Youth Work and Social Networking: Interim Report

The National Youth Agency and Practical Participation

Youth Work and Social Networking Interim report May 2008 Tim Davies and Pete Cranston

With thanks to: Tricia Jessiman, Sarah Bellamy, Diane Long, David Whewell, Kim Leeming, Gillian Elliot, Rachel Smith and all who have taken part in the survey, focus group and conversations to support this research.

PRACTICAL

PARTICIPATION Getting it right for young people

Youth Work and Social Networking

Executive Summary Introduction: This is the interim report of the Youth Work and Social Networking research project funded by The National Youth Agency. Online social networking, most commonly associated with Social Network Sites like MySpace, Facebook and Bebo, is a growing and significant phenomenon and part of many young people’s lives.

This report draws upon evidence from the literature, a survey of 120 youth work managers and practitioners, and a series of focus groups. It offers a survey of the current online social networking landscape, sets out the evidence on opportunity and risks for young people arising from online social networking and explores the role of youth work in responding to the growth in online social networking.

What is online social networking?

An individual’s social network consists of all those people with whom they have a connection. Online social networking is the activity by which an individual communicates and extends their social network through internet tools. Usually online social networking takes place through Social Network Sites (SNS) which allow their users to create profiles and link their profiles to others through a friends list. Profiles, containing details about their owners, may be publicly visible on the internet, or access to a profile may be controlled using privacy settings. These sites also include a range of other features, described in the literature review below.

Findings: Young people are actively engaged with online social networking.

Across the country over 60 per cent of young people have personal profiles on online social networking sites1 and over 80 per cent of survey respondents believe the young people they are working with use online social network sites. Many young people are often spending upwards of two hours a day using social network sites.

Young people are using online social networking as part of: keeping in touch with peers; developing new contacts; sharing content and media; exploring their self identities; hanging out and consuming content; accessing information and informal learning.

Online social networking leads to new opportunities and new risks for young people.

Mainstream media coverage does not present a balanced picture of the opportunity and risks of online social networking for young people.

Table A: Opportunities and risks of online social networking identified in the literature.

Opportunities for: • Developing and maintaining friendships • Extending social networks and joining interest based groups • Developing bridging social capital resources • Developing identity and reflecting upon identity development • Creativity and self expression • Informal learning • Accessing information, advice and guidance • Civic and political participation • Fun

1 Goodchild and Owne 2006; MSN/MTV 2007

2 Interim Report

Risks of: Being ‘cyber bullied’ or ‘cyber bullying’ Publishing personal details Being in contact with and meeting strangers Being exposed to grooming and abuse Being targeted by advertising and commercial interests • Accessing, sharing or creating harmful or offensive content • Spending too much time online • Being excluded due to lack of access to online social networking • • • • •

Youth Work and Social Networking

Young people are most at risk from online-linked abuse when they have pre-existing ‘offline’ risk factors and complex needs. Youth work often works with the socially excluded young people who are most at risk from online-linked abuse and harm.

Youth Work is well placed to support young people to navigate the risks and make the most of the opportunities of online social networking.

Education campaigns promoting internet safety messages have had limited success in changing young people’s online behaviours. Providing space for young people to reflect upon their online activity, and to develop their ‘media literacy’ in this space is one of the most promising strategies for promoting safety and the take up of opportunities. Youth work skills are well suited to offering: • Individual interventions to address risk behaviours, or to encourage the take up of opportunities, based upon existing youth work relationships.

• Group work to support the development of positive peer-norms of conduct for online social networking.

• Group work to support young people to become peer-mentors and peer-trainers.

• Media literacy focussed reflective learning opportunities.

Youth workers are well placed to develop localised reflective learning opportunities for young people, that explore risks and opportunities in a holistic way. For example, helping a group establish principles about when and when not to share photos online through exploring the impact of sharing photos and personal details on friendship groups (eg sharing a ‘funny’ photo of a friend could cause tension or upset in a group), as well as looking at the wider risks and opportunities arising from sharing images and information online.

Core skills and requirements from the National Occupational Standards for Youth Work (2008) are transferable to the online social networking space.

Youth workers see supporting young people’s engagement with online social networking as a crucial part of their work.

• 90 per cent of our survey respondents believe that youth work has a crucial role in supporting young people to navigate the risks of Online Social Networking.

• 85 per cent believe that youth workers have a crucial role supporting young people to make the most of the opportunities of Online Social Networking.

“I think it’s an area that is here to stay – it’s going to get bigger, it’s going to get better – and it’s going to get more risky. We need to support young people to know how to do it safety – and we need to make sure there is training. It’s not something we can ignore.”

Table B: Top five opportunities and risks of online social networking identified by respondents to our survey (in descending order).

Opportunities for: 1. Helping young people keep in contact with peers 2. Allowing young people to develop new contacts and friendships with peers 3. Sharing information and media with peers 4. Finding an audience for creative works 5. Providing access to information

Risks of: 1. Bullying 2. Young people disclosing personally identifying information 3. Abuse and exploitation of young people 4. Too much time spent on the computer / internet addiction 5. Risks from sexual predators

Youth workers do not yet feel confident to support young people’s engagement with online social networking, and there are a number of significant hurdles to overcome.

• Only 35 per cent of our survey respondents felt equipped to support young people making the most of the opportunities presented by online social networking.

• 46 per cent of respondents suggested supporting young people to make the most of the opportunities of online social networking was a priority for them and 53 per cent of respondents identified supporting young people to navigate risks as a priority.

Only 29 per cent of survey respondents had access to social network sites in the spaces where they work

Interim Report

3

Youth Work and Social Networking

with young people. A lack of access to online social network sites in work settings means many workers are either unfamiliar with these sites, or do not feel able to respond to them, or to issues raised by young people linked to them, in a work context.

There is considerable confusion as to the exact risks posed by online social networks, and a lack of detailed awareness of the opportunities. Workers could not clearly identify how existing professional practice and policies would apply to online social networks, and youth services would appreciate guidance on developing policies or guidance around engaging with online social networking.

Current safety strategies are not believed to be effective Filtering internet access and blocking access to social network sites is the most widely used safety strategy (81 per cent of survey respondents) but is least trusted as an effective tool (44 per cent). Actively supervising young people’s internet use in centres is the only widely used and widely trusted method for promoting safe internet use.

Online social networking presents opportunities for youth work as well as for young people.

Social network sites provide opportunities for youth work in terms of: • Promotion and recruitment – letting young people know about activities and events.

• Engagement – seeking views from young people.

• Keeping in contact – sending messages to young people.

• Sharing media – including photos from events or music from young bands.

“We have used Facebook to recruit young people onto projects and many others have joined through introductions by friends and members.”

“We have a MySpace and Facebook sites to publicise the project, and use a YouTube site to show videos of the project (with appropriate permissions).”

There is a clear need for training and capacity building for the youth work workforce. Training needs to draw on existing stills and to start from where workers are starting.

Some 86 per cent of survey respondents believe that ‘training for youth workers to understand and support young people’s use of social networking’ would be an effective measure to improve safety and take up of opportunity amongst young people.

Training and capacity building needs include: • Knowledge about social network sites – to “remove the fear” of sites and allow workers to identify, assess and respond to young people’s use of these sites.

• Knowledge about opportunities and risks – to support services in adopting balanced and nuanced responses.

• Applying youth work skills and policies in the online social networking space.

• Opportunities to explore and become more confident – in some cases, simply removing the blocks and giving workers time to explore online social network sites could bring considerable benefits.

• Identifying emerging trends – so that responses to future developments can be well prepared.

Training needs vary between staff members, and many of the development and skill building needs a service may have could potentially be met from within.

Recommendations: This report comes at the end of phase 1 of a two-part research programme. In the second phase we will be taking part in a number of action research projects to identify key practical learning about youth work responses. Our practical recommendations for work on the ground will come at the end of phase 2 in summer 2008. However, we can at this stage make two key recommendations: Policy and practice responses to online social networking need to focus on ‘capacity building first’ The current response to online social networking (and the internet in general) tends to be based on ‘blocking first’. This hampers efforts to support young people. Rather, strategies need to be developed that are based first on building young people’s capacity to navigate risk and take up opportunity, and which only use

4 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

blocking and control where absolutely necessary.

Youth work responses have a key role to play in addressing wider concerns about opportunities and risks of online social networking Youth workers are working with some of the most at risk young people. Social network sites are key spaces for young people’s personal and social development. Youth work methods of individual interventions based on relationship, and reflective group work should be explored by policy makers as key elements of a national response to concerns about online social networking and social network sites.

Interim Report 

5

Youth Work and Social Networking

Foreword The National Youth Agency is interested in all aspects of young people’s personal and social development, and aspects of this development are increasingly taking place online. This report identifies a range of opportunities that social networking offers young people; making and maintaining friendships, developing and reflecting on identity, creativity, informal learning, and accessing information, advice and guidance.

We have been working in this area for some time. In September 2006 we held a consultation day with young people (facilitated by Tim Davies) on their use of digital media and in particular, social networking. We have worked with the institute for public policy research (ippr), to produce Behind the Screen: The Hidden Life of Youth Online, and responded in full to the Byron review Safer Children in a digital world. Both of these reports were primarily focused on the policy response to the ‘new’ digital world, and in particular protecting children and young people from the risks.

At The NYA we know that top-down policy responses are not the best way to support young people. They should take a full role in developing solutions to staying safe online, including developing key media literacy skills. Equally importantly, they should be empowered to take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by social networking outlined in this report.

Youth work has a clear role here – to extend its remit of providing support, advice and development in other domains to include social networking. However, many youth workers find it difficult to “start from where young people are at”, the basis of good youth work, because many lack the knowledge and skills to effectively support young people who are already ‘digital natives’.

This work aims to plug some of that knowledge gap, by mapping the existing skills and practice needs of youth work and exploring the role youth workers should take. In the next phase, Tim and Peter will work with three youth projects to develop capacity in this area, to further develop the skills and knowledge that youth workers can use to support young people.

Tricia Jessiman The NYA Research Coordinator

6 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

1) Introduction In early 2005 few people had heard of online social network sites like MySpace, Facebook and Bebo. Now, in early 2008 they have millions of regular users and have fast become a ubiquitous part of many people’s internet experience. And they are developing at an ever increasing rate.

Whilst the activity of online social networking is not new (people have been using the internet to maintain and develop their social networks since its early days), the impact of the latest phase of online social networking on young people has gained significant attention. And for good reason.

Online social networking is a disruptive technology. It changes the way many social interactions take place.

It contributes to a rewriting of the limits of privacy and publicity. It ‘amplifies’ day to day experiences as they are captured, shared and analysed online. It leads to new opportunities and new risks. And all this impacts on young people most of all.

In this research we have set out to explore what the rise of online social networking means for professionals working with young people – and for youth work as a profession in particular. The question we’ve set out to provide answers to is: How can youth work support young people to navigate the risks and make the most of the opportunities of online social networking?

Many other recent reports that talk of social networking (Withers and Sheldon 2008; Byron 2008; Ofcom 2008) which have a focus on the regulatory and governmental policy levers that might be pulled, predominantly in response to fears about online social networking. By contrast, our focus is on work on the ground and on the localised policy, practice, capacity building and developmental work that is needed to support young people in making the right choices and responding positively to the developing social networking phenomenon.

Our research is taking place in two phases – with this interim report coming at the close of phase 1.

Part 1: Mapping the landscape Through a survey of youth workers, a series of focus groups and a literature review we have sought to identify key opportunities and challenges for youth work arising from the growth of online social networking – and to build up a picture of current capacity in the field to respond to new concerns and new opportunities.

Part 2: Exploring options and learning how to build capacity We have found a clear need for youth work responses to online social networking. We have also found a number of gaps in policy, practice and capacity that, at present, mean much needed youth work responses are limited in their frequency and scope.

Through a series of action research projects we will be working with youth services to identify good practice in building capacity to engage with online social networking and the issues it raises for work with young people.

This action research phase will take place during May, June and July 2008 and will lead to additions to this report, as well as a series of practical resources for the field. We will also be keeping the project blog updated throughout our action research at http://blogs.nya.org.uk/ywsn/ where you will be able to follow the progress of our research and to join in sharing your learning from your own experiences of exploring online social networking in youth work contexts.

Because we have the opportunity to test out a number of the ideas and possible youth work solutions to the challenges and opportunities of online social networking in our second phases of research, this interim report cannot promise to present any definitive call to action or recommendations for change. However, it can promise to offer: a deeper understanding of young people’s online social networking; clear evidence of the need for youth work responses; and a practical sketch of where we are starting from when we seek to build youth work capacity to respond.

Your comments and feedback are most welcome. tim@practicalparticipation.co.uk or triciaj@nya.org.uk

Interim Report

7

Youth Work and Social Networking

2) Setting the scene: summary literature review A number of high profile literature reviews exploring young people and the internet (Byron 2008; Withers and Sheldon 2008) and young people and social networking (Ofcom 2008) have recently been published.

This short review of the literature on young people and online social networking aims to both stand alone as snapshot of current academic work, and to complement those reviews by focussing on online social networking from a youth work perspective, highlighting aspects of the literature that will be useful for practitioners as well as for policy makers.

Whilst the Youth Work and Social Networking research project for which this literature review has been prepared is exploring how well equipped statutory sector youth workers in England are to support young people’s engagement with online social networking, this section should provide relevant information for any professionals working with young people and concerned with risk and opportunity in the online social networking space.

2.1) Four vantage points on Young People and Online Social Networking Online social networking is the activity of creating and maintaining a network with others in which the internet plays a key role. Social network sites (such as MySpace, Bebo, Facebook and YouTube) are some of the primarily spaces where online social networking currently takes place, but they are not the only possible spaces. Online social networking is a rapidly evolving phenomena.

We can approach online social networking in many different ways. We can look for the parallels between theories of offline and online social networking; we can seek a generalised academic definition of a social network site; we can take a look at the features of the spaces where online social networking is taking place; and we can explore the activities of online social networking young people are engaged in.

In fact, to gain a holistic picture of online social networking, and to make sure our responses in policy and practice are appropriate and balanced, we need to do all of these.

An existing activity moved online: An individual’s social network consists of all those people with whom they have a connection. For example: family members, friends, teachers, school colleagues, youth workers etc. The nature, closeness, permanence and reciprocity of each connection and medium through which the connection is maintained (at home, in person out of the home, by phone, by e-mail, via the web) varies significantly from connection to connection, and person to person. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2007) has found young people’s locally based social networks play a key factor in influencing their education and attainment prospects. They found that young people who are able to draw upon supportive networks of friends and family have wider horizons and higher ambition in education, training and employment than their counterparts with more limited local social networks.

Online social networking is the activity by which an individual manages their communications with, articulates their connections with, and extends the membership of, their social network through internet tools. It is both an extension of familiar forms of offline social networking and is a distinct form of activity with distinct features and consequences.

A general academic definition: Online social networking is more than simply using e-mail or MSN Instant Messenger to communicate with friends and other contacts. In online social networking the connections between an individual and members of their network are articulated and recorded in online systems – and specifically designed social networking technologies support the sharing of information and media along those connections. This predominantly takes place through Social Network Sites (SNS), which boyd and Ellison (2007) minimally define as: A web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.

