Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 09 October 2014, At: 10:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Youth StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20
‘Practise what you teach’M. Emslie aa Youth Work , Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT)University , Melbourne, AustraliaPublished online: 20 Apr 2009.
To cite this article: M. Emslie (2009) ‘Practise what you teach’, Journal of Youth Studies, 12:3,323-336, DOI: 10.1080/13676260902810833
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676260902810833
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
‘Practise what you teach’
Researching youth work education: teaching participatory
casework practice
M. Emslie*
Youth Work, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, Melbourne,Australia
The importance of giving young people a say in casework has received muchattention in recent years. Little attention, however, has been given to the questionof how to educate youth workers as a way of ensuring young people’s involvementin such professional practices. This paper reports on a model for preparing youthworkers for participatory casework practice. It is a curriculum grounded in acollaborative-based pedagogy. Such educative frameworks that invite student’sparticipation align with effective theories and models on youth participation.Educators interested in developing youth work students’ capacities to engage indirect practice that encourages young people’s involvement in decision makingneed to ‘practise what they teach’ and teach in ways that encourage students’active participation. The teaching and learning activities engage students withrationales of youth participation and what we know about young people beinggiven a say in casework. The possible influence of personal experiences andbroader social and economic arrangements are explored. And a scenario-basedactivity invites students to assess the implications of current knowledge,biography and context, to identify challenges and opportunities for practice.
Keywords: youth work; education
Introduction
Much attention has been given in recent years by those researching the issues of
‘youth participation’ and ‘youth work practice’ to the rationales for the inclusion and
strategies for involving young people in casework (Shier 2001, Cashmore 2002,
Connolly and Ward 2008). Little attention, however, has been given to the question
of youth work education and how we might educate youth workers to ensure thatyoung people participate in such professional practices. In this paper, I argue the
importance of giving young people a voice in casework, and that one way of realizing
this is through the preparation of youth workers.1
This question is important for a number of reasons. First, quality learning and
teaching usually do not just happen; they take thought, reflection and work, and it is
with this in mind that I reflect on my own teaching practice as a youth work educator
and draw lessons from that. Secondly valuing youth participation as a graduate
outcome is not enough on its own � attention needs to be given to the design ofcurriculum models, teaching practices and learning experiences if we are to achieve
*Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1367-6261 print/ISSN 1469-9680 online
# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13676260902810833
http://www.informaworld.com
Journal of Youth Studies
Vol. 12, No. 3, June 2009, 323�336
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
that end. One way of involving young people in decision making that affects them is
by educating youth work students in certain skills so that they are equipped and
motivated to do that as practitioners. More generally, I am interested in contributing
to a ‘debate about the value of improving the quality of youth work education and
training’ (Bessant 2007, p. 45).
As mentioned, I will examine certain aspects of youth work pedagogy by drawing
on my own teaching in courses of study that specifically encourage students to
perform and design casework that is inclusive of young clients’ active participation. I
begin by exploring some of the reasons for involving young people in casework and
articulate how this can be done. Though I draw mainly on Australian material, my
arguments are applicable to other Western countries where youth work is taught, and
where young people are engaged in casework interventions. Consideration is also
given to relevant literature on good teaching in higher education. In acknowledging
students as active learners, the influence of their own experiences are critical.
Observations are also made about how broader social and economic arrangements,
such as managerial forms of governance in the public sector, may limit youth
workers’ capacity to give young people a say in their professional practice.
I report on the model I have developed to educate youth workers for
participatory casework practice. This entails analysis of four distinct areas of
casework practice: case review, case closure, accessing service user feedback, and
complaints and grievance procedures. It is a curriculum designed to teach the
requisite skills and knowledge base in ways that actively engage participation in each
step of these activities.
Rationale for involving young people in decision making in casework
While youth participation is variously understood and highly contested, it is
generally agreed to be a social good (Matthews et al. 1999, France 2007, Edwards
2008). It is also a basic human right, as articulated in Article 12.1 of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989):
State Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views theright to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the childbeing given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
Australia is a signatory to this Convention, which obligate us to involve young
people in decision-making that affects their lives. In the Australian state of Victoria,
where I live and work, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities
Act 2006 also requires all government departments and public bodies to take various
civil and political rights into account when they create laws, set policies and provide
services (Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission 2008).
Victorian Government youth policy endorses youth participation on grounds that
‘the most effective resources and actions are influenced by the involvement of young
people’, and ‘young people want to have a say on matters that have an impact on
them’ (Office for Youth 2006, pp. 11�15). The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria
(2007), the state’s peak non-government organization, also recently released a code
of ethical practice, which includes statements about the value of youth workers
enabling young people to make choices and decisions.
