Long before the statement that began the previous post was made, I was sceptical of social research.
My scepticism arose from an experience that I had when I was a novice street-worker, in the early 1990’s, and we were tasked with supporting young people from 14 to 18 – which was the age group that the Project I worked with at that time was restricted to.
After a short time it became very clear to my colleagues and I that there was a need to support younger children – and their families also. Following much discussion with community leaders including teachers etc. a Government Department was approached to see if funding could be accessed to set up a programme to improve the prospects of children with high need aged (approx.) between 7 and 13-14.
As it so happened, at that time there was some movement towards this at Government level anyway so we were delighted when we got a positive response. As we were happily waiting for some news that something would happen (i.e. that a Project of reasonable size employing, perhaps, three or four workers would be set up and would complement what we were doing on the street with the older teens) there came a sudden halt.
Stop………..
We were informed that the need had to be researched before the funding could be allocated!
Researchers then descended upon us to do it. While to be honest my memories of being researched are vague I remember being assured that they spoke with parents of children, teachers, youth workers, counsellors and many practitioners involved and after all that produced a report.
Eventually, (this was about 12 months later) one worker was recruited – to work on her own – to address the issue. The part that I remember most was that she was mandated to work only within the education system – and the parameters of her work were determined by the local primary school.
Despite her best efforts the situation did not improve that much and a good few of the children (I knew many of them) for whom, to my mind anyway, the Project had been intended in the first place did not fit the criteria for involvement and they dropped out of school anyway.
This was exactly the opposite of what was intended.
One criteria for involvement was that the child’s parent or parents would have to be involved in some school activity or other. As parents were from the Focus Group and had many of the characteristics that I described earlier, they did not feel too comfortable in the school environment. The school, it has to be said, made an effort too, but the cultural divide was too great.
I know at least two young boys who were excluded from that venture with tragic consequences for both in their teens.
I have no idea what the research to kick-start the Project cost but I am sure that I and my colleagues could have done it with a few concerned parents (probably mothers to be honest – many fathers were absent, some in prison) for far lower cost in a few weeks and produced recommendations that would have been far more meaningful.
I do not state that I am right here – but that is what I believe.
Furthermore, if the Project (and support packages for children) had had the families at the centre rather than the school I am sure that the outcomes would have been far better.
Finally, it upset me a little that professional researchers (whether they were from academia or not – I can’t remember) got money to produce a report to describe a need that was dogs-in-the-street obvious to any practitioner while children suffered for 12-18 months – and thereafter were excluded.