8 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

By this definition websites such as MySpace, Facebook and Bebo are archetypal Social Network Sites where their core purpose is supporting individuals to create profiles and to articulate their connections via a friends list – but online social networking features are also found in more media-focused web sites such as YouTube (video-sharing) and Flickr (photo-sharing) and are likely to be increasingly built into a wide range of online and internet connected tools ranging from web based e-mail systems through to mobile phones and games consoles. Social Network Sites are just one aspect of ‘Web 2.0’ – the general trend towards increasing interactivity and User Generated Content (UGC) on the internet.

Anatomy of a Social Network Site: boyds and Ellison’s minimal definition of a Social Network Site includes the existence of a public or semipublic profile, and a friends list. There are a number of other features commonly found on Social Network Sites. Understanding the elements that go to make up the architecture of a Social Network Site, and understanding how they work and are used in practice on particular sites is important in developing nuanced policy and practice responses to online social networking – and developing responses that are sensitive to the inevitable changes that will occur in both the core and peripheral architecture of social network sites.

Personal profiles A Social Network Site profile usually consists of one or more pages on which an individual can share information about themselves, and upon which aspects of their interaction with the Social Network Site are displayed.

For many young people a Social Network Site profile acts as their personal homepage on the web – and a way in which they have ‘written themselves into being’ online (Suden in boyd 2003). Profiles are usually created by filling in online forms, providing answers to questions set by the Social Networking Site and uploading photos and videos.

Friends list connections A user of a Social Network Site can add other profiles to the friends list on their profile. Usually a friend connection has to be requested and confirmed by both parties. Once created, it is possible to view an individuals list of friends from their profile on the Social Network Site. Many Social Network Sites will indicate to a logged in user whether they have friends in common with the individual whose profile they are viewing.

Access control/privacy Privacy settings vary between Social Network Sites – but usually an individual is able to control who can find their profile using search, who can view their profile, and who can post messages or media on their profile.

Aggregating information/activity feed The activity feed on a Social Network Site displays to a logged in user details of updates, recently shared media, recently added friend connections and group memberships and other activities which members of their friends list have carried out through site.

Profile message boards The ‘Wall’ or ‘Message Board’ feature on a Social Network Site members profile allows their ‘friends’, or any visitors to the profile, to leave a public message on the profile.

Messaging Alongside the public messaging of walls and message boards, Social Network Sites may include private messaging features.

Browsing The ability to ‘view and traverse’ the connections recorded through a social network site can allow a visitor to/member of a social network site to browse other’s ‘friends lists’ and to locate people to add to their own friends list, or to gain information about and ‘verify’ the identity of a profile owner by looking at their existing ‘friend’ networks.

Sharing media and links Media sharing is a core feature on many social network sites. Sites such as YouTube (video-sharing) and Flickr (photo-sharing) are based around media sharing, with social network features being a secondary

Interim Report

9

Youth Work and Social Networking

addition, although on conventional social network sites like MySpace and Facebook media sharing is still a very important feature.

Groups Members can create and join groups which will generally include space for sharing media and holding group discussions through a forum or discussion board.

Events Organising events, inviting ‘friends’ to an event, publicising an event to a wider network can all take place through the events feature on many social network sites.

Games and applications Add on applications for social network sites have introduced a number of activities and games played through friends list connections – ranging from virtual games of tag, to quizzes that draw upon information about an individual’s friends.

A collection of online activities The features of a social network site only provide clues to what young people are actually using sites for. It is important to look at the actual activities of online social networking young people are engaged in.

Keeping in Touch Across a range of communications platforms, including the mobile phone, text-messaging, computer based instant messaging and other sites of online social networking young people are part of a ‘constantly connected’ generation (Clark 2005 in Livingstone et al 2007). Whilst the blurred boundaries between different online technologies make it difficult to say definitively (and with any lasting relevance) exactly how social network sites are used by young people (for example, instant messaging can take place through a social network site), research by MSN/MTV (2007) suggested that “While they use technology such as IM to arrange their social life, the [social network] sites are forums to share and relive experiences.” This may take place, for example, through posting media from particular shared experiences, or posting messages on each others profiles.

Where previous online communication spaces (chatrooms, forums) brought internet users together on the basis of shared interests, online social networking allow people to connect through existing social relationships (boyd 2006 quoted in Withers 2007). Young people are predominantly using social network sites to communicate with existing friends – extending conversations that took place offline or in school settings (Mediappro 2007).

Developing new contacts Whilst most young people are primarily using online social networking to communicate with their existing friendship groups, a significant number identify that they use social network sites to make new friends (Ryberg and Larsen 2007; MSN/MTV 2007). Making new friends may involve getting to know friends of friends, building links with other local, or locally connected, young people – or it may involve trying to locate other online social network users with particular shared interests, or simply locating others by browsing profiles. Online social networking can be used to maintain both strong and weak ties with wide networks of individuals on a friends list.

Sharing content and engaging in self-expression The Pew Internet and American Life project found that amongst American teenagers “53 per cent of social network users have shared some kind of artistic work online, compared to 22 per cent of those who do not use a social network.” (Lenhart and Madden 2007). Social network sites provides a space for young people to create and share media – ranging from written blog posts, photos and videos, through to edited works and collaborative creations. Social network sites are part of a User Generated Content (UGC) revolution that is affording young people greater opportunities than ever before to publish content to a potentially global audience (Stern 2008).

Some commentators draw parallels between young people’s online media creation and publishing and conventional youth activities of self-expression. As Green and Hannon (2007) put it “There is nothing new about young people being creative and expressive – you certainly do not need a computer to decorate your bedroom, form a band or decide what clothes to wear. The difference is that by digitising their creative

10 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

efforts this generation of young people can share the fruits of their labour with a worldwide audience”.

It is important, however, to note that not all young people are content-creators online. Most studies at present put the figure for content creation around or under 50 per cent of online young people (MSN/MTV 2007; Creating and Connecting, 2007). Not all young people are equally at home with digital creation and expression and extensive use of online social networking. The findings of the 2005 UK Children Go Online study (Livingstone and Bober 2005) that “many children and young people are not yet taking up the full potential of the internet”, are echoed in explorations of online social networking – where a distinction between a small number of cutting edge ‘leaders’, large number of ‘followers’, and a small number of disconnected and disengaged young people appears to be present. (Ofcom 2008; Creating and Connecting 2007).

Green and Hannon (2007) express this as a distinction between ‘Everyday Communicators’ who can relatively competently use online tools, and ‘Digital Pioneers’ who discover and exploit new technologies and digital opportunities.

Exploring identity Online social networking spaces act as sites for identity formation. “Whether constructing their profiles in MySpace, creating a video and posting it on YouTube, or talking in chat rooms, teens are constantly creating, recreating, and honing their identities – a primary goal of adolescent development.” (Greenfield et. al quoted in Tynes 2007) Stern (2008) studied non-social network based personal pages created by young people – and finds that they act as spaces for young people “to engage with their culture and to practice ways of being within it”, and notes that whilst the construction of self-identity that profiles and homepages allow “is not unique to online self-presentation, the deliberate nature of the construction magnifies the experience”.

The idea of experimenting with identity through online social networking does not equate to a falsification of identity or creating a false persona. In fact, Stern (2008) and Larsen (2007) find that young people strive for authenticity in their online self-presentation – often suggesting that their online profiles more accurately represent their idea of themselves. Through encouraging peers to contribute to their profiles, and through soliciting feedback from members of their networks, young people are explicitly involving their friendship networks in constructing and contributing to their identity formation (ibid.).

Hanging out and consuming content Whilst the idea of young people as ‘passive consumers’ of content in online social networking sites is roundly rejected by many authors, there is also a hanging out and media-consumption aspect to young people’s use of social network sites(Raynes-Goldie and Walker 2008). Time spent on social network sites (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, YouTube) is not all time spent actively engaged in the activity of online social networking. Time spent on a social network site could be spent watching commercially produced music videos, being exposed to commercial advertising, and semi-passively browsing through profiles without actively engaging with the interactive features of the site.

Accessing information and informal learning Through browsing social network profiles young people can access a wide range of information. A number of local and national information providers and support services are creating a presence on social network sites or are targeting advertising and information campaigns at online social networking spaces. There is also significant interest in the potential of online social networks as spaces for young people’s informal learning outside school.

Interim Report

11

Youth Work and Social Networking

Networking with friends: a note on language When talking about young people’s use of online social networking (or indeed with young people about their online social networking activity) it important to be sensitive to the potential for terms to have a different meanings from their everyday senses.

For example, Withers (2008) and boyd (2006) both explore how the term ‘friend’ in the Social Networking Site context sometimes comes to have a distinct meaning from how the term may be used offline. Where in the offline social networks spoken of earlier the nature of connections between individuals are many and various, most social network sites impose a binary yes or no status to friends list links (though some allow meta-data about the connection to be recorded – such as how you met another individual). In other words, to articulate a connection with someone social network sites ‘force’ the user to indicate them as a ‘friend’.

In an extended blog essay boyd offers nine reasons why an individual may add someone to their friends list:L 1. Because they are actual friends 2. To be nice to people that you barely know (like the folks in your class) 3. To keep face with people that they know but don’t care for 4. As a way of acknowledging someone you think is interesting 5. To look cool because that link has status 6. (MySpace) To keep up with someone’s blog posts, bulletins or other such bits 7. (MySpace) To circumnavigate the “private” problem that you were forced to use cuz [sic] of your parents 8. As a substitute for bookmarking or favoriting 9. Cuz [sic] it’s easier to say yes than no if you’re not sure.

It has been suggested that Social Networking Sites may even be changing the way young people experience and understand the term ‘friend’ (at the very least in the context of online social networking). Anyone on an individual’s friends list may be referred to as a friend regardless of whether they are well known or not. The term ‘friend of a friend’ is similarly affected.

Identifying when the term ‘friend’ is being used in this context and sense, or in a more conventional sense, can be important in working with young people to explore their understanding of online social networking.

2.2) Access and use: A statistical picture There is limited comprehensive and current statistical data on young people’s use of the Internet. The Oxford Internet Survey (2007), the key annual survey of Internet use in Britain, only collects data from respondents aged 14 and over, and does not offer a disaggregation of data by age. The UK Children Go Online (Livingstone and Bober 2005). project published its final report in 2005, prior to the meteoric growth of online social networking that the last three years have seen. However, these studies, combined with studies from other areas of the world (notably the US), and with smaller studies and data from qualitative focus group work with young people, do offer us insights into how young people are engaging with the online world.

The Oxford Internet Survey suggests that by 2007, 94 per cent of 14 to 18-year-olds were Internet users.

Across the whole population there is a positive correlation between Internet use and income, and Internet use and education. That is, lower income households and lower education households are less likely to have internet access. This may mean that youth work projects are likely to come into contact with a higher proportion of non-users or young people with limited internet access than projects working with a representative sample of the youth population. In a survey of parents Demos found that “[b]roadly speaking parents from social classes AB and C1 [middle class and lower middle class] tended to believe that their child was deriving greater benefits from digital technologies than parents in the C2 and DE brackets [skilled working class, working class and those at the lowest levels of subsistence]” (Green and Hannon, 2007) UK Children Go Online (UKCGO), which looked at usage amongst the 9 to 19 age group in 2004, found that 75 per cent of young people have accessed the internet from a computer at home, with 92 per cent having access at school. 19 per cent of 9 to 19-year-olds had internet access in their bedrooms. However, UKCGO also found that 16 per cent of 9 to 19-year-olds made low or even no use of the internet.

Exact quantitative data on how many young people are engaged with online social networking is thin on

12 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

the ground, but the Ofcom Communications Market Report (2006) suggested that 70 per cent of young people aged between 16 and 24 were using online social networking sites, and reports have suggested that upwards of 6 in 10 young people between the ages of 13 to 17 years have personal profiles on social network sites (Goodchild and Owen 2006). A study by MSN/MTV over 12 countries claimed only 18 per cent of young people have yet to use social network sites (Circuits of Cool 2007).

The Pew Internet and American Life Project (Lenhart and Madden 2007) which conducted a telephone survey in late 2006 of over 900 American 12 to 17-year-olds found a significant gender difference in Social Network Site usage, with 58 per cent of girls found to have a profile, as opposed to 51 per cent of boys (with the difference even more striking amongst 15 to 17-year-olds). Of those who use Social Network Sites, the Pew study found that almost half visit such sites daily (48 per cent) with only 20 per cent visiting every few weeks or less often. This underlines the intensive nature of young people’s engagement with online social network sites.

The Pew study identified, however, a significant difference between the different sites US young people were actively using, with 85 per cent of Social Network using 12 to 17-year-olds choosing MySpace as their primary profile, as opposed to 7 per cent using Facebook (ibid.). This data was, however, collected only shortly after Facebook became open to non-University students and the picture is likely to have altered since then. In a much debated essay written in June 2007, danah boyd suggested that amongst American teenagers a class divide was emerging between MySpace and Facebook, with ‘hegemonic’ (“from families who emphasize education and going to college”) primarily found using Facebook, whilst ‘subaltern’ groups were primarily to be found using MySpace. The chosen platforms of particular groups of young people, and their shifting patterns of use, are likely to be relevant to those working with young people and seeking to identify the social network sites they should devote energy to understanding and engaging with.

2.3) Perspectives on Online Social Networking Vibrant, cultural, dynamic and democratic or commercialised, harmful, toxic and time-wasting? There are a myriad of different perspectives on online social networking. Larsen (2007)2 offers 35 different perspectives, ranging from those that take online social networking to be a key part of, and a reflection of, “youth culture” (the youth perspective) through to those that view online social networking as spaces of surveillance (the surveillance perspective), sexual playgrounds for shallow self-expression (the body and sex perspective) and places of significant danger to young people (the paedophile and predator perspective). Green and Hannon (2007) characterise the debate about technology in general as polarised, into ‘moral panic’ and ‘digital faith’, noting that the introduction of every new media technology is usually accompanied by a similar range of moral panic responses.

Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives The terms “digital native” and “digital immigrants” comes from an essay by Marc Prensky (2001). Digital natives, Prensky suggests, have grown up with modern technologies: “Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked”. Prensky goes on to suggest that digital natives “thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work”, suggesting a ‘media snacking’ culture where the learning style and skills of digital natives lead to lower attention spans and a desire for less substantive content and activity. It is not clear that this conclusion can be drawn – and we want to draw solely on the learning style distinction that the digital native/digital immigrant dichotomy suggests.

Digital Immigrants, on the other hand “typically have very little appreciation for these new skills that the Natives have acquired and perfected through years of interaction and practice. These skills are almost totally foreign to the Immigrants, who themselves learned – and so choose to teach – slowly, step-by-step, one thing at a time, individually, and above all, seriously.” (ibid.)

