Research for production projectResearch topics:
1.
Potential clients
2.
How to improve technical skills i.e directing
and camera operating
3.
Gang violence
4.
Competitors
5.
Gang related websites and blogs that raise
awareness of the effects of gang violence
Potential
Clients
Below are images of an organisation that help to raise
awareness and prevent gang violence. They have a unit in Wolverhampton (proximity)
and can act as potential clients as they have a short video about their
services but a documentary would be an interesting and more informative
programme for people to watch. We could
get an employee to be a contributor in
our documentary.
Improving skills
We can ask for help from the BCU Technicians – a masterclass!
We can also find info in books in the library and tutorials on YouTube. Some
interesting tutorials are below that consist of tips on how to direct, do
certain camera techniques and tips on the art of documentary filmmaking. I can
also learn about the best cinematic techniques and what to do to avoid making
the footage look amateur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si86Au0UbIo
Gang Violence
The team from the University of Glasgow have done a report
on gang violence among young people to see some of the causes behind it and the
impact it has on the public. Below is a summary on this report.
An
exploration of territorial behaviour among young people in disadvantaged areas
of British cities.
Territoriality
among young people has been identified in some previous studies as a source of
social exclusion and disadvantage and as one of the roots of gang behaviour. It
has also begun to be recognised by policy-makers working to improve young
people’s life chances and to promote safer communities.
This
research focuses on understanding territoriality in its own right and examines:
§
what
territoriality is, how it is experienced by young people and who is involved;
§
the
origins of territoriality in disadvantaged places;
§
the
impacts of territoriality on young people’s lives;
§
the range
of projects which aim to deter or counteract territorial behaviour;
§
the
public policy implications of recognising territoriality as an important social
force in disadvantaged places.
SUMMARY
This
study investigates territorial behaviour by young people to see whether this
imposes significant constraints on their lives, and to consider the implications
of this kind of behaviour for communities.
Key
points:
§
Territoriality
was part of everyday life for young people in the six areas examined.
Territorial behaviour emerged where young people’s identity was closely
associated with their neighbourhoods and they gained respect from representing
them.
§
Territoriality
was found to be a cultural expectation, passed down to young people from older
generations, often with deep historical roots.
§
Boys aged
13-17 years old were most involved in territorial behaviour; girls and younger
children less so. Men aged in their 20s also showed territorial behaviour,
particularly where it was associated with gangs and criminality.
§
Young
people often had positive motivations for becoming involved in territorial
behaviour, such as developing their identity and friendships. But territorial
identities were frequently expressed in violent conflict with territorial
groups from other areas.
§
The
negative impact of territorial behaviour on young people included constrained
mobility, problems with access to amenities, and the risk of violent assault
and criminalisation.
§
This
negative impact was felt most heavily by boys and young men who had a core
involvement in territorial conflict. However, other young people, including
those with no active involvement, also experienced problems.
§
There was
evidence in some places that low-level territorial behaviour could be the
foundation of criminal gangs involved in violent crime and distributing drugs.
§
The
authors conclude that territoriality should be considered significant when
designing policies and programmes relating to the social exclusion of young
people, community safety and neighbourhoods.
Background
This
study attempts to better understand territoriality among young people across
different parts of Britain. For the purposes of the study, territoriality was
defined as 'a social system through which control is claimed by one group over
a defined geographical area and defended against others'.
There has
been considerable media and policy attention given to particular aspects of
territorial behaviour – for example, ‘gang’ membership, ethnic segregation and
anti-social behaviour. Territoriality is a kind of ‘super place attachment’;
while there may be benefits of mutual support by getting involved there is also
a darker side, which potentially leads to violence and isolation from the wider
community.
This
study aimed to better understand the manifestations and significance of
territoriality, and its origins and geography; who was involved and their
motivations; its impact on young people and their communities; and the
appropriateness of current responses.
The
research examined six case study projects in Bradford, Bristol, Glasgow,
Peterborough, Sunderland and Tower Hamlets, where key stakeholders were
interviewed and focus groups were held with young people.
