ANALYSIS

Supporting groups and receiving survey results

“Everyone agrees that it was a complex project, both in terms of understanding it and making it their own.”

(a professional participant in the Open Houses project)

First and foremost, it is important to emphasise that the degree to which professionals took ownership of the project varied from one context to another. The Open Houses programme was drawn up by the French team with the aim of exploring the place of young people within cultural institutions. This reflection was mainly driven by a youth worker with professional experience in the field of theatre. The TNB and Coop Eskemm provided support for the engineering and drafting of the project. This may explain an initial difference in the degree of ownership of the project by the different organisations. In addition, the desire to incorporate a participatory research dimension enhanced the quality of the application. However, not all the youth and theatre workers were familiar with the research approach, which also led to different levels of ownership. Finally, language and translation issues enabled everyone to participate, but probably affected the understanding of the different aspects of the project.

In this note, we will look at the stance adopted by youth workers throughout the support provided to the Open Houses collectives. The aim of this paper is to offer some food for thought and analysis on the way in which youth and theatre professionals were able to accompany and support the young people’s collectives.

Different forms of support

Throughout the project, each collective was supported by youth workers from a youth organisation. Each organisation had its own specific characteristics. Beyond Borders was mainly made up of students, which encouraged peer support. In the case of Jeunes à Traver s le Monde, the professional involved worked alone but had significant experience in the field of youth work, with proven skills in the intercultural approach and knowledge of the theatre environment. For RESET, on the other hand, the youth wokers saw themselves more as “coaches” or tutors, using facilitation tools inspired by collective mediation methods.

Germany:

The German collective opted for peer-to-peer support. The young peer support workers from Beyond Borders and the members of the collective were aged 22 and 30. It should be remembered that peer support originated in the field of health promotion. In this field, peer-to-peer prevention is widely used. However, this approach is increasingly being adopted in other contexts, such as social work and youth work. Peer support has a number of advantages, but it can also have certain disadvantages.

The members of the Hamburg collective emphasised that the close age relationship between the counsellors and the collective encouraged the development of empathy and mutual understanding. This generational closeness played a crucial role, as they are all at a similar stage in their lives as young adults and are facing the challenges inherent in the transition to adulthood (social and professional integration, identity-building, etc.) All this created a climate of trust and mutual support. In this collective, for example, this has given rise to “advisory” discussions on projects and life choices between members of the collective and members of Beyond Borders. On the other hand, human resources were quickly limited. In fact, the collective’s support staff were all volunteers, which may have led to limitations in terms of availability.  For example, the ability to compose and then (re)mobilise the group was limited, which may explain the reduced involvement of some young people.     The members of Beyond Borders changed regularly, which created a slightly less coherent continuity than with the other groups, despite good communication between the counsellors. There were also times when support for the collective was less stable, as the members of the association were very busy with their personal, professional and student lives.

In addition, a lack of tools was felt at certain points in the process by some of the support staff. This was the case with the formation of the group of young people and then the re-mobilisation of the group of young people. This led to some difficulties at certain stages of the project.

To sum up, it is important to note that the advantages and disadvantages of peer support can vary depending on the context, skills and resources available.

Romania:

In Sibiu, the support offered was more formal than in the other teams. The relationship between the RESET members and the young people in the collective was very different from that of the German group. The mentors were seen more as tutors or coaches. The proposed meetings were always organised around the Open Houses experimental approach. This enabled the group to get into action quickly. Alongside the group sessions organised by RESET, the young Romanians met up with each other on a more informal basis. This took the form of outings, bar meetings and so on. These moments reinforced the cohesion of the group. It was at these times that the choices of cultural actions to be carried out as part of the local approach were made. It should be pointed out that the youth workers were not present during these more informal times.

The young people in the Romanian collective have nevertheless taken ownership of the project’s contours, offering a number of cultural activities.

