The Challenges and Benefits of Developing a Rigorous Conceptual Framework in Your Research

The Structure of My Research

To make the research manageable, I divided my project into two parts, each with three components. For Part 1, I focused on the data related to the impact of the GFC, as well as long-term labor market changes, on young people. This included the following:

• Labor force trends as they related to young people in parts of Europe and Australia;
• Overarching trends related to structural forms of marginalization experienced by young people, the impact of globalization, demographic change and technology;
• Specific case studies of contemporary policy responses to the GFC, with a focus on the nature of this policy in Australia and the United Kingdom.

The second part of my research involved developing a conceptual framework as a basis for exploring possible responses to the trends and challenges arising in Part 1 of the project in relation to young people, teaching, and schooling. This included the following:

• Outlining the concept of adversity capital;
• Exploring challenges to teachers and the teaching workforce in relation to the trends and challenges outlined in Part 1;
• Examining possible responses by schools and education systems.

Initially, the project was wider in scope, including higher education and vocational education and training; however, the scale proved to be too ambitious. Consequently, I deliberately concentrated on secondary schooling (with a few pointed exceptions). So, as a practical necessity, I needed to hone my research to certain points in time (e.g., the last three decades of youth employment data, the GFC) and to certain educational contexts (secondary schooling, the teachers and school leaders working within them, and related actors in other sectors seeking to work with schools to improve student outcomes).

The primary focus of my project was on young people aged 16-24 years, although as discussed later, this definition had to be somewhat elastic.

I started by seeking to understand the emerging data as a first point of reference. A variety of statistical instruments were already available, such as those provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and which were compiled in authoritative documents such as the annual report, How Young People Are Faring (Robinson & Lamb, 2012). Then, as the scope of research widened, other instruments, such as those used by International Labour Organization and Eurostat in Europe, were gradually incorporated so that international comparisons could be made. An extensive literature review provided the basis for scholarly understandings of the nature, challenges, and understandings of young people’s transitions from school to work.

I also generated case studies of responses from various forms of gray literature produced in countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia (e.g., see Kahn et al., 2012). Policy responses were also analyzed and compared.

My project was also informed by case study research with young people themselves aged 16-24 years across a range of socioeconomic and geographic contexts in Australia. This process came with a range of ethical challenges that I, and two of my colleagues, have previously discussed (Walsh et al., 2013), which are summarized later in this case study.

When analyzing the collective impact and responses, a number of foundational questions arose—particularly in understanding what it means to be “young.” For example, the wider research indicates that economic uncertainty impacts young people’s security and, consequently, their transitions to normative markers of adulthood, including their ability to plan key life decisions such as starting a family and purchasing a home, as well as the microlevel of daily life (Woodman, 2012). The deferral of key life decisions has sociological implications as the experience of youth is stretched and distorted as a partial consequence of economic uncertainty. Certain policy responses to the GFC also suggested a re-imagining of youth that extended its duration and infantilized young people in the process (Walsh, 2016). Again, these responses were unfolding in real time and often in a state of flux as legislation was debated in Parliament, while other changes in areas such as cessation of government funding of youth programs took place as part of wider austerity measures.

These trends and phenomena necessitated certain decisions to be made over whether and how these organic phenomena would be analyzed and presented in the research. Ultimately, a pragmatic approach was taken for these and other conceptual matters, such as use of the terms “young people” and “soft skills.”

Defining Young People

For this case study, I will focus primarily on the conceptual challenges underpinning the research design, namely, in defining “youth” and “young people,” the notion of “soft skills,” and “adversity capital.”

First, what it means to be young is highly contested and fluid. From a statistical point of view, census and other data feature differing age groupings even within countries, making comparative analysis difficult. In the context of measuring youth unemployment, the United Nations (UN, 2015) refers to people aged 15-24 years. This definition for young people is widely adopted throughout the world; nevertheless, there are significant variations. Understanding these variations was important not only to the degree to which I could compare data but also to being able to talk about the different contexts that they describe to an international audience.

As mentioned, age-based definitions of young people vary within countries. Within Australia, for example, discrepancies emerge between different measures, such as between 15 and 24 years of age (ABS, 2010) according to certain measures of employment; 16 and 24 years of age (ABS, 2007) in relation to mental health; while a Social Trends publication refers to young people as being between 20 and 34 years of age (ABS, 2008). Another widely used publication goes as low as 12 years of age (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2011). These definitions sometimes occur in part because of practical constraints to data collection; collecting census data from people younger than 15 years is seen to be difficult if not infeasible (ABS, 2003). In the end, a fairly fluid definition of young people was adopted for this research project, with comparable data used when available. The contexts in which the experiences of young people were described necessitated both the use of different age brackets and a more elastic notion of what it means to be young. This was because economic, political, cultural, and sociological factors were taken into consideration that challenged the applicability and efficacy of any singular definition.