324 M. Emslie
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Other reasons for encouraging youth participation in direct practice with young
people include the belief that ‘young people are more than capable of making well-
informed and responsible judgments’ (Bessant 2004, p. 394). Involving young people
enhances the quality of service provision, such as the service user’s satisfaction withthe outcome of a decision-making process. It improves young people’s well-being,
health, and sense of ownership and belonging, as well as increases young people’s
capacity for empathy, responsibility, and effective decision making. Giving young
people a say helps reduce the subjection of young people to exploitation and abuse,
and builds their confidence to speak out when it occurs. And it lays the groundwork
for citizenship and democratic participation, and thus helps to safeguard and
strengthen democracy (Shier 2001, p. 114). Cashmore (2002) adds: ‘Children and
young people in care clearly wish to have some say in the way decisions are madeabout their lives and generally do not believe that they have adequate appropriate
opportunities to do so’ (p. 837).
How to promote youth participation in youth work practice
There are many practices to promote young people’s involvement in decision
making. Formal casework processes in Australian child protection and juvenile
justice arenas, for example, already encourage young people to have a say. In part,this feature of professional practice results from legislation that directs service
providers to engage the young ‘clients’ of statutory services in decision-making
processes. For example, the Victorian Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 has
specific decision-making principles requiring children and young people to be
‘encouraged and given adequate opportunity to participate fully in decision-making
processes’. The Victorian Government Department of Human Services (2008) child
protection services case practice procedures encourage workers to engage, build
relationships, empower and partner with young people through the processes ofinformation gathering, analysis and planning, actions and review. While such
practices � or formally stipulated requirements � are generally limited to those
jurisdictions, they do offer ideas that can be transferred and adapted in different
sites. And while policy and legislation obligates some youth workers to involve young
people, I suggest youth workers should not require such directives to ensure their
practice is respectful of the young person’s right to participation in matters they have
a direct interest in (Shier 2001, p. 110, Cashmore 2002, p. 840).
Three of the models on youth participation I find useful in my teaching comefrom Hart (1995), Shier (2001), and Cashmore (2002). Hart’s (1995) influential
ladder of participation conceptualizes youth participation along a continuum of eight
degrees of non-participation or participation, ranging from ‘manipulation to ‘child
initiated shared decisions with adults’. Couch (2007) argues that it is rarely possible
to use such a scale to locate levels of actual participation, as the situation within a
particular project may be complex and possibly contradictory (p 38). Like any
model, it needs to be used critically, contextually and reflectively.
Shier’s (2001) model for enhancing children’s participation in decision making isin line with article 12.1 of the UNCRC. It similarly consists of five levels of
participation, starting with ‘children are listened to’ and progressing to ‘children
share power and responsibility for decision making’. Three stages of commitment are
identified at each level; openings, opportunities and obligations. In effect, Shier has
Journal of Youth Studies 325
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
produced a ‘sequence of 15 questions as a tool for planning for participation’
(p. 107), and he specifically dictates the minimal requirements for meeting article
12.1 of the UNCRC. Connolly and Ward (2008) applied Shier’s model to family
participation, demonstrating its potential to be used in other contexts.Cashmore (2002) lists a series of prerequisites and requirements for advancing
youth participation in decision making. She argues:
Genuine and effective participation by children and young people in decisionsand in processes that affect their lives depends on several conditions. These
include:
� the opportunity and choice of ways to participate,
� access to relevant information,
� a trusted advocate or mentor,
� policy and legislation that require children and young people to be
consulted and informed,
� ways to complain,� ways for services to evaluate their performance and the way they encourage
the involvement of children and young people. (p. 841)
Together, the three models provide a framework youth workers can use to review and
improve how they involve young people in decision making in their own professionalpractice.
Young clients’ experiences of having a say in casework
Cashmore (2002) identifies case conferences and review meetings as formal casework
processes increasingly involving young people. They are regular forums where
workers, young people and significant others in their lives meet to assess case plan
activities to date and set an agenda for action. Significant decisions affecting the livesof young ‘clients’ are made. Cashmore reviewed eight separate studies from the UK
and Australia, reporting that ‘young people expressed concerns about the
intimidating, boring, and alienating nature of case conferences and similar
processes’: ‘They said there were often too many people they did not know, that
they did not have access to the information that the adults had, and that they felt
poorly prepared and inadequately supported’ (p. 840).
