civil arena, systems of criminal justice in most countries in the world hold children and young people criminally responsible (e.g. at age 15 in Norway, age 10 in England and age 12 in the United States), constrain when they have the right to work (e.g. at age 16 in Norway) and when they have the right to vote (i.e. at age 18 in most countries). In many cases young people are disproportionally treated as disposable (Giroux, 2012). Specifically, youth who are unwilling or who question the neo-liberal agenda (the logic of the free-market) are seen as disposable; thus both goods and young people are increasingly objectified and disposable (Giroux, 2012). Moreover, drawing on Greenwald (2011), Giroux (2013, p. 646) points out that “given that by age 23, almost a third of Americans are arrested for a crime, it becomes clear that in the new militarized state young people, especially poor minorities, are viewed as predators, a threat to corporate governance, and are treated as disposable populations” (Greenwald, 2011). Since many youth are seen as disposable they are also over-represented as convicted criminals in prisons, particularly in the US and the UK, but also other countries. In the US, for example, approximately 250,000 children (between the ages of 10 to 17) are prosecuted, sentenced or incarcerated as adults each year, of which 70 percent are serving for nonviolent offenses. In the year 2009 alone, the US police made 1.6 million juvenile arrests (Children’s Defence Fund, 2011). In England and Wales, there were over 1.3 million arrests in 2010 of which almost 250,000 were among youth aged 10-17, with 10-17 year olds accounting for 17 percent of all arrests, but representing only 11 percent of the population. In the same year, young people under the age of 21 represented approximately 26 percent of the first entrants into the criminal justice system (Ministry of Justice, 2012). In the political arena, young people in Europe between the ages of 18-30 participate in democracy and civic actions nearly as much as older generations do, but they are generally underrepresented in formal power structures. Data made available by the European Knowledge Centre for Youth Policy (EKCYP)4 and data from the European Social Survey 2008 suggest that in many countries, young people are engaged in national elections nearly as much as the older people. Among 20 European countries with available information at EKCYP, the difference in the proportion of young people who vote compared to adults over 30 is only about 17 percentage points (i.e. about 66 percent of young people on average vs. 83 percent of adults over 30). Meanwhile, a large-scale study in seven EU countries (i.e. Austria, Finland, France, Hungary, Poland, Spain and the UK) shows that the majority of European youth (87 percent) are engaged in one or several forms of political and civic actions (LSE, 2013). However, only a dozen of 25

HUANG & HOLMARSDOTTIR

European countries have some young representatives (under or at the age of 30) in national parliaments or local governing councils. In those countries, about 20 percent of the population are youth, but young representatives only occupy approximately 5 percent of the parliament seats (Huang, 2013) and less than 4 percent of young people in Europe are members of political parties or a trade union (Eurostat, 2009) where the power of negotiation usually resides. Third, in terms of the social arena, youth today are the best (or longest) educated generation in European history (Eurostat, 2009). At work, however, young people tend to have higher rates of temporary and part-time employment, lower rates of pay and are 50 percent more vulnerable to workplace injury from accidents, chemical exposure, and psychological pressure such as stress or harassment (Eurostat, 2009; European Commission, 2012a). During economic downturns young people tend to be the hardest hit and they are often the first to lose their jobs. In March 2014, as unemployment rates (between the ages 15-74) reached 10.5 percent in the EU28,5 the youth unemployment rate (between the ages 15-24) was twice as high at 22.8 percent and as high as 56.8 percent in Greece and 53.9 percent in Spain (Eurostat, 2014). Meanwhile, in terms of social and economic aspects, young people are overrepresented in statistics of at-risk-of-poverty (Eurostat, 2009), being exposed to abuse and violence, having poor mental health and high rates of suicide (UNICEF, 2011). In general, young people’s human rights have been constantly undermined (or even violated) in several aspects of their lives in Europe and in other parts of the world. They are discriminated against in the work place and in the market; they are unprotected and treated as disposable by our society; they are excluded in decisionmaking positions and have no say in affairs that are vital to their very survival as human beings. All these issues also relate closely to the concept of citizenship, something we now turn our attention towards. THE DEFINITION OF CITIZENSHIP AND ITS ASSOCIATIONS WITH MARGINALIZATION AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

According to the definition by the Oxford Dictionary of English, a citizen is “a legally recognized subject or national of a state” while citizenship is “the position or status of being a citizen of a particular country” (Thompson, Fowler, & Fowler, 1995). In the literature, Crick (2000) argues that the concept of citizenship is said to have diverse conceptualizations across disciplines and there is not a universally accepted definition, while others argue that there are only four citizenship models based on four competing ideologies (Hoskins, 2012), i.e. the liberal model, the communitarian model, the civic republican model and the critical model. Some scholars find the concept to be both descriptive and normative (Holford & van der Veen, 2006) or both normative and empirical (Taylor-Gooby, 1991). Within the context that citizenship describes a legal relationship between the people and the state, most commonly cited is Marshall’s (1950) description of the concept as including rights of citizens (as related to human rights) in three interdependent aspects of a society: civil, political and social (as we have noted in the previous 26

YOUTH AT THE MARGINS OF CITIZENSHIP

section). Normative arguments are often about how citizenship should be developed or what citizenship should be like, as some suggest that citizenship can be constructed actively by people or should be a set of practices inherent in the activities of citizens (Turner, 1993; Jamieson et al., 2005), while empirical aspects of citizenship argue for a “holistic analysis” on the ways in which all aspects of citizenship (civil, political and social) influence and impact each other (Lister & Pia, 2008). Meanwhile, some scholars offer alternative interpretations of citizenship (Evans, 1995), between maximal citizenship having consciousness of self as a member of a shared democratic culture and participation and minimal form emphasizing individual civil and legal status, rights and responsibilities. Others propose additional dimensions to the concept, for instance with global, cosmopolitan, or environmental citizenship from concerns about global inequality and climate change, and transnational and multicultural citizenship in response to the dilemmas raised by migration and by the cultural diversity within state boundaries (Stoker et al., 2011). Some scholars (Somers, 2008; Burgi, 2014) focus on the rights of citizenship that are violated considerably by the market, which include “legal and civil freedoms, and equal access to justice; participatory rights in democratic governance; and the social inclusionary rights that allow for the meaningful exercise of all the others” (Somers, 2008, p. 5). Yet others view the concept as a living process with actions and activities. Following the “ideal image of the citizen” as an active participant, but not citizenship as a formal relation to the political system (Morrow, 2005, p. 381), and moreover some new terms have emerged: effective citizenship (Westholm et al., 2007), engaged citizenship (Dalton, 2008), active citizenship (Hoskins & Mascherini, 2009), participatory citizenship (Hoskins et al., 2012) and passive citizenship (Amnå & Ekman, 2014). Nevertheless, participation in civil, political and social lives is essential for citizenship in a democracy, but individuals or groups at marginal positions in any one or more dimensions in a society are often excluded from full or partial and meaningful participation in many aspects of society (de Haan & Maxwell, 1998; Duffy, 1995, 2001; Horsell, 2006). Instead of suggesting that individuals’ lack of ability or inability prevents them from participating in the “normal” activities of “normal” citizens in a society (Burchardt, Le Grand, & Piachau, 1999), we follow the argument of “structured inabilities to participation” (Chakravarty & D’Ambrosio, 2006) when it comes to understanding the marginal positions of young people. This allows for a more complex, multidimensional understanding of the interplay, overlap and social distance between money, work, political power and citizenship. However, contemporary discourses of citizenship in educational research offer a more comprehensive definition (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006, p. 653), though much of the emphasis focuses on the political aspect of the concept and is worth repeating here: Citizenship in a democracy (a) gives membership status to individuals within a political unit; (b) confers an identity on individuals; (c) constitutes a set of 27

HUANG & HOLMARSDOTTIR

values, usually interpreted as a commitment to the common good of a particular political unit; (d) involves practicing a degree of participation in the process of political life; and (e) implies gaining and using knowledge and understanding of laws, documents, structures, and processes of governance. This definition provides a preliminary conceptual framework of citizenship to guide the review and analysis of European youth policies that are presented in the sections following a presentation of data and analysis methods. DATA AND METHODS

This chapter analyzes policy documents adopted and research documents published by the two selected European institutions (the European Union and the Council of Europe). Data collection entailed two steps. The first step was to locate all policy documents accessible from official websites or online archives of the two institutions. Policy documents of the Council of Europe are in the form of declarations, resolutions, recommendations and White papers of the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress of European Local and Regional Authorities. Policy documents of the European Union include forms of treaties, directives, decisions and communications by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. The inclusion criteria of policy documents for analysis were the following keywords: 1) “citizenship” appeared in the titles of policy documents or in the body of the texts of key policy documents, 2) “youth”, “young people” and/or “young citizen” appeared in the titles or in the body of the text of research documents published by the two intuitions. This search resulted in 43 policy documents as listed in Table A in the Appendix at the end of the chapter. The second step of data collection was to search the body of the texts of the policy documents for 1) keywords: citizenship, youth, young people, young citizens, 2) the words and the sentences associated with those keywords. The analytical method applied in this chapter is a classical exercise of qualitative content analysis (Bryman, 2004) using the Critical Hermeneutic Approach. The policy analysis follows the three “moments” of the Critical Hermeneutic Approach outlined by Phillips and Brown (1993) used in their study on documents of organizations: 1) the “social-historical moment” for bringing out the perspectives of the producers of the documents, in this case the European Union and the Council of Europe; 2) the “formal moment” for examining the text looking for the keywords and their associations, in this case, citizenship, young, marginalization and social exclusion; 3) the “interpretation-reinterpretation moment” for the interpretation of the results from the previous two moments. The results of analyses are presented in three sections as follow where the first is on the development of the concept of citizenship in European policies which represents the social-historical moment of the two European institutions. The second section of the results represents the formal moment of examining the texts for the

28

YOUTH AT THE MARGINS OF CITIZENSHIP

keywords and their associations. The results of the interpretation-reinterpretation moment are included in the section of conclusion at the end. THE CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP IN EUROPEAN POLICIES

The European Union The citizens’ right of free movement among the member states in the European Union is an essential element of the development of the concept of a European citizenship. Table 1 chronologically shows the official documents and policies that are important for the building of European citizenship in the Union. In 1957, the six EU founding member countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Netherlands) signed the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (also called the Treaty of Rome) which granted workers the right to move and reside freely among the member states. The right of free movement among the member states was restricted only to workers both in the treaty Single European Act signed in 1986 for establishing a single market in Europe and in Treaty on European Union signed in 1992 when the European Union was formally established. However, the Treaty on European Union in 1992 introduced for the first time the concept of “a citizenship of the Union” or the EU citizenship as a legal term which claims that every national member of a state is also an EU citizen. In 1993, the Union expanded the right of free movement and residence from workers only to also include students (Council Directive 93/96/EEC). Only in 2009, the free movement of persons (EU citizens and their families), beyond free movement of goods, service, workers, students and capital, became a legislative reality when the Lisbon Treaty was signed to grant citizenship of the Union in the form of a legally binding agreement with the European Charter of Fundamental rights. The Lisbon Treaty is the first of the EU treaties to include democratic principles (Part Two of the Treaty: Article 9-Article 12) which is said to have changed the meaning of EU citizenship and the relationship of the citizen with the nation state and the European institutions (Guild, 2010). The EU Citizenship Report 2010 clarifies (COM(2010)0603) that Article 20 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) defines the concept of European citizenship. Article 20 of TFEU states that every person holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union and shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties including: 1) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states, 2) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their member state of residence under the same conditions as nationals of that state, 3) the right to enjoy in a third country the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any member state, and 4) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language. Hence the Lisbon Treaty also marks the 29

HUANG & HOLMARSDOTTIR

completion of building the legislative concept of citizenship in the Union which grants citizen rights in all civic and social and political domains as defined by Marshall (1950). Table 1. The legal rights development of citizenship in the European Union Year 1957

Legislation form Treaty of Rome

1986

Single European Act

1992

Treaty on European Union Council Directive 93/96/EEC Decision 95/553/EC

1993

Policy Workers have the right to move and reside freely among six EU countries Workers have the right to move and reside freely among 12 EU countries Every national of an EU country is also an EU citizen.

Students gained the right to move and reside freely among the EU countries 1995 A common protection arrangement for all EU citizens by diplomatic and consular representations of member states 1996 Decision A common format emergency travel document of the 96/409/CFSP EU member states 1997 Treaty of “Every national of a member state shall be a citizen of Amsterdam the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship” (Article 8-1) 2004 Directive The right of free movement of EU citizens and their 2004/58/EC family members 2006 Decision Establishing for the period 2007-2013 the programme 1904/2006/EC “Europe for Citizens” to promote active European citizenship 2007 Decision Approval by the European Parliament of the Charter of 2007/2218(ACI) Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2007/C 303/01) 2009 Communication On guidance for better transposition and application of COM(2009)313 final Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member states Lisbon Treaty Citizenship of the Union in the form of a legally binding with European Charter of Fundamental Rights 2010 Communication EU citizenship report 2010: Dismantling the obstacles to COM(2010)0603 EU citizens’ rights 2014 Regulation 390/2014 Establishing the “Europe for Citizens” programme for the period 2014-2020 *Follows the chronological order at European Commission website JUSTICE.6

Moreover, the current Treaty of European Union (consolidated version 2012/C 326/01) specifically mentions in Article 3 that the Union shall “combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child” and contribute to “the protection of human rights, in 30

YOUTH AT THE MARGINS OF CITIZENSHIP

particular the rights of the child” but the treaty never specifically mentions youth. Nevertheless, youth are specifically mentioned in the Treaty on the Function of the European Union (consolidated version 2012/C 326/01) Article 47 states “Member states shall, within the framework of a joint programme, encourage the exchange of young workers”, and Title XII “Education, vocational training, youth and sports” Article 165 and Article 166 state that the Union will aim to “encourage the development of youth exchanges, encourage the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe, facilitate access of vocational training and encourage mobility of instructors and trainees and particularly young people”. Consequently, youth are not a focus in the EU treaties in regards to their rights as citizens, but youth have a specific position in education and training and participation in democratic life of Europe as part of the function of the European Union. As a part of the development process of European citizenship, the Union has established the Europe for Citizens programme (2007-2013 Decision 1904/2006/EC; 2014-2020 Regulation 290/2014) focusing on youth with objectives to “contribute to citizens’ understanding the Union, its history and diversity” and “foster European citizenship and to improve conditions for civic and democratic participation at Union level” (Regulation 290/2014: Article 1). The Council of Europe As European cooperation is primarily based on the principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (as noted earlier the civil, political and social arenas of peoples’ lives), the word citizenship appeared for the first time in Resolution 243 (1993) of the CoE Congress of Local and Regional Authorities on Citizenship and extreme poverty: the Charleroi Declaration and later in Resolution 41 (1996) on “health and citizenship: care for the poorest in Europe”. The starting point for introducing the concept of youth citizenship in the Council of Europe is the principle of participatory democracy and education for the development of individual capacities, competences and attitudes by the people in Europe. In 1999, CoE launched an action plan for education for democratic citizenship (Decisions CM/DEL/DEC(99)668), which started a process of the production of several policy texts over the first decade into the 21st century on education for democratic citizenship (i.e. which eventually resulted in the Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education adopted in 2010. The Charter defines education for democratic citizenship as “education, training, awareness-raising, information, practices and activities which aim, by equipping learners with knowledge skills and understanding and developing their attitudes and behavior, to empower them to exercise and defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, to value diversity and to play an active part in democratic life, with a view to the promotion and protection of democracy and the rule of law” (CoE, 2010, pp. 5-6). In general, policy documents of the European Union use the term European citizenship to specify legal rights of citizens from any EU member state, while the Council of Europe took the term “democratic citizenship” as its starting point. 31

HUANG & HOLMARSDOTTIR

Compared to the concept of citizenship adopted by EU, the CoE’s term of democratic citizenship “is based on a much broader understanding of the field of political and social inclusion which extends beyond the legal and legislative” arena (Breidbach, 2003, p. 9). Although none of the policy documents from the European Union or the Council of Europe currently gives a specific definition of citizenship, we observe a policy convergence (Steinar-Khamsi, 2004) between the two European institutions concerning young citizens from the 1990s as shown in the youth policy documents analysis in the next section. THE YOUNG CITIZENS IN EUROPEAN POLICIES

Youth became a policy topic at the European level at first as a “problem” in 1960 when the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly adopted Resolution 20 on social problems of youth and children, on stateless children, child welfare, juvenile delinquency and moral safeguards in press and media concerning youth and children. This resulted in the CoE Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 592(1970) which encouraged increasing co-ordination between the various international organizations dealing with youth problems and to support the role of education. In 1972, the CoE established the European Youth Foundation with the mission to support European youth activities in the promotion of “peace, understanding and co-operation between the people of Europe and of the work, in a spirit of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Statute of the European Youth Foundation, Article 1). The first youth policy of the European Union was in the education sector when the EU adopted the Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers of Education, which was the result of a meeting within the Council held 13 December 1976 concerning measures to be taken to improve the preparation of young people for work and to facilitate the transition from education to working life. Following the legislative process of free movement of people in the Union, in 1979 when the EU adopted the Council Decision 79/642/EEC for encouraging the exchange of young workers among the member states. Later, Council Decisions in 1987 (87/327/EEC) and in 1989 (89/663/EEC) concerning the mobility of university students (i.e. establishment of Erasmus program) paved the way to achieve the rights of free movement for students in the Union in 1993 (93/96/EEC). Youth Citizenship as Active Participation As noted earlier, youth as citizens became a specific policy concern at the European level since 1985 when the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly adopted Recommendation 1019 on the participation of young people in political and institutional life, which became the European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life in 1992. The Charter (revised in 2002) emphasizes that young people are citizens in local communities where they live and they have “the right, the means, the space and the opportunity and where necessary the support to participate in and influence decisions and engage in 32

YOUTH AT THE MARGINS OF CITIZENSHIP

actions and activities so as to contribute to building a better society” (p. 10). The revised Charter cautions that unemployed youth and youth residing in remote geographic areas are most at risk of being excluded in participation. Whereas the European Union defines active citizenship as “participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterized by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy” (Hoskins et al., 2012, p. 17). Interestingly, both European institutions emphasize participation in their definitions of youth citizenship, but with different starting points. The CoE definition starts with the rights, opportunities and support of young citizens to participate in their local community, while the EU definition gives with a defined frame (or arena) and rules of participation. Eventually, with common objectives to co-operate in the development of knowledge and evidence-based youth policy focusing on social inclusion, democratic citizenship and participation, the two European institutions went into policy cooperation on youth issues in the form of EU-CoE Youth Partnership7 in 1998. These objectives reflect the background of youth policy concerns at the European level which from then on many European youth are perceived to be at the margins (or a marginalized group) in terms of: 1) accessing and exercising their rights and duties as citizens, 2) participating in democracy, and 3) social inclusion or exclusion. Youth Citizenship as Learning to Actively Participate In the current European youth policymaking arena, at the institutional level, the Youth Department of CoE is part of the Directorate of Democratic Citizenship and Participation,8 while Youth is included in the EU program for education, training, youth and sports (Erasmus+).9 On the one side, the CoE has engaged in the development of education for democratic citizens through wide-ranging consultations and a number of policies (i.e. Rec (2000)24, Rec(2002)12, Rec(2003)8, and Recommendation 1682(2004)) from 1999 to 2010 which resulted in the Charter on education for democratic citizenship and human rights education. The Charter provides “an important reference point for all those dealing with citizenship and human rights education” (Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7, p. 3) in 47 CoE member states and their youth organizations. On the other side, as part of the efforts to enhance European citizenship through informal learning, the European Union has adopted a series of youth programs which involved over 2.5 million European young people as participants in hundreds of thousands projects from the previous 27 Member States of the EU and other countries such as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. The programs, i.e. “Youth for Europe” Phase I 1988-1991 (Council Decision 88/348/EEC), Phase II 1991-1994 (Council Decision 91/395/EEC) and Phase III 1995-1999 (Council Decision 818/95/EC), the “European Voluntary Service for Young People” 1998-1999 (Decision 1686/98/EC), “Youth Community Action Program”, 2000-2006 (Decision 1031/2000/CE) focused on active/responsible/ European citizenship and cultural/intercultural learning. Subsequently, the “Youth 33

HUANG & HOLMARSDOTTIR

in Action Programme” 2007-2013 (Decision 1719/2006/EC) had its number one objective “to promote young people’s active citizenship in general and their European citizenship in particular” (Article 2, 1: a) through lifelong learning and intercultural learning. Eventually, active citizenship became a key objective of the EU lifelong learning program from 2006 (Decision 1720/2006/EC) and the Union program for education, training, youth and sports (Erasmus+) from 2014 to 2020. So far, the completed programs are documented to be successful in several areas of improving learning of young people in, e.g. youth citizenship (European Commission, 2013a), youth volunteering (European Commission, 2012b), and youth entrepreneurship (European Commission, 2013b). In general, the first decade of the 21st century shows a process that the two European institutions took a similar direction of youth policies on citizenship. Young citizen’s active participation in the civic, political and social arena is a major policy concern for both institutions (e.g. CoE: Resolution 91 (2000), Resolution ResAP(2001)3, Rec(2006)14; EU: White Paper COM(2001), Resolution2002/C 168/02, Resolution2003/C 295/02, Resolution2003/C 295/04 Decision 790/2004/EC, COM(2006)417, COM(2007)498, Resolution 22 May 2008). Meanwhile, active or participatory citizenship of young people has become an objective of education, formal and non-formal learning policies of both European institutions. This has resulted in the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (2010) and The European Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sports (Erasmus+ 2014-2020). However, at the time of Europe sliding deep into an economic recession, the two European institutions take rather different approaches on their youth policy. As the guardian organization of Human Rights in Europe, the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation on young people’s fundamental rights in 2013. Whereas, in the European Union other youth-related policy documents concerning youth unemployment with regard to the current economic crisis (e.g. EU Communication COM(2013)447final) do not include any mention of citizenship nor mentions specifically young people as citizens. This appears to be an inevitable result of different principles in the foundations of the two institutions, i.e. CoE’s human rights principle verses EU’s free market principle. EUROPEAN YOUTH CITIZENSHIP: EVERTHING BUT RIGHTS

In contemporary Europe, challenged by the process of globalization and transnational migration partially facilitated by the building process of the European Union, the concept of citizenship goes beyond a legal status, beyond the link between the citizen and the state, and beyond the right to work, live, and participate in political life within the territory of a nation state. In the past two decades, we have witnessed a series of policies on young citizens produced by the two European institutions with a specific focus on exercising their duties as citizens, but not on accessing their rights as citizens. Two keywords appear in all young citizen related policy documents: participation and learning, containing only one 34

YOUTH AT THE MARGINS OF CITIZENSHIP

message: young citizens have the right to participate in society, but before that they have to learn to participate. However, we have to be reminded of whose interests European youth policy really represents at a time of economic crisis when interests are in conflict between social groups. As some policy researchers have so correctly pointed out policy “only represents the values of the interest group that possesses the authority in policy making, although it often presents itself as universal, generalized and even commonsensical” (Yang, 2007, p. 250). European young people, according to the statistical facts presented previously in this chapter, are at the margins of the society where they are usually excluded from the positions of authority in policies of education, economy, labor market, social justice and political aspects (see also Pihl this volume). As a result, in European youth policies young people are frequently either perceived as being at-risk or more often than not seen as a problem to be fixed or prevented. Meanwhile, the concept of citizenship has apparently ambiguous meanings when it comes to policies specifically targeting young people in Europe. On the one hand, as an organization working on the principle of democracy and human rights, the concept of citizenship in youth policies of the Council of Europe is all about fundamental rights and participation without legal status nor legal rights. As a union of states based on economic cooperation for a “single market”, the legal status and the legal rights associated with European citizenship are undermined by the market of which most young people are at positions in the margins (e.g. out or between labor market, low economic status or poverty). Therefore, we observe that the EU policies on young citizens are “dancing” around at margins of citizenship: young citizens have the right to participate in our democratic society and they are provided with means (schools, youth organization, and volunteering services) to learn to participate in schools. When young people are unemployed or in poverty, they are dealt with as a problem which has nothing to do with citizenship. Nevertheless, this policy document analysis with a critical hermeneutic approach has resulted in a tentative definition of citizenship from understanding the concepts and issues discussed in European youth policy documents, by expanding the definition by Abowitz and Harnish (2006): Citizenship in a democratic society (a) gives membership status to individuals within a community with political, social and civic entities; (b) confers an identity on individuals; (c) constitutes a set of values, usually interpreted as a commitment to the common good of a particular community; (d) involves practicing a degree of participation in the process of civic, social and political life; and (e) implies gaining and using knowledge and understanding of laws, documents, structures, and processes of governance. (p. 653) This definition describes clearly the elements and duties of becoming a citizen, which is applicable specifically to people who are actually at the margins of a formal citizenship (or non-citizens): young people before they reach the age of 18 in their home country or community and adults (i.e. people above the age of 18) who move to a new country or a new community. This definition helps our 35

HUANG & HOLMARSDOTTIR

understanding of the real meaning of youth citizenship in the European policies, i.e. a citizenship at the margins of a formal citizenship and a citizenship with everything but rights. Ultimately, we ned to remember that citizenship is not only about understanding what it is or might be, more than an “integration agenda”. Instead it is about overcoming structural barriers to equality and justice for all members of society including youth, not only in Europe but also globally. NOTES 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

http://www.coe.int http://europa.eu/eu-law/index_en.htm http://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership http://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership EU28 refers to the European Union (EU) 28 member states, which are party to the founding treaties of the union and thereby subject to the privileges and obligations of membership. Unlike the members of international organizations, the constituent states of the EU are placed under binding laws in exchange for representation within the common legislative and judicial institutions. They do however retain considerable autonomy, and must be unanimous for the union to adopt policies concerning defense and foreign affairs. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/dates/index_en.htm http://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/ http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/index_en.htm

REFERENCES Abowitz, K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 653-690. Amnå, E., & Ekman, J. (2014). Standby citizens: diverse faces of political passivity. European Political Science Review, 6(2), 261-281. Doi:10.1017/S175577391300009X Breidbach, S. (2003). Plurilingualism, democractic citizenship in Europe and the role of English. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/ BreidbachEN.pdf Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (1999). Social exclusion in Britain 1991-1995. Social Policy and Administration, 33, 227-244. Burgi, N. (2014). Societies without citizens: The anomic impacts of labor market restructuring and the erosion of social rights in Europe. European Journal of Social Theory, 17(3), 290-306. DOI: 10.1177/1368431014530927 Chakravarty, S. R., & D’Ambrosio, C. (2006). The measurement of social exclusion. Review of Income and Wealth, 52, 377-398. Children’s Defence Fund. (2011). State of America’s children: 2011 report. Available at: http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-of-americas-2011.pdf Crick, B. (2000). Essays on Citizenship. London: Continuum. Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76-98. de Haan, A., & Maxwell S. (1998). Poverty and social exclusion in north and south. IDS Bulletin, 29(1), 1-9. Duffy, K. (1995). Social exclusion and human dignity in Europe: Background report for the proposed initiative by the Council of Europe. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.

36

YOUTH AT THE MARGINS OF CITIZENSHIP Duffy, K. (2001). Risk and opportunity: Lessons from the human dignity and social exclusion initiative for trends in social policy. Canadian Journal of Law & Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Societe, 6(2), 17-41. European Commission. (2012a). EU youth report 2012. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/youth/library/reports/eu-youth-report-2012_en.pdf European Commission. (2012b). Focus on youth volunteering: European good practice projects. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2013a). Focus on young citizens of Europe: European good practice projects. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2013b). Focus on young people and entrepreneurship: European good practice projects. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Eurostat. (2009). Youth in Europe: A statistical portrait. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the EU. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-920/EN/KS-7809-920-EN.PDF Eurostat. (2014). Euro area unemployment rate at 11.8%, EU28 at 10.5%. Eurostat newsrelease: Euroindicators, 70/2014. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/302052014-AP/EN/3-02052014-AP-EN.PDF Evans, K. (1995). Competence and citizenship: Towards a complementary model. Journal of Education and Work, 11(2), 1-11. Giroux, H. A. (2012). Disposable youth: Racialised memories and the culture of cruelty. New York: Routledge. Giroux, H. A. (2013). Cultures of violence in the age of casino capitalism. Available at http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/cultures_of_violence_in_the_age_of_casino_capitalism_20131 219 Guild, E. (2010). The European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon: Fundamental rights and EU citizenship. Brussels: The Centre for European Policy Studies. Available at: http://www.ceps.eu/ Hammer, T. (2003). Youth unemployment and social exclusion in Europe: A comparative study. Bristol: Policy Press. Holford, J., & van der Veen, R. (2006). Lifelong learning, governance and active citizenship in Europe: ETGACE project final report. Brussels: European Commission. Horsell, C. (2006). Homelessness and social exclusion: A Foucauldian perspective for social workers. Australian Social Work, 59, 213-225. Hoskins, B., & Mascherini, M. (2009.) Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicator Research, 90, 459-488. Hoskins, B., Abs, H., Han, C., Kerr, D., & Veugelers, W. (2012). Participatory citizenship in the European Union. Institute of Education, Contextual Analysis Report 1, commissioned by the European Commission, Brussels, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/ report_1_conextual_report.pdf, accessed 10 February 2013. Huang, L. (2013). Citizenship and participation: An instruction to WG5 at Youth-in-2020 Conference of EU-CoE Youth Partnership, Budapest, Hungary, 1-3 October 2013. Jamieson, L., Wallace, C., Machacek, L., Boehnke, K., Ros, M., Condor, S., Bianchi, G. & Grad, H. (2005). Orientations of young men and women to citizenship and European identity. Research*eu, EUR 23188. European Commission: Community Research. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/youth-and-european-identity-final-report_en.pdf Lister, M., & Pia, E. (2008). Citizenship in contemporary Europe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. LSE. (2013). Youth participation in democratic life: Final report. London: LSE Enterprise Ltd. Accessible at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/youth/tools/documents/lse_study_on_youth_participation_ 2013.pdf Marshall, T. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37

HUANG & HOLMARSDOTTIR Ministry of Justice. (2012). Youth justice statistics 2010/11: England and Wales. London: Youth Justice Board. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 279892/yjb-statistics-10-11.pdf Morrow J. (2005). History of Western political thought. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Muižnieks, N. (2014). Youth human rights at risk during the crisis. Council of Europe. Available at http://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/youth-human-rights-at-risk-during-the-crisis#more-467 Phillips, N., & Brown, J. L. (1993). Analyzing communications in and around organizations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1547-1576. Somers, M. (2008). Genealogies of citizenship: Markets, statelessness, and the right to have rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steinar-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of borrowing and lending. New York: Teachers College. Stoker, G., Mason, A., McGrew, A., Armstrong, C., Owen, D., Smith, G., Banya, M., McGee, D., & Saunders, C. (2011). Prospects for citizenship. London: Bloomsbury. Taylor-Gooby, P. (1991). Welfare state regimes and welfare citizenship. Journal of European Social Policy, 1(2), 93-105. Thompson, D., Fowler, H. W., & Fowler, F. G. (1995). The concise Oxford dictionary of current English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Turner, B. (1993). Contemporary problems in the theory of citizenship. In B. Turner (Ed.), Citizenship and social theory (pp. 1-18). London: Sage. UNICEF. (2011). The State of the world’s children 2011: Adolescence, an age of opportunity. New York: United National Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Westholm, A., Montero, J., & Van Deth, J. (2007). Introduction: Citizenship, involvement and democracy in Europe. In J. Van Deth, J. Montero, & A. Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis (pp. 1-32). London: Routledge. Yang, R. (2007). Comparing policies. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 241-262). Hong Kong: CERC, the University of Hong Kong.