According to the immigrant/native dichotomy, decision makers, manager, teachers and older youth workers

2 Larsen’s article provides a very useful quick survey of different ways practitioners and policy-makers may be talking about online social networking – and can be a useful map for navigating the many different viewpoints that may be brought into a discussion. Larsen’s article is available at: http://tinyurl.com/6e6n8f

Interim Report

13

Youth Work and Social Networking

all tend to be digital immigrants while newer staff and young people are increasingly digital natives.

Being a digital native is sometimes taken to suggest that young people are already well equipped to make the most of the opportunities and to navigate the risks of online social networking. However, as the Pew Internet Project (2007) notes, digital natives are technologically literate, but that does not necessarily make them media literate. Young people may be able to quickly pick up and adopt new technologies and media, but they are not necessarily able to analyse those new technologies and media in order to find ways to use them safely, and to work out how to make the most of the opportunities a new technology provides.

There is some disagreement as to whether the digital native/digital immigrant dichotomy is in fact useful at all in looking at young people’s use of technology. Whilst the difference between ‘natives’ and ‘immigrants’ may have more to do with age-related learning styles (experimental and experiential vs. didactic and task oriented) the recognition that for many young people the online world and social technologies have been ubiquitous through their lives, whereas for many workers and managers these technologies are significantly ‘new’ and noticeable, can be a critical factor to keep in mind when developing responses to new technologies.

Or, as Douglas Adams, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, put it: we may often feel that “anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.” (Adams 2001) A youth work perspective?

We have yet to find a distinctive ‘youth work’ perspective on online social networking – although we will suggest that one should be encouraged to emerge and it should be possible to add to Larsen’s list of perspectives a number with roots in common youth work activity. The ‘informal education’ perspective, that identifies online social networking as a part of young people’s learning and development outside of school is relatively well developed, not least in Green and Hannon’s work (2007). Notably, however, the focus in the existing literature is primarily on how schools can support young people’s informal learning, rather than on looking at a potential role for the youth work and informal education sector. This is a significant omission given the experience base in youth work in supporting the forms of personal and social development, associational development and independent creativity that are noted as opportunities of the online social networking space.

2.4) What is Youth Work?

Before we start to lay the groundwork for that youth work perspective it will be helpful to establish what we mean by ‘youth work’ and what the unique contribution of youth work is.

Statutory sector Youth Work in the United Kingdom is a distinctive form of practice and intervention in the lives of young people (Bernard Davies 2005). It was described in the Albermarle Report3 (1960) as being concerned with young people’s “association, training and challenge.” Often identified as a branch of ‘informal education’, Youth Work is based upon key principles including: the voluntary participation of young people; a method that “starts from where young people are starting” and seeks to “go beyond where young people start” (training & challenge); a focus on young people as individuals located within peer communities and wider community and cultural networks (association); and a recognition of young people as young people – rather than working with young people on the basis of adult-imposed labels (Davies 2005).

In 2005-6 local authorities in England spent an average of £100 per head of their 13 – 19 populations on youth work, with statutory youth work in contact with an average of 27.5 per cent of the local population.

Across the country there were 4,225 professionally qualified staff (3,630 FTE); 17,000 youth support posts (3,900 FTE); and 845 FTE management posts in youth services. (NYA Youth Service Audit 2005 – 6) Alongside the statutory sector Youth Work workforce a significant range of voluntary and faith sector ‘youth work’ activity takes place, and youth work approaches are being increasingly adopted by other professions working with young people. (Davies 2005)

3 The Albemarle Report led to the full formation of a statutory Youth Service in the United Kingdom.

14 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

Youth Work approaches are particularly valued for their perceived success in engaging disadvantaged, excluded and challenging young people. (Bernard Davies, 2005, Merton, 2007). Where the key factor in developing successful formal education interventions may be taken as consisting in the quality of the educative material or the quality of the materials presentation in lessons and learning settings, the key factor in youth work is often identified as being ‘relationship’. That is, the relationship of ‘trust and mutual respect’ between adult youth worker and young person “through which young people receive the support and challenge needed to acquire the 3 R’s”: resourcefulness, resilience and resolve. (Merton 2007).

Youth Work and Online Social Networking We wrote earlier of the need for distinctive youth work perspectives on online social networking.

The National Occupational Standards for Youth Work (2008) include requirements for particular youth work professionals to: Encourage young people to broaden their horizons to be active citizens (1.1.3); Support young people in their understanding of risk and challenge (1.1.6); Support young people in taking action and to tackle problems (1.1.5); And to undertake youth work in settings other than those used traditionally (1.1.7). If online social networking is taken as providing a setting and space in which young people will encounter risks and challenges, personal and social opportunities and problems, and opportunities for citizenship then the Occupational Standards would appear to support a proactive youth work engagement with this space.

2.5) Opportunities and risk To assess the role of Youth Work in supporting young people to make the most of the opportunities and to navigate the risks of online social networking it will be useful for us to have an overview of what these are.

Annexe 1 includes a full review of the evidence base for each of the opportunities and risks which are summarised below.

Online social networking presents young people with opportunities for: Developing and maintaining friendships Most young people are predominantly interested in communicating with existing friendship networks online, with much of the online communication that takes place being an extension of conversations from ‘offline’ school and social settings (Mediappro 2007).

Extending their social networks, and joining interest based networks Many young people extend the friends lists of their Online Social Network far beyond individuals they have physically met or are acquainted with in person. This can involve finding new friends on the basis of shared interest, or widening a local circle of friends through connecting with friends of friends.

Building bridging social capital resources As well as the relatively close circle of friends with whom a Social Network Site user may be actively communicating (strong ties) sites also allow users to record their connections with acquaintances and loose connections (weak ties). For example, instead of just talking to someone once at an event or party, and never meeting them again, a social network site makes it possible to look them up afterwards and request and maintain a connection, albeit latent, with that person. Online social network mediated social capital resources may prove useful to young people in their transitions into the workplace and in moving to new areas of to university etc (Ellison et al. 2006) Developing identity and reflecting upon identity development A number of authors (Larsen 2007; Tynes 2007) have focussed on the role of Social Network Sites as part of young people’s identify formation process and as spaces for young people to reflect upon their own identity development (Stern, 2008).

Creativity and self expression The Pew Internet and American Life Project finds that “social networking sites are hubs of teen content-

Interim Report

15

Youth Work and Social Networking

creating activity” (Lenhart and Madden 2007) – encouraging creative expression and providing an outlet for young people’s creative efforts.

Informal learning Engaging with Social Network Sites provides young people with a wide range of learning opportunities. Work

by Green and Hannon (2007) identified a wide range of ‘digital skills’ young people can acquire through general online informal learning including: social and personal skills; cognitive and physical skills; and technical skills.

Accessing information, advice and guidance Social network sites can provide a space for young people to access trusted information, advice and guidance.

Civic and political participation The role of online spaces and Social Network Sites in particular, as venues for civic engagement and political action is one of the most prominent themes in the literature on online opportunities for young people (Rheingold 2008; Levine 2008; Loader et. al 2007; Byron 2008 §3.92; Howland and Bethel 2002 amongst others). Online social networking can connect young people with civic engagement, and can provide a platform for young people’s political expression and voice.

Fun By no means least important is that online social networking is an activity many young people enjoy and believe themselves to gain a lot from.

Online social networking opens up/increases the risk of young people: Being ‘cyber bullied’ or ‘cyber bullying’ Byron (2008) suggests that “The nature of bullying changes when online, making it anonymous and potentially more damaging” and notes that whilst bullying using the internet is far less prevalent than bulling ‘offline’, the rise of social network sites and user generated content has the potential to increase the extent to which the internet is a factor in bullying.

Publishing personal details and content One of the most prominent concerns expressed about social network sites is that they encourage and facilitate the sharing of detailed personal information about their users. In a survey of the profiles of US teenagers, the Pew Internet Study (Lenhardt and Madden 2007) found that over 82 per cent of profile creators include their first name in their profiles, 49 per cent include the name of their school, 29 per cent include last names, and 2 per cent include mobile phone numbers. On 5 per cent of profile-owning teenagers have publicly visible profiles displaying their full names, photos and details of where they live.

‘Tagging’ features and discussion features also make it easy for information to be shared about individuals by proxy (e.g. a friend unintentionally revealing personal information about one of their peers).

Researchers and commentators have expressed concerns that inappropriately or unintentionally shared personal data may: • Be used in bullying; • Be accessed by potential employers or educational establishments; • Lead to an inability to escape past actions and have a fresh start (Solve, 2007); • Be used in grooming and abuse; Being in contact with and meeting ‘strangers’ As with the sharing of personal information, contact with strangers should not be interpreted as inherently negative.

However, 10 per cent of 12- 17 year old owners of social network site profiles with their photos on said they had been ‘contacted by a stranger who made them feel scared or uncomfortable’ as opposed to 4 per cent of those with profiles without photos – indicating that the possession of and nature of a social network site profile can increase the likihood of inappropriate contact with strangers.

16 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

Being exposed to grooming and abuse The Centre for Exploitation and Online Protection have noted a ‘steady increase in the number of reports to law enforcement in the UK that relate to the sexual abuse of children and young people in social networking environments” (Brennan 2006). However, Wolak et al. (2008) found that “Posting personal information online does not, by itself, appear to be a particularly risky behaviour” – rather, it is voluntarily interacting with strangers online, particular engaging in conversations of a sexual nature that increases young people’s risk of sexual solicitation and aggressive sexual solicitation (Ybarra et al. 2007). Crucially, the young people most at risk of abuse online are those with multiple pre-existing risk factors offline. It is such young people with complex needs that youth work is often working with.

Being targeted by advertising and commercial interests The majority of social network sites are commercial interests (MySpace, for example, is owned by Murdoch’s News Corporation) and the primary revenue stream for social network sites is through advertising. Many are highly commercialised spaces and in having access to detailed demographic information about their users (provided through profiles, and collected through monitoring their use of the sites) they can provide highly targeted advertising.

That young people are spending considerable amounts of time in highly commercialised spaces, where the owners of those spaces have a vested interest in encouraging young people’s consumerism, and where pro-social non-commercial messages are relatively absent, may have consequences for young people’s development of positive and pro-social values and aspirations.

Accessing, sharing or creating harmful or offensive content Social network sites can provide a platform in which harmful or offensive content is published, shared and commented upon. Whilst most sites do have staff who monitor and will remove illegal content, ageinappropriate and other violent or offensive content is often not removed, or remains on sites for long enough to find a significant audience. Withers and Sheldon (2008) explore whether the sharing of ‘user generated’ violent video images (a phenomena that has been referred to somewhat polemically as ‘happy slapping’) is incentivising violent acts for the purpose of filming and sharing online. In particular they note the potential effect of the ‘comments’ feature on content posted on social network sites – which can illicit praise from an individuals network and from strangers for violent or offensive video content.

Becoming ‘internet addicted’ There is a fear that use of online social networking displaces other activities and face to face social interaction. There is little conclusive evidence of actual medical addiction and it has been suggested that young people’s extensive use of online social network sites is often due to their being kept at home, rather than allowed to go out and socialise with peers (Byron 2008). However, there is anecdotal evidence of young people self-identifying that they are spending more time on social network sites than they would like to (Withers and Sheldon 2008) Being excluded due to lack of access to online social networking opportunities As online social networking becomes an integral extension of day-to-day interaction with peers for many young people, lack of access to the technology has the potential to lead to young people feel being excluded from certain shared experiences and activities with their peers (Ofcom 2007). A new digital divide that compounds existing social exclusion should be of concern to youth work professionals committed to tackling social exclusion.

Interim Report

17

Youth Work and Social Networking

Responses to opportunity and risk Many of the papers referenced in the section above include implicit or explicit recommendations on measures to increase take up of online social networking opportunities or to limit online social networking risks.

We return to the literature in Section 5 of this paper and, along with data from our survey and focus groups, explore possible youth work responses to support young people in navigating the risks and making the most of the opportunities of online social networking.

3) Voices from youth work: survey We carried out an online survey between December 2007 and January 2008 to explore awareness levels around social networking amongst youth workers, and to ascertain youth work attitudes towards online social networking.

We invited responses to questions covering respondents: • Demographics and working contexts; • Access to and use of online technology in home and work settings; • Perceptions of young people’s access to and use of online technologies; • Use of different media for information and entertainment; • Current use of online social networking tools in personal and work contexts; • Current online safety mechanisms in use, and belief in their efficacy; • Responses to the risk levels in a series of online social networking scenarios; • Attitudes towards online social networking and perceived opportunities and risks it presents to young people; • Attitudes towards a youth work role linked to online social networking; The survey used a mixture of closed questions and open responses. Some free text responses have been coded to allow for trends to be identified.

Demsographics: We received survey responses from over 120 youth workers, youth support workers, youth work managers and youth work administrators. (We will refer to this whole group as ‘youth workers and youth work managers’ or ‘respondents’ through the rest of this report).

54 per cent of responses were from women, with 46 per cent of responses from men. The age profile of respondents is shown in Chart 3.1.

Chart 3.1: Age profile of respondents

% 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00

18 Interim Report

70 or over

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

0.00

19

2.00

Youth Work and Social Networking

Some 77 per cent of responses came from the statutory sector, 17 per cent from the voluntary sector, 3 per cent from the faith sector and 1 per cent from the private sector.

33 per cent of respondents identified as ‘youth work managers’, with 29 per cent ‘professional youth workers’, 7 per cent ‘youth support workers’, 6 per cent ‘volunteer youth workers’, 5 per cent ‘administrators’ or ‘other qualified youth workers’ and 15 per cent providing some other definition of their role.

Asked about the different tasks their jobs involved, 63 per cent of respondents identified they ‘organised and managed provision’ for young people, with 56 per cent involved in ‘participation and youth empowerment’, 46 per cent ‘delivering specific courses and programmes’ and providing ‘one-to-one support with young people’, 32 per cent ‘running general youth club evenings’, 30 per cent ‘running drop-in sessions’, and 21 per cent involved in ‘detached work’.

Chart 3.2: Main work settings of respondents Various 8% In a dedicated youth centre 35%

Unkown 1%

Office based 17%

Detached/street based 12%

In a school or other educational establisment 7% In a community centre or other community building 20%

Chart 3.2 shows the main setting in which respondents worked – with the highest proportion (35 per cent) working in a dedicated youth centre, followed by 20 per cent in a community centre or other community building.

Given the survey was conducted online, and was clearly labelled as concerning ‘Youth Work and Social Networking’, there is likely to be some selection bias in terms of those who completed the survey – although we believe the survey as a whole does represent a wide range of youth work views.

Priorities and perceptions: Youth work has a crucial role in supporting young people’s engagement with Online Social Networking Over 90 per cent of those surveyed agreed with the statement that ‘Youth Workers have a crucial role in supporting young people to navigate the risks of online social networking’, with 85 per cent agreeing with the statement ‘Youth Workers have a crucial role in support young people to make the most of the opportunities of online social networking’.

Interim Report

19

Youth Work and Social Networking

Some 85 per cent believe that youth workers have a crucial role supporting young people to make the most of the opportunities of Online Social Networking What opportunities?