Bessant (2004) argues that we need to ‘recognise the significant obstacles that
young people currently experience when trying to participate’ (p. 387). There aremany other reported barriers. First, young people are not given a choice, or inviting
them to participate is left to the last minute. Studies clearly indicate that a majority
of young people are not given a say in casework decision-making processes
(Cashmore 2002). Second, young people become discouraged from participating as
a result of their opinions not being treated with respect or taken seriously (Matthews
et al. 1998/99). Third, a willingness to talk can depend on a genuine and trusting
personal relationship. High turnover of workers, short duration of support periods,
and breaches of confidentiality and privacy can be inimical to the development ofsuch relationships between young people and caseworkers. Fourth, participatory
processes are generally initiated by adults, with little thought to how young people
might experience them and an assumption that one approach will suit all young
people (Couch 2007). There are examples of empowering and positive practice
326 M. Emslie
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
captured by official accounts (Cashmore 2002). Young people can be positive about
being given a say in decisions that concern them and being listened to. Based on
research to date, however, there is room for improvement.
Workers also give voice to why they do not involve young people in casework
decision making. Cashmore (2002) reports that workers can assume that young
people ‘want it their way’, rather than ‘have a say’, and therefore do not enable
young people’s voices to be heard. Other reasons workers might exclude young
people are that they do not have the skills or commitment, or workers may fear that
service users will be critical and challenging of their practice, or that giving young
people a say might jeopardize other relationships, such as that between the worker
and the young person’s family, or between young persons and significant others in
their lives (Couch 2007). Involving young people takes time, resources and effort.
When it is unsupported and undervalued by the agency, not part of the funding or
service agreements, and not a common practice or in position descriptions, workers
are discouraged. The emphasis here is on workers to change their attitudes and
practice to engage young people in decision making. However, this list of reasons for
not involving young people can be seen as the effects of a range of personal and
contextual constraints. I return to this shortly.
I now consider what constitutes good teaching and learning in higher education
and what the implications of that are for my curriculum project.
Lessons from teaching and learning in higher education
Australian accounts of teaching youth work students to give young people a say in
casework
Youth work education and training in Australia is offered at the certificate and
diploma-level level in the vocational education and training (VET) and technical and
further education (TAFE) sectors. It is also provided in university-based degree and
higher-degree programmes. A general consensus exists about the value of youth
participation among Australian youth work educators and trainers. Indeed, most
current accounts of youth work pedagogy are generally oriented towards supporting
youth participation. Despite this, however, research on teaching youth work in
Australia offers little in terms of specific curriculum models based on sound
pedagogical practices. In particular, little attention has been given to the specific
question of how we can best educate youth workers to encourage young people’s
participation in case management practice. Cashmore (2002) is one who calls for
‘skill development on the part of adults involved’ to improve youth workers’ capacity
to give young people a say’ but makes no suggestions on what the education or
training should look like.
Bowie (2005) observes that university youth work education in Australia is
‘content driven’ (p. 301). While I imagine many youth work educators would
challenge such a claim, if this is the case it is long overdue for teaching and learning
theory and approaches to be given as much attention. While a study of actual
pedagogical practices relating to encouraging youth participation among youth work
students is likely to be illuminating for my current project, it is beyond the scope of
this paper. Australian youth work educators and trainers might also be able to learn
Journal of Youth Studies 327
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
from overseas examples, as well as from other disciplines such as social work and
nursing; again, considerations for further research.
Youth work training in the VET and TAFE sectors is competency based
(Broadbent 1997, 1998). The national youth work training package and associatedcompetencies have undergone a series of reviews and rationalizations. One cost in
achieving such ‘improvements’ has been the lack of direct engagement and
involvement of the youth work sector (Corney and Broadbent 2007). This does
not provide a good model for collaborative and participatory decision making. A
further criticism levelled at competency-based approaches is their focus on achieving
measurable outcomes as efficiently as possible (Hodkinson and Issitt 1995). This can
mean that young people are not given a say because either it is not an output, or to
do so would jeopardize meeting required targets.If there was an ‘outcome’ or performance indicator of increased ‘client’
participation’ in casework decision making, this could be achieved by: (i) requiring
service users to participate involuntarily; (ii) threatening exclusion of young people
who do not comply; (iii) arguing that it is for their own good. This is the case for
people accessing supported accommodation and income support services in
Australia. They are required to participate in service and case planning; if they
refuse, they risk eviction or loss of income. Competency-based approaches can fall
short of offering reflective, analytical and creative models of pedagogy and practiceencouraging youth participation.
