What Are the Experiences of Those Engaged in Professional Youth Work in a Formal Education College in the UK?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this was an excellent essay in both form and substance.

I do have a few minor suggestions for the authors. In the findings section on page 11, the authors point to the importance of the "safe space". I would recommend that the authors reconsider this particular header for the section 3.2.3. On reading the qualitative data and quotes associated with this section, there is not much provided about the quality or dynamics of the actual space or place of the youth work intervention. As such, I do not think "Safe Space" is the proper description of this cluster of data. What is highlighted in this section are the importance of healthy and reliable adult relationships. I would suggest that the authors revise this section and the section title to reflect the relationships rather than the space.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and time.

Comment 1: Overall, this was an excellent essay in both form and substance.

Reply: Thank you!

Comment 2: I do have a few minor suggestions for the authors. In the findings section on page 11, the authors point to the importance of the "safe space". I would recommend that the authors reconsider this particular header for the section 3.2.3. On reading the qualitative data and quotes associated with this section, there is not much provided about the quality or dynamics of the actual space or place of the youth work intervention. As such, I do not think "Safe Space" is the proper description of this cluster of data. What is highlighted in this section are the importance of healthy and reliable adult relationships. I would suggest that the authors revise this section and the section title to reflect the relationships rather than the space.

Reply:  Agreed, thank you for this, I've amended this section.  I have kept the word 'safe', but focused more on relationships than space/place.

Many Thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with an important topic, but to fulfil its potential, the authors need to think more about the reader beyond the British context, describe better the evaluated programme and their methodology (for example, I did not find RQs), and offer a deeper analysis and a more critical discussion of the results.

Texts from the UK are slightly overrepresented in the international professional literature (which is of course not the fault of the authors of this paper). What is already a bit of a problem is the authors use specific British-system terminology, without explaining it in some cases; and they again discuss the results in terms of transferability to other UK institutions only. The relevance for readers from other countries is not explicitly addressed. An example would be “safeguarding referrals” as an outcome measure. I believe that “safeguarding” is familiar to every British reader, but beyond this context it deserves some explanation. The authors could briefly explain which institutions in other European systems correspond to college-based FE; and what corresponds to “youth work” in some other countries.

In the literature review, the authors make bold statements about youth work, but do not state what methods are usually used to determine effects and what pitfalls may arise during evaluation. This would enhance the transparency of the description of their own methodology. The paper is primarily about the mechanisms that mediated the positive effects of the intervention; but the review of the existing scholarship primarily mentions "safe spaces". What is known about other mechanisms by which youthwork supports at-risk adolescents? This should be better described in the introduction and discussion.

The authors advocate a phenomenological approach, and they themselves state that it is less common to use it as part of mixed methods research. The connection between quan and qual in their study is not very convincing; for example, it is not clear how qual data helps to understand which indicators have improved and which have not. I see how a phenomenological approach can be applied in an individual interview, although there is not much information about the interview methodology itself. In particular, however, the use of focus groups for phenomenology would deserve more description. It seems to me that the data from the interviews with school staff were analyzed rather “realistically” (not phenomenologically) as they result in conclusions about possible mechanisms more than in understanding the subjective experiences of the actors. Additionally, the description of the methodology is a bit confusing at Line 263 (Quan or Qual?). I would have liked to read more about the sociodemographics of the student participants, consider an overview of data sources in the form of a table (not mandatory).

The results are sometimes quite general and only unproblematically replicate what we knew about youth work at the beginning (as in Table 7). Instead of wealth of quotations from data, I would have liked a short and compact description of what activities the youth workers did with students, how they were logistically organized (in parallel with the teaching or in the time before/after it), etc.

Simple averages are used for quantitative data. The authors could address the question of how large the random fluctuations of the monitored frequencies are for a given number of participants (Poisson statistics?). The work lacks a “Discussion” section, its role is partially fulfilled by the Conclusions. I recommend strengthening the discussion and thinking more about the limits and risks of the chosen methodology, including the positionality of authors. Some alternative interpretations of the results would strengthen the credibility of the study: for example, it is clear that even in the group of students not included in the project a certain spontaneous development occurs during the time – consider discussing spontaneous development / maturation and the role of non-specific rapport in the treatment group as well.

