Using Facebook to Connect with Young People – A Youth Workforce Perspective

University of Brighton School of Education BA (Hons) Professional Studies in Learning and Development Name

Adam Muirhead

Title

Using Facebook to Connect with Young People – A Youth Workforce Perspective

Supervisor Jane Melvin Date

May 2012

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

BA (Hons) Professional Studies in Learning and Development

Contents

Declaration

p.4

Abstract

p.5

1. Introduction

p.6

2. Rationale

p.7

3. A Review of Literature

p.9

3.1 Digitally Na(t)ive

p.9

3.2 Online Social Networking and Young People

p.10

3.3 Online Social Networking and Youth Work

p.11

3.4 Potential Benefits for Youth Work of Being online

p.12

3.5 Challenges for Online Youth Work – Including Safeguarding

p.13

3.6 Needs of Youth Workers and Workforce Development

p.14

3.7 Summary

p.15

4. Definitions

p.17

4.1 ‘Social Networking Site’ (SNS)/Social Media

p.17

4.2 Facebook

p.17

4.3 Adolescence, Youth, Young People

p.17

4.4 ‘Information, Advice and Guidance’ (IAG)

p.18

5. Research Aims

p.19

6. Methodology

p.20

6.1 Introduction

p.20

6.2 Choice of philosophy

p.20

6.3 Research Approach

p.21

6.4 Research Strategies and choices

p.21

6.5 Time Horizons

p.22

6.6 Data collection and analysis

p.22

6.7 Sampling

p.23

6.8 Acknowledgement of paradigm and subjectivity

p.23

Page 2 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

6.9 Reliability and validity

p.24

7. Ethical Considerations

p.26

7.1 Harm to participants

p.26

7.2 Informed consent

p.26

7.3 Privacy and Confidentiality

p.26

7.4 Deception

p.27

8. Data Analysis and Discussion

p.28

8.1 The Survey

p.28

8.2 The Focus Group

p.28

8.3 The uptake of Facebook and SNSs in youth work

p.29

8.4 Reasons for using Facebook – Why does it hold value for practitioners?

P.30

8.5 Time and efficiency

p.36

8.6 Safeguarding and other perceived negative aspects to using Facebook

p.38

8.7 Factors prohibiting fuller use of Facebook

p.40

8.8 Digital literacy

p.41

8.9 Workforce development

p.42

9. Conclusions

p.44

10. References

p.47

11. Appendices

p.52

Appendix 1 – Thematically coded transcription of focus group discussion (one page example)

p.53

Appendix 2 – Informed consent form for focus group participants

p.54

Appendix 3 - Focus group planned questions

p.57

Appendix 4 – Online survey questions

p.58

Appendix 5 – Tutorial Record Form (28.11.11)

p.61

Appendix 6 – Tutorial Record Form (12.04.12)

p.63

Page 3 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Page 4 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

s BA (Hons) Professional Studies in Learning and Development The Enquiry Declaration I declare that this enquiry is my own work arising from the sources in the bibliography. It may be made available for photocopying, reference purposes and interlibrary loan.

* Signed ………………………………………………

Name ………Adam Muirhead………..…………..

Date …………14th May 2012.……………………

Page 5 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Using Facebook to Connect with Young People – A Youth Workforce Perspective

Abstract:

This research project was concerned with the use of Facebook within youth work settings by youth work professionals in order to connect with young people. It sought to discover youth professionals’ current opinions regarding the use of Facebook and establish whether the workforce is being appropriately supported in its use.

The research includes the results of an online survey, completed by 100 youth professionals in the UK, offering their perspectives on the professional use of Facebook within their practice. The survey’s results were taken to a focus group of youth professionals working in Sussex, UK to provide more in depth reflection on the data’s meaning and significance, the results of the focus group’s discussions are also presented.

Research results are compared and contrasted with those of a similar study by Davies and Cranston (2008) which informed the National Youth Agency Report, ‘Youth Work and Social Networking’.

The data reveals a large appreciation for the benefits of Facebook use amongst youth professionals. It also indicates a great deal of anxiety for many practitioners in the lack of clarity surrounding policy to do with Facebook’s use in the workplace.

Suggestions are drawn from the research proposing ways forward for the youth sector in order to better support young people and youth professionals alike.

Page 6 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Using Facebook to Connect with Young People – A Youth Workforce Perspective 1. Introduction What underpins youth work and what makes it distinct from many other forms of education is its predication on the relationship that is formed voluntarily between the ‘educator’ and ‘learner’ (Smith, 2001). Even more unusual is the way that it recognises the young person as a partner in the learning process (LLUK, 2008) in an attempt to be as needs-led as possible. This combination of a bespoke curriculum and a congruent and meaningful relationship can bring about profound ongoing personal development for young people and youth workers alike. It is, however, entirely mediated by the youth work environment.

The youth work environment has traditionally been one of either building-based youth clubs/groups or out on the streets, engaging young people who choose to socialise less formally. However, in recent years young people in their millions are choosing to socialise somewhere new – online (Livingstone et al. 2011b). Facebook, as an example of a ‘Social Networking Site’ (SNS), has become the most popular online social venue with over 845 million users worldwide (Facebook, 2012).

With young people now spending so much of their time on Facebook youth work has had to adapt with the times and be present in this new environment. This, so far, appears to have happened with varying degrees of success (as discussed later).

This enquiry seeks to elucidate what youth

professionals’ experiences of using Facebook professionally currently are and explore where challenges persist in its effective use.

Also, key to this enquiry, will be the juxta-position of its research results with those collected and analysed in a key text ‘Youth Work and Social Networking’, published by the National Youth Agency in 2008, produced by Tim Davies and Pete Cranston. This will be done in order to affirm or update findings and also to tangibly contribute to the discussions on this specific subject.

Page 7 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

2. Rationale Since the early to mid 2000’s the term ‘Web 2.0’ has been used to describe the internet’s new functionality as a participative and collaborative entity (O’Reilly, 2005). It is the advent of this ‘Web 2.0’ which has caused researchers to take notice of the implications of this profound new environment’s mediation of learning and development on young people both inside and outside the classroom.

Historically, young people have been ‘early adopters’ (Rogers, 2003) of new media platforms (Jenkins, 2010) and the current generation are no exception; we are now witnessing a generation who are the first to have grown up with the internet being used as an everyday media and communication tool and where the use of digital technology has been completely normalised and is fully integrated into their daily lives (Ahn, 2011; Green and Hannon, 2007). Today’s youth have been dubbed the ‘Netgeneration’ (Tapscott, 1998), ‘Millenials’ (Howe and Strauss, 2000) and ‘Digital Natives’ (Prensky, 2001a) amongst other things.

Much research has now been carried out on general internet safety with young people (see Livingstone et al., 2011a) and on how the internet can be brought into classrooms to augment learning (see Kristen, 2010). However, there are now calls for more empirical evidence on young people’s behaviours and responses relative to SNSs (Beemt, 2011) as it has been asserted that the effects on young people of these technological advancements in interactive networking platforms will be significant (Veen and Jacobs, 2005).

Parallel to this should be research into youth

professionals’ experience of using SNSs in their workplaces. The results of such research would offer insight into how effective and worthwhile it is perceived to be, whether the youth workforce feels supported in its use, and what more could be done to improve the services offered to young people.

Page 8 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

This enquiry aims to better inform strategic policy on Facebook use for a wide range of youth organisations; in particular it seeks to identify gaps in the confidence and support of youth workers in using Facebook professionally.

Page 9 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

3. A Review of Literature 3.1 Digitally na(t)ive In 2001, Prensky (2001a) instigated a profound discourse proposing that today’s youth inherently develop sophisticated technological fluency and learning preferences that so substantially differentiates them from previous generations of students and from their teachers that the nature of education itself must fundamentally change to accommodate for this disparity. It was implied that there would be an inability for those born before 1980 (‘Digital Immigrants’) to effectively teach this new generation (‘Digital Natives’) which, it was claimed, would lead to alienation and disaffection among students (ibid). Levin and Arafeh’s study in 2002 appeared to support Prensky’s claims and found that students were frustrated and increasingly dissatisfied by the ‘digital disconnect’ they were experiencing, particularly at school.

Prensky’s typology has come under heavy criticism since then and has been called a “gross oversimplification” (Jones and Czerniewicz, 2010, p.317). Bennett et al. (2008) and White and Le Cornu (2011) both present a robust critique of the ‘Digital Natives’ discourse and conclude that young people’s digital literacy is certainly not uniform, as many recent studies have agreed (Zimic, 2009; Kennedy et al., 2010; Sanchez et al., 2010; Li and Ranieri, 2010).

However, as Bennett et al. (2008, pp.783-784) point out, the ‘moral panic’ (Cohen, 1972) that Prensky’s taxonomy caused in the academic world was seminal in the more general discussions around new technology’s use with young people; if Prensky had not alarmed the academic world with his claims then much subsequent, and very pertinent, research may not have taken place.

