ISCI Conference 2009
Young people designing their own
survey instrument-a consideration of
approaches, processes and pitfalls
Dr Mike Dee, Social Work and Human
Services, Faculty of Health, QUT
m.dee@qut.edu.au
CRICOS No. 00213J
Queensland University of Technology
What this brief presentation/paper is about…...
• My Doctoral thesis on Young People, Public Space and Citizenship;
• A survey of 1122 high school students in the greater Brisbane area;
• The survey instrument was designed by a group of young people
aged 14-19 to be administered to young people of the same age;
• The survey instrument was tested by a group of young people in
New Zealand before final revisions in Brisbane;
• Methodological matters are discussed more fully in the paper
partnering this presentation, but a mix of focus group work, a
questionnaire and a modified Grounded Theory approach to data
collection and analysis was taken;
• QUT Ethics approval was granted for the work here describednames of youth councils/forums have been changed;
• Education Queensland ethical clearance was also obtained.
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
The Process-in brief
• I worked closely with South City Youth Council• Took a draft survey document to North City Youth Forum,
New Zealand (I was going there anyway) but they had
been established as a result of a survey of young people
so this was relevant;
• Came back to South City for final approval, before taking
the survey to 1122 high school students;
• Most high schools didn’t ever reply to repeated requests,
so 7 schools took part-they self selected.
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
Summary of fieldwork sessions, South City Youth
Council Venue: South City Council Chambers
• Session 1: convened introductory evening with youth council
members, to explain my research program and to seek their consent
to involvement in devising and drafting the survey instrument.
• Sessions 2 &3: conducted semi-structured conversations using a
social planning approach (White 1999, 2001,Chawla 2002)) to
identify and map the young people’s perceptions and concerns
about living in South City, reflected on outcomes with participants,
evaluated the process and took findings forward to next session on
drafting the survey instrument.
• Session 4: worked with group to discuss what questions could go in
to the questionnaire, drafted questions, refined them and took them
away. Got agreement from the group to test the survey with North
City Youth Forum, New Zealand.
• Session 5: returned with feedback from North City Youth Forum NZ,
discussed their ideas and issues, reviewed the survey instrument,
finalized it for use at South City State High School.
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
The Survey Instrument
• Young People, Public Space and Citizenship Survey at South City
State High School
• Queensland University of Technology, School of Humanities
and Human Services thank you for completing this survey
aimed at young people aged 14-25. It is confidential. Please
complete all questions if you can. If you are unsure about the
meaning of a question, please decide on it for yourself.
• 1. As a young person, do you feel that you are negatively
•
stereotyped by people in the wider community?
• 2. Do you think there are enough youth facilities in your area?
• 3. How involved do you feel in your local community life?
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
The Survey Instrument…
• 4. Are you happy with the way your school/university/TAFE
involves you in the community?
• 5. Looking at things from your perspective, would you say that the
wider community where you live is aware of or concerned about
your safety?
• 6. What does the word ‘Citizenship’ mean to you?
7. Are there public places such as malls, streets, parks and other
places in your local area that you avoid due to safety issues?
• 8. Is your school/university/TAFE a place you think of as safe?
• 9. Do security cameras make you feel safe in using public
places?
• 10. Should there be more security cameras in your local area?
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
The Survey Instrument……
•
•
•
11.
12.
13.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
14.
•
15.
16.
17.
What would make your use of public places more enjoyable?
What would make your use of public places safer?
Do you think using public places raises issues for the following?
- people with disabilities
- people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual
- people from Indigenous backgrounds
- any other people
-people who are homeless?
Do you consider yourself to be any/some/all of the above? If
so, please say here if you wish……………………………….
Please say whether you are: Male or Female
Please give your age:
Anything else you want to say?
This survey was designed by the young people of South City Youth
Council
•
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
Key themes emerging from the data
• Theme One: Young people and trust: (focusing on mistrust of
young people, dislike and lack of respect for young people,
community, judgements, labelling and assumption making about
young people.