The manifestations and
significance of territoriality
The case
studies showed that territoriality was important in the lives of many young
people, although it was manifested in various forms – from young people who
socialised on the streets; to groups with a stronger territorial affiliation,
some of whom identified themselves as a gang; to more highly organised,
criminally-oriented territorial gangs. Territoriality often gave rise to
physical conflict between groups of young people.
Conflict
featured in all six areas, although the frequency and level of violence varied.
Mostly, conflict occurred on boundaries between residential areas (typically
defined by roads, railways, vacant land or other physical features), or where
there were incursions by one group into another’s territory. There was also
evidence, in one of the cities, of conflict being played out in the city centre
between groups from different areas. The level of organisation of
territoriality appeared to vary considerably between places; in some places
territoriality encouraged the formation of gangs. In each location, territorial
behaviour was associated with other types of anti-social behaviour such as
drinking, taking drugs and minor theft.
Origins and geography
Territorial
behaviour was often associated with very tight boundaries, and frequently
identified as longstanding and ‘generational’. This research found that
territoriality was learned behaviour for those concerned and that the stories
told to them by older generations, when combined with their own limited
horizons, had a significant part in transmitting their territorial culture
between generations.
The
research also suggested a strong interrelationship between territoriality and
disadvantaged areas. Some of the case studies showed connections between poor
housing conditions and often difficult family backgrounds, and territoriality.
Territorial behaviour appeared for some to be a product of deprivation, a lack
of opportunities and attractive activities, limited aspirations and an expression
of identity. It could be understood as a coping mechanism for young people
living in poverty, who were thus provided with leisure, excitement and an
alternative focus of association outside their households.
In some
places, tensions between or within areas arising from people’s attachment to
the place where they lived reflected, or were linked to, other divisions
between groups. By far the most influential division was ethnic origin, and
this division existed to some degree in all the English case studies.
Who was involved
Boys aged
13-17 years old were the most active in territoriality and certainly most
visible. They were also most likely to carry weapons. Girls were seldom
involved in conflict and were less affected by territoriality, feeling safer to
travel outside their home neighbourhoods. However, girls and relationships
could be a source of conflict between different groups of young men.
Younger
children often closely identified with territorial boundaries and in some areas
they were involved in territorial behaviour. Men in their late teens and 20s
also engaged in territorial behaviour in some places, particularly where
territoriality was also associated with selling drugs and other criminal
behaviour.
Motivations
The study
identified a large number of factors that motivated young people to participate
in territorial behaviour:
§
Territorial
affiliations were a source of friendship and group solidarity that provided an
alternative to household and family affiliations.
§
Young
people sought recognition and 'respect' among their peers.
§
Participation
in territorial conflict was sometimes motivated by a sense of ownership over
the area, and the desire to protect the area or oneself. Simply crossing a
boundary into a neighbouring territory was regarded as an insult and could lead
to conflict.
§
As male
teenagers became sexually aware, territoriality was intensified by the
protection, or perceived ownership, of girls and young women in that area.
§
In some
places, territoriality was a leisure activity, a form of 'recreational
violence' where 'gang fighting' was ritualised.
§
Territoriality
was sometimes associated with material crime for financial gain.
The impact on young people and
communities
Many
young people felt unable to cross territorial boundaries. Territoriality placed
limits on young people’s freedom to go to areas outside their own, especially
in the evenings and at weekends. The extent to which territoriality restricted
their mobility and access to opportunities and facilities varied according to
their level of involvement in it, and varied between sites. Territoriality had
a negative impact on young people’s access to education, leisure and
relationships. For some, mainly those who were involved in conflict, the fear
of violence when outside their own areas was so strong that even when transport
to leisure facilities was provided they were unwilling to travel to access
them.
The
impact of territoriality extended beyond those directly involved. Even those
young people who were not active in territorial groups sometimes faced
restrictions on their movement because of where they were from. The case
studies revealed many examples of 'innocent' young people being caught in 'the
wrong place at the wrong time'.