Page 10 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

3.2 Online Social Networking and Young People In 2008 the conclusions of a $50 million study called the ‘Digital Youth Project’ (Ito et al, 2008) into what it is that young people were doing on the internet were published. This study interviewed over 800 youth and young adults and conducted over 5000 hours of online observation in the US over 3 years. The report condensed the functions of youth participation on SNSs (such as Facebook) into 3 categories; ‘Hanging Out’, ‘Messing Around’ and ‘Geeking Out’ (Ito et al., 2008). Expanded, these mean cultivating friendships, exploring new interests and ‘diving into’ a new topic or talent, respectively. This terminology endures although other authors have attempted to elaborate and expand upon it.

In the phenomenon described by Kling (2007) as ‘social informatics’ the inherent communication and cultural behaviours that exist on SNSs are the causal mechanism for learning outcomes as opposed to the technology itself. A ‘habitus’ and ‘affinity space’ (place where informal learning takes place) is created for young people through the public pedagogy of SNSs (van den Beemt et al., 2010. p62-63). As Buckingham asserts, “the application of interactive media in education, as a goal in itself, does not have any additional value” (2008, p.17). So it is not that there is a website called Facebook, being a member of automatically imbues one with sociological and educational benefits, per se, but that young people are using the technology of Facebook to the ends listed above through their interaction. This would seem to imply that an active engagement with young people’s Facebook community, as opposed to merely having a presence, is what is required in order to facilitate or ameliorate these personal and social developments with young people. This function is now being discussed as a place for youth workers and informal educators to slot into for these purposes (Green and Hannon, 2007; Davies and Cranston, 2008; Davies, 2010) Emerging studies such as Withers and Sheldon (2008) and the Nielson Company (2009) show that youth spend considerable amounts of their daily lives interacting through SNSs. In the UK, 88% of 13-16 year olds have an SNS profile according to recent international studies by Livingstone et al.

Page 11 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

(2011b, p1). Studies on exactly how much time teenagers spend using SNSs show slightly varying results depending on the age ranges included in studies and where the studies took place. Between 9, 12 and 14+ hours per week have been suggested by ’Cybersentinel’ (The Independent, 2009), Junco (2011) and Withers and Sheldon (2008) respectively. When this is considered relative to the amount of time the average young person might spend in a youth club per week, even 9 hours would be a significantly greater amount of time.

3.3 Online Social Networking and Youth Work Davies and Cranston published a research report titled ‘Youth Work and Social Networking’ in 2008 which was the first study specifically directed at supporting a response to the new realm of online social networking from youth work. It stated that “social networking sites are key spaces for young people’s personal and social development” (p.2.) and that youth work policy makers should explore a response to this emerging trend. Davies has since followed up his initial publication with ‘Social Media & Youth Participation in Local Democracy’ (2009) which focussed more on the ways that SNSs can be used to promote and support increased involvement for young people in matters that effect their lives.

Since then the ‘Department for Children, Schools and Families’ produced a document in 2010 called ‘Engaging through social media – Social media explained’ in order to encourage youth professionals to use SNSs by explaining its functions and benefits using simple language, or as they say: To provide you with the tools to increase interest and attendance at your project by working with young people and promoting your activities through social media

(DCSF, 2010).

This report gave good general support for those just learning about using social media in their work but did not offer any new insight into young people’s behaviours or the state of the youth workforce.

Page 12 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Later that year, Davies published another, more generic, report entitled ‘Young People and Social Networks’ (2010) in which he outlines some of the ways young people are using SNSs and discusses many of the truths and myths that exist with regards to perceived opportunities and risks. This document was intended to educate, support and put at ease professionals so they might be more inclined to take forward and evolve their work with young people using SNSs. ‘Positive for Youth’ (Department of Education, 2012) sets out the current government’s vision for young people, yet in spite of discussing ‘youth work’ at length it provides little commentary on the use of social media other than saying it “has huge benefits in widening access to knowledge and experience” (p.5). Other references to social media fall within case studies but the document itself offers little in the way of supporting the positive development of SNSs’ use within youth professionals’ work.

3.4 Potential Benefits for Youth Work of Being Online A range of studies have recognised the particular benefits of having an ‘affinity space’ for young people through SNS usage, including the facilitation of identity formation and opinion formation (Van den Beemt et al., 2010), the development of social capital (Ellison et al., 2007) and an ability to safely explore information, advice and guidance around taboo subjects, such as sexuality and health (Lusk, 2010). In the Nielsen Company’s publication, ‘How Teens Use Media’, it is stated that: To teens, social networks are a key source of information and advice in a critical developmental period: 57% of teen social networkers said they looked to their online social network for advice, making them 63% more likely to do this than the typical social networker

(p.7, 2009).

These are all elements associated with personal and social development, two key objectives in the role of youth work which feature in many of its definitions (HMSO, 1960 (The Albemarle Report); HMSO, 1982 (The Thompson Report); Merton et al., 2004).

Page 13 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Speaking of Facebook specifically in ‘Social Media and Youth Participation in Local Democracy’, Davies (2009) offers a list of practical benefits to youth work: • • • •

You can offer young people a way of connecting with your organisation (profiles, groups and pages) and then keep young people up to date with information and news about opportunities to get involved.

You can provide space for young people to comment on your updates and on the services you provide.

You can host in-depth discussions on important issues in Facebook groups and on discussion pages.

You can use the in-built features or add-on applications to manage collaboration and conversation between groups of young people from across a wide geographical area

(p. 25).

It is also suggested that social media has the potential to offer significant cost and efficiency savings when it is stated that: Not only can you reach a greater number of young people with fewer resources, by increasing the flow of information between your organisation and young people you can target your work more effectively and efficiently

(ibid, p.6).

Time-saving as a concept and additional potential benefit in using SNSs in youth work is mostly absent from other literature on the subject. Issues regarding time-efficiency will be discussed as part of the analysis of this research.

3.5 Challenges for Online Youth Work – Including Safeguarding

‘Youth Work and Social Networking’ (Davies and Cranston, 2008) reports that ‘current’ safety strategies within youth services are not believed to be effective by youth workers and managers.

This has led to the default position for many organisations being to block or heavily limit access to sites like Facebook in their centres (e.g. see East Sussex County Council guidance). However, Rosen et al.’s (2008) research identified that parents significantly overestimated online risks to their children which suggests that youth workers and managers may be inclined to do similarly. These concerns may have been reflected in Davies and Cranston’s survey (2008) where they found that Page 14 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

90% of youth workers believe that Youth Work has a “crucial role in supporting young people to navigate the risks of online social networking” (p.16) in spite of fewer than 30% of survey respondents having access to SNSs in their work at the time (p.16).

Ahn (2011) offers commentary on the controversies of youth SNS usage; she stresses that initial research about SNSs creating opportunities for predators to solicit children are “overstated” (p.1439) and that it is from a place of ignorance that services for young people are blocking access to SNSs. Davies (2010) also challenged this stance, suggesting that “side-lining” adult gatekeepers would only serve to facilitate contact between young people and abusive adults; ergo, youth work could (and should) have a role in supporting the safe practices of young people using SNSs. Schmied and Walsh (2010, pp168-170) emphasised how the relationship with ‘service users’ is the key factor in their effective education around SNS use and the promotion of more positive behaviours online; relationships, as mentioned already, form an integral part of the informal education model that youth work offers.

Concerns had been expressed by some authors that the costly requirements of accessing internetcapable technologies may exacerbate inequalities in access to SNSs (and therefore online youth work) amongst young people (Hargittai, 2008; Seiter, 2008; Davies, 2010; Ito et al. 2009). On the contrary, other authors have interpreted ethnographic results to find that a teenager whose primary internet access was not at home or school was over twice as likely to use SNSs as teens who had home access (Lenhart et al. 2010; Ahn, 2011). Allegedly teenagers find different ways to connect to their online social networks (eg. using mobile devices) despite socioeconomic barriers.

3.6 Needs of Youth Workers and Workforce Development

The survey results presented in ‘Youth Work and Social Networking’ (Davies and Cranston, 2008, p.16) show that only 29% of youth professionals who responded had received training on the use of Page 15 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

SNSs within their work and only 42% felt equipped to provide support in this regard. Discussion takes place in this publication around such subjects as ‘youth professionals’ knowledge about social network sites ‘, ‘knowledge about actual opportunities and risks’, ‘skills in applying youth work skills and policies to the social networking space’ and ‘awareness of upcoming trends to enable proactive responses’ amongst generally advocating for capacity building within the youth workforce.

Where little other evidence exists around youth workforce needs regarding social media, this research hopes to contribute to the empirical evidence base.

3.7 Summary What has become evident throughout the literature is that there are very few authors producing published materials on the subject of Youth Work and Social Media. Tim Davies has produced three prominent texts; ‘Youth Work and Social Networking’ (2008, Davies and Cranston); ‘Social Media and Youth Participation in Local Democracy’ (Davies, 2009) and ‘Young People and Social Networks’ (Davies, 2010). Whilst each of these texts has offered support to the profession in different ways, only the first publication investigated the state of the youth workforce through extensive research.