• Theme Two: Young people’s citizenship: (focussing on power,
participation, decision making, exclusion, diminished inclusion, the
place of young people in local community and society, belonging.
• Theme Three: The condition of public space (focusing on the
amenity of public space, play, enjoyment, safety, belonging, rights to
public space, inclusion/exclusion).
• Theme Four: Young people under suspicion (focussing on
surveillance, security guards, restrictions, move on powers, over
policing, under policing, curfews, monitoring, the category of young
people including age, race and class)
• Theme Five: Fear in public space: (focussing on feelings of
exclusion and diminished inclusion in using public space
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
Key points-lessons (not exhaustive)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A belief in the value of listening to children and young people is central to
undertaking the work (Kirby 2002);
Use respect and care for the groups/individuals to be worked with (Mayall 1996,
2002);
Confidentiality and other consent and ethical issues are central factors (
Valentine 1999, Bowling 2002);
Many children and young people may be ‘over consulted’ by researchers,
especially in schools, so be aware of this;
Acknowledge power differentials-be honest about what’s in it for participants
and for you and your institution (Lundy 2007);
What counts as data? This is a key tension but important to advocate for
capturing child and youth observations and life experiences as valid data
(Morrow 2005);
But..this data can be messy as well as rich and thick, possibly controversial
and challenging-avoid quick media grabs?
Are we ready for contradictory data from participants? Will it spoil the research
plan-should participants fit the methodology or should the methods and
methodology fit the context, participant’s situation and constraints? (Glaser
and Strauss 1967, Punch 1999).
What children and young people say should inform policy and can change
things (Valentine 2004, Stanley 2005).
See ARACY: Involving Children and Young People in Research (2009)
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
Children and Young People Using Public Space
•
Using Public Space is important to the overall health and wellbeing of children
and young people in allowing them to explore their local and wider community,
meet up with friends, get some exercise and feel included in the society in
which they live.
•
A problem exists in the capacity of modern, urban public space to genuinely
accommodate children and young people’s need to experience excitement and
fun in what has been termed “unprogrammed space” (Lynch 1977:71), or
simply to ‘hang out’ in unstructured social space, with control by civic
authorities a key concern (Valentine 1996, 2004, Harris, 2006, Gleeson and
Snipe 2006).
•
For many children and young people, their experiences of attempting to use
public space are sometimes marred by the denial of everyday rights and
courtesies, in youth ‘unfriendly’ spaces.
•
Child and Youth Friendly spaces have important features as outlined in the 3
studies contained in Table 1.
•
Table 2 charts the range of factors in the gaining of rights to public space.
•
Table 3 represents the gaining of rights as a dynamic process.
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
Table 1: Key factors in youth friendly public spaces:
Wooden (1997) in
Melton City, Victoria
Chawla (2002) in
an 8 country
research project
Dee (2008) in
Brisbane and Logan
Environment
Acceptance
Friendly people
Good entertainment
No violence
Sense of safety
No drugs or alcohol
Affordability
Support and help
Under 18 places
No adults or police
Safety
Free
movement
Places to meet
Cheap
transport
Open politics
No violence
Spaces/places to hang
out
Other users about in
public space
Affordable transport
Good environment
Safety
Affordability
No violence
No drugs
Acceptance and
belonging in the
community
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
Table 2: Child and youth rights in public space: a model in progress:
Catalysts for
change
Social
citizenship
Physical
factors
Opportunities
for change
Threats to beneficial change
Children and
young people
are valued more
by society.
Civil, social and
political rights
need to be
extended to
include health,
education, work,
housing, public
space and
economic rights
more generally.
Public space
should be
maintained and
improved, taking
the needs of
children and
young people
into account and
responding to
ideas.
Policing of public space can easily become
more coercive, where risk management
frames dominate all other considerations- (e.g.
technical advances in CCTV can lead to more
and more intrusive surveillance).
