WWW.EAYW.NET EUROPEAN ACADEMY ON YOUTH WORK First edition: Innovation, Current Trends & Developments in Youth Work 21 – 24 May, Kranjska Gora, Slovenia FINAL REPORT by Dr. Theo GAVRIELIDES with the assistance of Aidan Chase-McCarthy EDITORIAL INFO Title: European Academy on Youth Work, First edition: Innovation, Current Trends & Developments in Youth Work - Final Report Publisher: MOVIT, Ljubljana, December 2019 Author: Dr. Theo Gavrielides with the assistance of Aidan Chase-McCarthy Editor: Sonja Mitter Škulj Design and layout: AIKO, Maja Cerjak s.p. With many thanks to all participants of the EAYW for their readiness to share their views and reflections, without whom this report would not have been possible. The 1st edition of the European Academy on Youth Work was organised by seven National Agencies of the EU Programme Erasmus+: Youth in Action: Agenzia Nationale Per I Giovani - Italy, EDUFI - Finland, JTBA - Lithuania, JINT - Belgium-Flanders, JUGEND für Europa - Germany, Jugend in Aktion, Interkulturelles Zentrum - Austria, MOVIT – Slovenia, as well as of SALTO- YOUTH Resource Centres and the Partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the field of youth. More information about the EAYW: www.eayw.net; eayw@movit.si Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID=303248640 ISBN 978-961-6826-34-1 (pdf) Creative commons licence This work is published under licence: • Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) EUROPEAN ACADEMY ON YOUTH WORK First edition: Innovation, Current Trends & Developments in Youth Work 21 – 24 May, Kranjska Gora, Slovenia FINAL REPORT Table of CONTENTS 6 Foreword 8 Glossary 9 Executive Summary 12 Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology 12 Report structure and research phases 13 Methodology & research sample groups 16 Chapter 2: The European Academy on Youth Work 18 Chapter 3: Phase 1 Summary Findings on Innovation in European Youth Work & Current Trends 18 Current trends in European youth work 18 Professionalisation of youth work 18 Standardisation of youth work 19 The blurring of sectorial lines 19 Transparency and accountability 20 Corresponding current challenges 20 What about innovation? 21 Chapter 4: Phase 2 Summary Findings on Innovation in European Youth Work & Current Trends 21 Youth related trends when considering innovation 24 What is innovation in the context of youth work? 26 The European Youth Work Agenda 28 Youth work needs’ assessment 31 Time to “zoom out” 38 Workshop findings and reflections Foreword Glossary Executive Summary Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology 45 Chapter 5: Evaluating the Academy Report structure and research phases 45 Expectations stated Methodology & research sample groups 46 Expectations met? 51 Overall assessment of the Academy Chapter 2: The European Academy on Youth Work 51 Academy format 51 Specific plenaries Chapter 3: Phase 1 Summary Findings on Innovation 51 Workshops in European Youth Work & Current Trends 52 Informal activities Current trends in European youth work 52 Academy researcher’s sessions Professionalisation of youth work 53 Closing panel Standardisation of youth work 53 Digital tools The blurring of sectorial lines 53 Further issues Transparency and accountability 53 2nd Edition? Corresponding current challenges What about innovation? 55 Chapter 6: Summary Conclusions Chapter 4: Phase 2 Summary Findings on Innovation 58 Chapter 7: Author’s Critical Reflections in European Youth Work & Current Trends Youth related trends when considering innovation 63 Annex A: Research Phase 1 Questionnaire What is innovation in the context of youth work? 65 Annex B: Research Phase 2 Questions The European Youth Work Agenda 66 Annex C: Overview of 36 Workshop Contributions Youth work needs’ assessment Held During the EAYW Time to “zoom out” 67 Annex D: About the Report and Authors Workshop findings and reflections 69 References FOREWORD Developing the quality of youth work has been an objective as well as a chal- lenge for the landscape of youth work at all levels for a long time. Many efforts have been invested to raise the quality and increase the impact of youth work on young people in Europe. The original idea and concept of the European Academy on Youth Work (EAYW) has been driven by this aim to promote the development of quality youth work and to support innovation in youth work and youth work policy, with the ambi- tion to set up a regular, preferably biennial event. What makes the EAYW differ- ent from other events is its explicit focus on new trends and innovation in youth work, and on their transformation into practice. In this way, the EAYW has the potential to become a very useful process and platform, the results of which can feed into different political frameworks for youth work development in Europe. Importantly, the first edition was not only a display of new developments, ex- amples of innovative practices and initiatives, and also proven good practices from different countries, even beyond the borders of Europe. It also placed a strong focus on the analysis of all the submitted contributions and in particular those presented at the EAYW 2019 as well as the reflections of all the EAYW par- ticipants on the topics of the Academy. This focus corresponded to one of the EAYW objectives: to identify the current trends in youth work and youth work related developments in Europe. This report is an outcome of this focus. Based on the inputs of all Academy con- tributors and participants, it summarises the findings and conclusions, which deserve not only further reflection but also to be properly addressed in differ- ent environments. As far as the concept of the EAYW and its first edition are concerned, the analysis shows a very positive feedback but also a need for some improvements. One challenge is how to transform the EAYW from a series of big events into a community and knowledge building process, where the actual EAYW event will play a crucial role but be, nevertheless, only a part of a larger process. 6 From the point of view of a partner in the project as well as the host of the first edition, I would like to point out that the interest both to participate and to con- tribute to the first edition as well as its results – including this report - have sur- passed our expectations. We are looking forward to the second edition, which will be further developed and fine-tuned taking into account the experiences and outcomes of this first edition. Our appreciation and gratitude go to all those who contributed to making the first edition 2019 in Kranjska Gora a success and who have created, through their participation, contribution and support, a solid foundation for the future of the EAYW. Janez Škulj President of the Governing Board, MOVIT 7 Glossary EAYW: European Academy of Youth Work HR: Human rights HRE: Human rights education YW: Youth Work NA: National Agency EU: European Union EC: European Commission CoE: Council of Europe NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and methodology This report presents the findings from the first edition of the European Academy on Youth Work (EAYW), which was held from 21 to 24 May 2019 in Kranjska Gora, Slovenia. The report complements the Background Paper that was published in advance of the Academy, the purpose of which was to prepare the participants so that they could actively engage with the planned programme and debates. The Academy was managed by a Steering Group representing seven National Agen- cies of the EU Programme Erasmus+: Youth in Action, namely Agenzia Nationale Per I Giovani - Italy, EDUFI - Finland, JTBA - Lithuania, JINT - Belgium-Flanders, JU- GEND für Europa - Germany, Jugend in Aktion, Interkulturelles Zentrum - Austria, MOVIT - Slovenia as well as of SALTO-YOUTH Resource Centres and the Partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the field of youth (“the partnership”). It was set up to: • support innovation in youth work and youth work policy • promote the development of quality youth work • contribute to creating a common ground on youth work and youth work policy. The central theme of the first edition was innovation and current trends in Euro- pean youth work. 167 participants from 37 countries attended the Academy. In addition to the plenary sessions, 36 workshops presented original findings from a variety of projects. These workshops were selected from 100 submissions. The contributions were examined using a structured online questionnaire, and were ex- amined in NVivo using a qualitative, content analysis method before the Academy. During the Academy, the 167 participants were asked 15 qualitative and quantita- tive questions. This report is based on these data. The research was conducted independently by the authors who formed part of a project group, which also included the two Academy facilitators, the digital facilita- tor and the overall Academy project coordinator and their team. The concept of using the Academy and its three-day event to form a living lab for fieldwork and exploration is an innovative aspect in itself, which should not be un- derestimated and could be used as a model for future youth related international conferences. 9 Key findings and recommendations • The Academy was evaluated extremely positively with some aspects need- ing improvement. It provided a unique opportunity for a diverse group of youth workers and other professionals from youth work, youth work policy and education to meet and share in a structured methodology key con- cerns, ideas and solutions. • The workshops provided key opportunities for reflection, insight and dis- cussion. All the workshops had a wide range of different focuses, such as developing quality. • Based on the evidence presented in this report, it appears the expectations of participants were generally met and there was a significant majority wanting a 2nd edition of the Academy. • The professionalisation and standardisation of youth work, and the blur- ring of sectorial work, were the key trends identified before the Academy. These key themes were based on secondary research as well as the 100 submissions for workshop presentations. The reflected key challenges that youth work is currently facing in Europe include: the economic downturn and youth unemployment, nationalism and radicalisation, extremism and hate attitudes, lack of resources and increased competition, lack of trust and political and democratic disengagement of youth, inability to include marginalised youth in youth programmes and the continuous manifesta- tion of power by the powerful. • Innovation was described as a concept that was meant to provide inspira- tion and offer general guidance for local projects and a reaction to either a local or European need. It was very much linked to challenges, and how youth workers and the community respond to them. • Innovation, in the context of youth work, was described mainly as a prac- tice or idea that is adaptable, builds on something new and responds to the needs of others. • Digitalisation, subcultures, social media, and personal/emotional develop- ment were seen as being important youth-related trends to consider when pursuing innovation. 10 • The majority of participants seemed to feel that trends towards profession- alisation and partnership (with other sectors) have had a significant impact on how youth work is conducted because of issues emerging in terms of financial dependency, pressure and differing interests. • A potential European Youth Work Agenda needs to focus on discourse, in- clusivity and critical thinking to address key issues like professionalisation, finance and radicalisation. • The Academy should aim to facilitate this inclusivity and exchange by cre- ating more opportunities for support, research, discourse and establishing a shared agenda. • In going forward, issues of power within the youth field will need to be ex- plored in more detail and in creating the 2nd edition of the Academy. The organisers could consider including other National Agencies, young people and stakeholders in structures that could inform the next theme. A more bottom-up approach could be adopted, reflecting the organic and commu- nity-based roots of youth work. 11 chapter Introduction 01 and Methodology REPORT STRUCTURE AND RESEARCH PHASES This report presents the findings from the first edition of the European Acade- my on Youth Work (EAYW), which was held from 21 to 24 May 2019 in Kranjska Gora, Slovenia. The report complements the Background Paper that was published in advance of the Academy, the purpose of which was to prepare the participants so that they could actively engage with the planned programme and debates. The first chapter of this report outlines the research methodology that was ad- opted to collect the evidence underlying our findings and recommendations. The second chapter provides a descriptive account of the European Academy on Youth Work including some background information as to how it came about and what its main objectives are. Here, we also present the demographics of the Academy’s participants. Subsequently, the third chapter summarises the find- ings of our research prior to the Academy (Phase 1). The fourth chapter then moves on with a data display from the fieldwork that we conducted with all par- ticipants during the event (Phase 2). Chapter five presents the data we collected when evaluating the Academy as a whole. We used the data to compare the or- ganisers’ and participants’ original expectations and final impressions. Chapter 6 summarises the data while Chapter 7 includes some critical reflections from the author. 12 Introduction METHODOLOGY & RESEARCH SAMPLE GROUPS and Methodology The vision and management of the Academy was directed by a Steering Group consisting of the National Agencies as well as SALTO-YOUTH Resource Centres and the Youth Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe sponsoring the initiative. The Steering Group appointed a team of facilitators and researchers to support the delivery of the project. During the project meeting early in 2019, it was agreed that the Academy will be supported thorough primary and secondary research that would be carried out prior and during the May event. This report was written using all data that we collected from February – June 2019. During Research Phase 1, the secondary research was conducted through a literature review of key documents including academic literature, policy and legislative material, publications by civil society, online sources and press cut- tings. The primary research was conducted through the collection of case stud- ies that were submitted as part of a call for contributors to the EAYW. This was published and disseminated by the EAYW partnership collecting 100 case stud- ies. Contributors were offered a payment of €1000 and travel/accommodation expenses, if selected. The selection process involved five assessors who were nominated by the partnership and had different backgrounds (youth work prac- tice, project evaluation, research, National Agency). Call for case studies published 26.9.2018 Call for case studies closed 30.11.2018 Key countries contacted Germany, Italy, Lithuania, countries of the Western Balkans, Slovenia, Finland, U.K. Countries reached (estimated) 54 People reached (estimated) 47 527 Disseminated methods used Partners’ websites, Facebook, direct contact, Twitter, Newsletters, invitation via post Case studies submitted 100 Case studies selected 36 Table 1: fieldwork methodology 13 Cal for cases studies published 26.9.2018 Cal for cases studies closed 30.11.2018 Key countries contacted Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Western Balkans, Slovenia, Finland, U.K. Countries reached (estimated) 54 People reached (estimated) 47 527 Disseminated methods used Partners’ websites, Facebook, direct contact, Twitter, Newsletters, invitation via post Case studies submitted 100 Case studies selected 36 TABLE 1: FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY Chart 1 presents the geographical coverage of the 100 proposals for contribu- tions to the Academy. Chart 1 presents the geographical coverage of the 100 applications to the Academy. The countries represented by all 100 contributors The Contributors CHART 1: GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE OF 100 APPLICATIONS Chart 1: geographical coverage of 100 applications Each proposal was assessed by two assessors based on agreed criteria (such as the quality of the E proposal, ach pr its oposal innovative was character assessed by two and methodological assessors based on approach). agreed critIn the eria end, (such the 36 proposals as the with the quality of highest the pr number oposal, of its points innova were tive selecte charact d. er Chart and 2 me presents the thodologic geographi al ap- cal European proach). coverage In the of end, the the selected 36 pr 36 contributions oposals with the , which highest were the number n of offered points as w worksho ere ps during the Academy. selected. Chart 2 presents the geographical European coverage of the selected 36 contributions, which were then offered as workshops during the Academy. The countries represented by the contributors The Contributors 10 CHART 2: GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE OF THE 36 SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS Chart 2: geographical coverage of the 36 selected contributions The research team then designed a structured online questionnaire, which was emailed to 14 the 36 selected contributions (Annex A). The questions were of qualitative nature. The answers were inputted as a CSV file into a qualitative research software package (NVivo), and analysed by adopting the content analysis method. During the Academy (Research Phase 2), the research team worked with a sample group of 167 participants from 37 countries. During the Academy’s workshops, plenaries, and events, they were asked a total of 15 qualitative and quantitative questions (Annex B). Various methods were used to collect the submitted data (Mentimeter, padlet etc.), which were then downloaded as CVS files and inputted into NVivo software. Chart 3 presents the geographical coverage of the Academy participants. CHART 3: GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE OF 167 ACADEMY PARTICIPANTS 11 The research team then designed a structured online questionnaire, which was emailed to the 36 selected contributions (Annex A). The questions were of qual - itative nature. CH The ART 2: ans GE wer OGR s AP w HICer ALe C inputt OVER ed AGE OFas TH a E CS 36 V SEL file in ECTED to CON a TRI qualit BUTIO a NStiv e