Youth Offending – A critique of the possible risk factors.

By Caren Rossall
Student I.D - 20166665

Abstract

This report provides an insightful outlook on the potential risk factors associated with delinquent youths. An analysis of the mixed method research carried out by the author is provided. Questionnaires were distributed between 2, diverse areas which provided a set of contrasting opinions and beliefs. Personal, information is also shared on the topic from the interview with a previous youth offender. Why it is that children and young people become involved in criminal activities has been the focus of leading researchers for many years, resulting in a wide and varied literature base for this particular study. Some of the contemporary material has been evaluated and used in conjunction with the primary data attained.

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to unravel some of the possible risk factors associated with youth offending. Why it is some children, as they grow up, become involved in criminal activities while others respect the law and stay out of trouble has been a largely debated question for many years (Utting et al, 1993). Not only has this topic been chosen as it is of great interest to the researcher but the classic British longitudinal studies of youth offending appear to be many years old.
Existing literature from theorists, professionals, government reports and any other secondary research carried out regarding this chosen topic will be critically evaluated and used in comparison with one another. The investigator will also be carrying out primary research using various methods to obtain further knowledge, opinions and beliefs surrounding why it is young people become involved in criminal behaviour. The methods chosen, methods discounted and sample size will be critically analysed and how the researcher has ensured the work to be ethically correct will be revealed. The data obtained from primary research will be recorded in the findings section and will be cross examined with the existing material used in the literature Review.

Literature Review
This review will be effective in identifying the possible risk factors surrounding youth offending. The question as to why some children choose to become delinquent will be the continuous focus throughout this review. Answers will be achieved by critically analysing existing, contemporary material surrounding this particular subject.
Views and opinions have proved to differ widely amongst leading researchers. For example, Allen (1995) persists; many factors need to be taken in to consideration when focusing on contributions towards the development of criminal behaviour. Allen concludes that poor parenting; poverty, boredom and school failure can all lead to youths engaging in criminal activities. Armstrong (2004) stated, if this is so, if early intervention strategies that concentrate on rectifying these deficiencies are used it is likely the offending behaviour can be dramatically reduced. For example, if poor parenting is recognised as a risk factor in the offender’s life experience, then intervention’s such as Parental Management Training are suggested to benefit in the reduction of offending. In support of this, a study conducted by the Home Office in 1995 also found clear connections between youth offenders and poor parental supervision, truancy and exclusion from school and also association with delinquent peers. However, the credibility of these findings by the Home Office could be doubted due to being outdated not only at this time but also when the documents were initially published. For example, the 1998 statistics produced by the Home Office were not published until October, 2000. In addition, as reported by the Youth Justice board in the report titled ‘Risk and Protective Factors’ (see appendix a) the Home Office criminal statistics are primarily focused on offenders (and offences) dealt with by the police and justice system alone. Moreover, Farrington (1996) reports that the most reliable research on youth offending should be carried out by collecting information from several different sources including youths themselves, their parents/guardians, teachers and official records. Farrington’s statement again could be doubted due to ethical guidelines surrounding the involvement of children in research. The National Children’s Bureau’s guidelines for research persists “Careful thought needs to be given to translating this into practice when the participant is a child” (Shaw, C. Et al: 2011, p.25). Furthermore Bynner (1999) stated the most relevant, largest and longitudinal research studies have been conducted in Scandinavia, New Zealand, the USA and Britain. In contrast, the Youth Justice Board reports “it should be noted that the classic British longitudinal studies of offending are many years old,” (Shaw, C. Et al: 2011. p. 33). It could therefore be argued that this highlights the need for more contemporary evidence in this field.

