Tim Davies on youth work

Tim

Deeper conversations about youth work and youth policy are to be welcomed and so all the best for such a dialogue on the 21st. I'm afraid the notion of 'new' is overplayed and exhausted of meaning nowadays, which isn't for a moment to suggest that PYD shouldn't be discussed. I'm just observing that PYD is but the latest garb worn by the long-standing behavioural tradition

of American adolescent psychology. If you read the literature, PYD's components, programmes, lesson plans remain functionalist and normative. There is little sense of the structural, economic and political  limitations on young people's prospects. All of which means that an Anglicised version of PYD could be very attractive to New Labour. After all eulogies to PYD adorn the Bush administration's 'Helping America's Youth' page.

At the very least a debate about the efficacy or otherwise of PYD needs to question the naive suggestion that it is based on a 'science of adolescent development'. In my own experience youth workers in England have not bought into the stageist  formulations of this pseudo-science, mainly because its generalisations rarely match the  shifting  complexity of a young person's life. And, insofar as there are insights they are as applicable to the young, old and those in between! If any adolescent psycho got near me, he or she would find a poor soul still in turbulence and, in their eyes, badly lacking the 'resiliency' to ward off my anti-social and risky behaviours!

Yours in turmoil

Tony

Hello Tony

Many many thanks for the insightful critique.

==On 'new models'==

Point taken on the idea of 'new models' - an better title for this blog post might have been '<i>PYD: a model which has interesting elements that should be looked at for the UK context as we continue to evolve and critique youth policy</i>' - but the temptation to give the post a snappy title got the upper hand.

==On structure features of young people's disadvantage==

I think you are right to point out that PYD does little to take account of the structural/social limitations on young peoples achievement as structural/social limitations (although these should feature in-so-far-as they impact upon the possibility of young people acquiring the developmental capacities they need).

But then PYD is a model setting out to offer a structure for thinking about <i>programmes</i> for young people, and, for some PYD thinkers, about social attitudes towards young people. It is not a model of radical social change. That doesn't mean we don't need models of radical social change to challenge deep rooted social inequality - but those are far bigger policy questions that PYD shouldn't (and because of its adolescent development/scientific school of thinking, most likely wouldn't) claim to answer.

==On accusations of pseudo-science==

Badly used, and in a culture that prioritises statistically 'Evidence Based Practice' to the exclusion of developing creative, responsive and sensitive workers and communities(possibly an issue in some US contexts) - PYD could be taken as pseudo-science and generalist. Taken as a tool for sharpening our understanding of what works in youth work, and what is appropriate at different ages of young people's development - and as a tool for supporting workers and communities to use their skills to better support young people - it is far from pseudo-science - but is science as the under-labourer to our philosophies of change in the most positive possible way.

So I can't defend all PYD 'science' - but some bad science shouldn't undermine a discipline with something going for it.

==Functionalist lists to avoid risk?==

In the paper which should be available for download now from http://www.nya.org.uk/research (current projects) we do look at many of the lists of attributes which can read as overly 'functionalist' and 'normative'. However, as we looked more closely at these - we found most offer a rich discourse justifying the choices in these lists and recognising their limitations - and we found that PYD is a far more multi-dimensional concept than just offering lists of the 'resiliency factors' young people need (in fact, PYD proper would not want to talk about your 'risky behaviour' all that much at all but would want to talk about your positive thriving as an individual).

==On unhelpful forms of argument==

I don't find the polemical link to the Bush administration offers anything useful in your comment. New Labour may eulogise social justice (in fact, so may the Conservative Party and others even further to the Right). Does that make social justice a bad concept?

===On a positive movement===

In reviewing the literature on PYD I found it useful to make a distinction between:

* PYD as a model for youth programmes

* PYD as a movement

PYD as a movement is about creating a positive public idea of young people. Challenging us to articulate positive visions for thriving in young people's lives, rather than to just aim for 'problem free' transitions to adulthood.

The model is useful, but there is also a lot to learn from the successes and failures (about which there is fair deal of honesty) of the PYD movement.

