|
|
Definitions
The previous discussion raises some issues with the terms being used in this study:
 Engagement with school can be understood to be related to issues of retention, but it transcends that. An early study (Holdsworth, 1985) examined the use of the term 'participation' and distinguished meanings associated with presence (participation 'in' schooling) or activity (participation 'at' school) but want to go beyond to look at active participation in decisions about one's life and community ('through' school). Similarly, we can tease out limited meanings of engagement 'in' schooling (ie related to retention) but need to go further to look at young people's engagement 'with' school (ie their enjoyment of and commitment to learning). The latter obviously also requires the former as a necessary pre-condition. This is the meaning adopted by studies looking at 'alienation and engagement' (ACSA, 1994) with school. However, as Johnson and O'Brien (2002) point out, perhaps only the learner can truly identify the existence of deeper engagement.
Critical Questions 2:
It is important to be clear about the terms we are using, because they determine the scope of our interests. So, when we talk of 'engagement with school', what do we have in mind? How do we determine this?
|
Voice has similarly diverse meanings, and the word has become shorthand for a range of practices from consultation to active participation. The 'ladder of youth participation' developed by Roger Hart (1992, 1997), building on the work of Sherry Arnstein (1969), is perhaps the best known illustration of this, and this has been applied by the UK Consulting Pupils About Teaching and Learning project to schools, and extended multi-dimensionally by de Kort (1999) and Holdsworth (2003). (insert ladder here?)
Even in discussing the limited meaning of 'voice', the attached Annotated Bibliography (screen 13) points to the possibilities for such voices being heard directly (through qualitative studies), or inferred from quantitative surveys (eg that ask young people to 'tick the box') or from observed practice. Those discussing such issues point to the need to recognise plural voices (we all speak with different voices, depending on circumstances), diverse voices (such as is being considered in a current study for the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS) and in the South Australian Inclusive Voices strategy) and 'difficult voices' (Comber, 2003). They also point to the importance of considering what is allowed to be said, who is listening, what is being heard and what spaces exist for negotiating and acting upon voices (Fielding, 2001; Holdsworth, 2005b).
Critical Questions 3:
Before we start thinking about encouraging young people's voices, what measures are we putting into place to ensure that we listen and that we hear? How and where do we hear the voices of young people? What will we do with what we hear?
|
High support needs in mental health is not a term that is widely used within the literature. Perhaps it is a newly emerging terminology in response to moves for more openness and sharing of information about mental health and mental illness. Perhaps it is also intended to shift a focus from individuals ('with mental health problems') to system responses ('with high support needs').
However, it is still contentious in its application, both as a 'label' (or search term) and also as a term that young people might use about themselves. A parallel situation was observed in the 'Building Relationships' study (ACEE/AYRC, 2001). Here, the researchers were asked to identify the perspectives of 'at risk' young people, but struggled with this term in both the theory and the practice of the study; many young people interviewed rejected the relevance and accuracy of such notions and rejected seeing themselves as 'at risk' at all. Descriptive terms, while of some use, do not solve - and may exacerbate - problems.
Critical Questions 4:
We want to hear what certain young people are saying. But how do we identify these young people? What are the advantages and dangers of such identification?
And if we can agree on how to identify them, to what extent do we assume that these young people form a consistent group with similar views?
|
In this study, parallels have been drawn from other literature sources: around those generally typified as 'at risk' and those with 'high support needs' in areas of 'in care', 'disability', 'brain injury', and 'drugs and alcohol'. There have also been some specific studies in areas such as anxiety, depression and body image.
In looking at this literature, we need to think about the attributes and perspectives that might or can be recognised as "distinctly different/unique" for this group and what might or can be assumed to be held 'in common' with other specific groups of young people.
Critical Questions 5:
What assumptions are we making about what is different about the perspectives of young people with high support needs in mental health?
What assumptions can we make about what is common with other groups?
|
|
|