re- sear ch software package (NVivo), and analysed by adopting the content analysis method. The research team then designed a structured online questionnaire, which was emailed to the 36 selected contributions (Annex A). The questions were of qualitative nature. The answers were inputted as a CSV file into a qualitative research software package (NVivo), and During the Academy (Research Phase analysed by adopting the content analys 2), the resear is method. ch team worked with a sam- ple group of 167 participants from 37 countries. During the Academy’s work- shops, During plenaries, the and Academy events, (Research the Phase y 2)w , ere the asked research a tot teamal of wo 15 rked qualit with a ative and sample group of quan 167 titative ques participants tions from 37 (Annex B). countries. Various During me the thods w Academy’ er s e used to workshops, collect the plenaries, sub and - events, mitted they dat were a (Men asked time a ter total , padle of 15 t etc.), which qualitative and were then do quantitative wnloaded questions as CV (Annex S Bfiles ). Various and inputt methods ed in were to NViv used to o coll softw ect ar the e. Chart 3 submitted presen data ts the geogr (Mentimeter, aph padlet ical etc. c),o verag which e of were then the Academ downloaded y participan as CVS files ts. and inputted into NVivo software. Chart 3 presents the geographical coverage of the Academy participants. The countries represented by everyone here at the EAYW Everyone attending the EAYW CHART 3: GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE OF 167 ACADEMY PARTICIPANTS Chart 3: geographical coverage of 167 academy participants 11 15 chapter The European Academy on Youth Work 02 The EAYW is a new initiative of seven National Agencies of the EU Programme Erasmus+: Youth in Action, namely Agenzia Nationale Per I Giovani - Italy, EDUFI - Finland, JTBA - Lithuania, JINT - Belgium-Flanders, JUGEND für Europa - Ger- many, Jugend in Aktion, Interkulturelles Zentrum - Austria, MOVIT - Slovenia as well as of SALTO-YOUTH Resource Centres and the Partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the field of youth (“the partner- ship”). It was set up to: • support innovation in youth work and youth work policy • promote the development of quality youth work • contribute to creating a common ground on youth work and youth work policy. The EAYW aspires to offer a regular platform for reflection on current European topics with relevance to the youth field, on recent or current developments and future trends. It intends to be a place for exchange and knowledge gathering on creative, transformative and innovative youth work practices, its tools and instruments, and for dissemination and exploitation of results of studies and research as well as youth work policies. Furthermore, it links to political frame- works and developments with an impact on youth work, and it offers space for discussion and exchange on related political strategies, decisions and develop- ments. In this way, the EAYW also encourages cooperation among actors in the youth work field to further support innovation. 16 Its explicit focus on new trends and innovation in youth work, and on their transformation into practice, makes the EAYW different from other initiatives. The EAYW seeks synergies and links with other platforms, in particular the Eu- ropean Youth Work Convention. In this respect, it works on the demands of the 2nd European Youth Work Convention to: “Further develop the concepts and practice of youth work, to find strat- egies to work on the current and emerging challenges faced by young people and to renew its practice and strategies according to the chang- es and trends in society and politics”. INNOVATION of youth work The EAYW is placed in the triangle: QUALITY TRAINING & of youth work EDUCATION in youth work The EAYW aims to empower its participants to act as trendsetters in youth work and to develop youth work further. The first edition focused on all those actors in the field developing youth work or frameworks for youth work, in particular those looking for innovation or who have new ideas and initiatives to offer. The target group of the EAYW were: youth workers, paid and/or volunteers, from all levels (local, regional, national, European), professionals in areas with relevance for the youth sector and representatives of youth work policies and public ser- vices, National Agencies and other staff working in youth work structures, from NGOs, science and research. 17 Phase 1 chapter Summary Findings on Innovation in European Youth Work & 03 Current Trends This chapter summarises the findings of Research Phase 1. These were pre- sented in the Academy’s background paper, of which the main objective was to prepare the Academy participants. The paper was written using data that we collected through primary and secondary research. The secondary research was conducted through a literature review of key documents including academ- ic literature, policy and legislative material, publications by civil society, online sources and press cuttings. The primary research was conducted through the collection of case studies that were submitted as part of a call for contributors to the EAYW. The key findings to note here for comparative purposes and in order to reach our critical conclusions relate to the current trends that this research phase identified as well as the corresponding European challenges that they relate to. CURRENT TRENDS IN EUROPEAN YOUTH WORK Professionalisation of youth work There is a growing belief amongst European institutions and many national gov- ernments that youth work must be professionalised in order to be legitimate and safe. Subsequently, it can have an impact on important factors like funding and government support, which are often contingent upon evidence of profes- sionalisation. In this respect, this growing trend appears to be somewhat linked to the uncertainty youth work services may experience with funding. Standardisation of youth work The data pointed out a developing trend towards standardising youth work at both national and European levels. By standardisation it was meant that youth workers and youth work in general are expected to not only follow agreed prin- ciples and ethical values, but also adhere to standards that are ingrained in stat- 18 utes and policies. This standardisation was seen as both a positive and negative development. On the one hand, it was thought to be a positive development as it introduced safeguards and frameworks which individuals and organisations who deliver youth work must adhere to. On the other hand, it was thought to be a negative development as it inhibited innovation while it also appeared to be against the very nature of youth work as an innovative and bottom up notion. The blurring of sectorial lines The blurring of lines between civil society, the public and private sectors was also identified as a developing trend in European youth work. This was also linked with the other two trends. As youth organisations (not-for-profit ones specifically) strive more to achieve professional standards and practices, this may lead to them adopting certain practices that are more common in either the public or business sectors. This has been the result of several socio-eco- nomic changes including the growing pressure for getting more value for money and greater efficiency. Another reason has been the economic recession, which for years has been encouraging many not-for-profit organisations to collaborate and merge, as well as the commodification of membership making it a product to be bought and sold. Transparency and accountability Transparency in youth work was identified as another emerging trend. It was apparent from the literature and the case studies that the notion of providing evidence for youth work is becoming increasingly important. This was particu- larly true for funders as they increasingly require evidence on impact and out- comes. Transparency was also seen to be holding practitioners of youth work to account by requiring them to provide tangible evidence as to whether they are having a positive impact on young people. Some have also argued that it helps to prove their competence and effectiveness. “Innovation is not only linked to current trends but also to current challenges.” (EAYW Background paper, p. 11) 19 CORRESPONDING CURRENT CHALLENGES How each trend manifests in European societies may differ, but ultimately the link between all of them is that they are all responses to a number of challeng- es that the youth work sector faces. Innovation was not only linked to current trends but also to current challenges. These were broadly broken down into four categories: In regard to politics, the main challenges were the lack of genuine youth dia- logue about political issues, the rise in nationalism and extremism (Gavrielides 2018), and the gulf between citizens and decision makers (Gavrielides, 2016; ABC of Youth Work, 2015). Economically, the main challenges were the insecure, precarious labour market, the insecurity caused by fiscal policies and global business, and the growing rich-poor divide (Gavrielides, 2016; 2018; ABC of Youth Work, 2015). These eco- nomic insecurities contribute to why there is a demand for youth work to teach key competences, especially in relation to the insecurity of the labour market. Social difficulties were also identified including the impact of migrant and ref- uge populations on communities, overprotection and infantilisation of young people, and the growth of individualism and consumerism. Again, this is ad- dressed in youth work initiatives built around promoting active participation. Finally, technological challenges included how accessible vast amounts of data are online, the digital divide, and the emergence of new tools of communication and virtual connection (ABC of Youth Work, 2015). WHAT ABOUT INNOVATION? The first research phase concluded that innovation on youth work should be read in conjunction with current trends and challenges. They are all different sides of the same coin. As a concept, innovation is meant to inspire and provide general guidance for local adaptations. Approaching it as rule of thumb and with an expectation to perform surgeries of foreign transplants was not recommend- ed. Therefore, it was expected that the Academy would be a gathering of many different youth work organisations and individuals, all of whom would be bring- ing their own innovations with a local focus and a European interest. 20 chapter Phase 2 Summary Findings on Innovation 04 in European Youth Work & Current Trends This chapter moves on to present the results of Research Phase 2. Here, we present the findings in the form of data display. As researchers, we tried not to interfere with the data in order to allow the reader to reach their own conclu- sions when reading them. A more critical analysis of the information is present- ed in the subsequent concluding chapter. YOUTH RELATED TRENDS WHEN CONSIDERING INNOVATION One of the first questions asked during the conference was “What are the youth-related trends we need to take into account when considering innovation in youth work?”. Interestingly, the most prevalent trends that the participants mentioned were “Digitalisation”, jointly followed by “Personal Needs and De- velopment” and “Subcultures”. These are very different from what the contrib- utors had outlined before the Academy, as there was more focus on the young people themselves and how their needs had changed (through subcultures and digitalisation). However, it is worth noting that this question was asked in re- lation to innovation more specifically, whereas the question posed to the con- tributors was more general. This would explain why perhaps there was more emphasis placed on the activities and needs of younger people themselves, as it is in relation to how innovation can occur in youth work. 21 Personal Needs and Development Social Media Digitalisation Subcultures Cultural Changes Competence Active Participation Other themes that emerged from this question, that are visible on the chart, include “Competence”, “Cultural Changes”, “Active Participation” and “Social Media”. Whilst many of the responses in “Social Media” referred to technology more generally, an important distinction was made by one respondent, who said that “young people use social media for information exchange and express their needs”, showing that social media itself is a forum for expression that needs to be acknowledged. Interestingly, “Active Participation” as a concept was out- lined in the pre-conference report when looking at emerging trends for youth work, but it appears to be less significant in the responses during the confer- ence. It was summarised by one respondent saying young people want “to act and change themselves. Talk with them, not only about them”, and this desire for proactivity links closely to the theme of “Cultural Changes” where someone said that “They [youth] are more aware and engaged than the previous genera- tions”. The trend is that young people are possibly more aware of problems and wanting to participate more actively in society, which has perhaps manifested in their use of social media as previously outlined. Finally, “Competence” was an- other recurring theme from the pre-conference report that was also seemingly a less significant issue based on these responses, but even this can be linked to the changes that are happening in youth as “the mentality is changing quickly and new methods and tools in youth work should follow the youth trend”, as a participant described it. Within the responses themselves, there are certain phrases that are worth an- alysing. Looking at the word cloud below, some of the most significant phrases included “youth”, “social”, “trends”, “media”, “digital”, and “change”. This shows 22 has perhaps manifested in their use of social media as previously outlined. Finally, “Competence” was another recurring theme from the pre-conference report that was also seemingly a less significant issue based on these responses, but even this can be linked to the changes that are happening in youth as “the mentality is changing quickly and new methods and tools in youth work should follow the youth trend”, as a participant described it. Within the responses themselves, there are certain phrases that are worth analysing. Looking at the word cloud below, some of the most significant phrases included “youth”, “social”, “trends”,tha t there “media”, was a clear “digital”, consens and us about “change”. This which tr shows ends that were there rele was v a ant to clear inno- consensus about vation in youth work, which is predominantly centred around the social lives which trends were relevant to innovation in youth work, which is predominantly centred of youths and how they have changed as a result of digitalisation and the rise around the social lives of youths and how they have changed as a result of digitalisation and of social media. In this sense, it seems that innovation in youth work is tied to the rise responding of social to these media. In social this and cultur sense, it al chang seems es in that the experience innovation in of being youth a work is tied to youth, responding to or as these one so responden cial and t described it, “y cultural changes in oungs the ters are not experience of at the s being a treets youth, or as one anymor respondent e but the described it,y are online”. Ther “youngsters are efore, not it at is perhap the s the streets role of anymore youth but work they are online”. to Therefore, learn it is more about perhaps the these role digit of al tr youth ends work and to engag learn e young more people about in these a famil- digital trends and engage iar medium young such people in as a the interne familiar t and medium social such media. as the However internet , this and could social still be media. However, this link could ed still to the be trend linked of to “Activ the e Participa trend of tion” as “Active there is still a Participation” theme as of including there is still a theme of y including oung people young dir people ectly, but directly, it is but about it is it happening about it on happ a diff ening eren on t a level differthrough ent a level through a digital environmen digital environment. t. We were also We mindful were also of the or mindful iginal of the four trends original four that tr Research ends that R Phase esearch 1 had Phase 1 identified had and thus we asked iden participants tified and if thus wthey e ask had ed any other participants trends if they to add. had any The key other tr phrases ends to here, add. were: “formal”, “emotional”, The key phr “mental”, ases here, wer “youth”, e: “f ormal”“digi , “ tal” and emotional”, “beyond”. “mental”, “y As the outh”, “ spread digital” appears more even this and time, “bey even ond”. As though the spr it is ead worth appear noting s more that even only this 51 people time, even respond though ed, it is there are more phrases w that orth will noting be that discussed. only 51 The people rprevalence esponded, of ther“digital” e are and more “youth” phrases tha is t unsurpri will sing as these were be both discu present ssed. The in pre the v word alence cloud of “digit about al” and the “y youth outh” - is related unsurp trends rising as that need these to be considered, w even ere though both presenthis t in does the w suggest ord cloud that both about the yof these outh-relatissues ed tr were ends thastil t l fresh need in the participant’ t s minds. o be c onsidered, even though this does suggest that both of these issues were still fresh in the participant’s minds. However, “formal”, “emotional” and “mental” were intriguing additions. “Formal” seems to However, “formal”, “emotional” and “mental” were intriguing additions. “For- imply that ther mal” e is see a need ms to to acknowledge imply that there is the a growth need to of formality acknowledge in the youth grow work, th of f or whether - it be through the use mality in yof formal outh w education, ork, whether it professional be through isation the use or of f other ormal changes educa that tion, prohave - led to 23 17 fessionalisation or other changes that have led to it becoming more “formal” as a whole. The recognition of “emotional” and “mental” indicate a need to it becoming more ackno “formal wledge the ” as ment a al whole. health The and recognition emotional of needs “emotional in both y ” and oung “mental” people and indicate a need to acknowledge the youth work the ers mental themselv health es. This and was emotional addressed nee in ds cert in ain both con young peopl tributions, but e and the youth workers generally themselves. , emotional This and was mental addressed health was in not a certain topic of contributions, significant but discussion generally, emotional in and the mental pre-conf health erence r was not eport. a topic These r of significant esponses indicat di e scussion that in perhap the s it pre-con should ference report. These responses indicate that perhaps it should be disc be discussed more in youth work. ussed more in youth work. What is innovation in the context of youth work? WHAT IS INNOVATION IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUTH WORK? Given the focus of the Academy on innovation, participants were asked “What is innovation Given the focus of the Academy on innovation, participants were asked “What in the context of youth work?”