In areas of
mixed ethnicity, territoriality was sometimes exacerbated by ethnic
differences; some areas were perceived as belonging to one group, despite
having residents from more than one group. This had a negative impact on young
people, who were all the more easily seen to be in the 'wrong area'.
Territoriality
was associated, in all six locations to some degree, with violent confrontation
with rivals from other areas. The risk of harm, or even death, appeared be much
higher for those actively involved in territorial gangs compared to
non-participants, as they were involved in fighting more frequently or were
likely to be victims of revenge attacks. Territoriality could involve
anti-social behaviour, including carrying weapons and violence, and often led
to young people entering the youth justice system – both likely to provide
barriers to future employment or other opportunities.
Three of
the case studies indicated that low-level, routine territorial behaviour could
be a foundation for the formation of criminal gangs involved in distributing
drugs and gun-related crime.
Territoriality
also had a wider impact on communities. Problematic territorial behaviour by
some young people often led the wider community to 'demonise' all young people,
so that any group of boys or young men was viewed with suspicion. Family
members also sometimes got caught up in violence.
Current responses:
'anti-territorial' projects
This
research identified over 200 local projects across Britain which could be
described as ‘anti-territorial’ in some sense, funded from a wide range of
government and charitable sources. These organisations carried out a whole
range of activities linked to particular local concerns, including:
§
diversionary
activities (such as sport and leisure);
§
education
(e.g. about the consequences for young people);
§
association
(to break down boundaries between communities by increasing contact); and
§
conflict
resolution techniques (for more serious conflict).
The
projects in the six case studies appeared to play an important role in tackling
young people’s motivations for involvement, such as boredom and peer pressure.
But they were not really able to tackle underlying problems, such as
deprivation or unemployment. These projects faced a number of challenges including
reaching out effectively to those most affected, and were hindered by limited
capacity and access to funding. On the whole across Britain these schemes
appeared opportunistic, temporary and somewhat randomly distributed.
Public policy and research implications
Territoriality
has the potential to be a significant factor for several themes in social and
urban policy. However, recognition and understanding of it in policy circles
appears to be at a fairly early stage. This study indicates that there are
substantial ‘social exclusion’ disadvantages for young people because of
restricted mobility and conflict caused by territoriality, therefore it merits
being taken seriously as an important problem in its own right. Because
territoriality can be associated with disadvantage, programmes that are
designed to create alternative opportunities for young people and offer them
positive ways of affirming themselves other than on the streets appear to offer
a solution. Projects that help young people build bridges to other communities
and break down their isolation should be especially helpful.
This
research supports the idea that some of the most violent gangs have territorial
origins. The local and wider significance of gang violence indicates that it
would be useful to consider the causes of gang formation and to concentrate
resources on prevention and conflict resolution, as well as tackling criminal
behaviour by existing gangs. A clearer understanding, however, is needed of the
links between low-level territorial behaviour and the formation of criminal
gangs. It would also be useful to more closely identify the scale and scope of
young people’s involvement in territorial behaviour.
The
evidence of territoriality originating in historic patterns of residential differentiation
creates concerns about the settlement of migrant groups and how this might
interact with territorial and gang behaviour. Thought needs to be given to the
provision of services and support for migrants and existing communities
affected by incomers in light of these issues.
This
research also suggests that addressing problematic territoriality would support
the current theme in planning and housing policy to encourage social mix in
both existing and newly developed residential areas and, within them, to
consider the institutions and spaces that are necessary to allow social mixing
to occur.
Finally,
there are many useful anti-territorial projects across Britain, which need to
be evaluated in more depth to promote good practice.
About the study
The
researchers conducted six case studies based on 'anti-territorial' projects in
Bradford, Bristol, Glasgow, Peterborough, Sunderland and Tower Hamlets. The
study draws on over 40 interviews with key local stakeholders and 15 focus
groups with young people, including those who were involved with the
‘anti-territorial’ projects and those who were not. In addition, six interviews
were held with national-level stakeholders involved in policy.
I got this info from the Glasgow University Group. The link is below.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/young-people-and-territoriality-british-cities?gclid=CPiKvN2lhLUCFSHHtAod3hAADA
No comments:
Post a Comment