APPENDIX Table A. Youth related policy documents in Europe 1960 1970 1972 1976

1979 1985 1988

38

CoE Parliamentary Assembly: Resolution 20 on the Social Problems of Youth CoE Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 592(1970) on Youth Problems in Europe CoE Committee of Ministers: Resolution (72) 17 on a European Youth Foundation EU Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers of Education, meeting within the Council, of 13 December 1976 concerning measures to be taken to improve the preparation of young people for work and to facilitate the transition from education to working life EU Council Decision 79/642/EEC on establishing a second joint program to encourage the exchange of young workers within the Union CoE Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1019 on the participation of young people in political and institutional life EU Council Decision 88/348/EEC on adopting an action program for the promotion of youth exchanges in the Community – ‘Youth for Europe’ program (Official Journal L 158, 25/06/1988).

YOUTH AT THE MARGINS OF CITIZENSHIP

1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1998 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

EU Council Decision 91/395/EEC on adopting the ‘Youth for Europe’ program (Phase II) (Official Journal L 217, 06/08/1991) CoE Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe: European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life CoE Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe: Resolution 243 (1993) on Citizenship and extreme poverty: the Charleroi Declaration EU Parliament and the Council: Decision 818/95/EC adopting the third phase of the ‘Youth for Europe’ program (Official Journal L 087, 20/04/1995) CoE Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe: Resolution 41 (1996) on Health and Citizenship: Care for the Poorest in Europe EU Parliament and the Council: Decision 168/98/EC on establishing the Community Action Program “European Voluntary Service for Young People” CoE Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe: Recommendation 59(1999) on Europe 2000 – Youth participation: the role of young people as citizens CoE Committee of Ministers: Decisions CM/DEL/DEC(99)668, Declaration and program on education for democratic citizenship based on the rights and responsibilities of citizens EU Parliament and the Council: Decision 1031/2000/EC on the “YOUTH” Community Action Program CoE Committee of Ministers: Recommendation Rec (2000)24 on the development of European studies for democratic citizenship CoE Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe: Resolution 91 (2000) Responsible citizenship and participation in public life EU Commission of the European Communities: COM(2001) European Commission White Paper: A New Impetus for European Youth CoE Committee of Ministers: Resolution ResAP(2001)3 Towards full citizenship of persons with disabilities through inclusive new technologies EU Council Resolution 2002/C 168/02 regarding the framework of European cooperation in the youth field CoE Committee of Ministers: Recommendation Rec(2002)12 on education for democratic citizenship CoE Committee of Ministers: Recommendation Rec(2003)8 on the promotion and recognition of non-formal education/learning of young people EU Council Resolution 2003/C 295/02 on making school an open learning environment to prevent and combat early school leaving and disaffection among young people and to encourage their social inclusion EU Council Resolution 2003/C 295/04 on common objectives for participation by and information for young people EU Parliament and the Council: Decision 790/2004/EC on establishing a Community action program to promote bodies active at European level in field of youth CoE Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1682(2004) calling for a European framework convention on education for democratic citizenship and human rights education to be drafted CoE European Year of Citizenship through Education

39

HUANG & HOLMARSDOTTIR

2006

2007 2008 2009

2010 2011 2012 2013

EU Communication COM(2005)206final on European policies concerning youth: Addressing concerns of young people in Europe – implementing the European Youth Pact and promoting active citizenship CoE Committee of Ministers: Recommendation Rec(2006)14 on Citizenship and participation of young people in public life EU Parliament and the Council: Decision 1719/2006/EC on establishing the “Youth in Action” program for the period 2007-2013 EU Communication COM(2006)417 on European policies concerning youth participation and information for young people in view of promoting their active European citizenship EU Parliament and the Council: Recommendation 2006/962/EC on key competences for lifelong learning EU Communication COM(2007)498 on Promoting young people’s full participation in education, employment and society EU Council Resolution 22 May 2008 on the participation of young people with fewer opportunities EU Council Resolution 2009/C 311/01 on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018) EU Communication COM(2009)200 An EU strategy for youth – investing and empowering: a renewed open method of coordination to address youth challenges and opportunities CoE Committee of Ministers: Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7 Charter on education for democratic citizenship and human rights education EU Council Resolution 8064/11 on encouraging new and effective forms of participation of all young people in democratic life in Europe CoE Committee of Ministers: Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)2 on the participation of children and young people under the age of 18 CoE Parliament Assembly: Recommendation 2015(2013) on Young people’s access to fundamental rights EU Communication COM(2013)447 final on working together for Europe’s young people: A call to action on youth unemployment (no young citizen or citizenship)

Lihong Huang Youth Research Unit of NOVA Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Halla B. Holmarsdottir Faculty of Education and International Studies Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway

40

JORON PIHL1

3. EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN RESEARCH CONCERNING YOUTH AT THE MARGINS

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the epistemological and methodological challenges associated with research concerning youth at the margins. I relate the discussion primarily to educational research. I am concerned specifically with whether research concerning youth at the margins contributes to empowerment and social justice or actually reinforces marginalization. I will problematize this in relation to epistemological, theoretical and methodological considerations. In this discussion, I focus on the relationships between power, knowledge and social justice. In particular, I address the dialectics between material conditions (the economic structure and class relations), knowledge (research), and the effects of research concerning youth at the margins. I use the concept “marginalization” as it relates to processes and actions that relegate an individual or group to a disadvantaged social position. Intrinsic to studies of marginalization are studies of exclusion (Carlile, 2011). Empirical studies tend to focus on exclusion of youth from education and work (Møller, 2013; OECD, 2009, 2010; Room, 1995; Vaught, 2011). Furthermore, youth at the margins are often assumed to be vulnerable to a plurality of disadvantages such as poverty, poor housing, educational failure and dropout (Møller, 2013; OECD, 2009, 2010; Vaught, 2011). Migrant youth and other ethnic minorities are particularly prone to become positioned within these disadvantaged social categories because of multiple forms of discrimination (Andersson, 2005; Blyth & Milner, 1996; Fangen, Fossan, & Mohn, 2010; Fangen, Johansson, & Hammarén, 2012; Hammer, 2003; Pihl, 2001). Researchers have explored the processes of marginalization and exclusion from intersectional and multilevel perspectives (Fangen et al., 2012). They have focused on the intersection of ethnic, gender and class background. They have conducted multilevel analyses that focus on the processes, social systems (welfare regimes, immigration policies and personal identities) and liberal conservative and social democratic policies at the European level (Fangen et al., 2012). I argue that studies on the marginalization of youth should activate epistemologies that deconstruct and challenge the very foundation of conservative liberalism and social democratic policies. This is particularly important in times of deep economic crisis in capitalist economies, which contributes to the marginalization of youth. For instance, at present, one quarter of youth in the EU S. Bastien & H.B. Holmarsdottir (eds.), Youth ‘At the Margins’, 41–63. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

PIHL

between the ages of 15 and 24 years are unemployed. In Greece, 57 per cent of youth are unemployed; in Spain, 55 per cent; and in Italy, 42 per cent (Eurostat, 2013). Politicians and scholars refer to “lost generations”, which alludes to the fact that these youth are at risk of never entering the labor force. They risk permanent exclusion from work. Fundamental conflicts within the capitalist system are at the foundation of the economic and social crisis. In this context, epistemologies that challenge the very foundation of the capitalist economy and knowledge production are required. Against this background, I introduce dialectic materialism (Marx, 1895; Marx & Engels, 2011) and Foucault’s post-structural epistemology (Foucault, 1979, 1994, 1995a). I focus on dialectic materialism because this epistemology deconstructs and transgresses dominant liberal discourses that explain and interpret marginalization within the framework of capitalism. Dialectic materialism amounts to a fundamental epistemological critique of liberalism, which is at the foundation of capitalism. A focus on post-structural epistemology developed by Foucault can provide important insights given his significant contributions to the analysis of the relationships between power and knowledge. I relate the following discussion to the field of education, with a particular focus on the marginalization of poor and non-white youth in Europe. I use the term “non-white” to highlight that “whiteness” is a premise for ethnic distinction, which usually goes unnoticed (Sleeter, 2001). After discussing how dialectic materialism and post-structural epistemology conceptualize the relationship between power and knowledge, I conclude that these are counterhegemonic epistemologies. I then turn to youth uprisings and protests against poverty and racism in Europe and the USA. The youth uprisings and resistance were met by oppressive police actions and disciplinary discourses by the dominant elites. Power and knowledge took actions that disciplined and suppressed the youth resistance. Against this background, I discuss methodological considerations in educational research concerning youth at the margins. I analyze the research challenges by drawing on two case studies of youth at the margins. The first study highlights methodological strategies that unraveled institutional racism in school. The second study highlights a methodological strategy, which in fact contributed to marginalization and stigma. Whether a study empowers or oppresses youth at the margins depends partly on epistemological and methodological considerations. Counterhegemonic epistemologies and methodologies should inform studies of youth at the margins. Finally, the discussion shifts to incorporate a focus on social justice and subsequent research implications. In line with Nancy Fraser (2003), I argue that social justice requires redistribution of material and cultural resources, participatory parity and international solidarity. I propose that critical ethnography and participatory action research that engages youth as co-researchers, are methodologies that may counter processes of marginalization in school and society.

42

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Culturalization of Youth ‘at the Margins’ In past decades, multicultural educational research has made substantial contributions towards an understanding of marginalization in schools. The impact of social class, cultural hegemony and racism in schools is well documented, particularly in Western countries (Foster, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 2001; May, 1994, 2009; Møller, 2013; Reay, 2004, 2006; Sleeter, 1986; Sleeter, 2008a; Sleeter & Silverman, 2005; Troyna & Carrington, 1990). Empirical studies document that within the framework of “equality of opportunity”, ethnic discrimination, segregation and institutional racism takes new forms. A strong manifestation of this is the disproportionate labelling of non-white students as “mentally retarded”, “emotionally disturbed” and “learning disabled”, with subsequent placement within segregated special needs education. This is prevalent in many countries in Europe as well as in the U.S.A. (Beratan, 2008; DiBello, Harlin, & Carlyle, 2007; Dyson & Gallannaugh, 2008; Guiberson, 2009; Pihl, 2009, 2010a). The research documents how schools marginalize students based on social class, ethnic background and gender, and proposes changes in policy and pedagogy that recognize social and cultural diversity in schools. In spite of this, there has been a political backlash against multicultural education in the USA and Europe (May, 2009; Nieto, 2000; Schlesinger, 1992; Sleeter, 2008a; Sleeter & McLaren, 1995; Sleeter & Silverman, 2005). Assimilation policies also continue to marginalize students with minority backgrounds (OECD, 2009, 2010). Research documents that young minorities are particularly vulnerable to marginalization in times of economic crisis and that experience multiple dimensions of exclusion based on social class, ethnic background and gender (Andersson, 2005; Fangen et al., 2012; Gudmundsson, Beach, & Vestel, 2013). However, this knowledge does not seem to translate into changes that benefit youth at the margins. Thus, as researchers, we are challenged by a compelling question: under what epistemological and methodological conditions can studies concerning youth at the margins contribute to student agency and social justice? Good intentions are apparently not enough (Gorski, 2008). Neo-liberal educational policies dominate within the EU and other European countries (Davies & Bansel, 2007; Walford, 2013). Educational policy prioritizes strong competition between students, schools and countries. This competition is implemented and assessed on the basis of a national, standardized curriculum and national and international standardized testing, which produce negative effects, especially on poor students from a minority background (OECD, 2009, 2010). Has educational research itself, however well intentioned, in any way contributed to the marginalization of youth at the margins? Critics argue that liberal multicultural educational research culturalizes social relations. The argument is that the research fails to address the class relations that marginalize students in school and the labor market. Critics argue that the research overemphasizes the “culture”, “identity” and “race” of minority students. Culturalization reifies cultural characteristics of individuals at the expense of a 43

PIHL

more nuanced analysis of structural relations that contribute to marginalization. This criticism is even articulated by scholars within critical multicultural educational research (Giroux & McLaren, 1989; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002; May, 2009; May & Sleeter, 2010; McLaren, 1997; Sleeter & McLaren, 1995). The criticism necessitates a closer look at epistemological and methodological challenges related to qualitative research about youth at the margins. In the following, I address dialectic materialism and post-structural epistemology, which in different ways provide a conceptual framework that facilitates the analysis of marginalization. The Marxist tradition is developed further by scholars within critical educational research (Freire, 2000; McLaren & Giroux, 1989; McLaren & Lankshear, 1994; McLaren & Leonard, 1993). These scholars situate marginalization and knowledge production both historically and politically. DIALECTIC MATERIALISM

The Economic Structure and Class Relations Constitute Consciousness Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. It is the study of the nature, origin and limits of human knowledge, often called the theory of knowledge. Scholars often treat dialectic materialism and post-structural epistemology as opposites (Neuman, 2011). The assumption is that if we chose the former, we discard the latter. However, in this chapter I suggest that both epistemologies provide conceptual frameworks that are important in studies of marginalization, especially concerning the relationship between power and knowledge, which contributes to the marginalization of youth. The overriding notion central to dialectic materialism is that the mode of production of material life conditions the processes of social, political and intellectual life in a given society. In the social production of their existence, men [and women] inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. (Marx, 1895, p. 107) The economic structure in society is the material foundation for the legal and political structure. Different economic structures generate different forms of superstructure and consciousness. This is evident in a feudal economy versus a capitalist economy, as an example. Marx and Engels studied the material foundations of capitalism. According to Marx and Engels (2011), exploitation of the working class by the ruling class is the foundation of the capitalist system. The capitalist exploits the working class, small farmers and fishermen and other workers by accumulating the surplus value of their labor. The capitalist makes 44

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

his/her living by owning the means of production. The proletariats and workers sell their work to the ruling class, which extracts surplus value in the process. Moreover, Marx and Engels maintain that the working class are entitled to the value of their work, but are subjected to exploitation under capitalism. Marx and Engels studied class relations, class struggle, capital, land property, wage-labor, the State, trade and the world market. They argued that the internal contradictions within the capitalist system, which is based on exploitation, eventually lead to a breakdown of the capitalist system. Class struggles and revolutions contribute to this breakdown. An implication of their analysis is that the class struggle against exploitation is ethical and legitimate. Marx and Engels assumed that the material relations of production in society shape knowledge production, consciousness and thought. The exploitation of one class by another remains hidden by a set of ideas that Marx and Engels called ideology (Marx & Engels, 2011). Ideology comprises the dominating ideas taught in education, preached in churches and communicated through the media. Marx and Engels contrasted dialectic materialism with epistemological idealism, which prioritizes mind over matter (Marx & Engels, 2011). Epistemological idealism holds that ideas, knowledge and culture are the primary sources of perceptions, knowledge and consciousness. Dialectic materialism and epistemological idealism have very different methodological implications. Methodologies based on epistemological idealism study ideas and consciousness, “culture”, values and norms as such. Methodologies based on dialectic materialism study the dialectic relationships between the class relations in which people are positioned, and their ideas, consciousness and culture. The research focus is on the dialectics between material and mental conditions. The Ruling Ideas Are the Ideas of the Ruling Class Based on dialectic materialism, Marx and Engels asserted that the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class in every epoch. The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. (Marx & Engels, 2011, p. 169) If we follow this line of argument, the dominant research discourses in a specific historical context, are the “ruling ideas” of the ruling class. Marx and Engels defined private ownership and control over the material production as the foundation for “mental production” in society, that is, intellectual work. According to them, it is not the consciousness of men and women that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness (Marx, 1895). The class relations under which people live constitute fundamental conditions for the development of consciousness. This goes for 45

PIHL

researchers as well as for youth at the margins. I thus suggest that, as researchers, we need to explore the class relations within which knowledge production and marginalization takes place. We need to relate this to the actions and thoughts of different actors, including ourselves as researchers. Those, who lack the means of mental production (intellectual production), are subjected to the ruling ideas of the ruling class (Marx & Engels, 2011). In other words, we can expect to find ruling ideas about youth at the margins among youth at the margins. In school students learn that they have equal opportunity and rights and that their success or failure is their individual responsibility. They do not learn that the educational system reproduces social inequality. The ruling ideas do not usually attribute marginalization to class domination, a cultural hegemony, a colonial legacy or institutionalized racism and discrimination. However, if teachers introduce students to critical theory and challenge them to use these concepts in analysis of their own position at the margins in school and society, students may develop critical consciousness and agency. Equipped with concepts such as exploitation, class system, class struggle, ideology, hegemony, imperialism and racism, youth can explore and name oppressive policies and ideology that they experience in school and society. Work with critical concepts may inspire and enable youth to engage in collective political struggles to change their position at the margins (Freire, 2000). According to Marx and Engels (2011), the ruling ideas serve the social interests of the ruling class. This implies that the ruling class will use research for ruling, exploitation and class domination. Dialectic materialism assumes that at the level of social class there is a dialectic relationship between class interests and consciousness. At the individual level, people can choose to align with the interests of the social class to which they belong or to align with other class interests. People can decide based on critical reflection, consciousness and solidarity. At this point, knowledge plays a crucial role. Marginalized individuals and groups can reflect on and engage in social and political struggles (see also Fessenden in this volume) to alter their position at the margins in society. Even more privileged individuals such as researchers, can engage in solidarity with individuals and groups at the margins in society. In both cases, critical epistemology and theory play a crucial role. Exploration of the life world of youth at the margins – their intentions, consciousness, experiences and interactions – is relevant in studies of marginalization. However, this focus is insufficient if the purpose is to counter marginalization and to contribute to liberation and social justice. For that purpose, researchers need to include analysis of the class relationships under which youth at the margins live and the dialectic relationships between these relations and their ideas and actions. A criticism of neo-Marxist studies is that these often overemphasize social structure and underestimate how class hegemony is mediated by the suppression of cultural diversity (Andersson, 2007). Said’s discourse analytical studies of Orientalism within a Foucault tradition highlights the intersection of class and culture in the exercise of hegemony and imperialism (Said, 1993, 1995, 2003). Class relations and racism are constitutive of consciousness (Foucault, 1974; 46

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

Goldberg, 1993). In Western countries, marginalization is mediated by powerful hegemonic discourses that are linked to Western colonialism and imperialism. Historical awareness and attention to how hegemonic research discourses conceptualize youth at the margins is important. Recurring themes are that youth at the margins are culturally deprived, they are to blame for their position at the margins of society, and they are even a threat to society. It is especially the poor and non-white youth who are subjected to these hegemonic discourses and practices (see discussion below). POST-STRUCTURAL EPISTEMOLOGY

Discourse Is a Social Practice That Systematically Forms the Objective of Which It Speaks Post-structural epistemology provides new insight into how discourse, knowledge production and power relationships intersect. Post-structural epistemology has made significant contributions to methodologies within the studies of marginalization, particularly within feminist studies (Alcoff & Potter, 1993) and multicultural educational research and methodology (Kincheloe, McLaren, & Steinberg, 2011). Foucault was a post-structural philosopher who built on Marx and Engels’ analysis of capitalism. Foucault also explored power relations, ethics and the implications for research methodology (Foucault, 1981, 1991a). However, poststructural epistemology sees knowledge as inevitably shaped by discursive practices. Foucault assumed that power and knowledge are interrelated, but he did not conceptualize the relationships between power and knowledge in the same way Marx did. Foucault’s epistemological position was that the ruling ideas are expressed in ruling discourses (Foucault, 1999) and that the discourses both exercise and produce power. His term power/knowledge captures this (Gordon, 1980). A discourse is a social practice that systematically forms the object of which it speaks. … no longer – treating discourses as groups of signs (signifying elements referring to contents or representation) but as practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak. (Foucault, 1995a, p. 49) In other words, Foucault does not treat discourse as just a linguistic phenomenon or an expression of ideas. Foucault treats a scientific discourse as a form of social practice, which has material effects. As I see it, Foucault’s epistemology incorporates a materialist dimension into the analysis of discourse. That is one of Foucault’s very significant contributions. Scientific discourses about youth at the margins construct “marginalized youth” as a social phenomenon. According to Foucault (1980), scientific discourses that address the same phenomenon establish “truth” about the phenomenon (Foucault, 1979, 1984). In relation to research concerning youth at the margins, the content of the knowledge 47

PIHL

production becomes vital – whether it empowers or marginalizes the youth. That has to do with the epistemological foundation of the research. Epistemology, theoretical perspective, methodology and the subsequent knowledge production construct truth about youth at the margins in a particular historical context. Ethics Foucault introduces ethical considerations about the effects of the knowledge production as a key element in the research (Foucault, 1997). Ethical considerations take into account not only the respect for the integrity of youth at the margins and their informed consent about participation, but also the potential effects of producing knowledge about them. If we follow Foucault’s epistemological assumptions, researchers should also take responsibility for the potential use of their research. This is, of course, difficult, some will say even impossible, since the use of research takes place after the research is finished. Foucault’s challenge to us as researchers is that we should very carefully consider the use and misuse of our knowledge production when we design a study. Scientific discourses both include and exclude knowledge about the phenomenon in question, thereby establishing a “discursive order”. The discursive order establishes “a regime of truth”, which excludes other knowledge about the phenomenon in question. According to Foucault, a regime of truth exercises “power/knowledge” (Foucault, 1980). This concept communicates that power and knowledge intersect and depend on each other. According to Foucault, power is not only oppressive in Marx’s terms. Power/knowledge is also productive. One of Foucault’s very challenging assertions is that the human sciences produce power/knowledge, which those in power invariably use to discipline and govern the population (Foucault, 1994). Foucault documents this in his studies of the history of discipline (Foucault, 1979), the history of sexuality (Foucault, 1984) and his study of madness and civilization (Foucault, 1973). Disciplining the population is fundamental to governing, according to Foucault. Post-structural epistemology thus shifts the theoretical focus from the analysis of the intentions of actors (researchers, informants) to the analysis of the effects of discursive practices, including research. This shift in the definition of purpose away from the study of intentions and meaning, to the study of the effects of discursive practices on people and social relations, is a fundamental shift away from hermeneutic epistemology and methodology. COUNTER-HEGEMONIC EPISTEMOLOGIES

At this point, it seems that Marx’s and Foucault’s epistemologies converge. Their epistemologies are counter-hegemonic. Although coming from different epistemological positions and using different concepts, they assert that the ruling ideas or power/knowledge benefit the ruling/governing class. They agree that the intersection of power and knowledge produces knowledge and truth, which are fundamentally historical and political (Foucault, 1991b; Marx, 1895). Knowledge 48

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

production, including research, is intrinsic to the exercise of power. It is historically specific. Against this background, Foucault’s analytical strategy was to discard the study of individuals altogether in order to avoid the possibility that research could be used for disciplining and governing the subject. Instead, Foucault turned to the archives and studied discourses about a phenomenon and people (Ball, 1990; Foucault, 1979, 1995b). His studies shed new light on why and how we have come to perceive a phenomenon such as discipline or sexuality the way we do at a specific time and place in history. Foucault’s main point is that the ruling discourses construct what we hold to be “true” at a specific time and place. This production of truth is an effect of what is included and excluded in the ruling discourses. Marx’s and Foucault’s assumptions about the relationships between power and knowledge are great challenges to the human and social sciences and to qualitative research in particular. Under capitalism, the ruling class exploits the working class and other workers, according to Marx. According to Foucault, those in power use power/knowledge to discipline the subject and the population. Foucault argued that state racism is intrinsic to governing (Foucault, 1974). The state introduces regulations and discourses that organize the population in a racialized hierarchy. In its extreme forms, state racism identifies “an enemy within”, which is defined as a threat to society and social cohesion (Tomlinson, 2005; Wodak & van Dijk, 2000). This divides the people, who otherwise have common interests in relation to capitalist exploitation and government policies, into competing ethnic groups. The rulers benefit from racism because the people engage in internal ethnic conflicts (Foucault, 1974). These internal conflicts divert the people from collective actions against exploitation and disciplining policies. Dialectic materialism and post-structural epistemology are counterepistemologies that transgress the limits set by dominant discourses and class relations within capitalist societies. The epistemologies provide important theoretical frameworks for research on and with youth at the margins. I take these epistemologies, and their ethics and assumptions about power and knowledge, as a point of departure for reflection on how researchers might study the phenomenon of youth at the margins. I suggest that if the purpose is to youth as such, there is a danger that the effect of the knowledge production may reify negative stereotypes and stigma. There is a danger that governments will use knowledge about youth at the margins to discipline the youth, among other potentially unintended or harmful consequences. Responses to recent uprisings among youth in European and American cities illuminate this point. YOUTH UPRISINGS AND RESISTANCE

Power and Knowledge Discipline and Criminalize Youth Resistance In recent years, youth uprisings against marginalization and oppression have occurred in cities across Europe and the USA. In Clichy, a suburb in Paris, the 49

PIHL

police shot and killed two youth of African descent in 2005. This ignited an uprising during which predominantly poor, non-white youth, who belonged to different minorities, set cars and public buildings on fire in protest against the murders committed by the police officers. Clichy was an impoverished suburb with poor housing, poor education and very high unemployment. The youth protested against the police brutality and racism, and against their marginalized position in education and the labor market. The uprising in Clichy spread to several French cities. The police arrested many youth protesters. In the aftermath, Balibar (2007) showed that the intellectual elite, including researchers, categorized the rioting youth as hooligans that needed to be disciplined. The intellectual elite responded to the uprising by targeting the disadvantaged youth. Similar reactions came after the uprisings among youth at the margins in London in 2012 and Stockholm in 2013. In August 2014, a white police officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed African American youth in Ferguson, Missouri in the USA Public rage and demonstrations followed against the murder and the overwhelmingly white police force and brutality. Demonstrations in Ferguson, with a predominantly nonwhite population, were initially peaceful but escalated to attacks on public buildings, cars and shops. Some youth engaged in looting. Similar events took place in the uprisings in Paris, London and Stockholm. Poor, non-white youth protested against police harassment, violence, brutality and racism. Youth attacks on public buildings and private property became a pretext for the police to step up the violence against the non-white population, and youth in particular. In Ferguson, the authorities even called in the National Guard to establish “law and order” and discipline the population (Taylor, 2014). The uprisings in Paris, London, Stockholm and Ferguson show that youth have the will and the strength to resist oppression and marginalization. In Ferguson, the population formulated political demands: “No justice, no peace.” Demonstrations were initially peaceful. The demonstrators demanded that the police officer responsible for the killing of Michael Brown should be brought to trial and convicted. Despite the peaceful demonstrations, the police arrested youths in great numbers. They treated the peaceful demonstrators as a social threat and criminalized the youths’ resistance. In Paris, London and Stockholm, the youth did not present political demands or strategies against oppression and marginalization in schools or the labor market. This may indicate that the youth lacked tools for articulating political demands and actions. I propose that youth need access to critical theory and concepts with which to analyze experiences of marginalization and oppression. Youth need to work with and apply critical concepts in analysis of hardships they experience: poverty, racism and marginalization in school and society (Apple, 2003; Freire, 2000; McLaren & Lankshear, 1994). Youth need to engage in processes of conscientization (Freire, 2000). Methodologies that engage students as coresearchers in work with critical theory may provide processes of conscientization. This implies deconstruction of the dominant ideology and policies that discipline and criminalize poor and non-white youth. Youth resistance against poor education, unemployment, racism and police brutality is legitimate. However, the 50

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

uprisings may become counterproductive if the youth destroy their own neighborhood instead of organizing and presenting political demands. Youth need to explore the class relations they find themselves in and to develop political strategies for redistribution of social and cultural resources (for examples of this see Fessenden in this volume). Ultimately, to work with key concepts within dialectic materialism, critical theory and post-structural epistemology can provide youth with the necessary conceptual tools to challenge and change power relationships in schools and society through organized political work. Such processes are complex and difficult. There is no simple relationship between work with critical theory and political actions for changing social relations. To learn to link critical theory, agency and political action in practice takes time. Students who learn how to improve their own living conditions in school and society may want to pursue such work. My main point here is that youth who get the opportunity to work with critical theory and concepts that transgress the limits that the ruling ideas of the ruling class impose, they can apply such knowledge and skills in struggles for social justice. Without such knowledge and skills, youth resistance may lack direction and fail to improve the situation of youth at the margins. Against the preceding discussion, I will now address the methodological implications for ethnographic research. I discuss the framing of the research purpose in two case studies of marginalization in schools. I address issues related to categorization and sampling, and then proceed to discuss critical ethnography and participatory action research, which often engages youth as co-researchers. I relate the discussion primarily to educational research. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Scholars generally agree that the purpose statement is the most important statement in the entire study (Creswell, 2014). The purpose statement defines the overriding goal of the study. “From it, all other aspects of the research follow …” (Creswell, 2014, p. 123). The purpose statement articulates what the researcher intends to accomplish (Silverman, 2013). This is not to be confused with the research questions. A good purpose statement indicates why the study is worth doing (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). However, the literature on research methodology does not systematically address epistemology in relation to development of the purpose statement. I argue that this is problematic. Without due consideration of epistemology in relation to methodology, the methods may implicitly come to define the purpose, instead of the other way around. Methodology concerns the philosophical assumptions that inform knowledge claims and research strategies, in contrast to methods that are detailed procedures of data collection, analysis and writing (Creswell, 2014). Epistemology is inscribed in the purpose statement, the theoretical framework, the definition of the research object and the subsequent research design. Post-structural epistemology and Foucault’s discourse theory facilitate studies of marginalization in which discourses are the research object. Discourse analysis is a powerful tool in studies of political, institutional, and professional phenomenon 51

PIHL

and practices that contribute to marginalization (Pihl, 2009, 2010a). Such discourse analytical studies avoid objectifying people because the research object is discourse instead of people. If we turn to ethnography, we encounter challenges in relation to studies of marginalization. A major purpose of ethnography is to interpret and understand people’s life world and actions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Silverman, 2013). Ethnography is very influential within the field of educational research. Critics argue that educational studies of youth at the margins often fail to address the intersection of social class, ethnicity and gender (Gilroy, 1982; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Nayak, 2006). Methodological criticism of essentialism draws attention to the complexity of people’s experiences, as social class, ethnic background and gender intersect. A person may experience exclusion related to social class in one situation, but may experience exclusion related to color or gender in another situation. Often all of these dimensions interact simultaneously (McCall, 2001, 2005). How this works in real life is an empirical question. Any analysis based solely on class, ethnicity or gender may tie the research participants to one social category, with the danger of essentializing that one dimension. This criticism, which also addresses critical studies within a neo-Marxist tradition, is important. Against this background, studies of youth at the margins ought to develop a research purpose and design that takes intersectionality into account (McCall, 2001). Then the level of abstraction is essential. The level of abstraction involves ontology, epistemology, social categories, concrete social relations and historicity (Anthias, 2012). If the analysis remains at the level of social categories, the study may in fact reify these categories. This is an argument for multilevel analysis in studies of intersectionality (Anthias, 2012). The initial discussion of epistemology is an argument for the exploration of structural relations that marginalize youth. Such structural relations can even include institutional and professional discourses and practices. Carlile’s study (2011) “An Ethnography of Permanent Exclusion from School: Revealing and Untangling the Threads of Institutionalized Racism” is a case in point. Institutional Racism in School In her article, Carlile defines the purpose of her ethnographic study. This article seeks to investigate evidence of institutional racism experienced by young people who are at risk of being “permanently excluded” (expelled) from schools in an urban area in the South of England. (Carlile, 2011, p. 175) Expanding on the purpose, she focuses on seeking the elements that reinforce social boundaries, rather than on groups corralled with those boundaries. Carlile interviewed students, parents, school staff and professionals in the local government working with excluded youth. Although she collected data from individuals, the overriding purpose of the study was to explore institutional racism – the causes and effects of permanent exclusion from school on young people and employees. Carlile’s theoretical framework is post-structural epistemology 52