Of the 104 respondents who provided one or more suggestions for opportunities presented by Social Networking, just under 50 per cent identified its role in helping young people to keep in contact with peers, with a number of respondents noting the particular relevance of this for excluded groups, young people suffering illness, isolated young people or young people in rural areas. Just over 35 per cent of respondents identified an opportunity of Social Networking in allowing young people to develop new contacts and friendships with peers – with many noting how this could increase cultural understanding or could support young people to network with peers who shared their specific issues and interests.

Opportunities Selected responses Using social networking to deliver new forms of youth work – this needs to be explored significantly and resources available for it to happen Providing information, advice and support Developing links with communities of interest and widening young people’s horizons Informing young people of social activities.

Ready access to an audience for young people’s creative work.

Over 20 per cent of respondents identified ‘access to information’ as one of the three key opportunities of Online Social Networking, with near to 30 per cent picking on the role of Social Networking in helping young people to share information and media with peers, or to find an audience for their creative works.

Just over 10 per cent of respondents explicitly mentioned opportunities for online social networking tools to be used to make young people aware of, and to deliver, youth work interventions and services.

A number of responses to other questions described how services were seeing significant benefits to promoting their work through social network sites, using social network sites to ‘push out’ opportunities for consultation to young people, and using social network sites as a space to publish music and creative products put together by young people using their projects.

Perceptions of opportunity: Sixty per cent of survey respondents believe that “A key reason for encouraging young people to use online social networking is its potential to help them develop a wider range of contacts in the UK and internationally” 64 per cent agreed with the statement “The opportunities for self-expression presented by online social networking are a positive new development for those working with young people”.

Just over 50 per cent agreed with the statement that “Online social networking has increased young peoples engagement in campaigning and working for positive social change” (only 8 per cent disagreed, with the remaining replying with ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’).

However, only 31 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement “Online social networking helps young people find and get involved in real world positive activities”, with 22 per cent expressing disagreement.

How equipped is youth work?

Only 35 per cent of respondents feel equipped to support young people making the most of the opportunities presented by online social networking.

46 per cent of respondents suggested supporting young people to make the most of the opportunities of online social networking was a priority for them.

90 per cent believe that youth work has a crucial role in supporting young people to navigate the risks of Online Social Networking.

20 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

What risks?

The top five broad categories of concern respondents identified when asked to list three possible risks of Online Social Networking were:

Risks

• bullying (identified by 53 per cent); • young people disclosing personally identifying information (35 per cent); • other abuse and exploitation (29 per cent); • too much time spend on the computer or internet addiction (23 per cent); and • risks from Sexual Predators (22 per cent).

Lack of development for face to face social skills

Issues of anonymity and lack of ability to identify who was in a conversation or providing information, and concerns about young people making poor judgments about information and interactions online were also expressed by a significant number of respondents.

Personal information is passed out freely.

Selected responses Bullying

Wrong advice given to vulnerable young people Young people meet people who are older, negative influence / Getting in touch with someone who may not be who they seem.

Strangers getting hold of & using personal details/ photos to do with what they want (E.G Grooming / stalking / passing these on)

Young people are unaware of the possible risks Perceptions of risk: (and professionals are unable to access the same Respondents were asked to rate a number of sites and support the development of safety) scenarios on how risky they believed them to be, and to assess how risky they felt the young people they worked with would identify these scenarios to be. They were also asked how often they believed the young people they worked with might be involved in similar scenarios.

Table 3.3 below shows the respondents identification of risk and their assessment of young people’s assessment of risk (in brackets).

Table 3.3: Perceptions of Risk Safe %

Neutral %

Risky %

Don’t know %

Mohammed is having a house party and wants to let his friends know about it. He puts his mobile number, the date, time and address of the party on MySpace.

(Respondent assessment of how young perceive this activity)

0 (18)

1 (22)

99 (56)

0 (4)

Becky (15) created a video with her mobile phone of a bus driver refusing her and her friends half-price bus travel when they were going to school in uniform. She posts the video on YouTube and it gets used by the UK Youth Parliament FaresFair cheap travel campaign.

(Respondent assessment of how young perceive this activity)

45 (76)

26 (15)

28 (5)

2 (4)

Sarah did a quiz posted on her Bebo profile.

Questions included: “When was the last time you got drunk?” and “How often do you bunk off school?”

(Respondent assessment of how young perceive this activity)

13 (57)

19 (25)

64 (15)

4 (3)

Interim Report

21

Youth Work and Social Networking

Table 3.3: Perceptions of Risk (continued) Safe %

Neutral %

Risky %

Don’t know %

Peter has joined a group on Facebook called ‘Support the Monks’ Protest in Burma’. His membership of the group displays on his profile page.

(Respondent assessment of how young perceive this activity)

42 (66)

29 (23)

26 (7)

2 (3)

Layla fell asleep at a party on Friday night. As a joke people wrote on her face. Claire took a picture of her and posted it on Facebook (Respondent assessment of how young perceive this activity)

14 (54)

34 (31)

51 (13)

1 (2)

Darren made friends with Susan three months ago through an online game. Susan has told Darren that she is also aged 15 and lives in London. Susan has asked if they can meet up in person and Darren has said yes (Respondent assessment of how young perceive this activity)

1 (19)

2 (22)

98 (57)

0 (2)

Respondents perceived that the young people they work with would underestimate the risks of Online Social Networking. (This would need to be confirmed by a study of young people’s actual risk perception, and the actual risk attached to certain activities).

In particular, many respondents believed young people to see little risk in sharing personal information online through viral quizzes whilst identifying this themselves as a risky activity.

How equipped is youth work?

42 per cent of respondents said that they feel equipped to support young people navigating risk of online social networking, 53 per cent of respondents identified providing this support as a priority for them.

Existing activity: Online Social Networking is being used positively with young people in a limited number of cases.

A number of respondents (41) outlined ways in which they were using Online Social Networking in their work, including for: • Promotion and recruitment – letting young people know about activities and events “We have used Facebook to recruit young people onto projects and many others have joined through introductions by friends and members” • Engagement – seeking views from young people.

“We are not supposed to use these but they are not blocked and they are excellent to use as consultation tools. I’ve taken surveys and questionnaires and copied them into MySpace and pushed it out through my contacts and asked them to forward to theirs and return to me.”

• Keeping in contact – sending messages to young people “We have a Bebo space and faceparty profile – to raise awareness of the project – we also use internet as a method of maintaining contact with young people across [the area] – particularly in relation to the rural nature and issues of sexuality that we support and work with young people on.”

22 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

A number of responses focussed on using Online Social Networking for groups who met through international exchanges to keep in contact.

• Sharing media – including photos from events or music from young bands.

“We have a MySpace and Facebook site to publicise the project, and use a YouTube site to show videos of the project (with appropriate permissions)” A small number of responses noted that, rather than using the existing commercial Social Network Sites like MySpace and Facebook, their local areas were building bespoke solutions, linked to local youth websites or Connexions services.

The most used mechanism for ensuring young people’s safety online (blocking and filters) is least trusted as effective – and those interventions most trusted as effective are some of the most infrequently used.

Web filters and blocking content is the most frequently used mechanism to promote safety (81 per cent) yet is the one in which fewest respondents have confidence (44 per cent).

Only 30 per cent of respondents identify that youth workers in their organisations are receiving training to be equipped to support young people, yet over 80 per cent believe this would be an effective intervention to increase support to young people.

Actively supervising young people’s internet use is the one method which is both widely used, and in which respondents have considerable confidence.

Table 3.5: Use and effectiveness of safety mechanisms

Method

Used (%)

Believe it to be effective (%)

Web filters/content blocking

81

44

Actively supervising young peoples internet use

76

71

Running general training sessions/workshops for young people in using the internet

26

56

Running specific training sessions/workshops for young people on internet safety

25

66

Training youth workers to understand and support young people’s use of online social networking

29

86

Carrying out youth work activities (e.g. giving information, advice and guidance / detached youth work) through online social networkings websites (e.g. On MySpace)

28

69

Infrastructure and capacity: Many youth workers and youth work managers lack access to Online Social Networking in their places of work.

Only 29 per cent of respondents have access to Social Network Sites in the spaces where they work with young people, and only 43 per cent have access in their office space (with blocking being the most common reason for lacking access).

Interim Report

23

Youth Work and Social Networking

Table 3.6: Access to social network sites.

Yes (%)

No – access to these sites is blocked (%)

No – the computer is broken/can’t cope (%)

No – there is no computer/ internet access (%)

I don’t know (%)

In office

42.86

46.43

2.14

2.14

5.00

In place of work with young people

29.46

29.46

3.88

13.95

5.43

Access to Social Network Sites

Many youth workers and youth work managers have experience of using Online Social Networking – but only in interacting with family and friends.

Sixty-foour per cent of our sample have used a Social Network Site, and of those 76 per cent have created their own Social Network Site profile.

Of those who indicated they were using Social Networking Sites, over 80 per cent were using such sites to keep in touch with family and friends, just over 50 per cent using such sites to exchange messages with colleagues, and less than 40 per cent using Social Network Sites to network, exchange messages or organize activities with young people they work with.

Only 34 per cent of those using Social Network Sites identified that they were using them in a work context.

Key Questions: There are significant demands for further information, training, guidance and practical resources to enable youth work to support young people navigating the risks and making the most of the opportunities of Online Social Networking.

Respondents were asked about the key issues they wanted to see addressed as a result of this research and future work on Online Social Networking. A selection of the requests and responses given are shown below: • A guide for youth workers and curriculum pack on the risks and opportunities would be useful. I recently observed workers telling people that they could not use msn or bebo but gave no explanations why.

• How can youth work make the best use of social networking – if we get there will we be too late and will young people have something new?

• How do we ensure people online are who they say they are?

• How safe is it for young people to use any network. Can young people compare and choose which is safer online service for them to use?

• We would like to see examples of other practice in the area and hard statistical data that analyses the risks of internet use – to establish how much of the concern is moral panic • In relation to confidence building how can online social networking be constructive in working with young people who lack confidence as opposed to face to face advice and support.

• What if any ‘youth work’ is taking place through online social networking sites?

• It’s hard to get involved in positively promoting internet use at all when we don’t provide access for young people in our centres. I feel a lot of positive work could be done if our centres were brought into the 21st century.

4) Voices from Youth Work: Focus Groups Through a series of focus groups we sought to explore in more depth questions around: • Current levels of access to, awareness of, and experience with online social networking in youth work; • Attitudes within youth work towards online social networking; and

24 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

• What recommendations and proposals for action were coming from youth work with respect to online social networking; The results of those focus groups have provided some powerful insights to complement the data gathered through our survey. Key messages arising from the focus groups are summarised below.

Background & method We held three focus groups with youth workers in: • Rotherham • Oxfordshire • Wiltshire Across these three locations, 27 people took part in our focus groups, including a range of youth work managers, professional youth workers, youth support workers, trainee youth workers, administrators and young people on work experience placement. Centre based, project based, school based and detached youth work were all represented with the focus group sample. Focus group participants’ ages ranged from 15 to 52, with an average age of 36. 7 of the participants were male, 20 participants were female. Of those who provided an answer, 4 participants work part time, and 20 participants work full time.

In each focus group we held a general discussion around the questions ‘What is online social networking?’ and ‘How are young people using online social networking?’. This was followed be a short presentation on the key features of a Social Network Site, designed to make sure everyone was working from a similar understanding of online social networking in the following sections of the focus group.

We then described a number of scenarios to the group, and asked individuals to position themselves along a spectrum to indicate whether they thought the scenario was risky or safe (for the young people involved).

This led to further whole group discussion.

The same scenarios then formed the basis of small group discussions about possible youth work responses to such a scenario. Small group discussions were also used to explore possible ways in which online social networking presented an opportunity for youth work.

Finally, we held a whole group discussion to look at where participants thought youth work should be moving with respect to online social networking, and the key resources and changes they felt would be needed to support progress in those directions.

Focus group findings Youth Work has a focus on local impacts and local solutions to the challenges of online social networking The predominant focus in the media, and much educative material about online social networking, is upon the ‘big’ risks: from strangers accessing private information and contacting or grooming young people; from employers or universities using information on social network site profiles to make appointment or admissions decisions; and from criminals accessing data for identity theft. However, in our focus groups many of the ‘risks’ and opportunities explored were far more localised, every day and proximate to young people’s ordinary experiences.

Sharing photos, particularly photos such as that described in our Layla scenario (Layla fell asleep at a party on Friday night. As a joke people wrote on her face. Claire took a picture of her and posted it on Facebook.), was primarily seen as an issue because of its potential to cause tensions, conflict and upset within localised friendship groups. And the solutions proposed to such challenges were similarly local – challenging the particular instance of unsuitable photos being shared, and working with groups to help broker agreements about what photos should and shouldn’t be shared online in the future.

“We would have a discussion with both Claire and Layla to help them understand each others point of view about the photo being shared, and to talk about the wider context of sharing images. We may encourage them to form an agreement about taking and sharing photos at future events.” Oxfordshire Focus Group.

Working with a group to help them establish an agreement about when they need permission from peers to

Interim Report

25

Youth Work and Social Networking

share photos or videos online brings the ‘problem’ (uncritical sharing of photos and images) down to a local level and does not involve invoking distant fears to persuade young people to change their behaviours.

There was recognition of the inevitability of online social networking being a key feature of most young people’s lives and a drive not to miss the opportunities it presents for youth work “I think it’s an area that is here to stay – it’s going to get bigger – it’s going to get better – and it’s going to get more risky. We need to support young people to know how to do it safely – and we need to make sure there is training. It’s not something we can ignore.” Rotherham.

There was a clear recognition in all focus groups (as in our survey) of the importance of a youth work response to online social networking. Online social networking was seen as a phenomena that was only likely to grow, and there was little suggestion that it can seen a ‘passing fad’ that can be ignored.

Whilst taking steps to engage with online social networking in the future was, for many focus group participants, seen as necessary because of the increasing role it is seen to play in young people’s lives, a number of participants also expressed considerable excitement about the opportunities it presented.

“We’re in danger of missing a very exciting opportunity here. The first place young people look for anything on the internet. I’ve spent a couple of hours trying to find information about my own centre on the internet and I wasn’t able to find anything – we need to do a lot more.” Rotherham.

“We could use social networks to consult with young people and get their feedback. Right now we just hand out a questionnaire and get no responses – it’s a missed opportunity.” Oxfordshire.

“We could use sites to provide a platform for young people’s creative work – to get it seen by a wider audience” Oxfordshire.

There are key Issues of access and education to be solved A key theme in two of the focus group discussions was on the lack of access to social network sites from youth centres. The internet access provided to many youth centres is filtered such that social network sites and other interactive sites are not available. This has an impact upon the capacity of youth workers to learn about online social networking and to train young people in making the most of online social networking, and upon the extent to which online social networking is ‘on the radar’ of youth workers as an issue they need to address.

“We should run a group work session on using social networks, but we just wouldn’t think of it – as it’s not an issue we’ll see in here.” Rotherham.

