The information behaviours of disadvantaged and disengaged adolescents
| Published date | 09 May 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2015-0060 |
| Date | 09 May 2016 |
| Author | Steven Buchanan,Lauren Tuckerman |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management |
The information behaviours of disadvantaged a nd disengaged adolescents
Introduction
We have limited understanding of adolescent inform ation behaviours in disadvantaged (i.e.
socioeconomic) and disengaged (i.e. education and e mployment) circumstances, yet 954,000 young
people in the UK are currently not in education, emp loyment or training (NEET), and at high risk of
social exclusion (Miller et al, 2015; Wanberg, 2012; Kieselbach 2003). This study provides empirical
evidence to support our hypothesis that heightened a ccess and internalised behavioural barriers
(beyond or not common to the general adolescent p opulation) are consigning many young people to a
stratified existence within an impoverished (small) information world; contributes to our understanding
of information poverty; draws attention to a societal i ssue; and informs public and third sector
intervention strategies.
Our overarching theoretical framework brings together theories of information poverty with theories of
social capital to better understand information beha viours in impoverished circumstances and explore
issues of social integration (understood as parti cipation, access, and engagement). The study
investigates NEET youth (aged 16-19) engagement with public and third sector support services
during information seeking for education and emplo yment purposes, and the extent of information
poverty manifest.
Background
954,000 young people aged 16-24 in the UK (13.1 % of all young people) are NEET (UK Office for
National Statistics, 2014). Broken down further, 450,0 00 (47%) are actively seeking and available for
work and further classified as ‘unemployed’, while 504 ,000 (53%) are not and further classified as
‘economically inactive’; and while rates for young people classified as NEET and ‘unemployed’ have
dropped from the previous year (-25.1% (partl y attributed to a UK raising of the mandatory
participation age in education or training)), rates for young people classified as NEET and
‘economically inactive’ have risen (+1.6%). A gender imbalance is also notable with women
representing 37.2% of NEET youth ‘unemployed’ and 67.6% of NEET youth ‘economically inactive’.
A persistent deprivation gradient is also evident, w ith deprived regions of the UK having up to se ven
times the rate of NEET youth as those of least depri ved regions, and 38% of all NEET youth living in
unemployed UK households (Office of National Statistics, 2014; Audit Commission, 2010).
Similar statistics and trends are reported worldwide, including persistent or rising NEET rates (16-24
(general trend)) across the majority of OECD countr ies, with rates particularly high in emerging
economies such as India, Saudi Arabia and South A frica (International Labour Organisation, 2014;
OECD, 2014a). The global youth unemployment rat e is three times higher than the unemployment
rate for adults and is forecast to remain unchanged t hrough 2018 (International Labour Organisation,
2015). For example, while the total unemployment r ate in the US is 5.7%, the rate for unemployed
youth (16-19) is 18.7% (United States Department of Labor, 2014). In OECD league tables of NEET
rates (OECD, 2014a), the USA is ranked 10
th
highest and the UK 13
th
highest out of 37 comparison
countries, with both the USA and UK having rates abo ve the OECD average. At high risk of requiring
long-term state support (NEET status being a strong predictor of chronic unemployment (International
Labour Organisation, 2014; Franzèn & Kassman, 200 5); in Scotland alone (the study zone), the cost
of a single cohort of young people failing to transiti on into regular employment is estimated to be £2
billion (SPICe, 2012).
Disadvantaged and disengaged, and unlikely to reen gage without interventions (particularly those
deemed ‘economically inactive’ (Office of National Statistics, 2014; Audit Commission, 2010)), k ey
factors contributing to sustained NEET status (6 m onths+) include: economic hardship, poor social
functioning, teenage pregnancy/parenthood, delinque ncy, low educational attainment, substance
abuse, disability, carer responsibilities, and lack of parental support (O’Dea et al, 2014; Welsh
Government Social Research, 2013; Dietrich, 2 012; Audit Commission, 2010; Kieselbach, 2003).
Low self-esteem is a significant issue, as is stigma , both contributing to social exclusion and negative
behaviours (Miller et al, 2015; Yates & Payne, 2006; Kie selback, 2003). Miller et al (2015) reports
that many NEET youth feel marginalized and percei ve themselves to be viewed negatively by formal
and traditional structures (civic and communit y), and that “this affected the young people’s belief in
equal opportunities and resulted in the development of varying resilience strategies, the most t ypical
being isolation from and resentment to these struct ures” (2015, p6). Delinquency rates are higher
than peers, as is the prevalence of mental health issues (O’Dea et al, 2014; Audit Commision, 2010) .
