







































Education, Society and Human Studies 
ISSN 2690-3679 (Print) ISSN 2690-3687 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs 

1 

Original Paper 

A Qualitative Course-based Inquiry into the Use of 

Strengths-based Language in Child and Youth Care Residential 

Field Practicums 
Gerard Bellefeuille1*, Lerynne Biton2, Yulieth Chinchilla2, Francesca Doniego2, Hiba Iqbal2, Vivian Lin2, 

Anett Parokkaran2, & Angelo Sison2 
1 Professor, Child and Youth Care, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 
2 BCYC, Child and Youth Care, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 
* Gerard Bellefeuille, Professor, Child and Youth Care, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, 

Canada 

 

Received: June 26, 2021           Accepted: July 9, 2021          Online Published: July 21, 2021 

doi:10.22158/eshs.v2n3p1                            URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eshs.v2n3p1 

 

Abstract 

The strengths-based approach is a cornerstone of relational-centered Child and Youth Care (CYC) 

practice. However, few studies have investigated the use of the strengths-based approach in a CYC 

residential setting for youth and children. Hence, this qualitative course-based study explores the use of 

strengths-based language as observed by CYC students in residential field practicums. Data were 

collected through an online semi-structured interview (using the Google Meet platform) with a purposive 

sample of third- and fourth-year CYC students at MacEwan University, Canada. Four main themes were 

extracted from the data analysis: “not in plain sight”, “a product of feeling stressed”, “lacking the 

confidence to speak out”, and “reframing”. 

Keywords 

child and youth care, course-based research, strength-based, qualitative 

 

1. Introduction 

Acquiring the skills and approaches to practice using a strengths-based approach is an important part of 

relational-centered CYC education (Bellefeuille & Jamieson, 2008; Garfat, Freeman, Gharabaghi, & 

Fulcher, 2018). The core principles of strengths-based practice are that all people have strengths and 

capacities and can change given the right conditions and resources (McCasken, 2005). As such, the 

strengths-based approach avoids the use of deficits-based labels and instead draws upon a different 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
2 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

language that stresses the positive attributes of a person, which allows them to see opportunities, hope, 

and potential solutions (Laursen, 2003). Importantly, the strengths-based approach does not attempt to 

ignore problems and difficulties but rather to identify a person’s resources and strengths as a way to 

encourage growth and change. For example, the strengths-based approach employs the following 

strategies: (a) normalizing (i.e., helping a person to understand that their reaction to a problem is a normal 

and understandable response to life’s difficulties); (b) reframing (i.e., redefining a problem and 

considering it in a different way, especially in a way that makes it manageable, concrete and specific, 

which opens the way for change); (c) noticing and externalizing (i.e., the problem is the problem; the 

person is not the problem); and (d) identifying exceptions (i.e., finding exceptions to the problem; 

Brendtro & Ness, 1995). All of these strengths-based strategies emphasize cooperating and facilitating 

rather than fixing and focus on potential rather than dysfunction. 

1.1 The Field Practicum Context of CYC Education 

Field practicums are an integral part of CYC education curriculums. Students undertake their practicums 

in a variety of settings (e.g., schools, family support programs, residential care facilities, and 

community-based programs). The purpose of field practicums is to enable students to integrate the 

academic curriculums (i.e., theories and applied practice skills) of the CYC profession with the practical 

day-to-day fieldwork of CYC (CYCEAB, 2021). These practicums provide an opportunity for students 

to take what they have learned about strengths-based practice and various theoretical frameworks and 

practice them in real life. Practicums also allow students to explore what type of CYC work they wish to 

pursue upon graduation. 

1.2 The Practice Context of the CYC Profession 

There is little debate that CYC, like other helping disciplines, is a stressful profession (Krueger, 2002; 

Savicki, 1993, 2002). According to Bellefeuille and Berikoff (2020), CYC work has not only been 

historically a very challenging and emotionally exhausting profession, but it is practiced today “in 

communities that are radically more diverse, much less certain or predictable, and considerably more 

complex” (p. 14). In addition, CYC students who engage in residential care practicums (e.g., group 

homes and residential treatment facilities) experience higher levels of stress than students in other 

practicum placements such as school, family support, and community-based placements because of the 

“high-risk” behaviors of children and youth placed in residential care. These children and youth often 

have significant psychological, behavioral, and emotional problems and CYC workers aim to avoid 

reactive responses (e.g., negative labels and coercive behavior controlling responses) and practice using a 

strengths-based approach. Hence, this qualitative course-based research project explores the use of 

strengths-based language as observed by CYC students in residential field practicums as evidence of a 

strengths-based approach to residential care settings. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
3 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. Undergraduate Course-based Research: A Pedagogical Tool to Foster Criticality, Reflectivity, 

and Praxis 

This section begins with a word about course-based research. The Bachelor of Child and Youth Care 

program at MacEwan University is continuously searching for new pedagogical approaches to foster 

critical thinking, reflection, and praxis as integral components of the overall student educational 

experience. As such, a course-based research approach, in contrast to the traditional didactic approach to 

research-methods instruction, offers fourth-year undergraduate students the opportunity to master 

introductory research skills by conceptualizing, designing, administering, and showcasing small low-risk 

research projects under the guidance and supervision of the course instructor—commonly, a professor 

with an extensive background in research and teaching. 

