The 'Voice' of Young People

Contents
Foreword
Section One
So what is ‘Voice’
Assumption One
Assumption Two
Assumption Three
Assumption Four
Diagram of Assumptions
The Basic Qualities of ‘Voice’
Section Two
Voice: Reasons, Responses and Roles
Why Do Professionals Get Involved With ‘Voice’
Why Should Young People Get Involved In ‘Voice’
Different Voices, Different Outcomes, Different Methods
What Kind Of Voice Are You Looking For
What Kind of Voice Are Happy With
What Kind of Processes Help Young People Find Their ‘Voice’
Section Three
A Case Study of Developing A Critical Voice
Context
Issues
Roles
Journal Extracts
What Happened At the End
Shifts and Tensions
Bibliography
Endnotes
3

Foreword
The link between the rights of young people, their personal development and treatment
by society and the issue of 'voice' has been of interest to those who work with and
represent young people, for some time. More recently the term 'voice' has become
increasingly fashionable along with ‘empowerment’, working from the 'bottom up',
partnership, and participation. As these 'buzz' terms, have been re-interpreted in different
contexts and applied to different issues there is a danger of them losing their meaning.
'Voice' is now used in a wide variety of projects and policies from advocacy to consumer
rights and citizenship education. The 'voice' of young people is being increasingly sought
as part of the general move towards social inclusion. It is part of central and local
government rhetoric but as it gains in popular usage it becomes increasingly open to
question and criticism. The fact is that young people are already 'voicing' their views. The
key question is how, and if, professionals and policy makers listen and respond.
The main aim of this booklet is to bring together the disparate ideas and practices covered
by the term ‘voice’. We have tried to organise these so that those working with young
people can consider their own understanding of ‘voice’ and critically reflect on
alternative ideas and their own practice.
The booklet is in three main sections. In the first we explore common assumptions about
‘voice’ which appear to influence how different groups of professionals think about the
term. As a group of researchers and practitioners we each have different backgrounds in
teaching and youth work and this section was written as we sat brainstorming what we
thought to be the main common sense assumptions made about voice. Added to this was
our involvement with several research projects most notably a project carried out for the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation around the theme 'the Voice of Young People in Preventive
Work With the Family'. These brainstorming sessions were valuable because they
revealed differences in our understandings and generated heated discussions. For the
purposes of this booklet we have distilled these sessions into four common sense
assumptions which we found to be a useful starting point from which to 'unpick' the key
arguments. We hope they will help you will start your own discussions and arguments.
In the second section we explore the relationships between the role of those who work
with young people, the issues that affect young people and the contexts in which this
work takes place whether it be a school, a youth group, local community or a 'one off'
conference. The key questions here are why people get involved with 'voice', what
strategies are used to help young people to get their views and opinions noticed and acted
on and what are the different types of 'voice'.
The final section relates specifically to one of our experiences of working with 'voice'. It
is a case study of one project that aimed to support a group of young men excluded from
school to express their views about their school. It explores the problems encountered by
the project team and illuminates some of the key tensions around ‘voice’. It picks up on
4

the second section through a discussion of the type of 'voice' we tried to develop and why
we think that 'voice' is a meaningful concept in this type of work. These shifts and
tensions are explored through journal extracts which each of us kept throughout the six
month project.
Each section stands on its own. The booklet can either be read as a whole from beginning
to end or in a different sequence.
5

Section One: So what is ‘Voice’
The Basic Qualities of ‘Voice’
Although we don’t want to offer a definition of ‘voice’ there are a number of common
themes which run through many of the assumptions, and much of the literature. Below
we pull these together as a list of basic qualities.
It privileges experience, over theory or training, as the basis of an individual’s
understanding of an issue or activity, and the meaning they give to it. (It
fundamentally relies on an ‘interior authenticity’, Siegel 1997, which is hard to
demonstrate)
“Voice is meaning that resides in the individual and enables that individual to participate
in a community … The struggle for voice begins when a person attempts to communicate
meaning to someone else. Finding the word, speaking for oneself and feeling heard by
others is all a part of this process… Voice suggests relationships: the individual’s
relationship to the meaning of her/his experience and hence, to language, and the
individual’s relationship to the other, since understanding is a social process.” (Britzman
1990, quoted in Connelly and Clandinin 1990)
It favours the excluded, silenced or sub-ordinated voices over dominant voices in
terms of initiating and guiding change. It raises concern over the appropriateness of
existing mechanisms to facilitate the voice of those already marginalised and ignored.
“Youth councils and youth forums are used in many areas to provide a voice for local
young people but often suffer by appearing tokenistic or attracting only the more active
and more able members of the community. In addition, many youth consultation schemes
flounder due to the fact that young people, already insecure and suspicious of authority
are forced into ‘adult’ decision-making mechanisms. They are effectively being set up to
fail.” (Hurley and Duxbury 1999 p.7)
It is an inclusive idea that recognises the proliferation of voices and the increasingly
fragmented nature of people’s experiences, and hence their understanding. (It is
culturally specific with its validity arising from who is speaking, rather than being
sanctioned by who is listening.)
The converse of having a voice is being silenced. A group can be silenced in many
ways, from being ignored to being stereotyped in such a way as to invalidate what
they say. A key part of the discussions around ‘voice’ is to examine and challenge the
processes which silence groups.
“Research on (school) dropouts has been predominately concerned since the 1960s with
examining samples of dropouts in order to identify common personal and social
characteristics…..This agenda places the blame on the victim rather than the institution
6

from which they have been excluded…. The few studies that have examined the
experiences and perspectives of dropouts themselves.. have challenged the notion that
schools do not contribute to the decision.. The tendency to label dropouts as incompetent
in schools because they possess characteristics identified as the products of deficient
homes and cultural backgrounds means that their critiques are not recognised. Thus the
criticism of schools as sites of unequal opportunities are silenced.” (p.261-263 Stevenson
and Ellsworth 199..)
‘Voice’ and what it means to articulate it or give voice mean different things to
different people. In later sections we discuss various types of ‘voice’ which gain their
authority from the way in which they are expressed. There are though more
fundamental differences between what people mean by the term ‘voice’. For some it
is synonymous with young people simply expressing their point of view on a subject
for others it is a much broader act of recognition which values and recognises much
broader aspects of young peoples experiences and their cultures than those they can
articulate.
7

Assumptions and Arguments
Different professionals have different understandings of 'voice' and raise a range of
concerns about it. Rather than list all of these we want to explore the confusion around
the term ‘voice’ by examining some of the common sense assumptions people make
about it. The aim of this section is therefore to help you come to your own understanding
of the main arguments and issues raised by professionals working with young people.
We look at four key assumptions:
Young people’s 'voice' is important because it is based on their experience.
Young people can tell professionals about their experiences in a way which is
meaningful and will help them understand more about young people.
Professionals have few opportunities to hear young people.
Young people can get things changed by getting their voices heard.
We unpick each assumption in turn by putting forward alternative arguments and
perspectives. We want to show how each of these assumptions has been challenged in the
debate surrounding the worth of young people’s voice. These challenges range from the
practical to the more philosophical in nature. All we can do in this section is highlight
some of the main criticisms of these assumptions and give you a broad framework to
critically examine what others have said. A brief overview of each assumption, and how
we have developed it, and the arguments surrounding it are laid out in the following
diagram. These are then discussed in more detail in the subsequent sections.
8

Assumption One
Young peoples’ 'voice' is important because it is based on their experience.
Probably the most fundamental assumption made about the ‘voice’ of young people is:
That we should listen to it because it is the voice of experience. Only young people
can really know “How it is” to be a young person at this particular time, in this
particular community, as a member of this youth club, as a pupil in this school.
This leads us on to two further assumptions.
That young people hold their particular views and opinions because of the specific
nature of their experiences as young people.
That together their experiences and beliefs give them a particular way of looking at
the world around which creates a ‘young people’s perspective’.
It is the combination of their unique experiences, beliefs and opinions, and their outlook,
which makes it so worthwhile to listen to young people.
Only young people can really know “How it is” to be a young person at this
particular time.
The main challenges to this assumption have their roots in the historical development of
how young people have been viewed by society as a whole. The central question is to
what extent do young people know and see things differently not because of their
experience but because they have less mature/ sophisticated/ realistic understandings of
“How things are”. In its extreme form this view has been used to silence the viewpoints
of young people. It was not worth listening to them because they had not developed the
cognitive skills and abilities to make any ‘real’ sense of the world.
As this extreme view has became more discredited, sometimes due to the tragic
consequences of ignoring young people (ref), professionals are left to struggle with their
recognition that young people may hold certain views because of a lack of experience,
and skills, rather than because of having a unique insight. This issue often comes down to
the extent to which professionals are happy to work with the ‘natural’ voice of young
people or whether they prefer to develop a more informed or critical voice.
11

Young people hold their particular views and opinions because of the specific nature
of their experiences as young people.
A key criticism of this assumption is to what extent are young peoples’ views their own,
in the sense of being based on their experience, and to what extent they are influenced by
other people’s views and agendas. It touches on the same debate as the previous
assumption about how ‘natural’ are the opinions we get from young people but also raises
additional questions about the power of others to shape the perceptions of a young
generation. Like adults young people form their opinions on the basis of the social norms
and values that surround them as well as their experiences although they can be seen as
particularly susceptible to certain forms of manipulation because of the specific power
relationships in which they are caught up. This view can be used to invalidate the voice
of young people.
The question here is the extent to which young people are given the opportunity to define
their own perspectives in the process of articulating themselves. This is often discussed in
terms of the extent to which the power relationships shift in the process of articulation.
This shift is from one in which young people receive their rights via the adults who care
and provide for them, to ones in which they have the capacity to exercise the rights on the
basis of being recognised as equal to other groups in society. Here it is helpful to look at
the distinction that Beresford and Croft (1993) make between approaches, which put
young people in very different power relationships. They categorise approaches as either
consumerist or democratic.
A democratic approach moves beyond seeing young people simply as consumers of
services to include involvement in wider decision making and the change process. As
consumers they have limited rights, and the only power they may have is to choose not to
use a service, to vote with their feet. In a democratic approach they have a more
developed set of rights but with this comes various responsibilities. For some these
responsibilities include a commitment to becoming more aware of where their views
come from and being critical of these origins. In a very real sense young people tend to
be asked to earn rights that are often simply given to adults.
Together young people’s experiences and beliefs give them a particular way of
looking at the world from which they create a ‘young people’s outlook’ on life.
Young peoples’ lives and experiences are at least as diverse as those of other social
groups. When we set out to listen to their voice as young people we need to recognise
that being young is only part of what creates this perspective. They are also young men
and women, they come from different ethnic and social class backgrounds, live in
different family structures and come from a range of communities. This brings us back to
the very first assumption about the primacy of young people’s experience and the specific
insights they have. The question is how specific and unique a set of experiences should
we be looking at The experiences of young working class Muslim women may have
very little in common with the experience of middle class rural young men. At one level
this fragmentation raises technical question about how representative or inclusive a
12

sample of young people are. In certain cases where the voice sought is very specific
fragmentation may not be an issue. At a more fundamental level it can challenge the
validity of the idea of there being a young persons’ perspective. It raises question about
whether we do young people a service in raising their voice in isolation from others in
their community. Would it not be better to raise their voice in combination with their
families or other groups of young people
Assumption One
Young peoples’
'voice' is
important
because it is
based on their
experience.
Young peoples’
views are different
from adults
because of the
experience they
have.
There is a young
peoples’ perspective
on many issues and
experiences
Are young
peoples’
views based
on a lack of
experience
To what extent
are young
peoples’ views
shaped by other
people
How specific
and unique a
perspective do
you want
13