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

(Foucault, 1979) and Critical Race Theory (Gilborn, 2000): a manifestation of integration of post-structuralism and critical theory. Carlile identified key elements that contributed to permanent exclusion of nonwhite students at the school: the dominance of the English language, lack of translations for marginalized students and parents, age assessments that contributed to incorrect placement of students in relation to their age and racial prejudices among the staff. This generated discourses and practices that excluded non-white students. These practices amount to what Carlile defines as institutional racism. Although plenty of conversations at the school celebrated diversity, nothing directly addressed incidents of racism. “Racism seemed to be invisible and inaudible” (Carlile, 2011, p. 191). Carlile’s study highlights institutional, structural and professional practices and discourses that marginalize non-white students. She avoids essentialism and stigma in a study of non-white students at risk of being permanently excluded from school. I attribute Carlile’s contributions to her purpose statement, her theoretical framework that integrates critical theory and post-structural epistemology, and her subsequent research design. The design does not objectify the youth – their “culture”, “ethnic background” or “race”. Carlile’s purpose is to investigate the social phenomenon of institutional racism, as opposed to the study of non-white youth as such, who are at risk of permanent exclusion from school. I place Carlile’s study within “critical ethnography” (Anderson, 1989). A Study of ‘Immigrant’ Youth and Their Resistance to Categorization In an interesting article, Solbue explores the challenges she encountered while categorizing her potential informants as “immigrants” (Solbue, 2014). The purpose of Solbue’s study was to explore how secondary schools in Norway deal with students from an immigrant background and to analyze the prejudices and processes that contribute to inclusion or exclusion in secondary school. Solbue studied immigrant youth from non-Western countries and their experiences of everyday life in upper secondary school (Solbue, 2014). The implicit assumption was that immigrant youths from non-Western countries were particularly prone to exclusive practices in school. “An immigrant is somebody whose parents are not born in Norway”, according to Solbue (Solbue, 2014, p. 822). This is Solbue’s account of her sampling process: …I came into the classroom. There I told them that I wanted to interview the immigrants. In the girls’ class this was unfortunate. It would have been better so say that I was doing research on youth in school. The students made a fuss about it and created a distinction between being an immigrant and not being an immigrant. … It became a classification in the class when I was there. (Solbue, 2014, p. 822) Solbue categorized the students she wanted to study as immigrants. Consequently, Solbue did not gain the girls’ confidence. In the end, only two girls volunteered for

53

PIHL

interviews. These girls were not very informative. Solbue’s impression was that they withheld information from her. I had a strong feeling that I was one of the reasons why the students were making a distinction between being an immigrant and being a Norwegian. The fact that I was a researcher doing a research on immigrant girls was stigmatizing the girls. (Solbue, 2014, p. 823) In Norway, as in many European countries, a strong and negative discourse about immigrants has dominated public discourse for decades (Gullestad, 2002, 2004, 2006; Pihl, 2001, 2009). Thus, the word “immigrant” has become stigmatizing. Solbue’s study highlights a general problem within the social sciences – researchers categorize informants. In relation to vulnerable individuals and groups, the categorization constructs them as “the other”. This singles them out and excludes them from the community to which they belong, in this case the community of students within the classroom. The immigrant status identifies them as “foreigners”. Solbue’s purpose was to develop an analysis and concepts that could contribute to inclusive education in multicultural schools. However, the students immediately adopted the researcher’s categorization of them. They drew distinctions between “immigrants” and “Norwegians”, thereby excluding some of the students from belonging to the social unit of the class with equal status as Norwegians. This negative effect is in sharp contrast to Solbue’s intentions. It illustrates Foucault’s point: that a discourse constructs the object of which it speaks. It is the effect of a discourse that matters, not the good intentions of the researcher. Solbue came to understand that her categorization stigmatized the students. Her categorization worked as a form of symbolic violence (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Contrary to her good intentions, the effect of Solbue’s design was marginalization of the students. The girls responded with resistance, more or less explicitly. Solbue applied the Norwegian official definition of immigrant in her study. The Norwegian Census Bureau provides the public definition. According to the bureau, immigrants are persons that have immigrated to Norway and persons that are born in Norway with two immigrant parents that are born abroad and with four grandparents that are born abroad. The Norwegian Census Bureau defines persons born in Norway as immigrants on the basis of ancestry. However, Norwegian-born people have not immigrated. When the bureau defines these Norwegians as immigrants, it is a political definition. The Norwegian Census Bureau turns nonimmigrants into immigrants. This public definition constructs the object of which it speaks. The bureau introduces a distinction, which splits the Norwegian population along ethnic lines into two exclusive categories: those born in Norway with Norwegian ancestors are “true Norwegians” – often labelled “ethnic Norwegians”. Those born in Norway with foreign ancestors are immigrants. Foucault’s concept of state racism is applicable here (Foucault, 1974). The public definition serves the political purpose of the nation-state in terms of the ethnopolitical organization of the population in Norway. Norwegian public 54

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

policy establishes an ethnic hierarchy between different ethnic groups, which have different rights depending on their ascribed social status. Norwegians are at the top of the hierarchy, and they share the cultural, political and social rights entitled to citizens of Norway. In relation to minorities, the state recognizes the indigenous population and the national minorities in accordance with international obligations. The indigenous Sami population and national minorities have political, cultural and educational rights on the basis of their respective status as indigenous people and national minorities (Pihl, 2001, 2010b). However, the state ascribes the immigrant status to all other cultural, linguistic and religious minorities. The government deals with the immigrant population in the immigration policy. Immigration policy is about restriction and control of immigration and the immigrant population (Pihl, 2001). Solbue’s use of the concept “immigrant” activates the restrictive and negative public policies concerning immigrants. The ruling ideas of the ruling class, which are expressed in the National Census Bureau’s definition and discourse about immigrants, these ruling ideas and practices enter Solbue’s research, even though her research purpose is critical inquiry. This is a typical challenge in relation to research concerning youth at the margins. Public and political definitions are incorporated into research without due consideration. Solbue ascribes immigrant status to her potential informants. For the purpose of her study and sample, this categorization was not necessary or justified. It seems that Solbue uses the public definition of immigrants just because it is a public definition. When Solbue experienced youth resistance against this, she developed a method in which she explored her hidden prejudices in collaboration with a critical friend and research community, and then adjusted her research design (Solbue, 2014). This study highlights that research concerning youth at the margins can marginalize and even stigmatize the youth. This easily happens if the researcher categorizes and samples “marginalized youth”. In order not to marginalize vulnerable youth or groups in the research process, the researcher should use concepts and categories that are research generated. Such research-generated concepts and categories stem from the purpose of the study. This is an alternative to the adoption of politically generated categories and concepts. The rationale for this distinction between academic and political concepts and categories is that the purposes of research and policy are qualitatively different. The purpose of policy is the exercise of power. Political concepts and categories serve that purpose. Research, on the other hand, is about critical investigation of the present and the past, and knowledge development. Policy and research constitute separate social fields. Different discourses and logics dominate within these fields. In research concerning youth at the margins, it is particularly important to uphold the relative autonomy of the academic field and to apply concepts and categories based on counter-hegemonic epistemologies and critical theories.

55

PIHL

SOCIAL JUSTICE: REDISTRIBUTION AND RECOGNITION

I started this chapter by introducing dialectic materialism, which assumes that class relations are constitutive of knowledge and consciousness. Neo-Marxist philosophers have developed this analysis further. In the book “Redistribution or Recognition?” Nancy Fraser engages in a philosophical dialogue with Axel Honneth about social justice, identity politics and cultural recognition (Fraser, 2003). Fraser identifies two recurring problems in epistemology and methodology: reduction of social relations to class relations alone and reduction of cultural diversity to a question of identity politics and cultural recognition alone. Fraser’s argument is that the politics of redistribution is commonly equated with class politics, whereas the politics for recognition of diversity is equated with “identity politics” – a policy for cultural recognition of cultural identity of “the other”. According to Fraser, an antithesis between redistribution and recognition is false. She argues that the ultimate cause of class injustice is the economic structure of capitalist society. The resulting harm includes maldistribution as well as misrecognition. Fraser’s main point is that people who experience social injustice need redistribution of material resources and cultural recognition. “Overcoming class injustice may well require joining a politics of recognition to a politics of redistribution” (Fraser, 2003, p. 438). However, cultural recognition of cultural, religious or linguistic diversity as such does not eliminate social injustice in terms of poverty and marginalization or exclusion from school, work or housing. Fraser introduces a two-dimensional concept of justice. A two-dimensional conception treats distribution and recognition as distinct perspectives on, and dimensions of, justice. Without reducing either dimension to the other, it encompasses both of them within a broader overarching framework. (Fraser, 2003, p. 449) In dialogue with Honneth, Fraser argues that recognition usually is taken to mean self-realization. When viewing recognition as a matter of social justice, she treats it as an issue of social status. Misrecognition treats some actors as inferior, excluded or simply invisible. Misrecognition of disadvantaged individuals and groups is expressed in terms of ideology and research. Fraser conceptualizes cultural misrecognition as status subordination and locates the injustice in social relations, as opposed to individual psychology. Fraser’s conception of justice entails redistribution of material and cultural resources. Fraser’s conception of justice takes into account the tendencies to reductionism within neo-Marxist methodology as well as the tendencies to culturalization within multicultural theory and methodology. People struggling against marginalization and misrecognition should show that the social changes they seek will promote what Fraser calls “participatory parity” – full participation (Fraser, 2003, p. 452). Participatory parity serves to evaluate proposed remedies for injustice. Whether people demand redistribution or recognition, claimants must show that the economic reforms they advocate will supply the objective conditions for full participation. Recognition claimants must show that the socio-cultural institutional changes they seek 56

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

facilitate participatory parity without unjustifiably creating or worsening other disparities (Fraser, 2003, pp. 452-453). This is a status model of recognition, which addresses status subordination and misrecognition. Fraser’s conception of social justice is two-dimensional. This conception of social justice takes into account the epistemological critique of culturalization and essentialism. CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY AND PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH

As I see it, critical ethnography puts Fraser’s two-dimensional concept of justice to work. Critical ethnography in the field of education has grown out of dissatisfaction with social accounts of human actors in which broad structural constraints such as class, patriarchy and racism never appear. Critical ethnography has also grown out of dissatisfaction with accounts of social structures; class, patriarchy and racism, in which real humans do not appear or figure as social agents (Anderson, 1989, p. 249). Critical ethnography conducts dialectic analysis of structural, material and intellectual relationships (ideology/hegemonic discourses) that marginalize or empower people (Anderson, 1989; Carspecken, 1996; Duncan, 2005; Kincheloe et al., 2011). Critical ethnography integrates the sociology of knowledge and critical theory into the theoretical frameworks: critical race theory (Gudmundsson et al., 2013; Ladson-Billings, 2010; Møller, 2013), whiteness theory (Frankenberg, 1994; Leonardo, 2007; Sleeter, 2008b) and feminist epistemology (Alcoff & Potter, 1993; Collins, 2000). Critical ethnography in education is a methodology for empowering students (Freire, 2000). In recent years, qualifying students as researchers has become important in giving youth a voice and influence in schools and society (Fielding, 2001). Through collaboration with researchers and universities, students in school acquire methods for identifying and analyzing their own situation in schools and society. This is an important methodological response to a crisis of representation; problems associated with researchers “speaking for others” (Alcoff, 1991). Critical analysis, however, requires critical theory. Preparing students as critical coresearchers can provide them with the theoretical and methodological tools for analyzing a problem that the students themselves identify in relation to marginalization or exclusion (Freire, 2000). One of the most pervasive lessons students learn in school is that success or failure is their own individual responsibility (Davies & Bansel, 2007). A nuanced analysis of ideology and power/knowledge within their specific social and historical context may enable working-class and non-white students to challenge hegemonic narratives. Based on their own studies of hegemonic discourses and the history of marginalized groups, they can suggest revisions of the curriculum in school (Cammarota & Romero, 2009, 2011; Hynds, Sleeter, Hindle, Savage, & Meyer, 2011; Kincheloe et al., 2011; Pihl, 2009). Critical ethnography and action research in collaboration with students as co-researchers may allow for exploration of past and present class relations, exploitation, racism and discrimination related to class, ethnic background, gender or ability. It is equally important to engage students in exploration of resistance and class struggles against exploitation, racism and other 57

PIHL

forms of exclusion in school, the local community and society. Such research and practice can potentially engage students as radical agents of change on their own behalf in struggles for social justice. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Research concerning youth at the margins involves careful reflection and planning with respect to epistemology, theory and methodology. Power and knowledge are integral to the research processes. Researchers have the power of definition and exercise power while doing research. Categorization of people implies ascription of belonging to a group. The actual person may not agree with the categorization, especially if the category is associated with social stigma. If we assume that the ruling ideas in every historical epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, critical epistemology, theory and methodology are required to deconstruct these ruling ideas, categories and oppressive practices that go with them. The previous discussion indicates that research on marginalization has ethical and political dimensions and effects. Researchers wishing to contribute to social justice need to take a reflective, ethical stance in relation to youth struggles at the margins. Studies of youth at the margins hold potential to contribute to either social justice or negative stereotypes and stigma. Whether research contributes to the former or the latter depends on the epistemological foundation of the research, theoretical framework and methodological design. It also depends on the level of analysis; whether the analysis stays at the micro level or is lifted to the meso or macro level. Dialectic materialism embodies a materialist approach to studies of the relationships between power and knowledge. Focault’s post structural epistemology embodies a materialist dimension with its primary focus on the social effects of discursive practices. Dialectic materialism and Foucault’s post-structural epistemology complement each other. From different perspectives, these epistemologies provide concepts that emphasize the material foundation and effects of research, as well as the historical foundation for knowledge production (colonialism and imperialism). Both epistemologies assume that the social effect of a discourse and practice is what matters – not the intent. Power/knowledge is not a linguistic phenomenon only. Power/knowledge has material effects in terms of institutional and professional practices that fundamentally construct and affect the lives of youth at the margins of society. So does ideology. Marginalization is a social phenomenon. It is historically specific. In capitalist countries, the economic structure and class and cultural hegemony generate marginalization. The history of class struggles and the historical achievements of the working class, women and non-white populations in struggles for social justice constitute a fundamental resource for critical epistemology, theory and research of marginalization. Critical epistemology and theory are required in studies of, and with, youth at the margins. Such studies should historize the present. Critical ethnography should address intersectionality. Such studies should raise the level of abstraction above 58

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

the level of categories to the level of social relations and historicity. Defining the purpose of the study at the level of social relations and history as opposed to the micro level may prevent the researcher from essentialist analysis that ties youth at the margins to their social and cultural background, their subordinated category and social status. The dominant class uses knowledge about youth at the margins to discipline youth. When we, as researchers, design a project, we need to take engage in ethical consideration about the potential effect of our knowledge production on the lives of youth at the margins. Designs that objectify and categorize youth at the margins may reinforce marginalization and stigma. It is equally important to consider and explore the will and ability of youth to struggle for social justice. Youth at the margins can and do resist marginalization and engage in struggles for liberation. This is an under-researched topic. Historical knowledge and awareness about peoples’ organized and successful struggles against oppression and marginalization in the past have an empowering potential, in particular for youth at the margins of society. Critical ethnography and action research can engage youth as co-researchers who speak for themselves and resist the processes of marginalization. Within a context of global capitalism, a two-dimensional conception of social justice implies struggles for redistribution of material and cultural resources that promote participatory parity in education and society. This two-dimensional conception of social justice presupposes international solidarity among marginalized and oppressed individuals and groups. That may encourage youth at the margins to engage in collective social and political struggles for social justice. NOTE 1

Joron Pihl is a member of JustEd: Nordic Centre of Excellence Justice through Education in the Nordic Countries. This chapter is a contribution to the work within the centre. http://blogs.helsinki.fi/just-ed/

REFERENCES Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 5-32. Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (Eds.). (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge. Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249. Andersson, M. (2005). Urban multi-culture in Norway identity formation among immigrant youth. New York: The Edwin Mellen press, Ltd. Andersson, M. (2007). Migrasjon som utfordring Kritikk av metodologisk nasjonalisme. In Ø. Fuglerud & T. Hylland Eriksen (Eds.), Grenser for kultur Perspektiver fra norsk minoritetsforskning (pp. 5380). Oslo: Pax Forlag A/S. Anthias, F. (2012). Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality and levels of analysis. Ethnicities, 13(1), 3-29. Apple, M. W. (2003). Freire and the politics of race in education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(2), 107-118. Balibar, E. (2007). Uprising in the Banlieues. Constellations, 14(1), 47-71.

59

PIHL Ball, S. J. (Ed.). (1990). Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. London: Routledge. Beratan, G. D. (2008). The song remains the same: transposition and the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 11, 337-354. Blyth, E., & Milner, J. (1996). Exclusion from school. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage. Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. F. (2009). The social justice education project: A critically compassionate intellectualism for Chicana/o students. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook for social justice education (pp. 465-476). New York: Routledge. Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. F. (2011). Participatory action research for high school students: Transforming policy, practice and the personal with social justice education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 488-506. Carlile, A. (2011). An ethnography of permanent exclusion from school: revealing and untangling the threads of institutionalised racism. Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(2), 175-194. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2010.548377 Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: a theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge. Collins, P. H. (2000). It’s all in the family: Intersection of gender, race and nation. In U. Naryan & S. Harding (Eds.), Decentering the center: Philosophy for a multicultural, postcolonial and feminist world (pp. 156-176). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247-259. Denzin, M. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DiBello, L., Harlin, R. P., & Carlyle, J. (2007). Why are so many minority students in special education?: Understanding race and disability in schools. Childhood Education, 83(4), 246-249. Duncan, G. A. (2005). Critical race ethnography in education: Narrative, inequality and the problem of epistemology. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 93-114. Dyson, A., & Gallannaugh, F. (2008). Disproportionality in special needs education in England. Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 36-46. Fangen, K., Fossan, K., & Mohn, F. A. (Eds.). (2010). Inclusion and exclusion of young adult migrants in Europe: Barriers and bridges. Farnham: Ashgate. Fangen, K., Johansson, T., & Hammarén, N. (2012). Young migrants exclusion and belonging in Europe. CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 123-141. Foster, H. (1990). Ethnocentrism and racism: The disproportionate representation of minorities and poor in special education programs for emotionally disturbed. Perceptions, 25(2), 16-19. Foucault, M. (1973). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Vintage. Foucault, M. (1974). Society must be defended 17 March 1976. In I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (Eds.), Cultural theory: An anthology (pp. 124-133). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage. Foucault, M. (1981). Questions of method. An interview with Michel Foucault. Ideology and Consciousness, 8, 3-14. Foucault, M. (1984). The history of sexuality. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Foucault, M. (1991a). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 87-104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1991b). Politics and the study of discourse. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality; with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 53-72). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

60

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things. An archeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. (1995a). The archeology of knowledge. Bristol: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1995b). Seksualitetens historie. Gjøvik: EXIL. Foucault, M. (1997). The ethics of the concern of the self as a practice of freedom. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Michel Foucault ethics subjectivity and truth the essential works of Foucault 1954-1983 (pp. 281303). New York: The New Press. Foucault, M. (1999). Diskursens orden. Oslo: Spartacus. Foucault, M. (Ed.). (1980). Power/knowledge; Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault. New York: Pantheon. Frankenberg, R. (1994). The social construction of whiteness: White women, race matters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Fraser, N. (2003). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition and participation. In N. Fraser & A. Honneth (Eds.), Redistrrbution or recognition? (pp. 9-48). London: Verso. Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (Eds.). (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange (Vol. Verso): London. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Gilborn, D. (2000). Race, ethnicity and education: Teaching and learning in multiethnic schools. London: Unwin Hyman. Gilroy, P. (1982). Race ends here. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(5), 838-847. Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (Eds.). (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state and cultural struggle. New York: State University of New York Press. Goldberg, D. T. (1993). Racist culture. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Gordon, C. (Ed.). (1980). Power/knowledge; Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault. New York: Pantheon Books. Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough – Decolonizing intercultural education. Intercultural Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(5), 515-525. Gudmundsson, G., Beach, D., & Vestel, V. (2013). Youth and marginalization: Young people from immigrant families in Scandinavia. London: Tufnell Press. Guiberson, M. (2009). Hispanic representation in special education: Patterns and implications. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(3), 167-176. Gullestad, M. (2002). Det norske sett med nye øyne. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Gullestad, M. (2004). Blind slaves of our prejudices: Debating “culture” and “race” in Norway. Ethnos, 69(2), 177-203. Gullestad, M. (2006). Tales of descent: Young people struggling for a sustainable self-image. In M. Gullestad (Ed.), Plausible prejudice (pp. 248-276). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Hammer, T. (2003). Youth unemployment and social exclusion in Europe: A comparative study. Bristol: Policy Press. Hynds, A., Sleeter, D., Hindle, R., Savage, C., & Meyer, L. H. (2011). Te kotahitanga: A case study of repositioning approach to teacher professional development for culturally responsive pedagogies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 339-351. Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education, 87-138. Kincheloe, J. L., McLaren, P., & Steinberg, S. R. (2011). Critical pedagogy and qualitative research moving to the bricolage. In M. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative reserarch (pp. 163-177). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 257-277). London: Sage. Ladson-Billings, G. (2010). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 17-24. Leonardo, Z. (2007). Race, whiteness and education. New York: Routledge.

61

PIHL Marx, K. (1895). Preface to “A contribution to a critique of political economy”. In I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (Eds.), Cultural theory: An anthology (pp. 106-108). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2011). The German ideology (1854). In I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (Eds.), Cultural theory: An anthology (pp. 161-171). Moscow: Wiley-Blackwell. May, S. (1994). Making multicultural education work. Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. May, S. (2009). Critical multiculturalism and education. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 33-49). New York: Routledge. May, S., & Sleeter, C. (2010). Critical multiculturalism: Theory and practice. In S. May & C. Sleeter (Eds.), Critical multiculturalism: Theory and praxis (pp. 33-60). New York: Routledge. McCall, L. (2001). Complex inequality: Gender, class and race in the new economy. New York: Routledge. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 30(3), 1771-1800. McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the new millennium. Oxford: Westview. McLaren, P., & Giroux, H. A. (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. McLaren, P., & Lankshear, C. L. (Eds.). (1994). Politics of liberation: Paths from Freire. London: Routledge. McLaren, P., & Leonard, P. (1993). Paulo Freire: A critical encounter. London: Routledge. Møller, Å. (2013). Cultural racism in liberal democratic education in Sweden. In G. Gudmundsson, D. Beach, & V. Vestel (Eds.), Youth and marginalization Young people from immigrant families in Scandinavia (pp. 133-154). London: Tufnell Press. Nayak, A. (2006). After race: Ethnography, race and post-race theory. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(3), 411-430. doi: 10.1080/01419870600597818 Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitate approaches (7th ed.). Essex: Pearson. Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and centre. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180-187. OECD. (2009). Migrant education 2009. Retrieved from http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/ Vedlegg/Grunnskole/FINAL%20NORWAY%20REPORT%20-%20Migrant%20education.pdf, accessed 4 January 2009. OECD. (2010). Closing the gap for immigrant students: Policies, practice and performance. Paris: OECD. Pihl, J. (2001). Paradoxes of inclusion and exclusion in Norwegian educational reforms in the 1990s. Nordisk tidsskrift for spesialpedagogikk, 79(1), 14-33. Pihl, J. (2009). Ethno-Nationalism and Education. In S. Alghasi, T. H. Eriksen, & H. Ghorashi (Eds.), Paradoxes of cultural recognition perspectives from northern Europe (pp. 111-133). Farnham: Ashgate. Pihl, J. (2010a). Etnisk mangfold i skolen. Det sakkyndige blikket (2. utgave). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Pihl, J. (2010b). Nasjonale minoriteter og det flerkulturelle Norge – utsyn. In A. B. Lund & B. B. Moen (Eds.), Nasjonale minoriteter i det flerkulturelle Norge (pp. 251-261). Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag. Reay, D. (2004). “Mostly roughs and toughs”: Social class, race and representation in inner city schooling. Sociology, 38(5), 1005-1023. Reay, D. (2006). The Zombie stalking English schools: Social class and educational inequality. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(3), 288-307. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-85272006.00351.x Room, G. (1995). Beyond the threshold: The measurement and analysis of social exclusion. Bristol: Policy Press. Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage Books. Said, E. (1995). Orientalism Western conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin Books. Said, E. (2003). Orientalism. London: Penguin Books.

62

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES Schlesinger, A. (1992). The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sleeter, C. (1986). Learning disabilities: The social construction of a special education category. Exceptional Children, 53, 46-54. Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106. Sleeter, C. (2008a). Equity, democracy and neoliberal assaults on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1947-1957. Sleeter, C. (2008b). Preparing white teachers for diverse students. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. FeimanNemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook for research on teacher education: enduring questions in changing times (pp. 559-582). DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2008.00421.x Sleeter, C., & McLaren, P. (Eds.). (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sleeter, C., & Silverman, J. (2005). Standardizing knowledge in a multicultural society. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(1), 27-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2005.00314.x Solbue, V. (2014). In search of my hidden preconceptions as a researcher. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 12(6), 817-827. Statistical Office of the European Communities. (2013). Eurostat. Youth unemployment 2013. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Taylor, A. (2014, August 18). National guard sent to Ferguson, Missouri, after week of chaos and protest. The Altantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/08/national-guardsent-to-ferguson-missouri-after-week-of-chaos-and-protest/100794/ Tomlinson, S. (2005). Race, ethnicity and education under New Labour. Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), 153-171. doi: 10.1080/0305498042000337246 Troyna, B., & Carrington, B. (1990). Education, racism and reform. London: Routledge. Vaught, S. E. (2011). Racism, public schooling, and the entrenchment of white supremacy: A critical race ethnography. New York: SUNY Press. Walford, G. (2013). Privatisation, education and social justice: Introduction. Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), 421-425. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2013.820464 Wodak, R., & van Dijk, T. (Eds.). (2000). Racism at the top: Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Klagenfurt: Drava.

Joron Pilh Faculty of Education and International Studies Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway

63

MICHAEL WEARING

4. THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND The Impact of Research with At-Risk Youth – The Relational and Ethical Challenges of Qualitative Research

INTRODUCTION

A relation between persons that is characterized in more or less degree by the element of inclusion may be termed a dialogical relation … (and) will show itself in genuine conversation, but it is not composed of this. Not only is the shared silence of two such persons a dialogue, but also their dialogical life continues, even when they are separated in space as the continual potential presence of one to the other, as an unexpressed intercourse. (Buber, 1979 [1949], p. 125) The existential philosopher Martin Buber clearly distinguished a concern for inclusivity with others from “the not very significant term empathy” as concrete and grounded in two-way communication. He understood in a more complete way that “empathy” is merely gesturing to the point of view of the other, whereas inclusive relationships are more living “within”, between and with the other. From these meetings and shared inclusivity the identities of the other are shaped as both social and trusting relationships. Not to forget that the social context for this identity shaping occurs within the hierarchies and networks of power and sociopolitical interests of modern society. Central to this understanding is that the researcher and the researched are co-present and co-learn in their knowledge and relationship building through the research process. Such knowledge can become formalized, institutionally organized and objectifying in the broader networks of knowledge systems and stakeholder interactions extant in modern society. Given that this potential for objectifying of the other is today institutionalized in modern society, there is also a need for principles, (deontological) ethics and tools such as checklists that help guide ethical decision making in research with marginalized youth and other vulnerable populations such as women, the aged and people with disability (Iphofen, 2011). The analysis of this chapter will use both interpretive and critical theory approaches around issues of power, knowledge, trust and identity to develop an understanding of the shaping of the relationship between researcher and young people. It will extend current discussions concerning the ethics and appropriate participatory methods for researching youth by looking at vulnerable and “at-risk” populations in particular. The terms “youth” and “young people” will be used interchangeably through the chapter as referring to the broad range of age S. Bastien & H.B. Holmarsdottir (eds.), Youth ‘At the Margins’, 65–86. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

WEARING

categories from 12 to 25 years. The roles of the researcher, at-risk youth, gatekeepers and other stakeholders (such as youth workers, social workers, police, lawyers, judges and policy makers) as either consumers or producers of the collective impact of qualitative research are also discussed. The issues raised by relational ethics are about building relationships and establishing positive and effective communication with the participants and other stakeholders in research. More than this, I will argue such an ethics entails a shared authenticity, inclusiveness and empathy on the part of the researcher and participants that promotes care, respect, justice, equity and understanding in the qualitative research process. Some of this emphasis emerges from earlier twentieth century existentialist hermeneutics (Alversson & Skolberg, 2012, pp. 112-122) and some from more recent critical indigenous and poststructural theory (see Atkinson, 1990; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Foucault 2003; Halse, 2007; Adams 2008; May & Perry 2010; Leavy, 2011; Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). There is an important justice dimension in such research itself that can challenge institutional ethics with counter discourse and the reification of binaries such as “us and them” or “adult and youth” through more complete and holistic understanding of selfhood and the marginal other (Halse, 2007; Metcalfe & Game, 2011). This relational approach is sometimes seen as either the same as or a complimentary part of a situational ethics of qualitative research (Ellis, 2007). Situational ethics requires a carefully established set of ground rules and negotiated relationships that includes general ethical criteria. Situational ethics can sometimes overlap with procedural ethical approaches based on universalized virtues such as beneficence (action done for the benefit of others), respect, empathy and compassion. The nature of these ethical ideals or principles unfold, however, in situational ethics from reflexive engagement between the “I” (my personal identity) and “the other” in qualitative research. In such a view, establishing ethical relationships between researchers and research participants cannot be left to the “naturalism” of everyday life or indeed the individualism of an open market economy. The relational approach wants to enact and encourage free will and “good faith” between the two parties based on recognition of the social and trusting nature of such relationships. Otherwise, the use of research knowledge based on instrumental and poorly formed relationships runs the risk of being co-opted into a self-regulated, possibly self-interested and a subservient role to market needs whether these needs are set by government or non-government and for profit organizations. Further, in affluent countries including Australia cannot completely capture the social categories of vulnerable and marginal youth in such fashion as to aggregate and codify them for administrative and regulation purposes. How often do categories such as young asylum seeker, street youth or unemployed youth become tainted by fixed stereotypes which tend to become demonized by moral panics and then become tied up with “law and order” crack downs (Pickering, 2001). Emphasizing the importance of both moral agency and social agency of researchers themselves alerts us to the need for strategic precision on how morally just outcomes based on these principles can come about. Such principles in 66

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND

transdisciplinary research include ones of social or distributive justice such as beneficence, fairness and mutual respect and a relational ethics of care for the other based on mutual interactions with vulnerable and marginalized research participants on their own terms (Fisher 1997; Leavy, 2011). In terms of the focus of this chapter, qualitative researchers in particular need to be aware of their complicity in power/knowledge relationships (see also Pihl in this volume) that make up the social research “industry”. They, like quantitative researchers, have unique impacts on the life worlds of their samples and the public perception of researched groups in society. Like quantitative research, the ends of qualitative research can result in an objectified and “scientized” research discourse justifying the means, research process and methodology. If this process is “contaminated” by interference from funders or stakeholders then “decontamination” is necessary. Such a process requires regard for ethical and relational understandings and reflection on this research practice. The next section will discuss some of the implications of the relational approach for action and participatory research with young people at the margins. IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION AND PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