Additional research has also highlighted sexual exploited girls and young women as a possible risk factor. The report titled ‘Out of Place: The policing and criminalisation of sexually exploited girls and young women’ (See appendix B), published by The Howard League in 2012 analyses the links between law breaking behaviour and sexual exploitation. As discussed in the Independent Newspaper, prior to this report being published there were no obvious reasons for youths to be vandalising allotments, smashing car windows and shoplifting etc. and, was therefore convenient to name these acts as ‘mindless’ (Crook, Online: 2012). However the report has highlighted, girls and young women are often brought to the attention of the authorities due to crimes committed as a result of their vulnerabilities and their sexual exploitation. “Many girls use crime as a means to escape their exploiters or as a cry for help” (Phoenix, 2012, p.1). It was also reported, the most common type of offence committed was shoplifting, guided by the need to obtain drugs and alcohol which could be argued to be a key coping strategy for these young women. Additionally, official statistics confirm girls in these circumstances are not arrested and charged with prostitution offences. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence exits which suggests they are disproportionately criminalised for behaviour that is associated to their sexual exploitations. It could therefore be argued, the way in which the justice system portray these young girls needs to change. “Children must always be treated as victims, never as criminals” (Phoenix, 2012, p.1)

In addition, a history of family criminal activity has also been underlined as a possible risk factor influencing criminal behaviour amongst youths. As a result of studies on both sides of the Atlantic, Farrington (1995) states, “children are far more likely to become delinquent if one or both parents have been involved in crime, or if they have an older sibling who is, or was delinquent”. It could be argued, this could be closely linked to the conclusions made by Rutter and colleagues (1993) on the possibility of genetic influences. They note that evidence for an inherited, genetic component is strongest in the case of hyperactivity, which is strongly connected with anti-social and aggressive behaviour during the ‘growing years’ (Youth Justice Board, 2005). However, Rutter (1993) persists, although a genetic component is likely, environmental factors should always be taken in to consideration. For example, in the families of convicted criminals the attitudes and behavioural norms will make it more, or less likely that children will become involved in criminal activities. In relevance, Bandura’s Social Learning theory would inevitably support this view. He concluded, children inherit their behaviour through observational learning (modelling others), which was illustrated in the famous ‘bobo doll’ experiment (Bandura, 1977). However, with no hard evidence to suggest whether behaviour is inherited through genetics or environmental factors, the Nature vs. Nurture debate will certainly continue.

Furthermore, still on the subject of familial risk factors, a report published by the Children’s Commissioner in 2011 presented - there is a common trend of traumatic loss and separation amongst young people who commit crimes. In 1997, 200 youths were studied who had committed ‘grave crimes’ and sentenced under section 53 of the Children’s Act 1993. It was found, 57% of the children studied had suffered loss of a parent or carer (either through separation or bereavement). However, Utting et al (1993) & Farrington (1996) place emphasis on the importance of an affectionate relationship between children and one or both of their parents/guardians, which can also be affected in dual parent families not only as a result of separation. For example, a study in the US found offending was not only common in children from broken homes (without affectionate mothers), but also in ‘undamaged’ families that had issues of conflict between parents. (McCord, 1982)

The literature above has provided a wide and varied outlook on the possible risk factors associated with youth offending and, will be compared with the data obtained by the researcher at a later stage.