The use of course-based research in higher education has increased substantially in recent years (Allyn, 

2013; Bellefeuille, Ekdahl, Kent, & Kluczny, 2014; Harrison, Dunbar, Ratmansky, Boyd, & Lopatto, 

2010). The benefits derived from a course-based approach to teaching research methods are significant 

for CYC students. First, there is value in providing students with authentic learning experiences that 

enhance the transfer of knowledge learned in traditional education practice. For example, former students 

have reported that their engagement in course-based research enabled them to deepen their scientific 

knowledge by adopting new methods of creative inquiry. Second, course-based research offers students 

the opportunity to work with instructors in a mentoring relationship; one result is that a greater number of 

student’s express interest in advancing to graduate studies. Third, results generated through course-based 

research can sometimes be published in peer-reviewed journals and online open-access portals and 

thereby contribute to the discipline’s knowledge base. The ethical approval required to permit students to 

conduct course-based research projects is granted to the course instructor by the university’s Research 

Ethics Board (REB). Student research groups are then required to complete an REB application form for 

each course-based research project undertaken in the class; each application is reviewed by the course 

instructor and an REB committee to ensure that the project is completed in compliance with the ethics 

review requirements of the university. 

 

3. Research Paradigms 

Research paradigms inherently reflect the views researchers hold about (a) the nature of reality and what 

they can know about it (i.e., ontology); (b) the process by which knowledge is acquired and validated (i.e., 

epistemology); and (c) appropriate strategies for collecting and analyzing data, such as questionnaires 

and open-ended interviews (i.e., methodology; Creswell, 2013; Denzin & Linclon, 2011). According to 

Grix (2004), “ontology and epistemology are to research what ‘footings’ are to a house: they form the 

foundations of the whole edifice” (p. 59). 

Both the interpretivist and critical paradigms shaped the methodological design of this course-based 

study. The central aim of the interpretivist paradigm is to understand the subjective world of human 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
4 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

experience (Glesne, 1999). Emphasis is, therefore, placed on understanding how humans make meaning 

of their worlds (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Interpretivist research is aptly attuned to the ontological and 

epistemological foundations of CYC relational-centered practice, in which knowledge and 

meaning-making are regarded as a product of social relationships embedded in cultural, socio-economic, 

and socio-political contexts (Bellefeuille & Ricks, 2010). As Bellefeuille and Jamieson (2008) stated in 

Bellefeuille et al. (2017), “the basic contention of relational theory is the notion that the self is a process 

of relatedness” in which “the self is not so much a personal possession but a reflection of one’s relational 

experiences” (p. 47). 

This course-based research study is also informed by the critical research paradigm. The critical research 

paradigm goes further than the interpretive paradigm to not only aim to increase understanding but to 

address the political, social, and economic injustice in society by promoting critical awareness (Kivunja 

& Kuyini, 2017). Relational-centered CYC education incorporates critical pedagogy throughout the 

curriculum to prepare students to act with moral courage as they face ethical challenges in the field and to 

serve as cultural stewards of their profession (Bellefeuille & Berikoff, 2020). 

 

4. Research Design 

A research design is a framework or blueprint for answering a research question (Creswell, 2013). Since 

the overarching purpose of this course-based study is to explore CYC students’ experiences in field 

placements regarding their observations of the use of strengths-based language, a qualitative, descriptive 

approach was deemed to be the most appropriate. Thorne, Reimer-Kirkham, and MacDonald-Emes 

(1997) defined a qualitative descriptive research design as that which seeks to describe and interpret a 

phenomenon through the lens of those who live it. Creswell (2013) further explained that the strength of 

qualitative descriptive research is in its focus on gaining greater insight into how people interpret their 

experiences and construct their worldviews. 

 

5. Statement of Research Question 

How do CYC students in residential care field practicums experience the use of strengths-based 

language? 

