Be(com)ing Critical Scholars: The Emergence of Urban Youth Scholar Identities Through Research and Critical Civic Praxis

YPAR and Praxis

YPAR engages youth in opportunities to research issues and problems affecting their daily lives to which they can then take collective action to solve them (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). YPAR has been found to be a valuable component in the improvement of communities at large (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; O’Donoghue et al., 2002; Flanagan & Levine, 2010; London, Zimmerman, & Erbstein, 2003), as well as a tool for advocacy and social change (Akom et al., 2008; Dolan et al., 2015). Centering youth’s lived experiences in the YPAR process is critical (K. Burke et al., 2014; Mira, 2013), and for many, the desire to learn about, connect with, and make a difference in their communities are determining factors for venturing into critical research (Chao & Long, 2004). The growing popularity of YPAR with young people as a preferred method of learning and development can be attributed to YPAR’s concern with “democratizing knowledge and yielding power to ordinary people as they seek justice regarding social issues that directly affect their lives” (Lac & Fine, 2018, p. 564). For example, Cammarota and Romero’s (2011) Social Justice Education Project (SJEP) used YPAR to facilitate participating students’ engagement in their own social contexts and acquisition of knowledge in support of their personal and social transformation. Dolan and colleagues (2015) found that YPAR was a significant resource for supporting youth organizing and strengthening youth voice to effect changes in local policies and institutions. These outcomes are what is hoped for in YPAR, to further leverage the potential of historically marginalized youth to become community change agents.

Uniting reflection, theory, and action to arrive at a point of praxis is important in YPAR. Freire’s (1970, 2015) conceptualization of praxis as “reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed” (p. 126) espouses oppressed groups of people’s critical awareness of their own condition, and in solidarity with allies they can strive and struggle for liberation. Watts and Hipolito-Delgado (2015) contend that action must be embodied through strategic behavior at the levels of personal, group, and mass action to advance said liberation, while Akom et al. (2008) describe how critical consciousness is facilitated by bringing praxis to life in their discussion of “Youthtopias”:

Through engagement in real world issues that shape their daily lives such as environmental racism, police brutality, school safety, school closure, tracking, and racial profiling, youth learn to move past victimization and confront unjust social and economic conditions . . . a Youthtopian framework facilitates a process that develops critical consciousness and builds the capacity for young people to respond and change oppressive conditions in their environments. Youthtopias are simultaneously individual and organizational processes that promote civic engagement among youth and elevate their critical consciousness and capacities for social justice and community activism. (p. 10-11)

While the possibilities of urban youth agency and the resulting impacts on their racial, ethnic, class, gender, sexual, and civic identities (Hipolito-Delgado & Zion, 2017; Ibrahim & Steinberg, 2014; Nasir, 2012; Rubin, 2007) have been examined in previous research, less is known about urban youth’s development of scholar identities.

Knowledge Construction in a Changing World

The world that youth encounter today does not resemble the one experienced by young people less than two decades earlier (Nayak, 2016). Technological advances have eliminated temporal barriers in communication and restrictions in connectivity. Foucault (1980) renders prior knowledge disqualified in the context of societal advances. Not only must there be new ways to address old issues, but new issues will invariably need to be approached with new methods when outdated solutions will not suffice. Similarly, Darling-Hammond (2010) describes the need for a shift in how knowledge is constructed, noting that students need to think critically and learn for themselves to apply knowledge in new situations to “manage the demands of changing information, technologies, and social conditions” (p. 4). According to Bruner (1990), learning is not an individual, solitary occurrence; it will always stem from some other source of knowledge. In this sense, prior knowledge cultivated from interactions with adult members in proximal and distal relationships is linked to youth’s future knowledge construction. As a result, adult allies are essential to the development of youth’s knowledge creation and scholar identity development.