Methodology
This section will acquaint the reader in a critical analysis of which research methods have been chosen and the reasons why. During the research of this project the researcher will ensure that the 6 key principles of ethical research addressed by the Economic and Social Research Council are implemented.
Ethical guidelines are in place to protect both the researcher and the applicants involved in the research. To ensure the research carried out is ethical, an ethics pro forma has been sent and checked by the UCBC ethics committee (see appendix C) and, there will be no involvement throughout this project with anybody under the age of 18 and informed consent (see appendix D) will be obtained from those who are interviewed, questioned, observed or anyone that material is taken from (Bell, 2005). However, the participants will be informed that they are able to decline to answer any questions they may find intrusive and that withdrawal from interviews is possible at any point. “Consent is not a ‘once and for all’ obligation, and individuals should be aware of their entitlement to refuse their consent at any stage of the research.” (Henn, et al. 2005, p. 75) The purpose of the research and what will be done with the findings will be fully explained to all participants. In addition, the researcher will fully comply with the Data Protection Act (1998) and the identities of respondents will be protected throughout.
An interpretive approach will be used when conducting all research throughout this project. It is argued, the Interpretivist Paradigm is most suited to social sciences as it provides credibility to the understanding of topics (Blaxter et al, 2010). As a result, it has fewer stringent demands of causation. The Interpretivist views results of research as distinctive explanations of fact, tightly based on a methodical approach to analysis and the continuation of an open mind. However, there is potential of researcher bias due to the basis of interpretation and, no matter how meticulous the methods are carried out there is still a chance the researcher may predominantly look for what they want to see. (Denscombe, 2002) In addition, whilst adhering to the Interpretivist Paradigm, qualitative and quantitative data will be obtained resulting in a mixed methods approach to gather additional viewpoints, experiences and beliefs. However, it is argued amongst leading researchers if work is conducted in the paradigms of both ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ the results cannot be mixed due to data being of such different types and, the meanings and values being incompatible. “Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined” (Shaw et al. 2002, p.43) On the other hand, Reichardt and Rallis (1994) argue that the two paradigms are in actual fact compatible as they share fallibility of knowledge, a value-ladened inquiry process and indetermination of theory by fact.
In order to gain the quantitative data for this project, 50 structured questionnaires will be distributed (See appendix E). However, using Purposive Sampling the questionnaire distribution will be evenly split between an area where the youth crime rate is believed to be low and an area where crime is known to be more common. Arguably, this will provide the researcher with a set of contrasting perceptions as to why it is youths become involved in criminal activity. This sampling process however is not without its criticisms. For example, Lopez (1997) claimed dissimilar to Random Sampling, non-probability methods such as the Purposive Sample are not free from bias and, can therefore affect the credibility and validity of the results as participants may be chosen from recommendations of knowledgeable people or simply out of convenience. Conversely, Tangco (2007) argues despite the possibility of biasedness, reliable and robust data can be obtained from Purposive Sampling.
To ensure validity of the questionnaire results, careful consideration was taken when choosing the sample size, as the researcher is aware all questionnaires may not be returned and is therefore imperative to send them to more people than are essentially needed (Bryman, 2012). In addition, using a convenience sample further quantitative data will be obtained through a web based survey. Schonlau et al (2002) claims, internet based surveys are believed to be more cost effective, less time consuming and easier than conducting the more traditional methods of email and mailing. On the other hand, studies have found many ethical issues surrounding the use of this method. For example, Frankel & Siang (1999) raise concerns over whether informed consent is required and how it can be obtained, as consent issues on the internet are far more complex. In relevance, Eysenbach & Wyatt (2002) state researchers can attain informed consent from participants by explaining how privacy will be assured, declaring which institutions are behind the study, disclosing the purpose of the study and informing with whom the data will be shared with. This will be done on the first page of the survey and will be seen by the respondent before completing.
Qualitative evidence will be gathered by again using the purposive sample selection and conducting a structured interview with a professional body from the Youth Offending Team in Blackburn and, unstructured interviews will be carried out with previous Youth Offenders who are now over the age of 18. It is hoped this will provide the researcher with varied views and opinions on the research topic. Due to the offenders still being of quite a young age unstructured interviews have been chosen to create a more relaxed atmosphere. “The interaction between the participant and the researcher is more like a conversation than an interview” (Santiago, Online: 2003). In addition it has also been suggested; more trust between the investigator and participant can be gained by using unstructured interviews as the respondents are able to elaborate freely on the topic which can also reveal more valuable information. On the other hand, due to the ability of discussing freely, the main topic of the interview can be easily forgotten. (Cohen & Crabtree, Online: 2006) Additionally, a structured interview with the professional has been chosen as the risk of interviewer and interviewee bias is reduced and the validity is increased (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010). However, it could be argued, the information gathered could be limited as the interviewer will be unable to expand on the questions asked in order to explore a given response (which could happen in a Semi-Structured or Unstructured interview), therefore answers could easily be misinterpreted and affect the reliability of the answers. Additionally Mason (2002) argues, unlike structured interviews the other two formats lack in standardisation and as a result the information which is received can be too disorganised for meaningful analysis and for the data to be generalised. Further research in to the method of face to face interviewing has also highlighted the risk of respondents providing answers that are seen to be socially acceptable rather than offering their honesty on the questions asked which again can dramatically impact on validity (de Leeuw, 1992, Kiesler & Sproull, 1986).
The researcher is aware that Qualitative data can also be obtained through observational studies. However, it simply would not be safe or ethical to carry out this method due to the purpose of this research. In relation, Dewalt, et al (1998) explained, ethical issues surrounding observational studies arise when the observation consists of criminal activity or the involvement of youths. In addition, informed consent would have to be obtained when observing the behaviour of youths and as a result their behaviour may be influenced which again may affect the credibility of the outcome.
The methods chosen will allow the researcher to cross examine results with existing data (previously mentioned in the literature review) to identify patterns, along with new and common trends to provide a strong analysis and conclusion in the findings section.