. Generally, participants saw innovation as something that is innovation in the context of youth work?”. Generally, participants saw innova- cannot be easily tion as defined something as Europe that c is annot not be homogenous easily defined in as its Eur beli ope e is fs and not cultures, homog enous and in because of this what its exactly beliefs and is defined cultures, and as bec being ause of “innovative” this what ex varies actly is de across fined as different being “in- countries. Ultimately novthough, ative” v innovation aries across was differconcluded ent coun as tries. being meant Ultimately to stimulate though, innova thinking, tion was dialogue and practice. c oncluded as being meant to stimulate thinking, dialogue and practice. As shown on the right (marked yellow), the main de As shown finitions for above what (marked innovation yellow), is, were that it “Responds to Needs”, it involves “ the Adapt main ability”, definitions and it “Builds for what On” an existing idea, activity or structure. Given how innovation the responden is, ts havwere e de- that it scribed innovation, there are definitely parallels that “Responds can be dra to wn Needs”, betw een it involves how they described it and how it was described in “Adaptability”, the pre-confer and ence r it “Builds eport. On” Namely, the notions of youth work “responding to an existing needs” and idea, being “ adap activity t- or able” can be linked to the fact that definitions of innova structure. tion change Given across coun how - the tries. As the needs of both young people and youth workers will be different respondents have described across Europe, the way youth work innovates to respond to these needs will be innovation, there are definitely different, hence making adaptability an important aspect. parallels that can be drawn between how they described 24 it and how it was described in the pre-conference report. Namely, the notions of youth work “responding to needs” and being “adaptable” can be linked to the fact that definitions of innovation change across countries. As the needs of both young people 18 Responds Put Young to Needs People First Level of Implementation Engagement Adaptability Creates Something New Builds On On the other hand, this concept of building on something was not discussed in the pre-conference report, but it shows that this is relevant to those who attended the event when discussing innovation. In contrast, there were fewer responses in the “Creates Something New” theme, meaning that more people believed that innovation built on something that was already present, rather than creating something entirely new. Therefore, it can be inferred that innova- tion in the context of youth work in Europe is more rooted in how it develops already existing mechanisms, activities, and structures rather than making new ones, or “It is always searching for better ways of doing what we do for and with young people”, as one respondent described it. However, “Creates Some- thing New” was still a significant theme and certain responses coded under this theme were not dissimilar to ones coded under “Builds On”. This can be seen in one response saying that innovation was about “New ways of dealing with needs, question[s], ideas”, a sentiment that is relatively similar to the one above as it emphasises this need to have a continuous process of growth and devel- opment, only it is instead more oriented towards constantly finding these new solutions to current problems. Aside from “Creates Something New”, the other notable themes shown on this chart are “Put Young People First”, “Level of Implementation”, and “Engage- ment”. To “Put Young People First”, one respondent said it “could be [a] chang- ing our approach to youth and try not to shape their realities, but providing them opportunity to shape our own realities”, meaning that youth work should 25 be moulded to fit around their social, political and cultural context. As estab- lished by participants in workshops like Skateboarding and Community-Build- ing, understanding the reality of young people is a key step towards creating new methods for including marginalised groups in wider society. One respon- dent described innovation in youth work by saying it “happens on the level of implementation referring to the ways in which YW reaches its goals and ad- dresses the needs of young people”, this response being a key reason why this theme was named this: it describes the way youth work functions on a more practical, organisational level and other responses echoed this idea. “Engage- ment” shares similarities with “Put Young People First”, but with more emphasis on working directly with them, as exemplified by the idea that innovation is “To learn every day from them, to listen actively to their needs and dreams, to be there for them, and don[‘]t push youth to the things we think its [is] right”. So overall, these other themes all show that the respondents further supported the idea of considering the specific realities of youth when working with them, both in the field and through the organisational structure. THE EUROPEAN YOUTH WORK AGENDA Participants were introduced to the concept of a European Youth Work Agen- da, and thus they were asked: “What issues do you think are in need of great- er attention in the European youth work agenda?”. This further elaborates on what issues are relevant to youth workers, as the main issues identified in the pre-conference report were divided into four categories: political, economic, so- cial and technological. Having analysed the responses, there was a wide variety of other potential issues addressed, but it appears that the three main issues, as shown by the chart below (marked blue) are that of the “Need for Discourse”, “Critical Thinking” and “Active Participation”. All three of these issues arguably fit the most into the “social” issue catego- ry, especially as a key aspect of this issue that both we and the contributions identified in the pre-conference report was giving young people the chance to participate in society. In fact, “Active Participation” was one of the most com- mon trends identified among the contributions. However, the “Need for Dis- course” and “Critical Thinking” were issues that were not addressed in the first report but are still relevant nonetheless in promoting active participation, albeit through dialogue, as “Young people need more space to express their voice”, as one participant described it. Therefore, it can be deduced that the social issue of getting young people to participate, potentially through encouraging discus- sion and critical thinking, is one that requires more consideration. 26 Radicalisation Professionalisation Active Participation Power Structures Competence Personal Wellbeing Critical Thinking Non-formal Education Development Need of Practice for Visibility Need Funding for Solidarity Need for Discourse Multiculturalism As evidenced by more of the themes being visible in this chart, the distribution of the key themes was more evenly spread for this question, and even the three most prevalent themes were not as decisive as they were in previous charts. Apart from the “Need for Discourse”, the “Need for Visibility” and the “Need for Solidarity” were two other needs that were identified. In the case of the former, one respondent said there is a need for “more respect for youth work and its importance to society”, and in the case of the latter another saying “it used to be religion, now we need something new to aim for” referring to how youth work should fulfil this unifying role. In this respect, the needs of youth work have not just been identified as being to actively promote discourse, but also to raise awareness of itself as a field – or increase its “visibility” – and to develop a sense of solidarity in society. Several themes here were present in the pre-conference report. Namely, “Non-formal Education”, “Professionalisation”, “Funding” and “Radicalisation”. Actually, “Non-formal Education” was one of the most common themes that emerged in the previous report in terms of the types of projects present in the contributions, so the fact that it may also be seen as an issue that needs more attention is perhaps one more reason to have contributions of this nature in the future. “Professionalisation” is one of the key trends we identified in youth work, but it is interesting that the participants felt that more attention needed to be dedicated to it despite how prevalent it seemed to be already. This indi- cates that perhaps it is a bigger issue to some people than we anticipated in the last report. The theme of “Funding” being a problem was one that was identi- fied previously as being tied to the various economic challenges being faced by 27 youth work, but it is worth noting that certain respondents thought it was an issue that requires more attention. Finally, “Radicalisation” was linked to the political challenges faced by youth work, with the growing amount of national- ism and radicalisation in Europe. Furthermore, the theme of “Nationalism and Radicalisation” was found to be particularly important in the last report, being one of the most common trends that were identified by the contributors. So, the fact that this is less the case for the respondents is interesting and perhaps means it needs to be a point of focus in future youth work agendas. YOUTH WORK NEEDS’ ASSESSMENT Participants were asked “What needs of European youth work need to be ad- dressed in the future and how the Academy process can support this process”. The three main needs as shown by the chart below (marked purple) were that for “Research”, “Inclusivity” and “Diversity”. In terms of “Inclusivity” and “Diver- sity” to an extent, a respondent summed it up as to “find ways how to identi- fy, include and invite non-privileged groups”, which supports the idea that was shown by the contributions in the pre-conference report of one of the key so- cial challenges being promoting participation and overcoming marginalisation. However, this inclusivity extends not only to discussing how to include marginal- ised groups in youth work, but also how to include marginalised groups into the Academy, given that one of the most requested purposes of the Academy was to be a “Space for Inclusion”. Values Common Goals Training Diversity Research Education Quality Funding Professionalisation Inclusivity Policy 28 Furthermore, the demand for “Research” links to professionalisation and the need for evidence-based youth work, which was something that was found in the pre-conference report. The fact that so many participants were asking for more research in the field of youth work supports the notion that this need is not just a requirement for youth work to meet, but a genuine desire for most youth workers in the field. There is a call for research not in the form of “some old books, but new scientific findings”, as one participant summarised it. That being said, there are other themes worth noting, as like in the last chart the distribution of themes coded is more even. “Common Goals” and “Values” both showed that there is a desire for the Academy to take a more value-based stance, as the former is a desire for the Academy to be “A space for youth work- ers, trainers, policy makers and representatives from national agencies to share their own experience and expertise and work together to create a common path”, to quote a respondent. On the other hand, “Values” are more about “how each of us lives them” and understanding this in youth work, as one per- son described it. “Professionalisation” and “Quality” are all themes focused on the practice of youth work, and further support the idea that professionalisa- tion and the impact it has on practice is an important part of youth work, and that the Academy needs to contribute to this aim. One respondent said these types of academies were good for doing this be- cause the “Workshops are [a] very important way to gain new ideas, methods and insight into your own work”, which is reflected in how during the feedback for the conference there was an underlying desire for longer workshop sessions, meaning workshops could be a suitable way for approaching professionalisa- tion and quality. “Training” and “Education” were areas that had a significant amount of crossover with one respondent saying that they wanted the Acade- my to “support the process to provide high quality, medium and long term well recognized learning opportunities for youth workers that can directly impact their practice”. Given that the Academy was equally seen as a place of learning as it was a place of networking according to those who attended, this would explain why these two themes emerged in several responses. The collection of critical and timely data on youth work was seen as a key task for the Academy. In particular, the key three ways the Academy was seen as being able to do this was through it being a “Space for Inclusion”, a “Space for Exchange”, and by “Defining an Agenda” (marked red on the chart below). The Academy being a “Space for Exchange”, referring to knowledge specifically, was the most prevalent answer, which makes this possibly the most desired use for this event. One participant even said “the Academy is really important for this because you have managed to get people from these sectors in one place to 29 work together on this Academy”, which shows how much potential the Acade- my has as a source of not only information exchange, but also networking. Space for Reflection Defining an Agenda Space for Inclusion Facilitate Research-Policy-Practice Lobbying More Depth Space for Exchange More Time Recognition There is also perhaps a need for the Academy to define a more specific research and policy agenda, with a respondent saying that “it should be clarified to par- ticipants what is the place of the Academy in wider European youth policy/ youth work context and how does it contribute to it”. This will be something to consider in future representations of the Academy: what exactly the Academy is aiming to do. As the participants mainly wanted the Academy to be a “Space for Exchange and Inclusion”, it could be important to centre the Academy’s agenda around that: being a place for exchanging ideas and networking, whilst also al- lowing members of more marginalised communities to participate. Furthermore, the Academy was seen as having other ways to support these needs. “Recognition”, “Space for Reflection”, and “Facilitate Research-Poli- cy-Practice” were also prevalent themes. In terms of “Recognition”, this is exem- plified by how one respondent said that the Academy can help youth workers to reach more “actors from Political and Educational field to get recognition and importance”, meaning that this recognition is referring to youth work on an international, European scale. Apart from being a space for exchange, the Academy was potentially seen as a “Space for Reflection” by the participants, as one criticism given was “We feel like there were too many topics, and maybe it would be more beneficial to concentrate more on fewer topics (like 2 or 3) and then go deep into them”. This could be a point of development for the Academy, given that it was established earlier in this report that one of the key pieces of feedback was for more time during workshops and deeper discussions. By “Fa- 30 cilitate Research-Policy-Practice”, I am referring to the research- policy-practice triangle, which is a concept that involves the process of integrating these three groups together in different academic and scientific fields. Essentially, answers linked to this theme suggested that the Academy should facilitate this process of integration, as one respondent said “There needs to be more cross-cutting partnerships, exchanges of knowledge and skills between professionals work- ing in different fields related to youth like research, youth work practice, youth leadership, etc.”, to elaborate on what this process would entail in terms of the Academy itself. TIME TO “ZOOM OUT” Throughout the Academy, participants were given three questions that they were asked to reflect on. They were purposely designed in a way that allowed them to change their answers throughout the event, as they completed their different activities and workshops. They were drafted based on Research Phase 1 and within the main aim of the Academy. Here, we summarise the findings including the patterns that we identified in the responses. For various reasons, youth workers from across sectors often find themselves with no option but to partner with public and profit-making organisations. This trend creates both challenges and opportunities for youth work. Has this impacted on your own work? Explain WHY YES or WHY NO? Coding by Node 60 54 es 46 42 erenc 36 30 24 oding ref 18 12 6 Number of c 0 Yes Negative Positive No For the first question, an overwhelming amount of the participants said that the trend towards partnership out of the need for funding did impact their youth work, with a majority of “Yes” to “No”, as shown by the graph above. So, it is evident that this trend towards partnership does tend to have an impact on youth work. The impact it has was recorded as being generally more negative than positive, but only by a slight margin. 