Declaration
DECLARATION
This work is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree……………………………………………………………and has not previously been accepted
in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.
Signed ...................................................................... (candidate)
Date ..........................................................................
STATEMENT 1
This dissertation is the result of my own work and investigations, except where otherwise stated.
Where correction services have been used, the extent and nature of the correction is clearly
indicated. Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A Reference
Page is appended.
Signed ..................................................................... (candidate)
Date .........................................................................
STATEMENT 2(i)
I hereby give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for
inter-library loan, for deposit in Cardiff Metropolitan University’s e-Repository, and that the title and
summary may be available to outside organisations.
Signed ..................................................................... (candidate)
Date .........................................................................
Approved by Cardiff Metropolitan University.
Signed ..................................................................... (candidate)
Date .........................................................................
1
Abstract
Youth work is becoming increasingly targeted and outcome focused, with many youth
services taking on a caseload approach whilst simultaneously rapidly losing funding.
This dissertation focuses on what it is about youth work that makes it a unique service
to young people by focusing on what it is that young people think makes a good youth
worker and how this links to the main characteristics of youth work. This aims to renew
the case for universal open access youth work. This dissertation took a case study
approach by analysing a local authority within south east Wales. The data was
gathered firstly through a questionnaire asking what qualities young people thought
made a good youth worker, this was compared to a small sample of questionnaires
asking the young people the same of other professions. The second method used was
a focus group with youth work apprentices who were asked to analyse some of the
questionnaire information in more detail. Overall, it was found that young people used
a variety of positive terms to describe what they wanted from their youth workers, most
of which emphasised the value young people placed on a relationship building process
within youth work. The focus group provided some positive analysis behind the
questionnaire answers and how and why this varied from other professions such as
teaching or policing. The main conclusions drawn showed that overall the responses
linked positively with the main characteristics of youth work. The main
recommendation following this research is to allow for young people’s opinion and
views to shape the future of the youth service by completing more research which
shows the youth service from a young person’s point of view.
2
Acknowledgments
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to Rev. John Pullin, my inspiration. Without
you as an example, I would not be writing this today.
I would like to first and foremost express my gratitude to John Rose for your patience
and wonderful insight throughout this process. I would also like to thank my wonderful
partner, friends and colleagues for their continued motivation and support.
3
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction.............................................................................. Page 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review.................................................................... Page 7
Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………. Page 18
Chapter 4: Results and Analysis…………………………………….. …….. Page 27
Chapter 5: Recommendations ……………...……………………………….. Page 41
References ………………………………………………………………………. Page 45
Appendix 1: Briefing ……………………………….…………………............. Page 48
Appendix 2: Questionnaire example ……………………………………..... Page 49
Appendix 3: Youth Work questionnaire responses …………… ……... Page 51
Appendix 4: Focus group questionnaire …………………………………. Page 52
Appendix 5: Other profession questionnaire responses …………….
Page 53
Word count: 12083
4
Chapter one: Introduction
Title
What makes a good youth worker? An investigation of what young people want from
their youth workers and how this compares to other professions.
Introduction
“If good grounds existed in 2005 for youth workers to make the case for youth work,
by 2015 the need for this has become overwhelming” (Davies 2015 p.99). The National
Youth Work Strategy 2014-2018 (Welsh Government 2014 p.4) has described youth
work as an “intrinsic” part of youth support services which ultimately helps towards the
critical aim of helping young people reach their full potential by particularly tackling a
number of issues such as inequalities, poverty and health whilst raising education
attainment and increasing young people’s participation.
With spending in youth work dropping by 14% in just one year (Offord 2015), the open
access provisions which is by many seen as the ‘bread and butter’ of youth work
(Davies & Merton 2009) is now more than ever at risk. Many youth work provisions
have and are more and more becoming ‘targeted’. Davies (2015), references a
Cabinet Office survey that stated three quarters of youth services estimated that
upwards of 75% of their budget would be solely allocated to targeted work within three
years.
Many young people, youth workers and youth service managers alike may embrace
this period of change, noting how the nostalgic view of youth work is one outdated to
the current climate. It could be argued that becoming more targeted in youth work
delivery allows for the most at need young people to be supported and for resources
5
to be used effectively according to where it is making the most impact. However, it is
possible that some would hold the opposite view; that many could say that the targeted
work is changing the dynamic of the youth worker and young person relationship and
taking away from being able to build relationships with young people at their own pace,
in a process that empowers young people. This way of working, is offered by no other
profession and in turn can lead to outcomes of equal value if not greater than through
the targeted way of working, which is already implemented by other professions young
people may engage with. For those who believe youth work is becoming lost in
targeted work, the question may be asked: Have youth workers lost their value and
purpose?
This dissertation aims to investigate what young people, who access youth service
provisions in south east Wales, thinks makes a good youth worker. For the purpose of
this dissertation the term ‘good’ will refer to the characteristics that make young people
want to engage with youth workers. The purpose of this investigation was to inform
the writer’s own professional development, shape future youth work training, and to
ensure that in a time of change, the direction of youth services remains focused on
what young people want and need. Here the term ‘want’ is referring about what young
people would like to see from their youth workers in terms of approaches, skills,
qualities and ways of working. It is however, recognised that what young people want
may not always align with what their needs are, the term ‘need’ in this dissertation can
relate to issues young people are facing which could be identified by the young people
themselves, through professional observation or by other professionals.
By analysing what young people want from their youth workers in comparison to other
professions, it is hoped that this will provide opportunity for youth workers to explain
why youth work is so important for young people and why it may be a unique
6
experience for young people. The aim of this research was to ‘make a case for youth
work’ and to show how the uniqueness of the relationship is valued by young people.
In order for a complete analysis to be achieved the main characteristics that make
youth work different will be discussed. This research aims to also serve as a reminder
that although the way in which youth work is delivered may within the next few years
change from what it is traditionally known as, the success of youth work will remain
through the special relationship which youth workers hold with young people.
This research was conducted in a Local authority maintained youth service in south
east Wales. The term maintained is used here as the service is funded and governed
by local authority and is bound by policies and procedures put in place by the local
authority. The sample included young people who attended youth provisions either in
a centre, detached, school or project setting, as well as a small group of youth work
apprentices who were working towards their Level two qualification.
To investigate this, young people who access a local authority were asked what
thought makes a good youth worker? This was completed through an informal activity
delivered by youth workers in a number of settings. The participant’s responses were
collated and themes identified. A small number of young people were also asked to
describe what they believe makes a good teacher, a good police officer and any other
helping profession they wished to discuss. It is the author’s belief that the way in which
young people described youth workers would differ to the way in which they described
other professionals and the difference would be related particularly to the main
defining youth work characteristics.
The second phase of the research was in the form of a focus group with a four youth
work apprentices who were working towards their first youth work qualification. The
7
focus group aimed to identify why they believe those themes arose from the
questionnaire analysis, how they linked together and if and why there would be a
difference between youth work and other professions.
Research questions
1. In young people’s view what makes a good youth worker?
2. Are the young people’s view of what makes a good youth worker different to
other helping professions?
3. How does young people’s responses link to the main youth work
characteristics?
Rationale
Youth work remains a unique profession in comparison to other pedagogies which
young people may come into contact with. In Davies’ (2015) revisited ‘Youth work: A
Manifesto for Our Times’ he warns that that now more than ever youth workers need
to be able to articulate what it is about youth work that makes them be able to reach,
positively engage and achieve outcomes with young people that no other profession
can.
The reasons attributed to this include: the voluntary basis of the engagement with
young people (Jeffs and Smith 2010, Brent 2004, Davies 2005), the emphasis on
relationship building (Jeffs and Smith 2010, Spence, 2010) and that young people
remain at the centre of all decisions (National Youth Agency 2004; Davies 2005)
including the education approach that youth work takes (Jeffs and Smith 2010,
Batsleer 2008). The importance of the relationship between young people and the
youth workers is recognised in the National Youth Work Strategy for Wales (Welsh
8
Government 2014 p.8), where it describes open access youth work as sometimes
being “the only means of connecting with some young people and supporting them to
re-engage in areas such as their education”.