With best wishes

Tim

Slightly ironic that the first reaction to a post about 'Positive Youth Development' was so negative.

My original research towards setting up the Young Movers programme at the National Communities Resource Centre was based on some of the same work covered in Tim & Sarahs research - that was nearly 10 years ago and it wasn't new then so I don't think its the 'latest fad' - although that may be me being naive in my short lifetime!

I've felt for years that theres a need to redress the balance of work with young people towards a more positive approach and certainly a more proactive one - perhaps if this was the case it would also help towards a more positive image both of work done with young people and young people themselves.

Its difficult to see how this could be achieved without some large scale changes - but if so it has to start somewhere so its good to see some work being done towards it!

Tim/Mike

A relatively brief response to your comments, especially now that I’ve read Tim and Sarah’s thoughtful and thought-provoking PYD literature review.  Indeed the piece has churned up all manner of classic issues in the Taylor household e.g. the relationship of the social to the individual.  So much that we (Marilyn’s First Class Honours Degree is in Social Analysis, Bradford 1983) are likely to prepare a serious critique of Tim and Sarah’s work.  And, seeing I’m contributing a paper on Psychology & Youth Work at Youth & Policy’s ‘Taking Youth Work Seriously’ March conference, I’m going to focus my contemporary example on Positive Youth Development.

For now, some quick observations, which open up all sorts of questions:-

As for the significance of structural and political limitations on ‘who we are and who we might become’ this is no side issue.  If PYD is “not a model of radical social change”, as Tim puts it, what is its basis?  Are we allowed to suggest that in fact it is a model of either liberal or conservative social conformity?  The proposal that PYD (or its parent, adolescent development theory) can address the micro whilst ignoring the macro context of existence, is the time-honoured sidestep of the American school of collaboration with the status quo, the weary suggestion that “its scientists are interested only in individuals, not politics.”

As for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ science, we’ll observe simply that no theory of social science can be neutral or value-free, always being informed by some sort of ideological and political persuasion.  As for development theory, to paraphrase Erica Burman, the subject of its enterprise, in this case, the normal adolescent, the ideal type, distilled from all manner of comparative experiments and scores of age-graded populations is a fiction, a myth.  It is an abstraction, a fantasy, a product of adolescent psychology’s desire to classify measure and regulate the behaviour of young people, especially those deemed less than respectable.

As for our unhelpful references to the concrete, the living significance of New Labour or George Bush, these seem to us inevitable and necessary.  It is not possible to talk about PYD and social policy without reference to the agendas of those who determine the thrust and content of such policy and the level of resources made available.  As for PYD and social justice, it is not matter of whether these are ‘good’ or ‘bad’.  For the moment we will say merely that they are contested concepts.  Our understanding of social justice is that it is utterly incompatible with economic inequality, with the very basis of the capitalist imperative.  Neither George Bush nor Gordon Brown agrees, but they still have the audacity (in our eyes) to mouth the words social and justice in the same breath.

This said, if we are not seeing the wood for the trees and PYD is a social movement from below, committed to the emancipation of the social individual with all that this entails, we are keen to understand how this is panning out and to explore further what Tim and Sarah describe as ‘a rich discourse of possibilities’.

Turning to Mike:

We fear the above may confirm his observation that we are ‘negative’.  We don’t see it that way.  We are raising doubts, asking questions.  For ourselves it is the only route by which we can become positive.  And to add (although we are sure that Mike doesn’t mean it in this way) that charging people with being negative has become the stock-in-trade response of politicians and youth work management to any questioning, any dissidence within the workforce.  We do not make this accusation idly.  At this very moment we have close friends being harassed within Youth Work just because they asked ‘why?’  We know also of Youth Services where internal discussion has all but melted away..