Data and Findings
In this section the data obtained from the various research methods will be summarised and will be cross examined with the existing material (previously mentioned in the Literature Review). As presumed the data has provided various views and opinions relating to the risk factors associated with delinquent youths.
As proposed not all questionnaires issued were returned however, all questions were answered on the ones obtained. 23 out of 25 were returned from the area where crime is believed to be more common and, only 18 out of 25 were returned from the area in which crime is not as prevalent. As presented in the graphs below, 15 out of the 23 respondents from the ‘high crime rate area’ had at some point committed crime as a youth, whereas only 5 out of the 18 respondents from the ‘low crime rate area’ had been involved in criminal activities. This suggested to the researcher, the response rate from the ‘high crime rate’ area could be much greater due to the participants having their own personal reasons as to why it was they engaged in criminal activities and, could therefore connect with the subject more than the others. However in contrast, some argue having to share personal experiences on a sensitive subject could not only hinder the response rates, but result in refusal to answer certain questions and the risk of answering dishonestly increases. (Chaudhuri & Mukerjee, 1988; Tourangeau & Yan, 2007) In addition, a substantial response rate was gained from the online survey (Surveymonkey) which provided varied views and opinions in relation to the risk factors. However, the structure of the survey caused this method to be flawed and resulted in confusion when attempting to record data. Surveymonkey summarised questions as a whole, rather than providing individual responses to each question, therefore it was made impossible to link respondents to areas or age groups etc. Nevertheless, due to the valuable opinions expressed on the open ended questions some of the data will be utilised.
Moreover, it was intended to conduct a structured interview with a professional body from the Youth Offending team however, despite repeated attempts to initiate such a discussion, no response was received. Additionally, due to time constraints only one interview was conducted with a previous youth offender (see appendix F) as opposed to the original intention of interviewing two. In relevance Bell (2005) emphasises, how time consuming interviews can be and therefore only a relatively small amount of people should be interviewed in small projects.
As the questionnaires were distributed between two areas the graphs below have been completed to represent the views and opinions of each area.
Question 1 – What is your gender?

In both areas there was no substantial difference in the amount of male and female respondants, which has contributed towards the strength and generalisability of these findings. In relevance, Robin & Babbie (2010) state, the methodoligical quality of a study can easily be hindered by gender and cultural bias therefore, impeding on the validity of it’s findings. Additional critics have also suggested, when researchers perform studies in a sexist or cultural insensitive manner they are not only committing methodological errors but also going awry ethically. (Ritchie, 2009)
Question 2 – Which Category includes your age?

This question was answered by all respondents however, although there were respondents from each age category the response rate was heavily weighted from those aged 26-30, as a result these findings will and should not be generalised across all age groups. In addition, the risk of retrospective bias is not eliminated as the participants will be recalling aspects of their earlier lives (if they were delinquent as a youth). However, due to ethical concerns surrounding the involvement of youths in research the researcher was always aware of this potential risk.

Question 3 – Were you ever involved in any form of criminal activity as a youth (under the age of 17)?

It is evident to see the youth offending rate was more prominent in the area which is believed to be deprived and has an excessive degree of criminal behaviour. In relation, secondary research provided by the Youth Justice Board highlighted the areas in which children live can be a major contributor to criminal behaviour. “Children who grow up in economically deprived areas, with poor living conditions and high rates of unemployment are at increased risk of involvement in crime, including violence” (Youth Justice Board, 2005). In support of Allen (1995), the Youth Justice Board (2005) also reports; children from low income homes are also more likely to commit crimes than those from more affluent backgrounds. Therefore, it could be arguably difficult to isolate the influence of living in a ‘run-down’ area from low income and additional risk factors that cluster together in the lives of people that live in such areas. In support of this argument but in contrast to the Youth Justice Board, Interviewee A, (2013) stated “I wasn’t living in a council estate or a deprived area – I lived in a new estate in Blackburn”
Question 4 – If answered yes to question 3, please state your age when the crime was committed.