31 Furthermore, to truly assess the percentage of “Yes” answers that were also coded at both the “Positive” and “Negative” node (as significantly more of the answers were “Yes”, so this category is more useful for assessing links; also peo- ple who said “No” indicated it had no impact on them), a query was made to check how many answers were coded at both the “Positive” node and any of “Yes” ones. Overall, the coverage of answers that fitted in both of these cate- gories was 7.92%. On the other hand, the coverage of the answers that were coded at both the “Negative” node and the “Yes” node was also 7.92%. Even though more people said that this trend had a negative impact, the percentages of both positive and negative responses in terms of the whole dataset was the same, meaning that the way this impact has been evaluated by the participants is more equally divided. Across Sectors Innovation Compatibility Finance Dependency Differing Interests The reasons for why these partnerships tended to have a negative or positive impact varied, but the three most prevalent reasons for why they did have an impact was due to “Finance”, “Dependency” and “Differing Interests” in that order (marked blue on the chart above). Given that the need for funding in youth work has been established as a key issue, it is no surprise that this has been seen as having the most impact on the participants as shown by the theme of “Finance”, as according to one respondent, the future of their organisation is dependent on funding for resources like “Material, infrastructure, travelling costs, events”. However, this need for funding can lead to “Dependency” on their funders, another key reason, as this respondent summarised it: “Yes, hav- ing to rely on public funds and private (Skateboard & Fashion) companies in order to realize events and concepts can be a very good experience but also one that can feel like giving too much control to hands that might not have the same values and intentions as yourselves”. So, this trend towards partnership is the 32 result of requiring funds, but then the youth workers may have to adhere more to their funder’s agenda against their own interests. This is further shown by the “Differing Interests” theme – relating to the interests of the youth workers and the funding bodies, where someone stated that “what process I can and can’t do is often depending on the interests and needs of those organisations instead of the needs of youths or youth work organizations”, showing that these differing interests seem to involve a conflict of interests between youth workers and their funders. Despite the negative impact these factors had in these cases, there were some positive answers given for these themes, too. This is mostly in terms of “Fi- nance”, given that one of the respondents said that “I also was well recognized financially which motivated me to work more and better”, describing their co- operation with a funder, who also “didn’t interfere with the content at all”. So in this respect, the positive aspect of this funding is that it can be a motivator for work, and even the dependency aspect can be positive as well as long as the funders do not interfere with the work itself. National and European bodies with a youth work agenda are gradually be- coming more demanding in terms of evidencing the impact of youth work including its alignment with professional standards. Is this a trend that has impacted on your work negatively or positively? Explain WHY YES or WHY NO. The aim of this question was to focus on the concept of professionalisation as this was an especially prevalent trend in youth work we identified in the pre-conference report. Like the first zoom-out question, the second one had a vast majority of people answering “Yes” as opposed to “No”, as shown by the graph below. However, unlike the first question, more people indicated that the impact the trend towards evidencing and professionalisation had on them was actually positive, rather than being negative. The percent coverage of respons- Coding by Node 70 63 56 es 49 erenc 42 35 28 oding ref 21 14 7 Number of c 0 Yes Positive Negative No 33 es that were both “Yes” and “Positive” was 14.52%, whereas the coverage of responses for both “Yes” and “Negative” was 12.54%, meaning that a greater percentage of the participants did think that the impact of professionalisation and evidencing on youth work was positive. Considering that it was concluded in the pre-event report as “not often compatible with innovation or indeed the history of youth work in Europe”, it is interesting that the participants at the EAYW generally found it to be more favourable. This shows that perhaps profes- sionalisation and the need for evidence in youth work may not be as negatively received by members of the field as we initially thought. However, if we ex- amine the main reasons why the participants said that professionalisation and evidencing did have an impact on youth work, it may become more apparent why this is the case. Having examined the responses to the second zoom-out question, the three most common impacts this professionalisation and need for evidence had (marked green in the chart below) were: “Changed Priorities” (of the youth workers themselves), “Pressure” (from external sources like funders) and “Improved Quality” (of their work) in that order. Interestingly, “Visibility” and “Competency” emerged as themes once again (in this case, “Visibility” is similar to “Recognition” in terms of theming), and were both generally positive – along- side “Goal Setting” – as participants felt this professionalisation could “show [the] impact of our work” and “brings more and more self-awareness”. On the other hand, “Increased Bureaucracy” was a more negative outcome, as one re- spondent felt that “it gives us more administrative work and puts us away from young people”, a sentiment that was generally shared by answers that fit into that theme. Visibility Changed Priorities Pressure Competency Goal Setting Increased Bureaucracy Improved Quality 34 However, although more people thought of the impact as being positive, that does not necessarily mean these categories have positive connotations. One re- spondent said that “It did. And in both ways. On one hand, it made me chase the numbers. Achieving, delivering and even sometimes focusing more on numbers than on quality. On the other hand, it made me reflect more on the work I am doing and the kind of impact that it achieves. Or it does not achieve”, showing that how the priorities have changed in youth work is not really as straightfor- ward as it being “good” or “bad”, but is rather more complex and nuanced in its impact. Naturally, this growing “Pressure” also is not necessarily positive, especially as the “demand of delivering indicators increases but the funding of- ten doesn’t”, as one participant described it, which could further contribute to this need to “chase the numbers”. That being said, this professionalisation has also led to “Improved Quality”, as many of the respondents attributed this to a growing sense of quality in their youth work, or by assessing what the youth work does and does not achieve as described before. Do you think that setting a larger European framework for a youth work agen- da helps the development of youth work in your context? What should be part of that agenda? 60 54 es 46 42 erenc 36 30 24 oding ref 18 12 6 Number of c 0 Yes No Coding by Node The final zoom-out question approached the concept of a European youth work agenda from a different angle. Rather than looking at what issues the partici- pants thought needed greater attention as we previously did, we instead want- ed to get an idea of how such an agenda may (or may not) benefit individuals in their own specific contexts and why. Furthermore, whilst the previous question was a more general discussion on issues that need more attention, this ques- tion was more specifically asking what this new, hypothetical agenda should be comprised of. There was still a majority of people who said “Yes” to the suggestion that setting a larger European framework for the youth work agenda 35 would help them develop their work in their own context. However, as shown by the graph above, the majority was less significant for “Yes” answers than in the previous questions, perhaps indicating a greater sense of division in the par- ticipants’ thoughts on this question (although the majority is still significant). As this question was phrased differently, it was less about the positive and negative impacts, but more about the potential of a larger framework agenda in aiding the development of youth work in individual contexts, which means that more focus was given to these individual reasons. In particular, the reasons why the participants gave their answers. Already exists Unsure about it Dependent on Not enough who runs it support Has no values Different Difference in infrastructure values Different social contexts The three main reasons why some of the participants thought that the estab- lishment of this larger agenda would not help them (as shown on the above chart marked yellow) were because of the “Different social contexts”, then the “Difference in infrastructure”, and finally because of it being “Dependent on who runs it”. Essentially, there is a running theme in these answers that the difference between the social contexts and socio-political infrastructures across Europe would make a large agenda like this hard to implement, or as one re- spondent summarised it succinctly: “Every country has their own reality”. It is worth noting that a significant proportion of respondents for this group felt “Unsure about it”, perhaps indicating that there may be a general lack of cer- tainty in relation to this issue in youth work. The three main reasons why most of the participants said that establishing this larger agenda would help them in their own work, as shown by the chart below (marked pink), were because of “Shared goals”, followed by “More support” and then followed by “More opportunity”. Effectively, the reasons for people 36 Shared values More opportunity Shared knowledge More support Shared goals New legislation Outreach thinking this larger agenda could benefit them were self-explanatory. On the one hand, it gives youth work as a whole a common goal to work towards, as “Agendas in a European framework are a powerful tool. The point is about po- litical choices in terms of investments / funding by national authorities”, as one participant claimed, emphasising how agendas can lead to specific youth work projects getting funded if it is relevant to political and national interests. On the other hand, more support and opportunities can be provided to the youth workers themselves if an agenda is established, which was echoed in this re- sponse: “Surely it can be effective for EE [Eastern European] countries where some policies still cannot penetrate the governmental priority list but once they are European priorities then the local authorities align even if unwillingly”. A larger agenda could encourage countries where youth work is less developed to start developing, and this would lead to greater support and opportunities. This is further supported by the fact that there were also responses that sug- gested the idea of “Shared values” and “Shared knowledge”: as one respondent summarised, “we need a common language to talk about what is youth work about”. This could be possibly supported by a “common European framework”, which was a response coded under “New legislation”. 37 Competence Demographic Changes The Role of Youth Work The Development of Youth Work Education Inclusivity Policy and Framework Interestingly, the three most frequent requests to be part of this agenda were “Education”, “Policy and Framework”, and “The Development of Youth Work” (marked red), perhaps indicating a need to discuss these three particular topics in more detail. However, “The Role of Youth Work”, “Inclusivity”, “Competence” and “Demographic Changes” are also requested issues for this agenda, and giv- en the frequency of the first three issues throughout this whole report, they may be especially worth considering for this new agenda. WORKSHOP FINDINGS AND REFLECTIONS The summaries of the workshop contributions indicate that there was a variety of activities done and themes explored. 1Having looked at the chart below, the three most common activities done during the workshops (marked green) are “Sharing Ideas”, “Reflection” and “Group Exercises” in that order. Given that one of the key aims of the Academy was to be a “place for exchange and knowledge gathering”, it appears that the contributions were geared towards promoting a reflective and dialogue-driven atmosphere. However, having read feedback from the evaluation for the EAYW, there was a significant amount of people saying that more time was required during the reflections of the sessions. So, whilst the sessions may have been intended to do that, there may have not been enough time to do so. Therefore, this could be a key point of development for the next Academy. However, the actual amount of feedback being included in the workshop summaries was surprisingly low, making it difficult to draw any 1 A list of all workshops can be found in Annex C. Further information about all workshops is available on the EAYW website www.eayw.net/contributions. 38 Games Sharing Knowledge Group Exercises Sharing Ideas Presentation Sharing Reflection Experiences conclusions on what the general feedback for most of the workshops was. That being said, the most common feedback that workshops received was that they were “Engaging”, which shows that this was a relatively common form of praise for the workshops. When looking at the outcomes of the workshops, it is clear that there have been a range of responses both from the participants and the contributors them- selves. However, many of these outcomes appear to be discussion-related in terms of coming up with certain proposals for the field of youth work to follow. In order to give an idea, we are going to examine most of the outcomes individ- ually, but also relate them to ones that were similar in nature, as whilst there were many different outcomes, there were also certain ideas that appeared to emerge in numerous discussions. Given that the three main aims of the Acade- my were to support innovation, promote the development of quality practice, and contribute to the formation of common ground in youth work and policy, it will be important to see how these outcomes may fit into this framework, as well as if they confirm our hypotheses about the participants’ expectations. Firstly, the outcomes of the Appraiser workshop show that some of the partic- ipants felt that there were limits to how accurately and objectively they could assess themselves, as well as how important the cultural dimension of present- ing it was, and that they felt they were being too critical to themselves at times. This theme of self-care and emotional intelligence in youth work was present in other outcomes. In the Overcoming The 3 Divides workshop, there was a desire among the participants to explore emotions and self-care work in youth work. This was further echoed by the Switch It On workshop, where the participants 39 not only wanted more awareness to be raised for personal emotional stock, but also to develop emotional intelligence in youth work as a whole. What this seems to indicate is that there is a desire amongst youth workers for more train- ing and inclusion of emotional intelligence elements in their work. These out- comes seem to relate more to the promotion of quality youth work, as based on the discussions in these workshops these skills are seen as being important in not only communicating with young people more effectively, but also in keeping youth workers themselves in a better condition so that they can work more effi- ciently as well. Furthermore, this links to the hypothesis that discussions would centre around finding more ways to promote key competences, as all of these workshops explored how to implement emotional intelligence in youth work. In fact, the need to develop skills and competences emerged in many of the outcomes of the workshops. For example, the Youth Work Research Connection workshop led to discussions about the question of using research in youth work to benefit young people, establishing that it is accessible to youth workers but should be written in a way that is more accessible and that researchers should involve workers more. During the Code of Practice workshop, this need for com- petence was approached by pushing for a universal code for practice, as most codes were found to get overlooked. Participants also stressed the importance of developing and funding good, proven practices in youth work, rather than just innovation, and the need for youth workers to focus on building commu- nications and relationships with both shareholders and young people during the Youth Work Growth Cycle workshop. Finally, the Tools for Raising Quality (in learning mobility) were generally given positive feedback during the work- shop, as they were seen as being useful for training, networking and promoting youth work. In how they relate to both the objectives of the Academy and the hypotheses about the expected discussions, these outcomes are not dissimilar to those of the ones associated with emotional intelligence. However, the Code of Practice workshop also contributed to the goal of the Academy helping to establish common ground in youth work and policy by promoting a universal set of codes to follow. The role of youth work in society appeared to be a key point during a number of the outcomes. In the TEVIP workshop, many discussions were around promoting values in youth work and using these values in a non-neutral way to build positive narratives for society. The Better Together? workshop emphasised the need for better cooperation between academia and youth work practice. Building Policies showcased the Republic of Moldova and how their youth policy developed out- side of the EU, which led to conclusions that not only should Moldova support EU projects by youth organisations, but that the EU and CoE should support them in return. The Cities of Learning workshop led to discussions about the need for mo- 40 bile learning opportunities outside of traditional educational settings for young people. The results of the STEAM workshop led to the conclusion that an organ- isational approach needs to be taken to embed STEAM in youth work practices and to include more marginalised young people. The Recognition of Youth Work- ers workshop also discussed the issue of recognition and professionalisation in regard to youth work, and how youth work as a field can get involved in reaching out to marginalised groups among this. Many of these outcomes seem to be related to the Academy’s aim of both pro- moting the development of quality youth work, as seen during the Youth Work Eduction and Building Policies workshops, and also the development of com- mon ground in both youth work and policy, as shown