Prioritising young peoples’ voices in research and work in youth offending services: Themes from free association research methods and a co-production project with young people

Abstract

Aims:To influence educational psychology practice by sharing key themes from research and work capturing young peoples’ experiences of engaging with youth offending services (YOS).Rationale:The prioritisation of the voice of the child in educational psychology practice is central to inclusivity (Davie, 1993; Messiou, 2002). Professionals capture and respond to the voices of children and young people, with varying degrees of authenticity, accountability and longevity (Hart, 1992; Hart et al., 2004). It is important that adults facilitate and support meaningful participation (Hart, 2008) by employing appropriate methods to enable young people to share their narratives. This paper seeks to influence educational psychology practice through the authentic voice of young people; focusing on what they say works when they are engaging with youth offending services, and highlighting accessible methods used to elicit voices.Method:The author discusses their experience of using free associative methods; the Grid Elaboration Method (GEM) (Joffe & Elsey, 2014) and the Free Association Narrative Interview (FANI) (Hollway & Jefferson, 2008) as part of their qualitative doctoral research with five young people recruited through a local authority YOS, answering the research question ‘What do participants talk about when asked about their engagement experiences with youth offending services?’ The author describes how these approaches facilitated accessible means to hearing young peoples’ voices, capturing their views through codes and themes illuminated through thematic analysis. Prioritisation of child voice during this formative experience inspired a co-production project creating a whiteboard video describing young peoples’ experience of working with a YOS. It provided space, voice, audience and influence to young people involved (Lundy, 2007) and through it, an accessible resource exists for those who may engage with YOS in the future.Limitations:The small number of participants recruited for the original research study (five) and the co-production project in YOS (six), impedes generalisability. Further limitations relate to the interpretivist nature of the original piece of research and following co-production project. The psycho-social approach, inherently acknowledges the subjective nature of analysis undertaken, suggesting that each individual researcher may analyse the data from a subjective perspective and therefore may come to different themes than those illuminated by this researcher.Implications and discussion:Themes that emerged through the script and visual imagery during the co-production project are linked back to key themes from the author’s original research. Key considerations for educational psychologists working in YOS are shared, focusing on the role educational psychologists can play in supporting young peoples’ meaningful engagement through supporting relationship and identity development and the structural processes that serve psychological functions. Proposals for educational psychology roles in YOS that provide consultative and supervisory support as well as in strategic shaping of services are also shared.