This question found a recurring theme of offending age groups between both areas. However, there was a small amount of respondents that offended in the less privileged area between the ages of 10-14 years. It may be argued, this finding could be closely related to the secondary evidence found of youths modelling the behaviour of those they spend time with. In relevance Farrington (1995) persists, criminal behaviour amongst children is far more likely if they have an older sibling who is delinquent, criminal parents or is involved with delinquent peers. The view of Farrington also mirrored the circumstances surrounding interviewee A, it was revealed by the participant that he also had a criminal, older brother and had experienced this criminal behaviour from a young age.
Question 5 - If the previous 2 answers have been answered please state in which area(s) the crime(s) were committed.

With Blackburn being the more affluent area it was interesting to see that a high percentage of respondents from this area did not commit the crimes in their own town and did so in the less privileged area. In relevance to this finding, an anonymous online survey respondent (2013) stated, “I smashed a car window once when hanging around in Darwen with my mates, I don’t think I would have done this in my own town”. However, as previously mentioned - the researcher was unable to associate answers to the online survey with the area in which they lived, and although this respondent would not have committed the crime in their own area there is potential that the participant was also from a deprived area.

Question 6 - If applicable, which of the following offences indicate the criminal activity you were involved in?

This question was asked as research suggested there are sometimes reasons behind the crimes committed by children and young people. For example as previously mentioned, The Howard League emphasised this circumstance with the victims of sexually exploitation committing crimes due to their vulnerabilities. “Some use it as a way to express a sense of justice as they feel excluded from traditional mechanisms of justice” (Phoenix, 2012, p.1). In addition, these findings have shown a higher alcohol and drugs rate in the higher crime area than in the opposing, the YJB (2005) reports this is due to the availability of drugs and alcohol in deprived areas. Identifiably in contrast to the YJB which stressed, violence is a lot more common in deprived areas; the low crime rate area had a high percentage of violent crimes committed.

Question 7 - Is there any history of criminal activity within your family?

This question found strong links between offenders and a family history of anti-social behaviour and in addition to the graphs above, Interviewee A also had an older sibling who had been involved in crime. Farrington (1995) found, having a convicted mother, father, or older sibling was a risk factor for subsequent offending. These findings accord with the secondary data found by Rutter & collegues (1998) on the possibility of genetic influences on criminal behaviour. It was noted that the evidence for a genetic component lay strongly in the case of hyperactivity, which is solidly associated with anti-social behaviour. The reverse implication is the influence of external, environmental factors in relation to delinquency in the growing years which would inevitably be supported by Bandura’s Social Learning Theory.

Question 8 - What do you think is the main reason behind youth offending?

Various views and opinions were presented on the reasons behind anti-social behaviour. With 61% believing boredom was a major influence from the high risk area; this suggested to the researcher that area in particular may benefit from more intervention strategies were made available such as youth clubs etc. In relevance Armstrong (2004) also believes, anti-social behaviour would dramatically reduce if intervention schemes were in place. However in contrast, Interviewee A (2013) did persist that the crimes he committed were done through boredom but did not believe intervention strategies would be beneficial. “Youth Clubs and things like that were seen as geeky – the more ‘cool’ people hung around on the streets” (Interviewee A, 2013). This statement however was made in retrospect and could be argued; facilities have now developed and now may be more appealing for youths to be involved in. A new youth centre in the low crime rate area has recently been built, offering various activities, world class equipment, tailor made sports and fitness classes and also extensive mentoring and support. It could be argued the area has had a positive influence on the area with only 5% of respondents believing boredom is a potential risk factor.

Conclusion / Recommendations
In conclusion it is evident to see there is no one risk factor that stands alone in the influence of criminal behaviour amongst children and young people. It is therefore imperative that when working alongside youth offenders all parts of the ‘jigsaw’ are pieced together and, to initially tackle the reasons behind why the crimes have been committed to assist prevention. Professionals should also take in to consideration the needs of the whole family and not just of the child or young person. “Specific interventions should be matched to address the most pressing needs of each individual family member and to target individualized family outcomes” (Children’s Bureau: Online: 2006)
Although invaluable material was obtained by the researcher through the chosen methods, more could and should be done. If this research was to be carried out again, the investigator would leave more time to conduct additional interviews with other to gain further knowledge and opinions regarding this topic. A web survey would be used again however, more consideration would be taken in regards to its structure to enable a more straight forward analysis.