France :

In France, the support offered fell between two approaches. On the one hand, support was offered to the group by a youth worker, while on the other, the group could organise itself independently. With the aim of creating a link between the young people and the youth worker, as well as encouraging a form of “young person/professional” co-accompaniment, one of the young people in the collective was offered a voluntary civic service.  However, this organisation created difficulties for the youth worker. She found herself providing double support, one for the civic service volunteer and the other for the collective. This led to imbalances in the group’s activities. This raises questions about the way the scheme is used. Indeed, it calls into question the compatibility of such a scheme in the context of a complex project with limited support time or the way in which the young volunteer can appropriate it in this same context.

As far as the group sessions were concerned, they were in turn semi-directive and co-organised with the group according to the items on the agenda. In addition, the youth worker did not define herself as a “coach” but rather as a facilitator, interface or translator. This approach helped to reduce hierarchical representation and foster a bond of trust between the youth worker and the rest of the group. She expressed the fact that working alone could lead her into critical areas of support. In fact, individual support can be limited by the youth worker’s workload and availability, which can lead to a lack of time and attention for each person. It is therefore essential to stress the importance of working as part of a team in order to adopt complementary approaches and avoid finding oneself isolated when faced with certain complex situations.

To sum up, during Open Houses, several forms of support and different approaches were observed. Some groups favoured a more direct and directive approach, while others benefited from a more exploratory and facilitative approach. It is therefore crucial that the coaches are able to understand the nuances specific to each group they support, in order to offer a framework adapted to their specific needs.

Continuity and discontinuity of intervention?

Supporting a group of young people takes time. The framework and objectives of the support must be established with the group. It is also important for youth workers to give themselves room for manoeuvre in their support.

In the context of Open Houses, the role of the youth workers was to guide the collectives throughout the process, whether in the implementation of the survey, the cultural action or in the general support of the group dynamics. Each group had its own specific characteristics in terms of how it was organised, but they all had the aim of promoting a form of cultural citizenship among young people.

There is a fine line between directive and semi-directive support. This means that it is not a question of taking control of the group instead of the young people, but rather of guiding them and providing them with tools at key moments. In the Open Houses project, because of the framework of the project and the different visions, the youth workers adopted more or less directive approaches

Some young people expressed the feeling of being left out at certain stages of the process. A more regular presence, even on an informal basis, might have reassured some members of the collective. However, other young people stressed the importance of autonomy in this type of project. As one participant put it: “When we were in a group, we were able to think up things to do that weren’t in the initial programme”. This can sometimes give the impression of being “useless” for some youth workers. In addition, some youth workers also felt a certain powerlessness when faced with situations. Some expressed their inability to provide individual follow-up throughout the project, while others mentioned a lack of skills^[1] to accompany young people in difficulty. Generally speaking, many of them noted that the operation of the groups had taken up more space than expected. In addition, some professionals emphasised the impact of the health crisis and the fact that young people were expressing new problems (anxiety, re-learning how to socialise in a group, etc.). In general, they feel that this project has helped to raise awareness of the current psychological difficulties facing young people. In short, each support programme is different, depending on the situation and time constraints. Similarly, each group has its own particularities, depending on how it operates and the personalities within it. As a result, it is essential for youth workers to be able to adapt the framework to the specific needs of the group at any given time. Flexibility is needed to allow the framework to evolve, but to achieve this it is important to understand in detail the subtleties specific to each group and to adjust the support accordingly. To do this, exchanges of practice between youth workers play a fundamental role. In addition, organising training sessions spread over one or two days would probably have made it possible to deal with complex situations more calmly.

Nevertheless, all youth workers agree that the European framework has been a real asset. It has enabled them to share their approaches and tools. However, they stressed that the European dimension was perhaps not adapted to such a complex project and to a nascent collaboration. One of them explained: “This project wasn‘t easy, but we achieved what we could in the given conditions, i.e. the European framework… which was also very enriching because we were able to exchange ideas between youth professionals”.

(an Open Houses professional)

Theatres far removed from where young people live?