Throughout the literature review many publications offer up the potential benefits to young people of using social networking and where explicitly named (as in ‘identity formation’ or ‘building of social capital’) these benefits tally with many of the fundamental tenets and functions of youth work. It is only Davies’ work that makes explicit the link between SNS usage and Youth Work although others, such as Green and Hannon (2007), make a more general supportive statement about ‘informal learning’ being essential to young people’s learning and development using these new digital platforms.

The main barrier to fuller implementation of SNSs in work with young people clearly appears to be due to the allegedly over-exaggerated fears surrounding the safeguarding of young people.

Page 16 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

It now seems pertinent to gain insights from current youth work practitioners on whether the key findings and relevant issues that were reported to exist in 2008 are the same 4 years on.

Page 17 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

4. Definitions 4.1 ‘Social Networking Site’ (SNS)/Social Media - Boyd and Ellison (2008, p.211) defines a SNS as “a web-based service 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 in the system”. Notley (2008, p.1209) succinctly identifies them as “an internet-based environment that requires membership for participation whereby membership facilitates a relationship through which resources (both material and immaterial) can be mobilized”. Both definitions are useful in the context of this enquiry and serve to inform as good reference points for the term SNS within the broader context of ‘social media’. N.B. ‘SNSs’ will be used to convey the plural term, ‘social networking sites’.

4.2 Facebook - Facebook is an SNS developed in 2004 by former Harvard undergraduate student Mark Zuckerberg, which allows users to add friends, send messages, and update personal profiles in order to notify friends and peers about themselves. Facebook users can also form and join virtual groups, develop applications, host content, and learn about each other’s interests, hobbies, and relationship statuses through users’ online profiles (Quan-Hasse and Young, 2010). Worldwide, Facebook is the most popular example of a social networking site.

4.3 Adolescence, Youth, Young People - As Large (2005) and Ito et al. (2009) note, it is difficult to define categories such as ‘adolescence’, and ‘young people’ in concrete terms as they are socially and culturally constructed.

Erikson’s commonly accepted psychosocial stages of development

recognises ages 12-18 as adolescents (Erikson, 1950). However, for the purpose of this study this range will be shifted to 13-19 to accommodate for Facebook’s age-restriction policies.

Page 18 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

4.4 ‘Information, Advice and Guidance’ (IAG) - is a term used to encompass much of the supportive work that youth workers offer to young people. It was popularised as a term in ‘Youth Matters’ (HMSO, 2005) with particular emphasis on the role of the Connexions service and IAG work. The more simple ‘information and support’ informs a large part of the more up-to-date National Occupational Standards for Youth Work (2008) but IAG will be used throughout this enquiry to encompass both terms.

Page 19 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

5. Research Aims This inquiry aims to investigate youth professionals’ views on using Facebook to connect with young people, its potential benefits and current limitations.

•

It aims to gather information on the subject outlined above with youth professionals by using an online survey.

•

It will bring together a sample group comprised of youth professionals for focussed discussion on the results of the online survey.

•

It will, through facilitated discussion, establish the main opportunities and issues that face youth professionals when connecting with young people using Facebook.

•

It will consider the resultant themes of the discussions and survey results and examine points of interest with respect to existing literature.

•

It will propose considerations to be taken forward by strategic managers of youth provision and identify the needs of the current youth workforce with regards to using Facebook to connect with young people.

Page 20 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

6. Methodology 6.1 Introduction Saunders et al. (2006) describe the research process as ‘messy’, however, they offer a model, known as the “research onion” (p.91) which serves to depict respective pertinent research considerations.

The outermost layer of the model deals with the epistemological (ontological and axiological) philosophies of research. The subsequent layers respectively consider research approach (deductive or inductive), research strategies, methodological choices, time horizons and finally data collection and analysis techniques. Each of these ‘layers’ will be considered through the methodology.

Page 21 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry Fig 1. ‘The Research Onion’ (Saunders et al., 2006)

6.2 Choice of philosophy A phenomenological method and analysis was chosen as it focuses “on the meaning, rather than the measurement, of social phenomena” (Collis and Hussey, 2003, p14) and is more sensitive to subtle discourses, however, it has lent itself to a subjective paradigm (Kumar, 1999) as meanings are subject to the interpretation of the researcher, a current youth work practitioner.

6.3 Research Approach Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing logical conclusions, based on Aristotle’s deductive syllogisms. These syllogisms start with a general statement and arrive at a conclusion based on logic.

Induction, in contrast, constructs or evaluates propositions that are abstractions of observations (Heit, 2000).

This research assumed an inductive approach in order to consider the evidence provided and produce generalised hypotheses that may inform future, more substantial research and understanding.

6.4 Research Strategies and choices Initial data was gathered through the distribution of an online survey for completion by youth professionals across the UK. It was distributed through pertinent email lists and online forums. The results of the online survey were conveyed to a focus group of youth professionals as prompts for more in-depth discussions on the subject.

Page 22 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

This mixed method has provided the research with a range of different elements to draw upon in the analysis of results and synthesis of inducted hypotheses.

6.5 Time Horizons This research was intended to provide a ‘cross-sectional’ snap-shot of the state of the youth sector as it is now, between the end of 2011 and beginning of 2012, when the research was conducted.

6.6 Data collection and analysis Data from the online survey was collected using an appropriate online programme to facilitate its effective analysis. The results of the questionnaire provided some basic, quantitative information on Facebook usage, perceived benefits, and barriers to usage. Additionally, open-ended comment provided by survey respondents supplemented the survey results.

The focussed group discussion was based partly on the results of the online survey, and the qualitative data from this were recorded using a digital dictation machine. The discussions of the focus groups have been anonymised, transcribed and thematically analysed using a system of coding where common or substantial themes were highlighted and presented textually as quotation for discussion in relation to existing research (Example as Appendix 1).

This methodology rules out positivistic conclusions as the questions posed in the research pertain to opinions and experiences but should garner richer results from the ability to conduct a more indepth analysis.

Page 23 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Additional methodological considerations 6.7 Sampling Purposive sampling to target youth professionals was required and so the survey was distributed through youth work related email lists and forums. The survey was open for a period of approximately 12 weeks. Survey respondents were asked if they would like to participate in a focus group, then random sampling was used to recruit five focus group participants for each group respectively.

The aim of this was to obtain the views of an unbiased sample who were as

representative of the wider groups of youth professionals as possible.

It was not a requirement that focus group participants were users of Facebook in their work but it is recognised that the desire to be involved in the focus groups would have been greater from those who were using Facebook in their work with young people as it had increased pertinence.

The Researcher acknowledges that the nature of the survey being online and clearly labelled ‘Connecting with Young People Using Facebook’ it is likely that some selection bias was involved with regards to those who went on to complete the survey. It is, however, believed that the survey does represent a wide range of practitioners based on the mixed nature of usage and opinion in the results that were obtained.

Page 24 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

6.8 Acknowledgement of paradigm and subjectivity This exploratory research considers a paradigm of social constructivism whereby the focus groups’ discussions were guided, and data was interpreted, by the researcher, a current youth work practitioner. As a professional youth worker the researcher may have been prone to subjectively finding significance in elements of the data informed by a relative personal or professional perspective. The accurate term for a researcher who is a member of the profession or group that they are researching is “Insider researcher”. An insider researcher is “someone whose biography (gender, race, class, sexual orientation and so on) gives her [sic] a lived familiarity with the group being researched” (Griffith, 1998, p.361).

It is, however, the belief of the researcher that having this experience in the field of youth work has supported the collection of quality data as the researcher is skilled in facilitating discussion with groups and through having an intimate understanding has garnered richer analysis through an informed insight.

6.9 Reliability and validity Care was taken to ensure that survey questions were not leading and asked in an objective fashion to facilitate the collection of good data. However, most survey questions offered a multiple choice of answers which may have been limiting for some respondents. Respondents were given the opportunity to add text to elaborate on their answers in many cases to counter this problem.

The survey invited participants to be involved in focus groups to be held in the city of Brighton and Hove, Sussex. Therefore, youth professionals living or working in this area were more likely to be involved in the focus groups than any other group. This inevitably limits the validity of results as local Facebook policies and practices may vary geographically for practitioners. The geographical

Page 25 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

limitations of this study gives rise to questions about what findings might have been generated if the research was to be expanded. This would be a subject for consideration of potential future research.

Focus group participants were encouraged to speak freely and openly, and to frankly criticise practices by being reassured that the transcribed discussions would be anonymised.

The limited resources available to dedicate to this research meant that a more comprehensive exploration of this topic was not possible; more focus groups and a larger survey may yield more robust results.

It is also worth noting that one of the members of the focus group was managed by another member in one of their posts. This may have meant that critical engagement with the subject may have been stifled for one or both of them as they attempted to manage their inter-professional boundaries whilst being involved in the group discussions.

Page 26 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

7. Ethical Considerations Creswell (2007) advises that ethical practice in research must consider issues of harm to participants, informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, and deception.

7.1 Harm to participants This research sought to facilitate the focus group’s discussions in such a way that mediated any behaviours between participants that may be harmful.

