Youth Work in Schools Research Methodology - Essay Example

? Analyzing the Research Methodology of “Youth Work in schools: an Investigation of Youth Work, as a Process of Informal Learning, in Formal Settings” The piece of research “Youth Work in Schools: an Investigation of Youth Work, as a Process of Informal Learning, in Formal Settings” has a wide array of research aims. In its most basic form, this piece attempts “seek clarification of the outcomes of youth work in schools (Morgan et. al, 2008, 63). Much more specifically, however, the authors attempt to better understand how and to what degree youth work can affect learning outcomes of margenalized and disengaged students, including the so-called “quietly disengaged” that may not frequently the central topic of educational research (Morgan et. al, 2008, 2), because of the lack of their obvious need when compared to other similarly marginalized students. In particular, this work attempts to dissect many of the ‘soft’ educational outcomes that may be improved or affected by youth work, such as “raising self-esteem, increasing young people’s confidence, building relationships, challenging values and beliefs etc” (Morgan et. al, 2008, 46). These outcomes, though obviously incredibly important for the healthy development of young people in any educational environment, can be a difficult target to track or put political will into because of the lack of measureable objectives. This research attempts to uncover the degree to which youth work can be effective in achieving these soft outcomes, while simultaneously understanding how youth work, an informal educational tool, can be integrated into the formal educational environment of schools. More specifically, this study attempts to understand what programs, kinds of youth work and so on are already running, their desired outcomes, to what extent those outcomes are measurable, and to what extent those outcomes are achieved (Morgan et. al, 2008, 65). This research is conducted in entirely qualitative methods, eschewing any kind of statistics or statistical analysis. This obviously gives researchers a kind of leeway in interpreting results that may not be available to them otherwise, including exploring unexpected courses as they emerge. Furthermore, qualitative analysis gives the researchers the ability to use the findings of educational professionals in their own words, which obviously helps generate increased validity and a more thorough understanding of the subtleties and complexities involved in the research (Cohen, et. al., 2000, 31). The researchers used a soft form of coding, whereby they would group similar types of responses together and attempt to give their reader a good idea of majority or frequently cited opinions, often to be immediately followed by a few specifics either paraphrased or given in full quotation. When describing the first question of interviews, for instance, the researchers said that “while the youth workers launched into a straightforward response by outlining their work the schools perceived ‘informal’ education in quite a different light while those from Youthreach understood it in the context of a programme that was, in the first instance, divorced from school” – giving a characterization of frequent responses, followed by analysis, and finally specific examples which are not quoted here (Morgan et. al., 2008, 70). Obviously one significant issue with this type of qualitative analysis is that it grants the researcher incredible amounts of leeway in characterizing results, and deciding where to put emphasis: this can be either beneficial, focusing on small ideas of great importance, or detrimental, such as possibly ignoring or under-representing important trends or frequent responses. This research piece used a wide variety of different qualitative research methods: “In-depth interviews with key informants from youth work, schools and Youthreach; A worksheet/questionnaire for young people with experience of informal practices in formal settings; Focus groups for young people to ascertain their views; Observation analysis carried out during the research; Documentary evidence underpinning programme development” (Morgan et. al. 2008, 66). Beyond the wide variety of research techniques, it is important to notice that the researchers also had a wide variety of subjects – youth workers, teachers and other educational professionals who have interaction with youth workers and their programs, not to mention young people themselves. Like any research technique, these have both advantages and disadvantages. In-depth interviews and focus groups allow for deep, complex analysis of specific questions, but cannot be used as representative of other groups (Cohen et. al., 2000, 138), a weakness that is somewhat reduced by the inclusion of questionnaires that can cast a slightly wider if shallower net. One of the weaknesses of this is the self-selecting nature of the sample: obviously only professionals who have worked with youth workers, or youth workers themselves, can comment on the efficacy of their work. The sample collected was possibly a suitable as could be possible, but none-the-less the sample has some issues. There is a significant focus on professional staff – with more of a focus on professional staff given in the in-depth interviews than to students who engaged in work with youth workers. The problem with this is that it is something of a self-selecting sample. Youth work is not a universally integrated part of formal education in Northern Ireland, and so teachers who have contact with youth workers will often do so by choice – seeking out additional methods of informal education to supplement their own. Obviously only educational professionals who have actually had contact with youth workers in professional settings can comment as to their effectiveness in educational outcomes. The problem remains, however, that by interviewing educators who by-and-large chose to work with youth workers and youth workers themselves, one can get a biased sample: youth workers obviously believe that their work is useful, and will be able to point out examples of how that is true, and educational professionals who have sought out youth workers to collaborate with will likewise probably have a positive, and possibly biased view of their outcomes. Furthermore, the student body is somewhat self-selecting. Youth workers are more likely to be engaged with students with significant problems, not the so-called “quietly disengaged” that the study seeks to understand