As part of Open Houses, all the professionals agreed on the need for theatres to offer spaces dedicated to youth collectives. However, for young people’s collectives to really make a space their own, it is crucial that they have an affinity with the venue. It is important that these spaces encourage the active participation and autonomy of young people. It is also important for these spaces to be flexible and scalable, so that they can respond to the changes and needs of young people over time.

Based on these general observations, and as part of this project, it was interesting to observe the extent to which young people’s collectives were able to appropriate the spaces offered by the theatres, and the roles played by youth workers in this process. It is true that some theatres can be perceived as far removed from young people’s everyday lives, which can be an obstacle to their participation and involvement (for example, in terms of geographical location, cost, unsuitable programming, etc.). Today’s youth work professions are constantly evolving and in some cases take on the role of third party, mediator between a group of young people and an institution, elected representatives, etc. . In this context, the presence of these intermediaries is essential if groups are to begin to explore these environments. With this in mind, the professionals had to guarantee the accessibility and inclusiveness of these spaces, while adapting to the needs and interests of the young people in the groups (well-being, safe space, desires and possibilities, autonomy).

In Hamburg, at the start of the process, the support workers had no connection with the Kampgnagel. This required a period of familiarisation between the young people and the environment, as well as between the youth workers and the theatre. In this case, the young people found it easy to appropriate the spaces offered by the theatre, thanks in particular to the links maintained with the Kampnagel “Youth Club”. The Beyond Borders counsellors and the club leader worked together on this project. A member of the German collective also worked in the theatre, facilitating the appropriation of the space. The club leader is also close to the age of the members of Beyond Borders and the German collective. So, despite belonging to different organisations, common interests, ways of working and communicating, and generational proximity quickly facilitated exchanges between the different players. As a result, the collective was able to carry out its investigation^[2] and its action relatively easily within Kampnagel.

Similarly, RESET’s Sibiu mentors did not necessarily have any connection with Radu Stanca’s National Theatre at the start of the experiment. Here too, it took some time to establish a familiarity between the young people and the theatre, as the youth workers also had to start co-operating with the theatre institution. In Sibiu, the young people chose to appropriate spaces outside the theatre and to offer their cultural activities elsewhere. The young people considered the theatre to be an unattractive space. The professionals adapted to the young people’s choices and supported them. The other space proposed by the TNRS was SibFest. However, this was an ephemeral space and the participation of young people was relatively limited. The festival had already been organised a long time in advance and the members of the collective were volunteers. Youth workers and theatre professionals therefore supported the collective in carrying out its cultural activities, but none of them took place within the cultural institution.

In Rennes, the specificity lay in the fact that the youth worker had significant experience with the theatre, which made it possible to quickly establish a link with the institution and to propose courses within the theatre. For an extended period, the members of the collective had access to a number of shows and were able to meet theatre technicians. In order to get organised, the collective was offered a space by the TNB. However, few of the young people in the collective allowed themselves to use it regularly. Once again, this raises the question of whether the space was sufficiently close to the young people’s everyday lives and in touch with their backgrounds (making it possible to activate the feeling of being at home). We can also question the way in which the professionals helped the group to appropriate this space. If the young people had taken ownership of this first space, it might have been easier for them to also take ownership of the temporary space proposed for the exhibition, which was also at the TNB. In summary, it’s clear that spaces for young people need to be flexible and evolving to meet the changing needs of young people over time. They must be able to adapt to new specific needs, emerging interests, etc., while integrating the codes of young people’s environments and living environments. In short, spaces for young people aim to create inclusive, stimulating and safe environments that encourage young people’s participation, involvement and well-being. They are central spaces, “headquarters” where they can evolve and develop their autonomy.

Reception of Open Houses by theatres

Everyone agrees that Open Houses has been a rich and unique experience in the life of institutions. For theatre professionals, the project has proved to be both nourishing and necessary for their establishments. At the start of the programme, they emphasised the lack of feedback on how young people experience the venues. So each group was able to explore certain aspects of these issues.