For example, in the first instance, certain measures of the economic effects of the GFC were compared and contrasted between Australia, United Kingdom, Spain and Greece. Figures such as youth unemployment were used to show the effects of the GFC in the years following the downturn. This was done with an explanatory caveat about some of the differences in measurement between countries; an entire and extensive discussion could have been devoted to exploring these differences, but the purpose here was to illustrate some similarities between the least affected countries (i.e., Australia) and the worst affected (i.e., Spain and Greece). Using the data in this way enabled the portrayal of a striking and at times unsettling picture of the fairly immediate, severe, and disproportionate impact of the GFC on young people across a range of geographic and economic contexts. Importantly, alongside this, a deliberate effort was made to trace the data back through the decades preceding the GFC to locate these trends in a longer historical context. This enabled a more sober examination of which trends appeared to be “new” and which ones were better understood in terms of long-term developments, such as declining opportunities for full-time work among teenagers, which has as its corollary greater participation in schooling (in Australia) and, more broadly, a growth in casualization of the workforce (internationally). The data were used to tell a compelling story that set the context for the deeper exploration of young people, work, and education to follow.

Another context that necessitated a different view of young people was political. Certain phenomena required elasticity in the definition of young people; for example, recent policy approaches under analysis effectively extended the definition of youth to the age of 30 years (Walsh, 2014b). This infantilization of young people was arguably both an intended and unintended byproduct of policy. While intending to “incentivize” young people into work through schemes such as Work for the Dole and the removal of welfare payments, policy proposals also amounted to a form of social engineering that could protract the transition from youth to conventional markers of adulthood, such as secure work. The evidence also suggests that these markers such as secure full-time work are being reached later in life (Stanwick, Lu, Rittie, & Cirelli, 2014).

Cultural factors such as “the standardization of the young lifestyle” are also reshaping the experience of “youth” (Bernardini, 2014, pp. 42-43). These factors are often historically defined, complex, shifting, and relational.

Young people themselves report feeling in between youth and adulthood as imposed by adult regulations, expectations, and institutions that sometimes appear contradictory. For example, young people at the age of 16 years in Australia who work are expected to pay taxes but are unable to vote for the politicians who determine the systems of taxation (Walsh, 2012). Here, I looked to actual examples from young people themselves in an effort to include examples of authentic youth voice in my research.

Often these various factors intersect with other factors and forces, such the local economy. Normative differences in how certain countries determine age groupings have implications for international comparisons using employment statistics. For example, minimum school-leaving ages differ quite extensively and can be as low as 10 years old, as is the case in Haiti. Even within Australia, historically minimum school-leaving ages have ranged from 15 to 17 years (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2013). Upper age limits have also differed (Walsh, 2016). These institutional arrangements can have the effect of normalizing certain markers of transition, such as school-leaving ages and, consequently, when one is expected to find work according to both institutional and wider social norms (e.g., parental expectations).

These point to deeper sociological contextual aspects to what constitutes being young. As suggested earlier, transitions from “childhood” to “adulthood” are dynamic and relational, making distinctions between young people and adulthood problematic (Wyn, 2009). Markers of adulthood, such as getting full-time employment, purchasing a home, or starting a family, are shifting. Experiences of what it means to be young also tend to be more fluid than other age groups (UN, 2014). Many young people experience the demands of “adulthood” earlier in life, such as those who work while at school and find themselves in a kind of interstitial zone in between youth and adulthood as a consequence (Black & Walsh, 2015).

Ethical Challenges

There are broader challenges arising from how young people are depicted in the media, located politically as subjects of governance, and understood in popular discourses. These present an ethical challenge to researchers seeking to understand how young people are defined, described, and governed.

It is not uncommon, for example, to see young people framed in negative ways characterized by “deviancy, delinquency, and deficit” (Kelly, 2001, p. 25). At their worst, deficit discourses culminate in a “moral panic” (Cohen, 2002) about the “risks” posed by young people to society.

On the other hand, young people are also imbued with positive characteristics that are themselves problematic (Sukarieh & Tannock, 2011). This latter perspective was revitalized in the 1990s in the form of positive youth development (PYD; Gilding, 2001). As Sukarieh and Tannock (2011) suggest,

The “positivity imperative” (Sukarieh & Tannock, 2011, p. 675) underpinning PYD has been linked to neoliberal forms of governance, in which

Examples of this are plentiful in the gray literature related to developing young people’s capacities to participate in social, political, and economic life (e.g., Roberts, 2009). Implicit in these discourses, which include notions of “resilience,” “character strengths,” and “core competencies,” are tropes around what should constitute a good “adult,” while also assuming a level playing field on which these capacities can be developed (Walsh et al., 2013). One of the challenges of the competency-based approach is that it can reduce young people to labor market resources, whose development is framed by the extent to which they are “work-ready” (Sukarieh & Tannock, 2011, p. 679; Walsh, 2016). This was another ethical concern that arose while conducting this research. Put most simply, should the education and training of young people be reduced to work-readiness? That education systems generally seek to develop more in young people prompted a deeper theorization seeking to include but move beyond the capacity to work.

