an article by Paul Andell (University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK) published in Safer Communities Volume 18 Issue 2 (2019)
Abstract
Purpose
County lines involving the exploitation of vulnerable children and young people by gangs have been described as a bigger threat than the exploitation exposed by the Rotherham scandal (The Times, 27 November 2017). The purpose of this paper is to explain the contingencies and drivers informing gang identities in the irregular economy of drugs and make some suggestions to address these.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper discusses the social reality (ontology) of UK gangs in the UK and the different theories of knowledge about gangs (epistemologies) that can both help and hamper gangs’ policy and practices. The paper is based on recent research and sets out strategic ideas for good community safety practice in order to develop multi-modal partnership interventions in gang-affected neighbourhoods. Recent policies are located within the broader political economy of crime, which raises questions of current policy direction to achieve safer neighbourhoods.
Findings
A critical realist approach to gangs (Pitts, 2016) assumes that unobservable structures (patterns of relations and roles) cause observable events (gang behaviour). This suggests a reality of gangs independent of theories about them. In this paradigm, the author’s theories about the world are historically, socially and culturally situated and always partial. Not only do gangs change in space and time, but also so do the author’s representations of them.
Research limitations/implications
Arguably, at this moment, the authors’ best ideas about the underlying causal forces which precipitate gangs involve social structures which have push and pull factors acting in conjunction with culturally enmeshed individuals with limited choices. The pushes of social exclusionary factors such as institutional racism and unemployment act in consort with pull factors of excessive consumerism. However, the author’s ideas about gangs are partial and fallible, and this demands a methodological pluralism that involves a range of stakeholders when researching and formulating appropriate interventions.
Practical implications
To address the impact of gang violence at the micro or neighbourhood level, Andell and Pitts (2009, 2013, 2017) developed an interactive model of action research which is inclusive of the experiences and knowledge of stakeholders. This knowledge can be valuable not only to build multi-modal strategies in gang-affected neighbourhoods, but can also be useful as a reflexive spur to provide feedback and direction on what works to reduce community harms. Earlier research experience (Andell and Pitts 2009, 2013, 2017) informs ideas that that single agency or “siloed” approaches to problems associated with gangs and drug markets can cause confusion and mistrust for other stakeholders and that more integrated approaches are needed.
Social implications
In order to assist young people to attain their potential with the assistance of institutions, both micro and macro changes need to take place. The social capital of community networks needs to be enhanced and the redistributive potential of economic policy needs to be enacted. Therefore, policy is needed which is founded on the belief that research is capable of understanding the mechanisms that produce material and cultural domination, and this analysis, in conjunction with stakeholder knowledge, could lead to a realistic program for collective actions in both the micro and macro spheres that reduce relative deprivation and curb the cultural mores for excess.
Originality/value
The paper suggests a critical realist approach to gangs (Pitts, 2016) and assumes that unobservable structures (patterns of relations and roles) cause observable events (gang behaviour). This imputes a reality of gangs independent of theories about them. In this paradigm, the author’s theories about the world are historical, socially and culturally situated and always partial. Not only do gangs change in space and time, but also so do the author’s representations of them.
Showing posts with label reflexivity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reflexivity. Show all posts
Monday, 19 August 2019
Tuesday, 4 August 2015
Whose choice? Young people, career choices and reflexivity re-examined
an article by Jacqueline Laughland-Booÿ and Zlatko Skrbiš (Monash University, Australia) and
Margery Mayall (The University of Queensland, Australia) published in Current Sociology Volume 63 Number 4 (July 2015)
Abstract
Young people making future career choices are doing so in an environment that often highlights the benefits supposedly wrought by individualisation and reflexive choice. It is argued that those who demonstrate reflexivity in their decision-making would have an advantage in the negotiation of future risks.
The authors of this article agree with theorists who note that career choices are still strongly influenced by a person’s location in the class structure. However, unlike some writers who suggest youth from more privileged socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to evaluate risk and demonstrate reflexivity, the authors suggest the opposite.
Interviews were conducted with young people aged 16–17 who are participating in an ongoing project designed to follow a cohort of young Australians from adolescence into later life. Our findings suggest that while a more privileged location may afford young people security from many potential risks and problems, this may in fact encourage a non-reflexive perspective and they may choose careers based on social norms rather than ability.
Instead, we argue that it is young people from less privileged backgrounds who tend to demonstrate reflexivity in their career planning.
Abstract
Young people making future career choices are doing so in an environment that often highlights the benefits supposedly wrought by individualisation and reflexive choice. It is argued that those who demonstrate reflexivity in their decision-making would have an advantage in the negotiation of future risks.
The authors of this article agree with theorists who note that career choices are still strongly influenced by a person’s location in the class structure. However, unlike some writers who suggest youth from more privileged socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to evaluate risk and demonstrate reflexivity, the authors suggest the opposite.
Interviews were conducted with young people aged 16–17 who are participating in an ongoing project designed to follow a cohort of young Australians from adolescence into later life. Our findings suggest that while a more privileged location may afford young people security from many potential risks and problems, this may in fact encourage a non-reflexive perspective and they may choose careers based on social norms rather than ability.
Instead, we argue that it is young people from less privileged backgrounds who tend to demonstrate reflexivity in their career planning.
Friday, 16 November 2012
Approaches to reflexivity: navigating educational and career pathways
an article by Martin Dyke, Brenda Johnston and Alison Fuller (University of Southampton, UK) published in British Journal of Sociology of Education Volume 33 Issue 6 (November 2012)
Abstract
This paper provides a critical appraisal of approaches to reflexivity in sociology.
It uses data from social network research to argue that Archer’s approach to reflexivity provides a valuable lens with which to understand how people navigate their education and career pathways.
The paper is also critical of Archer’s methodology and typology of reflexivity as ‘types’; it is argued that social network research suggests people reveal different approaches to reflexivity in different situations. It concurs with Archer that the concept reflexivity is central to our understanding of the relationships between agency, structure and social change.
Abstract
This paper provides a critical appraisal of approaches to reflexivity in sociology.
It uses data from social network research to argue that Archer’s approach to reflexivity provides a valuable lens with which to understand how people navigate their education and career pathways.
The paper is also critical of Archer’s methodology and typology of reflexivity as ‘types’; it is argued that social network research suggests people reveal different approaches to reflexivity in different situations. It concurs with Archer that the concept reflexivity is central to our understanding of the relationships between agency, structure and social change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