Conventional approaches to teaching and learning in higher education are notparticipatory
Historically, tertiary education has discouraged participation. The eminent profes-
sors of education, McWilliams and Jackson (2008), recently reflected on the
continued dominance of an outdated, ‘subject-cantered, expert-driven, and trans-missive’ pedagogy in the sector. In other words, much teaching and learning is bound
up with the academics as the experts, transmitting knowledge they have selected to
eager but ignorant students, who, it is imagined, will passively consume what is
presented. The monologic lecture is a most common teacher-centred practice, as
is requiring students to demonstrate mastery of the information in assessment. In
this account, knowledge is positioned as absolute, fixed, and transhistorical.
Students have no role in producing anything worth knowing unless it is repeating
what the lecturer has instructed (Biggs 2003). Such approaches to teaching andlearning actively work against involving people in decision making, not to mention
effective learning.
The transformation of universities from elite and exclusive to mass-education
institutions is also significant. Ideally, a more diverse student population should
instigate thought for alternatives. Students’ expertise in working with information
and communication technology, and the ubiquity of information also do so. These
are two defining features of the current student population: an ability to use
technology as a tool for informing themselves and others, and skill in navigating andmaking sense and meaning of a rapidly and continuously changing and expanding
knowledge base (McWilliams and Jackson 2008). In other words, students could find
the material delivered in a monologic lecture for themselves on the Internet, and
in this way much of the content will probably be out of date by the time they
328 M. Emslie
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
graduate anyway. Traditional teaching methods are problematic in light of these
developments, and do little in the way of engaging students to participate actively in
their own learning.
Teaching and learning in tertiary institutions continue to be influenced by such an
authoritative and elitist model. I could teach in ways that follow such a model, but
believe my pedagogy needs to be consistent with my learning objective. Shier (2001)
argues that Article 12 of the UNCRC is ‘one of the provisions most widely violated
and disregarded in almost every sphere of children’s lives’ (p. 108). A similar argument
could be mounted for students’ involvement in their education, particularly when it is
practised in accordance with the conventional pedagogical paradigm. I cannot work
in or encourage participatory ways if I work in this educative framework.
A collaborative-based pedagogy
A collaborative-based pedagogy is the preferred option for educating youth workers
in ways that encourage them to involve young people in their own case management
practice. Proponents of quality teaching and learning argue for interactive and
engaging teaching spaces (Chickering and Gamson 1999, Jarvis et al. 2003, Bain
2004). In particular, accounts of constructivist-driven teaching invite students to
understand, interpret and create meaning through their active participation in the
learning process. Students are enabled to be knowledge makers and knowledge
takers, what Bruns refers to as ‘prod-users’, both producers and users of knowledge
(McWilliams and Jackson 2008).
Biggs (2003) argues that the focus should be on what the students do � in
particular, whether and what they are learning � rather than who students are (as in
blame the students if they are not learning) or what the teacher does. The teacher is a
facilitator, fostering the conditions for students to learn. Creating good learning
environments includes joining with students in a project of mutual questioning,
inquiry, speculation, reflection, and theorizing. Interaction and dialogue are
encouraged between students and staff. Such active, interactive and ‘deep-learning’
approaches are variously described as student-centred, learner-centred, inquiry-
based learning, problem-based learning, cooperative learning, and scenario-based
learning, among others. All invite learners to interact critically and creatively with
the concepts, materials, processes and people in a course. This constructivist model
of teaching and learning is also a model for youth work practice.
Much of what constitutes collaborative teaching and learning aligns with
effective theories and models on youth participation. To develop youth work
students’ capacities to engage in direct practice that encourages young people’s
participation, I also need to ‘practise what I teach’; that is, to teach in ways that
encourage student participation. Forms of pedagogical engagement that invite
students’ participation mirror approaches to casework that encourage young
people’s involvement in decision making. In other words, my curriculum approach
can be informed by the rationales and frameworks for involving young people
previously discussed. Cashmore (2002) makes the point, ‘A further reason why
participation is important is that children learn by example and by practice’ (p. 839).
A constructive view of education suggests that students also learn through
engagement and experience; in this case, involvement in decision-making processes.
Journal of Youth Studies 329
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
I argue that youth work educators need to ask how committed they are to
encouraging youth work students to value youth participation if they do not provide
the opportunities for them to enter into democratic processes. If a university wants
its youth work students to value youth participation, it should be practised widely
within such institutions. An education in democratic participation should also go
beyond the classroom. Many other practices in a university can communicate to
students that they have a valued place in decision-making processes that concern
them. An audit of such university processes is beyond the scope of this paper, but
they could include providing timely and sufficient feedback to students; well-run
staff�student consultative committees; good grievance procedures and support
mechanisms; a strong student union; student representative councils; and supported
student representation on committee boards.