 

6. Sampling Strategy 

A nonprobability convenience sampling strategy was used to recruit participants for this course-based 

study. Nonprobability sampling involves a non-random selection of participants (Battaglia, 2008). It is a 

commonly used sampling strategy in qualitative research to identify and select “information-rich” 

participants from whom the most can be learned (Patton, 2002). The inclusion criteria for this study were 

that participants were third- or fourth-year CYC students on a residential care practicum. Six third-year 

and 19 fourth-year students participated in the study. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
5 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

7. Data Collection Strategy 

Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, a semi-structured online interview (using the Google Meet platform) was 

used as the primary data collection strategy. The literature contains a wealth of information on the 

benefits of remote data collection methods (Chen & Neo, 2019; Ferrante et al., 2016; Tuttas, 2015). The 

reported benefits of remote data collection strategies include flexibility in time and location, as well as 

convenience, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness for both the researcher and participants (Cater, 2011; 

Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Fielding, Lee, & Blank, 2016). 

 

8. Data Analysis 

Thematic analysis was used to identify themes. As Braun and Clark (2006) explain, thematic analysis is 

not only the process of identifying themes within qualitative data; the researcher also becomes an 

instrument for analysis. As such, each qualitative method or approach to thematic analysis has specific 

techniques for conducting, documenting, and evaluating data analysis processes (Starks & Trinidad, 

2007), but it is the individual researcher’s responsibility to assure rigor and trustworthiness. Although 

numerous examples exist of methods for conducting qualitative data analysis, for the purpose of this 

course-based research study, we used the six steps described by Braun and Clarke (2006): (1) 

familiarizing oneself with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing 

and refining, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report. 

 

9. Findings 

Four main themes were extracted from the data analysis: (1) “not in plain sight”, (2) “a product of feeling 

stressed”, (3) “lacking the confidence to speak out”, and (4) “reframing”. 

9.1 Not in Plain Sight 

Several of the participants talked about hearing the use of deficits-based language but not in the presence 

of the youth. For example, one participant stated that “deficits-based language happens more often when 

clients are absent from the setting”. Another participant noted that deficits-based language mostly takes 

place during staff meetings and or during shift exchanges. Other participants made comments such as “I 

hear it used between staff”, “I feel like it is usually when all the staff are together”, and 

“[The staff] use it as a vent thing during staff-to-staff conversations”. 

9.2 A Product of Feeling Stressed 

The next common theme that emerged was how feeling stressed played a role in the use of deficits-based 

language. For example, many of the participants commented that staff used deficits-based language 

“most often in a situation where they felt frustrated over not knowing what to do with a child”. Other 

participants reported that staff were more prone to using deficits-based language when they were tired 

and so projected their frustrations onto the children in their care. The participants commonly stated that 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
6 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

deficits-based language was used as a reaction to feeling frustrated, uncertain, and tired, all of which are 

related to stress. 

9.3 Lacking the Confidence to Speak Out 

A third theme that surfaced was the participants’ feeling of being helpless to correct the language of other 

staff members. The participants referred to the power imbalance of being students and feeling that they 

could not voice their concerns over the use of deficits-based language by some of the staff. As one 

participant noted, “[The fact that] I am just a student came up multiple times during the data collection 

interview process”. Several participants talked about how uncomfortable they were when staff used 

deficits-based language, because they knew that this language use was improper but were reluctant to 

verbally correct it for fear of jeopardizing their practicum placement. The participants shared that they 

often felt frustrated and upset about how professionals used deficits-based language toward the children 

and youth with whom they worked. During one interview, a participant shared that they felt 

“Overwhelmed, because [they] do not know how to address such actions knowing that [they are] just a 

student”. 

9.4 Reframing 

While the majority of the participants did not feel sufficiently confident to speak out when deficits-based 

language was used, a minority made an effort to reframe the deficits-based language they encountered 

into strengths-based terms. This group of participants talked about how they chose to model 

strengths-based language by (as one participant phrased it) utilizing their “Reframing skills to encourage 

positive reinforcing language”. This group of participants also offered other perspectives “Through 

posing questions that possibly create an active and less provoking meaning into the behaviors that the 

children and youth displayed”. One of these participants stated that “debriefing with my supervisor at the 

end of the shift gave [them] the opportunity to voice [their] perspective concerning the labels”. 

Participants expressed that they felt uncomfortable confronting other workers who were labeling 

negatively. 

 

10. Conclusion 

Despite the emphasis that is placed on strengths-based practice in CYC education, there is a lack of 

research on how and whether it is applied in CYC practice settings. This course-based research study 

provided insight into the culture of residential settings concerning the use of strengths-based language. 

