Abstract :

The purpose of this course-based research study was to examine child and youth care (CYC) students’ attitudes toward of the use of harm-reduction programs and services for high-risk youth. In this qualitative interpretive inquiry, an open-ended, scenario-based questionnaire was used to collect data via email. A non-probability purposive sampling strategy was applied to recruit 16 CYC student participants. The thematic analysis method defined by Braun and Clarke (2006) was used to identify three main themes: a) a safe place free of physical and emotional harm, b) relationships really matter, and c) support versus control is the CYC way.

---

Keywords :

Child and youth care, Course-based research, Harm-reduction, Qualitative

---

References :

1. Allyn, D. A. (2013). Course-based undergraduate research: It can be accomplished! Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(9), 32–36.
2. Bellefeuille, G., Ekdhal, C., Kent, L. Kluczny, M. (2014). A course-based creative inquiry approach to teaching introductory research methods in child and youth care undergraduate education. International Journal of Teaching and Education, 2(2), 1-9.
3. Bosnjak, M., Neubarth, W., Couper, M. P., Bandilla, W., & Kaczmirek, L. (2008). Prenotification in web-based access panel surveys: The influence of mobile text messaging versus e-mail on response rates and sample composition. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 213–223.
4. Braun V., Clarke V., Hayfield N., & Terry G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In Liamputtong P. (Ed.),Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860).
5. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. (2005). Supervised injection facilities (SIFs): Frequently asked questions [Report]. Retrieved from https:// ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2019-04/ccsa-010657-2004.pdf
6. Corley, K.G., & Jansen, K.J. (2000). Electronic survey techniques: Issues and implications. Paper presented at the academy of management annual meeting. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267836472_E-Survey_Methodology
7. Gharabaghi, K., & Stuart, C. (2013). Right here, right now: Exploring life-space intervention for children and youth. Toronto: Pearson.
8. Harm Reduction International. (2020). What is harm reduction? Retrieved from https://www.hri.global/what-is-harm-reduction
9. Harrison, M., Dunbar, D., Ratmansky, L., Boyd, K., & Lopatto, D. (2010). Classroom-based science research at the introductory level: Changes in career choices and attitude. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(3), 279–86.
10. Jackson, C., & Tremblay, G. (2019). Accelerating our response: Government of Canada five-year action plan on sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections. Communicable Disease Report, 45(12), 323–326.
11. Jenkins, E. (2019). UBC news. Retrieved from, https://news.ubc.ca/2019/04/25/teens-prefer-harm-reduction-messaging-on-substance-use/#contact-box
12. Jenkins, E., Slemon, A., & Haines-Saah, R. (2017). Developing harm reduction in the context of youth substance use: insights from a multi-site qualitative analysis of young people’s harm minimization strategies. Harm Reduction Journal, 14(1), 1-11.
13. Jenkins, E.K., Slemon, A., & Haines-Saah, R.J. (2017). Developing harm reduction in the context of youth substance use: insights from a multi-site qualitative analysis of young people’s harm minimization strategies. Harm Reduction Journal, 14(1), 1-11.
14. Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd.
15. Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 255.
16. Lenton, S. and Single, E. (2004). The definition of harm reduction. Drug and Alcohol Review 17, 213–220.
17. Marlatt, G.A., & Witkiewitz, K. (2002). Harm reduction approaches to alcohol use: Health promotion, prevention, and treatment.Addictive Behaviors, 27(6), 867–86.
18. McBride N. (2003). A systematic review of school drug education. Health Education Resources,18(6), 729–742.
19. Newman, B. M., & Newman, P. R. (2020).Theories of adolescent development. Elsevier Academic Press.
20. Patton M. (2013). Qualitative research and evaluation methods.Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd.
21. Reyna, V.F. & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(1), 1–44.
22. Roe G. (2005). Harm reduction as paradigm: Is better than bad good enough? The origins of harm reduction. Critical Public Health, 15(3), 243–50.
23. Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9).
24. Stewart, J., & Baeten, J. (2020). Preventing disease, not sex-harm reduction, HIV preexposure prophylaxis, and sexually transmitted infections. Jama Network Open. Retrieved from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774455

25. Steinberg, L. (2014). Adolescence, (10th Ed)., NY, NY: McGraw-Hill.
26. Strathdee, S., Hallett, T., Bobrova, N., Rhodes, T., Booth, R., Abdool, R., & Hankins, C. A. (2010). HIV and risk environment for injecting drug users: The past, present, and future. The Lancet, 376, 268–284.
27. Tronvoll, B., Brown, W., Gremler, D., & Edvardsson, B. (2011). Paradigms in Service Research. Journal of Service Management, 22(5), 560-585.