I approach teaching youth participation from a constructive perspective, and
adopt a collaborative-based pedagogy. Involving youth work students in a project
that encourages them to give young people a say can begin by exploring the students’
own experiences of being involved or being excluded from decision making, and the
institutional context that enables or disables youth participation.
Student biography and a contradictory context
Working with what students bring with them
Students bring their own experiences to the lecture theatre and tutorial rooms; they
bring their own beliefs and ideas about the rights of children to be involved and
participate in matters that concern them. These ideas and experiences influence the
student’s capacity and approach to engage young people in decision making. For
some students, a pedagogy that encourages youth participation may be confirming.
They could already have a commitment to listening to young people and may already
take young people’s views into account. For other students, the ideas could be new
and challenging. It is reasonable to expect that many students, who are also young
people, have themselves been subject to barriers and excluded from participation in
making decisions affecting their lives. A participatory pedagogy draws on the
personal biographies of students and considers their implications for learning,
teaching and youth work practice.
Understanding and exploring what students bring with them is one way
educators can help their students learn in ways that have a ‘sustained, substantial,
and positive influence on how those students think, act and feel’ (Bain 2004, p. 5).
Such teaching and learning can facilitate a serious challenge to students’ identity,
what Watts (2007) refers to as ‘who we are and the sense we have of our place in the
way things are’ (p. 23). Biggs (2003) agrees; ‘as we learn, our conceptions of
phenomena change, and we see the world differently . . . . Thus education is about
conceptual change, not just the acquisition of information’ (p. 13). My intent is to
affirm and change youth work students’ thinking and beliefs in ways that encourage
involvement of young people in decision making. The constructivist approach to
education, I argued, supports this project. A similar analysis, beyond the scope of
this paper, could be made of the influence of academics’ experiences and beliefs on
their teaching practice. This includes how they were involved in making decisions as
students and young people, how as parents and teachers they do or do not involve
330 M. Emslie
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
the young people and students in their lives, and the implications for their
pedagogical preferences and student learning.
Increasing involvement, increasing regulation � a need for caution
Attempts to increase young people’s decision-making role in case management
practice could inadvertently and paradoxically serve a function of extending the
governance of those very young people. Bessant (2004) argues:
In spite of official talk about the value of youth participation and its relationship tocitizenship, the actual effect of having more young people in various community andeducational activities cannot increase their political efficacy but instead will serve onlyto increase the regulation of young people. (p. 402)
The same could be said for giving young people a say in casework activities. While
involving young people in decision making could be a positive, it can also serve the
interests of others at the expense of the young person. This may, for example, include
better ‘management’ of ‘difficult’ service users through such ‘engagement’. Workers
could use participatory casework as a way more efficiently to manage youth
problems and ensure that service users comply, rather than work in ways that
privilege young people’s rights. McDonald (2006) acknowledges that various forms
of case management fail to put service users’ interests first. They enable ‘the
management of a ‘risky’ population’, such as unemployed people, single parents, or
the disabled (p. 108), not to mention young people. Giving service users a say is one
thing; however, the options presented can be limited and limiting in and of
themselves. Case management can be criticized for being limited in its effectiveness
to engage with and change broader disabling and marginalizing social, economic and
political practices and institutions (Fook 1993, Webb 2006). Subsequently, there is a
possible contradiction in involving young people in casework decision making; it can
be putting certain young people’s rights into practice at the same time as
disregarding various other youth rights. The fact that many young people really
have limited or no choice but to be ‘case managed’ is further evidence of this tension.
Education encouraging the active participation of young people in casework
needs to make explicit and explore such potential. Not only do barriers to youth
participation need to be appropriately attended to, but participatory mechanisms that
‘give material effect to young people’s voices’ also need to be established and
supported (Bessant 2004, p. 402). However, even such mechanisms may be insufficient
to recognize the abrogation of youth rights that can take place via casework practices,
regardless of how much of a say young people are given. This requires caseworkers to
take a critical and reflective stance in doing casework with young people. Workers
need to acknowledge honestly, assess and address the increased control of young
people that can occur through extending their role in casework decision making.
Working in a contradictory policy context
At the same time that legislation, policy and codes of ethics endorse youth
participation, they also often fail to acknowledge a constraining policy context.
Public administration driven by economic liberal prescriptions, variously referred to
as ‘welfare reform’, ‘new public management’ and ‘managerialism’, continue to
Journal of Youth Studies 331
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
shape service provision in the public sector as well as education systems in most
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.