Child and youth
friendly spaces
are more readily
available.
Citizenship at
the maximal
rather than
minimal levelrecognising the
affective
dimensions of
young people’s
sense of
belonging as a
key part of social
rights.
Rights,
standards,
protections and
expectations of
all users of
public space to
be articulated.
There is an
opportunity to
involve children
and young
people in
negotiating new
relationships with
institutions,
spaces and the
community
across
generations.
Key references:
France(1997),
Valentine (2004),
White & Wyn
(2004),
Skelton (2007).
Key references:
Marshall (1950),
Jacobs (1965),
Tonkiss (2005),
White & Wyn
(2004).
Key references:
Chawla (2002),
Malone (2006).
The UNCROC is
revised to be
more inclusive of
different youth
and childhoods.
a university for the
real world
Research
demonstrates
they have the
capacity and
interest and that
a sense of
belonging is key
to their frame of
citizenship.
Key references:
Chawla (2002),
Heywood & Crane
(1998), Dee (2008),
White & Wyn
(2004).
The ‘new economy’ pushes young people to
engage in ‘approved’ of leisure time tied to
consumption, rather than ‘hanging out’.
The impact of the Global Financial Crisis leads
to greater impoverishment and control
measures to maintain urban law and order.
Anti-terrorism laws can often be used as a
platform for further control measures in public
space.
Key references:
Mitchell (2003), Watson (2006), Harris (2006).
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
Child and youth rights to public space:
possible stages in progress
•
Table 3:
Public space is
more child and
youth friendly
Optimal sociospatial
conditions
Citizenship has
more meaning
for children and
young people as
a greater sense
of positive
recognition,
belonging and
optimism is
experienced
a university for the
real world
The nature of
institutional
relationships
changes
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
Children and Young People Using Public
Space: Models of Rights
•
In adopting an approach based on key social, civil and political rights, including the right to
a sense of belonging, rather than the presumed wrongs of children and young people, their
aspirations and potential come to prominence, requiring a policy response that is more
sophisticated and genuinely engaging than may be the case currently (Gleeson and Snipe
2006; Franklin 2002; White and Wyn 2008).
•
In a multitude of ways in many locations worldwide, public spaces are under attack from
developments and control measures seeking to exclude children, young people and others
(Watson 2006). In this climate of rapid sometimes violent, change within the nature of
public space, it is becoming increasingly and highly contested.
•
Perhaps there really cannot be too many rights which support the active use and
enjoyment of all forms of public space, by children and young people. Gleeson (2006)
suggests that viewing public space issues through the lens of social citizenship alongside
the connected elements of civil and political citizenship, can revitalize and restore public
space, something that ever increasing attempts at control, policing, camera surveillance
and more stringent exclusion of ‘undesirables’, cannot achieve.
•
In promoting greater understanding and tolerance of the rights and needs of all users of
public space, the spirit of Jacob’s (1965) hope for the generations to mix together, sharing
community infrastructure and yet maintaining personal safety and dignity, might become a
reality for more children and young people around the world.
a university for the
real world
R
CRICOS No. 00213J
Key References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aitken, S. (2001). Geographies of Young People: The Morally Contested Spaces of Identity. London: Routledge.
Alexander, C. (2000). The Asian Gang. Oxford: Berg.
Alinsky, S. (1972). Rules for Radicals. New York: Vintage.
Alston, M., & Bowles. W. (2003). Research For Social Workers: An introduction to methods (Second ed.). NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Alveson, M. (2002). Postmodernism and Social Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Amster, R. (2004). Street People And The Contested Realms Of Public Space. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of Childhood. London: Jonathon Cape.
Article 12 (2000). Curfews and Crime-what young people think. Edinburgh, Save the Children Fund Scotland. www.article12.org
Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (2006). A Framework for Child and Youth Friendly Communities.
Bartlett, D., & Payne, S. (1997). Grounded Theory-Its Basis, Rationale and Procedures. In McKenzie, G., Powell, J., & Usher, R. (Eds.), Understanding Social Research:
Perspectives on Methodology and Practice. London: The Falmer Press
Basit, T. (1997). Eastern Values; Western Milieu. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Baubock, R. (Ed.). (1994). From Aliens to Citizens. Aldershot: Avebury.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. London: Allen Lane.
Bessant, J. (2003b). The Science of Risk and the Epistemology of Human Service Practice. Just Policy (31), 31-38.
Blackman, S. (1995). Youth: Positions and Oppositions. Aldershot: Avebury.
Bolzan, N. (2003). Kids are like that! Community attitudes to young people. Canberra: National Youth Affairs Research Scheme.
Bowling, A. (2002). Research methods in health: investigating health and health services (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. (1994). Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge.
Bryman, A., & Hardy, M. A. (2004.). Handbook of data analysis. London: SAGE.
Byrne-Armstrong, H., Higgs, J., & Horsfall, D. (Eds.). (2001). Critical Moments in Qualitative Research. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Chawla, L. (Ed.). (2002). Growing Up in an Urbanising World. London: UNESCO/Earthscan Publications.
Cohen, P. (1997). Rethinking the Youth Question. London: Macmillan.
Copeland, A. Public Space A rights-based approach. (2004) Youth Studies Australia, 23(3), 40-45.
Corrigan, P. (1993). Doing nothing. In S. Hall, & Jefferson, T. (Eds), Resistance through Rituals. London: Routledge.
Crane, P. and Richardson, L. (2000). Reconnect Action Research Kit. Queensland, Australia: Queensland University of Technology, School of Human Services, for
Commonwealth Department of Family & Community Services, Youth & Students Branch.
Crane, P. & Dee, M. (2001). Young people, public space & New Urbanism. Youth Studies Australia, 20(1), 11-18.
Cresswell, J. (1994). Research Design, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. California: Sage.
Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Denscombe, M. (2002.). Ground rules for good research: a 10 point guide for social researchers. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory. London, Academic Press.
De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Dick, B. (2004). Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch. Retrieved September 29 2004, from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arm/op016.html
Driskell, D. (2002). Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth, A Manual For Participation. London: UNESCO/Earthscan Publishing.
Dunedin Youth Forum (2003). Dunedin Youth Forum General Information Form. Dunedin, New Zealand: Dunedin Youth Forum Inc.
France, A., Bendelow, G. and Williams, S. (2000). A 'risky' business: researching the health beliefs of children and young people. In Lewis, A. & Lindsay, G. (Eds.),
Researching Children's Perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Franklin, B. (Ed.). (2002). The New Handbook Of Children's Rights. London: Routledge.
Freeman, C. (2006). Colliding worlds: planning with children and young people for better cities. In Gleeson, B & Snipe, N. (Eds.), Creating Child Friendly Cities. London:
Routledge.
Freeman, C. and. Riordan, T. (2002). Locating Skateparks: The Planners Dilemma. Planning Practice & Research, 17(3), 297-316.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory-Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1968.). Time for dying. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, Calif: Sociology Press.
R
Glaser, B. (2003).
The Grounded
2: Description’s Remodeling of Grounded Theory Methodology. Mill Valley CA: Sociology Press.
a university
forTheory
the Perspectiveworld
CRICOS No. 00213J
Gleeson, B., Sipe, N. & Rolley, K. (2006). Pathways to the child friendly city. In Gleeson, B & Snipe, N. (Eds.), Creating Child Friendly Cities. London: Routledge.
Gleeson, B. (2006). Australia's toxic cities: modernity's paradox. In Gleeson, B. & Snipe, N. (Eds.), Creating Child Friendly Cities. London: Routledge.
Gleeson, B. & Snipe, N. (2006). Creating Child Friendly Cities. London: Routledge.
real