As for Mike’s desire ‘to redress the balance of work with young people towards a more positive approach’ we heartily agree. If the ideas of PYD have been significant for him, we must think this through further.  Our dilemma, being long in the tooth, is that we don’t think we can debate PYD outside of what’s happening to youth work today in this country and without a profound sense of its history.  Thus there is an important liberal or social-democratic tradition, instituted by Albermarle, which is young person-centred, egalitarian and holistic, founded on process and relationships.  Indeed this view dominated youth work training for at least 30 years.  How far this tradition, described as social education at its height, impacted on practice is a major question, and we were both part of it and critical towards it.  To cut a complex story short, it is this very tradition which has been under attack for at least the last 20 years.  This situation led Bernard Davies to publish his ‘Manifesto for Youth Work’, available for download at the NYA web site, in which he articulates afresh the substance of liberal, progressive youth work. Thinking about the possibilities of PYD ought be grounded in the historical and theoretical work of such as Bernard Davies, Jean Spence, Tony Jeffs, Mark Smith, Gus John, Kalbir Shukra, Mae Shaw and her collaborators from the Concept journal et al, together with a sober analysis of today’s predicament.  Of course this is possible, whether it will be encouraged is another matter.

With all this in mind we hope that the launch of Tim and Sarah’s work leads to lively and renewed debate about the state of Youth Work in 2008.

Best Wishes

Tony and Marilyn Taylor

wow quite a reply Tony! I don't think my brains had to work that hard since I accidentally enrolled to study 'Pollen Analysis' to make up my units at Uni (if you're confused imagine how it was for me!)

I definitely wouldn't want to to discourage anyone to ask questions of services for young people so apologies if it came across that way - if anything much more of this is needed.

I think I would tend to defend the PYD approach just because so much of my own work has been based on it. The Young Movers programme we ran was very successful and we're continuing to try and progress from this through the work we do as YoMo - but it does and always has felt as though we're very lonely in relation to policy.

When I first proposed the programme at the NCRC it wasn't exactly warmly welcomed - they were looking for something that would do 'drugs education' or help 'young mums' - all the rage then! A proposal to run a 'wishy washy' programme loosely based on 'competencies' from an American programme and with a proactive & preventative approach just didn't fit in with the youth work climate then.

Still I won the argument and we gave it a go. Since then there have been some large scale prorammes including Positive Activities for Young People and more recently the Get Real Scheme operated by the YHA. Both of these got me excited at the time - and then ultimately disappointed. My opinion is that these were a wasted opportunity - they failed to make the link between young peoples leisure interests and putting them to use in a way that genuinely benefits society (& subsequently the young people involved). Instead they're just leisure programmes - and if this is their only aim then my criticism is unfair, but to me it was a wasted opportunity because not enough consideration had been put into how young people can take part in enjoyable activities but in a way that is genuinely useful (not just a short term good time).

We have made that link - its what all our work is based on - but we're a very small organisation with absolutely no influence into policy at all. So I'm very keen to support any effort towards swinging that balance.

Be good to read your own report Tony but please provide a summary in simple language to save my head hurting! :)

Mike

Sorry about the headache! Over the years I've tried to write more clearly and less pretentiously, but still sometimes I mess up.

It's made worse sometimes by not having the space to explain oneself at length.

Off to google, 'Pollen Analysis', just to check how bloody difficult we're making things.

Promise our critique of Tim and Sarah will be sponsored by Anadin with free  sachets of Anadin Extra to whomever manages to get to the end of our rantings.

All the Best

Tony

**"If PYD is 'not a model of radical social change', as Tim puts it, what is its basis?"**

As a 'Movement', PYD is an articulation of a positive vision for young people. It's a conceptual framework for shifting the way we talk about young people, and the policy that affect young people.

As a framework for programme 'Models', PYD as a whole can be a component of a wider model of social change - but it does not provide or fill in /all/ the details of that model itself. We wouldn't want to pretend it did, or that it could answer all the questions. Specifying the model of social change is neccessary - and is political (this is not to deny PYD itself is political... I'll come onto that in a moment), but any wider model needs to incorporate diverse components: practical tools for promoting change in practice; concepts and frameworks for conducting those detailed discussions about the diversity of ends we want in a thriving, dynamic and liberated society; and concepts and frameworks that check that we can all enable change to progress effectively and not to get lost along the way.