“Running a session on safer internet use just wouldn’t occur to a worker planning their curriculum if they don’t come into contact with young people’s use of the technology.” Rotherham It was evident that participating in discussions during our short focus groups helped many participants to deepen their awareness and understanding of online social networking – and to start working out how they could apply their existing professional skills to issues arising from it. The need for training to support youth work in building capacity to respond to online social networking was clearly identified.

“There is a wide range of ability right now. Some colleagues find it tricky to even turn the computer on.” “We need personalised training, identifying each individuals training needs.” “Young people could be involved in training us.” Wiltshire.

“We don’t need to ‘master’ the technology – but we do need to know how to use it – to be a jack of this trade as well...” Wiltshire.

There is a need for online youth work – but it is not clear whether it should be an activity of all workers, or a specialised skill The idea of delivering youth work activity online was discussed in all three focus groups. Ideas ranged from making it easy to contact individual youth workers through social network sites, to having a dedicated information and advice service delivered through online social networking, and engaging in outreach work online.

26 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

“It could help promote equality of opportunity – reaching out to young people who can’t get out, or can’t come to a particular club because of territorialism” Oxfordshire “We could have an e-youth worker and an ‘ask the youth worker’ feature on our websites...” Wiltshire The idea of e-youth work as a core skill for all workers was raised, although a number of focus group participants felt that this needed to be a specific role, similar to particular roles that exist for sports based youth work, or arts based youth work. In particular, concerns were expressed about whether everyone would feel comfortable and confident communicating predominantly in written text.

Social network sites raise some challenges for youth workers in navigating the personal and professional divide Particularly for workers who may have started as volunteers, maintaining a divide between personal friendships and networks on social network sites, and professional links to young people and networks on social network sites could pose challenges.

We discussed whether or not youth workers should have individual profiles on online social networks, and how workers should respond to ‘friend requests’ from young people against their personal profiles if they have them. Whilst many existing policies about the professional/personal divide (e.g. only giving out work mobile numbers rather than personal mobile numbers) can be applied to online social networks (only add young people as friends of a work profile, not as friends of a personal profile), some issues require further thought.

For example, in one group we spent time discussing whether the information young people share on their profiles pages should affect whether or not a worker should approve them as a friend on a social network site.

“I get invited by loads of the young people I work with” – “Some people have unsuitable photos on their profiles – like girls who are at the age that they’re getting into boys – their profiles pictures can look ‘slightly dodgy’” – “It’s a big maze...a new maze that no one has looked at in depth before.” Rotherham.

The challenges presented by the 24 hour a day, 365 day a year nature of online social networking were also discussed. If a youth service is to accept user generated content to online spaces it controls, then moderation of that content needs to be rapid and possibly taking place ‘out of hours’. Delayed moderation can mean young people will move to use other spaces where the content they share is available more quickly, but, as one participant put it, “something that goes on the site at 7am could be all round school by 9am and it’s too late to moderate it.”.

There is some existing practice to build upon in the positive use of online social networking All three focus groups mentioned the use of social network sites (predominantly MySpace) by youth music projects.

A number of examples of online social networking being used to keep in touch with youth forums and to consult with young people were also mentioned.

Often these uses of online social networking are ‘under the radar’ or have been achieved by circumventing filters on youth centre computers.

Online social networking provides new opportunities for youth work to promote its services and provision Ideas explored in our focus groups ranged from using social network profiles to advertise services to regularly messaging young people through online social networking spaces to let them know what was going on and creating and sharing rich interactive media (e.g. a virtual youth centre tour) on social network sites to make youth work venues appear more accessible.

Training and development needs to take into account the different starting points of staff Rather than one consistent story about current youth work capacity and training needs, we found multiple stories from focus group participants about their current level of enthusiasm, optimism and confidence to engage with online social networking.

Interim Report

27

Youth Work and Social Networking

Two factors can help identify where individuals are starting from in terms of their engagement with issues connected to online social networking – and in identifying possible training and development needs or opportunities.

These are: • Youth work experience and skills. We encountered confident and adaptable workers whose responses to different possible online social networking scenarios demonstrated they were able to operate in a range of different contexts, are comfortable with and able to inhabit different styles of response and operation and with the confidence to recognise the transferability of youth work skills and experience into the online space. We also encountered workers new to the field, still requiring considerable support in learning and applying good youth work practice in the online space.

• Experience of digital technologies: by this we mean experience of and confidence in using the complete range of digital technologies – from mobile phones through email and using the Internet for information to playing computer games. We encountered workers who were on the modern media margins – having had little practical experience of digital technology; and we encountered workers with extensive experience and expertise in using online tools and technologies. It is important to note that the sample in the focus groups only partly reflected the common assumption that age will be an indicator of experience in the digital world. As the Oxford Internet Institute national survey on Internet access and usage (2007) suggests it is not just age, but a combination of age, education and income that best predicts levels of internet use.

The diagram below uses these two factors as the axes of a matrix. We have tried to identify five typical positions on this matrix that capture the different levels of experience in youth work and digital technology that participants in our focus groups represented. For each position we provide a brief characterisation and direct quotes from our survey and focus groups that illustrate that particular starting point.

Experience of digital technologies

28 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking A: Experienced youth workers, on the new media margins These workers recognise the importance of engaging with online social networking and new technologies – but lack the experience, knowledge and confidence to understand at present how their youth work skills could be used related to online social networking, or lack the confidence to address issues associated with online social networking. They are willing to engage, but are keen to have a guarantee of technical support. They may never have had the opportunities or encouragement to engage with technology before.

• “I think it’s quite scary – but I find computers scary anyway. But, I also think we need to be moving with the times. I would need a 24 hour hotline – but we could make this work – as long as we had the support there.”

B: Experienced youth workers – cautious converts In this position are Youth Workers who are secure about their own skills, have experience of adapting to new situations and made an effort to keep in touch with new technology – often through a relationship with a child or family member. They are aware of the need to learn how to adapt to the way young people operate online and are able to state their own training needs. Gaps in their knowledge may on occasions lead to over- or under-cautious responses to certain online social networking related situations.

• (On the scenario where photos of Layla at a party are posted on Facebook) “It’s unfortunate and bad behaviour on behalf of her friends – but she shouldn’t have got herself in that situation – she should learn her lesson.”

• “There are a lot of positive things about the internet” “but there are also huge risks around what sort of other people are out there and what are their intentions”.

C: Experienced youth workers, ready responders We encountered a relatively small number of youth workers, from all levels, who were both secure in their own practice as professionals and experienced users of online tools, including social networks.

Such individuals are often used to operating relatively independently. They are early adopters of new technology and have been ahead of the mainstream trends. Their understanding of technology can help them identify both technological and social solutions to challenges and to identify/enable new opportunities created by online social networking. They will be a valuable resource in terms of learning and training – helping to map out possible youth work responses to online social networking related scenarios.

• “I might be anxious about my son going to London to meet another 15 year old – but it should be about the actual risk rather than my feelings. I would set up a system that allows him to meet but keeps it safe”.

• “I think much more needs to be done towards the use of social media to create change & develop opportunities and particularly to develop the use of technologies available beyond the very personal way they are used by the majority of people”.

D: Emerging youth workers, active experimenters and progressive converts Youth Workers we encountered whose attitudes represented this mid-way position were among the most open and interested in experimentation and probably represent the most important training group since they are moving into a position where they are likely to assume increased responsibility and are interested in trying out new ways of working. These workers may be active users of online social networking sites themselves, interested in experimenting with them, or they may be converts, intending to, or already active in, using online social networks because they believe these are important spaces in which to support and engage with young people.

• “I didn’t let my older child use these sites – but my younger child will have unblocked access so they can learn to use them safely whilst being supervised.”

• “The ability to use social networking is great for consultation and promotion and we use that semi unofficially. There is a divide in the authority between those who believe its of no value (mostly older people) and those who use it to great effect. A recent campaign undertaken by young people to save [a local] skatepark utilised social networking interspersed with events and official petitions to great success. A MySpace address is a great way to keep a project in young peoples view. It can be used as a leader to a more detailed site but most importantly a simple way for people to leave feedback, ask questions and much more.”

E: Emerging youth workers, uncritical networkers In all the focus groups we encountered staff who are experienced users of online tools, including social

Interim Report

29

Youth Work and Social Networking

network sites, and enthusiastic about using them in youth work, However the anecdotes they shared drew concerned responses from other members of staff about the need to remain a professional/private divide, to identify potential concerns, to adopt best youth work practices and to collaborate with other youth workers at all times. The enthusiasm and experience of this group in using online social networks is a key asset for youth services, but they may need support in identifying how youth work concerns, applying youth work practice and working within the boundaries of professional youth work in online social networking spaces.

• “I get invited [as a friend] by loads of the young people I work with.”

• “Some people have unsuitable photos on their profiles – like girls who are at the age that they’re getting into boys – their profile pictures can look ‘slightly dodgy’. I’m not really sure what to do about it.”

Training and development needs It is worth noting that in a youth service where the different starting points listed above are represented that many of the development and skill building needs the service may have can be met from within. The capacity building challenge may then be more about creating the right forums and spaces for knowledge and skills to be shared than it is about external training.

Training needs identified in the Focus Group discussions and online survey: Of course, even when such mechanisms are created, a menu of different training options can prove useful.

There was strong support from all the focus groups and many survey respondents for training, for example, on participant asked: “Can training and resources for staff be made more accessible and (in my opinion) be made essential for all part new ways of working with young people?”

The following list is drawn from contributions to both the survey and focus group – and at this point makes no claims to be definitive: Youth Workers would benefit from capacity building that covers: • Knowledge and learning activities that “remove the fear” of online social networking (which is often due more to the fact that it involves IT than the nature of the social networking platform itself) • Practical ways of working , including how to offer professional advice in the online context and, “how social networking can be used in a safe manner to aid creativity in informing, supporting, and working with young people.”. These should include, “good practise guidelines to encourage those in the different sectors to feel safe when interacting in this new culture.”

• Information and examples about the opportunities and risks for youth work to enable people to “feel more balanced about the risks and opportunities”, including answering questions such as: • “How easy is it for sites such as Facebook and MySpace to be hacked in to and for personal information on them to be added/changed/obtained?”

• “What happens to our information when we delete or alter our online profile? It is stored or retained for future use?”

• “Where do Youth Workers draw the line in social networking interaction with young people professionally? Where is the line drawn between interaction and advice and meddling in private lives?

What are the protocols that young people would like Youth Workers to follow? For example, how would they like us to interact with them on social networking projects?”

• “In relation to confidence building how can online social networking be constructive in working with young people who lack confidence as opposed to face to face advice and support?”

• “How do you ensure people are who they say they are?”

• “What are the emerging trends? We want to identify what is liable to be the norm in the future.”

Young People would benefit from capacity building that covers: • How to “Assess risks in online behaviour”, and recognise dangers, such as grooming patterns; • What to do about dangers (such as who to contact, how to record activity); • How to operate safely (such as using privacy settings and adopting appropriate behaviour), • How to “compare and choose which (network) is a safer online service for them to use?”

• How to exploit opportunities of online social networking for extending networks, creative expression, accessing information and becoming more politically engaged.

Further, “it would be “a real confidence booster” for young people if they could be involved in the training themselves, passing on their knowledge and skills to others”.

30 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

5) Responses: How can youth work support young people to make the most of the opportunities and navigate the risks of online social networking?

Opportunities and risks go hand in hand (Livingstone and Bober 2005). As should be evident from the above discussion, many of the same features of online social networking which open up a wealth of opportunity to young people also increase their exposure to risks.

With the right support, youth work can effectively respond to the opportunities and challenges of online social networking Many of the skills, policies and processes needed to effectively support young people in navigating the risks, and making the most of the opportunities, of online social networking exist already within youth work. There is, however, a need for training, support and capacity building to enable these to be applied effectively in the context of online social networking.

Key youth work assets that have a role to play in supporting young people to navigate risk and make the most of opportunity in online social networking include: • Professional relationships with young people that allow youth workers to supportively challenge negative behaviours and encourage positive activities; • A critical awareness of the power dynamics between young people and adults; • Group work settings which allow groups to establish their own shared norms for online interaction; • Familiarity in dealing with young peoples interpersonal interaction and an understanding of local issues, tensions and group dynamics; Striking a balance: promoting opportunity and the right responses to risk The diagram below illustrates visually how a particular online social networking activity (sharing personally identifying information) has both positive and negative potential consequences (presents both opportunities and risks). Strategies for promoting opportunity and limiting risk may act upon the diagram at different levels – intervening at earlier or later stages – and intervening through capacity building4 or control.

Whilst a range of recommendations on young people’s internet safety have recently been made by Withers and Sheldon (2008), Byron (2008) and Ofcom (2008) no sustained consideration of the role of youth services and youth work in supporting young people to make the most of opportunities and to navigate risk has taken place.

In the following section we explore a range of possible responses. In some cases, there is an evidence base that can be used to comment on the plausibility of the likely impact of that approach. For other responses, no clear evaluation of their applicability to online social networking yet exists. These gaps will inform the action research phases of our programme.

4 Capacity building in terms of equipping young people with the skills and capacities to respond effectively to online social networking, and building young people’s resiliency to respond. For a discussion of capacity building approaches to support for young people, asset-based development see Schulman and Davies (2007): Evidence Of The Impact Of The ‘Youth Development Model’ On Outcomes For Young People – A Literature Review.

Interim Report

31

Youth Work and Social Networking

Limiting access a) Technical filters In our survey of youth workers the most commonly used strategy for managing young people’s online social networking was the existence of blocks and internet content filters on access to social network sites (although our focus groups suggest these blocks and filters are generally imposed ‘upstream’ and are outside the control of workers). The effectiveness of internet content filters at blocking access to unsuitable websites has been widely questioned, both due to the technical failure of filters which leads to unsuitable sites being allowed through and a significant number of suitable sites being blocked (Stark 2007) and due to their potential to create a false sense of security and to undermine attempts to demonstrate safe use of social network sites (McIntosh, 2007).

In the particular case of social network sites, where a wide variety of both suitable and potentially unsuitable, content is contained on a single website – internet content filters are a blunt and ineffective instrument.

In our focus groups a number of discussions also emerged about the extent to which internet content filters were an obstacle to youth workers gaining a full understanding of online social networking, and to youth workers being able to identify and respond to issues relating to young people’s online social networking.

“We can’t run safer internet sessions when we have no access” (Focus group participant, Rotherham). “I’d like to see a different kind of filter that allows us to work with social networks” (Focus group participant, Rotherham).

Limiting access b) Supervised access In our survey, supervising young people’s use of the internet in youth centres was both widely used (76 per cent) and widely believed to be an effective measure (71 per cent). Supervision may range from sitting with young people one-to-one when they are using computers, or may involve a worker always being present in the computer room when internet access is taking place. In some cases, supervision may also involve monitoring and checking logs of web pages visited and logs of MSN messenger conversations after each session when the internet is used.

Supervising access however was primarily seen as a way of challenging access to inappropriate content, or identifying wider issues through monitoring young people’s online conversations (one focus group participant explained how monitoring logs after a session had alerted workers to an organised fight and they then stepped in and involved the police to prevent it). There is little evidence to suggest that youth workers are at present using supervision as an opportunity to explore deeper issues of risk and opportunity by, for example, helping young people check the privacy settings on their social network profiles or talking about how online social networking can be used to share creative content or build positive peer networks.