Adult Allies and Partners

The capacity for young people to actively engage and take leadership roles in the critical researching of issues and problem solving of their respective communities requires adults to view them as contributors, partners, and stakeholders of a shared living space (Chao & Long, 2004; Kilroy, Dezan, Riepe, & Ross, 2007; London et al., 2003). Adults must shift their propensity to categorize youth as individuals for whom ideas must be developed (O’Donoghue et al., 2002; Thorne, 1993), for this perspective deprives youth of the opportunity to critically investigate and engage in solutions that will affect the survival of their communities (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). Adults may not intentionally seek to discourage the participation of young people; rather, many have admitted to being unsure of how to include youth in matters where they customarily have not been involved (London et al., 2003). Nevertheless, unintentional or deliberate resistance by adults who possess power (W. Burke, 2011; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015) can stymie the development of youth scholar identities. Power-sharing, or even more so, the yielding of power, is often a challenge given the inherent inequality of adult–youth relationships (Ozer, 2016). Interestingly, it is the existence of this power struggle that helps to nurture critical awareness, as youth seek to disrupt the status quo (Morrell, 2004).

Studies exploring the association between youth–adult partnerships underscore the importance of fortifying the generational bond (Camino, 2005; Serido, Borden, & Perkins, 2011; Whitlock, 2007; Zeldin et al., 2017) and emphasize the impact adults have on positive outcomes of youth-initiated efforts. It is often against the backdrop of individuals who have been the bedrocks for previous inquiries and life lessons that budding scholars must attempt to mature and develop their scholar identities. The feelings of discomfort or fear that would-be scholars experience when challenging old ideas or introducing new ones (Checkoway, 2011) are understandable sentiments that can be alleviated when adults share power and support and encourage youth as competent, community builders (Hipolito-Delgado & Zion, 2017; Kilroy et al., 2007). Extant literature also supports the assertion that encouragement from parents and trusted adults (i.e., teachers, counselors, clergy) is a significant component in empowering youth (Diemer & Li, 2011; Hipolito-Delgado & Zion, 2017; Ozer & Schotland, 2011; Tamanas, 2010). On a larger scale, incorporating young people into activities that have a direct effect on policies and programs in their communities allows young people the opportunity to establish and nurture intergenerational bonds (Magnuson & Baizerman, 2007). Of note here is the retort to Foucault’s (1980) disqualification of prior knowledge, which is the continuum of historical knowledge that occurs when these activities are supported by the older members of the community, ensuring that with the infusion of youth’s innovative ideas, the culture of the community is preserved.

In summary, the existing literature details the possibilities of critical youth development and critical consciousness building through critical social analysis and participatory action research in support of youth agency. The literature also highlights the development of various identities such as racial, ethnic, and civic identities. However, this body of scholarship could benefit from more knowledge about the specific process of urban youth’s knowledge construction and critical scholar identity development. Therefore, this study is interested in how urban youth think about what it means to be a critical scholar and what the process of developing a critical scholar identity entails. Thus, this study seeks to contribute to existing and emerging bodies of scholarship in this area.

The Participants

All five youth scholars selected to participate in the program remained in the program throughout its 2-year duration. For this study, we began each interview by asking participants to briefly tell us about themselves. Rather than us provide a description of them, we have included their own words to highlight the aspects of their self and identity that they deem most important:

I just graduated from high school this June. I’m going off to (University) in the fall and I’ve been in Philly for about six years now, so since 2010. And before that I was in Boston and New Jersey. (Arielle, 17 years old, African American female)

I just recently graduated from (high school) and I’ll be attending (University) next year. I don’t know what I’m going to major in. I applied undecided. But I’m interested in some of the bioethics-related programs that (University) has. So I might major in something like health and societies, which deals in sort of public health, in addition to political science. I’m really looking forward to going to school next year. (Evelyn, 18 years old, White female)

I just graduated from high school and I’ve lived in Philadelphia my whole life. My mom is from Ecuador and that’s always been a big part of my life. I’m bilingual and I go to Ecuador a lot, and I’m really involved in the culture. And I consider it a really important part of who I am. (Inez, 17 years old, Latina American)