better. This may also bias the results of the research conducted by Morgan et. al. These sampling biases, along with the qualitative nature of the study, mean that this study cannot be generalized to all of Northern Ireland, necessarily. On the other hand, the questionnaires had a fair sample size (117 students) and a wide variety of schools represented, somewhat strengthening the argument that these might be somewhat more generalizeable principles. Furthermore, many of these sampling errors are unavoidable unless youth worker programs within formal educational settings are expanded – it will be impossible, for instance, to poll educators who do not necessarily believe in the benefits of youth worker programs until or unless they are more integrated into formal educational environments and teachers who were not necessarily excited about the idea of youth educators being involved in in-school, formalized education. Furthermore, there is a significant argument to be made for the fact that it might have been better for more students and fewer professionals to be interviewed more intensively. Though they were the primary targets of focus groups, this does not necessarily translate to the same kind of answers you would get in a one-on-one interview, especially given the age of the people being interviewed and their susceptibility to social pressure. The focus on educators is possibly misplaced, given the main topic of the research being learning outcomes by students. These sampling errors also might not be as much of a problem because of the fact that the researchers explicitly limited their scope of interest to current successes, failures and challenges in current youth worker programs, rather than trying to draw conclusions about what a change in the way youth workers are integrated into schools might do. This focus on analyzing current situations means that the findings of this are much more valid, as many of the biases are already tacitly understood through that set-up. Obviously an analysis of the current situation will, for instance, account for the fact that only the most enthusiastic educators will be involved, and that this might have an impact on the learning outcomes. Likewise, it will take into account the fact that the students who are most likely to be reached by youth workers are ones with other issues in their life beyond simply being “quietly disinterested,” and targeting of specific groups can be achieved through parsing responses to the questionnaire. So insofar as this study claims to only represent the current situation, it is valid and relatively reliable. Using this as a basis of further action, however, might be difficult given the inherent limitations of the existing conditions – meaning that small-scale, piloted changes should probably be achieved. This research did not delve into ethical issues to any great degree, which is largely a consequence of the types of data collected. It is very hard to cause significant harm through use of a questionnaire, and likewise interviews with professional staff will involve all participants being aware of what is going on as something of a matter of course. On the other hand, it still would have been beneficial for some indication to have been given that the focus groups included participants who were willing to participate, were fairly compensated for their time or so-on, given that young students were a part of them, and observation of their behavior was a significant part of the analysis, along with their responses. Though the research for this study was relatively well conducted, there are several ways it could probably be improved. One would be attempting to link find what if any correlation occurs between the soft outcomes and hard outcomes studied with youth-workers. Furthermore, a greater control and differentiation of students being interviewed may have been useful in order to see what if any differences occurred between youth work amongst students in different situations – especially given that the research wanted to pay particular attention to the “quietly disengaged” it would have been beneficial to have a more stringent definition of that term given, and some indication of which students and their responses might qualify. Furthermore, as mentioned above, giving greater precedence to youths themselves and less to youth workers and their professional colleagues might have been useful, given that any outcomes should be observable by and from the students themselves, who are also less likely to be biased. Finally, a survey about professional staff’s relationship with youth work might have helped determine to what extent bias occurred, by, for instance, having the first interview question be something such as “did you expect youth work to have positive effects” or “what was your opinion on youth work before you began working with youth workers.” Overall, this report represents a very well researched and though out documentation of the current state of youth work in schools in Northern Ireland. There is a possibility that the research goals might have been somewhat overambitious, given the relatively small sample size, and the fact remains that the qualitative techniques employed mean that these findings might not be able to be widely generalized or used as a guide for future actions in integrating youth work more effectively into formal educational structures, one of the stated aims of the researchers. The research piece made excellent use of existing research on similar topics, and had admirable context at every point throughout, meaning the reader could always feel they had a strong grasp of the material regardless of their background in the field, something that is always helpful when dealing with professional staff. The work did have some weaknesses, such as a self-selecting sample (to a certain extent) but there is a very significant degree to which this could not be avoided by any research techniques. Probably the only weaknesses that could have practically been rectified would have been including more of a student focus in interviews, because professionals may have been somewhat overrepresented. Finally, some effort may have been needed to control bias, a relatively simple change that nonetheless went unmade. Works Cited Morgan, T, P. Morgan and B. O’Kelly (2008) “Youth Work in Schools: an Investigation of Youth Work as a Process of Informal Learning, in Formal Settings.” Cohen, L; Marion, L and Morrison, K (2000) “Research Methods in Education (5th Edition). London, Routledge. Read More