However, in recent years much of the work that the youth service provide are under
pressure to become targeted, case loaded and outcome based (Wylie 2015). There is
a danger as youth work moves forward more into this new era that it could lose part of
what makes it unique to young people. This research aimed to re-evaluate what young
people are looking for in their youth workers, what qualities would they use to describe
a ‘good’ worker and was that different from how they would describe other
professionals they may work with.
Ethical consideration
This research has been conducted in an ethical manner, taking into consideration the
British Educational Research Association guidelines (BERA 2011). The activity was
conducted during normal youth provisions and in line with youth work values and
research guidelines (Welsh Government 2014, BERA 2011) was completely through
voluntary engagement as would any other activity they would usually be involved with
in their particular setting. All participants took part in the research activities knowing
the outcomes were to be used for research purposes. Participants were given
opportunity to withdraw their contributions throughout the activity.
All participants have remained anonymous throughout the research. The activity
completed by young people was photocopied and returned to the individual youth
provision for evidence/display purposes. Although, it has been made known that the
location will be in the south east Wales area, no further reference to local authority in
which the research took place will be made.
9
As discussed the majority of the information gathering was conducted by local youth
workers in the way of activities delivered in local youth provisions as to remain as
neutral as possible and not influence information gathered.
In the unlikely event that taking part in the activity led young people to disclose any
information relating to Child protection or the participant’s wellbeing that would have
been dealt with in accordance to the Local Authority’s policies and procedures.
10
Chapter two: Literature Review
Introduction
The purposes of this chapter are to first consider the existing literature related to young
people’s thoughts about why they may see youth workers as being different to other
supporting adults. Particularly, to explore existing literature for reasons why there may
exist differences and to determine if there are any gaps in the existing literature that
this research could usefully make a contribution to.
The Department of Education & Science (1987) identified various reasons why youth
work may be seen as effective to young people. These reasons included: youth
workers using young people’s interest as a starting point to develop activities,
providing a ‘safe’ environment, helping young people to communicate their views,
helping the community to better understand young people, provide opportunity for new
experiences amongst other reasons.
Williamson’s et al. (1997) assessment of the needs of young people also offers a
similar list of what young people perceive as their need and how the youth service
meets those. This is another piece of literature which offers an understanding of what
young people appreciate from youth workers. However, such literature is far and few
between. There is little available to explain from a young person’s point of view what
makes youth work effective. From a practitioner point of view, literature such as this
should form invaluable to moulding the way in which the youth service operates. In
addition, the literature that does exist is outdated, in the last 15 years there seems to
be very little relevant literature to describe and interpret youth work from a young
person’s point of view even though participation and input from young people lie at the
11
heart of youth work. It is a possibility that perhaps these questions are being
researched and answered on a local level but not in an academic setting.
The literature covered thus far supports the need for such research as this dissertation
is aiming to achieve. In order to aid this research, this literature review will examine
how youth work characteristics helps to gain an understanding of differences to other
professions and therefore why young people may evaluate it differently.
What is youth work and why is it unique?
Firstly it is important to understand that where youth work is today is likely to be as a
result of key strategies and policies which have been implemented in the last 15 years,
which focus on or at the very least rely quite heavily on youth work support. Extending
Entitlement (National Assembly for Wales 2000) being one of the first of this kind which
outlined 10 principles for young people which amongst others included providing
young people with a safe, social and recreational environment which many local
authorities looked upon youth work to deliver.
In the years that followed Youth Work Strategy for Wales was published and later
revised (Welsh Assembly Government 2007, Welsh Government 2014), along with the
Youth Work Wales: Principles and Purposes (Welsh Government 2013a), documents
which provided a more focused outline for the role of youth work in Wales including a
curriculum of what was expected from youth work delivery. It could be argued that
these strategies continue to become more and more specific with the many youth
services focusing resources around the Youth Engagement and Progression
Framework (Welsh Government 2013b) and other similar strategies, focusing
specifically on engaging young people who are labelled as not in education,
employment or training, thus departing from the traditional youth work approach.
12
As discussed in the previous chapter, this dissertation is aiming to investigate what
young people think makes a good and effective youth worker. The expectation is that
the outcome and reasons would differ from what young people would experience from
other professionals due to the flexibility of its approach. Therefore, suggesting that to
young people youth work is seen as being a unique profession. Defining what youth
work is and what it achieves to other professionals is an ongoing issue in youth work
that many may face. The Principal Youth Officers group (2015) also recognised that
although youth work has grown in the way it is viewed as a profession, there is still a
lack of clarity on what youth work achieves possibly due to the less formal relationship
with young people.
When attempting to define youth work a starting point would be the revised National
Occupational Standards for Youth Work (Learning and Skills Improvement Service
2012). The document divides youth work into five functional areas, these five areas
are divided into a further 18 sub areas which in turns translates into 41 Standards for
practitioners (LSIS 2012). These standards provide a foundation for youth work
practice and demonstrate that the emphasis in these standards differ significantly from
other professions such as teaching and social work.
Jolly (2010 p.2) suggests that although the National Occupational Standards for Youth
Work offers a ‘‘piece of the puzzle’’ in terms of understanding what youth work
achieves, it still leaves a gap in practically understanding what youth work is and in
order to clearly understand what is meant by youth work some defining characteristics
need to be extracted and examined. One of the most recently commonly referred to
lists of features of youth work comes from Jeffs and Smith (2010) where they describe
five aspects that work with young people must include in order to be defined as ‘youth
work’. This literature review will explore some of these characteristics that are often
13
associated with youth work in order to understand what makes youth work unique to
young people.
Voluntary engagement
One of the key elements which is usually associated with describing youth work, is the
concept that young people engage with youth services and youth workers on a
voluntary basis. Ord (2009) declares this is one of the most contentious issues in
modern day youth work. However, does voluntary engagement really have to be
present in order for ‘youth work’ to be taking place?
As far back as the Albemarle report (Ministry of Education 1960) the voluntary
engagement is explained as a uniqueness of youth work, valued by young people as
part of their transition into adulthood. Throughout time this has been a major part of
youth workers professional identity. More recently the National Youth Work Strategy
for Wales (Welsh Government 2014) reiterates that the voluntary engagement is a
critical characteristic of youth work which is successful through the building of trusting
relationships with young people. This is echoed in much of the literature into youth
work (Davies & Merton 2009, Jeffs & Smith 2010).
A possible reason why this aspect makes the work youth workers so unique is
recognized by Jolly (2010). He states that due to the voluntary engagement from
young people, they may choose to disengage with the services at any time, therefore
youth work, in comparison to other professions, relies heavily on the skills of its
workers to keep the young people interested and involved.
Although some insist that the voluntary engagement is what defines youth work, some
view it as a way of working within the youth sector. For example, Ord (2009) holds an
14
opposing view that voluntary engagement alone does not define youth work, but
instead is a condition that must be present in order for youth work to be defined as
youth work. Although it is one of the only services in which young people choose
whether or not to engage; there exists other activities which young people can
engaged on their own accord that would not be described as youth work, i.e.
homework clubs and sports clubs.
There are those who hold an opposing view altogether, although this point of view is
much less common in youth work literature. Davis (2009) reports a Birmingham youth
work led project where engagement is compulsory but its success is measured
through young people returning to engage in voluntary projects, although this is a
specific localised example it does suggest that there may be alternatives to the
voluntary engagement. Whilst Spencer and Devanney (2013) offer a different
perspective on the voluntary vs compulsory engagement all together stating that
although there are often settings where young people’s attendance is compulsory, the
levels in which they choose to engage is voluntary and relies on the skills of the youth
worker as much as the young people, which still offers an alternative to most young
people’s experience of professional intervention. .
The Council of Wales Voluntary Youth Services (2011) in a handbook for youth work
in schools makes reference to the difficulty in implementing the voluntary principle in
a school setting but instead focuses on the voluntary aspect being introduced by
allowing young people to decide on part of the programme or intervention. Although
this may not be the voluntary engagement as we know it, it does provide young people
with a unique experience within a school setting which otherwise would be very
constricted.
