NatCen [MORRE L L ET AL .] ( 2011) STUDY INTO YOUNG PEOPL E 'S RESPONSE TO THE TOTTENHAM (AUGUST) RIOTS

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

The overall aim of this study/report was to explore what triggered the youth involvement in the August riots of 2011.

Question 2

hypothesis

Answer 2

The purpose of this research was to write a report and increase understanding. Because it was so open ended, no hypothesis was formed

Question 3

SAMPLE

Answer 3

36 participants were interviewed. The sample comprised an even split between over and under eighteen year olds and a diversity of gender, ethnicity and work status, although the vast majority were still in education

Question 4

Research methods

Answer 4

Interview

Question 5

PROCEDURE

Answer 5

A report was produced by NatCen (The National Centre for Social Research) based on the interviews of 36 people in each of the 5 areas studied and 2 unaffected areas.

There were riots in Tottenham on 6 August 2011 following a peaceful protest in response to the police handling of the shooting of Mark Duggan. Windows were smashed, and offices, shops and homes were looted and set on fire.

Participants were interviewed on a one to one and face to face basis, with full informed consent and participants were reassured that their answers would be kept confidential.

In addition to the interviews, larger discussion groups were conducted with young people, community stakeholders and residents.

Question 6

Results

Answer 6

Rioting first started during a peaceful protest about the fatal shooting of a London man by police.

The Tottenham riots were triggered more specifically by an alleged incident between a local girl and the police.

Data from interviews with young people suggested all kinds of people were involved: mixed age groups; all ethnicities; people in work, training and education; and the unemployed.

The researchers categorised those involved in the riots into four types (watchers, rioters, looters, non-involved)

Question 7

Watchers

Answer 7

young people who were present at the incidents and observed some of what happened but did not become involved in criminal activity.

(i) Bystanders: young people who happened to be there lived locally or were passing through when the events occurred.

(ii) The curious: young people who deliberately chose to be there to see what was going on.

Question 8

Rioters:

Answer 8

young people who were involved in violent disturbances and vandalism.

(i) Protestors: young people who acted because of a specific grievance or set of grievances.

(ii) Retaliators: young people who acted to get their own back on the police or the ‘system’.

(iii) Thrill-seekers: young people who got involved to get the excitement or ‘buzz’.

Question 9

Looters:

Answer 9

young people involved in breaking into shops, stealing from broken-into shops or picking up stolen goods left on the street.

(i) Opportunists: young people who saw the chance to steal things for themselves or family, or to sell on.

(ii) Sellers: Young people who planned their involvement to maximise their ‘profits’.

Question 10

Non-involved

Answer 10

(i) Stay-aways: young people who chose not to get involved or observe.

(ii) Wannabes: young people who weren’t there but would have liked to have been.

Question 11

Dispositional factors affect decision making in young people

Answer 11

Previous criminal activity

Attitudes towards authority

Prospects

Question 12

Previous criminal activity Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 12

Easy to get involved, ‘this is what they do round here’.

Question 13

Previous criminal activity Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 13

Been caught once, know the risks.

Question 14

Attitudes towards authority Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 14

Cynicism/anger towards politicians, authority, negative experience of the police.

Question 15

Attitudes towards authority Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 15

No negative experience of the police.

Question 16

Prospects Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 16

Poor job prospects, low income, limited hope for the future, ‘nothing to lose’.

Question 17

Prospects Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 17

In work or expectations of work, aspirations – a lot to lose.

Question 18

Situational factors affect decision making in young people

Answer 18

Group processes

Peer pressure

Information

Circumstances

Presence of authority figure

Question 19

Group processes Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 19

Feeling disinhibited and swept along by the power of the group, seeing others ‘get away with it’, feeling anonymous.

Question 20

Group processes Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 20

Actively thinking toward future goals and not focusing on the ‘here and now’.

Question 21

Peer pressure Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 21

Friends getting involved.

Question 22

Peer pressure Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 22

Friends not involved.

Question 23

Information Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 23

Seeing it on the TV, getting texts/Facebook/BBM messages.

Question 24

Information Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 24

Didn’t get any messages, not watching TV.

Question 25

Circumstances Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 25

Not otherwise occupied, it was nearby/easy to get to.

Question 26

Circumstances Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 26

More difficult to get to (further away, no buses).

Question 27

Presence of authority figure Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 27

No adult telling them not to, everybody was doing it and nobody seemed to be getting caught.

Question 28

Presence of authority figure Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 28

Parents, relations or youth workers telling them not to.

Question 29

Other factors affect decision making in young people

Answer 29

Family attitudes

Community

Belonging

Poverty and materialism

Question 30

Family attitudes Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 30

Relatives not disapproving

Question 31

Family attitudes Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 31

Disapproving, ‘not brought up like that’.

Question 32

Community Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 32

Attachment to a community with a culture of low-level criminality.

Question 33

Community Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 33

Attachment to a community with pro-social values (including religious communities).

Question 34

Belonging Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 34

Little sense of ownership or stake in society.

Question 35

Belonging Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 35

Sense of ownership or stake in society.

Question 36

Poverty and materialism Nudges (facilitators)

Answer 36

Desire for material goods but no means to pay for them.

Question 37

Poverty and materialism Tugs (inhibitors)

Answer 37

Adequate resources to purchase desired goods.

Question 38

Conclusion:

Answer 38

Anti-social criminal behaviour (e.g. the Tottenham riots) is influenced by :

collective behaviour/group processes.

situational/social factors.

dispositional/individual factors.

individual’s beliefs about what is right and what is wrong.

an individual’s assessment of the costs and benefits of involvement.

Question 39

Evaluation-criticisms (1)

Answer 39

Participants might give socially desirable responses in an interview. Participants might lie because they give the answers they think will make them look good. For example a criminal participant might exaggerate their actions to appear tougher.

Question 40

Evaluation-criticisms (2)

Answer 40

The sample is unrepresentative. There was difficulty in recruiting participants and had to use participants who had been sent to prison. This might not have represented all of the people involved. E.g. those with previous criminal records. Their reasoning might be different to other people.

Question 41

Evaluation-criticisms (3)

Answer 41

People’s memory of events is not always reliable. The participants were interviewed 5 weeks after the event. Their memories might have been distorted by the media or talking to others. Therefore the data might be invalid.

Question 42

Evaluation-criticisms (4)

Answer 42

The findings may have been influenced by the fact that the researchers had to interpret the results to fit in with their categories. This may have introduced some bias into the results.