Information and education campaigns There is clearly a gap in young people’s knowledge and skill set for effectively using the internet. Whilst young people now may be part of a ‘digital native’ generation, the ability to operate online social networking technology does not necessarily equate with the ability to make the most of, or operate safely with, online social networking. Livingstone and Bober (2005) found that many young people were not taking up the full potential of the internet – and there is little evidence to suggest that has changed in 2008.

Information campaigns In the recommendations of her review, Dr Tanya Bryon (2008) calls for “A properly funded public information and awareness campaign on child internet safety to change behaviour” and “Sustainable education and children’s services initiatives to improve the skills of children and their parents around e-safety.” technologies.

Public education campaigns do have a role to play in changing behaviour – but doing so is complex and getting the messages right is crucial. Livingstone et al. in the Ofcom (2008) research summary and submission to Byron’s review found that “young people may be aware of the risks, especially regarding social networking sites, but this awareness of these issues and problems is not always translated into action.”

In ‘Internet Prevention Messages: Targeting the Right Online Behaviours’ Ybarra et al (2007) find that “Talking with people known only online (“strangers”) under some conditions is related to interpersonal victimization, but sharing personal information is not.” Yet the majority of internet safety campaign messages headline the recommendation that young people should not share personal information. Given

32 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

that sharing some level of personal information is a crucial part of using online social networking sites (Ofcom 2008) messages lacking a nuanced approach to sharing personal information may be lack credibility and be disregarded by young people or may even prove counterproductive.

A social norms campaign In ‘MySpace is also their space’, Kosse (2007) considers the social norms that have emerged on social network sites, such as posting provocative pictures on one’s profile – and notes that “social norms play a role in a person’s decision making process”; and that young people may have faulty perceptions about social norms (assuming, for example, that everyone is talking about sex through online social networks, or that everyone is posting provocative pictures). Kosse describes a social norms campaign as one which seeks to give accurate information about positive group norms in order to affect widespread behavioural change.

In the case of online social networking, a social norms campaign may, for example, seek to address the negative peer influenced behaviours on social network sites by providing clear information about widespread, but often overlooked, positive uses of online social networking.

This assumes that there is a clear positive norm that simply needs wider promotion. It may, however, be the case that the positive norms for conduct in online social networking are unstable and need to be established rather than uncovered. Group work with young people can provide opportunities for an exploration and negotiation of shared norms of conduct online.

Support peer-to-peer learning The idea of a social norm campaign also links with that of peer to peer education and support. Peer-topeer learning is already seen as a key way in which young people gain their knowledge of technology and interaction online (Hannon and Green, 2007) although relatively little has been written about the role of young people as a peer supporters in the online context alongside being peer educators (as it will often be young people who are best placed to raise concerns about possible serious risks to their peers online).

Withers and Sheldon (2008) call for a greater focus on encouraging and supporting peers to provide information and advice online – drawing on evidence from situations where young people have helped deliver information and advice on sexual health online.

Equipping young people to effectively act as peer educators and peer supporters will require providing them with training, core messages and support structures.

Group work activities A key role of youth work is providing reflective spaces for young people – often through working with groups to explore issues – either through planned sessions, or through group discussions that respond to issues raised by young people (Merton, 2007). A number of respondents to our survey suggested they could make use of materials about online social networking as part of their curricula.

In our focus groups and survey we found that at present online social networking is unlikely to be a topic covered in group work sessions. Whilst many of the issues raised by online social networking could be discussed in general group work sessions – and whilst young people will often have more first hand experience of online social networking than workers – it was clear from our focus groups that youth workers need some basic knowledge and awareness of online social networking and social network sites in order to be able to fully respond to issues relating to them in a group work setting.

Individual interventions Where youth workers have established relationships with young people this can support them in being able to challenge particular risk behaviours or to encourage young people to take up new opportunities (Merton 2007).

To effectively do this a youth worker needs to be aware of the appropriate responses to a perceived risky behaviours (and to have a balanced understanding of the risks of online social networking), and to be aware of the possible opportunities available to young people. To response to targeted individual interventions youth workers also need to become aware of actual cases of risky behaviours or missed opportunities in order to provide the relevant individual challenge and support. At present, the lack of access to social network sites in youth work contexts limits both youth workers contact with such situations, and their in depths awareness of the particular impacts of certain activities on online social networks.

Interim Report

33

Youth Work and Social Networking

Youth Media/Media Literacy building Building young people’s media literacy is seen by many as a key strategy in reducing risks and maximising take up of opportunities online (Withers and Sheldon 2008; Byron 2008). Ofcom define media literacy as ‘the ability to access, understand and create communications in a variety of contexts’. Whilst it is mistaken to see online social networking purely as a ‘media’ activity, (given it is based around activities of one-toone and group conversation as much as it is based around activities of content creation, publishing and dissemination), work with young people to support them in effectively using online social networking tools, to understand the motivations behind content on social network sites and to develop and reflect upon their own content creation would fit well within a media literacy building paradigm.

Youth work has a long track record of media based work with young people (Buckingham et. al 2005), with music, video and other media production workshops and activities offered as part of the youth work portfolio alongside sports and arts provision. The focus here is on media creation – which forms one strand of media literacy. There is evidence from our focus groups and survey that music projects in particular are also engaging with online social networks – supporting young people to create profile pages to promote their music creations. However, Kirwan et. al (2003) find that media projects often lack key media literacy building components – focussing on building young people’s technical skills and using media technologies as a mechanism for keeping young people engaged – rather than seeking to develop young people’s critical awareness of particular media. They also find that media projects are frequently delivered by outside ‘experts’, limiting the extent to which the youth work relationship can be drawn upon to support young people in critical reflection about their own media production activities.

There is less of a case for bringing in external experts to run projects specifically on online social networking – as it would appear less suitable as the subject of a fixed-term project that would, for example, creating a video. In the case of online social networking, it would also appear that young people are also less in need of skill building, and more in need of opportunities for critical reflection on their own activities. With the appropriate support for youth workers this is something services could offer. For example, a centre may engage a group of young people in creating a social network site profile for the centre itself or a project run from the centre. By involving young people in managing this particular profile, and using the opportunities for discussion this raises, reflective space for supporting young people’s developing literacy with respect to online social networking is created.

Providing opportunities and activities in online social network spaces In our focus group discussions we touched upon a number of models of e-youth work, from setting up a profile for young people to communicate with, through to carrying out community development style ‘detached’ youth work in an online social networking space.

A number of organisations working with young people are already exploring ways in which they can establish a presence in social network spaces (through advertising, providing static or interactive content, actively engaging with young people through those spaces etc.) – and we will seek to explore these models as part of the second phase of our research.

How can youth work make the most of online social networking tools?

As well as providing opportunities and challenges for young people – online social networking presents a number of opportunities for youth services and youth work. In the following section we provide a very brief sketch of a number of possibilities we have come across during our research. Many of these possibilities may need further exploration before they can we recommended as widespread best practice, although they do point to areas that youth services should be considering.

Promotion and recruitment Social network site profiles, groups and pages can provide an online presence for youth services, centres and projects that it is otherwise impossible to find meaningful information about online.

Social network profiles have the added advantage that young people can articulate a link with the service or project through making a ‘friend request’ or ‘fan request’ against a profile or page, or joining a social

34 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

network site group. Once that link is created, the service or project can send information directly to young people – or can share information through status updates.

Because the project or service will then appear in the ‘friend lists’ of those young people who have linked to it – information about projects and services can spread more quickly through young people’s online social networks (this is sometimes referred to as ‘viral marketing’).

For example: a youth centre may create a profile on each of MySpace, Facebook and Bebo. They update the profiles regularly with information about upcoming activities, opening times and to share photos and video clips from previous events. The allow young people who are members of projects at the centre to become ‘friends’ of their profiles – and they then use the ‘status updates’ feature on their social network sites to alert young people to changes to the opening times, or to recruit young people to specific projects.

Keeping in contact As young people move away from using e-mail, and as the cost of sending text messages and the constant changes to mobile numbers continues to provide a challenge in attempts to keep in touch with young people – the messaging systems on online social network sites provide another channel for maintaining contact with young people.

For example: a worker may have a professional social network site profile with many of the young people they work with as ‘friends’. They can then easily send messages to those young people through the social network site.

Engagement Time can often be tight in youth work sessions for consultation with young people – and gathering in views from across wide geographical areas often needs an expensive meeting or a lot of chasing up with e-mails, phone calls and paper survey. Online social networks can provide a space for consulting with young people, fostering discussions about services and possible improvement and for encouraging young people to become more democratically engaged.

For example: a survey could be sent out through an online social network about a proposed change to local services, or a ‘feedback widget’ could be placed on a projects social network site profile for young people to be able to offer regular ongoing feedback about the project.

Sharing stories and sharing media Many social network sites are geared towards sharing media and can provide a space for celebrating young people’s creative works (music, art, video, writing etc.) and for sharing positive stories about young people and youth work activities.

Shared photos and videos from an event often attract a lot of website visits from those who were at the event – and can be presented alongside information about future events or other offers from a service or project.

For example: a youth project could take photos at a dance night (having an official photographer to avoid everyone taking their own photos) and could post those photos online in a closed social network site group after the event. To access the photos, young people would need to be approved as a member of that group.

The youth project would then be able to send a note about future events to all group members, and to include extra information on the group pages about support provided by the project.

Interim Report

35

Youth Work and Social Networking

6) Next steps During May, June and July 2008 we will be exploring in depth how youth services and other professionals working with young people can build their capacity to respond to online social networking.

You can follow the progress of our action research projects via our research blog at http://blogs.nya.org.uk/ ywsn/ and a final project report will contain key practical learning emerging from this second phase of our research.

We are also keen to gather case studies of good practice, and to explore wider uses of online social networking in youth work. If you have an example of a youth work response to online social networking that you think we should consider, please do get in touch by e-mail to tim@practicalparticipation.co.uk or by adding a comment to the project blog.

36  Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

Annex 1: Opportunities and Risks of Online Social Networking Section 2.5 offered a summary of the literature on opportunities and risks of online social networking. There are very important nuances in the identification of opportunities and risks from online social networking, and so this annexe explores the literature in more depth, seeking to provide additional insights that complement other recent explorations of opportunity and risk online (Byron 2008; Ofcom 2008; Withers and Sheldon 2008).

What are the Risks and Opportunities presented by Online Social Networking?

As with any development which opens up new possibilities – some of those possibilities will have positive consequences, and some will have negative consequences. In the next section we seek to survey some of the particular opportunities and risks posed by online social networking, and to examine their significance.

The EU Kids Go Online project has sought to categorise opportunities and risks online for young people under 26 headings (also adopted by Byron 2008). Whilst the full breadth of opportunities and risks can be experienced by young people during the activity of online social networking – online social networking facilitates some more than others.

Online opportunities

Online risks

• Access to global information • Educational resources • Social networking for old and new friends • Entertainment, games and fun • User-generated content creation • Civic or political participation • Privacy for expression of identity • Community involvement/activism • Technological expertise and literacy • Career advancement or employment • Personal/health/sexual advice • Specialist groups and fan forums • Shared experiences with distant others

• Illegal content • Paedophiles, grooming, strangers • Extreme or sexual violence • Other harmful or offensive content • Racist/hate material/activities • Advertising/commercial persuasion • Biased/misinformation (e.g. advice, health) • Exploitation of personal information • Cyber-bullying, stalking, harassment • Gambling, financial scams • Self-harm (suicide, anorexia, etc) • Invasions/abuse of privacy • Illegal activities (hacking, downloading)

Our intention in the following section is not to give a definitive overview of the evidence on all opportunity or risk. For an in depth analysis of the UK evidence on risks and their consequent harms, the Byron Review (2008) is a very good starting point. Our focus here is, however, to provide a brief survey of: • The evidence base concerning the opportunities and risks that are commonly raised in discussions of online social networking and young people’s wider online activity.

• Some additional opportunities and risks which we identify as arising from the literature.

Our particular focus is on those opportunities and risks which present opportunities or challenges for professional youth work.

It is worth noting that the literature on risk is far more developed than that on opportunity. We put this down to the policy drivers of much research, and have attempted to fill in a sketch of opportunities where current research is limited.

Opportunities As a result of their online social networking activity young people have opportunities for: Developing and maintaining friendships Most young people are predominantly interested in communicating with existing friendship networks online, with much of the online communication that takes place being an extension of conversations from ‘offline’ school and social settings. (Mediappro 2007).

A strong “love discourse” (or ‘affection discourse’) can be found in the profile texts of young people on online social networks – where many exchanges can be translated broadly to messages of the form “Hi, I

Interim Report

37

Youth Work and Social Networking

am still your friend and I care about you”. Whilst negative exchanges can emerge, Larsen suggests in her ethnographic research of the main Danish social networking site, Arto, that young people have found it to be a space for authentically expressing their feelings towards friends and for positively re-enforcing friendship networks through their communication on these sites.

Extending their social networks, and joining interest based networks Many young people extend the friends lists of their Online Social Network far beyond individuals they have physically met or are acquainted with in person. In an analysis of MySpace profiles in 2007 Thelwall (forthcoming) found a significant number of profiles belonging to 16 year olds to have more than 90 friends indicated on their profiles – with the indication from this being that young people may be ‘collecting friends’ (Withers 2007).

An individual may extend their online social network by sending friend requests to ‘friends of friends’, by finding and friending profiles through shared interest groups on a social network site, or by undirected browsing of a site. In our survey of youth workers, a number mentioned the role of online social networks in supporting LGBT young people in rural areas to find supportive peer networks.

Building bridging social capital resources As well as the relatively close circle of friends with whom a Social Network Site user may be actively communicating (strong ties), sites also allow users to record their connections with acquaintances and loose connections (weak ties). Instead of just talking to someone once at an event or party, and never meeting them again, a Social Network Site makes it possible to look them up afterwards and request and maintain a connection, albeit latent, with that person. Donath and boyd (2004) suggest that whilst Social Network Sites don’t increase the number of strong ties (close friendships) an individual can maintain, they radically increase an individual’s capacity to maintain a large number of weak ties (acquaintances).

Ellison et al. (2006) draw a link between weak social network ties and the concept of ‘bridging social capital’.

The ability of young people to use Social Network Sites to maintain many weak ties, (for example, maintaining links with school friends when moving into employment or moving away to university; or maintaining a connection with peers met at a local youth event or international exchange) could have a significant impact on the social capital resources available to them as they operate as actors in their communities and as they navigate transitions to adulthood.

Developing identity and reflecting upon identity development A number of authors (Larsen, 2007, Tynes, 2007) have focussed on the role of Social Network Sites as part of young people’s identify formation process. Much as previous youth authored websites have provided a key space for young people to explore emerging aspects of their identities and to gain feedback from peer groups and a wider ‘audience’ (Stern 2008) so social network sites create a space for identity formation and development. In particular, they provide a space where young people co-construct identity with peers. (Larsen 2007). The Ofcom report on Children and the Internet (2007) notes that personal web pages can “help create and develop a social identity, which is particularly important for teenagers.”