The 2014 Princes Trust Annual Youth Index (Princes Trust, 2014), the largest UK youth study of its
kind (2161 participants aged 16-25 (265 NEET)), rep orts that NEET youth are more than twice as
likely as their peers to be prescribed anti-depressan ts, with 40% (n265) having experienced
symptoms of mental illness as a direct result of their sit uation. Such issues are compounded by
fatalistic opinions (Miller et al, 2015) and feelings of he lplessness. The Princes Trust (2014) reports
that 74% of NEETs stated that they would not ask for help even when struggling to cope, and that
72% felt that they had no one to confide in regard less.
State and third sector (single and multi-agency) interve ntions focus on personal support and
development, skills development, work programmes and apprentiships. Information plays a core role:
informing, guiding, and empowering; however while i nformation behavior studies of NEET youth ar e
non-existent (discussed below), related issues are reported within the public and third sector, most
notably recent reports from the Organisation for Ec onomic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
and the UK Princes Trust. The OECD, in a review of em ployment factors and trends, report that,
“weak information-processing skills among youth are more strongly associated with the probability of
being NEET than educational attainment” (OECD, 2 014b, p217), and highlight the risk of chronic
unemployment without remedial training and supp ort (but without prescriptive guidance). The
Princes Trust (2013) report that NEET youth are si gnificantly less likely to carry out job-related tasks
on a computer than their peers due to a lack of skills a nd confidence, and that many are
‘embarrassed by their lack of computer skills’. The Princes Trust report that 35% (n265) rarely or
never look for jobs online, that 24% ‘dread filling in online job applications’, that 17% would not app ly
for jobs requiring basic computer skills, that 10% cann ot send a CV online, and that 11% avoid using
computers entirely. Perhaps unsurprisingly given ab ove, Lanning & Rudiger (2012, p14)
report
that
NEETs “often struggle to navigate the policy environ ment and support available to them” with a “bett er
and more coordinated transition system” recomme nded, that “would include good information, advice
and guidance to help young people navigate the ch oices available”.
A challenge in responding to such issues relates to ou r limited understanding of adolescent
information behaviours in disadvantaged and disenga ged circumstances, which might inform tailored
solutions and interventions. Empirical studies of t he information seeking behaviors of NEET youth are
non-existent, and arguably limited in circumstances th at could be characterised as disadvantaged
and/or disengaged. For example, while Agosto & Hu ghes-Hassell (2006a; 2006b) investigated the
everyday life information needs of adolescents from a ‘lower socioeconomic division’, participants
were all high school students and variously members of extra-curricular leadership and after-school
programs; and while Webber and Zhu (2007) and Jul ien (1999) investigated employment related
information needs of adolescents, participants we re again students (and majority part-time emplo yed).
Overall, students have been the predominant (if not so le) participants in studies of adolescent
information behaviors; however, insight can nonethele ss be gained from general population
adolescent studies.
Ofcom (2014a; 2014b) report that young people (age 16-24) are increasingly cross-media multi-
screening and multitasking on a day-to-day basis fro m a variety of locations; and spend approximatel y
24.2 hours per week online, with general brows ing and sending/receiving emails the most regularl y
undertaken activites, followed by looking at social networking sites/apps, online purchases, using
instant messaging services, and online banking and bill payment, followed by finding information f or
work/job/studies, looking at news websites or app s, and finding information for leisure time (see
Ofcom 2014b for the full list encompassing less freque nt activities).
Agosto et al (2012) report that adolescent (age18) choice of personal communication media (social
media and other ICT) is based on social context, closeness of relationships with receivers, and
number of receivers. Five independent variables are identified (relationship factors;
information/communication factors; social factors; system factors; self-protection factors), and one
moderating variable (recipient factors). Text messaging is used most frequently to communicate
quickly with close friends, and to a lesser degree, family. Social networks are used to communicate
with a wider range of friends and to post images, update statuses etc. Email is the pr eferred medium
to communicate with authority figures as it is considered more formal and less personal. Deeper
information exchanges are conducted f ace-to-face or via voice call, smaller information exchanges
To continue reading
Request your trial