A creative response

At the outset of the research, the young people and myself agreed we would create something together, a response to what we had learned.

The creation of a short film for example (Foster, 2012), could have been a “unique way of engaging young people, particularly those experiencing different forms of social or economic disadvantage (Hague, 2014 in Blum-Ross, 2015). Further, it could have provided the perfect fusion of voice and creative expression, allowing the young people to challenge misconceptions, as well as accommodating their interests, skills and experiences (Carter and Ford, 2013). In terms of acting-reflecting-acting, the young people would have been able to take their learning from the group sessions into a real world setting.

This would mean the young people were creating their own codes and

becoming “reflective, self-conscious agents and critical thinkers capable of transforming the world” (Rudd & Comings, 1994, p. 314 in Rindner, 2004)”.

Rarely are looked-after young people, or young people generally, involved in the creation of content that depicts their own lives, and this was something I wanted to address. A case is point is Vanhaeght and Bauwens's 2016 study, where they interviewed children who participated in a cultural TV show. Vanhaeght and Bauwens conclude that “although the concept of the show heralded the promise of a participatory project, decisions about how the children’s art was presented and framed, remained largely in the hands of the media professionals and the art teachers. Quite a few children recognised their lack of decision-making influence and carefully criticised the disrespectful representation of their art form” (p.8). They note that within the context of television production “‘ordinary people’ are always reminded of the boundaries and hierarchies that help produce the legitimacy of the medium TV and its makers” (p.9) and “Overall, TV production is not a nourishing context for symmetrical child–adult relations” (p.9). However, young people are able to “make sense of television in light of what they know about genre and narrative, and the production process itself. They are much more sophisticated users of the medium than they are often given credit for” (Barker & Petley, 2001, p.13 in Simmons, 2009). In fact, children can make “thoughtful, critical and media literate video productions themselves” (Dickinson, 1998, p.122 in Simmons, 2009).

Of further relevance to myself, Freire’s theory of Critical Pedagogy (Freire, 1970) was influential in the development of many pioneering youth media projects (Blum-Ross, 2015). Within these projects there is often a broad emphasis on fostering “critical media literacy”. “In

addition to the skills associated with “accessing” and “creating” texts, the central argument for young people producing their own media is the idea of “understanding” or even “critiquing” mainstream media (Goodman, 2003) through developing in young people a “more questioning attitude” toward the media they encounter in their everyday lives (Blum-Ross, 2015, p.315). This therefore begs the question; why did I not simply undertake a creative media project with these young people from the start?

To answer, Blum-Ross (2015) states that in practice very few opportunities for media analysis arises in media projects, and the creation of digital media does not in itself guarantee critique, or even basic understanding (Buckingham (2003). It was incumbent on me, as a collaborator with the young people, to support the development of their critical media literacy. With this in mind, I felt that by breaking the project down into clear, simple stages (e.g. discussion of content, reflection on content and creation of content), I would ensure the young people had a shared understanding and criticality of these images, which they would be able to take into the creation of their own content. To underline this approach, Freire states that, “The more the people unveil this challenging reality which is to be the object of their transforming action, the more critically they enter that reality... There would be no human action if there were no objective reality” (p.35).

Unfortunately, I was unable to complete a creative project with the young people. Qualitative research is rarely straightforward, involving a complex system of data collection and analysis (Blaxter et al. 2010).

Ultimately, I had to accept my original plans had been too ambitious, which was incredibly frustrating. Freire notes that “Trust is contingent on the evidence which one party provides the others of his true, concrete intentions; it cannot exist if that party’s words do not coincide

with their actions. To say one thing and do another — to take one’s own word lightly — cannot inspire trust” (p.72). With this in mind, I was conscious of abusing the young people's trust and letting them down. Therefore, I wrote a treatment, a short outline for a feature film project, informed by the research findings and the voices of these young people (discussed in chapter sixteen). Although we were unable to complete the creative project together, I was able to take the young people's words and turn them into something more than just another thesis dying “a slow death” on “the shelf” (Lichtman, 2013, p.3). The treatment gave them an opportunity to see their collective words come to life and although it was not quite what I had in mind at the outset of my research, it did enable me to draw the research together and provide a fruitful and positive resolution for the young people. It seemed the story really resonated with the young people too, with Rob writing, “it made me tear up its such a good story... the struggle is real I can relate so much to his story”.