From an academic standpoint, it’s probably important to know that I’m dyslexic, so I’ve gone to school for dyslexic students and people with special learning needs for most of my academic life, up until high school actually. So ninth grade was the first time I’ve been in a public school and the first time I’ve been in the non-special needs oriented school. So when you met me, I was still kind of adjusting to I guess the new environment is just different from what I’ve basically grown up with my whole life. Well, I’m also Black which is fairly important in all fields of life especially in the highly racialized America that we live in. I’m also bisexual, which comes less into play I feel than my race if I’m completely honest. I am maybe a little bit weird. I kind of prioritize, I think I prioritize my Blackness over my sexuality, which is weird that I have to do either, but still something that I do. I know that I’m intersectional, I’m a bit of a weird intersection just because I’m Black, dyslexic, and the gay thing kind of makes me not a token character, but something along that lines, where I feel like I’m deeper—I fulfill a lot of boxes that people are trying to check off. (Jacob, 18 years old, African American male)

I come from a developing country. I came here approximately seven or eight years ago. My dad has been here for over 16 years. I’m a big medicine person. I love medicine and science and all this. I’m not so much into technology, science and tech, but I’m more into science. I want to be a cardiothoracic or maxillofacial surgeon. That’s my hope. And also, work side by side on reducing inequalities that are happening with women. That will be my main research for college. (Thomas, 19 years old, Bangladeshi American male)

The Program

The purpose of the Urban Youth Scholars was to support urban youth’s process of critical social analysis wherein they begin to interrogate various social inequalities in their communities and the ways in which sociopolitical power maintains them (Hipolito-Delgado & Lee, 2007). The program did not focus on issues and problems alone, but focused on the generation of solutions through research leading to social action and critical civic praxis (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2007). The Urban Youth Scholars was purposed to arm students with the knowledge, skills, mind-sets, and dispositions that are often reserved for the academy. Much of the focus of the program was to interrogate what it means to be and who can be a scholar. For us, the perpetuation of White, patriarchal ways of knowing and scholarly contributions was problematic and our intent was to support students’ acquisition of critical urban youth scholar identities to internalize their positions as knowledge producers and experts in solving problems that directly affect their communities.

The Urban Youth Scholars and corresponding curriculum was developed employing tenets of culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995), responsive (Gay, 2010), sustaining (Paris, 2012), and affirming (Allen, Scott, & Lewis, 2013) pedagogies. Thus, the program was built upon the very strengths that the participants brought to bear on our collective learning experience. Each week we encountered lessons that encompassed critical social analysis and critical consciousness building through various reflective and courageous discussions about our personal realities, local realities, broader community realities, and global realities. We began by having participants situate themselves within their Bio-Ecological Systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to further engage in the crucial self-reflection and identity work that precludes critical consciousness building (Murray & Milner, 2015). After several lessons of personal reflection and grappling with the intersecting social, political, racial, and economic historical and contemporary realities of urban communities, we began lessons that demystified the “scientific process.” We discussed the art and science of research and scholarship and exposed students to diverse epistemologies and paradigms. Also, we learned about critical theories such as critical race theory, LatCrit, QueerCrit, and Black feminist theory and how these theories support critical scholarship. We then learned about the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and how our self and local context is connected to broader community and global contexts in the spirit of SJYD.

The UN SDGs represent 17 goals intended to address systematic barriers to sustainable development across social, economic, and environmental domains (United Nations, 2018). Some of the goals include no poverty, zero hunger, quality education, reduced inequalities, clean water and sanitation, and decent work and economic growth. We decided to use the goals as a foundation for situating students’ local context within the global community. Thereafter, each student identified a problem/issue affecting his or her community in support of developing solutions for one or more of the UN SDGs (see Table 1). Murray and Milner (2015) assert the need for students to first develop a cultural, community, and social context awareness as a foundation for critical analysis of oppressive conditions, which can then be broadened to consider connections that might be shared globally. After spending two academic years engaging in critical consciousness building, research knowledge and skill development, researching their topics, and writing a peer-reviewed academic paper (reviewed by the authors and the other scholars, not peer-reviewed in the traditional academic sense), scholars were featured presenters at an international conference and then at a special reception in their honor where they also presented their research to their family, friends, school leaders, and the local Philadelphia community.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Urban Youth Scholars’s Research Topics and Connections to the UN SDGs.