Is PYD just interested in the invidual? By no means. Development is seen as an 'ecological' concept (ref Bronfenbrenner), with roots in individual biology, but entirely moderated and interelated to it's social context.

**What about the political?**

PYD calls for an articulation of what it is for a young person to be thriving. I wouldn't suggest this can ever be value neutral. In fact - it should be discussed and contested - in a dialogue that includes the voice of young people at it's core. We think PYD provides a framework for that dialogue.

I'll try and get Sarah to write or record something on the heritage of PYD in the US as it's an area where her understanding and experience is far deeper than mine - but broadly I understand PYD proper to originate on the left - and to be challenging the status quo, not collaborating with it. In so far as champions of PYD like Pitman call for a 'going beyond' current policy - they don't call for fundamental revolution and system change - but I would take this as a pragmatism in the interests of getting the best deal for young people starting from where we are.

To clarift: the analogy to social justice was to assert that, just in the way the idea of true 'social justice' is not determined by those who write about it on their manifestos, PYD proper is not determined, not driven, by the agenda's of those who have pick-and-mixed its rhetoric in their public statements.

**Finding the wood for the trees**

Is PYD a movement from below? I don't think it can be said to have been a 'mass movement from below' in the US. But - that doesn't determine what it can be in the UK context.

Can it offer a model for policy that pushes us from dealing with 'problem behaviours', to one about ensuring practice equips the social individual with positive capacities to shape their own future, act with agency and act as part of a wider community, or movement? Quite possibly.

**Getting grounded**

//"Thinking about the possibilities of PYD ought be grounded in the historical and theoretical work of such as Bernard Davies, Jean Spence, Tony Jeffs, Mark Smith, Gus John, Kalbir Shukra, Mae Shaw and her collaborators from the Concept journal et al, together with a sober analysis of today’s predicament."//

Very true. But it should equally not be tied to a particular spot on the ground so as to exclude the potential for new ideas (or re-interpretations of old ideas) to introduce change and evolution.

Being very new to much of this discussion I've only been able to pick up small chunks of that rich history you talk of Tony. If you can recomend any good overview articles I should track down that summarise some of that, I'd be most interested...

Tim

Thanks for your response - so much to talk about! So, for the moment, I'll allow the dilemmas to spiral round my synoptic gaps.

As for overview pieces the best I can come up with straight away are:

Bernard Davies 'In Whose Interests; From Social Education to Life and Social Skills Training' to be found on www.infed.org/.../davies_in_whose_interests.htm

Don't be put off by the date of its publication, 1979, because it shows that almost 30 years ago a young-person centred practice based on relationships and process was under assault.

See also Bernard's 'Youth Work : A Manifesto For Our Times' [2005], which illustrates the continuity of his thinking - available on the NYA web site.

Mark Smith 'Beyond Social Education', Chapter 5 of his book,'Informal Education', www.infed.org/.../dyw5.htm

and Mark's specific piece on the relationship of youth work to youth development, www.infed.org/.../Smith_youth_work_to_youth_development.htm

And, to put my oar in, my sweeping historical and political attack on 'Youth Matters', critically-chatting.0catch.com/.../index.html

Hope these might be of interest.

Best Wishes again for Monday. At least a couple of the Critically Chatting Crew will be there.

Tony

Thanks Tony :)

Will have a read over the next few weeks...

Tim

Just a quick update:

We had the research launch on Monday and we're putting together an interactive version of the presentation to allow wider discussion and comment.

Tony,

I've been reading through the articles you suggested. A very quick response to some is sketched below (these are first impressions rather than developed thoughts - shared for the purpose of allowing any dead-ends I might risk heading down being pointed out in advance...)