by the TEVIP and STEAM ones. The discussions that arose during this set of workshops also related more to the idea of developing methods to encourage greater inclusivity of marginal- ised groups, although this is more through promoting said competences such as the practical skills taught in STEAM, the application of mobile learning practices for Cities of Learning, and professionalisation in youth work. Based on these outcomes, this hypothesis has more grounding in how exactly the develop- ment of competences can benefit marginalised groups: By integrating them into youth work practices and policies, this can lead to the creation of schemes that help develop practical and relevant skills for marginalised groups. In terms of the role youth work should play in society, all of these outcomes indicate a need for youth work to play a very active role in social and educational spheres, by directing efforts to reach out to marginalised groups like refugees, by providing opportunities for learning to disadvantaged youths and by playing a larger part in contributing to society, for example through values and EU projects. However, there is also a push for more a political focus in terms of the role youth work can play in society, which is evident in certain workshops. The City Incubator workshop led to discussions about the possibility of intergenerational projects and the need to lobby for and educate around political level changes in the city. Youth Work With Refugees resulted in suggestions that youth work can be used as a lab for experimenting with innovative social approaches and for reflecting on the political role of youth work in relation to this issue. This need for political involvement was echoed during the STEPS workshop, which high- lighted the need to return to rational, scientific-based arguments to reinforce democratic values, and concluded that youth work needs to be a part of this political struggle between anti-democratic parties and societal values. Similarly, participants in Everyday LGBTIQ+ suggested that youth work is reflective of soci- ety, so it is important for youth work to aim to be more inclusive of marginalised groups. The Political Role workshop involved further exploration of this concept of being a political being and how to push for change, inclusivity and participa- 41 tion in society. Interestingly, whilst the STEPS workshop included this expected dialogue about re-affirming European values, many of the outcomes were clos- er to the expectation for discussions about finding more ways to allow greater participation of marginalised groups. Again, this is overall by being a more active social and political agent in society by using techniques like lobbying. The importance of the digital medium was evident in many of the workshop outcomes. This can be seen in Pathways To Youth Leadership, where a key skill being developed was the ability to manage uncertainty in virtual exchanges, which was brought about by technical difficulties during the workshop. The Gamification workshop led to suggestions about the creation of useful structur- al and practical tools in intervention – using games – to deal with issues like de- humanisation, learning and discussing sensitive topics. The Digital Youth Work workshop had people reach a similar conclusion of integrating digital approach- es into both outreach work with disadvantaged youth and capacity building for youth workers. Rethinking the Online (Break the Myth) involved discussions on how to meaningfully communicate with young people online and about a KA2 project on communication. Aside from these outcomes promoting quality youth work, the discussions and ideas presented all relate to the expectation that there would be suggestions about finding more effective ways to promote key competences. It appears that both of these aims will be achieved, according to these outcomes, by not only integrating digital tools into their practice, but more importantly by understanding how to use them effectively. This is evident in how the Gamification workshop resulted in discussions about using these tools to specifically deal with sensitive issues, and the consideration of mean- ingfully communicating with young people in Rethinking the Online. How young people can and should be engaged with seemed to be another key outcome from several workshops, as exemplified by the Skateboarding work- shop, where it was outlined by the participants not only how skateboarding could be used to engage with marginalised youths and refugees, but also how youth subculture is affected by commercialisation and sportification. My World Cards involved exploring the daily lives of younger people, whilst Youth Shelters also emphasised the need for a youth-centred approach. In the First ADR Kit workshop, they found that mediation needed to be taught to young people as soon as possible. Furthermore, the participants of the Community Guarantee For NEET and Community Building workshops stressed putting young people first, in terms of helping them advance beyond their status and in terms of deci- sion-making processes respectively. In terms of engaging with young people, it appears that there was a greater focus on understanding their reality, whether it be the sportification and commercialisation discussed in the Skateboarding workshop, their daily lives as shown during the My World Cards one, or the so- 42 cio-economic status as outlined in both the Community Guarantee and Commu- nity Building workshops. In this respect, this ties more into the hypothesis about developing new methods to help marginalised members of society participate more, albeit by understanding the reality of young people. Some workshop outcomes were more directly tied to the activities that were done during the workshop. This can be seen in the Eduesc@peroom, and Cul- turehouse Experience, where the participants led theme groups where they produced art focused on these themes. With the Digital Youth Work, the par- ticipants produced innovative ideas using the equipment available (a data pro- jector and a scale) and other activities using Innobox. Furthermore, the Getting Creative workshop involved a role-playing activity known as the “Interview”, and discussions were around getting immersed in the activity, the ethics of us- ing someone else’s story and the usefulness of it as a whole. All of these out- comes encouraged innovative approaches by having these creative inputs that directly engaged the participants, which contributed to achieving one of the Academy’s key aims of promoting innovation. Furthermore, they were a forum for discussing alternative methods for promoting competence in youth and youth workers, particularly in the case of the Getting Creative and Digital Youth Work workshops, where they developed the participants’ communication and digital skills respectively. These have both been established as being considered a key competence by other participants in other workshops. So overall, many of these outcomes can be linked directly not only to the in- tended aims of the Academy, but also seem to confirm that many aspects of the hypotheses proposed in relation to what would be discussed at the Academy were accurate, at least in this context. Youth-led Training Competence Recognition Digital Non-formal Education Formal Education Marginalisation and Discrimination Inclusivity 43 On the other hand, the key themes of the workshops are worth discussing, as this will allow us to draw parallels to the common trends identified among the contributions in the pre-conference report. Whilst the three main themes were “Competence”, “Nationalism and Radicalisation”, and “Active Participation” in the pre-conference report, the three main themes identified in the workshop summaries (as shown on the chart above marked yellow) were “Competence”, “Digital” and “Formal Education”. Whilst “Competence” carried over, “Nation- alism and Radicalisation” and “Active Participation” were replaced by “Digital” and “Formal Education”. Why this change has happened is difficult to precise- ly explain: Some contributors may have refined and altered parts of their con- tributions between the time their original answers were submitted in the first report and the EAYW itself, leading to changes in how they summarised their contribution. On the other hand, it is possible that my own perceptions as a researcher have changed as I have come to understand the workshops in more detail based on what has been observed in the feedback and results from the EAYW. Furthermore, the results from the pre-conference report referred more generally to their projects as a whole, whereas the themes here were focused more specifically on the contributions to the EAYW, so naturally there may be differences between the contributors’ practices at home and how they contrib- uted to the EAYW. 44 Evaluating the Academy chapter 05 Chapter 5: Evaluating the Academy Expec EXPECT tations state A d TIONS STATED Looking Looking at the at the evidence evidence from frPom Phase hase 1, 1, the the contributor contributors s wer wer e e expecting the expecting E the AYW EAYW to be to be characterised char by acterised extensive by disextensive cussions discussions based on based what on they wha hadt they had come to come to expect from the Ac e ademy’ xpect s from various the Academ statements y’s v and arious calls. st N atemen otable ts and words calls. in Not our able data words in analysis included our “learning” da and ta analysis included “European”, indi “learning cating that ” and “Eur learning opean” methods , indic and ating Euro tha pe t learning itself were expected to be methods and Eur central points ope itself w of discussion. ere expected to be central points of discussion. FIFigur GUREe 1: c 1: C ontribut ONTRIBUTors’ e ORS’ xpect EX ations PECTATIONS These expectations were further supported by the themes and trends that emerged in their own contributions. To tie the various themes into what has been revealed by the above word cloud, the discussions were expected to be centred around: 45 ü discussing better methods for promoting key competences in both youth workers and young people ü how to re-affirm and encourage pro-European values in the face of nationalism and radicalisation (especially with events like Brexit and the recent Christchurch shooting), and ü developing methods that help members of marginalised groups to actively participate in wider society through financial support and the promotion of said competences. A key expectation was that of networking not only for learning purposes, but also for collaboration and business opportunities. It was clearly stated that EAYW had to act as a crucial site of networking and exchanges of business ideas between different providers and professionals. These also appeared to be priorities for many contributors who were looking to address the issues that they were faced with locally through international structures and new business models. Another key expectation related to a higher level experience both in terms of what the initiative had to offer academically but also in relation to being accredited. Expectations met? 34 These expectations were further supported by the themes and trends that emerged in their own contributions. To tie the various themes into what has been revealed by the above word cloud, the discussions were expected to be centred around:  discussing better methods for promoting key competences in both youth workers and young people  how to re-affirm and encourage pro-European values in the face of nationalism and radicalisation (especially with events like Brexit and the recent Christchurch shooting), and  developing methods that help members of marginalised groups to ac- tively participate in wider society through financial support and the promotion of said competences. A key expectation was that of networking not only for learning purposes, but also for collaboration and business opportunities. It was clearly stated that EAYW had to act as a crucial site of networking and exchanges of business ideas between different providers and professionals. These also appeared to be pri- orities for many contributors who were looking to address the issues that they were faced with locally through international structures and new business mod- els. Another key expectation related to a higher level experience both in terms of what the initiative had to offer academically but also in relation to being ac- credited. EXPECTATIONS MET? Having examined the data from all the questions that were asked to all the par- ticipants, including the contributors, during the Academy and related them to expectations, there have been a variety of findings that have both confirmed parts of our hypothesis but also subverted it. Mentimeter was used to gauge how everyone was feeling throughout the event, as well as summarise people’s thoughts about how the activities and event were in one word. When people were asked on the 22nd May, the second day of the event, after the first two rounds of contributions, how they felt at that moment in time, the most common response, out of the five choices, was “reflective” by a significant margin, with the second most being “inspired”, and the third most being “satis- fied” (Figure 2). 46 Having examined the data from all the questions that were asked to all the participants, including the contributors, during the Academy and related them to expectations, there have been a variety of findings that have both confirmed parts of our hypothesis but also subverted it. Mentimeter was used to gauge how everyone was feeling throughout the event, as well as summarise people’s thoughts about how the activities and event were in one word. When people were asked on the 22nd May, the second day of the event, after the first two rounds of contributions, how they felt at that moment in time, the most common response, out of the five choices, was “reflective” by a significant margin, with the second most being “inspired”, and the third most being “satisfied” (Figure 2). People were also asked to share how they felt about their experience in one word. Key words were “interesting”, “inspired/inspiring”, “informative” and “challenging”. Given that a key motivation for people attending the event was to gain inspiration and knowledge, according to the pre- People conference were als report, o ask it ed is to share how the encouraging y to felt about see their that experience people in were one finding the event word. Key words were “interesting”, “inspired/inspiring”, “informative” and “interesting”, “inspiring” and “informative” so early on (Figure 3). “challenging”. Given that a key motivation for people attending the event was to gain inspiration and knowledge, according to the pre-conference report, it is “Reflective” being encour the aging most to see that people common feel wer ing e finding the expressede vent “interes coincides ting”, “inspiring with the ” word cloud, as an and “informative” so early on (Figure 3). arguably logical response to being presented with “interesting” or “informative” content is to start reflecting “Re on flectiv it. e” being the Likewise, most common feeling feeling expr “inspired” essed coincides coincides with the with wor the d prevalence of cloud, “inspired/inspiring” in as an the arguably word logical cloud. response Overall, t o being this fi pr r esen st ted Me with “inter ntimeter esting” or reflection reveals how “informative” content is to start reflecting on it. Likewise, feeling “inspired” co- interested and inspired the participants were feeling after their day of activities on the 22nd, incides with the prevalence of “inspired/inspiring” in the word cloud. Overall, this first Mentimeter reflection reveals how interested and and that there was a desire to reflect on the information that inspired the partici- they had learnt. pants were feeling after their day of activities on the 22nd, and that there was a desire to reflect on the information that they had learnt. How do you feel? FIGURE 2: PART Figur ICIPANTS’ e 2: participan tFEELI ’s f NGS 22 MA eelings 22 May Y One word that represents you the experience from the two rounds of contributions FIGURE Figur 3: PARTICIP e 3: participantAN ’s f TS’ FEELING eelings 22 Ma S y 22 MAY 35 47 This leads us to the 23rd, and following a series of workshops, social activities and group discussions (Figure 4). This time, whilst there was a general decrease in the amount of people feeling “reflective” and a minor increase in people who felt “bored”, there was also a slight increase in people feeling “inspired” and a larger increase in people feeling “satisfied”. As this was a day where there were a significant amount of activities and workshops, it is possible that there was also more time to reflect as groups, whereas there were more speakers on the previous day. This would also explain why more people may have felt inspired/satisfied; they had participated in more workshops and had learnt more about the different ways to innovate in youth work. Generally speaking, it still appears that people were happy with how the Academy was going, and as it went on it made less people feel reflective and more feel satisfied and inspired. Furthermore, there were more respondents for this question than there were on the 22nd, with there being 83 for the latter and 89 for the former. FIGURE 4: PARTICIPANTS’ FEELINGS 23 MAY The same question was asked on the final day of 24th May (Figure 5). This time, 77 delegates responded. However, it is important to note that many people had to leave during the morning to get their flights home, so this is a likely cause for the lower response rate. Most people appeared to still generally be “reflective”, “inspired” and “satisfied” as a whole, even though there was an increase in the number of “bored” and “unhappy” people. 