Scholar	Research topic	UN SDGs
Arielle	Food deserts in urban communities	Goal 1: No poverty Goal 2: Zero hunger Goal 3: Good health and well-being
Evelyn	Wastefulness and consumption in urban communities	Goal 12: Responsible consumption and production
Inez	Undocumented students and mental health	Goal 16: Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Jacob	The intersection of urban life and marine ecology	Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation Goal 14 Life below the water
Thomas	The impacts of childhood marriage on young women and girls	Goal 3: Good health and well-being Goal 5: Gender equality

Note. UN SDGs = United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Role of Researchers

We come to this work in the role of program founder/lead researcher (Ayana) and graduate research assistant (Shawnna). As Black women mothers and scholars, our worldview is informed by a Black feminist and critical race lens. In the Urban Youth Scholars specifically, we positioned ourselves as facilitators, mentors, collaborators, and adult allies with the youth researchers. We met with students in person weekly over the course of the 2 years (occasionally online over the summer) and worked closely with the students throughout their critical consciousness building and research processes. It was therefore essential for us to manage our own potential biases throughout the research study by keeping in mind our nonunitary subjectivity (Bloom, 1996) in relation to the participants’.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with each student after they had completed the program and graduated from high school. This article is one in a series of articles currently in progress and/or forthcoming from all of the data that were collected over the 2 years in the program (e.g., see Allen-Handy et al., in press). To answer the abovementioned research questions, we facilitated questions about their experiences in the research fellows program and their development as critical scholars throughout their individual research processes. Due to the nature of phenomenological research, questions were framed to support a storytelling atmosphere.

Upon collection of data, interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the following inductive and layered analysis process. We read all transcriptions in their entirety and applied a holistic-content analysis (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zibler, 1998) to gain a global impression of each interview. Next we employed open coding to identify emerging patterns in the data and then axial coding to identify subthemes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Then we identified common themes and subthemes across all narratives to which we formulated meaning through the clustering of the themes (Creswell, 2013). We then compared and contrasted students’ perceptions of what it means to be a scholar with their perceived scholar identity formation, as well as the point within their narratives that they identify their scholar identity throughout their research processes. Finally, we integrated the clustered themes which then led to the emergence of the study’s findings. We assessed intercoder reliability and engaged in the process of intercoder negotiated agreement by comparing codes and reconciling any of the coding discrepancies that emerged among the authors (Campbell, Quincy, Osserman, & Pedersen, 2013).

Sense of Be(com)ing: Becoming Versus Being

The findings indicated a strong sense of becoming a scholar versus internalizing a true scholar identity. For example, when students were asked how they saw themselves in relation to their understanding of what a scholar is, their narratives demonstrate how youth researchers struggle to see themselves and internalize their scholar identities, but they exhibit the hope that lies within embracing their own process. Inez likened it to a pathway:

I think I’ve sort of started on the path to becoming a scholar, but I think I need to do a lot more work and actually produce my own ideas before I would consider myself a scholar

Here, Inez depicts that developing new ideas is a precursor to being a scholar. She has not internalized that she herself is yet a scholar even though she engaged in this research process and offered various recommendations to the field based on her research. Jacob also demonstrates this sense of becoming a scholar and likewise highlights his path:

I see myself working towards it. I don’t consider myself to be—I suppose in a purely academic sense, I am something of a scholar. But I think in life and in general, I’m working towards becoming more scholarly as my academic path takes me there through college and perhaps grad school and what not. I’ve always been vaguely curious, but I’ve never had many answers for the things I’m curious about, and I’m developing answers for my questions, basically, which is exciting and also a little bit frightening

In his narrative, it is evident that he exhibits scholarly behavior for the fact that he is even curious and has research questions brewing. Even still, he also considers himself to be in the process of becoming a scholar. On the contrary, Evelyn never outright states that she is or is not a scholar, but has come to negotiate this tension by focusing on her ideas and how further exploration may support her continual scholar identity:

I have a lot of ideas and I think that the work that I did with the Urban Youth Scholars program has made me realize that I have a lot of ideas that can be backed up by research, and that should definitely be backed up by more research. And so I think that I have some good ideas. And I definitely hope that in my future education I can do field research and make some calculations and observations of my own.

