The research aim ed to explore how the concept o f 'risk' had im pacted on the tre a tm e n t of young people w ho have offended from practitioners' points o f view . This was done by specifically focusing on the im pact th a t the introduction o f the Scaled Approach and the YRO has had on youth justice practice. A qualitative methodological approach was adopted for this research because o f my desire to generate rich and deep data. As identified in chapter tw o , th e re has been strong criticism o f RFR due to th e focus th a t has been placed on quan titative research m ethods th erefore it was im portant th a t this research took a
qualitative approach in order to not be guilty o f the same criticisms as th e paradigm it seeks to investigate. W hilst quantitative m ethods are useful in some instances, numbers and statistics cannot talk and th erefore cannot give you the insight into people's views. The concept o f risk is fluid; an adaptable m ethodological approach was key in o rd er to pursue an understanding o f how th e concept has impacted on YOT practice. Having adopted
Richardson's (1 9 9 4 :52 1 ) notion about research th a t its 'not so much about getting it right as getting it differently contoured and nuanced' then a qualitative ethnographic approach is the most appropriate m ethodology for the pursuit of the proposed research questions (see chapter 1).
This chapter presents the methodological approach adopted to answer the research questions and details th e specific m ethods used. It highlights th e challenges I faced during the data collection process relating to my identity in the 'field', the em otional aspects of undertaking research w ith people and questions raised regarding 'ethics in action'. I must also acknowledge the role o f chance and pure luck in my research (Sarsby, 1984:96). This chapter is not designed to be an explicit 'confessional tale' (Noaks and W incup, 2 0 0 4 :1 0 3 ) but ra th e r a reflexive account o f undertaking research in the real world. As Pearson (1993:
vii) acknowledges, published accounts o f fieldw ork are invariably cleansed o f the 'private' goings on betw een the researcher and the researched despite the fact th a t conducting ethnography is a 'messy business.' Reflexivity is a vital part o f th e research process especially w hen th e research is em bedded in a social, political and ethical context as criminological research is (Jupp et al, 2000). Okely (1992:24) describes reflexivity as:
'Thinking through the consequences o f our relations with others, w h eth er it be conditions o f reciprocity, asym m etry or p o te n tia l exploitation. There are choices to be m ade in the field,
within relationships and in the fin a l text. If we insert the ethnographer's self as positioned
subject into the text, we are obliged to confront the m o ral and political responsibility o f our actions.'
Through being reflexive, researchers can reflect upon various aspects (gender, age, social class, political stance) o f themselves and how th ey may have influenced areas o f th eir research including access and participant interaction. It is 'good practice' (Brewer, 2000) to be reflexive even m ore so when using an ethnographic approach to research due to the depth o f involvem ent the researcher has in the data collection process. The im pact o f the self on th e research process and the impact o f the research process on the self should be recognised w ithin the reflective writing practices of ethnography (Coffey, 1999:7). M oreover, self-conscious transparency should be undertaken not just as a corrective to the accidental imposition o f subjectivity onto the data (Gross, 2000), but to ensure an account of the research th a t serves as an open guide rather than a defensive justification (Crewe,
2 0 0 9 :4 6 3 ). In the first part o f this chapter the m ethods used will be discussed as well as how access was procured. The second part o f this chapter will focus on specific issues faced during data collection w ith a view to achieving reflexivity.
M e th o d s
M ost qualitative researchers in modern tim es would agree th a t the term ethnography can be used to describe a variety o f ways th a t research is carried out in everyday settings.
H am m ersley and Atkinson (2007:3) in th e ir search for a definition o f ethnography focus on w h a t ethnographers do, recognising that:
'ethnography usually involves the ethnographer participating, overtly or covertly, in people's daily lives f o r an extended period o f time, watching w h a t happens, listening to w h a t is said, a n d /o r asking questions through inform al and fo rm a l interviews, collecting documents in fa c t
gathering w h a te v e r d a ta are available to th ro w light on the issues th a t are the emerging focus o f inquiry.'
