Interviews with young males

The recruitment of young males for interview was dependent upon professional participants in the study initially identifying them, and later, assessing risk and needs, obtaining consents, and facilitating engagement. Section 4.7 reflects the ethical considerations given to the direct inclusion of young males in this study, concluding that their voices were imperative to the authenticity of this research. The targeted number of interviews with young males was between eight and ten. The small number was decided upon for five reasons:

❖ The sensitivity of the subject matter;

❖ The anticipated limited number available, based on the already low numbers of males identified as at risk of CSE;

113

❖ The inclusion and exclusion criteria for interviewing young males as specified below; and

❖ The reliance upon gatekeepers to identify and co-ordinate these interviews.

Ethical considerations were the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria used for involving young males. The inclusion criteria were that the young male had to:

❖ Be aged 14-25 years;

❖ Have currently or previously accessed support from a CSE service, a statutory service, or another voluntary/community service in relation to CSE;

❖ Have identified concerns of CSE for them or deemed to have knowledge of male CSE within their social circles, past or present; and

❖ Be risk assessed by a support worker known to him.

The rationale for choosing this specific age group is explained in sub-section 4.7.2 below.

The exclusion criteria were minimal, specifying that the young male should not:

❖ Be involved in any current legal investigation in relation to a current abuse case ❖ Be in current receipt of treatment.22

This latter criterion was added later as an additional requirement by the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (ORECNI), whose responsibility it was to provide full ethical approval for this research to be undertaken with health and social care staff and young people in NI. The Committee required ‘a mechanism should be put in place to ensure young people receiving active treatment are not invited to take part’. Although ORECNI approvals did not have applicability to the rest of the UK, to ensure consistency of good and ethical practice throughout this study, I chose to apply this criterion to all potential young male interviewees.

114

Ten males were interviewed, aged between 14 and 33 years. Although the original upper age had been set at 25 years, one male, aged 33, expressed his wish, through his support worker, to participate and speak of his experiences of CSE from the age of 14; this was agreed.23 _The remainder of the males were under the age of 25. Seven of the males were from England,

facilitated by the police (two young males) and the voluntary sector (five young males). The other three young males were from NI, facilitated by the voluntary sector. The priority and focus for these interviews were on achieving in-depth information rather than breadth of engagement.

Each young male was informed that a young person’s summary of the research would be made available to them at the completion of the research. Each one received a £10 voucher as a thank you for their participation; however, they were not informed about this in advance, so that it did not become an influencing factor in their decision as to whether to participate.

Design and process

The information sheet and consent form for young males were also subject to piloting to ensure appropriateness of language and that sensitivities to the subject matter were addressed. They were piloted with four young people, aged 15-17 years. Two of these young people were service users of a CSE service and two were non-service users. Suggestions were minimal, recorded in my notes and amendments made accordingly. This piloting took place prior to ethical approval as I wanted to ensure suggested amendments were made to the documents after consultation with young people and prior to seeking ethical approval. The piloting of the interview questions with young males did not take place purposely because the questions related to the vignettes I developed (discussed below). The vignettes contained information which was sensitive and of a sexual nature which, in my opinion, rendered them unsafe and inappropriate to pilot without

115

ethical approval. In retrospect, however, the interview questions could have been piloted safely, post ethical approval.

All young males were interviewed in person, given the sensitivity of the subject matter and to help ensure their well-being during interview. It was anticipated interviews would last between 30 and 60 minutes, depending on the contribution of the participant; all lasted between 45 minutes to just over one hour. All interviews were held at a time/location convenient to each young male.

Questions were primarily based on the participant’s knowledge of the sexual exploitation of young males, his opinions, and feelings about this – see Appendix 11. The degree to which experience was discussed depended on whether each individual wished to share their personal experiences or reflect on the experiences of other males through a third person lens; vignettes were

constructed for this purpose.

A study specific protocol was produced to address potential distress of the young male during interview given the sensitive nature of the topic – see Appendix 12. The aim of this protocol was to minimise any intrusion, embarrassment, coercion, anxiety, or distress for research participants. Despite being a novice researcher, I was experienced in working in an environment with sensitive issues and with vulnerable groups, including males who have experienced CSE. The safeguards put in place helped minimise the potential for distress. These included:

❖ Young males not being directly asked to speak about their own experiences of abuse; ❖ The welfare of the young male interviewees remaining the paramount consideration at all

times;

❖ Enabling the young male to have a supporter present if desired;

❖ Remaining alert to signs of potential distress or discomfort throughout contact with a participant, and appropriate action taken should this occur;

116

❖ Ensuring supports for young males were on hand during all interviews;

❖ Debriefing with young male interviewees and ensuring follow up support was available.

No young male interviewee was asked directly to speak about his own experiences; however, nine out of the ten chose to do so, after I introduced a vignette (discussed below). Except for the youngest interviewee (aged 14), all other young males choose not to avail of the option of having their support worker present in the room with them. The young male who did choose to have his worker present, did so, not through distress or anxiety, but expressly because he wanted his worker to hear about the progress he had made and what he had learned since receiving support.