Issues such as harassment online, cyber bullying and other sensitive issues may have naturally arisen. These subjects were anticipated and legal safeguarding procedures were in place during focus group discussions.

7.2 Informed consent An ‘Informed Consent Form’ was produced and signed by each of the focus group participants (see Appendix 2).

7.3 Privacy and Confidentiality

Page 27 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Focus group discussions will be anonymised and treated confidentially for the duration of the research before being destroyed once the research and submission process has been completed.

The nature of the research will mean that participants will discuss aspects of their private SNS usage and potentially lead to disclosures of a personal nature. A confidentiality agreement between participants and the researcher was included in participants’ ‘Informed Consent Forms’.

In the event of publication of the research care will be taken to ensure participants’ details remain anonymous.

7.4 Deception The nature of the research was disclosed as sensitively as possible on participant ‘Informed Consent Forms’ so as not to have misled the focus group participants.

Page 28 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

8. Data Analysis and Discussion 8.1 The Survey The online survey captured the opinions of 117 respondents (youth professionals who started the survey); however the number of respondents who completed the survey was exactly 100 (a copy of the survey is appended as Appendix 4). In light of this some results feature the responses of up to 117 respondents, others fewer. This is not considered to have a relevant impact on the validity of the results. 100 respondents is still considered to be a good number by the researcher as it will have captured a range of opinions and is a similar number of responses to the main previous study around the subject by Davies and Cranston in 2008. It also captured a good level of textual comments from respondents in addition to the multiple choice answers available.

8.2 The Focus Group One focus group was facilitated by the researcher, 5 youth professionals attended (a copy of the focus group session plan, questions and prompts is appended as Appendix 3). Throughout the analysis, different participants are indicated by the ascription of a series of letters, alphabetically A through E. The quality of discussions is implied by the level of understanding of many of the focus groups’ participants. Most engaged well with the subject and the groups generated insightful discussion.

Page 29 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

8.3 The uptake of Facebook and SNSs in youth work The first point of note is that the survey responses included professionals who are not using Facebook in their work (29.3% of respondents). Capturing the responses of this group of people has helped to provide this enquiry with a more balanced view of Facebook’s merits within youth work.

The next point of interest from the survey results were the number of youth workers who use Facebook in their work relative to the number who are actively supported to do so in their work places.

We can see from the above responses that in spite of just over 50% of workers having not been encouraged to use Facebook, over 70% are doing so. Although these figures cannot be taken to be representative of the national picture, they imply a perceived worth in using Facebook on the part of youth workers by the fact that many are using it without having been instructed or supported to. In Page 30 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

the case of one survey commenter, their Facebook use “was 'under the radar' as we were told it would be shut down if discovered”. Whether this example exhibits unprofessionalism or not it demonstrates the previous point well.

Also, compared with the 2008 survey of 120 youth work managers and practitioners for the National Youth Agency (Davies and Cranston), it appears that many more youth workers are using SNSs (or able to use SNSs) at work than they were 4 years ago. Their survey showed that only 29% of youth workers had access to SNSs in their work setting. The figure of 70.7% above only represents Facebook usage and not other forms of SNS (such as Twitter and Myspace) which may suggest that the increase in those who have access to SNSs more generally in the last 4 years may be even greater.

The above results also imply that those who use Facebook without positive encouragement to do so may have little support in the way of management and policy. Light is shed upon this hypothesis later on in this chapter (point 8.7) when examining the results of factors limiting Facebook’s usage.

8.4 Reasons for using Facebook – Why does it hold value for practitioners?

Of the people who responded to the survey saying that their workplace had encouraged the use of Facebook, 43 respondents offered the ‘main drivers’ for this as supplementary information, as listed below.

Successful interventions. Preferred method of contact by young people.

To use the Brighton and Hove Youth Page - keep it updated with events for young people - to let young people and other providers know what is available city wide for young people Create a better relationship with young people, it is one of the easiest ways to stay in contact with young people, and makes organising events easier.

Planning and promotion of events organised by young people.

Community engagement, distribution of information such as events, training, jobs, receiving feedback and opinions, posting pictures and videos of community events, publicly thanking people for their hard work, gathering community interest.

Way to engage with young people. To get information across, get feedback/ideas, to share photos from activities

Page 31 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

It’s a tentative yes. Y Centres operate 'below the radar' to a certain extent. The official service page has fairly low usage. Senior managers asked if we could have one - I obliged by setting it up. Smaller project pages are great for contacting young people already involved in project and communication is the driver To publicise events for young people IT was encouraged as a tool to communicate with already existing groups but in a closed nature so that it was not accessible to young people interested in the services we offered but more as a communication tool for young people already involved in our group. (this was for safeguarding of young people) It's a fantastic way to engage young people in the service.

Promotion and marketing reaching YP and networking Youth Participation To let young people know about the Youth Service Working with young carers we need to be able to connect with them in a way they understand and are comfortable to use. inform young people and the wider community of opportunities and achievements of young people through the youth service Clients can contact the service through facebook if they have no credit or no mobile phone. Facebook provides a way for staff to contact clients. Also a way of advertising services provided.

The Youth Culture Report http://theyouthculturereport.com/ Being able to contact YPs as numbers are always changing. Advertising activities.

Policy in using it and best practice.

Separate work profiles. Ground rules for all using Facebook and staff protocols We have a page for our centre, which we update regularly and allows the young people to contact the team. where yp were, I am responsible for its introduction as a means to establish friendships across a European project To advertise projects/events work and keep people informed. need to communicate faster and at the appropriate level with young people To try and use it as a way to inform young people about the opportunities that were on offer.

To enable communication between different groups of young people across our region and to post questions and encourage debate of any issues relating to ongoing projects.

To build communication and engagement of our fans. This will help spread the word among more people as fans spread the word to their facebook friends.

This could have been answered with a yes or a no, my work place has a facebook page which I have become an admin of and I am encouraged to update with info about activities for young people.

Contact more young people and let them know what's on. Let councillors know what is going on in the area.

As a manager, I encourage my staff teams to utilise Facebook as it is the medium that YP themselves are using to communicate with each other. It is also a free resource, that it quick and accessible for most yp that we work with.

It also reduces the amount of time spent and resources of a limited staff team in writing letters that won't be read and making phone calls that won't be answered. We did meet with a little concern from SMT around our use of Facebook in the beginning however.

I am the manager and young people asked if we could set up a facebook page for the project Yes as it is more cost effective than them having to buy a work mobile.

Yes and no really, Previous youth service in rural location recognised the usefulness of facebook to reach isolated yp. Current service (early intervention) not seen the value as yet.

Page 32 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Guardedly. As although the concept is sound there are one or two reservations around Facebook itself ... We have looked at other Otis networking platform which offer more security e.g. Membership and scrutiny.... Not come up with anything as yet Good way of contacting young people, as that is where they are. Was some initial manager worry about using FB but this seems to have waned, although BHCC youth service is pushing the use of central facebook page which YP are not that interested in really Maintaining contact with young people To increase young people's participation in youth provision Not encouraged necessarily, but I use in my work all the time mainly to contact yp I instigated it as my research for my Masters Dissertation I presented a case study demonstrating its effectiveness. It has had a hugely positive impact on our work.

Communications and publicity. Contact with colleagues nationally.

As you can see there are a good range of reasons for why organisations and practitioners have taken up the use of Facebook. One theme that seems to appear throughout is the need being recognised in young people for youth workers to be on Facebook, either explicitly from them asking ( as in “young people asked if we could set up a facebook page for the project ”) or through recognition that Facebook is a place that young people regularly frequent (“[it was] where yp were”).

Interestingly, only one respondent of the 43 offered organisational legislation (or, “Policy in using it…”) as a main driver, with most instead citing the benefits.

This may suggest that youth

professionals are not looking upon the use of Facebook as an administrative burden but as an effective tool – they have looked beyond the policy requiring its use (assuming there will be one in place in organisations promoting Facebook’s use) and are being driven by its perceived benefits.

Page 33 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Results of the online survey (displayed as a bar chart above) show that 85% of youth professionals agreed that ‘Improved communication with Young People’ is a main benefit for using Facebook in their work. This was recognised as the first emergent theme in the first focus group when asked why youth workers are using Facebook. Participant A justified its use by saying “it’s the way young people are communicating with each other”, implying that youth workers should use Facebook to be included in young people’s discussions. Participant B agreed, saying “if we want to be engaging with young people then I think it’s a tool we should be engaging young people with”. Another participant added that: they [young people] seem to be getting enjoyment out of it as well, they seem to quite like the fact that they can communicate with us via Facebook and ask questions that they might have not been able to otherwise. It’s quite a good channel I think

Page 34 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry (Participant C, Focus Group 1).