15
There has been some recognition in recent that as youth work is becoming a more
targeted service with young people being referred by agencies where their attendance
is compulsory, for example in a court ordered situation. This can be a real challenge
for youth workers, who relate this principal so strongly to their professional identity
(Ord 2009).
These examples of youth work practices are becoming more common place, much of
the literature into youth work still appears to be in favour of the voluntary engagement
as a defining feature of youth work. Whilst there is a slight change in emphasis from
this principal being the defining feature of youth work to being seen as a necessary
component of youth work, there are few who dismiss it as being, at the very least, an
important part of youth work.
Wood, Westwood and Thompson (2015) suggest that although voluntary engagement
is a desired aspect of youth work it is the way in which we interact with young people
and tip the power in their favour which is the most important aspect and would offer
them a unique experience from other professions. Ord (2009) notes that youth work
offers young people a different relationship to other professions they may be engaged
with, in that it’s more resembling of an adult-to-adult relationship and subsequently
having a power balanced relationship is one of the aspects that young people most
appreciate from youth workers (Davies & Merton 2009).
Relationship building
16
The importance of being able to build a relationship with young people is the first
standard listed for youth work in the National Occupational Standards: “YW01 Initiate,
build and maintain purposeful relationships with young people” (LSIS 2012 p.15) and
is described as the “heart” of youth work
The emphasis on the relationship building process is another one that feature in much
of the youth work literature. Many place it as key to the success of working with young
people in this context as the relationship between a young person and a youth worker
is often seen as a friendship (Young 2006, Sercombe 2010). However, Blacker (2010)
points out that not all may see the use of the term ‘friendship’ as professionally
appropriate way to portray this. Having said that, although it is recognised that it is a
professional relationship and not a friendship many would struggle to find another point
of reference to describe this relationship. The reason for it being a unique bond could
be due to its basis on acceptance, trust, honest and respect (Young 2006). Although,
again due to these aspects it may be difficult to maintain professional boundaries
(Sercombe 2010, Blacker 2010). Nevertheless, this will be a different experience to
other professional relationships young people will have experienced, mainly due to the
balance of power between parties (Sapin 2013).
Williamson et al. (1997) analysis of young people’s needs and youth work recognised
that young people feeling that they are able to talk to youth workers they could trust
and obtain advice from was paramount to the impact of youth work. This was despite
the young people recognising the advice as not specialist. This showed that the young
people placed emphasis on the relationship and trust in the youth work as opposed to
the advice they were receiving from them. It was however observed that it was perhaps
the slightly older young people which particularly appreciated their confidential and
non-judgemental relationship with youth workers.
17
However, the relationship building process in youth work, has sometimes been felt to
not always been understood by other professionals. Young (2006 p.62) recognises the
relationship as a constant theme in youth work history but also describes it as “elusive”,
a theme shared by Blacker (2010) who states that roles within this relationship cannot
always be easily defined.
Educational
From the Albemarle report (Ministry of Education 1960) describing the history of youth
work up to that point as holding its roots from education to the National Youth Work
Strategy for Wales (Welsh Government 2014) stating this as one of the main ‘pillars’
of youth work, another aspect of youth work which may be key to understanding why
it is seen as unique, is its educational approach. Although many other professions and
organisations young people come into contact with seek to provide them with
knowledge and skills. The approach taken to do so is what many might describe makes
youth work different.
Although we see learning in youth work happen in a formal and non-formal approach,
it is perhaps the informal approach which is most associated with youth work. Batsleer
(2008) has written much of the influential literature which is associated with informal
learning in youth work. She describes how this learning is initiated by young people
and is traditionally found to come from the young person’s strengths. Rose (2014)
describes an objective of youth work being that young people are creators of their
learning, working in a participative way to plan what they would like to engage in.
Wood, Westwood and Thompson (2015) describe the role of an informal educator as
a ‘conversation steer’ that can lead everyday conversations to a place of learning for
the young people. For young people this is often an uncommon experience in
18
comparison to learning in a formal setting where their learning begins from what they
do not know and is focused on an outcome, i.e. gain a qualification or do well in an
assessment.
An important point of view to consider when discussing informal education in youth
work is the increasing pressure towards outcome based interventions and projects.
This may lead to more emphasis being placed on non-formal educative approaches
where a ‘hard’ outcome can be evidenced. As a difficulty with informal approaches, is
that, there may not be a product to evidence but simply a change of attitude or a
consideration to a new idea or point of view which perhaps may not even be
considered as learning by the young people themselves. Although gaining an
accredited outcome through youth work interventions may also be a unique
experience to young people especially if they have had negative experiences in their
formal education (Council for Wales Voluntary Youth Services 2012).
Williamson et al. (1997) shows the perspective of some young people who didn’t
respond as positively to some of the non-formal approaches used in youth work such
as issue based workshops. Their feedback being that it was repetitive from the
information they received in formal education, however they still reported that they had
changed their drinking habits as a result of youth workers interventions even though
they recognised youth workers as not being experts in any specific subject i.e. drugs,
alcohol, medical matters etc. This may suggest that although various education
approaches are used in youth work, it is its conjunction with the relationship building
aspect of youth work which is where the learning takes place; through conversation in
an informal way that may often not be realised by the young people.
Summary
19
The literature examined in this literature review has been chosen for its relevance to
the main themes outlined here, even though some views differ slightly most remain in
favour of the points discussed here. Although, most of the literature selected is fairly
recent, some other older sources have been included for its importance and impact on
youth work. For example, the Albemarle report (Ministry of Education 1960) is seen as
one of the documents that pioneered change for modern day youth work. Similarly
Howard Williamsons et al. research (1997) proves an effective analysis of young
people’s needs in Wales and how the youth service responds which resembles what
this dissertation is aiming to achieve despite the length of time since it was published.
Where possible Welsh policies and key documents have been used to analyse the
themes discussed here. These are important as they shape the direction of the youth
service and therefore the way in which youth workers work with young people and will
have an impact on the research questions asked in this dissertation.
In summary, it can be seen that there is general cohesion in youth work literature that
the themes mentioned above play an integral part in youth work practice but also in
highlighting it as a unique part of young people’s life. Many authors discussed here
use sentences such as ‘at the heart of youth work’ to emphasise that what they believe
is the key to the success and uniqueness of youth work. Although, analysed separately
here in themes, it is the voluntary engagement, combined with the relationship building
and the educational process may be what sets aside youth workers from other
professionals.
As well as these points described here. There are those who see youth work as unique
not because of components that need to be present but because they work with young
people not to solve an issue i.e. teenage pregnancy or anti-social behaviour, although
20
this may be a by-product of the work, but simply because they are within the 11-25
year age range (Wood, Westwood and Thompson 2015). This related to (Drakeford
1998) who points out that youth work is the only profession that sees young people as
simply young people as opposed to clients, pupils or referrals.
21
Chapter 3: Methodology
The aim of this research was to specifically find out what young people in a local
authority of south east Wales want from their youth workers and why this may make
youth work unique. To the writer’s knowledge, there has been no data of this effect
collected in recent years and knowing this information could have a major impact on
the way youth work is practiced and its future direction, as discussed in the previous
chapter (chapter 2). This chapter aims to specify the reasons for the research strategy
chosen as well as outlining the research methods that have been used in order to
answer the research questions including reasons behind sampling methods and data
analysis approaches. This chapter also aims to address how any potential limitations
to the chosen strategies and methods have been considered.
Throughout this chapter it is the author’s intention to clarify what steps were taken to
ensure this research is considered valid and reliable. Valid referring to the
appropriateness of choices made to answering the research questions accurately and
reliability meaning the extent to which research can be trusted and replicated in the
future (Biggam 2008).
As the research questions described in chapter one are directed towards exploring the
relationship between youth worker and young people and exploring some of the
reasons behind this, it was felt that a qualitative approach would most be suitable.
Qualitative research refers to analysing reasons behind a concept or phenomena in
an in depth meaning manner therefore allowing for an in depth analysis of the
participants ideas leading to a deeper understanding of the responses to the research
questions (Biggam 2008).