Australia is no exception, and its embrace of neo-liberalism has meant a
reorganization of service delivery for economic ends, drawing on business manage-
ment principles and practices (McDonald 2006). It is widely argued that, as a result,
funding for public services and educational institutions has not kept pace with
demand, workloads have increased, and there is an increasing emphasis on serviceefficiency and effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility (Bessant 1996). This has the
potential to limit the involvement of students and young people in decision making,
as teachers and youth workers focus on delivering cost-effective public services that
meet outcome targets and funding requirements. While improving genuine participa-
tion can result in quality learning and better outcomes for young people accessing
services, it generally requires slower ‘inefficient’ processes.
McDonald (2006) argues that the current context emphasizes control, super-
vision, punishment and discipline in welfare service provision, rather than care,
assistance, facilitation and responsiveness. She directs this criticism to case manage-
ment practice as a form of service delivery that has adapted in many instances to the
requirements of new public management in the public sector. Casework often enables
the ‘containment of financial costs of delivering social welfare services’ (p. 108). At
the same time, and following McDonald (2006), workers actively engaging young
people’s participation in casework decision making undermines the dominant
rationality of economic efficiency, as it requires workers to subordinate ‘cost control’and favour service users’ needs and interests. The demands of the existing
institutional and organizational contexts of practice experienced by most youth
workers can, however, mean that young people are not encouraged, supported or
given a sufficient say in casework.
Attempts to promote the involvement of young people in decision making in
casework is further challenged by what Bessant (2004) describes as ‘ignoring the
obvious’: ‘The policies and practices that constitute the policy theme of ‘‘youth
participation’’ fail to either acknowledge or address the daunting array of
discriminatory practices that thwart or pre-empt the capacity of young people to
act as citizens’ (p. 392). In Australia young people are actively excluded from many
domains. For example, those under the age of 18 are denied the right to vote, and are
subjected to various kinds of normal social and economic injustice, including a youth
wage, little job security, and poverty (Edwards 2008). Such policies and practices not
only prevent young people’s engagement in the civic, social and political life of the
community, but they also discursively constitute them as unable to do so. They
describe young people as unable to make decisions, and not yet ready for citizenship.Just as I argued that youth work students can assume such unwarranted and ill-
informed stereotypes, young people can also see themselves as incapable and not
ready or old enough to be involved in decision-making processes that affect them.
A youth work pedagogy designed to prepare youth workers for direct practice
that encourages youth participation needs to acknowledge and challenge such
constraints. While a pedagogy that encourages young people’s involvement and
actively engages students in the learning process is important, it may sometimes seem
futile in a context where age-based discrimination is so often the norm. Clearly,
improving opportunities for young ‘clients’ to have a say in casework processes
requires institutional support, and this means dramatic social, economic and
332 M. Emslie
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
political changes. For example, an emphasis on service users’ involvement needs to
start from young people’s needs rather than available services. Privileging young
people’s rights, recognition of participatory practices in workloads, and subsequent
increases in funding for public services would be good starting points.
Teaching participatory casework practice
‘Youth Work Skill Sets’
I teach a subject called ‘Youth Work Skill Sets’ as part of a three-year bachelor of
social science (youth work) programme at the Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology University. One objective of this course of study is for students to
gain a working knowledge of professional capabilities central to modern youth work
and appreciate how those capabilities inform their own professional development.
The course also aims to realize a number of youth work-specific graduate
capabilities, including the ability to articulate and practise good youth work in the
light of ideas about justice, equity, respect and democratic citizenship. The course
introduces students to a set of skills commonly associated with working with
individual young people, including assessment, engagement, intervention, referral,
record keeping and associated practices. The skill set is also commonly associated
with doing casework.
Casework is a constellation of activities. It usually involves four distinct areas of
practice; case review, case closure, accessing service user feedback, and complaints
and grievance procedures (Summers 2006, McClam and Woodside 2007). One of the
classes introduces students to these. Teaching and learning activities then focus on
how the practice of the skills could be different depending on whether or not young
people are given a say. Following constructivist accounts of education, I promote
students’ learning by employing a number of strategies to encourage their
involvement, interaction and dialogue. These include small-group, problem-based
activities, opening discussion and asking questions, taking a curious and encoura-
ging stance, and providing and naming feedback. Students are invited to understand,
interpret and make meaning through their active participation in the learning
process. My focus is clearly on what the students are doing and learning.