All of the focus group participants were positive regarding the use of Facebook generally and so were asked to explain what they believed worked well and how they knew it was working well. This was an extension of the first question but yielded different results. Interestingly the main theme discussed following on from this was the relationships that it was possible to enhance in spite of only 50% of survey respondents suggesting that this was one of the main benefits. Participant B discussed the need for an online relationship in order to facilitate their youth work outcomes when they said “If we can build up a relationship with them online first by having that kind of interactive presence through a profile they’re much more likely to access our service” and that it “really helps to access our service”. This philosophy implies that building relationships with young people using Facebook is simply a means to an end – youth professionals are seeking to communicate without necessarily improving relationships.

It is also possible that people may be trying to avoid

relationship building altogether – the reasons for which may be related to perceived safeguarding issues, elucidated upon later in section 8.6. It is the sheer difference between the values in the survey results (85%:50%) which supports these theories. Relationship development may also simply be unimportant in the context of some people’s professional Facebook use.

Also significant is that 6% of respondents believe there are no benefits to using Facebook in their work. This may be their general feeling regarding youth work and Facebook or may be specific to the context in which they work; unfortunately the survey did not facilitate the exploration of this. This result does make the point that 94% of respondents do believe there are benefits to using Facebook in their work.

The second and third most cited main benefits of using Facebook in youth workers’ work with 73% and 72% respectively were ‘Improved organisation of youth groups’ and ‘Improved levels of young people’s participation’. This tallied well with the survey question relating to the perceived best functions of the site which found that ‘Facebook Events’ and ‘Facebook Groups’ were favoured by Page 35 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

youth workers (see graph below). This suggests that Facebook has an important role to play in the organisation and participation of young people, both of which can normally be time consuming pursuits.

Again, the focus group participants were complimentary of Facebook and the way that it had supported youth organisation and participation. Participant C said Facebook “is supporting our project to be more successful in the way that young people participate”. Participant E concurred, adding that “It’s just an easy way of hitting a target audience in one massive swoop”. Additional comment was provided by one survey respondent who asserted that Facebook is “definitely the best way to get YP [young people] to participate; either by mailing them or by setting up an event”. This faith in Facebook’s functionality as a method of improving organisation and participation within youth work is resounding in the research results and is not something that has come through in Page 36 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

quite such a profound way in the existing literature on the subject. Many of the relevant texts have taken an ideological standpoint (for example Green and Hannon, 2007, discussing informal education’s role more generally with digital technology and SNSs) when, in fact, the practical (including potential time-saving) implications seem to present a robust argument alone.

8.5 Time and efficiency Survey respondents were asked; if they do use Facebook for work how much time they spend using it in the average week. The following graph presents the results.

% of respondents

As the graph shows there is a steep decline in the time spent using Facebook by youth workers after the response ‘between ½ hour and 1 hour’. Fewer than 10% of respondents use Facebook in their work for over 3 hours per week. When asked how youth workers can justify the time spent using Page 37 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Facebook, members of the first focus group responded by saying, making reference to ‘Facebook Insights’, “The evidence is there isn’t it” (Participant C). Participant B strongly advocated for its use, saying “It’s just so successful, there’s just no doubt about it. You can’t deny it” and “it actually saves time in other areas of your work”.

Some survey respondents posed the counter argument by responding to the question about perceived negative aspects of Facebook’s use in youth work with concerns about its use taking too much time (17.2%) and there being too little return on investment (which alludes to time management) (8.1%).

‘Lack of time’ was one of the more popular responses (29%) to the survey

question regarding factors stopping people from using Facebook to a fuller extent in their work (discussed further in chapter 8.7). Also, one survey respondent stated in their general feedback on the subject that “if you are going to use it with young people you do need to factor in time to manage it, which can be enormous!”.

With so much controversy on this particular point, the issue of Facebook improving or hindering efficiency is not conclusive and a deeper exploration of whether Facebook supports youth workers to save time in these respects may be a consideration for further research.

Page 38 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

8.6 Safeguarding and other perceived negative aspects to using Facebook The chart below represents the different elements of Facebook’s usage that youth professionals find to be negative.

By far the most prevalent issue for youth workers with the professional use of Facebook is the safeguarding risks that are perceived to exist, with 65.7% citing it as a negative aspect. In additional comment, survey respondents added on this subject that “the risk that staff may know too much about what is going on in a young person’s life” is a factor, another mentioned the significance of

Page 39 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

“crossing of professional boundaries, potentially”. The ‘Youth Work and Social Networking’ report of 2008 (Davies and Cranston) found that the safety strategies in place at the time were not believed to be effective by youth work practitioners, managers and administrators.

The sheer amount of discussion within the focus group about safeguarding issues suggests that these issues are not yet fully resolved. Every focus group participant had an opinion on safeguarding issues with the use of Facebook, with many expressing serious concern. For example, participant C disclosed that “it’s a bit scary sometimes, […] you’re entering into a world of, I think, a lot of risk”.

Participant F stated they felt that “It’s just a minefield” with participant A later using exactly the same phrase.

Members of the focus group were not at all surprised by the survey results with

regard to safeguarding’s popularity as an issue.

With much of the literature on the subject suggesting that the inherent safeguarding risks are exaggerated it is interesting to consider where the messages about this issue are coming from and how they are being perpetuated.

Relatively new to using Facebook professionally, focus group participant A admitted “I’m quite nervous about safeguarding issues at the moment”, another participant (B), speaking of safeguarding, expressed: “I don’t think it’s as scary as everybody thinks it is, I really don’t”.

Participant C added “I’ve been using it for quite a long time now […] and to be honest with you there hasn’t really been that many problems”. The way that the conversation evolved between the less experienced, more worried participants and the more experienced, less concerned ones seemed to placate the former. This function of the conversation seemed to exemplify a small but strong case for improved opportunities for practitioners to come together to discuss issues they have in order to overcome practical issues as well as fears.

Page 40 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

8.7 Factors prohibiting fuller use of Facebook When asked which factors have stopped practitioners using Facebook to a fuller extent in their work the results were as follows:

Number of survey respondents agreeing with each factor

As you can see, the most prevalent answers are the ‘lack of policy/written guidance’ closely followed by the ‘lack of confidence in safeguarding (and lack of time, as previously discussed). One additional comment expressed that “management are scared of it”; another admitted that “it’s all a bit of a grey area at the moment as I use my personal facebook account to connect through”.

One survey comment was very candid, disclosing that: Page 41 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

…I do feel vulnerable - the only policy available will probably stop me from using it […], as opposed to allow me to do this whilst protecting me. (However, I, and a lot of other workers still do it! - because it’s SO effective).

The focus group spent a lot of their time discussing policy which indicates that it is an area in which there needs to be more development so that practitioners can feel more at ease with the use of Facebook and other social media. Grey areas were discussed at length, including how prescriptive an organisation can be about asking its employees to manage their personal social media usage, what to do if workers see sensitive/child protection issues disclosed that weren’t intended to be seen by them and how much workers felt they could influence the policy of their organisation – with all saying they felt that they could. This indicates an interest and willing in enhancing policies to ensure they are supportive and applicable, but an implied lack of confidence in doing so.

Subsequent popular survey answers including ‘lack of managerial willing/interest’, ‘lack of training’ and ‘lack of managerial support’ clearly suggest that the issue of supporting youth workers to feel safe and confident whilst using Facebook professionally is still extremely poignant to the industry.

Also important to note is that 19 people responded with ‘No’ as their answer to this question, it can therefore be assumed that they did not contribute to the popularity of the other answers. This should therefore also be considered significant as it represents a proportion of youth workers who do feel they have the support, policy guidance and skills to effectively manage their Facebook usage.

The fact that these people responded this way is positive, the fact that it represents less than one fifth of respondents is not so positive.

8.8 Digital literacy The ability for youth workers to position themselves well to support young people’s improved digital literacies is quite clearly recognised in the literature. The 2008 survey (Davies and Cranston) showed that a massive 90% of youth workers “believe that they have a crucial role supporting young people Page 42 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

to navigate risk” (p.16). Considering this profound statistic the topic was mentioned relatively little by the focus group – “I feel it’s our duty and responsibility, particularly around safeguarding, helping young people to be up there, clued up in what’s going on” and: part of the reason we’re on there is trying to help people understand what their online presence is and how that might impact on your life in general

(Participant B).

Only 22% of survey respondents felt that digital literacy is one of the potential benefits of using Facebook professionally with young people. This somewhat contradicts the strong ideological motivations in ‘improving digital literacies’ that come through in Davies’ work in particular, although his work addresses SNSs in the main, not solely Facebook. Again, the support of digital literacies may not be as significant in the context of some youth workers’ work – for example a youth professional mainly offering careers support might have less concern for it than a youth club/project worker who takes on more responsibility for general pastoral care.

8.9 Workforce development As per the graph above, a lack of training is only viewed as a prohibitive factor in fuller professional Facebook use by 21% of survey respondents. In the ‘additional comment’ section from the survey, practitioners generally seem to acknowledge the need for a “better understanding from both youth professionals and young people about the nature of social networking and media”, as one respondent wrote. However, the only time ‘training’ is expressly mentioned was when suggesting that young people themselves be trained to run Facebook pages.

