Posted: Mon 27 Nov, 2023 Author: Claire Cody

Blog written by Claire Cody. Claire is a Senior Research Fellow at the Safer Young Lives Research Centre. She has been working in the field of child rights and protection for the last 18 years within both academia and the international child protection sector. Over the last ten years, her work has focused on exploring participatory practice with young survivors of childhood sexual violence.

Over the last 14 years, I have worked on a number of different international projects in collaboration with frontline specialist services who provide support to young people who have experienced childhood sexual violence. These collaborations have enabled us, as an ‘academic partner’, to engage young survivors in a range of activities including research, consultation, advocacy and creative work.

What these initiatives have had in common, is that they have tried to provide safe group-based spaces for young people who have experiences of harm to share their views and perspectives on how to improve interventions to prevent childhood sexual violence and provide better quality care and support for those who are impacted.

More often than not, these collaborations have involved us – researchers at the Safer Young Lives Research Centre (SYLRC) – working with partners and young people, ‘at a distance’. The international nature of these collaborations means that whilst we may initiate the project and design the approach, we rely on our local partners to facilitate these discussions and activities with young people. For example, last year we worked with partner organisations in Kenya and Uganda who facilitated a series of workshops with young people culminating in a podcast[1]. The podcast shares young people’s views on the importance of ‘participation’ for young survivors.

Below I share what we have learnt from this approach to working and, in considering the SYLRC’s ‘Learning Together’ project, reflect on what this means for the safe and ethical involvement of young people in research related to childhood sexual violence - particularly research that involves bringing young people together in groups.

Relationships of trust

It is often assumed that Universities, particularly those located in the global North, possess greater levels of ‘credibility’ or esteem than say a local community based organisation or International Non-Governmental Organisation. While that may be the case in some circumstances, we have found that the reputation of local services, and the regard in which they are held by young people, is critical to not only ‘accessing’ but also engaging young survivors. In multiple projects we’ve coordinated, when we have asked why a young person has agreed to participate, it is because of their relationship with the service or support worker, not because a University logo is on the information sheet they have been given about the project.

In all societies, talking about sex and sexual violence remains taboo. In some cultural contexts, such discussions are extremely sensitive meaning young people - understandably - may be unwilling to engage in such conversations with an ‘unknown’ researcher from an ‘unknown’ institution[2]. For many of the local partners we have worked with, they have worked in their communities for decades. Throughout this time, they have established respect and trust with young people and their families. These trusting relationships are the foundation for any work that seeks to explore young people’s perspectives on sexual violence. Establishing trust is also key in taking an ethical and trauma-informed approach to research[3].

Presence and consistency

We recognise the importance of a consistent presence when inviting young people to share their views on topics deemed ‘sensitive’ - such as sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking. Regardless of whether or not young people are being asked about their personal experiences of abuse, it is important that they have the support and presence of a named adult throughout the entire process. As a team of UK based researchers, when working internationally, there is of course the potential to ‘fly in and fly out’ and facilitate interviews or workshops ourselves, but being able to maintain the longer-term presence required is rarely practical or feasible. We also recognise the financial costs of this - and our own shortcomings related to language proficiency and local knowledge of social and cultural sensitivities. Whilst we have travelled on occasions to facilitate focus groups or interviews, what appears to work better for the young people involved is, through working with local services, pacing the work, the conversations and the discussions, over longer periods of time.

This means that firstly, there are opportunities for young people to come together over a number of workshops over a number of months. This allows the facilitators to work at a pace that works for them and the young people. It provides time for the group to get to know each other and feel comfortable discussing issues related to sexual violence.

Secondly, there is ‘wrap around’ support in place for young people, if they become upset or if they need additional support, the local service is able to provide that. This is something that Bovarnick and Meshi (2023) highlight in their blog as a critical benefit in research-practice partnerships in research on these topics. Although we ensure wrap around support is available whether we research ‘at home’ or from a distance, local partners have a better understanding of the wider context for support and are able to help identify appropriate referral pathways.

Thirdly, the facilitator’s relationship with young people is critical. Recent research we have carried out at the Centre underscores the centrality of the approach, skills, confidence and knowledge of facilitators involved in participatory group work with young survivors (Cody and Soares, forthcoming). These findings mirror our own experiences, that young people often need the chance to develop relationships and these longer periods of engagement enable relationships of trust to develop between the young person and the facilitators involved.