Assumption Two
Young people can tell professionals about their experiences in a way, which is
meaningful and will help them understand more about young people.
Young people are not asked to ‘voice’ simply for their own good, although a number of
personal benefits are claimed for them in doing so. Rather they are being given the
opportunity to do so because people believe they can learn from what they are saying. A
fundamental assumption then about voice is that:
Young people can relate their experiences in a way which is meaningful to and useful
for adults
Along with this basic assumption come two others
Young people need help to articulate their views effectively
Young people are in the best position to talk about being young
Young people can relate their experiences in a way that is meaningful to and useful
for adults.
The issue with this assumption is not that young people will or will not make sense but
rather what kind of meaning young people will set out to create in the process of giving
voice. The phenomena of adults being told what they want or expect to hear is well
known amongst professionals working with young people on behalf of the courts or
social services [ref]. Of course this effect is not restricted to young people and it is a
two-way process. Adults too position themselves differently in a variety of social
relationships, including their interactions with young people and children. Researchers
and professionals working with young people are complicit in this “story telling.” It is,
therefore, not something that can be eliminated, rather something that it is important to
manage as part of a process. Interviews are often described as ‘tales told to tourists’ to an
extent you cannot avoid some of this, possibly the best way of thinking about this is to
ask yourself, ‘What kind of tourist do you want to be’, and ‘What kind of stories do you
want to hear’.
Young people need help to articulate their views effectively
There are a number of challenges made to this assumption. The basis of many of these is
the view that young people only appear to need help because adults fail to understand that
they are already giving voice, but in ways adults don’t recognise. At this point we should
ask if voice is just about words and consider the degree to which young people’s views
can be adequately expressed through talk alone. Do we undervalue the other ways young
people can express themselves, for example through: behaviour, clothes, music, apathy,
14

loyalty and just as importantly silence Power attaches to particular modes of expression
and often this can serve to exclude particular groups including young people. Research
and policy making narrowly based on verbally articulate participants will necessarily fail
to include the views of people expressed in other ways. However, young people are
doubly disadvantaged in this regard since, as mentioned earlier, it is often assumed they
have not yet developed the capacity to express themselves in the way required to exercise
their rights as citizens.
Young people are in the best position to talk about being young
Researchers and professionals are often in the position of having to balance the fact that
young people know a lot about their own lives with their own concern that young people
might be blinkered both about the limits of this knowledge and what they know of other
young people’s lives. In working to achieve a suitable balance we think the issue of
authenticity, which we have developed the next section, is of crucial importance. We do
not think that there can be a simple formula to follow here, there should however be some
means of challenging the working assumption that it is possible to develop an “objective”
representation of the differing views and experiences of young people.
Assumption Two
Young people can
tell professionals
about their
experiences in a way
that is meaningful.
Young people need
help to articulate
their views
Young people are in
the best position to
talk about being
young.
If they are asked about
things that adults want to
hear do young people
tell them stories to shock
or what they think they
want to hear
Do adults fail to
recognise, and
value, all the
ways young
people express
their views
How much do
young people view
the lives of their
peers through the
blinkers of their
own life
15

Assumption Three
Professionals have few opportunities to hear young people.
The growing interest in ‘voice’ is partially premised on the assumption that many
professionals are distanced from young people. A distance which comes about because
they have limited contact with them or the kind of contact they have means there is little
opportunity for them to listen to young people’s views and opinions. The assumption
that:
Professionals have few opportunities to hear young people.
This leads on to further sets of assumptions about the kind of ‘voice’ professionals, and in
some case politicians, prefer to listen to and the need for specific innovations to make
that happen.
Professionals will listen to a representative and considered voice from young people.
Young people require their own structures and specifically designed process to help
them get their voice heard.
Professionals have few opportunities to hear young people
The issue here is not so much about whether this assumption is true or not, bearing in
mind what has already been discussed about the failure of people to recognise different
forms of voice, but rather why this situation has come about. Is it due to over worked
professionals having insufficient time Do people need more and better training to
consult other How well are professionals coping with a more fragmented and diverse
society. Or is it the case, as in the work we describe in the section of the booklet, that
the voice of young people often gets drowned out by other dominant voices which
professionals have to listen to
Professionals will listen to a representative and considered voice from young people
Young people need to understand their audience well. They need to know what kind of
voice is most likely to have an impact. Many groups of professionals are bombarded with
surveys and profiles of local communities which they have little time to absorb or which
they can not relate to their own practice. In becoming more knowledgeable about the
codes and expectations of their audiences, young people are in a position to strike a better
balance between being considered and being challenging. To some extent considered
arguments and viewpoints are recognised as such because they are received in the
language of the listener and helping young people to play this game with authenticity is
not an easy task. Researchers too have much to overcome in traditional fieldwork
practices if young people’s experiences are not to be reconstructed within the language
16

and concerns of adults. What we aim at in the following sections is to mention research
that has young people involved as critical participants, who are part of the research
process, rather than an object of its enquiry (Nespor 1998, Hurley 1998, Alderson 1995
and Hood et al. 1996).
Later on we discuss two different types of ‘voice’ and possibly the biggest criticism of
this assumption is that there is no one kind of ‘voice’ which is most likely to get a
reaction. Rather it is knowing when to speak in what particular kind of ‘voice’ and having
the confidence to do so. A youth worker we talked to described this very well when he
said that more often than not, when faced with an audience of adults, young people would
like to ‘voice’ their perspectives and then run away rather than face the reaction. These
may be the skills young people need to develop rather than worrying over giving ‘due
consideration’ to their beliefs or if a representative sample of young people have been
consulted.
Young people require their own structures and specifically designed process to help
them get their voice heard.
Some of the other underlying assumptions have led people to argue for the use of
particular techniques or completely separate processes when working with young people.
Developing approaches, which are attractive to young people and involving them actively
in the process is seen as particularly important because of the alienation of young people
from many of the other structures that exist because of these are targeted at adults.
There are problems though, with special techniques and separate procedures and that is
the extent to which the perspectives and issues of young people appear as they do
because they are framed by what they are asked and how they are asked. This in turn
impacts on the effect that young people can have on the policy and decision making that
affects their lives. Many projects working with young people such as those urban
regeneration projects that have included strategies to involve young people. As
Fitzpatrick et al. (1998) point out, creating separate structures for responding to the needs
of young people can have the effect of marginalising them. They describe clear evidence
of a tension between foregrounding young people in urban regeneration and
compartmentalising youth issues.
In a heavily pressured beuracratic environment, systems that appear to raise the voices of
young people can often serve to normalise and disperse alternative views and thereby
reinforce adult structures, schools are examples of such places (Fine 1998, Gitlin 1990).
The numbers of young people directly involved in communicating and reporting to adults
in School Councils (ACE 1995) and Youth Forums (Willow 1997) are relatively small.
Though in each case the aim is to make these young people representative of the majority
and their issues, the evidence is that much of what young people get to talk about comes
from the prevailing adult agenda. Unless young people are given the space they need to
reflect on their own issues, it is always more likely that the default agenda will come
from elsewhere.
17

Assumption Three
Professionals have
few opportunities
to hear young
people.
Professionals will
listen to the
considered voice
of young people.
Young people require
their own structures
and specific processes
to help them make an
impact.
Is this due to over
work Does it reflect a
lack of interest Do
they need more
training
How can young people
challenge stereotypical
views of themselves
How do we help young
people balance being
considered with being
challenging
Do adults rely too
much on structures
which suit them
and not young
people
18

Assumption Four
Although there are numerous personal outcomes which young people can achieve
through being involved in voicing their views and experiences this is not generally there
prime motivation for doing so. Young people want something to change, something to
happen, somebody to take note. They want an impact. They assume, even if many
professionals do not that:
They can get things changed by getting their voices heard.
But what they are able to impact on is limited by two further assumptions.
There are only certain issues on which young people need to be consulted.
Young people are particularly effective at influencing other young people.
Young people can get things changed by getting their voices heard
For all the effort and time put into the numerous projects that have tried to get young
peoples’ voices heard, and the notable successes of a number of them, (ref) the
widespread impact of these many initiatives has been called into question. Although
professionals have employed innovative methods for reaching and working with excluded
and vulnerable young people through Youth Forums [ref orange book/white book],
there is little evidence to suggest that they have been able to impact on the wider policy
concerns of local authorities and service providers. Similarly, a recent evaluation of
Schools Councils (ref) has shown them as having a limited impact on practices within
schools. As professionals we need to ask ourselves why this should be so.
What power has the ‘voice’ of young people to make things happen It cannot be the
power to re-direct resources, or access influential groups. Perhaps the answer lies in its
perceived authenticity. We develop this point in Section Two as we discuss two different
types of 'voice', the authentic 'voice' and the critical 'voice'. But at this point we would
like to differentiate between the emphasis placed on young peoples’ direct representation
in decision making and their participation in providing a voice to be listened to and
considered by others.
Increasingly young people are being asked to participate in a wide range of initiatives
considered by adults to be of relevance to them. There is an expectation on professionals
that they show evidence of working with a broad range of groups in terms of ‘race’,
ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality and age. This drive towards inclusive and ‘bottomup’
approaches is based on a desire to reach out to the most excluded of young people, is
partially responsible for the popularity of new consultation techniques and structures.
There is a though danger that all this activity at the ‘bottom’ will not result in new or
innovative decisions because of a failure to devolve decision making down the ‘ladder of
participation’ (Arnstein 197). A failure to change cultures within organisations and
19

means that these voices lack the ability to bring about change due to a lack of
representation at the point where decisions are made.
The recognition that young people have a particular perspective on a certain issue or
experience situations differently can both legitimate their voice and be used to silence it.
This kind of silencing can be subtle as it asks for young peoples’ opinions on certain
areas but disregards their views on areas still seen as the preserve of professionals or
adults.
The involvement of young people in schools again provides a good example of this.
Since the Elton report (DES 1989) on effective discipline in schools it has become
common to involve pupils in the writing of school rules and codes of conduct with a view
to fostering a sense of ownership and shared purpose. Indeed, the responses of head
teachers to the ACE survey on school democracy, previously mentioned, cites discipline
and school uniform as two major areas of pupil involvement, with very little evidence
that pupils have had an impact on other wider policy issues.
The most researched example of this tension between participation and representation is
that of school councils. Here members of the school community, pupils, previously
excluded from the decision making process are being encouraged to participate. They are
though rarely given representation on the governing bodies of schools or a presence
within school management teams, the forums in which most major decisions are made.
This means that their ‘voice’ can be, and often is, filtered out through a series of
structural processes leading up to this point. Having a Schools Council is becoming an
accepted part of the structure of the school but this will have little effect on key decisions
unless there is a corresponding cultural shift within the school that allows for students to
take part in the wider decision making processes.
The move towards representation and participation has been tempered by a desire to keep
this within the boundaries of what educational professionals see as appropriate. Students
can feasibly have a ‘voice’ in writing school rules but not in the appointment of new staff
or more far ranging policy initiatives. Again the power of their ‘voice’ is diluted as it is
channelled into ‘safe’ spaces and managed by more powerful ‘voices’.
Young people are particularly effective at influencing other young people
This assumption has been partially validated by the success of innovations such as peer
education projects in areas where professionals have had limited success with more
traditional approaches, for example in areas such as drugs and sex education. With these
alternative initiatives the empathy and understanding that young people are deemed to
have with other young people who have similar experiences is considered to be the key to
their effectiveness.
Use work here on the CAST mentoring project. Background information and interview
quotes (see Kaye).
20

These approaches have their place but come with several ‘health warnings’. First, there is
the issue of defining groups by the problems they have experienced. There is a danger
that placing people into crude categories of experience and matching these up with other
‘similar’ young people can become a very subtle form of silencing. In that we start to
listen to people only as ‘homeless’ or as a ‘drug user’ so we come to value only part of
their experiences.
Second is the question of the extent to which professionals in building their work around
excluded groups and supporting their work with other young people facing similar
problems fragment the voice of young people and sanitise it around a number of ‘issues’.
For example, becoming homeless is a devastating event in anyone’s life but one that is
experienced very differently by young people. Becoming homeless after leaving care,
through drug addiction or because one has broken a moral codes of ones community and
been expelled are all very different experiences. Bringing together young people to voice
about ‘being homeless’ can paradoxically fail to articulate the general issues which affect
all those young people from a certain community while failing to grasp the totality of
their individual experiences.
Categorising a young Asian women as homeless who has been expelled from her
community for breaking a contested moral rule can fail to direct attention to general
issues such as the relationship between young people and community elders while
missing out on the specifics of the cultural and social capital that young woman draws on
when dealing with her situation. There is a danger of the pragmatic concerns of
professionals, and young people, being foregrounded to the detriment of developing a
wider and deeper understanding of young people.
These issues became apparent when we worked with a group of young men about their
experiences of being excluded. This project is written up as case study in the next section
and is an illustration of the impact of professionals applying categories to young people.
They were not a ‘natural’ group in that they had come together because they were
considered by their teachers to be at risk of exclusion. Most of the group had already
been temporarily excluded from school and some were on the verge of permanent
exclusion. The reasons for their exclusion were varied. Some of the group were bullies
others had reacted to being bullied by ‘acting out’ in the classroom. These experiences
were subsumed beneath their common experience of being excluded. An experience
shaped by the professionals that worked with them and which gained meaning from a
context defined by them. Although there was a common experience of exclusion it was
imposed on top of, and given a name, by others not the young men in the group. As we
worked with the group to help them ‘voice’ their experience of exclusion many of the
problems we encountered arose because their reasons for being part of this group were so
diverse .
21