36 FIGURE 3: PARTICIPANTS’ FEELINGS 22 MAY This leads us to the 23rd, and following a series of workshops, social activities and group discussions (Figure 4). This time, whilst there was a general decrease in the amount of people feeling This “reflective” leads and a us to the minor 23rd, and increase follo in wing a series people who of work felt shops, social “bored”, activities there was also a slight increase in and people group discu feeling ssions (Figur “inspired” e and 4). a This time, larger whils incre t ther ase in e pewas opl a e general decr feeling ease “satisfied”. As this was a day in where the amoun there t of were people a feeling significant “reflective” amount and of a minor incr activities ease and in people worksho who ps, it is possible felt “bored”, there was also a slight increase in people feeling “inspired” and a that there was also more time to reflect as groups, whereas there were more speakers on the larger increase in people feeling “satisfied”. As this was a day where there were previous day. a This significan would t amoun also t of activities explain why and more workshop people s, it is may possible have tha felt t there was inspired/satisfied; they had participated also in more more time to reflect workshops as gr and oup had s, le whereas arnt ther more e were about mor the e speak dif ers on ferent the ways to innovate in youth work. previous da Generally y. This would speaking, also it explain still why mor appears e people that may people have f were elt inspir happy ed/ with how the satisfied; they had participated in more workshops and had learnt more about Academy was going, and as it went on it made less people feel reflective and more feel the different ways to innovate in youth work. Generally speaking, it still appears satisfied and that people inspired. were happy Furthermore,with how there the Ac were adem mor y e wras g espoing, and as ondents it w for ent thi on s it question than made there were on the 22nless d, people feel reflective and mor with there being 83 for th e feel satisfied and inspired. Further e latter and 89 for the former. - more, there were more respondents for this question than there were on the 22nd, with there being 83 for the latter and 89 for the former. How do you feel now? FIGURE 4: PARTICIPANTS’ FEELINGS 23 MAY Figure 4: participant’s feelings 23 May The same question was asked on the final day of 24th May (Figure 5). This time, 77 delegates The same question was asked on the final day of 24th May (Figure 5). This time, responded. However, it is important to note that many people had to leave during the 77 delegates responded. However, it is important to note that many people had morning to get their flights home, so this is a likely cause for the lower response rate. Most to leave during the morning to get their flights home, so this is a likely cause for people the appeared lo to wer still response ra generally te. Mos be t people appear “reflective”, ed to still “inspired” gener and “ally be “reflectiv satisfied” as e” a , whole, even “inspired” and “satisfied” as a whole, though there was an increase in the numbe even though there w r of “bored” and “un as an increase in happy” peopl the e. number of “bored” and “unhappy” people. 36 48 How do you feel now? FIGURE 5: PARTICIPANTS’ FEELINGS 24 MAY Figur e 5: participant’s feelings 24 May Having averaged these Mentimeter responses over the three Academy days, the feeling with the highest average Ha is “refl ving aver ective” aged these (32), Men timefol ter lowed r by esponses ov “inspired” er the three Ac (25.3 ademy day to s, 3 the feeling with the highest average is “reflective” (32), followed by “inspired” (25.3 s.f.) and then “satisfied” (18.3 to 3 to s.f.). 3 s.f.) Overall, and then “ sa it tis can fied” be (18.3 seen to 3 s.f that .). Over the all, it cmost an be common seen that the feeling most people had during the Academy c was ommon fthat eeling of being people had re du fle ring ctive, the Ac whi ademy ch was coincide that of s being r wi e th flectiv th e, which coincides with the participants’ original expectation for the Academy to e participants’ original expectation for bec the ome a Academy “Space for Ex to become change” and for a “Space “Defining for an Ag Exchan enda”. ge” This pr and esents a for “Defining an Agenda”. This presents a possible possible direction f direction or the Academ for y to t the ak Academy e in any future it to era take tions thain any t occur. future iterations that occur. This was also confirmed in the participants’ responses when asked at the end of the Academy to give three words that would characterise it. Looking at the This was also confirmed word in the cloud participants below, it is interes ’ responses ting to note that when “inspiring asked ” is still a at ver the y prevend alent phrase, showing that this is possibly something that the Academy can capitalise of the Academy to give three words on that next would time: it’s characterise ability to inspire otherit. s. Looking However, ther at e is the also word an emerg cloud ence below, it is interesting to note that of ne “inspiring” w phrases, is still including a “ne very tworkingprevalent ”, “diversity”, ph “c rase, showing onnections”, and that “ideas”. this is possibly Given that one of the most significant requests for the Academy was to be a something that the Academy “Space for Inclu can sion”, capitalise this concept on appears next to be time: further it’s support ability ed by the f to act inspire others. However, there is also an people sa emergence w the Academy of as new being a phrases, place for ne includi tworking, ng div “networking”, ersity and con- “diversity”, “connections”, and “ideas”. necting. Given Furthermor that e, the one fact of that the most “ideas” was signi a c ficant ommonly re used quests phrase for ties into the suggestion that the Academy be a “Space for Exchange”. “Innovation” the Academy was to be a “Space for and “ Inclusion”, challenging” w this ere concept also present in appears the first to Men be timet er further , so their r supported elevance by the fact people saw the Academy is also w as orth menbeing tioning. a place for networking, diversity and connecting. Furthermore, the fact that “ideas” was a commonly used phrase ties into the suggestion that the Academy be a “Space for Exchange”. “Innovation” and “challenging” were also present in the first Mentimeter, so their relevance is also worth mentioning. 49 FIGURE 6: PARTICIPANTS’ IMPRESSIONS OF THE ACADEMY, 24 MAY 37 FIGURE 5: PARTICIPANTS’ FEELINGS 24 MAY Having averaged these Mentimeter responses over the three Academy days, the feeling with the highest average is “reflective” (32), followed by “inspired” (25.3 to 3 s.f.) and then “satisfied” (18.3 to 3 s.f.). Overall, it can be seen that the most common feeling people had during the Academy was that of being reflective, which coincides with the participants’ original expectation for the Academy to become a “Space for Exchange” and for “Defining an Agenda”. This presents a possible direction for the Academy to take in any future iterations that occur. This was also confirmed in the participants’ responses when asked at the end of the Academy to give three words that would characterise it. Looking at the word cloud below, it is interesting to note that “inspiring” is still a very prevalent phrase, showing that this is possibly something that the Academy can capitalise on next time: it’s ability to inspire others. However, there is also an emergence of new phrases, including “networking”, “diversity”, “connections”, and “ideas”. Given that one of the most significant requests for the Academy was to be a “Space for Inclusion”, this concept appears to be further supported by the fact people saw the Academy as being a place for networking, diversity and connecting. Furthermore, the fact that “ideas” was a commonly used phrase ties into the suggestion that the Academy be a “Space for Exchange”. “Innovation” and “challenging” were also present in the first Mentimeter, so their relevance is also worth mentioning. 3 key word(s) that summarises your impressions about the Academy FIGURE 6: PARTIC Figur IPANTS’ I e 6: participan M t’ PRESSI s impr ONS OF TH essions of the Ac E ademAC y ADE , 24 MayMY, 24 MAY Overall, based on this word cloud, it appears that many of themes that have been discussed in the Ov responses er to all, based previous on this word questions cloud, it appear throughout s tha the t many of Academy themes are that ha relevant ve to the responses given on the been final discussed day, in giving a the responses clearer ide t a o pr of evious ques perhaps tions what throughout the the Ac Academy ade- should strive to be my are relevant to the responses given on the final day, giving a clearer idea of in the future. This was further reinforced by the answers to the final question in relation to perhaps what the Academy should strive to be in the future. This was further the extent that reinforced by participant the s answers thought to the the final ques Academy tion was in relation space t for o the (a) extent tha learning, t (b) networking 37 and ( participan c) recognition. ts thought the Academy was space for (a) learning, (b) networking and (c) recognition. To what extent the Academy was space for ... FIGURE 7: PARTICIPANTS’ THOUGHTS OF THE ACADEMY, 24 MAY Figure 7: participant’s thoughts of the Academy, 24 May Overall assessment of the Academy 50 Following the conclusion of the Academy, all participants were given a qualitative questionnaire that allowed them to provide feedback. 99 questionnaires were returned. Academy format: When asked how appropriate the format of the Academy was for achieving its aims, the average rating was 3.9/5. Generally speaking, people enjoyed the format and felt it supported the exchange and knowledge aspect of the Academy and led to good quality exchanges. However, it did not entirely support the cooperation or innovation aspect of it, as there was a need to expand the range of participants involved. Specific plenaries: The average rating for Maarten Leyts’s (Trendwolves) presentation was 3.5/5. It was an interesting and thought-provoking presentation, but not entirely relevant to youth work. But more time was needed to discuss this, as it did address contemporary youth culture. It could have been more concise, as some people felt it was confusing, lacked structure, and seemed almost superficial. The average rating for Hans-Joachim Schild’s presentation was 3.2, and most gave it a 3 (35%). Whilst most people felt that it gave a good background to the whole event and that it was good to have someone as experienced as Hanjo speaking, it was hard to understand due to audio issues, and it was felt the delivery was dry and the presentation visually lacking. The average rating for Joachim Kornbeck’s (European Commission) presentation was 3.5, and most gave it a 3 (40%). The participants thought it “was good to have the political view inside” as one participant summarised, and the presentation itself was funny, engaging and interesting. However, it was also seen as not entirely relevant to youth work and it was unclear what the main “take-away” was meant to be. The average rating for Matevž Straus’s presentation was 3.9, and most gave it a 4 (39%). This presentation was appreciated as it was an input from a young person in the field, and 38 OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE ACADEMY Following the conclusion of the Academy, all participants were given a qualita- tive questionnaire that allowed them to provide feedback. 99 questionnaires were returned. Academy format: When asked how appropriate the format of the Academy was for achieving its aims, the average rating was 3.9/5. Generally speaking, people enjoyed the format and felt it supported the exchange and knowledge aspect of the Academy and led to good quality exchanges. However, it did not entirely support the cooperation or innovation aspect of it, as there was a need to expand the range of participants involved. Specific plenaries: The average rating for Maarten Leyts’s (Trendwolves) pre- sentation was 3.5/5. It was an interesting and thought-provoking presentation, but not entirely relevant to youth work. But more time was needed to discuss this, as it did address contemporary youth culture. It could have been more concise, as some people felt it was confusing, lacked structure, and seemed almost superficial. The average rating for Hans-Joachim Schild’s presentation was 3.2, and most gave it a 3 (35%). Whilst most people felt that it gave a good background to the whole event and that it was good to have someone as expe- rienced as Hanjo speaking, it was hard to understand due to audio issues, and it was felt the delivery was dry and the presentation visually lacking. The av- erage rating for Joachim Kornbeck’s (European Commission) presentation was 3.5, and most gave it a 3 (40%). The participants thought it “was good to have the political view inside” as one participant summarised, and the presentation itself was funny, engaging and interesting. However, it was also seen as not en- tirely relevant to youth work and it was unclear what the main “take-away” was meant to be. The average rating for Matevž Straus’s presentation was 3.9, and most gave it a 4 (39%). This presentation was appreciated as it was an input from a young person in the field, and because the project being presented was inspiring and fascinating. People also enjoyed meeting him, saying that he was a good representation of a youth worker today. That being said, the respondents found it hard to understand the place of the presentation in the Academy and the practice not easily transferable to other contexts. Workshops: The average rating for the workshops that respondents participated in was 3.7/5, and most gave it a 4/5 (44%). People felt that most of the workshops were good, informative, inspiring, varied and relevant. A lot of them were seen as just presentations that were not especially innovative. There was also a desire for more audience involvement in some of them. Participants also thought that the descriptions for the workshops in the Event App were misleading at times. 60 51 minutes was not enough time for the workshops, and “more space for discussion would have been useful”, as one respondent said. Informal activities: The average rating for the informal activities on the arrival day before the official start of the Academy was 3.6, and most gave it a 5 (41%). A significant amount of people couldn’t make it (and therefore gave it a 0, which significantly influenced the average rating). But those who made it generally liked these activities a lot. The average rating for the ‘Better than coffee net- working evening’ was 3.0, and most gave it a 3 (34%). A significant amount of people did not attend the event, which hurt the overall experience. Those who did attend the evening found it was effective at promoting networking when people knew what they were doing, but it needed to be more clearly explained and structured. Academy researcher’s sessions: The average rating for the sessions includ- ing the presentation of the research outcomes was 3.7, and most gave it a 4 (44%). People found that this session provided good insights backed by rele- vant, good quality research. Furthermore, the presentation itself was clear and well-presented. However, some people wanted more detail in relation to some results, with some wanting more clarity on the follow up, reflective questions. There were also concerns that the time limitations hindered the analysis of the researchers who had to produce results there and then, leading to a lack of depth in some of the findings as “to some extent the data was oversimplified when interpreted”, as one participant suggested. Therefore, more detail was expected in the final report. The EAYW presents a unique opportunity “for renewing our pledge to achieving better and more consistent practice and theory in youth work across Europe.” 52 Closing panel: The average rating for on the last day of the EAYW was 3.2/5, and most gave it a 3 (32%). The panel was seen as being an interesting group, as there was a diverse range of perspectives. However, most people said that more time was needed as there was not enough time to discuss and interact with them; it felt like the panel was mostly just speeches as it did not engage with the participants who had this expectation. Furthermore, some people felt no definitive answers to any of the questions were given. Digital tools: The average rating for how the various digital tools were used was 3.9/5 and most gave it a 5 (40%). The Event App was very well-received, as most people felt it added a lot of value and made it a lot easier to circulate ideas and keep everyone updated. Some said there was still room for development, like introducing more tools beyond Mentimeter and Padlet. Furthermore, the badges were seen as being too hard to get, and certain things like the Social Stream Wall were seen as being somewhat “distracting” and “a bit too much”. Some informa- tion on the workshops was also thought to be inaccurate or misleading. Further issues: There were several things that a number of people felt were missing from the Academy. These included a need for more practicality, inno- vation and creativity in the workshops themselves, as well as more time for the participants. There was a desire for deeper discussions and exchanges through- out the whole Academy, as well as more time to relax. Some respondents want- ed more youth input in the Academy, a wider variety of more relevant keynote speakers and greater inclusivity of minority groups. Finally, there was a desire for the Academy to have a firmer identity and for there to be more connection between the content and the aims. The term “Academy” was thought to be unclear or misleading, as there was no validation, certification or recognition (besides Youthpass). The feedback for the logistics, the organising and research teams as well as the facilitators as a whole was almost entirely positive, as people felt they were all well-organised and helpful. People also liked the accommodation and food. 2nd Edition? In relation to having a 2nd edition of the Academy, 87% said “yes”, 11% said “not sure”. 1% said “no”. There were a variety of different ideas on how to take this process further. Some people said it should be used as an avenue for developing youth work as a field, with an emphasis on quality. This was support- ed by the desire for strong research and policy components (both by the Acade- my itself but also the workshop contributors), more specific themes (e.g. youth crime, youth poverty), and to establish common goals and agendas for youth work to follow up, including national and multilevel projects and initiatives. 53 There was also a desire to see the Academy become more of a place of high quality learning, with a greater focus on reflection, the workshops and being in more fixed groups. Some people felt the method of recruitment and invita- tion did not reach out enough to people “outside” the bubble of youth work or the actual youth workers themselves. A greater variety of participants was expected. Several people said it had impacted their work and that they felt the Academy had done a lot of good. However, it still needed refinement for its next iteration. Finally, a lot of people wanted the Academy to be either annually or biannually and for it to be run in a more sustainable manner to accommodate this wish. A clear qualification and a certification were seen as attached to any initiative labelled as “Academy”. That being said, the Academy has been generally seen as a good pilot and a very useful event. The general consensus is that it should happen again. 