Bibliography
Allen, R. (1997) Children & Crime: Taking Responsibility, London: IPPR
Armstrong, D, (2004). Youth Justice. A Risky Business? Research, Policy, Governmentality and Youth Offending, 4, 100-116
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Blaxter, L. Hughes, C. Tight, M (2010) How to Research, Berkshire: Open University Press
Bryman, A (2012) Social Research Methods, New York: Open University Press
Bynner, J. (1999) Risks and Outcomes of Social Exclusion: Insights from Longitudinal Data. Report for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). London: Institute of Education
Chaudhuri, A., & Mukerjee, R. (1988) Randomized response: Theory and techniques, New York: Marcel Dekker.
Cohen, D., Crabtree, B. (2006) Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. Retrieved from: http://www.qualres.org/HomeInfo-3631.html - Accessed 10/02/2013
Creswell, J (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, Thousand Oaks: Sage
De Leeuw, E. D., (1992) Data Quality in Mail, Telephone, and Face to Face Surveys, Ph.D. Dissertation, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam
Denscombe, M (2002) Ground Rules for Good Research, Buckingham: Open University Press
DeWalt, K. M., DeWalt, B. R., & Wayland, C. B. (1998) "Participant observation" In H. R. Bernard (Ed.) Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology, CA: AltaMira Press.
Eysenbach, G. & Wyatt, J. (2002) Journal of Medical Internet Research: Using the Internet for Surveys and Health Research, 2, 1-10
Farrington, D.P. (1995) The Twelfth Jack Tizard Memorial Lecture. The Development of Offending and Antisocial Behaviour from Childhood: Key Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 929-964
Farrington, D.P. (1996) Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime, London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. (1999) Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the Internet, A report of a workshop. Retrieved from; http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm - Accessed 02/02/2013
Gorard, S (2002) Ethics and Equity: Pursuing the Perspective of Non-Participants, Social Research Update, 39, 1-4
Gorard, S (2003) Quantitative Methods in Social Science: The Role of numbers made Easy, London: Continuum
Henn, M., Weinstein, M., Foard, F. (2006) A Short Introduction to Social Research, London: Sage Publications
Kiesler, S., and L.S. Sproull, (1986) Response Effects in the Electronic Survey, Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413
Kvale S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviews, California: Sage Publications
Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching 2nd Ed, London: Sage Publications Ltd
McCord, J. (1982) A longitudinal view of the relationship between paternal absence and crime in J. Gunn and D.P Farrington (eds) Abnormal offenders, delinquency, and the criminal justice system. Chichester: Wiley
Mitchell, M., Jolley, J., (2010) Research Design Explained, USA: Cengage Learning
Phoenix, J. (2012) Out of Place: The policing and criminalisation of sexually exploited girls and young women, London: The Howard League
Reichardt, C. S & Rallis, S. E (1994) Qualitative and Quantitative Inquiries are not Incompatible: A Call for New Partnership. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 85-91
Ritchie, T. D. (2009) Gender bias in research In J. O’Brien, J. Fields, & E. Shapiro (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Rubin, A., Babbie, E (2010) Essential Research Methods for Social Work 2nd Ed, USA, Brooks/Cole
Sale, J., Lohfield, L. & Brazil, K. (2002) Revisiting the Quantitative – Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed Methods Research, Quality and Quantity, 36, 43-45
Santiago, N. (2009) Interview Types: Structured, Semi-Structured, and Unstructured. Retrieved from; http://www.examiner.com/article/interview-types-structured-semi-structured-and-unstructured - Accessed 13/02/2013
Schonlau, M., Ronald, D., Jr. Fricker, Elliot, M. (2002) Conducting Research Surveys via Email and the Web, California: RAND
Shaw, C. Brady, L and Davey, C. (2011) Guidelines for Research with Children and Young People, National Children’s Bureau: London
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 859-883.

Appendices