I believe that the authors have collected quite interesting data. When subjected to more precise analysis and critical discussion, this study can enrich the readers of the journal Youth.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comments.  Please see discussion and responses below.

Comment 1: The paper deals with an important topic, but to fulfil its potential, the authors need to think more about the reader beyond the British context, describe better the evaluated programme and their methodology (for example, I did not find RQs), and offer a deeper analysis and a more critical discussion of the results.

Reply:  Thank you for this, I’ve considered your comments and sought to make some changes based on your guidance and detail these in the below sections.

Comment 2: Texts from the UK are slightly overrepresented in the international professional literature (which is of course not the fault of the authors of this paper). What is already a bit of a problem is the authors use specific British-system terminology, without explaining it in some cases; and they again discuss the results in terms of transferability to other UK institutions only. The relevance for readers from other countries is not explicitly addressed. An example would be “safeguarding referrals” as an outcome measure. I believe that “safeguarding” is familiar to every British reader, but beyond this context it deserves some explanation. The authors could briefly explain which institutions in other European systems correspond to college-based FE; and what corresponds to “youth work” in some other countries.

Reply: Thank you for this.  This was a powerful reminder.  I’ve gone through the paper and tried to acknowledge and widen the paper in terms of wider appeal.  However rather than trying to say what the equivalent will be in other areas.  I’ve tried to highlight what it means with in the UK context to allow the reader to apply to their own context. There is a detailed description of UK FE, of UK Professional Youth Work, and of UK Safeguarding.  I’ve added parts to section 5, to recognise this is a localised study.

Comment 3: In the literature review, the authors make bold statements about youth work, but do not state what methods are usually used to determine effects and what pitfalls may arise during evaluation. This would enhance the transparency of the description of their own methodology. The paper is primarily about the mechanisms that mediated the positive effects of the intervention; but the review of the existing scholarship primarily mentions "safe spaces". What is known about other mechanisms by which youthwork supports at-risk adolescents? This should be better described in the introduction and discussion.

Reply:  Youth Work is such a diverse profession and to describe the various methods is not the focus of the paper.  Instead, I’ve tried to highlight that Professional Youth Work has been proven in other papers to be effective.  Additionally, how this paper builds on that.  Due to the vast diversity in practice delivery there is no common core methods to determine effects and pitfalls that come with that.  I’ve adjusted the use of the phrase safe spaces and made use of relationships as this term is also a UK term.  Relationships are the core of youth work practice which is why it has such a focus.  In the UK, Youth Work is centred around the relationship which creates the methods of response – I’ve tried to make this clearer in the Lit review.

Comment 4: The authors advocate a phenomenological approach, and they themselves state that it is less common to use it as part of mixed methods research. The connection between quan and qual in their study is not very convincing; for example, it is not clear how qual data helps to understand which indicators have improved and which have not. I see how a phenomenological approach can be applied in an individual interview, although there is not much information about the interview methodology itself. In particular, however, the use of focus groups for phenomenology would deserve more description. It seems to me that the data from the interviews with school staff were analyzed rather “realistically” (not phenomenologically) as they result in conclusions about possible mechanisms more than in understanding the subjective experiences of the actors. Additionally, the description of the methodology is a bit confusing at Line 263 (Quan or Qual?). I would have liked to read more about the sociodemographics of the student participants, consider an overview of data sources in the form of a table (not mandatory).

Reply: I’ve reviewed the link between qual and quan data, I’ve stated in the conclusion that causality is difficult to be certain of – but that the data does show a difference in outcomes over a prolonged period suggesting that Professional Youth Work has impacted on the outcomes.  I’ve tried to connect each section of the qual data more explicitly to the quan data.  Various authors support focus groups in phenomenological studies, so I’ve added this into section 2.  The data from the interviews are dispersed in the various sections and some discuss their experiences, ideas and beliefs, the conclusion presented are their own based on their experiences.   We have not included sociodemographic details and we felt this wasn’t relevant to the research questions, especially since such a wide diversity of young people engaged with youthwork, however this has been highlighted as a potential barrier to interpretation of results (section 4).