54 Summary Conclusions chapter 06 The EAYW set off to inspire those with an interest in supporting Europe’s young people to achieve the best they can in life. In a way, this role can be played by anyone whether a professional or volunteer youth worker, a teacher, a re- searcher, a policy maker or a parent. As we look at the history and origins of youth work itself, first we must acknowledge its unique strengths and nature as a bottom up, community led response to youth services. These origins make the notion malleable through time and place. They also present us with conceptual challenges as well as complexities in its implementation, evaluation, measure- ment and development. Much has been written about youth work and youth policy in Europe, and it is not within the remit of this report to repeat or criticise this knowledge. However, what is important to note is that within the context of an aspiring initiative such as the EAYW, the environment and realities within which it is implemented play a crucial role in forming current opinions and de- ciding on future directions. This report has presented in an evidence-based manner the views, feelings and aspirations of almost 200 Europeans who have a role in European youth work, and want to see its field developing and responding better to young peoples’ re- alities and needs. From the outset, we acknowledged the research limitations of the EAYW project, but also the unique opportunity that it presents for renewing our pledge to achieving better and more consistent practice and theory in youth work across Europe. 55 Despite the EAYW’s infant stages, the findings of the Academy are rich. It is hoped that with this report, its future vision is further developed in meeting the gaps that have been identified, but also in seizing the opportunities that are being presented. In our search for innovation in youth work, we must remember that it is not an objective in itself. Innovation in youth work is a response to a current reality and need. It is the community’s answer to a top down failure or malfunction wheth- er this relates to justice, health, education and the many other services that modern European states and societies are expected to deliver to young people. Europe is faced with a number of challenges and this report has highlighted a number of patterns that contextualise the variety of the wonderful case studies that were submitted for presentation at the Academy. However, at the same time, when these shared challenges are put in the context of local youth and youth workers, they take different priorities and sometimes shapes. This im- pacts on how that particular location responds to these individualised realities. We are still developing our knowledge around these differences and similarities, as the youth field is new especially for European policy and practice. Therefore, it is not surprising that the EAYW asked for a more evidence-based direction for youth work in Europe. The organisers responded to this call by commissioning this report and a research team that supported the initiative. The work does not end here. On the contrast, it has only just begun. Youth policy and practice must be driven by evidence, and to this end, practitioners, researchers and policy makers in the youth field will need to work better and closer together. As one participant put it, “There is a need for better connection and cooperation between academia and practice. The youth sector recognizes the lack of academic research in the field of youth work (not young people!) and youth work education”. Another high-level conclusion that can safely be reached through this report is the widening gap between youth workers / young peoples’ priorities and youth policy. This impacts on youth practice and the success of well-intended initiatives, whether these are undertaken by European or national bodies. In the words of one participant: “When designing or running activities remember the purpose, the why, of youth work. Youth workers are mere instruments in the service of young people”. The famous Victorian saying “Seen and not heard” comes to mind when looking at youth policy independently of location and country. The involvement of young people in decision-making and democratic structures is not an option for governments, but a statutory obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (UN, 1989). Indeed, Article 12 states that children and young people who are capable of 56 forming their own views have a right to express those views freely in all matters affecting them. The article asserts the right of children to express their views in decisions affecting their lives. EAYW strongly felt that youth workers’ voice and that of young people need to be heard. This expectation was also the key aim for participating in the EAYW initiative. It honoured this expectation through the format of the event, the re- port that preceded it and indeed this concluding report, which has been written through evidence and independence. 57 chapter Author’s critical reflections 07 There can be no doubt that we are living in opportune times for user involve- ment in policy development. Institutions and policies are being reviewed glob- ally, and we are slowly becoming a bit more honest about our thoughts and feelings for each other. Public authorities are forced to become more account- able and multi-agency, cross-sector partnership work is encouraged. This is an opportunity for the EAYW as it empowers those on the frontline to participate in decision making tables, and to have their voices heard where and when it matters. Of course, a more cynical approach would say that there is just not enough mon- ey for paid youth work, and that civil society has to be allowed to step in, but un- paid and on a voluntary capacity. Moreover, there is still a prevailing belief and indeed attitude that democracy should be enjoyed passively and that citizens should be called in only when needed, e.g. to vote, to be a juror. Often, domi- nant public perceptions and popular media create chronic pressure on elected governments, the parliamentary, educational and justice institutions to react. Misinformed policies encourage knee-jerk reactions to incidents, a culture of retribution and ‘name and shame’ practices that leave long lasting wounds in communities. Relationships between youth workers, young people and repre- sentatives of the top down structures that create youth policy and fund it must be restored. Therefore, initiatives such as the EAYW have an important role to play in this restoration process, which must be seen as a prerequisite for any future direction for a more unified youth work notion including the Europe- 58 an Youth Work Convention. Whilst the emphasis of large European youth work events can continue to be the development of evidence-based policy, parallel initiatives such as the EAYW can focus on relationship building. After all, the very word academy originates from the ancient Greek gatherings of Plato and Socrates’ followers, where high level debates took place following the building of strong relationships. Shared values and a dictionary of common principles were also highlighted by EAYW participants as being absent in current youth work. While they exist in various shapes and forms, youth work seems to be developing with little con- sideration of what unites us as Europeans. The European Convention on Hu- man Rights is rarely mentioned or indeed used in the youth policy field while human rights as a notion is gradually being seen as a hindrance rather than as the shared guiding principles that should underlie youth work independently of location. This also brings us to another caveat that was highlighted by many youth work- ers and that is the need to focus more on the invisible and marginalised young person and less on the usual suspects. As one delegate put it, “Why do we need participation of marginalised groups? Because youth work reflects society, be- cause we need to address the youth that don’t fit the norm, we need to talk about oppression, because it brings innovation, to build bridges, we need it for democracy, equality and diversity...”. Indeed, true democracy is predicated on the idea that every individual, irre- spective of their background or personal circumstances, should have an equal opportunity to have a say in decisions about their country’s future and the for- mulation of policies, legislation and practices that affect them. Levels of engage- ment and perceptions of influence also vary by ethnic group and social class. It is obvious from the evidence of this report that approaches that promote engagement, participation and plurality may in fact give voice to those who are most visible and/ or vocal – be it individuals or organisations – ,they might re- direct the attention of policy makers and those who hold the public pursue to causes that are championed by those who are most visible/ or vocal. Even the EU Youth Strategy was criticised for making this mistake. Its independent evalu- ation concluded that “stakeholders have called for a more focused cooperation framework which would have a clearer emphasis on selected initiatives” (Eid et al, 2016: 22). Particular concerns were raised in relation to the production of youth policy and youth work that includes marginalised youth as its designers, monitors and beneficiaries. The evidence so far points out that the new youth work initiatives tend to benefit easily accessible youth. For example, the same evaluation report pointed out “that attention given to the needs of specific 59 youth groups at risk and younger age groups has been insufficient”. The evalu- ation continues to point out that “Young people with fewer opportunities’ and ‘children’ are mentioned only twice in the 2009 Council Resolution on renewing the EU cooperation in the youth field, with no objective set in relation to those at-risk groups” (Eid et al, 2016: 95). The EAYW cannot make this mistake, as many continue to plan and fund many examples that have fallen into this trap. Civil society and the regional institu- tions of the EU and the Council of Europe should pay more attention to the true and hidden voices of young people and youth workers, and learn to avoid engaging with the visible and easily accessible structures of organisations that have the time and resources to apply for funds. Europe needs the hopes and ideals of youth workers and young people more than ever. This cannot be a mere statement of intent and theory, but one of genuine and proactive action. “To truly enable bottom-up youth work, power must first be shared.” Future editions of the EAYW can keep this focus and priority live. There are many challenges in Europe that push the youth agenda to the bottom of government priorities. As noted in the Youth Report 2015, “New challenges have emerged since the design of the EU Youth Strategy in 2009. These European realities are shifting the priorities of member states, putting youth policy at the bottom of national agendas.” The widening gap between the powerful and the powerless in many areas of civil rights protection has brought a significant backlash in how we accept what is normal and what is not. This decline is gradually being accept- ed as justifiable due to the convincing nature of these reactionary forces which I aim to unpack (Gavrielides 2016: 43). 60 Even if we are optimistic enough to say that it is still too early for these current European realities to have an impact on the well-established, multi-year pro- grammes on youth work cannot deny the shift in attitudes and mentalities post the world economic crisis. Indeed, it has made Europeans feel their future is in a deadlock, with despair replacing hope. In Europe, this crisis has led to finan- cial calamity and despair. Often, the dominant public perception creates chronic pressure on elected governments and the parliamentary, educational and jus- tice institutions to react. Subsequently, the rest of the world’s populations may be considered as living their lives without any prospect of survival considering the deprivation of essential commodities and basic amenities afflicting these populations. Fear is created and, through this fear, control of the powerless, including young people. To truly enable bottom-up youth work, power must first be shared. Of course, it is an everlasting challenge to find a balance between the input of the citizens and the community, and the enforceable decisions by legitimate authorities, governments and/or the state. That does not only depend on particular insti- tutions and procedures, but also on the quality of citizens’ participation. But clearly there is “massive imbalance of power” between youth service providers and service users. There is an assumption and, indeed, arrogance on the part of those in power that they know best. The truth is that when it comes to initia- tives such as the EAYW, youth workers need the connections, background, expe- rience and support if they are to participate genuinely and indeed help achieve long terms objectives in youth work and youth policy. This is an issue of power sharing. There are examples of past similar initiatives where power dynamics exacerbated oppression among young people and youth workers. These include the ways in which agendas are determined, how knowledge is conceived and maintained and how professional identities are sustained. To sum up, neither youth work nor the notion of innovation are static. Conse- quently, the tools to build a bridge between them and enhance the youth work field at European level, we must follow a consensual model of co-design with ev- eryone involved. The prerequisite for this is that power be shared with them and this refers to all relevant stakeholders, such as youth workers, policy makers at all levels, academics, publishers, politicians, parents, teachers, professors and of course young people. Whether horizontal or vertical, if youth-led policy and youth work are not constructed from the bottom up, then it’s very community nature will be questioned as tokenistic and removed from young people’s realities. However much money is thrown by the EU, the Council of Europe, governments, trusts and donors at new youth policies, accreditation and profesionalisation, new curricula, conferences, events and Academies, these won’t help address 61 the real issues faced by young people and the widening gap between the pow- erful and powerless within the field. Youth work will continue to be created and measured against a defeatist, top down backdrop and the lack of true vision. I agree with Williamson (2002: 40) that the true problem of youth policy in Eu- rope is a lack of ideology. This “ideological vacuum” is where future editions of the EAYW could focus on while restoring broken relationships between key stakeholders. Share power and this will allow young people and youth workers from all walks of life to construct their own philosophies for innovative youth work that is true to current realities. And here is the obvious but missed link with current youth work and innovation: share power with young people and youth workers and allow them to inform and form the meaning of youth policies and naturally the sector will gain meaning locally and regionally. 62 Research A annex Phase 1 Questionnaire You have been selected to present your work at the European Academy on Youth Work. Ann In ex or A:der R to es pr ea epar rch e the Phas pr e ogr 1 amme Questiand o pr nnae-e irev ent report, we would be gr ateful if you could answer the following questions. We are aiming for data consis You t havency e bee and n sel clarity ected , to and pre thus sent y it our is w import ork at thean t tha Europe t y an ou A follo cademyw the on edit Youth orial Work. In order to guidelines prepare the which progra c m an me be and summarised pre-event repo in rt, the we belo would w b figur e grat e. eful Please if you c giv oul e d a full ns an wer t -he fol owing swe que rs sti respond ons. We ing are ai to mi all ng f poin or dat ts a cunder onsiste each ncy ques and clartion.1 ity, Please and thus it do is i not m exceed portant the that you follow the wor edit d limit. orial guidelines which can be summarised in the below figure. Please give ful answers responding to all points under each question1. Please do not exceed the word limit. How do you What is the know the issue, where What is the Why is it response and why? response? innovative? works to resolve the issue? I. PROGRAMME PREPARATION I. PROGRAMME PREPARATION Please provide an abstract of 150 words for your session. This wil be published alongside the formal Academy programme, and shared with the participants to enable them to choose their workshops. Please provide an abstract of 150 words for your session. This will be published Please keep your abstracts focused following the above structure. Please also indicate, how you are alongside the formal Academy programme, and shared with the participants going to involve the participants in your session. to enable them to choose their workshops. Please keep your abstracts focused f II. ollo wing PRE the -EVEN abov T e REPORT structur PREPARATI e. Please ON also indicate, how you are going to involve the participants in your session. General information 1. Author’s details: name, affiliations, country of residence and contact details. 2. What is the main reason for your participation in the European Academy on Youth Work (15 words)? 3. How did you hear about the European Academy on Youth Work? 4. What are your expectations from the European Academy on Youth Work (15 words)? The issue 5. Describe the issue that you/ your project deals with, its location and geographical dimension (local, national, European), and why you believe this issue needs addressing (150 words). 6. Do you think that the issue that you identified forms part of a wider European (past, current or future) trend? Explain your answer (100 words). 1 Authors are expected to proof read their work to a publishable standard. The Editor might carry out further edits, but this will be of minor and s tylistic nature. The response: innovation & transferability 7. Describe what you/ your project did to respond to the issue that you identified, for how long, 63 who the beneficiaries are, their ages and main characteristics (150 words). 