I want to draw out some implications of the relational approach for understanding fraught issues such as empowerment in research processes, relying upon some criticism and insight into action and participatory qualitative research. This is particularly relevant to how the researcher projects their sense of self onto research relationships with their participants. There are certain anxieties about a researcher revealing the real or authentic self along a continuum of “insider to outsider” positions in qualitative and ethnographic research. In ethnographic research, relational ethics can emerge more fully once the researcher’s status is revealed and the researcher can “think it through, improvise, write and rewrite, anticipate and feel its consequence” (Ellis, 2007, pp. 22-23). A kind of “process consent” as ongoing ethical relationships with participants are fostered in that it can be established on shared ethical grounds that are based on deeper, inclusive and more dialogic relationships over time. There could, however, be excessive concern for intangible intentions in these relationships ensuring that they are “well-intended” rather than providing a critical assessment of the potential for harm or suffering they may bring for participants and their communities. Such an issue raises significant reflexive moments for qualitative research processes around issues such as intentionality in research effort as well as those of anonymity, privacy and confidentiality. I will address some elements of these issues below. A key concern in advocating relationally oriented research is the researcher’s reflexivity. The point of the use of reflexivity for understanding ethics in relational research is to ensure researchers check and double check the “process consent” used to engage with participants. This can be done through feedback sessions and informal conversation or even on-line chats to ensure that ethical relations are maintained. Many “at-risk” do not have access to the internet, though this is changing in Australia with youth oriented organizations providing access as part of 67

WEARING

their programs or in low cost internet cafes and so on. Following an ethical code like this is notably part of the “duty of care” and the compassion that can be exercised towards vulnerable, marginal and disadvantaged participants. Such vulnerable groupings are especially common in youth studies research such as gang culture and youth sub-cultures. There are several recent methodological papers on relational research in youth and related research with a clear emphasis on relationships and process in implementing research agendas (Leadbeater et al., 2006; Ellis, 2007; Tisdall, Davis, & Gallager, 2009). My own methodological orientation is towards narrative inquiry that in a broad sense is transdisciplinary (Leavy, 2011, p. 303). I work to blend in my qualitative research several disciplines from politics, sociology and critical psychology in seeking holistic knowledge about participants through iterative processes of qualitative research and I try to take full regard of relational and ethical issues in this process. The approach involves moving from collecting, transcribing and writing up the personal narrative of others (usually using in-depth interviewing and observation) to seeing this in the data analysis as part of broader social and political narratives in the normative order of public and popular culture. Such an approach appreciates that narrative is based on storytelling to construct, rationalize and sometimes excuse world views and their meaning systems (Adams, 2008). Such an approach also raises several issues about how qualitative researchers present such stories as authentic and truthful narration. How do researchers narrate and represent the voices of participants, and how do they engage reflexively with research participants as “the constructed and vulnerable other” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Adams, 2008; Reissman, 2008; Wearing, 2012). One suggestion in the methodological lens of this chapter is to “bond” with the worlds of the “other”, the social worlds of marginalized youth themselves, whenever possible in the research process. Some of these insights have been advanced in education and health research particularly by teachers and nurses (Fischer, 1997; Baylis, Kenny, & Sherwin, 2008; Larkin, Dierckx de Casterie, & Schotsmans, 2008). The experiential bond is a more complete, sustainable and longer lasting legacy than simply the activities of research over a given period. Action research has offered some ways in which research outcomes are dialogic and sharing in their nature by focusing on dual roles of data collection and education, say in focus groups that then become activist groups: for example in critical disability and transdisciplinary research this has become a central methodology (Leavy, 2011). Action research tends, however, to use a somewhat idealized and romanticized rhetoric of participation, not to mention an extremely labor intensive process that does not necessarily deliver the intended rewards for participants. AN ‘ETHICS’ FOR DIALOGIC RESEARCH

Ethical concerns about research are also focused on principles and duties of care for the other that are more universal than the ethical ties that emerge from the relational. Therefore there is a basis for deontological guidelines for ethics in research. The difference between deontological ethics, though these principles can 68

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND

provide an ethical compass, and relational ethics is that relational ethics are engaged and continually reshaped by their ethical engagement with others. I am suggesting that a combination of both approaches may be a way forward. What constitutes such engagement is at question. I use the term “experiential bond” to understand how a relational and ethical view of research with youth enables the researcher to have “continual potential presence” with those they research. These bonds are primarily affectual and relational in that they are based in real emotional, intellectual, and imaginary attachments to participants and their life worlds in qualitative dialogic research. Such engagement in its most complete form is what Buber (1979) was primarily concerned with, in referring to “inclusive relationships, not only showing empathy, but the researcher’s deep rooted identity becoming intertwined within the participants” world views and lived experience (see also Fessenden in this volume). In doing dialogical research I propose an earthy, grounded, engaged and contextual approach to research, referred to as “being-in-the–world” in existentialism. In this approach, participants narrated experiences co-produced in conversation with the researcher are becoming identities that are re-authored by the qualitative researcher. Reissman (2008, p. 105) argues that the dialogical/ performance analysis in particular, enables the researcher to interrogate “how talk among speakers is interactively (dialogically) produced and performed as narrative”. Reissman’s (1993, 2008) general understanding of the narrative approach alerts us to the lived experiences of engaging in research with young people, and also the need for authenticity and reflexivity as ways of ensuring a long standing ethical bond with those participants who are at-risk youth. Such a bond is based on “going deeper” (Scwartz, 2011) into young people’s interests, their experiences, their motivations, their ideologies, their values and, critically, and the discursive context in which the dimensions or “ontologies of life” are shaped. BEYOND QUALITATIVE ‘INDIVIDUALISM’: SITUATED PRACTICES OF SOCIAL KNOWING

How can an ethics of research with marginalized youth be framed to assert flexible but firm boundaries between the researcher’s self and marginalized youth as research participants? A key sociological premise of this chapter is to assert the post-existential nature of individuals in modern society where existence is both being-in-the-world and being-with-one another within the complexities of social representation and social systems. These mutual processes of being exist as intra and in-between bonds of individuation and co-produced meanings systems created with others. Superficial relationships lead to less authentic selfhood and individualism (Lukes, 1968; Udéhn, 2001, 2002). This relational qualitative research is not a form of atomism (reified individualism) based in methodological individualism (MI as reflections and explanations only in terms of individuals). It can have broader strategic policy and political effects. In the individualist approach the danger is, like Lukes’ criticism of Popperian MI, the social as phenomena, flow and agency has been ”swept under the carpet” (Lukes, 1973, p. 122). 69

WEARING

Part of the answer is that such processes are socially constructed and meaningful, and are found not only in a deep understanding of the suffering or experience of one individual but of many: where there is poverty there are many in poverty, where there are those in isolation and loneliness there are often many amongst that social grouping who are lonely and so on. I will suggest that these phenomena are sociologically embedded in networks and relationships as subcultural capital and the social representations of the other portrayed in communities of practice for researchers. This “sociological imagination” brings about commitment and purpose on the part of the researcher beyond individualized thinking and a reflective awareness of the subsequent social impact of qualitative research. All relationships are formed as inter-activities between and amongst others in complex dyads, triads and group relations of people and other living things or even with inanimate objects. Macquarie (1976, p. 102) defined in an early English synthesis of existentialism that the nature of such existence is created by copresence – that “without the other I cannot exist”. In post-structuralism these relational elements are modified by an understanding that they are social representations that construct the other and that such representations also paradoxically have potential for subversive disruptions in re-presenting subjectivity in counter stereotyping e.g. “emo”, “bitch”, “hoe” or “punk” can have positive as well as negative meanings in youth cultures and sub-cultures (Hesmondhaigh, 2005). Relational approaches can also pay attention to the codes of ethics for practitioners in the area such as youth workers who work with explicit criteria and principles based broadly in professional educational, social care and health practices of a “duty of care”. These include work across areas of confidentiality; sexual propriety; dependence and empowerment; and equity of provision (Sercombe, 2010). Without regard for such debate and select principles, a relational approach can become victim to an objectifying of research subjectivity in policy prescription and recommendations. Such research practices need to exercise caution over the re-inscription of power relations and the potentially damaging impact of this on knowledge and evidence based programs and policy. The embeddedness of researchers in knowledge systems and with stakeholders acting in terms of their interests raises the difficult question of “what collective impact can research have on children and young people?” (Alderson & Morrow, 2011, p. 133). In an adult-centric society, children and youth are already vulnerable and this can be exacerbated by exclusionary organized knowledge that does not incorporate their voices. The aim of a relational approach is to reflect upon the ethics and collective impact of qualitative research on marginalized youth. This is done in light of the often unacknowledged or hidden relational and experiential bond that can develop between researcher and young people engaged in research processes. This bond is in effect a kind of “duty of care” in that it can remain in the researcher’s consciousness even after leaving the field and thus sustain a commitment to social justice for young people. I am interested in how researchers can cultivate the positive effects of this bond with and for young people in a 70

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND

process-oriented and relational viewpoint. The next sections will include some examples and discussion on the possible program impact of qualitative research for social programs and youth themselves. The relational approach is thus framed as a stance primarily, but not exclusively, based on the experiential bond in continued dialogical fashion that enables the researcher to listen to the voices of marginal youth and to work with them for colearning, mutual beneficence (action done for the benefit of others), equity and social justice in society. A qualitative research design will be emphasized that takes account of the possible ethical and relational risks and harm for youth when the researcher’s focus is on insight into the experiences and life-worlds of young people. This raises difficult reflexive questions such as: who benefits from the research? For instance, does the research benefit these youth directly through feedback and reflection with them undertaken after data collection or indirectly through program development? Does the research provide social and economic benefits amongst stakeholders other than youth such as parents/guardians, and crime and social service authorities? Why was the research conducted in the first place and who funds the research? Also, what ends will the research have in terms of social outcomes and collective social policy impact in the lives of young people? There is then a need to address issues of empowerment for youth in research and in terms of their social agency to develop the capabilities of young people as key participants in the research design and processes. These questions will open up some possibilities for discussion below without exhaustive answers. POLITICAL AND ETHICAL CHALLENGES FOR RELATIONAL RESEARCH

I have previously explored in qualitative research the resistances of service users identities, including youth, to research practice particularly in social categorizing and labelling around the problematic concept of an “underclass” (Wearing, 1998). The researcher’s control of representation, as Foucault (2003, 2009) has warned, involves interiorized and subjectification of new technologies of self. The technologies extend from earlier pre-modern Christian truths and discourses of “pastoral power” and forms of confession and expression of institutionalized guilt and/or feelings of regret. The qualitative in-depth interview runs the risk of such confessionals – is it an instrument of resolution and healing or more an instrument of official knowledge legitimation in society? The research relationship is certainly not a secretive or private act of confession between two individuals. The answer is unclear in unravelling intimate relationships processes in the research act itself. The key objectives of a relational and ethical approach are to establish meaningful research relationships with youth that will represent their voices in public debate. Nonetheless being aware and alert to the possible controlling effects of such research in terms of institutional power calls into question the potential normalizing filters that researchers provide in their hermeneutical understanding of transcribed interviews and observations. As researchers we can be alerted to the paradox of research governance and control in that “new” qualitative and participatory methods may themselves reflexively involve commercialization, 71

WEARING

rationalizations and control of representation and symbolic power. To sum up, the textual constructions of the qualitative research will involve understanding issues of power, knowledge dissemination, trust, communication and comprehension. Reflexivity and authenticity in the research effort can also help to protect the researcher from engaging in (intentional and unintentional) social control and morally coercive practices. The problems for researchers of marginalized youth cultures, sub-cultures and the organizations that might provide services to them is that a self-referential ethics does not necessarily guarantee ethical criteria are met (contra Hammersley, 2009). Covert ethnographic research popularized in earlier decades has little chance today of ethical clearance in universities given the obvious initial deceit involved (Calvey, 2008). There are, however, good ethical and research criteria for working within an implicit research role (see Ellis, 2007; Scwartz, 2011). After almost 30 years of the growth and expansion of debate, publication and knowledge building around qualitative research methodology the subject of ethics has become somewhat “sacramental” and complicated (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). More questions about the ethical and social impact of such research need to be asked. However, rather than providing a full drawn critique of qualitative research in this area, I am suggesting that some solutions can be found in relational and dialogical approaches notably when studying the vulnerable and powerless. Researchers need to become aware of the factors that can lead to their research being used to governmentalize their participants and reinstate power relations over these participants’ socio-cultural identities. Research specific codes of ethics in working with vulnerable children and youth are available in Australia and these codes have emphasized a focus on harm, beneficence and the social impact of the research as part of the researchers’ awareness of their duty of care for young people (Burnside UnitingCare, 2002). The approach I am suggesting requires both a sense of critical reflection from inside the research processes and a standing back at strategic points in the research process to give a relative semblance of objectivity (Zeller-Berkman, 2007). It also requires a projected understanding of the possible outcomes and also the “reflexive” involvement of the researcher in acknowledging they are involved in intricate sorting, filtering and writing up the research that has ethical implications in their outcomes. A RELATIONAL APPROACH TO YOUTH RESEARCH

Relationships make possible the concept of self. Previous possessions of the individual self-autobiography, emotions and morality become possessions of relationships. We appear to stand alone, but we are manifest of relatedness. (Gergen, 1991, p. 170) What is raised by the preceding discussion are some of the fraught ethical issues associated with conducting research among, and with marginalized and vulnerable youth. A central component of the tensions and difficulties of doing this kind of research is that the researcher needs to become familiar with current practices 72

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND

governing such young people and critically reflect upon the best means to carry out social research that will benefit these youth or wider policy development. A broad spectrum of understanding of key elements of service delivery, youth work and social work practices can encourage critical perspectives on youth participation and empowerment in research endeavors and in teaching such topics (Wearing, 2012). This effectively means understanding best and/or good practice in term of participatory youth development in programs and in doing research. It also requires considerable program and practice-based thought and reflections on key gatekeepers and recruitment processes of youth in research. Much has been written about relational approaches to ethics and to youth and children that has included the need for the unfiltered participation of children and youth themselves in the research process and analysis of research findings (Farrell, 2005; Hill, 2006; London, 2007; Gaya, Wicks, & Reason, 2009; Flemming & Boeck, 2012). Following Buber (1979), I understand this to be the creation of subtle and relational spaces for young people involved in research that are entered into in conversation and in non-verbal interactions between people, the in-between human bond that makes the relational difference and encourages respect, openness and authenticity. There is a close link between relational understanding of the research participant and research ethics in that one is the practice that facilitates the other. The ethnographer Ellis (2007, p. 6), for example, starting from what he calls a relational ethics position asks how we protect identities and make them deidentifiable while respecting participant’s privacy and consent? He also asks how ethnographers in particular can take the constructed story telling of such research back to these participants and their communities. This is also a key reflexive moment for indigenous research notably with Australian Aboriginal people and Aboriginal youth who are some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in Australian society, and represented heavily in the criminal and youth justice systems (Castellano, 2004). The dimension that is highlighted strongly in a relational approach is that of open, democratic and voluntary participation by those being research. Research programs have been suggested that embody participatory approaches based in new understandings and creative methodologies that are underpinned by earlier existential and phenomenological philosophies – being with the researched in their suffering and their pain. Hills (2006) and Walls (2010) approaches to ethical inclusivity of children’s (and youth’) voice, and Deucher’s (2009) insightful study of Glasgow youth give some examples to how relational studies can be done. These approaches perhaps in breadth come closest to what Skolimowski (1994, pp. 160-161) writing on the philosophy of participation suggests require “new intellectual strategies, new forms of perception, new forms of reasoning, new languages and new apparatus”. This in his words requires a new art form as research requiring “empathy”, “communion”, “learning and use of a its own language”, “talking” to participants, “penetrating from within”, “indwelling in the other”, imaginative hypothesis and “transformation of one’s consciousness so that it becomes part of the consciousness of the other”. These ideas and principles and

73

WEARING

procedure have an open, democratizing and potentially transformative agenda (see also Reason, 2002; Reason & Bradbury, 2008; Gaya, Wicks, & Reason, 2009). Nonetheless, such participatory dialogic research is difficult to attain in a pure or ideal form and qualitative researchers need to remain grounded and realistic as to what participatory strategies can and cannot be achieved in research relationships. This requires some awareness of critiques of the rhetoric of participation. The better known criticism of participatory research includes questions about the independence of funders, participants versus broader stakeholders’ and participant’s voice and choice, and the social utility of research. In question form: – Who has auspiced and funded such research, and how is research independence maintained from such authorities? – What voice and choice over methodology, theory, design, process and outcome will the variety of stakeholders acting with their own interests, agendas and power have on the research? – What broader youth development policies, programs and practices will gain or benefit from relational research with a strong participatory agenda? A question aimed at maximizing the social utility of the research for the participants themselves. These are broadly similar to critiques of participatory development that have failed to live up to an emphasis on local control and decision making about resource use amongst local and host communities including the social and economic benefits of potential knowledge taken from these communities (Christens & Speer, 2006; Wearing, Wearing, & McDonald, 2010). This criticism can almost be directly and equally applied to participatory research in raising the question: does the rhetoric and intent match the social impact and social outcomes of such research? The high minded principles and techniques designed to collect data and also educate communities in a participatory fashion can obscure the more fundamental pragmatic and somewhat unchecked drivers behind this research effort. Anthropologist consultants investigating for mining companies the impact of large scale mining on indigenous cultures is just one example where the researcher-consultant “hands can be muddied” by corporate interests either through mining companies funding such research and/or direct agenda setting and decision making about research consultancy (Wearing et al., 2010). Not to mention the capacity such companies have to lobby governments to ignore or minimize such impacts. Stakeholders and government control of research agendas is also a common issue in competitive university funding environments of today. Such powerful actors are involved in setting agendas on research topics and problems and this can restrict the researcher’s academic freedom, exploration and inquiry in the research process or in the outcomes. For example, in setting requirements that researchers provide detailed funding accountability with little action research learning or feedback resources to the communities of the sample group can narrow the benefits of research. This also raises the need for clear boundaries between funders and researchers taking potentially “dirty money” from say tobacco companies for 74

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND

cancer research or casinos for gambling research and so on (Iphofen, 2011, pp. 3839). Furthermore, research frameworks and activity can be poorly governed and can end in “over researching” vulnerable populations and/or not adhering to ethical criteria. Such practices can “contaminate the field” especially for other researchers and for future research in an area (Iphofen, 2011, pp. 30-31). These monetary drivers and errors of ethical judgment hardly embody operationalized principles of justice, respect and care for participants and their communities. Some authors also argue that ethics committees and their ethical standards and principles set impossible levels for researchers to meet (Halse, 2007; Hammersley, 2009). Iphofen (2011), however, in a review of debates on the role of ethics committees and their possible interference in research agendas argues sensibly and convincingly for their relevance: What matters is that the culture of ethical review is conducted in a collegial and facilitative spirit, with a recognition that harms and benefits have necessarily to be balanced and the final outcome is a judgement call for all “stakeholders” to make. (Iphofen, 2011, p. 231) Social research benefits may be tangible and concrete outcomes for policy makers and for further research. Nonetheless the rhetoric of such stated benefits does not necessarily capture the true effects of good research that can engage participants and their local or cultural and sub-cultural communities with research. Whose social interests, power and resources really benefit from such research? Does such research with at-risk youth, specifically program evaluation and research, really do what the rhetoric suggests it can do with respect to publication and dissemination of findings? There are several problematic areas of program evaluation for example, that require a close and forensic consideration of resource use and the actual program design and implementation. A sustainable action research strategy should allow youth and their communities to engage in both having a voice and choice over service practice, policies and programs (London, 2007; ZellerBerkman, 2007). There are many examples, especially with indigenous and disadvantaged communities, where research has been at best culturally inappropriate and insensitive to the worlds and needs of local communities and in many cases “contaminated” the research field (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). Space does not allow full details or examples on the paradoxes of participatory research that can in effect obscure rather than reveal the needs of communities, and participants identities and relationships between and among the milieu of marginalized youth There will be vast differences in establishing research relationships, experience of the field, depth of ethical judgment and technical expertise between the novice and professional researcher in attaining both participation and open dialogue with research participants (Flyvberg, 2001).

75

WEARING

THE ENACTMENT OF MARGINALIZED YOUTH VOICE

When research is considered as enactment, the question is not only how it enacts the world but also what worlds it wants to help create … methods of inquiry and conceptual resources … are never just tools but inventive forms for altering the kind of relational practices that can be enacted. (Steyaert & Van Looy, 2010, p. 3) For analytic and heuristic reasons separating out the relational from the ethical is important in that this combines a principled with a relational approach to research that authentically engages the life worlds of participants. Examples of my own research and research supervision experiences with university-based thesis students whose topics focus on marginal youth will help to highlight research impact and some of the ethical issues in research relationships. These research students are commonly given a range of advice initially by the supervisor, then department or faculty research ethics panel and then wider tiers of research ethics committees in the university. I have served on a variety of these research panels and ethics committees inside and outside of universities and the understanding of what is best practice in terms of research ethics and methodology on such panels can vary considerably. The intervention of ethics committees in research design and process can create confusion and sometime contradictory advice on the difference between ethical principles in university research and the situated practices (Halse, 2007; Larkin, Dierckx de Casterie, & Schotsmans, 2008). In effect, at best the outcome for students and researchers involved in university based research is “negotiable” and can restrict the impact itself of research in negative ways such as the sample members. In the example below, one of my thesis students was not allowed to interview transgender youth and another was not granted permission to interview students under the age of sixteen on issues of (personal experience with) physical and sexual assault. This restriction in access to the sample denies the experiential voices of such vulnerable youth themselves. The supervisor is also involved in such processes and can discourage innovation and risk taking in doing qualitative research. In adopting a relational approach, my relationships with thesis research students encourages a social bond and technical alertness to power/ knowledge in their research and to ethical practices in engagement with research participants. I cannot, however, as a supervisor of research over-ride the need for negotiation with ethics panels. Despite the potential for more bureaucratic rationalization of research, the questions panels ask around ethics offer an important ethically (albeit sometimes bureaucratic and unhelpful) check for both novice and more experienced researchers own projects. In effect, the communities of practice based in university ethics committees and in research supervision agendas merge to create institutional forms of governing research agendas. This agenda setting of such ethical “negotiation” requires critical thinking and a reflexive approach when working with others (Bogdan, 2000). I will illustrate some of the dimensions of this relational practice in research below and ask some key questions raised for a relational ethics in research. Several key issues 76

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND

are raised around the challenges for informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity, cultural differences and identity, language and power, legal accountability, parental or guardian authority, and the role of other stakeholders and gatekeepers in gaining access to a sample. The examples of at-risk youth are used as two vignettes, i) and ii) below, that highlight relational and ethical issues central to the critical and reflexive approach I am suggesting for researching the lives of marginalized youth. i) Decolonising Qualitative Methods: The Experiential Bond inside a Culture From an indigenous perspective ethical codes of conduct serve partly the same purpose as the protocols which govern our relationships with each other and with the environment. The term “respect” is consistently used by indigenous people to underscore the significance of our relationships and humanity …. Respect is a reciprocal, shared, constantly interchanging principle which is expressed through all aspects of social conduct. (Smith 2012, p. 125) In the Australian social policy and youth studies context, a critical indigenous approach that decolonizes methodologies is crucially important to counter the dominance of insensitive and colonizing research knowledge notably most recently in areas of healing and indigenous organizing, health and educational practices. A decolonizing research program and research ethics has been suggested by academics (Castellano, 2004; Denzin, Lincoln, & Smith 2008; Smith, 2012) and research governing bodies notably in health research in Australia such as the guidelines provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2006). They have established some general frameworks and criteria for research done with indigenous communities in Australia after reflecting upon the potential harm and objectification of knowledge done to these communities by research and colonized knowledge building. An important issue therefore for relational approaches is the need to “decolonize methodology” for those youth “written out” of White histories and recover the benefits of research from within indigenous viewpoints. In Australia this includes significant populations of children and young people drawn from a broad crosssection of minorities and culturally and linguistically diverse groups including refugees and migrant islander communities as well as Aboriginal Australians. Tuhiwai Smith (2012) has offered a significant critique and research program for indigenous research that is underlined by respect and reciprocity. Reciprocity in such research would require basic ground rules such as participants viewing transcripts of their interviews or any participant observation descriptions, and making comment on these, and in the medium to long-term feeding back all results and findings to the communities and young people represented by the sample. These are key to the dialogic and inclusive approach of qualitative decolonizing methods and ethical approaches as suggested in this chapter. One of the most difficult aspects related to research is in areas where the views of the other are so fundamentally different that it is difficult to enter into, let alone truly know or 77

WEARING

assess the personal and social realities of their culture or sub-culture (Castellano, 2004). The experiential bond of having lived with and through communities that the researcher has a history with, make access to such cultures more straightforward. This is made clear by a young criminology researcher who interviewed Aboriginal and Islander youth on the effects of juvenile conferencing as a diversionary program from remand. He had biographical “insider” and culturally appropriate knowledge about the group he was studying, urban indigenous and islander youth in Glebe, Sydney: As a result of lived experience within this community I have witnessed first hand the impact of social disadvantage and the prevalence of youth crime in Glebe. I have worked in a professional capacity with young people in juvenile justice for the past eight years. This has been in both Glebe and across broader Sydney and New South Wales. These experiences with young people in custody and in the community have exposed me to the opportunity to question anecdotally the impact and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in truly diverting young people away from criminological behavior. These experiences led me to significant discrepancies in interactions with the criminal justice system for young people from different communities, cultures and economic backgrounds. (Quoted with permission, Alderton Johnson, 2013, p. 28) The student I supervise has brought his background and experience of urban street youth culture, Aboriginal identity and youth sub-cultures into the research along an “insider-outsider” continuum. He understood the milieu of these youth who had been charged and involved with mostly petty crime and diverted to juvenile justice conferencing. He is also able to sharpen his analysis with partial but strategic insider knowledge and use a priori “street level” knowledge and wisdom about the criminal, juvenile and social justice issues facing such young people. This enabled him to go deeper into the main area of his exploratory research – the cultural appropriateness of juvenile diversionary programs run by the New South Wales Department of Juvenile Justice. The experiential bond of this researcher also enabled a sustained purpose and commitment to relationship building with marginalized and stigmatized others such as Aboriginal youth in the Australian community. Space does not permit me to go through the significance of the findings of this research, but needless to say the experiential slant and layers of the “insiders” knowledge in this research gave the study a critical and informed edge that otherwise is not possible. As the author himself states in the thesis abstract, ”the effectiveness of the use of this critical indigenous methodology was justified through the emergence of candid, open and honest experiences of Aboriginality, identity and the criminal justice system” (Alderton Johnson, 2013). Whilst not framed as dialogic, the experiential bond illustrated here between researcher and the researched opened up a space for genuine dialogue and care of the other in the research process.

78

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND

ii) De-Stigmatising Research: Resistances and Participation of at-Risk Youth Stereotypes operate as a means of evaluatively placing, and attempting to fix in place, other people’s cultures from a particular and privileged perspective. (Pickering, 2001, p. 47) Another area that requires more exploration and reflection by qualitative research is stereotyping the “other” in research representations and texts. It is important to understand here how youth and researchers themselves deal with and resist the stigmatizing and labelling processes that can emerge from research documents and possible media and governmental attention. This can also help galvanize the bond between the two parties to challenge and protect young people from unnecessary media, government and research interventions. Youth who are associated with gang sub-cultures and cultures in Australia are commonly linked in research to specific migrant backgrounds and culturally diverse minorities. Due to their disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds these youth commonly exist on the fringes of the paid work economy or are unemployed. They follow the low income trajectories of their parents and their marginalization is due in great part to the intersection of social class and race with their culturally difference and familial migrant status prominent in orchestrating a lack of educational and social oppotunities throughout their youthhood (Hesmondhaigh, 2005). Such “at-risk” culturally diverse youth pose a range of relational and ethical problems for researchers in accessing their sub-cultures across English speaking countries. In the USA, for example, African-American youth and other minorites such as Mexican and Korean youth of migrant USA families sometimes overcome their uprroted sense of belonging and derive a new sense of identiiy from being invovled in gang cultures (Choo, 2007). In Australia, similar problems over the intersections of inequality between marginalized youth arise especially around class, gender and culturally diversity issues. Studies of migrant youth in local areas such as Cabrammatta in Sydney illustrate the clashes and tensions between groupings such as Lebanese and Vietnamese youth, and the often “heavy handed and knee jerk” responses of the police and media to such youth (Collins, Noble, Poynting, & Taber, 2000). Researchers themselves are often confronted with difficult questions of relationship and rapport when initiating research with youth gangs or sub-cultures. A common problem is that access to such samples is based on superficial relational understandings of rapport that end up being thinly diguised and largely instrumental ways in which a student or researcher can achieve their own research ends such as a PhD or a publication. Choo’s (2007, p. 37) study illustrates this problems of an intrumental approach: “Building up a rapport by maintaining regular contact with gang members is another important factor for the researcher to convince (my emphasis) potential subjects to participate in the study”. This is no doubt based on textbook advice on the process rather than an agenda of open dialogue and sustained relationshisp with his sample of Korean youth gang members. It is also a little unfair to be overly critical of Choo here as the depth and breadth of his research is significant and well done. Nonetheless, a relational 79

WEARING

approach would explicitly encourage a sensitive and dialogically grounding to the ethics of implementing such research to enact “process consent”. This flow of consent making in the research process can be checked and re-checked in collaboration with participants. Examples of practice in the area include allowing participants to read and comment on transcripts and data interpretation that in effect gives an ethical participatory audit to the research documentation and analysis beyond official ethical clearance by university or other organizational panels. A way forward in relational research is to anticipate as fully as possible the problems that might cause ethical mistakes and misjudgment on the part of the researcher. Isophen (2011, pp. 113-116) has, for example, helpfully suggested a guide for researching vulnerable and marginalized populations (in particular those with disabilities) that resonates with a relational stance for all marginal or at-risk youth-related research. In brief, paraphrased with marginalized youth in mind these are: – plan for research inclusion of young people; – anticipate youth diversity; – minimize harm by including young people in the research design and process and ensure ethic clearance by recognized expert panel for all action and participatory design; – undergo awareness training for researchers on youth risk issues; – avoid over-researching at-risk youth by checking what studies have been done in the locale and with the sample, and checking this at the time of sample recruitment; – meaningful collaboration with marginalized youth; – make use of youth consultants to serve as cultural brokers and gatekeepers to the enactment of research (e.g. youth workers); – facilitate research accessibility with “youth-friendly language” and where necessary bilingual translators to aid the research; – examine membership of research committees for awareness of youth issues or youth members. This will enable the researchers to contact select panel members to gain advice on gaining ethics and research clearance for a relational and action oriented research proposal; – ensure age is not an obstruction to fully informed consent (when a young person is under 16 in Australia this is usually done by a guardian or parent and can be an issue in itself); – exercise caution with the use of gatekeepers or proxies; – take extra care with anonymity, privacy and confidentiality; and, – finally, consider budgetary implications and timeframes. I consider these the minimal criteria for implementing “good practice” in relational research with at-risk youth. With respect to policy and programs for marginalized youth the debate around research impact can be framed as contributions to social capital and sometimes economic and cultural capital. In his study of fifty young people’s lives, who have become “disenfranchised by educational failure, unemployment and poverty” in 80