Comment 5: The results are sometimes quite general and only unproblematically replicate what we knew about youth work at the beginning (as in Table 7). Instead of wealth of quotations from data, I would have liked a short and compact description of what activities the youth workers did with students, how they were logistically organized (in parallel with the teaching or in the time before/after it), etc.

Reply:  I agree that table 7 particularly reinforced the lit review.  I felt that the direct quotations offered more around the experiences of individuals than the activity of youth workers.  Since the approach of youth workers is vastly different with each young person relating to needs etc this was not the focus of the study and so is not included. 

Comment 6: Simple averages are used for quantitative data. The authors could address the question of how large the random fluctuations of the monitored frequencies are for a given number of participants (Poisson statistics?). The work lacks a “Discussion” section, its role is partially fulfilled by the Conclusions. I recommend strengthening the discussion and thinking more about the limits and risks of the chosen methodology, including the positionality of authors. Some alternative interpretations of the results would strengthen the credibility of the study: for example, it is clear that even in the group of students not included in the project a certain spontaneous development occurs during the time – consider discussing spontaneous development / maturation and the role of non-specific rapport in the treatment group as well.

Reply:  Thank you, I’ve added section 4. Alternative interpretations to include these points.   I’ve added more to the methods section around the limits and risk of phenomenological approach.  I’ve also included more on positionality here.  The article combines the results and discussion as this was felt to better provide the narrative of experiences and the space to reflect between the types of data.

I believe that the authors have collected quite interesting data. When subjected to more precise analysis and critical discussion, this study can enrich the readers of the journal Youth.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have added information that makes the article more understandable to a reader who is not directly familiar with the British context.
The explicit presentation of the RQs makes the aims more transparent, indeed. At the same time, however, RQs revealed that the article does not formulate more ambitious goals in the RQs that would go beyond the context of specific program evaluation and contribute to general academic knowledge. The article perhaps does have such an overlap, but authors should also name this contribution of the article in the RQs.
The authors have also added information that concerns the compatibility of the phenomenological approach and data collection through a focus group, and improved their rationale for methodological decisions. My doubts remain however about the suitability of the phenomenological approach for the RQs as the authors have now formulated them. See e.g. the title of the article with the realistic goal of objective evaluation and the focus of phenomenological analysis on understanding the subjective experience of actors.
The discussion of possible alternative explanations sounds somewhat formal in order to meet the reviewer's request. The authors themselves, for example, elsewhere talk about the possible influence of the Covid pandemic, which could, for example, lead to a different approach by schools to problem students.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments,  please see responses below:

Comment 1: The authors have added information that makes the article more understandable to a reader who is not directly familiar with the British context.

Response: - Thank you for this important reminder

Comment 2: The explicit presentation of the RQs makes the aims more transparent, indeed. At the same time, however, RQs revealed that the article does not formulate more ambitious goals in the RQs that would go beyond the context of specific program evaluation and contribute to general academic knowledge. The article perhaps does have such an overlap, but authors should also name this contribution of the article in the RQs.

Response: Thank you for this, agreed that the original question was limited, I’ve made comment to this in the article.

Comment 3: The authors have also added information that concerns the compatibility of the phenomenological approach and data collection through a focus group, and improved their rationale for methodological decisions. My doubts remain however about the suitability of the phenomenological approach for the RQs as the authors have now formulated them. See e.g. the title of the article with the realistic goal of objective evaluation and the focus of phenomenological analysis on understanding the subjective experience of actors.

Response:  Overall, this has been an interesting experience using this approach, and I’m not sure I would repeat it for a mixed methods study.  I do appreciate your comments around this, and I have amended the title of the article.

Comment 4: The discussion of possible alternative explanations sounds somewhat formal in order to meet the reviewer's request. The authors themselves, for example, elsewhere talk about the possible influence of the Covid pandemic, which could, for example, lead to a different approach by schools to problem students.

Response:  I agree, this is the first time writing up a project that has considered data over a larger period of time and thus thinking more deeply about these aspects.  Thank you for the comment.  I’ve amended the section to represent potential impact of Covid.