This sits in stark contrast with discussion in the focus group which was dominated by the lack of accessible training available on the subject and how much it would be valued by the focus group members; as one participant said, “it would be good to have some training” (participant C). They

Page 43 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

continue to say that “there is training out there but none of it’s ever locally based” and that it needs to be “accessible and affordable”.

Participant B developed and delivered training themselves for their direct colleagues as they were the only person using Facebook in their workplace. They go on to say, “Now the whole team uses it and it’s working really well”.

From the focus group, the main agreed themes and activities for potential training were safeguarding, real-life case studies, best practice and policy development which all tally well with results from the survey around needs.

Page 44 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

9. Conclusions This research sought to take a snap-shot of the current state of youth work with regards to the use of one particular social networking site, Facebook. Since 2008, when Davies and Cranston’s key text was published it is clear that the world of youth work has been fast embracing Facebook, indicating it holds value for youth professionals (this research showed that 94% of respondents felt that there were benefits to using Facebook), in spite of the controversies that exist around its usage. The evidence for this speaks clearly; with less than 50% of workplaces encouraging the use of Facebook and 25% of respondents saying that there is a lack of willing/interest in it from their managers, the online survey revealed that over 70% of youth work practitioners in the study are using Facebook anyway.

The research has also uncovered that some youth work practitioners are using Facebook in their work without the knowledge of their managers. Some respondents even seem to be directly contravening orders from their management regarding the use of Facebook; for example, the survey respondent who’s Facebook use “was 'under the radar' as we were told it would be shut down if discovered”. Others are evidently receiving unclear messages, one respondent stating that their policy presented as a “bit of a grey area at the moment as I use my personal facebook account to connect through”. Another acknowledges the risks but admits to doing it all the same: …I do feel vulnerable - the only policy available will probably stop me from using it […], as opposed to allow me to do this whilst protecting me. (However, I, and a lot of other workers still do it! - because it’s SO effective).

The delay in properly discussing and developing policy has left these youth workers in legally unsound positions relating to their employment; should something go wrong, there is a significantly greater risk of being unsupported.

Page 45 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Many of the survey respondents reported that they believe Facebook is overly time-consuming.

Although this was not the response of the majority (with some stating that it is in fact time-saving), the issue of whether using Facebook is a justifiable use of time and resources remains open to debate. With so many youth professionals (94%) acknowledging benefits Facebook can bring to their work, it is these justifications that the youth sector now need to seek out and clearly articulate.

This is especially true of the statutory sector where the public will scrutinise appropriation of resources, and the Third Sector where justifications for administrative time constantly need to be made in funding bids. For these reasons the researcher recommends a deeper exploration of the pros and cons of Facebook’s usage within a range of youth work contexts, including aspects of time management.

Through discussion, two of the focus group participants came to the conclusion that safeguarding worries, in their experiences, were overstated. The evidence gathered through this research showed that safeguarding concerns are still prohibitive for a lot of managers and practitioners with regards to the professional use of Facebook. ‘Safeguarding risks’ alongside ‘damage to my organisations reputation should something go wrong’ and ‘not enough editorial control’ were by far the most popular answers to the question on Facebook’s potential negative aspects. Davies and Cranston’s research (2008. pp.5-6), in particular, explains how the risks for young people using SNSs are there whether or not youth workers are present.

Therefore, for youth workers and youth work managers, safeguarding worries that are holding back policy development and implementation could be categorised into two parts; either: a) Trusting staff not to abuse safeguarding boundaries themselves, or b) Trusting staff to effectively manage and deal with safeguarding issues that arise whilst using Facebook

Page 46 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

From either of these concerns there would appear to be a strong argument for the development of training for practitioners and managers around managing the risks of using Facebook in youth work.

This links with one of the aims of this research which was to identify gaps in the confidence and support of youth workers to use Facebook professionally.

A relatively low number of survey respondents disclosed that a lack of training is preventing their fuller use of Facebook. This is not, however, conclusive as to whether youth workers feel they require more training in order to feel more confident in their use of Facebook. In hindsight, a survey question to this effect, around training needs specifically, would have been very useful. The fact that the subject of training came through strongly in the focus group indicates that there are gaps in confidence and skills that were not captured in other areas of this research.

A continuation of the popularity of using Facebook as a youth work tool would see an increase in use from 70% of the workforce (as discovered through this research) to an even greater proportion over the next few years. Should this happen, not only will youth work practitioners require additional support in this area of their work, but more youth work employers will need to assume much of the responsibility that so far appears to be neglected. If this does not happen it may be assumed that there will be greater incidence of unsound safeguarding practices and employment tribunals over this issue. These events would detract not only attention but resources from the great work that is happening in the youth sector more generally.

It only seems appropriate to conclude with a quote from Davies (2010, p.6), which serves to remind us that the issue of using Facebook needs further and urgent attention: “Social networks are not going to go away”

(9,906 words)

Page 47 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

10. References

Ahn, J. (2011). The Effect of Social Network Sites on Adolescents’ Social and Academic Development: Current Theories and Controversies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 62, Issue 8. pp1435-1445.

Beemt, A., Akkerman, S., and Simons, R. (2011). Considering young people's motives for interactive media use. Educational Research Review; January 2011, Vol. 6 Issue: 1. pp55-66.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., and Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp. 775-786.

Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Volume 13. pp.210-230.

Buckingham, D. (Ed.). (2008). Youth, identity and digital media. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. London: MacGibbon & Kee. Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2003). Business Research Methods: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. (2nd Edn). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, Choosing Among Five Approaches (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.

Davies, T. and Cranston, P. (2008). Youth Work and Social Networking. National Youth Agency and Practical Participation. Available [online] <http://www.nya.org.uk/catalogue/youth-policy/youthwork-and-social-networking> [Access date: 5th November 2011].

Davies, T. (2009). Social Media and Youth Participation in Local Democracy. LGiU. Available [online] < http://www.timdavies.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Social-media-and-youth-participation-in-localdemocracy.pdf> [Access date: 3rd May 2012].

Davies, T. (2010). Young People and Online Social Networks: Outline. Connected Generation.

Available [online] http://www.freedomfromfearmagazine.org/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=386:connected-generation&catid=51:issue-8&Itemid=161) [Access date 22nd March 2012] Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2010). Engaging through social media: social media explained. DCSF. Available [online] http://www.wmro.org/displayResource.aspx/9853/Engaging_through_social_media_social_media_e xplained.html [Access date: 22nd March 2012].

Department of Education. (2011). Building Engagement, Building Futures: Our Strategy to Maximise the Participation of 16-24 Year Olds in Education, Training and Work. DoE. Available [online] < https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/HMG-001952012#downloadableparts> [Access date: 3rd May 2012].

Page 48 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Department of Education, (2012). Positive for Youth. DoE. Available [online] < https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-00133-2011.pdf> [Access date: 3rd May 2012].

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Volume 12, Issue 4. Pp.1143-1168. Available [online] < http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html> [Access date: 4th November 2011].

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton Facebook. (2012). Statistics. Facebook.com. Available [online] < http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics> [Access date: 3 rd May 2012].

Green, H. and Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: education for a digital generation. Demos. Available [online] < http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Their%20space%20-%20web.pdf> [Access date: 3rd May 2012].

Griffith, A. I. (1998). Insider / outsider: epistemological privilege and mothering work. Human Studies. Volume 21. pp.361-376.

Hargittai, E., and Hinnant, A. (2008). Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet.

Communication Studies. Volume 35, Issue 5, 602-621.

Heit, E. (2000). Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic bulletin & review. Volume 7, Issue 4.

Pp. 569-92. Available [online] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11206199 [Access date: 6th November 2011].

HMSO. (1960). The Albemarle Report. London: Her majesty’s Stationary Office.

HMSO (The Thompson Report). (1982). Experience and Participation. Report of the review group on the Youth Service in England. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

HMSO. (2005). Youth Matters, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials Rising. New York: Vintage Books.

Independent, The. (2009). Teenagers online for 31 hours a week. The Independent Online. Available [online] http://www.cybersentinel.co.uk/media_documents/090209%20Independent.pdf [Access date: 3rd March 2012].

Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Herr-stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., Pascoe, C. J., Robinson, L., et al.

(2008). Living and Learning with New Media : Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project Authors. Available [online] <http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouthTwoPageSummary.pdf> [Access date: 9th April 2012].

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittani, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R. and Herr-Stephenson, B. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jenkins, H. (2010). Interview: Henry Jenkins University of South Carolina. Youth Media Reporter.

Issue 4 (August 2010).

Page 49 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Jones, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Describing or debunking? The net generation and digital natives.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp.317-320.

Junco, R. (2011). Students spend a lot of time Facebooking, searching, and texting. Social Media in Higher Education [BLOG]. Available [online] http://blog.reyjunco.com/students-spend-a-lot-of-timefacebooking-searching-and-texting. [Access date: 3rd March 2012].

Kennedy, G., Judd, T. and Dalgarno, B. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: Exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Volume 26, number 5, pp. 332–343.

Kling, R. (2007). What is social informatics and why does it matter? The Information Society, Volume 23. pp205–220.

Kristen, L. (2010). Youth, new media and education: An introduction. Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, Volume 46, Issue 5. pp. 450-456.