Stern’s work on non Social Network youth authored websites found that blogs and online journals could provide young people with a useful reflective record of their own development – and the process of thinking about how to present oneself in the online space could provide a positive opportunity for self-reflection and examination.

Ofcom’s research report into social networking (2008) suggests users of social network sites engage in ‘identity play’ – fabricating profiles for fun or to ‘play tricks’ on peers. The creation of fake profiles undoubtedly takes place – (Larsen however finds a strong self-enforced community norm against such ‘fakesters’) but the creation of play profiles should not be confused with an individuals own identity exploration through a relatively authentic profile.

Creativity and self expression The Pew Internet and American Life Project finds that “social networking sites are hubs of teen contentcreating activity” (Lenhart and Madden, 2007) Facilitating an individuals ability to produce and rapidly share multi-media content with friendship networks and wider networks is a key aspect of Social Network Sites.

Pew found that 39 per cent of American teens share their own artwork, photos, stories or videos online.

In looking at the potential of encouraging young people to create digital media in enhancing young people’s

38 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

civic engagement, Peter Levine (2008) introduces the idea of an ‘audience problem’. An individual is more likely to be motivated to develop and share a creative product if they have a sense of an audience for that.

Levine notes that social networking sites have a role to play in providing access to an audience.

Informal learning Engaging with Social Network Sites provides young people with a wide range of learning opportunities. Work

by Green and Hannon (2007) identified a wide range of ‘digital skills’ young people can acquire through general online informal learning including: social and personal skills; cognitive and physical skills; and technical skills. They note that “It is this type of learning which often provides children with the confidence of success in formal contexts.”.

Social Network Sites can provide a space for peer-to-peer learning between young people and they can also provide a collaboration platform for young people to communicate and co-ordinate around formal and informal learning projects.

Focussing on how young people learn about race, Tynes (2007) found that young people’s perspectivetaking skills could improve as a result of computer-mediated interaction with young people from different backgrounds.

Accessing information, advice and guidance Social network sites can provide a space for young people to access trusted information, advice and guidance. Whilst there is little research concerning the possibilities and suitable strategies for services wishing to be providers in this space, this was an area of work that respondents to our survey of youth work expressed interest in exploring in more depth.

Civic and political participation In March 2006, over 50,000 US teenagers walked out of school to protest immigration policies. Their protest had been organised to a significant extent through online social networking spaces. The role of online spaces and Social Network Sites in particular, as venues for civic engagement and political action is one of the most prominent themes in the literature on online opportunities for young people (Rheingold 2008; Levine 2008; Loader et. al 2007; Byron 2008 §3.92; Howland and Bethel 2002 amongst others).

Whilst Coleman (2007) focuses on the internet as a space where conventional politics can communicate with young people in a more appealing style than standard political ‘broadcasts’, Loader (2007) hints at a more transformative role for the internet in engaging young people in reshaping democratic politics. RaynesGoldie and Walker (2008) argue that, carefully designed social tools have a key role to play in facilitating young peoples engagement in poltical campaigning and action.

Whether or not formal politics can engage with young people through online social networks, online social networking is a key tool for young people in creating movements and co-ordinating actions to engage in politics.

Fun By no means least important is that online social networking is an activity many young people enjoy and believe themselves to gain a lot from.

Risks The EU Kids Go Online (2008) project provides a matrix model for thinking about risks to young people online (see diagram on page 40). Whilst far from comprehensive, it can provide a useful frame for considering young people’s exposure to, and participation in, risk factors and risk behaviours through their online social networking activity.

Online Social Networking opens up the possibility of young people: Being ‘cyber bullied’ or ‘cyber bullying’ Byron (2008) suggests that “The nature of bullying changes when online, making it anonymous and potentially more damaging” and notes that whilst bullying using the internet is far less prevalent than bulling ‘offline’, the rise of social network sites and user generated content has the potential to increase the extent

Interim Report

39

Youth Work and Social Networking Motivation:

Commercial

Aggressive

Sexual

Values

Advertising, Exploitation of personal information

Violent web content

Problematic sexual web content

Biased information, racism, blasphemy, health ‘advice’

More sophisticated exploitation, children being tracked by advertising

Being harassed, stalked, bullied

Being roomed, arranging for offline contacts

Being supplied with misinformation

Illegal downloads, sending offensive messages to peer

Cyber bullying someone else

Publishing porn

Providing misinformation

Childs role:

Content (child as recipient)

Contact (child as participant)

Conduct (child as actor)

to which the internet is a factor in bullying.

11 per cent of calls to ChildLine (2005) about bullying in 2003/4 identified the internet as a factor in their case and the 2006 National Bullying Survey (quoted in Byron, 2008) found that whilst 69 per cent of young people had been bullied, internet technologies and text messaging was a factor in only 7 per cent of cases.

‘Cyber bullying’ was noted as a significant concern to parents in the UK Government’s Staying Safe Action Plan (2008).The term ‘cyber bullying’ is, however, contested, as it can imply bullying online to be a distinct phenomenon, different from bullying in general and to lead to mistaken strategies of technical control to deal with it. The way in which online bullying can leave ‘digital tracks’ and a clear record of interaction between bully and victim provides additional information to those dealing with instances of bullying. (Bullying UK) Where Byron identifies anonymity as a key feature of bullying online, the online social networking phenomena also impacts upon the capacity of young people to create, publish and access content designed to bully, and it affects the way in which that content spreads through young people’s networks. Bullying mediated through the internet is not linked to a particular location such as school or youth group – and young people’s use of communication tools and online social networking makes them a potential ‘victim’ or ‘perpetrator’ of bullying in a far wider range of contexts.

The Euro Barometer Survey (2007) found that features on social network sites such as applications for rating friends could facilitate bullying activity. ChildLine, Need2Know (http://www.need2know.co.uk) and Bullying UK (http://www.bullying.co.uk) all identify examples of young people creating websites about peers, or creating fake profiles about peers and using these to spread false or offensive content. The nature of text-based communication on many social network sites is also perceived to increase the risk of misunderstandings that could cause / exacerbate bullying.

Withers and Sheldon (2008) note, however, that the idea of ‘cyber bullying’ did not have any currency in the groups they spoke to – where many examples that were perceived by adults as bullying was seen by young people as part of ‘banter’ – and where ‘seeing the joke’ was an important part of understanding what had taken place.

Publishing personal details and content One of the most prominent concerns expressed about social network sites is that they encourage and facilitate the sharing of detailed personal information about their users. In a survey of the profiles of US teenagers, the Pew Internet Study (Lenhardt and Madden, 2007) found that over 82 per cent of profile creators include their first name in their profiles, 49 per cent include the name of their school, 29 per cent include last names, and 2 per cent include mobile phone numbers. On 5 per cent of profile-owning teenagers have publicly visible profiles displaying their full names, photos and details of where they live.

40 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

Social network sites often include form fields that request all these details. Ofcom (2008) found that whilst these details are rarely compulsory, users complete them out of choice in order to be more ‘findable’ by others on the network, or because doing so it fun. Enter the name of the school you attend on a profile does not only display that to others, it makes it easy for others at that school to find your profile and add you as a friend.

Donnavan (2007, 2008) expresses concern about the impact of form-filling profiles on individuals identity and social interaction. He suggests that “The construction of online personas through taxonomic categories works against critical thinking by encouraging the use of stereotypes for both self-expression as well as locating and communicating with others.” The categories used to share details on social network sites are not just a reflection of the offline world – but can have a causal impact on the offline world. For example, the ability to indicate a relationship status and who a relationship is with in Facebook can have an impact on individuals perceptions and attitudes towards their relationship. The blunt binary categories presented by database-driven social network sites do not capture the nuances of complex real world interpersonal interaction.

Personal information is also shared on social network sites through the media that individuals upload (for example, photos including clearly recognisable locations or of young people in identifiable school uniforms), in the comments attached to media and events, in the groups individuals join (often displayed on their profiles) and in the public messages sent through the wall feature of profiles. Withers and Sheldon (2008) also note the phenomena of posting answers to questionnaires from friends in public profile spaces – including answers to questions such as “Do you love anyone?” “Which friend do you like the most? Have you lost your virginity? Who was the last person you had sex with?”. Wither and Sheldon reflect on how much of the interaction between young people’s profiles is like talking in public online. However, unlike the loud conversation on a bus or a mobile phone which in most cases only has a temporary existence, such conversations taking place through social network sites are indefinitely captured.

Whilst most social network sites require the profiles of young people 16 and under to be set to private (visible only to invited friends), anecdotal evidence suggests young people frequently misrepresent their age in order for their profiles to be public. Ofcom (2008) found that 41 per cent of visible profiles owned by children aged 8 – 17 were set to be visible to anyone. Hinduja and Patchin (2007, in Ofcom, 2008) found only 40 per cent of young people set their profiles to private. Regardless of the exact number of public profiles, young people (along with a significant proportion of adult users of social network sites) are exposing a significant amount of personal information online. Hinduja and Patchin found that that 57 per cent of young people’s public profiles displayed a photo of the individual and on 5 per cent of young people’s public profiles the photo was of the individual in swimwear or underwear.

Young people often hold highly contradictory attitudes towards the degree of publicity of their profiles and online content . Their imagined audience and the potential or actual audience for their shared details and content may be significant different (Stern, 2008). Livingston, Milwood-Hargrave and Brake (in Ofcom 2008) suggest that young people are potentially underestimating the consequences of making private information public. Solve (2007), however, considers whether we might in fact be seeing a redefinition of notions of privacy – and whilst Solve does not find the concept appealing – it should be noted that notions of privacy are not fixed from one generation to the next but are constantly being reformulated. We must, therefore, be careful when making claims about what is or isn’t definitively confidential or private data and we must be sensitive to the different norms of privacy held in different cultural contexts and by different generations.

Apart from Donnavan’s concerns about the way in which fixed categories shape individuals perceptions of themselves and others, sharing personal information through online social networking is not in and of itself a harm. However, researchers and commentators express significant concerns about harms that can result from and be facilitated by the availability of personal information online: • Use of shared content and information in bullying; • Use of profile data by potential employers or educational establishments; • The inability to escape past actions and have a fresh start (Solve, 2007); • The use of personal information in grooming and abuse; Being in contact with strangers, or exposed to grooming and abuse The majority of evidence concerning contact with strangers via the internet is general and not specific to social network sites.

Interim Report

41

Youth Work and Social Networking

The way in which individuals engage with social network sites does, however, have an impact on the likelihood of stranger contact. Smith (2007 in Ofcom 2008) found that there is an association with stranger contact and the public/private nature of profiles and the content of profiles (10 per cent of 12 to 17-year-old owners of profiles with their photos on them said they had been ‘contacted by a stranger who made them feel scared or uncomfortable’ as opposed to 4 per cent of those with profiles without photos).

As with the sharing of personal information, contact with strangers should not be interpreted as inherently negative. Indeed, one of the benefits identified by youth workers of online social networking was the possibility for young people to widen their cultural understanding by communicating with young people from different backgrounds, cultures and countries – and to suggest that these contacts should always we established through adults rather than some of these connections starting as connections with ‘strangers’ would appear overly restrictive. Indeed, the prevalence of online dating websites for adults which encourage potential partners to meet suggests a wider social norm that is accepting of finding and meeting ‘strangers’ online.

Meeting online contacts The UK Children Go Online research (Livingstone and Bober, 2005) found that 8 per cent of young people have met face to face with someone they first met online. It is not clear whether or not this includes only meetings with someone entirely disconnected from their existing ‘face to face’ friends or could be meeting someone who is well known to an existing ‘face to face’ friend but with whom the initial contact was online. Simply because a contact first occurred online, does not mean that contact has no basis in offline social networks and networks of trust – and being sensitive to this distinction is important in giving safety messages.

Contact of a sexual nature, grooming and abuse.

Childline found ‘internet issues’ to be connected to 17 per cent of calls concerning sexual abuse in 2003/04 (Childline, 2005). Such calls concerned both sexualised communication online, and actual contact and abuse. The Second Youth Internet Safety Survey of a representative sample of US teenagers in 2005 (Wolak et. al 2006) found 13 per cent of young people to have received an unwanted sexual solicitation online, with four per cent experiencing an ‘aggressive sexual solicitation’ (one in which the solicitor made or attempted to make offline contact with the young person).

The Centre for Exploitation and Online Protection have noted a “steady increase in the number of reports to law enforcement in the UK that relate to the sexual abuse of children and young people in social networking environments” (Brennan, 2006). As we see an increase in young people’s use of social network sites and as young people’s online activity transfers into more complex online social networking spaces, such reports are likely. However, in an analysis of the evidence from the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey, and wider research into online offending by adults, Wolak et al (2008) found that “Social networking sites such as MySpace do not appear to have increased the risk [to young people] of victimization by online molesters.”

Whilst Wolak et al. (2008) found that “Posting personal information online does not, by itself, appear to be a particularly risky behaviour”, voluntarily interacting with strangers online, particular engaging in conversations of a sexual nature, did increase young people’s risk of sexual solicitation and aggressive sexual solicitation (Ybarra et al. 2007). The work of the Crimes Against Children Research Centre and the Youth Internet Safety Survey makes the crucial point that context and content of communication matter as much as, if not more than, contact in determining risk to young people – and that young people who are already ‘at risk’ in offline environments and have compound complex needs are more likely to be at risk in online environments.

Responses to our survey of youth workers included particular concerns about the use of information from an individual’s social network site profile in grooming – with offenders using data about young people their friendship groups to establish and develop communication and relationship. We have not been able to find any in depth exploration of this in the literature, although these concerns have been explored at recent conferences on young people’s internet safety.

Sexual contact between adults and young people facilitated through social network sites is a complex topic.

Landberg (2006) notes that it can be closely linked to existing offline abuse and that in many cases young people are actively risk taking and voluntary engaging in “self destructive” sexual interaction with adults.

This underlines the importance of understanding online risks not as a wholly distinct category, but as risks to young people whose lives span online and offline interaction.

42 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

Being targeted by advertising and commercial interests The majority of social network sites are commercial interests (MySpace, for example, is owned by Murdoch’s News Corporation) and the primary revenue stream for social network sites is through advertising. Many are highly commercialised spaces and in having access to detailed demographic information about their users (provided through profiles, and collected through monitoring their use of the sites) they can provide highly targeted advertising.

A survey of online advertising for the National Consumer Council (Fielder et al. 2007) found that only 37 per cent of adverts on websites popular with children and young people were labelled as advertisements. There is trend on social network sites towards integrating paid for advertising content alongside information from friends (e.g. in the content feed), and even leveraging information about friends to provide ‘social adverts’ which allow companies to pay for profiles and content feeds to display details about products and services that individuals or their friends have used or bought (for example, Facebook Beacon5).

The National Consumer Council also found that 25 per cent of a sample of 70 adverts on sites aimed at young people were for services with a legal age limit of 16, 17 or 18 (e.g. gambling, sex or marriage, driving, medical treatments etc.). A number of these adverts contained unsuitable content.