It is clear from this definition th a t ethnography encompasses m ultiple methods o f collecting data yet to focus on a purely practical definition like this would neglect some o f the o th er particular features o f the ethnographic m ethod. Ethnography is m ore than just a collection o f methods; it involves th e recognition of a th eo ry of practice about researching social life (O'Reilly, 2 0 1 2 :1 1 ). Ethnography is complex and this com plexity can make th e researcher's study appear to be, on face value, messy (Law, 2 003) and disorganised. Though as Pearson (1993: xi) com m ents, 'if ethnographers are som etim es sceptical about w h a t counts as
'technique' and 'skill' in research, this is not to be mistaken for sloppiness, but is in the nature o f the enterprise.' By viewing ethnography as a practice, it is difficult to plan and predict w h a t should be done in a period o f fieldw ork. It is only through reading o th er studies o f w h a t has been done before and how people have overcom e various difficulties th a t the novice eth n og rap h er can develop w h at Plum m er (200 1 :11 8 ) term s 'a self-consciousness about m eth o d '. There are several key features th a t an ethnographic study comprises of, some exam ples include: the study being small in scale, it will be in-depth and take a period of tim e, involve studying people or actions in everyday settings rather than artificial set-ups the researcher has created, a w ide range o f data will be collected including participant
observation field notes and com m ents from inform al conversations and as such the data collection process will be fluid and generally unstructured in nature. The ethnographer will be faced w ith several juxtapositions which they will have to balance in order to m aintain a sense o f self within the field including the participant-observation oxymoron (O'Reilly, 2012:
105), th e authenticity versus distance debate (Pearson, 1993: xi) and the construction and production o f self and identity within and a fte r fieldw ork (Coffey, 1 9 9 9 :1 ). Pearson (1993:
xviii) summarises w h a t I believe is necessary o f an ethnographer by saying:
'W h a t is required o f an ethnographer is neither fu ll mem bership nor competence, b ut the ability to give voice to th a t experience and to bridge betw een the experiences o f actors and audiences, 'authenticity' and 'distance'. Just as a boxing co m m en tato r does not need to slug it o ut over tw elve rounds to bring a fig h t to life, so the ethnographer m ust rem ain content to
'talk a good fig h t.'
This thesis is a 'step-in, step-out' ethnographic study comprised o f participant observation, interview s, docum entary analysis and case studies. The 'step-in, step out' approach is w h at M ad d en (2010: 80) describes as being the short-term a n d /o r not co-resident approach to ethnography, which is arguably 'inimical to 'proper' ethnography'. Despite being referred to as inferior to long-term , im mersion ethnography, the way 'step-in, step-out' ethnography is conducted is the same. 'The ethnographer wants to get as close to th e participants as they can in the tim e given, and yet m aintain th e ir critical ethnographic position' (M add en , 2010 :8 0 ) - through using a 'step-in, step-out' approach the separation betw een the eth n og rap h er and the field is enforced especially in the case o f researching organisations w h ere th e tim e spent in the 'field' o f study is lim ited to 'w orking hours' (usually 9am to 5pm ). M y fieldw ork began in August 2012, following the confirm ation o f access to one set of YOTs (access to a fu rth e r team was secured 9 months later); it came to an end in O ctober 201 3 a fte r 14 months. Researching organisations can be particularly difficult to undertake
given th e m ultiple levels o f access th a t have to be negotiated. Following Buchanan et al's (1 9 8 8 :53 ) advice I adopted an opportunistic approach to my fieldw ork. As fieldw ork is caught betw een w h a t is theoretically desirable and w h at is practically possible 'in the conflict b etw een [the tw o ], the possible always wins' (Buchanan e t al, 1988:54). This means th a t any opportunities th a t I was given to collect data I undertook, in the spirit o f being opportunistic.
Through being to some degree an 'insider' I was able to use my own situational knowledge and experience o f being in and around YOT practitioners to fu rth e r my research agenda; I had som ew hat an advantage over someone who had not been exposed to th e world I was entering (Riem er, 1977). The way I conducted and collected my data unfolded as I spent m ore and m ore tim e in 'the field' because as Pearson (1993: x) states, 'th ere can be fe w if any hard-and-fast rules fo r the successful conduct of ethnographic research.'