The teaching and learning activities
I begin by asking students to explore their history of involvement as young people in
decision making, and their own beliefs and efforts about giving young people a say or
not. In other words, what are the knowledges, skills and experiences of youth
participation that students bring with them? They are also invited to reflect on
possible reasons why they bring them, and the potential implications for their own
practice and approaches to involving young people they will work with. Second, a
small-group activity allows students to think about and discuss the rationales for
youth participation and how they might achieve that. Students are asked to talk
about the sense they are making of why and how participatory casework can occur,
in particular what strategies youth workers can use to involve young people in case
review, case closure, accessing service user feedback, and complaints and grievance
procedures. They are invited to consider their own experience and beliefs in relation
Journal of Youth Studies 333
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
to those ideas, and how they can use certain models to inform and evaluate their own
and others’ practice.
Next we examine possible contradictions and effects of context for practice.
Particular attention is given to the policy context and how that might constrainyouth participation, and also how giving young people a say in casework might
inadvertently increase the control of those young people. All this is informed by
reading activities that draw on the relevant literature. Knowledge of young people’s
experience of being given a say in casework are then presented. Other barriers to
youth participation and how they might be overcome are also explored. Students’
own experiences of being involved, engaged, marginalized and excluded are revisited,
as students are asked to think about why this might have been the case and the
implications for contextualized practice.Finally, a small-group, scenario-based activity designed to get students to think
through what they might do in certain situations is used. Students are presented with
‘real-life’ problems (scenarios) to solve so that they have plenty of opportunities to
apply their learning. Students are encouraged to use any of the ideas explored up to
this point to identify challenges and opportunities for practice. This invites students
to consider how valuing youth participation can require youth workers to advocate
young people’s involvement, in particular arguing for it in cases when other workers
do not agree or think it is undesirable to do so.
What next?
Biggs (2003) argues that learning is enhanced when learning objectives, assessment
tasks, and teaching and learning activities are constructively and consistently
aligned: ‘When there is alignment between what we want, how we teach and how
we assess, teaching is likely to be much more effective than when it is not’ (p. 27). The
teaching and learning activities are a part of one class in a 12-week course, designedto meet the learning objectives I described. The assessment tasks not only provide
opportunities for students to engage further in ideas of youth participation in
casework, but they also encourage student participation and interaction. A ‘case
study’ assessment task asks students to select a casework skill introduced in the
course and interview a youth worker about their practice. This includes finding out
whether and how the youth worker goes about involving young people. In their
report, students are to compare and relate interview material with other accounts,
and then reflect on the sense they are making. A ‘student-led workshop’ task invitesstudents to nominate a topic they would like to explore further, and then prepare and
deliver a peer education session. Students’ workshops are assessed partly in relation
to (i) providing students with the opportunity to explore, practise and/or analyse the
topic; (ii) being engaging and activity based; (iii) involving students in the classroom.
In effect, I engage students in their own process of constructing and delivering
participatory and interactive teaching and learning activities.
Students are engaged in other processes of inquiry into youth participation
throughout the three-year degree. For example, an assessment task for third-yearfield education requires students to investigate and report on their own and the
agency’s practices in relation to youth participation. Students are encouraged to
reflect on the ways young people’s participation is supported and facilitated, assess
the level of participation in relation to various models and rationales, and suggest
334 M. Emslie
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
ways to help young people’s voices to be heard. Student learning in relation to giving
young people a say is subsequently scaffolded as classroom teaching, and learning is
complemented by experiential practice in the field.
Conclusion
In this paper, I argued the importance of giving young people a voice in casework,
and that one way of realizing this is through the preparation of youth workers. I
suggested what this education could look like by using my own teaching as a case
study. It is a curriculum grounded in what is commonly referred to as a collaborative-
based pedagogy, which encourages students’ active participation. In other words,
youth work educators need to ‘practise what they teach’ when preparing youthworkers for direct practice of involving young people, and teach in ways that
facilitate student learning through their active engagement in the process.
I argue that this collaborative-based pedagogy should actively engage students
with rationales of youth participation and what we know about young people being
given a say in casework. The possible influences of personal ideas and experiences,
and broader social and economic arrangements should also be explored. And a
scenario-based activity invites students to assess the implications of current knowl-
edge, biography and context, to identify challenges and opportunities for practice.
Note
1. Casework with young people is not solely the province of youth workers (Moore 2009). Forexample, in the UK, such practice is traditionally associated with social work, although, asJeffs and Smith (2002, 2008) observe, it is becoming more common among those who workwith young people. The arguments herein are therefore relevant to the education andtraining of any workers, including nurses, social workers, psychologists and other alliedhealth professionals involved in casework with young people.