Section Two: VOICE: Benefits,
Responses and Roles
In this section we look at the process of supporting young people articulate their voice
and try to answer questions of particular relevance to professionals who may have to
initiate and managing this process. The literature on ‘voice’ tends to be light on the
evaluation of what works, with a few noticeable exemptions i.e. Fitzpatrick et al 1998
and ACE, and heavy on accounts of different methods and specific projects, while
containing the odd theoretical dispute as to the role of the professional (ref). Rather than
repeat the arguments over whether to empower young people or provide better services to
consumers, or if ”young people want to join the world” (ref) rather than change it, we
would rather examine the process issues by breaking it down into a series of basic
questions. The questions that interested us were:
What were the claims being made about ‘voice’ in terms of its impact on young
people and others
What appear to be the most popular techniques and methods currently being used
Do these different techniques produce the same kind of ‘voice’
What issues did those designing and managing these processes see as important
What were the claims being made about voice in terms of its impact on
young people and others
In the literature significantly the most commonly mentioned impacts are on young people
themselves, rather than on others. In part this reflects workers and young people
confidence in claiming success in areas of personal development rather than much more
difficult to measure aspects such as changing policies and the minds of politicians. On the
other hand the very nature of giving people a voice is that it can be a long-term process
and its eventual impact difficult to measure in objective terms.
“The impacts of youth involvement on regeneration strategies and projects were minor an
limited to youth-specific issues rather than matters affecting the community as a whole.
However, the individual young people involved in initiatives have gained considerable
benefits such as self-confidence and skills. Youth involvement has also had a very
positive impact on the perceptions of councillors, officials and community activists.”
(Fitzpatrick et al 1998 p.vi)
When broader outcomes were clamed they were often prescribed by the imperative to
give young people a voice about the nature of services that t have been boosted by several
22

ecent ‘scandals’ concerning child abuse and the quality of services. Murch and Cooper
(1992) reflecting on the move towards greater representation of young people in child
care proceedings highlight the credibility of professionals ‘voice’ and the quality of
existing provision as two key reasons.
“First professional scepticism of what was sometimes contained in welfare reports;
second, increasing public awareness, fuelled by a succession of child abuse tragedies, that
the realities of local child care practice often left much to be desired.” (p.69)
In many instances the twins aims of developing young people through their involvement
and changing communities and institutional processes are both present. A point illustrated
by the following quote from a member of a Youth Forum in North Yorkshire. Here Liz
describes the personal gains she has made and the impact she has had on her local
community.
‘The whole point of the Forum was to get a voice in the community’, recalls 15-year-old
Liz Nesfield, who believes that her experience of public speaking and lobbying through
Forum activities has significantly enhanced her self-confidence. ‘We had to forge a path
on our own though, and make sure they respected us.” (McFall 1998)
The presence of outcomes at the personal, institutional and community level in many of
the projects we have reviewed reflects not just an inclusive vision of increasing young
peoples’ say but also the realpolitik of organisation. Managers, workers and young people
may have divergent agendas about the outcomes they seek from the process of giving
‘voice’.
The breadth of claims made about the process of giving voice for young people has been
expanded even further because workers from many different services and types of
organisations have become involved. Workers in areas such as education, health, youth
work, social work, psychotherapy, disability rights, and social exclusion have all
developed different types of processes.
Below we set out some of the more commonly stated reasons why giving ‘voice’ is seen
as beneficial to young people and how professionals justify it in relation to their
professional beliefs and values. If you are already involved with young people it may be
helpful to review your own work in the light of these different reasons and see how many
different sets of intentions, and who holds them, are present in your own work with
young people.
Because they have a right to be heard
The ‘voice’ of young people figures highly in the children’s rights movement. Young
people as members of society have a right to express their views on how they wish to be
treated and on the decisions made about them. Article 12 of The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), adopted in the UK in 1991, states:
23

“Parties shall assure to the child, who is capable of forming his or her own views, the
right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child
being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” (United
Nations 1989)
In specific circumstances there is a statutory or legal requirement to set out different
guidelines, codes of practice and policies i.e. the LGMB Guidance on Local Agenda 21
and Young People 1996……..) that young people are given an opportunity to voice their
view point. For example, in education the 1994 Code of Practice on the Identification and
Assessment of Special Educational Needs (DFEE 1994) states the following principal.
“Principal – children have a right to heard. They should be encouraged to participate in
decision-making about provision to meet their special educational needs.” para 2:35
Which results in the recommendation that:
“Schools should, therefore make every effort to identify and ascertain views and wishes
of the child or young person about his or her current and future education.” (DFE, 1994,
pp. 14)
Because young people gain personally from the process of finding their voice and
getting it heard
In areas such as education, youth and social work a great deal of emphasis is placed on
the gains for young people in stating their views and becoming active in their
communities. Articulating their opinion is seen as an intrinsically worthwhile activity
with outcomes which range from increased self confidence, through developing specific
skills to enhanced attitudes about political and civic life.
“Among other factors, having your ‘problems and views listened to’ ….. were
significantly associated with higher levels of self esteem.” (Katz 19 discussing the
research findings of the Tomorrow’s men research project)
“As students as researchers become producers of knowledge…the more they become
agents of change. Marginalised students begin to understand that they are not always at
fault, incapable or inappropriate, that many of the problems they have in school result
from macro-forces of power interacting with the specificities of everyday lives.”
(Kincheloe and Steinberg (1998) p.242)
Because they have been excluded from other channels and structures
For some professionals supporting young people articulate their voice is a response to the
lack of opportunities for them to be heard. They can be silenced (ref) by the structures
and cultures of services and organisations which do not value their participation. Here
‘voice’ is not just about achieving positive outcomes it is also but about over coming the
negative impacts on young people of having been silenced or ignored.
24

The exclusion of young people can have an overall negative impact on them
“Our society is in danger of infantilising children, of assuming incapacity long past the
date when they are more capable. It is a matter of common sense, and instinctive good
practice of many parents living with children and many professionals working with
children, to listen to children and to encourage them to take responsibility for decisions
wherever possible.” (Hodgkin and Newell 1996 p.38)
For certain groups of young people, especially those who are already marginalised or
socially excluded the impact of having no ‘voice’ is even more profound. The Real Deal
project consulted 150 young people who had direct experience of the most severe forms
of disadvantage and exclusion and found:
“One of the most striking themes was the criticism that people within specific
organisations had failed to understand their problem or listen to their view point. ….
‘Well, Social Services, if they’d listened to me in the first place, maybe I wouldn’t be in
the position I am now. So that would have saved a whole lot of hassle.’ Nick, London”
(Bentley and Oakley 1999 p.109-110)
Because they are the clients/customers/beneficiaries/targets of our service/
company/policy/organisation
There are number of reasons why those developing policies and delivering services seen
it as important that young people are consulted. From a consumerist perspective if
services are to meet the needs of young people, and therefore be appropriate and of the
right quality, they need to be responsive to their needs.
“People below the age of twenty-five make up 35% of the population of Surrey.
Obviously, their needs, their successes and failures, and their futures are of enormous
importance to them, but they are also the primary focus of many public and voluntary
services. This strategy has been developed by a group representing many of these
agencies, with a vie wto improving what we do for young people by co-ordintaing out
strategies on some key targeted areas.” (Young People are Talking. Are you Listening
Surey Youth Strategy 1997 p.3)
From a political perspective young peoples’ involvement is to act as a counterbalance to
the ‘dominant voice’ of professionals. In launching the New Deal in N. Ireland Mo
Mowlam described the Youth Council involved with the Task Force implementing the
programme as
“The conscience of the system. I want the (Youth) Council to listen to young people and
to represent their views". (Mo Mowlam speaking at the Generation 2000 Conference in
1997, press release Northern Ireland Information Service)
25

Involving young people in the development of a programme or project is also seen as
contributing to its sustainability by increasing their sense of ownership,
“It was widely believed by officials that projects which had been developed with the aid
of youth voice would be more sustainable because young people would feel a sense of
ownership over them. It was believed that ‘ownership’ would translate into a higher level
of use and a greater respect (“if they do it up they’ll look after it”)” (Fitzpatrick et al 1998
p. 23)
There are more radical reasons for involving young peoples as users of services. Which
perceives them as being more than just part of a quality assurance system or a counter
balance but rather having a more fundamentally role shaping what is provided. One
example of this more radical way of working is the ‘Social Action Approach’. An
approach that,
“Seeks to empower residents and service users to define their own needs… It builds upon
participants’ (provider’, potential service users’ and users’) own experiences and
understanding.” (Taylor and Vig 1997)
Because they have unique perspective and ability to effect change
There are issues and groups where the voices of young people are perceived as having a
particular poignancy and influence. Young people are seen as having a greater chance
than adults or professionals of influencing other young people, in certain areas.
“Youth action has given us an avenue to express out thoughts and feelings. It has allowed
us to talk to other young people about their experience of racism and xenophobia.” Elvir
Tergic (Quoted in Hingorani, 1996)
The input of young people is seen as particularly powerful in areas where they are
deemed as having unique insights or concerns. The environment is one such issue as
young people are deemed ‘inheritors’ of the environment they are seen as having a
unique view point on current policies and practices. Hence we have a Children’s
Parliament on the Environment (a joint DETR and DfEE Initiative) which aims to:
“Build on the interest that young people have in the environment and to stimulate them to
think about what can be done and, in particular, what they can do themselves to secure a
healthy future for everyone; and provide children with an opportunity to develop an
understanding of, and take an active role in, the democratic process. It will help them
understand their duties, responsibilities and rights as citizens.” (DETR 18 th May 1999)
Because they are the future citizens
‘Voice’ is tied into the debate on citizenship at a number of levels. Not only is the process
of articulating their voice seen as a way of developing young people as citizens, their
active involvement is seen as a part solution to a wide range of issues. Schools Minister
26

Charles Clarke, commenting on the Government’s new proposals on citizenship, put
forward the idea that the active involvement of young people as citizens would have an
impact on a number of youth issues.
"Citizenship is about responsibility and the ability to discuss and resolve differences
constructively. It can also help to reduce bullying, improve school attendance and avoid
the need for exclusions.” (Schools Minister Charles Clarke, Speaking at the Institute for
Public Policy Research conference on Citizenship and Education, London, June 16 1999)
At a broader level young people need to be involved in shaping society because they will
be running it in the future.
“Young people who are aged between 12-25 now will be the employees, managers,
parents, entrepreneurs, community leaders, parents and policy makers of the future. 2020
Vision believes that these young people should have a say in their future and a voice in
influencing issues that will affect us all into the next millennium.” (The Industrial
Society, 2020 Vision Campaign)
Summary
Impact on Young People
Political Development
Understanding of political
process
Interest in democracy
Active citizenship
Social Growth
Empowerment
Sense of collective action
Running own group/project
Volunteering
Social responsibility
Educational Development
Autonomy in learning
Interpersonal skills
Communication
Debating
Decision making
Criticality
Personal growth
Improved self image
Increased confidence
Better developed
sense of fair play
Impact on Others
On the local community
More community involvement
in youth issues
Greater participation in local
democratic structures by young people
Increased awareness of youth issues
Decrease in the vilification of
young people.
Decrease in anti-social
behaviour
On services and organisation
Policy development
Policy choices/options
Changing management decision
making
Structures and procedures more open to young
people
Increased sense of ownership of
services and facilities
On Family, Friends/Peers
Befriending
Mentoring
Sharing of experiences and expertise
27

What appear to be the most popular techniques and methods currently
being used
If you are a professional interested in helping young people articulate their ‘voice’ you
have available a wide, if not bewildering, range of options. More and more techniques are
being developed and written about. There are increasing number of forums in which
young people are being asked to make a contribution and the rhetoric, if not sometimes
the reality, of many new initiatives is for a ‘bottom up’ approach to funding and policy
development. There are a plethora of different practical responses to the question of how
to help young people find their ‘voice’ and how to get it heard. These practical responses
range from structures which have a national role to the staging of one-off events.
National Initiatives
Youth Parliaments
Youth sections of national
organisations
i.e. Amnesty International
National Development Projects
Example – Use youth parliament off the Web
Institutional Structures and Mechanisms
Co-ordinated Youth Strategies
Youth Charters i
Participation policies
Youth/Consultative Forums
Youth Action Groups
School Councils
Citizen Juries ii
Example – Young People Are Talking ….. Are You Listening Surrey Youth Strategy. The first
stated aim of the strategy is, “Giving young people a voice by: enabling them to participate in
planning and decision making, acknowledging and acting upon their opinions, finding ways to
involve those who are difficult to reach or have special needs.” (Surrey Youth Strategy 1997, p.4).
The proposed actions laid out in the strategy include appointing a co-ordinator to set up a Youth
Forum in each borough, identify how organisations can involve young people in planning and
decision making at all levels, establish Action Groups, arrange an annual conference for young
people, commission research to identify those young people least able to influence decision making,
develop strategies to enable excluded young people to express their views.
28