In their ‘Safety and Security’ portal MySpace.com include a video responding to concerns from parents about the display of sexualised advertising to teenagers on MySpace6 where they claim that it is not possible to filter out such adverts. However – MySpace.com hold demographic details about their users which could be used to customise the display of advertising and to only display suitable advertising.

That young people are spending considerable amounts of time in highly commercialised spaces, where the owners of those spaces have a vested interest in encouraging young people’s consumerism, and where pro-social non-commercial messages are relatively absent, may have consequences for young people’s development of positive and pro-social values and aspirations.

Accessing, sharing or creating harmful or offensive content There is extensive research about the potential for young people to be exposed to harmful or offensive content online (Livingstone and Bober, 2005, Hasebrink et. al, 2008, Byron, 2008) – although the detail evidence on the impact of exposure to violent, sexually explicit or hateful content on young people is limited.

Our concern, however, is not with content on the internet in general, but is with how activities and spaces of online social networking facilitate its accessibility, sharing and creation.

Social network sites enable the rapid publishing and sharing of content through networks. Most of the current major social network sites are provided by well resourced companies with moderation teams who ensure that illegal content is removed relatively rapidly once the site is notified about it. However, content that is not illegal, but is age inappropriate, or is potentially harmful (e.g. violent video images and videos) can be found hosted on, or shared through, social network sites.

Violent conflict Whilst there is little evidence to suggest de-contextualised violence has a strong impact on encouraging violent behaviour (Livingston and Wilwood-Hargraves, 2006 in Withers and Sheldon, 2008) there are concerns that sharing of ‘user generated’ violent video images (a phenomena that has been referred to somewhat polemically as ‘happy slapping’) is incentivising violent acts for the purpose of filming and sharing online (Withers and Sheldon, 2008). Withers and Sheldon note in particular the effect of the ‘comments’ feature on content posted on social network sites – which can illicit praise from an individuals network and from strangers for violent or offensive video content.

Becoming ‘internet addicted’: displacement of other activities and social interaction Pew (Lenhardt and Madden 2007) found young people in the US to self-report an average of one hour per night spent using social networking sites and instant messaging services. Withers and Sheldon (2008), drawing on a series of focus groups with young people in London in 2007, suggest that the figure is closer

5 http://www.facebook.com/business/?beacon, Accessed 2 April 2008.

6 http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=cms.viewpager&placement=safety_pagevideo4 Accessed 2 April 2008.

Interim Report

43

Youth Work and Social Networking

to three to four hours per night spent on instant messaging and online social networking. Rosen (2006) also quoted in Withers and Sheldon, found young people spending around 2 hours per night of social network site MySpace. This should be understood in the context of “concurrent media exposure” (Papper et al.

2007)- where young people may be doing homework, watching TV or engaged in other activities whilst at the same time wholly or partially engaged in online social networking.

Our survey of youth workers indicated that time spent online was seen by a number of respondents as displacing time young people could spend engaged in in-person interaction with their peers and anecdotal evidence from Withers and Sheldon (2008) suggests some young people self-identify an ‘addictive’ or timewasting element to their use of social network sites: “’I want to spend less time ‘cos what I do on it is just really pointless – like MySpace is just really addictive.’ (Girl, 17, C2DE)” (ibid.).

However, there does not appear to be a strong evidence base for the idea of widespread actual addiction to the internet, or for the idea that internet use significantly displaces other social interaction and activity (ibid.) In fact, Byron (2008) suggests that young people’s increased internet use may result from the often enforced reduction of their time spend in public space and going out to socialise due to parental concerns about risk in public space. “As we increasingly keep our children at home because of fears for their safety outside – in what some see as a ‘risk-averse culture’ – they will play out their developmental drives to socialize and take risks in the digital world.”

Being excluded due to lack of access to online social networking opportunities As online social networking becomes an integral extension of day-to-day interaction with peers for many young people, lack of access to the technology has the potential to lead to young people feel being excluded from certain shared experiences and activities with their peers. Whilst early concerns about the ‘digital divide’ focussed on straightforward access to the internet, often driven by a focus on the importance of access for educational ends, a new ‘digital divide’ between those with access to online social networking spaces and those without may be emerging. It is worth noting that the internet access points (schools, libraries etc.) which provide for those without other points for internet access often block or limit access to online social networking tools and sites.

Research by MSN/MTV (2007) found one of the key motivations for young people using social network sites was “not to feel left out” and Ofcom’s exploration of the impact of limited internet access (2007) found “children believe the main impact of not having the internet at home is on social networking and developing identity.” The Ofcom report notes the particular impact of lack of access on a group they term ‘outsiders’ – young people with limited friendship circles for whom they believe the internet (and online social networking tools in particular) could provide significant benefits in supporting their integration with peers.

A new digital divide that compounds existing social exclusion should be of concern to youth work professionals committed to tackling social exclusion.

Responses to opportunity and risk A review of the evidence as to the potential effectiveness of different responses to opportunity and risk can be found in Section 5 of the main report.

44 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

Bibliography Adams, Douglas (2001) The Salmon of Doubt Anne E Green and Richard J White (2007) Attachment to place: Social networks, mobility and prospects of young people (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) Becta (2006) Safeguarding children in a digital world: developing a strategic approach to e-safety boyd, d (2007) Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace (Apophenia Blog Essay.

June 24 ) http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html boyd, d (2006) Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites (First Monday 11 (12)) (First Monday) http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/ boyd, d (2007) “Facebook’s ‘Privacy Trainwreck’: Exposure, Invasion, and Drama.” (Apophenia Blog) http://www.danah.org/papers/FacebookAndPrivacy.html boyd, d. m & Ellison, N. B (2007) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. (Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.) http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison. html 39573 Brennan, M (2006) Understanding Online Social Network Services and Risks to Youth (CEOP: Child Exploitation and Online Protection, London) Buckingham, D et al. (2005) The Media Literacy of Children and Young People: a review of the research literature on behalf of Ofcom (Ofcom) Byron, T (2008) Children and New Technology – Byron Review (DSCF Publications, Nottingham) Childline (2005) Children talking to ChildLine about the internet – Briefing paper (ChildLine) Clark, L S (2005) The constant contact generation: exploring teen friendship networks online in S. Mazzarella, Girl Wide Web (Peter Lang, New York)) Coleman S (2007) How democracies have disengaged from young people in Loader, B (ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age (Routledge, Abingdon) Cramer M, Zutty D, Foucault B, Huffaker D, Derby D, Cassell J (2007) Everything in Moderation: The Effects of Adult Moderators in Online Youth Communities in Steinfield et. al. (eds.) Communities and Technologies 2007: Proceedings of the Third Communities and Technologies Conference (Springer, London) Davies, Bernard (2005) Youth Work: A Manifesto for Our Times in Youth & Policy, Number 88 (The National Youth Agency) DCFS (2008) Staying Safe: Action Plan (Department for Children, Families and Schools) Donath & boyd (2004) Public displays of connection (BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71) Donnavan, G (forthcoming) Whose Safety, Whose Security?

Dutton, W and Helsper, E.J (2007) Oxford Internet Survey – The Internet In Britain in 2007 (University of Oxford, UK) Ellison N, Steinfield C & Lampe C (2006) Spacially Bounded Online Social Networks and Social Capital: The Role of Facebook European Commission (2007) Safer Internet for Children – National Analysis: United Kingdom (European Commission)

Interim Report

45

Youth Work and Social Networking

Fielder A, Gardner W, Nairn A & Pitt J (2007) Fair Game? Assessing commercial activitiy on children’s favourite websites and online environment (National Consumer Council) Goad R & Mooney T (2008) The Impact of Social Networking in the UK (Experian-Hitwise) Goodchild and Owen (August 6, 2006) Independent on Sunday quoted in Press Release at http://www. virtualglobaltaskforce.com/news/article_04122006.html Green, H and Hannon, C (2007) Their Space: education for a digital generation (Demos) Greenfield et. al (2006) Teens on the Internet: Interpersonal connection, identity and information in R. Kraut (ed.) Information technology at home. (OUP, New York) Gross R, Acquisti A (2005) Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks – The Facebook case in pre-proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES, 2005) Hasebrink, Livingstone, Haddon, Kirwil and Ponte (2008) EU Kids Go Online HMSO (1960) Albermarle Report Howland L & Bethell M (2002) Logged Off? How ICT can connect young people and politics (DEMOS) http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/loggedoff Kirwan, T et. al (2003) Mapping Media Literacy: Media Education 11 – 16 Years in the United Kingdom Kosse, S H (2007) MySpace is Also Their Space: Ideas for Keeping Children Safe from Sexual Predators on Social Networking Sites http://ssrn.com/abstract=989042 39479 Landberg (2006) The degree of risk taking in Children and Young Persons with Abusive and Violent Experiences Connected to Cyberspace Challenges for Research, Rehabilitation, Prevention and Protection Landberg et. al (2006) Children and Young Persons with Abusive and Violent Experiences Connected to Cyberspace Challenges for Research, Rehabilitation, Prevention and Protection (Report from an Expert Meeting at Sätra Bruk, Sweden 29th – 31st of May 2006 Swedish Children’s Welfare Foundation and the Working Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk under the Council of the Baltic Sea States.) http://www. barnhuset.com/engine/data/media/sexbarnhuset_eng_070709.pdf Larsen, M C (2007) 35 Perspective on Online Social Networking (Social Computing Magazine, 5th July) Larsen, M C (2007) Understanding Social Networking: On Young People’s Construction and Co-Construction of Identity Online (Paper for the conference Internet Research 8.0: Let’s Play, Association of Internet Researchers, Vancouver) http://malenel.wordpress.com/publications/ 39523 Lenhart and Madden (2007) Social Networking Websites and Teens: An Overview (Pew Internet and American Life Project) http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_Jan_2007.pdf Levine P (2008) A Public Voice for Youth: The Audience Problem in Digital Media and Civic Education in Bennet, L (ed.) Civic Life Online: learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press) Livingstone and Bober (2005) UK Children Go Online Livingstone, Couldry and Markham (2007) Youthful steps towards civic participation in Loader, B (ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age (Routledge, Abingdon) Livingstone, S (2001) Online Freedom and Safety for Children [Online] (LSE Research Online, London) http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000416 39479

46 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

LLUK (2008) List of Professional and National Occupational Standards for Youth Work – whole suite (Lifelong Learning UK) http://www.lifelonglearninguk.org/currentactivity/cld/3132.htm Loader, B (2007) Young Citizens in the Digital Age (Routledge, Abingdon) McIntosh, Ewan (2007) Blog post: How will we firefight when there’s no water left? (edu.blogs.com) http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2007/11/how-will-we-fir.html Mediappro (2007) Mediappro: the appropriation of media by youth, Final Report. (European Commission / Safer Internet Action plan) www.mediappro.org Merton, Brian (2007) Good Youth Work: What youth workers do, why and how (The National Youth Agency) MSN/MTV (2007) Circuits of Cool Report (MSN/MTV) http://advertising.microsoft.com/uk/MSNMTV-Circuits-of-Cool-Social-Networks National School Boards Association (2007) Creating and Connecting: Research and guidelines on Online Social – and Educational – Networking (National School Boards Association, US) Ofcom (2006) Ofcom Communications Market Report (Ofcom) Ofcom (2007) Children and the internet: a research study into the social effects of lack of internet access on socially disadvantaged children and families (Ofcom) Ofcom (2008) Social Networking: A quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviours and use (Ofcom) Papper et al. (2007) High School Media Too: A school day in the life of fifteen teenagers (Centre for media design) Raynes Goldie, K and Walker, L (2008) Our Space: Online Civic Engagement Tools for Youth in Bennet, L Civic Life Online: learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press) Rheingold H (2008) Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic Engagement in Bennet, L Civic Life Online: learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press) Rosen L (2006) Adolescents in MySpace: Identity Formation, Friendship and Sexual Predators (California State University) Ryberg, T & Larsen, M L (2007) Networked Identities – Understanding Different Types of Social Organisation and Movements Between Strong and Weak Ties In Networked Environments (Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (Forthcoming)) http://malenel.wordpress.com/publications/ Sculman and Davies (2007) Evidence of the impact of the ‘youth development model’ on outcomes for young people – a literature review (The National Youth Agency) Sefton-Green, J (2004) Literature Review in Information Learning with Technology Outside School (Futurelab) Solove D J (2007) The future of reputation: gossip, rumour, and privacy on the internet (Caravan Books) Stark, Philip (2007) The Effectiveness of Internet Content Filters Stern, S (2008) Producing Sites, Exploring Identities: Youth Online Authorship in Bennet, L (ed.) Civic Life Online: learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press)

Interim Report

47

Youth Work and Social Networking

Suden, J (2006) quoted in boyd d Friends, friendsters, and top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites (First Monday, volume 11, number 12, December 2006) The NYA (2006) Youth Service Audit Basic Facts 2005-6 – Overview (The National Youth Agency) Thelwall M (Forthcoming 2008/2009) Social networks, gender and friending: An analysis of MySpace member profiles (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology) http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/MySpace_preprint.doc Tynes, B M (2007) Internet Safety Gone Wild?: Sacrificing the Educational and Psychosocial Benefits of Online Social Environments Journal of Adolescent Research (22; 575 – 584) (SAGE Publications) Withers and Sheldon (2008) Behind the Screen: The hidden life of youth online (IPPR) Withers, K (2007) Young people and social networking sites: briefing guide to policy responses (Unpublished) (IPPR) Wolak J, Finkelhor D, Mitchell K J, Ybarra M L (2008) Online “Predators” and Their Victims – Myths, Realities, and Implications for Prevention and Treatment (American Psychologist, The American Psychological Association) Wolak, Mitchell and Finkelhor (2006) Online Victimisation of Youth: Five Years Later Ybarra et. al (2007) Internet Prevention Messages: Targetting the Right Online Behaviours ARCH PEDIATR ADOLESC MED/VOL 161, FEB 2007 (American Medical Association)

48 Interim Report

Youth Work and Social Networking

The National Youth Agency works in partnership with young people and with organisations and services to ensure better outcomes for young people. It is an independent, development organisation located between government and funding bodies on the one hand and service providers and their users on the other.

We strive to ensure that the work of services and organisations is: • relevant to the lives of young people; • responsive to policy; • effective and of a high standard; • efficient and provides good value; and • successful in securing the best outcomes for young people.

Our five strategic aims are: • Participation: promoting young people’s influence, voice and place in society.

• Professional practice: improving youth work practice, programmes and other services for young people.

• Policy development: influencing and shaping the youth policy of central and local government and the policies of those who plan, commission and provide services for young people.

• Partnership: creating, supporting and developing partnerships between organisations to improve services and outcomes for young people.

• Performance: striving for excellence in The Agency’s internal workings.

Published by

Getting it right for young people

Eastgate House, 19–23 Humberstone Road, Leicester LE5 3GJ. Tel: 0116 242 7350. Fax: 0116 242 7444.

Website: www.nya.org.uk E-mail: nya@nya.org.uk Interim Report

49