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND

Glasgow, Deucher (2009) discovered some surprising views from these youth in their civic participation and social networks. He says the voices of these youth on the margins of society illustrates the challenges they face and “because youth facilities are inadequate the street is a social meeting place” (Deucher, 2009, p. 143). Deucher’s study illustrates, without him stating as much, a relational ethics in the care and attention he takes to establishing a research relationships with the research participants. Other examples of research topics where relation problems arise for at-risk youth are around sexuality and gender-based violence. At-risk youth in this area provide case evidence of intersectional power relations of gender, race and class for gay, lesbian and transgender (GLT) youth in Australian schools and the wider culture. For example, transgender high school youth (12-18 years) must protect their privacy from workplaces and significant others in coming to terms with the intersectional oppressions of sexuality, gender, location and class. The complex power relations involved in researching their lives became apparent for one of my thesis students recently who wanted to investigate the lives of the youth themselves and their parents views on this in relation to bullying and harassment in Sydney school’s they attended. Unfortunately, ethical clearance by the university was not gained because confidentiality of the participants could not be guaranteed in terms of the possibility of parents and/or teachers’ finding out the student’s transgendered status. It would be impossible to keep such youth’s gender identity confidential given the small sample involved and the very real fear that other students, parents and the school may find out also potentially via on-line means (West, Lewis, & Currie, 2009). This to some degree illustrates Hammersley’s (2009) point that some highly vulnerable populations will never be researched given institutional standards of ethics clearance. Time will tell whether this means such groups are or remain silenced in public policy, health, education and community service debates and in service delivery. ESTABLISHING RESEARCH RELATIONSHIPS THAT INCLUDES YOUNG PEOPLE’S VOICE

The framework and approach of this chapter has been to discuss a relational research approach to qualitative research with at-risk youth. I have accepted some criteria that in general establish the dimensions and shape inclusive relationships with vulnerable participants in professional social science and thesis based research. These include the key dimensions of participatory, dialogical and coformed knowledge communicated between adult researchers and young people themselves. This approach is therefore relational and ethical in terms of the researcher establishing an ongoing ethical stance based in values such as beneficence, justice, equity and compassion that creates ethical bonds with at-risk youth. A further dimension of inclusion would be to have young people research other young people thereby learning the craft of ethnographic and qualitative methods (see also Pihl in this volume). One young researcher indicates how this changed the study he was involved in: 81

WEARING

I think we provided different data by being a different interviewer and altering the researcher-participant dynamic. We were also able to analyze the data from a youth perspective with existing knowledge of the organization and its programs. (Darren, Australian youth researcher, quoted in Boeck & Collin 2012, p. 206) Another dimension to this style of research is how one voice can be the voice for many. The inclusion of young people as researchers encourages a research design and process that is poly-vocal in that each individual has a say. This respects the contribution of the individual and in cross case comparison can produce at least a partial but potentially unified, collective and coherent “voice”. Such inclusion of young people is then layered into the research through participation. These dimensions of voice also apply across the filtering worlds of children and youth who can re-imagine their own ways in which they are presented in research. Youth who interview other youth clearly think they will generate a different voice than would adults or specifically adult researchers. We can also argue this would be the case with marginalized youth and can be encouraged through more inclusive qualitative research practice. There are a range of methodologies that can be used in research that will encourage or become part of the experiential bond that emerge from the research relationships between researcher and youth. This can be small scale one-on-one interview research including the use of creative and artistic approaches such as visual ethnography (Pink, 2008) with a few participants to larger scale participatory and action research led by youth themselves (London, 2007). It is this poly vocal rather than mono vocal voice that helps give at-risk youth in society greater say in access to resources and greater leverage politically to the citizenship rights of the wider society (Yuval-Davies, 2011; Wearing, 2012). The multiple voices and different positions of youth highlight the layers and complexities of the research impact and outcomes as much as the process. Every element of research in effect continually reshapes the representations of marginalized youth identity in collecting, transcribing and writing up findings. In light of the research process, the impact of previous and forthcoming research and interactions and dissemination with others including stakeholders in the research becomes part of this process. Children and youth views of the methods used in research have criteria established by young people themselves including fairness and inclusivity (Hill, 2006; Boeck & Collin, 2012). The views and perspectives of young people need to be reflected upon and taken into account in how research is implemented and also the effect of this research impact (Carter et al., 2012). Central to this is the practical and intuitive wisdom of reflexive thinking about what is worth knowing and why. A relational ethics within this reflexivity contains and sustains notions of compassion, care and justice for the marginal other, in this case youth (Bogdan, 2000; Bryman, 2004; May & Perry, 2011). Within this a relational ethics can embrace also child and youth “inner ethical stances” and psychology not so much as innocence, but as a strong and reasonably untainted moral stances (an “old head on young shoulders” approach) to research participation and empowerment in the world and society (Hill, 2006; Wall, 2010; Sercombe, 2010). 82

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND

More broadly we can acknowledge the relationships between researcher and research participants: “their dialogical life continues, even when they are separated in space as the continual potential presence of one to the other, as an unexpressed intercourse” (Buber 1979, p. 125). The social and cultural capital that comes from appropriate knowledge about and experiential bonding with “the constructed other” can be harnessed as commitment throughout a research career for social justice and respect for these youth. In and of itself the impact of a relational approach is a reflexive and ethical outcome to be honored and cherished by qualitative researchers – undertaking research with integrity. CONCLUSION

Initiatives to enhance individual capital still fail to take account of the significance of structural inequalities. However much forms of identity capital such as self-esteem, resilience and employability are enhanced, other forms of capital such as social, cultural and economic capital are still needed for decision-making and, being held at family level or not at all, may not be accessible to those in need of them. (Jones, 2009, p. 83) Pre-existing structural inequalities in society restrict, constrain and normalize the activities of young people and particularly those at-risk. These socio-structural inequalities need to be made evident or at least borne in mind by qualitative research in all phases of research. These inequalities also attest to the potential power/knowledge inequalities generated between researchers and marginalized youth based on differences of status and class positions. With such basic sociological awareness a healthy questioning of the ethical and relational approaches of qualitative research can begin to maintain integrity in producing social science knowledge. This critical awareness does not mean that a qualitative researcher is always facilitating and disseminating problematic or inappropriate social or cultural knowledge. Different methodological approaches can lead to different explicit ethical and social impact outcomes. Action research aims to empower all participants whereas feminist and indigenous qualitative researchers may strive to challenge male hegemony and neo-colonialism respectively (May & Perry, 2011; Leavy, 2011; Smith, 2012). This chapter has established a link between truly knowing in research relationships the life of those participants as a lasting and sustaining experiential bond – being-in-the-world with youth as research participants – and the need for ethical principles and a duty of care in conducting research with marginalized youth. Examples of Aboriginal youth, gang research amongst immigrant youth and transgender youth were used to underscore the diverse intersections of location, sexuality, gender, race, and social class for these marginal youth. These are enacted as elements of youth oppression, marginality and belonging in local cultures and sub-cultures whereby research can acknowledge and sometimes confront such intersections in their research ethics (Yuval-Davies, 2011). Relational and dialogical research tempers pre-existing power relations and opens up possibilities of counter-discourse to institutional and objectifying knowledge frames: “it 83

WEARING

interrogates how talk among speakers is interactively (dialogically) produced and performed as narrative” (Reissman, 2008, p. 105). This effectively means developing a reflexive frame on research knowledge and politics and a reflexive mind when dealing with others in the research process (Bogdan, 2000). REFERENCES Adams, T. E. (2008). A review of narrative ethics. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 175-194. Alderton Johnsons, S. (2013). Breaking bad: An exploratory study of justice, crime and Aboriginal young people in the Glebe community. Unpublished Honours Thesis Criminology, Kensington, University of New South Wales, Alverson, M., & Solberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. London: Routledge. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). The ethics of research with children and young people (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Baylis, F., Kenny, N. P., & Sherwin, S. (2008). A relational account of public health ethics. Public Health Ethics, 1(3), 196-209. Boeck, T., & Collin, P. (2012). Youth and adult researcher reflections on participatory research in Australia and the United Kingdom. In J. Fleming & T. Boeck (Eds.), Involving children and young people in health and social care research (pp. 197-208). London: Routledge. Bogdan, R. (2000). Minding minds: Evolving a reflexive mind in interpreting others. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Buber, M. (1979 [1947]). Between man and man. Glasgow: Collins. Burnside UnitingCare. (2002). Research code of ethics. Retrieved from www.burnside.org.au/content/ Researh%20Code_Ethics.pdf Calvey, D. (2008). The art and politics of covert research: Doing situated ethics in the field. Sociology, 42, 905. Castellano, M. B. (2004). Ethics of Aboriginal research. Journal of Aboriginal Health (January), 98114. Carter, H. et al. (2012). I have always had a passion to be a part of something unique’ young people reflecting on being researchers. In J. Fleming & T. Boeck (Eds.), Involving children and young people in health and social care research (pp. 209-219). London: Routledge. Christens, B. & Speer, P.F. (2006). Tyranny/transformation: Power and paradox in participatory development. Forum SQF: Qualitative Social Research, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/91/189 Choo, K. (2007). Gangs and immigrant youth. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Collins, J. Noble, G. Poynting, S., & Taber, P. (2000). Kebabs, kids, cops and crime: Youth ethnicity and crime. Sydney: Pluto Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y., & Smith, T. H. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. London: Sage. Deucher, R. (2009). Gangs, marginalised youth and social capital. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives – Relational ethics in research with intimate others Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 3-29. Farrell, A. (Ed.). (2005). Ethical research with children. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Fisher, C. B. (1997). A relational perspective on ethics-in-science decision-making for research with vulnerable populations. IRB; Ethics and Human Research, 19(4), 1-4.

84

THE EXPERIENTIAL BOND Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foucault, M. (2003). Technologies of the self. In P. Rabinow & N. S. Rose (Eds.), The essential Foucault: Selections from the essential works of Foucault 1954-1984 (pp. 145-169). New York: New Press. Foucault, M. (2009). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-1978 (Trans. G. Burchell). New York: Picador/Palgrave Macmillan. Gaya, P., Wicks, P. G., & Reason, P. (2009). Initiating action research: A review of the challenges and paradoxes of opening communicative space. Action Research, 7(3), 243-262. Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self. USA: Basic Books. Halse, C. (2007). Rethinking ethics review as institutional discourse. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 336-352. Hammersley, M. (2009). Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(3), 211-225. Hesmondhaigh, D. (2005). Subcultures, scenes or tribes? None of the above. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(1), 21-40. Hill, M. (2006). Children’s voices on ways of having a voice: Children and young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation. Childhood, 13, 69-89. Iphofen, R. (2011). Ethical decision making in social research. London: Palgrave. Jones, G. (2009). Youth. Cambridge: Polity. Larkin, P. J., Dierckx de Casterie, B., & Schotsmans, P. (2008). A relational ethical dialogue with Research Ethics Committees. Nursing Ethics, 15, 234-242. Leadbeater, B., Banister, E., Benoit, C., Jansson, M., Marshall, A., & Riecken, T. (Eds.). (2006). Ethical issues in community based research with children and youth. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Leavy, P. (2011). Essentials of transdisciplinary research: Using problem-centred methodologies. California: West Coast Press. London, J. K. (2007). Power and pitfalls of youth participation in community-based action research. Children, Youth and Environment, 17(2), 406-432. Lukes, S. (1968). Methodological individualism reconsidered. British Journal of Sociology, 19(2), 119129. Macquarie, J. (1976) Existentialism. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. May, T., & Perry, B. (2011). Social research and reflexivity. London: Sage. Metcalfe, A. W., & Game, A. (2011). In the beginning is relation: Martin Buber’s alternative to binary oppositions. Sophia, 51(3), 351-363. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2006). Keeping on track: A guide for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders peoples about health and research ethics. Canberra: Government Publishing Service. Pickering, M. (2001). Stereotyping: The politics of representation. Houndsmill: Palgrave. Pink, S. (2008). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage. Reason, P. (2002). The practice of co-operative inquiry. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(3), 169-270. Reason, P. (2002). Editorial introduction: The practice of co-operative inquiry. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(3), 169-175. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). Sage handbook of action research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Scwartz, S. (2011). ‘Going deep’ and ‘giving back’: Strategies for exceeding ethical expectations when researching amongst vulnerable youth. Qualitative Research, 11, 47-68. Sercombe, H. (2010). Youth work ethics. London: Sage. Skolimowski, H. (1994). The participatory mind: A new theory of knowledge and of the universe, London: Arkana/Penguin Books. Smith, T. L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.

85

WEARING Steyaert, C., & Van Looy, B. (2010). Participative organizing as relational practice. In C. Steyaert & B. Van Looy (Eds.), Relational practices, participative organizing (Advanced Series in Management, Vol. 7) (pp. 1-17): London: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Tisdall, E. K. M., Davis, J. M., & Gallager, M. (2009). Researching with children and young people. London: Sage. Udéhn, L. (2001). Methodological individualism: Background, history and meaning. London: Routledge. Udéhn, L. (2002). The changing face of methodological individualism. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 479-507. Wall, J. (2010). Ethics in light of childhood. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Wearing, M. (1998). Working in community services. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Wearing, M. (2012). Dialogic learning about youth crime and social policy. An unpublished paper presented at the International Conference on Youth Work and Youth Studies, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 28-30 August 2012. Wearing, M. (2014). At-risk youth. In B. Arrago, The Sage encyclopedia of criminal justice ethics. (Vol. 1, pp. 46-48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ 9781452274102.n18 Wearing, S., Wearing, M., & Mcdonald, M. (2010). Understanding local power and interactional processes in sustainable tourism: Exploring village-tour operator relations on the Kokoda Track, Papua New Guinea. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 61-76. West, A., Lewis, J., & Currie, P. (2009). Students’ Facebook ‘friends’: Public and private spheres. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(6), 615-627. Yuval-Davies, N. (2011). The politics of belonging. London: Sage. Zeller-Berkman, S. (2007). Peering in: A look into reflective practices in Youth Participatory Research. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(2), 315-328.

Michael Wearing Social Work Program, School of Social Sciences University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

86

DANIELLE KENNAN

5. UNDERSTANDING THE ETHICAL REQUIREMENT FOR PARENTAL CONSENT WHEN ENGAGING YOUTH IN RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

The participation of youth in research is conditional on obtaining their informed consent. When research involves youth below the age of 18 it is a well-established ethical principle to also secure parental consent as part of the research process.1 While the term “youth” is a fluid concept, as explained in the introduction of this volume, the focus in this chapter is on youth aged between 15 to 18 years. There is unanimous agreement among the research community on the need for parental consent when research involves young children. However, whether parental consent should be required for youth is a subject of debate. While considered an important safeguard, the requirement to obtain parental consent can prohibit youth, particularly those on the margins, from participating in research when parental consent is not feasible or preferable due to the nature of the study. Moreover, its focus on protection can fail to respect the competence of youth. It is illustrative of the disconnect that is said to exist between current theoretical perspectives on childhood and ethical requirements (McCarry, 2012; Skelton, 2008). According to Graham and Fitzgerald (2010, p. 139): In an era that is increasingly recognizing the agency of children and their capacity to participate in research we are also witnessing an increasingly “nervous” regulatory environment in relation to research ethics committees and children’s involvement in research processes. Reflecting these debates, ethical guidance on the need for parental consent differs throughout the world. What is considered unethical by some is considered ethical by others and there is the view that different research contexts require different responses (France, 2004). To provide greater clarity on the matter, this chapter draws on the literature and ethical guidelines to review current practice in relation to the application of the parental consent requirement. To provide an overview of the broader legal context the ethical requirement is operating within, the chapter outlines examples of how international and national law addresses the issue of capacity to consent. This is followed by a critique of current ethical guidance on the issue of parental consent. The stringent to the more flexible approaches adopted in different countries are documented. It is observed that uncertainty around ethical requirements can lead to overprotectiveness (Felzmann et al., 2012). Conversely, greater clarity and an understanding of what is considered ethically acceptable practice has the potential S. Bastien & H.B. Holmarsdottir (eds.), Youth ‘At the Margins’, 87–101. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

KENNAN

to facilitate the participation of even the most marginalized youth in research. To meet this objective, the chapter concludes with an overview of innovative, yet ethically compliant, strategies employed by researchers to enable them to adhere to the parental consent requirement. CHALLENGES POSED BY THE PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT

Working in partnership with parents should in general be viewed in a very positive light. It respects the role of parents to protect their children and to ensure they are not manipulated or harmed (Jones, 2004). When the child or youth is not capable of understanding the consequences of being involved in research, parents can play a particularly important role. If equipped with accessible information on the study, parents can assess, and support their child to assess, the value, authenticity and possible outcomes of the study. Their intimate relationship with the child often means they are best placed to make a decision on whether participation is in their best interests. During the research process parents can take on a supportive role and provide guidance to their child in helping them to formulate their views (Graham et al., 2013). Parents can also be a reassuring presence. As Beazley et al. (2011) remind us, researchers can overlook the fact that they are relative strangers to the research participants. It is said that a further benefit of obtaining parental consent is that it can promote parent-child discussion on sensitive issues and enhance the relationship between the researcher and the community (Moolchan & Mermelstein, 2002). While there are many potential benefits to obtaining parental consent, a review of the literature brings to light that much has been written about the challenges parental involvement can pose. Some of the key challenges outlined in the literature are revisited here. This review of literature involved a search of the academic databases Scopus and Web of Science using key terms and phrases such as “youth”, “participatory research”, “parental consent” and derivatives of them. The focus was on social science literature. An internet search was also conducted using Google to identify relevant reports. Although broadly speaking the literature located by the author emanates from Western countries, a study led by The Childwatch International Research Network2 underscores that obtaining consent and access to children and youth for the purpose of research is a challenge experienced by researchers globally (Powell et al., 2011). This study, involving 257 researchers across 46 low, middle and high income countries,3 found that the ethical issues of most concern to the researchers overall were overly protective ethical review processes and consent, gatekeeper and access issues. However, while these issues were of concern to researchers across low, middle and high income countries, they were of greatest concern to those from high income countries. The greatest concerns for researchers from low to middle income countries included cultural beliefs about children’s place or role in society, fear for the child’s safety and concerns that a sensitive topic may cause distress for the child.

88

PARENTAL CONSENT

It is evident from the literature that gaining access to potential participants by obtaining parental consent can be complex when the research is of a sensitive or private nature. In this volume for instance, Flynn and Saunders outline the complexities in securing parental consent when conducting research with children of prisoners. Seeking parental consent has also been identified as a barrier when the research is focused on topics that are in the interests of youth to remain private, such as, studies focused on sexuality (Valentine et al., 2001) or tobacco, drug and alcohol use among adolescents (Moolchan & Mermelstein, 2002). It can also present a barrier for transient, including homeless youth, who have limited contact with their parents (Abrams, 2010) or for youth who are in a situation where there is no parent or legal guardian able to give consent for the child to participate. This has been identified as an issue when researchers have sought to involve young carers in studies in sub-Saharan Africa, where the AIDS epidemic has left children and youth in child and youth-headed households (Graham et al., 2013).4 Participation may also be precluded when parents, not acting in the interests of their children, are unwilling to provide consent due to their fear of a disclosure and a child protection intervention as a result of their child participating in the study. This can arise in the situation where there is substance misuse on the part of the parent and they may not want to encourage outside interest in their family life or where some form of child abuse and neglect is occurring in the home (Kennan et al., 2012; Roth et al., 2013). Requiring parental consent when operating in these contexts can deny youth the opportunity to participate in research. This is of particular concern when it silences those already marginalized and most in need of being heard by the very nature of the circumstances they find themselves in. From a research perspective, requiring parental consent introduces potential consequences for the integrity of the research. The need for parental consent can present difficulties in achieving a representative sample (Shaw et al., 2014). It may bias the sample towards parents who are easier to access and reach, youth who have a good relationship with their parents and have fewer behavioral problems (Moolchan & Mermelstein, 2002). A study in the United States, which synthesized the literature related to the use of parental consent in school-based research on adolescent risk behavior, found that students who secured the consent of their parents were more likely to be female, white, from intact homes with more educated parents and less likely to smoke (Tiggs, 2003). A further challenge posed by the parental consent requirement is that it can unduly exert adult power and influence over a young person’s decision to participate in research. Children and youth may feel constrained to comply with the decision of their parent to provide consent or not (Graham et al., 2013). For this reason, even when parents provide their consent, the importance of emphasizing to the young research participant that they can withdraw their consent has been highlighted as an important safeguard to ensuring voluntary consent (McCarry, 2012; Shaw et al., 2011).

89

KENNAN

CAPACITY TO CONSENT AND THE LAW

The law and ethical guidance are generally closely interlinked. To understand the broader context ethical guidance it is operating within, it is useful to examine how the issue of capacity to consent is dealt with in the law. It is apparent in law that as children mature their competence is recognized and parental control diminishes (Masson, 2009). However, this is a complex area of law and there is no standardized approach across jurisdictions regarding when children are deemed competent to make decisions independent of their parents. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which enjoys almost universal ratification,5 established in international law the principle that “as children acquire enhanced competencies, accordingly, there is a reduced need for direction and a greater capacity to take responsibility for decisions affecting their lives” (Lansdown, 2005, p. 3). This principle is embodied in Article 5 of the CRC, which acknowledges the role of parents in providing direction and guidance to their child in the exercise of their rights, while explicitly making provision for the “evolving capacities” of the child. The CRC defines a child as a person below the age of 18 years. However, neither the Convention nor the documentation of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child prescribes an age below 18 when competence can be presumed to be achieved. It recognizes that children are not a homogenous group and their acquisition of competencies will vary according to individual circumstances, social and cultural contexts, levels of support and life experiences (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009). According to Lansdown (2005), children therefore require varying degrees of protection and opportunities for autonomous decision making across different contexts. This established principle in international law is not necessarily reflected in domestic law. An overview of the situation in Ireland and the United Kingdom is illustrative of two differing approaches concerning the law and capacity to consent. For example, in Ireland fixed ages are provided in law regulating competence or capacity to consent. The age of majority in Ireland, or the transition from minority (childhood) to majority (adulthood), is 18 years of age and it is only on obtaining majority that youth are deemed competent to make decisions independently of their parents. Nevertheless, there are many exceptions to this rule. Under Irish law, the age of consent for sexual relations is 17 and at 16 years of age a young person can provide autonomous consent to surgical, medical or dental treatments.6 In contrast, the United Kingdom provides a good example of domestic law firmly establishing that competence should not be equated to a certain age and an individual assessment of capacity to consent is required. It was the 1985 Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority House of Lords case that had profound implications for the law governing capacity to consent in the United Kingdom. The court found that a child, including those under the age of 16, who has “sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed”, has the capacity to independently consent to medical treatment. Returning to the issue of parental consent in the context of research, there is no law governing the need for parental consent in relation to the participation of youth in social research in either Ireland or the United Kingdom. The Irish courts did 90

PARENTAL CONSENT

come close to pronouncing judgment on the issue. In 2007, the Office for the Ombudsman for Children engaged in an extensive consultation exercise with children from across the country. Children and young people below the age of 18 were asked to vote on the issues they perceived to be most relevant to their lives. Parental consent was not sought for the 74,000 children and young people balloted. An application was made by an individual to the High Court for leave to seek an injunction to stop the consultation, on the grounds that the Ombudsman had exceeded her authority in consulting directly with children in the absence of parental involvement. The court held that the Ombudsman had not exceeded her mandate (Irish Ombudsman for Children, 2007). However, it did not directly address or pronounce judgment on the issue of parental consent. In the United Kingdom, there is a view that the Gillick decision applies to all matters, unless otherwise prescribed in law, thereby governing the need for parental consent concerning a child’s participation in social research (Masson, 2009). Researchers in the United Kingdom conducting research with young lesbian and gay people, some of whom were between the ages of 16-18, relied on the Gillick judgment as a justification for not seeking parental consent (Valentine et al., 2001; Skelton, 2008). However, the view that the Gillick decision is applicable to social research is not a unanimous view. Others have expressed uncertainty as to whether the case law governing a child’s capacity to consent to medical treatment can be translated to the need for parental consent for a child’s involvement in social research (Hill, 2005). Furthermore, there is uncertainty around whether it could be relied on as a justification for not obtaining parental consent in other jurisdictions (Felzmann, 2010). In contrast to the situation in Ireland and the United Kingdom, in South Africa the enactment, in 2012, of section 71 of the National Health Act, No 61, 2003, categorically provides in law that health research can only be conducted with a minor (persons below the age of 18) with the consent of a parent or guardian. Health research is defined broadly in the Act as all research contributing to knowledge of “the biological, clinical, psychological or social processes in human beings”. It is said that this broad definition of health research could encompass and place the same demands on social science research (Zuch et al., 2012). Before concluding this section it is worth mentioning the right of a child or youth to privacy. The right to privacy is a fundamental human right of all human beings, including children and youth and one that is recognized in law. Under international law the right of a child to be protected from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy is explicitly protected in Article 16 of the CRC. It may be expected that the right to privacy is of relevance to a discussion on parental consent. However, in the literature reviewed, the right of youth to privacy is not an argument raised when debating the validity of the parental consent requirement. The focus is on the capacity of youth under 18 to consent as opposed to a right not to have their parents be aware of or interfere with their decision to partake in research. Similarly, the ruling in the Gillick case did not explicitly address the issue of privacy in terms of whether a confidential relationship should

91

KENNAN

exist between a young person and a health professional, although it can be argued that this is implied in the judgment. ETHICAL GUIDANCE

While researchers must be aware of and heed the national law of the country they are operating within, when there are no laws governing the issue of parental consent, ethical guidelines are the governing authority. Ethical guidance is not binding. However, adherence to ethical standards is generally deemed necessary to give credibility to the research and to satisfy university and funding authorities. When children and youth below the age of 18 are involved in social research, ethically it is the norm that parental consent is actively obtained as part of the research process. This is an almost universal ethical requirement, with very little difference between low, middle and high income countries (Powell et al., 2011). An International Charter for Ethical Research Involving Children has been developed by leading academics in the field in collaboration with UNICEF and Childwatch International. It is intended to provide guidance to researchers worldwide irrespective of context and is a useful tool in the absence of national guidance. It states that, in all research involving children, children’s informed consent must be obtained alongside parental consent (Graham et al., 2013). In relation to a child’s informed consent, there are some exceptions to the norm that a child’s consent must be obtained. Some ethical guidelines require a researcher seeking to involve participants below the age of 18 to obtain their agreement or informed assent as opposed to informed consent. While a detailed discussion of this issue of a child’s consent is beyond the scope of this paper it is worth noting that regarding the issue of assent, there is a growing movement away from solely securing a child’s informed assent, as opposed to informed consent. Alderson and Morrow (2011, p. 103) outline the following reasons for rejecting the use of the term assent: it fails to acknowledge that in law minors have been deemed competent to consent (for example the Gillick case); assent implies that children do not understand all the issues required for consent and it is questionable whether a partly informed decision can count as a decision at all; and it can mean “at least not refusing”, which can mask a child’s wish not to participate. Cocks (2006, p. 249) reminds us that the process of seeking assent is a valuable method for securing the agreement of children who may not have the competence to consent, but acknowledges that it is not in itself sufficient and should be just one approach available to researchers operating within a “framework of ethical reflection”. The standard procedure for obtaining the informed consent of the young research participant and their parent comprises a number of steps. It requires the researcher to take the time to provide to the research participant and their parent adequate and accessible information on the study, to verify that they have understood the information provided, to ask the participant and their parent to voluntarily document their consent or refusal and to ensure that all parties are aware that consent can be renegotiated or withdrawn at any stage of the research process (Roth et al., 2013; Graham et al., 2013). These steps outline the process in 92

PARENTAL CONSENT

obtaining active consent. While not generally the favored approach from an ethical perspective, as discussed later in this chapter, in some circumstances the parent’s passive as opposed to active consent is deemed sufficient. It is also said that the consent of one parent is generally deemed sufficient, unless the research is of a particularly sensitive nature, exceptionally burdensome or focuses on familial relationships (Shaw et al., 2011). The question can be asked whose consent should be sought first, the parents’ or their child’s. Guidelines for research with children and youth recommend obtaining parental consent first to avoid the scenario where a child agrees to participate and subsequently finds out the parent has not provided consent (Shaw et al., 2011). However, there is some evidence that this does not correlate with the views of children. A small scale consultation with children on the matter revealed that some of the young participants were of the view that a child’s consent should precede parental consent (Felzmann et al., 2012). They noted that, in the context of researchers recruiting participants in the school setting, their consent is effectively obtained first as they act as gatekeepers choosing whether to pass on the consent forms to their parents or not. Some ethical guidelines take into account the difference between young children and mature minors, in terms of competence to consent and the need for parental involvement. In certain circumstances exceptions to the norm of requiring parental consent up to the age of 18 will be permitted. However, on this issue, there is no definitive agreement. Ethical frameworks can vary greatly on the issue of whether parental consent is required for mature minors and in many countries there is no clear regulation of parental consent. A review of current ethical guidance reveals that there are a number of frameworks that ethical oversight bodies can operate within when seeking to maintain ethical standards in research involving minors. These can be broadly distilled as follows: – Parental consent is required in all circumstances up to the age of 18; – Provision of a fixed age below the age of 18, whereby parental consent is not required once a child reaches the prescribed age; – General requirement of parental consent up to the age of 18, but provision is made for a waiver. Each of these frameworks and illustrative examples of how they operate are set out and critiqued below. Requirement of Parental Consent in All Circumstances up to the Age of 18 This approach embodies the most stringent application of the parental consent requirement. As set out above, it is evident in the legislative framework governing the need for parental consent in health research in South Africa. In terms of ethical guidelines, the situation in Ireland provides a good example of national guidance adopting this approach. In 2012, the Irish Government Department of Children and Youth Affairs published ethical guidance for social science research projects involving children. These guidelines were developed in part to encourage standardization in the approaches adopted by research ethics committees across 93

KENNAN

Ireland (Felzmann et al., 2012). They state that parental and/or guardian consent is required for a child, defined as all persons below the age of 18, to participate in research. No provision is made for exceptions to this requirement. Of note, these guidelines are also an example of guidance that does not require a researcher to secure a child’s consent. However, according to the guidelines good practice requires the child’s agreement (informed assent) to participate in the research. On the one hand, this approach is clear-cut. The same ethical rules apply to all research participants below the age of 18 and it relieves ethics committees of undertaking the onerous task of making an individual assessment of whether parental consent is required for the study under review. However, on the other hand, its emphasis on protectionism and its rigidity has the potential to exclude youth under 18 from participating in research. The approach is at odds with the broad recognition of the evolving capacities of youth to make decisions, when appropriate, independently of their parents. Provision of Prescribed Age Limits below the Age of 18 This approach makes the assumption that mature minors of a fixed age have the ability to consent to participate in research independently of their parents. Ethical guidance in New Zealand is illustrative of this approach. According to the national ethical guidelines for health and disability research, the consent of youth aged 16 and over to participate in research must be treated the same as if they were of full age. Their informed consent is sufficient and the consent of parents does not need to be obtained (National Ethics Advisory Committee, 2012). Similarly, in Sweden parental consent is not required for youth who have attained the age of 15 or in Poland for those over the age of 14.7 The New Zealand framework referred to above also makes provision for children, below the age of 16, to demonstrate their ability to provide informed consent without the need for parental consent. Unlike youth over the age of 16, whose competence is presumed, this requires an individual assessment of the child’s “competence to understand the nature, risks and consequences of the research”. Providing a fixed age below the age of 18, whereby parental consent is not required once a child reaches the prescribed age, is a more flexible approach to meeting the parental consent safeguard. It ensures consistency in approach to research involving youth of the prescribed age and removes the need for an individual assessment of competence for those within this age bracket. Arguably, not requiring parental consent for those above the prescribed age and below the age of 18 could expose them to the risk of harm. However, it recognizes their capacity to make their own assessment, independently of their parents, as to whether participating in research is in their best interests. In any case, it is to be expected that the ethical review process as a whole should act as an important safeguard to minimize the risk of any potential harm. Where the opportunity is provided for those aged under the prescribed age to demonstrate competence, such as in New Zealand, this makes allowance for current thinking that children acquire competence at different ages influenced by their personal experiences (UN 94