Projects/Events
Peer Education
Advocacy
Youth Radio
Conferences
Campaigns
Example – Finding a Voice Youth Conference 1998 (Croydon Youth Service, Drop-in,
CVA). Emanating from the National Youth Week (1997) focus on Finding a Voice a
number of workers decide to get some young people together to organise an event. A
group of nine young people formed a planning group and were supported by a coordinator
and three ‘adult’ support workers. “Being the co-ordinator for the event was an
excellent employment opportunity for an 18 year old..... Being in a position of some
influence and power was in itself empowering, and enabling other young people t voice
their opinions, and merge different ideas into one day, was exciting and refreshing.”
(Rachel Minien, Conference co-ordinator). The conference included workshops on
young people’s rights, sexuality, racism, bullying and intimidation, and education. It
concluded with an ‘Oprah Winfrey’ style debate on young people’s involvement in
decision making. “Calling the even a conference was good. I felt I was being treated like
an adult, rather than being patronised. It made young people feel special.” (Delegate)
Research
Audits
Profiles
Consultations
Participatory Research
Example - The Leaving Care Research Project (1995) carried out by Save the Children, funded by
NatWest. The project carried out research into the issues facing young people leaving care. This
involved ten young care leavers recruited by SCF. Over a series of residential the young people used
their experience of care to develop a questionnaire ‘which could be sued to measure the strengths
and weaknesses of current leaving care provision and practice”. They interviewed 77 people in total
care, analysed the results and parodied a report and video. All Directors of Social Services
Departments were sent copies of the video and meeting were held with local SSD to discuss the
issues raised. This project was associated with SCF’s Life chance project based n Oxfordshire
working with disadvantaged young people aged sixteen to twenty-five. Its mission statement states
“Life chance works in partnership with children, young people and their communities to bring about
positive change for themselves and others. In all aspects of its work, Life chance is seeking to make
a reality of the rights of children and young children and is aiming to put children and young people
at the centre of development.” (Save the Children 1996)..
29

Techniques
Newsletters
Video Diaries,
Competitions,
Web sites
Example – Speak Up. Involving Young People in the Annual Planning Cycle of Coventry
Youth Service. (1995) Coventry Youth Service organised an Annual Planning Cycle to
give young people their say in the what happens in the Youth Service. Speak Up is a pack
of idea to get more young people involved in the cycle. It lists both formal and informal
methods including the development of a newsletter, wall charts with the same headings as
the Annual Report, review games, the Run-around game in which young people are asked
to stand in groups according to whether they agree, disagree or don’t know about
statements made about their club, videoing of sessions, role play, interviews, comment
sheets, photography boards, members meetings and graffiti boards.
30

Do these different techniques produce the same kind of ‘voice’
All these different strategies and techniques create, and require more than just one kind of voice. Rather than work through an
elaborate list we would rather look at just two main types of voice, both of which try to achieve very different outcomes, on the basis
of the very different qualities they possess. These two types we have termed ‘Authoritative’ and ‘Critical’ voice. We have described
these types of voice as a pair of basic equations to highlight their key properties.
Authentic + Representative = Authoritative
It is authentic because it is the ‘real’
voice of those who have shared a
common experience. This could be as
specific as being a member of the same
youth club to as general as having been a
black teenager in the 1980’s. “You had to
have been there to really know it.” There
are a number of ways this voice becomes
in-authentic including when
It is an outright lie
It is playing up to an audience
It has not been properly articulated.
Authenticated
With this type of ‘voice’ the emphasis
is on getting what is presented
authenticated by the young people
themselves. This means working on
the self awareness of those taking part
to ensure they are clear about the
purpose of what they are doing, agree
to what is being put forward, and
know how it is to be used and by
whom. They must authenticate the use
of their ‘voice’, for a certain purpose
from a position of knowledge.
An authoritative ‘voice’ is more than just the
‘voice’ of the young people who actually
take part in the process. Rather those who
participate are taken to be representative of a
whole category of young people. They are a
sample of a larger population. Young people
can become part of this sample by being
selected by their peers, chosen to reflect the
demographic spread of an area, or mirror the
profile of the users of a particular service.
+ Representational = Critical
The critical ‘voice’ sets out to challenge other
people’s views, particularly their prejudices
and stereotypes about young people. It can do
this by directly challenging existing views and
practices or by presenting alternative
perspectives. The process makes sure that the
‘voices’ this audience normally fails to listen
to, or sideline, are constantly brought back to
the foreground. This process must be based on
a clear understanding of its audience and its
habits.
31
At its best those listening take a
‘voice’ to be authoritative because it
is an honest, loud, clear and inclusive
‘voice’. At its worst it is cynically
given authority because it can be
used to justify the decisions those
listening have already made and
because it fits some of their agendas.
A ‘voice’ which its audience can
often choose to use in the way it
wants, mainly because of how it is
presented.
A critical ‘voice’ does not try to
provide a clear basis for professional
actions or decisions. Rather it
attempts to challenge the basis on
which they are currently based. It
does this by presenting different
values and experiences. It is a more
persistent voice than the authoritative
as the process of articulation tends to
be more cyclical. Making a space for
this ‘voice’ to be heard is an
important part of each cycle.

Examples of Authentic and Critical Processes
The Real Deal . A consultation carried out by DEMOS with socially excluded young people about their views on government polices,
youth issues, democracy and social exclusion.
Authentic + Representative = Authoritative
The young people consulted were
all socially excluded in that they had
….. “Direct experience makes these
young people experts. They’ve got
practical solutions. Yet until now,
they’ve been ignored.”
15O young people aged 14-25
yrs old were interviewed over 8
months.
“The Real Deal Consultation has
produced a powerful portrait of
14 to 24 year olds living at the
sharp end of 1990’s Britain.”
Authenticated
+ Representational = Critical
32

Different Processes, Different Voices, Different Problems.
Putting forward an authoritative ‘voice’ often requires the use of the surveying and
profiling techniques of large scale research and consultations. Professionals interested in
getting over this kind of ‘voice an often find their role dominated by this technology, as
they set about designing questionnaires and running focus groups. The sheer cost in time
and resources of carrying out such large scale piece of work tends to make the process
linear, culminating in a final report, conference or presentation to the intended audience.
Recent publications from Demos (ref) and the Industrial Society (ref) are examples of
this kind of process. The voice that emerges from this process is indicative of broad
trends and differences amongst young people. It provides the audience with an overview
that they can then consider and use as a basis for future decisions. As an overview it
generally requires re-interpretation and mediation by professionals to translate this
‘voice’ into specific policies or practices.
The process of articulating a ‘critical’ voice involves a much more complex and time
consuming relationship with young people and the audience. Generally it involves
working with groups of young people who have been excluded from other forms of
consultations or whose minority ‘voice’ gets lost. You are getting young people involved
in what Mel Leicester (1996) calls the ‘guerrilla warfare’ of changing an organisation. It
means developing their political sensibilities along with an awareness of their position
and those of other young people. It means taking on a broad educational and facilitative
role and working over an extended period with this group to help them establish a
relationship with their audience where they can be critical and will be listened to. The
role of the professional focuses on the development of an on-going process of critical
investigation linked directly to social and political change. The ability of the young
people to recognise the constantly shifting social and political terrain, their criticality and
persistence give their ‘voice’ its credibility.
Historically developing authoritative accounts was the preserve of research institutes and
large scale funded projects. Increasingly though local communities are taking up the
technology and so are young people themselves (CAST Befrienders Scheme). This shift
reflects the trend towards making increasing amounts of funding available for
consultation and profiling as part of urban regeneration, health employment and
education initiatives. It also marks the increase in the technical skills of local community
workers and volunteers, and the growing scepticism about the ability of researchers from
the outside of a community to capture the authentic ‘voice’ of that community.
A corresponding shift is that the process of developing the critical voice of young people,
which used to be almost the sole preserve of professionals who worked with them on a
day to day basis, is being taken on by research and campaigning groups (ref). As action
research and social action research approaches become more popular, and are funded
more frequently, partnerships between local groups and external organisations become
more common (ref) as they work together to effect change. The final section of this
booklet provides a case study of one such partnership. As these two trends converge we
can see a growing divergence in the roles professionals working with young people are
33

taking on, the methods being used and the range of issues young people are speaking out
on. It is the inter-relationship between these three factors which is focus of the next
section.
34

What issues did those designing and managing these processes see as
important
There is a growing literature advising workers on how to set about increasing
participation in decision making in general (Beresford and Croft 1993) and young people
in particular (Hart 1992, Lansdown 1995, Save the Children 1997, Trafford 1997,
Fitzpatrick et al 1997). Where to start There are four basic questions we think are worth
considering before you start to design and develop the process. These are questions which
you can work on with young people.
The first and most important question is:
What kind of ‘voice, do you think needs to be heard
Answering this question really means being clear over what changes you think need to
happen and the kind of choice that will achieve these. This is a hard question to answer in
one go, as what you want to do will be constrained and affected by lots of other factors.
We prefer to break it down into three smaller but interrelated questions:
Does the issue you are interested in require a certain kind of ‘voice’ to be heard
What type of roles do you and the young people see yourselves as taking on
What impact do local factors, including your audience, have on shaping this ‘voice’
Thinking diagrammatically highlights these interconnections
Roles
Voice
Issue
Contexts
As you answer each one it affects your answer to the others and when you feel
comfortable with all three you should have a clear idea of the kind of ‘voice’ you think
should be heard and therefore the kind of impact you want it to have.
Issue
In some instances the issue you will be working on will be so specific that it almost
completely determines the group of young people who should be involved, how they are
35

asked to articulate their views, and the kind of ‘voice’ you feel needs to be heard. For
example, you may be involved with an environmental project on a housing estate when
the local council's Housing Department is consulting on how the estate is managed and
developed. Here there is an obvious need to canvass young people’s views and get these
listened to. The geographic area of the estate marks out the population of young people to
be consulted. The existing consultation process provides a structure for you to get this
viewpoint heard, although if this is not heeded it may involve you in setting up some
other kind of structure. Depending on how well connected the Housing Department is
with other services and organisations there may only be a limited number of issues worth
raising as part of this consultation. It may though act as a springboard for other work on
issues defined more by the young people themselves.
If though, the issue you were looking at was the discipline and exclusion procedures of
your school as part of a school council’s work, and you are a teacher in the school there
are obvious difficulties here. Not only in getting some of those affected by these
procedures to have a voice but also politically for you and the students in touching on
what can be a highly controversial issue. Those most affected may already have been
excluded, and what of the longer term impact on young people who have already left
How do you get young people who have been excluded from school, and may have
multiple problems to talk to you Is it alright to train other pupils to do this How do we
deal with the possible criticisms of individual members of staff that these excluded young
people raise How do you balance the ‘voice’ of excluded young people with the ‘voice’
of other pupils whose education may have suffered because of their behaviour
Each issue throws up its own problems in terms of defining who should be involved, the
weight given to different experiences and the technical difficulties of getting them to be
articulate about this particular issue.
Roles
What kind of role do you and the young people you are working with want to take on and
feel capable of dealing with Certain choices will have to be made on the basis of the
demands they will make on your personal, technical and political skills. There are also
the emotional demands this kind of work creates. In some cases it is difficult to predict
where the process will take you and the young people. The responses of those they talk
to, the reaction of the audience, a growing sense of confidence can all lead to people
wanting to take on very different roles. Much of the discussion of roles comes down to
issues of control, rights and responsibilities.
Although it is possible to formally state, by contracting with young people and the other
groups involved, who owns the particular ‘voice’ that is presented and whose view it
represents in practice this is likely to be problematic. Not only can you face problem of
your agenda being hijacked, by professionals and other interest groups, but also your
work and role within the group will often be misread. Here a youth worker organising a
conference about violence and young black people describes the role conflicts he
36

experienced in working with the community representatives organising the conference,
the young people taking part, his own management and local politicians.
Quote here from work with Cleveland
Contexts
The influence of the local context on the kind of ‘voice’ needs that needs to be heard, and
what you are likely to achieve, are hard to specify. They range from the history of the
other work that has taken place with young people in the area or on the same issue, the
local policy context, the type of structures and procedures already in place to the nature
of the audience for the work. This brings us back to the discussion of the different facets
of the professionals role on p.**. It is though, worth remembering that the perspectives of
young people will only be one of many ‘voices’ trying to be heard on most issues. This
means not only looking back over what has gone before and what is going on already but
also looking forward to ensure that the product or process corresponds to both the
working patterns of your audience but is also timed to work strategically with others. It is
too easy for the ‘voice’ of young people to become lost amongst others or drowned out
by more ‘authoritative' voices as the case study in Section shows only too clearly.
37