Practitioner voices have largely been neglected in the build up to th e introduction of th e scaled approach; some practitioners w ere consulted in th e process evaluation (YJB, 2 0 1 0 e ) but th e re has been a lack o f meaningful consultation prior to its inception and th ere certainly has been a lack o f review w ith practitioners since its im plem entation. This lack of consultation and review means th a t the voices o f those w ho are using the approach day-in, day-out are effectively silenced rendering w h at is m eant to be an evidence-based approach anything but. This research seeks to give voice to those w ho have ignored by prioritising the opinions o f practitioners in the presentation o f its findings. Subsequently in order to do this th e m ajority o f my 14 months in the field was spent undertaking participant observation in a variety o f settings including youth courts and YOT offices, attending team meetings, talking to practitioners and reading docum ents including YOT policies and procedures as well as young people's case files. By triangulating these methods, I was able to build up a picture of YOT practice, seeing how risk had im pacted in a variety o f settings and w ith a range of d iffe re n t practitioners. How I procured access as well as each o f the strategies and techniques o f th e four m ethods will now be discussed in turn.
Access
Negotiating access fo r my fieldw ork was done on several d iffe re n t levels w ith d ifferent m em bers o f th e organisational structure o f the YOTs I visited. Access was secured to four of th e five YOTs all based in the North o f England a fte r 'permission' had been sought via e-m ail correspondence w ith the Youth Justice Service M an ag er fo r the en tire local authority. I refer to this as 'permission' because the authorisation was sought as a form ality rather than necessity as th e Service M an ag er is not involved in th e d ay-to-day running o f th e YOTs. I was
directed by th e Service M anager to contact th e Team M an ag er (via e m ail18) of any o f th e YOTs w ithin th e local authority th at I wished to visit. Following negotiations w ith a num ber of team managers, I was then instructed to liaise w ith the practice m anager in relation to arranging contact w ith practitioners and young people. Ham m ersley and Atkinson (1995:64) state th a t knowing w ho has th e pow er to grant access is an im portant aspect o f sociological know ledge about th e setting, th erefo re on reflection, th e identification of th e practice m anager as th e 'gatekeeper' has been critical to my fieldw ork. These initial negotiations allow ed me to see how the YO Ts in this local authority w ere structured and raised some interesting questions regarding the value practitioners place on academic research. I make this point because tw o practice managers who have enabled access have made com m ents regarding th e 'value' th ey place on having someone observe th e w ork th e ir team is undertaking w ith young people and th at it is 'nice to have someone with fresh eyes look a t w h a t we do' (Helen). This is interesting given th a t the concept o f participant observation can o ften sound like spying (O'Reilly, 2009:86) yet in the case o f my fieldw ork, the practice managers have arguably em braced my presence as a researcher and given me access to w h a t I w a n te d /n e e d e d . Once access had been granted, th e practice manager's role became one o f facilitator; th ey enabled my research to progress through helping me w ith making research decisions in regards to my selection o f case study young people fo r exam ple, or w ith practical issues such as gaining com puter access. In ord er to introduce myself to the practitioners I attend ed a team briefing.19 The practitioners w ere given prior notification of my attendance and had been em ailed my research proposal by th e ir practice m anager. At the briefing(s) I was given the opportunity by the Chair o f the m eeting (the practice
m anager) to inform th e practitioners about my research, its aims and objectives and openly invite th em to get involved.
Access to th e fifth team was arranged in slightly d ifferen t way; through the use of T w itte r. Throughout my PhD research I have been using T w itte r to keep abreast o f news and inform ation in relation to criminal justice policies and practices; I have also used it to try to recruit participants as a large portion o f the people I follow and w ho follow me w ork in YOT offices or are probation workers. Having sent out several 'tw eets' over a period o f months, stating fo r exam ple, lo o k in g fo r practitioners fo r m y PhD research exploring risk in the YJ system, would like to visit m ore YOTs & h ear ab ou t m ore g re a t work', I received a response from a person w ho transpired to be one o f the practice managers o f a YOT. W e exchanged
18Email addresses w ere supplied to me by the service manager.
19 A weekly m eeting where the practitioners and practice manager gather to discuss the following week's court list and other practice issues.
contact inform ation on T w itte r and the following day I em ailed th em my research proposal.