22
The research strategy chosen to implement this research was a case study. Cohen,
Manion and Morrison (2011 p.292) describe case studies as “a step in to action”
meaning that they have the potential to begin and contribute to positive change.
Using a case study approach enabled real life situations to be analysed, as opposed
to analysing artificial situations for the purpose of research, therefore increasing the
ecological validity of the study. Another benefit of using this approach was that the
data gathered would form the majority of the response to the research questions and
interpretation of data is reduced in comparison to other methods (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison 2011).
In addition, it is also said that case studies are often written in a way in which is easily
understood. These points contribute to the advantages of this method, as previously
discussed, the aim of this study was to improve the writer’s own professional
development and to provide youth workers and youth work trainees with practical
information which may improve the way in which they support and interact with young
people.
However, there is recognition that there are limitations to using this approach, as it
only analysed one organisation in one geographical area in this particular study. It may
be that the organisation’s culture affected the young people’s response in either a
positive or negative manner which may not have been the same in other local
authorities. In a similar way, the geographical area in which this study was set may
impact on the results, due to cultural and community influences. It may also be said
that this research was bound to a specific time and that the findings could have been
different in the future. These issues combined might make it difficult to replicate this
research and achieve the same findings. However, it is recognised that this research
23
being conducted in another geographical area and achieving different findings would
not be a negative but would mean that the youth work response in that area would be
different according to the specific needs of the young people.
Although only one youth service in one local authority was considered in this case
study, it has the advantage, as briefly discussed in previous chapters, of taking place
in a variety of youth settings, which hopefully represented all areas of the service
provided to young people.
Two data collection techniques were used, a questionnaire being the main source of
the data and a focus group. Using two methods allowed for triangulation which refers
to the use of two or more independent sources or methods to ensure the data collected
are valid (Newby 2014). This also enhanced the reliability and validity of the research
through combining the methods. Whilst the first method aimed to answer the research
question from an individual point of view, the second aimed to allow for a group
discussion to be analysed. This also allowed for two points of view to be analysed:
those of the young people currently receiving youth work support and those from
young people who have previously received youth work support and are training to
become youth workers.
Although every effort was made to strengthen the validity and reliability of this research
there were aspects which could be seen as limitations within the data collection
process. It may be argued that a more effective way to answer the research question
would be through the use of interviews, which may have combined the two methods
chosen. Although this method would allow for in depth information to be analysed,
capacity would have only allowed for a small number of interviews to be conducted.
Therefore, using questionnaires in conjunction with the focus group has allowed for a
24
larger amount of responses as well as an in depth response towards answering the
research questions to be analysed in a less time consuming way than interviews
would.
The sampling method chosen for the questionnaire was a convenience sampling
(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011) as the researcher works within the youth service
and had access to both young people to be participants and youth workers to help with
the data collection. Youth workers within the local authority were asked to conduct the
activity within the youth provisions they work in. Although using this approach had the
potential limitation of affecting the reliability of the research by making it difficult to
replicate the study by not using a probability sampling method (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison 2011), it was chosen for its suitability due to the small scale of the research.
It was also deemed as important that young people, in line with youth work values,
decided whether answering the questionnaire was something they would like to be
involved in and for all who wished to take part to be able to do so. This could potentially
affect the findings, for example taking part in the activity could have been more
appealing to an age or gender specific group, which in turn would make it difficult for
the findings to be generalised to young people in general or even for responses to be
generalised to the organisation which this case study is being centred on. To counter
balance this, youth workers were briefed (Appendix 1). In the briefing the youth
workers were asked if they could encourage a varied selection of young people to take
part in the activity. The briefing also included information on addressing ethical issues
such as anonymity and confidentiality as well as ensuring they do not influence the
responses but are able to guide young people, if they wish, with some examples of
questions they could ask to allow participants to further explore their answers.
25
The other potential issue with using this approach, was the lack of control over the
amount of responses returned. Although, the youth workers were asked if they could
do this with as many participants as possible no specific minimum or maximum was
specified, it was uncertain at that point whether the responses would have been
enough to analyse or on the contrary, too many. There was also the risk of, a certain
group or setting being under or over represented within the sample.
The questionnaire consisted of one question which was delivered as an activity to
young people by youth workers (See Appendix 2). The question asked being “What
qualities do you think make a good youth worker?’, to make it age friendly it contained
a gingerbread person outline which allowed the young people to respond to the
question in whichever way they wished to. The decision to only ask one question was
made to ensure the participant’s interest were maintained, as answering multiple
questions may be off putting to teenagers. The reason for this delivery method choice
was to create a way of collecting data which was more susceptible for young people.
Thus increasing the number of participants whilst allowing for the data to be collected
in an a natural setting, increasing the validity of the study and reducing reactivity
effects as the participants were engaging in an activity in youth club as normal.
Although the reactivity effect was reduced, there was still the possibility of, what is
referred to as, the Hawthorne effect (Newby 2014). This refers to the idea of the
participant’s behaviour changing because they know that their behaviour or responses
are being analysed for research purposes.
As already mentioned, the questionnaire was chosen to be delivered by youth workers
known to the participants, which may have helped them to think about what they saw
as important qualities in a youth worker as they responded to the questionnaire. It is
recognised that there was potential for experimental bias by youth workers who
26
conducted the research activity (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2011); it is possible that
they may inadvertently, influenced the young people’s responses. It is also a possibility
that by having a youth worker present when completing the questionnaire may have
affected their responses, the participants may have been more inclined to write
something which they believe would please the youth worker. However, this method
was chosen as it would hopefully provide an opportunity for discussions that will
therefore improve practice and young people’s experiences; meaning that there could
be an immediate positive outcome from the staff and young people taking part in this
research.
Once this data was collected it was analysed, described and grouped into themes and
the themes analysed collectively. This method meant there was the possibility of the
researcher misinterpreting meaning behind the participant’s responses, putting them
into irrelevant themes. As with any data interpretation by a researcher, there is the
possibility of research bias when analysing the data. For this reason, the second
method of a focus group was chosen to allow for the initial data to be interpreted by
participants, also reducing any potential interpretation bias by the researcher.
The second part of the research involved these themes being discussed in a focus
group to identify reasons behind the participant’s responses. According to Menter et
al. (2011) using focus groups with children and young people is a relatively new
method of gathering data. It has been stated that focus group needs to be amended
when used as a method of gathering data from young people, and that perhaps more
attention needs to be paid to details such as group contracts and explaining the
purpose of the research than adult groups. As discussed in Chapter 1, in order to
protect identities all responses were anonymous, this was reiterated to the focus group
27
in order to remove any apprehension about their responses being identified by others.
This discussion will form part of the introduction of the focus group.
Although the focus group were chosen as per the previous sampling method of
convenience sampling, they were also chosen as they are young people who are
training to become youth workers whilst also having experience of local youth work,
using this group allowed for the data to be analysed in the ‘natural language’ of the
participants (Menter et al. 2011). As, for example, if professionals or those further in
their youth work career, were used to interpret reasons behind the young people’s
responses they may have approached it through their point of view or misinterpreted
meaning of young people’s language.
Menter et al. (2011) identified several factors which can affect the effectiveness of a
focus group, these being: age, size of group and gender. In this occasion, the group
used consisted of 5 females of a similar age who were well known to each other, which
is consistent with the factors for having an effective focus group. It could be argued
that a limitation of using this particular audience for a focus group was that it is likely
that if they are currently training to be youth workers, they are likely to have been
influenced to do so by the youth work support they received in the past and perhaps
be biased when discussing the topic.
Another factor which impact on a focus group, is how well it is conducted and how the
information is captured. Menter et al. (2011) particularly mentions the importance in
balance when building a rapport with the participants in the focus group without the
participants feeling over comfortable with the researcher to the point of affecting their
responses. In the case of this research, this was achievable as the focus group were
known to the researcher but were not peers. The skills of the interviewer are also
28
important to ensure the focus group is effective, particularly their ability to provide a
comfortable environment for participants to give their opinion on the subject matter. It
is the author’s opinion that skills gained through youth work training and practice
assisted in facilitating a successful focus group session.