Stuff here about trying to get youngster to take over but recognising the real politic etc
Social action quote
Workers who set out to ……. are faced with is a complex balancing act between the
desired outcomes for young people, trying to achieve an impact on others and making
effective use of the resources to hand.
In the diagram below we have summarised the different areas that professionals involved
in supporting young people articulate their voice have to deal with. The professional sits
in the middle of a range of activities and has a role in helping to orchestrate their
interaction. An effective articulation process will have all these different areas in tune.
Failure to bring all these areas together means there is a danger that in trying to give
young people a ‘voice’ we may further alienate them and confirm their scepticism that
their views really do not matter.
“In view of young people’s well-documented scepticism about the political process it
would be ironic if consultation with them had so little impact that they simply served to
confirm their view ‘that taking part doesn’t make any difference’” (Katz 199)
38

Individual Issues
Young people will have different degrees of self-understanding, range in their
commitment and vary in their levels of self-confidence. During the process of giving
‘voice ‘they will not only start from different points but also develop at different speeds.
In a recent project about the views of young people concerning further education the
researchers commented after talking to 79 young people and re-interviewing them six
months later:
“Some young people displayed clear awareness … and recognised that what we call their
learning career. However, many others appeared to have less awareness that they were
changing, and none of those who seemed to be changing had and real insights into the
persons they were to become six months later. Most of the young people we interviewed
were not playing the part which policy makers assumed they would (in matching their
needs to available educational choices) … many of our sample had never seriously
considered alternatives.” (Bloomer and Hodkinson 1997)
Young people are not static objects within the period they are involved in ‘voicing’ their
views they can be undergoing significant, but only vaguely recognised, personal changes.
Professionals working with them will face the difficulty of not only supporting them
through these changes but also through the process of articulation. This is a process
which will challenge them personally and draw attention to both what they believe and
how they express it.
Group Issues
Most approaches to giving people a voice tend to work with groups of young people. In
these instances professionals working with the group need to be able to maintain their
enthusiasm and build the groups ownership of the process.
Quote here form social action.
Structural and Procedural Issues
Because historically there has been a lack of procedures and structures accessible to
young people there is often a need to develop some kind of temporary structure or stage a
series of events. Setting these up can in the initial periods be very time consuming and
workers have become sceptical about over elaborate or formal procedures that are
unattractive to young people.
Often there is a degree of historical scepticism to overcome amongst workers many of
whom may not have been trained in this area. In the 1980’s Shaw and Foster commented
at the start of their action research project to increase young people's participation in
youth services.
39

“Many (youth leaders) we spoke to made the contradictory claim that although they were
committed to the principle of youth involvement, it was not something they wanted to put
into practice themselves! Indeed, the attitudes towards this important issue, even amongst
experienced practitioners was generally one of despair, a despair usually based on
negative past experiences, where young people had made a mess of a situation or
exercise. Comments ranged from I tried (to organise a member’s committee) two years
ago and it lasted only two months, to I always seem to be starting another democratic
group and I spend too much time servicing selective, elitist groups.” (p.10)
Contrasting with the historical scepticism in many service and organisations is the recent
growth in new structures and process for involving young people. It is know recognised
that different types of structures and procedures will attract very different groups of
young people. Hence a one level we have the shift nationally and across Europe (
Mathews at al 1999) towards structures which are formalised within existing institutions,
and therefore do not rely on the efforts of a small number of professionals, such as
regional and local youth forums, of which there are now over 200 within the UK
(Matthews and Limb 1998). While at the other end of this dimension there has been an
explosion in the technology of one-off activities and process, from video-diaries (ref),
web pages (ref), conferences and competitions, specifically designed to reach out to
young people who would not normally attend a forum or council meeting
“Think of fun ways to get young peoples views. We have used treasure hunts to ask
young people aged 3-14 what they think about their neighbourhood/estate. All you do is
think about the area and the kind of questions you could ask. Then draw up a treasure
map, give clues to get to particular places, mark the places with big question marks, then
ask the questions. You can help the younger children to record their answers and the
older children to fill in their questionnaires.” (Greenway 1999)
While the technology of consultations and articulating ‘voice’ tries to provide more
inclusive approaches the political issues about what happens to the ‘voice’ of young
people, and the workers who help the articulate it remain relatively constant.
Political and Professional Issues
One recent initiative, The Tomorrow’s Men Project, which elicited the views of 1400
boys and young men aged 13-19 young people concluded:
“That adults are often poor at communicating with teenagers, and even worse at listening
to their suggestions. To the cynical young ‘adults examining them as if they’re in a zoo’
is an unpalatable idea and consultation is ‘a waste of time’ so long as it is unfocused and
has no discernible result.” (Katz 19** p.9)
This observation is in line with other research, (The Real Deal 1999, British Youth
Council in Childright no 149 15-16) which has found a wide spread belief amongst young
people that professionals do not listen to them. The difficulties that professionals and
politicians have in listening and responding to what can often be quite fragmented and
40

challenging views is evidenced in the recent calls for new forms of professional
development to cope with this diversity.
“The shift we are trying to define is away from ‘professionalism’ as the ideology of
service and specialist expertise…and towards ‘professionality’ which focuses on the
quality of practice in contexts that require radically altered relations of power and
control….the distinctive character of the new professionalism will depend on the extent
to which its agreement making processes aspire to be integrative and participative; the
extent to which they recognise difference.” (Nixon et al 1997 p.25)
As ‘bottom up’ approaches to policy development and institutional change become more
common increasingly the issue for professionals is likely to be less about getting others to
listen, (ref) and much more about helping them deal with, and respond to, what they are
listening to.
“Teachers are usually weak at explaining innovations to students and weaker still at
involving them in its development. If they restructure their strategies … they usually do
so in ways that maintain students as objects of, rather than partners in, assessment.”
(Hargreaves 1995 p.171)
Growing concerns over the failure of young people to have a widespread impact on
policy and practice raises questions beyond the personal shortcomings of individuals and
directs attention towards the politics of ‘voice’. Increasingly legislative requirements,
funding criteria and good practice guidelines are requiring professionals to consult, but
not necessarily to listen or respond. Beyond the accusations of tokenism and patronising
attitudes those in a position to respond to young people often find their ‘room to
manoeuvre’ and response limited by the micro-politics of their own organisations, local
communities, and other services. Increasingly, the professional supporting young people,
needs to be able to identify and deal with a range of potential conflicts of interest.
Political conflicts which affect not just young people but all attempts to articulate the
perspective of local communities.
“The conflicts and potential conflicts of interest which need to be identified include
conflicts between public sector agencies and organisations, on the one hand, and the
private sector, on the other. There are potential conflicts between professionals and
volunteers, and between these and service users …between large well-established and
better resourced voluntary organisations and smaller less formalised groups. These
potential conflicts can and do arise, of course, within particular communities too,
between majority and minority ethnic groups within communities, between men and
women, and between older and younger people.” (Mayo 1997)
41

Section Three :A Case Study of Developing a Critical ‘Voice’.
In this final section we want to illustrate the issues discussed so far by reference to a
piece of research that we carried out over a six month period with a group of young
people who were excluded or at risk of being excluded from school. This was a research
project carried out in partnership with a local community organisation. The project set out
to develop this group’s voice so that they their experience of being excluded would be
heard not only by their school but the broad range of professionals they came into
contact.
The aim of this section is to show the shifting nature of our roles, the context we were
working in and the young people’s definition of the issue and how this affected the
outcome of the work. To do this we use a mixture of case study write up interspersed
with fragments of the personal journals that we kept as the research proceeded. These
extracts are reflections on our role and give an insight into the relationships between
ourselves and the various professionals involved with the work. They give a more ‘real’
and graphic insight to our more distanced write up of the research and illustrate the role
that these different relationships played in the outcome of the work. Each time an extract
is used it is italicised to mark it out from the rest of the text.
Context
In January 1998 the Urban Programmes Research Group began a project funded by the
Young People and Families Committee of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The project
was designed in response to the Committee’s concern to raise the voice of children and
young people when their families are the focus of preventive work with different
agencies.
We began work by looking for a partnership with an organisation that was already
working with a group of young people. We considered several programmes over the inner
city area before eventually choosing one, which we will call the 'Time Out' programme.
This programme had been developed by a local community organisation that was
working with several comprehensive schools on an East Midlands housing estate. The
estate on which it is based has a long history of social and economic difficulties, and is
now an area of targeted activities under the Local Authority's Single Regeneration
Budget.
The 'Time Out' Project describes itself as a multi-level relational youth project, which has
developed in response to local people’s concern about the difficulties experienced by
young people and their neighbourhood. The Project began at a time when housing estates
both locally and nationally were experiencing youth riots, and states that listening to
young people is its main purpose.
The 'Time Out' team agreed to be involved in this pilot project as a way of developing
their relationship with the School, the University and with other agencies that were likely
to be drawn into the research. The particular group we worked with were a well-
42

established group of fourteen year 11 pupils referred by one of the comprehensive
schools. All of these were young men who had self-excluded or been excluded from
school for different periods of time. The fact that this group was all male is probably
indicative of the disproportionate number of young men who are excluded from school in
this locality. They had been working successfully with some of the 'Time Out' team for
one term; had well-established ground rules and good relationships with their youth
workers. The 'Time Out' team was working with the School through the School’s deputy
headteacher who was enthusiastic about what the 'Time Out' team had achieved. These
young men met at a local house used by the Youth Project as a drop-in centre, every
Wednesday morning from 9.00 am until 12.00 pm and returned to the School in the
afternoon.
We decided to work with this group because it had several important features:
The School (in partnership with 'Time Out') had already established the group in
an innovative move, as a means of positively engaging with these young people.
'Time Out' worked closely with the School over a range of its activities and had
credibility with the young people living in the area.
The 'Time Out' team told us that the young men were familiar with discussing
sensitive issues and working in small groups.
Issues
We began by identifying and raising the issues surrounding exclusion as seen by the
young people themselves. We did this through a series of large and small group
discussions using the contractual arrangements already in place and agreed upon by the
young men and the 'Time Out' workers These were rules concerning who speaks, for how
long and appropriate language and behaviour.
In the early stages the issues raised by the group included vandalism, attendance,
exclusion, relationships with teachers, being listened to, motivation, behaviour and
achievement. Throughout these stages as the group explored these issues they were
particularly good in taking account of the views of others. The result of this process was
a statement, part of which said:
The school system is unfair… You skive and you get excluded.
Teachers don't listen to you… In school you don't get to talk about
important things.
This formed the basis for them to make their own video. The choice of a video-based
process had been part of the initial research design. One of the main aims of the project
was to assess the potential of an innovative twelve-stage model for producing video
43

materials that promote change 1 , as a means of helping young people articulate their
voice.
In producing these materials the young men became involved in group and individual
work, interviews, drama, brainstorming and video research methods to explore their
theme and devise the outline for their project. Together with the workers of 'Time Out'
we encouraged these young men to take on the responsibility of organising themselves
and making their own decisions. They were adamant from the outset that they wanted to
make a videotape about the unfairness of the school system, the ways in which they had
been singled out for attention and the ways in which they were frequently denied any real
say in their treatment.
The group planned to screen the video to four key audiences: a selection of staff at their
school; local head teachers; governors; and the Chief Education Officer of the LEA.
Their intention was twofold: to have their voice heard clearly in a debate about these
issues, and to encourage teachers and officials to be more sensitive to the needs of young
people when tackling the joint problems of exclusion and non-attendance. They wanted
to provide a critical voice that would challenges people’s perceptions of excluded pupils.
Roles
Basically we saw our role as one which allowed for the young men to produce something
which they could not have done previously. We were using a process, which we knew well,
and in that sense we were the experts. Our role was to help make a product, which was
owned by the young men, and help them to show that product to their chosen audience. We
did not however have ways into the school and so another part of our role was to set this
up. The young men wanted to have an influence on the decision-making processes within
the school and this would make their product viable and meaningful. As part of this role we
asked the group to nominate a 'safe' teacher who would work with them throughout the
making of the video and advise them of the likely reactions of their chosen audience. We
enrolled this teacher with the permission of her head teacher to work with the young men
and us during school hours.
It was clear to us that we had several relationships to maintain: between the School and
ourselves, between the ‘Time Out’ team, and ourselves and between the 'Time Out' team
and the School. At the same time we also needed to establish a relationship with the
young men which did not harm the existing relationship that they had with their 'Time
Out' workers. We did this partly by attending social events with the group throughout the
lifetime of the project.
Working with and Supporting the 'Time Out' Team
1 Schouten, D., & Watling, R. (1997). Media Action Projects: Integrating Video in Education and
Community Development Work. Urban Programmes Research Group. Nottingham. ISBN 0 85359 209 8.
44