Kumar, R. (1999). Research Methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners, London: Sage Publications Large, A. (2005). Children, teenagers, and the web. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Volume 39, Issue 1. pp347–392.

Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A. and Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Washington, DC: Pew Internet &American Life Project. Available [online] < http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx> [Access date: 6th May 2012].

Levin, D. and Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: the widening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools. Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available [online] < http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2002/The-Digital-Disconnect-The-widening-gap-betweenInternetsavvy-students-and-their-schools/Summary-of-Findings/Findings.aspx> [Access date: 15 October 2011].

Li, Y., and Ranieri, M. (2010). Are “digital natives” really digitally competent?—A study on Chinese teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology. Volume 41, Issue 6, pp.1029–1042.

Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K. (2011a). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full Findings. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.

Livingstone, S., Olafsson, K. and Staksrud, E. (2011b). Social Networking, Age and Privacy. EU Kids Online. LSE. London. Available [online] <http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20Online%20reports.aspx> [Access date: 22.3.12].

LLUK (Lifelong Learning UK). (2008). National Occupational Standards for Youth Work. National Youth Agency Website. Available [online] http://nya.org.uk/dynamic_files/research/whole%20suite %20of%20Professional%20and%20National%20Occupational%20Standards%20for%20Youth %20Work.pdf [Access date: 6th May 2012].

Lusk, B. (2010). Digital Natives and Social Media Behaviours: An Overview. The Prevention Researcher. Volume 17, pp3-6.

Page 50 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Merton, B. et al. (Youth Affairs Unit). (2004). An Evaluation of the Impact of Youth Work in England.

Department for Education and Skills: De Montfort University.

Nielson Company, The. (2009). How teens use media: A Nielson Report on the Myths and Realities of Teen Media Trends. Available [online] http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reportsdownloads/2009/How-Teens-Use-Media.html [Access date: 16th October 2011] NOS. (2008). National Occupational Standards for Youth Work. NOS. Available [online] < http://www.ukstandards.co.uk/nos-search/Pages/SearchResults.aspx?k=youth%20work%20nos> [Access date: 5th November 2011].

Notley, T. (2009). Young People, Online Networks and Social Inclusion. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication. Volume 14. pp.1208-1227.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O’Reilly Blogsite. Available [online] < http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web20.html> [Access date: 6th November 2011].

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon. Volume 9, Issue 5. pp1-6.

Quan-Haase, A. and Young, A. (2010). Uses and Gratifications of Social Media: A Comparison of Facebook and Instant Messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Vol. 30 Issue: 5. pp350361.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A. and Carrier, M. (2008). The Association of Parenting Style and Child Age with Parental Limit Setting and Adolescent MySpace Behaviour. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. Vol. 29. pp 459-471.

Sánchez, J., Salinas, A., Contreras, D., and Meyer, E. (2011). Does the New Digital Generation of Learners Exist? A Qualitative Study. British Journal of Educational Technology. Volume 42, Issue 4, pp.543–556 Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2006). Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Schmied, V. and Walsh, P. (2010). Effective Casework with Adolescents: Perspectives of Statutory Child Protection Practitioners. Child & Family Social Work. Vol. 15. pp165-175.

Seiter, E. (2008). The Internet Playground. British Journal of Educational Technology. Volume 39, Issue 6, pp.1143–1144.

Smith, M. K. (2001). 'Relationship'. Infed, The encyclopaedia of informal education. Available [online] www.infed.org/biblio/relationship.htm [Access date: 6ht May 2012].

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw Hill.

Van den Beemt, A., Akkerman, S., and Simons, R.-J. (2011). Considering young people’s motives for interactive media use. Educational Research Review. Volume 6, Issue 1. pp55-66.

Page 51 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Veen, W., and Jacobs, F. (2005). Leren van Jongeren. [Learning for young people]. Utrecht: Stichting Surf. [translation].

White, S. and Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement.

First Monday, Volume 16, Number 9.

Withers, K. and Sheldon, R. (2008). Behind the Screen: The hidden life of youth online. IPPR. Available [online] http://www.ippr.org/publications/55/1632/behind-the-screen-the-hidden-life-of-youthonline. [Access date: 3rd March 2012].

Zimic, S. (2009). Not so ‘techno-savvy’ Challenging the stereotypical images of the ‘Net-generation’.

Digital Culture & Education. Volume 1, Issue 2. Pp129-144.

Page 52 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

11. Appendices Appendix 1 – Thematically coded transcription of focus group discussion (one page example) Appendix 2 – Informed consent form for focus group participants Appendix 3 - Focus group planned questions Appendix 4 – Online survey questions Appendix 5 – Tutorial Record Form (28.11.11) Appendix 6 – Tutorial Record Form (12.04.12)

Page 53 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Appendix 1 Transcription Focus Group (example) 21 March 2012 Digital literacies

Policy/training

Communication

Participation

Relationships

Researcher: In spite of less than 50% of workplaces encouraging the use of Facebook and 25% of respondents saying that there is a lack of willing/interest in it from their managers, the online survey revealed that 70% of youth work practitioners in the study are using Facebook anyway.

So, why do you think that Youth Workers are taking it upon themselves to use Facebook?

A: Just sign of the times, yeah, it’s the way young people are communicating with each other. They all know how to use it, put events on so we’ve got to go with that because with flyers and stuff although you get a certain percentage it’s just become a bit old fashioned, it’s just the way forward.

B: Young people are already in those spaces and we’re always talking about bringing services to young people so it absolutely makes sense that we would be there as well.

C: Erm, I agree with what’s been said really and just the fact that we do need to keep up with new media and technology. It’s moving really fast and now young people have access to their Facebook pages on their mobile phones and Blackberries and things like that, so. At first it kind of evolved onto being on the computer and now it’s just everywhere – mobile, in the hand and it’s instant, it’s just instant and it’s just there so I think it would be… not silly not to use it but if we want to be engaging with young people then I think it’s a tool we should be engaging young people with.

D: Yeah, I agree really. They seem to engage with it and some of them who haven’t got a phone, or whatever, can always access Facebook on different services so, it’s a good way to get people to engage.

E: I think everyone’s covered it really, yeah. It’s so accessible and like you say it’s instant, it’s really easy, like rather than getting everyone’s mobile number or everyone’s email address, or search by name, they add themselves to a page or a group or something. It’s just an easy way of hitting a target audience in one massive swoop.

Researcher: A further question might be – so why are youth workers using it? – Lots of people work with teenagers but do other sectors generally does as much as youth work? If not, why not?

A: I suppose it’s out of school events mainly. And especially with ourselves like youth club and holiday programmes, and stuff like that. I guess that’s where we’re going to get our selected, um, young people.

E: I think as well, like, it’s got more of a casual feel to it.

(Group agrees) E: Whereas schools have to go by the book. I don’t know if youth workers can be more relaxed than school so I think using that, using Facebook…

Page 54 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Appendix 2 Connecting with Young People using Facebook Informed Consent Form for (name) ___________________________________________ Principle Researcher: Adam Muirhead Research Organisation: University of Brighton Research Name: Connecting with Young People using Facebook This Informed Consent Form has two parts: • Information Sheet (to share information about the study with you) • Certificate of Consent (for signatures if you choose to participate)

Part I: Information Sheet Introduction Thank you for joining the focus group to discuss connecting with young people using Facebook. If you have any questions about the following information please ask the researcher before the beginning of the discussion.

Purpose of the research This research seeks to bring information up to date around how youth work practitioners use Facebook to connect with young people and highlight where challenges in doing this effectively lie.

Type of Research Intervention Focussed group discussion is being used to probe deeper into issues and themes that have been highlighted from the online survey “Connecting with Young People using Facebook”. The discussions will be guided/facilitated by the researcher and recorded for transcription and use in the researcher’s professional enquiry.

Participant Selection You have been selected to join the focus group as you have completed the online survey and have indicated that you would like to discuss the subject in more depth.

Voluntary Participation You may choose to participate in this focus group or not. Participation is entirely voluntary and if you choose to not partake in this focus group it will not be held against you in any way.

Procedures You are likely to be asked about your opinions on subjects to do with using Facebook with young people and asked to discuss them. The researcher will aim to let conversation flow between participants as much as possible and only intervene to develop a fuller understanding of the participants’ discussions or to move the discussion on to a new line of enquiry.

Risks and Discomforts Your beliefs and practices may be challenged through conversation in the focus group. The researcher aims to facilitate challenges so that they might be positive and constructive and asks that you do the same when you are challenging others.

Page 55 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Benefits This research aims to benefit professionals and managers within the youth sector and their ability to deliver effective youth work using Facebook.

Incentives Each participant will be offered a £10 amazon voucher upon completion of an hour’s focussed group discussion sent to the participant via email within a week of the focus group taking place. Food and drink will also be provided during the session.

Confidentiality Safeguarding issues are inherent with all Youth Work and therefore working online with young people. The researcher kindly requests that confidential issues are not shared with the group but if one such issue should come up that members do not share it outside of the group. If practice issues come up that participants feel breaches safeguarding practices please question this within the safety of the facilitated group.