This focus group method was chosen for its ability to explore the reasoning behind
some of the answers given by participants in the first part of the research. Another
reason for using this method was that it allows for information to be gained which may
not be obtainable through other methods. By allowing the participants to discuss topics
and exchange opinions, it may have enabled for a point of view to be brought forward
which may otherwise not be manifested. In addition, it has been said that being in a
focus group makes participant more comfortable which may illicit more in depth
response, although not all may agree that this is the case (Menter et al. 2011).
The focus group session was audibly recorded and the data transcribed. Although this
was a time consuming method of recording the data, it ensured no information was
missed, which might have occurred through other methods of recording such as note
taking during the focus group sessions. Using this method also allowed for full
attention to be given to the participant and allow for participants to perhaps feel more
at ease than if there was an extra person taking notes or a video camera. The data
were analysed and the most relevant sections relating to the research questions was
critically examined in more depth in the following chapter. As the focus group
questions were structured according to the research questions, the transcript formed
a fairly coherent analyses of the themes. However, in order to help with this process
Kruger and Casey (2009 p.120) principles for analysing focus groups were applied,
which states as follows:
29
1. did the participant answer the question that was asked? If yes, go to question
3; if no, go to question 2; if don’t know, set it aside and review it later;
2. does the comment answer a different question in the focus group? If yes, move
it to the appropriate question; if no, go to question 3;
3. does the comment say something of importance about the topic? If yes, put it
under the appropriate question; if no, set it aside;
4. is it something that has been said earlier? If yes, start grouping like quotes
together; if no, start a separate pile.
A limitation of this process was that the above suggestion may not have allowed for a
response to be analysed across more than one theme, an additional fifth step could
be introduced which may ask if the response links or related to another theme already
mentioned, this would allow for the continuous data interpretation previously discussed
to take place. The final step to data analysis, will be considering how the themes
identified related back to the literature identified in chapter two.
In order to differentiate between questionnaire responses and focus group responses,
the data in the following chapter (chapter 4) were coded as follows. Youth work
questionnaires responses were identified as Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 etc. The teacher’s
questionnaire responses were identified as TQ1, TQ2 TQ3 and so on and the Police
Officers questionnaires responses were identified as POQ1, POQ2 and POQ3 etc.,
the focus group participants were identified as P1, P2, P3 and P4.
To ensure the reliability of this research, steps have been taken throughout the
process to ensure each stage can be easily replicated, although on some stage this
may be difficult, for example due to the sampling methods chosen. Overall the outlining
of the research methods here should form a solid basis to replicate this study.
30
Chapter 4: Results and Analysis
This chapter will outline the results of the case study described in the previous
Research Method section in chapter 3. These results will include analysis made from
both the data collection methods: the questionnaire and the focus group. The results
will be analysed according to the research questions outlined in chapter 1, although
as the third research question particularly links to Youth Work literature, this will be
addressed throughout the analysis below.
Results and Analysis
There were 47 responses to the youth work questionnaire. The descriptive words used
were grouped together into similar categories. For example, ‘Happy’, ‘Smiley’ and
‘Joyful’ were put into the one category as was ‘Easy to talk to’ and ‘Someone you can
speak to’ put into another category (See Appendix 3) for results of questionnaire). In
total 35 categories were identified.
The focus group consisted of four apprentice youth workers. The questions asked in
to structure the focus group can be found in Appendix 4.
Research question one - In young people’s view what makes a good youth
worker?
The questionnaire focused on getting the majority of the data to answer this research
questions by asking young people ‘What qualities do you think make a good youth
worker?’. The most prominent of themes being ‘sense of humour’ which were included
in over half of the responses, followed by ‘kind’ mentioned in 23 of responses and
‘helpful’ mentioned in 21 of responses. Other popular responses included: ‘fun’,
‘communication skills’, ‘understanding’, ‘caring’ and ‘easy to talk to’. The remainder of
31
results are included in Appendix 3. Overall, the questionnaire response provided a
large variation of words used to describe a good youth worker, most of the words used
complemented each other well and there appeared to not be any contradictions
between the questionnaire responses. However, the large number of different
describing words would suggest that what young people may want from their youth
worker may vary according to their circumstance and need, which links with Jeffs and
Smith (2010) concept of youth work needing to be responsive. One of the key things
that emerge from these findings is that they are all linked to that of the broad
requirement of youth work which is to build positive relationships with young people
(Blacker 2010, LSIS 2012, Welsh Government 2014)
The focus group response generally agreed with the words that were used in the
questionnaire responses to describe a good youth worker. When asked what
responses they think young people gave, the focus group gave fourteen different
answers. Twelve of the 14 words given by the focus group were also direct responses
from the young people questionnaires, half of which were identified as the popular
response by feature in at least 25% of questionnaires.
Although, it is important to look at the questionnaire responses individually, it is likely
that the participants didn’t see the youth worker qualities as individually making a good
youth worker but that collectively they paint a picture of what young people see as
important in a youth worker. To aid in this understanding the focus group were asked
to sort these words into themes according to which words they felt were related to
each other and why.
For the purposes of the focus group, only the words which over 25% of participants
mentioned in their responses were directly discussed, by way of asking the focus
32
group to group these words together. There was a general consensus from the focus
group that the responses of the questionnaire were what they would expect from
young people’s questionnaire responses.
The focus group were divided into pairs and took two slightly different approaches to
organising the responses into themes. Whilst one pair grouped the words that related
to each other, the other divided into three categories: personality, qualities and skills.
Despite a slightly different method, there were still similarities. All four focus group
participants agreed that ‘Friendly’ and ‘Easy to talk to’ went together: “Cos you need
to be friendly and happy and smiley right for them to come up and talk to you” (P2).
This reiterates the importance of having the skills for using conversation as one of the
main tools for youth work practice (Smith 2010).
For Participant 1 and Participant 4, ‘easy to talk to’ came as a subheading to which
other qualities followed:
I think it’s because If you’re easy to talk to, like from, me. If I was going to talk to
someone like if I found that person easy to talk to then it would be because they’re
kind, friendly (P1)
This links with the concept described by Jolly (2010) regarding the importance of the
youth workers skills, in this case it could be said personal skills or personality as
described by the focus group, to keep the interest of the young person in order to
develop a relationship with them. This appeared to be a reoccurring theme throughout
the focus group that the success of the relationship between the young person and
youth worker was very much depending on the skills of the youth worker.
This supports the importance of what is described as open-access youth provisions,
where young people can access as they wish to engage with the youth workers they
33
choose to according to the relationship they have, moving towards a more targeted
approach or working within non-voluntary settings could take away this aspect for
young people which potentially takes away one of their most valued aspects of youth
work.
For example, another consistent grouping was ‘fun’ and ‘funny/sense of humour’: “Cos
you have to be fun to have a sense of humour” (P3). Throughout the focus group being
fun and funny became one of the most prominent areas for discussion. It became
apparent that when discussing this grouping, that for the participants of the focus
group the definition of being funny was the opposite of being serious or strict and
almost a synonym to being fun:
It just provides a better environment doesn’t it, atmosphere and a better
environment and I’d rather myself talk to someone who has a sense of humour
rather than someone so serious, just makes it easier to approach (P1).
This linked with ‘natural language’ a concept discussed by Menter et al 2011. The
researcher or another professional may have interpreted the use of the phrase
differently to focus group participants, thus strengthening the reasons for choosing the
method of data gathering and participants used.
It may be that not all respondents see this as being the most identified desirable quality
in a youth worker as a positive. It may be that it is felt by youth workers, that some
might hold the perception of the youth service as being a leisure time provider for
young people. If young people are stating that being funny and fun as the most
important qualities in a youth worker it may inadvertently strengthen the ‘table tennis
and pool playing’ stereotype of a youth worker some might see.
34
The reality is that, throughout the discussion in the focus group, ‘being funny’ and ‘fun’
was linked to other qualities such as: easy to talk to, approachable and nonjudgemental despite the latter two not being given to the focus group as a popular
response. It seems that for the focus group at least, qualities which made them more
likely to approach, engage or talk to a youth worker formed an important theme. This
links with the first listed National Occupation Standard for Youth Work (LSIS 2012),
the ability to “initiate, build and maintain” relationships with young people, which as
outlined in the literature review is described as being at the ‘heart’ of youth work.