We agreed with the workers at the 'Time Out' programme that we would have regular debriefing
sessions with them about the research, especially as they were actively involved
in the work and had particular insights into the experiences, circumstances and
relationships of the group. Sometimes these de-briefing sessions concentrated on
practical issues (such as transport, administration or the location of activities) and
sometimes they were more concerned with group dynamics, the strengths and weaknesses
of the research, or on links between the Project and the School. Despite our intentions it
was often difficult to make the most of these sessions. We all had other demands on our
time and often the sessions were very draining as we tried to develop the research and the
group’s sense of ownership of the work.
“I don't think we have used the 'Time Out' people enough especially early on when they had
the relationship to hassle the group mythologies and put them under pressure while we had
to play along to build up our relationships which was fine initially. We have zoomed in and
out on Wednesdays probably not thought about it enough at the beginning and had the
debates we should have done. I think we should have contracted with the group a lot more
at the beginning they are used to it as they already have done it over their rules on the
wall.”
In our discussions we did identify a number of possible funding options for the Youth
Project in their attempts to develop a wider range of activities on the estate. But there
was little time to explore these during the project, and we have had to delay further
meetings. Similarly we touched on aspects of their work with schools, including their
desire to be more flexibly integrated into a range of school activities. We knew from our
discussions with the School, however, that the Youth Project's activities did not always
meet with approval. Some staff felt that pupils' attendance at the Youth Project’s contact
group was effectively a "reward for bad behaviour” and that it consisted of too many
"outings" and not enough "work". One teacher was pleasantly surprised when we
described the detail and depth of the activities that the group was engaged in as part of
the research project. Similarly, staff at the Youth Project was not always aware of the
ways in which the School perceived them. In the course of the project we started to
become "go-betweens" and this informal liaison role was something we would like to
have taken further, but it began to get overtaken by the pragmatic concerns of our
immediate project.
Working with and supporting the School
Also implicit in the design of the project, was an intention to work with the School in
identifying and addressing issues identified by the young men. But we always knew that
this was going to be a difficult objective.
The School has had a history of decline and intervention, it had not done well in its
OFSTED Inspection and was attempting to tackle a number of "serious weaknesses"
identified by the Inspectors. The inspection report states that: “To remedy the serious
45

weaknesses the school needs to raise standards of attainment, improve the quality of
management and raise levels of attendance.” By the time we began the project, the
School had an action plan in place based on four key issues detailed in the inspection
report. There were also a number of initiatives taking place at the School, for example: a
targeted literacy programme, a focused effort on the achievement of current year 11
pupils and pastoral work with younger pupils aimed at improving attendance in later
years.
All this, in our opinion, had made the School an important institution to work with but at
the same time, rendered it more difficult to liase with and to support. We hoped, in
particular, that they would welcome the opportunity to listen to the voices of some of
their excluded pupils.
This did begin to happen when, in the course of the project, the acting head teacher and
the head of Year 11 both agreed to be interviewed by the Group and to respond to their
"statement". It was also encouraging when the drama teacher was given permission to be
involved in the project. But our optimism was ill founded. By the time the video was
finished the school had been placed in ‘special measures’ and the ‘voice’ of OFSTED
silenced all other marginalised perspectives.
“There are some things we could have predicted as far as the school’s response is
concerned, but we could never have been sure. There were signs and concerns expressed
by each of us at different times and in different ways. We should have been more
proactive in connecting with the school and looking carefully at our options.”
These signs started to emerge as the young men set about interviewing the managers of
the school. The young people who conducted the interviews with the acting head teacher
and the head of year 11 were more than a little reticent about doing so. Partly for this
reason they asked if they could interview them at the drop-in centre, but in the event both
members of staff were interviewed in School. Though members of the research team
supported the young people, they were expected to take the lead in preparing and
conducting the interviews. They were noticeably quiet and unchallenging in their
approach to these teachers, and their teachers adopted a different role to the one we had
seen when discussing the project at the outset.
The presence of the video camera was referred to during the interviews by each of the
two teachers and it is fair to say that their answers were given in the knowledge that they
may become public statements about the School, and used to make judgements about its
staff, pupils and achievements. In particular, questions that implied criticisms of teachers
they tended to: avoid agreeing that criticism was due; turn these criticisms into criticisms
of pupils; or claim not to have enough knowledge to comment. This was most evident
for those questions dealing with the last two issues: “Teachers want us out” and
“Teachers stick together.” We, the researchers, were able to have more open and frank
discussions with the acting head off camera and without the pupils present.
46

As the project neared its end the opportunity of working with the School became fraught
with difficulty. The sheer pressures of years of hardship, of inspection and re-inspection,
of being subject to "special measures", of declining morale and of a battered reputation,
have rendered the School almost inaccessible. As an organisation it has become so
overwhelmed with change that it has become harder to work with, at exactly the time that
it might benefit most from a broader perspective. Despite the appointment of a new
headteacher it has become harder to make contact with the right person by phone, by
letter, or in person. The managers at the school also had some reservations about the
finished video.
“The headteacher told me he recognises the young people in the video and believes that
recognising their point of view is important and part of the solution to the schools
problems. He also told me that he has to think about where the school is now and what
effect the video will have. The video is powerful and they have said so…”
We had negotiated with the school that we would allow them to pre-view the completed
video. Their response was to ask for certain changes to be made to it before they would
allow it to be shown to a wider audience in the school.
“The condition (to change the video produced by the young people so that it could be
shown) which asks us to include a description of the young people as having special
needs, of low literacy, behaviourally challenging and atypical of the school population, is
clearly going to position these young people in the school. In the process of making this
video useful for the school - if it is going to be used at all; and I don’t think it is, though it
can still affect change at the school – the school’s managers will position these young
people in (ways) they perceive to serve their own aims and objectives. There is no way
out of this, in my view, but neither are they in control of this process.”
Working With and Supporting the Young Men
The work began well with the young men enthusiastically deciding whom they were going
to speak to and what and where they were going to film. Their list of who they wanted to
talk to and video included senior education welfare officers, headteachers, their head of
year, large employers and governors. The model that we were working with was not a
technical one on making a video. It was a model that allowed for making a video that was
critical and reflective and one that opens up the issues from the perspective of the young
men and bounces them around the different professional groups that worked with them.
The aim was to develop morals and values while also making a product. Eventually the
young men would have a tape that could be shown to staff as part of a staff development
event on pupils who had been excluded or who were at risk of exclusion. At the very
beginning this audience was decided upon by the group we were working with. The aim
of the video was to make an impact on this audience. Several members of our team had
47

successfully used this method before with in-service youth workers (Hadfield and Jardine
1998) and in a number of educational settings (Watling 1998).
“Learning new things makes you aware of what you don’t know, and these young people
don’t think they know a lot. I expect they’ve been told that before now, and they tell each
other often enough. Nevertheless, you had better be good at giving praise and letting
them learn new things from you because you won’t get anywhere otherwise. We weren’t
good enough at this during our work with them.”
As the work progressed it became obvious to us that the young men had little sense of
having a 'voice'. They became more and more involved in the process of administering the
model. It became clear that:
We had a large amount of video material; much of which was one to one interviews
with school based professionals.
The sheer volume of the recorded material made it an onerous task for any one
individual to view it and identify issues.
The material was predominantly detailed professional talk from which the young men
were already alienated.
We realised that we needed to:
To put the ‘voice’ of the young men more up front in the video material and the project
generally.
To put them back in touch with their original ideas
And to provide time and space for them to reflect on the issues their work had
uncovered.
We were not altogether successful in any of these last three objectives for several reasons.
In the past these young people had been given little opportunity to reflect critically on their
own explanations and ideas either at school or outside of it, and often challenging their
criticisms had led to confrontation. The group maintained a number of perspectives which
become self-supporting and crucial to maintaining their resistance to what was happening
to them at school as individuals. As researchers we were not sufficiently ‘clued’ into this at
the beginning and, for the sake of developing a working relationship with the group, we
tended to buy into this group solidarity rather than challenge these perspectives. This may
have been partly due to the way in which we chose to familiarise ourselves with them as a
group, mainly through our involvement in a number of social gatherings.
“It was good to see them last night. I caught my self watching and enjoying them
laughing, poking fun and making crude (for some) jokes. I asked myself when, if at all,
would they show this side of themselves at school; to each other or with adults, and then
how often they had shown this side of themselves to us during the project.”
48

“Not enough of these meaningful moments have occurred during the project. It’s difficult
to achieve them with these young people for exactly the reasons we chose to work with
them in the first place. Exclusion is part of their lives and works on many levels:
knowledge, opportunity, experience, power, self-knowledge, confidence and being with
others.”
For very different reasons the workers on the ‘Time Out’ programme were also unable to
challenge these perspectives, mainly because of their therapeutic role and their
commitment to developing self esteem and the perspectives of individuals.
“Dave (one of the workers on the ‘Time Out’ programme) is so good with these young
people. Instinctively he knows when to push and when to leave alone, how to persist with
“embarrassing” subjects and how to register his disapproval without once disapproving
of them. He can get away with telling them how much he likes them and he’s still
“sound” after doing so. How many people try that They find it difficult to listen to
praise.”
Having developed what appeared on the surface to be good relationships with these young
men we as researchers were best positioned to challenge their perspectives but, at the
moment that this became possible, we were drawn into a more instrumental video
production process. This was a structured and prescribed process which involved the young
men in collecting other people’s views and deflected from examining their own.
“They say, “We are: swearing, smoking, go carting, skating, eating free stuff, getting
more free stuff out of people, doing and seeing new things, playing with equipment,
talking when we feel like it, making people listen to us, do first think later, just do and see
what happens, getting a reaction for the sake of it and pushing people’s buttons once
you’ve found them. If any one of those things gets boring we’ll jump to another one.”
That’s what the young people came to us with. That’s what they left us with.
We said to them: “We need: order, processes, listening, thinking, reflecting, long-termstuff,
overview and democratic decision making. We’ll help you to give us this stuff, but
its up to you, because this is yours and it’s about you.” Some of our demands connected
with those at school and others had little connection with their lives at all. The last,
democratic decision making was very useful in getting the job done, but from Gary’s
point of view it was, ‘”Take it or leave it.””
The next part of this section looks at the video process as this became the raison d’etre of
the work.
“ Matching what these young people were “saying” and what they brought with them, to
what we were implicitly demanding of them is an on-going process that we should have
managed better than we did. We were not reflective enough about our own processes
49

and demands and too instrumental in applying a video production process to our
research and thinking.”
Using a video based process
Perhaps this next piece of writing is best introduced by another journal extract as one of
us struggled to come to terms with the approach and the process.
“Why use video This for me is an important question in that we have them speaking to
each other, them asking people questions, lots of talking but no 'voice'. So what then is the
advantage of using video that is different in this context from using other research tools.
What should video be able to do and have we really talked to the group about this. What are
we going to come out with, one video, two videos, who are we going to show them to and
how I just have the feeling at the moment that the technology has closed down rather than
opened up which I think the model is all about.”
The extract asks several important questions concerning issues about ‘voice’ and what we
mean when we use the term.
“As I have said before, this voice has not developed because we have not paid attention
to the self-research and problematizing elements of the model we are using. For me this
is an important point because it is this voice which should drive the rest of the process
forward.”
It also asks about the potential and advantages of using video in this kind of work in
preference to other methods.
“We have not been able so far to develop their 'voice' in terms of self research/self
reflection. I am sure that using video should help us to do this but we haven't been able to do
so to date.”
With these questions in mind the following table sets out five of the main issues about voice
that we have also discussed in the first part of this booklet. For each issue it then relates the
unique potential of video as a flexible and malleable medium capable of representing the
complexities of these issues. The final column presents some of the constraints that we
encountered in this project because of its particular context, the roles of the professionals
involved with the work and the relationships between them that has already been discussed
in the first part of this section.
50