The information that is collected will be anonymised and names will be altered for the purposes of transcription. This will allow participants to be as critical as they like without further repercussions outside of the group.

If you would like to choose your own pseudonym please write it here, otherwise one will be assigned; ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Sharing the Results The findings of this research will inform a dissertation as part of a study being carried out by a student at the University of Brighton. It is intended that after the submission of this dissertation that a report will be compiled and made public, available to organisations that have requested to see results. If you would like a copy of this report please indicate to the researcher who will ensure a copy gets to you.

Right to Refuse or Withdraw Last chance to leave!

Who to Contact Any questions can be sent to the researcher, Adam Muirhead, at a.muirhead1@uni.brighton.ac.uk

Page 56 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Professional Enquiry

Part II: Certificate of Consent I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read to me. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about it and any questions I have been asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study and understand that I have the right to withdraw from the [discussion/interview] at any time without in any way affecting my relationship with the researcher.

Print name of participant ________________________________________________ Signature of participant_________________________________________________ Date__________________ Day/month/year If illiterate I have witnessed the accurate reading of the consent form to the potential participant, and the individual has had the opportunity to ask questions. I confirm that the individual has given consent freely.

Print name of witness_____________________________________ AND Thumb print of participant Thumb print

Signature of witness ______________________________________

Date __________________ Day/month/year

For Researcher I have accurately read or witnessed the accurate reading of the consent form to the potential participant, and the individual has had the opportunity to ask questions. I confirm that the individual has given consent freely.

Print name of researcher ____ADAM MUIRHEAD_ _______________________ Signature of researcher_____________________________________________ Date ______________________ Day/month/year

A copy of this Informed Consent Form has been provided to the participant _____ (initialled by the researcher)

Page 57 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Appendix 3

Focus Group Plan 21st March 2012 Arrival & Thanks Outline the purpose of the Focus Group and give participants the Informed Consent Form Start Dictaphone Describe the way the discussion should progress – try to keep discussions Facebook specific.

Introduce theme 1 In spite of less than 50% of workplaces encouraging the use of Facebook and 25% of respondents saying that there is a lack of willing/interest in it from their managers, the online survey revealed that 70% of youth work practitioners in the study are using Facebook anyway.

So, why do you think that Youth Workers are taking it upon themselves to use Facebook?

Prompt: Why might youth workers be taking on Facebook without encouragement from their work or managerial support where other educational establishments aren’t so much?

Introduce theme 2 What do you think works the best when using Facebook with young people and how do you know that it is working well?

Prompt: Give results from the survey, are they suprising?

Introduce theme 3 Do you think that training specifically for youth workers on how to use Facebook (and other social media platforms) with young people would be useful? If so, what do you think the main topics should be?

Prompt: More survey respondents said that ‘safeguarding risks’ and ‘potential damage to their organisations’ reputation should something go wrong’ were the two most negative aspects of using Facebook. These two issues accounted for more votes than all the other options combined. Is it reassurances people need or technical know-how or both?

Any other points?

Thanks Voucher sign up, Tidy, return key & finish

Page 58 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Professional Enquiry

Appendix 4

Facebook usage in youth work This questionnaire has been designed to be answered by youth workers and other youth professionals currently working with young people.

The answers will be considered as part of an enquiry into using Facebook to connect with young people in a youth work context which is currently being undertaken by a student at the University of Brighton.

For further information on the questionnaire, focus group or results of the enquiry please email a.muirhead1@uni.brighton.ac.uk

1. Do you use Facebook in a work capacity?

Yes

No

2. Has your workplace positively encouraged you to use Facebook for work?

Yes

No

If yes, what were the main drivers?

3. If you do use Facebook in your work, which do you find are the best functions of the site? If you do not, please move on to the next question.

Fan pages

None of the above

Photos/videos

Groups

Facebook chat

Events

Facebook adverts

Other (please specify)

4. If you use Facebook in your work, how much time do you spend per average week updating it and using it? If you do not, please move on to the next page.

Less than 1/2 hour Between 2 and 3 hours

Between 1/2 hour and 1 hour

Between 1 and 2 hours

Over 3 hours Page 59 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

5. In your opinion, which are (or potentially, would be) the main benefits to your work from being linked with young people by Facebook?

Improved organisation of youth groups/events (eg. reminders of timings, dates etc) Improved information, advice and guidance for YP Improved levels of YP’s participation (Increased involvement in projects) Improved safeguarding (opportunities to discuss internet safety with YP) Improved 'digital literacy' for YP (young people's ability to locate, organise, understand, evaluate, and analyse information using digital technology) Improved communication with YP Improved opportunities for political understanding and involvement for YP Improved showcasing of YP’s work (through video and picture sharing etc) Improved relationships with YP There are none Other (please specify)

6. In your opinion, are there (or potentially, would there be) any negative aspects to using Facebook in your work with young people?

Takes up too much time

Safeguarding risks

No or too little 'return on investment'

It seems unprofessional

It could damage my organisation's reputation if something goes wrong There's not enough 'editorial control' over content

No

Other (please specify) Page 60 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Professional Enquiry

7. In your opinion, are there any factors stopping you from using Facebook to a fuller extent in your work?

Lack of confidence in safeguarding

Lack of managerial willing/interest

Lack of personal willing/interest

Lack of perceived need

Lack of training

Lack of policy/written guidance

Lack of time

Lack of confidence in skills

Lack of managerial support

No

Other (please specify)

8. Would you like to make any additional comments on your experience in using Facebook with young people?

Yes

No

If yes, please use the space below 9. Would you be interested in taking part in a focussed group discussion for an hour to discuss your answers with other youth professionals?

(Participants would be offered a ÂŁ10 voucher for their time along with food and drink. The focus group will take place in the Brighton and Hove area, date tbc. There will be limited space in the focus group so you may not necessarily be asked to participate if you have indicated that you would be willing) Yes

No

If yes, please leave contact details below

Page 61 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Appendix 5 SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

Tutorial Record Form Programme: Student Name: Total Tutorial Time Entitlement:

KV3* Adam Muirhead

Date:

Tutor Name: Tutorial Time Remaining: 10.10.2011

Points Discussed:

Use of social media by youth projects - Number of possibilities re focus - Yp and their perception of usage by youth projects.

- Maybe come at question from perspective of using Facebook as a tool for youth work and what do young people think of that?

- Workers – attitudes – safeguarding and technological issues - Digital natives etc – young people’s usage and how these theories relate?

- Digital literacy

Duration:

Jane Melvin

1 hour

Action Agreed:

JM to send WSCC Facebook policy to AM.

Choose direction based on interest and practical considerations. Can really drill down to a very narrow focus if you want. Decide on research methods in relation to what you want to get or find out.

Think about skills and how best to get the information that you want – if working with young people, can you use your youth work skills to facilitate discussion in a way that is more ‘natural’ or that you are more used to.

Literature search Little research re UK youth work – Tim Davies, John Coleman – Nature of Adolescence Futurelab http://www.futurelab.org.uk/ BECTA http://www.becta.org/ JM to send youth work PDF’s – Tim Davies Journal for Learning, Media and Technology http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cjem Journal for Technology, Pedagogy and Education http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1475939X.asp

Page 62 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Professional Enquiry

Digital natives etc Digital visitor digital resident . http://goo.gl/RFSLz

http://goo.gl/dny1h

Date of Next Tutorial:

Student Signature:

28.11.2011.

Time::

3.15pm

Tutor Signature:

J Melvin

Page 63 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

Appendix 6 SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

Tutorial Record Form Programme: Student Name:

KV300 Adam Muirhead

Tutor Name:

Total Tutorial Time Entitlement:

Date:

Jane Melvin

Tutorial Time Remaining:

12.04.2012

Duration:

1 hour

Points Discussed:

Action Agreed:

Went through structure of dissertation

AM following structure as per handbook

Use local policy where relevant to back up thoughts or observations- reference as usual

ESCC website – look for reference to professional use of Facebook?

Insider researcher context – needs to be prominent and can be weaved throughout. Need to give balanced view but also focus on benefits ie that you understand the context, core values etc

Ethics – is there a tension re line management dynamics within focus group – could this have impacted in any way? How up front are you about how this work will be used? Is it a one off or is it the start of something that you hope will be wider?

Page 64 of 65

Adam Muirhead

KV300 – Professional Enquiry

2nd focus group – not necessary - use the comments of respondents on Surveymonkey.

Make sure that rationale etc links to data analysis and that the language you use in terms of key themes, matches. Ask A.N. Other to read through finished work to check for consistency?

Reflection needs to be on the supervisory process and what you have learnt in tutorials and linked to tutorial notes. Can be notes, diary entries etc – needs to be put in an appendix. It’s not assessed but needs to be there. Reflection is not about your thoughts re the research process and findings.

Contact JM if notes needed – think they’ve already been sent.

Date of Next Tutorial:

Time::

Student Signature:

Tutor Signature:

J Melvin

Page 65 of 65