>I got a sense that PYD could in fact fit as an answer to the questions around curriculum and rational in Bernard Davies 1979 article - but by the Manifesto (and later literature in general) Youth Work seems to have got looser in its definitions and sense of self, rather than tighter. (I understand there is a lot of political and intellectual background to this) As such, I think PYD still has a role to play at least as a well grounded part of the 'critical toolset' of the youth worker (additions to the 'critical questions' Davies talks of youth workers using to define their practice).

>The Mark Smith article at www.infed.org/.../smith_youth_work_to_youth_development.htm is one I need to spend more time on. Perhaps when we have the interactive presentation available we can put some of the critique Mark develops up against the model as we've presented it to see:

a) Are there inherent threats in the PYD model to the distinctive youth work approach?

b) Are there inherent problems with the PYD approach for policy around young people in general?

(e.g. Does PYD drive us towards a more bureaucratic, target setting culture? Does it push us in the wrong direction?)

My sense is that the threats are not inherent. And there is a lot to be gained from PYD. But I would say there are some threats that are possible consequence of a misreading of PYD (as indeed there would be threats in a misreading of youth work theory...).

When Tony Taylor launched some very insightful and detailed discussions in reply to my introduction to

Pingback from  Positive Youth Development | The (late) Breakfast Society

Pingback from  Research Report into Training for Young Peoples Community Involvement | The (late) Breakfast Society

Just to apologise for not responding further, I've been finishing an article and got deflected by the spectre of Neuro-Linguistic Programming! As it is I am doing a workshop at Youth and Policy's 'Taking Youth Work Seriously' conference, March 3/4, where I am going to focus in particular on PYD's emphasis on adolescent developmental psychology and on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Afterwards, in the light of the discussion there, I shall be circulating an article of some kind. Finally I'm sorry not to have joined in your effort to facilitate discussion via your audio slide show. The microphone isn't cooperating, which  means you've been denied the seductive sound of my Wigan drawl! This said it's disappointing that this alternative has not been taken up. Good on you for trying.

Hey Tony

No worries. We've been rather overtaken by other bits here as well - but hoping to get back to looking at PYD soon.

Alas I won't be able to make the Y&P conference... but would be interested to hear your reflections.

I am, however, worried about the idea of lumping PYD and NLP together.

Developmental psychology (and psychology in general) //can// have a place in thinking about young people and policy. The key is in the vehicle, values and additional concepts through which is is reflected in practice.

Most of what I've seen of NLP is psyschology abused and badly used (and indeed, is research badly used and packaged for commercial gain rather than better practice) - implemented with a disregard for values of community or individual autonomy.

Most of what I've seen of PYD is developmental psychology well used to inform practice, with research providing one element of the foundations for strategies and plans which incorporate core values of individual autonomy and community development.

Tim

Tim

I don't intend to crudely lump PYD and NLP together.  Certainly I recognise that their roots and histories are very different. However I do not think it is just  by chance  that we are seeing at this particular moment an effort to influence Youth Work practice either through the advocacy of PYD or NLP. In this sense I shall be trying to explore:

- the contribution to Youth Work practice made by social psychology over the last 50 years and what seems to me to be its failure to really assist workers both understand young people and themselves.

- the issue that perhaps this failure is catching up on us, especially in the light of the shift over the last 20 years from at least the rhetoric of 'unpredictable process' to  the insistence on 'guaranteed outcomes'; that there is a partial vacuum in the theory and practice of today's work with young people.

- therefore the possible attraction of approaches, which seem more in tune with today's pragmatic, instrumentalist  emphasis on 'what works?' or the quick fix.  At this point I will be looking at the very different faces of this dilemma posed by PYD and NLP.

- finally I shall offer a tentative alternative in terms of comprehending  more usefully who we are and who might we become, the question of personality. My emphasis will be on the social self, on biography, on the real constraints of the circumstances within which young people strive to fulfil themselves. If, so to speak, we are intervening to change the ideas in  people's heads, at one and the same time we must intervene to change the social and political relations into which we are all born.

Of course that needs a lot more explaining and I'll throw in a few jokes too. It's disappointing you won't be there, even if you might have torn my argument to pieces!

Best Wishes

Tony