This
blog post will explore how YP as young researchers became empowered (or
otherwise), in the 2006 Barnardo’s project, entitled ‘Involving Young People in
Research’.
In
this project, Barnardo’s Policy and Research Unit (PRU) aimed to: recruit a
group of young people to be young researchers carry out a piece of research chosen by the young
people themselves, and to produce a research report to influence Barnardo’s
work. Moreover, this project aimed to foster partnership working between the
young people and researchers at the PRU (p.4).
Articles
12 and 13 of the UNCRC require that all children should be “informed, involved
and consulted about all activities that affect their lives”. Whilst there has
been a recent surge in including children and young people in research, much of
this research is “generally adult-led, adult-designed and conceived from an
adult perspective” (Kellet
et al., 2004: 329). This Barnardo’s project,
however, aimed to reverse this.
Just
as adults need formal research training, children and young people also need
formal research training to enable them to carry out the research (Kellet
et al., 2004: 332). If YP are provided with these
skills, there is no reason why they cannot conduct research themselves, albeit
with some guidance and partnership working with adult researchers.
In
this project, the YP themselves choose the topic of bullying, since they all
had experience of it (p.4). Giving YP the opportunity to choose their own topic
allowed them to research a topic which was important to them (and whose impact
may directly affect them), and not imposed on them by adults. Moreover, whilst
we, as adults are aware of bullying, would they have chosen this topic
otherwise? As various scholars have pointed out (for example, Coates and Coates
2006; Punch 2002), we are adults with an adult view of the world. Only children
can really know their own world. By
giving children this choice, they are being empowered. This may also help to
produce data and knowledge which may not have otherwise been produced.
On
reflecting on the process, the YP reported that their self -confidence had
improved, their social skills had improved, and they also saw new skills
created or existing skills improve considerably (p.13). Other case studies
involving children as young researchers have reported similar findings, for
example in Kellet et al’s study.
Finally,
in the Barnardo’s project, the authors reported that the impact of this
research was greater than it would otherwise have been (had adult researchers solely
conducted this research) since dissemination opportunities were raised (p.18). The
importance of this is drawn sharply into focus if we appreciate that YP
involved in the research wanted to ‘make a difference’ (p.14). Here, YP were
empowered to ‘make a difference’ to a matter which affected them, which they chose.
In
general, this project seemed to empower YP successfully and meaningfully. Here
the only glaring issue regarding empowerment is that whilst YP did ‘make a
difference’ in that their findings informed the Barnardo’s work, it could be
questioned how much this ‘made a difference’ on a wider scale, beyond the work
of Barnardo’s. There was perhaps room in this project for the Barnardo’s
research team to make clear what exactly ‘making a difference’ would involve
(although it is acknowledged that this may have taken place and simply is not
included in this report). Arguably, empowerment is undermined where YP are not
given quite enough information about what the impact of their research is, or will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment