D OCTORAL R ESEARCH
P ROJECT R EPORT
A DEELA AHMED -S HAFI
E
S
This research aims to explore the nature of resilience for learning in young people who have received a custodial sentence. The focus is a cohort of young offenders aged 10-17 years who are currently housed in a secure children’s unit and are a sample of an overall c.1200 young people in custody in current times. These young people represent some of the most troubled youngsters in the country, characterised by a complex range of needs from significant family and socioeconomic challenges to special educational needs, learning disabilities and disengagement from formal education.
Resilience is a psychological construct which is the focus of much research and whilst definitions vary according to the field of study, a common theme is that it is a positive quality that enables an individual to ‘bounce back’ and ‘succeed’, despite adverse conditions or circumstances (Rutter, 1985;
Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Garmezy & Masten, 1991. Resilience for learning refers to a learner’s ability to overcome obstacles and challenges presented during the course of learning. It requires considerable processes to work towards this, including that of mindsets (Duckworth; 2009;
2007) grit and perseverance (Duckworth et al., 2007) which together form a sense of agency. The development of resilience itself promotes agency (Brown and Westaway, 2011). In this way all these concepts work in inter-related ways to enable the individual to persevere and be resilient when faced with adversity during learning.
An exploratory mixed methods case study design is employed to explore the multi-faceted, multidimensional nature of resilience for learning in young offenders against the theoretical framework of complexity theory enabling the incorporation of complex and multi-layered ecosystems.
The research in part builds on the work from a pilot study which used the learning power framework to assess learning power of young offenders (Salway and Deakin-Crick, 2006) using a self-report tool, the Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory (ELLI) (Deakin Crick, Claxton & Broadfoot, 2004). The ELLI produces a spider diagram which represents the individual’s learning power against seven dimensions of learning (changing & learning, meaning making, critical curiosity, creativity, strategic awareness, learning relationships and resilience). The study produced unexpected and unintended findings from the small sample (n=32) where 12 of the 32 young offenders had distinctive patterns in their learning power profiles characterised by a ‘resilience spike’, but low on all the other six dimensions. Seven of the 12 were convicted of the most severe crimes, including rape, arson and murder. The findings cast some doubt on the concept of resilience within the ELLI and this research will also explore that by collected a larger sample (n>200) of profiles to explore patterns.
For the qualitative strand, data are being collected using semi-structured interviews and case study notes from a small number of participants who are offered an intervention to help develop resilience. The process that participants undergo during the intervention will form the core data for this strand to understand if and how resilience manifests itself in this process.
Data collection is currently underway for both strands.

R
ESILIENCE
Much of the research on resilience spans a range of contexts and disciplines but all indicate it to be a positive quality that enables an individual to ‘bounce back’ and ‘succeed’, despite adverse conditions or circumstances (Rutter, 1985; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Garmezy & Masten, 1991. The emphasis on resilience for learning tends to be on how it can help learners overcome obstacles or barriers during learning and how it can be developed in learning contexts (Duckworth, Peterson,
Matthews, & Kelly, 2007; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013. Attention is often focused on low achievers or those with challenging backgrounds (Schofield et al., 2012) but does not extend specifically to young offenders.
The significance of resilience in learning for the young offender
Research on academic resilience or resilience in learning is much more under-researched than resilience in other contexts, such as extreme deprivation, natural disasters or abuse (Martin, 2013).
Martin and Marsh (2006) define academic resilience ‘as students’ capacity to effectively deal with
setback, challenge, and adversity in the academic setting’ and they point out that it is relevant to all students who are likely to face adversity or challenge at some point throughout their academic careers.
The work on resilience is particularly important for the young offender because not only can it present an opportunity to foster a potential re-engagement with formal learning, but also contribute to desisting offending when released. This is especially so given the array of complexity and challenge they are likely to face on returning to the same lifestyle that may have fostered the offending behaviour in the first place.
But resilience is multi-faceted and multi-dimensional (Brown and Westaway, 2011) and can be seen in research on vulnerable youth and adults. Research by Ungar (2011) and (Bottrell (2007; 2009) has shown that people in challenging circumstances develop a range of mechanisms to cope and maintain a sense of stability within sometimes, chaotic and unstable lifestyles, several of which were outlined above. But the mechanisms developed may not be productive or ‘successful’ from the perspective of the outsider and possibly be viewed as resistance rather than resilience (Bottrell,
2007). However, from the perspective of the individual, this ‘resistance’ is developed in order to create a sense of identity or position in society or community in the face of the adverse circumstances - a means of coping and adapting to their environment in order to survive – resilience.
The mechanisms that may have developed as a result of such circumstances may be the very ones that can perpetuate those same circumstances and in some way become destructive for the individual in a sort of recursive cycle. This same resilience thus, can be the barrier to learning and/or engaging in experiences that may otherwise be beneficial, effectively ‘locking out’ and representing a ‘closedness’ to opportunities for learning and hence change.
This can be seen in the way young offenders tend to engage in educational opportunities. A classic response is to avoid the experiences which risk placing them in a position of failure, uncertainty or requiring support, since engaging in any of this would expose a sense of vulnerability, dependence or perceived incompetence. For example, work by Bottrell (2009) and Ungar (2004; 2011) found that for many ‘troubled teens’ in their research, much of the patterns of behaviour they engaged in, such as substance abuse, detachment from families, truancy from school or engaging in criminality, were all ‘healthy adaptations that permit them to survive unhealthy circumstances’ (Unger, 2004 p.6) and would be how individuals themselves consider themselves to be ‘resilient’. Further, Bottrell’s
(2009) study with teenage girls living in socially disadvantaged, high crime rate areas in dysfunctional

family settings in Sydney, Australia described how truanting from school was a form of resilience for them – resilience to the ‘perceived failings’ that attending school could expose. School was a reminder of what they perceived as unachievable and therefore in order to ‘protect’ themselves from this failure, they did not attend. This demonstrates how resilience can be interpreted in different ways depending on one’s outlook.
However, as pointed out by O’Doherty Wright and Masten (in Goldstein & Brooks, 2009), resilience and the criteria for it is likely to be socially constructed and socially embedded. If an individual meets societal expectations appropriate for their age or stage of life, despite adversity, they are said to be resilient. Additionally, Ungar (2008) indicated that resilience is likely to be culture specific.
Therefore, the resilience research field needs to be aware of the individual, cultural and societal expectations used as a benchmark for resilience. This suggests that it is important to exercise some caution when applying the concept of ‘resilience’ in a blanket manner to all populations. Resilience is more complex and multi-levelled than earlier research suggested and is likely to be the case for the young offender population and is an aim of this research.
A F OCUS ON Y OUNG O FFENDERS
Young offenders have complex backgrounds, sometimes described as chaotic 1 , with a range of issues relating to family, socioeconomic position, education, learning difficulties and mental health to name a few all of which can impact on behaviour. For example, 30% of males and 44% females reported being in the care of the local authority at some point (Murray (2012). Jacobson, Bhardwa, Gyateng,
Hunter and Hough (2010) found that 76% of young offenders in custody had an absent father while
33% an absent mother. The same study also found that 51% had come from deprived or unsuitable accommodation, which at first glance may seem less than expected. However, Murray (2012) also found many young offenders to have spent time under the care of the local authority, which would be considered ‘reasonable accommodation’. But Bailey (1994) found as many as 80% of young offenders had spent time in local authority care. Further, Jacobson et al found that 39% had been on the child protection register or experienced some kind of neglect or abuse. This paints a rather bleak picture of the circumstances of young people in custody even before they enter the secure estate.
Furthermore, compared to their peers in the general population, offenders under the age of 18 in secure settings, the issues of family breakdown, poverty, social class and other circumstantial situations are compounded by a higher prevalence of drug and alcohol misuse, higher rates of mental health problems and higher levels of learning difficulties (Kroll, Rothwell, Bradley, Shah,
Bailey and Harrington, 2002; Hall, 2000; Chitsabesen, Kroll, Bailey, Kenning, Schneider, MacDonald and Theodosiou, 2006). Additional emotional problems such as anxiety and depression (Abram,
Teplin, McCllelland and Dulcan, 2003; Lader, Singleton and Metzer, 2000) as well as behavioural problems (Pliszka, Greenhill, Crismon, Carlson, Connors, McCracken and Tropac, 2000) are also more prevalent. There are higher rates of co-morbidity in the prevalence of these problems which also tend to be related to disrupted attachments and other traumatic life events (Loeber and
Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998) all play a part in the complexity of backgrounds from which many young offenders have come from. Many of these factors are considered ‘risk factors’ (Fougere & Daffern,
2011 p.244).
The young offender and formal learning
1
A chaotic family life can be described as a lack of order, is disorganised and without routine or structure.

In addition to the above, there is considerable evidence that a young offender’s experience of formal learning has not been a fulfilling one and many of them became disengaged and disaffected early in their educational careers (Ball and Connolly, 2000). For example, half of the 15-17 year olds entering custody have levels of literacy equivalent to that expected of primary age children of 7-11 years
(Education Funding Agency, 2012). This may not be surprising since 88% of 15-17 year old boys and
74% girls have been excluded from school at some point and many (36% boys and 41% girls) had not been to school since they were 14 years old (Murray, 2012). As well as the lack of attendance or being excluded, young people who find themselves in custody are also likely to have higher levels of learning disabilities with a prevalence of 23-32%, which is exceptionally high when the figure is 2-4% in the general population (Hughes, Williams, Chitsabesan, Davies, & Mounce, 2012). Further, evidence suggests that the aspirations of offenders are low contributing to a lack of engagement with education and reoffending rates (Oser 2006).
Limited research has been conducted with young offenders learning and the role of resilience in that and this study seeks to further explore the unintended and unexpected findings of a pilot study
Locked-Up Learning (Salway & Deakin-Crick, 2006). The study assessed the learning power of young offenders via a self-report survey, the Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory (ELLI) (Crick et al., 2004), producing a visual spider diagram (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Spider diagram representing learning power along seven dimensions of learning. The red line are the results of a post-test after interventions
Although a small study (n=32), it revealed a striking pattern in the learning power profiles of 12 of the 32 participants. Interestingly, these were characterised by what was called the ‘resilience spike’ where young offenders scored high on a dimension called resilience but were very low on all the other six dimensions of learning power (changing & learning, meaning making, critical curiosity, creativity, strategic awareness and learning relationships) and this was the case for 7 of the 12 participants (see Figure 2). These seven were convicted of the most serious crimes including rape, arson and murder and the severity of a young offender’s crime could be determined by their profile.
On this basis, the pilot study threw doubt on the concept of ‘resilience’ within the ELLI and provided an opportunity to further explore the use of the concept of resilience in this measurement tool. The

work to explore the internal structure of learning power is currently underway, including exploring the ‘resilience dimension’.
Figure 2 A sample of the learning power profiles of young offenders convicted of serious and violent crime characterised by the 'resilience spike'
R ESEARCH Q UESTIONS
Overarching research question
What is the nature of resilience in young offenders?
Further research questions
1.
In what ways can the concept of resilience in learning be assessed and interpreted in the specific population of convicted young offenders?
2 Are there distinctive patterns in the resilience of young offenders who are either persistent offenders or capable/convicted of violent crime, as measured by a resilience scale?
3 What interventions can strengthen resilience in learning and contribute to young offenders re-engaging with formal learning.
4 To what extent do young offenders believe that developing skills to be resilient might contribute to desisting offending when released?
M ETHOD

An exploratory mixed methods case study design is employed in order to properly explore the overarching research question, using data collection methods which offer the best way to improve understanding of the nature of resilience in young offenders. The case study design is a versatile research strategy (Kohlbacher, 2006) and can incorporate the use of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Because the adopted theoretical framework for this study is also that of complexity theory the case study strategy is especially suited as one of the strengths of the case study is that a phenomenon is studied in its context with all the complexities that this brings (Yin,
2014).
T HE S AMPLE
The sample is drawn from the c1200 young people under the age of 18 that have come into conflict with the law in the UK.
The case study site is a secure children’s unit for boys and girls aged 10-17 years, housing up to 24 young people at any one time. As discussed in Chapter I, the young people in the unit comprise of those on remand, a welfare order, a Detention & Training Order (DTO), Section 90/91 or Section
226/228.
E THICAL C ONSIDERATIONS
Involving children and young people in research carries additional ethical responsibilities with regards to informed and voluntary consent (Alderson and Morrow 2004) and is even more important within the confinement of a custodial setting. It is difficult to ascertain whether consent is voluntary as participants are likely to believe that they are obliged to participate because of the nature of the setting. To address this somewhat, an information and consent sheet has been devised, although it does not guarantee consent is voluntary because the young person may not understand what is meant by research if they have never been exposed to the concept (Farrell 2005). Given the nature of this population, there is likely to be a diverse range of understanding, enthusiasm and willingness which has to be accepted as part of the nature of working with this population.
Further ethical considerations include that of disclosure during the in-depth interviews. Disclosures could include, for example, other crimes committed, abuse or other relevant but undocumented information. Because of the vulnerability of this group, on-going information and continued consent becomes and has to form an integral part of the on-going research process with these young people.
Nevertheless, the form includes a clause relating to confidentiality - only promising partial confidentiality and which may have implications for genuine consent where participants may withdraw of withhold or misconstrue information they reveal. But again, this is a compromise that has to be struck given the unique context.
Strand I Quantitative
To help understand the nature of ‘resilience’ in this cohort, quantitative data will be collected using the ELLI survey tool to collate a larger sample of learning power profiles (n=200). Examining patterns in the ‘resilience’ dimension, particularly those with an element of violence or persistent offending, could shed more light on the nature of resilience for learning through examining this specific cohort of young offenders. The participants will have the opportunity to engage in a coaching conversation which will form part of the interventions and is stimulated by the spider diagram. The coaching conversation is defined by Stelter (2007) as a:

‘form of conversation which always shall be related to a specific context and situation in which the focus person is experiencing something significant and challenging – challenging in
the sense that the focus person is governed by a desire for an in-depth reflection’ (p.191)
Participants will be offered a post-test on exit from the secure unit or after several weeks but most likely depend on how long the participant is there at the unit and it will not be possible to capture post-test data for each participant. The data will enable analysis via SPSS, both for patterns and the extent to which the interventions impacted on resilience and learning power.
Strand II Qualitative
Qualitative data will be generated through semi-structured interviews and case study notes during the process of the Authentic Enquiry intervention (Crick, 2009; 2012)which is an approach to learning which is authentic because it begins with the learner’s experience and interest, whereby the learner engages in a journey on a particular topic, object or artefact which proceeds from a process of facilitated knowledge construction towards an agreed outcome which may or may not be assessed. It is expected that the sample size for this Strand is likely to be much smaller (n<10).
There are several reasons for this, some practical as the transient nature of the population limits the number that can be involved in this part of the study. But also because it is possible that participants could either opt out of this opportunity at the outset or abandon it midway. The data would still be of interest, because it offers an opening to interview or learn what caused the learner to want to abandon the project. The learning power profiles usefully provide a context to introduce the intervention to investigate if resilience can be developed and if it can contribute to a young offender’s re-engagement with formal learning through authentic enquiry. The visual feedback generated by the learning power profile will be used as a starting point for interventions and the opportunity for a post-test allows participants (and researchers) to ascertain any degree of change.
C URRENT P ROGRESS
Data collection has started for Strand I (quantitative data from the learning power profiles) whereas
Strand II (qualitative data from in-depth semi-structured interviews) will begin in September 2014.
Data from both strands will be synthesised and interpreted to understand the nature of resilience for learning in young offenders. The quantitative data will provide the opportunity to understand any patterns in resilience for learning in young offenders.
REFERENCES
Abram, K.M., Teplin, L.A., McClelland, G.M., Dulcan, M.K., 2003. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry 60, 1097.
Alderson, P., Morrow, G., 2006. Ethics, social research and consulting with children and young people. Children, Youth and Environments 16.
Bailey, S., 1995. Young offenders, serious crimes. The British Journal of Psychiatry 167, 5–7.
Ball, C., Connolly, J., 2000. Educationally Disaffected Young Offenders. Br J Criminol 40, 594–616. doi:10.1093/bjc/40.4.594
Bottrell, D., 2007. Resistance, Resilience and Social Identities: Reframing “Problem Youth” and the
Problem of Schooling. Journal of Youth Studies 10, 597–616. doi:10.1080/13676260701602662
Bottrell, D., 2009. Understanding “marginal”perspectives towards a social theory of resilience.
Qualitative Social Work 8, 321–339.

Brown, K., Westaway, E., 2011. Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change: Lessons from Human Development, Well-Being, and Disasters. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
36, 321–342. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-052610-092905
Chitsabesan, P., Bailey, S., 2006. Mental health, educational and social needs of young offenders in custody and in the community. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 19, 355–360.
Chitsabesan, P., Kroll, L., Bailey, S., Kenning, C., Sneider, S., MacDONALD, W., Theodosiou, L., 2006.
Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders in Custody and in the Community. BJP 188, 534–540. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.105.010116
Crick, R.D., 2009. Inquiry-based learning: reconciling the personal with the public in a democratic and archaeological pedagogy. The Curriculum Journal 20, 73–92.
Crick, R.D., 2012. Deep engagement as a complex system: Identity, learning power and authentic enquiry, in: Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer, pp. 675–694.
Crick, R.D., Broadfoot, P., Claxton, G., 2004. Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: The
ELLI Project. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 11, 247–272.
Deakin Crick, R., Salway, A., 2006. Locked Up Learning: learning power and young offenders. ViTaL
Partnerships Ltd, Bristol.
Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., Kelly, D.R., 2007. Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92, 1087–1101. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.92.6.1087
Duckworth, K., Britain, G., 2009. Self-regulated learning: a literature review. Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of Education.
Farrell, A., 2005. Ethical research with children. Open University Press.
Fletcher, D., Sarkar, M., 2013. Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist 18, 12.
Fougere, A., Daffern, M., 2011. Resilience in young offenders. International Journal of Forensic
Mental Health 10, 244–253.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A.S., 1991. The protective role of competence indicators in children at risk.
Goldstein, S., Brooks, R.B., 2005. Handbook of resilience in children. Springer.
Hall, I., 2000. Young offenders with a learning disability. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 6, 278–
285.
Hughes, N., 2012. Nobody made the connection: the prevalence of neurodisability in young people who offend.
Jacobson, J., Bhardwa, B., Gyateng, T., Hunter, G., Hough, M., 2010. Punishing Disadvantage: A
Profile of Children in Custody.
Kohlbacher, F., 2006. The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research, in: Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

Kroll, L., Rothwell, J., Bradley, D., Shah, P., Bailey, S., Harrington, R.C., 2002. Mental health needs of boys in secure care for serious or persistent offending: a prospective, longitudinal study. The Lancet
359, 1975–1979.
Lader, D., Singleton, N., Meltzer, H., 2000. Psychiatric morbidity among young offenders in England and Wales. London: Office for National Statistics.
Martin, A.J., 2013. Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring “everyday” and “classic” resilience in the face of academic adversity. School Psychology International 34, 488–500. doi:10.1177/0143034312472759
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., 2009. Academic resilience and academic buoyancy: Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates and cognate constructs. Oxford Review of
Education 35, 353–370.
Masten, A.S., Best, K.M., Garmezy, N., 1990. Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and psychopathology 2, 425–444.
Murray, R., Britain, G., Britain, G., Board, Y.J., 2012. Children and Young People in Custody 2011-12:
An Analysis of the Experiences of 15-18 Year Olds in Prison. Stationery Office.
Oser, C.B., 2006. The Criminal Offending–Self-Esteem Nexus Which Version of the Self-Esteem
Theory Is Supported? The Prison Journal 86, 344–363. doi:10.1177/0032885506291024
Pliszka, S.R., Greenhill, L.L., Crismon, M., Sedillo, A., Carlson, C., Conners, C.K., McCRACKEN, J.T.,
Swanson, J.M., Hughes, C.W., Llana, M.E., 2000. The Texas Children’s Medication Algorithm Project:
Report of the Texas consensus conference panel on medication treatment of childhood attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder. Part I. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry 39, 908–919.
Rutter, M., 1985. Resilience in the face of adversity. British journal of psychiatry 147, 598–611.
Schofield, G., 2001. Resilience and family placement A lifespan perspective 1. Adoption & Fostering
Journal 25, 6–19.
Schofield, G., Ward, E., Biggart, L., Scaife, V., Dodsworth, J., Larsson, B., Haynes, A., Stone, N., 2012.
Looked after children and offending: reducing risk and promoting resilience. UEA and TACT.
Stelter, R., 2007. Coaching: A process of personal and social meaning making. International Coaching
Psychology Review 2, 191–201.
Ungar, M., 2004. A constructionist discourse on resilience multiple contexts, multiple realities among at-risk children and youth. Youth & society 35, 341–365.
Ungar, M., 2008. Resilience across cultures. British journal of social work 38, 218–235.
Ungar, M., 2011a. The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 81, 1–17.
Ungar, M., 2011b. The Social Ecology of Resilience: A Handbook of Theory and Practice. Springer.
Yin, R.K., 2003. Applications of case study research (applied social research Methods). Series, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.