This interpretation might lead to a conclusion that being funny the most important
quality young people look for in a youth worker but perhaps is the first quality they
seek, which leads to other qualities being recognised.
Having knowledge also was another prominent topic of conversation throughout the
focus group. It was discussed in the focus group as being a quality linked to being
helpful:
Facilitator: How do you think knowledge and helpful link to each other?
P2: If you have knowledge you can be helpful
Facilitator: Do you think you think you can be helpful without knowledge?
P2: Yeah
P3: Sometimes
P2: Sometimes but I think it’s more better more helpful if you have the knowledge
The analysis of the questionnaire also revealed this to be important for young people,
with some responses specifying the type of knowledge valued: “knowledge of
contraception” (Q6), “Tells you the good and bad in alcohol drugs etc.” (Q29) and
“Tells us about drugs, alcohol, sex and reality” (Q34).
The focus group in a similar way, also mentioned knowledge in terms of drugs advice,
job seeking advice, agencies for young people and safeguarding procedures. This
35
links with Williamsons et al. (1997) analysis of young people’s needs which found that
young people valued knowledge, even if it’s identified as not specialist. The prevalence
of knowledge could be linked to some of the other qualities described here. For
example, it is unlikely that a young person will engage with the youth service simply
because a youth worker is funny, they are more likely to look for such qualities in a
friend. It may also be surprising that the young people would look for job seeking
advice from a youth worker as opposed to a careers advisor. However, the
combination of the desired qualities described along with the knowledge may be what
makes youth work a unique profession to young people. This has a further implication
on practice, highlighting the importance for youth workers not only to be qualified but
to have up-to-date training and knowledge on important issues faced by young people
on a day-to-day basis, as well as knowledge of other helping organisations young
people may need to be referred or signposted to.
It is also important to consider that the qualities the participant described here may not
be desirable from all youth workers at the same time. The flexibility of the youth service
allows for youth workers to take on a variety of roles depending on the needs of the
young people or group. It may not be that when participants describing what qualities
they wanted in a youth worker they weren’t thinking of just one person but a collective
of different youth workers with slightly different qualities that can offer something
according to the situation and their need. It may be that the differences between these
roles is what offers young people a balance experience and adds to the uniqueness
of youth work.
Research question two - Are the young people’s view of what makes a good
youth worker different to other helping professions?
36
A questionnaire asking what qualities were good in other helping professionals was
also conducted. These had 18 responses, 12 referring to teachers and 6 referring to
police officers. Similarly these were grouped into themes and the responses are shown
in the table in Appendix 5.
The questionnaire responses found that there was an emphasis particularly for
teachers on discipline which wasn’t as prominent in the youth work questionnaires,
these responses included: “Isn’t overly strict” (TQ3), “Doesn’t shout all the time”
(TQ10) and “Disciplines when needed” (TQ12).
Although how discipline linked to making them a ‘good teacher’ seemed to be different
according to each questionnaire respondent. This was similar in the focus group with
a participant giving an example of a good teacher, which another participant disagreed
with, recognising that although people liked him, perhaps he may not be considered
‘good’: “He would be good. But I just felt like I’m not getting anywhere here and I had
to move classes for like a different teacher” (P1).
The way in which the questionnaire question was asked, left room for some ambiguity
perhaps more so whilst investigating what young people thought made a good teacher.
There seemed to a divide between the participants who thought of ‘good teachers’ as
effective for learning or gaining qualifications and those who thought of ‘good teachers’
as making lessons easy and enjoyable regardless of the impact on learning. For
Gilchrist (2010) the reason why youth work is unique to young people is due to the
negotiation of learning and curriculum which young people do not experience in a
schools setting, perhaps leading to a conflict in interpretation of ‘good’ and ‘bad’
teachers.
37
During the focus group, when discussing the difference between teachers and youth
workers, emphasis was placed on knowledge and particularly qualifications as being
important, over personal qualities:
You absolutely need these (points to caring, kind, sense of humour) for youth
work but for a teacher you don’t need these you need more knowledge. (P1).
They’d care more about the teacher’s qualifications rather than qualities. Like it
they went to university and got a high qualification then they don’t really care
what they’re like (P4).
Although, there was a similarity in the knowledge aspect, there was a contrast between
qualifications and life skills. There was no mention of qualification or training within the
youth work response, but this was classed quite highly within the focus group
discussion when discussing what made a good teacher. In contrast, the youth work
questionnaire responses including some which were classed under miscellaneous but
could be described as life or practical skills such as “can cook” (Q9, Q27) or “sporty”
(Q12).
The questionnaire responses of the young people who chose to look at what makes a
good police officer seemed to focus on more on attitude, popular responses included:
“not cocky” (POQ1, POQ4, POQ6), “Not moody” (POQ6) and “doesn’t give attitude”
(POQ5).
Although the reverse of these terms are similar to the youth worker questionnaire
responses, it’s noted that for a police officer they were described using a negative.
This combined with the focus group response: “They (police officers) need everything
here. Apart from the knowledge, they’ve got the knowledge they just got none of the
others” (P3)
38
This may lead to the conclusion that what young people want from their local police
officer could include qualities which they do not already possess or show, whereas
when completing the youth worker questionnaires they gave responses of what
qualities they were already able to recognise in youth workers.
The intention of this aspect of the research was to recognise the difference in the way
in which different helping professions are able to support young people, and which of
these was seen as key to youth work by young people. However, there seems to be
an underlying theme through the responses from the data collection of why youth work
may be better than other professions. Although, this was not the intention it could be
that in order to answer some of the research questions outlined here, this way of
thinking might have been useful. A way to counterbalance this in future may be to ask
participants firstly what each profession helps them with, then exploring the option of
how they can do this well.
The reality may be that the desired qualities for the other professionals may not be a
realistic possibility and that youth work allows for the flexibility to not only meet young
people’s needs but to do so in a way which they would allow, an aspect which may be
difficult or lost through youth work becoming more targeted (Davies & Merton 2009).
Research question three - How does young people’s responses link to the main
youth work characteristics?
Throughout the results discussed here links have been made to how the results linked
to the characteristics that make youth work unique.
39
As discussed above, the bulk of responses linked to what the focus group described
as personality traits, with the main characteristic described in the focus group and the
questionnaire responses being the importance of having a sense of humour or as the
focus group put it not being too serious and therefore easy to talk to. This essentially
links directly to the emphasis placed on building relationships with young people. As
a focus group participant said: “Well they wouldn’t want to go to any provisions if it
wasn’t fun!” (P1). Another quotation included:
P1: And if you seem that you’re fun and that they will want to talk to you more
P3: If they got a problem then they can come to you then
P1: Yeah cos you seem friendlier one and easy to approach then
The way which these ‘personality traits’ were described in the focus group seemed to
be as a gateway to the relationship building process which was directly linked to
discussing issues and problems. This supports Young (2006) notion that the unique
bond between youth worker and young person is due to four main characteristics,
three of which: Trust, Honesty and Respect being direct answers from young people
in the questionnaire, the fourth which was described as ‘Acceptance’ could be said to
be part of the ‘non-judgemental’ and ‘understanding’ questionnaire responses.
Another feature of youth work, which appeared in the focus group was that of voluntary
relationship. When discussing particularly why there was a difference between youth
workers and other helping professionals, in this instance a teacher, the nature of the
voluntary relationship was offered as an explanation during the focus group: “Well like
it’s different from school cos it’s like non-mainstream. It’s laid back, it’s voluntary from
the young person’s point” (P1) and “I just feel like it’s different from school because
you are told to do it and with us we are here if you need us basically” (P1). This linking
directly the argument outline in the literature review (Chapter 2) for the importance of
40
the voluntary relationship (Davies & Merton 2009, Jeffs & Smith 2010, Welsh
Government 2014).