Arielle highlights the importance of mentorship and adult allies in the development of a scholar identity:

I think as long as someone helps you along the way then it’s easier to see yourself a scholar. They’re like, okay, well if you research further and if you research into this more, maybe you’ll be able to see something different. I think a lot of support is a good way for you to like see yourself as a scholar.

Arielle underscores that in the absence of adult support, viewing herself as a scholar is a challenge. This being said was in contrast to Thomas. Thomas had internalized his scholar identity. When asked how did he see himself in relation to his definition of a scholar, he posits, “Oh totally! I am fully into solving this problem of underage girl marriage.” He had fully embraced his scholar identity.

Another question we posited to gain a deeper understanding of their emerging scholar identities was, “At what point in your research process did you become a scholar?” This question was intentional to a degree because we wanted to subtly insert “become a scholar” which implied being scholars versus becoming scholars. The students represent various points at which they perceived they became scholars through this process. Thomas noted that he became a scholar at the point at which he presented his research at the international conference:

After the presentation, people were coming up and asking me questions. I don’t know if I’ve got asked questions like that after my science fair presentations. So that’s the part where I realized it feels like a scholar. After the presentations, I think there were three ladies that were coming up and all these other guys.

Inez, Arielle, and Jacob each discuss their scholar identity emergence through their actual written paper and research processes. This finding indicates how each of these students viewed their active participation in the research process, which led to their final paper which was presented at the conference. Similar to Thomas, they demonstrate the ways in which a “final product” supports their sense of a scholar identity:

Once I was done with my paper and I had finished all or most of the research that went into it, and actually written something and kind of analyzed some of the sources, I felt like I guess I’m somewhat of a scholar. (Inez)

When I was just going through the different published studies and just kind of reading through them and seeing what other people thought about the situation, I think that really kind of made me feel like a scholar because I was like, okay, well, I’m going in depth on all these little studies that well, not little, but all these that people were doing and kind of creating my own, you could say, study based off of all their research. (Arielle)

Once I started actually interacting with my material. Once I was working with professor’s work and actually dissecting people’s arguments and analysis, that’s when I figured, this is what scholarly work actually looks like. (Jacob)

Evelyn found both the completion of her paper and her presentation to be important to her emerging scholar identity. The ways in which she is coming to understand her emerging scholar identity are evident in her narrative:

I think at times when I was writing my essay, I thought this was a pertinent point. This makes sense, and it’s supported by research. And again, when I was at the conference, I thought when I saw what other people were doing and how they were presenting their points, I kind of felt like, I can do that, too, just in a different way, without my own field research, because I’m not a college professor or an education professor. Yeah, I thought even if this research is different it’s not illegitimate.

Overall, a sense of be(com)ing, the continual process to internalize one’s being as a scholar, emerged as a salient finding.

The Urban Youth Scholars intimately tied students’ personal lived experiences to their local communities and the collective global human experience. Herein, the program focused on developing critical stances of social justice toward issues plaguing their communities. We sought to gain a better understanding of the personal and programmatic components that they believed most contributed to the development of their emerging critical scholar identity. Six key findings yielded concerning this emergence of critical scholar identities in this study. They are (a) passion and dedication, (b) knowledge gathering and excavation, (c) knowledge production, (d) legitimacy and merit, (e) community of scholars, and (f) time (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

An ecological framework for nurturing critical urban youth scholar identities.