Fourthly, we believe that through this longer-term engagement, young people have the space to think deeply, reflect, and develop confidence in articulating their views and recommendations - which may be more difficult for them to do as part of a one-off activity.

Finally, we have seen how, through engaging in these types of projects, facilitators have had the chance to witness, and be reminded of, the strength, power and capabilities of young survivors. This in itself has led to greater commitment to participatory engagement within these partner organisations. As the below reflections from two of our international partners illustrate:

“When working directly for so many years, sometimes we forget. I’m a case manager and I got into a trap where we forgot the power of a group… I now remember that power.” (Facilitator, Serbia)

"We had a lot of new experiences and learnings despite the fact that we have worked with the young people for a long time. We also learnt that the young people already have an idea about the solution to their challenges/problems and oftentimes all they require from us is facilitating the process and introducing them to tools they require to effect change in their lives. Overall, the experience was memorable, and we hope that we will also be able to initiate a Youth Research Advisory Platform in our organisation" (Deputy Director, Uganda)

This means that once funded projects ‘end’, local partners - from being central to these processes, and witnessing the levels of enthusiasm, the innovative ideas that emerge, and dedication to the project from the young people - have often found new structures and processes for ongoing collaboration with the young people involved. One could argue therefore that such models create more sustainable structures for participation that don’t rely on externally funded ‘one-off’ participation projects. These five points lead to not only a better quality of experience for the young people involved – one that is safe and supported – but also, I would argue, better quality data.

Quality of data

As qualitative researchers, we are used to considering dimensions of quality or ‘rigour’, establishing the ‘trustworthiness’ of data. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) outline, in qualitative research we must consider credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability[4]. I would argue that through working with young people over a prolonged period, this enhances the credibility and dependability of findings. However, researching at a distance, and working with practitioner-researchers, whilst bringing numerous benefits, can mean that the quality of data, and transferability of that data, may be harder to evidence.

Whilst we can design ethical protocols, write detailed guidelines, workshop plans and templates, and spend time discussing the details of such processes, the quality of data that is collected by our partners varies. Often this is because of the format of group work and the style of activities rather than due to any shortcomings from the note-takers involved. If we were present (and had an interpreter), and could sit in the room, we may try to capture more detail, or try to explore certain things in more depth, yet having experienced undertaking an ethnography of a participatory group arts-based project, I know how hard it is to capture notes when there is so much action happening!

Yet, during peer review processes we have had questions regarding the ‘rigour’ of the work and the ‘generalisability’ of the findings from some of these projects. Whilst it is of course important to be transparent and report on the limitations of any study, we would argue that such processes lead to ‘quality engagement’, which arguably is also likely to be more ethical and less ‘extractive’ in nature.

Ways forward

As a Centre, we are very clear that partnerships are fundamental to the way we work and without them we could not attempt to do this work. Whilst we recognise the inequity in our relationships (e.g. we are often in charge of the funding, we share the plans, ideas and reporting processes and we are the ones who ultimately become ‘known’ as having ‘expertise’ in this work) we try to address this in different ways. This includes seeking ideas, inputs and alternative approaches to addressing the issue from our local partners. Emphasising flexibility, and funding – where we can – the ‘hidden’ costs of supporting this work. In recent years, we have tried different ways of extending these collaborations, for example co-writing a peer reviewed article with facilitators of one particular project. We also try to be reciprocal in other ways, recognising that not everyone has the time or desire to co-write academic journals. We continue to share relevant funding calls with our local partners, and other types of opportunities such as invitations for young people to join different advisory boards and groups. We also highlight the work of our partners in our discussions with others working in the sector. However, we recognise that much more needs to be done in this regard and this is an issue that Bovarnick and Meshi (2023) also highlight in their blog.

In other fields, particularly in international development and global health, there is more recognition and action in attempting to challenge the inequities between, for example, ‘northern and southern researchers.’ However, the challenge is slightly different when thinking about the inequities between northern researchers and, what we may call, local practitioner-researchers. More thought needs to be extended in this regard so that we can continue to build more reciprocal partnerships with the partners who not only support the young people involved, but also us.

[1] Read more about this project in the blog "The group agreements made me feel safe": Testing out tools and activities in Kenya and Uganda”

[2] Though we recognise that this very much depends on the relationship with practitioners, and the service, being a positive one. And, that in some cases young people would prefer to speak to an ‘outsider’.

[3] See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2014) SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. Available at: https://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/SAMHSA_Concept_of_Trauma_and_Guidance.pdf

[4] Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://doi. org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8