References
Bain, K., 2004. What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bessant, J., 1996. Reforming Victoria’s child and adolescent services: citizenship rights and
young people. Just policy, 5, 31�42.Bessant, J., 2004. Mixed messages: youth participation and democratic practice. Australian
journal of political science, 39 (2), 387�404.Bessant, J., 2007. The politics of education: why stand-alone youth work degrees matter. Youth
studies Australia, 26 (3), 44�51.Biggs, J., 2003. Teaching for quality learning at university. 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.Bowie, V., 2005. Youthwork education: a view from down under. Child and youth care forum,
34 (4), 279�302.Broadbent, R., 1998. National vocational training policy and youth work training. Youth
studies Australia, 17 (2), 11�17.Broadbent, R., 1997. National youth work training project: national consultation report.
Melbourne: Curriculum Development and Research Unit, Victoria University ofTechnology.
Cashmore, J., 2002. Promoting the participation of children and young people in care. Childabuse and neglect, 26, 837�847.
Chickering, A. and Gamson, Z., 1999. Development and adaptations of the seven goodprinciples for good practice in undergraduate education. New directions for teaching andlearning, 80, 75�81.
Journal of Youth Studies 335
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. State of Victoria [online]. Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/cyafa200596o2005298/s11.html [Accessed 18 June2008].
Connolly, M. and Ward, T., 2008. Morals, rights and practice in the human services: effectiveand fair decision-making in health, social care and criminal justice. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Corney, T. and Broadbent, R., 2007. Youth work training review package: more of the same orradical rationalisation? Youth studies Australia, 26 (3), 36�43.
Couch, J., 2007. Mind the gap: considering the participation of refugee young people. Youthstudies Australia, 26 (4), 37�44.
Edwards, K., 2008. Social inclusion and youth participation: a new deal for Australia’s youngpeople? Youth studies Australia, 27 (2), 11�17.
Fook, J., 1993. Radical casework: a theory of practice. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.France, A., 2007. Understanding youth in late modernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.Hart, R., 1995. The right to play and children’s participation. In: H. Shier, ed. The Article 31
action pack. Birmingham: Playtrain, 23�31.Hodkinson, P. and Issitt, M., 1995. The challenge of competence: professionalism through
vocational education and training. London: Cassell.Jarvis, P., Holford, J., and Griffin, C., 2003. The theory and practice of learning. 2nd edn.
London: Kogan Page.Jeffs, T. and Smith, M., 2002. Individualization and youth work. Youth and policy: the journal
of critical analysis, 76, 39�65.Jeffs, T. and Smith, M., 2008. Valuing youth work. Youth and policy: the journal of critical
analysis, 100, 277�302.Matthews, H., Limb, M., Harrison, L., and Taylor, M., 1998/99. Local places and the political
engagement of young people: youth councils as participatory structures. Youth and policy:the journal of critical analysis, 62, 16�31.
Matthews, H., Limb, M., and Taylor, M., 1999. Young people’s participation and representa-tion in society. Geoforum, 30, 135�144.
McClam, T. and Woodside, M., 2007. Generalist case management: a workbook for skilldevelopment. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
McDonald, C., 2006. Challenging social work: the institutional context of practice. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
McWilliams, E. and Jackson, N., 2008. No longer tuned in to his master’s voice. TheAustralian, 2 July, p. 25.
Moore, E., ed., 2009. Case management for community practice. South Melbourne: OxfordUniversity Press.
Office for Youth, 2006. Future directions: an action agenda for young Victorians. Melbourne:State Government of Victoria.
Shier, H., 2001. Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities and obligations: a newmodel for enhancing children’s participation in decision-making, in line with Article 12.1 ofthe United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children & society, 15, 107�117.
Summers, N., 2006. Fundamentals of case management practice: skills for the human services.2nd edn. Melbourne: Thomson, Brooks & Cole.
United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. Adopted by the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations, 20 November.
Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008. Best interests case practicemodel: summary guide. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Human Services.
Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, 2008. The Victorian Charter ofHuman Rights and Responsibilities. Melbourne: Victorian Equal Opportunity and HumanRights Commission.
Watts, R., 2007. Good teaching in universities? Transformation and resistance: an Australiancase study. Paper presented at ‘Learning Together: Reshaping Higher Education in a GlobalAge’ conference, University of London, Institute of Education, 22�24 July.
Webb, S., 2006. Social work in a risk society: social and political perspectives. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Youth Affairs Council of Victoria, 2007. Code of ethical practice � a first step for the Victorianyouth sector. Melbourne: Youth Affairs Council of Victoria.
336 M. Emslie
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 10:
20 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