PARENTAL CONSENT

Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009; Lansdown, 2005; Hill, 2005). However, it places an onerous and challenging obligation on researchers to make an individual assessment of competence and to justify their analysis to ethical oversight bodies. Parental Consent Is Required up to the Age of 18 but Allowance Is Made for a Waiver A review of current ethical guidelines brings to light that a more common approach to the parental consent safeguard is to require researchers to obtain the consent of parents when involving children and youth up to the age of 18, while making an allowance for a waiver in certain circumstances. Provision for a waiver is not focused on the competence of children and youth, but rather the research context. For example, in Denmark an exemption may be granted to the parental consent requirement when a minor has turned 15 years of age. A decision by a research ethics committee to grant an exemption must take into account the nature of the research and the level of risk (National Ethics Advisory Committee, 2012). In the United Kingdom and the United States of America, ethical regulations also allow for a waiver of the parental consent requirement. However, the age at which a waiver may be acceptable is not prescribed in the ethical guidance reviewed here and neither is criteria established for when a waiver can be applied. In the United Kingdom, the leading organization for funding research on economic and social issues, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), has developed a Framework for Research Ethics. It is mandatory for ESRC funded research to comply with the Framework, but it is also intended to establish “good practice for all social science research” (Economic and Social Research Council, 2012). The Framework allows for a waiver of the parental consent requirement but offers no further guidance other than requiring that, where consent is not obtained, this should be justified to the research ethics committee and their approval obtained. Federal regulations governing the protection of human research subjects in the United States provide that, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) may waive the parental consent requirement if, in light of the research conditions or the subject population, obtaining parental consent is not a reasonable requirement to protect the research participants (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). While these Federal Regulations do not provide any detailed guidance on when a waiver can be applied, a study by American academics has shed some light on the practice of IRBs (Wagener et al., 2004). The study participants comprised 49 IRBs, primarily associated with university or academic institutions. Almost half of these IRBs granted waivers of parental consent for non-medical research. Among the research participants who indicated that their IRBs never granted waivers, some had not received such a request, however, the more common response was that parental consent was deemed essential or always required. The most common influencing factors, identified by those who had experience of IRBs granting a waiver, were: the research posed minimal risk; the subject matter; and the inability 95

KENNAN

to carry out the research without parental permission. In the United Kingdom, the National Children’s Bureau, offers some guidance on when a waiver to the parental consent requirement may be appropriate. Their Guidelines for Research with Children and Young People suggest that parental consent should not be obtained for 16 and 17 year olds, unless the research is taking place within the family home, the participants are a particularly vulnerable population group or are in the care of the state, in which case consent must be obtained from their social worker. If children are under 16 according to the guidelines, parental consent can be waived if seeking it would breach the child’s confidentiality, such as they are using a service without their parents knowledge (Shaw et al., 2011, p. 30). This type of ethical framework, whereby there is a general requirement of parental consent up to the age of 18 but provision is made for a waiver, offers an element of flexibility and is cognizant of the challenges the parental consent requirement can pose. Again its implementation can place an onerous task on ethical oversight bodies to assess whether a waiver of the parental consent requirement is justified and is in the interests of the research participants. However, the available guidance on when a waiver may be appropriate can aid the process and is less challenging and resource intensive than making an individual assessment of competence. ETHICALLY COMPLIANT PRACTICE

When parental consent is required this generally involves obtaining the informed written consent of parents or legal guardians. Some alternative practices have emerged that are also considered ethically compliant. Passive consent is one such strategy that has been employed by researchers in meeting their obligation to obtain the consent of parents (Thomas & O'Kane, 1998; Heptinstall, 2000; Roth et al., 2013). Passive consent, or what is also known as the opt-out approach, is where parents receive information about the study and the researcher’s intention to ask their child for their consent to participate. If no objections are raised by the parent they are deemed to have given their consent. Ethics committees in general are said to favor active or opt-in consent procedures (Graham & Fitzgerald, 2010). Evidence of this was found in the Wagener et al. (2004) study. Their research, conducted with IRBs in the United States, found that over half of the participating IRBs do not allow for passive consent. However, Shaw et al. (2011) advocate an openness to using this approach and state that whether to adopt an opt-in or opt-out approach to consent should depend on the vulnerability of the young research participants, the nature of the research burden on the participants, the methodology employed and the sensitivity of the subject matter. There is evidence that the procedures used for parental consent affect a studies participation rates. Tiggs’s study in the United States (2003) found that, when passive parental consent is sought in school-based research on adolescent risk behavior, parental permission is typically obtained for 30 percent to 60 percent of those sampled, compared to 93 percent to 100 percent when passive consent is relied on (Tiggs, 2003). Obtaining verbal consent over the phone, as opposed to 96

PARENTAL CONSENT

written consent, is another approach which is considered ethically compliant and one which is effective in encouraging parents to be more responsive (Sime, 2008). It has been found that a key influential factor in the recruitment of hard to reach young people is taking the time to establish a relationship with gatekeepers and raising awareness about the importance of the study on a one to one basis (Kennan et al., 2012). The phone may facilitate one to one contact and initiation of a relationship when it is not possible to meet with the individual parents to secure their written consent. Other ethically compliant strategies adopted to satisfy the parental consent requirement can be conducive to including even the most marginalized youth in research. It is considered acceptable practice for a social worker’s consent to replace that of parental consent, where children and youth are subject to a full care order or parental consent is not possible to obtain (Shaw et al., 2011; Heptinstall, 2000). Where parental consent or the consent of a legal guardian or social worker is not possible to obtain, an alternative approach adopted by researchers is to identify a trusted or responsible adult to give consent for the children to participate. In a study on young carers in sub-Saharan Africa, which was undertaken in the context of the AIDS epidemic leaving children and youth in child and youthheaded households, researchers asked the children to identify another “trusted adult”, such as a teacher, aunt or grandparent to give their consent for the child to participate in the research (Graham et al., 2013). Similarly, a study in the United Kingdom with unaccompanied or separated asylum seeking children meant that parental consent was impossible to obtain. Obtaining the consent of their social worker was also not an option as many of the children did not know who their social worker was. In this case, when the child was under 16, the researcher sought the consent of a “responsible adult”, such as a Children’s Unit Manager or other adult working with the children in their place of accommodation (Hopkins, 2008). It has been suggested that the use of online questionnaires may circumvent issues of consent and improve access to potential research participants (Curtis, 2004). However, this is not in keeping with ethical guidance that has provided direction on the issue. It is said that it is critically important for online research to obtain informed consent and to explore ways of ensuring the consent obtained is both genuine and informed (Graham et al., 2013). Shaw et al. (2011) provide two possible options. The first is an opt-in process, whereby the online survey commences by asking the respondent’s age and, if the age signifies that parental consent must be obtained (this will depend on the ethical requirements the study is subject to), the software should be automatically programmed to ask for the parents contact details. The onus is then on the researcher to make contact with the parents and to obtain parental consent. The second is an opt-out procedure, whereby if the participant indicates in an opening question that they are of an age where parental consent is required, they will be asked to consult with their parents and indicate they have done so by, for example, ticking a box. In relation to either process, as there is no way of verifying the information supplied, Shaw et al. note that webbased surveys are generally not recommended for research with children and youth and certainly not for research of a potentially sensitive nature. Finally, educational 97

KENNAN

settings have been identified as important access points for researchers seeking to engage children and youth in research (Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Sime, 2008). However, there is nothing in the literature to suggest that the access school authorities provide to researchers can circumvent the need for parental consent. CONCLUSION

In conclusion it is worth re-emphasizing that the requirement for parental consent is an important safeguard to protect children and youth from harm and one that should not be renounced lightly. This chapter has examined the dilemmas that can arise as a result of the parental consent requirement. The review of the literature and ethical frameworks is intended to go some way towards dispelling the ambiguity surrounding the parental consent requirement. While it is not the intention of the chapter to advocate one approach over another, what the review of the literature has brought to light is the importance of a flexible and tailored approach. Ethical guidelines offer a useful framework for researchers to operate within, but they should not close down any debate on how the appropriate balance between protecting children and youth from harm and enabling their participation in research can be achieved. It may be useful for researchers and ethical oversight bodies to keep in mind the words of Cree, Kay and Tisdall (2001, p. 48): [C]odes of ethics and guidelines for research with children offers a helpful starting-point for building an ethical research study … [t]hey offer topics for consideration rather than “blue-prints” for good practice, and this is important given the uniqueness of individual research projects. We are often reminded that children and youth are not a homogenous group. As this chapter has outlined, understanding and assessing the local context, that is the immediate context in which the study is operating within, is crucial when determining how to observe the safeguard of parental consent. First and foremost it requires the researcher to be aware of the law and ethical guidelines in the country they are operating in. It may include factoring in the participant’s age, capacity, societal and cultural considerations, the nature of the research study and level of risk posed to the participants. While the local context must be taken into account, learning can also be drawn from the wider global context. Understanding what is considered ethically acceptable practice by looking to the law and ethical guidance offered in different jurisdiction across the world, as well as drawing on the lessons learnt from researchers grappling with the requirement of parental consent, can provide important guidance and learning for ethical oversight bodies, legislators and researchers. With this knowledge also comes the potential to challenge some of the more conservative approaches. NOTES 1

98

The use of the term parental consent in this chapter is intended to encompass the consent of a parent or a legal guardian.

PARENTAL CONSENT 2

3

4

5

6

7

The Childwatch International Research Network is part of Childwatch International, a global, nonprofit, non-governmental network of institutions that collaborate in child research for the purpose of promoting child rights and improving children’s wellbeing around the world. In the study the authors use the terms Majority and Minority world, equating countries with low and middle income economies with Majority world countries and countries with high income economies with Minority world countries. Here the author uses the terms low, middle and high income countries in keeping with the terms used in this book. See Case Study 16: Caregiver consent for child participation in research: Reaching and protecting the most vulnerable. Contributed by Lucie Cluver, Franziska Meinck and Mark Boyes. Young Carers South Africa, University of Oxford. Available at: http://childethics.com/wp-content/ uploads/2013/11/ERIC_Compendium_Case-Studies_Informed-Consent_Lucie-Cluver-FranziskaMeinck-and-Mark-Boyes.pdf Three UN member states have not ratified the CRC. These are the United States of America, South Sudan and Somalia. Irish Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935, Non-Fatal Offences Against the Persons Act, 1997 and the Health Care Act, 1947. For further information on the ethical guidance governing the situation in Sweden and Poland, as well as other European countries, see the website of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/rights-child?page=child-participation-in-research

REFERENCES Abrams, L. S. (2010). Sampling ‘hard to reach’ populations in qualitative research: The case of incarcerated youth. Qualitative Social Work, 9(4), 536-550. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Beazley, H., Bessell, S., Ennew, J., & Waterson, R. (2011). How are the human rights of children related to research methodology? In A. Invernizzi & J. Williams (Eds.), The human rights of children: From visions to implementation (pp. 159-178). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Cocks, A. J. (2006). The ethical maze: Finding an inclusive path towards gaining children’s agreement to research participation. Childhood, 13(2), 247-266. Cree, E., Kay, H., & Tisdall, K. (2001). Research with children: Sharing the dilemmas. Child & Family Social Work, 7, 47-56. Curtis, K., Roberts, H., Copperman, J., Downie, A., & Liabo, K. (2004). How come I don’t get asked no questions? Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers. Child & Family Social Work, 9, 167175. Economic and Social Research Council. (2012). Framework for research ethics. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council. Felzmann, H., Sixsmith, J., O’Higgins, S., Chonnachtaigh, S. N., & Gabhainn, S. N. (2012). Guidance for developing ethical research projects involving children. Dublin: Irish Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Felzmann, H., Sixsmith, J., O’Higgins, S., Ní Chonnachtaigh, S., & Nic Gabhainn, S (2010). Ethical review and children’s research in Ireland. The Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Dublin: The Stationary Office. France, A. (2004). Young people. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 175-190). London: Sage Publications. Graham, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Children’s participation in research: Some possibilities and constraints in the current Australian research enviroment. Journal of Sociology, 46(2), 133-147. Graham, A., Powell, M., Taylor, N., Anderson, D., & Fitzgerald, R. (2013). Ethical research involving children. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti.

99

KENNAN Heptinstall, E. (2000). Gaining access to looked after children for research purposes: Lessons learned. British Journal of Social Work, 30(6), 867-872. Hill, M. (2005). Ethical considerations in researching children’s experiences. In S. Greene & D. Hogan (Eds.), Researching children’s experience: Methods and approaches (pp. 61-86). London: Sage. Hopkins, P. (2008). Ethical issues in research with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Children’s Geographies, 6(1), 37-48. Irish Ombudsman for Children. (2007). Hearing voice: Annual report of the Ombudsman for Children’s Office. Dublin: Ombudsman for Children. Jones, A. (2004). Children and young people as researchers. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellet, & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 113-130). London: Sage Publications. Kennan, D., Fives, A., & Canavan, J. (2012). Accessing a hard to reach population: Reflections on research with young carers in Ireland. Child and Family Social Work, 17(3), 275-283. Kirby, P., & Bryson, S. (2002). Measuring the magic? Evaluating and researching young people’s participation in public decision making. London: Carnegie Young People Initiative. Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of the child. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Masson, J. (2009). The legal context. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellet, & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing Research with Children and Young People (pp. 53-61). London: Sage. McCarry, M. (2012). Who benefits? A critical reflection of children and young people’s participation in sensitive research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(1), 55-68. Moolchan, E. T., & Mermelstein, R. (2002). Research on tobacco use among teenagers: Ethical challenges. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(6), 409-417. National Ethics Advisory Committee. (2012). Ethical guidelines for intervention studies: Revised edition. Wellington: Ministry of Health. Powell, M. A., Graham, A., Taylor, N. J., Newell, S., & Fitzgerald, R. (2011). Building capacity for ethical research with children and young people: An international research project to examine ethical issues and challanges in undertaking research with and for children in different majority and minority world contexts. Research Report for the Childwatch International Research Network. Dunedin and Lismore: University of Otago Centre for Research on Children and Families and Centre for Children and Young People. Roth, M., Voicu, C., David-Kacso, A., Antal, I., Muntean, A., Bumbulut, S., & Baciu, C. (2013). Asking for parental consent in research on exposure of children to violence. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 42, 85-100. Shaw, C., Brady, L., & Davey, C. (2011). Guidelines for research with children and young people. London: National Children’s Bureau Research Centre. Shaw, T., Cross, D., Thomas, L. T., & Zubrick, S. R. (2014). Bias in student survey findings from active parental consent procedures. British Educational Research Journal. doi: 10.1002/berj.3137 Sime, D. (2008). Ethical and methodological issues in engaging young people living in poverty with participatory research methods. Children’s Geographies, 6(1), 63-78. Skelton, T. (2008). Research with children and young people: Exploring the tensions between ethics, competence and participation. Children’s Geographies, 6(1), 21-36. Thomas, N., & O’Kane, C. (1998). The ethics of participatory research with children. Children and Society, 12, 336-348. Tiggs, B. B. (2003). Parental consent and adolescent risk behaviour. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 35(3), 283-289. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2009). General comment No. 12: The rights of the child to be heard. UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/12. Geneva. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Protection of human subjects. Title 45 CFR, Part 46. Valentine, G., Butler, R., & Tracey, S. (2001). The ethical and methodological complexities of doing research with ‘vulnerable’ young people. Ethics, Place and Environment, 4(2), 119-125.

100

PARENTAL CONSENT Wagener, D., Sporer, A., Simmerling, M., Flome, J., An, C., & Curry, S. (2004). Human participants challenges in youth-focused research: Perspectives and practices of IRB administrators. Ethics and Behaviour, 14(4), 335-349. Zuch, M., Mason-Jones, A., Mathews, C., & Henley, L. (2012). Changes to the law on consent in South Africa: Implications for school-based adolescent sexual and reproductive health research. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 12(1), 1-5.

Danielle Kennan UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

101

SARAH GRACE FESSENDEN

6. THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS Limitations of Empowerment and the Potential of Insider-Activist Methodologies with Anarcho-Punk Youth

INTRODUCTION

You’ll never silence the voice of the voiceless. (de la Rocha, 1999) Engaged models and, specifically, collaborative and participatory action research have been heralded as the quintessential ethical approaches to applied ethnographic research endeavors. Models such as action research enacted by Sol Tax (1975) are instrumental in the inclusion of native voices and can provide for sustainable outcomes of, for example, development projects (Gwynne, 2003). However, these models can sometimes shift to operate under an assumption that the researcher has a kind of power that, through their research, in turn empowers the people with whom they study. Anthropologists Setha Low and Sally Engels Merry (2010) are noted for their advocacy work and the promotion of engaged methodologies. Barbara Johnston and Holly Barker (2008) have provided a model for effective participatory action research. Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1995) is now famous for her fiercely engaged, activist approach to research. While affirming a place for such methods, in this chapter I challenge a reductive understanding of engaged research that suggests this method is a kind of “silver bullet” for the ethical complexities of working with youth at the margins. I highlight the ways in which I did not empower the anarcho-punk youth with whom I worked in Barcelona, Spain. Instead, like Juris (2007), I propose an insider-activist ethnographic approach to ethically navigate research relationships with marginalized youth and to coempower both researcher and research participants. Anarcho-punk (anarchist and punk) youth worldwide live in the interstices of society. They find the rifts in food and housing distribution and fill those in with their own lives. When apartments are abandoned, they occupy them as squatters; when edible food is thrown into a dumpster to become waste, they recover it through “dumpster diving”. Too often disregarded as a symptom of social dysfunction or reduced to a description of clothing and music style, anarcho-punk youth remain little or misunderstood. Drawing on the ethnographic method of participant observation, I entered into the everyday lives of these youth.1 The overall research project was to look at the translation of radical political philosophy into local action through the lens of food. From June through August 2010, I lived in Barcelona, Spain, walking the streets of the city, finding edible food in dumpsters, cooking in squats, and eating in public parks with a rotating group of ten to twenty anarcho-punks. Most of these youth were travelling through Europe S. Bastien & H.B. Holmarsdottir (eds.), Youth ‘At the Margins’, 103–121. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

FESSENDEN

on holiday, living with other squatters in abandoned apartments and other buildings on their travels. I met these anarcho-punks through the Barcelona chapter of a worldwide activist project, Food Not Bombs (FNB), which serves food to people who are hungry as a protest against states’ allocations of resources to fund war while neglecting the needs of the poor. I approached this research project negotiating insider and outsider statuses. Before going to Spain, I had been a part of FNB for a year near my home in Southern California. I was intrigued by the anarchist logic of direct action wherein an injustice was directly addressed rather than going through formal political channels to enact change. By the time I went to Spain, I was an advocate for the cause of FNB and a supporter of such logics. Jeffrey Juris (2007), working with the Movement for Global Resistance, found that to understand radical political organizations ethnographically he would need to engage in “militant ethnography”. This methodology involved an insider perspective wherein the researcher was part of the radical political organization. Employing an insider-activist ethnographic approach, I found that such methodological engagement is not only important for understanding radical political praxis, it is important ethically insofar as findings and representations are negotiated within a participatory2 researching relationship. However, I found one constraint to the kind of engaged, activist, and militant research those anthropologists such as Barker and Johnston, Scheper-Hughes, and Juris advocate: it is not always possible or appropriate to “give back” or “empower” those with whom we work. Positively, Barker and Johnston’s (2008) approach in some ways “empowered” those with whom they worked by drawing attention to a grave injustice (i.e. nuclear testing on the Marshall Islands) and bringing the issue to the attention of the US legal system. Scheper-Hughes (2004) has used her influence as an academic, “giving back” by successfully working in and with communities around the world as an activist against organ trafficking. Juris (2007) worked within and for a radical political project rather than just researching it from the outside, contributing his anthropological knowledge in large-scale meetings. Even though there remains significant potential for engaged, activist, and militant projects to give back, as these researchers demonstrate, it remains challenging to negotiate empowerment both theoretically and practically in certain research contexts. Interrogating the discourse surrounding empowerment, there is an assumption of the powerful researcher and the less powerful research subject. For example, participatory action research in Paulo Freire’s sense is conceived of, at least in part, through helping people understand their circumstances (Dudley, 1993). It is essential to recognize colonial impositions on local people and culture (see Deloria, 1973) and to do so includes an interrogation of empowerment. In order to affirm both power differentials and agentive strategy, I propose a relativistic framework in order to understand “marginal” youth on their own terms. To this end, this chapter begins with a theoretical introduction and ethnographic description of the anarchist-inspired autonomous politics I encountered engaging with anarcho-punk youth. Second, I look at dominant socio-cultural frames that ascribe marginality and, in so doing, obscure alternative ways of being. Third, 104

THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS

following precedents set primarily in anthropology, I suggest that engaged and, specifically, insider-activist research can be methodologically and ethically beneficial. Finally, I draw on my own research experience to demonstrate the possibility of working toward co-empowerment. In the end, I did not empower anarcho-punk squatters because to offer assistance would undermine their chosen way of life and to suggest I might empower them would be an insult. Instead, my experience as an insider-activist researcher involves negotiating research topics and representations with other participants, being aware of potential harm as I experience threats first-hand, contributing to the project by making visible to other publics how much edible food is wasted, and, finally, complementing broader survey and interview-based projects by working with relatively few participants over a long period of time. Even though it is limited in certain contexts, engaged, insider ethnography provides: 1) a methodological advantage by accessing these activist milieus little or misunderstood from the outside and 2) an ethical approach that offers a possibility of giving back through contributing to the activist project of making visible inequalities and injustices. Overall, the goal of this chapter is to suggest that the “voiceless” have voices3 and that it is the responsibility of the researcher to find ethical and scientifically sound methods to hear and re-present it well. WHO ARE ANARCHO-PUNKS?

When thinking about (dis)empowerment, I am reminded of the dysfunction, disorder, and other social ills ascribed to street youth, punks, squatters, and anarchists. Studies of punk and street youth intersect with the “underclass debate” (Katz, 1993) that emerged in response to Lewis’ and Moynihan’s “culture of poverty” (Lewis, 1959, 1963; Moynihan, 1965). While few scholars today invoke the essentializing idea that the poor are socialized into a unique culture that causes social dysfunction, it remains strong in the popular imagination. Anthropologist Anthony Marcus and others (Weiss & Fine, 1996; Katz, 1993; Wacquant, 2008) productively illustrate the error of the culture of poverty concept in the United States, demonstrating decisively that without financial, symbolic, and cultural capitals (see Bourdieu, 1984), U.S. socio-cultural practices can appear dysfunctional (Goode, 2010; Marcus, 2006). Additionally, the culture of poverty concept understands groups through their behavioral traits rather than looking at, for example, imposed political-economic, racial, and spatial distinctions. Similar tropes permeate studies of punk youth and radical activists; they are pathologized or cast as violent and (self-)destructive rebels. Rather than researched as a subculture to dominant socio-cultural ideologies and practices (Hebdige, 1979; Glass, 2012; Langman, 2008), by drawing on relativism as a perspective, employing an anarchist-inspired theoretical orientation, and using ethnographic methods such as long-term participant observation, anarcho-punk youth can be conceived of as creative political agents. In this section I critique some prominent tropes that surround youth activists, specifically that they are “violent” (Fernandez, 2008), “destructive” (Graeber, 105

FESSENDEN

2009), rebellious “radicals for the sake of being radical” (El Pais, 28 September, p. 70 as cited in Juris, 2008, p. 86), or even “dangerous” and “terrorists” (Fernandez, 2008). I argue that this is a misrepresentation based on an analysis of anarcho-punk youth that relies on an ethnocentric framework based on and in support of state capitalism and patriarchy. I also aim to complement studies that look at street youth as a generalized category (Finkelstein, 2005; MacDonald & Shildrick, 2007) by engaging in everyday life with a specific group of activist anarcho-punks in Barcelona for an extended period of time. Drawing on anarchist-inspired theory and some of my experience of their imaginative and poignant activism, I suggest that these youth are creatively productive in both the “hidden transcripts” (Scott, 1990) of everyday life and in activist moments with FNB. Anarcho-Punk Youth: ‘Violent’, ‘Rebellious’, ‘Dangerous’ Like walking into a black and white (but really mostly shades of gray) photograph splashed with only the faintest hints of color, I disembarked from a subway train at Sants Estacio and emerged on a concrete park. It was a warm and overcast summer evening in Barcelona and I was looking around for a group of people who would be serving food in the concrete space to anyone in want or need of it. Due to my previous experience in California and the joking title of the assembly as “punx picnic”, I anticipated a certain crowd and was not wrong to do so. Upon entering the courtyard-like space, I observed a few concrete tables with concrete slabs for seats, a flat open concrete area through which people walked, and, in the background, several tall, gray, rectangular storage lockers near which a few skateboarders were practicing tricks and on which someone had written the words “no come los animales” (don’t eat animals) and another had drawn an “A” surrounded by a circle in black spray paint. After sitting on a long gray bench for a while, I began to see some punk youth emerge. A man in his twenties with a brilliant blue Mohawk that rose six inches from his head, wearing a black t-shirt with the sleeves ripped off as well as torn black tights cut off at the calf brought some color into this space. He was trailed by a panting medium-sized dog. In the scene below, I describe my first face-to-face meeting with the anarcho-punk youth with whom I would work and research. These youth were mostly in their early twenties and from all over Europe and North America including, but not limited to, Spain, Lithuania, England, Germany, Italy, and the United States. Most were travelling on holiday, stopping at various cities for a week or more at a time, staying with fellow squatters, and meeting new people in the course of a meal. Another man followed. This man wore dark black jeans, torn off just below the knee, no shoes, and a dark green t-shirt with the sleeves torn off. His hair was shaved on the sides and in long dreads down the center of his scalp. He wore a beard and a smile. Many more individuals began to come, two towing carts that are used all over the city by women carrying their groceries from the markets, carnicerias (meat markets), panaderias (bread shops), pescaderias (fish markets), and fruterias (fruit stands), to their apartment homes. In this group, one cart was pulled by a woman with her head shaved, 106

THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS

all but two small patches, one on each side of her head, where she had stuck two [pale pink] Velcro hair rollers. Another cart was towed by a man in black shorts, black crocs, and a jacket studded with spikes, partially held together with safety pins, and put together with patches of different leathers, some black and some gray, some a dark maroon. On the back was a black patch … with a [bright orange] carrot held in a fist. Once they arrived at a table, they began to pull the various tubs of food, plates, forks, papers, and radio from the carts. I walked over and …, at that moment, the man in the leather jacket walked over and introduced himself happily, asking if I was Sarah from the United States. I said yes. (Fessenden, 2011, pp. 35-36) Sharing a meal together in the middle of this inhospitable concrete space, these are hardly the violent, rebellious, dangerous youth that dominant media outlets and, sometimes, social science portray. Anarcho-Punk Theory: Anarchism, Autonomy, and (Anti-)Politics I suggest that the politics of anarcho-punks can only be understood as autonomous (anti-)politics and that any attempt to understand anarcho-punk practice from a frame that privileges formal politics oriented toward state structures will result in misunderstanding. For example, radical youth, including anarcho-punks, have been characterized, trivialized, and dismissed as violent and rebellious kids (see Juris 2008). When radical youth are analyzed from within existing dominant social frames (i.e. patriarchy and state capitalism), this is an understandable conclusion. If good members of society are “productive” members of capitalist society, then these youth are dysfunctional. Instead of renting a house or purchasing consumer goods, these youth live on streets or squat in apartments and acquire their food from dumpsters. Therefore, they are not contributing members of society in terms of capitalist production or consumption. While these youth may be defined as marginal, it is a marginality ascribed in relation to the (state-oriented, capitalist, patriarchal) “mainstream” (see also Pihl, this volume). Instead of holding a job, going to a supermarket to purchase food, and cooking in a rented apartment, these youth spend their productive time recovering food from dumpsters and cooking it into whole meals. As an anthropologist, there are methodological frameworks for understanding emic (insider) perspectives. Relativism, an approach that posits that people’s beliefs and behaviors are understandable in terms of their own worlds, invites the researcher to “suspend disbelief”. As such, it assists the researcher to move sympathetically toward the beliefs of some “other” and thus resists ethnocentric or purely etic (outsider) models. If the lifestyles of these youth are analyzed in their own terms (e.g. drawing on anarchist-inspired theory and historically linking with autonomous and Situationist movements) they can be seen as creatively productive. Historically, in the autonomous feminist movements of 1970s Italy, women called for “liberation”, not “emancipation” (Katsiaficas, 2006). Liberation they defined as the overcoming of hierarchical, patriarchal social structures; emancipation they saw as folding women into this prefigured form. Liberation was 107

FESSENDEN

equated with a creatively new vision of the future. Emancipation was understood as the masculinization of women wherein they joined the labor force alongside (and, in some ways, as) men. In contrast, liberation meant overcoming the form itself, wage labor. This politics of liberation can only be understood by taking into account what is being critiqued and what alternatives are posited in its place. This kind of politics is therefore subversive and creatively productive. It is unlike traditional politics that seeks to make changes within existing forms and can therefore be understood as autonomous politics. Sociologist Richard Day (2004) outlines the problem in this way: old social movements, such as worker’s movements, were aimed at revolution; new social movements, such as civil rights movements, were aimed at reform; the “newest” social movements, such as the “anti-globalization”4 movement, are aimed at autonomy.5 Revolution is understood as the overthrow of all existing sociocultural, political, and economic systems. Reform is aimed at transformations of certain aspects of socio-cultural, political, or economic systems. Sociologist and activist with anti-war and autonomous movements in, notably, the United States and Germany, George Katsiaficas (2006) suggests that autonomy is characterized by radical “anti-politics”. The idea of autonomy, inspired by anarchist theory, is that new systems should be created without waiting for revolution or reform. In this way, the “liberatory” politics of these Italian feminists were anarchist-inspired politics of autonomy. Anarchist theory asserts the possibility of creating a new society within the shell of the old.6 In order to do so, anarchists first assess the characteristics of contemporary society. The anarcho-punks I encountered in Barcelona critique contemporary European and North American societies for their hierarchical sociocultural, economic, and political structures. The critique of these structures is that they are oppressive and alienating. Family structures are seen to privilege heteronormative men, oppressing other expressions of gender/sexuality. Capitalist economies are seen to privilege a few, oppressing the many. Politics “as usual” are seen to reinforce the privileges of those same few. In addition, anarcho-punks critique capitalist society as alienating. Punks, who Graeber (2009) considers the “new Situationists”, draw on logics developed notably in 1960s France: Situationists argued that the commodity-form and its concomitant alienation found its culmination in the “society of the spectacle” (Debord, 2002 [1967]). Situationists argued, “the system renders us passive consumers” and issued “a call to actively resist” (Graeber, 2009, p. 261). Anarcho-punk politics operate against forms of political-economic oppression and socio-cultural alienation by establishing new forms that function autonomously. Understood through an anarchist-inspired theoretical frame, anarcho-punk political praxis operates productively but through non- and anti-state forms. Therefore, engaging with anarcho-punks in a research context necessitates a relativistic perspective so as to open a window onto the imaginative logics and practices of these radical youth.