An important finding was that although CYC students are taught the importance of strengths-based 

language in the classroom, what is happening in the field is unknown. The findings have implications for 

CYC education and practice. CYC instructors can make use of these findings to promote further 

discussion and use of strengths-based practice and methods for challenging the use of deficits-based 

language in field practicums. Finally, given the need to conduct more research in this area, further 

investigation should take place at the faculty level or in future student-led course-based research projects. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
7 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Allyn, D. A. (2013). Course-based undergraduate research: It can be accomplished! Journal of Physical 

Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(9), 32-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2013.838113 

Battaglia, M. P. (2008). Non-probability sampling: Encyclopedia of survey research methods, 1-4. 

SAGE Publications. 

Bellefeuille, G., & Berikoff, A. (2020). 21st century child and youth care education: An ontological 

relational turn in teaching and learning. Research Journal of Education, 6(3), 14-24. 

https://doi.org/10.32861/rje.63.14.24 

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. 

Bellefeuille, G., & Jamieson, D. (2008). Relational-centred planning: A turn toward creative potential 

and possibilities. In G. Bellefeuille, & F. Ricks (Eds.), Standing on the precipice: Inquiry into the 

creative potential of Child and Youth Care Practice (pp. 35-72). Alberta, Canada: MacEwan Press. 

Bellefeuille, G., & Ricks, F. (2010). Relational inquiry: A child and youth care approach to research. 

Children and Youth Services, 32, 1235-1241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.04.013 

Bellefeuille, G., Stiller, B., Neuman, S., Deol, J., Smith, C., Brown, M., Gautreau, & Diduch, A. (2017). 

Building a child and youth care culture of relational-centred praxis: Ours to make. American 

Journal of Education and Learning, 2(1), 43-64. https://doi.org/10.20448/804.2.1.43.64 

Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Gray, D. (2017). V. Braun, V. Clarke, & D. Gray (Eds.). Collecting qualitative 

data: A practical guide to textual, media and virtual techniques. Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094 

Brendtro, L., & Ness, A. (1995). Fixing flaws or building strengths? Reclaiming Children and Youth, 

4(2), 2-7. 

Cater, J. (2011). Skype: A cost effective method for qualitative research. Rehabilitation Counselors & 

Educators Journal, 4(2), 10-17. 

Chen, J., & Neo, P. (2019). Texting the waters: An assessment of focus groups conducted via the 

WhatsApp smartphone messaging application. Methodological Innovations, 12(3), 1-10. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799119884276 

Child and Youth Care Education Accreditation Board (CYCEAB). (2021). Self-study guide. Retrieved 

from 

https://cycaccreditation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CYCEAB-Self-Study-Guide-July-2020-a.

pdf 

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd 

ed.). CA: Sage: Thousand Oaks. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
8 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2014). SKYPE interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. 

Qualitative Research, 14, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126 

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). 

Thousand Oaks: Sage. 

Fielding, N., Lee, R. M., & Blank, G. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of online research methods. 

London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020055 

Ferrante, J. M., Friedman, A., Shaw, E. K., Howard, J., Cohen, D. J., & Shahidi, L. (2016). Lessons 

learned designing and using an online discussion forum for care coordinators in primary care. 

Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1851-1861. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315609567 

Garfat, T., Freeman, J., Gharabaghi, K., & Fulcher, L. (2018). Characteristics of a relational child and 

youth care approach revisited. CYC-Online, 236, 7–45. 

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). Don Mills, Ontario, 

Canada: Longman. 

Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 

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), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-12-0151 

Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational 

contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41. 

https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26 

Krueger, M. (2002). A further review of the development of the child and youth care profession in the 

United States. Child & Youth Care Forum, 31(1), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015399103466 

Laursen, K. E. (2003). Frontiers in strength-based treatment. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 12(1), 

12-17. Retrieved from http://reclaimingjournal.com/ 

McCashen, W. (2005). The strengths approach. Victoria: St. Luke’s Innovative Resources. 

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Savicki, V. (1993). Clarification of child and youth care identity through an analysis of work 

environment and burnout. Child & Youth Care Forum, 22(6), 441-457. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00761379 

Savicki, V. (2002). Burnout across thirteen cultures: Stress and coping in child and youth care workers. 

Westport: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. 

Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. B. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse 

analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1372-1380. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307307031 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
9 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Thorne, S., Reimer Kirkham, S., & MacDonald-Emes, J. (1997). Interpretive description: A 

non-categorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Research in Nursing & 

Health, 2, 169-177. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199704)20:2%3C169::AID-NUR9%3E3.0.CO;2-I 

Tuttas, C. A. (2015). Lessons learned using web conference technology for online focus group interviews. 

Qualitative Health Research, 25(1), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314549602 