8. Explain why you think your project is innovative (100 words). 9. How do you know that your project works (100 words)? 10. Can you identify any underlying principles from your project that are transferable to other contexts of youth work in Europe (100 words)? 1 Authors are expected to proof read their work to a publishable standard. The Editor might carry out further edits, but this wil be of minor and stylistic nature. 46 II. PRE-EVENT REPORT PREPARATION General information • Author’s details: name, affiliations, country of residence and contact details. • What is the main reason for your participation in the European Acade- my on Youth Work (15 words)? • How did you hear about the European Academy on Youth Work? • What are your expectations from the European Academy on Youth Work (15 words)? The issue • Describe the issue that you/ your project deals with, its location and geographical dimension (local, national, European), and why you be- lieve this issue needs addressing (150 words). • Do you think that the issue that you identified forms part of a wider European (past, current or future) trend? Explain your answer (100 words). The response: innovation & transferability • Describe what you/ your project did to respond to the issue that you identified, for how long, who the beneficiaries are, their ages and main characteristics (150 words). • Explain why you think your project is innovative (100 words). • How do you know that your project works (100 words)? • Can you identify any underlying principles from your project that are transferable to other contexts of youth work in Europe (100 words)? 64 Research B annex Phase 2 Questions Mentimeter questions: • What are the youth-related trends we need to take into account when considering innovation in youth work? • Beyond the 4 European youth work trends already identified, are there any other trends that you recognise? • How do you feel? - 22nd May • One word that represents you the experience from the two rounds of contributions • How do you feel now? - 23rd May • How do you feel now? – 24th May • 3 words that summarizes your impressions about the Academy • To what extent the Academy was a space for… Padlet questions: • Questions and reactions to Theo's input • What is innovation in the context of youth work? • What issues do you think are in need of greater attention in a European youth work agenda? • What are the NEEDS of European youth work to be addressed in the future and how the Academy process can support it? Zoom-out questions: • For various reasons, youth workers from across sectors often find themselves with no option but to partner with public and profit-mak- ing organisations. This trend creates both challenges and opportunities for youth work. Has this impacted on your own work? Explain WHY YES or WHY NO? • National and European bodies with a youth work agenda are gradually becoming more demanding in terms of evidencing the impact of youth work including its alignment with professional standards. Is this a trend that has impacted on your work negatively or positively? Explain WHY YES or WHY NO? • Do you think that setting a larger European framework for a youth work agenda helps the development of youth work in your context? What should be part of that agenda? 65 About the Report C annex and Authors This report has been prepared by Professor Dr. Theo GAVRIELIDES, the Found- er & Director of The IARS International Institute and Restorative Justice for All (RJ4All) with the assistance of Aidan Chase-McCarthy, Research Assistant at RJ4All. Dr. Gavrielides served as the Rapporteur for the European Academy on Youth Work, 21-24 May 2019, Kranjska Gora, Slovenia.2 Prof. Dr. Theo Gavrielides Dr. Gavrielides is an international expert in human rights, youth policy and re- storative justice. He is the Founder and Director of the IARS International Insti- tute and Restorative Justice for All (RJ4All). He is an Adjunct Professor at the School of Criminology of Simon Fraser University (Canada) as well as a Visiting Professor in Youth Policy at Buckinghamshire New University (UK). Professor Gavrielides is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, the Youth Voice Journal and the Internet Journal of Restorative Justice. He has published extensively in the areas of youth justice, crime, anti-social behaviour, victims, human rights, equality and justice. He is an advisor to the European Commission, and the coordinator of over 50 EU funded projects on violent radicalisation, migration, restorative justice, youth and human rights. He has acted as an advisor to a number of international bodies, governments and NGOs including the Chilean, Uruguayan and British Ministries of Justice, the Mayor of London, the Council of Europe and the British Council in the Middle East. Previously, he was the Human Rights Advisor of the UK’s Ministry of Jus- tice and has also worked as a Researcher at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Aidan Chase-McCarthy Aidan Chase-McCarthy is a Research Assistant to Dr. Gavrielides at Restorative Justice For All (RJ4All). He has recently finished his masters in Social Research and Psychosocial Studies at the University of Birkbeck. He also completed his un- dergraduate degree in Sociology at the University of Bath. He is currently work- ing on various projects at RJ4All, including Culture and Arts for Unity (CA4U), the Power, Race and Restorative Justice project, and a video series about hate crime and hate speech. 2 Disclaimer: The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the rapporteur, Dr. Theo Gavrielides, and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union or as reflecting the views or opinions of the organisers and the host of the European Academy on Youth Work. The text of the case studies was extracted from the online submission of the authors’ abstracts reflecting their workshops at the EAYW. The text was edited for the purposes of the background paper and this final report. This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Commission and the organisers. 66 Overview of 36 workshop contributions D annex held during the EAYW Reports and further materials of all workshops are available at www.eayw.net/contributions/ Group 1: Youth workers’ development paths • Trainers library - the future of competence development for trainers and youth workers - Darko Mitevski • The political/civic role of youth workers - how to translate that into a competence framework? - Gisele Evrard • Switch it on. Manual on Emotional Intelligence in Youth Work - Maria Luisa Pagano • Educational and career pathways of youth workers - ethical standards in youth work - Sladjana Petković • Overcoming the 3 divides in self-care of youth workers - Paola Bortini Group 2: Youth work upgraded • STEPS - Strategies for EDC with youth in post factual societies - Georg Pirker • Tools for raising the quality in learning mobility - Davide Capecchi and Tony Geudens • TEVIP - Translating European Values Into Practice - Ramon Martinez • First ADR Kit - Mediation in youth work - Marzena Ples • Youth Work Growth Cycle - Matej Cepin • Code of practice for value driven practices - Amr Arafa Group 3: Inclusion and outreach • Dealing with refugees: youth work role and competencies – Federica Demicheli • Everyday life of young LGBTIQ+ individuals: connecting research and youth work – Mateja Morić and Nina Perger • Community free of violence – Natalija Radivojević • Collaborative NEET-youth support service model – Stiina Kütt • The Youth Shelters and the Pathway Home – Miki Mielonen • Gamification to combat discrimination and radicalisation – Maria Marinova 67 Group 4: Country specific practices • Recognition of a youth worker: a specific work for and with youth - Miriam Della Mura • City Incubator - Ksenja Perko • Community building through youth work in rural, post-communist Romania - Cosmin Catana • Building policies and developing youth work in the Republic of Moldova - Ion Donea Group 5: Cross-sectoral cooperation • Youth work - research connection: It’s not (really) rocket science - Özgehan Senyuva • Better together - Anne Molloy and Dr Hilary Tierney • Tertiary level education of youth workers - trends and opportunities - Marko Kovačić • STEAM in youth work - Jean Marie Cullen • Innovation and quality in youth work: exploring research data from RAY - Andreas Karsten Group 6: Digital youth work • Digital youth work in policies and practices - Juha Kiviniemi and Suvi Tuominen • AppRaiser: 360 professional development appraisal service for trainers - Snežana Bačlija Knoch • Cities of Learning - Nerijus Kriauciunas • Pathways to Youth Leadership: embedding EVE in a NFE training course - Jan Lai • Rethinking online communication in youth work - Ana Pecarski Group 7: New perspectives on tools and practices • Skateboarding as a medium to foster cross-border cooperation - Louis Taubert and Johannes Meyer • Eduesc@peroom – the educational escape room - Gabi Steinprinz • Culturehouse Experience - Marko Haimilahti, Markojuhani Rautavaara and Liisa Sippola • “My world cards” - Exploring the everyday life of young people - Kristina Šmitran • Getting creative with “Take a step forward” - Alexandre Fonseca 68 References ABC of Youth Work, (2018). ‘Key Challenges of Youth Work in the Changing World’. 30th May. Avail- able at: https://abc-of-youthwork.eu/portfolio/key-challenges-of-youth-work- in-the-changing-world/ [accessed: 28 February 2019]. Arnkil, R. 2015. Lost in Transition? — Challenges for social inclusion and employment of young people, in: Youth work and non-formal learning in Europe’s education landscape. A quarter of a century of EU cooperation for youth policy and practice. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. A Part of EU, (2018). Manual of Good Practices: social integration of young migrants through participation. 28th November. SALTO-youth. Available at: https://www.salto-youth.net/tools/ toolbox/tool/good-practices-on-social-integration-of-young-migrants-through-participation.2406/ [accessed 24 February 2019]. Briga, (2018). Learning mobility in the field of youth work. Youth Partnership. Available at: https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership/learning-mobility?inheritRedirect=true [accessed: 27 February 2019]. Council of Europe. 2017. ‘Recommendation CM/Rec (2017)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on youth work’. Committee of Ministers. Available at: https://search.coe.int/cm/ Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680717e78 Council of Europe. 2018. ‘Youth Work, a very diverse field of practice’. Youth Partnership. Available at: https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth- partnership/youth-work1 [accessed: 24 March 2019]. Council of the European Union. 2018. ‘Council conclusions on the role of youth work in the context of migration and refugee matters’. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TX- T/?uri=CELEX%3A52018XG1207%2802%29 Council of the European Union. 2018. ‘Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the Repre- sentatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on a framework for European cooperation in the youth field: The European Union Youth Strategy 2019-2027’. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2018:456:FULL [accessed: 24 March 2019]. Crowley, A., Moxon, D. (2017). New and innovative forms of youth participation in decision-making processes. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Eid L. et al. (2016), “Evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy and the Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the EU”, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxem- bourg, available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/docs/youth/ youth-strategy-2016_en.pdf, accessed 9 June 2017. European Union. (2015). Unleashing young people’s creativity and innovation: European Good practice projects. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission, 2019. ‘EU Cooperation in Youth Policy’. Available at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/en/youthwiki/eu-cooperation-youth-policy [accessed: 24 March 2019]. Fominaya, C. F., (2015). Youth Participation in contemporary European Social Movements. Youth Partnership. Available at: https://pjp-eu.coe.int/documents/1017981/1663182/Youth+Participa- tion+in+Social+movements.pdf/2e924238-a0f1-438c-bdd9-a0f7b65c6e13 [accessed: 24 February 2019]. 69 Gavrielides, T, Nemutlu, G and A.M. Șerban, (2018a). Human Rights Education and Youth Work, Estonia: Youth for Human Rights. Gavrielides, T. and Santiago, I. (2018b). Human Rights and Violent Extremism, 18th ASEM Informal Human Rights Seminar, Indonesia: ASEF. Gavrielides, T. (2018c). Youth radicalisation, restorative justice and the Good Lives Model: Compara- tive Findings from seven countries, London: IARS Publications, ISBN: 978-1-907641-48-0. Gavrielides, T. (2017). “European democracy in crisis: Building a bridge between participatory and cross-sectoral youth-led policy” in Nico, M. et al. (Eds). Needless in Haystacks: Finding a way for cross sectoral youth policy. YEC-CoE Youth Partnership. Strasbourg: Council of Europe and European Union. Gavrielides, T., et al. (2016a). My Voice – My Rights: Young, Marginalised and Empowered by the law. IARS Publications: London. ISBN: 978-1-907641-34-3. Gavrielides, T. (2016b). "The Death of Democracy and the Forces of Power and Control: The Case of Europe". Social Sciences Journal. 5(3), pp. 42; doi:10.3390/socsci5030042. Gavrielides, T. (2014) "Moving Beyond Frail Democracy: Youth-led youth studies and social policy" in (Eds) Kelly, P. and Kamp A., A Critical Youth Studies for the 21st Century, Leiden, Boston: BRILL. Garbauskaité-Jakimovska, (2018). Desk research: The value of learning mobility and its impact on communities. Youth Partnership. Available at: https://pjp-eu.coe.int/docu- ments/1017981/9484127/The-value-of-LM.pdf/c3c7cd96-9f81-3f26-4917-e7ff5f9d2640 [accessed: 27 February 2019]. Koprivica, N., Kontic, V., (2017). Country Sheet on Youth Work in Montenegro. Council of Europe European Union. Available at: https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership/montenegro [accessed: 27 February 2019]. Mänd, K., (2014). ‘Third sector trends: The broader framework of service delivery’, in M. Taru’s, F. Coussée, and H. Williamson’s (Eds.) The history of youth work in Europe: Relevance for today’s youth work policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Reicherts, M., (2015). ‘Foreword’, in European Union’s (Eds.) Unleashing young people’s creativity and innovation: European good practice projects. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Schlümmer, E., (2014). ‘Introduction: looking around and moving forward’, in M. Taru’s, F. Coussée, and H. Williamson’s (Eds.) The history of youth work in Europe: Relevance for today’s youth work policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Siurala, L., 2006. A European Framework for youth policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Taru, M., Coussée, F., Williamson, H. 2014. The history of youth work in Europe: Relevance for today’s youth work policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Youth Service Sectoral Partner’s Group (YSSPG), 2015. Youth work outcomes and priorities for youth work: The development of a reporting mechanism to demonstrate the outcomes of youth work for young people. Available at: https://www.eani.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-01/Youth%20Work%20 Outcomes%20Summary%20%28January%202015%29.pdf [accessed: 29 January 2019]. Zupan, B., 2018. Country Sheet on Youth Work in Slovenia. Council of European Union. Available at: https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership/slovenia [accessed:27 February 2019]. 70 MOVIT MOVIT has been the Slovenian National Agency for EU programmes in the field of youth, currently Erasmus+: Youth in Action and the European Solidar- ity Corps, since May 1999. In this role, MOVIT is manages indirectly centralised EU budget funds and supports different forms of learning mobility activities in youth work. It also runs activities to promote the development of youth work and non-formal education, in particular activities contributing to strengthening European cooperation in the field of youth. Since 2018, the European Solidarity Corps has extended these fields also to other spheres and actors organising sol- idarity activities as a means to contribute to strengthening cohesion, solidarity, democracy and citizenship in Europe. Along with its role as a National Agency, MOVIT also serves as an office of Eu- rodesk, the European Commission’s info service offering EU-related information to young people (www.eurodesk.si). In 2002, MOVIT took over the SALTO South East Europe Resource Centre (SALTO SEE), which promotes cooperation with the Programmes’ Western Balkan partner countries within the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme and the European Solidarity Corps, through training and partner-finding activities and various other support measures, tools and re- sources (www.salto-youth.net/see). SALTO SEE belongs to the network of SALTO Resource Centres (www.salto-youth.net). This publication was made possible with the support of the European Commission and the Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth. The information and views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission or the Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth or the partners involved in the European Academy on Youth Work. The European Commission, the Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth, the Slovenian National Agency and the project partners cannot be held responsi-ble for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. About this publication The European Academy on Youth Work offers a regular platform for reflection on current European topics with relevance to the youth field MOVIT with a focus on recent or current National Agency of the EU Programmes developments and future trends. It has Erasmus+: Youth in Action and European been set up to support innovation in Solidarity Corps youth work and youth work policy, to Dunajska cesta 5 promote the development of quality 1000 Ljubljana youth work and to contribute to Phone: +386 (0) 1 430 47 47 creating a common ground on youth Web: www.movit.si E-mail: info@movit.si work and youth work policy. This report presents the findings of the first edition of the European Academy on Youth Work, which was held from 21 to 24 May 2019 in Kranjska Gora, Slovenia. Document Outline _gjdgxs