Passion and Dedication

As a result of reflecting on their experiences in the program and throughout their personal research journeys, participants identified that a scholar had to find passion for a purpose-driven cause of dedication. In so doing, they illuminated that a scholar, and particularly a critical scholar, needed to center his or her scholarship in purposes greater than his or her self. For example, Thomas highlighted,

A scholar is someone who is advanced on a subject that he has to be fully dedicated to. I don’t think a scholar should be someone that knows a thousand topics all at once. And not just advanced on a subject, but passionate about making a difference on a larger scale.

While Jacob expands,

You must consider the broader scope of things as opposed to anecdotal evidence which is easy to come up with. And although it definitely has a place in your research, as it relates to you, you have to understand that it can’t be the basis of your argument. You have to be dedicated and passionate about your research. You can’t just talk about how things impact you specifically or your personal experience with things just because it’s kind of like fluff and it’s easy to sift through. And if you don’t have an actual supporting bigger argument to impact change underneath it, then it makes for a very weak, easily dismissed thesis.

The other participants also indicated the need to find a sense of passion for a topic that could be inspired by its impact on their proximal relationships and communities. At the same time, they recognized that to become a scholar, their dedication to the topic had to be evident. What is interesting in this finding is the way in which they all tied their passion to their local context, but understood the implications on a broader scale. Evelyn shared how her passion was nurtured throughout her process:

I always sort of thought whatever I do with my life, with my career, I want it to help others and impact the world for the better and I am now more passionate and better understand how I can do this now from the standpoint of research

Findings exemplify students’ understanding that be(com)ing a scholar and even more so a critical scholar necessitated passion and dedication.

Knowledge Gathering and Excavation

Another finding presented is the need to adopt a stance toward ongoing knowledge gathering and excavation. This commitment to continued knowledge gathering was rooted in maintaining diverse and critical perspectives. Not only were we able to witness students’ constant interrogation of a topic, wherein new knowledge gained led to the need for additional supporting knowledge, but it was noted that to be(come) a scholar, there was an underlying mining for “truth” and moreover an interrogation of whose said truth was sanctioned.

Jacob discusses the process of gathering knowledge:

A scholar actively pursues knowledge or expertise on a certain topic or a range of topics and tries to relate them to each other and see either individual anomalies or larger systems

Jacob’s depiction of the pursuit of knowledge is in connection to Arielle who highlights the need for diverse perspectives while gathering knowledge:

I think learning from different aspects, rather than just looking at your research from one perspective. You can see different perspectives and even if someone disagrees with you, you can understand why they’re disagreeing. And that’s what makes someone a good scholar. I think once I get into a subject, I try to look at it from different ways. So rather than just being single-minded, I try to see, okay, well this person thinks this way, and this person thinks this way. I start to combine these different ideas to see the subject in a completely different way.

An interesting representation of knowledge excavation is presented by Evelyn. She drew comparisons between a scholar being someone who researches and one who thinks:

A scholar can be someone who theorizes such as a philosopher who thinks about things without researching it. I think a scholar thinks and does to get an answer.

In the knowledge gathering and excavation finding, students noted the need to expand one’s knowledge from broad to focused, and through nurturing their curiosity and question raising, new knowledge could be gained.

Knowledge Production

The finding of knowledge production often went hand in hand with the notion of a scholar engaging in knowledge excavation. It was highlighted in the data throughout that a scholar needed to make a contribution to the field or to the larger community. Inez notes the connection between knowledge gathering and knowledge production:

A scholar takes time to learn about maybe a bunch of different topics but has one focus, too, on something they’re interested in. And they spend a lot of time gathering knowledge and maybe producing their own knowledge through research.

In a different vein, Jacob explains his process of what he deems to be knowledge production:

I wanted to connect a social issue to the ocean because I have kind of reoccurring interest in subjects of oceanography and marine biology. And it seemed to be—there was a very clear intersection between, even past just economics and culturally between marginalized groups of people and the ocean, from Afro-Caribbean people to I think people who basically depend on the ocean as an economy and for other cultural and social uses. And on a local level because the oceans or water systems are interconnected. It seems like it would relate to me as someone in the city because people in cities don’t seem to consider their impact on oceans, especially when they’re not near water, when they’re landlocked.