Issues about
‘Voice’
‘Voice’ is
articulated in
a number of forms
‘Voice’ needs to be
supported by critical
literacy to put
together coherent
arguments
'Voice' is dependant
on who is listening
‘Voice’ has to be
linked to critical
reflection
In most cases there
is a cacophony of
different ‘voices’ .
Potential of Video
Allows for the use of a
variety of verbal and
visual means to
articulate different
‘voices’
Video can play around
with 'arguments' -it
can juxtapose, it can
pose arguments in
different ways and in
variety of visual and
verbal forms
Video has the
potential to be played
to a range of audiences
at different times and
in range of contexts
Video is physically
conceived and put
together. The process
raises big issues in
amongst decisions
about what to include
and 'edit' out. This
promotes critical
reflection.
Video provides access
to a dominant form of
mass communication
the production of
which is very cheap. It
can ‘pop up’ in
different places at
different times and has
the potential therefore
to be subversive
Constraints with the Project
Expectations of the young men, as well as the people who worked
with them, grounded in everyday notions of media. A slick, zappy,
'professional' video that would be televised.
The young people were constrained by treating video more as a closed
programme format which puts forward a specific and closed
argument.. Tensions here as the potential of playing with different
forms became superseded by the urge to make a 'programme'.
The young people were constrained by contradictions in their own
minds. They were unsure that the audience they had in mind could be
persuaded by the medium and uncomfortable about presenting
themselves within their 'own communities'
‘Slow drip’ delivery in chaotic lives. Lack of opportunity to become
immersed in the process, to learn the potential of the medium and the
possibilities open to them. There was a mismatch therefore between
the skills/insights they had available to them and their ideas of what
they wished to produce.
At the time the video was being made by the young people the
dominant critical ‘voice’ in the school was OFSTED and that is still
the case. Other critical ‘voices’ were not only drowned out but the
space for the school to comfortably listen to the ‘voice’ of the young
people was effectively closed down.
51

What Happened at the End
Gradually the group fragmented as GCSEs approached, some members got jobs or were
being interviewed for jobs and we were left with a core group of six people. At this point
we were ready to edit the material into one video product and became aware of the need to
focus on a few specific ideas. To achieve this we became concerned to incorporate the
perspective of the School and arrangements were made to involve a member of staff
nominated by the group. Throughout the project we were anxious to make the group aware
of the effect that any viewing of their work would have on the School. We were also
concerned to keep the school informed about the research through letters, phone calls and
visits. At this stage of the research communication with the School came under increasing
pressure due to repeated OFSTED inspections, increasing levels of vandalism, the
changeover to a new head and the need to implement the short and medium term targets set
by the inspectors.
We took the issues identified by the core group to the teacher they had elected to work
with. Our intention here was to ensure that the group became aware of how their video
might be received at the School and to plan a product with this ‘insider’ perspective in
mind. Over the next few sessions the group focused on three of the issues they had
identified recorded new material and edited a seventeen-minute tape. The final video
product adopted a news reel format and incorporates a role-play where the young people
and adults swap roles to debate the three issues. The three issues are used to group the
video materials previously collected into three sections, they are as follows:
• “It’s not the parents fault.” In this section, the young men explore their reactions to
the popular view that non-attendance and bad behaviour are the fault of parents. They
argue that teachers have as much responsibility for this as anyone else does, and need
to teach in a way that can keep pupils more interested and engaged in relevant
schoolwork.
• “Teachers want us out.” Here the young men express their confusion about school
policies and practices. They give examples of teachers who openly encourage them to
skive off lessons, and describe a system which (on the one hand) keeps that out of
school, and which (on the other hand) punishes them for non-attendance.
• “Teachers stick together.” This final section concentrates on a major criticism
voiced by these young people: that teachers regularly fail to listen to them and tend to
close ranks against their opinions. They feel there are different rules for teachers and
pupils, and that thy have no constructive way of expressing their grievances.
The group was quite specific about the audience that they wanted to reach. By choosing the
head and selected staff at the School, other local head teachers, governors, trainee teachers
and the Local Chief Education Officer, they made it clear that this was a problem that
needed to be addressed by professionals involved in education. They turned down any
suggestion that it might be a good idea to show it to their families, to other agencies or to
the community at large.
52

A preview copy of the final videotape was passed on to the acting head of the School who
viewed it together with the new headteacher and a member of the governing body. They
expressed serious reservations about the tape, saying that it was undoubtedly powerful and
impressive, but too one-sided and emotive. They were particularly concerned that it used
the real names of the school and individuals, and were fearful of the effect the tape might
have at a time when the School was about to go into special measures. They proposed
several changes to the tape, but these were extensive and time consuming. They were also
changes that the young people would not agree to make. As a result the video was unlikely
to be shown to its intended audience, and certainly not within the school. The reaction of
the young men was one of anger and frustration and a feeling of having been discounted
yet again. The Youth Project workers were very much in sympathy and agreement with the
young people.
After some discussion, it was agreed that the way forward was to ask for a limited viewing
involving those at the School who had already seen the video together with the young men.
It was felt that this would allow the young people to discuss and express their viewpoints.
At the time of writing the School is in special measures and we have the additional problem
that some of the group are no longer in the area, and that none of them now attend the
school.
Whose Voice OFSTED’S or the Young Men What happened to the 'Critical Voice'
In this section we consider the original aims and objectives of the project and look at
what has been achieved. We also look at the intended outcomes of the project and
consider these in the light of what we have encountered.
The original aim of the project was to give a 'voice' to a group of young people:
• who are at risk of exclusion from mainstream schools,
• whose families are currently involved in a range of preventive strategies,
• who have recently experienced a range of multi-agency interventions,
• and to make sure that this voice is heard and responded to.
We wanted to:
articulate the needs and aspirations of schooling-disaffected young people using
interactive research methods.
produce a package of media materials for use with schooling-disaffected young
people and the multi-agency professionals that work with them.
offer and evaluate a strategy by which groups of professionals in a particular
Local Authority can use the voice of the child to assess their own practice, and to
consider the potential of this strategy for wider use.
There is no doubt that we have been able to provide an opportunity for a group of
excluded young people to consider what it is that they want to say to some of the
influential adults who affect their lives, and then to prepare this in a powerful and unusual
53

way. Though a limited number of significant adults were given the opportunity to listen
to what these young people did say, it is still too early to tell how much effect the final
video product will have at the School. It was produced at a time when the school was
already considering a range of interventions including the establishment of a pupil
council, and may have strengthened the feeling that such changes are needed urgently.
Those that did view the video (the newly appointed headteacher, the chair of Governors,
and the acting headteacher) have to be considered as amongst the most influential people
within the School, both under the present regime and any new one that might be set in
place. Few incoming headteachers will have had the benefit of hearing the views of their
most marginalised pupils presented in such a structured and powerful way. Those
managers that have already seen the video and are restricting its further dissemination
have lessons to learn from what is said by these young people. It would be difficult for
these managers, in working to resolve the truancy and exclusion problem at the School, to
ignore what the young people have told them about the relationships between teachers
and pupils.
To this extent then, the project has been working to its aim of providing a voice to a
group of young people who are at risk of exclusion. However, the effect of this voice is
not something that we shall be able to assess unless we are able to de-brief with those
managers at the School who have seen the video. This is most likely to happen when and
if the School comes out of special measures. Regrettably, by that time the young people
involved will have progressed along their separate career paths, which will necessarily
limit any further effect the project can have on their lives.
The aim of working with pupils whose families have been subject to multi-agency
preventative work did not become an explicit part of the project. During the initial group
work the young people did raise issues concerning the work of professionals other than
teachers including social workers, police and educational welfare workers, and they did
attempt to involve the educational welfare service in their project. Unfortunately, an
avenue for gaining a wider perspective was closed off to these young people when,
despite much effort on their part, they were let down twice by Educational Welfare
Officers who failed to arrive for interviews. In general the views expressed by the young
people concerning multi-agency groups working within the community and those more
closely associated with their School remained largely anecdotal and unexamined, and
there is some evidence of this in the role play which they include on their video.
The Shifts and Tensions Within the Project
The project itself, and the issues that lie at its heart, seems to us to be marked by
several tensions. Some of these can be located within and between the three main
organisations involved in the design of the project: the School, the 'Time Out'
Project and the Researchers:
54

• At the outset the researchers had different expectations and ambitions for the
project, different perspectives on the notion of "voice" and different ideas
about the value of change
• The 'Time Out' Project workers wanted to establish good working relationships
with the school, but to maintain the trust of the young men who saw them as
"different".
• The School wanted the Project to succeed as an intervention for "difficult"
youngsters, but wanted to maintain its policies on exclusion. The Group
wanted to have a role in the School, but to create a new identity for themselves
at the Project.
In addition to this, we have already alluded to a series of tensions in other areas of the
project. For example:
• Differing views of the family, which were central to the original focus of the
project. The popular conception (held by the School, the general public, the Youth
Project and many of the agencies involved in this issue) is that the family is
inextricably linked to truancy and exclusion. The young men we worked with on
this project, however, saw things differently. They see their relationships with their
families as separate and distinct from their relationship with school, and do not
acknowledge that there is any significant overlap, so they have a different perception
of roles, responsibilities and opportunities for intervention.
• The tensions between OFSTED, the School, and the Community have had a
marked effect on what it was possible for the young men on this project to achieve.
• Finally, and crucial to the research methodology in particular, tensions between the
Video Production Process, the Group Dynamics and Critical Thinking.
We do not believe that such tensions can be eliminated from work of this kind, nor that
practitioners, funders or researchers can be aware of them from the outset. It is important,
however, for all those working in this way to recognise that they will come across such
tensions, and that they will affect the progress of the project. It is important to recognise,
map, and negotiate such tensions. This will always require flexibility and creative
thinking by all of those involved.
In Conclusion
Marginalised groups of the kind we have been working with are likely to have been denied
the critical space from which to explore their own perspective of the issues that directly
affect their lives. Asking them to work in this way is, therefore, more difficult and more
important. Practitioners and researchers working with marginalised groups should not
assume that they are "ready" to act critically. It is important to develop and provide
critical spaces within the project, and to remember that you are asking them to develop a
new kind of critical voice - one that they may be hesitant to use when exploring issues
that are closest to them.
55

Researchers are involved in a process that requires them to find a balance between the need
to develop relationships with a marginalised group, based on trust and respect, and the need
to challenge the perspectives of the group. Managing the tension between the research
relationship and the critical space of a marginalised group, is crucial to raising a voice
that professionals feel able to listen to and act upon and which avoids existing
confrontations. Work which aims to raise the voice of marginalised groups also needs to
reflect critically on the dynamics of the relationships between members of the group and
the professionals that work with them.
Marginalised groups frequently maintain perspectives that become self-supporting and
are crucial to maintaining the group's identity and resistance. One example from this
project would be the young men's belief that family and school are not both connected to
the issue of exclusion. Researchers need to strike a balance between allowing such
perspectives to be articulated and encouraging them to be challenged. This may inhibit
our own ambitions for the project but increase the chances that the voice will be heard.
Organisations also maintain such self-supporting perspectives. Schools, for example,
recognise the influence of family and society on pupil behaviour, but are less willing to
explore the extent to which their own structures and codes effectively construct "difficult
pupils" and thus reinforce a wider sense of alienation and exclusion. These perspectives,
too, need to be articulated and challenged within projects of this kind, but it is important
to remember that they are just as hard to influence. Powerful organisations are not always
in a position to listen or react to children and young people - however important the
message. With regard to this, researchers and practitioners who work with an
unproblematised notion of "voice" may unwittingly fail to challenge some of these selfsupporting
perspectives. One way of avoiding this is to use "insiders" such as the drama
teacher in this project who was able to provide the Group with information about the way
their voice was likely to be received within the School and who was willing to
"introduce" the tape to other staff and ease its passage into the institution. Our "insider"
was probably chosen too late in the proceedings to have the most impact.
Finally, we would like to emphasise that it was not the young men that were necessarily
at the heart of these constraints. Some were about the time in which we had to produce
the video and the highly structured way we had to work with them (one session a week
every Wednesday morning). Overall there was a high level of motivation in the group to
produce the video so much so that many of them put in extra time and were willing to
keep working with us for longer than we had originally planned. Their 'voice' was
dependent on who was listening and they needed the confidence to show their work to the
people who had power over their lives. They were happy to show it to us and the 'Time
Out' team as we were all considered to be 'safe'. As far as their teachers were concerned
they showed a great deal of trepidation as they thought the moment for the wider
presentation was approaching. For them it was a leap of faith to show their work. For us
this raised many issues about how they were used to being received in school. The video
56

process is dependent on a critical 'voice' linked to critical reflection. As a creative process
this means immersion in the work which is not quite so structured and negotiated access
which is sensitive to all needs. The question raised in our minds as the video neared
completion was how to effectively involve young people in a process of change while
still maintaining their 'voice'.
57

