Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders context of studying graffiti and tagging there are a number of reasons in choosing a mixed methods approach that includes qualitative methods. First, this approach allows some insight into the ‘dark figure of crime’ defined as, ‘the figure for unrecorded crime or undetected offenders, that is to say those not included in official statistics’ (Coleman and Moynihan, 1996; 146). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods and combining different ways of collecting data offers the opportunity for a more complete understanding of the nature and extent of graffiti and tagging. The use of qualitative methods such as focus groups offers the opportunity to examine the contexts in which graffiti and tagging take place as well as the meanings attached to these behaviours by graffiti writers. Second, the term ‘appreciative studies’ was first used by Matza (1969) in referring to studies of deviant subcultures. Appreciative criminology refers to ‘an approach that seeks to understand and appreciate the social world from the point of view of the individual or category of individual, with particular reference to crime and deviance’ (Jupp, 2001; 12). Developing an appreciation of the meanings and motivations of graffiti writers is important in developing effective strategies to prevent graffiti vandalism. Overview of survey An online survey was established on the Ministry of Youth Development (MYD) website, using the Survey Monkey web-tool. The survey comprised of 23 questions relating to general perceptions of tagging and graffiti, the deviant and criminal status of tagging and graffiti, and factors that might influence desistance. Demographic information (age, gender and ethnicity) was collected. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix 1. The survey was hosted on the MYD website in May and June 2009. Participants in the survey were self-selected and although a relatively large number completed returns it is not possible to ascertain the extent to which they are representative of the broader youth population of New Zealand. The on-line survey was completed by 773 respondents: 372 were males (48.1 per cent) and 319 (41.3 per cent) female, with 82 (10.6 per cent) not specifying their gender. Table 1 shows the ethnic profile of respondents and age breakdown of those who completed the survey. 12
Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders Table 1: Profile of respondents (number and percentages) 253040 Total % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n NZ 30.0 3 34.0 54 44.0 102 40.4 21 46.4 13 62.5 15 53.8 21 43.4 23 55.2 16 42.8 268 European Māori 20.0 2 22.6 36 18.5 43 15.4 8 10.7 3 0.0 0 7.7 3 30.2 16 17.2 5 18.5 116 Pacific 10.0 1 6.3 10 5.2 12 11.5 6 7.1 2 4.2 1 7.7 3 3.8 2 6.9 2 6.2 39 Asian 10.0 1 8.8 14 4.3 10 5.8 3 14.3 4 4.2 1 5.1 2 1.9 1 0.0 0 5.8 36 European 20.0 2 4.4 7 9.1 21 19.2 10 10.7 3 12.5 3 12.8 5 5.7 3 10.3 3 9.1 57 Other 10.0 1 23.9 38 19.0 44 7.7 4 10.7 3 16.7 4 12.8 5 15.1 8 10.3 3 17.6 110 ethnic Total 100 10 100 159 100 232 100 52 100 28 100 24 100 39 100 53 100 29 100 626 In keeping with established practice respondents were able to select more than one ethnic affiliation. Respondents who did so (17.6 per cent of all respondents) are categorised as ’other’ in this analysis. Overview of focus groups The other method of collecting data was via a series of focus groups, conducted in various locations around New Zealand in April and May 2009. Thirteen of these were facilitated with the help of MYD staff. Some groups incorporated young people engaged in alternative education, mentoring based programmes and structured activity based programmes. Further youth were recruited through graffiti cleanup and community groups; others were members of youth panels that inform policy development across a range of government sectors. Participants were aged between 14 and 24 years of age; no demographic data was recorded for these participants. A copy of the interview schedule used in the focus group discussions is in Appendix 2 and a list of the focus groups is included in Appendix 3. These focus groups were intended to provide qualitative data from a cross-section of New Zealand youth. Another series of seven groups were conducted in various locations with young people engaged to various degrees in tagging and graffiti behaviour. Some of these groups were coordinated via graffiti cleanup groups, others through alternative education and youth projects working with young people who might not be accessible through more mainstream contacts with education and youth services. An immediate problem this research project encountered was the recruitment of graffiti ‘offenders’. Marginalised young people feature prominently among ‘hard to reach groups’ that criminological research often seeks to study (Pain and Francis, 2003). The original intention was to secure access to those who had been arrested and convicted through agencies such as the NZ Police and Department of Corrections. However, given the complex ethical considerations such an approach would entail and time constraints on the project, this was 13
Page 1 and 2: Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and
Page 11: Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and
Page 33 and 34: culture’, and males more likely t
Page 55 and 56: Appendix one: on-line survey 55

Tagging and Graffiti - Victoria University of Wellington

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?