Despite this link being made in the focus group, voluntary engagement was not an
area which seemed to manifest itself in the questionnaire responses. Although, this
could be attributed to the questionnaire question, which focused on what made youth
workers particularly effective or good, whereas young people expect there to be
voluntary engagement due to the nature of the service. However, some of the
questionnaire participants experience would have been of youth work in a nonvoluntary capacity, i.e. schools. However, this links with Spencer and Devanney’s
(2013) view, that it is not the voluntary engagement itself but other factors associated
with it for example, the balance in power, which is appreciated by young people. This
may be one of the aspects which require further specific research to be understood
from the young people point of view.
Although the educational approach link perhaps was not as obvious as some of the
other themes, the importance of ‘knowledge’, ‘advice’ and ‘being helpful’ within the
youth work aspect were prominent answers of the questionnaires. The focus group
themed these categories together to discuss the importance of having knowledge to
help young people with CVs, this will have an indirect link with an educational approach
to the young people, although as discussed in the literature review due to its informal
nature, may not be interpreted as such by the young people.
A key example of this can be taken from a questionnaire response: “nosey, in a good
way to draw out relevant questions” (Q28). Although without further exploring the
answer with the participant, it would be difficult to know in detail what they meant by
this response, however it can be related to the conversation steer concept (Wood,
41
Westwood and Thompson 2015). This refers to the youth worker leading a
conversation to a place of learning or development for the young person. Although this
process may be seen learning from a professional point of view, a young person may
simply see it as a conversation, shown in both the questionnaire responses and focus
group discussion where having ‘someone to talk to’ has been a re-occurring theme.
Bringing and delivering activities was one of the aspects identified in the questionnaire
responses. The focus group furthermore identified that what distinguished youth work
was that it came from young people’s needs as shown in the extract below:
Like we offer loads to them but more things they would enjoy and we offer
activities according to their needs and stuff it just suits them better I think that’s
the difference between school and youth work (P1).
Starting from the young person’s point of view links with the educational approach that
was discussed in the literature review. Although the extract above isn’t identified as
specifically to an educational activity, it demonstrated the approach that youth workers
are able to take which differ from the educational approached that young people are
most used to, i.e. teachers (Smith 2010, Batsleer 2008).
Evaluation of methodology
It is the author’s opinion that the use of a questionnaire and a focus group to gather
data proved a complimentary mix of methods to achieve triangulation, reliability and
validity, this shown in the way in which both sets of data gathered complemented and
found similar emerging themes.
42
The open-ended questionnaire proved a positive method as it allowed participants to
choose their own words/methods to describe what qualities they believed made a good
youth worker, however using a closed method questionnaire by for example, asking
young people to choose ten words from a selection of terms, or asking them to
prioritise the most important qualities from a pre-identified list might result in an easier
to analyse list, particularly for comparison with another profession. It was found that
the questionnaire responses were difficult to analyse and compare fully as the reasons
behind the responses were unknown. Although this was counter balanced through the
use of the focus group.
The sampling method for the questionnaire worked well for the small scale of the
research, although another dynamic to the data analysis would be to analyse which
setting the response came from i.e. detached, centre-based, school or projects. It
could be that there may be a difference in what young people want from their youth
worker based on which type of provisions they are attending.
Due to the amount of questionnaire responses the decision was made to only discuss
the most occurring words, mentioned by at least 25% of participants of the
questionnaire, during the focus group. This decision was made with a time and
capacity issue in mind, however some of the words mentioned by the focus group were
also included within the less occurring questionnaire responses. It may be that through
discussion, the focus group may have joined these less occurring words with some of
the bigger themes allowing for a more in depth analysis. This would be a consideration
for any future research.
43
44
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Overall this research has accomplished the following:
a. A comprehensive list gathered of what young people think makes a good youth
worker
b. An analysis of why young people may think this
c. A small comparison on how this may differ from other professions
d. An analysis of how the above link with the main characteristics of youth work
discussed in the literature review.
In addition, it is felt that this study has gone some way in achieving the writer’s overall
objectives to inform professional development and help to shape future training, shown
by the focus group participants which were youth work trainees were able to relate
how taking part in the focus group would improve or change their practice. The main
objective was to voice young people’s opinion of the youth service, in order to ‘make
a case’ for the importance of youth work. Although, this has been achieved in ways,
participants have shown how they value youth workers differently to other
professionals; there is opportunity for this to be developed further perhaps on a larger
scale or more in depth. It is the writer’s opinion that this information is collated within
local youth services on a small scale as examples of good practice, but are not
gathered together to be analysed in depth in a research setting, which could potentially
provide essential information from young people’s view to show the importance of
youth work.
In response to research question one, it was found that overall what young people
wanted from their youth workers, is what most would expect, as found from the focus
45
group participants. The reasons behind the responses allowed for a more in depth
understanding on why youth work may be viewed as unique to young people and why
young people may see these qualities as important which ultimately linked to the
importance of relationship building in youth work (LSIS 2012, Welsh Government
2014). It was also discussed that it may not be the individual qualities that make the
youth worker that unique professional or person in the young person’s life but the
combination of the desired qualities which is of importance.
Understanding the reasons behind young people’s responses helps with
understanding why the comparison between youth work and other professions found
many similarities, which may be surprising to most. Despite some similarities it was
found that there appeared to be an inconsistency with what young people wanted from
other professionals in comparison to what they generally experience from the other
professionals investigated in this study, although this would need further research to
confirm. Part of this inconsistency could relate to the concept uncovered that the
qualities they would like to see in other professionals may not always be the qualities
which makes them the most effective at their job, which differs from the way in which
the participants described the desired qualities in youth workers and why that made
them efficient and effective in their role. This leads towards understanding youth work
as a unique service to young people.
The analysis of the third research question relating to the link between this research
and youth work characteristics was found to be generally positive. The results showed
that many of the responses pointed towards the importance of relationship building
with some attention towards voluntary engagement which were two of the main
characteristics of youth work identified in the literature review in Chapter 2. The
educational approach link could also be seen in an indirect way, although this link was
46
less obvious aspects of the principles behind informal learning could be seen in the
participant’s responses. Overall, this shows that there is some cohesion in the way in
which youth work is seen from young people, practitioners and academics alike.
Recommendations
The first recommendation would be for more research on this subject to be conducted,
perhaps on a wider scale, including samples from a number of local areas. In the
literature review chapter, it was identified that little to no recent research in this area
exists. The benefits of gathering such evidence could be invaluable to ‘making the
case’ for youth work and how it is a unique and vital service for young people.
Although the comparison between youth work and other professions was seen here in
a small scale. Further research into this area, investigating what youth work offers
young people which other professions are not able to could see benefits from further
showing why youth work could be seen as unique, the importance of the youth service
in supporting young people and perhaps lead to a better understanding of youth work
to other professions which in turn could lead to better partnership working which
results in more opportunities and better support for young people.
The second recommendation is one that underpins the values of youth work,
participation. This research has allowed for a snapshot into a youth work organisation,
which like many others has had to adapt and change to still be able to provide a service
for young people in a time of budget cuts and a move towards a more targeted
approach. It is easy that in difficult almost desperate times, the young people we are
supposed to be listening to in order to shape the youth service are the ones which are
being listened to the least. Therefore, the recommendation is that we, as youth work,
professions listen to young people more, as this is one of the reasons young people
47
gave that differentiates youth work from other professions. Here the young people,
gave lists of qualities which they would like to see from their youth workers, these need
to be at the forefront of all youth work practice.
48
References:
Batsleer, J. (2008) Informal Learning in Youth Work. London: Sage.
Biggam, J. (2008) Succeeding with your Master's Dissertation. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Blacker, H. (2010) Relationships, friendships and youth work. In: T. Jeffs & M. Smith,
eds. Youth work practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave macmillan, pp. 15-30.
Brent, J. (2004) Communicating what youth work achieves: the smile and the arch.
Youth & Policy, 84, pp. 69-73.
British Educational Research Association (2011) Ethical Guidelines for educational
research.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education. 7th ed.
London: Routledge.
Council for Wales of Voluntary Youth Services (2011) The youth workers in school.
Youth work methodology. Council for Wales of Voluntary Youth Services.