One thing that emerges from these differing views, trends, and fluidities is that young people cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. As Rob White and Johanna Wyn (1998) suggest, “[y]oung people can be treated as a single category only by doing a grave injustice to the complexity of their lives” (p. 324). Treating young people as a homogeneous group can, for example, conceal the inequalities between them (Harris, 2010). The danger of treating young people as homogeneous is consequently another ethical challenge. A key task is to describe the experiences of young people as a (fluidly defined) group in society while doing justice to the diversity among them as individuals who live in often shifting sub-cultures.

Negotiating these economic and sociological factors proved challenging but fascinating. A consequence of this became important to my research; that is, a part of recognizing diversity is to listen to what young people are saying, which in this project was directly through interviews and through survey data created by other researchers. Listening to the voices of young people and engaging them actively in the work of researchers, and educators in general for that matter, are widely acknowledged to be important but often not done well (e.g., see Black et al., 2014). Doing this well requires researchers like myself to recognize and navigate the possible power dynamics between “adult” researchers and young research participants, which may impact the research process. As a researcher, I had to be aware of any possible biases that myself, policymakers, media, and other researchers may be projecting onto young people. This can be challenging, but it is important to remain focused on what the evidence is saying.

Balancing and navigating and interrogating these perspectives of young people are important and often challenging ethical exercises.

Defining Soft Skills

Another conceptual challenge arising in my research was defining the term “soft skills.” There is no consensus on what the term means, and it is used interchangeably with other notions, such as “non-cognitive skills” and “competencies” (Kahn et al., 2012, p. 8), “generic and basic skills” (Roberts & Wignall, 2010, p. 1), as well as “21st-century skills” and competencies (Ananiadou & Claro, 2008, p. 5). Social intelligence, emotional resilience (Roberts, 2009), problem solving, oracy, self-discipline (IYF, 2013), critical thinking, communication, creativity, information literacy, global awareness, financial, cross-cultural, and ecological literacies (Hannon, Patton, & Temperley, 2011; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009) could also be grouped under (or at least overlap with) the notion of soft skills. Occasionally, they appear to represent little more than educational buzzwords, despite having tangible properties through which young people are able to fluently comprehend and express themselves (Hannon et al., 2011). Although sometimes referred to as 21st-century skills, these skills are by no means new, but assume new significance in the context of contemporary uncertainty, change, and fluidity in contemporary global labor markets.

Perhaps most importantly, the term “soft skills” undervalues their power and significance as part of a “tool box” for contemporary living. These skills are important because the pathways that young people tread are changing. They are foundational in navigating pathways to secure work during periods of economic uncertainty and in negotiating life in general. They are also resources for resilience. Recently in sociology, a shift from risk to a wider notion of resilience has been recognized (Rose, 2014) that seeks to move beyond neoliberal permutations and individualistic tendencies that place great emphasis on personal responsibility—sometimes at the expense of the deeper social ecologists in which young people live.

Conceptualizing Adversity Capital

From this line of thinking arose the development of a relatively new concept: adversity capital. The term has been used elsewhere in youth studies (Pavlidis, 2009); however, this research repurposed and further conceptualized the notion in the area of youth transitions. Put most simply, “[a]dversity capital, which draws upon soft skills as a resource for navigating labour force fluidity, enables young people to be more adaptive and resilient” (Walsh, 2016, p. 80). It is based on the premise that in a fluid and often precarious workforce, young people need to develop certain capabilities and dispositions to be resilient, adaptive, and economically mobile. Moreover, it includes the ability to critically navigate different cultural, mediated, and non-mediated contexts, as well as dominant worldviews such as neoliberalism. It includes the possibility of imagining a life beyond work. The concept is therefore bundled with an understanding of resilience that is not individualized in the manner of neoliberalism, but which is situated within a wider social ecology consisting of key actors and support networks around young people, such as family, friends, schools, employers, and others (Ungar, 2008, 2013).

The concept of adversity capital provides a useful basis for theorizing how young people can respond to events such as the GFC while providing a framework through which to understand and develop practical responses utilizing soft skills to improve life outcomes. It also locates young people and their schooling within a wider social ecology that acknowledges and seeks to actively incorporate the work of key actors seeking to improve the employment outcomes of young people—ranging from peers, teachers, and parents to other actors such as non-governmental organizations and businesses.

This conceptual framework evolved as a result of my reflection, ethical outlook, and flexibility. As it evolved, it provided a rich and deep lens through which the challenges and trends could be better understood. For example, where the analysis of adversity capital initially focused on young people, it was then extended to include the working lives of teachers, many of whom experience the same kinds of labor force uncertainty as their students. The evolution of this concept reshaped the actual research by refining the data collection (e.g., looking at related sociological trends related to young people’s transition to work, such as starting a family or purchasing a home), data analysis (e.g., examining levels of digital literacy in secondary school students as a basis for exploring how they might transition to a more automated workforce), and presentation of the research (e.g., by providing a way of linking different global, technological, economic, political, and social trends and practices).