108

THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS

Anarcho-Punk Logic: Direct Action Anyone who talks about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life – without grasping what is subversive about love and positive in the refusal of constraints – has a corpse in his mouth. (Vaneigem, 2012 [1967], p. 11) As stated above, anarchist theory asserts the possibility of creating a new society within the shell of the old. In order to do so, anarchist practice relies on a number of logics and associated techniques. As a political philosophy, anarchism begins with a belief that people are both productive and able to organize in such a way as to realize individuality more fully through collectivity. As a logic alternative to those such as liberalism, anarchist theories affirm the rights of the individual, an individual free of externalities such as the state. Here, rights are asserted through non-hierarchical organizations that, by definition, reject states, national boundaries, and institutions such as the patriarchal family. In order to build such a society, anarchist-inspired logics include, but are not limited to, autonomy, direct action, consensus as the basis for decision-making, and egalitarianism (see Graeber, 2004). A prominent anarchist logic and technique is direct action that is understood in opposition to, for example, western political forms where representational democracy (often) takes the form of voting. Direct action emerges from the value of individual autonomy and is acted out in various tactics wherein an injustice is rectified without appealing to formal political structures and institutions. In Italy, feminist autonomous groups refused to ask the church or the state for the abolition of an anti-abortion law in favor of creating their own abortion clinics: “these women acted according to autonomous decisions – not on the basis of law but on what they considered to be right” (Katsiaficas, 2006, p. 28). Therefore, anarchist direct action contrasts with formal politics in its logic and strategic practice. Direct action is about rectifying an injustice as well as drawing attention to the institutions that created it. Within the community of anarcho-punk squatters with whom I interacted, direct action took the form of anti-capitalist food production. For those participating specifically with FNB, food consumption became a form of direct action: part of anti-war, anti-corporate globalization movements, FNB participants in autonomous chapters worldwide serve food to people who are hungry. Here, FNB participants protest the prevailing distribution of resources that funds war while people remain hungry. In so doing, they create systems that are independent of state and capitalist systems; as such, it is a form of self-empowerment. Anarcho-Punk Practice: Recycling, Cooking, and Eating In practice, direct action techniques in Barcelona took the form of squatting and “dumpster diving”. Squatting refers to the practice of occupying abandoned buildings, making them into homes. “Dumpster diving”, or “recycling”, refers to the practice of taking edible food out of dumpsters. Drawing on the anarchist logic of direct action, anarcho-punks recovered food from dumpsters, cooked it in squatted apartments, and served it to people who were in need of it. 109

FESSENDEN

On a typical day, I would walk through the streets of Barcelona with one or more of these youth. On our way to somewhere or nowhere, we would stop periodically to look in a dumpster. In downtown Barcelona, dumpsters were placed every block or so; there was one for trash, one for organics, and one for recycling. Often, I would press down on a lever at the base of a dumpster, the lid would roll back, and my friend, known here by the pseudonym Luther Blissett, would reach headfirst into the dumpster. From the dumpster he would pull out peaches, mushrooms, and bell peppers, all to be rescued from what would have been certain death in the landfills outside the city. Instead, these spoils were to be recycled, reborn as new creations from the baptismal of the dumpster, de-commodified food to be given as an activist gift. The practice of dumpster diving is best understood as direct action. Capitalist food production and distribution is critiqued by anarcho-punks like Luther Blissett as inherently exploitative: The way the food distribution is set up in the present time is set up in a way that they don’t care about feeding people and people are going hungry and all they care about is profits and they will let food go to waste intentionally just to drive up the prices, just to make it so that the people have to pay if they want to eat, and they have to work for sometimes irrational jobs that don’t do anything but make the boss rich and don’t make the society more productive, a lot of the work. And people just do it just to support this irrational system of food distribution because they’re exploited by it. (Luther Blissett, Interview, August 1, 2010) Therefore, the recovery of de-commodified food from dumpsters subverts the capitalist imperative to buy. However, this food is not just recycled; it is gifted. To critique the allocation of resources to fund war while neglecting those who are hungry, participants with FNB share this food with anyone who is in need or want of it. “Society, authoritarian governments, spend a lot more of their resources on weapons and violence than they do in actually taking care of the people, helping the people to live their lives like they say that they are to do” (Luther Blissett, Interview, August 1, 2010). Instead of standing on a street corner holding a sign in protest, I joined this practice that seeks to rectify injustices directly. In this case, rescuing perfectly edible but wasted food, cooking it into a (hopefully tasty) meal, and sharing that meal in public places directly challenged capitalist food systems while sharing an activist message. After taking food from a dumpster, we lugged it back with us to one of the squatted apartments in Barcelona. Known only through informal networks and signaled with the presence of a small international squat symbol (a circle with a lightning bolt-like image in the center) etched carefully into the doorframe, I arrived at the squat where we were to cook. Walking up a few flights of stairs, I noted that the walls were punctuated with painted slogans and flyers from activist literature, upcoming protests, and underground punk shows. I would enter the squat, turn immediately to the left, and walk into a kitchen and dining area not too different from my own not-so-squatted (e.g. rented) apartment. Other than using a 110

THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS

hose rigged up for a faucet and propane purchased off the street for fuel, cooking and cleaning proceeded as it would in a rented apartment. Those of us in the squat would think about what we had acquired, imagine what we could make, and proceed with the chopping, heating, and chatting. Once the food was cooked, we packed it up in a few carts to tow and carry out to the concrete space. On Thursdays at Sants Estacio, we unpacked the various pots, plates, bowls, utensils, and cups. Like a dinner party, someone would bring something to drink, something to smoke, and perhaps some bread to share. Anyone who decided to join would pick up a dish and serve themselves from the warm pots of vegetarian, home-cooked food set on the concrete table. Those who ate would include ten to twenty anarcho-punk squatters and, on occasion, a few older adults who would either share beer and company or just pick up something to eat because they were hungry and had little recourse for food. We would eat together, sitting on the concrete slabs attached to or on the concrete steps near the table. We talked about our days, our thoughts, and our dreams. “I think that the most important thing for me just that a lot of people can eat together … I feel sad eating alone and I think it’s very, very good feeling just to eat together” (Amiele, Interview, July 27, 2010). While the everydayness of this scene, the commensality of eating together, is certainly present, it does obscure the activism of this particular meal. Anarchopunk squatters in general “dumpster” for food as well as purchase certain items such as alcohol and seitan (a vegan meat substitute). The anarcho-punk squatters with whom I was immersed opposed capitalist housing, food production, and food distribution. This system was seen to benefit a few in society while neglecting the rest. FNB in particular opposes the kind of state capitalism that enacts war to protect the interests of those same few, again, at the expense of many. Therefore, the direct action technique is twofold; it is aimed at subverting the capitalist system and, simultaneously, redressing its shortcomings. FNB, as a project that some of these anarcho-punks engaged in, takes this everyday choice to resist capitalism one step further: If people see something that breaks their heart, that hurts their soul and they feel like they can either ignore it and go on with life, business as usual and suppress that feeling or to devote their life to making a change for all those issues … that deal with injustice on the whole entire planet. If they take the easy route, with life and business as usual, we will be pacified in our daily living but, for myself, I can’t go on living like that any longer. (Shon Potado, Interview, July 16, 2010) As a part of this anti-war, anti-corporate movement, I find myself in the unique position of researcher and (tenuous) insider. Apprehending the logics that frame these direct action techniques, I do not see these youth as dysfunctional or disempowered. Rather, I find them to be creative and productive, inviting publics to reassess their views of the world that assume a normalcy and inevitability to war and, too often attached, (state) capitalist forms of production, distribution, and consumption.

111

FESSENDEN

THE LIMITS OF ‘EMPOWERMENT’

Empowerment presumes disempowerment. Who is empowered and who is disempowered? In the case of putatively marginal youth, I propose an examination of empowerment through an interrogation of marginality and disempowerment. In this section, 1) I describe and critique assessments of voicelessness. Because empowerment is given only to those who are seen as marginal or disempowered, it is important to first ask how marginality is assessed and whether a group should be so defined (see also Pihl, this volume). Then, 2) I suggest that these voiceless have voices (though they are too often silenced through political-economic models that privilege formal politics, listening only to what is ‘said’ in dominant discourses). Finally, 3) I propose engaged and insider-activist methodologies for hearing and re-presenting the voices of the voiceless. I describe and affirm the value of several variations of engaged anthropology, from collaborative to activist models. I then challenge a reductive understanding of engaged research that suggests that these methods are a kind of silver bullet for the ethical complexities of working with youth at the margins. Instead, following Juris (2007), I look to a “militant”, or insider-activist, methodology to ethically navigate research relationships with marginalized youth and to co-empower both researcher and research participants. The Voiceless: Marginalization and Disempowerment Economists Joachim von Braun and Franz Gatzweiler (2014, p. 3) define marginality as “the position of people on the edges, preventing their access to resources and opportunities, freedom of choices, and the development of personal capabilities”. Similarly, economist Jeffrey Sachs (2005) distinguishes those on the “development ladder” as more or less empowered (i.e. able to climb the ladder) from those in such extreme poverty that they are not even on the bottom rung. Marginalization (and its concomitant presumption of disempowerment) is assessed according to models such as World Systems Theory. In this model, sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein suggests that goods, people, and resources are extracted from peripheral nations and processed in core nations (Roseberry, 1988). Like von Braun, Gatzweiler and Sachs, Wallerstein ascribes marginalization or disempowerment based on relative (capitalist) productive power within a totalizing system. While there is not space to give an adequate account of these and other theories of marginalization and disempowerment, I at least draw attention to some of the dominant political-economic models that define and ascribe marginality or disempowerment (sometimes at the cost of recognizing agency). While it is essential to recognize colonial impositions on local people and culture through histories of, for example, genocide, slavery, and dispossession (see Deloria, 1973), it is also important to recognize historical contingency and agency. Political-economic uneven and unequal development models are also applied to the processes of globalization; these recognize the diffuse flows of goods, money, people, and ideas that move back and forth throughout the globe with little regard to “core” or “periphery”. Anthropologist William Roseberry suggests that the most 112

THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS

compelling political-economic models integrate dissimilar local, regional, national, and global power structures without reducing people’s experiences to capitalist determination or a romanticized agentive freedom (Roseberry, 1988). More recently, anthropologist Daniel Miller (1997) underscores the contingencies and particularities of local capitalist (under)development; in his ethnographic accounts, he highlights agentive power that is often masked from reputedly peripheral places like Trinidad when World Systems Theory is applied. In addition to political-economic marginalization, (dis)empowerment is also referenced through gender. From an anthropological perspective, Saba Mahmood (2005) explores subjectification within particular socio-cultural imaginaries. Instead of labelling Egyptian Islamic woman as oppressed or participants in the Mosque Movement as subaltern feminists, which would impose western-based notions of feminism, she looks at various forms of agency. In this movement, participants negotiated circumstances that demanded piety to one’s husband, society, and god where fidelity to all was not possible. In such circumstances, agency takes multiple forms, not always appearing as resistance to patriarchy. World System Theory-like models and essentializing notions of feminism may obscure more than they illuminate or impose inappropriate (and even harmful) categories. Marginalization and disempowerment are too often evaluated according to capacity for (capitalist) economic growth or by western ideals of gender equality. As noted above, marginalization and disempowerment are assessed in relation to dominant ideologies and leave little or no room for agentive strategy. The diverse understandings of capitalism and patriarchy outlined here caution against a hasty ascription of disempowerment or marginality. The decision to engage (and to what extent to engage) can be predicated upon an orientation to (dis)empowerment that takes into account how capitalism and patriarchy affect people’s possibilities but do not determine people’s lives. Additionally, capitalist and patriarchal ideologies may not be the sole matrix through which agency is evaluated. Specifically, (dis)empowerment can be a flexible concept that takes into account particularities of historical and contemporary context. With regard to anarcho-punk youth, (dis)empowerment can be assessed in part through a relativistic perspective. Relativism opens room for the researcher to witness and attend to the agentive logics and strategies of anarcho-punk youth. The Voice of the Voiceless: Counterdiscourses and Confrontations With regard to recognizing agency, it is important to account for the production of counter discourses within presumed dominant narratives. Anthropologist James Scott (1990) describes the way “disempowered” people in their everyday lives circulate discourses that contradict the story elites tell about themselves. He juxtaposes the “public transcript”, the discourse that ostensibly hegemonically reinforces structural inequalities and injustices, with the “hidden transcript”, the discourse that recognizes and opposes inequalities and injustices. Anthropologist Nancy Fraser (1990) draws attention to both the circulation of “counterdiscourses”

113

FESSENDEN

and activist movement building within subaltern groups. Ultimately, these authors point to the voices that the voiceless have and with which they speak and act. Instead of addressing marginalization or disempowerment, anarchist-oriented movements tend to focus on confronting oppression and alienation. Since, notably, the feminist and Situationist movements of the 1960s, everyday life has become a focus of political-economic contest (Epstein, 1991). These movements critiqued the colonization of everyday life by capitalism and patriarchy. The [patriarchal and capitalist] system colonizes eros, turning love into sex, and sex into pornography. Labor becomes production, production a job; free time has been turned into leisure, leisure into a vacation; desire has been morphed into consumerism, fantasy into mediated spectacle. (Katsiaficas, 2006, p. 221) Such movements inspired the anarcho-punks with whom I worked. They did not see themselves as marginal (in a sense of disempowerment). Rather, their “otherness” or “marginality” was strategic. Part of an anarchist project is to create autonomous spaces distinct from patriarchal hierarchies and capitalist systems. In this way, such chosen marginality is empowering; these anarcho-punks experienced marginality as liberating. In this way, those who choose marginality by distancing themselves from the mainstream through dress, lifestyle, music, or other means are not disempowered. Though many anarcho-punk youth that I met came from working class backgrounds, they incorporated this potential marginalization into their political-economic identities (see Hebdige, 1979 on “workingclassness” in punk style). Furthermore, anarcho-punk (life)style destabilizes any homogenous proletarian, class-based message. Any potential marginal political-economic status is reclaimed and recycled, made into a political statement that rejects the very models and concomitant categories that attempt to name them marginal. The instrumental point is that marginality or disempowerment cannot be ascribed by a mere glance at political-economic wealth or accumulation potential. An evaluative model that takes capitalism and patriarchy as natural and even desirable will obscure the nuances of and agentive power within countercultural movements. In contrast, models that take into account various forms of oppression such as, but not limited to, capitalism, patriarchy, and racism, can be useful to understanding the constellations of power and inequalities present in our world. Towards Engagement and Advocacy Engaged anthropological research has a long history; it was part of the early anthropologists’ repertoire to engage in the affairs of populations with whom they worked (Lassiter, 2005). However, when anthropology moved into the academy, positivist logics encouraged detachment and emphasized observation rather than participatory engagement. In recent years, engaged anthropologies have developed in order to ethically navigate researching relationships particularly in the midst of injustice, violence, and suffering witnessed in the field. 114

THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS

Early in its evolution, ethnographic research involved a degree of collaboration in fieldwork, co-authorships, and public activism. U.S. American and British founders of the discipline engaged in participatory relationships toward public scholarship; Franz Boas partnered with George Hunt and Lewis Henry Morgan worked with Ely Parker, consulting and advocating for Native American rights (Lassiter, 2005). In the middle of the twentieth century, Sol Tax envisioned action research, encouraging anthropologists to step out from behind a desk and engage: “We do not conceive of ourselves as simply observing what would happen ‘naturally’; we are willing to make things happen” (Tax, 1975, p. 515). In recent years, anthropologists Setha Low and Sally Engels Merry (2010) have advocated a similar position: the mainstreaming of engaged methodologies that move toward dismantling power differentials by working with those experiencing injustices. They envision engagement that may include “1) sharing and support, 2) teaching and public education, 3) social critique, 4) collaboration, 5) advocacy, and 6) activism” (Low & Merry, 2010, p. 204). Barbara Johnston and Holly Barker (2008), exemplary models of engaged anthropologists, conducted collaborative, participatory action research in the Marshall Islands where they were enlisted to document the cultural impact of decades of nuclear testing. Anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes (2004) exemplifies fierce engagement in her own activist research where she has followed and documented a global trade in organ trafficking.7 Through June Nash’s anthropological research in Bolivia (1992) and with social movements globally (2007), she found that within activist situations, the categories of researcher and research participant become less distinct; this leads to a coproduction of knowledge, discourse, and practice. However, the forms of engagement presented here maintain an insider-outsider dichotomy (as is appropriate to the research topics and contexts). In contrast, Jeffrey Juris’ militant anthropology moves the researcher into the position of an insider-activist that I found appropriate to working with anarcho-punk youth. Insider-Activist Ethnographic Research Militant anthropological research draws on activist engagement that involves collaboration and advocacy. However, it moves one step further insofar as the researcher is part of a radical political movement. Juris lived this kind of militant, insider-activist engagement in his research with the Movement for Global Resistance in Barcelona. Here, he strategized as a part of the movement: he participated in consensus decision-making and put his body on the line at mass actions (Juris, 2008). This kind of militant engagement both enhances Juris’ research, insofar as it provides affective detail, and mitigates potentially harmful representation, insofar as he is implicated in his representations. Additionally, Juris (2007, p. 172) conceives of his research as reciprocal as he is able to “provide tools for ongoing activist (self-)reflection and decision-making” (see also Day, 2005). With respect to empowerment, this engagement is that it is built on a nonhierarchical model. While there will inevitably be asymmetries of power, militant

115

FESSENDEN

ethnography helps mitigate such differentials. This methodological strategy is less focused on empowerment and moves toward co-empowerment. Both within and without the field research with anarcho-punk youth in Spain, I negotiated insider and outsider statuses as a participant and researcher. In navigating these positions, I found militant, insider-activist anthropology to have methodological and ethical advantages. My continued participation with FNB allows for respectful entry into activist milieus, enables methodological access to phenomenological data, and provides for ethical negotiation of research relationships. Concurrently, anthropological approaches and methods as well as my positionality as a researcher provide analytic distance. Methodologically and ethically, insider-activist ethnography can be a beneficial approach. Having had experience with FNB in California, I not only had direction on the kinds of relevant questions to ask but also some “activist cred” with which to enter these scenes that remain little or misunderstood from the outside. Additionally, I entered this milieu respectfully, having had numerous conversations and imagining research topics with participants themselves. Phenomenologically, as Juris (2008) notes, insider-activist ethnography provides the opportunity to experience the bodies of the multitude in protest situations or feelings such as solidarity or exhilaration. This is a key element of radical politics both in movement building and in the radicalization of protesters (Epstein, 1991; Fernandez, 2008; Graeber, 2009; Rethmann, 2006). Ethically, my researching relationship with FNB has been and continues to be as reciprocal as possible. In ongoing conversations, those I have worked with agree that there is value in documenting food procurement, preparation, and distribution especially with regard to making visible wasted, but still edible, food. In Barcelona, I balanced my previous activism with my researcher status and anthropological methods; this integration involved insider knowledge, ethical negotiation of research relationships (including appropriate institutional ethics approval), and analytic distance. Since I had not been a participant with FNB Barcelona, I introduced myself to other participants along with my project proposal. Therefore, I was known first as Sarah-the-researcher. Additionally, I took out my notepad from time to time to remind participants that I was recording activities. Since I did not reside in Barcelona, I conducted analysis and write-up without regular, embedded interaction. Additionally, ethnographic methods contribute to effective analyses. These include, though are not limited to, theoretically informed research objectives, non-random sampling, long-term participant observation, interviewing, extensive field note taking, social network analysis, and coding of field notes. Balanced with these techniques, insider-activist anthropology can have potential in accessing and understanding youth while addressing power differentials. Towards Co-Empowerment Above all, the Food Not Bombs experience is an opportunity for selfempowerment. (McHenry, 2012, p. 33) 116

THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS

The kind of empowerment in which I was involved was a co/self-empowerment; this empowerment is more of an awakening to potential rather than something given from outside. In writing about the power of consensus, one of the founders of FNB says, “People become empowered when encouraged to participate and take more responsibility for the decisions and actions of the group” (McHenry, 2012, p. 23). Through consensus, participants take (collective) ownership of the activist project. Through cooking together, participants assert their (and others’) right to food. Through non-violent (i.e. vegan and vegetarian) eating and non-violent protest, participants advocate for life. In my research with anarcho-punk squatters in Barcelona, I discovered that a strategy of empowerment would be out-of-place. Additionally, I had far more to learn from the praxis of such youth than I had to offer them. While I am privileged as a North American researcher and while those with whom I work may be relatively marginalized due to their immigration and housing statuses, I suggest that this is ultimately a false dichotomy. Many of us came from similar working and middle class backgrounds in North America and Europe and we all chose to move into activism at some stage in our youth. However, in entering academia I chose to pursue more theory than practice while these anarcho-punks chose to pursue more practice than theory (if we conceive of activism on a spectrum with theory and practice on either end). I did not empower anarcho-punk squatters because to offer assistance would undermine their chosen way of life and to suggest that I might empower them would be inappropriate, even insulting. Co-empowerment is a more apt characterization of the goal of insider-activist ethnography. As I entered into the everydayness of radical praxis, I situated myself as a researcher and participant. Today, sitting in a room in Vancouver that is over 5,000 miles and a nine-hour time difference from Barcelona, I still consider myself an insider-activist ethnographer, though my participation has shifted from engaging in praxis as it happens in Barcelona to disseminating information to other publics. In Barcelona, I would wander through the city, gathering food from dumpsters. I cooked in squats, shoulder-to-shoulder in front of a hot, propane-fueled stove on top of which would sit a large pot of seitan, stew, or veggie pasta. I ate in public spaces, sitting on the concrete steps outside of Sants Estacio or on the dirt in the park in front of the monumental Sagrada Familia. I witnessed these events as they unfolded with and in front of me. The space-time distance from this FNB chapter and these anarcho-punk youth is great; however, this distance is mitigated in part inasmuch as I have continued participate with FNB wherever I have lived. My participation with FNB Barcelona now involves re-presenting this group to other publics, deconstructing the persistent reductive tropes that demonize radical politics (namely those with anarchist labels and countercultural flair). Radical anthropologist David Graeber (2009, p. 533) states, “The one way that the structures of domination really do make the [radical, anarchist, autonomous] project difficult is precisely in the realm of the imagination: above all, in the chokehold of the mainstream media”. Both in and outside Barcelona, I continue to be part of the theory and practice of a project toward autonomy. Therefore, insideractivist ethnography does not end in “the field” but endures “at home”, helping to 117

FESSENDEN

further deconstruct such dichotomies. This kind of engaged togetherness both in the field and at home allows for a kind of reciprocal participation that is more like co-empowerment; our praxis, while not the same, is acted out together. CONCLUSION

Discourses surrounding empowerment can too easily be based on dominant political-economic ideologies and naturalized socio-cultural forms such as state capitalism and patriarchal hierarchies. In contrast, collaborative and participatory models realized through critical, engaged ethnographic research can mitigate some of these reductive assessments of disempowerment. Drawing on relativism as an epistemological and methodological approach, critically engaged anthropologists affirm an analytic framework that incorporates the perspectives of others. The same anarcho-punks that may be identified as “dysfunctional” through the ideology of capitalist production may be understood as creatively productive through a relativistic lens that takes into account emic perspectives. As an insider-activist ethnographer, I sympathize with radical political activist youth through engagement in everyday praxis. Drawing on the logic of direct action, anarcho-punk squatters with FNB Barcelona who “dumpster dive”, cook in squats, and serve food in public spaces. I know what it is like to be looked at in disgust while on the street, helping Luther Blissett into a dumpster or eating with a dozen or more anarcho-punks in a public space. I have been and continue to be a participant in this broader anti-war, anti-corporate capitalism movement in the United States, Spain, and Canada. Engaging with other participants over a long period of time I continue to negotiate insider-activist-researcher positionalities. As a complement to outsider researchers prevalent in the social movement literature, insider-activist ethnography involves theoretical and practical participation in radical politics. Even though it is limited in certain contexts, insider-activist ethnography provides an ethical approach that offers a possibility of giving back through documentation of perceived injustices (e.g. food wasted) and representations of these anarcho-punk youth in ways that address reductive tropes and demonstrate the creative productivity of radical activists in the “hidden transcripts” of everyday life as well as in protest situations. The togetherness through space and time of this project seems to be more akin to co-empowerment than empowerment. NOTES 1

2

The UN suggests that the category of youth include people up to 24 years of age. While this project did not originally aim to look at the lives of youth in particular, it was found that this group of squatters was largely made up of older youth. The anarcho-punk youth I met were between 18 and 27 years at the time of my project. Those I interviewed who were over 24 shared with me their life stories that included how they came to live on streets and in squats. Therefore, they are methodologically and analytically relevant for this paper. I am using the word “participatory” to refer to conscious negotiation of research with research participants. This is distinct from “participatory action research” which is a distinct engaged method.

118

THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS 3

4

5

6 7

Spivak (1994[1988]) notably drew attention to the ethical, epistemological, and methodological difficulties of (western) researcher’s claims to hear then represent, speak for, and give voice to the subaltern. In this paper I do not address these important issues within (post)colonial situations. Instead, I focus on how disempowerment, marginalization, and voicelessness are ascribed. In this way, I am interested in how people negotiate agency in their everyday lives and how they might not be as disempowered, marginalized, or voiceless as sometimes presumed. While Day uses the term “anti-globalization” movement in his writing, I prefer “anti-corporate globalization” movement so as to distinguish corporate globalization from globalization in its myriad of forms (i.e. increasing connectivity vis-à-vis new technologies), many of which are useful to and supported by movement actors (i.e. use of social media). However, this term is also inadequate; some of the tools of movement-building (notably, social media) are corporate. There is significant debate surrounding the divisions between old, new, and “newest” social movements. However, for the purpose of this chapter, I focus on the broad description of the goals of revolution, reform, and autonomy rather than whether there are sharp distinctions between old, new, and “newest” social movements. Within the shell of the old is an anarchist saying. While there are ethical, epistemological, and methodological advantages to engagement (e.g. avoiding being complicit, co-production of theory and practice, reciprocity) there are also limitations to its efficacy. For example, Low and Merry (2010) point to the possibility of re-producing colonial relations (e.g. universalizing notions of “justice” and “human rights” can be all too similar to “civilizing” processes).

REFERENCES American Anthropological Association. (2009). Code of ethics of the American Anthropological Association. http://www.aaanet.org/profdev/ethics/ Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Day, R. J. F. (2004). From hegemony to affinity: The political logic of the newest social movements. Cultural Studies, 18(5), 716-748. de la Rocha, Z. (1999). The voice of the voiceless. Recorded by rage against the machine. On Battle of Los Angeles. Australia: Sony Music Entertainment. Debord, G. (2002 [1967]). The society of the spectacle. Canberra, UK: Hobgoblin Press. Deloria, V. (2007[1973]). Custer died for your sins. In A. Robben & J. Sluka (Eds.), Ethnographic fieldwork (pp. 183-190). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Dudley, E. (1993). The critical villager: Beyond community participation. New York, NY: Routlege. Epstein, B. (1991). Political protest and cultural revolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Fernandez, L. A. (2008). Policing dissent. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Fessenden, S. G. (2011). Recycled identities: Anarcho-punx, organization, style, and reciprocity in Barcelona, Spain. Thesis. California State University, Long Beach. Finkelstein, M. (2005). With no direction home: Homeless youth on the road and in the streets. Canada: Wadsworth. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25(26), 56-79. Glass, P. G. (2012). Doing scene: Identity, space, and the interactional accomplishment of youth culture. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 41(6), 695-716. Goode, J. (2010). How urban ethnography counters myths about the poor. In G. Gmelch, R. V. Kemper, & W. P. Zenner (Eds.), Urban life: Readings in the anthropology of the city (pp. 185-201). Long Grove: Waveland Press. Graeber, D. (2004). Fragments of an anarchist anthropology. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press.

119

FESSENDEN Graeber, D. (2009). Direct Action: An Ethnography. Edinburgh, Scotland: AK Press. Gwynne, M. A. (2003). Applied anthropology: A career-oriented approach. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. London, UK: Methuen and Co. Ltd. Johnston, B. R., & Barker, H. (2008). The Rongelap report: Consequential damages of nuclear war. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Johnston, B. R. (2010). Social responsibility and the anthropological citizen. Theme Issue, Current Anthropology, 51(2), 235-247. Juris, J. S. (2007). Practicing militant ethnography with the Movement for Global Resistance (MRG) in Barcelona. In S. Shukaitis & D. Graeber (Eds.), Constituent imagination: Militant investigation, collective theorization (pp. 164-176). Oakland, CA: AK Press. Juris, J. S. (2008). Performing politics: Image, embodiment, and affective solidarity during anticorporate globalization protests. Ethnography, 9(1), 61-97. Katsiaficas, G. (2006[1997]). The subversion of politics: European autonomous social movements and the decolonization of everyday life. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Katz, M. (1993). The “underclass” debate: Views from history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lassiter, L. E. (2005). Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology. Current Anthropology, 46(1), 83-106. Langman, L. (2008). Punk, porn and resistance: Carnivalization and the body in popular culture. Current Sociology, 56(4), 657-677. Lewis, O. (1959). Five families: Mexican case studies in the culture of poverty. New York, NY: Basic Books. Lewis, O. (1963). The culture of poverty. Society, 1(1), 17-19. Low, S. M., & Merry, S. E. (2010). Engaged anthropology: Diversity and dilemmas. Theme Issue, Current Anthropology, 51(2), 203-226. McDonald, R., & Shildrick, T. (2007). Street corner society: Leisure careers, youth (sub)culture and social exclusion. Leisure Studies, 26(3), 339-355. Mahmood, S. (2005). Agency, gender, and embodiment. In Mahmood, S. (Ed.), Politics of piety: The Islamic revival and the feminist subject (pp. 153-188). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Marcus, A. A. (2006). Where have all the homeless gone?: The making and unmaking of a crisis. New York, NY: Berghahn Books. McHenry, K. (2012). Hungry for peace: How you can help end poverty and war with Food Not Bombs. Tuscon, AZ: See Sharp Press Miller, D. (1997). Capitalism: An ethnographic approach. Washington, DC: Berg. Moynihan, D. P. (1965). Negro family: The case for national action. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Planning and Research, U.S. Department of Labor. Nash, J. (1992). Interpreting social movements: Bolivian resistance to economic conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund. American Ethnologist, 19(2), 275-293. Nash, J. (2007). Practicing ethnography in a globalizing world: An anthropological Odyssey. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Rethmann, P. (2006). On militancy, sort of. Cultural Critique, 62, 67-91. Robben, A. C. G. M., & Sluka, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). Ethnographic fieldwork: An anthropological reader (Vol. 9). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Roseberry, W. (1988). Political economy. Annual Review of Anthropology, 17(1), 161-185. Sachs, J. D. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Scheper-Hughes, N. (1995). The primacy of the ethical: Propositions for a militant ethnography. Current Anthropology, 36(3), 409-440. Scheper-Hughes, N. (2004). Parts unknown: Undercover ethnography of the organs-trafficking underworld. Ethnography, 5(1), 29-73.

120

THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Spivak, G. C. (1994[1988]). Can the subaltern speak? In P. William & L. Chrisman (Eds.), Colonial discourse and post-colonial theory: A reader (pp. 66-111). New York: Columbia University Press. Tax, S. (1975). Action anthropology. Current Anthropology, 16(4), 514-517. Vaneigem, R. (2012[1967]). The revolution of everyday life. London, England: Rebel Press. Von Braun, J., & Gatzweiler, F. W. (2014). Marginality – An overview and implications for policy. In J. von Braun & F. W. Gatzweiler (Eds.), Marginality: Addressing the nexus of poverty, exclusion and ecology (pp. 1-23). Netherlands: Springer. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Weis, L., & Fine, M. (1996). Narrating the 1980s and 1990s: Voices of poor and working-class white and African American men. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27(4), 493-516.