In Germany, some Kampnagel professionals have announced their willingness to take on board the results of the survey carried out by the German collective. The young people had investigated the way in which the theatre mobilises and maintains multi-discriminatory spectators (interest, self-image, privileges, economy, etc.).

Through podcasts, they invited visitors to think along with them. Proposals for action to break down barriers (social, cultural, economic) were passed on to the Kampnagel. For their part, some of the Kampnagel’s professionals tended to agree with the recommendations made by the young people. However, we need to see whether the necessary resources are in place (creation of a post to implement the recommendations, follow-up with the collective, etc.).

In France, as part of their research, the collective suggested that the theatre should be able to develop the different spaces that make it up. It seemed to them that one of the obstacles lay not in the programming, but rather in the journey from the street to the theatre. It’s about feeling legitimate enough to walk through the front door and take over the venue as a place to socialise. With this in mind, the collective is proposing arrangements that encourage interaction between people and spaces, so that young people feel a little more at home. The theatre professionals heard these recommendations, but this led to some misunderstandings because of the different ways in which the two entities operate. To excuse themselves from the fact that the wishes had not been fully implemented, some said that the whole thing was not feasible because of institutional standards and operations. It should be pointed out, however, that this dialogue lasted almost two months and was organised around a series of exchanges and negotiations between the collective and the theatre.

Everyone agrees that this exchange could pave the way for new initiatives aimed at young people within the institution. Today, the TNB is considering creating a youth club to ensure regular dialogue with young people. If this space sees the light of day, we will need to think about the composition of this group and how it is run, so that the objective of constructive dialogue remains paramount.

In Romania, the young people proposed cultural activities outside the theatre. They pointed out that the stage is a formal space. They therefore decided to bring theatre to young people in more flexible spaces, such as informal areas. They organised a number of cultural events outside the theatre.

Once again, theatre professionals have listened carefully to what young people have to say and want to continue to support them in this process. They recognise the importance of bringing culture to life both inside and outside the theatre. However, for the moment there are no plans for the cultural activities proposed by the collective to take place inside the building.

Here, it is interesting to examine the reception of the survey by the theatres and the way in which it was received and acted upon… The way in which the recommendations made by the youth groups were received can vary from one theatre to another, depending on how open they are to young people. Some theatres will welcome these recommendations and recognise the value of young people’s ideas and perspectives. Others will favour dialogue between young people and professionals, in order to better understand their recommendations, exchange ideas and find compromises. It is also possible that some theatres will adopt symbolic or superficial actions in response to the recommendations of the youth collectives, without any real commitment. This may take the form of isolated gestures or one-off events that do not reflect a real desire to change or to integrate young people into the life and decisions of the theatre.  Others will develop a certain reluctance to take on board the recommendations of youth groups, because in structures like this, change can be complicated to initiate. Some professionals may even consider the young people’s ideas to be less important.

So, in some cases, the comments or contributions made by young people during the surveys were downplayed, delegitimised or considered less important than those made by “adults” (experts, researchers). It is therefore crucial for young people to be able to count on allies and support among the professionals present. In this type of experiment, the role of intermediary is essential. It is necessary to encourage greater intermediation between professionals (youth and theatre) and young people, to cross fields, to encourage new collaborations and to adopt new approaches in order to create links and even alliances between worlds that rarely rub shoulders. It is important to note that these attitudes may vary from one theatre to another, and that some theatres may adopt a combination of different situations.

In the context of this type of project, there has often been enthusiasm and motivation to ensure the continuity of the actions. However, if these recommendations are not firmly integrated into the cultural institution’s project, it will take time. There also needs to be a real political will to open up. It would be interesting to come back in two years’ time to question the theatres and see whether the recommendations made by the young people have really changed things in a lasting way. All this is only possible if we have a long-term perspective and a genuine political will.

---

[1] Active listening, Trust, Flexibility and adaptability, Facilitator posture, Knowledge of the audience, Encouraging creativity, Valuing knowledge and experience, Teamwork, etc.

[2] How can a cultural institution respond to the challenges of acquiring and retaining new (multi)discriminated viewers by