Council for Wales of Voluntary Youth Services (2012) Accreditation, method and
resources handbook for youth work practitioners in Wales. Council for Wales of
Voluntary Youth Services.
Davies, R. (2009.)Children and Young People Now. [Online]
Available at: http://www.cypnow.co.uk/ywn/feature/1069954/involuntary-youth-workthe-voluntary-principle (Accessed: 12 December 2015).
Davies, B. & Merton, M. (2009) Squaring the Circle? The State of Youth Work in
Some Children and Young People's Services. Youth & Policy, 103, pp. 5-24.
Davies, B. (2005) Youth Work: A manifesto For Our Times. Youth & Policy, 88, pp.
5-27.
Davies, B. (2015) Youth Work: A manifesto For Our Times- Revisited. Youth &
Policy, 107, pp. 96-117.
Drakeford, M. (1998). Youth Work Practice - Youth Work Training, Caerphilly: Wales
Youth Agency.
Gilchrist, R. (2010) Programmes, programming and practice. In: T. Jeffs & M. Smith,
eds. Youth work practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave mcmillan, pp. 70-84
Jeffs, T. & Smith, M. (2010) Introducing Youth Work. In: T. Jeffs & M. Smith, eds.
Youth work practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave macmillan, pp. 1-14.
49
Jolly, J. (2010) Local youth work. In: A. Rogers & M. Smith, eds. Journeying
Together. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publisher, pp. 1-12.
Krueger, R. & Casey, M. (2009) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research.
4th ed. London: Sage.
Learning and Skills Improvement Service, (2012) National Occupation Standards for
Youth Work, Learning and Skills Improvement Service.
Menter, I., Elliot, D., Hulme, M. & Lowden, K. (2011) A guide to Practitioner
Research in education. London: Sage .
Ministry of Education, (1960) The Youth Service in England and Wales ('The
Albemarle Report'), London: HMSO.
National Assembly for Wales, (2000) Extending Entitlements: supporting young
people in Wales, Cardiff: Corporate Policy Unit.
National Youth Agency, (2004) Ethical Conduct in Youth Work a statement of values
and priciples fromthe National Youth Agency, Leicester: Eastgate house.
Newby, P. (2014) Research Methods for Education. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Offord, A. (2015) Youth work spending in Wales falls 14 per cent. Children and
young people now. Accessed online
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/1154373/youth-work-spending-in-wales-falls-14per-cent. (Accessed: 26th October 2015).
Ord, J. (2009) Thinking the Unthinkable: Youth Work without Voluntary
Participation?. Youth & Policy, 103, pp. 39-48.
Principals Youth Officers' Group, (2015) The role and value of youth work in current
and emerging agendas in Wales.
Rose, J. (2014) International Youth Work. Cardiff: Connect Cymru
Sapin, K. (2013) Essential Skills for Youth Work Practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Sercombe, H. (2010) Youth Work Ethics. London: Sage.
Smith, H. (2010) Engaging in conversation. In: T. Jeffs & M. Smith, eds. Youth work
practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 31-40.
Spence, J. & Devanney, C. (2013) Everyday is Different. In: S. Curran, R. Harrison &
D. Mackinnon, eds. Working with Young People. London: Sage, pp. 73-86.
Spence, J. (2010) Targeting, Accountability and Youth Work Practice. Practice,
16(4), pp. 261-272.
50
The Department of Education and Science, (1987) Effective Youth Work. A report by
HM Inspectors, London: Department of Education and Science.
Welsh Assembly Government (2007) Young people, youth work, Youth Service.
National Youth Service Strategy for Wales, Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Government (2013) Youth engagement and progression framework.
Implementation plan, Cardiff: Welsh Government.
Welsh Government (2013) Youth Work in Wales: Principles and Purposes, Youth
Work in Wales Review Group.
Welsh Government (2014) The National Youth Work Strategy for Wales 2014-2018.
Williamson, H., Afzal, S., Eason, C. & Williams, N. (1997) The Needs of Young
people aged 15-19 and The Youth Work Response, Caerphilly: Wales Youth Agency
Newsline.
Wood, J., Westwood, S. & Thompson, G. (2015) Youth Work: Preparation for
Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wylie, T. (2015) Youth Work. Youth & Policy, 114, pp. 43-54.
Young, K. (2006) The Art of youth work. 2nd ed. Lyme: Russell House Publishing.
51
Appendix 1
Briefing
Thank you for agreeing to help conduct this questionnaire. The purpose is to find out
what young people see as important qualities in youth workers.
Please could you ask as many young people to complete the questionnaire in your
provision. Please ensure that young people aren’t pressured into completing the
questionnaire and do so out of their free will. Participants will need to be explained
that their responses will be confidential and will be used for research purposes,
however their responses will not be identified by anyone outside your provision.
Young people can choose how they wish to give their answers, for example, by writing
or drawing and can use the entire page. If young people feel more comfortable they
can complete the questionnaire in pairs or small groups. Should young people struggle
with the questionnaires, here are some prompt questions they could be asked:

Think about a time when a youth worker has helped you, what was it about
them that you appreciated?

What qualities would your ideal youth worker have?

What qualities do you think youth workers need to be able to help young people
in the way they do?

What do youth workers need to be able to do or to be to be good at their jobs?
Thank you a gain for your help 
Appendix 2
52
Questionnaire example
What qualities make a good
youth worker?
Please tick the box to show you understand that what you’ve written here
might be used for research but that no one will be able to identify who
wrote it apart from the youth workers that completed this activity with you.
Questionnaire example
53
What qualities make a good
_______________?
Please tick the box to show you understand that what you’ve written here
might be used for research but that no one will be able to identify who
wrote it apart from the youth workers that completed this activity with you.
54
Appendix 3
Youth Work Questionnaire responses
Table 3.1 Table showing popular responses (more than 2) to Youth Work
questionnaire and number of questionnaires it featured on. n=47
Questionnaire response
Sense of humour/funny/a laugh
kind
Helpful
Fun
Communication skills
Understanding
Caring
Easy to talk to
Happy/smiley
Friendly
Leadership
Knowledge
Trustworthy
Non judgmental
Honest
Activities - brings lots
Supportive
Laid back
Enthusiastic
Approachable
Respect
Advice
Fair
Polite
Reliable
Opportunities
Confident
Team work
Relationships
Authority
Safe
Timekeeping
Number of
questionnaire
responses
26
23
21
18
17
16
14
14
13
11
11
10
9
9
9
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
55
Appendix 4
Focus group questions
1. If you were asked what qualities make a good youth worker, what would you
say?
2. (Show group qualities cards). These were some of the most popular
responses young people came up with, if you had to put them into themes,
how would you do it?
3. How do you think these relate to the day to day support young people
receive? Think about your personal experiences.
4. Why do you think young people chose those words as the most important?
5. Are there any that surprise you?
6. Are there any you think are missing?
7. Do you think these would be different if they were asked about another
helping professional like a teacher, or a police officer?
8. From your training so far, what have you learnt that links directly to these
qualities?
9. How does knowing what young people want from their youth works going to
affect the way you and other youth workers work with young people?
56
Appendix 5
Other profession questionnaire responses
Table 5.1 Table showing responses to Teachers questionnaire and number of
questionnaires it featured on. n=12
Questionnaire responses
Helpful
Someone you can speak to
Doesn't shout
Stick to the rules/their word
Caring
Fair
Firm
Respectful
Bossy
Communication skills
Disciplines
Fun at times
Kind
Patient
Polite
Supportive
Understanding
Consistent
Homework (doesn’t give you extra)
Isn't Annoying
Encourages
Explains well
Friendly
Not too serious
Number of
responses
7
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
57
Table 5.2 Table showing responses to Police Officers questionnaire and number of
questionnaires it featured on. n=6
Questionnaire response
Helpful
Patient
Not moody
Not cocky
Doesn’t give you attitude
Kind/Isn’t nasty
Doesn’t shout
Understanding
Sticks to the law
Respectful
Disciplined
Trustworthy
Teamwork
Supportive
Strict
Protects
Professional
Not too scary
Lets you tell your side of the story
Happy
Caring
Sense of humour
Number of
responses
7
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
58