Bibliography
Ashworth, L. Children’s Voices in School Matters (1995) London ACE
Bentley. T. and Gurumurthy, R. (1999) Destination Unknown: Engaging with the
problem of marginalised youth. Demos London
Damon, W. 1997 The Youth Charter, The Free Press. New York
Fitzpatrick, S. Hastings, A. and Kintrea, K. (1998) Including Young People in Urban
Regeneration: A lot to learn Policy Press, Bristol
Greenway, J (1999) New Deal for Communities. Technical Aid for Nottinghamshire
Communities: Consultation Good Practice. TANC Nottingham
Hargreaves, A. (1995) Beyond Collaboration: Critical Teacher Development in the
Postmodern Age in Smyth J (ed) Critical Discourses on teacher Development London
Cassell
Hingorani, M. (1986) Taking action Shabaab September Issue 18 pp. 12-13
Katz, A (19 ) Tomorrow’s Men: Self Esteem, alienation and anti-social behaviour
Childright ………..
Buchanan, A. and Katz. A The Tomorrow’s Men Report….
Keane, J., Gardiner, J. (1997) Speaking Up Speaking Out The 2020 Vision Programme
Birmingham The industrial Society
Kincheloe, J.L. and Steinberg, S.R. (Eds) (1998) Students as Researchers: Creating
Classrooms that Matter London Falmer.
Matthews, H., Limb, M., The Right to Say: the development of youth councils/forums in
the UK. AREA 30, pp.66-78
Matthews, H., Limb, M., and Taylor, M. (1999) Young people’s participation and
representation in society Geoforum 30 pp. 135-144
McFall, L. (1998) Turnaround Time Young People Now October pp.24-25
Murch, M. and Hooper, D. (1992) The Family Justice System Family Law, London
Smith, G. and Wales, C. (1998) The theory and Practice of Citizens’ Juries Policy and
Politics Vol 27 No 3 p. 295-308.
Shaw, M. and Foster, A. (1980) Young People and Decision making - A Question of
Credibility, Youth in Society p. 10-11
58

Willow, C. Hear! Hear! Promoting children and young people’s democratic participation
in local government London LGIU
59

VOICE: INFORMATION & SUPPORT GATEWAYS
British Youth Council: www.byc.org.uk
65-69 White Lion Street, London N1 9PP
Tel 0171 278 0582 Fax 0171 278 0583
A comprehensive site detailing the work of the British Youth Council and providing
information and research search facilities and links to other web sites. Provides a
comprehensive list of Local Youth Councils.
The British Youth Council is the representative body for young people aged 16-25 in the
UK, run for and by young people. It represents the views of young people to central and
local government, political parties, pressure groups and the media, campaigns on a wide
range of youth issues, and responds to government policy as it affects young people.
BYC's current interests include:
• Citizenship education
• The minimum wage and The New Deal
• Young People's participation
BYC organises a range of participative events and programmes bringing together young
people and decision-makers, and providing young people with the skills to participate
fully in the democratic process. Past and current activities include:
• Youth and Parliament Day
• Parliamentary Youth Forums
• Annual Conferences
• Peer education programmes
• A Local Youth Councils Convention
BYC offers advice and support to organisations and individuals including:
• Setting up and developing Local Youth Councils
• Consulting young people
• Young people's participation
• Information about the status of young people in the UK
• Young speakers on youth issues
• Peer education
CROA Children’s Rights Officers and Advocates
Contact Kate Gledhill
National Development Management, C/o Save the Children Fund, Cambridge House,
Cambridge Grove, London W6 0LE
Tel 0208 748 7431
60

The purpose of CROA is to advance the understanding and realisation of children’s rights
as defined by legislation, guidance and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It
• Promotes and develops locally based children’s rights and advocacy services.
• Provides a national forum where professionals working with children’s rights can
discuss issues of common interest.
• Supports, develops and disseminates research and models of excellence in the fields
of children’s rights and advocacy.
In May 1999 CROA established a three year project to promote and develop children’s
rights and advocacy services across England and Wales, with funding from NSPCC,
Nuffield Foundation and Save the Children. The team includes a national development
manager, young people who are in or have left local authority care and specialist
consultants who provide specific input to ensure the involvement and participation of
disabled children and young people.
Membership is open to anyone who is interested in furthering these objectives and has
paid the annual subscription fee.
Health Education Authority: http://www.hea.org.uk/yphn/index.html
Trevelyan House, 30 Great Peter St, London SW1P 2HW
Tel 0171 222 5300
The Young People's Health Network is co-ordinated by the Health Education Authority
and funded by the Department of Health. It aims to encourage the exchange of
information, ideas and examples of good practice among the wide range of professionals
working on issues of concern that effect young people's health. It wishes to encourage
collaborative work across sectors.
The network produces a quarterly newsletter which is distributed to contacts on their
database and via the web site. There are sections covering new resources, events,
research, news round up and a special feature written by young people. The network
database holds approximately 7,500 contacts ranging from small local projects to large
national organisations all of whom are interested in the health of young people. The
contacts cover a wide range of sectors and settings and specific groups of young people.
Sectors included on the database include: education, health, social services, youth
service, youth justice, probation services and voluntary sector organisations.
Recent research commissioned by the HEA identified eight different models which
groups use to consult and involve young people in health promotion activities in a range
of settings. A training programme featuring the Consultation and Involvement of Young
People Project is
being delivered across the country by Healthwise, an independent health information and
promotion service based in Liverpool (contact Healthwise on 0151 227 4150).
61

National Children’s Bureau: www.ncb.org.uk
The National Children's Bureau (NCB) works to identify and promote the wellbeing
and interests of all children and young people across every aspect of their
lives. The web site covers the wide range of the NCB’s work. As well as describing
the work of various forums, the site provides access to library and information
services, research and development, publications, conferences and seminars and
links to other agencies. NCB encourages professionals and policymakers to see the
needs of the whole child and emphasises the importance of multidisciplinary, crossagency
partnerships. NCB aims to:
• Undertake high quality research
• Identify, develop and promote good practice
• Play an active role in policy development and advocacy at both central and local
levels of government
• Disseminate information to professionals, policymakers, parents, and children and
young people
• Ensure the views of children and young people are taken into account
NCB's work focuses on:
• Combating inequalities of opportunity and social exclusion
• Improving the chances of children through effective services
• Participation and young citizenship
• The early years: the foundation for the future
• Children and young people living away from home
• Parenting: the child's entitlement
National Youth Agency: www.nya.org.uk
17-23 Albion Street, Leicester LE1 6GD
Telephone 0116.285.3700 Fax 0116.285.3777 E-mail nya@nya.org.uk
This site provides a comprehensive gateway to the work of the National Youth Agency
(NYA). It includes sections on press releases, conferences and events, publications,
information and library services, training, youth information databases, job opportunities
and useful links to other youth organisations.
The National Youth Agency aims to advance youth work by
• Promoting young people's personal and social development
• Improving and extend youth services and youth work
• Enhancing and demonstrate youth participation in society
• Promoting effective youth policy and provision.
• Providing resources to improve work with young people and its management
• Creating and demonstrating innovation in service and methods
• Supporting the leadership of organisations to deliver 'best value' and manage
change
62

• Influencing public perception and policy
• Securing standards of education and training for youth work
Open Gov www.open.gov.uk
Useful index of government organisations, projects and information accessible
through the web.
Princes Trust www.princes-trust.org.uk
The Prince’s Trust focuses on young people who face problems such as
unemployment, poverty, discrimination, under-achievement, family breakdown,
homelessness and personal crisis. The Trust helps young people to succeed by
providing opportunities which they would otherwise not have. It does this through a
nationwide network which delivers practical advice and counselling, support for
business start ups, loans and grants, training, local projects, personal development
and support for study outside school. The Trust helps both individuals and groups.
In December 1997, The Trust launched the M-Power Millenium Awards, which allow
young people to develop their own community projects. It will allocate at least 250
Awards to groups of around 10 young people over the next three years. The awards are
supported by a £2.7million grant from the Millennium Commission.
A new web site will be launched in Autumn 1999.
Save the Children: http://193.129.255.93
Useful site for publications and search facilities. Save the Children take a strategic
approach to youth work. They have appointed the first Children’s rights commissioner in
Oxfordshire (Ianthe MacClagan Tel. 01865 792662). A commissioner for London will be
appointed soon.
Unempoyment Unit & YouthAid: www.namss.org.uk
This site provides information about New Deal initiatives for young people.
Youth Justice Board: www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk
A section on reports and consultation papers contains all of the latest reports
produced by the Youth Justice Board and the Youth Offending Teams.
• Evaluations - identifying and promoting information on what works to prevent
offending by young people
• Board advice - directives issued by the board to aid in preventing offending by young
people
• Other reports - reports relevant to the development of the Youth Crime Policy
YMCA www.ymca.org.uk
This site provides useful links to other organisations.
YouthNet www.thesite.org.uk
63

This site describes itself as “your one-stop, definitive guide to surviving - and enjoying -
life in the nineties”. It is an incredibly comprehensive and accessible database for young
people and youth workers. It contains over 16,000 organisational records, along with
dozens of fact sheets and features on a wide range of topics. All the information is
provided for free. No one pays to access it, and listed organisations aren't charged to be
there. Instead, theSITE relies heavily on the tremendous support of many friendly
companies.
YouthOrg: http://www.youth.org.uk
This site provides over 1000 links to web sites that provide information, advice and
education for young people and youth workers (indexed by National Youth Agency
Focussed Access Information System).
YouthOrg UK is a voluntary organisation that aims to support youth organisations
by:
• Developing a virtual community to link and empower young people using the Internet
for learning
• Providing resources, information and advice for young people using the Internet
• Supporting educators working with young people on the Internet
YouthOrg UK is a member of the British Youth Council.
64

Endnotes
i “ Involving a wide range of adults and community institutions is a vital part of the effort to re-engage
(marginalised youth):
The youth charter is an approach that brings together all adults who are in positions to influence young
people – parents, teachers, town official, police, clergy, sports coaches, club leaders, counsellors, ne media,
employers – in the quest to define high community standards for youth development. A youth charter
focuses on the core features of character and competence that young people need to acquire in order to
become responsible citizens (Damon 1997)
The process of debate discussion and mobilisation that lead to a youth charter is as important as the terms
of the charter itself. (Bentley and Gurumurthy 1999 p. 100)
ii Although normally aimed primarily at young people, because they are supposed to reflect the local
population or users of a service they should provide an opportunity for young people to have their voice
heard on difficult or controversial issues. With history dating back o the 70’s in America and Germany
citizen’s juries,
“Bring together a group of randomly chosen citizens to deliberate on a particular issue, whether it is the
setting of a policy agenda or the choice of particular policy options. Over a number of days participants are
exposed to information about the issue and hear a wide range of views from witnesses, who are selected on
the basis of their expertise or on the ground that they represent affected interests. With trained moderators
ensuring fair proceedings, the jurors are given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and, on
occasion, call for additional information and witnesses. Following a process of deliberation among
themselves, the jurors produce a decision or provide recommendations in the form of a citizen’s report.”
(Smith and Wales 1998 p. 296)
In 1997 a citizen jury of young people was held by the Grimethorpe Partnership to consider the question,
What can the Grimethorpe Partenrship do to help young people to reduce the levels of crime and drug use
in Grimethorpe. In 1998 the Public Involvement Programme and Opinion Leader Research ran a citizens’
jury with young people in Swansea. A group of sixteen 15-16 year olds were brought together to discuss
principles for the built environment. They considered the following questions were considered. What are
the most important features of a neighbourhood What are the most important things to think about when
we are planning new neighbourhoods What kinds of neighbourhoods do we want in the future Should old
and young people live in separate areas Should rich and poor people live in separate areas How would
you design your neighbourhood so people yes their cars less
65