Sarah Grace Fessenden Department of Anthropology University of British Columbia, Canada

121

SECTION II CASE STUDIES OF YOUTH AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND ACTIVISM

Photo credit Sarah Grace Fessenden

AMRITA ROY & RUPAYAN ROY

7. BENGALI YOUTH SPEAK OUT FOR CHANGE Knowledge and Empowerment of Youth in West Bengal, India

INTRODUCTION

Many have mused that India is a land of contradictions – where the very rich live next to the very poor; where hundreds of cultural groups coexist in the world’s largest democracy; and where the social conservatism of traditional ways constantly clashes with globalization-fueled westernization. The latter particularly creates challenges for the country’s youth, who are constantly navigating these clashing cultural mores. These challenges are amplified given the emphasis in traditional Indian society on age-based hierarchy; adherence to the notion that “elders are always wiser” means that youth are rarely given a voice, even in decisions concerning them directly. This lack of youth empowerment is further exacerbated when there is intersection with other axes of power, such as gender, class, caste and sexual orientation. A lack of easy access to accurate, objective information on topics such as health, wellness, human rights and social justice further impedes youth empowerment. We, the chapter authors, are Canadian-born siblings of Indian (Bengali) heritage. In 2006, when we were both undergraduate students in Canada, we received a travel scholarship from our university for an independent summer research project in West Bengal, India. Since a young age, we have both engaged with social-justice issues in Canada; we were thus curious about these issues in our ancestral land. Accordingly, we used this opportunity to learn about the experiences of young people in Kolkata1 and the neighboring Hooghly and Howrah districts of West Bengal. We had the following research questions: 1. Among youth, what is the level and nature of access to knowledge and resources concerning human rights, social justice, and public health issues, as well as youth empowerment? 2. To what extent are opportunities for the above prioritized in school and community policies? 3. What are youth’s current attitudes and beliefs on these issues? A highly diverse country of over a billion people, India offers a complex landscape for public policy. India has had laws in place for several decades promoting equality, justice and progress on a variety of health and human-rights issues. Challenges with enforcement and access, combined with public resistance and/or apathy, have made the objectives of progressive laws difficult to achieve. West S. Bastien & H.B. Holmarsdottir (eds.), Youth ‘At the Margins’, 125–151. © 2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

ROY & ROY

Bengal is a state in eastern India. Historically the site of the Bengali Renaissance and home to numerous intellectuals,2 it is often characterized as among the more progressive regions of India. With a leftist state government in power for over three decades (until 2011), it can boast of comparative progress along various socioeconomic and population-health indicators relative to other regions of India (UNICEF India, 2011). However, public complacency stemming from West Bengal’s comparative progress may have exacerbated the challenge of public apathy. Moreover, government and NGO efforts have largely focused on correlates of poverty, such as malnutrition, sanitation, and rural health and education. These areas are undoubtedly important. However, there is a paucity of initiatives to address the structural and systemic drivers of such problems, including societal norms which perpetuate inequities. Across eras and countries, youth have been instrumental in advocating for social change and challenging societal norms. This chapter summarizes and reflects on the results of our mixed-method research project, which included survey questionnaires, personal interviews and focus groups, as well as observation of media messaging during our stay. We begin by describing the societal context in which youth find themselves in West Bengal, based on background literature and on our interviews with school and public officials; this context is largely defined by societal norms, and by policies and practices implemented by adults. Next, we share the voices of the youth themselves, through their responses to survey and focus-group questions.3 The chapter concludes with reflections on the potential for future Participatory Action Research with Bengali youth. OUR RESEARCH

We visited high schools and colleges4 to interview students, seeking permission first from the administration of each educational institution. We also interviewed educators at the institutions, and a public official involved in municipal and state politics.5 We additionally noted media content during the period of our trip.6 Because we could not readily locate any preexisting instruments (survey questionnaires or qualitative interview guides), we designed our own.7 Questionnaires and interview guides were fully bilingual (Bengali and English8), offering participants their choice of language. Two survey questionnaires were designed for youth. One questionnaire asked about sources of information on human rights, social justice, public health, and youth empowerment. The second questionnaire, concerning knowledge and beliefs pertaining to such issues, presented students with statements to which they had to indicate level of agreement. Questionnaires were anonymous; respondents circled only which age group, sex and religion applied to them. We interacted with 298 students in their teens and twenties, from five high schools and six colleges. Following completion of the questionnaires, the students participated in focusgroup discussions. Students were asked about their sources of information for these issues, and how satisfied they were with information received, particularly on issues such as sexuality and drugs. They were asked for their thoughts on issues 126

BENGALI YOUTH SPEAK OUT FOR CHANGE

like the dowry practice and sexual assault. Finally, students were asked about youth empowerment and opportunities for community involvement. We also conducted personal interviews with educators (four high-school headmasters and headmistresses, one high-school teacher, one college principal9 and four college professors). Educators were presented with a list of health and human-rights issues, and were asked what resources or information sources existed for students at their institution. They were also presented with a number of hypothetical situations involving students or staff facing difficult health or humanrights challenges, and asked how the issues would be addressed by their institution. Finally, they were asked about opportunities for students at their institution to engage in extra-curricular activities. The interview with the public official similarly involved showing him a list of issues as a reference point for discussions about government policies and resources. SOCIETAL CONTEXT FOR YOUTH IN WEST BENGAL

The health promotion function of public health is the process of “enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health”, using strategies of building health-promoting public policy across sectors; creating physical and social environments that support health; strengthening community action to facilitate empowerment for health; developing personal skills for healthy living; and reorienting health services to include a focus on prevention (WHO, 1986). Healthpromotion work converges with human-rights work through a shared focus on social determinants of health (which include socioeconomic and sociocultural factors, as well as physical and social environments) (CSDH, 2008) and associated structural and systemic factors. Figure 1 situates key research conclusions within the health-promotion framework. Social exclusion refers to inequitable access to power and resources as a result of non-dominance along one or more social hierarchies (Galabuzi & Labonte, 2003; World Bank, 2013). Social inclusion is defined by the World Bank (2013) as “the process of improving the terms for individuals and groups to take part in society [and] the process of improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of people, disadvantaged on the basis of their identity, to take part in society” (pp. 34). Social inclusion is thus key to health promotion. Indian society is guided by strong cultural protocols that mandate automatic deference to elders; these yield age-based power hierarchies and the corresponding exclusion of youth voices. Young people who fall into non-dominant groups along other social hierarchies face heightened oppression; for example, age-based marginalization intersects with gender-based marginalization to give female youth even less of a voice than their male counterparts. In focusing on youth, we were particularly curious whether youth in West Bengal accepted or challenged the ideas of their elders.

127

ROY & ROY

‐

HEALTHY PUBLIC POLICY effective implementation and enforcement of laws and policies for human rights and public health

Bengali youth speak out for change!

REORIENTING HEALTH SERVICES addressing upstream (structural, systemic) determinants of social and health problems

CREATING SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS abolishing social exclusion (by age, gender, class, caste, sexual orientation, physical and mental health status, etc.) abolishing harmful societal norms media messaging stigma-free social environments open communication with adult support figures (parents, teachers, etc.) easy access to resources

‐ ‐ ‐

PERSONAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT easy access to accurate, objective information easy access to resources youth empowerment through capacitybuilding

STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY ACTION ‐ formal opportunities for youth community involvement ‐ youth empowerment through capacity-building

Figure 1. Key research conclusions, presented using the health-promotion framework

Teacher-Student Relationships In our interviews, educators described the challenges in engaging with youth given the distant nature of teacher-student relationships in Indian society. As one headmaster explained, “the teacher-student relationship here is not based on friendship, so it is challenging for us to have open conversations on sensitive topics”. The theme of embarrassment came up frequently. However, it was also apparent from the interviews that, outside of family members, teachers may be among the only sources of support readily available to students. At all but one of the educational institutions we visited, there were no trained nurses, counsellors or social workers present. (At one college, a professor with training in psychology was formally designated as a counsellor; however, she herself admitted that few students reached out to her.) The lack of trained nurses or social workers on-site 128

BENGALI YOUTH SPEAK OUT FOR CHANGE

meant that educators were faced with addressing student-wellbeing issues. In the interviews, we asked educators how they would deal with various hypothetical scenarios involving students or other staff – including revelations of family violence, sexual assault or harassment, discrimination, physical and mental-health problems, unplanned pregnancies among unmarried female students or teachers, and non-heterosexual orientations among students or staff. Participants noted repeatedly that most of these issues had never been reported within their school. While some felt it was because such issues did not occur, others acknowledged that it was because help was not being sought. As one headmistress explained, “these things stay carefully hidden in our society”. Sexual Orientation There is evidence that homosexuality was viewed positively in ancient India (Agoramoorthy & Hsu, 2007). Presently, however, homosexuality is a criminal offense under the Indian penal code, in a Victorian-era law introduced during British rule.10 Homophobia is widespread in Indian society (Agoramoorthy & Hsu, 2007). In our interviews, we asked educators how they would react if a homosexual student or staff member were to approach them for help in dealing with discrimination. The participants all responded that they would encourage the individual to refrain from their “alternative” orientation. Multiple participants expressed that this advice was in the best interest of such a person, given both the illegality and the social unacceptability of homosexuality in Indian society: On the one hand, students hear in the media that homosexuality isn’t wrong. However, our society still hasn’t reached the point of accepting it. Therefore, in the scenario you described, we would warn them to move away from that path. (Headmistress at a high school) The public official we interviewed told us that there were no government initiatives to his knowledge supporting homosexual people: “There is no discussion on this issue. It is not something that is viewed kindly”. Gender and Violence Patriarchy and gender norms. While it is now common for middle- and upperclass females to pursue education and careers, patriarchy remains deeply entrenched. There is evidence that in ancient India, women enjoyed equal status to men. Patriarchy entered Indian society in the post-Vedic era (Ray, 2006), evolving in nature throughout history. British colonial rule introduced Victorian gender norms into institutions, including the penal code (Chitnis & Wright, 2007). In present-day India, the influence of western media via globalization has led to overt sexual objectification of women in media and advertising11 – which occurs even while centuries-old patriarchal traditions still flourish. This convergence of “puritanical” and “modern” forms of patriarchy underscores the oppression of 129

ROY & ROY

women. Furthermore, with little open discussion about healthy sexuality, consent in sexual activity, and sexual assault, this two-pronged patriarchy contributes to an environment where sexual violence can flourish. Dowry practice. The dowry practice12 has been illegal since 1961; however, it widely persists. Interviewees (adults and youth) described how the dowry practice is engrained in society. They explained that a female’s marital prospects are highly dependent on her dowry sum, especially if she is not deemed physically attractive. The dowry practice can become a huge financial burden on families with daughters. A plentiful dowry is a question of honor and fulfillment of parental duty, and a major factor in a female’s happiness at the hands of her in-laws after marriage; interviewees explained that the bride’s parents may preemptively offer a dowry even without prompting from the groom’s parents, as a way to ensure her good treatment. Verbal abuse of daughters-in-law who do not bring in sufficient dowry is commonplace. In more extreme cases, there is physical violence and even murder (UNICEF, 2000). As explained by the public official: The dowry practice is illegal. It is a social problem, not a legal one. Everyone accepts it as normal. It is not seen as illegal or unethical. No one complains to the law that a dowry is being taken. Only when dowry issues cause problems after the marriage – when the bride is abused, or banished, or even killed – are the laws invoked. (Public official) Family violence. A woman experiencing domestic violence at the hands of her husband and/or in-laws is often trapped in her circumstances. Among other challenges to leaving, there is considerable shame in Indian society around ending one’s marriage, particularly for women. From the public official, we learned that family violence in villages is dealt with primarily by the Panchayat – the local elected village government. The Panchayat’s approach is informal mediation to smooth husband-wife relations. Laws to protect women and children exist and are (according to the public official) strictly applied if police become involved (including jail time for abusers); however, the Panchayat discourages victims from going to the police, so as to keep the family unified. The public official also suggested that domestic violence was “less serious” than rape, which the Panchayat would leave to the police. The prioritization of family unity over escape from mistreatment, and the trivialization of wife abuse, were common themes in TV dramas aired during our stay. In our interviews with educators, we asked how they would address a student facing domestic violence. One headmaster said he would call up the parents and berate them for creating an environment where the student could not succeed academically. One headmistress suggested she would seek advice from NGOs. When asked about child sexual abuse, one headmaster expressed disbelief that family members could commit such behavior, suggesting it simply did not happen. Other educators acknowledged its occurrence, but struggled with an effective solution.

130

BENGALI YOUTH SPEAK OUT FOR CHANGE

Sexual assault and harassment. The issue of sexual assault in India received international attention following the 2012 Delhi bus rape (BBC News India, 2012). During our 2006 research, interviewees (adults and youth alike) spoke at length about sexual assault and sexual harassment in their society. Sexual assault is common yet grossly underreported. Because of the high value placed in Indian society on female sexual purity, a victim of rape may be seen as “damaged goods”. Victims may also be blamed for the assault. Moreover, the process involved in bringing assailants to trial is long and complex, further inhibiting reporting (WGHR, 2012). Marital rape is not recognized in the Indian penal code (Rath, 2007). Sexual harassment is also commonplace in India, with little practical recourse for victims (WGHR, 2012). Educators gave varied responses to our question about how they would handle a student reporting sexual assault or harassment. Some suggested it would be best handled by helping the victim to forget the event by minimizing its significance, and encouraging all parties to keep the matter quiet, given the social ramifications for female victims. Others suggested they would go to police and/or NGOs. Multiple educators proposed to interview both the alleged victim and perpetrator and ascertain the truth, reflecting an automatic suspicion about the victims’ claims. Educators indicated that no one had ever come forward with a rape allegation at their institution. Some felt it was because of stigma, such that victims stay silent. As one female college professor stated: “It takes a lot of courage to go to the police. Most victims keep it to themselves. They simply live with the pain”. Date rape was cited by another female college professor as particularly challenging: “Girls here can’t assert that exploring their sexuality does not give boys the right to rape them. Any type of physical relationship makes her a ‘bad girl’”. Others felt that rape simply was not a problem in their segment of society, including one male professor who felt that sexual assault was a consequence of affluence, and thus simply did not occur among the middle-class students attending his college. Sexuality and Sexual Health Open discussion of sexuality is largely taboo in Indian society, due partially to Victorian-era mores injected into society during British rule. Today, conservative attitudes towards sexuality are constructed as central to Indian cultural identity (Chakravarti, 2008). By the time of our 2006 trip, India had attained the largest number of people in the world living with HIV/AIDS, with a growing proportion among heterosexual women – including those infected by husbands who had acquired the disease through paid sex (UNAIDS, 2005; UNAIDS, 2006). In convergence with the 2004 World AIDS Day focus on women and girls, the West Bengal State AIDS Prevention and Control Society launched a media awareness campaign, targeting women, in December 2004. The campaign’s mascot, a ragdoll named Bula-di,13 conveyed messages about safer sex and sexual health, offering a toll-free number for more information. The campaign, which ended in 2007, was in progress during our research. Analyses suggest the campaign succeeded in increasing familiarity 131

ROY & ROY

among the general population with AIDS and the importance of condom use (NACO, n.d.(a); Sengupta, 2008). However, Sengupta (2008) has argued that the Bula-di campaign reinforced gender stereotypes in its approach, and failed to address the structural and systemic reasons – including gender-based violence – behind women’s heightened vulnerability to HIV/AIDS. Moreover, many of the students we interviewed reported that they had repeatedly attempted to dial the tollfree number, but that no one ever answered the phone. One high-school student exclaimed: “We all doubt that an office really exists – at least, not on this planet!” Sex education in schools. With the rising AIDS epidemic, and with research suggesting that unsafe sexual practices among adolescents were a growing problem (NACO, n.d.(b)), there was mounting pressure to address the lack of sex education in schools in India. In 2005, the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, in collaboration with the National AIDS Control Organization, introduced the “Adolescence Education Programme” for implementation in high schools across India (NACO, n.d.(b)). It was met with widespread outrage, with several state governments in India refusing to participate (Chakravarti, 2008). West Bengal’s state government, however, agreed to implement it, in a program called Jeebon Shoili Shikhya (Lifestyle Education) designed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. A manual for teachers was published in 2005, and schools began implementing the program in 2006. The program was introduced in schools as an extra-curricular session run by teachers, outside the formal curriculum.14 Our 2006 research coincided with the early phases of implementation of Lifestyle Education. High-school educators spoke with us at length about the challenges they were facing, including negative reactions of community members, parents and teachers: Many reacted very negatively to the idea of sex education. Opponents argued that sex education would actually encourage kids to have sex. That’s why we designed it as “Lifestyle Education” – sex education using another name. (Public official, also high-school teacher) Teachers at our school have been debating for months about how to implement this program. That’s why it has taken us this long to start the program. We were particularly concerned because we have some female teachers at the school – how would this program impact the student-teacher relationships? There is a lot of embarrassment around this topic. (Headmaster at a boys-only high school) In probing what content was covered in Lifestyle Education, we learned that there was very little information offered about sexuality and sexual health. Main topics included personal hygiene, diet, moral values, and relationships with others (including parents, teachers, friends, and people of the opposite sex). Physical and mental changes associated with puberty were included, as was a basic explanation about conception. While told that sexual intimacy with the opposite sex was a normal part of life, students were advised to postpone such intimacy until they 132

BENGALI YOUTH SPEAK OUT FOR CHANGE

were established in their careers and properly married. Birth control and use of protection were not mentioned at all, and content about sexually transmitted infections was limited to a superficial introduction to AIDS. AIDS had spurred the program’s creation; however, condom use did not appear to be included in the content, despite being key to AIDS prevention. When asked why so little was included in what was supposed to be a sex-education program, educators again referenced opposition to open discussions about sex with youth: The social environment here is not amenable to discussing such things openly in the classroom. We tell the students the minimum, for basic awareness. The goal is just to reassure them that the changes they are undergoing during puberty are normal. (Headmistress at a girls-only high school) Because of all the protests, we opted for this particular form – Lifestyle Education – to implement the program. Perhaps in future we can teach sex education in a more formal, open way – but not yet. (Public official, also high-school teacher) Part of the opposition was due to the perception that too much information could harm students: We consulted parents. They said “Okay, since the government wants it taught, it has to be done”. However, parents and teachers agreed that it needs to be done very gradually, and information needs to be limited. There is concern around the harms that can come out of learning about sex at such a young age. (Headmaster at a high school) Everyone was worried that this program would be harmful. We have not yet seen any evidence of harm. However, we still need to be careful in the approach. (Headmaster at a high school) We also learned that, despite a formal training manual and training workshops for teachers provided by the state school board, the actual content delivered varied widely between schools, and also between teachers. All of the schools we visited disregarded guidelines to start the program in grade 6, as they felt that was too young. Furthermore, Lifestyle Education was not part of the formal curriculum; the classes were treated as special sessions, often scheduled outside of normal school hours. There were no tests or evaluation to assess comprehension, although one high school asked their students to make presentations on its topics. No textbook or reference materials were given to students; they simply listened to the teacher’s delivery of the content. The college professors with whom we spoke had similar reservations about giving information to students – even if they acknowledged that casual and/or premarital sexual activity was likely occurring among college students. They did not feel that open discussions about sexuality could be done in Indian colleges. One professor, citing vandalism of condom-vending machines in Kolkata’s redlight district, similarly argued that condom distribution in college clinics would be impossible. Another professor denied that the predominantly middle-class students 133

ROY & ROY

at his town college would have any need or want for information or resources about sex; he strongly asserted that premarital sex was a phenomenon restricted to affluent segments of society and city colleges, where “family values” were lost. Smoking, Alcohol, and Illicit Drugs The educators we interviewed told us that there was no drug education offered to students. As with sex education, there was concern that teaching students about drugs might encourage experimentation. Some felt that students heard about the harms of substance use from elsewhere already, such that further education would be superfluous. Educators stated that when they caught students using substances, they immediately called the parents, with the hope that parents would end the substance use. All participants suggested that adolescent substance use was not a concern with females, though it could be with males – particularly cigarettesmoking, which one college professor said boys considered to be “fashionable”. One headmaster at a boys-only high school suggested that substance use among adolescent boys was a growing problem. He attributed the increase to higher rates of divorce and “American-style” family values, which he argued damaged youth and led them to turn to drugs; this view was echoed by two college professors, who framed substance use as an upper-class problem. Overall, the prevailing view among educators was that, beyond alerting parents when a pupil was caught using substances, schools could do little. Physical and Mental Health Prevalent misconceptions and stereotypes regarding mental illness, physical-health problems and disabilities contribute to stigma in society, as we noted during our research. Regarding disabilities, the public official and the educators interviewed all cited affirmative-action policies in employment and education for individuals with disabilities, as well as initiatives to reduce barriers (e.g., wheelchair ramps, or special-education support). However stigma and barriers remain for those with physical and mental disabilities (WGHR, 2012). For example, in a culture where arranged marriages remain the norm, an individual with a disability or significant health condition is unlikely to be considered a desirable match; this was a theme in a TV drama show aired during our stay, in which a visually-impaired female character was actively discouraged from falling in love. We detected several troubling misconceptions regarding mental illness during our research. One TV drama that aired during our stay attributed domestic violence to schizophrenia. A college professor we interviewed insisted that homosexuality was a mental illness caused by dominating parents. Another college professor was adamant that mental illnesses such as depression and schizophrenia were “upperclass diseases, caused by affluence” through a loss of family values.

134

BENGALI YOUTH SPEAK OUT FOR CHANGE

Resources on Health and Human-Rights Issues From our interviews, we ascertained that government policies and NGO resources exist; however, accessibility could be extremely challenging, particularly for youth. The educators said that they invited NGOs to do awareness workshops periodically in their educational institutions. There were no resources on-site within the institutions, however (e.g., no resource offices with information pamphlets or books, and no nurses or social workers). Educators were also not given any training on these issues; they acted according to their own personal knowledge and values if faced with concerns from students or staff. In our interviews, the lack of resources was attributed in part to public apathy: There are so many other problems to think about that no one cares about these issues until they are directly affected. It is seen as the victim’s problem, no one else’s. No one thinks about the fact that they might also become victims. That is a problem. But with so many other problems in place, you can’t really blame people for not caring. (Male college professor) In addition to a lack of resources, there is also a lack of willingness to talk openly about these issues; the latter aggravates the former, making advocacy difficult. Indeed, one male college professor predicted that our research would fail, because youth would not be willing to talk to us due to the “veil of secrecy that is maintained”. This silence was not always deemed problematic, however. Another professor predicted that upper-class city college students might speak openly with us, but that middle-class town college students would not. He did not think the latter’s silence was a problem, because he felt it was an indication of strong family values. As is apparent from the next section, the youth we interviewed were very willing to speak openly with us. Moreover, we saw no dramatic differences between the views of youth in town versus city institutions.15 However, this professor’s judgmental comments about “family values” highlight the intense stigma that exists, which may hinder resource-seeking. Indeed, at the sole college (of those we visited) which had a formal counsellor in place, the service was hardly used and not well-known among students. The principal explained to us that they keep it “low key”, because “going to a counsellor is not a popular thing for a student to do”. Focus on individual and parental responsibility. We found, both in interviews and through general observations of societal norms, that there is an overwhelming focus placed on individual and family responsibility for wellness. While structural issues such as societal attitudes, oppression through social hierarchies, and lack of accessible services were acknowledged by interviewees, there was an overwhelming belief that such issues were intractable and incorrigible. Accordingly, individual-level action was expected. The focus on individual responsibility means there may be limited sympathy for those who struggle. In describing pay-equality laws, the public official framed the issue as women not being assertive enough, rather than as society not valuing the 135

ROY & ROY

contributions of women: “Women are weak-minded, scared to assert their dues”. There may also be limited patience for prolonged healing from traumatic events. Multiple educators expressed a belief in minimizing the significance of trauma to help affected students forget such events quickly. The college professor who was also a counsellor stated: “It is very unfortunate, but past trauma cannot remain an excuse for a student’s poor performance”. In some cases, a focus on individual responsibility can spur individual empowerment. A female college professor told us about a female student who was being abused by her in-laws. The professor, whom the student had approached for advice, encouraged the student to complete her education, find a job to gain financial independence, and boldly move out of her in-laws’ home. The student followed the advice and was now happy. As the professor explained, “When faced with a predatory tiger, one cannot bow one’s head and pray not to be eaten. One must act to protect oneself”. In other cases, however, the focus on individual responsibility leads to victimblaming, particularly around sexual violence. As we heard repeatedly in our interviews, girls and women are expected to protect themselves by avoiding provocative dress or actions (to avoid sexually arousing men), and staying home after dark (to avoid lurking rapists). The actions of rape victims are often scrutinized, and they may be blamed for “putting themselves at risk”. In the highprofile 2012 Delhi bus rape, some openly questioned why the victim and her male friend were out at night (Huffington Post, 2013; Mail Online, 2014). Another highprofile case that invited victim-blaming occurred soon after our arrival in West Bengal in July 2006, allowing us to observe its media coverage: the murder of Tanya Banerjee, a young Bengali woman working at a call center, by her boyfriend. Occurring just months after the rape and murder of another female callcenter agent, Banerjee’s murder initially renewed criticism of females who “endangered themselves” by pursuing night-time employment. The victim-blaming dialogue shifted focus following revelations of Banerjee’s alleged sexual promiscuity; these revelations triggered sensationalist reporting and preaching to parents of daughters to “raise their girls properly” to ensure their safety (Deccan Herald, 2006; Mangalorean.com, 2006; The Economic Times, 2006; The Telegraph, 2006; The Times of India, 2006). In the case of youth, the expectation is that parents are responsible for their wellbeing; accordingly, educators reported that they reacted to student concerns by simply contacting parents, with the full expectation that parents could and would address the issues. Multiple officials asserted that the above was a reasonable expectation in Indian society, which emphasizes “family values”. However, this expectation ignores the limited capacity of parents to address complex health and social issues with little access to support and resources; moreover, it complicates addressing scenarios like family violence.

136

BENGALI YOUTH SPEAK OUT FOR CHANGE

Youth Community Involvement Extra-curricular activities and student volunteerism are not emphasized in Indian educational systems to the same extent as in North America; in India, academic performance is generally the sole criterion for educational and career advancement. Accordingly, formal opportunities16 for youth are limited relative to North America. Some extra-curricular activities existed in educational institutions we visited, such as sports, music, school magazines, science clubs, and environmental organizations (“eco clubs”). However, extra-curricular activities on human-rights and health issues appeared minimal. When we asked educators whether they would support students in such initiatives if students approached them with the desire to run such an activity, all said yes. However, most followed up by expressing doubts that students would ever do so; they suggested that most students lacked the awareness, courage and/or interest to take a stand on these issues. The latter argument contrasts sharply with the views of youth, reported below. VOICES OF BENGALI YOUTH

Tables 1 and 2 summarize some of the key results from the beliefs and sources questionnaires respectively. Table 1 points to several gaps in knowledge among youth. The age-based and sex-based differences highlighted in Table 1 may reflect stricter messaging around societal norms to teens and females, relative to older youth and males. Table 2 points to the dissatisfaction of youth with their sources of information, and their reliance on media for information. These issues also emerged in the focus-group discussions, as reported below. Access to Information and Resources Nearly all youth reported that they could not discuss sensitive issues like sexuality with their parents: I think parents should speak openly with us about these issues, but that doesn’t happen in our society. It isn’t socially acceptable. (Female college student) We would be willing to talk if our parents were willing. But who will start the conversation? We can’t, and our parents won’t. (Male high-school student) Youth relied instead on information from media and peers. They recognized, however, that such information might not be accurate: If someone who has spent their life locked in a dark room is told things, they will believe those things – because they won’t know any better. That’s the situation we are in. We learn what we can, from where we can, but we can’t know whether it’s actually correct. (Male college student)

137

ROY & ROY

Table 1. Select results from the beliefs survey (n=198*) Topic

Gender roles and expectations

Respect and social hierarchies

Sexual assault and sexual harassment

Key results 96 percent disagreed with the dowry practice Participants were asked to rank importance of characteristics for males and for females. Characteristics which participants ranked to be of similar importance for males and females were personality, general intelligence and academic ability. Characteristics which participants ranked to be of higher importance for females than for males were physical attractiveness, talent in the arts, fertility and the ability to manage a household. Characteristics which participants ranked to be of higher importance for males than for females were talent in sports and the ability to pursue a career earning sufficient salary. 40 percent agreed it was okay for girls to do unhealthy things to enhance their beauty, so long as the things were temporary in nature (example given was not eating properly to maintain proper figure). 77 percent disagreed with the statement that husbands are figures of authority and that wives should follow all traditional guidelines to show respect; 21 percent agreed and 2 percent were unsure or did not respond. 69 percent disagreed with the idea that only elders deserve respect because they are always wiser; 27 percent agreed and another 3 percent were unsure. 45 percent of respondents correctly identified that most cases of sexual assault are perpetrated by someone the victim knows 73 percent of respondents felt that rape was not possible in marriage because sex is a marital duty. 90 percent disagreed with the idea that rape renders a woman “impure”; however, 85 percent felt that a provocatively dressed woman who is sexually assaulted or

138

Statistically significant difference by age or sex**

By age group: youngest group (14-17 years) were more likely to agree By age group: youngest group (14-17 years) were more likely to agree By age group: youngest group (14-17 years) were more likely to agree

By age group: youngest group (14-17 years) were more likely to agree

BENGALI YOUTH SPEAK OUT FOR CHANGE

Domestic violence

Intimate relationships

Sexual health and STIs

Homosexuality

Youth empowerment

harassed is partially to blame for her experience. 71 percent agreed with the statement that men could be victims of sexual assault, sexual harassment or domestic violence. 75 percent disagreed that a wife must be beaten before she can be said to be abused; 16 percent agreed and 6 percent were unsure. 73 percent agreed with the idea that open communication about sex was important for a couple’s happiness; 15 percent indicated they hadn’t thought of the issue before. 70 percent agreed that they would be willing to marry someone of a different caste or religion than them. 75 percent of respondents correctly indicated that AIDS could not be spread by air-borne particles, food or public toilets. 83 percent disagreed with the statement that AIDS patients should be completely isolated due to being a risk and/or unclean. Just under half (49 percent) disagreed with the statement that sexuality is sinful unless used for procreation; 23 percent agreed with the statement and 20 percent were unsure. While 45 percent recognized that the statement “a girl cannot get pregnant the first time she has sexual intercourse” was false, 22 percent felt the statement was true, and 28 percent were unsure. Only 18 percent of respondents indicated they felt homosexuality was normal. When asked whether homosexuality was a lifestyle choice or a biological fact for an individual, 20 percent said a lifestyle choice and 27 percent said a biological fact; 34 percent indicated they were unsure, and 20 percent left the question blank. When asked about the truth of the idea that homosexuals are more likely to be rapists or pedophiles relative to heterosexuals, 30 percent responded that the idea was false, 19 percent felt it was true, 32 percent were unsure, and 19 percent left the question blank. 80 percent of respondents said they offer some sort of challenge when they disagree

By sex: males more likely to disagree than females By sex: males more likely to agree than females

By sex: males more likely to indicate “normal” By sex: males more likely to indicate “biological fact” than females By sex: males more likely to indicate “false” than females

139

ROY & ROY

and community involvement

with something an elder says, does or believes, whereas 16 percent say they don’t challenge at all because it would be futile to do so. 62 percent disagreed with the idea that young people should only concentrate on schoolwork

* Of 289 total participants, a random subsample of 198 completed this questionnaire. Of the 198 respondents, 34 percent were male and 66 percent were female; 58 percent were 14-17 years old and 42 percent were 18 years or older; 88 percent were Hindu, 6 percent were Muslim, 1 percent were Christian and 5 percent left the religion question blank. ** Statistically significant difference defined as p