Throughout his narrative, he depicts how he is making sense of his topic and even more so his ability to make a contribution through new and dynamic research. It is also noted how he connects this new knowledge to his own positionality and context. Evelyn, on the contrary, presented her skeptical perspective on knowledge production and thus the emergence of her critical disposition:

I often worry about theories, mine or other people’s that are baseless. I’m often critical of theories that seem like they come out of thin air.

In so doing, Evelyn has put forth the tension of creating new knowledge in an often critical context.

Legitimacy and Merit

Legitimacy and merit is another finding for the development of critical scholar identities. All of the participants noted their struggles in believing that their research was legitimate and worthy to make a contribution. One of the biggest struggles faced was their preparation to present their research at the international conference. The participants noted their anxiety and fears about holding their own in a space full of seasoned professors and scholars. Evelyn highlights the tensions she experienced in internalizing her scholar identity:

I was really excited to talk about what I was researching, but I just wasn’t convinced that I was legitimate enough to be talking about it. I think I felt like I ought to be a philosopher to be talking about this and not a high school senior.

As noted earlier, Evelyn constantly alluded to her navigation of the legitimacy process. “I’m not a college professor or an education professor,” but at a later point in her process she acknowledges that she felt her research was what she claimed “different,” yet she recognized that different did not necessarily equate to illegitimate. Jacob and Inez expressed their negotiation of their legitimacy as nervousness:

Seeing other presentations at the conference, basically seeing a 30-year-old adult who’s been doing this his whole life, definitely kind of gave me this sense of this is just the way of things and well I’m not sure I fit into that. (Jacob)

It was completely different than anything I’ve ever done before in front of real professors or adults instead of just other high school students. I was really nervous and it was kind of the thing I most dreaded. When I went to see other presenters and saw them talk about their ideas, it was really interesting and engaging and I thought I would really enjoy to be able to put my ideas out there so I got a little less nervous. And once I was actually presenting in front of the audience, I didn’t feel as nervous as I thought I would. (Inez)

Other narratives of the struggles to feel legitimate and then feeling a sense of legitimacy after having presented their research brought about how participants believed their work to have merit.

Community of Scholars

In this work, the nature of the program lent itself to creating a community of scholars. This network of scholars consisted of a faculty member, graduate student, high school teacher/liaison, and high school students. The community of scholars built strong bonds and broke down any perceived boundaries among the participants. Thomas conveys the nature of this community of scholars:

We didn’t just make this project about yourself. It’s not just your own project, it’s a whole group project that we had been working on for months. It’s important to take advice from other people and stuff like that because they all really become helpful.

Similarly, the other student narratives depicted the shared experience of this process and the building of relationships through the weekly meetings and activities, and traveling abroad together to present their work and have their research featured at the international conference. Not only did they mention the community of scholars that we nurtured among our group, but also the larger network of scholars that they created at the conference.

Arielle states,

It was nice to kind of have people there to support you while you were researching and helping you along. So if I had gotten to a roadblock, I wasn’t sure what to do, everyone kind of helped me push along so that I could get to a better final product.

A subtheme of this is the notion of a public scholar identity. Once students presented their work in retrospect, that was the time in which they felt more scholarly as Thomas noted earlier. Contributing to the body of scholarship helped to reinforce their feelings of a scholar identity, which was even more so nurtured within the community of scholars.

Time

The relevance of time was a pervasive theme in terms of length of time and depth of time as it relates to the perceived emergence of scholar identities among the participants. The notion of time, a relatively nuanced concept and a concept that is quite relative in and of itself, was another theme identified in participant’s emerging scholar identities. Time was needed to become a scholar, and for this very reason, most of them identified that they were not yet scholars because they perceived that to be a scholar, time was of utmost importance. They each connected their scholar identity to needing time such as in Inez’s narrative that scholars “spend a lot of time gathering knowledge.” Similarly, Arielle highlights that “good scholars go in depth and take a lot of time for their ideas and issues.” Time is a fluid concept which links all of the other themes together, and is represented in Figure 1 through the clock in the center of the figure.