A fte r a discussion w ith the Service M anager o f the YOT, provisional access was granted and an initial visit was arranged. During th a t initial visit, I was asked questions by the practice m anager regarding my procedures surrounding confidentiality and anonym ity; after reassurance th a t I was com m itted to maintaining participants' anonym ity and the team 's as a whole, the access was granted. He subsequently took me around the open-plan office and introduced me to the practitioners, encouraging th em to talk to me and at tim es particularly trying to get th em to give me a d a te /tim e w hen they w ere free. This was unexpected and m ade me feel som ew hat anxious, as I did not w an t practitioners to feel th a t th ey w ere obligated to talk to me because m anagem ent had said so. If such a perception was had by th e practitioners it provides a challenge to practitioner's ability to give 'inform ed consent'; I did emphasise at all stages th a t th e ir participation was voluntary.
Ethnographic Observations
The core m ethod o f an ethnographic study is participant observation. An ethnographer has to manage th e constant tensions betw een participating in the situation they are in to the exten t th a t th e ir participants get used to and act naturally in th e ir presence whilst also learning from the experience. You have to participate and observe simultaneously;
participate in th e actions surrounding you, think critically about w h a t you have seen, ask questions and make notes about w h at you have witnessed and how it relates to w id er issues in relation to policies and practices. It requires tim e, as you need tim e to settle in to the new surroundings.
The m ajority o f YOT practitioners w ork occurs w ithin the boundaries o f th e team 's office building meaning th a t I spent a large portion o f my fieldw ork in office surroundings. I also spent some considerable tim e in an other location key to YOT practice; th e youth court.
M y tim e spent in th e team 's offices inform ed th e interactions th a t I observed in the youth courts and vice-versa. A fter some initial visits exploring the settings and the structure o f the team s, I started to focus on trying to understand how practitioners understood th e ir work and how th ey interacted w ith one another, senior m anagem ent and young people. W hen I visited th e YOT offices, it was usually fo r a specific reason such as to attend a team briefing, visit a practitioner fo r an interview or to collect com puter-based data, yet during these times I w ould observe as much as possible, w ith o u t being intrusive, th e goings on in th e office.
Fieldnotes
During observation periods, I made fieldnotes influenced by Spradley's (1980:78) nine points o f observation: space, actor, activity, object, act (single actions th a t people do), event (a set o f related activities th a t people carry out), tim e, goal and feeling. M y notes did not just cover w h a t I saw and heard but w h a t I was feeling at the tim e. These notes w ere then w ritte n up in narrative form once I was away from the field. I developed a habit of carrying tw o notebooks around w ith me, one th a t I would use to record interactions in and make lists o f things or people I w an ted to speak to /observe. The second developed into a diary and contained the a fo rem entio ned notes w ritte n in narrative style as well as analytical analysis. In some o f the situations I was in it would be natural for note-taking to occur such as in team meetings w hereas in others it was unnatural fo r exam ple talking to practitioners in the kitchen.
Ham m ersley and Atkinson (2 007:143) highlight th a t 'the conduct o f note-taking must be broadly congruent w ith th e social setting under scrutiny.' In the youth court, I was very aw are o f the strict rules regarding anonym ity and confidentiality th a t surrounded it. I had to 'test th e w a te r' som ew hat in court as it was a setting w h ere note-taking would occur naturally h ow ever given th a t I was not, at the beginning, a recognised presence within the setting I was careful as to how I made my notes. So for exam ple, I started initially making notes on post-its as th ey w ere small and I could be subtle in my actions. I also developed my ow n form o f short hand so should anything get misplaced it w ould be useless to anyone but m e. Gradually as my presence became som ew hat accepted I moved tow ards using
n otepap er how ever I never w ro te detailed notes whilst I was in the building. I would, as soon as I was elsew here, fill in th e gaps w ith inform ation th a t I could recall. This often m eant w riting notes up in a cafe or my car rather than w aiting till I was hom e to w rite th em up (which I usually would do w ith office-related notes). In the office spaces I would still try to seem nonchalant about noting things dow n as I did not w a n t to prevent 'natural'
participation from occurring. At tim es it was just not appropriate given the nature o f the conversation I was having, fo r exam ple, as it would have been a distraction and also quite rude given th e personal nature of the discussion. M y main concern was in relation to creating distrust amongst the practitioners how ever given th a t several o f th em saw th eir
participation from occurring. At tim es it was just not appropriate given the nature o f the conversation I was having, fo r exam ple, as it would have been a distraction and also quite rude given th e personal nature of the discussion. M y main concern was in relation to creating distrust amongst the practitioners how ever given th a t several o f th em saw th eir